Rank the last 20 Stanley Cup Champions

[Master_Of_Districts]

Has to be a HOMER pick.

I'm a Habs fan.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Do you also have their +/- just over the course of the playoffs?

Not broken down by situation. But I do have overall goal differential. Playoffs are a bit different since teams play different numbers of games and some teams play more easy or tough opponents. Also, in low-scoring periods it is tougher to put up a high goal differential. But here are how the teams rank in terms of goal differential per game in the playoffs

1. 1995 Devils: +33 in 20 GP (+1.65)
2. 1990 Oilers: +34 in 22 GP (+1.55)
3. 2008 Red Wings: +32 in 22 GP (+1.45)
4. 1994 Rangers: +31 in 23 GP (+1.35)
5. 1996 Avalanche: +29 in 22 GP (+1.32)
6. 1989 Flames: +28 in 22 GP (+1.27)
7. 1998 Red Wings: +27 in 22 GP (+1.23)
8. 2001 Avalanche: +28 in 23 GP (+1.22)
9. 1991 Penguins: +29 in 24 GP (+1.21)
10. 2002 Red Wings: +26 in 23 GP (+1.13)
11. 1997 Red Wings: +20 in 20 GP (+1.00)
12. 1992 Penguins: +21 in 21 GP (+1.00)
13. 2000 Devils: +22 in 23 GP (+0.96)
14. 2003 Devils: +22 in 24 GP (+0.92)
15. 1999 Stars: +21 in 23 GP (+0.91)
16. 1993 Canadiens: +18 in 20 GP (+0.90)
17. 2004 Lightning: +18 in 23 GP (+0.78)
18. 2009 Penguins: +16 in 24 GP (+0.67)
19. 2007 Ducks: +13 in 21 GP (+0.62)
20. 2006 Hurricanes: +13 in 25 GP (+0.52)

Teams like the '90 Oilers and '95 Devils were very dominant in the playoffs, although they weren't as great during the regular season. Teams like the '08 Wings, the '96 Avalanche, and the '89 Flames stomped the competition in both the regular season and the playoffs, which suggests to me that they were probably the best teams overall.

 

[MXD]

I think a pretty good sign of dominance is how much a team outscores the opposition at even strength. It seems like many fans tend to remember great power plays because of their star power (e.g. '91 and '92 Penguins, '94 Rangers), but teams usually win or lose at 5 on 5 and that takes a full team effort at both ends of the ice.

Even Strength Goal Differential:

1. 1989 Flames: +103
2. 1996 Avalanche: +72
3. 2001 Avalanche: +57
4. 2008 Red Wings: +51
5. 1993 Canadiens: +49
6. 2003 Devils: +43
7. 2002 Red Wings: +37
8. 1995 Devils: +36*
9. 1998 Red Wings: +35
10. 1999 Stars: +35
11. 1997 Red Wings: +34
12. 2000 Devils: +32
13. 2009 Penguins: +29
13. 2004 Lightning: +29
15. 1994 Rangers: +24
16. 2007 Ducks: +22
17. 1991 Penguins: +21
18. 1992 Penguins: +18
19. 2006 Hurricanes: +16
20. 1990 Oilers: +14

(*-Pro-rated to 82 game schedule)

My own rankings would be fairly similar, I'd make some tweaks like move the '91 and '92 Penguins teams up a fair bit, but I'd say that's not too far off.

The '93 Habs and the '03 Devils were two underrated teams that had strong two-way forwards and were great at 5 on 5.

....Those gaps HAVE to be adjusted.

 

[RedLeader]

I think a pretty good sign of dominance is how much a team outscores the opposition at even strength. It seems like many fans tend to remember great power plays because of their star power (e.g. '91 and '92 Penguins, '94 Rangers), but teams usually win or lose at 5 on 5 and that takes a full team effort at both ends of the ice.

