Worst team to win the Cup?

[Epsilon]

I knew someone would say this, but I just don't see it.

They were the President's Trophy winners, had the Hart winner on the team, and other great players like Boyle, Lecavalier, and Richards. Also great complimentary players like Kubina. And don't forget that Khabibulin was probably a Top 5 goalie in the world for a couple of years before the lockout. In 2003, the Lightning looked like a great up and coming team, so it's not like they came out of nowhere like the 2006 Canes. I think the lockout and bad cap management killed the chances of the Lightning having an extended run of success.

Agreed, that team has a bunch of players who won't be considered especially great in an all-time context, but for that season at least they were all at the top of their games and the result was a really strong team.

I agree with the poster who said last year's Penguins don't get mentioned enough as one of the weaker Cup champions. That team underachieved all season long, got hot at the right time, and relied mostly on two great forwards and a streaky goaltender (who was able to keep his bad streaks just short enough and his good ones just long enough) to escape with a very close Cup victory.

 

[DaveG]

I knew someone would say this, but I just don't see it.

They were the President's Trophy winners, had the Hart winner on the team, and other great players like Boyle, Lecavalier, and Richards. Also great complimentary players like Kubina. And don't forget that Khabibulin was probably a Top 5 goalie in the world for a couple of years before the lockout. In 2003, the Lightning looked like a great up and coming team, so it's not like they came out of nowhere like the 2006 Canes. I think the lockout and bad cap management killed the chances of the Lightning having an extended run of success.

I'd argue the lockout and the cap combined. They had a good group of players in place but due to the cap they had to release their #2 scorer from the prior season in Stillman and couldn't afford to match Chicago in order to keep Khabibulin. Then you add in some re-signings that seriously damaged their cap situation over the next few years like Richards and you start to slowly have guys like Kubina and Sarich leave via free agency. Didn't help that IIRC they weren't spending to the cap while handing out those contracts to Richards and Vinny. They may never have won another cup even with no cap, hell they may never have even finished in front of the Hurricanes that 05-06 season, but they certainly weren't a one-year wonder team in how they were built.

 

[jkrx]

I knew someone would say this, but I just don't see it.

They were the President's Trophy winners, had the Hart winner on the team, and other great players like Boyle, Lecavalier, and Richards. Also great complimentary players like Kubina. And don't forget that Khabibulin was probably a Top 5 goalie in the world for a couple of years before the lockout. In 2003, the Lightning looked like a great up and coming team, so it's not like they came out of nowhere like the 2006 Canes. I think the lockout and bad cap management killed the chances of the Lightning having an extended run of success.

I don't disagree with you but out of all the cup winner I still find this one the "weakest". Their top players mightve been great but if you check out the lower lines you start to see big holes like Roy, Afanasenkov, Perrin, Cullimore, Lukowich and Dingman. I will also say that its pretty obvious that both teams over performed and I could easily place them both as equally "worse".

Both teams had great top6 lines, both teams had standard defense (meaning nothing fancy just "get the job done"-guys) and a goalie on a mean hot streak.

One thing that could possibly put Canes under Lightning is that Oilers had their top2 goalies injured when they won. Had Roloson been in goal the Oilers might've been the cup winners, we'll never know.

 

[Big Phil]

2006 was the best season of Brind'Amour's career. He was in the running for the Hart and Smythe. His career curve was not that of a typical player. In the late 90's and early 2000's, he was really nothing speacial in most seasons, despite being in his prime age-wise. But something happened in the lockout year and he came back as a dominant force in 2006.

I've seen him play much, much better than the 2006 season. Playoffs, I'll agree with you on but his Selke was questionable at best with Fisher being a prime candidate. A prime BrindAmour made the Olympic team no problem, not so in 2006.

Who cares how many future HOFers the team had, it's all about how they played in that particular season. Last year's Penguins only had two guys who look like future HOFers. The 2008 Red Wings probably the same (Chelios and Hasek were fringe players so I'm not counting them).

I'd stack the 2006 Hurricanes up against any post-lockout Cup winner. I don't think any one of the four stands out above the others

The 2009 Pens certainly have Crosby and Malkin as slam dunks. In the running is Gonchar and (despite the 2010 playoffs I'll still say it) Fleury. Throw in Staal too who is turning 22 this year. That could be 5, who knows. Letang perhaps? These guys are young, let's wait it out. We all know the combination of Selkes and Cups at least gives guys consideration so this is why I am holding off for now on Staal.

