Quarter-Finals
Semi-Finals
Conf. Finals
Stanley Cup
Pairings are re-seeded after the first round. The highest remaining seed in each conference is matched against the lowest remaining seed and the higher-seeded team is awarded home ice advantage. In the Stanley Cup Finals series, home ice is determined based on regular season points
Conference QuarterfinalsBest of 7-game series | |||||||||||||||||||
| Date | Away | Score | Home | OT | Series | ||||||||||||||
| 4/15 | (6) St. Louis | 1-2 | Vancouver (3) | VBC 1-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/17 | (6) St. Louis | 0-3 | Vancouver (3) | VBC 2-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/19 | (3) Vancouver | 3-2 | St. Louis (6) | VBC 3-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/21 | (3) Vancouver | 3-2 OT |
St. Louis (6) | OT | VBC 4-0 | ||||||||||||||
Conference QuarterfinalsBest of 7-game series | |||||||||||||||||||
| Date | Away | Score | Home | OT | Series | ||||||||||||||
| 4/16 | (5) Calgary | 2-3 OT |
Chicago (4) | OT | CHI 1-0 | ||||||||||||||
| 4/18 | (5) Calgary | 2-3 | Chicago (4) | CHI 2-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/20 | (4) Chicago | 2-4 | Calgary (5) | CHI 2-1 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/22 | (4) Chicago | 4-6 | Calgary (5) | Tied 2-2 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/25 | (5) Calgary | 1-5 | Chicago (4) | CHI 3-2 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/27 | (4) Chicago | 4-1 | Calgary (5) | CHI 4-2 | |||||||||||||||
Conference QuarterfinalsBest of 7-game series | |||||||||||||||||||
| Date | Away | Score | Home | OT | Series | ||||||||||||||
| 4/16 | (8) Anaheim | 2-0 | San Jose (1) | ANA 1-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/19 | (8) Anaheim | 3-2 | San Jose (1) | ANA 2-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/21 | (1) San Jose | 4-3 | Anaheim (8) | ANA 2-1 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/23 | (1) San Jose | 0-4 | Anaheim (8) | ANA 3-1 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/25 | (8) Anaheim | 2-3 OT |
San Jose (1) | OT | ANA 3-2 | ||||||||||||||
| 4/27 | (1) San Jose | 1-4 | Anaheim (8) | ANA 4-2 | |||||||||||||||
Conference QuarterfinalsBest of 7-game series | |||||||||||||||||||
| Date | Away | Score | Home | OT | Series | ||||||||||||||
| 4/16 | (7) Columbus | 1-4 | Detroit (2) | DET 1-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/18 | (7) Columbus | 0-4 | Detroit (2) | DET 2-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/21 | (2) Detroit | 4-1 | Columbus (7) | DET 3-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/23 | (2) Detroit | 6-5 | Columbus (7) | DET 4-0 | |||||||||||||||
Conference QuarterfinalsBest of 7-game series | |||||||||||||||||||
| Date | Away | Score | Home | OT | Series | ||||||||||||||
| 4/15 | (5) Philadelphia | 1-4 | Pittsburgh (4) | PIT 1-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/17 | (5) Philadelphia | 2-3 OT |
Pittsburgh (4) | OT | PIT 2-0 | ||||||||||||||
| 4/19 | (4) Pittsburgh | 3-6 | Philadelphia (5) | PIT 2-1 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/21 | (4) Pittsburgh | 3-1 | Philadelphia (5) | PIT 3-1 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/23 | (5) Philadelphia | 3-0 | Pittsburgh (4) | PIT 3-2 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/25 | (4) Pittsburgh | 5-3 | Philadelphia (5) | PIT 4-2 | |||||||||||||||
Conference QuarterfinalsBest of 7-game series | |||||||||||||||||||
| Date | Away | Score | Home | OT | Series | ||||||||||||||
| 4/15 | (7) NY Rangers | 4-3 | Washington (2) | NYR 1-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/18 | (7) NY Rangers | 1-0 | Washington (2) | NYR 2-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/20 | (2) Washington | 4-0 | NY Rangers (7) | NYR 2-1 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/22 | (2) Washington | 1-2 | NY Rangers (7) | NYR 3-1 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/24 | (7) NY Rangers | 0-4 | Washington (2) | NYR 3-2 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/26 | (2) Washington | 5-3 | NY Rangers (7) | Tied 3-3 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/28 | (7) NY Rangers | 1-2 | Washington (2) | WAS 4-3 | |||||||||||||||
