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
Notices

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 53.93%
Ronny franchise 41 46.07%
Voters: 89. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-19-2012, 11:35 AM
  #76
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
and if you weigh that based on the same formula I used above, Gilmour's weighted "best 10" average is 34.7 and Francis' is 34.6.

no one is going to judge players like this: "_____ was much better at his best, but oh boy, in their respective 13th-best seasons, _____ was so much better than it makes up for it!"

any metric that attempts to take all factors into consideration seems to point to the same thing - comparing them based on offensive output is splitting hairs.

which leaves us looking at other factors. playoffs and hart voting, to start with...
That's right, it's not like Francis had a peak longer than 10 years!

Oh, wait, Francis probably did. 12 seasons above 1.10 PPG, and only 7 for Gilmour. 18 seasons above 0.94 PPG, and only 10 for Gilmour.

His 2nd highest PPG rate of 1.45 came in Hartford, and is a mark Gilmour beat only once.

Using Francis' assist/GP rate for the Jagr years, compare best to worst PPG rates.

Player1234567891011121314151617181920212223
Francis1.451.261.241.191.191.151.151.141.131.121.091.071.010.960.940.940.790.780.770.770.700.630.50
Gilmour1.531.341.311.191.181.171.121.041.010.990.890.840.780.750.730.720.660.590.540.48---

Gilmour is ahead in the best 3 years, then pretty much a tie for the next 3, then the drop Gilmour sees in 3 seasons takes Francis 7 years.

Gilmour's 10 best PPG rate is only 64.7% of his best, while Francis doesn't see that kind of drop off until around his 15th season.

Let's try again with adjusted points. Using Francis' adjusted assists for the Jagr years, compare best to worst adjusted points.

Player1234567891011121314151617181920212223
Francis8988858483807979787371696666646464636159494847
Gilmour102100898579777672727069636157464642414133---

Now that looks much better for Gilmour. He blows Francis away at the top, and Francis is a little ahead from 4-10. Nothing really stands out until you see that Gilmour's last 6 seasons are lower than Francis' worst.

Now it's not just about the points, so lets underline the years where each player received multiple Selke votes.

Trying to fit Francis into some one-size-fits-all formula is silly.

BM67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 12:09 PM
  #77
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,537
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Depends on the era, really. If you're playing in the trap-happy 90s where big and slow was the name of the game, you'd go with peak-Francis. If you're talking the speed and scoring era of the 80s, I think you have to take Gilmour. Outside of those two abilities, I think they were extremely similar, though Gilmour had more grit and aggression than Francis. That was just cancelled out because Gilmour was so small that he couldn't really use those abilities all that well most of the time.

So, in short:

Gilmour: Small, good skater, grit but not great physically, better in wide-open games than close quarters.

Francis: Big, slow, relatively soft, better in tight-checking games.

Otherwise, I think they're exactly the same.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 12:31 PM
  #78
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
Depends on the era, really. If you're playing in the trap-happy 90s where big and slow was the name of the game, you'd go with peak-Francis. If you're talking the speed and scoring era of the 80s, I think you have to take Gilmour. Outside of those two abilities, I think they were extremely similar, though Gilmour had more grit and aggression than Francis. That was just cancelled out because Gilmour was so small that he couldn't really use those abilities all that well most of the time.

So, in short:

Gilmour: Small, good skater, grit but not great physically, better in wide-open games than close quarters.

Francis: Big, slow, relatively soft, better in tight-checking games.

Otherwise, I think they're exactly the same.
You really think Gilmour's grit and aggression was cancelled out due to his size? That he couldn't use those abilities that well most of the time. Really? He sure seemed to use those abilities as well as anyone of any size. Sure if he was Lindros size he would have been a total monster but even at his size he was relentless physical and would fight for the puck at every opportunity. Gilmour was BETTER in the playoffs when it was more physical and less wide open.

They played in the EXACT SAME ERA. They were born only 3 months apart.

