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

[Howie Hodge]

 

[quoipourquoi]

Fedorov led the playoffs in assists without even reaching the finals.

Haha, you know, Turgeon had a pretty solid shot at it too in 2001. The leader had 16 assists in 23 games, while Turgeon had 7 assists in the 1st round, but kind of just dried up after that against Dallas and Colorado (3 more assists in 9 games). It's a shame the Blues' window for success was so short at just the two years. In retrospect, I think Turgeon staying in the Summer of 2001 would have been better for both him and the team.

 

[frisco]

Turgeon rarely had elite linemates. And the fairly average ones he had, he seemed to make better. Andreychuk scored 36 and 40 goals with Turgeon. Derek King scored 38 and 40 with Turgeon, without checking I'm thinking those are career highs. Scott Young scored 40. That's got to be a career high. Martin Rucinsky 25 goals in 56 games. Stumpy Thomas 37 + 42. Pavol Demitra 37. Even Brett Hull, HOF player, had his last 40-goal season with Turgeon even though he'd go on to play seven more full seasons.

Don't know the line combinations exactly but there's a trend that a) Turgeon really didn't get to play with a whole lot of great players, and b) He made the players with him better.

Another completely random point is many on in this thread mentioned that Turgeon played in a high scoring era. But if you take raw points vs. adjusted he's actually higher all-time (28th) on the adjusted points list than he is in raw points (32nd).

My Best-Carey

 

[BlueBull]

He has no hardware.

*koff koff* Bernie Federko *koff koff*

 

[ResilientBeast]

*koff koff* Bernie Federko *koff koff*

He's a bad induction but has like double the top 10 assists and points that Turgeon has

 

[seventieslord]

How many regular season Sabres or Islanders games did you see in the late 80s/early 90s? How many (North) Stars games in the 90s? I don't know what kind of TV package you had then but it must have been better than the one I had.

Hey, I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest about who watched more hockey or who watches it "better". All I'm saying is that if you doubt Modano had a great defensive reputation and Turgeon didn't, that's just like saying you didn't pay attention to hockey back then. It doesn't take a very thorough look back 20 years to see that was the case.

For the record, I don't even think Turgeon was "bad" defensively. Nothing I've read or can remember ever said as much. he came back into his zone and played at least a perfunctory, if docile, style of defense. It's just that he's not close to Modano's defensive record and accomplishments. I think asking for proof of this is damaging to one's credibility.

Oates has 7 top 10 points finishes
and 3 top pts/game if that's what you want to use

He was very clearly more productive than Turgeon ever was

See, that's a lot closer than you probably realized.

From the start of Turgeon's career to the end of Oates's (1988-2004)

Oates 1353 points in 1223 games
Turgeon 1274 points in 1215 games

Over the same time period Oates was quite a bit more productive in the same number of games

...this is a 6% difference, and one had Hull/Neely at their bests and one had Derek King and Benoit Hogue and Scott Young, AND was the far better goal scorer. That's far from a slam dunk. I'm surprised when typing all that out you dug your heels in like this instead of saying "hmm, wow, it's actually a lot close than I realized".

So no, no one is ignoring anything. The main focus was their primes. Even when they were in the league together...
Kariya: 95-07: 821-366-500-866
Turgeon: 95-07: 751-259-432-691

Why be deliberately misleading if the data is on your side?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/409223-adam-oates-the-best-player-who-wont-make-the-hall-of-fame

An excerpt from the above article from 2010 "In the end, Oates does not carry the star power or reputation that players such as Eric Lindros, Doug Gilmour or Pierre Turgeon did during their playing days, and that will ultimately be what keeps him out of the Hall of Fame."

The eye tests alone would tell you how much more gifted of a player Turgeon was over Oates. If not for injuries, Turgeon would of bested 100 points 3 additional times in his career for sure & maybe even 5 more times.

I would agree on this. It didn't surprise me in the least that Oates was made to wait so long, even if I thought he should be in. He was never viewed as highly as his point totals made it look like he should.

Your LW AS vote argument is old. No matter how many people tell you so, you still can't fathom that LW is a far weaker position than C.

I'm pretty sure he CAN fathom it, and so can everyone else in here. We've taken a look at what their all-star records would look like at other positions; why would anyone do that if they thought C and LW were directly comparable?

I wish everyone here could debate honestly - on both sides.

Kariya beat out guys like LeClair, Shanahan, Tkachuk, Demitra, and Robitaille....all while Turgeon was sharing votes with Mike Ricci, and Victor Kozlov....but please continue to name drop...

"name drop name drop, name drop, name drop, name drop, name drop.... Hey, all you do is name drop!"

The whole debate was not peak vs. peak. This thread is about why Turgeon is not in the Hall and during the debate Turgeon's credentials have been compared to various HoF players including Sittler, Sundin, Oates, Modano, and, most extensively, Kariya.

Peak vs. peak is part of the comparison, but it is by no means the be all and end all.

You are right of course, peak vs. peak is not the only part, but for a lot of us it's the most important thing.

