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.

Why Mike Gartner isn't famous?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-01-2013, 01:28 AM
  #26
Evincar
I have found the way
 
Evincar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
For what it's worth, Gartner was in the top-10 in goals scored five times during his career. He's often derided as "the ultimate compiler", but did have higher peaks than Ciccarelli, Recchi, and Andreychuk as it pertained to putting the puck in the net.
Garnter didnt peak higher than Recchi unless you look only at goals.

He did peak higher than Ciccarelli (not in points) and Andreychuk but he is still just as much of a compiler as they are.

Evincar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 01:38 AM
  #27
calvin0416*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 194
vCash: 500
I don't think it's fair to say you can just rub out Gartner's 708 goals because he played during a high goal scoring era. If that's the case, then you can say that about Gretzky too. Or, if Gretzky was so much better than Gartner, why didn't he score 1200 goals then?

I think Gartner deserves what he scored as much as anyone else did during that era. You can't say Gartner was just lucky to score 708 goals but guys like Gretzky weren't.

I agree that he was one dimensional...a consistently good scorer but that's about all.

I cringe to think how many goals today's Crosby or Stamkos would have scored during the 80s and 90s too then if that's the case.

calvin0416* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 01:40 AM
  #28
Monarchist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 872
vCash: 500
Because he joined the witness protection program, shaved his mustache, glued it to his eyebrows and began living under the alias "Patrick Marleau." He continues to score goals from the perimeter and by using his speed, but no so many as to actually draw attention to himself as something more than an above average first line winger.

Monarchist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 01:41 AM
  #29
Ishdul
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 3,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by calvin0416 View Post
I don't think it's fair to say you can just rub out Gartner's 708 goals because he played during a high goal scoring era. If that's the case, then you can say that about Gretzky too. Or, if Gretzky was so much better than Gartner, why didn't he score 1200 goals then?

I think Gartner deserves what he scored as much as anyone else did during that era. You can't say Gartner was just lucky to score 708 goals but guys like Gretzky weren't.

I agree that he was one dimensional...a consistently good scorer but that's about all.

I cringe to think how many goals today's Crosby or Stamkos would have scored during the 80s and 90s too then if that's the case.
There are pretty easy tools to make such judgments. Adjusted points isn't perfect but it paints a pretty accurate picture of the relative offensive value of Gartner and Gretzky.

Ishdul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 01:41 AM
  #30
Evincar
I have found the way
 
Evincar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyThoughts View Post
Then why don't any other 2nd liners have 700 career goals?

He wasn't a star when he came top 10 in scoring in 84/85?

Would you argue that consistency isn't a virtue? Going near-PPG and averaging 41G over 1432 games isn't an outstanding accomplishment?
Was Jozef Stumpel a star when he finished top 10 in scoring in 97/98? You could say that Gartner's 84-85 season was an outlier because he never came close to that level again. He was never a top 3 RW at any point in his career.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Airlines View Post
So many people claim his goal totals are because of the era he played in...

If that were the case, then why didn't every mediocre player finish 6th overall in goals all-time?
No one said he was mediocre. Gartner was a good, consistent goal scorer.

His totals are a product of his era. I dont see how anyone can say otherwise. Garnter has more goals than Bobby Hull and Maurice Richard. Was Gartner better than these players? What about players who have spent their entire careers in a low-scoring era like Kovalchuk and Iginla?


Last edited by Evincar: 04-01-2013 at 01:52 AM.
Evincar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 01:50 AM
  #31
vitogor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Minnesota
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 3,587
vCash: 500
When you are always 'in the top 10', but never quiet 'at the very top', it's easy to get lost in the shuffle... We all remember the Art Ross and the Richard winners, but tell me who finished 6th in goals last season, without looking it up.

vitogor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 01:52 AM
  #32
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 47,090
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by calvin0416 View Post
I don't think it's fair to say you can just rub out Gartner's 708 goals because he played during a high goal scoring era. If that's the case, then you can say that about Gretzky too. Or, if Gretzky was so much better than Gartner, why didn't he score 1200 goals then?
That's where Adjusted Goals comes in handy. It isn't perfect, but it provides a pretty reliable estimate.

Without adjustment:
1. Wayne Gretzky - 894
2. Gordie Howe - 801
3. Brett Hull - 741
...
6. Mike Gartner - 708

With adjustment:
1. Gordie Howe - 925
2. Wayne Gretzky - 758
3. Brett Hull - 738
...
16. Mike Gartner - 609


Gretzky moves down one spot, simply because Gordie Howe was an immortal machine who just scored and scored for decades on end.

