Off-Day Topic: The Hall of Fame Debate - Chris Osgood
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 30, 2010 9:40 AM CST
in Opinion
Email
PrintSince Chris Osgood won his 400th game in the NHL on Monday with a fantastic 46-save performance over the Colorado Avalanche, plenty of sites have dedicated posts to his credentials and whether they make him worthy of the Hockey Hall of Fame. Osgood is one of only ten goaltenders in the entirety of NHL history to win 400 games. Every other goaltender who has both won 400 games and has been retired the requisite three years has made it into the Hall. Of three others (Brodeur, Belfour, Joseph) two are definite locks and the third (Joseph) seems likely to make it.
Of course, there are two sides to this story and nobody is quite convinced that Osgood is a lock, so the debate rages on. On one side, you have guys like Scott Burnside with ESPN who calls his induction a "no-brainer" with quotes like this:
When you take a look at the other nine netminders who have hit the 400-win mark, six are already in the Hockey Hall of Fame (Patrick Roy, Terry Sawchuk, Jacques Plante, Tony Esposito, Glenn Hall and Grant Fuhr). Martin Brodeur, the winningest goaltender of all time, is a lock, while Ed Belfour is considered a good Hall bet next year in his first year of eligibility. Curtis Joseph is fourth all-time with 454 wins but never won a Cup.
That leaves Osgood, who has 400 wins and owns three Stanley Cup rings. In the spring of 2009, he was one win from a fourth when the Pittsburgh Penguins edged the Wings 2-1 in Game 7 in Detroit.
He has never been as flashy or flamboyant as many of those in the 400 club, but how does not smashing up television sets in coaches' offices, etc., stand as a mark against a person?
Meanwhile, on the other side, you have writers like Mike Rogers over at Behind the Net, who despite being a Wings fan, is not much a fan of Osgood (and is willing to take off-handed shots at Kirk Maltby while he's at it just to PROVE that he's not biased). Rogers uses Osgood's career save percentage plotted against the league average to show a decline in his numbers, which haven't been above-average since the turn of the century. He also uses a link to an interesting article showing that Osgood's career pay is strong evidence that he's never been considered financially important enough to be considered one of the best, which helps disqualify him from the hall. Rogers says this:
However, the most damning evidence for the Red Wings fans who insist on Osgood's induction into the HOF is what happened when he hit the open market. Wouldn't teams fall all over themselves to sign a future HOFer to stabilize their team in net? Sure they would, if Osgood were one and NHL teams know this and thus he wasn't paid like an elite NHL goalie.
The Contrarian Goaltender has a great post about "adjusted" salaries/career earnings for goalies over the last 20 years or so. Osgood fell between Bill Ranford and Evgeni Nabakov. If Osgood is so good, shouldn't he have gotten the high salaries that Hasek, Roy, Belfour, Brodeur, et al. received?
Well, we decided it was an off-day and there isn't much else to do but pointlessly argue, so we've got our own opinions to share and hope you'll share yours in the comments. Follow us after the jump.
Graham Says:
For me, the question of whether Chris Osgood is a Hall of Famer is still debatable, but only because his career is not over yet. There is still time for him to do something (win another Cup as a starter, win a Conn Smythe, come back next year and win a Vezina) that would make him a shoo-in. But if you're putting a gun to my head (put it away!) I'll say that I lean towards the "he should be in" side. He's got the numbers, including the biggest and sexiest one of them all: 400 wins. I understand the rest of his regular season numbers are average, but his post-season stats are pretty good: 15th all-time in save percentage, a 2.09 GAA (14th all time) and 74 wins. Keep in mind that his GAA is better than Curtis Joseph, Ed Belfour and even Patrick Roy (and don't think for a second that I believe Ozzie is as good as Roy was; I may be a Wing fan, but I'm not that big an idiot homer). What will always work against Ozzie is the fact that he played for a really good team. To me, that's bunk, because every great goalie that has enjoyed success, especially in the playoffs, has been a part of a great set of players. Roy had Carbonneau, Gainey, Sakic, and Forsberg; Brodeur had Stevens, Niedermayer and Daneyko. Belfour didn't win a Cup until he got to Dallas and had Modano, Hull and others in front of him. Was Osgood helped by the Yzerman, Lidstrom and Shanahan? Absolutely. But that doesn't change the fact that he was a part of the team that won Cups, including in 2008 when he took over for Hasek (who is regarded as one of the best goalies of the last 30 years) and lost only 4 games in the playoffs.
I get that people only believe he won 400 games because he was on the Wings. But if it's so easy to do, then why haven't more than 10 people ever done it? And if Osgood was as bad as people believe he was, then why would the Wings keep him on the team all these years when they could just plug in some schmuck making league minimum because they were stacked? It's the same reason that Bob Essensa, Curtis Joseph, Manny Legace, and Dominik Hasek in 2007 and 2008 never won Cups for the Wings: they were not good enough at the right times. This article points out that Osgood let in a long goal in each of the first three rounds in 1998; what it fails to mention is that he came back and won each game immediately after that, including pitching a shutout against Dallas to send the Wings to the Finals where he gave up 7 goals in 4 games. Osgood, love him or hate him, has routinely come up with big saves at big times, and I can't remember a series where the Wings lost "because" of him alone. He'll never be considered an elite goalie, but I think he's a lot better than people give him credit for, and I think that he deserves to be recognized for his career, which has been pretty darn good when you look at his contemporaries.
