The Pittsburgh/Detroit back-to-back Cup Finals in retrospect

[daver]

If the NHL went with the June 5th start and the Red Wings got 9 days off and Datsyuk started the series and the team looked relatively healthy and won the series, would you think the schedule was unfair to the Pens?

What is the sense of throwing out hypothetical scenarios? It in no way enhances the discussion.

The facts are the league originally had the SCF starting on June 5 if both CFs went seven games. They released a tentative revised schedule when it looked like both CFs might be sweeps. There was an immediate discussion that a potential 8 days off if the Wings won on the 27th would be silly. They ended up with the same 2 days off and a back-to-back that the original plan called for.

 

[JackSlater]

Detroit had their chance to get an advantage out of the scheduling if they finished off their CF better than the Pens did. If they had swept too, they had two extra days off.

Making the series start even earlier would not have been advantageous for Detroit at all. That is less time for the injured players to recover and likely more missed games (or game) for Datsyuk and quite possibly one for Lidstrom.

The facts are the league originally had the SCF starting on June 5 if both CFs went seven games. They released a tentative revised schedule when it looked like both CFs might be sweeps. There was an immediate discussion that a potential 8 days off if the Wings won on the 27th would be silly. They ended up with the same 2 days off and a back-to-back that the original plan called for.

The fact is that the league announced that the finals would start on June 5 if either series went until May 26 or later, not to game seven. Whether one likes it or not that is a demonstrable fact.

 

[daver]

Making the series start even earlier would not have been advantageous for Detroit at all. That is less time for the injured players to recover and likely more missed games (or game) for Datsyuk and quite possibly one for Lidstrom.

Playing the SCF, period, was not advantageous for Detroit. What's your point?

All you and Dan are doing is either showing sour grapes by continually bringing up injuries or saying the league should have considered who was injured and schedule the series later to get all of the stars in play.

Let it go already.

 

[daver]

The fact is that the league announced that the finals would start on June 5 if either series went until May 26 or later, not to game seven. Whether one likes it or not that is a demonstrable fact.

Which is why I mentioned it in my post.

It is also a demonstrable fact that the league erred in making that announcement once it was realized that an 8 day break would be ridiculous.

It is also a demonstrable fact that the first five games were eventually scheduled as per the original schedule.

It is also a demonstrable fact that many other SCFs have started after two days after the CFs finished even if both teams closed out their CFs in less than seven games.

It is also as close to a demonstrable fact as you can get that whatever advantage you think the Pens gained, it was not taken advantage of and the supposed advantage was returned in kind by Game 7.

 

[JackSlater]

Playing the SCF, period, was not advantageous for Detroit. What's your point?

All you and Dan are doing is either showing sour grapes by continually bringing up injuries or saying the league should have considered who was injured and schedule the series later to get all of the stars in play.

Let it go already.

If you followed the post at all, even a little bit, you could see my point very clearly. You wrongly stated that Detroit winning the Western conference finals earlier would have been advantageous for Detroit. I am saying that your statement was wrong. That is why I quoted you and wrote the point very clearly.

Which is why I mentioned it in my post.

It is also a demonstrable fact that the league erred in making that announcement once it was realized that an 8 day break would be ridiculous.

It is also a demonstrable fact that the first five games were eventually scheduled as per the original schedule.

It is also a demonstrable fact that many other SCFs have started after two days after the CFs finished even if both teams closed out their CFs in less than seven games.

It is also as close to a demonstrable fact as you can get that whatever advantage you think the Pens gained, it was not taken advantage of and the supposed advantage was returned in kind by Game 7.

What you mentioned wasn't accurate. That the league moved up the schedule is a fact, not something that can be twisted or debated. That you can seemingly accept that one day and then deny it the next is honestly amazing to me. Your final statement is more wishful thinking than fact, given that the schedule being moved up obviously affected Detroit for the whole series, but that's a matter for another day.

 

[daver]

If you followed the post at all, even a little bit, you could see my point very clearly. You wrongly stated that Detroit winning the Western conference finals earlier would have been advantageous for Detroit. I am saying that your statement was wrong. That is why I quoted you and wrote the point very clearly.

