Steve Shutt - Why the Hall of fame? | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Steve Shutt - Why the Hall of fame?

DickSmehlik

DickSmehlik

Registered User
Oct 23, 2006
3,760
4,167
The Empire State
Forgive me I was not alive or barely alive for his prime seasons but looking at his #'s I wonder if someone could provide some insight into why he was considered a HOFer besides the obvious being on a dynasty.
 
If he's a Detroit Red Wing during that time, he's not in the HHOF. Alas, you react to the circumstances you are placed in.

Shutt's point totals are nothing much. 817 points in 930 games.

He finished 1, 3, 8, 10 in goals, which is alright.

He finished 3rd in points once and never again in the top 10. Actually he has only three years over 80 points.

His big year was 1977. He had 60 goals and 105 points.

Now, the knock against Shutt is that he leeched off of Lafleur. It's true Lafleur definitely boosted his totals, but Shutt was a sniper in junior just before he was drafted so it isn't as if he was a schmuck either. I think also what helps Shutt is that we never got to see how he would play without Lafleur. He spent his final season away from Montreal in L.A. and got 41 points in 59 games. So unlike Leclair, we are unable to see how he could do in full seasons on his own without a superstar linemate.

Even in the postseason he is alright at 98 points in 99 games but what got him in the HHOF was his contribution to the dynasty. Four Cups in a row and in those 4 runs he had 61 points in 53 games.

I've always felt Shutt is right at the bottom of the HHOF pecking order, kind of similar to Bill Barber, and inducted for very much the same reasons. But if neither one of these guys were in I often wonder how much we would be pushing for their induction on these boards. Probably often enough.
 
Steve Shutt

Big Phil said:
If he's a Detroit Red Wing during that time, he's not in the HHOF. Alas, you react to the circumstances you are placed in.

Shutt's point totals are nothing much. 817 points in 930 games.

He finished 1, 3, 8, 10 in goals, which is alright.

He finished 3rd in points once and never again in the top 10. Actually he has only three years over 80 points.

His big year was 1977. He had 60 goals and 105 points.

Now, the knock against Shutt is that he leeched off of Lafleur. It's true Lafleur definitely boosted his totals, but Shutt was a sniper in junior just before he was drafted so it isn't as if he was a schmuck either. I think also what helps Shutt is that we never got to see how he would play without Lafleur. He spent his final season away from Montreal in L.A. and got 41 points in 59 games. So unlike Leclair, we are unable to see how he could do in full seasons on his own without a superstar linemate.

Even in the postseason he is alright at 98 points in 99 games but what got him in the HHOF was his contribution to the dynasty. Four Cups in a row and in those 4 runs he had 61 points in 53 games.

I've always felt Shutt is right at the bottom of the HHOF pecking order, kind of similar to Bill Barber, and inducted for very much the same reasons. But if neither one of these guys were in I often wonder how much we would be pushing for their induction on these boards. Probably often enough.
Click to expand...

Big Phil, Steve Shutt was the last of the classic LWs that came thru the Marlies / Maple Leaf system. His discipline playing LW contributed to Guy Lafleur`s numbers even though Shutt was not getting direct credit.

Example the famous tying goal in the 1979 playoffs, game seven vs Boston:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12-x70nq0vI

note on the replays how Shutt stays wide on the LW keeping Brad Park from sliding over to help against Lafleur. This was one of the keys to Shutt`s game. Maintaining his position created more open ice for Lafleur and the center. Old time Maple Leaf hockey.

Also we did get to see how Steve Shutt played without Guy Lafleur with the Canadiens. 1973-74 playoffs against the Rangers Shutt and Lafleur started on a line centered by Henri Richard. Lafleur was quickly benched because he did not tend to his defensive resposibilities and replaced by Claude Larose. Shutt went on to have a great series, his break-out moment with the Canadiens. He also significantly out performed Guy Lafleur in the 1984 playoffs when the pair was split.


1974 playoffs:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1974.html

1984 playoffs:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1984.html
 
Last edited:
Canadiens1958 said:
Big Phil, Steve Shutt was the last of the classic LWs that came thru the Marlies / Maple Leaf system. His discipline playing LW contributed to Guy Lafleur`s numbers even though Shutt was not getting direct credit.

Example the famous tying goal in the 1979 playoffs, game seven vs Boston:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12-x70nq0vI

note on the replays how Shutt stays wide on the LW keeping Brad Park from sliding over to help against Lafleur. This was one of the keys to Shutt`s game. Maintaining his position created more open ice for Lafleur and the center. Old time Maple Leaf hockey.

Also we did get to see how Steve Shutt played without Guy Lafleur with the Canadiens. 1973-74 playoffs against the Rangers Shutt and Lafleur started on a line centered by Henri Richard. Lafleur was quickly benched because he did not tend to his defensive resposibilities and replaced by Claude Larose. Shutt went on to have a great series, his break-out moment with the Canadiens. He also significantly out performed Guy Lafleur in the 1984 playoffs when the pair was split.


