Hockey's top 5 crushing defeats

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,002
4,966
Parts Unknown
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.

In other words, Pittsburgh was the better team.

Apparently it benefited Detroit, as they won games one and two.
Detroit didn’t play that well in game 1 and 2. They were bailed out by Osgood and by some timely goals. The prevailing opinion was that a long series would be worse for them being an older team with some key injuries. Also, they beat Chicago in 5 games, not 7.

Bottom line is that neither team should have needed to play back to back so quickly after finishing their Conference finals. That’s not normal for today’s age.
 

OgeeOgelthorpe

Baldina
Feb 29, 2020
16,993
17,951
I think Detroit losing to Colorado in '96 was a more monumental and crushing defeat in Hockey lore than Chicago losing to LA in '14.

As a wings fan, yes but no. Wings fans were cocky that year. The team had set an NHL record of 62 wins that year. But that Colorado team wasn't an underdog, really. They had 104 points as the 2nd best team in the league. 326 GF, 240 GA. Detroit had 325 GF, 180GA.

I look at it like this; If Colorado doesn't beat Detroit in 96 and 99, the Red Wings likely win at least 3 stanley cups in a row. (Detroit would have swept Florida just as easily as the Avs in 1996, and Detroit matched up against Dallas better than the Avalanche in 99.)
If Detroit didn't beat the Avalanche in 97 and 2002 then Colorado ends up with 4 Stanley cups between 1996 and 2002. It would also put to rest any of those annoying arguments about neither team being a true dynasty.

Now, if we're talking REAL heartbreak as a Wings fan look at these 3 seasons...

1994: Game 7 loss to upstart San Jose sharks in the first round. Fedorov got hit by his own teammate (Shawn Burr), was concussed at the end of the season and played while injured in the postseason. Rookie Chris Osgood crying in his locker with the press all over the room.

1995: Devils sweep Detroit in the finals and introduce the NHL to the clutch and grab era of hockey.

2006: Detroit's super team is beat by the Edmonton Oilers in 6 games in the first round due to the horrendous goaltending of Manny Legace.

2009 wasn't so much heartbreak for me but outrage. That's the year that Bettman moved the finals up a week and started the series early, ignored much of the rulebook when Malkin should have been suspended, and basically handed Pittsburgh the series.
 

scott clam

Registered User
Sep 12, 2018
1,108
532
As a wings fan, yes but no. Wings fans were cocky that year. The team had set an NHL record of 62 wins that year. But that Colorado team wasn't an underdog, really. They had 104 points as the 2nd best team in the league. 326 GF, 240 GA. Detroit had 325 GF, 180GA.

I look at it like this; If Colorado doesn't beat Detroit in 96 and 99, the Red Wings likely win at least 3 stanley cups in a row. (Detroit would have swept Florida just as easily as the Avs in 1996, and Detroit matched up against Dallas better than the Avalanche in 99.)
If Detroit didn't beat the Avalanche in 97 and 2002 then Colorado ends up with 4 Stanley cups between 1996 and 2002. It would also put to rest any of those annoying arguments about neither team being a true dynasty.

Now, if we're talking REAL heartbreak as a Wings fan look at these 3 seasons...

1994: Game 7 loss to upstart San Jose sharks in the first round. Fedorov got hit by his own teammate (Shawn Burr), was concussed at the end of the season and played while injured in the postseason. Rookie Chris Osgood crying in his locker with the press all over the room.

1995: Devils sweep Detroit in the finals and introduce the NHL to the clutch and grab era of hockey.

2006: Detroit's super team is beat by the Edmonton Oilers in 6 games in the first round due to the horrendous goaltending of Manny Legace.

2009 wasn't so much heartbreak for me but outrage. That's the year that Bettman moved the finals up a week and started the series early, ignored much of the rulebook when Malkin should have been suspended, and basically handed Pittsburgh the series.
Colorado definitely doesn't fit the image of the typical "underdog", but the stakes for Detroit were just so much higher.

For a 62 win team that got swept in tbe finals the year before, a team/franchise still plagued by the stigma of being chokers, losing again - this time in the third round to the newly minted Avalanche, could not have possibly been more humiliating.

And that Claude Lemieux hit was just salt in the wound. Kickstarted the greatest sports-rivalry of the next decade.
 
Last edited:

VMBM

And it didn't even bring me down
Sep 24, 2008
3,788
751
Helsinki, Finland
The Soviets lost 2-7 to Czechoslovakia in the 1974 World Championships first round. _I believe that is the single biggest defeat for the Soviet national team ever. Yet the Soviets ended up winning the tournament, beating the Czechs in the final round.

