HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Best Team to not win a Cup

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-07-2005, 02:40 PM
  #51
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyp
...early-80s Habs (post-Cup). People forget that the Habs remained a beast even after their dynastic run....
If they had only adequately replaced Dryden, they may have given the Isles a run for their money during the early 80's. IMO they dropped the ball by not going after a guy like Resch who was likely available, and would have loved to face the Isles.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
06-07-2005, 02:54 PM
  #52
KOVALEV10*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Simply the best!
Posts: 3,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Joe
If they had only adequately replaced Dryden, they may have given the Isles a run for their money during the early 80's. IMO they dropped the ball by not going after a guy like Resch who was likely available, and would have loved to face the Isles.
Habs were starting to fade. Lapointe was often injured and Savard was getting older. Lafleur was a shell of his former self after the injury and accident in 81. There was no Dryden no Lemaire nor Mahovlich nor Cournoyer anymore. Keith Acton was playing on the first line for gods sake! They also had trouble finding a good coach and general manager and kept changing every year. Bad decisions on the draft too like Wickenheiser over Denis Savard. Also habs were burned out too.

KOVALEV10* is offline  
Old
06-07-2005, 02:56 PM
  #53
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
4 excellent seasons consectively is a fluke?
A fluke that they came up with a top ten SDS ranking. They were no more or less excellent than a hundred other teams.

Snap Wilson is offline  
Old
06-07-2005, 03:07 PM
  #54
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Joe
If they had only adequately replaced Dryden, they may have given the Isles a run for their money during the early 80's. IMO they dropped the ball by not going after a guy like Resch who was likely available, and would have loved to face the Isles.
Even after Dryden left, the Habs remained the best defensive team in the league. The '82 team may be one of the best of all time, all things considered. Gainey was never better. Their top two lines got ravaged with Lemaire and Cournoyer's retiriements and Lafleur's injury and the replacements couldn't live up to that production.

Snap Wilson is offline  
Old
06-07-2005, 03:15 PM
  #55
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyp
Even after Dryden left, the Habs remained the best defensive team in the league. The '82 team may be one of the best of all time, all things considered. Gainey was never better. Their top two lines got ravaged with Lemaire and Cournoyer's retiriements and Lafleur's injury and the replacements couldn't live up to that production.
The 82 Habs were the 3rd highest scoring team in the NHL with 360 goals. They were still very deep offensively.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
06-07-2005, 03:22 PM
  #56
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Joe
The 82 Habs were the 3rd highest scoring team in the NHL with 360 goals. They were still very deep offensively.
Oh, I know. I'm just saying if there's a difference in performance of the Habs from say, 80-82 to the late 70's dynasty, it was more on the offensive end. The defense (forwards and d-men) was top notch. The replacements for Dryden didn't measure up, but the skaters in front of them made them look good (at least until the playoffs started).

Snap Wilson is offline  
Old
06-07-2005, 03:23 PM
  #57
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyp
A fluke that they came up with a top ten SDS ranking. They were no more or less excellent than a hundred other teams.
You have them in the top 10 for your 2 season rating. Is that a fluke?

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
06-07-2005, 03:45 PM
  #58
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
You have them in the top 10 for your 2 season rating. Is that a fluke?
Yes, because it's a combination of an uncharacteristically high rating for 1980 (2.10) and a merely decent one for 1981 (1.17). You'll notice they fall off the list altogether after that.

You see, Pogo? Context! Not "what are the numbers" but "what do the numbers mean?"

Snap Wilson is offline  
Old
06-07-2005, 03:59 PM
  #59
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
Just to delve into this a bit further, here are Buffalo's highest one-year through five-year SDS ratings, as well as where they rank all-time.

One-year: 1980 - 2.10 (8th)
Two-year: 1980-81 - 3.28 (32nd)
Three-year: 1980-82 - 3.77 (82nd)
Four-year: 1978-81 - 4.35 (115th)
Five-year: 1977-81 - 5.31 (108th)

Let's have a look at the Sabres rankings around that big year:

1978: 0.83
1979: 0.24
1980: 2.10
1981: 1.17
1982: 0.49

Which of these years is not like the other? That's why I consider it to be a fluke. Not to disregard the performance entirely, but merely to ingest it with several grains of salt.

