HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Gilmour or Francis?

View Poll Results: Overall who was better
Dougy 48 54.55%
Ronny franchise 40 45.45%
Voters: 88. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-17-2012, 09:29 AM
  #26
Joe McGrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't think anybody doubted Francis' longevity as a productive / borderline-elite player

In my opinion, Francis' 2001-02 season at the age of 38 is the most impressive in his career.
I agree completely with this. This was one of his top 10 point finishes (his only one sans Jagr) and it came on a defensive minded team at the height of the dead puck era, playing primarily with Jeff O'Neil and Sami Kapanen.

It's hard to argue that his peak wasn't aided by Jagr, but the year before he was traded he scored 100 points for the Whalers. It's not like he was incapable of doing it on his own.

Joe McGrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 11:25 AM
  #27
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regal View Post
I still think Francis' peak gets underrated by many here. Unlike the main board, most people here seem to take for granted that linemates don't generally affect star players point totals by much, yet Francis gets repeatedly punished for playing with Jagr. The fact that his point totals raised at a later age is always brought up as proof, but it's not that unreasonable for a non-physical playmaker to peak in his late 20s to early 30s. Some of his best comparables are guys like Oates, Ratelle, and Henrik Sedin, all of whom peaked at a similar time. Hell, even Gilmour's production hit a spike at 29 and 30.

That said, he was obviously never as good as Gilmour was in those two years, and the rest of their careers were fairly similar, with a bit of an edge to Francis. I think I would give it to Gilmour because of his peak, and the fact that if Gilmour was the man on a team like Francis was from a young age, I wonder if he could have been closer to his Toronto years at an earlier age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe McGrath View Post
I agree completely with this. This was one of his top 10 point finishes (his only one sans Jagr) and it came on a defensive minded team at the height of the dead puck era, playing primarily with Jeff O'Neil and Sami Kapanen.

It's hard to argue that his peak wasn't aided by Jagr, but the year before he was traded he scored 100 points for the Whalers. It's not like he was incapable of doing it on his own.
i don't think anyone doubts that francis could have been a fringe top ten scorer without jagr. in fact, as has been pointed out, he was once after jagr, and he finished 12th the year before he got to pittsburgh. we might even imagine that he peaks during his pittsburgh period and on a normal team he might be as high as 8th. but from watching him, i don't think he was a top 5 scorer on his own. that much, i think, we can attribute to jagr.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 11:44 AM
  #28
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
In Jagr's first 5 years in the NHL (when the Pens were actual contenders and won 2 Cups) Francis outscored Jagr 4 out of 5 years in playoffs, including both Cup years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wgknestrick View Post
FACT checking owned. Good job in defending your choice. I think Francis was an all around better player IMO. What was his weakness again because I don't remember one?
what? no. You're telling me Francis at age 27-30 was better than Jagr at age 18-21. Of course he was!

The seasons that make Francis look like a player with a peak and not just a perrennial 70-85 point player, are 1995-1998, when he was top-10 in scoring for the first 4 times in his career. During that period he was outscored by Jagr by considerable margins and obviously owes a ton of those points to Jagr.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:42 PM
  #29
ot92s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 726
vCash: 500
they're both on the same level. comes down to preference.

i'll take gilmour personally. i remember him as being the more creative offensive player.

ot92s is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 01:06 PM
  #30
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regal View Post
I still think Francis' peak gets underrated by many here. Unlike the main board, most people here seem to take for granted that linemates don't generally affect star players point totals by much, yet Francis gets repeatedly punished for playing with Jagr. The fact that his point totals raised at a later age is always brought up as proof, but it's not that unreasonable for a non-physical playmaker to peak in his late 20s to early 30s. Some of his best comparables are guys like Oates, Ratelle, and Henrik Sedin, all of whom peaked at a similar time. Hell, even Gilmour's production hit a spike at 29 and 30.

That said, he was obviously never as good as Gilmour was in those two years, and the rest of their careers were fairly similar, with a bit of an edge to Francis. I think I would give it to Gilmour because of his peak, and the fact that if Gilmour was the man on a team like Francis was from a young age, I wonder if he could have been closer to his Toronto years at an earlier age.
Playing on a line with merely good players doesn't increase a player's point totals. Playing on the same line as a player much better offensively than you are often does, however. And with Francis, the evidence is overwhelming - never a top 10 scorer in the league (though very often 11-20), then suddenly a top 10 scorer 4 seasons in a row from the ages of 30-34, once his linemate Jagr starting winning Art Rosses. Then Francis goes to Carolina and his scoring drops back down to his pre-Jagr pace. His "Jagr bump" was fueled largely by secondary assists. And people who watched him play recognized that he wasn't as good as the numbers - he bascially got no Hart recognition until 2002 without Jagr (when he got a handful of votes), and his recognition for All-Star center was far lower than you would expect from his point totals. And we also have specific evidence of Jagr not missing a beat and inflating the point totals of his linemates in the seasons after Francis left.

Francis isn't a product of Jagr by any means, but his 1995-1998 statistical "peak" definitely was. I think that without Jagr, he continues being a 11-25 scorer like the rest of his career, save for the fringe top 10 finish in 2002 when a several of the league's best forwards were hurt.

Francis was a great player, much more longevity as a borderline elite player than Gilmour (or just about anyone). But really didnt have the dominant peak where he could be considered one of the best players in the world for a stretch.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 01:16 PM
  #31
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
what? no. You're telling me Francis at age 27-30 was better than Jagr at age 18-21. Of course he was!

The seasons that make Francis look like a player with a peak and not just a perrennial 70-85 point player, are 1995-1998, when he was top-10 in scoring for the first 4 times in his career. During that period he was outscored by Jagr by considerable margins and obviously owes a ton of those points to Jagr.
How does averaging over 82 points a season at 1.15 PPG in Hartford translate to just a perennial 70-85 point player?

Ron Francis had 9 seasons of over a PPG in Hartford, the same number Gilmour had in his entire career.

BM67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 01:34 PM
  #32
Soundgarden
Registered User
 
Soundgarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 6,038
vCash: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
How does averaging over 82 points a season at 1.15 PPG in Hartford translate to just a perennial 70-85 point player?

Ron Francis had 9 seasons of over a PPG in Hartford, the same number Gilmour had in his entire career.
Yes, I actually think most people are forgetting his time with Hartford, which is weird because when I think of Francis I think Hartford, could it be that his prime was with Hartford and he just got a boost playing with Jagr later in his career?

Soundgarden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 01:52 PM
  #33
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
How does averaging over 82 points a season at 1.15 PPG in Hartford translate to just a perennial 70-85 point player?

Ron Francis had 9 seasons of over a PPG in Hartford, the same number Gilmour had in his entire career.
If you want to call it poor choice of numbers be my guest, I just had his stat panel sorted by points by season, and when you eliminate 95-98, (94 should count as well) the 70-85 range (70-87, I should have said) is the one he falls into most often. It's an easy argument to make that Francis' point totals are Jagr-driven for four years, so I'm a little guilty of mailing that one in.

Gilmour's best 6 percentage scores, helped by no one, total 530 under my system. Francis' best 6 are 549, and that includes 103 for 1996, 96 for 1998, 91 for 1997 and 84 for 1995. Sans Jagr, what would his best six look like? My guess is about 510, and I say that fully realizing that those 4 seasons were still legitimate opportunities to post seasons in his "best 6" even without Jagr.

Francis' remarkable longevity should be noted, but it's not really until you're looking at 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th best seasons that he starts to distance himself from Gilmour (78, 76, 74, 70 to 71, 70, 63, 58) and by then it's too late.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 01:53 PM
  #34
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Francis was a great player, much more longevity as a borderline elite player than Gilmour (or just about anyone). But really didnt have the dominant peak where he could be considered one of the best players in the world for a stretch.
VS#2 method, no outliers removed. Ron Francis VS#2 Doug Gilmour VS#4 (should more than make up for any Pittsburgh distortion) best to worst

Player1234567891011121314151617181920212223
Francis95.60%86.11%85.56%84.29%82.57%79.87%78.29%77.66%77.50%72.58%67.57%66.41%65.87%60.00%55.08%54.81%54.61%50.34%48.60%46.26%45.98%45.83%43.90%
Gilmour100.00%98.13%92.70%84.88%84.54%79.82%73.98%71.68%71.07%60.50%58.89%57.73%56.67%53.23%51.2545.24%44.54%40.46%40.00%30.61%---

Big advantage to Gilmour of 2 spots difference in the VS used, and he only manages to take the top 5 spots, some by very narrow margins, before Francis starts blowing him away. Francis' worst score of his career is better than 3 of Gilmour's.

