Worst team to win the Cup?

[ContrarianGoaltender]

But for that one season, they were a great hockey team. I'm still confused as to why what they did in 2004 or 2007 has much relevence when we're talking about the 2006 team specifically.

How were they great, specifically? Is it that 112 points and a Stanley Cup = greatness, regardless of how you got there? What I saw in the 2006 Hurricanes was a team that won mostly because of special teams, goaltending, and their opponents' injuries, with a ton of those wins coming by just a single goal. Those are all things that tend to be pretty unsustainable, which goes back to the point about the importance of 2004 and 2007. Sometimes a team goes through a year where everyone's shots just seem to go in. I'd say there absolutely is an element of good fortune to having a lot of career years coincide.

I just don't see much to support calling that team great. Their goal differential, moderate as it was to begin with, was mainly built on special teams play. It wasn't because of a great power play or a great penalty kill, but because Carolina drew penalties and didn't take them. Despite the 17th ranked power play and the 19th ranked penalty kill the Canes ended up with a +18 goal differential on special teams because they had 86 more power plays than their opponents.

Carolina was simply uniquely positioned to be able to turn their terrific team discipline into a significant standings advantage in a season with major rule changes that led to the highest number of power plays per game in the expansion era. That put them in the position to take advantage of a hot goalie and injury-weakened opposition in the playoffs. It was the right philosophy at the right time, definitely, but winning games because your players were the fastest to learn to stop hooking guys is not what I associate with greatness.

 

[buffalowing88]

I see the '06 Hurricanes get mentioned a lot, but I just don't see why. Maybe it's because they sort of came out of nowhere and disappeared from the radar just as fast, but for that one year, they were that good.

Erik Cole was having a monster year for them before being sidelined in (February?) for all but the final two games of the playoffs, and they just kept on rolling. Brind'Amour was dominant all over the ice from start to finish, with a Hart and Smythe worthy campaign. Cam Ward was great in net after Gerber crapped the bed in round one. Recchi and Weight were key additions mid-season, Eric Staal had a big breakout year. The no-name defense wasn't flashy, but was effective, and they had big seasons from support players like Cullen and Whitney.

It was a case of everything falling into place at the right time, no doubt. But if looked at in a vacuum (and why wouldn't we?), they were as strong a champion as many post-dynasty winners.

That team does not deserve mention in this thread. They took people by surprise during the regular season and even through the first two series, but by the conference finals, the consensus seemed to think they'd finally give in.

As a Sabres fan, I have to say that even though it broke my heart we lost to that 05-06 Cane's team, they were incredibly deep and had the perfect set of veteran leaders mixed with hungry youth. They had two gut-check series in a row against Buffalo and Edmonton. Buffalo had Briere, Drury, and a plethora of talent in front of a young but still talented Miller. Yes, we lost a lot of guys due to injury but in the end, it was the all around effort of the Canes that beat us, not holes in the Buffalo roster.

Than, the Canes go into the finals against Edmonton and basically take on the most dominant player of that post season in Pronger and beat him.

I guess what I mean to say is that they by no means lucked into the Stanley Cup win. They beat two legitimate teams in classic series and walked away champions.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

2005-06 was the first year after the lockout and the difference in goals per game average between it and the last year before the lockout was quite possibly the most pronounced season-to-season change in the history of the league. If you look at a historical chart 05-06 is a peak, an aberration from the rest of its era. The new rules, the new approach to officiating, maybe we have to take the results of that year with a grain of salt. And of course both teams in the Finals were out of the playoffs the very next season.

 

[begbeee]

Carolin win this poll by a mile against Devils...

If you put 95 Devils against 06 Carolina... Hey man, Devils win 2-0 with EN or 2-1. Devils at least had the trap system , 06 Carolina had nothing.

 

[BogsDiamond]

In my lifetime I'd say '93 Habs. Easiest road to the Cup.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The day that the Hurricanes traded for Mark Recchi, they were 43-14-4 and on top of the standings in the entire NHL. Weight and Recchi were fine players that helped Carolina win the Cup, but their teammates were mostly responsible for the team's spectacular regular season.

