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
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Ken Keltner and Chris Osgood

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-19-2010, 12:44 PM
  #26
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
The Keltner List, translated to hockey, applied to Grant Fuhr

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Yes. Best player on the 1991-92 Leafs - 19th in the League, out of the playoffs. In 95-96, MacInnis was a better player than Fuhr.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win their conference?

It happened one, and they finished 19th overall (and 10th out of 11 in the conference). So, no.
... I don't believe Grant Fuhr was the best player even on the 91-92 Maple Leafs. It was one of Fuhr's worst seasons, and in fact it was no better than the season Peter Ing had for the 90-91 Leafs, possibly a little worse.

Dave Ellett was the best player on the 91-92 Leafs.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 12:52 PM
  #27
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 22,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... I don't believe Grant Fuhr was the best player even on the 91-92 Maple Leafs. It was one of Fuhr's worst seasons, and in fact it was no better than the season Peter Ing had for the 90-91 Leafs, possibly a little worse.

Dave Ellett was the best player on the 91-92 Leafs.
Actually, the best player of the Leafs that year was probably Doug Gilmour. He just didn't play a full year.

Yeah, Fuhr stats were bad. But somebody can be the best player of a team -- even if he has an off year.

Still, for the Keltner list, it's somewhat of a moot point, the Leafs didn't even make the playoffs, so either way, it's a "NO".

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 12:59 PM
  #28
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
Maybe hockey writers like to use their brains more than baseball writers.
Well I read a lot of baseball stuff and hockey has only begun to catch up to the quality and depth of writing that baseball has enjoyed for years.

It's kind of ironic that the Keltner list was developed for baseball, along with various other lists that we try to use for hockey players now and not the other way around.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Homer Wings fans. Let's put to bed the fact that Osgood is comparable to Fuhr. Osgood would never have held up the fort in the 1987 Canada Cup like Fuhr did. Look at the stats all you want, but those were incredible end to end offensive games and there was going to be some goals let in regardless. Nevertheless, Fuhr gets less credit than he deserves for that spectacular display. Osgood never robbed a team of a series. Osgood never stole a series. He was never a guy you noticed either.

Also can we put to bed the irritating perception of Osgood that he was a dynasty goalie? He didn't play in 1997. He won in 1998. He won in 2008. 3 Cups in 11 years is NOT a dynasty and he even only played in two of them. Either you are a dynasty or you are not. None of this crap that a dynasty has "changed" over the years. It hasn't.
Dynasties obviously become harder as the league grows in the # of teams and the Salary Cap has added to the unlikelihood of more dynasties, in the traditional sense.

the point being that to compare players that are playing now to previous times and the dynasties that previous players might have played on is an unfair comparison and does not reflect the changes in the game fairly.

Guys like Fuhr that played on dynasties should be given credit for being great players but lets not overstate the "dynasty" thing either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
How do people equate Osgood with Fuhr? There is no comparison.
I agree Fuhr is at least one level or tier above Osgood and maybe 2.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 02:41 PM
  #29
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
 
Mantha Poodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Well I read a lot of baseball stuff and hockey has only begun to catch up to the quality and depth of writing that baseball has enjoyed for years.

It's kind of ironic that the Keltner list was developed for baseball, along with various other lists that we try to use for hockey players now and not the other way around.
Crap, it's so overused now that even ye olde sarcasm face doesn't get the message of sarcasm across clearly now.

Mantha Poodoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2010, 12:19 AM
  #30
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... I don't believe Grant Fuhr was the best player even on the 91-92 Maple Leafs. It was one of Fuhr's worst seasons, and in fact it was no better than the season Peter Ing had for the 90-91 Leafs, possibly a little worse.

Dave Ellett was the best player on the 91-92 Leafs.
This was a dark point in Fuhr's career. After his drug bust he had some low years of hockey. I honestly don't think he came back to being a solid goalie until he arrived in St. Louis. He was alright in Buffalo though, but it was at a difficult time in his career.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Dynasties obviously become harder as the league grows in the # of teams and the Salary Cap has added to the unlikelihood of more dynasties, in the traditional sense.

the point being that to compare players that are playing now to previous times and the dynasties that previous players might have played on is an unfair comparison and does not reflect the changes in the game fairly.

