HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Greater dynasty: Gretzky's Oilers vs Trottier's Islanders

View Poll Results: Who are greater?
Gretzky's Oilers 61 50.41%
Trottier's Islanders 44 36.36%
Even 16 13.22%
Voters: 121. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-21-2013, 12:13 AM
  #101
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Heh, that's a good way to put it.
No doubt!

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 09:08 PM
  #102
NorthStar4Canes
Registered User
 
NorthStar4Canes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
We're in agreement. It boggles my mind really: Reductio ad absurdum on steroids.
So sayeth those who believe they can mind-boggle (argumentum verbosium) their way into "proving" losing actually = winning (petitio principii).

And if you're trying to seem intellectual by dissecting "what's behind the wins", don't merely cherry-pick your notion of the relative strength of opponents, be honest about it and dissect every aspect of what can factor into a win or loss (bounces, bad/bown calls, injury) not only for the winner but for the loser as well, and not only during the playoffs but the relative ease of the road at which they arrived there in the first place. If you're going to try (in vain) to prove that, dynastically-speaking, non-consecutive wins = consecutive wins, at least go the full measure or don't go at all.

Being a dynasty...and the original question is specifically about the greater "Dynasty"...is at its core is the ability to remain the best after winning the crown, not being knocked-off the top of the mountain. Remaining the best is the Great Essential for its establishment. The Islanders sucessfully defended their championship 3 times in a row after winning. The best the Oilers could manage was to defend theirs 1 time twice. The Oilers went 4 seasons before proving to be vulnerable, the Oilers' maximum before losing was not 4 years before being knocked-off, not even 3, but 2. Good? yep, great even. But not as great.


Last edited by NorthStar4Canes: 03-22-2013 at 10:31 PM.
NorthStar4Canes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 09:23 AM
  #103
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthStar4Canes View Post
So sayeth those who believe they can mind-boggle (argumentum verbosium) their way into "proving" losing actually = winning (petitio principii).

And if you're trying to seem intellectual by dissecting "what's behind the wins", don't merely cherry-pick your notion of the relative strength of opponents, be honest about it and dissect every aspect of what can factor into a win or loss (bounces, bad/bown calls, injury) not only for the winner but for the loser as well, and not only during the playoffs but the relative ease of the road at which they arrived there in the first place. If you're going to try (in vain) to prove that, dynastically-speaking, non-consecutive wins = consecutive wins, at least go the full measure or don't go at all.

Being a dynasty...and the original question is specifically about the greater "Dynasty"...is at its core is the ability to remain the best after winning the crown, not being knocked-off the top of the mountain. Remaining the best is the Great Essential for its establishment. The Islanders sucessfully defended their championship 3 times in a row after winning. The best the Oilers could manage was to defend theirs 1 time twice. The Oilers went 4 seasons before proving to be vulnerable, the Oilers' maximum before losing was not 4 years before being knocked-off, not even 3, but 2. Good? yep, great even. But not as great.
Should we call the HHOF and tell them to remove Detroit from the dynasties wing since they only had one Cup defence? And if coming back after being knocked down is so easy, why have so few teams been able to do it? The Isles certainly couldn't.

I think when assessing dynasties we should look into many factors.

You seem to think we should count Cups.

Fine. Then I can only say 5 in 7 beats 4 in 4, because it works out to 4 in 7 in the end. Unless consecutive Cups is a requirement to the point that the Red Wings dynasty wasn't a dynasty, 5 > 4.

I think that's silly though. I would prefer to discuss "what's behind the wins" and would invite YOU to "go for the full measure" or not at all

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 09:55 AM
  #104
BamBamCam*
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seattle/Boston
Country: Ireland
Posts: 1,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Should we call the HHOF and tell them to remove Detroit from the dynasties wing since they only had one Cup defence? And if coming back after being knocked down is so easy, why have so few teams been able to do it? The Isles certainly couldn't.
What are you talking about? You successfully defended the Cup twice. Unless of course you are one of those many Red Wing fans that think the 1990s Wing teams were one but you would be mistaken. The only official Wing dynasty is the team from 1950 to 1955 where they won 4 out of 6 times.

BamBamCam* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 10:18 AM
  #105
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BamBamCam View Post
What are you talking about? You successfully defended the Cup twice. Unless of course you are one of those many Red Wing fans that think the 1990s Wing teams were one but you would be mistaken. The only official Wing dynasty is the team from 1950 to 1955 where they won 4 out of 6 times.
Wings Dynasty Cups:

50

52

54
55 (defended)

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 10:25 AM
  #106
BamBamCam*
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seattle/Boston
Country: Ireland
Posts: 1,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Wings Dynasty Cups:

50

52

54
55 (defended)
Correct, I made a math error but yes thank you. I was thinking you were talking the 90s Wings.

