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 vs. Shanahan

View Poll Results: Gilmour vs. Shanahan
Gilmour 35 66.04%
Shanahan 18 33.96%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-07-2010, 03:10 PM
  #26
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,738
vCash: 500
Real Reasons

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Me too. Considering oates currently holds a 19-9 advantage on Shanahan, and Gilmour is beating Oates head to head in C1958's poll, 7-4.

Can only really be explained by different people voting in different polls.
Nope. My poll is a public poll while the two started by Big Phil seem to be private polls so those who favour anonymity will participate.

My poll has not been tainted by pollster bias with my comments. Nor will it be tainted. It allows the participants to debat and vote. Big Phil"s polls are full of pollster bias with regular comments from him trying to slant the poll towards the center as opposed to the left winger.Post #23 in this thread being a prime example - not only is the poll starter arguing for one over the other but now he is trying to rally support to his view when the results are not to his liking.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2010, 10:15 PM
  #27
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Nope. My poll is a public poll while the two started by Big Phil seem to be private polls so those who favour anonymity will participate.

My poll has not been tainted by pollster bias with my comments. Nor will it be tainted. It allows the participants to debat and vote. Big Phil"s polls are full of pollster bias with regular comments from him trying to slant the poll towards the center as opposed to the left winger.Post #23 in this thread being a prime example - not only is the poll starter arguing for one over the other but now he is trying to rally support to his view when the results are not to his liking.
What's wrong with that? You are free to make your comments as to why people should vote for the winger too - and you have - and the results are what they are.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2010, 10:48 PM
  #28
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,738
vCash: 500
Conflict of Interest

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
What's wrong with that? You are free to make your comments as to why people should vote for the winger too - and you have - and the results are what they are.
Conflict of interest. A pollster has to be independent.When I start a poll I recuse myself except for clarification purposes. I did not start the poll comparing the center to the winger hence I am not the pollster and am free to comment.

Imagine for a moment a product poll where the interviewer presents one of the products as better or preferable than the other and tries to convince those whose answer he does not favour of their error or casts aspersions on their intelligence. Likewise a political poll where the pollster favours one candidate and uses the guise of a poll to try and convince each respondant with a different view than the pollster of the error of their views.

If you want to debate then debate instead of using a cheap playground tactic to try and influence a discussion.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2010, 10:56 PM
  #29
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Conflict of interest. A pollster has to be independent.When I start a poll I recuse myself except for clarification purposes. I did not start the poll comparing the center to the winger hence I am not the pollster and am free to comment.

Imagine for a moment a product poll where the interviewer presents one of the products as better or preferable than the other and tries to convince those whose answer he does not favour of their error or casts aspersions on their intelligence. Likewise a political poll where the pollster favours one candidate and uses the guise of a poll to try and convince each respondant with a different view than the pollster of the error of their views.

If you want to debate then debate instead of using a cheap playground tactic to try and influence a discussion.
That's your view on what an online poll about hockey players should be. I do not share this view. You're not any more right than I am.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2010, 11:13 PM
  #30
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,738
vCash: 500
Great Progress

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
That's your view on what an online poll about hockey players should be. I do not share this view. You're not any more right than I am.
Great progress has been made tonight. The corollary would be that non one is more wrong than you are either. So the logical conclusion would be that no one should in any shape or form question the intelligence of another poster rather they should have the basic courtesy and intellectual curiosity to explore a different point of view.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2010, 11:35 PM
  #31
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Great progress has been made tonight. The corollary would be that non one is more wrong than you are either. So the logical conclusion would be that no one should in any shape or form question the intelligence of another poster rather they should have the basic courtesy and intellectual curiosity to explore a different point of view.
*sigh*

You are arguing with me about the right way to conduct oneself in an online poll. There is no right way. Our opinions differ. Get off your high horse.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 12:26 AM
  #32
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Nope. My poll is a public poll while the two started by Big Phil seem to be private polls so those who favour anonymity will participate.

