Why is Gilmour not in the Hall of Fame?

[Big Phil]

Just a few options, as you can see from my other poll I am a huge supporter of Gilmour being in there and think he should get in already. But what do you think are the reasons he isn't in there yet. I'd love to hear it

Click to read more...

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Couldn't vote that the didn't have a "good enough" career. After 20 seasons he ended up with pretty decent totals, and a Cup. My answer would be somewhere around career=almost good enough (valid arguments either way, not the least of which being a long and productive post-season record) and player=almost good enough (again, valid arguments either way). The "borderline" has to be drawn somewhere, and if I were asked to think of 1 player that I would consider on my personal razor-thin borderline dividing in/out, Gilmour might be it.

A couple of years among the league's best playmakers (and thusly point-getters), but perhaps an asterisk due to the years in which he managed it. Reputation as a great 2-way player, recognized for his defense once (not taking into account votes received in other years)... not bad. Being the best player in the "middle of the hockey world" for a couple of years certainly helps your stock price.

But if you took a 5 year (my arbitrary time frame, but I think we'll mostly agree that just 2 or 3 years among the greats does not an HOF career make) snapshot of his best hockey, where does it actually rank against the "in" crowd and the "waiting" crowd? There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and Dougie finds himself smack on mine.

 

[ted2019]

Gilmour was one of the most overrated Hockey players of all time. That's why He shouldn't ever be in the HOF.Dino Ciccarelli should be inducted in long before Doug Gilmour.

 

[Big Phil]

Gilmour was one of the most overrated Hockey players of all time. That's why He shouldn't ever be in the HOF.Dino Ciccarelli should be inducted in long before Doug Gilmour.

No he shouldn't. Not if you saw Dougie play.

5 players have more playoff points than him. 5 of them are Oilers and one is Brett Hull (Gilmour is tied with Sakic). That is great - not good - company.

To answer the other post here is what I would think are his 5 best seasons
'93 127 pts. (Selke, MVP runner up)
'94 111 pts. (Selke runner up)
'87 105 pts.
'90 91 pts.
'92 87 pts.

playoffs
'93 35 pts.
'94 27 pts.
'89 22 pts. (Won Cup)
'86 21 pts. (led playoffs)
'88 17 pts.

Throw in 1414 career points in 1474 games and how exactly could this guy not be on someone's radar? There aren't a lot of players who have 5 playoff years as good as he did

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

To answer the other post here is what I would think are his 5 best seasons
'93 127 pts. (Selke, MVP runner up)
'94 111 pts. (Selke runner up)
'87 105 pts.
'90 91 pts.
'92 87 pts.

playoffs
'93 35 pts.
'94 27 pts.
'89 22 pts. (Won Cup)
'86 21 pts. (led playoffs)
'88 17 pts.

Throw in 1414 career points in 1474 games and how exactly could this guy not be on someone's radar? There aren't a lot of players who have 5 playoff years as good as he did

Interesting. I thought (personally) that his last 2 years in St. Louis were better than anything I saw in Calgary, including the playoffs (I reckon he may have looked even better there because the team as a whole was much better than the Blues, I think). Seemed like scored almost every time he touched the puck with any space. Not as developed on the defensive side yet, but still "better" looking back on it.

As for being "on the radar", you know that he's on mine. But if I were to compare it to a dart board, he hits the wire on the triples ring.

 

[arrbez]

playoffs
'93 35 pts.
'94 27 pts.
'89 22 pts. (Won Cup)
'86 21 pts. (led playoffs)
'88 17 pts.

Just to flesh those out a bit:

'93: 35 points in 21 games (43% more than closest teammate)
'94: 28 points in 18 games (36% more than closest teammate)
'89: 22 points in 22 games, including the cup-winning goal
'86: 21 points in 19 games, led playoffs in scoring without making the finals
'88: 17 points in 10 games (42% more than closest teammate)

Even in his less notable runs he was usually excellent. 11 points in 11 games as a rookie to lead his team. 8 points in six games in 1996, next on the team had 5. 7 points in 6 games in 1998, next on his team had 3. 10 points in 12 games to lead his team at age 38.

