1988 Stanley Cup Finals

[Hockeyholic]

Bruins had Bourque. Neely was in his prime. Obviously Boston wasn't expected to win the series. But was the sweep a surprise? Or was the sweep expected?

The power outage game is what's most remembered. Along with it being Gretzky's final cup win as an Oiler. And ultimately a player.

Click to read more...

 

[The Panther]

I wouldn't say a sweep was expected, but no doubt Edmonton was expected to win. (Really, the '88 Stanley Cup was won the night of April 21st, 1988, in game two of the Calgary series. Never any doubt after that OT goal by Gretzky.)

Anyway, I was a bit nervous in game one because it was tight. But Boston just didn't generate enough offense, although they did slow down the Oilers' attack. However, the effort of doing so shut down their own offense.

Game two, Boston said they would direct the play and attack more... and failed, putting only 12 shots on Fuhr.

Game three at the Gah-den was a walkover by Edmonton. But at least Boston got some shots.

(the original) Game four was going fairly well for Boston early in the 2nd, but the Oilers had just tied it seconds before the power failed.

Game four again back in Edmonton was a walkover again, the outcome never in doubt despite a sluggish 1st period by Edmonton. Once the Oilers woke up late in the first, Boston was swept aside like a gnat.

Gretzky was a bit good in this series: Game 1 - opens the scoring (one of only two goals by Edmonton); Game 2 - scores 1 goal and 2 assists, including the game-winner late in the third; Game 3 -- four assists in Boston; Game 4.0 - two assists through 36 minutes; Game 4.1 - scores 1 goal (Cup winner) and 2 assists. In total, Wayne got a point on 13 of 21 Edmonton goals in the series, including two game winning goals.

 

[Big Phil]

This was perhaps Gretzky's brightest moment. It actually makes you have even MORE disdain for Peter Pocklington the more you think about 1988.

I have to wonder though, and I can't remember myself, but why did Game 4 go back to Edmonton? Was the power still out in Boston Garden? Was it not sufficient for Game 4? I would think that both teams and the NHL would have to agree to this. If the series is 2-2 at the time I can't imagine Boston agreeing to this. It just seems strange. One of those things you figure may not happen today if the power went out.

 

[Doctor No]

Here's the Boston Globe story on the relocation, printed the morning of May 26 (the new-fourth game).

I don't know the exact league bylaws that both parties are referring to here, but Sinden seems resigned (or politically sensitive) here. Favorite line is at the end: "Is this what happens when you finally beat Montreal?".

(Click on the picture to enlarge.)

 

[The Panther]

I have to wonder though, and I can't remember myself, but why did Game 4 go back to Edmonton? Was the power still out in Boston Garden? Was it not sufficient for Game 4? I would think that both teams and the NHL would have to agree to this. If the series is 2-2 at the time I can't imagine Boston agreeing to this. It just seems strange. One of those things you figure may not happen today if the power went out.

John Ziegler flew in from Palm Springs or wherever he was vacationing during the Finals to give an announcement based on an old NHL bylaw or something from God-knows-when. It stated that the series will continue to the next game as scheduled, and then, if necessary, the canceled game would be replayed, in full, at the end of the series. So, in theory, even though the Oilers had home-ice advantage, if this series had gone the distance, the final game "seven" would have been played in Boston.

Nice highlights of game two here:

 

[wetcoast]

Did Tikkanen ever have a better series as well?

 

[The Panther]

Did Tikkanen ever have a better series as well?

Maybe vs. Calgary in 1991, or one of those Edmonton-L.A. series in the early 90s.

 

[wetcoast]

Maybe vs. Calgary in 1991, or one of those Edmonton-L.A. series in the early 90s.

Perhaps but Esa in 88 versus the Bruins where for much higher stakes.

When we saw Tikkanen at the top of his game, it's hard to figure out how he isn't in the HHOF but his prime was short and he was inconsistent outside of his prime as well.

 

[Jets4Life]

Ziegler was completely incompetent in the 1988 playoffs. It defined his presidency, and was the beginning of the end for him as the top executive for the NHL.

 

[Tarantula]

Wasn't Boston the only team that year that had a winning record against Edmonton?

 

[The Panther]

Wasn't Boston the only team that year that had a winning record against Edmonton?

No, and in fact they went 1-1-1 against Boston. The Oilers actually had their weakest regular season since 1980-81 (partly this was due to Gretzky missing 16 games). They had a losing record against Calgary, Chicago, Detroit, Montreal, Jersey, the Islanders, and Washington.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

Ziegler was completely incompetent in the 1988 playoffs. It defined his presidency, and was the beginning of the end for him as the top executive for the NHL.

