• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
StevieY'sguy

Teams of the Decade?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

There's some interesting debates to be had here and I am interested into what the consensus is, starting with the 1920s:

1920's

Pretty cut and dried, the Ottawa Senators won 4 of the cups in this decade, the town of Montreal won 3 but it was split between the Maroons and Canadiens

1930's

this one is a toss up, Detroit won 2 cups in 3 appearances, the Montreal Canadiens won cups in both of their appearances, Chicago won 3 cups in 3 appearances, while Toronto only won one cup but reached the Finals 6 times...even though they couldn't finish the job often, I'm inclined to say Toronto being that they maintained their consistency by appearing in the finals in over half of the finals in the decades.

1940's

This on isn't much of a debate, Toronto won 5 cups in 6 finals appearances

1950's

It's hard to believe that a team could win 4 cups in a decade and not be called the team of the decade but that is the scenario with the Wings, 4 cups in 5 appearances is very impressive but it pales in comparison to the Canadiens 5 cups in a staggering 9 appearances.

1960's

Once again a team with 4 cups in 5 appearances lost out on the title, Toronto takes a backseat to Montreal's 5 cups in 6 appearances

1970's

Boston won 2 cups in 5 appearances but Montreal won 6 in 6 appearances case closed.

1980's

Edmonton and New York both won 4 cups in 5 appearances so it's basically a tie...For my money Edmonton gets the nod..I know the 80s were full of offensive stats on steroids but I still think the Oiler teams of the 80s are the most offensively gifted team of all time

1990's

A parity filled decade but as the only team to reach the finals 3 times in the decade it's gotta be our Wings

2000s

The Wings and Devils both won 2 cups in 3 appearances and both lost their other finals in game 7s, i'm interested to see the debate on this one...

thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind it's the wings, because it's a decade thing and the devils didn't do anything after 03. We began the decade strong and finished it fairly strong as well.

Plus the 02' wings are probably the best team of the decade to boot, if not one of the best teams of the expansion era period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't disagree with any of your picks. Montreal has been amazing in so many decades.

Wings are better than the Devils for the reasons said by the poster above. Jersey did nothing after 2003, while the Wings had a few more Finals appearances and Cup runs after that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple enough in my book for the 2000s. Detroit.

Let's say the decade would be 1999-2000 to 2008-09.

For New Jersey:

1999-2000 Won the Stanley Cup

2000-01 Lost in Cup Finals

2001-02 Lost in Conference Quarterfinals

2002-03 Won the Stanley Cup

2003-04 Lost in Conference Quarterfinals

2005-06 Lost in Conference Semifinals

2006-07 Lost in Conference Semifinals

2007-08 Lost in Conference Quarterfinals

2008-09 Lost in Conference Quarterfinals

2 Cups, 1 Finals loss, 2 losses in the Conference Semifinals, 4 in the Quarterfinals.

For Detroit:

1999-2000 Lost in Conference Semifinals

2000-01 Lost in Conference Quarterfinals

2001-02 Won the Stanley Cup

2002-03 Lost in Conference Quarterfinals

2003-04 Lost in Conference Semifinals

2005-06 Lost in Conference Quarterfinals

2006-07 Lost in Conference Finals

2007-08 Won the Stanley Cup

2008-09 Lost in Cup Finals.

2 Cups, 1 Finals loss, 1 loss in the Conference Finals, 2 in the Conference Semifinals, 3 in the Quarterfinals.

Edge goes to Detroit for 2 reasons. One, their success spans the decade- cups in 02 and 08, while New Jersey's last was 2003. Second is a straight head-to-head. Equal number of Cups and Finals appearances, but Detroit has one more Conference Finals appearance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the '2000s' we had 9 seasons. these are the records of the two teams in question (since the 2000-2001 season):

new jersey: 418 wins - 226 losses - 43 ties - 51OTL - 930 points - 6 division titles - 1/2 in SCF

detroit: 453 wins - 179 losses - 40 ties - 66OTL - 1012 points (every season with at least 100 points) - 8(straight) division titles - 2/3 in SCF

so... i'd say it's pretty clear which team is the team of the decade here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny that you post this because I was just discussing this with someone last week. He was trying to make the argument that the Pens were the team of the 90's and I was of course saying the Wings. 2 Presidents trophies, 3 Finals appearances, 2 Stanley Cups. Nobody can touch that from that decade. It is pretty crazy to think that the Wings are the team of the 90s AND 2000's. Two decades of dominance, something we may never see again in any sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny that you post this because I was just discussing this with someone last week. He was trying to make the argument that the Pens were the team of the 90's and I was of course saying the Wings. 2 Presidents trophies, 3 Finals appearances, 2 Stanley Cups. Nobody can touch that from that decade. It is pretty crazy to think that the Wings are the team of the 90s AND 2000's. Two decades of dominance, something we may never see again in any sport.

