NHL Mysteries: Part 1

[devilsrule33]

Well…Maybe a running series…maybe not. Who knows at this point, but an interesting discussion nonetheless. This is something I have been wondering about for a while, and with not much going on until the draft…I thought what better time to bring it up than now. This is a pretty long post, but it didn't actually take me too long to put together. Just a note: I have some interesting board topics planned to get through the long month of August.

Anyway...I remember following hockey very closely during the 1995-1996 season. It was probably my favourite hockey season as a fan. There were so many great teams and so much star power. So many great story lines. It’s the only season where I can remember every playoff series vividly (Caps-Pens, Wings-Blues, Penguins-Panthers, Wings-Avs)

But as a young kid at the time, I was too young to really understand the game. So I ask this question now to everyone on this board older than me. Some people believe the dead puck era began in 1996-1997, while others say it started in 1997-1998. But one thing for sure is…the game of hockey suddenly and dramatically from the 1996 season to the 1997 season. What the heck happened in just one season? How could so much change in just one year? And more importantly why?

Here are some stats I found…

And some major statistical changes from individual players...

Pretty big difference in the stats from those two years. I started thinking about the goalies during the 1995-1996 season. One thing I noticed was goalies weren't playing that many games compared to today for whatever reason.

1995-1996

60+ games played: 5

50+ games played: 14

1996-1997

60+ games played: 10

50+ games played: 17

Those numbers are pretty significant when you consider that in 2001-2002...20 goalies played at least 60 games and 27 played in at least 50. So it got me thinking that a lot of backup goalies are playing way too many games. And hey wouldn't you know it...I was right. But it wasn't just any backup goalies. Some of these guys were complete scrubs who were playing in a career high amount of games. Look at some of these guys. You'd think I was making up some of these names...

Wade Flaherty (played in a career high 24 games going 3-12 with 4.85 GAA)

Jason Muzzati

Mike Bales (played 20 of his 23 career games in 1996 going 2-14-1 with a 4.15 GAA. Played 52 more minutes in the NHL after 1996)

Jeff Reese

John-Claude Bergeron (4.24 GAA in 12 games during the 1996 season. Was in goal for only one more game NHL game after that season)

Glenn Healey

Michael Shtalenkov

Joaquin Gage (saw 16 games in 1996 finishing with 2 wins and a 3.77 GAA. Played in 5 more career games 5 seasons later)

Eric Fichaud

Tommy Soderstrom (played in a career high 51 games in 1996 posting a 3.87 GAA. In 1997 played a total of 1 minute)

Darcy Wakaluk

Don Beaupre (went 6-28 in 41 games in 1996. He would only play 3 more games in his career)

Bruce Racine

Now some questions to consider:

How much better did the goalies get in one season? Was 1995-1996 the end of these 80s style beer league goalies?

Why were good starting goalies playing so few games? John Vanbiesbrouck (57 games), Ron Hextall (53 games), Darren Puppa (57 games), Guy Hebert (59 games) Crappy backups playing so much cost teams playoff spots (Anaheim) while almost cost others (Lightning). It also seemed like a ton of starting goalies were missing some time in 1996. Richter, Belfour, Hasek, Barrasso, Moog...etc. Were goalies that out of shape? Did off-season training only really start in the late 90s to allow goalies to play the amount of games we are accustomed to seeing?

Why were so few penalties called in 1996-1997 compared to 1995-1996? In 1996, the league average for power play opportunities for a team was 413. In 1997, it was 336 with not a single team reaching the league average from 1996.

Did smart defensive coaches dramatically change their team's style with very little personnel changes? Teams went from laughing stocks to contenders.

I’m looking at Ken Hitchcock and Jacques Martin to be exact. Both took over absolutely awful teams during the 1996 season. The Stars finished 26-42-14 in 1996 giving up 280 goals. One season later, they were division champs with 104 points and only gave up 198 goals.

The Senators finished the 1996 season with a miserable 41 points, good for last, while giving up 291 goals. Dave Allison actually coached them to a 2-22-1 record. That ended up being his only coaching stint in the NHL. The next year the Sens squeaked into the playoffs on the last day giving up 67 fewer goals. Both teams used the same goalie for the predominate amount of games in both seasons (Moog and Rhodes).

