HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

How did the Red Wings lose in 2009?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-18-2017, 05:42 PM
  #376
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMR View Post
I've never forgiven Conan O'Brien for costing the Wings the Cup and I'm glad the Hockey Gods punished him by having Jay Leno come back and steal his dream job.
Ouch...............tough crowd!

Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
You couldn't find a good recent example, eh? For the final time, if the NHL had just scheduled the first game quickly it wouldn't be such an issue but that's not what they did, they scheduled the first 3 games quicker than anything else in modern history.

2009 had it's first 3 games played only 6 days after the CF's ended.
The only recent example that's close is 2004, which was 7 days but those CF's went 6 and 7 games instead of 4 and 5 like '09.
2014 was 8 days after 6 and 7 game CF's.
1974, which only had 3 rounds of playoffs, was 7 days after 6 and 7 game CF's.
1975, 76, 77, and 78 were all 7 days as well and they had 4 rounds but the first round was best 2 out of 3.
You are still splitting hairs here. We are talking about one day shorter. I mean, these guys play 82 game a year plus 20 playoff games and it all comes down to one day LESS of rest that decided a Cup? Really?

Quote:
The Red Wings got a lift from Datsyuk coming back and got a "second wind" but it was short lived. It ended up being a 7 game series so any benefit the Pens got from it starting quickly always lingered, both physically and psychologically.
Datsyuk looked good in Game 5 and Detroit dominated. They had plenty of rest, an unusual amount actually, after Game 5 and did not capitalize. This is what I have been saying all along, any quick start to this final was countered with an unusually amount of rest later in the series.

Quote:
All they had to do to avoid Conan's debut was not play on Monday night. That wasn't a difficult thing to do and everything else was their choice.
This is my theory and while it doesn't equal your belief that the league was purposely fixing the schedule so Pittsburgh could win it (you've said it on this thread) it is the best I can think of.

They wanted some decent ratings that didn't compete with another special event. Having two weekend games was part of this and they could avoid any competition with Conan for at least the first two games. After that the schedule was completely normal and there really shouldn't be any complaints. Unusual, but that is almost certainly what the league wanted to do.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2017, 06:11 PM
  #377
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,225
vCash: 500
2009 Playoffs

Pittsburgh stats:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/PIT/2009.html

Detroit stats:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/2009.html

2009 playoffs, Pittsburgh played one more game 24 to 23, more minutes1471 to 1426, faced more shots 694 to 646, gave up more goals 63 to 47. Pittsburgh took more PIMs 279 to 224.

Detroit played Anaheim - 7 games necessitating two trips to the west coast. Other three series were basically local, Columbus, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Short drive.

Pittsburgh played Carolina Washington, Philadelphia, Detroit. All within a reasonable drive.

First two games that Detroit played at home they won, outhitting Pittsburgh78 to 72, not a sign of a tired team.

Scheduling did not decide the series.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2017, 06:36 PM
  #378
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 36,555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Pittsburgh stats:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/PIT/2009.html

Detroit stats:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/2009.html

2009 playoffs, Pittsburgh played one more game 24 to 23, more minutes1471 to 1426, faced more shots 694 to 646, gave up more goals 63 to 47. Pittsburgh took more PIMs 279 to 224.

Detroit played Anaheim - 7 games necessitating two trips to the west coast. Other three series were basically local, Columbus, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Short drive.

Pittsburgh played Carolina Washington, Philadelphia, Detroit. All within a reasonable drive.

First two games that Detroit played at home they won, outhitting Pittsburgh78 to 72, not a sign of a tired team.

Scheduling did not decide the series.

Well, yes it did -- if your core guys are THAT injured. I also blame Babcock, along with Gary.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2017, 08:09 PM
  #379
Sadekuuro
Registered User
 
Sadekuuro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 5,177
vCash: 500
Speaking of Babcock, some food for thought--it seems little remembered, but the Wings' strategy in Game 7 was not at all what you'd expect from such an experienced group. Instead of the patient game they were renowned for, they largely shot their wad going for the kill in the first 10-15 minutes of the 1st; they dominated but couldn't get the goal, and of course couldn't sustain that level of pressure. After they were spent they looked listless, on their heels, not in control of their game like normal. This was evident well before they eventually surrendered the first goal.