Not just longevity, but consistency, and not just good seasons, but very good seasons.

Francis averaged 1.15 PPG over almost 10 seasons in Hartford while Gilmour averaged 1.21 PPG in the 9 seasons he put up more than a PPG. Francis only had 3 seasons under the 0.73 PPG Gilmour averaged over his other 11 seasons.

BM67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 02:14 PM
  #35
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
If you want to call it poor choice of numbers be my guest, I just had his stat panel sorted by points by season, and when you eliminate 95-98, (94 should count as well) the 70-85 range (70-87, I should have said) is the one he falls into most often. It's an easy argument to make that Francis' point totals are Jagr-driven for four years, so I'm a little guilty of mailing that one in.

Gilmour's best 6 percentage scores, helped by no one, total 530 under my system. Francis' best 6 are 549, and that includes 103 for 1996, 96 for 1998, 91 for 1997 and 84 for 1995. Sans Jagr, what would his best six look like? My guess is about 510, and I say that fully realizing that those 4 seasons were still legitimate opportunities to post seasons in his "best 6" even without Jagr.

Francis' remarkable longevity should be noted, but it's not really until you're looking at 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th best seasons that he starts to distance himself from Gilmour (78, 76, 74, 70 to 71, 70, 63, 58) and by then it's too late.
Using adjusted points from Hockey-Reference, Francis played 3 seasons longer than Gilmour, take away Francis' 3 best seasons (317 points) and Francis would still beat Gilmour by 73 career adjusted points. Take away Francis' 4th best (94), and Gilmour's worst (33) and Francis is still ahead by 12 points.

BM67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 02:29 PM
  #36
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
Using adjusted points from Hockey-Reference, Francis played 3 seasons longer than Gilmour, take away Francis' 3 best seasons (317 points) and Francis would still beat Gilmour by 73 career adjusted points. Take away Francis' 4th best (94), and Gilmour's worst (33) and Francis is still ahead by 12 points.
ok, but we're not talking about compiling career totals, right?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 02:36 PM
  #37
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
RIP Kev
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,750
vCash: 445
Oh you guys just KNEW I was going to chime in on this one eventually.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckgenius View Post
Who was better in their prime?
Gilmour. I will say though on Francis's side that we don't know just how good he could have been in his prime with good but not elite support if they had kept that team together (Sanderson, Cassels, Verbeek, Nylander, Nikolishin, Holik, etc.) as he did have his fair share of strong seasons in Hartford before being moved to Pittsburgh, where that offense allowed him to increase his point totals in a huge way. I don't think it would have equaled Doug's prime though.

Quote:
Who had the better career?
Hard to say really, both won the Cup, both have had excellent seasons captaining underdog teams, etc. I'll give the edge to Francis here due to his freakish longevity and the fact that he was arguably just as good if not better at age 38 (01-02 season) then he was at 23. He really never had a lull in his career, basically every year he played until his final one was his "prime" which is basically unheard of.

Quote:
Who was better offensively?
Over the entirety of their careers, I think Francis might get the edge there if only very slightly. But at their best it was Gilmour.

Quote:
Who as better defensively?
Basically a wash, both were borderline elite two-way players. Not quite that Bobby Clarke level but when both were in their primes they were amazing, and to think we had Fedorov, Brind'Amour, and a few others doing many of the same things at the same time as them. Talk about a fantastic era for two-way forwards.

so, in conclusion, edge Gilmour, but it's fairly close.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 02:41 PM
  #38
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
VS#2 method, no outliers removed. Ron Francis VS#2 Doug Gilmour VS#4 (should more than make up for any Pittsburgh distortion) best to worst

Player1234567891011121314151617181920212223
Francis95.60%86.11%85.56%84.29%82.57%79.87%78.29%77.66%77.50%72.58%67.57%66.41%65.87%60.00%55.08%54.81%54.61%50.34%48.60%46.26%45.98%45.83%43.90%
Gilmour100.00%98.13%92.70%84.88%84.54%79.82%73.98%71.68%71.07%60.50%58.89%57.73%56.67%53.23%51.2545.24%44.54%40.46%40.00%30.61%---

Big advantage to Gilmour of 2 spots difference in the VS used, and he only manages to take the top 5 spots, some by very narrow margins, before Francis starts blowing him away. Francis' worst score of his career is better than 3 of Gilmour's.

