90 - 95, Yzerman vs. Gilmour

[Up the Irons]

Few would argue that Killer's overall career surpasses that of Stevie Y, but in the early nineties Gilmore was in the conversation of 'best forward in the world'. Was this just a Toronto media mirage?

not automatically, but, I think I'd give Gilmore the edge over Yzerman pre 96.

Click to read more...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

kind of like macinnis, yzerman had a stretch of lost years in the 90s. it seems weird to say because he scored more than 135 points in one of those years, but he was dropping out of the conversation for the best top forwards in the game, maybe even top ten. (similarly, macinnis had a stretch where he was still putting up phenomenal numbers, and was still a post-season all-star candidate, but had been passed by stevens, leetch, and certainly chelios).

as we know, both players had fantastic first thirds of their careers and made up serious ground for their all-time standing in their respective last thirds. but they were considered the best players and the leaders of their teams for that middle third, and both were very good teams that underperformed annually in the playoffs. that really coloured their regular season achievements, which while good also didn't approach yzerman's late 80s peak and macinnis' late 80s/early 90s peak. it was almost like, "oh yeah i forgot about yzerman/macinnis. i guess he probably scored his 100/70 points and was otherwise irrelevant in the grand scheme of things."

to answer the question, yes i'd take gilmour in that time frame. less points but more results and certainly a better defensive player (at the time), more dependable crunch time player, and more effective leader. i always considered sundin a toronto media product, but gilmour was the real deal.

perception-wise, when the new generation (fedorov, jagr, bure, lindros, roenick, selanne) came in, yzerman kept on doing what he was doing only he was no longer automatically considered the fourth best forward in the game after gretzky, lemieux, and messier, and got kind of lost in the shuffle-- and it wasn't just the young guys, he was also passed by hull and challenged by oates as early as 1990 and certainly by '91, and then you add lafontaine and gilmour to that list of top five contenders shortly after. gilmour on the other hand stepped up his game at precisely the time the young guys threatened to take over the league and kept his name in the papers.

 

[Regal]

No. The only years during that time Gilmour was better was 92-93 and 93-94 (especially when you include the playoffs), and was definitely in the discussion of best players, though I don't think anyone doesn't still take Lemieux then.

Yzerman wasn't too far behind those years though, and was easily a top 10 forward and perhaps top 10 player in 90-91 and 91-92 while Gilmour really wasn't in those discussions. Both players were mediocre in 94-95, and then Yzerman made his big career switch in 95-96 as a 95 point selke candidate.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I love both of these guys but I'm really biased about Gilmour.

I mean Yzerman was a big part of Canada ending its gold medal drought at the Olympics and wins a Stanley Cup on one leg. The guy couldn't walk when he was off the ice but he puts on two outstanding performances in the same year. Apparently his tolerance for pain was just off the charts.

And Gilmour.. well I have never seen any player with more determination and pure will than he showed as a Leaf in his best years.

The guy was one of the smaller players in the league but played much bigger, never backed down, never gave up, and just went to the well over and over in the playoffs and always came up with something left. I've never seen anyone carry a team to the extent he did those couple of years. Anyone. A guy his size eating up the ice time of a #1 defenseman while playing that kind of style.. what else can you say?

I'll never know how, and he probably can't even explain it himself, but I've never seen anything like it before or since. Even if the Leafs do manage to win a cup in my lifetime it would take a pretty special team to dethrone the grit and never say die attitude Pat Burns got out of that 93 team. Seeing how Burnsie is fighting and living with cancer you understand where it came from.

Here is an article about Gilmour from after game 4 of the Kings series that the Leafs were robbed of by Fraser and Gretzky's self described greatest performance ever in game 7:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1138231/1/index.htm

 

[BraveCanadian]

With regards to Yzerman vs Gilmour check out this article about the Leafs surprising the favoured Red Wings that same year:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1138050/index.htm

 

[Fire Sweeney]

Gilmour. Sergei Fedorov was the real star in Detroit during those years.

 

[seventieslord]

From 1990-1995 I would take Gilmour over Yzerman, yes. I'd take Yzerman's career, though, like anyone else would.

 

[overg]

Gilmour. Sergei Fedorov was the real star in Detroit during those years.

You're using the words "star" and "years" pretty loosely. Fedorov didn't step out from Yzerman's shadow until Yzerman went down with injury in the 93/94 season. Yzerman outscored Fedorov 108 to 79 in '91 (Sergei's rookie season), 103 to 86 in '92, and 137 to 87 in '93. In 1994, when Yzerman only played 58 games, Fedorov scored 120 to Steve's 83, and in the '95 lockout season, Fedorov had 50 compared to Yzerman's 38.

During all of those years, it was still always Yzerman's team.

As for the original question, I think Regal has a good point. Gilmour was unreal those two years, but things get a lot closer when you take the entire 5 year time frame.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

a contemporary comparable to yzerman might be joe thornton. hasn't accomplished much in the playoffs, but also hasn't been as invisible as people say, especially last year. top ten scorer, but has dropped out of the highest echelon. former MVP/pearson guy, no longer in that conversation. he scores his points, but is he really relevant anymore?

i don't think we have a gilmour today, but it would be some cross between st. louis and henrik sedin, with briere's playoff record. at the end of the day, thornton is the better player and potentially can have the most impact, but the results aren't there and the intangibles point to the other guy.

i agree with the above, that gilmour was underachieving, then had the two year spike, then quickly regressed. but i would still take his five year stretch just for those two years over yzerman's very good but unspectacular middle years. it's like the difference between five rolls of the dice where you have a 3/10 chance to win, or five rolls where you have two 2/10, two 5/10, and one 1/10. adds up to the same odds, but sometimes you want to stack your rolls.

 

[BraveCanadian]

i don't think we have a gilmour today, but it would be some cross between st. louis and henrik sedin, with briere's playoff record.

Yeah if one of those guys had even half the sandpaper.

And while Briere actually does have a great playoff record compared to his regular seasons especially.. none of those guys have a playoff record even in the same league as Gilmour yet.

Gilmour probably has as many playoff points as all of those guys combined.

i agree with the above, that gilmour was underachieving, then had the two year spike, then quickly regressed.

Gilmour was a real good player before and after that peak too. He wasn't an underachiever he just wasn't the clear #1 in Calgary where they had depth. He was just on another world for those couple years at his big peak. Although his body paid for it every step of the way and he couldn't sustain it.

 

[jkrx]

Gilmour was better in the playoffs these years but thats the only real advantage he has over Yzerman in my opinion.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Just for reference sake, centers 90-95:

Rk|Player|From|To|Tm|Lg|Pos|GP|G|A|PTS|GC|+/-|PIM
1|Wayne Gretzky*|1990|1995|LAK|NHL|C|399|177|492|669|228|-13|124|
2|Adam Oates|1990|1995|TOT|NHL|C|430|157|466|623|211|29|166|
3|Steve Yzerman*|1990|1995|DET|NHL|C|427|252|343|595|230|68|297|
4|Joe Sakic|1990|1995|QUE|NHL|C|438|211|353|564|212|-65|159|
5|Pierre Turgeon|1990|1995|TOT|NHL|C|436|232|321|553|215|44|133|
6|Doug Gilmour|1990|1995|TOT|NHL|C|444|139|391|530|182|124|507|

The plus minus difference in these guys surprises me a bit, and the penalty minutes on Gilmour make me chuckle. He wasn't afraid to dish it despite how much he took that is for sure.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Yeah if one of those guys had even half the sandpaper.

And while Briere actually does have a great playoff record compared to his regular seasons especially.. none of those guys have a playoff record even in the same league as Gilmour yet.

Gilmour probably has as many playoff points as all of those guys combined.

Gilmour was a real good player before and after that peak too. He wasn't an underachiever he just wasn't the clear #1 in Calgary where they had depth. He was just on another world for those couple years at his big peak. Although his body paid for it every step of the way and he couldn't sustain it.

yeah, you're right. like i said, there is no comparable to gilmour right now. i was thinking more of career arc. even zetterberg isn't at gilmour's '92-'94 level, to my eyes.

after the '89 run in calgary, where gilmour was along with mullen their best scoring forward, i don't think he was as good as he was in st. louis. he didn't have as much responsibility, because nieuwendyk was there, but why couldn't he have been the modano to nieuwendyk like in dallas? part of that is the coach not knowing what he had, but i also don't think gilmour took the reins like he would in toronto.

Gilmour was better in the playoffs these years but thats the only real advantage he has over Yzerman in my opinion.

as for yzerman's regular seasons in his "lost years," hart voting is telling. he wasn't turgeon, but he wasn't gilmour either. oates would be a comparable, maybe.

