seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Having had the chance to retrospectively review the careers of both of these players (plus what I saw), I have come to the conclusion that these two players are closer than what we often let on.
I'd have never have even considered these two players in the same class, had it not been for MS, a poster from this section that I respect greatly. MS has a nasty habit of being right about practically everything, and he's made some arguments about Oates and Turgeon that I have to admit have been very compelling:
Yet, I don't think MS' arguments have made much of an impact on anyone in the HOH section aside from me. I managed to win the ATD (with 40 teams) with Turgeon as a 2nd line center, and while this may prove that I caused some of us armchair historians to begrudgingly admit that Turgeon was a pretty damn good offensive player, others might say that my team won despite Turgeon's presence.
This is not a poll because it should still be clear that Adam Oates was the better hockey player. But how big was the gap here? Let's break down their attributes as players.
Offense:
A preface to all of you who hate adjusted stats: I'm sorry, but I have no choice to use them here, in a couple of variations. These players had careers that overlapped by a period of 17 years, and the period in which both were offensively dominant at the same time was 13 years long. So you might think that no adjustments are necessary; however, scoring was much higher when Oates was at his best and lower when Turgeon was at his best. I am going to try to use a few angles to ensure I'm not missing anything. Since both players' legacies are heavily longevity-based, I will be focusing on a large number of seasons for each player.
Goal Scoring:
It should surprise no one if I declare that Turgeon was a significantly better goal scorer. He placed top-25 in the NHL in goals 7 times, while Oates was 19th in 1993 and 40th in 1994, and well below that in his next-best year.
Turgeon's best 10 goalscoring years according to hockey-reference.com's adjusted goals:
47 41 36 36 36 35 34 33 29 29
The bolded seasons for Turgeon, had he not missed significant games in four of his better seasons, would be 46, 44, 43, and 34.
The same for Oates:
37 29 24 23 22 21 21 19 18 16
Oates missed significant games twice, and had he played those games, the bolded seasons become 29 and 28.
Not much needs to be said.
Based on their ten best seasons as goalscorers, Turgeon appears to have been about 55% more prolific than Oates. Per-game, he was approximately 63% more prolific.
Playmaking:
It should be even less of a surprise to hear me say that Oates was a much better playmaker. Oates led the NHL in assists three times and was top-10 nine other times. Turgeon was top-10 three times, though he was in the top-25 five other times, and the difference between, say, 10th and 25th, was sometimes as little as 7 assists.
Turgeon's best 10 playmaking years according to hockey-reference.com's adjusted assists:
61 59 56 56 55 53 51 48 44 43
Had he not missed significant games in some of his best years, the bolded seasons become 72, 68, 62, and 47.
The same for Oates:
80 78 74 73 73 71 70 67 66 64
The bolded would become 105 and 75 had he played those seasons in full.
Based on their ten best seasons as playmakers, Oates appears to have been about 36% more prolific. Per-game, he was about 29% more prolific.
So where does that leave us? Turgeon's goalscoring edge appears to be greater than Oates' playmaking edge, and generally goalscoring is considered to be more important. Then again, it's not that simple. I deliberately didn't spend too much time on goals or assists separately because total points are more important. Points are a much better determinant of a player's offensive worth than goals or assists on their own.
Total Offense:
Using simple points rankings, Oates appears to have been the more dominant point producer. He was 3rd in points three times, and top-10 four other times, though surprisingly was only top-10 in points per game in three seasons (the three in which he was 3rd in points). He was top-25 in points six other times, for a total of 12. Turgeon was only top-10 twice (5th & 7th) but was also top-25 eight more timesfor a total of ten. Sometimes as few as 8 points separated 10th and 25th. Here are a few measures to understand how far apart their best point totals were:
Using hockey-reference.com's adjusted points, these are Turgeon's best 10 years:
106 92 89 89 88 86 84 80 78 74
The bolded would be 114, 107, 105, & 91 had Turgeon maintained his pace over full seasons instead of being injured.
Same for Oates:
115 102 102 92 89 88 88 88 88 85
The bolded "would be" 134 and 103.
By this metric, Oates was producing points at a level that was 8% better than Turgeon's level. Per-game, he only outpointed him by about 2%. Turgeon was extremely unfortunate to get injured in some of his finest seasons.
