Ranking the top 10 NHL dynasties of all time

[DCHabitant]

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.

Depends what you're evaluating. If you're evaluating which team/dynasty was most dominant (vis a vis other teams in the league), then it's irrelavant whether they played in the cap era or not. It's true that it may have been easier for a wealthy owner to ice a dominant team pre-cap, and that being abke to do so now is more impressive from a management standpoint. (No way can any team today have 11 hall of famers on it as a 70's Habs team did.) But as far as on ice product goes.... there's no adjustment to be made.

 

[daver]

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.

Fair comment. The # of teams is the significantly bigger dynamic that at least needs to be mentioned.

This is really only relevant if someone is pumping a player over another based on Cup wins. Crosby, Malkin and the Hawks trio all are stellar playoff performers, dynasty or not.

 

[GMR]

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.

The 1997-2002 Red Wings, like Chicago, won 3 Cups in 6 years. Not sure why they put 1994 and 1995 in there as they didn't win Cups. They may as well have put 2003-2006 in there as well until Yzerman retired.

 

[Hobnobs]

The 1997-2002 Red Wings, like Chicago, won 3 Cups in 6 years. Not sure why they put 1994 and 1995 in there as they didn't win Cups. They may as well have put 2003-2006 in there as well until Yzerman retired.

Most likely because Detroit was a dominating team before the first cup as well.

 

[The Panther]

The 1997-2002 Red Wings, like Chicago, won 3 Cups in 6 years. Not sure why they put 1994 and 1995 in there as they didn't win Cups. They may as well have put 2003-2006 in there as well until Yzerman retired.

Fair enough, three in six it is. Still not a Dynasty.

If the argument is that it's harder to win in the Cap era, are we also going to acknowledge that it was easier for Detroit to win than most teams, in the high salary, pre-Cap era? There were about three teams in 2001 that could have signed Robitaille, Hasek, and Hull in one off-season.

 

[GMR]

Fair enough, three in six it is. Still not a Dynasty.

If the argument is that it's harder to win in the Cap era, are we also going to acknowledge that it was easier for Detroit to win than most teams, in the high salary, pre-Cap era? There were about three teams in 2001 that could have signed Robitaille, Hasek, and Hull in one off-season.

They were unfairly stacked in 2002, but in the seasons before that, I don't believe they were that much more talented than Colorado, Dallas, or New Jersey. Especially in goal, those teams had a huge advantage with Brodeur, Belfour, and Roy, while Detroit had Osgood. Detroit likely wins a few more Cups if not for Patrick Roy in 1996 and 1999.

Yes, the rest of the league wasn't as good as those four teams, but big spending didn't help the Rangers win Cups. The Flyers had a big market team but never won the Cup. Detroit wasn't just a contender because they had deep pockets. They drafted well to obtain players like Lidstrom, Fedorov, and Kozlov in the late 80's and early 90's. They traded away a Norris winner in Paul Coffey. They fleeced Toronto by trading for Larry Murphy. Similarly with the Chelios trade.

Dallas, Colorado and New Jersey likewise made good moves to be contenders during that era. It wasn't just one team with big money dominating everyone else. Those teams all took Cups away from each other. How many teams have the Blackhawks faced during their run that were as good as the late 90's / early 00's Red Wings, Stars, Avs, and Devils? None to my knowledge.

 

[Hot Water Bottle]

I think we don't see dynasties like we used to because if you want a dynasty team, then you also need a bunch more teams (and fans) that are comfortable in their role of being losers and getting run over by the dynasty team year after year.

That may have worked in the 70s-80s but not anymore. Quite understandably the weaker teams would rather play trapping defensive systems (even if boring) and also use the salary cap to give themselves a fighting chance (or at least lose with dignity)

 

[tony d]

Thanks for sharing this, not the worst ESPN article on hockey that I've seen.

 

[Halak Ness Monster]

Here's why the Wings 90s/00s were an impressive dynasty:

From 1991-1992 to 2008-2009, the Wings finished top 2 in their Conference in 16 of 18 seasons.

Back when the 50's Red Wings dominated, they had to win 2 playoff series to win a Cup. In other words, top 4 teams made the playoffs.

Imagine if the 90s/00s Wings only had two play 2 rounds of playoffs to win a Cup? They'd have been in 16 Conference Finals and rested going into all of them rather than coming off a brutal 7 game Semifinal like in 1996 with the Blues(for example).

How many more Cups do the Red Wings win if they play in 16 Conference Finals? As it is they only played in 8 Conference Finals during that time.

 

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Cap schmap. Great teams will find ways to separate themselves from the pack. No cap on innovation.

By the way, 06 teams had "cost certainty" too. They knew what they were going to pay their players and if players didn't like it they could leave it. There's your salary cap.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Here's why the Wings 90s/00s were an impressive dynasty:

From 1991-1992 to 2008-2009, the Wings finished top 2 in their Conference in 16 of 18 seasons.

