What to Make of John Tavares' Career?

[Hockey Outsider]

What? Andreychuk was far more effective in Tampa in the twilight of his career then Turgeon. Turgeon was absolutely terrible in Dallas and Colorado.

You're new to HOH, so I'll explain that term. We generally use "compiler" to refer to a player who has high career totals, but who didn't have a high peak. That doesn't really apply to Turgeon, who was a top twenty scorer eight times (he finished 5th, 7th, 13th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th and 18th). That label definitely applies to Andreychuk, who finished 11 points ahead of Turgeon for his career, but who was only a top twenty scorer twice (9th and 16th).

The other big difference is Andreychuk spent much longer padding his career totals (and he did it primarily as a 3rd line forward - Turgeon, in his later years, was still a second line centre). Turgeon's "stat padding" phase was in Dallas and Colorado (286 games). In Andreychuk's case, it was 556 games - almost twice as long. Andreychuk only topped 40 points once in his final eight seasons; Turgeon topped 40 points in four of those five seasons (despite playing fewer than 70 games in four of those five years). I agree that late-career Andreychuk was a better all-around player than late-career Turgeon, but if we're talking about which player padded their career totals (and hence was a "compiler"), that was all Andreychuk.

 

[Gorskyontario]

You're new to HOH, so I'll explain that term. We generally use "compiler" to refer to a player who has high career totals, but who didn't have a high peak. That doesn't really apply to Turgeon, who was a top twenty scorer eight times (he finished 5th, 7th, 13th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th and 18th). That label definitely applies to Andreychuk, who finished 11 points ahead of Turgeon for his career, but who was only a top twenty scorer twice (9th and 16th).

The other big difference is Andreychuk spent much longer padding his career totals (and he did it primarily as a 3rd line forward - Turgeon, in his later years, was still a second line centre). Turgeon's "stat padding" phase was in Dallas and Colorado (286 games). In Andreychuk's case, it was 556 games - almost twice as long. Andreychuk only topped 40 points once in his final eight seasons; Turgeon topped 40 points in four of those five seasons (despite playing fewer than 70 games in four of those five years). I agree that late-career Andreychuk was a better all-around player than late-career Turgeon, but if we're talking about which player padded their career totals (and hence was a "compiler"), that was all Andreychuk.

Define padding because Andreychuk captained a team to the Stanley cup in one of those 'late seasons'. How exactly is playing for as long as possible 'padding his totals'? He was scoring 20 goals and ~40 points a year.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Define padding because Andreychuk captained a team to the Stanley cup in one of those 'late seasons'. How exactly is playing for as long as possible 'padding his totals'? He was scoring 20 goals and ~40 points a year.

In 1996-97, he hit 61 points in 82 games at age 33. This was the last time he broke 50 points or 25 goals

His goal placements starting at age 34.

1998 - 14 goals (150th)
1999 - 15 goals (140th)
2000 - 20 goals (98th)
2001 - 20 goals (100th)
2002 - 21 goals (89th)
2003 - 20 goals (100th)
2004 - 21 goals (74th)

A total of 131 goals, pushing him from 509 goals all-time (24th) to 640 goals (11th).

Even in the 2004 playoffs, his 1 goal in 23 games isn't anything to get excited about.

It's considered a compiling because it was the back half of his career, where he wasn't a top 75 goal-scorer in the league, that pushed him from non-HHOF goal totals, to HHOF.

 

[The Macho King]

I never thought Andreychuk being described as a "stat-padder" would be a contentious statement.

It's not to say he wasn't an effective player, or important to his teams. But he certainly was no longer a star.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think it's just a lack of familiarity with the term and the impact. I can't imagine that this will continue once it's explained. It's like Bill Gates making $20 zillion a year in his prime, and then counting his social security checks under the category, "damn, he's still got it!"

 

[Gorskyontario]

I understand the term, I just don't think it applies. Andreychuk was still a useful player, and still helped his teams win games(and a championship). Regardless of his 'loss in effectiveness'. The comparison given with Turgeon also doesn't make sense to me because, no offense to Turgeon he was pretty useless in Dallas and Colorado.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'm not here to defend Turgeon's last few years either. Andreychuk did become a tougher player to play against during the 04 run. It came at a huge cost of offense. That's usually a good hint about the completeness and the development of a player. Andreychuk was either a good defensive player OR he had meaningful production. And that was the case most of his career really...

But again, "useful" is small potatoes when we're talking about an all time scale. I'm not gonna use it against him, but I'm not gonna throw a party for a 20 goal season where most of them came on the power play off the work of Brad Richards. Was Andreychuk even involved in the zone entries for those Tampa teams?

 

[WarriorofTime]

"Compilers" and "padding" are just pejorative terms to deride players with good longevity. It's because in hockey, raw totals are kind of the thing people look towards. 50 goals! 100 points! etc. etc., as opposed to averaged totals (30 ppg in Basketball). And this can get carried into all time discussions (500 goals! 1,000 points!) So the "issue" but that's not really an "issue" is that there can be a disconnect between where someone ranks in terms of career totals and how they are perceived, for obvious reasons, a player that plays 18 more seasons has a lot more opportunity to build up their career numbers compared to one that plays 13.

Where the term becomes unfair is that it sort of gives an impression of a guy that is barely able to hang on, just slowly but surely adding a marginal number of points each year but that add up over time. It doesn't give a lot of respect to the fact that being able to maintain a productive level of play over a longer period does deserve its own level of praise. So they'll see a guy that puts up 50 points at age 37 and say he was a "compiler" and it almost gives off the impression that this is somehow less honorable than retiring once a player is no longer at his peak or that they are gaming the system to speak in order to boost their place on all time stat lists.

 

[Gorskyontario]

I'm not here to defend Turgeon's last few years either. Andreychuk did become a tougher player to play against during the 04 run. It came at a huge cost of offense. That's usually a good hint about the completeness and the development of a player. Andreychuk was either a good defensive player OR he had meaningful production. And that was the case most of his career really...

But again, "useful" is small potatoes when we're talking about an all time scale. I'm not gonna use it against him, but I'm not gonna throw a party for a 20 goal season where most of them came on the power play off the work of Brad Richards. Was Andreychuk even involved in the zone entries for those Tampa teams?

I don't think you should throw him a party. I also don't think Andreychuk should be in the HHOF all things considered. I also don't think his longevity should be used against him to cheapen his career by calling him a 'compiler'. As if he hung around for no reason other then to score 600 or 650 goals whatever he has.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Andreychuk didn't get a 50 point season the last 8 years of his career (not even 40 most of the time) while getting top PP time most of that time.

It's not like it was a secret. He got traded in 1996 and netted less in a trade than Yuri Khmylev, way less than Doug Bodger. He returned more in line with end of line Esa Tikkanen and end of the line Craig Janney (who was also productive down the line, but just not a lot of residue on the game...not a lot impact overall).

But guys in their 30's can still produce and adjust their game or round out their game...Yzerman, Beliveau, Crosby...and if you want to really drop the tiers down, even Ron Francis, Patrice Bergeron...

I'm a big measurer of impact seasons for the purposes of ranking players. I don't doubt that you can find a way to 33 points in an NHL season if you used to be an all star. I'm not interested in that though. Why would I be? Your Ruslan Fedotenko production but with twice the opportunity doesn't move the needle. But meanwhile, it's the pyramid at the top of these raw totals lists. So, you hang on for 4, 5, 6, 8 seasons of Vaclav Varada production and you jump from 71st all time in points to 27th or whatever...it kind of skews just how good you were. And a lot of - ahem - indelicate folks that talk about history will look at that list and go, "hey! he's actually one of the [best whatever] players" but that wasn't the case.

So, it's not that Andreychuk wasn't good or that he somehow hurt the Lightning...I don't believe that's true. But our measure here, isn't "was he better than a replacement player" or "was he better than Alexander Svitov" ...it's more about the needle-moving seasons or just a "plus" season.

I give him credit for digging in and being a big part of a Cup run. He's getting credit for winning that Cup. I don't need to "double dip" and give that 3rd-ish line center a medal for that regular season too...

 

[CokenoPepsi]

Tavares will get in the hall with his 500 goals, 1300ish points and Toronto boost.

But yeah, tough guy to rank, has one first team all star and two hart finalists ranks...but I think we can all say at max he the 5th best C of his generation (behind Crosby, Malkin, Bergeron, Kopitar) and that being generous

 

[ResilientBeast]

But yeah, tough guy to rank, has one first team all star and two hart finalists ranks...but I think we can all say at max he the 5th best C of his generation (behind Crosby, Malkin, Bergeron, Kopitar) and that being generous

I'd pretty comfortably toss Toews and Stamkos onto that pile.

 

[The Macho King]

I mean - hockey is a weird sport in that an older player who has lost a lot *can* still be a valuable piece to a team in a way that is less clear in other sports. In basketball, if you're not a starter or sixth man you're probably playing not a ton without a lot of chances to contribute. Starters have such an outsized impact in the NBA that once a player stops being that they kind of fade. In the NFL you are blocking a spot from someone else - maybe you can play situationally but it's very limited. In the MLB - you can maybe be moved around the lineup/DH, but ultimately you are blocking a spot or playing sporadically.

