Mike Gartner: Why Is He In The HHOF?

[Higgy4]

Not sure how anyone can say that he doesnt deserve to be in the Hall of Fame???

You people that dont think he deserves to be in? What else do you think he needed to do to earn HOF honors in your eyes? I am curious. And please dont bring up the fact that he never won a Cup. 708 goals overshadows a Cup-less career. Mathieu Dandenault has 3 Cups. I think Gartner gets the nod over Dandenault still.

I am shocked that people actually believe he shouldnt get into the hall. 708 goals.

 

[David Puddy]

Not sure how anyone can say that he doesnt deserve to be in the Hall of Fame???

I can only assume that people saying that Gartner is not deserving believe that only 10 to 20 players should be in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

 

[Drake1588]

The NHL changes. Defensive play, systems can gain ascendancy, positional play, conditioning, all these things change over time, evolving or shifting or altering in some fashion along with rules, styles, the players themselves in a physical sense.

In every era, though, goal-scoring has been important for a forward and there is no way around that.

The sixth all-time NHL goal scorer makes the Hall. The fact that he did so with such consistency, across more than one era, and did not put up three or four 70-goal seasons to skew the curve, makes it all the more impressive.

That he was a classy person, and a widely respected player leader is a credit to the individual, but not particularly relevant to Hall worthiness. The man simply has the numbers.

Luc Robitaille is going to get in for the same reason, and the same argument will be made then as is now: If you stand in good company on the all-time goals, assists, or points lists, you are probably going to be in the Hall.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I can only assume that people saying that Gartner is not deserving believe that only 10 to 20 players should be in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Nope, not at all. I would be stricter than the Hall of Fame is, but Mike Gartner wouldn't be a top 100 all-time player, let alone top 10-20.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Not sure how anyone can say that he doesnt deserve to be in the Hall of Fame???

You people that dont think he deserves to be in? What else do you think he needed to do to earn HOF honors in your eyes? I am curious. And please dont bring up the fact that he never won a Cup. 708 goals overshadows a Cup-less career. Mathieu Dandenault has 3 Cups. I think Gartner gets the nod over Dandenault still.

I am shocked that people actually believe he shouldnt get into the hall. 708 goals.

How about greatness ??? Mike Garnter was a good-to very good hockey player for a long time. He was never a great player.

Never named to a 1st or 2nd all-star team. Never won a major award. He was never a top 10 NHL player. Rare was the year he was a top 25 NHL player. He was never a top 1-3 player at his position.

For someone whose greatest claim to fame is his goal scoring ability, to have played during the highest scoring era in NHL history, and only hit the 50 goal mark once, isn't particularly impressive.

Stanley Cup ??? You don't need to win a Stanley Cup; although it would help. He only made it as far as the Conference Finals ONCE, and his Caps teams weren't exactly untalented.

Also Gartner wasn't exactly a clutch playoff performer. His goal scoring and point production drops significantly come the post season.

 

[wedge]

ah come on

if I was a team owner, I'd rather have Mike Gartner for 10 years, when I'll be sure he'll get me 30 goals, than having Alex Mogilny, who could give me a 76 goal season, but also a 14 goal season.

Mr. consistency deserves to be in the HHOF better than a lot of players.

So, you think that Larry Murphy shouldn't be in the hall neither?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

ah come on

if I was a team owner, I'd rather have Mike Gartner for 10 years, when I'll be sure he'll get me 30 goals, than having Alex Mogilny, who could give me a 76 goal season, but also a 14 goal season.

Mr. consistency deserves to be in the HHOF better than a lot of players.

So, you think that Larry Murphy shouldn't be in the hall neither?

Never said that. I'd certainly have Murphy in the Hall of Fame.


I wouldn't have Moglilny in the Hall of Fame, but if I had a game to play tomorrow and my choice of Gartner or Mogilny, I'd take Alex every time without hesitating.

 

[wedge]

Murphy's career is EXACTLY like Gartner's.

