How did the Red Wings lose in 2009?

[Big Phil]

I'm the one you're responding to so leave the whole fan base out of this.

This thread is about why the Wings lost the Cup final in '09 so why wouldn't all those injuries get brought up? And, likewise, why wouldn't the crazy schedule Bettman changed to get brought up?

You can ponder that maybe more rest at the start of the series would actually benefit the Pens more but what would be the reasoning behind that thought? They were far healthier and the only close game in the ECF sweep was game 1.

I'm in no way looking for a medal or trying to disrespect the '09 Pens either but after I watched my team take them to 7 and lose by one goal, knowing they were missing a healthy Datsyuk for the whole series, and knowing all the other injuries, with the bizarre schedule that almost appeared to be designed to wear them down more, I believe if both teams were healthy that the Wings prevail again. That's my opinion and I've explained why I think that way. I don't buy your stance that makes the Pens sound as though they were destined to win, or that "great teams" overcome injuries no matter how severe and numerous. We both know these two points are simply not true. Series that go 7 games like that are a bounce or two away from going the other way, and there absolutely is a point where even "great teams" can't overcome injuries.

Well that is what hockey boards are about..........opinions. It wouldn't be very fun if we all thought the same way and offered no other opinions on an issue. I wouldn't say Pittsburgh was "destined to win" but I will say they were awfully hungry and once that coaching change was made to get rid of Therrien and put in Bylsma they were a very driven team. I think most fans realized sooner or later this team was winning a Cup.

 

[Jaromir Blogger]

I think most fans realized sooner or later this team was winning a Cup.

I know you mean more big picture, but I remember when Talbot got his first goal, I knew the Pens would win. That Wings team was just out of gas, and I knew that they wouldn't be able to come back - even if it was just a one-goal deficit in the 2nd.

 

[Big Phil]

I know you mean more big picture, but I remember when Talbot got his first goal, I knew the Pens would win. That Wings team was just out of gas, and I knew that they wouldn't be able to come back - even if it was just a one-goal deficit in the 2nd.

I did too. Then the 2nd goal and I knew for sure. Not that either team blitzed and came out guns a blazing, but if any team should be doing that and not sitting back in Game 7 of the Cup final it is the home team. They didn't look hungry like you would expect, although you are probably right they may have been just wiped out.

 

[Epsilon]

I might need to cross-check this thread with posters who are claiming the Capitals winning the Cup this year would have a "big fat asterisk" next to it.

 

[Jaromir Blogger]

I did too. Then the 2nd goal and I knew for sure. Not that either team blitzed and came out guns a blazing, but if any team should be doing that and not sitting back in Game 7 of the Cup final it is the home team. They didn't look hungry like you would expect, although you are probably right they may have been just wiped out.

I remember being a bit shocked by how flat the Wings looked. Yes, I do think they were just exhausted, but I felt like they would be able to dig deep and summon a little fire on that stage - and I was wrong. We only saw it at the end of the game. What if they had played like that from the get-go? Whatever complaints some of us may have about various factors in the series, I think at the end of the day, the Pens just wanted it more. And they were a good team and deserved to win.

 

[daver]

I remember being a bit shocked by how flat the Wings looked. Yes, I do think they were just exhausted, but I felt like they would be able to dig deep and summon a little fire on that stage - and I was wrong. We only saw it at the end of the game. What if they had played like that from the get-go? Whatever complaints some of us may have about various factors in the series, I think at the end of the day, the Pens just wanted it more. And they were a good team and deserved to win.

What if the Pens played like they did in Game 1-4 in Game 5? Maybe they win that one instead of getting blown out and close it out in six games.

I really don't get the point of the OP. I don't see how Detroit, even if fully healthy, would have been heavy favourites in that series. It seems obvious to me that the Pens, like many other young talented teams that were that much better after getting some experience of championship hockey.

 

[Sentinel]

What if the Pens played like they did in Game 1-4 in Game 5? Maybe they win that one instead of getting blown out and close it out in six games.

I really don't get the point of the OP. I don't see how Detroit, even if fully healthy, would have been heavy favourites in that series. It seems obvious to me that the Pens, like many other young talented teams that were that much better after getting some experience of championship hockey.

Fully healthy, not only Detroit would be heavy favorites, but they would likely end the series in 5 games. Z destroyed Crosby, and healthy Datsyuk would've neutered Malkin.

But looks like karma is catching up with the Pens this year. They are clearly the best team this post season. But without Crosby (and Letang) their chances are taking a major dive.

 

[Jaromir Blogger]

What if the Pens played like they did in Game 1-4 in Game 5? Maybe they win that one instead of getting blown out and close it out in six games.

That is a much larger extrapolation than "What if they played like they did in the final ten minutes of X game for that entire game?".

