What year has the "best" team won the Cup?

[Fugazy]

2008 Red Wings and 2010 and 2013 Blackhawks come to mind.

 

[KingsFan7824]

But leaving that out, how exactly do you define "the best"? Is it overall record? GF/GP? GA/GP? Percentage of points?

Best is too subjective of a word. Like you said, how do you define it? Every team doesn't play every team for the same number of games, with a completely healthy roster, with every player playing his best in every game, which is why we call the team that wins the Cup the Stanley Cup champs. Nobody says you've won the best team award. Even when the team wins the closest thing to a best team award, we just call them the President's trophy winner. They have the top record, but as we've seen over the years, that means almost nothing in hockey.

 

[HandshakeLine]

They were the 2 seed in the East with 112 points. The only other team with more points and the cup post lockout was the 2008 Wings. Just because no one paid them any attention during the regular season doesn't mean they weren't busy winning 50+ games.

Oh, I know. I wasn't trying to say that they didn't earn that Cup. They did and in a hell of a fashion. I'm just saying, when people look at the individual stats of a roster, that Carolina team seems out of place because they didn't really have that many marquee names- an OLD Recchi and Selke-winning Brind'amour, Ray Whitney on the downturn, and Eric Staal at his high-water mark.

If you were looking at the other rosters in the NHL that year just on individual contributions alone, they seem weaker, but they weren't-- they outplayed everyone in their way.

 

[Price is Wright]

The 1981-82 Islanders. No-one was going to beat that team.

I loved that team more than any other team in hockey, because it reminded me of the 77 Canadiens. Isles winning two games against them in the playoffs was the sign that the Isles would be the next dynasty because that team was near unstoppable.

82 Isles nearly blew it in the first round against Pittsburgh, which will always keep them a notch below the 77 Canadiens. Still an incredible team.

 

[MoeManthaMustache]

The problem for myself is that I view the regular season and playoffs as two different sports.

I am also rather "naive" as some may say and believe in;

playoff preformers, clutch players, and teams that are just better in the post season.

But if the playoffs are considered a different sport, then the thread is pointless, because the winner of the cup is the best "playoff" team by definition of winning.

I believe the only purposeful discussion is to find the teams who were the best regular season team, a favorite to win the cup so to speak, who actually did go on and win it.

 

[Datsyukian Deke]

2002 Detroit Red Wings is probably best roster ever assembled, the number of HOF'ers on this team is crazy.

One of the best teams I've had the privilege to see as a fan, not sure if that will ever be replicated.

The 2008 team had its flaws early on in the Nashville series. Being at Bridgestone (the Sommet Center back then) for that game 3, Suter & Arnott's two goals in a matter of 9 seconds after the Wings were up 2-0, was brutal. Granted, Hasek being pulled in game 4 in favor of Osgood, helped save the season...that along with Radulov jumping into Arnott after the goal.

2009 should have been the same had injuries not been a factor for the Finals, ugh, still stings.

 

[Stickpucker]

The best team wins the cup every year.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

One of the best teams I've had the privilege to see as a fan, not sure if that will ever be replicated.

The 2008 team had its flaws early on in the Nashville series. Being at Bridgestone (the Sommet Center back then) for that game 3, Suter & Arnott's two goals in a matter of 9 seconds after the Wings were up 2-0, was brutal. Granted, Hasek being pulled in game 4 in favor of Osgood, helped save the season...that along with Radulov jumping into Arnott after the goal.

2009 should have been the same had injuries not been a factor for the Finals, ugh, still stings.

2009 Detroit was significantly weaker defensively though, not nearly as tight of a team as 2008. They gave up 244 goals in 08-09 compared to 184 goals in 07-08.

 

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaa]

Every time the Oilers in the 80's and Habs in the 70's won. A couple Islander teams, as well, especially the later Cups.

Those were true dynasties and amazing teams, the likes of which we will never see again.

 

[HandshakeLine]

Man, the 80s Islanders were even greater than some of the Gretzky Oilers squads. What a mix of nasty and finesse!

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

The 94 Rangers struggled all playoffs though outside of the first round. They went 7 games in the final 2 rounds against two teams who were largely inferior to them.

Wrong.

beating the caps in 5 is struggling?

we went into the ECF with 1 loss, and beating the 2nd best team in the entire league in 7 games is hardly "struggling"

the only series we underachieved was the final, which would have been a sweep if not for Kirk McLean's 52 save performance in Game 1.

 

[leaffaninvancouver]

Wasn't that the year that Buffalo ended up losing all of their defensemen to injury by the ECF too?

That was the year Carolina injured pretty much every team they were playing.

Montreal lost Koivu
Buffalo lost 4 defence
Edmonton lost their star goalie, Roloson had been amazing all playoffs.

Credit to Carolina they took advantage but there is a reason they are usually considered the weakest modern cup win. They did still win a cup and even if it was a weak win, it's still a win.

 

[garnetpalmetto]

2006 Carolina?

112 points, 2nd seed in the East (missed out on 1st seed by 1 point)? I'll kindly disagree to that.

