What Is Acceptable Performance? Playoff Success Throughout NHL History
By Caroline
I recently had an… “argusation” with a few friends about the future of the Predators in respect to their success in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. We touched on pretty much everything you would imagine, including some varied opinions on David Poile’s ability to be GM (I’m Team Poile), the effectiveness of The Predator Way, and the positives and negatives of letting guys like Andrei Kostitsyn and Alex Radulov go. At the end of the night when we went our separate ways, I was left with an unanswered (though also unasked) question: how much better or worse have the Predators done in the playoffs during their first 13 years than the other 29 teams in the league did in their first 13 years? If this doesn’t sound like a term paper to you, then it should. Over the last almost three weeks, I have done far too much research for someone on summer break (at least it’s hockey?), crunched way too many numbers for someone who isn’t big on math, and made 29 more graphs than I’d have liked – all in the name of comparing the Preds with the league.
I want to mention a few factors in this analysis that are important to consider. First is the expansive nature of the league. I looked at all 30 teams, so I had to include everyone from Boston, who competed with 5 other teams for the Stanley Cup in 1929, to Anaheim, who competed with 29 other teams for a playoff spot and 15 other teams for the Stanley Cup in 2007. We have a very wide range of competition levels here, so keep that in mind. Second is the changing nature of the league. The playoff format has changed several times, so I had to make sure all 30 teams’ playoff histories were considered equivalent (or as equivalent as I could make them). Third is a little thing called an “outlier”. I only bring this up because I know sometimes it can be fun to use outliers as examples of what should be, and I want to prevent that right now: outliers are not realistic. Edmonton won five Cups in their first 13 years. “WHY HAVEN’T THE PREDATORS DONE THAT?” isn’t an appropriate response, mostly because it helps when you have Wayne Gretzky. Outlier. Don’t buy it.
So, the graphs. The horizontal axes mark each franchise’s first 13 years; I chose 13 because that’s how many seasons the Predators have been around, and they are my main interest here (and probably yours as well). It was too bulky to label each season, so the years are listed to the side. The vertical axes mark how far the franchise got in the playoffs. There are three groups here: 4 Steps, 4-to-5 Transition, and 5 Steps
In the first group, playoff success is ranked on a scale from 0-4 (four steps to win the Cup): 4 Step Finals
- 0 = Did Not Qualify
- 1 = Quarterfinals
- 2 = Semifinals
- 3 = Stanley Cup Finals
- 4 = Won Stanley Cup
In the second group, the graph is split down the middle to illustrate the change from a four step playoff system to a five step playoff system: 4 and 5 Step Finals
In the third group, playoff success is ranked on a scale from 0-5 (although the terms changed three times, it always took five steps to win the Cup): 5 Step Finals
- 0 = Did Not Quality
- 1 = Preliminaries / Division Semifinals / Conference Quarterfinals
- 2 = Quarterfinals / Division Finals / Conference Semifinals
- 3 = Semifinals / Conference Finals / Conference Finals
- 4 = Stanley Cup Finals
- 5 = Won Stanley Cup
The gradient colors in the background of each graph represent a change in General Manager. Some teams (like the Penguins) struggled significantly in their quest to find a worthwhile GM; they have a ton of color change. Other teams (like the Islanders) were satisfied with their GM for the entire first 13 years of their franchise.
The graphs are easy to understand, so I’m just going to slap them down one after the other without individual explanation. At the end of each post is a pie chart that shows how often every team made it to each playoff round in their first 13 years of existence.
The Original Six Era (1920s & 30s)
— BOSTON — CHICAGO — DETROIT — MONTREAL — NEW YORK (R) — TORONTO —
**Note** Montreal and Toronto both began in 1917, but for the purposes of this article and my own sanity I began tracking their playoff record from the 1926-1927 season, when the league officially became the NHL.