I think what these 5 and 7-year numbers show is that Turgeon was much closer in offensive achievements to Kariya than anyone is really prepared to admit. Get used to it. However, I will say this - Kariya did occupy a higher spot on hockey's pecking order than Turgeon did. He was consistently cited as a top-5 player in the league during his prime. We've taken a knife to that way of thinking in the past and I think the majority believes that it was misguided at the time, but it can't be that far off from the truth, either.

Best case scenario, Turgeon was Kariya's equal as a producer (and yes, you could maybe take that and run with it by saying "and Turgeon has 5-6 more good seasons outside of his peak"), but to get there you have to ignore Kariya's weaker linemates and teammates (yes, even including Selanne, Kariya outscored his point collaborators by a greater degree than Kariya did) and the fact that Kariya did what he did from the wing. If two guys are equal in production and one guy is doing it from the wing, the winger is almost certainly the better talent. That's before we get to the eye test of nearly everyone here, and of the people who voted on awards like the hart - I think way too much time has been spent talking about useless and pointless ASTs so I won't even touch that - but Kariya was just more highly regarded; we can't change that.

RB posted the VsX data in posts 618 and 723 of this thread. Turgeon has the better adjusted points totals (using VsX) for periods of ten seasons or longer.

If you want to restrict the debate to seven seasons or fewer, then, yes, Kariya had the better adjusted points peak using VsX.

But (as Frisco just said) why restrict the comparison to best seven seasons? If we are trying to evaluate whether Turgeon belongs in the HofF, and to compare his credentials to Kariya's, wouldn't it be better to examine their entire careers? Or at least a period longer than seven seasons?

I agree it does a disservice to a player with longevity to amputate them like that. But, at least concede that what happened in a player's 8th, 9th, 10th best seasons are not as important as what happened in their 3rd, 4th, 5th best seasons...

and the third one, well that's just a coach lying out of his teeth right?

Not necessarily. Turgeon was better than Federko and Berenson, and as far as Oates goes, if we're talking talent level and eye test, it's perfectly reasonable to suggest he was better than Oates at the moment he made that statement, even if the long run proved that incorrect.

And what is so significant about being in the top 20? Another statistic that doesn't mean anything but your trying to make worth while.

Of course it matters. Sometimes being 15th-16th is just 2 points out of 10th. Does that really matter that much? 13th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 18th are not insignificant - sure, it would be even better if he had 3-5 more points and got into the top-10 but are we really at the point where our opinion of a player's entire career or even prime can change that much based on 15-20 odd points that he didn't score over 5-6 seasons?

8 times in the top-20 in points is not easy to do. You might be surprised if you look at just how uncommon it actually is. Guys like Ryan Getzlaf and Eric Staal who have spent an entire decade as top-end top line centers have 7 and 4 such seasons themselves. Spezza has 4. Claude Giroux and Henrik Sedin each have 6.

 

[seventieslord]

He had 5 seasons in which he was a negative and even his most productive season(132 points) he was a -1. That means out of all that offense he put up and helped his team out with, he couldn't even come up with a positive +/-

There are literally no fewer than five seasons you can say the exact same thing about both Gretzky and Lemieux, you know.

Well look at that...turns out, using your fantasy system, if you put Kariya at center during that same time frame, his point finishes actually end up being more impressive than Turgeons at center AND left winger(if he was at that position).

...it should also be pointed out that Turgeon the LW would score less if he switched positions, and Kariya the C would score more. That's typically how it goes. Maybe only 3-7 points per season differences, but it would not be the same and we can't predict their all-star voting rankings with too much certainty.

Kariya waited nearly 7 years for a reason. The difference between the two is Kariya is well remembered while Turgeon is somewhat a flash in the pan.

That's a strange thing to say about a guy whose worst season in a 13-year period saw him fall just short of 1.0 PPG, the only time he failed to do so in that time (and it was a lockout season, less statistically significant than the 12 surrouding seasons).

I mean, we all saw he didn't have the reputation that his points seemed to indicate he should have, but... flash in the pan? Poor word choice.

Also, just like anyone can pick apart statistical arguments by looking at outliers one can do the same to the subjective AS voting process. For example, Roenick 3x as valuable as Sundin??? Alexei Yashin the virtual equal to Ron Francis??? Oates twice the votes of Lafontaine? Gretzky 20 times the player Zhamnov was??? Who knows or cares or can interpret this stuff???

If that shows Roenick 3x as valuable as Sundin, I'd interpret it with the "0" being a high level player who falls just short of all-star votes. Like, 115 is 3x as good as 105, if you pretend 100 is 0.

You don't see a difference between Jagr circa 96 to 2000 and Oates?

5 year Kariya would be very close to the top in 1990 to 94.

Good point. There are still a couple of clear outliers in the early 90s lists. In the late 90s no one was an outlier; "the pack" pretty much started at Lindros and Jagr.