Gartner moves down ten spots, because his un-adjusted rank really is inflated by era.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 02:08 AM
  #33
Lux Aurumque*
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: St. Albert, Alberta
Country: Norway
Posts: 15,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckercky View Post
It's been said repeatedly - his big advantage is consistency. Consistency during a high scoring era (which lasted until 1994) was enough to make him #6 all time, without ever being one of the best in the game.

I think the Kessel comparison is a good one. Very good player, but never among the best. If Kessel didn't get hurt much and kept plugging away for his career, he'd have a comparable relative career.
I think Recchi is a better comparison.

10 years from now, you won't hear much about him, but Recchi will be in the HOF some day. He's a guy that was good to acquire at any point in his career. An effective player from day one til the very end.

Lux Aurumque* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 02:14 AM
  #34
Ishdul
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 3,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Airlines View Post
I think Recchi is a better comparison.

10 years from now, you won't hear much about him, but Recchi will be in the HOF some day. He's a guy that was good to acquire at any point in his career. An effective player from day one til the very end.
Recchi doesn't fit either. He was a top 5 scorer in the NHL 3 different times. Anecdotally I'd say the way people viewed Recchi was quite a bit higher than Gartner during their peak years.

Ishdul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 02:18 AM
  #35
Callagraves
Block shots
 
Callagraves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,373
vCash: 500
He was a very, very fast player with a very good shot.

Unfortunately, he played at the same time as Bure, so there was no chance at being THAT player.

Callagraves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 02:26 AM
  #36
revolverjgw
Registered User
 
revolverjgw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vitogor View Post
When you are always 'in the top 10', but never quiet 'at the very top', it's easy to get lost in the shuffle... We all remember the Art Ross and the Richard winners, but tell me who finished 6th in goals last season, without looking it up.
Problem is he WASN'T "always in the top 10", in fact he only made it to the top 10 in points once... in 10th. Very weak for a hall of famer. The thing is he had really good consistency, health and longevity and that long career perfectly coincided with the highest scoring era in NHL history.

So he was never a top player and add in his poor playoff record and he really is a low-rung HOFer. There are many players playing today that are much better but might not get in. Elias and Hossa come to mind.

revolverjgw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 02:38 AM
  #37
ironrhcp
Registered User
 
ironrhcp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Markham Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarneyStinson View Post
Funny, He was my coach my Minor Midget year! ****ing awesome guy and probably the best coach i ever had in my entire hockey career. His son is still a good buddy of mine.
Haha same well he didnt coach me but i go to his church in stouffville you must know dylan. Great kid

ironrhcp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 02:41 AM
  #38
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 20,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
For what it's worth, Gartner was in the top-10 in goals scored five times during his career. He's often derided as "the ultimate compiler", but did have higher peaks than Ciccarelli, Recchi, and Andreychuk as it pertained to putting the puck in the net.
Absolutely - comments in this thread that he was a '2nd line player' are absolutely absurd.

He wasn't a superstar, but he was an above-average first-line winger. Especially when you factor in that he had better-than-average grit and defensive play for a player in that role (especially early in his career - he's an odd case in that his game actually became 'less complete' as he moved into his 30s).

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 02:45 AM
  #39
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Absolutely - comments in this thread that he was a '2nd line player' are absolutely absurd.

He wasn't a superstar, but he was an above-average first-line winger. Especially when you factor in that he had better-than-average grit and defensive play for a player in that role (especially early in his career - he's an odd case in that his game actually became 'less complete' as he moved into his 30s).
IMO, the line between who should and should not be a HHOFer lies below Gartner but above Ciccarelli and Andreychuk. Basically, I think Gartner is as "bad' as you can be and still deserve enshrinement.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 02:57 AM
  #40
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 20,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
IMO, the line between who should and should not be a HHOFer lies below Gartner but above Ciccarelli and Andreychuk. Basically, I think Gartner is as "bad' as you can be and still deserve enshrinement.
I agree with that completely.

Others may disagree with this, but to me there is a level of compiling that becomes 'great'. Yeah it was influenced by era, but the guy scored 700 goals (and 600 adjusted goals) in the best league in the world. He's basically 100 goals clear of Ciccarelli and Andreychuk, and that isn't a small number.

Gartner was also a hell of a lot better all-around player than Andreychuk and Ciccarelli (and has the Team Canada selections over those guys to prove it) and unlike Ciccarelli was a total class act from start to finish.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 03:33 AM
  #41
King King
Lord of Boards
 
King King's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: PNW
Country: United States
Posts: 3,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjshark91 View Post
Islanders.
The first reply to this thread is perfect. Just proves how little attention Gartner gets. Not trying to make fun of you or anything, because I didn't even realize you were wrong at first.

He was an awesome goal scorer, but only one 100 point season and he wasn't even point-per-game. Pretty much the definition of compiler.

Deserves a place in the hall, for sure, but he's only 23rd all time in goals-per-game (among those with 200+) despite tallying as many as he did.

King King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 10:25 AM
  #42
Passchendaele
Registered User
 
Passchendaele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Laval, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWingsNow View Post
Start Kessel's career in 1983
I'll have a crack at it.

1983-84: 70 GP, 15 goals, 24 assists, 39 points
1984-85: 80 GP, 26 goals, 24 assists, 50 points
1985-86: 70 GP, 49 goals, 33 assists, 82 points
1986-87: 70 GP, 39 goals, 32 assists, 71 points
1987-88: 80 GP, 42 goals, 42 assists, 84 points
1988-89: 80 GP, 49 goals, 60 assists, 109 points
1989-90: 36 GP, 13 goals, 32 assists, 45 points

Kessel would have 233 goals (instead of 175) by now.

Passchendaele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 10:48 AM
  #43
Foy
Registered User
 
Foy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 20,978
vCash: 500
I wonder how long his streak would have continued if it wasn't for the first lockout.

Mike Gartner is a lot like another DC athlete from the same time, Art Monk. Never the best WR in the NFL, but at the end of his career, he had more catches than any other player in NFL history, and the record for most consecutive games with a catch.

I think there's something to be said for consistency myself, but I'm a little bit biased considering Mike Gartner was my first ever "favorite player" when I was like 4 years old.

Foy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 10:51 AM
  #44
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,754
vCash: 500
You could score 40 goals a season for 20 straight years and not get any credit around here. You'd be labeled a "compiler".

tjcurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 10:57 AM
  #45
Foy
Registered User
 
Foy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 20,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
You could score 40 goals a season for 20 straight years and not get any credit around here. You'd be labeled a "compiler".
So Mike Gartner is just a poor man's Gordie Howe?

Foy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 10:59 AM
  #46
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
For what it's worth, Gartner was in the top-10 in goals scored five times during his career. He's often derided as "the ultimate compiler", but did have higher peaks than Ciccarelli, Recchi, and Andreychuk as it pertained to putting the puck in the net.
Except Dino's highest goal output was 55 and Gartner's was 50.

tjcurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 11:03 AM
  #47
Foy
Registered User
 
Foy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 20,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
Except Dino's highest goal output was 55 and Gartner's was 50.
and Gartner's peak points was 102, while Dino hit 103 and 106.

So interesting to compare players that were traded for each other.

Foy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 11:08 AM
  #48
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litework View Post
In order to be considered an all-time great you have to actually be great. Gartner was basically a Miro Satan/Matt Moulson type player that played his entire career in the highest scoring era in league history.

His career numbers look nice if you compare it to today's players.
I think that's selling him short. Neither player had the consistency he did. Gartner was on two Canada Cup teams in the 1980s and was also playing in a very competitive position at right wing. The knock on him was that despite his incredible consistency he never peaked at a time when you would say he had a "great" season. Maybe 1985, but that's it.

Gartner is in the HHOF because for two different decades he scored in the NHL. 9 times had at least 40 goals. That's a lot of goal scoring to ignore which Matt Moulson and Miroslav Satan would only dream of being able to accomplish. It is harder to keep a pace like that at an advanced age in the NHL than people think.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 11:16 AM
  #49
tony d
Goofy for Commish
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 53,238
vCash: 500
I've always liked Gartner and found him under-rated around here. That said the guy really didn't do all that much besides score goals.

__________________
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 11:34 AM
  #50
King Woodballs
Registered User
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 34,163
vCash: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litework View Post
In order to be considered an all-time great you have to actually be great. Gartner was basically a Miro Satan/Matt Moulson type player that played his entire career in the highest scoring era in league history.

His career numbers look nice if you compare it to today's players.
His numbers were nice compared to players of his own era.

King Woodballs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:24 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.