The Vezina/Stanley Cup combination

[Blades of Glory]

Since the NHL switched to the current Vezina format, after the 1981 season, I noticed that every goaltender who win a Vezina/Stanley Cup (as a starter) is in the HHOF. Except one. Smith, Fuhr, Roy, Belfour, Hasek, and obviously Brodeur will be in.

That is pretty good company for Tom Barrasso to be in. He also won 2 Stanley Cups and is regarded as a clutch goaltender. Apart from his one Vezina win, he also finished second 3 different times and third once. Why is he not in?

Click to read more...

 

[reckoning]

He certainly deserves to be there. The only reason I can think of is probably his attitude. There are countless stories of Barrasso behaving like a @#%! towards teammates, media and fans.

 

[seventieslord]

Since the NHL switched to the current Vezina format, after the 1981 season, I noticed that every goaltender who win a Vezina/Stanley Cup (as a starter) is in the HHOF. Except one. Smith, Fuhr, Roy, Belfour, Hasek, and obviously Brodeur will be in.

That is pretty good company for Tom Barrasso to be in. He also won 2 Stanley Cups and is regarded as a clutch goaltender. Apart from his one Vezina win, he also finished second 3 different times and third once. Why is he not in?

That's a rather simple case, but a good one.

The easy answer would be "well, besides those years he won the cups and the vezina he was never any good" but he was very good throughout almost all of his career. As you said, he is a 3-time Vezina runner-up, and he was top-6 in sv% six times. That may not sound too impressive, but it's tough to show a modern goalie not named Belfour, Roy, Hasek, Dryden, or Parent who has done that.

 

[KingJoyal]

He certainly deserves to be there. The only reason I can think of is probably his attitude. There are countless stories of Barrasso behaving like a @#%! towards teammates, media and fans.

Reckoning, it's precisely because of nonsense like this that I cannot take the HHOF seriously. That sorority house mentality makes me sick. If a player has the career accomplishments to warrant induction, and is not inducted, then the sorority house girls should grow a pair and spell out honestly why they decided to exclude that player. That way, younger hockey fans, who seem to place a lot of stock in the choices the induction committee makes, can better determine who the great players of the past were.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

other than the him being a jerk thing, another reason might be that he was pretty inconsistent over his career. he was very good early on in buffalo, and was mostly great for the stanley cup stretch in pittsburgh, but he cratered in the late 80s and from the '93 playoffs on.

with the others: smith, roy, belfour, hasek, you can points to a stretch of at least five years where they were good year in, year out. and fuhr was always money in the playoffs.

barrasso's more up and down career can be compared to vernon, who was alternately a playoff god and a playoff choker. i'd put these guys above curtis joseph, but i'm also not sure you can say they had all-time great careers, as opposed to all-time very good careers.

at the same time, i'm sure after ten to fifteen years have passed, people will have forgotten about their bad years and only remember the stanley cup runs and all-star regular seasons, and they'll get in.

 

[Big Phil]

barrasso's more up and down career can be compared to vernon, who was alternately a playoff god and a playoff choker. i'd put these guys above curtis joseph, but i'm also not sure you can say they had all-time great careers, as opposed to all-time very good careers.

And that's the thing. Both of those goalies are neck and neck IMO. You can go either way on them and it'll be interesting in the coming years what happens with them. To be honest I am not mad either way with them. I could live with them out of the HHOF and vice versa.

 

[kmad]

I think the main argument against Barrasso is that his Vezina nominations and his Vezina win came up against possibly the weakest goaltending field in NHL history.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

And that's the thing. Both of those goalies are neck and neck IMO. You can go either way on them and it'll be interesting in the coming years what happens with them. To be honest I am not mad either way with them. I could live with them out of the HHOF and vice versa.

I always thought Joseph was the better goaltender just from watching them play.

 

[Big Phil]

I always thought Joseph was the better goaltender just from watching them play.

On the surface yes, when the chips were down, no. Joseph was flashy but allowed the sft untimely goal at the worst time. Barrasso had those moments as well, but managed to combine it with some spectacular postseason play. Not to mention the Vezina

 

[Canadiens1958]

Durability

other than the him being a jerk thing, another reason might be that he was pretty inconsistent over his career. he was very good early on in buffalo, and was mostly great for the stanley cup stretch in pittsburgh, but he cratered in the late 80s and from the '93 playoffs on.

with the others: smith, roy, belfour, hasek, you can points to a stretch of at least five years where they were good year in, year out. and fuhr was always money in the playoffs.

barrasso's more up and down career can be compared to vernon, who was alternately a playoff god and a playoff choker. i'd put these guys above curtis joseph, but i'm also not sure you can say they had all-time great careers, as opposed to all-time very good careers.

at the same time, i'm sure after ten to fifteen years have passed, people will have forgotten about their bad years and only remember the stanley cup runs and all-star regular seasons, and they'll get in.

