Why did the trap and heavy defensive emphasis around NHL carry over in 1996-97, but not 1995-96?

[c9777666]

Devils win Cup in 1995, neutral zone trap, etc. and yet in 1995-96 it was essentially a goal happy season.

Panthers make Cup Final but don’t win in 1996 and suddenly goal scoring goes WAY down.

I find it ironic that it wasn’t the team that championed neutral zone hockey but rather the team that followed up was when everyone went the other way,

Plus, they say champions are those who copycats.

I mean, you would have thought Colorado winning the Cup would have signaled to other teams “clutch and grab did not win this time, let’s go the other way.”

Team A zigs, everyone else zags
Team B zigs, everyone else zigs

Interesting logic looking back IMO. Because goal scoring was already increasing in the 80s before Edmonton’s first Cup. It’s not like the early 80s, everyone copied the Islander style when they won 4 Cups with a less than high octane approach (Arbour will never be confused as an offense-first coach historically, it seems like).

NYI, a solid well balanced club that championed defense a lot, wins back to back Cups..... and the following year the league average for goals goes up to 8, go figure.

So how does one explain how it was Florida that apparently woke up teams to play this way and not the Devils? Because the Devils interestingly went through some ebbs and flows following 1995:

They did not win another Cup under Lemaire, then opened up the offense a little more in 2000, but then went back to that under Pat Burns in ‘03 with arguably an even higher emphasis on their strength (won the Cup with not one player hitting 20 playoff points and a much maligned PP)

Click to read more...

 

[Canadiens1958]

1995 was a short season, 48 RS games, in conference games only. Eastern teams did not play Western.Short term solution produced the trap.

1996 was a normal season with interlocking games.

1997 likewise with teams realizing what was necessary to go deep in the Eastern Conference.

 

[BraveCanadian]

There was a crackdown in 95-96. Hard to play the trap when you're shorthanded.

 

[koyvoo]

I also think the first devils cup and their ascension into a top team of the era in general keeps on people and even written off as an anomaly (they were so bad for for so long prior) and the system wasn’t given any credence just yet.

 

[The Panther]

Yeah, I think the short 1995 mini-season (shortest NHL season since 1942) is the aberration here. It's because -- as mentioned already -- teams played intra-conference games, and there was little rest between games, too. Then, in 1995-96, back to normal, but lots of penalties were called, too. 1996-97 scoring starts to drop.

So, if you ignore the '95 mini-season, the average team's GPG goes like this:
3.69 -- 1989-90
3.45 -- 1990-91
3.48 -- 1991-92
3.63 -- 1992-93
3.24 -- 1993-94
3.15 -- 1995-96
2.91 -- 1996-97
2.63 -- 1997-98

Pre-1993 kind of waxes and wanes for a few years, probably for no particular reason, and then there's that spike in scoring in 1992-93 (we've covered this many times on here) largely due to increased power-plays and long TV time-outs, etc. But you can see that from 1992-93 through 1997-98, it's a very consistent decrease in scoring in consecutive full seasons.


FYI, scoring this season so far (2018-19) is at a level between that of 1995-96 and 1996-97, which is encouraging.

 

[Hobnobs]

Its because it wasnt just trap that got popular after 96. It was clutch and grab and that bad teams could have success with it. Especially Florida who beat out legit contenders on their way to the finals. Same opponents as Devils virtually but Devils was considered a better team. It was a surprise that they went to the finals but not really that they got to the playoffs or even pass the first round. Florida proved that you could take a team considered to miss the playoffs to the finals with defensive zone trap and clutch and grab. Devils after all went to the conference finals the year before and pushed the future champs to a game 7. In 97 clutch and grab trap systems completely exploded and teams like the Panthers, Mighty Ducks, Sabres and Stars had success with it. Hence DPE was born.

And as BC wrote. More penalties in 96 especially before christmas stifled that sort of style a bit.

I also think the first devils cup and their ascension into a top team of the era in general keeps on people and even written off as an anomaly (they were so bad for for so long prior) and the system wasn’t given any credence just yet.

