View Single Post
09-09-2011, 12:35 PM
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,795
vCash: 500
Campbell/Gibbs stuff:

Since it won't go away...

If you would actually partake in that side-discussion, we might get somewhere.
Okay, here we go.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I think Seabrook has arguably peaked higher than Gibbs, but not definitely. drop Gibbs onto Chicago and he very well might be the #2.
Seabrook's place over Campbell as Chicago's #2 is determined partially by the fact that he has much better chemistry with Keith (the undisputed #1) than Campbell does. It's possible that Gibbs technically could be Chicago's #2, but it would depend on his chemistry with Keith, rather than how good he actually is. Considering the all-time great chemistry that Keith and Seabrook already have (in future ATDs, I wouldn't be surprised if they were drafted as partners), I doubt Gibbs would break in.

Do you actually think this?
Do you actually think you've shown anything to indicate that Gibbs was better defensively at even strength than Brian Campbell?

I agree he was playing over his head. Totally! It doesn't make him a worse player. But what did that make him? I don't think he was top-14 just by being a #1 in a 14-team league. I also don't think that the best defenseman of any team over .400 could be as bad as 40th in the league. Surely we can come to some sort of agreement on what those seasons mean!
Where he places in the league isn't the full issue, when the NHL of the 70s was much weaker than it is today. I think it's very plausible that a poor #1 in a 14 team league was about the 25th best player in the league. Then consider all the talent in Europe (mostly the USSR and CSSR but also Sweden) and the WHA (Al Hamilton, Paul Shmyr, Rick Ley, JC Tremblay, etc etc) and yes, I think it's very plausible that a poor #1 could be no better than the 40th best defenseman in the world.

Anyway, you asked how I would rank their seasons. It would be something like this:

1. The All-Time Great Seasons

Campbell's 2006-07 and 2007-08. These are the best two seasons of either player by a lot. As I said before, Campbell would be a #3 puck mover in the main draft if he had a full 10 year career of seasons like that (which he doesn't).

These two seasons are much better than anything either of them did in additional seasons. After those two seasons, it's more of a judgment call, but I'll try:

2. Additional Noteworthy Seasons:

Campbell 2008-09, Gibbs 71-72, Gibbs 72-73

These are the only additional seasons where these guys got non-trivial all-star votes.

Other solid seasons:

3. Campbell 2009-10 - co-#2 of an excellent team.

4. Gibbs's additional 3 seasons as a #1 on not terrible teams

5. Campbell 2005-06, Campbell 2010-11, Gibbs season as a #1 on a below average team without awful GA numbers

6. Gibbs 1973-74, 1977-78, 1978-79 when he was a #1 but also top 10 in the league in goals against.

I realize Campbell was a specialist in 2005-06, but it was an excellent season as a specialist and my personal judgment call is that I would take an excellent specialist over a terrible #1. Phil Housley and Sergei Gonchar spent much of their seasons as specialists, but they were excellent specialists. I think Housley is always drafted too early, but I would definitely take his seasons as an excellent specialist over someone who was a terrible #1.

So by my count it goes:

1. Campbell, Campbell - these are the only All-Time Great seasons by either player
(big gap)
2. Campbell, Gibbs, Gibbs - these might be called All-Time Good seasons.
3. Campbell
4. Gibbs, Gibbs, Gibbs
5. Campbell, Campbell, Gibbs
6. Gibbs, Gibbs, Gibbs

And this is before you get into the playoffs, where Campbell's 2010 was better than anything Gibbs did. He was a key secondary contributor to winning the Cup playing the exact same role he's playing for Eden Hall now.

If you care about peak at all, it's really not close.

Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-09-2011 at 12:42 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote