Osgood hangs 'em up

[CarltonTheBear]

Patrick Lalime just announced his retirement today. Daniel Tolensky posted some of his stats on twitter:

-Lalime's playoff GAA was 1st among active goalies at the time of his retirement at 1.77 and his save% was 2nd to Tim Thomas at .926.
-His playoff GAA lowest posted since 1941 5th alltime behind Alec Connell ('35), Charlie Gardiner ('34), Lorne Chabot ('36) & Dave Kerr ('41)
-His playoff SVP is third-all time among goalies (.926), behind Tim Thomas (.935) & Olaf Kolzig (.927).
-In the 5 yrs leading up to the lockout, top 5 goalies in wins were Brodeur (202), Kolzig (161), Belfour (159), Joseph (148) & Lalime (146).
-Also in those 5 yrs only Brodeur (39) had more shutouts than Lalime (30 - tied with Belfour) in 82 more GP. Both posted a SO every 10.6 GP.

I was pretty surprised to see his playoff numbers so good, considering, well, you know. I'm not trying to argue that Lalime was a better goalie than Osgood, or that he belongs in the Hall. But in 100 years from now somebody might look at Lalime's statistics and think, man, that dude was a pretty great goalie. And they'd be wrong. Which is why you can put somebody in the Hall just because of what you read on his resume. Osgood was never one of the best goalies on the planet. Osgood was never one of the best players on his teams.  That doesn't sound like a goalie who belongs in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

 

[bustaheims]

Lalime gets a bad wrap for those playoffs, but, the truth was, he usually performed pretty well up until the point that the sens were facing elimination. That little bit of added pressure would be the end of him.

 

[ZBBM]

Patrick Lalime just announced his retirement today. Daniel Tolensky posted some of his stats on twitter:

-Lalime's playoff GAA was 1st among active goalies at the time of his retirement at 1.77 and his save% was 2nd to Tim Thomas at .926.
-His playoff GAA lowest posted since 1941 5th alltime behind Alec Connell ('35), Charlie Gardiner ('34), Lorne Chabot ('36) & Dave Kerr ('41)
-His playoff SVP is third-all time among goalies (.926), behind Tim Thomas (.935) & Olaf Kolzig (.927).
-In the 5 yrs leading up to the lockout, top 5 goalies in wins were Brodeur (202), Kolzig (161), Belfour (159), Joseph (148) & Lalime (146).
-Also in those 5 yrs only Brodeur (39) had more shutouts than Lalime (30 - tied with Belfour) in 82 more GP. Both posted a SO every 10.6 GP.

I was pretty surprised to see his playoff numbers so good, considering, well, you know. I'm not trying to argue that Lalime was a better goalie than Osgood, or that he belongs in the Hall. But in 100 years from now somebody might look at Lalime's statistics and think, man, that dude was a pretty great goalie. And they'd be wrong. Which is why you can put somebody in the Hall just because of what you read on his resume. Osgood was never one of the best goalies on the planet. Osgood was never one of the best players on his teams.  That doesn't sound like a goalie who belongs in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

I draw the opposite conclusion.  Nik was lecturing me about how whizbang individual stats are.  You've just listed a whole bunch of pretty impressive individual stats of a goalie who, in Game 7 against the Leafs, let a Nieuwendyk dipper go five-hole on him to kill off any chance that Captain Diet Coke and Co. would make good on his win guarantee.  In other words, a LOSER.

Seriously -- recall that I said since he's a goalie and the goalie is the most important position on the team then # of wins is the overriding stat.  That's because that while it's a team game the one player disproportionately responsible for the outcome is the goalie.  If that weren't the case we would have won the Cup with Vesa Toskala in net.

and cw: I don't understand your list.  The relevant list is the real one, not one with players removed.

and finally Nik: 10th place is a "silly" cutoff?  Only if you don't live in a Base Ten culture.  Top Ten is a very defensible cutoff, people use that standard all the time.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Seriously -- recall that I said since he's a goalie and the goalie is the most important position on the team then # of wins is the overriding stat. 

Was Chris Osgood ever the most important player on the Wings?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I want you to honestly answer one question for me:  Is Chris Osgood one of the best players to ever play the game?

    It is a simple yes or no question without regard to his numbers or who else is in the Hall.  Unless you're looking through Red Wing-colored glasses, you have to say no. That is where Osgood falls short.  The eyeball test.  If you've seen him play, it is hard to say he is one of the best ever.

    How often was he considered one of the best players among his contemporaries in the NHL?  How often was he even considered one of the best players on his team?  Heck, how often was it a 100-percent lock that he was even the best goalie on his team?

http://blog.mlive.com/ottoman-empire/2010/12/sorry_red_wing_fans_chris_osgood_does_not_belong_in_the_hall_of_fame.html

I've read him called the 'Glenn Anderson' of goalies.

 

[bustaheims]

Seriously -- recall that I said since he's a goalie and the goalie is the most important position on the team then # of wins is the overriding stat. 

Was Chris Osgood ever the most important player on the Wings?

And, if he was, what kind of team constantly replaces their most important player like the Wings did by bringing Vernon, Hasek, Cujo and Hasek again?

 

[moon111]

I've always known who Chris Osgood is, but can't remember him for any one moment.

 

[bustaheims]

I've always known who Chris Osgood is, but can't remember him for any one moment.

The most memorable thing about him might be that he wore the old-school bucket his entire career.

 

[cw]

and cw: I don't understand your list.  The relevant list is the real one, not one with players removed.

Here's your statement:

Think about it: if he were 1st, 2nd, or 3rd on the all-time win list, would you deny him entry even if he was an "ordinary" player?  I don't see how anyone could argue that seriously.  If so, then the question is, what's the cutoff?  I contend that top-10 is an automatic ticket.

In 1982, this was the list when Vachon retired:
1. Terry Sawchuk, 447   
2. Jacques Plante, 437
3. Tony Esposito, 423
4. Glenn Hall, 407
5. Rogatien Vachon, 355
6. Gump Worsley, 335
7. Harry Lumley, 330
8. Turk Broda, 302

Vachon has cup wins and credentials similar to Osgood. He was #5 on the list in 1982 when he retired. Vachon was handily within the top 10 for more than a decade after he retired. And he's still on the outside looking in.

You may "contend that top-10 is an automatic ticket". I would contend that the history of HHoF selection defies that contention using Vachon as a pretty good and reasonable example.

 

[Britishbulldog]

Didn't Clark Gillies make the HOF?

 

[Kin]

I draw the opposite conclusion.  Nik was lecturing me about how whizbang individual stats are.  You've just listed a whole bunch of pretty impressive individual stats of a goalie who, in Game 7 against the Leafs, let a Nieuwendyk dipper go five-hole on him to kill off any chance that Captain Diet Coke and Co. would make good on his win guarantee.  In other words, a LOSER.

Wow, I'm finally getting a sense of what it would be like to argue sports with Charlie Sheen.

There is no one single statistic of a goalie that's perfect and my point has never been that goalies should be judged on statistics alone. My point has always been that statistics, when looked at in proper context, are part of the evaluation process of a player's career and that wins are the worst possible measurement of a goalie's individual performance that we have. It doesn't even really try to measure a goalie's performance. It's just a statement of whether or not a goalie's team won a game he played in, regardless of the quality of his play.

Seriously -- recall that I said since he's a goalie and the goalie is the most important position on the team then # of wins is the overriding stat.  That's because that while it's a team game the one player disproportionately responsible for the outcome is the goalie.  If that weren't the case we would have won the Cup with Vesa Toskala in net.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You're saying that if I deny that a goalie has the most impact on the outcome of an individual game, I'm arguing that you should win because of terrible goaltending? The Leafs were still a bad team.

and finally Nik: 10th place is a "silly" cutoff?  Only if you don't live in a Base Ten culture.  Top Ten is a very defensible cutoff, people use that standard all the time.