 

[Big Phil]

I might need to cross-check this thread with posters who are claiming the Capitals winning the Cup this year would have a "big fat asterisk" next to it.

No one knows the status of Crosby, we shall wait and see. Either way, if the Pens lose then they lose. It sucks for them and for the league to have the best player of this generation be sitting out especially if there is a potential for a Crosby-McDavid Cup final but there is nothing you can do. If the Pens don't advance then they don't win.

Still a different situation than Detroit in 2009. Yes they had injuries, but they were still playing. Lidstrom, Hossa, etc. at 80% is still something you can win with and better than Crosby and Letang at 0%. The Pens don't have some stars in the line up, perhaps permanently this postseason. Much different situation here. But there are no asterisks needed. The Pens got past the Rangers in 1992 thanks to Francis and Jagr picking up the slack after Graves' vicious slash on Mario. There is no reason Malkin and Kessel and Fleury won't do the same. In fact, Malkin plays excellent hockey with Crosby out of the lineup. Who knows, it could be a moot point and Crosby could be back in the line up on Saturday.

Either way, no matter how it hurts, Pens fans can't claim the 2017 Cup the way Wings fans do in 2009. It just isn't reality.

Fully healthy, not only Detroit would be heavy favorites, but they would likely end the series in 5 games. Z destroyed Crosby, and healthy Datsyuk would've neutered Malkin.

But looks like karma is catching up with the Pens this year. They are clearly the best team this post season. But without Crosby (and Letang) their chances are taking a major dive.

Karma? That's a little extreme isn't it? What exactly did the Pens do to the Red Wings in 2009 to deserve to have injuries of their own? All they did was beat them. They didn't injure them.

 

[Fugu]

Phil? How did you figure out Lidstrom and Hossa were at 80%? Also, the Wings were facing Crosby, Malkin, Guerin, and the full Pens line up.

Argue your point, but please don't make this stuff up. Plus, you're still digging in on what the issue really was, which imho, was Bettman and the officiating/scheduling BS. While I believe the 2009 "healthy" Wings were better than a healthy Pens of that era, the NHL teams that get that far aren't so far apart that you could lose your core prime guys and still win easily. You should give the Wings credit for taking it to seven given their condition.

 

[daver]

Phil? How did you figure out Lidstrom and Hossa were at 80%? Also, the Wings were facing Crosby, Malkin, Guerin, and the full Pens line up.

Argue your point, but please don't make this stuff up. Plus, you're still digging in on what the issue really was, which imho, was Bettman and the officiating/scheduling BS. While I believe the 2009 "healthy" Wings were better than a healthy Pens of that era, the NHL teams that get that far aren't so far apart that you could lose your core prime guys and still win easily. You should give the Wings credit for taking it to seven given their condition.

Which has been completely thrown out the window hasn't it?

A 3 day break between the CFs and SCF was not unusual, the back to back was, as was two 2-day breaks in between Games 5-7, which lead to the series taking a usual amount of total time to complete.

Any evidence that scheduling affected the series is almost comically dismissed by the actual results be it the Wings winning the back to back game, dominating Game 5, or the Pens winning Games 6 and 7 after the Wings had time to rest up after Game 5.

That leaves us with injuries which is just an excuse for losing given we are seeing a Pens team overcome much worse injury issues this year. Everyone would love to see the teams at their healthiest battle it out and its too bad it didn't happen as Wings fans seem to have a very hard time accepting this loss.

 

[Fugu]

Which has been completely thrown out the window hasn't it?

A 3 day break between the CFs and SCF was not unusual, the back to back was, as was two 2-day breaks in between Games 5-7, which lead to the series taking a usual amount of total time to complete.

Any evidence that scheduling affected the series is almost comically dismissed by the actual results be it the Wings winning the back to back game, dominating Game 5, or the Pens winning Games 6 and 7 after the Wings had time to rest up after Game 5.

That leaves us with injuries which is just an excuse for losing given we are seeing a Pens team overcome much worse injury issues this year. Everyone would love to see the teams at their healthiest battle it out and its too bad it didn't happen as Wings fans seem to have a very hard time accepting this loss.

You are still wrong, daver, but it gets tiresome to keep repeating it to you.


I'm glad you brought up injuries. I'd like to see how the Pens would do in a Cup final with seriously injured Crosby, Malkin and their top defender, on top of injuries to several support guys. That's not how you win a championship, whether you're the Wings, Pens or any other team.

The NHL did botch the scheduling with their last minute change. It's kind of embarrassing, truth be told.

What you should do is go back and review the interviews from the Pens after they won. Your own team mentions they noticed how hurt the Wings were and felt like they had a chance that year. Take their word for it -- not mine.

 

[daver]

You are still wrong, daver, but it gets tiresome to keep repeating it to you.


I'm glad you brought up injuries. I'd like to see how the Pens would do in a Cup final with seriously injured Crosby, Malkin and their top defender, on top of injuries to several support guys. That's not how you win a championship, whether you're the Wings, Pens or any other team.

The NHL did botch the scheduling with their last minute change. It's kind of embarrassing, truth be told.

What you should do is go back and review the interviews from the Pens after they won. Your own team mentions they noticed how hurt the Wings were and felt like they had a chance that year. Take their word for it -- not mine.

What am I wrong about? We can argue back and forth about what could have happened if both teams were 100% healthy but what's the use of that? All that does is take away from the Pens beating the Wings fair and square. Injuries are part of the game.

As for the scheduling, who cares? Unless they awarded the Pens seven home games, I am at a loss to find any reason to think it was an advantage to one team. Wing fans need to keep that to themselves as it is sounds like whining at best.

 

[Fugu]

What am I wrong about? We can argue back and forth about what could have happened if both teams were 100% healthy but what's the use of that? All that does is take away from the Pens beating the Wings fair and square. Injuries are part of the game.

As for the scheduling, who cares? Unless they awarded the Pens seven home games, I am at a loss to find any reason to think it was an advantage to one team. Wing fans need to keep that to themselves as it is sounds like whining at best.

You would singing a different tune if your team had just won the Cup, then came back with an even stronger team in terms of talent, and then lost in seven games, in spite of all the **** the league pulled.

You're only not griping because the Pens won a series they were not expected to win.

 

[66871]

Funny how the general consensus in the History of Hockey forum seems to be that you can't *bump* a player in all-time rankings due to games lost to injury.

But it's totally OK to talk about a team losing due to injuries.

 

[Jaromir Blogger]

Funny how the general consensus in the History of Hockey forum seems to be that you can't *bump* a player in all-time rankings due to games lost to injury.

But it's totally OK to talk about a team losing due to injuries.

It's not the same thing. Saying that a player should be credited for things he did not do is not the same thing as arguing that injuries may have cost a team something. If someone says the Wings should be awarded the '09 Cup, then you'd have a legitimate gripe. But saying that, for instance, Crosby should be ranked higher than Howe or whatever nonsense (this has been touted in various threads on HFBoards, believe it or not) because he would have had 8000 points by now if not for injuries would be giving him credit for something he did not do. Saying "he IS better than Howe and should be ranked accordingly" is not the same thing as saying "maybe he could have been better than Howe if not for injuries" - the same goes for discussing a team and a lost Cup. Speculate all you want, but don't give anyone credit for things they didn't do.

 

[daver]

It's not the same thing. Saying that a player should be credited for things he did not do is not the same thing as arguing that injuries may have cost a team something. If someone says the Wings should be awarded the '09 Cup, then you'd have a legitimate gripe. But saying that, for instance, Crosby should be ranked higher than Howe or whatever nonsense (this has been touted in various threads on HFBoards, believe it or not) because he would have had 8000 points by now if not for injuries would be giving him credit for something he did not do. Saying "he IS better than Howe and should be ranked accordingly" is not the same thing as saying "maybe he could have been better than Howe if not for injuries" - the same goes for discussing a team and a lost Cup. Speculate all you want, but don't give anyone credit for things they didn't do.

The OP is "How did the Wings lose" not what happens if the scheduling was different, or they are healthier etc..

The equivalent OP to what you are saying is "How is Gordie rated above Crosby?" and people saying injuries is what has kept Crosby behind Howe or Belliveau or whoever.

 

[66871]

It's not the same thing. Saying that a player should be credited for things he did not do is not the same thing as arguing that injuries may have cost a team something. If someone says the Wings should be awarded the '09 Cup, then you'd have a legitimate gripe. But saying that, for instance, Crosby should be ranked higher than Howe or whatever nonsense (this has been touted in various threads on HFBoards, believe it or not) because he would have had 8000 points by now if not for injuries would be giving him credit for something he did not do. Saying "he IS better than Howe and should be ranked accordingly" is not the same thing as saying "maybe he could have been better than Howe if not for injuries" - the same goes for discussing a team and a lost Cup. Speculate all you want, but don't give anyone credit for things they didn't do.

So just to clarify, would it be legitimate for somebody to say "Injuries may have cost Crosby multiple Art Ross trophies" or to say "X probably only won the Art Ross because Y was injured."?

And I'm just using Crosby as an example here. I don't really care where he gets ranked. But I do lurk this forum and it seems pretty frequent that inconsistent rationales are used to reinforce personal or group-think biases. This is not meant as a cut on anyone, just something I've noticed in this forum over the years.

 

[Big Phil]

Phil? How did you figure out Lidstrom and Hossa were at 80%? Also, the Wings were facing Crosby, Malkin, Guerin, and the full Pens line up.

Argue your point, but please don't make this stuff up. Plus, you're still digging in on what the issue really was, which imho, was Bettman and the officiating/scheduling BS. While I believe the 2009 "healthy" Wings were better than a healthy Pens of that era, the NHL teams that get that far aren't so far apart that you could lose your core prime guys and still win easily. You should give the Wings credit for taking it to seven given their condition.

Well I am not sure just like anyone else. We know there were some injuries and that they weren't 100%. Is 80% not accurate for you? I come up with this number based on the fact that you probably aren't playing if you are under 50 or 60%. So if you aren't 100% then what is the middle? It is just a guess, not meant to be gospel or anything. The point is they were at least still playing and an injured version of these players is better than them not playing at all. Teams have gotten by when a player has been completely out of the line up.

I'm not going over the scheduling again. I'll say this yet again though, the schedule was unusual but at the end of the day we are talking about a day being unusually off. In other words, if the Sunday game was on Monday and every other game was bumped back another day we would have a Cup final over the span of 15 days, rather than 14. So no, I don't think this changes anything considering these are teams that play 82 games and 20+ playoff games a year, not to mention this wasn't effecting them by the looks of it in Game 5.

The whole idea of wondering what would have happened if the Wings were healthier is fantasy and speculation. It is what makes this board what it is. We can always wonder that but let's not forget we can do this about pretty much every other Cup final as well. The Wings and Pens played 15 games over two years, regular season and playoffs and the Wings won 8 and the Pens 7. Me personally, I just like to remember these Cup finals as great hockey and two great teams.

 

[Fugu]

I just got back from a trip, but if I have time, I'll do the research for you, Phil. What both sets of players said after that series, and who was injured. The only reason several of those guys were playing at all was due to it being a Cup final. During the regular season, they all would have missed a few weeks.

 

[Big Phil]

I just got back from a trip, but if I have time, I'll do the research for you, Phil. What both sets of players said after that series, and who was injured. The only reason several of those guys were playing at all was due to it being a Cup final. During the regular season, they all would have missed a few weeks.

It really doesn't matter to me. As I said before, the winning team rarely ever brings up injuries. The losing team does because they either bring it up themselves in a way to justify things or a reporter backs them into a corner and asks them. I'm pretty sure Gonchar wouldn't have played if it were a regular season game either but he's not even going to be thinking about that or caring as he's raising the Cup.

The Wings in 2009 were hobbled, no question. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

 

[danincanada]

It really doesn't matter to me. As I said before, the winning team rarely ever brings up injuries. The losing team does because they either bring it up themselves in a way to justify things or a reporter backs them into a corner and asks them. I'm pretty sure Gonchar wouldn't have played if it were a regular season game either but he's not even going to be thinking about that or caring as he's raising the Cup.

The Wings in 2009 were hobbled, no question. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

Or everyone paying attention to the NHL already knows the Red Wings are extremely hobbled before the Finals even starts, with Datsyuk out, Lidstrom and Ericsson out after surgery, and Hossa, Rafalski, and Cleary visibly hurting, and then the league changes the schedule on the fly to the most front loaded schedule ever.

As I showed with the Pierre LeBrun article several pages ago the mountain of injuries and crazy schedule were noted before the series even started because they were major story lines. This thread asks why the '09 Wings lost and they are still major story lines because the series was so close. Close enough that each of those factors separately may have tipped the scales in the Pens favour let alone both combined.

 

[Killion]

As I showed with the Pierre LeBrun article several pages ago the mountain of injuries and crazy schedule were noted before the series even started because they were major story lines. This thread asks why the '09 Wings lost and they are still major story lines because the series was so close. Close enough that each of those factors separately may have tipped the scales in the Pens favour let alone both combined.

Bingo. And whether or not anyone else has the temerity to just come right out & call a spade a spade I will, and rhetorically because we'll never know; was it by design or just another example of the gross incompetence & lack of critical thought demonstrated by this League over the past 100 years. People can believe what they want to believe, make their own minds up one way or the other but we will agree to respectfully & civilly disagree regardless of which side of these 2 possibilities you sit. There is strong circumstantial evidence, good arguments to be made from both sides.

 

[daver]

Bingo. And whether or not anyone else has the temerity to just come right out & call a spade a spade I will, and rhetorically because we'll never know; was it by design or just another example of the gross incompetence & lack of critical thought demonstrated by this League over the past 100 years. People can believe what they want to believe, make their own minds up one way or the other but we will agree to respectfully & civilly disagree regardless of which side of these 2 possibilities you sit. There is strong circumstantial evidence, good arguments to be made from both sides.

Evidence that the schedule was changed specifically to benefit the Pens due to the Wings injury issues?

What circumstantial evidence is there for that?

 

[Killion]

Evidence that the schedule was changed specifically to benefit the Pens due to the Wings injury issues?

What circumstantial evidence is there for that?

Doesnt take a genius to connect the dots if one feels so inclined daver.