Also it's looking more and more to me like Zetterberg and Datsyuk will be in the HHOF someday even though they have some work to do. Lidstrom for sure and Hasek and Chelios simmered down in the playoffs but they still count IMO. That's 5 by the looks of it. I am against Osgood getting in but the fact is he's been mentioned.

It isn't only the lack of star power the 2006 Canes had, but in the playoffs they never faced an offensive powerhouse like Detroit or Pittsburgh. I can't see how they'd have ever stopped them. And I know this is only a "one season" thing but the clock kind of struck midnight for them the next two years when they missed the playoffs. It's hard to think of that team as a powerhouse

 

[Big Phil]

Agreed, that team has a bunch of players who won't be considered especially great in an all-time context, but for that season at least they were all at the top of their games and the result was a really strong team.

I agree with the poster who said last year's Penguins don't get mentioned enough as one of the weaker Cup champions. That team underachieved all season long, got hot at the right time, and relied mostly on two great forwards and a streaky goaltender (who was able to keep his bad streaks just short enough and his good ones just long enough) to escape with a very close Cup victory.

Now come on, you have fake avatar of Crosby balling like a toddler. Your a Wings fan and deep down inside would trade for him. Are you looking at it objectively? The Pens made two straight finals, they were spoonfed the chance for a third one, they messed up. But they were an up and coming team who everyone knew was going to win the Cup and probably more. They played a great team both times in the final and won once, it wasn't a surprise to me that they won but it was a rather big surprise to me that they had those midseason troubles.

Granted the Pens could have had better wingers but their top end talent alone would get them out of the discussion for being among the worst teams to win.

As for the Lightning I think a couple of things screwed them up. Management. And then of course Brad Richards and even Lecavalier being among some of the most overpaid players in NHL history. The constant star on that team to this day has been St. Louis. Basically the stars aligned for them at the right time and I think the lockout hurt them too. Khabibulin (who has a ridiculous habit of leaving a winning team TB, Chicago) left as well. St. Louis will likely be in the HHOF if he keeps it up and since Boyle is a late bloomer we'll just have to see about him. As for the rest, forget it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting Metric

Okay, I promised a crude metric to at least provide a starting point, so here's what I did.

1) I took all NHL champions (all Stanley Cup champions except the 1924-25 Montreal squad) and calculated their marginal goal totals.

Marginal goals = (goals scored in excess of 0.5 times the league average) + (goals prevented below 1.5 times the league average)

I then expressed this as a MG/game average, and here's what popped out.

Top 5
1) 1919-20 Ottawa
2) 1943-44 Montreal
3) 1917-18 Toronto
4) 1976-77 Montreal
5) 1981-82 NY Islanders
61) 2006-07 Anaheim

Bottom 5
1) 1937-38 Chicago
2) 1927-28 NY Rangers
3) 1928-29 Boston
4) 1926-27 Ottawa
5) 1948-49 Toronto

2) Of course, the league has gone through a few ebbs and flows related to scoring. So I then normalized each year to the absolute total goals/game average (6.23708) and re-ran everything through. Here's how it looked after that.

Top 5
1) 1976-77 Montreal
2) 1977-78 Montreal
3) 1938-39 Boston
4) 1943-44 Montreal
5) 1975-76 Montreal
64) 2006-07 Anaheim

Bottom 5
1) 1937-38 Chicago
2) 1948-49 Toronto
3) 1966-67 Toronto
4) 1921-22 Toronto
5) 1952-53 Montreal

3) Of course, there have also been periods of expansion and great competitive imbalance. So I then took the adjusted marginal goals/game and multiplied it by the competitive balance number that I came up with for each season. This would serve to more or less punish teams that played in extremely uncompetitive eras and, for those in more competitive eras, serve to punish them less.


Top 5
1) 1958-59 Montreal
2) 2007-08 Detroit
3) 1988-89 Calgary
4) 1967-68 Montreal
5) 1957-58 Montreal
(#6 is 1976-77 Montreal)
38) 2006-07 Anaheim

Bottom 5
1) 1917-18 Toronto
2) 1937-38 Chicago
3) 1944-45 Toronto
4) 1918-19 Montreal
5) 1919-20 Ottawa

I believe that a metric is largely useless unless it can also state what is plainly obvious. I don't know that I necessarily agree with what this last set of rankings spells out, but I think that consideration for competitive balance is reasonable and isn't something that should be ignored.

As far as the debates over the team of the 2000s, here's how each system ranks them.

