Jump to content

Elevate

Let's talk about Chris Osgood

Recommended Posts

Who are the HOF deserving goalies that started their career in 1980 or after?

Only 3 are in so far. Billy Smith, Grant Fuhr, Patrick Roy. Hasek and Brodeur will get in. No one else is a shoo-in. Maybe Belfour and Richter on the bubble? I can't think of any other active goalie that is likely to make it.

That's a select group. Which is why, as much as I admire Ozzie, I don't think he should get into the Hall of Fame. Which is not to say that I think there's no chance he will get in. Win another Cup this year and then one more after that, win one Conn Smythe, and I think that very well could be enough to swing it with enough voters. Probably wouldn't be enough for me, however. I wouldn't be opposed to a jersey retirement though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, that's fair then.

As long as we're not including those guys that Biggie mentioned then I can't say you are being inconsistent. You just have high standards. Nobody can say with a straight face that Osgood is on par with Smith, Brodeur, Roy, and Hasek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah - my problem with Osgood's candidacy is if I argue Chris should be in the HoF, then to be objective and fair, I either have to argue Ed Belfour, Mike Vernon, Jon Vanbeisbrouck, Curtis Joseph, Tom Barraso, Mike Richter, and Andy Moog belong in the HoF, or, Chris was clearly better than all these guys (or at least the guys who aren't HoF caliber).

I don't want to argue either proposition, because I don't believe either of them to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a reason that a player can't be included in the HoF based on an that player's impressive set of achievements rather than someone else's estimation of that player's talent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a reason that a player can't be included in the HoF based on an that player's impressive set of achievements rather than someone else's estimation of that player's talent?

Wouldn't that mean then that you'd have to consider Kris Draper a HOFer? He's got 4 rings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a reason that a player can't be included in the HoF based on an that player's impressive set of achievements rather than someone else's estimation of that player's talent?

Everyone gets voted into the HoF based on the collective voters' estimation of their talent and accomplishments - its a vote, after all, so there is always going to be some subjectivity involved.

But if you are asking could guidelines be established to ensure enshrinement based on achieving certain career accomplishments or milestones, well, it could be done, but I'm not that keen on that, because it rewards players who happen to fit a category or categories well, and punishes those who do not. Now if those milestones perfectly correlate to actual playing effectiveness - then great - but I think it is pretty hard to do that in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn't that mean then that you'd have to consider Kris Draper a HOFer? He's got 4 rings.

Do you really equate Draper's situation to Osgood?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to think of Osgood in baseball terms. This is imperfect, but let's say Ozzie is like a pitcher who has been in the league 15-20 years. Consistenly wins 13-17 games in the regular season. So, say, 260 career wins. Never leads the league in ERA, occasionally in the top 5. Never won a Cy Young, but a contender a couple of times. Probably never a 20-game winner, maybe once, but more likely tops out at 18,19 wins a couple of times. Not known as a power pitcher who racks up tons of strikeouts or who has an intimidating image, but has good control and is rarely rocked in big games. Makes a few All-Star Game appearances. But has played on a few World Series winners, won several post-season games, and pitched well in a few memorable post-season series-clinchers.

Good career for a pitcher, doesn't really sound like a Hall of Famer though, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone gets voted into the HoF based on the collective voters' estimation of their talent and accomplishments - its a vote, after all, so there is always going to be some subjectivity involved.

But if you are asking could guidelines be established to ensure enshrinement based on achieving certain career accomplishments or milestones, well, I'm not that keen on that, because it rewards players who happen to fit a category or categories well, and punishes those who do not. Now if that perfectly correlates to actual playing effectiveness - then great - but it is pretty hard to do that in practice.

I was just asking you. You said that to include Osgood you'd either have to include a laundry list of goalies, or argue he was better than all of them. I was simply asking if instead of limiting it to one of those two options, instead we accept that he wasn't/isn't one of the 5 most talented goalies in the last 20 years, but he was/is a talented goalie with a lot of success over a long career.

I'd argue there already exists an unwritten level of achievement required for enshrinement. Should you vote for a player who's career was cut short by and injury because in your opinion he was the most talented player you've ever seen? If we are already willing to accept a player's luck when it relates to injury then why not do the same for a player who lands on the right team and hits a lot of milestones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really equate Draper's situation to Osgood?

Id say Holmstrom situation is closer. Constantly an above average player for a team that won a bunch of cups. Holmstrom even has more cups than Ozzie does. Does that make Holmstrom a HOF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really equate Draper's situation to Osgood?

I see two guys who are very good at what they're tasked to do and have stuck around a long time and were fortunate enough to play on multiple Cup winning teams, spanning over a decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A goalies job is to win. He's 10th all time.

A 4th line centers job is slightly less important.

what about holmstrom though? He has played a lot of 1st and 2nd line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what about holmstrom though? He has played a lot of 1st and 2nd line.

I would say Osgood has been far more imprtant to this team than Homer. But that's my opinion.

I also don't think you can compare goalies to skaters WRT Hall of Fame discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just asking you. You said that to include Osgood you'd either have to include a laundry list of goalies, or argue he was better than all of them. I was simply asking if instead of limiting it to one of those two options, instead we accept that he wasn't/isn't one of the 5 most talented goalies in the last 20 years, but he was/is a talented goalie with a lot of success over a long career.

But the "laundry list" of goalies were all talented goalies with a lot of success over a long career. All except for Mike Richter had 370 or more wins. What makes Osgood special relative to those guys? This was my point.