Not just longevity, but consistency, and not just good seasons, but very good seasons.

Francis averaged 1.15 PPG over almost 10 seasons in Hartford while Gilmour averaged 1.21 PPG in the 9 seasons he put up more than a PPG. Francis only had 3 seasons under the 0.73 PPG Gilmour averaged over his other 11 seasons.
This gives Gilmour an advantage he doesn’t need, and doesn’t address the most important thing – that Francis clearly and obviously scored a lot more points than he otherwise would have, by having a significantly better player for a linemate in his four best seasons.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 02:44 PM
  #39
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
Oh you guys just KNEW I was going to chime in on this one eventually.




Gilmour. I will say though on Francis's side that we don't know just how good he could have been in his prime with good but not elite support if they had kept that team together (Sanderson, Cassels, Verbeek, Nylander, Nikolishin, Holik, etc.) as he did have his fair share of strong seasons in Hartford before being moved to Pittsburgh, where that offense allowed him to increase his point totals in a huge way. I don't think it would have equaled Doug's prime though.



Hard to say really, both won the Cup, both have had excellent seasons captaining underdog teams, etc. I'll give the edge to Francis here due to his freakish longevity and the fact that he was arguably just as good if not better at age 38 (01-02 season) then he was at 23. He really never had a lull in his career, basically every year he played until his final one was his "prime" which is basically unheard of.



Over the entirety of their careers, I think Francis might get the edge there if only very slightly. But at their best it was Gilmour.



Basically a wash, both were borderline elite two-way players. Not quite that Bobby Clarke level but when both were in their primes they were amazing, and to think we had Fedorov, Brind'Amour, and a few others doing many of the same things at the same time as them. Talk about a fantastic era for two-way forwards.

so, in conclusion, edge Gilmour, but it's fairly close.
I agree with the conclusion, and I’d rather not bicker over what degree of edge still constitutes “close”. But just to raise this question: Gilmour has two very obvious edges and those are three seasons top-5 in Hart voting, something Francis just can’t claim, and otherworldly playoff scoring, while Francis saw the usual expected decline in his playoff scoring. In a lot of other respects they are hair-splittingly even. Is there an area where Francis has a huge, obvious edge to make up for at least one of Gilmour’s?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 03:17 PM
  #40
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
ok, but we're not talking about compiling career totals, right?
Comparing how many points Francis put up in his 19 worst seasons vs Gilmour in his 19 best should go in Gilmour's favor shouldn't it? I discarded the 4 best years that distorted Francis' peak didn't I?

Let's get this straight.

That Francis got some extra points in his best years is important. OK.

That Gilmour put up up more points than Francis in his best years is important. OK.

That Francis put up more points than Gilmour, and a lot of them, in the rest of his career, 19 years, is not important. BS.

Francis put up 12.7% more adjusted points a season over a 15% longer career. That doesn't just get thrown away because it doesn't fit in his 5 year peak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
This gives Gilmour an advantage he doesn’t need, and doesn’t address the most important thing – that Francis clearly and obviously scored a lot more points than he otherwise would have, by having a significantly better player for a linemate in his four best seasons.
Raising Gilmour's scores for his entire career, doesn't address a disadvantage in 4-5 years? Over compensates for it maybe, but it certainly addresses it. It raises Gilmour's average score by over 10%.

In a straight VS#2 comparison, Gilmour wins the 3 best, and then Francis sweeps the rest, and Gilmour has 5 years worse than Francis' lowest score.

I get that you value peak, but how does career value not matter in a comparison of career value?

BM67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 03:39 PM
  #41
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
Comparing how many points Francis put up in his 19 worst seasons vs Gilmour in his 19 best should go in Gilmour's favor shouldn't it? I discarded the 4 best years that distorted Francis' peak didn't I?

Let's get this straight.

That Francis got some extra points in his best years is important. OK.

That Gilmour put up up more points than Francis in his best years is important. OK.

That Francis put up more points than Gilmour, and a lot of them, in the rest of his career, 19 years, is not important. BS.

Francis put up 12.7% more adjusted points a season over a 15% longer career. That doesn't just get thrown away because it doesn't fit in his 5 year peak.

Raising Gilmour's scores for his entire career, doesn't address a disadvantage in 4-5 years? Over compensates for it maybe, but it certainly addresses it. It raises Gilmour's average score by over 10%.
It doesn’t address the actual issue comparing Gilmour to #4; it addresses an issue that you made up. Why not try to adjust Francis’ best seasons appropriately by being realistic about what his output would have been like if not playing on the same line as the Art Ross winner?

Quote:
In a straight VS#2 comparison, Gilmour wins the 3 best, and then Francis sweeps the rest, and Gilmour has 5 years worse than Francis' lowest score.
Of course. But that’s not fair for obvious reasons.

Quote:
I get that you value peak, but how does career value not matter in a comparison of career value?
I’m actually “the guy who values career”. I’m a little more of a peak guy lately, but not more than the average HOH/ATD member.

Francis does start to look better further down the line. But it’s too little, too late to offset the obvious peak advantage Gilmour has – and it’s there, you’re just obscuring it.


Last edited by seventieslord: 10-17-2012 at 04:45 PM.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 04:31 PM
  #42
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
RIP Kev
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,750
vCash: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I agree with the conclusion, and I’d rather not bicker over what degree of edge still constitutes “close”. But just to raise this question: Gilmour has two very obvious edges and those are three seasons top-5 in Hart voting, something Francis just can’t claim, and otherworldly playoff scoring, while Francis saw the usual expected decline in his playoff scoring. In a lot of other respects they are hair-splittingly even. Is there an area where Francis has a huge, obvious edge to make up for at least one of Gilmour’s?
Longevity would be the big one, and that's not a bash on Gilmour's as he had a majority of his career as a legit #1, but with Francis it was outright freakish. He basically had a span of 20 years where he was a legit #1 center in the NHL (yeah, I know his stint in Pittsburgh he was #2 behind Mario, but he would have been a #1 on the majority of teams at that time). I really can't think of anyone else at the position who did that. Messier maybe? But even then after his first year in Vancouver I'd say "probably not", there's really not a time you could say that about Francis's career until his final one in the league where Brind'Amour and Staal started to take over.

Now playing style had a lot to do with that too. Francis's game lended itself to very methodical, low tempo play but also allowed him to function at a much higher level then most players even past what would be "best by date" realistically for most any player. Stylistically he was prettymuch the opposite of Gilmour in that regard, as someone fairly accurately described him earlier as playing in a way that would lead someone to believe he took years off his life in the process.


Last edited by DaveG: 10-17-2012 at 04:38 PM.
DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 05:30 PM
  #43
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
what? no. You're telling me Francis at age 27-30 was better than Jagr at age 18-21. Of course he was!

The seasons that make Francis look like a player with a peak and not just a perrennial 70-85 point player, are 1995-1998, when he was top-10 in scoring for the first 4 times in his career. During that period he was outscored by Jagr by considerable margins and obviously owes a ton of those points to Jagr.
But we are not comparing Francis to Jagr. Obviously Jagr's much better than Francis or Gilmour offensively.

Also, it should be added that Francis was a 90 point player at age 19 on one of the worst teams ever in Hartford in 82-83.(261 goals for - 403 goals against)

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 05:52 PM
  #44
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
But we are not comparing Francis to Jagr. Obviously Jagr's much better than Francis or Gilmour offensively.

Also, it should be added that Francis was a 90 point player at age 19 on one of the worst teams ever in Hartford in 82-83.(261 goals for - 403 goals against)
This is a fair point...if Francis is getting his point totals adjusted down for his time in Pittsburgh, then maybe he should get a slight adjustment up for being on such bad teams right before and after.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 06:11 PM
  #45
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
This is a fair point...if Francis is getting his point totals adjusted down for his time in Pittsburgh, then maybe he should get a slight adjustment up for being on such bad teams right before and after.
it's not about the team, it's about who was on his line. In Pittsburgh, he played with an all-time great on his line. Did he have historically bad linemates in that season in Hartford? It doesn't look like it. Stoughton and Mark Johnson, it appears. Certainly better than what Turgeon had to worn with in 1992-1994 with the Isles and he did even better with that.

And that's pretty typical for the center and/or best player on the line to have approximately that many more points than his linemates, so does it look like Francis was in a horrible situation where his linemates dragged him down? I don't think so. (regardless, a lot of people say "someone has to score on a bad team" which implies that being the focal point on a bad team can boost one's totals and there is some truth to it; no idea if it applies to Francis in that particular season though)

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 06:13 PM
  #46
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
But we are not comparing Francis to Jagr.
that's what you did though. Otherwise, why mention that Francis outscored him from 1991-1995 in the playoffs?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 06:22 PM
  #47
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,068
vCash: 500
Here's the vs. #2 numbers with Gretzky/Lemieux factored out and Francis' 1995-1998 years bolded.

Gilmour: 100, 99, 89, 83, 81, 78, 77, 72, 71, 70, 63, 58, 52, 47, 46, 45, 45, 43, 40, 29
Francis: 103, 96, 91, 89, 86, 84, 83, 80, 78, 76, 74, 70, 70, 70, 68, 64, 63, 62, 55, 50, 49, 49, 46


Here's what it looks like if you adjust the 4 Pittsburgh years down to an average of 84, which is worse than his two best non-Pittsburgh seasons and only one better than his 3rd best.

Gilmour: 100, 99, 89, 83, 81, 78, 77, 72, 71, 70, 63, 58, 52, 47, 46, 45, 45, 43, 40, 29
Francis: 89, 86, 84, 84, 84, 84, 83, 80, 78, 76, 74, 70, 70, 70, 68, 64, 63, 62, 55, 50, 49, 49, 46

With this adjustment...
Best 5 years
Gilmour: 452
Francis: 427
Gilmour +25

Next Best 5 years

Gilmour: 368
Francis: 401
Francis +33

Next Best 5 years
Gilmour: 266
Francis: 352
Francis +86

Next Best 5 years
Gilmour: 202
Francis: 294
Francis +92

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 09:38 PM
  #48
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
that's what you did though. Otherwise, why mention that Francis outscored him from 1991-1995 in the playoffs?
Because someone implied Francis benefited from Jagr, offensively, when they played together.

The comparison was merely to point out that it wasn't that big of a factor for the first few years in Pittsburgh.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 03:24 AM
  #49
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,463
vCash: 500
The peak worship is getting atrocious here. Yeah, Gilmour has the two clearly best seasons here. But looking at careers, his peak is an aberration, much more so than Francis' years with Jagr.

Gilmour has two seasons above 90 adjusted points (his 92-94 spike), Francis has four (the Jagr seasons). If we take those years out for both of them, Francis comes out far ahead. It doesn't make sense to me to utterly venerate a two-year perfect storm of Gilmour's on one hand, and to completely discount Francis' Pittsburgh years on the other one - and that's basically what's being done here.

Gilmour also gets some mileage out of his playoffs, but...

In 1993, Gilmour leads the playoffs in assists, is 5th in goals and finishes second in points. That's truly great playoffs, and it gets recognized as such and Gilmour is basically worshiped for it. Yet when Francis led the playoffs in assists, finished 3rd in points (by a point to leading Lemieux's linemate Stevens) and 5th in goals, it gets swept under the rug. And he did that as second line center.

You say Gilmour had a great playoff in 94 too, and that he didn't even make the finals in 93 & 94? Well, Francis finished 3rd in 95, despite the fact that Penguins lost in second round already...

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 04:10 AM
  #50
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I agree with the conclusion, and I’d rather not bicker over what degree of edge still constitutes “close”. But just to raise this question: Gilmour has two very obvious edges and those are three seasons top-5 in Hart voting, something Francis just can’t claim, and otherworldly playoff scoring, while Francis saw the usual expected decline in his playoff scoring. In a lot of other respects they are hair-splittingly even. Is there an area where Francis has a huge, obvious edge to make up for at least one of Gilmour’s?
Top 15 finishes

Francis: 8 (4 from 1995-1998 with Jagr)
Gilmour: 3

Top 20 finishes

Francis: 12
Gilmour: 6

Once you get past Gilmour's three year peak (where he got significant Hart votes all three seasons), Francis starts to look better.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:45 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.