Was Mike Gartner underrated?

[namttebih]

Out of curiosity, where did Glen Anderson rank in the top 100 and 200 lists that you guys are referring to?

 

[sr edler]

Is it possible for Canucks fans to discuss players without bringing up Canuck players and/or the tunnel-vision perspective that proves they barely ever watched Eastern conference teams?

Calm down a hectogram, I didn't mean Bondra was a compiler, I just meant he ended up with the numbers he ended up with, because of the circumstances described (playing style). Technically everyone compile their numbers.

 

[Crosby2010]

Let's take a deep dive. Glenn Anderson scored 6 points in the 1994 playoffs. 1 point in each series and then three in the Cup final. Two of them goals. Those goals were both game winners. Game 2 especially was a shorthanded marker to break a tie in the 2nd period. Game 3 was a goal late in the 1st period. Okay look, I am a proponent of Anderson in the HHOF. He belongs in my opinion simply because he has good regular season numbers and of course great playoff numbers that simply can't be ignored. By 1994 he just wasn't scoring as much, and the Rangers had a lot of RW on their team as it was who were ahead of him. My guess is Anderson is brought in for leadership and morale with some of his other Oiler buddies. I'll say what I normally say, you can't argue with results, and since the Rangers were drenched with former Oilers it couldn't hurt having Anderson on there. There were 7 former Oilers from Cup winners on that team. With all due respect to Leetch and Richter and Kovalev and Larmer, you can't ignore that sort of pedigree. So even though Gartner still had some hockey left in him - and more than Anderson - you can't go against a Cup champion.

That being said...................many of their trades did result in the 1994 Cup being a one and done type of thing. Where as guys like Amonte, Gartner, Weight, etc. all help the team well into the 1990s and some even into the 2000s. And Gartner had 16 points in 13 playoff games in 1992. Then in Toronto 11 points in 18 playoff games in 1994. Do they still win the Cup with Gartner? Yeah I think they do absolutely. But I do have to admit I wouldn't trade Anderson "back" just to find out. The results spoke. Unfortunately Anderson was the victim here.

 

[seventieslord]

Out of curiosity, where did Glen Anderson rank in the top 100 and 200 lists that you guys are referring to?

Did not rank.

 

[sr edler]

Gartner was a really good goal-scorer and a really good skater....but, Bure was a lot better at both.

Gartner might have been faster skating around the rink without the puck, in these annual all-star exhibition trials, but the fun kinda ends there. Actual in-game situations, with the puck, there's really no contest. That's the thing with Bure, he almost appeared faster with the puck on his stick, and could just go around you. To make a football analogy, I'm sure there were faster players than Ryan Giggs without the ball, but when that guy had a ball on his feet, down the wing, he could just fly away.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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.

In the fall, I was planning on doing a deep dive into Larry Murphy's career, but I ran out of time. It seems like he'd be an ideal player for that type of thread.

 

[The Panther]

In the fall, I was planning on doing a deep dive into Larry Murphy's career, but I ran out of time. It seems like he'd be an ideal player for that type of thread.

Please do. I love the player.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Bure was almost the best goal-scorer ever in hockey;

No he wasn't. Not even close.

 

[DitchMarner]

We are indeed looking at a very big quality difference. Gartner was a really good goal-scorer and a really good skater....but, Bure was a lot better at both. Bure was almost the best goal-scorer ever in hockey; Gartner wasn't anywhere close to that.

Yeah, I think you have to consider scoring environments here.

Gartner peaked in the 80s whereas Bure had his best seasons in 1994 and the Dead Puck Era. Scoring across the League was nowhere close in 2000 to what it was in '85.

Bure had five 50+ goal seasons, including two 60 goal seasons, whereas Gartner hit 50 goals once (and he scored exactly 50 that season) despite the fact that Gartner played a lot longer and had more seasons in the higher scoring pre DPE days. Also, Bure was top four in points four times while Gartner was a top ten scorer only once.

I guess maybe you can make a case that Gartner had the better career if you really value longevity, but in terms of talent and offensive ability, Bure was clearly on a different level.

Not sure how Bure is relevant to this thread anyway, though.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

In the fall, I was planning on doing a deep dive into Larry Murphy's career, but I ran out of time. It seems like he'd be an ideal player for that type of thread.

murphy, similar to gartner in that he got in first ballot and felt like a second tier guy in the context of his class (bourque and coffey).

not to say murphy wasn’t a way better player than gartner

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

murphy, similar to gartner in that he got in first ballot and felt like a second tier guy in the context of his class (bourque and coffey).

not to say murphy wasn’t a way better player than gartner

I didn't know what to make of the March 7th, 1989 trade which included Mike Gartner and Larry Murphy going to Minnesota for Dino Ciccarelli and Bob Rouse, and it still doesn't make much sense to me. I had the impression that it was basically Gartner for Ciccarelli, with a lopsided trade (in Minnesota's favor) because it also included Murphy for Bob Rouse; (Rouse) who I liked but I never thought that highly of him either.

