97-98 Dallas Stars vs 99-00 Dallas Stars

[Michael Whiteacre]

So Dallas has had two contenders who had a chance to win them more than one Stanley Cup, one in '97-'98 where they lost to the Detroit Red Wings in the Western Conference Finals, and one in '99-'00 where they made it to the Stanley Cup Finals only to lose to the New Jersey Devils. There are about 13 guys that played on both teams ie. Ed Belfour, Sergei Zubov, Joe Nieuwendyk, Darryl Sydor, Jere Lehtinen, Jamie Langenbrunner, Mike Modano, Richard Matvichuk, Shawn Chambers, Derian Hatcher, Guy Carbonneau, Brian Skrudland, Mike Keane etc. Most would say that the '99-'00 team was better with Brett Hull and Brenden Morrow up front, and Richard Matvichuk complementing Sydor/Zubov as the team's 3rd top defenseman.

What about the '97-'98 team? If the Red Wings weren't serious contenders, then the Dallas Stars could've had a shot at the Stanley Cup a year earlier. Plus, the team had better versions of Nieuwendyk, Lehtinen and Hatcher, and also had more role players contributing like Carbonneau and Chambers. They also had Pat Verbeek, Greg Adams, Tony Hrkac, Benoit Hogue, Craig Ludwig and Craig Muni as well, while the '99-'00 team had Kirk Muller, Derek Plante, Scott Thornton, Sylvain Cote and Dave Manson.

Thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[Hockeyholic]

The 97-98 team lost Nieuwendyk for the whole playoffs. They weren't beating Detroit. It took two fluke goals in game 5 for them to even push the series to 6.

 

[vikash1987]

1999 > 2000 > 1998

In other words, how the three Dallas teams did in the playoffs is a good reflection of how they stack up to one another.

They had a great run in ‘98, but Nieuwendyk’s injury proved costly in the playoffs, and their offense and special teams basically dried up by the time they ran into Detroit. They led the league with a PP% of 20% during the regular season, but went a measly 1 for 30 on the PP against Detroit in the conference finals. Overall, they barely averaged over two goals a game in the playoffs, whereas Detroit and Buffalo averaged over three goals. Also, in fairness, Ed Belfour wasn’t necessarily pitching a Conn Smythe performance.

The conventional wisdom, at the time of his acqusition later that summer, was that Brett Hull was the missing piece to them winning the Cup. It sure worked out that way. If anything, Hull’s absence from that ‘98 team is the biggest difference to me, if we’re trying to make comparisons.

 

[LightningStorm]

1999 > 2000 > 1998

In other words, how the three Dallas teams did in the playoffs is a good reflection of how they stack up to one another.

They had a great run in ‘98, but Nieuwendyk’s injury proved costly in the playoffs, and their offense and special teams basically dried up by the time they ran into Detroit. They led the league with a PP% of 20% during the regular season, but went a measly 1 for 30 on the PP against Detroit in the conference finals. Overall, they barely averaged over two goals a game in the playoffs, whereas Detroit and Buffalo averaged over three goals. Also, in fairness, Ed Belfour wasn’t necessarily pitching a Conn Smythe performance.

The conventional wisdom, at the time of his acqusition later that summer, was that Brett Hull was the missing piece to them winning the Cup. It sure worked out that way. If anything, Hull’s absence from that ‘98 team is the biggest difference to me, if we’re trying to make comparisons.

As a Stars fan in those days (insert joke about them playing the Lightning in the finals this year here), I definitely think 1998 was better than 2000. You mentioned how in 98 their offense dried up after Nieuwendyk's injury, which was true. What this overlooks in the context of this topic though is their offense in 2000 dried up without any major injuries.

Their D was top 3 in GA all 3 seasons (2nd in '98, 1st in '99, 3rd in '00), so basically evenly matched. However, the '00 offense wasn't the same. With GF, they were 3rd in '98 and 8th in '99, but fell down to 21st in '00, which to me is a major reason why they didn't win their 3rd straight President's trophy. It almost caught up to them in the WCF in their rematch with the Avs from the season before, but Belfour carried them back to the finals playing the series of his life. But in the finals against an equally stout Devils D, the Stars dried up offense never stood a chance, and Belfour made that series appear closer than it was.

