Pats-Eagles SB:NHL's dream match-up

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Pepper said:
You want trends? Ok, I'll show you trends.

NONE OF THOSE TEAMS WON THE CUP (TB excluded because of non-typical season)! Pretty damn clear trend.

all of those teams were crap the year after making the SC run.

70% of Stanley Cups won during the last CBA were won by top5 salary teams.

And by your definition, big spenders St.Louis, NYR, Philly and Toronto are < "crap".

For they haven't gotten as far as any of those teams in recent years.

BTW, how convenient to exclude data that runs counter to one's theory! What, TB doesn't count? A non-typical season? Do you actually believe that teams can "fluke" their way to a Stanley Cup? Win it with smoke and mirrors, or "dumb luck"?! Ask any NHL player or coach if that's remotely possible.

***

Kerrly and Racki - No question, Carolina was a one-season wonder, as you suggest. And none of the teams mentioned has repeated its success. It is worth noting, however, that Buffalo was competitive for several years prior to and after its '99 Cup appearance, and I think one should withhold judgement on Anaheim, and certainly Calgary and TB.)

My question about "flukes" wasn't so much directed at each of those teams individually, but the idea that when "a 'surprising' team" makes waves seemingly each spring, after a period of time it's not a fluke incident, it's a common occurence. Put it this way: were it to happen, a decade of different "fluke" playoff teams playing well into each spring would constitute irrefutable evidence of parity, IMO. (And we have a very good start toward that right now.) Just as NJD, Colorado and Detroit appearing regularly in the Finals over the last decade indicates a trend supporting your theory about the advantage of teams with $$$.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->