Why was the 1980s Norris Division so bad?

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

It just dawned on me today, Isnt it weird how an entire division like the old 80s Norris managed to be so bad as a group for so long? Naturally, none of the individual teams that (re)formed the Norris in 81-82 were very good before being grouped together, but it took until at least 1990 or 1991 for the division to look on par with the rest of the league, and you wouldnt really call the Wings/Leafs/Stars/Hawks/Blues collection of teams truly scary as a group until the mid-late 90s at best.

While we have seen teams have decade long funks like the one the post-lockout Oilers slogged through after 2006, an NHL team being bad for that long is uncommon just for the fact that you cant avoid getting some form of decent help through the draft if you suck for 10 years. This hasnt always been the case, sometimes due to league economics helping the better teams warp that advantage (hello Sam Pollock!), but AFAIK the 80s were pretty much as good a time as any in league history to rebuild through the draft.

With all of that in mind, it seems really against the odds that five teams could all simultaneously be 2006-2016 Oilers bad for close to a decade straight (or if you really want to split hairs 4 teams were bad and one was just league average for the decade, although Im not fully convinced Chicago was even that). At first glance the simplest reasons I can see for the Norris teams being bad would be:

-Norris family ownership mishandling the Wings until Devellano took over.

-The North Stars really should have been the class of the 80s Norris based on what they did in 1980 and 1981, but a shitstorm of weird career ending injuries and some promising players just fading held them back from that.

-St. Louis had some financial issues relating to ownership by the mid 80s (bizarrely followed up by having more money than they knew what to do with by the mid 90s, but thats another story)

-Harold Ballard

But still, that list just doesn't seem to explain the full story on why the division was so bad-to-mediocre. None of those issues besides Ballard had a major impact on the teams they damaged for more than 4-5 years, yet the division still stagnated for a decade.

So what was it? Some sort of stigma for players around playing in the midwest during the 80s? An overemphasis on tough guys that couldnt keep up against opponents outside of the division? There had to have been something

Click to read more...

 

[streitz]

Wings were rebuilding in the 70's and 80's, by the late 80's they started to improve when Yzerman came into his own and they started getting some help around him.

North stars didn't have a superstar, they were forced to trade Bobby Smith which made them a much weaker hockey team during the decade.

Leafs had Ballard. On the ice they never had an elite center after Sittler who was traded in 1982. Or a goalie. Or elite defencemen except maybe Salming who was old by the 80's. They had some good wingers though.

Blackhawks were a 1 line team with a cheap owner, not as bad as Ballard but his own set of problems. The hawks were the strongest Norris team from 82-93 though, by far. Mostly because of Savard and Larmer, later Reonick.

St Louis was the team I watched the least in that division, I mostly remember them having problems with goaltending and a lack of quality wingers. No idea about their financial constraints, they also had a habit of making bad trades, sometimes based on money or off ice issues.



Overall I loved watching the Chuck Norris Division. I used to watch the leafs every chance I got in the 80's and early 90's. Not because they were good or that I was a fan, but because they sucked, were entertaining and had tons of fights in their games.

 

[The Panther]

Toronto was really entertaining to watch in the mid- to late-80s (didn't see prior to that). They were horrible, of course -- at times, like a poorly-coached Junior A team in the NHL -- but entertaining as hell.

It does seem odd that all the Norris teams were basically bad during that era. Certainly Chicago seemed to be the 'best', relatively. From an Oilers-fans' perspective, I can tell you that the 2nd-round was exciting, but then the 3rd round (vs. a Norris opponent) was sort-of like a free-pass to the Finals. (In fairness, this changed in 1990, when Edmonton was going down and Chicago was coming up, but the Hawks got 'Messier-ed' in game 4 and then it was over.)

Good/Decent Norris-era seasons:
Minnesota in 1981-82
Chicago (4th overall) and Minnesota in 1982-83
St.Louis in 1986 had a good playoff run, at least...
Detroit in 1987-88 (5th overall, good playoff run, too)
Chicago, not bad in 1989-90
1990-91 was like the revival of the Norris: Chicago 1st overall, St.Louis 2nd overall
Detroit in 1991-92 (tied 2nd overall)
1992-93 was the final season of the Norris, and its best: Chicago, Detroit, and Toronto were all near the top of the League. St.Louis wasn't bad, too.

 

[McGarnagle]

Definitely seems like ownership. A bad mixture of willful frugality by some and austerity as a result of financial problems by others. From the 1981 realignment that gave the division the shape we know up to 1990, things are pretty pitiful. 83-84 to 86-87 is the real dregs, when they didn't have a division leader top 90 points.

