How did the Red Wings lose in 2009?

[danincanada]

Accept what? Whining about one day off, a questionable issue at best, and hypothetical scenarios that have the Wings winning if healthier?

Noone outside of Detroit would accept that.

Spin spin spin.

Accept that the Red Wings were in rough shape when the Conference Finals finished while the Penguins were fresh as a daisy in relative terms. The injury issues the two teams faced were not even comparable so the NHL doing what they did with the schedule made that difference even more extreme.

That unprecedented schedule sure was conveniently timed by Bettman. It must have been a huge failure for ratings though because they haven't done it since.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Spin spin spin.

Accept that the Red Wings were in rough shape when the Conference Finals finished while the Penguins were fresh as a daisy in relative terms. The injury issues the two teams faced were not even comparable so the NHL doing what they did with the schedule made that difference even more extreme.

That unprecedented schedule sure was conveniently timed by Bettman. It must have been a huge failure for ratings though because they haven't done it since.

Spin spin spin our wheels is all we've done for the last 9 pages...hard to believe this hasn't been locked. Just for mercy's sake...nothing is being accomplished, other than giving this nonsense a chance to fester...

When I went back through and looked for articles containing TV ratings earlier in this thread, I believe the conclusion that I came to is that it was the most watched games 1 and 2 of SCF in more than a decade (1997 I believe was the one that topped it), I'll go back and see if I can find them.

It also setup for what was the second most watched game 7 in history and I think sixth most watched SCF game in history...the most watched game in 35 years...

So, I'm guessing there just wasn't a scenario where they could do it again...as opposed to the league being out to get Detroit of all teams...

Like I said, maybe some moderator will show some mercy and lock this thing...throw away the key while you're at it...this is a thread that's well below the standard of the HoH board in my opinion...move it to "General Fantasy Talk"...

 

[danincanada]

Spin spin spin our wheels is all we've done for the last 9 pages...hard to believe this hasn't been locked. Just for mercy's sake...nothing is being accomplished, other than giving this nonsense a chance to fester...

When I went back through and looked for articles containing TV ratings earlier in this thread, I believe the conclusion that I came to is that it was the most watched games 1 and 2 of SCF in more than a decade (1997 I believe was the one that topped it), I'll go back and see if I can find them.

It also setup for what was the second most watched game 7 in history and I think sixth most watched SCF game in history...the most watched game in 35 years...

So, I'm guessing there just wasn't a scenario where they could do it again...as opposed to the league being out to get Detroit of all teams...

Like I said, maybe some moderator will show some mercy and lock this thing...throw away the key while you're at it...this is a thread that's well below the standard of the HoH board in my opinion...move it to "General Fantasy Talk"...

Now you're pleading that a mod shut the thread down. Yet you can't seem to stay away from it.

I don't think the American TV ratings were as great as you remember but you missed my point anyways. If the NHL and NBC were so determined to get back to back games, even at the cost of rushing the series, then why not do it again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Cup_Finals_television_ratings

 

[Fugu]

Is one more day off is really going to make up for their injuries or for the all of the hockey that the Wings had played the previous two years? What a weak excuse. The Wings had their chances to finish off the Ducks sooner than they did or not go five with the Hawks with so many OT games.

Not sure why other posters are defending you. You make it sound like the Wings should have had as much time as they needed to get ready for the finals and would still complain even if they did.

Daver, did you actually watch any of the Western games/playoffs back in those days? The way I remember it, NJD was the only Eastern team that could break the West's hold on the Cup, and mostly you had to go through Detroit or Colorado to get a shot at it.

The West was VERY much stronger than the East until just a handful of years ago, as Chicago and LA were the next group that won 5 Cups between them. Only Pittsburgh's two and Boston broke that up.

Accept what? Whining about one day off, a questionable issue at best, and hypothetical scenarios that have the Wings winning if healthier?

Noone outside of Detroit would accept that.

You've really gone too far with that statement. Find some fans who have watched hockey over the past 25+ years (and remember it), and ask them.

This isn't about "hating" Detroit or Pittsburgh, but about the reality of the NHL over that time period.

 

[Big Phil]

Holland and Babcock were around long enough to know the league was going to change on the fly from a 9 day break to the quickest turnaround to the first 3 games in finals history? Seriously?

Not necessarily that, but they had to know the NHL would bump things up and the schedule would change once they realized the circumstances changed. Wings fans - and players - were snarky this whole series, even complaining about how long Lidstrom had to stand around (the horror!) after Game 7 finished. I saw it live, it was no big deal. Crosby was being mauled on the ice and still got over there in good time to shake hands so the Wings could get off the ice. 15 years of things going your way and all of the sudden there was an ugly side to Wings fans when this loss happened.

You can state that another day or two off changes nothing but we don't know. Holland certainly thought it would help his team and they deserved at least that considering they finished off the Hawks in 5. What we do know is that the NHL made this schedule change when they knew Datsyuk, Lidstrom, and Ericsson were all out of the lineup with questions on how soon they'd be able to return.

No, they changed it after the series was done with the Hawks. Who was injured and what not is not something the league would have even thought about. You can't control injuries. Pittsburgh almost lost to the Rangers in 1992. Should the league have waited until Mario's wrist healed? Because when he was lifting the Cup a month later he still had a tensor bandage on it which is very visible. You can't do anything about injuries.

Malkin was hurt like Hossa was hurt in '09 I believe. People said he had a shoulder issue - Hossa actually had bum knee, too. The '08 finals started after 4 full days off and with no back to back games. You know, a typical finals schedule? Go ahead and question what if there was more time off in '08 instead but you're really missing the point, aren't you?

Just stop it Phil. Wings fans aren't the only ones who think they had injuries. It was well documented how beat up that '09 team was before the series even started and the NHL clearly rushed the first 3 games. You keep trying to brush it aside but that was a huge factor going forward in the series, which lasted 7 games and became a series of attrition.

The Wings won Game 5 5-0. Does this not nullify the idea that they were in need of rest? That was a dominating performance and if you really want to nitpick the penalties were extremely lopsided in that game. I understand a lot of it was just frustration from the Pens players and all but you are the one more than anyone else who says the league tried to fix that series, so how do explain Game 5?

Basically this is how it went down. Despite your complaints about a rushed schedule early in the series the Wings had a 3-2 series advantage after Game 5 with Datsyuk back. Then Game 6 was played 3 days later. Then Game 7 three days after that. That was lots of time to recover and they sure looked pretty good in Game 5. What are your excuses that they couldn't close it out after Game 5?

I don't speak for anyone else here when I say I believe the NHL made up this schedule on purpose in order to help the Pens. It was too rushed, breaking agreements and a schedule they'd already put in place, and with too many poor excuses for doing it. To me it appeared as though Bettman pulled this out of his back pocket last second when he saw the state the Red Wings were in. It almost backfired on him when Detroit won the first two games anyway and that's what you continue to hold onto to show that it was okay. The almighty dollar is what drives Bettman and the league and he probably thought that Crosby winning a Cup was needed to enhance his profile in sports, grow the sport, and justify him being the face of the league.

Is this why two of the flagship franchises lost to (gulp) Montreal in 2010? If the league is going to fix something for ratings what is better, a Philly/Pens semi final or Habs/Philly? Come on, it took the Pens 7 years just to get back in the final let alone win again. The league never did them any favours.

How often do you plan to regurgitate this fallacy? An advantage exists regardless of the result of the game. If team A and team B play each other, but team A plays the whole game with only four skaters but still manages to win, that doesn't mean that team B didn't have an advantage. The advantage also didn't disappear after game two, as has been pointed out numerous times. Finally, your point is nonsensical as you are implying that the schedule change is what caused Pittsburgh to be down 2-0. The failure of Pittsburgh to capitalize on the advantage handed to them in those games is not suddenly a disadvantage.

I'll repeat the same thing. It WAS an advantage for Pittsburgh. It was a break for them but they didn't capitalize on it. They were down 2-0 and I know the last thing I thought was how badly the Wings got screwed. I was thinking just how hard it is for a Cup finalist to squander a 2-0 lead. It is clear, it was something that the Pens had working in their favour. But complaining about it when your team still won anyway is just strange. It is like complaining about how you didn't get a powerplay that you feel you should have in a game you won 4-3 anyway. That's all I am saying.

Your point is not relevant. Yes, some teams with injuries have won before. Obviously. Every team that wins has some injuries, including Pittsburgh in 2009. That has nothing to do with the fact that moving the schedule up six days benefits the healthier team, which was Pittsburgh in 2009.

