If Montreal Wins the Stanley Cup - Biggest Fluke in NHL History?

[82Ninety42011]

16 wins if they do it is no fluke. Full respect to what they are doing right now. Was it expected debatable and rightly so. Fluke I think not a series win can be a fluke. Not a few series wins and possibly more. It's a team game and they are playing very well right now.

 

[Chardo]

People will say anything to discredit the North division. Blah blah weak division. Why can't folks just admit that maybe Montreal isn't as much as a pushover as everyone thought they would be.

Both of those things can be true.

 

[LuGBuG]

Imagine fluking your way into the playoffs over 56 games, and then fluking your way into more playoff wins then anyone else. What a dumb thread.

 

[Lolonegoal]

They made the playoffs with an 86 point pace in the weakest division that also only had 7 teams.

So being in the playoffs was a definite fluke.

Then they got to avoid the #1 and #2 teams in the first and second rounds despite being the lowest seed.

Now to win it all, they will have to beat Vegas, and likely Tampa, so it's very much a real accomplishment. But the path up to the conference finals definitely is not on par, and is 100% flukey for the modern era, in that they were afforded opportunities and matchups in a way we'll likely never see again.

They made the playoffs with an 86 point pace in the weakest division that also only had 7 teams.

So being in the playoffs was a definite fluke.

Then they got to avoid the #1 and #2 teams in the first and second rounds despite being the lowest seed.

Now to win it all, they will have to beat Vegas, and likely Tampa, so it's very much a real accomplishment. But the path up to the conference finals definitely is not on par, and is 100% flukey for the modern era, in that they were afforded opportunities and matchups in a way we'll likely never see again.

So far they've played the #2 and #3 highest Vegas odds teams to win the cup. People are selling out Toronto because they choked once again. But a majority of people had them steam rolling the first two rounds and a good amount had them in the cup. Their only easy match-up would be Winnipeg, which people still had them as underdogs.

 

[The National]

Not sure the biggest fluke but it’s probably up there. They still need to win the games so credit to them.

 

[dalewood12]

Not the biggest fluke, but the biggest surprise. Probably would top the 2006 Oilers.

 

[abo9]

A little early to talk about it, but it reminds me of that 2017 (?) Ottawa run led by an amazing E. Karlsson.

I don't think they make the playoffs next season, and they finished 24th last season. So, definitely a "fluke"

 

[Bondurant]

If the Habs win the Stanley Cup they will have beaten Toronto, Winnipeg, Vegas and Tampa Bay/Islanders. That is not a fluke.

 

[BruinsBtn]

They're certainly the worst team, statistically, to make the playoffs in the cap era.

 

[Bixby Snyder]

Biggest since 93.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

If the Habs win the Stanley Cup they will have beaten Toronto, Winnipeg, Vegas and Tampa Bay/Islanders. That is not a fluke.

Exactly.

I don't even think I have any basis to conclude the North was the weakest division. A lot of people feel that way, but how can that be anything more than gut feeling when the first time anybody in the division played anybody outside of the division was in this series.....which is now knotted at 2-2?

As far as the North having only seven teams, that is true but they also had teams basically coast-to-coast, meaning the travel involved was tougher than any of the other divisions. The only division close to that burden was the West.

There are a lot of ifs and butts the way things were set up this year. But I don't consider a team who came back from 3-1 down, rattled of 7 straight wins without trailing in a game, and is now 2-2 against a team considered at or near the top of the league to be a fluke should they complete the task. Especially one whose strengths support a strategy that has been proven effective in the playoffs before.

 

[Kamina]

You are confusing "fluke" with "undeserving"

Whoever wins is "deserving". A "fluke" is just what occurs when you take a high variance activity and a low probability event occurs.

Technically any team winning is a fluke then; at the start of the playoffs, it's very statistically favourable to take the field over any given team.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

I don't think it would be a fluke as you need to win 16 games and it's one of the toughest trophies to win.
That said, the toughest part is still to come so it's really premature at this point. I'd still have them as huge underdogs.

