How did the Red Wings lose in 2009?

[Big Phil]

This seems to all boil down to the injury excuse. If the Wings are in the shape they were in before the 2008 SCF, is there any complaint to be made about the scheduling?

Both teams had to deal with start date, which was not unusual at all based on previous SCFs, and the back to back. The Pens had a travel day which effectively washes out their extra day.

I mean, the last time the Cup final started with back to back games was 1940 I believe. It had to do with the circus coming to MSG or something like that so the Rangers and Leafs opened up with two straight games. The Rangers won the first two games at home but because of scheduling they played the next 4 in Toronto. The Rangers still won the series 4-2. I think the circus must have been back in town in 1950 as well because that was a weird, weird Cup final schedule. The Wings hosted Game 1, then two straight in MSG, then the next 4 in Detroit. Wings win in 7.

So while it is very rare, it has happened before and you just deal with it. 2009 is nothing like those other years. At least the Wings got 4 home games. But it shows you that sometimes the schedule can get twisted to suit other things happening. The Sens and Sabres played back to back games in Buffalo in Games 3 and 4 and didn't that have to do with trying to speed up the series a bit because Dora the Explorer was coming to Ottawa? But if you want the real reason Ottawa lost, you can find it in that series for sure.

 

[JackSlater]

LOL how on earth did the back to back games "obviously" benefit the Pens when they lost those games? that is insanity

and there is no "touchiness", perhaps you are projecting the thoughts you have on to others

This has already been explained. The healthier team obviously benefits from the start of a series being moved up and the first two games being played very quickly. The outcome of any game just indicates which team scores more goals, not which team (if any) was favoured. It's nonsense logic to disregard that Pittsburgh benefited from the situation just because they couldn't properly take advantage of their advantage in the first two games.

 

[Sentinel]

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?

Clearly you didn't watch the series. "Home beds," that's a new one. I guess they had all of their toys with them.

 

[Big Phil]

This has already been explained. The healthier team obviously benefits from the start of a series being moved up and the first two games being played very quickly. The outcome of any game just indicates which team scores more goals, not which team (if any) was favoured. It's nonsense logic to disregard that Pittsburgh benefited from the situation just because they couldn't properly take advantage of their advantage in the first two games.

I will say what I always say about this issue. It was clearly something the Pens had the advantage with, the series having two games in a row to start. However, it became null and void once the Wings won both games. I can see looking back and if the Pens won both games or even one game Wings fans saying "Hey, we would have won both if it wasn't back to back." It would still sound like sour grapes, but at least it is better than "Hey, we won both games and are up 2-0 and then squandered the lead, but that still isn't fair". Sorry, it just isn't something relevant anymore. As for injuries, the New England Patriots won the Super Bowl without the best tight end in the NFL on the field, and they wait two weeks before playing.

 

[Fugu]

If you think every player was playing at their same level and motivation as the year before then I don't see a reason to discuss further.

The Pens were clearly more competitive than the year before. The first two games of the 2008 SCF and 2009 SCF were night and day. There was no reason to think that those two games play out any different if there was one or two more days before the SCF started. As I said before, if the Wings were tuckered out after those 2 games, then they were not destined to win as they had a similar road to the SCF as the Pens did. The same thinking applies if they were tuckered out before the series even started.

The Wings got beat on the ice fair and square. The unfair scheduling is a load of BS, IMO.

Did you actually watch both series in 2008 and 2009? They were not night and day, and went to 7 games -- mainly because the Wings were missing their best players, and had some grueling injuries with the ones that were still playing.

I'm not really sure what to say to someone who doesn't believe a week off would have helped, and probably helped both teams -- which should be preferable if you wanted the best hockey possible.


As to your opening sentence, I'm not really sure where that's coming from because it's not something I brought up. I was talking about rosters/players and why you thought the 2009 Pens were vastly improved. By whom? They lost Hossa, for example.

 

[Fugu]

This seems to all boil down to the injury excuse. If the Wings are in the shape they were in before the 2008 SCF, is there any complaint to be made about the scheduling?

Both teams had to deal with start date, which was not unusual at all based on previous SCFs, and the back to back. The Pens had a travel day which effectively washes out their extra day.

