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

[Albatros]

He lacked heart.

Which is why he was the captain or alternate captain for four different NHL teams and won the Lady Byng.

 

[Jim MacDonald]

A couple things I wanted to throw out....

1. Turgeon does have a "signature moment" with his Game 7 winner vs Phoenix in 99. Even though he didn't get a Cup should the fact he has a signature moment give him a push to get in?

2. I seen he was +139 for his career. Although I never heard of Turgeon as solid defense being in his toolbox, would you guys put him in the hall if he had a defensive acumen of Stevie Y, Super Joe or Mikey Mo (with no change to his career numbers?) Interested in seeing if any of you guys put him in if he had the defense element *thumbs up*

 

[Staniowski]

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.

re: "in the conversation for top three player in the world (i.e. both Hawerchuk and Tavares)

I like both Hawerchuk and Tavares (especially the former), but IMO neither was ever even a top 5 player in the world.

Even when Hawerchuk was at his very best, which I guess would be around '84/'85, Gretzky, Fetisov, Makarov, Bossy, Bourque were all better. And there were several others too who'd be in the conversation, e.g. Messier, Coffey, Krutov, Stastny, etc., along with Hawerchuk. And, of course, Lemieux would very soon join the group as well.

 

[sr edler]

The topic is starting to get old.

In part 1 we discussed Turgeon's exploits in Buffalo and Long Island, including a (prologue) junior trip to Czechoslovakia where someone decided to turn off the lights.

In part 2 we have Turgeon in Montreal, Turgeon in St. Louis, Turgeon in Dallas, and Turgeon in Denver.

In part 3 (epilogue) we will discuss if it's a HHOF worthy legacy.

 

[Big Phil]

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

I think there is lots to choose between them. There are two players in NHL history who have had at least 80 points 13 years in a row. One of them is Gretzky. The other is Hawerchuk. Try and double check it yourself, there is no one else with that many straight 80 point seasons. Not to mention that Hawerchuk played on the Jets who never worked to improve their team defensively, in net, or to give him any scoring help. He carried that load for a long time and then got traded to Buffalo where there was a slightly better team but still had deficiencies.

Hart finishes:
Hawerchuk - 2, 5, 6, 7
Turgeon - 5

Scoring finishes:
Hawerchuk - 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 11, 11, 12, 16, 17
Turgeon - 5, 7, 13, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20

Throw in the fact that it was Hawerchuk and not Turgeon who they picked for Canada Cups while Turgeon was never asked to play for Canada. Hawerchuk is also more reliable defensively and wasn't considered soft. I can see the clear edge for Hawerchuk here. My only question is why did they wait a year after he was eligible to induct him. There was room in 2000 to put him in there but they did it in 2001.

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

I am realizing that this is the thrust of several pages of posts but I still can't get around the idea of Turgeon being "good" in the playoffs. He was a first round player who never raised his game to help his team. With his talent you figure he does this at least once as others have who has much less talent than him. You aren't using context with this stuff. A guy like Theo Fleury is who I would consider a better playoff performer. Why? Because even though Fleury got booted out of the playoffs in the 1st round for the most part he put up some big numbers while doing it.

1993 - 12 points in 6 games
1994 - 10 points in 7 games
1995 - 14 points in 7 games

Those three playoff upsets he has almost two points per game in the first round. 1991 he had 7 points in 7 games and in Game 7 vs. the Oilers he had a goal and two assists in a loss.

Fleury is not a playoff legend, but is there anyone who wants Turgeon on their team for the playoffs over Fleury? I doubt it, and if so, why?

Really? By what measure?

I guess I have been thrown off a bit by this suggestion and wasn't even prepared at the time to give an answer because I thought it was almost unanimous that Hawerchuk would be known to have easily the better career in the regular season. It was only Turgeon and Hawerchuk that I was comparing in playoff records, which are similar. But in the regular season this is Hawerchuk easily. He hit the ground running and more or less never stopped until about 1994 or so. He had full seasons, he was much more revered than Turgeon during his time and the Hart voting and scoring finishes indicate this.

 

[Neutrinos]

I think there is lots to choose between them. There are two players in NHL history who have had at least 80 points 13 years in a row. One of them is Gretzky. The other is Hawerchuk. Try and double check it yourself, there is no one else with that many straight 80 point seasons. Not to mention that Hawerchuk played on the Jets who never worked to improve their team defensively, in net, or to give him any scoring help. He carried that load for a long time and then got traded to Buffalo where there was a slightly better team but still had deficiencies.