Guys like Fuhr that played on dynasties should be given credit for being great players but lets not overstate the "dynasty" thing either.
Yes a dynasty was statistically easier to do with less teams. That being said it was never "easy" to do with 21 teams which the Oilers did. I say give him credit for that. But the definition of a dynasty has not changed over the years it is still the same even if it is statistically harder to do. Osgood was not part of a dynasty. The Wings did just fine without him in 2002

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2010, 04:33 AM
  #31
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Yes a dynasty was statistically easier to do with less teams. That being said it was never "easy" to do with 21 teams which the Oilers did. I say give him credit for that. But the definition of a dynasty has not changed over the years it is still the same even if it is statistically harder to do. Osgood was not part of a dynasty. The Wings did just fine without him in 2002
The Oilers did fine without Fuhr in '90 and the wings did fine without Hasek in 2008. What's your point?

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2010, 03:18 PM
  #32
Fire Julien
Registered User
 
Fire Julien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bergen
Country: Norway
Posts: 19,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
This is why stats tell just part of the story. No one in their right mind would ever suggest Osgood was a more clutch goalie than Brodeur, or that Osgood was as important to his teams Cups as Brodeur.
I would. What has Brodeur accomplished in the playoffs with Scotty Stevens gone ? Absolutely nothing. Osgood was definitely as important to his teams cups as Brodeur, i.e. not that much. I'd also rate Osgood's 2008 playoffs above any by Brodeur.

Fire Julien is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 07:13 AM
  #33
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitaljohn View Post
[*]Won cups 10 years apart, the only other goaltender to do it was Terry Sawchuk
Off the top of my head, I can tell you that Patrick Roy won Cups/Smythes fifteen years apart.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 11:16 AM
  #34
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,932
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler Seguin View Post
I would. What has Brodeur accomplished in the playoffs with Scotty Stevens gone ? Absolutely nothing. Osgood was definitely as important to his teams cups as Brodeur, i.e. not that much. I'd also rate Osgood's 2008 playoffs above any by Brodeur.
Sometimes I wonder if we're all watching the same game.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2010, 02:33 PM
  #35
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Sometimes I wonder if we're all watching the same game.
I agree Broduer has slipped a bit lately and is killing my hockey pool but he was a steady top 3 goalie for a very long period of time.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2010, 01:40 PM
  #36
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
The Oilers did fine without Fuhr in '90 and the wings did fine without Hasek in 2008. What's your point?
The point I was making is that there is a myth that Osgood was a "dynasty goalie". He wasn't. He won three Cups over the course of 11 years. He played in two of them. Tom Barrasso is as close to being a dynasty goalie as possible by winning two ina row and even he wouldn't be classified as one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler Seguin View Post
I would. What has Brodeur accomplished in the playoffs with Scotty Stevens gone ? Absolutely nothing. Osgood was definitely as important to his teams cups as Brodeur, i.e. not that much. I'd also rate Osgood's 2008 playoffs above any by Brodeur.
Brodeur has slipped over the years, but he won 2 Vezinas without Stevens. Post lockout he hasn't done a lot in the playoffs or even international play but a lot of that has to do with his age too. If anything, maybe it makes people realize that even first ballot HHOFers like Brodeur can benefit from a HHOF defenseman like Stevens being around and there is nothing wrong with that.

By the way, we all saw what Osgood did without a stacked team like Detroit in front of him with NYI and St. Louis. Take his seasons there and compare them to Brodeur's on an ordinary Devils team and who would you take?

By the way, in 2003 there are still cries that Brodeur was robbed of the Conn Smythe. I thought Giguere deserved it just fine, but no doubt in my mind Brodeur was the best Devil. When was Osgood ever the best Red Wing on a Cup champ? How about never?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2010, 11:51 AM
  #37
Ensane
EL GUAPO
 
Ensane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 15,404
vCash: 500
I'm going to start redirecting traffic from the main boards' "Osgood 400 win" thread to here since some of the posts are pertaining to HHOF chances, and this is clearly the better board for that subject...

