Sheng Peng: Is Fleury HOF'er?; Karlsson, Perron, Gallant on Evolution of Forechecking Comparing Marc-Andre Fleury's accomplishments with other 400-win club members + William Karlsson, David Perron & Gerard Gallant talk about how NHL is now emphasizing stick forechecking over physical forechecking

A lot of those guys were considered top 3 goalies at a certain point in their careers. I don't think Fleury by most people had ever been thought of as that, maybe because his numbers weren't good enough or the fact that he played for such great teams hurt his case. The good news is he's still got some more years left and from the looks of how he's playing now will add to those stats.

If he maintains this level of play with an expansion franchise for a couple more years he's gonna be a shoe in. Because you can't use the whole Crosby and Malkin won all those games excuse anymore.

MAF is likely going to finish top 5 in all time wins, with 3 cups (who knows, maybe more). Plus, he's a helluva nice guy, which helps him too. For comparison, he'll have maybe 75 more wins than Grant Fuhr, who deservedly is in. There is something said for longevity and simply being a winner. MAF is both and will be a deserving inductee when the time comes.

MAF is a BAMF. Yes, he is ABSOLUTELY HOF bound.

I don’t see how. He was never a top 5 goalie in the league during his career. Never in discussion for Vezina. Hall of Very Good. Not hall of fame

Come on.

The GMs have never picked him higher than the seventh best goalie in the league in any season he's played (and he's only received Vezina votes in two campaigns). The writers have never picked him higher than sixth. He could get some attention this year if he plays out the string for Vegas and continues to dominate, but he's probably lost too much time to injury to seriously contend.

The only two seasons where he's had truly great numbers relative his peers (defined by me as giving up 9 or fewer goals for every 10 goals allowed by a league average goaltender based on save percentage) were shortened by injury -- 2008 (35 games) and 2018 (37 out of 69 so far).

Tossing out his first two miserable years playing behind a reprehensibly bad Pittsburgh team, he's be a consistently above average, often good, seldom great NHL goaltender.

That's nothing to be ashamed of. He's better than the vast majority of goaltenders who make it to the NHL. But I'd still put him far short of the Hall cutline. Even though he's an awesome and very likable dude.

(Lest you think I'm biased as a Red Wings fan, let me also state for the record that I think Chris Osgood -- the guy in my avatar -- is also nowhere close to good enough for the Hall either.)

MAF is likely going to finish top 5 in all time wins, with 3 cups (who knows, maybe more). Plus, he's a helluva nice guy, which helps him too. For comparison, he'll have maybe 75 more wins than Grant Fuhr, who deservedly is in. There is something said for longevity and simply being a winner. MAF is both and will be a deserving inductee when the time comes.
- Emperor Filonius

I would argue that Grant Fuhr is overrated. But even if we assume he isn't, it's still not really a fair comparison:

- There was no regular season overtime for Fuhr's first two seasons, no OT loser point until his last NHL season, and no shootouts at all during his career. The man finished his career with 114 ties. That's potentially another 66 wins or so at his career win rate, if he had played his career under current OT/SO rules.

- Like many 80s goalies, Fuhr platooned a lot during the regular season, especially in the early part of his career with Andy Moog, which limited his ability to rack up wins in his prime. (As much as I think Fuhr is overrated, Moog is underrated -- his numbers were consistently as good or better than Fuhr's in the regular season throughout their careers, not just in Edmonton but after both had moved on to other places. I think it's fair to suggest Edmonton would have been just as likely to win their Cups with Moog in net as Fuhr.)

- The latter half of Fuhr's career came after his original playing style (i.e. the stand-up) became obsolete and most of his contemporaries were purged from the league. While this shouldn't necessarily be held against him (you should be judged by the standards of your era, and Fuhr is really an 80s goalie), it did greatly limit his ability to rack up late-career wins. He went from being a pretty good goalie by league standards to being a pretty lousy one pretty much overnight not due to age-related decline, but to rapid modernization in technique. Fleury hasn't had to deal with this and can age much more gracefully.

The TL/DR version of this post is that (1) ranking goaltenders by wins is deeply flawed, and (2) ranking goaltenders across different eras by wins is even more flawed.

I would argue that Grant Fuhr is overrated. But even if we assume he isn't, it's still not really a fair comparison:

- There was no regular season overtime for Fuhr's first two seasons, no OT loser point until his last NHL season, and no shootouts at all during his career. The man finished his career with 114 ties. That's potentially another 66 wins or so at his career win rate, if he had played his career under current OT/SO rules.

