HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Is length of career a legitimate obstacle when it comes to the the HoF?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-03-2012, 05:17 PM
  #26
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatname View Post
To those saying Ovechkin and Thomas should get in, are you saying they will if they retired today, or are you assuming they'll be in after another few years of decent performance?
Ovechkin would have likely been in if he retired the instant he accepted his second straight Hart Trophy. He would have definitely been in the instant he accepted his third straight Lindsay trophy.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 05:43 PM
  #27
Dissonance
Registered User
 
Dissonance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cabbage Patch
Posts: 1,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
But to be fair, they DID those seasons. They weren't sititng on their butts at home on Twitter crying about Gary Bettman and the owners either. You'd be giving them too much credit for something they MAY have accomplished and in the case of those above HHOFers you mentioned I agree that even some of them have that one great season in their career that pushed them over the top but at least they showed they could do it instead of having us guess.
I don't know, Hall of Fame inductees don't always work like this. There are always going to be marginal cases.

For example: We know perfectly well how good Elias was, he's on the cusp of the HOF, and if he had 1,000 points, he probably gets in, since the induction committee loves milestones like that. But he'll probably fall just short of 1,000 points. So that's where the what-ifs come in. (And it's hardly a stretch to think that Elias would have another 106 points without the two lockouts, either.)

Like I said, the HOF committee might end up agreeing with your stance. Fair enough. But that could end up leaving a bunch of players out of the Hall who would've made it in without the lockouts.

Dissonance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 01:16 AM
  #28
TAnnala
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 8,738
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatname View Post
To those saying Ovechkin and Thomas should get in, are you saying they will if they retired today, or are you assuming they'll be in after another few years of decent performance?
I am saying that Ovechkin is getting in if he retires today. I have no doubt about it.

Thomas is harder case. I kind of have a feeling that he should be in, but not sure if it'll happen.

TAnnala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 08:20 AM
  #29
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Comes down to why longevity is lacking.

Hockey related injuries or death that shorten a career will see players get inducted - Gardiner, Orr, Neely, Bure just a short list.

Longevity that is lacking due to performance is another issue. Tim Thomas has to overcome questions about why he couldn't make the NHL earlier. Others that start well then slowdown have to answer the why question if injury is not a factor.
This is the most important factor IMO when considering guys with shortened careers.

Thomas is going to be judged only on his NHL career as well, his exploits in Europe don't mean very much, especially given that most players in those countries aren't the cream of the crop for their host countries anymore.

To put it bluntly Thomas has some icing but his cake is really weak and the lockout isn't helping his case.

He has about zero chance of getting into the Hall IMO unless he comes back and wins another 2 plus major trophies and has another 2 seasons close to 11 which seems extremely unlikely at this point .

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 08:25 AM
  #30
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
But to be fair, they DID those seasons. They weren't sititng on their butts at home on Twitter crying about Gary Bettman and the owners either. You'd be giving them too much credit for something they MAY have accomplished and in the case of those above HHOFers you mentioned I agree that even some of them have that one great season in their career that pushed them over the top but at least they showed they could do it instead of having us guess.
I think one has to keep things in context, the players have been locked out.

There has to be some consideration given to them in those circumstances, just like WW2.

How much I'm not sure but to give no credit would be ridiculous IMO.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 08:50 AM
  #31
TAnnala
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 8,738
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
This is the most important factor IMO when considering guys with shortened careers.

Thomas is going to be judged only on his NHL career as well, his exploits in Europe don't mean very much, especially given that most players in those countries aren't the cream of the crop for their host countries anymore.

To put it bluntly Thomas has some icing but his cake is really weak and the lockout isn't helping his case.

He has about zero chance of getting into the Hall IMO unless he comes back and wins another 2 plus major trophies and has another 2 seasons close to 11 which seems extremely unlikely at this point .
Does he really need 4 Vezina's and a Conn Smythe to secure his spot in the hall? In minimum?

I know he has short career but talking about 2x Vezina + Conn Smythe winner he is already a tough choice to leave out. 4x Vezina and Conn Smythe would make him a legend among Hall of Famers.

At this point Thomas is very debatable and hard to see how it is going to end up. But 5+ major awards is just too much to expect from anyone.

