Who was more important to the Toronto Maple Leafs: Doug Gilmour or Wendel Clark?

[Whaleafs]

Both of your examples are games that Toronto and Vancouver lost.

Linden the heart and soul guy had 2 goals, Bure the skill player only had one assist in game 7.

Clark also had 2 goals in game 7.
Gilmour had 3 assists in game 7, and they still lost.

 

[FerrisRox]

Linden the heart and soul guy had 2 goals, Bure the skill player only had one assist in game 7.

Clark also had 2 goals in game 7.
Gilmour had 3 assists in game 7, and they still lost.

You still have offered up performances where a team lost as examples of a player carrying a team on his back.

 

[seventieslord]

Gilmour
Reg. 92-93 83 127 PPG 1.53
Playoffs 21 35 PPG 1.67
Reg. 93-94 83 111 PPG 1.34
Playoffs 18 28 PPG 1.55

Clark
Reg. 92-93 66 39 PPG 0.59
Playoffs 21 20 PPG 0.95
Reg. 93-94 64 76 PPG 1.19
Playoffs 18 16 PPG 0.89

Clark's PPG increase from the 92-93 regular season to that year's playoffs is higher than Dougie's in either of the 2 seasons. The hairs can be split any way you want. I see the only argument you could make was so poor you needed to quote me out of context without the preceding line.

so now the correct way to judge a player is by how much his PPG spikes in one playoff year? As opposed to, you know, their actual performance?

 

[Whaleafs]

so now the correct way to judge a player is by how much his PPG spikes in one playoff year? As opposed to, you know, their actual performance?

You literally just cited a point per game stat the post before as your only counter point.

 

[seventieslord]

You literally just cited a point per game stat the post before as your only counter point.

so you start by saying Clark was a "hair under a PPG" in those two playoffs as evidence he was somehow just as good (it was actually 0.92 which IMO doesn't constitute a "hair"), and I point out Gilmour's PPG was literally 76% higher, and now you're criticizing the use of PPG?

You just implied that because Clark's 1992-93 PPG shot up in the playoffs compared to his abysmal regular season and Gilmour's didn't, that he was better. Is that your point, or not?

 

[Whaleafs]

so you start by saying Clark was a "hair under a PPG" in those two playoffs as evidence he was somehow just as good (it was actually 0.92 which IMO doesn't constitute a "hair"), and I point out Gilmour's PPG was literally 76% higher, and now you're criticizing the use of PPG?

You just implied that because Clark's 1992-93 PPG shot up in the playoffs compared to his abysmal regular season and Gilmour's didn't, that he was better. Is that your point, or not?

I never said Clark, or his stats were just as good as Gilmour, or his stats. All I ever said in the OP in the 2 playoff runs that mean the most, it's not as much of a slam dunk for Gilmour, based on Clark elevating his play in the playoffs to a level higher than would be expected of him, than what's to be expected from Dougie in comparison. Whether or not 0.92 is a hair below a point a game is completely subjective and you seem to think your "opinion" that it's not constitutes a fact somehow, along with the rest of your poor arguments.

 

[Killion]

EITHER COOL OFF PEOPLE OR I"LL DO IT FOR YOU.

 

[seventieslord]

Seeing as you can't read, for one I never said Clark, or his stats were just as good as Gilmour, or his stats. All I ever said in the OP in the 2 playoff runs that mean the most, it's not as much of a slam dunk for Gilmour, based on Clark elevating his play in the playoffs to a level higher than would be expected of him, than what's to be expected from Dougie in comparison.

You don't get to give yourself a free pass flashing the age card, boomer.

... if you zoom out and look at a two season sample, Gilmour's cumulative PPG went up 0.16 (11%) over those two years in the playoffs, Clark's went up 0.03 (3%). but just focus on one single year to make your "point", if you must. The only reason you can even attempt such a point is because of how terrible Clark's 1992-93 regular season was.

Look at what everyone else is telling you. The answer to the question has been posted in this thread multiple times, and no one is the least bit equivocal about it. Gilmour was more important. Yes, by far. Yes, it is a slam dunk.

 

[chaosrevolver]

Gilmour and it' not even close. Clark was a fan favourite but Gilmour is multiple tiers above him in terms of level of play that he brought to Toronto.

 

[Hobnobs]

I never said Clark, or his stats were just as good as Gilmour, or his stats. All I ever said in the OP in the 2 playoff runs that mean the most, it's not as much of a slam dunk for Gilmour, based on Clark elevating his play in the playoffs to a level higher than would be expected of him, than what's to be expected from Dougie in comparison. Whether or not 0.92 is a hair below a point a game is completely subjective and you seem to think your "opinion" that it's not constitutes a fact somehow, along with the rest of your poor arguments.

Without Gilmour, Clark wouldnt have been as good as he was. This is slam dunk Gilmour>>>Clark. I dont even really see a debate. Whats expected is not really a factor as both exceeded exceptations. Your argument essentially means that you think Holmström was more important than Yzerman during Detroits 98 cup run.

