Does the Islanders 19 straight playoff series wins become more impressive to you over time?

[The Panther]

Oh, and as someone mentioned, it's also amazing how the same core of players won all 4 Cups (and then much the same core was still there in 1984, too). Like, with Edmonton the 1990 team doesn't resemble the 1984 team very much -- only six players remained from 1984. But the Isles had the same guys, same coach, probably same zamboni driver and stick-boys....

 

[Oheao]

It's impressive because somehow, with every team in the league watching you and how you perform, that it took 19 tries before someone was finally able to figure out how to get passed them.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I agree that Torrey did a good job, but a lot of it is luck.

If Potvin wasn't there at 1st overall...if he doesn't get Bossy at 15th overall....there wouldn't be any Cups.

If Torrey were to start out with the same plan 100 more times, he would never again reproduce a team as good as that team was.

You're right that it's luck, but isn't it always? The Oilers got Messier in the 3rd round, the Wings got Yzerman 4th overall after Brian Lawton and Sylvain Turgeon, the Nords took Sakic 15th in a draft where Wayne McBean went 4OA. That's just the breaks of the draft.

The key for the Isles was Torrey taking the draft-and-develop process seriously, rather than chasing veterans and trading youngsters for cash like other expansion teams often did. He stuck to a long-term plan at a time when only a few other franchises really worked that way (anyone can say they have a plan, but executing it is a different story).

Torrey followed the same blueprint in Florida and had them on a decent track until amateur-hour ownership started to become the dominating factor in that organization.

 

[Big Phil]

I agree that Torrey did a good job, but a lot of it is luck.

If Potvin wasn't there at 1st overall...if he doesn't get Bossy at 15th overall....there wouldn't be any Cups.

If Torrey were to start out with the same plan 100 more times, he would never again reproduce a team as good as that team was.

To be fair there is not a single team that had a long run of success that does not have the same what-if. The Habs get lucky and draft Lafleur and then get Dryden for nothing and then add Shutt, Robinson and Gainey in the draft all the while having a team that was capable of winning the Cup year after year. The Pens get Crosby and Malkin and have Fleury as a goalie. That is good fortune too.

Winning playoff series' is hard and four cups should get everyone's respect. And no doubt they were a dynasty with a stacked roster of worthy HOFers. Not taking any of that away from them.

But honestly their roads to the cup most of those years were garbage. Two of their finals opponents were pretty bad teams that went on cinderella runs, the NHL's playoff format in those years gave them some easy opponents too. Between the 1980 Flyers and the 1984 Oilers, who was the toughest team that the Isles had to face in a seven game series? The 83 Bruins?

They played some tough teams. The 1983 Bruins led the NHL in points and the Islanders dispatched them in 6 games, but outscored them 30-19. Then the team with the 2nd most points that year got swept by them in the final and they outscored them 17-6. Also, in the first round they played the 94-point Capitals and beat them rather easily. That is a very tough road to the Cup.

1980 you have the Flyers, Sabres and Bruins all had 116, 110 and 105 points. You had the Triple Crown line Kings in the first round. Thats alright for a first round battle, but the remaining three are probably the hardest road to the Cup that there has ever been.

 

[MS]

Yes, the 19 series wins gets more impressive the more you think about it, and I think it's probably the single most impressive team record in NHL history.

I have to laugh when people try to dismiss it on the basis of strength of competition. As hockey history shows again and again and again, almost any team can beat almost any team at any time. So many things have to go right and fall into place for an NHL team to win even ONE Stanley Cup that winning four in a row in the 4-round era almost defies belief.

As we see, above, the Isles had to beat 6 (of 19) clubs with .600 or better records on the regular season, and 12 clubs with winning records overall. And as 1978 (Toronto) and 1979 (Rangers) show, the Isles, like any team, could lose at any time to a weaker opponent (as almost happened against Pittsburgh in 1982). The Islanders had already been labelled a 'choke' team by 1979... and then they reeled off four Cups in a row.

I don't think anyone is 'dismissing it'.

All I'm saying is that, while it is a very impressive record, it is coloured by the rules and playoff format of the time and has to be viewed in that context. *Clearly*, facing tougher teams would have made accomplishing this record much more difficult.