TAnnala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 09:43 AM
  #32
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 50
If you believe that career value or a similar measure is at least a substantial part of deciding whether to induct a player, then missing season(s) due to lockout certainly can and probably will affect some players' chances.

I don't think the players should be penalized for "participating" in the decision not to have an NHL season. To me, actually playing hockey and a collective decision to negotiate for better terms should be separated. I think players should receive credit for their most likely production during the lost season(s). The primary factors I would consider are:

1. The player's age and health
2. His NHL production in the seasons before and after the lockout(s)
3. The portion of season(s) he played in foreign league(s), the quality of those league(s), and his production in those league(s).

As far as specific players:

Thornton- He's basically a lock, despite some relatively mediocre playoffs. He just needs another ~3 decent seasons to make induction a cinch.

St. Louis- He has enough hardware and a long stretch of being an excellent player, despite being a late bloomer. Like Thornton, another ~3 decent seasons make him a cinch IMO.

Thomas- I disagree that there's no cake, it's just a small, dense cake. He doesn't necessarily need more hardware IMO, but another 2-3 solid seasons would make it a lot easier for him to be inducted. I believe the only other recent goalie to win a Vezina and start for a Cup-winner, yet not be inducted, is Barrasso.

Kiprusoff- Without the lockouts, he would probably end up a borderline candidate in CuJo territory. With the lockouts, his chances seem a lot slimmer.

Alfredsson- He should and I think he will be inducted.

Datsyuk/Elias/Hossa- These are the types of players who may end up as more borderline candidates, and whose records are hurt significantly by missing two lockout seasons. Going by past standards, they should all be inducted, but that doesn't mean they will be.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 10:01 AM
  #33
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,983
vCash: 500
It has to hurt Thomas - for voters that are paying attention - that in between great seasons he's lost his job and a rookie with no experience came in also led the league in everything...and once again last season, Rask outdid him statistically...

Luckily, before Thomas is eligible for the HHOF, we'll probably see Rask be among the league leaders in goalie stats another few times playing behind Chara and Julien and then - I guess - start the Rask for HHOF bandwagon...

There's only one set of meaningful circumstances where he's thrived in his career. Behind Julien and Chara. And even within those ideal circumstances, he's still been inconsistent season-to-season. Before Chara, he was considered one of the league's worst.

Cute story and all...but it's just a journeyman goalie that happened to find a perfect situation...we'll see that and have been seeing that more and more as coaching takes over the game...since the lockout, we've seen Roloson all of a sudden get clutch? vs. rookie Ward. Osgood has been to two Finals...Fleury too...Giguere vs. Emery...Niemi vs. Leighton (a career minor leaguer)...now look at the goalies from 2004 and back that went to the Finals...

It's a coaches' game now. Goalies are just pawns in it. Some are better than others sure, but most of goaltending now is just about consistency (which Thomas is far from). That, or, journeyman goalie Brian Elliott just had one of the best season we've ever seen...but let's pick one and stick with it...don't create a narrative based on stats and run with it...

Mike Farkas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 10:59 AM
  #34
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,735
vCash: 500
Coaches Game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
It has to hurt Thomas - for voters that are paying attention - that in between great seasons he's lost his job and a rookie with no experience came in also led the league in everything...and once again last season, Rask outdid him statistically...

Luckily, before Thomas is eligible for the HHOF, we'll probably see Rask be among the league leaders in goalie stats another few times playing behind Chara and Julien and then - I guess - start the Rask for HHOF bandwagon...

There's only one set of meaningful circumstances where he's thrived in his career. Behind Julien and Chara. And even within those ideal circumstances, he's still been inconsistent season-to-season. Before Chara, he was considered one of the league's worst.

Cute story and all...but it's just a journeyman goalie that happened to find a perfect situation...we'll see that and have been seeing that more and more as coaching takes over the game...since the lockout, we've seen Roloson all of a sudden get clutch? vs. rookie Ward. Osgood has been to two Finals...Fleury too...Giguere vs. Emery...Niemi vs. Leighton (a career minor leaguer)...now look at the goalies from 2004 and back that went to the Finals...

It's a coaches' game now. Goalies are just pawns in it. Some are better than others sure, but most of goaltending now is just about consistency (which Thomas is far from). That, or, journeyman goalie Brian Elliott just had one of the best season we've ever seen...but let's pick one and stick with it...don't create a narrative based on stats and run with it...
As far as goalies are concerned it has been a coaches game since the two goalie system became part of the NHL.