No not really an anomaly. See above.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

because it takes a year or 2 for the copycat-ness (is that a word?) to catch up. its not an immediate thing.

 

[The Panther]

I also think the "teams-copied-other-championship teams" thing is always way over-stated. In every era (except now, when everyone plays the same) there are really good, and even championship, teams that buck trends and play against the style of the day.

1976 Montreal was not a rough and tough physical team like Philly. Who were they copying?

The Islanders' dynasty was during the highest-scoring period in modern history, but -- while they could certainly score -- they were great defensively. They had the 4th, 4th, 2nd, and 1st NHL defence during their four Cup years.

Washington's first really strong team came to form at the onset of the Edmonton dynasty... but Washington did it with strict team defence. Montreal also succeeded with consistently strong team defence and goaltending in the 80s and early-90s.

All the talk of the Devils' trap is generally exaggerated anyway. In 1995, the Devils were a middle-of-the-pack team offensively, and 5th-best in defence. In the playoffs, they scored 67 times in 20 games, which is comparable with Boston in 1990 (Finalist), Montreal in 1993, Vancouver in 1994 (Finalist), and is way more than Montreal back in 1986.

 

[Hobnobs]

I also think the "teams-copied-other-championship teams" thing is always way over-stated. In every era (except now, when everyone plays the same) there are really good, and even championship, teams that buck trends and play against the style of the day.

1976 Montreal was not a rough and tough physical team like Philly. Who were they copying?

The Islanders' dynasty was during the highest-scoring period in modern history, but -- while they could certainly score -- they were great defensively. They had the 4th, 4th, 2nd, and 1st NHL defence during their four Cup years.

Washington's first really strong team came to form at the onset of the Edmonton dynasty... but Washington did it with strict team defence. Montreal also succeeded with consistently strong team defence and goaltending in the 80s and early-90s.

All the talk of the Devils' trap is generally exaggerated anyway. In 1995, the Devils were a middle-of-the-pack team offensively, and 5th-best in defence. In the playoffs, they scored 67 times in 20 games, which is comparable with Boston in 1990 (Finalist), Montreal in 1993, Vancouver in 1994 (Finalist), and is way more than Montreal back in 1986.

While I agree somewhat that its overstated that everyone took after one team. The examples you gave are of unique teams. 76 habs were a one of a kind just like Isles and Oilers of the 80s.

In the late 90s teams couldnt copy the Red Wings, Avs or Devils but they could copy Panthers and Sabres. Which several teams did. Budget clutch and grab defense became a norm employed by a wide majority of the teams in the league. Capitals in 98 were basically built the same way as Panthers in 96. Start with a strong goalie, have a forward suddenly turn playoff god (Juneau), one PP specialist defenseman and a strong defense choking the life out of teams. Flames and Mighty Ducks did the same. Canes. Wild to a lesser extent.

Habs didnt copy Flyers, no but Flyers copied the other successful expansion team, the blues. Lesser teams of the time copied Blues and Flyers to various degrees of success and extent. To this day we can see the influence of the Blues and Flyers with their invention of concepts like "finishing your check", the intimidation factor, having pure enforcers etc etc.

The cream rises to the top though which is why we have teams that wins the stanley cup just not on a system but on pure skill.

 

[blood gin]

iirc 1995 season started slow scoring wise. It wasn't just the trap but a lack of training camp time, lack of chemistry between linemates, perhaps early season conditioning issues also hampered scoring and you saw a lot of 2-1 hockey early on. But it seemed like as we got 30+ games into 1995 scoring started to pick up.

 

[wetcoast]

There was a crackdown in 95-96. Hard to play the trap when you're shorthanded.

Exactly the average PPO in 95-96 was 413 per team.

In 96-97 the top team had 406 PPO and the league average was 336.

Teams averaged 76 PPG in 95-96 (Pittsburg had 106)

In 96-97 teams averaged 55 PPG (Avs led with 83 and Pittsburg was 2nd with 74)

 

[trentmccleary]

Considering the .40 point drop between 93 & 94, then the .30 point drop between 97 & 98; I always thought of 94-97 with a range of about. 40 were somewhat similar seasons. The variation in scoring can probably be explained partly by normal variation and the progressive adoption of the trap among teams. Not every team adhered to strict defense, Pittsburgh, Philly and probably some others were still run and gun into the new Millennium.

