The Puck Stops Here
Next entry: Sergei Fedorov Signs In The KHL
Previous entry: Hall Of Fame Inductions
Steve Yzerman’s Hall Of Fame Case
by PuckStopsHere on 06/25/09 at 04:30 AM ET
Comments (34)
With the recent Hall of Fame inductions, I want to lay out what I think is the case for each of the four players inducted. I will start with Steve Yzerman as he is the most worthy of the bunch for his induction. Here is a write up about what I think the standards for the Hall of Fame are/should be. I think one of the best methods to look at a potential Hall of Famer is by looking at the questions Bill James asks of Baseball Hall of Famers.
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
For the most part, the answer to this question is no. Yzerman played alongside Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux and that made it hard for him to be seen as the best player in the game. Nevertheless at times people did try to advance those arguments. He won the Lester Pearson Award in 1989 as the MVP of the league as chosen by the players. It seems clear that he won as an alternative to Gretzky and Lemieux - who outscored him that season - but it is an argument that some thought he was the best player in the game. At a few points in the early to mid-90’s when Wayne Gretzky started to decline and during Mario Lemieux injuries a few people suggested he was the best player in the game at that point, though it was not a common argument. He was certainly no the only other candidate at those points as Ray Bourque, Mark Messier, Jaromir Jagr, Eric Lindros and Sergei Fedorov were all among the candidates that might be put forth in these debates.
2. Was he the best player on his team?
For a period including a large stretch of the 1980’s and into the early 1990’s he was clearly the best player on a very good Detroit Red Wings team. He had some prominent teammates in Sergei Fedorov, Brendan Shanahan and Nicklas Lidstrom, so this was no easy feat. Throughout much of the rest of the 1990’s it was a more debatable case, but still a plausible one.
3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
The fact he shared much of his prime with Gretzky and Lemieux makes it harder to answer yes to this question than it probably should be. He did make first team all star in 2000, which is certainly supports the idea that he was seen as the best centre at some point, though it was a weak year for centreman and Yzerman was a point per game player at that point.
4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Yzerman was a valuable player in the playoffs. He won the Stanley Cup three times. He won the Conn Smythe Trophy as playoff MVP in 1998. He had 20 or more playoff points in all three of his cup runs. It is strange to say that in as recent as 1995 people were calling him a player who couldn’t win the big one in the playoffs.
5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
Definitely. He was a top player who was a regular on Team Canada for the Olympics and the World Cup even as he approached 40. He retired at age 41 and that was probably earlier than it should have been due to injury.
6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
Yes. He is the best eligible player for the Hall of Fame who is not there.
7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Definitely. Yzerman is sixth all time in career points. People who rank that highly in their career numbers make the Hall of Fame easily.
8. Do the player’s numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Yes. Few people achieve the kind of offensive numbers Yzerman did and all easily make the Hall of Fame.
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Yzerman was a better player than his offensive numbers show. He was also a very good defensive forward. In fact he won the Selke Trophy as best defensive forward in 2000.
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
Yes. Without question.
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
He never won an MVP award (Hart Trophy), though he won a Pearson Award in 1989 and the playoff MVP (Conn Smythe) in 1998. If he played in a time without Gretzky and Lemieux he would have won a Hart Trophy in 1989. His 155 point season is one of the best seasons ever to not win a Hart Trophy. His 1990 season where he scored 127 points and his 1993 season where he scored 137 points received some MVP consideration. Even his 2000 season where he was limited to 79 points, but won the Selke Trophy got him mentioned on more than a few Hart Trophy ballots.
12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go into the Hall of Fame?
Yzerman played in nine All Star Games. I cannot think of any player with that many All Star appearances who is not a Hall of Famer (though I don’t have data to conclusively check). Even with nine All Star appearances, he has other seasons where he had All Star calibre numbers and missed the game. In 1987 he scored 90 points and was not an All Star. He only played in two All Star Games after 1993, despite several more point per game or better years. He was often overlooked when making the rosters since Detroit had so many All Star calibre players and roster spots were tight in the expanding NHL. Nine career All Star Games seems quite low given the quality of his career. He could easily have 13 or 14 All Star seasons.
