If the Pens win a Cup in 2020 - 2029...

[BladeRunner66]

Could the case be made for the Pens as the top franchise in NHL history (Post expansion)?
( I used solidify, but wasn't the word I was looking for)

That would be 4 straight decades with a Cup. 3 of them being in the cap era.

Before this thread was closed it got me thinking about some kind of math model to calculate the most objectively possible way to determine top franchises.

It's very complex, some factors aren't though like how many teams there were when a team won. I mean, you won in the original 6? Way easier than with the horde going on now.

Salary cap factor on/off (markets) = yikes! Divisions? PO formats etc... etc...

The genius that can ultimately come off with an actual working model that can take it all in and go forth with it will become a living machine god but until then we can only speculate.

I do like how the Pittsburgh Penguins recently managed to stack it under presumably unstackable odds though.

 

[bathroomSTAAL]

I think there's already a pretty good case for best non-O6 franchise. Just as many Cups as the Oilers, who have been largely irrelevant for 25 years now. More than the Islanders, who same. Even when we weren't winning Cups in the 90s and early 10s we were still consistently competitive. Basically 4 bad seasons since 1990.

Who else even has a case? Devils maybe? 3 Cups and an impressively long streak of being a top team in the league. They have their own embarrassing years too.

 

[Tweed]

I requested that the thread be re-opened because I wanted to share something with you guys on this topic. (Thanks BHD.)

To answer the OP's question, No... because mathematically, it would take more than 1 cup.

Forgive the copy paste, but I had posted this in the spring in a different thread:

------------

"CUP SUCCESS MEASURED AGAINST FIELD SIZE"

I thought it would be fun to measure the "value" of a Stanley Cup, year-by-year, as determined by the number of teams competing for it. This idea came about when I was thinking about how the 1950s Habs 5-straight Cups weren't as impressive to me as say; the Hawks 3-in-6. The reason is that I don't personally find it "impressive" that 1 team wins a cup in a small field of 6 teams. I might be underestimating the difficulty in that, but it's moot, really.

So with that in mind, I set about weighting each Stanley Cup. I'm somewhat confident I didn't make any mathematical errors, but I certainly didn't go back through and double-check all of my work.

I started with the 1914-1915 season as it was the first season an NHL team could compete for the SC. Even though those early SCs were NHL champions battling against PCHA champions (or other leagues when applicable) for the Cup, I considered the total numbers of teams eligible to compete for the cup as part of a "greater unspoken league" of teams, and therefore the combined number of teams present in all the leagues, relevant.

I assigned each Stanley Cup a value in points as determined by the number of teams in the "league". Such that, 6 teams competing for the cup, gives the value of the cup that year "6 points". If a team won a cup in a year when the league had 12 teams, the cup was worth 12 points that year.

Here is the spreadsheet, for anybody that wants to view it, it's nothing special.
Winners listed in lowercase are long-defunct teams that I didn't care to track. Year is listed as the year culminating in the Cup victory. For example the 1956 Cup-winning Canadiens are the 1955-1956 Canadiens.

From there, I set about tallying the points for each Cup winner:
MON - 9,8,10,10,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,12,12,14,16,18,18,18,17,21,24 = 267
TOR - 7,7,8,7,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6 = 83
DET - 8,8,6,6,6,6,6,26,26,30,30 = 158
BOS - 10,7,7,12,14,30 = 80
CHI - 9,8,6,30,30,30 = 123
EDM - 21,21,21,21,21 = 105
PIT - 21,22,30,30,30 = 133
NYR - 10,9,7,26 = 52
NYI - 21,21,21,21 = 84
NJD - 26,28,30 = 84
PHI - 16,16 = 32
LAK - 30,30 = 60
COL - 26,30 = 56
DAL - 27 = 27
CAL - 21 = 21
ANA - 30 = 30
CAR - 30 = 30
TBL - 30 = 30

And then I determined the number of points available to teams based on their founding date, or first NHL season where they were eligible to compete for the cup.

MON - 1914 = 1531 pts
TOR - 1917 = 1503 pts
BOS - 1924 = 1460 pts
CHI - 1926 = 1435 pts
DET - 1926 = 1435 pts
NYR - 1926 = 1435 pts
DAL - 1967 = 1148 pts
LAK - 1967 = 1148 pts
PIT - 1967 = 1148 pts
PHI - 1967 = 1148 pts
NYI - 1972 = 1084 pts
COL - 1972 = 1084 pts
CAL - 1972 = 1084 pts
NJD - 1974 = 1052 pts
CAR - 1979 = 963 pts
EDM - 1979 = 963 pts
TBL - 1992 = 689 pts
ANA - 1993 = 665 pts

I then applied the number of points earned against the number of points available to determine each team's success quotient, and then ranked them based on the results.

