How did the Red Wings lose in 2009?

[daver]

That has nothing to do with what I said. Once again, there is no need to exaggerate or directly lie about what was said because it is easier for you to deal with. The schedule undoubtedly influenced the series, as changing it obviously benefited Pittsburgh. If you believe that the influence was not enough to affect the result then that is fine. I can't guarantee that the result would change given the original schedule, and I've never stated that at any point.

I believe the start date is irrelevant to the outcome of the series. Throwing out hypothetical scenarios is not what the OP is asking for. It should be focused on what could the Wings have done differently to change the outcome. For example, they seemed to believe their depth could win if they were able to contain Crosby with their best defensive unit. Was that the right strategy?

 

[daver]

This is similar to asking the following 100 meter race analogy:

Sprinter A is given a 20 meter head start and beats Sprinter B by 1 second.

The Panther questions - "Why wouldn't Sprinter A win by 2 seconds if they both started off at same starting line, requiring both to run the full 100M in the second race?"

If nothing else changed and Sprinter A's advantage was taken away then why on earth would anyone think Sprinter A wins by even more? Total logic failure.

The logic failure here is that if the league did not announce any preliminary start date, you do not have anything to complain about.

 

[danincanada]

The logic failure here is that if the league did not announce any preliminary start date, you do not have anything to complain about.

I still would because it was the most rushed first 3 games of the finals in modern history. That wasn't necessary because there was a sweep and a 5 game series preceding it. The schedule was a farce either way but we do know the NHL broke it's own agreement with the 30 GMs and we do know they changed the schedule on the fly to go from one extreme to another. I know you'd like to pretend these two points don't exist but they do. You're having a hard time dealing with it.

 

[JackSlater]

I believe the start date is irrelevant to the outcome of the series. Throwing out hypothetical scenarios is not what the OP is asking for. It should be focused on what could the Wings have done differently to change the outcome. For example, they seemed to believe their depth could win if they were able to contain Crosby with their best defensive unit. Was that the right strategy?

You can believe that all you want. It may have been completely irrelevant to the outcome of the series. I have no doubt that it benefited Pittsburgh, but I am not certain that the overall result would change if that change, or even the rescinding of Malkin's suspension, never happened. I am not throwing out a hypothetical scenario though. It is not a hypothesis that Detroit would have gone into the series in better health if the series had started later, it is an obvious fact. Whether that better health would have resulted in a different outcome for the series I don't know, despite that conclusion being what others are attempting to attribute to me. I see the main reason that Detroit lost being Detroit's health relative to Pittsburgh's, and the schedule change is a factor that exacerbated that issue. Doesn't mean it is the only issue. I agree that the decision to focus on Crosby could be questioned, though I certainly agreed with it at the time.

 

[daver]

You can believe that all you want. It may have been completely irrelevant to the outcome of the series. I have no doubt that it benefited Pittsburgh, but I am not certain that the overall result would change if that change, or even the rescinding of Malkin's suspension, never happened. I am not throwing out a hypothetical scenario though. It is not a hypothesis that Detroit would have gone into the series in better health if the series had started later, it is an obvious fact. Whether that better health would have resulted in a different outcome for the series I don't know, despite that conclusion being what others are attempting to attribute to me. I see the main reason that Detroit lost being Detroit's health relative to Pittsburgh's, and the schedule change is a factor that exacerbated that issue. Doesn't mean it is the only issue. I agree that the decision to focus on Crosby could be questioned, though I certainly agreed with it at the time.

You misunderstood. The start date of any playoff series, not just the Pens/Wings, is irrelevant unless it is inherently unfair which I believe you do not think is the case.

 

[JackSlater]

You misunderstood. The start date of any playoff series, not just the Pens/Wings, is irrelevant unless it is inherently unfair which I believe you do not think is the case.

This may be becoming an issue of semantics. I do not think that it was inherently unfair. I do think that it impacted the series. There are of course a great number of things that impact a series.

