HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The History of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=126)
-   -   81-83 Isles vs. 91-93 Pens (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=145711)

Big Phil 06-06-2005 03:48 PM

81-83 Isles vs. 91-93 Pens
 
Okay in a fantasy match up who would win this series? Both teams had dominant players and Hall of Famers for the Isles (Bossy, Trottier, Gilles, Potvin and Smith). And the Pens HOFers (Lemieux, Murphy, Mullen and soon to be Jagr, Francis). The Isles were clearly the better dynasty winning four straight and having their best season in '82 with 118 points. The Pens won two straight cups and had their best year in '93 with 119 points. To me the Pens dont get the respect they deserve of all time rankings.

But it would be neat to see an in his prime Lemieux go up against Bossy. In net Smith would likely out duel Barrasso but I think the Pens would throw a lot more puck their way. Mario would be the key I think. But throw in Tochet, Stevens, Mullen, Jagr, Francis and you have a very deep offense. NYI wasnt as bad either with Bossy, Trotts, Gilles, Tonelli, Sutter, Bourne and Goring. And on D Ptovin was a much better defensman than Murphy and more of an offensive threat too. I think it would come down to 7 games and you'd think the Isles would come out on top but if Mario is being mario then the Pens would have to take the nod. If I'm a betting man, I'd take the Isles by a whisker though.

Ogopogo* 06-06-2005 03:54 PM

Not even close.

Islanders no problem.

CGG 06-06-2005 03:56 PM

The 1992-93 Pens couldn't even beat the 1992-93 Islanders, even though the Isles were without their best player, Pierre Turgeon. The 80's Isles were far better. 4 cups in a row, 5 finals in a row. The only team to do either in a 21+ team NHL.

Bring Back Bucky 06-06-2005 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Phil
Okay in a fantasy match up who would win this series? Both teams had dominant players and Hall of Famers for the Isles (Bossy, Trottier, Gilles, Potvin and Smith). And the Pens HOFers (Lemieux, Murphy, Mullen and soon to be Jagr, Francis). The Isles were clearly the better dynasty winning four straight and having their best season in '82 with 118 points. The Pens won two straight cups and had their best year in '93 with 119 points. To me the Pens dont get the respect they deserve of all time rankings.

But it would be neat to see an in his prime Lemieux go up against Bossy. In net Smith would likely out duel Barrasso but I think the Pens would throw a lot more puck their way. Mario would be the key I think. But throw in Tochet, Stevens, Mullen, Jagr, Francis and you have a very deep offense. NYI wasnt as bad either with Bossy, Trotts, Gilles, Tonelli, Sutter, Bourne and Goring. And on D Ptovin was a much better defensman than Murphy and more of an offensive threat too. I think it would come down to 7 games and you'd think the Isles would come out on top but if Mario is being mario then the Pens would have to take the nod. If I'm a betting man, I'd take the Isles by a whisker though.

Islanders in 4 if they all had food poisoning and dull skates.

Malefic74 06-06-2005 05:58 PM

The Isles were a much more balanced and complete team. The Pens played no defence. Larry Murphy AND Paul Coffey? Sorry no.

The Isles can match the offence, have better defence, better goaltending and are a much, much tougher team than the Pens. And if it's one thing Mario has NEVER liked it's a tough physical defenceman on him all the time. Potvin and Morrow would drive him nuts. AS long as the Isles satyed out of the penalty box they would wrap it up.

Remember they didn't have a lot of trouble containing the early 80s Oilers like the 81-82 team which had scored 417 goals or the 82-83 team which racked up 424 goals. Those Pens teams never cracked 380 let alone 400.

As others have said, Mario makes it interesting to watch, but the Isles would romp.

People forget how good that team really was...

Luigi Lemieux 06-07-2005 02:18 AM

isles were obviously more dominant in their era, but if the two teams actually played each other i don't think the isles would steamroll the penguins.

and about the pens never cracking 400 goals ; they scored 362 in '96 where leaguewide goals per game was only 6.2. that's just as if not more impressive than scoring 400+ in the early 80s where goals per game was 8 or 9. in '93 they had 367, in '92 they had 343, and in '91 they had 342. the leaguewide goals per game those years were around 6.5-7.25, significantly less from the early 80s.

