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

[tarheelhockey]

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..."

FWIW, I think there's an argument for Conklin that his defenseman (can't remember who it was) really should have just backed off and let him play the puck. Not sure what the dman thought he was going to do there, running right up on his goalie behind the net with a forechecker roaring in on the other side. If he gives Conklin even just a few feet of space, it's a nothing play.

But yeah, no excuse at all on the MAB hit. He just panicked and made the worst possible play after already making a really bad play.

 

[Michael Farkas]

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.

Even here...who is our Islanders backer? We have Canadiens guys, we have Oilers guys, we have Flyers guys, we have plenty of Penguins and Red Wings guys, we have TDMM for the Devils (which is to scale for the fanbase )...not close to a dynasty, but you wouldn't know it, we have roving bands of '94 Truthers...I remember one Isles fan being here, I don't even remember his name but it was simple and to the point and his avatar was like an overhead projector of some hockey diagram I think...I'm pretty sure he was an Isles fan...but I can't think of any others that pump the tires of the Isles dynasty here that lived through it and watched it...I've been on HoH for probably 7, 8, 9 years now, right? Something like that...and I can't really think of any...

 

[The Panther]

You could call them the forgotten dynasty, the interregnum dynasty.

Actually, the "forgotten" dynasty is the Canadiens of the mid-to-late 1960s: Four Cups in five years, but people mainly only talk about the late-50s' team, the Ken Dryden rookie team, and the late-70s' team.

(Two points to you for using the word "interregnum".)

 

[The Panther]

Even here...who is our Islanders backer? We have Canadiens guys, we have Oilers guys, we have Flyers guys, we have plenty of Penguins and Red Wings guys, we have TDMM for the Devils (which is to scale for the fanbase )...not close to a dynasty, but you wouldn't know it, we have roving bands of '94 Truthers...I remember one Isles fan being here, I don't even remember his name but it was simple and to the point and his avatar was like an overhead projector of some hockey diagram I think...I'm pretty sure he was an Isles fan...but I can't think of any others that pump the tires of the Isles dynasty here that lived through it and watched it...I've been on HoH for probably 7, 8, 9 years now, right? Something like that...and I can't really think of any...

It's true. I've started a few threads over the years on the Islanders' dynasty years, and they tend to die quickly. People just aren't that interested, for some reason.

I mean, I can see some of the problem for the Isles in terms of historical legacy/profile:
- played on Long Island (dwarfed in "importance" by other areas nearby)
- recent 70s' expansion team (no huge and long-suffering fanbase)
- American franchise sandwiched between two Canadian dynasties
- Bossy = moody, not media-friendly
- Trottier = weird, not media-friendly, "defected" to Team USA
- Potvin = weird (one of today's most disliked commentators)
- Smith = disliked player, liked to diss Canadian fans

But still, their mere modest level of respect is kind of baffling to me.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Even here...who is our Islanders backer? We have Canadiens guys, we have Oilers guys, we have Flyers guys, we have plenty of Penguins and Red Wings guys, we have TDMM for the Devils (which is to scale for the fanbase )...not close to a dynasty, but you wouldn't know it, we have roving bands of '94 Truthers...I remember one Isles fan being here, I don't even remember his name but it was simple and to the point and his avatar was like an overhead projector of some hockey diagram I think...I'm pretty sure he was an Isles fan...but I can't think of any others that pump the tires of the Isles dynasty here that lived through it and watched it...I've been on HoH for probably 7, 8, 9 years now, right? Something like that...and I can't really think of any...

There was a poster named 'Trottier' who used to contribute a few years ago. Pretty sure he was an Isles fan.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think that's who I'm thinking of LBD...I was gonna say that was the name, but wasn't totally sure. Let's see what happens, I'll throw up the moustache signal... @Trottier

Edit: Well, he last logged in May 2015...probably not gonna see that, eh...?

 

[Oheao]

Ty Conklin made the finals in 2006, 2008, 2009... and lost all three!