In the World Championship history maybe. In the 1974-75 Izvestia cup, they lost 9-3 to Czhechoslovakia, and 8-3 also to CSSR at the 1977 Izvestia tournament.

Outside the 1980 Olympics, I'd say the most crushing defeat for the USSR was the 3-1 medal round loss to Sweden at the 1977 World Championship; this was the last game of the tournament, and all they needed was a tie to secure the championship. I don't know why the Swedish team was so difficult for the Soviets in this WHC; the USSR had already lost the first round game 5-1(!) to them. Roland Eriksson and Göran Högosta played brilliantly, but still...
 
Last edited:

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Detroit didn’t play that well in game 1 and 2. They were bailed out by Osgood and by some timely goals. The prevailing opinion was that a long series would be worse for them being an older team with some key injuries. Also, they beat Chicago in 5 games, not 7.

Bottom line is that neither team should have needed to play back to back so quickly after finishing their Conference finals. That’s not normal for today’s age.

It’s quite clear he’s trying to put add his 2 cents but doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. Last he said it was 3 days off before the finals even though it was actually 2. Two days off is short but not unheard of for the finals. Starting with 3 in 4 was very strange and rushed. The two combined was a farce. For the league to change things last minute and set that schedule up knowing how the teams were setup going into the finals makes it easy for the conspiracy theories to come out. I don’t know for a fact that Bettman wanted the Pens to win but often when it looks and quacks like a duck it is a duck. Illitch and Bettman were feuding at the time and the league was trying to sell Crosby hard. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone reported that this was the scheme in a biography in the future. The truth usually comes out but it’s still too early and Bettman is still running the show.

I thought the Wings looked sluggish the first two games even though they won. They used their experience and Osgood somehow found a way to play the best hockey of his career that run. It was bound to catch up with them though. The Ducks series did them in and the injuries piled up against the Hawks. That’s the way it goes sometimes but the schedule change will always be a joke and stick out like a sore thumb when comparing to other modern day finals schedules. Anyone who says it was fine please tell me why they haven’t done it since. If the league did that to their team they’d feel the same way.
 

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,745
4,581
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
Not having the miracle on ice here is pretty absurd.
Believe it or not, to the Soviets it was not that big of a deal. "Lost one game in a freak accident." We all knew that Soviet team was better. Tikhonov was not fired, no major changes ensued, although a pressure was put on the top line to step down. Mikhailov resigned from the team in December (10 months later), Petrov -- after the 1981 Worlds. Kharlamov stayed on the team till the summer of 1981.

In other words, I would not call it a crushing defeat.
 
Last edited:

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,745
4,581
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
Colorado definitely doesn't fit the image of the typical "underdog", but the stakes for Detroit were just so much higher.

For a 62 win team that got swept in tbe finals the year before, a team/franchise still plagued by the stigma of being chokers, losing again - this time in the third round to the newly minted Avalanche, could not have possibly been more humiliating.

And that Claude Lemieux hit was just salt in the wound. Kickstarted the greatest sports-rivalry of the next decade.
There was nothing humiliating about that loss. It was not the SJ from two seasons ago. It was not like losing to, say, the Golden Knights. Avalanche was simply the rebranded Nordiques with a world class goalie. The loss was sad and depressing but hardly humiliating. The SJ loss was humiliating to no end. The Devils loss -- slightly less so, but still humiliating.
 

JMCx4

Censorship is the Sincerest Form of Flattery
Sep 3, 2017
13,401
8,284
St. Louis, MO
Not having the miracle on ice here is pretty absurd.
I've gotta agree with Big Phil's comment re. MOI game. Sure it was a disappointment for the Soviets, but it didn't eliminate them from contention for the gold medal. So maybe a "delayed crush" for them? But I guess many of the games/series mentioned in this thread meet that criterion.
 

scott clam

Registered User
Sep 12, 2018
1,108
532
There was nothing humiliating about that loss. It was not the SJ from two seasons ago. It was not like losing to, say, the Golden Knights. Avalanche was simply the rebranded Nordiques with a world class goalie. The loss was sad and depressing but hardly humiliating. The SJ loss was humiliating to no end. The Devils loss -- slightly less so, but still humiliating.
Maybe "humiliating" isn't the best word, but it was definitely a "bitter" "miserable" defeat, and they sure took a lot of flack from the media. I'm sure shaking Claude Lemieux's hand in the handshake line would feel pretty "humiliating" to me. Dino certainly regretted it.