In the NHL, if you're the 3rd best guy at your position on a team you play a quarter of the game, and the stars only play about a third (obviously caveat with defenseman). You still have plenty of room to produce, even if you're not getting prime opportunities. Just a weird quirk of the differences in sports.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Let me ask a question that's related:

Stamkos has had two Cups and Two Rockets, but can you not say that he didn't reach the heights he was supposed to either? Maybe if Tavares had gone to Tampa he would have two cups and the conversation would be different. I don't see one as significantly better than the other.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Stamkos got hurt and became way less than he could have been. He's also the worst playoff player (relative to reputation/skill level/etc.) of his generation...which doesn't help.

In this thread, I don't think the organization that Tavares got picked by is getting enough discredit for how bad of a situation they created for him. I mentioned that two of his top linemates were...not...something. I think both got bought out of their "next" contracts, after the Isles pulled them out of the dump. Stamkos had the luxury of not being a top 5 player on his own team in any of their many long playoff runs. The franchise center could be moved to wing freely and it didn't impact their ability to be great. Stamkos landed in what turned out to be a great spot...it wasn't amazing early, he had to deal with Melrose and all that...but shaped up real nice.

Tavares was a mule that not only was trying to climb a mountain with a lot of extra weight on his back, but he was going up that mountain on a gradually down escalator...

 

[K Fleur]

This may sound crazy but Is Erik Karlsson really that far ahead of Jeff Beukeboom?

No doubt EK dominated his teams scoring and won a bunch of Norris trophies but Beukeboom did play for Edmonton…

I’m just saying it’s close!

 

[CokenoPepsi]

I'd pretty comfortably toss Toews and Stamkos onto that pile.

Yeah which is why I say it being generous to give him top 5.

Now thinking yeah I think the top 5 is set with Stamkos...JT and JT fight it out with the others for the other group

 

[Michael Farkas]

This may sound crazy but Is Erik Karlsson really that far ahead of Jeff Beukeboom?

No doubt EK dominated his teams scoring and won a bunch of Norris trophies but Beukeboom did play for Edmonton…

I’m just saying it’s close!

What?!?! That's absolutely crazy...

...that you wouldn't mention that he played for the 1994 New York Rangers. The most best team in the history of teams, in the history of the word "best", and the fact that every single player, coach, and trainer from that team isn't the HOF is really a travesty...at least, that's what I've come to understand over the years.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I mean - hockey is a weird sport in that an older player who has lost a lot *can* still be a valuable piece to a team in a way that is less clear in other sports. In basketball, if you're not a starter or sixth man you're probably playing not a ton without a lot of chances to contribute. Starters have such an outsized impact in the NBA that once a player stops being that they kind of fade. In the NFL you are blocking a spot from someone else - maybe you can play situationally but it's very limited. In the MLB - you can maybe be moved around the lineup/DH, but ultimately you are blocking a spot or playing sporadically.

In the NHL, if you're the 3rd best guy at your position on a team you play a quarter of the game, and the stars only play about a third (obviously caveat with defenseman). You still have plenty of room to produce, even if you're not getting prime opportunities. Just a weird quirk of the differences in sports.

Basketball - go from a 1st option to a 3rd option to a rotation piece (20 mins per game)
Baseball - go from a leadoff/number 3 hitter to a guy moved down the lineup
Football - go from a player teams build offenses around to a starter that sees a bit lower of a snap count and is targeted less

 

[Vilica]

Looking at centers by points since the lockout and trying to narrow down Tavares' cohort.

Thornton, E.Staal, J. Staal, Getzlaf, Pavelski, H. Sedin, Spezza, Zetterberg, Carter, Datsyuk
Crosby, Stamkos, Tavares, Giroux, Kopitar, Malkin, Backstrom, Bergeron, Toews, Duchene
McDavid, MacKinnon, Matthews, Draisaitl, Barkov, Seguin, Scheifele, Nugent-Hopkins, O'Reilly, Couture

97-98: Thornton
00-01: H. Sedin
01-02: Datsyuk
02-03: Spezza, Zetterberg
03-04: E. Staal, Bergeron

05-06: Crosby, Carter, Getzlaf
06-07: Malkin, Kopitar, Pavelski, J. Staal
07-08: Giroux, Backstrom, Toews
08-09: Stamkos
09-10: Tavares, Duchene, O'Reilly, Couture
10-11: Seguin
11-12: Scheifele, Nugent-Hopkins

13-14: MacKinnon, Barkov
14-15: Draisaitl
15-16: McDavid
16-17: Matthews

All the centers debuting before the lockout feel like the generation before Tavares barring Bergeron. All the centers debuting after the shortened season feel like the generation after Tavares. That leaves 19 centers to classify.

