Ken Keltner and Chris Osgood

[Doctor No]

With the lengthy debate regarding Chris Osgood on the main board, I finally realized that the Keltner List may prove valuable in this discussion.

The Keltner List, translated to hockey:

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in hockey? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in hockey?
2. Was he the best player on his team?
3. Was he the best player in hockey at his position? Was he the best player in his conference at his position?
4. Did he have an impact on a number of playoff races?
5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
6. Is he the very best player in hockey history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
11. How many Hart-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an Hart Trophy? If not, how many times was he close?
12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win their conference?
14. What impact did the player have on hockey history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Click to read more...

 

[Doctor No]

The primary arguments for Osgood in the Hall seem to center around two arguments:

(1) The compiler arguments.
(2) Since Grant Fuhr and Gerry Cheevers are in the HHOF, Osgood should be as well.

Focusing on (2) here - we've seen a lot of talk on (1), does anyone want to take a stab at the Keltner List for these three gentlemen?

 

[unknown33]

Osgood

1. Hell No
2. No
3. No/Yes, once
4. Yes
5. Not sure
6. Not even close
7. Not sure
8. Cups and Goalie Wins do, rest does not
9. Worse
10. No, Top 5 maybe?
11. Never
12. One; Two; No
13. No
14. No
15. Guess so

 

[MXD]

The Keltner List, translated to hockey, applied to Chris Osgood

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in hockey? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in hockey?

No

2. Was he the best player on his team?

No. Wasn't the best on an average Isles team (Yashin, Peca, Aucoin) were better than him. Wasn't the best in St-Louis, either.

3. Was he the best player in hockey at his position? Was he the best player in his conference at his position?

It was a tough era in which to be the best at first, but I wouldn't rank him better than Mike Richter for the first half of his career. Problem is -- Richter was never close to be the best at this position at that time. Later, Jose Theodore outplays him on a rather consistent basis. As far as conference is concerned, Osgood was never a better goaltender than anybody the Stars had at any point during his career, except for one season, where Osgood (on a good year) was better than Moog (on a pretty bad year).

4. Did he have an impact on a number of playoff races?

He had an impact on AT LEAST one SC. Pretty good in 07-08.

5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

If he's past his prime? Certainly.

6. Is he the very best player in hockey history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No

7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

His numbers (GAA, SV%) are quite similar to Ed Belfour, who will be a HHOF'er (but Belfour obviously played 200 more games, and started his career in a high-scoring era) . Numbers-wise (if you disconsider games played), he has a better case than Curtis Joseph, if anything.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Unless he sustains a career-ending injury in the next days, Osgood will reach 400 wins. Whether that "mark" is enough is something for debate, though. (See, Curtis Joseph). I don't know if it's really a number, but he was a starter for two SC winning teams.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

There is evidence that Osgood is somewhat worst than his Wins figures suggest. I say "somewhat", because he played for average teams that "remained" average during his tenure. As a whole, he was outplayed (statistically) by Garth Snow with the Islanders.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

Certainly not.

11. How many Hart-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an Hart Trophy? If not, how many times was he close?

A bit problematic, due to the fact hat Osgood is a goalie. He had no Hart seasons (using Theodore as the bench mark). Didn't have any Vezina seasons either as a starter. I don't think he was close to the Vezina in 95-96 -- his selection on the 2nd AST isn't that puzzling, but he shouldn't have been there.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?

You could say that he had two fringe AST-type seasons. 95-96 and 07-08. Problem in 95-96 was "performance", problem in 07-08 was that he BARELY led his team for games played. To earn an AST in this team, you need an unreal season (see Plante, Jacques). In 95-96, the guy who got the 1st AST berth was.... well, I don't think we need to get there. Suffice to say that Osgood was the best to earn a spot. In 07-08, The goalies who got the nod were Evgeni Nabokov (not a HHOF) and Martin Brodeur (a 1st ballot).

In 95-96, the 1st AST had two HHOF'ers, two future first ballots, and Paul Kariya. The 2nd AST had one HHOF'er, Eric Lindros, John Leclair, Alex Mogilny and Vlad Konstantinov.

In 07-08, the skaters were
1st : Lidstrom, Phaneuf, Ovechkin, Malkin and Iginla. So one lock, one already locked (Ovie), one who has a pretty good case (Iggy), Malkin (can't tell, really) and Phaneuf (hell, no).
2nd : Campbell, Chara, Thornton, Zetterberg, Kovalev. Chara has the better case, and Campbell/Kovalev have no case at all.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win their conference?

They would likely be out of the playoffs, actually.

14. What impact did the player have on hockey history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

None, but I guess he made the birdcage somewhat fashionnable.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Certainly.

The Keltner List, translated to hockey, applied to Grant Fuhr
(will be finished later).

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in hockey? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in hockey?

No. Best player during his career was Gretz, Lemieux.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Yes. Best player on the 1991-92 Leafs - 19th in the League, out of the playoffs. In 95-96, MacInnis was a better player than Fuhr.

3. Was he the best player in hockey at his position? Was he the best player in his conference at his position?

Certainly the better player in his conference. For the league, well, Fuhr had the "advantage" to play more than Roy, Beezer or even Barasso did. I think Roy was always superior to Fuhr, but Fuhr was certainly having the most "interesting" seasons. So let's say yes.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of playoff races?

Maybe the Oilers were winning anyways, but there's no way to know (and please, don't use Moog as a reference). So, a weak YES.

5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

Yeah.

6. Is he the very best player in hockey history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

He's in. If he was out, he would be the best goalie out, but not the best player. (Howe and Tremblay were better).

7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

No goalie with 4 Cups is out. The closer contemporary goalies to Fuhr as far as stats are concerned are probably Barrasso and Moog. Both are out. Moog has no Cups. Barrasso has two, but didn't reach 400 wins.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

I guess so. SV% is under .900, but he played in the '80ies.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

I'd say -- dead even. Wasn't helped by playing for a very offensive minded team earlier on (and posted rather good numbers). But in the early 90ies, the guy was somewhat outplayed by his backups.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

Answered before.

11. How many Hart-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an Hart Trophy? If not, how many times was he close?

Could never win the Hart in Edmonton. His best shot was his Vezina year, but that really came from the fact that he played A LOT. Numbers-wise, that's not a Hart season, or if it's the case, it has to be a pretty darn weak year.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?

2 AST. Competitors were Smith (his 2nd AST) and Roy (his 1st AST). Both are HHOF'ers.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win their conference?

It happened one, and they finished 19th overall (and 10th out of 11 in the conference). So, no.

14. What impact did the player have on hockey history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Resurgence of the workhorse goalie. I don't know for the "Black" factor... I mean, when I think Fuhr, I think "Oilers". I don't even think "Black".

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

The guy admitted his flaws... That's probably something that gives him a "plus" in the end.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Fuhr

1. No. Prime years were head to head with Gretzky's, so that would be a tall order.

2. Maybe. You could make an argument that he was the best player on the Blues around 1996 if you look at a single season in isolation. I doubt many would have suggested he was better than Brett Hull though, even if he had a better season.

3. Yes. In the late 80's you would not have been wrong to suggest Fuhr was the best goaltender in the world.

4. Yes, definitely.

5. Yes. Was still a solid goaltender in the late 90's, a full decade after his peak years.

6. He's already in. If he wasn't, I think you could argue yes for this point. Fuhr is comparable with names like Howe and Brewer, two regularly thrown out as the best not in the HOF.

7. Yes. Wins and Cups are really the two stats that goaltenders are most judged by, and Fuhr exceeds the standard in both.

