Was Chris Osgood ever good and/or considered good?

[RECsGuy*]

Click to read more...

 

[McGuillicuddy]

I dunno. In last year's playoffs he was pretty stellar. Unfortunately weeks of excellent play was tarnished by one bad goal against Maxime Talbot in game 7 of the final.

 

[Henkka]

Last two playoffs:

41 games, 29 wins, .928 save percentage

Stanley Cup 1997 (as a backup)
Stanley Cup 1998
Stanley Cup 2008

I think that has to be a good goalie.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Is this a serious question?

How does a goaltender who was never good earn two cup rings as a starter?

 

[mco543]

Osgood discussion on message boards is so strange. People seemingly go back and fourth between "carried by his team" to "HOFer" every couple weeks.

 

[Trottier]

Was Chris Osgood ever good and/or considered good?

Yes, Chris Osgood has been good dating back many years. And yes, he has been considered a good NHL goalie by most for many years. And the ability of a team to win Cups with him in net is indisputable, which ultimately, is what matters most.

While he has certainly had his "downs", his career up to this point is a very solid body of work.

Now, on HF, he is not considered as such by some.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Good? No question.

Great? Unfortunately always been a question.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Gamer

Chris Osgood is the definition of a team player and a gamer.

Good HHOF candidate.

 

[ck26]

Yes, Chris Osgood has been good dating back many years. And yes, he has been considered a good NHL goalie by most for many years. And the ability of a team to win Cups with him in net is indisputable, which ultimately, is what matters most.

While he has certainly had his "downs", his career up to this point is a very solid body of work.

Now, on HF, he is not considered as such by some.

This.

Osgood never rated among the top-5 or so in the NHL, but you don't start for two Cup-winners, back up one other and go to the finals two other years without being good. People knock him and say he was only good because the Red Wings were good, but if that were the case, wouldn't Wings management have noticed by now and replaced him with someone younger and cheaper? He's not Terry Sawchuk, but if we're drafting all-time fantasy teams, he's definitely good enough to be Terry Sawchuk's backup.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Chris Osgood is the definition of a team player and a gamer.

Good HHOF candidate.

Bolded for emphasis.

Won't get in.

 

[RECsGuy*]

Now, on HF, he is not considered as such by some.

Exactly why I started this topic.

 

[seventieslord]

You can win a stanley cup with a below-average 1st line LW... or a below-average 3rd defenseman... or a below average 4th line center... why not with a below-average goalie?

I'm not commenting on Osgood as he's been described pretty well here. But let's not reduce ourselves to "he won the cup so he's good" arguments.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Osgood was a very close second for the Vezina in 1996. So he was obviously considered "good" at some point.

He was also a huge part of the brief rennaisance that the NY Islanders had in the early 00s, so he proved that he wasn't a product of Detroit. If anything, he played more consistent hockey away from Detroit.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Time On Ice

You can win a stanley cup with a below-average 1st line LW... or a below-average 3rd defenseman... or a below average 4th line center... why not with a below-average goalie?

I'm not commenting on Osgood as he's been described pretty well here. But let's not reduce ourselves to "he won the cup so he's good" arguments.

Because your goalie has to play regardless of the opposition. The other positions can be compensated for by match-ups, rotations, line juggling, specialists and other strategies.

 

[ck26]

You can win a stanley cup with a below-average 1st line LW... or a below-average 3rd defenseman... or a below average 4th line center... why not with a below-average goalie?

I'm not commenting on Osgood as he's been described pretty well here. But let's not reduce ourselves to "he won the cup so he's good" arguments.

Apples and oranges.

If your below-average 1st line LW makes 4 mistakes a game, you notice. If your below-average starting goalie makes 4 mistakes a game, you lose.

If it were possible to make it to the finals with a bad goalkeeper, it would have happened by now ...

 

[seventieslord]

Because your goalie has to play regardless of the opposition. The other positions can be compensated for by match-ups, rotations, line juggling, specialists and other strategies.

Apples and oranges.

If your below-average 1st line LW makes 4 mistakes a game, you notice. If your below-average starting goalie makes 4 mistakes a game, you lose.

If it were possible to make it to the finals with a bad goalkeeper, it would have happened by now ...

What you guys are telling me is that goaltending is the most important position in the game. I don't disagree. But the implication that because you made it to the finals, you must have had a good goalie, is from a school of thought that places the importance of a goalie's contribution above all other contributions on the team combined. That is not the case.

All things being equal, having a bad goalie would hurt your team more than having a bad player at any other position. But with Detroit, all things are not equal! They had ridiculous depth throughout the lineup; more than enough to cover for a bad goalie.

Again, I am not commenting on Osgood specifically, but getting to the finals does not automatically mean he was an above-average NHL goalie.

 

[Big Phil]

Osgood has always been fairly good. Now great? No, not anytime in his career would I call him great or a game stealer or the player that kept opposing coaches up at night figuring out how to beat the Wings. Bottom line is, no one ever figured Chris Osgood was going to be the reason their team lost. He was basically just good enough to help the Wings win.

