1992 Pittsburgh Penguins vs. 1997 Detroit Red Wings

[GMR]

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.

Yes. Colorado were defending Champions, had Patrick Roy, a prime Sakic and Forsberg, and retained the majority of the prior year's roster. The Rangers were still unproven in the playoffs.

 

[Big Phil]

I took Pens in 6. Look, they swept the Hawks in 1992, which were similar to the Flyers in 1997. So both swept a good team in the final. Both beat the President's Trophy winners in 6 games. The kicker to me is Mario. 34 points in 15 playoff games and he did this despite Adam Graves slashing his wrist. Not to mention they won 11 straight playoff games that year culminating in the Cup clincher.

I am not sold on the Pens lacking depth. They had the higher peak in players for sure, but while I give Detroit the forward depth I still think you've got a pretty darn good top two lines with the Pens. On defense is where Detroit wins this battle. Lots of depth there. With Pittsburgh it is sketchy after Murphy (never understood why they traded Coffey) but you've still got the two Samuelssons. Not to mention Barrasso had at least as good of a postseason as Vernon did in 1997.

But yeah, it is the Mario factor here. Plus they pummeled the Bruins in the semis. The only knock is that they were down 3-1 to the Capitals and had Mario the entire series. However, they did pull it off. Like I said, the Mario factor is hard to ignore.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

The Pittsburgh lines are a bit off.

So are Detroit’s lines. Fedorov started the playoffs as a defenceman, then played center (and got all 20 of his playoff points as center) on a line with Kozlov and Brown. McCarty was a first liner that year and played like it, on a line with Shanahan and Yzerman for the entire regular season.

To answer the question, I’ll take the Wings. You have prime Fedorov, off a Selke winning season and put up over a PPG as a forward in a dead puck era playoffs with subpar linemates, peak Shanahan who was a top 10 scorer in the league, and the two-way version of Yzerman while he was still young enough to be an 85 point player. Detroit’s top 3 forwards were just head and shoulders above Pittsburgh’s in terms of defensive play, which matters a lot in the playoffs and closes the gap on Mario’s offensive brilliance. On defence, Konstantinov and Lidstrom tip the scales in the Wings favor as well. That regular season game featuring the 97 Pens/Wings was a good microcosm of this series.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Eric Lindros isn't Mario Lemieux but he was the next best thing and Detroit handled him without issue. And I would argue that the Pens that year were structured similarly to Philly in 1997.

 

[GMR]

Eric Lindros isn't Mario Lemieux but he was the next best thing and Detroit handled him without issue. And I would argue that the Pens that year were structured similarly to Philly in 1997.

Lemieux in 1997 was a better player than Lindros, let alone the 1992 version of Mario. They wouldn't shut Lemieux down. Best they could manage would be to frustrate him. Put Yzerman and Fedorov against him during every home game. Obviously Lidstrom and Murphy (maybe Konstantinov) but likely they don't change defensive pairings as they're harder to juggle. They would do well but wouldn't shut him down completely.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

Lemieux in 1997 was a better player than Lindros, let alone the 1992 version of Mario. They wouldn't shut Lemieux down. Best they could manage would be to frustrate him. Put Yzerman and Fedorov against him during every home game. Obviously Lidstrom and Murphy (maybe Konstantinov) but likely they don't change defensive pairings as they're harder to juggle. They would do well but wouldn't shut him down completely.

Bowman would have put Lidstrom and the Grind Line on him and made him fight for every inch of ice while Fedorov faced Lemieux every third shift then playing against Francis the other 2/3rd of the time. Yzerman and Larionov would be in there for mismatches. Konstantinov and Fetisov would have handled the odd shift but been more dedicated to frustrating the 2nd lines and luring Stevens and Tocchet into dumb penalties.

 

[GMR]

Bowman would have put Lidstrom and the Grind Line on him and made him fight for every inch of ice while Fedorov faced Lemieux every third shift then playing against Francis the other 2/3rd of the time. Yzerman and Larionov would be in there for mismatches. Konstantinov and Fetisov would have handled the odd shift but been more dedicated to frustrating the 2nd lines and luring Stevens and Tocchet into dumb penalties.

Grind line was good but lacked talent. They'd be in their own zone the entire time. At least Fedorov or Yzerman could cause problems of their own for Lemieux's line.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

Grind line was good but lacked talent. They'd be in their own zone the entire time. At least Fedorov or Yzerman could cause problems of their own for Lemieux's line.

You and I remember the Grind Line very differently.

Maltby and Draper weren't scorers but they were very good hockey players. That line was incredibly disruptive to the other team. They regularly kept the other team's line locked in their own zone fighting for the puck behind the other team's net along the boards.

