The players who needed that Cup in order to get into the Hall of Fame

[Michael Farkas]

Save percentage is for losers. But regardless, I don't think I care about that carefully selected stat. If I add two years to either side of that, he falls out of the top 10...this is also a low time for goaltending talent, so making three more saves over the course of four, five, six years than Pat Riggin or Rick Wamsley isn't exactly convincing...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

From '83 to '87 he had one of the best save percentages for all goalies during that run. I think he and Fuhr are underrated for just how good they were, many people believing they just benefitted from a high octane offense.

i feel like moog’s peak was with boston, and my impressions at the time (rightly or wrongly) is that he benefited from a very very good d

peak bourque, a merry go round of excellent defensive forwards: kasper, linseman, carpenter, poulin, etc, and a team commitment to defence surpassed only by montreal

they were a top three team defensively over the two finals in three years

 

[ichbinkanadier]

Save percentage is for losers. But regardless, I don't think I care about that carefully selected stat. If I add two years to either side of that, he falls out of the top 10...this is also a low time for goaltending talent, so making three more saves over the course of four, five, six years than Pat Riggin or Rick Wamsley isn't exactly convincing...

Performance is relative, not absolute.

And yeah, save % isn't the greatest stat, but the NHL isn't a stat driven league historically. Work with what ya got?

i feel like moog’s peak was with boston, and my impressions at the time (rightly or wrongly) is that he benefited from a very very good d

peak bourque, a merry go round of excellent defensive forwards: kasper, linseman, carpenter, poulin, etc, and a team commitment to defence surpassed only by montreal

they were a top three team defensively over the two finals in three years

But Edmonton wasn't a defensive juggernaut. I din't get all time great vibes from him but it seems to me he was a top goalie for his era.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Performance is relative, sure. So that means we should be considering how weak the era is when framing it on an all-time sense. That's why we question WWI era, WWII era, early 80's NHL, etc. because it's not the same caliber as the early-mid 60's NHL, the better part of these last 5, 7, 8, 10 years, etc.

Without context, there'd be a lot more fanfare for George Hainsworth and Alec Connell, right?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

But Edmonton wasn't a defensive juggernaut. I din't get all time great vibes from him but it seems to me he was a top goalie for his era.

i feel like moog's run as a name goalie came in the late 80s/early 90s

it's possible i was too young and not following hockey yet during his edmonton years, or he was overshadowed by fuhr then. but i do distinctly remember that boston moog was looked at as a cujo-level guy and he peaked in terms of name recognition in the 1990 season, when boston was the #1 team in the league defensively and bourque just about won the hart, and moog finished third for the vezina and made that run to the finals. and then after milbury was gone and bowness took over, boston fell to the middle of the pack defensively and moog's standing among his peers also fell.

 

[ichbinkanadier]

Performance is relative, sure. So that means we should be considering how weak the era is when framing it on an all-time sense. That's why we question WWI era, WWII era, early 80's NHL, etc. because it's not the same caliber as the early-mid 60's NHL, the better part of these last 5, 7, 8, 10 years, etc.

Without context, there'd be a lot more fanfare for George Hainsworth and Alec Connell, right?

I meant performance is relative to peers. To compare different eras is a pointless task since there are too many differences. Goaltenders and players today get a lot more coaching today than ever before. Advances in equipment technology, coaching tactics, nutrition etc

So calling an era "weak" is ignoring all of these realities. There is no reason to think that players of the past would have displayed the same skills as today's players if the coaching and equipment advances were present at their time.

The dumbest type of statement I hear is one such as "If Crosby/Ovechkin/McDavid played back then, he'd have scored 100 goals."

 

[Michael Farkas]

I meant performance is relative to peers. To compare different eras is a pointless task since there are too many differences. Goaltenders and players today get a lot more coaching today than ever before. Advances in equipment technology, coaching tactics, nutrition etc

So calling an era "weak" is ignoring all of these realities. There is no reason to think that players of the past would have displayed the same skills as today's players if the coaching and equipment advances were present at their time.

The dumbest type of statement I hear is one such as "If Crosby/Ovechkin/McDavid played back then, he'd have scored 100 goals."

By considering the history of the game and watching the film, you can determine what eras deserve more consideration than others. Quality of talent doesn't just rise linearly over time...hockey in the mid 60's was better than it was in 1981. I'm not saying "don't consider peers", do. But, consider peers in the context of the strength of the era too...it's all very, very nuanced.

 

[ichbinkanadier]

i feel like moog's run as a name goalie came in the late 80s/early 90s

it's possible i was too young and not following hockey yet during his edmonton years, or he was overshadowed by fuhr then. but i do distinctly remember that boston moog was looked at as a cujo-level guy and he peaked in terms of name recognition in the 1990 season, when boston was the #1 team in the league defensively and bourque just about won the hart, and moog finished third for the vezina and made that run to the finals. and then after milbury was gone and bowness took over, boston fell to the middle of the pack defensively and moog's standing among his peers also fell.

I think he was overshadowed by Fuhr in Edmonton. Fuhr backstopped 3 of their Cups, Canada Cup starter, Rendezvous Vous 87 etc I think if he backstopped Philadelphia, Montreal, Calgary...they would've been just as able to compete for Cups.

By considering the history of the game and watching the film, you can determine what eras deserve more consideration than others. Quality of talent doesn't just rise linearly over time...hockey in the mid 60's was better than it was in 1981. I'm not saying "don't consider peers", do. But, consider peers in the context of the strength of the era too...it's all very, very nuanced.

Why do you think hockey in the mid-60s was better than in 1981?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Rather than rehashing it all here, if I may direct you to where it's been discussed before. Starting at post 79 here: Was Orr ever considered the GOAT?

Also, this small "study" I did about older players having their careers "extended" by the pitiful early 80's league, but players that got old in the second half of the decade did not enjoy the same luxury.

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3 (Secret of the Ooze)

I think I’m most curious about what happens with Potvin here. While I think it’s fair to excuse his general longevity for the fact that big money had yet to come in, it does seem like he and Mikita had more compacted periods of high-level play, especially against this particular field. Explain...

forums.hfboards.com

Happy to discuss further after that is digested, in the meantime, forgive my laziness...

 

[solidmotion]

i wonder about the reverse of this, players who are only in the hall of fame because they won a cup or two. i'm thinking of nieuwendyk as the test case here, a guy whose regular season resume is nowhere close to the hall of fame but was basically treated as a shoo-in because he won a few cups. getting way ahead of myself, it makes me wonder about someone like ryan o'reilly who throughout his prime probably brought only a slightly lower level of offence than nieuwendyk, made up for it in selke-level defensive play, and won the cup/smythe with the blues. feel like if (this is the bit where i get ahead of myself) if he managed to win one with the leafs as a major contributor that might put him over the top in some voters' eyes....

 

[Hockeyholic]

i wonder about the reverse of this, players who are only in the hall of fame because they won a cup or two. i'm thinking of nieuwendyk as the test case here, a guy whose regular season resume is nowhere close to the hall of fame but was basically treated as a shoo-in because he won a few cups. getting way ahead of myself, it makes me wonder about someone like ryan o'reilly who throughout his prime probably brought only a slightly lower level of offence than nieuwendyk, made up for it in selke-level defensive play, and won the cup/smythe with the blues. feel like if (this is the bit where i get ahead of myself) if he managed to win one with the leafs as a major contributor that might put him over the top in some voters' eyes....

Andreychuk doesn't sniff the Hall without winning a cup imo.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Moog is an interesting one. He gets lost in the weird incestuous goalie sharing Boston and Edmonton did in the 80s

Unfortunately he seemed to change teams in time to miss a Cup usually to Ranford

 

[Hasbro]

It's actually kinda ridiculous Roenick isn't in.. the HHOF is so weirdly inconsistent, who knows if even a single Cup would make a difference. Mogilny has one and that didn't seem to matter... that's another thing they're bit inconsistent about.

Hockey player with a personality... their more apt to burn him at the stake.