Those 1981 and 1982 runs are the two softest for any team in the 16-team playoff era, and under the current format nothing will ever come close again. And this is not to run down those absolutely amazing teams, which were probably the most complete teams of the past 40 years.

 

[Big Phil]

I don't think anyone is 'dismissing it'.

All I'm saying is that, while it is a very impressive record, it is coloured by the rules and playoff format of the time and has to be viewed in that context. *Clearly*, facing tougher teams would have made accomplishing this record much more difficult.

Those 1981 and 1982 runs are the two softest for any team in the 16-team playoff era, and under the current format nothing will ever come close again. And this is not to run down those absolutely amazing teams, which were probably the most complete teams of the past 40 years.

It happens though. Look at Carolina in 2006. This was a "year of the upset" too and they benefitted from it. They play the Habs, Devils, Sabres and then luck out and get an 8th seeded Western conference team in the Cup final. No Ottawa, no Detroit, etc. But they won just a single Cup and were a dumpster fire in the surrounding years. The Islanders won 4 Cups and made it to 5 finals in a row and while they caught a break in 1981 and 1982 they also won with tough roads in 1980 and 1983 and still facing some competition in 1984 before losing to another eventual dynasty. So basically what I am saying is that there is too much of a sample size to just say "Well, they played Vancouver and Minnesota in the final" to ignore them. I just don't see who beats them in 1981 or 1982 either, even without the upsets. Montreal does not beat them in either year. Neither does Edmonton in 1982. Look at what they did to them in 1983, in 1982 they were even less prepared.

This was just a well rounded dynasty, and resilient.

 

[MS]

It happens though. Look at Carolina in 2006. This was a "year of the upset" too and they benefitted from it. They play the Habs, Devils, Sabres and then luck out and get an 8th seeded Western conference team in the Cup final. No Ottawa, no Detroit, etc. But they won just a single Cup and were a dumpster fire in the surrounding years. The Islanders won 4 Cups and made it to 5 finals in a row and while they caught a break in 1981 and 1982 they also won with tough roads in 1980 and 1983 and still facing some competition in 1984 before losing to another eventual dynasty. So basically what I am saying is that there is too much of a sample size to just say "Well, they played Vancouver and Minnesota in the final" to ignore them. I just don't see who beats them in 1981 or 1982 either, even without the upsets. Montreal does not beat them in either year. Neither does Edmonton in 1982. Look at what they did to them in 1983, in 1982 they were even less prepared.

This was just a well rounded dynasty, and resilient.

Carolina in 2006 faced 4 teams over .500 who finished an average of about 10 points higher in the standings than what the Islanders did (and I'm not counting OT points here, just going off regulation records), including the 4th place Sabres and the perennially elite Devils. And you still can't mention Carolina now without everyone (correctly) putting that run in context as a fluke where a lot of things fell into their favour.

If a team won 19 series now in the current format, would it be more impressive than the NYI record? Unquestionably yes, because a team now would have to be 19 consecutive over-.500 teams and not have to face 6-8 bottom feeders through that stretch. And if that's the case, then pointing out this historical discrepancy to put the record in context is totally fair game. No different than putting WW2 scoring records in context.

I'm not sure why it's ok to say Carolina was fortunate but sacrilege to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the playoff format in the 1980s might have flattered the Islanders a bit and made it easier for elite teams to dominate. Not that they weren't a great team, and not that they didn't deserve multiple Cups, but just that … perhaps in a couple of those runs they were really aided by weak competition.

 

[McFlash97]

It happens though. Look at Carolina in 2006. This was a "year of the upset" too and they benefitted from it. They play the Habs, Devils, Sabres and then luck out and get an 8th seeded Western conference team in the Cup final. No Ottawa, no Detroit, etc. But they won just a single Cup and were a dumpster fire in the surrounding years. The Islanders won 4 Cups and made it to 5 finals in a row and while they caught a break in 1981 and 1982 they also won with tough roads in 1980 and 1983 and still facing some competition in 1984 before losing to another eventual dynasty. So basically what I am saying is that there is too much of a sample size to just say "Well, they played Vancouver and Minnesota in the final" to ignore them. I just don't see who beats them in 1981 or 1982 either, even without the upsets. Montreal does not beat them in either year. Neither does Edmonton in 1982. Look at what they did to them in 1983, in 1982 they were even less prepared.