The backlash towards the NHL, from my POV, is that they rushed to move the already scheduled final up almost a week. There was no need to do it. Mario probably made a phone call to his suite buddy.

 

[Fugu]

Team USA was favoured in 2002, no doubt, even though they lost. Pittsburgh had to play the same games - and travel to Detroit - that the Wings did. Did it benefit Pittsburgh to have two in a row when their opponents were unusually hurt? Yes. After Game 2 was it an issue? No. Has it been since then? Only to Wings fans. Everyone else sees the logic that it immediately became null and void once the Wings won both games. I've asked this before and no one can answer it. If I came to you after Game 2 and said "Hey, we have to replay Game 1 and 2 and spread it out over three days" would you have agreed to it?

I think what you're ignoring is just how long and hard the Cup run can be. I tend to think winning at the very end is tougher than the games at the beginning.

What many of you are forgetting is that a Pittsburgh player (Dupuis?) rallied his troops after those initial games when he noticed how badly hurt the Wings were. He knew it wasn't the same team, so he wanted to wake up his team so they wouldn't lose mentally. They were the underdogs going into that series.

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone here, to tell me how the 2008 and 2009 Pens were different. What/who changed?


Oh, while I'm on this roll, have other Cup series since the Wings v Pens had as much officiating on face-offs and obstruction?

 

[daver]

The backlash towards the NHL, from my POV, is that they rushed to move the already scheduled final up almost a week. There was no need to do it. Mario probably made a phone call to his suite buddy.

Why was there a need to delay the final beyond it's normal start time of 3 or 4 days after the CFs finished once the CFs were completed?

 

[Big Phil]

I think what you're ignoring is just how long and hard the Cup run can be. I tend to think winning at the very end is tougher than the games at the beginning.

What many of you are forgetting is that a Pittsburgh player (Dupuis?) rallied his troops after those initial games when he noticed how badly hurt the Wings were. He knew it wasn't the same team, so he wanted to wake up his team so they wouldn't lose mentally. They were the underdogs going into that series.

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone here, to tell me how the 2008 and 2009 Pens were different. What/who changed?


Oh, while I'm on this roll, have other Cup series since the Wings v Pens had as much officiating on face-offs and obstruction?

What was different? How about experience? They lost Hossa, but gained Guerin. Yeah I know, not the same right, but Guerin had at least as good of a postseason as Hossa did in 2009. It is like saying there is no difference between the 1983 and 1984 Oilers. Experience and hunger was what it was. It was a young team and everyone was getting better, not older. If you think they didn't learn from 2008 then I don't think you watched each Cup final. There was a noticeable difference in them with those years. They were scared and sat back in 2008 more than in 2009. The Wings controlled the game more so. Not so in 2009.

 

[K Fleur]

I think what you're ignoring is just how long and hard the Cup run can be. I tend to think winning at the very end is tougher than the games at the beginning.

What many of you are forgetting is that a Pittsburgh player (Dupuis?) rallied his troops after those initial games when he noticed how badly hurt the Wings were. He knew it wasn't the same team, so he wanted to wake up his team so they wouldn't lose mentally. They were the underdogs going into that series.

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone here, to tell me how the 2008 and 2009 Pens were different. What/who changed?


Oh, while I'm on this roll, have other Cup series since the Wings v Pens had as much officiating on face-offs and obstruction?

I'd guess probably not? Though the Canucks/Bruins series had far more PIMs.

It's hard to really feel for the team that was the master of "subtle interference", which is a just total turd polishing term, finally getting called for it.

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

This has already been explained. The healthier team obviously benefits from the start of a series being moved up and the first two games being played very quickly. The outcome of any game just indicates which team scores more goals, not which team (if any) was favoured. It's nonsense logic to disregard that Pittsburgh benefited from the situation just because they couldn't properly take advantage of their advantage in the first two games.

what was the advantage when they lost both games?

was anybody complaining about this at the time when the wings had the 2 -0 series lead? i'm betting NO, i bet wings fans were planning their victory parade

they lost 4 out of the next 5 so they are trying to come up with every excuse in the book

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone here, to tell me how the 2008 and 2009 Pens were different. What/who changed?