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
He was the best player on the Red Wings when they won the Stanley Cup, so this question must be a yes. It should be noted that the years he was most clearly the best player on his team were not cup winning years and it was only after the arrival of other players who were approximately on his level (such as Sergei Fedorov in the mid 90’s) did Detroit actually win a cup.
14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
I think the best answer to this is that Yzerman helped to save the Detroit Red Wing franchise. They were in very bad shape in the early 1980’s until he was drafted and they became a team that has won multiple Stanley Cups since. The credit for that probably is better given to a change of ownership, with Mike Ilitch buying the team and assembling a good management staff. In that explanation, Yzerman is more a symptom of the franchise’s turnaround than the reason for it.
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Yes. Yzerman was a very respected teammate and has strong character. This can be shown by his successful transition into management and by his 2007 Lester Patrick Trophy - for contributions to hockey in the US as well as his many years as the captain of the Detroit Red Wings.
Steve Yzerman is a clear Hall of Famer who is the kind of player who should be inducted with little question.
Filed in: | The Puck Stops Here | Permalink
Tags: Steve+Yzerman,
Comments
Hey, I wanna hear about Wayne Gretzky’s case for the HOF next.
Riveting.
Posted by HockeyinHD on 06/25/09 at 06:41 AM ET
Oh, yeah. Almost forgot. Once you’re done with that TPSH, would you mind terribly if you did one of your typically thought-provoking, unshakeably rational studies of why Stu Grimson is not HOF worthy?
That would be wonderful.
Posted by HockeyinHD on 06/25/09 at 06:44 AM ET
16. Does TPSH consider him to be elite? If no, throw out all previous questions
On a serious note, question no. 1 seems somewhat useless. It seems like a poor metric to admit up to 3 players per year. If you go back and look at the entire HOF, I bet barely 1/3 pass this test. It might be more useful to determining who the ‘top ballot’ of a given class should go to, but not for admittance.
Posted by MarkK from Maryland on 06/25/09 at 07:14 AM ET
The point of the questions isn’t that a player should have to answer yes to all of them to be inducted. It is a good starting point to begin the discussion.
For example if you cannot argue that a player may have been the best in the game at some point that certainly won’t exclude him from the Hall if he has enough positive answers on the other questions. It is a good starting point for a discussion - hence it is the starting point for the list of questions.
Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/25/09 at 07:21 AM ET
Or… it’s just an excuse to make a list of stupid, obvious questions.
Posted by HockeyinHD on 06/25/09 at 07:38 AM ET
Or .... it’s is something you (hockey in hd) could learn from. When you see how well the class of 2009 do you can compare to people like Chris Osgood and see why he is not Hall of Fame material.
Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/25/09 at 07:41 AM ET
so, make dave andreychuk’s hall of fame case again. his is vastly different than osgood’s…
Posted by nw on 06/25/09 at 07:53 AM ET
The short answer is Dave Andreychuk retired with the highest goal total of all time for a left winger (he has since been passed by Brendan Shanahan).
That puts him well ahead of Chris Osgood.
Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/25/09 at 07:57 AM ET
Or… it could be an oppoprtunity for TPSH to look like an obtuse buffoon. Again.
There are varying levels of players in the HOF, TPSH. Dale Hawerchuk is in as a center and was never a first team all-star (was a second teamer once), and never won any significant individual award besides the Calder.
Wayne Gretzky is in as a center and won 10 Art Ross’s, 2 Conn Smythe’s, 9 Hart’s, 5 Pearson’s, and was either a first or second team All-Star 15 times.
So… shut up. You have no idea what you are talking about. Again.
Posted by HockeyinHD on 06/25/09 at 08:03 AM ET
I would like to see your case on why Joe Sakic should be in HOF based on these questions.
Posted by dudicus on 06/25/09 at 08:03 AM ET
Hockey in HD
You are the one with no idea what you are talking about - and then you jump off onto an irrelevant tangent about Gretzky and Hawerchuk in some attempt to sound smart.