I know everyone loved the old divisional playoffs, but isn't it ridiculous that one of those teams was guaranteed a place in the conference finals when Dale Hawerchuk's Jets only got out of the first round one time in the loaded Smythe?

The other irony is that the year when the division finally had multiple elite teams (1991: Chicago and St. Louis at 106 and 103 points respectively), who wins the divisional playoff and goes to the Finals? 68-point Minnesota.

 

[The Panther]

I know everyone loved the old divisional playoffs, but isn't it ridiculous that one of those teams was guaranteed a place in the conference finals when Dale Hawerchuk's Jets only got out of the first round one time in the loaded Smythe?

I didn't have a problem with that so much. (Winnipeg's record in those first 9 Norris/Hawerchuk seasons was actually lower than Chicago's and about the same as St.Louis and Minnesota's.) I'm a firm supporter of the divisional playoff format, though not necessarily in the simple form it took then.

The problem by the late-80s was that -- in 1987-88, for example -- we had Toronto making the playoffs with 51 points and the Rangers missing with 82.

The other irony is that the year when the division finally had multiple elite teams (1991: Chicago and St. Louis at 106 and 103 points respectively), who wins the divisional playoff and goes to the Finals? 68-point Minnesota.

Lol, yeah that was quite the unexpected run. I guess in a way Detroit broke the Norris curse by winning it all in '97.

 

[streitz]

I didn't have a problem with that so much. (Winnipeg's record in those first 9 Norris/Hawerchuk seasons was actually lower than Chicago's and about the same as St.Louis and Minnesota's.) I'm a firm supporter of the divisional playoff format, though not necessarily in the simple form it took then.

The jets record was lower then Chicago's because we were guaranteed to go at best maybe 2-6 vs the oilers and flames, sometimes worse.
Let me put it this way, the jets in 79/80/80/81 were the worst club in the league. In 80-81 9-57-14 or whatever the record was to get Hawerchuk. All of a sudden with Hawerchuk the jets are a .500 team. The following year the Jets improved as a team but had a losing record 33-39-8.

The answer was very simple, the Jets didn't get to feast on all the crap Norris teams 7-8 times a year anymore and now had to face the oilers,flames and in the early 80's the canucks weren't as bad as later in the decade.
]



I can say this with complete confidence as someone who watched a lot of Norris hockey as well as Smythe hockey, until the early 90's, the strongest Norris team would of been smoked by the Smythe team who missed the playoffs. With the exception of maybe Denis Savard winning a series(with Larmer of course).

 

[The Panther]

The jets record was lower then Chicago's because we were guaranteed to go at best maybe 2-6 vs the oilers and flames, sometimes worse.
Let me put it this way, the jets in 79/80/80/81 were the worst club in the league. In 80-81 9-57-14 or whatever the record was to get Hawerchuk. All of a sudden with Hawerchuk the jets are a .500 team. The following year the Jets improved as a team but had a losing record 33-39-8.

The answer was very simple, the Jets didn't get to feast on all the crap Norris teams 7-8 times a year anymore and now had to face the oilers,flames and in the early 80's the canucks weren't as bad as later in the decade.
]



I can say this with complete confidence as someone who watched a lot of Norris hockey as well as Smythe hockey, until the early 90's, the strongest Norris team would of been smoked by the Smythe team who missed the playoffs. With the exception of maybe Denis Savard winning a series(with Larmer of course).

I don't disagree with your opinion at all. I'm just saying that if the Jets were going to do better, they needed to become a better team, not just depend on weaker opponents. I mean, let's say they were in the Norris all that time. Okay, so maybe they'd have made it to round three a couple of times. They'd still have been smoked there.

 

[streitz]

Okay, so maybe they'd have made it to round three a couple of times. They'd still have been smoked there.

I don't disagree with that, but the primary reason people rank Savard ahead of Hawerchuk for example is that he had more playoff success with the blackhawks. Which is where I point out he never beat the Oilers or flames either(Jets were actually 2-1 in the playoffs vs the flames).



As for cups that doesn't matter, Jets didn't have a good enough team period throughout the 80's and 90's.

 

[Jets4Life]

The Smythe Division was arguably worse from 1974-81. Some truly horrific teams played in that group. In fact, it was not until the 1984-85 season that a majority of the Smythe Division teams finished with winning records.

After the NHL aligned the divisons according to geography (1981), it seemed like the balance of power was tipped heavily in favor of the Prince of Wales Conference. The Patrick Division seems to be the perennial "group of death" while the Adams Division always had the Bruins and Canadiens battling it out for supremacy.

Once the Norris Division started to produce some contenders (1990), the Campbell/Western Conference would finally be on par with the East. It seemed like for the entire 80s decade, the winner of the Smythe would have an anti-climatic series against the Norris winner, en route to the Stanley Cup Final.

 

[Jets4Life]

The jets record was lower then Chicago's because we were guaranteed to go at best maybe 2-6 vs the oilers and flames, sometimes worse.
Let me put it this way, the jets in 79/80/80/81 were the worst club in the league. In 80-81 9-57-14 or whatever the record was to get Hawerchuk. All of a sudden with Hawerchuk the jets are a .500 team. The following year the Jets improved as a team but had a losing record 33-39-8.

The Jets never tanked to get Hawerchuk. The Jets really were that horrible for their first two seasons in the NHL. John Ferguson would have no part in any kind of tanking. This was documented in April 1980, with one game remining and two points behind the Colorado Rockies, the coach of the Jets had asked if the Jets should rest their best players, in hopes of landing the #1 draft pick. Fergie said "absolutely not. We always play to win." The Jets ended up defeating the Rockies 3-2, and by having more wins, managed to avoid a last place finish in the 79-80 season.

The answer was very simple, the Jets didn't get to feast on all the crap Norris teams 7-8 times a year anymore and now had to face the oilers,flames and in the early 80's the canucks weren't as bad as later in the decade.

I agree with what you have to say about the Oilers and Flames. However, the Canucks never were anygood. They never finished with a winning season in the 1980s, and had no competition when they went to the 1982 Stanley Cup Finals.

I can say this with complete confidence as someone who watched a lot of Norris hockey as well as Smythe hockey, until the early 90's, the strongest Norris team would of been smoked by the Smythe team who missed the playoffs. With the exception of maybe Denis Savard winning a series(with Larmer of course).

The Blues came dangerously close to knocking off the Flames in 1986, losing 2-1 in a hard fought 7-game series, which included the "Monday Night Miracle."

 

[Doctor No]

One thing to remember is that if the divisional competition is worse, then there's less incentive to make long-term investments in order to be competitive within that division (since it's easier to be competitive regardless).

Bill James did an interesting example in one of his Baseball Abstracts using a card game where you "won" if you achieved a given point level. When the point level required to win increased, then your optimal strategy for winning the game had to change as well.

Anecdotally, the division where it was hardest to make the playoffs (twice as many teams missing as any other division) was always pretty competitive.

 

[streitz]

The Jets never tanked to get Hawerchuk. The Jets really were that horrible for their first two seasons in the NHL. John Ferguson would have no part in any kind of tanking. This was documented in April 1980, with one game remining and two points behind the Colorado Rockies, the coach of the Jets had asked if the Jets should rest their best players, in hopes of landing the #1 draft pick. Fergie said "absolutely not. We always play to win." The Jets ended up defeating the Rockies 3-2, and by having more wins, managed to avoid a last place finish in the 79-80 season.

I agree with what you have to say about the Oilers and Flames. However, the Canucks never were anygood. They never finished with a winning season in the 1980s, and had no competition when they went to the 1982 Stanley Cup Finals.

The Blues came dangerously close to knocking off the Flames in 1986, losing 2-1 in a hard fought 7-game series, which included the "Monday Night Miracle."

I never said the Jets tanked to get Hawerchuk I said the Jets sucked and got Hawerchuk.

I also don't really care about St louis pushing the flames to 7 after they just won a bloodbath of a 7 game series against the Oilers. I'm aware the Blues had a 5(best of 5) and a 7 game series prior to that but it doesn't matter.




I'm not a Canucks fan, but give me a break lol, they would of killed any of those mid-late 80's Norris teams with the exception of MAYBE the Wings in the late 80's, or maybe Savard's hawks(they lost to the canucks in 1982).

 

[Jets4Life]

I'm not a Canucks fan, but give me a break lol, they would of killed any of those mid-late 80's Norris teams with the exception of MAYBE the Wings in the late 80's, or maybe Savard's hawks(they lost to the canucks in 1982).

Canucks record Smythe Division:

1981-82: 30-33-17 (2nd) 3rd in Norris
1982-83: 30-35-15 (3rd) 3rd in Norris
1983-84: 32-39-9 (3rd) 2nd in Norris
1984-85: 25-46-9 (5th) 3rd in Norris
1985-86: 23-44-13 (4th) 4th in Norris
1986-87: 29-43-8 (5th) Last in Norris
1987-88: 25-46-9 (5th) 4th in Norris
1988-89: 33-39-8 (4th) 3rd in Norris

The Canucks were horrible, and likely would have never advanced through the Norris Division. They lucked out in 1982 playoffs, as the two good teams (Oilers and North Stars) were knocked out, and despite being a 77 point team, they faced 3 of the worst teams in the NHL that season, only to get swept by the Islanders, their first real challenge. You may be confusing the Canucks with another team, since most seasons in the Norris, they would not have finished higher than 3rd place.