Although the trap became popular, it's not like 26 coaches were all replaced in the same summer.

 

[Big Phil]

1976 Montreal was not a rough and tough physical team like Philly. Who were they copying?

The Islanders' dynasty was during the highest-scoring period in modern history, but -- while they could certainly score -- they were great defensively. They had the 4th, 4th, 2nd, and 1st NHL defence during their four Cup years.

Montreal had Robinson who really helped tame the Broad Street Bullies and the Habs were not shrinking violets to begin with. They were the type of team who could beat you in so many ways.

Also, the Islanders as someone mentioned upthread may not have had a coach (Arbour) who was known first and foremost for offense but they did lead the NHL in goals in 1981 and were 2nd in 1982. They were just a team that could beat you in so many ways.

 

[Big Phil]

I think the deal with 1995-'96 is a lot of things and some have already been mentioned. But one thing not mentioned yet was the return of Mario Lemieux. He comes back after missing the entire previous year and only playing in 22 games the year before that. In the first three months of the season Mario had 86 points in 32 games. Honestly, that is just frightening! Teams noticed. It wasn't as if he slowed down much in the 2nd half either, even though he couldn't keep up that near impossible pace because he had 75 points in his last 38 games, but I honestly remember in December of that year serious questions of whether or not Mario could crack 200 points. He openly said he would miss the 2nd of back to back games, but the truth is he still finished with 161 points in 70 games. Not quite close to 200, but overall was on pace in a full season to 189 points.

That first half of his season he is on pace for 188 points...........in just 70 games. No doubt there were a lot of teams who thought goal scoring was important too that year. I think that gets underrated a bit.

 

[MadLuke]

I had Mario Lemieux return in the league in mind, but not because of is production, but because the league calling the rulebook and PPO raise was a condition to is return ? Was it just an urban legend ?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The Devils were one of the best teams in the league, "Trap" or no trap. In 1993-94, a much less defensive-minded Devils team finished with the 2nd best record in the NHL and took the eventual Cup winners to Game 7 OT of the ECF. The 1995 team slumped for a month or two in the shortened regular season, giving them a record as a 5th seed, and making them appear worse than they actually were.

The 1996 Panthers, on the other hand, were a recent expansion team, that beat clearly more talented teams with hard work and "The Trap," showing that any team could be better if they played that way.

 

[The Macho King]

NZ Trap has been around a long time. It wasn't invented by Lemaire. Obstruction was what led every team in the world to be able to successfully trap.

 

[Spirit of McMullen]

I also think the first devils cup and their ascension into a top team of the era in general keeps on people and even written off as an anomaly (they were so bad for for so long prior) and the system wasn’t given any credence just yet.

But that Devils system only started in the 1993-1994 season, Lemaire's first in NJ, just 1 season before their 1995 Cup.

Just the season before Lemaire was hired, Herb Brooks was there for just a 1 season stint in 1992-1993 and they were a total inconsistent mess, albeit a playoff team, but definitely didn't clog the NZ as would happen just several months later when Lemaire got there.

Herb Brooks' 1992-1993 Devils played a way, totally different open style, as opposed to Lemaires' 1993-1994 season, in which he had a chance to implement his Devils system/style.

.

 

[koyvoo]

But that Devils system only started in the 1993-1994 season, Lemaire's first in NJ, just 1 season before their 1995 Cup.

Just the season before Lemaire was hired, Herb Brooks was there for just a 1 season stint in 1992-1993 and they were a total inconsistent mess, albeit a playoff team, but definitely didn't clog the NZ as would happen just several months later when Lemaire got there.

Herb Brooks' 1992-1993 Devils played a way, totally different open style, as opposed to Lemaires' 1993-1994 season, in which he had a chance to implement his Devils system/style.

.

I just noticed a grammatical error in my post.

It’s supposed to say that their 1st cup and ascension crept up on people, rather than keeps on people.