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Ty Conklin made the finals in 2006, 2008, 2009... and lost all three!

try being brian propp

 

[Big Phil]

It's true. I've started a few threads over the years on the Islanders' dynasty years, and they tend to die quickly. People just aren't that interested, for some reason.

I mean, I can see some of the problem for the Isles in terms of historical legacy/profile:
- played on Long Island (dwarfed in "importance" by other areas nearby)
- recent 70s' expansion team (no huge and long-suffering fanbase)
- American franchise sandwiched between two Canadian dynasties
- Bossy = moody, not media-friendly
- Trottier = weird, not media-friendly, "defected" to Team USA
- Potvin = weird (one of today's most disliked commentators)
- Smith = disliked player, liked to diss Canadian fans

But still, their mere modest level of respect is kind of baffling to me.

What is the counterpart in other sports for the Islanders? Who else has that chip on their shoulders who historically doesn't have the same popularity or gets enough respect for what they did? Or just didn't sit quite as well with the fans?

I don't know if there is that team in the NFL. Everyone seems to get their due if they were a dynasty. Basketball? Maybe the Pistons in between the Lakers and Bulls dynasties? Definitely not always a team historically people remember as much as they should, had some villains on the team. But then again, they only won two in a row, not 4.

Maybe in Baseball the often forgotten Oakland A's of the 1970s? Won three World Series in a row but I'll bet you even the biggest baseball fan thinks of Reggie Jackson as a Yankee first. He entered the HOF as a Yankee. But he also isn't "Mr. October" without those prior years in Oakland. People tend to forget Oakland as a city more or less and the fan base is smaller than you'd think. I don't know, Reggie Jackson was certainly polarizing, you can't argue with that. He fits the mold of the Islanders.

There was a poster named 'Trottier' who used to contribute a few years ago. Pretty sure he was an Isles fan.

He was. He was older, or at least old enough that he remembered 1970s hockey and certainly the Islanders dynasty. I remember once in the 1990s a buddy of mine told me that there was this time he was in a movie theatre and he was admittedly talking to loud and the guy in front of him turned around and said: "Do you mind?" The core of the story was that my friend noticed he had an Islanders hat on. We both laughed about that.

I think that is part of the reason too. The Islanders fell pretty hard and they've stayed that way since. It has been 36 years since their Cup final trip in 1984 and they have only made the playoffs 15 times since. Other than a couple of Game 7 overtime wins on the road (Lafontaine, Volek) who can even name an Islanders memory post-1984? I don't even know if Islanders fans would have any.

 

[Oheao]

What is the counterpart in other sports for the Islanders? Who else has that chip on their shoulders who historically doesn't have the same popularity or gets enough respect for what they did? Or just didn't sit quite as well with the fans?

I don't know if there is that team in the NFL. Everyone seems to get their due if they were a dynasty. Basketball? Maybe the Pistons in between the Lakers and Bulls dynasties? Definitely not always a team historically people remember as much as they should, had some villains on the team. But then again, they only won two in a row, not 4.

Maybe in Baseball the often forgotten Oakland A's of the 1970s? Won three World Series in a row but I'll bet you even the biggest baseball fan thinks of Reggie Jackson as a Yankee first. He entered the HOF as a Yankee. But he also isn't "Mr. October" without those prior years in Oakland. People tend to forget Oakland as a city more or less and the fan base is smaller than you'd think. I don't know, Reggie Jackson was certainly polarizing, you can't argue with that. He fits the mold of the Islanders.



He was. He was older, or at least old enough that he remembered 1970s hockey and certainly the Islanders dynasty. I remember once in the 1990s a buddy of mine told me that there was this time he was in a movie theatre and he was admittedly talking to loud and the guy in front of him turned around and said: "Do you mind?" The core of the story was that my friend noticed he had an Islanders hat on. We both laughed about that.

