You’ve written this article before. We all know your opinion. A lot of people disagree. Are you just trolling for an article with lots of comments to make you feel like you have friends on the Internet?

I just wish I could alter some settings on KK so I could read every blog except yours.

Posted by Muero from Ohio on 05/22/09 at 01:29 AM ET

A2Y weren’t the only folks taking you to task. 

Perhaps you missed the roasting you’ve gotten at The PensBlog?

Posted by HockeyJoe from Upstate New York on 05/22/09 at 01:40 AM ET

Chris Osgood doesn’t play baseball, and the baseball HOF is a far different thing to the hockey one…

stop trolling

Posted by Pharazon from England on 05/22/09 at 02:09 AM ET

yeah… and whatever your OPINION is, statistically, Osgood would indeed be the “best” goalie not in the hall of fame.

and could 40 other goalies REALLY beat the Ducks in a game 7?? the dude has a professionalism and a calmness that is not universal. i think he’s more unique then you give him credit for.

also - he’s never had a losing season… including on the Islanders and the Blues. it’s really hard to relate to you when you so hastily dismiss this fact as simply good fortune. players make their own luck… and people do in general too. the man’s a winner - you’re not apparently.

Posted by perfection from LaLaLand on 05/22/09 at 02:30 AM ET

The 2002 Detroit Red Wings and 2001 Colorado Avalanche are the two teams I would say have been the most elite teams of the last 20 years.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/22/09 at 03:06 AM ET

so the 2001/2002 Red Wings and the 2000/2001 Avalanche were more elite that the Wings because they have ‘elite’ goaltending..

Playoff G.A.A

2000/01 - Roy - 1.70
2001/02 - Hasek - 1.85
2007/08 - Osgood - 1.55

and considering how much more open the game is now…can i hear you next bit of oh so deductive reasoning…

BRING IT ON

Posted by Pharazon from England on 05/22/09 at 03:35 AM ET

The main problem is that you are cherry picking your Osgood stats from a point in time when he was playing well above his established level.  Osgood played over his head in the 2008 cup run.  He is not as good a goalie as those numbers how.  In the same way he is not as bad a goalie as his 2008/09 regular season numbers show.

Roy and Hasek were playing around their established levels.

An elite team would not have to rely on players who are playing over their heads in likely non-repeatable situations. 

Also, there is a significant argument about how GAA is a pretty poor stat to judge goaltender performance.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 05/22/09 at 03:51 AM ET

What a troll!

Posted by Hawk from Moscow, Russia on 05/22/09 at 05:00 AM ET

wow, so you’re accusing me of using out of context statistics to back up my argument?

oh the irony!

Posted by Pharazon from England on 05/22/09 at 05:07 AM ET

PucksStopsHere you’re getting ridiculous.  Osgood is clutch in the most important games that he needs to be clutch.  Who cares about the regular season?  As long as he gets them there.

I’m not a Wings fan… far from it.  But dont diss the man that’s brought his team there.  Not only is your writing sub-par… so is your ability to think logically.

Posted by Adam on 05/22/09 at 06:14 AM ET

is this Pierre McGuire or Barry Melrose ghostwriting this? enough already,Osgoods CAREER stats pretty much tell the tale.wins higher than they should be?if you win you win,you aren’t credible in any manner.you act like Osgood is Corrado Miccalef.shake your head.

Posted by Speedy Sammich from DTown on 05/22/09 at 06:14 AM ET

Osgood played over his head in the 2008 cup run.

When he plays “over his head”, based on your set baseline, in every playoff run; don’t you start to ask yourself if that baseline is wrong?

Here’s a hypothetical that I like to consider:
If Osgood were to win and keep winning from this point on, this late in his career, how many consecutive cups would he have to win to shut even the trolls up?

My guess is 3 (5 total); we certainly know it won’t stop after two.

Posted by MarkK from Maryland on 05/22/09 at 06:17 AM ET

This is by far the worst article I have ever read on KK. I thought KK had higher standards than to allow this crap.

You sound like a pre pubescent pencil necked 12 year old.

Find a new way to fill your time. Writing about hockey is not one of your strengths.

Posted by johnny 2 in kalamazoo on 05/22/09 at 06:22 AM ET

I am not so much writing this to start a debate with you, but more so it can get on record in this blog post, so don’t expect me to respond to what I am sure will be your myriad blathering, idiotic comments.

Someone mentioned above that using a system that judges entry into the baseball HOF for a hockey player is idiotic because baseball is a totally different sport than hockey—a fact that has evidently been lost on you.  Still, let’s go down the list and explore the many ways that you have demonstrated your idiocy.

The first few questions about the players being the best on their team, or at their position, or best in the league have historically not applied to the Hockey HOF.  Look at the list of recent HOF inductees: Glenn Anderson, Igor Larionov, Ron Francis, Larry Murphy, Grant Fuhr, Pat LaFontaine…

None of these players were considered “The Best” in any of the categories you listed.  Yet, they deserve to be in the HOF because individual high-light reel performances are often not the most important factor in a winning player, or team.  All of these guys were excellent hockey players, but more importantly, they played a key role in championship teams.  They knew how to win, how to play on a team, and at the end of the day that is the most important factor in determining a good hockey player from a bad one.  And do you know how many of these guys won a Hart Trophy?  Not many…it turns out the Hart is a poor indicator of HOF status.

Is Osgood the best player not in the HOF? Since he is still playing, we really can’t answer this question, but if we assume he retires at the end of this season (with ANOTHER Stanley Cup championship), and we compare his career stats to those of other goalies in NHL history, he is clearly in elite company, even if you just judge him against goalies who have played the game since 1990.  It is awfully convenient for you to dismiss Osgood’s career statistics because “you can’t compare them from one era to another.”  Why even have this debate if you can’t look at the numbers?  If you are going to dismiss any remotely objective standard with which to have this debate, then all you are relying on is your gut impression of Chris Osgood, and at that point you aren’t really presenting a reasoned argument. 

You have compiled a list of questions that all revolve around theme “Has Chris Osgood ever been the best player in the league or on his team?”  I answer this question with a resounding “YES!”  While in the long run you can certainly say that players like Steve Yzerman and Nicklas Lidstrom are better players, there are plenty of examples where Chris Osgood has stolen a game for the Wings…most recently Tuesday night against the Blackhawks.  Osgood has been the best player on the Red Wings when the Wings needed him to be on a consistent basis throughout his career.

Finally, how easy is it to win a Stanley Cup?  Seriously?  Its not like you can put just anybody in net and win as long as you have a good blue line…that’s not how hockey works.  Hockey is a team sport, you need everyone playing at 110% to win a cup—especially your goaltender.  The best case for this is to look at how the Wings did in the years that Osgood played elsewhere.  The Wings were unquestionably worse without him, and the Islanders and Blues were unquestionably better. 

So at the end of the day we have a goalie who when he retires will be top ten all time in wins, GAA, SVP, have at least three Stanley Cups (most likely more),  at least four All Star appearances (most likely more), and will have been a key member of one of the most dominant teams in NHL history. 

When Osgood gets into the HOF, I am sure you are going to bitch and moan about it, but you will have to live with the fact that you were wrong and that you really don’t have much of an understanding of what it takes to win in the NHL.

And to address your other statement, the Red Wings are an elite hockey team.  You have to be a [*#$%@&] moron to be blind to that.  Your entire argument against the Wings is that Chris Osgood is in goal, but they still win (A LOT) with him in goal..so maybe you should rethink your entire rationalization here and instead of explaining away his success, arguing that he has been lucky, or that he has benefitted from the exceptional play of other players, just maybe you should consider that he actually is a good goalie and is deserving of the success he has enjoyed.  Stop being a hater, man.  No one likes a hater, as evidenced by the poor reception your blog posts consistently receive.

Posted by John from Pittsburgh, PA (Wings fan for life!) on 05/22/09 at 06:52 AM ET

i agree,this article is based on opinion,not fact…well facts the writer cherrypicks to augment his argument. the 1st numbers are Ozzies,2nd are Tony Esposito and Osgood has 3 rings,

      G       W   L   T   OTL   GAA   SHO

RS       710   389 204 66   23     2.47     49
PO     119     69   44   0     0       2.10   14
     

RS       886   423 306 151   NA   2.92   76
            99     45   53   NA   NA   3.07     6

Posted by Speedy Sammich from DTown on 05/22/09 at 07:15 AM ET

elite is about results.  in the NHL, playoff results are all that matters.  4 Cups in 11 years, 3 trips to the Conference Finals in a row, 18 years in a row in the playoffs, multiple President’s Trophies, multiple individual awards (Norris, Byng, Selke, Hart, Smythe, etc) and somehow they’re not elite?

what are you smoking?

an elite goaltender (by your definition) is not a requirement for a team to be considered elite.  only results matter.

only one question matters, please answer it directly:

are you saying every goalie in the HOF is/was elite on his own without a good team in front of him?

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/22/09 at 07:18 AM ET

then I got to your asinine baseball questions.  hey dumbass: baseball is a different sport.  you are clueless.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/22/09 at 07:21 AM ET

The 2002 Detroit Red Wings and 2001 Colorado Avalanche are the two teams I would say have been the most elite teams of the last 20 years.

and you seriously don’t think that this year’s Wings are as good or better than the 2002 team?  if not, you are an idiot.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/22/09 at 07:23 AM ET

Roy and Hasek were playing around their established levels.

so Roy didn’t have a good team in front of him in Colorado?  let’s see…with Montreal his GAA ranged from 2.36 to 3.35.  with Colorado it was 1.94 to 2.39.

you like to use stats.  except the stats refute your claims.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/22/09 at 07:27 AM ET

Wow. Talk about beating a dead horse.

Posted by detroitdan1982 from St. John's, NL on 05/22/09 at 07:28 AM ET

There are no elite teams in the NHL today.  Detroit may come closest to the level but their goaltending is too much of a weakness.

Osgood played over his head in the 2008 cup run. An elite team would not have to rely on players who are playing over their heads in likely non-repeatable situations. 

So Detroit is not an elite team because Osgood isn’t good enough, and Detroit is not an elite team because Osgood is too good.

Posted by Muero from Ohio on 05/22/09 at 07:33 AM ET

One disagreement between me and much of the Detroit biased Abel to Yzerman readership…

Is it supposed to be surprising that the readers of a Red Wings blog are Detroit biased? Why else would you even point this out? I call that, “world of duh” stuff, right there.

