Someone made the comment of "weak division" after they won the 2nd president's trophy and some mathematically inclined Vancouver fan published an article pro-rating the Canucks' record against opponents outside the NW division. They found that if the Canucks had only played outside the NW, they would still have won the first president's trophy and would have fallen short in season 2 by one point. That doesn't take into account that the non-NW games often involved long road trips through multiple time zones, which is probably worth a couple of points in the standings. Basically, the "weak division" argument doesn't hold up very well.
The best team in the league doesn't win the cup every year. It takes a great team, plus a lot of luck, plus (most importantly) everyone staying healthy, to win the Cup. Somewhere between one and four samples of somewhere between four and seven games is not a big enough sample size to determine the quality of a team. The playoffs and the Cup are more important than the regular season, obviously, but that's only because we - the NHL, the players, the fans, everyone in hockey - have decided that it should be. So all these arguments basing what makes a good hockey team on playoff success are kind of misguided.
|