1992 Pittsburgh Penguins vs. 1997 Detroit Red Wings

[BigEezyE22]

if that rangers team ended up winning the cup, this slash would probably be more famous than bobby clarke on kharlamov and we'd never hear the end of it.

but i'd like their chances against neely-less boston and chicago.

That slash would've been New York's asterisk.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Easy now.. if he was unstoppable then why did the Pens only win twice?

Hockey is a team game.

tbh, i think the pens only won two cups because mario didn't give them very many chances to win.

he/they didn't make the playoffs at all during the gongshow years, finally made it when he hit that near-gretzkian offensively bonkers level but coughed up a 3-2 series lead and lost in seven in the second round to the far more experienced flyers, then was hurt and missed the playoffs again in '90, was hurt and might well have missed again in '91 but he was bailed out by really really underratedly great seasons by young recchi and john cullen, was out and missed again in '95, retired from '98 to 2000, then comes back to give them one more shot in 2001 before sliding into what at the time i thought of as his "not worth my time" years.

i feel like he was not 100% in '94 or '97. well, he was probably almost never 100%, but i think those two years he was not even close. can a pens fan who followed in the 90s corroborate?

all to say, in a career a superlative player like mario usually gets a lot of shots. in the right situation, that kind of player should get to a handful of finals. in bobby orr's nine year career, he gave them a shot every year (other than his rookie year), and he made the finals four times, so he went the distance half the time. bobby hull only won the one cup but made four finals, gretzky and howe each got their our cups plus extra finals. this isn't getting into montreal guys, of course.

but with mario, if he'd just been able to make the playoffs a few times in his first four years, and in any other conference than the deep mid-80s patrick he might have, his team might have had the necessary reps to really capitalize on the force of nature that was 1989 mario. not saying they necessarily could have beaten montreal, but mario by himself should have given them a shot.

and then with a healthier mario, post-89, you can have a real sense of continuity instead of the constant stops and starts that plagued pittsburgh in the 90s.

a lot of missed opportunities with mario. but when everything lined up they did capitalize on their window, even if 93 feels like a really great squandered shot.

 

[BraveCanadian]

tbh, i think the pens only won two cups because mario didn't give them very many chances to win.

he/they didn't make the playoffs at all during the gongshow years, finally made it when he hit that near-gretzkian offensively bonkers level but coughed up a 3-2 series lead and lost in seven in the second round to the far more experienced flyers, then was hurt and missed the playoffs again in '90, was hurt and might well have missed again in '91 but he was bailed out by really really underratedly great seasons by young recchi and john cullen, was out and missed again in '95, retired from '98 to 2000, then comes back to give them one more shot in 2001 before sliding into what at the time i thought of as his "not worth my time" years.

i feel like he was not 100% in '94 or '97. well, he was probably almost never 100%, but i think those two years he was not even close. can a pens fan who followed in the 90s corroborate?

all to say, in a career a superlative player like mario usually gets a lot of shots. in the right situation, that kind of player should get to a handful of finals. in bobby orr's nine year career, he gave them a shot every year (other than his rookie year), and he made the finals four times, so he went the distance half the time. bobby hull only won the one cup but made four finals, gretzky and howe each got their our cups plus extra finals. this isn't getting into montreal guys, of course.

but with mario, if he'd just been able to make the playoffs a few times in his first four years, and in any other conference than the deep mid-80s patrick he might have, his team might have had the necessary reps to really capitalize on the force of nature that was 1989 mario. not saying they necessarily could have beaten montreal, but mario by himself should have given them a shot.

and then with a healthier mario, post-89, you can have a real sense of continuity instead of the constant stops and starts that plagued pittsburgh in the 90s.

a lot of missed opportunities with mario. but when everything lined up they did capitalize on their window, even if 93 feels like a really great squandered shot.

The team managed to pull through the Rangers series without him in '92. And what happened when they had a stacked full of dynamite team in '93?

Don't get me wrong, Mario was incredible and obviously a game breaker.. I just take issue with the hyperbole of single players being "unstoppable". It just isn't true or all of the big 4 would have won more often.

Like I said, for the comparison here if he lights it up he would probably be the difference. But there are no guarantees.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Because he didn’t have the offensive support and hadn’t been through the trenches.

Uh huh.. what happened in 1993?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The team managed to pull through the Rangers series without him in '92. And what happened when they had a stacked full of dynamite team in '93?

Don't get me wrong, Mario was incredible and obviously a game breaker.. I just take issue with the hyperbole of single players being "unstoppable". It just isn't true or all of the big 4 would have won more often.

Like I said, for the comparison here if he lights it up he would probably be the difference. But there are no guarantees.

i agree with you.

i would, however, add that with even just passable help, a guy on the mario level should probably give his team a reasonable shot (say, finals or closely contested loss in the semis) roughly half the time. i'm just trying look into why mario fell short of that.