Is it fair to say that Larry Murphy's stock coming at the end of the '80s, wasn't that high? Was the perception of Ciccarelli's game (ability/talent/etc) higher than Gartner's in 1989?

 

[Mike C]

Is it possible for Canucks fans to discuss players without bringing up Canuck players and/or the tunnel-vision perspective that proves they barely ever watched Eastern conference teams? First grossly overrating Marleau, and now Bondra "compiled" goals???

And bringing up Bure in comparison to whatever is being discussed whether it's relevant to the topic or not

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I didn't know what to make of the March 7th, 1989 trade which included Mike Gartner and Larry Murphy going to Minnesota for Dino Ciccarelli and Bob Rouse, and it still doesn't make much sense to me. I had the impression that it was basically Gartner for Ciccarelli, with a lopsided trade (in Minnesota's favor) because it also included Murphy for Bob Rouse; (Rouse) who I liked but I never thought that highly of him either.

Is it fair to say that Larry Murphy's stock coming at the end of the '80s, wasn't that high? Was the perception of Ciccarelli's game (ability/talent/etc) higher than Gartner's in 1989?

yeah, larry murphy’s stock was incredibly low for a guy who scored as much as him. first being traded to minnesota for effectively bob rouse, then to pittsburgh for a veritable bag of pucks (jim johnson and chris dahlquist), then to toronto for dmitri mironov and a second rounder, then literally given away to detroit.

the pittsburgh trade is one of the most bonkers trades of all time. an all-star calibre offensive defenceman for two plumbers (not insignificantly, both native minnesotans), and the two teams meet in the finals where that all-star dman puts up 10 pts and skates off with the cup.

but this is where gartner and murphy have more in common than just playing on the same team in washington, minnesota, and later toronto. murphy’s first three trades were all trades for a very different kind of player that told you what his teams thought about him. engblom was a defensive rock, rouse was toughness personified, and even the pittsburgh trade was saying that toughness and depth was more valuable than having an offensive dman who didn’t play to his size.

you can kind of read the gartner trades that way too. ciccarelli had very similar stats to gartner but was a totally different kind of player: scrappy with a rep for scoring big goals. dahlen did his best work on the boards. glenn anderson was another scrappy guy with a rep for clutchness.

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

yeah, larry murphy’s stock was incredibly low for a guy who scored as much as him. first being traded to minnesota for effectively bob rouse, then to pittsburgh for a veritable bag of pucks (jim johnson and chris dahlquist), then to toronto for dmitri mironov and a second rounder, then literally given away to detroit.

the pittsburgh trade is one of the most bonkers trades of all time. an all-star calibre offensive defenceman for two plumbers (not insignificantly, both native minnesotans), and the two teams meet in the finals where that all-star dman puts up 10 pts and skates off with the cup.

but this is where gartner and murphy have more in common than just playing on the same team in washington, minnesota, and later toronto. murphy’s first three trades were all trades for a very different kind of player that told you what his teams thought about him. engblom was a defensive rock, rouse was toughness personified, and even the pittsburgh trade was saying that toughness and depth was more valuable than having an offensive dman who didn’t play to his size.

you can kind of read the gartner trades that way too. ciccarelli had very similar stats to gartner but was a totally different kind of player: scrappy with a rep for scoring big goals. dahlen did his best work on the boards. glenn anderson was another scrappy guy with a rep for clutchness.

I appreciate your post!

I'd just add, that I would have thought a bit more of Ciccarelli over Gartner in 1989 too. After that trade, just isolating the playoffs, specifically Ciccarelli's 1st round series with Washington in '89, '90, '91, and '92, he registered 18 goals in 25 games, and 30 points overall.

It seemed like whichever game I was watching (Central Time) over those years, CBC would cut away to show goals scored on the East Coast, and there was, yet again, another Ciccarelli goal making the highlight.

 

[Crosby2010]

I didn't know what to make of the March 7th, 1989 trade which included Mike Gartner and Larry Murphy going to Minnesota for Dino Ciccarelli and Bob Rouse, and it still doesn't make much sense to me. I had the impression that it was basically Gartner for Ciccarelli, with a lopsided trade (in Minnesota's favor) because it also included Murphy for Bob Rouse; (Rouse) who I liked but I never thought that highly of him either.

Is it fair to say that Larry Murphy's stock coming at the end of the '80s, wasn't that high? Was the perception of Ciccarelli's game (ability/talent/etc) higher than Gartner's in 1989?

