Kukla's Korner

The Malik Report

Wyshynski wonders whether Chris Osgood is an (eventual) Hall-of-Famer

Presented with a, "This is actually well thought-out" comment, from Yahoo Sports' Greg Wyshynski:

Unfortunately for Chris Osgood, his first year of Hall of Fame eligibility comes in the same season as Dominik Hasek’s.

It’s pretty much the starkest comparison that can be drawn between two winning goalies from the same era: One was a steady success with little individual glory in the regular season, with spectacular postseason credentials in three Stanley Cup wins; and the other was a human highlight reel who captured Vezinas and Harts and, eventually in his latter years, Stanley Cups.

One was a winner. The other was a legend. One satisfies the “hockey” of the building’s title, and the other one better fulfills the “fame” component.

Osgood’s name won’t be announced when the 2014 Hall of Fame class is revealed on Monday. He’s not a first-ballot guy; hell, he might not be a second or third either. He’s a player whose candidacy depends very much on the peers he’s matched up against and the criteria that the illustrious panel of voters decides to apply.

Continued at length, with the following conclusion:

Ultimately, I think Osgood gets in. Not that I think he’s elite or immortal; again, compare his legacy to that of Hasek and it’s like comparing Michael Jackson to some other hitmaking singer: They both have gold records, but one reinvented the game.

But 400 wins is usually enough to punch your ticket as long as there’s another component to your legacy. CuJo has the wins but not the accomplishments. Osgood has the wins and was the starting goalie in two of his three Stanley Cup seasons, to go along with stellar postseason numbers.

Filed in: | The Malik Report | Permalink
 

Comments

Avatar

I would’ve thought he’d really hammer home the fact, when comparing the two goalies, that Osgood lost his job to Hasek prior to the 2002 Cup win.

Posted by VitoLambruski on 06/23/14 at 12:57 PM ET

Mandingo's avatar

Oh boy. This argument again…

Chris Osgood:

Games: 744
Wins: 401
Losses: 216
Shutouts: 50
GAA: 2.49
SV%: .905

3 Stanley Cups

Goalie #2:

Games:963
Wins: 484
Losses: 320
Shutouts: 76
GAA: 2.50
SV%: .906

1 Stanley Cup

Goalie #2 was a slam-dunk, first-ballot HOFer in 2011; Chris Osgood will be debated for eternity.

Not saying either choice is right or wrong, but if you think Goalie #2 should be in the HOF, it’s hard to say Chris Osgood shouldn’t.

Posted by Mandingo from The Garage on 06/23/14 at 01:05 PM ET

MurrayChadwick's avatar

I would’ve thought he’d really hammer home the fact, when comparing the two goalies, that Osgood lost his job to Hasek prior to the 2002 Cup win.

Osgood was traded after the Wings acquired Hasek, prior to the entire 2002 season, but in pure competition standpoint, Osgood took the starting job from Hasek to win the cup in 2008.

I agree that he deserves to be in, on the 2008 fact alone.

Posted by MurrayChadwick on 06/23/14 at 01:20 PM ET

Avatar

Osgood is about as deserving as Kris Draper or Kirk Maltby—both of whom has more “wins” than Ozzie, by the way.

Posted by Captain Bob on 06/23/14 at 01:34 PM ET

Avatar

The metrics used to judge goalies are ridiculous.
Was Osgood ever considered the best goalie in hockey by the hockey world? Was Ozzie ever considered a top 3 guy at his position for a 5-10 year run? Top 5?
I think the answer is no.
He’s an accumulator that played on teams that helped him accumulate HOF numbers..
Nobody (outside of Detroit) ever argues that he’s an all-time great. Some non-Detroiters argue for him based on numbers and numbers alone.

Posted by Captain Bob on 06/23/14 at 01:40 PM ET

MurrayChadwick's avatar

Osgood is about as deserving as Kris Draper or Kirk Maltby—both of whom has more “wins” than Ozzie, by the way.

BS Argument, your comparing a OL to a QB, the position is much more important to a hockey team to consider the player some hanger on.  You can have some role player on a 4th line, you need above and beyond to win a cup.

Consider the 2008 cup, no Ozzie, no cup, and had we not lost Game 7 the following year, he was in line to win the Con Smythe.

Posted by MurrayChadwick on 06/23/14 at 01:50 PM ET

Mandingo's avatar

Was Osgood ever considered the best goalie in hockey by the hockey world? Was Ozzie ever considered a top 3 guy at his position for a 5-10 year run? Top 5?
I think the answer is no.

