How did the Red Wings lose in 2009?

[Big Phil]

Now that's just looney. 08 and 09 Crosby, Malkin, and Letang are far better than the 16 versions. Fleury >> Murray. Sure, they had Kessel and Bonino, but that doesn't make up for the other deficiencies.

I think they are really close to be honest. Those 2008 and 2009 teams were a little younger and fresher and had more energy I think. Fleury hadn't quite learned the art of feast or famine types of games in the playoffs. By the way, Letang was in his 2nd season in 2009 and while I was impressed with him and maintain he is routinely among the most underrated players in the NHL (never mind Subban, how did Letang get left off the 2014 and 2016 Canada teams?) the truth is he is right in his prime as we speak and was spectacular in the 2016 playoffs last year. His name being flirted as a Conn Smythe candidate was justified.

I think it depends on what sort of game I wanted to play in order for me to pick one team or another. I think you have a case for both sides. Not one is a clear cut advantage over the other.

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

Now that's just looney. 08 and 09 Crosby, Malkin, and Letang are far better than the 16 versions. Fleury >> Murray. Sure, they had Kessel and Bonino, but that doesn't make up for the other deficiencies.

you think letang in 08 and 09 is better than 16? wow now that is loony

crosby is a much better two way player than he was back then and he didn't need to carry the load anymore with the depth the 16 team had, scoring is down throughout the league so what reason is there to think he was better back then?

malkin was playing with a bad wrist in 16, he had 17 points last year and i think he had about 22 in 2008 and i think the teams they played in 08 were far worse than the playoff teams they played in 16, he was better in 2009

fleury better than murray? that's debatable but murray didn't need to be better because the 16 pens dominated puck possession unlike the 08 and 09 pens

sullivan > therrien and bylsma

what deficiencies did the 16 team have? they dominated in every facet of the game, no doubt in my mind if the 08 team was capable of taking the wings to 6 games the 16 Pens would beat them

they were babies back then, the 16 team was men

 

[danincanada]

Yeah, I get it. Fleury was truly the best player on either team in Game 6 or 7 so if anyone gets the credit for those games he should. Staal himself had three points in the final. Not bad, and the short handed goal in Game 4 was huge, but he himself had a single point in the final three games. Anyway you want to slice it, even if Malkn and Crosby weren't the heroes in Game 6 and 7 the point is the Pens are nowhere near the final without their heroics. 13 points in a series against Washington ring a bell? That was Sid. Then Malkin destroying Carolina singlehandedly.

Staal scored two huge goals in the series. Talbot was in on 3 of the 4 goals Pittsburgh scored in the last 3 games of the series. I agree Fleury was great. Therefore, it really wasn't about "Malkin and Crosby being too much for the Red Wings".

Say what you want, it is still coming off as sour grapes. What is it you want, do you want an asterisk next to the 2009 Cup win because in your mind Detroit should have won and it was unfair?

Nope, I just don't want to read revisionist history on it. Things like "well, the Penguins had injuries, too" when one team practically limped into game 1 while the other only had the usual bruises and cuts that we always see. Or claims that Malkin and Crosby were too much when they only accounted for 1 assist combined in the last 3 games of the series. Or trying to justify the ridiculous schedule in any way.

And yet it was the older and perhaps less hungry team that won the first two games and went up 2-0 in the series. No Wings fan in their right mind would have wanted a recount after those games. I am 100% sure you were happy with how things were playing out after Game 2. It is simply just revisionist history.

Take my word for it, sometimes 2009 Wings fans can sound like spoiled brats. I know, I have to listen to my own fan base practically claim victory in 1993 all based on a missed high stick.

I watched the Red Wings all year and after those two games I couldn't even believe they won. They looked completely spent and Zetterberg looked exhausted by the end of game 2. All I could hope was that they'd be refreshed after a day off but that's the point, it was just one day off and then game 3 already. That's not how professional leagues try to market their product, especially after they already played 3 rounds. It was too strange and unprecedented.

I live in Toronto and I don't have a problem with the "what if" question regarding the Gretzky high stick. I don't think they can assume they win it all if that gets called but who knows... As a die hard fan I understand.

 

[daver]

I watched the Red Wings all year and after those two games I couldn't even believe they won. They looked completely spent and Zetterberg looked exhausted by the end of game 2. All I could hope was that they'd be refreshed after a day off but that's the point, it was just one day off and then game 3 already. That's not how professional leagues try to market their product, especially after they already played 3 rounds. It was too strange and unprecedented.

