Summarizing Each Decade of Hockey

[vikash1987]

With the 2010s coming to a close in a few short months, I was wondering how best to summarize this decade of hockey. There were many great individual events and milestones and moments on the ice, but what was the single biggest, overarching theme or headline that best encapsulated the decade?

For me, it was the ending of the Cup droughts. The decade was bookended by Chicago’s 49-year drought coming to an end in 2010, and St. Louis’s 52-year drought coming to an end in 2019; and in between, you also had Boston (39 years), Los Angeles (45 years) and Washington (43 years). The sizes of these droughts, and the fact that they all happened in such a short window, is really amazing when you reflect on it.

I’d also be curious about people’s thoughts on previous decades.

Click to read more...

 

[Normand Lacombe]

With a few exceptions, the 2010's have been boring. That's Bettman's NHL.

 

[VanIslander]

A ĺack of parity.

Despite Bettman's constant mantra to the contrary, the playoffs have been dominated by Boston and Pittsburgh in the East and Chicago and L.A. in the West (though of course, that conference has begun to change).

 

[The Panther]

The NHL has become like the NBA in terms of player-relations and like MLB in terms of playoffs and championships. And it stands alone in terms of frequency of work-stoppages and strikes.

Like Martin Luther King, I have a dream... a dream where Bettman puts on a pair of skates, skates by the bench, and I punch him in the face.

Followed, of course, by a stretcher-drop, ala Modano.

 

[Hobnobs]

To summarize the 2010s: Boring

 

[BenchBrawl]

Chicago Blackhawks Dynasty, Crosby —> McDavid.

This is the shortest summary someone 100 years from now might agree with.

 

[BenchBrawl]

But in spirit the 2010s are really 2005-2020. That's one block for me—the Crosby and Ovechkin years—dominated by Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit early on, LA and Boston. The early Anaheim team was also memorable. The early Ottawa team was spectacular but since they didn't win, out !

Chicago is the most significant team in that timeframe. It has more of a soul than the others.

 

[Voight]

The decade where the Oilers had FOUR 1st overall picks, including one generational player, and were still an awful team.

 

[VanIslander]

A decade of disappointment for Canadian teams.

Vancouver won 1 conference final series, Montreal lost 2, Ottawa and Winnipeg lost 1... Calgary, Edmonton and Toronto couldn't ever get past the 2nd round.

 

[VanIslander]

But in spirit the 2010s are really 2005-2020. That's one block for me—the Crosby and Ovechkin years—dominated by Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit early on, LA and Boston.

ADD: Washington.

Washington won three President's trophies, L.A. and Pittsburgh zero.

And Washington won 9 divisional titles and playoff series in 7 of those years.

Washington dominated in the regular season and was often a touted cup contender, but came up short until they got the monkey off their back and finally hoisted Lord Stanley's cup.

 

[ShelbyZ]

From 2010 to now you have the following that are drastically different than previous decades:

-The birth of "LTIRetirement"
-Players being judged against their contracts/salaries more than ever before
-A significant and continual drop in fighting majors and the near extinction of the role of enforcer
-Arguably the most generous Expansion Draft in the Bettman Era
-Social media helping put an enforcer in the All Star game, and that player winning MVP of the game

 

[Pominville Knows]

With the 2010s coming to a close in a few short months, I was wondering how best to summarize this decade of hockey. There were many great individual events and milestones and moments on the ice, but what was the single biggest, overarching theme or headline that best encapsulated the decade?

For me, it was the ending of the Cup droughts. The decade was bookended by Chicago’s 49-year drought coming to an end in 2010, and St. Louis’s 52-year drought coming to an end in 2019; and in between, you also had Boston (39 years), Los Angeles (45 years) and Washington (43 years). The sizes of these droughts, and the fact that they all happened in such a short window, is really amazing when you reflect on it.

I’d also be curious about people’s thoughts on previous decades.

A ĺack of parity.

Despite Bettman's constant mantra to the contrary, the playoffs have been dominated by Boston and Pittsburgh in the East and Chicago and L.A. in the West (though of course, that conference has begun to change).

Or perhaps it actually is parity, but a theoretical one where GM's still have tried to create their team as good as possible and some have done that better than others.
This have done that teams have been able to end their droughts when in earlier times the big hockey markets had an unsurmountable advantage.
But also it has been a decade where dynasties have also just dried up becouse of the same parity.

 

[daver]

A ĺack of parity.

Despite Bettman's constant mantra to the contrary, the playoffs have been dominated by Boston and Pittsburgh in the East and Chicago and L.A. in the West (though of course, that conference has begun to change).

There were 20 teams that made the SCF. The four teams listed comprised half of them.

The previous decade saw four teams (Wings, Pens, Caines, Devils) comprise 9 of the twenty teams.

 

[VanIslander]

7 of the 10 Stanley Cups went to one of Chicago, L.A., Pittsburgh.

