Some other thoughts about Cup winners and droughts

by 1967ers on Nov 18, 2008 2:31 PM EST

I had a post a few weeks ago about the droughts that most all teams are in, though nobody wants to acknowledge those not involving Maple Leafs. There's a flip side to it as well.

When we look at who has been winning championships, we see that for most of the last 40 years (arguably longer than that - it's really since the end of WWII), the NHL has been run by dynasties. If your team wasn't one of them, you weren't going to win. Period.

Look at the winners since 1968:

Montreal (10) 68,69,71,73,76,77,78,79,86,93
Boston (2) 70,72
Philadelphia (2) 74,75
NYI (4) 80,81,82,83
Edmonton (5) 84,85,87,88,90
Calgary (1) 89
Pittsburgh (2) 91,92
NYR (1) 94
NJ (3) 95,00,03
Colorado (2) 96,01
Detroit (4) 97,98,02,08
Dallas (1) 99
Tampa (1) 04
Carolina (1) 06
Anaheim (1) 07

Of the 31 teams that have taken part in NHL games since expansion, 15 have won a Cup. That seems pretty good. But look at the way the spread went.

In the first 10 years, only three different teams won a Cup.

In the first 20 years, only five different teams won a Cup.

Of the 40 Cups awarded, 26 (65%) were won by just four teams: Montreal, NY Islanders, Edmonton, Detroit.

Of the 40 Cups awarded, 34 (85%) were shared by just nine teams.

The past 10 years have actually been among the most competitive since before the war - seven distinct teams have won something.

So when people get on their '1967' kick, ask them what their plan was for unseating the 80's Oilers, the 70's Habs or Bruins. Prior to the early 90's, if you weren't one of those teams, there really wasn't much point in even playing.

PensionPlanPuppets.com is a fan community that allows members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Toronto Maple Leafs and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editor of PensionPlanPuppets.com.

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

As per usual, brilliantly said. Thanks.

Can I get a pocket version of you to whip out when people make assinine comments about the Leafs so that you can explain to them logically why they are wrong? All I usually muster is something along the lines of “well, so’s your face.” Which is never as effective as I hope it will be.

by Mabel on Nov 18, 2008 5:07 PM EST reply actions

I have something similar, a collapsible baton, may not be as eloquent but damned if its not effective.

Because Taking The Leafs Seriously Is Not An Option

by JaredFromLondon on Nov 18, 2008 5:17 PM EST up reply actions

so's your face is very effective...

but, perhaps a bunch of MP3 recordings of 1967ers thoughts on common topics like…

1967
Plan the Parade
Cox sucks himself
Wendel Clark beat downs

and the like…then, you just pull out your ipod or whatever, and have them listen to the appropriate reponse for the situation. then, when they’re crying, and blowing snot bubbles as they gasp for air, over come by their own stupidty, you can walk off in victory.

and still say “so’s your face!”

Anybody throws me against the boards I'm gonna piss all over myself.
The Left Coast Lock

by blurr1974 on Nov 18, 2008 5:21 PM EST up reply actions