It is interesting. Gilmour was undrafted as an 18 year old. He went in the 1982 draft but he was born in 1963.

Of those born in 1963 who are HHOFers... Where do you rank them?

Ron Francis, Dale Hawerchuk, Al MacInnis, Chris Chelios, Doug Gilmour, Grant Fuhr. Hmmm interesting. Was Chelios undrafted at 18 years old as well? Well Fuhr and Chelios were born in 1962.

Does Hawerchuk's longer higher peak lose out to Gilmour and Francis with longer careers? I would have Chelios at the top of the bunch. Should MacInnis be second and higher then Francis, Gilmour, Hawerchuk?

Chelios, MacInnis, Gilmour, Francis, Hawerchuk, Fuhr for me.

Or does Fuhr rank higher? Should Fuhr be higher from all the Cups and the best on best tournaments he was selected to start in?

Sens Rule is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 01:03 PM
  #79
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,537
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
You really think Gilmour's grit and aggression was cancelled out due to his size? That he couldn't use those abilities that well most of the time. Really?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
He sure seemed to use those abilities as well as anyone of any size.
Sure. That doesn't change my point. He was 180lbs soaking wet. According to some anecdotes, he lost as much as 25lbs during playoff runs. He might have been the grittiest and most aggressive 5'11, 180lbs player in his era, but he was still 5'11, 180.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
Sure if he was Lindros size he would have been a total monster but even at his size he was relentless physical and would fight for the puck at every opportunity.
Sure. I can't say I've watched a game lately with him with this in mind, but how many of those puck battles did he win? If memory serves, he was a much better middle of the ice player than along the boards. Most of his good defensive play was his almost superhuman positional play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
Gilmour was BETTER in the playoffs when it was more physical and less wide open.
Gilmour's best playoff performances were in the late 80s/early 90s, when even the playoffs often saw 6-8 goal games and even low scoring games still saw a combined 60+ shots in regulation. I'd say, as well, that his playoff performances were arguably only as good as his regular season play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
They played in the EXACT SAME ERA. They were born only 3 months apart.
Sure. The question is about their career. In the 80s, I'd say Gilmour was the better player. Francis had good point numbers with the Whalers, but I'd argue he wasn't as good defensively with them, and he was also playing a lot of ice time and was the go-to-guy there. Gilmour wasn't the go-to-guy in St Louis (Federko) or Calgary (Nieuwendyk), and still managed some really good numbers. Francis really became a comparable player to Gilmour when he joined the Pens, IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
It is interesting. Gilmour was undrafted as an 18 year old. He went in the 1982 draft but he was born in 1963.
True, but it was much more common in the late 70s/early 80s for teams to draft 19 year old over 18 year olds, as 19 year olds were the cut-off year before then, and a lot of teams still held the position that they were the better choice with picks at that time. The fact that Gilmour was so small also contributed to his low selection. It was similar reasons that Brett Hull was selected so low and late (along with his poor conditioning), as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
Of those born in 1963 who are HHOFers... Where do you rank them?

Ron Francis, Dale Hawerchuk, Al MacInnis, Chris Chelios, Doug Gilmour, Grant Fuhr. Hmmm interesting. Was Chelios undrafted at 18 years old as well? Well Fuhr and Chelios were born in 1962.

Does Hawerchuk's longer higher peak lose out to Gilmour and Francis with longer careers? I would have Chelios at the top of the bunch. Should MacInnis be second and higher then Francis, Gilmour, Hawerchuk?

Chelios, MacInnis, Gilmour, Francis, Hawerchuk, Fuhr for me.