Posted by Captain Bob on 06/23/14 at 01:40 PM ET

That’s great that you think that.

But none of those metrics are part of the criteria for HOF eligibility anyway, so it doesn’t matter.

 

Posted by Mandingo from The Garage on 06/23/14 at 01:53 PM ET

Avatar

BS Argument, your comparing a OL to a QB, the position is much more important to a hockey team to consider the player some hanger on.  You can have some role player on a 4th line, you need above and beyond to win a cup.

Consider the 2008 cup, no Ozzie, no cup, and had we not lost Game 7 the following year, he was in line to win the Con Smythe.

Posted by MurrayChadwick on 06/23/14 at 01:50 PM ET


Look, I respect Osgood after his 08 and 09 playoff runs. But winning the cup doesn’t make you an HOF goalie. There are a lot of good goalies in the NHL who could have won the Cup.
There’s a reason why Ozzie was making $1M or whatever he was making.

Speaking of BS, Ozzie for Conn Smythe is as BS as it gets.

Posted by Captain Bob on 06/23/14 at 01:58 PM ET

Mandingo's avatar

Where did this “Was he ever considered the best player at his position?” idiocy come from anyway?

Was it basically just invented by bloggers and sub-literate sports radio hosts?

Should George Brett not be in the Hall of Fame just because he played during the same timeframe as Mike Schmidt and thus was never technically the “best at his position?”

Posted by Mandingo from The Garage on 06/23/14 at 01:59 PM ET

Mandingo's avatar

But winning the cup doesn’t make you an HOF goalie.

Posted by Captain Bob on 06/23/14 at 01:58 PM ET

Posted by Mandingo from The Garage on 06/23/14 at 02:01 PM ET

Avatar

That’s great that you think that.

But none of those metrics are part of the criteria for HOF eligibility anyway, so it doesn’t matter.

Talk to Dino Ciccarelli about metrics that “are part of HOF eligibility”

The Hall of Fame is meant for the game’s “Great"players. The stars.
Not the Osgoods.

Posted by Captain Bob on 06/23/14 at 02:02 PM ET

Avatar

Should George Brett not be in the Hall of Fame just because he played during the same timeframe as Mike Schmidt and thus was never technically the “best at his position?”

Did you just ignore the part about top 3 or top 5? Is that your debate style? Misrepresent? Lie?
How many times was George Brett an all star compared to Chris Osgood?

Posted by Captain Bob on 06/23/14 at 02:04 PM ET

Avatar

Murray with the old” If this guy got in, so should Ozzie.”


I have no respect for the “lowest common denominator” argument.

Argue that Osgood is one best goalies ever or drop the argument.

It’s that simple. Was Ozzie one of the all-time greats in goal? Is he legend?

The fact that his own fanbase is split on ozzie tells you something.

Posted by Captain Bob on 06/23/14 at 02:06 PM ET

Mandingo's avatar

The Hall of Fame is meant for the game’s “Great"players. The stars.
Not the Osgoods.

Posted by Captain Bob on 06/23/14 at 02:02 PM ET

OK, but Osgood is going to be voted in…I mean, you realize that, right?

He will be a HOFer by virtue of the fact that he will be in the HOF someday. It will happen.

You can argue that you don’t think he should be by whatever your criteria use, but your criteria don’t matter.

Posted by Mandingo from The Garage on 06/23/14 at 02:08 PM ET

George Malik's avatar

Scott Niedermayer, Adam Oates, Mats Sundin, Joe Nieuwendyk, Ed Belfour, Dino Ciccarelli, Glenn Anderson, Cam Neely, Clark Gillies, Rod Langaway, Mike Gartner, Joe Mullen, Grant Fuhr, they’ve all been inducted since Osgood won “his” first Cup in 1998, and I’m not sure if any of them could be argued to be the “best ever"at their position.

The Hockey Hall of Fame is for outstanding players. It’s not exclusively for the best players to ever play their position.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 06/23/14 at 02:20 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

George Brett shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame because he didn’t play hockey.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/23/14 at 02:23 PM ET

MurrayChadwick's avatar

Captain Bob,

Legands get their jerseys retired, guys with the stats and the rings make it in the hockey hall of fame, that’s just how it is, don’t like the criteria, argue that, but to say that Ozzie hasn’t put himself in the discussion after meeting the benchmarks of many others, is not facing reality.

Posted by MurrayChadwick on 06/23/14 at 02:31 PM ET

George Malik's avatar

Maybe we can tone down the, “Your argument is invalid, you suck” tone a bit?

I understand that we all passionately believe in what we believe in, and we’re all allowed to proffer and defend our points, but I’m seeing a significant amount of, “Your disagreement with me = you are not allowed to hold a dissenting opinion because I am the only person who is ever right” stuff.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 06/23/14 at 02:36 PM ET

awould's avatar

I posted these numbers a long time ago on another thread arguing Ozzie’s HOF potential….. The original thread has a lot of arguments that will be made here again. The link to this is below.

—————

This is a comparison of each goalie against the league averages during the times they played. There are 30 teams in the league now and some of those teams are truly terrible while others are excellent. Given that each of these players has at least one Stanley Cup ring, it is safe to say they all benefited from playing on good teams, just as those teams benefited from having great goaltending.

Player   Period   League Avg Shots Per Game   League Avg Goals Per Game
Smith 1971-1989 30.39       7.18
Fuhr 1981-2000   29.95   6.92
Barasso 1983-2002   30.16   6.62
Roy       1985-2003 29.28   6.41
Belfour 1988-2007 29.23   6.09
Osgood 1993-2010 28.86   5.64
Brodeur 1993-2010 28.90   6.09

Player   League Avg Save%  Player Save%  GAA   Difference
Smith 88.19%  88.20%      3.17   0.42
Fuhr 88.45%  88.70%      3.38   0.08
Barasso 88.19%  89.20%      3.24   0.07
Roy       89.05%  91.00%      2.54       0.67
Belfour 89.58%  90.60%      2.50       0.55
Osgood 90.23%  90.50%      2.49       0.33
Brodeur 89.58%  91.30%      2.22       0.83


The “Difference” shown is the players GAA compared to the league-wide GAA during that player’s career. A bigger number here is better. Each of these great goalies had better than average GAA during their careers.

As these numbers stack up, Fuhr and Barasso compare least favorably in every metric. They each only slightly out-performed the league in GAA and Save%. One is in the Hall and the other isn’t. The cut off appears to be somewhere in there, based on modern inductees and their stats.

It is no surprise that Roy and Brodeur, who battle for title of greatest ever, have the best numbers. Belfour is not in the HHOF (yet) and Brodeur is a lock. Osgood is firmly in the middle of this pack. Osgood is #10 in total wins. He has 3 Cups, two of which were earned as the starter. Is he the best ever? No. But the HOF is full of players who weren’t the best ever at their position.

Osgood won’t get in this time, probably doesn’t deserve first-ballot. Maybe not even 2nd. But he’ll get in and he deserves to.

Link to old thread:
http://kuklaskorner.com/hockey/comments/the_curious_case_of_chris_osgood

Posted by awould on 06/23/14 at 02:42 PM ET

SK77's avatar

Maybe we can tone down the, “Your argument is invalid, you suck” tone a bit?

Well, in all honesty, it’s really ratcheted up a few notches since “Captain Bob” arrived on the scene. Not really worth hanging out and making comments just to be argued with perpetually.

Best to just bunker down, and let y’all argue it out, while waiting for the real action to happen.

Posted by SK77 on 06/23/14 at 02:42 PM ET

henrymalredo's avatar

If the HHoF had the same loose standards for goaltenders as it does for forwards, I’m sure Osgood would get in.  He’s essentially the goaltending version of Glenn Anderson.  But the HHoF does seem slightly more stringent.  Maybe he’ll get in eventually, but there’s no guarantee.

Personally, while I liked him as a player, when it comes to the HHoF, in my opinion, I’ll always take the guy who was a top five player for 7 years over the guy who was just good for 15 years.

Posted by henrymalredo from Lansing on 06/23/14 at 02:54 PM ET

Down River Dan's avatar

Gerry Cheevers is in the HOF.

Look at Cheever’s numbers and explain that Chris doesnt get in as well??

Gil Freaking Stein is in the HOF, and he was a commissioner for like 15 minutes!! A bad one at that as well!! Kick his sorry ass out and now we got an extra spot. Issue Solved!

400 wins 50 shutouts 2 Cups as starter.

He’s in eventually PERIOD!!!

Posted by Down River Dan on 06/23/14 at 03:04 PM ET

Luongo-is-my-hero's avatar

Are you guys really arguing this? lol Noone outside of detroit believes that osgood should be in the HOF.  When you play for a great team you are going to get good stats.  Are you telling me that hasek wouldnt obliterate osgoods numbers if he played the same amount of games for detroit during his prime as well?  I wonder how well osgood would have played for a team like buffallo back than, or how bout a bottom feeder?  He would have had cloutier like numbers.