BamBamCam* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 11:06 AM
  #107
NorthStar4Canes
Registered User
 
NorthStar4Canes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Should we call the HHOF and tell them to remove Detroit from the dynasties wing since they only had one Cup defence? And if coming back after being knocked down is so easy, why have so few teams been able to do it? The Isles certainly couldn't.

I think when assessing dynasties we should look into many factors.

You seem to think we should count Cups.

Fine. Then I can only say 5 in 7 beats 4 in 4, because it works out to 4 in 7 in the end. Unless consecutive Cups is a requirement to the point that the Red Wings dynasty wasn't a dynasty, 5 > 4.

I think that's silly though. I would prefer to discuss "what's behind the wins" and would invite YOU to "go for the full measure" or not at all
Uh, try settling down first, and then re-read the original question...what was the GREATER dynasty. Do you see anything in what I've written to suggest the Oil didn't have a dynasty, or the Wings? You're debating with yourself things which haven't been argued, certainly not by me.

Now after you've done that, just suck it up and accept the fact that in answering the question there are those who think an unblemished string of champtionships is the deciding factor in which dynasty was greater between the two. I watched both those teams during those dynasties, and their opponents not only in the playoffs but in their respective divisions. Do you honestly think you're going to re-hash 30 year old stats (behind the wins) and sway my opinion as to what criteria is valid as it pertains to the question?

This question...Oilers vs Isles was being debated in bars and on sports pages a quarter century ago as it was happening, and probably every hockey fan on the planet, including myself, was involved in it at one time or another. It was discussed in greater, real-time detail and more at length than it ever could be here..to the full measure. Some people thought one way, others thought the other, still others couldn't decide.

This has to be one of the biggest "been there, done that" questions/debates for anyone living through those years of back-to-back dynasties. So go ahead and sift-away through what's "behind the wins". Have fun doing something that's already been done about 5 billion times before 1990. But while you're doing it start coming to terms with the fact that not everyone is going to buy into your formula because (and you can trust me on this) you won't be breaking any new ground or illuminating anything that wasn't beaten to death long ago.


Last edited by NorthStar4Canes: 03-23-2013 at 11:23 AM.
NorthStar4Canes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 11:22 AM
  #108
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthStar4Canes View Post
Uh, try settling down first, and then re-read the original question...what was the GREATER dynasty. Do you see anything in what I've written to suggest the Oil didn't have a dynasty, or the Wings? You're debating with yourself things which haven't been argued, certainly not by me.

Now after you've done that, just suck it up and accept the fact that in answering the question there are those who think an unblemished string of champtionships is the deciding factor in which dynasty was greater between the two. I watched both those teams during those dynasties, and their opponents not only in the playoffs but in their respective divisions. Do you honestly think you're going to re-hash 30 year old stats (behind the wins) and sway my opinion as to what criteria is valid as it pertains to the question?

This question...Oilers vs Isles was being debated in bars and on sports pages a quarter century ago as it was happening, and probably every hockey fan on the planet, including myself, was involved in it at one time or another. It was discussed in greater, real-time detail and more at length than it ever could be here..to the full measure. Some people thought one way, others thought the other, still others couldn't decide
You should tell that to the guy who said this, considering no one ever mentioned giving the Oilers credit for a "should have won" Cup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthStar4Canes View Post
Islanders. 4 straight = the greater dynasty.

Trying to "prove" the Oil was the greater dynasty by virtue of stats and paper rosters instead of pointing to the irrefutable stat of consecutive Cup wins is the first step down the road of "Should have won" and "Deserved to win" Cups that history shows weren't.

The proof is in the record books on this one.
Quote:
This has to be one of the biggest "been there, done that" questions/debates for anyone living through those years of back-to-back dynasties. So go ahead and sift-away through what's "behind the wins". Have fun doing something that's already been done about 5 billion times before 1990. But while you're doing it start coming to terms with the fact that not everyone is going to buy into your formula.
Deal. I kind of thought that was the big selling point for people coming here. Just don't think you've convinced anyone that the 1981 Isles Cup has anywhere near the same value as any of the Oilers Cups.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 11:43 AM
  #109
NorthStar4Canes
Registered User
 
NorthStar4Canes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Deal. I kind of thought that was the big selling point for people coming here. Just don't think you've convinced anyone that the 1981 Isles Cup has anywhere near the same value as any of the Oilers Cups.
I didn't answer the question to "sell" my opinion. I aswered the question with my opinion, and defended my reasoning behind my opinion due to the implication by some that "consecutive wins" as a deciding factor epitomized the "Stupid" in K.I.S.S. Or in all your reading/cutting/pasting did you miss that?

Those same people...you know, the smartypants pseudo-intelligensia of hockey....are now going to re-discuss one of the most-discussed and debated questions in modern hockey, thinking that nobody else has ever had the benefit of their insight, and therefore heard anything similar.

Some of us, however, have already heard everything they..or you... could conceivably say too many times to count during and immediately after those dynastic years by both Isle and Oil fanboys as well as the more-reasoned hockey world, and therefore LONG ago came up with some reasonable criteria in order to answer the question. What's ludicrous is that you would think "consecutive cups" is a ludicrous decider in this seemingly unanswerable question when all you're suggesting is that everyone start from zero and re-hash this stale debate as if it were fresh. Some of us put it to bed, and really don't care who's feelings get hurt because we never had a dog in either hunt.

NorthStar4Canes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 12:03 PM
  #110
BamBamCam*
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seattle/Boston
Country: Ireland
Posts: 1,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthStar4Canes View Post
I didn't answer the question to "sell" my opinion. I aswered the question with my opinion, and defended my reasoning behind my opinion due to the implication by some that "consecutive wins" as a deciding factor epitomized the "Stupid" in K.I.S.S. Or in all your reading/cutting/pasting did you miss that?

Those same people...you know, the smartypants pseudo-intelligensia of hockey....are now going to re-discuss one of the most-discussed and debated questions in modern hockey, thinking that nobody else has ever had the benefit of their insight, and therefore heard anything similar.

Some of us, however, have already heard everything they..or you... could conceivably say too many times to count during and immediately after those dynastic years by both Isle and Oil fanboys as well as the more-reasoned hockey world, and therefore LONG ago came up with some reasonable criteria in order to answer the question. What's ludicrous is that you would think "consecutive cups" is a ludicrous decider in this seemingly unanswerable question when all you're suggesting is that everyone start from zero and re-hash this stale debate as if it were fresh. Some of us put it to bed, and really don't care who's feelings get hurt because we never had a dog in either hunt.


Nicely said. This is so true. I was 15 when the Isles won their last one and 20 when the Oilers won theirs. I don't know what more can be said or what angle can be debated anymore that has not said. I choose the Isles also and alot of it has to do with 4 in a row and then the breakdown of the rosters.

BamBamCam* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 12:57 PM
  #111
Mark Messier
Getting To My Game
 
Mark Messier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,313
vCash: 500
Almost even, but I'll give it to the Islanders, for winning 4 straight and making it to 5 straight. That's just a period of dominance that is only on par with the 50s Canadiens.

Mark Messier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 01:15 PM
  #112
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthStar4Canes View Post
I didn't answer the question to "sell" my opinion. I aswered the question with my opinion, and defended my reasoning behind my opinion due to the implication by some that "consecutive wins" as a deciding factor epitomized the "Stupid" in K.I.S.S. Or in all your reading/cutting/pasting did you miss that?

Those same people...you know, the smartypants pseudo-intelligensia of hockey....are now going to re-discuss one of the most-discussed and debated questions in modern hockey, thinking that nobody else has ever had the benefit of their insight, and therefore heard anything similar.

Some of us, however, have already heard everything they..or you... could conceivably say too many times to count during and immediately after those dynastic years by both Isle and Oil fanboys as well as the more-reasoned hockey world, and therefore LONG ago came up with some reasonable criteria in order to answer the question. What's ludicrous is that you would think "consecutive cups" is a ludicrous decider in this seemingly unanswerable question when all you're suggesting is that everyone start from zero and re-hash this stale debate as if it were fresh. Some of us put it to bed, and really don't care who's feelings get hurt because we never had a dog in either hunt.
Which is good for you. I`m of the opinion that Muhammad Ali was a greater fighter than Rocky Marciano. So is most of the world who has ever heard of them.

Marciano went 49-0 and retired as undisputed World Heavyweight Champion. Ali was 56-5. Ali is almost always ranked ahead of Rocky AINEC. The difference is `what`s behind the wins.`

This one is closer than Ali-Marciano, but it is still worth looking into silly little things like quality of opposition when determining what dynasty is greater.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 02:35 PM
  #113
NorthStar4Canes
Registered User
 
NorthStar4Canes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
blogofmikeWhich is good for you. I`m of the opinion that Muhammad Ali was a greater fighter than Rocky Marciano. So is most of the world who has ever heard of them.

