Why isn't Pierre Turgeon in the hall of fame?

[vadim sharifijanov]

i liked this post a lot. a few little comments:

With the HHOF selection committee dummying up lately and reading hfboards to see who the real experts see as the best players not in (I kid… but not really), leading to the inductions of Gilmour, Oates, Bure, Howe, and Makarov, we’re left with no one who jumps out as an obvious slam dunk anymore.

Obviously there is a lot to consider besides points, but if they were going to say “let’s just induct the best offensive player not yet inâ€, the top non-HHOF modern forwards by VsX who are eligible are:

Recchi 636

Kariya 607
Turgeon 603
Roenick 585
Leclair 584
Fleury 582
Naslund 581

Palffy 574
Mogilny 568
Nicholls 565
Tkachuk 565
Weight 562

Damphousse 544
Larmer 535
Nilsson 528
Kovalev 526
Brind’Amour 523
Amonte 521
Middleton 519
Bondra 517
Andreychuk 516
B.Smith 512
Martin 511
Whitney 510
Propp 502

Janney 496
Taylor 493
Muller 484
Bellows 478
Broten 474
Kerr 470
Verbeek 464
Tocchet 449
Hunter 413

This probably includes the entire top-20 but beyond that it’s just the names I could think of, and a few guys are probably missed.

The way I see these tiers are as follows:

- Easy induction without a second thought: Mark Recchi

yup.

- Definitely good enough peak numbers to make it: Kariya through Naslund. I would not cry foul at any of these names making it. However, there are reasons to keep each one of them out, too. Naslund’s peak seasons are backed up by so little else that his induction would take some real getting used to for a lot of us.

agreed.

a couple of telling comparisons that fall out of that list though: turgeon vs. roenick is an interesting weighing of high level offense, no intangibles, low "fame," moderate factor, and incomplete seasons (in the st. louis years that you consider his best seasons) vs. slightly lower offense, some intangibles, high "fame," high wow factor, and generally complete seasons (in his best seasons). it maybe flatters roenick a bit to list the points in that way, but the net result is basically the same: two top ten finishes in points, similar games played, similar points, with turgeon having the higher career per games and roenick having the better playoff record.

turgeon vs. fleury even moreso, because fleury also had very big offensive seasons. and like turgeon he also has a season where he maybe could have won the art ross if he had completed the season and was healthy. turgeon was fourth in PPG in that one st. louis year, while fleury was fourth in total points when he entered the substance abuse program in '01. the question there would be longevity on turgeon's side and playoffs and wow factor on fleury's.

- Just not enough: Palffy through Weight. That is, this isn’t enough to get in on numbers alone, but if they had other factors in their favour, they could. But they don’t.

tkachuk has his passport, unfortunately.

- Mixed bag: Damphousse through Propp. This range contains one dimensional players who didn’t achieve nearly enough offensively (Nilsson, Kovalev, Amonte, Bondra, Andreychuk, Martin, Whitney), two-way centers who almost have the right mix of offense, defense and team success but not quite (Damphousse, Brind’Amour, Smith), and two-way wingers whose names come up often enough that their induction wouldn’t shock anyone but would be considered weak, low-end inductions (Middleton, Propp, Larmer)
- Not close: Janney and beyond. There’s just not enough sustained offense here. Kerr’s the only one with an injury excuse. Any of these guys would need Bergeron level defense to get in (Bergeron has the same score as Verbeek already and I think he gets in, all things considered).

i think the other factor is if you had claude lemieux or glenn anderson-level playoff intangibles, that could push a janney-level guy to the HHOF. but that level of big game bona fides are just about as rare as bergeron level defense.

How do some active and ineligible guys stack up if you assume they retire right now:

Jagr 805
Crosby 713
Ovechkin 689
Thornton 669
Selanne 667
St. Louis 645
Malkin 625
Iginla 607

H. Sedin 593
Kane 591
Kovalchuk 588
Backstrom 584
Stamkos 581
Datsyuk 578
Hossa 576
Alfredsson 576
Getzlaf 575

Heatley 566
D.Sedin 560
Giroux 559
Spezza 554
Elias 552
Staal 551

Zetterberg 546
Richards 546
Lecavalier 539
Tavares 539
Kopitar 537
Perry 525
Kessel 525
Ribeiro 519
Tanguay 514
Hejduk 512
Marleau 511
Benn 510
Toews 506

Pavelski 498
Parise 495
Gaborik 489
Nash 485
Vanek 481
Jokinen 479
Bertuzzi 478
Sullivan 474
Briere 473
Gomez 472
Bergeron 465
Sharp 464
Doan 463
Pominville 462
Carter 456
Krejci 449
Semin 449
Prospal 448
Arnott 442
Smyth 441
Gagne 439
S.Koivu 428

Similar to above, there are tiers that develop at almost the exact same ranges.

