How good was Mike Gartner in his prime?

[Maelmoor]

He is for sure underrated, 17 30 goal seasons is a fantastic achievement, no matter in what era it was, being so good for such a long time is something I rate higher than peak for 2-3 seasons.

 

[RECsGuy*]

He is for sure underrated, 17 30 goal seasons is a fantastic achievement, no matter in what era it was, being so good for such a long time is something I rate higher than peak for 2-3 seasons.

Scoring 30 goals in a season is a legendary feat? Since when? Hasn't been a notable single-season milestone since the O6 days.

 

[begbeee]

One question pops in my mind and I'm too young to remember.. Was Gartner *always* a first line player? I dont mean if he carry the offense, what he certainly didnt, but if he played 15 seasons as a 1st liner or at least the best scorer of his teams.

 

[Ola]

Around 84

 

[pld459666]

Scoring 30 goals in a season is a legendary feat? Since when? Hasn't been a notable single-season milestone since the O6 days.

Name another player that has done that (scored 30 or more goals) for 15 straight seasons.

17 full scheduled seasons.

Gartner was an elite level goal scorer.

Fans would cream themselves to get a goal scorer like that today.

 

[Jabroni]

A 30+ goal scorer is a first liner I think.

Never seen him play, but his consistency was impressive.

 

[begbeee]

17 seasons as a first liner is definitely an impressive achievment. How many HOFers can say that?
From the top of my head I have doubts even about Jagr.

 

[RECsGuy*]

Name another player that has done that (scored 30 or more goals) for 15 straight seasons.

17 full scheduled seasons.

Gartner was an elite level goal scorer.

Fans would cream themselves to get a goal scorer like that today.

During his 19-season career, he scored over 80 points in a season just 7 times (80, 81, 81, 85, 86, 94, 102). And is in the Hockey Hall Of Fame.

Think about that.

 

[pld459666]

.

During his 19-season career, he scored over 80 points in a season just 7 times (80, 81, 81, 85, 86, 94, 102). And is in the Hockey Hall Of Fame.

Think about that.

Absolutely impressive that as a non elite level player, he averaged .93 points per game.

and just under a goal every 2 games.

you put Gartner in today's NHL, with his speed and shot? He's still scoring 40 goals.

Tim Kerr? I don't see Tim Kerr cracking 30.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Absolutely impressive that as a non elite level player, he averaged .93 points per game.

Yeah... not so much, imo. I mean, 87 other players (with over 100 games played, for significant figure and sample size purposes) averaged that between '79 and '98 (the span of Gartner's career). Granted, they're all well-known names (so the company is decent), but we're talking Barry Pederson + Mike Bullard type production here.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Absolutely impressive that as a non elite level player, he averaged .93 points per game.

and just under a goal every 2 games.

you put Gartner in today's NHL, with his speed and shot? He's still scoring 40 goals.

Tim Kerr? I don't see Tim Kerr cracking 30.

completely disagree. gartner had a good shot, but not a hall of fame one. he scored so many of his goals off the rush, and as someone mentioned earlier he was a volume shooter. that kind of goal from the wing and above the hash marks (think: michel goulet or young mark messier) rarely gets scored after, say, 1996. modern defenses are specifically geared towards letting players take those kinds of shots (see: boston against the canucks in the 2011 finals) and keeping them away from the inside.

on the other hand, what kind of goal gets scored today? the kind that comes from being a big tough mucker in the crease.

 

[Stansfield*]

Name another player that has done that (scored 30 or more goals) for 15 straight seasons.

17 full scheduled seasons.

Gartner was an elite level goal scorer.

Fans would cream themselves to get a goal scorer like that today.

Jagr is the only other guy to accomplish that, both with 15 seasons exactly.

 

[RECsGuy*]

Tim Kerr? I don't see Tim Kerr cracking 30.

Nowadays, a premium is placed on a player's height/weight, and every penalty is called, so, yes, Tim Kerr would have plenty of PP opportunities to just park himself in front of the opposition's goal and pot at least 30 goals a year. Do you have any idea how big Kerr was, both tall and wide? I can't think of many dmen today who'd be able to move him. Kerr's career was cut short because of the beating he took while parked in front of the oppositin's goal. With today's refereeing, he'd be able to sit out front untouched. Bryan Trottier used to joke about how difficult it was to displace him, and this was when penalty calls were much harder to come by.

 

[Brewsky]

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.

Very very good comparison, but with Gartner he could be a mean dude.

 

[Oowatanite]

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

He had a great shot aswell.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

I can speak to his time with the Caps. He never had anything better than an average playmaker next to him during his time in Washington.....during an era when post-season success required an outstanding playmaker.

 

[skeena1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't he have a reputation as being one of the most me-first players ever? I'm sure I've read/heard that. That kind of thing can stick with you, just as lesser-skilled great-in-the-room guys sometimes are overrated as players.

 

[Goose]

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.

This is the argument I find crazy. Being consistently one of the best goal scorers in the league (even if you're never in the same tier as the best) for 17 seasons is a remarkable accomplishment. I get that 700 goals in 1400 GP isn't nearly as impressive as the people at the very top of the list, but Gartner's a slightly better, slightly more consistent goal scorer than Stevie Y. 700 goals is 700 goals, no matter how you do it. The fact that some people don't think a Top 10 goal scorer all time should be in the Hall blows me away a bit.

 

[scott clam]

Rock solid goal scorer.

 

[Boxscore]

Mike Gartner was a great hockey player. Unfortunately, he may have been a little too "gentlemanly" for his own good at times, as strange as that sounds. When I think of Mike Gartner, I think of--the mustache, the speed, the shot, the consistency. Gartner was one of the best, and fastest, skaters of his era. He could fly up the wing and unleash a blistering shot. Gartner had awesome mitts, which is why he was consistently a very good goal scorer. He was also one of the nicest men in the NHL, but during an era where toughness and snarl was a more valued commodity. This is part of the reason Gartner was traded multiple times, despite being a steady and reliable scorer. The Rangers traded him for more grit in order to win a Cup. Keenan didn't think Gartner had it in him to win the Cup and cashed him in for less talented--but more battle-tested--chips with jam.

As for modern day comparisons, I don't really see the Phil Kessel comparison. Kessel is a chunky, decent skating sharpshooter with a nasty wrist shot. If anything, Kessel reminds me more of a bigger Vladimir Krutov or younger Mark Recchi. Unlike Kessel, Gartner was an exceptional skater who could flat-out fly... and he gloved to use a slap shot or deke in close. Kessel is more of a "hit the circle and snap a wrister" type of fellow.

In terms of style--although a different position--Gartner was more like Nathan MacKinnon, although not as dynamic or "violent" with his release. He was very fast, explosive and had a potent shot--dangerous off the rush and in full flight. Gartner didn't have MacKinnon's upside, but stylistically he wasn't too far off.

 

[Big Phil]

Just curious, what was Gartner's prime? He reminds me a bit of someone like Mats Sundin or Ron Francis. Very good for a long time (although the other two were better individual players) and it makes it hard to narrow down a prime. Put it this way:

1981: 48 goals
1985: 50 goals
1988: 48 goals
1991: 49 goals
1993: 45 goals

He had 9 40+ goals in his career. That's a lot. He peaked at 102 points, had 94 another time and overall had lots of 80 point years. Basically he was never not a good goal scorer until his final NHL season.

 

[blogofmike]

I suppose one point in his favour is that he played much of the 80s for a more defensive-minded team who did not offer great playmakers to feed him.

Bobby Carpenter is okay, but not quite as helpful to Gartner as the teammates of others were to them.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

He played in a high scoring era and is 90th in PPG so the HHoF talk is uncalled for. I'm not saying that PPG by itself is a good argument for the HHoF.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

1989 to 1994, which fast scoring winger would you prefer on your team, gartner or geoff courtnall?

 

[The Panther]

He played in a high scoring era and is 90th in PPG so the HHoF talk is uncalled for.

He's already in the Hall of Fame.