One other adjusted metric to use is "vs. #2". This was pioneered by BM67 but my recent tweaks remove outliers Mario and Wayne, as well as any players who finished very high in the scoring race thanks largely to these two. It also removes Yzerman in 1989 and Jagr in 1996. Then it compares the player's yearly point total to that of the 2nd-highest scorer remaining. here are the best percentage scores for Turgeon:
93 89 86 85 84 83 83 80 75 70
The bolded could have been 110, 103, & 102, had Turgeon played the full schedule.
same for Oates:
100 100 100 93 87 85 84 83 80 80
The bolded could have been 131, 94, & 84 had Oates not missed significant games three times.
By this metric, Oates was, relative to the game's finest non-outlier producers, about 8% more productive than Turgeon. Per-game, he was 3% more productive.
Basically the same result either way.
So a good question to ask is, does playing about 5% more games in his prime and scoring about 3% more per game make Oates such a better player that we should all clamour for his HHOF induction, while Turgeon continues to buy tickets to get in?
If you believe that point totals can tell us each of these players' true offensive values, then you can skip past the next two sections. It's a valid point that with players of this caliber, all points are worth about the same - PP, SH, ES, goal, 1st assist, 2nd assist, good linemates, poor linemates. It could be true. It also might not be.
Importance of Goalscoring?
With 1.7 assists awarded per goal, Oates and Turgeon's point totals were heavily influenced by assists even though most fans consider a goal scored to have somewhat more value than an assist earned. Turgeon was a very underrated goalscorer, being a center who was also known for his pretty passes, and his advantage on the goalscoring side of things is actually more than the one Oates enjoys in playmaking. So is it arguable that he was actually more valuable offensively because of this?
Determining the value of a goal relative to an assist is tricky business and everyone seems to have their own way to do it. Furthermore, it can be a moving target based on which players you're talking about. I'm going to use a standard method and you can choose to throw it out if you like since I am not even sure how I feel about it: Goals Created. It's a very simple offensive stat used by hockey-reference.com that weighs goals as worth more than assists. I think that no matter what kind of formula you use, as long as it puts goals on an even footing with assists, or even more than even, it will favour Turgeon, just like "raw" totals favour Oates slightly. here goes:
"adjusted" goals created for Turgeon, best 10 seasons:
42 35 34 34 34 33 31 30 30 29
with full GP credit in 1992, 1994, 1998, 1999, 2000:
43 42 39 39 36 36 35 34 34 34
"adjusted" goals created for Oates, best 10 seasons:
41 36 33 31 31 29 29 29 28 28
with full GP credit in 1991 & 1999:
44 41 36 33 31 31 29 29 29 29
by this metric which, rightly or wrongly, highly values goals over assists, Turgeon was about 5% more dominant offensively than Oates, and about 12% more dominant per game.
Linemates
These were both great players but I don't think either falls under the category of "they'd get their points no matter who they played with"... they are not Gretzky or Lemieux, they're not Sakic, Yzerman, or Forsberg. They're a step below. I think linemates do have some effect on what kinds of totals they were able to put up.
Oates had what can best be described as a mutually beneficial partnership with Brett Hull. Hull never scored less than 70 goals when Oates was on his team, and never more than 57 without. That looks really good for Oates. Oates was also feeding Neely while Neely was at his most prolific per-game rate: 1992-1995. Oates then got to play with Bondra, who led the league in goals with Oates (having already done so without Oates) and somehow managed to make Chris Simon a top-20 goalscorer for one season.
Turgeon didn't turn 57-goal scorers into 70-goal scorers, because he never played with a winger who had that kind of potential. What he did do was give Derek King his only 30-goal seasons (30, 38, 40) - King later played with Sundin, scoring 21 and 24 goals. Is that as impressive a resume? Hardly, but it does serve as an illustration of what kind of material each player was given to work with.
Turgeon led his team in scoring by margins of 45, 24, 19, 18, and 15 points.
Oates' best comparable team-leading margins were 40, 18 (adjusted, lockout), and 17. Oates never led the Blues in scoring - Hull had more points each time. Bondra also took the Caps' points lead more often than Oates did.
