Why isn't Pierre Turgeon in the hall of fame? (Part 2)

[frisco]

I would say Turgeon and Hawerchuk and pretty close. So, I'll agree there. Both playoffs and regular season. Turgeon actually played a lot of hockey in the DPE so one could rank him higher I'd argue. Turgeon actually has more adjusted points. The odd thing is Hawerchuk went into the HOF (first year I think?) and Turgeon is on the outside. And there's little to choose between them. That's a something in Turgeon's favor regarding the Hall.

I don't really think either brought a whole lot to the table other than offense--most of their value is in their production, which again is extremely close. So if Hawerchuk is a first ballot guy, hardly someone has a real problem with being in there, and Turgeon is an extremely close comp...

My Best-Carey

Click to read more...

 

[frisco]

Who would have thought you and I would actually come to an agreement on Turgeon. I don't think his playoff portfolio is the thing to bring up when campaigning for his HHOF induction. I would go at it a different angle with him.

That's the whole thing about Turgeon. People downgrade his playoff stuff as a weakness but he actually played at a high level or higher than a lot of guys that are considered "better". The facts bear that out. He's basically underrated and should be in. That's the thrust of the entire 50+ pages of posts!

My Best-Carey

 

[decma]

Hawerchuk is a different case because he was much more dominant in the regular season ...

Really? By what measure?

 

[FerrisRox]

Could have been, and eventually was, but Turgeon has some characteristic similarity to Béliveau which no doubt elevated him in that situation. Damphousse's charm was more about being the vet in the room that would lead the team by example.

Turgeon had some "characteristic similarity to Béliveau?!?!"

 

[Albatros]

Humble gentlemen of some integrity.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

french-speaking faceoff taker

 

[GlitchMarner]

I would say Turgeon and Hawerchuk and pretty close. So, I'll agree there. Both playoffs and regular season. Turgeon actually played a lot of hockey in the DPE so one could rank him higher I'd argue. Turgeon actually has more adjusted points. The odd thing is Hawerchuk went into the HOF (first year I think?) and Turgeon is on the outside. And there's little to choose between them. That's a something in Turgeon's favor regarding the Hall.

I don't really think either brought a whole lot to the table other than offense--most of their value is in their production, which again is extremely close. So if Hawerchuk is a first ballot guy, hardly someone has a real problem with being in there, and Turgeon is an extremely close comp...

My Best-Carey

If you go by best PPG finishes (min. 40 games), they seem to be comparable players in terms of ability.

Best PPG finishes (.min 40 GP):

Hawerchuk:

3rd
5th
11th
T-11th
T-11th
13th
T-14th
T-16th
19th

Turgeon:

T-3rd
T-4th
6th
8th
9th
15th
T-15th
T-16th
T-18th
T-18th


However, Hawerchuk definitely had a healthier and better career. He was a top ten and top 20 scorer more often and placed second, fifth, six and seventh in Hart voting. The only time Turgeon ever placed in the top ten in Hart voting was 1993 (he was fifth that season).

 

[Canucks1096]

Because in 1987 during the wjc. He didn't get off the bench and get into the fight with Canada.

 

[trentmccleary]

I would say Turgeon and Hawerchuk and pretty close. So, I'll agree there. Both playoffs and regular season. Turgeon actually played a lot of hockey in the DPE so one could rank him higher I'd argue. Turgeon actually has more adjusted points. The odd thing is Hawerchuk went into the HOF (first year I think?) and Turgeon is on the outside. And there's little to choose between them. That's a something in Turgeon's favor regarding the Hall.

I don't really think either brought a whole lot to the table other than offense--most of their value is in their production, which again is extremely close. So if Hawerchuk is a first ballot guy, hardly someone has a real problem with being in there, and Turgeon is an extremely close comp...

My Best-Carey

Players are clearly judged on their collection of individual seasons.

If player A plays 62 games a year for 18 years
and player B plays 80 games a year for 14 years
They could post the same career numbers. Player B is going to the HHOF and player A won't get any serious traction.

 

[frisco]

Because in 1987 during the wjc. He didn't get off the bench and get into the fight with Canada.

My Best-Carey

 

[Neutrinos]

If you go by best PPG finishes (min. 40 games), they seem to be comparable players in terms of ability.

Best PPG finishes (.min 40 GP):

Hawerchuk:

3rd
5th
11th
T-11th
T-11th
13th
T-14th
T-16th
19th

Turgeon:

T-3rd
T-4th
6th
8th
9th
15th
T-15th
T-16th
T-18th
T-18th


However, Hawerchuk definitely had a healthier and better career. He was a top ten and top 20 scorer more often and placed second, fifth, six and seventh in Hart voting. The only time Turgeon ever placed in the top ten in Hart voting was 1993 (he was fifth that season).

It's harder to finish in the top 10 when there's more teams and more players

There's also the European factor to consider

During Hawerchuk's prime the NHL only averaged about 2 Europeans per team and none of them were Russians

By the time Turgeon's prime rolled around, his competition was the very best the world had to offer

 

[frisco]

Players are clearly judged on their collection of individual seasons.

If player A plays 62 games a year for 18 years
and player B plays 80 games a year for 14 years
They could post the same career numbers. Player B is going to the HHOF and player A won't get any serious traction.

It may happen but does it really matter? Do you have an example of this?

Also, Cam Neely had two seasons of 75+ games, Pavel Bure four such seasons, so it didn't factor into the discussion for them.

Hawerchuk had 14 years of 75+ games. Turgeon ten. Turgeon played more games overall. I can't see this factor all that relevant one way or another.

My Best-Carey

 

[Thenameless]

However, Hawerchuk definitely had a healthier and better career. He was a top ten and top 20 scorer more often and placed second, fifth, six and seventh in Hart voting. The only time Turgeon ever placed in the top ten in Hart voting was 1993 (he was fifth that season).

First off, I'm a Pierre Turgeon fan, and I kind of hope that he makes it as a borderline inductee. He is better than some of the players that are already in. But, he should not be compared to Hawerchuk, for the reason highlighted above. I remember Hawerchuk at his very peak, was basically considered second to Gretzky for a few years. Maybe kind of the way MacKinnon is viewed today behind McDavid. Turgeon is more of a consistent, semi-elite scorer like Tarasenko (yes, I know they play different positions).

 

[frisco]

First off, I'm a Pierre Turgeon fan, and I kind of hope that he makes it as a borderline inductee. He is better than some of the players that are already in. But, he should not be compared to Hawerchuk, for the reason highlighted above. I remember Hawerchuk at his very peak, was basically considered second to Gretzky for a few years. Maybe kind of the way MacKinnon is viewed today behind McDavid. Turgeon is more of a consistent, semi-elite scorer like Tarasenko (yes, I know they play different positions).

I'm not disagreeing per se but some of those Hart finishes for Hawerchuk may need a little more context. For example, he finished 7th in 1988 that's true. But there were 62 ballots cast and Hawerchuk got no first place votes, no second place votes, and two third place votes. 2/62. So he got two more votes than me, and I had a pretty bad year. Or under the 5-3-1 system he got 2 out of a possible 310 voting points.

If I were to rank Hawerchuk over Turgeon it would probably due to his contributions on the 1987/1991 Canada Cup teams.

My Best-Carey

 

[Peter Tosh]

The topic is starting to get old. Those of us who are old enough to remember know very well why PT is not in the hhof. Never won anything, never considered elite. St Louis was a contender, with Hull, Pronger, MacInnis and Fuhr. With a proper no 1 center, they had the material to push for the cup. Turgeon came up short when it mattered. He didn’t win in Dallas or in Colorado. He had decent chances to do win, representing contending teams from 97 to 06. In an parallell universe, when St Louis beats Colorado in 2001, then taking the cup, with Turgeon as playoff mvp, he’d be a first ballot hhof. Piling up points just doesn’t cut it.