- Jagr to Malkin are obvious first ballot based on numbers alone – nothing else would even matter. Iginla trails behind them, but factor in that he was a winger who had poor linemates, spent his whole career in the west and had intangibles, and he’s as good a candidate as MSL. This range doesn’t exist in the first list because eligible players this obvious have all been inducted.
- Definitely good enough peak numbers to make it: H. Sedin through Getzlaf. For each player in this tier it’s a question of whether they achieved enough or had that certain “it†that made them more memorable. But they do have an offensive peak/prime that can’t be questioned.
- Just not enough: Heatley through Staal. These numbers are not enough to get in on their own. However, Sedin has it in his favour that he’s probably getting in with Daniel, IF Daniel gets in, and Elias has lots of reasons he’s better than that number, and is to me a very strong inductee.

sorry, have to point out that you are getting the sedins mixed up here.

- Mixed bag: Zetterberg through Toews. You’ve got one-dimensional players whose offense alone can’t get them there (Richards, Lecavalier, Kessel, Ribeiro, Hejduk, Tanguay, Marleau), a couple of power forwards with an outside shot if their careers finish off favorably (Benn, Perry), and three outstanding two-way forwards who should be in anyone’s hall (Kopitar, Zetterberg, Toews)
- Not close: Pavelski through Koivu. With this level of offense, you’d need Bergeron-level defense to get in, and Bergeron does, in fact, have that, so he’s getting in.

70ies, I'll have a longer reply later on, but one name in your long list scares me a bit, and I already expressed some feelings about him in another thread : Nicklas Backstrom.

agreed. is it worthwhile to point out that backstrom has four top tens in scoring but only one top ten in points/game? question i guess would be is backstrom closer to being a poor man's getzlaf or a rich man's marleau?

I'm trying to figure out an O6 guy who was the 10th-20th best forward in the NHL for a very long period, in order to come up with a (not perfect but still decent) comparable.

i can't think of one. but for contemporary times, backstrom, and for one of turgeon's contemporaries: roenick.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

The list of forwards in the HHOF that you could say that about is unfortunately very long though, so this alone can't be why.

There are still players of his exact caliber that aren't in, though. Roenick, Andreychuk, Tkachuk, Weight, Hunter, Fleury, etc.

 

[seventieslord]

There are still players of his exact caliber that aren't in, though. Roenick, Andreychuk, Tkachuk, Weight, Hunter, Fleury, etc.

Hunter's an entirely different kind of player from those others, and though I've never seen anyone say he's in their league, it at least can make sense if you value what he brings very highly.

Andreychuk? Please don't call him the "exact caliber" of Turgeon, Roenick, Tkachuk, Weight or Fleury again.

 

[Peter Tosh]

As the nineties starts to fade in memory, people start looking at stats. Just looking at stats, players like Pierre Turgeon or John LeClair can seem like HOF:ers, and people can throw stats around to try to prove their points. But the truth is that Turgeon was serviceable. He had a Jason Spezza like career; some peak seasons, a general high production level, but seldom considered elite.

 

[seventieslord]

As the nineties starts to fade in memory, people start looking at stats. Just looking at stats, players like Pierre Turgeon or John LeClair can seem like HOF:ers, and people can throw stats around to try to prove their points. But the truth is that Turgeon was serviceable. He had a Jason Spezza like career; some peak seasons, a general high production level, but seldom considered elite.

I agree that Turgeon and his career were very Spezza-like, and I wouldn't induct Spezza, but it's a very valid question: If you're a 10% better version of Spezza, is that a HHOF career? If not, that's fine, but let's agree that there's some point where it becomes undeniable. If it's not 10%, the threshold has to be met somewhere.

 

[decma]

He sat on the bench in Piestany.

Possibly one of the least popular teammates ever

Yes, I think Piestany has played a role, directly or indirectly.

Re him being one of the least popular teammates ever while I am sure there are comments from guy like Gare Joyce who didn't ike him, but a quick internet search turns up several teammates who had good things to say about him.

Doug Bodger (Feb 22, 1990):
"People can see he's got great offensive skills."
"He leads out on the ice... He's playing like a leader."

Dave Andreychuk (Feb 22, 1990):
"He's a very talented hockey player."
"He's putting in the work and getting back into the defensive end of the game."

Derek King (March 20, 1993):
“He’s helped my game so much. I knew he was a great hockey player, but I didn’t hear much about him not showing up to play in Buffalo. He’s proved them wrong.â€

Glen Healy (May 6, 1993):
“Pierre carried this team all year. He’s a big piece of the puzzle, no doubt. When Pierre scores, we usually win.

Brett Hull (Nov 6, 1996):
He is your typical superstar centreman. He can handle the puck, he can shoot it, he can make the play late to guys. He does everything you want.â€

On balance I am not sure there is any evidence that he was unpopular. Shy, reserved, introverted, etc., but not disliked.

 

[decma]

http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/nhl_all_star.html

He was never part of the all star team that matters for the hockey hall of fame.

