Should Gretzky's Kings Have Won a Stanley Cup?

[Resolute]

Considering how many different battles and conflicts there are in a game, I'd say its fairly assinine to think that there hasn't been any flukes. People go on hot streaks, strings of good luck, sometimes rediculously so. Or say the refs decide the game, like when Hull kicked the puck in versus Buffalo. S**t happens.

Nope, he's right. Underdogs simply do not win the Cup. They get to the finals often, it seems, but they don't win.

The last Cup winner who didn't win their division was the 1999-00 Devils, who were second with 103 points. The 95 Devils are the only team in recent memory that wasn't top four in their conference.

There are no flukes when it comes to winning the Cup.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Considering how many different battles and conflicts there are in a game, I'd say its fairly assinine to think that there hasn't been any flukes. People go on hot streaks, strings of good luck, sometimes rediculously so. Or say the refs decide the game, like when Hull kicked the puck in versus Buffalo. S**t happens.

???????????????????

You ever watch a hockey game before?

 

[Sens Rule]

Considering how many different battles and conflicts there are in a game, I'd say its fairly assinine to think that there hasn't been any flukes. People go on hot streaks, strings of good luck, sometimes rediculously so. Or say the refs decide the game, like when Hull kicked the puck in versus Buffalo. S**t happens.

Yup... several teams have won 15 or 16 playoff games a "fluke".

 

[John Belushi]

???????????????????

You ever watch a hockey game before?

Considering I've been a fan for a long time while playing the game, I take offense to this statement. Are you saying that every single time someone wins the cup they are completely deserving? If you have ever played hockey sir, you would know that many things go go wrong in a game. A team gets a string of bad luck at the wrong time, they lose. Christ, in '06 the Oilers lost their starting goaltender in game 1 of the SCF and still made a series of it. As much as a dislike Edmonton, they deserved the cup two years ago.

I'm baffled by all the disagreement here. Does anyone even play the sport anymore?

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

There have been teams in NHL history that fluked their way to a cup victory, but most of them occurred in the original six era or earlier when only eight victories or fewer were required.

Most of the cup winning teams of the modern era have been deserving, although I can think of several examples of teams who were unambiguously not the best team in their respective season but nevertheless managed to win the cup on account of good fortune (although even these teams were above average relative to the league in general).

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Considering how many different battles and conflicts there are in a game, I'd say its fairly assinine to think that there hasn't been any flukes. People go on hot streaks, strings of good luck, sometimes rediculously so. Or say the refs decide the game, like when Hull kicked the puck in versus Buffalo. S**t happens.

Luck happens, yes, but it always happens. Every team that wins got lucky. Hot streaks happen, every playoff. Winners play out of their depth when it matters most, that's what makes them winners.

And lets be honest, Buffalo may have won game 5 without that call, but they were not winning the cup.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Luck happens, yes, but it always happens. Every team that wins got lucky. Hot streaks happen, every playoff. Winners play out of their depth when it matters most, that's what makes them winners.

And lets be honest, Buffalo may have won game 5 without that call, but they were not winning the cup.

That was actually game 6, and anything could have happened in game 7. I agree too much is made of that call, but put yourself in the shoes of a Buffalo fan. Without that blown call their chances at a stanley cup are essentially 50/50, with the call, absolute 0.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

That was actually game 6, and anything could have happened in game 7. I agree too much is made of that call, but put yourself in the shoes of a Buffalo fan. Without that blown call their chances at a stanley cup are essentially 50/50, with the call, absolute 0.

Without the call, there chances of winning that game are still 50/50...

 

[Stonefly]

I'm baffled by all the disagreement here. Does anyone even play the sport anymore?

Sure they do...on their game consoles.

 

[Habsfunk]

The Islanders upsetting the President's Trophy winning Pittsburgh Penguins (56-21-7) in the Patrick Division Finals and the Buffalo Sabres upsetting the Adams Division Regular Season Champion Boston Bruins (51-26-7) in the opening round as Montreal defeated Quebec, who had the 2nd Seed in Adams by two points over the Canadiens, helped out a great deal.

Quebec was the only team that Montreal faced that either had a better record than the Canadiens or won at least half of their regular season games, and the Nordiques accomplished both things.


Montreal Canadiens (48-30-6 102)

Quebec Nordiques (47-27-10 104)
Buffalo Sabres (38-36-10 88) - Adams Division Finals
New York Islanders (40-37-7 87) - Wales Conference Finals
Los Angeles Kings (39-35-10 88) - Stanley Cup Finals

Montreal's team that year is a lot better than people give it credit for. They were actually first overally in the league heading into March when they went into a bad slump. Meanwhile Pittsburgh won 17 in a row and Boston went on a tear to take the division. They posted over 100 points despite Roy having a sub-par season and people actually calling for Andre "Red Light" Racicot to take over #1 duties.

 

[Puck Dogg]

The Kings had pretty decent front during their Stanley Cup final run in 1992-93 with Gretzky, Sandstrom, Robitaille, Granato and Kurri. They also had fine defense with Marty McSorley, Huddy, Blake and Zhitnik. To this quarted can be added Sydor.