Since the 1994-95 partial NHL season the impact of video use to coach goalies and the resulting micro management of playing time has reduced the need for goalies to bring a complete game to the rink.

Leighton being a prime example. Inserted into a defensive system and protected from certain styles of play he did manage to reach the SC Finals with the Flyers but eventually he was exposed.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 04:20 PM
  #35
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Disagree. The HHOF quite obviously gives players "what if" credit for World War 2. See Bobby Bauer, Woody Dumart, and your favorite Edgar Laprade for 3 examples off the top of my head.
Laprade is an awful selection even if he had played during the War. Dumart and Bauer aren't strong selections either. Dumart is one of the worst playoff performers of all-time in comparison to his regular seasons. That "Kraut" line peaked pretty high with Schmidt though and while Dumart and Bauer were the weaker two players on that line I think that puts them over the top in the HHOF's eyes. Still, they aren't strong selections, and Laprade is one who should NOT be in there. Honestly, do we need more marginal selections in the HHOF just because a few players that may have had better career numbers missed playing time? All of those names I mentioned (Alfie, Elias, Hossa, St. Louis, Naslund) may not be good enough anyway (although St. Louis has peaked the highest for sure and has the best case). Is the HHOF a worse place without these players?

Now on the other hand, Iginla, Thornton, maybe even Kovalchuk have missed a ton of time too. All three missed a prime year and Kovalchuk is missing another prime year. That being said they all appear to be future HHOFers regardless of missed time. Kovalchuk has a ways to go, but his goal totals and his recent Cup final appearance are helping. Or how about Chara? Or even Shea Weber? Do these guys need charity to make the HHOF? Don't think so, and they will be part of this generations inductees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissonance View Post
I don't know, Hall of Fame inductees don't always work like this. There are always going to be marginal cases.

For example: We know perfectly well how good Elias was, he's on the cusp of the HOF, and if he had 1,000 points, he probably gets in, since the induction committee loves milestones like that. But he'll probably fall just short of 1,000 points. So that's where the what-ifs come in. (And it's hardly a stretch to think that Elias would have another 106 points without the two lockouts, either.)

Like I said, the HOF committee might end up agreeing with your stance. Fair enough. But that could end up leaving a bunch of players out of the Hall who would've made it in without the lockouts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I think one has to keep things in context, the players have been locked out.

There has to be some consideration given to them in those circumstances, just like WW2.

How much I'm not sure but to give no credit would be ridiculous IMO.
The players are as much to blame for the lockout as the owners. Look at the inductees in 2012. All of them missed time - some missed substantial time - but very few argue against them being in there. Sundin missed a season after he was a 2nd team all-star and Sakic was a first team all-star. They also have a half season to their credit. Sakic would have had another 100 point year. A true HHOFer is one who can overcome lost time

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 03:14 AM
  #36
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Thomas- I disagree that there's no cake, it's just a small, dense cake. He doesn't necessarily need more hardware IMO, but another 2-3 solid seasons would make it a lot easier for him to be inducted.
Agreed. The issue is not the lack of hardware, the issue is the lack of good seasons. Thomas has 2 excellent seasons and that's it. 5 seasons of mediocrity + 2 seasons of excellence = Hall of Fame? I'm not a "career guy", but that doesn't seem right. Thomas was considered among the best in the world for only 16 months in his whole career, how many goalies with such a short prime/peak are in the HOF?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Datsyuk/Elias/Hossa- These are the types of players who may end up as more borderline candidates, and whose records are hurt significantly by missing two lockout seasons. Going by past standards, they should all be inducted, but that doesn't mean they will be.
Talking of what should be, though not necessarily of what is: performance during the lockout should be taken into consideration. Datsyuk played for Dinamo Moscow in 2004-05 when they won the Russian championship and he was honored as MVP of the regular season as well as MVP of the playoffs. So he basically led Dinamo to a championship in a league that was stacked with more than 70 NHLers plus a lot of good domestic players (including Alexander Ovechkin, just one year away from his impressive NHL debut). I think he deserves some credit for that.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 10:45 AM
  #37
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Talking of what should be, though not necessarily of what is: performance during the lockout should be taken into consideration. Datsyuk played for Dinamo Moscow in 2004-05 when they won the Russian championship and he was honored as MVP of the regular season as well as MVP of the playoffs. So he basically led Dinamo to a championship in a league that was stacked with more than 70 NHLers plus a lot of good domestic players (including Alexander Ovechkin, just one year away from his impressive NHL debut). I think he deserves some credit for that.
I think there should be a realistic credit of what "probably would have been" based in large part on "what was."