John’s post is spot-on. And frankly, we can simplify the problem with this post to the problem with almost ALL of your posts—you don’t explain anything.

Look at your answers to the 15 questions above.

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

No.  Absolutely not.  Nobody would claim Chris Osgood is the best player in hockey.  In fact, the Hockey News publishes a top 50 list of the best players in hockey each summer and Osgood does not make that list.  One could argue based upon that fact that people don’t consider Osgood among the best 50 players in the NHL.

You just say, “no” and provide no explanation. You cite THN’s list, but then say, “One could argue…”

So, what is it? Are you arguing that his absence on that list means nobody of qualification deems him a top 50 NHL player? If so, say that, and explain why he’s not a top 50 player.

6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

Definitely not.  Even if we limit his comparison to only players who have been eligible for induction and passed over, he isn’t close to the best player available.  Several Hall of Fame eligible goalies exist who were better than Osgood.

Okay. So if he’s “definitely not” the best player not in the HOF, who’s better? Why are they better?

8. Do the player’s numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Again we have the question of comparing goalie numbers across different eras.  It is hard to do.  Osgood’s win totals probably make Hall of Fame standards and you might argue the same with shutouts, but they are not the best way to evaluate a goalie.  If by numbers we mean the number of years he had a Vezina Trophy worthy season, then his numbers fall far below Hall of Fame standards.

You only address two statistics worth mentioning. You don’t discuss GAA, save %, playoff numbers, or playoff success. Again—explain yourself!

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

Osgood’s win total is definitely higher than it should be due to the circumstance of where and when he played.  This comes from playing on a very good team that won a lot.  It also comes from the era he played in.

On this one, you explain the impact of the era—expansion, the OT rules, more games, more playoff rounds—good job! But you don’t explain the first point about “playing on a very good team that won a lot.” You don’t put forth a reasonable argument as to why Osgood’s team won a lot in spite of him, instead of because of him.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

The biggest impact I can think of for Osgood is being the goalie for much of the Detroit Red Wings recent run and as an example of an underpriced player in the salary capped era.  Neither of those rises to the level expected by this question.

Why do “neither of those rise to the level expected by this question?” You don’t explain that.

Look, almost every time I read one of your posts, this is the problem. You don’t explain things. You craft arguments that might be valid, but are only sound because you assume your premises are true, without providing a reasonable amount of evidence to support the premises are in fact true.

I’m guessing that this is why some readers get pissed off. Not because we have a problem with you being entitled to your own opinion, or because we don’t like the fact you’re “attacking” a Red Wing. We just wish you’d explain yourself.

For the record, I do NOT think Chris Osgood currently stands as a HOF goalie. For me, I think he needs to reach 400 regular season wins, and needs to win a third Cup as a starter. So, I’m not not coming after you because I’m trying to stick up for Osgood’s HOF candidacy or credentials, just pointing out why many of your blog entries get this type of angry response.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 05/22/09 at 07:41 AM ET

So, I’m not not coming after you

Guess I’m a little keyboard-happy. I did NOT intend to have that double-negative as a way to be sarcastic… should just say, “So, I’m not coming after you…”

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 05/22/09 at 07:44 AM ET

Osgood played over his head in the 2008 cup run.
When he plays “over his head”, based on your set baseline, in every playoff run; don’t you start to ask yourself if that baseline is wrong?
Here’s a hypothetical that I like to consider:
If Osgood were to win and keep winning from this point on, this late in his career, how many consecutive cups would he have to win to shut even the trolls up?
My guess is 3 (5 total); we certainly know it won’t stop after two.

Exactly.

That is what makes Osgood a hall of famer.  Not the fact that he can shut out some crappy team in December.  It is the fact that he is at home in May and June.

The man is Reggie Jackson.  Reggie’s regular season stats were good, even occasionally great.  But the man man his living in October.  Same with Ozzie, he has always been good, occasionally great.  In the playoffs, he is always playing “over his head.”

Posted by Chris Pronger Rosetta Stone on 05/22/09 at 07:50 AM ET

As a result I argue Detroit is not an elite team on a historical scale.  They don’t have good enough goaltending to be one.  There are no elite teams in the NHL today.

So, by your rationale, I take it, the only “elite” team the Red Wings have had over the course of their unparalleled success over the last 15 years were the 2002 Wings with Hasek, right?

All those other teams are not “elite ... on a historical scale”?

I, also, assume by your logic that Gretzky’s Oilers were also not an “elite team on a historical scale”, since Grant Fuhr really wasn’t that good of a goalie when you look at things statistically.  He just played for a team with an amazing offense.

Your premise of what makes an “elite team on a historical scale” is inherently flawed and, frankly, stupid.

Were Osgood to win the Stanley Cup this year, he would likely be the weakest goalie to win a cup in the NHL’s ownership of the Stanley Cup.

So, the 2009 version of Chris Osgood is “weaker” than the ‘98 version and the ‘08 version?

Posted by Ajax19 on 05/22/09 at 08:03 AM ET

Wow.
Is there any Survivor element to KK?  Can we somehow vote off this guy?  I’m tired of reading, or even seeing, his badly written flip-floppy articles about who is the leading this or that.  It’s like every week we are graced with “I was thinking that Malkin was the MVP but now I’m thinking that Ovechkin is even though Ovechkin isn’t in the playoffs and Osgood sucks cuz he’s lucky enough to have a good team in front of him, hay has anyone noticed that I usually write in run-on sentences blabbering on until i can find a good moment to throw in some punctuation?”
C’mon KK.  Let’s drop this guy.

Posted by ColdWar on 05/22/09 at 08:03 AM ET

So let me get this straight.  Osgood has very good career numbers from “playing over his head” when it counts, but those numbers in no way can be compared to goalies of other eras?

Well, there are stats that can be compared across eras other than save percentage and GAA.  Wins and Stanley Cup Rings.  Osgood has those in spades. 

I agree that Osgood really has not been in the top five goalies for any given year.  However, people aren’t elected to the hockey hall of fame for a one-year performance.  The fact that he’s been consistently good in the regular season (barring this one) and consistently outstanding the playoffs makes him a top five goalie during the fifteen years he’s been playing.  You can’t say that his cup ring as a starter before the salary cap was won despite his performance if you’d previously made the case that before the salary cap era, a team couldn’t win the Stanley Cup with a bad goaltender (a case you made in the article regarding no elite goaltending left in the NHL that started this firestorm). 

Another problem with your argument is that you say that any elite goalie could win a cup with these guys in front of him.  I won’t throw Curtis Joseph under the bus here, but I do think that the Red Wings style of play calls for a specific type of goaltenders (yes, they’re not all the same, genius).  Some ‘elite’ goaltenders lose their edge when they don’t face a shot for 15 minutes in the second period, then see four really great scoring chances within the span of a minute.  Heck, I’d go so far as to say that this would count as a yes for the “has he brought something new to the game” question.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 05/22/09 at 08:25 AM ET

I asked this in another hockey forum the other day and it certainly applies here: Why are people who think Osgood shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame so astoundingly bad at stating their case against him? Jesus, talk about grasping at straws.

I won’t go over the good points others have made about the sheer ridiculousness of using a baseball theorist’s subjective criteria to evaluate an NHL goatender, because it’s just become silly at this point and it’s not worth my or anyone’s time.

Every single anti-HOF argument against Chris Osgood I’ve ever read or heard essentially boils down to one basic thing: That he simply doesn’t “feel” like a Hall of Famer for reasons that are always difficult for that person to elucidate.

I call this “Bert Blyleven Syndrome”. By any objective criteria you can imagine, Chris Osgood and Bert Blyleven are Hall of Famers. Both their stats put them in very select company in their respective positions and sports. Give their stats to any other player in their sport and they are slam-dunk, first-ballot Hall of Famers.

But for whatever reason, there is this aura around both of them that causes normally intelligent hockey and baseball fans to subject them to different criteria than everyone else. It’s absolutely mindboggling. It’s based on nothing but subjectivity and gut instinct.

Posted by Mandingo from The Garage on 05/22/09 at 08:39 AM ET

Everyone else here has pretty much torn what little argument you had to shreds. Deservedly so, as your argument seems to be half trolling-for-comments and half talking-right-out-of-your-ass.

I will add one thing, though, and please realize that this comes from someone who has written about various sports (at various times) for a living:

Baseball is not hockey. Not only is baseball not hockey—and thankfully even you seem to have some sort of tenuous grasp on that fact—but the two hall of fame’s are not comparable in the slightest.

The Baseball Hall of Fame is notoriously tough to crack—many have commented that it’s the toughest Hall to enter.

The Hockey Hall of Fame is far more forgiving. In fact there are plenty of players who meet the criteria you borrowed from James (why the hell did you do that? It simply makes no sense) who were easily enshrined in the hockey Hall upon their eligibility.

For instance, Gerry Cheevers has similar numbers to Osgood, fewer Stanley Cups, fewer all-star appearances, no Jennings trophies and one Vezina runner-up. And he was voted into the Hall in his first year of eligibility.

I could go on, but you’re just being retarded, and it’s more fun to watch angry Wings fans rip you a new one.

Happy trolling!

Posted by Jayo from Toronto on 05/22/09 at 08:46 AM ET

Another thing you’ll notice about most of the people arguing against Osgood’s HOF credibility is that the way they set up their arguments, there is no possible counter-argument or piece of evidence you can give them that they’ll accept. Everything is dismissed out of hand.

Stats? Oh, those are meaningless because he played for a good team.

Playoff success? See above.

Comparisons to goalies who are in the HOF? Oh, you can’t compare goalies across eras.

There is no evidence you can give these people that they will accept, because they’ve set the argument up in such a way that counter-evidence is by definition discounted. Because their “arguments” are based solely on subjectivity.

There is nothing you can say to someone whose argument is basically: “I don’t think Chris Osgood should be in the Hall of Fame because I don’t think Chris Osgood should be in the Hall of Fame.”

It’s like a feedback loop. It’s a pointless exercise.

Posted by Mandingo from The Garage on 05/22/09 at 08:49 AM ET

I would like to see the elite Detroit Red Wings with a first class goalie.  I feel cheated that the NHL’s rules prevent it.

The 2002 Detroit Red Wings and 2001 Colorado Avalanche are the two teams I would say have been the most elite teams of the last 20 years.

Let’s compare this year’s playoff numbers so far to those two teams that won the cup and were considered ‘elite’ by your standards.  Of course, we’re keeping the assumption live that it’s a higher scoring league now than it was back then, ok?

