Worst team to ever win a Cup post expansion

[KOVALEV10*]

Please, it was all about Patrick Roy.

Please, actually take a look at what he said

 

[mooseOAK*]

Please, actually take a look at what he said

I did, which supports my position.

The players were not great in the sense that some of the best ones were past their prime.

 

[reckoning]

I`m noticing that a lot of people are picking the `95 Devils because of the average regular season record, but if we`re talking Stanley Cup winners shouldn`t we look at how dominant they were in the playoffs:

Top 10 Playoff winning percentages:

1. `68 Mtl 12-1 .923
1. `76 Mtl 12-1 .923
3. `88 Edm 16-2 .889
4. `69 Mtl 12-2 .857
4. `70 Bos 12-2 .857
4. `77 Mtl 12-2 .857
7. `81 NYI 15-3 .833
7. `85 Edm 15-3 .833
9. `72 Bos 12-3 .800
9. `78 Mtl 12-3 .800
9. `93 Mtl 16-4 .800
9. `95 NJD 16-4 .800
9. `97 Det 16-4 .800

New Jersey`s playoff year in `95 was very impressive. When their playoff mark is added to their regular season mark, their winning percentage goes from .542 to .618. But the playoff record doesn`t tell the whole story- everyone`s playing different teams. So for the 37 post-expansion Cup winners, I added up the regular season winning percentages of all their playoff opponents that year (not counting OTL points for the last five years) to determine who had the highest quality of opposition.

Top 10 highest quality of opposition:

1. `95 NJD .646
2. `71 Mtl .641
3. `80 NYI .633
4. `76 Mtl .627
5. `69 Mtl .612
6. `83 NYI .609
7. `70 Bos .607
8. `96 Col .604
9. `74 Phi .600
10. `77 Mtl .594

Well, say what you want about New Jersey`s regular season mark that year, but they certainly earned the Cup in the playoffs. The four teams they beat finished the regular season #1, #3, #5 and #6. New Jersey didn`t sneak in through the back door.

But since this thread is about the worst Cup-winning team:

Worst playoff winning percentages:

1. `71 Mtl .600
2. `91 Pit .667
2. `03 NJD .667
4. 6 teams tied with .696

Lowest quality of opposition:

1. `81 NYI .478
2. `82 NYI .509
3. `91 Pit .513
4. `87 Edm .525
5. `86 Mtl .527

As you can see, the `91 Penguins are the only team to rank near the bottom on both lists. They had one of the easiest paths to the Cup, playing the #5, #9, #12 and #16 teams, yet registered one of the least dominating Cup-winning performances. Combine that with their average #7 regular season mark that year (granted Mario didn`t play much, but injuries are part of hockey), they would get my vote as the worst post-expansion Cup-winning team.

 

[reckoning]

I did, which supports my position.

The players were not great in the sense that some of the best ones were past their prime.

The number of superstars on a team, or whether they`re past their prime or not, has nothing to do with how great the team is. It`s a team sport and how well the team does is all that matters; if 20 grinders beat 20 Hall-of-Famers then they`re the better team.

Regarding Patrick Roy in `86, while he played well he wasn`t the only reason they won. In those playoffs the Montreal defence only gave up 24.8 shots per game. The other three semi-finalists that year: Rangers- 31.8, St. Louis- 33.5 and Calgary- 28.4. The myth about Roy being the only reason they won the Cup that year is largely based on one game against the Rangers when he single-handedly kept Montreal alive in OT with save after save. Impressive as that was, it doesn`t take into account how impressive Montreal was defensively in their other 14 wins in those playoffs. I`ll admit that the `86 Habs benefitted from a lot of the top teams getting knocked out early, and facing a Calgary team that was dead tired after two straight seven-game series; but overall the `86 Canadiens deserve a little more respect than they get.

 

[Famous Flames]

reckoning,

Your analysis is impeccable. But subjectively for me, the 95 Devils team was just flat out boring to watch, whereas any team with Mario and Jagr is exciting.