Oh, I know. I wasn't trying to say that they didn't earn that Cup. They did and in a hell of a fashion. I'm just saying, when people look at the individual stats of a roster, that Carolina team seems out of place because they didn't really have that many marquee names- an OLD Recchi and Selke-winning Brind'amour, Ray Whitney on the downturn, and Eric Staal at his high-water mark.

If you were looking at the other rosters in the NHL that year just on individual contributions alone, they seem weaker, but they weren't-- they outplayed everyone in their way.

That was hardly Whitney on the downturn - if anything it started a career revitalization for him as he scored 55 points that season, a career-high 83 points the next. I'd argue his career really didn't take a downturn until his last season in Dallas.

That was the year Carolina injured pretty much every team they were playing.

Montreal lost Koivu
Buffalo lost 4 defence
Edmonton lost their star goalie, Roloson had been amazing all playoffs.

Credit to Carolina they took advantage but there is a reason they are usually considered the weakest modern cup win. They did still win a cup and even if it was a weak win, it's still a win.

Oh goody. This again. Koivu contributed all of 2 secondary assists before he got injured. There were literally a dozen Habs who were doin gas well or better than he was that series. Buffalo came into the series missing Kalinin. McKee played all but Game 7. Tallinder played Games 1-3. At their strongest, Game 1, they were out 1 defenseman - Kalinin. At their weakest, Game 7, they were out 4 (Kalinin, Numminen, McKee, and Tallinder), and for most of the series they were only out 2-3 (2.42ish to be exact). As for Roloson, as discussed earlier, prior to his injury he had blown a 4-0 lead and looked shaken and beatable. And, as also mentioned let's not forget we were without an effective starter in Games 1 and 2 of the Montreal series (Gerber picked up a stomach flu and lost around 20 pounds of weight going in) and had been without our top power forward (Erik Cole) since March.

 

[Fugazy]

The 94 Rangers struggled all playoffs though outside of the first round. They went 7 games in the final 2 rounds against two teams who were largely inferior to them. It shows you even when the top seeded team wins they still frequently come close to losing. It's not often anyone gets there without a close call, that's why this is the hardest championship to win.

That's not really true. They breezed through the first two rounds and the ECF and SCF went to 7 games. I wouldn't call that struggling.

 

[leaffaninvancouver]

112 points, 2nd seed in the East (missed out on 1st seed by 1 point)? I'll kindly disagree to that.



That was hardly Whitney on the downturn - if anything it started a career revitalization for him as he scored 55 points that season, a career-high 83 points the next. I'd argue his career really didn't take a downturn until his last season in Dallas.



Oh goody. This again. Koivu contributed all of 2 secondary assists before he got injured. There were literally a dozen Habs who were doin gas well or better than he was that series. Buffalo came into the series missing Kalinin. McKee played all but Game 7. Tallinder played Games 1-3. At their strongest, Game 1, they were out 1 defenseman - Kalinin. At their weakest, Game 7, they were out 4 (Kalinin, Numminen, McKee, and Tallinder), and for most of the series they were only out 2-3 (2.42ish to be exact). As for Roloson, as discussed earlier, prior to his injury he had blown a 4-0 lead and looked shaken and beatable. And, as also mentioned let's not forget we were without an effective starter in Games 1 and 2 of the Montreal series (Gerber picked up a stomach flu and lost around 20 pounds of weight going in) and had been without our top power forward (Erik Cole) since March.

I'm sure it's just a conspiracy that so many fans of so many different teams, most of who don't even care about your team all think it's the 2006 hurricanes.

 

[bert]

All of the cup winners were the best the season they won. Only on HF would a thread like this exist. Ridiculous. Shoulda woulda coulda as a sens fan, Ill tell you one thing in 2003 and 2006 when they didnt win despite being considered the best teams I didnt feel any remorse about who the victor was. You have to actually win the games to be called the best.

 

[Joe McGrath]

I'm sure it's just a conspiracy that so many fans of so many different teams, most of who don't even care about your team all think it's the 2006 hurricanes.

Groupthink and conspiracy are two different things. No one remembers that the Hurricanes were a dominant team that season because no one paid them any attention until the playoffs. 112 points during the regular season is the 2nd most points for the Cup Winner since the 2005 lockout. The whole season was a bit of an anomaly with how the game was called, but the fact remains, that team, that season, was at bare minimum one of the top 4 teams in the league wire to wire.

 

[leaffaninvancouver]

Groupthink and conspiracy are two different things. No one remembers that the Hurricanes were a dominant team that season because no one paid them any attention until the playoffs. 112 points during the regular season is the 2nd most points for the Cup Winner since the 2005 lockout. The whole season was a bit of an anomaly with how the game was called, but the fact remains, that team, that season, was at bare minimum one of the top 4 teams in the league wire to wire.

Someone has to have the weakest cup win though, if it's not the 2006 Hurricanes who is it? Who has the weakest team since 2000?