Centers Tavares is almost certainly ranked higher than: Carter, J. Staal, Duchene, O'Reilly, Couture, Seguin, Scheifele, Nugent-Hopkins, Pavelski

Centers Tavares is almost certainly ranked lower than: Crosby, Malkin

The centers left: Bergeron, Getzlaf, Kopitar, Giroux, Backstrom, Toews, Stamkos, Tavares

I think of that list, Tavares is probably in the bottom half of those 8, which leaves him somewhere between the 7th and the 10th best center of his generational cohort.

 

[alko]

I'm here for some years and this guy was one of the first, i wanted to success. Don't know why, but i was a fan of him.
Remember, when he played junior hockey, there was a talk, if he could score 100 goals in season. This pre-draft hype was very high. After Islanders drafted this guy, season tickets sales jumped to numbers, never seen for many many years.

 

[DitchMarner]

I really don't think he should have been. This feels like one of those "John Tavares Prospect Legend" reputation effect carries the way. Being 2nd in Art Ross in a very tightly compact group, I think more consideration to 2-way play matters more than just default looking to points. There is a reason the cup winners of that era were so slanted towards teams with the best 2-way centers.

I'm okay with the fact that he was a a Hart finalist in 2015, but the fact that he was one in 2013 really doesn't mean much to me.

He wasn't even in the top 15 in points. I get that it was a short season and there wasn't as much separation between the top scorers as usual and that he was high in the goal scoring race and helped a lackluster team make the playoffs; however, I don't like when in a comparison to a guy like, say, the aforementioned Turgeon or Roenick, some will say, "But Tavares clearly has a better peak; look at their Hart records." I'm not convinced he he has a higher NHL peak than Pierre or JR despite Hart voting records.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Yeah, Tavares real claim to fame is that he was 3rd in goals and 6th in points for the 2011-12 through 2017-18 period for his own personal peak there. It's good but it's not like Jamie Benn, Phil Kessel, Tyler Seguin, Blake Wheeler weren't all right there with him. It was a low scoring era so it's not particularly gaudy and he was never a great two-way center which the era prioritized more.

I think Roenick can get to 12th in goals/14th in points over a particular 7-year period that covers the early to mid 90s in a more offensive favorable era (higher PPG) with less of an emphasis on two-way play. Roenick can get to 10th in goals/11th in points if you kick it out to a 13-year period. The same for Tavares and he's 3rd in goals/5th in points. It's fine to take Tavares, but it's not a monster gap from my perspective.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'm okay with the fact that he was a a Hart finalist in 2015, but the fact that he was one in 2013 really doesn't mean much to me.

He wasn't even in the top 15 in points. I get that it was a short season and there wasn't as much separation between the top scorers as usual and that he was high in the goal scoring race and helped a lackluster team make the playoffs; however, I don't like when in a comparison to a guy like, say, the aforementioned Turgeon or Roenick, some will say, "But Tavares clearly has a better peak; look at their Hart records." I'm not convinced he he has a higher NHL peak than Pierre or JR despite Hart voting records.

It was definitely an unusual result. From expansion (1968) to last year, that was the 2nd lowest a forward, who was a Hart trophy finalist, has ranked in the scoring race. (The only forward who ranked lower was Mario Lemieux in 2001 - a special situation).

It was a strange result, but it's (somewhat) understandable. It was a shortened season, and only ten points separated 2nd from 17th place. Several of the players above Tavares didn't get many (or any) votes because they missed the playoffs (St. Louis, Stamkos, Staal, Giroux, Hall); they were either clearly weaker than their linemate (Kunitz, Backstrom, Ribiero); or there was vote-splitting between two strong teammates (Toews and Kane - who finished 4th and 6th; Datsyuk and Zetterberg).

Back out those names (plus Ovechkin and Crosby, who finished 1st and 2nd) and we're only left with Getzlaf and Kessel who arguably "should" have finished ahead. I would have voted for Getzlaf over Tavares, but it wasn't an egregious choice; and Kessel was a defensive black hole who's value is less than his stats suggest. (Plus, Tavares got credit for helping the Islanders return to the playoffs for the first time since 2007).

This is a long-winded way of saying that it was unusual that Tavares was a Hart finalist while placing so low in the scoring race. But, under the circumstances, it can be explained.

 

[blundluntman]

He's been a 1st line caliber player his whole career (with a good but short peak) but he's still just underwhelming all things considered. I honestly wonder if his reputation would be better off without that 06-07 season in the OHL.

It's like that super attractive girl you date after she's already peaked in high school. Still good looking but boring in and out of bed. You can't really complain but you also can't help but feel a bit disappointed.

Probably a HOFer that gets in bc of longevity and milestones, but idk if he'd get in the HoF if he retired after this season or the next. He gives me room temp pizza vibes.