I'm convinced that the Jets would have made it out of the Norris Division, had they not been forced into the Smythe after the Colorado move. 1985 and 1987 would have likely been the years the Jets would have won the Division.

 

[streitz]

Canucks record Smythe Division:

1981-82: 30-33-17 (2nd) 3rd in Norris
1982-83: 30-35-15 (3rd) 3rd in Norris
1983-84: 32-39-9 (3rd) 2nd in Norris
1984-85: 25-46-9 (5th) 3rd in Norris
1985-86: 23-44-13 (4th) 4th in Norris
1986-87: 29-43-8 (5th) Last in Norris
1987-88: 25-46-9 (5th) 4th in Norris
1988-89: 33-39-8 (4th) 3rd in Norris

The Canucks were horrible, and would have never advanced through the Norris Division. They lucked out in 1982 playoffs, as the two good teams (Oilers and North Stars) were knocked out, and despite being a 77 point team, they faced 3 of the worst teams in the NHL that season, only to get swept by the Islanders, their first real challenge. You may be confusing the Canucks with another team, since most seasons in the Norris, they would not have finished higher than 3rd place.

Do you understand how divisional schedules worked in the 80's?


If the canucks or the Dionne kings were in the Norris they wouldn't of had to play the oilers and flames(or the Jets but they were inconsistent) 8 times each, they would of played them 3 times.


So instead of going 1-7 against the Oilers and maybe 2-6 vs the flames they would get to play the tire fire leafs/wings/north stars 8 times a year instead.

 

[streitz]

Again, just to pick a few random teams Smythe vs Norris 80's style.


Jets vs Leafs
1989: 3-0-0 100.0 7.3 3.0 | 2-0-0 100.0 6.0 3.5 | 1-0-0 100.0 10.0 2.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1988: 2-1-0 66.7 5.7 3.7 | 1-0-0 100.0 4.0 3.0 | 1-1-0 50.0 6.5 4.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1987: 1-2-0 33.3 3.3 5.7 | 1-1-0 50.0 4.5 5.5 | 0-1-0 0.0 1.0 6.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1986: 1-1-1 50.0 2.7 4.0 | 0-0-1 50.0 3.0 3.0 | 1-1-0 50.0 2.5 4.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1985: 3-0-0 100.0 5.3 3.0 | 2-0-0 100.0 5.5 3.0 | 1-0-0 100.0 5.0 3.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1984: 3-0-0 100.0 8.0 4.3 | 1-0-0 100.0 8.0 2.0 | 2-0-0 100.0 8.0 5.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1983: 3-0-0 100.0 6.3 3.0 | 2-0-0 100.0 6.5 3.0 | 1-0-0 100.0 6.0 3.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1982: 4-2-1 64.3 5.0 3.9 | 1-2-0 33.3 4.0 4.7 | 3-0-1 87.5 5.8 3.3 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Kings vs wings

1989: 3-0-0 100.0 7.3 3.0 | 1-0-0 100.0 8.0 2.0 | 2-0-0 100.0 7.0 3.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1988: 1-2-0 33.3 3.7 5.0 | 1-1-0 50.0 4.0 5.0 | 0-1-0 0.0 3.0 5.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1987: 3-0-0 100.0 5.0 2.7 | 1-0-0 100.0 5.0 4.0 | 2-0-0 100.0 5.0 2.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1986: 1-2-0 33.3 2.3 4.7 | 0-2-0 0.0 1.0 5.0 | 1-0-0 100.0 5.0 4.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1985: 2-1-0 66.7 6.3 4.7 | 1-0-0 100.0 8.0 3.0 | 1-1-0 50.0 5.5 5.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1984: 2-0-1 83.3 6.3 5.0 | 1-0-1 75.0 6.0 5.0 | 1-0-0 100.0 7.0 5.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1983: 1-0-2 66.7 4.3 3.3 | 1-0-0 100.0 4.0 1.0 | 0-0-2 50.0 4.5 4.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1982: 2-1-0 66.7 5.0 4.7 | 2-0-0 100.0 6.5 2.0 | 0-1-0 0.0 2.0 10.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0