Boston: 1924-1925 to 1936-1937
2 (25-26): DNQ 9 (32-33): Semifinals
3 (26-27): Finals 10 (33-34): DNQ
4 (27-28): Semifinals 11 (34-35): Semifinals
5 (28-29): Stanley Cup 12 (35-36): Quarterfinals
6 (29-30): Finals 13 (36-37): Quarterfinals
7 (30-31): Semifinals GMs: 1 // Cups: 1
Chicago: 1926-1927 to 1938-1939
1 (26-27): Quarterfinals 8 (33-34): Stanley Cup
2 (27-28): DNQ 9 (34-35): Quarterfinals
3 (28-29): DNQ 10 (35-36): Quarterfinals
4 (29-30): Quarterfinals 11 (36-37): DNQ
5 (30-31): Finals 12 (37-38): Stanley Cup
6 (31-32): Quarterfinals 13 (38-39): DNQ
7 (32-33): DNQ GMs: 1 // Cups: 2
Detroit: 1926-1927 to 1938-1939
1 (26-27): DNQ 8 (33-34): Finals
2 (27-28): DNQ 9 (34-35): DNQ
3 (28-29): Quarterfinals 10 (35-36): Stanley Cup
4 (29-30): DNQ 11 (36-37): Stanley Cup
5 (30-31): DNQ 12 (37-38): DNQ
6 (31-32): Quarterfinals 13 (38-39): Semifinals
7 (32-33): Semifinals GMs: 2 // Cups: 2
Montreal: 1926-1927 to 1938-1939
1 (26-27): Semifinals 8 (33-34): Quarterfinals
2 (27-28): Semifinals 9 (34-35): Quarterfinals
3 (28-29): Semifinals 10 (35-36): DNQ
4 (29-30): Stanley Cup 11 (36-37): Semifinals
5 (30-31): Stanley Cup 12 (37-38): Quarterfinals
6 (31-32): Semifinals 13 (38-39): Quarterfinals
7 (32-33): Quarterfinals GMs: 2 // Cups: 2
Rangers: 1926-1927 to 1938-1939
1 (26-27): Semifinals 8 (33-34): Quarterfinals
2 (27-28): Stanley Cup 9 (34-35): Semifinals
3 (28-29): Finals 10 (35-36): DNQ
4 (29-30): Semifinals 11 (36-37): Finals
5 (30-31): Semifinals 12 (37-38): Quarterfinals
6 (31-32): Finals 13 (38-39): Semifinals
7 (32-33): Stanley Cup GMs: 1 // Cups: 1
Toronto: 1926-1927 to 1939-1940
1 (27-28): DNQ 8 (34-35): Finals
2 (28-29): Semifinals 9 (35-36): Finals
3 (29-30): DNQ 10 (36-37): Quarterfinals
4 (30-31): Quarterfinals 11 (37-38): Finals
5 (31-32): Stanley Cup 12 (38-39): Finals
6 (32-33): Finals 13 (39-40): Finals
7 (33-34): Semifinals GMs: 1 // Cups: 1
Original Six Totals
This simply shows how often each team made it to each round of the playoffs. As you can see, it’s a pretty even distribution, thanks to the size of the league. Aah, if only it was still this easy.
I’m taking the numbers from this era with a grain of salt because there were so few teams competing for the Cup that the chances of each team going deeper into the playoffs are much higher than they are now; I didn’t calculate how much higher, but I’d bet good money that it’s significant.
Transition Teams Part 1 (1967)
— DALLAS — LOS ANGELES — PHILADELPHIA — PITTSBURGH — ST. LOUIS —
Dallas (Minnesota North Stars): 1967-1968 to 1979-1980
1 (67-68): Semifinals 8 (74-75): DNQ
2 (68-69): DNQ 9 (75-76): DNQ
3 (69-70): Quarterfinals 10 (76-77): Preliminaries
4 (70-71): Semifinals 11 (77-78): DNQ
5 (71-72): Quarterfinals 12 (78-79): DNQ
6 (72-73): Quarterfinals 13 (79-80): Semifinals
7 (73-74): DNQ GMs: 3 // Cups: 0
Los Angeles: 1967-1968 to 1979-1980
1 (67-68): Quarterfinals 8 (74-75): Preliminaries
2 (68-69): Semifinals 9 (75-76): Quarterfinals
3 (69-70): DNQ 10 (76-77): Quarterfinals
4 (70-71): DNQ 11 (77-78): Preliminaries
5 (71-72): DNQ 12 (78-79): Preliminaries
6 (72-73): DNQ 13 (79-80): Preliminaries
7 (73-74): Quarterfinals GMs: 3 // Cups: 0
.