Or does Fuhr rank higher? Should Fuhr be higher from all the Cups and the best on best tournaments he was selected to start in?
I have a hard time comparing forward, defenseman and goalie careers, so it's a bit difficult for me to rank them here. Personally, I'd put MacInnis ahead of Chelios (Chelios' longevity isn't that impressive when you realize most of his career past 40 was as a 4-6 d-man, and MacInnis was still playing 30 minutes as the top-pair guy at 41), Hawerchuk ahead of Gilmour (Hawerchuk was much more consistent offensively, enough so that Gilmour's defense and playoff results are cancelled out) and Gilmour ahead of Francis ever so slightly (probably with bias, too). I'm also almost always required to rank a goalie ahead of a skater even if the goalie was 2nd-tier among others of the position. If I was absolutely forced to rank them, I'd probably put them:

Fuhr, Hawerchuk, MacInnis, Chelios, Gilmour, Francis.

Though I could see the argument that Fuhr wasn't as good as good, skill-wise, as the others.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 01:35 PM
  #80
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 6,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
I have a hard time comparing forward, defenseman and goalie careers, so it's a bit difficult for me to rank them here. Personally, I'd put MacInnis ahead of Chelios (Chelios' longevity isn't that impressive when you realize most of his career past 40 was as a 4-6 d-man, and MacInnis was still playing 30 minutes as the top-pair guy at 41),
This is off-topic, but this is simply a flat out lie. MacInnis didn't even play at age 41! At age 40 MacInnis only played 3 games in his last NHL season and averaged 24:59 TOI/G in those. In his last full season at age 39, he averaged 26:55 TOI/G. At ages 40 and 41 Chelios averaged 25:18 and 24:15 TOI/G, good for 2nd on his team behind Lidstrom. In the former, he placed 2nd in Norris voting and was a 1st team All-Star.

Your comparison also completely ignores the fact that when in their primes Chelios clearly had the better Norris and post-season All-Star voting record. There really isn't any case for MacInnis over Chelios. I encourage you to review the Top 60 Defensemen project for more info.


EDIT: It is true that at age 42 Chelios' TOI started to decline and he was no longer top 2 on his team, but MacInnis had essenitally been out of the league for two years at that point in his career so I don't see how that is relevant.


Last edited by Hawkey Town 18: 10-19-2012 at 01:51 PM.
Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 02:04 PM
  #81
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,537
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
This is off-topic, but this is simply a flat out lie. MacInnis didn't even play at age 41! At age 40 MacInnis only played 3 games in his last NHL season and averaged 24:59 TOI/G in those. In his last full season at age 39, he averaged 26:55 TOI/G. At ages 40 and 41 Chelios averaged 25:18 and 24:15 TOI/G, good for 2nd on his team behind Lidstrom. In the former, he placed 2nd in Norris voting and was a 1st team All-Star.
Really should doublecheck my memory on hockey-reference before I post.

Still, my main point still stands. MacInnis was a top-pair guy even in his last season (he averaged over 5 minutes more than STL's #2 guy, Khavanov, in his last season). Chelios was a clear #2 at 40 (injured for most of the season at 39), averaging 3 minutes less than Lidstrom, and 5 minutes more than the #3, was an arguable #2 at 38 with only 3 minutes more than #4 Steve Duchense, and was only 2 minutes more than Schneider at 41. One could even argue that he was only #2 at 40 because the rest of that defense was so poor (Slegr, Fischer, Krupp, Olausson/Duchense/Dandenault were the rest of their d-corps that year).

I'd still rank MacInnis ahead of Chelios based on stats alone. MacInnis had almost 1300 points in over 1400 games. Chelios managed less than 1000 points over 1651 games. I'd also argue that, even with Chelios' 3 Norris' over MacInnis' single, MacInnis was a higher impact player in his prime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Your comparison also completely ignores the fact that when in their primes Chelios clearly had the better Norris and post-season All-Star voting record. There really isn't any case for MacInnis over Chelios. I encourage you to review the Top 60 Defensemen project for more info.
Honestly, I fail to see how voting results in subjective trophy award tallies can be taken seriously as to evidence for who was the better player. There's been clear evidence in the past of biased voters and results in the past.

AFAIC, the numbers, career-wise, speak in MacInnis' favour, even if Chelios had a better peak (something I'd debate).

