How good was Mike Gartner in his prime?

[Puckgenius*]

And how did he not win any hardware? He hit the 700 goal plateau (with 708) and put up 1335pts in 1432 games. Thats some huge numbers for someone who never won a single trophy. I got to see him when he was a Leaf playing with Clark and even though he was getting old, he was still one helluva player. Very intelligent player with strong hockey IQ.

Click to read more...

 

[Stephen]

I'm just speculating, but would it be fair to call him a Phil Kessel level player? Perhaps not an ideal franchise player throughout the 80s in his prime, or even a franchise player at all, but not too far from that level. Both are great goal scorers who gets it done with elite speed and a good shot. Kessel has better hands and skills, Gartner was less of a wallflower.

 

[blogofmike]

He was competing for post-season AS teams with Kurri and Bossy, then Hull and Neely. Gartner was a very good goal scorer for a very long time, but he didn't peak as high as his contemporaries.

There's not much shame in that. He was one of the top 5-10 right wings in the NHL for about a decade. Just never right at the top of the pack.

A modern day equivalent would be a consistently healthy Marian Gaborik.

 

[OrrNumber4]

They guy was a consistent goal scorer no matter the era. That alone is fairly impressive.

 

[begbeee]

Well compilers dont get much love in history section of forum

 

[RECsGuy*]

Well compilers dont get much love in history section of forum

Never a Top-10 player in the league. Consistent? Without a doubt. Great? Never. I'd take Bernie Nicholls or Tim Kerr over Gartner.

 

[begbeee]

All I can say about him is, that he was walking guarantee of 30 goals plateau. was one of the fastest skater in hockey history and I support his induction. 700 goals is a level when you have to be in.

 

[CLF4life]

I don't understand why some players here on HF are rated so high while others like Gartner are rated so low. Although he didn't win any major awards he definitely deserves his HHOF induction. He was a one dimensional player that could skate like the wind and had a great one-timer and above average hockey sense.

 

[redbull]

He was "very good" for 18 straight years and very fast, for all of those years.

His game never changed, both good and bad, for his whole career. Always used great speed and shot to score goals, never really became a physical player or better defensively, never really became a leader, always more of a perimeter player, even though he was often an offensive leaders (goals and assists).

He was a very "quiet" player in hockey, just for a long long time.

He wasn't outstanding at anything except his skating.

He didn't really dominate shifts or games, he just scored with consistency.

I mean, was he much different than Damphousse or Nieuwendyk or Andreychuk or Ciccarelli in terms of overall value on the ice? Probably not. But add up all the seasons, stats and it's almost unbelievable.

He as 130 MORE goals than Mike Bossy!

Longevity when you're one of the top at your position in hockey (like Nik Lidstrom) is impressive. But what if you're Matt Moulson and you knock in 30 goals every year in sheer anonymity? But do it for 20 years?

 

[David Bruce Banner]

He was good... at his best, very good.

It's just that there was always a guy or two (or more) at his position who was better. His main claim to fame was consistency. Although the guys who were beating him changed, he always was right there in the 2nd tier.

 

[Ogopogo*]

And how did he not win any hardware? He hit the 700 goal plateau (with 708) and put up 1335pts in 1432 games. Thats some huge numbers for someone who never won a single trophy. I got to see him when he was a Leaf playing with Clark and even though he was getting old, he was still one helluva player. Very intelligent player with strong hockey IQ.

He was a good player but not a great player. A stat accumulator if you will. Never was he one of the top 5 or top 7 players in the league.

 

[StillAlive]

I recall as a small kid seeing the backside of a mike gartner hockey card and thinking to myself he must have great trade value. I thought it was all about points back then... good times.

 

[VanIslander]

*yawn* I was never impressed by his play on the ice, beyond the points he put up. He and Lucky Luc were skilled at what they did but were nonfactors for much of a game.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Never a Top-10 player in the league. Consistent? Without a doubt. Great? Never. I'd take Bernie Nicholls or Tim Kerr over Gartner.

Did he even peak as a top 20 player for more than 2 or 3 seasons? Not IMO.

He was a very good player for a long time but never really a top star and certainly never a superstar.

Gaborik, without the peak sniping skills, is a good comp but there really isn't a great one out of todays group of players.

Maybe more Shane Doan (in terms of scoring only) but with more production but very consistent.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

I don't think a team ever became better by adding Gartner to their roster. He didn't hurt you, but he certainly was never a difference maker of any sort. Just a good consistent goalscorer who had one peak year and then alot of good to very good years, but certainly never a guy that would put a team over the top. Quite the opposite actually. Washington, NY and Minnesota had playoff success soon after getting rid of Gartner.

 

[begbeee]

I don't think a team ever became better by adding Gartner to their roster. He didn't hurt you, but he certainly was never a difference maker of any sort. Just a good consistent goalscorer who had one peak year and then alot of good to very good years, but certainly never a guy that would put a team over the top. Quite the opposite actually. Washington, NY and Minnesota had playoff success soon after getting rid of Gartner.

Is not it a coincidence? I saw just old Gartner, but his playoff numbers arent weak. Actually he had five PPG playoffs and three close to PPG, mostly first round exists though..

 

[brianscot]

Gartner deserves some credit for Washington's rise in the early 80's.

Obviously the Langway trade and drafting Scott Stevens were key moves, but after Denis Maruk was moved, only Bobby Carpenter and Gartner were consistent goal scoring threats on a very offensively challenged team.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Is not it a coincidence? I saw just old Gartner, but his playoff numbers arent weak. Actually he had five PPG playoffs and three close to PPG, mostly first round exists though..

one thing to think about is the kind of player gartner was always traded for: dino ciccarelli, then ulf dahlen, then glenn anderson. anderson wasn't a huge factor for the rangers, but he was coming off a big playoff year in toronto.

they are all grittier players, and both dino and anderson has some serious playoff runs earlier in their careers. i think it tells you what kind of player GMs thought gartner wasn't, which is why they traded him for that kind of player.

the original comparison to kessel is interesting. i would say, i don't think gartner was ever as good relative to his peers as kessel was last year, though gartner probably had tougher competition.

also, was gartner really that consistent? i have a vague recollection of him being a relatively streaky scorer within an a given year (though he always ended the season with the same amount of goals). but i'd love to hear from someone who remembers the 80s more clearly.

 

[redbull]

the original comparison to kessel is interesting. i would say, i don't think gartner was ever as good relative to his peers as kessel was last year, though gartner probably had tougher competition.

also, was gartner really that consistent? i have a vague recollection of him being a relatively streaky scorer within an a given year (though he always ended the season with the same amount of goals). but i'd love to hear from someone who remembers the 80s more clearly.

Hmm...Kessel...interesting.

Kessel's always disappointed me when the play elevates (playoffs, wjc, olympics) even though his numbers look good. (Maybe the WJC was an exception, I remember he was pretty dominant, albeit a puck-hog)

They are pretty similar, even though it's really early in Kessel's career. I'd agree with you about the relative competition (in terms of other RW being compared to) and they are both streaky scorers. Consistent season-ending numbers, but most scorers tend to be streaky I find.

Kessel's probably more talented than Gartner was, Kessel can still get better. He came into the league very young, hasn't really matured physically or mentally until very recently, but he's a much better player with each passing season even though the pure numbers don't reflect such an improvement.

Good comparison though. I'm hoping/expecting Kessel to improve though. I think he's got untapped upside still. I don't think Gartner could have been any better than he was. He never had high-end hockey sense, didn't see the ice well, never made those around him better, never battled hard enough.

Kessel's got more hockey sense, better passer/sees the ice better, he just hasn't learned to evolve his game, to make those around him better. Maybe he will.

 

[shazariahl]

All I can say about him is, that he was walking guarantee of 30 goals plateau. was one of the fastest skater in hockey history and I support his induction. 700 goals is a level when you have to be in.

Still has the fastest time in the all-star game speed skating competition.

 

[begbeee]

I like Gartner's comparision to Gaborik more than to Kessel.

 

[kmad]

Very intelligent player with strong hockey IQ.

You say that about everyone.

 

[Edge]

One of the best support players in NHL history. He just wasn't a "star."

Always gave you a solid 40-50 goal season.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

to me, the best comparison is geoff courtnall. gartner has less streakiness, less chippiness/cheapness, and less clutchness, but they were similar players in terms of straight ahead speed, well-placed shots, relative lack of vision/hockey sense but very good (sub-elite) goal scorer instincts. also, ideally suited as a very good second line scoring winger, but often taking on a top line or 1a/1b role on less deep teams.

seems crazy right? geoff courtnall scored 40 goals once, and gartner averaged 40 goals for his entire twenty year career. but if this is their primes (early 90s) and i have the choice of one to add to my top six for a playoff series, i'd probably pick courtnall. the man scored big playoff goals in his prime.

courtnall was a late bloomer. if you count only his career after he left the oilers on, he and gartner have played basically the same amount of playoff games (this ignores courtnall's tenure as a bit player on edmonton's last cup team with gretzky). 128 games for courtnall, 122 for gartner. 109 points for courtnall, 93 for gartner. seven series wins in 20 years for gartner, twelve for courtnall only counting the last 10 years of his career.

would we have rather have gartner than courtnall for the '94 cup run, or hell any of the canucks' playoff series while courtnall was there? they basically play the same game, only gartner is the "better" goal scorer. but i don't think i'd make that trade.

to be fair, gartner's best playoff run came in '92 on the second line with turcotte. those two were the rangers' top line the year before, which was gartner's best season. then new york adds an entire first line to play in front of those two: messier, graves, and amonte. gartner was best suited to that role.

but courtnall produced in the playoffs whether it was on the first line with linden and ronning ('91-'92), on the second line behind bure ('93-'94), or in 1a/1b situations (in washington or even in st. louis at the end of his career).

 

[begbeee]

VS^ So basically are you saying that Gartner is the most elite 2nd liner ever?