Hall or no Hall part 2

[BM67]

Why does everyone hate poor Steve Shutt so much? He seems like a nice guy...

Hate Shutt? No. Love him to excess? No.

Hull
Bucyk
Mahovolich
Lindsay
Moore
Shutt

The above list, that has him as the #6 LW of all-time, says that Steve Shutt is the best LW to who's career started after 1957.

Lets compare him to two other LWs who careers started within a year of his.

Bill Barber 1st A-S: 1, 2nd A-S: 2, A-S Game: 6 Cups: 2
GP 903 G 420 A 463 Pts 883 PIM 623 PO GP 129 G 53 A 55 Pts 108 PIM 109

Rick Martin 1st A-S: 2, 2nd A-S: 2, A-S Game: 7 Cups: 0
GP 685 G 384 A 317 Pts 701 PIM 477 PO GP 63 G 24 A 29 Pts 53 PIM 74

Steve Shutt 1st A-S: 1, 2nd A-S: 2, A-S Game: 3 Cups: 5
GP 930 G 424 A 393 Pts 817 PIM 410 PO GP 99 G 50 A 48 Pts 98 PIM 65

Goals and points per game and 50 goal, 100 point seasons

Player - G/G - Pts/G - 50 - 100
Barber .465 - .978 - 1 - 1
Martin .561 - 1.023 - 2 - 0
Shutt .456 - .878 - 1 - 1

Only if you give huge weight to Shutt's leading the league in goals once and his extra Cups does he come out a winner here.

 

[Big Phil]

Why does everyone hate poor Steve Shutt so much? He seems like a nice guy...

Some people tend to forget that he won 5 Cups and was a very big part of the team in four of those. The first one he was a rookie. He was a winner. Plain and simple. Sure Lafleur was the superstar on that team but Shutt still put up some great seasons. Then in the playoffs he stepped it up as well. A three time all-star and five time Cup champion is good Hall credentials.

 

[pappyline]

Some people tend to forget that he won 5 Cups and was a very big part of the team in four of those. The first one he was a rookie. He was a winner. Plain and simple. Sure Lafleur was the superstar on that team but Shutt still put up some great seasons. Then in the playoffs he stepped it up as well. A three time all-star and five time Cup champion is good Hall credentials.

You love those Montreal Canadians. Being on a Cup winner doesn't make you a HOFer. Following your logic every one of the 55-60 Montrealers would be in the HOF. Likewise for being an all-star=depends on the talent in amy given year. Shutt was a garbage goal guy on a good hockey team. He is way behind the great left wings--Hull. Lindsay, Doug Bentley.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

You love those Montreal Canadians. Being on a Cup winner doesn't make you a HOFer. Following your logic every one of the 55-60 Montrealers would be in the HOF. Likewise for being an all-star=depends on the talent in amy given year. Shutt was a garbage goal guy on a good hockey team. He is way behind the great left wings--Hull. Lindsay, Doug Bentley.

He wasn't just some run of the mill LW on a good team. Being on the first line and at the time the top LW in the game on perhaps the most dominate team in NHL history has to count for something. That's why he's in.

 

[CH]

If Cujo takes the Coyotes deep into the playoffs this year, he should get alot of consideration

The more I see of CuJo the more I think he might cement his Hall of Fame induction this year.

He is currently tied with Glenn Hall as the 7th winningest goalie of all time and moving up fast. It is not unreasoable to project that he might be the 5th winningest goalie of all time by the time the season ends.

Bob McKenzie thinks CuJo will be named to the Canadian Olympic team. Which would make the third straight Olympic team he makes. He also made the 1996 World Cup team. So we would have approximately a decade where he made most important international Canadian teams.

If the season ended now, Joseph would have Vezina and maybe even Hart trophy consideration.

He probably doesn't need to successfully achieve all of those this year to become a legit Hall of Famer - but it is possible that he might.

 

[Big Phil]

You love those Montreal Canadians. Being on a Cup winner doesn't make you a HOFer. Following your logic every one of the 55-60 Montrealers would be in the HOF. Likewise for being an all-star=depends on the talent in amy given year. Shutt was a garbage goal guy on a good hockey team. He is way behind the great left wings--Hull. Lindsay, Doug Bentley.

Yeah I wouldnt put Shutt with Hull or Lindsay. I agree. He's more lcoser to a guy like Bill Barber. So just think Barber with three more Cups. That has to account for something. He wasnt just sitting in the press box for those Cup wins. And winning a bunch of Cups doesnt get you in the Hall. Look at Kevin Lowe, I wouldnt put him in there. But its how you win those Cups and how much of a contributor you are as well. Dont tell me Shutt didnt truly help the Habs?

 

[pappyline]

Yeah I wouldnt put Shutt with Hull or Lindsay. I agree. He's more lcoser to a guy like Bill Barber. So just think Barber with three more Cups. That has to account for something. He wasnt just sitting in the press box for those Cup wins. And winning a bunch of Cups doesnt get you in the Hall. Look at Kevin Lowe, I wouldnt put him in there. But its how you win those Cups and how much of a contributor you are as well. Dont tell me Shutt didnt truly help the Habs?

Being baggage on a team that wins a lot of cups shouldn't put you in the Hall of Fame. If he had played on a less successful teams he would never have made it. Montreal would have won those cups without Shutt. they wouldn't have won them without Lafleur.

 

[Malefic74]

Being baggage on a team that wins a lot of cups shouldn't put you in the Hall of Fame. If he had played on a less successful teams he would never have made it. Montreal would have won those cups without Shutt. they wouldn't have won them without Lafleur.

98 pts in 99 playoff games is a great deal more than baggage. We aren't talking about a fourth line checker who only got 5 minutes of icetime per game. Even if we only look at the Cup winning years...

75-76 13 GP 7 goals 8 assists 15 points.
76-77 14 GP 8 goals 10 assists 18 points.
77-78 15 GP 9 goals 8 assists 17 points.
78-79 11 GP 4 goals 7 assists 11 points.

All four he's better than a point per game. It's chicken or the egg here. Does Shutt score as many points without Lafleur? No. Does Lafleur score as many points without Shutt? Probably not. They were complementary players who helped one another.

He was a big part of the Canada Cup team in 76 and led the NHL in goals in 76-77 with 60. A record for left wingers that wasn't broken until 16 years later by Luc Robitaille (who also played with a guy who helped him out, some guy named Gretzky) in 92-93. Shutt was a natural goalscorer with soft hands who continued to put the puck in the net even after Lafleur's decline.

You may not like the guy, or don't like that he's in the Hall, but I don't think there's any way in the world you can call him "baggage."

 

[pappyline]

98 pts in 99 playoff games is a great deal more than baggage. We aren't talking about a fourth line checker who only got 5 minutes of icetime per game. Even if we only look at the Cup winning years...

75-76 13 GP 7 goals 8 assists 15 points.
76-77 14 GP 8 goals 10 assists 18 points.
77-78 15 GP 9 goals 8 assists 17 points.
78-79 11 GP 4 goals 7 assists 11 points.

All four he's better than a point per game. It's chicken or the egg here. Does Shutt score as many points without Lafleur? No. Does Lafleur score as many points without Shutt? Probably not. They were complementary players who helped one another.

He was a big part of the Canada Cup team in 76 and led the NHL in goals in 76-77 with 60. A record for left wingers that wasn't broken until 16 years later by Luc Robitaille (who also played with a guy who helped him out, some guy named Gretzky) in 92-93. Shutt was a natural goalscorer with soft hands who continued to put the puck in the net even after Lafleur's decline.

You may not like the guy, or don't like that he's in the Hall, but I don't think there's any way in the world you can call him "baggage."

You are right. Baggage is too strong a word. He was obviously a capable player but definitely not a HOFer. He did have good stats but post 67 Stats are not all that meaningful to me. I think you are wrong about Shutt helping Lafleur put up great stats. You could put almost anybody out with Lafleur in his prime and they would get a lot of garbage goals. Did shutt have any great seasons playing without Lafleur. I can't recall any.

 

[chooch*]

You are right. Baggage is too strong a word. He was obviously a capable player but definitely not a HOFer. He did have good stats but post 67 Stats are not all that meaningful to me. I think you are wrong about Shutt helping Lafleur put up great stats. You could put almost anybody out with Lafleur in his prime and they would get a lot of garbage goals. Did shutt have any great seasons playing without Lafleur. I can't recall any.

He was the best Hab in the 74 playoffs which was a year before the Lafleur line. Is he a HOFer - well he was the top left winger in the NHL from 1976-1980. And on the #1 line on the best team ever. Lafleur didnt need anyone at center (see 1979 and 1980) nor protection or anything, but Shutt was his wingman.

 

[pappyline]

He was the best Hab in the 74 playoffs which was a year before the Lafleur line. Is he a HOFer - well he was the top left winger in the NHL from 1976-1980. And on the #1 line on the best team ever. Lafleur didnt need anyone at center (see 1979 and 1980) nor protection or anything, but Shutt was his wingman.

