Was the NHL a bit too predictable back in the day?

[c9777666]

From the post-WWII original 6 era (mid-40s) up until Edmonton’s last Cup in 1990, it seemed like there was always only a handful of teams winning Cups and there were few exceptions.

Montreal, Detroit, and Toronto combined to win all but 1 Cup in 25 years with stretches of dominance:

TOR 4 in 5 years from 1947-1951
DET 4 in 6 years from 1950-1955
MTL 5 straight from 1956-1960
TOR 3 straight from 1962-1964
MTL 4 in 5 years from 1965-1969

after the 1967 Leafs (which was also part of a 4 in 6 years run with most of that core), with all due respect to the Orr/Espo Bruins and Broad Street Bullies, it was basically another 3 team era of dominance:

MTL 6 cups in 10 years of the 70s, including 4 straight from 1976-1979
NYI- 4 straight Cups from 1980-1983
EDM- 5 Cups in 7 years from 1984-1990, with 4 in 5 years and 2 repeats

Beginning with the late 40s Leafs (the first team to win 3 straight Cups and IMO the first true NHL dynasty), there would be only a few true outlier champions of certain eras over the next four decades (1961 Blackhawks, 1986 Habs, 1989 Flames)

do you think the NHL was a bit too predictable for so long with only a handful of teams in certain eras ever winning?

in an era long before parity, it felt like very good teams were always bridesmaids (70s Sabres, 80s Bruins) and only a handful of teams really got to hoist the Cup. Do you think that was a good thing?

on one hand, it gave us Truly legendary teams that stood the test of time.

on the other hand, it basically made the playoffs way too easy to predict.

if you were not a Habs fan after expansion outside of Boston or Philly, the 70s had to be frustrating for a lot of other fanbases.

Click to read more...

 

[The Panther]

It was probably a little too set in the fifties to seventies, I think. Basically, either Montreal or one other team was going to win, for a thirty-year period. I think in the eighties, it was fine, though. More shifting competition, even if two teams dominated 1980 to 1988.

As with other things in the NHL, the best period for competition might have c. 1989 to 1997 or so.

After the Wings finally won and until the Lock Out, it seemed like only teams with huge salaries (exception: Rangers) could really compete, and they were all American franchises, so it sucked.

Since 2006, the Cup winner just seems random every year.

 

[DJ Man]

With three good teams and three bad ones, I'm wondering why the Stanley Cup semifinals always matched 1st vs 3rd, and 2nd vs 4th in the O6 era. The second-place finisher thus got an easier semi opponent much of the time. Not much incentive to finish first rather than second, or third rather than fourth.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think there is, generally, a divide in sports culture between enjoying parity and enjoying dynasties.

Some people really love watching teams like the Lakers and Yankees rack up championships year after year, while others simply check out after a certain amount of repetition.

 

[seventieslord]

With three good teams and three bad ones, I'm wondering why the Stanley Cup semifinals always matched 1st vs 3rd, and 2nd vs 4th in the O6 era. The second-place finisher thus got an easier semi opponent much of the time. Not much incentive to finish first rather than second, or third rather than fourth.

It definitely took a long time for the NHL to come around to the idea that the regular season should have serious playoff implications. Play better, finish higher and get the most advantageous opponent should be obvious. It is obvious to us now but it wasn't obvious to them, going all the way back to 1928, when division winners were faced off against eachother in round 1.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It definitely took a long time for the NHL to come around to the idea that the regular season should have serious playoff implications. Play better, finish higher and get the most advantageous opponent should be obvious. It is obvious to us now but it wasn't obvious to them, going all the way back to 1928, when division winners were faced off against eachother in round 1.

(1929?)

That 1v1 series was billed as the "NHL championship", a deliberate construct to force a clear decision on which team deserved to be considered #1. It was a direct response to having both 1-seeds knocked out early the previous season, leading to questions about why they had even played the regular season in the first place. After the 1v1 series, they went on to play for the Stanley Cup with some ambiguity over what the Cup was supposed to represent. That series gave the NHL an opportunity to formally shift toward a "Cup = champions of everything" mentality, which is how we end up in this odd position of playing hundreds of seemingly meaningless games every season.

The vestigial 1v1 first-round series of the 1930s is bonkers to a modern mentality, in part because the Cup-only mentality re-defined it as more of a "semifinals" round rather than an "NHL championship" concept. But it actually did, at least originally, represent a higher value on the regular season and a clearer focus on settling the Best Team question before exposing them to the unpredictability of a short-round playoff format.

 

[MadLuke]

I think there is, generally, a divide in sports culture between enjoying parity and enjoying dynasties.

Some people really love watching teams like the Lakers and Yankees rack up championships year after year, while others simply check out after a certain amount of repetition.

And I think a lot of people claiming they hate dynasties are lying to themselves about it (a bit like Netflix cannot use our ranking for their proposition model, but what we actually watch instead).