Philadelphia: 1967-1968 to 1979-1980
1 (67-68): Quarterfinals 8 (74-75): Stanley Cup
2 (68-69): Quarterfinals 9 (75-76): Finals
3 (69-70): DNQ 10 (76-77): Semifinals
4 (70-71): Quarterfinals 11 (77-78): Semifinals
5 (71-72): DNQ 12 (78-79): Quarterfinals
6 (72-73): Semifinals 13 (79-80): Semifinals
7 (73-74): Stanley Cup GMs: 2 // Cups: 2
.
Pittsburgh: 1967-1968 to 1979-1980
1 (67-68): DNQ 8 (74-75): Quarterfinals
2 (68-69): DNQ 9 (75-76): Preliminaries
3 (69-70): Semifinals 10 (76-77): Preliminaries
4 (70-71): DNQ 11 (77-78): DNQ
5 (71-72): Quarterfinals 12 (78-79): Quarterfinals
6 (72-73): DNQ 13 (79-80): Preliminaries
7 (73-74): DNQ GMs: 6 // Cups: 0
.
St. Louis: 1967-1968 to 1979-1980
1 (67-68): Finals 8 (74-75): Preliminaries
2 (68-69): Finals 9 (75-76): Preliminaries
3 (69-70): Finals 10 (76-77): Quarterfinals
4 (70-71): Quarterfinals 11 (77-78): DNQ
5 (71-72): Semifinals 12 (78-79): DNQ
6 (72-73): Quarterfinals 13 (79-80): Preliminaries
7 (73-74): DNQ GMs: 6 // Cups: 0.
.
Transition Teams Part 1 Totals
– Teams increased 83.3% (6 to 11)
– Teams that Did Not Qualify increased 14.5%
– Teams making it to Round One increased 112%
– Teams making it to the Round Two decreased 10%
– Teams making in to the Cup Finals decreased 67.5%
– Teams who won the Stanley Cup decreased 76%
I combined a few numbers from both the 4 Step Finals and the 5 Step Finals to make this chart cleaner. This includes: Did Not Qualify (both), Round 1 (Quarterfinals/Preliminaries), Round 2 (Semifinals/Quarterfinals), Finals (both), and Won the Cup (both). The maroon wedge represents the middle round (Semifinals) from the 5 Step Finals that does not have an equivalent in the Four Step Finals. There’s probably a better way to do it, but I’m not going to try and figure it out. This article has been fun to write and research, but I’m over redoing math for a fifth time. (Yes, I have done this math four separate times.)
Transition Teams Part 2 (1970 & 1972)
— BUFFALO — VANCOUVER — CALGARY — NEW YORK (I) —
Buffalo: 1970-1971 to 1982-1983
1 (70-71): DNQ 8 (77-78): Quarterfinals
2 (71-72): DNQ 9 (78-79): Preliminaries
3 (72-73): Quarterfinals 10 (79-80): Semifinals
4 (73-74): DNQ 11 (80-81): Quarterfinals
5 (74-75): Finals 12 (81-82): Preliminaries
6 (75-76): Quarterfinals 13 (82-83): Quarterfinals
7 (76-77): Quarterfinals GMs: 4 // Cups: 0
.
Calgary (Atlanta Flames in orange): 1972-1973 to 1984-1985
1 (72-73): DNQ 8 (79-80): Preliminaries
2 (73-74): Quarterfinals 9 (80-81): Semifinals
3 (74-75): DNQ 10 (81-82): Preliminaries
4 (75-76): Preliminaries 11 (82-83): Quarterfinals
5 (76-77): Preliminaries 12 (83-84): Quarterfinals
6 (77-78): Preliminaries 13 (84-85): Preliminaries
7 (78-79): Preliminaries GMs: 1 // Cups: 0
.
Islanders: 1972-1973 to 1984-1985
1 (72-73): DNQ 8 (79-80): Stanley Cup
2 (73-74): DNQ 9 (80-81): Stanley Cup
3 (74-75): Semifinals 10 (81-82): Stanley Cup
4 (75-76): Semifinals 11 (82-83): Stanley Cup
5 (76-77): Semifinals 12 (83-84): Finals
6 (77-78): Preliminaries 13 (84-85): Quarterfinals
7 (78-79): Quarterfinals GMs: 1 // Cups: 4
.
