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 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
05-09-2010, 07:15 PM
  #76
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
So you are saying it was harder for Gilmour to be the best and therefore he is a better player? Wow and you call me illogical.
Gilmour is a better player because he is better offensively (you've seen points, but Gilmour seems to be a better playmaker than Shanahan a goalscorer- Gilmour's top 10 assist finishes: 2, 2, 5, 6, 8 Shanahan's top 10 goals finishes: 5, 5, 6, 9, 10), better defensively, much better playoff performer, and not far behind as far as toughness goes.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 07:20 PM
  #77
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
So you are saying it was harder for Gilmour to be the best and therefore he is a better player? Wow and you call me illogical.
No. I am saying it is easier to be the best in a position such as LW in which there are no players of the same caliber as those found at center during that time.

He may have been among the better LW's, but that is because there were no Gretzky's/Lemieux's/Yzerman's/Messier on LW. The 5th best centers at the time were almost always better than the very best LWer.

Gilmour was better than Shanahan in 1994 when Shanahan was voted best Left winger(A very narrow victory over Adam Graves, who actually had more 1st place votes), yet Gilmour was not given an all star spot because the competition at center was greater. Heck, the 5th place center that Year(Roenick) had a better year than Shanahan, but was not going to get a best center award. Heck, Lindros was better than Shanahan that year and he only placed 8th among centers. But Gilmore still got the Hart votes, Selke runner up and other accolades that year(including a Monster playoff performance that was better than anything Shanahan ever produced), which mean a heck of a lot more than an all star berth on LW.

It is perfectly logical.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 08:04 PM
  #78
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
No. I am saying it is easier to be the best in a position such as LW in which there are no players of the same caliber as those found at center during that time.

He may have been among the better LW's, but that is because there were no Gretzky's/Lemieux's/Yzerman's/Messier on LW. The 5th best centers at the time were almost always better than the very best LWer.

Gilmour was better than Shanahan in 1994 when Shanahan was voted best Left winger(A very narrow victory over Adam Graves, who actually had more 1st place votes), yet Gilmour was not given an all star spot because the competition at center was greater. Heck, the 5th place center that Year(Roenick) had a better year than Shanahan, but was not going to get a best center award. Heck, Lindros was better than Shanahan that year and he only placed 8th among centers. But Gilmore still got the Hart votes, Selke runner up and other accolades that year(including a Monster playoff performance that was better than anything Shanahan ever produced), which mean a heck of a lot more than an all star berth on LW.

It is perfectly logical.
Yes I agree Gilmour had two great seasons in the 90s. BUT we are comparing two different types of players here. We are comparing a power forward to a playmaking center. Ofcourse the powerforward isnt going to out score the playmaking center. Except for generational talents like Lindros and Messier when were the last time you saw a true powerforward out score a true playmaking center?

You are looking at this in a comical way as you see it as simply player vs. player while I see it player in his roll vs. player in his roll. When it comes to being an elite power forward their isnt much competition to Shanahan except Messier, Clarke and Howe. He might even overtake Clarke. I'd say he is the fourth best power forward in the game. While Gilmour has a long list of playmakers who are better than him.

I state it again both should be in HoF but Shanahan were a better power forward than Gilmour were a playmaker.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 08:38 PM
  #79
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Yes I agree Gilmour had two great seasons in the 90s. BUT we are comparing two different types of players here. We are comparing a power forward to a playmaking center. Ofcourse the powerforward isnt going to out score the playmaking center. Except for generational talents like Lindros and Messier when were the last time you saw a true powerforward out score a true playmaking center?

You are looking at this in a comical way as you see it as simply player vs. player while I see it player in his roll vs. player in his roll. When it comes to being an elite power forward their isnt much competition to Shanahan except Messier, Clarke and Howe. He might even overtake Clarke. I'd say he is the fourth best power forward in the game. While Gilmour has a long list of playmakers who are better than him.

I state it again both should be in HoF but Shanahan were a better power forward than Gilmour were a playmaker.
Except that you are simplifying Gilmour's role into just a playmaker, when he was much more.

