Does Mike Gartner Belong in the HHOF?

[The Panther]

I can't support the idea of a strict set of "qualifiers" for Hall of Fame induction. Of course, there need to be certain general guidelines to consider and respect, but are we so lazy we can't judge a half-dozen players per year on a case-by-case basis?

For example: Does anyone think Gartner having the same number of top-5 goals' finishes as Lindros mean Gartner = Lindros? I mean, that's ridiculous.

Another one: Kevin "Lord-of-the-Rings" Lowe has 6 Stanley Cups, and Lindros 0. So, Lowe over Lindros?


I mean, c'mon. I'm not saying we don't consider a player's team achievements and so on, but each player needs to be considered in his individual circumstances.

 

[vikash1987]

Ultimately, the most important thing is that you consider each player on a case-by-case basis. Look at the player as an overall package. And, if making a reference to any checklist of measures/qualifiers, make sure that the checklist is tailored to the individual as much as possible.

Gartner's career/legacy was defined by two things, in my view: (1) his goal-scoring and (2) his skating ability. So that's where you place your emphasis when talking about Gartner. Top 5 or Top 10 finishes in goal-scoring may not have as much weight when discussing Lindros, given the other things that contributed to his profile as an elite player in the '90s.

Cups matter (to me, at least), and are more universal. But it would be silly for this to be given too much weight, let alone for this to stand on its own. The extreme example of Lowe or Anderson being more HOF-worthy than Lindros or Bure is a perfect illustration.

 

[VanIslander]

Once top-5 (a mere 5th) in goals.
Once top-10 (a mere 10th) in points.
No cups.
No individual trophies.

Sounds like another Turgeon.

Hockey history is littered with guys like that.

There is no holy grail stat. But there is an important question: Should hockey history remember him 50-100 years from now?

Gartner? Eh, no. (Except maybe in a Washington Capitals footnote.)

 

[DitchMarner]

Once top-5 (a mere 5th) in goals.
Once top-10 (a mere 10th) in points.
No cups.
No individual trophies.

Sounds like another Turgeon.

Hockey history is littered with guys like that.

There is no holy grail stat. But there is an important question: Should hockey history remember him 50-100 years from now?

Gartner? Eh, no. (Except maybe in a Washington Capitals footnote.)

Robitaille finished in the top five for goals in a single season twice in his career and never in the top three.

Why does finishing in the top five in single seasons matter more than being a top five player in terms of goals over a stretch of several seasons?

Gartner had the fifth most goals in the NHL from '87-'94. How's that for being top five?

This emphasis on "single season" performances is single-minded.


I think 50 years from now, he'll still be among the highest scoring players ever...


So yeah... he'll be remembered.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I say this playfully and with all due respect (seriously)...single seasons may be single-minded, but the idea of framing up someone's very best peak/prime/stats and then juxtaposing it against fragments and pieces of a random assortment of others would need to be deemed absent-minded...

 

[DitchMarner]

I say this playfully and with all due respect (seriously)...single seasons may be single-minded, but the idea of framing up someone's very best peak/prime/stats and then juxtaposing it against fragments and pieces of a random assortment of others would need to be deemed absent-minded...

I mean, that's just how the guy ranked League-wide in terms of goals during his peak. It's not like I'm deliberately comparing his absolute best seasons to mediocre portions of someone else's career to try to paint a distorted picture.

I would really like an answer to this: If we're being critical of Gartner based on the fact that he only finished once in the top for goals in a single season, then why is Luc Robitaille considered a legitimate goal scoring legend while Gartner is viewed as somewhat of a fraud?

And I have nothing against Luc. I think he's one of the top goal scorers of the post-expansion era. I just don't see why he eludes the same scrutiny when he had one more finish in the top five for goals in a single season? Not to mention, Mike Gartner never played with Wayne Gretzky.

As a goal scorer, Robitaille is more similar to Gartner than he is to Ovechkin or Bure, but this seems to be a non-issue.

If we're going to bring up that he finished in the top TEN for goals a few times than than Gartner, well, that's kind of changing the parameters of the discussion.

 

[DitchMarner]

VanIslander... this is what you wrote in the thread about whether Tikkanen is HHOF-bound...

Near identical playoff goal numbers (52, 53) over an 8-year playoff stretch, trailing NHL playoff goal leaders Mario and Mess by only two and three goals. Yeah, that speaks volumes.

This post makes it quite obvious that you value goal production over a stretch of time and not only within the confines of a single season or playoffs...

If the fact that Tikkanen trailed Lemieux and Messier in playoff goal scoring by only two and three goals during an eight year stretch of time speaks volumes, then surely you cannot dismiss the fact that Gartner was the fifth highest scorer in the NHL over an eight season stretch of time.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I would really like an answer to this: If we're being critical of Gartner based on the fact that he only finished once in the top for goals in a single season, then why is Luc Robitaille considered a legitimate goal scoring legend while Gartner is viewed as somewhat of a fraud?

And I have nothing against Luc. I think he's one of the top goal scorers of the post-expansion era. I just don't see why he eludes the same scrutiny when he had one more finish in the top five for goals in a single season? Not to mention, Mike Gartner never played with Wayne Gretzky.

As a goal scorer, Robitaille is more similar to Gartner than he is to Ovechkin or Bure, but this seems to be a non-issue.

this is either insane, or wilfully ignorant. luc robitaille in his best season outscored a prime bure, in a year that gretzky (who was rarely luc's even strength linemate anyway) missed 40 games. robitaille has NINE top tens (to gartner's four).

i don't think at any time in gartner's career anyone thought of him as one of the best goal scorers in the league. robitaille was routinely held in that regard.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

This post makes it quite obvious that you value goal production over a stretch of time and not only within the confines of a single season or playoffs...

If the fact that Tikkanen trailed Lemieux and Messier in playoff goal scoring by only two and three goals during an eight year stretch of time speaks volumes, then surely you cannot dismiss the fact that Gartner was the fifth highest scorer in the NHL over an eight season stretch of time.

not to put words in VI's mouth, but i understood the meaningfulness of that stat to be that tik ranked so high as a scorer while being primarily remembered as a top three defensive forward in the league in those years.

 

[c9777666]

He was more consistent than Andreychuk (only times he didn't score 30 goals- 1995 lockout year and his final season in 1998). But Andreychuk had 2 50-goal seasons to Gartner's 1.

 

[crobro]

Andreychuk did have 20 + 20 goal seasons.

 

[DitchMarner]

this is either insane, or wilfully ignorant. luc robitaille in his best season outscored a prime bure, in a year that gretzky (who was rarely luc's even strength linemate anyway) missed 40 games. robitaille has NINE top tens (to gartner's four).

i don't think at any time in gartner's career anyone thought of him as one of the best goal scorers in the league. robitaille was routinely held in that regard.

Ah, yes, but I thought we were talking about top five finishes, not top ten. Luc still only had two in the top five.

FTR: Gartner finished in the top ten five times, not four times.

You know who "only" finished in the top ten for goals six times in a season? Goulet...


It seems to me people have this pre-conceived notion that Gartner isn't supposed to be remotely comparable to goal scorers like Robitaille or Goulet and thus will try to find ways to make him look significantly inferior in a comparison with one of them.

If we compare Gartner to Goulet, the narrative is Gartner only finished in the top five for goals once while Goulet did so four times...

Okay... Robitaille only finished in the top five twice himself...

Now, suddenly, top ten finishes are put on the table instead...

Robitaille had nine of those to Gartner's five, but Goulet only finished in the top ten for goals once more than Gartner.


Lastly, Bure was a better goal scorer in the late 90s and in '94 than in '93. '93 was a strange season for scoring. He scored 60 goals but was outscored by four players.

 

[DitchMarner]

He was more consistent than Andreychuk (only times he didn't score 30 goals- 1995 lockout year and his final season in 1998). But Andreychuk had 2 50-goal seasons to Gartner's 1.

Gartner had 49 once and 48 twice... it's splitting hairs.

Aside from those two 50 goal seasons, Andreychuk never had more than 43 and he only scored 40 or more four times. Gartner hit the 40 goal mark nine times.

 

[DitchMarner]

Andreychuk did have 20 + 20 goal seasons.

Gartner had five more 40 goal seasons than Andreychuk and eight more 30 goal seasons.

They're clearly not the same calibre of goal scorer or player.

 

[Big Phil]

He was more consistent than Andreychuk (only times he didn't score 30 goals- 1995 lockout year and his final season in 1998). But Andreychuk had 2 50-goal seasons to Gartner's 1.

To put it in a little bit of context, Andreychuk had those two 50 goal seasons with a prime Gilmour as his centerman. He never came close to 50 any other time. His goal scoring skyrocketed when he was traded to Toronto midseason. He hit 50 that year but wasn't on pace to while in Buffalo. Then he hit 50 in 1994. Look, I'll give him credit, he did it, but it was clear it was more a product of Gilmour than the other way around.

Gartner didn't need a great center helping him, in fact he barely had one. While we all look at that arbitrary number of 15 straight years of 30+ goals the truth is it was 33, not just 30, that he hit in every one of those years. So basically Gartner was pencilled in to get you 35 goals every year, but mostly more like 40 or more which he hit 9 times.

Not that he was a big fighter, but it might surprise people to know he dropped the mitts regularly early in his career. He had 26 career fights, most of them being his first 5 years. Gartner was the nicest guy ever off the ice and while he wasn't mean on the ice he wasn't soft either.

All in all, 17 years in total of over 30 goals (actually 32). Who else has done that? That is just remarkable consistency. If you ever ask why Propp or Bellows or Damphousse isn't in then all you have to look at is Gartner's longevity of scoring goals. How many of these guys scored much after 30? Gartner did. He scored 32 goals at 37 years old. Who else has ever done that?

Lastly, as others have mentioned he scored 700+ goals the right way. He retired after the only season where he couldn't do it anymore. He didn't hang around like Andreychuk to finally hit a shiny number the committee drools over. And I know Ciccarelli isn't always popular either, but he too retired when he wasn't scoring anymore and scored 608 goals the right way too.

 

[c9777666]

To put it in a little bit of context, Andreychuk had those two 50 goal seasons with a prime Gilmour as his centerman. He never came close to 50 any other time. His goal scoring skyrocketed when he was traded to Toronto midseason. He hit 50 that year but wasn't on pace to while in Buffalo. Then he hit 50 in 1994. Look, I'll give him credit, he did it, but it was clear it was more a product of Gilmour than the other way around.

Gartner didn't need a great center helping him, in fact he barely had one. While we all look at that arbitrary number of 15 straight years of 30+ goals the truth is it was 33, not just 30, that he hit in every one of those years. So basically Gartner was pencilled in to get you 35 goals every year, but mostly more like 40 or more which he hit 9 times.

Not that he was a big fighter, but it might surprise people to know he dropped the mitts regularly early in his career. He had 26 career fights, most of them being his first 5 years. Gartner was the nicest guy ever off the ice and while he wasn't mean on the ice he wasn't soft either.

All in all, 17 years in total of over 30 goals (actually 32). Who else has done that? That is just remarkable consistency. If you ever ask why Propp or Bellows or Damphousse isn't in then all you have to look at is Gartner's longevity of scoring goals. How many of these guys scored much after 30? Gartner did. He scored 32 goals at 37 years old. Who else has ever done that?

Lastly, as others have mentioned he scored 700+ goals the right way. He retired after the only season where he couldn't do it anymore. He didn't hang around like Andreychuk to finally hit a shiny number the committee drools over. And I know Ciccarelli isn't always popular either, but he too retired when he wasn't scoring anymore and scored 608 goals the right way too.

I don't know if I'd say Andreychuk hung around for #600. That was well before he won the Cup (that was like a month and a half into his Tampa Bay tenure), so it's not like when Bondra hung around post-lockout to get his 500th goal.

If anything, I thought Andreychuk hanging around after the Cup and playing a bit in the post-lockout 2005-06 was more frustrating to watch than when he went to Tampa (I mean, that would have been a great way to go out) and staying on for their turnaround (won a playoff series in 2003, won it all the next year).

I think he was hanging around to try to get the Cup moreso- if not, he would have considered retiring in 2002-03 after getting #600 than sticking around for the Cup year that followed.

Maybe not quite like Selanne when he got his shiny numbers though (even after 500/600 goal and 100 point plateaus, he was still chugging along). Ditto for Ray Bourque (with Colorado, he got two shiny numbers- goal #400 and becoming the all-time point leader among defenseman- and clearly he wasn't just hanging on when you look at his 2000-01 numbers).

 

[The Panther]

I don't think Gartner, and, say, Robitaille are very comparable:

1st/2nd-Team All Star
8 - Robitaille
0 - Gartner

100+ point seasons
4 - Robitaille (and another at 98)
1 - Gartner

Stanley Cup Finals' appearances
2 - Robitaille
0 - Gartner

(Incidentally, I think it's clear in retrospect that Gretzky's presence in L.A. actually lowered Robitaille's stats, since he got less ice-time. He got 111 points before Gretzky arrived, and only matched that again when Gretzky was injured.)


Gartner and Andreychuk are much more comparable, but, again, the difference is not in peak/prime but in consistency. Once Gartner couldn't score 30 goals anymore, he quit. Once Andreychuk couldn't, he played 11 more seasons.

 

[DitchMarner]

I don't think Gartner, and, say, Robitaille are very comparable:

1st/2nd-Team All Star
8 - Robitaille
0 - Gartner

100+ point seasons
4 - Robitaille (and another at 98)
1 - Gartner

Stanley Cup Finals' appearances
2 - Robitaille
0 - Gartner

(Incidentally, I think it's clear in retrospect that Gretzky's presence in L.A. actually lowered Robitaille's stats, since he got less ice-time. He got 111 points before Gretzky arrived, and only matched that again when Gretzky was injured.)


Gartner and Andreychuk are much more comparable, but, again, the difference is not in peak/prime but in consistency. Once Gartner couldn't score 30 goals anymore, he quit. Once Andreychuk couldn't, he played 11 more seasons.

I don't think Gartner was as good as Robitaille by any means. All I'm getting at is that this whole, "look at how many times the guy finished in the top whatever in scoring" thing can be used against other players as well.

It's only part of the criteria for evaluating players... or at least it should be.

When I said Robitaille is more comparable to Gartner than to Bure or Ovechkin, I meant that he consistently scored a lot but never led the League in goals and wasn't often a top five goal scorer. Bure led the NHL in goals a few times and Alex has done so many times.

There's always more to consider than just top five or top ten scoring finishes.


Here are Robitaille's best goal totals:

63, 53, 52, 46, 45, 45, 44, 44, 39, 37, 36, 30, 24, 23...


Here are Gartner's:

50, 49, 48, 48, 45, 45, 41, 40, 40, 38, 36, 35, 35, 34...


I prefer to use adjusted goals/point totals in comparison. I think doing so is more fair to Robitaille since he played through out the dead puck era as well as playing in the late 80s and the early to mid 90s.


Robitaille's best adjusted goal totals:

51, 45, 44, 44, 40, 40, 40, 40, 40, 39, 38, 35, 35, 26, 25


I those are very impressive as a set, but I'm not seeing a lot of particularly eye-popping numbers. There's a reason he didn't finish in the top three for goals in a season.


Gartner's best adjusted goal totals:

44, 40, 40, 38, 37, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 31, 30, 30, 30, 27


The season for season differences in adjusted goals between their corresponding best seasons are as follows:


7 goals in favor of Robitaille
5 goals in favor of Robitaille
4 goals in favor of Robitaille
6 goals in favor of Robitaille
3 goals in favor of Robitaille
3 goals in favor of Robitaille
4 goals in favor of Robitaille
5 goals in favor of Robitaille
6 goals in favor of Robitaille
6 goals in favor of Robitaille
7 goals in favor of Robitaille
5 goals in favor of Robitaille
5 goals in favor of Robitaille
5 goals in favor of Gartner
2 goals in favor of Gartner

The cumulative difference is 59 goals over 15 seasons or an average of just under four goals per season (3.93). That difference is enough to make Robitaille decidedly better during those 15 seasons, but he certainly isn't on an entirely different level.


Next, let's bring in Andreychuk...


Best goal totals:

54, 53, 41, 40, 38, 36, 36, 31, 30, 28, 28, 27, 25, 22, 21


Best adjusted goal totals:

48, 44, 38, 36, 34, 32, 30, 28, 28, 27, 25, 25, 25, 24, 23


The season for season differences in adjusted between his and Gartner's corresponding best seasons are as follows:


4 goals in favor of Andreychuk
4 goals in favor of Andreychuk
2 goals in favor of Gartner
2 goals in favor of Gartner
3 goals in favor of Gartner
5 goals in favor of Gartner
6 goals in favor of Gartner
7 goals in favor of Gartner
6 goals in favor of Gartner
6 goals in favor of Gartner
6 goals in favor of Gartner
5 goals in favor of Gartner
5 goals in favor of Gartner
6 goals in favor of Gartner
4 goals in favor of Gartner

The cumulative difference in goals between the two during these seasons is 55 goals or an average of 3.66 goals per season...


I think you have to look at the totality of their careers in conjunction with their top five and top ten goal finishes in single seasons...


Top five finishes for goals:

Robitaille: 2
Gartner: 1
Andreychuk: 1


Top ten finishes for goals:

Robitaille: 9
Gartner: 5
Andreychuk: 2


Thus Gartner is closer to Andreychuk than to Robitaille as a goal scorer but not by too much.


Robitaille is definitely the best of three.

Gartner is step down.

Andreychuk is a step below Gartner.


Of course, the biggest passenger of the three was Andreychuk; it's well known that he benefited heavily from Gilmour's two peak years in Toronto. He was also the worst skater and five on five of the three.


Some would draw the Hall of Fame line at Robitaille when considering the three, but I think it's fine to have Gartner in as well as a lower-tier induction. The door shuts on Andreychuk, however.

 

[FerrisRox]

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?"

This is a bizarre post. You take issue with his criteria, and then you list player after player who meets his criteria and yet you somehow think you are making the opposite point.

 

[FerrisRox]

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

It's pretty silly to call the captains of those teams "non-essential."

 

[VanIslander]

1st/2nd-Team All Star
8 - Robitaille
0 - Gartner

Why is Robitaille being compared to Gartner? Does the op think they are both compilers? Luc certainly is a HHOFer for his first 7 seasons, not for turtling his way to a long career.

... 6'1, 210 lbs. left winger Luc Robitaille, whose first seven seasons were phenomenal with seven consecutive 1st or 2nd team all-star selections and seven straight years top-10 in goals. By age 26 he had already scored 382 NHL goals, including 34 playoff goals. He scored 799 points in his first 640 NHL games, not once in his first eight seasons dipping below the 84 point total of his rookie year. "Lucky" Luc worked hard to put himself in good scoring position and had a fantastic shot. He was known for his competiveness, even in practices, as much as he was known for his friendliness. He had a boatload of determination and it showed. He went on to play for over a decade more, including three more times top-10 in goals, five more times top-10 in powerplay goals, another 2nd team all-star. He is presently still top-10 all-time in career goals scored among all NHLers, tied with Jaromir Jagr. The fact that he has scored the most goals and points in history for a left winger is almost beside the point, as is his secondary role in a Stanley Cup championship in his 16th year.

Robitaille made up for any skating deficiencies with one of the most accurate shots in NHL history. He was a regular leader in shooting percentage, thanks to a number of reasons. He worked himself into high percentage scoring areas, often down low and in tight. Though a defender might have been draped all over him, he always kept his stick unchecked. He would release his shot in the blink of an eye, usually just burying passes and rebounds with no backswing at all.

Robitaille, an under-noticed physical player, continued to be almost unquestioningly the league's best left winger for 8 seasons, consistently scoring goals. He scored at least 44 goals in 8 consecutive seasons (only Gretzky and Mike Bossy had better streaks), and also managed to shake his playoff jinx as he became a genuine playoff threat in 1992 with 12 goals in 12 games and in 1993 when he was a major part of the Kings "Cinderella" Cup run.

Just one year after coming so close to winning Lord Stanley's Grail, the Kings missed the playoffs. Robitaille played for Canada's national team at the 1994 World Championship in Italy. It was Robitaille who scored the gold medal winning goal in a shootout, giving Canada its first world championship in 33 years.

... he personified everything good about this game and the undying power of hope backed by tireless effort.

"I've known Luc since he was 17, with the Hull Olympiques," Gretzky said as he traveled the red carpet before the [Hall of Fame induction] ceremony.

"I've said this before: with 'Rocket' Richard, Mike Bossy, Guy Lafleur and Mario Lemieux, there's nobody who wanted to score more desperately than Luc Robitaille. He made himself a Hall of Famer."

When Robitaille made the Kings out of training camp in 1986, legendary Kings center Marcel Dionne asked him what he wanted to do now that he was in Los Angeles. Did he want to see the sights, meet the stars? No, he wanted to play hockey, Robitaille told him. OK, then, Dionne responded, Robitaille could move in with him and his family.

"I never went anywhere," Robitaille said, recalling the steady routine of going from practice to Dionne's home to games and back again.

Blake likewise recalled a deeply competitive player beneath that happy-go-lucky exterior. He remembered how, even in practice, Robitaille had to score. Even if his turn during a drill appeared to be over, he would fish the puck out of the corner and still rip it into the net, often to the consternation of netminders such as Kelly Hrudey.

Pat Quinn was the coach in Los Angeles at the time, and he recalled looking beyond the skating to see "a great brain in there."

Pure speed? No. But Quinn said he still thinks Robitaille got from the corner to the net as quickly as any player, a testament to his anticipation and that big hockey brain.

