Top-5 franchises of the 2010s?

[Luigi Lemieux]

Since we're doing 2010s, I'd say Chicago is first. The Penguins' 2009 Cup was 11 seasons ago now, so outside the purview.

Agree. Chicago is the best team of the decade, Pittsburgh best team of the overall cap era.

Pittsburgh clearly #2 here though. Back to back cups and made the playoffs all 10 years.

 

[Weztex]

Teams ordered by

1) Stanley Cup victories
2) Number of regular season points* + playoff wins x 4 (in brackets)

1. Chicago Blackhawks (1291)/3
2. Pittsburgh Penguins (1324)/2
3. Los Angeles Kings (1123)/2
4. Boston Bruins (1298)/1
5. Washington Capitals (1267)/1
6. St. Louis Blues (1175)/1
7. San Jose Sharks (1249)
8. Tampa Bay Lightning (1164)
9. Nashville Predators (1152)
10. New York Rangers (1140)
11. Anaheim Ducks (1139)
12. Montreal Canadiens (1056)
13. Philadelphia Flyers (1043)
14. Detroit Red Wings (1016)
15. Vancouver Canucks (1010)
16. Minnesota Wild (980)
17. Dallas Stars (974)
18. Ottawa Senators (949)
19. Winnipeg Jets/Atlanta Thrashers (939)
20. New York Islanders (938)
21. Columbus Blue Jackets (924)
22. New Jersey Devils (921)
23. Calgary Flames (902)
24. Toronto Maple Leafs (901)
25. Colorado Avalanche (891)
26. Arizona Coyotes (887)
27. Carolina Hurricanes (866)
28. Florida Panthers (839)
29. Buffalo Sabres (790)
30. Edmonton Oilers (762)
31. Vegas Golden Knights (266)

*2012-13 season adjusted to 82 games

 

[Rorschach]

I'd argue Pittsburgh was better than LA in the non-Cup years, overall.

-Pittsburgh never once missed the playoffs during the entire 2010s decade. Los Angeles missed the playoffs 3 times.
-Pittsburgh made it out of the 1st round 4 times, whereas LA only made it out of the first round once.

Literally the only thing in the Kings' favor is that 3rd Cup finals appearance. But the Pens' back to back Cups, as well as consistently making the playoffs every single season, as well as getting out of the first round more when they don't win, should favor them.

That’s the debate...do multiple, meaningless regular season wins and early playoff knockouts mean more than deep runs?

There’s an argument either way. How much do we magnify (or not) playoff accomplishments?

 

[Kale Hulls]

1. Chicago
2. Pittsburgh
3. Los Angeles
4. Washington
5. Boston

HM: St Louis, Tampa Bay, San Jose, New York, Edmonton

Only thing Edmonton is top 5 in is draft lottery odds and most expensive burger.

 

[Geoist]

Probably Washington, Boston, San Jose, Tampa then the Rangers

Ummm, what?

*edit*
nvm

 

[Rick C137]

From 2010-11 to 2018-19:

Most Regular Season Point Totals:

1. Pittsburg - 908
2. Washington - 894
3. Boston - 887
4. St. Louis - 875
5. Tampa* - 868
(Anaheim Ducks next with 859)

Most Regular Season Wins:

1. Pittsburg - 419
2. Washington - 408
3. Boston - 403
4. St. Louis - 403
5. Tampa* - 402
(San Jose Sharks next with 390)

Most Postseason Wins:
1. Boston - 62
2. Pittsburg - 59
3. Washington - 53
4. San Jose* - 52
5. Chicago - 51
(New York Rangers next with 47)

Stanley Cups:
Chicago - 2 (3 if you count 09-10 season), Pittsburg - 2, Los Angeles - 2, Boston - 1, Washington - 1, St. Louis - 1

I'd rank them:
1. Pittsburg (2 cups, dominant in post and regular season throughout the decade)
2. Chicago (2-3 cups, dominant in regular and post season for the first 2/3 of the decade)
3. Los Angeles (2 cups, dominant postseason team for the first half of the decade)
4. Boston (1 cup, dominant in regular and post season throughout the decade, multiple cup appearences)
5. Washington (1 cup, dominant in post and regular season throughout the decade)
6. St. Louis (1 cup, dominant regular season team throughout the decade)

And then: (7. San Jose), (8. Tampa), (9. New York) (10. Nashville)
Based on a combination of regular and post season success throughout the decade

I think the bolded is intentionally misleading. The penguins lost in the first round four times this decade. How can you say that the hawks were dominant in the playoffs for 2/3 of the decade and the penguins were dominant in the playoffs for the entire decade when they literally lost in the first round 40% of the decade? Hawks lost the exact same amount of times in the first round but still racked up more cups and conference finals appearances.

