Kukla's Korner

The Malik Report

Subtle retaliation? Pleiness’s seven reasons why Chris Osgoods’s a Hall-of-Famer

Let’s just say that it’s entirely possible that the Macomb Daily’s Chuck Pleiness surveyed the interweb and felt it necessary to offer both teammate/general manager testimonials and seven very specific reasons why Pleiness believes that Red Wings goaltender Chris Osgood is a very legitimate Hockey Hall of Fame candidate:

1. There are 32 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 seven of those 32 (Patrick Roy, Terry Sawchuk, Jacques Plante, Tony Esposito, Glenn Hall, Ed Belfour and Grant Fuhr) have won more games than Osgood.

2. Osgood currently has 50 regular-season shutouts to his credit. Only 15 of those HOF goalies have more.

3. Osgood had just one regular season in which he finished with a record below .500. That was 2009-10, when he posted a 7-9-4 record. Of those goalies in the HOF, only three can make that claim (Ken Dryden, Bill Durnan and Roy).

4. Osgood has been on three Stanley Cup winning teams. Twenty of the goalies in the HOF have been on less.

5. In the playoffs, Osgood has won 74 games. Only five HOF netminders have won more (Roy, Fuhr, Billy Smith, Dryden and Belfour).

6. Osgood has recorded 15 postseason shutouts. Only Roy (23) has more among goalies in the HOF.

7. Of the 10 netminders who reached the 400-win plateau, only Martin Brodeur did it quicker (720 games, compared to Osgood’s 742).

Continued, and for the record, the Saginaw News’s Kyle Austin reports that Darren McCarty’s golf game is…best-suited to charitable tournaments…

Filed in: | The Malik Report | Permalink
 

Comments

 1 2 >       Next »

Number9Loyalist's avatar

I like this simple but persuasive reasons and always adding that the intangibles overwhelmingly nudge Chris in the Hall.

Posted by Number9Loyalist on 07/23/11 at 09:05 PM ET

Avatar

Recording wins as a goalie statistic is arbitrary. Nik Lidstrom had more to do with Osgood’s win totals than Osgood did.

Posted by kmad from vancouver on 07/23/11 at 10:20 PM ET

Evilpens's avatar

Retalitoin ? Heat getting to ya George LOL

Posted by Evilpens on 07/23/11 at 10:24 PM ET

cs6687's avatar

Not convinced. He is in no way a Hall of Fame goaltender.

Posted by cs6687 on 07/23/11 at 10:39 PM ET

cs6687's avatar

If Tom Barrasso can’t get in the Hall, then Osgood sure as hell shouldn’t.

Posted by cs6687 on 07/23/11 at 10:40 PM ET

Matt Fry's avatar

Subtract even that stat kmad and I still think he should be in there.  Wins are a stat so deal with it.

Posted by Matt Fry from Winnipeg on 07/23/11 at 11:03 PM ET

Neznarf's avatar

Based on pure bias (dont care) I want him in.

But the argument against is “look who he had in front of him”.  So for someone arguing against him being a HHOF’er, all of these reasons or irrelevant.

I’m sure I’ve missed it but can I see 7 reasons he SHOULDN’t be, and not just 1?

Posted by Neznarf on 07/23/11 at 11:05 PM ET

Avatar

Absolutely no question that Chris Osgood belongs in the Hall of Fame.  Hasek belongs and he made me nervous every time someone shot at him.  Osgood, never did that.  He played on great teams, but he was a splendid goalie.

Doc

Posted by DocF from Reidsville, NC on 07/23/11 at 11:22 PM ET

cs6687's avatar

It’s the eye test. In football, when you watch Tom Brady or Peyton Manning, you can tell they are great quarterbacks. People will talking about them in 15 years the way they do now with Montana, Marino, and Elway. Osgood has some favorable stats, but they aren’t everything. In ten years, when you hear someone say ‘that guy reminds me of Chris Osgood.’ you’re not going to think of a great goalie. You’re going to think of a goaltender who was the product of the players and system in front of him.

Posted by cs6687 on 07/23/11 at 11:24 PM ET

monkey's avatar

Tom Barasso should be in the Hall, as should Mike Vernon.

For that matter, Curtis Joseph absolutely belongs in the Hall of Fame, and Chris Osgood’s résumé is easily better than Cujo’s.

The standards that are apparently used for goalies to get in are absurdly high and, yet, at the same time, wildly arbitrary.  We should not be looking at Tom Barasso not in the Hall, where he belongs, and thinking “if he can’t get in then such and such can’t either”.  It is a crime to keep any player of Barasso’s quality out of the Hall of Fame.

Posted by monkey from Finland on 07/23/11 at 11:29 PM ET

monkey's avatar

Posted by cs6687 on 07/23/11 at 09:24 PM ET

Like Grant Fuhr?  Every time I see Chris Osgood, I think “that guy reminds me of Grant Fuhr”.

“Nobody will remember him” is not an argument against Chris Osgood.  Nobody remembers Oliver Seibert, so what?

The Hockey Hall of Fame is not a pantheon for the absolute all time legends that no one in the sport will ever forget.  There are scores of people enshrined there who would otherwise be all but forgotten.

Posted by monkey from Finland on 07/23/11 at 11:33 PM ET

monkey's avatar

Like Grant Fuhr?  Every time I see Chris Osgood, I think “that guy reminds me of Grant Fuhr”.

Or Billy Smith.  I get them confused.

Posted by monkey from Finland on 07/23/11 at 11:36 PM ET

monkey's avatar

Retalitoin ? Heat getting to ya George

Don’t forget “Osgoods’s”.  Get some sleep, George, and get that air conditioning fixed.

Posted by monkey from Finland on 07/23/11 at 11:41 PM ET

Gumby's avatar

Recording wins as a goalie statistic is arbitrary. Nik Lidstrom had more to do with Osgood’s win totals than Osgood did.

Posted by kmad from vancouver on 07/23/11 at 08:20 PM ET


...and Martin Brodeur hasn’t had the same success since Scott Stevens retired.  Should we assume that Brodeur’s numbers are a sham because of the defences in front of him?  Not hardly!  Ken Dryden had great players in front of him, so did Patrick Roy and Billy Smith.  Ozzie may not have been as flashy as these other goalies, but that’s not to say he didn’t put up HOF worthy numbers.

Posted by Gumby from the city with more ruins than Rome on 07/24/11 at 12:20 AM ET

Rdwings28's avatar

I like this comeback…. well done sir, I say HOF for the wizard. Whether you netmind a good, great, or helluva tea to the Two Stanley’s, you should probably get in.

Posted by Rdwings28 on 07/24/11 at 12:22 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Nik Lidstrom had more to do with Osgood’s win totals than Osgood did.

Posted by kmad from vancouver on 07/23/11 at 08:20 PM ET

It’s Nick.  Nick Lidstrom.

It’s the eye test. In football, when you watch Tom Brady or Peyton Manning, you can tell they are great quarterbacks. People will talking about them in 15 years the way they do now with Montana, Marino, and Elway. Osgood has some favorable stats, but they aren’t everything. In ten years, when you hear someone say ‘that guy reminds me of Chris Osgood.’ you’re not going to think of a great goalie. You’re going to think of a goaltender who was the product of the players and system in front of him.

Posted by cs6687 on 07/23/11 at 09:24 PM ET

So who is the Chris Osgood of football quarterbacks?

*grabs popcorn*

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/24/11 at 12:24 AM ET

Avatar

The argument in my mind against Osgood being a Hall of Famer is that he simply didn’t play enough in comparison other goaltenders of his era. In an era where the elite goalies played 60-70 if not more games a year Osgood averaged for his career under 50. He was only the inarguable #1 guy on the Red Wings for a couple seasons. During which time it always seemed like they were searching for a replacement. When they did get someone else, they couldn’t even find a trade partner for Osgood, they just waived him.

If he was truly at the level of the other goalies of his era that are in or going to get consideration for the Hall of Fame he would have played more. I know a lot around the Wings are speaking highly of him now, but their actions at the time to me speak louder.

Don’t get me wrong I think he is a good goalie and gets a bum rap by some, but he isn’t a HOFer in my mind. Just didn’t play enough.

Posted by jkrdevil on 07/24/11 at 12:31 AM ET

cs6687's avatar

So who is the Chris Osgood of football quarterbacks?

Any also-ran who won something because of the players around him. Trent Dilfer, Eli Manning, Jim McMahon.

Posted by cs6687 on 07/24/11 at 12:38 AM ET

Avatar

If I were to compare Osgood to an NFL QB, it would be Jim Plunkett. He won two Super Bowls as the Raiders QB. Both times he came from the backup spot to lead his team to the Super Bowl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Plunkett

Posted by jkrdevil on 07/24/11 at 12:43 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Dilfer and McMahon are lazy comparisons. Eli Manning hasn’t played enough games in the NHL to be a good comparison.

Jim Plunkett probably works though.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/24/11 at 01:21 AM ET

Avatar

If we’re comparing HOFs, how about we include the Rock N Roll HOF?

I don’t think Ringo Starr deserves to be there because, you know, he had those other three guys playing in front of him. We all know from the eyeball (ear?) test that Ringo wasn’t as good as Ginger Baker or Mitch Mitchell.