On top of his 1400+ points in the regular season, he was top-5 in Hart voting on three occasions, and consistently garnered Selke votes throughout his career with finishes of 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 6th.

 

[MS]

The reason?

Probably the babysitter in St. Louis in 1986.

The character/credit to the sport criteria and how much it matters is underestimated by a lot of people here I think.

Gilmour was not exactly a solid citizen off-ice over the course of his career and there were always more than a few rumours floating around. Plus he held out with a contract from Calgary in 1991.

They made Glenn Anderson wait awhile before inducting him and they seem to be doing the same with Gilmour. Wait 10 years and make sure he keeps his nose clean and doesn't do anything embarassing for the HHOF, and if he manages to do that then he'll be in.

 

[revolverjgw]

I can't figure out why he's not in yet.

-Big contributor to a Cup

-he has the required huge regular season career totals, and the guy put up a PPG at 36 in the deadpuck era so obviously he's not a product of the 80s.

-and he put up those huge totals whilst being a Selke winner, playing physical, sticking up for teammates, agitating, etc.

-7th all-time in playoff scoring. This should have instantly made him first-ballot as far as I'm concerned. He has more points than peers Sakic, Jagr, Trottier, etc. His PPG is incredible, almost on par with Sakic and Jagr's. He has more points than Steve Yzerman, in LESS games. Yeah I know, it's not all about the points, but the thing is, Gilmour did this while playing as complete and tenacious a game any of these guys, winning a Cup and leading teams to on epic overachieving runs. Gilmour's numbers totally have substance and epic stories behind them. You don't leave playoff heroes like this out.

-fantastic longevity, proving he could put up big numbers across eras and on any kind of team, and had an awesome peak. While he doesn't have any 1st or 2nd all-stars, his two peak years were damn sure better than many other all-star seasons. It's not his fault Mario Lemieux came back in beast-mode, Sergei Fedorov and Pat Lafontaine had random isolated explosions with much more offensive support, or that healthy Wayne Gretzky was healthy Wayne Gretzky. Gilmour had the BEST duo of seasons from 93 to 94 and by far the best duo of playoffs.

Jesus it pains me to see a one-dimensional guy like Robitaille get in right away while a complete playoff hero like Gilmour has to wait.

I'm guess I'm really biased towards Gilmour because he was the player I was most biased AGAINST growing up. I hated him and was too young to really respect and appreciate him. Looking back I realized how remarkable he was, he was that rare kind of player that could inspire that kind of extreme passion (hate, in my case), there hasn't been a player quite like Gilmour on any Habs rival team since. And speaking of that, I loved having him on the Habs... even at the end of his career, the guy still made a huge impression.

On the ice, Gilmour is exactly the kind of hockey player that needs to be celebrated, if it's true that he's blacklisted than that's a damn shame for everyone.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

The reason?

Probably the babysitter in St. Louis in 1986.

The character/credit to the sport criteria and how much it matters is underestimated by a lot of people here I think.

Gilmour was not exactly a solid citizen off-ice over the course of his career and there were always more than a few rumours floating around. Plus he held out with a contract from Calgary in 1991.

They made Glenn Anderson wait awhile before inducting him and they seem to be doing the same with Gilmour. Wait 10 years and make sure he keeps his nose clean and doesn't do anything embarassing for the HHOF, and if he manages to do that then he'll be in.

You're probably right.

 

[canucks4ever]

Alot of people dont remember his 1987 season, that year he put up the same amount of offense as Kurri and Messier. Only Lemeiux and Gretzky were offensively better than him. In 1987 and 1994 he was top 5 in scoring and playing selke defence. So really he has 3 mega seasons and like 7 good ones, easily a hall of famer.