Marciano went 49-0 and retired as undisputed World Heavyweight Champion. Ali was 56-5. Ali is almost always ranked ahead of Rocky AINEC. The difference is `what`s behind the wins.
Uh, the parallel you would be drawing by using the "best fighter" between Ali/Marciano would be 'Who was the best team" between the Isles/Oil. That is NOT the question asked in the poll. Is it that you wish the question to be "Who was the best team" so badly why you can't seem to wrap your head around the one that actually was; Which was the greater dynasty? `

Quote:
This one is closer than Ali-Marciano, but it is still worth looking into silly little things like quality of opposition when determining what dynasty is greater.
Oh, by all means go ahead and "look into it" even though you're mostly answering a "best team" question in doing so. Some of us were there watching all those teams and playoffs. We knew the teams and players including the losers, not just the winners. And yes, I do seem to remember people debating "the quality of opposition" as one of many obvious factors to the very same question, but thanks anyway. Also, since those 2 dynasties weren't separated by decades but ran back to back, it wasn't like it was difficult research to do, and therefore, not very difficult to develop opinions on at the time. Why on earth would something you do now be more worthy than watching and living the entire picture then when it comes to forming an opinion?

And to reiterate, the opinion we're talking about here is "what was the greater dynasty".

IMO, after careful consideration of all factors including the strength of opposition (and thanks again for that Mr. Obvious. I hadn't forgotten it since 30 years ago but thanks all the same) the fact that the Oil lost after 2 Cup wins, and never won more than 2 in a row/couldn't defend its championship more than once each time represents vulnerability to it's dominance that was exploited. The Islanders managed 4 wins/3 defences before someone exploited theirs. If the Oil had won 4 in a row to match that record, or if the 2 dynasties were seperated by any great length of time, then other factors might carry more weight. But as it was, the Oil proved vulnerable in only half the time the Islanders were shown to be. To me, being more vulnerable and losing does NOT equate to being "greater", and any notion of weakness you attempt to assign other teams 25 to 30 years after the fact isn't going to turn losing into some sort of psuedo-win for the Oilers.

In my book, a bona fide winning streak of 4 Championships represents unblemished dominance and therefore a greater dynasty than a couple repeats separated by losing does.


Last edited by NorthStar4Canes: 03-23-2013 at 02:42 PM.
NorthStar4Canes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 02:51 PM
  #114
ryanwb
Registered User
 
ryanwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 863
vCash: 500
I say the Oilers, because in addition to the post-season successes they obviously had, Wayne was also in the process of ripping the NHL record book to shreds. Might just be a small feather in his cap, but in a comparison of which dynasty was greater, that has to count for something IMO.

It is quite close though.

ryanwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 03:26 PM
  #115
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthStar4Canes View Post
Uh, try settling down first, and then re-read the original question...what was the GREATER dynasty. Do you see anything in what I've written to suggest the Oil didn't have a dynasty, or the Wings? You're debating with yourself things which haven't been argued, certainly not by me.

Now after you've done that, just suck it up and accept the fact that in answering the question there are those who think an unblemished string of champtionships is the deciding factor in which dynasty was greater between the two. I watched both those teams during those dynasties, and their opponents not only in the playoffs but in their respective divisions. Do you honestly think you're going to re-hash 30 year old stats (behind the wins) and sway my opinion as to what criteria is valid as it pertains to the question?

This question...Oilers vs Isles was being debated in bars and on sports pages a quarter century ago as it was happening, and probably every hockey fan on the planet, including myself, was involved in it at one time or another. It was discussed in greater, real-time detail and more at length than it ever could be here..to the full measure. Some people thought one way, others thought the other, still others couldn't decide.

This has to be one of the biggest "been there, done that" questions/debates for anyone living through those years of back-to-back dynasties. So go ahead and sift-away through what's "behind the wins". Have fun doing something that's already been done about 5 billion times before 1990. But while you're doing it start coming to terms with the fact that not everyone is going to buy into your formula because (and you can trust me on this) you won't be breaking any new ground or illuminating anything that wasn't beaten to death long ago.
So... before the benefit of stats available on the internet. And before newspapers from other towns were available on the internet. And with everyone having to either a) own every hockey almanac from each season to remember what the respective matchups and results were, or b) retrieve and manipulate that information from memory. And with the average person only having maybe a hockey related book or three on their shelf anyway. And before cable television made more out of market games available on more channels. And before out of market games were streamed and archived on the internet. And before millions of people have had the time to pour over these resources and reform opinions they made when they were 10 years old - without the benefit of any of these resources or a developed eye for the depth and breadth of skill in the game, mind you, etc, etc. I mean, Excel didn't even exist in those days, so what numbers were people crunching and how?