Save Percentage:

Osgood: .925
Hasek 2002: .920
Roy 2001: .909

GAA

Osgood: 2.02
Hasek 2002: 1.85
Roy 2001: 2.51

Winning Percentage

Osgood: .769
Hasek 2002: .696
Roy 2001: .523

Everything points to one conclusion.  You simply don’t like Chris Osgood.  There really are no good points to your argument left.  Problem is that you have to keep digging this hole for yourself, lest you lose face.  Face it, Osgood is a much better goalie than you give him credit for.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 05/22/09 at 08:58 AM ET

maybe the problem here is simply one of vocabulary.  PSH can’t think of another way to describe a goaltender that is head and shoulders above the rest than using the word elite.  however, I think the word elite doesn’t cover it.  there are a lot of elite goalies throughout the years based upon the simple factor of success.  however, those goalies weren’t necessarily head and shoulders above the rest like, for example, Hasek was in his heyday (dragging Buffalo, of all teams, to the SCF).  not just stealing a game, but stealing game after game, and a series or more.

is Osgood one of those goalies?  no.  few are.  and I think those few are the ones PSH is trying to use as the standard for elite.  so if that’s what elite means to you, then Osgood is not elite.  however, if you have a more realistic standard for the word, then Osgood qualifies.

of course, the whole “stealing” argument comes back to the team in front of them to some degree, too.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/22/09 at 09:04 AM ET

I wrote this last January. Ozzie’s going in the HOF one day.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/7540-red-wings-chris-osgood-hockey-hall-of-famer

Posted by detroitdan1982 from St. John's, NL on 05/22/09 at 09:05 AM ET

“3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

No.  There is no reasonable claim that Osgood was the best goalie in the league or his conference.  The closest thing he might have to that is the 1995/96 season where he was runner up to the Vezina Trophy.  That season had a strange group of Vezina nominees (Jim Carey won and Darren Puppa was the third nominee).  In a league that contained Patrick Roy, Dominik Hasek, Martin Brodeur, Ed Belfour and Curtis Joseph who were all near their career primes it is an amazing result.  It is hard to argue that anyone seriously thought he was the best goalie in the league that season, though some would have ranked him in the top five of the league. “

——-

I believe Osgood was also a second team all-state so that would seem to validate the runner status or call into question the whole ideal of looking at awards. As you suggest other prime ‘elite’ goal tenders had been ignored. So either we have to be very careful in using that kind award in the criteria or admit they are what they are and Osgood would seem to have been considered very much almost the best Goal tender in that year – only nudged out by Carey (the best point of comparison is that in this in 50 years when people have not seen many games from this year someone might actually use Green’s Norris nomination to suggest he was the best defensemen in Hockey this years).

Also would not Osgood’s two Jennings trophies have been Veznia’s in the past? Yes I know the team – but the same goes for say Sawchuck (was he elite?) his stunning years however are those played behind Detroit’s best teams of the early 50s. Tradde and his GAA jumps by almost a point and never returned to the fantastic numbers he but up 50-54 – Brodeur has never been traded but are you seriously going to tell me a long stint with the Islanders would not have affected his status?

I guess that the logical point that strikes me the most – with some goal tenders the effect of playing behind a strong team is ignored while for others it is asserted right off, then one need only look for support. Similarly how many goalies end up being flash in the pans – even someone like Kiprusoff seems to be declining markedly in performance from his best years and I don’t think Calgary has gotten notably worse as a team.

I being consider the best is so subjective – just look your doing with the playoff MVP leader. There are 4 teams at this stage in the playoffs but your nominations come from just one team You discussed only Crosby and Malkin that is the same kind of thinking that gets Green a shiny cup. I mean teams have an MVP candidate that should be discussed equally since nobody has won yet and 3 teams are going to loose. This is not a attack per say but just I think an example how consideration for best can get trapped by initial picks or perceptions or a focus on one easy stat to find.

Similarly I’m not particularly arguing Osgood is a HOF goal tender. But I think if he is not part of that is the perception you voice in the article on lack ‘elite’ goal tending. You went out of your way to suggest Osgood was the weakest goalie. That is what will keep him out more than anything else. He was not the weakest goalie in the playoffs when you wrote the article and had only had one bad season. Other goalies in the last 4 had had longer runs of poor regular season play - recently – but that was comparatively minimized. So honestly I still don’t see how you can say Bulin deserves a brief status of elite, but not Osgood.

Posted by Paul on 05/22/09 at 09:13 AM ET

His name is on the cup three times with a very good chance to add to that this year.  I’d love to see him rack up a couple shutouts over the next 6 wins and steal Johan’s deferred Conn Smythe.

Honestly, I’m fine with Ozzy not getting into the HOF.  He said, recently, “I’ve got the respect of the guys in the room and that’s what matters.”

I’d rather see him get a more meaningful honor and see 30 following 19, 1, 10, 7, 12 and 9 someday.  I honestly think he’s on that trajectory.

Posted by shanetx on 05/22/09 at 09:21 AM ET

I hate the red wings.  With that said, “PuckStopsHere”, you are truly an idiot.

Posted by MapleLeafsFan on 05/22/09 at 09:26 AM ET

I’d rather see him get a more meaningful honor and see 30 following 19, 1, 10, 7, 12 and 9 someday.  I honestly think he’s on that trajectory.

I would have to say I agree.  He’s really kind of a legend in Detroit.  Even with his minor leave, he returned, and the fans love ‘em.

Having him leave and then come back is pretty cool for a team/city.

Posted by Wingsfan11 on 05/22/09 at 09:29 AM ET

A baseball standard to judge Osgood’s worthiness?  That makes no sense on the face of it.  Look at the numbers, weep if you must, but he’s in, your lame arguments notwithstanding.

Posted by Jeff in CO on 05/22/09 at 09:40 AM ET

Other reasons Osgood won’t make the HOF

1. He can’t dunk on a ten foot rim
2. Never taken his team to the Super Bowl
3. Constant trouble with the Cheetah pattern means no 300 games
4. Never made the cut at Augusta
5. Couldnt’ hit a six in cricket to save his life
6. Can’t even play the riff from ‘Smoke on the Water’

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 05/22/09 at 10:10 AM ET

On the other post you said you considered Fuhr elite but Osgood not. Well, both played behind great (elite) teams, and Fuhr have worst stats. When we pointed that out, you appealed to te “era differences”

In Fuhr’s era (82-00) the average of goals per game was 6.88, like in 3.44 goals-per-team-per-game.
In Osgood’s time (94-through 08) the goals per game average is 6.05, like in 3.03 per-team-per-game.

Yet, Fuhr’s GAA is 3.38
And Osgood’s 2.43.

So both of them have normal GAA in their respective times.
Osgood will retire with over 400 wins, at least 3 Stanley Cups, the staple goalie of NHL’s probable last dinasty, and is not “elite”, not Hall of Famer?

source: wikipedia

Posted by Guilherme from Brazil on 05/22/09 at 10:16 AM ET

And more: You feel cheated because the lack of goaltending on the Wings? Because the cap doesn’t allow elite teams?

Well, Osgood played for the Wings before the salary cap. And I’d feel really cheated if I’d chosen to root for a small franchise who couldn’t pay the money Detroit, Philly or New York can. Tha’s why the cap is better.

And more: do you watch hockey? If so, what’s your team? You sound upset because we Brodeur and Lunqvist are out… So tell me? Were pre-cap Devils with Brodeur elite because of goaltending? Or pre-cap Rangers who spent big money to get nowhere?

The problem with “non-elite” teams for you is the cap? Well, before the cap we had 5 teams that could compete because of money and a bunch of extras in the league.

The last time we got real powerhouses (for you) then, was it before the expansion? Original Six times? Man, forget the past and move on, or esle you’ll continue to be a joke.

Posted by Guilherme from Brazil on 05/22/09 at 10:34 AM ET

Why.

Posted by Triple Deke Tyler from Lansing on 05/22/09 at 10:35 AM ET

ok…i think that’s enough now…

This is like Joe Morgan ghostwriting hockey….there are no more “great” teams….Cincinnati. Reds. Dave Concepcion.

i’m done even clicking on your stories anymore…it’s all flaming nonsense.  Good day

Posted by Aron from Mount Vernon on 05/22/09 at 10:37 AM ET

I fear that you’ve brought the wrong tool to the right job. Or perhaps more accurately, a tool that can only complete half the job before us.

The Keltner List is a useful SUBJECTIVE tool for reviewing the Hall of Fame case for a player, to aid the thought process in considering the question. It isn’t the be all and end all of the discussion, a point that Bill James makes clear in his book Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame. (Unfortunately I don’t have my copy at my fingertips, or I would provide the quote about abusing the Keltner List.)

Now, you do need to use OBJECTIVE statistical data to answer some of those Keltner List questions, but we lack hockey analogues to some of the measures that James uses, like similarity scores and Hall of Fame standards, so our interpretation of the objective data may be incomplete.

I’m not dismissing the Keltner List for hockey out of hand—indeed, I started using the same tool independent of you in my own Hockey Hall of Fame research—but it’s just one tool in our toolbox. A good strong hammer, no matter how versitile, cannot replace a Robertson screwdriver.

Let’s show the weakness of using the Keltner List in isolation. You’ve previously expressed your belief that Dave Andreychuk is a Hockey Hall of Famer in waiting. I’d like you to rank him on the Keltner List and see how well he scores. I expect you’ll find he scores actually little worse than Osgood. In which case, you’ll need to re-evaluate your position on Mr. Andreychuk, or on Mr. Osgood, or on power of the Keltner List.

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 05/22/09 at 12:36 PM ET

I have just 3 words for you which will end this Ozzie’s HOF worthiness debate.

          Gerry….Freaking!!!!........Cheevers.

          Debate Over! 

Posted by dbcooper from parts unknown on 05/22/09 at 01:20 PM ET

I can just say that I am more comfortable with Ozzie in net this and last year that I was with Hasek in 02. 

That “fact” invalidates your argument right there.

And yes I am using the term fact loosely, but it is more of a fact than most of your facts.

Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 05/22/09 at 01:34 PM ET

Please notice that every last one of these replies are in disagreeance.Not only in this article,but in the “elite” one as well.That has to tell you something.

Posted by rob from toledo on 05/22/09 at 01:53 PM ET

So you write this garbage, obviously intent to rankle Wing fans…and then you don’t even respond to 50 replies, every one of them taking you to task?