8. Basically the same as #7.

9. Yes, better, if looking at GAA, shutouts, and save %. The style the Oilers played meant that Fuhr often faced many quality scoring chances, so his GAA and shutout numbers would naturally look worse than they actually were.

10. Already in, but I think you'd make a good argument that he'd be the best goalie not in the HOF if he were removed. He gives nothing away to the likes of Vernon, Barrasso, and Vanbiesbrouck, who are often considered the "best of the rest".

11. A couple Hart-caliber seasons. 1987-88, 1995-96 were years in which Fuhr received Hart consideration, or at least had his name thrown into the hat.

12. A couple of post-season AST, played in several all-star games. Without checking, I'd suspect that most/all goalies who played in six ASG are either in the HOF, or headed there.

13. Possibly. Giving an average team Fuhr at his peak would give them a chance, but overall I'm inclined towards "No" for this question.

14. He was the first black player to have a HOF career, but we're not talking about a Jackie Robinson situation. I don't think there's many players that could answer "yes" to this question though, so Fuhr might be closer than most to being able to say "yes".

15. Well, he was an admitted cocaine user during his playing career. But he was up front about his problem, accepted suspension, and resumed his playing career without further incident afterwards, so I don't think this should held against him. In reality, he was probably the fall guy for many other players who made the same questionable lifestlye choices at the time.

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

1. No. To be honest, though, goalies tend to get shafted in this one anyhow. Only two goalies have a Pearson/Lindsay to their name, and only one is an HOF-caliber goalie. Regardless, this is a definite no for Ozzie.

2. I think good arguments could be made for a post season or two: see 07-08, 08-09, and possibly 97-98. However, it is very debatable and ultimately washes out.

3a. Yes, I feel that could be said for 95-96. However, because of debate I consider this one a wash. 3b. Definitely yes, again in 95-96.

4. Yes, he was considered a Smythe front-runner for his team in 3 post seasons.

5. That depends on what you consider regular play for a goalie. If Jennings-eligible backup and/or 1b goalie qualifies goalies for this, than I'd answer yes. I'd back up that answer by suggesting that most more average goalies quickly fade to obscurity whereas Osgood (whether on loyalty or playoff success) has managed to stick around a number of seasons.

6. No. No need to elaborate here.

7. Season sv%: yes. Playoff sv%: Upper echelon. However, that's far too much of an era-specific metric to compare to existing samples. GAA, upper echelon for both, wins, top 10 for both. All in all, a resounding yes.

8. In comparison to presently inducted individuals, easily yes.

9. Yes, for both better and worse. Many would suggest that his numbers were propped up by a good Detroit team, and rightly so; counterpoints to this argument include good seasons for both the Blues and Isles. There are also some who would suggest, on the side of 'better than suggested', that he is too easily discredited for both having played on a good Detroit team (of which I would point out he was a point), and for having not won many individual awards whilst playing behind 3 players who all have an arguable spot in any top 5 all-time list for their position.

10. Not yet. However, if (or rather, when) Hasek, Brodeur, and Belfour are inducted, he has a good argument for this for a solid number of years. The competition will then be between Osgood, Vernon, Barasso, and Joseph until some more modern goalies retire (this will take at least a handful of years), and I think given the relative parity of that list, Osgood's team achievements will give him in the edge in regards to that question.

11. No to all. However, the Hart is far too slanted to forwards for this to be a valid question for goalies (or d-men), in my opinion. Perhaps one could replace 'Hart' with 'Vezina', in which case I would answer: 11a. Two; 11b. No; 11c. Two

12. 1 post season all star selection, 2 all star games. I think you could make an argument he had 2 or 3 other all star type seasons, however, he has 3 top 5 players in his way in regards to that, and whether it's fair or not, the fact remains those players played in that time period. Also, no to the latter question (but there are likewise goalies with similar merits in this category who are in).

