NHL All-Time Leading Scorers
Ali Lemer
>
>All time NHL leading goal scorers (* denotes active player):
>
> 1. Gordie Howe Det-Hfd 801
> 2. *Wayne Gretzky Edm-LA 753
> 3. Marcel Dionne Det-LA-NYR 731
> 4. Phil Esposito Chi-Bos-NYR 717
> 5. Bobby Hull Chi-Wpg-Hfd 610
> 6. *Mike Gartner Wsh-Min-NYR 575
> 7. Mike Bossy NYI 573
> 8. Guy Lafleur Mtl-NYR-Que 560
> 9. Johnny Bucyk Det-Bos 556
> 10. Maurice Richard Mtl 544
Ok, folks. Now who says that Mike Gartner is OVER-underrated? Out of the
Top Ten Goal Scorers, there are only two still active -- The Great One and
Mike Gartner. Hell, Rocket Richard -- arguably one of the greatest players
to ever lace on a pair of skates, and I love 'im, don't get me wrong -- played
for EIGHTEEN YEARS and Mike's still got more goals in only his 14th season.
And Mike is in great shape -- there's nothing that says he couldn't be playing
until HIS 18th or 19th season. (He's missed, on average, fewer than three games
a season since he started playing.)
So, there you go. Mike Gartner. Vastly underrated.
-- Ali.
--
Ali "Procrastination" Lemer || "Hey, why don't you guys || "Procrastination is
Columbia University (NYC) || make a DATE already?" || my middle name."
pho...@ctr.columbia.edu || -- Howie Rose (MSG) ||
********************** GO RANGERS! *************** POTVIN SUCKS! **************
Joseph Charles Achkar
>
>Ok, folks. Now who says that Mike Gartner is OVER-underrated? Out of the
>Top Ten Goal Scorers, there are only two still active -- The Great One and
>Mike Gartner. Hell, Rocket Richard -- arguably one of the greatest players
>to ever lace on a pair of skates, and I love 'im, don't get me wrong -- played
>for EIGHTEEN YEARS and Mike's still got more goals in only his 14th season.
>
Don't let the number of seasons played fool you. When Richard played in
the league, the season was shorter. Here are the numbers:
Seasons GP Goals % Goals/game
------- -- ----- ------------
Maurice Richard 18 978 544 .556
Mike Gartner 14 1068 575 .538
%*%*%*%**%*%%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
* __ ______________ ____________________________________ %
% \ \_)____________/ A L L E Z L E S B L U E S ! ! ! *
* \ __________/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ %
% \ ________/ *
* \ _______/ Joe Ashkar %
% \ \ Contact for the Blues *
* \ \ SAINT LOUIS jc...@cec1.wustl.edu %
% (___) BLUES *
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%
Keith Keller
>In article <1993Mar2.0...@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> pho...@startide.ctr.columbia.edu (Ali Lemer) writes:
>>
>>Ok, folks. Now who says that Mike Gartner is OVER-underrated? Out of the
>>Top Ten Goal Scorers, there are only two still active -- The Great One and
>>Mike Gartner. Hell, Rocket Richard -- arguably one of the greatest players
>>to ever lace on a pair of skates, and I love 'im, don't get me wrong -- played
>>for EIGHTEEN YEARS and Mike's still got more goals in only his 14th season.
>>
>>-- Ali.
>
> Don't let the number of seasons played fool you. When Richard played in
> the league, the season was shorter. Here are the numbers:
>
> Seasons GP Goals % Goals/game
> ------- -- ----- ------------
> Maurice Richard 18 978 544 .556
> Mike Gartner 14 1068 575 .538
Wow, that's HORRIBLE!!! Only about a goal every two games? God, this guy
should be in Binghamton, he's truly awful.
When will you people get a grip??? Gartner is a great player, and will
continue to be a great player for many years, because he keeps himself in
better shape than half of the twenty-year-old players in the league.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too many men Keith Keller
Too many people (kke...@mail.sas.upenn.edu)
Making too many problems. . .