Always good, never great, never dominating, always consistent...

SAME THING

So why would Murphy be in if Gartner's doesn't deserve it?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Murphy's career is EXACTLY like Gartner's.

Always good, never great, never dominating, always consistent...

SAME THING

So why would Murphy be in if Gartner's doesn't deserve it?

#1. Murphy is within 120 points of Gartner and he was a defenseman.

#2. Murphy is a 4-time Stanley Cup Champion.


IMO it wasn't a coincidence that he gets traded to Pittsburgh and the immediately win 2 Stanley Cups. Let on he gets dealt to Detroit and again they immediately win 2 Stanley Cups.

 

[silver_made*]

After reading nearly all the posts, here's what I've gathered:

Mike has 0 cups, 0 individual awards, 0 postseason all-star berths, 1-50 goal season out of 19 seasons which occured mostly during the roller hockey-scoring era of the sport (this being maybe the most glaring stat of all for gartner)

so gartner is being honored by the hockey HALL OF FAME for being consistent?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

After reading nearly all the posts, here's what I've gathered:

Mike has 0 cups, 0 individual awards, 0 postseason all-star berths, 1-50 goal season out of 19 seasons which occured mostly during the roller hockey-scoring era of the sport (this being maybe the most glaring stat of all for gartner)

so gartner is being honored by the hockey HALL OF FAME for being consistent?

Yes, Gartner was consistently good-to very good.

 

[GKJ]

After reading nearly all the posts, here's what I've gathered:

Mike has 0 cups, 0 individual awards, 0 postseason all-star berths, 1-50 goal season out of 19 seasons which occured mostly during the roller hockey-scoring era of the sport (this being maybe the most glaring stat of all for gartner)

so gartner is being honored by the hockey HALL OF FAME for being consistent?

You failed to gather that he scored 700 goals. He could have played 70 years if you score 700 goals you're going in.

 

[Drake1588]

Something that has not been raised enough in this thread is the importance of longevity coupled with a high level of play. Gartner wasn't just consistent, he played elite-level hockey consistently over about 15 years of his career.

Mike Gartner is in the Hall, and Cam Neely never will be, because Hall voters place a far greater premium on longevity than many fans are willing to admit.

Approximately 15 years of high-level play trumps five years leading the sport in a production sense and a couple of trophies as a result.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Something that has not been raised enough in this thread is the importance of longevity coupled with a high level of play. Gartner wasn't just consistent, he played elite-level hockey consistently over about 15 years of his career.

Mike Gartner is in the Hall, and Cam Neely never will be, because Hall voters place a far greater premium on longevity than many fans are willing to admit.

Approximately 15 years of high-level play trumps five years leading the sport in a production sense and a couple of trophies as a result.

I would say that Gartner played "elite-level" hockey.

I also wouldn't have Cam Neely in the HHoF.

IMO you need to combine greatness and longevity. Neely didn't play long enough and Gartner was never a great player.

 

[Higgy4]

Nope, not at all. I would be stricter than the Hall of Fame is, but Mike Gartner wouldn't be a top 100 all-time player, let alone top 10-20.

I probably agree that he isnt a top 100 NHL player, when you figure in goalies and defensman and such. But 708 goals is still 708 goals. No matter what way you slice it. In my mind you simply cannot intelligently argue AGAINST 708 goals.

 

[Higgy4]

How about greatness ??? Mike Garnter was a good-to very good hockey player for a long time. He was never a great player.

Never named to a 1st or 2nd all-star team. Never won a major award. He was never a top 10 NHL player. Rare was the year he was a top 25 NHL player. He was never a top 1-3 player at his position.

For someone whose greatest claim to fame is his goal scoring ability, to have played during the highest scoring era in NHL history, and only hit the 50 goal mark once, isn't particularly impressive.

Stanley Cup ??? You don't need to win a Stanley Cup; although it would help. He only made it as far as the Conference Finals ONCE, and his Caps teams weren't exactly untalented.