The only reasonable argument for Osgood to be in the HHOF is by comparison of other inductees--in the case of other goaltenders by statistical comparison, and to skaters, by comparing the overall stature of the player.

The statistical comparisons omit more information than they reveal. For instance, "Red Wings Statistician" (read: biased) Greg Innis, cited here, leaves the historical context out of many of the most rewarding statistical accomplishments of Osgood.

For instance, his first category, compares Osgood to ALL goaltenders in the Hall of Fame in terms of wins, however, the reader would be well informed to know how many of those 31 goaltenders inducted into the hall NEVER had a shot at winning (or in some cases playing) 400 games because of not only standards for games played by starting goaltenders, but, in some extreme cases, because the seasons were drastically shorter. Pre-war goaltenders make up about 1/4 of those 31 inducted, yet teams then played 50 games or less in a season.

That's just one example, but there's similar nuances to point out in his list. Post-season wins is another easy one to attack. What's the saying? -- lies, damned lies, and statistics? Innis is a statistician, so he knows how to use numbers to make an argument, but it helps to keep a reasonable perspective about what some of them mean.

Now, I'm not saying that Osgood won't get in, but statistics can only tell part of the story. Personally, I don't think Ciccarelli (despite being an HFBoard posterboy for years), Anderson, Neely, Federko, or Fuhr belong either, so I don't find the argument that "because one of them got in, Osgood should be in" particularly moving.

Ensane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2010, 04:41 PM
  #38
Huddy*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bloomfield Hills, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,545
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Huddy*
All you need to know about Ozzie is below

A HHOF call will soon come his way

Agree to disagree but the below article paves a way for him. Others who want to discredit his accomplishments , be my guest, go for it. It's hilarious majority of you think otherwise

[QUOTE][/DETROIT -- Whether Detroit Red Wings goaltender Chris Osgood deserves to be in the Hockey Hall of Fame likely will continue to be debated.

Red Wings statistician Greg Innis offered a statistical analysis in Osgood's favor. Here is what Innis wrote:

1. There are 31 players currently enshrined in the Hockey Hall of Fame who played exclusively as a goaltender in the NHL or its fore-runners (PCHL or NHA). Only 6 of those 31 (Patrick Roy, Terry Sawchuk, Jacques Plante, Tony Esposito, Glenn Hall and Grant Fuhr) have won more games than Osgood (400).
2. Osgood currently has 50 regular season shutouts. Only 14 of those H.O.F. goalies have more.
3. Osgood has had just one regular-season in which he finished below .500. That was 2009-10, when he posted a 7-9-4 record. Of those goalies in the H.O.F., only three can make that claim (Ken Dryden 0, Bill Durnan 1 & Patrick Roy 1).
4. Osgood has been on three Stanley Cup-winning teams. Nineteen of the goalies in the H.O.F. have been on less.
5. In the playoffs, Osgood has won 74 games. Only four H.O.F. netminders have won more (Patrick Roy, Grant Fuhr, Billy Smith and Ken Dryden).
6. Osgood has recorded 15 postseason shutouts. Only Patrick Roy (23) has more among goalies in the Hall.
7. Of the 10 netminders who reached the 400-win plateau, only Martin Brodeur did it quicker (720 games, compared to Osgood's 742).
8. Some who are opposed to Osgood becoming a member of the H.O.F. claim that he was "surrounded" by great players. True, but consider the fact that Ken Dryden is in the Hall, and in his final NHL season, 1978-79, nine of his Montreal teammates are in, as well. Or how about Johnny Bower? He, along with nine of his teammates from the 1967 Maple Leafs team are enshrined. [QUOTE]

Huddy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2010, 05:05 PM
  #39
Ensane
EL GUAPO
 
Ensane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 15,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huddy View Post
All you need to know about Ozzie is below
Hardly. I just pointed out the shortcomings of the figures provided by Innis. Feel free to take a look at what I said.