Ogopogo* 06-07-2005 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Metamorphosis
isles were obviously more dominant in their era, but if the two teams actually played each other i don't think the isles would steamroll the penguins.

and about the pens never cracking 400 goals ; they scored 362 in '96 where leaguewide goals per game was only 6.2. that's just as if not more impressive than scoring 400+ in the early 80s where goals per game was 8 or 9. in '93 they had 367, in '92 they had 343, and in '91 they had 342. the leaguewide goals per game those years were around 6.5-7.25, significantly less from the early 80s.

Why don't we analyze the facts to put this discussion in proper perspective.

If we take the 6 seasons in question (4 Islanders Cups, 2 Penguins Cups) let's have a look at how the Islanders dominated vs how the Penguins dominated.

Regular Season Numbers

Regular Season Team Win % GF GA Domination Rating
1981-82 New York Islanders 0.738 385 250 1.344
1980-81 New York Islanders 0.688 355 260 1.265
1982-83 New York Islanders 0.600 302 226 1.172
1979-80 New York Islanders 0.569 281 247 1.101
1990-91 Pittsburgh Penguins 0.550 342 305 1.079
1991-92 Pittsburgh Penguins 0.544 343 308 1.071


Playoff Numbers

Playoff Team W L GF GA Dom Rate
1980-81 New York Islanders 15 3 98 48 1.505
1981-82 New York Islanders 15 4 85 52 1.410
1982-83 New York Islanders 15 5 94 53 1.389
1991-92 Pittsburgh Penguins 16 5 83 63 1.330
1979-80 New York Islanders 15 6 88 66 1.286
1990-91 Pittsburgh Penguins 16 8 95 68 1.249


So, if we look at the stats, the Islanders four regular seasons were all better than the Penguins two regular seasons by a pretty wide margin. In the playoffs, 3 of the Islanders cup runs are at the top and the Penguins did manage to put their 1992 team in 4th ahead of the Islanders 1980 run. So, overall, the best teams of these six are:

Combined Reg Season and Playoffs

Team Reg Season Playoffs Total Domination Rating
1980-81 New York Islanders 1.265 1.505 2.770
1981-82 New York Islanders 1.344 1.410 2.754
1982-83 New York Islanders 1.172 1.389 2.561
1991-92 Pittsburgh Penguins 1.071 1.330 2.401
1979-80 New York Islanders 1.101 1.286 2.387
1990-91 Pittsburgh Penguins 1.079 1.249 2.328


So overall, the Islanders 81, 82 and 83 teams were better that either of the Penguin cup winners. The 92 Penguins team did finish slightly ahead of the 1980 Islanders. The numbers clearly tell us that the Islanders were the much more dominant - and better - team than the Penguins.

In fact, the comment about the Penguins not being able to score 400 because they were in a more defensive time, is flawed somewhat. Look at the 81-82 Islanders, they had 385 GF and 250 GA. The Penguins better regular seaon in 90-91, they scored 342 but gave up 305. The Isles scored more and allowed less, that all adds up to the Islanders being a much better team.

I am an Oilers fan and we had a heated rivalry with the Islanders in the 80s. But, facts are facts. They assembled one of the greatest teams of all time. Defintely greater than the Penguins of the early 90s.

WVP 06-07-2005 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Regular Season Numbers

Regular Season Team Win % GF GA Domination Rating
1981-82 New York Islanders 0.738 385 250 1.344
1980-81 New York Islanders 0.688 355 260 1.265
1982-83 New York Islanders 0.600 302 226 1.172
1979-80 New York Islanders 0.569 281 247 1.101
1990-91 Pittsburgh Penguins 0.550 342 305 1.079
1991-92 Pittsburgh Penguins 0.544 343 308 1.071

Could you put the 92-93 Pens regular season in there? I'm curious to see where they'd end up.

