The schedule for 1969-70 had each team playing eight games against their five divisional rivals and six games against the six teams from other divisions. St. Louis definitely benefited from having Scotty Bowman. Pittsburgh that year became respectable under Red Kelly. The other teams in the West were just spinning their tires. St. Louis had a lot of veteran players who put them ahead of their divisional rivals. Of course, at some point experience becomes age. The Blues knew that if they didn't win the Cup in 1970 they weren't going to get many more chances. Harry Sinden made an interesting comment about St. Louis He said the Blues could play well against any team in the East if they only played once in a while. they had no chance however in a long series. Gerry Cheevers said St. Louis would be a very good team if Red Berenson and a few others could play 40 or 50 minutes a game. There was a clear chasm between the two divisions. That's why the playoff format was changed for 1971. The Cup finals of 1968, 1969, and 1970 lacked drama.
I'm flattered that you are eagerly awaiting my book. One other option is to order it directly from the publisher (McFarland) directly. I am certain, however, that Amazon will get quantities of the book reasonably soon. They've always carried my books in the past.
| Boston PPG | Boston Home PPG | Boston Road PPG | Leader in PPG | |
| 1933-34 | 9 | 5 | 4 | Detroit (28) |
| 1934-35 | 20 | 12 | 8 | Detroit (32) |
| 1935-36 | 14 | 8 | 6 | Detroit (24) |
| 1936-37 | 7 | 0 | 7 | Rangers (22) |
| 1937-38 | 6 | 3 | 3 | Canadiens (24) |
| 1938-39 | 12 | 4 | 8 | Americans (27) |
| 1939-40 | 4 | 1 | 3 | Chicago (16) |
| 1940-41 | 10 | 4 | 6 | Toronto (16) |
| 1941-42 | 18 | 13 | 5 | Canadiens (30) |
| 1942-43 | 26 | 14 | 12 | Canadiens (35) |
| 1943-44 | 10 | 6 | 4 | Canadiens (30) |
| 1944-45 | 12 | 8 | 4 | Canadiens (28) |
| 1945-46 | 15 | 4 | 11 | Chicago (38) |
| 1946-47 | 23 | 12 | 11 | Chicago (41) |
| 1947-48 | 20 | 4 | 16 | Toronto (45) |
| 1948-49 | 29 | 19 | 10 | Detroit (39) |
| 1949-50 | 29 | 15 | 14 | Detroit (55) |
Books are terribly pricey these days. (I can attest that the vast majority of the money one spends on a book does not trickle down to the author.) Yes, get it the cheapest way possible--even if it means waiting.
Perhaps I'm not the best person to answer that question, but I'll try: Your stats appear to be accurate. You focused one the few statistical categories--Boston's power play goals--that I haven't researched thoroughly. (I have plenty of data about Boston's shorthanded goals!). Anyway, I think it's more about how the nature of hockey has changed. If you look at some of the rare film clips that show how NHL games were played before the Second World War, they look like they are from another world. The defensemen were often stationary and sometimes didn't move too far past their own blue lines. Given this very defensive mindset, I don't think the power plays from those days were dramatically different. There were also rules that outlawed forward passing to a certain degree, too. I suspect modern NHL power play would look completely foreign to a hockey fan from the 1930s.
If you ask a Detroit Red Wings fan that question, the era you refer to is known as the "Darkness with Harkness" era. Ned Harkness, a former college coach, took over the Wings' coaching duties in 1970-71 and had a miserable season. (I can still recall watching the game they lost to Toronto 13-0 that season. It's on YouTube.) He only coached for one year but he moved up the ranks to management and turned Detroit into a have-not team. That's the short answer. The Wings traded a lot of good players away, such as Garry Unger. A lot of their trades seemed to strengthen the already good New York Rangers. Roger Crozier was lost to the Buffalo Sabres. His last season with the Red Wings was 1969-70. (I always liked and respected Crozier as a goalie.) I think the short answer is poor player management for a long, long time in Detroit.
From what I read about the 1969-70 Montreal Canadiens during my research was that coach Claude Ruel was a bit of a martinet. He was tough, and he could rub people the wrong way. (He certainly rubbed Gump Worsley the wrong way, causing him to walk away from the Habs.) When Ruel coached the East team at the All-Star Game, the players from other Eastern teams were praiseful of him. Both Bobby Hull and Ron Ellis thought Ruel was especially good at keeping players alert and motivated. I read a lot of articles from the Montreal Gazette from that season. I didn't gather there was much in the way of discontent with Ruel, despite how the regular season turned out for the team.
Montreal's mindset going into the last game was hugely important. They brought a lot of negative baggage from watching the Detroit-New York debacle on TV that afternoon--and it worked against them. Still, they had their destiny in their own hands--and they blew it. All they needed versus Chicago that last night of the season was a win, a tie, or to score five goals. There did hold a 1-0 lead at one point and were only down by a goal entering the third period. There are Habs fans today who believe Montreal should have entered the game with the mindset of scoring five goals and not even worrying about playing defense.
I would have loved to have heard what was being said on the Canadiens' bench as the third period wound down.
For one thing they brought in Ned Harkness as a coach and later GM