I'll admit, there's a strong case to be made for Osgood's entry into the Hall if the argument is solely statistical, but unfortunately for Osgood, it's not.

Ensane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2010, 05:13 PM
  #40
Huddy*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bloomfield Hills, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,545
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Huddy*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ensane View Post
Hardly. I just pointed out the shortcomings of the figures provided by Innis. Feel free to take a look at what I said.

I'll admit, there's a strong case to be made for Osgood's entry into the Hall if the argument is solely statistical, but unfortunately for Osgood, it's not.

Again that's your opinion. Ozzie will be a HHOF

Huddy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2010, 05:21 PM
  #41
Ensane
EL GUAPO
 
Ensane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 15,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huddy View Post
Again that's your opinion. Ozzie will be a HHOF
Actually, it's not my opinion that what you cited is not "all you need to know."

I think Osgood will make it to the HHOF--though it may take a while since there is such a strong list of eligible players from his era--I just don't agree with it.

Ensane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2010, 07:05 PM
  #42
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,824
vCash: 500
Hey, why even watch hockey games? The stats tell us all we need to know! Is it fair to assume the HOF selection committee doesn't watch games either, and will therefore induct Osgood?

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2010, 07:13 PM
  #43
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
Hey, why even watch hockey games? The stats tell us all we need to know! Is it fair to assume the HOF selection committee doesn't watch games either, and will therefore induct Osgood?
They inducted Dino so why not?

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2010, 07:57 PM
  #44
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,703
vCash: 500
a detroit writer or blogger recently argued against osgood being inducted, and asked how often osgood was clearly the best goalie on his team.

i think it was about 1/2 of his career.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
They inducted Dino so why not?
ciccarelli really scored those points.

goalies do not really win games.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2010, 08:12 PM
  #45
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huddy View Post
Again that's your opinion. Ozzie will be a HHOF
I don"t think that he will make it in for the simpole reason that he is a compiler and was NEVER the REASON that the Wings won any of those Cups.

A lot of the stats listed are of the "My Daddy is bigger than your little brother" types of arguments and fail to take into account of the overall context of his career.

A lot of goalkeeping stats are more team stats than individual ones but let's just say for argument sake that goalies are more responsible for their stats than their teams are.

A quick look at the top ten lists for Osgood don't' put him in very impressive territory outside of Wins, which truly is the most Team orientated of all the goalie stats ( and is overinflated in a no tie NHL).

Wins- top 10 he did it 6 times including a 1st, 3,4, 8, 8, 8
Save %- 3 times with a 2,8 and 10
GAA- 5 times a 1,2,3,6 and 10
SO- 5 times 2,3,4,7,9

The most telling fact is that he has only made on all star team in 96 and even in that year it's pretty hard to make an argument that Hasek didn't deserve the spot ahead of him.

There are probably at least 10 goalies not in the hall who should make it in ahead of him as well IMO.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2011, 12:59 PM
  #46
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,075
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Huddy;29888051][QUOTE][/DETROIT -- Whether Detroit Red Wings goaltender Chris Osgood deserves to be in the Hockey Hall of Fame likely will continue to be debated.

Red Wings statistician Greg Innis offered a statistical analysis in Osgood's favor. Here is what Innis wrote:

