Tweet
There's a lot of talk about dynasties after LA's Stanley Cup win, so I wanted a thread to centralize all the talk.
-
-
Re: Dynasties
I posted this in another thread and it was well received. It's a working definition of a dynasty:
1 - A dynasty must begin by winning a Stanley Cup. Even losing Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals in overtime doesn't count. It must start with a championship.
2 - The dynasty must win a total of at least four Stanley Cups, in any span, as long as they make the Playoffs every year of that span. They cannot miss even once.
3 - The final year of the dynasty is the team's most recent championship.
For example, the only current dynasty is the Detroit Red Wings - from 1997 to present. The Red Wings have made the Playoffs every year since their first recent championship, in 1997, and have won four in this span. But if they missed the Playoffs next year, in 2015, their dynasty would be said to have ended in 2008, when they won their most recent championship.
1997 - 3rd in Conference, 5th in League - Stanley Cup Champions
1998 - 2nd in Conference, 3rd in League - Stanley Cup Champions
1999 - 3rd in Conference, 6th in League - Lost in Conference Semi-Finals (Colorado)
2000 - 2nd in Conference, 2nd in League - Lost in Conference Semi-Finals (Colorado)
2001 - 2nd in Conference, 2nd in League - Lost in Conference Quarter-Finals (Los Angeles)
2002 - 1st in Conference, 1st in League - Stanley Cup Champions
2003 - 2nd in Conference, 3rd in League - Lost in Conference Quarter-Finals (Anaheim)
2004 - 1st in Conference, 1st in League - Lost in Conference Semi-Finals (Calgary)
2005 - Season cancelled (lockout)
2006 - 1st in Conference, 1st in League - Lost in Conference Quarter-Finals (Edmonton)
2007 - 1st in Conference, 2nd in League - Lost in Conference Finals (Anaheim [won Cup])
2008 - 1st in Conference, 1st in League - Stanley Cup Champions
2009 - 2nd in Conference, 3rd in League - Lost in Stanley Cup Finals (Game 7 - Pittsburgh)
2010 - 5th in Conference, 7th in League - Lost in Conference Semi-Finals (San Jose)
2011 - 3rd in Conference, 6th in League - Lost in Conference Semi-Finals (San Jose)
2012 - 5th in Conference, 10th in League - Lost in Conference Quarter-Finals (Nashville)
2013 - 7th in Conference, 13th in League - Lost in Conference Semi-Finals (Chicago [won Cup])
2014 - 8th in Conference, 15h in League - Lost in Conference Quarter-Finals (Boston)
Members: (must have won at least three Stanley Cups with team during dynasty reign, and not played for another NHL club during the span of those three Cups)
Kris Draper - 1997, 1998, 2002, 2008
Tomas Holmstrom - 1997, 1998, 2002, 2008
Nicklas Lidstrom - 1997, 1998, 2002, 2008
Kirk Maltby - 1997, 1998, 2002, 2008
---
Mathieu Dandenault - 1997, 1998, 2002
Sergei Fedorov - 1997, 1998, 2002
Brendan Shanahan - 1997, 1998, 2002
Steve Yzerman - 1997, 1998, 2002 -
Re: Dynasties
Originally posted by Josh
If you go with my definition though, the team needs to win at least four Cups.Originally posted by Victor
Chicago can definitely still do it, but they'll probably not have Hossa, and maybe not Sharp either, around for the fourth Cup. However, Saad and Shaw were not around for the 2010 run, but were for the 2013 run and could still be with the team for the fourth Cup. Boston and Pittsburgh aren't ruled out either, and Detroit of course is still going strong.Comment
-
Re: Dynasties
Thank you for being one of the few to still recognize this. In the words of Kanye West, "they pray for the death of the dynasty", but, like the ROC, Detroit ain't going away. Nyquist, Tatar and Dekeyser are just the beginning. Adam Almqvist, Ryan Sproul, Xavier Ouelet, Tomas Jurco, Anthony Mantha, Riley Sheahan and Teemu Pulkkinen comprise the core of one of the very best prospect pools in the league. In fact, in another two or three years, when guys like Nyquist, Tatar and Dekeyser are hitting their primes, and Zetterberg, Kronwall and Datsyuk are winding down their careers, nobody should be surprised to see the latter three ride into sunset with another Cup.Originally posted by JoshComment
-
Re: Dynasties
I don't think they're going to get another cup, but that's just me.Comment
-
Re: Dynasties
Well if they keep making the Playoffs until their next Cup, then they will have been a dynasty since '97 in my books. Like I said though, if they fail to make the Playoffs even once before their next Cup, the dynasty was from '97-'08.
