HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

2013 Hawks: Statistically the 3rd best team ever

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-27-2013, 03:50 PM
  #26
MarleauApologist
#FireDougWilson
 
MarleauApologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,598
vCash: 500
They're not even close.

If there's literally 1 (one) awkward bounce, or weak goal from Crawford in game 7 OT against Detroit, they didn't even make the final 4.

MarleauApologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 03:52 PM
  #27
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 500
They were by far the best team in the league.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 03:55 PM
  #28
Gootie
Thug of the Year
 
Gootie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chiraq
Country: United States
Posts: 26,902
vCash: 500
Remember when they peaked too early?

Gootie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 04:03 PM
  #29
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,195
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gootie View Post
Remember when they peaked too early?
By the sounds of this thread, they still haven't stopped peaking. They may even get better before July.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 04:58 PM
  #30
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 25,001
vCash: 500
according to the stats, they are 3rd best team in history. Nobody is saying they are cause they certainly aren't. It's still interesting to read

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 05:43 PM
  #31
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 20,918
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I think any such comparison is nonsense really. Different eras, different competition levels League-wide. The primary thing though is, what the hell are we talking about here? The Hawks Regular Season has minimal relevance to the Playoffs. The Hawks in the Playoffs were dominant enough to win the Cup, but they were nowhere near as dominant as in the Regular Season. If we're talking Regular Season stats, I'm not sure the Playoff Board is the place for it. If we're talking Playoff stats and performance, then I say: Get Outta Here!... No way this Blackhawks Playoff run is anywhere near the top-3 in dominance all-time.
What playoff board? This is the Hail The Damn Hawks board

IU Hawks fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 05:57 PM
  #32
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
oh, how i miss those glorious days when they were down 3-1 against Detroit, and the consensus on here was that Kane and Toews suck and just didn't care. I loved listening to the crying about the refs and the team's players, who train for it and play for it, not having the heart that the fans have.

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 06:10 PM
  #33
slappipappi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
And yet they almost lost to Detroit (I wonder where this Season's Red Wings team would rank all-time) and could've lost to the Bruins with a bounce or two going differently or possibly an injury or two less.
.
I"d would think that winning is much better than "almost losing".

I smell sour grapes.

slappipappi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 06:12 PM
  #34
Semantics
Registered User
 
Semantics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
according to the stats, they are 3rd best team in history. Nobody is saying they are cause they certainly aren't. It's still interesting to read
Did you just decide not to read the first page of the thread before posting, or did you not understand it? There are no stats that indicate that - the article's author cited a number he made up that's not a valid statistic.

Semantics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 06:30 PM
  #35
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,195
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slappipappi View Post
I"d would think that winning is much better than "almost losing".

I smell sour grapes.
I like sour grapes; got any to share.
Hey, the Hawks played great and there was nothing bad about how they won. There was more bad about how the Bruins lost. But this thread is full of a lot of exaggerated hype. The Hawks certainly had an impressive Regular Season (and that's not even considering the fact that it was a shorted Season), but the Playoffs wasn't that particularly exceptional. Yes they won, yes they deserved it, and yes they played well, but come on, there've been a lot of Playoff teams throughout history which were a whole lot more impressive.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 06:50 PM
  #36
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trance Kuja View Post
And the Bruins could have easily lost that game 7 against the Maple Leafs. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Almost losing or having the chance of losing isn't losing. Sounds like great teams overcome adversity.
While I made clear my opinion that this Hawks team does not match up with the great Islanders and Oilers teams of the past, your point above is so spot on.

And under-appreciated, often times. (Not by MoreOrr, but in general.)

In any sport, but especially in the NHL, the very best teams win a lot of close games, the majority in which they participate. Likewise, lesser teams lose a lot of close games.

Somewhere, this fictitious notion became popular - namely, that a "truly great team!" walks all over their opponents. You know, winning games by multiple goals, sweeping the postseason series. Simple as that!

It is a mindset that is baseless, especially in today's "forced (contrived) parity" NHL, where talent is more spread out leaguewide and the bastardized regular season points system essentially eliminates the possibility that any team is ever "out of it".

This year's Hawks - albeit in a shortened season - dominated the regular campaign. More impressively, come the season that matter most, they beat the last two Cup winners on the way to the championship.

That they won a lot of very close, tight games and came back from a series in which they were severely challenged and were down 3-1 is a testament to just how good they are, as opposed to revealing any weakness.

Trottier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 06:51 PM
  #37
HolyShot*
Sniper
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Glendale, CA
Posts: 2,015
vCash: 500
I don't think any team besides the 80s Oilers will break the Kings 2012 playoff run. 16-4. Solid.

HolyShot* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 07:54 PM
  #38
TKB
Registered User
 
TKB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 581
vCash: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman47 View Post
I don't think any team besides the 80s Oilers will break the Kings 2012 playoff run. 16-4. Solid.
For the Record:

Since 1987 when the Stanley Cup Playoffs went to 4/7 for all rounds...only the Carolina Hurricanes in 2006 lost more games (9) and won the cup than the 2012 Hawks. EDIT NOTE: Hawks were 16-7 not 16-8. Also 2011 Bruins were also 16-0. See further comments in post 40.

3 other teams went 16-8.

The 2013 Kings, 97 Red Wings, 95 Devils, and 93 Canadians went 16-4.

The 88 Oilers went 16-2.

A President's Trophy and the Stanley Cup obviously make a great season, (though by the original author's own article it has happened 40 times).

3rd best of all time (by any definition including statistical)? To put it kindly; I don't see where anyone has made a valid case.