 

[Big Phil]

This has nothing to do with what I said. I did not claim that it was unprecedented, and as I have said three, maybe four times in the thread I don't even consider it inherently unfair. I am saying that Pittsburgh benefited from the change, both in the first two games and the games beyond. Whether the NHL made a similar or even the exact same schedule before has nothing to do with whether or not Pittsburgh benefited from the schedule change. The results of the first two, first three or first seven games have nothing to do with whether or not Pittsburgh benefited from the change. Moving the schedule up obviously benefits the healthier team. There is no need to dance around that obvious fact and try to disprove claims that weren't made by me.

That's sports for you though. The healthier team is going to benefit. That is just how the cookie crumbles.

I have stated numerous times that what made the schedule unprecedented was not the minimum 2 days off before the finals started but that, along with the back to back games and 3 in 4. If you're starting with back to backs, and 3 in 4, then shouldn't there be more days off beforehand than the minimum? That would only make sense, right? In fact, you posted it yourself that back to backs hadn't been done since way back in 1940 so that was rather unprecedented on its own but leading into it with only 2 days off simply makes it the most rushed finals in modern history because the first 3 games happened so quickly.

In 1964 only playing two rounds instead of four is huge. Even with that, both semi's went to 7 games that year, not a sweep and a 5 game series leading to only 2 days off. That's unheard of for the finals cause there's no need to rush in that situation. But after game 1 of the finals they had 2 days off in '64.

http://dropyourgloves.com/Games/Schedule.aspx?League=1&Season=1964&Competition=1&Scores=Yes

I already touched on 2014 earlier. Two days off before the finals but, again, the semi's went 6 and 7 games with, once again, two days off after game 1 of the finals. That's a far cry from back to backs and 3 in 4. See the difference here between the '09 schedule and both '14 and '64??

Stephen Lebrun is a respected national hockey writer and, as any good reporter would do, he went to someone in the league when he heard the Red Wings were upset with the schedule. Everyone knew of their injuries but there was obviously more to it.

1940 like 2009 was an unusual circumstance. The circus was in town in 1940 and I have no idea why whoever was planning things at MSG didn't think the Rangers could make the final but for whatever reason this is what happened. The Rangers played a rushed back to back games in MSG and then the next 4 in Toronto. The Rangers still won, but can you imagine the backlash if they didn't? The Red Wings in 2009 played all of their home games fair and square. It isn't as if the next slew of games were in Pittsburgh and they never went back to Detroit. 1950 was the same way too. 7 game series but again I think the schedule had something to do with the circus (what is it about MSG in those days?). They played Game 1 in Detroit, Game 2 and 3 in New York and then Game 4-7 in Detroit. This time the Rangers lost.

See, to me, that's unfair. Or at least that's how I would deem it. Detroit and Pittsburgh had a rush at the beginning based on circumstances with NBC and the Tonight Show that the NHL wanted to accommodate towards, or bow to if you prefer.

However, at the end of the day the 2009 Cup final is hardly any different from an average standpoint. There were 7 games played over 14 days in 2009. Here is a comparison to the other 7 game Cup finals:

2011 - 15 days
2006 - 15 days
2004 - 14 days
2003 - 14 days
2001 - 15 days
1994 - 15 days
1987 - 15 days
1971 - 15 days

Okay so there we have it. All of the Cup finals that went 7 games in the last half century have all been over 14 or 15 days. 2009 is not alone in this. So basically we have seen that there is plenty of precedence starting the Cup final three days later. Then we've seen there is plenty of precedence playing all of the games within 14 days. The only thing that is different - and I mean the ONLY thing - is the unusual back to back games to start the series. That's it. In other words, we are talking here about a single day being the reason why Detroit lost apparently. So basically if Game 2 was on a Monday and every other day was bumped up one that would be spread out over 15 days, not 14. I mean...............how is this not grasping at straws here?

Game 5 they win 5-0 and don't play for three more days, and then do the same after Game 6. The Wings had plenty of time to rest and win two close games after Game 5 but they didn't. I don't know how else to slice it, these are the best athletes in the world and you think a single day is what stopped the Wings from winning?