I'd love to hear some exposition of why they went that route. Was this Babcock's gamble? Admittedly they probably hang on and win if they get that first goal, but not getting it, they just never looked comfortable that game.

Sadekuuro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2017, 08:12 PM
  #380
daver
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 10,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Well, yes it did -- if your core guys are THAT injured.
Scheduling was the cause of Detroit's injuries?

daver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2017, 09:41 PM
  #381
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 36,555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by daver View Post
Scheduling was the cause of Detroit's injuries?
You really should try reading what the other posters are saying instead of making stuff up on the fly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadekuuro View Post
Speaking of Babcock, some food for thought--it seems little remembered, but the Wings' strategy in Game 7 was not at all what you'd expect from such an experienced group. Instead of the patient game they were renowned for, they largely shot their wad going for the kill in the first 10-15 minutes of the 1st; they dominated but couldn't get the goal, and of course couldn't sustain that level of pressure. After they were spent they looked listless, on their heels, not in control of their game like normal. This was evident well before they eventually surrendered the first goal.

I'd love to hear some exposition of why they went that route. Was this Babcock's gamble? Admittedly they probably hang on and win if they get that first goal, but not getting it, they just never looked comfortable that game.
I think they were really spent at that point and just didn't have that next level. If you've watched the team for a couple decades, you know what I mean with 'the next level.' As I said earlier, the team actually got better by adding Hossa, but they got really battered against the Ducks and Hawks. And as we know, the Hawks quickly went on to great things the next season.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2017, 04:07 AM
  #382
daver
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 10,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
You really should try reading what the other posters are saying instead of making stuff up on the fly.
All I am reading are excuses and conspiracy theories that would normally be dismissed or laughed off shortly after the series ended, and relegated to a Wings discussion forum.

Injuries are an excuse.
Tiredness is an excuse.

The Pens won the series by being the better team, no excuses.

daver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2017, 05:29 AM
  #383
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by daver View Post
I am not trying to make it difficult to understand, I find it simply incredulous that anyone would use "my team was too tired" as an excuse, period. There is no one else to blame except themselves for going 7 games against the Ducks or 3 OT games against the Hawks. If they were too tired on May 30th, they were going to be too tired on any start date as far as I am concerned.

Can we now question the Wings 2008 Cup to other teams being too tuckered out? What makes your comment that much more incredible is that the Pens played just as many games in 2008 and 2009. Why weren't they tuckered out?
Do you have to be deliberately obtuse when you can't argue a point? Did I say they were just tired or also dealing with several injured players, too? Read the post you responded to again.

The Red Wings only had themselves to blame for being in the tougher conference and for having to travel to California? They didn't get to rollover the Canes in the Conference Final and had to deal with the upcoming champs instead. They clearly had a tougher road to the finals and the injuries mounted, forcing other players to log much bigger minutes with the absence of Lidstrom, Datsyuk, and Ericsson so that contributed to players being "tuckered out". Those factors hurt them going forward but stuff happens.

The real point, of course, is that they had several injuries to key players so the NHL changing to the expedited schedule put them in an even more precarious situation going into the finals and everyone knew it. It felt like a dirty trick by Bettman and I've shown why. Conference Finals that end quickly don't go right into the finals after just two days off, let alone roll into 3 games in 4 days on top of that. Farcical is a nice word to describe that last minute schedule change.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2017, 05:31 AM
  #384
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
You are still splitting hairs here. We are talking about one day shorter. I mean, these guys play 82 game a year plus 20 playoff games and it all comes down to one day LESS of rest that decided a Cup? Really?
One day shorter than what though? Series from the 70's that had a shorter journey to the Finals and/or Conference Finals that actually went 6 and 7 games instead of 4 and 5? You are comparing '09 with the absolute minimum when the situation didn't even call for that and it wasn't the norm. There is no justifying the NHL breaking their own agreement with the GMs and modifying the schedule to the quickest first 3 games in league history (1940 was even 7 days instead of 6). 2010 and 2013 are the best recent comparables, as both had CFs going 4 and 5 games, and in both cases there were 3 more days off within the first 3 games of the series after the CF's ended (9 days).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Datsyuk looked good in Game 5 and Detroit dominated. They had plenty of rest, an unusual amount actually, after Game 5 and did not capitalize. This is what I have been saying all along, any quick start to this final was countered with an unusually amount of rest later in the series.
That's faulty logic. The Red Wings could have badly used a regular schedule with regular downtime at the start of the series. And they earned at least that when they knocked the Hawks out in 5. What you're saying is they should be happy that the league finally gave them that needed rest after 5 more games into the finals. It's a little late, don't you think?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
This is my theory and while it doesn't equal your belief that the league was purposely fixing the schedule so Pittsburgh could win it (you've said it on this thread) it is the best I can think of.

They wanted some decent ratings that didn't compete with another special event. Having two weekend games was part of this and they could avoid any competition with Conan for at least the first two games. After that the schedule was completely normal and there really shouldn't be any complaints. Unusual, but that is almost certainly what the league wanted to do.
Nah, they weren't trying to avoid competing with Conan. The weekend games were on NBC and the first two weekday games were on Versus, then the final 2 games weekday games were on NBC again. They had plenty of options but they had to drop the back to back game idea because it made no sense for the league to rush the games that quickly.

And why did the NHL suddenly get so hung up on back to back games? The '08 and '10 finals both started on a Saturday so why not do it then as well? The last CF game both of those years were on the Monday beforehand, instead of Wednesday, so they had far more time to prepare for back to backs as well.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2017, 05:40 AM
  #385
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by daver View Post
All I am reading are excuses and conspiracy theories that would normally be dismissed or laughed off shortly after the series ended, and relegated to a Wings discussion forum.

Injuries are an excuse.
Tiredness is an excuse.

The Pens won the series by being the better team, no excuses.
We are spectators and fans so we are allowed to analyze why the series played out the way they did and injuries were clearly a factor in this case. I've also displayed how unprecedented the schedule was and how condensed the games were. Those aren't excuses, they are facts. No one knows for sure how it plays out if both teams are healthy and fresh and the NHL dragged out a typical finals schedule but we are allowed to offer our opinions.

You can't seem to deal with pointing to the situation in this series and asking questions. Would it make you happy if everyone just pretended the Red Wings didn't limp into the finals and get tossed the most condensed first 3 games? It wouldn't mean it didn't actually happen you know?

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2017, 08:04 AM
  #386
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Datsyuk looked good in Game 5 and Detroit dominated. They had plenty of rest, an unusual amount actually, after Game 5 and did not capitalize. This is what I have been saying all along, any quick start to this final was countered with an unusually amount of rest later in the series.
What you are saying is ridiculous. Even if the "unusual amount of rest" given late in the series equaled the six days that the NHL moved up the schedule (it didn't) there are obvious impacts. One, which is not debatable, Datsyuk missed three extra games because the series was moved up. Adding a few extra days late in the series when Datsyuk is already back don't magically "counter" Detroit missing Datsyuk for three games because of the schedule change, despite your frequent attempts to wave the advantage away. Second, any reasonable person can recognize that adding extra rest at the end of the series, when it is well over half played, does not equal rest before the series when all of the games have yet to be played, especially when the extra rest at the end does not even equal the rest that the NHL removed in the first place. Using your logic the NHL could have just held a six day gap between games six and seven and that would have been fine. That is obviously ridiculous though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daver View Post
All I am reading are excuses and conspiracy theories that would normally be dismissed or laughed off shortly after the series ended, and relegated to a Wings discussion forum.

Injuries are an excuse.
Tiredness is an excuse.