Unadjusted marginal goals/game
1) 2000-01 Colorado
2) 2001-02 Detroit
3) 2007-08 Detroit
4) 2006-07 Anaheim
5) 2005-06 Carolina
6) 1999-00 New Jersey
7) 2002-03 New Jersey
8) 2008-09 Pittsburgh
9) 2003-04 Tampa Bay

Adjusted marginal goals/game
1) 2000-01 Colorado
2) 2007-08 Detroit
3) 2001-02 Detroit
4) 2003-04 Tampa Bay
5) 2002-03 New Jersey
6) 1999-00 New Jersey
7) 2006-07 Anaheim
8) 2005-06 Carolina
9) 2008-09 Pittsburgh

Adjusted marginal goals/game with competitive balance number
1) 2007-08 Detroit
2) 2001-02 Detroit
3) 2000-01 Colorado
4) 2003-04 Tampa Bay
5) 1999-00 New Jersey
6) 2002-03 New Jersey
7) 2008-09 Pittsburgh
8) 2006-07 Anaheim
9) 2005-06 Carolina

Interesting metric and approach. If I understand correctly you used the regular season data.

Key question is this. Looking at the weakest teams to win the Stanley Cup or one such team - the 1938 Chicago Black Hawks, would your metric if applied to the playoffs, explain the turnaround perfromance, the level of improvement or however the difference may be qualified that turned the team from an also ran into a champion.

 

[njdevils1982]

'94 New York Oilers.

 

[Big Phil]

'94 New York Oilers.

lol, yeah they were the old Oilers pretty much. Even though they didn't do a whole lot before or after 1994 the truth is they were a great team that year. Led the NHL in points by a good margin (112 to NJ the closest at 106). They had Messier, Leetch, Richter (who was at least playing like a HHOFer at that time) Zubov (see Richter) and a whole slew of players who at that point in their careers were perfect pieces in the puzzle on that Rangers team. Players like Larmer, Graves, Kovalev, Anderson, Lowe, Tikkanen and even MacTavish. It's easy to look back now because we all know that same team split up right after but for that season alone there is no way a prime Leetch with a still good Messier on their team and the cast of complimentary support players is the worst ever.

 

[DaveG]

I've seen him play much, much better than the 2006 season. Playoffs, I'll agree with you on but his Selke was questionable at best with Fisher being a prime candidate. A prime BrindAmour made the Olympic team no problem, not so in 2006.

Brindy won it going away that year. I can buy an argument for the next season but in terms of defensive and two-way play there were few better in the league then Rod. And let's face it, whether it was the intention of the award or not, over the past 15 years or so offense has been a pretty big component of the award. Nobody else came close to Rod that year.

The 2009 Pens certainly have Crosby and Malkin as slam dunks. In the running is Gonchar and (despite the 2010 playoffs I'll still say it) Fleury. Throw in Staal too who is turning 22 this year. That could be 5, who knows. Letang perhaps? These guys are young, let's wait it out. We all know the combination of Selkes and Cups at least gives guys consideration so this is why I am holding off for now on Staal.

Wait.... seriously, you're going to say Staal is a "maybe" for the HHoF but Brind'Amour shouldn't make it? I'll admit I have my biases but there's no way that Staal would be in over Brind'Amour unless Staal starts to dominante defensively at a Bob Gainey type level. If you're going to go with Staal and Fleury you might as well go with Brind'Amour and Cam Ward for that Canes team giving them 4 if you include Recchi.

I'd say Gonchar probably won't get in as well, but that's due in part to the HHoF seemingly have a bias against defensemen. There are quite a few others I would want to see in first, but he would hardly be the worst player in the hall should he get in.

Also it's looking more and more to me like Zetterberg and Datsyuk will be in the HHOF someday even though they have some work to do. Lidstrom for sure and Hasek and Chelios simmered down in the playoffs but they still count IMO. That's 5 by the looks of it. I am against Osgood getting in but the fact is he's been mentioned.

Agreed entirely here

It isn't only the lack of star power the 2006 Canes had, but in the playoffs they never faced an offensive powerhouse like Detroit or Pittsburgh. I can't see how they'd have ever stopped them. And I know this is only a "one season" thing but the clock kind of struck midnight for them the next two years when they missed the playoffs. It's hard to think of that team as a powerhouse

They faced one in Buffalo, the team that finished 5th in scoring that year then would lead the league in scoring the next year by 20 goals with 308. And the Canes held them to 17 goals over a 7 game series in the playoffs. To say they never faced an offensive powerhouse is flat out false given the production of that Sabres team post-lockout before they were foolish enough to let Briere and Drury walk, then match the Vanek offer sheet.

