Games that could have altered the NHL looking back- butterfly effect
Sometimes, there is a single game or a single moment in a game that, when looking back, makes you wonder what if things went differently.
If things had gone the other way, how drastically might things have changed?
What are some instances of this you recall- the NHL Butterfly Effect, if you will.
I'll start with a few examples:
Game 7, 1993 Norris Division Finals
If Detroit scores the OT goal against Toronto, not only does the memorable Leaf playoff run never get off the ground, the Red Wings could have made some noise given the playoff carnage that ensued that year.
Could they have gotten by the Blues in the division finals? Or the Kings in the conference finals? Could they have gone all the way to the Cup Finals?
They were a very solid team (no team in the last 20 years has scored more goals in a season than 369) and Yzerman was still in his super-scorer days.
If Gilmour gets knocked out in round 1, could a Red Wing sniper have had the monster playoff that Doug had?
They would have had home-ice against St. Louis in round 2, LA in round 3, or Montreal in the Cup Finals.
Does a deep playoff run save Bryan Murray's job? Would they still have hired Scotty Bowman? Do they run off Cheveldae if he maybe gets them far in the playoffs?
Game 6-7, 2003 NHL Western Conference Quarterfinals
If Colorado holds off Minnesota in either of those overtimes, would they have had enough juice to make a run at the Cup?
They would have played the Canucks at the peak of their Northwest bad blood rivalry from 2002-2004.
Does Anaheim still make it to the Cup Finals if they have to face one of these teams instead of Minnesota in the West Finals?
Does a playoff series win or two change Patrick Roy's plans or does he still retire?
How might the Cup Finals have gone if one of these teams had possibly gotten through Giguere?
as an Oilers fan I'm going to have to go with game 1 of the SC final 2006.
Oilers get out to a 3-0 lead early.
If Roloson doesn't hurt his knee I think we win that game and the series - 6th Stanley Cup for the franchise in improbably fashion (as an 8 seed).
as an Oilers fan I'm going to have to go with game 1 of the SC final 2006.
Oilers get out to a 3-0 lead early.
If Roloson doesn't hurt his knee I think we win that game and the series - 6th Stanley Cup for the franchise in improbably fashion (as an 8 seed).
A better what if to me about that would be if your Oilers faced Buffalo insted.
if otto kicking the puck into the net in 89 was disallowed, who wins the cup that year?
do the hawks make the finals, maybe gretzky's kings? i am guessing the habs still win and roy gets he smythe. but would the hawks have held onto the savard and wilson core longer after finally breaking through to the finals?
what happens to those flames? do they break up that team even faster after an epic choke job, or do they keep those guys together longer hoping that they ventually get it a la the current interminable sharks?
legacies of macinnis, savard, wilson, vernon in the balance. roy could have retired with four smythes. but if has three in 95, is there a chance in hell mtl has the balls to ever trade him?
Well I'm not a Leaf fan but if 93 is on the table you have to mention games 6 & 7 of the series against the Kings. What if Gretzky got called for the high stick in G6, or didn't have the inhuman game he had in G7, and the Leafs won that series? A Habs/Leafs 93 final for the 100th anniversary of the Cup would've been simply epic, and denying us that is something I've always held against Gretzky.
... Bertuzzi scored a career high 25 goals in 1999-00 and played a robust style all over the ice. He duplicated these numbers the following year before breaking out for 36 goals and was one of the top player in the league during the second half of the 2001-02 season.
Bertuzzi would build on his success from 2001-02, and alongside Markus Naslund, the two became one of the most dangerous tandems in the league. In 2002-03, Bertuzzi established career highs in goals (46), assists (51) and points (97)and was named to the NHL's 1st All-Star Team.
I realize his scoring pace was down in 03-04 before the Moore incident, but what if Bertuzzi had not had the Moore incident? Would he have had one off year in 03-04 and then gone back to scoring 85-97 points a season the way he did in the 2 previous years? Would we be talking about one of the best players in the league today? Is it possible that the Moore incident changed not only the way he was perceived by others, but also by himself, at least on on a subconscious level?