Yes, it may have helped his chances if he had been a year-end all-star selection. But making it at centre is very difficult.

Hall of Fame centres Fedorov, Hawerchuk, Lafontaine, Modano, Oates, Ratelle, Savard, Sittler, and Yzerman each only had one all-star selection.

And not having that recognition has not prevented other guys from making the HoF.
Federko, Francis, Gilmour, Nieuwendyk, and Stastny are all in despite having no all-star selections.

The median number of all-star selections for post-expansion centres in the HoF is one.

The competition is just harder at C than wing, and having an all-star selection shouldn't be (and isn't) a prerequisite to HoF entry for Cs.

 

[decma]

He's one of those guys who ended up getting numbers good enough to be in the HHOF. But he wasn't seen as a top star at the time he played. He may get in, but he's not the type who gets in right away.

I hope you’re right him eventually getting it, but I am not that hopeful.

Re whether he was seen as a top star at the time he played, I guess it depends on what you mean by top star, and in whose opinion. I believe he only got Hart votes one year (93, when he finished 5th), and the four years in which he got AS centre votes were pretty spread out (1990, 1993, 1997, and 2000).

But many writers, players, and coaches/GMs did consider him a top star.

E.g.:

Associated Press (May 6, 1993):
“One reason they didn’t [win] was the fact that their missing superstar, Pierre Turgeon, just might be more vital to the Islanders’ success in the short run than Lemieux is to the Penguins in the long run.â€

Don Maloney (September 16, 1993):
“Pierre is our Mario Lemieux, our Eric Lindros, our superstar," general manager Don Maloney said. "His on-ice accomplishments speak for themselves."

Jack Todd (Montreal Gazette, April 22, 1995):
Not since Guy Lafleur have the Canadians had an offensive superstar like this.

Mike Keenan (Nov 3, 1996):
"A superstar centre doesn't come available that often. But he is a player you can build a franchise around."

"In my opinion, with all due respect to Bernie Federko and perhaps Red Berenson, I don't think there's ever been a better centreman in this organization, including Adam Oates.â€

"Red Berenson and Bernie Federko had the numbers but not the speed. They were a different generation."

"He has to be considered at least among the best. He's 27, in the prime of his career. He's never had a winger to work with like Brett Hull. He's played with teams that never made the playoffs.â€

“He's not the best centreman in the league - (Mario) Lemieux is the best, there's still Gretzky and Messier - but he's in the top group.''

Brett Hull (Nov. 6, 1996):
"He is your typical superstar centreman. He can handle the puck, he can shoot it, he can make the play late to guys. He does everything you want.â€

Joel Quenville (Jan 15, 2000, describing Turgeon’s play in 99 playoffs):
"He was determined to make the team win. That's a sign of the elite players."


I think Keenan made a particularly good point re Turgeon's lack of wingers. Who did he play with in NY? King and Hogue? In Buff he had Andreychuk and? And in Montreal, after some time with Recchi, he mostly played with Kovalenko and Brunet?

In any case, I think there is some evidence he was considered a top star when he played. Obviously not Gretzky or Mario level, but roughly as much of a star as Cs who did make the HoF.

 

[decma]

Because he was Eberle in an era where there was a lot more scoring

Turgeon didn’t just pile up points in a high-scoring era. Many of his best seasons were in relatively low-scoring seasons.

In any case, he was consistently a top performer relative to his peers. He was in the top 10 in points per game five times in his career. Eberle has been top 10 zero times.

Turgeon’s five appearances in top 10 in PPG compare favorably with the HoF centres mentioned above:

Savard 7
Yzerman 7
Ratelle 6
Sittler 6
Stastny 6
Turgeon 5
Francis 4
Gilmour 3
Fedorov 3
Lafontaine 3
Oates 3
Federko 2
Hawerchuk 2
Modano 1
Niuewnedyk 0

Of course where Turgeon is behind is top 10 scoring finishes, with only 2 (tied with Lafontaine and ahead of Niewendyk’s 0, but behind the others). And this I think partly (largely?) explains why he is not in the HoF – he missed games in his best seasons (in contrast with, e.g., Oates, who has 7 top 10 scoring seasons but only 2 top 10 PPG seasons).

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think Turgeon has become pretty underrated looking at some of these posts.

He was a bonafide first line center for years.. great hockey IQ. Very skilled.

He had good size too but played smaller than he was.. soft.. sure but he produced well in the playoffs for a guy known as a tin man.

Hall of Famer? There are worse in there to be honest.

I'd be on the fence but imo he's very similar to Sundin.

Sundin was just lucky enough to have a couple of his peak peak seasons in a time with a poor crop of top forwards which allowed him to secure his post season all stars.

 

[decma]

+1. Just putting up numbers in a high scoring era shouldn't be enough (see Bernie Nichols).

As mentioned above, Turgeon didn’t just put up numbers in a high scoring era. Controlling for scoring levels (by looking at his rankings within seasons or adjusting for era through metrics such as VsX) show that he was comparable to many forwards in the HoF, and is one of the best scoring players not in the HoF, as seventieslord has pointed out.