Yeah i had a friend who's a pens fan who's done the same to me. My argument was always you can't win the 91 92 cup,...come close in 93 but get upset and then do NOTHING (other than a fluke playoff run in 96). It's like the 80's argument for the islanders vs. oilers. The islanders started the 80's the oilers finished. But during that time the oilers were always a good team.

Ditto for the red wings, the penguins had some lean years in the later 90's (hell they had some lean years until they drafted crosby) so that gives them the edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to objectively discuss this on a Red Wings board without sounding like a homer, but the stats don't lie. Even if you didn't count JUST the Championships, the Red Wings win the 90's and 2000's hands down. If you add in ALL the Presidents trophies, all the wins all the 19 straight playoff appearances, how many conference finals compared to everyone else, how many 100 point seasons and 50 win campaigns compared to anyone else. You could even add up the winning percentage for the two decades (go ahead math whizzes, I am not that motivated) and it just may be they have the best in those two decades. For anyone to even suggest that Pit is there in the 90's or 2000's they just need to look at their draft positions for 10-12 of those years. For my money, the top teams have got to be Detroit, New Jersey, Dallas, and Colorado, hell between 1995 and 2003 they were the only teams to win the Cup. Nobody else even comes close to these teams in the 90's or 2000's...

...and the only one team to be consistent in a POST lock-out era? Detroit... I guess you could make a case for the Pens as a post lock-out power house, but that is only because of their decade or more of being s***ty and getting top draft picks. Detroit has done it with low and sometimes VERY low drafting and being CONSISTENTLY a winner since 1991 when they had the #10 pick and haven't sniffed a top ten since... Goodie for US!

Edited by LeftWinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stolberg

Ditto for the red wings, the penguins had some lean years in the later 90's (hell they had some lean years until they drafted crosby) so that gives them the edge.

what would you define "lean years" as?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1990s are 1991-2000, and the 2000s are 2001-2010. Decades don't start on a 0.

I love you.

Still, Wings it is.

As annoying as Hawks fans can be after a Cup, and as annoying as Habs fans are after winning a round, I must say that I would like to see a bit of life from the O6.

I'd like to see the Leafs win another Cup as long as it isn't at the expense of the Wings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stolberg

The 1990s are 1991-2000, and the 2000s are 2001-2010. Decades don't start on a 0.

oxford seems to think both are applicable .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if you were born in 1980 you were born in the '70s??? GTFO

Exactly.

Think of it as counting. How many fingers do you have? 10? Are only the first 9 yours? So if you and a friend count to 20, do you run out of fingers? No, because you don't start counting with 0, you start with 1.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Then you start the next set of 10, or- if we are talking years- the next decade. So continuing the pattern, you can see:

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

The next set of 10:

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

So if you are talking about the '70's, you have:

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Why? Because there's no year 0. Just like you didn't start counting your fingers by counting the first one as 0.

Wings still rule the 90's and 00's, no matter how you slice it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

Think of it as counting. How many fingers do you have? 10? Are only the first 9 yours? So if you and a friend count to 20, do you run out of fingers? No, because you don't start counting with 0, you start with 1.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Then you start the next set of 10, or- if we are talking years- the next decade. So continuing the pattern, you can see:

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

The next set of 10:

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

So if you are talking about the '70's, you have:

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Why? Because there's no year 0. Just like you didn't start counting your fingers by counting the first one as 0.

Wings still rule the 90's and 00's, no matter how you slice it.

counting fingers? that's not the same as counting years

let me try to explain my views on this.

when a baby is born it is 0 years old and after one whole year of life it is now one year old. if that baby was born on january 1st, 1990, for example, then that baby will turn 10 years old (and have lived a decade) on january 1st, 2000. therefore that child will now be beginning it's second decade of life in the year 2000.

another thing... i don't like the whole argument of there is no year zero. there is a year zero and it was back when the earth was formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago. of course, it is impossible to know the exact time when this happened but regardless of that you cannot start counting from 1.