Hart finishes:
Hawerchuk - 2, 5, 6, 7
Turgeon - 5

Scoring finishes:
Hawerchuk - 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 11, 11, 12, 16, 17
Turgeon - 5, 7, 13, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20

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

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

re: "in the conversation for top three player in the world (i.e. both Hawerchuk and Tavares)

I like both Hawerchuk and Tavares (especially the former), but IMO neither was ever even a top 5 player in the world.

Even when Hawerchuk was at his very best, which I guess would be around '84/'85, Gretzky, Fetisov, Makarov, Bossy, Bourque were all better. And there were several others too who'd be in the conversation, e.g. Messier, Coffey, Krutov, Stastny, etc., along with Hawerchuk. And, of course, Lemieux would very soon join the group as well.

i get what you’re saying, people tend to favour guys who have a longer track record of having done it before, but i think after a career year of finishing top 3 in scoring and having that validated by finishing top 3 hart voting, the next fall when the newspapers and magazines are making the best players lists, you’re probably going to be, as i said, in the conversation for the top 3, whether you are darryl sittler, denis savard, markus naslund, or jamie benn.

in any event, a digression; point was it was a level turgeon/seguin never reached, whether we call it top 3, top 5, or even top 10.

 

[Big Phil]

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

There is a mere 6 years in between them, from their age to their rookie year. Hawerchuk was in a league with Europeans too. Their careers overlapped 10 full seasons.

I don't care much for the "well, there weren't many Europeans" excuse. Do we discount the likes of Richard, Howe, Beliveau, Orr, Lafleur and even Gretzky and Lemieux to a certain extent because of this? The best players in the league will be the best players in the league regardless of whether they are born in Ontario, Stockholm or Moscow.

 

[Neutrinos]

There is a mere 6 years in between them, from their age to their rookie year. Hawerchuk was in a league with Europeans too. Their careers overlapped 10 full seasons.

I don't care much for the "well, there weren't many Europeans" excuse. Do we discount the likes of Richard, Howe, Beliveau, Orr, Lafleur and even Gretzky and Lemieux to a certain extent because of this? The best players in the league will be the best players in the league regardless of whether they are born in Ontario, Stockholm or Moscow.

It's not an excuse, it's a fact

Of the top 50 scorers in the NHL during the 1970's, 49 of them were Canadian

Of the top 50 scorers in the NHL during the 1980's, 39 of them were Canadian

Of the top 50 scorers in the NHL during the 1990's, 29 of them were Canadian

Of the top 50 scorers in the NHL during the 2000's, only 22 of them were Canadian


Having to play against the very best players in the world, rather than just the very best from Canada, is going to make it more difficult to finish in the top 10 in scoring

 

[frisco]

I think there is lots to choose between them. Not to mention that Hawerchuk played on the Jets who never worked to improve their team defensively, in net, or to give him any scoring help. He carried that load for a long time and then got traded to Buffalo where there was a slightly better team but still had deficiencies.

Hawerchuk vs. Turgeon is close. Hawerchuk listed first.

GP: 1188/1294
Points: 1409/1327
Points (adjusted for era): 1189/1315
Points/game: 1.19/1.03
Points/game (adjusted for era): 0.99/1.02
Top 20 Points: 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 11, 11, 12, 16, 17--total 10/5, 7, 13, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20--total 8
Top 10 Points/Game: 3, 5--total 2/4, 5, 6, 8, 9--total 5
+/-: -98/+138
Playoff GP: 97/109
Playoff Points: 99/97

Really, they are close. If you consider Hawerchuk probably played in the highest scoring ever while Turgeon basically missed that and played a lot of DPE hockey and make the adjustment you could easily argue Turgeon had the better career. In fact, I doubt if anyone was helped more by his era than Hawerchuk as far as scoring metrics go. Also, there is the point made the Turgeon played more in a European enriched league.

Both started at 18. Turgeon played until 36, Hawerchuk 33.

My Best-Carey

 

[wetcoast]

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).

While I think Turgeon has a pretty decent case as a HHOF guy Hawerchuk feels like the superior player to me when looking at both guys at first glance.

The difference might not be much but it's there.