There are four new Hall of Fame players this year. I plan to outline their cases (though likely not on back to back days because with the draft etc on the horizon that will likely get some focus in the interim). You will see the cases for all four of them and hopefully have the brains to see how Osgood (for example) does not measure up - however most likely you will run off on some other crazy rant instead of thinking.
Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/25/09 at 08:22 AM ET
Does anybody else get the impression that Chris Osgood in some personal and in some life changing way, slighted TPSH?
Posted by 42jeff from Minot, ND on 06/25/09 at 08:42 AM ET
Here’s the most important part of this whole dialogue:
Here is a write up about what I think the standards for the Hall of Fame are/should be. I think one of the best methods to look at a potential Hall of Famer is by looking at the questions Bill James asks of Baseball Hall of Famers.
Each of us is entitled to his/her own opinion RE: what makes a player worthy of the HHOF. This article reflects TPSH’s opinion. Unless he/she is a member of the HHOF selection committee, my opinion has just as much value as his/hers.
BTW, not to sound ignorant, but who in the world is Bill James?
BTW2, does Mr. James actually sit down with prospective candidates for the Baseball HOF and ask his questions? Does he converse with them via phone, e-mail, or letter? If not, I believe the second sentence of the quotation above should say that he asks the questions “regarding” or “about” them rather than “of” them. It should also say “potential Baseball Hall of Famers.” If he asks the questions of, regrading, or about people who are already in the HOF, then it’s a little too late, isn’t it?
Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 06/25/09 at 09:04 AM ET
There are four new Hall of Fame players this year. I plan to outline their cases (though likely not on back to back days because with the draft etc on the horizon that will likely get some focus in the interim). You will see the cases for all four of them and hopefully have the brains to see how Osgood (for example) does not measure up - however most likely you will run off on some other crazy rant instead of thinking.
And the point, which you (as usual) miss entirely is that there are guys already in the HOF who don’t measure up to other guys who are in the HOF.
That doesn’t mean the guys who don’t measure up to someone else in the HOF don’t deserve to be there, but… you being a stubborn idiot I’m 100% sure you’ll continue to believe it does.
The point, which you will obvious choose to miss in your shining commitment to being obtuse, is taht the standard to get in the HOF isn’t the best players already in the HOF… and you picking out this year where there were 4 fantastic candidates as an example of what the standard ought to be for the HOF is singularly.... obtuse.
But, hey, at least you are consistent.
Posted by HockeyinHD on 06/25/09 at 09:36 AM ET
I *think* what you are saying is the Hockey Hall of Fame has made some mistakes and inducted some people who shouldn’t be there. That is clearly true.
The best thing to do after you make a mistake is to learn from it and not make that mistake again. Some people believe that because one poor choice was made, every other equally poor choice should be added too. That is a stupid thing to do.
Sure Dick Duff for example is in the Hall of Fame and Osgood has as good a case as Duff. That only shows that Duff is a mistake.
This year 4 good candidates were inducted. That shows what a good candidate looks like. I am sure some bad candidates will be added at some point in the future as mistakes happen. That doesn’t change the fact that Osgood is a bad candidate who shouldn’t be there.
Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/25/09 at 09:43 AM ET
TPSH --
Just out of curiosity, is Grant Fuhr a “mistake” HHOFer in your hallowed opinion?
Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 06/25/09 at 09:50 AM ET
Sure Dick Duff for example is in the Hall of Fame and Osgood has as good a case as Duff. That only shows that Duff is a mistake.
Of course… because the alternate possibility, namely that your standards are stupid, is impossible, right?
Garry Cheevers. Billy Smith. Grant Fuhr. Gump Worsley. Harry Lumley.
Those guys are all in. Are they mistakes, too?
Posted by HockeyinHD on 06/25/09 at 10:01 AM ET
That doesn’t change the fact that Osgood is a bad candidate who shouldn’t be there.
Hahaha. I wonder what Osgood did do or say to PSH? Seriously this is getting serious. Maybe Ozzie isn’t the nice guy who occasionally embellishes a penalty here and there after all. Maybe he just plays that part for the TV and PSH is here to out him.
Posted by moore00 from the Ohio State University on 06/25/09 at 10:01 AM ET
OMG
the baseball comparison again?