 

[DitchMarner]

This is a bizarre post. You take issue with his criteria, and then you list player after player who meets his criteria and yet you somehow think you are making the opposite point.

Can awards like the Masterton and Byng really be considered major awards?

 

[DitchMarner]

Why is Robitaille being compared to Gartner? Does the op think they are both compilers? Luc certainly is a HHOFer for his first 7 seasons, not for turtling his way to a long career.

Depends on what a "compiler" is.

He certainly did not finish in the top three for goals in a season, let alone lead the League in goals.

If you think the criteria for being a "proper" goal scorer is number of top ten finishes for goal scoring in a season, I can name players in the HHOF who had close to, exactly or fewer than five finishes in the top ten for goals in a single season: McDonald had four, Bucyk had five, Goulet had six, Hawerchuk had three, Ciccarelli had two.

Hawerchuk and McDonald aren't in the HHOF because of their defensive play or because they won a bunch of Cups...


For a number of years, the left wing position was considered the weakest in the NHL. During Gartner's career, notable right-wingers he had to compete with were Kurri, Bossy, Hull and Neely as well as players such as Kerr, Anderson and Ciccarelli.

Robitaille's competition as a left-winger wasn't quite as strong. Other notable left-wingers of his time included Shanahan, Tkachuk, Roberts, Stevens and Andreychuk.

There's something about consistently competing against Bossy, Kurri, peak Hull and peak Neely that makes it difficult for a player playing right-wing to be a first or second team all-star.

As I outlined above, on a season-by-season basis, Robitaille's adjusted goal totals during his prime seasons don't actually trump Gartner's totals by any sort of a vast margin.

As a point-producer in general, Robitaille was definitely better. I didn't say Gartner was on his level. I was saying that not all players who are renowned for their goal scoring ability need to have a bunch of finishes in the top for goals.


Those quotes are cool, but I'm sure many players have had some nice things said about them during or after their careers.

Excerpts from NHL.com's write-up on Gartner's 100 Great Players Profile include...


"I was kind of afraid of Mike Gartner," former goaltender Glenn Healy said in Gil Martin's book "Ice Wars." "He could beat you from 50 feet out and he was deadly in closer."


Rangers captain Mark Messier said, "He's the ultimate team player. He's a hard worker who sets a strong example. I find it's inspiring to play with him."


"It's amazing what great shape he is in," Roger Neilson, his then-coach with the Rangers, told The New York Times in 1992, when Gartner turned 33. "He could play every shift if I wanted him to. He has great endurance."


https://www.nhl.com/news/mike-gartner-100-greatest-nhl-hockey-players/c-285167474

 

[JackSlater]

Gartner is fine as a member given the standard the HHOF has set. Ideally the standard would be higher, and Gartner would miss out, but that isn't the case. I don't see a big difference between Gartner and Marleau. Gartner has a small offensive edge, Marleau has a small defensive edge.

 

[Big Phil]

I don't know if I'd say Andreychuk hung around for #600. That was well before he won the Cup (that was like a month and a half into his Tampa Bay tenure), so it's not like when Bondra hung around post-lockout to get his 500th goal.

If anything, I thought Andreychuk hanging around after the Cup and playing a bit in the post-lockout 2005-06 was more frustrating to watch than when he went to Tampa (I mean, that would have been a great way to go out) and staying on for their turnaround (won a playoff series in 2003, won it all the next year).

I think he was hanging around to try to get the Cup moreso- if not, he would have considered retiring in 2002-03 after getting #600 than sticking around for the Cup year that followed.

Maybe not quite like Selanne when he got his shiny numbers though (even after 500/600 goal and 100 point plateaus, he was still chugging along). Ditto for Ray Bourque (with Colorado, he got two shiny numbers- goal #400 and becoming the all-time point leader among defenseman- and clearly he wasn't just hanging on when you look at his 2000-01 numbers).

Even Bondra is a guy who scored better than Andreychuk. In fact I think we would all agree he was a better goal scorer. He led the league in goals twice. For Andreychuk he played nearly a decade after his 500th goal. Even by the time he scored his 500th goal, he was not a great goal scorer anymore. He finished out his career after that as a guy who scored 20 goals a season, and less assists per year. To me that's compiling and it's all good if you want to hang around, but it shouldn't mean that it all of the sudden makes your career better. The question should be, would Andreychuk be a HHOFer if he scored, say, 525 goals? No, definitely not. So why 640 when he was just compiling and not being all that effective at the end of his career?