Tom Barrasso played 60 or more games in a season only three times. Lacked durability. Major concern for some HHOF voters.

Billy Smith overcame the issue with four consecutive Stanley Cups and playoff durability.

 

[seventieslord]

Tom Barrasso played 60 or more games in a season only three times. Lacked durability. Major concern for some HHOF voters.

Billy Smith overcame the issue with four consecutive Stanley Cups and playoff durability.

Actually, that's just how it was in the 80s.

Between Barrasso's first 60-game season in 1986, and his second in 1993, only Cheveldae, Hextall, Ranford and Vernon has three 60-game seasons. They weren't common.

There were 36 60-game seasons posted during this time. 4.5 per season. Barrasso had many more than what you would call his fair share.

 

[Canadiens1958]

So.................

Actually, that's just how it was in the 80s.

Between Barrasso's first 60-game season in 1986, and his second in 1993, only Cheveldae, Hextall, Ranford and Vernon has three 60-game seasons. They weren't common.

There were 36 60-game seasons posted during this time. 4.5 per season. Barrasso had many more than what you would call his fair share.

Main reason why few goalies merit HHOF consideration from that era yet someone or a pairing had to win the Vezina or backstop a team to the Stanley Cup and two goalie All-Star slots had to be filled. The Vezina and AST accomplishments are significantly diluted.

Also a tribute to Martin Brodeur as your stat shows his value.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Reckoning, it's precisely because of nonsense like this that I cannot take the HHOF seriously. That sorority house mentality makes me sick. If a player has the career accomplishments to warrant induction, and is not inducted, then the sorority house girls should grow a pair and spell out honestly why they decided to exclude that player. That way, younger hockey fans, who seem to place a lot of stock in the choices the induction committee makes, can better determine who the great players of the past were.

I disagree. When talking borderline candidates, and make no mistake, Barasso is borderline, their ability to represent the sport is a relevant factor.

 

[seventieslord]

Main reason why few goalies merit HHOF consideration from that era yet someone or a pairing had to win the Vezina or backstop a team to the Stanley Cup and two goalie All-Star slots had to be filled. The Vezina and AST accomplishments are significantly diluted.

Also a tribute to Martin Brodeur as your stat shows his value.

Yes, it was a slightly weaker era for goalies. But it's also easier to say that just because scoring was higher in the 80s too. I just showed you that relative to his peers, Barrasso was a very durable goalie.

That's if you can even prove that playing more games automatically means durability. Some teams just like to play their backup more often.

The way it was in the 80s and early 90s was that goalies rarely played 60+ games. I showed you it was 4.5 per season. From 1993-94 through 2008-09, it's happened 181 times, or 12.1 times per season. Patrick Roy never played 60 games for his first 6 seasons, then did so for 12 straight seasons. He never changed - goalie starting strategy did. Teams now recognize that you have a better chance of winning with your best goalie, and no one recornizes this more than The Devils.

Goalies have gotten better, and I don't just mean because every position has gotten better. I think goalies have improved at a great rate than the players around them. But the GP thing wasn't about durability, it was just the way things were done.

 

[KingJoyal]

I disagree. When talking borderline candidates, and make no mistake, Barasso is borderline, their ability to represent the sport is a relevant factor.

If the sorority house girls are choosing between two borderline candidates, and give the nod to the player who doesn't have off-ice issues held against him (and give no indication as to why the other player was excluded), hockey fans decades later will assume that the inducted player was significantly better than the player selected. Presumably most people here at HoH can list players who should be in the HoF ahead of some of the players who were inducted. The excluded players (blackballed for off-ice issues) will never get their due. There will always be the assumption that there was something lacking in their game.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Goalie Cycles

Yes, it was a slightly weaker era for goalies. But it's also easier to say that just because scoring was higher in the 80s too. I just showed you that relative to his peers, Barrasso was a very durable goalie.

That's if you can even prove that playing more games automatically means durability. Some teams just like to play their backup more often.

The way it was in the 80s and early 90s was that goalies rarely played 60+ games. I showed you it was 4.5 per season. From 1993-94 through 2008-09, it's happened 181 times, or 12.1 times per season. Patrick Roy never played 60 games for his first 6 seasons, then did so for 12 straight seasons. He never changed - goalie starting strategy did. Teams now recognize that you have a better chance of winning with your best goalie, and no one recornizes this more than The Devils.