 

[thefifthsedin*]

one possible reason could be that he never really stayed with a team for more than 4 or 5 years to move on to the next, so he never got any team continuity and the years playing with the devils, sabres, blackhawks, and canadiens isn't much help too

i think he should be in as much, or probably more, as any cam neely or luc robitaille

i also think that the character card is heavy, the committee wants players who can play a neat hhof speech too, that's why i have a hard time seeing players like say adam oates or pavel bure going in, both are a little too much sour or outcast to do that kind of show off performance

 

[arrbez]

Alot of people dont remember his 1987 season, that year he put up the same amount of offense as Kurri and Messier. Only Lemeiux and Gretzky were offensively better than him. In 1987 and 1994 he was top 5 in scoring and playing selke defence. So really he has 3 mega seasons and like 7 good ones, easily a hall of famer.

I've gotta ask, how old are you?

 

[ted2019]

No he shouldn't. Not if you saw Dougie play.

5 players have more playoff points than him. 5 of them are Oilers and one is Brett Hull (Gilmour is tied with Sakic). That is great - not good - company.

To answer the other post here is what I would think are his 5 best seasons
'93 127 pts. (Selke, MVP runner up)
'94 111 pts. (Selke runner up)
'87 105 pts.
'90 91 pts.
'92 87 pts.

playoffs
'93 35 pts.
'94 27 pts.
'89 22 pts. (Won Cup)
'86 21 pts. (led playoffs)
'88 17 pts.

Throw in 1414 career points in 1474 games and how exactly could this guy not be on someone's radar? There aren't a lot of players who have 5 playoff years as good as he did

I am right because I said so.

 

[canucks4ever]

I've gotta ask, how old are you?

21, i'm just saying when people think of Gilmour they suddenly think of the guy on the leafs from 1992-97. I wasn't around to watch hockey in 1987 but i know people that did and i have footage of the 87 playoffs. He was an elite player in 1987 and that was a strong year for offensive talent. Much better than 2002-2004 or this current era.

Hell I could make an argument that 1987 was his best year because he was top 5 in a year that had both Gretzky and Mario healthy. A prime forsberg or prime lindros wouldnt have outpointed Gretzky, mario and the teammates of Gretzky. 1987 was a very important year for doug gilmour.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Gilmour was one of the most overrated Hockey players of all time. That's why He shouldn't ever be in the HOF.Dino Ciccarelli should be inducted in long before Doug Gilmour.

I can tell you never watched either play and just took a peek at career totals.

 

[seventieslord]

I said he should be in by now. He's on my top-100 list. Though I realize I have him higher than most people, he's in the 100-140 range for most guys like me. The hall has over 200 players. He's clearly good enough.

- Top-5 in Hart voting 3 times.
- Top-6 in playoff scoring 4 times; only guy to do this in the last 30 years without playing on a dynasty
- Excellent defensively
- Massive career totals

 

[cfrancis]

I think he's borderline. He'll probably get in, just the classes lately he doesn't belong with them.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

I think he's borderline. He'll probably get in, just the classes lately he doesn't belong with them.

Personally, I thought he and Oates were better hockey players than Robitaille.

 

[seventieslord]

They absolutely were better than Robitaille. Robitaille, much like when it was time to get all-star team nods, was compared to players of his own position and obviously that worked to his advantage. (not that he shouldn't get in) - it would work as a disadvantage to Oates and Gilmour.

 

[Big Phil]

I am right because I said so.

I dare you to do a poll on here with a Ciccarelli vs. Gilmour option. Guess who would win that one cleanly. Don't let me stop you...........

Also a couple of other things we forget. In '02 pushing 40 years old he plays well for Montreal and then in the playoffs he gets 10 points in 12 games. Pretty good. And who can forget when he smashed the penalty box glass door? (although that might hurt him, lol)

Not to mention it was him, not Savard, not Federko, not Yzerman even and obviously not Ciccarelli (although he was a RW) that was picked for the 1987 Canada Cup where he played well. Yes folks, on closer analysis Gilmour is more than just a two headed horse with two great seasons in Toronto, he accomplished so much prior to that. But I agree with a poster ahead of me. There was no reason to keep Anderson out that long but they wanted to make sure he behaved himself. Gilmour is being judged as we speak, give it time

 

[MXD]

I said he should be in by now. He's on my top-100 list. Though I realize I have him higher than most people, he's in the 100-140 range for most guys like me. The hall has over 200 players. He's clearly good enough.