Turgeon rarely had elite linemates. And the fairly average ones he had, he seemed to make better. Andreychuk scored 36 and 40 goals with Turgeon. Derek King scored 38 and 40 with Turgeon, without checking I'm thinking those are career highs. Scott Young scored 40. That's got to be a career high. Martin Rucinsky 25 goals in 56 games. Stumpy Thomas 37 + 42. Pavol Demitra 37. Even Brett Hull, HOF player, had his last 40-goal season with Turgeon even though he'd go on to play seven more full seasons.

Don't know the line combinations exactly but there's a trend that a) Turgeon really didn't get to play with a whole lot of great players, and b) He made the players with him better.

Yes, this is true. He doesn't get quite enough credit for this.

Another completely random point is many on in this thread mentioned that Turgeon played in a high scoring era. But if you take raw points vs. adjusted he's actually higher all-time (28th) on the adjusted points list than he is in raw points (32nd).

My Best-Carey

Anyone who's saying Turgeon played in a high scoring era is incorrect. He was just hitting his stride as that era ended. Unless I'm mistaken, no one is saying that here; they're just saying that he played in a higher scoring time than Kariya, and that is true. His peak seasons spanned the high scoring early 90s and the DPE - Kariya's peak seasons were only in the latter.

He's a bad induction but has like double the top 10 assists and points that Turgeon has

I think you are capable of more nuance than this. I can't imagine it was accidental that you chose just about the only metric that can make Federko look like the better producer on an era-adjusted basis.

I can see what side of this discussion you're on quite clearly, but there's no need to dig in your heels so staunchly. Just say "yeah, it;s true, Turgeon was a better offensive player than Federko ever was, but Federko is a really bad HHOFer so that doesn't really matter". It's not difficult and it doesn't take away from the points you're making.

People in this thread need to give a little bit. Not 100% of what you say is right and not 100% of what your "opponent" says is wrong, folks.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Hey, I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest about who watched more hockey or who watches it "better". All I'm saying is that if you doubt Modano had a great defensive reputation and Turgeon didn't, that's just like saying you didn't pay attention to hockey back then. It doesn't take a very thorough look back 20 years to see that was the case.

For the record, I don't even think Turgeon was "bad" defensively. Nothing I've read or can remember ever said as much. he came back into his zone and played at least a perfunctory, if docile, style of defense. It's just that he's not close to Modano's defensive record and accomplishments. I think asking for proof of this is damaging to one's credibility.



See, that's a lot closer than you probably realized.



...this is a 6% difference, and one had Hull/Neely at their bests and one had Derek King and Benoit Hogue and Scott Young, AND was the far better goal scorer. That's far from a slam dunk. I'm surprised when typing all that out you dug your heels in like this instead of saying "hmm, wow, it's actually a lot close than I realized".



Why be deliberately misleading if the data is on your side?



I would agree on this. It didn't surprise me in the least that Oates was made to wait so long, even if I thought he should be in. He was never viewed as highly as his point totals made it look like he should.



I'm pretty sure he CAN fathom it, and so can everyone else in here. We've taken a look at what their all-star records would look like at other positions; why would anyone do that if they thought C and LW were directly comparable?

I wish everyone here could debate honestly - on both sides.



"name drop name drop, name drop, name drop, name drop, name drop.... Hey, all you do is name drop!"



You are right of course, peak vs. peak is not the only part, but for a lot of us it's the most important thing.

I think what these 5 and 7-year numbers show is that Turgeon was much closer in offensive achievements to Kariya than anyone is really prepared to admit. Get used to it. However, I will say this - Kariya did occupy a higher spot on hockey's pecking order than Turgeon did. He was consistently cited as a top-5 player in the league during his prime. We've taken a knife to that way of thinking in the past and I think the majority believes that it was misguided at the time, but it can't be that far off from the truth, either.

Best case scenario, Turgeon was Kariya's equal as a producer (and yes, you could maybe take that and run with it by saying "and Turgeon has 5-6 more good seasons outside of his peak"), but to get there you have to ignore Kariya's weaker linemates and teammates (yes, even including Selanne, Kariya outscored his point collaborators by a greater degree than Kariya did) and the fact that Kariya did what he did from the wing. If two guys are equal in production and one guy is doing it from the wing, the winger is almost certainly the better talent. That's before we get to the eye test of nearly everyone here, and of the people who voted on awards like the hart - I think way too much time has been spent talking about useless and pointless ASTs so I won't even touch that - but Kariya was just more highly regarded; we can't change that.



I agree it does a disservice to a player with longevity to amputate them like that. But, at least concede that what happened in a player's 8th, 9th, 10th best seasons are not as important as what happened in their 3rd, 4th, 5th best seasons...



Not necessarily. Turgeon was better than Federko and Berenson, and as far as Oates goes, if we're talking talent level and eye test, it's perfectly reasonable to suggest he was better than Oates at the moment he made that statement, even if the long run proved that incorrect.



