Do you see a Gartner in Eric Staal?

[Ziostilon]

I personally really like Eric Staal. he has those on and off seasons, just like how the Hurricanes operate. In his defense, he hasn't had much to work with, the last two seasons.

Do you see anything in Staal that tells you he's going to be better than Mike Gartner
Michael Alfred Gartner or Eric Staal

Click to read more...

 

[tarheelhockey]

IMO Staal is just a generally more valuable player than Gartner. He has a really high upside that makes him a feasible 50-goal scorer, not just a consistent 30-goal guy. He's a franchise centerpiece. Captain material, etc. I don't know where they'll end up statistically but it pretty much goes without saying that Staal is the most likely HoF'er to come entirely out of the Canes organization.

 

[Stephen]

In terms of size and position, Staal is way more important than Gartner ever was. Gartner was never the franchise player on any of his teams but a very good complimentary forward. With Staal, you have a franchise centerman for over a decade you don't need to worry about, nor could you ever really replace.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

his peak value has already destroyed gartner's.

 

[EventHorizon]

In terms of size and position, Staal is way more important than Gartner ever was. Gartner was never the franchise player on any of his teams but a very good complimentary forward. With Staal, you have a franchise centerman for over a decade you don't need to worry about, nor could you ever really replace.

This is true, however Gartner's inferiority to Staal could be overcome by his tremendous mustache.

 

[djcreepshow]

When Staal has 15 consecutive 30+ goal seasons (and 8 40+ seasons and 1 50 goal season) and has 708 career goals (6th all-time) then we can start comparing. Nothing against Eric Staal, who is a fine young player, but Mike Gartner was one of the most consistent goal scorers to ever play the game.

 

[Tavaresmagicalplay*]

When Staal has 15 consecutive 30+ goal seasons (and 8 40+ seasons and 1 50 goal season) and has 708 career goals (6th all-time) then we can start comparing. Nothing against Eric Staal, who is a fine young player, but Mike Gartner was one of the most consistent goal scorers to ever play the game.

One of the most ridiculous statements I've read on these boards. Theres many players who have scored less points than Gartner and are better players. Points are not the be all end all.

 

[djcreepshow]

One of the most ridiculous statements I've read on these boards. Theres many players who have scored less points than Gartner and are better players. Points are not the be all end all.

Um, how exactly is that statement ridiculous? Few players have ever equalled Gartner's consistency in quality of play. He was a respected team leader on and off the ice for his entire career. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't points one of the criteria we use to gauge a player's greatness? Wayne Gretzky wasn't a great player? Mario Lemieux? Steve Yzerman? If memory serves me they were all pretty good, wouldn't you say? I'm know that there are better players than Mike Gartner who have fewer points in their career (Bobby Orr comes to mind), I never said anything to the contrary. I just think that comparing Staal to Gartner is a little premature. At the end of Staal's career, if he has been able to maintain the consistency of high quality that Gartner did during his career then we can talk. Again, there is no disrespect meant to Staal. He is a really good player.

 

[kmad]

Dave Andreychuk or Peter Forsberg?

 

[Stephen]

Um, how exactly is that statement ridiculous? Few players have ever equalled Gartner's consistency in quality of play. He was a respected team leader on and off the ice for his entire career. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't points one of the criteria we use to gauge a player's greatness? Wayne Gretzky wasn't a great player? Mario Lemieux? Steve Yzerman? If memory serves me they were all pretty good, wouldn't you say? I'm know that there are better players than Mike Gartner who have fewer points in their career (Bobby Orr comes to mind), I never said anything to the contrary. I just think that comparing Staal to Gartner is a little premature. At the end of Staal's career, if he has been able to maintain the consistency of high quality that Gartner did during his career then we can talk. Again, there is no disrespect meant to Staal. He is a really good player.

Mike Gartner was a fantastically consistent goal scorer and his career doesn't need to be diminished in any way at all for the purposes of this debate, but Eric Staal is a number one franchise centerman with great size, and I think it would be logical to take Staal over Gartner if you're building a team. Gartner was never the go to guy on any of his teams the way Staal is. Statswise things are quite skewed. Gartner looks a lot better now because his career is set in stone and Staal is only what, 25?