The Pens won the series by being the better team, no excuses.
Here is the insecurity again. Facts, like Detroit being quite injured and that being beneficial to Pittsburgh, are excuses that should be denied despite being factually accurate, apparently. Pittsburgh barely beating an injury riddled Detroit team was the better team all along, because... no reason given really, just because. I do agree though that generally healthy Pittsburgh probably was a better team than injury riddled Detroit, but it's close.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2017, 09:08 AM
  #387
Jaromir Blogger
Registered User
 
Jaromir Blogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 90
vCash: 500
Long time thread lurker, first time thread poster.

My position is that many things happened in that series that strongly benefitted the Penguins (including one that no one seems to have mentioned yet - correct me if I'm wrong), but I also want to emphasize that I stop short in believing in a conspiracy theory. And those two things are not mutually exclusive - one team may have had unfair advantages, but it doesn't mean that the league deliberately orchestrated it that way, or that they didn't deserve to win, or whatever else.

The scheduling fiasco was ridiculous, and the Wings clearly would have benefitted from extra days off. Yes, I know they won the first two games, but I think it's difficult to deny the advantage it would have given them over the course of a 7-game series. But the points about the scheduling have been covered by other posters.

The main thing that actually struck me about that series was the way it was officiated. The refs almost completely swallowed their whistles, allowing a tremendous amount of clutching and grabbing - unprecedented in the post-lockout era, if memory serves. I don't recall seeing a playoff series between 2006 and 2009 that featured anywhere near the amount of DPE horseplay, and the refs let them get away with it. And recall that the Pens' weakness - at least in the eyes of many - was their fairly immobile blueline. You had a hobbled Gonchar, notorious pylon Hal Gill, et al going up against the Red Wings' quick and efficient breakout and transition game. Really the only way that the Pens' blueline was able to defend against it was through clutching and grabbing, and that's exactly what they did. Go back and look at even just the scoresheets of those games - you'd see one or two penalties the entire game, save for garbage time stuff in Games 2 and 5 (if memory serves). Watch the games as the series progressed - the Pens were getting away with an awful lot for an era whose hallmark was supposed to be open, unobstructed play. And compare the series to other ones from around that period - if I recall correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong) - the extremely small number of non-garbage time penalties in that series was almost unprecedented for a playoff series. It was downright bizarre how much they let them get away with, and the Pens were the ones given the greatest advantage from this sudden sea change in policy.

(I'll emphasize again, though, that I do not believe there was a conspiracy theory at work here.)

Now, to be fair, Babcock blew it by not adjusting to how the game was actually being called. He stubbornly never seemed to adjust to the leniency being given to the players on the ice, and I think that ultimately cost them the series. You can actually look at plenty of Wings series where Babcock failed to adjust to the way things were going, but that's for another thread.

Does anyone else remember being struck by the officiating? It really seemed bizarre to me, and I couldn't figure out why it was suddenly being called so differently.

Kudos to the Pens for a great win in that tough series.

Jaromir Blogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2017, 09:48 AM
  #388
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,902
vCash: 500
Thanks for your input Jaromir Blogger. The only thing that stands out in my mind is how they allowed Hal Gill to knock Holmstrom all over the ice in one or two sequences and the refs looked the other way. They were battles in front of the net and in the slot and usually those types of plays were called but they allowed him to repeatedly beat up on Homer.

I don't think Babcock could tell his team to play the same way because I think he feared that they'd be called if they did the same. I recall Ericsson being called for interference when he held up a fore checker for a split second in the third period of game 3. This was often called at the time but in comparison to what else had been let go in that game it seemed like a soft call and it turned into the game winning PP goal that got the Pens back into the series.

Overall I didn't feel like the officiating stood out in a bad way. There was, of course, the too many men incident which was just dumbfounding. The Ducks series in '07 always takes the cake for me in that regard because they seemed to overwhelm the refs with dirty plays and infractions.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2017, 11:31 AM
  #389
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 36,555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaromir Blogger View Post
Long time thread lurker, first time thread poster.