To me what makes it "worse" than the previous two failures is that it just added to the misery. "Here we go again." Especially after a fairy-tale regular season. And what makes it really stand out historically, is that it would prove to be the turning point for the team's fortunes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,141
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.

A couple different scenarios here. The 1964 Leafs played in the Cup final just two days after dusting off Montreal in Game 7. The 1974 Flyers did the same thing after a tough 7 game series vs. the Rangers. Both won the Cup.

Other teams have had it rough. The 1993 Leafs played 21 games in 41 nights, all Game 7 series.

You have to remember too, lots of teams had injuries that either won the Cup or didn't. The 1992 Pens had Mario with a broken wrist. The 2001 Avs had Forsberg missing in the final two rounds. The 1972 Rangers had Ratelle missing and lost in the Cup final. With all due respect to Datsyuk, was he better than any of these guys? Was he more important than them? He was great in 2009, no doubt, but let's not pretend the 2009 Red Wings are the only team who had injuries in a playoff year. How about the 2017 Penguins? Missing Letang their #1 defenseman the entire playoffs? This team needed that big minute muncher and QB on the powerplay, they really got by with Crosby and Malkin's big postseason. But they repeated, the 2009 Wings didn't.

As for the schedule this is something you have to remember, BOTH teams played in the same games in the final. The Pens played those back to back games too, you know? And lost them by the way. Not to mention it was three days after the Wings beat the Hawks. They didn't travel, the Pens did. Three days after the semis is not unprecedented to start a Cup final. 2014 Kings being the most recent, and they had to travel across the country for it. They won the Cup too.

The back-to-back games to start a Cup final is unusual that is true. But the NHL bowed down to NBC with Conan's debut on the Tonight Show. Should they have? Probably not, but it is the NHL and when does Bettman not do this? Besides, Detroit and Pittsburgh are about as close as you can get with a Cup final showdown as far as travelling. Game 6 and 7 were also both after three days. In all honesty the only thing that was unusual was the back to back days. Did the Wings really lose the Cup because of one measly day? No.

1940 is the one other time I can see the Cup final starting on back-to-back nights. I believe it had to do with the circus being in town at MSG. So they had the first two in New York and the next 4 in Toronto! No kidding. Yet the Rangers still won the Cup despite the road games. Maybe Game 7 is in MSG? I don't know. But either way, the better team won, right? And even so the Rangers had more points than Toronto over the year and deserved home ice advantage.
 

LeBlondeDemon10

Registered User
Jul 10, 2010
3,729
374
Canada
I've been watching the 79 Challenge Cup and game 2 was in the NHL's grasp and they let it slip away. I wonder if that game is more painful to the players than the blowout in game 3?
 

JMCx4

Censorship is the Sincerest Form of Flattery
Sep 3, 2017
13,401
8,284
St. Louis, MO
... 1940 is the one other time I can see the Cup final starting on back-to-back nights. I believe it had to do with the circus being in town at MSG. So they had the first two in New York and the next 4 in Toronto! ...
So the old yarn that begins with: "It all started because the circus was in town ..." originally ended with: "... and that's how the LEAFS got screwed ..."? :huh:
 

brachyrynchos

Registered User
Apr 10, 2017
1,472
997
The 'Easter Epic'. Not the first nor the last time that Washington had a 3-1 lead in a series only to come up short but this one seemed to add to the 'choker' reputation the Caps had.
April 13 1996. Last game of the season for the Devils...they win and they're in. The defending Cup champs were at home against a team they were 3-0 against, one of the worst teams in the league...Ottawa. Such a stinker of a loss and kinda freaky that it was a former Devil Tom Chorske that sealed their fate with 2 goals in the 3rd in a 5-2. Chorske's shooting % was 66.6~.
 

bert

Registered User
Nov 11, 2002
35,904
21,835
Visit site
Losing to the leafs for the 4th time in 6 years when the sens had the best goal differential in the NHL was tough. To put the cherry on top they were the first team in NHL history to lose a series going the distance and outshooting a team for all 7 games in a series. On top of that the agony if defeat extended for a full two years because of the lockout. A lockout that took on full season of Ottawa's prime years away which lead to a salary cap thay resulted in the team losing Chara and Havlat for basically nothing.