Sorry, but the "I think the '80s Oilers are overrated, and 4 in a row is better, so it has to be the Islanders" doesn't undermine a better roster, who did better, against better teams, and still ended up with the same number of Cups despite lacking the 4 consecutive championships factor. On top of that, it's widely accepted that the Oilers would have added more Cups to the fold if one single player hadn't been removed. There was no such talk with the Islanders. They did great getting to that 4th, and I think the Oilers at the time convinced most people that the Islanders had absolutely no shot at a 5th; neither when they attempted the 5th against those Oilers nor any season that followed. And, in fact, they never got one, while the remaining players from that Oilers dynasty did and almost right away.

That's in my opinion, of course, but it'd be nice if you didn't prance around like the Islanders is the correct default choice for mainly "traditional" reasons, or that there's no ground to be broken when looking back at what these teams did. Relatively uniformed people (or those who will default to simple if it saves them time and effort) have been making that choice (in select regions, I'm sure) for years (since at least 1990, as you point out) without attempting to collect more in terms of context and understanding of both situations, or give them their "fair due", for the purposes of an actually meaningful comparison.


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 03-23-2013 at 03:39 PM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 07:05 PM
  #116
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthStar4Canes View Post
Uh, the parallel you would be drawing by using the "best fighter" between Ali/Marciano would be 'Who was the best team" between the Isles/Oil. That is NOT the question asked in the poll. Is it that you wish the question to be "Who was the best team" so badly why you can't seem to wrap your head around the one that actually was; Which was the greater dynasty?
Who had the greater reign as champion, Muhammad Ali or Larry Holmes (20 straight defenses)?


Quote:
Oh, by all means go ahead and "look into it" even though you're mostly answering a "best team" question in doing so. Some of us were there watching all those teams and playoffs. We knew the teams and players including the losers, not just the winners. And yes, I do seem to remember people debating "the quality of opposition" as one of many obvious factors to the very same question, but thanks anyway. Also, since those 2 dynasties weren't separated by decades but ran back to back, it wasn't like it was difficult research to do, and therefore, not very difficult to develop opinions on at the time. Why on earth would something you do now be more worthy than watching and living the entire picture then when it comes to forming an opinion?

And to reiterate, the opinion we're talking about here is "what was the greater dynasty".

IMO, after careful consideration of all factors including the strength of opposition (and thanks again for that Mr. Obvious. I hadn't forgotten it since 30 years ago but thanks all the same) the fact that the Oil lost after 2 Cup wins, and never won more than 2 in a row/couldn't defend its championship more than once each time represents vulnerability to it's dominance that was exploited. The Islanders managed 4 wins/3 defences before someone exploited theirs. If the Oil had won 4 in a row to match that record, or if the 2 dynasties were seperated by any great length of time, then other factors might carry more weight. But as it was, the Oil proved vulnerable in only half the time the Islanders were shown to be. To me, being more vulnerable and losing does NOT equate to being "greater", and any notion of weakness you attempt to assign other teams 25 to 30 years after the fact isn't going to turn losing into some sort of psuedo-win for the Oilers.

In my book, a bona fide winning streak of 4 Championships represents unblemished dominance and therefore a greater dynasty than a couple repeats separated by losing does.
Dynasties are greater when they're more dominant. Which is why it's odd that Edmonton has a higher winning percentage from 1984-88 (includes loss in 1986) than the Islanders from 1980-83 (or 1980-84) in both the regular season and the playoffs.

So I can't say the Oilers were more "vulnerable" than the Islanders, if they were less likely to lose a playoff game. The fact that their "vulnerability" (scoring so much they score on themselves?) was "exploited" is a sign that they were actually tested for their title defenses.

An 89 point team isn't impossible, but the Isles onlys saw 4 of them after their first win, and 1 in 1981 and 1982 combined. The Oilers were 7-1 against 89+ point teams from 1985-88. The Oilers may have lost one to Smokin' Joe Frazier, but the Isles beat Marvis Frazier.

Dynasties are greater when they roll over the field. The Isles 81 run was their best playoff run. They went 15-3, playing the easiest schedule in the history of the 4-round playoffs (avg opponent: 76.5 points). The 85 Oilers went 15-3 against 4 winning teams and in 1988 went 16-2 against 3 90+ point teams (and Winnipeg).

Dynasties are greater if they last a long time. That's a big one. 5 years after the Isles' first Cup they were irrelevant. 6 years after the Oilers' first Cup, they won a fifth.

Dynasties are greater when they are resilient. Once their "vulnerability" was exposed Edmonton won 3 Cups in 4 years. When the Isles were exposed they were never relevant again. It's hard to defend a title, but it's also hard to reclaim it.