 

[danincanada]

1940 like 2009 was an unusual circumstance. The circus was in town in 1940 and I have no idea why whoever was planning things at MSG didn't think the Rangers could make the final but for whatever reason this is what happened. The Rangers played a rushed back to back games in MSG and then the next 4 in Toronto. The Rangers still won, but can you imagine the backlash if they didn't? The Red Wings in 2009 played all of their home games fair and square. It isn't as if the next slew of games were in Pittsburgh and they never went back to Detroit. 1950 was the same way too. 7 game series but again I think the schedule had something to do with the circus (what is it about MSG in those days?). They played Game 1 in Detroit, Game 2 and 3 in New York and then Game 4-7 in Detroit. This time the Rangers lost.

See, to me, that's unfair. Or at least that's how I would deem it. Detroit and Pittsburgh had a rush at the beginning based on circumstances with NBC and the Tonight Show that the NHL wanted to accommodate towards, or bow to if you prefer.

So now you're too the point of saying 1940 was more unfair and therefore the 2009 schedule was okay. The reasons for the two situations are far from being similar. MSG actually being booked is a lot more understandable than not wanting to interfere with Conan on one Monday night. The excuses the NHL made, which you follow, fall apart so easily because they were not bound to start with back to backs and they had lots of options to get around that one Monday night.

What Bettman did was break some of the guidelines the GMs agreed on to rush the series first 3 games more than any other modern day finals - after the CFs both finished quickly and there was already a schedule in place for the very circumstances that happened. No one should buy what you or the NHL are selling because it was clearly a farce.

However, at the end of the day the 2009 Cup final is hardly any different from an average standpoint. There were 7 games played over 14 days in 2009. Here is a comparison to the other 7 game Cup finals:

2011 - 15 days
2006 - 15 days
2004 - 14 days
2003 - 14 days
2001 - 15 days
1994 - 15 days
1987 - 15 days
1971 - 15 days

Okay so there we have it. All of the Cup finals that went 7 games in the last half century have all been over 14 or 15 days. 2009 is not alone in this. So basically we have seen that there is plenty of precedence starting the Cup final three days later. Then we've seen there is plenty of precedence playing all of the games within 14 days. The only thing that is different - and I mean the ONLY thing - is the unusual back to back games to start the series. That's it. In other words, we are talking here about a single day being the reason why Detroit lost apparently. So basically if Game 2 was on a Monday and every other day was bumped up one that would be spread out over 15 days, not 14. I mean...............how is this not grasping at straws here?

Game 5 they win 5-0 and don't play for three more days, and then do the same after Game 6. The Wings had plenty of time to rest and win two close games after Game 5 but they didn't. I don't know how else to slice it, these are the best athletes in the world and you think a single day is what stopped the Wings from winning?

Playing the first 3 games of the finals that quickly was way out of the ordinary so just accept that fact. It was only going to benefit the Pens to start the series like that because two Red Wings were trying to recover from surgery, Datsyuk was on the shelf, and they had Hossa, Rafalski, and Cleary all limping into the finals. If the Pens were allowed to make the early schedule they'd probably choose what the NHL went with. If the Wings got to choose they'd probably go with the June 5th start. What I've always said is the NHL should have went with something in the middle and drop the back to back idea because that would have been the right thing to do.

That's the thing, it gave the Pens an edge at the start of the series. After that the two teams were on equal footing but only going forward as they had to deal with the same schedule and travel. The edge the Pens began with though never went away. It's like running a marathon - if someone gets a 100M head start then no matter what happens after that head start always existed. With a series that ended up that close it shouldn't be difficult to see that a couple extra days off would have really helped Detroit in the long run no matter how many days the whole series took.

 

[K Fleur]

So now you're too the point of saying 1940 was more unfair and therefore the 2009 schedule was okay. The reasons for the two situations are far from being similar. MSG actually being booked is a lot more understandable than not wanting to interfere with Conan on one Monday night. The excuses the NHL made, which you follow, fall apart so easily because they were not bound to start with back to backs and they had lots of options to get around that one Monday night.

