I think its fair to say that statistically they are the "third most winning" team to win the cup (keeping in mind all the caveats about the short season previously mentioned), but I think concluding that that must make the 3rd best team in NHL history is absurd...especially since there is no mention of quality of competition, different numbers of teams in different eras, and so on...
This whole thread should be junked. A football writer writing about hockey? Should bring some questions to mind when considering the data provided. Ultimately it's like comparing the 1981 dolphins perfect season to the Patriots almost perfect 2007 run. Yes similar statistics but the league was less competitive back in 1971. So was the NHL back in the day to the most recent SC run. To say the Chicago is the third best team ever based on a short season again, how true can the stats be. Overall a huge sham played for the benefit of the Chicago fan base.
They were the best team in 2013, and that's not up to debate. That's all I know.
Placing them at #3 all time is absurd. The Towes-Kane-Hossa-Keith-Seabrook-Crawford core is excellent, but I don't think we'll see another dynasty like the great ones of the past in this current cap era.
The one thing in here I disagree with, is saying that the shortened season diminishes the accomplishment. The NHL has played seasons ranging from 24 to 84 games throughout its history. Do all the seasons below a certain GP threshold not count? Where's the cutoff, 50, 60, 70, 82?
It's not like at the 48 game mark the NHL suddenly decided to start the playoffs without warning. Every manager, coach, and player in the league knew how long the schedule was and could adjust strategy accordingly. Examples of where previous teams were placed at the 48-game mark of past seasons isn't comparable IMO.
The Blackhawks got 77 points in 48 games, which is real good, but I dont think over a full 82 game schedule they could have threatened the points record which is 132 by the 1976-77 Canadiens. Probably they finish somewhere in the 115-120 range. Very strong season, but not the best ever. Btw any IHl fans here? the 1993 San Diego Gulls tied the Canadeins' mark of 132 points that season, before losing in the Turner Cup finals to Fort Wayne in a sweep. the AHl record, in case anyone cares , is 124 points by the 92-93 binghamton Rangers, who lost the second round of the playoffs to Rochester.
If they had dominated the playoffs more, I could agree, but I'd say the year the Kings won, they had a better team rolling together than Chicago this year
But they were mediocre all regular season.
Both teams had a fortunate playoff schedule facing weakened opponents.
The Kings appearance of dominance came from being healthier and Quick playing like a monster.
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.
You might want to edit your edit in your previous post.