In any case, though, this is all subjective to begin with. Since it's off-topic, I suppose we'd be best to just agree to disagree.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 02:07 PM
  #82
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,837
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
R

Honestly, I fail to see how voting results in subjective trophy award tallies can be taken seriously as to evidence for who was the better player. There's been clear evidence in the past of biased voters and results in the past.
But the bias tends to favor offensive defensemen (like MacInnis) over more defensive ones (like Chelios), right?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 02:34 PM
  #83
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
That's right, it's not like Francis had a peak longer than 10 years!

Oh, wait, Francis probably did. 12 seasons above 1.10 PPG, and only 7 for Gilmour. 18 seasons above 0.94 PPG, and only 10 for Gilmour.

His 2nd highest PPG rate of 1.45 came in Hartford, and is a mark Gilmour beat only once.

Using Francis' assist/GP rate for the Jagr years, compare best to worst PPG rates.

Player1234567891011121314151617181920212223
Francis1.451.261.241.191.191.151.151.141.131.121.091.071.010.960.940.940.790.780.770.770.700.630.50
Gilmour1.531.341.311.191.181.171.121.041.010.990.890.840.780.750.730.720.660.590.540.48---

Gilmour is ahead in the best 3 years, then pretty much a tie for the next 3, then the drop Gilmour sees in 3 seasons takes Francis 7 years.

Gilmour's 10 best PPG rate is only 64.7% of his best, while Francis doesn't see that kind of drop off until around his 15th season.

Let's try again with adjusted points. Using Francis' adjusted assists for the Jagr years, compare best to worst adjusted points.

Player1234567891011121314151617181920212223
Francis8988858483807979787371696666646464636159494847
Gilmour102100898579777672727069636157464642414133---

Now that looks much better for Gilmour. He blows Francis away at the top, and Francis is a little ahead from 4-10. Nothing really stands out until you see that Gilmour's last 6 seasons are lower than Francis' worst.

Now it's not just about the points, so lets underline the years where each player received multiple Selke votes.

Trying to fit Francis into some one-size-fits-all formula is silly.
To put it quite simply, I don't care a hell of a lot if Francis compiled more points in his 11th-20th best seasons or whatever.

And I don’t think many do. There are some players with better “best” scores than Pierre Turgeon, as an example, but Turgeon makes up the ground on them by the time we’re looking at 6th-10th. And barely anyone even cares about that.

What we’re left with is this:

- They produced at about the same rate when their best ten years are considered and weighted – which is a longer period than most people would allow Francis to make up ground.
- Despite equal offensive output, Gilmour had seasons where he was considered among the five most valuable players in the game. Francis had none.
- Gilmour scored 23% more points per game over a very significant sample of games. And he was always the catalyst for his line at ES and on the PP… which Francis wasn’t always.
- If you take out his best two playoffs and do the same to Francis, he still scores 24% more points per game, just to show that this massive edge doesn’t just rely on 1993 and 1994.
- Even if you do care that Francis was a better producer beyond their best 10 seasons, it’s impossible to fathom how that should be considered more important than the massive advantage in playoff production and general impact as a player demonstrated by Hart voting.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 02:36 PM
  #84
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
That's true(albeit the 4th sort of barely). Just like Gilmour's 92-94 stretch is far above the rest, stats-wise.
We're back to this? Gilmour's 92-94 stretch was his own doing. Francis' 1995-98 was not.

Quote:
C'mon, it's far earlier than 13th best season when Francis gets ahead.
Yes, I know, but it's about that time where his regular season offensive resume actually starts to look better overall, and by then, who cares?


Last edited by seventieslord: 10-19-2012 at 05:30 PM.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 05:22 PM
  #85
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,537
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
But the bias tends to favor offensive defensemen (like MacInnis) over more defensive ones (like Chelios), right?
I recall an analysis somewhere that showed that NHL award voting has always been biased towards Eastern clubs. Granted, Chelios won two Norris' with Chicago, but MacInnis played in Calgary for a lot of his career (and won his only Norris in St. Louis). That was what I was referring to.