Even Strength Goal Differential:

1. 1989 Flames: +103
2. 1996 Avalanche: +72
3. 2001 Avalanche: +57
4. 2008 Red Wings: +51
5. 1993 Canadiens: +49
6. 2003 Devils: +43
7. 2002 Red Wings: +37
8. 1995 Devils: +36*
9. 1998 Red Wings: +35
10. 1999 Stars: +35
11. 1997 Red Wings: +34
12. 2000 Devils: +32
13. 2009 Penguins: +29
13. 2004 Lightning: +29
15. 1994 Rangers: +24
16. 2007 Ducks: +22
17. 1991 Penguins: +21
18. 1992 Penguins: +18
19. 2006 Hurricanes: +16
20. 1990 Oilers: +14

(*-Pro-rated to 82 game schedule)

My own rankings would be fairly similar, I'd make some tweaks like move the '91 and '92 Penguins teams up a fair bit, but I'd say that's not too far off.

The '93 Habs and the '03 Devils were two underrated teams that had strong two-way forwards and were great at 5 on 5.

First using only even strength to determine a teams worth makes no sense. Why discard Power plays? It's an important part of the game, it can be a teams strength or weakness just as much as even strength. An PP goal is just the same as a ES goal.

Second of all, another BIG flaw is that is that the statistical outliers for a 1989 season is greater than in a lowscoring season. It doesn't get offset by goals against since whenever the sample size is larger the outliers get larger. The only time it wouldnt be affected by the higher scoring would be if the team had exactly 0 in +/-.

 

[member 51464]

....Those gaps HAVE to be adjusted.

It is crazy that the largest difference is between the 89 Flames and the 90 Oilers.

 

[Lounge Act*]

But for one year Calgary really put it together.

This is the key, I think. Why the '80s Flames are never mentioned in the same breath as the '80s Oilers no matter how much Calgary fans want them to be. The "victory" vs. the Canucks was controversial as well since it looked like Joel Otto kicked in the puck. They were a great team that benefitted the most from the Oilers selling Gretzky.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

First using only even strength to determine a teams worth makes no sense. Why discard Power plays? It's an important part of the game, it can be a teams strength or weakness just as much as even strength. An PP goal is just the same as a ES goal.

Second of all, another BIG flaw is that is that the statistical outliers for a 1989 season is greater than in a lowscoring season. It doesn't necessarily gets offset by goals against since whenever the sample size is larger the outliers get larger.

It's a common HFboards thing that players who produced huge on
the PP werent that good. A guy with 30 ES goals and 5 PP goals is a hero, while a guy with 10 ES goals and 40 PP goals would be considered a "fraud". Not saying Center Shift is one of those clowns but its a prevalent theme in many dicussions.

I think a breakdown of ranking on ES, PP, and PK is a good thing to look at. If a team dominated in terms of ordinal ranking, like best PP, best at ES, second best at PK I think that gives a good indication they were much better than the competition

 

[RedLeader]

It's a common HFboards thing that players who produced huge on
the PP werent that good. A guy with 30 ES goals and 5 PP goals is a hero, while a guy with 10 ES goals and 40 PP goals would be considered a "fraud". Not saying Center Shift is one of those clowns but its a prevalent theme in many dicussions.

How you view individual players doesn't matter when you evaluate a team overall performance.

Wether a goal was scored on the powerplay or even strength has 0 statistical meaing when gauging a teams overall dominance/performance. Which I thought this thread was about.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

How you view individual players doesn't matter when you evaluate a team overall performance.

Wether a goal was scored on the powerplay or even strength has 0 statistical meaing when gauging a teams overall dominance/performance. Which I thought this thread was about.

A goal is a goal is a goal. It doesnt matter for individual players or teams. When you score your team is one more ahead, or one more closer. But the perception on the HFboard is that PP goals arent as valuable as ES goals. You may not agree with it, I dont agree with it, but thats what people think.

 

[RedLeader]

To illustrate why using fixed numbers in with a changing scoring eras and how much difference it does.

Let's say that in a year the scoring 8g/game and in a low year its only 4g/year.
We have two good teams , team A and Team B. They both win 54 games and loses 28 games. Roughly 66%.
Lets say each win a 6-2 win for the high scoring year, and for the low year this becomes equal to a 3-1 win.
The net gain would be 4 for the high scoring year and 2 for the lower year. And let say all their losses is the opposite, hence a -4 and a -2. The total netgain would be 104 for the high scoring era team and 52 for the low scoring era. On the other side of the spectrum the worst teams in a high scoring era would ofc also have the worst differential.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

First using only even strength to determine a teams worth makes no sense. Why discard Power plays? It's an important part of the game, it can be a teams strength or weakness just as much as even strength. An PP goal is just the same as a ES goal.