Hence the name, "The Grind Line."

Bowman had them playing against the Legion of Doom with Fedorov taking the odd shift. Yzerman took Brindamour or Hawerchuck in 97.

 

[GMR]

You and I remember the Grind Line very differently.

Maltby and Draper weren't scorers but they were very good hockey players. That line was incredibly disruptive to the other team. They regularly kept the other team's line locked in their own zone fighting for the puck behind the other team's net along the boards.

Hence the name, "The Grind Line."

Bowman had them playing against the Legion of Doom with Fedorov taking the odd shift. Yzerman took Brindamour or Hawerchuck in 97.

I remember all that. I also remember Lemieux. He was on another level than anybody else the Grind Line faced.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Yes. Colorado were defending Champions, had Patrick Roy, a prime Sakic and Forsberg, and retained the majority of the prior year's roster. The Rangers were still unproven in the playoffs.

Unproven is a weird criticism. Their entire top-line of Graves-Messier-Amonte literally just got there. It’s not like the 1992 Pittsburgh Penguins could play the 1991 Stanley Cup Champions anyway.

Forsberg had a concussion from playing Edmonton and couldn’t even walk without assistance by the end of the series because of a thigh bruise. Messier was banged up too, but he was still in better shape than that, meanwhile Pittsburgh had to play without Mario Lemieux.

So if anything, the Penguins drew the short straw and used it to beat to death the first 50-win team in 3 years (5-win margin over 2nd place) with the Hart winner, Norris winner, and 2nd best save percentage in the league.

We don’t have to minimize that.

 

[Jim MacDonald]

Wow...love this....I know I'm a bit biased, but my objectivity is going the route of the 97 Wings' physicality up front (the likes of Lapointe, Shanahan, Kocur) would be a big advantage and be a thorn in the Penguins' side. I also like Vernon over Barrasso. You know what a key in this is though? 97 Wings and 92 Penguins would have to "rock, paper and scissors" for Larry Murphy!

 

[Big Phil]

Here is Lemieux broken down per series in the 1992 playoffs. Obviously he missed some time:

vs. Caps - 17 points in 6 games
vs. Rangers - 2 points in 2 games
vs. Bruins - 8 points in 3 games
vs. Hawks - 7 points in 4 games

So let's face it, you can't shut the guy down at this point in his career. The best you can do is contain him to an extent. The 1996 Panthers did this with 7 points in 7 games. The 1993 Isles allowed him to have 9 points in 6 games, and they lost that series. So at this point in his career no one was stopping him. For more resources you have 1991 to judge by.

vs. New Jersey - 8 points in 7 games
vs. Washington - 9 points in 5 games
vs. Boston - 14 points in 6 games
vs. Minnesota - 12 points in 5 games

So if Lindros can muster three points in a sweep in 1997, then a peak Mario would obviously do better. The question is, do the Pens have a better supporting cast than the 1997 Flyers? For sure they do. Better goaltending too. Probably at least as good of a defense as well. You have 6 players on the 1992 Pens who had at least 16 points. 4 who had 24 or more. That's a lot of options. Can a team like the Wings who had never won anything before beat a defending Cup champion team with peak Mario? I said no.

 

[GMR]

Unproven is a weird criticism. Their entire top-line of Graves-Messier-Amonte literally just got there. It’s not like the 1992 Pittsburgh Penguins could play the 1991 Stanley Cup Champions anyway.

Forsberg had a concussion from playing Edmonton and couldn’t even walk without assistance by the end of the series because of a thigh bruise. Messier was banged up too, but he was still in better shape than that, meanwhile Pittsburgh had to play without Mario Lemieux.

So if anything, the Penguins drew the short straw and used it to beat to death the first 50-win team in 3 years (5-win margin over 2nd place) with the Hart winner, Norris winner, and 2nd best save percentage in the league.

We don’t have to minimize that.

We don't need mental gymnastics on this. Colorado were defending Champions and had just won the Presidents trophy. New York was a team that hadn't won anything yet. They were trying to build the right chemistry for a playoff run. Colorado already had that chemistry. Also, they had Detroit's number before that series. Yes, beating Colorado was more impressive.

If this topic was about the 1997 Avalanche vs. 1992 Rangers, who do you pick?