The only argument I could see for 2000 being better is 1998 didn't have Hull. But in '98 they did score better as a team. It's pretty astounding how they were 3rd in goals the season before having Hull plus Modano missing 30 games, but dropping to 21st 2 seasons later when they had Hull and Modano basically played a full season.

Last there's the fact that they were shorthanded in the playoffs without Nieuwendyk in '98, and we all know how important he was since he won the Smythe the next season. In that regard, you can't really compare their playoff success in '98 to the following 2 with them not having any major injuries those playoffs.

 

[vikash1987]

As a Stars fan in those days (insert joke about them playing the Lightning in the finals this year here), I definitely think 1998 was better than 2000. You mentioned how in 98 their offense dried up after Nieuwendyk's injury, which was true. What this overlooks in the context of this topic though is their offense in 2000 dried up without any major injuries.

Their D was top 3 in GA all 3 seasons (2nd in '98, 1st in '99, 3rd in '00), so basically evenly matched. However, the '00 offense wasn't the same. With GF, they were 3rd in '98 and 8th in '99, but fell down to 21st in '00, which to me is a major reason why they didn't win their 3rd straight President's trophy. It almost caught up to them in the WCF in their rematch with the Avs from the season before, but Belfour carried them back to the finals playing the series of his life. But in the finals against an equally stout Devils D, the Stars dried up offense never stood a chance, and Belfour made that series appear closer than it was.

The only argument I could see for 2000 being better is 1998 didn't have Hull. But in '98 they did score better as a team. It's pretty astounding how they were 3rd in goals the season before having Hull plus Modano missing 30 games, but dropping to 21st 2 seasons later when they had Hull and Modano basically played a full season.

Last there's the fact that they were shorthanded in the playoffs without Nieuwendyk in '98, and we all know how important he was since he won the Smythe the next season. In that regard, you can't really compare their playoff success in '98 to the following 2 with them not having any major injuries those playoffs.

Fair points. I don’t know if I agree completely, but you can definitely make a case that the ‘98 team was better.

That 2000 team definitely saw their scoring plummet, but that’s because they were decimated with injuries: 400 man games lost in the regular season, which is an obscene amount and over 2x what they went through in their Cup year (I don’t remember what it was in ‘98). Lehtinen missed 80% of the season; Nieuwendyk missed a significant chunk of the season; same with Hatcher (though that probably had less of a bearing on offense); Zubov went down late, causing the team to limp into the playoffs with a winless streak; And, later in the playoffs, they lost Langenbrunner. Essentially, they were reduced to a one-line team offensively. You can’t ignore the fact that lack of good health was a critical factor behind their failure to get another top seed.

And yet, despite the injuries, they battled to win their division. They were bad in the beginning of the season, if I recall correctly, but they were one of the better teams for the rest of the year. Modano and Hull shouldered the burden, and in the playoffs, they put up MVP-caliber numbers. Defensively, they set an NHL record at ~90% on the PK. And, in the playoffs, Belfour was tremendous, especially in that Colorado series.

I think the prior experience of ‘98 and ‘99 had something to do with this. But they did more with less, which is why I gave that year’s Stars a leg up.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

As a Stars fan in those days (insert joke about them playing the Lightning in the finals this year here), I definitely think 1998 was better than 2000. You mentioned how in 98 their offense dried up after Nieuwendyk's injury, which was true. What this overlooks in the context of this topic though is their offense in 2000 dried up without any major injuries.

Their D was top 3 in GA all 3 seasons (2nd in '98, 1st in '99, 3rd in '00), so basically evenly matched. However, the '00 offense wasn't the same. With GF, they were 3rd in '98 and 8th in '99, but fell down to 21st in '00, which to me is a major reason why they didn't win their 3rd straight President's trophy. It almost caught up to them in the WCF in their rematch with the Avs from the season before, but Belfour carried them back to the finals playing the series of his life. But in the finals against an equally stout Devils D, the Stars dried up offense never stood a chance, and Belfour made that series appear closer than it was.

The only argument I could see for 2000 being better is 1998 didn't have Hull. But in '98 they did score better as a team. It's pretty astounding how they were 3rd in goals the season before having Hull plus Modano missing 30 games, but dropping to 21st 2 seasons later when they had Hull and Modano basically played a full season.

