How good was Mike Gartner in his prime?

[vadim sharifijanov]

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

i guess i'm saying he probably should have been a second line winger for the ages. could he have been bob bourne but for 20 years? i think gartner himself would trade the 700 goals for 500 and some cups.

also, "ever" is a strong word. boom boom geoffrion was a 2nd liner for years behind the rocket.

 

[Bobo420]

He may not have won hardware but he's one of the most consistent players ever throughout his career, I felt really bad for him when the Rangers traded him for Glenn Anderson (who was way passed his prime while Gartner was still scoring 30+ a season) in 93-94 and then New York went on to win the Cup.

 

[brianscot]

According to hockeyreference.com, during the big 80's Gartner scored twice as many goals as any other Cap --- 397 goals to Bengt Gustafsson's 196.

Accumulator perhaps, but how many other goal scorers have outscored their team mates 2/1 for a decade?

 

[redbull]

According to hockeyreference.com, during the big 80's Gartner scored twice as many goals as any other Cap --- 397 goals to Bengt Gustafsson's 196.

Accumulator perhaps, but how many other goal scorers have outscored their team mates 2/1 for a decade?

Gretzky, except it was with the whole league.

I wonder how much of that has to do with a poor supporting cast and player movement and supporting cast spanning the end/beginning of their time in WASH/NHL.

For example: Dennis Maruk, Dave Christian, Bobby Carpenter all had 405 year runs in that period. Gustafsson was more of a playmaker than scorer, good player.

Looking at Goals/Game during the '80s, for the Caps, it's much closer:

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

He may not have won hardware but he's one of the most consistent players ever throughout his career, I felt really bad for him when the Rangers traded him for Glenn Anderson (who was way passed his prime while Gartner was still scoring 30+ a season) in 93-94 and then New York went on to win the Cup.

anderson wasn't much of a factor in NY, but even past his prime, he was coming off an 18 point playoff run, which is more points in a single playoff year than gartner ever scored in his career.

without the benefit of hindsight i would have made that trade too.

 

[metalfoot]

Other than his speed, Gartner was just a very good player, never elite.

 

[whatname]

Very good player at doing what's expected out of him - score goals, but he wasn't a superstar. In terms of star level, I guess he was probably close to Simon Gagne's level when Gagne was in his prime. He was fun to watch for me though. I always liked seeing fast players. His mustache was awesome as well.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Very good and very fast player with elite consistency.

 

[tony d]

Yeah, the guy was an elite goal scorer and that was about it, still think he gets in the Hall of Fame someday though.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Very good and very fast player with elite consistency.

My sentiments summarized nicely. Not exactly an elite scorer, imo, as he used his speed to find/create tonnes and tonnes of opportunities to shoot/score rather than necessarily having the skill to bury the high percentage of them that "elite" scorers of the day did (~300 shots wasn't uncommon for him, but surpassing 15% shooting was, for example).

I've always thought it was a bit unlucky/unfair for Gartner that he missed out on a Cup while Glenn Anderson got another one via that trade at the deadline before NYR's (and Messier's) big finish.

 

[begbeee]

Yeah, the guy was an elite goal scorer and that was about it, still think he gets in the Hall of Fame someday though.

 

[Sorge Georos]

Of course adding 40-50 goalscorer helps your team. I have no doubt he would have won a Cup had the Rangers kept him, he had very good production in the 91-92 playoff.

So I wouldn't just generalize him as a non-difference maker due to lack of Cup. Happens way too often.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

one last thing re: gartner, the rangers, '94, and the cup gartner may or may not have had there been no trade.

the canucks played gartner's and anderson's teams back to back. going into the third round, gartner had 10 points in 13 games against the blackhawks and the sharks. going into the finals, anderson had 1 goal and 2 assists in 16 games against the islanders, caps, and devils.

gartner scores one assist in the canucks series, and they lose in five. anderson scores the short-handed go-ahead goal in game two, and the momentum shifter early in the game 3 rout after the canucks came out flying. back-to-back stanley cup game winners for a guy who was "washed up."

just sayin'.