It's silly to pretend that it is a cutoff(as cw shows) or that it has any actual meaning in terms of measuring a goalie's individual contribution to the team he's played on but that's not really what I was getting at. I was saying that any win-based cut-off point is silly.

Let's keep one thing in mind when we discuss Chris Osgood. Chris Osgood did not, by just about any definition, win a great number of games on a year to year basis. He averaged 24 wins a year over 17 years. He never won 40 games in a year. He only won 30 games 5 times. If your argument was that, year in and year out, Chris Osgood was going to be among the lead leaders in wins then at the very least you'd be arguing that Osgood was near the top in something.

That's not your argument though. You're not even trying to argue that Osgood was a particularly exceptional goalie. You're arguing that by virtue of being mediocre for 17 years a goalie is a hall of famer. Likewise, you're arguing that if a goalie is terrible for 11 years they can be a hall of famer. There seems to be absolutely no consideration whatsoever in your consideration of whether or not a goalie should be in the hall of fame as to whether or not that goalie was any good.

 

[maplesyrup]

The most memorable thing about him might be that he wore the old-school bucket his entire career.

Any left in the NHL right now? - I'm not sure.

 

[cw]

Didn't Clark Gillies make the HOF?

He'd make most people's top ten list of the least deserving.

 

[ZBBM]

and cw: I don't understand your list.  The relevant list is the real one, not one with players removed.

Here's your statement:

Think about it: if he were 1st, 2nd, or 3rd on the all-time win list, would you deny him entry even if he was an "ordinary" player?  I don't see how anyone could argue that seriously.  If so, then the question is, what's the cutoff?  I contend that top-10 is an automatic ticket.

In 1982, this was the list when Vachon retired:
1. Terry Sawchuk, 447   
2. Jacques Plante, 437
3. Tony Esposito, 423
4. Glenn Hall, 407
5. Rogatien Vachon, 355
6. Gump Worsley, 335
7. Harry Lumley, 330
8. Turk Broda, 302

Vachon has cup wins and credentials similar to Osgood. He was #5 on the list in 1982 when he retired. Vachon was handily within the top 10 for more than a decade after he retired. And he's still on the outside looking in.

You may "contend that top-10 is an automatic ticket". I would contend that the history of HHoF selection defies that contention using Vachon as a pretty good and reasonable example.

Well, your reply here is not a criticism of me, it's a criticism of the HOF selection committee.  By arguing that Osgood deserves it I am not making any judgment as to whether the HOF committee will agree.  By saying "I contend" I am stating my opinion, not saying that it will in fact happen.  Your reply only shows that Rogie belongs in the HOF. 

 

[cw]

and cw: I don't understand your list.  The relevant list is the real one, not one with players removed.

Here's your statement:

Think about it: if he were 1st, 2nd, or 3rd on the all-time win list, would you deny him entry even if he was an "ordinary" player?  I don't see how anyone could argue that seriously.  If so, then the question is, what's the cutoff?  I contend that top-10 is an automatic ticket.

In 1982, this was the list when Vachon retired:
1. Terry Sawchuk, 447   
2. Jacques Plante, 437
3. Tony Esposito, 423
4. Glenn Hall, 407
5. Rogatien Vachon, 355
6. Gump Worsley, 335
7. Harry Lumley, 330
8. Turk Broda, 302

Vachon has cup wins and credentials similar to Osgood. He was #5 on the list in 1982 when he retired. Vachon was handily within the top 10 for more than a decade after he retired. And he's still on the outside looking in.

You may "contend that top-10 is an automatic ticket". I would contend that the history of HHoF selection defies that contention using Vachon as a pretty good and reasonable example.

Well, your reply here is not a criticism of me, it's a criticism of the HOF selection committee.  By arguing that Osgood deserves it I am not making any judgment as to whether the HOF committee will agree.  By saying "I contend" I am stating my opinion, not saying that it will in fact happen.  Your reply only shows that Rogie belongs in the HOF

Agreed, it's definitely not a criticism of you.