My poll has not been tainted by pollster bias with my comments. Nor will it be tainted. It allows the participants to debat and vote. Big Phil"s polls are full of pollster bias with regular comments from him trying to slant the poll towards the center as opposed to the left winger.Post #23 in this thread being a prime example - not only is the poll starter arguing for one over the other but now he is trying to rally support to his view when the results are not to his liking.
I support Gilmour of course but what's important is the OP. Not that it would matter i I said anything to support my case but I say NOTHING to influence a pollster in the beginning. After other posts are made only do I stand up for my side. This is what we do. I think you have run out of excuses by now because you are looking for them. Gilmour is beating Shanahan 19-10. It is a clear cut victory on a board that many of us consider to be the smartest hockey board on the internet. You have an opinion on who you think was better but most people disagree with you and have made strong cases against yours. Face it and move on, I would have by now

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 01:05 AM
  #33
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,738
vCash: 500
Polls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I support Gilmour of course but what's important is the OP. Not that it would matter i I said anything to support my case but I say NOTHING to influence a pollster in the beginning. After other posts are made only do I stand up for my side. This is what we do. I think you have run out of excuses by now because you are looking for them. Gilmour is beating Shanahan 19-10. It is a clear cut victory on a board that many of us consider to be the smartest hockey board on the internet. You have an opinion on who you think was better but most people disagree with you and have made strong cases against yours. Face it and move on, I would have by now
First a poll is used to record opinion not shape opinion.The originator of a poll should not have a side.You were the pollster yet you claim that you say nothing to influence the pollster. Quaint reasoning.

Second we have never debated who was better between Gilmour or Shanahan or Oates or Shanahan. You simply created a straw man in an effort to make points that Gilmour and Oates deserve to be in the HHOF. That was the only debate on the table.

Gilmour beating Shanahan in your poll is totally irrelevent to the issue of whether Doug Gilmour gets into the HHOF. Shanahan is not yet eligible for the HHOF. Likewise Oates beating Shanahan in your poll is totally irrelevent for the same reasons.

On the other hand you neglected to start the only poll that could have been relevent to the issue of whether Gilmour and Oates deserve HHOF consideration and that would be a poll looking at their talent head to head since that would force a choice between the two which is contrary to your objective - getting both into the HHOF as opposed to maybe one.

Now you attribute a false opinion to me. Let's go thru this slowly and step by step.

I did not and still do not think that anyone has made a case why either Doug Gilmour or Adam Oates should be in the HHOF.

The issue regarding Brendan Shanahan was introduced in the light of player comparisons across positions, not limited to centers, in the context of who would a GM pick given the choice between Doug Gilmour(C), Adam Oates(C) and Brendan Shanahan(LW) in building a team. My response was Brendan Shanahan given the scarcity of quality left wingers and their historic importance to Stanley Cup winning teams. This does not mean that I think Brendan Shanahan is better rather it is simply the recognition that a suitable center would always be available latter since centers are the most interchangeable of the five positions.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 01:45 AM
  #34
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,150
vCash: 500
Does anyone on here even take into consideration who creates the poll when they are voting? I would think that personal opinion/research and the arguments presented in the posts are what people are basing their votes on. Maybe we should make a poll on that to see if it is a factor in people's voting. I guess I can't create it though or it will be biased. Hopefully someone else will...

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 03:42 AM
  #35
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,902
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
First a poll is used to record opinion not shape opinion.The originator of a poll should not have a side.You were the pollster yet you claim that you say nothing to influence the pollster. Quaint reasoning.

Second we have never debated who was better between Gilmour or Shanahan or Oates or Shanahan. You simply created a straw man in an effort to make points that Gilmour and Oates deserve to be in the HHOF. That was the only debate on the table.

Gilmour beating Shanahan in your poll is totally irrelevent to the issue of whether Doug Gilmour gets into the HHOF. Shanahan is not yet eligible for the HHOF. Likewise Oates beating Shanahan in your poll is totally irrelevent for the same reasons.

On the other hand you neglected to start the only poll that could have been relevent to the issue of whether Gilmour and Oates deserve HHOF consideration and that would be a poll looking at their talent head to head since that would force a choice between the two which is contrary to your objective - getting both into the HHOF as opposed to maybe one.

Now you attribute a false opinion to me. Let's go thru this slowly and step by step.

I did not and still do not think that anyone has made a case why either Doug Gilmour or Adam Oates should be in the HHOF.

The issue regarding Brendan Shanahan was introduced in the light of player comparisons across positions, not limited to centers, in the context of who would a GM pick given the choice between Doug Gilmour(C), Adam Oates(C) and Brendan Shanahan(LW) in building a team. My response was Brendan Shanahan given the scarcity of quality left wingers and their historic importance to Stanley Cup winning teams. This does not mean that I think Brendan Shanahan is better rather it is simply the recognition that a suitable center would always be available latter since centers are the most interchangeable of the five positions.
Oh get off your high horse.

