Teams of the Decade?

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

I'm sure this thread has gone exactly how the OP envisioned.

This is the best thread of the new decade so far.

[HankthaTank 1,100]

hahaha! Amazing entertainment indeed! So the best team of the decade I would say is the '02 Wings. Didn't read the OP so I guess thats a failure on my part but just the replies themselves have been priceless.

[eva unit zero 271]

My point was that using the Gregorian calendar as we do, if we are to say "team of the decade" and refer to "the 90s" and such, then we must properly recognize where those decades start. If we are simply using periods of ten years, then it makes no less sense to start at the beginning of the NHL and count ten-year periods from there.

[Inultus 12]

LOL, wish I could still get on this site at work. I miss the ridiculous and work-time-wasting arguments!

[55fan 5,133]

My point was that using the Gregorian calendar as we do, if we are to say "team of the decade" and refer to "the 90s" and such, then we must properly recognize where those decades start. If we are simply using periods of ten years, then it makes no less sense to start at the beginning of the NHL and count ten-year periods from there.

I'm not even drunk and this sounds brilliant. So... the NHL started Nov. 22, 1917, so the first decade would be from 1917-1926, unless you say that it was formed in November, so 1917 doesn't count as a full year, in which case the first decade would be from 1918-1927.

Of course, some people will probably argue that it would be 1917-1927, because that's 10 years...

[theman19 47]

what would you define "lean years" as?

how quickly people forget, Mario, leaving the game because of injury, then coming back,....jagr being a flake, the entire pens team almost being sold and move to seattle (although i believe that was in the 00')

The pens were no where near the dominate team they started the decade as in 99.

Edited December 3, 2010 by theman19

[eva unit zero 271]

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 199th decade of the AD calendar is completely irrelevent.

Perhaps you don't understand things very well. If you look back into history, using the Gregorian calendar, you will reach 1 A.D., and then what happens after that? When you keep going THERE IS NO YEAR 0. You count down past the year 1 A.D and get to the year 1 B.C., and start counting upwards.

To use an analogy:

Every year, you eat one banana on your birthday. Then you change and start eating apples instead. If you base a calendar on this change of fruit, the first year would be 1 apple, 2 apples, etc. and before that you would be counting the number of banana years before the change. How do you apply a year zero, when you would have eaten either an apple or a banana?

[LeftWinger 4,951]

Perhaps you don't understand things very well. If you look back into history, using the Gregorian calendar, you will reach 1 A.D., and then what happens after that? When you keep going THERE IS NO YEAR 0. You count down past the year 1 A.D and get to the year 1 B.C., and start counting upwards.

....ahhhh, but even though the rows in an airplane are numbered 1-12 then the next row is 14, doesn't mean you aren't actually in the 13th row, because you are!

[Buppy 1,720]

My point was that using the Gregorian calendar as we do, if we are to say "team of the decade" and refer to "the 90s" and such, then we must properly recognize where those decades start. If we are simply using periods of ten years, then it makes no less sense to start at the beginning of the NHL and count ten-year periods from there.

But that's wrong. As I said, a decade is just a period of ten years. But if you specify a certain decade with a qualifier such as 'the 90s', you are implicitly defining it as the ten years with the single common '9' in that tens position, ergo, 90-99. 1990 is a part of the 90s.

If you were to say the 200th decade, then you could say it means 91-00, but no one says '200th decade' because it's stupid. Similarly, when referencing centuries, 'the 1900s' is from 1900-1999 and 'the 20th century' is 1901-2000 (if you subscribe to the accuracy of AD numbering). It makes no sense to exclude the number after which you are naming your range.

And once again, the entire 'no year zero' argument is predicated on the assumption that the period of time described in AD numeration as AD 1 - AD 525 was actually 525 years. Contemporary knowledge suggests that that almost assuredly not the case. And if you 'retro-fit' the numbering to make it the correct length (modern historians typically put the birth of Christ between 7 BC and AD 6, hilarious bit of irony by itself) then you tacitly admit that the origin point is not important. If the origin is unimportant, then why can't we just say that the first year of the first decade/century/millennia was the year 1 BC.

Or, once again, if modifying the number of days in a month or year to correct errors in the calendar isn't a problem, why is it a big deal to alter the number of years in the first decade/century/millennium?

[Buppy 1,720]

Perhaps you don't understand things very well. If you look back into history, using the Gregorian calendar, you will reach 1 A.D., and then what happens after that? When you keep going THERE IS NO YEAR 0. You count down past the year 1 A.D and get to the year 1 B.C., and start counting upwards.

...

There is no year NAMED 'Year 0', just like there was no year named 'Year 1' until more than 500 years after the fact, when someone decided to call it that.

[Guest Stolberg]

how quickly people forget, Mario, leaving the game because of injury, then coming back,....jagr being a flake, the entire pens team almost being sold and move to seattle (although i believe that was in the 00')

The pens were no where near the dominate team they started the decade as in 99.

they made the playoffs every year in the late 90s. went to the conference finals in 01 playoffs. some teams would kill to have lean years like that.

of course they were terrible for 4 years after that

[theman19 47]

they made the playoffs every year in the late 90s. went to the conference finals in 01 playoffs. some teams would kill to have lean years like that.

of course they were terrible for 4 years after that

I didn't count 01 as that wasn't in the 90's.

From the penguins own wikipedia page:1997 saw the franchise's playoff success continue but with a five-game first round exit to their cross-state rivals the Philadelphia Flyers and Mario Lemieux's announced retirement. Because of Lemieux's achievements over the course of his career, the Hockey Hall of Fame waived its three-year waiting period and inducted him as an Honored Member in the same year he retired. The captaincy was passed to Jagr and for the next 4 seasons, Jagr won 4 consecutive Art Ross Trophies. However, the Penguins were unable to match Jagr's individual success with a sustained playoff appearance, with a first round exit in 1998 despite being the second seeded team in the East followed by a second round exit in 1999 this time from eighth seed. In 2000 the Penguins stunned the highly touted Washington Capitals 4–1 in the first round only to fall to Philadelphia 4–2 in the second round.

Even in the midst of this success, the Penguins were in the midst of a battle for their survival. Their free-spending ways in the early 1990s came with a price; at one point they owed over $90 million to various creditors. Owners Howard Baldwin and Morris Belzberg (who bought the Penguins after their first Cup win) asked the players to defer their salaries to help pay the bills. When the deferred salaries finally came due, combined with other financial pressures, the Penguins were forced to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 1998. For much of the 1998-99 season, it looked like the Penguins would either move or fold.

I would consider the team post 1996 to be much leaner then the dominate NHL franchise that they where at the start of 1990. Also, while making the playoffs is cool and all, no NHL team would "kill" to come that close to moving across the country.

I stand by my point, but I see yours as well.

[Guest Stolberg]

I would consider the team post 1996 to be much leaner then the dominate NHL franchise that they where at the start of 1990. Also, while making the playoffs is cool and all, no NHL team would "kill" to come that close to moving across the country.

i agree

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

2002, 2008 Wings, 2007 Ducks

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

2002, 2008 Wings, 2007 Ducks

Read the OP.

[dropkickshanahans 463]

I'm sure this thread has gone exactly how the OP envisioned.

This is the best thread of the new decade so far.

WILDCARD *******!

[Konnan511 1,736]

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

I consider the first decade of my life from when I was zero until the day I turned ten.

WILDCARD *******!