Thread: One interesting tidbit about the last team to repeat as Stanley Cup Champions....

Originally Posted by P.I.T.A.

The biggest difference between this Kings team and that Redwings team is a far ****ing cry from a difference and/or change in net.

2012-2013 - Regular Season - All Skaters - Summary - Shots Against Per Game - NHL.com - Stats

2nd in Shots Against.

Quick's Sav % is now at .895 and he's back to giving up a softie every game.

Ride Bernier until he loses.

Which goal was the soft one against the single unbeaten team in the league that didn't face any kind of opposition during the first 40 minutes of the game?

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

If a two time Hart Trophy and six time Vezina trophy winning goaltender is on the market, let the Kings org know.

Hasek won in 2002. It was Vernon/Osgood in 97/98.

Don't forget the Oilers with Fuhr in 1988 and Ranford in 1990. Not back-to-back, but different goalies.

Originally Posted by Birdman

2012-2013 - Regular Season - All Skaters - Summary - Shots Against Per Game - NHL.com - Stats

2nd in Shots Against.

Quick's Sav % is now at .895 and he's back to giving up a softie every game.

Ride Bernier until he loses.

Fine, do that.

The point is, that your post is by far the most ridiculous stretch of imagination and creative license to make that point. No team is like that team anymore, not to mention that goaltending was by no means what carried those teams to those cups. Again, irresponsible mumblings. It sort of has the feel that you overheard someone else saying that while in a drunken stupor. I'm trying to give you more credit here... take it.

Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay

Which goal was the soft one against the single unbeaten team in the league that didn't face any kind of opposition during the first 40 minutes of the game?

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay

Which goal was the soft one against the single unbeaten team in the league that didn't face any kind of opposition during the first 40 minutes of the game?

The third one, the game winner, where he went gliding across to the corner and put himself out of position.

What about that nice softie he gave up from Anchorage last night?

Originally Posted by P.I.T.A.

The point is, that your post is by far the most ridiculous stretch of imagination and creative license to make that point. No team is like that team anymore, not to mention that goaltending was by no means what carried those teams to those cups.

That "Team" had yet to win the big one. They had choked against the Devils 2 years prior, and Lemieux bashed them into oblivion the year prior.

And at the time, it seems that lots of people in the hockey world felt that goaltending had a lot to do with winning the first one:

Originally Posted by Birdman

That "Team" had yet to win the big one. They had choked against the Devils 2 years prior, and Lemieux bashed them into oblivion the year prior.

And at the time, it seems that lots of people in the hockey world felt that goaltending had a lot to do with winning the first one:

From hockeydb.com, here are Detroits goaltending stats from 1996-1997

Goalies
Player Name	GP	Min	GA	GAA	W	L	T	Svs	Pct	EN	SO
Kevin Hodson	6	294	8	1.63	2	2	1	106	0.93	0	1
Chris Osgood	47	2769	106	2.30	23	13	9	1069	0.91	3	6
Mike Vernon	33	1952	79	2.43	13	11	8	703	0.899	1	0

By todays standards, those are not impressive at all.

Detroit had a 38-26-18 record, scoring 253 goals and allowing 197. In the finals, they swept Philadelphia with scores of 4-2, 4-2, 6-1, and 2-1. Doesn't REALLY seem like goaltending was the rock that put them there. And from the following year:

Goalies
Player Name GP Min GA GAA W L T Svs Pct EN SO
Norm Maracle 4 178 6 2.02 2 0 1 57 0.905 0 0
Chris Osgood 64 3807 140 2.21 33 20 11 1465 0.913 5 6
Kevin Hodson 21 988 44 2.67 9 3 3 400 0.901 1 2

Detroit had a 44-23-15 record, scoring the second highest at 250 goals and allowing 196 which was about middle of the road. In the finals, they swept Washinton with scores of 2-1, 5-4, 2-1, and 4-1. Again, the emphasis seemed to be in the scoring department.

I'm not trying to take away from Vernon and Osgood, because I was a fan of theirs as I am almost any goalie. And at the time, it was much more the juggernaut that they had become outside the net that was deemed the reason for their success.

Not to mention, if you look closely, you'll realize that they rode Osgood both years into the playoffs, which would render your initial point moot. Because the guy they rode for 47 games the first year of their back to back played 64 the next year. I don't know... maybe when we're talking playoffs you may have some validity, but regular season...

Just look at this roster and these stats and tell me that Vernon and Osgood were the main reason.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/l...000341997.html