Who is the most underrated goal scorer in NHL history?

[Big Phil]

Gordie Howe. Howe is the greratest goal scorer of all time but virtually nobody knows it.

Howe of course is another one. No one remembers that he led the NHL in goals as many times as Gretzky did (5). 801 for the career is great no matter how you slice it. While I wouldnt argue he is the most underrated goal scorer I would have a hard time putting him ahead of Richard, Hull, Bossy and Lemieux for that category.

 

[TheBannermen]

Marcel Dionne.

731 goals, 1771 points. When he retired, he was 2nd all-time in goals and second all-time in points. He has NEVER in his career received the fanfare or attention that he has earned and deserves. Only 3 players in NHL history put the puck in the net more than Dionne... Gretzky, Howe, Hull.

 

[Big Phil]

Marcel Dionne.

731 goals, 1771 points. When he retired, he was 2nd all-time in goals and second all-time in points. He has NEVER in his career received the fanfare or attention that he has earned and deserves. Only 3 players in NHL history put the puck in the net more than Dionne... Gretzky, Howe, Hull.

I think Dionne gets his dues as a goal scorer, but I think it's his playoff portfolio that gets him forgotten

 

[BAuldie]

I think there is a theme with a lot of guys here that are considered underrated.

1.) They played in the shadow of Gretzky

2.) They slowed down in their careers. The casual fan will look at a guy like Andreychuk who wasn't the same goal scorer later on his career and people have that stuck in their mind and forget how good he was earlier in his career. Peter Bondra is another example.

 

[K-PAX*]

One thing I hate about threads like this is when you talk about "all time" best anything, it's really not fair. You look at goalies "back in the day" and they just flat out STUNK compared to today's WORST goalies. Looks at some of the 60 foot goals scored with goalie barely moving for the puck, it's just sad. For some reason numbers mean everything to most people and since Gretzky has so many of those numbers people tend to disagree when you say things like "he wouldn't be dominent playing in today's game. He'd be good, but not great. Just as I think guys like Ovechkin and Crosby would double the figures Gretzky put up if THEY played in HIS era."

They disagree because that's a dumb and unfair thing to say.

 

[reckoning]

You look at goalies "back in the day" and they just flat out STUNK compared to today's WORST goalies. Looks at some of the 60 foot goals scored with goalie barely moving for the puck, it's just sad.

What are you basing that on? How many games did you watch back then? Are you saying that just because you saw some old clip of a goalie looking bad on a goal? Are you considering the different size and weight of equipment between the two eras?

Imagine if some oldtimer hadn't watched hockey in 20 years, and then saw this:



They'd probably say today's goalies flat out STINK!

 

[ScottYoung48]

Gartner is overrated if anything. He was never among the best in the NHL, he was never dominant, he simply put together 20 good seasons.

Good + good + good...= good, not great.

Gartner is very underrated in these boards. Some even suggest he doesn't belong in the HOF

IMO consistently scoring 30 goals a year for that long is greatness

 

[Puck Dogg]

Brian Bellows had four times 30 or more, 2 times 40 or more and once 55 goals per season. He finished with 485. That's more than what Darryl Sittler, Alex Delvecchio or Pat LaFontaine had, folks.

 

[BAuldie]

Brian Bellows had four times 30 or more, 2 times 40 or more and once 55 goals per season. He finished with 485. That's more than what Darryl Sittler, Alex Delvecchio or Pat LaFontaine had, folks.

Yea Bellows was a good one. The tail end was nothing special but 485 is an awesome number. Probably would've made a big difference if he could've hit that 500 mark. That late 80's/early 90's North Stars team had a few underrated guys. Even Gagner at over 300..

Some others that come to mind.