 

[GlitchMarner]

The topic is starting to get old. Those of us who are old enough to remember know very well why PT is not in the hhof. Never won anything, never considered elite. St Louis was a contender, with Hull, Pronger, MacInnis and Fuhr. With a proper no 1 center, they had the material to push for the cup. Turgeon came up short when it mattered. He didn’t win in Dallas or in Colorado. He had decent chances to do win, representing contending teams from 97 to 06. In an parallell universe, when St Louis beats Colorado in 2001, then taking the cup, with Turgeon as playoff mvp, he’d be a first ballot hhof. Piling up points just doesn’t cut it.

This really isn't true, though. It has gotten other former Sabres into the Hall: Phil Housley, Dave Andreychuk.

Some of the responses other than ones mentioning the Piestany thing are very idealized as opposed to be reality-driven.

Regarding comments such as, "he was never in the conversation for best player, he was never a top three or five player, he didn't win the Cup, he never had a big playoff run, he wasn't clutch, he was offense-only, he didn't win any awards..."

These things don't really answer the question, "why isn't Pierre Turgeon in the Hall of Fame?" because it is possible to be inducted without ever having been a top three to five player, without any Cups, without any awards, without a great all-around game, without having a signature playoff run.

Well, then again, maybe all the dubious inductees check off at least one of these boxes.

 

[GlitchMarner]

I'm not disagreeing per se but some of those Hart finishes for Hawerchuk may need a little more context. For example, he finished 7th in 1988 that's true. But there were 62 ballots cast and Hawerchuk got no first place votes, no second place votes, and two third place votes. 2/62. So he got two more votes than me, and I had a pretty bad year. Or under the 5-3-1 system he got 2 out of a possible 310 voting points.

If I were to rank Hawerchuk over Turgeon it would probably due to his contributions on the 1987/1991 Canada Cup teams.

My Best-Carey

I believe seventieslord has stated this in the past: He was basically unlucky with the timing of some of his injuries. If he had had healthy seasons in '94, '98 and '00, he very well might have five top ten scoring finishes and he would have even better career totals. Instead, he had healthy seasons in '89, '91, '95, '97, '01, when his per game scoring was good but not as impressive as it was in '94, '98 and '00.

I expect Turgeon to be inducted eventually... Roenick as well.

 

[decma]

The topic is starting to get old. Those of us who are old enough to remember know very well why PT is not in the hhof.

I'm old enough to have to have followed Turgeon when he was active, and I suspect Frisco, Neutrinos, and many of the other Turgeon advocates were as well.

Never won anything, never considered elite. St Louis was a contender, with Hull, Pronger, MacInnis and Fuhr. With a proper no 1 center, they had the material to push for the cup.

So he was never considered elite or a proper #1 C? By whom?

Joel Quenville and Mike Keenan seem to have thought he was elite.

Joel Quenville (Jan 15, 2000, describing Turgeon's play in 99 playoffs):
"He was determined to make the team win. That's a sign of the elite players."
You could always count on the points, said Quenneville, "but he raised his game to a higher level."

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

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

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

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

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

Turgeon came up short when it mattered.

What do you mean by "when it mattered"?
In the playoffs? As has been demonstrated Turgeon's playoff numbers are comparable or better than those of many HoF inductees.

Or do you mean in games 4 to 7 of playoff series?
48 points in 49 career playoff games 4 to 7 (including the game 7 against Pit in 93 when he wasn't fully recovered from the Hunter attack).

Or do you mean in particularly important playoff games? For example:
2 pts to eliminate the Caps in game 6 in 93;
3 pts to try and stay alive in game 6 against NYR in 96 (in contrast to Damphousse, who had big games 1 and 2 and then disappeared);
3 pts in game 6 against Phoenix to force game 7 in 99;
OT goal in game 7 win (1-0) over Pho in 99; and
3 pts in game 6 against SJ to force game 7 in 01.

Or maybe you mean in close games?
Analysis by Overpass showed that Turgeon scored a disproportionately high share of his goals when the game was tied.

He didn’t win in Dallas or in Colorado. He had decent chances to do win, representing contending teams from 97 to 06.

Yeah, he was on some decent teams from 97 on. They were contending teams, but its not like he consistently played on SC favorites who got bounced early. Overall, his teams did about as expected.

In 97 the Blues were a .500 team (6 seed) and predictably lost to the eventual Cup champ Wings in R1.

In 98 the Blues were the 4 seed, swept the Kings in R1 and then lost to the 1 seed and eventual Cup champ Wings in R2 in 6.

In 99 the 5-seed Blues knocked off #4 Pho, then lost to the #1 seed and eventual Cup champ Stars in R2 in 6.

In 01 the #4 Blues beat the #5 Sharks in R1 and then lost to the #1 seed and eventual Cup champ Avs in R2 in 6.

So in those 4 playoffs everything went about as expected. The Blues were 3-0 in first round 4 vs. 5 matchups, lost to the 3 seed and eventual champs in the first round, and three times lost second round matchups against the #1 seed and eventual champ.

In 00 the #1 Blues get knocked off by #8 Sharks in a close 7-game series.
This is the only series StL lost during Turgeon's time there that they were favorites.
Is that loss attributable to Turgeon? And not the fact that their reg season leading scorer missed the entire series with a concussion? Or that Turek was bad?

With the Stars:
Missed playoffs in 02
03 they win the first round then lose in 6 to the Ana, with all 4 losses being 1-goal games.
04 they lose to higher seed Col in R1.
At this point Turgeon is well past his prime.

In an parallell universe, when St Louis beats Colorado in 2001, then taking the cup, with Turgeon as playoff mvp, he’d be a first ballot hhof.

So one good 20-game run would transform him from not being HoF worthy to being a first ballot HoF'er? I would like to think that 20 games out of 1,400 wouldn't matter that much, but perhaps you are right.

 

[tony d]

I really don't know. He was a player I always liked and he always seemed to be among the game's top scorers.

 

[Staniowski]

I'm not disagreeing per se but some of those Hart finishes for Hawerchuk may need a little more context. For example, he finished 7th in 1988 that's true. But there were 62 ballots cast and Hawerchuk got no first place votes, no second place votes, and two third place votes. 2/62. So he got two more votes than me, and I had a pretty bad year. Or under the 5-3-1 system he got 2 out of a possible 310 voting points.

If I were to rank Hawerchuk over Turgeon it would probably due to his contributions on the 1987/1991 Canada Cup teams.

My Best-Carey

re: Turgeon and Hawerchuk

I really liked both players. Both drafted 1st overall, both with great natural ability.

I think Turgeon had a little better overall offensive talent than Hawerchuk. But I think Hawerchuk had more versatility, and he showed this in Canada Cup '87, as well as at other times.

 

[Asheville]

Offensively, a nice player but not one that an opponent would fear. The fact that Shanahan was drafted immediately after hurts him.

 

[Asheville]

He's up there with Luc Robitaille among the more notable "empty points" compilers. Got their points, but those stats never really led to anything.

 

[barbu]

He's better than quite a few players that got into the HOF. That said they should not have gotten in and he should not either.

He will get in eventually though.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

in the last thread i suggested that turgeon's present day equivalent is tyler seguin.

in that vein, hawerchuk has some pretty strong parallels with tavares, though i think hawerchuk was a little better. both 1st overalls, both spent a decade leading and captaining mostly horribad teams, each had strong hart consideration, including one peak season where he was legitimately in the conversation for top three player in the world (2nd in hart/3rd in scoring for hawerchuk, 3rd in hart/2nd in scoring for tavares).

i think this is instructive because in a seguin vs tavares comparison, you can make the numbers say it's too close to call but tavares is the superior player by every metric: scoring placements, raw scoring, award consideration, team canadas (even though seguin has center/wing versatility), reputation and/or general consensus, eye test.

and another tavares/hawerchuk parallel: both guys also joined another team and got to play with more talent a decade into their careers. tavares went to toronto and put up 88 points, outscoring the hotshot former young #1 pick/incumbent #1 center who was seven years younger than him. in the 1990-'91 season, hawerchuk joined the buffalo sabres and outscored his young counterpart (six years his junior and coming off a 100 point season) 89 points to 79. that youngster was pierre turgeon.

 

[VanIslander]

He lacked heart.