Snap Wilson is offline  
Old
06-07-2005, 04:19 PM
  #60
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyp
Just to delve into this a bit further, here are Buffalo's highest one-year through five-year SDS ratings, as well as where they rank all-time.

One-year: 1980 - 2.10 (8th)
Two-year: 1980-81 - 3.28 (32nd)
Three-year: 1980-82 - 3.77 (82nd)
Four-year: 1978-81 - 4.35 (115th)
Five-year: 1977-81 - 5.31 (108th)

Let's have a look at the Sabres rankings around that big year:

1978: 0.83
1979: 0.24
1980: 2.10
1981: 1.17
1982: 0.49

Which of these years is not like the other? That's why I consider it to be a fluke. Not to disregard the performance entirely, but merely to ingest it with several grains of salt.

This where I would say: practice what you preach. You are so interested in context. Let's look at the context of that 79-80 season.

Don Edwards, Jim Schoenfeld and Danny Gare were all 2nd team all stars. The Sabres were the only NHL team with three all stars in 1979-80.

Gil Perreault had 106 points, Danny Gare scored 56 times and Rick Martin potted 45.

Buffalo had 7 players with at least 20 goals.

The Sabres had excellent defensive players in Bill Hajt, Craig Ramsay, Jim Schoenfeld and Don Luce.

Bob Sauve had a 2.36 GAA in in 32 games, Edwards had a 2.57 in 49 games.

I would hardly call that team a fluke, they were very good. They had all the elements of a championship calibre team. The next season injuries and age caught up with some key players. The seasons before and after this one they were still a good team.

Don't really know how your ratings work but, for the conclusion to be that the Sabres were a fluke, there must be a flaw in your ratings or your interpretation of your ratings.

You talk about context; you should really check out that Sabres team. They were no fluke, they were a good collection of talented players that made up a great team.


Last edited by Ogopogo*: 06-07-2005 at 04:42 PM.
Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
06-07-2005, 05:24 PM
  #61
toothlessgrin
Registered User
 
toothlessgrin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Montreal/Tokyo
Posts: 93
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyp

The mid-eighties Flyers stake three spots in the top ten. Also, an appearance from the late-80s Habs, a very underrated team. That '86 Cup could have been the tip of the iceberg.
.
I started following the Habs as a kid during the 1986 cup run. The following years, the Habs still had an excellent team, as did the Flyers, Flames and Oilers.The Habs and Flames could have won a few more cups between 87-90 and the Flyers were very close for a few years. I get a bit nostalgic remembering the epic playoff battles between the Habs and Flyers during those years.

toothlessgrin is offline  
Old
06-07-2005, 06:00 PM
  #62
Malefic74
Registered User
 
Malefic74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halfway between Nothing and Not Much Else
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,758
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOVALEV10
Habs were starting to fade. Lapointe was often injured and Savard was getting older. Lafleur was a shell of his former self after the injury and accident in 81. There was no Dryden no Lemaire nor Mahovlich nor Cournoyer anymore. Keith Acton was playing on the first line for gods sake! They also had trouble finding a good coach and general manager and kept changing every year. Bad decisions on the draft too like Wickenheiser over Denis Savard. Also habs were burned out too.
Remember though they had Langway and Engblom who were the best defensive pair in the league until 83. Napier and Mondou were effective forwards, they had Larouche for a while, Naslund was around the corner. Acton, Tremblay, Houle and Shutt were scoring thier share as was Flower. And from his draft year Wickenheiser went 15 pts, 35 pts to 55 pts in '83. Not exactly useless. The Habs didn't have the star power they once did, but they were still a solid team. It fell apart in net. Richard Sevigny, Rick Wamsley and Dennis Herron were not nearly consistent enough to replace Dryden.

As a side note every single team in the league had Wickenheiser at the top of that draft including the Hawks. Many tried to trade for him. He was viewed as a can't miss prospect. High expectations killed any love or enjoyment he had for the game though. Which is a shame because he loved Montreal and the organization too.

Malefic74 is offline  
Old
06-07-2005, 08:30 PM
  #63
NYR94
Registered User
 
NYR94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,067
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NYR94
The 1999-2004 Maple Leafs. They've been really good for the last six years and went deep into the playoffs a number of times, but never to the Cup Finals. I think they made the Eastern Conference Finals in 99 and lost to Buffalo and lost to the Canes in 2002. Plus, they finished with at least 90 points each year.

The 95-2004 Flyers also have had a really strong run for the last ten years with no Cup to show for it. They could never beat the Devils in the playoffs and the one year they did, Tampa squeaked by them. Lack of stability behind the bench and in goal probably cost them.

NYR94 is offline  
Old
06-08-2005, 10:00 AM
  #64
DaaaaB's
Registered User
 
DaaaaB's's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,276
vCash: 500
The '29-30 Bruins were the most dominent regular season team ever going 38-5-1 but they didn't win the cup.

The Bruins teams from the late 70's came very close to winning the cup but couldn't pull it off because of Montreal.

The Bruins teams from the late 80's and early 90's were powerhouse teams that came close but never won the big one.

DaaaaB's is offline  
Old
06-08-2005, 10:44 AM
  #65
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
This where I would say: practice what you preach. You are so interested in context. Let's look at the context of that 79-80 season.

Don Edwards, Jim Schoenfeld and Danny Gare were all 2nd team all stars. The Sabres were the only NHL team with three all stars in 1979-80.
But not perennial All-Stars, which is my point. I'm not saying it wasn't a good team. I'm saying it's not one of the best of all-time as the single-season SDS would indicate. How hard is that to understand?

Quote:
You talk about context; you should really check out that Sabres team. They were no fluke, they were a good collection of talented players that made up a great team.
I've actually researched that team quite a bit for a potential book (written by someone else) on Scotty Bowman.

Snap Wilson is offline  
Old
06-08-2005, 10:51 AM
  #66
London Knights
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 831
vCash: 500
It's more on individual seasons, but the two teams that Quinn coached in Philly and Vancouver were pretty deserving of Cups.

Both the Flyers and Leafs of the past five years should be mentioned (dont' start with the leafs bias crap. people are just as guilty of blindly screaming anti-leaf propaganda as those screaming pro-leaf propaganda)

The 99 Sabres were a good team that probably should have won a Cup had they kept it together.

Have to agree with the St. Louis team mentioned.

London Knights is offline  
Old
06-08-2005, 11:36 AM
  #67
looooob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,885
vCash: 500
hmm. I guess I understand the viewpoint that the 79-80 Bowman Sabres were an anomaly, but still that was a club that racked up 4 straight 100 point seasons pre Bowman, and I believe in a 10 year stretch were over 99 points 7 times

If memory serves (other than the Finals versus Philadelphia) it was often the Islanders (both pre and during dynasty) who whiped out the Sabres in the playoffs?

a very solid top 6 forwards (Perreault,Martin,Robert,Luce,Ramsay,Gare) some solid Dmen (but no all star) and they kept their core guys around for quite a while as I recall. goaltending was sometimes an issue in my recollection (pre-Edwards, and even Edwards I dunno...)

looooob is offline  
Old
06-08-2005, 01:23 PM
  #68
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by looooob
hmm. I guess I understand the viewpoint that the 79-80 Bowman Sabres were an anomaly, but still that was a club that racked up 4 straight 100 point seasons pre Bowman, and I believe in a 10 year stretch were over 99 points 7 times.
Hey, I know, and I liked that team. I was crushed when they didn't beat the Flyers in '75. The SDS numbers for their best stretch ('75-'81) were:

1975: 1.10
1976: 1.07
1977: 0.93
1978: 0.83
1979: 0.24
1980: 2.10
1981: 1.17

A 1.00 and above SDS is pretty damned good, so this is a good team. Historically good? No. This six-year stretch only ranks 93rd all-time.