It obviously benefits the healthier team. But as I said before, long after this happened Detroit had their Selke winning center back on the ice and had just polished off Pittsburgh 5-0 in Game 5. Two games were played over the next 6 days. All of the sudden Games 1 and 2 were a distant memory and probably not as relevant as you make it out to be. The NHL did what they did to appease NBC and at the same time got some huge ratings for having the first two games on a weekend. Why don't they do that again? Because it isn't ideal to start the series with back to back games. You prefer not to do that.

Here is one thing people forget about. Detroit in 2008 was better than 2009. The 2008 team was dialed in from the get go. They were 1st overall in points, 1st overall in goals against and 3rd in goals for. That's a hard team to beat right there. I still think the 2009 team was great - the best finalist since the Devils in 2001 - but they did regress. While they were 1st in goals for they were an ugly 19th in goals against. That's not good when you think of it. They lost to Nashville 8-0 during the season. I remember very clearly thinking this was just a little worse of a Wings team than in 2008. A little more accident prone. Doesn't it make sense that a team that went down a bit could lose to an already good team that was that much more hungrier and experienced?

 

[JackSlater]

I'll repeat the same thing. It WAS an advantage for Pittsburgh. It was a break for them but they didn't capitalize on it. They were down 2-0 and I know the last thing I thought was how badly the Wings got screwed. I was thinking just how hard it is for a Cup finalist to squander a 2-0 lead. It is clear, it was something that the Pens had working in their favour. But complaining about it when your team still won anyway is just strange. It is like complaining about how you didn't get a powerplay that you feel you should have in a game you won 4-3 anyway. That's all I am saying.

I have no issue if you find it strange. My only issue in this thread is the denial of the obvious - that Pittsburgh benefited from the NHL's decisions. Whether someone thinks that advantage was insignificant, or that it was fair or unfair, or whether Pittsburgh really was the better team all along, those are all debatable points. That Pittsburgh benefited from the decisions the NHL made is not debatable.

It obviously benefits the healthier team. But as I said before, long after this happened Detroit had their Selke winning center back on the ice and had just polished off Pittsburgh 5-0 in Game 5. Two games were played over the next 6 days. All of the sudden Games 1 and 2 were a distant memory and probably not as relevant as you make it out to be. The NHL did what they did to appease NBC and at the same time got some huge ratings for having the first two games on a weekend. Why don't they do that again? Because it isn't ideal to start the series with back to back games. You prefer not to do that.

Here is one thing people forget about. Detroit in 2008 was better than 2009. The 2008 team was dialed in from the get go. They were 1st overall in points, 1st overall in goals against and 3rd in goals for. That's a hard team to beat right there. I still think the 2009 team was great - the best finalist since the Devils in 2001 - but they did regress. While they were 1st in goals for they were an ugly 19th in goals against. That's not good when you think of it. They lost to Nashville 8-0 during the season. I remember very clearly thinking this was just a little worse of a Wings team than in 2008. A little more accident prone. Doesn't it make sense that a team that went down a bit could lose to an already good team that was that much more hungrier and experienced?

Yes Detroit could have won. They should have won. That's not what I was ever discussing. Only that Pittsburgh benefited from the NHL's decisions to move the schedule up and to rescind Malkin's suspension. The first decision had an impact on the whole series and the second a the very least impacted game 3 in a huge way. I also agree that the 2009 Detroit team was somewhat worse than the 2008 team in terms of on ice play. I am quite confident that the 2009 Detroit team was still better than the 2009 Pittsburgh team, not enough to be unbeatable, but in the end that doesn't matter at all. Pittsburgh won, which is the main thing.

 

[The Panther]

Spin spin spin our wheels is all we've done for the last 9 pages...hard to believe this hasn't been locked. Just for mercy's sake...nothing is being accomplished, other than giving this nonsense a chance to fester...

I have to agree with you. This thread has gone beyond silly.

I am quite confident that the 2009 Detroit team was still better than the 2009 Pittsburgh team

That would be true... if the former hadn't lost a 7-game series to the latter.

 

[daver]

Only that Pittsburgh benefited from the NHL's decisions to move the schedule up.

Other than the Pens won the series, and the seemingly indisputable fact that the Wings were the better team based solely on the 2008 SCF, this seems like a claim with no evidence to back it up.

If this is only to do with the fact that Detroit has injuries then too bad, injuries happen, and the start date was hardly unusual compared to previous SCFs, although the back-to-back was. There is not a SCF start date in history that cannot be viewed as beneficial to one team over the other.