So what? Stanley Cups are won in the postseason, where Recchi and Weight were key contributors. Nobody cares in May what their team looked like in October.

The only one of those departed players who played a major role for the club throughout the entire 2005-06 regular season was Aaron Ward, the rest were either fourth-liners, deadline rental players, bottom-pairing defencemen or backup goalies.

Again, I don't buy that rental players and depth players are suddenly not counted on the roster. Those guys played key roles on a championship squad, I'd say they were valid members of the team.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Carolin win this poll by a mile against Devils...

If you put 95 Devils against 06 Carolina... Hey man, Devils win 2-0 with EN or 2-1. Devils at least had the trap system , 06 Carolina had nothing.

If we are going to hold the "post lockout landscape shift" against '06 Carolina, we need to do the same for the '95 Devils. They were the team that made a strategy out of illegal obstruction, and stumped their opponents that year with the trap. But in reality they weren't remotely close to being the best team in the league, as evidenced by their 9th overall seed and lack of playoff berth the following year. They were hugely fortunate to hit a hot streak at the end of a mediocre, abbreviated season.

The idea of them winning a series against any post-lockout team is just ridiculous. The level of illegal obstruction in their game was grotesque.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

How were they great, specifically?

I watched every playoff game they played that year, or very close to it. They had heart, grit, and determination that was not matched by any other clubs that year. Rod Brind'Amour was a man on a mission. Nothing less than 100% and a championship seemed acceptable to him that year, and the rest of the team followed his lead. The Hurricanes were a very difficult team to play against that year. It was tough to match their intensity and work ethic. There were no shrinking violets in that lineup.

If I had to pick two key reasons:

1) Depth. The ability to get scoring, defense, and physical play out of all four lines.

2) They could match their top center against the other team's top line without sacrificing much, if any, of his offense. Brind'Amour was playing 20-25 tough minutes, many in a defensive role, that year and still produced 70 regular season points and 12 goals in the playoffs. Having the best center in the league (he was in this specific year) is huge.

Like I said earlier, the Hurricanes of 2006 don't look all that different to the Blackhawks of right now in their team make-up. Chicago having the Keith-Seabrook combo is an advantage, but up front there are many parallels. Led by a center having a great run playing well in both ends of the rink (Brind'Amour/Toews), young scorer breaking out (Staal/Kane), support and depth players making big contributions (Sharp, Byfuglien, Versteeg/Cullen, Whitney, Stillman).

I think Carolina coming undone the following season was them not having enough gas in the tank to sustain their intensity and hunger for another full season, rather than them being a fluke the previous year.

 

[overpass]

Like I said earlier, the Hurricanes of 2006 don't look all that different to the Blackhawks of right now in their team make-up. Chicago having the Keith-Seabrook combo is an advantage, but up front there are many parallels. Led by a center having a great run playing well in both ends of the rink (Brind'Amour/Toews), young scorer breaking out (Staal/Kane), support and depth players making big contributions (Sharp, Byfuglien, Versteeg/Cullen, Whitney, Stillman).

I'll say Chicago has an advantage on the blueline. Carolina's defensive corps was very ordinary, and were the worst group of defencemen to win the Cup in the last few decades. Really, they were a bunch of #3, #4, and #5 defencemen..

 

[DaveG]

I'll say Chicago has an advantage on the blueline. Carolina's defensive corps was very ordinary, and were the worst group of defencemen to win the Cup in the last few decades. Really, they were a bunch of #3, #4, and #5 defencemen..

Even as a Canes fan I use the same words to describe that defense all the time. There was no #1 on that team, not even close. The best defenseman, Aaron Ward at the time, was arguably a #2, and on a few other teams (Ottawa, New Jersey, Calgary, Tampa Bay) he would have been a #3. Same goes for Frank Kaberle (at least for that season). But what they did have was a plethora of guys that fit nicely into that #3/4 mold: Wesley, Hedican, Commodore, Wallin and quality depth guys like Tverdovsky and a young Babchuk. I'd still take this Hawks defense over the blueline easily though.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'll say Chicago has an advantage on the blueline. Carolina's defensive corps was very ordinary, and were the worst group of defencemen to win the Cup in the last few decades. Really, they were a bunch of #3, #4, and #5 defencemen..

