Do you agree with Gerry Cheevers getting inducted into the HHOF?

Do you agree with Gerry Cheevers being inducted into the HHOF?


  • Total voters
    71

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,148
Actually Worters ranks in the 100-150 range amongst Top 100 Player candidates.

Top teens amongst goalies:

HOH Top 40 Goaltenders of All Time
I guess calling Chunk Rayner a lower-third (not lower-tier) HHOF netminder is probably accurate. Probably better than Harry Lumley all-in-all, but never received anywhere near the same team support, and got the misfortune of being a bit older than Lumley, meaning he lost some valuable years. Significantly better HHOF'er case than, say, Ed Giacomin, as far as I'm concerned.

But Worters... ouch. The only thing that really keeps him away from upper third status is the fact he only played 11 playoffs games, and when looking at the teams he played for, one quickly understands why.

We're talking about a goaltender with four Top-5 Hart finishes here. On top of my head, there's only five of these, and the other four are Patrick Roy, Dominik Hasek, Martin Brodeur and Glenn Hall.

Which makes the whole thing ironic : the only, only, only kind of reasoning that could possibly make players like Rayners and Worters "Bottom-Tier" is the exactly the kind of awful reasoning required to make Cheevers a palatable HHOF CANDIDATE (and I'm not even talking about being actually enshrined). There's probably a good 3-way comparison to be made between Gerry Cheevers, Marc-André Fleury and Corey Crawford... And I'm not quite sure Cheevers comes on top of it.

Okay, fair enough, I underrated Worters here. By the way, I honestly don't think being a bottom tier goaltender in the HHOF is a bad thing either. I don't think anyone doesn't belong personally so it basically comes down to SOMEONE has to be near the bottom.

I think Fleury gets in eventually when the dust is settled. Crawford, no chance. But I think Cheevers is noticeably ahead of Crawford. I don't think there is ever a time Crawford is the most reliable goalie in the NHL. Cheevers would have been Canada's starter for the 1972 series had he not bolted to the WHA. I think that counts for a lot and tells you that there is more to him than just his stats.

Cheevers allowed 5 goals in both games 1 and 3 of the 1972 final. If Eddie Johnston wins game 5 and clinches the cup, how would history have been written?

Who knows, but he didn't. It is like asking what if Johnston just has an average game in Game 2 of the 1971 series vs. Montreal and the Habs don't comeback to tie the series. The Bruins go up 2-0 and likely win the series.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rfournier103

Moose Head

Registered User
Mar 12, 2002
4,995
2,177
Toronto
Visit site
Well, that could very well be true. I would kind of hope not since it is the Hockey Hall of Fame and not the Miss Manners or Mr. Congeniality Hall of Fame.

My Best-Carey

When you’re on the fence like Vachon, Cheevers and Barasso, likeability was obviously a factor. People loved Cheevers and Vachon. Barasso, not so much.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,832
16,565
Okay, fair enough, I underrated Worters here. By the way, I honestly don't think being a bottom tier goaltender in the HHOF is a bad thing either. I don't think anyone doesn't belong personally so it basically comes down to SOMEONE has to be near the bottom.

I think Fleury gets in eventually when the dust is settled. Crawford, no chance. But I think Cheevers is noticeably ahead of Crawford. I don't think there is ever a time Crawford is the most reliable goalie in the NHL. Cheevers would have been Canada's starter for the 1972 series had he not bolted to the WHA. I think that counts for a lot and tells you that there is more to him than just his stats.

- Well, it was an Harry Sinden-coached team.
- The funny thing here is.... Two years ago, if you had one goaltender to pick between Fleury and Crawford for the best career, there was clearly a better answer. And it wasn't Fleury, despite having a significant longevity advantge over Crawford. The last two seasons really, really blurry the picture (you could claim Fleury's last season was his best, and that this one is his second best... and I'd be inclined to agree) to the point where Fleury is probably the better choice now.
 
Last edited:

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,148
- Well, it was an Harry Sinden-coached team.
- The funny thing here is.... Two years ago, if you had one goaltender to pick between Fleury and Crawford for the best career, there was clearly a better answer. And it wasn't Fleury, despite having a significant longevity advantge over Crawford. The last two seasons really, really blurry the picture (you could claim Fleury's last season was his best, and that this one is his second best... and I'd be inclined to agree) to the point where Fleury is probably the better choice now.

Prior to Fleury's Vegas career I think I would still quite easily choose him, but I see where you are coming from.

It is true that Team Canada 1972 was coached by Sinden but even as fans I think most of us establish that Cheevers is the starter if he is allowed to play because he is constantly brought up as the first omission after Hull who bolted to the WHA. I think the guy fresh off his 2nd Cup gets the nod over Dryden and Esposito. This is just an example of how I think we forget that Cheevers was revered at a certain point in his career. Known as a big game goalie.
 

DJ Man

Registered User
Mar 23, 2009
772
221
Central Florida
Did Cheevers have a distinctive style? When I saw him, he just seemed to flop left and flop right, like we kids did on a frozen field until we learned better. He certainly didn't look good out there. (Maybe he was good at guessing where the shot was going.) He was good when the team was, and bad when they weren't. So was Ed Johnston for that matter.
 
Last edited:

BobbyAwe

Registered User
Nov 21, 2006
3,460
907
South Carolina
As a Bruin fan of course I want him to be in, and he was friends with my father, but objectively speaking, he was GOOD not "great". The HOF qualifications are screwed up so it's difficult to say who should be in there when there are some in there that almost everyone agrees SHOULD'NT be. As for Gerry, he wasn't as great as the "greats" that came right before him (and were still active during the early part of Cheever's career) like Plante, Sawchuk, Bower, and he wasn't as great as the "greats" that emerged during his career like Dryden and Parent. So, he's as good or a little better than the weakest links in the HOF, but I don't believe he's as great as the AVERAGE member of the HOF. So I had to check - "unsure".
 

vikash1987

Registered User
Mar 7, 2004
1,302
568
New York
I find that the best way to analyze Cheevers is to divide his career with the Bruins into two blocks: the five seasons from 1967-68 to 1971-72—giving him the benefit of the doubt by ignoring the prior seasons in which he was primarily a minor-leaguer, and in which the Bruins were cellar-dwellers—and the four-and-a-half seasons from 1975-76 to 1979-80—"half" because he signed as a free agent with the Bruins in Jan. 1976.

During the first block, Cheevers was clearly pegged as the Bruins' go-to guy. He played in the majority of regular season and playoff games—58% and 80%, respectively—and he led the way for the club in the majority of goaltending categories:

Reg. SeasonWGAASV%
1967-68CheeversCheeversCheevers
1968-69CheeversCheeversCheevers
1969-70CheeversCheeversCheevers
1970-71JohnstonJohnstonCheevers
1971-72Tie: Johnston/CheeversCheeversCheevers
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
His aggregate regular season GAA during this block was a respectable 2.72; however, during this block, not once did he finish a season in the Top Five in GAA in the league. His aggregate SV% during this block was a respectable 0.915; he finished a couple of seasons in the Top Five.

The '72 playoffs were a major inflection point in my view. Cheevers and Johnston split time almost evenly, and Johnston came away with significantly better stats: playoff GAA, Finals GAA, playoff SV%, Finals SV%. In fact, as is noted in Hal Bock's book Hockey '75: Stars and Records, Cheevers said about his decision to jump to the WHA that summer of '72: "There were a thousand reasons saying I would jump....I have more security with the [Cleveland] Crusaders. My position here [in Cleveland] is very sound and that's important to me." Financial factors aside, it was apparent that his role as the #1 starter for the Bruins was no longer stable at this point.

During the second block, Cheevers had even greater internal competition from the likes of Gilles Gilbert. He did not play in the majority of regular season games—47%—and he did not lead the club in the majority of goaltending categories:

WGAASV%
1975-76GilbertCheeversCheevers
1976-77CheeversGilbertGilbert
1977-78GrahameGilbertCheevers
1978-79CheeversCheeversGilbert
1979-80CheeversGilbertGilbert
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
His aggregate reg. season GAA during this block slipped to a still-respectable 2.94; but again, during this block, not once did he finish a season in the Top Five in GAA in the league. His aggregate SV% during this block was sub-0.900, at 0.880; no Top Ten finishes, let alone Top Five.