A closer debate would be Clark vs Andreychuk.

 

[Canucks1096]

Clark's hat trick against LA in game 6 in '93, or Linden's 2 goals in game 7 against the Rangers in '94 don't count as carrying the team on their backs?

So you gave an example of a really good performance in an important game for both players. So do we draw the line on one game? Tanguay Rupp Talbot Fedotenko all had 2 goals in a game 7 cup final, so are all those players carrying there team on there back as well?

Anyway I think we can both agree you need a bigger sample size.

Also if you Google the definition of that quote. It does say not let any Obstacle get in between. So if you are losing you are letting some obstacle get in between. Both of your examples is when the a Canucks and Leafs didn't win

Linden and Clark both had a lot of clutch moments especially Linden but Bure and Gilmour was just more important. Both can be the best player on there team dominate and take over a playoff series from start to finish. Bure ex Dal and Tor in 94 and blues in 95. Gilmour too lazy check but he had 63 playoffs point in and 93 and 94 so I pretty sure there some examples

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i am as big of a bure fan as anyone but i think there is a reasonable argument that linden was equal or more important during the 94 run. they would be vying for #2 after mclean though.

 

[Canucks1096]

i am as big of a bure fan as anyone but i think there is a reasonable argument that linden was equal or more important during the 94 run. they would be vying for #2 after mclean though.

If I ask for your reason you will probably bring up Linden 2 goal game 7. I will come back with where was Linden the first 6 games in the finals? Was those games not important? I remember in the Vancouver province before game 5 it said if Linden still doesn't shown up in this series Rangers will win the cup tonight. But most Canucks just dont remember that. Also Canucks played 6 eliminaton games that spring. Bure 10 points and Linden 6. Flames and Rangers series Canucks down 3-1. Bure 0 goal first 4 games vs Flames and 1 goal vs Rangers vs first 4 games. Game 5 Bure scored in both series Canucks started to come back. Main reason why they came back to force a game 7 both time is because of Bure

The elimination game Bure was way more clutch than Linden. But Canucks fan Linden 2 goal game 7 and that's it

 

[Hobnobs]

If I ask for your reason you will probably bring up Linden 2 goal game 7. I will come back with where was Linden the first 6 games in the finals? Was those games not important? I remember in the Vancouver province before game 5 it said if Linden still doesn't shown up in this series Rangers will win the cup tonight. But most Canucks just dont remember that. Also Canucks played 6 eliminaton games that spring. Bure 10 points and Linden 6. Flames and Rangers series Canucks down 3-1. Bure 0 goal first 4 games vs Flames and 1 goal vs Rangers vs first 4 games. Game 5 Bure scored in both series Canucks started to come back. Main reason why they came back to force a game 7 both time is because of Bure

The elimination game Bure was way more clutch than Linden. But Canucks fan Linden 2 goal game 7 and that's it

Lets just agree that Linden and Bure was a bad example to bring up because atleast there is an argument to be made for both of them. Unlike Clark vs Gilmour.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Lets just agree that Linden and Bure was a bad example to bring up because atleast there is an argument to be made for both of them. Unlike Clark vs Gilmour.

In some ways, it provides an interesting contrast that shows how far apart Gilmour and Clark were as players, for the Leafs specifically.
Between the two Canucks, Linden is the one who's easy to overrate if you like gutsy, gritty Canadian hockey. But he was also the one with more defensive responsibility for the Canucks, both as a sometime centre, and as generally well-rounded player.
With Gilmour and Clark, it's also a comparison between two-way centre and a one-way winger - but the former was also better at putting points on the board. It's a simplistic way of looking at it, but the two were far enough apart that one doesn't really need to overcomplicate the comparison.
And really, "gritty, courageous big-game warrior" isn't a category you'd dock Gilmour any points in, is it?

 

[Canucks1096]

Between the two Canucks, Linden is the one who's easy to overrate if you like gutsy, gritty Canadian hockey. But he was also the one with more defensive responsibility for the Canucks, both as a sometime centre, and as generally well-rounded player.

There are 2 different Linden. Up to 1996 The 70 point regular season and the playoffs ppg that didn't play in a lot of defensive situation and was more gritty than later on his career. But Linden didn't use his grit that often.

After 1996 when He started to play center more and got better defensively and played in more defensive situation. But Linden became a 40 point player.

There 2 type of players are not better than a 60 goals/100 points Bure. Well over ppg in the playoffs and played on the 1st PK unit

And also 4 different coaches Quinn Ley Renny Keenan all used Bure on the 1st PK unit and not Linden. First part Linden career he wasn't use in a lot of defensive situation but a lot of people think he did for some reason

There is not much of an argument for Linden over Bure. Same as Clark vs Gilmour. I will agree the gap is a little bit bigger for Gilmour and Clark than Bure and Linden

 

[FerrisRox]

i am as big of a bure fan as anyone but i think there is a reasonable argument that linden was equal or more important during the 94 run. they would be vying for #2 after mclean though.