If this is to do with the Wings being tired after a 3 games in four days start, how can you say this with such certainty? They looked evenly matched after Game 1, Game 2 looked much the same. It should have come to no surprise that the Pens won on home ice in two more tight games. Then we have Game 5, the most lopsided game of the series, and if anything, the Wings were the exact opposite of a team who is supposedly running on fumes at this point playing against the younger team who has the momentum. Then we have the last two games played over six days, plenty of time for a team that may be run down after 5 games to recharge, and they have Datsyuk back.

If this is to do with the Wings being out of gas before the series started, then they simply were not destined to win that year and 1 or 2 more days off before would not have mattered. Any claims that the NHL should have delayed the start beyond a usual 3 to 4 days so the Wings could have recovered would be shouted down out as ridiculous, the same way that claims that NHL changed the schedule knowing the Wings injury situation. To the latter point, if this was the case then they would not have bothered releasing a tentative start to begin with.

 

[danincanada]

If this is only to do with the fact that Detroit has injuries then too bad, injuries happen, and the start date was hardly unusual compared to previous SCFs, although the back-to-back was. There is not a SCF start date in history that cannot be viewed as beneficial to one team over the other.

You continue to be dishonest about this and stretch out the truth all you can. Starting the finals with back to backs and 3 in 4 after only a 2 day break was completely unusual; the most rushed finals in modern history. For some reason you can't bring yourself to admit that fact.

Injuries happen, sure, but it's not every year that a team is missing players like Datsyuk and Lidstrom from their lineup before the finals, and with that many others playing that hurt, but then again Detroit was trying to repeat. You're trying to say it was fine for the NHL to change to this extreme schedule on the fly but everyone knew it benefited the Pens. After that, the series had ups and downs for both teams but that helping hand the Pens got from the league at the start always remained.

That's all I have to say because it's already been stated numerous times to seemingly deaf ears.

 

[daver]

You continue to be dishonest about this and stretch out the truth all you can. Starting the finals with back to backs and 3 in 4 after only a 2 day break was completely unusual; the most rushed finals in modern history. For some reason you can't bring yourself to admit that fact.

I can't tell if you are doing this on purpose or not. For the last time, the 2004 SCF started after 2 days off and the 2000 SCF started after 2 days off. I have clearly acknowledged that the back to back was unusual but 2 day break was not. The normal start time was after 3 days off.

As for the most rushed final, I think the 2000 Dallas Stars have a claim to that as they had a travel day too. Also on the topic of rushed final, can you say for certain that the total amount of days it took to play the series was the least amount in modern history? They had 2 two day breaks.

 

[daver]

If this is to do with the Wings being tired after a 3 games in four days start, how can you say this with such certainty? They looked evenly matched after Game 1, Game 2 looked much the same. It should have come to no surprise that the Pens won on home ice in two more tight games. Then we have Game 5, the most lopsided game of the series, and if anything, the Wings were the exact opposite of a team who is supposedly running on fumes at this point playing against the younger team who has the momentum. Then we have the last two games played over six days, plenty of time for a team that may be run down after 5 games to recharge, and they have Datsyuk back.

If this is to do with the Wings being out of gas before the series started, then they simply were not destined to win that year and 1 or 2 more days off before would not have mattered. Any claims that the NHL should have delayed the start beyond a usual 3 to 4 days so the Wings could have recovered would be shouted down out as ridiculous, the same way that claims that NHL changed the schedule knowing the Wings injury situation. To the latter point, if this was the case then they would not have bothered releasing a tentative start to begin with.

You continue to be dishonest about this and stretch out the truth all you can. Starting the finals with back to backs and 3 in 4 after only a 2 day break was completely unusual; the most rushed finals in modern history. For some reason you can't bring yourself to admit that fact.

You haven't answered any of the reasonable comments questioning why we should believe the Wings were unfairly affected by the scheduling. You just keep throwing the "NHL conspired to benefit the Pens" against the wall to see if it sticks.

 

[JackSlater]

That would be true... if the former hadn't lost a 7-game series to the latter.

Congratulations on proving that Pittsburgh won the series. I don't think that was in question. Which was the better team is something that a seven game series does not automatically decide.

Other than the Pens won the series, and the seemingly indisputable fact that the Wings were the better team based solely on the 2008 SCF, this seems like a claim with no evidence to back it up.

All this twisting and turning has nothing to do with the obvious fact that the healthier team, in this case Pittsburgh, benefited from the schedule being moved up. I don't know what fact you mean about the 2008 team.