The above seems like bunch capable of delivering you the Cup on a good playoff run. The problems came down to the following:

- Hrudey played 50 games in the regular season and posted 3.86 GAA. Hardly a playoff material, despite the Kings were run-and-gun team. The guys behind him in 1992-93 were minor leaguers (Stauber and Knickle). Stauber recorded decent 31 games under his belt that year, but in the playoffs he sat on the bench.

- The Kings traded Paul Coffey for Jimmy Carson that year. Props for Carson being a part in trades like Gretzky and Coffey, but after joining Kings he started a career downfall. Coffey had 57 points in 50 games for Kings before being traded for Carson...

- Kings did not have decent 6th or 7th defenseman. After the top 5, there came guys like Tim Watters, Jeff Chychrun, Mark Hardy and Brent Thompson. They all were good for 20-30 games, but you really could not think of having them in your top six.

- They lacked second center behind Gretzky. Kurri could play center, but he was not really a natural one, so that left you with Corey Millen, young Robert Lang or underachieving Carson. That is not enough for contender.

 

[Big Phil]

In a 7 game series there are no flukes. In a one game elimination yes. But if a team is that great they dont lose a best of 7. Pittsburgh losing to the Islanders in '93 was a huge upset but not a fluke. The Pens had 7 games to make something happen

 

[Slapshooter]

Judging by the rosters: Aside from Gretzky, 92-93 LA was not that special. Even more so with Patrick Roy's Montreal, but a tight team defence backed with a super goalie vs super center backed with a good team. Not so surprising that the latter eventually lost. I don't believe the famous stick incident was a that huge factor.

Judging by the coolness: yes. LA should have won.

 

[Stephen]

They were a talented team and I'm just curious what your opinions are.

The Kings weren't ever a great team with Gretzky, so no, they didn't deserve a cup. Plus Los Angeles is hell on earth, so I'm glad the cup didn't go there.

 

[MXD]

Actually, the only "part" from Montreal that wasn't impressive was it's defense.

Desjardins and Schneider were still very young players, Daigneault was an average D-Men in every possible sense of the word, Lyle Odelein and Patrice Brisebois had some qualities and some flaws (and both were young) and Yves Racine should never have been more than a 3rd pairing guy (and he was also not very old), Donald Dufresne was a 10th D-Men and Ramage had nothing left at this point.

They played great as a unit, but it was far from a stellar defense corps. Name-wise it's not THAT bad, but many guys were young, and the older guys weren't exactly big names...

But that team had a productive AND responsible 1st line, an awesome checking line spearheaded by Carbo-Keane, and decent secondary scoring.

 

[Slapshooter]

But that team had a productive AND responsible 1st line, an awesome checking line spearheaded by Carbo-Keane, and decent secondary scoring.

That's what a tight team defence means. Mullers, carbonneaus and keanes backed with good D-men and a hot goalie. I guess coach Demers was not a joke either back then.

But they were boring, no?

 

[God Bless Canada]

LA looked to be on to something in 1990-91, when they shocked a lot of people by winning the Smythe Division. But they showed cracks against Vancouver (the Canucks led the series 2-1 at one point), and nobody was surprised when the Oilers beat the Kings in the second round.

The Kings acquired Kurri's rights from the Oilers in the summer of 1991 (Kurri spent the 90-91 season overseas) and expected that to put them over the top. It didn't. The Kings regressed. And they were eliminated by the Oilers, again.

1992-93 was a funny year for LA. They had a terrific start, despite Wayne's absence. The WOW line (Without Wayne) of Robitaille-Kurri-Sandstrom was excellent. But Sandstrom ran into his usual injury problems, Kurri's production tailed off, and Hrudey slumped mightily, to the point that he expected to be sent to the minors. Gretzky's mid-season return didn't change anything. Coffey was traded, and the returns did little to improve the team.

For whatever reason, something clicked in the playoffs. Melrose came off looking like a genius. Hrudey played some of the best hockey of his life. Gretzky probably played the best hockey of his post-Oiler days. McSorley played the best hockey of his career. And while the returns from the Coffey trade did little (other than Gary Shuchuk scoring a critical 2OT winner vs. Vancouver in Game 5), Coffey's absence enabled Blake, Zhitnik and Sydor to take on greater roles. All three responded. Especially Zhitnik. The forwards, with the exception of Robitaille (who was benched a couple times in the playoffs) and Jimmy Carson (a healthy scratch) all did their job. Their 93 Cup run wasn't a fluke.

Would they have won the Cup without the illegal stick call? Who knows. Maybe the Habs score the tying goal in Game 2 anyways. And the Kings actually responded well the next two games, losing both in OT. LA had a real shot of going back to Montreal with a 3-1 lead, despite McSorley's illegal stick.

Should the Kings have won a Cup? I don't think so. Their best shots were in 1991 and 1993. They wilted in 1991. And I don't think anyone was going to beat Roy in 1993. Best goaltending display I've ever seen, after the first two games in Quebec.