Maybe they thought Murphy's stock was falling, but they were dead wrong. He did not have a good 1989 season, but he would go on to win 4 Cups after this, be a 2nd team all-star twice and be important in all 4 Cups he won. He was integral. Thought to be the final piece of the puzzle for Detroit in 1997. Also, while Coffey was #1 D in 1991, Murphy was #1 in 1992 after Coffey got traded. I don't feel comfortable with Phil Housley as my #1 D, but I am just fine with Murphy in his prime being my #1 guy. He was a smart player, excellent instincts, not a great skater, but made up for it with his hockey sense and offensive awareness. Not overwhelming physically, but certainly smart defensively.

 

[The Panther]

Murphy, I'm sure, suffered from the "toughness-fetishism" of the late-80s. He was the classic big-guy on defense who only occasionally threw big checks.

There's no other way to explain how low his stuck had seemingly fallen by 1989. It makes absolutely no sense to me, otherwise. The guy was a Norris finalist in 1987, leading a good NHL team in scoring, PP points, and plus/minus. Then, he was (in my opinion) the best Dman on Team Canada in the finals at the Canada Cup. Then, two years later... he's a tag-along for a Garnter-Ciccarelli trade...?

Were hockey execs really that stupid?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Gartner lacks those peak seasons, no doubt about it. A concentrated peak is worth a lot, and should be heavily factored in.

But I think hockey fans take that too far - almost to the point where longevity effectively weighs nothing. That is a misalignment with reality. A hockey team can benefit greatly from a player who accumulates what Gartner did - 600 adjusted goals and 1150 adjusted points. He's not going to lead your team to a cup but cup winners often have a couple solid producers like Gartner. If you are told before the draft you're going to get top 20-ish all time career goal production, and 17 solid seasons, he's going to go high.

Leaving him out of the top 200 is a mistake IMO.

 

[sr edler]

And bringing up Bure in comparison to whatever is being discussed whether it's relevant to the topic or not

Bure was first mentioned in the thread by post #30. I know this is HOH, but if you're trying to make a point about something, at least try to be somewhat factual.

 

[Dingo]

career counting stats are a funny thing (especially considering how much of an effect eras play)

We use counting stats, nearly exclusively for forwards, as an overall hockey community.

Im trying to think of a dman who got in, and has quite a lot of people defending him, who was considered to have peaked at about 10th best in his spike year (this could be seen in Norris votes of course) and spent a good portion of his career considered a top 20, and thats it.

Its actually a little nuts. Or maybe I am.... for a poster who IS into this subforum, i tend to not pay much attention to the HOF...

But, I guess with a dman who is like Gartner or Marleau..... he would just be considered a good, steady dman, and at the end of his long, solid career, he would have between 400-800pts and literally nobody would make a case for him.... but he would have spent as much time being 'top 10' at his job, and been an arguable top 20 (best dman on his team?) for much if his career?

Like, Ohlund, Numminen, Timmonen, Adam Foote.... Letang looks like a bonafide ultra superstar from this perspective.... I guess Lowe is in, already, largely due to 'being a winner' though..... there seems like there must be dozens of these guys who are the 'Gartner of D' but dont have any career stats worth having a conversation about.

 

[Dingo]

No he wasn't. Not even close.

i think he was pretty close.

 

[Dingo]

Gartner lacks those peak seasons, no doubt about it. A concentrated peak is worth a lot, and should be heavily factored in.

But I think hockey fans take that too far - almost to the point where longevity effectively weighs nothing. That is a misalignment with reality. A hockey team can benefit greatly from a player who accumulates what Gartner did - 600 adjusted goals and 1150 adjusted points. He's not going to lead your team to a cup but cup winners often have a couple solid producers like Gartner. If you are told before the draft you're going to get top 20-ish all time career goal production, and 17 solid seasons, he's going to go high.

Leaving him out of the top 200 is a mistake IMO.

Ya, its tough. There isnt a really a mathematical formula for the Hall, i dont think. It comes down to 'feeling' a lot.

And, I think, when this is allowed, people simply mentally fudge in the 'guy they like'

What you are saying is true, that a guy who plays 20 good seasons probably gave his teams more overall value than a guy who played 5 great seasons and fell apart for one reason or another.

And then, its called the Hall of FAME. Like, thats kinda open to opinion and popularity....


Somewhere in a drawer, I have my own Hall of EXCELLENCE.... in fact there are several versions....actually you are the guy i bother with stat requests to try to figure out my forwards, as there hasnt been a 'best forward' award (The Hart has so many flaws, much like the HOF itself) ever.