Canucks vs Leafs


1989: 1-2-0 33.3 1.7 3.0 | 1-0-0 100.0 2.0 1.0 | 0-2-0 0.0 1.5 4.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1988: 1-1-1 50.0 4.0 5.0 | 1-1-0 50.0 2.5 4.0 | 0-0-1 50.0 7.0 7.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1987: 2-1-0 66.7 4.7 4.3 | 1-0-0 100.0 3.0 2.0 | 1-1-0 50.0 5.5 5.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1986: 2-0-1 83.3 4.7 3.3 | 2-0-0 100.0 5.0 3.0 | 0-0-1 50.0 4.0 4.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1985: 1-1-1 50.0 3.7 3.3 | 0-1-0 0.0 3.0 5.0 | 1-0-1 75.0 4.0 2.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1984: 1-0-2 66.7 5.3 4.3 | 1-0-1 75.0 5.5 4.0 | 0-0-1 50.0 5.0 5.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1983: 1-2-0 33.3 4.0 4.3 | 0-1-0 0.0 1.0 4.0 | 1-1-0 50.0 5.5 4.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1982: 2-0-1 83.3 4.3 2.7 | 1-0-1 75.0 4.5 3.5 | 1-0-0 100.0 4.0 1.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Canucks/ Hawks



1989: 2-1-0 66.7 4.7 3.3 | 1-1-0 50.0 3.5 3.0 | 1-0-0 100.0 7.0 4.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1988: 1-2-0 33.3 2.0 2.7 | 1-0-0 100.0 3.0 2.0 | 0-2-0 0.0 1.5 3.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1987: 1-1-1 50.0 3.7 3.0 | 0-1-1 25.0 2.0 3.0 | 1-0-0 100.0 7.0 3.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1986: 0-3-0 0.0 2.3 4.0 | 0-1-0 0.0 3.0 5.0 | 0-2-0 0.0 2.0 3.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1985: 1-2-0 33.3 4.3 6.3 | 1-1-0 50.0 5.0 5.0 | 0-1-0 0.0 3.0 9.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1984: 1-2-0 33.3 1.7 2.3 | 1-0-0 100.0 4.0 3.0 | 0-2-0 0.0 0.5 2.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1983: 1-0-2 66.7 3.3 2.0 | 0-0-2 50.0 2.5 2.5 | 1-0-0 100.0 5.0 1.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1982: 2-1-0 66.7 3.8 2.4 | 3-0-0 100.0 5.0 2.7 | 3-2-0 60.0 3.0 2.2 | 4-1-0 80.0 3.6 2.6


Canucks/ North stars


1989: 1-2-0 33.3 4.3 3.7 | 1-0-0 100.0 5.0 1.0 | 0-2-0 0.0 4.0 5.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1988: 2-1-0 66.7 4.0 1.7 | 1-1-0 50.0 4.0 2.0 | 1-0-0 100.0 4.0 1.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1987: 0-3-0 0.0 2.3 5.0 | 0-1-0 0.0 3.0 4.0 | 0-2-0 0.0 2.0 5.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1986: 2-1-0 66.7 6.0 3.3 | 2-0-0 100.0 8.0 3.5 | 0-1-0 0.0 2.0 3.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1985: 1-1-1 50.0 3.7 4.0 | 1-0-0 100.0 3.0 2.0 | 0-1-1 25.0 4.0 5.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1984: 1-1-1 50.0 4.3 4.7 | 1-0-1 75.0 6.5 6.0 | 0-1-0 0.0 0.0 2.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1983: 0-2-1 16.7 4.0 6.0 | 0-0-1 50.0 3.0 3.0 | 0-2-0 0.0 4.5 7.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1982: 1-1-1 50.0 3.3 2.3 | 1-0-1 75.0 4.5 2.0 | 0-1-0 0.0 1.0 3.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Canucks/ blues

1989: 3-0-0 100.0 2.3 1.0 | 2-0-0 100.0 2.0 0.5 | 1-0-0 100.0 3.0 2.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1988: 1-2-0 33.3 5.0 4.3 | 1-0-0 100.0 8.0 2.0 | 0-2-0 0.0 3.5 5.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1987: 2-0-1 83.3 3.3 2.7 | 1-0-1 75.0 3.0 2.5 | 1-0-0 100.0 4.0 3.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1986: 0-3-0 0.0 3.7 5.7 | 0-1-0 0.0 3.0 4.0 | 0-2-0 0.0 4.0 6.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1985: 0-3-0 0.0 0.7 5.0 | 0-2-0 0.0 1.0 5.5 | 0-1-0 0.0 0.0 4.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1984: 1-2-0 33.3 3.0 2.0 | 1-0-0 100.0 7.0 1.0 | 0-2-0 0.0 1.0 2.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1983: 3-0-0 100.0 5.0 2.3 | 2-0-0 100.0 6.0 3.0 | 1-0-0 100.0 3.0 1.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1982: 1-2-0 33.3 2.3 4.0 | 0-1-0 0.0 4.0 5.0 | 1-1-0 50.0 1.5 3.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0





Again to compare with their record vs Smythe opponents, so no one mistakes me saying the Canucks were good in the 80's.
That being said replace these with crappy norris teams and their record improves.