The way I see it, any team that wins 4 Cups and makes the Playoffs every year between Cups 1 and 4, is a dynasty, no matter the amount of years between Cups 1 and 4. If you keep making the Playoffs, you're still a dynasty. But if you make the Playoffs for 20 consecutive years after your 4th Cup, but never win another and then miss the Playoffs the next year, your dynasty ended with the most recent Cup.Comment
-
Re: Dynasties
While I think the Red Wings have a lot of good youth coming in (that matches mentioned), I don't know how they'll be replacing Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Lidstrom (who's absolutely unlikely to replace). But I think they're good enough to make the playoffs every year, which is either a good thing or a bad thing. They'll be good enough to make it, but I'm not sure good enough to win the Cup.
As I said in the last thread, I like your definition of a dynasty. Has anyone ever compared you to Craig Button through the way you mix watching hockey and stats in sort of a mathematical way and staying on a semi-strict structure?Comment
-
Re: Dynasties
Not until now :lol: I usually like a lot of what Button has to say, so, much appreciated :)Originally posted by Alfie11Comment
-
Re: Dynasties
I think you guys may be underestimating Detroit's prospect pool. Not saying I think they're a sure bet to win another Cup anytime soon. But Zetterberg and Kronwall are still both 33, and knowing those Swedish Red Wings, should have at least another solid five years ahead of them. Datsyuk's time might be running out faster, and while there's nobody who can replace Pavel Datsyuk, Gustav Nyquist might end up being pretty damn close, especially with Datsyuk teaching him all his tricks for the next couple years.
Lets not ever forget that streak of 23 goals in 29 games - like I said at the time, those are numbers you only see from the Stamkos, Crosbys, and Ovechkins of the world. True, he fell off pretty hard at the end of the year, but keep in mind until a couple years ago he played all his hockey in Sweden or NCAA, and those players always take a while to adjust to the rigours of the North American pro season, since they play a maximum of about 50 games.
And as for their prospect group, it's not just me that's high on them, Hockeysfuture rank them the third best prospect group in the league. On top of the already stacked core I mentioned previously, I forgot about Andreas Athanasiou, Martin Frk, Zach Nastasiuk and Petr Mrazek. After a very strong rookie pro season from Ryan Sproul, a point per game sophomore pro season from Jurco, a 49-goal last junior year by Athanasiou, a goal per game junior season from 6'5 winger Anthony Mantha, and an utterly ridiculous NHL stint from Mrazek (9 GP, 1.74 GAA, .927 Sv%, at just 21), it is a mystery wrapped inside an enigma to me how they are only ranked third.
Oh, and if you ask me, I see an awful lot of Ryan McDonagh in Danny DeKeyser.
And since many of these top prospects are close to NHL ready, and should be hitting their primes within the time span that Zetterberg and Kronwall, at least, are still going to be major forces, I like the Red Wings chances of winning a Cup within the next five years as much as any team in the league.Comment
-
Re: Dynasties
You raise some good points, Matches.
Zetterberg and Kronwall are not short-term problems. Datsyuk, yeah, it might be a little different. But as you said, Nyquist and Tatar should help ease that pain. I believe the harm for the Red Wings is that you knew you could always count on Zetterberg, Datsyuk, and Lidstrom. When the going got tough, they showed up and played great. Even if they weren't getting a ton of points, their work on shutting down stars was huge. I think those type of players you can't really replace...someone always reliable. Almost mistake-free. Even guys like Malkin, who is a cream-of-the-crop player in the league...you can't always count on him.
I think, especially with Lidstrom gone, it's going to be tough to beat out some of the elite teams in a seven game series.Comment
-
Re: Dynasties
You're definitely right Matches, they absolutely can win another one soon. Franzen has stood the test as well, definitely still has a few left in the tank.Comment
-
Time to revisit this. Looking only at the league post-WWII by the way. The previous definition was:
1 - A dynasty must begin by winning a Stanley Cup. Even losing Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals in overtime doesn't count. It must start with a championship.
2 - The dynasty must win a total of at least four Stanley Cups, in any span, as long as they make the Playoffs every year of that span. They cannot miss even once.
3 - The final year of the dynasty is the team's most recent championship.
Which gives the following dynasties:
1 - Toronto Maple Leafs - 4 Stanley Cups, 1947 - 1951.
2 - Detroit Red Wings - 4 Stanley Cups, 1950 - 1955.
3 - Montreal Canadiens - 10 Stanley Cups, 1953 - 1969.
4 - Toronto Maple Leafs - 4 Stanley Cups, 1962 - 1967.