THIS IS NOT BASEBALL.
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/25/09 at 10:04 AM ET
Of course… because the alternate possibility, namely that your standards are stupid, is impossible, right?
BINGO!
Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 06/25/09 at 10:10 AM ET
Dear MotherPuckerStopsHere…
Did you ran into your wife and Osgood on your sacred matrimonial bed?
Posted by Gustavo Sales de Albuquerque from Brazil on 06/25/09 at 10:17 AM ET
TPSH,
I do not believe your “short answer” for Dave Andreychuk is sufficient.
As Bill James continually points out, it is the weight of the evidence that matters. And really, that’s the whole point of the Keltner List, to provide subjective critical thought to objective statistical facts.
Andreychuk’s HHOF case is essentially built on one metric (i.e. scoring a bunch of goals). But is Andreychuk merely an above average player who stayed healthy long enough to rack up an impressive number of goals, or is he an elite player who deserves to be mentioned in the same 600-goal-plus club breathe as, say, Jari Kurri or Joe Sakic? What is the weight of the evidence in the case of Mr. Andreychuk?
A couple of weeks ago I wrote an essay in my own blog on Chris Osgood that I hope cuts to the chase on a number of the issues taken with his HHOF case. Titled Chris Osgood and the HHOF: A Question of Talent vs. Accomplishment, and referencing back to your blog, I would appreciate if you would take the time to read it, and then we could discuss Osgood and Andreychuk in greater depth.
This whole business comes back to a central point: What constitutes a HHOFer? The Justice Potter Stewart definition of pornography ("I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it") is more often than not the rule of thumb in this business, which leads to considerable debate without much hope of resolution. I appreciate that you’re working to establish a criteria, and like all working models it needs to be tested and refined. This comments section is an appropriate place for thoughtful debate.
Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 06/25/09 at 10:41 AM ET
Garry Cheevers. Billy Smith. Grant Fuhr. Gump Worsley. Harry Lumley.
Those guys are all in. Are they mistakes, too?
Of those players I would argue Cheevers is definitely a mistake and he still has a better case for induction that Osgood. The others belong (I expect you will follow up with some failed attempt to compare their numbers without taking into account the different eras in which they played).
Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/25/09 at 10:54 AM ET
I expect you will follow up with some failed attempt to compare their numbers without taking into account the different eras in which they played
I wrote this on another post (and you obviously ignored):
“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 the ‘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 below average 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?”
Posted by Guilherme from Brazil on 06/25/09 at 11:31 AM ET
There’s no pleasing some people. After antagonizing Detroit fans for the last few weeks, TPSH makes nice by proposing that Steve Yzerman is a slam-dunk Hall of Famer, and now he’s attacked for stating the obvious. Yes, some of these questions are obvious. But TPSH didn’t invent the Keltner test seen above. As stated, Bill James did, and it’s a list of questions that have proven useful in baseball discussions. TPSH is simply, and reasonably, applying them to hockey, much as these guys apply it to nominees to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. And yes, Yzerman’s induction is a no-brainer, but that doesn’t preclude using one’s brain to lay out the case more explictly. But if people didn’t actually sit down and occasionally submit the convential wisdom to scrutiny, doctors might still be recommending cigarettes as being not particularly harmful to one’s health and astronomers might confidently state that the Earth is supported on the backs of an infinite column of giant turtles. That’s the scientific method: Confirm the obvious facts—water is wet, the sky is blue, and Stevie Y belongs in the Hall of Fame—and then move on to the more disputable ones. I expect to see the Keltner test applied on many other candidates for the Hockey Hall of Fame, and I expect that these questions will not have always such clear-cut answers.
Posted by Peter Lynn from Toronto on 06/25/09 at 11:36 AM ET
Of those players I would argue Cheevers is definitely a mistake and he still has a better case for induction that Osgood.
To you, because you apparently have one of those obsessive-compulsive dislikes for Osgood that, as a Wings fan, I’ve run itno a couple times before… and by couple, I mean about 50.
Any case which you can make that you believe precludes Osgood from the HOF can be made for guys like Cheevers and Fuhr, but times 2. And the guys from the 50’s? Please. Some of those guys are in with losing freaking records.
There wasn’t even a Vezina trophy in its current iteration until 1982, all the pre-82 Vezina’s were essentially Jennings.
Osgood is absolutely going to catch Glenn Hall. If he averages 13 wins a year and plays 3 more seasons he’ll pass Tony Esposito. If he averages 17 wins a year he’ll pass Jacques Plante. If he averages 20 wins a year he’ll pass Terry motherfreaking Sawchuk. If he averages the 26 he had this past season he’ll pass Cujo and be 4th all time on the Wins list.
And, oh yeah, two Cups as a starter, three overall, and played like a freaking God in the 2009 playoffs and was a shoe-in for the Connie if he had gotten anything from the guys in front of him.
You are an idiot.
Posted by HockeyinHD on 06/25/09 at 12:02 PM ET
HockeyinHD,
Having watched Grant Fuhr on a nightly basis during his peak years in Edmonton and playing for Team Canada, I don’t think Chris Osgood fares very well next to him as a comparable.
More to the point, it is a poor way to select players for the HHOF by the “lowest-rung” approach. You find the poor man in the mix to use as a straw man, and boost your guy up next to him. “Dino Ciccarelli has more regular season goals than Glenn Anderson, put him in the Hall,” someone might say. But Ciccarelli’s strength is his regular season goals, while regular season goals is arguably Anderson’s “weakness”. Compare Ciccarelli against Anderson on playoff production, Stanley Cups, international play, etc., and you get a very different tale of the tape.
Make the argument based on Osgood’s strengths, and argue strength against strength. He’s got a darned good resume that measures up extremely well against his contemporaries, and it’s a career that I have little doubt will get him into the HHOF.
Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 06/25/09 at 03:23 PM ET
More to the point, it is a poor way to select players for the HHOF by the “lowest-rung” approach.
If there is a standard to surpass, what other way is there to discuss it?
You are either in, or out. Being ‘really really in’ or ‘really really out’ doesn’t particularly matter, nor does ‘just in’ or ‘just out’. If someone else had a good enough resume to get in, then someone with an equivalent or slightly superior resume should also get in.
I don’t think Osgood is a sure thing HOFer. There are way too many shallow thinkers out there who will do what The Shortbus Stops Here does and write off his success as primarily the product of a good team, while convienently omitting that standard for, you know, pretty much everyone else who has ever had NHL success besides Dom Hasek.
IMO if as a goaltender you win 350 games and 2 Cups, you ought to be in the HOF. I don’t think in any particular year you need to have been the best goalie in the league, mainly because Hockey is so much more a cohesive, team sport than Baseball it becomes incredibly difficult to properly ascribe credit for success.
Conversely, I don’t think winning a Vezina by itself is any great testament to a players career. Jim Carey, Olaf Kolzig and Jose Theodore all have Vezina’s in the current generation, and none of those guys is going to come with a country mile of the HOF. I always prefer consistency over a spike in play.
The comparable that most disturbs me as an Osgood fan is Tom Barrasso. 2 Cups, 369 NHL wins, a Vezina… and not in the Hall. That stuns me, given some of the other people who are in.
Posted by HockeyinHD on 06/25/09 at 05:07 PM ET
HockeyinHD,
I think you may have misinterpreted my “lowest rung” comment.
The HHOF now has 244 player members, 196 of whom played in the NHL. They span the course of 100 years, and standards vary greatly from era to era. With so many inductees across a broad range of time, it’s relatively easy to cherry-pick, find somebody who is “not as good” as your favourite candidate in a statistical category and build the case that your man should be in the HHOF, too.
I don’t have a vote on the HHOF Selection Committee, but if given the opportunity I’d look for candidates who are superior to their contemporaries and who also rank well against a large number of previous HHOF inductees across a range of categories. I don’t think it’s enough to find one guy in the HHOF who is like my man; that’s a pretty weak case. If I can find a number of players like my man in the HHOF, the argument is much stronger.