Ted Nolan help turn around the Sabres from a non-playoff team in 1996 to a 2nd seeded team in 1997 winning the Jack Adams trophy. There is a lot of debate of how much that success was due to his coaching.

This is getting quite long so I’ll wrap it up for now...thoughts and opinions?

Edited June 19, 2009 by devilsrule33

[msweet]

I think you need to extend your analysis one year forward and one year back.. to see if scoring actually dropped in 96-97 or 95-96 was unusually high.

Maybe it was 95-96 players were more rested after the 1/2 strike season?

Maybe by 96-97 more teams copied the SC winning Devils' trap style and stymied offense?

Your statement, "Why were so few penalties called in 1996-1997 compared to 1995-1996?" supports the increase of legal "clutch-n-grab" which aides the NZT

[Revan]

This is getting quite long so I

[Triumph]

wow, this is great stuff dr33. i've been kinda busting your balls lately but this is really, really good.

re: penalties - my guess, and i can't be sure, but that 1996 was one of those years where they cracked down on obstruction at the beginning and slowly stopped doing that. i don't think it's permissive of 'clutch-and-grab' - every game i've ever seen pre-1994 has tons of clutch and grab hockey. i think, honestly, in the 80s and early 90s, teams scored so damn much that taking 'bad' penalties really wasn't a big deal. you cross-checked your opponents in the face to intimidate them, and if you took a penalty doing it, it sucks, but being down 1-0 or 2-0 wasn't that big a deal. in a lower goal scoring environment, undisciplined penalties like this are a killer. it's worth noting that power plays from 2005-06 to 2006-07 dropped by 85 on average, or one a game, and i think the reasons for this are three-fold:

1: referees were a little more tolerant

2: players learned how to maneuver within the rules

3: players who didn't were booted from the league or played less

my suspicion is that all three were in play in 96-97 too.

re: goaltender use - my guess here is that teams were used to having two guys who weren't that great and riding the 'hot hand'. recall also that traditionally goalies weren't drafted in the first round for the same reason; why would you draft a guy in the 1st round if he's just going to be as good as any other NHL goalie? the 80s were largely devoid of HOF-level goalies - one thing i've wanted to look at was did goalies face more shots during the 80s? my suspicion is not really. brodeurisafraud might've done something about this at some point.

[CRASHER]

re: penalties - my guess, and i can't be sure, but that 1996 was one of those years where they cracked down on obstruction at the beginning and slowly stopped doing that.

Wasn't this the year that Lemieux (Maria... not Claude ) whined like a bitch about being hooked too much and threatened to retire if she didn't get calls thrown her way??? I remember that because it's when I lost all respect for her... play through the damn checks like everyone else!

[maxpower]

threadjacking time:

for all those that want Lemaire... look at those offensive numbers for '95-'96... and then feast your eyes on THIS.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues...0000511996.html

We were AS A TEAM, only in on 50 or so more goals than Lemieux was.

[DaneykoIsGod]

threadjacking time:

for all those that want Lemaire... look at those offensive numbers for '95-'96... and then feast your eyes on THIS.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues...0000511996.html

We were AS A TEAM, only in on 50 or so more goals than Lemieux was.

And in Lemaire's first year in New Jersey, the Devils were the second-highest scoring team in the NHL. Random hand-picked stats are a bitch, ain't they?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/statistics?s...tat=teamstatoff

[maxpower]

And in Lemaire's first year in New Jersey, the Devils were the second-highest scoring team in the NHL. Random hand-picked stats are a bitch, ain't they?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/statistics?s...tat=teamstatoff

no, it's not. not when you replace Larry Robinson with Chris Nilan. if you have faith in Lemaire with Albelin and Johnny Mac as his assistants, by all means.

Larry Robinson NEVER gets credit for what happened. Yet when he came back in 99, the team starts to turn around. Going by both of their track records with the Devils, I'm going to guess that Larry Robinson had just as much or more to do with the on ice success as Lemaire did.

I have no faith in the guy, and if you can't see how awful offensively that team was compared to the league, I can't help you. They go from a good offensive team to an awful one, expansion level awful, overnight. And what event precedes this?