2 of the other three went to Boston (three-time Stanley Cup Finalist) and Washington (7 of the ten divisional titles).

In a 30+ team league?????

That ain't parity.

 

[DaveG]

An era of relative stability for the league overall.
- 1 relocation due to an ownership group that never should have been given the team in Atlanta to begin with, but overall stability considering some dicey ownership situations (Arizona, A$G, Melnyk, Karmanos, Koules)
- Mostly the same teams dominating throughout the decade (Pittsburgh, Washington, Boston in the East, Chicago and LA in the West, arguably San Jose as well but they never got over the hump to win a cup)
- St Louis and Washington finally win their cups
- The fall of the enforcer
- The birth of hockey analytics and the start of teams building around them
- Best expansion team of all time in major North American sports

 

[wetcoast]

But in spirit the 2010s are really 2005-2020. That's one block for me—the Crosby and Ovechkin years—dominated by Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit early on, LA and Boston. The early Anaheim team was also memorable. The early Ottawa team was spectacular but since they didn't win, out !

Chicago is the most significant team in that timeframe. It has more of a soul than the others.

Without a salary Cap I think we might have seen a dynasty.

As it is, I'm not sure we are ever going to see a team win 3 SC's in 6 years again in a 32 team league.

 

[tarheelhockey]

1920s - Development of the game into a recognizable modern form, both on and off the ice. Off the ice, a transition from a low-money novelty enterprise to a large business with huge crowds spending real money, and the advent of mass media coverage. On the ice, the beginning of full-time professionalism, and the development of rules which set the template for a 5-man, forward-passing, speed-oriented game.

1930s - Survival. Between the Depression and imminent demands of WWII, a lowering of expectations for what the game could become as a business. Emergence of American markets as a dominant factor, on and off the ice. The apex of the first generation of true mass-market superstars, as compared to cult heroes of the prior generation.

1940s - Decline and rebirth. A half-decade of a league that was little more than a wartime entertainment gimmick, which had contracted to a minimal size and was on the verge of total irrelevance. And then, the dawning of a new golden age -- a new dynasty, and the emergence of a generation of superstars which would define the next era.

1950s - The "classic" NHL. Larger-than-life personalities, powerhouse dynasties, colorful underdogs, the beginnings of a TV broadcast culture that created a common experience.

1960s - An era of over-maturity, as the NHL held on to its small-league identity till after the common-sense expiration date. A league of extreme contrast between aging stars of the prior generation, and young talent which was too explosive to be denied a place at the table. And then... expansion, letting a sudden blast of fresh air into a stale league.

1970s - The wild west. Reckless expansion, the WHA, the rise of the Soviets, 70-goal scorers, bench-clearing brawls, goalie masks, extreme disparities between top and bottom talent. Anything and everything was possible. Most of it could only have happened in the 70s.

1980s - An era of dynasties. Firewagon hockey on the ice, a very conservative era off the ice. Consolidation and stabilization. Short careers. The record book being completely rewritten. Hockey encountering something of an identity crisis... is this a niche sport or is it part of a Big 4?

1990s - Big business. Another round of expansion, but not so reckless this time. Video games, ESPN, glow pucks, mega-star personalities. A disorienting geographic lurch. A revolution in the visual identity of the game. The peak of TV-friendliness... and then, just at the wrong moment... a pattern of catastrophic injuries, and a decline in the game.

2000s - The dark ages. A sport that only a hardcore fan could love. Faceless teams, wearing black alternate jerseys, playing 0-0 ties in half empty arenas. Championships won by attrition and 5% shooting. A lost season, and then a re-entry into a game that was hardly recognizable. But in the end, a stabilized league.

2010s - A comeback. A faster and more open game, a new generation of big-time personalities, the spectacle of 100K crowds, TV ratings on the rise, sleek new arenas, careful expansion, faux-vintage culture, analytics culture. The end of fighting and injury as essential elements. A league that's managed to get out of its own way, at least temporarily.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Or, as we did in a previous thread:

Let's make this hockey league work
find rules that make sense
and make sure we all get paid

American markets rise
meet the first true stars
and get through the depression

There was a war going on
so disregard this
and go forward with six teams

All time great teams and players
you can watch at home
Ultimate nostalgia

Overly exclusive league
until the dam breaks
And there are now six more teams

Everything that could happen
Happened all at once
The best and worst of hockey

Two teams in blue and orange
Both had dynasties
Many players scored a lot

We can market this down south
If we give them stars
Oh no the stars all got hurt

The game became way too slow
Then they lost a year
The game became way too fast

A generation of kids
Who can use these sticks
Make the future look better

 

[tarheelhockey]

Or, as we did in a previous thread:

Let's make this hockey league work
find rules that make sense
and make sure we all get paid

American markets rise
meet the first true stars
and get through the depression

There was a war going on
so disregard this
and go forward with six teams

All time great teams and players
you can watch at home
Ultimate nostalgia

Overly exclusive league
until the dam breaks
And there are now six more teams

Everything that could happen
Happened all at once
The best and worst of hockey

Two teams in blue and orange
Both had dynasties
Players scored a lot

We can market this down south
If we give them stars
Oh no the stars all got hurt

The game became way too slow
Then they lost a year
The game became way too fast

A generation of kids
Who can use these sticks
Make the future look better

This is perfect

 

[Johnny Engine]

I should add:

Pro hockey has reached the point
of a stable league
Up yours Eddie Livingstone

 

[tony d]

It's been marked by dominance for a handful of teams (Chicago, LA, Pittsburgh) as well as the impact of the salary cap in it's 1st full decade.

