NHL unveils 20 greatest teams of all time

[chethejet]

If Pens get back to the SC finals, then they are in there since only them, Oilers, Wings and Islanders are repeat teams in last 30 years. But Philly and Boston have teams that were very good.

 

[Datsyukian Deke]

01-02 Red Wings were still one of the better teams I've seen.

9 Hall of Famers & 1 Future one in Datsyuk, as a rookie. And also had a 20-3-2 record for the first 25 games of the season, not bad for a bunch of old timers.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Habs won 5 cups in a row and none of those teams are represented? No teams with The Production Line with Gordie Howe? Some of those Hab teams have three or four of the top ten players of all time on the roster... How does a club with Plante, Beliveau, Richard and Harvey not make that list? No team before 1970 was good enough?

Okay...

 

[ResilientBeast]

Habs won 5 cups in a row and none of those teams are represented? No teams with The Production Line with Gordie Howe? Some of those Hab teams have three or four of the top ten players of all time on the roster... How does a club with Plante, Beliveau, Richard and Harvey not make that list? No team before 1970 was good enough?

Okay...

Fans voted, and those fans think Crosby is without a doubt the greatest of all time

 

[LarKing]

I've never seen a more dominant team than the 08 wings since I really got into hockey around 03 (barely remember the 02 win so don't really count that here). That whole year just felt like our year. Nobody really presented that much of a challenge at all because Datsyuk and Zetterberg just dominated every matchup and that Lidstrom guy was there on the rare occurrences the puck wasn't in the offensive zone.

 

[ScaredStreit]

That was their first trip to the finals. They figured it out the following year.

You didn't answer the question...are you really suggesting that Gretzky and the Oilers were "pushovers"?

-2nd place regular season
-1st in goals scored (70+ more goals than 2nd place and over 100 more than most teams)
-Roster included Gretzky, Messier, Anderson, Kurri, Coffey, etc.

It's ok if you didn't know the Isles beat them, or if you forgot...but calling the Oilers "pushovers" is just absurd.

 

[Llewzaher]

was this based on fan votes? Or experts picking the teams?

I can't see many teams beating the Oilers in their prime..

 

[MtlBoxFan]

Habs won 5 cups in a row and none of those teams are represented? No teams with The Production Line with Gordie Howe? Some of those Hab teams have three or four of the top ten players of all time on the roster... How does a club with Plante, Beliveau, Richard and Harvey not make that list? No team before 1970 was good enough?

Okay...

It's an online ballot from NHL.com.

Most old timer fans who have seen teams through the generations would not participate. The survey is flawed but at least some teams from the 70s made it.

 

[Ryan Michaels]

Having no teams on this list from before 1970 basically renders the entire exercise laughably pointless.

Seems it's fan-voted and fans just voted for recent versions of winning teams. Lame.

Why even make comments like this? I mean it would be laughably pointless to vote for a team you've never seen play. I mean I guess they could just do best teams of the last 50 years or something, but really like why do people always have to beat this dead horse? I mean I guess you'd have to be a hundred years old to compile a list worth reading? And I mean I don't even want to get into the fact that hockey 50 years ago is not hockey today, because obviously this opens pandora's box of time travel, training, equiptment, etc. but at the end of the day you can watch the games and see that they are objectively worse at everything anything beyond that is just semantics...okay I guess I did end up getting into that point I said I wasn't going to. *ducks thread*

 

[c9777666]

No 2008 Red Wings, yet Pittsburgh's 1991-1992 Cups made this list despite less-than-stellar records?

 

[c9777666]

stop it with the ducks, overrated on this forum but rated properly everywhere else

that team did nothing before or after their cup so lets stop pretending they were anything but a one year wonder

So by that standard would you say the 1989 Flames were a one year wonder? What did THEY do after that Cup?

 

[Puffymuffin]

No 2008 Red Wings, yet Pittsburgh's 1991-1992 Cups made this list despite less-than-stellar records?

I think the 1993 team is regarded as the best Pens team ever anyway, or do only cup winning teams count?

 

[JaegerDice]

I think the 1993 team is regarded as the best Pens team ever anyway, or do only cup winning teams count?

Historically speaking its really tough making a case for any team that failed to win a cup.

 

[JackSlater]

Why even make comments like this? I mean it would be laughably pointless to vote for a team you've never seen play. I mean I guess they could just do best teams of the last 50 years or something, but really like why do people always have to beat this dead horse? I mean I guess you'd have to be a hundred years old to compile a list worth reading? And I mean I don't even want to get into the fact that hockey 50 years ago is not hockey today, because obviously this opens pandora's box of time travel, training, equiptment, etc. but at the end of the day you can watch the games and see that they are objectively worse at everything anything beyond that is just semantics...okay I guess I did end up getting into that point I said I wasn't going to. *ducks thread*

That comment is perfectly valid because it is true. There are far better ways to create the list. The Hockey News top 100 players ever list set the standard by having a large panel of experts who covered hockey in various capacities (players, coaches, referees, media) dating back to the original six era. Even in 2017 there are still plenty of such experts available. Throwing it out to a mass fan vote is lazy and disingenuous if it is supposed to be a serious list representing the greatest teams of all time.