I think that is part of the reason too. The Islanders fell pretty hard and they've stayed that way since. It has been 36 years since their Cup final trip in 1984 and they have only made the playoffs 15 times since. Other than a couple of Game 7 overtime wins on the road (Lafontaine, Volek) who can even name an Islanders memory post-1984? I don't even know if Islanders fans would have any.

Sweeping Pittsburgh maybe? Or maybe beating them in game 7 OT.

 

[Big Phil]

Sweeping Pittsburgh maybe? Or maybe beating them in game 7 OT.

Like I said, other than those two overtime goals by Lafontaine and Volek, the Islanders haven't had playoff success in 35+ years. Certainly nothing memorable. That probably ties into them being such a forgotten and underrated dynasty.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I think that is part of the reason too. The Islanders fell pretty hard and they've stayed that way since. It has been 36 years since their Cup final trip in 1984 and they have only made the playoffs 15 times since. Other than a couple of Game 7 overtime wins on the road (Lafontaine, Volek) who can even name an Islanders memory post-1984? I don't even know if Islanders fans would have any.

If the Islanders are historically under-appreciated (and I'm not actually so sure that they are), this is the reason. The franchise has just done nothing of note (at least in a positive sense) since that dynasty ended, which is a long time ago now.

I'm 33, and can safely say the Islanders have never been good in my lifetime. You've got blips here and there where they made the playoffs at least, but I think they've won what...two playoff series since the Easter Epic, maybe three? It's just not a brand that your common fan identifies with success at this point.

Even Edmonton, a franchise that has followed a fairly similar path post-dynasty, still has some brand appeal. The Gretzky factor, making a Stanley Cup Final in recent history, and now McDavid have kept them on the radar. Montreal has avoided any true bottoming out stretches, even if the Stanley Cups dried up decades ago. So the exploits of the two surrounding dynasties have remained more in the public consciousness.

 

[Oheao]

Like I said, other than those two overtime goals by Lafontaine and Volek, the Islanders haven't had playoff success in 35+ years. Certainly nothing memorable. That probably ties into them being such a forgotten and underrated dynasty.

I think it also has to do with the Rangers and Devils. With three teams in the market, it's hard for every team to have sustained popularity. Well, the Rangers are obviously the perennial favourites, but the Devils have won 3 Cups and made 2 more finals since the Islanders won which has made them the secondary team over the Islanders.

 

[double5son10]

It's true. I've started a few threads over the years on the Islanders' dynasty years, and they tend to die quickly. People just aren't that interested, for some reason.

I mean, I can see some of the problem for the Isles in terms of historical legacy/profile:
- played on Long Island (dwarfed in "importance" by other areas nearby)
- recent 70s' expansion team (no huge and long-suffering fanbase)
- American franchise sandwiched between two Canadian dynasties
- Bossy = moody, not media-friendly
- Trottier = weird, not media-friendly, "defected" to Team USA
- Potvin = weird (one of today's most disliked commentators)
- Smith = disliked player, liked to diss Canadian fans

But still, their mere modest level of respect is kind of baffling to me.

I think you hit the nail on the head. As I've gone back and watched older games my respect for the Islanders has grown, but at the time of their dynasty I didn't care for them at all. It wasn't a team you hated, like the Flyers, I was almost more indifferent than anything else. Admittedly I was young but I found their stars immensely unlikeable. Potvin was my older brother's favorite player, but he and Bossy were both pretty whiny by reputation, Smith was detested by most everyone (as a goalie I admired his "pluck" shall we say, but yea he was a hatchet man), and Trottier was the definition of taciturn. When I started first watching hockey there were almost larger than life figures like Esposito & Orr, Clarke and the Bullies, Lafleur and the Flying Frenchmen, even Hull and the Jets. Along comes the Isles machine and by contrast it was like they were just kind of there. Everyone admired their depth, their efficiency, their ability to play it any way you liked. No question they were a battle hardened, clutch squad, but they in no way excited the non-Nassau Cty. fan like the teams competing throughout the 70s, and then they were almost immediately eclipsed by Gretzky and the Oilers, an also larger than life team. And frankly the Isles really came off as sore losers after the Drive for Five came up short. They lacked personality, and what they had of it wasn't easily translated into being media friendly.
They just never seemed to capture the imagination; even in NYC they were still the junior team in most fans estimation. When Stan Fischler is really the only media figure in your corner, you're going to have a tough time putting yourself over across Canada & the USA. It may not be fair, but they just didn't seem to shine. Now of course I watch them and absolutely admire their relentless play style, and as others have said their down lineup players were fantastic. I've really grown in my appreciation of Bourne, and Ken Morrow's really overlooked as one of the great defensive defensmen. 19 straight is a fantastic achievement and it shouldn't be downplayed. So great admiration for them as a team and their achievements, but yea, they really weren't a team that inspired awe and effusive praise.