a lot of the pens core was about the age of a college kid, players can become better and smarter with age and experience within a year

maybe they didn't have to be better than the year before

the wings were worse, you can blame injuries or fatigue but they weren't the same presidents cup winning team throughout the season, just because they added a player like hossa doesn't make the team from top to bottom better, it just makes them better on paper

i don't care if somebody thinks the wings were the better team, it might be true

but the back to back games complaint which the wings won is absolutely ridiculous, they won those games and no wings fan or player in june 2009 would've traded those 2 wins for a few more days rest

 

[JackSlater]

I will say what I always say about this issue. It was clearly something the Pens had the advantage with, the series having two games in a row to start. However, it became null and void once the Wings won both games. I can see looking back and if the Pens won both games or even one game Wings fans saying "Hey, we would have won both if it wasn't back to back." It would still sound like sour grapes, but at least it is better than "Hey, we won both games and are up 2-0 and then squandered the lead, but that still isn't fair". Sorry, it just isn't something relevant anymore. As for injuries, the New England Patriots won the Super Bowl without the best tight end in the NFL on the field, and they wait two weeks before playing.

Even if we accept the fallacy you present that the advantage just disappeared because Pittsburgh didn't take advantage of it, moving the schedule meant that four games, including two that Detroit lost, were played before the series was even supposed to begin. Instead of having Datsyuk for possibly the whole series (he first played on June 6, the series was supposed to begin on June 5) Detroit only had him for three games. Instead of Lidstrom having a week to recover from surgery, as was the case with the initial schedule, he had a few days. This applies to a lesser degree to Detroit's other players as well as Pittsburgh's players. Additionally cutting the rest time and then playing the first two games back to back exacerbates whatever health issues each team was having going forward.

what was the advantage when they lost both games?

Do you read the posts you quote, or do you just press the quote button and reply? I have explained to you twice what the advantage was, and others have mentioned it. You appear to be willfully ignoring it. The NHL moved the schedule up 6 days, which favours the healthier team (Pittsburgh). That Pittsburgh managed to not take full advantage doesn't mean that the advantage didn't exist. It means that they lose in spite of that advantage.

was anybody complaining about this at the time when the wings had the 2 -0 series lead? i'm betting NO, i bet wings fans were planning their victory parade

they lost 4 out of the next 5 so they are trying to come up with every excuse in the book

You lose the bet then, because people were angry about it before the series began, and after Detroit played pretty poorly in the first game and then not so well in game 2 the complaints remained, though Detroit fans were obviously happy to have won. In fact the complaints after game 2 were more numerous than they had been a few days prior when the NHL refused follow its own rule and rescinded Malkin's suspension for the instigator penalty in he final five minutes of a game. Of course that refusal to follow the rule and suspend Malkin also benefited Pittsburgh, and fans were not pleased.

None of this really relates the absurd fallacy that Pittsburgh didn't have an advantage from the NHL's decisions just because they blew the first two games. That is so obviously wrong that it shouldn't require an explanation.

 

[Fugu]

What was different? How about experience? They lost Hossa, but gained Guerin. Yeah I know, not the same right, but Guerin had at least as good of a postseason as Hossa did in 2009. It is like saying there is no difference between the 1983 and 1984 Oilers. Experience and hunger was what it was. It was a young team and everyone was getting better, not older. If you think they didn't learn from 2008 then I don't think you watched each Cup final. There was a noticeable difference in them with those years. They were scared and sat back in 2008 more than in 2009. The Wings controlled the game more so. Not so in 2009.

The Wings were the same team, plus added Hossa. They had a spectacular record again, scoring even at a higher rate, iirc.

They did not get worse. The Pens stayed about the same, if you equate Guerin to Hossa (which I do not), and were a year older.

Enforcing nitpicky crap like the face-off rules and obstruction.....but letting Malkin evade a major suspension? No, that's just not right.

Why was there a need to delay the final beyond it's normal start time of 3 or 4 days after the CFs finished once the CFs were completed?

They have a rule that you must rest at least the two full days, which I'm still not sure the Wings received if you look at the total hours between game finish and start vs just the calendar date.

They had already set a schedule, then rushed to change it because someone was making noise that waiting that long (a mere six days) would seriously affect ratings. Are you ****ing kidding me? Two of the best franchises in the league, with Datysuk, Lidstrom, Zetterberg, Hossa, Malkin and Crosby, facing off AGAIN for the Cup? Incredible.