Ratings tend to be quite higher when a Patriots/Yankees rack up championships then when they are, Canada dominating an Olympic and everyone is still watching, people watched and wanted Bolts to win all is run 3 Olympics in a row, live sport tend to be a lot about storyline, stress and caring about someone winning or not and too much parity remove all that, if you want the Yankees or Lebron to loose, there you go you are rooting for a team instead of not caring about result.

If it would be a total random game of chance it would loose all interest, if the Canadians would have won there 65 cups of the last 90 season last year it would loose all interest, there is an rather large acceptable window for most fans in that regard but I think you absolutely need better and worst team.

 

[c9777666]

With three good teams and three bad ones, I'm wondering why the Stanley Cup semifinals always matched 1st vs 3rd, and 2nd vs 4th in the O6 era. The second-place finisher thus got an easier semi opponent much of the time. Not much incentive to finish first rather than second, or third rather than fourth.

even early expansion years, that format was still around.

what if the 1971 Bruins played 4th place Toronto in the first round instead of 3rd place Montreal?

 

[SwedishFire]

No? If you manage your team right, you get rewarded.

 

[Doctor No]

No? If you manage your team right, you get rewarded.

This statement is simultaneously true, and so broad to be useless.

What are you referring to, specifically?

 

[SwedishFire]

This statement is simultaneously true, and so broad to be useless.

What are you referring to, specifically?

If you are developing your guys right, they get good. In the cap era, they also get expensiv, so a team is in need to trade away a good player from the team, to squeeze a player with high dollardemand in. Todays management is 50% about writing a good contract.

 

[Doctor No]

If you are developing your guys right, they get good. In the cap era, they also get expensiv, so a team is in need to trade away a good player from the team, to squeeze a player with high dollardemand in. Todays management is 50% about writing a good contract.

Yes, okay. But what point are you specifically responding to? It doesn't seem to fit with "Was the NHL too predictable back in the day?"; it seems like a non-sequitur entirely which is why I asked.

 

[ICM1970]

I liked in the early to mid 90s, the playoff format was changed, so you no longer always got Edmonton versus Calgary or Montreal versus Boston or Quebec, etc. That might tee off a few people here who long for the 1980s division rivalries, but the change added that bit more of interesting variety to the playoffs.

 

[frisco]

From 1929 to 1970 Toronto, Montreal, and/or Detroit were in the Finals every year. Not fun being a Chicago/Rangers/Boston fan.

My Best-Carey

 

[VanIslander]

There were clear favorites and clear underdogs:

David vs. Goliath.

And among the few powerhouses:

Clash of the Titans.

Nowadays? A sea of mediocrity or "parity", as Bettman keeps chanting.

 

[BenchBrawl]

There were clear favorites and clear underdogs:

David vs. Goliath.

And among the few powerhouses:

Clash of the Titans.

Nowadays? A sea of mediocrity or "parity", as Bettman keeps chanting.

100% agreed. No team have any identity anymore.

The Blackhawks barely did it in the 2010s because their core was memorable but even then... far from the imagination-inspiring teams of the past.

 

[Big Phil]

It was still competitive though. I mean, the teams knew each other well. They played each other 14 times a year. There is a reason there wasn't 3-1 playoff series leads blown until post expansion times. Teams just didn't allow it. They didn't blow it like how it happens today.

 

[HisIceness]

The best example that I can remember was the 2002 Red Wings. That team was stacked from head to toe and anything less than the Cup would have been a failure, and they had to come back from a 3-2 series deficit to Colorado to get to the Finals. I remember reading articles basically gifting them the Cup from the word 'Go'.

 

[The Panther]

The best example that I can remember was the 2002 Red Wings. That team was stacked from head to toe and anything less than the Cup would have been a failure, and they had to come back from a 3-2 series deficit to Colorado to get to the Finals. I remember reading articles basically gifting them the Cup from the word 'Go'.

Montreal can beat that. Back in 1978-79, a Montreal paper not only predicted (assumed) that the Habs would win the Cup (which they did), but also predicted that Bob Gainey would win the Conn Smythe (which he did). This was all before the playoffs even started.

 

[tarheelhockey]

100% agreed. No team have any identity anymore.

The Blackhawks barely did it in the 2010s because their core was memorable but even then... far from the imagination-inspiring teams of the past.

That seems a bit unfair. There have been plenty of memorable teams. The 2010s Canucks, Bruins, Penguins all had interesting team dynamics. I'm a Canes fan and we had some 100% forgettable seasons, but the last couple of years they've been really interesting to follow.

On the other side of the coin, it's no challenge to find unwatchable teams from the O6 era. The main difference is that bad teams were likely to feature an aging HHOF'er playing out his twilight years, but that probably felt a lot less interesting in real-time than it does from a distance.

The hard thing in 2020 is that if the team you follow is in a rut of dull seasons, it's not so easy to find solace in the rest of the league. There's a big difference between a 6-team league with one or two easily identifiable powerhouses, and the blur of a 31-team league with rosters in constant flux. You'd almost have to be a bandwagoner by nature to consistently follow interesting teams.