Cups:
Chicago - 3
Pittsburgh - 2

SCF Appearances
Chicago - 3
Pittsburgh - 2

Conference final appearances
Chicago - 4
Pittsburgh - 3

Records
Chicago : 67-44 (60% win)
Pittsburgh : 66-58 (53% win)

I just don’t see any justifiable way to say Pittsburgh was a more dominant team in the post season than Chicago in this decade.

 

[Geoist]

They did have more deep playoff runs than the Caps

Considering the Caps had to run into the Pens in the playoffs, I'd give them a bit of a pass on that.

 

[NoMessi]

Is this the thread that lures @thetoewsera out of the shadows? Anyhow, Chicago is number 1 by default since they have 3 cups this decade (penguins on top in the cap era though). Find it strange that some people in here a trying to discredit Penguins by using 4 first round exits when their own teams didnt even make the playoffs some years.

 

[Rick C137]

Is this the thread that lures @thetoewsera out of the shadows? Anyhow, Chicago is number 1 by default since they have 3 cups this decade (penguins on top in the cap era though). Find it strange that some people in here a trying to discredit Penguins by using 4 first round exits when their own teams didnt even make the playoffs some years.

When saying they were dominant in the playoffs for the entire decade, it’s more than fair to refute that they lost in the first round four times. No one was dominant the entire decade.

 

[NoMessi]

When saying they were dominant in the playoffs for the entire decade, it’s more than fair to refute that they lost in the first round four times. No one was dominant the entire decade.

I stand corrected, its late here in Sweden and I missed an important point when reading the thread the first time.

 

[JT Kreider]

Ummm, what?

*edit*
nvm

Those are the teams that I would have listed after the obvious top 3 of Chicago, Pittsburgh and LA. I thought that was a given. The way I posted it was confusing. yeah.

 

[Ms Maggie]

1. Hawks
2. Penguins
3. Kings
4. Bruins
5. Blues/Caps

This.

 

[OiledUp]

The 2010s aren’t over yet, with a strong push this fall the Oilers could still get up there...

 

[Sgt Schultz]

My problem is that I put almost no weight on the President's Cup in this equation. Teams don't set the goal to win the President's Cup. They set the goal to get into the playoffs, perhaps the goal to win their division, and then win the Stanley Cup. Far too often winning the President's Cup has been about like taking a cousin to the prom.

Anyway, that aside, I'd vote:
1) Chicago
2) Pittsburgh
3) Boston
4) LA
5) Caps
6) Blues
7) San Jose
8) Tampa
9) Rangers

I gave the Bruins the nod over the Kings simply because of what I would consider a tiebreaker: they have been more consistent over the decade, being competitive throughout and having only two seasons that they fell short of the playoffs. The Kings finished the decade as a mess, although that does not detract from two Cup wins much.

Caps and Blues are another tossup. San Jose is not far behind them, in my mind, lacking only their names on Lord Stanley's masterpiece.
The truth is, this is a lot less clear cut in terms of who fits where than the bottom 5, IMO. I can see all sorts of good arguments for a team moving up or down a space or two.

 

[StoneHands]

I don't really see what argument anyone would have over the Caps or Blues unless you don't value winning the Cup. I'd go with the Caps because of the Cup and 9 playoff appearances over the Blues with their Cup and 7 playoff appearances.

 

[GreatGonzo]

1. Chicago
2. Pittsburgh
3. Boston
4. Washington
5. LA

I know LA has 2 cups, but they have more mediocre seasons in between than the other 4. IMO Boston and Washington have the best of both worlds and have been more consistently dominant for the better part of the decade.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

Hard for teams like NYR & VAN that were among the best the first half but have really tailed off the 2nd half.

I'd say:

1. Chicago
2. Pittsburgh
3. Boston
4. Washington
5. LA

HM: San Jose, NYR, Tampa, STL, Vancouver.

 

[Ridley Simon]

I’m not understanding why the Hawks Cup from 09-10 is part of “which team has been the best of the 2010 decade?

09-10 was part of the 00’s decade. Was the 2009 season. Not the 2010 season.

So really, we have 9 years in and one left to go. That last one could be a big deal if one of Boston, Washington, or St Louis wins it again. Or if someone like Tampa wins their first. That would jumble it up.

BUT, 9 years in:

1. Pittsburgh. Tied for most Cups. No bad years (missed playoffs)

2. Chicago. Tied for Cups. Great team. But a few down years here at the end, in comparison.

3. Boston. 3 Cup finals, 1 Cup. Really good regular season team. No bad years

4. Los Angeles. Tied for Cups. That’s only reason. Non factor since 2016 or so.

5. Washington. 1 Cup. 3 President Cups (including rare back to back). Can scoff at the Prez Cups, but they lost to the top team above in 2 of those 3 Prez Cup years)

6. St Louis. 1 Cup. Good regular season team. No bad years.

7 -10. Mix of Tampa, San Jose, Anaheim, and the Rangers. No Cups. But lots of success and some Cup Finals losses.