 

[Doctor No]

I mean it would be laughably pointless to vote for a team you've never seen play.

Why would it be laughably pointless? Books exist. For lots of these teams, videos exist. First hand accounts exist.

Your point of view is akin to saying that history isn't important.

And if the NHL feels the same way about this as you do, then they shouldn't have named their poll greatest teams of ALL TIME.

"Vote now! Vote for the 20 greatest teams that you personally have seen."

Has a little less pizazz, don't you think?

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

01-02 Red Wings were still one of the better teams I've seen.

9 Hall of Famers & 1 Future one in Datsyuk, as a rookie. And also had a 20-3-2 record for the first 25 games of the season, not bad for a bunch of old timers.

Didn't they also have biggest payroll in NHL?

It was a great team but it was essentially an allstar team and was a glaring example of the joke that was NHL salary structure at that point

 

[Laineux]

Why even make comments like this? I mean it would be laughably pointless to vote for a team you've never seen play. I mean I guess they could just do best teams of the last 50 years or something, but really like why do people always have to beat this dead horse? I mean I guess you'd have to be a hundred years old to compile a list worth reading? And I mean I don't even want to get into the fact that hockey 50 years ago is not hockey today, because obviously this opens pandora's box of time travel, training, equiptment, etc. but at the end of the day you can watch the games and see that they are objectively worse at everything anything beyond that is just semantics...okay I guess I did end up getting into that point I said I wasn't going to. *ducks thread*

The point of these comparisons is always relative.

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

So by that standard would you say the 1989 Flames were a one year wonder? What did THEY do after that Cup?

yep

the cup winners can't literally play against each other, rosters change year to year

the only way to properly rank all time teams is based on what they did before and after their cup

how can you be an all time team when you weren't good enough to even get back to the finals?

calling the ducks or flames an all time team is the same as calling any musician that had one big hit an all time musician

 

[Zanon]

Funny to think that if the Canucks won the Cup in 2011, they'd undoubtably be on that list as well. The stats and awards don't lie. They were a total jugguranaut.

 

[MadDevil]

The Rangers from 94 don't belong there.

And it lacks a Devils team if they were going by modern history.

Back-to-back Cup Final appearances. The 2001 team was actually probably better than the one that won the Cup the year before. They just completely **** the bed against Colorado after going up 3-2.

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

2000 devils definitely should've made the list

 

[JaegerDice]

Funny to think that if the Canucks won the Cup in 2011, they'd undoubtably be on that list as well. The stats and awards don't lie. They were a total jugguranaut.

They'd be behind several cup winning teams in the cap-era statistically, and more than a few cap era teams that DIDN'T win the cup.

If the 2008 Red Wings didn't make it, the 2011 Canucks do not have a prayer.

 

[Zanon]

They'd be behind several cup winning teams in the cap-era statistically, and more than a few cap era teams that DIDN'T win the cup.

If the 2008 Red Wings didn't make it, the 2011 Canucks do not have a prayer.

Several, eh? Statistically too, you say? Alright, let's see about that. I'll compare the 2008 Red Wings and 2011 Canucks for fun.

The 2010-2011 Canucks finished with 117 points (54-19-9 with 50 regulation wins). The 2007-2008 Red Wings finished with 115 points (54-21-7 with 49 regulation wins). Let's dig deeper.

The Canucks were first in goals for (258) and gave up the fewest amount of goals (180). Differential of +78. The Red Wings scored the third most (252) and gave up the fewest (179). Differential of +73.

The Canucks' power play was the best in the league (24.3%) and their penalty kill was second best (85.6%). The Red Wings' power play was third best in the league (20.7%) and their penalty kill was 8th best (84.0%).

The Canucks scored 3.15 goals per game and gave up 2.20 goals per game. The Red Wings scored 3.07 goals per game and gave up 2.18 goals per game.

The Canucks were first in faceoff win percentage (54.9%). The Red Wings were first in faceoff win percentage (53.3%)

The Canucks had Daniel Sedin who scored 104 points and won the Art Ross and Ted Lindsay. Henrik Sedin who scored 94 points and was just a season removed from winning the Hart and Art Ross. Ryan Kesler who scored 41 goals and had 73 points playing as the second line centre. Kesler also won the Selke. Roberto Luongo and Cory Schneider won the Jennings for posting the best regular-season numbers as a netminding tandem. Roberto Luongo was also a Vezina finalist.

Pavel Datsyuk had 97 points and won the Selke. Henrik Zetterberg had 92 points and was a Selke finalist. Nicklas Lidstrom won the Norris.