I'm not sure if you actually went back and looked that you would find that argument very reasonable. Bure was more valuable throughout the playoffs and, specifically, in the games that mattered, he came up bigger than Linden did with the exception of Game 7 of the Final. Perhaps that one effort is clouding your memory of the rest of the playoffs cause Bure was definitely the most important piece of that puzzle.

I would actually argue that Kirk McLean was the second most valuable player for them that Spring, then Linden.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

my apologies for starting an off topic digression that takes attention away from the leaves. but hey, no worse than the inverse on any national broadcast of a canucks game right?

so this is the last i’ll say here, though i invite anyone who is so inclined to feel free to start a separate thread. i think value can take forms that aren’t scoring goals or assists. and i think linden, on top of 25 points, contributed an awful lot of little things that made the team as successful as it was. one example: without watching the video, tell me what caused vancouver to gain posession of the puck for bure’s game 7 OT goal. and then tell me how brown’s pass found such a clear path to a streaking bure.

okay, now watch the video. and pay attention to linden forcing that turnover on the forecheck and then notice how after the pass bure is able to split zalapski and kruse because they expect patrick to pick off the pass, only he can’t because linden subtly interferes with him.

that one play is three brilliant performances. brown’s quick and accurate head man, bure’s amazing burst of speed out of nowhere plus handling that pass and of course the deke, and linden doing the dirty work. linden had so much value as the glue guy that year. but he didn’t pick up a point there, did he?

 

[Canucks1096]

my apologies for starting an off topic digression that takes attention away from the leaves. but hey, no worse than the inverse on any national broadcast of a canucks game right?

so this is the last i’ll say here, though i invite anyone who is so inclined to feel free to start a separate thread. i think value can take forms that aren’t scoring goals or assists. and i think linden, on top of 25 points, contributed an awful lot of little things that made the team as successful as it was. one example: without watching the video, tell me what caused vancouver to gain posession of the puck for bure’s game 7 OT goal. and then tell me how brown’s pass found such a clear path to a streaking bure.

okay, now watch the video. and pay attention to linden forcing that turnover on the forecheck and then notice how after the pass bure is able to split zalapski and kruse because they expect patrick to pick off the pass, only he can’t because linden subtly interferes with him.

that one play is three brilliant performances. brown’s quick and accurate head man, bure’s amazing burst of speed out of nowhere plus handling that pass and of course the deke, and linden doing the dirty work. linden had so much value as the glue guy that year. but he didn’t pick up a point there, did he?

I will start another thread later on tonight or tomorrow. So please check back in the history section. I want you to tell me all these little things that Linden did

No Linden didn't get a point. Babych got the puck after Kruse got rid of the puck.

I kind of disagree with Linden forcing the turn over. Adams was behind Kruse and Linden was coming to the boards. Kruse made the play to dump the puck in before Linden made that hit. Kruse is a stay home guy. He doesn't make those fancy passes. He just dumps the puck off boards all the time. When you watch kruse you can tell he wanted to just backhand the puck out before Linden was close to him.

 

[FerrisRox]

my apologies for starting an off topic digression that takes attention away from the leaves. but hey, no worse than the inverse on any national broadcast of a canucks game right?

so this is the last i’ll say here, though i invite anyone who is so inclined to feel free to start a separate thread. i think value can take forms that aren’t scoring goals or assists. and i think linden, on top of 25 points, contributed an awful lot of little things that made the team as successful as it was. one example: without watching the video, tell me what caused vancouver to gain posession of the puck for bure’s game 7 OT goal. and then tell me how brown’s pass found such a clear path to a streaking bure.

okay, now watch the video. and pay attention to linden forcing that turnover on the forecheck and then notice how after the pass bure is able to split zalapski and kruse because they expect patrick to pick off the pass, only he can’t because linden subtly interferes with him.

that one play is three brilliant performances. brown’s quick and accurate head man, bure’s amazing burst of speed out of nowhere plus handling that pass and of course the deke, and linden doing the dirty work. linden had so much value as the glue guy that year. but he didn’t pick up a point there, did he?

Even if he did, it's silly to suggest Linden's subtle interference is somehow greater than or on par with what Bure did, so it's a moot point.

 

[Big Phil]

This really should be a lock shouldn't it? I loved Clark, but how is he more important than Gilmour? He was a fan favourite and the captain but the bread and butter on the Leafs was Gilmour. Even if you throw in the heart Clark had and the physical play it isn't as if Gilmour lacked either of those.

 

[SealsFan]

I don't know, but I want both these guys on my team.

 

[FerrisRox]

I don't know, but I want both these guys on my team.

Clark was absolutely atrocious defensively and took a ton of penalties. I'd much rather he be on the team I'm facing.

 

[Thenameless]

As a non-Leafs fan, Gilmour was better for the shorter time that he was there.

I've spoken with lots of die-hard Leafs fans from different generations, and the two names I hear the most as their favourites are Dave Keon and Wendel Clark.

 

[Thenameless]

There is not much of an argument for Linden over Bure.

Myth.