 

[Gurglesons]

Uh huh.. what happened in 1993?

I mean, he had cancer..

Also Kevin Stevens who was an absolute horse in 91 and 92 got his face crushed and got addicted to cocaine and pain killers.

Also 93 has nothing to do with this argument. This is the 92 team at their peak against the 97 team at their peak if I read the OP correctly.

 

[Jim MacDonald]

I don't know if others have mentioned this in the thread.....but would the Wings have the advantage in the goaltending department? I ask because I think of Barrasso letting in some bad goals against the Islanders in 93, but I don't know if he was much stronger/better in the Pens 92 cup run. Vernon was excellent for the Wings in 97, and I didn't know if the same could be said about Barrasso in the 92 playoffs?

 

[buffalowing88]

tbh, i think the pens only won two cups because mario didn't give them very many chances to win.

he/they didn't make the playoffs at all during the gongshow years, finally made it when he hit that near-gretzkian offensively bonkers level but coughed up a 3-2 series lead and lost in seven in the second round to the far more experienced flyers, then was hurt and missed the playoffs again in '90, was hurt and might well have missed again in '91 but he was bailed out by really really underratedly great seasons by young recchi and john cullen, was out and missed again in '95, retired from '98 to 2000, then comes back to give them one more shot in 2001 before sliding into what at the time i thought of as his "not worth my time" years.

i feel like he was not 100% in '94 or '97. well, he was probably almost never 100%, but i think those two years he was not even close. can a pens fan who followed in the 90s corroborate?

all to say, in a career a superlative player like mario usually gets a lot of shots. in the right situation, that kind of player should get to a handful of finals. in bobby orr's nine year career, he gave them a shot every year (other than his rookie year), and he made the finals four times, so he went the distance half the time. bobby hull only won the one cup but made four finals, gretzky and howe each got their our cups plus extra finals. this isn't getting into montreal guys, of course.

but with mario, if he'd just been able to make the playoffs a few times in his first four years, and in any other conference than the deep mid-80s patrick he might have, his team might have had the necessary reps to really capitalize on the force of nature that was 1989 mario. not saying they necessarily could have beaten montreal, but mario by himself should have given them a shot.

and then with a healthier mario, post-89, you can have a real sense of continuity instead of the constant stops and starts that plagued pittsburgh in the 90s.

a lot of missed opportunities with mario. but when everything lined up they did capitalize on their window, even if 93 feels like a really great squandered shot.

I love this entire post. We delve into the playoff history of pretty much every all-time great but hardly mention Lemieux lacking in quite a few seasons. Health is obviously the biggest consideration, but I think it's more than that and I wonder if it's not too much to say that the 91 and 92 seasons weren't outliers for him.

Regardless, I still think the 92 Penguins win in this series, but I love the new perspectives.

 

[buffalowing88]

While Eriksson was the hopeful to replace Konstantinov going into that season, the guy that came closest to filling his shoes come playoff time was Jamie Macoun. Eriksson essentially replaced Aaron Ward (who spent the entire '98 playoffs in the pressbox)

Going from the 97 playoffs to 98... Lidstrom-Murphy remained the top pair, while Rouse-Macoun replaced Konstantinov-Fetisov for the second pair, with Fetisov dropping to the 3rd pair with Eriksson to replace Rouse-Ward.

All that said, the 97 D with Konstantinov is indeed likely better equipped to deal with the '92 Pens than the '98 D.

I think the only edge'98 might have is a slightly better forward group and PP with a suddenly emerged Holmstrom replacing Sandstrom and Lapointe noticeably stepping it up.

Fair, but do we also consider how much better Lidstrom was at this point? Battle-tested Lidstrom in 98 is better than the player in 97. Plus, as you stated, the 98 forward group was more cohesive at this point and I don't think that can be discounted. It's apples and oranges at this point, but I would take the team who has been there first. Just my preference, absolutely could be wrong.

 

[buffalowing88]

I don't know if others have mentioned this in the thread.....but would the Wings have the advantage in the goaltending department? I ask because I think of Barrasso letting in some bad goals against the Islanders in 93, but I don't know if he was much stronger/better in the Pens 92 cup run. Vernon was excellent for the Wings in 97, and I didn't know if the same could be said about Barrasso in the 92 playoffs?

Barrasso had the higher ceiling, to me, but Vernon was the more consistent keeper. Not sure if either of them play a huge role in this but if I had to choose one game, I'd probably take Barrasso.

 

[MadArcand]

Barrasso had the higher ceiling, to me, but Vernon was the more consistent keeper. Not sure if either of them play a huge role in this but if I had to choose one game, I'd probably take Barrasso.

If anything, Vernon was the most inconsistent goaltender of his era. Could deliver Smythe-level performances but also could single-handedly lose his team series against vastly inferior opponents. Barrasso's lows were never that low.

That said, I still maintain that if you have either Paek or Stanton on ice over half the game, you're allowing Detroit 4 free goals per game. It'd take Mario going superhuman combined with Vernon reliving his early 90s Calgary playoffs for Pittsburgh to win here.

 

[Richard]

I love this entire post. We delve into the playoff history of pretty much every all-time great but hardly mention Lemieux lacking in quite a few seasons. Health is obviously the biggest consideration, but I think it's more than that and I wonder if it's not too much to say that the 91 and 92 seasons weren't outliers for him.

Regardless, I still think the 92 Penguins win in this series, but I love the new perspectives.

When?

'89 his star winger was Rob Brown.
'90 hurt
'93 Came back from Cancer and ran out of gas-the entire team did winning 17 in a row was the worst thing to happen to them they should have been resting Mario and company. Plus Tommy B SHIT the bed
'94 Did not play
'95 Did not play
'96 Lost to the Panthers who were allowed to cheat-literally. This is one of the worst losses in hockey history -I stopped watching the game until about 2000 after this series. It was THAT bad. I remember Scott Mellanby literally grabbing Jagr from behind and holding on with both hands and Jagr skated up the rink and made a one hand pass. Shame on the NHL for letting this travesty occur.
'97 Pens had no defense or goaltending and lost in 6 to the Flyers who should have won a cup but choked it away.
'01 Pens had an excellent top 2 lines and......... a bunch of 5 and 6 dmen. Andy Ferrance is your best defender and Hedberg was your starter... how exactly should they have beat the Devils?


So where should the pens have won another cup? Just the 93 roster was worthy but how many NHL clubs have won three in a row in the era where there were more than 6 teams.... 2? Things have to break right and Mario getting cancer, Stevens losing his face, Barrasso getting stabbed by his wife and forgetting how to play hockey all catch up

 

[BraveCanadian]

I mean, he had cancer..

Also Kevin Stevens who was an absolute horse in 91 and 92 got his face crushed and got addicted to cocaine and pain killers.

Also 93 has nothing to do with this argument. This is the 92 team at their peak against the 97 team at their peak if I read the OP correctly.

Hold on to the goalposts they are moving.. You said Lemieux was unstoppable. Lemieux was back from treatments well before the playoffs, the 93 Pens were stacked, and they lost to a middling Islanders team that was missing their best player. If I recall, Stevens played until the elimination game so that was not much of a factor. Therefore, it was certainly possible to stop Lemieux and company.

 

[Dread Clawz]

I mean, he had cancer..

Also Kevin Stevens who was an absolute horse in 91 and 92 got his face crushed and got addicted to cocaine and pain killers.

Also 93 has nothing to do with this argument. This is the 92 team at their peak against the 97 team at their peak if I read the OP correctly.

The NHL.special on Stevens' addiction was sad to watch. Such a waste of talent.

 

[Gurglesons]

Hold on to the goalposts they are moving.. You said Lemieux was unstoppable. Lemieux was back from treatments well before the playoffs, the 93 Pens were stacked, and they lost to a middling Islanders team that was missing their best player. If I recall, Stevens played until the elimination game so that was not much of a factor. Therefore, it was certainly possible to stop Lemieux and company.

Lemieux had cancer. If you can’t think of how that would have effected his play. We done.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Lemieux had cancer. If you can’t think of how that would have effected his play. We done.

Yeah, he came back from treatment, rag dolled the league to the scoring title and Hart trophy, had 18 points in 11 playoff games including 4 points in the last two games but it was cancer that suddenly stopped him again. You're right, you can't admit your hyperbole was in fact hyperbole, so we're done.

 

[yukoner88]

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

I did a best of seven series and Detroit took it in 6 games

 

[c9777666]

I'll give a slight edge to the 92 Pens. Had a better Finals sweep (92 CHI > 97 PHI).

While DET beating 97 COL was highly impressive, 92 PIT beating 1-2 overall NYR/WAS was also extremely impressive and without home-ice AND no Mario/Mullen (with all due respect to 1997 ANA/STL).

Plus, the NHL was more wide open in 1992 so it wasn't as easy to play shutdown hockey,

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Yeah, he came back from treatment, rag dolled the league to the scoring title and Hart trophy, had 18 points in 11 playoff games including 4 points in the last two games but it was cancer that suddenly stopped him again. You're right, you can't admit your hyperbole was in fact hyperbole, so we're done.

another way of framing this back and forth is, a mythical healthy mario in his peak might well have been unstoppable. but we'll never know because that is not a thing that actually existed so wgaf?

also, with you 100 on kevin stevens. he got hurt in game seven and pittsburgh, despite all of their advantages, let it get to a game seven. stevens breaking his face isn't a good excuse.

 

[MadLuke]

Maybe there is just a disagreement about the word unstoppable here, like BC just said he lost despite having 18 points in 11 playoff including 4 in the last 2, impossible to neutralize (unlike a 1997 Lindros) is probably a bit hyperbolic but not that much, that does not mean you cannot beat him.

 

[CrosbyIsKing87]

Hey Bryce Newman, a ROUTINE SLASH? Right. A routine, two-handed, baseball swing at a guys hand. The Rangers deserved to lose that series. And they did. I pick the Pen ten out of ten times in that series, Mario or no Mario.

92 Pens vs 97 Wings would be a great series. Two pretty even teams. Pittsburgh has more powerful offense, Detroit the better D. Goaltending even. Who gets Bowman may decide it. But Lemieux was unstoppable. I would never bet against him. Fedorov would be a worthy checking center against him though. Pens in seven.

 

[Bryce Newman]

Hey Bryce Newman, a ROUTINE SLASH? Right. A routine, two-handed, baseball swing at a guys hand. The Rangers deserved to lose that series. And they did. I pick the Pen ten out of ten times in that series, Mario or no Mario.

You would not like the results if the 92 Pens played the 92 Rangers 10 times because the Rangers would probably win about 7 of them. Ease up with the arrogance. Pens were about to go down 3 games to 1 in 92 to the Rangers until the miracle blue line Francis goal. Rangers take that series in 5 games, 6 tops if not for that garbage, "Mario or no Mario".

The players strike helped the Penguins immensely whether you want to admit it or not. In short, you got lucky. The Rangers were steam rolling everyone that year. The Penguins lost in 93 to an Islanders team that sucked. A team much weaker than the 92 Rangers and a team the 94 Rangers demolished with ease. And the Islanders had Turgeon in 94. Pens couldn't even beat them without Turgeon, which was pretty sad. That has to be the biggest disappointment of Mario's career I would imagine.

 

[CrosbyIsKing87]

You would not like the results if the 92 Pens played the 92 Rangers 10 times because the Rangers would probably win about 7 of them. Ease up with the arrogance. Pens were about to go down 3 games to 1 in 92 to the Rangers until the miracle blue line Francis goal. Rangers take that series in 5 games, 6 tops if not for that garbage, "Mario or no Mario".

The players strike helped the Penguins immensely whether you want to admit it or not. In short, you got lucky. The Rangers were steam rolling everyone that year. The Penguins lost in 93 to an Islanders team that sucked. A team much weaker than the 92 Rangers and a team the 94 Rangers demolished with ease. And the Islanders had Turgeon in 94. Pens couldn't even beat them without Turgeon, which was pretty sad. That has to be the biggest disappointment of Mario's career I would imagine.

Lucky. Right. Francis' goal may have been flukey but what happened in games 5 and 6? The Rangers were playing the Pens without Lemieux and still lost. And then the Pens wiped the ice with them the next season too. Rangers didn't even make the playoffs. Pittsburgh won on skill and guts. That's what championship teams do. Back to back. Then they swept Boston and Chicago. Yep, they got lucky. Eleven games in a row.

 

[Bryce Newman]

Lucky. Right. Francis' goal may have been flukey but what happened in games 5 and 6? The Rangers were playing the Pens without Lemieux and still lost. And then the Pens wiped the ice with them the next season too. Rangers didn't even make the playoffs. Pittsburgh won on skill and guts. That's what championship teams do. Back to back. Then they swept Boston and Chicago. Yep, they got lucky. Eleven games in a row.

Boston and Chicago are irrelevant to the discussion. Rangers were riddled with injuries in 93 and missed the playoffs so that's also irrelevant.

What happened in games 5 and 6? Penguins were spurred on by a lucky win and the Rangers were demoralized. It's called "momentum" maybe you've heard of it. Pretty simple.

You forget the Rangers were without Graves in 92 also which was a huge loss for them. He was a 50 plus goal scorer the year the Rangers won the cup, and he was the heart and soul of those Rangers teams. Dare I say he was more important to the Rangers than Lemieux was to Pittsburgh. 93 Penguins had Mario and lost to the lowly Islanders.

 

[CrosbyIsKing87]

Boston and Chicago are irrelevant to the discussion. Rangers were riddled with injuries in 93 and missed the playoffs so that's also irrelevant.

What happened in games 5 and 6? Penguins were spurred on by a lucky win and the Rangers were demoralized. It's called "momentum" maybe you've heard of it. Pretty simple.

You forget the Rangers were without Graves in 92 also which was a huge loss for them. He was a 50 plus goal scorer the year the Rangers won the cup, and he was the heart and soul of those Rangers teams. Dare I say he was more important to the Rangers than Lemieux was to Pittsburgh. 93 Penguins had Mario and lost to the lowly Islanders.