- Like many 80s goalies, Fuhr platooned a lot during the regular season, especially in the early part of his career with Andy Moog, which limited his ability to rack up wins in his prime. (As much as I think Fuhr is overrated, Moog is underrated -- his numbers were consistently as good or better than Fuhr's in the regular season throughout their careers, not just in Edmonton but after both had moved on to other places. I think it's fair to suggest Edmonton would have been just as likely to win their Cups with Moog in net as Fuhr.)

- The latter half of Fuhr's career came after his original playing style (i.e. the stand-up) became obsolete and most of his contemporaries were purged from the league. While this shouldn't necessarily be held against him (you should be judged by the standards of your era, and Fuhr is really an 80s goalie), it did greatly limit his ability to rack up late-career wins. He went from being a pretty good goalie by league standards to being a pretty lousy one pretty much overnight not due to age-related decline, but to rapid modernization in technique. Fleury hasn't had to deal with this and can age much more gracefully.

The TL/DR version of this post is that (1) ranking goaltenders by wins is deeply flawed, and (2) ranking goaltenders across different eras by wins is even more flawed.
- Sven22

Sven for Red Wings Blogger. Join the movement.

IMO, Fleury was also the backup for the 2017 cup. He wasn't our starter in the final 2 rounds. I agree with what the other guy said, Hall of very good but not Hall of Fame material. Maybe that changes, I hope he still has a lot of hockey left

I would argue that Grant Fuhr is overrated. But even if we assume he isn't, it's still not really a fair comparison:

- There was no regular season overtime for Fuhr's first two seasons, no OT loser point until his last NHL season, and no shootouts at all during his career. The man finished his career with 114 ties. That's potentially another 66 wins or so at his career win rate, if he had played his career under current OT/SO rules.

- Like many 80s goalies, Fuhr platooned a lot during the regular season, especially in the early part of his career with Andy Moog, which limited his ability to rack up wins in his prime. (As much as I think Fuhr is overrated, Moog is underrated -- his numbers were consistently as good or better than Fuhr's in the regular season throughout their careers, not just in Edmonton but after both had moved on to other places. I think it's fair to suggest Edmonton would have been just as likely to win their Cups with Moog in net as Fuhr.)

- The latter half of Fuhr's career came after his original playing style (i.e. the stand-up) became obsolete and most of his contemporaries were purged from the league. While this shouldn't necessarily be held against him (you should be judged by the standards of your era, and Fuhr is really an 80s goalie), it did greatly limit his ability to rack up late-career wins. He went from being a pretty good goalie by league standards to being a pretty lousy one pretty much overnight not due to age-related decline, but to rapid modernization in technique. Fleury hasn't had to deal with this and can age much more gracefully.

The TL/DR version of this post is that (1) ranking goaltenders by wins is deeply flawed, and (2) ranking goaltenders across different eras by wins is even more flawed.
- Sven22

These are all fair points. Nicely done. I used Fuhr as a basis for comparison as a goalie who:
1. Played on an offense first team.
2. Had a fair amount of timeshare during his tenure.

I agree it is difficult to compare across eras. I grew up watching 80's era and early 90's. The style, and equipment were much different. Goals were regularly scored from places that would be considered a bad goal today. Teams didn't play any kind of complex defesive systems like we see today, and the overall quality of play was much lower..IE, a 3rd or 4th liner today is a much better athlete than was around in the 80's. Everyone can skate today.

That's a long winded way of saying that when you are looking at MAF, I don't think you can just dismiss longevity and wins if he reaches the top 5 win mark. There is also something to be said for playoff success and three Stanley Cups will work in his favor. MAF was brilliant in the playoffs the year they actually lost the cup against the Wings, and came up big in the cup run in 09. His save against Lidstrom at the end of game 7 is an iconic moment. He was instrumental in the cup win last year in the first two rounds when the Pens arguably were outplayed for long stretches by Columbus and the Caps. He may yet lead Vegas to a cup win this year, which would have been unthinkable 6 months ago. The rest of his story remains to be written, so its probably not fair to judge him yet. The thing about piling up lots of wins is that you have to be really good for a long time to do it.

IMO, Fleury was also the backup for the 2017 cup. He wasn't our starter in the final 2 rounds. I agree with what the other guy said, Hall of very good but not Hall of Fame material. Maybe that changes, I hope he still has a lot of hockey left
- WSCTeton17

The first 2 rounds count too though...if the Pens don't have MAF, they don't get out of the first round against Columbus and there is no way they beat the Caps.