So let's get this straight. Both teams had ample time to prepare for the final. The Pens had played one more game in the playoffs to that point, had also played in the SCF the year before, and had one extra day off after the ECF but had to travel to Detroit so that is a wash.

You say you could not believe the Wings won Game 1 because they looked spent. IMO, the Pens could have won Game 1 because they looked like they belonged on the same ice as the Wings much more than they did in 2008.

But the question is: How exactly does Game 2 prove to be the straw that broke the camel's back for the Wings if they were already spent going into the Finals? And how do the Wings dominate in Game 5 if they are spent and not finish the Pens off in Game 6 after a two day break and with Datsyuk back to boot who actually joined Zetterberg's line rather than take on Malkin.

Detroit got beat fair and square.

 

[danincanada]

So let's get this straight. Both teams had ample time to prepare for the final. The Pens had played one more game in the playoffs to that point, had also played in the SCF the year before, and had one extra day off after the ECF but had to travel to Detroit so that is a wash.

You say you could not believe the Wings won Game 1 because they looked spent. IMO, the Pens could have won Game 1 because they looked like they belonged on the same ice as the Wings much more than they did in 2008.

But the question is: How exactly does Game 2 prove to be the straw that broke the camel's back for the Wings if they were already spent going into the Finals? And how do the Wings dominate in Game 5 if they are spent and not finish the Pens off in Game 6 after a two day break and with Datsyuk back to boot who actually joined Zetterberg's line rather than take on Malkin.

Detroit got beat fair and square.

They looked spent in both of the first two games, which is not how it's supposed to be if the league wants to showcase its product in the finals.

Let's see... Detroit went into OT 3 times against Chicago while Pittsburgh had a cakewalk sweep against Carolina. Detroit had 2 days off while Pittsburgh had 3. Pittsburgh was the younger team and didn't play a 7 games war against a Californian team in the 2nd round with all that travel.

The kicker of course was the extensive list of injuries...

Datsyuk couldn't pay, Lidstrom (testicle surgery), Ericsson (appendectomy), Hossa (torn rotator cuff and bad knee), Rafalski (back problems), Cleary (ligament issues in both legs), and Draper (groin) all either just recovering from surgury or dealing with pretty serious injury problems. Versus what on Pittsburgh's side? Gonchar having reduced minutes?

That's why the schedule piled on to a team that was already going into the finals at a huge disadvantage. 3 in 4 was the last thing Detroit needed but I'm sure Pittsburgh was happy. In fact, I saw it on Orpik's face when he was asked about it pre-series. Everyone was well aware of the situation with both teams cause it was the finals.

Datsyuk gave them a boost in game 5 and they showed glimpses of what they could be but it was short-lived of course. Datsyuk was on Zetterberg's wing instead of his usual centre position centering Hossa and Filppula/Holmstrom because he was clearly playing with an injured ankle and couldn't skate well enough to play centre.

"Fair and square" with a little help from the schedule makers to wear down a beat up team a little more.

 

[Birko19]

I just wanted to say that your wording here is off. To be "robbed" implies something unfair or illegal happened. Zetterberg was not robbed. His team lost fair and square to another team that performed better in the best-of-seven series. Zetterberg simply did not win. He was not robbed.

Ok, I see my last comment was deleted for whatever reason, I take it someone thought it was offensive but whatever.

Anyways, when a goalie makes an outstanding save on a player and they say "He robbed player X", does that mean player X was actually robbed from a goal? No, it's just that the goalie made such an outstanding save, that the term "rob" in this case is a figure of speech. My comment about Zetterberg is the same, had the Wings won the cup he would have won a 2nd Conn Smythe, but because it was such a close series and they lost by a goal, he got robbed in that sense. Nowhere did I say he should have won it over Malkin.

 

[Epsilon]

Ok, I see my last comment was deleted for whatever reason, I take it someone thought it was offensive but whatever.

Anyways, when a goalie makes an outstanding save on a player and they say "He robbed player X", does that mean player X was actually robbed from a goal? No, it's just that the goalie made such an outstanding save, that the term "rob" in this case is a figure of speech. My comment about Zetterberg is the same, had the Wings won the cup he would have won a 2nd Conn Smythe, but because it was such a close series and they lost by a goal, he got robbed in that sense. Nowhere did I say he should have won it over Malkin.

I think there's a solid chance Osgood would have won the Conn Smythe if the Red Wings had won.

