Is there any evidence that teams have to be built a specific way to win a cup?

[Tripod]

You always need your best players to show up when it matters, except for maybe Pitsburgh last year and Crosby.

Toews was like 13th in his team in scoring in the SCF against Philly....and they won. Keith was a beast though.

As for the OP, you need good goaltending and timely scoring. But most teams have a #1 C, #1D and goalie that plays great.

 

[Stephen Gionta]

Chicago didn't have elite goaltending in 09-10.

Not sure I'd say 00 or 03 Devils had an elite center.

The 03 Devils didn't have an elite C but they did have an elite LW in Elias. And a really hot Langebrunner + Friesen on the wings too.


The 00 Devils had Arnott who at the time, was an elite center IMO.


The 2001 Devils, 2001 Avalanche, and 2010 Blackhawks have been the 3 best hockey teams I've ever seen. The 2001 Devils didn't even get to raise the cup because the Avalanche were just that good.

 

[Stephen Gionta]

In recent years, it has been mandatory that you have an Elite 1C and elite 1D.

Datsyuk/Zetterberg, Lidstrom
Crosby/Malkin, Letang
Toews, Keith
Kopitar, Doughty
Bergeron, Chara

 

[Cursed Lemon]

You don't HAVE to do anything any particular way...but if you look at the teams that win, they sure as **** usually have a hot goalie, a defensively capable #1 center, a stud #1 shutdown d-man, and a spunky bottom-sixer who scores way more goals than they ought to be.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

You mean i had to do that extra work for nothing. You are just mean lol.

But yeah carolina is the only team in like the past 30+ or more years that didn't have a elite goaltending, elite center and elite defensemen.

carolina had eric staal and rod brind'amour as a 1-2 punch in 06

that is absolutely elite

 

[Stephen Gionta]

You don't HAVE to do anything any particular way...but if you look at the teams that win, they sure as **** usually have a hot goalie, a defensively capable #1 center, a stud #1 shutdown d-man, and a spunky bottom-sixer who scores way more goals than they ought to be.

Pretty spot on.

 

[AvroArrow]

Elite 1C, Elite 1D are necessary. After that there's a lot of different combinations you can put together, but i can't remember any team winning without a true 1C and 1D.

 

[AvroArrow]

The 03 Devils didn't have an elite C but they did have an elite LW in Elias. And a really hot Langebrunner + Friesen on the wings too.


The 00 Devils had Arnott who at the time, was an elite center IMO.


The 2001 Devils, 2001 Avalanche, and 2010 Blackhawks have been the 3 best hockey teams I've ever seen. The 2001 Devils didn't even get to raise the cup because the Avalanche were just that good.

2002 Wings need to be added to that list.

Also the devils had Brodeur, once in a generation type guys

 

[Redline]

Don't know how anyone can say this. Except for Carolina, the makeup of post-lockout Cup winners is generally made up of most, if not all, of the following...

-elite 1C
-elite 1D
-capable goalie, not necessarily elite
-elite depth
-dynamic players
-dynamic players showing up and being effective
-strong possession game
-talented enough of a roster that tilts luck in their favor more often than not

It's why the "any playoff team has a chance at the cup" narrative is BS. Montreal, New York, Minnesota, Washington, etc...predictably lose every year because they're lacking in one or more of these fundamental areas.

Looks like you've presented the perfect scenario with absolutely every area covered. Yes, having every area covered is certainly a good way, not sure who would find that informative though.

 

[Luongos Knob]

- at least 2 superstar goalie, defenseman or forward
- depth throughout roster
- non-imbecile coach
- luck (injuries, matchups, bounces etc)

 

[MNRube]

Don't know how anyone can say this. Except for Carolina, the makeup of post-lockout Cup winners is generally made up of most, if not all, of the following...

-elite 1C
-elite 1D
-capable goalie, not necessarily elite
-elite depth
-dynamic players
-dynamic players showing up and being effective
-strong possession game
-talented enough of a roster that tilts luck in their favor more often than not

It's why the "any playoff team has a chance at the cup" narrative is BS. Montreal, New York, Minnesota, Washington, etc...predictably lose every year because they're lacking in one or more of these fundamental areas.