The big plus for Dale is that he hit the ground running at an elite level in his D+1 year and stayed there for quite a while.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i wonder if anyone here is prepared to say “if tyler seguin didn’t miss eleven games in 2015 he would have won the art ross”

i wonder if anyone here is then prepared to extrapolate that high points/game placement, and another points/game placement higher than his total points placement the next season, for his HHOF case

 

[Jets4Life]

Really, they are close. If you consider Hawerchuk probably played in the highest scoring ever while Turgeon basically missed that and played a lot of DPE hockey and make the adjustment you could easily argue Turgeon had the better career. In fact, I doubt if anyone was helped more by his era than Hawerchuk as far as scoring metrics go.

My Best-Carey

You can't be serious. Hawerchuk was on a mediocre Jets club in his prime. He did not have much help, and virtually carried the franchise on his back for nearly a decade.

Hawerchuk was only on a cup contending team once in his final year with the Flyers, and by that time his hip was so shot that he was forced to retire. If you honestly think Turgeon was as good as Hawerchuk, you obviously never saw Ducky in his prime.

Hawerchuk is arguably the most underrated player of his time, since he was playing in Winnipeg.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

on the european-enriched league argument, here is an accounting of hawerchuk and turgeon's directly overlapping seasons up to 1995—

Rk	Player	PTS	From	To	Active	GP	G	A	G	A	PTS
1	Wayne Gretzky*	743	1987	1992	5	367	206	537	0.56	1.46	2.02
2	Mario Lemieux*	666	1987	1992	5	302	263	403	0.87	1.33	2.21
3	Steve Yzerman*	595	1987	1992	5	382	273	322	0.71	0.84	1.56
4	Luc Robitaille*	508	1987	1992	5	394	240	268	0.61	0.68	1.29
5	Mark Messier*	505	1987	1992	5	360	162	343	0.45	0.95	1.40
6	Brett Hull*	501	1987	1992	5	374	301	200	0.80	0.53	1.34
7	Dale Hawerchuk*	485	1987	1992	5	391	165	320	0.42	0.82	1.24
8	Pat LaFontaine*	463	1987	1992	5	360	233	230	0.65	0.64	1.29
9	Bernie Nicholls	462	1987	1992	5	344	186	276	0.54	0.80	1.34
10	Adam Oates*	448	1987	1992	5	353	98	350	0.28	0.99	1.27
11	Paul Coffey*	445	1987	1992	5	341	109	336	0.32	0.99	1.30
12	Steve Larmer	441	1987	1992	5	400	188	253	0.47	0.63	1.10
13	Doug Gilmour*	430	1987	1992	5	378	132	298	0.35	0.79	1.14
14	Al MacInnis*	427	1987	1992	5	388	117	310	0.30	0.80	1.10
15	Denis Savard*	422	1987	1992	5	345	150	272	0.43	0.79	1.22
16	Joe Nieuwendyk*	410	1987	1992	5	379	214	196	0.56	0.52	1.08
17	Pierre Turgeon	410	1987	1992	5	391	160	250	0.41	0.64	1.05

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1988: europeans in the top 20 in scoring—5, 9, 13 / americans in the top 20—8, 16, 18 / hawerchuk 4, turgeon 140

1989: europeans—8, 18(t), 18(t) / amerians—7, 9, 15, 18(t) / hawerchuk 11, turgeon 18(t)

1990: europeans: 19 / americans: 8 / turgeon 7, hawerchuk 34

1991: europeans: 17, americans: 11, 14, 19 / hawerchuk 17, turgeon 27

1992: europeans: none / americans: 2, 7, 9, 15, 19(t), 19(t) / hawerchuk 11, turgeon 13

Rk	Player	PTS	From	To	Active	GP	G	A	G	A	PTS
1	Mario Lemieux*	826	1987	1993	6	362	332	494	0.92	1.36	2.28
2	Wayne Gretzky*	808	1987	1993	6	412	222	586	0.54	1.42	1.96
3	Steve Yzerman*	732	1987	1993	6	466	331	401	0.71	0.86	1.57
4	Luc Robitaille*	633	1987	1993	6	478	303	330	0.63	0.69	1.32
5	Pat LaFontaine*	611	1987	1993	6	444	286	325	0.64	0.73	1.38
6	Brett Hull*	602	1987	1993	6	454	355	247	0.78	0.54	1.33
7	Mark Messier*	596	1987	1993	6	435	187	409	0.43	0.94	1.37
8	Adam Oates*	590	1987	1993	6	437	143	447	0.33	1.02	1.35
9	Dale Hawerchuk*	581	1987	1993	6	472	181	400	0.38	0.85	1.23
10	Doug Gilmour*	557	1987	1993	6	461	164	393	0.36	0.85	1.21
11	Pierre Turgeon	542	1987	1993	6	474	218	324	0.46	0.68	1.14

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1993: europeans: 5(t), 7, 11, 13 / americans: 2, 12, 15, 16 / turgeon 5(t), hawerchuk 26

Rk	Player	PTS	From	To	Active	GP	G	A	G	A	PTS
1	Wayne Gretzky*	938	1987	1994	7	493	260	678	0.53	1.38	1.90
2	Mario Lemieux*	863	1987	1994	7	384	349	514	0.91	1.34	2.25
3	Steve Yzerman*	814	1987	1994	7	524	355	459	0.68	0.88	1.55
4	Luc Robitaille*	719	1987	1994	7	561	347	372	0.62	0.66	1.28
5	Adam Oates*	702	1987	1994	7	514	175	527	0.34	1.03	1.37
6	Brett Hull*	699	1987	1994	7	535	412	287	0.77	0.54	1.31
7	Mark Messier*	680	1987	1994	7	511	213	467	0.42	0.91	1.33
8	Doug Gilmour*	668	1987	1994	7	544	191	477	0.35	0.88	1.23
9	Dale Hawerchuk*	667	1987	1994	7	553	216	451	0.39	0.82	1.21
10	Pierre Turgeon	636	1987	1994	7	543	256	380	0.47	0.70	1.17

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1994: europeans: 2, 5, 9, 15(t) / americans: 6, 15(t) / turgeon 14, hawerchuk 24

Rk	Player	PTS	From	To	Active	GP	G	A	G	A	PTS
1	Wayne Gretzky*	986	1987	1995	8	541	271	715	0.50	1.32	1.82
2	Mario Lemieux*	863	1987	1994	7	384	349	514	0.91	1.34	2.25
3	Steve Yzerman*	852	1987	1995	8	571	367	485	0.64	0.85	1.49
4	Luc Robitaille*	761	1987	1995	8	607	370	391	0.61	0.64	1.25
5	Adam Oates*	755	1987	1995	8	562	187	568	0.33	1.01	1.34
6	Brett Hull*	749	1987	1995	8	583	441	308	0.76	0.53	1.28
7	Mark Messier*	733	1987	1995	8	557	227	506	0.41	0.91	1.32
8	Doug Gilmour*	701	1987	1995	8	588	201	500	0.34	0.85	1.19
9	Dale Hawerchuk*	683	1987	1995	8	576	221	462	0.38	0.80	1.19
10	Pierre Turgeon	683	1987	1995	8	592	280	403	0.47	0.68	1.15

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1995: europeans: 1, 3, 8, 14(t), 14(t), 20 / americans: 9, 12 / turgeon 22, hawerchuk 235


EDIT: ** note that i am not counting brett hull as american here, only US-born and trained players

 

[frisco]

You can't be serious. Hawerchuk was on a mediocre Jets club in his prime. He did not have much help, and virtually carried the franchise on his back for nearly a decade.

Hawerchuk was only on a cup contending team once in his final year with the Flyers, and by that time his hip was so shot that he was forced to retire. If you honestly think Turgeon was as good as Hawerchuk, you obviously never saw Ducky in his prime.

Hawerchuk is arguably the most underrated player of his time, since he was playing in Winnipeg.

Hawerchuk played on bad teams. I don't know if that alone puts him ahead of Turgeon. They both started on last overall teams as first overall picks. I think the numbers speak for themselves as far as offensive production. Neither really had the opportunity to play with difference makers as wingers unless Paul MacLean or Stumpy Thomas would be considered such.

You know it is not a insult to Hawerchuk to be compared to Turgeon? Nor should it be.

My Best-Carey

 

[Jets4Life]

You know it is not a insult to Hawerchuk to be compared to Turgeon? Nor should it be.

My Best-Carey

It is an insult. Hawerchuk was not a coward.