Back when the 50's Red Wings dominated, they had to win 2 playoff series to win a Cup. In other words, top 4 teams made the playoffs.

Imagine if the 90s/00s Wings only had two play 2 rounds of playoffs to win a Cup? They'd have been in 16 Conference Finals and rested going into all of them rather than coming off a brutal 7 game Semifinal like in 1996 with the Blues(for example).

How many more Cups do the Red Wings win if they play in 16 Conference Finals? As it is they only played in 8 Conference Finals during that time.

Interesting thought experiment. Applying the new playoff format to all those seasons, with my best guesstimate as to whether or not they win the Cup:

1992: Hard to say. The four playoff teams are completely different from the four actual semi-finalists. They'd have played Vancouver and then the winner of a NYR/Washington series. I would favour the Rangers in this scenario.

1993: Not likely. I really doubt Pittsburgh loses to Boston in the new Wales playoff. Detroit would play Chicago, who would have home ice advantage. I'd favour the Penguins in the new scenario.

1994: I'd lean towards no. They lost to San Jose, so you'd have to think Toronto (who beat San Jose) has a good chance of upsetting them. Nothing really changes in the East, so Rangers await the winner and would be favoured.

1995: Probably. They play St. Louis (real-life first round loser) in the semi-final, and you'd favour them heavily. Instead of New Jersey in the Final, it's Quebec or Pittsburgh. Detroit would be the clear favorite.

1996: No, they lost to Colorado anyway.

1997: They miss the playoffs, so one real life Cup just disappeared.

1998: Probably. They play Dallas, just like in real life. Instead of Washington, it would be New Jersey or Pittsburgh in the Final. Devils would probably have been a tougher test than the Capitals, but this wasn't an overly strong NJ team.

1999: Miss playoffs.

2000: It's possible. They would play St. Louis, who did get upset by the Sharks. The East wouldn't change from real life, so a very good Devils team awaits in the Final.

2001: Doubtful. They'd need to go through Colorado then New Jersey (if we assume the Devils beat the Ottawa team that Toronto swept in real life), so they'd be underdogs.

2002: Very likely: They play Toronto or Boston in the Final instead of Carolina, but should have rolled over either of them.

2003: Maybe. They'd play Dallas and presumably New Jersey, but these were slightly weaker Stars and Devils teams than a few years previous.

2004: Maybe. They would have played the Sharks, then probably Tampa Bay. The Red Wings were starting to look old by now, I'm not sure they survive two younger, fresher teams.

2006: Who knows. They'd play the Dallas team that also choked in the first round in real life, and then a Carolina/Ottawa winner. I'd favour Carolina since they pulled it out in real life.

2007: Hard to say. Semi-final sees them play a Nashville team that fizzled out pretty fast in the first round in real life. Buffalo/New Jersey would be the East Final. I'd say they end up in a very close Final against the Sabres.

2008: Probably. They'd play the same Sharks team that they beat the year before (in real life), and they'd play Pittsburgh in this fantasy final as well (assuming the Pens beat Montreal).

2009: Maybe. It would be a rematch with San Jose, but Pittsburgh misses the playoffs in the other conference. Washington or Boston would have been the East representative.

Conclusion. They should still win 1998, 2002, and 2008. They don't win in 1997, but they probably win one before that (1995 looks like the most likely candidate). 2003-2007 is the most advantageous stretch of this fantasy scenario. They probably win a Cup in that span, maybe a couple. Assume 2008 and 2009 combined still yield a Cup, like they did in real life. If I had to choose a number, I'd say they win 6 Cups. So more than in real life, but still less than Montreal won during some of their best 17-year stretches.

 

[Big Phil]

First off, about the Patriots I think there has to be a couple things mentioned. The Patriots of the Brady/Belichick era are not one BIG dynasty in my mind. It has been too long with too many changes to the team. The only constants are Brady, Belichick and Robert Kraft for those 6 championships. I think if anything it is more something to sit back and marvel at how long Brady and Belichick have been great, with different teams. I think the first three Super Bowls with the Pats were a dynasty and the current one over the last 5 years is too. In between they were still the "Patriots" but they only made two Super Bowls. Not that they weren't a contender year after year because they were but they didn't win. Lots of stuff happened in between. The two Super Bowl losses, the 17-0 season, year after year of being in the AFC championship, etc. But this is why I think they are two separate dynasties instead of just one. The teams in each decade are different. This most recent version is a team you'll remember such as:

Brady, Gronk, Edelman, etc. which is different than the mid 2000s.

So I think this is more a product of just how great Brady and Belichick have been for so long.

