Hockey's top 5 crushing defeats

[Dennis Bonvie]

2009 Finals

In hindsight it was my teams last chance at a Cup before the collapse that started up and came years later. The organization at the time was a role model for the whole league. They played the game the right way with skill, team play, and discipline. Their top 3 players were all Byng worthy and two-way monsters and they led the way.

They battled to get back to the finals to defend their title but limped in missing a Hart Trophy candidate and having more than a handful of key players either out before the finals started or playing through bad injuries. Things were already stacked against them due to health issues.

What does the league do? Change the finals schedule to an insane 3 games in 4 days after just 2 days off. Let the damn team properly defend their title I say! So the league stacked things against them even more with a truly bizarre way to start the finals. Of course their injuries were well publicized making it easy for even impartial hockey columnists to question what the hell was going on with the rushed start to the schedule. Conan O’Brien Show bla bla bla. Guess they couldn’t come up with a better excuse.

It felt like more than a normal “crushing defeat” because it will always feel like the league office played a big role in it. And no, I won’t let it go because it’s a reality. My team got screwed. Anyone who wants to counter that please compare that finals schedule with any other. What a farce Mr. Bettman. My team still only lost by a goal while still outshooting and out scoring the Pens over the course of the series. Most teams would have folded up early but that was a true championship team, even if they didn’t get handed the Cup at the end.

Glad you mentioned the Pens in the next to last line. At least one team in this finals is identified.

No players but Conan O'Brien and Mr. Bettman are referenced.

But what the heck else is there to do but lookup what this post is all about.

 

[The Panther]

2009 Finals

In hindsight it was my teams last chance at a Cup before the collapse that started up and came years later. The organization at the time was a role model for the whole league. They played the game the right way with skill, team play, and discipline. Their top 3 players were all Byng worthy and two-way monsters and they led the way.

They battled to get back to the finals to defend their title but limped in missing a Hart Trophy candidate and having more than a handful of key players either out before the finals started or playing through bad injuries. Things were already stacked against them due to health issues.

What does the league do? Change the finals schedule to an insane 3 games in 4 days after just 2 days off. Let the damn team properly defend their title I say! So the league stacked things against them even more with a truly bizarre way to start the finals. Of course their injuries were well publicized making it easy for even impartial hockey columnists to question what the hell was going on with the rushed start to the schedule. Conan O’Brien Show bla bla bla. Guess they couldn’t come up with a better excuse.

It felt like more than a normal “crushing defeat” because it will always feel like the league office played a big role in it. And no, I won’t let it go because it’s a reality. My team got screwed. Anyone who wants to counter that please compare that finals schedule with any other. What a farce Mr. Bettman. My team still only lost by a goal while still outshooting and out scoring the Pens over the course of the series. Most teams would have folded up early but that was a true championship team, even if they didn’t get handed the Cup at the end.

You need to let it go.

Between May 25th 2009 and June 1st 2009 (eight days), the Red Wing were in Detroit the whole time, and played three hockey games (all of which they won): 1 game to close out round three, and 2 games to start the Cup Finals. So, if that's the proposed reason they didn't win the Cup, it's a terrible reason.

Three games in eight days, with zero travel. And this is your excuse for why the team didn't win...?

Here are other teams that had the same or fewer days between the third and fourth rounds:

1979 - Canadiens (Another veteran team defending the Cup, they had exactly the same travel/days off as Detroit in '09. Won Cup.)
1980 - NY Islanders (They had exactly the same days off as Detroit in '09, and had to travel to Philly for game one. Won Cup.)
1983 - NY Islanders (Another veteran team defending the Cup, they had exactly the same travel/days off as Detroit in '09, and had to travel from Long Island to Edmonton. Won Cup.)
1986 - Flames (Had one less day off than the '09 Red Wings. Won game one, but lost the series.)
1992 - Penguins (They had exactly the same days off as Detroit in '09, and had to travel from Boston to Pittsburgh for game one. Won Cup.)
1993 - Kings (They had exactly the same days off as Detroit in '09, and were on the road the whole time; from Toronto to Montreal. Won game one, but lost the series.)
1996 - Panthers (They had exactly the same days off as Detroit in '09, and were on the road the whole time; from Pittsburgh to Colorado. Lost the series.)
2000 - Stars (They had exactly the same days off as Detroit in '09, and had to travel from Colorado to Jersey for game one. Lost in six.)
2004 - Tampa (They had exactly the same days off as Detroit in '09. Won Cup.)
2014 - Kings (They had exactly the same days off as Detroit in '09, and had to travel from Chicago to L.A. for game one. Won Cup.)

