Worst team to win the Cup?

[LateNightOilerFan]

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

Markkanen suffered a broken collarbone and was injured to start that season, but he only missed the season opener in Oct/05 and then was back in the lineup. The only other time he missed after that (in that season) was due to the flu, and well after they traded for Roli but he and Conks rotated being healthy scratches while Roli played every game.

The only other thing that sounds like what you are remembering was after Jussi left the NHL - in 07/08 playing in Finland he was injured in his first playoff game and missed the rest of the playoffs, but that was 2 years later.

 

[jkrx]

Markkanen suffered a broken collarbone and was injured to start that season, but he only missed the season opener in Oct/05 and then was back in the lineup. The only other time he missed after that (in that season) was due to the flu, and well after they traded for Roli but he and Conks rotated being healthy scratches while Roli played every game.

The only other thing that sounds like what you are remembering was after Jussi left the NHL - in 07/08 playing in Finland he was injured in his first playoff game and missed the rest of the playoffs, but that was 2 years later.

Yeah it might be that I remember.

 

[LateNightOilerFan]

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.

First off, I'm of the opinion that if you make it to the SCF you deserve to be there and if you win those 4 final games you deserve to hoist that cup, and to do so requires a certain combination of skill, endurance, tenacity, luck and clutch along the way. Teams just can't fluke their way to the finals, and as an Oiler fan I give credit to the Hurricanes for their win, especially when they enterred Game 7 with the momentum on the Oilers side.

However, I also feel the same way about the Oilers, whose run is often referred to as a fluke and on the back of a hot goalie - Roli was the backbone they were looking for all season, but I believe he was the final piece to the puzzle and that team with some very good players was then able to come together and battle the adversity of being the lowest seeded team in every round all the way to the final.

Re the bolded, however, obviously it is just speculation, but the reason a lot of people, especially Oiler fans, feel that the Oilers could have taken the Cup that year, is not that they forget Roli allowed 4 goals that game, it's because they remember how well he played that post-season and how consistent & clutch he was, and how well he bounced back after losses. In the 17 games prior to that game, he only allowed 4 goals twice and 5 goals once. Two of those games were vs the Ducks, and it was revealed later he was suffering from the flu and was physically ill between periods the game he allowed 5 goals, which was his only loss that series. In the other 3 games that series he only allowed 1 goal.

The Oilers may well have gone on to lose anyway with Roli in net, we'll never know. However, based on the way he had been playing, it is more likely they would have come out of Carolina with at least a split, given that game 1 could still have been salvaged and even if not, game 2 would have likely been a bounce back game for Roli instead of a "here you go, shake off 3 months of rust" game for Jussi. So if they had split those 2 games, if the rest of the series played out the way it did, the Oilers would have won the cup at home in Game 6.

Of course, that's a whole bunch of what if's and we'll never know. One of the biggest heartbreaks in my time as an Oiler fan is for Roli to not have had that chance to finish what he started.

 

[Epsilon]

One statistic I thought might be interesting here, at least for comparing teams in the 4-round best/7 era, would be the number of times the Cup champion played a game where they could be eliminated with a loss. I don't have the time to assemble it all together, but here's a few:

2009 Pittsburgh - 3 times
2008 Detroit - 0 times
2007 Anaheim - 0 times
2006 Carolina - 2 times
2004 Tampa Bay - 3 times
2003 New Jersey - 2 times
2002 Detroit - 2 times
2001 Colorado - 3 times
2000 New Jersey - 2 times
1999 Dallas - 2 times
1998 Detroit - 0 times
1997 Detroit - 0 times
1996 Colorado - 0 times
1995 New Jersey - 0 times
1994 New York - 3 times
1993 Montreal - 0 times
1992 Pittsburgh - 3 times
1991 Pittsburgh - 2 times
1990 Edmonton - 3 times

Nothing too definitive there, it seems. The ones faced elimination 3 times includes both weak and highly regarded teams; ditto for the ones who were never in danger of being knocked out.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I really wish my fellow Oiler fans would stop carting out the "Roli was injured" excuse.

In the three games they lost with Markkanen in net, they were shutout once and held to one goal twice.

Game 2 was a 5-0 loss, they could have had Terry Sawchuk in goal and it would have made no difference. Can't blame the goalie when you can't score a single goal yourself.

Game 4 was a 2-1 loss. Markkanen held the Hurricanes to just three goals in the three games in Edmonton, hard to imagine Roloson would have done any better. The Oilers dropped the ball by failing to win this game, which was certainly there for the taking if they could have generated any offense.

Game 7 was a 3-1 loss with an empty netter. You can argue that Roloson might have stopped one of the two goals that Jussi let in this game, but at the end of the day, one feeble goal by your forwards isn't going to win many games. Fernando Pisani and Rem Murray were the Oilers' most potent offensive threats in this game, and that just doesn't cut it.

The Roloson injury was unwanted adversity. The Oilers failed to overcome it, and thus didn't deserve to win the Cup.

In a sense, the Hurricanes played almost the entire playoffs with their back-up after Gerber crapped the bed against Montreal early on. I think Ward even got yanked against Buffalo for a game as well. They overcame the uncertainty in net, Edmonton didn't.

 

[LateNightOilerFan]

I really wish my fellow Oiler fans would stop carting out the "Roli was injured" excuse.

In the three games they lost with Markkanen in net, they were shutout once and held to one goal twice.

Game 2 was a 5-0 loss, they could have had Terry Sawchuk in goal and it would have made no difference. Can't blame the goalie when you can't score a single goal yourself.

Game 4 was a 2-1 loss. Markkanen held the Hurricanes to just three goals in the three games in Edmonton, hard to imagine Roloson would have done any better. The Oilers dropped the ball by failing to win this game, which was certainly there for the taking if they could have generated any offense.

Game 7 was a 3-1 loss with an empty netter. You can argue that Roloson might have stopped one of the two goals that Jussi let in this game, but at the end of the day, one feeble goal by your forwards isn't going to win many games. Fernando Pisani and Rem Murray were the Oilers' most potent offensive threats in this game, and that just doesn't cut it.

The Roloson injury was unwanted adversity. The Oilers failed to overcome it, and thus didn't deserve to win the Cup.

In a sense, the Hurricanes played almost the entire playoffs with their back-up after Gerber crapped the bed against Montreal early on. I think Ward even got yanked against Buffalo for a game as well. They overcame the uncertainty in net, Edmonton didn't.

If you're referring to me, posting a 'what if' scenario, noting it is only speculation and also noting the result could have been the same is not an excuse. You may have missed my first paragraph in my previous post. The Canes won those 4 games and they deserved the cup - they brought it all together. Back to the point of the thread, for that reason, I don't think they were a weak team.

 

[Mr Whipple]

Of course, that's a whole bunch of what if's and we'll never know.

Yep. That's all I'm saying. Too many act as though the series was all Edmonton's until Roloson went down. Far from it. Could they have won? Maybe. But it's just as likely that it would have ended the exact same way with him in net. Edmonton had a great defense that year (regardless of who was in net for them - personally I think Edmonton fans overvalue how important Roloson was, but that's just MHO), but Carolina also had an offense that couldn't be counted out, even when down by multiple goals late in a game.

I just get sick of the many 'hockey experts' who show their lack of knowledge when they talk about how weak the Canes were that season and didn't deserve to win. Both teams were very good and had to beat several other very good teams to make it to the finals, and for any who actually watched the series would have seen one of the best examples of a great, exciting championship series as has ever been played on ice. Whichever team came out on top clearly deserved it. Sadly, most base their opinions on the locations of the teams rather than the actual play.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

If you're referring to me, posting a 'what if' scenario, noting it is only speculation and also noting the result could have been the same is not an excuse. You may have missed my first paragraph in my previous post. The Canes won those 4 games and they deserved the cup - they brought it all together. Back to the point of the thread, for that reason, I don't think they were a weak team.

No not directed at you, just the general population of Oiler fans that seems to blame the Roloson injury or the Conklin/Smith gaffe for the entire series.

And yes Pirate Caniac, you're right about Edmonton fans (and others) overvaluing the contributions of Roloson (as well as Pronger). It was a full team effort, not the work of one or two individuals. Roloson was probably MVP against Anaheim, and Pronger against Detroit. But neither of them were the most important players in the other two rounds.

 

[Big Phil]

He's in.

I'm just always puzzled as to why BrindAmour is often mentioned as a future HHOFer. He violates the most classic case of a HHOF debate which is, if he gets in, there are a whole slew of other players that would be justified in crying foul despite not deserving it themselves

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

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.

The 05-06 Canes had a goal differential of +25 if you exclude empty net and shootout goals.

Question: How many post-expansion cup winners had a goal differential that bad or worse?

Answer: Zero.

 

[Big Phil]

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.

No way is that 2009 Pens team in the running for the worst. That goes to the 2006 Canes with little doubt. Let's not forget that the Pens and Red Wings are the only post lockout champions who have been great for more than a season (we'll see about the Hawks after 2010). The Pens reach the final, win the Cup and then are favoured to repeat to the finals only to have a gargantuan upset at the hands of the Habs. And unless that team is peeled apart this summer everyone knows they'll be contenders for a long, long time and probably Cup winners maybe as early as 2011.