My position is that many things happened in that series that strongly benefitted the Penguins (including one that no one seems to have mentioned yet - correct me if I'm wrong), but I also want to emphasize that I stop short in believing in a conspiracy theory. And those two things are not mutually exclusive - one team may have had unfair advantages, but it doesn't mean that the league deliberately orchestrated it that way, or that they didn't deserve to win, or whatever else.

The scheduling fiasco was ridiculous, and the Wings clearly would have benefitted from extra days off. Yes, I know they won the first two games, but I think it's difficult to deny the advantage it would have given them over the course of a 7-game series. But the points about the scheduling have been covered by other posters.

The main thing that actually struck me about that series was the way it was officiated. The refs almost completely swallowed their whistles, allowing a tremendous amount of clutching and grabbing - unprecedented in the post-lockout era, if memory serves. I don't recall seeing a playoff series between 2006 and 2009 that featured anywhere near the amount of DPE horseplay, and the refs let them get away with it. And recall that the Pens' weakness - at least in the eyes of many - was their fairly immobile blueline. You had a hobbled Gonchar, notorious pylon Hal Gill, et al going up against the Red Wings' quick and efficient breakout and transition game. Really the only way that the Pens' blueline was able to defend against it was through clutching and grabbing, and that's exactly what they did. Go back and look at even just the scoresheets of those games - you'd see one or two penalties the entire game, save for garbage time stuff in Games 2 and 5 (if memory serves). Watch the games as the series progressed - the Pens were getting away with an awful lot for an era whose hallmark was supposed to be open, unobstructed play. And compare the series to other ones from around that period - if I recall correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong) - the extremely small number of non-garbage time penalties in that series was almost unprecedented for a playoff series. It was downright bizarre how much they let them get away with, and the Pens were the ones given the greatest advantage from this sudden sea change in policy.

(I'll emphasize again, though, that I do not believe there was a conspiracy theory at work here.)

Now, to be fair, Babcock blew it by not adjusting to how the game was actually being called. He stubbornly never seemed to adjust to the leniency being given to the players on the ice, and I think that ultimately cost them the series. You can actually look at plenty of Wings series where Babcock failed to adjust to the way things were going, but that's for another thread.

Does anyone else remember being struck by the officiating? It really seemed bizarre to me, and I couldn't figure out why it was suddenly being called so differently.

Kudos to the Pens for a great win in that tough series.
I remember talking to a very respected older Sharks poster here, who ran an officiating review team, and he also noted the favoritism - for lack of a better word - for the Pens in the entire playoffs, but specifically against the Wings.

We both also agreed that the level of interference from the officials with face-offs was unprecedented up to that point. Well, if you then look at the playoffs after 2009, you never saw that again either. Someone seemed to convince the league the Wings were "cheating" by using all their tricks, which may be the case, but it certainly was not unprecedented or used by many other teams. Now, don't get me going on obstruction either.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2017, 04:06 PM
  #390
Jaromir Blogger
Registered User
 
Jaromir Blogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 90
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I remember talking to a very respected older Sharks poster here, who ran an officiating review team, and he also noted the favoritism - for lack of a better word - for the Pens in the entire playoffs, but specifically against the Wings.

We both also agreed that the level of interference from the officials with face-offs was unprecedented up to that point. Well, if you then look at the playoffs after 2009, you never saw that again either. Someone seemed to convince the league the Wings were "cheating" by using all their tricks, which may be the case, but it certainly was not unprecedented or used by many other teams. Now, don't get me going on obstruction either.
I have to agree with the idea that the series had a truly unique feel to it in the way it was officiated. I can't recall another series that seemed quite like it in that regard, and it did seem that no subsequent series seemed to be called in the same way. Now, again, I'm not saying I think this was deliberately done to favor the Pens, but the result of it was an advantage for Pittsburgh.

I honestly don't personally recall the faceoff stuff, but I totally believe all the posters who have been mentioning it.

