Does Mike Gartner Belong in the HHOF?

[DitchMarner]

I know he's in it... the question is: Should he be?


This may be controversial, but I think he's a legit member.


Hear me out: He had almost unparalleled consistency as a goal scorer. There were two seasons in his career where he didn't score at least 32 goals: the shortened '95 season and his final NHL season. That's it.

Otherwise, he was literally always a 32-50 goal scorer...

Yes, he played most of his career in the 80s and early to mid 90s, but a lot of guys played during that time period and didn't score nearly as many goals.

Okay, there was Andreychuk...

Andreychuk couldn't skate. The guy literally could not skate backwards. He was a garbage goal scoring specialist who was also an opportunistic play maker. Gartner was a far superior player at even strength.

In fact, he was a tremendous skater...

It's called the Hall of Fame and he was actually quite famous for his speed and general skating ability...

He also only played for 19 seasons (18 excluding '95) and not 20+.


I don't really understand why people don't quite grasp how good he was at scoring. Yes, he only scored 50 goals in a season once... but so what?

I mean, how many guys have had one or two really high scoring seasons that turned out to be aberrations? I actually think scoring 30+ for that many years is more impressive than scoring 56 once and not even being a regular 30 goal scorer for the most part.

But those 30+ goal seasons weren't really THAT impressive given the time in which he played, right?

Well, according to hockey reference, he even scored 30+ adjusted goals in 14 of his 18 seasons other than '95. In three of the other four, he had 25 or more adjusted goals. The only non-shortened season in which he didn't manage at least 20 adjusted goals was his last season.


As for his peak?

It's really not bad...

From '87-'92, only six players scored more goals: Lemieux, Yzerman, Hull, Robitaille, LaFontaine and Gretzky.

From '87-'93, only five players scored more goals: Lemieux, Yzerman, Hull, Robitaille and LaFontaine

From '87-'94, only four players scored more goals: Lemieux, Yzerman, Hull and Robitaille...


No one questions the induction of Robitaille (and no, I don't think anyone should either)... so why you guys be hating on the G man all the time?!


But did he finish in the top for goals in a single season enough times?


He was a top ten goal scorer in the NHL in a single season five times. That's not too shabby. Keep in mind that he played during a time when it was easier for a random guy to have a career season for scoring (Scott Bjugstad says hi).


Did I actually watch him?


Yes. He played for my team. He was one of my favorites when I was ten. He led the Leafs in goals in '96. He was a good at what he did, and he set a speed record at the '96 skills competition. Okay, that's not some huge accomplishment, but it speaks to how fast he could skate.


Am I just being a fan boy then?

Nah. I still like him as a player, but he's not one of my favorites of all time. Also, a lot of guys have played for the Leafs. I don't think guys like Nolan and Marleau (whom the Leafs just signed) belong in the HHOF. I don't like the Andreychuk induction.


I think because some overrated Gartner (he made The Hockey News' list of the top 100 NHL players of all-time about 20 years ago and then he made the NHL's official top 100 list earlier this year), others react by scrutinizing him and they get to the point where they actually start underrating the guy...


I don't think he is one of the best players ever, but the guy is the NHL's sixth highest scorer. Ever. He may be a lower-tier inductee (not everyone can be a Gretzky or Lemieux), but he belongs in the Hall.

Click to read more...

 

[The Panther]

Your opinion that he should be in the Hall of Fame isn't really controversial when.. he's in the Hall of Fame.

And yes, I agree with his induction.

It might be a different story if (a) he hadn't played for Team Canada at Canada Cup tournaments, or (b) he had been less consistent and/or hung around for years on end after his scoring days ended.

 

[DitchMarner]

Your opinion that he should be in the Hall of Fame isn't really controversial when.. he's in the Hall of Fame.

Well, I did start off with...

"I know he's in it... the question is: Should he be?"

Yes, he's a member, but many players who are in it are considered dubious, weak or outright wrongful selections. From the way people on the net tend to talk, I've gathered that he's not all that highly regarded online.


I'm glad you agree with that he should be in it, however.

 

[Sadekuuro]

Your opinion that he should be in the Hall of Fame isn't really controversial when.. he's in the Hall of Fame.

It actually is mildly so around HoH.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Like making noteworthy change to the system of American politics/government, one siloed change won't do much of anything and might even break something in the process...if we're going to start peeling away the unappetizing rind of the HHOF, Gartner isn't where I start...he'll likely be on the chopping block at some point, but you can't readily start there in my opinion...

 

[DitchMarner]

It actually is mildly so around HoH.