Canucks/Oilers

1989: 5-3-0 62.5 3.8 2.9 | 3-1-0 75.0 4.3 3.0 | 2-2-0 50.0 3.3 2.8 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1988: 0-7-1 6.3 3.4 5.8 | 0-3-1 12.5 3.0 5.3 | 0-4-0 0.0 3.8 6.3 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1987: 0-7-1 6.3 2.9 5.5 | 0-3-1 12.5 3.5 6.3 | 0-4-0 0.0 2.3 4.8 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1986: 0-7-1 4.5 2.5 6.2 | 0-5-0 0.0 2.4 5.0 | 0-5-1 8.3 2.7 7.2 | 0-3-0 0.0 1.7 5.7
1985: 3-3-2 50.0 3.5 4.8 | 2-0-2 75.0 5.0 4.0 | 1-3-0 25.0 2.0 5.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1984: 1-6-1 18.8 4.0 6.4 | 1-3-0 25.0 4.0 5.5 | 0-3-1 12.5 4.0 7.3 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1983: 2-5-1 31.3 3.1 5.3 | 1-3-0 25.0 3.0 6.0 | 1-2-1 37.5 3.3 4.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1982: 2-5-1 31.3 3.1 4.5 | 2-1-1 62.5 3.8 2.5 | 0-4-0 0.0 2.5 6.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Canucks/flames


1989: 1-5-2 33.3 2.7 3.6 | 3-3-1 50.0 3.1 3.3 | 1-6-1 18.8 2.3 3.9 | 3-4-0 42.9 2.9 3.7
1988: 0-6-2 12.5 3.1 5.1 | 0-2-2 25.0 3.0 4.0 | 0-4-0 0.0 3.3 6.3 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1987: 4-4-0 50.0 3.8 3.1 | 2-2-0 50.0 4.8 3.3 | 2-2-0 50.0 2.8 3.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1986: 2-4-2 37.5 3.5 4.0 | 2-1-1 62.5 3.0 3.3 | 0-3-1 12.5 4.0 4.8 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1985: 0-7-1 6.3 3.0 5.6 | 0-3-1 12.5 3.5 4.8 | 0-4-0 0.0 2.5 6.5 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1984: 2-5-1 29.2 3.2 3.7 | 3-2-1 58.3 4.2 3.2 | 0-6-0 0.0 2.2 4.2 | 1-3-0 25.0 3.3 3.5
1983: 2-5-1 29.2 3.4 4.6 | 2-4-0 33.3 4.2 4.5 | 1-4-1 25.0 2.7 4.7 | 1-3-0 25.0 3.5 4.3
1982: 3-3-2 63.6 4.1 3.5 | 4-1-1 75.0 4.5 2.7 | 2-2-1 50.0 3.6 4.6 | 3-0-0 100.0 3.3 1.7


Canucks/Jets


1989: 3-4-1 43.8 3.6 3.5 | 2-1-1 62.5 3.5 2.8 | 1-3-0 25.0 3.8 4.3 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1988: 3-5-0 37.5 3.5 3.8 | 2-2-0 50.0 3.8 2.8 | 1-3-0 25.0 3.3 4.8 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1987: 3-5-0 37.5 3.5 3.9 | 2-2-0 50.0 4.3 4.5 | 1-3-0 25.0 2.8 3.3 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1986: 3-3-2 50.0 3.6 3.8 | 2-1-1 62.5 4.0 3.5 | 1-2-1 37.5 3.3 4.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1985: 2-5-1 31.3 4.3 5.1 | 1-3-0 25.0 3.8 5.0 | 1-2-1 37.5 4.8 5.3 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1984: 5-2-1 68.8 4.1 3.6 | 3-1-0 75.0 3.8 3.3 | 2-1-1 62.5 4.5 4.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1983: 4-3-1 56.3 4.4 3.8 | 3-0-1 87.5 5.3 3.5 | 1-3-0 25.0 3.5 4.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1982: 2-1-0 66.7 4.0 2.0 | 2-0-0 100.0 5.0 0.5 | 0-1-0 0.0 2.0 5.0 | 0-0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 

[reckoning]

When those divisions were announced in '81, Toronto fans and media were not impressed. They assumed the Leafs would be in the Adams Division, with their primary rival historically (Montreal), and closest rival geographically (Buffalo).

But Bruce Norris refused to let Detroit go to the Norris Division unless either Montreal, Philadelphia or Toronto went with them. Finally, Ballard agreed to put the Leafs. After all, why would he care? The games were always sold out anyway.