If this is only to do with the fact that Detroit has injuries then too bad, injuries happen, and the start date was hardly unusual compared to previous SCFs, although the back-to-back was. There is not a SCF start date in history that cannot be viewed as beneficial to one team over the other.

As per usual, this has nothing to do with whether or not Pittsburgh benefited from the schedule change. Of course injuries happen, and injuries to one team are a benefit to the opposition. Whether or not this is good, bad or neutral has no bearing on the fact that relative health benefits one team or another. Your last statement is funny. You are right that every Stanley Cup schedule benefits one team. In this case the team that benefited was obviously Pittsburgh. Seems like you agree with the obvious.

If this is to do with the Wings being tired after a 3 games in four days start, how can you say this with such certainty? They looked evenly matched after Game 1, Game 2 looked much the same. It should have come to no surprise that the Pens won on home ice in two more tight games. Then we have Game 5, the most lopsided game of the series, and if anything, the Wings were the exact opposite of a team who is supposedly running on fumes at this point playing against the younger team who has the momentum. Then we have the last two games played over six days, plenty of time for a team that may be run down after 5 games to recharge, and they have Datsyuk back.

The closeness of the games does not indicate whether or not Pittsburgh had an advantage. As has been said numerous times, results of individual games do not indicate an advantage. That Detroit had to struggle to beat Pittsburgh in the first two games and then lost the subsequent two games to Pittsburgh only indicates that there is little advantage if someone assumes that the two teams were very close at their respective bests. I don't buy that for various reasons, but once again there is no need to even consider the results. An advantage exists regardless of the outcome of a game. Advantages are not waved away just because the result is close.

If this is to do with the Wings being out of gas before the series started, then they simply were not destined to win that year and 1 or 2 more days off before would not have mattered. Any claims that the NHL should have delayed the start beyond a usual 3 to 4 days so the Wings could have recovered would be shouted down out as ridiculous, the same way that claims that NHL changed the schedule knowing the Wings injury situation. To the latter point, if this was the case then they would not have bothered releasing a tentative start to begin with.

Whether the NHL should or should not have changed the schedule has nothing to do with the fact that Pittsburgh benefited from the schedule change. I won't even touch a topic as ridiculous as suggesting that "destiny" had some impact on the result. I don't see people saying that the NHL should have delayed the start of the series until it suited Detroit, in fact I only see people supporting Pittsburgh making that claim disingenuously, likely because to admit the obvious truth - Pittsburgh benefited form the schedule change - seems uncomfortable for them. Much easier to exaggerate what other people are saying I suppose.

 

[The Panther]

Congratulations on proving that Pittsburgh won the series. I don't think that was in question. Which was the better team is something that a seven game series does not automatically decide.

I think this pretty sums up your position -- in your mind, the team that won the best-of-seven series is NOT the better team.
[Mod]

 

[JackSlater]

I think this pretty sums up your position -- in your mind, the team that won the best-of-seven series is NOT the better team.
[Mod]

My position in this thread is that the healthier team, in this case Pittsburgh, benefits when the schedule for a series is moved up. Also that Pittsburgh obviously benefited from Malkin's suspension being rescinded, but that seems to be more palatable to some. That the best team doesn't always win a seven game series is so obvious that it shouldn't even need to be stated.

 

[daver]

Congratulations on proving that Pittsburgh won the series. I don't think that was in question. Which was the better team is something that a seven game series does not automatically decide.

All this twisting and turning has nothing to do with the obvious fact that the healthier team, in this case Pittsburgh, benefited from the schedule being moved up. I don't know what fact you mean about the 2008 team.

The actual question is how did Detroit lose after being up two games? That they were not the same team as the year before while the Pens were better is, IMO, the obvious answer. That injuries contributed to the Wings not being as good seems like a reasonable thing to wonder about.

That the NHL set a preliminary schedule, which not unreasonably was changed once both CFs were finished, that saw, not an unusual start date but a back to back, that was not unsual for the playoffs but was for the SCF, is not a valid reason as to why the Wings blew a 2-0 lead.

 

[daver]

As per usual, this has nothing to do with whether or not Pittsburgh benefited from the schedule change. Of course injuries happen, and injuries to one team are a benefit to the opposition. Whether or not this is good, bad or neutral has no bearing on the fact that relative health benefits one team or another. Your last statement is funny. You are right that every Stanley Cup schedule benefits one team. In this case the team that benefited was obviously Pittsburgh. Seems like you agree with the obvious.