Edited June 18, 2009 by maxpower

[DaneykoIsGod]

They go from a good offensive team to a very good defensive team, Stanley Cup champion good, overnight.

Fixed.

You're giving Larry credit for the team's goal scoring? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he in charge if the defense while Dennis Gendron ran the offense?

Maybe I'm crazy (and I probably am) but it seemed like the '93-94 Devils scored a ton under Lemaire, but they didn't make it to the Finals. The next year he put the clamps on and the team swept the Presidents Trophy winners in the Finals. Lemaire's unwillingness to bend from that method is well documented ... how in his last few years here he had the horses to put up some numbers but he didn't use them right. Can you blame a guy for sticking to a formula that won a Cup?

Lemaire didn't have the horses in Minnesota. Gaborik was always hurt and that's about it (meanwhile Wes "I've never scored 20 goals in my life" Walz was a God and Alexandre Daigle had a rebirth there, for cryin' out loud). But he did squeeze multiple 30-goal seasons out of a guy who struggled under an "aggressive" coach last season.

Again, call me crazy, but I think Lemaire might actually be able to do some very, very good things with a lineup that has Parise and Elias. At the very least, I doubt a Lemaire-coached team has that 1:20 breakdown.

[maxpower]

Fixed.

You're giving Larry credit for the team's goal scoring? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he in charge if the defense while Dennis Gendron ran the offense?

Maybe I'm crazy (and I probably am) but it seemed like the '93-94 Devils scored a ton under Lemaire, but they didn't make it to the Finals. The next year he put the clamps on and the team swept the Presidents Trophy winners in the Finals. Lemaire's unwillingness to bend from that method is well documented ... how in his last few years here he had the horses to put up some numbers but he didn't use them right. Can you blame a guy for sticking to a formula that won a Cup?

Lemaire didn't have the horses in Minnesota. Gaborik was always hurt and that's about it (meanwhile Wes "I've never scored 20 goals in my life" Walz was a God and Alexandre Daigle had a rebirth there, for cryin' out loud). But he did squeeze multiple 30-goal seasons out of a guy who struggled under an "aggressive" coach last season.

Again, call me crazy, but I think Lemaire might actually be able to do some very, very good things with a lineup that has Parise and Elias. At the very least, I doubt a Lemaire-coached team has that 1:20 breakdown.

Why, is Elias better than Gaborik at this stage of their repsective careers? Parise is a garbageman that thrives on getting in front of the net and chaos. Not as a guy who stands in some static point in the neutral zone, trying to turn the puck over. And considering he rarely used the kids the last time around and instead loved to use fighters and grinders, I'm not sure exactly why he's good for the kids. That's the funniest piece of revisionism I've seen about Lemaire thus far.

Larry gets credit because he's a smart coach and he was someone to bounce ideas off of, and being results oriented. Pre-lockout, when the Devils won, Larry was around. When he wasn't, they stunk in the playoffs. And Rolston got his goals as an umbrella PP point. From what I saw here this year, I'm not too excited about that possibility.

and in the '95 playoffs, they scored over 3 goals a game and they put up numbers in their wins. what you're saying is that a coach can't adjust, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, because something (that wasn't the same thing he was doing) worked in the past? to me, that doesn't sound like a very good coach. I also think the awfulness of the post-lockout Wild is overstated.

Brian Rolston isn't the key to the Devils, honestly, I could care less if he scores 5 goals next season. All I know, is I see Parise, and now even Marty (TG today) saying they should continue what happened under Sutter, and it makes you think.

as for the breakdown, the breakdown was due to line matching (not finishing the game with offensive players when they had a chance), and getting rolled while they were in a defensive shell late in the game. why is this any different than Lemaire's MO?

[maxpower]

dupe

Edited June 18, 2009 by maxpower

[LOTCB]

Excellent post and I think what msweet said has some validity to it based on this from your post:

It also seemed like a ton of starting goalies were missing some time in 1996. Richter, Belfour, Hasek, Barrasso, Moog...etc.

Maybe it was a year where a lot of starters were out etc...interesting to think what could have happened though...was there expansion that year?

[DaneykoIsGod]

Why, is Elias better than Gaborik at this stage of their repsective careers?

He can be counted on to play more games, so yes.

Parise is a garbageman that thrives on getting in front of the net and chaos. Not as a guy who stands in some static point in the neutral zone, trying to turn the puck over.

Not sure what your point is here.

And considering he rarely used the kids the last time around and instead loved to use fighters and grinders, I'm not sure exactly why he's good for the kids. That's the funniest piece of revisionism I've seen about Lemaire thus far.

Who said anything about his use of young players?

Larry gets credit because he's a smart coach and he was someone to bounce ideas off of, and being results oriented. Pre-lockout, when the Devils won, Larry was around. When he wasn't, they stunk in the playoffs.

Fair enough.

and in the '95 playoffs, they scored over 3 goals a game and they put up numbers in their wins. what you're saying is that a coach can't adjust, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, because something (that wasn't the same thing he was doing) worked in the past? to me, that doesn't sound like a very good coach.

I'm saying that if a coach wins a Stanley Cup doing one thing, it's tough to blame him for trying to do that same thing. I didn't say that he "can't adjust," but that he simply stuck with what worked.

Brian Rolston isn't the key to the Devils, honestly, I could care less if he scores 5 goals next season.

I never said he was.

All I know, is I see Parise, and now even Marty (TG today) saying they should continue what happened under Sutter, and it makes you think.

I agree, and I think Lemaire is capable of coaching a game that's more in line with what Sutter did last year than what Lemaire did his last few years in New Jersey. If you read what I wrote instead of misinterpreting everything with a blinding hatred for Jacques Lemaire, you might have seen that. I'm saying that Jacques' track record in New Jersey was one of doing what won a Cup (as opposed to what didn't win a Cup his first year in NJ, when they scored the 2nd most goals in the league) and that his track record in Minny was one of necessity because he didn't have squat to work with. Give him a fresh start and some talent, and I think we'll be pleasantly surprised.

as for the breakdown, the breakdown was due to line matching (not finishing the game with offensive players when they had a chance), and getting rolled while they were in a defensive shell late in the game. why is this any different than Lemaire's MO?

The 1:20 breakdown was due to an inability to clear the puck, plain and simple. Line matching had nothing to do with it. In fact, wasn't it the Parise-Zajac-Langs line that was out there? Is that line matching? And didn't the two teams in the Cup Finals get there by matching lines in one way or another? I agree that line matching is no longer a strong point of this team and that falling back into that strategy is a bad move ... but the 1:20 breakdown had nothing to do with line matching.

[maxpower]

He can be counted on to play more games, so yes.

Not sure what your point is here.

Who said anything about his use of young players?

Fair enough.

I'm saying that if a coach wins a Stanley Cup doing one thing, it's tough to blame him for trying to do that same thing. I didn't say that he "can't adjust," but that he simply stuck with what worked.

I never said he was.

I agree, and I think Lemaire is capable of coaching a game that's more in line with what Sutter did last year than what Lemaire did his last few years in New Jersey. If you read what I wrote instead of misinterpreting everything with a blinding hatred for Jacques Lemaire, you might have seen that. I'm saying that Jacques' track record in New Jersey was one of doing what won a Cup (as opposed to what didn't win a Cup his first year in NJ, when they scored the 2nd most goals in the league) and that his track record in Minny was one of necessity because he didn't have squat to work with. Give him a fresh start and some talent, and I think we'll be pleasantly surprised.

The 1:20 breakdown was due to an inability to clear the puck, plain and simple. Line matching had nothing to do with it. In fact, wasn't it the Parise-Zajac-Langs line that was out there? Is that line matching? And didn't the two teams in the Cup Finals get there by matching lines in one way or another? I agree that line matching is no longer a strong point of this team and that falling back into that strategy is a bad move ... but the 1:20 breakdown had nothing to do with line matching.

He's never coached a non NZT/passive team. He's never adjusted ever, except to get more passive. That he won one playoff series in '97-98, against an under .500 team, is an absolute crime. That they legitimately lost to the Sens (it wasn't a fluke or the cause of the refs having one in for us or anything like that), in '98 was pathetic. Easily their worst playoff loss ever, I don't think they've had a team that good lose to a team remotely that bad ever before and will likely never again in the future.

And the breakdown was caused by them not paying an aggressive game. You're trying to break down seven games of hockey into 1:20 of hockey. It's why they lost, but it's not why they lost. It's like seeing a plane crash and saying the cause of the crash was... that it crashed.

It had everything to do with linematching over the long view. Everything to do with letting the other team have the puck and dictate the game to you. These are all classic Lemaireian Devils MO's.

I have "blinding hate" for Lemaire because I've seen him fail (and maybe some people are too young or weren't fans then and don't remember this), and there's no reason to expect that he wouldn't fail in this environment with this team and basically cost them years. And I really don't have the desire to sit through that again.

Why are the players speaking out about this, albeit in a political way... especially for Marty to say something that could be described as remotely

negative against Lemaire? Because they know the score.

[Devils Pride 26]

I've been thinking, mostly because of maxpower bringing this up, and my biggest fear is Parise turning into Brian Gionta 2.0 under Lemaire. We need that forechecking style for Parise to thrive.

[maxpower]

trying to unjack this now...

one factor could be that there were three really, really bad teams. The Isles and the Sens (beyond horrible) in the East, and the Sharks, who gave up 357 freaking goals (only 5 less than the Pens scored).

a likely bigger factor was the success of the Panthers, who ripped us off. and then everyone and their mother ripped them off.

[devilsrule33]

Looking at all these numbers and then seeing the Devils stats in 1996...it is pretty easy to see why they didn't make the playoffs. Penalties were being called at an incredible rate. Everyone was cashing in on their power plays except the Devils. With the league average at 17.93%, Jersey converted on just 14.95% which was 3rd last in the league.

Lemaire had the defensive part down perfectly as the Devils finished second best in GAA, but second to last in goals forward. Unfortunately for the Devils, the 1996 season was about scoring more goals than your opponent, which was never the Devils style. Pittsburgh clearly showed that as they gave up 82 more goals than the Devils but scored 147 more. Vancouver may have given up 76 more goals, but they scored 63 more to make the playoffs.

With how things suddenly changed from 1996 to 1997, it was no wonder the Devils had such an easy transition and finished first in the East.

I'm going to look into a few more things when I have the time...

Edited June 19, 2009 by devilsrule33

[Triumph]

He's never coached a non NZT/passive team. He's never adjusted ever, except to get more passive. That he won one playoff series in '97-98, against an under .500 team, is an absolute crime. That they legitimately lost to the Sens (it wasn't a fluke or the cause of the refs having one in for us or anything like that), in '98 was pathetic. Easily their worst playoff loss ever, I don't think they've had a team that good lose to a team remotely that bad ever before and will likely never again in the future.

revisionism ftl. devorski totally fvcked them in games 1 and 3. unfortunately i can't find the boxscores, but in game 1, dummy called 3 penalties on NJ at the end of the 3rd and OT, something unheard of at the time. in game 3, andreychuk gets pulled down on a breakaway in OT, no call, arvedson gets a breakaway 3 seconds later, he gets pulled down, devorski calls a penalty, senators score. it was a complete sham. the fact that i remember this all so clearly 10 years later should indicate just how enormous a sham it was.

I have "blinding hate" for Lemaire because I've seen him fail (and maybe some people are too young or weren't fans then and don't remember this), and there's no reason to expect that he wouldn't fail in this environment with this team and basically cost them years. And I really don't have the desire to sit through that again.

i can agree with this, and i also think that lemaire coached teams tend to go after veteran players because they safe.

it's also worth noting that since the lockout, gaborik is averaging 47 goals per 82 games.

[CRASHER]

it's also worth noting that since the lockout, gaborik is averaging 47 goals per 82 games.

But it's also worth noting it takes him 2 seasons to play 82 games

[Triumph]

Looking at all these numbers and then seeing the Devils stats in 1996...it is pretty easy to see why they didn't make the playoffs. Penalties were being called at an incredible rate. Everyone was cashing in on their power plays except the Devils. With the league average at 17.93%, Jersey converted on just 14.95% which was 3rd last in the league.

Lemaire had the defensive part down perfectly as the Devils finished second best in GAA, but second to last in goals forward. Unfortunately for the Devils, the 1996 season was about scoring more goals than your opponent, which was never the Devils style. Pittsburgh clearly showed that as they gave up 82 more goals than the Devils but scored 147 more. Vancouver may have given up 76 ore goals, but they scored 63 more to make the playoffs.

i think there's a fallacy here - the goal is to outscore one's opponents; allow less goals than one scores. the devils had 100 less power plays against than NHL average - 100! that's 15 goals less that they should expect to give up. yes their power play was at 15% where NHL average was at 17.6, so they missed 11 goals. it shouldn't've mattered - the devils outscored their opponents by 13. the real problem with the 1996 devils was the lack of centers. the team had holik, the husk of neal broten, and bobby carpenter at center, along with sarge brylin and petr sykora and a few others. that's terrible. throw in stephane richer's complete collapse and the devils just weren't going to score a lot. granted, this was also the case in 1997, but i really think there's something to be said for cup hangover, and i don't think the devils missing the playoffs should be looked at as anything but an incredible fluke - i am pretty sure 86 points got a team into the playoffs every year before that, regardless of conference.

[squishyx]

But it's also worth noting it takes him 2 seasons to play 82 games

[daneyko_booster]

threadjacking time:

for all those that want Lemaire... look at those offensive numbers for '95-'96... and then feast your eyes on THIS.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues...0000511996.html

We were AS A TEAM, only in on 50 or so more goals than Lemieux was.

It's even more embarrassing when you realise that Wayne Gretzky's point total record in a single season (215 in 85-86 season) is the exact same number as the total goals scores by the entire Devils team in 95-96.

[maxpower]

i think there's a fallacy here - the goal is to outscore one's opponents; allow less goals than one scores. the devils had 100 less power plays against than NHL average - 100! that's 15 goals less that they should expect to give up. yes their power play was at 15% where NHL average was at 17.6, so they missed 11 goals. it shouldn't've mattered - the devils outscored their opponents by 13. the real problem with the 1996 devils was the lack of centers. the team had holik, the husk of neal broten, and bobby carpenter at center, along with sarge brylin and petr sykora and a few others. that's terrible. throw in stephane richer's complete collapse and the devils just weren't going to score a lot. granted, this was also the case in 1997, but i really think there's something to be said for cup hangover, and i don't think the devils missing the playoffs should be looked at as anything but an incredible fluke - i am pretty sure 86 points got a team into the playoffs every year before that, regardless of conference.

yeah, when Sykora is your first line center, there are definately issues at the position. but, the funny thing was that it was a position they ignored all season and at the deadline. they just kept going with kids playing out of position. I mean, AFAIK, Sykora never went back to C after he got farmed out the next season...

and as for Game 1 against Ottawa, I don't know why I blacked out on that one. I was standing up and screaming for the last 3 minutes of regulation, the worst thing, IIRC, was that Gilmour was absolutely mugged on the attack on one of the PK's late in the 3rd, and didn't draw a call. still, the teams were mismatched and getting dragged to OT by them is almost like a loss anyway, especially considering our splendid OT history.

Edited June 19, 2009 by maxpower

[devilsrule33]

i think there's a fallacy here - the goal is to outscore one's opponents; allow less goals than one scores. the devils had 100 less power plays against than NHL average - 100! that's 15 goals less that they should expect to give up. yes their power play was at 15% where NHL average was at 17.6, so they missed 11 goals. it shouldn't've mattered - the devils outscored their opponents by 13. the real problem with the 1996 devils was the lack of centers. the team had holik, the husk of neal broten, and bobby carpenter at center, along with sarge brylin and petr sykora and a few others. that's terrible. throw in stephane richer's complete collapse and the devils just weren't going to score a lot. granted, this was also the case in 1997, but i really think there's something to be said for cup hangover, and i don't think the devils missing the playoffs should be looked at as anything but an incredible fluke - i am pretty sure 86 points got a team into the playoffs every year before that, regardless of conference.

I couldn't tell you about a Cup hangover in 1996, but as you briefly touched on...this was the same team in 1997 with the same problems. Sure they added Gilmour, but this team still had some serious deficiencies. Really couldn't score...couldn't draw penalties and when they did, they certainly weren't scoring (13.89%).

But the game was clearly different in 1997, and with scoring down that was only going to help a team like the Devils. The 1997 Devils gave up 28 PPG. I am sure that has to be an NHL record.