This was just a well rounded dynasty, and resilient.

lets recap here, the only reason Carolina even hung on to win the cup in 06 was because they also ran Roloson in game 1 and that was that. Edmonton would have blown past them in 6 games or less.

 

[CaptBrannigan]

lets recap here, the only reason Carolina even hung on to win the cup in 06 was because they also ran Roloson in game 1 and that was that. Edmonton would have blown past them in 6 games or less.

I don’t think this is as clear cut as you’re suggesting. Markkanen only allowed 13 goals across 6 games plus some OT. Roloson allowed 4 in less than a game (and certainly wasn’t “ran”).
You’re stating that Roloson plays so much better than Markkanen’s ~2.10 GAA to change a 4-3 series loss into a 4-2 series win? Let’s recap here, Roloson was sporting a higher GAA than that in the playoffs.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Oh, and as someone mentioned, it's also amazing how the same core of players won all 4 Cups (and then much the same core was still there in 1984, too). Like, with Edmonton the 1990 team doesn't resemble the 1984 team very much -- only six players remained from 1984. But the Isles had the same guys, same coach, probably same zamboni driver and stick-boys....

The 1986 Islanders playoff team (6 years after the first cup) had 8 players left from the 1980 team.

 

[McFlash97]

I don’t think this is as clear cut as you’re suggesting. Markkanen only allowed 13 goals across 6 games plus some OT. Roloson allowed 4 in less than a game (and certainly wasn’t “ran”).
You’re stating that Roloson plays so much better than Markkanen’s ~2.10 GAA to change a 4-3 series loss into a 4-2 series win? Let’s recap here, Roloson was sporting a higher GAA than that in the playoffs.

Losing Roloson in the game the Oilers were up 3-0. The entire playoffs Roloson was clutch for them. The Oilers lost a ton of momentum by losing him. Hence being down 3 games to 1 before they really started to recover. Carolina squeaked by in game 7. If Roloson stays in net the series is over in 6 or less.

If the Oilera win game 1 ...the series is a totally diff story.

 

[Oheao]

Losing Roloson in the game the Oilers were up 3-0. The entire playoffs Roloson was clutch for them. The Oilers lost a ton of momentum by losing him. Hence being down 3 games to 1 before they really started to recover. Carolina squeaked by in game 7. If Roloson stays in net the series is over in 6 or less.

If the Oilera win game 1 ...the series is a totally diff story.

No, the game was tied 4-4 before Roloson left. Edmonton had already blown their lead before they even put Ty Conklin in.

 

[CaptBrannigan]

Losing Roloson in the game the Oilers were up 3-0. The entire playoffs Roloson was clutch for them. The Oilers lost a ton of momentum by losing him. Hence being down 3 games to 1 before they really started to recover. Carolina squeaked by in game 7. If Roloson stays in net the series is over in 6 or less.

If the Oilera win game 1 ...the series is a totally diff story.

Again, I don’t see this three game swing (or more!), particularly with nothing to back it up besides the always nebulous “clutch”. One can just as easily say Edmonton struggled to even stretch it to 7, as two of their wins were by a single goal and one needed to stretch beyond regulation. Heck the one goal win in Game 3 probably should have gone to OT as well, Smyth scoring very late in the third with some pretty substantial goalie contact.

So many things happen in these close series that to suggest a three game swing, at minimum, is absurd.

 

[Staniowski]

You're right that it's luck, but isn't it always? The Oilers got Messier in the 3rd round, the Wings got Yzerman 4th overall after Brian Lawton and Sylvain Turgeon, the Nords took Sakic 15th in a draft where Wayne McBean went 4OA. That's just the breaks of the draft.

The key for the Isles was Torrey taking the draft-and-develop process seriously, rather than chasing veterans and trading youngsters for cash like other expansion teams often did. He stuck to a long-term plan at a time when only a few other franchises really worked that way (anyone can say they have a plan, but executing it is a different story).

Torrey followed the same blueprint in Florida and had them on a decent track until amateur-hour ownership started to become the dominating factor in that organization.

Sure, Torrey did a good job. What he did was necessary to give him a chance to build a team as good as the Islanders were.

But it's almost certain that he couldn't repeat that level of success - or probably anything remotely close to it - in any other situation.

 

[Staniowski]

To be fair there is not a single team that had a long run of success that does not have the same what-if. The Habs get lucky and draft Lafleur and then get Dryden for nothing and then add Shutt, Robinson and Gainey in the draft all the while having a team that was capable of winning the Cup year after year. The Pens get Crosby and Malkin and have Fleury as a goalie. That is good fortune too.



They played some tough teams. The 1983 Bruins led the NHL in points and the Islanders dispatched them in 6 games, but outscored them 30-19. Then the team with the 2nd most points that year got swept by them in the final and they outscored them 17-6. Also, in the first round they played the 94-point Capitals and beat them rather easily. That is a very tough road to the Cup.

1980 you have the Flyers, Sabres and Bruins all had 116, 110 and 105 points. You had the Triple Crown line Kings in the first round. Thats alright for a first round battle, but the remaining three are probably the hardest road to the Cup that there has ever been.

Yes, I agree.

The Penguins have been incredibly lucky...Lemieux, Jagr, Crosby, Malkin.

And what would Sam Pollock's career look like if he started as the GM of almost any other team? He'd likely have zero Stanley Cups and been fired and forgotten long ago.

 

[Big Phil]

lets recap here, the only reason Carolina even hung on to win the cup in 06 was because they also ran Roloson in game 1 and that was that. Edmonton would have blown past them in 6 games or less.

I don't know................"blown past them"? The Oilers were a Cinderella team. Shouldn't have been there and quite frankly the Canes should have handled them easier than they did. This wasn't a strong opponent.

Carolina in 2006 faced 4 teams over .500 who finished an average of about 10 points higher in the standings than what the Islanders did (and I'm not counting OT points here, just going off regulation records), including the 4th place Sabres and the perennially elite Devils. And you still can't mention Carolina now without everyone (correctly) putting that run in context as a fluke where a lot of things fell into their favour.

If a team won 19 series now in the current format, would it be more impressive than the NYI record? Unquestionably yes, because a team now would have to be 19 consecutive over-.500 teams and not have to face 6-8 bottom feeders through that stretch. And if that's the case, then pointing out this historical discrepancy to put the record in context is totally fair game. No different than putting WW2 scoring records in context.

I'm not sure why it's ok to say Carolina was fortunate but sacrilege to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the playoff format in the 1980s might have flattered the Islanders a bit and made it easier for elite teams to dominate. Not that they weren't a great team, and not that they didn't deserve multiple Cups, but just that … perhaps in a couple of those runs they were really aided by weak competition.

Keep in mind what a .500 team was in the early 1980s compared to one today. With the loser point and the shootout you will have far less below .500 teams than back before this time. In other words, a .500 team - from purely a statistical perspective - is different than the 1980s. A team in 2006 with 90 points isn't the same as one in 1980. For example, the Islanders had 91 points that year. 16 teams out of 30 in 2006 had at least that many points.

8 teams out of 30 were below .500. In 1980, 11 teams out of 21 were below .500, just like pretty much every season at that time, half of the teams were below .500.

So what I am saying is that you have to look at the context of things. A .500 record in 1980 is not the same as one in 2006 because of the loser point and shootout.

The Islanders in 1980 beat three really, really good teams with one of them being a team that still holds a historical record by going unbeaten in 35 straight games that year. They earned their stripes. And they did too much for too long for people to say, well, look at their Cup final opponents in 1981 and 1982. Yeah, but look at their opponents in 1980, 1983 and 1984. All three finalists were great teams and they aren't the 2006 Oilers.

I'd just like to know, who was expected to beat the Islanders in 1981 and 1982 that they dodged a bullet from? I remember the fans cheering at Nassau Coliseum when they heard the Montreal had been ousted in the 1982 playoffs. But that is more a product of the respect the Habs had and the aura about them rather than how good they were at the time. The 1982 Habs do not beat the Isles. But who do you think beats them in 1981 and 1982?