In the playoffs during this block, Cheevers split time with Gilbert in '76 and '79. In the other postseasons in which he was pegged as the main guy and led the Bruins, not once was his SV% over 0.900.

What does this all mean? It shows me that Cheevers was not really in that upper class of HHOF candidates in either block, and that the consistency within both blocks of being the go-to guy was not really there either.

Feel free to shoot this down :)
 
Last edited:

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,543
4,949
... Team Canada 1972 was coached by Sinden but even as fans I think most of us establish that Cheevers is the starter if he is allowed to play because he is constantly brought up as the first omission after Hull who bolted to the WHA.

That doesn't make him the likely starter.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,148
As a Bruin fan of course I want him to be in, and he was friends with my father, but objectively speaking, he was GOOD not "great". The HOF qualifications are screwed up so it's difficult to say who should be in there when there are some in there that almost everyone agrees SHOULD'NT be. As for Gerry, he wasn't as great as the "greats" that came right before him (and were still active during the early part of Cheever's career) like Plante, Sawchuk, Bower, and he wasn't as great as the "greats" that emerged during his career like Dryden and Parent. So, he's as good or a little better than the weakest links in the HOF, but I don't believe he's as great as the AVERAGE member of the HOF. So I had to check - "unsure".

I am very surprised that Cheevers has a losing record here - 9-25-5. I didn't think it would be this bad I figured it would be 50/50.

That doesn't make him the likely starter.

I think the job was his to lose. At the end of the 1972 season who is the goalie you would start for Team Canada in a very important series? Nothing against Dryden, but it probably isn't the guy who just won the Calder. Tony Esposito had a bit more seasoning to him by then but why would it be anyone but the goalie who just won his 2nd Cup in the last 3 years? Isn't he the favourite here?
 

reckoning

Registered User
Jan 4, 2005
7,024
1,271
As has been mentioned already in this thread, Cheevers split the duties in the '72 playoffs, so it's not like he won the Cup anymore than Johnston did. The idea of Dryden or Esposito being benched for half their teams playoff games is unthinkable, so I'm not seeing an obvious "money goalie" reputation that would have given him the starting job at the Summit Series.

He certainly would've been invited to the camp, but the decision on the starter would probably come down to who played the best at training camp, and as everybody knows, Gerry Cheevers was not big on practicing hard.

I don't think it would be a big factor anyway. 1972 isn't more important than any other year. If actually being named Canada's starter for a best-on-best tourney didn't help Liut, Ranford or Joseph, an imaginary starting job shouldn't count for much with Cheevers.

I'm fine with him being in the Hall. He's the worst goalie in there, but the position is severely under represented there.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,148
As has been mentioned already in this thread, Cheevers split the duties in the '72 playoffs, so it's not like he won the Cup anymore than Johnston did. The idea of Dryden or Esposito being benched for half their teams playoff games is unthinkable, so I'm not seeing an obvious "money goalie" reputation that would have given him the starting job at the Summit Series.

He certainly would've been invited to the camp, but the decision on the starter would probably come down to who played the best at training camp, and as everybody knows, Gerry Cheevers was not big on practicing hard.

I don't think it would be a big factor anyway. 1972 isn't more important than any other year. If actually being named Canada's starter for a best-on-best tourney didn't help Liut, Ranford or Joseph, an imaginary starting job shouldn't count for much with Cheevers.

I'm fine with him being in the Hall. He's the worst goalie in there, but the position is severely under represented there.

If someone said he is the worst goalie in there, that is fine. Goalies have a very high standard, to the point where the Hall could use more of them. Remember though, he played in all of the games in the 1970 Cup win. Also, Johnston wasn't a half bad goalie himself.
 

arrbez

bad chi
Jun 2, 2004
13,352
261
Toronto
Just occurred to me that Cheevers' career up to his early 30's is pretty similar to Corey Crawford's on paper. Unless the site I'm looking at is wrong, it looks like Cheevers didn't get any allstar votes until his return from the WHA. For anyone who was watching at the time, did his reputation and standing in the game icrease when he returned?
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,148
Just occurred to me that Cheevers' career up to his early 30's is pretty similar to Corey Crawford's on paper. Unless the site I'm looking at is wrong, it looks like Cheevers didn't get any allstar votes until his return from the WHA. For anyone who was watching at the time, did his reputation and standing in the game icrease when he returned?