Of course it matters. Sometimes being 15th-16th is just 2 points out of 10th. Does that really matter that much? 13th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 18th are not insignificant - sure, it would be even better if he had 3-5 more points and got into the top-10 but are we really at the point where our opinion of a player's entire career or even prime can change that much based on 15-20 odd points that he didn't score over 5-6 seasons?

8 times in the top-20 in points is not easy to do. You might be surprised if you look at just how uncommon it actually is. Guys like Ryan Getzlaf and Eric Staal who have spent an entire decade as top-end top line centers have 7 and 4 such seasons themselves. Spezza has 4. Claude Giroux and Henrik Sedin each have 6.

What? Who is being misleading?.....

I was simply pointing out that even within the time they were in the league together, Kariya out produced Turgeon. Turgeon wasn't over the hill, and he wasn't exactly out of his prime. It goes to show you that his best seasons for he most part where in a higher scoring era, which is why his stats are so big. He was still productive, but not at Kariyas level.

I would suggest re reading the quotation I was replaying to before chiming in....Kariya actually BEAT those guys in AS voting, all while Turgeon could barely get more votes than Ricci and Kozlov....

Name dropping is dropping guys like Messier, Lemieux, and Gretzky in the same sentence, as if Turgeon had any chance competing with them...

No, it's merely changing the goal posts to further fit an argument for Turgeon...Kariya has more top 10 finishes than him, oh that's easy, let's change it to top 20.

There are literally no fewer than five seasons you can say the exact same thing about both Gretzky and Lemieux, you know.



...it should also be pointed out that Turgeon the LW would score less if he switched positions, and Kariya the C would score more. That's typically how it goes. Maybe only 3-7 points per season differences, but it would not be the same and we can't predict their all-star voting rankings with too much certainty.



That's a strange thing to say about a guy whose worst season in a 13-year period saw him fall just short of 1.0 PPG, the only time he failed to do so in that time (and it was a lockout season, less statistically significant than the 12 surrouding seasons).

I mean, we all saw he didn't have the reputation that his points seemed to indicate he should have, but... flash in the pan? Poor word choice.



If that shows Roenick 3x as valuable as Sundin, I'd interpret it with the "0" being a high level player who falls just short of all-star votes. Like, 115 is 3x as good as 105, if you pretend 100 is 0.



Good point. There are still a couple of clear outliers in the early 90s lists. In the late 90s no one was an outlier; "the pack" pretty much started at Lindros and Jagr.



Yes, this is true. He doesn't get quite enough credit for this.



Anyone who's saying Turgeon played in a high scoring era is incorrect. He was just hitting his stride as that era ended. Unless I'm mistaken, no one is saying that here; they're just saying that he played in a higher scoring time than Kariya, and that is true. His peak seasons spanned the high scoring early 90s and the DPE - Kariya's peak seasons were only in the latter.



I think you are capable of more nuance than this. I can't imagine it was accidental that you chose just about the only metric that can make Federko look like the better producer on an era-adjusted basis.

I can see what side of this discussion you're on quite clearly, but there's no need to dig in your heels so staunchly. Just say "yeah, it;s true, Turgeon was a better offensive player than Federko ever was, but Federko is a really bad HHOFer so that doesn't really matter". It's not difficult and it doesn't take away from the points you're making.

People in this thread need to give a little bit. Not 100% of what you say is right and not 100% of what your "opponent" says is wrong, folks.

except I'm not using plus/minus as an actually argument....I was simply showing that using plus/minus as an advantage for Turgeon still doesn't hold any weight.

It's no secret that Kariya had more of a reputation than Turgeon. Maybe flash in a pan isn't the right word, but Kariya was simply more popular and got more notice.

Turgeons BEST season offensively was in 1993 where scoring was freakishly high, he never achieved those point totals again. To say Turgeons first few years were not padded due to higher scoring is ridiculous. He was a great offensive player, but let's not pretend like those late 80s and early 90s weren't full of scoring.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think everyone has adequately explained how hard it is to appear on a 5-3-1 ballot at Center in the early 1990s when most Centers' voting records are defined by fringe support, so the continued use of but Koslov and Ricci takes away from your argument.

As does pretending that Turgeon's 1992-93 means less because it's a freakish year. It's a freakish year where Turgeon finished 5th in scoring and 45 points ahead of the next best teammate. The mere acknowledgment that the raw number of 132 points needs context is not, in fact, a complete invalidation of the 132 points. If anything, it's an invitation to explore the question of how in a year where so many people were having amazing offensive success, a non-HOFer like Turgeon could have finished 5th with so little help from his linemates.*

But you're hung up on the fact that Ricci got on a 0-0-1 ballot just like Turgeon. Don't be.


*It's because Turgeon is a HOF-level player

 

[ResilientBeast]

There are literally no fewer than five seasons you can say the exact same thing about both Gretzky and Lemieux, you know.



...it should also be pointed out that Turgeon the LW would score less if he switched positions, and Kariya the C would score more. That's typically how it goes. Maybe only 3-7 points per season differences, but it would not be the same and we can't predict their all-star voting rankings with too much certainty.