1974 playoffs:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1974.html

1984 playoffs:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1984.html
Click to expand...

Well there wasn't a very big sample size of Shutt on his own. Certainly not enough for me to say without Lafleur he is a HHOFer. It is not meant to take anything away from him but rather just the reality that his numbers wouldn't be as sexy and there would be less of a case for him. I agree he was still a fine player
 
Big Phil said:
If he's a Detroit Red Wing during that time, he's not in the HHOF. Alas, you react to the circumstances you are placed in.

Shutt's point totals are nothing much. 817 points in 930 games.

He finished 1, 3, 8, 10 in goals, which is alright.

He finished 3rd in points once and never again in the top 10. Actually he has only three years over 80 points.

His big year was 1977. He had 60 goals and 105 points.

Now, the knock against Shutt is that he leeched off of Lafleur. It's true Lafleur definitely boosted his totals, but Shutt was a sniper in junior just before he was drafted so it isn't as if he was a schmuck either. I think also what helps Shutt is that we never got to see how he would play without Lafleur. He spent his final season away from Montreal in L.A. and got 41 points in 59 games. So unlike Leclair, we are unable to see how he could do in full seasons on his own without a superstar linemate.

Even in the postseason he is alright at 98 points in 99 games but what got him in the HHOF was his contribution to the dynasty. Four Cups in a row and in those 4 runs he had 61 points in 53 games.

I've always felt Shutt is right at the bottom of the HHOF pecking order, kind of similar to Bill Barber, and inducted for very much the same reasons. But if neither one of these guys were in I often wonder how much we would be pushing for their induction on these boards. Probably often enough.
Click to expand...

His next best goal scoring finish was 13th in 79, ironically right behind Rick Middleton who has a better case for the HHOF.

Shutt is the perfect example of what the HHOF tends to look at above else and that's SC.

Along with Middleton I would rather have guys like John Tonelli and Butch Goring in my hall but sadly they have to buy tickets if they want to go.
 
Hardyvan123 said:
His next best goal scoring finish was 13th in 79, ironically right behind Rick Middleton who has a better case for the HHOF.

Shutt is the perfect example of what the HHOF tends to look at above else and that's SC.

Along with Middleton I would rather have guys like John Tonelli and Butch Goring in my hall but sadly they have to buy tickets if they want to go.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't count Middleton out yet. Still a good case for him without even looking back at fond nostalgia over the man.

I think why the HHOF values Cups, and especially dynasties, is because for a while these players are the central focus of the NHL. Think about this for a second. The Kings just won the Cup. Other than Doughty, I don't see a HHOFer among the skaters unless Kopitar really cranks it up a notch (Quick also needs a lot of good years). But if the Kings won, say, three Cups in a row then all of the sudden the careers of Carter, Richards, Kopitar and maybe even Brown look better. Think about it, for a brief time Modano was a huge face in the NHL. He made back to back finals. He was arguably the best center in the game those two years. Everyone knew his face and knew he was succesful and more importantly a winner.

When you look back at those days you will remember Yzerman, Sakic, Modano, Forsberg and Fedorov as champions and guys we often saw deep in the postseason. And they were "the" guys on their team and everyone knew it. If we see Richards and Carter keep lifting the Cup over their heads than that will be a permanent vision from this era of hockey and all of the sudden Carter with some rings looks a lot prettier with that high scoring 2009 season attached to him. Richards, the constant Selke candidate starts to look better too in our eyes and remember he captained a team to the final in 2010. Over a long career even if these guys lack the sexy numbers they will still get some attention because they were perennial winners and had a big hand in it.

Like it or lump it, that's how Shutt got in. That's how a guy like Goring, or Tonelli with weaker numbers in a high scoring era still get considered. First and foremost, they won, and everyone remembers and elevates a winner. Right or wrong, I am pretty sure that's how the HHOF sees it
 
Phil, does anyone think Steve Shutt when they think of that Hab dynasty?

Well maybe yes after Guy, Dryden, Robinson, Lapointe, Savard, Gainey, Lemaire.

Sure if Shutt had a longer career or a higher peak it wouldn't matter but at some point we and the hall should separate true leaders and players on any winning team form the secondary ones.

Shutt is 3rd in Hab playoff scoring in that 4 year run but really how important is he to those Hab teams winning?

Maybe 6th or 7th?

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

From 73-85 he is 13th in overall playoff scoring (8th in goals and 8th in GPG over 50 GP)

From 73-85 in the regular season he is 7th overall in goals (almost 200 golas behind Marcel Dionne who leads 2nd place Lafleur by 112 goals)

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

He is 16th overall in points with guys like Middleton, Barber, Lysiak, boldirev ahead of him.

Butch goring is in 17th place right behind him and is more HHOF worthy IMO.
 
Hobnobs said:
Without his defensive/positional game he is basically Rob Brown with longevity.
Click to expand...

I wonder if he should really get much credit for defense, here's what Bowman had to say this year.