Tbf, that seems to be the case on places where people discuss hockey on the net in general.

He was dubbed a "compiler" and then it became this sort of fad to single him out as not only a weak but a very curious inductee or something.

 

[The Panther]

Gartner is definitely a more worthy inductee than Dave Andreychuk. Neither was particularly elite at any particular time, but Garter more so (five times in top-10 goals vs. two for Andreychuk). And he did it much longer.

Phil Housley is the classic case of the player whose scoring statistics put him "in", but everything else, which overwhelms his scoring stats, pull him "out", where he should have stayed.

But again, it's also the way Gartner did it. Just ridiculously consistent. 80s? He'll score 35-50 goals. 90s? He'll score 35-45 goals. Trade him to bad teams? He'll score 35-40 goals? Aged 36 or 37? Still scoring 30+ goals.

Once he couldn't score goals in large numbers -- as soon as that day arrived -- he was done. I respect that.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This is where you see the power of inducting the likes of Andreychuk and Housley. Suddenly Gartner looks like a better choice than he did 2 years ago.

 

[DitchMarner]

This is where you see the power of inducting the likes of Andreychuk and Housley. Suddenly Gartner looks like a better choice than he did 2 years ago.

I think he's also MUCH more worthy than Clark *** Gillies.

Clark Gillies was basically Wendel Clark on a dynasty team.

I don't think Lanny was really any better than Gartner either.

He had that big 66 goal season, but other than that, what really sets him apart?

 

[ImporterExporter]

I think he's also MUCH more worthy than Clark *** Gillies.

Clark Gillies was basically Wendel Clark on a dynasty team.

I don't think Lanny was really any better than Gartner either.

He had that big 66 goal season, but other than that, what really sets him apart?

McDonald wasn't better than Gartner. I think they're more or less even in an all time light.

And people fawn over Lanny (and then overrate him) because of nostalgia, the mustache and the fact that he had a Ray Bourque like ending to his career in 89.

 

[vikash1987]

If I were on the HHOF Selection Committee, my bar for induction would be fairly high.

Gartner fails 3 key tests in my book:

(1) Never won a Cup (never even reached the Finals once). Automatic disqualifier, barring extraordinary cases

(2) Never won a major NHL award

(3) Never finished Top 5 in goals, except for one year. If your sole criterion for getting in is your goal-scoring, you really need to demonstrate separation from peers in at least a handful of years.

So, in my judgment, he would not be HHOF-worthy

That said, you can't take away the fact that he is an all-time great. His 700 career goals is astounding, and he was truly a model of class and consistency---not to overlook his speed and graceful skating. I unfortunately only caught a glimpse of him at the tail end of his career with Phoenix in '97-'98, but I knew how special he was.

Curious: was his involvement in the NHLPA, and in lockout negotiations, ever a factor of consideration in his getting inducted? I assume not, but I could be wrong.

 

[Inkling]

I don't think that longevity should be a key factor in HHoF induction and in most cases it shouldn't count for much at all, but at some point your longevity can become pretty elite and I think that's where Gartner fits in. He played at a high level for an amazingly long time. 15 straight 30 goal seasons, even back in the 80's is pretty notable.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If I were on the HHOF Selection Committee, my bar for induction would be fairly high.

Gartner fails 3 key tests in my book:

(1) Never won a Cup (never even reached the Finals once). Automatic disqualifier, barring extraordinary cases

(2) Never won a major NHL award

(3) Never finished Top 5 in goals, except for one year. If your sole criterion for getting in is your goal-scoring, you really need to demonstrate separation from peers in at least a handful of years.

So, in my judgment, he would not be HHOF-worthy

That said, you can't take away the fact that he is an all-time great. His 700 career goals is astounding, and he was truly a model of class and consistency---not to overlook his speed and graceful skating. I unfortunately only caught a glimpse of him at the tail end of his career with Phoenix in '97-'98, but I knew how special he was.

Curious: was his involvement in the NHLPA, and in lockout negotiations, ever a factor of consideration in his getting inducted? I assume not, but I could be wrong.

Seems odd to automatically disqualify an individual because of team failure.

Is Brad Park an extrodinary case?

 

[DitchMarner]

I don't think that longevity should be a key factor in HHoF induction and in most cases it shouldn't count for much at all, but at some point your longevity can become pretty elite and I think that's where Gartner fits in. He played at a high level for an amazingly long time. 15 straight 30 goal seasons, even back in the 80's is pretty notable.

Exactly.

If a player just plays for a long time, who cares?