Goalies have gotten better, and I don't just mean because every position has gotten better. I think goalies have improved at a great rate than the players around them. But the GP thing wasn't about durability, it was just the way things were done.

NHL goaltending tends to run in cycles. From the late twenties into the second half of the thirties until Turk Broda came along there was very little new goaltending talent - Davey Kerr had Tom Barrasso like numbers and results, better than his peers but not a HHOFer.

Similarly no new impact goalies made the NHL from 1956- 1965, betwen Glenn Hall and Parent/Cheevers/Giacomin. Crozier,Simmons and Dejordy were the best of the lot, some interesting results and awards but not HHOFers.

Late 1970's/early eighties saw the emergence of goalies going to the NHL almost directly from junior.John Davidson followed by Fuhr/Moog, Bester/Wregget, Sauve / Edwards, etc Barrasso from US high school. Physically they were not ready but played because no one else was available at their talent level.It took awhile for off ice training for goaltenders to catch - up to the additional physical requirements coming out of junior. Most eighties goalies spent very little time in the minors working on their game and stamina.

By the late 1980's / early 1990's you had the emergence of the US college trained goalies who were older when they made the NHL - Belfour, Joseph and others were physically mature, ready to play 60+ games.

Patrick Roy early in his NHL career had not reached the level of physical maturity needed to play 60+ games. He also had diet issues. When Patrick Roy matured physically around age 25 he was able to play 60+ games. Rather major change which was not strategy based.

Interestingly Martin Brodeur was brought along slowly in midget and junior playing somewhat of a reduced load.

The first lock-out changed how goalies are played. The last five seasons have seen very few teams with two goalies capable of playing 40 - 50 games each. Teams try to have the workhorse playing around sixty games and a back-up.Between lock-outs you had the same trend - the high priced goalie was going to play or moved since the salary gap between the goalies did not justify sitting him on the bench.Simple financial considerations.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

If the sorority house girls are choosing between two borderline candidates, and give the nod to the player who doesn't have off-ice issues held against him (and give no indication as to why the other player was excluded), hockey fans decades later will assume that the inducted player was significantly better than the player selected. Presumably most people here at HoH can list players who should be in the HoF ahead of some of the players who were inducted. The excluded players (blackballed for off-ice issues) will never get their due. There will always be the assumption that there was something lacking in their game.

 

[WingsFan95]

Didn't Carey win it one year?

Is that the only one that won't have a shot at Hall of Fame?

 

[MXD]

Didn't Carey win it one year?

Is that the only one that won't have a shot at Hall of Fame?

I don't think José Théodore will HHOF bound, nor do I think Pete Peeters is HHOF bound either. Both haven't win cup... Neither did Carey anyways, so that's kindof a moot point.

 

[MS]

Biggest problem for Barrasso is what a yo-yo his career was. One of the most inconsistent goalies ever. When he was healthy and his head was in the right place, he was one of the best in the game. But he was injury-prone and his career ended being all over the place.

His first 2 seasons (83-85), he was brilliant - best performance by a teenaged goalie in NHL history.

The next 5 years after that (1985-1990), he had one excellent year in 1987-88. The other 4 years he was injured, or performed poorly, or both. Went from hero to zero in Buffalo and punched his ticket out of town with iffy play and grating personality. Take out 87-88, and his GAA over that stretch is around 4.00.

Then, from 1990-1993, he re-establishes himself. Behind a high-scoring Penguin team, he plays terrific goal, and makes a reputation for himself with his great clutch play in the playoffs in Pittsburgh's Cup wins in 1991 and 1992.

After 1993 (Volek!), his career pretty much goes off the rails. Turns in one brilliant season in 1997-98, but other than that, he was awful. Injured all the time and didn't play more that 50 games again. Essentially missed 3 entire seasons through injury. Struggled when he played, and had a couple awful playoffs (1996 vs. Florida stands out) as well.

So what you're left with is a guy who had 5 or 6 really good seasons (1983-85, 1987-88, 1990-93, 1997-98) and about 15 years where he was injured or crap.

A guy like Joseph (who I don't think belongs in the HHOF, for the record), might not have been as good as Barrasso at his best, but you could *always* rely on him to deliver 60 games of quality goaltending for your team, year-in, year-out. You simply can't say the same for Barrasso. The fact that he was average or worse (due to either injuries or poor play) for 3/4 of the seasons in his career really, really hurts.