Why do some people say one player is better than another because he won a cup?

Question

There are a lot of bad to average players who have won the cup but we don't say they're better than skilled players who haven't. You can be stuck on a crappy team, be loyal to a certain club and never win a cup. I'm a little sick of hearing people say so and so wasn't great because he didn't win a cup. It's a great achievement, but I don't think it should define a player's overall accomplishments. Would Bourque have been less of a player if he hadn't switched teams to win the cup?

I wasn't using Bourque as an example of someone who is looked at as great because he won a cup, but as someone who would have been great even if he hadn't.

Answer 1

In the case of some players who are considered 'border-line' HOF's, hardware, and especially the Stanley Cup becomes the deciding factor.

Let's look at goaltenders. The big pad era of the last 15 years has generated great goaltender numbers when compared to the 80s (In the 80s, if your GAA was under 3 you were a sure fire Vezina candidate - In the 90's if your GAA was over 2.50, you were an AHL retread candidate)
The 90s gave us
Dominik Hasek
Martin Brodeur
Edward Belfour
Curtis Joseph
Chris Osgood
Sean Burke

These 6 goaltenders (along with the recently inducted Patrick Roy) dominated the big-pad era. All except Josph and Burke have Stanley Cups (and to be fair to Joseph and Burke - they have International Gold Medals)

Is Hasek going to the Hall of Fame? Definitely. Why? He led a not-so-great Buffalo team to the Stanley Cup final. He was part of a very good Hawks team that made the final, and he helped a very talent-laden Red Wings team win the Cup. He also has WC gold, Olympic gold, 6 Vezinas, a couple of Hart trophies, the highest career save percentage in NHL history, and is in the top 10 all-time in shutouts.

Is Brodeur going to the Hall of Fame? Definitely. Why? He has 3 Stanley Cups, he has 3 Vezinas, He has Olympic Gold, He'll retire with 500 wins, He'll retire at or near the top of the shutout list. He's #1 on the active list for lowest career GAA (just ahead of Hasek) as well as up there in save percentage and shutouts/game ratio.

Is Belfour going to the Hall of Fame? Definitely. Why? he has a Stanley Cup. he has played in 3 finals. He has 2 Vezinas. he's in the top 10 all-time in shutouts. He is 3rd all-time in wins. Prior to his final year in Toronto He had the longest streakl in modern NHL history of GAA's under 3, He led the league in wins and shutouts several times, and was named to the post-season all-star team several times.

Is Joseph going to the Hall of Fame? Probably not. He has never won a Cup. He has never won a Vezina/Jennings. he has never led the NHL in wins or shutouts. IN fact, he holds the distinction of the most wins in the NHL without having touched the Cup. He's never been named to a post-season all-star team. He does however have 446 wins and an Olympic gold medal.

Is Osgood going to the Hall of Fame? Probably not. He has 2 Stanley Cups, but in one of those years only played 47 minutes in the playoffs (to Mike Vernon who isn't a Hall of Famer either). He has no individual hardward. he was named to the 2nd All-Star team ONCE, and shared the Jennings trophy that same year. If this was the 80s....Osgood's in. But this is the 90s........so he's out.

Is Burke going to the Hall of Fame? Probably not. Fewer wins and shutouts than Osgood (despite a higher profile career). Never led the league in any category, no individual or team hardward, no post-season all-star teams, and after his brilliant playoff run in 1988......never made it past the first round.

Now out of that list..................Had Joseph quided a team to a Stanley Cup, I can almost guarantee you that would get him in the Hall. Same with Burke. Both Burke and Joseph had that high-profile recognition and were known as big-game goalies, and had they been able to get over that last hill, that might have been what did it for them. Osgood, he's an enigma....and generally speaking, enigma's don't make it.

To your Bourque comment................Had Hasek's Red Wings not won the Cup in 02...............Hasek's career would steal have gottem him into the HOF just as Bourque would have gone in had he stayed in Boston without a Cup. But other players like Joseph, that lack of a Cup win could very well make the difference. Just ask Dino Ciccarelli!