 

[Big Phil]

Wait.... seriously, you're going to say Staal is a "maybe" for the HHoF but Brind'Amour shouldn't make it? I'll admit I have my biases but there's no way that Staal would be in over Brind'Amour unless Staal starts to dominante defensively at a Bob Gainey type level. If you're going to go with Staal and Fleury you might as well go with Brind'Amour and Cam Ward for that Canes team giving them 4 if you include Recchi.

Jordan Staal, Fleury and Ward re all too young to judge right now of course. Heck, even Staal (Eric) is. All we can do at their age is base their career on a projection curve and it isn't that hard to project. Ward will need some more playoff success to ever be considered of course so we'll wait and see. Fleury has an impressive resume at a tender age and if he gets into the HHOF it'll be based on the Smith/Fuhr syndrome of being the backbone of some great teams. Maybe he gets a Vezina along the way who knows, but for that to happen we need to see the same Fleury who made back to back finals. Personally I think it'll happen. Jordan Staal has accomplished a lot in his young career so far. He is far from his peak. Maybe he never gets his due if he's on the 3rd line in his prime or maybe he falls under the category of Carboneau or Lehtinen, two players who get mild recognition for the HHOF by having the combo of Selkes and Cups. I can certainly see that, and he has better offense than Carboneau.

Eric Staal on the other hand is someone I have always loved. I've personally stated multiple times that we are witnessing a future HHOFer in the NHL with him. Just by the way he plays the game, his numbers and his playoff portfolio - so far. He's shown he can lead a team. I just think he'll be a great center in this generation, good enough for the HHOF we shall see. The thing with BrindAmour is that we know what he's all about already. He won't do anything more to add to his resume. It's good, but not great and not worthy of the HHOF. The others we don't know yet and have to wait and see, this is why I am also careful not to commit to early

I'd say Gonchar probably won't get in as well, but that's due in part to the HHoF seemingly have a bias against defensemen. There are quite a few others I would want to see in first, but he would hardly be the worst player in the hall should he get in.

Again, he's another one who has some work to do but I don't think this Pens team is done yet either and who knows where he ends up if he's a big part of it

They faced one in Buffalo, the team that finished 5th in scoring that year then would lead the league in scoring the next year by 20 goals with 308. And the Canes held them to 17 goals over a 7 game series in the playoffs. To say they never faced an offensive powerhouse is flat out false given the production of that Sabres team post-lockout before they were foolish enough to let Briere and Drury walk, then match the Vanek offer sheet.

Their top end talent was rather weak though. Buffalo had decent balance but were never a team I thought could beat another one with their offense in my opinion. Their top scorer that year was Afinogenov with 73 points

 

[Mayor Bee]

Interesting metric and approach. If I understand correctly you used the regular season data.

Key question is this. Looking at the weakest teams to win the Stanley Cup or one such team - the 1938 Chicago Black Hawks, would your metric if applied to the playoffs, explain the turnaround perfromance, the level of improvement or however the difference may be qualified that turned the team from an also ran into a champion.

In other words, did the Black Hawks actually underachieve during the regular season and then "normalize" back to an expected level of play during the postseason?

Understand that I've had enormous success in fantasy baseball by banking on exactly this type of thing with pitching, so I have a good deal of familiarity with the concept. I'm sure I could try and apply something like expected win percentage (or expected points) to see what Chicago could have been expected to do, although it wouldn't be entirely accurate. I'm fairly certain, just from looking at the previous four years, that it would reflect that 1937-38 was a slight underachievement in the regular season but not a huge one.

I'm not working today and am looking for something to do, so I might have an answer for you soon.

(Update: and....success!)

I went ahead and fed the expected win percentage algorithm into the historical standings, and here's what I found.

Actually, first, here's the explanation. Expected win percentage is basically calculated thusly:
(Last year's wins times 4 + two years ago's wins times 1 + three year's ago's wins times 1 + a .500 record times 2) / (the same thing as above, only with "total games" substituted for "wins")

In the case of hockey, we have to use points instead of wins. And we also have to adjust what a .500 record is for the era of the OT point, so I set it as what would be the league average in points for the particular year whose expected points we're trying to figure out.

For the 1937-38 Black Hawks, there was a 48-game schedule and had been for a few years, so we can set a .500 record as 48 points (times 2). The previous year they had picked up 35 points out of a possible 96, giving them a .365 point percentage; both 35 and 96 are multiplied by 4 and set. They had picked up 50 of 96 the year before that and 57 the year before that, so those get fed in as well.

What we then determine is that Chicago in 1937-38 would have been expected to have had a point percentage of .447, which is 42.875 points. We'll just round that to 43. They actually finished with 37, meaning they fell short of expectations by 6 points. Even in a 48-game season, that's not a huge number. For the sake of comparison, that same year, Boston exceeded expectations by 15 points.