Realistically if management had been truly critical of the shortfall in 2003 when they were the best team in the league they would have addressed the goaltending which cost them the series against the devils the previous season. Which was again the undoing against the leafs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cole von cole

VMBM

And it didn't even bring me down
Sep 24, 2008
3,788
751
Helsinki, Finland
I've been watching the 79 Challenge Cup and game 2 was in the NHL's grasp and they let it slip away. I wonder if that game is more painful to the players than the blowout in game 3?

The NHL All-Stars were lucky to lead the game by 3-1 and 4-2 (IIRC), though. especially the latter part of the game was fairly heavily dominated by the Soviets, and the shots on goal were 31-16 for the USSR. I think both Scotty Bowman and Bobby Clarke admitted that the USSR was the better team in the game, so it wasn't necessarily such a bitter defeat.
 

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,002
4,966
Parts Unknown
A couple different scenarios here. The 1964 Leafs played in the Cup final just two days after dusting off Montreal in Game 7. The 1974 Flyers did the same thing after a tough 7 game series vs. the Rangers. Both won the Cup.

Other teams have had it rough. The 1993 Leafs played 21 games in 41 nights, all Game 7 series.

You have to remember too, lots of teams had injuries that either won the Cup or didn't. The 1992 Pens had Mario with a broken wrist. The 2001 Avs had Forsberg missing in the final two rounds. The 1972 Rangers had Ratelle missing and lost in the Cup final. With all due respect to Datsyuk, was he better than any of these guys? Was he more important than them? He was great in 2009, no doubt, but let's not pretend the 2009 Red Wings are the only team who had injuries in a playoff year. How about the 2017 Penguins? Missing Letang their #1 defenseman the entire playoffs? This team needed that big minute muncher and QB on the powerplay, they really got by with Crosby and Malkin's big postseason. But they repeated, the 2009 Wings didn't.

As for the schedule this is something you have to remember, BOTH teams played in the same games in the final. The Pens played those back to back games too, you know? And lost them by the way. Not to mention it was three days after the Wings beat the Hawks. They didn't travel, the Pens did. Three days after the semis is not unprecedented to start a Cup final. 2014 Kings being the most recent, and they had to travel across the country for it. They won the Cup too.

The back-to-back games to start a Cup final is unusual that is true. But the NHL bowed down to NBC with Conan's debut on the Tonight Show. Should they have? Probably not, but it is the NHL and when does Bettman not do this? Besides, Detroit and Pittsburgh are about as close as you can get with a Cup final showdown as far as travelling. Game 6 and 7 were also both after three days. In all honesty the only thing that was unusual was the back to back days. Did the Wings really lose the Cup because of one measly day? No.

1940 is the one other time I can see the Cup final starting on back-to-back nights. I believe it had to do with the circus being in town at MSG. So they had the first two in New York and the next 4 in Toronto! No kidding. Yet the Rangers still won the Cup despite the road games. Maybe Game 7 is in MSG? I don't know. But either way, the better team won, right? And even so the Rangers had more points than Toronto over the year and deserved home ice advantage.
I don't disagree with your post. Playing through injuries is part of why it's hard to win a Cup. Especially if you're trying to repeat.

However, the Penguins in 2017 played Ottawa and Nashville in the last two rounds. Not exactly legendary opponents. Yes, they were without Letang, but on paper Pittsburgh was a lot stronger than either of those teams. That's not comparable to the Red Wings in 2009, who faced a good Chicago team without Lidstrom or Datsyuk for most that series. They beat Chicago in 5, had a few days off, and then played back to back games against a really strong Pittsburgh team.

I also don't believe travel is a big deal. Pittsburgh to Detroit is a one hour flight.
 
Last edited:

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
A couple different scenarios here. The 1964 Leafs played in the Cup final just two days after dusting off Montreal in Game 7. The 1974 Flyers did the same thing after a tough 7 game series vs. the Rangers. Both won the Cup.

Other teams have had it rough. The 1993 Leafs played 21 games in 41 nights, all Game 7 series.

You have to remember too, lots of teams had injuries that either won the Cup or didn't. The 1992 Pens had Mario with a broken wrist. The 2001 Avs had Forsberg missing in the final two rounds. The 1972 Rangers had Ratelle missing and lost in the Cup final. With all due respect to Datsyuk, was he better than any of these guys? Was he more important than them? He was great in 2009, no doubt, but let's not pretend the 2009 Red Wings are the only team who had injuries in a playoff year. How about the 2017 Penguins? Missing Letang their #1 defenseman the entire playoffs? This team needed that big minute muncher and QB on the powerplay, they really got by with Crosby and Malkin's big postseason. But they repeated, the 2009 Wings didn't.