That's a strange thing to say about a guy whose worst season in a 13-year period saw him fall just short of 1.0 PPG, the only time he failed to do so in that time (and it was a lockout season, less statistically significant than the 12 surrouding seasons).

I mean, we all saw he didn't have the reputation that his points seemed to indicate he should have, but... flash in the pan? Poor word choice.



If that shows Roenick 3x as valuable as Sundin, I'd interpret it with the "0" being a high level player who falls just short of all-star votes. Like, 115 is 3x as good as 105, if you pretend 100 is 0.



Good point. There are still a couple of clear outliers in the early 90s lists. In the late 90s no one was an outlier; "the pack" pretty much started at Lindros and Jagr.



Yes, this is true. He doesn't get quite enough credit for this.



Anyone who's saying Turgeon played in a high scoring era is incorrect. He was just hitting his stride as that era ended. Unless I'm mistaken, no one is saying that here; they're just saying that he played in a higher scoring time than Kariya, and that is true. His peak seasons spanned the high scoring early 90s and the DPE - Kariya's peak seasons were only in the latter.



I think you are capable of more nuance than this. I can't imagine it was accidental that you chose just about the only metric that can make Federko look like the better producer on an era-adjusted basis.

I can see what side of this discussion you're on quite clearly, but there's no need to dig in your heels so staunchly. Just say "yeah, it;s true, Turgeon was a better offensive player than Federko ever was, but Federko is a really bad HHOFer so that doesn't really matter". It's not difficult and it doesn't take away from the points you're making.

People in this thread need to give a little bit. Not 100% of what you say is right and not 100% of what your "opponent" says is wrong, folks.

The effort just isn't there for this argument anymore, AST and top 10s make Federko look to be more prolific in his time period than Turgeon in his. I have no strong feelings either way

 

[GreatGonzo]

I think everyone has adequately explained how hard it is to appear on a 5-3-1 ballot at Center in the early 1990s when most Centers' voting records are defined by fringe support, so the continued use of but Koslov and Ricci takes away from your argument.

As does pretending that Turgeon's 1992-93 means less because it's a freakish year. It's a freakish year where Turgeon finished 5th in scoring and 45 points ahead of the next best teammate. The mere acknowledgment that the raw number of 132 points needs context is not, in fact, a complete invalidation of the 132 points. If anything, it's an invitation to explore the question of how in a year where so many people were having amazing offensive success, a non-HOFer like Turgeon could have finished 5th with so little help from his linemates.*

But you're hung up on the fact that Ricci got on a 0-0-1 ballot just like Turgeon. Don't be.


*It's because Turgeon is a HOF-level player

"Hard?" That's hardly the case for Turgeon who barely got any votes....and I mean any. I'm tired of hearing excuse after excuse as to why Turgeons AS voting is so weak....it's weak, not because he is a weak center or player, but because he simply just didn't stand out as much as many others.

If that's the case, then there is no telling the numerous centers who are also victims to the voting ballot. We should just throw out all ballots from 80s and 90s and start fresh with AS recognition that you feel is fair. Wow that's was easy....

Also, feel free to leave out all the complaining Frisco did about how "unfair" it was that Kariya received multiple AS Honors simply because the LW position was so weak, and that had nothing, and shouldn't be taken into account with his HOF credentials or peak....instead we should focus on Turgeons "what could have been if the center position wasnt so weak and the Ballot system wasn't so funky." Makes sense.

It doesn't mean it means less, but it should be taken into account that his "best" year was a year where scoring was crazy. It's not a coincidence, and it doesn't take away from Turgeons talent or production, but come on.....

I never said he wasn't a HOF, I said it made sense to have Kariya before Turgeon. That's where the whole peak debate came in.

 

[quoipourquoi]

If that's the case, then there is no telling the numerous centers who are also victims to the voting ballot. We should just throw out all ballots from 80s and 90s and start fresh with AS recognition that you feel is fair. Wow that's was easy....

Or maybe just don't assign universal value to All-Star ballots - just as you would never assign universal value to 132 points.

Turgeon can be both a top-5 player in the league and also not a top-3 Center. Hell, you could take the sixth-best Center in 1992-93 or 1995-96, and he'd probably be 1st Team Center any year from 1997-2000, in case you think this is strictly a Left Wing vs. Center issue.

A 5-3-1 ballot might give you a good idea about who the best or second-best in a given year is, but beyond that, you probably aren't going to get the value you seem to want (Turgeon=Kozlov). And acknowledging this is not the same thing as throwing out ballots or portraying someone as a victim. There's some middle ground between voting records being perfectly representative of reality and burning the ballots. Try to find it.

The effort just isn't there for this argument anymore, AST and top 10s make Federko look to be more prolific in his time period than Turgeon in his. I have no strong feelings either way

By virtue of coming out on the right side of a six-player race in 1980 among 94-92 point scorers for the #10-15 spots, a four-player race in 1981 among 104-103 point scorers for the #9-12 spots, and an eight-player race in 1985 among 103-100 point scorers for the #9-16 spots.