Gilmour was a two way playmaking center, capable of going head to head with opposing teams best lines and making sure he kept them off the scoreboard at even strength, while scoring in bunches himself, not to mention being one heck of a Penalty killer and power play runner. Killer was pure tenacity on skates. Not the most talented player ever, but he outplayed more skilled players through sheer will and ran around like he was 6'4.

He was also able to elevate his clutch game to a level Shanahan was never able to reach. His 4 best playoff performances are better than Shanahan's best. He lead the playoffs in scoring in 85-86, despite his team not making the finals(Although he was the main reason they took a better Flames team to game 7 of the conference finals). He was a key player in Calgary's cup win, second only to Macinnis. And he literally carried those Toronto teams in the playoffs, outscoring his nearest teammates by huge margins both years they went deep.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 08:57 PM
  #80
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 28,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Yes I agree Gilmour had two great seasons in the 90s. BUT we are comparing two different types of players here. We are comparing a power forward to a playmaking center. Ofcourse the powerforward isnt going to out score the playmaking center. Except for generational talents like Lindros and Messier when were the last time you saw a true powerforward out score a true playmaking center?

You are looking at this in a comical way as you see it as simply player vs. player while I see it player in his roll vs. player in his roll. When it comes to being an elite power forward their isnt much competition to Shanahan except Messier, Clarke and Howe. He might even overtake Clarke. I'd say he is the fourth best power forward in the game. While Gilmour has a long list of playmakers who are better than him.

I state it again both should be in HoF but Shanahan were a better power forward than Gilmour were a playmaker.
That's fine, and will contribute to a discussion with a broader, perhaps more interesting, scope. But, you have to come back to "overall" at some point. In an effort to point out the limitations of your methodology here, I could mention Hal Gill's name as one of the premier penalty-killing defensemen in the league, and I bet not many people even bother conjuring many counter-arguments. Try to put his name into Norris consideration/conversation, though. All of a sudden you're being ludicrous, and people aren't exactly struggling to list 10 better options for that honour.

Like I mentioned in the other thread, Shanahan was one of the hardest players to "replace" in his prime (imo) because of what he offered a team (size, physicality, effort, production), and the relatively few comparable substitutes/options. Labeling him (for argument's sake) as the #1 LWer and #1 power forward during his prime doesn't instantly elevate him ahead of of players in other positions/roles just because some of THEIR contemporary comparables happened to be EVEN BETTER, however.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I don't have to try very hard to convince myself Gilmour was a better player than Shanahan. Taking a few steps back and looking at, then evaluating, the "total packages" these guys brought to a team, it's not that close imo.


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 05-09-2010 at 09:02 PM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 09:03 PM
  #81
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
That's fine, and will contribute to a discussion with a broader, perhaps more interesting, scope. But, you have to come back to "overall" at some point. In an effort to point out the limitations of your methodology here, I could mention Hal Gill's name as one of the premier penalty-killing defensemen in the league, and I bet not many people even bother conjuring many counter-arguments. Try to put his name into Norris consideration/conversation, though. All of a sudden you're being ludicrous, and people aren't exactly struggling to list 10 better options for that honour.

Like I mentioned in the other thread, Shanahan was one of the hardest players to "replace" in his prime (imo) because of what he offered a team (size, physicality, effort, production), and the relatively few comparable substitutes/options. Labeling him (for argument's sake) as the #1 LWer and #1 power forward during his prime doesn't instantly elevate him ahead of of players in other positions/roles just because some of THEIR contemporary comparables happened to be EVEN BETTER, however.
Which is not what Im saying. Shanahan isnt miles behind Gilmour in terms of points or defensive capabilities. Hal Gill is miles behind most norris candidates in every area you mentioned except the area you mentioned.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 10:13 PM
  #82
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 500
Left Wing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
No. I am saying it is easier to be the best in a position such as LW in which there are no players of the same caliber as those found at center during that time.

He may have been among the better LW's, but that is because there were no Gretzky's/Lemieux's/Yzerman's/Messier on LW. The 5th best centers at the time were almost always better than the very best LWer.

