Was Mike Gartner Underrated

[SeanMoneyHands]

He was very consistent in his career and was just shy of being a PPG player. Still put 1300+ pts. He was never a teams superstar but he was such a well rounded player. So was he underrated?

 

[MadLuke]

Not by the players and the league in general I do not think so, HHOF, made the TOp 100 nhl of all time, in 1998 he made the Hockey news top 100 player of all time list above young Joe Sakic and Hasek. Was picked for team canada best on best tourney 2 times.

On hfboards ? Maybe, did not made the top 200 playres of all time, the bar was John Leclair it seems.

 

[The Panther]

He is probably a bit under-rated on this forum in the sense that people often use him as a punching bag in examples of players who made the Hall of Fame, or who have great career totals, but weren't really that good. Gartner was really good and deserves a great deal of respect as a player. His 20-something seasons would have had higher totals had he played for basically any team but Washington, but in any case if you rack up 1335 points while never having a 100 point season (yeah, he had one, barely, at 102) then you've had some pretty amazing consistency.

But overall, in the wider world? No, he's probably rated about right.

 

[Albatros]

Scored more goals from age 24 than Wayne Gretzky despite both retiring at same age.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Agree with not by peers, yes by HFBoards. Gets that nasty word "compiler" attached to his name, which seems to really carry a negative connotation, like how dare your 11th-18th highest scoring seasons be so productive... who do you think you are having more goals and points than such and such and so and so, sorta deal.

 

[End on a Hinote]

He is probably a bit under-rated on this forum in the sense that people often use him as a punching bag in examples of players who made the Hall of Fame, or who have great career totals, but weren't really that good.

I find it hard to imagine that he would be criticized for that when you have better examples like Guy Carbonneau (no disrespect meant). Unless it's Gartners lack of a Stanley Cup that's a difference maker (overrated deal breaker, IMO)

 

[Mike C]

I find it hard to imagine that he would be criticized for that when you have better examples like Guy Carbonneau (no disrespect meant). Unless it's Gartners lack of a Stanley Cup that's a difference maker (overrated deal breaker, IMO)

Guy scored 30 plus 17 times I think it was, and is 8th on all time goal scoring list. Hard to fathom anybody would consider him not good!

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

He’s one of those HoF inductees who are easy to pick apart when questioning why someone else isn’t in, because he never received any post-season accolades, probably wouldn’t have featured among the top 10 players in the league at any point in his career, was never even close to making a post-season all-star selection and it’s not as if the competition at RW was murderous throughout his career.

But it’s also very easy to see why he’s in. On average — over a 19 year, 1400+ game career — he averaged 40+ goals per 82 game season. Awesome skater, an asset to every team he ever played for.

Something I’ve noticed with the so-called weaker HoF inductees is that from the moment they add HHoF to their name, there will always seem to be some negativity surrounding their mentions on these boards. Prior to their inductions, I felt Guy Carbonneau and Kevin Lowe were always mentioned in positive light here. Carbonneau in 1986 was legendary, Kevin Lowe held down the fort on the otherwise freewheeling dynasty Oilers.

And I wasn’t on here when Housley and Andreychuk were inducted, but whereas I agree they shouldn’t be in the HoF, I don’t think they deserve the constant bashing. We all get that he was inducted based on compiled numbers, but Andreychuk scoring a dependable 20 goals a season for the Lightning in the early 2000s is not an actual negative on his career.

With Gartner, he retired 5th in all-time goal scoring, and I suspect his 2001 induction was probably a few years prior to people really becoming aware of and backlashing at so-called “stat compilers”.

For people who have been active on Hfboards longer than I have, or who remembered the buzz around Gartner’s induction, did you remember any backlash until later?

 

[Albatros]

Guy scored 30 plus 17 times I think it was, and is 8th on all time goal scoring list. Hard to fathom anybody would consider him not good!

Indeed seventeen 30-goal seasons (2nd most all time) and nine 40-goal seasons (tied 5th all time with Bossy).

Also 15 consecutive 30-goal seasons which no one has more.

 

[frisco]

Definitely underrated by the "Let's just look at the three best years of his career and ignore the rest" crowd, for sure.

My Best-Carey

 

[seventieslord]

If you don't think Gartner should be in the Hall of Fame then you're underrating him. If you have him in the top 100 players of all time, you're definitely overrating him.

I was actually thinking of starting a thread about players like Gartner: there's a very small subset of players who had little to no support for the top 200 project that we completed a few years back, while at the same time there's little to no pushback to them being in the Hall of Fame.

 

[MadLuke]

He was not in Bowman top 100 Canadian players list either, which should be a somewhat making top150-200 worldwide in 2025 type of list. Duff, Cicarelli, Mark Recchi and Andreychuk were his floor, Reechi, Andreychuk, Cicarelli > Gartner does not feel outrageous at all, but could start a conversation about him being underrated and people just not thinking about him when making those list.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

For people who have been active on Hfboards longer than I have, or who remembered the buzz around Gartner’s induction, did you remember any backlash until later?

i definitely wasn’t on HF back then but i do remember my reaction, which was shared by some media commentators, was that gartner didn’t feel like a guy you had to induct immediately. especially compared to his induction classmate hawerchuk, a clear first ballot guy who was made to wait a year for no good reason. (hawerchuk was passed over in his first year of eligibility, when they induced only denis savard and joe mullen.)

relative to his induction class (hawerchuk, fetisov, and kurri), gartner definitely felt like a second class citizen.