 

[GMR]

Glad you mentioned the Pens in the next to last line. At least one team in this finals is identified.

No players but Conan O'Brien and Mr. Bettman are referenced.

But what the heck else is there to do but lookup what this post is all about.

What bothers me the most, is that Conan O'Brien lasted barely 6 months. Playing back to back games for him of all people was shameful. Typical NBC bush league. They screw the NHL, then they turn around and screw the guy this was all about.

Incidentally, how many SCF games have been played back to back? Can't be too many.

 

[JMCx4]

STL Blues fans since the mid-90s would put this at #1 ...

 

[Oheao]

STL Blues fans since the mid-90s would put this at #1 ...

St. Louis had 51 less points than Detroit, if they managed to pull that off it would have been the biggest points differential upset in NHL history.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

What bothers me the most, is that Conan O'Brien lasted barely 6 months. Playing back to back games for him of all people was shameful. Typical NBC bush league. They screw the NHL, then they turn around and screw the guy this was all about.

Incidentally, how many SCF games have been played back to back? Can't be too many.

It happened a lot pre-expansion. Just looking at Detroit:

1950: April 22 and 23 (Games 6 and 7)
1952: April 12 and 13 (Games 2 and 3)
1954: April 10 and 11 (Games 4 and 5)
1955: April 9 and 10 (Games 4 and 5)

 

[GMR]

St. Louis had 51 less points than Detroit, if they managed to pull that off it would have been the biggest points differential upset in NHL history.

Detroit had 27 more points than the second place team that season. So losing to anyone would have been a huge upset if you just look at the standings. The truth is these two teams were not that far apart. St. Louis had a team built for the playoffs with lots of good veteran players.

 

[GMR]

It happened a lot pre-expansion. Just looking at Detroit:

1950: April 22 and 23 (Games 6 and 7)
1952: April 12 and 13 (Games 2 and 3)
1954: April 10 and 11 (Games 4 and 5)
1955: April 9 and 10 (Games 4 and 5)

That figures. I just don't remember it happening much in the last few decades.

 

[JMCx4]

St. Louis had 51 less points than Detroit, if they managed to pull that off it would have been the biggest points differential upset in NHL history.

And the Blues were just one goal away from pulling it off for 81 minutes & 14 seconds. For wont of #99 controlling that puck in center ice ... a giant crushing sound was heard.

 

[Sentinel]

1. Russia losing to Canada 3:7 in 2010. The worst moment of my hockey viewing life. After two World golds and with three Hart finalists from the year before on their roster, they were utterly destroyed.

2. Detroit losing to Pittsburgh in 2009. After winning Game 5, I figured we had this in the bag, even though it was clear the team was running on fumes.

3. Detroit losing to Anaheim in 2003. The greatest team ever assembled, the defending champs, get broomed in the first round? What?

4. Detroit losing to Colorado in 1999. We were primed for the threepeat and had the Avs on the ropes. Then Osgood gets injured, and the team implodes.

5. Last year's Tampa collapse. Objectively speaking, this has got to be the biggest collapse of all time.

Dishonorable mention: Sweden losing to Belarus in 2002. WTF was that?

 

[The Panther]

What bothers me the most, is that Conan O'Brien lasted barely 6 months. Playing back to back games for him of all people was shameful. Typical NBC bush league. They screw the NHL, then they turn around and screw the guy this was all about.

Incidentally, how many SCF games have been played back to back? Can't be too many.

Amazingly, not only Detroit, but also their opponent, Pittsburgh, had to play those games back-to-back!!

 

[danincanada]

Glad you mentioned the Pens in the next to last line. At least one team in this finals is identified.

No players but Conan O'Brien and Mr. Bettman are referenced.

But what the heck else is there to do but lookup what this post is all about.

My bad, I assumed people would know what I’m talking about when I started with “2009 Finals”. Obviously not everyone here is a hockey fan and not everyone has internet access to look it up if they forgot.

 

[danincanada]

Amazingly, not only Detroit, but also their opponent, Pittsburgh, had to play those games back-to-back!!

Hmmm, I stated only having two days off, then 3 in 4 was too much for a modern day finals. Then you just focused on the days off between the CF and SCF, ignoring the second part. Combined, that’s a hell of a lot of hockey when it’s as intense as the finals. Teams get worn down playing 3 in 4 during
the season and those aren’t nearly as intense.