In Datsyuk's case, he was 26, healthy, ~PPG player around the time of the lockout (less before, more after), and was productive for most (~80%) of a full season in the highest quality league available. So I would agree he deserves full credit for a very good NHL season (65 games at ~PPG with excellent defense).

Was Datsyuk really voted MVP of RSL in 2005? I'm surprised, since he played 47/60 games.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 09:57 PM
  #38
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ghana Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
It has to hurt Thomas - for voters that are paying attention - that in between great seasons he's lost his job and a rookie with no experience came in also led the league in everything...and once again last season, Rask outdid him statistically...

Luckily, before Thomas is eligible for the HHOF, we'll probably see Rask be among the league leaders in goalie stats another few times playing behind Chara and Julien and then - I guess - start the Rask for HHOF bandwagon...

There's only one set of meaningful circumstances where he's thrived in his career. Behind Julien and Chara. And even within those ideal circumstances, he's still been inconsistent season-to-season. Before Chara, he was considered one of the league's worst.

Cute story and all...but it's just a journeyman goalie that happened to find a perfect situation...we'll see that and have been seeing that more and more as coaching takes over the game...since the lockout, we've seen Roloson all of a sudden get clutch? vs. rookie Ward. Osgood has been to two Finals...Fleury too...Giguere vs. Emery...Niemi vs. Leighton (a career minor leaguer)...now look at the goalies from 2004 and back that went to the Finals...

It's a coaches' game now. Goalies are just pawns in it. Some are better than others sure, but most of goaltending now is just about consistency (which Thomas is far from). That, or, journeyman goalie Brian Elliott just had one of the best season we've ever seen...but let's pick one and stick with it...don't create a narrative based on stats and run with it...
Good post. Just came to post the bolded.

Thomas for HOF is laughable. The guy basically has two great seasons, and a couple other decent ones playing behind the best defensive team in the league. Credit to Thomas for seizing the opportunity and being a key piece in Boston winning the Cup in 2011, but that's basically what he'd be getting elected for. If that's all it takes, we may as well ask the same question about Cam Ward if he retired today.

If Patrick Roy had retired in the fall of 1989, would he have made the HOF?

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-06-2012, 11:47 AM
  #39
Dissonance
Registered User
 
Dissonance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cabbage Patch
Posts: 1,058
vCash: 500
Agreed that Thomas is a weird case. Though it seems like just about every goalie in the 2000s is a weird case.

Apart from Brodeur, I don't think there’s a single clear-cut HOF-worthy goalie from the past decade. Luongo is a no unless he overcomes his playoff reputation. Kiprusoff has flaws. Thomas has flaws. Giguere has flaws. Miller has flaws. Osgood has flaws. Maybe Lundqvist is on track, but who knows? He could fall off too.

Is there any other decade in history that has had only one HOF goalie?

And if so, that raises a few questions: Was this just a fluke? Or is Mike Farkas right that we’ve entered a new era where coaches and teams are more important than goalies, which means that we won’t see very many more HOF goalies unless they're either Hasek-level exceptional or happen to find themselves in a particularly beneficial situation, ala Brodeur in New Jersey?

Dissonance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-06-2012, 05:30 PM
  #40
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
Good post. Just came to post the bolded.

Thomas for HOF is laughable. The guy basically has two great seasons, and a couple other decent ones playing behind the best defensive team in the league. Credit to Thomas for seizing the opportunity and being a key piece in Boston winning the Cup in 2011, but that's basically what he'd be getting elected for. If that's all it takes, we may as well ask the same question about Cam Ward if he retired today.