The 90-91 and 91-92 regular seasons weren't anything special for the Pens. In 90-91, they weren't the same team until after the big trade for Francis and co, and Lemieux missed the majority of the season.

Ogopogo* 06-07-2005 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVpens
Could you put the 92-93 Pens regular season in there? I'm curious to see where they'd end up.

The 90-91 and 91-92 regular seasons weren't anything special for the Pens. In 90-91, they weren't the same team until after the big trade for Francis and co, and Lemieux missed the majority of the season.

Team Win % GF GA Domination Rating
1992-93 Pittsburgh Penguins .708 367 268 1.286

Definitely a much better regular season.

Regular Season Team Win % GF GA Domination Rating
1981-82 New York Islanders 0.738 385 250 1.344
1992-93 Pittsburgh Penguins 0.708 367 268 1.268
1980-81 New York Islanders 0.688 355 260 1.265
1982-83 New York Islanders 0.600 302 226 1.172
1979-80 New York Islanders 0.569 281 247 1.101
1990-91 Pittsburgh Penguins 0.550 342 305 1.079
1991-92 Pittsburgh Penguins 0.544 343 308 1.071

That excellent Penguins regular season puts them in second spot in our study. It definitely makes the 81-82 Islanders season look jaw dropping.



Their playoffs looked like this:

Team W L GF GA Domination Rating
1992-93 Pittsburgh Penguins 7 5 50 37 1.158

For being knocked out in round 2, those are actually excellent playoff numbers.

Overall:

1992-93 Pittsburgh Penguins 1.286 + 1.158 = 2.444


Team Reg Season Playoffs Total Domination Rating
1980-81 New York Islanders 1.265 1.505 2.770
1981-82 New York Islanders 1.344 1.410 2.754
1982-83 New York Islanders 1.172 1.389 2.561
1992-93 Pittsburgh Penguins 1.286 1.158 2.444 *non cup winner
1991-92 Pittsburgh Penguins 1.071 1.330 2.401
1979-80 New York Islanders 1.101 1.286 2.387
1990-91 Pittsburgh Penguins 1.079 1.249 2.328

You know, that 92-93 team was the best Penguins team of the early 90s.

Snap Wilson 06-07-2005 12:10 PM

The SDS score (see "Greatest Team of All-Time thread" for details) for the '93 Penguins was 1.29, which ranks 115th all-time. It isn't even the highest Pittsburgh score. The '96 team has an SDS score of 1.36 (96th all time).

The Islanders of the late 70's-early 80's bettered that mark four times.

1979: 2.06 (10th)
1982: 1.95 (18th)
1981: 1.45 (75th)
1978: 1.42 (81st)

Additionally, the '81 Islanders probably had the most dominant playoff run of all-time, post-expansion at least (15-3, 97-48 goal differential). This isn't to suggest that I know how they would fare against the Lemieux Pens in a seven-game series. It's an unanswerable question. But I'd bet on the Isles.

WVP 06-07-2005 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ogopogo
You know, that 92-93 team was the best Penguins team of the early 90s.

Yep. That's why I hate David Volek.

WVP 06-07-2005 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moneyp
The SDS score (see "Greatest Team of All-Time thread" for details) for the '93 Penguins was 1.29, which ranks 115th all-time. It isn't even the highest Pittsburgh score. The '96 team has an SDS score of 1.36 (96th all time).

The Islanders of the late 70's-early 80's bettered that mark four times.

1979: 2.06 (10th)
1982: 1.95 (18th)
1981: 1.45 (75th)
1978: 1.42 (81st)

OK, but if that rating system says the 96 Pens were a better team than the 93 Pens, I'd say that system is flawed.

Ogopogo* 06-07-2005 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVpens
OK, but if that rating system says the 96 Pens were a better team than the 93 Pens, I'd say that system is flawed.

I agree with that.


1995-96 Pittsburgh Penguins .622 362 284 1.182

1995-96 Pittsburgh Penguins Playoffs 11 7 57 52 1.134


Overall

1995-96 Pittsburgh Penguins 1.182 + 1.134 = 2.316

1992-93 Pittsburgh Penguins 1.286 + 1.158 = 2.444

Very good team but, not as good as the 92-93 edition.

Chili 06-07-2005 12:22 PM

The Islanders of 1982 were down 3-1 with 6 minutes to play in the deciding game against the Pens (best of five) and were very lucky to comeback and win that series. They were a whisker away from having their dynasty ended in the first round.

I don't know if the Pens have ever been swept in a playoff series (if they were it was many years ago) and with a lineup in their prime of Lemieux, Jagr, Francis, Mullen, Tocchet, Stevens, Coffey, Murphy, the Samuelssons, Barrasso and some fine grinders like Errey, Loney and Bourque it would be an interesting series with probably alot of scoring.

So much is about peaking at the right time though, something the 92/93 Pens may have done too early.

Food for thought: Would Bryan Trottier be assigned to cover himself?

WVP 06-07-2005 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili
Food for thought: Would Bryan Trottier be assigned to cover himself?

Lemieux and Bossy?

Snap Wilson 06-07-2005 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVpens
OK, but if that rating system says the 96 Pens were a better team than the 93 Pens, I'd say that system is flawed.

It doesn't. First of all, the difference between the two ratings is miniscule, enough to be the point of random fluctuation. Second, it's only a one year ranking. If you look on the "Greatest Team of All-Time thread," you'll see that I don't give one-year rankings much credit. Teams have fluke years.

What my system figures in that Pogostick's doesn't is the competitive balance of the league. The league balance was much better in '96 than it was in the expansion year of '93, making higher point totals (and goal differentials) much easier to attain.

What the rating says is that the goal differential attained by the Pens in '96 was more difficult to attain than the goal differential in '93. You can make of it what you will.

I'm just saying that the Islanders performed at a comfortably higher level than the Pens did, even in their best years.

Darth Milbury 06-07-2005 12:42 PM

I've been an Islander fan since 1972. My family had season tickets then (I was 10-YO at the time) and I got to watch most of the cup games - I was even there for "the goal" (Nystrom's overtime winner). So, I feel like I can comment on those Islander cup teams.

Those were great teams, indeed. But, I think people are selling the Penguins a little short here. They had a far more competent defense then they are being given credit for, and there offense was probably more explosive than the Isles. If nothing else, even Mike Bossy was not as talented a player as the Magnificent One.

I do think I'd take the Isles, Oiler, and Hab dynasty teams over the Pens, but I do think the Pens would have been a serious challenge for any of those teams.

Ogopogo* 06-07-2005 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moneyp
Teams have fluke years..

Fluke years? You mean for 80-84 games all the bounces go their way, they have no injuries, all bad calls go against the opponents and all opponents are slumping when they come to town? If seasons were a fluke, you wouldn't have even bothered doing any ratings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moneyp
What my system figures in that Pogostick's doesn't is the competitive balance of the league. The league balance was much better in '96 than it was in the expansion year of '93, making higher point totals (and goal differentials) much easier to attain.

How is playoff performance affected by competitive balance? Does your system consider playoff performance at all? Expansion teams don't make the playoffs.

WVP 06-07-2005 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moneyp
It doesn't. First of all, the difference between the two ratings is miniscule, enough to be the point of random fluctuation. Second, it's only a one year ranking. If you look on the "Greatest Team of All-Time thread," you'll see that I don't give one-year rankings much credit. Teams have fluke years.

What my system figures in that Pogostick's doesn't is the competitive balance of the league. The league balance was much better in '96 than it was in the expansion year of '93, making higher point totals (and goal differentials) much easier to attain.

What the rating says is that the goal differential attained by the Pens in '96 was more difficult to attain than the goal differential in '93. You can make of it what you will.

I'm just saying that the Islanders performed at a comfortably higher level than the Pens did, even in their best years.

I'm just looking at the rosters and what I personally witnessed of both teams. I'm comfortable saying the 93 team would easily dispose of the 96 team in a best of 7, disregarding fluke upsets (such as the 93 Isles).