Oates was on pace to lead his team by a comfortable margin two other seasons, but Turgeon also was in three other seasons. When you look at Oates' career, it's remarkable how infrequently he was his team's best offensive player compared to what you may think.
Conclusion:
Offensively, these are two very comparable offensive players. The major gap between this conclusion and general perception stems from the following:
- Oates' playmaking was both significantly better than Turgeon's and often a top-5 level in the league. While Turgeon enjoyed a similar edge over Oates in goalscoring, he did not get the same recognition, being just a top-25 guy most often. To put it in reverse, Oates was an extremely mediocre goalscorer, but Turgeon's playmaking was far but mediocre. Only one player was excellent at either, and he's getting the bulk of the credit because so many people still look at goals and assists in vaccuums.
- Turgeon is perceived at being so horrible at everything other than piling up points, that people diminish his offensive skills, as though his points somehow meant less.
Just how comparable they are, really comes down to a few things that you will personally have to decide:
- How much teammates and linemates matter in the production levels of these players,
- How much more, if at all, goalscoring should be valued compared to playmaking.
- How important is just being a good player, as opposed to staying healthy for 12-30 more games in a few seasons throughout your career for prettier finishes and totals. (example, Crosby did not have the best season but he did clearly demonstrate he was the best player, in the same way you could say Turgeon had four seasons where he didn't have a top-10 season but was a top-10 offensive player)
I think offensive output constitutes the majority of these players' values but it is important to take a look at everything else as well.
Defense: Adam Oates was glorified by the media defensively, in a Joe Nieuwendyk kind of way. I think that he was good at best, not great. The defensive reputation that he somehow got, appears to have a lot to do with his faceoff abilities and not a lot to do with actual goal production, as his ESGA/GP stats are very high for a player of his stature. For example, he averaged 0.95 adjusted ESGA/GP. Turgeon averaged 0.74. Oates was the beneficiary of better goaltending (Cujo/Kolzig vs. Puppa and late career Fuhr) and better defensemen (Bourque, an extremely solid and balanced WSH corps vs. Housley - who would have made things worse - Malakhov/Norton/Krupp/Kurvers - seriously! - and finally greener pastures with the MacInnis/Pronger situation in STL)
The numbers don't indicate Oates was a better defensive player and though their reputations say that he was, the extreme gap that we're seeing in the numbers is a good indication that even if they're lying to us a bit, these two players are even.
Grit/Toughness/Competitiveness:
Two Lady Byng Trophy winners. MS said it best: one gets raked over the coals for it, the other sees it get brushed off. I am not going to pretend that they are on the same level though. Turgeon's softness is legendary, while Oates did have more of a competitive streak for a longer time in his career. But if you think Oates places considerable distance between himself and Turgeon in this category, you are dreaming.
Intangibles/Personality/Leadership:
Oates was never a captain. Turgeon was, but he wasn't really a good one. That's a wash. Oates held out for more money and then asked for a trade when he was in St. Louis. Take off some points there. Turgeon, on the other hand, despite supposedly being "the Tin Man" on the ice, was a good teammate who was well-liked. No one ever said he didn't want to win, or only cared about himself or his stats. He won't make anyone's leadership lists, but he was a good guy and was far from selfish.
Playoffs:
- Neither won a cup, but Oates came closer, playing in two finals. Turgeon never got there.
- Oates got to the semis a total of four times; Turgeon did it twice.
- Oates got to round two eight times, Turgeon just four.
How much of this rests on their shoulders, and how much rests on their teammates? Let's dig a bit deeper:
- Point-per-game playoffs: Oates: 7. Turgeon: 8.
- Leading team in playoff goals/points with 4+: Oates: 7. Turgeon: 5 (was a Hunter cheap shot away from a 6th)
Looking at playoff production, though, it's clear Oates was the better postseason producer. He played in 50% more playoff games, averaging 8% more points per game.
The above calculation skews the comparison slightly, though: Oates played in four playoffs past the age of 35 that dragged his career average down. As of 1998, Oates had played 126 games, scoring 138 points (1.10/GP). At that age, Turgeon had 95 in 104 (.91/GP). The gap isn't as wide as it looks, since Turgeon's three longest playoff runs were in 1997, 1998 and 2000, while Oates had six playoff runs of 12-16 games from 1987-1994. Still, there is a definite gap in their playoff production.