Gilmour was better than Shanahan in 1994 when Shanahan was voted best Left winger(A very narrow victory over Adam Graves, who actually had more 1st place votes), yet Gilmour was not given an all star spot because the competition at center was greater. Heck, the 5th place center that Year(Roenick) had a better year than Shanahan, but was not going to get a best center award. Heck, Lindros was better than Shanahan that year and he only placed 8th among centers. But Gilmore still got the Hart votes, Selke runner up and other accolades that year(including a Monster playoff performance that was better than anything Shanahan ever produced), which mean a heck of a lot more than an all star berth on LW.

It is perfectly logical.
Basic logical flaw. Then why is LW historically the hardest position to play well while generating points? Between 1966 -Bobby Hull and 2008 Alexander Ovechkin not one LW led the NHL in scoring yet plenty of centers and RWs did, even one defenseman did. Scoring more points does not translate into better or more valuable. The centers in most instances are interchangeable parts with a deep pool. The LWers are not.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 10:18 PM
  #83
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 28,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Which is not what Im saying. Shanahan isnt miles behind Gilmour in terms of points or defensive capabilities. Hal Gill is miles behind most norris candidates in every area you mentioned except the area you mentioned.
No, and I'd never say that either. But I'd venture far enough to say that Gilmour IS ahead in just about any category you want to look at, or at least in enough of them (even if only slightly) that he should clearly be considered ahead of Shanahan (this is all imo, of course). There are lots of arenas in which Shanahan battles on a more even playing field, but they are mostly along the "which would you rather add to your team" genre of discussion, where one or the other represents a "type" of player that is "lacking" from Team X, etc.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 10:22 PM
  #84
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 500
Except

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Except that you are simplifying Gilmour's role into just a playmaker, when he was much more.

Gilmour was a two way playmaking center, capable of going head to head with opposing teams best lines and making sure he kept them off the scoreboard at even strength, while scoring in bunches himself, not to mention being one heck of a Penalty killer and power play runner. Killer was pure tenacity on skates. Not the most talented player ever, but he outplayed more skilled players through sheer will and ran around like he was 6'4.

He was also able to elevate his clutch game to a level Shanahan was never able to reach. His 4 best playoff performances are better than Shanahan's best. He lead the playoffs in scoring in 85-86, despite his team not making the finals(Although he was the main reason they took a better Flames team to game 7 of the conference finals). He was a key player in Calgary's cup win, second only to Macinnis. And he literally carried those Toronto teams in the playoffs, outscoring his nearest teammates by huge margins both years they went deep.
Remove the rose coloured glasses and look at the 1993 playoffs. Against the Kings and Wayne Gretzky, Gilmour's defense disappeared on home ice where a Wayne Gretzky hat trick led the Kings to a game 7 victory and an appearance in the finals.

In the finals against Montreal, Guy Carbonneau,after an injury plagued season and a bad first game against Wayne Gretzky stepped-up and held Gretzky to < 1PPG as the Canadiens won four straight and the Cup.

The only year that Gilmour won the Selke the league's best defensive forward played a missed part of the season injured or played hurt.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 05-09-2010 at 10:24 PM. Reason: wording
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 10:31 PM
  #85
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Remove the rose coloured glasses and look at the 1993 playoffs. Against the Kings and Wayne Gretzky, Gilmour's defense disappeared on home ice where a Wayne Gretzky hat trick led the Kings to a game 7 victory and an appearance in the finals.

In the finals against Montreal, Guy Carbonneau,after an injury plagued season and a bad first game against Wayne Gretzky stepped-up and held Gretzky to < 1PPG as the Canadiens won four straight and the Cup.

The only year that Gilmour won the Selke the league's best defensive forward played a missed part of the season injured or played hurt.

Right, not stopping Gretzy, the greatest offensive forward ever, is something that should be critized. And comparing Gilmour to the greatest defensive ever is a completely fair comparison that showed Gilmour should be critized for failing to stop Gretzky.