Tell us more about what this Sharks poster said - I'm curious. I am a Red Wings fan (full disclosure), but I try very hard to not be a homer and assess them honestly (sometimes our fellow fan base annoys me, even, when they can't be honest), and I really, truly felt like the Wings were at a major disadvantage with the unprecedented way the series was called. Even DPE series had far more penalties, and it seemed like the Pens were the ones doing more of the illegal work (but maybe that's my bias creeping in). Years ago, I remember doing a comparison of PIMs in SCF series and it wasn't even close, especially once you factored in all the garbage time penalties. The refs swallowed their whistles to a rather extreme degree in that series.

And yes, the Malkin thing was ridiculous. The rule was absolutely black and white about it, and he should have been suspended. But of course the NHL wasn't going to do that, given that he was a star and his team was down 0-2 heading back home. Conspiracy? Nah. But an attempt to get higher ratings at the expense of credibility? Absolutely.

EDIT: But again, I give full credit to the Pens for beating the Wings. Every series has a variety of strange, uncontrollable factors that drive them, and in the end, the Pens played the hand they were dealt better than the Wings did.

Jaromir Blogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 12:38 AM
  #391
HowsUrBreath
Registered User
 
HowsUrBreath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 474
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post


Here is the insecurity again. Facts, like Detroit being quite injured and that being beneficial to Pittsburgh, are excuses that should be denied despite being factually accurate, apparently. Pittsburgh barely beating an injury riddled Detroit team was the better team all along, because... no reason given really, just because. I do agree though that generally healthy Pittsburgh probably was a better team than injury riddled Detroit, but it's close.
LOL just admit you have no respect for the Pens and the cup they won in 2009

you talk about insecurity, as if how dare anybody have the audacity to question the "greatness" of the 2009 red wings

but all i see is a lot of bitterness coming from you and others that just can't let go of the fact there is no "2009 stanley cup champs" banner hanging in detroit

sore losers, all of you just like lidstrom and draper whining about having to wait an extra minute to shake hands with crosby

if anything maybe you should feel lucky the pens were so young and inexperienced in 2008, if they weren't you wouldn't have that cup either

HowsUrBreath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 09:32 AM
  #392
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Cackalacky
Posts: 55,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowsUrBreath View Post
LOL just admit you have no respect for the Pens and the cup they won in 2009

you talk about insecurity, as if how dare anybody have the audacity to question the "greatness" of the 2009 red wings

but all i see is a lot of bitterness coming from you and others that just can't let go of the fact there is no "2009 stanley cup champs" banner hanging in detroit

sore losers, all of you just like lidstrom and draper whining about having to wait an extra minute to shake hands with crosby

if anything maybe you should feel lucky the pens were so young and inexperienced in 2008, if they weren't you wouldn't have that cup either


The Penguins were lucky to even get that series to 6 games, and the first 2 games were among the most one-sided in recent memory.

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 11:23 AM
  #393
bathdog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by daver View Post
The back to back games that the Pens lost? Huge benefit there.

Or do you mean a benefit in the sense it tired them out too much for later in the series? If that's the case, the Wings were too tired going into the series to begin with and the back to back is meaningless.
You realize there was a Game 3 and Game 4 too? Pens were able to manage the minutes of Crosby/Malkin, Wings didn't have that luxary, that is a benefit. Ideally you wanna rest your stars in regular B2B, nevermind 3 in 4.

bathdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 01:10 PM
  #394
Jaromir Blogger
Registered User
 
Jaromir Blogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 90
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowsUrBreath View Post
if anything maybe you should feel lucky the pens were so young and inexperienced in 2008, if they weren't you wouldn't have that cup either
Someone should feel lucky that their team was better than a team they played?