Top-10s are a good shorthand evaluation, but in the case of Federko/Turgeon, saying Federko has double the top-10s (a binary evaluation that essentially equates #10 with Wayne Gretzky and #11 with a non-player) can be somewhat light on value, particularly when much has been made about Turgeon consistently performing at the same level for many years on a per-game basis while falling just short of top-10 in the raw output.

I don't always agree with VsX, but recognition that #10 vs. #11 might not be much of a gap is part of the reason why we look beyond the scope of raw statistical rankings.

 

[decma]

i think there are several ways of interpreting all those quotations above. some of them are pretty garden variety; no one has ever questioned turgeon's talent and a lot of those quotes you would hear about any team's best player, whether that player was doug gilmour or alexei yashin.

but for a lot of the other ones, you kind of have to ask: why are all of these teammates, coaches, and general managers going out of their way to say "he's trying really hard," "he's playing with heart," "he's showing more leadership now," or in the weirdest case "he took the team out for dinner... twice. and he made a point to talk to a young guy who was struggling"? part of it is the reputation and stigma of turgeon that they are arguing against, for sure. but part of it also seems to doth be protesting too much, don't you think?

three choice ones--



the first one proved to be untrue; the second one gets to the heart of this whole discussion, that the turgeon we saw on the ice and the turgeon we see on paper don't square up; and the third one, well that's just a coach lying out of his teeth right?

I agree that there are a lot of ways of interpreting those quotations. But isn't that true of quotations regarding most (all?) players? I can't find the quotations re Modano that RB mentioned, but I am not sure they would be any different. GMs and coaches are going to have a vested interest in extolling the virtues of their players, newspaper writers are often biased and too close to the players/team they cover to provide objective opinions, and teammates are teammates.

 

[decma]

Hey, I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest about who watched more hockey or who watches it "better". All I'm saying is that if you doubt Modano had a great defensive reputation and Turgeon didn't, that's just like saying you didn't pay attention to hockey back then. It doesn't take a very thorough look back 20 years to see that was the case.

For the record, I don't even think Turgeon was "bad" defensively. Nothing I've read or can remember ever said as much. he came back into his zone and played at least a perfunctory, if docile, style of defense. It's just that he's not close to Modano's defensive record and accomplishments. I think asking for proof of this is damaging to one's credibility.

I never said I doubt that Modano had a better defensive reputation than Turgeon. I said I have not seen evidence either way re who was better defensively. I guess that was a little strong, and I should have said I have not seen hard evidence either way re who was better defensively.

So I guess it comes down to how much weight we place on the opinions of writers and voters relative to how much we place on data.

I'll repeat what I said on page 3 of this thread.

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.

[numerous favourable quotations on his defensive play, grit, etc. that I won't repeat here]

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.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Or maybe just don't assign universal value to All-Star ballots - just as you would never assign universal value to 132 points.

Turgeon can be both a top-5 player in the league and also not a top-3 Center. Hell, you could take the sixth-best Center in 1992-93 or 1995-96, and he'd probably be 1st Team Center any year from 1997-2000, in case you think this is strictly a Left Wing vs. Center issue.

A 5-3-1 ballot might give you a good idea about who the best or second-best in a given year is, but beyond that, you probably aren't going to get the value you seem to want (Turgeon=Kozlov). And acknowledging this is not the same thing as throwing out ballots or portraying someone as a victim. There's some middle ground between voting records being perfectly representative of reality and burning the ballots. Try to find it.



By virtue of coming out on the right side of a six-player race in 1980 among 94-92 point scorers for the #10-15 spots, a four-player race in 1981 among 104-103 point scorers for the #9-12 spots, and an eight-player race in 1985 among 103-100 point scorers for the #9-16 spots.

Top-10s are a good shorthand evaluation, but in the case of Federko/Turgeon, saying Federko has double the top-10s (a binary evaluation that essentially equates #10 with Wayne Gretzky and #11 with a non-player) can be somewhat light on value, particularly when much has been made about Turgeon consistently performing at the same level for many years on a per-game basis while falling just short of top-10 in the raw output.


I don't always agree with VsX, but recognition that #10 vs. #11 might not be much of a gap is part of the reason why we look beyond the scope of raw statistical rankings.

Fair enough, Federko seems to have more recognition and that's probably why he's in and Turgeon isn't
(even if it's a weak induction)

It's hard to put the effort in when you were insulted continuously

 

[ResilientBeast]

I think we can all agree regardless of our arguments either way the HHOF has looser criteria than we'd like evident by some of their selections

 

[GreatGonzo]

Or maybe just don't assign universal value to All-Star ballots - just as you would never assign universal value to 132 points.

Turgeon can be both a top-5 player in the league and also not a top-3 Center. Hell, you could take the sixth-best Center in 1992-93 or 1995-96, and he'd probably be 1st Team Center any year from 1997-2000, in case you think this is strictly a Left Wing vs. Center issue.

