Why is Gilmour not in the Hall of Fame?

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

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.

Gotta agree here. Nothing about Dino overly impressed me in the regular season after he left Minnesota, and nothing he did in the playoffs over impressed me outside of Washington. Don't know about the "score better" thing though. Dino was definitely a consistent sniper, who buried a decently high percentage of his chances for a long time. That's all he really COULD do, and a big reason why Detroit (who were deep as hell down the middle, but weak on the wings) dealt Miller for him. How they ever pulled that off one-for-one, I'll never know, but it gives some insight into just how "one-trick" Dino had a reputation for being... although off-ice problems, getting the Miller bros together, Dino coming "home" (closer to Sarnia, anyways, and with his old coach) and Washington looking to younger and cheaper (didn't want to pay Dino, GASP, 1 _million_ dollars, haha times have changed) were obviously factors as well.

...BTW, I thought Kevin Miller was a RWer with Detroit but hockey-reference has him as a centre...

If you had said "create goals", though, I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly.

 

[seventieslord]

^^Correct. Ciccarelli was definitely a better goalscorer than Gilmour but Gilmour was better overall at creating offense.

 

[Big Phil]

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

No, but a poll would prove my point within hours

 

[Big Phil]

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.

I can understand what you are saying. That being said I personally think he's a HHOFer and personally I don't think his stats make him any more dominant than he was. In a way I don't think they tell the whole story either. Gilmour's worth went beyond the scoresheets even though he put up some gaudy numbers. He was tenacious, a leader, a defensive gem and great playmaker that turned leadfoot Andreychuk into a 50 goal man - twice. None of that is in his statistics either.

Possibly he was a player we took for granted. He wasn't Gretzky or Lemieux, he never was a 1st or 2nd all-star. At the end of the day it is extremely hard to ignore a guy who is tied all time with Joe Sakic in playoff points. So the question begs, how do we recognize Sakic as one of the all time playoff performers but not Gilmour? Well, no Conn Smythe, no captaining a Cup champ and in a way he's lost in that stacked team of Calgary in '89.

But looking back what kind of an impact did he have in the playoffs? He led the playoffs in points in '86 in a year everyone loves to forget despite his team not hitting the finals. He scored 35 playoff points in '93, 27 the next year. Set up the OT winner vs. Detroit in Game #7 '93, scored the Cup winner in '89, and nearly had a point per game in '02 when he was almost 40. When we think of Calgary that year we think of Lanny McDonald's goal. That wasn't even the winner! It's a myth. It was Dougie's goal that was the winner. The pictures we see are of McDonald with the Cup, not Gilmour. So you see what I mean? For reasons that are unknown he gets a subtle nod in the playoffs yet when you examine it closely he was HUGE with every team he was with. When Gilmour contributed, they went deep in the playoffs. No coincidence.

Plus in the regular season alone he was a top 10 player at least 3 times, maybe 4. In '93 and '94 he was top 5 for sure. Off the top of my head here would be my list:

'93
Lemieux
Gretzky (we're talking projection)
Lafontaine
Gilmour
Oates

'94
Fedorov
Gretzky
Bourque
Hasek
Gilmour

An overshadowed player is what he is I think.

 

[seventieslord]

I can understand what you are saying. That being said I personally think he's a HHOFer and personally I don't think his stats make him any more dominant than he was. In a way I don't think they tell the whole story either. Gilmour's worth went beyond the scoresheets even though he put up some gaudy numbers. He was tenacious, a leader, a defensive gem and great playmaker that turned leadfoot Andreychuk into a 50 goal man - twice. None of that is in his statistics either.

Possibly he was a player we took for granted. He wasn't Gretzky or Lemieux, he never was a 1st or 2nd all-star. At the end of the day it is extremely hard to ignore a guy who is tied all time with Joe Sakic in playoff points. So the question begs, how do we recognize Sakic as one of the all time playoff performers but not Gilmour? Well, no Conn Smythe, no captaining a Cup champ and in a way he's lost in that stacked team of Calgary in '89.