Being a notably productive player for a long time is different.

That's where Sundin comes in as well, although Sundin was a centre rather than a winger, he's the all-time leader in points and goals for a 100 year old franchise, he is the highest scoring Swedish-born NHL'er of all-time (in terms of goals and points), he's one of the highest scoring European NHL'ers of all-time, he has an impressive international resume and he was generally considerably better than Mike Gartner.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Seems odd to automatically disqualify an individual because of team failure.

Is Brad Park an extrodinary case?

assuming the poster meant that never making the finals is the disqualifier, brad park did play in three finals.

i guess borje salming would be the guy we're asking about whether he was an extraordinary case? i can already hear someone saying "harold ballard"...

 

[DitchMarner]

Seems odd to automatically disqualify an individual because of team failure.

Is Brad Park an extrodinary case?

Yeah, those standards are too high. The Hall would be down a few members if those were the actual standards for induction and some players who are members would almost be disqualified as well...


Luc Robitaille won one Cup on a heavily stacked team (maybe the most stacked team of the modern era). He only won the Calder and only finished in the top five for goals scored in a season twice.

If vikash1987's standards for HHOF are applied to him, he would still qualify as a member, but what if had debuted in a year where there was stronger competition for the Calder and he hadn't been lucky enough to play for a team loaded with HHOF'ers?


Shanahan never won any individual awards other than one Clancy and he finished in the top five for goals once. He won three Cups playing for strong teams. I'm sure Gartner could have won a Cup if he had played for the 2002 Wings.



Goulet never won a Cup or an individual award. Would four top five finishes for goals be enough to make him deserving of being in the Hall?

LaFontaine never won a Cup and the only individual award he won was the Masterton. He finished in the top five for goals in a season twice and in the top five for points once.

Kariya didn't win the Cup and only won two Byngs (who cares about that damn trophy?). He finished in the top five for goals once and in the top five for points three times.

McDonald only won a Masterton and Clancy (meh). He finished in the top five for goals three times and never in the top five for points. He won a Cup Andreychuk style, playing for a STACKED team at the end of his career.

Rod Gilbert won zero Stanley Cups. He only won the Masterton. He finished in the top five for goals once and in the top five for points twice.

Cam Neely never won the Stanley Cup and won one Masterton. He finished in the top five for goals twice and never finished in the top five for points.



Hell, Dionne, Hawerchuk, Lindros, Sundin, Oates, Stastny and Ratelle all never won a Stanley Cup. Would they be considered "extraordinary cases?"

 

[DitchMarner]

Should merely not having MADE it to the Cup Finals really be an automatic disqualifier?


If you're going to do this, go all the way with it...


Cup or automatic DQ barring "exceptional circumstances".

 

[Eisen]

This is where you see the power of inducting the likes of Andreychuk and Housley. Suddenly Gartner looks like a better choice than he did 2 years ago.

Or Ciccarelli, or Nieuwendyk , or Duff. The Hall is already littered with players like that.

 

[vikash1987]

Winning a Cup is, I fully acknowledge, a narrow and strict barometer, and it is more team/context-dependent than about the individual. I'm just a very strong believer that winning and being a champion is a critical part of a player's career/legacy, and should be relevant to questions of HHOF eligibility, especially for those cases who are on the fence.

That said, however, I should amend my standard that not winning is an automatic DQ. That's indeed way too strict, and would obviously throw out a lot of great players from the Hall unnecessarily.

Gartner's closest shot to the Cup came in '94. I certainly don't blame him for not winning with the Rangers or Leafs. But this gap does weaken his case, and it necessarily makes the other parts of his record all the more crucial.

Brad Park was a unique case. No Cups to speak of, of course, but the fact that he reached the Finals multiple times definitely helps. As for awards: he was 2nd runner-up in Norris Trophy voting 7x in the '70s....under the circumstances, I don't think that his lack of Norrises would have been held against him, if going by that standard.

 

[DitchMarner]

Here are the career stats and adjusted stats of two Clarks: Wendel and Gillies...


Career goals: 319
Career assists: 378
Career points: 657

Career GPG: 0.33
Career ASG: 0.39
Career PGP: 0.69

Adjusted goals: 261
Adjusted assists: 314
Adjusted points: 575

Adjusted GPG: 0.27
Adjusted APG: 0.33
Adjusted PPG: 0.60


______________________________



Career goals: 330
Career assists: 234
Career points: 564

Career GPG: 0.42
Career ASG: 0.30
Career PGP: 0.71

Adjusted goals: 315
Adjusted assists: 228
Adjusted points: 543


Adjusted GPG: 0.40
Adjusted APG: 0.29
Adjusted PPG: 0.68



Without looking, can you guess which sets of stats belong to which player?