-- Genesis
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!!! LET'S GO QUAKERS!!!!!
IVY LEAGUE CHAMPS!!!!
No, I do NOT live in the computer room, despite what anyone says.
(Contributions to my .sig welcome.)
Isaac Kim
>>
>>Ok, folks. Now who says that Mike Gartner is OVER-underrated? Out of the
>>Top Ten Goal Scorers, there are only two still active -- The Great One and
>>Mike Gartner. Hell, Rocket Richard -- arguably one of the greatest players
>>to ever lace on a pair of skates, and I love 'im, don't get me wrong -- played
>>for EIGHTEEN YEARS and Mike's still got more goals in only his 14th season.
>>
>>-- Ali.
>
> Don't let the number of seasons played fool you. When Richard played in
> the league, the season was shorter. Here are the numbers:
>
> Seasons GP Goals % Goals/game
> ------- -- ----- ------------
> Maurice Richard 18 978 544 .556
> Mike Gartner 14 1068 575 .538
Not only that, but the Rocket played his entire career (1942-43 to 1959-60)
when the NHL consisted of only 6 teams. Mike Gartner has played (1979-80 to
present) in the post-expansion era where he could feast on weak teams like
the San Jose Sharks.
> %*%*%*%**%*%%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
> * __ ______________ ____________________________________ %
> % \ \_)____________/ A L L E Z L E S B L U E S ! ! ! *
> * \ __________/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ %
> % \ ________/ *
> * \ _______/ Joe Ashkar %
> % \ \ Contact for the Blues *
> * \ \ SAINT LOUIS jc...@cec1.wustl.edu %
> % (___) BLUES *
> *%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%
Isaac (k...@bull.ucsd.edu)
Russell Sutherland
>
>Top Ten Goal Scorers, there are only two still active -- The Great One and
>Mike Gartner. Hell, Rocket Richard -- arguably one of the greatest players
>to ever lace on a pair of skates, and I love 'im, don't get me wrong -- played
>for EIGHTEEN YEARS and Mike's still got more goals in only his 14th season.
>
Excuse me but anyone who compares NHL hockey in the 80's with that
in the 50's and 60's (especially with respect to scoring goals) is
uninformed. The game was much rougher and more defensive
than it is now. I have not done any statistics on the
data but total goals per game would be signicantly lower.
It used to be exceptional for a forward to have a 20 goal year.
In addition the season had fewer games and there weren't
as many relatively weak times to run up the score on.
Maurice Richard was perhaps THE offensive player of the 50's.
(Those that watched him would say the best ever from the blue line in.)
Could you say this about Mike Gartner for any decade? year? month?
--
Russell Sutherland Bell: (416)-978-5140
Office of the Dean Uucp: ...{utzoo,utgpu}!utas!russ
Faculty of Arts and Science Internet: ru...@artsci.utoronto.ca
Keith Keller
>In article <1993Mar2.0...@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> pho...@startide.ctr.columbia.edu (Ali Lemer) writes:
>>
>>Ok, folks. Now who says that Mike Gartner is OVER-underrated? Out of the
>>Top Ten Goal Scorers, there are only two still active -- The Great One and
>>Mike Gartner. Hell, Rocket Richard -- arguably one of the greatest players
>>to ever lace on a pair of skates, and I love 'im, don't get me wrong -- played
>>for EIGHTEEN YEARS and Mike's still got more goals in only his 14th season.
>>
>
>Excuse me but anyone who compares NHL hockey in the 80's with that
>in the 50's and 60's (especially with respect to scoring goals) is
>uninformed. The game was much rougher and more defensive
>than it is now. I have not done any statistics on the
>data but total goals per game would be signicantly lower.
>It used to be exceptional for a forward to have a 20 goal year.
>In addition the season had fewer games and there weren't
>as many relatively weak times to run up the score on.
>
>Maurice Richard was perhaps THE offensive player of the 50's.