I realize his scoring pace was down in 03-04 before the Moore incident, but what if Bertuzzi had not had the Moore incident? Would he have had one off year in 03-04 and then gone back to scoring 85-97 points a season the way he did in the 2 previous years? Would we be talking about one of the best players in the league today? Is it possible that the Moore incident changed not only the way he was perceived by others, but also by himself, at least on on a subconscious level?
he would have eventually been booed out of town for being a lazy sack of crap. but not before carrying the team into the gutter while also blocking the sedins' ascension to the top line. no luongo trade, no complete change in team philosophy and identity, depressing times for canucks fans.
but the other effect of this (by which i mean, no original moore hit, not moore hitting naslund and then bertuzzi not losing his mind) is naslund not declining so rapidly, and probably accumulating enough points to hit 1,000 for his career. and people would look back and wonder, "is markus naslund a borderline hall of famer?" and, imo, the thought of markus naslund being spoken of as a potential hall of famer, even a borderline one, is equally depressing. man i hated that era of the canucks.
oh, and in all likelihood, burke and nonis stay as well. which probably alters at least two cup finals.
If Detroit doesn't score 9 goals on Patrick Roy, maybe they win the cup in 1996...and who knows what happens in 97 and 98 since they may not have traded for Shanny.
I realize his scoring pace was down in 03-04 before the Moore incident, but what if Bertuzzi had not had the Moore incident? Would he have had one off year in 03-04 and then gone back to scoring 85-97 points a season the way he did in the 2 previous years? Would we be talking about one of the best players in the league today? Is it possible that the Moore incident changed not only the way he was perceived by others, but also by himself, at least on on a subconscious level?
I've often said this on these boards. Todd Bertuzzi was arguably on his way to being a Hall of Fame player. He had a monster season in 2002, 2003. Heck, 2003 was a Hart caliber season. I know his production was down a bit in 2003-'04 but it wasn't as if he was far from a point per game, he had 60 in 69 games. This was a very low scoring year by the way.
The Canucks as they were could have easily marched the final in 2004 and no one would have batted an eyelash. Without Bertuzzi though, they weren't going to do that.
But if he doesn't hit Moore, the Canucks win the division and make a deep run in the postseason (maybe a Cup) then I could see that type of game continuing even in 2005-'06 despite the lockout. Bertuzzi's production curve early in his career was similar to many power forwards. None of them light the league on fire in their early 20s. Iginla was 24-25 before he broke out and Bertuzzi was pretty much the same age. So there is no telling what he might have done in his 30s. Plus in 2004 would it have shocked anyone if he is a Conn Smythe winner? Not really. I think people forget just how much Bertuzzi ran roughshod in the NHL at that time. He was a dominant, dominant power forward.
I'll go deeper than just team-orientated games/series.
Take Paul Henderson's goal. If that isn't scored, there is no telling what the NHL as we know it might look like. Its true. The Soviets were ready to claim victory if Canada didn't win that game. Maybe we change our style of game in 1972, who knows? Many experts have said that the win in 1972 was the worst thing to happen to Canada. After that the Flyers took over, the NHL took a break and became a more rough and tumble and bullied type of game. Skill sometimes was replaced for brawn.
Maybe the Flyers aren't as succesful in the 1970s. A young Wayne Gretzky wouldn't notice subtle things on the ice like how Bobby Clarke would set up behind the net to make a pass because the Flyers wouldn't be winning - arguably - and wouldn't be front and center.
Or, look at it from another angle. Hull and Orr are allowed to play in the 1972 Summit Series. Two players could have made such a huge impact on that series. The series probably goes 6-2 for Canada with no real threat of losing. Orr dominates, Canada feels safe again, and maybe Tretiak gets rattled by a Hull slapshot. Either way the mystique of the Russians doesn't exist. There is no Super Series in 1976 against the NHL teams. There is no Challenge Cup in 1979 against the NHL stars, and even if there is, Orr is playing in that tournament if his knees aren't shot. Then all of the sudden there is no Paul Henderson, no Miracle on Ice in 1980 because the Russians wouldn't be kings then. Maybe no Mike Liut. Who knows, but if the Canadians laid a thrashing on the Soviets in 1972 they might re-tool and start fresh again. Maybe if Tretiak gets shelled they replace him.
The Henderson goal is far and away the most important goal in hockey history and the ramifications of that goal NOT happening is classic butterfly effect material.
I've often said this on these boards. Todd Bertuzzi was arguably on his way to being a Hall of Fame player. He had a monster season in 2002, 2003. Heck, 2003 was a Hart caliber season. I know his production was down a bit in 2003-'04 but it wasn't as if he was far from a point per game, he had 60 in 69 games. This was a very low scoring year by the way.
The Canucks as they were could have easily marched the final in 2004 and no one would have batted an eyelash. Without Bertuzzi though, they weren't going to do that.
But if he doesn't hit Moore, the Canucks win the division and make a deep run in the postseason (maybe a Cup) then I could see that type of game continuing even in 2005-'06 despite the lockout. Bertuzzi's production curve early in his career was similar to many power forwards. None of them light the league on fire in their early 20s. Iginla was 24-25 before he broke out and Bertuzzi was pretty much the same age. So there is no telling what he might have done in his 30s. Plus in 2004 would it have shocked anyone if he is a Conn Smythe winner? Not really. I think people forget just how much Bertuzzi ran roughshod in the NHL at that time. He was a dominant, dominant power forward.
the bertuzzi from '03 and in the second half of the previous year was one of the most dominant performances i've ever seen in a canucks uniform. five years of that guy, and i agree: hall of fame.
but most of the time bertuzzi wasn't that guy. he'd show flashes of his dominance, and even play like that for two weeks at a time, up until his breakthrough halfway through the '02 season. then he'd turn back into a lazy, floaty moron who took dumb penalties.
after he got his huge contract extension at the beginning of '04, we never saw that bertuzzi again. he stopped forechecking, stopped hitting anybody, thought he was too good now to go to the net, and even stopped shooting. after that, it was all behind the back and drop passes to naslund and morrison and lazy hooking and holding penalties. we hated that guy, and for good reason. looking at the numbers is misleading without actually seeing game-in, game-out the two completely different bertuzzis we had in '03 and '04: he got those 60 points in 69 games on the back of markus naslund still being a superstar, which of course ended after the moore hit.
if there is no hit on moore, i don't see bertuzzi or the crawford-era canucks ever reaching the level that they should have. for one, naslund lost some of his shiftiness after that hit, always played with a split second of hesitancy after that, and his greatest weapon the amazing wrist shot was now just above-average. bert was amazing when he was on, but he and naslund opened up a lot of room for each other.
secondly, were there any assurances bertuzzi would have gotten back to elite monster bertuzzi ever again while not playing for a contract? he was on easy street, making almost $7 million for the next four years, and he certainly played like he was on easy street.
as for the cup, well we still had dan cloutier in net so there's that. but also, among the few superstars we've had, he was bar none the worst playoff performer i've ever seen on the canucks. luongo alternates between a god and godawful, but bertuzzi was always godawful in the playoffs. it sucked to lose to the flames in the first round and watch them go to the finals, but that spring morrison and matt cooke played like heroes to fill the bertuzzi void. i'd go as far as to say matt cooke accomplished more in that one round than bertuzzi ever had in all of his canucks playoff games combined unless you count the hit that took out macinnis in '03. looking back, as a canucks fan, i have fonder memories of that hard fought first round against the flames than i do the other two playoff years of the crawford/naslund/bertuzzi/cloutier era.
and, to set the record straight, the canucks did end up winning the division in '04. but even with bertuzzi, and even with a hypothetical bertuzzi who played like he gave a damn, this guy is going to score difference-making goals on kiprusoff at the height of his powers?
I'll go deeper than just team-orientated games/series.
Take Paul Henderson's goal. If that isn't scored, there is no telling what the NHL as we know it might look like. Its true. The Soviets were ready to claim victory if Canada didn't win that game. Maybe we change our style of game in 1972, who knows? Many experts have said that the win in 1972 was the worst thing to happen to Canada. After that the Flyers took over, the NHL took a break and became a more rough and tumble and bullied type of game. Skill sometimes was replaced for brawn.
Maybe the Flyers aren't as succesful in the 1970s. A young Wayne Gretzky wouldn't notice subtle things on the ice like how Bobby Clarke would set up behind the net to make a pass because the Flyers wouldn't be winning - arguably - and wouldn't be front and center.
Or, look at it from another angle. Hull and Orr are allowed to play in the 1972 Summit Series. Two players could have made such a huge impact on that series. The series probably goes 6-2 for Canada with no real threat of losing. Orr dominates, Canada feels safe again, and maybe Tretiak gets rattled by a Hull slapshot. Either way the mystique of the Russians doesn't exist. There is no Super Series in 1976 against the NHL teams. There is no Challenge Cup in 1979 against the NHL stars, and even if there is, Orr is playing in that tournament if his knees aren't shot. Then all of the sudden there is no Paul Henderson, no Miracle on Ice in 1980 because the Russians wouldn't be kings then. Maybe no Mike Liut. Who knows, but if the Canadians laid a thrashing on the Soviets in 1972 they might re-tool and start fresh again. Maybe if Tretiak gets shelled they replace him.
The Henderson goal is far and away the most important goal in hockey history and the ramifications of that goal NOT happening is classic butterfly effect material.
In similar vein, how about Super Series '76? If the Soviets defeat (or at least don't lose to) Montreal, Buffalo, and Philly, maybe Canada would have realized our game needed a major overhaul. I say this because, despite a 5-2-1 result for the USSR, Clarence Campbell claimed that the only games worth counting were against the above mentioned teams (2 wins and a tie for the NHL). It was like paper over the cracks again.
Flames vs Canucks first round in 1989. Vernon makes a stunning tip-of-his-toe-blade save in game 7 OT, Flames score game winner not long after. Flames only Cup would never have happened without that single spectacular stop. I know this isn't quite on topic, but that stop always makes me think "what if" moments happen all the time.
What if the Brett Hull goal had been disallowed in 1999? Does Buffalo come back win that game, tie the series and set up a Game 7 in that finals.
__________________
Exhibit A as to how hockey doesn't matter on ESPN:
Last night an ESPN program was discussing how the Detroit Pistons needed a hero citing the heroes on the Detroit Tigers, Detroit Lions and no mention of the Detroit Red Wings. All this despite the Red Wings probably being the most succesful team in Detroit right now.
The Steve Yzerman OT goal in double OT of the WCSF in 1996 against the Blues. I firmly believe that had the Blues won that game, they would have gone on to win the cup with the Gretzky, possibly causing Gretzky to stay in St. Louis and retire as a Blue. What most people forget/don't realize about that game is that Shayne Corson missed a wide open net with about 2 minutes left in the first OT for the Blues.
Also, had St. Louis won, then Detroit wouldn't have advanced to play the Avalanche in the '96 WCF, which was the series that really kicked off the amazing rivalry those teams had from 96-04 because of that fight between the whole team including Roy/Vernon.
Sometimes, there is a single game or a single moment in a game that, when looking back, makes you wonder what if things went differently.
If things had gone the other way, how drastically might things have changed?
What are some instances of this you recall- the NHL Butterfly Effect, if you will.
I'll start with a few examples:
Game 7, 1993 Norris Division Finals
If Detroit scores the OT goal against Toronto, not only does the memorable Leaf playoff run never get off the ground, the Red Wings could have made some noise given the playoff carnage that ensued that year.
Could they have gotten by the Blues in the division finals? Or the Kings in the conference finals? Could they have gone all the way to the Cup Finals?
They were a very solid team (no team in the last 20 years has scored more goals in a season than 369) and Yzerman was still in his super-scorer days.
If Gilmour gets knocked out in round 1, could a Red Wing sniper have had the monster playoff that Doug had?
They would have had home-ice against St. Louis in round 2, LA in round 3, or Montreal in the Cup Finals.
Does a deep playoff run save Bryan Murray's job? Would they still have hired Scotty Bowman? Do they run off Cheveldae if he maybe gets them far in the playoffs?
Hmm, never thought about this one. I think Detroit was quite monstrous offensively speaking (and your stats prove that). They had Coffey still at the top of his game, and Yzerman at his offensive peak as well (scored 137 points that year). Also, after a solid regular season, Fedorov seemed to be entering his prime. He was one summer break away from his legendary Hart/Selke/Pearson year. And in that series against the Leafs, he outscored a peak, 27 year old Yzerman, 9 points to 7, to lead all Wing's forwards in scoring. That was despite playing on the second line.
I think from that moment on, we would have basically seen peak versions of Fedorov and Yzerman together, going on a tear. If Fedorov had 9 points in a losing series against the Leafs, I think he would have torn up the Blues, especially with Coffey at his back every second shift. The Wings likely would have made a great run, my gut tells me they beat the Blues and Kings and then lose in 6 to the Habs in the SCF, but anything is possible (winning the Cup, or even losing to the Blues).
And yeah, we may have not seen a Bowman-led Wings team ever take form.
Marcel Aubut said that if the Nordiques had been able to go through the Rangers in 1995 ,and possibly make their way to the conference finals after that , they would have been able to have enough money to keep the team in Quebec City one more year.
So , what if Kovalev gets called for diving and Sakic's goal is good ?
What happens to Patrick Roy ? Montreal never deals him to QC. Maybe he goes to Detroit ?
1996 Nordiques vs Pens in the playoffs ? What a show that might have been
Another good playoff run keeps the team in QC for 1997-1998 ?
Not a goal, but if the Habs were smart after 1978 and handed the GM-coach label to Bowman instead of.............Grundman.............what would happen? Well the Habs still win in 1979. Even if Dryden retires and Lemaire as well the Habs are still a force. They would find a way to beat Minnesota with Bowman behind the bench in 1980. Plus would a mind like Bowman pass on Denis Savard in the 1980 draft? Hard to say.
I think the Habs are much stronger throughout the 1980s.
Marcel Aubut said that if the Nordiques had been able to go through the Rangers in 1995 ,and possibly make their way to the conference finals after that , they would have been able to have enough money to keep the team in Quebec City one more year.
So , what if Kovalev gets called for diving and Sakic's goal is good ?
What happens to Patrick Roy ? Montreal never deals him to QC. Maybe he goes to Detroit ?
1996 Nordiques vs Pens in the playoffs ? What a show that might have been
Another good playoff run keeps the team in QC for 1997-1998 ?
something tells me roy would have had too much pride to ever walk into the red wings locker room after his humiliation.
I mentioned Detroit because I heard the rumor that they were the runner-up in the Roy derby. The deal was around Martin Lapointe and Chris Osgood if I remember correctly.
1979 game 7. If Boston ultimately comes out on top , do the RANGERS end the curse 15 years early, or do the Bruins win the cup and their own drought is shorter
Steve Moore delivers a late hit on Markus Naslund. If this hit doesn't happen,
1) Naslund doesn't get that bone chip in his elbow that neutered his wrist shot, remains an elite sniper for several years
2) Bertuzzi doesn't exact revenge, remains with the team for the playoffs which would likely elevate them past the Calgary Flames in round 1 (considering that without Bertuzzi, Calgary took until game 7 OT to win), so the Flames never go on that cinderella run to the finals, and Tampa might not even win the Cup against a stronger western opponent
3) Vancouver doesn't go into a tailspin and the west coast express stay elite past the lockout
4) Bertuzzi never gets dealt for Luongo, and the makeup of the Canucks over the last several years is radically different, with Cory Schneider potentially being the starter for the last few seasons
5) This means Luongo is traded to a different team, potentially elevating them to elite status
6) if Naslund/Morrison/Bertuzzi remain elite, Brian Burke remains Canucks' GM, so the Canucks never sign Demitra or Sundin, and never trade for Ehrhoff
7) The Sedins might not have won back to back Art Ross trophies with the WCE still puttering along
If Steve Smith did NOT score into his own net in 1986, the Oilers end up beating Calgary and winning the 1986 Stanley Cup to make it 5 consecutive, cementing their legacy as the greatest dynasty in NHL history.
What if Leon Stickle calls offsides in game 6 of the 1980 SCF nullifying an Islanders goal? And the Flyers win game 6 and force a game 7 in Philly? If the Islanders lose that game 7, does Bill Torrey follow though on his promise to break up that core of Trottier, Potvin, Smith, etc. and an Islander dynasty never occurs?