What Bettman did was break some of the guidelines the GMs agreed on to rush the series first 3 games more than any other modern day finals - after the CFs both finished quickly and there was already a schedule in place for the very circumstances that happened. No one should buy what you or the NHL are selling because it was clearly a farce.



Playing the first 3 games of the finals that quickly was way out of the ordinary so just accept that fact. It was only going to benefit the Pens to start the series like that because two Red Wings were trying to recover from surgery, Datsyuk was on the shelf, and they had Hossa, Rafalski, and Cleary all limping into the finals. If the Pens were allowed to make the early schedule they'd probably choose what the NHL went with. If the Wings got to choose they'd probably go with the June 5th start. What I've always said is the NHL should have went with something in the middle and drop the back to back idea because that would have been the right thing to do.

That's the thing, it gave the Pens an edge at the start of the series. After that the two teams were on equal footing but only going forward as they had to deal with the same schedule and travel. The edge the Pens began with though never went away. It's like running a marathon - if someone gets a 100M head start then no matter what happens after that head start always existed. With a series that ended up that close it shouldn't be difficult to see that a couple extra days off would have really helped Detroit in the long run no matter how many days the whole series took.

No, it's not like that at all.

A schedule change that affected both teams is not equivalent to giving somebody a head start. One of the worst attempts at an analogy that I've ever read. A real symbol of this thread.

From "Long lost uncles" to "100m head starts" does it ever end? Don't worry, I know the answer is no...

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

with all the success the wings have had, it's amazing to see how bitter their fans are

your team lost because they didn't win 4 out of 7 games

the league did not try to hurt one of their original 6 teams, especially one that is probably the yankees or lakers or cowboys marquee franchise of the league

stop making excuses

 

[danincanada]

No, it's not like that at all.

A schedule change that affected both teams is not equivalent to giving somebody a head start. One of the worst attempts at an analogy that I've ever read. A real symbol of this thread.

From "Long lost uncles" to "100m head starts" does it ever end? Don't worry, I know the answer is no...

Yeah it was a bad analogy. I should have said one of the runners was getting released from the hospital from surgery when he was told he actually didn't have a week to prepare for the race as was originally scheduled, he only had a couple days. Better?

 

[JackSlater]

That's sports for you though. The healthier team is going to benefit. That is just how the cookie crumbles.

I agree. That is what I said all along. My issue was the denial in this thread that the obvious - the healthier team benefited - happened.

 

[K Fleur]

Yeah it was a bad analogy. I should have said one of the runners was getting released from the hospital from surgery when he was told he actually didn't have a week to prepare for the race as was originally scheduled, he only had a couple days. Better?

Nope.

Still just par for the course.

 

[daver]

I agree. That is what I said all along. My issue was the denial in this thread that the obvious - the healthier team benefited - happened.

Just like the Wings were healthier in 2008.

 

[daver]

Playing the first 3 games of the finals that quickly was way out of the ordinary so just accept that fact. It was only going to benefit the Pens to start the series like that because two Red Wings were trying to recover from surgery, Datsyuk was on the shelf, and they had Hossa, Rafalski, and Cleary all limping into the finals. If the Pens were allowed to make the early schedule they'd probably choose what the NHL went with. If the Wings got to choose they'd probably go with the June 5th start. What I've always said is the NHL should have went with something in the middle and drop the back to back idea because that would have been the right thing to do.

You seem to be under the impression that the league should have taken injury situations into consideration. That would be inherently unfair. Your whole complaint is based on one day, that to remind you for the 100th time, both teams had to deal with. That the Wings were in less better shape than the Pens to deal with that is nobody's problem but their own.

 

[danincanada]

Just like the Wings were healthier in 2008.

Just stop, it's not even comparable. Malkin having a bad shoulder and Crosby "maybe" still being bothered from a bad ankle? You're trying too hard.

 

[Epsilon]

with all the success the wings have had, it's amazing to see how bitter their fans are

your team lost because they didn't win 4 out of 7 games

the league did not try to hurt one of their original 6 teams, especially one that is probably the yankees or lakers or cowboys marquee franchise of the league

stop making excuses

Serious question: has Pittsburgh ever lost a series in which you believe(d) they were the better team, or is every series loss ipso facto proof of who the "better team" was?