1. There are 31 players currently enshrined in the Hockey Hall of Fame who played exclusively as a goaltender in the NHL or its fore-runners (PCHL or NHA). Only 6 of those 31 (Patrick Roy, Terry Sawchuk, Jacques Plante, Tony Esposito, Glenn Hall and Grant Fuhr) have won more games than Osgood (400).
2. Osgood currently has 50 regular season shutouts. Only 14 of those H.O.F. goalies have more.
3. Osgood has had just one regular-season in which he finished below .500. That was 2009-10, when he posted a 7-9-4 record. Of those goalies in the H.O.F., only three can make that claim (Ken Dryden 0, Bill Durnan 1 & Patrick Roy 1).
4. Osgood has been on three Stanley Cup-winning teams. Nineteen of the goalies in the H.O.F. have been on less.
5. In the playoffs, Osgood has won 74 games. Only four H.O.F. netminders have won more (Patrick Roy, Grant Fuhr, Billy Smith and Ken Dryden).
6. Osgood has recorded 15 postseason shutouts. Only Patrick Roy (23) has more among goalies in the Hall.
7. Of the 10 netminders who reached the 400-win plateau, only Martin Brodeur did it quicker (720 games, compared to Osgood's 742).
8. Some who are opposed to Osgood becoming a member of the H.O.F. claim that he was "surrounded" by great players. True, but consider the fact that Ken Dryden is in the Hall, and in his final NHL season, 1978-79, nine of his Montreal teammates are in, as well. Or how about Johnny Bower? He, along with nine of his teammates from the 1967 Maple Leafs team are enshrined.



I've said it before, stats, and ONLY stats, are for losers. Okay fine, I believe God Bless Canada is where I stole it from but I agree with him. Stats are fine to use and you do have to use them but they only tell have the story. This post is nice and all but it paints Osgood as an elite goalie throughout his career, which he was not. If there is a classic case of a compiler, it is Chris Osgood and I think we should always remember that before it gets to be an accepted practice that Osgood is a future HHOFer (we see that with Nieuwendyk).

For instance point #8 made compares him to Dryden and Bower. There is no comparison. Say what you want about Dryden having a stacked team around him but there are several reasons why Dryden was a better goalie:

- he was a dynasty goalie
- he got 5 First team all-stars
- he was more central to the Habs winning than Osgood despite Dryden having several more HHOFers on his team and a better shot at being "lost in the crowd"
- Dryden was always asked to play in international tournaments. Osgood was never considered. Heck, Curtis Joseph played in them three times. To the Osgood supporters, what does that tell you about Osgood?

Comparison to Bower:

- Bower was a dynasty goalie
- He would have won at least one Conn Smythe (1963) had it been around
- He was a more central figure to his Cups than Osgood
- He was a first team all-star once
- He was considered among the elite goalies for his era


The rest of the points deal with Cup counting. For instance, who was a better playoff goalie? Parent or Osgood? Parent right? But a neutral observer would assume Osgood was better because of one more Cup. Then there are the compiler points. Not one of these points ever points to him being an elite goalie. What does that say when even an argument FOR Osgood can't prove he was ever an elite goalie? Curtis Joseph probably shouldn't get into the HHOF yet he won more games than Sawchuk. Again, be careful when you look solely at stats.

Also, would Osgood be easily replaced? In other words if Felix Potvin was on the 1998 Wings would they still would have won? I think so. That's a knock against Osgood. If Mike Liut takes Grant Fuhr's place on the Oilers I don't think they win as many Cups.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2011, 01:34 PM
  #47
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,487
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Big Phil;29901923]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huddy View Post
[[I][B]QUOTE][/DETROIT -- Whether Detroit Red Wings goaltender Chris Osgood deserves to be in the Hockey Hall of Fame likely will continue to be debated.

Red Wings statistician Greg Innis offered a statistical analysis in Osgood's favor. Here is what Innis wrote:

