Comments on: The 100-Point Hockey Club, Where Membership Is Exclusive

By: Joseph Durocher

Joseph Durocher — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:17:08 +0000

May I add another salute to the Detroit Red Wings?
The Red Wings have hit the 100-point mark 13 times since the 1992-93 season – including this present season. They’ve now done it nine years straight. Obviously, Detroit is the dominant team of the present era.
However, if you think racking up 100 points in 82 games is impressive – and I imagine we all do – imagine a team racking up 100 points in 70 games. The Red Wings did it, twice.
In 1949-50, the NHL schedule was stretched from 60 games to 70 games. The very next season – 1950-51 – Detroit hit the 100 point mark (finishing with 101 points). To prove it was no fluke, they did it again in 1951-52 (finishing with 100 points). Needless to say, they lost very few games during these two seasons.
This was the golden era of the Red Wings. They finished in first spot for seven straight seasons – from 1948-49 to 1954-55. Four times – 1949-50, 1951-52, 1953-54 and 1954-55 – they won the Stanley Cup.
That success coincided with Gordie Howe’s rise to superstardom. In 1948-49 – in the playoffs – he followed up an ordinary regular season with 11 points in 11 playoff games (leading all other players). An injury restricted Howe to one playoff game in 1949-50 – after finishing third in points in the regular season. Gordie would then go on to win the Art Ross Trophy the next four years running, and win three Stanley Cups.
To be fair, I should point out that other players – like Ted Lindsay, Sid Abel, Red Kelly, Harry Lumley and Terry Sawchuk – contributed something to the success of the Detroit Red Wings.
The secret to a 100-point season is a roster full of future Hall of Famers.

By: pucksandbooks

pucksandbooks — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:37:23 +0000

Paul,
Once you open the Pandora’s Box on rules tinkerings for standings points, all manner of criteria and conflict emerge. More than a third of Detroit’s 9 nine straight 100-pt. seasons now have been achieved with the aid of the shootout/skills competition, not just the Caps. But I’m not convinced that the Wings were otherwise lousy, or merely good. And what of the standings in the early 1990s, when expansion and godawful San Jose and Ottawa arrived on the scene? Were in-conference teams that feasted on them actually 92-pt. clubs, adjusted for non-expansion eras? Or what of the Original Six once the league expanded overnight to 12? They had easy pickings for quite a while, no? Just how much were Orr’s early ’70s stats inflated against the California Golden Seals and the like? How far to do want to play your stats game?

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:52:42 +0000

The overtime loss (the “charity point”) has significantly diluted the relative value of the 100-point season. Subtract one point for every Caps overtime or shootout win and where does that put them now? 82 game schedule doesn’t help the value either.
Now go look up the record of the 1976-77 Canadiens and see if your jaw doesn’t drop.
The Caps have had a fine regular season, but 100 points just isn’t what it used to be. Kind of like 40 home runs in the post-juice era in baseball.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:33:48 +0000

Don’t forget that Green has put up those numbers while missing 14 games. I’m not usually a stats nerd, but in 1992-93, Hatcher scored 30 goals and 79 points in 83 games. Green has 30 goals and 70 points in just 63 games — that’s TWENTY fewer games.
1992-93 Hatcher — .40 goal per game, .95 point per game
2008-09 Green (so far) — .47 goal per game, 1.11 point per game

By: Joe U.

Joe U. — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:08:25 +0000

I too am skeptical of such statistics, but I think there is something to say about allowing almost as many goals as you have scored. I think it speaks to the same concern we’ve had all season that even with Pothier return still seems to plague the boys. To use everyone’s favorite cliche, “Offense wins games, defense wins championships”. I feel stupid saying that…

By: Jessie

Jessie — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:42:31 +0000

i’ve only been watching hockey for a few years, but from what i’ve heard, this capitals team is far different from any prior one.
i like to think they’ll continue to be different…and beyond the second round of the postseason

By: Lee (PTO)

Lee (PTO) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:03:55 +0000

I don’t know if there’s a strong statistical correlation between playoff success and goal differential over the regular season, but I’ve always liked the phrase “They don’t ask ‘how’, they ask ‘how many’ to determine who won the game”.
The last time the Capitals reached the 100-point plateau, they fell on their faces in the first round I believe. Hopefully Bruce won’t let that happen to this new version of the Capitals…

By: Joe U.

Joe U. — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:00:15 +0000

No doubt 100+ is amazing, and no one can argue the Caps have what it takes to win games, but how concerned are we going into the playoffs with the Caps less than steller GF/GA differential?
Right now the Caps are +25 third best in the division, but only 7 best in the league. And they are significantly behind the Bruins at +77.

By: J.P..

J.P.. — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:55:30 +0000

While 108+ points would be a great accomplishment, that ’85-’86 team reached 107 in an 80-game season (two fewer than this team will play), and did it without the aid of shootout wins (from which this team has garnered an extra four points via wins that would have likely been ties back in the day).
Then again, that team lost in the second round of the playoffs to a team that finished the regular season with 78 points, so anything can happen when the games really matter.