HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Why was Detroit more successful than Colorado?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-15-2013, 04:28 PM
  #1
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 17,223
vCash: 500
Why was Detroit more successful than Colorado?

Despite not having a superstar in net like the Avs did, the Avs still had less success during their heyday than the Wings (2 to 3 cups, not counting 2008, different era). They both had great centers. Maybe even the Avs were better there. I know the Avs didn't have a guy like Lidstrom. So was it that Detroit defense was that much better?

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2013, 04:30 PM
  #2
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,924
vCash: 500
If you call it a wash between Sakic/Forsberg and Yzerman/Fedorov, Colorado has the edge in net, but Detroit has a significant edge in absolutely everything else - forwards, depth, defensive play, defensemen 1-6, and coaching.

The real question should be why wasn't Detroit even MORE successful?

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2013, 04:34 PM
  #3
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,541
vCash: 500
Yes, Detroit's defense was much better. The 1996 Avalanche were not good defensively, they just had an amazing and clutch offense and great goaltending. Through the 90s, the Avs defense was not nearly as good as Detroit or Dallas, or even St. Louis.

The Avs did turn things around and get Ray Bourque and then Rob Blake, but by then, they had given up most of their depth in various rental deals. The 2001 Avalanche had a great defense with Bourque, Blake, and Foote each playing almost 30 minutes in the playoffs. But by then, their depth was seriously lacking. When Forsberg got injured, they were basically a 1-line team. Maybe the only 1-line team I've ever seen win the Cup, but their defense was so stacked by that point and Sakic and Roy were so clutch, they got by.

Short answer - Detroit was just a more balanced team with a much better defense (except for the year Colorado had Bourque and Blake at the same time) and more forward depth.

I definitely do think Sakic/Forsberg was better than Yzerman/Fedorov when both teams were contenders though, mainly due to the fact that Yzerman was past his prime by the time the Wings started winning Cups.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2013, 04:56 PM
  #4
Zaphod
Registered User
 
Zaphod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,161
vCash: 500
The Avalanche were less a team than a group of spectacular individuals with support. Made them very easy to like, even if I was always scratching my head when they came up short.

The legend in net allowed the Avs to overlook pretty severe defensive flaws for a few years (until the Blake-Bourque load-up), and in retrospect I'd guess that the Wings got more out of their guys in suits. PL and the Avs were always looking to apply a quick patch to get the core of the Avs back to their '96 status, whereas throughout their dominant run, the Wings were able to switch gears.

The Avs kind of coached themselves, for better or worse, and the Wings had... Scotty Bowman.

Zaphod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2013, 05:08 PM
  #5
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,159
vCash: 500
As an Avs fan, I think it came down to coaching primarily (although in their "rivalry" period, the gap between the two wasn't that large).

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2013, 05:17 PM
  #6
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,075
vCash: 500
The Detroit Red Wings had more success because they had a better team in 2002 specifically. At that time, they each had two Stanley Cups, the Avalanche had beaten them three series to one head-to-head at a total of 14 games to 9. The Avalanche had won a total of 14 series dating back to 1996 to the Red Wings' 12. The Avalanche had won a total of 67 playoff games to the Red Wings' 55. The rivalry had died down, seemingly in Colorado's favor (who at the time were bigger rivals with Dallas). The only major incident I recall from 2001 was Avalanche alum Adam Deadmarsh knocking the Red Wings out of the playoffs with an overtime goal for the Kings.

But the Red Wings were outspending the Avalanche, and it caught up to them when Joe Sakic, Rob Blake, and Patrick Roy were going unrestricted after the 2001 Stanley Cup. Colorado had to pay their raises ($1 million for Roy, $2 million for Sakic, $4 million for Blake) while Detroit boosted Lidstrom by $1 million and signed Brett Hull at a $3.5 million discount. And Fedorov was still only making $2 million at the time, so the roster was a little bit more talented than the higher budget suggested.

