HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

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
12-07-2012, 04:39 PM
  #51
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamjs View Post
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.
No, that won't help him. They'll all point to him being in his early 30s as the time he could finally crack an NHL roster. Hey Johnny Bower was at least as old as Tim by the time he finally stayed around but he hung around long enough in his old age to accomplish those things. Thomas will have to go the way of Bower to get into the HHOF.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
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, .919 SV%, 2.52 GAA, 8.5% of decisions were shutouts (PO: 32-29, .916, 2.53, 5 SO)

Kipper: 311-189, .914, 2.45, 7.6% shootouts (PO: 25-28, .921, 2.32, 6 SO)
Not enough elite seasons I guess you could say for Kipper.
Vezina voting:
Luongo - 2, 3, 3, 4, 7, 7, 10
Kipper - 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 8

Luongo slightly beats him there, but he's also got a couple other things going for him. He's younger, he's done better internationally and he's peaked higher finishing 2nd to Crosby for the Hart. Kipper doesn't appear like he'll have a lot left in the tank, while I think Luongo can add to his resume. Kipper right now is no better all-time than Mike Liut, which is fine, but not HHOFer.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 06:03 PM
  #52
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Not enough elite seasons I guess you could say for Kipper.
Vezina voting:
Luongo - 2, 3, 3, 4, 7, 7, 10
Kipper - 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 8

Luongo slightly beats him there, but he's also got a couple other things going for him. He's younger, he's done better internationally and he's peaked higher finishing 2nd to Crosby for the Hart. Kipper doesn't appear like he'll have a lot left in the tank, while I think Luongo can add to his resume. Kipper right now is no better all-time than Mike Liut, which is fine, but not HHOFer.
I don't know Phil, that seems awfully close to me... especially since you didn't give Kipper credit for his 7th place finish lat season. So each has 4 top five and 7 top ten finishes in Vezina, with Kipper actually winning one. Kipper did so in fewer seasons played and probably missed higher quality season(s) than Luongo. How does this favor Luongo?

Sure, Luongo's younger, but it's not even certain when/where he will be playing next as a starter. Kipper had some years in Finland before the NHL, better AHL stats, and the likely quality of his missed seasons was greater IMO. He and Iginla were the reason Calgary came out of nowhere to play in game 7 of the SCF. Meanwhile, Luongo is viewed as a reason why the Canucks were a strong contender in multiple seasons, yet imploded in their SCF game 7 (the only time they were even remotely close to the Cup during that strong regular season run). Luongo has a .540 Win % while playing half of his career with a perpetual division winner, while Kipper has a .607 Win % for the hapless Flames.

You've taken the hard line against players who missed a full season (and going on two) due to circumstances outside their control, based on the principle that it's what a player has done, not what they could have or would have done (even if supported by their actual performance in years before/after and in foreign leagues/tourneys). Yet you are splitting hairs between what appear to be two very similar careers of once-elite goalies now in their mid 30s, based on what you think they will do, because one is 2.5 years younger? I think you're pretty far out on that limb, Phil, when you declare that Luongo is a borderline candidate that might deserve the benefit of the doubt, while Kipper is a definite "no."


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 12-07-2012 at 06:18 PM. Reason: realized Kipper finished 7th last year in Vezina
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 08:24 PM
  #53
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
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.
Oh it would have been a shock to most people, I agree. But most people only watched the final, or only bits and pieces of the first three rounds. I watched 24 out of 25 Bruins games in their entirety or close to it that spring. So I saw Thomas allowing the first shot of the game to go in multiple times, weak goals that turned momentum in games, and Tampa Bay nearly upsetting Boston due in large part to Thomas stinking the joint out in the three losses to them.

So in my eyes, Thomas was merely at the same level of importance as a Chara or Krejci when the whole playoff run is examined. The nature of being a goaltender is that you're going to have the single biggest effect on whether your team won or lost the game most of the time. If Thomas is going to get credit for the great performances, of which there were several, he should also face scrutiny for the bad ones, of which there were also several.

