76-77 Habs -- Is it fair to compare modern teams to them

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=johnson_george&id=2727810&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab2pos1

Interesting story on perhaps hockey's greatest team ever -- the 76-77 Habs. But I do question one thing: Isn't it an apples-to-oranges comparison to compare their regular season record to any team from the past 25 years? Back then, games ended in regulation. If they had to go to OT for 12 games, chances are they probably would have lost a couple more games.

 

It's totally unfair. Not only is the points system different, but the dynamics of the end of regulation were different in the '70s.

The only fair way to do it is to take every OT or SO victory for today's teams. Subtract that from the W column and add it to a ties column, then take away OT or shootout losses and put it into the regulation losses column. Add the points and then compare.

Even then, I don't know that it's completely fair considering how bloated the league has become and how many easier games there are today.

 

Goaltending now is light years ahead of where it was then. And it's not just the equipment either. The guys are bigger and far more athletic.

 

I'm just learning the complete history of hockey, but 60-8-12 is pretty impressive no matter the era or talent level. How can you come up with more ties than losses? And only be single digit in Ls? That'll NEVER happen again.

 

I remember reading something about the third line on that team, which was the checking a defensive line. That line scored something like 38 goals over the year, and gave up less than that.

 

Forget about all the points rules changes that exist nowaday (for overtime, shootouts, etc.), just remember in 1976-77 there were no "easy" games because fewer teams back then meant the talent pool isn't as dilluted as it is now.

 

disagree e street: look at smythe division that year -- blues led the division with 32-39-9 record. colorado and vancouver were bad, detroit awful, washington and cleveland (!) terrible.

not even a handful of good teams then -- boston, philly, maybe buffalo.

 

Not true. There was the WHA and there were few talented players from overseas at that time. You also had the thug Flyer teams which made for watching ugly games. Those Canadians were very good and wonderful to watch, but don't overestimate the quality of the NHL at that time.

 

Cleveland actually handed Montreal one of its eight losses that year. IIRC, the Barons won 2-1 in a home game that was undoubtedly the high point of the franchise's two years in Cleveland.

 

The NHL was awful back then. Because of the WHA, it had way too little talent for too many teams. I think the NHL with 30 teams now is way deeper talent-wise than the NHL with 16 teams back then.

 

Sirs, Madames,

Zero Soviets, basically no Euros, Americans believed not good enough to play.

The mid 70s was the NHL's nadir.

That said, an amazing concentration of talent in Montreal. Robinson, Savard and Lapointe woulda stood up next to anybody. Gainey a role player. Cournoyer's last best moment.

YHS, etc

 

Yeah, I'll be that guy. Who cares? It's hockey.

Carry on.