Talk:List of NHL franchise post-season droughts

Untitled

Is it really fair to call the Devils 2003 championship a "drought" considering they haven't defended it yet?

-- Decumanus | Talk 03:26, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why are teams without a playoff appearance/finals appearance/cup win listed with the year after they joined the league? For example, why are St. Louis and Los Angeles' Stanley Cup droughts listed as a year shorter than that of the Leafs when all three teams have played the same number of seasons without a cup win? It seems to me that such teams should be listed with the years in which they joined the league. Please help me understand this. Aottley 19:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Guidelines (proposed)

After adding the drought lengths to the lists, I feel compelled to point out my rationale for doing so. So here's a few proposed guidelines for the content of this page.

• Drought lengths should be in seasons, not years - We've all heard the number 54 associated with the Rangers' Stanley Cup drought, but the drought was no more 54 years long than there was a one-year drought between the Penguins' cup wins in 1991 and 1992. The Rangers failed to win the cup in fifty-three consecutive seasons (1940-41 through 1992-93, inclusive), so 53 should be the number listed. Also, the missing 2004-05 season messes with calculation via dates as well.
• Season counts - The number listed is the number of seasons since their last success in which they have failed to repeat that success. For example, as of this writing, the Florida Panthers have missed the playoffs for the last 5 seasons, which is up to and including 2005-06. If they clinch a playoff spot in 2006-07, then their entry should be removed from the list. If they are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs in 2006-07, then the season count should be set to 6. Until either of those happen, don't touch the entry.
• Don't list droughts that don't even exist - i.e. The most recent (playoff teams/cup finalists/cup winner) should not be in the lists at all. This one sounds obvious, but today I removed the Oilers' "drought" of not having reached the finals since 2006 (As of this writing, the 2006 finals haven't even been played yet). Hopefully having the season counts there will make people think twice since they'd have to add "(0 seasons)" as well.

These are basically my opinions regarding what is a drought, what isn't, and how long they really are. They make 100% perfect sense to me, and the point behind posting them is to prevent misleading info from being added. If you have any opinions or ideas, by all means reply. Aottley 22:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yea i have to disagree. It is commonly accepted to include the year a team finally breaks the drought.I would also point out that other league drought pages on wiki include that year. Ranger Fans count it as 54 years. Most people accept that the year they break the drought, counts. Ucscottb4u 18:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Look again. The NBA and NFL lists don't show the lengths, only the last appearances/wins for each team. And the MLB list agrees with me. For example, think about the famous drought of the Red Sox. What's the length colloquially given to it? Eighty-six years (they won in 1918, then not again until 2004). But the Red Sox entry in the longest World Series droughts in history list agrees with me, starting the drought in the first year in which the Red Sox lost (1919), ending it in the last year in which they lost (2003), and giving the length between those seasons, inclusive (85). Aottley 19:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I will not correct the page again its not worth it to go back and forth, however I have to say I still disagree. I only corrected the Rangers one, cause that was the only one i was certain was wrong. It still is wrong. I remeber watching game seven that year, As a Islander fan it was quite the painful night. I would also point out, that it was probably more then 54 years from when the rangers won in 1940, to when they won in 1994. and thats probably true with a lot drought lenghts (due the number of games increasing thus pushing the finals later in the year).Ucscottb4u 19:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with how this is worded. Why make it 10 times more confusing for every person that comes to this page without reading over the discussion page first? Just change it from seasons without a cup win to years between cups and it'll look much better. Just because you do this doesn't mean you have to list teams that won last year as in a year long drought ... 69.47.227.234 05:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

After spending waaaaay too much time and doing faaaaaaar too many edits on this page (and the sister page NHL post-season streaks), and researching every team's history, I definitely have some ideas regarding how best to 'measure' the concept of a post-season and Stanley Cup drought.

In trying to decide whether to use "years" or "seasons" as the metric, these complications arise :

• People (including the media) think in 'years' not seasons - This is only natural since it is easy to understand and even easier to calculate. For us Leafs fans, the thinking goes - "We last won the cup in '67, so that is 41 years of futility" (in 2008). Well, yes and no. While it is true that it has been 41 years, in actuality the Leafs have only been futile for 39 seasons during the interval between 1966-67 to 2006-07 (they haven't been mathematically eliminated as of today - yet). But who wants to take the time to explain it correctly - I do and I think the wikipedia page should also? (as an aside, I feel I must 'respect' the history of the "54" years that the NYR fans suffered so I have added a footnote to that drought to try to reconcile what is in the table and what is popularly referred to).