The Canes? It took them three years to reach the postseason after 2006. The Ducks? They've never been the same team since Niedermayer and Selanne "retired" after 2007 and they were bounced out neatly in 2008. The Red Wings of course are, well, the Red Wings.

Plus in the 2008-'09 season there were injuries to Gonchar, Whitney (before he was traded) and Michel Therrien had them play the exact opposite of a game that got them to the finals the year before. Byslma came it and did what he should do with that team, let them play a high octane offense. And it worked. I also think they had arguably the hardest road to the Stanley Cup since the 1980 Isles. They played a tough series with Philly, a mind boggling thriller with Washington and everyone knows how good Detroit was. Only Carolina was easy pickings that year.

Fleury also has had a career very similar to Fuhr at the same age so far. The only stat that matters is winning. His save % is a lot like Fuhr's at that time. Both goalies were/are often left to fend for themselves and I personally think Fleury is a much better and dangerous goalie to face when he faces 40 shots. This is why I think Montreal's popgun offense hurt him the most, he was seeing 20 shots and not getting the work he was used to. That isn't his strength to sit and wait. So you have to look beyond the stats in 2009 to see Fleury's value. He made a TON of classic saves at the right moment and that's more important and impressive to me than a shutout with 17 shots. How does a goalie do when the game is on the line? Anyways, after Malkin and Crosby, Fleury was the most important Penguin in 2009

 

[Kyle McMahon]

No way is that 2009 Pens team in the running for the worst. That goes to the 2006 Canes with little doubt.

I'm in the minority, but I'll take the Hurricanes over last year's Penguins. They were a great team, solid from top to bottom, with no clear weaknesses. People are seriously underestimating how deep Carolina was up front. Pretty similar to this year's Blackhawks in that regard.

Pittsburgh was two generational (or close to it) talents carrying an otherwise mediocre collection of players to the promise land. They were far more vulnerable to being upset than a team like Carolina would be. As long as Crosby and Malkin are contained to the point that they're not averaging better than a point per game, the other team has a really good chance of winning. Easier said than done of course, and both ran wild in 2009 resulting in a Cup.

There's no wrong way to win a Cup, but I'll take the team with a dozen guys playing key roles over the team that was mainly carried by two individuals.

I also think they had arguably the hardest road to the Stanley Cup since the 1980 Isles. They played a tough series with Philly, a mind boggling thriller with Washington and everyone knows how good Detroit was. Only Carolina was easy pickings that year.

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.

 

[What the Faulk]

The 05-06 Canes had a goal differential of +25 if you exclude empty net and shootout goals.

Question: How many post-expansion cup winners had a goal differential that bad or worse?

Answer: Zero.

I'm not about to go through and account for shootout goals and empty net goals, but last year's Penguins team was +25 without those accounted for while the '06 Canes were +34. Question: How is this difference significant at all? Answer: It's not, and you can't say one team was better/worse than the other based on one single stat like that.

 

[greatgazoo]

In my era (1981 to the present) it would have to the '93 Habs. Just 2 hall-of-famers on that squad and one was only a part-timer (Savard).

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

I'm not about to go through and account for shootout goals and empty net goals, but last year's Penguins team was +25 without those accounted for while the '06 Canes were +34.

The Penguins were +25 if you account for the two stated variables, so my point still stands.

Question: How is this difference significant at all? Answer: It's not, and you can't say one team was better/worse than the other based on one single stat like that.

The ability to outscore the opposition is fundamental to winning hockey games. That being the case, goal differential provides a highly robust indicator of team strength - it's likely the best metric available. Better than standings placement or point totals, to be sure.

The fact that Carolina finished the season with 112 points,therefore outperforming its goal differential, is simply the product of statistical noise. No team will finish with precisely as many points as its goal differential would predict. Some teams will exceed their expected point total; others will finish with fewer points. But at the team level, there's no ability to consistently over perform or under perform goal differential. It's just randomness.


If goal differential isn't your thing, what about the fact that they ended up missing the playoffs in each of the two following seasons?

That's consistent with my argument that they weren't that good of a team to begin with.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

If goal differential isn't your thing, what about the fact that they ended up missing the playoffs in each of the two following seasons?

That's consistent with my argument that they weren't that good of a team to begin with.