 

[danincanada]

You seem to be under the impression that the league should have taken injury situations into consideration. That would be inherently unfair. Your whole complaint is based on one day, that to remind you for the 100th time, both teams had to deal with. That the Wings were in less better shape than the Pens to deal with that is nobody's problem but their own.

Nope, not what I'm saying. I've just asked for a reasonable schedule all along. I have a sneaking suspicion the NHL actually rushed it while taking the injury situations into consideration though.

I've gone through it a million times now. Just keep avoiding the agreements the NHL broke and the unprecedented schedule the NHL came up with after both Conference Finals were won quickly. Something stunk about the whole thing, almost as if the NHL was trying to help the Pens out.

 

[JackSlater]

Just like the Wings were healthier in 2008.

I did get a laugh at this feeble attempt. Detroit may well have been the healthier team in 2008. I don't really recall. If that is indeed the case, moving the schedule up would have obviously been an advantage for Detroit. The bigger the disparity in the teams' health, the bigger Detroit's advantage would have been.

 

[daver]

I did get a laugh at this feeble attempt. Detroit may well have been the healthier team in 2008. I don't really recall. If that is indeed the case, moving the schedule up would have obviously been an advantage for Detroit. The bigger the disparity in the teams' health, the bigger Detroit's advantage would have been.

I thought alternative start dates opens up a whole world of hypothetical scenarios where it's anybody's guess as to what would happen? Seems to be the mindset about 2009.

 

[K Fleur]

I thought alternative start dates opens up a whole world of hypothetical scenarios where it's anybody's guess as to what would happen? Seems to be the mindset about 2009.

JackSlater has already made it clear that the only hypothetical they are interested in is the one that helps excuse Detroit's failure to win the 2009 Stanley Cup.

They have gone as far as telling other posters "If you are expecting me to prove a hypothetical then I am afraid that you are going to be disappointed". All while spending this entire thread attempting to give credence to a hypothetical.


http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=130598155&postcount=292

The world of hypotheticals regarding the Red Wings is a world for the Red Wings, and nothing else.

 

[JackSlater]

I thought alternative start dates opens up a whole world of hypothetical scenarios where it's anybody's guess as to what would happen? Seems to be the mindset about 2009.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. You seem to be under the erroneous assumption that my point - the obvious fact that moving the start date of a series up is beneficial to the healthier team - is influenced by the teams in question being Detroit and Pittsburgh. If Detroit was healthier in 2008, then it is obvious that moving the start date closer would be beneficial to Detroit. Your assumption is wrong, which is why I laughed at your irrelevant statement regarding Detroit's health in 2008.

JackSlater has already made it clear that the only hypothetical they are interested in is the one that helps excuse Detroit's failure to win the 2009 Stanley Cup.

They have gone as far as telling other posters "If you are expecting me to prove a hypothetical then I am afraid that you are going to be disappointed". All while spending this entire thread attempting to give credence to a hypothetical.

The world of hypotheticals regarding the Red Wings clearly only exists to it's benefit.

What hypothetical? The obvious reality that moving the start date of the series up was beneficial to the healthier team, Pittsburgh? Just like doing the same thing would be beneficial to the healthier team every single year, regardless of which teams are in question?

I am once again baffled by why Pittsburgh fans are so resistant to the obvious. The healthier team benefits the less rest there is. Might as well deny that the NHL rescinding Malkin's suspension was beneficial to Pittsburgh as well. There is no need to be so insecure about 2009 Pittsburgh. They won. Them being the healthier team and obviously benefiting from the decision to move up the schedule doesn't change that. No need to invent positions to ascribe to others.

 

[Epsilon]

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

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

Were the 1985-86 Flames a better team than the 1985-86 Oilers?

 

[K Fleur]

I

What hypothetical? The obvious reality that moving the start date of the series up was beneficial to the healthier team, Pittsburgh? Just like doing the same thing would be beneficial to the healthier team every single year, regardless of which teams are in question?