 

[Rather Gingerly 1*]

Which team that has won a Cup since '67 is the worst ever? This is how I look at it. We'll start in the beginning the first post expansion team the '68 Canadiens. To me the '68 and '69 Habs were very good they had a lot of Hall of Famers. H. Richard, Beliveau, Savard, Vachon (should be in Hall), Lemaire, Cournoyer were all on those teams. Next. The Bruins of '70 and '72, nope both were very, very good. No team with Bobby Orr is bad. The Habs of '71 and '73 were also good as well as the '74 '75 Flyers. Then theres the Habs of '76-79 best of all time IMO.

Now we have the Isles '80-83. Nope too good. Then the '84 and '85 Oilers followed by the '87 and '88 Oilers. Yeah right! The Flames of '89 had 117 points that year. The '90 Oilers were still very good. The '91 and '92 Pens may not have had the points totals but when they had all of their best players for the whole season they won. The '94 Rangers were pretty good as well, not great but good enough. Now we have the Avs of '96 or '01 both were offensive dynamos. The '97 '98 and '02 Red Wings were all very good teams. As was the '99 Stars, and the '00 Devils. The '03 Devils weren't great but put up enough regular season points. As did the '04 Lightning and they just make the long list.

That leaves the '93 Habs, the '95 Devils and the '86 Habs. These teams all won the Cup. First off the '93 Canadiens werent a bad team. Maybe not the best but they had 102 points. The Kings may not have been the best team to meet in the finals but the Habs did beat the Nordiques who had 103 points. Plus Patrick Roy in his prime, anda cast of good players, this team is better than the other two.

So compare the '95 Devils to the '86 habs. IMO the two worst teams. The Devils had 52 points which in a full season is 87. Same as the Habs. You had a young Brodeur vs. a young Roy. Roy wins. The best d-man on the Devils was Stevens and for Montreal it was Robinson. Robinson wins, since he won the Norris that year. Also up front the Habs had Gainey (although past his prime), Naslund, Richer, Skrudland, Smith. The Devils had Richer, Broten, Guerin and co. You'd have to give the Habs the edge. The Devils did beat the Red Wings in the final but that was more because of the new suffocating trap other than talent. The Habs only beat the Flames which had 89 points. But to me I still will say with everything in mind the '95 Devils were the worst team in post expansion history to win the Cup.

Any thoughts?

I think you may be overrating the '75 Flyers. They had great goaltending but used goon taticts to win many of their games

 

[Rather Gingerly 1*]

Leafs may not had won a cup but i bet they made the highest profit of all those teams over last 35 yrs

Agree...Ballard chose to sell off many of his players to fatten his wallet but it destroyed the Leafs during his era.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Stevens in 1995 was better than Robinson in 1986. Robinson did not win the Norris that year, his last Norris came in 1980.

Robinson was a 2nd team allstar, had over 80 pts that season and was a rock on defense. It was Robinson's last great season. Stevens was great in 1995, but Robinson had a better season in 86 than Stevens had in 1995.

 

[Hab-a-maniac]

If the Flames had won the cup last season, they'd be #1. But if we look at the playoffs and reg. season combined, the Devils were 16 games above .500 (52 pts. in 48 GP, 16-4 in post-season) and the '86 Habs were 17 games above .500 (87 pts. in 80 GP, 15-5 in post-season). The Canadiens were also a boring defensive team during the 86 playoffs like the Devils but this came about despite the Habs scoring 330 goals which was in the top 10 offenses in the league. Good offensive and defensive talent nonetheless: Lemieux, Smith, Naslund, Robinson, Chelios could put the puck in the net while McPhee, Carbo, Walter, Gainey and Skrudland were great checkers and Svoboda, Green and Ludwig were solid at the blueline. The team is made up of 2 HOF'ers and 2 future HOF'ers. The 95 Devils had less offensive talent, more no-names. But Brodeur was even better than the 86 Roy during that run. They have 3 guys who I believe will head to the HOF in Stevens, Niedermayer and Brodeur but the rest aren't up to it (no Neal Broten and Bobby Carpenter do not get in just because they were good American-born players). It's tough to say, but sadly I'll go with the Devils because they faced some real stiff competition in the playoffs. Every series they didn't have home-ice advantage while Montreal had it in their first three.