Who can remember the hab playoff of 74 but you. They went out in the first round. Shutt may have had their best stats in their 6 games but best stats do not necessarily equal best player. Debatable if he was the top left winger from 76-80 which was a weak period for left wings in the NHL. I think Barber was a more complete player. The 2 best Left wings in hockey in that era - Hull & Mahovolich were in the WHA. As far as the best team ever that is also debatable. the best team I ever saw were the Habs of the late 50's (how I hated them). My opinion is that Shutt needed Lafleur but Lafleur didn't need Shutt. Any good garbage goaler would do on the Left side of that line.

 

[Gord]

I like cujo, but he is one of those good, sometimes great players, but not a hall of fame guy.

Vachon, however to me deserves it. another very good goalie but played just a little better than most. (an accomplished more)

as for shutt, wasn't he inducted in 1993?
http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/LegendsMember.jsp?type=Player&mem=P199303&list=ByName

 

[chooch*]

Who can remember the hab playoff of 74 but you. They went out in the first round. Shutt may have had their best stats in their 6 games but best stats do not necessarily equal best player. Debatable if he was the top left winger from 76-80 which was a weak period for left wings in the NHL. I think Barber was a more complete player. The 2 best Left wings in hockey in that era - Hull & Mahovolich were in the WHA. As far as the best team ever that is also debatable. the best team I ever saw were the Habs of the late 50's (how I hated them). My opinion is that Shutt needed Lafleur but Lafleur didn't need Shutt. Any good garbage goaler would do on the Left side of that line.

I really woke up to Shutt in 74 and 75 - he was fast and very good with the puck close in with an excellent shot. Those goals werent all open nets from a Lafleur feed.

Barber was good but every important left wing slot ie Challenge Cup, All star teams in those years was filled by Shutt.

I think Big M was finished after his knee injury and Hull was a lethargic if high scoring shadow of his old days by the Canada Cup 76. I still say Shutt was the best 76-80.

Why did you hate the 50's Habs teams and why do you think they were better than say the 76-77 team? (I think Red Fisher agrees with your latter assessment).

 

[mcphee]

You love those Montreal Canadians. Being on a Cup winner doesn't make you a HOFer. Following your logic every one of the 55-60 Montrealers would be in the HOF. Likewise for being an all-star=depends on the talent in amy given year. Shutt was a garbage goal guy on a good hockey team. He is way behind the great left wings--Hull. Lindsay, Doug Bentley.

You sort of point to the question of why great teams won. The easy answer is because they had great players, but I think you'll find that the dynasties all had a lot of guys who'd cut off a nut before losing, and that's how Shutt was. Shutt was known as the team smart mouth or joker but his competitiveness set him apart. Cournoyer was the same. Before that Henri Richard. You can't just point to the Lafleur's and Robinson's and consider everyone else complimentary parts. On a different team, his role may have changed, he may have scored more but won less, who knows. He may have ended up as Blaine Stoughton, but he didn't, he was a top scorer on a legendary team. HOF ? Truthfully, I was surprised when he got in, but I don't get excited about that stuff because I never know how to rank excellence against longevity and most good arguemnets sway me a bit. I know you didn't mean baggage, but consider him a player who profited from circumstance, but there's a giant leap from Rick Chartraw, Murray Wilson to Steve Shutt. No one's touting John Ferguson for the hof despite his 5 or 6 rings.

 

[pappyline]

I really woke up to Shutt in 74 and 75 - he was fast and very good with the puck close in with an excellent shot. Those goals werent all open nets from a Lafleur feed.

Barber was good but every important left wing slot ie Challenge Cup, All star teams in those years was filled by Shutt.

I think Big M was finished after his knee injury and Hull was a lethargic if high scoring shadow of his old days by the Canada Cup 76. I still say Shutt was the best 76-80.

Why did you hate the 50's Habs teams and why do you think they were better than say the 76-77 team? (I think Red Fisher agrees with your latter assessment).

I would not call Hull lethargic in the 76 Canada cup. At age 37 he was Canada's top goal scorer.

Hated the 50's Canadians because they always won (I was a Black hawk fan). They had the greatest line up that I ever saw. Belivieau, Geoffrion, Olmstead, the 2 Richards, Moore. Even the 3rd line was strong= Provost, Goyette, Pronovost. Not to mention Marshall (20 goals ione year in a limited role) & Backstrom. Harvey & Johnson on D and Plante in goal.

 

[Higgy4]

I like cujo, but he is one of those good, sometimes great players, but not a hall of fame guy.