 

[overg]

a contemporary comparable to yzerman might be joe thornton. hasn't accomplished much in the playoffs, but also hasn't been as invisible as people say, especially last year. top ten scorer, but has dropped out of the highest echelon. former MVP/pearson guy, no longer in that conversation. he scores his points, but is he really relevant anymore?

That's probably underselling Yzerman somewhat. I know this comparison gets made a lot, but Yzerman was never near as maligned is Thornton is. There was never any question that Yzerman was giving it his all in the playoffs, he just wasn't getting the Wings over the hump.

If anything, Yzerman was somewhere between Thornton and Ovechkin. He wasn't a consensus top 2 player in the league like Ovechkin, but he also wasn't known as a playoff choke artist like Thornton.

 

[arrbez]

i agree with the above, that gilmour was underachieving, then had the two year spike, then quickly regressed.

Gilmour averaged 97 points a season from age 23 to 30, which is pretty impressive. It was more than just a two year spike. It's just that those two years are so impressive they overshadow his previous work.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Gilmour averaged 97 points a season from age 23 to 30, which is pretty impressive. It was more than just a two year spike. It's just that those two years are so impressive they overshadow his previous work.

as stated in my response to bravecanadian above, i was only talking about the years in calgary post-cup. playoff disappointments on a deep and contending play a role here too. i agree, those st. louis years especially are underrated in light of his toronto peak.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just for reference sake, centers 90-95:

Rk|Player|From|To|Tm|Lg|Pos|GP|G|A|PTS|GC|+/-|PIM
1|Wayne Gretzky*|1990|1995|LAK|NHL|C|399|177|492|669|228|-13|124|
2|Adam Oates|1990|1995|TOT|NHL|C|430|157|466|623|211|29|166|
3|Steve Yzerman*|1990|1995|DET|NHL|C|427|252|343|595|230|68|297|
4|Joe Sakic|1990|1995|QUE|NHL|C|438|211|353|564|212|-65|159|
5|Pierre Turgeon|1990|1995|TOT|NHL|C|436|232|321|553|215|44|133|
6|Doug Gilmour|1990|1995|TOT|NHL|C|444|139|391|530|182|124|507|

The plus minus difference in these guys surprises me a bit, and the penalty minutes on Gilmour make me chuckle. He wasn't afraid to dish it despite how much he took that is for sure.

I would say that gilmour's advantages in defense, intangibles, and playoff performances overcomes yzerman's slightly better regular season scoring.

 

[canucks4ever]

You're using the words "star" and "years" pretty loosely. Fedorov didn't step out from Yzerman's shadow until Yzerman went down with injury in the 93/94 season. Yzerman outscored Fedorov 108 to 79 in '91 (Sergei's rookie season), 103 to 86 in '92, and 137 to 87 in '93. In 1994, when Yzerman only played 58 games, Fedorov scored 120 to Steve's 83, and in the '95 lockout season, Fedorov had 50 compared to Yzerman's 38.

During all of those years, it was still always Yzerman's team.

As for the original question, I think Regal has a good point. Gilmour was unreal those two years, but things get a lot closer when you take the entire 5 year time frame.

In 1992 Fedorov and Gilmour were among the top defensive forwards in the game and scored over 85 points. Yzerman was a one dimensional offenisve player that scored 103 points I would say fedorov and gilmour had better years.

 

[Big Phil]

Its funny to say, but in a way Yzerman was kind of forgotten during the 1990-'95 years. Detroit wasn't winning anything and he didn't quite have the same seasons as his "wow" years in '89 and '90. But Yzerman was still a great player no doubt. He just got overshadowed. He was already behind Gretzky and Lemieux to start and probably Messier also, but then you factor in fresh faces to the NHL landscape like Roenick, Hull, Oates and guys like Lafontaine, Turgeon, Mogilny having career years and Selanne with the goal scoring rookie record etc. It is easy to figure out why Yzerman was kind of taken for granted those years.

That being said, in a competition vs. Gilmour during those years Yzerman wins in 1991 and '92. Gilmour wins in '93 and '94. Both were equal in 1995. The difference maker is the two way play of Gilmour and the ridiculous playoff runs those years. Gilmour also outplayed Yzerman the only time the two met in '93. When Gilmour was "the man" he took the Leafs as far as one man could possibly take them. So yeah give Gilmour the edge in those years, not by much but '93 and '94 put him over the top.