 

[Iron Mike Sharpe]

Toronto lucked out, the Leafs would've been absolutely guzzled in the Adams Division. In the Norris, they at least sometimes had a shot at the playoffs.

The North Stars always seemed to have the potential in them, but over time it just seemed that they were perhaps underachievers because they never seemed to be able to get it done. Even with all the injuries they still usually had the most talented team in the Division, but could never put it together for a deep playoff run.

The Hawks definitely stayed most consistently decent, with a core of Savard, Wilson & Larmer, with much better defensive play & goaltending than the other teams. I never really believed them to be a threat to the Oilers, however.

The Blues always overacheived to a degree & seemed to be able to get champagne from lemons, they always seemed to do better than they should have despite all the ownership & management problems. They got a lot of mileage out of castoffs from other teams.

The Yzerman Wings only started to turn around when Jacques Demers took the reins & turned them into a lunchbucket team with guys like Gerard Gallant & Bob Probert. Up until Demers joined, the Wings had still been living in the land of SUCK where they had been living for 20 years. Demers turned them around immediately & kept it going for three years, at least.

 

[Jets4Life]

When those divisions were announced in '81, Toronto fans and media were not impressed. They assumed the Leafs would be in the Adams Division, with their primary rival historically (Montreal), and closest rival geographically (Buffalo).

But Bruce Norris refused to let Detroit go to the Norris Division unless either Montreal, Philadelphia or Toronto went with them. Finally, Ballard agreed to put the Leafs. After all, why would he care? The games were always sold out anyway.

I recall even Winnipeg receiving some compensation for moving to the Smythe Division, once the Rockies moved to New Jersey, and being promised that they would be moved back when the Divisions had equal number of teams.

 

[The Panther]

Toronto lucked out, the Leafs would've been absolutely guzzled in the Adams Division. In the Norris, they at least sometimes had a shot at the playoffs.

Man, can you imagine if the 80s' Maple Laughs had been in the Adams?? In 1984-85, the Leafs went 20-52-8 (.300) while playing 30% of their games vs. the weakest division. Every single player who played 40 or more games was a 'minus'. They had an 18-year-old and two 21-year-olds on defence, who collectively went -97.

It's amazing to think they could have been worse...

The North Stars always seemed to have the potential in them, but over time it just seemed that they were perhaps underachievers because they never seemed to be able to get it done. Even with all the injuries they still usually had the most talented team in the Division, but could never put it together for a deep playoff run.

I think we need (another?) thread about the 80s' North Stars! They had the big run in '81, and seemed destined for great things. It just never happened, and by '87-'88 they hit rock bottom (hello Modano).

 

[tony d]

I remember that. Yeah, some poor teams in the division back then. 1986-1987 had the Blues win the division despite being below .500.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

Some numbers I ran today in spreadsheet form

The numbers for each team in the table are what I call CPQI, basically goals for and against for each game handicapped against the team played against (so if the hawks go into 1985 Philly and light them up with 7 goals, that gets emphasized heavily because Philly was really good defensively in the 80s). Basically think of it as a goal differential average adjusted for schedule strength. (If youre familiar with SRS from hockey-reference.com, it produces similar values, although the algorithms are not exactly the same)

If the Norris division was its own little league that played only amongst themselves for 1981-1993, the league average would be exactly zero every year, thats just how CPQI works. But the Norris was so bad against out-of-division opponents that they collectively played as a -0.500 CPQI team for pretty much the entire span of 1982-1989. For comparison, a -0.500 team in the modern NHL would have been somewhere between last years Wings and Coyotes (although -0.500 wasnt quite as abysmal in the 80s as it is now, given that the top and bottom of the league were much farther apart back then).

 

[Bluesguru]

Yeah, but if you take the Oilers out of the equation, there was nothing really exceptional about the Smythe either. There was really only 3 years in the 80's where you could say the Smythe was defiantly better than the Norris --- again, that's taking Edmonton completely out of the equation.

But yeah, the Norris was mediocre heaven where inter-divisional play was fierce. Maybe the records weren't pretty, but the rivalries were fantastic. It was great, great hockey every post-season. I liked the old format back then, top 4 in and then head to head. It was all about being the best in your division.

 

[The Panther]

Yeah, but if you take the Oilers out of the equation, there was nothing really exceptional about the Smythe either. There was really only 3 years in the 80's where you could say the Smythe was defiantly better than the Norris --- again, that's taking Edmonton completely out of the equation.