If Patrick Roy had retired in the fall of 1989, would he have made the HOF?
I think this is why the 3 year waiting period is important. We'll need to sit back and observe Thomas' career. Let it simmer a bit. If you asked me when the Bruins won the Cup in 2011 if he is a future HHOFer I would have said he was on the right track. But then a Game 7 overtime loss in 2012, nothing more than an above average season in 2012 has made me pause. We'll see how we envision him in later years if he never plays again. Hey, he could win another Vezina. Three would be too much too ignore. Let's wait and see. I don't think Roy is a HHOFer if he retired in 1989 however. But you might be shortchanging Thomas a bit. He was spectacular in 2010-'11. Could have easily won the Hart trophy. Was so much more important than any other Bruin in the 2011 playoffs that it wasn't even funny. He won with very acrobatic goaltending that I wish we would see more, so I've never bought this whole "he was on a good defense" theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissonance View Post
Agreed that Thomas is a weird case. Though it seems like just about every goalie in the 2000s is a weird case.

Apart from Brodeur, I don't think there’s a single clear-cut HOF-worthy goalie from the past decade. Luongo is a no unless he overcomes his playoff reputation. Kiprusoff has flaws. Thomas has flaws. Giguere has flaws. Miller has flaws. Osgood has flaws. Maybe Lundqvist is on track, but who knows? He could fall off too.

Is there any other decade in history that has had only one HOF goalie?

And if so, that raises a few questions: Was this just a fluke? Or is Mike Farkas right that we’ve entered a new era where coaches and teams are more important than goalies, which means that we won’t see very many more HOF goalies unless they're either Hasek-level exceptional or happen to find themselves in a particularly beneficial situation, ala Brodeur in New Jersey?
I think it might be more of a cycle. In the 1980s it was the same case. Think of the goalies who made their mark in the 1980s. How many are in the HHOF? Smith, Fuhr and to a much lesser extent Roy. Vernon and Barrasso have their moments in that decade but they aren't in yet. Neither is Liut, and he may never be. The 1970s had enough good ones and we are still waiting for Rogie Vachon to get in there which tells you something. The 1990s are the opposite of the 1980s and post 2000. We've got Roy, Brodeur, Belfour, Hasek. To a lesser extent there's Richter, Joseph, Osgood, etc. Lots of talent there.

So I wouldn't worry too much. These things go in cycles. And goalies are NOT inducted very often to begin with. Since 1989 when Tretiak was inducted we've seen Smith, Fuhr, Roy and Belfour. That's it.

In all honesty, I know people knock on Luongo but the guy has got to be getting awfully close to a HHOFer even as a goalie with those lofty standards. I mean, two Hart worthy seasons (2004, 2007), two 2nd team all-stars, one trip to the final in 2011 and one game away from a probable Smythe. An Olympic Gold in 2010 and helping with the World Cup win in 2004. Sure he had some shaky goaltending in international play (which I have personally criticized) but he still won. All of that plus the fact that he's been in the league since 1999 and has a ton of wins/shutouts sort of ties into the fact that he has some good longevity. Honestly, the guy has his critics but he's got more hockey in him.

I am not sure what to make of Lundqvist. Very good results in with the Vezina but so far a substandard postseason resume. Same with Miller. Kipper is a no for me, and Ward has got to get his team into the postseason more than twice.

I guess that leaves Fleury. Already won a Cup, is only 28, been to another Cup final, was the 3rd stringer on the Olympic team. Finished as high as 9th in Hart voting. He's had some good years and there have been times in the postseason where he's been stellar (was the best Penguin behind Malkin and Crosby in 2009). The knock on him is that he is very much like Mike Vernon. When the Pens win he is a big part of it. When they lose (and they've lost badly) he has been a huge cause - if not the biggest cause - of it. He has some huge "Sportscenter moments" like saving Lidstrom's shot in the waning seconds in 2009, but he's also got that World Junior fiasco in 2004. I don't know how much of that could factor in, but if he wants people to forget his bluffs, he needs more memorable playoff runs.