Why? Because there's no year 0. Just like you didn't start counting your fingers by counting the first one as 0.

Wings still rule the 90's and 00's, no matter how you slice it.

just another point to add to this. you don't count your first finger as 0 and you also don't count your first year as 0 but you have to start from 0. you cannot start counting from 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

Think of it as counting. How many fingers do you have? 10? Are only the first 9 yours? So if you and a friend count to 20, do you run out of fingers? No, because you don't start counting with 0, you start with 1.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Then you start the next set of 10, or- if we are talking years- the next decade. So continuing the pattern, you can see:

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

The next set of 10:

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

So if you are talking about the '70's, you have:

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Why? Because there's no year 0. Just like you didn't start counting your fingers by counting the first one as 0.

Wings still rule the 90's and 00's, no matter how you slice it.

A decade is just a period of 10 years. It doesn't matter when it starts. Doesn't even have to start on the 1st of the year. Typically, when speaking of a named decade, like 'the '90s', you're referring to numbers in the '90s. '90-'99. That is still 10 years, so it is a decade.

Technically speaking, there was no year 1 either. The current year numbering system wasn't adopted until the 6th century. It's based on a guess that is almost certainly wrong. There have been many adjustments to calendars in the course of human history. Furthermore, whether or not there was a year 'numbered' zero, there were plenty of years prior to year 1. Many, many millions of them in fact.

Zero is a much more logical 'beginning'. And even if you want to be pedantic, calendar adjustment is hardly unprecedented.

Let's take a clue from the defective Gregorian year' date=' the one with only 355 days in it. ... If a year can be stipulated to be defective by some days, why can't a decade, century, or millennium be stipulated to be defective by a year? Why don't we just say that the first decade in our western calendar was short by a year? Then as a result the first century was similarly short, and the first millennium too. Thereafter nothing's defective. This stipulation performs a cultural function; it aligns the beginning of every decade, century, and millennium (except the very first of each of these) with an auspiciously numbered year.

[/quote']

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, atodaso and Buppy, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Your points are coherent and well-stated, and I give you props for making a good, intelligent argument.

That said, I still disagree.

However, it being here nor there, I propose we raise a glass to what we DO agree on: Wings Rule!!! :beerbuddy:

Edited by 55fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, atodaso and Buppy, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Your points are coherent and well-stated, and I give you props for making a good, intelligent argument.

That said, I still disagree.

However, it being here nor there, I propose we raise a glass to what we DO agree on: Wings Rule!!! :beerbuddy:

i will agree to this :D

cheers! :champs:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

counting fingers? that's not the same as counting years

let me try to explain my views on this.

when a baby is born it is 0 years old and after one whole year of life it is now one year old. if that baby was born on january 1st, 1990, for example, then that baby will turn 10 years old (and have lived a decade) on january 1st, 2000. therefore that child will now be beginning it's second decade of life in the year 2000.

another thing... i don't like the whole argument of there is no year zero. there is a year zero and it was back when the earth was formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago. of course, it is impossible to know the exact time when this happened but regardless of that you cannot start counting from 1.

just another point to add to this. you don't count your first finger as 0 and you also don't count your first year as 0 but you have to start from 0. you cannot start counting from 1.

Yes, when a baby is born it is 0 years old. Meaning that it has not lived a full year yet. A baby that is born between March 1st, 2011 and February 29th, 2012 will live 365 days and still be 0 years old in that it has not yet reached its first birthday.

But you are also an idiot. The calendar we use is based on when the birth of Jesus is believed to have happened. There are years that happened before it, and years that have occurred since. As you clearly are not very intelligent, I will enlighten you. After 1 B.C. came 1 A.D., there was no "Year 0" which fell in between. The first decade A.D was 1 A.D to 10 A.D.

A decade is just a period of 10 years. It doesn't matter when it starts. Doesn't even have to start on the 1st of the year. Typically, when speaking of a named decade, like 'the '90s', you're referring to numbers in the '90s. '90-'99. That is still 10 years, so it is a decade.

Technically speaking, there was no year 1 either.

There was, it simply was not called as such. But for the purposes of our current calendar system, it matters.