Just about everyone comments in their own polls.

Second, Shanahan was not the player Gilmour or Oates were. Your Straw man position of him deserving to be considered better because he was a LW is utter nonsense.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 10:32 AM
  #36
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post

Second we have never debated who was better between Gilmour or Shanahan or Oates or Shanahan. You simply created a straw man in an effort to make points that Gilmour and Oates deserve to be in the HHOF. That was the only debate on the table.
We've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Shanahan's prime was not even close to Gilmour or Oates'. We've proven that Gilmour is one of the best of all time in the postseason and that Shanahan - despite a decent playoff portfolio - was not at the same level. And the less you talk about how drastically Shanahan was outpointed in his prime by Oates the better. Shanahan's physical attributes don't make up for Oates' playmaking and to be honest let's not forget Gilmour was like a little pit bull out there as well

Quote:
Gilmour beating Shanahan in your poll is totally irrelevent to the issue of whether Doug Gilmour gets into the HHOF. Shanahan is not yet eligible for the HHOF. Likewise Oates beating Shanahan in your poll is totally irrelevent for the same reasons.
If Shanahan was winning the poll would you think the same thing? I'm going to doubt that. I have personally been involved in polls where my side was losing a poll and especially if it is on this specific board I at least am able to admit there is a case for the other side.

Quote:
On the other hand you neglected to start the only poll that could have been relevent to the issue of whether Gilmour and Oates deserve HHOF consideration and that would be a poll looking at their talent head to head since that would force a choice between the two which is contrary to your objective - getting both into the HHOF as opposed to maybe one.
The poll was made to distinguish who was the better player. That is all. Shanahan lost heavily on both polls. This doesn't mean you can't have an opinion but when those numbers are staring at you in the face you have to at the very least realize that a lot of smart hockey fans would prefer Gilmour on their team



Quote:
I did not and still do not think that anyone has made a case why either Doug Gilmour or Adam Oates should be in the HHOF.
You haven't listened. What more did Gilmour have to do in the postseason? Gretzky, Mess, Kurri, Anderson, Coffey and Brett Hull are the only players with more points than him. That is elite company at the most important time of year.

Quote:
The issue regarding Brendan Shanahan was introduced in the light of player comparisons across positions, not limited to centers, in the context of who would a GM pick given the choice between Doug Gilmour(C), Adam Oates(C) and Brendan Shanahan(LW) in building a team. My response was Brendan Shanahan given the scarcity of quality left wingers and their historic importance to Stanley Cup winning teams. This does not mean that I think Brendan Shanahan is better rather it is simply the recognition that a suitable center would always be available latter since centers are the most interchangeable of the five positions.
You talk like having a strong winger is the be all and end all. It's a nice attribute to have a winger like him but if you measured their careers there is no doubt that a GM would take Shanahan's career 3rd out of the 3. He never carried a team, he was never the single reason why a team won. In the playoffs alone Gilmour has at least three playoff years that are better than Shanahan's best. It is foolish to argue that really

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 12:06 PM
  #37
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
doug gilmour easily

the edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 12:31 PM
  #38
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,738
vCash: 500
Still No Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
We've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Shanahan's prime was not even close to Gilmour or Oates'. We've proven that Gilmour is one of the best of all time in the postseason and that Shanahan - despite a decent playoff portfolio - was not at the same level. And the less you talk about how drastically Shanahan was outpointed in his prime by Oates the better. Shanahan's physical attributes don't make up for Oates' playmaking and to be honest let's not forget Gilmour was like a little pit bull out there as well



If Shanahan was winning the poll would you think the same thing? I'm going to doubt that. I have personally been involved in polls where my side was losing a poll and especially if it is on this specific board I at least am able to admit there is a case for the other side.



The poll was made to distinguish who was the better player. That is all. Shanahan lost heavily on both polls. This doesn't mean you can't have an opinion but when those numbers are staring at you in the face you have to at the very least realize that a lot of smart hockey fans would prefer Gilmour on their team





You haven't listened. What more did Gilmour have to do in the postseason? Gretzky, Mess, Kurri, Anderson, Coffey and Brett Hull are the only players with more points than him. That is elite company at the most important time of year.