The hypothetical advantage that in reality proved to not be beneficial.

The hypothetical advantage that suddenly wasn't spoken/mentioned of after game 5(when some Detroit fans were already planning the parade) only to magically reappear after game 7.

It's honestly amazing the professional athletes on the Detroit Red Wings where able to even lace their skates while dealing with such tremendous exhaustion.

I am once again baffled by why Pittsburgh fans are so resistant to the obvious. The healthier team benefits the less rest there is. Might as well deny that the NHL rescinding Malkin's suspension was beneficial to Pittsburgh as well. There is no need to be so insecure about 2009 Pittsburgh. They won. Them being the healthier team and obviously benefiting from the decision to move up the schedule doesn't change that. No need to invent positions to ascribe to others.

So the fans who are "insecure about 2009" are not the fans alluding to an NHL conspiracy theory? They are not the fans doling out excuses ranging from NHL commissioners being "long lost uncles" all the way to "100M head starts"?

Give me a break dude.

 

[Big Phil]

Were the 1985-86 Flames a better team than the 1985-86 Oilers?

In that series? Yes. Slightly. But the Oilers shot themselves in the foot that series long before the Smith gaffe. They put themselves in the wrong position. Now, should the Oilers have won? Yes, they definitely fall into the category where it was a big upset. But they were playing "country club" hockey in my mind. They got too comfortable. These teams were 30 points apart though, I don't see the comparison between them and the 2009 Pens and Wings. On paper these two teams were very much equal. It should have surprised no one that the younger Pens won. Over the stretch of two years in the 2008 and 2009 seasons - regular season included - there was an 8-7 advantage by the Wings. These teams were close.

I agree. That is what I said all along. My issue was the denial in this thread that the obvious - the healthier team benefited - happened.

I'm not sure if it is denial more than the fact that there is this underlining guarantee that Detroit wins if they are healthy. There are times I wonder if the Wings actually DID win the 2009 Cup the way things are talked about.

So now you're too the point of saying 1940 was more unfair and therefore the 2009 schedule was okay. The reasons for the two situations are far from being similar. MSG actually being booked is a lot more understandable than not wanting to interfere with Conan on one Monday night. The excuses the NHL made, which you follow, fall apart so easily because they were not bound to start with back to backs and they had lots of options to get around that one Monday night.

I am saying what separated the 2009 schedule from some - just some as others are on par with 2009 - is one day. One. There was an unusual start to it but also an unusual finish, remember? Game 5-7 were three days apart each. That's not normal, look it up. They made up for it at the end. I don't see the big deal.

What Bettman did was break some of the guidelines the GMs agreed on to rush the series first 3 games more than any other modern day finals - after the CFs both finished quickly and there was already a schedule in place for the very circumstances that happened. No one should buy what you or the NHL are selling because it was clearly a farce.

You need to stop thinking that the NHL would have waited 9 days to start the final. This is not the Super Bowl or the NFL. Hockey is played every other day, not once a week. They aren't going to break this long for the final, it has NEVER happened like that before.

Playing the first 3 games of the finals that quickly was way out of the ordinary so just accept that fact. It was only going to benefit the Pens to start the series like that because two Red Wings were trying to recover from surgery, Datsyuk was on the shelf, and they had Hossa, Rafalski, and Cleary all limping into the finals. If the Pens were allowed to make the early schedule they'd probably choose what the NHL went with. If the Wings got to choose they'd probably go with the June 5th start. What I've always said is the NHL should have went with something in the middle and drop the back to back idea because that would have been the right thing to do.

That's the thing, it gave the Pens an edge at the start of the series. After that the two teams were on equal footing but only going forward as they had to deal with the same schedule and travel. The edge the Pens began with though never went away. It's like running a marathon - if someone gets a 100M head start then no matter what happens after that head start always existed. With a series that ended up that close it shouldn't be difficult to see that a couple extra days off would have really helped Detroit in the long run no matter how many days the whole series took.

As I said, they made it up at the end of the series with some unusual breaks in between the later games. I think you are grasping at straws here.