Re the Nichols comparison, Nichols placed in the top 10 in PPG twice. Turgeon, as noted above, did it five times.

And there is evidence that he wasn’t just an offensive player.

It is always tricky evaluating defensive value, character, grit, etc., because so much is anecdote. As much as it may be obvious to some that Turgeon lacked all of those things, he was noted for his defense, hard work, character, and leadership at various times in his career.
E.g.,

Montreal Gazette, October 6, 1988:
"He's going to be a star in this league," Sator said yesterday. "He worked very hard - both on and off the ice during the off-season. He has one more year of maturation and his command of English is much better now.
"He's got a year under his belt and he's grown into a leadership role. I think he's going to have a banner year this season."
"He's just a tremendous athlete and a tremendous competitor," Sator said.

Edmonton Journal, Feb 22, 1990:
"He's a very talented hockey player," said linemate Dave Andreychuk, who had helpers on both of Turgeon's goals. "He does things with the puck we just shake our heads at."

"People can see he's got great offensive skills. I know that from playing against him," said blueliner Doug Bodger, a former Pittsburgh Penguin.
"We call him Sneaky Pierre the way he goes out there and hides, but he leads out on the ice in other ways.
"He's playing with confidence. He's playing like a leader."

"He's putting in the work and getting back into the defensive end of the game," Andreychuk said.
"You can really see that from the first year. He knows he has to work hard and he's doing it night after night."


Montreal Gazette (Michael Farber), April 7, 1990:
“Turgeon is one of those players who makes everyone around him better.â€


Vancouver Sun, March 20, 1993
"He's not an outspoken guy. But in his own way, he's become a leader," coach Al Arbour, who has had some great ones, said Friday. "He's a silent leader.
"He has progressed and he's going to keep progressing. Everything we've asked him to do, he's done."

"He's a real team guy," Islander captain Patrick Flatley said. "He's still young, but he's starting to assume a leadership role. Even last year to this year he's taken on more of a leadership role, and I think that progression will continue."


Canadian Press, May 2, 1996 (quoting Tremblay):
“Pierre Turgeon is a great captain. Twice he took the whole team out for dinner on the road. When someone was having trouble, he would go talk to the player. I call that good leadership.â€


Edmonton Journal, Nov 16, 1999
"It was a great effort," Quenneville said. "He beat the guy to the icing and pretty much got the job done on a second and third effort. It's nice to see him produce again, and he continues to provide a lot of determination."

"He's been great all year, and he's fun to watch out there," McAlpine said. "He's working hard, and he's so skilled. He's been big for us."


Globe and Mail, Nov. 18, 1999:
Simply put, there's an edge to Turgeon’s game now, one that emerged during the Stanley Cup playoffs last spring.

"Yeah, I think his play, particularly in that Phoenix series, showed a lot more leadership," said Quenneville


National Post, Jan 15, 2000:
On the eve of last year's NHL playoffs Turgeon asked for an audience with Blues coach Joel Quenneville. He told Quenneville that he wanted more responsibility, to be the guy on the ice in the last minute of the period or last minute of the game, to be the go-to guy.

"It showed that he felt that he had more to offer. And he delivered," Quenville said.

Midway through the Blues' first-round playoff series against the tough Phoenix Coyotes, Turgeon began to reinvent himself in front of his teammates' eyes.

He played tough along the boards. He took the big hits and, after being down 3-1 in the series, the Blues won the series in a heart- stopping seventh game in which Turgeon scored in overtime.

Turgeon continued his fine play in the next round against Dallas. He took a brutal slash from Pat Verbeek and kept the Blues alive in the series with critical playmaking. He added five more points (he had 13 in total), including an overtime winner in Game 4. If not for mediocre goaltending from Grant Fuhr, the Blues may well have upended the eventual Stanley Cup champions.

"He was determined to make the team win," Quenneville said. "That's a sign of the elite players."

You could always count on the points, said Quenneville, "but he raised his game to a higher level."

That brand of play did not disappear with the playoffs. Turgeon scored a handful of goals in one of the first training-camp scrimmages and has not backed off since. He has consistently been in the top three or four scorers this season and will return to the NHL All-Star Game on Feb. 6 in Toronto, his fifth all-star appearance.

His 23 goals and 55 points leads the Blues and marks the 12th consecutive season with at least 20 goals. More significantly, the 30-year-old continues to play the important minutes of St. Louis games. Where he was sometimes hidden from other team's top lines earlier in his career, he is now matched against them. He is a central figure on the power play, of course, but he also kills penalties. He has answered his detractors while becoming a complete player.


I am sure there are also articles out there that say he wasn’t a complete player., but I present the examples above to illustrate that there are a lot of opinions out there.


Moving beyond anecdote, is there any real evidence that he was or wasn’t a good defensive player? I don’t think any advanced stats from his era are readily available, so the best data available might be goals allowed when on the ice.

Black Gold Extractor had a thread on this a week or so ago.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2167377&highlight=

He compared non-PP GA per game for elite scoring forwards (defined as forwards who had top-12 qualifying points per game seasons since expansion).

42 players had at least five top-12 PPG seasons since expansion. Of those 42, Turgeon ranked 6th best in (non PP) goals allowed. This metric compared goals allowed per game by an elite forward in a given season to goals allowed per game by other elite forwards during that season, so league scoring levels are already taken into account. Turgeon was consistently on the ice for fewer goals against per game than other elite scoring forwards.

So he wasn't just a point accumulator. He also prevented goals against at a rate better than the vast majority of other elite scoring forwards.

 

[decma]

He was way better than Eberle, but he did have a similar soft and lazy reputation. I think more than anything it's that he was seen as a player who scored a lot of "empty points" so is often seen as worse than his totals.

Yes, others have made that accusation – that he scored a lot of empty points. I am not sure exactly what they mean by empty points, but one way to look at is whether a player’s goals tended to be scored in blowouts or close games. Overpass recently started a thread on this.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2159233

The data show that Turgeon scored a disproportionately high share of his goals when the game was tied. This by no means proves that he was a clutch scorer, but I have seen no evidence whatsoever that he scored a lot of empty points.

 

[decma]

I think if anything this is the thing that has hurt him. The fact that he was not a big game player. I've said this many times but Turgeon is basically the forward version of Phil Housley or Chris Osgood. Now, Osgood won, which helps, but to anyone who watched him we knew he wasn't an elite goalie in the NHL. The same applies for Housley and for Turgeon. Point collectors, but guys with high batting averages and not many runs batted in.

I am not sure what you mean by having a high batting average with few RBI. Does that mean not scoring in close games? Or not scoring in important games?

If you mean the former, please see above re his high scoring levels in tied games.

If you mean the latter, what is the evidence that he did not score in important games?

There are lots of quotations regarding how he was a big-game player.

Associated Press, April 12, 1988:
Sabres' coach Ted Sator said: "The kid's gone from 18 to 28 in the span of four playoff games. Pierre’s always been a big-game player and I think this is his element now."
In the first game of the series, Turgeon had a hand in all three goals. In Sunday's fourth game, he scored Buffalo's first goal and assisted on Tucker's winning goal 5:32 into overtime.

Toronto Star (April 19, 1990, after Turgeon had 2 goals and an assist in win over Habs to tie series at 2):
"We had to get our big guns gunning but that's how it is on any winning team, your shooters must do the shooting," Dudley said. "But Pierre doesn't have to prove anything to me or anyone else. I know how good he is and how he's showed up in the big games all season."

Vancouver Sun, March 20, 1993:
"He's had an MVP season," Flatley said. "He has produced in big games, important games. He has come up big for us all season. He takes losing very hard."

Montreal Gazette (May 6, 1993):
“Pierre carried this team all year," said goaltender Glenn Healy, who stopped 22 shots Tuesday. "He's the big piece of the puzzle, no doubt. When Pierre scores, we usually win."

Jack Todd (Montreal Gazette, April 22, 1995):
“The implication, that he had no heart, is simply not borne out by the numbers. Turgeon’s playoff stats have been good throughout his career, including the '92-93 season when he had six goals and seven assists in 11 games despite being bushwhacked by Dale Hunter.”

Montreal Gazette (April 19, 1996):
"With the team dying around him, Turgeon all but loaded the Canadiens on his back and dragged them into the playoffs in `95."

Joel Quenville (Edmonton Journal, Nov. 16, 1999):
"He seemed to reach a new level in the playoffs last year against Phoenix"
See post above for other quotations re his St. Louis playoffs.



Setting aside the anecdotes and looking at the data, his playoff scoring record is a lot better than people give him credit for.

He had 97 pts in 109 career playoff games (0.89 pts per game).
That is better than Francis (0.83) and Modano (0.83) and almost as good as Fedorov (0.91), Oates (0.91), Lafontaine (0.92) and Yzerman (0.94).

Through his Buf, NYI, Mtl, and StL years (14 seasons) he had 90 pts in 94 playoff games.

 

[seventieslord]

Well this guy's on a roll isn't he?

 

[Big Phil]

If the Punch-up in Piestany is the main thing keeping Turgeon out of the HOF, then that's really lame for many reasons.

I really don't think that has any bearing on things 30 years later. Name a player who played in the NHL for 20 years and still has his WJC experience used for or against him in some way for the HHOF

I agree that Turgeon and his career were very Spezza-like, and I wouldn't induct Spezza, but it's a very valid question: If you're a 10% better version of Spezza, is that a HHOF career? If not, that's fine, but let's agree that there's some point where it becomes undeniable. If it's not 10%, the threshold has to be met somewhere.