 

[DaveG]

I can understand where you're coming from on the HHoF arguments. I'll admit I'm biased on this one but I'd favor Cam over Fleury in terms of getting to the hall at this point without any team projections (with team, obviously the Fuhr/Smith factor is relevant for MAF). Both have one huge playoff year and I'd say if that Pens team had won the cup in 08 Fleury would have easily been my vote for the Conn Smythe. Their career numbers in the playoffs (before this year) are virtually identical. It's the regular season that I think Cam separates himself from Fleury mostly due to his consistency and upward trending. If I had to bet one which one would get a shot at the Vezina in the next few seasons it's Cam. He has yet to have a season where he's worse in terms of save percentage then the one before it, including this past season behind a defense that was vastly inferior to the one from the season before. Fleury, has been a bit all over the place, but (aside from this season) typically puts it together in the playoffs. Or at least does enough to give his team a chance to win (Games 6 and 7 last year vs Detroit).

Personally I still say Brind'Amour has as good of or a better chance of getting into the hall then Jordan Staal. But that's just semantics at this point, we would never come to an agreement on that one.

The Buffalo argument for me comes down to quality vs depth. Detroit is the only one of those teams that really has the depth, of course with the high end scorers as well. The Sabres top end scorers weren't quite there to the extent of a Washington or Pittsburgh. But in terms of depth they had FAR more to them. Buffalo that year had 11 players with 40 or more points (Canes that year for reference had 8). Washington the year the Pens won the cup had 6 with 40 or more. Pittsburgh the year the year they won only had 4, 6 the year Detroit beat them in the finals. They didn't have the same top end talent, but what they could do is get points from seemingly any one of their top 9 at any given time. Personally I don't think either way is the right or wrong way to do it as they both have their flaws... unless you can do it like Detroit does, that's the 100% best way to do it. Overwhelming talent AND depth.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Underachieve

In other words, did the Black Hawks actually underachieve during the regular season and then "normalize" back to an expected level of play during the postseason?

Understand that I've had enormous success in fantasy baseball by banking on exactly this type of thing with pitching, so I have a good deal of familiarity with the concept. I'm sure I could try and apply something like expected win percentage (or expected points) to see what Chicago could have been expected to do, although it wouldn't be entirely accurate. I'm fairly certain, just from looking at the previous four years, that it would reflect that 1937-38 was a slight underachievement in the regular season but not a huge one.

I'm not working today and am looking for something to do, so I might have an answer for you soon.

(Update: and....success!)

I went ahead and fed the expected win percentage algorithm into the historical standings, and here's what I found.

Actually, first, here's the explanation. Expected win percentage is basically calculated thusly:
(Last year's wins times 4 + two years ago's wins times 1 + three year's ago's wins times 1 + a .500 record times 2) / (the same thing as above, only with "total games" substituted for "wins")

In the case of hockey, we have to use points instead of wins. And we also have to adjust what a .500 record is for the era of the OT point, so I set it as what would be the league average in points for the particular year whose expected points we're trying to figure out.

For the 1937-38 Black Hawks, there was a 48-game schedule and had been for a few years, so we can set a .500 record as 48 points (times 2). The previous year they had picked up 35 points out of a possible 96, giving them a .365 point percentage; both 35 and 96 are multiplied by 4 and set. They had picked up 50 of 96 the year before that and 57 the year before that, so those get fed in as well.

What we then determine is that Chicago in 1937-38 would have been expected to have had a point percentage of .447, which is 42.875 points. We'll just round that to 43. They actually finished with 37, meaning they fell short of expectations by 6 points. Even in a 48-game season, that's not a huge number. For the sake of comparison, that same year, Boston exceeded expectations by 15 points.

Thank you for the response. You raise the issue of underachieving with a solid baseball analogy - pitching.Pitching will cover a number of weaknesses especially if you can get the proper match-ups. Example today with five man rotations if a weak team facing a strong team can align their 1/2/3 starters against the strong teams 3/4/5 starters with some other edges like a lefty or two they can steal a short series.

If we look at the Hawks performance between 1936 and 1940 in terms of point percentage we see: .521/.365/.385(SC)/.333/.542

1936 and 1940 - eliminated in the first round,1937 and 1939 did not make the playoffs. 1938 - what happened? 8th in goals for , 7th in goals against overall record 14-25-9. 1938 Playoffs 7W - 3L, 24 GF / 21 GA.

Details.The 1938 playoffs featured the old system where the first place team in each division played in one series(A) while the 2nd played 2nd(B), 3rd played 3rd(C) with the two winners(D) then playing for the right to face the winner of(A) in the final.