For example, if memory serves, I believe there are 32 goaltenders in the HHOF. If you compare a present-day goalie to many of the previous inductees you’re going to have to make some adjustments. For example, there were fewer games played in a regular season in past years, fewer rounds in the playoffs, no regular season overtime, no shootouts. So, we might need to devise a formula adjust the win totals for Glenn Hall or Terry Sawchuk vs. Chris Osgood and Curtis Joseph to give a truer apples-to-apples comparison.
You also need to consider the dynamics of a 6 team NHL versus a 30 team NHL. In the Original Six Era there were 210 NHL games in season. Today there are 1230 games a year. Think about that: every season played today is the equivalent of 6 seasons of a 6 team NHL. Also, every playoff year today is the equivalent of two playoff years from the Original Six Era (4 rounds vs. 2 rounds). Those are significant differences.
When people say “there are goaltenders with losing records in the HHOF”, those players are primarily from an era when arguably the top half-dozen goalies in North America (if not the world) went at it year after year after year, without masks. Not everyone could rack up a lot of wins, particularly if you remember that the Adams family owned Detroit and had investments in Boston and the NY Rangers, so you had a couple of teams stripmined to the advantage of the Red Wings. Thus, the HHOF immortality granted to some of the Original Six Era goaltenders is less about wins and losses and more a recognition of their durability and survival of a cage match.
Conversely, in a 30 team NHL, with 70 to 80 goaltenders filtering through the league each season, better equipment, better technique, better scouting, I think we now have different standards of excellence. And rightly so. We have over 100 years of hockey knowledge to draw from. We have the opportunity to SEE virtually every player in the league on a regular basis on TV or via the web. We are flooded with expert analysis and commentary that provides deeper insight. As the game has changed, our understanding of the game has changed and our perception of the game has changed. All of these factors contribute to our continual process of re-defining greatness.
So, when looking at a HHOF case for Chris Osgood, for example, my first question is how does Osgood rank amongst his peers? If he’s one of the top players of his time, then we should next ask how does he rank against other HHOFers (making allowances for the different eras)? What is his impact on the game and what will be his legacy? Of those 32 other goaltenders already in the HHOF, where does Osgood fit within that pack, towards the top of that group or towards the bottom?
TPSH centers his arguments primarily on talent. Personally, I veer more towards accomplishments. I think you can argue successfully that there are more talented netminders in the NHL than Chris Osgood. But I think it is very hard to argue that aside from Martin Brodeur there is a more accomplished netminder in the league today than Osgood.
Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 06/25/09 at 07:17 PM ET
What I hate the most in ThePuckStopsHere is that he asks questions, we answer, and he doesn’t dignifies to respond.
Then in two weeks he’ll find some comment he thinks he can manipulate to work with his arguments and will make a looong post about it.
And his way to distort what people are sayin’ is ridiculous.
Posted by Guilherme from Brasil on 06/25/09 at 07:29 PM ET
I guess either way we skin the cat, it’s still a skinned cat. There are players every year usually that get voted into whichever HOF applies to them that cause people to get upset and scream that this guy or that guy should have made it in over the other guy. But that is the joy that is the internet. We all have an outlet to tell everyone else what we think whether they care for it or not.
However...on that note, I think I found the source of all the hostility towards Osgood. The fact that Chris Osgood’s name actually contains the word “good"-and not “elite”
Shall we petition him to change his name to Chris Oselite?
Although I’m still standing by my claim that there is something in the past that Osgood did to affect PSH’s life. Lost money in Vegas. Bookies calling every night. However, the matrimonial bed comment cost me half a Mountain Dew.
Posted by 42jeff from Minot, ND on 06/26/09 at 05:02 PM ET
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.
Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.
Most Recent Blog Posts
The Flip Side To Best Teams Pre-Lockout
Future Hall Of Famer Brendan Shanahan Retires
About The Puck Stops Here
The Puck Stops Here was founded during the 2004/05 lockout as a place to rant about hockey. The original site contains over 1000 posts, some of which were also published on FoxSports.com.
Who am I?
A diehard hockey fan.
Why am I blogging?
I want to.
Why are you reading it?
???
Email:
Donate to Kukla’s Korner
thanks for stating the obvious
Posted by Speedy Sammich from DTown on 06/25/09 at 05:53 AM ET