I said the Wings would have had two extra days off than the Pens would have had. I didn't say it would have been advantageous although it would have been one of the rare times in life where days off are viewed negatively.

Luckily the Wings were smart enough to lose Game 3 to gain another precious two days at least. Too bad they didn't lose more games but them's the breaks.

 

[daver]

What you mentioned wasn't accurate. That the league moved up the schedule is a fact, not something that can be twisted or debated. That you can seemingly accept that one day and then deny it the next is honestly amazing to me. Your final statement is more wishful thinking than fact, given that the schedule being moved up obviously affected Detroit for the whole series, but that's a matter for another day.

Noone is buying this. The league did not formally schedule the SCF until after the Wings won on May 27th.

You thinking that this "obviously affected the Wings" is so high on the BS meter its hilarious. It is nothing but wishful thinking that the primary narrative for the 2009 SCF is the Wings would have won if not for scheduling.

 

[JackSlater]

I said the Wings would have had two extra days off than the Pens would have had. I didn't say it would have been advantageous although it would have been one of the rare times in life where days off are viewed negatively.

Luckily the Wings were smart enough to lose Game 3 to gain another precious two days at least. Too bad they didn't lose more games but them's the breaks.

You're all over he place as usual. This is what you said:

But this is no way should be tied into Detroit's injury issues and/or a reason why they lost. Detroit had their chance to get an advantage out of the scheduling if they finished off their CF better than the Pens did. If they had swept too, they had two extra days off.

You very clearly did call it an advantage, in your own words, and I correctly pointed out that you were obviously wrong. Winning the series in four games would have led to fewer days off for Detroit under the schedule that was released at the time and thus it very obviously would have been a negative for a team with several injured players. The NHL then moved the schedule up by several days, and thus the break in this case (the NHL moving the schedule up) was a negative for Detroit.

Noone is buying this. The league did not formally schedule the SCF until after the Wings won on May 27th.

You thinking that this "obviously affected the Wings" is so high on the BS meter its hilarious. It is nothing but wishful thinking that the primary narrative for the 2009 SCF is the Wings would have won if not for scheduling.

Anyone with basic reading skills buys this. The funny thing is that you were the first to post the factual evidence that the league moved up the schedule, but then try to deny it. If you think that the schedule change made no difference that is one thing that can be debated, but that the schedule was moved up is not. It is a demonstrable fact that happened. It's also pretty obvious that playing with more injured players, and without Datsyuk for several games extra games, is a negative but at least it isn't an irrefutable fact, which the schedule change is.

 

[Shockmaster]

If you followed the post at all, even a little bit, you could see my point very clearly. You wrongly stated that Detroit winning the Western conference finals earlier would have been advantageous for Detroit. I am saying that your statement was wrong. That is why I quoted you and wrote the point very clearly.



What you mentioned wasn't accurate. That the league moved up the schedule is a fact, not something that can be twisted or debated. That you can seemingly accept that one day and then deny it the next is honestly amazing to me. Your final statement is more wishful thinking than fact, given that the schedule being moved up obviously affected Detroit for the whole series, but that's a matter for another day.

I'm pretty sure it affected the Penguins too. They too had to start Game 1 of the SCF that year at the exact same time the Red Wings did.

 

[daver]

You very clearly did call it an advantage, in your own words, and I correctly pointed out that you were obviously wrong. Winning the series in four games would have led to fewer days off for Detroit under the schedule that was released at the time and thus it very obviously would have been a negative for a team with several injured players. The NHL then moved the schedule up by several days, and thus the break in this case (the NHL moving the schedule up) was a negative for Detroit.

If the Wings finished off the Hawks earlier than the Pens, they would have gotten the "advantage" of more days off regardless of the SCF start date.

That's what I am referring to.

This whole "the schedule was moved up" talk is fake news and irrelevant and only serves to somehow make Wings fans feel better. The Pens won fairly with ZERO advantage due to the scheduling of the series.

 

[daver]

Anyone with basic reading skills buys this. The funny thing is that you were the first to post the factual evidence that the league moved up the schedule, but then try to deny it. If you think that the schedule change made no difference that is one thing that can be debated, but that the schedule was moved up is not. It is a demonstrable fact that happened. It's also pretty obvious that playing with more injured players, and without Datsyuk for several games extra games, is a negative but at least it isn't an irrefutable fact, which the schedule change is.

I did some research on the matter and found out there is a lot more to the narrative that you are presenting, namely that the original tentative schedule was released before the CFs started and there was rumblings that the league would not go with a June 5 start after the June 22 announcement. You are making a mountain out of barely a molehill given the facts.

If the league did in fact schedule the SCF for June 5 and then made the change, can you provide a link with the dates and start times. If you cannot, then my assertion that the NHL could not change something that wasn't formally scheduled in the first place is correct.

 

[danincanada]

I did some research on the matter and found out there is a lot more to the narrative that you are presenting, namely that the original tentative schedule was released before the CFs started and there was rumblings that the league would not go with a June 5 start after the June 22 announcement. You are making a mountain out of barely a molehill given the facts.

If the league did in fact schedule the SCF for June 5 and then made the change, can you provide a link with the dates and start times. If you cannot, then my assertion that the NHL could not change something that wasn't formally scheduled in the first place is correct.

Are you questioning if the the dates with start times existed for the June 5th schedule? If so, you provided them in post # 123 of this thread. And this was released May 16th, so right before the CFs started.

NHL playoffs: Conference finals schedule (with TV)

 

[JackSlater]

I'm pretty sure it affected the Penguins too. They too had to start Game 1 of the SCF that year at the exact same time the Red Wings did.

Obviously they were both affected, I think that much is obvious. The effect was beneficial for one team, detrimental for the other.

If the Wings finished off the Hawks earlier than the Pens, they would have gotten the "advantage" of more days off regardless of the SCF start date.

That's what I am referring to.

This whole "the schedule was moved up" talk is fake news and irrelevant and only serves to somehow make Wings fans feel better. The Pens won fairly with ZERO advantage due to the scheduling of the series.

By the schedule that had been announced at the time Detroit was to receive several more days off if it eliminated Chicago in game five than in game four. That is a matter of simple math. Of course the schedule was moved up so it didn't end up working out that way.

Again, that the schedule was moved up is not "fake news". It is a fact, nothing fake about it. You are again struggling to stick to a single point, so you have tried again to make a straw man since attacking the fact that the schedule was move up is probably inconvenient for you. That the schedule was moved up is a fact. That Pittsburgh benefited from that change is beyond obvious given Detroit's injury situation. None of that has anything to do with Pittsburgh winning fairly.

I did some research on the matter and found out there is a lot more to the narrative that you are presenting, namely that the original tentative schedule was released before the CFs started and there was rumblings that the league would not go with a June 5 start after the June 22 announcement. You are making a mountain out of barely a molehill given the facts.

If the league did in fact schedule the SCF for June 5 and then made the change, can you provide a link with the dates and start times. If you cannot, then my assertion that the NHL could not change something that wasn't formally scheduled in the first place is correct.

There is no narrative being invented here, there is only the fact that the schedule was moved up. The link was already provided - by you. It is not a matter of "if" the league moved the schedule up. It happened, as you already illustrated and as anyone who happened to follow the series at the time can probably recall. Here is another document from 2009 noting that the league was considering "bumping up" the schedule despite what it claimed on May 22:

NHL considering changes to Cup finals schedule

That link is redundant however given that you already successfully proved that the series was moved up.

 

[danincanada]

What is the sense of throwing out hypothetical scenarios? It in no way enhances the discussion.

The facts are the league originally had the SCF starting on June 5 if both CFs went seven games. They released a tentative revised schedule when it looked like both CFs might be sweeps. There was an immediate discussion that a potential 8 days off if the Wings won on the 27th would be silly. They ended up with the same 2 days off and a back-to-back that the original plan called for.

I asked you a simple question. I knew you wouldn't answer it because that would lead to admitting an extended break would clearly be beneficial to the injured team while not being fair to the healthy team for obvious reasons. The same applies to the expedited schedule they came up with. It was clearly unfair to the injured team and beneficial to the healthy team. It's common sense. You can continue to avoid admitting it but that won't make it any less true.

 

[K Fleur]

This schedule talk has always come across as sour grapes due to ‘09 being that Red Wings team’s last real shot at a Cup win. It has to be someone else’s fault that a team that good failed. Can’t possibly be that they just didn’t capitalize on their opportunities or that maybe they weren’t that good.

I imagine the grapes get more sour as the team descends into it’s first dark period in about 30 years.

 

[daver]

I asked you a simple question. I knew you wouldn't answer it because that would lead to admitting an extended break would clearly be beneficial to the injured team while not being fair to the healthy team for obvious reasons. The same applies to the expedited schedule they came up with. It was clearly unfair to the injured team and beneficial to the healthy team. It's common sense. You can continue to avoid admitting it but that won't make it any less true.

Neither schedule would have been unfair to either team so long as both teams are scheduled to play at the same time.

There I have answered your question. I hope you can get over this. It's been 9 years.

 

[danincanada]

Neither schedule would have been unfair to either team so long as both teams are scheduled to play at the same time.

There I have answered your question. I hope you can get over this. It's been 9 years.

And? In this circumstance a long layoff would be greatly beneficial to the Wings and tying the most extreme start the NHL ever attempted (3 in 4 after only 2 days off) would be the most detrimental schedule they could possibly expect. For the Pens it was the opposite since they would rather have their opponent with severe health issues get as little rest and downtime as possible while they were still trying to recover.

Please, finally, tell me where my reasoning is wrong here. Then we can move on from there because it's really difficult to debate another hockey fan who won't even admit this concept makes sense.

You're here defending your team's honour or something 9 years later because we're saying our team had severe injury problems, which is a fact, and we think your team benefited from the schedule change, which is extremely obvious, or the schedule in general in my case, which I see as obvious as well since it was so bizarre and extreme to do that schedule in that scheduling scenario, as I've displayed several times in several ways. Considering they'd never tried 3 in 4 before I know I have a point here but your refusal to accept it at all leaves no ground for meeting somewhere in the middle. I'm not even sure what your argument is in a lot of these points other than denying everything put in your way and spinning into something else.

 

[danincanada]

This schedule talk has always come across as sour grapes due to ‘09 being that Red Wings team’s last real shot at a Cup win. It has to be someone else’s fault that a team that good failed. Can’t possibly be that they just didn’t capitalize on their opportunities or that maybe they weren’t that good.

I imagine the grapes get more sour as the team descends into it’s first dark period in about 30 years.

You're half right, in hindsight it was our last real shot with that core and it's sad because we had to watch it collapse into what it is now.

We never got to see that whole team in the finals so we'll never know how good they were. Do you remember Hossa? Completely ineffective due to a knee injury and he needed shoulder surgery in the summer as well. If we had the '08 finals version of Hossa (your best forward in most peoples opinion) that alone could have tipped the scales our way. Datsyuk could take over games on his own back then and we only saw 3 games of him at a fraction of his abilities. You're a fan as well, so you know you've wondered what could have been had health issues never come about. It doesn't mean it would be a sure thing of course but we're allowed to have the opinion that injuries slowed down our team and/or weakened the team. They usually do, especially when its your great players with the the health issues.

I know my team got breaks during their Cup runs, whether it was the Stars missing Nieuwendyk in '98, or even Malkin in '08 who was obviously not 100%. Forsberg apparently had concussion issues in '97 and in '02 Maltby apparently slashed his hand and it affected his play. I never saw it happen myself though. I'm trying to remember a time when they played a team with as many health issues as the '09 Wings and nothing is coming up, but maybe someone else knows or it will come to me. Anyways, injuries happen, we all know that.

My beef will always be with the NHL because they decided to pull 3 in 4 out of their hat for the first time ever when this unreasonable schedule would obviously magnify the health issues my team already had. That's why the Red Wings complained once the schedule was released. This wasn't some loudmouth GM with an attitude. This was Ken Holland, who is usually overly diplomatic and even timid sounding if you've ever heard him talk. Do you think he and Babcock brought up the schedule because they just wanted to complain about something or they were looking for excuses already? Were the refs supposed to read it and feel sorry for them? Look with an open mind at the whole situation that unfolded and realize they had a point. Babcock was the more emotional guy so he was clearly upset about it. Holland said they were "disappointed". I know I would take it seriously if both the coach and GM of the other team were complaining about the schedule because you rarely hear anyone complain about that, especially in the finals.

 

[daver]

And? In this circumstance a long layoff would be greatly beneficial to the Wings and tying the most extreme start the NHL ever attempted (3 in 4 after only 2 days off) would be the most detrimental schedule they could possibly expect. For the Pens it was the opposite since they would rather have their opponent with severe health issues get as little rest and downtime as possible while they were still trying to recover.

And....who cares? Unless there is a an overwhelming opinion that the schedule affected the competitiveness of the games, then the schedule is a non factor. That one team had more injuries than another (which is the case in every single series played in NHL history) is not something to consider when questioning the level of competitiveness.

Teams play three in four or five in eight all year long so that is not something that should be considered especially when both teams play the same schedule.

That's the bottomline here, both teams had to deal with the same schedule. The Pens earned one extra day off, and injuries are completely irrelevant in regards to scheduling, be it in the actual scheduling of the games, or in trying to connect the two to explain the Wings' loss.

 

[danincanada]

And....who cares? Unless there is a an overwhelming opinion that the schedule affected the competitiveness of the games, then the schedule is a non factor. That one team had more injuries than another (which is the case in every single series played in NHL history) is not something to consider when questioning the level of competitiveness.

Teams play three in four or five in eight all year long so that is not something that should be considered especially when both teams play the same schedule.

That's the bottomline here, both teams had to deal with the same schedule. The Pens earned one extra day off, and injuries are completely irrelevant in regards to scheduling, be it in the actual scheduling the games, or in trying to connect the two to explain the Wings' loss.

You don't care because it benefited your team. If I was in your shoes I would relate to the opposite side because I would realize the disparity in the two teams health situations going in were night and day. Can you come up with another finals where the difference in health was this large? Same with the schedule change because the NHL only revealed two extremes then chose the one that would magnify the health disparities even more in favour of the healthy team. Now you are saying it's okay because the extreme parts of the season have this many games in that many days. This is nonsense because we're not talking about the regular season, we're talking about the last and most important series. This years schedule is perfect because the teams keep getting to prepare and load up for each game. It's going to make for a very energetic and hopefully entertaining series. They'll be playing game 3 tonight. At this point in '09 it would be game 5 already.

It's clear you would love to wrap this up in a little box that says "nothing to see here" because you keep trying to summarize it that way. Unfortunately you don't have strong reasoning behind it so it never works. Now opinions are all that matter and not actually debating reasoning and facts? Skipping posts 237 and 238 here are par for the course because when you don't like something you pretend it didn't happen. It's good board etiquette to at least acknowledge a post or posts that proved you wrong. We're all wrong sometimes or slipped up in our arguments so it's not a big deal.

We Red Wings fans have been told it's just sour grapes a lot here. I think this thread more displays the other side being very insecure about a series they won. You've had your backs up far too much from us telling our perspective of the series as fanatical Red Wings fans. I might be that way as well if I were I your shoes but I'd hope I would have more sympathy than repeating "no one cares about your injuries". I certainly wouldn't deny the schedule change benefited my team.

 

[c9777666]

We’re approaching the 10 year anniversary of PIT/DET II, which seems like a lifetime ago considering PIT has won 2 Cups since then and Detroit.....well, what a difference 10 years make.

 

[frisco]

I wonder when the next back-to-back finalists will happen. Since 2009, only Pittsburgh (16 and 17) have appeared in consecutive seasons.

My Best-Carey

 

[K Fleur]

10 years and still no handshake coming!

 

[GMR]

We’re approaching the 10 year anniversary of PIT/DET II, which seems like a lifetime ago considering PIT has won 2 Cups since then and Detroit.....well, what a difference 10 years make.

Well, the Penguins had three players in Crosby, Malkin, and Fleury, who were top picks from years of being a terrible team. Much like Chicago with Toews, Kane, and Keith. They built well around these players, but you need a foundation first. They had a great foundation. Detroit's foundation were an aging Lidstrom and Datsyuk/Zetterberg, who were pushing 30 at the time. If anything, most people thought at the time, that Pittsburgh would win more than 2 Cups in the next 10 years. Crosby's injuries and some lackluster playoff performances from Fleury slowed down their potential dynasty.