And obviously, not being able to stop Gretzky means Gilmour did not carry his team in '93, and that he wasn't great.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:09 PM
  #86
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 28,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Basic logical flaw. Then why is LW historically the hardest position to play well while generating points? Between 1966 -Bobby Hull and 2008 Alexander Ovechkin not one LW led the NHL in scoring yet plenty of centers and RWs did, even one defenseman did. Scoring more points does not translate into better or more valuable. The centers in most instances are interchangeable parts with a deep pool. The LWers are not.
First of all, I would submit that there have been entire eras ("the 80s", for example) where scoring and points DID, in fact, translate somewhat directly into "value".

But anyways, I think a "basic logical flaw" has led to this bolded statement. RH shots are relatively rare historically, so the very best of them have been placed at RW instead of centre (except in cases of "excess" RH shots, I suppose). LH shots, by far more common, tended to get split between LW and C, with the "best" players usually being logically asked to play centre (position requiring the most hockey I.Q., wider array of skills, etc... this is the same from Pee Wee through to the NHL). There are a few exceptions (Andreychuk, for example) where a RH shot played LW (or vice versa), but they are just that: exceptions.

LH centres and RH RWers naturally work better together because they can pass to each other on their forehand. I'm sure that is directly responsible for the evolution/prevalence of the LWer as the "3rd man high" or guy who is asked to drive the net and pick up garbage (the "other guy" on the line), and at least part of the reason why centres and RWers have historically been involved in more scoring opportunities (especially off the rush). The game is more sophisticated now (not relying primarily on the initial rush to produce scoring chances), and there are more talented RH centres than years previous, so I won't be surprised if the LW vs RW thing balances itself out naturally.

Finally, if you rewrote history and swapped Robitaille, Shanahan, and Andreychuk (the career highest scoring LWers) to the centre position (and place Gretzky, Yzerman, and Turgeon on the wing instead) , it is unlikely that they would have increased their offensive output enough to consider them in the same echelon as Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, etc (or, to avoid the "freaks", let's use Messier, Yzerman, Sakic, or whichever centres you like among the top career points leaders). And that's because watching them, they were simply obviously that little bit better (and often better at many things, including faceoffs, etc), and often have very little to do with playing the wing vs playing centre (skating, scoring, passing), although excelling at such a tough position like centre is naturally considered a bonus.

edit: I feel like I just explained some pretty basic and fundamental hockey aspects here, which I wouldn't have expected to find myself doing around these parts, but there ya go.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:23 PM
  #87
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Right, not stopping Gretzy, the greatest offensive forward ever, is something that should be critized. And comparing Gilmour to the greatest defensive ever is a completely fair comparison that showed Gilmour should be critized for failing to stop Gretzky.

And obviously, not being able to stop Gretzky means Gilmour did not carry his team in '93, and that he wasn't great.
Exactly. Nobody could stop Gretzky completely every single game. Its not like Gilmour was bad that game either. Scoring 3 points and being one of the few players on that team not a minus that game. If not for Gilmour, they would never have been in that game.

That's like Saying "Hey look, Carbonneau's defense collapsed in game 1 of the finals at home. Gretzky scored a goal and assisted on 3 others to beat Montreal 4-1"

Judging based on 1 game is downright asinine. you will do absolutely anything to put your precious Montreal players on a pedestal.

Leafs vs Kings:
Game 1: Gilmour scored 2 goals, 2 assists and is a +3 in a 4-1 win over the Kings. Gretzky is held to an assist and a -2.
Game 2: Gilmour holds Gretzky to 1 point, while scoring a goal of his own, but the Kings win 3-2
Game 3: Gilmour and Gretzky again held to a point each, but the Kings win 4-2. Toronto's defense collapsed this game. No fault of Killer.
Game 4: Gilmour scores 1 assist and holds Gretzky off the scoreboard at ES. Gretzky scores 2 PP points, but the Leafs win 4-2
Game 5: Gilmour holds Gretzky -1 off the scoreboard, while scoring an assist and a +2. Leafs win 3-2 in OT
Game 6: Gilmour scores 2 points and is a +2, Gretzky scores 1 goal and was a -1. The one goal Gretzky scored was when he should have been in the box for the infamous high stick to Gilmour's face drawing blood.
Game 7: Gretzky scores a Hat Trick + an assist and is a +2, Gilmour scores 3 assists and is a+/-0, having kept everything even with Gretzky at ES.