 

[Voight]

Injuries(especially after the Anaheim series) and Pittsburgh itself.

Any other team from the East makes the finals, Detroit repeats. I'm convinced of that despite it all.

Detroit beats Pittsburgh in 5 or 6 with a healthy Datsyuk and Rafalski.

I think there's a solid chance Osgood would have won the Conn Smythe if the Red Wings had won.

Either him or Z. But Osgood was really underrated that year, guy had quite the playoff run.

 

[K Fleur]

I think the simple answer is because Pittsburgh beat them.

Scheduling, injuries, refs, a league wide conspiracy, and whatever other excuse people want to throw out doesn't change the fact that the Red Wings had a 3-2 series lead and blew it. The first team in nearly 40 years to lose game 7 of the finals at home.

I also don't remember hearing any of those same complaints/excuses after game 5(when some Detroit fans were planning the parade).

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

i don't understand the complaint about back to back game 1 and 2 when the wings won those games

 

[Michael Farkas]

Detroit hasn't lost a game on its own accord since 1996...

 

[Big Phil]

i don't understand the complaint about back to back game 1 and 2 when the wings won those games

It is one of those things that you figure should be put to bed and rendered irrelevant by now, huh?

Staal scored two huge goals in the series. Talbot was in on 3 of the 4 goals Pittsburgh scored in the last 3 games of the series. I agree Fleury was great. Therefore, it really wasn't about "Malkin and Crosby being too much for the Red Wings".

With all the attention on Crosby it opened things up for other players. Remember, Staal was at the time the best 3rd line center in hockey. Crosby and Malkin stood out on that team and during those playoffs and played better over 4 rounds than anyone else on the team by a large degree, but it still doesn't mean there weren't others that didn't contribute. It is pretty hard to compare to 36 and 31 points, but as I pointed out before, the 2009 Pens had more players with double digit points in the playoffs than the 1992 Pens did. Without Crosby and Malkin, or even just one of them, it is a lot easier to contain Staal and Talbot and such.

Nope, I just don't want to read revisionist history on it. Things like "well, the Penguins had injuries, too" when one team practically limped into game 1 while the other only had the usual bruises and cuts that we always see. Or claims that Malkin and Crosby were too much when they only accounted for 1 assist combined in the last 3 games of the series. Or trying to justify the ridiculous schedule in any way.

Pittsburgh had an overtime filled and intense series in round 2 as well you know? It is not an easy obstacle to beat a 108 team with a Hart winner and not having home ice advantage.

I watched the Red Wings all year and after those two games I couldn't even believe they won. They looked completely spent and Zetterberg looked exhausted by the end of game 2. All I could hope was that they'd be refreshed after a day off but that's the point, it was just one day off and then game 3 already. That's not how professional leagues try to market their product, especially after they already played 3 rounds. It was too strange and unprecedented.

But there is a reason for the compressed schedule at the beginning. The NHL should have had a backbone, but they didn't. However, with Detroit in full control of this series after Game 2 they had everything in their favour. They dominate in Game 5. Then have Game 6 three days later. They lose. Then have the pivotal Game 7 three days later, and lose. That's a lot of time to heal. 6 days between Game 5 and 7. What more should there have been? The only unusual thing was Game 1 and 2 and they won so it wasn't in Pittsburgh's favour.

I live in Toronto and I don't have a problem with the "what if" question regarding the Gretzky high stick. I don't think they can assume they win it all if that gets called but who knows... As a die hard fan I understand.

I don't have a problem with the "what if" thing either. That's what makes us sports fans, we analyze. But it is when we assume one play decided an entire series. The Leafs are no different in 1993 than the Wings in 2009. They got a tough break, but they still were their own worst enemy because they too lost on home soil in Game 7. There were lots of things they did wrong themselves even before you get upset about the Fraser non-call. What I don't like is when a fanbase tries to de-legitimize the team that actually won. Not too many teams get that worse than the 2009 Pens.

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

. What I don't like is when a fanbase tries to de-legitimize the team that actually won. Not too many teams get that worse than the 2009 Pens.

i think people were just upset to see crosby win

the league referred to him as "the next one" before he played a game, when that happens a lot of people will root for you to fail

he had the reputation of being a whiner, fans referred to him as "cindy" and to this day people criticize his personality for not being flashy and even for not using social media

seeing him raise the cup disappointed a lot of people, because that was the day he proved he deserved the hype they hoped he would've live up to

 

[JackSlater]

i don't understand the complaint about back to back game 1 and 2 when the wings won those games

Results don't indicate whether something was fair or not to begin with. I don't think that the NHL set out to screw Detroit, but the line of reasoning that is basically "Detroit won the first two games so the schedule didn't hurt them" is very obviously flawed.