Did Montreal get help from Buffalo and the Islanders in 1993? Yeah. But Buffalo was a bigger threat to Montreal than Boston. Boston was a one-line team in 1993: Juneau-Oates-Neely. That's it. Guy Carbonneau would have shut Oates down with the way Carbo played in 1993. Buffalo had a couple of good scoring lines that year. Pittsburgh looked invincible in the regular season, but even against New Jersey in the first round, they didn't look unstoppable. And Lemieux's back was really bothering him in the 1993 playoffs.

Nobody was going to beat Roy in 1993.

 

[vivianmb]

i'll go as far to say that the isles might've beat L.A if they got past the habs.i wasn't to impressed with the kings that season.although they did have a great run.

 

[BNHL]

This is exactly why the idea that great players win championships is bunk and without championships they are not as great-more bunk. If Gretzky played his entire career with LA he would probably have won zero cups. Would that make him less great? Sounds like Dionne who in my opinion gets tarnished because of no Cups. Pure crap.

 

[David Puddy]

Without the call, there chances of winning that game are still 50/50...

That's probably correct. Game 6 was in Buffalo, where both teams had split the previous two games by scores of 2-1. If Hull's goal is waved off, the teams are still locked at 1-1 late in the 3rd OT. Both the Stars and Sabres had scored four total goals in the series on Buffalo ice.

Game 7 would have been back in Dallas, where the Stars held a 2-1 advantage in games won and an 8-5 advantage in goals scored.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

Considering I've been a fan for a long time while playing the game, I take offense to this statement. Are you saying that every single time someone wins the cup they are completely deserving? If you have ever played hockey sir, you would know that many things go go wrong in a game. A team gets a string of bad luck at the wrong time, they lose. Christ, in '06 the Oilers lost their starting goaltender in game 1 of the SCF and still made a series of it. As much as a dislike Edmonton, they deserved the cup two years ago.

I'm baffled by all the disagreement here. Does anyone even play the sport anymore?

I think that comment was more about the fact Brett Hull didnt actually kick it in...

 

[Resolute]

Considering I've been a fan for a long time while playing the game, I take offense to this statement. Are you saying that every single time someone wins the cup they are completely deserving? If you have ever played hockey sir, you would know that many things go go wrong in a game. A team gets a string of bad luck at the wrong time, they lose. Christ, in '06 the Oilers lost their starting goaltender in game 1 of the SCF and still made a series of it. As much as a dislike Edmonton, they deserved the cup two years ago.

I'm baffled by all the disagreement here. Does anyone even play the sport anymore?

You might play the game, but you clearly don't understand it.

Edmonton deserved the cup because their goaltender went down to injury? Fine, I'll counter with Edmonton didn't deserve to be there in the first place because they had one of the easiest paths to the finals in recent memory. Not to mention that they were only in the playoffs in the first place because of loser and charity points. Markanen wasn't exactly poor in that series, aside from game 2 where the rest of his team never showed up either.

There is no team that is ever completely deserving, obviously. But no team flukes it's way through 16 wins.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

While true, they had a nice forward corps, but it is true that defence and goal was just never there.

that may have been true in '91, but the kings' d in '93 was great. far better than montreal's that year. mcsorely played like a norris winner. zhitnik was phenomenal too. blake was no norris winner yet, but he was a very good young defenceman. huddy was as steady as they come. that year, it was the lack of forward depth more than anything that did them in. if they had that promising young guy stepping into the top six when robitaille slumped (like montreal had in john leclair), if they had more veteran bottom 6 guys like conacher, if they didn't have mike donnelly and corey millen in scoring roles, they might have won a few of those one goal games and it might have been a series.

 

[Trottier]

Considering how many different battles and conflicts there are in a game, I'd say its fairly assinine to think that there hasn't been any flukes. People go on hot streaks, strings of good luck, sometimes rediculously so. Or say the refs decide the game, like when Hull kicked the puck in versus Buffalo. S**t happens.

Funny I'd use your own term - asinine - to characterize the classic loser's lament: "fluke...lucky...blah, blah, blah".

You do not play two full months of the highest level of competitive hockey in the world, against the NHL's best teams, and end up hoisting the Cup...as a fluke.

A bad break, a fluke goal, controversial call or what not? Of course.

But a fluke Cup winner?

Please.

(And, yes. Been playing the game for 30+ years.)

PS - You may categorize a ridiculous hot streak as a fluke. I call it: performance, accomplishment.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Considering I've been a fan for a long time while playing the game, I take offense to this statement. Are you saying that every single time someone wins the cup they are completely deserving? If you have ever played hockey sir, you would know that many things go go wrong in a game. A team gets a string of bad luck at the wrong time, they lose. Christ, in '06 the Oilers lost their starting goaltender in game 1 of the SCF and still made a series of it. As much as a dislike Edmonton, they deserved the cup two years ago.

I'm baffled by all the disagreement here. Does anyone even play the sport anymore?

Edmonton did not deserve the cup. Carolina deserved the cup. Edmonton deserved a better chance at earning the cup.