Absolutely amazing performance by Gilmour. Holding the Greatest offensive player of all time to 6 points in the first 6 games, while scoring 10 of his own, and in the final game, scoring 3 points being one of the few players on his team not in the minus column, despite the team allowing 5 goals.

Gilmour was a beast defensively, and nobody can hold Wayne Gretzky away every single night.

Furthermore, you purely speculate about Carbonneau like he would have won the Selke in 1992-93, when in fact, he was completely healthy the next year in 1993-94, and Gilmour again bested him in Selke voting, coming in Runner up to Sergei Fedorov(Carbo came in 4th)

And furthermore, it is not like Gilmour was a 1-2 year defense guy. He had been, for many years, considered among the top 10 defensive forwards in the league(Coming in 6th, 6th, 13th, 9th and 5th for the Selke before Finally winning it, and then going runner up the next year). Shanahan has never been bad defensively, but he was also not a standout. The difference between them defensively is sizable.


Last edited by Dark Shadows: 05-09-2010 at 11:34 PM.
Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:30 PM
  #88
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 500
1967

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Right, not stopping Gretzy, the greatest offensive forward ever, is something that should be critized. And comparing Gilmour to the greatest defensive ever is a completely fair comparison that showed Gilmour should be critized for failing to stop Gretzky.

And obviously, not being able to stop Gretzky means Gilmour did not carry his team in '93, and that he wasn't great.
1967 - trust the year means something to you. Dave Keon managed to reduce the effectiveness of Stan Mikita, Phil Esposito and Jean Beliveau, a more difficult trifecta, helping the Leafs to the Stanley Cup while being named the Smythe winner.

Some do, some don't. Greatness is bestowed on those that do. Like Dave Keon going into the Forum in game 7 of the semi finals against Montreal a few year previous and scoring all three goals in the Leafs victory while reducing the effectiveness of Jean Beliveau.

Dave Keon was great while Gilmour was a solid very good.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:35 PM
  #89
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Thank you. Trust you realize that you have proven my point, supported by others, that virtually all centers with the exception of the true elite are interchangeable parts. Once this is admitted and you have, Shanahan becomes relevent to the debate from the standpoint of how valuable an elite left winger could be..

By your own admission above, Oates and Gilmour were basically interchangeable parts, replaceable from above by a Federko or from below by a Janney or a Stumpel or an Allison in the case of Oates or in the case of Gilmour a handful of spare parts that still helped produced a nice point increase in Calgary the season after he left.
I'm still waiting for an answer from you as to how Stumpel replaced Oates.

Bottom line is a team adjusts regardless when a player is not on their team. For some reason the 2002 Maple Leafs picked up the slack in the postseason when Sundin went down but no one wants a guy like him out of the lineup, you just simply are not a better team.

I think you are twisting the LW and Center argument. Why is it on these boards we can have a discussion comparing Esposito (center) to Jagr (RW) which is a very good argument and the idea that they played two different forward positions is never brought up? The bottom line comes down to dominance. All forwards are supposed to do the same thing which is score first and foremost. Since Gilmour has the clear edge there we are left to look at intangibles. Dark Shadows made some good points on this as well.

Who was better defensively? Gilmour
Who was better in the postseason/clutch performer? Gilmour
Who finished with a better Hart record and scoring finishes? Gilmour
Who was more physical? Shanahan
Who was more intense? Seems to me Gilmour would have bowled over his own mother to win

This is a simple procedure to do without even mentioning their positions. And it doesn't help if we do bring up Shanahan's LW status. He certainly didn't light up a relatively weak position with all-star nods. John Leclair killed him in his prime at the LW spot. Tkachuk was in the mix, Naslund and Kariya were there. Out of those 4 perhaps Kariya makes the HHOF but that's it. If he was an impact player like you said he was the writers who watched him all year long would have noticed more often. Trust me, the less I mention about the players Gilmour had to compete with for the center all-star positions the better it is for you. So hopefully if you look into it you realize why Gilmour did not garner an all-star team selection at center. In his best seasons he had Lemieux, Gretzky, Messier and spiked seasons from Fedorov and Lafontaine to contend with. Do you want to take a stab at which group was better?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:39 PM
  #90
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
No. I am saying it is easier to be the best in a position such as LW in which there are no players of the same caliber as those found at center during that time.

