What are Kiprusoff's eventual chances of HHOF?

Czech Your Math

I am lizard king
Jan 25, 2006
5,169
303
bohemia
I feel that Vanbiesbrouck is massively underrated, and should be a lock.

It's a shame that HHOF credentials are not the same credentials, that, you know, make you a great goalie.


@DevilMadeMe: The other goalie I can think of as third to Brodeur and Hasek (among those still active) is Giguere. Very good regular seasons, a Cup, and a very impressive (and still remembered) Conn Smythe. I can envisage a situation similar to Nieuwendyk's (although I'd argue Giguere is superior).

So Beezer should be a lock, Giguere has a good chance, but Kipper's "middling play" (??) makes him a real longshot?
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
I feel that Vanbiesbrouck is massively underrated, and should be a lock.

It's a shame that HHOF credentials are not the same credentials, that, you know, make you a great goalie.


@DevilMadeMe: The other goalie I can think of as third to Brodeur and Hasek (among those still active) is Giguere. Very good regular seasons, a Cup, and a very impressive (and still remembered) Conn Smythe. I can envisage a situation similar to Nieuwendyk's (although I'd argue Giguere is superior).

Beezer a lock? How so? Who is a goalie in the HHOF right now that's worse than him? It isn't even Cheevers.

I can't see Giguere making it either. Very sporadic play in his career. He's only 34 years old and he hasn't been a #1 starter in how long now? Plus a bit of a late bloomer too. He came out at 25-26 years old with that Cup run in 2003
 

tjcurrie

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
3,930
143
Gibbons, Alberta
I feel that Vanbiesbrouck is massively underrated, and should be a lock.

It's a shame that HHOF credentials are not the same credentials, that, you know, make you a great goalie.


@DevilMadeMe: The other goalie I can think of as third to Brodeur and Hasek (among those still active) is Giguere. Very good regular seasons, a Cup, and a very impressive (and still remembered) Conn Smythe. I can envisage a situation similar to Nieuwendyk's (although I'd argue Giguere is superior).

Except Giguere had about a 5 or 6 year career. So no.
 

GuineaPig

Registered User
Jul 11, 2011
2,425
206
Montréal
Eh, the HHOF committee doesn't exactly have the best memory. If the prevailing opinion of Giguere in 10, 15 years is based off of that '03 Conn Smythe (he was excellent in '07 as well), it's very possible he gets in.

It doesn't hurt that he played for the Leafs :sarcasm:
 

Seanconn*

Guest
If he somehow wins a cup with Calgary, and is the major force behind that cup... I say he gets in.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Hes' in Canada. Unless the Flames suddenly gel he's doomed. Systemic problems that not even a brilliant piece of work like Kipper can resolve. HHOF candidacy should be based on longevity, contributions, integrity, supremacy, innovation, character. He's running a short leash on at least 3 of the 6 criteras IMO. Didnt stop non-starters like Ciccarreli but there ya go.
 

tjcurrie

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
3,930
143
Gibbons, Alberta
I love when people take jabs at Dino's induction. 16th all-time on the goals list when you add reg season and playoffs with 681. Dont have to say anything else.
 

jkrx

Registered User
Feb 4, 2010
4,337
21
I love when people take jabs at Dino's induction. 16th all-time on the goals list when you add reg season and playoffs with 681. Dont have to say anything else.

Yes you do. Stats isnt everything. With a stupid argument like that I could say that Ted Lindsay doesnt belong in the HHoF because he is only in #90+ something place in scoring.
 

tjcurrie

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
3,930
143
Gibbons, Alberta
Yes you do. Stats isnt everything. With a stupid argument like that I could say that Ted Lindsay doesnt belong in the HHoF because he is only in #90+ something place in scoring.

Not the same thing. Everyone knows what kind of a player Ted Lindsay was, but when a guy is as high on the scoring list as Ciccarelli is, set your biases aside and realize facts. You dont rank players by where they stand on the scoring list but you cant ignore certain numbers. Theres no opinions, biases, or grey areas there. Its just cold hard facts whether you like it or not and despite how highly you think of your own opinions, they dont matter in this case.
 