Totally agreed, but Ward/Niemi makes the defense a wash. Chicago definitely gets more offense from their blueline than the Canes did.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Totally agreed, but Ward/Niemi makes the defense a wash. Chicago definitely gets more offense from their blueline than the Canes did.

Niemi is playing as well as Ward was IMO.

Chicago's defense has a leg up on Carolina's for sure. That Hurricane defense was effective though. With the compliment of forwards they had, the defense's job was simply to be safe and not screw things up, and they accomplished that.

 

[Big Phil]

Really? Philly slumped at the end of the season if I recall, blowing home ice advantage on the final day. They also gagged away a pair of games in the series with Pittsburgh. Washington was basically the same team as Pittsburgh. Suspect in several key areas, but a superstar was able to carry them. The difference here was that Washington only had one such player, Pittsburgh had two. Carolina was out of gas and was only the #6 seed anyway. Beating Detroit was very impressive, but I don't think the road through the east was all that tough for them.

Well I haven't heard another year mentioned since 1980. Personally, I think the Pens had as difficult as any road to the Cup in 2009 as any other team post 1980 Islanders. Post lockout the only team to come close was Anaheim. Even if Chicago wins I don't think it will have been tougher.

The Pens did it to themselves by having such a low seed that year but that resulted in them playing Philly first round who was the same team as ths year without Pronger. Washington in Round 2 who had the best high octane offense in the NHL and was outgunned by the Pens. Carolina was rather easy. But Detroit was the defending champs, they came back from 2-0 and beat them at home in Game 7 which hadn't been done in 38 years. Find me another team with a tougher road post 1980

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Well I haven't heard another year mentioned since 1980. Personally, I think the Pens had as difficult as any road to the Cup in 2009 as any other team post 1980 Islanders. Post lockout the only team to come close was Anaheim. Even if Chicago wins I don't think it will have been tougher.

The Pens did it to themselves by having such a low seed that year but that resulted in them playing Philly first round who was the same team as ths year without Pronger. Washington in Round 2 who had the best high octane offense in the NHL and was outgunned by the Pens. Carolina was rather easy. But Detroit was the defending champs, they came back from 2-0 and beat them at home in Game 7 which hadn't been done in 38 years. Find me another team with a tougher road post 1980

Alrighty, grab a beer and we'll take a closer look at this.

Obviously it's a little subjective. Points/standing placements of opponents are important in determining it, but there's definitely a grey area. I personally don't consider the Washington team they beat that tough of an out. Much like this year, they were a team with exploitable weaknesses. Pittsburgh got away with poor team defense and suspect goaltending and won because Washington's was even worse. If you consider Pittsburgh's road to the Cup to be exceptionally tough, you must think highly of Washington. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I would be in disagreement with that.

Overall, they had to beat the 9th, 4th, 11th, and 3rd place teams. I wouldn't say this is anything earth-shattering. Most champions get a first round opponent in the 13-16 overall range by virtue of a high finish, and this is really the only thing separating Pittsburgh from most others.

I would say the '95 Devils had a tougher road for sure, and of course finishing fifth had a lot to do with it. They beat the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 6th overall teams in the league to win. Pro-rated to a full season, those teams had point totals of 97 (Boston), 104 (Pittsburgh), 103 (Philadelphia), and 120 (Detroit) in the pre-loser point era. It's pretty incredible that they went 16-4 against that competition.

I'll throw out the '00 Devils as well. Florida was a pretty easy out, though they did have 98 points that year. The Leafs had a pretty solid team overall, finishing 7th overall. The Flyers were the top team in the east that year, and then they beat the defending champion Stars. Overall, they had to go through the 3rd, 6th, 7th, and 8th overall teams.

There are a few post-'93 winners that you could make reasonable arguments for if so inclined (Colorado's two Cups were no cake walks). The pre-'93 divisional format era would have the odd candidate as well if you can get over the fact that the winner's first round opponent was usually a doormat by virtue of the "everyone in" system in place.