Casey Says:
Like Graham said, Osgood's career isn't over yet so it's still a bit of a tough question to address. I do not think individual awards constitute a Hall of Fame career but individual accomplishments (such as the 400 wins, 3 Stanley Cups) do. Sure, you can make the argument that Osgood wasn't the best of his generation but Brodeur and Roy are some pretty tough standards to surpass.
The main problem I have with Osgood not getting into the Hockey Hall of Fame is this: it sets a precedent for any inductees after that is very difficult to achieve. You leave Osgood out and then you have to start really cutting down the list to the absolute elites in the game and it's not the proper way to honor those players.
Do I think he'll get in on the first ballot? Nope. But I think he should be in there eventually and who is anyone to point a finger and say he's not deserving after a career like that?
J.J. Says:
I've bounced back and forth a few times on this because of personal feelings regarding Osgood's attitude over the years, but the last few days have made me reflect on the accomplishment. The bottom line is that, if I take Osgood the person out of the equation and look solely at what his career tells me, we've got a goaltender who has done all the necessary work to earn a spot in the hall. Yes, he's won a lot of games thanks to the skill of the guys in front of him and, yes, I've been pissed at him several times over the last couple of seasons for what seemed like a bad attitude, but there's simply something to be said about the longevity of the whole thing.
Perhaps Mike Rogers and the Contrarian Goaltender are right. Perhaps Osgood's career pay is proof that the GMs know their stuff better than the common fans and that their actions in paying Osgood what they've paid over the years has been a strong message that nobody has really considered him to be one of the elites. The question then is how many afterthoughts have won their teams two Stanley Cups? How many merely "serviceable" NHL goaltenders have put up career numbers in the playoffs like Chris Osgood has? Ultimately, I'm not heartbroken if Osgood doesn't make the Hall. I think it would be a continued travesty that there simply aren't more goalies in, but Ozzie getting passed over on the ballots year after year isn't going to shake my faith in hockey. Ultimately, if Osgood gets in, he wouldn't be among the five best goalies in the Hall. But, he also wouldn't be among the five worst. That would be pretty fitting, considering that's where he's been his entire career.
Let us know what you think in the comments.
58 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
400 wins becoming less impressive
…and somewhat easier to do since there are no more regular season ties. I continue to straddle the fence on Ozzie’s Hall worthiness.
Well shit
Stupid reply button.
As I was going to say, Osgood has won a grand total of 10 games via the shootout. He’s also lost 10, so one can’t say that his totals are “inflated” by the lack of ties. (Source)
by Amerinadian on Dec 30, 2010 10:05 AM CST up reply actions
The ties issue will come up
but only about 1/5th of Osgood’s career starts have come in the era of no ties. He has 66 of them in his career
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 30, 2010 10:05 AM CST up reply actions
I said “becoming” less impressive. The win-loss percentage in shootouts doesn’t change the fact that some former ties became wins. Of course that inflates the total! And you’ve ignored OT wins that didn’t go to shootout (I have no idea how many games Ozzie has won in OT).
Some goalie 20 years from now will reach 400 wins with 40 or 50 having come in OT and shootouts (don’t forget that there didn’t used to be OT, too).
it's a product of the system, not something to discredit Ozzie over
Should we not count the majority of Gretzky’s goals because the majority of goalies were absolutely horrible during that time? Nope. They both have excelled in their given environments and they shouldn’t be punished for that.
by Casey Richey on Dec 30, 2010 10:41 AM CST up reply actions
OT established 1984
I’m still trying to find Ozzie’s OT record, but Grant Fuhr played the majority of his career with OT available. Like Casey said, we can’t discredit his accomplishments based on the era he played in. Guys like Plante, Sawchuk and others played when forwards hadn’t developed slap shots; it’s impossible to compare across different time periods.
I like how you say “some goalie” will reach 400 wins. Despite being around for almost 100 years, only 10 goalies in the history of the NHL have reached 400 wins. Some of the truly great goalies of the last 25 years (how long OT has been around) have not reached this number, including Hasek, Barrasso, Richter, and Vernon. Consider it would take 10 years of 40 wins to reach that number. Further consider that only a handful of goalies get to 40 wins in a season, and they usually do so because they play 70+ games a year. So for most goalies, 30-35 is probably the average, especially as we move into a period where we see more “platoons”. How many goalies in the NHL right now do you think have a legit shot at reaching 400?
This isn’t like hitting 500 HRs in baseball in that, at one time almost impossible to do, now everyone is doing it. It’s still a very hard achievement to…..achieve (redundancy is redundant), and you can’t take away the fact that Osgood has reached a mark that only 9 other men in the history of the league have reached.
by Amerinadian on Dec 30, 2010 11:03 AM CST up reply actions
All good points…but I don’t think it’s “punishing” Ozzie to point out that winning 400 has become slightly easier than it used to be, and perhaps at some point it shouldn’t be the automatic in-the-Hall factor it once was.
OTs before the shootout still resulted in a number of ties. If OT and shootouts add just three wins a year to a goalie who plays ten years, that’s 30 extra career wins. I just think that deserves consideration.
Fair enough
Personally, I don’t think that Osgood reaching the 400 win plateau “automatically” gets him in like some others believe. I think that if you look at his entire career, regular and post season, and compare it to other goalies of his day, he deserves recognition in the Hall.
Your point about the extra wins is well-taken. We won’t see the long-term effects of the SO and 4-on-4 OT because they are both still relatively new concepts. If in 20 years we’re seeing multiple goalies reach that 400 win mark, then I think the impact of it will be lessened. However, I would point out that as it stands right now, Osgood earned the majority of his wins before the advent of the SO, and many of the goalies that I referred to earlier all played in an era with OT. I think when we consider Osgood’s worthiness, we need to consider the time he played in and not compare him to other goalies of a different age.
by Amerinadian on Dec 30, 2010 11:32 AM CST up reply actions
I love Ozzie!
I’d love to see him in the Hall in spite of my doubts. Even so, I was glad when the Wings got Vernon, I was glad when the Wings got Hasek…heck, I was glad when the Wings got Joseph! That says something about my confidence level in him over the years…he’s been very good, but there’s usually been greener grass on the other side. I was OK when he left the Wings, but then I was also happy when he came back to Detroit. He almost certainly played more on Long Island and in St.Louis than he would have in Detroit those years; even with lesser teams, he probably won more games those seasons as a result.
Another question comes to mind: if he DOES get elected to the Hall, does Detroit retire his number? I say entry into the Hall = number retirement.
Re: The players in front of him
I’d love to know what the Goals For Average was in front of each of the top 10 goalies in the wins list. The problem is they would be somewhat skewed for Osgood and Brodeur since they’ve played for awhile in the post-lockout NHL where everything has been done to increase offense.
He also helped the Islanders, of all teams, make the playoffs and that should erase any question as to whether it was only the guys in front of him that got him his 400 or whatever he ends up with.
St Louis, too
The fact that he posted similar numbers in his time with the Islanders and Blues should mitigate the “players in front of him” argument to some degree.
No one is going to compare Osgood to Roy, Brodeur or Hasek. But I would say that he belongs in the same conversation as Belfour and Joseph. Cujo may have won a lot of games, but he also lost a ton, too, and on many different teams. If Cujo gets in (without even a Cup Finals appearance on his resume), then I think Osgood has to get in because he’s reached the highest level as a player and won multiple Cups.
by Amerinadian on Dec 30, 2010 10:13 AM CST up reply actions
Sorry, but it's simple - Ozzie is IN the HHOF
He’s won 400 games, some of those with bad teams (holy shit – the Islanders??, and the Blues too).
He’s won 3 Cups – 2 as a starter. Hell, if you remember correctly, it was only a very late season Scotty Bowman decision to go with Vernon in the playoffs in 97 that put Vernon in and sat Ozzie on the bench. That team would have won with Ozzie in net too (I believe) because that team wasn’t going to be denied the Cup.
He doesn’t “steal” playoff series like Cujo did against Dallas when he was with Edmonton. How many Cups for Cujo??, oh yeah – 0, but he’ll be in the HHOF, because he was an excellent goalie that played on bad teams (454 wins).
He’s not flamboyant….he never beat his wife (Roy). He’s a great teammate
He does make big saves. He gives up some softies, but he doesn’t give up “back-breakers” – see Cujo above (who gave up bad goals at bad times).
He bounces back from bad goals – Graham points out above that after each game with those long goals in the 98 playoffs, he either won that same game (St. Louis in 2OT) or won the next game (Dallas in a shutout with a 2 on 0 breakaway against).
He’s in – simple as that. The only question for me is do we hang a banner at the Joe and retire his # – which is another debate and another post for another time.
Kendal
I am on the fence, I really do not know....
I hate the argument that the Red Wings carried him and all his wins are products of his time here. People who argue this are telling me that Grant Fuhr was not at least a little product of those Edmonton teams putting up 6 goals a game.
Whether Osgood gets in or not…I do not know, and I do not know if he should…he is the definition of on the fence. This argument I described is really annoying though because every great goalie that has 400 wins was on some very good teams that helped goalies win…
Look at his wins to losses ratio..
400 wins.. 216 losses. That’s almost double.. and to me, absurd to even argue the thing..
by kylegroombridge on Dec 30, 2010 12:18 PM CST reply actions
i can see both sides
Personally, if Glenn Anderson and Dino are HOF material then so is Osgood. Though if anyone uses the “its not the Hall of Very Good” argument as why Osgood doesn’t make it, they deserve an eternity trapped in between the benches with a pantsless Pierre McGuire with a picture of Sid Crosby stapled to the back of their head.
Blatant Twitter Promotion, rarely updated, occasionally funny
by rock n rye on Dec 30, 2010 12:48 PM CST via mobile reply actions
How many is too many, and how many does he have?