 

[scott clam]

What is the counterpart in other sports for the Islanders? Who else has that chip on their shoulders who historically doesn't have the same popularity or gets enough respect for what they did? Or just didn't sit quite as well with the fans?

I don't know if there is that team in the NFL. Everyone seems to get their due if they were a dynasty. Basketball? Maybe the Pistons in between the Lakers and Bulls dynasties? Definitely not always a team historically people remember as much as they should, had some villains on the team. But then again, they only won two in a row, not 4.

Maybe the Spurs, just coz they're overshadowed by the more popular Lakers.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

I mean, obviously upsets happen and full marks to the Islanders for not being upset during that period.

But only 2-3 of the 8 teams (Quebec would have been right on the line) they played in those two years would have had records good enough to make the playoffs in today's NHL. The teams they beat were mostly awful and surely if they had to face a string of good teams like every team automatically does now, their chances of losing a series would have been higher. Plus the series would be harder-fought against better teams, increasing wear and tear and increasing the chances of losing later on.

You do realize that points totals from nowadays are not comparable to those from before the loser point existed?

For reference, see the Points Pct column of this table. The average prior to 1999-2000 was and always was 0.500, because there were only ever 2 points on the line. The introduction of the loser point has changed what average in the NHL is from exactly 0.500, to something closer to 0.560

1980 21 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.61, 0.28, 0.59, -0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 80.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.17, 0.06, 0.03, 0.40, 0.42, 0.68, 18.32, 0.11
One goal cutoff: 0.927409 sigma, above teams predicted, 1.524, actual 2

1981 21 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.63, 0.28, 0.59, -0.00, -0.00, -0.00, 80.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.20, 0.06, 0.02, 0.36, 0.55, 0.80, 19.42, 0.12
One goal cutoff: 0.892071 sigma, above teams predicted, 2.267, actual 2

1982 21 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.64, 0.28, 0.58, -0.00, 0.00, -0.00, 80.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.21, 0.06, 0.03, 0.48, 0.51, 0.84, 19.21, 0.12
One goal cutoff: 0.880892 sigma, above teams predicted, 2.501, actual 3

1983 21 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.60, 0.27, 0.58, -0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 80.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.20, 0.06, 0.04, 0.46, 0.56, 0.84, 20.71, 0.13
One goal cutoff: 0.878759 sigma, above teams predicted, 2.546, actual 2

1984 21 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.61, 0.26, 0.58, -0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 80.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.23, 0.06, 0.05, 0.53, 0.53, 0.84, 21.39, 0.13
One goal cutoff: 0.880109 sigma, above teams predicted, 2.518, actual 3

1985 21 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.59, 0.27, 0.61, -0.00, 0.00, -0.00, 80.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.21, 0.06, 0.05, 0.44, 0.54, 0.82, 18.93, 0.12
One goal cutoff: 0.886866 sigma, above teams predicted, 2.376, actual 2

1986 21 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.58, 0.26, 0.60, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 80.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.17, 0.06, 0.05, 0.41, 0.56, 0.79, 19.74, 0.12
One goal cutoff: 0.893272 sigma, above teams predicted, 2.241, actual 2