Vachon is partially like what we said about Cujo in that HHoFer Dryden came along to push him out of Montreal (which didn't happen much to Cujo) and he went to the Kings who got Dionne only at the end of his time there - like Cujo, he played for a team that wasn't very talented in LA which hurt that career wins column (along with no OT or SO wins that depress his win totals compared with the more modern group).

Between the two, I'd take Vachon over Osgood. But in terms of a player deserving of the Hall of Fame, I really wonder about that. To me, he seems to be in a group that are a cut below that 'standard' - he was clearly behind great goalies like Dryden & Esposito in his era. Was he truly a memorable goalie? I respected his ability more than Osgood but I'm not convinced he was outstanding enough to be truly memorable within the history of hockey.

Having said that, I kind of wonder why Gerry Cheevers got in and Vachon did not. In my mind, they were different types yet pretty close in how I regarded them overall - but I'd put both ahead of Osgood. Cheevers enjoyed more good Bruins rosters and was in a bigger media market - which maybe was the difference.

If one were to argue "hey Cheevers got in and therefore, Osgood should as he meets that standard", that might be a decent debate though I'd question if Cheevers really belonged compared to those others who are there.

 

[ZBBM]

and cw: I don't understand your list.  The relevant list is the real one, not one with players removed.

Here's your statement:

Think about it: if he were 1st, 2nd, or 3rd on the all-time win list, would you deny him entry even if he was an "ordinary" player?  I don't see how anyone could argue that seriously.  If so, then the question is, what's the cutoff?  I contend that top-10 is an automatic ticket.

In 1982, this was the list when Vachon retired:
1. Terry Sawchuk, 447   
2. Jacques Plante, 437
3. Tony Esposito, 423
4. Glenn Hall, 407
5. Rogatien Vachon, 355
6. Gump Worsley, 335
7. Harry Lumley, 330
8. Turk Broda, 302

Vachon has cup wins and credentials similar to Osgood. He was #5 on the list in 1982 when he retired. Vachon was handily within the top 10 for more than a decade after he retired. And he's still on the outside looking in.

You may "contend that top-10 is an automatic ticket". I would contend that the history of HHoF selection defies that contention using Vachon as a pretty good and reasonable example.

Well, your reply here is not a criticism of me, it's a criticism of the HOF selection committee.  By arguing that Osgood deserves it I am not making any judgment as to whether the HOF committee will agree.  By saying "I contend" I am stating my opinion, not saying that it will in fact happen.  Your reply only shows that Rogie belongs in the HOF

Agreed, it's definitely not a criticism of you.

Vachon is partially like what we said about Cujo in that HHoFer Dryden came along to push him out of Montreal (which didn't happen much to Cujo) and he went to the Kings who got Dionne only at the end of his time there - like Cujo, he played for a team that wasn't very talented in LA which hurt that career wins column (along with no OT or SO wins that depress his win totals compared with the more modern group).

Between the two, I'd take Vachon over Osgood. But in terms of a player deserving of the Hall of Fame, I really wonder about that. To me, he seems to be in a group that are a cut below that 'standard' - he was clearly behind great goalies like Dryden & Esposito in his era. Was he truly a memorable goalie? I respected his ability more than Osgood but I'm not convinced he was outstanding enough to be truly memorable within the history of hockey.

Having said that, I kind of wonder why Gerry Cheevers got in and Vachon did not. In my mind, they were different types yet pretty close in how I regarded them overall - but I'd put both ahead of Osgood. Cheevers enjoyed more good Bruins rosters and was in a bigger media market - which maybe was the difference.

If one were to argue "hey Cheevers got in and therefore, Osgood should as he meets that standard", that might be a decent debate though I'd question if Cheevers really belonged compared to those others who are there.

Fair enough.  BTW, as I said in an earlier post, I actually share this basic opinion.  I am just arguing for the primacy of statistics (in this case, one statistic) over opinions.  Cases like Osgood and Vachon are the only really interesting thing about HOFs -- the borderline cases that let us fans practice our debating skills.