Also Gartner wasn't exactly a clutch playoff performer. His goal scoring and point production drops significantly come the post season.

Gordie Howe never scored 50 goals, and only had one 100 point season.

Consistency is a MAJOR factor when talking about players. And they didnt come much more consistent than Gartner.

In his early Cap years, they struggled. The Caps got better near the end of his Caps career, but they werent exactly world beaters. After that he played for lowly Minnesota. He was then traded away by the NYR at the 1994 trade deadline (poor guy).

And while his playoff numbers werent great, they arent bad either.

I just think people who are against it are simply being way too critical. I am going to sound very redundant in this argument...but...708 goals. You dont really need to say anything more.

 

[wedge]

where I agree with you is that it's too easy to get in the hall.

Maybe Gartner wouldn't deserve it IF less players where in. Take out the Federko, Murphy, Gillies and others, and now Gartner shouldn't be in. But because of the conditions of admissibility, he totally deserves his place.

My question to you, John Flyers Fan, do you think these guys will get in?

Modano
Fedorov
Sundin
Roenick
Lindros

Modano, Sundin and Roenick have never been great, but have been consistant in their entire career. Fedorov has been great once or twice, but consistant the rest of the time. And Lindros has been the best a few seasons.

 

[Higgy4]

Murphy's career is EXACTLY like Gartner's.

Always good, never great, never dominating, always consistent...

SAME THING

So why would Murphy be in if Gartner's doesn't deserve it?

Well, most people would point out the fact that Murphy was on 4 Cup winners.

 

[Higgy4]

After reading nearly all the posts, here's what I've gathered:

Mike has 0 cups, 0 individual awards, 0 postseason all-star berths, 1-50 goal season out of 19 seasons which occured mostly during the roller hockey-scoring era of the sport (this being maybe the most glaring stat of all for gartner)

so gartner is being honored by the hockey HALL OF FAME for being consistent?

Um...yep. Nothing wrong with it either. Sometimes you have to make exceptions for guys who may not have the personal "awards" and such. And 708 goals, to me, counts as an exception. Some sports have "magic numbers" that immediately qualify you as a HOF'er. I think in baseball its 500 HR's, which should be upped soon because the 500 HR club isnt exactly exclusive anymore.

But in hockey? 700 goals? It doesnt get much more exclusive than that. Only 5 other guys have accomplished the feat. And in todays NHL, I dont see the number of 700 goal scorers being very high. I would be suprised if 10 guys EVER reach the mark.

 

[Higgy4]

But in hockey? 700 goals? It doesnt get much more exclusive than that. Only 5 other guys have accomplished the feat. And in todays NHL, I dont see the number of 700 goal scorers being very high. I would be suprised if 10 guys EVER reach the mark.

http://statshockey.homestead.com/alltimegoals.html

6 have over 700 now. Messier, Lemieux and Yzerman are all within 22 goals of 700. If this lockout ends anytime soon, those 3 will most assuredly get in. Robitaille needs 47 goals to get in. I dont know if he will get there.

After those 4, it drops down to Shanahan, Sakic and Jagr who are all in the mid 500's.

So that gives us 9 for sure, and 4 guys who might make it. Then after that, I dont see ANYONE getting close unless the NHL makes drastic changes to the game.

Regardless...700 goals is a very exclusive club.

And another thing. Marcel Dionne and Mike Gartner have very similar careers. I know Dionne won a Hart Trophy once. But I dont see anyone arguing the validity of Dionne being in the Hall? Neither guy has a cup, and Dionne personally didnt rack up many major awards. Where is the line between Dionne and Gartner that nobody seems to mind that Dionne is in? But Gartner? Hold up...not quite.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Gordie Howe never scored 50 goals, and only had one 100 point season.

Consistency is a MAJOR factor when talking about players. And they didnt come much more consistent than Gartner.

In his early Cap years, they struggled. The Caps got better near the end of his Caps career, but they werent exactly world beaters. After that he played for lowly Minnesota. He was then traded away by the NYR at the 1994 trade deadline (poor guy).