Quote:
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.
This is definitely true, and I disagreed with that line of thinking at the time as well as now.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 08:34 PM
  #54
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litework View Post
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.
If we've seen great goalie runs "too often", this just shows that Thomas' wasn't so legendary afterall. Kiprusoff didn't win the Smythe, and Roloson was not a lock even if he'd remained healthy and potentially won the Cup. Unless a team is an absolute juggernaut, they simply aren't going to reach the final without good goaltending. Thomas is in there with Vanbiesbrook '96, Hasek '99, Kiprusoff '04, Quick '12...great runs, but they fall short of "legendary", at least by my definition of the word.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 08:46 PM
  #55
iamjs
Unregistered User
 
iamjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 10,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
No, that won't help him. They'll all point to him being in his early 30s as the time he could finally crack an NHL roster. Hey Johnny Bower was at least as old as Tim by the time he finally stayed around but he hung around long enough in his old age to accomplish those things. Thomas will have to go the way of Bower to get into the HHOF.
and my next step was to mention Bower. You're reading my mind.

iamjs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 09:03 AM
  #56
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
Oh it would have been a shock to most people, I agree. But most people only watched the final, or only bits and pieces of the first three rounds. I watched 24 out of 25 Bruins games in their entirety or close to it that spring. So I saw Thomas allowing the first shot of the game to go in multiple times, weak goals that turned momentum in games, and Tampa Bay nearly upsetting Boston due in large part to Thomas stinking the joint out in the three losses to them.

So in my eyes, Thomas was merely at the same level of importance as a Chara or Krejci when the whole playoff run is examined. The nature of being a goaltender is that you're going to have the single biggest effect on whether your team won or lost the game most of the time. If Thomas is going to get credit for the great performances, of which there were several, he should also face scrutiny for the bad ones, of which there were also several.
He may have allowed the odd soft goal, but when push came to shove Thomas was brilliant. Even in the Montreal series, which wasn't his best, he made a critical save in overtime in Game 5 on a two-on-one that probably should have gone in. His acrobatic style was all over the place that spring. Even with Tampa he calms down and registered a Game 7 shutout. In the final he more or less cemented his Conn Smythe, I mean the guy didn't have a bad game in all 7 of them. In a way, he played much like Fuhr did in the 1987 Canada Cup. Fuhr let in a few shaky goals (even Thomas in Game 2 of the final in overtime let in a poor one) but when the chips were down you didn't want anyone else in net. Thomas was kind of like that in 2011 with the Bruins, I think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I don't know Phil, that seems awfully close to me... especially since you didn't give Kipper credit for his 7th place finish lat season. So each has 4 top five and 7 top ten finishes in Vezina, with Kipper actually winning one. Kipper did so in fewer seasons played and probably missed higher quality season(s) than Luongo. How does this favor Luongo?

Sure, Luongo's younger, but it's not even certain when/where he will be playing next as a starter. Kipper had some years in Finland before the NHL, better AHL stats, and the likely quality of his missed seasons was greater IMO. He and Iginla were the reason Calgary came out of nowhere to play in game 7 of the SCF. Meanwhile, Luongo is viewed as a reason why the Canucks were a strong contender in multiple seasons, yet imploded in their SCF game 7 (the only time they were even remotely close to the Cup during that strong regular season run). Luongo has a .540 Win % while playing half of his career with a perpetual division winner, while Kipper has a .607 Win % for the hapless Flames.

You've taken the hard line against players who missed a full season (and going on two) due to circumstances outside their control, based on the principle that it's what a player has done, not what they could have or would have done (even if supported by their actual performance in years before/after and in foreign leagues/tourneys). Yet you are splitting hairs between what appear to be two very similar careers of once-elite goalies now in their mid 30s, based on what you think they will do, because one is 2.5 years younger? I think you're pretty far out on that limb, Phil, when you declare that Luongo is a borderline candidate that might deserve the benefit of the doubt, while Kipper is a definite "no."
I am going on the assumption as well that Kipper doesn't have a lot left in the tank while Luongo I believe does. I am a critic of Luongo personally because I always felt that while he did win those big games for Canada (2004, 2010) he also let the other teams back in the game with weak goals. But, to be fair to the guy he still did win them. I think his high peak in 2007, his international career and his age give me reason to think he'll be in the HHOF when all is said and done (again, just a projection) while I just can't see Kipper doing much from here on in to cement his status. The HHOF is tough on goalies and by their standards is he a HHOFer today? I don't think he is because other than that 2004 Cup run he has never exited the first round. That's definitely a strike against him and I don't see Calgary changing this in the near future. Not to mention missing the playoffs since 2009.