If you agree that every single playoff series has a team that is healthier and benefits from a series starting at a reasonable start date and given this, agree that it is nothing but poor sportsmanship to say "well the Wings win if not for injuries" then I agree that the Pens were healthier.

 

[daver]

My position in this thread is that the healthier team, in this case Pittsburgh, benefits when the schedule for a series is moved up.

So if a preliminary schedule is never set, rather the schedule is set after Game 5 of the Wings/Hawks series are you still making this claim?

I am trying to determine whether you think there was something unfair about the schedule or if you are just talking about injuries.

 

[JackSlater]

The actual question is how did Detroit lose after being up two games? That they were not the same team as the year before while the Pens were better is, IMO, the obvious answer. That injuries contributed to the Wings not being as good seems like a reasonable thing to wonder about.

That the NHL set a preliminary schedule, which not unreasonably was changed once both CFs were finished, that saw, not an unusual start date but a back to back, that was not unsual for the playoffs but was for the SCF, is not a valid reason as to why the Wings blew a 2-0 lead.

I don't really think that Pittsburgh was better in 2009 than in 2008. Probably similar. I think that Detroit was a little bit worse, but not significantly so. Especially after Osgood turned in a much stronger playoffs than he did a regular season. As for why Detroit blew that lead, there are plenty of reasons I can imagine. I am not saying that Detroit was so impossibly better than Pittsburgh that it is unimaginable for Pittsburgh to win in any way other than cheating or something. I am saying that Pittsburgh benefited from two decisions that the NHL made, which was a factor in how the series unfolded. Whether it is the deciding factor I don't know.

If you agree that every single playoff series has a team that is healthier and benefits from a series starting at a reasonable start date and given this, agree that it is nothing but poor sportsmanship to say "well the Wings win if not for injuries" then I agree that the Pens were healthier.

That Pittsburgh was healthier isn't a debatable point. Every series obviously does have teams at different health levels to varying degrees, and that is normal. I don't really care if anyone thinks that Detroit would have won given both teams on equal footing or that Pittsburgh would have won in that situation. My only issue is the consistent denial that Pittsburgh benefited from the NHL's decisions, primarily with regard to the schedule and Malkin. I do think that Detroit wins if both teams were in a similar situation, but what did happen (Pittsburgh won) is far more significant than what might have happened otherwise (Detroit wins).

So if a preliminary schedule is never set, rather the schedule is set after Game 5 of the Wings/Hawks series are you still making this claim?

It would still be an advantage for Pittsburgh, but the optics would be far better. Advantage isn't inherently unfair either. Having better players or having home ice advantage are advantages, for instance.

I am trying to determine whether you think there was something unfair about the schedule or if you are just talking about injuries.

I believe that I already answered this question directly, and you even quoted my post.

"In any event, I certainly wouldn't agree with anyone who says that it isn't fair that Pittsburgh won just because Detroit had such significant injury issues. Even the strange schedule/Malkin decision don't strike me as inherently unfair, just decisions that did benefit Pittsburgh. Many people simply say that Pittsburgh won largely because Detroit was injured, which I agree with, but that is very different from saying that Pittsburgh wasn't a legitimate winner or even a deserving winner. Pittsburgh won the games that were played, and that's what decides who wins the Stanley Cup."

 

[daver]

I don't really think that Pittsburgh was better in 2009 than in 2008. Probably similar. I think that Detroit was a little bit worse, but not significantly so. Especially after Osgood turned in a much stronger playoffs than he did a regular season. As for why Detroit blew that lead, there are plenty of reasons I can imagine. I am not saying that Detroit was so impossibly better than Pittsburgh that it is unimaginable for Pittsburgh to win in any way other than cheating or something. I am saying that Pittsburgh benefited from two decisions that the NHL made, which was a factor in how the series unfolded. Whether it is the deciding factor I don't know.

I am saying that using the change in schedule as some sort of game changer is ridiculous. The Wings, as they were as of June 30, 2009, had nothing in their way to keep them from winning. If June 5 was kept as the start date, would you say that the Wings benefitted from the NHL decision as they would have time to get healthier?

And it is really hard to take your views seriously when you express an opinion on the 2009 Pens vs. the 2008 Pens. Frankly, it seems you have an obvious agenda to justify the Wings losing in 2009.

 

[daver]

It would still be an advantage for Pittsburgh, but the optics would be far better. Advantage isn't inherently unfair either. Having better players or having home ice advantage are advantages, for instance.