In the playoffs the Hawks faced the Canadiens, Americans and Leafs. Collectively against these three teams during the regular season they fared worse(<.300) than their overall record. This would preclude the favourable match-ups interpretation.

The striking aspect of their playoff run is the GAA, down by ~.9 per game which with a bump upwards(projecting to ~115 regular season / middling) from scoring was sufficient to sneak by short term. Short term success at the right time may be very rewarding.

 

[Pandemic]

Jordan Staal, Fleury and Ward re all too young to judge right now of course. Heck, even Staal (Eric) is. All we can do at their age is base their career on a projection curve and it isn't that hard to project. Ward will need some more playoff success to ever be considered of course so we'll wait and see. Fleury has an impressive resume at a tender age and if he gets into the HHOF it'll be based on the Smith/Fuhr syndrome of being the backbone of some great teams. Maybe he gets a Vezina along the way who knows, but for that to happen we need to see the same Fleury who made back to back finals. Personally I think it'll happen. Jordan Staal has accomplished a lot in his young career so far. He is far from his peak. Maybe he never gets his due if he's on the 3rd line in his prime or maybe he falls under the category of Carboneau or Lehtinen, two players who get mild recognition for the HHOF by having the combo of Selkes and Cups. I can certainly see that, and he has better offense than Carboneau.

Eric Staal on the other hand is someone I have always loved. I've personally stated multiple times that we are witnessing a future HHOFer in the NHL with him. Just by the way he plays the game, his numbers and his playoff portfolio - so far. He's shown he can lead a team. I just think he'll be a great center in this generation, good enough for the HHOF we shall see. The thing with BrindAmour is that we know what he's all about already. He won't do anything more to add to his resume. It's good, but not great and not worthy of the HHOF. The others we don't know yet and have to wait and see, this is why I am also careful not to commit to early



Again, he's another one who has some work to do but I don't think this Pens team is done yet either and who knows where he ends up if he's a big part of it




Their top end talent was rather weak though. Buffalo had decent balance but were never a team I thought could beat another one with their offense in my opinion. Their top scorer that year was Afinogenov with 73 points

Also, Buffalo lost their top 3 Dmen that playoffs. Carolina really had a horseshoe up their ***** that year. First Justin Williams pokes out Koivu's eye in game 3 (the Habs were already up 2-0 in the series, and were winning the game 2-0) Koivu is gone for the rest of the season, and we all know the pre-blownup Habs were basically just Koivu. Then against Buffalo, buffalo had 3 of their top D men out, and then in game 6 with the game tied, Carolina gets a PP because someone clears the puck over the glass. Then in the final, Roloson (that year's Halak or Leighton) gets injured in the first game and Markkanan completely craps the bed with that giveaway that leads to an empty net and it STILL took the Canes 7 games against an 8th seeded oilers team without their top goaltender (who was much of the reason they actually got there) to win the cup.

But I will give credit, where credit is due. Cam Ward playing freakin out of his mind that year.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Now come on, you have fake avatar of Crosby balling like a toddler. Your a Wings fan and deep down inside would trade for him. Are you looking at it objectively? The Pens made two straight finals, they were spoonfed the chance for a third one, they messed up. But they were an up and coming team who everyone knew was going to win the Cup and probably more. They played a great team both times in the final and won once, it wasn't a surprise to me that they won but it was a rather big surprise to me that they had those midseason troubles.

Granted the Pens could have had better wingers but their top end talent alone would get them out of the discussion for being among the worst teams to win.

A lot of folks have the 09 Pens as the best post-lockout team to win, but I do think they should be in the running for the worse.

It was a struggle for the to get there (24 out 28 possible games); Fleury had the worst SV% of any winning goaltender since Barrasso in 1992; asides from Gonchar, not a single even All-Star defenseman; and outside of two mega-star forwards they had little depth afterwards.

Yes, they beat the Red Wings, but that team was decimated by the time it reached the Finals. Detroit had 74 man-games lost to injury those playoffs while Pittsburgh had 3... that Detroit was able to take it to 7 games despite missing their Hart nominee for 4 of the games, despite a strange rushed schedule w/ back-to-back games, was pretty incredible - the Penguins really should have buried them.

 

[LateNightOilerFan]

One thing that could possibly put Canes under Lightning is that Oilers had their top2 goalies injured when they won. Had Roloson been in goal the Oilers might've been the cup winners, we'll never know.