Quote:
If memory serves (other than the Finals versus Philadelphia) it was often the Islanders (both pre and during dynasty) who whiped out the Sabres in the playoffs?
Yep, the Isles in '76, '77, and '80. Flyers in '78, Pens in '79, North Stars in '81.

Snap Wilson is offline  
Old
06-08-2005, 01:57 PM
  #69
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyp
Since I have the spreadsheet right here in front of me, I figured I would use my SDS method (see here for explanation) to weigh in on the debate. Here are the top ten one-year through five-year records of teams that didn't win the Cup:

One-Year SDS
1. 1996 Detroit Red Wings - 2.52
2. 1971 Boston Bruins - 2.28
3. 1934 Toronto Maple Leafs - 2.27
4. 1980 Buffalo Sabres - 2.10
5. 2001 New Jersey Devils - 2.08
6. 1979 New York Islanders - 2.06
7. 1995 Detroit Red Wings - 2.03
8. 1953 Detroit Red Wings - 1.99
9. 1982 Montreal Canadiens - 1.98
10. 1997 Colorado Avalanche - 1.92

Detroit with no less than three appearances on the list. Pretty funny that both the '96 Wings and '97 Avalanche are on there. Turnabout is fair play!

Most of these teams won a Cup within a year or two of their big years, and the Sabres were a fluke.

Two-Year SDS

1. 1995-96 Detroit Red Wings - 4.55
2. 1934-35 Maple Leafs - 3.60
3. 2003-04 Ottawa Senators - 3.51
4. 1981-82 Montreal Canadiens - 3.51
5. 1978-79 New York Islanders - 3.48
6. 1994-95 Detroit Red Wings - 3.43
7. 1927-28 Montreal Canadiens - 3.41
8. 1986-87 Philadelphia Flyers - 3.32
9. 1980-81 Buffalo Sabres - 3.28
10. 1982-83 Edmonton Oilers - 3.27

If anyone has any doubts to the strength of the Islanders competition of the early 80s...

Three-Year SDS
1. 1994-96 Detroit Red Wings - 5.95
2. 1980-82 Montreal Canadiens - 5.09
3. 1985-87 Philadelphia Flyers - 4.91
4. 1934-36 Toronto Maple Leafs - 4.66
5. 1977-79 New York Islanders - 4.60
6. 1993-95 Detroit Red Wings - 4.59
7. 1927-29 Montreal Canadiens - 4.50
8. 1981-83 Montreal Canadiens - 4.39
9. 2002-04 Ottawa Senators - 4.35
10. 1988-90 Montreal Canadiens - 4.21

A pattern develops. Early-90s Wings (pre-Cup), early-80s Habs (post-Cup). People forget that the Habs remained a beast even after their dynastic run.

Four-Year SDS
1. 1993-96 Detroit Red Wings - 7.11
2. 1980-83 Montreal Canadiens - 5.97
3. 1992-95 Detroit Red Wings - 5.93
4. 2001-04 Ottawa Senators - 5.79
5. 1984-87 Philadelphia Flyers - 5.78
6. 1976-79 New York Islanders - 5.76
7. 1987-90 Montreal Canadiens - 5.24
8. 1983-86 Philadelphia Flyers - 5.11
9. 1933-36 Toronto Maple Leafs - 4.97
10. 1985-88 Philadelphia Flyers - 4.91

The mid-eighties Flyers stake three spots in the top ten. Also, an appearance from the late-80s Habs, a very underrated team. That '86 Cup could have been the tip of the iceberg.