I think that hits the nail on the head. He's Spezza basically. Always considered a good center, had some peak years, missed some crucial time, never considered an elite centerman throughout the league save for a season or two. Never made Team Canada. Playoff numbers are acceptable but you can't remember a good run he had (Spezza has 2007, although he fell apart in the final). Well down the list of the pecking order of centers during his era. But has good numbers despite all of this.

I'd be on the fence but imo he's very similar to Sundin.

Sundin was just lucky enough to have a couple of his peak peak seasons in a time with a poor crop of top forwards which allowed him to secure his post season all stars.

Sundin and Turgeon played in the exact same era. I think you can see Sundin's value being better year after year. A player I've always considered to be better than his numbers suggested. Sundin aged very well too.

I am not sure what you mean by having a high batting average with few RBI. Does that mean not scoring in close games? Or not scoring in important games?

If you mean the former, please see above re his high scoring levels in tied games.

If you mean the latter, what is the evidence that he did not score in important games?

He had 97 pts in 109 career playoff games (0.89 pts per game).
That is better than Francis (0.83) and Modano (0.83) and almost as good as Federko (0.91), Oates (0.91), Lafontaine (0.92) and Yzerman (0.94).

Through his Buf, NYI, Mtl, and StL years (14 seasons) he had 90 pts in 94 playoff games.

Not to nitpick, but how many goals do you remember Turgeon scoring? The thing is, he was one of those players who we saw less and less as the playoffs wore on. This was year after year. The same can't be said of the above mentioned players. Yzerman, Francis, Oates and Modano specifically come to mind. A guy who is just going through the motions in the playoffs and has 0.89 PPG is not a good thing. He never gets out of the 3rd round, and only gets there twice. He doesn't have good stats when crunch time comes in Game 6 or Game 7s. That is what I mean by a guy who doesn't have "good RBIs".

Not that Federko was a playoff god or anything but he does have 1.10 PPG. Not sure where the 0.91 came from. I'll agree with you about Lafontaine, not a great playoff resume. The rest? They do. Modano has two excellent Cup final runs where he was "the man" on his team. Many thought he was robbed of the Smythe in 1999. There are other nice runs, like 1990 too. He also played a much better all around game than Turgeon. Francis is sort of similar to this as well, except Mario was "the man" in 1991 and 1992. No knock there. However, Francis was quite instrumental in 1992 when Mario was hurt and the Pens went into the tank when he got hurt in 1996. Led the Canes to the Cup final in 2002 as well. Overall, throw in the better all around game than Turgeon and the fact his playoff resume is less than Modano's but noticeably better than Turgeon's and you can see why he's rated higher. This isn't even getting into their regular seasons. Francis aged very well, had two decades of good scoring.

Yzerman, man, I don't think we're even going to go there. Even if we ignore their regular season accomplishments which aren't even close, their playoff records are far apart as well. PPG is a poor way of showing things when one guy has about 100 more playoff points. Yzerman was just simply more elite in the postseason. Was called on to play for Canada quite often. His career overlapped with Turgeon immensely. Do you want Turgeon in a playoff series over Yzerman?

Oates led his team in playoff scoring twice as they reached the final. Not particularly memorable, although one of the teams did go to Game 7 of the final. They weren't "great" runs as much as he was just the best with a weaker set of forwards on his team that didn't step up..........but he was old both of those years. He shouldn't have been the guy but he was. Throw in some other deep runs and their playoff careers are separate.

 

[Peter Tosh]

In any case, I think there is some evidence he was considered a top star when he played.

Pierre Turgeon, Vincent Damphousse, Geoff Sanderson, Trevor Linden. He's in that category.

 

[Theokritos]

I'd be on the fence but imo he's very similar to Sundin.

Sundin was just lucky enough to have a couple of his peak peak seasons in a time with a poor crop of top forwards which allowed him to secure his post season all stars.

A poor crop of top forwards... such as Pierre Turgeon who Sundin finished ahead of in 1997 and 2000?

Turgeon got All-star votes in 1990, 1994, 1997 and 2000. In the meantime he didn't get any in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998 and 1999.
Sundin on the other hand got votes in 1997, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004. He didn't get any in 1999 and 2001.

I don't think they're that similar, based on their NHL record. And that is not yet taking into consideration Sundin's stellar international performances.

 

[MXD]

Pierre Turgeon, Vincent Damphousse, Geoff Sanderson, Trevor Linden. He's in that category.

... Damphousse, Sanderson and Linden are in the same category...?

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Andreychuk? Please don't call him the "exact caliber" of Turgeon, Roenick, Tkachuk, Weight or Fleury again.

Well he has exactly one less top-10 scoring finish than Turgeon and Roenick, two less than Fleury, exactly as many as Weight, and one more than Tkachuk. He also has far more goals than any of them. Also, none of them have a top-five finish.

 

[The Panther]

As per the emerging consensus, I'm very 'on the fence' with Turgeon in the Hall of Fame.