But there is a reason for the compressed schedule at the beginning. The NHL should have had a backbone, but they didn't. However, with Detroit in full control of this series after Game 2 they had everything in their favour. They dominate in Game 5. Then have Game 6 three days later. They lose. Then have the pivotal Game 7 three days later, and lose. That's a lot of time to heal. 6 days between Game 5 and 7. What more should there have been? The only unusual thing was Game 1 and 2 and they won so it wasn't in Pittsburgh's favour.

Detroit won the first two games, so the scheduling didn't benefit Pittsburgh? That makes no sense. The outcome doesn't dictate if one team was favoured or not. To use an example you are undoubtedly familiar with, was team USA favoured by the reffing in the 2002 women's gold medal game at the 2002 Olympics? They didn't win.

I don't have a problem with the "what if" thing either. That's what makes us sports fans, we analyze. But it is when we assume one play decided an entire series. The Leafs are no different in 1993 than the Wings in 2009. They got a tough break, but they still were their own worst enemy because they too lost on home soil in Game 7. There were lots of things they did wrong themselves even before you get upset about the Fraser non-call. What I don't like is when a fanbase tries to de-legitimize the team that actually won. Not too many teams get that worse than the 2009 Pens.

You're right that Pittsburgh shouldn't be de-legitimized, as there is no indication that they cheated or that someone cheated on their behalf, but that isn't what I find most people say. I quite firmly believe that Pittsburgh was the deserving winner of that series, since they won four of the seven games. I also quite firmly believe that Pittsburgh wasn't the better team and was very fortunate that Detroit had such significant injuries. I suspect that many Detroit fans share this viewpoint. It is also clear that Pittsburgh benefitted more than Detroit did from the NHL's unusual schedule and refusal to suspend Malkin. It doesn't de-legitimize Pittsburgh, it just means that Pittsburgh was fortunate.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Detroit hasn't lost a game on its own accord since 1996...

This is like the third hot take you have posted in this thread.

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

Results don't indicate whether something was fair or not to begin with. I don't think that the NHL set out to screw Detroit, but the line of reasoning that is basically "Detroit won the first two games so the schedule didn't hurt them" is very obviously flawed.

you can talk about injuries all you want, but the back to back games is the silliest excuse possible when the wings won both

would the wings have traded one or both of those wins for a few more days of rest? maybe in hindsight knowing they lost the series, but no way at the time would they trade a 2 - 0 series lead for a few more days of rest

didn't they used to play the finals games every other day? i remember that being the first year where they played every 3 days, game 6 was on a tuesday and game 7 was on a friday so shouldn't the wings have benefited from that extra day rest?

like i said there is a valid reason to think the wings could've won the series if they were healthy, but complaining about the back to back games is just ridiculous when they won both

 

[daver]

Detroit beats Pittsburgh in 5 or 6 with a healthy Datsyuk and Rafalski.

What teams are 100% healthy and rested by the time the SCF rolls around?

How do you know that Datsyuk makes that much of a difference? He was 9th in team playoff scoring when he got injured. Maybe the Wings were better off with their alternative Top 6. He certainly wasn't contributing much offensively.

 

[daver]

Results don't indicate whether something was fair or not to begin with. I don't think that the NHL set out to screw Detroit, but the line of reasoning that is basically "Detroit won the first two games so the schedule didn't hurt them" is very obviously flawed.

If the Pens lost the series, would the same complaint also be credible, perhaps even more so because they actually lost the two games that were affected by the schedule?

Both teams had to deal with the schedule that by the end of the series had been balanced out. Detroit had plenty of time to recover for Games 6 and 7.

 

[daver]

Detroit won the first two games, so the scheduling didn't benefit Pittsburgh? That makes no sense. The outcome doesn't dictate if one team was favoured or not. To use an example you are undoubtedly familiar with, was team USA favoured by the reffing in the 2002 women's gold medal game at the 2002 Olympics? They didn't win.

Biased reffing is the same as scheduling that both teams had to adjust to?

 

[daver]

It is also clear that Pittsburgh benefitted more than Detroit did from the NHL's unusual schedule and refusal to suspend Malkin. It doesn't de-legitimize Pittsburgh, it just means that Pittsburgh was fortunate.

How is it "clear" the Pens benefitted? I means besides the inexplicable outcome of them actually beating the Wings.

The Pens beat the Wings in the two games that came after two days off (Games 6 and 7). Doesn't that give us a good idea of the series plays out regardless of the time between the CFs and the SCF? They seemed to be very evenly matched. If anything, Wings fans should be complaining that the two days off between Game 5 and 6 allowed the Pens to recover from the 5-0 beatdown.

 

[Sentinel]

I, for one, was absolutely stunned Detroit won the first two. I've never seen a more exhausted team, before or after. It was a testatment to their will and experience. With a semi-healthy Datsyuk or Rafalski, they take that series. With both healthy, it's a sweep.

Now, the mental acrobatics I have just read trying to prove that 16 Penguins are better than 08-09 Penguins were just "16 Malkin was injured, but still only a handful points behind his 08 version." Like I said, loony.

 

[JackSlater]

If the Pens lost the series, would the same complaint also be credible, perhaps even more so because they actually lost the two games that were affected by the schedule?

Both teams had to deal with the schedule that by the end of the series had been balanced out. Detroit had plenty of time to recover for Games 6 and 7.

Yes the same complaint would be credible, since as I said in the post that you quoted the result doesn't indicate whether something was fair or not. The issue was brought up before the series even began because it was clear which team benefited more from the situation before the games even began.

Biased reffing is the same as scheduling that both teams had to adjust to?

The post that I replied to implied that if a team wins then they weren't favoured. I gave one of the many possible examples that conveys that that is a ridiculous conclusion. Though I didn't say what you are implying I said, yes biased scheduling would be quite similar to biased officiating, since as you say both teams would have time to "adjust" to the situation even if it was unfair. I don't think that the scheduling was biased to work against Detroit specifically, but nothing supports the idea that Detroit had time to "adjust" to not having the normal amount of rest after the series.

How is it "clear" the Pens benefitted? I means besides the inexplicable outcome of them actually beating the Wings.

The Pens beat the Wings in the two games that came after two days off (Games 6 and 7). Doesn't that give us a good idea of the series plays out regardless of the time between the CFs and the SCF? They seemed to be very evenly matched. If anything, Wings fans should be complaining that the two days off between Game 5 and 6 allowed the Pens to recover from the 5-0 beatdown.

The healthier team benefited more from a series schedule that afforded the two teams a shorter break than average. That is quite clear. Detroit struggling to win the first two games and then fading as the series went on indicating that scheduling and rest were not issues is a claim that multiple people have made here but that doesn't make sense. The bigger rest between after games five and six also does nothing to mitigate Detroit missing Datsyuk for the first four games in the series, when a normal amount of rest before the finals would have allowed him to play in game four and possibly game three.

I don't know why Pittsburgh fans are so touchy about this. Your team won the series. That is the important thing. Whether the other fans agree that your team was the best team should be irrelevant. Better to win than to be perceived as the best.

 

[K Fleur]

I, for one, was absolutely stunned Detroit won the first two. I've never seen a more exhausted team, before or after. It was a testatment to their will and experience. With a semi-healthy Datsyuk or Rafalski, they take that series. With both healthy, it's a sweep.

Now, the mental acrobatics I have just read trying to prove that 16 Penguins are better than 08-09 Penguins were just "16 Malkin was injured, but still only a handful points behind his 08 version." Like I said, loony.

Those "mental acrobats" don't even qualify for a medal in this thread's mental gymnastics olympics. The second half of your post is a gold medal level performance however.

 

[The Panther]

I've never seen a more exhausted team, before or after.

Yeah... no.

They'd just had 3 or 4 sleeps in a row, in their home beds, and two days off before the series. You call this the most exhausted team ever?

 

[daver]

The healthier team benefited more from a series schedule that afforded the two teams a shorter break than average. That is quite clear. Detroit struggling to win the first two games and then fading as the series went on indicating that scheduling and rest were not issues is a claim that multiple people have made here but that doesn't make sense. The bigger rest between after games five and six also does nothing to mitigate Detroit missing Datsyuk for the first four games in the series, when a normal amount of rest before the finals would have allowed him to play in game four and possibly game three.

Do you honestly think that a "normal amount of rest" would quiet the complaints? Datsyuk is still missing time and playing injured. I am sure any alternative scheduling could have been spun to be to in the Pens favour. A few more days off would have benefitted both teams anyways.