Dynasties are greater when they have to overcome difficult things. Not just on the ice, but off the ice. I know they happened right after each other, but the economics of the game changed. Economics forced Edmonton to break up. While the Isles stayed together and eventually lost, the Oilers had to lose their top defenseman after 3 Cups, and top forward after 4 Cups. The Isles never had to deal with that kind of thing.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 07:24 PM
  #117
PearJuice*
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,109
vCash: 500
I saw both dynasties. The Oilers were better, and by a significant margin.

Advanced stats are useless. They for people who lack the ability to observe and make an informed judgement on what is actually going on the ice. They are often cherry picked to create false arguments that no one who was actually there would accept as valid.

The Oilers were simply more dominant than the Isles. They were so good that they could turn it off or on like a switch. Sometimes they could be frustrating because they were playing possum 95% of the time, which the Isles could not do as readily. That probably where a lot of the hockey stat nerds cull much o their evidence for downplaying the Oil's run.

The Oil won 5 Cup, and should have won 2-4 more I not for the financial problems of their owner. The were great but as great as the Oilers.

PearJuice* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 07:47 PM
  #118
Supreme King
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 67
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryBettman View Post
I saw both dynasties. The Oilers were better, and by a significant margin.

Advanced stats are useless. They for people who lack the ability to observe and make an informed judgement on what is actually going on the ice. They are often cherry picked to create false arguments that no one who was actually there would accept as valid.

The Oilers were simply more dominant than the Isles. They were so good that they could turn it off or on like a switch. Sometimes they could be frustrating because they were playing possum 95% of the time, which the Isles could not do as readily. That probably where a lot of the hockey stat nerds cull much o their evidence for downplaying the Oil's run.

The Oil won 5 Cup, and should have won 2-4 more I not for the financial problems of their owner. The were great but as great as the Oilers.
But they couldnt quite turn it on in game 7 of the Smythe division final against Calgary in 1986. Although the Oilers would win the next two cups to make it 4 cups in 5 years, a remarkable achievment in it's own right, it's not quite like the Islanders run of 4 consective Stanley Cups, a feat that has not been equalled since.

Supreme King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 09:03 PM
  #119
NorthStar4Canes
Registered User
 
NorthStar4Canes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Ohashi_Jouzu So... before the benefit of stats available on the internet. And before newspapers from other towns were available on the internet. And with everyone having to either a) own every hockey almanac from each season to remember what the respective matchups and results were, or b) retrieve and manipulate that information from memory. And with the average person only having maybe a hockey related book or three on their shelf anyway. And before cable television made more out of market games available on more channels. And before out of market games were streamed and archived on the internet.
If ye think that was a pity, don't even get me started on how hard it was to convince our Town Cryer to report the previous season's winner when news of it finally arrived. And to that end thank goodness they finally strung the telegraph wire when the railroad was routed through our village and Joseph Hamfist the Blacksmith was learned in Morse Code because, as everyone knows, the life of a smithy is all about tap-tap-tapping.

Quote:
And before millions of people have had the time to pour over these resources and reform opinions they made when they were 10 years old - without the benefit of any of these resources or a developed eye for the depth and breadth of skill in the game, mind you, etc, etc. I mean, Excel didn't even exist in those days, so what numbers were people crunching and how?
Good grief...unreformed 10 year olds' opinions?...what on earth are you talking about and where do you get these assumptions? Oh right, you're trying to call into question any opinion formed that didn't have the benefit of your computer and enlightened number-crunching by implying that such an opinion would be childlike. Gotcha.

Hey while you're at it, you may as well toss in that previous opinion-formers didn't have the benefit of modern nutrition and modern workouts, so their brains weren't functioning at the speed or level that present-day brains like yours do. Like, with these advantages, if you dropped your average HF board poster here into a pool of expert hockey writers and/or hardcore fans then who knew (but obviously didn't really know!) what was going on around them, our intrepid young number cruncher of today would just blow them all away like a Terminator from the future, or super-advanced aliens from across the galaxy.

Quote:
Sorry, but the "I think the '80s Oilers are overrated, and 4 in a row is better,
Did I ever write that the Oilers were "overrated"? Where did I write that? I said they were a great dynasty, and nowhere did I say what you have just attributed to me. Could it be that you're trying to mis-represent what I said? Naaah...
Quote:
so it has to be the Islanders" doesn't undermine a better roster, who did better, against better teams, and still ended up with the same number of Cups despite lacking the 4 consecutive championships factor.
...Oh, now I see why you falsely attributed that to me. You did it because you want to maneuver the debate into rosters and "who had the better team"...again...instead of what the question actually asked in order to downplay the fact the Oilers lost after only a repeat instead of defending it 3 times in a row. Guess what, some people were doing exactly what you were doing a quarter century ago. Strawmen have been around a long time, serving various purposes, including yours here.