1. There are 31 players currently enshrined in the Hockey Hall of Fame who played exclusively as a goaltender in the NHL or its fore-runners (PCHL or NHA). Only 6 of those 31 (Patrick Roy, Terry Sawchuk, Jacques Plante, Tony Esposito, Glenn Hall and Grant Fuhr) have won more games than Osgood (400).
2. Osgood currently has 50 regular season shutouts. Only 14 of those H.O.F. goalies have more.
3. Osgood has had just one regular-season in which he finished below .500. That was 2009-10, when he posted a 7-9-4 record. Of those goalies in the H.O.F., only three can make that claim (Ken Dryden 0, Bill Durnan 1 & Patrick Roy 1).
4. Osgood has been on three Stanley Cup-winning teams. Nineteen of the goalies in the H.O.F. have been on less.
5. In the playoffs, Osgood has won 74 games. Only four H.O.F. netminders have won more (Patrick Roy, Grant Fuhr, Billy Smith and Ken Dryden).
6. Osgood has recorded 15 postseason shutouts. Only Patrick Roy (23) has more among goalies in the Hall.
7. Of the 10 netminders who reached the 400-win plateau, only Martin Brodeur did it quicker (720 games, compared to Osgood's 742).
8. Some who are opposed to Osgood becoming a member of the H.O.F. claim that he was "surrounded" by great players. True, but consider the fact that Ken Dryden is in the Hall, and in his final NHL season, 1978-79, nine of his Montreal teammates are in, as well. Or how about Johnny Bower? He, along with nine of his teammates from the 1967 Maple Leafs team are enshrined.




I've said it before, stats, and ONLY stats, are for losers. Okay fine, I believe God Bless Canada is where I stole it from but I agree with him. Stats are fine to use and you do have to use them but they only tell have the story. This post is nice and all but it paints Osgood as an elite goalie throughout his career, which he was not. If there is a classic case of a compiler, it is Chris Osgood and I think we should always remember that before it gets to be an accepted practice that Osgood is a future HHOFer (we see that with Nieuwendyk).

For instance point #8 made compares him to Dryden and Bower. There is no comparison. Say what you want about Dryden having a stacked team around him but there are several reasons why Dryden was a better goalie:

- he was a dynasty goalie
- he got 5 First team all-stars
- he was more central to the Habs winning than Osgood despite Dryden having several more HHOFers on his team and a better shot at being "lost in the crowd"
- Dryden was always asked to play in international tournaments. Osgood was never considered. Heck, Curtis Joseph played in them three times. To the Osgood supporters, what does that tell you about Osgood?

Comparison to Bower:

- Bower was a dynasty goalie
- He would have won at least one Conn Smythe (1963) had it been around
- He was a more central figure to his Cups than Osgood
- He was a first team all-star once
- He was considered among the elite goalies for his era


The rest of the points deal with Cup counting. For instance, who was a better playoff goalie? Parent or Osgood? Parent right? But a neutral observer would assume Osgood was better because of one more Cup. Then there are the compiler points. Not one of these points ever points to him being an elite goalie. What does that say when even an argument FOR Osgood can't prove he was ever an elite goalie? Curtis Joseph probably shouldn't get into the HHOF yet he won more games than Sawchuk. Again, be careful when you look solely at stats.

Also, would Osgood be easily replaced? In other words if Felix Potvin was on the 1998 Wings would they still would have won? I think so. That's a knock against Osgood. If Mike Liut takes Grant Fuhr's place on the Oilers I don't think they win as many Cups.
You are right stats are not everything and need to be put in context, as you have done very well but I will quibble on one point about dynasty goalies (or dynasty for any players).

2 points on dynasties and the 1st is that it was easier in a smaller league to be involved in a dynasty so that needs to considered when bring up the point with modern 30 team players to any players of the past IMO.

Too much credit is often given to past players on this point and too much criticism is given to current players with AO being the prime example.

The 2nd point is that outside of obvious guys who have a huge impact on Cups like Gretzky is that teams win Cups not players, so team situation is more important for 95-98% of all Cup players more than just pure individual talent.

NYI didn't go on their run until goring showed up and had great secondary support in their Cup runs.

Heck even the most recent (and probably last real dynasty in the traditional sense due to the Cap) had great role players to push them over the edge like Tikannen and Lowe and Huddy to name a couple.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2011, 02:11 AM
  #48
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post

You are right stats are not everything and need to be put in context, as you have done very well but I will quibble on one point about dynasty goalies (or dynasty for any players).

2 points on dynasties and the 1st is that it was easier in a smaller league to be involved in a dynasty so that needs to considered when bring up the point with modern 30 team players to any players of the past IMO.

Too much credit is often given to past players on this point and too much criticism is given to current players with AO being the prime example.