Posted by Luongo-is-my-hero on 06/23/14 at 03:07 PM ET

MurrayChadwick's avatar

Are you guys really arguing this? lol Noone outside of detroit believes that osgood should be in the HOF.

 

Did you read the post attached to the comments?  This is all based on a Yahoo Puckdaddy blog entery by Greg Wyshynski,  who says “Ultimately, I think Osgood gets in”.  Neither puckdaddy or wyshynski is detroit based.

Posted by MurrayChadwick on 06/23/14 at 03:17 PM ET

Avatar

Without using using “wins,” which is a team stat, as we all know, tell me why, using words, you think Osgood deserves a spot in the hall?
I hated the Oilers. I couldn’t stand Grant Fuhr,
But nobody on the Oilers played defense. And as much as didn’t like Fuhr, Fuhr was an athletic goalie who made an enormous amount of acrobatic saves.
The other thing about Fuhr is he played a big chunk of his career in the highest scoring era in modern history ...
And personally, I’m not even advocating for Fuhr as an HOF’er. But I think a lot of people would say that at Furhr’s peak, we was among the top 3 goalies in the NHL for a number of years.

Fuhr’s Vezina Voting
82 2nd
83—-
84 6th
85 6th
86 3rd
87 3rd
88 1st
89 5th

90 ——
91——
92——
93——
94——
95 6th

From 82-89, that’s a good run.

95 10th
96 2nd
97——
98 7th
99——
00——
01——
02——
03——
04——
05——
06——
07—-
08 11th (one vote by a Detroit media homer)

Let’s look at Hasek
94—First
95—First
96—8th
97—First
98—First
99—First
00—8th
01—First
02—Sixth
03—RETIRED
04—
05—Lockout
06—7th
07—5th

—- That’s what “greatness looks like”

How about Belfour.. I’ve actually seen Red Wings fans argue that Ozzie was better than Belford.


91 - First
92—4th
93- First
94—7th
95- 2nd
96——-
97———
98 - 4th
99 - 7th
00—4th
01 - 12th
03—3rd
04—7th

Hasek, Roy. Those guys are all-time greats. The next level down is Belfour. He had a great career. He deserves to be inducted.
He’s what a Hall of Fame goalie looks like.

For a few years, he was the best. For for a long time, he was among the best.

I take a look at some of these vezina guys and contenders. There are goalies who played on mostly crap teams who are far superior to Osgood. Kiprusoff. Lundquist. Kolzig.

How many games does a kiprusoff win if he’s the Red WIngs goalie for 12-13 years?

Ozzie had an awesome career as backstopper for a great team. He’s not an all-time great. And you look silly when you suggest it.

 

Posted by Captain Bob on 06/23/14 at 03:22 PM ET

Down River Dan's avatar

Luongo-is-my-hero


I guess billy smith comes out then, cause George Malik could of won 4 cups playing net for the islanders back then. (Sorry george)

Posted by Down River Dan on 06/23/14 at 03:23 PM ET

George Malik's avatar

Wyshynski is a Devils fan and many would argue that he’s reveled in taunting Wings fans over the years.

And no worries. 

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 06/23/14 at 03:27 PM ET

Avatar

OK, but Osgood is going to be voted in…I mean, you realize that, right?

He will be a HOFer by virtue of the fact that he will be in the HOF someday. It will happen.

I don’t think so. I think the voters are smart enough to know the difference between a great goalie, and a good goalie who played a lot of years on a great team.

Posted by Captain Bob on 06/23/14 at 03:28 PM ET

Avatar

Scott Niedermayer, Adam Oates, Mats Sundin, Joe Nieuwendyk, Ed Belfour, Dino Ciccarelli, Glenn Anderson, Cam Neely, Clark Gillies, Rod Langaway, Mike Gartner, Joe Mullen, Grant Fuhr, they’ve all been inducted since Osgood won “his” first Cup in 1998, and I’m not sure if any of them could be argued to be the “best ever"at their position.

The Hockey Hall of Fame is for outstanding players. It’s not exclusively for the best players to ever play their position.

Here;s the test. If Osgood was the Avs goalie in the 90s and 00s, you’d be laughing your face off at anyone who suggested he should be in the HOF.
Of Course, if the Avs had Ozzie instead of Roy, they wouldn’t have won anything.

Nobody said “best ever” George. You’re being silly.
Among the very best of their generation.
On that last, Niedermayer, Oates, Sundin, Niewendyk, Belfour, Neely, Langway are deserving.
Not sure about Mullen. Don’t think Gilles belongs. And Gartner, to me, was never one of hockey’s greats. He was like a Ray Whitney of a higher scoring era that voters never put in context.