Turgeon deserves his share of the blame for his teams often failing to go anywhere, but only his share. If you look at the list of starting goalies his teams took into the playoffs throughout his years as a top producer, it's downright embarrassing:
a struggling young Puppa/Barrasso tandem (.856), Jacques Cloutier (.856), Puppa (.922), a three-headed Buffalo mediocrity monster (.842), Healy (.887), a McLennan/Hextall tandem (.827!!!), Thibault (.904), three years of Fuhr (Finally, .908!), and then two years of Turek (.908).
Conclusion:
These two players are similar and overvaluing of assists and sensationalization of Turgeon's flaws are the only reason they are perceived to be as much as 300 spots apart on a "top players" list.
I'm not about to start touting Turgeon for the HHOF, but I will say that he has HHOF numbers and offensive dominance similar to a lot of enshrined modern centers (and, honestly, better than some too). At the same time, I am not as high on Oates as I once was. Though I do still want to see him in the hall, I don't see it as the same degree of glaring omission that some others see it as.
I'd have never have even considered these two players in the same class, had it not been for MS, a poster from this section that I respect greatly. MS has a nasty habit of being right about practically everything, and he's made some arguments about Oates and Turgeon that I have to admit have been very compelling:
Turgeon is a guy who was really bitten by injuries at bad times - missed substantial time in 3 of his best 4 seasons when he was going to finish way up the scoring ladder :
1993-94 - 94 points in 69 games ... pro-rated is 114 points, which would have placed 3rd in NHL scoring.
1997-98 - 68 points in 60 games ... pro-rated is 92 points, which would have finised 2nd in NHL scoring.
1999-00 - 66 points in 52 games ... pro-rated is 104 points, which would have won the Art Ross Trophy.
Now, obviously being durable is a skill, and full marks to Ratelle for rarely missing games. But Turgeon was every bit as good offensively when he was playing, and maybe better. If he would have been playing 75-80 games every year, he would have had 4 other seasons good enough to put him top-10 in scoring, and in the seasons above would have cruised to top-5 finishes.
Defensively, yeah, maybe Ratelle has an edge, but he wasn't superb in that regard either. And Turgeon was actually better in the playoffs than Ratelle.
Ratelle's playoff record in New York really, really, *really* bugs me. It's frankly shocking how terrible he was for that club, and makes it impossible for me not to view him as a really soft player. And his performance in the '72 Summit Series doesn't help in that regard, either.
Yup. Turgeon was crucified for playing an 'emotionless' game but he was actually a quite good playoff performer when you look at the numbers. His 2001 playoffs in particular were near-brilliant .... he was pretty much the entire St. Louis offense in leading them to the Conference Finals.
__________
I've made the point before that it's funny how the blame was apportioned for Buffalo's playoff failures in the 1980s/early 1990s. Guys like Turgeon and Housley were actually not that bad, but their second-line/support players were absolutely terrible.
Turgeon scored 25 points in 23 playoff games as a Sabre but became the 'Tin Man' for doing so while his #2 center Christian Ruutuu was one of the worst playoff performers ever - 4 goals, 13 points in 42 games. Buffalo lost because of guys like Ruutuu, not guys like Turgeon.
Yet, I don't think MS' arguments have made much of an impact on anyone in the HOH section aside from me. I managed to win the ATD (with 40 teams) with Turgeon as a 2nd line center, and while this may prove that I caused some of us armchair historians to begrudgingly admit that Turgeon was a pretty damn good offensive player, others might say that my team won despite Turgeon's presence.
This is not a poll because it should still be clear that Adam Oates was the better hockey player. But how big was the gap here? Let's break down their attributes as players.
Offense:
A preface to all of you who hate adjusted stats: I'm sorry, but I have no choice to use them here, in a couple of variations. These players had careers that overlapped by a period of 17 years, and the period in which both were offensively dominant at the same time was 13 years long. So you might think that no adjustments are necessary; however, scoring was much higher when Oates was at his best and lower when Turgeon was at his best. I am going to try to use a few angles to ensure I'm not missing anything. Since both players' legacies are heavily longevity-based, I will be focusing on a large number of seasons for each player.