The first 2 rounds count too though...if the Pens don't have MAF, they don't get out of the first round against Columbus and there is no way they beat the Caps.
- Emperor Filonius

There's absolutely no denying that, but that does that make him the starter? You can only have 1 starter, right? In a close split like this, I think you go with the cup winning goalie. Especially since he was the goalie they chose to keep

There's absolutely no denying that, but that does that make him the starter? You can only have 1 starter, right? In a close split like this, I think you go with the cup winning goalie. Especially since he was the goalie they chose to keep
- WSCTeton17

I get that. It's clear Sullivan preferred Murray, probably because he had coached him in WBS, and going to Murray in the Ottawa series worked perfectly...but it was far from a slam dunk and a controversial decision at the time. If Ottawa scored instead of Kunitz, that decision gets second guessed forever.

As far as who got kept, I don't think choosing to keep Murray should be viewed as a detraction to be held against MAF. Keeping Murray was a no brainer owning to his age and contract status. In a no cap/no expansion draft world, they probably keep them both.

These are all fair points. Nicely done. I used Fuhr as a basis for comparison as a goalie who:
1. Played on an offense first team.
2. Had a fair amount of timeshare during his tenure.

I agree it is difficult to compare across eras. I grew up watching 80's era and early 90's. The style, and equipment were much different. Goals were regularly scored from places that would be considered a bad goal today. Teams didn't play any kind of complex defesive systems like we see today, and the overall quality of play was much lower..IE, a 3rd or 4th liner today is a much better athlete than was around in the 80's. Everyone can skate today.

That's a long winded way of saying that when you are looking at MAF, I don't think you can just dismiss longevity and wins if he reaches the top 5 win mark. There is also something to be said for playoff success and three Stanley Cups will work in his favor. MAF was brilliant in the playoffs the year they actually lost the cup against the Wings, and came up big in the cup run in 09. His save against Lidstrom at the end of game 7 is an iconic moment. He was instrumental in the cup win last year in the first two rounds when the Pens arguably were outplayed for long stretches by Columbus and the Caps. He may yet lead Vegas to a cup win this year, which would have been unthinkable 6 months ago. The rest of his story remains to be written, so its probably not fair to judge him yet. The thing about piling up lots of wins is that you have to be really good for a long time to do it.
- Emperor Filonius

On the bolded part:

I would dispute the "really good" part here, since Chris Osgood has 401 wins and he was basically the dictionary definition of "league average goaltender" for the vast majority of his career. But even so, "really good for a long time" is still not the same thing as "Hall of Famer."

More generally:

Longevity is certainly part of the equation. But it's very subjective, and I personally tend to tilt things more to the "peak value" side of the equation. How good were you at your best? How many dominant seasons did you have? How many great ones did you have? At this point you can make a strong case that Fleury hasn't even had one dominant season, and arguably not even any "great" ones depending on where you set your benchmarks for games started or performance vs league average.

The thought experiment I like to use is this one. Let's take some consistently middle-of-the-road top six forward with a long, low, relatively flat career curve -- Lee Stempniak, for example. Let's say ol' Lee found a magic elixir early in his career that didn't make him any better at hockey, but allowed him to play for 40 years at a relatively consistent level while enjoying relatively good health. He retires at age 62 with 700 goals and 1,600 points in 3,000 career games. Is he a Hall of Famer? I would say no.

I'm willing to buy the "longevity" argument as a way to get a guy like, say, Mark Recchi over the HOF hump. But Recchi at least finished top-10 in league scoring 4 times and was a consistent first-line threat for almost 20 years.

Fleury of course still has time. If he puts together a couple of legit Vezina-caliber seasons before he retires, we have a different conversation. But if all he does is play another 3-6 years at around league average or slightly above, I don't think my opinion is going to change, even if he's got 500+ wins by the end of it.

Yes baring career ending injury. He definitely is.

On the bolded part:

I would dispute the "really good" part here, since Chris Osgood has 401 wins and he was basically the dictionary definition of "league average goaltender" for the vast majority of his career. But even so, "really good for a long time" is still not the same thing as "Hall of Famer."

More generally:

Longevity is certainly part of the equation. But it's very subjective, and I personally tend to tilt things more to the "peak value" side of the equation. How good were you at your best? How many dominant seasons did you have? How many great ones did you have? At this point you can make a strong case that Fleury hasn't even had one dominant season, and arguably not even any "great" ones depending on where you set your benchmarks for games started or performance vs league average.

The thought experiment I like to use is this one. Let's take some consistently middle-of-the-road top six forward with a long, low, relatively flat career curve -- Lee Stempniak, for example. Let's say ol' Lee found a magic elixir early in his career that didn't make him any better at hockey, but allowed him to play for 40 years at a relatively consistent level while enjoying relatively good health. He retires at age 62 with 700 goals and 1,600 points in 3,000 career games. Is he a Hall of Famer? I would say no.

I'm willing to buy the "longevity" argument as a way to get a guy like, say, Mark Recchi over the HOF hump. But Recchi at least finished top-10 in league scoring 4 times and was a consistent first-line threat for almost 20 years.

Fleury of course still has time. If he puts together a couple of legit Vezina-caliber seasons before he retires, we have a different conversation. But if all he does is play another 3-6 years at around league average or slightly above, I don't think my opinion is going to change, even if he's got 500+ wins by the end of it.
- Sven22

Anyone who scores 1600 points gets in...that's top 10 all time. Playing 40+ years to do it would be an historically noteworthy achievement, so why not? There is no doubt that as things stand today, if he quit right now, MAF doesn't get in. But if he leads Vegas to a cup run, and has several more solid seasons and reaches 500, I'd put him in. I'm admittedly biased because MAF was a big part of the recent Penguins cup runs. It's fair to look at another "almost but not quite" guy in Curtis Joseph...and what seems to keep him out is the lack of rings. MAF has 3 and I think the people that evaluate these things give a lot of credence to rings..There are reasonable arguments that he doesn't quite measure up and I get that, we just don't agree.

Maybe a better question: Lets say Henrik and MAF end up close to the same number of wins...Henrik is going to possess better stats but unless something changes, do you put him in the hall of fame over MAF? Do you put in Luongo, who also will have over 500 wins, but as it stands today, no cups? I don't honestly have a strong opinion either way, just an interesting discussion.

Anyone who scores 1600 points gets in...that's top 10 all time. Playing 40+ years to do it would be an historically noteworthy achievement, so why not? There is no doubt that as things stand today, if he quit right now, MAF doesn't get in. But if he leads Vegas to a cup run, and has several more solid seasons and reaches 500, I'd put him in. I'm admittedly biased because MAF was a big part of the recent Penguins cup runs. It's fair to look at another "almost but not quite" guy in Curtis Joseph...and what seems to keep him out is the lack of rings. MAF has 3 and I think the people that evaluate these things give a lot of credence to rings..There are reasonable arguments that he doesn't quite measure up and I get that, we just don't agree.

Maybe a better question: Lets say Henrik and MAF end up close to the same number of wins...Henrik is going to possess better stats but unless something changes, do you put him in the hall of fame over MAF? Do you put in Luongo, who also will have over 500 wins, but as it stands today, no cups? I don't honestly have a strong opinion either way, just an interesting discussion.
- Emperor Filonius

Yes to Hank over MAF

and probably yes to Luongo

Not that sv% is an end all be all but league average is generally .913-.914

MAF is a .913 for his career

MAF is more comparable to Osgood than the other 2 goalies here

Anyone who scores 1600 points gets in...that's top 10 all time. Playing 40+ years to do it would be an historically noteworthy achievement, so why not? There is no doubt that as things stand today, if he quit right now, MAF doesn't get in. But if he leads Vegas to a cup run, and has several more solid seasons and reaches 500, I'd put him in. I'm admittedly biased because MAF was a big part of the recent Penguins cup runs. It's fair to look at another "almost but not quite" guy in Curtis Joseph...and what seems to keep him out is the lack of rings. MAF has 3 and I think the people that evaluate these things give a lot of credence to rings..There are reasonable arguments that he doesn't quite measure up and I get that, we just don't agree.

Maybe a better question: Lets say Henrik and MAF end up close to the same number of wins...Henrik is going to possess better stats but unless something changes, do you put him in the hall of fame over MAF? Do you put in Luongo, who also will have over 500 wins, but as it stands today, no cups? I don't honestly have a strong opinion either way, just an interesting discussion.

I don't think Luongo will have 500, but say Henrik gets to 500 and MAF, at that point there will be 4 people all time with 500 wins. You absolutely have to put him in. there is a serious chance that he can finsh ahead of Roy. Any one that finishes their career top 10 in their position should be in the HOF. Just for that.

Based on NHL.com, there have apparently been at least 457 goalie in nhl history, which if he finished top 5, would pu thim in the top 1.1% isnt that more than very good?