“It’s three against five to score. The two defencemen (on the attacking team) don’t come in because they’re worried about getting caught. You get so many outnumbered situations down low. Look at how close the defending wingers are to their net and how far away they are from the other net. It’s a good ploy defensively, but it’s why there is not as much offence.

When I was coaching in Montreal, Lafleur and Shutt wouldn’t even know what the ice was like below the top of the circle. Look at Wayne Gretzky; he was always out between the blue-lines. Brett Hull? Maybe it’s wise to put four guys down low and one other guy way high.â€
Click to expand...
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/Lidstrom+retirement+leaves+hole+Wings+blue+line/6721323/story.html
 
When I say "the HHOF has a tradition of inducting contributers to winning teams, Shutt definitely fits. No way he gets inducted if he played for a lesser team
 
Hardyvan123 said:
Phil, does anyone think Steve Shutt when they think of that Hab dynasty?

Well maybe yes after Guy, Dryden, Robinson, Lapointe, Savard, Gainey, Lemaire.

Sure if Shutt had a longer career or a higher peak it wouldn't matter but at some point we and the hall should separate true leaders and players on any winning team form the secondary ones.

Shutt is 3rd in Hab playoff scoring in that 4 year run but really how important is he to those Hab teams winning?

Maybe 6th or 7th?

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

From 73-85 he is 13th in overall playoff scoring (8th in goals and 8th in GPG over 50 GP)

From 73-85 in the regular season he is 7th overall in goals (almost 200 golas behind Marcel Dionne who leads 2nd place Lafleur by 112 goals)

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

He is 16th overall in points with guys like Middleton, Barber, Lysiak, boldirev ahead of him.

Butch goring is in 17th place right behind him and is more HHOF worthy IMO.
Click to expand...

And that's the argument against him, he is weak. But you said he might have been the 6th or 7th most important Hab right? I can see that.

Lafleur, Robinson and Dryden definitely ahead of him. Gainey and Lemaire for sure. That leaves Lapointe, Savard and Shutt to fight it out for the 6-8th spots. So if Shutt does fit a 6th let's say, it isn't all that crazy to induct him. There are lots of dynasties who have the 6th best guy in there, or close to it (bolded is #6 and up)

1940s Leafs - Apps, Kennedy, Bentley, Broda
1950s Red Wings - Howe, Lindsay, Kelly, Sawchuk, Abel, Delvecchio
1950s Habs - Beliveau, Richard, Harvey, Geoffrion, Moore, Plante, H. Richard, Johnson
1960s Leafs - Mahovlich, Keon, Bower, Horton, Stanley, Kelly, Duff, Pulford, Armstrong
1980s Isles - Bossy, Potvin, Trottier, Smith, Gillies
1980s Oilers - Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, Coffey, Fuhr, Anderson

Even when you look at some near great teams that don't classify as a dynasty you still see a lot inducted:

1990s Wings - Yzerman, Lidstrom, Fedorov, Shanahan, Fetisov, possibly Vernon, longshot with Osgood
1990s Pens - Lemieux, Jagr, Francis, Mullen, Murphy, Recchi, good shot for Barrasso
1989 Flames - MacInnis, Gilmour, Mullen, Nieuwendyk, McDonald, possibly Fleury and Vernon
2001 Avs - Sakic, Roy, Forsberg, Bourque, Blake, Foote is the closest but still an unlikely candidate

So it isn't all that unusual for a great string of teams to pick the guy who is 6th on the pecking order for the HHOF. That's all I am saying, not saying that Shutt's induction can't come with some controversy to it, but I am betting that the contributions to a dynasty are something that can and will elevate a player's value.

Mullen, Nieuwendyk, Gillies, Duff, Armstrong, Pulford and Anderson aren't in without the Cups and some still don't like some of them being in with the Cups. But it is obvious their contributions got them in, and personally I think contributing greatly to multiple Cups shows greatness in that category.
 
Lafleur, Robinson and Dryden definitely ahead of him. Gainey and Lemaire for sure. That leaves Lapointe, Savard and Shutt to fight it out for the 6-8th spots. So if Shutt does fit a 6th let's say, it isn't all that crazy to induct him. There are lots of dynasties who have the 6th best guy in there, or close to it (bolded is #6 and up)
Click to expand...

I see very little argument for Shutt over Lapointe and Savard. The "Big 3" defensemen were the anchors of that team

IMO, the pecking order on the late 70s dynasty was something like

Lafleur/Robinson/Dryden
Savard/Lapointe/Gainey
Lemaire/Shutt

But Lemaire did a hell of a lot in the early 70s before the dynasty officially got going, so he should be uncontroversial
 
Last edited:
Top of the Circle

Bring Back Scuderi said:
I wonder if he should really get much credit for defense, here's what Bowman had to say this year.


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/Lidstrom+retirement+leaves+hole+Wings+blue+line/6721323/story.html
Click to expand...

Top of the circle means that Shutt and Lafleur, covered the respective points/sideboards with an ability to cover the high slot, all the time remaining in position for the transition game from the defensemen. Center and the two dmen take care of their responsibilities down low.

Basic Canadiens defense since the mid-fifties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom