Oates vs. Gilmour: Hall of Fame

[revolverjgw]

..No mention of Adam Oates many nominations for the Lady Byng Trophy , or the Art Ross race?

Why is there a trophy for being a "gentleman" and not one for being a straight-up badass?

 

[BubbaBoot]

Gilmour.

Gilmour was better in the playoffs, Gilmour wasn't soft, Gilmour was a Selke winner, Gilmour was a better goal scorer, and (I know this is a bad argument) he scored his points without Cam Neely, Peter Bondra, and Brett Hull.

Maybe Neely, Bondra and Hull don't score points without Oates....at least nowhere near as many.

 

[Axxellien]

..The Lady Byng...``Gentlemanly conduct combined with performance in play```..Not just on attack but checking and defensive prowess, overall play..Witness, Pavel Datsyuk..Perhaps this is the reason Adam Oates never won this prestigious trophy?..Never saw Gretzky or Bossy in that way?..

 

[begbeee]

It is really even. I have voted for Oates.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Both players certainly deserve to make the HHoF.

It's very close, but I'll take Gilmour.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

So close. I'd take Gilmour if I had to though.

 

[Big Phil]

..Doug & Adam deserve HOF entry equally, for quite different reasons..N.B.~ If anyone reading this is attached in any way with the Hockey Hall Of Fame, They might consider rectifying 3 other glaring omissions..RE:..Douglas Mohns, Fleming Mackell & Donald Hamilton McKenney...A nice nod to a gallant era and befitting honour to their accomplishments before these Gentlemen pass away!

Well Dick Duff got in.................before he died (he's still alive of course). Does that make it alright that candidates who had nice but below par careers get in based on sentimentality?

 

[Axxellien]

Dick Duff...

Well Dick Duff got in.................before he died (he's still alive of course). Does that make it alright that candidates who had nice but below par careers get in based on sentimentality?

..But We are arguing here about Adam Oates & Doug Gilmour, not Dick Duff..Far from merely sentimental, very relevant, I assure You...

 

[Big Phil]

..But We are arguing here about Adam Oates & Doug Gilmour, not Dick Duff..Far from merely sentimental, very relevant, I assure You...

With those three names you gave us, I disagree. Out of the three neither one was at the Oates/Gilmour level.

 

[Axxellien]

Quite Similar:

..Fleming Mackell played with every bit the heart and fire of Doug Gilmour. Performed many of the same duties & roles as Gilmour with a scrappy sense of verve...Doug had the longer career of course... Adam Oates was very much the Don McKenney of the 90s..Shared the same creative imagination on attack..Adam was more of a pure face off, playmaking centre, McKenney an open ice rover, a dangerous raider who could fullfill the role of a passing play, assist manufacturer with unique panache..2 finesse players who were Stylistically quite similar, some 35 odd years apart...Again, Adam had a longer, more durable career, but Don attained goals that eluded Oates...If We debate durability & versatility, We cannot do much better than Doug Mohns..Youngest player in NHL as a a rookie in 1953-54, oldest player when he retired in the mid 70s...I know that the MLB Hall Of Fame in Cooperstown induct players long after their careers..Half centuries or more, in some cases..Oversights can be corrected..

 

[timekeep]

Both should be there, but Oates made the goal scorers life easier.

 

[Blizzard]

If I had to pick between the two to start a team I'd go with Gilmour because of all the intangibles he brings to the table so will do the same for the HOF but both are deserving.

 

[Big Phil]

..Fleming Mackell played with every bit the heart and fire of Doug Gilmour. Performed many of the same duties & roles as Gilmour with a scrappy sense of verve...Doug had the longer career of course... Adam Oates was very much the Don McKenney of the 90s..Shared the same creative imagination on attack..Adam was more of a pure face off, playmaking centre, McKenney an open ice rover, a dangerous raider who could fullfill the role of a passing play, assist manufacturer with unique panache..2 finesse players who were Stylistically quite similar, some 35 odd years apart...Again, Adam had a longer, more durable career, but Don attained goals that eluded Oates...If We debate durability & versatility, We cannot do much better than Doug Mohns..Youngest player in NHL as a a rookie in 1953-54, oldest player when he retired in the mid 70s...I know that the MLB Hall Of Fame in Cooperstown induct players long after their careers..Half centuries or more, in some cases..Oversights can be corrected..

I just don't see it. Mackell and McKenney both do not have the numbers of a Gilmour or Oates in relative to their peers and the era. Mohns was fine, but who would be a favourable comparison in the HHOF to Mohns? Would you classify him as more of a defenseman? If so, other than goalie it's the hardest position to crack.

 

[Hamilton Tigers]

Wow. I like both for the HOF, but if I had to choose one, I'd go with Adam Oates. A fantastic player who, IMO, was underrated and somewhat overlooked.

 

[Axxellien]

Underrated, Overlooked:

Are indeed operative words!!..Don McKenney scored 32 Goals in 1958-59!..A Centre!.32 goals!.. In 1959!!..Never even got considered for the 2nd All Star nod!..MacKell was always seen as an elite forward during the 1950s, His years in Boston, in various roles..Centre & Left Wing..Doug Mohns excelled both at Defense and Left Wing..Even played Right Wing on occasion,,For decades..You obviously interpret the numbers in a different manner than I, Sir!

 

[Hardyvan123]

Are indeed operative words!!..Don McKenney scored 32 Goals in 1958-59!..A Centre!.32 goals!.. In 1959!!..Never even got considered for the 2nd All Star nod!..MacKell was always considered an elite forward during the 1950s, His years in Boston, in various roles..Centre & Left Wing..Doug Mohns excelled both at Defense and Left Wing..Even played Right Wing on occasion,,For decades..You obviously interpret the numbers in a different manner than I, Sir!!

Did I get the wrong forum?

Someone seems to think this is the Boston Hall of fame thread.

Even the most die hard Boston fan would have a really hard time pimping any of those 3 guys for the HHOF.

If any of those 3 guys want to go they can by a ticket like the rest of us.

 

[Blades of Glory]

Can anyone make a solid argument for Oates being a more dominant player than Gilmour at their peaks? Gilmour has four top-5 Hart Trophy finishes, and if Mario Lemieux didn't make cancer his ***** in 1993, Gilmour would have run away with the Hart. He also has five top-5 Selke finishes, including winning it in 1993 and finishing runner-up to a guy having arguably the greatest all-around season in NHL history in 1994. Not to mention, Gilmour's 1993 playoffs is one of the greatest single player playoff performances of all-time. I have never seen a player singlehandedly carry a team into Game 7 of the Conference Finals the way he did that year. In 1989, he was probably Calgary's best forward when they won the Cup. I do believe Adam Oates was also a HHOF player, but Gilmour was unquestionably, IMO, the greater player. What Gilmour did with Nikolai Borchevsky and Wendel Clark/Glenn Anderson (I don't remember who his RW in 93 was) beats out anything Oates did with Brett Hull.

 

[seventieslord]

Can anyone make a solid argument for Oates being a more dominant player than Gilmour at their peaks? Gilmour has four top-5 Hart Trophy finishes, and if Mario Lemieux didn't make cancer his ***** in 1993, Gilmour would have run away with the Hart. He also has five top-5 Selke finishes, including winning it in 1993 and finishing runner-up to a guy having arguably the greatest all-around season in NHL history in 1994. Not to mention, Gilmour's 1993 playoffs is one of the greatest single player playoff performances of all-time. I have never seen a player singlehandedly carry a team into Game 7 of the Conference Finals the way he did that year. In 1989, he was probably Calgary's best forward when they won the Cup. I do believe Adam Oates was also a HHOF player, but Gilmour was unquestionably, IMO, the greater player. What Gilmour did with Nikolai Borchevsky and Wendel Clark/Glenn Anderson (I don't remember who his RW in 93 was) beats out anything Oates did with Brett Hull.

I believe it was three top-5 finishes for the Hart. Not that that's bad. (Gilmour is my favourite player of all-time)

The thing is, aside From Gilmour's 3 best seasons, he may not have been better. Oates had all those years where he was leading the league in assists, and making 70-goal scorers out of 50-goal scorers, and top-20 scorers out of Chris Simon.

Gilmour, as we all know, was excellent in the playoffs, but Oates was very good too.

I choose Gilmour myself, but I don't think making a case for Oates would be too difficult.

--------------------------------

Yeah, Don McKenney scored 32 goals once, and he even led the NHL in assists once. That's great! But players are judged based on their entire careers and I don't know what measure can be used to demonstrate that Don McKenney had a good enough career for the HHOF. Mackell was even further away. How many times was the guy a top-20 scorer? 4? Mohns probably has the best shot of them all. He was never a postseason AST member, but played in 7 ASGs, on merit, as an offensive defensemen, as a winger, and then as a defensive defenseman. Very interesting career. Not saying I'd induct him, but he has an intriguing case.

 

[Slapshooter]

Oates was the only player with Mario Lemieux who were even close to Gretzky in regards to playmaking skill. Also a very good, if not elite, face off man. Had a decent defensive game too. In other categories he was a rather medicore player.

Like some editor of LCS hockey mentioned: Adam Oates shoots like a little girl, but can turn a bag of potatoes into assists

Gilmour was good in many categories, but Oates was absolutely super elite in very important one and as such is IMO more HOF worthy.

e: Nothing against Gilmour making it too.

 

[The Un Ool]

Oates -- way too many top-10 finishes in scoring and 6th all-time in assists is hard to overlook.

Oates is greatly underappreciated for his defense and in the faceoff dot. While he wasnt as "tough" as Gilmour, he was clearly the best playmaker in the game for two different periods.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I think Oates was the better offensive player. He was the ultimate playmaking centre: an incredible player in so many ways. Not only was he slick, skilled and smart, he was terrific in the face-off circle and a fine two-way centre. He made every type of winger better - the gifted natural scorer (Hull), the power forward scorer (Neely) and the slick offensive winger (Bondra). A lot of players made a lot of money because they had the luxury of playing with Adam Oates. He could turn a 40-goal forward into a 50-goal forward.

I've often argued that he was the perfect linemate for Brett Hull; truth be told, Adam Oates was the perfect linemate.

Yet, once you get past the offensive side of the game, Gilmour was better in every way. Oates was really good defensively, but Gilmour was better. Oates was terrific in the face-off circle; Gilmour was better. (Remember, there's more to being great in the face-off circle than just winning percentage). Gilmour had a physical dimension that Oates didn't have. He had a presence, an ironic intimidation factor that Oates never had. He was a better leader. And he was definitely better in the playoffs. There are some definite post-season questions marks on Oates' resume. Led the league in assists a couple times late in his career. Went AWOL in the playoffs both years.

I think both guys belong. Gilmour should have gone in first ballot in 2006. Oates should have gone in second ballot in 2008. (Sorry, Oates fans, but Oates ahead of Messier, Francis, Stevens or MacInnis? Not going to happen). There are some warts associated with both players, and they both involve the way in which they left St. Louis.

Oates had the perfect job in St. Louis. And he asked for a trade. To the executives, coaches and players on the HHOF selection committee, that's inexcusable. He also asked to be traded from Boston, although that was a different situation. He was a guy who seemed to wear out his welcome, or eventually became tired of his situation. As for Gilmour, let's not kid ourselves: the way in which he left St. Louis (and, to a certain extent, Calgary, although for different reasons), leaves a lot to be desired in the eyes of the voters.

If you get 1,000 assists, you should be in the HHOF. It's an incredible feat. You get one assist in The Show, you've done something remarkable. Oates has over a thousand. It's very select company. And if you put up numbers like Gilmour, while playing that style of hockey, you should be in the HHOF.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Oates. 2nd only to Gretz for points in the 90s and you only have to look at the difference he made to his linemates. He teams up with Hull and he becomes a goal a game player. He leaves and does the same for Neely. Neely goes away with injuries and he puts up his best season ever. He was solid defensively and good on faceoffs.

Absolutely incredible playmaker and it's ridiculous that he isn't already in the HOF ahead of many others who are far less worthy.

Gilmour.

Gilmour was better in the playoffs, Gilmour wasn't soft, Gilmour was a Selke winner, Gilmour was a better goal scorer, and (I know this is a bad argument) he scored his points without Cam Neely, Peter Bondra, and Brett Hull.

Oates' best season came without any of those guys. He was on the Bruins and Neely was out for the year. They were far more dependent on him that he was on them.

 

[Axxellien]

Oates & Gilmour should Both be Inducted:

..Adam Oates enjoyed some of his finest seasons playing in Boston. He does indeed attract the support of partisan Bostonians. Doug Gilmour starred in Toronto for several years, {As did Dick Duff.. }. Fleming MacKell won a few Stanley Cups in Toronto at the dawn of his career, Don Mckenney won a Stanley Cup with the Maple Leafs at the tail end of his.
Similar and relevant traits between these four players from different eras, abound.

I could also list a myriad of salient factors in favour of the HOF Inductions {Along with their faults & limitations} of Mssrs. Don McKenney, Fleming Mackell & Doug Mohns, who, I believe, played in Chicago for several campaigns... I shall refrain from doing so, here on this thread.

 

[Merya]

I'm going with Oates, despite of lack of accolades. Oates is a bit underrated, but arguably he is top5 playmaker ever. But this might be coloured because I just never liked "killer". I don't think Gilmour was very exceptionally great in any aspect of the game.

 

[Passchendaele]

Oates was superior to Francis in his prime. But Francis has the longevity and Cups.

He was arguably the greatest playmaker of all-time not named Lemieux or Gretzky. 90 assists in 61 games? How crazy is that?