1987 21 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.57, 0.27, 0.63, -0.00, -0.00, -0.00, 80.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.12, 0.03, 0.04, 0.29, 0.38, 0.43, 12.17, 0.08
One goal cutoff: 0.989879 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.213, actual 1

1988 21 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.58, 0.27, 0.62, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 80.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.16, 0.05, 0.03, 0.42, 0.39, 0.61, 15.02, 0.09
One goal cutoff: 0.947354 sigma, above teams predicted, 1.106, actual 1

1989 21 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.59, 0.27, 0.61, -0.00, -0.00, -0.00, 80.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.16, 0.05, 0.04, 0.42, 0.51, 0.63, 15.55, 0.10
One goal cutoff: 0.942430 sigma, above teams predicted, 1.209, actual 2

1990 21 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.55, 0.27, 0.63, -0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 80.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.12, 0.05, 0.05, 0.32, 0.52, 0.58, 15.08, 0.09
One goal cutoff: 0.956323 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.917, actual 0

1991 21 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.57, 0.27, 0.62, -0.00, 0.00, -0.00, 80.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.16, 0.05, 0.04, 0.43, 0.36, 0.63, 16.71, 0.10
One goal cutoff: 0.942201 sigma, above teams predicted, 1.214, actual 1

1992 22 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.59, 0.27, 0.61, -0.00, -0.00, -0.00, 80.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.15, 0.05, 0.04, 0.40, 0.41, 0.59, 15.35, 0.10
One goal cutoff: 0.951432 sigma, above teams predicted, 1.068, actual 1

1993 24 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.58, 0.26, 0.59, -0.00, 0.00, -0.00, 84.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.21, 0.07, 0.04, 0.50, 0.49, 0.88, 24.38, 0.15
One goal cutoff: 0.869745 sigma, above teams predicted, 3.126, actual 2

1994 26 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.56, 0.27, 0.63, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 84.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.16, 0.05, 0.05, 0.38, 0.47, 0.67, 17.18, 0.10
One goal cutoff: 0.930987 sigma, above teams predicted, 1.794, actual 1

1995 26 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.52, 0.27, 0.65, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 48.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.15, 0.05, 0.05, 0.41, 0.39, 0.61, 10.67, 0.11
One goal cutoff: 0.945743 sigma, above teams predicted, 1.411, actual 2

1996 26 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.55, 0.27, 0.63, 0.00, -0.00, 0.00, 82.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.17, 0.06, 0.04, 0.44, 0.47, 0.67, 18.95, 0.12
One goal cutoff: 0.930198 sigma, above teams predicted, 1.815, actual 1

1997 26 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.55, 0.28, 0.64, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 82.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.10, 0.04, 0.04, 0.25, 0.37, 0.44, 12.78, 0.08
One goal cutoff: 0.986962 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.339, actual 0

1998 26 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.52, 0.28, 0.66, -0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 82.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.12, 0.05, 0.04, 0.25, 0.34, 0.51, 15.77, 0.10
One goal cutoff: 0.972941 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.704, actual 0

1999 27 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.52, 0.28, 0.66, -0.00, -0.00, -0.00, 82.00, 0.50
Sigmas: 0.12, 0.05, 0.03, 0.27, 0.34, 0.50, 15.82, 0.10
One goal cutoff: 0.975189 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.670, actual 0

2000 28 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.53, 0.29, 0.68, -0.00, 0.00, -0.00, 86.07, 0.52
Sigmas: 0.14, 0.06, 0.04, 0.27, 0.42, 0.59, 17.03, 0.10
One goal cutoff: 0.951589 sigma, above teams predicted, 1.356, actual 1

2001 30 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.55, 0.28, 0.66, 0.00, -0.00, 0.00, 86.07, 0.52
Sigmas: 0.16, 0.06, 0.03, 0.37, 0.35, 0.57, 17.66, 0.11
One goal cutoff: 0.959393 sigma, above teams predicted, 1.218, actual 1