Luongo has been out of the first round 4 times, going to the final in 2011 and has more hockey left in him I believe. That being said, you are right, their Vezina finishes are pretty similar.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 02:41 AM
  #57
Evincar
I have found the way
 
Evincar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,276
vCash: 500
I dont see how Luongo is close to being a HOFer. Too many holes in his resume. He's almost 34 and he's on the verge of being traded out of Vancouver probably to Florida or Toronto where he would most likely toil in mediocrity unless he gets more undeserved Vezina finishes like he did in 2010-2011.

Evincar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 03:17 AM
  #58
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Longevity shouldn't mean anything when selecting HOFers. Greatness and dominance should mean everything.

Having 5 years of true dominance like Ovechkin is far greater than being an accumulator like Mike Gartner. Two Harts gives Ovechkin his place in the hall.

Dominant seasons are what matter not just any kind of seasons. Why do people think that a player like Ovechkin needs to add 8 or 10 seasons of mediocrity to get into the HOF? Who cares about mediocrity - your dominant seasons determine your HOF worthiness.


Last edited by Ogopogo*: 12-09-2012 at 03:32 AM.
Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 08:56 AM
  #59
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Grace Personified
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litework View Post
I dont see how Luongo is close to being a HOFer. Too many holes in his resume. He's almost 34 and he's on the verge of being traded out of Vancouver probably to Florida or Toronto where he would most likely toil in mediocrity unless he gets more undeserved Vezina finishes like he did in 2010-2011.
In my opinion, Luongo was way better as a goaltender - forgetting stats and votes and all that noise - on the porous Panthers than he was/is in Vancouver. Some goalies seem to just thrive better under the assault. He challenged more, he looked better laterally...in Vancouver, he seems to play deeper in his net, sometimes looking scared to make a mistake...so glued to his technique that he has pushed his natural goalie instincts down...at least that's how I see it.

I think Luongo going back to a bad team is the best shot he has at getting to the Hall.

__________________
http://twitter.com/MichaelFarkasHF

YouTube Channel: The Two-Line Pass - Hockey news, knowledge, video breakdowns and more: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKAI...52Q577Q/videos

Latest installment:Ep. 4 - Brady Skjei Evaluation
Mike Farkas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 09:07 AM
  #60
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Grace Personified
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Longevity shouldn't mean anything when selecting HOFers. Greatness and dominance should mean everything.

Having 5 years of true dominance like Ovechkin is far greater than being an accumulator like Mike Gartner. Two Harts gives Ovechkin his place in the hall.

Dominant seasons are what matter not just any kind of seasons. Why do people think that a player like Ovechkin needs to add 8 or 10 seasons of mediocrity to get into the HOF? Who cares about mediocrity - your dominant seasons determine your HOF worthiness.
To a point I agree, but being "dominant" - especially for goaltenders - doesn't mean what it used to mean. And they need to be able to prove that they can handle the long haul (long enough...) to prove that they weren't just a flash in the pan. Tim Thomas, kicked around for a while by a few organizations, couldn't crack the league...flashes two seasons in ideal conditions, with inconsistency in between. Jean-Sebastien Giguere, kicked around by a few organizations after being a high draft pick, couldn't hack it in the NHL...finally, falls into an ideal situation where he can just be a first-shot blocker (liberal definition of "goalkeeper"), gets lauded for it, HHOF talk percolates...Ducks start to give out defensively, he falters. Sent to the Leafs to term them around, can't do it. Roman Cechmanek, 3 years out of 4 "dominance" - when it comes down to brass tacks, couldn't hack it. Sent to a different club that couldn't protect him as well - booed out of the league.