The 2nd point is that outside of obvious guys who have a huge impact on Cups like Gretzky is that teams win Cups not players, so team situation is more important for 95-98% of all Cup players more than just pure individual talent.

NYI didn't go on their run until goring showed up and had great secondary support in their Cup runs.

Heck even the most recent (and probably last real dynasty in the traditional sense due to the Cap) had great role players to push them over the edge like Tikannen and Lowe and Huddy to name a couple.
Right. Dynasties are hard to come by today. Just by percentages alone it is more difficult to repeat than it was in the past. The Isles and Oilers did this in a 21 team league though and there was at least one time where Billy Smith literally saved the bacon of the Isles and continued the dynasty. Two saves where he pulled the rabbit out of his hat - 1982 Game 5 overtime vs. Pens and 1984 deciding game in overtime vs. Rangers even though they lost to the Oilers eventually- and if anything this just adds to his legacy. How often was Osgood in a situation where he stole a game? He let an overtime goal in from center ice in the 1998 semis. Detroit swept Washington in 1998 and he didn't have a very good Game #2 and only won that because Tikkannen somehow missed a yawning cage after beating an out of position Osgood.

In 2008 the style of play the Wings had gave him comfortable leads. When overtime arrived in the 2008 final he lost. Billy Smith never lost in overtime (rarely). Everyone knew that. Smith also stopped the Oilers in 1983 and won the Conn Smythe.

My beef with Osgood is that people look at Smith and Fuhr and just as well assume Osgood was in the same ballpark as them. Wrong. This is where your eyes tell the truth. If you weren't around then read old newspaper articles. If you were in a deciding game of the Cup final and were very aware of the careers of Smith, Fuhr and Osgood you wouldn't have to ask why you'd pick Smith or Fuhr ahead of him. This won't show up on the stats sheet. I'll say this about any dynasty goalie. Say what you want, it was never EASY to string a dynasty together. But even if it was, would you take Osgood in net over any of these dynasty goalies?

Broda
Sawchuk
Plante
Worsley
Dryden
Smith
Fuhr

I wouldn't. And then even others like Barrasso or Osgood's own teammate Vernon had bigger moments in the big spot.

The beef I have with Osgood is how central he was to his team's winning years. He pales in comparison to even non-dynasty goalies. That's what you have to focus on. Not Cup counting so much, but how IMPORTANT he was to them winning. Not everyone is Gretzky but all I'd ask would be at a Fuhr/Smith caliber level.

Since 1990 Cup winning goalies more central to their teams than Osgood:
Ranford, Barrasso, Roy, Richter, Brodeur, Vernon, Belfour, Ward, Giguere, Fleury.

The goalies who won a Cup since 1990 that he's comparable to:
Khabibulin, Hasek

The only goalie he was most certainly more important in a Cup run than:
Niemi


My eyes tell me Khabibulin played better in the spring of 2004 than anything I ever saw Osgood in the playoffs but I can give him a tie with Hasek. The Dominator was solid that year but not out of this world. I'm not sure the team won BECAUSE of him so much. So by my count Niemi is the only goalie in the last 20 years who most certainly played worse and was less important to their team winning. Not good for Osgood backers.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2011, 04:38 AM
  #49
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,431
vCash: 500
Why is a guy who has rarely been much better than an average goalie being debated for the hall? I feel like everything is wrong with the world.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 08:45 AM
  #50
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Why is a guy who has rarely been much better than an average goalie being debated for the hall? I feel like everything is wrong with the world.
Agreed. This shouldn't even be up for a huge discussion.

First question: Was he routinely one of the top players at his position? No. End of discussion.

The Chris Osgood Era: 1994-2010

The Hall of Famers - Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, Belfour

In order to be a real candidate, he should be at the head of the following grouping:

In no particular order: Richter, VanBiesbrouck, Barasso, Vernon, CuJo, Hextall, Luongo, Kiprusoff, Kolzig, Khabibulin, Nabokov

John Flyers Fan 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 08:10 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.