HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Cup Champs with no Hall of Famers

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-24-2006, 11:56 PM
  #51
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by revolverjgw
He wasn't scoring 30 goals a year back then though, he was scoring 40-50, year in year out. And STILL scoring 30 well into the twilight of his career, in a different era where 30+ goals was really good. He wasn't a product of the 80s.



He was never ''mediocre'', he was always very good. He was very good in '80 and he was very good in '97. Being that good for so long is something special... if it was so easy, lots of players would do it, but they can't.

Now, I agree that he was never really ''great'', per se, and I see your point. But I don't think a player's contributions and production has to be concentrated to have a great career. If you're a very good player for an exceptionally long time, you've made as big a mark as a guy with only a handful of really productive seasons, as far as I'm concerned. Gartner's impeccable ''30 goals at the LEAST no matter what and no matter when'' record is going to be remembered.
Thank you for stating your case. We will have to disagree on this one. My view is that GREAT players must stand out from their peers. Gartner never once stood out, he was in the pack for a long time but never stood out.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
02-25-2006, 12:57 AM
  #52
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,122
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Does anyone else think the 17-seasons record is kinda dumb?

What if Gartner had ten 30-goal seasons, scored 29 the next year, and then strung six more 30-goal seasons together. Does that one goal really mean the difference between a HOF career or not?

It's longevity alright, but the number 17 is just a number. A guy could score 540 goals and beat that record, you know?

arrbez is offline  
Old
02-25-2006, 01:14 AM
  #53
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
but he also had 8 other 40+ goal seasons, so in 9 years he's scored over 400 goals.

He was a GREAT goal scoring winger.

2nd year in the league Mike was 10th in Goal scoring
6th year in the league Mike was 7th in goal scoring
9th year in the league Mike was tied for 9th in goal scoring
11th year in the league Mike was tied for 9th in goal scoring
12th year in the league Mike was 5th in goal scoring

Not sure about you, but to be that good for that long of a time has Hall Of Fame credentials written all over it for me.

Also, anyone who can score a goal every 2 games over a 1400+ game career has a spot in the hall of fame, because if you consider your own argument that he's ONLY scored 50 once, then having 700+ goals in 1400+ games is MORE impressive. It means that he was a model of consistency for any and every player to want to try to emulate. That consistency should not be downplayed, it should be looked at by everyone and everyone should aspire to reach that level of consistency.

He's a lock.
People really need to figure out what the term "lock" means.

Pierre Turgeon. Will likely retire with 1400 points. Lock? To call Gartner a "lock" is to put him in the same class as Messier, Bourque, Chelios and Sakic. Those guys are locks, nobody will take issue with them getting in. That is what a lock is. Since obviously people take issue with Gartner getting in, he is not a "lock".

This isn't the Hall of Consistently good. Anybody who claims Gartner was a GREAT winger is seriously revising history. Dude was never considered one of the top-10 wingers in any given year and only once cracked the top-5 in goal scoring. When all y have to go on is numbers, just cracking the top-5 once is not enough. He is a borderline Hall of Famer that wouldn't get my vote.

Rod Brind'Amour is a model of consistency. In fact, unlike Gartnet, he actually consistently brings more to the table than just goals. Not only that, but he as actually performed well in the post-season too. Taken a step further, in terms of all-around game and who I would want on my team, I would take Brind'Amour over Gartner. If Brindy makes it through another 4 seasons at this pace, he will retire with around the same points as Gartner. He has won just as many Cups, just as many Awards, was just as consistent, brought a more complete game and was a better play-off performer. Is Brindy a "lock"?

Like Gartner, Dino Ciccerelli was a consistent goal scorer throughout his career. Even late into his 30's playing in the dead puck era, he notched 35. At his peak, he was a better player and also has a more impressive post-season history. He even has simlar per-game career numbers and 600+ goals under his belt. He has not given his speach yet. Only difference between him and Gartner is Dino spent 2 seasons in the CHL.