As I said, this last year is big. Boston winning a Cup may make them team of the decade. Same for Washington. Less so St Louis. A Tampa win probably puts them ahead of St Louis and arguably ahead of Wash and maybe Boston.

So — we will see

 

[Rick C137]

I’m not understanding why the Hawks Cup from 09-10 is part of “which team has been the best of the 2010 decade?

09-10 was part of the 00’s decade. Was the 2009 season. Not the 2010 season.

So really, we have 9 years in and one left to go. That last one could be a big deal if one of Boston, Washington, or St Louis wins it again. Or if someone like Tampa wins their first. That would jumble it up.

BUT, 9 years in:

1. Pittsburgh. Tied for most Cups. No bad years (missed playoffs)

2. Chicago. Tied for Cups. Great team. But a few down years here at the end, in comparison.

3. Boston. 3 Cup finals, 1 Cup. Really good regular season team. No bad years

4. Los Angeles. Tied for Cups. That’s only reason. Non factor since 2016 or so.

5. Washington. 1 Cup. 3 President Cups (including rare back to back). Can scoff at the Prez Cups, but they lost to the top team above in 2 of those 3 Prez Cup years)

6. St Louis. 1 Cup. Good regular season team. No bad years.

7 -10. Mix of Tampa, San Jose, Anaheim, and the Rangers. No Cups. But lots of success and some Cup Finals losses.

As I said, this last year is big. Boston winning a Cup may make them team of the decade. Same for Washington. Less so St Louis. A Tampa win probably puts them ahead of St Louis and arguably ahead of Wash and maybe Boston.

So — we will see

... because the entirety of that playoffs was played in 2010 and this thread is literally which franchises were the best of the 2010s? Ignoring that cup in the context of what was being asked in this thread would be stupid.

 

[Ridley Simon]

... because the entirety of that playoffs was played in 2010 and this thread is literally which franchises were the best of the 2010s? Ignoring that cup in the context of what was being asked in this thread would be stupid.

Read what you just wrote. The entirety of something. The season wasn’t all in 2010. The 09 season ended in 10. It was still the 09 season. It’s the previous decade. Football plays it playoffs in Jan. Would we be lumping the 2009 season into this decade simply because the Super Bowl was in 2010? It’s when the season starts, not when it ends.

I know it blows the whole team of the decade for you, and for that I’m sorry, but we all know that this current decade isn’t over. There is one more season to play. And once it’s done, that Chicago title will be 11 seasons ago.

 

[Rick C137]

Read what you just wrote. The entirety of something. The season wasn’t all in 2010. The 09 season ended in 10. It was still the 09 season. It’s the previous decade. Football plays it playoffs in Jan. Would we be lumping the 2009 season into this decade simply because the Super Bowl was in 2010? It’s when the season starts, not when it ends.

I know it blows the whole team of the decade for you, and for that I’m sorry, but we all know that this current decade isn’t over. There is one more season to play. And once it’s done, that Chicago title will be 11 seasons ago.

Read what you just wrote. The playoffs are a different season.... that’s why they call it the post season. It’s it’s own season that happened AFTER the 09-10 season. It now becomes the 2010 playoffs. If the entire season falls in the parameters of what was being asked (it does) then you obviously count it. And yes, if we were talking about the top football team of the 2010s, I would for sure count the 2010 playoffs. Why would you not?

I could give a f*** about a team of the decade tbh. It just seems silly that you need to do this song and dance to try and discount something that happened in 2010 when ranking teams of the 2010s. He did not ask which team was the best from the 2010-11 season until now. He asked for top franchises in the 2010s. That entire playoff season was in 2010. This is so simple that I think your being obtuse on purpose.

Edit - and while you are correct that there is one more season, there are no more cups to be awarded in the 2010s. All 10 have been won. Next seasons cup is going to be the 2020 playoffs so that would count for the 2020s decade. See how this works?

 

[tenken00]

Edit: doesn't really matter I guess

 

[Not So Mighty]

Edmonton Oilers
Florida Panthers
New York Islanders
Ottawa Senators
Arizona Coyotes

Funny. Original. Certainly haven't seen this joke done before.

 

[orby]

Chicago
Pittsburgh
LA
Boston
Washington

 

[Trap Jesus]

Is this the thread that lures @thetoewsera out of the shadows? Anyhow, Chicago is number 1 by default since they have 3 cups this decade (penguins on top in the cap era though). Find it strange that some people in here a trying to discredit Penguins by using 4 first round exits when their own teams didnt even make the playoffs some years.

He still posts here under the username Loseipeg