 

[WarriorofTime]

If you don't think Gartner should be in the Hall of Fame then you're underrating him. If you have him in the top 100 players of all time, you're definitely overrating him.

I was actually thinking of starting a thread about players like Gartner: there's a very small subset of players who had little to no support for the top 200 project that we completed a few years back, while at the same time there's little to no pushback to them being in the Hall of Fame.

Is it because the Top whatever list is peak/prime heavily focused while the Hall of Fame is a career body of work? Meaning longevity is going to be valued a lot more heavily for HHOF than for Top whatever list.

 

[MadLuke]

Is it because the Top whatever list is peak/prime heavily focused while the Hall of Fame is a career body of work?

The Hall has 437 members, 300 something players I think, 263 that played in the NHL and has yet to have the McDavid-Kucherov-Malkin-Jagr-Ovechkin-Crosby, etc..., the bar of the actual HHOF we have is much lower than top 100 hockey player of all time, it is probably about Top ~330/350 of all time with all the non-eligible yet or waiting but we know they will get in or should be but are soviet or from a forgotten era.

Someone that think a 700 goals Gartner should not be in it, would be from the angle we should have a completely different HHOF, not the one we have or it would be underrated him.

 

[rmartin65]

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.

If you have time, I’d be interested in hearing the “gartner = marleau” argument.

 

[carjackmalone]

Being the long time players Rep of the NHLPA had a lot to do with him getting in early

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

i definitely wasn’t on HF back then but i do remember my reaction, which was shared by some media commentators, was that gartner didn’t feel like a guy you had to induct immediately. especially compared to his induction classmate hawerchuk, a clear first ballot guy who was made to wait a year for no good reason. (hawerchuk was passed over in his first year of eligibility, when they induced only denis savard and joe mullen.)

relative to his induction class (hawerchuk, fetisov, and kurri), gartner definitely felt like a second class citizen.

It’s interesting and weird Hawerchuk was snubbed as Savard and Mullen were inducted. And I get Gartner probably never struck fear in the hearts of opponents like some peers, but I do not find him a bad inductee. He was fun to watch, and he adapted his game through eras and was reliably productive.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Being the long time players Rep of the NHLPA had a lot to do with him getting in early

not right now but luckily i have an old post about it

gartner and marleau are very similar

both are/will be completely undeserving first ballot hall of famers who got in for trivia

both are known for being on good teams that routinely disappointed in the playoffs

excellent skaters with a good shot who were reinvented as role players on best team canadas for those two skills, at the expense of far better overall players who didn't skate and shoot as well


but i think marleau was the better player. he could play all three forward positions, was better defensively, and even though he had a rep as a poor playoff guy, up to 2006, he actually had a very good playoff record. 2002-2006, on some chokey sharks teams, he was known as the only clutch one.


marleau:

4th, 6th, 11th, 11th in goals

14th, 15th, 16th, 19th in pts


gartner

5th, 9th, 9th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 19th, 19th in goals

10th, 17th in pts


but yeah, neither is a hall of famer

 

[carjackmalone]

not right now but luckily i have an old post about it

And the correlation you posted?

 

[Professor What]

I don't think there's necessarily a disconnect between Gartner not making a list and still being in the Hall. Not the highest peak guy takes away one of the legs of the stool to make a list, but being solid for so long and having a not insignificant compiler's resume (as opposed to someone like Marleau, who I don't see as a HOFer) gets him in.

Not so sure I see Ciccarelli as ahead of Gartner either. Maybe a higher peak, but I don't see the same career value.

 

[GlitchMarner]

I think he was considered a solid second or third rate sort of star in his prime but perhaps gained a level of fame that eclipsed his playing ability toward the end of his career because his skating still stood out when he was old (think of the 1996 All-Star Skills Competition) and he accumulated impressive career totals. That's probably why he made The Hockey News' Top 100 Players of All Time list.

But he also seems to get somewhat underrated by people who talk like he was just a pretty good goal scorer who benefitted from good health and playing in a higher scoring era and wasn't a very impactful player (like he was a more consistent Jeff Skinner with inflated goal totals and longevity). He was the focal point of the Capitals' offense during some strong years for the team and was a prolific goal scorer for the Rangers later on. Having so many 40 goal seasons is certainty nothing to scoff at.

As is the case with a number of players, he's both overrated and underrated.

 

[sr edler]

His 20-something seasons would have had higher totals had he played for basically any team but Washington

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.

 

[bobholly39]

Underappreciated more than underrated I think. At least on HF

I don't think he was a much better player than poeple here usually give him credit for, but what often happens is his consistency is underappreciated,