Was Mike Gartner underrated?

[The Panther]

Players like Gartner would do their specific thing whatever team they're on. There's no granted correlation between having name-recognition teammates and your production increasing. Some players score more on worse teams because their role increase and they're getting to be the man with all the opportunity that comes along with it. Anyone who's played sports knows this. It also depends on what type of system your coach wants to play. For instance, Fedorov's and Shanahan's numbers sky-dived on a great but conservative Wings team for a couple of seasons because rotation, roles, deployment and style.

Conversely, Olli Jokinen, a primarily offensive C, who had a couple of high-scoring seasons with a lowly Panthers team, I have a hard time seeing him getting all that juicy PP time and getting to run the show if he had to share top C duties with a Forsberg or a Lindros or a player of that calibre, on a more serious team. Sometimes you get the chance to be a big fish in a small pond. There's a lot of examples of this.

Gartner played on great teams, with great teammates, in two Canada Cups, and while he was good in his role his production didn't sky-rocket. It's also sometimes more of a feather in someone's cap if he can show a more well-rounded team game than just popping empty bananas.

Another of your swipes at me. Thanks for that.

You seemingly didn't understand my post, in which I said absolutely nothing about Gartner's teammates. (For the record, I completely agree with you that playing with numerous talented teammates does not mean a player's production goes up -- I have argued this exact point on here numerous times, despite your lame attempt portray me as an idiot.)

My point, for the record, was that Gartner's numbers would likely have been higher had he played on almost any team but Washington in his younger years (well, Washington or Montreal, say). That's because Washington -- unlike almost any other club of that mid-80s' era -- was very much a defence-first club.

I simply don't have time for posters continually dissing me on here. Life is too short. I am blocking you from now on, so FYI I wont't be seeing any more of your posts. I don't dislike you or anything, but I can't stand being attacked every time I post something.

 

[Crosby2010]

I think Gartner "compiled" the right way though. Sort of how Dino did. Gartner retired the minute he wasn't scoring 30 goals anymore. He did it in his 3rd and 2nd last seasons and in his last season wasn't scoring much anymore so he retired. I've seen plenty of players hit sexy totals mostly because they hung around too long (Patrick Marleau with the games played, Andreychuk with the goals). Gartner wasn't like this. A classic model of consistency, he had 19 seasons in the NHL. Hit 30 goals 15 straight times. Then the 1995 lockout, then two more 30+ goal seasons and then his final year. The lockout and his final year are the only times he didn't hit at least 30. Actually, 32 was his lowest in the 30+ category, and just as remarkable was his 9 seasons of at least 40. Ovechkin has 13 seasons of at least 40. Honestly, how many players even have the 9 Gartner has?

The problem with him is that he didn't have that awe inspiring season, just a lot of very good ones. If he peaks higher he gets more love. But he didn't. That being said, he still was very valuable, absolutely deserves the HHOF induction too. And how many players in NHL history were as fast as him tearing down the wing in a north-south manner? Almost no one. His speed alone made you respect him.

I'll give the consistency Modano and Sundin and Francis had being much more prolific because they were better players and put up more points than him. Tony Amonte comes to mind as a guy similar to Gartner in the way where he didn't really have that "Wow" season but a lot of very good ones with 30+ goals. And yet he didn't do it nearly as much as Gartner did year after year. Amonte fizzled faster. Gartner as an old man in 1996 won the fastest skater event at the All-Star game and that held for a long, long time too. McDavid owns that record now, but it took a long time.

 

[Crosby2010]

Players like Gartner would do their specific thing whatever team they're on. There's no granted correlation between having name-recognition teammates and your production increasing. Some players score more on worse teams because their role increase and they're getting to be the man with all the opportunity that comes along with it. Anyone who's played sports knows this. It also depends on what type of system your coach wants to play. For instance, Fedorov's and Shanahan's numbers sky-dived on a great but conservative Wings team for a couple of seasons because rotation, roles, deployment and style.

Conversely, Olli Jokinen, a primarily offensive C, who had a couple of high-scoring seasons with a lowly Panthers team, I have a hard time seeing him getting all that juicy PP time and getting to run the show if he had to share top C duties with a Forsberg or a Lindros or a player of that calibre, on a more serious team. Sometimes you get the chance to be a big fish in a small pond. There's a lot of examples of this.

Gartner played on great teams, with great teammates, in two Canada Cups, and while he was good in his role his production didn't sky-rocket. It's also sometimes more of a feather in someone's cap if he can show a more well-rounded team game than just popping empty bananas.

He might be onto something though. Washington was all about defense, and did not play that up tempo game that Gartner could play with his speed. It might have helped him on another team. Of course, some more playoff heroics on his end and we might be talking about his playoff resume better, but it's okay enough I guess.

I'll say that Joe DiMaggio has more home runs if he isn't stuck at Yankee Stadium with that (at the time) cavernous left field wall. (no, not comparing Gartner to the Yankee Clipper)

 

[MadArcand]

i would say ciccarelli > gartner = marleau > andreychuk

is this in the ballpark of what people are describing as underrating gartner? because i am very prepared to defend this.

Marleau is easily the worst of those four, and by quite some margin.

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

Conversely, Olli Jokinen, a primarily offensive C, who had a couple of high-scoring seasons with a lowly Panthers team, I have a hard time seeing him getting all that juicy PP time and getting to run the show if he had to share top C duties with a Forsberg or a Lindros or a player of that calibre, on a more serious team. Sometimes you get the chance to be a big fish in a small pond. There's a lot of examples of this.

Gartner played on great teams, with great teammates, in two Canada Cups, and while he was good in his role his production didn't sky-rocket. It's also sometimes more of a feather in someone's cap if he can show a more well-rounded team game than just popping empty bananas.

Like Bure with Florida.

I don't think Gartner played on especially 'great teams, with great teammates' (save for that Rangers team the year they traded him away), any more/less than Bure, with consideration to those Vancouver teams vs those Wahington teams of the '80s.

Bure at his best is greater than Gartner, agreed, but your argument against Gartner here, goes against what you were saying not long ago in the Bure vs Bossy thread. To be more clear, your argument here should water down Bure's greatness relative to Bossy's, if you believe what you're saying here to be true. You're not particularly balanced case by case.

 

[Albatros]

Bure was significantly better at what young Gartner was good at, great acceleration and puck handling at high speed, but never evolved his game the same way.