ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Playoff Hockey

Don't let @RU Cheese and @zappaa hijack this thread with their Rangers 1 cup in 84 years talk. One of the most embarrassing stats in all of sports.

Go hang a regular season championship banner. Pathetic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goru1869
Not a huge NHL regular season fan but playoff hockey is great to watch. Bruins with an OT 2-1 win in game 7 vs. Toronto last night. On the edge of my seat from start to finish.

Bruins better up their game big time in the next round and DO NOT go up 3 games to 1. Pasternak was so bad until that last goal, I thought he was tanking. Swayman was the only reason they won the series.
 
Bruins better up their game big time in the next round and DO NOT go up 3 games to 1. Pasternak was so bad until that last goal, I thought he was tanking. Swayman was the only reason they won the series.
Boston figured out how to beat a 225 lb defenseman in OT. Morgan Reilly looked like a beer league defenseman on that last dump in play for the win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charliem24
Don't let @RU Cheese and @zappaa hijack this thread with their Rangers 1 cup in 84 years talk. One of the most embarrassing stats in all of sports.

Go hang a regular season championship banner. Pathetic.
Do you realize how much you embarrass yourself when you prove how much “little brother syndrome” you have with your inability to talk about the sport without mentioning the team that lives in your head?
 
Do you realize how much you embarrass yourself when you prove how much “little brother syndrome” you have with your inability to talk about the sport without mentioning the team that lives in your head?
I've referred to is as an inferiority complex but little brother syndrome feels more accurate.
 
Do the math…

1994 - 1940 = 54

2024 - 1967 = 57

3 is “a few” to me.🤷
OK I *think* I see where you’re going now. I wasn’t clear what you were comparing.

And it’s at least 4 years now, since the Leafs are out, their best chance is 2025, so a 4 year difference.
 
OK I *think* I see where you’re going now. I wasn’t clear what you were comparing.

And it’s at least 4 years now, since the Leafs are out, their best chance is 2025, so a 4 year difference.
3-4…all the same. Still could consider it a few. 🙂

Did you see the video of the Toronto fans outside after Pasta’s goal? Utter silence.

Like Giants Stadium after Flipper Anderson. LOL
 
Maybe. But they still have 13.

And right now it’s only “worse” by a few years.
Maple Leafs were the one of the original 6 teams that benefited from the regional draft. Rangers not so much. For the most popular team in Canada to have not won since 1967 is embarrassing (all pre-expansion). They haven't even sniffed the finals since 1967.
 
Maple Leafs were the one of the original 6 teams that benefited from the regional draft. Rangers not so much. For the most popular team in Canada to have not won since 1967 is embarrassing (all pre-expansion). They haven't even sniffed the finals since 1967.
Gretzky saw to that…but losing game 7 at home in the Conference Final to the Kings counts as a sniff I think.
Leafs haven’t yet adapted to the “flow” (long hair) of the modern game.
 
Maple Leafs were the one of the original 6 teams that benefited from the regional draft. Rangers not so much. For the most popular team in Canada to have not won since 1967 is embarrassing (all pre-expansion). They haven't even sniffed the finals since 1967.
It was even worse than that. There are 3 very distinct “eras” for the NHL.

The first 10-15 years, it was the Wild West. No draft. A complete startup league, the even spread of talent and therefore results were evident. Most teams won the cup 2-3 times.

Then the 40-60s happened. Infrastructure, power, money and influence coalesced around the 2 main metros and provinces that held most of the talent. Still no draft. But worse, now you have a power dynamic where the 2 main established Canadian teams were often the relatives, friends, and even employers of the families of the local talent. Their junior teams were sponsored by the big 2. What club the best signed with was a fait accompli. The talent distribution was ridiculously lop sided. There is a reason why TML/MTL won 80% of the cups during this time. If it wasn’t for HOWE, it would have been 90%.

The NHL entry draft as we know it, didn’t really start until the late 60s. It took a few years of generation shift for the league to ween itself of the old uneven system of talent distribution to the one we know today.
 
Last edited:
It was even worse than that. There are 3 very distinct “eras” for the NHL.

The first 10-15 years, it was the Wild West. No draft. A complete startup league, the even spread of talent and therefore results were evident. Most teams won the cup 2-3 times.

Then the 40-60s happened. Infrastructure, power, money and influence coalesced around the 2 main metros and provinces that held most of the talent. Still no draft. But worse, now you have a power dynamic where the 2 main established Canadian teams were often the relatives, friends, and even employers of the families of the local talent. Their junior teams were sponsored by the big 2. What club the best signed with was a fait accompli. The talent distribution was ridiculously lop sided. There is a reason why TOT/MTL won 80% of the cups during this time. If it wasn’t for HOWE, it would have been 90%.

The NHL entry draft as we know it, didn’t really start until the late 60s. It took a few years of generation shift for the league to ween itself of the old uneven system of talent distribution to the one we know today.
Believe it or not, in the 50’s the owner of the Red Wings also owned the Blackhawks, was the largest shareholder in the Rangers, and a had a huge influence over the Bruins because of mortgages he had issued to them during the Depression.

The owner (the Norris family) basically invested very little in the US teams as they were mainly just run to provide filler for the arenas in those cities that the Norrises also owned.
 
Believe it or not, in the 50’s the owner of the Red Wings also owned the Blackhawks, was the largest shareholder in the Rangers, and a had a huge influence over the Bruins because of mortgages he had issued to them during the Depression.

The owner (the Norris family) basically invested very little in the US teams as they were mainly just run to provide filler for the arenas in those cities that the Norrises also owned.
Yup, there are simple explanations why BOS/NYR/CHI all won 1 cup during 40s-60s. If it wasn’t for Howe (and to be fair, to a lesser extent Lindsay), DET probably would have won similar.

Context and history matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Section124
Yup, there are simple explanations why BOS/NYR/CHI all won 1 cup during 40s-60s. If it wasn’t for Howe (and to be fair, to a lesser extent Lindsay), DET probably would have won similar.

Context and history matters.
A little-spoken other side to the reason that the US teams didn’t win a lot of Cups during the original Six era is that the Canadian arrogance over it somehow being their birthright to dominate the NHL is actually based on them winning a game when it was rigged in their favor.

US teams won 8 of the 10 Cups from 1931-1940 (just before the ownership shenanigans started).
 
Each 2nd round series is going at least 6 games with the visiting team winning game 5 on the road to stay alive in the 3 series that have made it that far.

Something to help keep the attention of those that don’t have their team involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wolv RU
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT