Cup Champs with no Hall of Famers

[Verbeek]

Joey Mullen is in (shouldn't be). Gilmour will likely make it.

You could argue he should be... a guy comming from tough beginnings in New York's Hells Kitchen, making it to the NHL undrafted, the first american to score 500 goals, 3 cups, 2 Lady Byngs.. makes for a good career I'd say.. I'm with you on the fact that the Hall of Fame should be just for GREAT players, but its obviously isn't, so he defiantly should be in if only for the fact he was the first american to reach 500.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Very interesting topic. The 1938 Chicago Blackhawks immediately came to mind, since they're arugably the worst team to ever win the Cup. I looked at their roster and they only had one HOF player: Earl Seibert. It's strange for a team in an 8-team league to win the Cup but only have one HOF member. (Yes, I know that teamwork is more valuable than collecting individual talent when it comes to winning the Cup... but, on average, one would still expect better teams to have more HOF members).

Andreychuk will most likely make it to the Hall of Fame, though I wouldn't vote for him. Way too early to tell with Lecavalier and Richards. Until their careers are over, the "honor" of winning the Stanley Cup with the fewest HOF members belongs to the '38 Blackhawks.

Earl Seibert is a forgotten man in NHL lore but he was brilliant. I have him as the 8th greatest defenseman of all time and 22nd greatest player overall.

 

[revolverjgw]

That is all that needs to be said IMO. Hall is about more than just the numbers. Gartner was never elite and elite is what the Hall is for. When they construct the Hall of Very Good, he can go there.

I know he is already in, but I totally disagree with the selection.

We differ in outlook here. I value net contribution... I think he's worthy because the HOF is not about a handful of elite seasons, it's about elite careers. 700 goals is elite, no matter how you slice it. He didn't accumulate all of his positive contributions by being one of the top 10 players in the league at any given time, so that's a strike against him, but his freaky consistency is uniquely rare. And he was very productive in a high scoring era and very productive in a lower scoring era even though he was long in the tooth. He wasn't a byproduct of the 80s, he scored 32 as recently as 1997, way past his prime. Pretty much nobody can compare to his longitivity as a very good sniper, I personally think that equals a much shorter stretch as a greater scorer. The 30 goal for 50-something years accomplishment has earned him a lot of fame and respect, it's going to be remembered for a long time.

(but I think he's just BARELY worthy, and I'm sort of playing devil's advocate... compared to a lot of guys that are in there, he's more than worthy, but in an ideal HOF with higher standards, I would definitely consider not putting him in... elite career, but maybe not elite enough if I had my way)

 

[JCD]

We differ in outlook here. I value net contribution... I think he's worthy because the HOF is not about a handful of elite seasons, it's about elite careers. 700 goals is elite, no matter how you slice it. He didn't accumulate all of his positive contributions by being one of the top 10 players in the league at any given time, so that's a strike against him, but his freaky consistency is uniquely rare. And he was very productive in a high scoring era and very productive in a lower scoring era even though he was long in the tooth. He wasn't a byproduct of the 80s, he scored 32 as recently as 1997, way past his prime. Pretty much nobody can compare to his longitivity as a very good sniper, I personally think that equals a much shorter stretch as a greater scorer. The 30 goal for 50-something years accomplishment has earned him a lot of fame and respect, it's going to be remembered for a long time.

(but I think he's just BARELY worthy, and I'm sort of playing devil's advocate... compared to a lot of guys that are in there, he's more than worthy, but in an ideal HOF with higher standards, I would definitely consider not putting him in... elite career, but maybe not elite enough if I had my way)

That is the thing, the Hall of Fame is purely subjective. Gartner is in for you, out for me. We are both right.

However, since Gartner is controversial, calling him a "lock" (not that you did) is incorrect. He is a borderline guy.

 

[Flash Walken]

this is a great thread.

my favourite subforum of hfboards.

 

[Higgy4]

700 goals is 700 goals. Its not like he hung around for 8-9 seasons pecking along at 10-12 goals a year to get there. He put up 30+ pretty much every season. You simpy cant ignore a number like 700 goals.

We can go back and forth all day about certain criteria and if someone was "elite" and was he ever "the best at his position" and blah, blah, blah.

When the day is over, Mike Gartner scored 700 goals in the NHL. And you cant count on LESS than 1 hand how many people did that.

He is a lock.

 

[JCD]

700 goals is 700 goals. Its not like he hung around for 8-9 seasons pecking along at 10-12 goals a year to get there. He put up 30+ pretty much every season. You simpy cant ignore a number like 700 goals.

We can go back and forth all day about certain criteria and if someone was "elite" and was he ever "the best at his position" and blah, blah, blah.

When the day is over, Mike Gartner scored 700 goals in the NHL. And you cant count on LESS than 1 hand how many people did that.

He is a lock.

Again, numbers are not everything. You really need to look up what the term "lock" means, because it really doesn't apply here. All Mike has is numbers. Never elite recognition, never won a Cup (he even had a rep for poor post-season play), never won a single award.

He is in on pure numbers. The hall is more than just numbers.

You know, Dico Cicerelli has more goals than Mike Bossy, is he a "lock"?

Pat Verbeek has more goals than Hawerchuk, if Hawerchuk is in on his numbers, then Verbeek gets in on his.

Pierre Turgeon has more points than Peter Statsny, Bobby Clarke and Bobby Hull. Guess the Tin Man is in for certain.

Numbers are not everything.

 

[JCD]

700 goals is 700 goals. Its not like he hung around for 8-9 seasons pecking along at 10-12 goals a year to get there. He put up 30+ pretty much every season. You simpy cant ignore a number like 700 goals.

We can go back and forth all day about certain criteria and if someone was "elite" and was he ever "the best at his position" and blah, blah, blah.

When the day is over, Mike Gartner scored 700 goals in the NHL. And you cant count on LESS than 1 hand how many people did that.

He is a lock.

BTW, how many fingers do you have on that hand?

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/records/minor_record.php3

 

[Ogopogo*]

Gartner is one of the most overrated players in NHL history. He strung together a bunch of good seasons (not GREAT) during the most offensive era of all time. He never once had a great season where he stood out.

Personally, I would not put Gartner in the hall. But, the hall will probably elect him because their standards are much lower than mine.

 

[Ogopogo*]

. The 30 goal for 50-something years accomplishment has earned him a lot of fame and respect, it's going to be remembered for a long time.

)

The 30 goal mark has been achieved over 1000 times in NHL history. In fact, during the era that Gartner strung together his 30 goal seasons, players were scoring 60, 70 and 80 goals in a season. If you think back, 30 goals was actually considered a mediocre total.

This leads me to my question. Why are 20 mediocre seasons = to a great career? Mediocre is mediocre no matter how many years in a row you do it.

I would go so far to say that Gartner was a good player but, he was never great. IMO, the hall should be only for the greats of the game unfortunately, the HOF voters don't see it that way.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Gartner is one of the most overrated players in NHL history. He strung together a bunch of good seasons (not GREAT) during the most offensive era of all time. He never once had a great season where he stood out.

Personally, I would not put Gartner in the hall. But, the hall will probably elect him because their standards are much lower than mine.

Actually, Gartner is already in the HHOF. He was elected on the first ballot in 2001, as part of what many hailed as one of the best HHOF classes ever, along with Hawerchuk, Fetisov and Kurri. There was no dispute of Gartner's HHOF selection.

His 17 30-goal seasons is one of the most respected records by those in the know.

 

[Higgy4]

I agree with alot of the points that you guys are making. Gartner was never an elite player. But at some point, a number as high as 700 goals simply speaks for itself.

That number is just huge. And it's reason enough to get him in.

 

[Higgy4]

Again, numbers are not everything. You really need to look up what the term "lock" means, because it really doesn't apply here. All Mike has is numbers. Never elite recognition, never won a Cup (he even had a rep for poor post-season play), never won a single award.

He is in on pure numbers. The hall is more than just numbers.

You know, Dico Cicerelli has more goals than Mike Bossy, is he a "lock"?

Pat Verbeek has more goals than Hawerchuk, if Hawerchuk is in on his numbers, then Verbeek gets in on his.

Pierre Turgeon has more points than Peter Statsny, Bobby Clarke and Bobby Hull. Guess the Tin Man is in for certain.

Numbers are not everything.

Like I said...all good points. But we are talking about 700 goals. Its a number that HAS to be recognized. It just has to. It may be the only pro going for him on a pros/cons list, but its a HUGE pro.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Like I said...all good points. But we are talking about 700 goals. Its a number that HAS to be recognized. It just has to. It may be the only pro going for him on a pros/cons list, but its a HUGE pro.

700 goals has, in essence, become the one stat that guarantees HHOF induction. It used to be 500 goals or 1,000 points. Well, Ciccarelli hit 600 goals, and his HHOF acceptance speech has been mothballed for several years. Bernie Nichols has over 1,200 points, and he's not going in any time soon.

Pierre Turgeon could very well finish with 1,400 points, and that won't be enough to get him in, either. The number of points that Turgeon finishes with will become the new standard setter for players not in the HHOF. And for good reason, too.

BTW, apologies to JFF for turning this into a Gartner debate. It's ironic that we're discussing Gartner's HHOF credibility when not only did he not win a Cup, but he wasn't reknowned for his clutch play. His streak of 30-goal seasons is vaunted and highly respected. His playoff performances were not.

 

[revolverjgw]

The 30 goal mark has been achieved over 1000 times in NHL history. In fact, during the era that Gartner strung together his 30 goal seasons, players were scoring 60, 70 and 80 goals in a season. If you think back, 30 goals was actually considered a mediocre total.

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.

This leads me to my question. Why are 20 mediocre seasons = to a great career? Mediocre is mediocre no matter how many years in a row you do it.

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.

 

[JCD]

700 goals has, in essence, become the one stat that guarantees HHOF induction. It used to be 500 goals or 1,000 points. Well, Ciccarelli hit 600 goals, and his HHOF acceptance speech has been mothballed for several years. Bernie Nichols has over 1,200 points, and he's not going in any time soon.

Pierre Turgeon could very well finish with 1,400 points, and that won't be enough to get him in, either. The number of points that Turgeon finishes with will become the new standard setter for players not in the HHOF. And for good reason, too.

BTW, apologies to JFF for turning this into a Gartner debate. It's ironic that we're discussing Gartner's HHOF credibility when not only did he not win a Cup, but he wasn't reknowned for his clutch play. His streak of 30-goal seasons is vaunted and highly respected. His playoff performances were not.

that is the danger of setting a Mendoza line for the Hall. At no point should simply accumulating a set number of goals or points get you in. Only greatness (defined subjectively) should get you in. That Orr only has 270 goals (less than half of Gartner's) shouldn't matter because he was a great player. Gartner has great numbers, but was never a great player. Any time you try to quanitify greatness, you are going to open the door for the Pierre Turgeon's and Mike Gartner's of the world to get in.

 

[JCD]

Like I said...all good points. But we are talking about 700 goals. Its a number that HAS to be recognized. It just has to. It may be the only pro going for him on a pros/cons list, but its a HUGE pro.

With Turgeon, we will be talking about 1400 points. Top-20 All Time. Virtually everyone ahead of him will be in the Hall (Oates the only possible exception). If we are just going to hand of Hall of Fame invites strictly by numbers, then Turgeon gets in.

But the Hall isn't strictly about numbers. Or shouldn't be at least. So no matter how huge 700 goals may look on paper, you got to think of the player that represents. That is a player who was consistently good, but never great. That doesn't cut it.

Taken another step, if 700 goals is a lock for the Hall of Fame, then how about 600 goals? Only 2 players ever hit 800 goals, only 4 more hit 700, but only 8 more hit 600. That is still top-15 All-Time. When does 600 goals guarentee admittence? When is Dino put into the Hall? IMO, at his best, Dino was a more dangerous player on the ice than Gartner was. Especially in the play-offs.

My fear is that the Hall is establishing a dangerous standard. A "Gartner Line" is being drawn. If you were as good or better than Gartner was, you are now in.

 

[JCD]

Actually, Gartner is already in the HHOF. He was elected on the first ballot in 2001, as part of what many hailed as one of the best HHOF classes ever, along with Hawerchuk, Fetisov and Kurri. There was no dispute of Gartner's HHOF selection.

His 17 30-goal seasons is one of the most respected records by those in the know.

I actually remember the complete opposite. I recall many consersations both on message boards and in editorials about Gartner's induction. Furthermore, I recall the 2001 class of players being thought of as weak. Kurri and Fetisov were the only locks. Hawerchuk was finally voted in after being previously denied. The only other notable players up for induction that year were Moog, Lowe and LaFontaine. Pat was another controversial player who barely made it in, Lowe was an in the shadow of better players and Moog had yet to make it in (and likely never will IMO).

 

[Sens Rule]

My fear is that the Hall is establishing a dangerous standard. A "Gartner Line" is being drawn. If you were as good or better than Gartner was, you are now in.

I wouldn't fear it that much. If you are as good AND CONSISTENT as Gartner for 18 or so seasons and you get 600-700 goals you can get in. I don't have a problem with that, there will be few that can be that good that long, if a handful get in the HOF it doesn't bother me. 700 goals is 700 goals, that's a freaking lot of goals especially for a guy that never hung around to pad his stats after he had lost it as a player. Is he a bottom rung Hall of Famer? Yes. But He can be in my Hall of Fame with his 700 goals.

 

[JCD]

I wouldn't fear it that much. If you are as good AND CONSISTENT as Gartner for 18 or so seasons and you get 600-700 goals you can get in. I don't have a problem with that, there will be few that can be that good that long, if a handful get in the HOF it doesn't bother me. 700 goals is 700 goals, that's a freaking lot of goals especially for a guy that never hung around to pad his stats after he had lost it as a player. Is he a bottom rung Hall of Famer? Yes. But He can be in my Hall of Fame with his 700 goals.

To reiterate, if 700 goals is 700 goals, then are 1400 points 1400 points? Do you want to let Pierre Turgeon into the Hall? I don't. Like Gartner, all he has is numbers. That is why I think it should be more than just numbers alone.

 

[Hasbro]

My fear is that the Hall is establishing a dangerous standard. A "Gartner Line" is being drawn. If you were as good or better than Gartner was, you are now in.

The Federko line is well below that.

 

[Higgy4]

There are other guys that are in the Hall with pretty average numbers as well. So it cuts both ways. Bob Gainey never had more than 47 points in a season, but was respected for his great defensive play and was a part of that great Montreal run in the late 70's.

Just 1 example. But it isnt like the HOF looks ONLY at numbers. If so, then Gainey wouldnt be in.

Also...if 700 goals becomes the "Gartner Line" that wouldnt be a problem. Its going to be a long, long, long, long time before anyone gets anywhere near 700 goals again. 500 goals isnt a lock anymore, and it shouldnt be. 600 is the debateable milestone now, if you ask me. 700? First ballot Hall of Famer. I think its pretty simple...but thats just me.

 

[pld459666]

fair enough about the one 50 goal campaign

When the Baseball Hall of Fame unofficially established the Mendoza line, it became the Hall of Statistically Very Good.

Excuse me if I want the Hockey Hall of Fame to hold a higher standard.

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?

His career is noted for longevity and consistently. When the Hall for Long Consistent Careers is established, he can be the founding member. To me, the Hall of Fame is about players who made an impact on the game and represent the best the sport has to offer. Gartner doesn't fit that category. Since I am not alone in my beliefs, he is hardly "a lock". Messier is a lock. Hasek is a lock. A lock means somebody that nobody can have fault with.

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.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Actually, Gartner is already in the HHOF. He was elected on the first ballot in 2001, as part of what many hailed as one of the best HHOF classes ever, along with Hawerchuk, Fetisov and Kurri. There was no dispute of Gartner's HHOF selection.

His 17 30-goal seasons is one of the most respected records by those in the know.

LOL. Respected by some in the know. I still don't see how 17 seasons of good is equal to a great career.

I see the game very differently from most, I guess.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I agree with alot of the points that you guys are making. Gartner was never an elite player. But at some point, a number as high as 700 goals simply speaks for itself.

That number is just huge. And it's reason enough to get him in.

So, are you saying that Gartner was a greater goal scorer than Rocket Richard? The Rocket only scored 544. Why is the number 700 of any significance at all?

Gartner played most of his career during the most explosive offensive era of all time, with the longest regular seasons in history. His 700 goals is NOT more impressive than Rocket's 544, Cy Denneny's 246 or Howie Morenz's 270.

Gartner is a product of his era. Good player but never accomplished anything great. His 700 goals does not speak for itself when you put them into perspective.