The current year numbering system wasn't adopted until the 6th century. It's based on a guess that is almost certainly wrong. There have been many adjustments to calendars in the course of human history. Furthermore, whether or not there was a year 'numbered' zero, there were plenty of years prior to year 1. Many, many millions of them in fact.

Zero is a much more logical 'beginning'. And even if you want to be pedantic, calendar adjustment is hardly unprecedented.

Yes, a decade is a period of 10 years. But if we're basing them on numbered decades from our existing calendar, then it's 1991-200 and such. If we're simply basing it on the decade as a period of ten years, then why not divide it up starting with 1916-17 through 1925-26? If we're ignoring decade division from 1 A.D, then why not count starting with the inception of the league? That makes more sense than random division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, when a baby is born it is 0 years old. Meaning that it has not lived a full year yet. A baby that is born between March 1st, 2011 and February 29th, 2012 will live 365 days and still be 0 years old in that it has not yet reached its first birthday.

But you are also an idiot. The calendar we use is based on when the birth of Jesus is believed to have happened. There are years that happened before it, and years that have occurred since. As you clearly are not very intelligent, I will enlighten you. After 1 B.C. came 1 A.D., there was no "Year 0" which fell in between. The first decade A.D was 1 A.D to 10 A.D.

the fact that you call me an idiot without knowing me at all says a lot about you.

so, i guess my only reply to you is...

Archie%20Bunker-STIFLE%20Ink-medium.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... The calendar we use is based on when the birth of Jesus is believed to have happened. There are years that happened before it, and years that have occurred since. As you clearly are not very intelligent, I will enlighten you. After 1 B.C. came 1 A.D., there was no "Year 0" which fell in between. The first decade A.D was 1 A.D to 10 A.D.

There was, it simply was not called as such. But for the purposes of our current calendar system, it matters.

Yes, a decade is a period of 10 years. But if we're basing them on numbered decades from our existing calendar, then it's 1991-200 and such. If we're simply basing it on the decade as a period of ten years, then why not divide it up starting with 1916-17 through 1925-26? If we're ignoring decade division from 1 A.D, then why not count starting with the inception of the league? That makes more sense than random division.

My point was that it doesn't matter.

Even if you don't have a Year 0, calendars have been adjusted in the past. Who cares if the first decade had only 9 years, or the first millenium only 999? Does that matter any more than the fact some years in different parts of the world subtracted 10-13 days from the year when transitioning from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar? If there was an error in origin, it makes sense to correct it. In this case, it is almost certain that the basis for the AD numbering is incorrect, so what difference does it really make if we just say that a decade or century or millenium 'begins' on the more logical 0 year, if both are factually inaccurate? When Dionysius devised the AD numbering scheme in 525, he calculated that it was 525 years since the incarnation of Christ. Question is, did he mean that the beginning of 525 was 525 years after Christ was born, or that the end of that year would be 525 years. So even if you ignore the fact that his estimation was wrong, we still don't really know if he started at zero or one.

Secondly and more to the point, as I said earlier, when referencing a named decade, it is common practice to include those years with a common tens digit. The 90s = 90-99. Whether or not that is actually the 200th decade of the AD calendar is completely irrelevent.

[edit: decades did start at 0]

Edited by Buppy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, when a baby is born it is 0 years old. Meaning that it has not lived a full year yet. A baby that is born between March 1st, 2011 and February 29th, 2012 will live 365 days and still be 0 years old in that it has not yet reached its first birthday.

But you are also an idiot. The calendar we use is based on when the birth of Jesus is believed to have happened. There are years that happened before it, and years that have occurred since. As you clearly are not very intelligent, I will enlighten you. After 1 B.C. came 1 A.D., there was no "Year 0" which fell in between. The first decade A.D was 1 A.D to 10 A.D.

There was, it simply was not called as such. But for the purposes of our current calendar system, it matters.

Yes, a decade is a period of 10 years. But if we're basing them on numbered decades from our existing calendar, then it's 1991-200 and such. If we're simply basing it on the decade as a period of ten years, then why not divide it up starting with 1916-17 through 1925-26? If we're ignoring decade division from 1 A.D, then why not count starting with the inception of the league? That makes more sense than random division.

Was there even a team in 1 AD? :lol: How long until someone mentions the Mayan Calender? Their calender (at least their most important one) was a period of 260 days.... According to that, who is the team of the 4 Ahaw, 8 Kumk'u? :lol:

Edited by LeftWinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this