He may have been among the better LW's, but that is because there were no Gretzky's/Lemieux's/Yzerman's/Messier on LW. The 5th best centers at the time were almost always better than the very best LWer.

Gilmour was better than Shanahan in 1994 when Shanahan was voted best Left winger(A very narrow victory over Adam Graves, who actually had more 1st place votes), yet Gilmour was not given an all star spot because the competition at center was greater. Heck, the 5th place center that Year(Roenick) had a better year than Shanahan, but was not going to get a best center award. Heck, Lindros was better than Shanahan that year and he only placed 8th among centers. But Gilmore still got the Hart votes, Selke runner up and other accolades that year(including a Monster playoff performance that was better than anything Shanahan ever produced), which mean a heck of a lot more than an all star berth on LW.

It is perfectly logical.
Dark Shadows, I have been trying to say this on pretty much almost every page. It makes sense to me for sure. It IS logical and for those who watched the NHL in 1994 they would agree. Shanahan had a fine year in 1994 - his best - but even in his best season he was not Doug Gilmour from that EXACT same year.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:40 PM
  #91
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 500
Defense

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Exactly. Nobody could stop Gretzky completely every single game. Its not like Gilmour was bad that game either. Scoring 3 points and being one of the few players on that team not a minus that game. If not for Gilmour, they would never have been in that game.

That's like Saying "Hey look, Carbonneau's defense collapsed in game 1 of the finals at home. Gretzky scored a goal and assisted on 3 others to beat Montreal 4-1"

Judging based on 1 game is downright asinine. you will do absolutely anything to put your precious Montreal players on a pedestal.

Leafs vs Kings:
Game 1: Gilmour scored 2 goals, 2 assists and is a +3 in a 4-1 win over the Kings. Gretzky is held to an assist and a -2.
Game 2: Gilmour holds Gretzky to 1 point, while scoring a goal of his own, but the Kings win 3-2
Game 3: Gilmour and Gretzky again held to a point each, but the Kings win 4-2. Toronto's defense collapsed this game. No fault of Killer.
Game 4: Gilmour scores 1 assist and holds Gretzky off the scoreboard at ES. Gretzky scores 2 PP points, but the Leafs win 4-2
Game 5: Gilmour holds Gretzky -1 off the scoreboard, while scoring an assist and a +2. Leafs win 3-2 in OT
Game 6: Gilmour scores 2 points and is a +2, Gretzky scores 1 goal and was a -1. The one goal Gretzky scored was when he should have been in the box for the infamous high stick to Gilmour's face drawing blood.
Game 7: Gretzky scores a Hat Trick + an assist and is a +2, Gilmour scores 3 assists and is a+/-0, having kept everything even with Gretzky at ES.

Absolutely amazing performance by Gilmour. Holding the Greatest offensive player of all time to 6 points in the first 6 games, while scoring 10 of his own, and in the final game, scoring 3 points being one of the few players on his team not in the minus column, despite the team allowing 5 goals.

Gilmour was a beast defensively, and nobody can hold Wayne Gretzky away every single night.

Furthermore, you purely speculate about Carbonneau like he would have won the Selke in 1992-93, when in fact, he was completely healthy the next year in 1993-94, and Gilmour again bested him in Selke voting, coming in Runner up to Sergei Fedorov(Carbo came in 4th)
Defense is not about getting into a shoot out with the player that is your defensive responsibility. Dave Keon, Bobby Clarke, Bryan Trottier amongst many non - Canadiens understood this and played accordingly. Gilmour did not understand this, with or without Pat Burns' approval, took a different approach with team losing results.