Vancouver: 1970-1971 to 1982-1983
2 (71-72): DNQ 9 (78-79): Preliminaries
3 (72-73): DNQ 10 (79-80): Preliminaries
4 (73-74): DNQ 11 (80-81): Preliminaries
5 (74-75): Quarterfinals 12 (81-82): Finals
6 (75-76): Preliminaries 13 (82-83): Preliminaries
7 (76-77): DNQ GMs: 6 // Cups: 0
.
Transition Teams Part 2 Totals
– Teams increased 36% (15)
– Teams that Did Not Qualify decreased 22.6%
– Teams making it to Round 1 decreased 3%
– Teams making it to Round 2 decreased 4%
– Teams making it to the Cup Finals decreased 7%
– Teams who won the Cup increased 150%
Let’s all take a moment to congratulate the New York Islanders on winning four Stanley Cups in a row. You can also comfort them on not having won a Cup since then, if you’d like. This Stanley Cup percentage is definitely one to ignore, or at the very least take with a grain of salt. The Islanders were the only team to win the Cup here, and they happened to win it a TON. The most important thing to note is that the percentage of teams making it into the playoffs, and deep into the playoffs, is decreasing. This is a trend that continues as the years go on (which is obviously due to the fact that the number of teams in the NHL is rising steadily – first 83.%, now 36%, and we’re only at half the current number of teams in the NHL today). Let’s go on, shall we?
Full 5-Step Playoffs (1974 On)
— CAROLINA – COLORADO – EDMONTON – NEW JERSEY – PHOENIX – WASHINGTON —
Carolina (Hartford Whalers): 1979-1980 to 1991-1992
1 (79-80): Semifinals 8 (86-87): Div. Semifinals
2 (80-81): DNQ 9 (87-88): Div. Semifinals
3 (81-82): DNQ 10 (88-89): Div. Semifinals
4 (82-83): DNQ 11 (89-90): Div. Semifinals
5 (83-84): DNQ 12 (90-91): Div. Semifinals
6 (84-85): DNQ 13 (91-92): Div. Semifinals
7 (85-86): Division Finals GMs: 4 // Cups: 0
.
Colorado (Quebec Nordiques): 1979-1980 to 1991-1992
1 (79-80): DNQ 8 (86-87): Div. Finals
2 (80-81): Preliminaries 9 (87-88): DNQ
3 (81-82): Conf. Finals 10 (88-89): DNQ
4 (82-83): Div. Semifinals 11 (89-90): DNQ
5 (83-84): Div. Finals 12 (90-91): DNQ
6 (84-85): Conf. Finals 13 (91-92): DNQ
7 (85-86): Div. Semifinals GMs: 3 // Cups: 0
.
Edmonton: 1979-1980 to 1991-1992
1 (79-80): Preliminaries 8 (86-87): Stanley Cup
2 (80-81): Quarterfinals 9 (87-88): Stanley Cup
3 (81-82): Div. Semifinal 10 (88-89): Div. Semifinal
4 (82-83): Conf. Finals 11 (89-90): Stanley Cup
5 (83-84): Stanley Cup 12 (90-91): Finals
6 (84-85): Stanley Cup 13 (91-92): Finals
7 (85-86): Div. Finals GMs: 2 // Cups: 5
.
New Jersey (Kansas City Scouts in maroon; Colorado Rockies in blue): 1974-1975 to 1986-1987
2 (75-76): DNQ 9 (82-83): DNQ
3 (76-77): DNQ 10 (83-84): DNQ
4 (77-78): Preliminaries 11 (84-85): DNQ
5 (78-79): DNQ 12 (85-86): DNQ
6 (79-80): DNQ 13 (86-87): DNQ
7 (80-81): DNQ GMs: 4 // Cups: 0
.
Phoenix (Original Winnipeg Jets): 1979-1980 to 1991-1992
1 (79-80): DNQ 8 (86-87): Div. Finals
2 (80-81): DNQ 9 (87-88): Div. Semifinal
3 (81-82): Div. Semifinal 10 (88-89): DNQ
4 (82-83): Div. Semifinal 11 (89-90): Div. Semifinal
5 (83-84): Div. Semifinal 12 (90-91): DNQ
6 (84-85): Div. Finals 13 (91-92): Div. Semifinal
7 (85-86): Div. Semifinal GMs: 1 // Cups: 0
.