Quote:
On top of that, it's widely accepted that the Oilers would have added more Cups to the fold if one single player hadn't been removed.
Aaaaaand, the old paper roster "could have won, would have won" appears.oh, and the nebulous "widely accepted"-stated-as-a-certainty-but-really-begs-the-question gambit...yup, nothing new to see here either.

Quote:
There was no such talk with the Islanders. They did great getting to that 4th, and I think the Oilers at the time convinced most people that the Islanders had absolutely no shot at a 5th; neither when they attempted the 5th against those Oilers nor any season that followed. And, in fact, they never got one, while the remaining players from that Oilers dynasty did and almost right away.
And the Oilers proved vulnerable after only a repeat by losing, then reset, and lost again after 2. That's simply not as dominant as remaining on top by defending a Championship 3 times in a row after winning. For my opinion, I rely on what happened, not an alternate reality.

Quote:
That's in my opinion, of course, but it'd be nice if you didn't prance around like the Islanders is the correct default choice for mainly "traditional" reasons, or that there's no ground to be broken when looking back at what these teams did.
It kind of amuses me that you think anything you've stated so far isn't as "traditional" as what I use as criteria to answer the question. People have been pumping the Oil Dynasty's tires with the same stale air you're using since only forever ago. But it amuses me more that you think that forming an opinion to the question that disagrees with yours is a form of "prancing". That's kind of a new one. Hmmm, why, I wonder? could it be you're once again trying to paint an opinion's holder in a bad light? Nah..couldnt be!

Quote:
Relatively uniformed people (or those who will default to simple if it saves them time and effort) have been making that choice (in select regions, I'm sure) for years...
Now that I have more data, I've re-assessed my former opinion that previously gave you the benefit of the doubt (the "Nah you wouldn't gratuitously try to paint a dissenting opinion-holder in a bad light). I see that giving you that benefit was naive...even childlike...like a 10 year old. You in fact DO try and gratuitously paint the source of a differing opinion in a bad light to try and further your argument.

"Uninformed people", the "provincially ignorant", the "mentally lazy"...You should be a politician the way you try to assign ignorance to others who disagree with you in an effort to sway those to your camp by virtue of them wanting to simply avoid your label. Look at you, trying to persuade that you have unique, modern insight by resorting to one of the most predictable and oldest tactics in the book. You, my friend, win a ribbon for Irony.

Quote:
(since at least 1990, as you point out) without attempting to collect more in terms of context and understanding of both situations, or give them their "fair due", for the purposes of an actually meaningful comparison.
How do you know they haven't attempted it, did, and simply have not seen anything that sways their opinion? You don't know this of course, you're merely trying to imply that they haven't. Just like your implication that previous opinions weren't formed in a "meaningful" way or "fairly" or "with understanding". Let's face it, you're pimping the Oilers, and have an agenda to try and maneuver the question into the "Who was the better team" category and through condescending prose imply (directly and backhandedly) that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, ignorant, or too provincial to place as much importance as you do of what "lies behind" that it would trump consecutive wins for this particular question. In other words, according to you if someone doesn't see it your way, they simply aren't "enlightened".

So, go plow that same old field to your heart's content and apply your Brave New context that (like alchemy has as much chance as actually turning lead into gold) turns losing into winning, and you can share these deep-look findings just like Oil fanboys in olde sailing-ship times who shared the same ones then, and have been doing so every decade in between. You may believe you're New Age, but you're actually circa 1988 or so.

NorthStar4Canes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 09:22 PM
  #120
NorthStar4Canes
Registered User
 
NorthStar4Canes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme King View Post
But they couldnt quite turn it on in game 7 of the Smythe division final against Calgary in 1986. Although the Oilers would win the next two cups to make it 4 cups in 5 years, a remarkable achievment in it's own right, it's not quite like the Islanders run of 4 consective Stanley Cups, a feat that has not been equalled since.
Speaking of the Smythe Division then, yikes. The Oilers perenially had 1 decent team to contend with on the road to and through some of the playoffs....well, Hawerchuck too, but after all he was just one guy, not a team. Now there's some "strength of opposition" numbers that aren't going to get probed too deeply by those around here touting them as the be-all, end all in criteria.


Last edited by NorthStar4Canes: 03-23-2013 at 09:32 PM.
NorthStar4Canes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2013, 11:58 PM
  #121
aemoreira1981
Registered User
 
aemoreira1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 3,971
vCash: 500
I went with the Islanders...it is close, but the Islanders had a lot more toughness than the Oilers (led by Clark Gillies and Fightin' Billy Smith) and 19 series wins in a row is amazing. You say Wayne Gretzky is the all-time leader in goals, assists, and points, I say that Mike Bossy was the better pure goal scorer (whose career was cut short at age 30 by a bad back).