Last edited by JCD: 02-25-2006 at 01:24 AM.
JCD is offline  
Old
02-25-2006, 01:26 AM
  #54
Skk82
Registered User
 
Skk82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Arlington, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCD
Gartner was never a great player. The reason his stats are obscured is because in the high scoring era in which he played they were never that impressive. He had, what, ONE 50 goal season in his career? As a "Hall of Fame" goal scorer, was he ever in the top-5 (heck, top-10) for goals in any given year?
regardless of the era, it takes a special era to score more than 700 goals in a career. there should be no question, gardner belongs in the hall of fame.

Skk82 is offline  
Old
02-25-2006, 01:30 AM
  #55
Skk82
Registered User
 
Skk82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Arlington, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCD
Like Gartner, Dino Ciccerelli [sic] was a consistent goal scorer throughout his career. Even late into his 30's playing in the dead puck era, he notched 35. At his peak, he was a better player and also has a more impressive post-season history. He even has simlar per-game career numbers and 600+ goals under his belt. He has not given his speach yet. Only difference between him and Gartner is Dino spent 2 seasons in the CHL.
IMO ciccarelli belongs in the HOF too. i don't know if you're anti-gartner just to make a point for dino or what, but if a player can achieve the skill and longevity to score 600+ goals he belongs in the hall of fame. period.

Skk82 is offline  
Old
02-25-2006, 01:39 AM
  #56
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skk_82
IMO ciccarelli belongs in the HOF too. i don't know if you're anti-gartner just to make a point for dino or what, but if a player can achieve the skill and longevity to score 600+ goals he belongs in the hall of fame. period.
Numbers are meaningless because era skews them tremendously.

Rocket Richard only scored 544 goals in his career, does that make Ciccarelli and Gartner better than him?

30 goals per year for 20 years equals 600. 15 goals per year for 40 years equals 600. If you play long enough - especially in a high scoring era with long regular seasons - eventually you will hit that mark.

Accumulating career numbers is NOT a sign of greatness. Standing above your peers and dominating is greatness. Ciccarelli and Gartner both did not display my definition of greatness in their careers. Good players but not great.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
02-25-2006, 06:22 AM
  #57
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skk_82
regardless of the era, it takes a special era to score more than 700 goals in a career. there should be no question, gardner belongs in the hall of fame.
That may have been an inadvertent typo, but I do agree with it.

Ogopogo nailed it. Accumulating career numbers is NOT a sign of greatness. Standing above your peers and dominating is greatness. Ciccarelli and Gartner both did not display my definition of greatness in their careers. Good players but not great.

I loved Dino as a player, but he is not a generational-type player. IMO, that is who the Hall is reserved for. I would take statistics completely out of the equation. Doesn't matter if they scored 200 or 800 goals, it is how they went about doing it. Consitently good? Hall of the Consisently good when that is finally built. You need to be great to get your name up alongside Orr, Mario, Howe and Gretzky. The lower we make the Hall of Fame standard, the less of an accomplishment it becomes.

JCD is offline  
Old
02-25-2006, 10:28 AM
  #58
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,793
vCash: 500
Brind'Amour's consistency doesn't compare with Gartner's. Gartner scored 30 goals in his first 15 seasons. After the lockout, he reached 30 two more times. His final year in the streak, 1996-97, when he was 37, and scoring dipped below six goals a game, Gartner still managed 32 goals. Clearly his consistency is reflective of his talent, not his era. And in those 17 30-goal seasons, he had nine 40-goal seasons. It's not like we're talking about a guy who scored his 30th goal on the last game of the year. The 32-goal season was his lowest non-lockout total until his final year.

Gartner's consistency is unprecedented. Nobody in the history of the game has done what he did. Brind'Amour? He's had a wonderful career, had some great playoffs. But compare his consistency to Gartner's? Brind'Amour's longest run of 30 goal seasons was three. His longest run of point-per-game seasons was three. And you're trying to compare Brind'Amour and Gartner. At least try to use a guy like Larmer, who was considered one of the most consistent players of the 80s, and even then, he only managed four straight 30 goal seasons (twice) and five straight 80-point seasons.

There's something to be said about consistency. It's one of the traits that NHL GMs and coaches covet and cherish. When you know you're getting a player who's money in the bank for 30, a virtual lock for 35 and a good bet for 40, you take it. You might underrate consistency, but NHL executives and coaches don't. I know whose opinion I'd rather take. Consistency to the level that Gartner attained it is a sign of greatness.