Not only did they miss the playoffs in the two following seasons, but they missed the playoffs in the two prior seasons as well. Granted that was in a different environment before the lockout, but if a team makes the playoffs only once in five seasons and they win the Cup, that really leaves only two likely options:

1. They weren't that good, and overachieved for one season
2. They had a great team, but underachieved for four out of five seasons

I'd say #1 is far more likely.

 

[jkrx]

To be fair Pens won because Red Wings started to play poorly rather than Pens started to play better. Lidstrom looked quite awful those last two games (for him) and Kronner wasnt exactly shutting down anything. Osgood became Mr. and the offense couldnt pressure the pens because of lack of defence in their own end. Pens might be the weakest when it comes to depth. Their defense was definitly not better than Canes only difference is might be Crosby and Malkin.

 

[Mr Whipple]

Canes record in 2005-2006, 52-22-8, 112 points
Pens record in 2008-2009, 45-28-9, 99 points

I'll take the team that can win games when they matter, not just win big when they do. That's what the best teams do.

Besides, no Canes fan is saying they ever had one of the best defenses of all time then. But when you have an offense like they did and it can keep the puck in the offensive zone most of the time, defense just doesn't matter quite as much.

As for missing the playoffs in other seasons, not sure what that has to do with a Cup winning season. Teams change from season to season. They didn't have the luxury of having a bunch of top 1st round picks locked up as the core of the team like the Pens do. The Canes were not the same team before or after 05-06. Any Canes fan will tell you that. They also haven't been a bottom feeder until this season, just barely missing the playoffs in the other ones. And this season it was because they had both Eric Staal and Cam Ward out for extended periods. Even so, the Canes even started to make a run of things at the end of the season and moved from an almost certain top 2 pick to 7th and only four games out of the playoffs.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Prior to their Cup run, the Hurricanes added Whitney and Stillman who were a large part of that vaunted depth we've been talking about.

Afterward, they lost Weight, Recchi, Cullen and Ward to free agency. Combined with injuries and under-performance, they weren't the same team any more.

I'm not going to oppose the "worst post-lockout champion" moniker, though I think it's a trivial title only four Cups removed from the lockout. But saying they're the worst since expansion is a bit much. That team was tough as nails and I'd put them up against the '93 Habs or '95 Devils in a 7-game series any day.

 

[What the Faulk]

The Penguins were +25 if you account for the two stated variables, so my point still stands.

How does your point still stand?

Question: How many post-expansion cup winners had a goal differential that bad or worse?

Answer: Zero

If the 08-09 Penguins had the exact same differential, then your answer is wrong.

If goal differential isn't your thing, what about the fact that they ended up missing the playoffs in each of the two following seasons?

That's consistent with my argument that they weren't that good of a team to begin with.

I do like this argument better, and I acknowledged it in a post above. I highly disagree with the last little bit though. They were "that good of a team" since they ended up winning the cup that year. Clearly they were a good team inside that vacuum of one year. But if you look at it over a 5 year time period, then you can see where they struggled a bit.

-The landscape of the NHL began to change again.
-Players tailed off after having career years.
-Ward in 06-07 did not play as well as Gerber in 05/06 to make up for the same crappy defense.
-Injuries

Let's not forget, this team kicked the **** out of most of the NHL that year over an 82 game regular season schedule. Only the 05-06 Wings and Senators, 06-07 Wings and Sabres, 07-08 Wings, 08-09 Bruins and Sharks, and 08-09 Caps and Sharks have had more points than the Canes did in their cup year. They had an incredible record of 34-11-5 outside their division.

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

How does your point still stand?



If the 08-09 Penguins had the exact same differential, then your answer is wrong.

You're right - I forgot how I worded my question.

Looking back, I also forgot about the 95' Devils, who were +15 over 48 games. If you prorate that over an entire season, they were about a +25 team. So depending on how many empty net goals they scored and conceded, they might meet the criteria as well.

I do like this argument better, and I acknowledged it in a post above. I highly disagree with the last little bit though. They were "that good of a team" since they ended up winning the cup that year.

They won the cup because they were a good team, and they were a good team because they won the cup.

Sorry, but I'm not one for circular logic.

Clearly they were a good team inside that vacuum of one year. But if you look at it over a 5 year time period, then you can see where they struggled a bit.

-The landscape of the NHL began to change again.
-Players tailed off after having career years.
-Ward in 06-07 did not play as well as Gerber in 05/06 to make up for the same crappy defense.
-Injuries

Let's not forget, this team kicked the **** out of most of the NHL that year over an 82 game regular season schedule. Only the 05-06 Wings and Senators, 06-07 Wings and Sabres, 07-08 Wings, 08-09 Bruins and Sharks, and 08-09 Caps and Sharks have had more points than the Canes did in their cup year. They had an incredible record of 34-11-5 outside their division.