 

[Fugu]

a lot of the pens core was about the age of a college kid, players can become better and smarter with age and experience within a year

maybe they didn't have to be better than the year before

the wings were worse, you can blame injuries or fatigue but they weren't the same presidents cup winning team throughout the season, just because they added a player like hossa doesn't make the team from top to bottom better, it just makes them better on paper

i don't care if somebody thinks the wings were the better team, it might be true

but the back to back games complaint which the wings won is absolutely ridiculous, they won those games and no wings fan or player in june 2009 would've traded those 2 wins for a few more days rest

The Wings were not worse in 2009 vs 2008.

Here's a records reference list, but note the following:

2006 - 58 wins, .756 win percentage -- 124 pts
2007 - 50 wins, .689 -- 113 pts
2008 - 54 wins, .701 -- 115 pts
2009 - 51 wins, .683 -- 112 pts

Those last two years had very close GF/GA against averages too.

2006 was the year they lost to Edmonton, who had Pronger and Roloston on a roll. In 2007, they lost to the Ducks in the Conference final.

 

[daver]

The Wings were not worse in 2009 vs 2008.

You are honestly going to tell me that the first two games of each SCF weren't dramatically different? The Pens obviously were on the Wings level in 2009, not surprising given their experience of the SCF before, and another year for their young players to develop.

Or are you honestly trying to tell me that the Wings were just as good as 2008 until, horrors of horrors, they had to play a hockey game after only 3 days off; their 6th game in 16 days! And horrors of horrors, had to play another one the next day.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The 2008 Red Wings were untouchable. They would have been a legitimate candidate to go 16-0 with a good to great goaltender. The 2009 Wings were formidable, but clearly a step worse than the 2008 team for me. The Pens were a year better, they made stylistic changes that made them a bigger threat offensively starting in the high DZ amd through the NZ (this negatively affected Brian Rafalski at the line, and Niklas Kronwall in the NZ the most if I had to pick), plus the obvious like Kristopher Letang being of age to play a more significant role...

The only thing that really got better from series to series on Detroit's side was Osgood. Much more disheveled goalie in 08, he was much more on point 09...particularly with his rebound control...

 

[Fugu]

You are honestly going to tell me that the first two games of each SCF weren't dramatically different? The Pens obviously were on the Wings level in 2009, not surprising given their experience of the SCF before, and another year for their young players to develop.

Or are you honestly trying to tell me that the Wings were just as good as 2008 until, horrors of horrors, they had to play a hockey game after only 3 days off; their 6th game in 16 days! And horrors of horrors, had to play another one the next day.

Of course they were just as good, even better in my opinion. They added a superstar to an already superstar-studded line up.

Now, if you remove Dats and Lids from their line-up, and ask if the Wings were the same as 2008? Of course not. Along with their other injuries, the team that entered that SC final was barely walking.

They didn't have three days off either. Their Chicago series ended on 27 May, in Chicago. They probably flew back that night (late) from Chicago. Did they rest on the 28th and 29th, or have practices since the 1st game against Pittsburgh was on the 30th. That is just one day off, assuming they did rest on the 28th, you know, to catch up on their sleep and whatnot.

 

[Fugu]

The 2008 Red Wings were untouchable. They would have been a legitimate candidate to go 16-0 with a good to great goaltender. The 2009 Wings were formidable, but clearly a step worse than the 2008 team for me. The Pens were a year better, they made stylistic changes that made them a bigger threat offensively starting in the high DZ amd through the NZ (this negatively affected Brian Rafalski at the line, and Niklas Kronwall in the NZ the most if I had to pick), plus the obvious like Kristopher Letang being of age to play a more significant role...

The only thing that really got better from series to series on Detroit's side was Osgood. Much more disheveled goalie in 08, he was much more on point 09...particularly with his rebound control...

Mike, how in the world were the Wings worse in 2009 -- with Osgood being better and adding Hossa? Points, goals for, goals against, shots against???


I honestly think many of you never watched the western conference games, just may be the final if your team was in it. The Wings were utterly dominant for many years.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Oh, don't look at me for counting numbers and stuff...I don't follow that too closely...