 

[GMR]

Here is Lemieux broken down per series in the 1992 playoffs. Obviously he missed some time:

vs. Caps - 17 points in 6 games
vs. Rangers - 2 points in 2 games
vs. Bruins - 8 points in 3 games
vs. Hawks - 7 points in 4 games

So let's face it, you can't shut the guy down at this point in his career. The best you can do is contain him to an extent. The 1996 Panthers did this with 7 points in 7 games. The 1993 Isles allowed him to have 9 points in 6 games, and they lost that series. So at this point in his career no one was stopping him. For more resources you have 1991 to judge by.

vs. New Jersey - 8 points in 7 games
vs. Washington - 9 points in 5 games
vs. Boston - 14 points in 6 games
vs. Minnesota - 12 points in 5 games

So if Lindros can muster three points in a sweep in 1997, then a peak Mario would obviously do better. The question is, do the Pens have a better supporting cast than the 1997 Flyers? For sure they do. Better goaltending too. Probably at least as good of a defense as well. You have 6 players on the 1992 Pens who had at least 16 points. 4 who had 24 or more. That's a lot of options. Can a team like the Wings who had never won anything before beat a defending Cup champion team with peak Mario? I said no.

The Flyers got swept though. It wasn't close. Yes, the Penguins had a better roster than the Flyers, but do they win four more games?

 

[quoipourquoi]

We don't need mental gymnastics on this. Colorado were defending Champions and had just won the Presidents trophy. New York was a team that hadn't won anything yet. They were trying to build the right chemistry for a playoff run. Colorado already had that chemistry. Also, they had Detroit's number before that series. Yes, beating Colorado was more impressive.

If this topic was about the 1997 Avalanche vs. 1992 Rangers, who do you pick?

The 1992 New York Rangers.

It’s not “mental gymnastics” to acknowledge that criticizing a team for not having won a Stanley Cup prior to their first playoff run with the three players on their top-line is pointless.

Even if Graves and Messier and Amonte weren’t brand new players to the team, this would be like minimizing beating the 1979 New York Islanders (51 wins) or the 1983 Edmonton Oilers (47 wins) or the 1988 Calgary Flames (48 wins)... only they weren’t captained by a player who had appeared in 6 of the previous 9 Finals and won 2 of the last 3 Hart Trophies.

In the first half of the 1990s, the teams with the highest winning percentages were

1993 Pittsburgh (56 wins in 84 games)
1992 Rangers (50 wins in 80 games)
1994 Rangers (52 wins in 84 games)

Why should we refuse to give Pittsburgh credit for beating a great team just because it was their first year with their best player?

In one sentence you say Colorado “had just won the President’s Trophy”, and in the next, you say New York “hadn’t won anything” as if it hasn’t been mentioned twice before that the 1992 New York Rangers won the President’s Trophy.

And Colorado’s established “chemistry” that supposedly makes them better than the Rangers? They had a makeshift top-line with Sakic centering Lemieux and Kamensky because of



Pittsburgh couldn’t beat the defending champions because they were the defending champions. But given that their record 11-straight playoff wins came against the franchises that won the 1992 President’s Trophy (New York), the 1991 President’s Trophy (Chicago), and the 1990 President’s Trophy (Boston), I’d say they did a pretty good job at embarrassing some teams that weren’t exactly dark horses.

 

[Bryce Newman]

The 1992 New York Rangers.

It’s not “mental gymnastics” to acknowledge that criticizing a team for not having won a Stanley Cup prior to their first playoff run with the three players on their top-line is pointless.

Even if Graves and Messier and Amonte weren’t brand new players to the team, this would be like minimizing beating the 1979 New York Islanders (51 wins) or the 1983 Edmonton Oilers (47 wins) or the 1988 Calgary Flames (48 wins)... only they weren’t captained by a player who had appeared in 6 of the previous 9 Finals and won 2 of the last 3 Hart Trophies.

In the first half of the 1990s, the teams with the highest winning percentages were

1993 Pittsburgh (56 wins in 84 games)
1992 Rangers (50 wins in 80 games)
1994 Rangers (52 wins in 84 games)

Why should we refuse to give Pittsburgh credit for beating a great team just because it was their first year with their best player?

In one sentence you say Colorado “had just won the President’s Trophy”, and in the next, you say New York “hadn’t won anything” as if it hasn’t been mentioned twice before that the 1992 New York Rangers won the President’s Trophy.

And Colorado’s established “chemistry” that supposedly makes them better than the Rangers? They had a makeshift top-line with Sakic centering Lemieux and Kamensky because of



Pittsburgh couldn’t beat the defending champions because they were the defending champions. But given that their record 11-straight playoff wins came against the franchises that won the 1992 President’s Trophy (New York), the 1991 President’s Trophy (Chicago), and the 1990 President’s Trophy (Boston), I’d say they did a pretty good job at embarrassing some teams that weren’t exactly dark horses.

