Other Hockey News & Views > General NHL News & Views

Osgood hangs 'em up

<< < (12/12)

Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate:

--- Quote from: cw on July 21, 2011, 12:05:24 PM ---
--- Quote from: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 21, 2011, 11:28:45 AM ---
--- Quote from: cw on July 21, 2011, 12:14:41 AM ---
--- Quote from: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 20, 2011, 10:38:46 PM ---and cw: I don't understand your list.  The relevant list is the real one, not one with players removed.
--- End quote ---

Here's your statement:

--- Quote from: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 20, 2011, 04:45:49 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---

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.

--- End quote ---

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

--- End quote ---

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.

--- End quote ---

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.  :)


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version