The Oilers did not have their top 2 goalies injured - Roli was the only goalie injured. Their goalies that season before they acquired Roli at the deadline were Mike Morrison (waived when they added Roli - picked up by OTT), Jussi Markkanen (who continued in Games 2-7 of the SCF) and Ty Conklin (who was backing up in Game 1 and contributed to the GWG in Game 1).

Then in the final, Roloson (that year's Halak or Leighton) gets injured in the first game and Markkanan completely craps the bed with that giveaway that leads to an empty net and it STILL took the Canes 7 games against an 8th seeded oilers team without their top goaltender (who was much of the reason they actually got there) to win the cup.

But I will give credit, where credit is due. Cam Ward playing freakin out of his mind that year.

See above - it was Conklin who made the gaffe, with some assistance by Jason Smith in the lack of communication dept. I can't let Jussi take the hit for that, considering after not playing for 3 months he still helped the team to Game 7 after Roli went down.

Interesting discussion, just goes to show how much does have to come together at the right time for a team to win those 16 games.

I'm just popping in to clarify the above - and yes, as an Oiler fan I do think if Roli had never been injured you'd probably be naming them as the worst team to win a cup - and I really wish you were!!

 

[nik jr]

'49 TML swept 1st seed DRW in the finals, but were the last team to make the playoffs, had a -14 goal differential, and were below .500.

sid smith missed all but 1 game that season, which may be a reason for their bad season.

A lot of folks have the 09 Pens as the best post-lockout team to win, but I do think they should be in the running for the worse.

It was a struggle for the to get there (24 out 28 possible games); Fleury had the worst SV% of any winning goaltender since Barrasso in 1992; asides from Gonchar, not a single even All-Star defenseman; and outside of two mega-star forwards they had little depth afterwards.

Yes, they beat the Red Wings, but that team was decimated by the time it reached the Finals. Detroit had 74 man-games lost to injury those playoffs while Pittsburgh had 3... that Detroit was able to take it to 7 games despite missing their Hart nominee for 4 of the games, despite a strange rushed schedule w/ back-to-back games, was pretty incredible - the Penguins really should have buried them.

agreed

imo, '09 pittsburgh was not a very strong team. possibly worse than '08 pittsburgh.

if not for fleury's weak goaltending, pittsburgh would have won sooner.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Saying a team was the worst post-lockout doesn't mean much, considering we're only 4 seasons removed from the lockout. Why not just say, worst of the past few years?

IMO the '06 Canes were underrated at the time and are obviously going to continue to be underrated for some time to come. They didn't have a legendary defense but they were a real pain in the ass to play against and got outstanding contributions from nearly everyone in the lineup. I'd put money on them in a 7-game series against anyone you want to choose... provided the game be played on ice instead of paper.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Saying a team was the worst post-lockout doesn't mean much, considering we're only 4 seasons removed from the lockout. Why not just say, worst of the past few years?

Yeah - semantics I guess.
Post-lockout winners are pretty much guaranteed to be worse than most pre-lockout winners.... but not necessarily when comparing them to their contemporary field of competition (also dealing with a cap).

IMO, the Penguins were the worst Cup winning team going back at least as far as the '95 Devils.

 

[GKJ]

I also think Brind'Amour has a better shot at the hall then most think, but that's another debate for another place and time.

He's in.

That '93 Habs team, they were 3rd in the division, but if it was done by the current seeding system, they would have been 4th in the Conference. They get mentioned because of who was on the team. A handful of guys who kind of put it together that year, but weren't ever known for being on that team aside from a handful of guys, especially Patrice Brisebois, who made his whole career off of it.

 

[PearJuice*]

I will only comment on Cup winners during my lifetime.

I think that any the list should include:

86 Habs
93 Habs
06 Hurricanes

Of these, the 2006 Hurricanes are by far the worst team to have hoisted the Cup. They are the very definition of an average team getting hot at just the right time, playing WAY above their heads.

 

[Mayor Bee]

I will only comment on Cup winners during my lifetime.

I think that any the list should include:

86 Habs
93 Habs
06 Hurricanes

Of these, the 2006 Hurricanes are by far the worst team to have hoisted the Cup. They are the very definition of an average team getting hot at just the right time, playing WAY above their heads.

I would hardly consider a team with 112 points (tied for 3rd overall in the league) "average" and "getting hot at just the right time".

 

[jkrx]

The Oilers did not have their top 2 goalies injured - Roli was the only goalie injured. Their goalies that season before they acquired Roli at the deadline were Mike Morrison (waived when they added Roli - picked up by OTT), Jussi Markkanen (who continued in Games 2-7 of the SCF) and Ty Conklin (who was backing up in Game 1 and contributed to the GWG in Game 1).