Surely a team that "kicked the **** out of most the NHL" would be capable of outscoring its opponents by more than 25 goals over the course of an entire season, no?

Nine teams had a goal differential of +25 or better in 05-06 (with shootout and empty net goals excluded). Most of them did it while playing a tougher schedule than the Canes, too.

Applying the same logic, each of those teams tore up the league as well.

I'll take the team that can win games when they matter, not just win big when they do. That's what the best teams do.

No team outperforms its goal differential over time.

A team that outperforms its goal differential in one year is no more likely to outperform its goal differential in a subsequent year than any other team. It's simply noise.

Would you like me to run the numbers?

Besides, no Canes fan is saying they ever had one of the best defenses of all time then. But when you have an offense like they did and it can keep the puck in the offensive zone most of the time, defense just doesn't matter quite as much.

The 05-06 Canes were outshot at even strength during the regular season. Shots for and against at even strength are highly correlated with zone time (r~0.8-0.9).

Carolina was a below average team in terms of territorial play at even strength. They certainly didn't have the puck in the offensive zone "most of the time."

As for missing the playoffs in other seasons, not sure what that has to do with a Cup winning season.

The connection should be obvious.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Prior to their Cup run, the Hurricanes added Whitney and Stillman who were a large part of that vaunted depth we've been talking about.

Afterward, they lost Weight, Recchi, Cullen and Ward to free agency. Combined with injuries and under-performance, they weren't the same team any more.

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.

Carolina actually had very little roster turnover. Out of the 25 skaters and goalies who played in their Cup run, 18 of them were still on the roster in 2007-08, including Cullen who came back to Carolina. 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.

The core of the team was there, it just couldn't duplicate its success. Probably because that success was really fortunate in the first place.

 

[Mayor Bee]

The 05-06 Canes had a goal differential of +25 if you exclude empty net and shootout goals.

Question: How many post-expansion cup winners had a goal differential that bad or worse?

Answer: Zero.

The problem is that when we start looking at minor or even inconsequential tiebreakers (of sorts), we lose sight of both sides of the issue. On this one, there's two vastly divergent viewpoints:
- "Carolina barely scraped by all season, as evidenced by their historically poor goal differential"
- "Carolina had an uncanny knack for winning close games, as evidenced by their stellar record in spite of a poor goal differential"

Don't like Carolina? Let's try 1993 Montreal.
- "Montreal was extremely fortunate to have made it anywhere in the playoffs, and winning 10 straight overtime games is more a function of luck than skill"
- "Montreal caught lightning in a bottle and, after winning a couple overtime games, basically intimidated their opponent into trying to win in regulation, which tilted the balance in their favor"

Let's try it another way.
- "New York in 1994 clearly stepped up when it mattered most; they faced elimination three times and won both very close series in question"
- "New York in 1994 played down to the level of their competition, allowing a team with minimal playoff experience to push them to the brink and then allowing a #7 seed to come back from a 3-1 deficit in the series"

 

[What the Faulk]

Surely a team that "kicked the **** out of most the NHL" would be capable of outscoring its opponents by more than 25 goals over the course of an entire season, no?

Nine teams had a goal differential of +25 or better in 05-06 (with shootout and empty net goals excluded). Most of them did it while playing a tougher schedule than the Canes, too.

Applying the same logic, each of those teams tore up the league as well.

But did they win more games? I don't care if they were able to beat up on the Pittsburghs and Washingtons that year (funny how things have changed) and then kept it close but lost against more teams.

Perhaps a better comparison would be goal differential weighted towards point standings so you're not getting too much credit for beating up on weak teams 4-6 times a season. I don't have the desire to crunch those numbers though.

The core of the team was there, it just couldn't duplicate its success. Probably because that success was really fortunate in the first place.

What you call fortunate I call multiple players having career years at the same time. That does not equal fortunate.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

But did they win more games? I don't care if they were able to beat up on the Pittsburghs and Washingtons that year (funny how things have changed) and then kept it close but lost against more teams.

Perhaps a better comparison would be goal differential weighted towards point standings so you're not getting too much credit for beating up on weak teams 4-6 times a season. I don't have the desire to crunch those numbers though.



What you call fortunate I call multiple players having career years at the same time. That does not equal fortunate.

A key point that a lot of people in here choose to ignore. If we're looking at the years surrounding the win and judging the entire package, then there's a good argument that they're the weakest winner in recent memory. 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.