Last there's the fact that they were shorthanded in the playoffs without Nieuwendyk in '98, and we all know how important he was since he won the Smythe the next season. In that regard, you can't really compare their playoff success in '98 to the following 2 with them not having any major injuries those playoffs.

My initial thought was that 2000 was obviously better than 1998 because Brett Hull added a big dimension to that team that they otherwise lacked, but you do make good points.

Pretty amazing to me as an outside fan that pre-Hull Dallas was so highly ranked at goals-for, but then as a Devil's fan, I'm used to everyone else forgetting just how good the Devils of the era were at scoring.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I’d go 1998 Dallas a touch above 2000. Best powerplay and 2nd best penalty kill in the league. They were vicious. Just a mean group of players with Verbeek, Ludwig, and Harvey.

Belfour underperformed in the 1998 Conference Finals relative to the 2000 Conference Finals, which is what swung each series (Dallas outshot Detroit and lost). Osgood also played the series of his career, but that shouldn’t necessarily take away from how good 1998 Dallas was.

 

[vikash1987]

Was it really Belfour’s underperformance that swung the ‘98 series? I thought it had more to do with their powerplay (1 for 30) and the fact that their offensive deficiencies got exposed. That was at least one of the key storylines underlying the Hull signing. I could be wrong, though—no question that Belfour was far better in 2000

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

Was it really Belfour’s underperformance that swung the ‘98 series? I thought it had more to do with their powerplay (1 for 30) and the fact that their offensive deficiencies got exposed. That was at least one of the key storylines underlying the Hull signing. I could be wrong, though—no question that Belfour was far better in 2000

The Wings through the 90s seemed to always have an answer for Psycho Eddie. Throughout his career he only had a losing record against 6 teams, and Detroit was one of them going 23w and 32L in 65 games. This is why I believe that if Detroit was healthy in 99 against Colorado they'd win that series, then probably take Dallas to 7 and it's a coin toss.

I think in order it should be 99 > 98 > 00

 

[quoipourquoi]

Was it really Belfour’s underperformance that swung the ‘98 series? I thought it had more to do with their powerplay (1 for 30) and the fact that their offensive deficiencies got exposed. That was at least one of the key storylines underlying the Hull signing. I could be wrong, though—no question that Belfour was far better in 2000

I think so. Consider this: across 41 playoff series from 1993-2009, only two teams were able to outshoot the Detroit Red Wings.

The 1995 New Jersey Devils and the 1998 Dallas Stars.

Ed Belfour has to take one on the road in Game 3 or 4. Dallas carried the play (34-20, 30-23), and even with their struggles against Osgood, they gave Belfour 3 goals and 2 goals to work with to take the split. He gave up 8 on 43.

Dallas could have won in spite of Belfour if Osgood wasn’t eating their lunch (this should not be perceived as an offensive deficiency though; hot goaltenders do these things to good teams), but all it really would have taken was for Belfour to have a normal one. Belfour paid the Stars back and then some in 2000.

 

[quoipourquoi]

The Wings through the 90s seemed to always have an answer for Psycho Eddie.

In his other two series against Detroit in the 1990s, Belfour had a .941 and a .929. I don’t know that in the playoffs they were necessarily his kryptonite.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

In his other two series against Detroit in the 1990s, Belfour had a .941 and a .929. I don’t know that in the playoffs they were necessarily his kryptonite.

I'm not speaking only of playoffs but against Ed Belfour in general. He was the goalie on Detroit's chief rival in the early and mid 90s so they played a ton against each other. From 1990-91 to about 1993-94 Chicago were legit contenders. Roenick getting 100 point seasons, Belfour was either the best or 2nd best goalie in the league at any given time, and Chris Chelios on defense in his prime. I'm surprised they didn't end up with the cup in 2 of those 4 seasons.

Belfour beat the 1992 Red Wings on their way to the cup finals against Pittsburgh, but that was a very thin Detroit team with a sophmore Fedorov, rookie Lidstrom and Tim f***ing Cheveldae in net. He played pretty good in 95 against Detroit when Detroit ended up getting swept by the Devils but by that time the book was out on him in Detroit. That .929 he got was from getting absolutely shelled in a series he lost. You could see at that point that the wheels fell off of Chicago.