And while his playoff numbers werent great, they arent bad either.

I just think people who are against it are simply being way too critical. I am going to sound very redundant in this argument...but...708 goals. You dont really need to say anything more.

#1. Gorgie Howe didn't play during the 1980's. He was the league's leading scorer 6 times.

Gartner's Caps teams were bad his first three seasons, from then on they were definite contenders, usuall right aroudn 100 points.

In 84-85 they lost to a team with 15 fewer points.
In 85-86 they lost to a team with 29 fewer points.
In 86-87 they lost to a team with 4 fewer points.
in 87-88 they lost to a team with 3 fewer points.

In 1990 he was traded at the deadline from Minnesota, who went on to reach the Cup Finals.

Now his Rangers lost to the Caps that had 7 fewer points.
Rangers again lost to the Caps who had 4 fewer points.
In 91-92 they lost to a team with 18 fewer points.

In 1994 the only year he made the Conference Finals, he was traded at the deadline from a team that went on to win the Cup.

The Leafs that year lost to a team that had 13 fewer points than they did.


Notice a trend here ???

 

[John Flyers Fan]

where I agree with you is that it's too easy to get in the hall.

My question to you, John Flyers Fan, do you think these guys will get in?

Modano
Fedorov
Sundin
Roenick
Lindros

Modano, Sundin and Roenick have never been great, but have been consistant in their entire career. Fedorov has been great once or twice, but consistant the rest of the time. And Lindros has been the best a few seasons.

Lindros - No.

The other 4 are all borderline, and it will depend on how their careers finish. If their career ended today without another game played, they'd all fall short IMO.

All 5 were better players than Gartner, Mullen, Federko, and Gillies.

 

[Higgy4]

#1. Gorgie Howe didn't play during the 1980's. He was the league's leading scorer 6 times.

Gartner's Caps teams were bad his first three seasons, from then on they were definite contenders, usuall right aroudn 100 points.

In 84-85 they lost to a team with 15 fewer points.
In 85-86 they lost to a team with 29 fewer points.
In 86-87 they lost to a team with 4 fewer points.
in 87-88 they lost to a team with 3 fewer points.

In 1990 he was traded at the deadline from Minnesota, who went on to reach the Cup Finals.

Now his Rangers lost to the Caps that had 7 fewer points.
Rangers again lost to the Caps who had 4 fewer points.
In 91-92 they lost to a team with 18 fewer points.

In 1994 the only year he made the Conference Finals, he was traded at the deadline from a team that went on to win the Cup.

The Leafs that year lost to a team that had 13 fewer points than they did.


Notice a trend here ???

All decent points. All overshawdoed by 708 goals. It sounds simple, and I think it really is that simple with Gartner. They guy scored 708 goals.

Some things in life are simply no brainers. And 708 goals in an NHL career is a no brainer Hall of Fame inductee.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

And another thing. Marcel Dionne and Mike Gartner have very similar careers. I know Dionne won a Hart Trophy once. But I dont see anyone arguing the validity of Dionne being in the Hall? Neither guy has a cup, and Dionne personally didnt rack up many major awards. Where is the line between Dionne and Gartner that nobody seems to mind that Dionne is in? But Gartner? Hold up...not quite.

While I agress that in someway they are similar, and Dionne's teams were even worse in the playoffs; althugh not often favored like Gartner's were.

The differences:

Dionne has about 440 more points in about 100 less games.
Dionne won an Art Ross.
Dionne won two Pearson's
Dionne was twice a 2nd team all-star
Dionne was twice a 1st team all-star


Those are all significant.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

All decent points. All overshawdoed by 708 goals. It sounds simple, and I think it really is that simple with Gartner. They guy scored 708 goals.

Some things in life are simply no brainers. And 708 goals in an NHL career is a no brainer Hall of Fame inductee.

And like I said before, those 708 goals are the only reason he's in.