JCD said:
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.