Embarrassing.

Posted by IwoCPO from Sunny San Diego, bitches on 05/22/09 at 02:27 PM ET

I wrote this last January. Ozzie’s going in the HOF one day.

I agree that once he retires, he’s probably going to have HOF credentials. TODAY, I actually agree with what TPSH is trying to say—he’s not HOFer. My beef with TPSH is that he doesn’t explain any of his points, he just, as Mandingo so astutely put it, goes into this feedback loop where he closes all windows and doors that are reasonably used for rebuttal, as a lazy way of not having to explain his view.

If I had the time right now, I’d be happy to list what I feel are three or four VERY good reasons Ozzie is not YET a HOFer, and explain my premises in full. That way, if you disagreed, you at least wouldn’t feel cheated by my explanations (or lack thereof). Unfortunately, I just don’t have the time at the moment.

And I will clarify—I do think Ozzie will be a HOFer once he retires. I just think he’s got to clean up that resume a tad in the next couple seasons, then he’ll be in.

In regards to the baseball comparisons, there are two huge problems. Matt, in the comments above, does a great job pointing out the first one with regards to the Keltner List, even if you allow for it to translate fairly well to hockey. The second problem is that judging HOF candidacy, or the quality of a player between baseball and hockey is simply very difficult. There’s no good measures or adjustments you can make to come up with similar criteria to be used for judgments on both a hockey player and a ball player. If there is any correlation, I would suspect you’d find it comparing starting pitchers to goalies. But that’s another long-winded post. I’d like to analyze that, as I love both hockey and baseball, but again, don’t have the time right now.

The crux of the problem when trying to judge hockey and baseball players on similar planes is that baseball is a game of finite chances/opportunity. Baseball is structured in a way that makes it a “fair” game, whereas hockey is never a “fair” game.

Disclaimer—yes, I know umps can make bad calls, and other rare situations can make a baseball game “unfair.” What I mean by “fair” game is that baseball gives both teams 27 outs. Those teams are given the same resources and the better team will do more with those resources. In that way, baseball is far more “fair” than hockey. In hockey, the main resource—the puck—can be dominated by one team for 70% of the game. At the same time, that can prove to be irrelevant, as what the “dominant” team does with that edge in possession can still be less than what the other team does with their smaller share.

This is one of the problems when comparing the two sports. Baseball statistics are much easier to normalize, even between eras, because despite things like live-ball/dead-ball, steroids, pre/post-integration, higher/lower mound, etc., baseball has always been 27 outs.

Hockey stats are more difficult to normalize because of the continuous nature of the game.

For example—a great hitter on a bad team is still going to get ABs. Once he’s up to bat, it’s him versus the pitcher. He might not have many RBI situations, but he’ll still have opportunities to rack up a 200 hit season, or a 3,000 hit career. And it’s easy to see that he’s still a HOF-worthy player because he was a great contact hitter, who just didn’t have RBI opportunities due to playing for a crummy team. Think of Tony Gwynn, for instance… I know he wasn’t a great power guy regardless, but he’s a clearly one of the best contact hitters in history, and it’s fair to put less weight on his RBI numbers, as the Padres were largely average-to-slightly above for most of his seasons.

With hockey, a great player on a lousy team is going to have a more difficult time putting up points. How much better has Sidney Crosby appeared when he’s had Hossa or Kunitz/Guerin by his side, instead of… Dupuis? These things are harder to adjust for in hockey than in baseball, because in hockey there’s no moment of focus—no hitter versus pitcher. You have to constantly move, constantly battle against up to six guys. A hitter can focus on the pitches and place his hit to an open spot in the defense. A centerman, for instance, doesn’t have this luxury. He’s probably going to have a fist in his face when he gets into the slot for a one-timer, especially if his teammates are so bad they draw no defensive attention.

To me, this is why the HHOF has always been a more forgiving HOF, whereas the BBHOF has generally been more strict. Simply because the BBHOF has more objective criteria to measure a player’s quality.

Fortunately, in the last few years in particular, more statistical analysis has been devoted to hockey, and people are coming up with good, and even simple ways, to compare players across eras and to adjust for the lack of continuity between players’ games.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 05/22/09 at 03:18 PM ET

everyone is entitled to their opinion, but name calling and personaly attacking someones intelligence is childish. I am not defending PSH, but no-one should be belittled this much for any reason..esspecialy because of their opinion.

Posted by chris from canada on 05/22/09 at 04:04 PM ET

Nathan did a superb job of articulating the different qualties of baseball versus hockey, which goes to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of attempting to translate the Keltner List.

Just to extend further some of the reasoning that Nathan established, baseball is a series of one-on-one battles, while hockey is Brownian Motion. Baseball is a relatively simple game with a tremendous series of metrics that allows the many aspects of the game to be examined to nth detail. Conversely, hockey is a complex game—perhaps “chaotic” would be the better description—which lacks that extensive series of metrics. Thus, hockey isn’t very easy to simplify (despite our best efforts) and it’s a challenge to extract the value of individual contributions in precise detail, particularly those on the defensive side of the puck.

Accordingly, our examination of hockey is more subjective than it is objective. And even our interpretation of seemingly objective measures retains a measure of subjectivity, as the Battle of Osgood played out above shows.