Five-Year SDS
1. 1992-96 Detroit Red Wings - 8.44
2. 1983-87 Philadelphia Flyers - 6.97
3. 2000-04 Ottawa Senators - 6.48
4. 1999-03 Ottawa Senators - 6.25
5. 1975-79 New York Islanders - 6.17
6. 1996-00 Philadelphia Flyers - 5.93
7. 1988-92 Montreal Canadiens - 5.91
8. 1980-84 Montreal Canadiens - 5.84
9. 1984-88 Philadelphia Flyers - 5.78
10. 1970-74 Chicago Blackhawks - 5.75

Once again, pre-Cup Wings and mid-80s Flyers, as well as the various 1980s Cup lulls of the Habs. We also see the late 90's Flyers make an appearance as well as the early 70s Blackhawks.

Statistically speaking, this suggests that the mid-80s Flyers and recent Senators (at least so far) are the best unrewarded teams of all-time. Both of these teams put up a few top-50 SDS rankings. Most teams that remain dominant over a period of time have found a way to win at least one Stanley Cup.
I originally used goal differential and I switched to goal %. Right now I am torn as to which way to go. I am leaning towards goal differential again.

What are your thoughts regarding this issue?

As well, how do you factor in a weaker league? You didn't explain this in your link.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
06-08-2005, 02:44 PM
  #70
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
I originally used goal differential and I switched to goal %. Right now I am torn as to which way to go. I am leaning towards goal differential again.

What are your thoughts regarding this issue?

As well, how do you factor in a weaker league? You didn't explain this in your link.
Pogo, it's nice to see we can cordially discuss. Coming here was beginning to be something of an ordeal.

Goal percentage doesn't mean a damned thing, unless you believe that a 4-2 win is somehow preferable to a 6-4 win. It's margin of victory, not percentage of goals scored in the game that is more indicative. You've said this favors more offensive seasons, but that is accounted for when looking at the standard deviations of goal differential as opposed to the raw numbers.

I don't factor in a "weaker" league, but I can factor in a more balanced one. What standard deviation scores do is determine the degree of difficulty of an achievement during any given season. When crappy teams enter the league, it is easier for good teams to appear even better than they are as they have more lousy opponents to beat up on. But I don't make any distinction for the quality of play between 1920 and 1980. I think the NHL of the twenties is a poorer league (and you don't as we've discussed) but that doesn't enter the arithmetic. As far as the formula is concerned, an even goal differential in 1920 is equal to an even goal differential in 1990.

The number of teams in the league does impact the numbers though. It's easier to be better than five other teams than it is to be better than 25 other teams. I think it skews the numbers in favor of post-expansion teams, but only mildly. And as you'll see from my "Top 50" lists on the other thread, plenty of pre-expansion teams make it anyway.

If you have any other questions about the method, let me know.

Snap Wilson is offline  
Old
06-08-2005, 03:21 PM
  #71
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyp
Pogo, it's nice to see we can cordially discuss. Coming here was beginning to be something of an ordeal.

Goal percentage doesn't mean a damned thing, unless you believe that a 4-2 win is somehow preferable to a 6-4 win. It's margin of victory, not percentage of goals scored in the game that is more indicative. You've said this favors more offensive seasons, but that is accounted for when looking at the standard deviations of goal differential as opposed to the raw numbers.

I don't factor in a "weaker" league, but I can factor in a more balanced one. What standard deviation scores do is determine the degree of difficulty of an achievement during any given season. When crappy teams enter the league, it is easier for good teams to appear even better than they are as they have more lousy opponents to beat up on. But I don't make any distinction for the quality of play between 1920 and 1980. I think the NHL of the twenties is a poorer league (and you don't as we've discussed) but that doesn't enter the arithmetic. As far as the formula is concerned, an even goal differential in 1920 is equal to an even goal differential in 1990.

The number of teams in the league does impact the numbers though. It's easier to be better than five other teams than it is to be better than 25 other teams. I think it skews the numbers in favor of post-expansion teams, but only mildly. And as you'll see from my "Top 50" lists on the other thread, plenty of pre-expansion teams make it anyway.

If you have any other questions about the method, let me know.
I have never used standard deviation before. Could you lay out an example of your calculations to show how standard deviation is used in conjunction with goal differential.

