A Stanley Cup Trivia Question in the Making
One of the landmark upsets in Stanley Cup history will be remembered as the handiwork of goaltender Jean-Sebastian Giguere, the Mighty Duck who foiled the mighty Red Wings. Anaheim fans will also recall the Ducks’ triple-overtime win in game one and third-period comeback in game two, while Detroit fans lament how those early opportunities melted away.
But the most remarkable story unfolded in game three: Facing their biggest challenge of the year and a chance to turn the tide of the series, the defending Stanley Cup champions looked utterly ordinary.
Not terrible, mind you. Detroit carried the play for much of the night. The real Red Wings emerged a few times, showing the speed, puck skills and creativity that make them the envy of the league. But such moments were book-ended by long stretches in which Yzerman and company resembled any old bunch of pluggers. Giguere had to be good, but he didn’t have to steal this one. It was the most even game of the series.
Red Wings’ goaltender Curtis Joseph is taking some heat. But a team that scores four goals in three playoff games has bigger problems, like the all-but-invisible Sergei Federov and the lost-at-sea Chris Chelios. Coach Dave Lewis, directing a bench most coaches would kill for, has been outfoxed by his Anaheim counterpart, Mike Babcock.
Only two NHL teams, the 1942 Toronto Maple Leafs and 1975 New York Islanders, have rallied to win a playoff series after dropping the first three games. (Dave Lewis played for that 1975 Islander team, as did Ducks’ assistant coach Lorne Henning.) The last time a defending Stanley Cup champion disappeared from the opening round in four straight games was 1951, when the Toronto Maple Leafs did the trick.
That’s the history facing the 2003 Detroit Red Wings, not at all the kind of history they had in mind. Given their tepid effort in game three, with their season effectively on the line, is there any reason to think they can pull of the miracle comeback?
Control Freaks
One Stanley Cup tradition the NHL could do without: the annual Referee’s Springtime Re-Education Camp.
Most years, a few days before the first Stanley Cup faceoff, the NHL gathers its playoff referees behind closed doors for a good talking to. To the public, it issues ominous warnings about enforcing rules and upholding “officiating standards.”
We soon find out what this means. In the early days of the Stanley Cup tournament, the ref governs with the ruthlessness of a zealous mall cop or snooty maitre d’. With piercing whistles and stern gesticulations, players are banished to the penalty box for a little cuff to the helmet, a harmless encounter with the goalie, a brief sweater tug or routine battle in front of the net.
What makes the show all the more bewildering is that a similar incident a few minutes later might go unpunished, and a good deal of interference as well: After scoring the winner in game one of the Detroit-Anaheim series, the Ducks’ Paul Kariya pointed out that he set up the play by running a pick on Steve Yzerman; He got away with it, which is fine until you recall some of the penalties called earlier in the game.
Fortunately, after the first couple of weeks the referees usually resume control of the games in a more genuine sense: by trusting their judgement, experience and sense of the game. This hardly makes them infallible, but it’s a far better basis for enforcement than memos and stern lectures from head office.
Of course, there’s always a law-and-order crowd that approves of these “zero tolerance” campaigns. “The rules are in the book,” they argue. “It’s just a matter of enforcing them.” This sort of simplistic, clear-cut approach to justice looks very impressive on paper. But it’s of little practical use, in hockey or in life.
More Stanley Cup Notes:
Blues, Leafs and Avs Pack Up Their Gear
Pity the Dot-Com Millionaire
The Slimmest Margin of Error
The All-Muttonhead Team