No, I don't think so, he was just splitting duties with Johnston before that. Then he did it with Gilbert afterwards. He was the best goalie in the WHA during his time there if that counts.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,202
7,357
Regina, SK
Just occurred to me that Cheevers' career up to his early 30's is pretty similar to Corey Crawford's on paper. Unless the site I'm looking at is wrong, it looks like Cheevers didn't get any allstar votes until his return from the WHA. For anyone who was watching at the time, did his reputation and standing in the game icrease when he returned?

nah, hr doesn't have everything. He was 3rd in 73, 5th in 69, and 6th in 70.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,148
nah, hr doesn't have everything. He was 3rd in 73, 5th in 69, and 6th in 70.

Wasn't he a 1st team all-star in 1973 in the WHA? Or did you mean 1972? Also, where is this other site with the all-star nods? HR is usually pretty good.
 

Danny46

Registered User
Dec 28, 2015
461
202
To me he was only inducted because he played for a team that won Stanley Cups, not a bad goalie but far away from HOF material. If he is there put Joseph, Richter and Vanbiesbrouck in there too, all better goalies than Cheevers...
 

BobbyAwe

Registered User
Nov 21, 2006
3,460
907
South Carolina
My heart and my head are not on the same page here. As much as I loved Gerry I never considered him a "dominant" goalie. He was just "good to very good" for a long time, and ICONIC as a character. The question is, can you be "very good" and still make the HOF? I think SO, based on some inductees.

My dad knew Gerry as Gerry owned horses and my father worked at the NYRA running the Jock's room in the 60's and into the 80's. He also knew Boom Boom Geoffrion and Reggie Fleming. A lot of pro athletes liked the horses. (apologies for the blatant name-dropping). Reggie gave him a pair of his skates for me (late 60's with the Rangers) and they fit perfectly! (I am 5'8)
 

hacksaw7

Registered User
Dec 3, 2020
1,288
1,355
I don't. He had a good career but it was usually behind some very stacked teams. I don't believe he ever led the NHL is wins, goals against average, or save percentage. Never went through a prolonged stretch where he was dominant and you could say "That Cheevers...he's really the best in the NHL". I'm not even really sure you could say he was top 5 most years. Early in Cheevers career (late 60s/early 70s) I would take guys like Bower, Hall, Rogie, Worsley, Giacomin over him...and upon his return from the WHA he was never better than guys like Dryden, Parent, Tony O, Bill Smith, Resch

He won a few Cups and was definitely not a passenger on those teams, but he wasn't some unbeatable rock in net pushing the Bruins to win series on his own. He did the job though. Maybe similar to Barrasso during the Pens Cup wins

Would definitely have 300+ wins if not for his stint in the WHA
 
  • Like
Reactions: Danny46

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,148
I don't. He had a good career but it was usually behind some very stacked teams. I don't believe he ever led the NHL is wins, goals against average, or save percentage. Never went through a prolonged stretch where he was dominant and you could say "That Cheevers...he's really the best in the NHL". I'm not even really sure you could say he was top 5 most years. Early in Cheevers career (late 60s/early 70s) I would take guys like Bower, Hall, Rogie, Worsley, Giacomin over him...and upon his return from the WHA he was never better than guys like Dryden, Parent, Tony O, Bill Smith, Resch

He won a few Cups and was definitely not a passenger on those teams, but he wasn't some unbeatable rock in net pushing the Bruins to win series on his own. He did the job though. Maybe similar to Barrasso during the Pens Cup wins

Would definitely have 300+ wins if not for his stint in the WHA

I would say if he was on Team Canada in 1972 and not ignored because he had signed with the WHA, then he is probably Canada's starting goalie. That's about as close as it gets to being the best goalie in the NHL, don't you think?
 