For example, Mike Vernon won a few more regular season games than Osgood, 2 cups, and a Conn Smythe throphy. I don't know of too many people that consider Mike a HoF caliber goalie. That written, I frankly don't see how one arrives at the conclusion that Osgood was definately and markedly a better goalie than Mike. They seem pretty darned similar to me, so if Mike isn't considered a HoF caliber goalie, how can Chris be considered one?

The only thing Osgood clearly accomplished more than any of those goalies is he played on 3 Stanley Cup winning teams and might win his fourth this year. Of course, he was the back-up for one of those cup winning teams and did not appear in the play-offs in that particular year, IIRC.

I do agree with the claim that "[Osgood] was/is a talented goalie with a lot of success over a long career", and have never suggested otherwise. Me stating I don't think Chris is a HoF caliber goalie is not the same as saying Chris is not good.

I'd argue there already exists an unwritten level of achievement required for enshrinement. Should you vote for a player who's career was cut short by and injury because in your opinion he was the most talented player you've ever seen? If we are already willing to accept a player's luck when it relates to injury then why not do the same for a player who lands on the right team and hits a lot of milestones.

Sure there is an unwritten level of achievement that gets one into the HoF. I don't think Chris has reached that level.

Also, I am more inclined to vote for a guy who was truly great and whose career is cut short by injury than a guy who was good but lasted a long time and played on mostly great teams. That's because I value performance over longevity. I put more weight to being the best player in the league or position over being good a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Osgood is a fringe hall of famer right now. But his Stanley Cup runs 10 years apart is impressive. I think if they win again this year, that might put him over the top for me. There aren't a lot of goalies with three stanley cups in this age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A goalies job is to win. He's 10th all time.

A 4th line centers job is slightly less important.

a goalie's job is to make saves. They can't win a game because 0-0 doesn't win the game. Draper doesn't get W or L next to his name due to his position. Osgood's 10th all time because he's played on some great teams and for a long time.

It's a glamour position but a great defense can protect an average goalie quite a bit.

But I was just responding to his general point that you can judge players by an "impressive set of achievements". Osgood's achievements over Draper are due to playing a position that gets a W or L assigned to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a goalie's job is to make saves. They can't win a game because 0-0 doesn't win the game. Draper doesn't get W or L next to his name due to his position. Osgood's 10th all time because he's played on some great teams and for a long time.

It's a glamour position but a great defense can protect an average goalie quite a bit.

But I was just responding to his general point that you can judge players by an "impressive set of achievements". Osgood's achievements over Draper are due to playing a position that gets a W or L assigned to it.

Is Draper anywhere near the top 10 all time in any category? You didn't address the point at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, Mike Vernon won a few more regular season games than Osgood, 2 cups, and a Conn Smythe throphy. I don't know of too many people that consider Mike a HoF caliber goalie. That written, I frankly don't see how one arrives at the conclusion that Osgood was definately and markedly a better goalie than Mike. They seem pretty darned similar to me, so if Mike isn't considered a HoF caliber goalie, how can Chris be considered one?

While I agree that Osgood and Vernon has similar achievements at this time, Osgood's career isn't over yet and Osgood has another three years to go before he reaches the age at which Vernon retired. I wonder if those similarities will hold up that long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is Draper anywhere near the top 10 all time in any category? You didn't address the point at all.

Draper's irrelevant. I just picked him at random because he was a regular on the 1997 team and still on the Wings in 2008. Bigglesworth mentioned Holmstrom. My point is that they were good players on great teams for a long period of time. When you play a position that's fortunately enough to get a counting stat assigned to you for the team winning or losing, then naturally you will move up the leaderboard.

How many team wins has Draper had over his career and where does that rank all time? I have no clue on that but I bet it's fairly high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Draper and Homer have significantly lower impacts on wins and losses.

I will give you that, but I would argue Ozzie was easier to replace than Homer. Two of our cups we won with Vernon in net and Hasek in net. The Wings have kept on going with other goalies in net beside Ozzie. I think the wings could have had any of 10 or so other goalies in NHL most years they won and still have won. Homer is a key(maybe I should say was now) to the offense and his screening of the goalie has led to countless number of goals. There are only 1 or 2 other NHL players who could do what he did and do it as effectively for the wings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will give you that, but I would argue Ozzie was easier to replace than Homer. Two of our cups we won with Vernon in net and Hasek in net. The Wings have kept on going with other goalies in net beside Ozzie. I think the wings could have had any of 10 or so other goalies in NHL most years they won and still have won. Homer is a key(maybe I should say was now) to the offense and his screening of the goalie has led to countless number of goals. There are only 1 or 2 other NHL players who could do what he did and do it as effectively for the wings.

You just replaced Ozzie with a sure fire HOF'er and a guy one notch below the HOF. We aren't talking about Manny Legace or Norm Maracle here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You just replaced Ozzie with a sure fire HOF'er and a guy one notch below the HOF. We aren't talking about Manny Legace or Norm Maracle here.

Manny Legace and Norm Maracle were never top 10 nhl goalies in a given year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree that Osgood and Vernon has similar achievements at this time, Osgood's career isn't over yet and Osgood has another three years to go before he reaches the age at which Vernon retired. I wonder if those similarities will hold up that long.

If Osgood is productive 3 more years, we can have that discussion then. I am only discussing the merits of Osgood's HoF case were his career to end right now. For all we know, he could have an accident in the near future and it end his career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...