2002 30 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.53, 0.29, 0.68, -0.00, -0.00, -0.00, 86.03, 0.52
Sigmas: 0.13, 0.05, 0.04, 0.29, 0.32, 0.51, 15.02, 0.09
One goal cutoff: 0.973872 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.784, actual 0

2003 30 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.54, 0.29, 0.68, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 87.20, 0.53
Sigmas: 0.14, 0.05, 0.04, 0.32, 0.34, 0.51, 15.31, 0.09
One goal cutoff: 0.972539 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.824, actual 0

2004 30 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.54, 0.29, 0.69, -0.00, -0.00, -0.00, 86.83, 0.53
Sigmas: 0.15, 0.05, 0.04, 0.29, 0.37, 0.54, 15.66, 0.10
One goal cutoff: 0.967407 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.978, actual 0

2006 30 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.55, 0.27, 0.67, -0.00, -0.00, 0.00, 91.37, 0.56
Sigmas: 0.17, 0.06, 0.04, 0.31, 0.34, 0.53, 16.52, 0.10
One goal cutoff: 0.967749 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.968, actual 2

2007 30 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.55, 0.27, 0.66, -0.00, 0.00, -0.00, 91.37, 0.56
Sigmas: 0.14, 0.05, 0.05, 0.30, 0.35, 0.52, 16.14, 0.10
One goal cutoff: 0.972109 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.837, actual 0

2008 30 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.56, 0.27, 0.66, 0.00, -0.00, 0.00, 91.07, 0.56
Sigmas: 0.10, 0.03, 0.04, 0.23, 0.27, 0.33, 10.43, 0.06
One goal cutoff: 0.998766 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.037, actual 0

2009 30 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.55, 0.27, 0.67, 0.00, -0.00, 0.00, 91.40, 0.56
Sigmas: 0.12, 0.05, 0.03, 0.29, 0.28, 0.42, 13.82, 0.08
One goal cutoff: 0.990147 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.296, actual 0

2010 30 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.55, 0.27, 0.67, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 92.03, 0.56
Sigmas: 0.12, 0.05, 0.04, 0.29, 0.28, 0.41, 12.95, 0.08
One goal cutoff: 0.991860 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.244, actual 0

2011 30 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.56, 0.27, 0.67, 0.00, -0.00, 0.00, 91.90, 0.56
Sigmas: 0.12, 0.05, 0.03, 0.26, 0.31, 0.43, 13.27, 0.08
One goal cutoff: 0.989886 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.303, actual 0

2012 30 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.55, 0.28, 0.67, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 92.00, 0.56
Sigmas: 0.12, 0.04, 0.03, 0.28, 0.29, 0.41, 11.73, 0.07
One goal cutoff: 0.991977 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.241, actual 0

2013 30 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.54, 0.27, 0.66, -0.00, -0.00, -0.00, 53.40, 0.56
Sigmas: 0.12, 0.06, 0.05, 0.26, 0.35, 0.47, 9.64, 0.10
One goal cutoff: 0.981159 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.565, actual 1

2014 30 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.54, 0.27, 0.68, 0.00, -0.00, 0.00, 92.23, 0.56
Sigmas: 0.14, 0.05, 0.04, 0.29, 0.31, 0.48, 15.26, 0.09
One goal cutoff: 0.980805 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.576, actual 0

2015 30 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.54, 0.27, 0.68, -0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 92.20, 0.56
Sigmas: 0.14, 0.06, 0.04, 0.30, 0.30, 0.51, 15.91, 0.10
One goal cutoff: 0.974634 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.761, actual 0

2016 30 teams,
AWQI, APQI, AGCI, AOQI, ADQI, CPQI, Points, Points Pct
Averages: 0.55, 0.27, 0.66, -0.00, -0.00, -0.00, 91.17, 0.56
Sigmas: 0.11, 0.04, 0.03, 0.23, 0.24, 0.36, 12.86, 0.08
One goal cutoff: 0.997254 sigma, above teams predicted, 0.082, actual 0

everything oneGoal Team totals: predicted 94, actual 84

Im trying to dig up what this table looks like post-2016, some of my data is a bit incomplete

 

[MS]

You do realize that points totals from nowadays are not comparable to those from before the loser point existed?