You're right that a goal is a goal and a goal prevented is a goal prevented, regardless of situation.

I posted the even strength numbers for two reasons. One, it seems to me that the teams with the big scorers were getting overrated. Teams that outscore 5 on 5 and play a low penalty game (e.g. '86 and '93 Canadiens, any '90s or '00s New Jersey Devils team) often get underrated by a simple "count the number of big-scoring forwards on the team" approach. That doesn't mean that those teams are better than a team with a terrific power play like, say, the '94 Rangers, because they aren't, but at the same time they are also still much better than average and shouldn't be at the bottom of this list.

Two, I think there are reasons to prefer to have a great even strength team, especially in the playoffs. When you are in OT and the refs put the whistles away, your great power play doesn't particularly help you. It's not surprising that a team that famously won 10 OT games in one postseason ends up rated highly by even strength goal differential.

Second of all, another BIG flaw is that is that the statistical outliers for a 1989 season is greater than in a lowscoring season. It doesn't get offset by goals against since whenever the sample size is larger the outliers get larger. The only time it wouldnt be affected by the higher scoring would be if the team had exactly 0 in +/-.

Absolutely. League scoring levels should be taken into account when interpreting these kinds of numbers. I should have made that more clear.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think a pretty good sign of dominance is how much a team outscores the opposition at even strength. It seems like many fans tend to remember great power plays because of their star power (e.g. '91 and '92 Penguins, '94 Rangers), but teams usually win or lose at 5 on 5 and that takes a full team effort at both ends of the ice.

Even Strength Goal Differential:

1. 1989 Flames: +103
2. 1996 Avalanche: +72
3. 2001 Avalanche: +57
4. 2008 Red Wings: +51
5. 1993 Canadiens: +49
6. 2003 Devils: +43
7. 2002 Red Wings: +37
8. 1995 Devils: +36*
9. 1998 Red Wings: +35
10. 1999 Stars: +35
11. 1997 Red Wings: +34
12. 2000 Devils: +32
13. 2009 Penguins: +29
13. 2004 Lightning: +29
15. 1994 Rangers: +24
16. 2007 Ducks: +22
17. 1991 Penguins: +21
18. 1992 Penguins: +18
19. 2006 Hurricanes: +16
20. 1990 Oilers: +14

(*-Pro-rated to 82 game schedule)

My own rankings would be fairly similar, I'd make some tweaks like move the '91 and '92 Penguins teams up a fair bit, but I'd say that's not too far off.

The '93 Habs and the '03 Devils were two underrated teams that had strong two-way forwards and were great at 5 on 5.

This is misleading. High scoring teams in high scoring eras will always have a better unadjusted goal differential. I think that explains who you have a team from the run and gun era and the last semi run and gun team to win the Cup as #1 and #2. Edit: Looks like I'm not the only one to notice.

Also as a side point, the 2000 Devils were much better than their differential for the season would show. Their lineup in the playoffs was totally different from their lineup at the start of the season (Alexander Mogilny was the biggest addition).

 

[12YearExtension]

Some would argue that the Pens roster actually got worse....it wasn't like the Pens swept the Wings, the Wings blew a 2-0 series lead, so the question remains....

The Wings had a ton of injuries to many players through two tough series against the Ducks and Hawks(not making excuses) and weren't as good a team as the 08 Wings. You'd know this if you actually watched hockey, rather than looked at stats.

The Wings in 08 played like a machine, amazing top 4 defense was the best in a while, Osgood was brilliant, very healthy(although Cleary was injured and Franzen).

How you can say the Penguns roster got worse just boggles my mind, considering Malkin and Crosby both posted amazing years in the post season and their defense was better, plus more experienced.

Is every Pens fan 12 years old... because I'm really starting to think so.

I think the 08 team is underrated, I'd take them in the top 10 for sure.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

This is misleading. High scoring teams in high scoring eras will always have a better unadjusted goal differential. I think that explains who you have a team from the run and gun era and the last semi run and gun team to win the Cup as #1 and #2. Edit: Looks like I'm not the only one to notice.

I'm sure the Flames finish at or near the top in any adjusted scenario as well. Again, their win/loss record and outscoring numbers were pretty much identical to the best of the best Oiler teams. The only teams in the 1980s to finish with more wins and points than the '89 Flames were the '82 Islanders, the '84 Oilers and the '86 Oilers.

Calgary finished 2nd in the league in goals for, 2nd in the league in goals against, and heavily outshot the opposition. That's a dominant team, regardless of scoring environment. I think they are very much in the discussion for the best Cup winner of the last 20 years, with the best Detroit and Colorado teams up there as well.

 

[jor]

I'm sure the Flames finish at or near the top in any adjusted scenario as well. Again, their win/loss record and outscoring numbers were pretty much identical to the best of the best Oiler teams. The only teams in the 1980s to finish with more wins and points than the '89 Flames were the '82 Islanders, the '84 Oilers and the '86 Oilers.

Calgary finished 2nd in the league in goals for, 2nd in the league in goals against, and heavily outshot the opposition. That's a dominant team, regardless of scoring environment. I think they are very much in the discussion for the best Cup winner of the last 20 years, with the best Detroit and Colorado teams up there as well.

I have to say that after reading this thread I for one had forgotten how good Calgary 89 was and didn't give them enough credit.

I have the Wings (97) and Av's (01) as the top teams but I'm a Wings fan and admit I'm probably biased and with the Av's rivalry.

Obviously, any of the teams can beat anyone else at a given time and I'll fully admit I honestly don't know how to rank any of the teams as it's just so hard when you try ranking teams more than a few years apart and especially decades apart.

 

[member 51464]

Is every Pens fan 12 years old... because I'm really starting to think so.

No need to sink down to a lower level. I am a Penguin fan, and I started the thread. Definitely not as some way to praise the Pens and talk bad on the Wings. I would imagine most people would rank the Red Wings Cup teams ahead of the Penguin Cup teams from this time period. (especially if you drop the 'weakest' Red Wing team to make it 3-3).

So, let's keep up the good discussion everyone!

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Of the last 20 SC Champions I would put the 1997 DRW against any of them. When you have Joey Kocur scoring goals that's a great team.

 

[JSF1921]

When comparing the 01 Avs and 02 Wings, the 02 Avs almost defeated the 02 Wings and the 02 Avs were no where near as good as the previous year.

Gone from 01 team: Bourque, Klemm, Dingman, Nieminen, Podein and Reid.
Replaced with: Kasparitis, Muir, Keane, Willsie, Vrbata and Larsen.

Losing that experience was huge and its probably a main reason that 02 team collapsed in games 6&7.

Beat me to it. Quite frankly the 2002 Wings weren't nearly as good on the ice as they were on paper. In fact, I even rank the 2008 Wings ahead of them. I don't think they would stand much of a chance against the 2001 Avs, given that the very weakened 2002 Avs team pushed them to the brink and only lost because they played way below par in the final two games.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

It's puzzling to see the 2002 Wings getting ranked near the top by most people, but the 1994 Rangers only coming in middle of the pack or lower. They were very similar teams. Lots of big names, but few of them still in their prime. In fact, the only marquee players on either team that were at the top of their game, were Leetch and Lidstrom, the two Smythe winners incidentally. Both teams finished first overall, nearly blew it in the conference finals, and then beat an unlikely finalist from the other conference for the Cup.

Furthermore, it's odd to see the 1994 Rangers getting ranked well ahead of the 1990 Oilers in almost every instance. That Rangers team was full of older, lesser versions of that Oilers team. A lesser Messier, Anderson, Lowe, Tikkanen, and MacTavish. I suppose the Oilers only having a 90-ish point regular season that year makes them look less attractive, but of course they knew what it took in the playoffs.

I think having a decade to reflect has made us realise how good the 2000 Devils and 2001 Avalanche were. That Devils team has often been mistakenly labelled a boring, trapping, talentless team, even though they were one of the league's best offensively. They came back on a strong Philadelphia team to make the final, and then beat the defending champion Stars for the Cup. Stevens' play in that year's playoffs has not been equalled by a defenseman since.

The next year they made it back to the finals, eventually losing in 7 games to a great Avalanche team. That Colorado club had both star power and depth, and were able to win despite losing Forsberg for the final two rounds. Sakic very nearly (and maybe should have) pulled off the Hart-Conn Smythe double that year.

 

[jor]

It's puzzling to see the 2002 Wings getting ranked near the top by most people, but the 1994 Rangers only coming in middle of the pack or lower. They were very similar teams. Lots of big names, but few of them still in their prime. In fact, the only marquee players on either team that were at the top of their game, were Leetch and Lidstrom, the two Smythe winners incidentally. Both teams finished first overall, nearly blew it in the conference finals, and then beat an unlikely finalist from the other conference for the Cup.

Furthermore, it's odd to see the 1994 Rangers getting ranked well ahead of the 1990 Oilers in almost every instance. That Rangers team was full of older, lesser versions of that Oilers team. A lesser Messier, Anderson, Lowe, Tikkanen, and MacTavish. I suppose the Oilers only having a 90-ish point regular season that year makes them look less attractive, but of course they knew what it took in the playoffs.

I think having a decade to reflect has made us realise how good the 2000 Devils and 2001 Avalanche were. That Devils team has often been mistakenly labelled a boring, trapping, talentless team, even though they were one of the league's best offensively. They came back on a strong Philadelphia team to make the final, and then beat the defending champion Stars for the Cup. Stevens' play in that year's playoffs has not been equalled by a defenseman since.

The next year they made it back to the finals, eventually losing in 7 games to a great Avalanche team. That Colorado club had both star power and depth, and were able to win despite losing Forsberg for the final two rounds. Sakic very nearly (and maybe should have) pulled off the Hart-Conn Smythe double that year.

I'm a Wings fan and I have to agree. If it were a poll of what team has the most players that would eventually make the HHOF in the future I could see it but I don't see how they come close to even the 97 Wings on the ice at the time.

I also agree that the 94 Rangers are being overrated and 00 Devils are underrated. The 01 Av's are my 2nd place team also.

 

[captain9nyr]

Will anybody here disagree that the 94 Rangers cup run was the most dramatic and the most exciting?

 

[12YearExtension]

No need to sink down to a lower level. I am a Penguin fan, and I started the thread. Definitely not as some way to praise the Pens and talk bad on the Wings. I would imagine most people would rank the Red Wings Cup teams ahead of the Penguin Cup teams from this time period. (especially if you drop the 'weakest' Red Wing team to make it 3-3).

So, let's keep up the good discussion everyone!

Sorry, just some fans seem not to be able to look at things without bias. I guess it happens with ever fanbase, sorry to lump you guys in.

Anyway, I like the 2008 team. The 2002 team was a lot of HoFers that were past their prime.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Will anybody here disagree that the 94 Rangers cup run was the most dramatic and the most exciting?

I'll say this again the 1997 DRW! After all of disappointment of early 1990's and 1995 and 1996. The brawl of March 26 1997. That's pretty dramatic and exciting!

 

[Habsfunk]

Will anybody here disagree that the 94 Rangers cup run was the most dramatic and the most exciting?

The Montreal Canadiens went to OT 11 time in 1993 and won the last 10. They didn't play any game sevens, but it was still incredibly tense to watch.

I would put the 89 Flames and 97 Red Wings as the top two. Its a tossup as to which is first.

And I would say the 1989 Canadiens are the best team to lose in the Stanley Cup Finals but that's an entirely new thread.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Furthermore, it's odd to see the 1994 Rangers getting ranked well ahead of the 1990 Oilers in almost every instance. That Rangers team was full of older, lesser versions of that Oilers team. A lesser Messier, Anderson, Lowe, Tikkanen, and MacTavish. I suppose the Oilers only having a 90-ish point regular season that year makes them look less attractive, but of course they knew what it took in the playoffs.

i only had them three spots apart (though buffered by a huge gap in talent between tiers of teams) i would say brian leetch really pushes the '94 team beyond the '90 team's level. the oilers had a solid D, but they had no one like leetch, or zubov for that matter. goalies, i think, are a wash. the oilers had more depth, but i think the rangers had a significant lead in higher end talent, especially on the pp.