Washington: 1974-1975 to 1986-1987
2 (75-76): DNQ 9 (82-83): Div. Semifinal
3 (76-77): DNQ 10 (83-84): Div. Final
4 (77-78): DNQ 11 (84-85): Div. Semifinal
5 (78-79): DNQ 12 (85-86): Div. Final
6 (79-80): DNQ 13 (86-87): Div. Semifinal
7 (80-81): DNQ GMs: 4 // Cups: 0
.
Full 5-Step Playoffs Totals
– Teams increased 40% (21)
– Teams that Did Not Qualify increased 79%
– Teams making Div. Semifinals decreased 9.8%
– Teams making Div. Finals decreased 40%
– Teams making Con. Finals decreased 60%
– Teams making the Cup Finals decreased 32.5%
– Teams who won the Cup decreased 16.8%
Again, thanks to a crazy-lucky, brand-new team (this time called the Oilers, not the Islanders), the Cup winning percentage is crazy high. Edmonton was the only new team to win a Cup from 1975 to 1992, and they won 5. Again, like the Islanders, they have yet to win any more Cups since then. And yet again, like the Islanders, they really are not doing well in the current NHL. Interesting tidbit… not sure if it means anything (there are a ton of factors I’m not even thinking about considering here), but it’s certainly worth pondering. Voice your thoughts on this in the comments! Before moving on to the final round of teams (the Preds are FINALLY coming up!), notice again that the likelihood of even qualifying for the playoffs, never mind making a deep run, is getting more and more difficult – and significantly so, with decreases like 40%, 60%, and 32.5%. That’s pretty intense.
Oh Thank God IT’S THE LAST ONE!! (1993-Present)
— ANAHEIM – COLUMBUS – FLORIDA – MINNESOTA – NASHVILLE – OTTAWA – SAN JOSE – TAMPA BAY – WINNIPEG —
Anaheim: 1993-1994 to 2005-2006
1 (93-94): DNQ 8 (00-01): DNQ
2 (94-95): DNQ 9 (01-02): DNQ
3 (95-96): DNQ 10 (02-03): Finals
4 (96-97): Semifinals 11 (03-04): DNQ
5 (97-98): DNQ 12 (05-06): Con. Finals
6 (98-99): Quarterfinals 13 (06-07): Stanley Cup
7 (99-00): DNQ GMs: 5 // Cups: 1
.
Columbus: 2000-2001 to 2011-2012
1 (00-01): DNQ 8 (08-09): Quarterfinals
2 (01-02): DNQ 9 (09-10): DNQ
3 (02-03): DNQ 10 (10-11): DNQ
4 (03-04): DNQ 11 (11-12): DNQ
5 (05-06): DNQ 12 (12-13): N/A
6 (06-07): DNQ 13 (13-14): N/A
7 (07-08): DNQ GMs: 2 // Cups: 0
..
Florida: 1993-1994 to 2005-2006
1 (93-94): DNQ 8 (00-01): DNQ
2 (94-95): DNQ 9 (01-02): DNQ
3 (95-96): Finals 10 (02-03): DNQ
4 (96-97): Quarterfinals 11 (03-04): DNQ
5 (97-98): DNQ 12 (04-05): DNQ
6 (98-99): DNQ 13 (05-06): DNQ
7 (99-00): Quarterfinals GMs: 6 // Cups: 0
.
Minnesota: 2000-2001 to 2011-2012
2 (01-02): DNQ 9 (09-10): DNQ
3 (02-03): Con. Finals 10 (10-11): DNQ
4 (03-04): DNQ 11 (11-12): DNQ
5 (05-06): DNQ 12 (12-13): N/A
6 (06-07): Quarterfinals 13 (13-14): N/A
7 (07-08): Quarterfinals GMs: 2 // Cups: 0
.