I know Pittsburgh didn't have a chance against 2008 Detroit...I know Pittsburgh had a chance against 2009 Detroit. I felt that in game 1 of each series. It just wasn't the same...Pittsburgh played different, Detroit wasn't as well-oiled...I don't know how to really break it down any further than some of the symptoms I've listed throughout the thread...

I've watched every single second of every single playoff game for the last I guess 10 or 11 years now...and then watched every game that I could watch prior to that (they weren't all on everywhere in the 90's)...I'll tell ya, that 2008 Detroit team made it look as easy as any I've seen...and that's not to take anything away from the '09 team - if they won, they would have been deserving...I think Pittsburgh turned the series on its ear and outplayed them for good chunks of it...I can't say the same for 2008...Pittsburgh was dominated and the series would have ended sooner if not for Marc-Andre Fleury's game 5 heroics...one of the more memorable performances I've ever seen...and still to date, Fleury's best game of his career and I've probably seen about 760 of his 790 give or take (a few early ones I missed before getting Center Ice full time)

But the Pens weren't taken behind the woodshed and beaten to death in 2009...they were more than competitive...no matter who added what or how many shots they give up per game or whatever...in 2008, they didn't touch the puck...

 

[Fugu]

Oh, don't look at me for counting numbers and stuff...I don't follow that too closely...

I know Pittsburgh didn't have a chance against 2008 Detroit...I know Pittsburgh had a chance against 2009 Detroit. I felt that in game 1 of each series. It just wasn't the same...Pittsburgh played different, Detroit wasn't as well-oiled...I don't know how to really break it down any further than some of the symptoms I've listed throughout the thread...

I've watched every single second of every single playoff game for the last I guess 10 or 11 years now...and then watched every game that I could watch prior to that (they weren't all on everywhere in the 90's)...I'll tell ya, that 2008 Detroit team made it look as easy as any I've seen...and that's not to take anything away from the '09 team - if they won, they would have been deserving...I think Pittsburgh turned the series on its ear and outplayed them for good chunks of it...I can't say the same for 2008...Pittsburgh was dominated and the series would have ended sooner if not for Marc-Andre Fleury's game 5 heroics...one of the more memorable performances I've ever seen...and still to date, Fleury's best game of his career and I've probably seen about 760 of his 790 give or take (a few early ones I missed before getting Center Ice full time)

But the Pens weren't taken behind the woodshed and beaten to death in 2009...they were more than competitive...no matter who added what or how many shots they give up per game or whatever...in 2008, they didn't touch the puck...

Well, yes, even putting your hate of the Wings aside for a moment...<insert Killion smiley here >...

That has been the question exactly. How did the SAME Wings team essentially look so different in 2009? Saying that some key injuries to their prime players didn't make a difference is really pushing it. How would the Pens have looked without Crosby and their top Norris-winning defenseman who had 4 Cups...oh right.... ....anyway, you get the gist. The Pens were more competitive, but they were still up against the most dominant team in the NHL, and one that had not lost a thing between seasons. Clearly, some other factors were at play.


As an aside, I wanted to share Kris Draper's quip about the ads that followed the Wings 2008 victory. He said it was the first time he could remember that following a Cup win, the network was more interested showing Crosby sitting on the boards, virtually crying, than the winning team's celebrations. He did have a point.

 

[Sadekuuro]

Mike, how in the world were the Wings worse in 2009 -- with Osgood being better and adding Hossa? Points, goals for, goals against, shots against???

On paper they should have been even better, but as far as actual performance is concerned, I think Mike Farkas is right about this. The '09 edition was lazy about playing defense in the regular season and gave up a lot more goals IIRC (don't have the numbers in front of me). They were less dominant at the puck possession game albeit still the class of the league. Hossa had great skills but zero chemistry with either of Detroit's star centers; he was also a big dud in the playoffs. Osgood was very good for almost the entire playoff run after a hilarious regular season, but that didn't stop him from being off his angle in Game 7.