 

[tarheelhockey]

lets recap here, the only reason Carolina even hung on to win the cup in 06 was because they also ran Roloson in game 1 and that was that. Edmonton would have blown past them in 6 games or less.

Losing Roloson in the game the Oilers were up 3-0. The entire playoffs Roloson was clutch for them. The Oilers lost a ton of momentum by losing him. Hence being down 3 games to 1 before they really started to recover. Carolina squeaked by in game 7. If Roloson stays in net the series is over in 6 or less.

If the Oilera win game 1 ...the series is a totally diff story.

Oh, son.

1) Nobody “ran” Roloson. Super-stud defender Marc-Andre Bergeron, in a panic from being caught out of position, launched Andrew Ladd directly into his own goalie.

Here’s the documentary evidence:


2) Check the score there. Not only was it 4-4 already, it was the Oilers who had to claw back with a PPG after the Canes ripped four straight goals past the mega-clutch Roloson.

3) The series was virtually unwinnable for the Oilers goalies regardless who was in net, because they were supported with a total of 2 goals in the following 3 losses.

4) Markannen played well in the games that were winnable. Given the way Roloson looked in Game 1, losing him may actually have extended the series for Edmonton.

5) The Oilers were already playing against a backup goalie because Carolina had lost their starter. Maybe score a goal on a rookie Cam ****ing Ward and you don’t have to speculate about alternate timelines.

 

[c9777666]

Montreal was out in the first round in 1981. St. Louis was out in the 2nd round. The Kings and Buffalo both had 99 points but were out in the first and then second round respectively. And perhaps the last good team left was Calgary who lost to Minnesota who the Isles beat in the final.

calgary and minnesota were only separated by 5 points in 1981 for what it's worth, so it's not like Calgary was THAT much better than the north stars

 

[MS]

I don't know................"blown past them"? The Oilers were a Cinderella team. Shouldn't have been there and quite frankly the Canes should have handled them easier than they did. This wasn't a strong opponent.



Keep in mind what a .500 team was in the early 1980s compared to one today. With the loser point and the shootout you will have far less below .500 teams than back before this time. In other words, a .500 team - from purely a statistical perspective - is different than the 1980s. A team in 2006 with 90 points isn't the same as one in 1980. For example, the Islanders had 91 points that year. 16 teams out of 30 in 2006 had at least that many points.

8 teams out of 30 were below .500. In 1980, 11 teams out of 21 were below .500, just like pretty much every season at that time, half of the teams were below .500.

So what I am saying is that you have to look at the context of things. A .500 record in 1980 is not the same as one in 2006 because of the loser point and shootout.

The Islanders in 1980 beat three really, really good teams with one of them being a team that still holds a historical record by going unbeaten in 35 straight games that year. They earned their stripes. And they did too much for too long for people to say, well, look at their Cup final opponents in 1981 and 1982. Yeah, but look at their opponents in 1980, 1983 and 1984. All three finalists were great teams and they aren't the 2006 Oilers.

I'd just like to know, who was expected to beat the Islanders in 1981 and 1982 that they dodged a bullet from? I remember the fans cheering at Nassau Coliseum when they heard the Montreal had been ousted in the 1982 playoffs. But that is more a product of the respect the Habs had and the aura about them rather than how good they were at the time. The 1982 Habs do not beat the Isles. But who do you think beats them in 1981 and 1982?

I was using regulation records and calculated the points for the 2006 teams in the exact same fashion as it was calculated for the Isles’ opponents in the early 1980s.

The 2006 Carolina opponents had 47 more combined points as teams (in a season 2 games longer) which works out to 10 points per team for the year. It’s a huge difference. The worst team Carolina faced was better than the 2nd best team NYI faced.

NYI were obviously going to be favoured in every series through that period. But if they had a couple extra rounds against actual good teams like Philly/Boston/Montreal/Buffalo their chances of losing a round would obviously have gone way up.