Now it’s the fact that the Pens had to deal with the same. Yes they did but everyone knew they were far healthier going on, younger, and finished a day earlier with a sweep. Bettman got up in front of everyone and said he “wanted to try something different this year” and they changed it last minute from an overly long layoff to the quickest in the modern era with that two days off and then 3 in 4. It was the old switcheroo and EVERYONE knew who it was going to benefit.

Did the Wings have opportunities to still win later in the series after that 3 in 4? Sure they did. The point is that it’s a game of momentum and a game of inches and the league helped wear down the defending champs and as a fan it sure seemed like they were wronged. With the injuries and condensed schedule they looked like they were running on fumes by the end of game 2 and I don’t know why any hockey fan would want to see that in the finals, the leagues showcase, when it’s partially due to the league decision for a last minute switcheroo.

 

[Sentinel]

Amazingly, not only Detroit, but also their opponent, Pittsburgh, had to play those games back-to-back!!

We all know you hate the Wings (you're going to deny it, but deep down inside you know it's true). You can keep insisting those two teams were on equal footing but they clearly weren't.

Btw, I've had Rangers fans walk up to me and said: "If the League wants Crosby to have the Cup, they should just hand it to him." Nailed it.

Glad you mentioned the Pens in the next to last line. At least one team in this finals is identified.

No players but Conan O'Brien and Mr. Bettman are referenced.

But what the heck else is there to do but lookup what this post is all about.

Somehow I doubt you don't know who were the teams and the players in those Finals...

 

[GMR]

Amazingly, not only Detroit, but also their opponent, Pittsburgh, had to play those games back-to-back!!

I think you're missing the point.

 

[The Panther]

Hmmm, I stated only having two days off, then 3 in 4 was too much for a modern day finals. Then you just focused on the days off between the CF and SCF, ignoring the second part. Combined, that’s a hell of a lot of hockey when it’s as intense as the finals. Teams get worn down playing 3 in 4 during
the season and those aren’t nearly as intense.

Everything you wrote here applies to Pittsburgh as well as to Detroit. In fact, I would argue that Detroit had an easier time preparing for the Finals than Pittsburgh did, as the Pens had to travel with their extra day, where the Wings were just staying at home the whole time.

Now it’s the fact that the Pens had to deal with the same. Yes they did but everyone knew they were far healthier going on, younger, and finished a day earlier with a sweep.

In other words, Pittsburgh was the better team.

Bettman got up in front of everyone and said he “wanted to try something different this year” and they changed it last minute from an overly long layoff to the quickest in the modern era with that two days off and then 3 in 4. It was the old switcheroo and EVERYONE knew who it was going to benefit.

Apparently it benefited Detroit, as they won games one and two.

 

[The Panther]

We all know you hate the Wings (you're going to deny it, but deep down inside you know it's true).

I would hope the History board is a place where accusations like "you hate my team, so there!" aren't going to become standard. (As it happens, I have liked the Red Wings' franchise since about 1987 when I was a kid, and under normal circumstances in a game between Pittsburgh and Detroit, I would cheer for Detroit.)

You can keep insisting those two teams were on equal footing but they clearly weren't.

They clearly were.

If a team has a 2-0 lead in the Cup Finals, with no travel to start the Finals and with home-ice advantage in the Finals, and then loses that Finals, there is absolutely nobody to blame except that team itself. And I'm 100% that if you asked this to the core veteran players on that 2009 Red Wings' team, they'd all agree with me.


I can see that this is becoming an embarrassing thing with Wings' fans akin to Leafs' fans and the 1993 non-call on Gretzky's high stick. There's a point where it starts to get sad. My advice would be: Don't go there.

 

[Sentinel]

I would hope the History board is a place where accusations like "you hate my team, so there!" aren't going to become standard. (As it happens, I have liked the Red Wings' franchise since about 1987 when I was a kid, and under normal circumstances in a game between Pittsburgh and Detroit, I would cheer for Detroit.)

This is where it simply has to be said: "I don't believe you." I've been on this board for over 10 years and I don't remember a single time you said something nice about Detroit.

I think you still can't forgive them the famous "Gretzky had it, lost it" moment.

If a team has a 2-0 lead in the Cup Finals, with no travel to start the Finals and with home-ice advantage in the Finals, and then loses that Finals, there is absolutely nobody to blame except that team itself. And I'm 100% that if you asked this to the core veteran players on that 2009 Red Wings' team, they'd all agree with me.