This is off-topic at this point, anyway, though. Consider this my last response on the matter.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 05:33 PM
  #86
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,537
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
We're back to this? Gilmour's 92-94 stretch was his own doing. Francis' 1995-98 was not.
Not to get into the middle of this argument, but I think this is false. Gilmour played 92-94 with Dave Andreychuk in his prime scoring 50 goals. Gilmour had never played with someone of that quality before or after for any stretch of time (he did play a few games with Brett Hull on his line in 1987-88). Even with that, he still managed 105 points in 1986-87 playing with the likes of Gino Cavallini and Greg Paslawski

Granted, Francis was playing with a much better player than Andreychuk in Jagr, but to claim that Gilmour's 92-94 period was his own doing, IMO, is a blatant lie. I'm more impressed with Gilmour's 73 points in 74 games with Buffalo in 1999-2000 than any of Francis' numbers with Pittsburgh post-Lemieux or Gilmour's totals in the early 90s.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 06:38 PM
  #87
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
Not to get into the middle of this argument, but I think this is false. Gilmour played 92-94 with Dave Andreychuk in his prime scoring 50 goals. Gilmour had never played with someone of that quality before or after for any stretch of time (he did play a few games with Brett Hull on his line in 1987-88). Even with that, he still managed 105 points in 1986-87 playing with the likes of Gino Cavallini and Greg Paslawski

Granted, Francis was playing with a much better player than Andreychuk in Jagr, but to claim that Gilmour's 92-94 period was his own doing, IMO, is a blatant lie. .
Are you kidding me? Following Andreychuk’s trade to Toronto, he had 166 points including the playoffs, through the end of 1993-94. Gilmour had 227 in that time. That’s 37% more. When you are contributing that much more than your linemates, yes, your point totals are your own doing.

In any situation where one linemate is outscoring another by a drastic amount, the correct assumption is that the lesser linemate is getting more points than they otherwise would. Obviously there are countless examples of this throughout history.

Andreychuk was never even close to Gilmour as a player. Obviously having him is better than having an aging Glenn Anderson and Mike Krushelnyski or something, but Gilmour was the catalyst for his line, and by a wide margin too.

Similarly, Jagr was Pittsburgh’s catalyst, averaging 23% more points per game in Francis’ most lucrative period there. Francis was the Andreychuk in that scenario, just to a lesser degree.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 06:55 PM
  #88
habsfanatics*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,053
vCash: 500
I would take Francis here without hesitation. The argument that he was a product of Jagr doesn't pass the smell test.

habsfanatics* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 07:57 PM
  #89
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,837
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
I recall an analysis somewhere that showed that NHL award voting has always been biased towards Eastern clubs. Granted, Chelios won two Norris' with Chicago, but MacInnis played in Calgary for a lot of his career (and won his only Norris in St. Louis). That was what I was referring to.

This is off-topic at this point, anyway, though. Consider this my last response on the matter.
That seems pretty sketchy to me, considering 17 of the last 30 Norris trophies (since 1982) went to Western Conference defensemen. Most awards in the 70s went to the Eastern Conference, but you'd expect that, since the Western Conference was mostly expansion teams.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 08:10 PM
  #90
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,537
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Are you kidding me? Following Andreychuk’s trade to Toronto, he had 166 points including the playoffs, through the end of 1993-94. Gilmour had 227 in that time. That’s 37% more. When you are contributing that much more than your linemates, yes, your point totals are your own doing.

In any situation where one linemate is outscoring another by a drastic amount, the correct assumption is that the lesser linemate is getting more points than they otherwise would. Obviously there are countless examples of this throughout history.

Andreychuk was never even close to Gilmour as a player. Obviously having him is better than having an aging Glenn Anderson and Mike Krushelnyski or something, but Gilmour was the catalyst for his line, and by a wide margin too.

Similarly, Jagr was Pittsburgh’s catalyst, averaging 23% more points per game in Francis’ most lucrative period there. Francis was the Andreychuk in that scenario, just to a lesser degree.
I guess we just have different definitions of "on his own". I'm more inclined to state Gilmour got his points on his own in 1986-87 when the #2 scorer had 72 points in 64 games and he was playing his regular shift most of the season with Gino Cavallini and Greg Paslawski, who managed to combine for only 3 more points on the season than him. Comparing that to Gilmour getting 127 and 111 points vs Andreychuk's 99 both seasons just doesn't sit with me. Was Gilmour mostly responsible for more of his points than Andreychuk was for his? Probably. Was it enough to say one contributed notably more to the others success? I'd argue against that idea. Beyond all this, Andreychuk's value largely exceeded his point total, as a lot of times he would fail to get points in goals that he had a large hand in by causing havoc in front of the net.

Francis was much more pronounced, getting 119 and 90 points while Lemieux was putting up 161 and 122 points and Jagr had 149 and 95 points. In 98, one could argue that Francis' 87 points vs Jagr's 102 is not significantly different enough to gage who, if either, was responsible for the other's totals that year. Add to that the fact that, offensively, if Francis didn't get a point of the goal, he generally didn't have any influence on it, and I think it's a much different comparison.

In the end, I don't think one has to be the de facto go-to-guy on a team, and probably more than that, I don't think one can say whether one or the other was more so than others except in extreme cases.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 08:18 PM
  #91
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,537
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
That seems pretty sketchy to me, considering 17 of the last 30 Norris trophies (since 1982) went to Western Conference defensemen. Most awards in the 70s went to the Eastern Conference, but you'd expect that, since the Western Conference was mostly expansion teams.
Detroit should count as an Eastern team, even if they're in the Western Conference, so that would make it 21 of 30 going to Eastern teams.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 09:02 PM
  #92
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
Francis was much more pronounced, getting 119 and 90 points while Lemieux was putting up 161 and 122 points and Jagr had 149 and 95 points. In 98, one could argue that Francis' 87 points vs Jagr's 102 is not significantly different enough to gage who, if either, was responsible for the other's totals that year. Add to that the fact that, offensively, if Francis didn't get a point of the goal, he generally didn't have any influence on it, and I think it's a much different comparison.

In the end, I don't think one has to be the de facto go-to-guy on a team, and probably more than that, I don't think one can say whether one or the other was more so than others except in extreme cases.
When a wing consistently outscores his center by 15-20+%, it should be apparent who is more responsible for driving the point production.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 10:50 PM
  #93
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Regardless, why can't a Leafs fan have a well-informed and objective opinion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
OK, fair enough. If this was the NHL or polls section I’d agree with you 100%. But here in the HOH section, poll results tend to be a lot more trustworthy.

What I like to do is take a look at who voted, and count only the people I can personally vouch for, regardless of what I think of them personally – so they are either frequent HOH or ATD members, and not just some kid who saw there was a poll from the index and jumped in.

By that metric, it’s 20-8 for Dougie. An inexact science, admittedly.
Okay it's okay for Leaf fans but not guys that you can't vouch for?

The ATD love in thing really does carry on over into the history section doesn't it?

It's a poll, nothing more and nothing less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
These are the raw numbers of the percentage of their teams' total GF have Gilmour and Francis been responsible over the course of their careers. This metric favors Gilmour a bit (as he missed fewer games with injuries in his prime), I might do one based on PPG later. It also puts Francis' years with Pens down to Earth a bit, which is fine.

Gilmour: 18, 19, 18, 37, 31, 24, 26, 24, 33, 44, 40, 24, 29, 36, 24, 28, 32, 17, 20, 15

Francis: 26, 34, 29, 30, 23, 32, 30, 26, 37, 35, 16, 27, 31, 33, 33, 32, 38, 25, 34, 31, 35, 33, 22

Seasons over:
40% - Gilmour 2, Francis 0
30% - Gilmour 7, Francis 15

Seasons below 20% - Gilmour 5, Francis 1

Average contribution: Gilmour 27%, Francis 31%

The difference in consistency is staggering. No matter the team, age or league scoring level, Francis was almost always contributing greatly to his teams' offense. Francis was contributing one third of his team's offense at age 39. Gilmour peaked higher - for two seasons. Otherwise, he's quite a way off. Francis was 13% greater contributor to his teams' offense on average than Gilmour, and he did so in a career that was longer.
This is why I have Francis slightly ahead, he was simply extremely consistent from start to finish in his career, something every player strives for?