As Bob Loblaw said in another question last night, you can't put EVERYBODY in just because they won a Cup (or had a great year)

Answer 2

Basically... I don't think you can say that as a generalization. That would be unfair. However...

I'm sure there are instances when you might be able to logically support an opinion that a certain player who has won a Cup is better than a player who hasn't. You could probably logically support an opinion vice versa, as well.

You'll never get rid of the hype put on the importance of winning the Cup though. It's what players dream about. It's the ultimate trophy that all NHL teams play for. Some regard it as the hardest trophy to win out of any sport.

If you asked a player which he would rather win, the Stanley Cup or an Art Ross Trophy, I'm inclined to think he'd choose the Cup.

Answer 3

The Stanley Cup is the Holy Grail of hockey. It supposed to be every player's and every team's goal. Falling short of that is technically failure.
Most hockey fans use it as a comparative in that when looking at two players with similar stats, we include Cup winnings as a yardstick for success.
As you know, winning the Cup takes a solid team effort. No one guy wins the Cup. A guy who plays on a Cup winner therefore is capable of delivering that extra effort when the games are most important, even if his role is simply to stop the other team from scoring which means he's a team guy who can be counted on in the crunch.
Look at Messier vs Yzerman. Similar goal totals and similar games played. Pretty even so far but, once we add cup wins we see Moose had more Cup wins and he did it with two different teams. Which to you is more impressive?

Answer 4

For a player like Ray Bourque, winning the cup is the icing on the cake and is not the greatest example. He was a world class player almost from the get go. Now if you take someone with numbers like Grant Fuhr, you might have a different argument. Fuhr's numbers were not the greatest, throughout his career, his goals against average was rarely below 3.00 and his save percentage was rarely above 90%.

What made Fuhr a hall of famer was his ability to come through in the clutch. The final score might end up 7-6, but when you needed the key save late in the game to preserve the lead Fuhr stepped up his game. Had he not won the cups he did, that would be very much overlooked.

Answer 5

The regulars have it covered in this discussion.

I'll just add that sometimes a Cup adds just enough gloss to a decent career to kick a player up to a loftier level of recognition. It's not about whether they are better players, it's about what they accomplished.

I'm thinking about Rod Brindamour or Steve Yzerman, two players who were always considered talented players but who moved up a level after years of little team success and came to be regarded as sensational leaders once they had hoisted Stanley.

Guy Lafleur and Mike Bossy are two players who are higher up on the totem than Gilbert Perreault and Marcel Dionne (forgetting for a moment the feelings of their local fans), although as far as individual talent and careers go they are about dead even.

In fact in terms of lore The French Connection line and the Triple Crown Line were great iconic names, but the Habs and Islanders lines were never christened with a label.

Today Perreault and Dionne don't have that extra lustre that cup winners do. If Lafleur and Bossy had been shut out in their careers and Perreault and Dionne had been cup winners, I believe the situation would be the opposite in terms of image.

Answer 6

The reason a player is better if he won the cup is because the cup is the ultimate goal and if you havent made it there, you arent doing what youre supposed to be doing to win the cup.

Answer 7

Dionne was a great player that never won a cup. If you could be more specific about what players the question would be easier to answer

Answer 8

i think, Mahela is easily-known with ok that Gayle is the possibility guy right here interior the main suitable. yet what had pronounced by applying Mahela on Chris Gayle became in basic terms 'mere' words. Captains in basic terms like Mahela are so crafty. they say one difficulty, and do the alternative. although that's for the forged for the group. yet Chris Gayle would be normalized in basic terms like he pronounced 'yet another participant', because of the fact that Mahela's concept of Captaincy is in step with 'Attacking'. He starts off the attack from the very ball, with the full know-how of who the batsman is. yet now and returned he won't prevail. that's time-honored.

Answer 9

for the most part i would say this is unfair

that said if you are a member of legit teams, one of the things in all sports that make you a legend is performance on the biggest stage, and if you are a noshow

not to talk baseball, but thats the only negative thing people can say about alex rodriguez

Answer 10

It's a case of: "What have you done for me lately" kind of thing.


Individual achievements don't mean much if you don't go all the way.

I know it sucks but the world and fans today don't care if you come in as the #2.