 

[GMR]

I was never too worried about Dallas. I felt they were a little slow and ordered. Not creative enough offensively. I was more worried about Forsberg, Sakic, and Roy, who gave the Wings so many problems. They also had young players like Drury and Hejduk that always came up with clutch goals. Not as worried about Modano, Nieuwendyk, and Belfour. A lot of that may be due to perception vs actual experience. Detroit played Colorado five times in the playoffs between 1996 and 2002. They played Dallas only once and were successful. I have no idea how a playoff matchup vs. Dallas would go in 1999 or 2000. The Stars were very strong both of those seasons. If Detroit gets subpar goaltending, they're in trouble either year.

To answer the OP, I'd also rank 1999 and 2000 Dallas over 1998. The 2000 team did repeat as Finalists. That's not easy to do. Also, they had to get past Colorado again in 2000, who were hungry from coming so close the season before. Many people consider the 2000 Devils as the best New Jersey team. If so, we have to give the 2000 Stars some slack for not repeating under the circumstances. Then again, the 1998 Stars ran into a team that was playing for Konstantinov and nothing (Osgood included) was going to stop them from repeating. Obviously, if Dallas wins that series, they also roll against the Capitals in the Finals.

All three Dallas teams were terrific. Most can probably agree the 1999 team was the strongest.

 

[ShelbyZ]

Was it really Belfour’s underperformance that swung the ‘98 series? I thought it had more to do with their powerplay (1 for 30) and the fact that their offensive deficiencies got exposed. That was at least one of the key storylines underlying the Hull signing. I could be wrong, though—no question that Belfour was far better in 2000

This. While Belfour deserves a share of blame for that series, it doesn't seem fair to make it the major factor when his team allowed more goals on the PP than they scored.

He allowed some soft goals through the series, but his only real "bad" outing was Game 3. He otherwise gave the Stars a chance to win in the other 5 games, but they couldn't capitalize on a PP (or sometimes score at all) to save their lives.

The biggest factor for the Stars failure in '98 was Marchment taking out Nieuwendyk for the playoffs. Not only did they lose their top scorer, but their PP as well as production from some of their secondary offense (Verbeek, Adams, Sydor, etc.) pretty much evaporated. While useful in their intended roles, the guys they had lower on the depth chart up front weren't going to shore up that lost offense much (if at all) if moved up the line up.

IIRC, overall depth was another factor for the '98 Stars team. When Nieuwendyk was lost and other forwards missed some games in the playoffs, they had to plug holes with inexperienced call ups like Lind and Wright, and/or dress 11 forwards and 7D. Although they did have Dave Reid, I can't remember why he was a healthy scratch for most of the 98 playoffs. They also didn't have much for D outside of their 6 solid NHL guys: A high mileage Craig Muni in his last NHL season, and a fringe call up in Dan Keczmer. This became a factor as their D started to wear down at the end of the series with Detroit. I can't remember what it was, but IIRC Zubov had playing with some kind of ailment since the first round, Chambers was lost for the rest of the series in game 3, Matvichuk got hurt in game 4 and missed game 5 before playing game 6 and Adams got banged up somewhere during the series and was in and out of the line up. In contrast the Red Wings had an entire spare D pairing (Ward and Mironov) and 4th line (Kocur, Knuble and Dandenault) eating hot dogs in the press box for most of the series.

Most would say that the '99-'00 team was better with Brett Hull and Brenden Morrow up front, and Richard Matvichuk complementing Sydor/Zubov as the team's 3rd top defenseman.

Matvichuk was always there, usually chained to top defensemen Derian Hatcher for one of their top 2 pairs along with Sydor and Zubov. His role was expanded a bit in 99-00 after the team lost Chambers for the season and then Hatcher for a couple months(and Ludwig retired after '99) and had to cycle through some lower end and/or young Dmen before they finally brought in Cote and Manson to replace Chambers and Ludwig.

I'd give '98 the edge on D. Same top 4 as 2000, but I'd rather have Chambers and Ludwig over Cote and Manson as the 3rd pair. 2000 D does have a slight advantage when it comes to depth however, with Pushor, Lukowich, Joel Bouchard and a young Ric Jackman in tow vs. Muni and Keczmer in '98.

2000 however has the better and deeper forward group, when healthy that is.