MON - 267 / 1531 = 0.1743
PIT - 133 / 1148 = 0.1158
DET - 158 / 1435 = 0.1101
EDM - 105 / 963 = 0.1090
CHI - 123 / 1435 = 0.0857
NJD - 84 / 1052 = 0.0798
NYI - 84 / 1084 = 0.0774
TOR - 83 / 1503 = 0.0552
BOS - 80 / 1460 = 0.0547
LAK - 60 / 1148 = 0.0522
COL - 56 / 1084 = 0.0516
ANA - 30 / 665 = 0.0451
TBL - 30 / 689 = 0.0435
NYR - 52 / 1435 = 0.0362
CAR - 30 / 963 = 0.0311
PHI - 32 / 1148 = 0.0278
DAL - 27 / 1148 = 0.0235
CAL - 21 / 1084 = 0.0193

I think this confirms what we all pretty much knew: The Montreal Canadiens are the Stanley Cuppiest Team of All-Time. But, it's neat to see how all the other teams fare, and to see how their Cup Success can be viewed in this light.

I hope you all can read this. I really don't want to have to format it. EDIT: Updated to omit 1919, 2005, and 2018 Cup Values in teams' Points Available (since the Cup couldn't be won in 1919 & 2005, and 2018 hasn't completed yet).


------------

What this tells us is; the Penguins are the second most successful franchise in the entire history of the league... based on their ability to win cups against the size/strength of the field.

I think I also calculated that we'd only need 3 more cups to actually pass the Habs (assuming they haven't won any more in the time we collect that 3rd one), to become the most successful of all-time.

 

[Tweed]

Before this thread was closed it got me thinking about some kind of math model to calculate the most objectively possible way to determine top franchises.

It's very complex, some factors aren't though like how many teams there were when a team won. I mean, you won in the original 6? Way easier than with the horde going on now.

Salary cap factor on/off (markets) = yikes! Divisions? PO formats etc... etc...
The genius that can ultimately come off with an actual working model that can take it all in and go forth with it will become a living machine god but until then we can only speculate.

Okay, just saw your post now, after I posted. Basically, I hope what I posted does what you were looking for. I wasn't hailed as a machine god when the old farts who were Habs fans saw the numbers, because it threatened the "untouchable" nature of the Habs legacy... but I'm extremely confident that my numbers paint an extremely close-to-accurate picture of the real nature of each team's success.

The only minor shortcut I took, was in bypassing the number crunching on the misaligned-divisional format, back in the days when the league had 21 teams and we had a 5+5+5+6 divisional layout. There definitely was greater odds against a Patrick Division team winning the Cup, than a team from the other 3 divisions. I should just do the work one day, it will only serve to elevate the Penguins.

 

[RizzleMcRib]

I requested that the thread be re-opened because I wanted to share something with you guys on this topic. (Thanks BHD.)

To answer the OP's question, No... because mathematically, it would take more than 1 cup.

Forgive the copy paste, but I had posted this in the spring in a different thread:

------------

"CUP SUCCESS MEASURED AGAINST FIELD SIZE"

I thought it would be fun to measure the "value" of a Stanley Cup, year-by-year, as determined by the number of teams competing for it. This idea came about when I was thinking about how the 1950s Habs 5-straight Cups weren't as impressive to me as say; the Hawks 3-in-6. The reason is that I don't personally find it "impressive" that 1 team wins a cup in a small field of 6 teams. I might be underestimating the difficulty in that, but it's moot, really.

So with that in mind, I set about weighting each Stanley Cup. I'm somewhat confident I didn't make any mathematical errors, but I certainly didn't go back through and double-check all of my work.

I started with the 1914-1915 season as it was the first season an NHL team could compete for the SC. Even though those early SCs were NHL champions battling against PCHA champions (or other leagues when applicable) for the Cup, I considered the total numbers of teams eligible to compete for the cup as part of a "greater unspoken league" of teams, and therefore the combined number of teams present in all the leagues, relevant.

I assigned each Stanley Cup a value in points as determined by the number of teams in the "league". Such that, 6 teams competing for the cup, gives the value of the cup that year "6 points". If a team won a cup in a year when the league had 12 teams, the cup was worth 12 points that year.

Here is the spreadsheet, for anybody that wants to view it, it's nothing special.
Winners listed in lowercase are long-defunct teams that I didn't care to track. Year is listed as the year culminating in the Cup victory. For example the 1956 Cup-winning Canadiens are the 1955-1956 Canadiens.