Maybe that Penguin team does beat the Red Wings. You make some good arguments. Rangers were about to go up 3 games to 1 against Pittsburgh in 92. They had a 4-2 lead and collapsed in the 3rd period. If they held that lead, I think they beat Pittsburgh in 5 or 6 games and win the 92 Cup.

Gotta give credit to Pittsburgh though. They rallied after losing Mario. But then the weird thing is they had Mario the next year and lost to a vastly inferior Islanders team in 7 games. So basically, the Penguins became the Rangers the next season. Losing a series they could and probably should have won. At least the Rangers lost to the Cup champs though and won 2 years later. But yeah, Pittsburgh beat some quality opponents.

Goes to show how important Leetch was to those Ranger teams though. 92 they win the Presidents Trophy with Norris Trophy winner Leetch, then Leetch gets hurt in 93 and they miss the playoffs. Leetch returns in 94 and the Rangers win the Presidents Trophy again and the Cup, with Leetch taking home the Conn Smythe Trophy. Sick player he was.

But yeah, I definitely think the 92 Rangers beat the 97 Avalanche. If the Rangers got by Pittsburgh in 92, no other team would've beaten them. Pittsburgh was always the Rangers achilles heel in the 90s.

 

[barbu]

Bowman would have put Lidstrom and the Grind Line on him and made him fight for every inch of ice while Fedorov faced Lemieux every third shift then playing against Francis the other 2/3rd of the time. Yzerman and Larionov would be in there for mismatches. Konstantinov and Fetisov would have handled the odd shift but been more dedicated to frustrating the 2nd lines and luring Stevens and Tocchet into dumb penalties.

But what would Bowman do to get Lemieux away from the grind line and Lidstrom? Remember he coaches both them :p

 

[danincanada]

I cheered on both the ‘92 Pens and ‘97 Wings at the time and took joy in both Cups so it’s a fun one for me.

My gut says Mario takes over and the Pens outscore the Wings to win the series. If and when Mario gets in on Vernon alone it’s a sure goal. Think 1990 breakaway competition at the All-star game where Mario’s reach made Vernon look like a child. The Pens wingers are a tough matchup for anyone, too. ‘92 Jagr, peak Stevens, prime Tocchet. After that, the Wings have most of the advantages but the Pens top 5 forwards were a nightmare.

I like that the Wings had two great defense pairings, better defense overall, and had more depth overall at forward, and better two-way centers. The tight defensive system and strong puck possession game that came with this is my only hope to beat Mario. In a lot of ways the Wings were actually a better team so that’s where my gut loses at times in my mind.

If Mario does too much damage I’d say ‘97 Bowman’s wildcard is the Russian 5 and hope they can play keep away enough. In general the only hope with Mario is they can play keep away in general enough like they did with Lindros. Mario was a lot scarier though and already had a Cup under his belt so I don’t think it really works. Can they slow down Mario enough to outscore the Pens? My godly mental image of Mario still says no in the end. I think prime Lidstrom is your best bet to stop Mario because he wasn’t giving up as much reach and height as someone like Bourque or Chelios but it was an impossible task at the time anyways. Maybe it’s from a hyperbolic image in my mind of Mario at the time but I think you could pair any two D in history against him and he’s still finding a way to beat them and put up points. Too much of a combination of skill, size, and speed for anyone. Can the Wings overall play overcome that over a whole series?

 

[BraveCanadian]

This one is tough. The Penguins have an incredible top 6 but the Wings have better depth, especially on defense. Goaltending is about equal.

I think it really boils down to Lemieux. If he lights it up the Pens win, if not they lose. The comparisons upthread about Lemieux and Lindros are silly. For one, Lemieux > Lindros.

Second, against Philly, Detroit could focus almost solely on Lindros. The Pens top 6 gives them enough depth that they a lot more secondary threats.

 

[GMR]

The 1992 New York Rangers.

It’s not “mental gymnastics” to acknowledge that criticizing a team for not having won a Stanley Cup prior to their first playoff run with the three players on their top-line is pointless.

Even if Graves and Messier and Amonte weren’t brand new players to the team, this would be like minimizing beating the 1979 New York Islanders (51 wins) or the 1983 Edmonton Oilers (47 wins) or the 1988 Calgary Flames (48 wins)... only they weren’t captained by a player who had appeared in 6 of the previous 9 Finals and won 2 of the last 3 Hart Trophies.

In the first half of the 1990s, the teams with the highest winning percentages were

1993 Pittsburgh (56 wins in 84 games)
1992 Rangers (50 wins in 80 games)
1994 Rangers (52 wins in 84 games)

Why should we refuse to give Pittsburgh credit for beating a great team just because it was their first year with their best player?