A 5-3-1 ballot might give you a good idea about who the best or second-best in a given year is, but beyond that, you probably aren't going to get the value you seem to want (Turgeon=Kozlov). And acknowledging this is not the same thing as throwing out ballots or portraying someone as a victim. There's some middle ground between voting records being perfectly representative of reality and burning the ballots. Try to find it.

By virtue of coming out on the right side of a six-player race in 1980 among 94-92 point scorers for the #10-15 spots, a four-player race in 1981 among 104-103 point scorers for the #9-12 spots, and an eight-player race in 1985 among 103-100 point scorers for the #9-16 spots.

Top-10s are a good shorthand evaluation, but in the case of Federko/Turgeon, saying Federko has double the top-10s (a binary evaluation that essentially equates #10 with Wayne Gretzky and #11 with a non-player) can be somewhat light on value, particularly when much has been made about Turgeon consistently performing at the same level for many years on a per-game basis while falling just short of top-10 in the raw output.

I don't always agree with VsX, but recognition that #10 vs. #11 might not be much of a gap is part of the reason why we look beyond the scope of raw statistical rankings.

In terms of value, I never said Kozlov>Turgeon or that they were in any way equal. I was saying is within those 2 years, even the writers/voters didn't see Turgeon as "more valuable."

It's not at all an issue between LW and center, it's the simply fact that Kariya actually distinguished himself among all LWers statistically and among voters/writers. That was met with a ton of criticism and whining due to the fact that Turgeon wasn't very much distinguished. I just feel it's weird for a guy with his numbers and his longevity to really never get that much recognition, and that's between the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s. Your going to tell me that he was merely a victim all that time?....

He had 10 votes, 7 of them coming in one year....all 3rd place. What sort of reasoning is there that anyone can come up with to justify that? All I'm reading is excuses.

 

[frisco]

In terms of value, I never said Kozlov>Turgeon or that they were in any way equal. I was saying is within those 2 years, even the writers/voters didn't see Turgeon as "more valuable."

It's not at all an issue between LW and center, it's the simply fact that Kariya actually distinguished himself among all LWers statistically and among voters/writers. That was met with a ton of criticism and whining due to the fact that Turgeon wasn't very much distinguished. I just feel it's weird for a guy with his numbers and his longevity to really never get that much recognition, and that's between the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s. Your going to tell me that he was merely a victim all that time?....

He had 10 votes, 7 of them coming in one year....all 3rd place. What sort of reasoning is there that anyone can come up with to justify that? All I'm reading is excuses.

It's a lot easier to distinguish yourself amongst Tkachuk, LeClair, Smyth, etc., than it is when there is a three-man ballot and Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Messier, Oates, Lafontaine are in their prime. That's all there is to it. Some times if you look beyond just the raw AS votes there is more to the story.

In 1989, for example, four C received AS votes. They all had at least 150 points (Nicholls, Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman). You could use this to draw the conclusion that LaFontaine, Oates, Hawerchuk, and Turgeon all must suck for not distinguishing themselves at C or you might more reasonably say, "Gee, C was a pretty stacked position that year. I bet some pretty good players got overlooked on the three man ballot". Of course, you probably looked at Gerard Gallant's 2nd place finish at AS LW and concluded he had a better season than Nicholls who only received two "puny" third place votes at C but had 70 goals and 150 points.

Again, your narrow view of AS voting as the only measure of value and your inability to look at the AS voting in any type of proper context has caused you to make grave errors in your evaluations.

My Best-Carey

 

[GreatGonzo]

It's a lot easier to distinguish yourself amongst Tkachuk, LeClair, Smyth, etc., than it is when there is a three-man ballot and Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Messier, Oates, Lafontaine are in their prime. That's all there is to it. Some times if you look beyond just the raw AS votes there is more to the story.

In 1989, for example, four C received AS votes. They all had at least 150 points (Nicholls, Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman). You could use this to draw the conclusion that LaFontaine, Oates, Hawerchuk, and Turgeon all must suck for not distinguishing themselves at C or you might more reasonably say, "Gee, C was a pretty stacked position that year. I bet some pretty good players got overlooked on the three man ballot". Of course, you probably looked at Gerard Gallant's 2nd place finish at AS LW and concluded he had a better season than Nicholls who only received two "puny" third place votes at C but had 70 goals and 150 points.

Again, your narrow view of AS voting as the only measure of value and your inability to look at the AS voting in any type of proper context has caused you to make grave errors in your evaluations.

My Best-Carey

But you do realize that it's not that Turgeon had a hard time gaining votes, it's that he had a hard time getting on the Ballot at all, where as guys like Roenick, Gilmore, Francis, and Sundin were still able to be on the Ballot more often and had more votes their way.....I'm still so confused how you still see Turgeons ONE vote in '93 '97 and '00 as a result of just the AS voting system being funky and there just being far to many great centers to compete with.