Nashville: 1998-1999 to 2011-2012
1 (98-99): DNQ 8 (06-07): Quarterfinals
2 (99-00): DNQ 9 (07-08): Quarterfinals
3 (00-01): DNQ 10 (08-09): DNQ
4 (01-02): DNQ 11 (09-10): Quarterfinals
5 (02-03): DNQ 12 (10-11): Semifinals
6 (03-04): Quarterfinals 13 (11-12): Semifinals
7 (05-06): Quarterfinals GMs: 1 // Cups: 0
.
Ottawa: 1992-1993 to 2004-2005
1 (92-93): DNQ 8 (99-00): Quarterfinals
2 (93-94): DNQ 9 (00-01): Quarterfinals
3 (94-95): DNQ 10 (01-02): Semifinals
4 (95-96): DNQ 11 (02-03): Con. Finals
5 (96-97): Quarterfinals 12 (03-04): Quarterfinals
6 (97-98): Semifinals 13 (05-06): Semifinals
7 (98-99): Quarterfinals GMs: 6 // Cups: 0
.
San Jose: 1991-1992 to 2003-2004
1 (91-92): DNQ 8 (98-99): Quarterfinals
2 (92-93): DNQ 9 (99-00): Semifinals
3 (93-94): Semifinals 10 (00-01): Quarterfinals
4 (94-95): Semifinals 11 (01-02): Semifinals
5 (95-96): DNQ 12 (02-03): DNQ
6 (96-97): DNQ 13 (03-04): Con. Finals
7 (97-98): Quarterfinals GMs: 4 // Cups: 0
.
Tampa Bay: 1992-1993 to 2004-2005
2 (93-94): DNQ 9 (00-01): DNQ
3 (94-95): DNQ 10 (01-02): DNQ
4 (95-96): Quarterfinals 11 (02-03): Semifinals
5 (96-97): DNQ 12 (03-04): Stanley Cup
6 (97-98): DNQ 13 (05-06): Quarterfinals
7 (98-99): DNQ GMs: 4 // Cups: 1
.
Winnipeg (Atlanta Thrashers in maroon): 1999-2000 to 2011-2012
2 (00-01): DNQ 9 (08-09): DNQ
3 (01-02): DNQ 10 (09-10): DNQ
4 (02-03): DNQ 11 (10-11): DNQ
5 (03-04): DNQ 12 (11-12): DNQ
6 (05-06): DNQ 13 (12-13): N/A
7 (06-07): Quarterfinals GMs: 2 // Cups: 0
.
Oh Thank God/Last One Totals
Finally, relevant information!
– Teams increased 43% (30)
– Teams that Did Not Qualify increased 42%
– Teams making Quarterfinals decreased 34%
– Teams making Semifinals decreased 15.6%
– Teams making Con. Finals decreased 8.05%
– Teams making the Cup Finals decreased 54%
– Teams winning the Cup decreased 72%
This really gives you a great perspective of how truly difficult it is for newer teams to go anywhere in the playoffs in the current NHL. Of the last 9 teams to join the NHL, the rate of failure for qualifying for the playoffs is 63.72%. These same teams have only made it past the Quarterfinals 9.74% of the time. The huge problem, of course, is that these 9 teams are competing against 21 other teams who have been around for much longer. Fighting Big Brother and Bigger Brother for the last cookie is impossible if you’re young and still struggling to climb onto the chair to get to the cookie jar. One of the very distinct and interesting trends I noticed in this final group of teams is a steady upward trend towards the end of their “newbie” years. There are a few exceptions: Columbus and Winnipeg (who just can’t get up at all), and Minnesota and Florida (who appear to have peaked prematurely). Anaheim, Nashville, Ottawa, Tampa Bay, and San Jose (kinda) all demonstrate a slow, steady progression towards success. Nashville and Ottawa have the most consistent records, I would argue, while Anaheim and Tampa Bay look like they just found a stretch of two or three lucky years.
LOOK FOR PART 2 (WITH FINAL ANALYSES
AND COMMENTARIES) THIS WEEKEND
In the meantime, talk amongst yourselves… I’ll be coming back with my own thoughts on all this information, but while I’m spending a few hours NOT looking at playoff data (you have no idea how happy that will make me), let me know your thoughts on everything you see here. Did anything stick out to you? Did anything surprise (or not surprise) you? Which teams remind you most of Nashville? Any interesting trends? etc. etc.