What optics? That the league changed to benefit the Pens? I guess if you see what you want to see then I guess the optics would be better.

I think it's obvious that an 8 day layoff made no sense, and a 2 day break was nothing unusual. The back to back was unusual but both teams had to deal with it. There were two 2 day breaks later in the series; both teams had to deal with it. I am sure the Pens would have preferred only one day breaks so the Wings couldn't get healthier.

 

[JackSlater]

I am saying that using the change in schedule as some sort of game changer is ridiculous. The Wings, as they were as of June 30, 2009, had nothing in their way to keep them from winning. If June 5 was kept as the start date, would you say that the Wings benefitted from the NHL decision as they would have time to get healthier?

As far as I know, no one has said that there was something that was going to "keep them (Detroit) from winning", which implies that the NHL did something that made winning impossible for Detroit. Exaggerating what others are saying doesn't strengthen your position. It's fairly obvious that it would be to Detroit's relative benefit to play the series at the time it was originally scheduled. Had the NHL decided to extend the gap between series, that obviously would be to the advantage of the less healthy team. That is so obvious that I don't know why you asked about it.

And it is really hard to take your views seriously when you express an opinion on the 2009 Pens vs. the 2008 Pens. Frankly, it seems you have an obvious agenda to justify the Wings losing in 2009.

I have no idea what you mean with regard to 2008 Pittsburgh and 2009 Pittsburgh. My agenda is annoyance that the obvious, that a healthier team benefits when a series is moved up, is being denied because, and I'm guessing here, some don't want to consider the reality that their team was fortunate to play a particularly banged up team in the finals with a schedule moved up six days. I really don't see why people even care. Winning is the goal, not beating the other team under exactly equal circumstances. As far as I can see, no one is saying that Pittsburgh did not actually win the Stanley Cup in 2009 and that Detroit did.

What optics? That the league changed to benefit the Pens? I guess if you see what you want to see then I guess the optics would be better.

I think it's obvious that an 8 day layoff made no sense, and a 2 day break was nothing unusual. The back to back was unusual but both teams had to deal with it. There were two 2 day breaks later in the series; both teams had to deal with it. I am sure the Pens would have preferred only one day breaks so the Wings couldn't get healthier.

The optics were that moving the series up clearly benefited the healthier team, which in this case was a team that the NHL had been long rumoured to favour. The optics aren't significant to me, and honestly I doubt that the NHL had the goal of favouring Pittsburgh. I accept that the NHL was seeking better ratings, as to me it seems like a more reasonable explanation for the change than just that the NHL set out to rig a series for one of its franchises over another. It just happens that in that instance the two biggest decisions with regard to the series did favour Pittsburgh.

That Pittsburgh would favour a condensed schedule is obvious. Had the NHL done that, the decision would have favoured Pittsburgh in addition to the decisions already made. Thankfully it didn't happen that way.

The "both teams had to deal with it" excuse to wave away Pittsburgh's advantage is also pretty weak. One team had more significant health issues and was affected much more by the decision, hence there was an advantage for one team. Whether or not that advantage matters or was fair is debatable, as oppose to simply whether the advantage existed or not. If the NHL decided to ban players from Atlantic Canada for that series, for instance, sure both Pittsburgh and Detroit would have to deal with it... but Pittsburgh would clearly be at a relative disadvantage.

 

[daver]

Whether or not that advantage matters or was fair is debatable, as oppose to simply whether the advantage existed or not. If the NHL decided to ban players from Atlantic Canada for that series, for instance, sure both Pittsburgh and Detroit would have to deal with it... but Pittsburgh would clearly be at a relative disadvantage.

How can it be an advantage, or worthy of being mentioned at all as a viable answer to the OP, when at the end of the day, the series started after not an unusual amount of time, and was played over a not unusual amount of days even with the back-to-back?

I agree, the Pens were healthier. Would you agree that this was not an unusual way to run a final given that both teams had to deal with the schedule, or if it was unusual, it was not unfair to one team over the other.

 

[JackSlater]

How can it be an advantage, or worthy of being mentioned at all as a viable answer to the OP, when at the end of the day, the series started after not an unusual amount of time, and was played over a not unusual amount of days even with the back-to-back?