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 30, 2010 2:27 PM CST up reply actions
I’ve never counted although it seems he’s had more soft goals than great saves with plenty of HOF players in front of him making him look better than he is. Osgood is A V E R A GE, NOT a Hall of Fame goalie
Perhaps the work done by Greg Innis, as reported on by Ansar Khan has some better insight for you
Great numbers here, including:
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).
AND
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.
As for the “it seems he’s had more soft goals than great saves”, I would put extra emphasis on the word “seems”, because anything seems like it could mean anything when you’re relying on your memory, especially after you’ve made up your mind about what “seems” to have been happening. I’ve been counting great saves and bad goals all season long and I have more great saves for Ozzie in this season than I have bad goals given up.
To a lot of people, it “seems” as though Brodeur has given up a shitload of bad goals as well. Does he have “too many” bad goals to make it to the hall three years after he retires? How about the fact that New Jersey played a complete system in an era where they were allowed to which specifically concentrated on keeping shots and goal totals to a minimum, even at the expense of their own offense?
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 30, 2010 2:49 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
im pretty sure you're thinking of the Chris Osgood of the last year or two..
but in his prime, he was as stellar and solid as any goalie and could always be trusted to make the big save.. and his stats prove it.. just because he has fizzled out over the past couple years makes no difference in my mind about his Hall of Fame recognition.. look at Brodeur this season.. absolutely terrible, but is he no longer a Hall of Fame candidate? of course not.
by kylegroombridge on Dec 30, 2010 2:50 PM CST up reply actions
haha, looks like we had the same thought process, J.J, and clicked enter at the same time
by kylegroombridge on Dec 30, 2010 2:58 PM CST up reply actions
Oh and
you don’t last playing for Scotty Bowman if you suck and/or give up bad goals on a regular basis.
Just sayin – he is Scotty Bowman.
Scotty and Kenny Holland let Vernon go after 97 because the Wings were solid in net. Not because the rest of the team was so great that they could overcome a flawed goalie – which is what you’re saying if you don’t believe that he belongs in the HHOF. He was a product of Scotty’s system – just like Brodeur was a product of the NJ system.
Bias against Ozzie should not keep him from the Hall
This is an easy decision. If you look at the numbers, Osgood easily belongs in the Hall of Fame. Yea, you can pick those numbers apart, and gripe about areas like save percentage, but if you look at those already inducted into the Hall, Ozzie more than holds his own in every category, including save percentage. I guarantee every Hall of Famer gave up some softies, and every Hall of Famer saw their skills diminish at the end of their careers.
The issue here is a Canadian media bias against the Red Wings that has been going on for years. Look at TSN right now, and you will see the Red Wings sitting at #5 in their power rankings of teams, despite having the best record in the NHL. How long did it take the rest of the world to figure out Nick Lidstrom is one of the two best defensemen ever to play the game? Look at TSN’s current list of the top 50 players as rated by them. Lidstrom comes in at #26, behind defensemen like Keith, Doughty, Chara, Weber, and Pronger. The same thing works against Osgood, and for that matter almost every other great player who has played for the Wings these last 20 years. If Osgood had put up these numbers playing on those great Edmonton or Montreal teams, the only discussion would be where he ranks among the best of all time.
Another problem for Osgood is the unrealistic expectations of some of the Red Wings fans themselves. You can’t forget a year ago, many fans were ready to run Kronwall, Ericsson and Cleary out of town. Even Steve Yzerman got this treatment in the mid-90’s. The bad treatment is tenfold for the Wings goalies.
The only argument I hear against Osgood making the Hall of Fame is one based on personal perceptions. However, that is a subjective standard, is based merely on personal biases, and should not be the criteria for Hall induction. Many players throughout history have been dramatically overrated, or dramatically underrated. Look at the careers of guys like Mike Gartner, Ron Francis, and Dino Ciccarelli. None were ever touted as the best of their era, or the best at their positions, yet all of them were easily Hall of Fame worthy. While the media were drooling over guys like Doug Gilmour, Denis Savard, and Guy Carbonneau, guys like Francis and Yzerman were quietly putting together careers much better than any of those guys. For that matter, look at Adam Oates. Think if he had played in a Montreal jersey, he would be in the Hall of Fame right now?
I am so thoroughly tired of the discussion about Osgood. Whether people like it or not, he is a definite Hall of Fame goalie, and has been better than many of the goalies already enshrined. Seriously, can we get past discussing the personal biases of the bashers, and those that know very little about the game?
by MISportfan on Dec 30, 2010 2:59 PM CST reply actions 5 recs
That would explain...
the Scott Burnside (ESPN) take – that he is a “no brainer” (US side opinion) vs a Canadian media bias against the Red Wings. Wow, see what I miss living in Kansas City – seriously, I never would have known. But as a former native Detroiter, what you say makes total sense. If Osgood was a former member of either the Leafs or Canadiens, then there wouldn’t even be a discussion.
And it was also ESPN – Pierre Lebrun – that penned the article about Nick Lidstrom possibly being the “best defenseman ever”, I’m flashing to an ESPN Melrose/Hradek clip where Barry wouldn’t even consider that title for St. Nick….makes sense, along the same line of thinking.