Vachon, however to me deserves it. another very good goalie but played just a little better than most. (an accomplished more)

as for shutt, wasn't he inducted in 1993?
http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/LegendsMember.jsp?type=Player&mem=P199303&list=ByName

Cujo is going to be in the Top 7 all time in wins and has a good shot at ending up in the Top 5. His overall numbers across the board are terrific. He did all of this whilel playing mostly for average teams. 1 good year in Detroit and a 2-3 year window in Toronto were his only real shots at a cup. Other than that, he never had a chance.

To me, its a no brainer. His numbers are just too good.

 

[mcphee]

I would not call Hull lethargic in the 76 Canada cup. At age 37 he was Canada's top goal scorer.

Hated the 50's Canadians because they always won (I was a Black hawk fan). They had the greatest line up that I ever saw. Belivieau, Geoffrion, Olmstead, the 2 Richards, Moore. Even the 3rd line was strong= Provost, Goyette, Pronovost. Not to mention Marshall (20 goals ione year in a limited role) & Backstrom. Harvey & Johnson on D and Plante in goal.

I didn't see the 50's Habs though I've seen lots of tape and occasionnaly listened to the old man over the years. Comparing the 2 teams, I guess comes down to whether the 70's advantage on defense makes up for the 50's forwards. The 50's always had 2 great scoring lines while the 70's Habs' second line was often sort of transitional.

Why didn't the 62-71 Hawks win ? Bad luck ? More stars than grinders ? Chicago was the team you wanted to see on a Saturday night and should have taken at least one over those years. Did the Leafs just have their number 62-64 ?

 

[Big Phil]

Okay for the record Shutt is in the HOF because of his 5 Cups. But there's nothing wrong with that. Would Barber be a HOFer if he hadnt won two cups? no. But being a Cup winner, or more importantly a main player on a Cup winner helps when the selection committee remembers you. A champion always gets put on a pedestal. now there are guys like Park, Perreault and Dionne who were HOFers no doubt even though never winning a Cup. But being a champion is quite often the difference maker in the HOF. Barber was important in the Flyers two Cup wins and for that matter their two other marches to the finals ('76 and '80). Shutt was a big part of the habs Cup run as well. As important as Lafleur? No. But at the time the best left winge in the game winning four straight Cups has got to put you over the edge for the HOF.

 

[pappyline]

Okay for the record Shutt is in the HOF because of his 5 Cups. But there's nothing wrong with that. Would Barber be a HOFer if he hadnt won two cups? no. But being a Cup winner, or more importantly a main player on a Cup winner helps when the selection committee remembers you. A champion always gets put on a pedestal. now there are guys like Park, Perreault and Dionne who were HOFers no doubt even though never winning a Cup. But being a champion is quite often the difference maker in the HOF. Barber was important in the Flyers two Cup wins and for that matter their two other marches to the finals ('76 and '80). Shutt was a big part of the habs Cup run as well. As important as Lafleur? No. But at the time the best left winge in the game winning four straight Cups has got to put you over the edge for the HOF.

Big Phil you are probably right. Being a role player on a team that wins some Stanley cups probably gets you in which explains why gilles, batber, shutt, Pulford etc. are in there. However this doesn't make it right. If these guys had played on USA non Stanley cup teams they never would have made it. The hof hall of fame selection committee suck.

By the way, Shutt was not the best Left wing in "the game" 76-80. There was still a guy named Hull playing for Winnipeg in the WHA. Shutt was not capable of carrying his jockstrap.

 

[Big Phil]

Big Phil you are probably right. Being a role player on a team that wins some Stanley cups probably gets you in which explains why gilles, batber, shutt, Pulford etc. are in there. However this doesn't make it right. If these guys had played on USA non Stanley cup teams they never would have made it. The hof hall of fame selection committee suck.

By the way, Shutt was not the best Left wing in "the game" 76-80. There was still a guy named Hull playing for Winnipeg in the WHA. Shutt was not capable of carrying his jockstrap.

Pulford and Gilles I can see as somewhat role players that won a bunch of Cups. But Barber and Shutt I disagree with. I mean the stats for both of those guys are similar. then look at their playoff stats. Especially the years they won the Cup or went to the Cup final. They were both very integral to their team. To me that meas great.

 

[pappyline]

Pulford and Gilles I can see as somewhat role players that won a bunch of Cups. But Barber and Shutt I disagree with. I mean the stats for both of those guys are similar. then look at their playoff stats. Especially the years they won the Cup or went to the Cup final. They were both very integral to their team. To me that meas great.

Stats don't always tell the story. Replace Shutt & Barber with Gilies & Pulford they probably still would have won the cup. Great goaltending & great coaching win cups.