Of course, Gillies could fight, he was physical, he was a hart-and-soul type guy...

You can say the same things about Clark.



If you want to cut guys from the HHOF, you start with the likes of Andreychuk and Housley and then proceed to remove lackeys like Gillies and Duff before approaching other members.

 

[DitchMarner]

Winning a Cup is, I fully acknowledge, a narrow and strict barometer, and it is more team/context-dependent than about the individual. I'm just a very strong believer that winning and being a champion is a critical part of a player's career/legacy, and should be relevant to questions of HHOF eligibility, especially for those cases who are on the fence.

That said, however, I should amend my standard that not winning is an automatic DQ. That's indeed way too strict, and would obviously throw out a lot of great players from the Hall unnecessarily.

Gartner's closest shot to the Cup came in '94. I certainly don't blame him for not winning with the Rangers or Leafs. But this gap does weaken his case, and it necessarily makes the other parts of his record all the more crucial.

Brad Park was a unique case. No Cups to speak of, of course, but the fact that he reached the Finals multiple times definitely helps. As for awards: he was 2nd runner-up in Norris Trophy voting 7x in the '70s....under the circumstances, I don't think that his lack of Norrises would have been held against him, if going by that standard.

This is much more reasonable.

Would you consider guys like Neely, Kariya, LaFontaine, Ciccarelli, Gilbert, Sundin and Goulet to be HHOF'ers if you were on the selection committee?

Should the Stanley Cups Andreychuk and McDonald as non-essential members of Cup-winning teams count for much in your evaluation?

Even Lindros never won a Cup and only won the Hart and finished in the top five for points once (and never in the top five for goals). Should he be in the HHOF?

 

[vikash1987]

This is much more reasonable.

Would you consider guys like Neely, Kariya, LaFontaine, Ciccarelli, Gilbert, Sundin and Goulet to be HHOF'ers if you were on the selection committee?

Should the Stanley Cups Andreychuk and McDonald as non-essential members of Cup-winning teams count for much in your evaluation?

Even Lindros never won a Cup and only won the Hart and finished in the top five for points once (and never in the top five for goals). Should he be in the HHOF?

Tough to comment on all of these, and I wouldn't want to get away from the topic of Gartner being in the Hall. I will say that there are some similarities. For example, Gartner's biggest selling point was his 700 career goals, which were probably deemed too many to keep the guy out....ditto with 600 by Andreychuk & Ciccarelli.

 

[DitchMarner]

Andreychuk surpassed the 600 goal mark by stringing together several 20-21 goal seasons at the end of his career and his career was quite a bit longer than Gartner's.

Whereas Gartner was a top six forward for more or less his whole career until his last season in the NHL, Andreychuk was basically just a third line PP specialist in his last few seasons. He still fell short of Gartner's overall goal total. The guy just couldn't score at close to a HHOF level during the dead puck era. Gartner did score 30+ in '97.

I think he's anywhere from considerably to significantly more deserving of being in the HHOF than Dave Andreychuk.

He's closer to Goulet in my opinion than to Andreychuk.


Ciccarelli is a better comparable to GM than Andreychuk as well.

 

[Neutrinos]

If I were on the HHOF Selection Committee, my bar for induction would be fairly high.

Gartner fails 3 key tests in my book:

(1) Never won a Cup (never even reached the Finals once). Automatic disqualifier, barring extraordinary cases

(2) Never won a major NHL award

(3) Never finished Top 5 in goals, except for one year. If your sole criterion for getting in is your goal-scoring, you really need to demonstrate separation from peers in at least a handful of years.

So, in my judgment, he would not be HHOF-worthy

That said, you can't take away the fact that he is an all-time great. His 700 career goals is astounding, and he was truly a model of class and consistency---not to overlook his speed and graceful skating. I unfortunately only caught a glimpse of him at the tail end of his career with Phoenix in '97-'98, but I knew how special he was.

Curious: was his involvement in the NHLPA, and in lockout negotiations, ever a factor of consideration in his getting inducted? I assume not, but I could be wrong.

I literally couldn't care less about that

 

[Canucks1096]

Seems odd to automatically disqualify an individual because of team failure.

Is Brad Park an extrodinary case?

For me I have the same 3 Criteria. But for me you need at least two of them to make it to the hhof

Of course there are always exceptions