Conference QuarterfinalsBest of 7-game series | |||||||||||||||||||
| Date | Away | Score | Home | OT | Series | ||||||||||||||
| 4/15 | (6) Carolina | 1-4 | New Jersey (3) | NJ 1-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/17 | (6) Carolina | 2-1 OT |
New Jersey (3) | OT | Tied 1-1 | ||||||||||||||
| 4/19 | (3) New Jersey | 3-2 OT |
Carolina (6) | OT | NJ 2-1 | ||||||||||||||
| 4/21 | (3) New Jersey | 3-4 | Carolina (6) | Tied 2-2 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/23 | (6) Carolina | 0-1 | New Jersey (3) | NJ 3-2 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/26 | (3) New Jersey | 0-4 | Carolina (6) | Tied 3-3 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/28 | (6) Carolina | 4-3 | New Jersey (3) | CAR 4-3 | |||||||||||||||
Conference QuarterfinalsBest of 7-game series | |||||||||||||||||||
| Date | Away | Score | Home | OT | Series | ||||||||||||||
| 4/16 | (8) Montreal | 2-4 | Boston (1) | BOS 1-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/18 | (8) Montreal | 1-5 | Boston (1) | BOS 2-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/20 | (1) Boston | 4-2 | Montreal (8) | BOS 3-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 4/22 | (1) Boston | 4-1 | Montreal (8) | BOS 4-0 | |||||||||||||||
Conference SemifinalsBest of 7-game series | |||||||||||||||||||
| Date | Away | Score | Home | OT | Series | ||||||||||||||
| 4/30 | (4) Chicago | 3-5 | Vancouver (3) | VBC 1-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/2 | (4) Chicago | 6-3 | Vancouver (3) | Tied 1-1 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/5 | (3) Vancouver | 3-1 | Chicago (4) | VBC 2-1 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/7 | (3) Vancouver | 1-2 OT |
Chicago (4) | OT | Tied 2-2 | ||||||||||||||
| 5/9 | (4) Chicago | 4-2 | Vancouver (3) | CHI 3-2 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/11 | (3) Vancouver | 5-7 | Chicago (4) | CHI 4-2 | |||||||||||||||
Conference SemifinalsBest of 7-game series | |||||||||||||||||||
| Date | Away | Score | Home | OT | Series | ||||||||||||||
| 5/1 | (8) Anaheim | 2-3 | Detroit (2) | DET 1-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/3 | (8) Anaheim | 4-3 3OT |
Detroit (2) | 3OT | Tied 1-1 | ||||||||||||||
| 5/5 | (2) Detroit | 1-2 | Anaheim (8) | ANA 2-1 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/7 | (2) Detroit | 6-3 | Anaheim (8) | Tied 2-2 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/10 | (8) Anaheim | 1-4 | Detroit (2) | DET 3-2 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/12 | (2) Detroit | 1-2 | Anaheim (8) | Tied 3-3 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/14 | (8) Anaheim | 3-4 | Detroit (2) | DET 4-3 | |||||||||||||||
Conference SemifinalsBest of 7-game series | |||||||||||||||||||
| Date | Away | Score | Home | OT | Series | ||||||||||||||
| 5/2 | (4) Pittsburgh | 2-3 | Washington (2) | WAS 1-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/4 | (4) Pittsburgh | 3-4 | Washington (2) | WAS 2-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/6 | (2) Washington | 2-3 OT |
Pittsburgh (4) | OT | WAS 2-1 | ||||||||||||||
| 5/8 | (2) Washington | 3-5 | Pittsburgh (4) | Tied 2-2 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/9 | (4) Pittsburgh | 4-3 OT |
Washington (2) | OT | PIT 3-2 | ||||||||||||||
| 5/11 | (2) Washington | 5-4 OT |
Pittsburgh (4) | OT | Tied 3-3 | ||||||||||||||
| 5/13 | (4) Pittsburgh | 6-2 | Washington (2) | PIT 4-3 | |||||||||||||||
Conference SemifinalsBest of 7-game series | |||||||||||||||||||
| Date | Away | Score | Home | OT | Series | ||||||||||||||
| 5/1 | (6) Carolina | 1-4 | Boston (1) | BOS 1-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/3 | (6) Carolina | 3-0 | Boston (1) | Tied 1-1 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/6 | (1) Boston | 2-3 OT |
Carolina (6) | OT | CAR 2-1 | ||||||||||||||
| 5/8 | (1) Boston | 1-4 | Carolina (6) | CAR 3-1 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/10 | (6) Carolina | 0-4 | Boston (1) | CAR 3-2 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/12 | (1) Boston | 4-2 | Carolina (6) | Tied 3-3 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/14 | (6) Carolina | 3-2 OT |
Boston (1) | OT | CAR 4-3 | ||||||||||||||
Conference FinalsBest of 7-game series | |||||||||||||||||||
| Date | Away | Score | Home | OT | Series | ||||||||||||||
| 5/17 | (4) Chicago | 2-5 | Detroit (2) | DET 1-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/19 | (4) Chicago | 2-3 OT |
Detroit (2) | OT | DET 2-0 | ||||||||||||||
| 5/22 | (2) Detroit | 3-4 OT |
Chicago (4) | OT | DET 2-1 | ||||||||||||||
| 5/24 | (2) Detroit | 6-1 | Chicago (4) | DET 3-1 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/27 | (4) Chicago | 1-2 OT |
Detroit (2) | OT | DET 4-1 | ||||||||||||||
Conference FinalsBest of 7-game series | |||||||||||||||||||
| Date | Away | Score | Home | OT | Series | ||||||||||||||
| 5/18 | (6) Carolina | 2-3 | Pittsburgh (4) | PIT 1-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/21 | (6) Carolina | 4-7 | Pittsburgh (4) | PIT 2-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/23 | (4) Pittsburgh | 6-2 | Carolina (6) | PIT 3-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/26 | (4) Pittsburgh | 4-1 | Carolina (6) | PIT 4-0 | |||||||||||||||
Stanley Cup FinalsBest of 7-game series | |||||||||||||||||||
| Date | Away | Score | Home | OT | Series | ||||||||||||||
| 5/30 | (4) Pittsburgh | 1-3 | Detroit (2) | DET 1-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 5/31 | (4) Pittsburgh | 1-3 | Detroit (2) | DET 2-0 | |||||||||||||||
| 6/2 | (2) Detroit | 2-4 | Pittsburgh (4) | DET 2-1 | |||||||||||||||
| 6/4 | (2) Detroit | 2-4 | Pittsburgh (4) | Tied 2-2 | |||||||||||||||
| 6/6 | (4) Pittsburgh | 0-5 | Detroit (2) | DET 3-2 | |||||||||||||||
| 6/9 | (2) Detroit | 1-2 | Pittsburgh (4) | Tied 3-3 | |||||||||||||||
| 6/12 | (4) Pittsburgh | 2-1 | Detroit (2) | PIT 4-3 | |||||||||||||||
Related Content
Stories, Photos, Videos, Podcasts, and Publications featuring National Hockey League 2009 SeasonF i l t e r & S o r t Filter & Sort
3 hours
Jan 27, 2008
In January 2008, the NHL All-Star Game took to the ice, capturing the essence of...
2008 NHL All-Star Game - Radio Broadcast / In January 2008, the NHL All-Star Game took to the ice, capturing the essence of a season that continued to showcase the league's evolution and the increasing skill level across its teams. This period in NHL history was marked by the adaptation and refinement of rules post-2005 lockout, focusing on increasing game speed and scoring to enhance entertainment value. The All-Star game itself, a mid-season spectacle, offered fans a chance to see the game's most talented players come together, setting aside team rivalries for a celebration of skill, speed, and sportsmanship. The event was not just a display of individual talent but also a reflection of the league's health and the growing international representation within the sport.
On April 11, 1975, the atmosphere was charged at the playoff game between the New...
Playoffs Game 3 - New York Islanders vs New York Rangers - Radio Broadcast / On April 11, 1975, the atmosphere was charged at the playoff game between the New York Islanders and the New York Rangers, marking Game 3 of their series. This matchup came at a critical time for both teams in their first-ever playoff encounter, a battle reflective of the growing rivalry. The Islanders, only in their third season and experiencing their first playoff run, were keen to establish themselves against the veteran Rangers team. The Rangers, with a robust lineup and seasoned playoff experience, were determined not to let the newer franchise overshadow them in what had become a closely contested series.