From there, I set about tallying the points for each Cup winner:
MON - 9,8,10,10,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,12,12,14,16,18,18,18,17,21,24 = 267
TOR - 7,7,8,7,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6 = 83
DET - 8,8,6,6,6,6,6,26,26,30,30 = 158
BOS - 10,7,7,12,14,30 = 80
CHI - 9,8,6,30,30,30 = 123
EDM - 21,21,21,21,21 = 105
PIT - 21,22,30,30,30 = 133
NYR - 10,9,7,26 = 52
NYI - 21,21,21,21 = 84
NJD - 26,28,30 = 84
PHI - 16,16 = 32
LAK - 30,30 = 60
COL - 26,30 = 56
DAL - 27 = 27
CAL - 21 = 21
ANA - 30 = 30
CAR - 30 = 30
TBL - 30 = 30

And then I determined the number of points available to teams based on their founding date, or first NHL season where they were eligible to compete for the cup.

MON - 1914 = 1531 pts
TOR - 1917 = 1503 pts
BOS - 1924 = 1460 pts
CHI - 1926 = 1435 pts
DET - 1926 = 1435 pts
NYR - 1926 = 1435 pts
DAL - 1967 = 1148 pts
LAK - 1967 = 1148 pts
PIT - 1967 = 1148 pts
PHI - 1967 = 1148 pts
NYI - 1972 = 1084 pts
COL - 1972 = 1084 pts
CAL - 1972 = 1084 pts
NJD - 1974 = 1052 pts
CAR - 1979 = 963 pts
EDM - 1979 = 963 pts
TBL - 1992 = 689 pts
ANA - 1993 = 665 pts

I then applied the number of points earned against the number of points available to determine each team's success quotient, and then ranked them based on the results.

MON - 267 / 1531 = 0.1743
PIT - 133 / 1148 = 0.1158
DET - 158 / 1435 = 0.1101
EDM - 105 / 963 = 0.1090
CHI - 123 / 1435 = 0.0857
NJD - 84 / 1052 = 0.0798
NYI - 84 / 1084 = 0.0774
TOR - 83 / 1503 = 0.0552
BOS - 80 / 1460 = 0.0547
LAK - 60 / 1148 = 0.0522
COL - 56 / 1084 = 0.0516
ANA - 30 / 665 = 0.0451
TBL - 30 / 689 = 0.0435
NYR - 52 / 1435 = 0.0362
CAR - 30 / 963 = 0.0311
PHI - 32 / 1148 = 0.0278
DAL - 27 / 1148 = 0.0235
CAL - 21 / 1084 = 0.0193

I think this confirms what we all pretty much knew: The Montreal Canadiens are the Stanley Cuppiest Team of All-Time. But, it's neat to see how all the other teams fare, and to see how their Cup Success can be viewed in this light.

I hope you all can read this. I really don't want to have to format it. EDIT: Updated to omit 1919, 2005, and 2018 Cup Values in teams' Points Available (since the Cup couldn't be won in 1919 & 2005, and 2018 hasn't completed yet).


------------

What this tells us is; the Penguins are the second most successful franchise in the entire history of the league... based on their ability to win cups against the size/strength of the field.

I think I also calculated that we'd only need 3 more cups to actually pass the Habs (assuming they haven't won any more in the time we collect that 3rd one), to become the most successful of all-time.

Honestly, I don't think there will be a team to touch Montreal. The only thing they have against them is nothing in the era of not being able to buy teams. You can't fault them for that, but large market teams pretty much had the advantage against small market teams.

That said, I think some of you are a glutton for punishment or accountants with all these numbers.

 

[EightyOne]

I pretty much discount any Original Six records.

The Pens need to win this year to meet the NHL definition of a dynasty (3 wins in 4 years).

They've already made playoffs 13? straight years with 3 championships in a league where half the teams make playoffs and a salary cap. That seems incredibly difficult. But not best team ever status.

 

[BladeRunner66]

@Tweed, you do come close as there is to to a machine god... arf!

We can conclude from your analysis that in a modern hockey era nothing beats the Pens and that's more than enough for me.

What have you done for me lately Champions we may be for some but old farts but they should think about their time with other teams/rules/divisions/PO formats etc.

Objectively speaking we should consider Cups winning ratio just like players stats, relative to their time/context. Hockey fans who dismiss this just aren't being honest.

 

[Pens x]

People on this site will continue to brag about their original 6 team that won cups in the 1940’s when there were 5 other teams.

 

[edog37]

People on this site will continue to brag about their original 6 team that won cups in the 1940’s when there were 5 other teams.

Pens already are the best Second 6 franchise out there. We have the same amount of Cups as the others in ‘67 year group combined. And given how horrifically bad the franchise was in the early years leading up to the first Cup, that’s impressive.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

No...
They haven't even had a dynasty yet, much less the top franchise in history.
Why is the season still so far off...

What would we need to be a dynasty? Another cup this next season to make it 3 in 4yrs? Or does it need to be at least 4 in 6 years type of thing? Because it seems like the term Dynasty exists because of the Chicago Bulls' Jordan Era.