Both President Trophy teams made it to the Stanley Cup Finals. Canucks lost in Game 7 and the Red Wings won in 6 games.

To say the Canucks wouldn't have "a prayer" against the 2007-2008 Red Wings is laughable. The Canucks were, at worst, just as good as them. Personally, I'd say the Canucks were a slightly better team, however. Just came up a bit short in the Finals due to injuries, primarily. But the Red Wings know all about that in 2009.

The 2010-2011 Canucks were the best post-lockout team with either the 2008 or 2006 Red Wings as the runner up. A Cup would have cemented their legacy as one of the greatest of all-time.

Oh, and the 2008 Red Wings deserve to be on that list more the the 2010 Hawks.

 

[Terry Yake]

the 2016 pens?

seriously?

 

[JaegerDice]

Several, eh? Statistically too, you say? Alright, let's see about that. I'll compare the 2008 Red Wings and 2011 Canucks for fun.

The 2010-2011 Canucks finished with 117 points (54-19-9 with 50 regulation wins). The 2007-2008 Red Wings finished with 115 points (54-21-7 with 49 regulation wins). Let's dig deeper.

The Canucks were first in goals for (258) and gave up the fewest amount of goals (180). Differential of +78. The Red Wings scored the third most (252) and gave up the fewest (179). Differential of +73.

The Canucks' power play was the best in the league (24.3%) and their penalty kill was second best (85.6%). The Red Wings' power play was third best in the league (20.7%) and their penalty kill was 8th best (84.0%).

The Canucks scored 3.15 goals per game and gave up 2.20 goals per game. The Red Wings scored 3.07 goals per game and gave up 2.18 goals per game.

The Canucks were first in faceoff win percentage (54.9%). The Red Wings were first in faceoff win percentage (53.3%)

The Canucks had Daniel Sedin who scored 104 points and won the Art Ross and Ted Lindsay. Henrik Sedin who scored 94 points and was just a season removed from winning the Hart and Art Ross. Ryan Kesler who scored 41 goals and had 73 points playing as the second line centre. Kesler also won the Selke. Roberto Luongo and Cory Schneider won the Jennings for posting the best regular-season numbers as a netminding tandem. Roberto Luongo was also a Vezina finalist.

Pavel Datsyuk had 97 points and won the Selke. Henrik Zetterberg had 92 points and was a Selke finalist. Nicklas Lidstrom won the Norris.

Both President Trophy teams made it to the Stanley Cup Finals. Canucks lost in Game 7 and the Red Wings won in 6 games.

To say the Canucks wouldn't have "a prayer" against the 2007-2008 Red Wings is laughable. The Canucks were, at worst, just as good as them. Personally, I'd say the Canucks were a slightly better team, however. Just came up a bit short in the Finals due to injuries, primarily. But the Red Wings know all about that in 2009.

The 2010-2011 Canucks were the best post-lockout team with either the 2008 or 2006 Red Wings as the runner up. A Cup would have cemented their legacy as one of the greatest of all-time.

Oh, and the 2008 Red Wings deserve to be on that list more the the 2010 Hawks.

I've already been over this:

Looking back all teams in every season from 2008 (because that's when NHL started putting out the necessary data to calculate underlying numbers) to now, there isn't a single stat or performance metric that the 2011 Canucks are at the top of the list for.

They are 64th in Score-Adjusted CF% (5v5 Possession).
They are 88th in Score-Adjusted SF% (5v5 Shot differential).
The are 177th in SCF% (5v5 Scoring Chance differential).

They are 162nd in xGF% (Expected 5v5 goal differential. This is a fairly new stat. You can ignore it if you like, but it's proven pretty damn good as far as quantifying quality of play)

They are 38th in 5v5 GF/Game.
They are 34th in 5v5 GA/Game.
They are 17th in 5v5 GF% (5v5 goal differential)

They are 21st in OA GF/Game (Goals for per game, including special-teams)
They are 9th in OA GA/Game (Goals against per game, including special-teams)
They are 4th in OA GF% (Goal differential including special teams)

All numbers/rankings are for the regular season and taken from Corsica.hockey, cause I don't want to include shootout goals. NHLs numbers will be different, rankings will be close to the same with a few deviations, though not including shootouts actually helps VAN2011 a bit.

All rankings out of 300 teams.

I also go through all the stats that several cup winning teams were substantially better than the 2011 Canucks in. The Red Wings outclassed the 2011 Canucks in no fewer than EIGHT categories.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=132581357&postcount=123




....and oh dear sweet god you brought up face-off percentage as if it's a meaningful measure of team performance.



The 2008 Red Wings would toy with the 2011 Canucks like a pod of Orcas toying with a baby seal.



Though I agree the 2008 Red Wings do deserve to be on there before the 2010 Blackhawks. It's just that the 2013 Blackhawks should be on there as well as the 2008 Red Wings.