Jaromir Blogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 01:13 PM
  #395
daver
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 10,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bathdog View Post
You realize there was a Game 3 and Game 4 too? Pens were able to manage the minutes of Crosby/Malkin, Wings didn't have that luxary, that is a benefit. Ideally you wanna rest your stars in regular B2B, nevermind 3 in 4.
I don't understand what you are saying. How did the Pens manage the minutes of Crosby and Malkin and the Wings didn't?

daver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 01:14 PM
  #396
daver
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 10,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaromir Blogger View Post
Someone should feel lucky that their team was better than a team they played?
Great point. Seems this is overlooked by some people. Why should the Pens feel lucky when they were better than the team they played?


Last edited by daver: 04-21-2017 at 01:25 PM.
daver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 03:37 PM
  #397
invictus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,613
vCash: 500
All this talk of the series being called to favor the Pens made me want to go back and analyze. Now, it has been many years, and surely there are calls that some DRW supporters recall that were missed that should have gone against the Pens. But based solely on what was actually called, we have the following. 2-minute penalties first:

Slashing:
4x on Penguins
2x on Red Wings

Penguins called for 4:00 more of slashing overall.

Holding:
3x on Red Wings
2x on Penguins

Red Wings called for 2:00 more of holding overall.

Hooking:
4x on Penguins
1x on Red Wings
Penguins called for 6:00 more of hooking overall.

Cross Checking:
3x on Penguins
1x on Red Wings

Penguins called for 4:00 more of cross checking overall.

Interference:
2x on Penguins
1x on Red Wings

Penguins called for 2:00 more of interference overall.

Elbowing:
1x on Penguins
0x on Red Wings

Penguins called for 2:00 more of interference overall.

Instigator:
1x on Penguins
0x on Red Wings

Penguins called for 2:00 more overall.

Tripping:
4x on Red Wings
2x on Penguins

Red Wings called for 4:00 more overall

High-Sticking:
3x on Penguins
1x on Red Wings

Penguins called for 4:00 more overall.

Roughing
2x for each.

Goalie interference:
1x for each.

So overall, even if we subtract the instigator since it was end-of-game and a tacked on as part of a larger penalty, the Penguins were called for 16:00 more minutes of minor penalty over the series (so 18:00 if we include the instigator).

There was one called fight that was off-setting 5:00 minutes.

On misconducts, the Red Wings had one for 10:00 and the Penguins had four for 10:00 each.

So is the argument that the Penguins just were not called for enough penalties to satiate DRW fans? Because, by the stat sheet alone, it is hard to say the Pens were being incredibly favored.

Even if we look solely at the games the Pens won, it breaks down like this:
Game 3: 2:00 more called against Red Wings
Game 4: 2:00 more called against Penguins
Game 6: Equal amount of penalties called
Game 7: 2:00 more called against Penguins

Are we to believe nothing was missed on the DRW to balance out whatever supposedly went uncalled against the Penguins? How much more of an advantage in penalties would have made the Wings' fans happy? Or just enough to win the series?

It is also a bit ironic for anyone to say it was black and white that Malkin should be suspended. Here is the rule (emphasis mine)

Quote:
47.22 Fines and Suspensions – Instigator in Final Five Minutes of
Regulation Time (or Anytime in Overtime) - A player or goalkeeper
who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five (5)
minutes of regulation time or at anytime in overtime, shall
automatically be suspended for one game. The Director of Hockey
Operations will review every such incident and may rescind the
suspension based on a number of criteria. The criteria for the review
shall include, but not limited to, the score, previous incidents, etc.
The
length of suspension will double for each subsequent offense. This
suspension shall be served in addition to any other automatic
suspensions a player may incur for an accumulation of three or more
instigator penalties.
When the one-game suspension is imposed, the Coach shall be
fined $10,000 – a fine that will double for each subsequent incident.
No team appeals will be permitted either verbally or in writing
regarding the assessment of this automatic suspension.
Looks like it is not black-and-white that he should have been suspended, and looks like it was, by the letter of the rule, completely within the purview of the DHO to let him play.