But who knows, we could be looking at a normal amount of HHOF goalies in the future. Or not. We'll see, but it goes in cycles.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-06-2012, 05:47 PM
  #41
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ghana Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I think this is why the 3 year waiting period is important. We'll need to sit back and observe Thomas' career. Let it simmer a bit. If you asked me when the Bruins won the Cup in 2011 if he is a future HHOFer I would have said he was on the right track. But then a Game 7 overtime loss in 2012, nothing more than an above average season in 2012 has made me pause. We'll see how we envision him in later years if he never plays again. Hey, he could win another Vezina. Three would be too much too ignore. Let's wait and see. I don't think Roy is a HHOFer if he retired in 1989 however. But you might be shortchanging Thomas a bit. He was spectacular in 2010-'11. Could have easily won the Hart trophy. Was so much more important than any other Bruin in the 2011 playoffs that it wasn't even funny. He won with very acrobatic goaltending that I wish we would see more, so I've never bought this whole "he was on a good defense" theory.
See, I disagree with this. Thomas was a worthy Smythe winner, but I wouldn't have batted an eye if Chara or Krejci took home the trophy either. I don't think Thomas locked up the trophy until he pitched a shutout in Game 7. He had his great moments, but also some pretty forgettable ones throughout the spring as well. This wasn't exactly the Roy '93/Giguere '03 legendary type of run that it has come to be remembered as.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-06-2012, 08:04 PM
  #42
jack mullet
@jackmullethockey
 
jack mullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Baxter, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 481
vCash: 500
length of career and great stats are needed for goalies more so than skaters.

skaters need great stats, have worn the right uniform, and be patient for a "weak" class

jack mullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-06-2012, 08:08 PM
  #43
jack mullet
@jackmullethockey
 
jack mullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Baxter, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
In all honesty, I know people knock on Luongo but the guy has got to be getting awfully close to a HHOFer even as a goalie with those lofty standards. I mean, two Hart worthy seasons (2004, 2007), two 2nd team all-stars, one trip to the final in 2011 and one game away from a probable Smythe. An Olympic Gold in 2010 and helping with the World Cup win in 2004. Sure he had some shaky goaltending in international play (which I have personally criticized) but he still won. All of that plus the fact that he's been in the league since 1999 and has a ton of wins/shutouts sort of ties into the fact that he has some good longevity. Honestly, the guy has his critics but he's got more hockey in him.

I am not sure what to make of Lundqvist. Very good results in with the Vezina but so far a substandard postseason resume. Same with Miller. Kipper is a no for me, and Ward has got to get his team into the postseason more than twice.

I guess that leaves Fleury. Already won a Cup, is only 28, been to another Cup final, was the 3rd stringer on the Olympic team. Finished as high as 9th in Hart voting. He's had some good years and there have been times in the postseason where he's been stellar (was the best Penguin behind Malkin and Crosby in 2009). The knock on him is that he is very much like Mike Vernon. When the Pens win he is a big part of it. When they lose (and they've lost badly) he has been a huge cause - if not the biggest cause - of it. He has some huge "Sportscenter moments" like saving Lidstrom's shot in the waning seconds in 2009, but he's also got that World Junior fiasco in 2004. I don't know how much of that could factor in, but if he wants people to forget his bluffs, he needs more memorable playoff runs.

But who knows, we could be looking at a normal amount of HHOF goalies in the future. Or not. We'll see, but it goes in cycles.
COUGH COUGH COUGH j. quick COUGH COUGH COUGH

jack mullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-06-2012, 09:02 PM
  #44
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack mullet View Post
COUGH COUGH COUGH j. quick COUGH COUGH COUGH
Sorry, but long, long ways to go for Quick. If there are people that would be indifferent with Luongo getting in if he retired tomorrow then I think a goalie who has played a mere 4 seasons needs a bit more time too. Quick needs more time to even start being considered in the Lundqvist category.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
See, I disagree with this. Thomas was a worthy Smythe winner, but I wouldn't have batted an eye if Chara or Krejci took home the trophy either. I don't think Thomas locked up the trophy until he pitched a shutout in Game 7. He had his great moments, but also some pretty forgettable ones throughout the spring as well. This wasn't exactly the Roy '93/Giguere '03 legendary type of run that it has come to be remembered as.
It would have been a big shock. Krejci winning the Smythe would have been like Langenbrunner winning it in 2003. They both led the NHL in playoff points and it ends there. Neither were even close to Smythe candidates. Chara? Played a key role, but Thomas was the man for Boston. Made some pivotal saves and didn't have a bad game in the final.

I distinctly remember the idea being that if the Canucks won Game 7 it would be Luongo, not either of the Sedins or Kesler but a clear win for Luongo. If Boston won it was Thomas no ifs ands or buts. If Vancouver won and Thomas still had a great game, it still could be Thomas. There was never any mention of anyone else but those two for the Smythe.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-06-2012, 11:34 PM
  #45
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Sorry, but long, long ways to go for Quick. If there are people that would be indifferent with Luongo getting in if he retired tomorrow then I think a goalie who has played a mere 4 seasons needs a bit more time too. Quick needs more time to even start being considered in the Lundqvist category.