The 2 guys are really close though and the total poll refelcts that much more than the vouched for 28.

Chances are in the top centers of all time, when we get to them, the 28 group will rule the day though.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 11:05 PM
  #94
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
That seems pretty sketchy to me, considering 17 of the last 30 Norris trophies (since 1982) went to Western Conference defensemen. Most awards in the 70s went to the Eastern Conference, but you'd expect that, since the Western Conference was mostly expansion teams.
11 of those 17 have been from 98-12 and the Nick Lidstrom factor as well.

As recently as the 10 season, the Canucks were making a serious push for hank as MVP and often cited the eastern media bias in voting on the Hart.

Too much value is placed on winning any award IMO as often the 2nd place guys is equally or nearly as worthy, being in the mix should count for something as well.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 11:15 PM
  #95
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
When a wing consistently outscores his center by 15-20+%, it should be apparent who is more responsible for driving the point production.
Sure Jagr was driving the production of that line but we are talking a top 10 guy of all time, maybe top 5 offensively.

Also maybe playing with such a good 2 way guy like Francis at 20 helped in Jagrs development as well?

Francis was still the center and carrying the defensive load of that line and he must have still been have decent to be on with Jagr right?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 11:36 PM
  #96
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,837
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
11 of those 17 have been from 98-12 and the Nick Lidstrom factor as well.

As recently as the 10 season, the Canucks were making a serious push for hank as MVP and often cited the eastern media bias in voting on the Hart.

Too much value is placed on winning any award IMO as often the 2nd place guys is equally or nearly as worthy, being in the mix should count for something as well.
Sounds like a bunch of Homer nonsense. Henrik Sedin won a Hart (despite the fact that Crosby only had a couple of fewer points, many more goals, and had much greater defensive assignments) and it's East Coast bias that he didn't win a second one?

Edit: oops, you were talking about a push before he won his Hart. Still though, the fact that he actually won it helps make the East coast bias thing seem silly IMO


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 10-20-2012 at 02:28 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2012, 01:03 AM
  #97
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
I guess we just have different definitions of "on his own". I'm more inclined to state Gilmour got his points on his own in 1986-87 when the #2 scorer had 72 points in 64 games and he was playing his regular shift most of the season with Gino Cavallini and Greg Paslawski, who managed to combine for only 3 more points on the season than him. Comparing that to Gilmour getting 127 and 111 points vs Andreychuk's 99 both seasons just doesn't sit with me. Was Gilmour mostly responsible for more of his points than Andreychuk was for his? Probably.
Yes, obviously. Especially when you consider:

- what happened to their scoring in the playoffs
- how Andreychuk was producing both before and after being trade to Toronto

Quote:
Was it enough to say one contributed notably more to the others success? I'd argue against that idea.
If a PPG average 37% higher isn't enough for you to admit one linemate is driving the bus, then nothing will.

Quote:
Beyond all this, Andreychuk's value largely exceeded his point total, as a lot of times he would fail to get points in goals that he had a large hand in by causing havoc in front of the net.
Honestly, that was only a value on the PP, and that also just highlights how underwhelming an even strength producer he was in his career.