 

[Lou is God]

reckoning,

Your analysis is impeccable. But subjectively for me, the 95 Devils team was just flat out boring to watch, whereas any team with Mario and Jagr is exciting.

And that's why you picked them as the worst? That makes absouletly no sense.

 

[Morbo]

No question, the weakest modern champions are the 86 and 93 Canadiens.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

No question, the weakest modern champions are the 86 and 93 Canadiens.

And can you elaborate why you think that rather then just stating things with no proof or reasoning?

 

[doc5hole]

I prefer to look at the '71, '86 and '93 Habs as overachievers rather than the "worst" champions. Winning the Cup is way too difficult (just ask the Leafs, Hawks and Bruins) to insult the winner.

In '71, the expectations weren't there leaguewide because an aging team failed to make the playoffs the year before. The only notable difference was Dryden.

In '86, the expectations weren't there because Quebec won the Adams Division, and Montreal was a team going through a lot of change and was young with much depth that wouldn't be sorted out for another year or two.

In '93, the Canadiens had a fresh voice in Demers and timely contributions from some key players, plus, a great playoff draw. They had lost to the Bruins in five of the previous six playoff seasons, but in this year the Bruins were upset in the opening round by Buffalo. The Pittsburgh, which had just enjoyed its best regular season, was upset by NYI. Montreal handled both upset winners and got very lucky in Game 2 of the finals - if not for McSorley's stick, they go to LA down 2-0.

Bottom line on these teams is: they were all better than widely thought, everything came together at the right time, and they got the breaks. It happens. If I were a Montreal guy, I wouldn't be offended that people think these teams were not on a par with most of the other Cup winners. In fact, would any Hab fan rate them alongside the great teams of their own dynasty eras? Of course not.

More importantly, the Canadiens have managed, as a franchise, the most successful in the history of the sport BTW, to add insult to everyone else's injury by winning the Cups that fell through the cracks in years they weren't especially better than any other darkhorse contender.

This is the strangest achievement by the Canadiens because they did it three times within a 22-year period.

The '86 team probably overachieved more, considering who talented the '71 team still was and how lucky the '93 team was.

It's also hard to categorize the '95 Devils this way because they were a very good regular-season team the year before and would be again in future years with the same defensive nucleus. Plus, Lemieux and Richer were Canadiens who had already won it.

Those four probably overachieved more than the other Cup winners, each in their own way -- but there's nothing "worst" about them.

Maybe the '99 Stars are the "worst" winner because Hull's goal not only violated the crease rule, it was goalie interference.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

I prefer to look at the '71, '86 and '93 Habs as overachievers rather than the "worst" champions. Winning the Cup is way too difficult (just ask the Leafs, Hawks and Bruins) to insult the winner.

In '71, the expectations weren't there leaguewide because an aging team failed to make the playoffs the year before. The only notable difference was Dryden.

In '86, the expectations weren't there because Quebec won the Adams Division, and Montreal was a team going through a lot of change and was young with much depth that wouldn't be sorted out for another year or two.

In '93, the Canadiens had a fresh voice in Demers and timely contributions from some key players, plus, a great playoff draw. They had lost to the Bruins in five of the previous six playoff seasons, but in this year the Bruins were upset in the opening round by Buffalo. The Pittsburgh, which had just enjoyed its best regular season, was upset by NYI. Montreal handled both upset winners and got very lucky in Game 2 of the finals - if not for McSorley's stick, they go to LA down 2-0.

Bottom line on these teams is: they were all better than widely thought, everything came together at the right time, and they got the breaks. It happens. If I were a Montreal guy, I wouldn't be offended that people think these teams were not on a par with most of the other Cup winners. In fact, would any Hab fan rate them alongside the great teams of their own dynasty eras? Of course not.

More importantly, the Canadiens have managed, as a franchise, the most successful in the history of the sport BTW, to add insult to everyone else's injury by winning the Cups that fell through the cracks in years they weren't especially better than any other darkhorse contender.

This is the strangest achievement by the Canadiens because they did it three times within a 22-year period.

The '86 team probably overachieved more, considering who talented the '71 team still was and how lucky the '93 team was.

It's also hard to categorize the '95 Devils this way because they were a very good regular-season team the year before and would be again in future years with the same defensive nucleus. Plus, Lemieux and Richer were Canadiens who had already won it.

Those four probably overachieved more than the other Cup winners, each in their own way -- but there's nothing "worst" about them.

Maybe the '99 Stars are the "worst" winner because Hull's goal not only violated the crease rule, it was goalie interference.

You can say that the habs 86 and 93 teams were the worse although I dont agree with it but nobody's gonna tell me the 71 team was the worse.
MTL 1970-71:
97 Points (4th in league)
42 Wins (4th in league)
291 Goals (2nd in league)
216 Goals allowed (6th in league)

Top stars: Jean Beliveau, Yvan Cournoyer, Frank Mahovlich, J.C. Tremblay, Pete Mahovlich, Jacques Lemaire, Henri Richard, Guy Lapointe, Serge Savard and Ken Dryden

Habs were like the 4th best team in the league and beat the 2 best teams in the league in Boston and Chicago so they clearly werent a bad team.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Regarding the 1986 Habs, they weren't quite as bad as they may appear to have been by looking at their point total. That team went 0-7 in OT decisions during a time when you didn't get an extra point for an OT loss. In today's NHL they would have earned 96 points. Not amazing, but it looks alot better than 87 pts. In addition how could any team with talent like Smith, Naslund, Gainey, Carbonneau, Chelios, Robinson, Roy, Lemieux and Richer, along with the type of roll players team's covet like McPhee, Skrudland, Nilan, Ludwig and Green, be considered bad.

 

[looooob]

Regarding the 1986 Habs, they weren't quite as bad as they may appear to have been by looking at their point total. That team went 0-7 in OT decisions during a time when you didn't get an extra point for an OT loss. In today's NHL they would have earned 96 points. Not amazing, but it looks alot better than 87 pts. In addition how could any team with talent like Smith, Naslund, Gainey, Carbonneau, Chelios, Robinson, Roy, Lemieux and Richer, along with the type of roll players team's covet like McPhee, Skrudland, Nilan, Ludwig and Green, be considered bad.

I think the point to be taken away is that no team that has won the cup postexpansion was a 'bad team'

saying the 86 Habs, or 95 Devils are the weakest (which seems to be the consensus thus far) is pretty remarkable, seeing as both were made up of guys who were core members of other cup winners

 

[Morbo]

And can you elaborate why you think that rather then just stating things with no proof or reasoning?

Proof? Reasoning? Just compare those rosters with all the other modern Cup champions, and it should be quite obvious.

 

[VanIslander]

No question, the weakest modern champions are the 86 and 93 Canadiens.

I'm not a Habs fan but I have to totally disagree.

Those two teams played incredibly as a team. They did all the little things right, working together lock in step, it was like choreography, the teamwork was amazing.

Some people equate best team with most scoring or best regular season. They shouldn't.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Proof? Reasoning? Just compare those rosters with all the other modern Cup champions, and it should be quite obvious.

Well if you want to use that criteria, talent for talent those rosters are still superior to the 95 Devils. In addition the 1993 Habs had a superior won/loss record to a number of Stanley Cup champs.

 

[Big Phil]

I think you may be overrating the '75 Flyers. They had great goaltending but used goon taticts to win many of their games

I hardly doubt that. The Flyers of '75 had 113 points! They were tops in the league in that category. The only blemish on that season might have been the fact that they needed 7 games to finish off the Islanders who came back from a 3-0 deficit. But in the Cup final they beat a very good Buffalo Sabres team who also had 113 points (but less wins). The Flyers of the 70s will always be remembered as the Broad Street Bullies but what people forget is the talent they actually had on that team. First off, Parent was the best goalie in the league. Then Clarke was the Hart Trophy winner. Throw in another HOFer Barber, and then good players like Leach, MacLeish etc.. and you certainly do not have a terrible post expansion Cup winning team.