It would have been a big shock. Krejci winning the Smythe would have been like Langenbrunner winning it in 2003. They both led the NHL in playoff points and it ends there. Neither were even close to Smythe candidates. Chara? Played a key role, but Thomas was the man for Boston. Made some pivotal saves and didn't have a bad game in the final.

I distinctly remember the idea being that if the Canucks won Game 7 it would be Luongo, not either of the Sedins or Kesler but a clear win for Luongo. If Boston won it was Thomas no ifs ands or buts. If Vancouver won and Thomas still had a great game, it still could be Thomas. There was never any mention of anyone else but those two for the Smythe.
by the end of game six, that trophy is thomas' no matter what happens in game seen, unless he melts down in luongo-esque fashion. and even if that happened, he probably still has a 50/50 shot.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-06-2012, 11:35 PM
  #46
Evincar
Your Final Judgement
 
Evincar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
See, I disagree with this. Thomas was a worthy Smythe winner, but I wouldn't have batted an eye if Chara or Krejci took home the trophy either. I don't think Thomas locked up the trophy until he pitched a shutout in Game 7. He had his great moments, but also some pretty forgettable ones throughout the spring as well. This wasn't exactly the Roy '93/Giguere '03 legendary type of run that it has come to be remembered as.
Thomas had the Smythe locked up after his game 6 win. He had already broken Kirk McLean's playoff save record. Luongo would have been the best choice for Vancouver but thats not really saying much. His run doesnt seem that legendary because it we have seen great goalie runs too often (Kipprusoff, Roloson, Halak etc.) Over time Thomas's 2011 playoffs will be appreciated more.

Evincar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 02:41 AM
  #47
TAnnala
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 8,738
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post

I distinctly remember the idea being that if the Canucks won Game 7 it would be Luongo, not either of the Sedins or Kesler but a clear win for Luongo. If Boston won it was Thomas no ifs ands or buts. If Vancouver won and Thomas still had a great game, it still could be Thomas. There was never any mention of anyone else but those two for the Smythe.
I remember that it was pretty widely accepted that Thomas would take the Smythe after game 6. No matter what the outcome would be. At least he was one of the strongest candidates if Bruins would have lost. They won and it was pretty unanimous among fans that Thomas will take the Smythe.

TAnnala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 07:39 AM
  #48
Darth Joker
Registered User
 
Darth Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissonance View Post
Agreed that Thomas is a weird case. Though it seems like just about every goalie in the 2000s is a weird case.

Apart from Brodeur, I don't think there’s a single clear-cut HOF-worthy goalie from the past decade. Luongo is a no unless he overcomes his playoff reputation. Kiprusoff has flaws. Thomas has flaws. Giguere has flaws. Miller has flaws. Osgood has flaws. Maybe Lundqvist is on track, but who knows? He could fall off too.

Is there any other decade in history that has had only one HOF goalie?

And if so, that raises a few questions: Was this just a fluke? Or is Mike Farkas right that we’ve entered a new era where coaches and teams are more important than goalies, which means that we won’t see very many more HOF goalies unless they're either Hasek-level exceptional or happen to find themselves in a particularly beneficial situation, ala Brodeur in New Jersey?
I think that goalies, overall, are better today than they ever were before, but that's almost entirely a reflection on depth of quality goalies.

The elite of today (Quick, King Henry, Thomas, Luongo, etc...) aren't any better than the elite of the 90s (Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, Belfour, etc...). However, I'd say that your 20th through 100th best goalies in the world of today are well ahead of your 20th through 100th best goalies of the 90s. Then compare your average No. 1 goalie stats of today with your average No. 1 goalie stats of the 90s.

Taking this altogether, and there's just not the same room for error now as there used to be. One subpar year for a No. 1 goalie - Even an elite goalie - Can be enough to see a backup take that No. 1 job away.

We see this all over the league - Halak temporarily displaces Price, Rask temporarily displaces Thomas, Giguere struggles some and is soon replaced by Hiller, Schneider takes major playoff games away from Luongo and looks to be forcing Luongo out.