Last edited:

SidGenoMario

Registered User
Apr 10, 2009
7,185
97
Saskatoon, SK
but when a guy is as high on the scoring list as Ciccarelli is, set your biases aside and realize facts. You dont rank players by where they stand on the scoring list but you cant ignore certain numbers.

You can't ignore certain numbers, but numbers are meaningless by themselves. The only thing the numbers tell us is that Dino scored a lot of goals over a long career that took place across 2 very high scoring eras. That's the only thing the numbers tell us.
 

popculturereference

Registered User
Feb 1, 2009
328
0
You can't ignore certain numbers, but numbers are meaningless by themselves. The only thing the numbers tell us is that Dino scored a lot of goals over a long career that took place across 2 very high scoring eras. That's the only thing the numbers tell us.

His 608 goals also tells us that he was one of the best at scoring those goals during this time period, no matter how high scoring the era was.
 

tjcurrie

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
3,930
143
Gibbons, Alberta
You can't ignore certain numbers, but numbers are meaningless by themselves. The only thing the numbers tell us is that Dino scored a lot of goals over a long career that took place across 2 very high scoring eras. That's the only thing the numbers tell us.

His 608 goals also tells us that he was one of the best at scoring those goals during this time period, no matter how high scoring the era was.

And thats exactly why he's in. Everything else, "he was this", or "he wasnt that", etc is all grey area and a matter of opinion. He's currently 16th on the all time goals list including playoffs and at the time of his retirement he was 9th. I would say thats pretty darn good and worthy if you consider some of the other guys in the HOF. He definitely shouldnt be the first person that pops in to someone's head when criticizing the inductees. They ignored him long enough and he was due.
 

Ishdul

Registered User
Jan 20, 2007
3,989
144
His 608 goals also tells us that he was one of the best at scoring those goals during this time period, no matter how high scoring the era was.
But even going by pure total goals he wasn't better than Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Yzerman, Dionne, Messier, Robitaille, Gartner, Shanahan, Selanne, Andreychuk or Sakic, all who played at least a good chunk of their careers at the same time. And I'd pretty clearly take Bossy over him, too. So his most appealing asset and he wasn't among the top 10 guys at it among his peers and that gets him in? If he was one of the best at scoring goals during this time how come he only has 2 top 10 appearances in the top 10 in goals (4th and 5th) for his entire career?
 

tjcurrie

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
3,930
143
Gibbons, Alberta
But even going by pure total goals he wasn't better than Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Yzerman, Dionne, Messier, Robitaille, Gartner, Shanahan, Selanne, Andreychuk or Sakic, all who played at least a good chunk of their careers at the same time. And I'd pretty clearly take Bossy over him, too. So his most appealing asset and he wasn't among the top 10 guys at it among his peers and that gets him in? If he was one of the best at scoring goals during this time how come he only has 2 top 10 appearances in the top 10 in goals (4th and 5th) for his entire career?

Pretty sure you dont have to be better than all of those guys to still be a helluva player and worthy of the HOF. Thats kinda like criticizing Yzerman for never being the best center in the league during his prime when clearly he had some pretty unreal competition.

9th all time when he retired 12 years ago, currently 16th. Bottom line. People can argue all they want, it is what it is. You dont finish with that many goals without being worthy.
 

kaiser matias

Registered User
Mar 22, 2004
4,707
1,847
Pretty sure you dont have to be better than all of those guys to still be a helluva player and worthy of the HOF. Thats kinda like criticizing Yzerman for never being the best center in the league during his prime when clearly he had some pretty unreal competition.

9th all time when he retired 12 years ago, currently 16th. Bottom line. People can argue all they want, it is what it is. You dont finish with that many goals without being worthy.

Mike Gartner's induction would seem to argue otherwise. Numbers are useless without context.
 

JaysCyYoung

Registered User
Jan 1, 2009
6,088
17
York Region
Let's not ruin this thread, which is talking about goaltending requirements for enshrinement, by pointlessly bringing in a woefully off-topic discussion about Ciccarelli.
 

tjcurrie

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
3,930
143
Gibbons, Alberta
Let's not ruin this thread, which is talking about goaltending requirements for enshrinement, by pointlessly bringing in a woefully off-topic discussion about Ciccarelli.