You talk like having a strong winger is the be all and end all. It's a nice attribute to have a winger like him but if you measured their careers there is no doubt that a GM would take Shanahan's career 3rd out of the 3. He never carried a team, he was never the single reason why a team won. In the playoffs alone Gilmour has at least three playoff years that are better than Shanahan's best. It is foolish to argue that really
In the Oates vs Shanahan thread you have avoided the following:



So...........
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I'll do it for him. Lemieux and Lafontaine were the only players (not just centers) who outscored him. Lemieux, Gilmour and Lafontaine were the centers who finished higher in Hart voting. Gilmour won the Selke that year let's not forget, not hard to picture why he was a Hart finalist.

Yes, no way Thornton and especially Iginla win an Art Ross during that year with all due respect. To the poster that compared Turgeon's career to Oates' all I can say is that there is one season where he was similar to Oates and that was '93 and still finished 10 points behind him. The poster mentions that Turgeon had some years that he was hurt and could have moved up in the scoring rankings (like no other star player had that happen to them). So if we can use that for Turgeon let's use it for Oates as well. Check out how many more points Oates would have had in 1991 and '96 had he played every game. But that's just the thing, it is faulty logic to reward a guy who had injuries just based on "what ifs"

Honestly people, there are smart hockey fans that consider Oates to be the 2nd best passer in NHL history. I know even the critics have read that about him. He is 2nd in points in an entire decade (1990s) and IMO that is comparable to Stastny who was 2nd in the 1980s. Oates has a 5 year span - count it, 5 - where he led the NHL in points. Go ahead, add the years from 1990-'95 and find out who the leader is.

My question is when was Shanahan ever at that level? When did he ever hit the elite level of play that Oates did? 1993? Nope, Oates outpointed him 142-94. How about 1994, his best year? Nope, Oates beats him 112-102. In fact Oates outpointed Shanahan every year but twice from 1988-'02. On the offensive level I consider that dominance over another. Plus we have already conceded that Oates was better defensively.

While we're at it, the polls which we will all agree were done by some very smart hockey people have Oates leading at 22-14.
Amazing use of false logic and red herrings.

Oates considered the second best passer in NHL history. Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux supporters may disagree but even if Oates is the fourth best passer in NHL history it is irrelevent to the issue at hand - whether Oates merits induction in the HHOF. Being the 2nd -4th best one trick pony is interesting and noteworthy. Scott stevens may be considered the best hitter in NHL history. Perhaps a case may be made that Darius Kasparitis is the 2nd-4th best hitter in NHL history. If such a case is made it does not mean that by default Darius Kasparitis merits HHOF induction like Scott Stevens earned.
My Response
The famous Brendan Shanahan red herring. Surprised that anyone who has ever watched or played hockey would even try to sneak this one by hockey historians or people seriously interested in hockey history.

A hockey team has strictly defined positions and roles. The coach and others mandated with the task of picking the team select the best players for each position. Usually this breaks down to 4 LW /4 C/ 4 RW plus 6 D-men and 2G with three spares At times there is an interesting dilemma. Suppose during tryouts your ten best scorers were all centers does it make them better players than your best left winger who was eleventh in scoring. In the eyes of some perhaps. let's take this analogy further. Suppose none of these ten centers can play left wing or right wing or defense or goalie being totally useless at other positions or all simply refuse to play the other positions or refuse to play them as they should be played. Do all ten centers make the team? Extremely doubtful.

Trying to sneak Gilmour into the HHOF via comparables to left wingers is a de facto admission that they cannot make it strictly on their merits as centers. Remember the two do not have a history of playing center with any skill or longevity so they have to be measured strictly as centers and not against other positions.

__________________________________________________ _______

Basically your arguments for both players have fallen from trying to show that they merit induction into the HHOF as centers to de facto admitting that they do not merit inductions as centers so let's try to get them admitted any other way we can. First desperation effort would be a comparison to a LW - Shanahan who is not yet eligible for HHOF induction consideration.

Like trying to argue that a horse is a faster means of transportation than a car by comparing the horse favourably to a turtle.

You then throw in the since you have proven beyond reasonable doubt that a horse is a faster means of transportation than a turtle then it is not only faster than a car but better plus a horse is better and faster than a plane.

Not buying.

So far you have admitted that Doug Gilmour is better than Adam Oates ( public poll). So Gilmour has a slight edge in your eyes over Adam Oates if competing for HHOF induction head to head. Equally obvious then that your previous comment alleging that Oates was the 2nd best passer in NHL history must carry little weight when it comes to consideration for HHOF induction.