Goal Scoring:
It should surprise no one if I declare that Turgeon was a significantly better goal scorer. He placed top-25 in the NHL in goals 7 times, while Oates was 19th in 1993 and 40th in 1994, and well below that in his next-best year.
Turgeon's best 10 goalscoring years according to hockey-reference.com's adjusted goals:
47 41 36 36 36 35 34 33 29 29
The bolded seasons for Turgeon, had he not missed significant games in four of his better seasons, would be 46, 44, 43, and 34.
The same for Oates:
37 29 24 23 22 21 21 19 18 16
Oates missed significant games twice, and had he played those games, the bolded seasons become 29 and 28.
Not much needs to be said.
Based on their ten best seasons as goalscorers, Turgeon appears to have been about 55% more prolific than Oates. Per-game, he was approximately 63% more prolific.
Playmaking:
It should be even less of a surprise to hear me say that Oates was a much better playmaker. Oates led the NHL in assists three times and was top-10 nine other times. Turgeon was top-10 three times, though he was in the top-25 five other times, and the difference between, say, 10th and 25th, was sometimes as little as 7 assists.
Turgeon's best 10 playmaking years according to hockey-reference.com's adjusted assists:
61 59 56 56 55 53 51 48 44 43
Had he not missed significant games in some of his best years, the bolded seasons become 72, 68, 62, and 47.
The same for Oates:
80 78 74 73 73 71 70 67 66 64
The bolded would become 105 and 75 had he played those seasons in full.
Based on their ten best seasons as playmakers, Oates appears to have been about 36% more prolific. Per-game, he was about 29% more prolific.
So where does that leave us? Turgeon's goalscoring edge appears to be greater than Oates' playmaking edge, and generally goalscoring is considered to be more important. Then again, it's not that simple. I deliberately didn't spend too much time on goals or assists separately because total points are more important. Points are a much better determinant of a player's offensive worth than goals or assists on their own.
Total Offense:
Using simple points rankings, Oates appears to have been the more dominant point producer. He was 3rd in points three times, and top-10 four other times, though surprisingly was only top-10 in points per game in three seasons (the three in which he was 3rd in points). He was top-25 in points six other times, for a total of 12. Turgeon was only top-10 twice (5th & 7th) but was also top-25 eight more timesfor a total of ten. Sometimes as few as 8 points separated 10th and 25th. Here are a few measures to understand how far apart their best point totals were:
Using hockey-reference.com's adjusted points, these are Turgeon's best 10 years:
106 92 89 89 88 86 84 80 78 74
The bolded would be 114, 107, 105, & 91 had Turgeon maintained his pace over full seasons instead of being injured.
Same for Oates:
115 102 102 92 89 88 88 88 88 85
The bolded "would be" 134 and 103.
By this metric, Oates was producing points at a level that was 8% better than Turgeon's level. Per-game, he only outpointed him by about 2%. Turgeon was extremely unfortunate to get injured in some of his finest seasons.
One other adjusted metric to use is "vs. #2". This was pioneered by BM67 but my recent tweaks remove outliers Mario and Wayne, as well as any players who finished very high in the scoring race thanks largely to these two. It also removes Yzerman in 1989 and Jagr in 1996. Then it compares the player's yearly point total to that of the 2nd-highest scorer remaining. here are the best percentage scores for Turgeon:
93 89 86 85 84 83 83 80 75 70
The bolded could have been 110, 103, & 102, had Turgeon played the full schedule.
same for Oates:
100 100 100 93 87 85 84 83 80 80
The bolded could have been 131, 94, & 84 had Oates not missed significant games three times.
By this metric, Oates was, relative to the game's finest non-outlier producers, about 8% more productive than Turgeon. Per-game, he was 3% more productive.
Basically the same result either way.
So a good question to ask is, does playing about 5% more games in his prime and scoring about 3% more per game make Oates such a better player that we should all clamour for his HHOF induction, while Turgeon continues to buy tickets to get in?