>(Those that watched him would say the best ever from the blue line in.)
>Could you say this about Mike Gartner for any decade? year? month?
Well, we did not say that Gartner was BETTER than Richard. We are merely
pointing out that Gartner is one of the best scorers in hockey. Also, the
stats for Richard and Gartner were posted before, and Richard was
something like .02 goals per game ahead of Gartner. Again, Gartner is NOT
better that Richard. But Gartner deserves much more respect than most
give him.
Russell Sutherland
>>in the 50's and 60's (especially with respect to scoring goals) is
>>uninformed. The game was much rougher and more defensive
>>than it is now. I have not done any statistics on the
>>data but total goals per game would be signicantly lower.
>>It used to be exceptional for a forward to have a 20 goal year.
>>In addition the season had fewer games and there weren't
>>as many relatively weak times to run up the score on.
>
>Well, we did not say that Gartner was BETTER than Richard. We are merely
>pointing out that Gartner is one of the best scorers in hockey. Also, the
>stats for Richard and Gartner were posted before, and Richard was
>something like .02 goals per game ahead of Gartner. Again, Gartner is NOT
>better that Richard. But Gartner deserves much more respect than most
>give him.
>
My apologies for the misunderstanding. What I meant is the average
number of goals scored per game for the entire league was significantly
lower then than it was now. Simply put: scoring goals was much
more difficult the 1950's and 1960's than it is now. Hence any comparisons
are not meaningful unless they are in some way normalized.
It might be interesting to look at something like:
(goals/games) individual / (goals/games) entire league
for a given player in a given year. (Statistician's can clobber
me if they want. Perhaps there would be a better normalized
goal production index)
Joseph R Mcdonald
<>
<
<>All time NHL leading goal scorers (* denotes active player):
<>
<> 1. Gordie Howe Det-Hfd 801
<> 2. *Wayne Gretzky Edm-LA 753
<> 3. Marcel Dionne Det-LA-NYR 731
<> 4. Phil Esposito Chi-Bos-NYR 717
<> 5. Bobby Hull Chi-Wpg-Hfd 610
<> 6. *Mike Gartner Wsh-Min-NYR 575
<> 7. Mike Bossy NYI 573
<> 8. Guy Lafleur Mtl-NYR-Que 560
<> 9. Johnny Bucyk Det-Bos 556
<> 10. Maurice Richard Mtl 544
<
<Ok, folks. Now who says that Mike Gartner is OVER-underrated? Out of the
<Top Ten Goal Scorers, there are only two still active -- The Great One and
<Mike Gartner. Hell, Rocket Richard -- arguably one of the greatest players
<to ever lace on a pair of skates, and I love 'im, don't get me wrong -- played
<for EIGHTEEN YEARS and Mike's still got more goals in only his 14th season.
Just to be fair, Rocket only played 50 games per season, not 80. So his
goals per game is much more impressive than Gartner's.
<And Mike is in great shape -- there's nothing that says he couldn't be playing
<until HIS 18th or 19th season. (He's missed, on average, fewer than three games
<a season since he started playing.)
<
<So, there you go. Mike Gartner. Vastly underrated.
He is one of the greatest REGULAR SEASON players in history. The problem
with Gartner is he routinely and unequivocably fails to show up in the
post season. He is a bust in the big games. THAT'S why he is over-rated.
Dean
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean J. Falcione Dean's UNIX Exorcism Service
(using jrmst8 by permission "We kill daemons"
of the owner, Joe McDonald)
Greg Ballentine
>In article <1993Mar2.0...@sol.ctr.columbia.edu< pho...@startide.ctr.columbia.edu (Ali Lemer) writes:
><In article <1muk0c...@morgause.cs.purdue.edu> gri...@cs.purdue.edu (Carl Gritter) writes:
Stuff deleted
><Ok, folks. Now who says that Mike Gartner is OVER-underrated? Out of the
><Top Ten Goal Scorers, there are only two still active -- The Great One and
><Mike Gartner. Hell, Rocket Richard -- arguably one of the greatest players
><to ever lace on a pair of skates, and I love 'im, don't get me wrong -- played
><for EIGHTEEN YEARS and Mike's still got more goals in only his 14th season.
>
>Just to be fair, Rocket only played 50 games per season, not 80. So his
>goals per game is much more impressive than Gartner's.
What are you talking about? Goals per game is goals per game. How come
it is more impressive to get an approximately equal goals per game playing
less games per season? This doesn't make any sense at all. Richard is
a better player than Gartner because goals were harder to score in his time,
but Mike Gartner is an all star and a futurehall of famer. He is a very good
player
Stuff Deleted
><So, there you go. Mike Gartner. Vastly underrated.
>
>He is one of the greatest REGULAR SEASON players in history. The problem
>with Gartner is he routinely and unequivocably fails to show up in the
>post season. He is a bust in the big games. THAT'S why he is over-rated.
It is harder to score in the playoffs than in the regular season, because
the quality of opposition is better. All players, this includes superstars
like Wayne Gretzky, have lesser points per game totals in the playoffs than
the regular season. Does this mean that Gretzky is a playoff choker? No
way!! It is merely a reeflection of the harder opposition in the playoffs.
For example, this year players won't have weak teams like Ottawa, San Jose,
Tampa Bay and Hartford to play against in the playoffs, so player's point
per game totals should drop (as usual).
Mike Gartner is a very good, star player. He has never had the good fortune
to play for a Stanley Cup winner in his career and thus is wrongly judged as
a playoff choker. Minnesoat, Washington and the New York Rangers aren't the
strongest teams in the NHL. This is not Gartner's fault. Mike Gartner is a
first class player. Any opinion like yours is proof of his underrated stature.
Gregmeister
John Huber
In article <1993Mar4.0...@sol.UVic.CA>, gbal...@hudson.UVic.CA (Greg Ballentine) writes:
|> In article 52...@blue.cis.pitt.edu, jrm...@pitt.edu (Joseph R Mcdonald) writes:
|> >He is one of the greatest REGULAR SEASON players in history. The problem
|> >with Gartner is he routinely and unequivocably fails to show up in the
|> >post season. He is a bust in the big games. THAT'S why he is over-rated.
|>
|> It is harder to score in the playoffs than in the regular season, because
|> the quality of opposition is better. All players, this includes superstars
|> like Wayne Gretzky, have lesser points per game totals in the playoffs than
|> the regular season.
This is wrong! MOST players, superstars included, see their stats drop off in
the playoffs due to stronger competition. However, not ALL players follow
this rule. Mario Lemieux (through the end of last season) averages 1.96
points per game during the regular season and 1.98 PPG during the playoffs.
Not to knock Mike Gartner, but he really does disappear in the playoffs,
regardless of stats. HoFers should step forward when it counts.
-Jay
John W. Huber, Jr. - aka Jay | Penguins - 1991,1992 Stanley Cup Champions
Software Engineering Institute | Pirates - 1990,1991,1992 NL East Champions
SEI 3409 (412) 268-3550 | MasterCraft - The ONLY boat for skiing
Greg Ballentine
>
>In article <1993Mar4.0...@sol.UVic.CA>, gbal...@hudson.UVic.CA (Greg Ballentine) writes:
>|> In article 52...@blue.cis.pitt.edu, jrm...@pitt.edu (Joseph R Mcdonald) writes:
>|> >He is one of the greatest REGULAR SEASON players in history. The problem
>|> >with Gartner is he routinely and unequivocably fails to show up in the
>|> >post season. He is a bust in the big games. THAT'S why he is over-rated.
>|>
>|> It is harder to score in the playoffs than in the regular season, because
>|> the quality of opposition is better. All players, this includes superstars
>|> like Wayne Gretzky, have lesser points per game totals in the playoffs than
>|> the regular season.
>
>This is wrong! MOST players, superstars included, see their stats drop off in
>the playoffs due to stronger competition. However, not ALL players follow
>this rule. Mario Lemieux (through the end of last season) averages 1.96
>points per game during the regular season and 1.98 PPG during the playoffs.
>
>Not to knock Mike Gartner, but he really does disappear in the playoffs,
>regardless of stats. HoFers should step forward when it counts.
Mario Lemieux is the EXCEPTION to the rule. I looked up a few active
players in the NHL Guide and Record Book (active as of the end of the 91-92
season) who have lots of playoff games an calculated their regular season
point per game total, their playoff point per game total and the ratio of
their playoff total to their reg season total
Reg Season Playoff Ratio
Mario Lemieux 1.96 1.98 1.01
Larry Robinson 0.69 0.63 0.916
Paul Coffey 1.28 1.11 0.866
Wayne Gretzky 2.27 1.96 0.866
Mike Gartner 1.03 0.85 0.824
Bryan Trottier 1.14 0.84 0.738
Average Ratio (for these players) 0.87
What these stats show is Gartner has performed *barely* below expectations
in the playoffs- it is definitely not enough to waste this bandwidth
bitching about. It is not significant enough to call him a playoff choker
or overrated or anything like that. If you want to attach that label to anyone,
Bryan Trottier (6 career Stanley Cups) is a much better choice.
Gregmeister
BTW You changed the subject on me. That is why it took me so long to find
this article to respond to it.
Gerald Olchowy
>>Not to knock Mike Gartner, but he really does disappear in the playoffs,
>>regardless of stats. HoFers should step forward when it counts.
>
>Mario Lemieux is the EXCEPTION to the rule. I looked up a few active
>players in the NHL Guide and Record Book (active as of the end of the 91-92
>season) who have lots of playoff games an calculated their regular season
>point per game total, their playoff point per game total and the ratio of
>their playoff total to their reg season total
>
> Reg Season Playoff Ratio
>Mario Lemieux 1.96 1.98 1.01
>Larry Robinson 0.69 0.63 0.916
>Paul Coffey 1.28 1.11 0.866
>Wayne Gretzky 2.27 1.96 0.866
>Mike Gartner 1.03 0.85 0.824
>Bryan Trottier 1.14 0.84 0.738
>
>Average Ratio (for these players) 0.87
>
>What these stats show is Gartner has performed *barely* below expectations
>in the playoffs- it is definitely not enough to waste this bandwidth
>bitching about. It is not significant enough to call him a playoff choker
>or overrated or anything like that. If you want to attach that label to anyone,
>Bryan Trottier (6 career Stanley Cups) is a much better choice.
>
Why don't you look at the points accumulated by Gartner in playoff
series lost? When the going gets tough in the playoffs, Mike
Gartner disappears...the playoffs points he has gotten are soft
points...just like his 600 career goals are going to be soft goals.
Gerald
Nelson Lu
Why don't *you* do the work, for once, and show us just how "soft" Gartner's
playoff points were? I think it has been shown sufficiently that the thing
about Gartner not scoring in the playoffs is a myth. If you want to prove
that indeed he disappears in the playoffs, then you have to do some of the
work.
Besides, by the virtue of the team having lost, the players are bound to have
fewer points than in the case where the team won. But you seemed determined
to label Gartner a playoff disappointment anyway. This is how you are going
to label him, should research show:
that he scores more in the series where his teams won than when his teams lost.
Then, as above, you say that he "disappears" when the going gets tough.
that he scores less in the series where his teams won than when his teams lost.
Then, you are going to say that his points are worthless, because his teams
lost.
It's a Catch-22. No matter how it actually was, you are going to (and
continually without your own effort in researching the matter) label Gartner
an useless player.
===============================================================================
GO CALGARY FLAMES! Al MacInnis for Norris! Theoren Fleury for Hart!
GO EDMONTON OILERS! Go for playoffs! Ron Tugnutt for Smythe!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (clau...@leland.stanford.edu)
rec.sport.hockey contact for the San Jose Sharks