I think Vincent Damphousse and Jason Spezza are fairly good comparisons. Damphousse and Turgeon, in my mind, played quite similar styles and had similar roles on their respective teams -- i.e., the high-scoring center who, when healthy, would lead the team in scoring. Both good goal-scorers, very good play-makers. I personally would take Damphousse over Turgeon. Turgeon might have scored a few more points in some seasons, but I think Damphousse was more tenacious and often got better when the going got tough (23 points and a Stanley Cup in '93 for example). Turgeon was a pretty good playoff scorer, for sure, so no penalty there, but he didn't really have any meaningful runs where we saw his mettle tested against the very best (in his two big 100+ point seasons, his production dropped in the playoffs). Spezza's style seems a bit different, to me, but his scoring/results are similar to Turgeon's (though, again, Spezza has an impressive 22-point playoff run to the Finals, which Turgeon lacked).

Anyway, Turgeon was a big scorer, a good playoff producer, and had good longevity. But I still lean towards not having him in the Hall, since I, personally, prefer the Hall to be less (not more) inclusive. If Turgeon had had one really meaningful playoff run, or if we'd seen him selected to Team Canada (and perform well there a couple of times), or if he'd been up in the top-3 scorers a couple of times, I might be convinced that he's in. But he never quite got there.

Besides that, the aspect of Turgeon's career that has always struck me as odd is that he clearly wasn't an easy player to integrate into teams. He was barely 22 when Buffalo sent him packing for Lafontaine, he was 25 when the Islanders got rid of him, then after being named captain of Montreal, at age 27, they got rid of him, and finally he played out his career for two more teams as a free agent. It's just hard to find a lot of Hall of Famers that were traded three times in their prime.

 

[seventieslord]

Well he has exactly one less top-10 scoring finish than Turgeon and Roenick, two less than Fleury, exactly as many as Weight, and one more than Tkachuk. He also has far more goals than any of them. Also, none of them have a top-five finish.

I'm not going to comment on the "career regular season goal total" piece as this is the HOH section and we should all expect better than that from eachother.

So are you comfortable with a way of judging players' offensive contributions that puts Kirk Muller and Tie Domi on the same footing (0 top-10 finishes each)? Chris Kunitz and Lanny McDonald (1 each)? Jimmy Carson and Marian Hossa (2 each)? Doug Gilmour and Markus Naslund (3 each)?

When you attempt to boil down a player so something so lazy and simple, it’s not hard to poke holes in it. All your comments demonstrate is what these players did in their best season or two, and nothing at all about the rest of their careers. And there’s really no need to take a conversation this far backwards when the 7-year VsX totals for all these players have already been posted in this thread:

Turgeon 603
Roenick 585
Fleury 582
Tkachuk 565
Weight 562
Andreychuk 516

One of these things does not look like the others. Weight is 2nd lowest on this list and still he’s closer to Turgeon than he is to Andreychuk.

Andreychuk touched 10th in scoring once (thanks to Doug Gilmour) was 16th another time (thanks largely to Turgeon) and was not top-20 again. The other five all spent their entire primes (of varying lengths) as top-20 scorers or on pace for top-20, give or take a season.

 

[BraveCanadian]

A poor crop of top forwards... such as Pierre Turgeon who Sundin finished ahead of in 1997 and 2000?

Yes. When Sundin actually won his post season all stars I think most people would agree that there was a dip in top level forwards (early 2000s).

I don't think they're that similar, based on their NHL record. And that is not yet taking into consideration Sundin's stellar international performances.

I think they are very similar considering the amount of career overlap they have with very similar production, that they were both steady but fairly unremarkable in the playoffs, and that (imo) they both played smaller than they were a lot of the time.

Sundin's international performances helped him make the Hall of Fame I am sure... but if Sundin had been Canadian he would probably have had about the same opportunity to shine internationally as Turgeon.

 

[seventieslord]

I really don't think that has any bearing on things 30 years later. Name a player who played in the NHL for 20 years and still has his WJC experience used for or against him in some way for the HHOF

You mean someone other than Turgeon?

Not to nitpick, but how many goals do you remember Turgeon scoring?

You could just save yourself the time and copy and paste all your old arguments by now, eh?

Two playoff overtime goals, including one in double OT of game 7, should be enough to sufficiently answer this question. But if we’re getting technical, I also quite clearly remember his goal against the Leafs that broke the tie in the final second of the 6th game of the 1995-96 season. Habs had lost five straight, fired the coach and GM and this was their first game with Tremblay and Houle running the show. I also remember his goal in game 6 against Washington that put the game and series out of reach. Of course, it’s famous for what happened after, but it proved to be an important goal, and the reason we’re even on this topic is because of the factors of fame and being a part of important and/or memorable moments, and that certainly qualifies.

Pierre Turgeon, Vincent Damphousse, Geoff Sanderson, Trevor Linden. He's in that category.

…. Just wow

I think they are very similar considering the amount of career overlap they have with very similar production, that they were both steady but fairly unremarkable in the playoffs, and that (imo) they both played smaller than they were a lot of the time.

Sundin's international performances helped him make the Hall of Fame I am sure... but if Sundin had been Canadian he would probably have had about the same opportunity to shine internationally as Turgeon.

I personally prefer Sundin too but I don’t see how anyone can deny they were similar. Two top-10s in points, Eight top-20s, very similar VsX scores. Offensively, the main differences are:

- more of Sundin’s points were goals (though Turgeon has an impressively high% for a center too)
- Sundin had a 16-year prime to Turgeon’s 13 (seasons with vsX scores of 67-95)
- The “poor linemates†or “he elevated his linemates†factor, whatever you want to call it, applies to Sundin even more than it does to Turgeon. Over his prime, he scored 1.73x as much as the players who participated on goals with him – Turgeon’s score was a very respectable 1.63.

You’re right about international play as well. You can probably look at any big international tournament Sundin made and a Swedish Turgeon would have made it too. Conversely, you can look at any big tournament Turgeon missed, and a Canadian Sundin would have missed it too.

 

[MXD]

(...)

How do some active and ineligible guys stack up if you assume they retire right now:

Jagr 805
Crosby 713
Ovechkin 689
Thornton 669
Selanne 667
St. Louis 645
Malkin 625
Iginla 607

H. Sedin 593
Kane 591
Kovalchuk 588
Backstrom 584
Stamkos 581
Datsyuk 578
Hossa 576
Alfredsson 576
Getzlaf 575

Heatley 566
D.Sedin 560
Giroux 559
Spezza 554
Elias 552
Staal 551

Zetterberg 546
Richards 546
Lecavalier 539
Tavares 539
Kopitar 537
Perry 525
Kessel 525
Ribeiro 519
Tanguay 514
Hejduk 512
Marleau 511
Benn 510
Toews 506

Pavelski 498
Parise 495
Gaborik 489
Nash 485
Vanek 481
Jokinen 479
Bertuzzi 478
Sullivan 474
Briere 473
Gomez 472
Bergeron 465
Sharp 464
Doan 463
Pominville 462
Carter 456
Krejci 449
Semin 449
Prospal 448
Arnott 442
Smyth 441
Gagne 439
S.Koivu 428

Similar to above, there are tiers that develop at almost the exact same ranges.

- Jagr to Malkin are obvious first ballot based on numbers alone – nothing else would even matter. Iginla trails behind them, but factor in that he was a winger who had poor linemates, spent his whole career in the west and had intangibles, and he’s as good a candidate as MSL. This range doesn’t exist in the first list because eligible players this obvious have all been inducted.
- Definitely good enough peak numbers to make it: H. Sedin through Getzlaf. For each player in this tier it’s a question of whether they achieved enough or had that certain “it†that made them more memorable. But they do have an offensive peak/prime that can’t be questioned.
- Just not enough: Heatley through Staal. These numbers are not enough to get in on their own. However, Sedin has it in his favour that he’s probably getting in with Henrik, IF Henrik gets in, and Elias has lots of reasons he’s better than that number, and is to me a very strong inductee.
- Mixed bag: Zetterberg through Toews. You’ve got one-dimensional players whose offense alone can’t get them there (Richards, Lecavalier, Kessel, Ribeiro, Hejduk, Tanguay, Marleau), a couple of power forwards with an outside shot if their careers finish off favorably (Benn, Perry), and three outstanding two-way forwards who should be in anyone’s hall (Kopitar, Zetterberg, Toews)
- Not close: Pavelski through Koivu. With this level of offense, you’d need Bergeron-level defense to get in, and Bergeron does, in fact, have that, so he’s getting in.

On the first tier : Are you suggesting that Iginla gets a "boost" to his "number" because he's a winger? That's odd. He's a slam dunk anyways (and I'm one of Iginla's biggest detractors here) so don't want to dwell on this.

On the second tier : Backstrom really sticks out like a sore thumb in that group. His true offensive value (...hell, his value as a player) is probably closer to Bobby Smith than to Henrik Sedin. This is also what can be inferred by looking at both players Hart records (with Smith's being arguably better).

I'm pretty neutral on the Sedin topic, but Henrik might just be the best offensive player left off the HHOF (should he miss it). He also had a pretty high peak as well. I can't see Henrik miss the HHOF, and Daniel will come with him. Kovy might miss it due to games played.

I'm not surprised at seeing Toews where he is (roughly in Marleau's range), though if you read the posts lately, you'd think he'd rank significantly below Jason Arnott (which is ... obviously not the case).

Otherwise, great post.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

- The “poor linemates†or “he elevated his linemates†factor, whatever you want to call it, applies to Sundin even more than it does to Turgeon. Over his prime, he scored 1.73x as much as the players who participated on goals with him – Turgeon’s score was a very respectable 1.63.

I've seen stats like this (offense relative to a player`s linemates) over the past few months. Is there a thread that summarizes the results for the top X players?