The '83 Islanders had to go through the 1st overall Bruins and 3rd overall dynasty-in-the-making Oilers. The Capitals and Rangers were a respectable 8th and 10th overall, pretty stiff competition by early round standards. The Oilers went through the 1st, 5th, and 4th overall teams in 1988 if you can look past sub .500 Jets. I'm not saying these are necessarily tougher roads than Pittsburgh, but it was about as tough as the format in place would reasonable produce.

I was actually curious now as to where teams would rank based on strength of opponent, so I ran the numbers. I only did '94 and onwards when the conference format was introduced. The data from before then would need some adjustments based on league size. I simply added up the overall finish of each opponent and divided by four, so the number you see listed is the average league ranking of their four opponents. They are listed in chronological order.

NYR: 10.8
NJD: 3.8
COL: 7.5
DET: 6.5
DET: 7.0
DAL: 10.3
NJD: 6.0
COL: 8.8
DET: 10.0
NJD: 10.0
TBL: 11.9
CAR: 10.5
ANA: 7.5
DET: 10.1
PIT: 6.8

OK, so based on this method (which is obviously very basic) those two Devil teams I listed above did indeed have the toughest road to the Cup. The '97 Wings are next, followed by last years Penguins. Teams finishing atop their conference are understandably handicapped by their relatively weak first and many times second round opponents. The '01 Avalanche had by far the most difficult journey for a President's Trophy winner. The '02 Red Wings had a very tough road through the west, with their number being ballooned by facing the 16th overall Hurricanes in the final. The late 90's Detroit Cup winners perhaps had more difficulty than they get credit for.

Like I mentioned above though, there are certainly other factors at play. How a team was playing when the match-up occured, the state of that team (injuries, etc) needs to be examined. There are also cases of veteran teams taking it easy in the regular season then turning it on when it counts or teams finishing high in the regular season that are not built for the playoffs. This provides a pretty good starting point though, I think.

If you're curious, the Blackhawks will score an 8.8 if they win this year, a number which is hugely inflated by facing the 18th overall Flyers (who are now in fact the lowest ranked team to ever reach a final, though they wouldn't be if you adjusted for league size). Almost unbelievably, the Flyers would only score a 10.5 if they win, simply astonishing for a #7 seed. This is a result of an unusually high number of upsets and a huge discrepency in conference strength. Bizarre to think that the Hawks finished 3rd overall yet had to beat higher quality opponents than the 18th overall team in order to reach the final. If facing a typical finals opponent (say 5th overall), the Hawks would score around 6.0 if they won.

 

[Big Phil]

Alrighty, grab a beer and we'll take a closer look at this.

Obviously it's a little subjective. Points/standing placements of opponents are important in determining it, but there's definitely a grey area. I personally don't consider the Washington team they beat that tough of an out. Much like this year, they were a team with exploitable weaknesses. Pittsburgh got away with poor team defense and suspect goaltending and won because Washington's was even worse. If you consider Pittsburgh's road to the Cup to be exceptionally tough, you must think highly of Washington. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I would be in disagreement with that.

Overall, they had to beat the 9th, 4th, 11th, and 3rd place teams. I wouldn't say this is anything earth-shattering. Most champions get a first round opponent in the 13-16 overall range by virtue of a high finish, and this is really the only thing separating Pittsburgh from most others.

I would say the '95 Devils had a tougher road for sure, and of course finishing fifth had a lot to do with it. They beat the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 6th overall teams in the league to win. Pro-rated to a full season, those teams had point totals of 97 (Boston), 104 (Pittsburgh), 103 (Philadelphia), and 120 (Detroit) in the pre-loser point era. It's pretty incredible that they went 16-4 against that competition.

I'll throw out the '00 Devils as well. Florida was a pretty easy out, though they did have 98 points that year. The Leafs had a pretty solid team overall, finishing 7th overall. The Flyers were the top team in the east that year, and then they beat the defending champion Stars. Overall, they had to go through the 3rd, 6th, 7th, and 8th overall teams.