You had the odd situation like this in past eras (like Hackett forcing Belfour out of Chicago), but they were rare. Today, you see this sort of "Backup knocks off the team's established No. 1" with some degree of regularity. And not all of these No. 1 guys get traded in a timely fashion, due to the salary cap and the fact that it's now a buyer's market for goalies. So even some elite goalies spend a fair amount of time just riding the pine, which obviously hurts them massively in comparison to the Roys and Haseks and Belfours of the past.


Yeah, I do think it's going to be harder for goalies of this era to make the HoF than it was for goalies of past era.


Last edited by Darth Joker: 12-07-2012 at 07:44 AM.
Darth Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 11:21 AM
  #49
iamjs
Unregistered User
 
iamjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 8,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Tommy Anderson won the Hart as well and isn't in. There are a couple other than Lindros but it is few and far between. St. Louis is another player that some might think shouldn't get in and if they never play hockey again he'll be an interesting case. Honestly, the guy is going to be 38 in 2013, this lockout like the last one could be what keeps him from getting in.

But anyway, I think it is a mixed bag when it comes to the HHOF standards. I don't think anyone has an issue with Ron Francis in there. He gets in because of his longevity coupled with the Cups and some play that was pretty good in the 1990s, not to mention career numbers and playing for over 20 years.

Look, I think both cases are good. If a guy like Francis, or even Mike Gartner, can play in the best league in the world and maintain a level of play for that long then it says something about them. That's difficult especially with the aging process and the normal drop in play in your 30s. But to be a superstar for as long as Ovechkin was is pretty special as well. He had a 65 goal season, he was very much the face of the NHL alongside Crosby for a long time and he scored those goals with such dominance as well almost being unstoppable at times. Ovechkin arguably has the best season post lockout of anybody in 2008. The impact he has made on the NHL is worth an induction.

As for Thomas if he never plays again he'll have a career that'll grate on us for a while. I mean, a late bloomer, two Vezinas, the season in between he loses his starting job and then a Cup and a Conn Smythe performance that was amazing. He has played only 7 seasons and is already 38. He only has 196 wins. His performance was not a fluke because he was still pretty good last year. Even just 2-3 years more of padding his stats would get him in on a Bernie Parent type of induction (questionable longevity but gaudy play in his prime). I don't know, goalies are judged harshly. There are goalies with a better career than him not in right now.
Does his international career (I guess you can call playing in Europe that) help his cause? He did win several SM-Liiga awards in 97-98, including Best Goaltender, Best Player Of The Regular Season, and the Kanada-malja, which is their equivalent of the Vezina, Hart, and Stanley Cup respectively.

iamjs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 04:27 PM
  #50
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
In all honesty, I know people knock on Luongo but the guy has got to be getting awfully close to a HHOFer even as a goalie with those lofty standards. I mean, two Hart worthy seasons (2004, 2007), two 2nd team all-stars, one trip to the final in 2011 and one game away from a probable Smythe. An Olympic Gold in 2010 and helping with the World Cup win in 2004. Sure he had some shaky goaltending in international play (which I have personally criticized) but he still won. All of that plus the fact that he's been in the league since 1999 and has a ton of wins/shutouts sort of ties into the fact that he has some good longevity. Honestly, the guy has his critics but he's got more hockey in him.

I am not sure what to make of Lundqvist. Very good results in with the Vezina but so far a substandard postseason resume. Same with Miller. Kipper is a no for me, and Ward has got to get his team into the postseason more than twice.
I think Kipper was hurt more by the lockouts than Luongo. The '05 season was between two seasons in which he A) led the NHL in SV% and GAA (albeit in 38 games) and went to game 7 of SCF in '04 and B) won the Vezina. He likely missed a truly elite season there. He's still a good goalie, although his team is weaker now. Luongo was a 2nd team AS and 3rd in SV% in '04 for a team which was unlikely to make the playoffs. He's still a good goalie, but his situation for next season is unknown. Given that, I'm not sure why you think Luongo is borderline and Kipper a definite no:

Luongo: 339-283-83, .919 SV%, 2.52 GAA, 60 SO (PO: 32-29, .916, 2.53, 5 SO)

Kipper: 311-189-69, .914, 2.45, 44 SO (PO: 25-28, .921, 2.32, 6 SO)

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:22 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.