 

[Sorge Georos]

one last thing re: gartner, the rangers, '94, and the cup gartner may or may not have had there been no trade.

the canucks played gartner's and anderson's teams back to back. going into the third round, gartner had 10 points in 13 games against the blackhawks and the sharks. going into the finals, anderson had 1 goal and 2 assists in 16 games against the islanders, caps, and devils.

gartner scores one assist in the canucks series, and they lose in five. anderson scores the short-handed go-ahead goal in game two, and the momentum shifter early in the game 3 rout after the canucks came out flying. back-to-back stanley cup game winners for a guy who was "washed up."

just sayin'.

So you're telling me because he scored two goals, that wipes away six points in 23 games? IMO you are embellishing very much.

You're not going to convince me that the Rangers don't win a Cup or perform even better with Gartner in the lineup. These are individual players past their primes, not the sole determinants of the series.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

So you're telling me because he scored two goals, that wipes away six points in 23 games? IMO you are embellishing very much.

You're not going to convince me that the Rangers don't win a Cup or perform even better with Gartner in the lineup. These are individual players past their primes, not the sole determinants of the series.

i'm telling you that anderson scored two game winning goals AGAINST THE CANUCKS, which is the team that the rangers had to beat to win the stanley cup. in the exact same year, gartner scored zero goals and one assist against that same team.

it was a seven game series. if anderson doesn't score the game winning goal in game two, which was a one goal game (leetch added an empty netter), is there not a chance that the rangers would have lost that series? would gartner have scored that goal? maybe. but he sure didn't score any for the leafs.

 

[Slapshooter]

As this topic is about Gartner's prime, not about his exceptionally consistent career:

Other than his speed, Gartner was just a very good player, never elite.

That sums it up neatly.

 

[Evincar]

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.

I dont think he deserves to be in the hall. He was never an elite goal scorer even despite scoring 700 goals, just a good one. He's the best example of stat compiler there is.

 

[RECsGuy*]

Consistency =/= Greatness

 

[JetsHomer]

Consistency =/= Greatness

True, but at the same time, isn't the fact that he's the most consistant stat compiler of all time kind of a great in itself?

 

[RECsGuy*]

True, but at the same time, isn't the fact that he's the most consistant stat compiler of all time kind of a great in itself?

nope, just makes him...

the most consistant stat compiler

He didn't put together a defining season, postseason, playoff series, score a memorable goal. Nothing. His claims to fame were his speed, being a nice guy and scoring 700 meaningless goals.

Put up only SIX 80-plus-points seasons in a 19-year career that includes the entire 1980's.

Both the North Stars and Rangers reached the finals immediately after his departure.

His induction is an absolute embarrassment and is proof that having friends in high places is always a good thing.

 

[Weztex]

True, but at the same time, isn't the fact that he's the most consistant stat compiler of all time kind of a great in itself?

Being consistently lousy does not make you average. Being consistently good should not make you great. The feat itself may be impressive, but it doesn't add much to the talent of the player.

 

[Evincar]

I was trying to find a RW equivalent to Gartner's prime in the dead puck era(when I grew up watching hockey). The best I could come up with is Tony Amonte and Owen Nolan. Interesting enough both Amonte and Nolan's best season is significantly better than Gartner's.

 

[begbeee]

Amonte maybe with his speed and scoring touch, but Nolan is more in Wendel Clark class than in Pavel Bure's one.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i think amonte is a good comparison. gartner was in many ways amonte with better consistency, length of prime.

amonte has better high end finishes, but given the competition in two years amonte peaked (many star players having off years or being injured or declining or not yet having broken through), i think two of gartner's best years may have been good for a second or third place finish in '99 and '00 as well.

also, of course, both were thought to be expendable to the '94 cup winners.

 

[begbeee]

Give him credit where credit is due: his 2nd place in Richard is deserved and maybe if he didnt hit a small slump after his last hattrick in a season, he could win it all.