There are a few post-'93 winners that you could make reasonable arguments for if so inclined (Colorado's two Cups were no cake walks). The pre-'93 divisional format era would have the odd candidate as well if you can get over the fact that the winner's first round opponent was usually a doormat by virtue of the "everyone in" system in place.

The '83 Islanders had to go through the 1st overall Bruins and 3rd overall dynasty-in-the-making Oilers. The Capitals and Rangers were a respectable 8th and 10th overall, pretty stiff competition by early round standards. The Oilers went through the 1st, 5th, and 4th overall teams in 1988 if you can look past sub .500 Jets. I'm not saying these are necessarily tougher roads than Pittsburgh, but it was about as tough as the format in place would reasonable produce.

I was actually curious now as to where teams would rank based on strength of opponent, so I ran the numbers. I only did '94 and onwards when the conference format was introduced. The data from before then would need some adjustments based on league size. I simply added up the overall finish of each opponent and divided by four, so the number you see listed is the average league ranking of their four opponents. They are listed in chronological order.

NYR: 10.8
NJD: 3.8
COL: 7.5
DET: 6.5
DET: 7.0
DAL: 10.3
NJD: 6.0
COL: 8.8
DET: 10.0
NJD: 10.0
TBL: 11.9
CAR: 10.5
ANA: 7.5
DET: 10.1
PIT: 6.8

OK, so based on this method (which is obviously very basic) those two Devil teams I listed above did indeed have the toughest road to the Cup. The '97 Wings are next, followed by last years Penguins. Teams finishing atop their conference are understandably handicapped by their relatively weak first and many times second round opponents. The '01 Avalanche had by far the most difficult journey for a President's Trophy winner. The '02 Red Wings had a very tough road through the west, with their number being ballooned by facing the 16th overall Hurricanes in the final. The late 90's Detroit Cup winners perhaps had more difficulty than they get credit for.

Like I mentioned above though, there are certainly other factors at play. How a team was playing when the match-up occured, the state of that team (injuries, etc) needs to be examined. There are also cases of veteran teams taking it easy in the regular season then turning it on when it counts or teams finishing high in the regular season that are not built for the playoffs. This provides a pretty good starting point though, I think.

If you're curious, the Blackhawks will score an 8.8 if they win this year, a number which is hugely inflated by facing the 18th overall Flyers (who are now in fact the lowest ranked team to ever reach a final, though they wouldn't be if you adjusted for league size). Almost unbelievably, the Flyers would only score a 10.5 if they win, simply astonishing for a #7 seed. This is a result of an unusually high number of upsets and a huge discrepency in conference strength. Bizarre to think that the Hawks finished 3rd overall yet had to beat higher quality opponents than the 18th overall team in order to reach the final. If facing a typical finals opponent (say 5th overall), the Hawks would score around 6.0 if they won.

'95 Devils and '97 Red Wings. I agree they both had a pretty tough road to the Cup. You mention the 2000 Devils as well? Yeah, they didn't face any patsies either. So we'll agree the 2009 Pens are right up there.

IMO no one tops the 1980 Islanders in recent memory. Maybe the 1971 Habs.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I think Carolina coming undone the following season was them not having enough gas in the tank to sustain their intensity and hunger for another full season, rather than them being a fluke the previous year.

Maybe but come on a very good team doesn't need to play at 110% all season just to make the playoffs. The fact they didn't make the playoffs (and not even by that close a margin) really speaks against them. It's one thing to not go on another deep run, especially in the cap era but the playoffs are all but automatic for the really good teams which normally win the Cup.

I mean the Ducks, they won the Cup in 07 and then somewhat stumbled, but they still got 102 points the following season and easily made the playoffs.

 

[Big Phil]

Maybe but come on a very good team doesn't need to play at 110% all season just to make the playoffs. The fact they didn't make the playoffs (and not even by that close a margin) really speaks against them. It's one thing to not go on another deep run, especially in the cap era but the playoffs are all but automatic for the really good teams which normally win the Cup.

