TomasHertlsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
I made this thread about a year ago. I talked about how you pretty much need to tank to win in today's NHL and that provides a lack of parity in terms of true championship caliber teams because most management groups aren't given the green light by ownership to conduct a tank. 9 of the last 10 Stanley Cup Winners drafted in the top-5 of back to back drafts. In other words, in order to have more than a 10% chance at winning a Stanley Cup over the last 10 years, you have to be one of 4 different teams that was one of the 5 worst teams in the NHL for multiple seasons between 2004 and now.
Washington just won the Stanley Cup. They drafted Ovechkin #1OV in 2004, and then got their back to back picks in Backstrom at #4OV in 2006 and Karl Alzner at #5 in 2007. Technically, Alzner was totally unnecessary, but the only reason they didn't get a top-5 pick in 2005 is because the entire order of the draft was determined by mostly random variance. Washington was 2nd to last in 2003-2004, 3rd to last in 2005-2006, and 4th from last in 2006-2007. Their 2nd last and 3rd last finish in back to back seasons allowed them to acquire Alexander Ovechkin and Nicklas Backstrom; two superstars that were completely essential to their success. Alzner is mostly irrelevant outside of establishing the technicality that they had back to back top-5 draft picks but then it's also just a technicality that Ovechkin and Backstrom weren't back to back top-5 draft picks.
I don't want to create a wall of text in the OP, because those tend to not get red. So I'll just throw out some key points.
1. We are only talking Stanley Cup WINNERS. I'm a Sharks fan, so I can tell you as somebody who has experienced both that making the SCF is no better than missing the playoffs. I would have much rather tanked and drafted Auston Matthews in 2016. Please don't bring up 2010 Philadelphia, 2012 NJD, 2014 NYR, 2016 SJS, 2018 VGK, or any other non-tank team that made the SCF and got crushed.
2. Teams like Florida and Arizona trying to tank and failing DOES not disprove my argument whatsoever. Not every team that tanks will win. If I were to say "You have to drink water to survive", you would have to point me to examples of why you can survive without drinking water. You could not say "This guy drank water, and he still died" as disproval of the theory that you have to drink water to survive. That's not how it works.
3. 2011 Boston may or may not be a fluke, but I'm not looking to get into those semantics; you can't reliably build a team around a goaltender having a .940 SV% because that virtually never happens. That is why Boston in 2011 is not a sustainable Stanley Cup Winner.
4. 9 of the last 10 Cup winners drafted in the top-5 of back to back drafts after finishing in the bottom-5 of the NHL's standings in back to back seasons. The last 3 Conn Smythe Winners were first overall picks. 4 of the last 6 Conn Smythe winners were first overall picks. 6 of the last 10 Conn Smythe winners were top-2 picks.
5. The NHL has had 5 Cup Winners over the last 10 years. The NBA has had 6. This league might have more parity amongst playoff teams, playoff series winners, etc., but it is a very very simple mathematical fact that there has been less parity over the last 10 NHL champions than the last 10 NBA champions. I believe a big part of this is because you have to be a bottom-5 team for multiple straight seasons to be successful in the NHL and most owners aren't willing to bite that bullet so most teams can't realistically contend.
6. One final questions for people who believe you can win a Cup without tanking; how many more years of only tank teams winning before you give credence to the idea that maybe you can only win as a tank team?
Washington just won the Stanley Cup. They drafted Ovechkin #1OV in 2004, and then got their back to back picks in Backstrom at #4OV in 2006 and Karl Alzner at #5 in 2007. Technically, Alzner was totally unnecessary, but the only reason they didn't get a top-5 pick in 2005 is because the entire order of the draft was determined by mostly random variance. Washington was 2nd to last in 2003-2004, 3rd to last in 2005-2006, and 4th from last in 2006-2007. Their 2nd last and 3rd last finish in back to back seasons allowed them to acquire Alexander Ovechkin and Nicklas Backstrom; two superstars that were completely essential to their success. Alzner is mostly irrelevant outside of establishing the technicality that they had back to back top-5 draft picks but then it's also just a technicality that Ovechkin and Backstrom weren't back to back top-5 draft picks.
I don't want to create a wall of text in the OP, because those tend to not get red. So I'll just throw out some key points.
1. We are only talking Stanley Cup WINNERS. I'm a Sharks fan, so I can tell you as somebody who has experienced both that making the SCF is no better than missing the playoffs. I would have much rather tanked and drafted Auston Matthews in 2016. Please don't bring up 2010 Philadelphia, 2012 NJD, 2014 NYR, 2016 SJS, 2018 VGK, or any other non-tank team that made the SCF and got crushed.
2. Teams like Florida and Arizona trying to tank and failing DOES not disprove my argument whatsoever. Not every team that tanks will win. If I were to say "You have to drink water to survive", you would have to point me to examples of why you can survive without drinking water. You could not say "This guy drank water, and he still died" as disproval of the theory that you have to drink water to survive. That's not how it works.
3. 2011 Boston may or may not be a fluke, but I'm not looking to get into those semantics; you can't reliably build a team around a goaltender having a .940 SV% because that virtually never happens. That is why Boston in 2011 is not a sustainable Stanley Cup Winner.
4. 9 of the last 10 Cup winners drafted in the top-5 of back to back drafts after finishing in the bottom-5 of the NHL's standings in back to back seasons. The last 3 Conn Smythe Winners were first overall picks. 4 of the last 6 Conn Smythe winners were first overall picks. 6 of the last 10 Conn Smythe winners were top-2 picks.
5. The NHL has had 5 Cup Winners over the last 10 years. The NBA has had 6. This league might have more parity amongst playoff teams, playoff series winners, etc., but it is a very very simple mathematical fact that there has been less parity over the last 10 NHL champions than the last 10 NBA champions. I believe a big part of this is because you have to be a bottom-5 team for multiple straight seasons to be successful in the NHL and most owners aren't willing to bite that bullet so most teams can't realistically contend.
6. One final questions for people who believe you can win a Cup without tanking; how many more years of only tank teams winning before you give credence to the idea that maybe you can only win as a tank team?
