What caused the shift from the mid-90s to the dead puck era?

[Empoleon8771]

I was listening to a game last night on Youtube between the Avs and Blues from 2004, and it made me wonder about the title. The announcers were talking about how Kariya and Selanne joined up together in Colorado to try to win a cup and "set themselves up to get paid when the new CBA kicks in next year" (oops). They were talking about Selanne's 76 goal rookie season and how different the NHL was at that time versus 10 years prior, but they didn't really talk about how the league had changed. So that's what I was wondering, what happened to hockey in the late 90s that led to the rise of the dead puck era?

I always thought the two-line pass was a big contributor, but it existed well before the dead puck era did. The only theory the announcers threw out was that the Devils winning with a trap caused a bunch of other teams to shift towards playing a trap.

 

[koyvoo]

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Eliminating the tagup offside rule (reinstaed after 05 lockout)
Goalie pads

 

[Prsut18]

I think Devils win in 95 with defence and Panthers reaching finals with similar style of play played a big role

 

[crobro]

The oval crease introduction was to big and gave goalies a tremendous advantage in terms of challenging the shooter and covering their angles,not to mention bigger lighter equipment.

 

[Brodeur]

Maybe a couple factors:

Sudden influx of Soviet/Czechoslovakian players joining the league in the early 90's. So in 1992-93, there were only 24 teams but with a noticeable one time increase of the roster pool. You could only imagine if the league dissolved six teams how much better the remaining teams' 3rd lines would end up.

Unfortunately the mid-90s also had a dip in prospect talent worldwide. As I remember it, the Russian economy collapsed and sports lost a good amount of funding. I heard an anecdote about Sweden losing a generation of top athletes to soccer and it wasn't until they won Olympic gold in 1994 that interest in hockey was reinvigorated (and there was a top generation of Swedes born in the early-mid 90's).

So by 2000-01, there were now 30 teams but the talent pool had gotten worse than where it was in 1993.

The 1995 CBA also introduced unrestricted free agency for the first time. Salaries started to increase before that, but the big markets really separated. In 1992, Winnipeg begrudgingly matched a 3 year, 2.7 million dollar offer sheet on Teemu Selanne. In 1995, Winnipeg matched a 5 year, 17.2 million dollar offer sheet on Keith Tkachuk.

In order to compete, I think some teams had to think more about goal prevention since it was more cost effective. While the Devils were the easy scapegoat, most people forget that they were 2nd in goals in 1993-94 and were among the league leaders in scoring in the late 90s (led the league in 2000-01).

Also, I think the level of goaltending got much better and the equipment itself got lighter. I watch early 90's highlights and see a bunch of smaller standup goalies flailing limbs. Butterfly goalies would start to become the norm and goalies in general simply got larger.

Found some video of Sean Burke from 1989 and he looks like a completely different goalie in the 2001 All Star Game.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

The Devils are getting a lot (probably too much) credit for “starting the DPE” by employing the neutral zone trap with success. I’ve gathered that similar systems had been employed by teams for almost two decades prior to 1995, however they hadn’t yet become as prevalent.

I do think it’s plausible teams looked at the Devils’ 1995 roster, compared to the super stacked Red Wings they swept in the cup finals, and especially teams without that kind of superstar talent (consider the number of expansion teams in the 90s through 2000s) saw their opportunity to build competitive rosters despite a lack of skill.

I always thought the two-line pass was a big contributor, but it existed well before the dead puck era did.

Some version of the neutral zone trap was however employed by more than 90% of NHL teams by the early 2000s, as opposed to a decade prior. The Swedish league and the IIHF removed the two-line pass rule specifically in order to counter the effectiveness of the neutral zone trap, and the NHL followed after the lockout.

 

[Brodeur]

That one time influx of Russians and Czechoslovakians was before my time, but I could only imagine all of this showing up over a couple seasons:

Soviets
-----------
Kamensky-Fedorov-Bure
Khristich-Zhamnov-Mogilny
Zelepukin-Larionov-Makarov
Kovalenko-Nemchinov-Borchevsky
Kozlov-Yashin-Kovalev

Zhitnik-Zubov
Malakhov-Mironov
Kravchuk-Yushkevich
Fetisov-Kasatonov

Irbe-Khabibulin

Czechoslovakian
-----------
Straka-Lang-Jagr
Nedved-Stumpel-Palffy
Satan-Holik-Demitra
Rucinsky-Reichel-Bondra

Kucera-Hamrlik
Modry-Svehla
Smehlik-Slegr

Hasek-Turek

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

I heard an anecdote about Sweden losing a generation of top athletes to soccer and it wasn't until they won Olympic gold in 1994 that interest in hockey was reinvigorated (and there was a top generation of Swedes born in the early-mid 90's).

I’m Swedish but I’ve never heard of this generation lost to soccer. Not outright saying it’s BS, but I can’t really grasp what this refers to or the facts behind the statement.

Hockey became very popular here in the 50s and 60s, I’d think the accessibility across the country increased immensely from there on out. I believe it’s very possible that it lost ground to football in Stockholm, based on a self made geographical study on the growth of hockey in Sweden where Stockholmers’ dominance on national teams/among top players have decreased over generations, but I haven’t actually made a comparison between the sports to be able to make that claim. Hockey’s become less accessible for the working classes since at least the 90s, and I can imagine it outpriced poorer households more quickly in more densely populated areas. However, whereas hockey was popular in Stockholm earlier than it was elsewhere in Sweden (and you’ll notice more players from other parts of the country replacing Stockholmers over the years), it’s on the other hand grown in popularity in cities like Gothenburg and Malmö.

 

[Staniowski]

A summary:

You should go back in time aways in order to understand everything.

In the 1960s, the NHL was pretty good quality, only 6 teams therefore the average talent level was good, even though there weren't that many quality players at the time. The Leafs (when they were winning Cups) were the best defensive team...really excellent, well-coached and a lot of good players, strong at every position. A great team to watch.

With expansion, an influx of players which lowered the quality of the average player....a very unequal league, overall defensive play declined. This continued through the '70s, with more expansion. There were some good new, young players, but not enough to fill the teams with quality players. Not enough good coaches either.

The best defensive team of the '70s was the Flyers of the mid-70s. Well-coached, they played an extremely successful system of team support all over the ice, very positionally strong, and their whole game was designed to limit scoring chances on their own net....an it was very successful.

The Habs were also usually good defensively through the '60s and '70s. By the late '70s, the Islanders, Flyers, Habs, Bruins, Sabres were playing pretty good defense....but the league was quite weak.

The early 1980s saw the biggest cohorts of new talent the NHL had ever seen to that point. This period was characterized by a lot of speed, but young and inexperienced players who didn't know how to play defense; still not enough talent to fill all the teams; poor coaching; and overall bad defense in the league.

A few teams e.g. the Islanders were playing good defense. Most were not.

By the mid-80s, strong talent continued to enter the league, and coaching was improving. More teams were starting to play decent defense. In '86, two teams - Habs and Flames - made the Cup finals playing defense (the Flames beat the Oilers playing a trap-type system).

Through the late '80s and early '90s, the great talent that entered the NHL earlier in the '80s was more experienced, and the young talent continued. There had never been this much talent in the NHL. At the same time, coaching was improving a lot. More teams were playing good defense, continuously, through this period.

By the early '90s, a lot of teams were playing strong defense, some form of defensive system. A lot of new coaches brought these systems to their teams, and their successes influenced other coaches/teams to implement something similar.

Goaltending was also improving....but coaching and the overall talent in the league are the two things that drove the improvements in defense.

So, by the '95 playoffs many teams were playing pretty good defense, but Lemaire and the Devils took it to a level that no NHL team ever had before. They played a very strict and focused system that shocked each of the 4 teams they played in those playoffs. Team defense always begins with the forwards and that was the case with that team.