 

[SeaChaser]

Fluke and Stanley Cup can't be in the same sentence, unless Fluke is the name of a player. You can have a fluke goal, maybe a fluke game, but never a fluke series, let alone 4.

 

[River Meadow]

Absolutely.

Vegas could have won this series in 4 easy games too.

Like a predator, they are just toying with their prey and making them think they have a chance to survive.

The Vegas Flying Knights will dispatch of the lowly Canadiens in 6 games.

 

[hoglund]

A team can't win the stanley cup and be called a fluke.

what makes the other teams then?

They needed the Leafs to choke a 3-1 series lead to get past the 1st round, unless you think that it wasn't a Leafs choke, but a Canadiens resurgence.

 

[bobholly39]

You are confusing "fluke" with "undeserving"

Whoever wins is "deserving". A "fluke" is just what occurs when you take a high variance activity and a low probability event occurs.

I think you are the one confusing "fluke" with "underdog/cinderella"

Would this be the biggest underdog/cinderella story cup victory in NHL history? Maybe.

But it's not a fluke. Fluke implies they're not deserving, which is the contrary. If anything as such big underdogs, more power to them if they win.

 

[Xirik]

I think if you'd call a Habs cup win a fluke then your also saying that the LA Kings 2012 cup was also a fluke.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

I find it hard to consider a 16 playoff wins en route to a Cup a fluke.

At the very worst, you had to consistently play close enough to your competition that you could get enough wins via lucky bounces. You can fluke your way to one win. 16? Against the best teams in the NHL? Unlikely.

 

[PuckNorris]

It would be a bigger surprise then the 2006 Oilers. I had this team dead in the water must of the season. Although looking at their roster they should have performed better in the regular season. Still, I can't think of a bigger underdog.

 

[Rorschach]

Imagine fluking your way into the playoffs over 56 games, and then fluking your way into more playoff wins then anyone else. What a dumb thread.

Yeah.
Heck I used to think "fluke" meant got "very lucky" but now, with this thread, I'm wondering if it means they gave the other team fish parasites or they acted like whales and flicked the other teams with their tail fins.

 

[LuGBuG]

Yeah.
Heck I used to think "fluke" meant got "very lucky" but now, with this thread, I'm wondering if it means they gave the other team fish parasites or they acted like whales and flicked the other teams with their tail fins.

I don't know what this means but I laughed

 

[Rorschach]

I think we can all agree that if Montreal wins, they won't be as strong a team on paper or even on ice as compared to the recent dynasty/semi-dynasty teams like Boston, LA, Chicago and Pittsburgh. I wonder if that means Tampa Bay is not as good as the four teams mentioned above...and are more in the category of St. Louis and Carolina.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

Yes it would be a massive fluke that’s been in the making since they drafted Carey Price in 2005

 

[Colezuki]

Exactly.

I don't even think I have any basis to conclude the North was the weakest division. A lot of people feel that way, but how can that be anything more than gut feeling when the first time anybody in the division played anybody outside of the division was in this series.....which is now knotted at 2-2?

As far as the North having only seven teams, that is true but they also had teams basically coast-to-coast, meaning the travel involved was tougher than any of the other divisions. The only division close to that burden was the West.

There are a lot of ifs and butts the way things were set up this year. But I don't consider a team who came back from 3-1 down, rattled of 7 straight wins without trailing in a game, and is now 2-2 against a team considered at or near the top of the league to be a fluke should they complete the task. Especially one whose strengths support a strategy that has been proven effective in the playoffs before.

A well reasoned take, I got into this argument with a lot of people this year in Canada who said the north was the worst but then neglected that Marner, Matthews, McDavid and Draisaitl we're only in the North. That means the rest of the league didn't deal with some of the top scorers all year long and assumed that the defense is poor, so which is it, poor defense or the best scorers? Couple that with the worst travel schedule in the league I think the shortcomings of the north we're overstated. I always thought it was the second toughest after the east