Regardless of your spin a post injury Carbonneau understood defense and after making the necessary adjustments after game one helped his team win four straight.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:44 PM
  #92
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Defense is not about getting into a shoot out with the player that is your defensive responsibility. Dave Keon, Bobby Clarke, Bryan Trottier amongst many non - Canadiens understood this and played accordingly. Gilmour did not understand this, with or without Pat Burns' approval, took a different approach with team losing results.

Regardless of your spin a post injury Carbonneau understood defense and after making the necessary adjustments after game one helped his team win four straight.
He "held" Gretzky to 10 points in 7 games. Wayne freaking Gretzky, who felt like he played better in the 1993 playoffs than any other time in his career.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:46 PM
  #93
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
1967 - trust the year means something to you. Dave Keon managed to reduce the effectiveness of Stan Mikita, Phil Esposito and Jean Beliveau, a more difficult trifecta, helping the Leafs to the Stanley Cup while being named the Smythe winner.

Some do, some don't. Greatness is bestowed on those that do. Like Dave Keon going into the Forum in game 7 of the semi finals against Montreal a few year previous and scoring all three goals in the Leafs victory while reducing the effectiveness of Jean Beliveau.

Dave Keon was great while Gilmour was a solid very good.
Dave Keon is probably third best in history at providing defense from a star forward position (behind only Clarke and Nighbor). There's no shame at not being as good defensively as Dave Keon.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:49 PM
  #94
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
He "held" Gretzky to 10 points in 7 games. Wayne freaking Gretzky, who felt like he played better in the 1993 playoffs than any other time in his career.
Gretzky had 1.76 PPG in the rest of the playoffs, but 1.42 in that series. How about that, eh?

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:52 PM
  #95
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
1967 - trust the year means something to you. Dave Keon managed to reduce the effectiveness of Stan Mikita, Phil Esposito and Jean Beliveau, a more difficult trifecta, helping the Leafs to the Stanley Cup while being named the Smythe winner.

Some do, some don't. Greatness is bestowed on those that do. Like Dave Keon going into the Forum in game 7 of the semi finals against Montreal a few year previous and scoring all three goals in the Leafs victory while reducing the effectiveness of Jean Beliveau.

Dave Keon was great while Gilmour was a solid very good.
Yes Keon was great. The hat trick in 1964 in Game 7 is epic. I'd still call Gilmour great though and this is hardly a Keon vs. Gilmour debate. For instance Gilmour lost to the greatest player in NHL history in 1993. Not too shabby. But to look deeper you will see the great things he did throughout his playoff career which do always reflect on his stats (which are supreme to start with).

In 1986 Gilmour leads the NHL in points while not making a trip to the final.

In 1989 he is likely the most important Flame aside from MacInnis en route to the Cup victory. He scores the Cup winning goal in Game 6 and then adds the empty netter

In 1993 he elevates the play of Dave Andreychuk who had his one and only good postseason. Gilmour scores the tying goal in Game 7 vs. Detroit with two minutes to go. He assists on the overtime goal. In the second round he scores the overtime winner in Game 1 on a wraparound and scores a pivotal breakaway goal in Game 7. Dark Shadows covered the Kings series in the semis.

In 1994 he leads the playoffs with 28 points after three rounds.

Even as he became distant from his prime he was a contributor in the playoffs. The more you look into his playoff career, the better. And the more you study Gilmour the more you quietly dismiss the idea of even trying to compare him to Shanahan

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 12:03 AM
  #96
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
So basically, your entire argument for Shanahan is that he plays left wing? That's why he's better... lol

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 12:17 AM
  #97
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post
So basically, your entire argument for Shanahan is that he plays left wing? That's why he's better... lol
He definitely has a better resume at being a left wing than Doug Gilmour does.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 12:30 AM
  #98
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 500
Basically Correct

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
First of all, I would submit that there have been entire eras ("the 80s", for example) where scoring and points DID, in fact, translate somewhat directly into "value".

But anyways, I think a "basic logical flaw" has led to this bolded statement. RH shots are relatively rare historically, so the very best of them have been placed at RW instead of centre (except in cases of "excess" RH shots, I suppose). LH shots, by far more common, tended to get split between LW and C, with the "best" players usually being logically asked to play centre (position requiring the most hockey I.Q., wider array of skills, etc... this is the same from Pee Wee through to the NHL). There are a few exceptions (Andreychuk, for example) where a RH shot played LW (or vice versa), but they are just that: exceptions.