He was a 2nd team all-star in 1996. But that is as close as it got for him. This was also a weak year for the NHL goalies. Kind of reminded me of 2009 with Thomas and Mason gathering the all-star selections. The best goalies were either injured or had off years. Like 1996 when Belfour, Hasek, Roy all had off years. Brodeur was still young and Joseph was holding out. By the process of elimination that left Osgood to fend off against others like Hextall and co. for the 2nd team nomination.

 

[Fire Sweeney]

Osgood is closer to being a hall of famer than Brodeur is close to being the best goaltender ever. However you rarely see him get any credit, while anyone can safely claim in a debate that Brodeur is the greatest eventhough it is false.

 

[MS]

No, he wasn't that good. Generally he's been a very mediocre starting goalie who happened to spend most of his career for a great team that hid most of his problems.

In an era where a .910 save % is average, he's bettered that mark twice in 15 full seasons despite generally playing for excellent teams who tend to inflate goalie stats (compare Manny Legace's stats on the same teams). When he left Detroit for 3 years, he proved himself to be a very average starter on average teams.

He played some terrific goal in the 2007-08 season and playoffs, I'll give him credit for that. But aside from that stretch, he's been generally awful for most of this decade - sub-.900 save % in 4 of the last 6 seasons he's appeared in over 30 games.

One of the most situationally lucky players ever, right up there with Clark Gillies.

 

[seventieslord]

No, he wasn't that good. Generally he's been a very mediocre starting goalie who happened to spend most of his career for a great team that hid most of his problems.

In an era where a .910 save % is average, he's bettered that mark twice in 15 full seasons despite generally playing for excellent teams who tend to inflate goalie stats (compare Manny Legace's stats on the same teams). When he left Detroit for 3 years, he proved himself to be a very average starter on average teams.

He played some terrific goal in the 2007-08 season and playoffs, I'll give him credit for that. But aside from that stretch, he's been generally awful for most of this decade - sub-.900 save % in 4 of the last 6 seasons he's appeared in over 30 games.

One of the most situationally lucky players ever, right up there with Clark Gillies.

BUT HE'S SO CLUTCH!!!!!!1!!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Key

What you guys are telling me is that goaltending is the most important position in the game. I don't disagree. But the implication that because you made it to the finals, you must have had a good goalie, is from a school of thought that places the importance of a goalie's contribution above all other contributions on the team combined. That is not the case.

All things being equal, having a bad goalie would hurt your team more than having a bad player at any other position. But with Detroit, all things are not equal! They had ridiculous depth throughout the lineup; more than enough to cover for a bad goalie.

Again, I am not commenting on Osgood specifically, but getting to the finals does not automatically mean he was an above-average NHL goalie.

Not quite. The most important quality that a goalie must have is that he is so integrated into the team and trusted that even the odd bad goal will not deflate the team. The actual reasons are not important but it is not a question of talent level or metrics. Some goalies manage to build such a relationship with their team, others do not.

Osgood has such a relationship with the Red Wings. Dryden had it with the Canadiens while Tony Esposito did not have it with the Hawks - see 1971 playoffs for examples.Presently Luongo has it with the Canucks, Miller with the Sabres, Brodeur with the Devils. Price does not have it with the Canadiens.

 

[shadow1]

Late 90's? Yes.

Late 00's? All he's done is cement the theory in my head that a goalie should be the last piece when building a team if Detroit can win the cup with him in net.

 

[mco543]

Another thing I've always found interesting about Osgood is that the Wings have seemingly been trying to replace him ever since he got there, yet never could manage to do it. Detroit's brought in Hasek, Vernon, Legace, CuJo, and I think Bill Ranford and none of them outlasted Osgood or panned out.

 

[Trottier]

Not quite. The most important quality that a goalie must have is that he is so integrated into the team and trusted that even the odd bad goal will not deflate the team. The actual reasons are not important but it is not a question of talent level or metrics. Some goalies manage to build such a relationship with their team, others do not.

Osgood has such a relationship with the Red Wings. Dryden had it with the Canadiens while Tony Esposito did not have it with the Hawks - see 1971 playoffs for examples.Presently Luongo has it with the Canucks, Miller with the Sabres, Brodeur with the Devils. Price does not have it with the Canadiens.

Wait a minute!

What about citing individual numbers, entirely out of context of team results? (For after all, players are ultimately paid to compile stats, rather than contribute to winning games. )

Invalid post unless you do.

 

[nik jr]

imo, osgood was usually an average goalie, who happened to play behind the best team of the last 15 years. i think it would be ridiculous if he made HHOF.

Another thing I've always found interesting about Osgood is that the Wings have seemingly been trying to replace him ever since he got there, yet never could manage to do it. Detroit's brought in Hasek, Vernon, Legace, CuJo, and I think Bill Ranford and none of them outlasted Osgood or panned out.

how did hasek and vernon not pan out?