That Islander dynasty also didn't have much turnover on the roster---16 players (plus Lorne Henning, a player and later an assistant coach) were part of all four championships plus the team that lost to the Oilers in 1984.

aemoreira1981 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2013, 08:51 PM
  #122
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthStar4Canes View Post
Speaking of the Smythe Division then, yikes. The Oilers perenially had 1 decent team to contend with on the road to and through some of the playoffs....well, Hawerchuck too, but after all he was just one guy, not a team. Now there's some "strength of opposition" numbers that aren't going to get probed too deeply by those around here touting them as the be-all, end all in criteria.
Strength of opposition is not be-all end-all, it is one factor. So is winning percentage. (There are other factors too, but we'll leave it here for now.)

The 1985 Oilers (Edmonton's 2nd best run) going 15-3 against 4 teams with winning records beats the 1981 Isles (NYI's best run) going 15-3 against the 9th, 13th, 14th and 16th best teams in the NHL. The Oilers had better records in their Cup victories against better competition, so I place more value on those victories. After all not all Cups are created equal. I think we'd all agree the 1977 Canadiens are better than the 2004 Lightning.

As for probing, in Edmonton's first 4 Cup years the Smythe gave Edmonton an average opponent that had 84.125 points. Again, in 1985 the Oilers only played winning teams, including the 96 point Winnipeg Jets (Winnipeg Hawerchuks?) who were 4th in the NHL. Making great teams look like lightweights in retrospect is one of those things that scores points for subjectively determining how great your dynasty is.

The quality of opposition is about the same for Edmonton's first two rounds as the Islanders first and second round opponents for their 4 Cups (83.125 points). So they're in the same ballpark for opponents, yet the Isles swept only one of their opponents in the first two rounds. Overall, New York played as many losing teams in four years as the Oilers did in seven years.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2013, 09:26 PM
  #123
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Strength of opposition is not be-all end-all, it is one factor. So is winning percentage. (There are other factors too, but we'll leave it here for now.)

The 1985 Oilers (Edmonton's 2nd best run) going 15-3 against 4 teams with winning records beats the 1981 Isles (NYI's best run) going 15-3 against the 9th, 13th, 14th and 16th best teams in the NHL. The Oilers had better records in their Cup victories against better competition, so I place more value on those victories. After all not all Cups are created equal. I think we'd all agree the 1977 Canadiens are better than the 2004 Lightning.

As for probing, in Edmonton's first 4 Cup years the Smythe gave Edmonton an average opponent that had 84.125 points. Again, in 1985 the Oilers only played winning teams, including the 96 point Winnipeg Jets (Winnipeg Hawerchuks?) who were 4th in the NHL. Making great teams look like lightweights in retrospect is one of those things that scores points for subjectively determining how great your dynasty is.

The quality of opposition is about the same for Edmonton's first two rounds as the Islanders first and second round opponents for their 4 Cups (83.125 points). So they're in the same ballpark for opponents, yet the Isles swept only one of their opponents in the first two rounds. Overall, New York played as many losing teams in four years as the Oilers did in seven years.
And beyond the playoffs, Edmonton also has the higher point/point% regular seasons over the course of their dynasty, too (Edmonton's "worst" finish of 99 points being higher than the 91 and 96 we see during the Islanders' run of 4). But four in a row is "better" by "default"...

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:57 PM
  #124
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aemoreira1981 View Post
I went with the Islanders...it is close, but the Islanders had a lot more toughness than the Oilers (led by Clark Gillies and Fightin' Billy Smith) and 19 series wins in a row is amazing. You say Wayne Gretzky is the all-time leader in goals, assists, and points, I say that Mike Bossy was the better pure goal scorer (whose career was cut short at age 30 by a bad back).

That Islander dynasty also didn't have much turnover on the roster---16 players (plus Lorne Henning, a player and later an assistant coach) were part of all four championships plus the team that lost to the Oilers in 1984.
If by, "Better pure goal scorer," you mean scoring less goals, as well as (far) less assists to make up for the perceived discrepancy of "goal pureness", you are correct. It's funny how Wayne gets punished for scoring 120+ assists per year to go along with his already higher GPG average (than Bossy's) at the time. I guess if Wayne had only been scoring 60 assists a year like Bossy, then he would have been the better "pure goal scorer"! Fact of the matter is, Gretzky got to 200 goals, 300 goals, 400 goals, and 500 goals all in less games than Bossy (or anyone else for that matter).

tazzy19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:10 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.