 

[djcreepshow]

Dave Andreychuk or Peter Forsberg?

Hmmm...I don't know if I would agree with Andreychuk (no offence, Dave).

There's also Mike Bossy, Bobby Hull, Jean Beliveau, Guy Lafleur, Rocket Richard and more who have fewer goals than Gartner but who were superior players.

But Gartner also has more career goals than:

Mark Messier
Steve Yzerman
Joe Sakic
Luc Robitaille...and more

Not too shabby a bunch there. I'm sure we can all agree they were pretty awesome players. I'm not saying he's one of the greatest players to ever pick up a hockey stick, but his consistency and longevity is pretty damn impressive.

 

[MS]

Um, how exactly is that statement ridiculous? Few players have ever equalled Gartner's consistency in quality of play. He was a respected team leader on and off the ice for his entire career. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't points one of the criteria we use to gauge a player's greatness? Wayne Gretzky wasn't a great player? Mario Lemieux? Steve Yzerman? If memory serves me they were all pretty good, wouldn't you say? I'm know that there are better players than Mike Gartner who have fewer points in their career (Bobby Orr comes to mind), I never said anything to the contrary. I just think that comparing Staal to Gartner is a little premature. At the end of Staal's career, if he has been able to maintain the consistency of high quality that Gartner did during his career then we can talk. Again, there is no disrespect meant to Staal. He is a really good player.

Gartner's era makes him look much more 'consistently excellent' than he actually was.

When you adjust for era, he was basically a consistent 65-point player who had one outlier year in 1984-85.

Staal has 5 straight adjusted 70+ point seasons, the most Gartner ever managed was 2.

Staal's best 2 regular seasons are better than Gartner's and his 2 playoff showings are so much better than anything Gartner ever did it isn't even funny.

As someone said above, on peak value Staal destroys Gartner.

 

[djcreepshow]

Mike Gartner was a fantastically consistent goal scorer and his career doesn't need to be diminished in any way at all for the purposes of this debate, but Eric Staal is a number one franchise centerman with great size, and I think it would be logical to take Staal over Gartner if you're building a team. Gartner was never the go to guy on any of his teams the way Staal is. Statswise things are quite skewed. Gartner looks a lot better now because his career is set in stone and Staal is only what, 25?

Exactly. It's actually kind of unfair to compare the two at this point. But I would be surprised to see Staal's (or anyone's nowadays) numbers to be as good and as consistent as Gartner's after 19 seasons.

We'll have to continue this discussion is 13 years.

 

[djcreepshow]

Gartner's era makes him look much more 'consistently excellent' than he actually was.

When you adjust for era, he was basically a consistent 65-point player who had one outlier year in 1984-85.

Staal has 5 straight adjusted 70+ point seasons, the most Gartner ever managed was 2.

Staal's best 2 regular seasons are better than Gartner's and his 2 playoff showings are so much better than anything Gartner ever did it isn't even funny.

As someone said above, on peak value Staal destroys Gartner.

Adjusted for era? Sooooooo Gretzky's records shouldn't count for as much then? Lemieux's? If that's the case then lots of records would have to be changed. Gretzky's numbers aren't 894-1963-2857 with an asterisk because more goals were scored during that period. They are what they are. Besides, Staal or Gartner is simply a matter who preference and opinion. And again, we can't really compare until the end of Staal's career.

 

[jkrx]

Gartner's era makes him look much more 'consistently excellent' than he actually was.

When you adjust for era, he was basically a consistent 65-point player who had one outlier year in 1984-85.

Staal has 5 straight adjusted 70+ point seasons, the most Gartner ever managed was 2.

Staal's best 2 regular seasons are better than Gartner's and his 2 playoff showings are so much better than anything Gartner ever did it isn't even funny.

As someone said above, on peak value Staal destroys Gartner.

Then how do you explain that no one else did what Gartner did?

 

[seventieslord]

Then how do you explain that no one else did what Gartner did?

Gartner happened to be healthy enough and born in exactly the right year, and to his credit he was consistent and aged better than most players of his generation. Keep in mind that 30 was not a very impressive benchmark throughout the 1980s.