Jimmy Carson - 275 goals in 625 games
Hakan Loob - nearly 200 goals in 450 games
Robert Reichel at the start of his career was pretty darn good.. 252 goals in 830 games isn't that special but he really tailed off at the end of his career
John Ogrodnick - 402 goals in 928 games

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Pat Verbeek, Dino Cicarelli, Norm Ulmman, Mike Gartner

 

[JCD]

Gartner is very underrated in these boards. Some even suggest he doesn't belong in the HOF

IMO consistently scoring 30 goals a year for that long is greatness

Would you consider a goalie or defensive-minded player who put up 18-consistent seasons of good, but never great, play also Hall of Fame worthy?

 

[BAuldie]

Would you consider a goalie or defensive-minded player who put up 18-consistent seasons of good, but never great, play also Hall of Fame worthy?

Well.. what do you consider an average goalie season? 30 wins is usually the marker for a great season (although its a bit higher with shootouts now) but lets even just go 20 wins ok? Thats pretty meh.

18 years x 20 wins = 360 wins.. I think that gets you into the HHOF.

 

[JCD]

Well.. what do you consider an average goalie season? 30 wins is usually the marker for a great season (although its a bit higher with shootouts now) but lets even just go 20 wins ok? Thats pretty meh.

18 years x 20 wins = 360 wins.. I think that gets you into the HHOF.

So you would consider Sean Burke and Chris Osgood borderline Hall of Famers?

 

[BAuldie]

So you would consider Sean Burke and Chris Osgood borderline Hall of Famers?

As I said, 20 wins is a bit low to be considered a good season but I was just using that as a number.. I think 25 is more realistic as an average.

Like it or not.. and I have a heard time seeing it, but both Burke and Osgood are top 20 in all time goalie wins.. Burke could be hurt by his post season numbers mind you.

 

[JCD]

As I said, 20 wins is a bit low to be considered a good season but I was just using that as a number.. I think 25 is more realistic as an average.

Like it or not.. and I have a heard time seeing it, but both Burke and Osgood are top 20 in all time goalie wins.. Burke could be hurt by his post season numbers mind you.

I think a qualification for the Hall of Fame is that they player was considered one of the best at their position. Being consistently good puts you in the Hall of Good. Might even get your number retired. But I think the HOF should be reserved for those players who helped define their generation or that you will look back and say "I got a chance to see _______ play.".

Osgood, Burke and Gartner have never been considered among the best at their position, nor are the defining players for their generation nor are they the types people pay to go see. I respect their accomplishments, but we shouldn't water down the Hall of Fame like that.

Put another way, do Burke and Osgood really deserve to have their name put alongside Roy? Should Gartner be put alongside Dionne or Richard?

To lower standards like that makes the Hall of Fame less significant than it should be. Instead of being a place of distinction, it is a 20-year watch. Last X amount of years, score Y amount of goals or notch Z amount of goals and you are in.

 

[BAuldie]

I think a qualification for the Hall of Fame is that they player was considered one of the best at their position. Being consistently good puts you in the Hall of Good. Might even get your number retired. But I think the HOF should be reserved for those players who helped define their generation or that you will look back and say "I got a chance to see _______ play.".

Osgood, Burke and Gartner have never been considered among the best at their position, nor are the defining players for their generation nor are they the types people pay to go see. I respect their accomplishments, but we shouldn't water down the Hall of Fame like that.

Put another way, do Burke and Osgood really deserve to have their name put alongside Roy? Should Gartner be put alongside Dionne or Richard?

To lower standards like that makes the Hall of Fame less significant than it should be. Instead of being a place of distinction, it is a 20-year watch. Last X amount of years, score Y amount of goals or notch Z amount of goals and you are in.

I don't disagree with you honestly. I'd love to see the HHOF become more exclusive but the fact is its not. Are Burke and Osgood hall of famers? Na.. I don't think so but when you start comparing numbers to some guys that have gotten in then yea you can make a case for them to be in the HHOF.

 

[Mothra]

So you would consider Sean Burke and Chris Osgood borderline Hall of Famers?

First off, im not suggesting Gartner is under-rated.....if anything, for purposes of this thread he is over-rated

I do however believe your analogy is way off....are either Osgood or Burke 6th all-time in..lets say wins? To say Gartner was just "good" for a long period is just not accurate.....he was a very good player for quite sometime, most of it on a very defensive team. Played in at least half a dozen all-star games. There is a middle between "good" and "great". While I understand you would not care for a Hall of Very Good either...there is no need to devalue what he did by simply saying he was "good"...he was more than just that

as for the the topic of the thread....the question depends on who the OP is asking. On HF, where most/many didnt even see the meat of Gretzky's career the answer is different than if asking someone thats been watching hockey for much longer. There are too many names to figure out who is the "most" underrated.....a good name that popped up was Rick Martin....its hard to say Bossy is underrated, but he probably is....so is Mario in terms of goal scoring

Its hard for me to comment on Bobby Hull because he was already in the WHA when I started seeing a lot of hockey....but he should be mentioned, he seems underrated in general

 

[Crosbyfan]

I have a few names in mind, and i'll start with one that I think was an extremely underrated goal scorer.

Wayne Gretzky.

I think a lot of people associate Gretzky with his passing and playmaking but I feel in the grand Scheme he's really underrated as a goal scorer.

A lot of the top 3 or 5 lists i've seen rarely include him, and I ask why?

50 in 39 is a record that will not be broken unless they remove goalies completely from the game.(But I would like to know what the adjusted eqivolent would be)

He had 894 career goals, first all time, 5 years over 60 goals, and perhaps the best most accurate slap shot in NHL history...his is the best i've seen. Some guys can shoot it really hard, some are really accurate but it's rare to see a guy who can combine those two elements to a slap shot IMO.

Anyways that's my case but i'd like to see where you all would rank goal scorers who never received the credit that they deserved.

Rare should include "not Gretzky" as he really didn't have a hard slapshot, just a very accurate one that he often used from the high slot where typically snipers with harder wrist or snapshots would use those. It certainly did the job though.

 

[Randall Graves*]

One thing I hate about threads like this is when you talk about "all time" best anything, it's really not fair. You look at goalies "back in the day" and they just flat out STUNK compared to today's WORST goalies. Looks at some of the 60 foot goals scored with goalie barely moving for the puck, it's just sad. For some reason numbers mean everything to most people and since Gretzky has so many of those numbers people tend to disagree when you say things like "he wouldn't be dominent playing in today's game. He'd be good, but not great. Just as I think guys like Ovechkin and Crosby would double the figures Gretzky put up if THEY played in HIS era."

That's why I think it's important to try and adjust for era. Some players are just ahead of their time, but remember they also didn't have access to the same quality of equipment or training todays players get.

That's why I think most people compare players standings all time vs how they did in their era and the strength of that era vs how others did in their time period.

For instance Lidstrom has 6 norris trophies, but I think many agree he has done it in a weak era for defensemen. Most of the 90's was a strong era for dmen(Chelios, Leetch, MaCinnis, Stevens, Bourque, and in the later 90's guys like Pronger) All six of those Dmen I mentioned are arguably top 30 dmen in NHL history.

Lidstrom is a great defensemen but the competition wasn't that great after he started winning all the Norris'.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Howe of course is another one. No one remembers that he led the NHL in goals as many times as Gretzky did (5). 801 for the career is great no matter how you slice it. While I wouldnt argue he is the most underrated goal scorer I would have a hard time putting him ahead of Richard, Hull, Bossy and Lemieux for that category.

If we're going to throw Howe into this, then Brett Hull's goalscoring brilliance is unheralded as well. Easily a top 5 sniper of all time, right up there with his old man and Bossy.

 

[Up the Irons]

i gotta go with Gretz. he gets little respect on here. Lemieux scored prettier goals (but far fewer) and so many say 66 was better than 99.

how many goals did Wayne score by stepping out from behind the net, getting the pass and shooting it into a wide open net? probably over 200. doesn't look like much on the replay, but if you think about it, he basically fooled the whole team.

Gretzky scored 1072 goals in his 22 year pro career!!!!! that makes him the best scorer. i can't believe its even a debate.