Posted by Seaner on 07/24/11 at 01:51 AM ET

cs6687's avatar

My main point is that you recognize greatness just by watching it. Halls of fame are to commemorate greatness, not good or very good. Osgood was good, and had moments of very good. But he is far from great.

Posted by cs6687 on 07/24/11 at 01:52 AM ET

Primis's avatar

My main point is that you recognize greatness just by watching it. Halls of fame are to commemorate greatness, not good or very good. Osgood was good, and had moments of very good. But he is far from great.

Posted by cs6687 on 07/23/11 at 11:52 PM ET

I usually subscribe to this idea regarding HoF’s, but just remember:  you won’t like when this is applied to your team/players then.

It’s a tough thing to put out there, and then swallow when it’s your teams’s guys or your players you like.

Posted by Primis on 07/24/11 at 02:16 AM ET

cs6687's avatar

you won’t like when this is applied to your team/players then.

i don’t disagree with that. The same argument went against Lynn Swann forever. Of the current Penguins, I don’t think any are a lock right now. Crosby is on the fast track. Malkin could be. I would argue for Fleury if the Penguins are able to win another Cup or two. Time will tell.

Posted by cs6687 on 07/24/11 at 02:23 AM ET

Speedy's avatar

hmmm Dilfer?did Dilfer win more than one title?agree JJ,the comparision is lazy.Plunkett might be a better comparision,having won 2 titles in the NFL.

Posted by Speedy on 07/24/11 at 02:29 AM ET

Speedy's avatar

hall of fame is for achievement,career accomplishments not arbritrary whose the greatest.the argument made in the article posted is compelling.the guy won big.to say you could put anyone in there to win doesn’t fly.Hasek had 2 shots with Detroit to win,2nd time Ozzie bailed him out.Cujo couldn’t do it,perhaps he regrets his Detroit stay because something was expected from him.Osgood beat Belfour in 98 WCF.as Herb Brooks said-Great moments are born from great opportunities.Ozzie has claimed his

Posted by Speedy on 07/24/11 at 03:25 AM ET

George Malik's avatar

Urgh. Heat did get to me—I was packing the car when this popped up, and it was hot and sticky. Stupid-ass no-spell checking software for the titles…

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 07/24/11 at 04:05 AM ET

awould's avatar

Posted by cs6687 on 07/24/11 at 12:23 AM ET

You say no way is Osgood HOF material and then say you think Fleury probably qualifies if he wins another Cup. Fleury’s stats are not as good as Osgood at the same point in their career. He is not on pace to eclipse Osgood by much in any category. So the prime criteria in your argument seems to be # of Cups since their stats are not very far off and we can all agree that Fleury benefits from the team in front of him just like Osgood (and nearly every other goalie in the HOF).

I think with Osgood the criteria should be this: if you saw his career stats without knowing it was Osgood, how could you not put him in the Hall. He has 3 Cups. He has more wins than every goalie but 9 in NHL history. Those two stats alone should be enough for any goalie, even Osgood.

Posted by awould on 07/24/11 at 04:24 AM ET

monkey's avatar

It’s Nick.  Nick Lidstrom.

Nicklas Lidström.

Posted by monkey from Finland on 07/24/11 at 09:38 AM ET

Paul From Cali's avatar

Your 7 reasons are like saying there are 7 billion people on the planet.  I’ve made more money then a few million of them.  It just doesn’t wash.

I know it’s tough for Dead Wings fans to see it through the winged wheels on their glasses but Chris Osgood isn’t a Hall of Famer.  He was a very good goalie, but it’s the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very good.

Posted by Paul From Cali on 07/24/11 at 10:36 AM ET

RWBill's avatar

1.

2.

Posted by kmad from vancouver on 07/23/11 at 08:20 PM ET


Two examples that just because someone is from Vancouver does not mean that they know anything aboot hockey.

Posted by RWBill from the open bar on The Hasek. on 07/24/11 at 11:07 AM ET

RWBill's avatar

It’s the eye test.
Posted by cs6687 on 07/23/11 at 09:24 PM ET

It’s not “the eye test”, it’s “the scoreboard test”.

The eye test?  ROFLMAO!!  Where TF did you come up with that? 

Scoreboard.  Winner.

Posted by RWBill from the open bar on The Hasek. on 07/24/11 at 11:10 AM ET

RWBill's avatar

Nik Lidstrom had more to do with Osgood’s win totals than Osgood did.
Posted by kmad from vancouver on 07/23/11 at 08:20 PM ET

It’s Nick.  Nick Lidstrom.
Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/23/11 at 10:24 PM ET

That’s what I was saying, J.J.  The actress who is given lines in a very funny TV show is made to appear as, and even outside the set tries to pass herself off, as a hockey fan, yet thinks Lidstrom is “Lindstrom.”  (after all, he’s unknown to most hockey fans,  what?)

And another Vancouver pretender surfaces trying to pass him/herself off as a hockey fan but again doesn’t even know the greatest Defenseman in the last 20 years.

Solid!  Go burn another car!

Posted by RWBill from the open bar on The Hasek. on 07/24/11 at 11:16 AM ET

RWBill's avatar

Any also-ran who won something because of the players around him. Trent Dilfer, Eli Manning, Jim McMahon.

Posted by cs6687 on 07/23/11 at 10:38 PM ET

LMAO, the stupidity runs amok.  When those guys win THREE Super Bowls, then try to come back with that argument.  When those guys win more games as a QB than all but 10 other QBs in history, then come back with that argument.  As it stands you look just plain ill equipped to handle a discussion.

Posted by RWBill from the open bar on The Hasek. on 07/24/11 at 11:20 AM ET

RWBill's avatar

I’ve made more money then a few million of them.
Posted by Paul From Cali on 07/24/11 at 08:36 AM ET

Have you made more money than all but nine?

Posted by RWBill from the open bar on The Hasek. on 07/24/11 at 11:22 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

  It’s Nick.  Nick Lidstrom.

Nicklas Lidström.

Posted by monkey from bat country on 07/24/11 at 07:38 AM ET

Touche.

You say no way is Osgood HOF material and then say you think Fleury probably qualifies if he wins another Cup. Fleury’s stats are not as good as Osgood at the same point in their career. He is not on pace to eclipse Osgood by much in any category. So the prime criteria in your argument seems to be # of Cups since their stats are not very far off and we can all agree that Fleury benefits from the team in front of him just like Osgood (and nearly every other goalie in the HOF).

Posted by awould on 07/24/11 at 02:24 AM ET

QED.

It’s not about his level as a goalie to some fans, it’s about a bias against the Red Wings.  This commenter would have somebody worse than Osgood get into the Hall with lesser criteria.  Doesn’t seem like very sound reasoning there.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/24/11 at 12:14 PM ET

cs6687's avatar

Sadly, I think Osgood will get it. It’s just easier to look at numbers than actually watch the tape. Anyone who has watched the game can tell Osgood is not at the level of Roy, Dryden, and Brodeur i.e. elite, all-time greats.

As for my Fleury comment, I don’t think he’s a HOF goaltender right now. But that comment was made based on the assumption that Osgood will get in. And yes, Osgood did have better numbers at this point in his career. But Fleury, while very good, isn’t past debating yet. But if Osgood has three Cups and gets in, it’s only fair to put Fleury or any goaltender with that much success in as well.

As one poster said above, it’s the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Good.

Posted by cs6687 on 07/24/11 at 12:42 PM ET

Steve Strowbridge's avatar

Eli Manning hasn’t played enough games in the NHL to be a good comparison.

JJ, it’s looking doubtful at this point in his career that he is going to get those NHL games in also. :p

Posted by Steve Strowbridge from St. John's, NL, CA on 07/24/11 at 01:08 PM ET

Avatar

Fleury is a good goalie and all, thinking of him stoning Lids in the closing seconds of that game particular game 7 (that was on my f’n b-day) still bums me out…

But you say he’s more worthy than Ozzie? And you say so conditionally by adding the ‘If he wins a couple more cups’ argument - that’s just ridiculous.

Joey MacDonald could be HHOF worthy if he just ‘wins a few cups.’ Slightly more absurd than your comment, but not by a whole lot.

Posted by LGRW-eh on 07/24/11 at 01:46 PM ET

cs6687's avatar

But you say he’s more worthy than Ozzie?

I never said he’s more worthy. I said if he wins a few more Cups, you can’t deny him if Osgood gets in. That’s what most people keep saying about Osgood. He’s won three Cups, though he was responsible for two of them. He played two games in the 1997 postseason. He wasn’t even the starter at the beginning of the 2008 playoffs. It took Hasek losing the job for Osgood to have a chance, and Osgood deserves credit for taking advantage of the opportunity.

He’s not a Hall of Fame goaltender.

Posted by cs6687 on 07/24/11 at 02:02 PM ET

 1 2 >       Next »

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About The Malik Report

The Malik Report is a destination for all things Red Wings-related. I offer biased, perhaps unprofessional-at-times and verbose coverage of my favorite team, their prospects and developmental affiliates. I've joined the Kukla's Korner family with five years of blogging under my belt, and I hope you'll find almost everything you need to follow your Red Wings at a place where all opinions are created equal and we're all friends, talking about hockey and the team we love to follow.