13. No. However, this is a ridiculously bad question for goalies. Even the best-peak goalie all time, during his peak, was incapable of doing anything beyond 3rd in division (much less conference) excepting 1 season. I personally would ask "If he were the best player on his team, could his team have a winning season (or make the post-season), in which case I would answer yes and point to the Blues and Islanders.

14a. He may well be the goalie that decides the metric for team stats vs individual merits in regard to modern HHOF induction; 14b. No; 14c; No, but he stuck with some old equipment ; 14d. No

15. Yes, in an exemplary fashion (in my opinion). Osgood has been a very good representative for hockey both on and off the ice in his attitude and behavior, and also has a reputation for being an excellent and gracious teammate.


Kyle, excellent list on Fuhr. I'd nitpick a couple points but not enough to disagree with your answers, and I think your list should serve as a very interesting comparison point to my own on Osgood. I would also like to point out that you could also apply the 'era' argument to #9 on Fuhr, both sv% and GAA. I would also apply the same 'bad metric for goalies' argument to the same questions re: Fuhr.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Kyle, excellent list on Fuhr. I'd nitpick a couple points but not enough to disagree with your answers, and I think your list should serve as a very interesting comparison point to my own on Osgood. I would also like to point out that you could also apply the 'era' argument to #9 on Fuhr, both sv% and GAA. I would also apply the same 'bad metric for goalies' argument to the same questions re: Fuhr.

Agree, 7,8, and 9 are all pretty grey areas. A goaltender's individual stats are all heavily influenced by the team surrounding him and the era in which he played. This translated Keltner list is great, but the questions pertaining to goaltender stats might need to be reworked. I mean, what are "numbers"? Wins? GAA? Shutouts? It's possible to be a resounding yes in a couple parts of the question, and a clear no in others.

 

[digitaljohn]

Will he make it? No. It's incredibly simple the way I see it. Simpler than doing a Keltner list.

Why the argument can be made:

• 400 wins
• Won cups 10 years apart, the only other goaltender to do it was Terry Sawchuk
• Very similar career playoff statistics to Martin Brodeur
• Starting goalie for the Islanders' best statistical regular season in the last 20 years. laugh: I kid, but it's true.)

And why he won't make it: Because he wasn't regarded as a sure top-5 goalie at any point during his career. A few more Vezina votes in 1996 (he barely lost to Jim Carey) or one more win in 2009 (and very possibly, a conn smythe) and he'd probably get in because his stats would just be overpowering. But as it stands, he should not and will not get in.

Osgood was a good goalie who knew how to step his game up. He happened to win many, many times... but he was never talented enough to be a consistent All-Star or future hall of famer despite his statistics and records. And that's why he won't be in the hall of fame. Pretty damn simple.

The only way you can include him is to make cases based off other borderline HoF'ers, which is pretty lame...

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

Agree, 7,8, and 9 are all pretty grey areas. A goaltender's individual stats are all heavily influenced by the team surrounding him and the era in which he played. This translated Keltner list is great, but the questions pertaining to goaltender stats might need to be reworked. I mean, what are "numbers"? Wins? GAA? Shutouts? It's possible to be a resounding yes in a couple parts of the question, and a clear no in others.

This would be my reworked list:

Keltner's translated list for hockey goaltenders

1. Was he ever regarded as the goaltender in hockey? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best goaltender in hockey? Was he ever regarded as or suggested as the best player in hockey?
2. Was he the best player on his team?
3. Was he the best player in his conference at his position?
4. Did he have a positive impact on a number of playoff races?
5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play at least as a Jennings-qualifiable backup or starter past his prime?
6. Is he the very best player in hockey history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
7. Are most players who have comparable wins, GAA, and shutouts (regular and post season) in the Hall of Fame? Is the positional ranking of his average SV% to his contemporaries comparable to that of existing HHOF goatlenders (regular and post season)?
8. Do the player's career numbers (wins, GAA, SOs, positionally ranked SV%) meet Hall of Fame standards?
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics (relative to average statistics of era)?
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
11. How many Vezina-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win a Vezina Trophy? If not, how many times was he close? Did he ever win a Hart, Lindsay, or Smythe?
12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could have a winning record? Could they qualify for the post-season? Win their division?
14. What impact did the player have on hockey history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

 

[Big Phil]

Why the argument can be made:

• 400 wins
• Won cups 10 years apart, the only other goaltender to do it was Terry Sawchuk
• Very similar career playoff statistics to Martin Brodeur
• Starting goalie for the Islanders' best statistical regular season in the last 20 years. laugh: I kid, but it's true.)

This is why stats tell just part of the story. No one in their right mind would ever suggest Osgood was a more clutch goalie than Brodeur, or that Osgood was as important to his teams Cups as Brodeur.

And why he won't make it: Because he wasn't regarded as a sure top-5 goalie at any point during his career. A few more Vezina votes in 1996 (he barely lost to Jim Carey) or one more win in 2009 (and very possibly, a conn smythe) and he'd probably get in because his stats would just be overpowering. But as it stands, he should not and will not get in.

Osgood was a good goalie who knew how to step his game up. He happened to win many, many times... but he was never talented enough to be a consistent All-Star or future hall of famer despite his statistics and records. And that's why he won't be in the hall of fame. Pretty damn simple.

The only way you can include him is to make cases based off other borderline HoF'ers, which is pretty lame...

Agreed here. Osgood is a guy who will get in for one reason. He'll get in with the Housley/Turgeon theory. In other words, many years down the road we will look back at him and look solely at his numbers and wonder why he isn't in and they will induct him based on that. There are too many people around right now who remember that Osgood is a classic case of a goalie who was far inferior to what his numbers suggested. In 50 years they might forget that. That's his only chance.

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

Agreed here. Osgood is a guy who will get in for one reason. He'll get in with the Housley/Turgeon theory. In other words, many years down the road we will look back at him and look solely at his numbers and wonder why he isn't in and they will induct him based on that. There are too many people around right now who remember that Osgood is a classic case of a goalie who was far inferior to what his numbers suggested. In 50 years they might forget that. That's his only chance.

Personally I think that's a classic case of jealous fans looking for any way possible to drag down a highly successful/dominant team and/or looking for an excuse in how to beat them... even though Osgood was actually quite successful in avoiding becoming that excuse (funny enough, most of the crappiest Red Wings playoff losses have come from a serious lack of goalscoring, which is usually supposed to be the reason they'll win). But there goes that Red Wings fan superiority complex kicking in again; remind me to schedule an appointment with my shrink...

Seriously, though, two sides to every coin and every story. Personally, I think he'll get in because the key players of a dynasty almost always make it in (especially if they have the numbers that comes along with such), and, well, Ozzie has the numbers and was part of the success.

You can't just throw a decent guy onto a team and expect success. He doesn't need to be the next coming of Sawchuk either, but he does have the right sort of attitude, motivation, and ability to handle pressure for success. Ozzie had that sort of mental game. He also had enough tools and used them well enough to be considered an above average or at least good starter for most of his career, and at times (perhaps when he most needed to be) was great. He had some down moments to, but, well, you can find incriminating highlights for pretty much any goalie... that's just the nature of the position. On top of a good mental composition he's been known throughout his entire career as an excellent teammate, very easy to deal with, very accepting of his failures and willing to support another goaltender even as it threatens his own ice time.

If he makes the Hall, his physical tools or skills won't be among the era-relative best of individuals within; I would, in fact, put him in the 5 in that regard out of present HHOF goalies. However, considering how many goalies are or were bat-**** whacko insane, and/or quite unpleasant individuals/difficult teammates (including some very noteworthy Hall candidates), Osgood had one of the best mental compositions you could ask for from a goaltender. His mental game is what made him a winner, and it's why he stuck around on a winning team so long: not only did he get the job done as a goaltender, but he made excellent contributions as a teammate. Such attitude and personality is also why he's so endeared to fans, and why fans continue to chant his name even after a couple very rough seasons where many goaltenders in many other situations have been booed (or teams had waffles tossed at them, etc).

I think Osgood, possibly more than any other goaltender, is a potential Hall of Famer not based just on his performance as a netminder but his performance as a teammate. He's got stats of fame to back him up, even if he'll never be remembered as one of the NHL's most skilled goaltenders. He was a large part, even a key part, of a team that's been the top of the league for 2 decades now--nearly 1/5 of the NHL's history. He has 13 seasons, 3 cups, and over 300 wins of that. He's a very large part of hockey history, of hockey fame, and that is what makes an HHOF individual more than any single stat or award. It's why you see more 'crappy winners' than 'good losers' in the HHOF. It's about career success and fame.

Likewise, if he gets in, it'll be on merit of him being a winner, being a key part of a winning franchise. To suggest that he will not get in on those merits would suggest a radical shift in HHOF policy from what they've demonstrated in the past... we'll see what's happened a decade down the line, I s'pose.

 

[nik jr]

This would be my reworked list:

Keltner's translated list for hockey goaltenders

1. Was he ever regarded as the goaltender in hockey? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best goaltender in hockey? Was he ever regarded as or suggested as the best player in hockey?
2. Was he the best player on his team?
3. Was he the best player in his conference at his position?
4. Did he have a positive impact on a number of playoff races?
5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play at least as a Jennings-qualifiable backup or starter past his prime?
6. Is he the very best player in hockey history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
7. Are most players who have comparable wins, GAA, and shutouts (regular and post season) in the Hall of Fame? Is the positional ranking of his average SV% to his contemporaries comparable to that of existing HHOF goatlenders (regular and post season)?
8. Do the player's career numbers (wins, GAA, SOs, positionally ranked SV%) meet Hall of Fame standards?
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics (relative to average statistics of era)?
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
11. How many Vezina-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win a Vezina Trophy? If not, how many times was he close? Did he ever win a Hart, Lindsay, or Smythe?
12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could have a winning record? Could they qualify for the post-season? Win their division?
14. What impact did the player have on hockey history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

i don't like #7, since those are team stats, and closely related to era.

bold are not good questions, imo.

winning record is mostly about the skaters, and is a very low bar. any goalie who cannot have a winning record as the best player of the team should automatically be disqualified.

winning record and reaching the playoffs are often the same, and more than 1/2 of teams reach the playoffs.


jennings is nearly meaningless, since it is far more about team D than goaltending. it says very little about a goalie. hasek sucked in '08, but won the jennings.

backup winning the jennings is completely meaningless, imo. grant fuhr was terrible in '94, but won the jennings b/c hasek was amazing.

plus, you are probably the only person in history to think of goalies based on whether they could contend for the jennings when past their prime.

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

i don't like #7, since those are team stats, and closely related to era.

bold are not good questions, imo.

winning record is mostly about the skaters, and is a very low bar. any goalie who cannot have a winning record as the best player of the team should automatically be disqualified.

winning record and reaching the playoffs are often the same, and more than 1/2 of teams reach the playoffs.


jennings is nearly meaningless, since it is far more about team D than goaltending. it says very little about a goalie. hasek sucked in '08, but won the jennings.

backup winning the jennings is completely meaningless, imo. grant fuhr was terrible in '94, but won the jennings b/c hasek was amazing.

plus, you are probably the only person in history to think of goalies based on whether they could contend for the jennings when past their prime.

#7 is what many, many goaltenders in the HHOF have going for them. The HHOF largely takes them into consideration, as they are career measurements. That doesn't mean I think they're good stats for evaluating the physical skills of a goalie, but they're extremely relevant for determining HHOF status.

I agree #13 is a bit shaky. However, it's far more likely and relevant than to the original question which I replaced: "If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win their conference?". It was the best I felt I could do without eliminating the question altogether; I'd be glad to hear an alternative. Also, there are teams that have made the playoffs without winning records, and teams with winning records that have not made the playoffs; this usually happens during conference disparity. Now, seeing as Brodeur and Roy are both a couple of the best all-time, you could put many other greats behind them and they'd still be "the best player on their respective team" and win a conference. On the other hand, you can put a bunch of scrubs behind Hasek and it's a struggle, at no fault of Hasek. What the question does do is something like this:

Suppose you have a team full of skaters slightly worse as a player than Osgood. Now, you could argue Ozzie was around 5th best of his cup teams (as a starter) behind Stevie, Feds, Shanny, and Lids (or Dats, Z, and Lids). That would put him ahead of players like, say, Kozlov, past-prime Larionov, Duchesne, Draper, McCarty, young Homer, young Knuble, Doug Brown, maybe aged Murphy, etc. So you've got this team full of players worse than Ozzie; could that team get a winning record and/or make the playoffs with him in goal? I'd argue he did exactly that with both the Blues and the Isles. That's what that question attempts to eliminate. For example, could a team full of players worse than, say, Chris Mason, backstopped by him, get to the playoffs or get a winning record? Probably not (no diss on Mason, he's a decent 1a/1b sorta goalie).

I'm not sure where you're getting that I place that sort of relevance in the Jennings. It makes a pretty little trophy to top off a more notable career with but beyond that I don't give a rat's behind, and it's certainly no measurement of greatness on it's own. I'm honestly really not sure where you got that idea.

Edit: I think I see it now. What I meant by Jennings-qualifiable is that the goalie must be able to play at least 25 games, which is the minimum for being eligible for a Jennings trophy (in other words, it's a bar that's already set within existing rules). If a goalie can have multiple 25+ game seasons past their prime, that's a fair accomplishment. It was a modification of the original question "Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?" to attempt to define what 'regularly after passing his prime' means for a goaltender. Winning a Jennings has nothing to do with it.

 

[Jumptheshark]

The primary arguments for Osgood in the Hall seem to center around two arguments:

(1) The compiler arguments.
(2) Since Grant Fuhr and Gerry Cheevers are in the HHOF, Osgood should be as well.

Focusing on (2) here - we've seen a lot of talk on (1), does anyone want to take a stab at the Keltner List for these three gentlemen?

The last time we had a drag out fight about Osgood--I compared him to Moog and not Fuhr and most people agreed with the comparison.

Osgood has played on good teams--but it has also been proved that it was the team that made Osgood look good and not the other way around.

Osgood suffers from the Mood syndrome of being a good goalie in a prime situation

 

[golfortennis]

I think a lot of arguments have been made already, the only one I want to add, is that far more often than not, after the game was over, you came away feeling Osgood didn't win the game, and he didn't lose the game. While there are exceptions, Osgood was a solid goalie who had a long career, but isn't a hall of famer.

Or, to put it like a baseball writer once said, if I have to think about him, no.

 

[arrbez]

Agree, 7,8, and 9 are all pretty grey areas. A goaltender's individual stats are all heavily influenced by the team surrounding him and the era in which he played. This translated Keltner list is great, but the questions pertaining to goaltender stats might need to be reworked. I mean, what are "numbers"? Wins? GAA? Shutouts? It's possible to be a resounding yes in a couple parts of the question, and a clear no in others.

Yeah, I think the best "numbers" to use for goaltenders in this situation would be the number of AST and Vezina votes, or something along those lines. Basically, the number of great individual seasons the goalie had.

 

[Ogopogo*]

The primary arguments for Osgood in the Hall seem to center around two arguments:

(1) The compiler arguments.
(2) Since Grant Fuhr and Gerry Cheevers are in the HHOF, Osgood should be as well.

Focusing on (2) here - we've seen a lot of talk on (1), does anyone want to take a stab at the Keltner List for these three gentlemen?

How do people equate Osgood with Fuhr? There is no comparison.

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

Or, to put it like a baseball writer once said, if I have to think about him, no.

Maybe hockey writers like to use their brains more than baseball writers.

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

Yeah, I think the best "numbers" to use for goaltenders in this situation would be the number of AST and Vezina votes, or something along those lines. Basically, the number of great individual seasons the goalie had.

Except that isn't the numbers the HHOF seem to use, hence my own preference for wins, GAA, SOs, and era-relative sv% in regards to that list (even though my own preference doesn't go in that order).

 

[Doctor No]

How do people equate Osgood with Fuhr? There is no comparison.

You'd be surprised (although it's almost universally been Red Wing fans).

 

[arrbez]

Except that isn't the numbers the HHOF seem to use, hence my own preference for wins, GAA, SOs, and era-relative sv% in regards to that list (even though my own preference doesn't go in that order).

Except the question isn't about what stats the HHOF uses. It's about which stats best describe how good a goalie was. Allstar and Vezina votes clearly do that. They're voted on by the people who are paid to watch the most hockey: NHL GM's and the professional sports writers. And they're based on who was best, not who had the most of x,y, or z stat.

 

[arrbez]

You'd be surprised (although it's almost universally been Red Wing fans).

I think this has been the common theme throughout pretty much the entire discussion. Outside of a couple Wings fans, this has been an overwhelming "no" from just about everyone.

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

Except the question isn't about what stats the HHOF uses. It's about which stats best describe how good a goalie was. Allstar and Vezina votes clearly do that. They're voted on by the people who are paid to watch the most hockey: NHL GM's and the professional sports writers. And they're based on who was best, not who had the most of x,y, or z stat.

The list is in regards to validity for HHOF. Said stats are very relevant to the HHOF. Thus, said stats should be considered in regards to the 'stats' categories of the list... yes?

 

[arrbez]

The list is in regards to validity for HHOF. Said stats are very relevant to the HHOF. Thus, said stats should be considered in regards to the 'stats' categories of the list... yes?

Sure, and Career Allstar Selections are far more accurate at reflecting the actual existing HOF members than career wins, gaa, or sv%. Seriously, take a look.

It's the only one of the aforementioned stats that isn't heavily era-biased. The only players it omits are those who played prior to the modern era (1931 and earlier, when there was no forward passing, etc). Including ties, the top-5 places in allstar selections include Hall, Plante, Sawchuk, Dryden, Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, and Durnan. The first 7 I named are the near unanimous top-7 NHL goalies of all time in one order or another, and Durnan is generally in the top-10. That list doesn't feature players like Curtis Joseph, Lorne Chabot, and Niklas Backstrom like the others do. You won't see Manny Fernandez, Andy Moog, or Gerry McNeil in the top-15 either.

So not only does it best reflect the actual HHOF, but it also best reflects who was consistently an elite goalie in the league (which should be the #1 thing on anyone's HHOF checklist). For this reason, if we're using stats as a metric, this should get by far the most weighting out of any of them.

 

[Big Phil]

How do people equate Osgood with Fuhr? There is no comparison.

Homer Wings fans. Let's put to bed the fact that Osgood is comparable to Fuhr. Osgood would never have held up the fort in the 1987 Canada Cup like Fuhr did. Look at the stats all you want, but those were incredible end to end offensive games and there was going to be some goals let in regardless. Nevertheless, Fuhr gets less credit than he deserves for that spectacular display. Osgood never robbed a team of a series. Osgood never stole a series. He was never a guy you noticed either.

Also can we put to bed the irritating perception of Osgood that he was a dynasty goalie? He didn't play in 1997. He won in 1998. He won in 2008. 3 Cups in 11 years is NOT a dynasty and he even only played in two of them. Either you are a dynasty or you are not. None of this crap that a dynasty has "changed" over the years. It hasn't.