 

[garnetpalmetto]

Groupthink and conspiracy are two different things. No one remembers that the Hurricanes were a dominant team that season because no one paid them any attention until the playoffs. 112 points during the regular season is the 2nd most points for the Cup Winner since the 2005 lockout. The whole season was a bit of an anomaly with how the game was called, but the fact remains, that team, that season, was at bare minimum one of the top 4 teams in the league wire to wire.

That and misremembrances. I've said it elsewhere but I've come across people who've thought, amongst other things, that

• Carolina was the 8th seed that playoffs
• Erik Cole was a "beast" during the playoffs
• Koivu had been offensively dominant for the Habs in Games 1 and 2
• The Hurricanes feasted on a weak Southeast division to get to their 112 points
• Mike Card led to the Sabres losing Game 7
• Ladd ran Roloson to injure him
• Roloson was pitching a shutout when he went out

Now, all of these are demonstrably and verifiably untrue but to some extent or another I've seen them bandied about repeatedly. Misremembrance isn't, on its own, a bad thing, but it does get tiresome having to repeatedly point out flawed memories with regards to some of those basic facts.

As to who was the weaker since 2000, I recall not being terribly impressed by the '2011 Bruins.

 

[pbgoalie]

2007 Ducks
But we owned the refs, the league, and were dirty

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

Every year.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

The 94 Rangers struggled all playoffs though outside of the first round. They went 7 games in the final 2 rounds against two teams who were largely inferior to them. It shows you even when the top seeded team wins they still frequently come close to losing. It's not often anyone gets there without a close call, that's why this is the hardest championship to win.

I'm not agreeing. They beat the first two teams with ease. The Devils IMO were going to win the cup if they advanced. That was the hardest team faced by NY. I don't see where people think New Jersey was that inferior, speaking from a rival POV.

 

[HandshakeLine]

That and misremembrances. I've said it elsewhere but I've come across people who've thought, amongst other things, that

• Carolina was the 8th seed that playoffs
• Erik Cole was a "beast" during the playoffs
• Koivu had been offensively dominant for the Habs in Games 1 and 2
• The Hurricanes feasted on a weak Southeast division to get to their 112 points
• Mike Card led to the Sabres losing Game 7
• Ladd ran Roloson to injure him
• Roloson was pitching a shutout when he went out

Now, all of these are demonstrably and verifiably untrue but to some extent or another I've seen them bandied about repeatedly. Misremembrance isn't, on its own, a bad thing, but it does get tiresome having to repeatedly point out flawed memories with regards to some of those basic facts.

As to who was the weaker since 2000, I recall not being terribly impressed by the '2011 Bruins.

To be fair too, we're looking back on it from 10 years of hindsight. People forget things or misremember how the series played out. And a good chunk of this site might not be old enough to remember it. I'll totally cop to the former, however. I totally forgot that Whitney had a resurgence.

Groupthink and conspiracy are two different things. No one remembers that the Hurricanes were a dominant team that season because no one paid them any attention until the playoffs. 112 points during the regular season is the 2nd most points for the Cup Winner since the 2005 lockout. The whole season was a bit of an anomaly with how the game was called, but the fact remains, that team, that season, was at bare minimum one of the top 4 teams in the league wire to wire.

This too. I don't remember hearing much about the 'Canes in 2006 either because it was still the relative dark ages as far as watching games online and I was living in Chicago at the time. We were lucky to even get Hawks games on television because Wirtz was so cheap. When the Canes won, it seemed like they came out of nowhere, despite the fact that people should have seen them coming.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

That and misremembrances. I've said it elsewhere but I've come across people who've thought, amongst other things, that

• Carolina was the 8th seed that playoffs
• Erik Cole was a "beast" during the playoffs
• Koivu had been offensively dominant for the Habs in Games 1 and 2
• The Hurricanes feasted on a weak Southeast division to get to their 112 points
• Mike Card led to the Sabres losing Game 7
• Ladd ran Roloson to injure him
• Roloson was pitching a shutout when he went out

Now, all of these are demonstrably and verifiably untrue but to some extent or another I've seen them bandied about repeatedly. Misremembrance isn't, on its own, a bad thing, but it does get tiresome having to repeatedly point out flawed memories with regards to some of those basic facts.

As to who was the weaker since 2000, I recall not being terribly impressed by the '2011 Bruins.

I think it's the simple fact that fans don't see any superstar names on the roster. And so they instinctively downgrade the team.

 

[Tawnos]

I get where you're coming from,

and by default I do agree.

But I think the mentality of you can't be the best without beating the best comes to mind.

I understand this is just paper and logistics,

but the fact that a team could win the cup without coming close to facing the defending champs is wild.

The problem with the "can't be the best without beating the best" is that any team, no matter how good, can get outplayed by another team in a short sample. It's even possible that, if you put two teams up against each other in 10 best of 7 series, one team might win 8 of those with 5 sweeps and the series we ended up getting in this reality is one of the two they would lose.

The "best" team doesn't win every series, just the team that plays the best in the short sample.