HFBoards

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

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
05-10-2010, 12:49 AM
  #101
Cruiser008
Registered User
 
Cruiser008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,277
vCash: 500
Shanahan. It's hilarious how 'heart and soul' guys like Dougie Gilmour become romanticized, even if he WAS a helluva player.

Cruiser008 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 12:54 AM
  #102
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,011
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.
How many forwards in history is Carbonneau not better than defensively? I'd put the number somewhere between 1 and 5.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 12:55 AM
  #103
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post

Just about everyone comments in their own polls.
Funny how that works?

Imagine creating a poll, voting on it and stating your oppinion? Why, it's unheard of.

BTW 1 more time, Give me Gilmour of 93 or 94 over Shanny's best which is also 93 and 94.

Shanny line's up better with players more of his ilk.

charliolemieux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 01:08 AM
  #104
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruiser008 View Post
Shanahan. It's hilarious how 'heart and soul' guys like Dougie Gilmour become romanticized, even if he WAS a helluva player.
Care to elaborate?

Gilmour was better offensively (Look at his point finishes)
Gilmour was better defensively (Selke Caliber forward for his entire prime)
Gilmour was a better playoff performer
Gilmour could carry a team with far less help

Since you are new to the thread, I would like to hear your reasoning as to why Shanahan is better.

As long as it is not more of the ridiculous "Left wing" nonsense we have been forced to put up with

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 07:36 AM
  #105
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,506
vCash: 500
Guy Carbonneau for the HHOF

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
How many forwards in history is Carbonneau not better than defensively? I'd put the number somewhere between 1 and 5.
So then Guy Carbonneau should be inducted into the HHOF ahead of Doug Gilmour and Adam Oates.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 11:01 AM
  #106
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
So then Guy Carbonneau should be inducted into the HHOF ahead of Doug Gilmour and Adam Oates.
Yet he was not as good a player as either of them.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 11:56 AM
  #107
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
So then Guy Carbonneau should be inducted into the HHOF ahead of Doug Gilmour and Adam Oates.
Guy Carbonneau was even more of a one-trick pony than Oates, though. Oates was a Top 10 (maybe Top 5) playmaker all time, and an elite faceoff man.

I would induct Carbonneau over some other players sometimes mentioned (Ciccarelli, Zubov), but it certainly wouldn't be a travesty if he were kept out. And there's no way that he was a more historically significant player than Gilmour or Oates.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 11:58 AM
  #108
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,979
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.
Why are we factoring out any games at all?

1.42 = 1.4. Don't act like there's a difference there.

Whatever difference there was between Gilmour and Carbonneau's defensive ability was easily offset by Patrick Roy (in his most dominant playoff ever) over Felix Potvin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruiser008 View Post
Shanahan. It's hilarious how 'heart and soul' guys like Dougie Gilmour become romanticized, even if he WAS a helluva player.
Shanahan gets romanticized too; you are kidding yourself if you don't think he does. It's actually a lot easier to make that mistake with Shanny than with Dougie. Shanahan was a member of three cup winners.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 05:00 PM
  #109
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,792
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.
None of those 3 really stack up to Gretzky offensively, and no one is saying Gilmour better than Keon defensively. I don't get your angle here. Gilmour isn't as good defensively as some of the best defensive forwards ever, so what? Doesn't change the fact that he was great defensively, or much better than Shanahan in that regard. Keon, Carbonneau, they are also better than Shanhan, only to much greater degrees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
So then Guy Carbonneau should be inducted into the HHOF ahead of Doug Gilmour and Adam Oates.
Because he's beter defensively? Heck no. Both absolutely destroy him in any offensive comparison.

I'd like to see Carbs in the hall, but not ahead of either of those two.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 05:31 PM
  #110
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,506
vCash: 500
Factoring Out Games

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Why are we factoring out any games at all?

1.42 = 1.4. Don't act like there's a difference there.

Whatever difference there was between Gilmour and Carbonneau's defensive ability was easily offset by Patrick Roy (in his most dominant playoff ever) over Felix Potvin.
Games are factored out to get a better understanding of why teams won and why teams lost. Specifically allow Gretzky to score 4 or more points a game whether you are Carbonneau or Gilmour your team loses. Reduce Gretzky's PPG to .75 and your team wins four straight. Reduce the PPG to 1 PPG and you split six games. Priceless information for those concerned with winning as opposed to goal and assist counting.

Superficially there does not appear to be a significant difference between 1.42 and 1.4 PPG but historians and statisticians who are inquisitive,capable and hardworking, break down the components by game which allows for the discovery of interesting patterns and tendencies. Little details matter a great deal. It's knowing where to look and how to analyze that makes a difference. To quote an old coaches motto "Everything matters", forget who said it but it's simplicity says a lot about winning.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 05:53 PM
  #111
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Games are factored out to get a better understanding of why teams won and why teams lost. Specifically allow Gretzky to score 4 or more points a game whether you are Carbonneau or Gilmour your team loses. Reduce Gretzky's PPG to .75 and your team wins four straight. Reduce the PPG to 1 PPG and you split six games. Priceless information for those concerned with winning as opposed to goal and assist counting.

Superficially there does not appear to be a significant difference between 1.42 and 1.4 PPG but historians and statisticians who are inquisitive,capable and hardworking, break down the components by game which allows for the discovery of interesting patterns and tendencies. Little details matter a great deal. It's knowing where to look and how to analyze that makes a difference. To quote an old coaches motto "Everything matters", forget who said it but it's simplicity says a lot about winning.
OK buddy, if you say so.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 06:44 PM
  #112
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
So then Guy Carbonneau should be inducted into the HHOF ahead of Doug Gilmour and Adam Oates.
Well at least you've stopped bothering to bring Shanahan's name up anymore in comparison with these two guys. I think it only took 115 posts.

Carboneau IMO still falls short of the HHOF. I can see an argument in his favour but one fool proof way of figuring out if a player deserves the HHOF is asking yourself whether or not his induction will open the door for others that may not deserve it. Jere Lehtinen would all of the sudden get consideration and while I liked him he should not get in, not quite.

As for Oates and Gilmour, I honestly can't think of how inducting either one of them would open a can of worms. In other words, who would warrant an induction into the HHOF if they got in that doesn't already deserve it?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 07:54 PM
  #113
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Well at least you've stopped bothering to bring Shanahan's name up anymore in comparison with these two guys. I think it only took 115 posts.

Carboneau IMO still falls short of the HHOF. I can see an argument in his favour but one fool proof way of figuring out if a player deserves the HHOF is asking yourself whether or not his induction will open the door for others that may not deserve it. Jere Lehtinen would all of the sudden get consideration and while I liked him he should not get in, not quite.

As for Oates and Gilmour, I honestly can't think of how inducting either one of them would open a can of worms. In other words, who would warrant an induction into the HHOF if they got in that doesn't already deserve it?
He already answered that - Bobby Smith, Pierre Turgeon, Fleming Mackell, Bernie Nicholls, etc.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 08:00 PM
  #114
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,506
vCash: 500
Fascinating

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Well at least you've stopped bothering to bring Shanahan's name up anymore in comparison with these two guys. I think it only took 115 posts.

Carboneau IMO still falls short of the HHOF. I can see an argument in his favour but one fool proof way of figuring out if a player deserves the HHOF is asking yourself whether or not his induction will open the door for others that may not deserve it. Jere Lehtinen would all of the sudden get consideration and while I liked him he should not get in, not quite.

As for Oates and Gilmour, I honestly can't think of how inducting either one of them would open a can of worms. In other words, who would warrant an induction into the HHOF if they got in that doesn't already deserve it?
Bolded. Who started the two polls comparing Gilmour to Shanahan and Oates to Shanahan? The polls are both linked to you. Now you try to shift the onus to me for your shortcomings. Classic two year old reasoning "Not me!".

Others that may not deserve it. Rather pathetic position that was going around years ago when Soviets like Tarasov and Tretiak were inducted. A meritocracy(HHOF) stands on its own - merit carries the day.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 11:51 PM
  #115
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Bolded. Who started the two polls comparing Gilmour to Shanahan and Oates to Shanahan? The polls are both linked to you. Now you try to shift the onus to me for your shortcomings. Classic two year old reasoning "Not me!".
Actually it was a compliment. I just figured you realized how pointless it was to further discuss Shanahan vs. Gilmour since every theory you have has been proven wrong.

Quote:
Others that may not deserve it. Rather pathetic position that was going around years ago when Soviets like Tarasov and Tretiak were inducted. A meritocracy(HHOF) stands on its own - merit carries the day.
It is a very logical analysis. If Vincent Damphousse all of the sudden gets into the HHOF then a whole slew of players would be justified in crying foul. The point is would inducting Gilmour lower the bar for a lesser player like, well, I'll use Fleming Mackell as an example? The answer is no, Gilmour's induction would not open the door for a player who doesn't deserve it already

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 11:55 AM
  #116
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Actually it was a compliment. I just figured you realized how pointless it was to further discuss Shanahan vs. Gilmour since every theory you have has been proven wrong.



It is a very logical analysis. If Vincent Damphousse all of the sudden gets into the HHOF then a whole slew of players would be justified in crying foul. The point is would inducting Gilmour lower the bar for a lesser player like, well, I'll use Fleming Mackell as an example? The answer is no, Gilmour's induction would not open the door for a player who doesn't deserve it already
Exactly

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 10:19 PM.

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

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