Anyone who scores 1600 points gets in...that's top 10 all time. Playing 40+ years to do it would be an historically noteworthy achievement, so why not? There is no doubt that as things stand today, if he quit right now, MAF doesn't get in. But if he leads Vegas to a cup run, and has several more solid seasons and reaches 500, I'd put him in. I'm admittedly biased because MAF was a big part of the recent Penguins cup runs. It's fair to look at another "almost but not quite" guy in Curtis Joseph...and what seems to keep him out is the lack of rings. MAF has 3 and I think the people that evaluate these things give a lot of credence to rings..There are reasonable arguments that he doesn't quite measure up and I get that, we just don't agree.

Maybe a better question: Lets say Henrik and MAF end up close to the same number of wins...Henrik is going to possess better stats but unless something changes, do you put him in the hall of fame over MAF? Do you put in Luongo, who also will have over 500 wins, but as it stands today, no cups? I don't honestly have a strong opinion either way, just an interesting discussion.
- Emperor Filonius

I would put both Luongo and Lundqvist in. Both have been among the very best at their position for the vast majority of their careers -- both their consistenly elite statistics and the subjective evaluations of hockey experts back that up. Lundqvist has a Vezina. Luongo was jobbed out of at least one (he was the best goalie in the NHL by a mile and a half in 2003-04 but the voters gave it to Brodeur) and could easily have won a couple more. I don't care that neither has won a championship, and I don't need to look at their win totals to make my argument.

Wins are a team stat. Goalies, as part of the team, contribute to the win total, but are only one piece. Assuming both guys play about 60 games and face about 2,000 shots per year, the difference between a great goalie (let's say .923) and an average one (let's say .913) is one goal every 3 games, which translates to about 3-4 extra wins in those 60 games. Does that make a difference? Heck yeah it does. But replace a great goalie with an average one on, say, a 53-win team and you still have a 50-win team.

Put a "pretty good" goalie on a great team and let him play a lot of games, and he will get a lot of wins. He might even win a championship or two. That's MAF. It doesn't make him better than a guy like our man 2004 Luongo, letting in fewer than 8 goals for every 10 allowed by a league average tender, and still losing more games than he wins because the Panthers are a complete trainwreck in every other facet of the game.

As for the 40-year thing -- admittedly a bit of a silly though experiment. But it speaks to my point about what makes someone great at something. Being average or slightly above average at something for a really really really long time, under favorable circumstances, is not a substitute for being truly great at it. If Chris Osgood played 100 years in the NHL he could have 3,000 wins, but the teams he played for would have been just as well served by simply signing whatever decent guy was available in free agency and replacing him every couple of years. Lee Stempniak could play until the sun burns out but he'd never be a hall of fame caliber player.

Anyway, I have enjoyed this discussion. It's a nice reminder that two folks can disagree about something and still have a friendly and respectful debate about it.

I don't think Luongo will have 500, but say Henrik gets to 500 and MAF, at that point there will be 4 people all time with 500 wins. You absolutely have to put him in. there is a serious chance that he can finsh ahead of Roy. Any one that finishes their career top 10 in their position should be in the HOF. Just for that.

Based on NHL.com, there have apparently been at least 457 goalie in nhl history, which if he finished top 5, would pu thim in the top 1.1% isnt that more than very good?
- joecool2931

Wins is a team stat not a goalie stat.

Goalies of the past didn't have the benefits of 4v4 and 3v3 OTs or shootouts to pad win stats.

Wins is a team stat not a goalie stat.

Goalies of the past didn't have the benefits of 4v4 and 3v3 OTs or shootouts to pad win stats.
- Feds91Stammer

Season lengths were also only 50 games at the start of the O6 era and only 70 by the end. And fewer teams in the league generally meant you if you weren't one of the six best guys on the planet at any given time your job was in serious jeopardy.

EDIT: I just did a really quick-and-dirty back of the envelope estimate for what Jacques Plante's win totals might have been if 82-game seasons and shootouts had been the standard during his playing days. It's easily over 600.

Sven..good stuff!

Stay warm up there in GR!

Sven..good stuff!

Stay warm up there in GR!
- Emperor Filonius

Thanks! I'm trying. It was effing cold today.

Thanks! I'm trying. It was effing cold today.
- Sven22

I lived just off of East Beltline for several years what seems like eons ago. I don't miss the winters!

I lived just off of East Beltline for several years what seems like eons ago. I don't miss the winters!
- Emperor Filonius

I'm enjoying a cold beer in an East Beltline establishment as we speak. But I live closer to Riverside Park. All in all not a bad place to live despite the winters. The city has actually gotten a lot hipper in the last 10-15 years.