Throw enough money at the wall while having the best coach in the league, and sometimes things will stick. Both teams used that strategy, but one had Scotty Bowman and deeper pockets. Had it not been the year that Colorado had to spend their budget on three All-Star UFAs, perhaps they're the ones signing Hull and Robitaille. As it stands, Detroit won in 2002, saw their strategy fail with higher budgets in 2003 and 2004 without Scotty Bowman, and were better equipped to survive the NHL post-lockout.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2013, 05:24 PM
  #7
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,331
vCash: 500
If we are going to compare the two teams I think it is worth noting that Colorado had a 3-2 edge over them in series wins (1996, 1999, 2000) while the Wings won in 1997 and 2002. Detroit has the 3-2 edge in Cups though.

Honestly, a lot of it came down to Marc Crawford being there. As Canadians we know full well what having Crawford behind the bench can do (1998 Olympics) or you can even ask a Canucks fan the same question. He was a guy who constantly got outcoached.

Also, for whatever reason Sakic and Forsberg never seemed to both be playing their best hockey at the best time. Forsberg was dominant in 1999 and 2002 definitely outplaying Sakic. While Sakic played his best in 1996, 1997 and 2001 with Forsberg not showing up like in other years (he was injured for the last two series in 2001). I really don't know why this was.

Honestly, these teams were close in these years. One Cup seperates them. Each have a year in the middle of their Cup wins that features a big upset (1998 Colorado, 2001 Red Wings). Detroit just had a better system overall with the left wing lock. When it worked, it thrived. That just might honestly be the difference. And Bowman of course.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2013, 05:29 PM
  #8
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
As an Avs fan, I think it came down to coaching primarily (although in their "rivalry" period, the gap between the two wasn't that large).
Well, you guys had a couple of good ones, the New Breed if you will in Crawford (aka Crow for all the miles he'd travelled) and Bob Heartless Hartley. Excellent GM, serious talent. But ya, pretty hard to compete against Detroit's bench bosses. Definitely a cut above, a notch higher.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2013, 05:30 PM
  #9
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
While Sakic played his best in 1996, 1997 and 2001 with Forsberg not showing up like in other years (he was injured for the last two series in 2001). I really don't know why this was.
In 1996, he was dominated by the Chris Chelios matchup. In 1997, he was playing with two concussions.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2013, 05:39 PM
  #10
zombiekopitor
GOALdobin
 
zombiekopitor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Best Coast
Posts: 2,565
vCash: 100
Scotty Bowman

if he's the Av's coach how many cups do they have? 3-5 I say

zombiekopitor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2013, 05:44 PM
  #11
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,381
vCash: 500
I don't think you can underestimate the contributions of Konstantinov, who many considered to be better than Lidstrom through 1997. Adding a forward like Shanahan to the Feds/Yzerman 1-2 punch wasn't exactly insignificant. And Larionov and Kozlov and Fetisov. That gets us through the 97 and 98 teams.

In 2002, they didn't have Vladdy any longer, but brought in Chelios. A lot of people at that time thought that Cheli had the better defensive performance during the playoffs, although Lidstrom won the Conne Smythe. Hasek, of course, evened it out in the net, and adding Hull to play with an unheard of rookie called Datsyuk, when Larionov was busy?

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2013, 05:50 PM
  #12
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ghana Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,484
vCash: 500
If Patrick Roy doesn't do his statue of liberty move and then meltdown in Game 7 two days later, this question is probably reversed. Actually, it would definitely be reversed since Colorado would then have had a 4-1 head-to-head advantage.

I think Colorado's depth is underrated. Guys like Stephane Yelle, Adam Deadmarsh, Claude Lemieux and Shjon Podein were solid support players. Usually a Dave Reid or Mike Keane as the grizzled veteran on the third or fourth line. Theo Fleury brought in at the deadline one year, Dave Andreychuk came with Bourque. By around 2000 the emergence of Hejduk, Drury, and Tanguay gave them two first lines basically.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2013, 07:21 PM
  #13
mobilus
Registered User
 
mobilus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: high slot
Posts: 595
vCash: 500
The real irony is Roy wouldn't have been in Colorado if Detroit hadn't blown out the Canadiens '95.

mobilus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2013, 07:31 PM
  #14
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,345
vCash: 500
Aside from the fact that the Avalanche had inferior defense to Detroit's all-time quality core in the 90s, they also lacked depth, which was to some degree the result of Pierre Lacroix starting a (perhaps premature) retool shortly after the Avalanche won the cup in 1996.

I don't remember if they were targeting Vincent Lecavalier exclusively for the 1998 draft, or if they also had money issues, but they traded Mike Ricci, Chris Simon, Stephane Fiset and other pieces for first round picks. Then they went out and mortgaged their future on deadline acquisitions like Theoren Fleury, Rob Blake and Ray Bourque a few years in a row which really depleted the depth at the expense of top heavy talent. The Red Wings seemed to be able to maintain a better degree of continuity among their foot soldier class and also had some miracle Zetterberg and Datsyuk drafts which Colorado did not, which allowed them to be competitive into the late 2000s.

Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2013, 08:32 PM
  #15
WarriorOfGandhi
Was saying Boo-urns
 
WarriorOfGandhi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Country: Scotland
Posts: 13,504
vCash: 142
Crawford, Hartley, Granato.

WarriorOfGandhi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2013, 09:00 PM
  #16
Rorschach
Fearful Symmetry
 
Rorschach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 6,204
vCash: 500
Detroit drafted so much depth. The Nordiques drafted number 1s then traded them into a team. I'll take the drafting team. Detroit simply had way more money and spent it on their infrastructure.

Rorschach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2013, 11:32 PM
  #17
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rorschach View Post
Detroit drafted so much depth. The Nordiques drafted number 1s then traded them into a team. I'll take the drafting team. Detroit simply had way more money and spent it on their infrastructure.
The Avs were pretty good drafters themselves in the 90s with picks like Regehr, Tanguay, Parrish, Deadmarsh, Pahlsson, Drury, Hejduk, Tim Thomas! Brent Johnson, Thibault, Fernandez, Karpovtsev, Kovalenko, etc. not to mention a host of guys who looked like big time prospects whom they parlayed into real good assets.

Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 10:16 AM
  #18
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
Aside from the fact that the Avalanche had inferior defense to Detroit's all-time quality core in the 90s, they also lacked depth, which was to some degree the result of Pierre Lacroix starting a (perhaps premature) retool shortly after the Avalanche won the cup in 1996.

I don't remember if they were targeting Vincent Lecavalier exclusively for the 1998 draft, or if they also had money issues, but they traded Mike Ricci, Chris Simon, Stephane Fiset and other pieces for first round picks. Then they went out and mortgaged their future on deadline acquisitions like Theoren Fleury, Rob Blake and Ray Bourque a few years in a row which really depleted the depth at the expense of top heavy talent. The Red Wings seemed to be able to maintain a better degree of continuity among their foot soldier class and also had some miracle Zetterberg and Datsyuk drafts which Colorado did not, which allowed them to be competitive into the late 2000s.
Yeah, the Sakic offer sheet tighened things up and they were stuck in McNichols arena for longer than expected while the Pepsi Center took longer to get off the ground than expected.

Hasbro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 12:09 PM
  #19
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
Despite not having a superstar in net like the Avs did
Detroit didn't have a superstar, but they still had a top goalie and one of the five best goalies of the generation (Osgood), before they were forced to let him go for nothing when they got the best goalie ever (Hasek) at the end of his prime.

Neither in Detroit were at Roy's Colorado level, but realistically they weren't far below.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 12:16 PM
  #20
Beville
#ForTheBoys
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Engerlanddd!
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Kris Draper and Kirk Maltby.

Beville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 12:17 PM
  #21
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
one of the five best goalies of the generation (Osgood)
Chris Osgood was the definition of "league average goaltender":

http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/osgood.html

He was marginally better than that in his first Detroit stint: +46.6 goals above average between 1993-94 and 2000-01 (and a -1.9 in the playoffs over that span), but unless you've got a peculiar definition of "generation", that's nowhere near top five in Osgood's case.

We can argue about inadequacies of save percentage as a metric, but any biases there aren't going to push him into the top five.

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 12:22 PM
  #22
SoundwaveIsCharisma
Moderator
 
SoundwaveIsCharisma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Screw You Blaster
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,009
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SoundwaveIsCharisma
Colorado should have been much better, but they had a habit of hiring complete randoms to be their coaches.

Detroit was also much more willing to dip into free agency to help them fill out their roster, the Avs did not. As a result the Avs often had huge gaps (typically on defense) on their roster that didn't get fixed.

SoundwaveIsCharisma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 01:50 PM
  #23
blamebettman*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Yes, Detroit's defense was much better. The 1996 Avalanche were not good defensively, they just had an amazing and clutch offense and great goaltending. Through the 90s, the Avs defense was not nearly as good as Detroit or Dallas, or even St. Louis.

The Avs did turn things around and get Ray Bourque and then Rob Blake, but by then, they had given up most of their depth in various rental deals. The 2001 Avalanche had a great defense with Bourque, Blake, and Foote each playing almost 30 minutes in the playoffs. But by then, their depth was seriously lacking. When Forsberg got injured, they were basically a 1-line team. Maybe the only 1-line team I've ever seen win the Cup, but their defense was so stacked by that point and Sakic and Roy were so clutch, they got by.

Short answer - Detroit was just a more balanced team with a much better defense (except for the year Colorado had Bourque and Blake at the same time) and more forward depth.

I definitely do think Sakic/Forsberg was better than Yzerman/Fedorov when both teams were contenders though, mainly due to the fact that Yzerman was past his prime by the time the Wings started winning Cups.
I actually went back and looked...were there any other true "1 line" cup champs

Only Calgary in 2004 would've made the cut, and they lost the game 7. But they had nothing after the 1st line. Grinders and journeymen. That's about it

blamebettman* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 02:18 PM
  #24
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
As an Avs fan, I think it came down to coaching primarily (although in their "rivalry" period, the gap between the two wasn't that large).
Don't forget your GM who started to slip and prioritized french-canadians and, of course, his own son. Lacroix had problems getting depth (obviously, rangers overpayment for avs players didnt help)

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 02:20 PM
  #25
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
Chris Osgood was the definition of "league average goaltender":

http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/osgood.html

He was marginally better than that in his first Detroit stint: +46.6 goals above average between 1993-94 and 2000-01 (and a -1.9 in the playoffs over that span), but unless you've got a peculiar definition of "generation", that's nowhere near top five in Osgood's case.

We can argue about inadequacies of save percentage as a metric, but any biases there aren't going to push him into the top five.
What's your opinion on Terry Sawchuk?

Using your "SNW" (which I assume you are loosely referring to) he comes out even worse than Osgood does.

Now we know it's a fact that goaltenders on teams that focus on reducing shots are more likely to post a lower sv%. There are plenty of examples of this. Dominik Hasek in Detroit is an excellent example relevant to this; he was behind the same/similar defense and his numbers declined drastically from a Vezina winning season that was one of his best years. Did Hasek suddenly turn into an average goalie when he was traded? His SNW - and therefore his save percentage? - was below the league average multiple times in four seasons with the Red Wings and it was four of his five worst seasons. Yet his Ottawa numbers were better than his 2001 Vezina.

Why is that? Why would such a great goalie as Hasek have such a drop in statistics on one team?

And there's the Sawchuk thing, of course, where his overall number is only just slightly higher than average and his playoff number is actually well below.

It's interesting. You claim that save percentage is "basically" an indicator, and suggest that arguments against it are only worth a small margin of error, and then you use a set of advanced statistics that puts Osgood on the level of Terry Sawchuk, which is contrary to your original argument.

I disagree with your statistics, but I also disagree with your initial premise. You claim to be an expert on goaltending, and yet you are more interested in stats which do not account for a) unreliable shot counting and b) varying defensive systems which allow different amounts of scoring chances per-shot. I don't agree with that method, and I think it's a poor way of evaluating talent because there are so many things that can happen which make situations unequal between goalies. A goaltender who faces fewer shots will naturally see a larger impact on his statistics when he does give up a goal. If his team makes a mistake that costs them a goal, that's the kind of thing stats don't track.

pdd 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 09:16 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.