Why do you think it took them so long to induct Rogie Vachon?

[rmartin65]

Why is anybody in the Hall of Fame? They should kick out everybody but Howe, Orr and Gretzky.

Why isn’t everyone in the Hall of Fame?

Come on- what about Cheevers and Vachon make them more worthy for the Hall than other goalies who have retired and not made it?

This isn’t a gotcha question… I’m just looking for information.

 

[HolyGhost]

Yeah but 2nd and 4th in Hart voting, that's pretty high end. Canada Cup champ in that timeframe too. Vachon played a lot of games for the Kings, but how do you expect him to win 40+ games on that team? The fact he had a 27-14-13 record on the 1975 Kings is quite the feat. That team had 105 points, and that was all Rogie. Because of splits with goalies such as Worsley it was harder to rack up 30 win seasons. Even Billy Smith only did it once since he was sharing the net in the regular season with Resch or Melanson later on. And yet Vachon still ends up 5th in wins at retirement. These aren't some strong Kings teams he was playing on or anything like that.

I was nearly bedded two super models. But the left with another guy. That is how view almost winning something.

 

[Crosby2010]

I was nearly bedded two super models. But the left with another guy. That is how view almost winning something.

I don't get it. This is a poorly written sentence but it sounds like you are saying Cheevers and Vachon didn't win anything. They won plenty in their careers.

 

[Crosby2010]

Can you not answer why either should be in the Hall? It’s a legitimate question. We are all here to learn and talk about hockey’s history, so I’d like to hear your thoughts.

I don't think you were directing this my way, but I can answer it regardless. Goalies have a pretty high standard for the HHOF. Out of the three positions (forward, defense, goal) goaltending is the one that easily has the least amount of controversial picks. Defense used to be a pretty high standard too, but there have been some questionable ones, although forwards are easily the most lenient category. Nevertheless, goaltenders are still the toughest nut to crack to get into the HHOF.

Cheevers first. I am alright with him in there. Might be in for the opposite reasons as another weakish (but worthy) HHOFer in Chuck Rayner. Rayner was normally on terrible teams and only played in the playoffs twice, but was more decorated in the regular season than Cheevers with a Hart trophy and three 2nd team all-stars. Cheevers was on good teams that went deep but doesn't have the individual accolades in the regular season. Both got in for different reasons. For starters Cheevers has a good record at 227-104-76. That doesn't include the 3.5 years he played in the WHA right in his prime years. That being said, when you factor in he only once played in 50 games in an NHL season, those are pretty good numbers for his career. He never led the NHL in any notable category but he did in his full years in the WHA, leading in shutouts all three times. Take that anyway you'd like, and I am not one to say that the WHA adds anything to a career, but if Cheevers is playing in 50-60 games in the NHL per year is he getting some more love with 1st/2nd team all-stars? Maybe. Hard decade in the 1970s to crack that, but either way he's more in the mix. But that didn't matter to him. He made his money in the playoffs. 53-34 playoff career. Two Cups, 4 trips to the Cup final and he played excellent in the 1969 playoffs which was basically the Stanley Cup final in the semis vs. Montreal. He had a 1.68 GAA that postseason. 3 shutouts and a .947 sv%. That's impressive. The Cup in 1970 was all his, the one in 1972 was shared with Johnston in the playoffs but Cheevers was in net during the final Cup clinching game and got a shutout. It was Johnston, not Cheevers, in net for Game 2 of the 1971 series vs. Montreal where they blew a 5-1 lead. Maybe things are different if Cheevers is in there, who knows. Maybe things are different if Cheevers is in net for Game 7 in 1979 too. You never know.

Either way, he was a reliable goalie when it mattered. Similar to Fuhr perhaps? I think it mattered that Cheevers wasn't on the 1972 Summit Series team. He most likely has the starters position to lose. And while he had that disastrous game in 1979 in the Challenge Cup, the fact he was picked shows you he was still relevant. He gets in, and he's more central to his teams winning that someone like Osgood. Might be more like Fleury in that way, which isn't bad.

Vachon I mentioned already why I think he belongs. I think he's a better individual goalie than Cheevers. Had success with winning Cups, then went to an awful team and really carried them on his back. When push came to shove he was picked for the 1976 Canada Cup and thrived in that tournament. His numbers are better than Cheevers. Beezer is another goalie who has two top 5 Hart finishes (3rd, 5th) compared to Vachon (2nd, 4th). I don't know if there is another goalie with that kind of Hart voting record that is on the outside looking in, and Beezer's playoff record leaves a lot to be desired which is what has kept him out, I think. So I just don't think there is a weakness in Vachon's career that omits him.