It probably is a bit of personal bias on the “soft” goals. Remember what we say the 2nd toughest job in Detroit is – Goalie for the Red Wings. Grant Fuhr let in just as many softies, but like Ozzie, I’ll maintain – they’re not back-breakers – and many times the Wings win those games, yes because they’re a great team – but that includes the goaltender folks. It was the Grant Fuhr philosphy – “you don’t have to make all the saves, so long as you make the Last one”.
Nope – he’s in. Not even a question in my mind. And I’ve yelled at him / the TV just as many times as you have (if not more cuz I’m older).
And I’d be willing to bet that we’ve all said more than we care to admit or count – nice job Ozzie!, good save!
Kendal
IN the Hall he goes.
I just had this argument with a Calgarian friend of mine yesterday. His argument was that his only measurable stat (SV%) that reliably values a goaltender was too low. After I showed him that for a career it is only .001 lower than Belfour’s career, and from 94-95 (beginning-ish of dead puck era) was only .003 lower than Belfour’s. His response? Maybe Belfour doesn’t belong, either.
It’s a bias against Osgood and the Red Wings as a dynasty. Is it a brilliant end to Ozzie’s career right now? No! But Belfour’s wasn’t either. Hasek retired 34 times all because of injury plagues or getting sat in the playoffs because he was stinking up the city of Nashville.
Osgood has the stats and the hardware to gain entrance. If he doesn’t make it, it would be another Detroit player who the media spits on because he wasn’t media-savvy or played for the wrong team… ask Jack Morris, Alan Trammell, and Lou Whitaker about that.
our next off-day
is Saturday. Since we’re all likely to be hung over and maybe crabby, we’ll have the Lidstrom Hall of Fame debate then.
;)
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 30, 2010 4:08 PM CST reply actions
that sir will be quite short
we’ll all post cuz it’s fun and we won’t have anything better to do during the timeouts in the football games while waiting for the Winter Classic to start – but there won’t be a debate or mud hurling at each other
I'll play the part of Don Cherry
DAMN EUROPEANS DON’T BELONG IN THE HALL!!!!!!!!!!!! I BET HE’S NEVER WORN FLOWER PRINT CURTAINS AS A SUIT IN HIS LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!
RON, IF YOU SAY A WORD, I’LL BACKHAND THE SHIT OUT OF YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Brion on Dec 30, 2010 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
RON, IF YOU SAY A WORD, I’LL BACKHAND THE SHIT OUT OF YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rec’d for this line.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 30, 2010 4:12 PM CST up reply actions
I lean towards Ozzy's induction
The biggest sticking point for me has always been “How can he be considered among the best of all time when he’s not even considered among the best of HIS time?” A lot of people will say that Ozzy never really passed the eye test for greatness, and the media angle being pointed out above will play into the decision too.
However, I just don’t think you can argue with the career numbers. 3 Cups and 400 Wins is too hard to just dismiss. Like has been said, Ozzy played behind some outstanding Red Wing teams, but he also got the flapjack-flipping Islanders into the playoffs and played well enough in St. Louis for Detroit to bring him back. Ozzie’s always said his idol was Grant Fuhr, the “bend-but-don’t-break” goalie that might let in a softie but usually not at a key juncture in the game. That’s always been his calling card, and we can all rattle off instances of those groaners that he does let in, but hey, if you’re winning most of your games, who cares what the final scores were?
Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider! --George Carlin
Best way I've heard it put
Someone who called into a radio show I was listening to put it quite well, Ozzie may not be elite goalie, but when you look at his overall career, he’s had an elite career. I think he should get into the hall, but he won’t get his number retired.
will it be easier or harder to get 400 wins in the future, though?
Teams are increasingly platooning goaltenders because the season is so long, and they want to keep their playoff starter fresh. That would reduce the opportunity to get wins, not increase it, just because there will be fewer starts for number one goalies. It might be analagous to baseball going from a four-man to a five-man rotation. Winning 20 games in a season is as exceptional as winning 25 used to be.
I don’t think it should go solely on numbers, though. It’s a hall of fame, not a record book. Subjectively…
Subjectively…
Geez, I don’t know now. I could argue myself into either position by this time. Crap. : /
Random Ramblings from a Somewhat Scattered Mind
"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time." --Sir Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965)
Not retired yet....
I’m taking the road of he hasn’t retired yet so this debate is premature. Who knows what this season, or maybe next could bring. What if Jimmy comes up weak in playoffs again and Ozzie has been playing well.
He could be called on like 2008 and he showed us in Denver that he can still play…and he’s always seemed play that way throughout the playoffs, if not the regular season. If that happened that elusive Con Smythe could even come his way.
Since I’ve always been a big Osgood fan, I’d love to see him HHOF…pretty sure it won’t be on 1st ballot. As Guy F (from PD blogs) points out, there’s going to be an awful lot of HHOF worthy candidates coming up for the vote when Ozzie wil eligible.
BTW Nobody’s mentioned Ozzie is also 1 of 9 goalies to score a goal….
Also, want to share this link from Justin at Goalie Guild. I thought it was pretty awesome:
http://www.thegoalieguild.com/2010/12/osgood/
Happy New Year WIM and all fellow Red Wings fans!!
by wingsluver4ever on Dec 30, 2010 5:43 PM CST reply actions
One thing that many people overlook is the fact that for a goalie it’s not easy being on a team that gives up very few shots. It’s hard to stay in the game, and also generally even good teams are going to give up their share of glorious scoring chances (many which will turn into goals against). That is the real reason that Osgood’s save percentage is not up there with other goalies. The Wings just never gave up that many shots. A 2.0 GAA for a Red Wing goalie will generate a lower save percentage than a 2.0 GAA for another team that gives up way more shots. It’s simple math. I’ve never thought save percentage or GAA was a real good measure of goalie success. A good goalie playing on a crappy team will have higher GAA and lower save percentage, but doesn’t mean he’s a bad goalie. Wins are not a perfect measure either, but a high number of wins shows a goalie wins consistently. That’s all you can ask for. Another thing to look at is how they perform in the playoffs. Osgood has always played his best hockey in the postseason, and has NEVER been the reason for losing any playoff series. In fact, many of the Wing’s early exits were due to him or others being injured.
There’s no way 400 wins, and finishing probably in the top 7 or 8 in wins, combined with 3 Stanley Cups and 2 other Finals appearances is not Hall worthy. Personally I think everyone is anti-Osgood in the Hall simply because they hate the Red Wings and everything to do with them.
I was about to say this same thing. Osgood was exactly the type of goalie the Wings needed when they were allowing < 20 shots a game. As a goalie (not a good one though) I can say it is wayy easier for me to stay in the game and make saves when I’m getting regular action. The worst thing is a 5 min stretch of play in the other end followed up by a great scoring chance. I never felt Cujo or Hasek were as great on the Wings as they were on teams that gave up 40 shots a night.
I think the argument about his salary is a decent point against him being in the hall, but I don’t think the with-him without/him stats are as compelling. At first glance, it seems to indicate he’s average. But if you realize those numbers are comparing his performance to Hasek, Cujo and Vernon (and a little Legace) then the fact that he put up the same totals as other goalies that are considered future HOFers makes the stat an argument FOR him being in the hall. As Ken Daniels has pointed out many times, last year was his only losing season of his entire career, even when he played for the Islanders and Blues.
by Nick Jordan on Dec 31, 2010 12:59 PM CST up reply actions
For the record:
I don’t write for Behind the Net, just lurk it. That was just a fanpost I put up after the Wings beat Colorado and I guess it got bumped to the front page without my knowledge.
It’s not that his skills have declined since the turn of the century, it’s that he’s really only had one outstanding season (aside from a great 14 game sample in his second season) and a some above-average seasons, and then mostly average/below-average beyond that.
I think my favorite piece of “Anti-Ozzie-dom” is this:
With Osgood in the line-up, his teams are 400-216-95, for a winning percentage of .629 and a save percentage of .905.
Sounds impressive? Well without Osgood they’re 400-207-80 for a winning percentage of .640 and a save percentage of .906.
If his teams were (slightly) better off without him, how could he possibly be worth of the HHoF?
Now, the real question is what type of HOF advocate are you? Do you want a “small Hall” or not. Only the best of the best of the best, or are you willing to include some people who are borderline? For me, I’m a pretty small-hall guy (though, I will admit that my love for any Hall of Fame really is lukewarm, boarding on just being downright apathetic about it), so Osgood’s a clear no.
But like I said in my fan post JJ linked to, he would’ve been more highly compensated throughout his career had he been an elite level goalie. GM’s and talent evaluators may say all the right things (or in the case of the Wings statistician, just throw out a lot of numbers that have to do with the fact that Osgood’s playing a longer schedule than some of the older goalies in the Hall, playing a far bigger playoff schedule than some of the older goalies in the Hall as well), but their actions show how they really feel about someone’s talent.
Put in other words, the guys making the decisions have shown their hesitation to pay big bucks for goalies suggesting that there are few even worth paying a lot to. It’s why Evgeni Nabakov’s in the KHL. It’s why someone like Craig Anderson can be snatched up by Colorado cheaply on the open market. It’s why Montreal had no problem dealing away Jaro Halak when everyone in the MSM said they JUST HAD to keep him (Carey Price is holding it down, I’d say, in MTL at a lower cost to boot). And it’s why, outside of Hasek, the Wings really haven’t committed big money, big prospects, or big resources to really any goalie – including Osgood (unless one’s slipping my mind … maybe CuJo; I can’t remember how much his deal was worth back in ’02).
As for the other things: I am not a Kirk Maltby fan and haven’t been one for a few years. This is something I have not wavered on. I understand why he was here – because you’re not just going to buy him out for him to not be here even though he provided very little value to the club in his final few seasons. Especially given how many people love him. I would hardly call what I said in the fan post at BTN taking “a shot” at Maltby to “prove” I’m unbiased. Just because I don’t like a player doesn’t mean I don’t root for him, which was the implication I was getting from JJ. I don’t mind if JJ would like to tear down my piece on Osgood, but I don’t understand why he seemed so touchy about the Maltby statement I put in there, though I may be reading too much into it, since I don’t read Winging It too often (though it is the only wings blog I do read when I read Wings-specific content).