But looking back what kind of an impact did he have in the playoffs? He led the playoffs in points in '86 in a year everyone loves to forget despite his team not hitting the finals. He scored 35 playoff points in '93, 27 the next year. Set up the OT winner vs. Detroit in Game #7 '93, scored the Cup winner in '89, and nearly had a point per game in '02 when he was almost 40. When we think of Calgary that year we think of Lanny McDonald's goal. That wasn't even the winner! It's a myth. It was Dougie's goal that was the winner. The pictures we see are of McDonald with the Cup, not Gilmour. So you see what I mean? For reasons that are unknown he gets a subtle nod in the playoffs yet when you examine it closely he was HUGE with every team he was with. When Gilmour contributed, they went deep in the playoffs. No coincidence.

Plus in the regular season alone he was a top 10 player at least 3 times, maybe 4. In '93 and '94 he was top 5 for sure. Off the top of my head here would be my list:

'93
Lemieux
Gretzky (we're talking projection)
Lafontaine
Gilmour
Oates

'94
Fedorov
Gretzky
Bourque
Hasek
Gilmour

An overshadowed player is what he is I think.

Great post, even though you don't fully give him the credit he deserves in either season. (either Lemieux deserves a "projection" to #1 in 1994 or Gretzky doesn't in 1993)

Lafontaine outscored him, but Gilmour was better overall, and this was very well-reflected in the Hart voting. I would say the same thing about 1994 with Gretzky, who was not even top-15 in Hart voting.

 

[Big Phil]

Great post, even though you don't fully give him the credit he deserves in either season. (either Lemieux deserves a "projection" to #1 in 1994 or Gretzky doesn't in 1993)

Lafontaine outscored him, but Gilmour was better overall, and this was very well-reflected in the Hart voting. I would say the same thing about 1994 with Gretzky, who was not even top-15 in Hart voting.

yeah I guess it goes without saying that Mario is in the '94 list, my bad though. Hart voting is a great reflection of how the hockey world judged that player at the time compared to his peers. Should be used more often than not

 

[Epsilon]

It has to be the babysitter thing. I can't fathom any reason why Gilmour won't make the HoF when MacDonald and Sittler are both in. And yeah, those are two of the weaker members, but I'm comparing Gilmour to them based partly on numbers and style of play, and partly on where they gained a lot of their notoriety and contacts in the hockey establishment.

 

[canucks4ever]

I can understand what you are saying. That being said I personally think he's a HHOFer and personally I don't think his stats make him any more dominant than he was. In a way I don't think they tell the whole story either. Gilmour's worth went beyond the scoresheets even though he put up some gaudy numbers. He was tenacious, a leader, a defensive gem and great playmaker that turned leadfoot Andreychuk into a 50 goal man - twice. None of that is in his statistics either.

Possibly he was a player we took for granted. He wasn't Gretzky or Lemieux, he never was a 1st or 2nd all-star. At the end of the day it is extremely hard to ignore a guy who is tied all time with Joe Sakic in playoff points. So the question begs, how do we recognize Sakic as one of the all time playoff performers but not Gilmour? Well, no Conn Smythe, no captaining a Cup champ and in a way he's lost in that stacked team of Calgary in '89.

But looking back what kind of an impact did he have in the playoffs? He led the playoffs in points in '86 in a year everyone loves to forget despite his team not hitting the finals. He scored 35 playoff points in '93, 27 the next year. Set up the OT winner vs. Detroit in Game #7 '93, scored the Cup winner in '89, and nearly had a point per game in '02 when he was almost 40. When we think of Calgary that year we think of Lanny McDonald's goal. That wasn't even the winner! It's a myth. It was Dougie's goal that was the winner. The pictures we see are of McDonald with the Cup, not Gilmour. So you see what I mean? For reasons that are unknown he gets a subtle nod in the playoffs yet when you examine it closely he was HUGE with every team he was with. When Gilmour contributed, they went deep in the playoffs. No coincidence.

Plus in the regular season alone he was a top 10 player at least 3 times, maybe 4. In '93 and '94 he was top 5 for sure. Off the top of my head here would be my list:

'93
Lemieux
Gretzky (we're talking projection)
Lafontaine
Gilmour
Oates

'94
Fedorov
Gretzky
Bourque
Hasek
Gilmour

An overshadowed player is what he is I think.

John Vanbiesbrouck wasn't in your top 5 for 1994 despite the fact that he was a hart trophy finalist. In 1994 Scott Stevens was better defensivley than Bourque. Pavel Bure has to be there somewhere especially if you include the 1994 playoffs.

 

[Dark Shadows]

John Vanbiesbrouck wasn't in your top 5 for 1994 despite the fact that he was a hart trophy finalist. In 1994 Scott Stevens was better defensivley than Bourque. Pavel Bure has to be there somewhere especially if you include the 1994 playoffs.

Scott Stevens was not better defensively than Ray Bourque in 1994.

 

[Big Phil]

John Vanbiesbrouck wasn't in your top 5 for 1994 despite the fact that he was a hart trophy finalist. In 1994 Scott Stevens was better defensivley than Bourque. Pavel Bure has to be there somewhere especially if you include the 1994 playoffs.

Well, we're deviating from the point, but the top 5 is the top 5, a tough list to crack. Hasek won the Vezina, 1st team all-star, under 2.00 GAA. He beat Beezer. Gilmour all around was ahead of Bure, you are forgetting how great Gilmour was in the '94 playoffs as well. Bourque beats Stevens though. That argument about Stevens being defensively superior gets thrown around a lot. Ray Bourque wasn't Phil Housley defensively either

The point is Gilmour would be on many top 5 lists for both of those seasons

 

[Habsfunk]

I'm surprised he isn't in yet. He has great regular season and playoff numbers and won a Selke. The only thing I can see being held against him is the fact he bounced around to so many teams during his career.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Well, we're deviating from the point, but the top 5 is the top 5, a tough list to crack. Hasek won the Vezina, 1st team all-star, under 2.00 GAA. He beat Beezer. Gilmour all around was ahead of Bure, you are forgetting how great Gilmour was in the '94 playoffs as well. Bourque beats Stevens though. That argument about Stevens being defensively superior gets thrown around a lot. Ray Bourque wasn't Phil Housley defensively either

The point is Gilmour would be on many top 5 lists for both of those seasons

The Coaches from that season who voted on the best defensemen certainly thought Bourque was the best defensively.

1993-94 vote:

20 of 26 coaches took part. Coaches were instructed to consider the current season only, and could not vote for their own players.

Best Player: Sergei Fedorov (15), Wayne Gretzky (3), Ray Bourque (1), Doug Gilmour (1)

Best Goalie: John Vanbiesbrouck (6), Patrick Roy (5), Felix Potvin (3), Curtis Joseph (3), Mike Richter (3)

Best Defensive Defenceman: Ray Bourque (8), Chris Chelios (4), Scott Stevens (3), Teppo Numminen (1), Mark Tinordi (1), Nicklas Lidstrom (1), Sylvain Lefebvre (1), Eric Desjardins (1)

Best Offensive Defenceman: Brian Leetch (8), Ray Bourque (7), Paul Coffey (3), Chris Chelios (1), Al MacInnis (1)

 

[nik jr]

it is very surprising to me that the coaches did not have hasek as one of the top goalies in '94.

hasek was the 1st goalie in 20 years to have a GAA under 2.00, and his sv% was very high. also tied for the lead in SO, which seems to be important for voters. he was also amazing in the playoffs. very close to stealing the series from NJ.


seems strange for the GMs who awarded the vezina to hasek to have such a different opinion from coaches.

 

[overpass]

it is very surprising to me that the coaches did not have hasek as one of the top goalies in '94.

hasek was the 1st goalie in 20 years to have a GAA under 2.00, and his sv% was very high. also tied for the lead in SO, which seems to be important for voters. he was also amazing in the playoffs. very close to stealing the series from NJ.

seems strange for the GMs who awarded the vezina to hasek to have such a different opinion from coaches.

The coaches' poll quoted above was published on January 22, 1994. Hasek probably hadn't been a starter for long enough to be noticed.

 

[nik jr]

The coaches' poll quoted above was published on January 22, 1994. Hasek probably hadn't been a starter for long enough to be noticed.

looking in the HSP, fuhr started most of the games early in the season.

hasek had a great stretch of games starting in late november, and seems to have become the starter after that.

 

[overpass]

looking in the HSP, fuhr started most of the games early in the season.

hasek had a great stretch of games starting in late november, and seems to have become the starter after that.

I checked it out also, and Hasek had only played in 32 games up to that point, with a record of 15-11-4 and a 1.95 GAA. So while I'm sure the coaches had noticed him, they weren't ready to call him the best goalie in the league based on 32 games.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Has to be the babysitter thing. Other than that he's absolutely everything you want in a hockey player.

Not that he's been eligible the whole time, but I would take him over at least 14 of the 28 players that have been inducted since 2000.

 

[cupcrazyman]

Gilmour will get in.the fact that Dino is not in has absolutely nothing to do with Gilmour unless your a voting member & you have to pick between the 2 when voting.if you want to ask why said hockey player isn't in the Hall go & contact the members that vote the players into the HHOF.

i'm a Leaf fan & would love to see Gilmour in the HHOF.

Dino was the better goal scorer(stats don't lie) & i'm from Sarnia too.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I think the babysitter incident is definitely a factor. I think he was actually good enough to get in on the first ballot in 2006. Obviously, you want to make first-ballot induction mean something, but when you look at what he did, how he did it, how he competed, and how he delivered in the post-season, I think there's enough for him to be a first-ballot guy.

Is he a first-ballot guy without the babysitter incident? Hard to say. But it did affect his chances.

He had no chance in 2007. Messier, Francis, MacInnis, Stevens - best class since the HHOF went to four players a year. Had a chance in 2008, but they went with Larionov (rightfully so) and righted the Glenn Anderson snub. (Another guy with some off-ice baggage, but he needed nearly a decade to get in). And Gilmour wasn't going to get in this year. Not with Yzerman, Hull, Leetch and Robitaille. (I agree that Gilmour was better than Robitaille, but the all-time leader in LW goals is going to go in first ballot).

Next year is a great chance. Might be his best. There isn't a top-notch, first-ballot option. It'll be Dougie's fifth attempt, but only his second or third in which he had a legit shot. I think Gilmour would be the best option among the players of his generation who have been snubbed.

 

[God Bless Canada]

The coaches' poll quoted above was published on January 22, 1994. Hasek probably hadn't been a starter for long enough to be noticed.

Correct. Fuhr showed up to Buffalo's camp overweight that season, but was still given the No. 1 goalie job to start the season. Lafontaine suffered a season-ending injury. Then Fuhr got hurt. It looked like Buffalo's season was done in early November. (Mogilny also missed the first few weeks of the season recovering from a broken leg suffered during the 1993 playoffs).

Buffalo handed Hasek the No. 1 goalie job after Fuhr went down, and the rest is hockey history. Hasek, given the chance to be the No. 1 for the first time in his career, was incredible. Nobody had ever seen a goalie like him. Hasek, and to a lesser extent Dale Hawerchuk, carried the Buffalo team. But, of course, in January of 1994, nobody knew how long Hasek would be able to continue his play. Would he be just a flash in the pan? Would teams get a book on this goalie who was relying so much on technique and reflexes? Or would it be the start of something magnificent. We found out the answer.

 

[Big Phil]

Not that he's been eligible the whole time, but I would take him over at least 14 of the 28 players that have been inducted since 2000.

Interesting you say that, I'll check it out. Since 2000 this is who I think Gilmour had a better career then out of HHOFers.

Savard (no)
Mullen (yes)
Hawerchuk (no)
Kurri (no)
Fetisov (no)
Gartner (yes)
Federko (yes)
Langway (yes)
Gillies (yes)
Fuhr (no)
Lafontaine (yes)
Murphy (yes)
Coffey (no)
Bourque (no)
Neely (yes)
Kharlamov (no)
Duff (yes)
Roy (no)
Messier (no)
Francis (no)
Stevens (no)
MacInnis (no)
Anderson (yes)
Larionov (no)
Roitaille (yes)
Leetch (no)
Yzerman (no)
Hull (no)

Well by my count (and it can vary) he had a better career than 11 out of the last 28 inducted into the HHOF. I wasn't being biased either, just speaking from the truth

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Interesting you say that, I'll check it out. Since 2000 this is who I think Gilmour had a better career then out of HHOFers.

Savard (no)
Mullen (yes)
Hawerchuk (no)
Kurri (no)
Fetisov (no)
Gartner (yes)
Federko (yes)
Langway (yes)
Gillies (yes)
Fuhr (no)
Lafontaine (yes)
Murphy (yes)
Coffey (no)
Bourque (no)
Neely (yes)
Kharlamov (no)
Duff (yes)
Roy (no)
Messier (no)
Francis (no)
Stevens (no)
MacInnis (no)
Anderson (yes)
Larionov (no)
Roitaille (yes)
Leetch (no)
Yzerman (no)
Hull (no)

Well by my count (and it can vary) he had a better career than 11 out of the last 28 inducted into the HHOF. I wasn't being biased either, just speaking from the truth

I agree with your 11, and if I was a GM, I'd also take Gilmour over Larionov, Francis and Denis Savard.
Due to playoff success and longevity, I would think long and hard about Hawerchuk as well.

 

[Drake1588]

There are politics involved in these decisions. With only four per year, there are usually a few select first-ballot no-brainer selections each year, then a slot for a player with a particularly gaudy statistic and a sterling reputation.

That's Robitaille. Most complete player in the game? No, but he scored a truckload of goals, and he is one of the most liked players in the game, who already appears poised to transition into the management or ownership side of the game. He's very well connected, and he presents himself in an impeccable, unimpeachable manner. Anyone who doesn't think that side of the ledger matters is deluded. The NHL is very chummy.

Gilmour will get in, as his numbers are too impressive, and he has his Cup. It will simply take time. I'd personally induct Oates a hair before Gilmour.

I'm not sure that the HHoF doesn't do itself a disservice by imposing an artificial four-per-year limit.

 

[seventieslord]

Interesting you say that, I'll check it out. Since 2000 this is who I think Gilmour had a better career then out of HHOFers.

Savard (no)
Mullen (yes)
Hawerchuk (no)
Kurri (no)
Fetisov (no)
Gartner (yes)
Federko (yes)
Langway (yes)
Gillies (yes)
Fuhr (no)
Lafontaine (yes)
Murphy (yes)
Coffey (no)
Bourque (no)
Neely (yes)
Kharlamov (no)
Duff (yes)
Roy (no)
Messier (no)
Francis (no)
Stevens (no)
MacInnis (no)
Anderson (yes)
Larionov (no)
Roitaille (yes)
Leetch (no)
Yzerman (no)
Hull (no)

Well by my count (and it can vary) he had a better career than 11 out of the last 28 inducted into the HHOF. I wasn't being biased either, just speaking from the truth

If I base it on how I'd rank them on an all-time list:

Bourque (no)
Roy (no)
Messier (no)
Fetisov (no)
Yzerman (no)
Coffey (no)
Kharlamov (no)
Kurri (no)
Hull (no)
MacInnis (no)
Leetch (no)
Stevens (no)
Larionov (no)
Francis (no)
Langway (yes)
Hawerchuk (no)
Savard (no)
Robitaille (yes)
Neely (yes)
Fuhr (no)
Mullen (yes)
Gartner (yes)
Lafontaine (yes)
Federko (yes)
Anderson (yes)
Duff (yes)
Gillies (yes)
Murphy (yes)

I would put Gilmour just below Leetch/Stevens and just ahead of Larionov/Francis. So I disagree on Larionov, Francis, Savard, Hawerchuk, and Fuhr.

 

[overnath]

He will be in, give it a few years. I think a lot of it has to do with the incident that happened in St Louis, and the fact that he was not an art ross, or hart trophy winner (close i know).