Gilmour and the HHOF

Steve Simmons has come out with an article that he called a “Compelling case for Killer” in which he uses stats and minor comparisons as to why Doug Gilmour should be a HHOF inductee.
There are items in his column that can’t be refuted, such as his point totals and how well he has played in the playoffs. The problem with the way that he has presented the information though, is that he keeps mentioning players such as Coffey, Kurri, Gretzky and Messier while talking stats. This is a method used to build up an argument into your own favour. You have some information and then associate your object with others that are more established as a showcasing point.

It doesn’t matter how many times Simmons mentions Gilmour in the same sentence as these other individuals, Gilmour has never been on par with them in regards to talent, leadership or the hardware to back him up.

Don’t get me wrong, Gilmour was a heck of a player with some great years under his belt which he has an SC ring and a Selke Trophy to prove it, but this doesn’t qualify a player to be inducted into the HHOF. Gilmour has never been known to be the best at anything in particular. During his heydays, when you thought of scoring goals, the names that came to mind were Gretzky and Hull. When you thought of playmaking, you thought of Oates, who by the way is not in the HHOF either, but is a perennial favourite and will get in on a slow induction year.
While on the topic of future HHOF inductees, another player surely to get in before Gilmour is an ’89 Stanley Cup winning teammate, Joe Nieuwendyk. Joe Nieuwendyk has three SC rings to his name, four All Star Game appearances, Calder Trophy, Clancy Memorial Trophy, a Conn Smythe and Olympic Gold in his resume. Although he doesn’t have the point totals that Gilmour does, he has many more accolades and is considered to be one of the best faceoff men in the modern era and arguably in the existence of the NHL. Almost everyone knows about the trade that brought Nieuwendyk from Calgary to Dallas in the Iginla trade and it’s always been said that if Gainey hadn’t made that trade, Dallas probably wouldn’t have won the Stanley Cup in that year, something you never hear about Gilmour in regards to the Cup win in ’89.

The circumstances in which Nieuwendyk and Gilmour ended up on a Stanley Cup winning team are not similar whatsoever. Nieuwendyk was viewed as a missing piece to make that extra step while Gilmour was traded in the midst of a lawsuit in which he was accused of indecent behavior with a teenage babysitter while playing for St Louis, a matter that he has denied to this day and a point that has nothing to do with a HHOF argument, unless the voting members like to make sure their inductees are squeky clean without a mark such as the allegations could have left.
All in all, Gilmour was a great player, but not one of the greatest. He wasn’t the poster boy for a new generation of players (just a poster boy for “Got Milk” ads), he wasn’t the most profilic player in any category during his prime, he wasn’t among the most decorated players in regards to league or international play.

He was just what he was, The Killer