Know the key question. Where does Doug Gilmour rank amongst his contemporary centers as a passer?

Obviously you have created a nice dilemma for your position that was weak from the start.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 05-08-2010 at 12:36 PM. Reason: wording
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 02:02 PM
  #39
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Trying to sneak Gilmour into the HHOF via comparables to left wingers is a de facto admission that they cannot make it strictly on their merits as centers. Remember the two do not have a history of playing center with any skill or longevity so they have to be measured strictly as centers and not against other positions.
I don't think there is anything wrong with using an absurd extreme example to prove your point. But regardless of everything you said, Gilmour was better and more valuable than Shanahan. And he compares very well with a lot of centers too - Federko, Francis, Hawerchuk, Savard, Lafontaine, Perreault, and more. And none of those players have been singled out as particularly weak HHOFers in the past, except Federko.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 02:06 PM
  #40
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,133
vCash: 500
First off, this isn't a poll about sneaking Gilmour into the HHOF. I believe he should be but that is another debate. This is about comparing two players who played in basically the same era, Gilmour and Shanahan. One might be a center and the other a LW but it is extremely easy to compare players from different positions. This is why we can do this like for example a Hull vs. Beliveau comparison. Not hard at all to compare their dominance.

And by the way I think Gilmour compares favourably to many centers of his generation as you might have seen from another post.


Quote:
Basically your arguments for both players have fallen from trying to show that they merit induction into the HHOF as centers to de facto admitting that they do not merit inductions as centers so let's try to get them admitted any other way we can. First desperation effort would be a comparison to a LW - Shanahan who is not yet eligible for HHOF induction consideration.
But that's the thing I don't need to even compare them to a weaker player like Shanahan because Gilmour and Oates stand well on their own vs. others centers of their generation. This is a Gilmour vs. Shanahan poll and I believe Shanahan
Like trying to argue that a horse is a faster means of transportation than a car by comparing the horse favourably to a turtle.

Quote:
You then throw in the since you have proven beyond reasonable doubt that a horse is a faster means of transportation than a turtle then it is not only faster than a car but better plus a horse is better and faster than a plane.
I'm sorry I am lost not sure the relevance

Quote:
So far you have admitted that Doug Gilmour is better than Adam Oates ( public poll). So Gilmour has a slight edge in your eyes over Adam Oates if competing for HHOF induction head to head. Equally obvious then that your previous comment alleging that Oates was the 2nd best passer in NHL history must carry little weight when it comes to consideration for HHOF induction.
Gilmour > Oates, yes, barely it is very close, so what? Just because Oates is arguably the 2nd best passer of all time it doesn't mean that there aren't other aspects of the game. Gilmour was better defensively and is among the best playoff performers of all time. To me that makes up for the fact that Oates was a better passer.

Quote:
Know the key question. Where does Doug Gilmour rank amongst his contemporary centers as a passer?
Actually pretty good when you think of it. He is 12th all-time in assists. The only non-HHOFer ahead of him is Oates who is 6th. He also was 2nd, 2nd, 6th and 7th in assists in his best seasons. Not bad for a guy who also scored 450 goals.

Quote:
Obviously you have created a nice dilemma for your position that was weak from the start
I think you have shifted the conversation AWAY from Shanahan in order to get your point. I've always found that if a person is engaged in a debate and they ignore your responses then it is usually a victory for you.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 03:07 PM
  #41
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,738
vCash: 500
Making Progress

Gilmour > Oates, yes, barely it is very close, so what? Just because Oates is arguably the 2nd best passer of all time it doesn't mean that there aren't other aspects of the game. Gilmour was better defensively and is among the best playoff performers of all time. To me that makes up for the fact that Oates was a better passer.



Actually pretty good when you think of it. He is 12th all-time in assists. The only non-HHOFer ahead of him is Oates who is 6th. He also was 2nd, 2nd, 6th and 7th in assists in his best seasons. Not bad for a guy who also scored 450 goals.



I think you have shifted the conversation AWAY from Shanahan in order to get your point. I've always found that if a person is engaged in a debate and they ignore your responses then it is usually a victory for you.[/QUOTE]

MY RESPONSE
Finally making progress. Let's focus strictly on the attributes that Doug Gilmour brought to the rink.

You claim that Doug Gilmour being twelfth all-time in assists is meaningful and seems to be a sufficient criteria to induct him into the HHOF.