The game unfolded with intense action, as both teams displayed strong defensive and offensive plays. Key players from both sides were pivotal in driving the game's pace, with the Rangers trying to exploit their experience and the Islanders leveraging their youthful energy and growing fan support. This game was not just a battle on the ice; it was a fight for supremacy in New York, giving fans a thrilling display of hockey and setting the tone for what would become one of the great rivalries in the NHL.
On April 8, 1975, the New York Islanders faced off against the New York Rangers...
NHL Playoffs G1 - New York Islanders vs New York Rangers - Radio Broadcast / On April 8, 1975, the New York Islanders faced off against the New York Rangers in the first game of their NHL playoff series, marking a significant moment in the burgeoning rivalry between the two teams. The game, broadcasted on radio, captured the intense atmosphere of playoff hockey as both teams battled fiercely on the ice. The 1974-75 season had seen the Islanders make a dramatic improvement in their performance, making this playoff series particularly notable as it underscored their rise from expansion team struggles to becoming a competitive force in the league. The game itself was characterized by strategic play, physical challenges, and crucial saves, reflecting the high stakes for both teams in this local derby.
This particular matchup not only highlighted the skills of key players from both sides but also set the tone for what would become a historic series in the annals of the NHL. The tension and rivalry that defined this game would carry through the entire series, drawing fans and spectators into a compelling narrative of competition and regional pride. The game served not only as a test of skill and strategy but also as a showcase of the growing intensity and quality of hockey in the 1970s.
Aurele Joliat is interviewed by Leo Cloutier heard in this 1972 radio broadcast.
Aurele Emile 'Little...
Aurele Joliat, Montreal Canadiens interviewed by Leo Cloutier 1972 / Aurele Joliat is interviewed by Leo Cloutier heard in this 1972 radio broadcast.
Aurele Emile 'Little Giant' Joliat (born in Ottawa on August 29, 1901 – died on June 2, 1986 in Ottawa) was a Canadian professional left winger who played 16 seasons in the National Hockey League for the Montreal Canadiens.
Harry Sinden, former Boston Bruins Coach is interviewed by Leo Cloutier at The Boston Garden...
Harry Sinden former Boston Bruins Coach interviewed by Leo Cloutier - 1972 / Harry Sinden, former Boston Bruins Coach is interviewed by Leo Cloutier at The Boston Garden in a classic radio broadcast from 1972
140 pages
Mar 1, 2009
Bauer was the first hockey company to begin producing hockey skates in which the blade was permanently secured to the...
/ Bauer was the first hockey company to begin producing hockey skates in which the blade was permanently secured to the boot. The boot and blade were made by Bauer. In years following, Bauer Skate's top line was originally marketed under the trade name "Bauer Supreme". The company was further popularized by the prominence of Bobby Bauer, a family member through marriage, as a Bauer married a Bauer, and Hockey Hall of Fame member who starred for the Boston Bruins in the 30s and 40s.
In the 1960s & 70's, the company paid superstar Bobby Hull to endorse their skates. As well superstars Bobby Clarke and Bernie Parent of the Flyers, Guy Lafleur of the Canadiens and Walter Tkaczuk and Brad Park of the Rangers were signed to endorsement contracts by Pro Department Manager Bill Vanderburg. These moves, and the introduction soon after of the TUUK chassis, ushered in a new era for the company.
Then in the early 1970s, Jim Roberts, also of the Canadiens, began wearing the TUUK blade. High-profile teammates Guy Lafleur, Steve Shutt and Jacques Lemaire soon followed. By 1995, the various Canstar skate brands (Micron, Bauer, etc.) had a 70% NHL market share while their TUUK and ICM holders combined for a 95% share. (Note: Bauer no longer offers the ICM holder on player skates, although it is still offered with goalie skates, in addition to the TUUK cowling.)
In 1994, Bauer began producing the perforated TUUK chassis, which is the piece of equipment that connects the steel blade to the actual boot of the skate. This allowed skates to be made lighter, as well as more durable.
I sincerely appreciate the research work, and the information being shared. It is important and interesting history.