You're trying to compare a guy who had 16-26 a year over an eight year span with a guy who, in the first 15 years of his career, never dipped below 33 goals, dipped below 35 twice, and set standards for consistency? You're talking your way into a corner.
Gartner was more consistent. And whoever the Mike Gartner of Watson's time was, is assumedly long since selected. (Mosienko, maybe?) But Watson's consistency was at a level that
approached that of someone like Gartner.
I don't need to compare Watson to Gartner to demonstrate how consistent he was. And it's not a 100% fair comparison as I already said. Gartner was only brought up to point out major contradictions in your ideologies, i.e. Gartner can score 33 goals and place 33rd in the league, and do it every year, and this defines his legacy, but when Harry Watson is 14th or 15th overall it does little to add to his legacy.
It wasn't my intention to compare Watson to a modern player. But in his own era, his consistency ranked among the best. Seven top-20 seasons is only one short of players like The Bentleys, Mosienko, and Kennedy, and just two short of Apps. It was one more than guys like Gaye Stewart, Sid Smith, and Milt Schmidt. These players placed higher on average when within the top-20, which is why they were selected long ago, but they had basically the same amount of "good or better" seasons as Watson, as far as goal-scoring is concerned. This is a fact. Not statistical smoke.
If it was not a great accomplishment, then more players would have done it.
I like Watson as a bottom-tier second line scoring winger or a strong scoring winger for a third line. Twenty-six goals in 60 games in 48-49 is a terrific total. Don't need to blow some adjusted for era statistical smoke to impress me with a 26 goal in 60 game campaign in 48-49.
Well, he's on our 4th line so we're doing pretty well.
And when I start talking adjusted stats or complex formulas, then you can start telling me I'm blowing "statistical smoke" We're talking in really simple terms right now - calling it statistical smoke only makes you look like a dinosaur.
Four 20-goal seasons in the O6 era is also impressive, especially when you consider how tough scoring really was from 47-48 to 53-54. I don't know if 18 goals in 50-51 magically translates to 30-35 goals in 84-85, although I do understand how you come up with that.
I really don't care to find out if 18 goals translates to 30-35 in 84/85 because I already told you I'm not an adjusted goals fan.
You say you understand where I'm coming from but you don't come close to actually demonstrating that you do. You're obsessed with flat totals like the 30 goals Gartner always scored or the 40 goals he scored 9 times like you say below.
Of course, when it suits you, you are happy to point out, "12 points was excellent for a defenseman back then!"
But the bottom line is that in terms of consistency and peak goal scoring production, Gartner has a very sizable edge on Watson.
In consistency, yes. In peak, how do you figure? Watson was 2nd in 1949. Gartner was 5th - once - and then was never higher than 8th again.
BTW, one thing that Gartner's detractors never give him credit for is that the guy is tied for fourth for the most 40-goal seasons ever with nine. Gretzky had 12. Mario and Dionne had 10. Then you have Gartner, Bossy and, I believe, one other player.
You're dismissing what I say with BS terms like "statistical smoke" when I try to put anything we discuss in here in context, and then you pump out effluent like this? Gimme a break.
Tell me, how on earth is any player who played the majority of his career before 1980 or after 1997 going to have a chance to post that many 40-goal seasons? So then how on earth is this valid at all? You may as well just say he had the 4th-most 40-goal seasons from 1980-2000 And why is 40 such a special number?
Answer: it isn't, it's an arbitrary cutoff. 