You can be "100%" anything you want but unless you actually ask these very core veteran players, preferably when they don't feel the need to be politically correct, this "100%" = 0%.

My guess is that you'll get exactly the opposite response.

That team was injured unlike any other in the Finals since the lockout. I am "100%" that shortened break kill it.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

You need to let it go.

Between May 25th 2009 and June 1st 2009 (eight days), the Red Wing were in Detroit the whole time, and played three hockey games (all of which they won): 1 game to close out round three, and 2 games to start the Cup Finals. So, if that's the proposed reason they didn't win the Cup, it's a terrible reason.

Three games in eight days, with zero travel. And this is your excuse for why the team didn't win...?

Here are other teams that had the same or fewer days between the third and fourth rounds:

1979 - Canadiens (Another veteran team defending the Cup, they had exactly the same travel/days off as Detroit in '09. Won Cup.)
1980 - NY Islanders (They had exactly the same days off as Detroit in '09, and had to travel to Philly for game one. Won Cup.)
1983 - NY Islanders (Another veteran team defending the Cup, they had exactly the same travel/days off as Detroit in '09, and had to travel from Long Island to Edmonton. Won Cup.)
1986 - Flames (Had one less day off than the '09 Red Wings. Won game one, but lost the series.)
1992 - Penguins (They had exactly the same days off as Detroit in '09, and had to travel from Boston to Pittsburgh for game one. Won Cup.)
1993 - Kings (They had exactly the same days off as Detroit in '09, and were on the road the whole time; from Toronto to Montreal. Won game one, but lost the series.)
1996 - Panthers (They had exactly the same days off as Detroit in '09, and were on the road the whole time; from Pittsburgh to Colorado. Lost the series.)
2000 - Stars (They had exactly the same days off as Detroit in '09, and had to travel from Colorado to Jersey for game one. Lost in six.)
2004 - Tampa (They had exactly the same days off as Detroit in '09. Won Cup.)
2014 - Kings (They had exactly the same days off as Detroit in '09, and had to travel from Chicago to L.A. for game one. Won Cup.)

Call me crazy, but I think youre proving his point. A lot of those teams are cases where they noticeably to seem to run out of gas late in the series (93 Kings, 86 Flames), or narrowly averted doing so (80 Islanders). And even in the cases where they won, some of the early games appear noticeably different from the rest of the series:

1979 Game 1, Canadiens lose 4-1 in a series where they outscored the Rangers 18-7 the rest of the way. I believe Esposito has hinted the major reason why the Rangers lost game 2 was because too many of the Rags were partying in Montreal after the game 1 win. And this was a playoff loss at home in the freaking Forum back in the days when those words really meant something.

1983 Game 1, Islanders win 2-0 in a series where they outscored Edmonton 15-6 the rest of the way. I think game 1 was also essentially a 1-0 win with an ENG at the very end, so hardly as dominating as the rest of the series. Edmonton carried most of the play, and the win was majority due to Billy Smith playing the best game of his career.

1992 Game 1, Penguins were down 4-1 halfway through the second period before mounting their comeback to win by one that ended with the famous play where Jagr deked out every Blackhawk on the ice. They outscored Chicago 10-6 the rest of the way. If you make the split at the point where they were down midway through game 1, its Chicago 4-1 before , and 14-6 Penguins after. Starting to see a trend here?

1996 Panthers lost the first two at McNichols by a combined score of 11-2 , before two close games back in Florida.

2000 Game 1, Dallas gets thumped 7-3. The rest of the series, New Jersey only outscores them by a total of 8-6.

2004 Game 1, Tampa loses game 1 at home 4-1. The scoreboard the rest of the way reads Tampa 12-10 over Calgary.

2014 doesnt really fit the pattern, as LA won game 1 in OT 3-2, and the rest of the series was close at 12-8 total goals and multiple overtimes.

Its almost like a lot of the examples you list up above showed that teams that go into the finals with such a short layover are at a serious disadvantage in the early going because theyre drop dead tired compared to their opponent, even if they happen to be the better team talent wise.

 

[danincanada]

Everything you wrote here applies to Pittsburgh as well as to Detroit. In fact, I would argue that Detroit had an easier time preparing for the Finals than Pittsburgh did, as the Pens had to travel with their extra day, where the Wings were just staying at home the whole time.

For some reason your replies are very selective on which part of my argument you want to deny, almost as if you can’t take the whole thing in at once. We both know you can, you just don’t want to because that would make it much harder to argue for you.