I mean the Ducks, they won the Cup in 07 and then somewhat stumbled, but they still got 102 points the following season and easily made the playoffs.

Exactly, some of the less highly regarded Cup winners of all time fall into the category of not making the playoffs the following year. Carolina is one of them of course, Jersey missed the playoffs in 1996. The only team I can remember prior to that was the 1970 Habs. But that situation was so stupid at that time. The Habs had 92 points which was more than anyone in the expansion division. It was a weird layout at that time which benefitted the weak teams

 

[Mr Whipple]

The fact they didn't make the playoffs (and not even by that close a margin) really speaks against them.

In 06-07 the Canes finished with 88 points, just 4 behind the 8th place team, Montreal. That's just two wins outside the playoffs.

In 07-08, they finished in 9th place with 92 points, losing the last game of the season to miss.

This season was the only one where they finished with no real chance to make the playoffs.

Also, for all of the "they had the same team, so should have easily made the playoffs again the following season", you should take into account the injuries and losses to the team. Rentals in Doug Weight and Mark Recchi gone, but also Aaron Ward (who was one of their top defenders on the 06 Cup team), and Matt Cullen (who they struggled without, not having three strong centers) gone to free agency. They also had Frank Kaberle and Cory Stillman out for half a season each with shoulder surgeries. Erik Cole was back, but has never been the same after his neck injury the Cup season. Then on top of all that, they lost Martin Gerber and did not have a suitable backup for Cam Ward, who in the 05-06 regular season didn't play many games and struggled in the jump to a full time starter in front of a very weak defense.

Again, one season has absolutely nothing to do with another. You don't have to build a dynasty to have the best team for one season. Bad personnel management? I'd agree with that. But a bad team because of the seasons surrounding one good one? Not at all.

 

[Big Phil]

In 06-07 the Canes finished with 88 points, just 4 behind the 8th place team, Montreal. That's just two wins outside the playoffs.

In 07-08, they finished in 9th place with 92 points, losing the last game of the season to miss.

This season was the only one where they finished with no real chance to make the playoffs.

Also, for all of the "they had the same team, so should have easily made the playoffs again the following season", you should take into account the injuries and losses to the team. Rentals in Doug Weight and Mark Recchi gone, but also Aaron Ward (who was one of their top defenders on the 06 Cup team), and Matt Cullen (who they struggled without, not having three strong centers) gone to free agency. They also had Frank Kaberle and Cory Stillman out for half a season each with shoulder surgeries. Erik Cole was back, but has never been the same after his neck injury the Cup season. Then on top of all that, they lost Martin Gerber and did not have a suitable backup for Cam Ward, who in the 05-06 regular season didn't play many games and struggled in the jump to a full time starter in front of a very weak defense.

Again, one season has absolutely nothing to do with another. You don't have to build a dynasty to have the best team for one season. Bad personnel management? I'd agree with that. But a bad team because of the seasons surrounding one good one? Not at all.

To be fair, when they added Weight and Recchi they were already in the top 3 in points in the NHL with Ottawa and Detroit. That one season things worked out for them. They certainly didn't dominate and like I have said in another thread the only future HHOFer they had on that team is Recchi (as a rental) with Eric Staal looking to be possibly the only other one. Despite the fact that the Canes haven't been good since 2006 the truth of the matter is history will not consider them to have been a classic legendary team in 2006. Reminds me a bit of Tampa in 2004. Good team, just no one will remember them in 10 years if not already

 

[Mr Whipple]

Oh, I agree totally with that. They are not one of the best teams to ever win the Cup. But at the same time, they aren't the worst, either.

I just disagree completely with those comparing the Canes teams before and after that season to say they are the worst, and implying that they have had the same players for many years. The rosters were very different in significant ways. On top of that, they haven't been nearly as bad as some seem to remember post lockout. Just like if you simply base the Canes team last year only on the ECF's and ignore what they did for quite a few weeks before that.

Though one final note, if Cam Ward keeps improving and gets beyond his injury problems, he is another potential future HOFer along with Staal. That is it of the current roster, though, which is part of their problem. Especially when both go down to injuries for extended periods like this past season.