As you can see, the ‘shot’ at Maltby was mostly because I’m a tangent-writer/speaker. If we were having this conversation out loud, i’d have a hard time staying on one topic without going into different branches of a discussion. Since JJ didn’t know that, though, I can’t fault him for thinking it was a overtly malicious shot at Maltby, even though it was more mentioned in passing/matter-of-factly.
Anyways, this is very long-winded response that jumps around in my typical ADD-like fashion. Appreciate the linkage and glad I could help spur some discussion around here (though the discussion would’ve happened regardless, I bet).
Sorry for putting a ‘c’ in Kronwall’s name, as well, JJ.
My Michigan State (and Big Ten) Baseball Blog.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
the problem I see with a "small hall"
Is that how can you ever justify adding anyone else to it, ever, if the only thing to do to keep it selective is to tighten standards more and more to be more selective until eventually no one qualifies because they aren’t good enough compared to the history that is already there.
Every HOF is going to grow because there is more history being added to the game with each season. Doesn’t mean that standards need to be lowered, but it doesn’t mean that anyone should be extra hard in their selection process to keep out the slightly less than historically excellent.
Random Ramblings from a Somewhat Scattered Mind
"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time." --Sir Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965)
I agree.
I just think Osgood is still not near an HOF even in an ‘expanded small-hall’ for the lack of a better term.
My Michigan State (and Big Ten) Baseball Blog.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
That piece of quoted "Anti-Osgood" stats is ridiculuous.
Absolutely ridiculous. How can you possibly conclude that the ONLY difference in the two records is the presence or absense of Ozzie on those teams?
I’m all for debate…but man, some people really live to bring Ozzie down it seems.
Thanks for responding, Mike
I’m actually glad you wrote it so we could have an anti-Osgood piece to show that side without having to link to the other big one from a writer I severely dislike and refuse to link, a person who writes approximately six or seven hockey articles per year which all show a lack of understanding of the game.
Anyway, I digress. Like I responded to the numbers that Rob Vollman posted in your article, the “numbers without Osgood” line is skewed by Dominik Hasek’s presence. By Rob’s own hand:
non-Hasek options were 335-186-71 for a .626 winning percentage, with a save percentage that’s dead even with Osgood.
I get the “small hall” angle you’re coming from and I can only say I respectfully disagree (especially as it comes to goalies, a position I think is underrepresented in the Hall anyway). But, The Red Wings were only “slightly better” without Osgood because of the years they had a better HHoF-caliber goalie in front of him on the team. Hasek is probably one of the 5 best goalies of all time (who also never managed to win 400 games). If his numbers are going to be used in a baseline to keep a goalie out of the hall, then you should only have five goalies there, and that truly is a “small hall”.
As for the Maltby thing, I get your explanation that it’s your style to jump around tangentially; I didn’t think it was necessary to call Kirk Maltby a whiner and a diver in an article about Osgood and I still don’t like the inclusion of that sentence, but it’s your article, man. You can’t please everybody.
As for the goalie pay issue, It’s certainly an interesting case. I would argue that Nabokov and Huet are both victims of a league-wide move away from highly-paid “franchise” goalies as dictated by the salary cap and the difficulty a team will have building a club around a goalie when his presence costs them approximately a 2nd-line winger and a 2nd-pair defenseman to play in front of him, making his job that much more difficult. Instead, GMs are looking for the “average” goalie because he doesn’t give up THAT many more goals than the exceptional guy and he costs 1/3rd to 1/5th as much, creating better value for the team. Seems as far as goalies go, entry-level deals and the above-average performing guys still willing to take just about average pay to stay in the league is the wave of the future.
Interestingly enough, if I’m right about that, it will get significantly harder to win 400 games, even with longer schedules and no ties. Older guys unwilling to be underpaid will go to worse teams who have to spend more to attract free agents and won’t be able to prove that they’re exceptional enough to stay in the league or the team in front of them won’t be good enough to give him the kind of help he needs to prove he’s exceptional (even a lights-out goalie will allow pucks past him if the guys in front of him are doorknob-humping retards).
Tying this long tangent back to the matter at hand, if you look at the league and the way these trends are going, you can see where it started… with the Red Wings and Chris Osgood. His dutiful performance throughout his career and his ability to just win big games while not commanding a big salary is exactly what every GM in the league is looking for. If you’re going to look at GMs behavior as the true measure of a goaltender, then I suggest looking at Chris Osgood in the light that every GM in the league is looking for a goalie like him in the salary cap era. I’d say that’s Hall-worthy, especially given the longevity of his career.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 31, 2010 7:40 AM CST up reply actions
Travel
What about the travel aspect of Ozzie’s career? The wing travel more than any other Western conference team. That’s harder on the team and especially on the goalies. Ozzie has risen above that and thrived. Is that part of why (opinion) a large percentage of vezina trophy winnersare from the Eastern Conference??
Kendal
by Kendal on Dec 31, 2010 3:04 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
That's a good point
Travel schedule’s a bitch.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 31, 2010 4:20 PM CST up reply actions
I can't really respond now (pressed for time) but I plan to later.
My Michigan State (and Big Ten) Baseball Blog.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
Looking forward to it.