The the NFL has their own dynasties:
Packers (Lombardi, Starr, Hornung, etc.)
Dolphins (Shula, Csonka, Morris, Griese)
Steelers (Bradshaw, Noll, Greene, Swann, Stallworth, Harris)
49ers (Montana, Walsh, Rice, Lott)
Cowboys (Aikman, Smith, Irvin)

But the Patriots are broken up in two as far as I am concerned.

Okay, end rant.

 

[Big Phil]

Okay now for the NHL dynasties. I am glad that ESPN still has the Habs of the 1970s as #1. Just too dominant of a team to ignore.

I don't know how to rank the Hawks and Wings. Two very, very good teams for a good chunk of time. Will be remembered for a long time and have players whose careers got cemented with those runs. But man, the Hawks didn't even win two in a row. You've got to have that for a starting point as far as I am concerned. The Wings have it at least.

However, this is what I've got:
1 - 1970s Habs
2 - 1980s Oilers
3 - 1980s Isles
4 - 1950s Habs
5 - 1950s Wings

It gets muddy after that I think but that's a solid top 5. I don't mind the Isles at #2 either. It really is a coin flip with the Oilers. That 19 playoff series record will never be broken, no one has done more than 9 since. Those 1950s Red Wings are in there because they won 4 in 6 years and they led the league in points every year too.

 

[Halak Ness Monster]

1996: No, they lost to Colorado anyway.

This is why it is impossible to say.

If you start the playoffs with the Conference Finals, Detroit goes into that series against a great Colorado team much more fresh than after playing 2 playoff series.

That 1996 Wings team outlasted my Blues in a hard fought 7 game Semifinal series that went to 2 OT in Game 7. That great DET team was worn down by a Blues team led by Gretzky, Hull, Pronger, and MacInnis.

Colorado won the first two games of the Conf Final in Detroit after having 3 extra days of rest. That is something that might not have happened after game 82 of the regular season.

It's truly impossible to say how things would have changed other than Detroit would have been in 8 more Conference Finals during that amazing 18 year stretch!

If I had to choose a number, I'd say they win 6 Cups. So more than in real life, but still less than Montreal won during some of their best 17-year stretches.

This can go both ways, too. How many Cups does Montreal(or any team) lose from their trophy case if they had to play 4 rounds against quality to great opponents? It's also impossible to say since the league didn't offer enough teams but as we see with Detroit, it took away 2 Cups just based off your subjective run-through.

Edit: great run-through, though. I enjoyed reading it!

 

[Big Phil]

This can go both ways, too. How many Cups does Montreal(or any team) lose from their trophy case if they had to play 4 rounds against quality to great opponents? It's also impossible to say since the league didn't offer enough teams but as we see with Detroit, it took away 2 Cups just based off your subjective run-through.

Edit: great run-through, though. I enjoyed reading it!

I think it is very minimal if not non-existent to start with. The Habs in the 1970s always got that bye in the 1st round and avoided the best two out of three series. Other than that, they played three best of 7 playoff rounds just like everyone else. In 1976, 1977 and 1978 they beat the next best team in the NHL for the Cup. In 1979 they didn't meet the Islanders, but still beat 100 point Boston again. In the 1950s the Habs won 5 Cups in a row and never had to play a 7th game. The closest they came to being eliminated was in the 1958 Cup final when they were tied with Boston 2-2. They never trailed in a series in their entire 5 year run and the only time Montreal did in the 1970s was after Game 1 of the 1979 final.

I don't think anything matters like that.

In comparison, the first team to play 4 playoff rounds that was a dynasty were the Islanders. First round was best of 5, but still. They were down 1-0 in the quarters to the Rangers in 1983 and that's it during their Cup run. Ironically in 1984 they were trailing in every series they played in at one point, which makes sense since they ended up losing and it shows they were slowing down. So all of the other dynasties fare the same in 4 rounds.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

This is a list that most around these parts would agree with no doubt.

One things really stands out of the 9 teams here though.

5 of them are 06 teams and the 20's Ottawa team had even less competition.

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.

The above is why your point maters.

It would one thing if everyone talked about the 6 small league size dynasties (out of 9 in total) were talked about in context as great teams but instead their "dynasty" status is directly compered in how great those teams players are in reference to larger league size players who don't have the same "dynasty credentials".

People are often too literal on the term dynasties versus say great team runs like Detroit having a 25 year run well into the Salary Cap era.

 

[The Panther]

People are often too literal on the term dynasties versus say great team runs like Detroit having a 25 year run well into the Salary Cap era.

The "literalness" you speak of is exactly my point, though. There is a difference between great/greatest team and "dynasty".

If one wants to argue that Chicago of five to eight years ago is the greatest team of all time, then fine, go for it. But they weren't a "dynasty".

Dynasty, according to the NHL's own official standard, means you won at least three in four years or four in six years (or, obviously, better). Less than that, no dynasty.