Osgood was not even close to being one of the best goalies of his era. 1 top 5 finish in Vezina voting.
2 more in the top 10.

 

Posted by Captain Bob on 06/23/14 at 03:33 PM ET

George Malik's avatar

And now Rob Blake is a Hall-of-Famer. Was he one of the best of his generation, or was he just a superb rear-end-checker who played on some stacked teams?

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 06/23/14 at 03:40 PM ET

MurrayChadwick's avatar

Posted by Captain Bob “Here;s the test. If…”

Bob, the “test” for the Hall of Fame is stats and achievements and as many have pointed out, Osgood has enough of both to get in.  You can say people are “silly” all you want, but the reality its the Hall criteria that is “silly”

All your other arguments are spot on, salary, team play, etc. etc. though would another goalie be able to handle the low shots but high % of quality scoring attempts the wings gave up, for example, Cujo was a damn good goalie before he came here and had to stand around for long stretches and wasn’t, he thrived off of seeing pucks.

Should be interesting the next 5 years, I could see him getting in, I could also see him not getting in especially if you look at who else is available.

 

Posted by MurrayChadwick on 06/23/14 at 03:50 PM ET

Avatar

And now Rob Blake is a Hall-of-Famer. Was he one of the best of his generation, or was he just a superb rear-end-checker who played on some stacked teams?

Rob Blake’s Norris voting
97-98: 1st
99-00: 3rd
00-01: 4th
01-02: 3rd
02-03: 5th
03-04: 8th

For 5 years was viewed as top 5 at his position.

I think Blake gets a bit too much love because of where he’s from (Toronto) and because he played for Team Canada..

But Rob Blake, at his peak, was unquestionably among the very top at his position.

 

Posted by Captain Bob on 06/23/14 at 03:50 PM ET

Avatar

All your other arguments are spot on, salary, team play, etc. etc. though would another goalie be able to handle the low shots but high % of quality scoring attempts the wings gave up, for example, Cujo was a damn good goalie before he came here and had to stand around for long stretches and wasn’t, he thrived off of seeing pucks.

Cujo was also 35 when he came to Detroit and starting to break down, physically.

Posted by Captain Bob on 06/23/14 at 03:52 PM ET

Down River Dan's avatar

Why not Jim Carrey for the HOF?.......I mean he did win a vesina trophy one year?

Posted by Down River Dan on 06/23/14 at 04:06 PM ET

Avatar

Why not Jim Carrey for the HOF?.......I mean he did win a vesina trophy one year?

One year. You said it yourself,

I think a more interesting question than Osgood is Tom Barraso

84—First
85—Second
86——10th
87——
88—- second
89—eighth
90——————
91—————-
92————-
93—second
94—————-
95—————
96————-
97—————-
98—-Third

Won two cups.
For whatever reason, though, I don’t view him as a legit Hall of Famer.

Posted by Captain Bob on 06/23/14 at 04:43 PM ET

calquake's avatar

Best to just bunker down, and let y’all argue it out, while waiting for the real action to happen.

Posted by SK77 on 06/23/14 at 02:42 PM ET

I like to call it “summer vacation”.

Posted by calquake on 06/23/14 at 05:10 PM ET

Kate from Pa.-made in Detroit's avatar

I like to call it “summer vacation”.

Posted by calquake on 06/23/14 at 05:10 PM ET

Hi Quaker! Happy Summer Vacation. wink

Lets Go Red Wings!!!!!

Posted by Kate from Pa.-made in Detroit on 06/23/14 at 07:32 PM ET

Kate from Pa.-made in Detroit's avatar

Osgood won’t get in this time, probably doesn’t deserve first-ballot. Maybe not even 2nd. But he’ll get in and he deserves to.

Posted by awould on 06/23/14 at 02:42 PM ET

Oh hellz yes! No ifs and buts, or, candy and nuts aboot it.

Lets Go Red Wings!!!!!

 

Posted by Kate from Pa.-made in Detroit on 06/23/14 at 07:43 PM ET

bigfrog's avatar

Osgood won’t get in this time, probably doesn’t deserve first-ballot. Maybe not even 2nd. But he’ll get in and he deserves to.

You are probably correct on Osgood getting in eventually. He would have been in on the first ballot for sure if the maneuvering during the 2009 SCF’s hadn’t taken place, if you know what I mean. He would have also won the award for the playoffs MVP along with back to back Cups, but Cindy was going to get her Cup no matter what.

Posted by bigfrog on 06/23/14 at 10:30 PM ET

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.