As for the schedule this is something you have to remember, BOTH teams played in the same games in the final. The Pens played those back to back games too, you know? And lost them by the way. Not to mention it was three days after the Wings beat the Hawks. They didn't travel, the Pens did. Three days after the semis is not unprecedented to start a Cup final. 2014 Kings being the most recent, and they had to travel across the country for it. They won the Cup too.

The back-to-back games to start a Cup final is unusual that is true. But the NHL bowed down to NBC with Conan's debut on the Tonight Show. Should they have? Probably not, but it is the NHL and when does Bettman not do this? Besides, Detroit and Pittsburgh are about as close as you can get with a Cup final showdown as far as travelling. Game 6 and 7 were also both after three days. In all honesty the only thing that was unusual was the back to back days. Did the Wings really lose the Cup because of one measly day? No.

1940 is the one other time I can see the Cup final starting on back-to-back nights. I believe it had to do with the circus being in town at MSG. So they had the first two in New York and the next 4 in Toronto! No kidding. Yet the Rangers still won the Cup despite the road games. Maybe Game 7 is in MSG? I don't know. But either way, the better team won, right? And even so the Rangers had more points than Toronto over the year and deserved home ice advantage.

Look at my argument as a whole. You’re doing the same thing The Panther did. Just focus on two days off and leave out the 3 in 4. Combined, that is extreme as the NHL has ever gone for an accelerated early Finals schedule. That is what the league changed to from the long delay they had originally planned. I have no problem with them changing it but why accelerate things a much as possible when both teams finished the last series so early and it departed from the original plan so much?

Sure, compare it with other Finals series with only 2 days off, compare the Datsyuk injury with others, say a back to back isn’t the end of the world. Combined though, the league really added to a disadvantage one team already had. The league really looked like bunch of Pens fans here even if that’s not the reason.

You start by mentioning two teams that went 7 games in the CF and then had a quick start. You are helping prove my point here. You mention the ‘93 Leafs playing so many games as well but how do those apply to the ‘09 Red Wings who actually knocked out the Hawks in 5 and limped into the next round? It doesn’t. It was an extremely strange situation for the league to suddenly flash the most accelerated start to the Finals they could possibly come up with in that scenario. They had lots of time with both series finishing early but chose to rush into the first 3 games like never before.

Nobody was asking for a long layoff either, just not an accelerated schedule when one team was clearly on the mend. What a kick to the stones it is to see your team already playing at 70 or 80% cause of injuries and then the league decides to “try something different” and condense the early Finals schedule. The Red Wings were reeling from the conference finals that had Lidstrom and Ericsson having surgery and needing to rush back to the finals and play 3 in 4, while missing Datsyuk and Draper to start the series, along with Hossa, Rafalski, and Cleary all playing with publicized injuries. So no, not just Datsyuk being affected here.

The Pens clearly loved the quick start to the series because they were fully aware of the Red Wings situation. The Red Wings clearly hated it for obvious reasons. Anyone who thinks it was fine wouldn’t be saying the same thing if it happened to their team. The NHL decided to change it to an outlier schedule that would clearly benefit one team and make things as tough as possible for the other. How can you keep pretending that is fine?

The delayed schedule towards the end of the series gave the Wings some chance to recover but the damage was already done. The Pens got more confidence from playing an injured and run down team 3 in 4 early in the series, which was exactly what that team needed after getting dominated the year before, and that 3 in 4 had a cumulative affect on wearing down the beat up and older team even more.

I don’t buy the Conan excuse the league provided either. That show premiered one night, which Was June 1 (Monday). Not being able to play that one night caused this schedule? Is that really how this works? Nah.... Frankly, why the NHL did it is irrelevant. That’s not how they should run things and it certainly contributed to a “crushing defeat”.

Like I showed you last time, go back and compare that early schedule with any other in modern times and you’ll see it was unparalleled and an odd time for Bettman to pull it out due to how quickly the CF ended. Haven’t done it since either. It was a one-time gift to Crosby and the Pens and they still nearly blew it.
 

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,239
12,848
Toronto, Ontario
I actually would consider the 1993 Maple Leafs, even though you would consider it a regional one. To me, I guess I have less sympathy for teams like the 1993 Penguins or 1986 Oilers or 2014 Blackhawks or literally any Team Canada because they’ve all had major victories in years immediately prior.

Yeah, but it's because of those major victories the year prior that make them heartbreaking.

The Penguins losing in 1993 pretty much cost them a three peat. The Maple Leafs losing in 1993 is irrelevant because I don't think they had a snowballs chance in hell of winning the Cup so who cares?
 

rent free

Registered User
Apr 6, 2015
20,427
6,114
Yeah, but it's because of those major victories the year prior that make them heartbreaking.

The Penguins losing in 1993 pretty much cost them a three peat. The Maple Leafs losing in 1993 is irrelevant because I don't think they had a snowballs chance in hell of winning the Cup so who cares?
how could you think they didn't have a chance at winning the cup? every team has a chance until they are out.
 

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,239
12,848
Toronto, Ontario
how could you think they didn't have a chance at winning the cup? every team has a chance until they are out.

That team was dog tired and not particularly good. They played great that spring, and were a blast to watch, but they were out of gas after three straight 7-game series and Doug Gilmour, in particular, was pretty run down from eating so many minutes. They had nothing left, and at the best of times the would have a hard time dealing with a team with spread out scoring over all four lines like Montreal had that spring.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,087
15,521
Tokyo, Japan
Look at my argument as a whole. You’re doing the same thing The Panther did. Just focus on two days off and leave out the 3 in 4. Combined, that is extreme as the NHL has ever gone for an accelerated early Finals schedule. That is what the league changed to from the long delay they had originally planned. I have no problem with them changing it but why accelerate things a much as possible when both teams finished the last series so early and it departed from the original plan so much?

Sure, compare it with other Finals series with only 2 days off, compare the Datsyuk injury with others, say a back to back isn’t the end of the world. Combined though, the league really added to a disadvantage one team already had. The league really looked like bunch of Pens fans here even if that’s not the reason.

You start by mentioning two teams that went 7 games in the CF and then had a quick start. You are helping prove my point here. You mention the ‘93 Leafs playing so many games as well but how do those apply to the ‘09 Red Wings who actually knocked out the Hawks in 5 and limped into the next round? It doesn’t. It was an extremely strange situation for the league to suddenly flash the most accelerated start to the Finals they could possibly come up with in that scenario. They had lots of time with both series finishing early but chose to rush into the first 3 games like never before.

Nobody was asking for a long layoff either, just not an accelerated schedule when one team was clearly on the mend. What a kick to the stones it is to see your team already playing at 70 or 80% cause of injuries and then the league decides to “try something different” and condense the early Finals schedule. The Red Wings were reeling from the conference finals that had Lidstrom and Ericsson having surgery and needing to rush back to the finals and play 3 in 4, while missing Datsyuk and Draper to start the series, along with Hossa, Rafalski, and Cleary all playing with publicized injuries. So no, not just Datsyuk being affected here.

The Pens clearly loved the quick start to the series because they were fully aware of the Red Wings situation. The Red Wings clearly hated it for obvious reasons. Anyone who thinks it was fine wouldn’t be saying the same thing if it happened to their team. The NHL decided to change it to an outlier schedule that would clearly benefit one team and make things as tough as possible for the other. How can you keep pretending that is fine?

The delayed schedule towards the end of the series gave the Wings some chance to recover but the damage was already done. The Pens got more confidence from playing an injured and run down team 3 in 4 early in the series, which was exactly what that team needed after getting dominated the year before, and that 3 in 4 had a cumulative affect on wearing down the beat up and older team even more.

I don’t buy the Conan excuse the league provided either. That show premiered one night, which Was June 1 (Monday). Not being able to play that one night caused this schedule? Is that really how this works? Nah.... Frankly, why the NHL did it is irrelevant. That’s not how they should run things and it certainly contributed to a “crushing defeat”.

Like I showed you last time, go back and compare that early schedule with any other in modern times and you’ll see it was unparalleled and an odd time for Bettman to pull it out due to how quickly the CF ended. Haven’t done it since either. It was a one-time gift to Crosby and the Pens and they still nearly blew it.
You haven't convinced us.

I don't care if the NHL gave Detroit 5 minutes to prepare for the Finals. Their opponent had the same time to prepare and played the same accelerated schedule.

If Pittsburgh in 2009 was younger and healthier and not suffering as much from injury, then that's further evidence that Pittsburgh was the better team.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,351
Remember too, there were a couple needless two-day breaks between games in the Chicago-Detroit series. So the Red Wings went into Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Finals having played only three games in the previous ten days. Lack of rest should not have been a factor at all. And apparently it wasn't, as they went up 2-0 in the series immediately.

The next five games were spread out over 12 days with multiple two day breaks. Detroit lost four of them. That kind of flies in the face of the theory that they'd benefit from more rest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dennis Bonvie

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->