Guess we can count out the Hawks then too as they don't have a 1C

 

[Mr Positive]

For sure any style could win as long as the players and coaching leverage their strength and identity hard enough. I would think a team needs veterans and good coaching though, just to play cohesively and consistently, and not be over burdened by pressure.

Of course there is a pre requisite of skill. You might need to be elite in every position, but your biggest weakness should still be above average.

 

[Givememoneyback]

I don't think the Devils had an elite center for any of their 3 Cup wins. They made up for it with an elite goaltender, elite defense, and very good forward depth. The cap has made it much more difficult to follow that model though, as it isn't as affordable to roll out the 3rd and 4th liners those Devils teams could.

They weren't Gretzky, Crosby, or Lemieux, but the Devils had some pretty solid centers. Off the top of my head, Arnott, Gomez, Holik and Nieuwendyk come to mind.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Looks like you've presented the perfect scenario with absolutely every area covered. Yes, having every area covered is certainly a good way, not sure who would find that informative though.

I said "most" of these. Regardless, which cup winning team since the lockout hasn't had "most, if not all" of these qualities? You're making it seem like I answered the question too well

 

[Fondue]

I don't think the players/position are as valuable as system/possession/style of play.

A lot of it comes down to playing the actual game. "Style" of winning kind of changes every so often. Right now, speed, skill, and transition is all the rage. So you're finding the teams that are most successful happen to be winning (most recent PIT win is a prime example) with that sort of possession and up-ice play.

Look back to like 2007 with Anaheim? They were big and heavy, while also pretty skillful (especially in the backend with a puckmover like Niedermayer). Teams were built with size during the mid/late 00s and into as recently as say 2-3 years ago.

Early 2000s? All about that defense. Trap, trap, trap. System, system, system.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

Like others have mentioned elite #1C and #1D seem to be mandatory in todays NHL at least. Mostly because the top teams you will face eventually all have them. If you don't you're in a very big disadvantage. Margins are so small that those big time players end up making a difference.

I'd say that only applies to SC finals though. If you're the better team all-around you could beat a team like that in the earlier rounds, but in the finals you face a team that is firing on all cylinders and their top players (#1C/#1D) are in good form. That's tough to beat.

Maybe if the stars align and we somehow got a finals matchup between two teams that don't have them it would happen (say, Rangers/Oilers this year). But that would mean there had been some serious bad voodoo around numerous teams around the league that do have them, which is highly unlikely.

 

[JackSlater]

Most common thing is an elite defenceman. In the last 20 years (back to 97) I would say that only three Stanley Cup winners didn't have a top ten defenceman (2009, 2006 and 2004) but each of them had someone who was pretty close to that level. Second most common is probably having a centre who can provide elite defence and is top ten defensively. In the last twenty years, I can only think of two Stanley Cup winners (2016, 2004) that didn't have a centre that at that level defensively, but even then they did have top centres (Crosby, Richards) who were good two ways.

Thinking about it, Tampa Bay really is an outlier in 2004.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

Elite Defenseman
1C
hot/elite goalie
1W
Strong center depth
Good bottom 6
Solid top 4

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

Thinking about it, Tampa Bay really is an outlier in 2004.

And funny enough, i don't think the Flames met the criteria either (correct me if im wrong).

So like i mentioned in my previous post if it just so happens that two teams without them meet in the finals then it's possible, but a lot has to go wrong to all the teams that have them which is always a possibility though.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Guess we can count out the Hawks then too as they don't have a 1C

Agreed. I said as much in the "Who comes out of the West" thread.

But the last three times the Wild played the Hawks we did have a 1C and the Wild lost.

...in case you forgot

 

[billybudd]

Last team to win a cup that wasn't either a) really big or b) really fast was probably the 2009 Penguins.

That's enough winners in a row for me to draw the conclusion that only two ways of building your team really work these days.

 

[JimmyG89]

Like others have mentioned elite #1C and #1D seem to be mandatory in todays NHL at least. Mostly because the top teams you will face eventually all have them. If you don't you're in a very big disadvantage. Margins are so small that those big time players end up making a difference.