Lets look at the All- Time Assists leaders:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/lead...ts_career.html

Doug Gilmour is twelfth - ahead of players like Stan Mikita, Jean Beliveau, Bryan Trottier, Bobby Clarke, Jean Ratelle, Bobby Orr, Dave Keon, Henri Richard, Brad Park and many others down to the likes of Frank Boucher and Joe Primeau who are all members of the HHOF, inducted after a much shorter time frame once the the HHOF induction became an annual event.

Basically this brings us to the following. Are you claiming that Doug Gilmour was a BETTER passer or playmaker than all the players listed below him on the All-Time Assists leaders board? Doug Gilmour better passer then Bobby Orr?

If not then where do you position Doug Gilmour as a passer or a playmaker?

If being 12th on the ALL-Time Assist leader board carries so much weight and importance then:

A.) why do you rank Gilmour > than Oates who is ahead of Gilmour on the same board?

b.) looking at all the HHOF members on the All-time Assist leader board below Doug Gilmour, 13th on down, what was so superior in their game or lacking in Doug Gilmour's game that compensated for his superiority in assists?

Finally using your All-Time Assist leader board analysis are you also claiming and prepared to support the position that since Pat Verbeek is ahead of Jean Beliveau on the All-Time Goal Scorer board then he is a better goal scorer than Jean Beliveau? That Pat Verbeek should be inducted into the HHOF as a result?


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 05-08-2010 at 03:11 PM. Reason: format
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 03:35 PM
  #42
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,133
vCash: 500
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
MY RESPONSE
Finally making progress. Let's focus strictly on the attributes that Doug Gilmour brought to the rink.

You claim that Doug Gilmour being twelfth all-time in assists is meaningful and seems to be a sufficient criteria to induct him into the HHOF.
No, that is a percentage of why he should be inducted. If I am looking at assists alone in an era that was high scoring (good part of his career) I am going into this debate blind. If all I looked at was his assist totals then I would induct Phil Housley, or Dave Andreychuk on his goal scoring. There is more to Gilmour than that, it's just one of many examples


Quote:
Basically this brings us to the following. Are you claiming that Doug Gilmour was a BETTER passer or playmaker than all the players listed below him on the All-Time Assists leaders board? Doug Gilmour better passer then Bobby Orr?

If not then where do you position Doug Gilmour as a passer or a playmaker?
No of course not, numbers are only HALF the battle. In his era is how I judge him. He was as high as 2, 2, 6, 7 in assists in a season. Considering Gretzky and Oates were the only two ahead of him in those years where he finished 2nd tells a promising story.

Quote:
If being 12th on the ALL-Time Assist leader board carries so much weight and importance then:

A.) why do you rank Gilmour > than Oates who is ahead of Gilmour on the same board?
Again, assists are only a SAMPLE of what Gilmour brought to what should be a HHOF career. Oates is considerably close to Gilmour and I don't scoff at anyone who puts Oates ahead of him, in fact I can understand it. The tie breaker for me was the impact Gilmour had in the postseason which was better than Oates.

Quote:
b.) looking at all the HHOF members on the All-time Assist leader board below Doug Gilmour, 13th on down, what was so superior in their game or lacking in Doug Gilmour's game that compensated for his superiority in assists?
Many things could contribute to it. Shorter careers, lower scoring eras, being superior in goal scoring rather than assists (Bossy for example). You don't just look at stats alone without judging the era. No one would ever put Gilmour ahead of Beliveau as a playmaker based on assist numbers from 40 years apart, you should know that by now.

Quote:
Finally using your All-Time Assist leader board analysis are you also claiming and prepared to support the position that since Pat Verbeek is ahead of Jean Beliveau on the All-Time Goal Scorer board then he is a better goal scorer than Jean Beliveau? That Pat Verbeek should be inducted into the HHOF as a result?
I thought we went over this not just on my post here but several posts back. Verbeek for starters has no business in a HHOF discussion or in a discussion comparing himself to Gilmour. Beliveau led the NHL in goals twice, Verbeek wasn't even close to it and never hit more than 46 in a high scoring era. Considering he was a good goal scorer and played for 20 years we can assume that a player like that will hit 500 goals or come close to it. Verbeek was a TERRIBLE playoff performer and even if we are looking purely at stats (which I maintain is half the battle) then Verbeek is 33rd all-time in goals, not 12th like Gilmour in assists

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 03:53 PM
  #43
theRedAce9*
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 68
vCash: 500
Gilmour on almost every level. He was a better offensive player, a better leader, a better defensive player... Again, as with your Oates/Shanahan comparison, the only area in which Shanahan wins is in the physical dept. He was a more physically dominant presence than Gilmour.