 

[Big Phil]

Even if we accept the fallacy you present that the advantage just disappeared because Pittsburgh didn't take advantage of it, moving the schedule meant that four games, including two that Detroit lost, were played before the series was even supposed to begin. Instead of having Datsyuk for possibly the whole series (he first played on June 6, the series was supposed to begin on June 5) Detroit only had him for three games. Instead of Lidstrom having a week to recover from surgery, as was the case with the initial schedule, he had a few days. This applies to a lesser degree to Detroit's other players as well as Pittsburgh's players. Additionally cutting the rest time and then playing the first two games back to back exacerbates whatever health issues each team was having going forward.

They would have had health issues regardless of when the series started.

The NHL moved the schedule up 6 days, which favours the healthier team (Pittsburgh). That Pittsburgh managed to not take full advantage doesn't mean that the advantage didn't exist. It means that they lose in spite of that advantage.

There are a couple of problems with hockey going later in June. The ice is not good at this time of year the longer you go. Fans aren't tuning in as much if it is mid to late June. If you can go fishing, you just might. It is the same reason why viewership in the NFL isn't always up to par in the first month of season. People are still trying to get the last good days of summer to good use. In November? It doesn't matter. So there are those factors that come with not waiting so long to start the Cup final. The longer it goes in June the more chance of less viewership.

The Wings were the same team, plus added Hossa. They had a spectacular record again, scoring even at a higher rate, iirc.

They did not get worse. The Pens stayed about the same, if you equate Guerin to Hossa (which I do not), and were a year older.

Enforcing nitpicky crap like the face-off rules and obstruction.....but letting Malkin evade a major suspension? No, that's just not right.

The Pens got better. Everyone did. Crosby, Fleury, Malkin, Staal, Letang, etc. Adding Kunitz helped too. Adding Guerin helped. But their young core was on the incline, not decline. They learned a lot from 2008.

I thought the Wings were a much more well oiled machine in 2008. I remember a Red Wings buddy of mine and he was not optimistic at all about 2009 because he thought the goaltending was going to kill them. Little did we know Osgood actually made an impact this time. I mean, was Chicago better in 2009 or 2010? Other than adding Hossa, why would they be better? The same reasons as Pittsburgh.

 

[K Fleur]

On paper they should have been even better, but as far as actual performance is concerned, I think Mike Farkas is right about this. The '09 edition was lazy about playing defense in the regular season and gave up a lot more goals IIRC (don't have the numbers in front of me). They were less dominant at the puck possession game albeit still the class of the league. Hossa had great skills but zero chemistry with either of Detroit's star centers; he was also a big dud in the playoffs. Osgood was very good for almost the entire playoff run after a hilarious regular season, but that didn't stop him from being off his angle in Game 7.

The '08 Red Wings gave up 184(1st in the NHL). They also scored 257 goals(3rd in the NHL).

The '09 Red Wings gave up 244 goals(19th in the NHL). They also scored 295 goals(1st in the NHL).


On paper the '09 team was better. What actually happened when the '09 team hit the ice indicates the '08 team being much better.

 

[JackSlater]

They would have had health issues regardless of when the series started.

I certainly hope that you intended this comment as a joke. Obviously there would always be health issues. There are health issues by the end of the first week of the NHL season. Moving the series up significantly exacerbated the health issues for one team far more than it did for the other.

There are a couple of problems with hockey going later in June. The ice is not good at this time of year the longer you go. Fans aren't tuning in as much if it is mid to late June. If you can go fishing, you just might. It is the same reason why viewership in the NFL isn't always up to par in the first month of season. People are still trying to get the last good days of summer to good use. In November? It doesn't matter. So there are those factors that come with not waiting so long to start the Cup final. The longer it goes in June the more chance of less viewership.

I understand why the NHL moved the games up, and it isn't like anyone is suggesting that the NHL should have moved the games back further than they were scheduled to accommodate Detroit. The fact is that the league moved the games forward six days from the original schedule, which very obviously hurt one team a lot more than it hurt the other team. The reasons you listed for moving up the series, while all very true, have literally nothing to do with the obvious reality that Pittsburgh benefited from the change, which is what you seem very reluctant to admit.

I also don't really think that the NHL moved the series ahead to help Pittsburgh. It most likely made the decision for ratings. That decision also happened to obviously benefit Pittsburgh. The decision to rescind Malkin's suspension is a bit more fishy, but the NHL is so inconsistent in terms of enforcement that I can't really claim that it was an obvious attempt to help Pittsburgh... though obviously it did help Pittsburgh.