If you believe that point totals can tell us each of these players' true offensive values, then you can skip past the next two sections. It's a valid point that with players of this caliber, all points are worth about the same - PP, SH, ES, goal, 1st assist, 2nd assist, good linemates, poor linemates. It could be true. It also might not be.
Importance of Goalscoring?
With 1.7 assists awarded per goal, Oates and Turgeon's point totals were heavily influenced by assists even though most fans consider a goal scored to have somewhat more value than an assist earned. Turgeon was a very underrated goalscorer, being a center who was also known for his pretty passes, and his advantage on the goalscoring side of things is actually more than the one Oates enjoys in playmaking. So is it arguable that he was actually more valuable offensively because of this?
Determining the value of a goal relative to an assist is tricky business and everyone seems to have their own way to do it. Furthermore, it can be a moving target based on which players you're talking about. I'm going to use a standard method and you can choose to throw it out if you like since I am not even sure how I feel about it: Goals Created. It's a very simple offensive stat used by hockey-reference.com that weighs goals as worth more than assists. I think that no matter what kind of formula you use, as long as it puts goals on an even footing with assists, or even more than even, it will favour Turgeon, just like "raw" totals favour Oates slightly. here goes:
"adjusted" goals created for Turgeon, best 10 seasons:
42 35 34 34 34 33 31 30 30 29
with full GP credit in 1992, 1994, 1998, 1999, 2000:
43 42 39 39 36 36 35 34 34 34
"adjusted" goals created for Oates, best 10 seasons:
41 36 33 31 31 29 29 29 28 28
with full GP credit in 1991 & 1999:
44 41 36 33 31 31 29 29 29 29
by this metric which, rightly or wrongly, highly values goals over assists, Turgeon was about 5% more dominant offensively than Oates, and about 12% more dominant per game.
Linemates
These were both great players but I don't think either falls under the category of "they'd get their points no matter who they played with"... they are not Gretzky or Lemieux, they're not Sakic, Yzerman, or Forsberg. They're a step below. I think linemates do have some effect on what kinds of totals they were able to put up.
Oates had what can best be described as a mutually beneficial partnership with Brett Hull. Hull never scored less than 70 goals when Oates was on his team, and never more than 57 without. That looks really good for Oates. Oates was also feeding Neely while Neely was at his most prolific per-game rate: 1992-1995. Oates then got to play with Bondra, who led the league in goals with Oates (having already done so without Oates) and somehow managed to make Chris Simon a top-20 goalscorer for one season.
Turgeon didn't turn 57-goal scorers into 70-goal scorers, because he never played with a winger who had that kind of potential. What he did do was give Derek King his only 30-goal seasons (30, 38, 40) - King later played with Sundin, scoring 21 and 24 goals. Is that as impressive a resume? Hardly, but it does serve as an illustration of what kind of material each player was given to work with.
Turgeon led his team in scoring by margins of 45, 24, 19, 18, and 15 points.
Oates' best comparable team-leading margins were 40, 18 (adjusted, lockout), and 17. Oates never led the Blues in scoring - Hull had more points each time. Bondra also took the Caps' points lead more often than Oates did.
Oates was on pace to lead his team by a comfortable margin two other seasons, but Turgeon also was in three other seasons. When you look at Oates' career, it's remarkable how infrequently he was his team's best offensive player compared to what you may think.
Conclusion:
Offensively, these are two very comparable offensive players. The major gap between this conclusion and general perception stems from the following:
- Oates' playmaking was both significantly better than Turgeon's and often a top-5 level in the league. While Turgeon enjoyed a similar edge over Oates in goalscoring, he did not get the same recognition, being just a top-25 guy most often. To put it in reverse, Oates was an extremely mediocre goalscorer, but Turgeon's playmaking was far but mediocre. Only one player was excellent at either, and he's getting the bulk of the credit because so many people still look at goals and assists in vaccuums.
- Turgeon is perceived at being so horrible at everything other than piling up points, that people diminish his offensive skills, as though his points somehow meant less.
Just how comparable they are, really comes down to a few things that you will personally have to decide:
- How much teammates and linemates matter in the production levels of these players,
- How much more, if at all, goalscoring should be valued compared to playmaking.