Snap Wilson 06-07-2005 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Fluke? You mean for 80-84 games all the bounces go their way, they have no injuries, all bad calls go against the opponents and all opponents are slumping when they come to town? If seasons were a fluke, you wouldn't have even bothered doing any ratings.

Yes, Pogostick, that's exactly what I mean. (Where's that eye-rolling... ah, here we go.) :shakehead

A team can obtain a really high one-year record in SDS (or even in your dominance rating if you care to look) and then slip back to a normal established level. These fluctuations are normal. You can say that a team was good one year and lousy the next, but really, a team with 80-point talent can get anywhere between 90 points and 70. This is true of all sports, by the way.

Quote:

How is playoff performance affected by competitive balance? Does your system consider playoff performance at all? Expansion teams don't make the playoffs.
No, the system doesn't consider playoff performance. I don't expect you to understand what this means, but playoff numbers exist in a vacuum, and are largely defined by the opposition being faced.

Snap Wilson 06-07-2005 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVpens
I'm just looking at the rosters and what I personally witnessed of both teams. I'm comfortable saying the 93 team would easily dispose of the 96 team in a best of 7, disregarding fluke upsets (such as the 93 Isles).

And I won't argue with you! Unlike the Pogostick I'm open to differences of opinion. Hey, the '97 Ducks had a higher SDS than the '03 version (who only had a goal differential of +10), but nobody could convince me that they're the better team, even before the playoffs started.

Statistics (or even awards...:shakehead ) aren't the be-all and end-all of analysis. They simply provide another perspective.

Loving the shakehead,

MoneyP

WVP 06-07-2005 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moneyp
Statistics (or even awards...:shakehead ) aren't the be-all and end-all of analysis. They simply provide another perspective.

I definitely agree with this.

Ogopogo* 06-07-2005 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moneyp
Yes, Pogostick, that's exactly what I mean. (Where's that eye-rolling... ah, here we go.) :shakehead

A team can obtain a really high one-year record in SDS (or even in your dominance rating if you care to look) and then slip back to a normal established level. These fluctuations are normal. You can say that a team was good one year and lousy the next, but really, a team with 80-point talent can get anywhere between 90 points and 70. This is true of all sports, by the way.



No, the system doesn't consider playoff performance. I don't expect you to understand what this means, but playoff numbers exist in a vacuum, and are largely defined by the opposition being faced.

When a team wins the Stanley Cup, it is true that they were better than all teams in the NHL that season. It is irrelevant who they faced in the first or second round, they beat everyone. If a team puts up impressive numbers on a Stanley Cup run, that is a great tool to compare them to other Stanley Cup winners.

As well, playoff teams are better than non-playoff teams. Not every playoff team is great but, it is a better team than the teams that are not in. So, that makes playoff competition tougher and it is an excellent guage of a team's quality. With each passing playoff round, the competition gets tougher.

As per usual, we disagree. I think that is a good thing.

Ogopogo* 06-07-2005 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moneyp

Statistics (or even awards...:shakehead ) aren't the be-all and end-all of analysis. They simply provide another perspective.


Quality of analysis depends on how you use the available tools. Use them correctly and you can build an effective system.

Basing everything on what you have personally seen is fallacy. You may be able to be fairly accurate with recent teams but, over time, bias sets in and memory becomes cloudy. It is an unreliable way to evaluate unless you have the benefit of the evidence left behind.

As well, unless you are 100 years old, there is no way you can compare the 1930 Boston Bruins to the 1982 Islanders. What about Eddie Shore vs Ray Bourque? We NEED the awards and stats to give us the tools to effectively evaluate players from different eras.

Tell me, how do you rank Eddie Shore?

Snap Wilson 06-07-2005 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Quality of analysis depends on how you use the available tools. Use them correctly and you can build an effective system.

Right, so explain to us how you're arbitrary point system for awards can be construed as "effective analysis?"

Or adding up the regular season and playoff winning percentages and goal percentages is "effective analysis?"

You're just crunching numbers. Nothing about it is remotely analytical.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:29 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.