I agree. Off topic. Ive said all that needs to be said anyways.

Mike Gartner's induction would seem to argue otherwise. Numbers are useless without context.

And Gartner's worthy as well. I mean really, lets put it in to perspective. How many kids play hockey, how actually many make the NHL, and these guys are in the top few/several all time in the goals department and people want to question their induction ?

Okay now I'm done.
 
Last edited:

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
And thats exactly why he's in. Everything else, "he was this", or "he wasnt that", etc is all grey area and a matter of opinion. He's currently 16th on the all time goals list including playoffs and at the time of his retirement he was 9th. I would say thats pretty darn good and worthy if you consider some of the other guys in the HOF. He definitely shouldnt be the first person that pops in to someone's head when criticizing the inductees. They ignored him long enough and he was due.

the most important question to ever ask of any guy when considering him for the Hall is

Was he the best player in the league?

Best at his position?

Best 5,10,15 or 20 in the either league or position question for a very long time (depending on position top 20 Dman versus top 20 goalie means something different).

For kipper we can answer yes to a couple of those questions for Dino, and I'm being charitable here and assuming that only scoring counts and not two way play or other contributions his only significant in season accomplishments are a 4,5 in goals and 6,9th in points.

And that assuming that only scoring and points matter which they do but are hardly the whole story when evaluating most players.

Off the top of my head there are probably over 200 players since expansion with better top 10 finishes than Dino so the compiling numbers aren't the only numbers one should look at IMO.

Look I'm a huge career guy but peak and prime does actually count for something as well not to mention context.

Of course when we look at the "whole picture and not just one specific set of stats" Kipper is probably more deserving of a HHOF selection than Dino ever was.
 

RECsGuy*

Guest
And Gartner's worthy as well. I mean really, lets put it in to perspective. How many kids play hockey, how actually many make the NHL, and these guys are in the top few/several all time in the goals department and people want to question their induction ?

Okay now I'm done.

Don't confuse consistency with greatness. One does not equal the other.

Gartner had ONE 50-goal season and ONE 100-point season, and they happened in the same year, which looks all the more ridiculous when you consider that his prime spanned the highest scoring era in league history. He did not excel in the playoffs. Never voted to a post-season all-star team. Never won an award, much less a Stanley Cup, which is quite ridiculous when you consider that he played in the league for 21 seasons alongside numerous HHOFers (Sundin, Gilmour, Murphy, Messier, Leetch, Anderson, Modano, Stevens, Langway). At least Dino scored at a better-than half a game clip (0.51 GPG); the same can't be said for Mike (0.48 GPG).

A compiler in every sense of the word.

He is one of the worst HHOF inductees, if not, the worst.
 

popculturereference

Registered User
Feb 1, 2009
328
0
Gartner played 200 more games than Ciccarelli. Don't you think that may have deflated his numbers? Also, a 50-goal season is an arbitrary number. Gartner also has 6 45+ goal seasons (includes his 50 goal season).

Also, both Gartner and Ciccarelli deserve to be in the Hall, and both are way better players than Kiprusoff. Kiprusoff had two seasons where he was elite, but he has been a lot closer to average since 05-06.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Gartner played 200 more games than Ciccarelli. Don't you think that may have deflated his numbers? Also, a 50-goal season is an arbitrary number. Gartner also has 6 45+ goal seasons (includes his 50 goal season).

Also, both Gartner and Ciccarelli deserve to be in the Hall, and both are way better players than Kiprusoff. Kiprusoff had two seasons where he was elite, but he has been a lot closer to average since 05-06.

I'm just waiting for the Dave Andrechuck and Chris Osgood are better candidates for the HHOF than Kipper is now.

Gartner has 9 30 goals plus seasons and seasons of 44,40,40 goals adjusted which is a more accurate way to look at him than just raw stats.

He at least has a 5,9,9,9,10 top 10 in goals and a 10th in points which is better than Dino but still just a compiler.

kipper has a better peak and prime than both guys but as we have already seen it's much ahrder for goalies to get into the hall without buying a ticket than it is for position players.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->