Sure two of the NYI teams that won the cup would not qualify for the playoffs in this shootout/overtime format, and sixteen of twenty one teams used to qualify for the playoffs vs today where a NYI team with 94 points did not.
Yes, Peter Laviolette's, 83 point, one game over five hundred NYI qualified in 2002-03.
Still, the NYI as a western conference team could have gone to 10 straight finals in that era (including all the preceding teams that went to the semi-finals) but what makes them the greatest is four straight cups, nineteen straight playoff series wins in this conference, with a franchise built with no drafting or playoff format advantages like Montreal/Edmonton.
I understand the younger folks will not agree, you tell them how bad the western conference was in 1967 when the Bowman-Arbour Blues went to three straight finals & went 0-12 so the playoff format had to be changed to 1-16, and the west was a non-cup factor, and it does not register.
I think Bobby Orr's fake/scripted dive into the air was the final act of that format. Derek Sanderson in his book flat out said being the first team to lose a single game to the west would have ruined winning the Stanley Cup.
Some will recall the Islanders defeated Edmonton in 1981 with the 1-16 format before the league went back to conference playoff despite the west still being awful, and the Islanders faced three superior teams before playing sub-five hundred Vancouver in the finals.
Try having a conversation with a Canadians fan, and remind them their territorial rights benefits to prospects was the only reason they had a dynasty, and when the final generation of those players retired, their ability to win cups ended.
Gook luck reminding an Oilers fan their road to the finals basically went through Eastern transplant Atlanta, who moved to Calgary, and because of that became an immediate contender, who went to a final, and won their own cup.
After the 83 finals, Kevin Lowe was not lying, they were able to prepare all season, and playoffs for a rematch with the Islanders, who did not have that luxury. (and only scored two goals at Coliseum in those two games by enforcers)
Edmonton even had the brand new 2-3-2. (after the Islanders did not have home ice against the Habs, who had far less points in the semi-finals, and fell behind 2-0 before sweeping the next four games)
Edmonton also used the 2-3-2 again the next year to defeat Philadelphia in five games before the league changed the rules.
Basically that format failed the NHL (even giving Edmonton another home cup win when the lights went out in Boston) when Calgary was not getting past them in the playoffs.
And we all know another Vancouver team with no business in the playoffs at all made a final at 35-34-11 in 1994 when the transplanted/purchased Oilers/Hawks limped to a cup in seven games.
Finally by 1995-1996 the 1967 weaknesses were cured with transplanted Quebec to Colorado, Detroit, Dallas, St Louis, and the fans had a coference playoff format where two good teams would compete for a cup in the finals.
For myself, the New York Islanders won with no advantages, with the most playoff series wins, and that's why they were the best ever.
Bill Torrey did not have the luxury of Sam Pollock to keep his dynasty going by having tons of prospects to offer for the #1 overall pick, his teams did not play in a conference of weak teams when the playoffs started.