The effect on the NHL was huge. In Game 3 of the finals, New Jersey was beating Detroit 5 - 0 (and NJ had won the first 2 games), and Scotty Bowman said that was the most embarrassed he ever was in his career....he adapted the Devils' game to the Red Wings' and other teams did the same.

In general, you had to play good defense to be successful, and to keep up.

 

[BraveCanadian]

IMO there were a bunch of factors mixed in and it actually had very little had to do with what people are calling improved defensive play. Bear hugging and can openers aren't good defense.

- Continued expansion
- The breakup of the USSR etc.
- A noticeable dip in the later 90s to early 00s in the talent level of players (at least those selected often for size)
- Officiating (or rather the utter lack thereof)
- the NHL always being a copycat league
- very importantly the changes in goaltender equipment and size through the 90s enabling a style change

It isn't like the trap, or interference, or the clutch and grab play were new things, but once the Devils had success with it and expansion teams like Florida could be competitive with it even while having a mediocre roster.. a lot of teams went for it.

 

[Staniowski]

IMO there were a bunch of factors mixed in and it actually had very little had to do with what people are calling improved defensive play. Bear hugging and can openers aren't good defense.

- Continued expansion
- The breakup of the USSR etc.
- A noticeable dip in the later 90s to early 00s in the talent level of players (at least those selected often for size)
- Officiating (or rather the utter lack thereof)
- the NHL always being a copycat league
- very importantly the changes in goaltender equipment and size through the 90s enabling a style change

It isn't like the trap, or interference, or the clutch and grab play were new things, but once the Devils had success with it and expansion teams like Florida could be competitive with it even while having a mediocre roster.. a lot of teams went for it.

Yeah, the foundation of the DPE is still defense, though. Scoring declined more or less continuously from the early '80s to the early 2000s (the DPE). And defense was generally improving even more than the scoring declines show because there was significantly more scoring talent through the '80s and into the '90s, so there was, in a sense, a conflict between better offensive players and better defense. Generally, the better defense was winning the conflict.

In the early '90s, say, what you see is lots of mugging, holding, interference, etc.

But when these types if infractions were combined with teams playing ultra-defense, that's when the DPE happened. The '95 Devils weren't a dirty team, but things kept evolving....interference, etc. became major tactics of defensive hockey, and then other teams copied, and you ultimately have a major problem.

 

[The Panther]

As others have stated, you have to go well back in time to find the roots of the Dead Puck Era. I think we all know the 1979-1986 (post-WHA; 18-year-olds drafted and playing) era was characterized by a disproportionate number of young players, as well as sudden developments in offense and skating, leading to higher scoring levels from about 1981 to 1986. NHL offense (Gretzky-era) had taken a lot from Soviet hockey and European style of the 1970s, while goaltending and defense was weaker due to so many young players on the blue-line and in goal.

Then, things started happening that led to the Dead Puck Era:

1986 playoffs: Montreal and Patrick Roy win the Cup, with a defense-first team that rolls four lines. This was the first Cup since 1974 that wasn't a repeat winner or a Dynasty team.

1986-87 season: Scoring suddenly drops across the board. It's not often noted, but this season had the most parity since the early 1940s (or something). (Scoring would bounce back again the next two seasons --- though not back to 1981 to 1986 levels --- but then from 1989-90 onward would fall.)

1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 seasons: The clubs that were 1st and 2nd in defense (1989), 1st in defence (1990), and 1st in defence (1991) finished at the top of the standings.

So, now, developments in goaltending and team defensive strategy are shown to allow medium-skilled clubs to succeed against higher talented clubs (which rarely happened in the 70s or early/mid-80s).

At this same moment, huge NHL salaries---without a salary cap---start to become a thing. This leads to two more important aspects: (1) Some clubs can afford big salaries (Rangers) and some can't (Edmonton, Winnipeg, Quebec). If you can't afford big salaries, it's now been shown that medium-skilled clubs can succeed against higher talented clubs with strategic defence and good goaltending. And (2) Veteran star players have their careers extended by virtue of singing lucrative long-term contracts. This means that the 1970s/80s norm of star players retiring, or being considered washed-up and sent to the minors (Marcel Dionne) by age 33 or whatever, is over. Now, NHL players will have longer, more lucrative careers, often playing into their late 30s and even 40s. And older players on with big roles on teams means more defense.

1995: New Jersey wins Cup.

1997 & 1998: Detroit wins Cups with several older players and lots of defense.

 

[Pominville Knows]

I think Devils win in 95 with defence and Panthers reaching finals with similar style of play played a big role

The Devils was one thing; they at least had some real real talent, but then the very year after, before (most) teams had entered the DPE, the Panthers reaches the finals with a bunch of grinders and Vanbiesbrouck.

I'm sure there are other reasons as well, even rapid expansion might have something to do with it when teams suddenly had an out for all their less than great players to still be able to compete.

 

[crobro]

Bob Johnson and Jacques Lemaire systems

Big forwards big defense smaller ice as a result

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

As others have stated, you have to go well back in time to find the roots of the Dead Puck Era. I think we all know the 1979-1986 (post-WHA; 18-year-olds drafted and playing) era was characterized by a disproportionate number of young players, as well as sudden developments in offense and skating, leading to higher scoring levels from about 1981 to 1986. NHL offense (Gretzky-era) had taken a lot from Soviet hockey and European style of the 1970s, while goaltending and defense was weaker due to so many young players on the blue-line and in goal.

Then, things started happening that led to the Dead Puck Era:

1986 playoffs: Montreal and Patrick Roy win the Cup, with a defense-first team that rolls four lines. This was the first Cup since 1974 that wasn't a repeat winner or a Dynasty team.

1986-87 season: Scoring suddenly drops across the board. It's not often noted, but this season had the most parity since the early 1940s (or something). (Scoring would bounce back again the next two seasons --- though not back to 1981 to 1986 levels --- but then from 1989-90 onward would fall.)

1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 seasons: The clubs that were 1st and 2nd in defense (1989), 1st in defence (1990), and 1st in defence (1991) finished at the top of the standings.

So, now, developments in goaltending and team defensive strategy are shown to allow medium-skilled clubs to succeed against higher talented clubs (which rarely happened in the 70s or early/mid-80s).

At this same moment, huge NHL salaries---without a salary cap---start to become a thing. This leads to two more important aspects: (1) Some clubs can afford big salaries (Rangers) and some can't (Edmonton, Winnipeg, Quebec). If you can't afford big salaries, it's now been shown that medium-skilled clubs can succeed against higher talented clubs with strategic defence and good goaltending. And (2) Veteran star players have their careers extended by virtue of singing lucrative long-term contracts. This means that the 1970s/80s norm of star players retiring, or being considered washed-up and sent to the minors (Marcel Dionne) by age 33 or whatever, is over. Now, NHL players will have longer, more lucrative careers, often playing into their late 30s and even 40s. And older players on with big roles on teams means more defense.

1995: New Jersey wins Cup.

1997 & 1998: Detroit wins Cups with several older players and lots of defense.

Wasn't 1992-93 the highest scoring season ever in the NHL?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Good thread. The variety of responses here show that it wasn't just one thing, it was a lot of things coming together, but those things came together to create seminal moments which changed the tide. NJ/Florida/Washington/Buffalo making Finals runs really ingrained the idea that you could "grit" your way to success with good defense and goaltending.

Another factor I'll throw in here, which I think is sometimes forgotten, is that a good portion of the hockey establishment and media actively boosted for a slower and more physical brand. The Don Cherry types did not want to see penalty calls for acts of interference, and I remember arguments to the effect that a real hockey game means physically fighting through contact. The fact that this was a debate at all, put a lot of pressure on the NHL and therefore the referees not to hold a clear standard for illegal contact. Once the door was open for players to hold and waterski and generally throw themselves in each other's way, it became a rugby match out there -- especially for the star players, who were suddenly able to be neutralized by inferior opponents.

This same process takes place, to a lesser extent, during the playoffs every year.

 

[popo]

NHL was also much more like the MLB in those years. Less parity, with a wide discrepancy in team payrolls. The big boys (maybe 8 clubs?) were spending 2-4x more than the rest.

So as you expect, not a lot of talent or continuity for most of the league to work with. Teams trapped, and clutched to make up for it.

 

[Hockeyholic]

I think the 95 Devils were more talented than people give them credit for. They definitely were not a group of mediocre players like the 96. That is to say, I believe the Devils could have won the cup without trapping.

 

[Staniowski]

Bob Johnson and Jacques Lemaire.

Coaching was a major driver of the increase in quality of defensive hockey. There was an increasing sophistication in coaching during the '80s and '90s, built on expanded knowledge of coaching techniques.

During the '80s, Lemaire and Badger were two of the important coaches for defensive hockey. When Lemaire coached the Habs, he had a huge effect on the two Guys - essentially causing the birth of Carbonneau, and the death of Lafleur.

Lemaire told Carbonneau he could be a great defensive player if he made a commitment to do so, and Lemaire promised Carbonneau a lot of ice-time if he did. And he did.

With Lafleur, he didn't want to play defense, and his ice-time declined. And he retired. Lafleur never liked playing defense, nor was he good at it. When they were linemates, Lemaire and Shutt would strategize defensively, just the two of them, and they would just let Lafleur do what he wanted. Lafleur could only really play on instinct.

Badger Bob produced the defensive system to tackle the Oilers, causing the upset of one of the biggest Stanley Cup favourites in NHL history.

 

[Staniowski]

I think the 95 Devils were more talented than people give them credit for. They definitely were not a group of mediocre players like the 96. That is to say, I believe the Devils could have won the cup without trapping.

They most likely wouldn't have won the Cup if they didn't play the strong defensive game they played, but they definitely had some talent. Besides a good goalie and good defensemen, their forwards were big, good skaters, and smart, which were the perfect ingredients for the way that they played.

The '95 Devils played a pretty clean game...they weren't a part of the DPE; but they did influence it a lot.

 

[jigglysquishy]

- the NHL always being a copycat league

This is such an important factor.

Part of the reason we see such a fast scoring game today, with an emphasis on rushing defensemen, is because of the success Tampa had.

If Florida geta bounced earlier in 1995, we may stave off the DPE.

It just seems intuitive, a team wins with a certain style or philosophy, why would you not try to emulate it?

 

[MadLuke]

I was young but in my memory those Devils after montreal cup were seen has a bit of a powerhouse talent wise.

Stevens (was still an offensive all star at the time, not seen has a stay at home guy)-Niedermayer-Richer-MacLean-Guerin-Holik-Lemieux-Rolston

The 1994 Devils just had been the second-biggest offensive team after all.

It is only when our brain compared them to those 1996 Wings that they would look mediocre talent wise.

Once Richer declined, Lemieux got traded, Stevens stopped being a near ppg offensive star that it went down before Niedermayer-Elias-Sykora and co picked it up.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Global talent pool increases, better goaltending technique, success of defensive minded hockey teams (mainly the Devils)

 

[Staniowski]

Good thread. The variety of responses here show that it wasn't just one thing, it was a lot of things coming together, but those things came together to create seminal moments which changed the tide. NJ/Florida/Washington/Buffalo making Finals runs really ingrained the idea that you could "grit" your way to success with good defense and goaltending.

Another factor I'll throw in here, which I think is sometimes forgotten, is that a good portion of the hockey establishment and media actively boosted for a slower and more physical brand. The Don Cherry types did not want to see penalty calls for acts of interference, and I remember arguments to the effect that a real hockey game means physically fighting through contact. The fact that this was a debate at all, put a lot of pressure on the NHL and therefore the referees not to hold a clear standard for illegal contact. Once the door was open for players to hold and waterski and generally throw themselves in each other's way, it became a rugby match out there -- especially for the star players, who were suddenly able to be neutralized by inferior opponents.

This same process takes place, to a lesser extent, during the playoffs every year.

Yes, the DPE was essentially a marriage of ultra-defensive hockey with interference, holding, etc., and then tolerated by the League.