Thanks. And yes, I prefer the cordial exchange too.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
06-08-2005, 04:28 PM
  #72
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
I have never used standard deviation before. Could you lay out an example of your calculations to show how standard deviation is used in conjunction with goal differential.
I'll use a six-team league to save myself some typing.

The NHL in 1943-44:

Team - GF - GA - Dif/G
Boston - 223 - 268 - -0.90
Chicago - 178 - 187 - -0.18
Detroit - 214 - 177 - +0.74
Montreal - 234 - 109 - +2.50
NY Rangers - 162 - 310 - -2.96
Toronto - 214 - 174 - +0.80

You find the standard deviation for all of the teams goal differentials. Standard deviation explains how spread out the results of any group of data is (further explanation can be found here). I won't print the calculation, which you'd be crazy to figure out manually any way. It's the STDEVP function in Excel.

The result for 1943-44 is 1.69, which is the second-highest result ever (behind 1920). Montreal was great in 1943-44, but the Rangers were actually as bad (even worse) than Montreal was good. Playing one-fifth of your games against those Rangers will make any team look better than it is. So the question becomes, how difficult was the achievement of having a +2.5 goal differential given the way the rest of the league performed that year? That's what standard deviation scores answer.

I explained this on the other thread, but one more time: The math for figuring out standard deviation scores is (A minus B) divided by C.

A = the team's goal differential

B = the mean (or average) of the league's goal differential. Because every goal scored means a goal against for another team, the result for this should always be zero.

C = The standard deviation of goal differentials (as discussed above) for the entire league that year.

Thankfully, Excel has a STANDARDIZE function for this as well. To simplify, it takes the team achievement (goal differential, in this case) and compares it to the spread of that achievement across the league, bringing the extremes of the data into focus.

The SDS scores for 1943-44:

Boston: -0.53
Chicago: -0.11
Detroit: +0.44
Montreal: +1.48
NY Rangers: -1.76
Toronto: +0.47

Montreal's total ranks 70th all-time. They were actually better in 1945, with a +2.14 goal differential and a 1.56 SDS (54th all-time).

The 1944 NY Rangers are the 45th worst team of all-time by these rankings. Maybe I'll post that list at some point.

Snap Wilson is offline  
Old
06-08-2005, 04:41 PM
  #73
Isles72
Registered User
 
Isles72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaaaaB's
The '29-30 Bruins were the most dominent regular season team ever going 38-5-1 but they didn't win the cup.

The Bruins teams from the late 70's came very close to winning the cup but couldn't pull it off because of Montreal.

The Bruins teams from the late 80's and early 90's were powerhouse teams that came close but never won the big one.
I was thinking the same thing - I remember a blood bath series the isles played v.s the bruins during the dynasty years - man o' man I'd love to see some of those games again .

Isles72 is offline  
Old
06-08-2005, 08:26 PM
  #74
gary69
Registered User
 
gary69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Then and there
Posts: 3,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyp

The result for 1943-44 is 1.69, which is the second-highest result ever (behind 1920). Montreal was great in 1943-44, but the Rangers were actually as bad (even worse) than Montreal was good. Playing one-fifth of your games against those Rangers will make any team look better than it is. So the question becomes, how difficult was the achievement of having a +2.5 goal differential given the way the rest of the league performed that year? That's what standard deviation scores answer.
Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, the then Rangers starting goalie Ken McAuley has the worst goalie stats ever in NHL history for a starting goalie, which he was for two seasons, with a decent number of games (96 games, GAA 5.61).

Maybe you've posted them before, but I've missed them, anyway it would be nice to see the league-wide standard deviations for every year. I take one could draw conclusions from this, how even the league was during each period. Please mention also, if the reason for high standard devision in due to only one (or very small portion of teams).

gary69 is offline  
Old
06-08-2005, 08:45 PM
  #75
Hedberg
MLD Glue Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,357
vCash: 500
95/96 Red Wings

Hedberg is offline  
Closed Thread

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 11:44 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.