• The missing 2004-05 NHL Season - Ordinarily there is a symmetrical 1:1 correlation between the number of years and the number of seasons of a drought (provided it is calculated correctly). However, the strike season messed that ratio up forever. Now, all the calculations have to take into account whether the streak/drought spans the 2004-05 NHL season since nobody played that year and a team's streak/drought was suspended and doesn't count in the total. A drought of X number of seasons at end of the 2003-04 NHL season is the same number of seasons at the end of the 2004-05 NHL season whereas the number of years is X+1. Thus, using seasons makes more sense than years.

• The NHL season spans 2 years - Using my example of the Leafs, at the beginning of the 2007-08 season, the number of years would have been 40 years. But now it is early 2008, so the futility has been 41 years. Later on in the fall when the next 2008-09 NHL season will have begun, it will still be 41 years, but 4 months later, it will be 42 years. In other words, the use of "years" to measure a streak/drought is a moving target depending on when the observation is done. The use of measuring a drought/streak by "seasons" avoids this quirk of the NHL season spanning the year threshold and relies on the facts.

Therefore, for these reasons, in my humble opinion the streak/drought metric should be in seasons, not years. Eric Peebles (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Cities/regions awaiting first Stanley Cup

Just wondering if the Columbus "region" should be expanded to include the Cleveland Barons franchise as they are both in Ohio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.200.103 (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is ridiculous not to count Vancouver as waiting for a stanley cup just because of the millionaires. Its not like the millionaires became the canucks. 69.123.9.33 (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I know and feel your pain. I too have never felt the thrilling victory of a Stanley Cup Championship as I sit here in the so-called Hockey Centre of the Universe (i.e. Toronto). While people in Tampa Bay and Anaheim celebrate their victories, those of us in a city where hockey is the first sport (vs. other cities where baseball, basketball, college hoops, even Nascar gets prime billing). I've been in those cities where you pick up the local paper and you have to hunt to find the NHL scores from the night before. I also see your point of the lack of connection between the Vancouver Canucks and the Millionaires franchises. However, the list of "Cities/regions awaiting first Stanley Cup" is just a list of cities, not of franchises. The futility of the franchises is prominently listed in the "Stanley Cup droughts" so your pain is recognized. The true follower of the NHL teams will look at the Stanley Cup droughts, the list of cities is merely an interesting sidenote. Eric Peebles (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have another concern regarding this section. The city of Los Angeles is not listed, despite never having won a Stanley Cup (the Kings have never won one, and I am unaware of any other NHL franchise that has ever existed in Los Angeles). Yes, the Anaheim Ducks have won the Cup, but they are not from Los Angeles and do not share the same hockey tradition. The fans of Los Angeles have never had the opportunity to celebrate their own team winning - the "closest" they have come (and it's a long way off) is to watch their upstart southern rival take the honor of the first California cup from their grasp. I really think Los Angeles should be considered completely separate from Anaheim and therefore LA should be listed in this section. beerslayer (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand how frustrating the arbitrariness of this section is. The other sections are clear and easy to understand but once you start deciding where a city/team 'belongs' it starts to become very subjective. Obviously the Los Angeles Kings' Stanley Cup drought is real (and painful) and no one would confuse Los Angeles from Anaheim *if* you know the region. However, because Anaheim is listed in the list of cities in the Greater Los Angeles Area, the Kings' streak wasn't included. Perhaps it merits a footnote like one for Ottawa and Vancouver? Eric Peebles (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated to include Los Angeles, as greater Los Angeles usually included cities within the county. Including Anaheim as part of Los Angeles is a disservice to those in the area. An example would be Disneyland notoriously being located in Anaheim, not Los Angeles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.166.126 (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And why are the Pens up here? As I write this yes they're out of the playoffs, but are still the champs, they have a 0 year drought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedna1000 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What do the blue highlighted lines indicate in this section? All regions are awaiting their first win. All have current NHL teams. It doesn't alternate rows or droughts. Can the highlighting be removed or a description added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.19.211 (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Should Vancouver be in this list or not? Previous discussion says it should not be included and a note was added indicating why not however it keeps getting added back. The Vancouver Millionaires did win a Stanley Cup long ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.179.122 (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems strange to merge the Minnesota North Stars and Minnesota Wild history for drought, yet exclude the Seals history from Bay Area (San Fransisco and Oakland) as well as a prior poster suggested correctly the Barons do play in same region as the Blue Jackets. Kav2001c (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC) kav2001c (talk) 1:50, 8 Oct 2014 (UTC)

