Ranking the top 10 NHL dynasties of all time

JaegerDice

The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
Dec 26, 2014
25,021
9,228
I've seen worse.

I'd probably nudge the Blackhawks ahead of the Red Wings, since they saw the same success under a cap whereas the Red Wings could basically just throw money at anybody they pleased, but those Red Wings teams certainly have the advantage in terms of raw talent.
 

Super Hans

Stats Evangelist
Oct 9, 2016
4,573
11,506
I understand the quality of those Red Wings teams and the teams they beat to get there, but I wouldn't put their 3 wins in 8 years over the Blackhawks 3 wins in 6 years, which was done in the cap era.

Edit: Though it is nice to see ESPN start to take hockey a little more seriously lately (even added the NHL tab back onto their homepage), it's equally sad to see their article about hockey butts not fitting in jeans as their top feature piece for the past month.
 

Cubs2024WSChamps

Tate MacRae follows me on Tiktok
Apr 29, 2015
7,885
2,459
Would put the Hawks dynasty second after only the Habs.

Winning 3 in 6 in the cap era is so much more impressive before there was a league wide neutering for being good.

Such a pleasure to watch. A legit dynasty outside of the Habs empire of the 70s.
 

Bladerunner

Registered User
Aug 12, 2009
3,223
1,465
N VA
I quickly skimmed the article, it's good. See it was by team and era. Habs appeared 3 times, Leafs & Wings 2X.

Before looking at the article, if you don't adjust for eras (total number of teams, playoff rounds, etc.) the short answer is:
Habs.......... HM Wings, Leafs :cool:

I doubt Wyshynski performed even a semi rigorous statistical adjustment for eras. More of an "eyeball" partially subjective rankings. Somebody that knew what they were doing could spend many 10s of hours on a serious study adjusting for eras. Much easier to win a SC in the O6 era than in recent to present history.

In the 2000s Greg picked the Hawks over Pitt and gave logical reasons. I despise the recent edition of one of those franchises - take a wild guess which one :snide: However taking into account eras, Chicago's and Pitt's SC runs most likely were superior to some of those Habs, Leafs, O6 Wings dynasties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast

Ishad

Registered User
Jun 2, 2010
2,597
1,871
Hawks never win a cup if there isn’t a cap, so I never understand why it is brought up as a barrier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: overg

ColbyChaos

Marty Snoozeman's Father
Sep 27, 2017
6,140
6,374
Will County
Hawks never win a cup if there isn’t a cap, so I never understand why it is brought up as a barrier.

Only if Bill Wirtz somehow found a way to become immortal. Rocky was going to spend and want a winner regardless cap or no cap.
 

DCHabitant

Registered User
Feb 24, 2013
870
165
The fact that it's more difficult to assemble an overwhelmingly dominant team during the cap era doesn't mean that these cap-era teams should be evaluated more highly. If you're ranking management, then perhaps. But if you're ranking dynasties, then era is irrelevant. The 2010's Hawks are NOT superior 76 Habs, no matter how you slice it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: overg

doublechili

For all intensive purposes, your nuts
Apr 11, 2006
18,437
14,719
I'm an Isles fan who saw their dynasty and appreciate them getting #2, but I can't argue with the Habs 70s teams getting #1. Those teams were incredibly dominant. Great up top and their top 4 on D was insanely good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DCHabitant

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
The article is disrespectful to pre-70s hockey.

My ranking of actual dynasties:

1.Montreal Canadiens 1950s
2.Montreal Canadiens 1970s
3.New York Islanders 1980s
4.Edmonton Oilers 1980s
5.Ottawa Senators 1920s
6.Detroit Red Wings 1950s
7.Montreal Canadiens 1960s
8.Toronto Maple Leafs 1940s
9.Toronto Maple Leafs 1960s

Some could be flipped.Only the Top 2 and Bottom 2 I'm more sure of.
 
Last edited:

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,590
15,951
Article included 2 teams that the HHOF has not named dynasties

it's greg wyshynski. in 2011, i think right before the finals, he was on bill simmons' podcast and simmons said something like, remind me which sedin is the passer and which one is the shooter. and he says, they take turns.

mind you, this is after they had just won back to back art rosses and won the presidents trophy en route to the stanley cup finals. if a guy who writes about hockey for a living can't stay up to watch the reigning MVP because pacific standard time, you think he gives a crap about frank nighbor and cy denneny?

i bet he gets fired for not putting the '09, '16, and '17 crosbies on the list.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,114
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
It's bad enough we have people using "adjusted stats" as if they were real, and now we're going to start adjusting dynasties?

Sorry, 3 in 6 isn't a dynasty and it never will be. And 3 in 8 should be nowhere near this list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DCHabitant

Hobnobs

Pinko
Nov 29, 2011
8,864
2,236
It's bad enough we have people using "adjusted stats" as if they were real, and now we're going to start adjusting dynasties?

Sorry, 3 in 6 isn't a dynasty and it never will be. And 3 in 8 should be nowhere near this list.

Why not? Can you clarify?
 
Last edited:

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
It's bad enough we have people using "adjusted stats" as if they were real, and now we're going to start adjusting dynasties?

Sorry, 3 in 6 isn't a dynasty and it never will be. And 3 in 8 should be nowhere near this list.

This is apples and oranges.

Accepting that, statistically speaking, winning in a six team league, where one could argue talent was not, for lack of a better term, democratically distributed, or any other league of a smaller size than the current one where talent, again, was arguably not democratically distributed due to lack of a cap, is not unreasonable.

Dismissing the Hawks in perpetuity is also not reasonable. What if 30 years down the road they still have the best Cup run record of the Cap era? It would be ridiculous to not consider that it is not a coincidence that a bigger league and a Cap had some influence on anyone putting together a good old fashioned dynasty.

They deserve to be mentioned in this discussion in some context other than dismissing them with zero context.
 
Last edited:

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
The cap argument starts to lose relevance when you notice that Chicago, Pittsburgh, LA, and Boston from 2009-2017 is practically identical to Detroit, New Jersey, Colorado, Dallas from 1995-2003, when there was no cap.

I'm actually surprised Wyshinski didn't have the non-dynasties of Chicago and Detroit of the 90s even higher. He was the same guy that felt the NHL's top 100 list (which included the likes of Mike Gartner, Mats Sundin, and Joe Nieuwendyk) was too anti-modern.
 

overg

Registered User
Dec 15, 2003
1,228
235
Indianapolis, IN
Visit site
This is apples and oranges.

Dismissing the Hawks in perpetuity is also not reasonable. What if 30 years down the road they still have the best Cup run record of the Cap era? It would be ridiculous to not consider that it is not a coincidence that a bigger league and a Cap had some influence on anyone putting together a good old fashioned dynasty.

On the flip side, I'd say the jury is still very much out on whether it's harder to win multiple Cups in a cap era. We've already had three multi-Cup champs in this Cap era, and two teams have won it three times.

It's true that the cap prevents a team from hoarding a bunch of stars, and encourages stacked teams to break up when they can't keep everyone under the cap. From that perspective, it's harder for a great team to stay great.

But on the flip side, it's also harder for teams to build Cup challengers. Teams like Chicago or the Pens no longer have to worry about rich teams like Detroit or Toronto stealing every free agent or free agent to be, and constantly refreshing their rosters with whatever hired gun other teams couldn't afford. So while it might be harder to put a dynasty together, it is also harder to put together a team to challenge a Cup champ. There's a certain level of stability in the arms race to the top now which didn't use to exist, and which gives the Champs some advantages over their competition which are new to the cap era.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyle McMahon

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->