- How important is just being a good player, as opposed to staying healthy for 12-30 more games in a few seasons throughout your career for prettier finishes and totals. (example, Crosby did not have the best season but he did clearly demonstrate he was the best player, in the same way you could say Turgeon had four seasons where he didn't have a top-10 season but was a top-10 offensive player)
I think offensive output constitutes the majority of these players' values but it is important to take a look at everything else as well.
Defense: Adam Oates was glorified by the media defensively, in a Joe Nieuwendyk kind of way. I think that he was good at best, not great. The defensive reputation that he somehow got, appears to have a lot to do with his faceoff abilities and not a lot to do with actual goal production, as his ESGA/GP stats are very high for a player of his stature. For example, he averaged 0.95 adjusted ESGA/GP. Turgeon averaged 0.74. Oates was the beneficiary of better goaltending (Cujo/Kolzig vs. Puppa and late career Fuhr) and better defensemen (Bourque, an extremely solid and balanced WSH corps vs. Housley - who would have made things worse - Malakhov/Norton/Krupp/Kurvers - seriously! - and finally greener pastures with the MacInnis/Pronger situation in STL)
The numbers don't indicate Oates was a better defensive player and though their reputations say that he was, the extreme gap that we're seeing in the numbers is a good indication that even if they're lying to us a bit, these two players are even.
Grit/Toughness/Competitiveness:
Two Lady Byng Trophy winners. MS said it best: one gets raked over the coals for it, the other sees it get brushed off. I am not going to pretend that they are on the same level though. Turgeon's softness is legendary, while Oates did have more of a competitive streak for a longer time in his career. But if you think Oates places considerable distance between himself and Turgeon in this category, you are dreaming.
Intangibles/Personality/Leadership:
Oates was never a captain. Turgeon was, but he wasn't really a good one. That's a wash. Oates held out for more money and then asked for a trade when he was in St. Louis. Take off some points there. Turgeon, on the other hand, despite supposedly being "the Tin Man" on the ice, was a good teammate who was well-liked. No one ever said he didn't want to win, or only cared about himself or his stats. He won't make anyone's leadership lists, but he was a good guy and was far from selfish.
Playoffs:
- Neither won a cup, but Oates came closer, playing in two finals. Turgeon never got there.
- Oates got to the semis a total of four times; Turgeon did it twice.
- Oates got to round two eight times, Turgeon just four.
How much of this rests on their shoulders, and how much rests on their teammates? Let's dig a bit deeper:
- Point-per-game playoffs: Oates: 7. Turgeon: 8.
- Leading team in playoff goals/points with 4+: Oates: 7. Turgeon: 5 (was a Hunter cheap shot away from a 6th)
Looking at playoff production, though, it's clear Oates was the better postseason producer. He played in 50% more playoff games, averaging 8% more points per game.
The above calculation skews the comparison slightly, though: Oates played in four playoffs past the age of 35 that dragged his career average down. As of 1998, Oates had played 126 games, scoring 138 points (1.10/GP). At that age, Turgeon had 95 in 104 (.91/GP). The gap isn't as wide as it looks, since Turgeon's three longest playoff runs were in 1997, 1998 and 2000, while Oates had six playoff runs of 12-16 games from 1987-1994. Still, there is a definite gap in their playoff production.
Turgeon deserves his share of the blame for his teams often failing to go anywhere, but only his share. If you look at the list of starting goalies his teams took into the playoffs throughout his years as a top producer, it's downright embarrassing:
a struggling young Puppa/Barrasso tandem (.856), Jacques Cloutier (.856), Puppa (.922), a three-headed Buffalo mediocrity monster (.842), Healy (.887), a McLennan/Hextall tandem (.827!!!), Thibault (.904), three years of Fuhr (Finally, .908!), and then two years of Turek (.908).
Conclusion:
These two players are similar and overvaluing of assists and sensationalization of Turgeon's flaws are the only reason they are perceived to be as much as 300 spots apart on a "top players" list.
I'm not about to start touting Turgeon for the HHOF, but I will say that he has HHOF numbers and offensive dominance similar to a lot of enshrined modern centers (and, honestly, better than some too). At the same time, I am not as high on Oates as I once was. Though I do still want to see him in the hall, I don't see it as the same degree of glaring omission that some others see it as.
