The Chicago Blackhawks. A modern Dynasty?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by polak

How can there be two potential dynasties at the same time?

To play the devil's advocate:

"Dynasty: a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time"

There really isn't anything in the definition or the common use of the word dynasty that says you can't have two rival dynasties at a time.

In fact, the first two NHL recognized dynasties have a slight overlap.

[polak]

There's a difference between slight overlap and:

CHI-BOS-LA-CHI-LA.

I don't see how someone looks at that and decides that Chicago is a dynasty. Their deep runs don't matter in this context as the word "Dominating" doesn't mean you go far in the playoffs and lose.

[Northendzone]

to me, dynasty, in the context of the NHL refers to a teams that wins the cup several years in a row as such there are currently no dynasties in today's NHL.

for fans of the hawks the last few years ahve been most enjoyable and your team has been better than most 9and they are posied to be good for a few more years yet), but you are not a dynasty unless you want to redefine the term

[Mightyfire89]

If Chicago wins this year, they are the closest thing we have to a dynasty in this era. Whether it actually IS a dynasty is (and probably always will be) open to your interpretation of the term.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by polak

There's a difference between slight overlap and:

CHI-BOS-LA-CHI-LA.

I don't see how someone looks at that and decides that Chicago is a dynasty. Their deep runs don't matter in this context as the word "Dominating" doesn't mean you go far in the playoffs and lose.

Let's say it became CHI-BOS-LA-CHI-LA-CHI-LA for example, I don't think it would be completely out of line to say that we have two rival dynasties.

(We're far away from that point of course.)

[polak]

Originally Posted by Itse

Let's say it became CHI-BOS-LA-CHI-LA-CHI-LA for example, I don't think it would be completely out of line to say that we have two rival dynasties.

(We're far away from that point of course.)

Yeah I don't know what you'd call that (besides epic of course). Dynasty still seem off but yeah. I wouldn't be against it like I am now.

[Hackey]

3 or more Championships in a row is a dynasty. 3 Championships out of 4 years seems like the minimum standard for a dynasty to me. 3 in 5 years I think your dilluting it. 4 out 5 would work. 4 out of 6? Tough call. Chicago has breaks between their ships though so I don't think I can give them that dynasty status yet even if they win this year.

[Red Menace]

Winning the cup in a 6 team league was a 16% chance on average.....today it is a 3.3% chance. Once could argue that finishing in the top 5 for 4 years is just as difficult as winning 4 straight cups in the old days.
I might not go that far, but clearly the success of the Hawks is statistically one of the best in league history over a similar period.
If people are afraid to call that a dynasty, whatever.....its's just an imaginary label anyway.

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But the biggest rationale for changing the definition of a dynasty is the salary cap. Those Wings teams were pre-cap, and there's no way they would have fit under a cap.

I agree that they could, and even in some cases, should be recognized as a dynasty until Itse said "3 cups in 4 years". It makes perfect sense as the one parameter, because every dynasty recognized by the NHL and the HHoF has done that.

Originally Posted by polak

Yes. That's exactly what it does. How can there be two potential dynasties at the same time?

How can you even argue that a team that has actually LOST more than they won, championship wise in their time frame, is a dynasty? It makes no sense. Even if they win this year and are at 3/6 they still LOST as much as they won. Not a dynasty.

4/7 we're getting there as that creates a repeat and two more cups.

There has been two dynasties at the same time before. Between 1956 and 1969 the Habs won 9 cups in 14 years and the Leafs won 4 cups in 6 years.

Also, the 19'-27' Senators are recognized as a dynasty by the HHOF and they won 4 cups in 8 years

[polak]

I wouldn't consider any team a dynasty in a 6 team league.

[thefoss1957]

Originally Posted by polak

I wouldn't consider any team a dynasty in a 6 team league.

You could argue that Montreal's dominance was dynastic.

[Red Menace]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/y...are-a-dynasty/

[JohnnySkittles]

Yes, no doubt IMO.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Itse

Let's say it became CHI-BOS-LA-CHI-LA-CHI-LA for example, I don't think it would be completely out of line to say that we have two rival dynasties.

(We're far away from that point of course.)

There was something similar way back in the days before the NHL. The original Ottawa Senators and the Montreal Wanderers traded the Stanley Cup back and forth for years. It was still the Dominion Challenge Cup then. Each year, either Ottawa or the Wanderers won their league championship to retain the Cup, and on top of that there were a total of ten challenge matches during that period.

If L.A. and Chicago traded the Cup back and forth for ten years, I'd have to call them both dynasties even if neither team ever won two in a row.

As for your example, we already have the CHI-BOS-LA-CHI-LA-CHI part. If L.A. should return to form and win it next year, I think we'll have to start talking about a double-headed dynasty.

[Jay Random]

And now I hear Bettman using the D word. I guess that makes it official.

[jessnuts]

Lol does that make it true?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by jessnuts

Lol does that make it true?

True and official are two different things. Officially, Tampa won game 6 in '04.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by jessnuts

Lol does that make it true?

jessnuts, I love your passion.

[dammage79]

Does this mean CHI is a perfect 3/3 in SCF in this era?

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

And now I hear Bettman using the D word. I guess that makes it official.

Bettman still thinks hockey in Arizona is a good idea. I wouldn't take him too seriously.