HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Were Gretzky And Mario "200-Foot Giants" When They Played?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-01-2011, 03:01 PM
  #51
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jepjepjoo View Post
Are you saying Selanne held Tkachuk back? Davydov never passed the 20 point mark outside of 92-93. Steen was obviously slowing down at that point of his career.
1992-93 was also the only full season Davydov ever played. So that's a BIG strawman. It's like saying Luc Bourdon, Alexei Cherepanov, and Igor Grigorenko are busts.

Quote:
1.667 is the average. That means Selanne's totals are 110(34 from assists) and Gilmour's are 89(57 from assists). That's a 21 goal difference
Huh? Did you just multiply their assists by 2/3, and then add it to their goals as if it were their point totals? You clearly didn't understand at ALL what I was saying.

I said there were an average of 1.5 assists per goal. As 1/1.5=2/3, I deducted 2/3 of each player's assists from the remaining top four. Using your number, that makes it 3/5. So we deduct that amount instead; that results in 71 for the Jets and 41 for Toronto. The only way Toronto ends up with more secondary scoring WITHOUT Gilmour is if there were 1.7 more goals than assists.

Quote:
Well that is a valid argument... I'm not sure if we are arguing about the same thing originally since I simply suggested that Winnipeg was not a deep offensive team full of offensive stars.
Neither was Toronto. Unless you think a team with a top-two defensemen of Todd Gill and Dave Ellett, and top-six forwards that include Peter Zezel and Rob Pearson (and sometimes Mike Krushelnyski) is some kind of offensive powerhouse... well, I don't know what to tell you. Winnipeg had Phil Housley, Fredrik Olausson, and Teppo Numminen. Puts Toronto's defense to shame offensively. Gill, Ellett, and guys like Rouse and Macoun could shut it down... but they weren't terribly skilled offensively. Swap Housley for Gill or Ellett and watch that offense go nuts.

Quote:
Selanne had 23.6% of the Jets goals
Gilmour had 19.6% of the Leafs assists
Ok... Gilmour had 95 assists which is almost the entire total of the Leafs' top four remaining goal scorers. That was my point.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2011, 03:31 PM
  #52
jepjepjoo
Registered User
 
jepjepjoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
The only way Toronto ends up with more secondary scoring WITHOUT Gilmour is if there were 1.7 more goals than assists.
1.685 more assists than goals for Toronto... Is that close enough?

Quote:
I said there were an average of 1.5 assists per goal.
And you were wrong.

Quote:
1992-93 was also the only full season Davydov ever played. So that's a BIG strawman. It's like saying Luc Bourdon, Alexei Cherepanov, and Igor Grigorenko are busts.
Davydov was a bust plain and simple. He wasn't exactly an offensive wizard at any level.

jepjepjoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2011, 03:45 PM
  #53
jepjepjoo
Registered User
 
jepjepjoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
1992-93 I said there were an average of 1.5 assists per goal. As 1/1.5=2/3, I deducted 2/3 of each player's assists from the remaining top four. Using your number, that makes it 3/5. So we deduct that amount instead; that results in 71 for the Jets and 41 for Toronto. The only way Toronto ends up with more secondary scoring WITHOUT Gilmour is if there were 1.7 more goals than assists.
Quote:
Generally, there are an average of 1.5 assists (or therabouts) per goal each year. So let's apply that difference to those top fours; meaning two thirds of each player's assist number shall be deducted.
Could you explain this in depth? I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying...

jepjepjoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2011, 09:09 PM
  #54
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,991
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Based on the way you talk about gilmour, you make it sound like his 3 best seasons are every bit as good as forsberg's. Yet on all time rankings hes always a fringe top 100 player. Gilmour was the datsyuk of the mid 90's, hes not on the level of a forsberg.
The real Forsberg or the hfboards-youtube-highlight-reel Forsberg?

It sounds like you're talking more about the second one, or continuing to have no idea what Gilmour was really like at his absolute best during those special 93 & 94 seasons and playoffs.

And that being the case, I'm just wasting my time.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 12:12 AM
  #55
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,464
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
The real Forsberg or the hfboards-youtube-highlight-reel Forsberg?

It sounds like you're talking more about the second one, or continuing to have no idea what Gilmour was really like at his absolute best during those special 93 & 94 seasons and playoffs.

And that being the case, I'm just wasting my time.
It's the playoffs mixed with the seasons that makes it special, but the seasons alone were just regular superstar seasons, he just happened to play in toronto during his peak, therefore it got more recognition.

Gilmour was left off the hfboards top 100 and any hockeynews rankings, i guess everyone is just a noob. He was the datsyuk of his era, you are just making him out to be bigger than he actually was. Datsyuk is the better goal scorer and every bit as good defensively, i dont need to be convinced that there is a masive gap between them because there isn't.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 12:21 AM
  #56
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jepjepjoo View Post
1.685 more assists than goals for Toronto... Is that close enough?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jepjepjoo View Post
Could you explain this in depth? I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying...
Ok. We'll go with the 5/3 number (1.667) you provided earlier for simplicity's sake.

That means 5 assists for every three goals. So if we're removing the presence of Gilmour and Selanne, we can't simply take away their goals. We have to also take away their assists. The goals would be 3/5 of the assists; 57 in Gilmour's case and 34 in Selanne's case. That is how many goals we eliminate from their absence. Winnipeg's top four ends up with 69 against Toronto's 47. Apparently posting without having slept for 20 hours due to an 18 month-old affected my final numbers in my earlier post Regardless, the conclusion is the same; Gilmour's absence affects Toronto a great deal more.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 12:25 AM
  #57
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
i'd rather have kessel on my team, by the way, than rick nash. coaches and media seem to fetishize high end offensive guys who can play two ways, but at least kessel tries on half of the ice surface.
Before Kessel had this crazy start, I was actually starting to think he was as good as Nash.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 12:25 AM
  #58
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
It's the playoffs mixed with the seasons that makes it special, but the seasons alone were just regular superstar seasons, he just happened to play in toronto during his peak, therefore it got more recognition.

Gilmour was left off the hfboards top 100 and any hockeynews rankings, i guess everyone is just a noob. He was the datsyuk of his era, you are just making him out to be bigger than he actually was. Datsyuk is the better goal scorer and every bit as good defensively, i dont need to be convinced that there is a masive gap between them because there isn't.
Gilmour was never a superstar. He had some pretty good seasons, but only in 92-93 and 93-94 did anyone consider him to be a top center. Datsyuk has been considered a top center for most of his career. If you're looking for a "Datsyuk" of that era in terms of a great point producer who is also great defensively, you have two options. Ron Francis and Sergei Fedorov.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 12:43 AM
  #59
Poignant Discussion
I tell it like it is
 
Poignant Discussion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gatineau, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Poignant Discussion Send a message via Yahoo to Poignant Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
It's the playoffs mixed with the seasons that makes it special, but the seasons alone were just regular superstar seasons, he just happened to play in toronto during his peak, therefore it got more recognition.

Gilmour was left off the hfboards top 100 and any hockeynews rankings, i guess everyone is just a noob. He was the datsyuk of his era, you are just making him out to be bigger than he actually was. Datsyuk is the better goal scorer and every bit as good defensively, i dont need to be convinced that there is a masive gap between them because there isn't.
You are obviously not old enough to be a part of this conversation. Without Gilmour (And Burns) the 1992-92 Leafs were a bottom 5 team, with Gilmour they were 2 goals away (or a missed high stick) from their first finals in 25 years

Poignant Discussion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 12:57 AM
  #60
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
It's the playoffs mixed with the seasons that makes it special, but the seasons alone were just regular superstar seasons, he just happened to play in toronto during his peak, therefore it got more recognition.

Gilmour was left off the hfboards top 100 and any hockeynews rankings, i guess everyone is just a noob. He was the datsyuk of his era, you are just making him out to be bigger than he actually was. Datsyuk is the better goal scorer and every bit as good defensively, i dont need to be convinced that there is a masive gap between them because there isn't.
You don't have to be a top 100 player to be better than Datsyuk. This is like the guy who said that Oates is close to Niewendyk if you remove Oates' 2 best seasons. Yeah, Gilmour = Datsyuk (with a slightly different skillset) if you remove his best 2 seasons (and the correponding playoffs).

Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Gilmour was never a superstar. He had some pretty good seasons, but only in 92-93 and 93-94 did anyone consider him to be a top center. Datsyuk has been considered a top center for most of his career. If you're looking for a "Datsyuk" of that era in terms of a great point producer who is also great defensively, you have two options. Ron Francis and Sergei Fedorov.
2nd in Hart voting to Mario Lemieux is not a superstar?

I realize Gilmour's peak was incredibly short, but even in his non-peak years, he was still the best center the NJ Devils ever had. (Granted center has generally been the franchise weakness)


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-02-2011 at 01:12 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 01:30 AM
  #61
jepjepjoo
Registered User
 
jepjepjoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Ok. We'll go with the 5/3 number (1.667) you provided earlier for simplicity's sake.

That means 5 assists for every three goals. So if we're removing the presence of Gilmour and Selanne, we can't simply take away their goals. We have to also take away their assists. The goals would be 3/5 of the assists; 57 in Gilmour's case and 34 in Selanne's case. That is how many goals we eliminate from their absence. Winnipeg's top four ends up with 69 against Toronto's 47. Apparently posting without having slept for 20 hours due to an 18 month-old affected my final numbers in my earlier post Regardless, the conclusion is the same; Gilmour's absence affects Toronto a great deal more.
Understood, but not agreed.

57+32=89 30.9% of team offense
34+76=110 34.2% of team offense

jepjepjoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 02:18 AM
  #62
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,776
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
2nd in Hart voting to Mario Lemieux is not a superstar?
Let's be honest here, Gilmour was never one of the top 5 players in the NHL at any time. How the guy finished ahead of two guys who scored 76 goals with the same or more points is rediculous and total Toronto bias. Hell, there were guys he beat out in voting that scored 20 more points than him. Want to give it to a guy with no other offensive support - give it to Oates who had more goals, points, and actually made Joe Juneau look like a star while leading his team to a better season.

Gilmour coming in 2nd would be like Henrik Zetterberg finishing 2nd in Hart trophy voting last year...just unreasonable.

DJOpus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 10:36 AM
  #63
LeBlondeDemon10
10 AM Its Automatic
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,898
vCash: 500
Hart Memorial Trophy - is awarded annually to the player judged most valuable to his team, as selected by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association.

No where does it state that this award is presented to the the player for being the best player in the league or top 5 player at any time in his career or even for being HHOF worthy. It is awarded annually to the player, based on the circumstances of that season, considered to be most valuable to his team. You had to be around to see Gilmour play during that season, and I'm not from Toronto. I think he could have shared the award with Lemieux based on the true definition of the award.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 10:40 AM
  #64
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Let's be honest here, Gilmour was never one of the top 5 players in the NHL at any time. How the guy finished ahead of two guys who scored 76 goals with the same or more points is rediculous and total Toronto bias. Hell, there were guys he beat out in voting that scored 20 more points than him. Want to give it to a guy with no other offensive support - give it to Oates who had more goals, points, and actually made Joe Juneau look like a star while leading his team to a better season.

Gilmour coming in 2nd would be like Henrik Zetterberg finishing 2nd in Hart trophy voting last year...just unreasonable.
Agreed, Gilmour was never anything spectacular, he had a couple very good seasons, anyone calling him a superstar hadn't watched his career imo.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 10:24 PM
  #65
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Let's be honest here, Gilmour was never one of the top 5 players in the NHL at any time. How the guy finished ahead of two guys who scored 76 goals with the same or more points is rediculous and total Toronto bias. Hell, there were guys he beat out in voting that scored 20 more points than him. Want to give it to a guy with no other offensive support - give it to Oates who had more goals, points, and actually made Joe Juneau look like a star while leading his team to a better season.

Gilmour coming in 2nd would be like Henrik Zetterberg finishing 2nd in Hart trophy voting last year...just unreasonable.
Oates couldn't reaslistically win the Hart - he wasn't Boston's MVP. Raymond Bourque was. Did you forget he existed? It's a long jump from Todd Gill to Ray Bourque. Watch your step.

Also, on the Zetterberg thing... I DO think Zetterberg deserved to be 2nd last year; behind Rinne. Zetterberg was 18 points ahead of his next-highest scoring teammate (second largest gap, Ovechkin 20 is the largest) and Zetterberg's 21-point gap ahead of Datsyuk is the largest from a team's leading scorer to the next forward. He was also 9th in scoring and among the league's best defensive forwards. The Hart finalists last year should have been Rinne, Zetterberg, and Ovechkin.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 11:22 PM
  #66
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,991
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Let's be honest here, Gilmour was never one of the top 5 players in the NHL at any time.
You haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about.

If you didn't see those Leaf teams at the time you haven't got a clue how important he was to them.

For the two year span of 92-93 and 93-94 and including playoffs, Gilmour was the best player in the world.

There, I said it.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 11:27 PM
  #67
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,991
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Agreed, Gilmour was never anything spectacular, he had a couple very good seasons, anyone calling him a superstar hadn't watched his career imo.
Hilariously downplaying just how huge he was even if he wasn't able to keep up that peak play a long time - he was definitely a superstar.

You know, doing commercials, getting called out on national TV and nominated for the Hart but just an average joe, I guess.








BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2011, 12:20 AM
  #68
redbull
game on
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
You haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about.

If you didn't see those Leaf teams at the time you haven't got a clue how important he was to them.

For the two year span of 92-93 and 93-94 and including playoffs, Gilmour was the best player in the world.

There, I said it.
bit of a jump there...but besides the bolded part, I'll agree with you, Gilmour was AMONG the best in the world in that timeframe.

Selanne, Mogilny, Bure, Mario, Lafontaine - Gilmour was in the conversation.

redbull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2011, 12:30 AM
  #69
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
bit of a jump there...but besides the bolded part, I'll agree with you, Gilmour was AMONG the best in the world in that timeframe.

Selanne, Mogilny, Bure, Mario, Lafontaine - Gilmour was in the conversation.
Yzerman, Fedorov, Bourque, Gretzky?

I'm shocked that you went to Mogilny and Bure over those four.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2011, 12:35 AM
  #70
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,210
vCash: 500
Patrick Roy was probably also in the conversation.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2011, 12:58 AM
  #71
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
For the two year span of 92-93 and 93-94 and including playoffs, Gilmour was the best player in the world.

There, I said it.
And you ought to be ashamed of yourself for that.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2011, 10:17 AM
  #72
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,991
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
And you ought to be ashamed of yourself for that.
Can't be ashamed of the truth.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2011, 11:19 AM
  #73
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
There was never a time when Doug Gilmour was the best player in the world. This is a gross exaggeration on your behalf. He had two very good seasons no doubt, but no, he wasn't the best player in the world over this short time span.

1992-93, no way his defensive play makes up for 30-40 gaps of other scorers and Mario blows him away by a landslide with 69 goals in 60 games.

1993-94, fedorov blows him away and so does Bure.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2011, 11:25 AM
  #74
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
There was never a time when Doug Gilmour was the best player in the world. This is a gross exaggeration on your behalf. He had two very good seasons no doubt, but no, he wasn't the best player in the world over this short time span.

1992-93, no way his defensive play makes up for 30-40 gaps of other scorers and Mario blows him away by a landslide with 69 goals in 60 games.

1993-94, fedorov blows him away and so does Bure.
And Gretzky outperformed him in both the 93 playoffs and the 93-94 regular season....

tazzy19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2011, 01:06 PM
  #75
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Hilariously downplaying just how huge he was even if he wasn't able to keep up that peak play a long time - he was definitely a superstar.

You know, doing commercials, getting called out on national TV and nominated for the Hart but just an average joe, I guess.







OMG, milk, head and shoulders and the non biased towards kington don cherry. you certainly proven your point here.

Mario lemieux ` 6069 91 160
Pat LaFontaine Buffalo 84 53 95 148
Adam Oates Boston 84 41 97 142
Steve Yzerman Detroit 84 58 79 137
Teemu Selanne Winnipeg 84 76 56 132
Pierre Turgeon NY I 83 58 74 132
Alexander Mogilny Buffalo 77 76 51 127
Doug Gilmour Toronto 83 32 95 127
Luc Robitaille Los Angele 84 63 62 125
Mark Recchi Philadelphi 84 53 70 123

Sry, but all the commercials in the world can't overcome, 20, 30, 35 goal differential. Toronto hadn't had a lot to be excited about and Gilmour was over hyped because of it.

habsjunkie2* 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 10:40 PM.

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.