From those in the know, there wasn't a peep of a complaint about Gartner's induction. And contrary to what Ogopogo thinks, 30 goals is a very respected total in NHL circles.

When people in the NHL talk about Gartner, it's with the highest esteem. You can't say the same thing about Turgeon. Even if Turgeon finishes with 1,500 points, he won't get into the HHOF. Turgeon's finishing total will be the new points standard for a player who doesn't get inducted. (The only way Turgeon gets in is if it takes 40-50 years, when people will only see the stats, and not remember what kind of player Turgeon really was). Despite the points, the name Pierre Turgeon carried a negative stigma.

When people compare a player to Gartner, it's meant as a great compliment. Comparisons to Pierre Turgeon are not.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
02-25-2006, 10:32 AM
  #59
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
Brind'Amour's consistency doesn't compare with Gartner's. Gartner scored 30 goals in his first 15 seasons. After the lockout, he reached 30 two more times. His final year in the streak, 1996-97, when he was 37, and scoring dipped below six goals a game, Gartner still managed 32 goals. Clearly his consistency is reflective of his talent, not his era. And in those 17 30-goal seasons, he had nine 40-goal seasons. It's not like we're talking about a guy who scored his 30th goal on the last game of the year. The 32-goal season was his lowest non-lockout total until his final year.

Gartner's consistency is unprecedented. Nobody in the history of the game has done what he did. Brind'Amour? He's had a wonderful career, had some great playoffs. But compare his consistency to Gartner's? Brind'Amour's longest run of 30 goal seasons was three. His longest run of point-per-game seasons was three. And you're trying to compare Brind'Amour and Gartner. At least try to use a guy like Larmer, who was considered one of the most consistent players of the 80s, and even then, he only managed four straight 30 goal seasons (twice) and five straight 80-point seasons.

There's something to be said about consistency. It's one of the traits that NHL GMs and coaches covet and cherish. When you know you're getting a player who's money in the bank for 30, a virtual lock for 35 and a good bet for 40, you take it. You might underrate consistency, but NHL executives and coaches don't. I know whose opinion I'd rather take. Consistency to the level that Gartner attained it is a sign of greatness.

From those in the know, there wasn't a peep of a complaint about Gartner's induction. And contrary to what Ogopogo thinks, 30 goals is a very respected total in NHL circles.

When people in the NHL talk about Gartner, it's with the highest esteem. You can't say the same thing about Turgeon. Even if Turgeon finishes with 1,500 points, he won't get into the HHOF. Turgeon's finishing total will be the new points standard for a player who doesn't get inducted. (The only way Turgeon gets in is if it takes 40-50 years, when people will only see the stats, and not remember what kind of player Turgeon really was). Despite the points, the name Pierre Turgeon carried a negative stigma.

When people compare a player to Gartner, it's meant as a great compliment. Comparisons to Pierre Turgeon are not.
Although I appreciate your opinion, I disagree with it. My standard of greatness is rising above your peers and accomplishing great things during a career. Being 'in the crowd' as Gartner was his entire career does not indicate greatness to me. He was a top 25 or 30 guy for a long, long time. That is good, very good even but, it is not greatness in my book.

Consistency and longevity are nice but, they are not the hallmarks of someone that stands out from their peer group to achieve excellence.

I respect your view, I simply disagree to a great extent. I think society in general regards consistency too highly in comparison to true excellence.

It is like this: Who would you rather have? Pavel Bure or Trevor Linden. I would take Bure any day of the week, I suspect you would prefer Linden. Different thought processes.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
02-25-2006, 11:18 AM
  #60
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
Brind'Amour's consistency doesn't compare with Gartner's. Gartner scored 30 goals in his first 15 seasons. After the lockout, he reached 30 two more times. His final year in the streak, 1996-97, when he was 37, and scoring dipped below six goals a game, Gartner still managed 32 goals. Clearly his consistency is reflective of his talent, not his era. And in those 17 30-goal seasons, he had nine 40-goal seasons. It's not like we're talking about a guy who scored his 30th goal on the last game of the year. The 32-goal season was his lowest non-lockout total until his final year.

Gartner's consistency is unprecedented. Nobody in the history of the game has done what he did. Brind'Amour? He's had a wonderful career, had some great playoffs. But compare his consistency to Gartner's? Brind'Amour's longest run of 30 goal seasons was three. His longest run of point-per-game seasons was three. And you're trying to compare Brind'Amour and Gartner. At least try to use a guy like Larmer, who was considered one of the most consistent players of the 80s, and even then, he only managed four straight 30 goal seasons (twice) and five straight 80-point seasons.

There's something to be said about consistency. It's one of the traits that NHL GMs and coaches covet and cherish. When you know you're getting a player who's money in the bank for 30, a virtual lock for 35 and a good bet for 40, you take it. You might underrate consistency, but NHL executives and coaches don't. I know whose opinion I'd rather take. Consistency to the level that Gartner attained it is a sign of greatness.

From those in the know, there wasn't a peep of a complaint about Gartner's induction. And contrary to what Ogopogo thinks, 30 goals is a very respected total in NHL circles.

When people in the NHL talk about Gartner, it's with the highest esteem. You can't say the same thing about Turgeon. Even if Turgeon finishes with 1,500 points, he won't get into the HHOF. Turgeon's finishing total will be the new points standard for a player who doesn't get inducted. (The only way Turgeon gets in is if it takes 40-50 years, when people will only see the stats, and not remember what kind of player Turgeon really was). Despite the points, the name Pierre Turgeon carried a negative stigma.

When people compare a player to Gartner, it's meant as a great compliment. Comparisons to Pierre Turgeon are not.
You do realize that consistency is measured by more than just goals, right?

Goals are all Gartner brought to the game, and he was consistently good at scoring them. Brindy offers far more than just goals. Larmer was a Selke-caliber defensive player, to reduce him to "4 30 goal seasons" is silly.

You say I under-rate consistency? I say you over-rate goals. Sheppard was a great goal scorer, at his best he was as good as Gartner ever was. He was tossed around the league because that is all he offered, much like Gartner. If we are going head-to-head, I have a team of Brind'Amours/Larmers and you have a team of Gartners, I am winning every time.

You say teams covet consistency like Gartner? His history states otherwise. You seem to forget that like Turgeon, Gartner had a terrible reputation of posting numbers, but only numbers and never when it mattered. He was a notorious play-off bust. Who cares if he can score goals during the regular season.

Who do coaches and GMs covet? Tell me, when the New York Rangers were loading up to break the curse, which one did they dump and which one did they acquire? Here is a hint: Larmer has his name on the Stanley Cup. Put it this way, in the 3 times Gartner was traded, all three times occured at the trade deadline by play-off teams looking to load up for a run. GMs and coaches deemed him expendable in a Cup run and would rather use him to get another player. He wasn't coveted, teams used him as bait to get other players that they did covet. Caps wanted the girttier Dino (and the Stars needed to get rid of Dino for PR reasons), Stars wanted the younger and more well-rounded Dahlen (Gartner was a total bust in replacing Dino, traded the very next season), Rangers wanted the clutch Anderson (Gartner failed to match the hype for them as well). All told, after his early success with the Caps, Gartner went on to disappoint every team that acquired him.

"For those in the know"... What kind of crap is that? Who are you trying to fool? There was ALL SORTS of talk about his induction being bunk and reflective of a weak year. Unlike you, I was actually around here then. More so, I was actually writing for websites back then and I recall lengthy discussions with my editors about Gartner's Hall of Fame worthiness. "For those in the know", don't be so condescending when you are just pulling crap out of your butt.


Last edited by JCD: 02-25-2006 at 04:33 PM.
JCD is offline  
Old
02-25-2006, 04:33 PM
  #61
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCD
You do realize that consistency is measured by more than just goals, right?

Goals are all Gartner brought to the game, and he was consistently good at scoring them. Brindy offers far more than just goals. Larmer was a Selke-caliber defensive player, to reduce him to "4 30 goal seasons" is silly.

You say I under-rate consistency? I say you over-rate goals. Sheppard was a great goal scorer, at his best he was as good as Gartner ever was. He was tossed around the league because that is all he offered, much like Gartner. If we are going head-to-head, I have a team of Brind'Amours/Larmers and you have a team of Gartners, I am winning every time.

You say teams covet consistency like Gartner? His history states otherwise. You seem to forget that like Turgeon, Gartner had a terrible reputation of posting numbers, but only numbers and never when it mattered. He was a notorious play-off bust. Who cares if he can score goals during the regular season.

Who do coaches and GMs covet? Tell me, when the New York Rangers were loading up to break the curse, which one did they dump and which one did they acquire? Here is a hint: Larmer has his name on the Stanley Cup. Put it this way, in the 3 times Gartner was traded, all three times occured at the trade deadline by play-off teams looking to load up for a run. GMs and coaches deemed him expendable in a Cup run and would rather use him to get another player. Caps wanted the girttier Dino (and the Stars needed to get rid of Dino for PR reasons), Stars wanted the younger and more well-rounded Dahlen (Gartner wasn't happy in Minnesota), Rangers wanted the clutch Anderson.

"For those in the know"... What kind of crap is that? Who are you trying to fool? There was ALL SORTS of talk about his induction being bunk and reflective of a weak year. Unlike you, I was actually around here then. More so, I was actually writing for websites back then and I recall lengthy discussions with my editors about Gartner's Hall of Fame worthiness. "For those in the know", don't be so condescending when you are just pulling crap out of your butt.

Consistency is consistency. I don't care if it's scoring goals, making saves, shutting down the opponents top line or elevating your play in the playoffs.

There are many measures of greatness. Yes, there's the "decade of dominance" that is one of the key measurements for the Baseball HHOF. But there's more to it than that. Elevating your play in key situations is one criteria. Being good enough to be an integral part of a dynasty (or two) is another. IMO, Henri Richard is one of the top 50 players in the history of the game. He was good enough to be a top player on a record 11 Stanley Cup champions. (Richard finished 28th in the THN Top 50 list, and while I wouldn't rate him ahead of Trottier, I think he's place in the top 50 is unquestionable).

And consistency is a sign of greatness. When it comes to consistently scoring goals on a year-to-year basis, nobody did it better than Gartner. Did he benefit from era? I think it's marginal. He was still a 30-goal scorer at age 37 in a season where scoring was under six goals per game.

As for the in the know take: In THN's Top 100 commissioned for their 50th anniversary, a large collection of knowledgeable hockey historians ranked him 89th all-time. (Voting took place after the 1995-96 season). Sakic and Hasek were behind him (Hasek would have been much higher if voting would have taken place even two years later). Finished ahead of the likes of Ulmann, Cournoyer, Sittler and Babe Pratt. Obviously, there are a lot of people who think he's a top 50 player all-time. (Not that I necessarily agree with where he finished, or who he was ahead of).

In fact, when the initial top 50 was revealed at the 1998 all-star break, the three then-active players not in the top 50 who generated the most debate were Yzerman (would have been a top 50 guy if the voting took place two years later), Lindros (riding a wave of momentum at the time), and Gartner. THN could have had anyone they wanted for the top 50 panel. They picked some of the game's most knowledgeable. They said Gartner's one of the top 100.

Do I think Gartner's one of the top 50 ever? No. As you mentioned earlier, his playoff track record is less than impressive. If his playoff track record was as good as his regular season record, I would give him strong consideration. (Marcel Dionne is another player whose playoff record holds him back in my eyes. I don't have Dionne in the top 25 all-time, largely because he struggled in the clutch). Top 100 for Gartner? That's a tougher question. If he is, it would be at the very bottom of the list, say, 95-100. Again, his playoff record hurts him, big-time.

As for why he bounced around. He spent nearly the first 10 years of his career in Washington. That's roughly half of his career. He also spent four years in New York. His stays in Minnesota and Toronto were rather short. In Phoenix, he was on his last legs, although he still had a pretty impressive 1996-97 season. And with the exception of the trade from Toronto, it's not like he was traded for after-thoughts/mid-round picks. A lot of players inducted into the HHOF/about to be inducted have bounced around a lot, too.

700 goals and unprecedented goal scoring consistency gets a player into the HHOF. Can't say I disagree.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:58 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.