I guess you could make an argument for Allaire but I think it tenuous at best. Better his disciples who actually played get inducted. Plenty of satisfaction in that.
i don't know. and honestly, my allaire comment was just being contrarian or trying to think outside the box. but other than roy obviously, and then maybe luongo depending on how the next few years go and how long he can maintain at a high level, which of allaire's other students amounted to anything resembling a hall of famer? but you just saw allaire place a hugely disproportionate number of quebecois goalies in the league, to the point where he probably at least partially responsible for almost half the goalies from the 90s up to the second lockout. some were better than others (theodore and giguere vs. i don't know, jc bergeron), but the sheer number vs. any other province, or hell country, suggests to me that the man was making careers. because it wasn't the drinking water in the 70s that these guys were drinking as babies that made all of them pros right?
Originally Posted by Big Phil
I'll put Goulet ahead of him. I know that Goulet faded faster from 1990 onwards, while Gartner didn't, and Goulet was finished with that awful injury in 1994, but at his peak he was better. Goulet was dominant in 1984, second only to Gretzky and Coffey in points. But more so, he was cracking 50+ goals when Gartner was hitting 40+. Overall the edge is to Goulet.
Mullen is closer to Gartner, and to be honest it would be an interesting comparison. Mullen had that big year in 1989 but other than that if you asked yourself who you wanted on your team would people overwhelmingly pick Mullen? In this case, I think Gartner slightly had the better career. Mullen is a guy people complain about but others defend him and figure he's pretty much the cut off. If Gartner is above him, and I think he is, then Gartner is above the cut off.
Eventually I could see Hossa, Alfredsson and even Elias perhaps getting in. Although more likely for the first two.
mullen vs. gartner is interesting in terms of longevity vs. prime. but i always go with mullen not just because of his peak year (which includes a top ten all-time playoff goal total) but also his prime. 41, 40, 44, 47, 40, 51 is better than any six year stretch of gartner's career. if you factor in assists, mullen is solidly ahead there too. and of course, the playoff records are incomparable. i hear you, a 200 goal disparity is very hard to ignore and makes me think twice. but i think people would overwhelmingly take mullen, or at least a clear majority would at any point from mullen's second 40 goal year up to the end of the 80s. and maybe even as early as '82 depending on how much one values big game playoff bona fides. admittedly, the number of all-star games each guy was selected to in the 80s suggests otherwise but i think even insofar as gartner was underrated most of his career, he did have the advantage of being in a bigger east coast market, as well as being the flashier player.
i actually think elias should (but doesn't) have a better shot than hossa and alfredsson if all of them retired today. i see elias as a mark recchi without the crazy career length, alfredsson as federko with longevity, and hossa as a rich man's gartner. even with the conditionals on those comparisons, i still feel like recchi > federko > gartner holds enough in terms of the types of players those were and the respective impacts and meaningfulness of their careers.
in a sense we're splitting hairs at the top, but i do think more 90 point years, and more 85 point years indicates a more potent offensive player, albeit only slightly, in his prime.
as for playoffs, mullen was no gilmour, for sure. but "pretty good" is a lot better than pretty weak for a star player, which is gartner's playoff resume. mullen had two excellent years as a key guy, leading the playoffs in goals both years. then two other pretty good runs as a support guy, both on teams that weren't the flames. gartner only really ever hit that pretty good level once in his entire career.
if you take out the post-prime seasons that lower mullen's playoff scoring average, he's at 92 points in 102 games. good for 11th in that time span ('82-'91), and 8th in goals, 13th in goals/game.
i think mullen has become underrated over time, due to being a low rung hall of fame guy that people point to as an example of declining standards. federko is another guy i'd put in that category. but even though i have mullen solidly below elias, and mullen as my baseline guy for wingers, i think in the period bookended by his two great finals runs, he was a true year-in, year-out star. which i think is above a larmer or a bellows or a ciccarelli. i don't think gartner ever in his career transcended that category of scoring wingers; he just had more of what they were than they did.
mullen's best stretch, goal placements at the top, point placements at the bottom:
it's kind of eye-opening to see how sporadically gartner even hit the top 25 in league scoring. when mullen broke out in '84, he basically was gartner for a couple of years. then he had his prime. then he went back to being gartner for four more years, then he fell off and retired a little after. that's a 10 years of gartner-ing, with a four year prime that gartner didn't touch. if it was rick vaive, i'd concede the point, but those 10 years constitute a meaningful body of work to compare against gartner's 18.
i don't know. and honestly, my allaire comment was just being contrarian or trying to think outside the box....but you just saw allaire place a hugely disproportionate number of quebecois goalies in the league... but the sheer number vs. any other province, or hell country, suggests to me that the man was making careers. because it wasn't the drinking water in the 70s that these guys were drinking as babies that made all of them pros right?
Sure, perhaps. I certainly wouldnt have any problem with creating a special HHOF category that recognizes people who through coaching and or equipment design contributed to the game in meaningful ways. Absolutely. Would be a great way to honor & recognize them. However if one applies current standards I just dont see an Allaire or perhaps Laura Stamm with her innovative Power Skating techniques & training programs being eligible in the Builders Category without broadening the scope somewhat.
Alright, the talk about the Canada Cup was a little shortsighted. He was important in 1987 for sure. 1984 he had 5 points. Not elite fine, but not non-essential either.
The thing with Gartner is that he is a unique case. He scored 708 goals. That's a lot of mustard in the NHL and especially for a guy who never hung around the game too long to pad his stats. Gartner was good until the end. 32 goals his second to last season. Wasn't the best goal scorer in the world at any time but finished in the top 10 five times, and finished 10th in points once. That isn't sexy enough, but what is, is the fact that he played in the greatest league in the world and scored some serious longevity. When many players died down in the 1990s, he continued to truck on. Eventually you have to give a player that kind of credit by being good for that long. He didn't flame out, his speed meant he was a goal scorer until the end. For me, I make an exception to Gartner because he is such a unique case that we may never see again. He didn't score at a torrid pace, but a very good pace, and did it through two decades and in all honesty it barely depreciated in value as time wore on in the 1990s.