 

[wetcoast]

The "literalness" you speak of is exactly my point, though. There is a difference between great/greatest team and "dynasty".

If one wants to argue that Chicago of five to eight years ago is the greatest team of all time, then fine, go for it. But they weren't a "dynasty".

Dynasty, according to the NHL's own official standard, means you won at least three in four years or four in six years (or, obviously, better). Less than that, no dynasty.

That's the crux of the problem for me though as people often equate great teams and dynasty being one and the same thing and then excluding great teams because they aren't a dynasty in the greatest teams discussions.

Dynasties BTW should be consecutive as the term originally applied to consecutive rulers from the same family, house or clan.

It a bit like Mike Gartner scoring over 30 goals for 15 consecutive seasons, it means less when you actually put it into context.

Before people over react it's the hyperbole example, if people want they can insert Dave Andreychuk recent induction into the HHOF base on counting stats instead.

 

[JaegerDice]

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.

Pre-70s hockey had fewer teams than most beer leagues. They're worthy of about as much respect as the great CFL dynasties.

 

[VanIslander]

Patriots
Oilers
Islanders

Don't be silly.

Pats won 3 in 4 years
then ...
zero of the next 9 (two losses and seven non-apprarances)
then ...
3 of the last 5.

And Brady is the only player to be in all of them.

COMPARED TO THE GREATEST FRANCHISE IN SPORTS:

Henri Richard was an 11-time Stanley Cup champion:

5 in 5 years
Then 4 years not
Then 5 in 6 years

That's 10 in 15 years, encompassing the 1950s and 1960s dynasties, all with Henri Richard (he'd win one more in the 1970s).

 

[wetcoast]

Don't be silly.

Pats won 3 in 4 years
then ...
zero of the next 9 (two losses and seven non-apprarances)
then ...
3 of the last 5.

And Brady is the only player to be in all of them.

COMPARED TO THE GREATEST FRANCHISE IN SPORTS:

Henri Richard was an 11-time Stanley Cup champion:

5 in 5 years
Then 4 years not
Then 5 in 6 years

That's 10 in 15 years, encompassing the 1950s and 1960s dynasties, all with Henri Richard (he'd win one more in the 1970s).

I'm not the biggest Brady fan but there are many who would argue that his team has the larger accomplishment, although I'm not quite sure where I would fall on that one football in the 2000's compared to hockey in the 06 era has a ton of moving parts.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Pre-70s hockey had fewer teams than most beer leagues. They're worthy of about as much respect as the great CFL dynasties.

The CFL is actually a great example of the fallacy that is believing league size has a directly proportional impact on the ability of a dynasty to emerge. The CFL has usually had only 8 or 9 teams for most of the 36 years that has passed since the Edmonton Eskimos dynasty won their final Grey Cup in 1982. Surely a league this small should be producing them regularly if number of teams is such a strong factor.

Meanwhile the NBA, 30 teams strong complete with team salary restrictions, has a dynasty playing out as we speak. And it is the third dynasty to emerge inside the last 30 years.

The NHL more than tripled in size by 1980 compared to the Original Six, yet only three different teams won Cups from 1976-1988.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Don't be silly.

Pats won 3 in 4 years
then ...
zero of the next 9 (two losses and seven non-apprarances)
then ...
3 of the last 5.

And Brady is the only player to be in all of them.

COMPARED TO THE GREATEST FRANCHISE IN SPORTS:

Henri Richard was an 11-time Stanley Cup champion:

5 in 5 years
Then 4 years not
Then 5 in 6 years

That's 10 in 15 years, encompassing the 1950s and 1960s dynasties, all with Henri Richard (he'd win one more in the 1970s).

bill russell won eleven in thirteen, the last two as player/coach.

 

[Hobnobs]

Fair enough, three in six it is. Still not a Dynasty.

If the argument is that it's harder to win in the Cap era, are we also going to acknowledge that it was easier for Detroit to win than most teams, in the high salary, pre-Cap era? There were about three teams in 2001 that could have signed Robitaille, Hasek, and Hull in one off-season.

Both Hull and Robitaille signed for less than they were offered elsewhere.... Hasek was traded to Detroit...

 

[daver]

Perhaps a good way to go about this in a completely subjective manner would be to first rank the best 100 teams based on one season.

For example, the 76/77 Habs could take the #1 spot and be awarded 100 points. The 2nd best team would be awarded 99 points, the 3rd best team would be awarded 98 points and so on.

The 2nd step would be to determine which team had the best two year stretch by adding the best two consecutive years together. E.g. the 76/77 Habs (99 points) plus the 77/78 Habs (89 points).

The next step is to determine which team had the best three year stretch by adding the best consecutive three years. E.g. add the 78/79 Habs to 76/77-77/78.

This could be simplified by maybe taking the consensus best five or six "dynasties".