 

[The Panther]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I actually think there is too much parity in the past decade or more.

I know some people will point to Chicago winning 3 Cups in 6, or L.A. winning 2 out of 3, or Pittsburgh's four trips to the Finals in 10 years as evidence otherwise. But to me that's small potatoes. Chicago was probably the best managed / playoff-ready franchise in this period, but even during their best years from 2008-09 to 2016-17, they ranked only third in the regular season with a very-good-but-not-great .573 win percentage. It's not like they were ever blowing away the competition with total dominance, and I don't remember too many springs when everyone was picking them to win the Cup.

There are always going to be a few teams that rise to the top over any extended period, but the question is how dominant (or not) are they? I don't think the best teams of the current decade have been overly dominant.

Also, look at how many 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th seeds have made it to the Finals in recent years compared to before the Lock-Out, when it basically never happened.

 

[vikash1987]

Some very interesting comments on the decade being boring and not living up to the promise of parity

A decade of disappointment for Canadian teams.

Vancouver won 1 conference final series, Montreal lost 2, Ottawa and Winnipeg lost 1... Calgary, Edmonton and Toronto couldn't ever get past the 2nd round.

Interestingly, one could say this about the previous decade (2000s)

Calgary: Game 7 of the Finals in '04
Edmonton: Game 7 of the Finals in '06
Ottawa: lost in the Finals in '07
Toronto: worst playoff drought in their history
Montreal: never got out of the 2nd round
Vancouver: never got out of the 2nd round

1920s - Development of the game into a recognizable modern form, both on and off the ice. Off the ice, a transition from a low-money novelty enterprise to a large business with huge crowds spending real money, and the advent of mass media coverage. On the ice, the beginning of full-time professionalism, and the development of rules which set the template for a 5-man, forward-passing, speed-oriented game.

1930s - Survival. Between the Depression and imminent demands of WWII, a lowering of expectations for what the game could become as a business. Emergence of American markets as a dominant factor, on and off the ice. The apex of the first generation of true mass-market superstars, as compared to cult heroes of the prior generation.

1940s - Decline and rebirth. A half-decade of a league that was little more than a wartime entertainment gimmick, which had contracted to a minimal size and was on the verge of total irrelevance. And then, the dawning of a new golden age -- a new dynasty, and the emergence of a generation of superstars which would define the next era.

1950s - The "classic" NHL. Larger-than-life personalities, powerhouse dynasties, colorful underdogs, the beginnings of a TV broadcast culture that created a common experience.

1960s - An era of over-maturity, as the NHL held on to its small-league identity till after the common-sense expiration date. A league of extreme contrast between aging stars of the prior generation, and young talent which was too explosive to be denied a place at the table. And then... expansion, letting a sudden blast of fresh air into a stale league.

1970s - The wild west. Reckless expansion, the WHA, the rise of the Soviets, 70-goal scorers, bench-clearing brawls, goalie masks, extreme disparities between top and bottom talent. Anything and everything was possible. Most of it could only have happened in the 70s.

1980s - An era of dynasties. Firewagon hockey on the ice, a very conservative era off the ice. Consolidation and stabilization. Short careers. The record book being completely rewritten. Hockey encountering something of an identity crisis... is this a niche sport or is it part of a Big 4?

1990s - Big business. Another round of expansion, but not so reckless this time. Video games, ESPN, glow pucks, mega-star personalities. A disorienting geographic lurch. A revolution in the visual identity of the game. The peak of TV-friendliness... and then, just at the wrong moment... a pattern of catastrophic injuries, and a decline in the game.

2000s - The dark ages. A sport that only a hardcore fan could love. Faceless teams, wearing black alternate jerseys, playing 0-0 ties in half empty arenas. Championships won by attrition and 5% shooting. A lost season, and then a re-entry into a game that was hardly recognizable. But in the end, a stabilized league.

2010s - A comeback. A faster and more open game, a new generation of big-time personalities, the spectacle of 100K crowds, TV ratings on the rise, sleek new arenas, careful expansion, faux-vintage culture, analytics culture. The end of fighting and injury as essential elements. A league that's managed to get out of its own way, at least temporarily.

This is great. Thanks!