1992 Pittsburgh Penguins vs. 1997 Detroit Red Wings

[jcs0218]

Pittsburgh and Detroit were the only franchises to repeat in the 1990s.

Which team would win in a best-of-7 series?


1992 Pittsburgh Penguins:

REGULAR SEASON RECORD: 39-32-9 (87 points)
PLAYOFFS RECORD: 16-5
HALL-OF-FAMERS: 5

Stevens - Lemieux - Jagr
Mullen - Francis - Tocchet
Loney - Trottier - Errey
Bourque - Hrdina - McEachern
Callander

U. Samuelsson - Murphy
Paek - K. Samuelsson
Roberts - Stanton
Jennings

Barrasso
Wregget



1997 Detroit Red Wings:

REGULAR SEASON RECORD: 38-26-18 (94 points)
PLAYOFFS RECORD: 16-4
HALL-OF-FAMERS: 7

Shanahan - Yzerman - Lapointe
Kozlov - Larionov - Fedorov
Maltby - Draper - McCarty
Kocur - Brown - Sandstrom
Holmstrom

Lidstrom - Murphy
Fetisov - Konstantinov
Rouse - Ward
Pushor

Vernon
Osgood

Click to read more...

 

[Bryce Newman]

I like the Red Wings. As I said in another thread, I don't even think the 92 Penguins win that Cup if not for the stupid players strike. 92 Rangers were the best team in the league that year by far.

EDIT: After thinking it over more, I went with the Penguins in 7 against Detroit.

 

[alko]

Try this. In my simulations Red Wings were a better.

 

[MadArcand]

Thanks for reminding me how atrocious Pens' defense was. Paek & Stanton were not even NHL-caliber players.

 

[Anton13]

The Pittsburgh lines are a bit off. I think Tocchet played with Lemieux and Stevens, Jagr was on the second line with Francis. Anyway, I think Red Wings have the edge, mainly due to better defence. BUT you just can’t count out prime Mario. It is entirely possible that the Penguins overpower Wings with their offense.

 

[Voight]

DRW depth is much much better. Wings in 5

 

[Spirit of 67]

Pens give them a pretty good run for their money.
But I got Wings in 6. (and would lean towards 5 games rather than 7)

 

[GMR]

Interesting question.

Hockey changed a lot in those 5 seasons. 1992 was a high scoring era. By 1997, we were watching the dead puck era. None of that applies to Mario Lemieux though. He scored 122 points in 1997. Even if they play in 1997, using Lemieux's 1992 form, he's in God Mode. He could win a series by himself. He's the kicker here.

Detroit was deeper at forward and defense. I think their players could adapt better if they had to play a wide open game. The Russian players especially. Goalie is probably a wash. I'm guessing most posters rank Barrasso higher, but Vernon's form was great in those playoffs.

I like Detroit in 6, but it's hard to pick against Mario. Especially a prime Mario.

 

[The Macho King]

I don't think this one is particularly close, and I don't think that Pens team outside of their stars was particularly good.

Trottier was toast. That D outside of the top pair is downright bad. Who knows what Barrasso you're getting night in and night out.

More likely a sweep for the Wings than 7 games for the Pens IMO.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

Pittsburgh and Detroit were the only franchises to repeat in the 1990s.

Which team would win in a best-of-7 series?


1992 Pittsburgh Penguins:

REGULAR SEASON RECORD: 39-32-9 (87 points)
PLAYOFFS RECORD: 16-5
HALL-OF-FAMERS: 5

Stevens - Lemieux - Jagr
Mullen - Francis - Tocchet
Loney - Trottier - Errey
Bourque - Hrdina - McEachern
Callander

U. Samuelsson - Murphy
Paek - K. Samuelsson
Roberts - Stanton
Jennings

Barrasso
Wregget



1997 Detroit Red Wings:

REGULAR SEASON RECORD: 38-26-18 (94 points)
PLAYOFFS RECORD: 16-4
HALL-OF-FAMERS: 7

Shanahan - Yzerman - Lapointe
Kozlov - Larionov - Fedorov
Maltby - Draper - McCarty
Kocur - Brown - Sandstrom
Holmstrom

Lidstrom - Murphy
Fetisov - Konstantinov
Rouse - Ward
Pushor

Vernon
Osgood

Russian 5 didn't play together in the postseason in 1997.
Shanahan - Yzerman - McCarty
Kozlov - Fedorov - Brown
Maltby - Draper - Kocur
Sandstrom - Larionov - Lapointe

But I still take that Wings team over just about any cup winner since. They could beat you at any style; they had toughness, skill, offense and defense.
Holmstrom

 

[GMR]

Russian 5 didn't play together in the postseason in 1997.
Shanahan - Yzerman - McCarty
Kozlov - Fedorov - Brown
Maltby - Draper - Kocur
Sandstrom - Larionov - Lapointe

But I still take that Wings team over just about any cup winner since. They could beat you at any style; they had toughness, skill, offense and defense.
Holmstrom

I think you got Shanahan and Sandstrom mixed up. Shanahan played with Larionov and Lapointe. Sandstrom rotated around but played a lot with Yzerman and McCarty.

The other two lines are how I remember it as well.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

I think you got Shanahan and Sandstrom mixed up. Shanahan played with Larionov and Lapointe. Sandstrom rotated around but played a lot with Yzerman and McCarty.

The other two lines are how I remember it as well.

Sandstrom and Shanahan rotated, but Shanny spent most of the season and postseason with Yzerman. Sandstrom was mostly a non-factor in the postseason with 0 goals, 4 assists in 20 games.

 

[quoipourquoi]

That neither won 40 games in the regular season is indicative that they might be vulnerable if Vernon or Barrasso don’t play well (which Pittsburgh pretty much established in the opening to the Capitals series). I think Vernon’s hot streak was a little more consistent at the time the Red Wings won, so if he’s still in the zone, I think Detroit wins in a short series.

 

[bobholly39]

I think you have Detroit as favorites - but peak Lemieux in the playoffs is a differentiator all by himself. He can be the difference in a short series. I think in 1992, he would have been. So Detroit favorites - but i predict Pens pull out a win.

 

[The Pale King]

For what it's worth, those Penguins did sweep a much better team in the Blackhawks than the Wings did vs. the Capitals. Also prefer early Jagr to that age Lidstrom. I have the Penguins in 7. I just don't see Mario getting shut down ala Lindros at that point in time. And who is coaching here? Bowman vs. Bowman?

Any reason we're using year 2 of the Penguins vs the first Cup winning lineup of Detroit? I also wonder about who would be more likely to three-peat if the 92-93 Pens were playing the 98-99 Red Wings in a hypothetical scenario where both are coming off back-to-back Cups.

 

[MadLuke]

No easy answer Detroit did beat the Avalanche in 6 probably the best opponent any team faced there and a good Flyers team in 4.

But the pens won the last 2 series against good teams 4-0 4-0, Detroit dept is amazing but:

1	Mario Lemieux*	26	C	15	16	18	34	6	2	6	8	2	5				69	23.2
2	Kevin Stevens	26	LW	21	13	15	28	2	28	9	4	0	3				86	15.1
3	Ron Francis*	28	C	21	8	19	27	8	6	6	2	0	2				58	13.8
4	Jaromir Jagr	19	RW	21	11	13	24	4	6	9	2	0	4				59	18.6
5	Rick Tocchet	27	RW	14	6	13	19	0	24	3	3	0	1				30	20.0
6	Larry Murphy*	30	D	21	6	10	16	-4	19	3	3	0	1				59	10.2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The pens high end talent dept was also special, they had 5 first line player (and good first line player) on the same team.

Who knows with a 1992 Mario, it is always possible.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

That neither won 40 games in the regular season is indicative that they might be vulnerable if Vernon or Barrasso don’t play well (which Pittsburgh pretty much established in the opening to the Capitals series). I think Vernon’s hot streak was a little more consistent at the time the Red Wings won, so if he’s still in the zone, I think Detroit wins in a short series.

That Wings team is very similar to the team that won 62 games the year before.

Coffey out - Murphy in (towards the end of the season)
Primeau out - Shanahan in

It was a team that honestly looked dejected for most of the season. After that bloodbath against the Avalanche the team started to look like the Red Wings again. Structured, disciplined, hard skating for a full 60 minutes. Vernon got hot, but the Wings played absolute lockdown defense that postseason.

 

[quoipourquoi]

No easy answer Detroit did beat the Avalanche in 6 probably the best opponent any team faced there and a good Flyers team in 4.

Would beating the 1997 Avalanche (49-24-9) necessarily be a bigger deal than beating the 1992 Rangers (50-25-5)? Seems like both took down a solid President’s Trophy winner.

 

[MadLuke]

Would beating the 1997 Avalanche (49-24-9) necessarily be a bigger deal than beating the 1992 Rangers (50-25-5)? Seems like both took down a solid President’s Trophy winner.

And both close to winning the cup as well (even if one year more distanced for the Rangers) with both full of playoff heros, it is not that clear cut you are right. Even the caps of that era was not a bad team, they both went through fully legitimate quality of competition, with 0 easy round for that 92 penguins team.

 

[Bryce Newman]

On a side note, why the heck are Fetisov and Larionov in the Hall of Fame? Is that some kind of "honorary" thing because they were amongst the first Russian players or something? Decent players but certainly not Hall of Fame worthy based on what they did in the NHL.

 

[jcs0218]

On a side note, why the heck are Fetisov and Larionov in the Hall of Fame? Is that some kind of "honorary" thing because they were amongst the first Russian players or something? Decent players but certainly not Hall of Fame worthy based on what they did in the NHL.

I think it is because of their distinguished careers in USSR and Olympics, as well as NHL contributions, that got them in.

But I think the HHOF is kind of being random and sloppy when it comes to international players.

If Larionov and Fetisov are in, then Krutov and Kasatonov should also be in. As well as a bunch of other USSR-era players, and some Swedes and Czechs too.

Either be 100% inclusive of international players or don't bother having any.

Anything in-between looks random and arbitrary.

 

[MadLuke]

Decent players but certainly not Hall of Fame worthy based on what they did in the NHL.

It is the Hockey Hall of Fame (it was even named the International Hockey Hall of Fame), you can and should get in even without having played a single game in the NHL like Tretiak and other, let alone having been only really good in your late years if you played in it after an hall of fame career outside the NHL.

 

[Bryce Newman]

It is the Hockey Hall of Fame (it was even named the International Hockey Hall of Fame), you can and should get in even without having played a single game in the NHL like Tretiak and other, let alone having been only really good in your late years if you played in it after an hall of fame career outside the NHL.

I mean, I guess. But they played a good number of years in the NHL and weren't HOF players there. Maybe they were great in weaker leagues, but a lot of other average NHL players would be too. I dunno, I think there should be a higher standard.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

On a side note, why the heck are Fetisov and Larionov in the Hall of Fame? Is that some kind of "honorary" thing because they were amongst the first Russian players or something? Decent players but certainly not Hall of Fame worthy based on what they did in the NHL.

Why is Fetisov in the HoF, really? He was considered by many the best defenseman in the world in the 1980s and even some North American media spoke of him as second only to Gretzky. I think he was 32 when he transitioned to the NHL.

Edit: These boards voted him 25th all time, I’m sure you can easily find a wealth of very informed opinions on Fetisov’s HoF case if you’ll have a look at the 2018-19 project’s round 5 vote thread.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

On a side note, why the heck are Fetisov and Larionov in the Hall of Fame? Is that some kind of "honorary" thing because they were amongst the first Russian players or something? Decent players but certainly not Hall of Fame worthy based on what they did in the NHL.

It's the HOCKEY hall of fame. Not the NHL Hall of Fame.

The hall recognizes more than just their NHL careers. Olympic golds, world championships, international dominance, etc. They were great players who came to the NHL past their primes. Even past their primes they were big contibutors to 2 and 3 Stanley cups respectively.