Calgary got totally overshadowed but were a really good team through the 80s (esp. considering they played Edmonton 8 times per year and usually lost, until 1986-87):
1981 -- 92 points (7th overall) and 3rd-round of playoffs
1982 -- bad season for Flames
1983 -- only .500-ish record, but they lost only 5 times at home
1984 -- only .500-ish record, but they push Edmonton to game 7 in round two
1985 -- 94 points (6th overall)
1986 -- 89 points (6th overall) and Stanley Cup Finals
1987 -- 95 points (3rd overall)
1988 -- 105 points (1st overall)
1989 -- 117 points (1st overall) and Stanley Cup win
1990 -- 99 points (2nd overall)
1991 -- 100 points (4th overall)
1992 -- bad season for Flames (Gilmour trade, etc.)
1993 -- 97 points

I mean, just the Flames alone were way better than any Norris team in this era. Winnipeg were really good in 1985 (5th overall) and not bad in 1990; L.A. was competitive in 1985, 1991, and 1993 (Cup Finals), and great in 1989 (4th overall) and 1991 (4th overall -- just 4 points from 1st). Vancouver pretty much sucked throughout the 80s (despite the Cup Finals run in '82), but had strong seasons in 1992 (4th overall) and 1993 (101 points, 8th overall).

But yeah, the Norris was mediocre heaven where inter-divisional play was fierce. Maybe the records weren't pretty, but the rivalries were fantastic. It was great, great hockey every post-season. I liked the old format back then, top 4 in and then head to head. It was all about being the best in your division.

Totally agree. As a kid, I used to see Norris games in the late-80s and think to myself, "Why are these guys so insane and crazy when these games are basically meaningless and they have no chance to win anything?" But it was so great -- just all-out anything to win.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

Im not old enough to remember seeing the Norris division in person, but I have watched a decent amount of tape from that era and I think I finally figured out what always bothered me about those 80s Hawks teams.

In theory they look like a really good team. Not too far off to one end or the other on the offence/defence spectrum, they could score and they could defend when they had to. A pretty nice collection of elite talent at the top end of the roster, and a reasonable, sometimes very strong depth. Tough, really tough by todays standards, but just normal by 80s Norris division standards.

So youd figure the typical Black( )hawks gameplan in the 80s would be to win the game by a 5-3 or 6-3 score, play to the score reasonably close most of the way, make time for 2-3 fights but dont go too overboard on the extracurricular antics, everybody pay attention defensively, but dont forget to lob the puck up to Savvys line so he can do his thing. It should have been more than enough to put up 100 pts in the Norris and go get squashed by the Oilers in round 3 every year.

But every time I watch them play I swear to god they couldnt stick to that middle of the road gameplan that would let them win with the team they had. Youd see them play the Oilers, and if they fell behind after Wayne & Kurri potted two quick ones, any semblance of a defensive gameplan would go out the window and theyd trade end to end rushes with the Oilers, scoring 3 goals while giving up like 6. Or theyd play a joke of a team like the leafs that had the one advantage of being way tougher, and theyd get goaded into line brawls where Wendell Clark would cave in the brain of some hawks middleweight and the game would end up devolving into a rumble that the less tough Hawks couldnt handle.

They just didnt have the mental focus to go out and play "their" game for any length of time. All you had to do to crack the 80s Hawks was go out and put 5 minutes of whatever your team was best at on display and theyd rush to try and beat you at it even if it was an aspect of the game they were never going to be great at as a team.

 

[The Panther]

But every time I watch them play I swear to god they couldnt stick to that middle of the road gameplan that would let them win with the team they had. Youd see them play the Oilers, and if they fell behind after Wayne & Kurri potted two quick ones, any semblance of a defensive gameplan would go out the window and theyd trade end to end rushes with the Oilers, scoring 3 goals while giving up like 6. Or theyd play a joke of a team like the leafs that had the one advantage of being way tougher, and theyd get goaded into line brawls where Wendell Clark would cave in the brain of some hawks middleweight and the game would end up devolving into a rumble that the less tough Hawks couldnt handle.

I agree with you completely. I could never understand why Norris teams were coached in the 80s to play risky, attacking styles of hockey. They were never going to get past Edmonton (or Calgary) playing that way. Chicago was a team with enough top-end talent to play a nicely balanced style... if, as you say, they'd stuck to the game plan.

The crazy 1985 Edmonton-Chicago series is the case in point: Edmonton humiliated Chicago in game one and beat them again in game two. Back at the Stadium, the Hawks suddenly won two games in a row, pricking up everyone's attention. Could the mighty Oilers be taken down? But then back in Edmonton in game five, the Hawks allow 10 goals against as they try to match shifts and chances with the highest-scoring team ever. I mean, how did that coaching strategy not get ripped apart?

Detroit around 1987-1988 finally showed that a defense-first Norris team would indeed have considerable success.