- Top-5 in Hart voting 3 times.
- Top-6 in playoff scoring 4 times; only guy to do this in the last 30 years without playing on a dynasty
- Excellent defensively
- Massive career totals

...That is why he should get in ..... 2010.
I mean, he MUST get in.

But for 2009, it was already crowded.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Couldn't vote that the didn't have a "good enough" career. After 20 seasons he ended up with pretty decent totals, and a Cup. My answer would be somewhere around career=almost good enough (valid arguments either way, not the least of which being a long and productive post-season record) and player=almost good enough (again, valid arguments either way). The "borderline" has to be drawn somewhere, and if I were asked to think of 1 player that I would consider on my personal razor-thin borderline dividing in/out, Gilmour might be it.

A couple of years among the league's best playmakers (and thusly point-getters), but perhaps an asterisk due to the years in which he managed it. Reputation as a great 2-way player, recognized for his defense once (not taking into account votes received in other years)... not bad. Being the best player in the "middle of the hockey world" for a couple of years certainly helps your stock price.

But if you took a 5 year (my arbitrary time frame, but I think we'll mostly agree that just 2 or 3 years among the greats does not an HOF career make) snapshot of his best hockey, where does it actually rank against the "in" crowd and the "waiting" crowd? There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and Dougie finds himself smack on mine.

that really made me think. when he played, it hardly occured to me that gilmour would be a hall of famer, and i saw his entire time in calgary and toronto. then he retires and i look back on his career and his accomplishments and think, "yeah, this guy is a pretty sure bet." now i think a lot of us take it as axiomatic that gilmour should be in.

so i asked myself, "why didn't i think he was a hall of famer in, say, 2001?" anything that makes him a hall of famer, he had already done by then.

by the same token, by '95, i was already pretty sure robitaille was a hall of famer. by, say, '98, oates seemed like a sure bet. i think to a degree, gilmour is a guy whose resume makes him look somewhat more dominant than he really was (not to the degree that, say, nieuwendyk's does, but still, it does to some degree). i can't take anything away from those two years in toronto, when he was almost certainly a top five player in the game, but for most of the rest of his career, he seems to my eyes to have been a really really really good, but slightly sub-HOF player. do those two years push him over the top? i guess that's the question. i could go either way. i will say, though, that given that they were in toronto, i am extremely surprised he isn't in yet.

EDIT: to clarify, by current HHOF standards, no question gilmour is worthy. but if it were my hall, he would be pretty close to the borderline. above federko, below savard. above murphy, below leetch. above vernon, below belfour.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

I'm no fan of Gilmour's, hate his guts, but it's kind of assinine that Bernie Federko i s in but he has to buy a ticket.

 

[ted2019]

I dare you to do a poll on here with a Ciccarelli vs. Gilmour option. Guess who would win that one cleanly. Don't let me stop you...........

Also a couple of other things we forget. In '02 pushing 40 years old he plays well for Montreal and then in the playoffs he gets 10 points in 12 games. Pretty good. And who can forget when he smashed the penalty box glass door? (although that might hurt him, lol)

Not to mention it was him, not Savard, not Federko, not Yzerman even and obviously not Ciccarelli (although he was a RW) that was picked for the 1987 Canada Cup where he played well. Yes folks, on closer analysis Gilmour is more than just a two headed horse with two great seasons in Toronto, he accomplished so much prior to that. But I agree with a poster ahead of me. There was no reason to keep Anderson out that long but they wanted to make sure he behaved himself. Gilmour is being judged as we speak, give it time

man, I might have to if You double dog dare Me. What are You, a 5 year old ?

 

[Dark Shadows]

man, I might have to if You double dog dare Me. What are You, a 5 year old ?

He is not the one with the absolutely silly opinion.

The Majority of real Analysts and hockey experts would take Gilmour over Ciccarelli without even thinking about it. In fact, the only ones who would take Dino are delusional to take him over a Defensive Selke winning specialist who could score better and play better defense while also absolutely carrying his teams on his back in the playoffs.