5 - Montreal Canadiens - 8 Stanley Cups, 1971 - 1993.
6 - New York Islanders - 4 Stanley Cups, 1980 - 1983.
7 - Edmonton Oilers - 5 Stanley Cups, 1984 - 1990.
8 - Detroit Red Wings - 4 Stanley Cups, 1997 - 2008.
I see some issues with it, not the least of which is the fact that the Habs were not truly a dynasty all the way through 71 to 93. I think I'll go with the following revision:
1 - A dynasty must begin by winning a Stanley Cup. Even losing Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals in overtime doesn't count. It must start with a championship.
2 - The dynasty must win a total of at least four Stanley Cups, in any span, as long as they make the Playoffs every year of that span and never go more than three seasons without winning a championship.
3 - The final year of the dynasty is the team's most recent championship in said dynasty. Even losing Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals in overtime doesn't count.
Which gives the following dynasties:
1 - Toronto Maple Leafs - 4 Stanley Cups, 1947 - 1951.
2 - Detroit Red Wings - 4 Stanley Cups, 1950 - 1955.
3 - Montreal Canadiens - 6 Stanley Cups, 1953 - 1960.
4 - Toronto Maple Leafs - 4 Stanley Cups, 1962 - 1967.
5 - Montreal Canadiens - 4 Stanley Cups, 1965 - 1969.
6 - Montreal Canadiens - 6 Stanley Cups, 1971 - 1979.
7 - New York Islanders - 4 Stanley Cups, 1980 - 1983.
8 - Edmonton Oilers - 5 Stanley Cups, 1984 - 1990.
This corrects for the latter Montreal run, but also removes the latter Detroit run and makes it so that Pittsburgh needs to win 2 more in the current window to be considered a dynasty, since more than 3 seasons passed between 09 and 16. Thoughts?Comment
-
Oh Jesus Christ my Detroit predictions did not age well. How did every one of those prospects flop so hard?
Honestly I'm not as interested in coming up with strict definitions for a dynasty, I think it is one if those things you just know when it happens. I certainly do not think the same definitions should be used post-cap that were used pre-cap. To me Chicago was a dynasty. Cups in 2010, 2013 and 2015, and they did it the way you need to with the cap - kept their core star players but trading away secondary players as they got too expensive, in return for young players and prospects. To me it is at least as impressive as what some of those old Montreal teams did.
I would also consider Pittsburgh a dynasty. Three Cups and four finals in ten years. But the amount of years is less important than the fact that Crosby, Malkin and Letang led the team for all three of them.
But actually the thing I wanted to talk about was that Chicago-LA series in 2014. Even with my looser acceptance of a dynasty, I wouldn't go so far as to call LA a dynasty, but they were certainly a powerhouse for a few years there. After their first Cup in 2012, they lost to Chicago in 2013, and then beat Chicago seven games in 2014. If Chicago had won that series, they would have gone on the win the Cup and would be considered a dynasty by any measure, and likewise if LA had beat Chicago in 2013, they may have beat Boston in the final and that would be three consecutive, easily a dynasty to me.
At the time we all knew this was a hell of a tight, entertaining series between two elite teams, but I don't think we appreciated the full magnitude of it. Looking back now then, this was two absolute behemoth teams in their peaks, and even if you don't consider either a dynasty, you have to recognize that with a different outcome either way in their series between eachother in 2013 or 2014, one or the other could have be considered a dynasty for sure. That seven game series in 2014 had to have been one of the greatest playoff series of all time.
But then I suppose you could say the same about some of the Detroit-Colorado series in the late 90s.Comment
-
What a rivalry that was:
1996 - Colorado's first year in the league after move from Quebec. Detroit wins NHL record 62 games. Colorado beats Detroit in six in conference finals to go on to win franchise's first Cup.
1997 - Detroit beats Colorado in six in CF and win first Cup since '55.
1998 - Detroit wins Cup. Colorado loses in first round to Edmonton.
1999 - Colorado beats Detroit in six in conference semifinal. Colorado loses to Dallas in CF who goes on to win Cup.
2000 - Colorado beats Detroit in four in CSF. Colorado loses to Dallas in CF who loses to New Jersey in final.
2001 - Colorado wins Cup. Detroit lost to LA first round.
2002 - Detroit beats Colorado in conference finals en route to Cup. Seven games, three of which went to overtime.Comment
-
Those were major hockey fandom years for me, and I loved watching that rivalry! The '02 Detroit core was insane.Originally posted by matchesmalone View Post
Yzerman
Shanahan
Fedorov
Hull
Robitaille
Holmstrom
Larionov
Datsyuk
Lidstrom
Chelios
HasekComment
Comment