The Sharks' incredible start
by James Mirtle on Dec 5, 2008 5:15 AM CST
9 comments
James,
How about the Sharks posting the most points in the first 25 games of the season since the '43-44 Canadiens!? Doesn't seem to be getting much play from the media. This is truly one of the most dominant teams in recent memory, with 7 players scoring 20 points or more in the first 25 games in the season, including the 38 year old Rob Blake! I know it doesn't mean anything until the playoffs roll around, especially for this group, but these are some impressive numbers here. Any thoughts?
Regards,
Mike
San Jose's since picked up another win, beating Columbus last night for the Sharks' ninth straight victory. They have 45 points in 26 games under new coach Todd McLellan, putting them on pace for 142 by season's end.
But...
As we all know, for the vast, vast majority of the NHL's history, there were only two points available in every game, and so far this season, with more games going into overtime than almost ever before, there have been 2.25 points per game.
Which makes it very difficult to compare different eras. Impossible, even.
Let's put it this way: In a league where .500 was .500, 82 points was a decent total, sometimes enough for a playoff spot. Nowadays, the equivalent is about 92 points. A 100-point team this season was equivalent to an 89-point one (over 82 games) in the days of the 1943-44 Habs, and even if San Jose continued an absurd run and posted 69 wins and 142 points, shattering the actual records (62 and 132), we couldn't view them as the best team — in terms of sheer numbers — in history.
There used to be ties, so a win wasn't guaranteed every night. Now, there is always a winner and always at least two points given out.
The 1944-45 Canadiens' 38-8-4 season would be the equivalent of 147 points these days. The 1976-77 team that had 132 points in 80 games had the equivalent of about 152 of today's points.
How good is a 22-3-1 start historically?
Beats me.
0 recs |
9 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
A lot of valid points here, but for the sake of conversation here’s a couple things I would like to point out:
- Under the old system (where a shootout “appearance” would be a tie, and an overtime loss would be a loss), the Sharks are 20-4-2. That’s good enough for 42 points, which is on pace for 132 over the course of an 82 game season. It doesn’t reach the projected ‘44-’45 Canadiens’, but it’s still one helluva run.
- I have no data to back this up (possibly you do James?), but I would venture to say the league is a lot better from top to bottom now, compared to the days of yore. Salary cap restrictions, wider spread talent from all corners of the globe, and better coaches/conditioning make it much more difficult for a specific team to dominate opposing teams every single night. Something the Sharks have made a habit of doing.
Whatever the case may be, it’s a pleasure to watch this team take the ice every night. Mike makes an excellent case about the media aspect- you hear so little about the Sharks, even from the NHL’s main website. A nine-game win streak doesn’t warrant front page consideration? Phooey.
I’m not one to generally play the “East Coast Bias” card, but I would bet everything I own that if Pittsburgh, New York, Montreal, or New Jersey were having this kind of season you wouldn’t hear the end of it.
Fear The Fin: Where the second round is overrated.
by Mr. Plank on Dec 5, 2008 6:10 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Good point on the leaguewide parity — I’d planned to mention that and somehow left it out. It is definitely more impressive to dominate a league where the good and bad teams have seemingly so little separating them.
by James Mirtle on Dec 5, 2008 6:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
It’s interesting that the first thing people want to do is discount the meaning of the start because of the extra points. However, as you point out, the Sharks really have only 3 extra points. Winning in OT is the same under either system.
I’m happy so far, but as a long-time Sharks fan, I will really be impressed if they make a long playoff run. Especially if they don’t turn their first couple of series into 6 or 7-game nail-biters as usual.
by makfan on Dec 5, 2008 5:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
From “nik jr” on hfboards:
The ’44 habs record is very inflated. scoring in that season was higher than the ’80s, the Habs were by far the least depleted by WW2. all the other teams were loaded with minor leaguers, except the Habs.
Look at the goalies.
MTL: Durnan (HHOFer, voted best goalie 6 times, 3 times during the war)
TML: Bibeault (out of the NHL after the war)
DRW: Dion (career minor leaguer after the war)
CHI: Karakas (vet who spent 5 years in the AHL before the war, and 2 years in the AHL after the war); Highton (’44 was his only NHL season; career minor leaguer)
BOS: Gardiner (in and out of the NHL except during the war)
NYR: McAuley (career minor leaguer except ’44 and ’45)
The hart trophy winner, Babe Pratt of TML, was only a star during the war.
Star players missing in ’44:
All 3 members of the kraut line, including Milt Schmidt (hart and scoring title)
Roy Conacher (art ross, leading goal scorer)
Sid Abel (hart, leading goal scorer)
“Black” Jack Stewart (best defensive D of the time)
Frank Brimsek (“Mr. Zero,” voted best goalie several times)
Max Bentley (hart, won the scoring title in ‘46 and ’47)
Turk Broda (voted several times best or 2nd best goalie, maybe the best playoff goalie ever)
Syl Apps sr. (3 time hart runner-up, 3 times 2nd in scoring)
Lynn Patrick (led the NHL in goals in ’42)
Gaye Stewart (’46 leading goal scorer)
Johnny Mowers (voted best goalie in ’43)
All but 3 of those players are in the HHOF. None were from MTL.
The only team that wasn’t decimated by WW2 was the Montreal Canadiens.
In short for the Habs during WW2, it was men vs. boys
by whatisthisnoise on Dec 5, 2008 7:13 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
thank you for this post
lots of interesting info
I'm a happy seal
by SwisherThresher on Dec 5, 2008 12:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
1) Also some of the SJ enthusiasm is probably tempered by their recent history of having good regular seasons and then imploding in the playoffs. Most of us are saying nice run guys, but can you finally win a couple of playoff rounds? Not until then will they get respect
by Fauxrumors on Dec 5, 2008 8:22 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention that a team with a great start last season (Ottawa Senators) didn’t turn out so well.
by SJKel on Dec 5, 2008 4:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The Sharks have a ratio of goals scored to goals against of about 1.65. Unlike last year’s Senators, they aren’t a fluke. I don’t expect them to keep winning at this pace. I do expect them to finish with the President’s Trophy.
by J. Michael Neal on Dec 5, 2008 6:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
fun to watch
unfortunately its difficult for the majority of hockey fans, (the majority living north of the border or east of the rockies) to watch many Sharks games. so the only way a lot of hockey world would get to experience the sharks would be through highlights. top 10 goals, hits, saves, etc.
the funny thing is, this team is dominant not due to highlight reel plays, but due to solid, hard working, you will pay for your mistake goals. not to say there havent been any highlight worthy plays, only to say that the teams record has nothing to do with any individual’s night after night heroic efforts.
and this is what is in my opinion what will push this years sharks over the playoff woes of yore. it does not depend on Thornton from the half boards threading a pass to the slot, but rather allows a very big, fast talented team to wear down opponents and return the puck to its home. playoff hockey.
by denver_diaspora on Dec 6, 2008 1:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