Quote:
Francis was much more pronounced, getting 119 and 90 points while Lemieux was putting up 161 and 122 points and Jagr had 149 and 95 points. In 98, one could argue that Francis' 87 points vs Jagr's 102 is not significantly different enough to gage who, if either, was responsible for the other's totals that year. Add to that the fact that, offensively, if Francis didn't get a point of the goal, he generally didn't have any influence on it, and I think it's a much different comparison.
In 1998 Jagr was scoring 23% more points per game. Yes, he was driving the bus. No, nobody would ever claim with a straight face that maybe Francis was responsible for Jagr's totals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Okay it's okay for Leaf fans but not guys that you can't vouch for?
You missed the point of what I was saying. I know there are plenty of unrealistic homer Leaf fans. I'm just pointing out that not all Leaf fans are unrealistic homers.

Quote:
The 2 guys are really close though and the total poll refelcts that much more than the vouched for 28.

Chances are in the top centers of all time, when we get to them, the 28 group will rule the day though.
Oh, give it a rest. Out of those 20, there was a grand total of zero who I know from the ATD and not from this section.


Last edited by seventieslord: 10-21-2012 at 01:44 AM.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2012, 01:25 AM
  #98
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
First of all, Francis was nowhere near the leech you guys try to paint him as in the Jagr-Francis relationship. They benefited eachother, and sure Jagr was the bigger factor, maybe by a 60-40 or 65-35 - but I don't see players like Kurri, Kariya, Leclair or Shanahan taking flak for playing with a better player and benefiting from it. And it's only right, since they (and Francis) were all great players in their own right.

And second, it's four seasons of greatness marred by Jagr's influence compared to just two. Gilmour's peak was short, distinct from his usual play level and came in extremely high scoring years, making it look better than it really is.
i wonder if part of it is b/c francis was a C and the other "sidekick" players were W's.

seems those others get credit for the relative weakness of their position, while francis gets punished for the strength of his. everyone is used to C's driving the play and W's being junior partners.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2012, 02:19 AM
  #99
Anton13
Registered User
 
Anton13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Country: Finland
Posts: 183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
Not to get into the middle of this argument, but I think this is false. Gilmour played 92-94 with Dave Andreychuk in his prime scoring 50 goals. Gilmour had never played with someone of that quality before or after for any stretch of time (he did play a few games with Brett Hull on his line in 1987-88). Even with that, he still managed 105 points in 1986-87 playing with the likes of Gino Cavallini and Greg Paslawski
In his book Theo Fleury states that "Gilmour was the best centreman I ever played with". I think Theo was better than Andreychuk (or at least equal) but I have no idea how much he really played with Gilmour?

Anton13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2012, 02:32 AM
  #100
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Sure Jagr was driving the production of that line but we are talking a top 10 guy of all time, maybe top 5 offensively.

Also maybe playing with such a good 2 way guy like Francis at 20 helped in Jagrs development as well?

Francis was still the center and carrying the defensive load of that line and he must have still been have decent to be on with Jagr right?
I was responding to a specific assertion that it was basically impossible to tell who was driving the Francis-Jagr line to such high levels of production.

It's not simply that they had a big year together. It was four consecutive seasons, while Francis was in his 30s, which were basically the four best seasons of his career (in terms of adjusted points, points finishes, plus-minus, etc.) and which were heights he didn't reach before or after. It's similar to (a poor man's version of) Espo peaking at a late age with Orr and the Bruins, while never coming close to those heights with Chicago or the Rangers before and after his time in Boston. Also, Francis was not the only player to hit career high levels with Jagr. Players like Nedved, Straka, Barnes, Hrdina, Miller, Nylander, Giroux, Hartnell, etc. all had career high years or very near to career highs while playing on Jagr's line. Some of those may be coincidental, at least to some degree, but surely not most or all of them IMO.

Francis was obviously much more than decent, even as an offensive player, let alone as a two-way center. I have much respect for him as a player and person, and did not mean to insult him or his legacy. However, humble as he was/is, he would probably admit himself that he would not have achieved those high point totals/finishes without being on Jagr's line (including both his and Lemieux's in '97). Francis was a class act, had a great all-around game, and came through when it mattered most. I was only trying to be realistic about his peak statistical accomplishments, not downplay his long and excellent career.

Czech Your Math 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 08:00 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.