In one sentence you say Colorado “had just won the President’s Trophy”, and in the next, you say New York “hadn’t won anything” as if it hasn’t been mentioned twice before that the 1992 New York Rangers won the President’s Trophy.

And Colorado’s established “chemistry” that supposedly makes them better than the Rangers? They had a makeshift top-line with Sakic centering Lemieux and Kamensky because of



Pittsburgh couldn’t beat the defending champions because they were the defending champions. But given that their record 11-straight playoff wins came against the franchises that won the 1992 President’s Trophy (New York), the 1991 President’s Trophy (Chicago), and the 1990 President’s Trophy (Boston), I’d say they did a pretty good job at embarrassing some teams that weren’t exactly dark horses.

I'm not knocking the Rangers. My point is Colorado already had a Cup and a Presidents Trophy. New York didn't. They wouldn't win a Cup until two years later, with a much different roster. Maybe they beat the Blackhawks in 1992. Maybe they don't. Chicago was on a roll themselves heading into the Finals. I'm fairly confident Colorado beats Philadelphia, who couldn't match up with them in goal or defense. And yes, I'd pick the 1997 Avalanche in a 7 game series against the 1992 Rangers. You probably would too if forced to bet on it.

Also, beating a team that has your number isn't easy. Colorado beat Detroit in 1996. They were 3-1 against them in the regular season in 1997, the one loss coming in that wild 6-5 Fight Night game. They would also beat Detroit in 1999 and 2000 in the playoffs. It was always a tough matchup for Detroit. Patrick Roy was a problem for them. Beating Colorado in 1997 was a more impressive accomplishment than the Penguins beating a Rangers team that was still trying to find the right chemistry for a Cup run.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'd pick the 1997 Avalanche in a 7 game series against the 1992 Rangers. You probably would too if forced to bet on it.

I mean... I just told you I would expect the Rangers to beat the Avalanche.

Why would I bet money on an injured Peter Forsberg against a less-injured Mark Messier anyway? Even when the Rangers lost to the Penguins, they still outshot them 205-187. Colorado was outshot 214-127, because they were functioning like a one-line team (their top-line accounted for a larger percentage of their shots in Round 3 than the Mighty Ducks’ top-line did against Detroit in Round 2).

If you like placing bad bets, that’s your business, but I wouldn’t want to burn my money on this.

 

[Big Phil]

We don't need mental gymnastics on this. Colorado were defending Champions and had just won the Presidents trophy. New York was a team that hadn't won anything yet. They were trying to build the right chemistry for a playoff run. Colorado already had that chemistry. Also, they had Detroit's number before that series. Yes, beating Colorado was more impressive.

If this topic was about the 1997 Avalanche vs. 1992 Rangers, who do you pick?

Probably the 1997 Avs if I had to choose. One of them had just won the Cup and the other was two years away from winning, albeit with some additions to their roster by then. Both led the NHL in points. To be fair, the Pens beat the Rangers without Mario. Again, there is that Mario factor, it is bigger than anything at this point and by far the biggest tipping factor on either one of the teams.

The Flyers got swept though. It wasn't close. Yes, the Penguins had a better roster than the Flyers, but do they win four more games?

I guess we'll never know. Even if, say, the Pens and Red Wings met in 1996 there would at least be SOME idea we might have. However, the Pens were a different team by then. These two back to back winning teams never met at all until 2008 and 2009.

I think that Flyers team has been exposed over the years as having the holes it had in it. Shaky - at best - goaltending. Thin defense, not a lot of depth at forward. Sure they could have won a Cup, but traditionally at that time the western conference had the heavy teams.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

so many hall of fame defenders on detroit, but actually i do think the grind line is probably your best shot.

early 90s mario couldn’t be stopped by talent, but he did not enjoy being pestered. those penguins beat boston with poulin/carpenter twice, they beat washington twice, new jersey, swept dirk graham in the finals. but who did they lose to? a checking line of rookie travis green between brad dalgarno and claude loiselle, backed up by the great darius kasparaitis.

draper, maltby, and alternating kocur and mccarty would be annoying af. throw vlady and fetisov at them, and let vlady go to town. you hope that stevens and tocchet can be goaded into taking stupid penalties too.

 

[Dingo]

really depends on who Murphy decides to play for

 

[Dread Clawz]

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.

That's my instinct as well. Red Wings were a juggernaut but Mario back then was just a force of nature. If I had to vote between Mario and Wings' team defense I'm taking Mario. If the 97 Flyers had any depth at all they'd have given the Wings a better fight.