I draft Gilmour 10 times out of 10.

theRedAce9* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 04:34 PM
  #44
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,738
vCash: 500
Other Attributes

[QUOTE=Big Phil;25702109]
Quote:

No, that is a percentage of why he should be inducted. If I am looking at assists alone in an era that was high scoring (good part of his career) I am going into this debate blind. If all I looked at was his assist totals then I would induct Phil Housley, or Dave Andreychuk on his goal scoring. There is more to Gilmour than that, it's just one of many examples




No of course not, numbers are only HALF the battle. In his era is how I judge him. He was as high as 2, 2, 6, 7 in assists in a season. Considering Gretzky and Oates were the only two ahead of him in those years where he finished 2nd tells a promising story.



Again, assists are only a SAMPLE of what Gilmour brought to what should be a HHOF career. Oates is considerably close to Gilmour and I don't scoff at anyone who puts Oates ahead of him, in fact I can understand it. The tie breaker for me was the impact Gilmour had in the postseason which was better than Oates.



Many things could contribute to it. Shorter careers, lower scoring eras, being superior in goal scoring rather than assists (Bossy for example). You don't just look at stats alone without judging the era. No one would ever put Gilmour ahead of Beliveau as a playmaker based on assist numbers from 40 years apart, you should know that by now.



I thought we went over this not just on my post here but several posts back. Verbeek for starters has no business in a HHOF discussion or in a discussion comparing himself to Gilmour. Beliveau led the NHL in goals twice, Verbeek wasn't even close to it and never hit more than 46 in a high scoring era. Considering he was a good goal scorer and played for 20 years we can assume that a player like that will hit 500 goals or come close to it. Verbeek was a TERRIBLE playoff performer and even if we are looking purely at stats (which I maintain is half the battle) then Verbeek is 33rd all-time in goals, not 12th like Gilmour in assists

You call the assists a "percentage" implying a metric. What exact percentage is it? Please produce.

So other than a rehash of the "assists" , you have offered nothing except stating that Gilmour is more deserving than Andreychuk, Housley, Verbeek,amongst others not enshrined in the HHOF.

I'll grant you that Doug Gilmour may be better than the aforementioned but that does not make him HHOF worthy.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 04:43 PM
  #45
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,133
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Canadiens1958;25702815]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post


You call the assists a "percentage" implying a metric. What exact percentage is it? Please produce.
You remind me of lawyer whose client is as guilty as sin but makes an argument deflecting away from the actual argument in the first place. In other words, you are looking WAY too much into little petty things that are irrelevant. An assist is more of a direct correlation of a win or a blocked shot. An assist in my mind is slightly below (if anything) a goal. You should know that, I shouldn't have had to spoon feed you that idea

Quote:
So other than a rehash of the "assists" , you have offered nothing except stating that Gilmour is more deserving than Andreychuk, Housley, Verbeek,amongst others not enshrined in the HHOF.

I'll grant you that Doug Gilmour may be better than the aforementioned but that does not make him HHOF worthy.
He is more deserving than Modano, Roenick, Sundin. 2/3 of them are considered locks for the HHOF by most. With Modano and Sundin the advantage they have is being the face of a franchise which is something Gilmour lacks to an extent but not enough to keep him out of the HHOF. Gilmour is more deserving than Lafontaine and Federko.

Face it, you haven't brought anything to the table against him. Doug Gilmour is on the outside of the HHOF because of the accusations against him 25 years ago, true or not. They are probably waiting to heal that wound with time before he is inducted the same way it happened with Glenn Anderson who had great arguments in his favour but still wasn't as good as Gilmour

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 05:34 PM
  #46
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,738
vCash: 500
You Just Don't Get It

[QUOTE=Big Phil;25702928]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post

You remind me of lawyer whose client is as guilty as sin but makes an argument deflecting away from the actual argument in the first place. In other words, you are looking WAY too much into little petty things that are irrelevant. An assist is more of a direct correlation of a win or a blocked shot. An assist in my mind is slightly below (if anything) a goal. You should know that, I shouldn't have had to spoon feed you that idea



He is more deserving than Modano, Roenick, Sundin. 2/3 of them are considered locks for the HHOF by most. With Modano and Sundin the advantage they have is being the face of a franchise which is something Gilmour lacks to an extent but not enough to keep him out of the HHOF. Gilmour is more deserving than Lafontaine and Federko.