Partisanship aside, we’re dealing with a very fundamental question: How do we define a HHOFer?

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 05/22/09 at 04:49 PM ET

so with the Wings-Blackhawks game 5 out of the way, do you have anything to add to your post, TPSH?  you know, like a full retraction?

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/27/09 at 09:38 PM ET

Hockey is not baseball

Posted by Tyler from Arizona on 05/27/09 at 10:32 PM ET

As a result I argue Detroit is not an elite team on a historical scale.

So, now you have to have an elite goalie to have an elite team? Is that the deal now? Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but come on. Its a team sport and the qualification of an elite team is not how many wins they had, the championship(s) they won nor how they played as a team over a specified period of time but its laid on the perception of one goaltender? I suppose that the early 80’s Islanders and the mid-80’s Oilers aren’t considered elite teams as they didn’t have elite goaltenders either. When was the last elite team? Were Dallas, Colorado, Buffalo and New Jersey elite teams just because of their goalies or do we have to go back to the 1970’s with Montreal to find the last elite team?

Posted by UMFan from Colorado on 05/28/09 at 12:48 AM ET

The Chief has officially stated that you can suck it.  I think this argument is pretty much over.

Posted by Squiboda from Port Huron, MI on 05/28/09 at 07:53 AM ET

Ok, this is another “Osgood only has good stats because he was on a good team” argument. We’ve heard that before. So let me ask you this, can you quantify how good the team in front of a goalie is? If you can, then let’s compare the teams in front of other elite goalies. I mean the 2000-01 Avalanche team was pretty darn good. So was the 92-93 Canadiens team. Does that call Roy’s qualifications into question?

    The ‘94 Devils were the preeminent defensive team in the league, so why does Broudeur get all the credit. This is the team that invented the neutral zone trap! *shudder*

  Can you name an elite goaltender by your definition, that had a terrible team in front of him? I would say Hasek falls into that category, but who else?

  This argument will only hold water with me when there’s a measurement of the team in front of the goalie. Otherwise your willingness to through out the steller Win-Loss record of Osgood is just mean-spirited bias.

Posted by Epee Bill from Belleville, MI on 05/28/09 at 10:38 AM ET

One I believe the baseball thing that he was using - it was a meta phore he was using and two hes not hall of fame bound because hes missing the most important element. what has this goalie contributed to the game? really?

Im looking back, think about the heartache of ‘95 when he couldnt hack it and we all had to hang our heads… *shakes head* or how bout when he got benched as a back up to mike Vernon.. if we hadnt done that we wouldda fell apart just as bad as ‘95. okay and what about 2001 when he fell apart in net, and everyone was calling him a no account then. do you see where the inconsistency lays? he was also a back up to dominik Hasek come on now.. and he had to fight to get top goaltending back and unfortunately that was the year hasek lost his edge, Lets compair, a dominik Hasek of buffalo (younger years) to a chris osgood hands down we know Hasek, love him or hate him, would win that bid!

now after all these few things I have pointed out you will all still say oh! hes a hall of famer? well i read the hockey news and I can tell you in the years i have read it, I have never see Chris Osgood’s name amoung these players. I have never seen him in the top 50 have you?

to My last and final idea here are the credientials you have to have to be hall of fame bound or at least be on the ballot. then you have the board that you have to sit under.

CATEGORY ATTRIBUTES
Player Playing ability, sportsmanship, character and their contribution to the team or teams and to the game of hockey in general.
Builder Coaching, managerial or executive ability, where applicable, or any other significant off-ice skill or role, sportsmanship, character and their contribution to their organizations and to the game of hockey in general.
Referee/Linesman Officiating ability, sportsmanship, character and their contribution to the game of hockey in general.

Eligibility for Election
A person who is or has been distinguished as a player, hockey executive, coach, referee or linesman is eligible for election provided he meets the following eligibility criteria:

CATEGORY CRITERIA
Player Must have concluded their career as an active player for a minimum of three playing seasons.

so will osgood fit the cryteria prolly not, hes a good goaltender, great teammate.. but he can fall apart, and I havent forgotten, and there are some people that remember, but please dont be delusional in thinking hes great.

Now that I have said something as fans I thought we all were family? are we not, its like when we all get together at teh joe everyone is nice to everyone, when i see all this stuff online or write something as well people diss the tar outta me saying Im not a “True” wings fan.. I think I am, I can date them back as far as the 1920’s and still read about the history because I love it, and I watch the game too. I can tell you, osgood is not hall of fame material, anyone that picks up a book on hockey will know that.

The thing that got him into the league was his glove hand it was pretty dang fast, till MacKinnis broke his thumb a few years ago, when mackie was playin. but anywhoo. I dont want people offended, but .. Let the flamming begin, because I believe real hockey fans, no matter if the oppinion is stupid or not should just let people have their thoughts instead of jumping down their throats, what does it accomplish? we should all just respect eachother and move on, its hockey, we all love it, lets just enjoy what we have of it. even if we dont agree.

Posted by Nobodys_hockeyangel14 on 06/17/09 at 12:24 PM ET

I read the first paragraph of your article and stopped because of how strongly bias and opinionated it is. Any article that is of any value, and might be worth reading must be neutral in point of view.

Posted by Adam from Michigan on 07/28/09 at 09:39 PM ET