"Countries' Stanley Cup droughts"

Is this really needed or necessary? Not to mention the page is "List of NHL franchises..." --ConkblockCity (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

When to update

There are warnings indicating that the win drought and final drought sections should not be updated until the playoffs are complete. I don't think that delay is necessary. The win drought sections can be updated after the first playoff round when the 22 teams that didn't win are all known. Similarly, the final drought sections can be updated after the third round when the 28 teams that didn't make it are known. This would be similar to the warnings for the appearance drought sections which indicate they should be updated after the regular season, but not necessarily the completion of the playoffs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.19.211 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I agree with this position - I would at least rather the relevant table(s) be updated all at once when the whole round is completed. There have already been others who have jump-started the postseason wins drought thing for 2016 by knocking out the Islanders and Blues (and I think the Sharks as well? Don't recall off the top of my head). 160.93.6.10 (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the "Closest Approaches" section should also at least denote the teams who have bested their previous appearance during the current playoffs with a dagger/asterisk. Vegas and Winnipeg have already done this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.204.235 (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Seals/Barons/North Stars?

I'd like to know what the criteria is for including the Minnesota North Stars in the California Golden Seals/Cleveland Barons drought streak. The North Stars did not fold and get replaced by the Barons, the way the Minnesota Fighting Saints had been replaced by the Cleveland Crusaders in the WHA; the organizations merged, and the North Stars retained their own franchise history as well as several of their players from 1977-78, and only took the Baron's spot in the Adams Division because Minnesota had been in the five-team Smythe Division, and the removal of Cleveland would have left the Adams with three teams if Minnesota had not changed divisions (which were not even geographically aligned at the time). Furthermore, the current franchise, the Dallas Stars, do not recognize the Seals/Barons history as part of their own, as per their own media guide as posted on their website: http://stars.nhl.com/v2/ext/MediaGuides/Web%20version/index.html. Kyojikasshu (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The Cleveland Barons did not become the Minnesota North Stars. The California Golden Seals/Oakland Seals/Cleveland Barons and Minnesota North Stars/Dallas Stars are completely separate NHL franchises. The only valid link between them is after the Barons franchise folded, many of the players contracts were transferred to the Stars, the rest of the players were drafted in a league wide dispersal draft. Kav2001c (talk 15:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Vancouver futility footnotes

I added four footnotes where Vancouver played a potentially-deciding game with the cup in the building. This would perhaps be better fleshed out as two tables: games played by never-winners with an opportunity to break the curse; list of games played by never-winners facing elimination in their own barn with the cup present in the building. For the second table I would probably include whether the home team every held the lead (perhaps citing their largest lead, or the last tie-breaking goal if they never held the lead) as well as the time of the official game-winning goal. (Edit: it's likely other never-winners have faced elimination with the cup in their own barn, but I didn't check.) — MaxEnt 14:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone Has Violated a Rule

The Vegas Golden knights Have not Played a Playoff Game Because they Didnt start Yet It Was an Ip Address I ID,d, it as Disruptive editing and i warned him Paperkings (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

First, your revert is fine, but you don't need to report it on the talk page. Second, don't bite the newcomers, the IP did not act in bad faith. They just added something before we needed it. Deadman137 (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding the Cleveland Barons to Ohio with Columbus

I believe the Cleveland Barons should be added under the Ohio region with the Columbus Blue Jackets. They both played in the state. I remember seeing that Cleveland was in with Columbus for the droughts three years ago. Since then someone deleted it. Kingzwest (talk) 014:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)