LH centres and RH RWers naturally work better together because they can pass to each other on their forehand. I'm sure that is directly responsible for the evolution/prevalence of the LWer as the "3rd man high" or guy who is asked to drive the net and pick up garbage (the "other guy" on the line), and at least part of the reason why centres and RWers have historically been involved in more scoring opportunities (especially off the rush). The game is more sophisticated now (not relying primarily on the initial rush to produce scoring chances), and there are more talented RH centres than years previous, so I won't be surprised if the LW vs RW thing balances itself out naturally.

Finally, if you rewrote history and swapped Robitaille, Shanahan, and Andreychuk (the career highest scoring LWers) to the centre position (and place Gretzky, Yzerman, and Turgeon on the wing instead) , it is unlikely that they would have increased their offensive output enough to consider them in the same echelon as Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, etc (or, to avoid the "freaks", let's use Messier, Yzerman, Sakic, or whichever centres you like among the top career points leaders). And that's because watching them, they were simply obviously that little bit better (and often better at many things, including faceoffs, etc), and often have very little to do with playing the wing vs playing centre (skating, scoring, passing), although excelling at such a tough position like centre is naturally considered a bonus.

edit: I feel like I just explained some pretty basic and fundamental hockey aspects here, which I wouldn't have expected to find myself doing around these parts, but there ya go.
Your explanation about the various skills required to play the three forward positions is fairly complete. Your LHS / RHS explanations are excellent.There are a few omissions.

Main quality for playing center is the ability to turn left and right with equal or near equal facility. Regardless of a players skills, vision, etc if he is deficient turning to one side he cannot play center with any degree of effectiveness yet he could be a very effective winger.

If a youngster can skate there are advantages to playing him on defense. Trend started with Bobby Orr in minor hockey, Three forward units, two defense pairings. Playing Orr on defense allowed the coach to have his best player on the ice for 1/2 the game, having him play with each line an equal amount of time while rotating the remaining three defensemen with Orr every three games. This continues in minor hockey to this day since minor hockey has rosters topping out at 15 = 9F/4D/2G.

Throw you a challenge re scoring and how you see the break down per forward position. You are correct about more LHS playing hockey as opposed to RHS. So how is each forward position impacted by having to face LHS or RHS defensemen? Also these forward shoot on a goalie playing in harmony with defensemen. The vast majoriy of the goalies catch with their LH while handling the blocker/stick with their right. Historically more so then shooters. Complete your analysis factoring in goalies. The final question. Consider the the degree of difficulty for a defenseman LHS or RHS to get a lead pass
or a transition pass to the LW on the left winger's forehand.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 12:39 AM
  #99
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,815
vCash: 500
Yet..........

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Gretzky had 1.76 PPG in the rest of the playoffs, but 1.42 in that series. How about that, eh?
Yet in the series against the Canadiens it fell to 1.4 if my memory is still good, Further more if we factor out game seven against the Leafs his performance drops to 1 PPG. To be fair we should factor out his performance in game one against Montreal so in the four King loses Gretzky performed at a .75 PPG level far below his career numbers and a tribute to Guy Carbonneau's defensive superiority over Doug Gilmour.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 05-10-2010 at 12:40 AM. Reason: typo
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 12:47 AM
  #100
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Yet in the series against the Canadiens it fell to 1.4 if my memory is still good, Further more if we factor out game seven against the Leafs his performance drops to 1 PPG. To be fair we should factor out his performance in game one against Montreal so in the four King loses Gretzky performed at a .75 PPG level far below his career numbers and a tribute to Guy Carbonneau's defensive superiority over Doug Gilmour.
Moreover it showcased Patrick Roy, who was a large difference over Felix Potvin.

Gilmour's performance was elite defensively. No doubt about it. Nobody is going to deny Carbo is better, but Gilmour was elite and is certainly much better than Shanahan in that regard.

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 12:22 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.