All these netminders fooled many (some still do) into thinking they were greats, in reality, just flashes of percieved dominance. No real sustainable substance. Outside of ideal situations, they were all regarded as bottom of the barrel. Without that extra time, in different situations, letting the law of averages take effect, it's difficult to really get a good read. For similar reasons, it's why I'll never consider Billy Smith ahead of Grant Fuhr. Meat without potatoes is not a meal.

Mike Farkas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 11:35 AM
  #61
jack mullet
@jackmullethockey
 
jack mullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Baxter, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 497
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.
the Lundqvist category? lol
Henrik has only played about 3 seasons more than Quick. he is also much older. of all the goalies in the NHL now, assuming he stays healthy, i see Quick being the most obvious hall of fame goalie. of course we are all making assumptions, but assuming Quick plays 10 more seasons and averages a mere 30 wins a year, that would put him with over 400 career wins. probably should have won the Vezina last year IMO, but a Conn Smythe would help as well. this of course is all speculation, as goalies making the HHOF is rare, and difficult

jack mullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 11:54 AM
  #62
vadim sharifijanov
thanks chris
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
In my opinion, Luongo was way better as a goaltender - forgetting stats and votes and all that noise - on the porous Panthers than he was/is in Vancouver. Some goalies seem to just thrive better under the assault. He challenged more, he looked better laterally...in Vancouver, he seems to play deeper in his net, sometimes looking scared to make a mistake...so glued to his technique that he has pushed his natural goalie instincts down...at least that's how I see it.

I think Luongo going back to a bad team is the best shot he has at getting to the Hall.
i agree with that. like joseph, he was a much better bad team goalie than a good team goalie. beezer vs. richter is probably another example of that phenomenon. on a bad team, you'd want beezer. on a good team, richter all day every day.

part of it is the canucks tried to change his technique in ways that weren't useful. but also part of it is mental, i suspect.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 04:09 PM
  #63
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
He may have allowed the odd soft goal, but when push came to shove Thomas was brilliant. Even in the Montreal series, which wasn't his best, he made a critical save in overtime in Game 5 on a two-on-one that probably should have gone in. His acrobatic style was all over the place that spring. Even with Tampa he calms down and registered a Game 7 shutout. In the final he more or less cemented his Conn Smythe, I mean the guy didn't have a bad game in all 7 of them. In a way, he played much like Fuhr did in the 1987 Canada Cup. Fuhr let in a few shaky goals (even Thomas in Game 2 of the final in overtime let in a poor one) but when the chips were down you didn't want anyone else in net. Thomas was kind of like that in 2011 with the Bruins, I think.
This is why I don't have a problem with him getting the Smythe. The Bruins were 10-0 that spring in games they HAD to win by my count, and he made some brilliant saves in many of those games. But the often mediocre play in the other 15 games is what prevents the run from being "legendary" to the point that he deserves HOF consideration.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 04:58 PM
  #64
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack mullet View Post
the Lundqvist category? lol
Henrik has only played about 3 seasons more than Quick. he is also much older. of all the goalies in the NHL now, assuming he stays healthy, i see Quick being the most obvious hall of fame goalie. of course we are all making assumptions, but assuming Quick plays 10 more seasons and averages a mere 30 wins a year, that would put him with over 400 career wins. probably should have won the Vezina last year IMO, but a Conn Smythe would help as well. this of course is all speculation, as goalies making the HHOF is rare, and difficult
3 seasons, is still three seasons. Lundqvist also has a Vezina and an Olympic gold to his name over Quick. But Quick is very young right now. Let's not assume he continues his dominant play, let's SEE if he does. Because for some reason there are goalies out there in the NHL lately that have flamed out and not withstood the test of time. We would have held Cam Ward to the same height in 2009 as we do with Quick now. Just saying, we need time.

Unrelated, but as for Luongo, I should ask people out there, if he wins Game 7 in 2011 how much closer is he to the HHOF in your eyes? How differently do we look at him? Because while I can often be a Luongo critic I will personally say that he is closer to being a HHOFer than people think.

Big Phil 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 09:45 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.