I'd say that only applies to SC finals though. If you're the better team all-around you could beat a team like that in the earlier rounds, but in the finals you face a team that is firing on all cylinders and their top players (#1C/#1D) are in good form. That's tough to beat.

Maybe if the stars align and we somehow got a finals matchup between two teams that don't have them it would happen (say, Rangers/Oilers this year). But that would mean there had been some serious bad voodoo around numerous teams around the league that do have them, which is highly unlikely.

The way you make up for not having an elite 1C is by having two near elite 1C (Like Boston at the time) that compliment each other. Krejci and Bergeron work well together in a lineup. Having Kelly as the 3C really was able to absorb some of the tough matchups beyond Bergeron and he produced in his ice time.

Thomas was out of him mind good too. They definitely didn't ride him to their cup, but he was the biggest factor, among other very big factors.

To me, the biggest factor is depth on both offense and defense. The top 10 players at their position are significantly better than the 3rd and 4th liners, but if you don't have a 3rd line that can produce and take some heat off the top 6, you're in trouble. Same for defense. If you're bottom pairing can't handle 14 minutes effectively, you'll gas out your top 4 by the 3rd round if you make it.

When looking at it, this season I see four teams that have the boxes checked to win a Cup.

San Jose, Minnesota, Pittsburgh, and Washington.

The other teams are missing something, or somethings. For some, internal improvement is there to do it, others would need to make moves outside to have it done. I don't see a TDL acquisition(s) that would result in someone else being added to that list.

 

[MessierII]

You almost always have to have a #1 goalie. After that just depth throughout the lineup.

A hot goalie not an established #1.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I see it a lot on here. People speak about having a big 1C or you have to have a 1D to win. Is there any proof of this?

Just look at the rosters of the teams who've won the Cup to see if there are any "similarities" that show up for almost every champion.

The common traits seem to be:
-Very good depth down the middle
-Elite #1 defenseman
-Timely saves from your goalie
-Deep up front

Chicago's the exception for the first part. But every other Cup winner has had essentially a first line center playing on their second line. Carter (LA), Krejci (Bos), Malkin (Pit), Datsyuk (Det), Getzlaf (Ana), Brind'Amour (Car), Richards (TB), etc. all had guys who one could argue are 1C in their own right playing on their team's second line.

Ironically, I don't think you need to have a great goalie, but you do need whatever goalie you do have to come up clutch when called upon. I mean, Chicago won with Niemi, Pittsburgh's won with Fleury, Detroit won multiple cups with Osgood, etc. Good goalies, but not exactly elite at their position.

So I'd say there's a pattern there. It's not a guarantee you win the Cup, but I'd almost bet that a team that DOESN'T have the above will not win it.

I know for years people said you can't build a winner around a winger using the Leafs as an example but is it not possible that the Leafs were just not a good enough team in other areas?

I can't think of the last team that won the Cup where their best player was a winger. Kane in Chicago is the closest, but that ignores Toews (1C) and Keith (1D), as well as just how ridiculously deep Chicago's forward groups were. Even the Isles dynasty of the 80s, while Bossy was the big goal scorer, I'd argue Trottier and Potvin were more important to the club.

After that, pretty much every team that's won the Cup has either been built around its elite center(s), elite defense, or elite goalie. I can't think of a team that was built around its elite winger.

 

[billybudd]

Most common thing is an elite defenceman. In the last 20 years (back to 97) I would say that only three Stanley Cup winners didn't have a top ten defenceman (2009, 2006 and 2004) but each of them had someone who was pretty close to that level. Second most common is probably having a centre who can provide elite defence and is top ten defensively. In the last twenty years, I can only think of two Stanley Cup winners (2016, 2004) that didn't have a centre that at that level defensively, but even then they did have top centres (Crosby, Richards) who were good two ways.

Thinking about it, Tampa Bay really is an outlier in 2004.

2009 Penguins had Sergei Gonchar, who finished 4th and 7th in the previous two seasons' Norris voting.