See above - it was Conklin who made the gaffe, with some assistance by Jason Smith in the lack of communication dept. I can't let Jussi take the hit for that, considering after not playing for 3 months he still helped the team to Game 7 after Roli went down.

Interesting discussion, just goes to show how much does have to come together at the right time for a team to win those 16 games.

I'm just popping in to clarify the above - and yes, as an Oiler fan I do think if Roli had never been injured you'd probably be naming them as the worst team to win a cup - and I really wish you were!!

I was pretty sure Markkanen got injured somewhere along the way and pretty much played injured. I could remember it wrong though.

 

[Mr Whipple]

I would hardly consider a team with 112 points (tied for 3rd overall in the league) "average" and "getting hot at just the right time".

Yeah, getting cold at the end of the season after they fall behind in the race for the President's Cup in which they were at one point a clear contender. All that separated them from being the #1 seed in the East was an OT loss. Definitely a team that was just 'average'.

They beat all the top teams during the regular season and then again in the playoffs, yet it was all 'luck'.

Regular season records against the teams they played:
Montreal 4-0, with wins of 5-1, 8-2, 7-3, and 5-3.
New Jersey 2-1-1, then ended New Jersey's 'legendary' at the time 15 game winning streak in only five games.
Buffalo 3-1, and the Sabres were only without those three defensemen for one game, for those that remember correctly.
People also seem to forget about how many goals were scored before Roloson was injured (game was tied at 4-4), which doesn't exactly point to Edmonton taking the series if he had played the entire time.

For good measure, they also were the first team to beat Ottawa during the regular season and gave them two of their only three losses in the first two months of the season. So it's not like all their wins came only against 'weak division rivals'. The real fact is that the Canes were weaker in the playoffs than they were during the regular season, as you could see by their 13-1 mark in January.

The evidence of how good they were is pretty clear: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/teams/schedule?team=car&year=2006

One of the worst myths out there is about how 'bad' Carolina was that year. It was definitely a magical year, but not in any way a fluke.

 

[What the Faulk]

Also, Buffalo lost their top 3 Dmen that playoffs. Carolina really had a horseshoe up their ***** that year.

Buffalo was missing only Kalinin in Game 1. He was also out for the last 3 games of the Senators series and Buffalo didn't have any real trouble holding Ottawa 6 goals while going 2-1 and winning the series in 5 games.

In Games 2 and 3, Numminen joined Kalinin on the injury report. Still only 2 guys out.

Although Tallinder missed Game 4, making the total 3, the Sabres were still shut out. I don't think that missing 3 defensemen who combined for a total of 10 regular season goals was going to make a difference in a shutout. The lineup did stay the same for Game 5 though.

Numminen returned in Game 6, dropping the total back down to 2 including 1 guy who had missed most of the previous series anyway. Yeah, they did miss 4 guys in Game 7, but that's hardly Carolina's fault that Buffalo was running a defense made of glass.

First Justin Williams pokes out Koivu's eye in game 3 (the Habs were already up 2-0 in the series, and were winning the game 2-0) Koivu is gone for the rest of the season, and we all know the pre-blownup Habs were basically just Koivu.

Funny, because Montreal never even scored 2 goals in that game, let alone had a 2-0 lead at any point. Also, while Koivu was the heart of that team, they still had 5 other guys who scored more than 40 points.

You act like it was done intentionally. You also act like they couldn't have turned it around and come back anyway. Remember, the Canes manhandled Montreal in the regular season that year by a combined score of 25-4 or something completely ridiculous like that.

Then against Buffalo, buffalo had 3 of their top D men out, and then in game 6 with the game tied, Carolina gets a PP because someone clears the puck over the glass.

So it's Carolina's fault that the Sabres got the delay of game penalty? Make an illegal play, live with the result.

Then in the final, Roloson (that year's Halak or Leighton) gets injured in the first game and Markkanan completely craps the bed with that giveaway that leads to an empty net and it STILL took the Canes 7 games against an 8th seeded oilers team without their top goaltender (who was much of the reason they actually got there) to win the cup.

Well, first off, MAB shoved Ladd into Roloson--another absolutely idiotic play. Second off, Markkanen wasn't even the backup in Game 1 (Conklin was), but he played very well in Games 3-7 holding them to 8 goals in 5 games (we'll excuse Game 2 to first start SCF jitters).



For what it's worth, I do think the Canes were a weak winner based on the defense and what they accomplished (or didn't accomplish) in the surrounding years. But looking at that year, they had a strong record, a great offense and a solid goalie tandem. I don't know much about hockey history to say who was worse, but it's not as if Carolina squeaked into the playoffs that year.