For me, if a player was considered by the people at the time to be in the top X amount of players at his position at least Y times, then he makes my Excellence.

Only, I cant ever decide on how many guys per year, if it should be weighted, or how many years.... and then it gets ugly throughout the years where some of the best players in the world werent in the NHL... starts to come down to my own opinion, which im trying to avoid using.

I started a few threads, starting in 1989 (the start of the Russians, and also huge NHL salaries, roughly) trying to get a 'top three forwards' by the year..... but it sort of has to be done each year, as the year ends, because otherwise people just pick the 3 big names who were retrospectively, career-wise, considered the best.... the same trap again.

edit - also, for starting in 1989, a lot of us were cognizant. I was hoping for more "people forget now, but Brett Hull was considered....."

 

[MadLuke]

We use counting stats, nearly exclusively for forwards, as an overall hockey community. especially considering how much of an effect eras play

When it goes for Gartner his goals scoring look really good in the era he was in, if Gretzky does not exist, goalscoring from 1980 to 1999 look like this:

Gartner: 708
Lemieux: 613
Messier: 610
Ciccare: 608

Is he viewed differently if he dominated a 20 years window goalscoring by that much ? Gartner goalscoring is maybe very similar to say Crosby-Stamkos career wise.

 

[Dingo]

When it goes for Gartner his goals scoring look really good in the era he was in, if Gretzky does not exist, goalscoring from 1980 to 1999 look like this:

Gartner: 708
Lemieux: 613
Messier: 610
Ciccare: 608

Is he viewed differently if he dominated a 20 years window goalscoring by that much ? Gartner goalscoring is maybe very similar to say Crosby-Stamkos career wise.

so that addresses the 'eras' part of comment, which wasnt really what I was getting at.
It was a side note, and it still stands that whoever was number two from say 1998 - 2017 (its Ovie, with 558) doesnt look as good historically.

Gartner was tenth, 9th, 9th, 9th and 5th as a goal scorer.

This IS much better than his points totals, for sure.

My point was that a similar dman, going by Norris voting, does not end up with a final career tally in 'defensive value given to his teams' that add up to a nice big number. I mean, a dman has counting stats, too...but its not the same thing.

 

[MadLuke]

Yes breaking what he did by smaller chunck give better idea say 5 seasons

80-84: 10th
81-85: 9th
82-86: 12th
83-87: 9th
84-88: 8th
85-89: 9th
86-90: 10th
87-91: 8th
88-92: 6th
89-93: 6th
90-94: 7th
91-95: 12th
92-96: 20th
93-97: 25th
94-98: 37th

When you put it like that, look less impressive than the Stastny second to only Gretzky in a cherry-pick window that advantage him the most.

But the guy was a solid top 10 caliber goalscorer for a long time in the league, the gargantuesque over 700 goals total are a combination of being 20 entering the highest goal scoring era of the league and being a top 10 scorer for a very long time both, that peak in the conversation for top 5.

And the era part seem very well (maybe too much) around him, would he have scored that amount in a prime in any other time than between 1975 and 1995, it would be a completely different story.

 

[MXD]

career counting stats are a funny thing (especially considering how much of an effect eras play)

We use counting stats, nearly exclusively for forwards, as an overall hockey community.

Im trying to think of a dman who got in, and has quite a lot of people defending him, who was considered to have peaked at about 10th best in his spike year (this could be seen in Norris votes of course) and spent a good portion of his career considered a top 20, and thats it.

Its actually a little nuts. Or maybe I am.... for a poster who IS into this subforum, i tend to not pay much attention to the HOF...

But, I guess with a dman who is like Gartner or Marleau..... he would just be considered a good, steady dman, and at the end of his long, solid career, he would have between 400-800pts and literally nobody would make a case for him.... but he would have spent as much time being 'top 10' at his job, and been an arguable top 20 (best dman on his team?) for much if his career?

Like, Ohlund, Numminen, Timmonen, Adam Foote.... Letang looks like a bonafide ultra superstar from this perspective.... I guess Lowe is in, already, largely due to 'being a winner' though..... there seems like there must be dozens of these guys who are the 'Gartner of D' but dont have any career stats worth having a conversation about.

The first comparable that came to mind was a "poor-man's" type of comparable: Glen Wesley is the poor man's version of Mike Gartner playing Defense.

Larry Murphy would be the rich man's version of Gartner playing defense, but I don't like that comparison very much since Murphy was never a great skater like Gartner (and Wesley) were.

I don't like the Letang comparison at all. Gartner was notoriously healthy, Letang is notoriously injured or otherwise not healthy, to a point where Gartner is probably in the HHOF because of his health and Letang could possibly miss on the HHOF because of that year where he would've won the Norris had he played only 5 more games.