For reference, see the Points Pct column of this table. The average prior to 1999-2000 was and always was 0.500, because there were only ever 2 points on the line. The introduction of the loser point has changed what average in the NHL is from exactly 0.500, to something closer to 0.560



Im trying to dig up what this table looks like post-2016, some of my data is a bit incomplete

For the 3rd time, I’m using pre-OT numbers for the modern teams, which are the same as W-L-T numbers from the 1980s.

Even when you adjust the records of the 2006 Hurricanes opponents down in this manner (which is about 10 points apiece) they still average 10 more points/season apiece then the Isles’ 1981 opponents.

I’m the biggest critic you’ll ever find about fake .500 and the modern points system, for the record.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

For the 3rd time, I’m using pre-OT numbers for the modern teams, which are the same as W-L-T numbers from the 1980s.

So youre treating the points totals as if the game ended in a tie after 60 minutes like god intended

 

[sabremike]

This should put things in perspective: in those 19 consecutive series victories the Isles played a total of 94 games. So essentially they played the equivalent of more than 6 1/4 full seasons in the span of 5. I don't care if every series had been against the tank Sabres, that's still unbelievable.

 

[Big Phil]

Maybe the Spurs, just coz they're overshadowed by the more popular Lakers.

Yeah maybe, although they never even won two in a row let alone 4.

 

[Oheao]

Yeah maybe, although they never even won two in a row let alone 4.

Golden State were the closest to matching the Islanders, they made the finals 5 years in a row and blew a 3-1 series lead in 2016.

 

[Big Phil]

Golden State were the closest to matching the Islanders, they made the finals 5 years in a row and blew a 3-1 series lead in 2016.

I think of that team like the Islanders and the Raptors of 2019 as the 1984 Oilers who finally dethrone the perennial champs. Let's face it, Golden State will never be the same, and the Islanders weren't after 1984 either.

 

[scott clam]

Yeah maybe, although they never even won two in a row let alone 4.

The 60s Celtics are the only team to win 4 in a row though.

As far as I know the Lakers and Bulls are the only other teams to 3-peat.

The Rockets won back to back, but they're overshadowed/ disrespected for other reasons...well one particular reason, really.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Actually, the "forgotten" dynasty is the Canadiens of the mid-to-late 1960s: Four Cups in five years, but people mainly only talk about the late-50s' team, the Ken Dryden rookie team, and the late-70s' team.

(Two points to you for using the word "interregnum".)

I agree with that. The '67 Canadiens were tied 2-2 in the Finals. If they win just two games out of three against Toronto, that makes a 5-Cup dynasty for the ages, casts a shadow over the 70s Habs and 80s Islanders, trumps the dominance of the 80s Oilers. Two games.

Nobody talks about that team. Bobby Rousseau, Charlie Hodge? Even reasonably knowledgeable hockey fans couldn't tell you one single thing about 'em. I can't explain it, except that the earlier and later Habs teams had more iconic players in tow.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I agree with that. The '67 Canadiens were tied 2-2 in the Finals. If they win just two games out of three against Toronto, that makes a 5-Cup dynasty for the ages, casts a shadow over the 70s Habs and 80s Islanders, trumps the dominance of the 80s Oilers. Two games.

Nobody talks about that team. Bobby Rousseau, Charlie Hodge? Even reasonably knowledgeable hockey fans couldn't tell you one single thing about 'em. I can't explain it, except that the earlier and later Habs teams had more iconic players in tow.

It's because in a glut of Canadiens Cups these just didn't really stand out in comparison. Classic case of the great being the enemy of the good.