Last edited by TKB: 06-27-2013 at 09:16 PM. Reason: Corrected record of 2013 Hawks and 2011 Bruins
TKB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 08:40 PM
  #39
Godlike13
Registered User
 
Godlike13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 847
vCash: 500
The 2013 Hawks lost 7 games, they went 16-7. 2012 King 16-4, 2011 Bruins 16-9, 2010 Hawks 16-6, 2009 Pens 16-8, 2008 Wings 16-6, 2007 Ducks 16-5, 2006 Hurricanes 16-9.

Godlike13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 09:12 PM
  #40
TKB
Registered User
 
TKB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 581
vCash: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godlike13 View Post
The 2013 Hawks lost 7 games, they went 16-7. 2012 King 16-4, 2011 Bruins 16-9, 2010 Hawks 16-6, 2009 Pens 16-8, 2008 Wings 16-6, 2007 Ducks 16-5, 2006 Hurricanes 16-9.

Correct my bad on 13 Hawks ( I have it stuck in my head that LAK was game 6) and 11 Bruins.

That said the original author's statement that:

A credible case can be made for the Blackhawks having the third-best team in NHL history. And that the Blackhawks did more than any of Wayne Gretzky’s explosive Edmonton Oilers teams or Mike Bossy’s overpowering New York Islanders teams.

Is absurd. My hasty mistakes (and the fact that I am still emotionally devastated by the Red Wing's Game 7 loss) not withstanding.

It was still an impressive season and a great re-build. Full props for first team to win twice in the cap era.

TKB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 09:18 PM
  #41
serge2k
Registered User
 
serge2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,634
vCash: 500
Nope sorry. 48 games and shootouts.

serge2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 10:50 PM
  #42
needle
Registered User
 
needle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
And yet they almost lost to Detroit (I wonder where this Season's Red Wings team would rank all-time) and could've lost to the Bruins with a bounce or two going differently or possibly an injury or two less.

Statistics, especially Regular Season stats, have some meaning, but ultimately they don't mean a whole lot. You have to really bring it in the Playoffs, and this year's Hawks did that. I wouldn't say though that it was the most dominating Playoff run we've ever seen or anywhere near the top-3 in Playoff domination all-time.
You should have waited for a non-Bruins fan to make this post. Mr. T has pity for you. And I shake my head.

needle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 12:11 AM
  #43
toewsintangibles
Registered User
 
toewsintangibles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,367
vCash: 500
36 wins in a season gets you 3rd best team ever? I doubt it

toewsintangibles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 12:13 AM
  #44
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,524
vCash: 500
The article in the OP is a great example of how lie with statistics. The two major problems are already indicated several times.

1). It treats shoot out losses as ties and treats shoot out wins as wins when calculating winning percentage! I believe whover said he's a football guy who doesn't know anything about hockey if he can't even get the standings right. Obviously, this greatly inflates the "winning percentage" of shootout era teams.

2). He ranks Cup winners based exclusively on their regular season standings, probably because this makes the Blackhawks look better.

Terrible methodology by a hack homer writer

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 05:41 AM
  #45
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 25,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semantics View Post
Did you just decide not to read the first page of the thread before posting, or did you not understand it? There are no stats that indicate that - the article's author cited a number he made up that's not a valid statistic.

no, I did not read the OP. I did not look at those stats that are facts. Going by the numbers only, they have had the 3rd best RS ever and topped it with winning the Cup. The 2010-2013 Hawks are not as good as the 50s & 70s Habs or 80s Oilers/Isles and some of the other great teams. It's still interesting to read this and that they got that many points. They are not the 3rd best team in history but those stats are facts. It was still impressiv and your reading comprehension isn't that good reading your post

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 06:18 AM
  #46
JesusBouillon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,329
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
And a win percentage in the cap era is not comparable to one from the 70s when the Habs could stack teams for years, either.
Same rules for everyone, the Habs never were the richest team either. We can thank Sam Pollock and his ingenuity much more than the $ we had. Maybe you should read up on how he managed to draft Lafleur.

JesusBouillon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 06:46 AM
  #47
Mancouver
Locked in the Washer
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kampuchia
Posts: 3,610
vCash: 500
There should be a 3rd best place on the cup for this.

Mancouver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 07:16 AM
  #48
daver
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 4,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
no, I did not read the OP. I did not look at those stats that are facts. Going by the numbers only, they have had the 3rd best RS ever and topped it with winning the Cup. The 2010-2013 Hawks are not as good as the 50s & 70s Habs or 80s Oilers/Isles and some of the other great teams. It's still interesting to read this and that they got that many points. They are not the 3rd best team in history but those stats are facts. It was still impressiv and your reading comprehension isn't that good reading your post
He asked if you read the first page where it is clear that comparing winning %'s from 2005- 2013, from 1983-2003, and pre-1983 needs context. With context, the Hawks did not have anything close to the 3rd best.

daver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 07:36 AM
  #49
ds4130
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Camp Lejeune, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 311
vCash: 500
Even though it was a shortened season and that winning percentage is almost definitely not sustainable during a typical 82 game season; the fact that they still had a better finish than two teams during last years season amazes me.

ds4130 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 08:18 AM
  #50
JaymzB
Registered User
 
JaymzB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 2,602
vCash: 500
1929-30 Boston Bruins
GP: 44 W:38 L:5 T:1 (.875%) Lost Stanley Cup Final

1943-44 Montreal Canadiens
GP:50 W:38 L:5 T:7 (.830%) Won Stanley Cup

As a journalist, if you are going to use Winning % as the only measure, then you’d probably want to do your homework.

If he made an argument about eras, then I could see it (for example, the Habs above played in a watered down league, due to WWII). However, since he only used Winning %, the 43-44 Habs are better, and apparently the greatest of all-time (since the Bruins didn’t win the Cup in 1930).

JaymzB 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 09:44 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.