 

[Mothra]

Gretzky scored 1072 goals in his 22 year pro career!!!!! that makes him the best scorer. i can't believe its even a debate.

If you had read the title you would have noticed that the debate isnt who is the best goal scorer....its who is the most underrated

this may help you next time....

RIF

 

[JCD]

First off, im not suggesting Gartner is under-rated.....if anything, for purposes of this thread he is over-rated

I do however believe your analogy is way off....are either Osgood or Burke 6th all-time in..lets say wins? To say Gartner was just "good" for a long period is just not accurate.....he was a very good player for quite sometime, most of it on a very defensive team. Played in at least half a dozen all-star games. There is a middle between "good" and "great". While I understand you would not care for a Hall of Very Good either...there is no need to devalue what he did by simply saying he was "good"...he was more than just that

as for the the topic of the thread....the question depends on who the OP is asking. On HF, where most/many didnt even see the meat of Gretzky's career the answer is different than if asking someone thats been watching hockey for much longer. There are too many names to figure out who is the "most" underrated.....a good name that popped up was Rick Martin....its hard to say Bossy is underrated, but he probably is....so is Mario in terms of goal scoring

Its hard for me to comment on Bobby Hull because he was already in the WHA when I started seeing a lot of hockey....but he should be mentioned, he seems underrated in general

I think Very Good is a bit of a stretch. Well, we are dealing with subjective terms, so it really is just where you set the bar.

Gartner was primarily a goalscorer. He wasn't known for his playmaking, physical presense of defensive play. Over the course of his career, Gartner was rarely (if ever?) one of the top-5 goal scorers in a season. He rarely cracked the top-10. He was consistantly in the teens at the aspect that defined him.

What makes Gartner noteworthy is the length of his career. While noteworthy, I don't see that as a Hall of Fame credential. Kudos on avoiding injury and staying fit enough to last 18 seasons, but what he did during those 18 seasons is of more importance. In those 18 seasons, he was never a top player at his position and as an offensively minded player, rarely cracked the top-10.

As for Osgood and Burke, I think they are even less qualified than Gartner. Neither should ever get a sniff of the Hall. However, they fit the criteria given. Only thing they had in common with Gartner is long careers.

 

[Mothra]

I think Very Good is a bit of a stretch. Well, we are dealing with subjective terms, so it really is just where you set the bar.

Gartner was primarily a goalscorer. He wasn't known for his playmaking, physical presense of defensive play. Over the course of his career, Gartner was rarely (if ever?) one of the top-5 goal scorers in a season. He rarely cracked the top-10. He was consistantly in the teens at the aspect that defined him.

What makes Gartner noteworthy is the length of his career. While noteworthy, I don't see that as a Hall of Fame credential. Kudos on avoiding injury and staying fit enough to last 18 seasons, but what he did during those 18 seasons is of more importance. In those 18 seasons, he was never a top player at his position and as an offensively minded player, rarely cracked the top-10.

As for Osgood and Burke, I think they are even less qualified than Gartner. Neither should ever get a sniff of the Hall. However, they fit the criteria given. Only thing they had in common with Gartner is long careers.

If you get rid of Gartner then there needs to be a large purge of other players as well....which I know you dont have a problem with, im just saying it.

I personally dont have issues with players like Gartner, Gilles, etc being in the Hall....for me the criteria is and should be open-ended and looked at from many angles. I dont think having Gartner in the Hall diminishes the accomplishments of players like Orr, Mario, Howe.....but thats just my take

In Gartners you still have to consider the fact he played on arguable the most defensive team in the NHL (during his Cap days). The only other team that I can think of off the top of my head in that conversation is the Flyers, who he had to play against a lot as they were division foes

all this being said I take Dino over him every day of the week

 

[Devils Dominion]

Here are a few more:

Tony Tanti in the mid-80's for Vancouver.

Bernie Federko racked up a ton of points.

Dale Hawerchuk