 

[frisco]

I am realizing that this is the thrust of several pages of posts but I still can't get around the idea of Turgeon being "good" in the playoffs. He was a first round player who never raised his game to help his team. With his talent you figure he does this at least once as others have who has much less talent than him. You aren't using context with this stuff. A guy like Theo Fleury is who I would consider a better playoff performer. Why? Because even though Fleury got booted out of the playoffs in the 1st round for the most part he put up some big numbers while doing it.

1993 - 12 points in 6 games
1994 - 10 points in 7 games
1995 - 14 points in 7 games

Those three playoff upsets he has almost two points per game in the first round. 1991 he had 7 points in 7 games and in Game 7 vs. the Oilers he had a goal and two assists in a loss.

Fleury is not a playoff legend, but is there anyone who wants Turgeon on their team for the playoffs over Fleury? I doubt it, and if so, why?

First of all Fleury only made the playoffs 8/15 years in the league and made it out of the first round twice. Yeah, he had some good first rounds in losses (usually when his team was upset).

While Turgeon made the playoffs in 15/19 seasons. He had a few runs into the later rounds and some good first round performances in losses. More GP, points, series won, appearances than Fleury. I don't see how Fleury has any type of advantage here.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

It's not an excuse, it's a fact

Of the top 50 scorers in the NHL during the 1970's, 49 of them were Canadian

Of the top 50 scorers in the NHL during the 1980's, 39 of them were Canadian

Of the top 50 scorers in the NHL during the 1990's, 29 of them were Canadian

Of the top 50 scorers in the NHL during the 2000's, only 22 of them were Canadian


Having to play against the very best players in the world, rather than just the very best in North America, is going to make it more difficult to finish in the top 10 in scoring

So do we just discount everything from now on? It isn't as if the best players in the world still weren't playing in the NHL in those years. Countries like Finland, Czech Republic, Sweden, USA, etc. weren't producing high level players yet. It took time. But it doesn't matter either way. Let's give 1992 as the cut off for this supposed "all-Canadian league. Turgeon had 5 seasons under his belt prior to the European invasion (I figure 1993 is when it started to unfold). He finished 7th in scoring just once. This is far inferior to what Hawerchuk did in his first 5 years.

So what is the difference? We have seen players who played great before 1993 and afterwards. Was Mario worse off because of this? He dominated in the years before the Europeans came and dominated afterwards. Bourque, Gretzky, you name it. To a lesser extent Coffey, Messier. It just seems to me that evidence points out that it doesn't matter what countries players come from, the best will still be the best regardless. It reminds me to an extent of 1947 in baseball when Jackie Robinson broke in. There are plenty of great players who were great pre and post-1947. Despite changes in the game the players that were great beforehand were still great afterwards.

 

[Big Phil]

First of all Fleury only made the playoffs 8/15 years in the league and made it out of the first round twice. Yeah, he had some good first rounds in losses (usually when his team was upset).

While Turgeon made the playoffs in 15/19 seasons. He had a few runs into the later rounds and some good first round performances in losses. More GP, points, series won, appearances than Fleury. I don't see how Fleury has any type of advantage here.

My Best-Carey

You always seem to be hung up on playoff PPG. If that's the case I don't know why you don't consider Fleury to be better (1.03 vs. 0.88). Neither has a playoff portfolio where it makes a case for their HHOF induction but there is no doubt when the chips were down you are choosing Fleury to lead your team.

Where are these "few good runs" Turgeon had? He got out of the first round exactly 4 times. He got into Round 3 exactly once. In three straight first round exits at the end of his career he had 7 points in 15 combined games. When I think of a "run" I think of no less than reaching the semi-finals and I wouldn't call it a great playoff run unless it was Gilmour (1993, 1994) or Middleton (1983) or Forsberg (1999, 2002) for example without getting into the final. Turgeon in 2001 does not fit that bill. He was good, not great. None of it is a reason to induct him into the HHOF. In fact just like with Phil Housley, the odd person who pushed for his induction smartly avoided talking about his mediocre playoff resume.

Really, they are close. If you consider Hawerchuk probably played in the highest scoring ever while Turgeon basically missed that and played a lot of DPE hockey and make the adjustment you could easily argue Turgeon had the better career. In fact, I doubt if anyone was helped more by his era than Hawerchuk as far as scoring metrics go. Also, there is the point made the Turgeon played more in a European enriched league.

Both started at 18. Turgeon played until 36, Hawerchuk 33.