The answer to the topic of the thread, as far as I see it, is that Detroit was quite injured. I am confident that a healthy Detroit team beats Pittsburgh, or that Detroit as they were beats Pittsburgh if both teams had similar health situations. It's speculation of course. As for how it is an advantage, I really don't see why going back in circles is necessary. Moving the series up is an advantage to the healthier team. "The series was moved up" is not an answer to the question of this thread. "Detroit was particularly injured and the series was moved up" is a viable answer. It may not even be the correct answer, but it is reasonable answer.

I agree, the Pens were healthier. Would you agree that this was not an unusual way to run a final given that both teams had to deal with the schedule, or if it was unusual, it was not unfair to one team over the other.

I have already answered regarding whether I think it was fair or not. It as certainly advantageous to Pittsburgh, but probably still fair. I do think that moving the series up six days and making the first two games back to back was unusual, but I haven't discussed at any point whether or not it was a usual move. I don't think that it really matters if it was usual or not.

 

[danincanada]

No, they changed it after the series was done with the Hawks. Who was injured and what not is not something the league would have even thought about. You can't control injuries. Pittsburgh almost lost to the Rangers in 1992. Should the league have waited until Mario's wrist healed? Because when he was lifting the Cup a month later he still had a tensor bandage on it which is very visible. You can't do anything about injuries.

Using the Lemieux injury in '92 is an awful analogy. You seriously don't see the difference between the two situations? In '92 the schedule was already set and being played. In '09 the NHL changed the schedule on the fly right before the finals, breaking some of the agreements they already had in place as already documented, and going from a long delay to the quickest turnaround to the first 3 games ever.

Why even mention that they didn't change it to wait for Mario to heal and imply anyone even asked that they wait until Detroit healed? It's all nonsense.

I can't tell if you are doing this on purpose or not. For the last time, the 2004 SCF started after 2 days off and the 2000 SCF started after 2 days off. I have clearly acknowledged that the back to back was unusual but 2 day break was not. The normal start time was after 3 days off.

As for the most rushed final, I think the 2000 Dallas Stars have a claim to that as they had a travel day too. Also on the topic of rushed final, can you say for certain that the total amount of days it took to play the series was the least amount in modern history? They had 2 two day breaks.

In 2004 they only had 2 days off but then the first 3 games of the finals were played every other day. That's quick but not '09 quick and the Conference finals went to 6 and 7 games, not 4 and 5 like '09. See the difference?

In '00 it was similar with 2 days off and then games every other day. Both Conference Finals went to 7 so they probably already had that schedule set and stuck with it. No monkeying around with it to rush it even though both CF's ended quickly. See the difference?

The real question is were you doing this on purpose or not? The first 3 games in '09 were the quickest In recent memory, despite the CF's ending quickly, and with the NHL breaking an agreement with the 30 GMs to do it. Everyone knew Datsyuk and a Lidstrom were out so, right or wrong, that just added to the growing sentiment that the NHL favoured the Pens and Crosby.

Whether the NHL should or should not have changed the schedule has nothing to do with the fact that Pittsburgh benefited from the schedule change. I won't even touch a topic as ridiculous as suggesting that "destiny" had some impact on the result. I don't see people saying that the NHL should have delayed the start of the series until it suited Detroit, in fact I only see people supporting Pittsburgh making that claim disingenuously, likely because to admit the obvious truth - Pittsburgh benefited form the schedule change - seems uncomfortable for them. Much easier to exaggerate what other people are saying I suppose.

Well said. When some posters can't deal with an idea and they turn to exaggerating the opposing arguments, stretching the truth to the limits, and bringing forth incomparable analogies that's enough for me. It also gets too repetitious when some pretend to not understand a concept, or in this case, facts over and over again.

 

[daver]

The answer to the topic of the thread, as far as I see it, is that Detroit was quite injured. I am confident that a healthy Detroit team beats Pittsburgh, or that Detroit as they were beats Pittsburgh if both teams had similar health situations. It's speculation of course. As for how it is an advantage, I really don't see why going back in circles is necessary. Moving the series up is an advantage to the healthier team. "The series was moved up" is not an answer to the question of this thread. "Detroit was particularly injured and the series was moved up" is a viable answer. It may not even be the correct answer, but it is reasonable answer.

I have already answered regarding whether I think it was fair or not. It as certainly advantageous to Pittsburgh, but probably still fair. I do think that moving the series up six days and making the first two games back to back was unusual, but I haven't discussed at any point whether or not it was a usual move. I don't think that it really matters if it was usual or not.

Of course it matters, it then makes "and the series was moved up" an unviable answer. As unviable as "well the Wings had to play hockey and win four games before the other team won four games".