After that Gilmour started his decline while Yzerman changed his game and put up good point totals - not great but good - and worked on other aspects of his game and helped lead the Wings to three Cups. So yeah there isn't anyone here who would take Gilmour's career overall over Yzerman's (right?) but for that 5 year gap I would take Gilmour

 

[Hardyvan123]

From 1990-1995 I would take Gilmour over Yzerman, yes. I'd take Yzerman's career, though, like anyone else would.

I agree with this but I would put Gilmour closer to Stevie Y overall than most other I think.

Gilmour's 2 way game is more important in this time period and he had the 2 way play for his entire career while Stevie Y was purely a scorer until halfway through his career and got his 3 Stanley cups because of this and a better supporting cast than Gilmour ever had.

Interesting thing is that Gilmour actually outpointed Stevie Y 60-128-188 in 182 games compared to 70-115-185 in 196 games overall.

I bet if you asked most people on this history board as to who had more playoff production their gut instincts would say Yzerman, I just found it very interesting and almost forgot how good Gilmour was, especially in 89-93 and 94.

Also the hockey news 94-95 yearbook top 40 had gilmour at number 2 and Yzerman at 17, after his injury year and to be fair Gilmour was coming off his huge playoff run.

 

[charliolemieux]

For 2 seasons Gilmour was perhaps the best player in the game. (Granted this was during Lemieux's first retirement.)

Fiesty. Determined.

There were a few players that out performed him offensively but his total game was what made him special. There were a few players 5" taller and 40lbs heavier who got laid out by a Dougie hip-check.

HE played to a level during those two years that you would havea hard time chosing betwen him and Gretzky. Sure you lose 40pts in offense but you get a bulldog instead of a kitty cat.

Gilmour is forever a God in Toronto, and I would take him over an early 90's Yzerman anyday. That is with the utmost respect to Yzerman who is definitly one of the best to play the game in the last 30yrs.

 

[Regal]

In 1992 Fedorov and Gilmour were among the top defensive forwards in the game and scored over 85 points. Yzerman was a one dimensional offenisve player that scored 103 points I would say fedorov and gilmour had better years.

It's still a fair gap in points and a very large gap in goals, at least compared to Gilmour. I think being a consistent top 10 scorer and go to offensive player on a team is getting a bit underrated, in favour of good scorers and all-around players who play for teams where they're not relied on to create offense. To me, this is a bit like saying Ryan Kesler was a better player than Joe Thornton this past season.

 

[tony d]

Like others have said yzerman for the career but Gilmour for that time period.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I agree with this but I would put Gilmour closer to Stevie Y overall than most other I think.

Gilmour's 2 way game is more important in this time period and he had the 2 way play for his entire career while Stevie Y was purely a scorer until halfway through his career and got his 3 Stanley cups because of this and a better supporting cast than Gilmour ever had.

Interesting thing is that Gilmour actually outpointed Stevie Y 60-128-188 in 182 games compared to 70-115-185 in 196 games overall.

I bet if you asked most people on this history board as to who had more playoff production their gut instincts would say Yzerman, I just found it very interesting and almost forgot how good Gilmour was, especially in 89-93 and 94.

Also the hockey news 94-95 yearbook top 40 had gilmour at number 2 and Yzerman at 17, after his injury year and to be fair Gilmour was coming off his huge playoff run.

A big reason why Gilmour outpointed Yzerman in the playoffs is that Gilmour's long playoff runs were back when the league was still high scoring, whereas the Wings didn't become a good playoff team until the dead puck era.

 

[BraveCanadian]

A big reason why Gilmour outpointed Yzerman in the playoffs is that Gilmour's long playoff runs were back when the league was still high scoring, whereas the Wings didn't become a good playoff team until the dead puck era.

Maybe but that is what happens when you choke constantly. The main reason why Gilmour outpointed Yzerman in the playoffs is (and I hate to say this) that Gilmour was a better playoff performer.

Head to head in their prime, Gilmour dominated that matchup, beat Yzerman's better team, and just kept trucking on the way to one of the great playoff performances ever.

Yzerman had to reinvent himself into a quasi-Gilmour to help his team achieve success but really by then he was one part of the whole and never "the guy" any more like Gilmour was for the Leafs.

Hell Gilmour was still awesome for Montreal in the playoffs at 38. God that gives me pain to say that as a Leaf fan.