If we also consider that even in sweeps, the losing teams' fans ***** about not enough penalties being called, I am left to wonder if we should not consider the Occam's Razor explanation that it is just sore losers whining. I don't mean that to troll, but really....the Penguins were called for more penalties, Malkin not being suspended was allowed by the letter of the rules (and in terms of previous incidents, hockeyfights has led me to believe that was Malkin's first ever fight, so it isn't as if he was a known goon), and the Wings blew a 2-0 series lead, a 3-2 series lead, and were the first team to lose Game 7 of the Finals at home since 1971.

In my eyes, the only genuine thing to complain about is series scheduling. But the Penguins did not have a say in that, had to deal with the same schedule, had even played one more game than the Wings coming in, and the Wings had a 2-0 lead after 2 games. So.....here we are. At the end of the day, the Wings lost 4 of 5 to the Penguins, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 03:53 PM
  #398
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 36,555
vCash: 500
What I recall are a couple huge incidents, even putting the Malkin incident aside, that helped the Pens. That missed icing call that led to a goal, iirc. Then there was the 1-2 minutes that the Pens had six men on the ice, and not a single official caught it.

The issue I pointed out -- face-offs officiating -- is not covered in your analysis, unfortunately.


Having said all that, the issue is still not about the Penguins not being good enough to get to the Cup final from their conference (though the West was much stronger back then than the East). The issue was the NHL BS with the scheduling and other meddling that was not typical. After the series was over, I personally was surprised the Wings got to a Game 7 given how beat up they were. The issue also being ignored is that the Pens did not improve much more over the prior year. They lost Hossa, and added Guerin. The Wings kept everyone else (though Hasek retired) and added Hossa, then went on to put up another blazing year, clearly the favored contender for the Cup.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 04:24 PM
  #399
invictus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
What I recall are a couple huge incidents, even putting the Malkin incident aside, that helped the Pens. That missed icing call that led to a goal, iirc. Then there was the 1-2 minutes that the Pens had six men on the ice, and not a single official caught it.

The issue I pointed out -- face-offs officiating -- is not covered in your analysis, unfortunately.


Having said all that, the issue is still not about the Penguins not being good enough to get to the Cup final from their conference (though the West was much stronger back then than the East). The issue was the NHL BS with the scheduling and other meddling that was not typical. After the series was over, I personally was surprised the Wings got to a Game 7 given how beat up they were. The issue also being ignored is that the Pens did not improve much more over the prior year. They lost Hossa, and added Guerin. The Wings kept everyone else (though Hasek retired) and added Hossa, then went on to put up another blazing year, clearly the favored contender for the Cup.
If we look at every Finals series post-lockout where the underdog won, where does this one rank? Is it a massive upset? I don't think so. They were both great teams and on the Penguins' side, you had Crosby and Malkin with another year of experience and the hunger of losing to close the gap a bit. I guess I just never saw the distance between the two teams as so great as to need an explanation. They went to 7 games and both made back-to-back finals for a reason!

And, yeah, I've got nothing on faceoffs

invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 05:19 PM
  #400
invictus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
What I recall are a couple huge incidents, even putting the Malkin incident aside, that helped the Pens. That missed icing call that led to a goal, iirc. Then there was the 1-2 minutes that the Pens had six men on the ice, and not a single official caught it.

The issue I pointed out -- face-offs officiating -- is not covered in your analysis, unfortunately.


Having said all that, the issue is still not about the Penguins not being good enough to get to the Cup final from their conference (though the West was much stronger back then than the East). The issue was the NHL BS with the scheduling and other meddling that was not typical. After the series was over, I personally was surprised the Wings got to a Game 7 given how beat up they were. The issue also being ignored is that the Pens did not improve much more over the prior year. They lost Hossa, and added Guerin. The Wings kept everyone else (though Hasek retired) and added Hossa, then went on to put up another blazing year, clearly the favored contender for the Cup.
Was there a 2nd incident, or this one?



They note at the end that it was :21 seconds. Should it have been a penalty? Yes. However, I notice over time things slowly get exaggerated. We should keep it to facts only. 21 seconds, while still bad, is not as bad as 1-2 minutes!

Which Penguins goal happened off a missed icing call?

invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.