Face it, you haven't brought anything to the table against him. Doug Gilmour is on the outside of the HHOF because of the accusations against him 25 years ago, true or not. They are probably waiting to heal that wound with time before he is inducted the same way it happened with Glenn Anderson who had great arguments in his favour but still wasn't as good as Gilmour
You just don't get it and the latest proves it.

I gladly admit that Doug Gilmour was an excellent player and am tossing you puff balls to get him elected and you keep missing.

Using your court analogy it comes down to this. The prosecuting attorney - me recognizes that the defense attorney - you, has a likeable client, Doug Gilmour, who at worst deserves a suspended sentence and I am giving you every opportunity to make such an argument before the judge. Unfortunately you do not get it and instead insult me and others that are pointing you in the right direction, engage in cheap and biased theatrics that put the judge on the spot, draw sentencing comparables to more serious criminals doing hard time that do not hold but place negative connotations everywhere about your client.Simply expand on the basic argument that seventieslord started which on its own is insufficient, throw in a simple mea culpa and a string of accomplishments and everyone goes home happy.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 12:19 PM
  #47
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
throw in a simple mea culpa and a string of accomplishments and everyone goes home happy.
All I have done is mention Gilmour's accomplishments from day one. You ignore them. I can't spoonfeed you anymore than that, sorry. I've proven my point, the majority of smart hockey fans would agree with me as you can see. The onus is now on you to prove why he DOESN'T belong.

BTW you have wisely weeded out Shanahan's name in this thread which is probably a wise thing since every argument you've had for Shanny has been debunked

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 01:41 PM
  #48
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,738
vCash: 500
The Majority..............

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
All I have done is mention Gilmour's accomplishments from day one. You ignore them. I can't spoonfeed you anymore than that, sorry. I've proven my point, the majority of smart hockey fans would agree with me as you can see. The onus is now on you to prove why he DOESN'T belong.

BTW you have wisely weeded out Shanahan's name in this thread which is probably a wise thing since every argument you've had for Shanny has been debunked
The majority of smart coaches and GMs that picked the players for Canada Cup teams, World Cup teams, Olympic teams did not agree with you or the poll majority, as Shanahan alone has a significant margin alone over Oates and Gilmour combined in terms of such selections. I side with the coaches and GMs here.

The majority of smart GMs involved in transactions where players were received for Brendan Shanahan received HHOF caliber players in return - Stevens, Pronger, Coffey and promising players. At no time did either Doug Gilmour or Adam Oates bring the same quality. Detroit dumped Adam Oates and roughly 10-12 career years of hockey for a one year rental of an aging HHOF Bernie Federko. Hardly the same as Lamoriello asking for and receiving Scott Stevens in arbitration for Shanahan. The other times Gilmour and Oates were traded it was basically for a hope and a prayer with roles of tape thrown in.

Again it will side with the opinions of proven hockey people and Shanahan's track record at LW where he is one of the top if not the top LW during the course of his career.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 01:51 PM
  #49
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,186
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
All I have done is mention Gilmour's accomplishments from day one. You ignore them. I can't spoonfeed you anymore than that, sorry. I've proven my point, the majority of smart hockey fans would agree with me as you can see. The onus is now on you to prove why he DOESN'T belong.

BTW you have wisely weeded out Shanahan's name in this thread which is probably a wise thing since every argument you've had for Shanny has been debunked
Shanahan is 4th in scoring on left wing... Gilmour is 11th for centers.

Point wise shanhan is the 4th best in the league in history. Gilmour isnt even top10.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 02:11 PM
  #50
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,902
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Shanahan is 4th in scoring on left wing... Gilmour is 11th for centers.

Point wise shanhan is the 4th best in the league in history. Gilmour isnt even top10.
Center is a much deeper position than left wing, and always has been.

The 80's and early 90's in particular.

And on top of that, Defensively, Gilmour was a Selke Caliber forward many many years on top of the year he won the Selke and the year he was runner up. Shanahan, while not bad defensively, was never in Gilmour's ballpark in that aspect of the game.

The arguments(Some erroneous) people use on Oates, such as softness, defensive play and playoff write off's do not apply to Gilmour, who is among the most clutch players ever to lace them up and extremely gritty.

Dark Shadows 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 01:10 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.