IIRC this was the year of the cult kidnapping Ziegler Jr, Koharskis Donuts & the brief officials lockout because of it, and Ziegler was absent during the finals (couldnt he have waited 2 weeks to go on vacation?). That about cover it?

 

[vikash1987]

I remember reading (retrospectively) a few predictions that had the Oilers winning in 5 or 6. So I definitely don’t think that a sweep was inevitable.

The Oilers weren’t deeper than/superior to Boston when comparing their 3rd and 4th lines, though I guess this didn’t matter all that much. But Boston definitely had the edge when comparing defense, given Coffey’s absence and Lowe’s injury, and given the play of Bourque and Kluzak.

Also, the Oilers’ all-time record at the Boston Garden was pretty bad.

 

[The Panther]

I remember reading (retrospectively) a few predictions that had the Oilers winning in 5 or 6. So I definitely don’t think that a sweep was inevitable.

The Oilers weren’t deeper than/superior to Boston when comparing their 3rd and 4th lines, though I guess this didn’t matter all that much. But Boston definitely had the edge when comparing defense, given Coffey’s absence and Lowe’s injury, and given the play of Bourque and Kluzak.

Also, the Oilers’ all-time record at the Boston Garden was pretty bad.

Agree with most of this, but not sure about the depth of the third and fourth lines. The Oilers had guys like Krushelnyski (ex-40+ goal scorer), Geoff Courtnall (then 30+ goal scorer), and Keith Acton (ex-36-goal scorer) on the third and fourth lines. Maybe their bottom-3 was a bit weak, though.

Not to be overlooked on the Oilers' '87, '88 and '90 Cup teams is defenceman Steve Smith, who was awesome in those runs. It was generally observed that Smith was the Oilers' best defenceman in the '87 run (despite Coffey playing most of the games), in '88 for sure, and maybe in '90 (though Ruotsalainen had his moments). Kevin Lowe was good up to 1987, but after that he was kinda washed-up and just too slow and predictable.

 

[Thrill Housley]

1990 was more of a surprise. Bruins were favored to win the cup against an Oilers team without Gretzky. For whatever reason though Bourque could never carry the B's to a championship.

 

[vikash1987]

Agree with most of this, but not sure about the depth of the third and fourth lines. The Oilers had guys like Krushelnyski (ex-40+ goal scorer), Geoff Courtnall (then 30+ goal scorer), and Keith Acton (ex-36-goal scorer) on the third and fourth lines. Maybe their bottom-3 was a bit weak, though.

Didn’t the Gretzky and Messier lines get the lion’s share of the ice time for the Oilers in that ‘88 series? I could be wrong, but I thought that the Oilers didn’t roll all four lines as evenly as did the Bruins. And didn’t Andy Moog talk smack before the series that the Bruins got contributions up and down the lineup unlike the Oilers?

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

Didn’t the Gretzky and Messier lines get the lion’s share of the ice time for the Oilers in that ‘88 series? I could be wrong, but I thought that the Oilers didn’t roll all four lines as evenly as did the Bruins. And didn’t Andy Moog talk smack before the series that the Bruins got contributions up and down the lineup unlike the Oilers?

Ive seen game 4.5 in its entirety years ago. The impression I got from it was that Gretzky & Messier were being double shifted somewhat, but not excessively so considering their status as clear-cut superstars who probably would be double shifted on lesser teams.

What did jump out at me was just how good the team was at that point, especially with all of the late-dynasty additions and subtractions. Newer guys like Tikkanen, Simpson, Smith, Krushelnyski, McSorley, Beukeboom, all fit in so well into the Oilers gameplan, far better than you would expect. Comparing the 88 Oilers to the 84 team, the 84 team defensively is like watching somebody trying to empty a bucket filling with water faster than the water pours in, but the 88 team is like watching a good defensive team that could also score almost as well as the 84 team.

 

[The Panther]

Yes, the problem (if there was one) with the 1983 to 1985 playoff Oilers was a lack of consistent team defence. I mean, you don't go 15-3 in the playoffs without some good defence, but the Oilers were rarely challenged with great oppositional defence by Smythe or Norris clubs. Thus, when they met the Isles' tight-checking D in the '83 Finals, the Oilers were suddenly forced to change their game-plan in mid-stream and it didn't happen.

But it was really the bugger-up of the loss to Calgary in '86 that convinced the players they had to change a bit. Which they did somewhat in the 1986-87 season, but dramatically so in the '87 playoffs (esp. after round one). Likewise in '88, they were even better, not coincidentally after Coffey was gone.