 

[sabremike]

It's a record that is in a class with Cy Young's 500+ wins or Wilt Chamberlain once averaging playing more than 48 minutes a game in a season that will never be broken, any hemming and hawing about quality of opponents is just piss and wind (and part of the neverending "The Isles were a distant third to the Montreal and Edmonton dynasties" narrative that far too many people push that needs to have a stake driven through it like Dracula so that it dies).

 

[Big Phil]

I was using regulation records and calculated the points for the 2006 teams in the exact same fashion as it was calculated for the Isles’ opponents in the early 1980s.

The 2006 Carolina opponents had 47 more combined points as teams (in a season 2 games longer) which works out to 10 points per team for the year. It’s a huge difference. The worst team Carolina faced was better than the 2nd best team NYI faced.

NYI were obviously going to be favoured in every series through that period. But if they had a couple extra rounds against actual good teams like Philly/Boston/Montreal/Buffalo their chances of losing a round would obviously have gone way up.

I just think you can't penalize them. They had some great teams they played against and they caught some breaks too. A one-off and then okay. But 4 Cups in a row and 5 finals in a row? The common denominator just comes out then, and that was that the Isles were just too good of a team. Is Montreal lucky in 1979 because the Isles didn't make it to the final? It is what it is. If you are that good you get there and win regardless of your opponent.

People say this about Canada in 2002 sometimes. "Well, Sweden lost to Belarus and Canada had an easier route." Well, I always ask this, by tournaments end was there a team that would have beaten Canada? Very unlikely either way, hence, the best team won.

 

[MS]

I just think you can't penalize them. They had some great teams they played against and they caught some breaks too. A one-off and then okay. But 4 Cups in a row and 5 finals in a row? The common denominator just comes out then, and that was that the Isles were just too good of a team. Is Montreal lucky in 1979 because the Isles didn't make it to the final? It is what it is. If you are that good you get there and win regardless of your opponent.

People say this about Canada in 2002 sometimes. "Well, Sweden lost to Belarus and Canada had an easier route." Well, I always ask this, by tournaments end was there a team that would have beaten Canada? Very unlikely either way, hence, the best team won.

I'm not 'penalizing' them per se, I'm just trying to put the record (which is indeed very impressive) in the proper context. And the context is that it was set in the time period most favourable to creating such a record because of the very weak competition they faced in a couple of those years in a 16/21 teams in the playoffs league. And that it isn't equal to doing the same thing today, when a team would have to run a gauntlet of far better teams to match it.

Remember, the Oilers came a Steve Smith own goal away from likely winning 21 series in a row directly after this. Montreal had won 13 in a row immediately before.

 

[Moose Head]

calgary and minnesota were only separated by 5 points in 1981 for what it's worth, so it's not like Calgary was THAT much better than the north stars

The North Stars also had that look of the next great team in 1981. They beat the habs the year previous and had a lot of good young talent that always seemed on the verge of exploding. If they had just made the correct pick in the Lawton draft, and stuck with Bobby Smith, who knows how good they could have become.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Nobody “ran” Roloson. Super-stud defender Marc-Andre Bergeron, in a panic from being caught out of position, launched Andrew Ladd directly into his own goalie.

Irrelevant to the thread at large...but man, talk about an A+ defense pair...Matt Greene, who is playing with too tight of a gap as two forwards converge on him for yet another hi-lo isolation play at his expense, with Marc-Andre Bergeron, who is strangely even in the frame to begin with, as he Brooks-Orpiks the heavier Ladd into Edmonton's Stanley Cup hopes...combined with Ty Conklin's (another player who shouldn't have been out there, it should have been Markkanen) play...what a quick series of events that was right on the cusp of one of longest playoff-less droughts in history...

"There, but for the grace of God, go I..."

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I don't think anyone needs to penalize the Islanders now. History has not been kind to them. For every word written about the Islanders dynasty, there's 20 written about the Canadiens before them and the Oilers after them. You could call them the forgotten dynasty, the interregnum dynasty. I'd say to some extent people talk more even about the Flyers and definitely the Bruins of the 70s than that Islanders team.

It's actually kind of odd because that team had a lot of characters and notable players, even if they lacked a transcendent superstar. But it probably didn't help that even those 4 Cups weren't enough to replace the Rangers as New York's favorite team or even to secure their place on Long Island for good.