MS is right to demonstrate this by "adjusting for era", the idea is not out of line at all. Roster sizes and assists per goal have been unchanged so the only real adjustment made from 1980 to 2010 is accounting for higher scoring levels across the league. Which is more than fair for obvious reasons (the value of a goal has changed)

I don't get this thread at all.

- Staal is a center, Gartner a winger.
- Staal is huge, Gartner was average-sized.
- Staal is a good skater, Gartner was an elite skater.
- Staal is physical, Gartner never was.
- Staal has a pretty good two-way game, Gartner did not.
- Staal has two elite playoffs to his credit, Gartner has a mediocre playoff record.
- Staal has appeared to be "up and down", yet consistency was Gartner's calling card!
- Staal was 4th in hart voting in 2006, Gartner was never even top-15 in hart voting.

So, no, I don't see much Gartner in Staal. They couldn't be more different, really. The most similar thing about them is that they like to score more than make plays. With just 1.2 assists per goal, Staal is very biased towards goals for a centreman.

Staal's five post-lockout regular seasons so far have been better than Gartner's five best seasons. Staal is well on his way to becoming a better all-time player than gartner. Of course, career value accumulation means something so Gartner is comfortably ahead for at least the next few years.

 

[jkrx]

Gartner happened to be healthy enough and born in exactly the right year, and to his credit he was consistent and aged better than most players of his generation. Keep in mind that 30 was not a very impressive benchmark throughout the 1980s.

MS is right to demonstrate this by "adjusting for era", the idea is not out of line at all. Roster sizes and assists per goal have been unchanged so the only real adjustment made from 1980 to 2010 is accounting for higher scoring levels across the league. Which is more than fair for obvious reasons (the value of a goal has changed)

I don't get this thread at all.

- Staal is a center, Gartner a winger.
- Staal is huge, Gartner was average-sized.
- Staal is a good skater, Gartner was an elite skater.
- Staal is physical, Gartner never was.
- Staal has a pretty good two-way game, Gartner did not.
- Staal has two elite playoffs to his credit, Gartner has a mediocre playoff record.
- Staal has appeared to be "up and down", yet consistency was Gartner's calling card!
- Staal was 4th in hart voting in 2006, Gartner was never even top-15 in hart voting.

So, no, I don't see much Gartner in Staal. They couldn't be more different, really. The most similar thing about them is that they like to score more than make plays. With just 1.2 assists per goal, Staal is very biased towards goals for a centreman.

Staal's five post-lockout regular seasons so far have been better than Gartner's five best seasons. Staal is well on his way to becoming a better all-time player than gartner. Of course, career value accumulation means something so Gartner is comfortably ahead for at least the next few years.

I didn't say it was alot nor that Gartner is a huge superstar. But I will say that he did impress me more than Eric Staal so far. Staal needs to get a career before we can compare and as you say. Staal is a center and plays a totally different game compared to Gartner.

 

[Stephen]

I didn't say it was alot nor that Gartner is a huge superstar. But I will say that he did impress me more than Eric Staal so far. Staal needs to get a career before we can compare and as you say. Staal is a center and plays a totally different game compared to Gartner.

Staal has had a more impactful career in his short time in the league than Mike Gartner did though. Gartner's numbers overwhelm Staal's on paper but you can't really argue Staal's importance to his organization isn't more valuable than what Gartner ever brought to the table.

 

[Ziostilon]

I don't get this thread at all.

- Staal has appeared to be "up and down", yet consistency was Gartner's calling card!
- Staal was 4th in hart voting in 2006, Gartner was never even top-15 in hart voting.

So, no, I don't see much Gartner in Staal. They couldn't be more different, really. The most similar thing about them is that they like to score more than make plays. With just 1.2 assists per goal, Staal is very biased towards goals for a centreman.

i never really thought of all the similarities or differences

all i thought of was the consistency that Gartner had, and whether Staal is taking the small steps to become more consistent during the latter part of his career

 

[Bear of Bad News]

i never really thought of all the similarities or differences

Please do so in the future.