Doug Gilmour not HOF material

[number15]

4 players were inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame...... Ed Belfour, Joe Nieuwendyk, Doug Gilmore and Mark Howe

3 of them were former Leafs ..... but only one will likely wanna go in as a Leafs (Gilmour)

but heres my thing..... Doug Glimour was an amazing player. Im a huge fan, one of my favorite players of all time, dont get me wrong. But is this what the HOF settles for these days? Glimour is not a great talent. He is VERY good but not HOF material.

if Glimour got in, so can anyone else... i mean there are people double thinking Mats Sundin, but Doug Gilmour got in?

man that HOF must be one easy destination to get into..... maybe I can get in next season

[PJTucker]

Shame on you!!! Disrespecting the mighty Dougie?

But seriously, given the Hockey Hall of Fame criteria, I think Gilmour is definitely a hall of famer. Let's face it, this isn't the LPGA Hall of Fame, there are plenty of above average players in Hockey Hall. Dougie was a multiple time all star, cup winner, Selke winner, and put up big point totals over his career (over 1400).

[whysoserious]

4 players were inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame...... Ed Belfour, Joe Nieuwendyk, Doug Gilmore and Mark Howe

3 of them were former Leafs ..... but only one will likely wanna go in as a Leafs (Gilmour)

but heres my thing..... Doug Glimour was an amazing player. Im a huge fan, one of my favorite players of all time, dont get me wrong. But is this what the HOF settles for these days? Glimour is not a great talent. He is VERY good but not HOF material.

if Glimour got in, so can anyone else... i mean there are people double thinking Mats Sundin, but Doug Gilmour got in?

man that HOF must be one easy destination to get into..... maybe I can get in next season

It's not that Doug doesn't deserve to be there, but there's no set criteria. There are players that would be ranked lower than Gilmour that are in, so leaving him out at this point makes no sense.

To me, the HOF, and this applies to all sports should be the best of the very best only. Instead it seems like a retirement honour thing now. If you played a long time, had a solid career and put up decent numbers, you get in.

[stanley2toronto]

r u out of ur damn mind boyyyyyyyyyy.

[J-Roc]

Ha, this is all I was thinking the other day. Everyone is congratulating him, meanwhile people are thinking this guy isn't a hall of famer.

[Homer Jay]

Clark Gillies is in the HOF.... enough said. Gilmour deserves to be in there. 7th all time in playoff points.

[Mike Hunt]

I was not a Doug Gilmour fan but there was never any doubt in my mind that he was a hall of famer. The numbers speak for themselves (longevity can't be discounted as one of the HOF's criteria). Gilmour is on par with many of his fellow HOFers in terms of points per game (a little under 1). He played a bunch more games than many of those guys. He almost has 1000 career assists where that number of points tends to be a commonly used baseline for determining consideration. Though he was not a guy who was seen as the very top-tier type of player (I'm talking Hart trophy winners), he did have a couple of seasons in Toronto where he would have been considered top-5 ish (92-93). He also won a cup so the whole "he never won" thing can't be held against him.

If people have issues with Gilmour, how can they not have issues with Nieuwendyk? Similar PPG numbers (Nieuwendyk had more goals Gilmour more assists). Where Doug Gilmour at least approached that top-tier of players once or twice, Nieuwendyk never sniffed it. I'm not sure he would have ever been considered a top-10 talent in the league. That being said, there's no denying Nieuwendyk's ability to score big goals in big games.

You have to accept that the hockey HOF's judging criteria is less restrictive than other HOFs. It's not necessarily a bad thing if you think about it. I'd rather a few underserving guys sneak in than some deserving guys not make it. I certainly don't want it to be like the baseball hall of fame where it's too restrictive. The hockey hall of fame is basically saying: "If you've made multiple allstar games or your numbers compare to guys already in the hall, you're in". And that's absolutely fine.

The Gillies induction wasn't really a big surprise. The numbers aren't "sexy" but they're not bad. Especially, if you take away the final couple of years where he wasn't 25% of his old self (he consistently scored 30-ish goals per year from the very beginning). Gillies wasn't inducted for his numbers, he was inducted because he was an integral part of a dynasty (whether or not that's a good thing is up for debate -- I'm not a fan). He also was considered to be one of the toughest guys with great leadership (which don't have metrics but the HOF probably takes into account).

I tend to like quality over quantity but don't discount the importance of the latter. I thought Neely's induction was a no-brainer (the guy set scoring records from RW).

I would put Peter Forsberg in, the first chance I could (for a couple of years in the early 2000s, he was the best or second best player on the planet, putting up big scoring numbers in very lean years). He also was always a top-5-10 talent when healthy. He's at well above a point per game.

I know many debate it but I think Eric Lindros absolutely deserves to be in the HOF. He was an absolutely dominant offensive player over his first 7 seasons or so. Despite usually playing only 80% of his team's games, he was putting up huge goal totals (I believe he had the highest GPG rate in NHL history over his first 5 or 7 years). He also played an extremely physical brand of hockey that couldn't be matched in those days. He was the very best player in the league in '94. Even after coming back a shell of his former self and playing poorly, his career stats still look good at well over a PPG. He also contributed significantly to Canada in international play which can't be discounted (it's not the NHL HOF).

[Homer Jay]

Well still to this day think of Gillies as an enforcer who was blessed to play with two of the top 25 offensive players in the history of his game. The need to protect Trottier and Bossy at all time from Bobby Clark and his boys bought him a first line slot instead of third line. I don't think any first line player ever fought as much as Gillies ever did.

And hey I actually like Gillies (I have a framed picture of him squaring off with Spinner Spencer in my rec room), and loathe the Bullies, but he just sets the bar too low in my opinion. Is Dave Semenko next?

I think Forsberg and Lindros are automatic. The players actually wonder about more are Mark Recchi, Dave Andreychuk, and John LeClair. Are they going to make it?

[Mike Hunt]

Well still to this day think of Gillies as an enforcer who was blessed to play with two of the top 25 offensive players in the history of his game. The need to protect Trottier and Bossy at all time from Bobby Clark and his boys bought him a first line slot instead of third line. I don't think any first line player ever fought as much as Gillies ever did.

And hey I actually like Gillies (I have a framed picture of him squaring off with Spinner Spencer in my rec room), and loathe the Bullies, but he just sets the bar too low in my opinion. Is Dave Semenko next?

I think Forsberg and Lindros are automatic. The players actually wonder about more are Mark Recchi, Dave Andreychuk, and John LeClair. Are they going to make it?

I think calling Gillies an Enforcer who was blessed to play with those guys is a bit of a stretch. A guy might be able to accidentally pop 15-20 that way but Gillies was consistently in the 30-35 range. Plus, he fought when it was needed. Gillies never even hit 100 PIMs in a season. It's not like he was a thug who only had that dimension to offer.

As for the guys you named in that final paragraph, I would say that their chance of getting in (as a percentage) and the reasons for it would be something like:

-Dave Andreychuk: 90%:

Reason: Mostly the 600 goals. Consistency too. So many 20+ goal seasons. Only knock is PPG which is far from impressive.

-Mark Recchi: 100%

Reason: PPG is high and total points is huge. Almost 1000 assists will get people's attention. There are
so many comparables that he trumps that it's impossible not to see him make it.

- John Leclair: 40%
Reason: Pros --Very good goal scorer. Part of one of the more famous lines of the 90s. Cons -- Doesn't have the huge career numbers. PPG is less than great. Wasn't multi-dimensional

[J-Roc]

I can't believe Mark Recchi was so key in the 2011 Stanley Cup final. I was a huge Penguins fan back in the Lemieux days and the Pens really took off when suddenly they had Recchi, Kevin Stevens and John Cullen. That was a lifetime ago.