It was an ideal schedule for the Pens when the league changed it and the worst fathomable schedule for the Wings - if you consider each teams situations. That’s the salient point.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

We all know you hate the Wings (you're going to deny it, but deep down inside you know it's true). You can keep insisting those two teams were on equal footing but they clearly weren't.

Btw, I've had Rangers fans walk up to me and said: "If the League wants Crosby to have the Cup, they should just hand it to him." Nailed it.


Somehow I doubt you don't know who were the teams and the players in those Finals...

I'm 68 years old. I have to think hard to remember who was in the finals two years ago. If I'm going to read a post that is that long I'd rather not have to look up who the team was in the finals and who their top 3 Lady Byng, two-way monster, played-the-right-way guys were. Perhaps it was all clear to you, as a Wings fan. But this isn't the Red Wings site, its the history site. The history of hockey, not of the Red Wings.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

My bad, I assumed people would know what I’m talking about when I started with “2009 Finals”. Obviously not everyone here is a hockey fan and not everyone has internet access to look it up if they forgot. View attachment 346510

No problem.

Just try writing a more coherent post next time. You know, where people don't have to look up what you are trying to communicate.

 

[The Panther]

This is where it simply has to be said: "I don't believe you." I've been on this board for over 10 years and I don't remember a single time you said something nice about Detroit.

I think you still can't forgive them the famous "Gretzky had it, lost it" moment.

You're normally a very intelligent poster, but none of the above can be taken seriously. I'm just gonna let it go.

You can be "100%" anything you want but unless you actually ask these very core veteran players, preferably when they don't feel the need to be politically correct, this "100%" = 0%.

My guess is that you'll get exactly the opposite response.

That team was injured unlike any other in the Finals since the lockout. I am "100%" that shortened break kill it.

Okay, then.

(btw, it is not the NHL's responsibility to help the Red Wings because they were injured.)

 

[The Panther]

Call me crazy, but I think youre proving his point. A lot of those teams are cases where they noticeably to seem to run out of gas late in the series (93 Kings, 86 Flames), or narrowly averted doing so (80 Islanders). And even in the cases where they won, some of the early games appear noticeably different from the rest of the series:

1979 Game 1, Canadiens lose 4-1 in a series where they outscored the Rangers 18-7 the rest of the way. I believe Esposito has hinted the major reason why the Rangers lost game 2 was because too many of the Rags were partying in Montreal after the game 1 win. And this was a playoff loss at home in the freaking Forum back in the days when those words really meant something.

1983 Game 1, Islanders win 2-0 in a series where they outscored Edmonton 15-6 the rest of the way. I think game 1 was also essentially a 1-0 win with an ENG at the very end, so hardly as dominating as the rest of the series. Edmonton carried most of the play, and the win was majority due to Billy Smith playing the best game of his career.

1992 Game 1, Penguins were down 4-1 halfway through the second period before mounting their comeback to win by one that ended with the famous play where Jagr deked out every Blackhawk on the ice. They outscored Chicago 10-6 the rest of the way. If you make the split at the point where they were down midway through game 1, its Chicago 4-1 before , and 14-6 Penguins after. Starting to see a trend here?

1996 Panthers lost the first two at McNichols by a combined score of 11-2 , before two close games back in Florida.

2000 Game 1, Dallas gets thumped 7-3. The rest of the series, New Jersey only outscores them by a total of 8-6.

2004 Game 1, Tampa loses game 1 at home 4-1. The scoreboard the rest of the way reads Tampa 12-10 over Calgary.

2014 doesnt really fit the pattern, as LA won game 1 in OT 3-2, and the rest of the series was close at 12-8 total goals and multiple overtimes.

Its almost like a lot of the examples you list up above showed that teams that go into the finals with such a short layover are at a serious disadvantage in the early going because theyre drop dead tired compared to their opponent, even if they happen to be the better team talent wise.

What? You mean a team that has just gone through a tough, 7-game series sometimes looks more tired in the next round than a team that had a 4-game sweep and an extra six days to rest? Who'd have thunk it??

My only point was this: Having three days off to start the Finals is not a unique thing to the Red Wings of 2009. It hardly merits excuses or a pity-party (esp. for a franchise with such a proud tradition).

 

[tinyzombies]

The oldtimer Canadiens always talked about how they got screwed in Chicago in 1961 by the refs in the playoffs going for their sixth Cup in a row.