Even after Those guys you all named, and guys like Forsberg, Sakic, Lindros, And Modano started gaining ground in the league, he still had ONE vote....one. That's basically just that one writer giving him a bone. You put so much stock into One vote, where that one vote decided whether or not he would have been on the ballot in the first place.

That was 1990, not 1989. And Turgeon finished 7th in points and 6th in assists. Sure, it was a stacked position, but my problem is you glorifying the position and making it sound like he simply is just a victim. Your implying all these things that you feel he could have done if the position wasn't so stacked, fact is, we have what we have in front of him.

My narrow view? Your the one constantly saying how LW AS voting is a joke because it's "weaker", all while proclaiming the center position all while trying to pass this idea that We should just give Turgeon the benefit of the doubt....

 

[frisco]

Even after Those guys you all named, and guys like Forsberg, Sakic, Lindros, And Modano started gaining ground in the league, he still had ONE vote....one. .

At the risk of repeating myself Turgeon's career lined up with Messier, Lemieux, Gretzky, Forsberg, Yzerman, Sakic, LaFontaine, Oates, Francis, Lindros, Fedorov and I'm probably missing some guys. Literally the best players ever to play the game. The competition was simply better. How many HOFers did Kariya ever beat out at LW? Shanahan once or twice? A past prime Robitaille? This comparison is not relevant or remotely close in anyway.

My Best-Carey

 

[The Pale King]

How do people feel about Elias vs Turgeon?

Elias has the better AS voting record, the Cups as the best offensive player on his team. A more well-rounded player, for sure. But Turgeon has the offense, and the quotes about him being a quiet leader are contrary to the popular media narrative about his personality.

Elias always had the defensive structure behind him, both systems-wise and personnel. Something Turgeon rarely had. He's a guy I think a lot of people will be on the fence about when he's elligible. Personally I would put Elias in.

How would Turgeon have done coming up in the Devils system?

 

[Johnny Engine]

How do people feel about Elias vs Turgeon?

Elias has the better AS voting record, the Cups as the best offensive player on his team. A more well-rounded player, for sure. But Turgeon has the offense, and the quotes about him being a quiet leader are contrary to the popular media narrative about his personality.

Elias always had the defensive structure behind him, both systems-wise and personnel. Something Turgeon rarely had. He's a guy I think a lot of people will be on the fence about when he's elligible. Personally I would put Elias in.

How would Turgeon have done coming up in the Devils system?

My first inclination is to say he'd be traded almost immediately, that he'd be as uncomfortable a fit as Jimmy Carson with the intense, Messier led Oilers, or Phil Kessel with the grinding, Chara-led Bruins. While Elias seemed on the quiet, cerebral side for a hockey player, I can't say he seemed notably passive.
But hey, Stephane Richer played some great years with those Devils, so who knows.

 

[GreatGonzo]

At the risk of repeating myself Turgeon's career lined up with Messier, Lemieux, Gretzky, Forsberg, Yzerman, Sakic, LaFontaine, Oates, Francis, Lindros, Fedorov and I'm probably missing some guys. Literally the best players ever to play the game. The competition was simply better. How many HOFers did Kariya ever beat out at LW? Shanahan once or twice? A past prime Robitaille? This comparison is not relevant or remotely close in anyway.

My Best-Carey

Once again, giving Turgeon the benefit of the doubt while down playing Kariyas achievements.

Turgeon isn't a victim, just a great player who wasn't on par with the very best, and that's not because of the competition, it's because he was never on the level of Sakic, Yzerman, Fedorov, Forsberg....maybe even a step below guys like Gilmore, Francis, and Oates. Why can't you just accept that he simply wasn't as great as your making him out to be. He was an elite talent obviously, he has his big seasons, but overall was simply productive. Compared to the many other centers, he just didn't stack up to them the same. Even later in his career, the center postion wasn't exactly as stacked with talent....what's your excuse for when Lemieux was out and Gretzky had retired?

If Turgeon was "robbed" of AS votes due to the competition, then that means many other centers should have had better voting results. It's an excuse that can be used for really anyone not named Gretzky or Lemieux.

 

[GreatGonzo]

How do people feel about Elias vs Turgeon?

Elias has the better AS voting record, the Cups as the best offensive player on his team. A more well-rounded player, for sure. But Turgeon has the offense, and the quotes about him being a quiet leader are contrary to the popular media narrative about his personality.

Elias always had the defensive structure behind him, both systems-wise and personnel. Something Turgeon rarely had. He's a guy I think a lot of people will be on the fence about when he's elligible. Personally I would put Elias in.

How would Turgeon have done coming up in the Devils system?

Don't forget, as defensive as those devils teams were, they were 2nd and 1st in 2000
And 2001 in goals because of a guy like Elias leading the way.

 

[quoipourquoi]

If Turgeon was "robbed" of AS votes due to the competition, then that means many other centers should have had better voting results. It's an excuse that can be used for really anyone not named Gretzky or Lemieux.

If you think people are arguing that Turgeon was robbed of a place on a 5-3-1 ballot in his best years, then you are either not reading or not comprehending people's replies to you.