Again, thanks for taking the time to respond
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 31, 2010 4:20 PM CST up reply actions
agreed
Nice of you to continue the conversation. It isn’t as though he’s getting inducted or not anytime soon.
Random Ramblings from a Somewhat Scattered Mind
"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time." --Sir Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965)
Chris has an attitude that is standoffish
I like Chris but I think the perception he portrays is sort of aloofness which may not bod well as players are voted into the Hall. I believe he belongs there, the record speaks for itself, (he likely will pass whats his name this year), but it may take some time of mellowing before it happens. I believe Chris could have been even better if he chose to be a Red Wing lifer, but money seems to get in the way a lot of times, doesn’t it? When you think of the Red Wings, loyalty is a special quality, all those guys who signed for less than the market would have paid them are prime examples. As a loyal Wing fan, I give Ozzie the nod with an asterisk that he could have been even better if he would have adhered to the Wings plans for him.
Attitude
I know where you are coming from when you talk about Osgood’s seemingly standoffish attitude. However, I do not think that is the man himself, but rather a response to years of undue criticism. Having watched him since day one, I have seen a progression of his personality, at least when it applies to the media, and seen him become more and more terse and aloof.
I remember when he first came up, he was kind of bright eyed, very honest, and almost self effacing. However, I think people used that against him, and took it as a sign of weak character. Over time, I saw him having to really defend himself on a daily basis, and I think he built walls because of it.
Think of it, a guy like Yzerman could come right out and say, “Yea, I played lousy today, and I have to do better”, and everyone would tout him as a great leader and honest guy. If Ozzie ever said anything like that, people would run with it, twist and turn it, and before you know it, the lead story for the bashers would be “Osgood admits to being Red Wings biggest problem!” So instead, Ozzie will say something like “I don’t let bad goals or games get to me, I just put them behind me right away and move on.” It comes across as aloof and non-caring, but I think it is just how he feels he has to respond because of the impossible microscope he has always been under.
Osgood didn't really have a say about being a "lifer"
When Detroit acquired Hasek in 2002, the team tried to trade Osgood but couldn’t work a deal out with anyone, so they left him unprotected in the waiver draft. The Islanders then snatched him up, so he really had no choice to leave.
Back off man, I'm a scientist
SB Nation Detroit --SB Nation's regional hub for all your Detroit sporting needs
Twitter
Agree
Agree with you. Few people could have the mental toughness it took to deal with Detroil media and fans. You would have to protect yourself to survive it…which I think you point out very well.
by wingsluver4ever on Dec 31, 2010 1:12 PM CST reply actions
Chris Osgood HOF?
Want a convincing HOF argument for Chris Osgood?
Try Win Percentage (the number of wins divided by the number of games played).
To my mind this is one of the most important and most overlooked stats in Goalie performance.
Because it measures what you accomplished given the opportunities you had available.
When you run the numbers for the top 30 goalies all time wins you get some interesting results.
The win percentages are:
Goalie…………………………GP…….Wins…….Win%
1) Martin Brodeur…………….1,101…….607…….55.1%
2) Chris Osgood………………..742…….400…….53.9%
3) Patrick Roy…………………1,029…….551…….53.5%
4) Dominik Hasek………………735…….389…….52.9%
5) Jacques Plante………………837…….437…….52.2%
6) Andy Moog…………………….713…….372…….52.2%
7) Evgeni Nabokov………………563…….293…….52.0%
8) Ed Belfour……………………..963…….484…….50.3%
Out of the top 30 Goalies (285 career wins or more) only these eight have posted a winning percentage above 50%.
(Ken Dryden at 65.0% would have been first here also had he played more games, 397/258 38th all time)
You can do the same for Play-offs as well.
Win percentage for Goalies all time with more than 100 play-off appearances.
Goalie………………………….GP…..Wins…..Win%
1) Kenneth Dryden……………112…….80…….71.4%
2) Billy Smith…………………..132…….88…….66.7%
3) Jacques Plante…………….112…….71…….63.4%
4) Grant Fuhr…………………..150…….92…….61.3%
5) Patrick Roy………………….247……151……61.1%
6) Turk Broda………………….101……..60…….59.4%
7) Chris Osgood……………….129……..74…….57.4%
8) Michael Vernon……………..138…….77…….55.8%
9) Martin Brodeur………………181…….99…….54.7%
10) Ed Belfour ………………….161…….88…….54.7%
11) Dominik Hasek…………….119…….65…….54.6%
12) Andy Moog…………………..132…….68…….51.5%
13) Tom Barrasso………………119…….61…….51.3%
14) Terry Sawchuk………………106…….54…….50.9%
Chris Osgood has always given the team in front of him a chance to win every time they go on the ice.
Whether it was in Detroit, New York or St.Louis.
*Stats from NHL.com
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Winging It In Motown
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Tyson Nash, Mike Brophy, Dustin Brown’s hit and Devils/Rangers
- In which Dustin Penner, Jeff Carter and Mike Richards edit their NHL narratives
- Puck Daddy Hockey Rumors Live Chat!
- Stanley Cup Playoff overtimes: Historically, when are goals most likely to be scored?
- A tribute to the Phoenix Coyotes’ abundant talent