Iron Mike Sharpe

Registered User
Dec 6, 2017
951
1,130
I would say if he was on Team Canada in 1972 and not ignored because he had signed with the WHA, then he is probably Canada's starting goalie. That's about as close as it gets to being the best goalie in the NHL, don't you think?

Pure speculation, right? You're vaulting him over Esposito and Dryden arbitrarily. He made the HOF without needing that bump. Still doesn't change the fact that he spent a lot of his career sharing duties - and getting bumped in the playoffs when it counted. I still think there are a lot of guys in the past few decades who were better, or who have a better case, but may not make it.
 

Danny46

Registered User
Dec 28, 2015
461
202
I would say if he was on Team Canada in 1972 and not ignored because he had signed with the WHA, then he is probably Canada's starting goalie. That's about as close as it gets to being the best goalie in the NHL, don't you think?

I was never a Ken Dryden fan, but i take him anyday over Gerry Cheevers, Tony Esposito on the other hand to me was by far the best of the three...
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,148
I was never a Ken Dryden fan, but i take him anyday over Gerry Cheevers, Tony Esposito on the other hand to me was by far the best of the three...
Pure speculation, right? You're vaulting him over Esposito and Dryden arbitrarily. He made the HOF without needing that bump. Still doesn't change the fact that he spent a lot of his career sharing duties - and getting bumped in the playoffs when it counted. I still think there are a lot of guys in the past few decades who were better, or who have a better case, but may not make it.

I don't think it is speculation. Cheevers had just won his 2nd Cup at that time, is always a name we think about when it comes to players who signed with the WHA and weren't on the team. So if we mention his name, why wouldn't he have been thought to be the starter? It isn't as if Eddie Johnston (who was the 3rd stringer on the team) signed with the WHA and wasn't asked. But with Cheevers I think he makes a difference. Dryden was a great goalie, but struggled mightily in all of the times he played against the Soviets. It might have been his style against theirs, who knows, but Cheevers played well in the 1974 WHA summit series. Esposito out of the three goalies who played in 1972 (Tretiak, Dryden) was the best, and he was certainly more solid, but I think this is how Cheevers would have been as well. You don't think the most recent two-time Cup winning goalie on the best team in the NHL is probably the front runner for that position?

I am not sure where he got bumped in the playoffs as well. 1979 you mean in Game 7?
 

Iron Mike Sharpe

Registered User
Dec 6, 2017
951
1,130
I don't think it is speculation. Cheevers had just won his 2nd Cup at that time, is always a name we think about when it comes to players who signed with the WHA and weren't on the team. So if we mention his name, why wouldn't he have been thought to be the starter? It isn't as if Eddie Johnston (who was the 3rd stringer on the team) signed with the WHA and wasn't asked. But with Cheevers I think he makes a difference. Dryden was a great goalie, but struggled mightily in all of the times he played against the Soviets. It might have been his style against theirs, who knows, but Cheevers played well in the 1974 WHA summit series. Esposito out of the three goalies who played in 1972 (Tretiak, Dryden) was the best, and he was certainly more solid, but I think this is how Cheevers would have been as well. You don't think the most recent two-time Cup winning goalie on the best team in the NHL is probably the front runner for that position?

I am not sure where he got bumped in the playoffs as well. 1979 you mean in Game 7?

Refer to my post above on page 1 - I explain how he melted down twice in the 72 Finals and was yanked in favor of Johnston, and then later in his career for Ron Grahame.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

  • USA vs Sweden
    USA vs Sweden
    Wagers: 3
    Staked: $1,050.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Finland vs Czechia
    Finland vs Czechia
    Wagers: 1
    Staked: $200.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Augsburg vs VfB Stuttgart
    Augsburg vs VfB Stuttgart
    Wagers: 2
    Staked: $1,000.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Frosinone vs Inter Milan
    Frosinone vs Inter Milan
    Wagers: 1
    Staked: $150.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Alavés vs Girona
    Alavés vs Girona
    Wagers: 1
    Staked: $22.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:

Ad

Ad