My Best-Carey

I've been on HFboards a long time, this is the first time someone has felt Turgeon could have had a better career over Hawerchuk. For those that saw both of their careers I don't think there was ever any doubt who you pick on your team if you are a GM. Forget about whether they played in a European league or not, they both did. Look at how they were compared to their peers. Is there even any argument that Turgeon was similar amongst his peers than Hawerchuk?

 

[Neutrinos]

So do we just discount everything from now on? It isn't as if the best players in the world still weren't playing in the NHL in those years. Countries like Finland, Czech Republic, Sweden, USA, etc. weren't producing high level players yet. It took time. But it doesn't matter either way. Let's give 1992 as the cut off for this supposed "all-Canadian league. Turgeon had 5 seasons under his belt prior to the European invasion (I figure 1993 is when it started to unfold). He finished 7th in scoring just once. This is far inferior to what Hawerchuk did in his first 5 years.

So what is the difference? We have seen players who played great before 1993 and afterwards. Was Mario worse off because of this? He dominated in the years before the Europeans came and dominated afterwards. Bourque, Gretzky, you name it. To a lesser extent Coffey, Messier. It just seems to me that evidence points out that it doesn't matter what countries players come from, the best will still be the best regardless. It reminds me to an extent of 1947 in baseball when Jackie Robinson broke in. There are plenty of great players who were great pre and post-1947. Despite changes in the game the players that were great beforehand were still great afterwards.

This assumes that every player has the same career trajectory

Hawerchuk had one of the best rookie seasons in NHL history, but that doesn't mean he was better in his prime or had a better career than someone who started slower

Joe Thornton had 7 points in 55 games as a rookie, and then 41 points in 81 games the following season

So a direct comparison between Hawerchuk and Thornton's first 5 seasons in the league is going to have Hawerchuk come out ahead, but that wouldn't be a fair representation of their respective impact as players


With that said, you're missing the point about the influx of Europeans (and Americans)

Let's say you have a league with 10 elite level players and they're all going to finish top 10 in scoring

Now what happens when you introduce 5 more elite level players into the league the following season?

It becomes more difficult to finish in the top 10 in scoring

 

[Big Phil]

This assumes that every player has the same career trajectory

Hawerchuk had one of the best rookie seasons in NHL history, but that doesn't mean he was better in his prime or had a better career than someone who started off more slowly

Joe Thornton had 7 points in 55 points as a rookie, and then 41 points in 81 games the following season

So a direct comparison between Hawerchuk and Thornton's first 5 seasons in the league is going to have Hawerchuk come out ahead, but that wouldn't be a fair representation of their respective impact as players


With that said, you're missing the point about the influx of Europeans (and Americans)

Let's say you have a league with 10 elite level players and they're all going to finish top 10 in scoring

Now what happens when you introduce 5 more elite level players into the league the following season?

It becomes more difficult to finish in the top 10 in scoring

But the top 10 will still be the top 10. It is like saying the valedictorian at private school is likely still going to be the same at public school or close to it.

Besides, these guys were 6 years apart, not 50! Their careers overlapped 10 seasons. There is lots to compare them to. 1991 when Turgeon was a young 22 year old who already had a 106 point season to his name he was passed up for a more grizzled veteran in Hawerchuk on Team Canada. Hawerchuk still had a couple of good years left of production, but his best offensive years were behind him by then.

You are acting as if no one who played before the European invasion has any validity and are giving players who played in with more Europeans way too much credit. Turgeon never proved on either side of the European invasion that he would be as good as Hawerchuk, he had plenty of time to show this.

Like I said, look at Hall of Fame baseball players prior to and after 1947, there are lots of them. Name one who became significantly worse because of the color barrier breaking.

 

[seventieslord]

Again, I'll defend Turgeon as much as logically possible and necessary, but my god, why has this gone on for so long?

I wouldn't cry about Turgeon in the hall - maybe in an alternate reality where 14 years ago they didn't start inducting guys like Lafontaine, Nieuwendyk, Ciccarelli and Andreychuk I would. But why is there a handful of people willing to go to the wall for Turgeon specifically, and not one of the other 25-30 players who are in the same boat (wouldn't look bad as bottom-tier HHOFers)?

I haven't seen 1000+ post threads about Paul Thompson, Cecil Dillon, Daniel Alfredsson, Curtis Joseph, Brian Propp, Craig Ramsay, Guy Carbonneau, Tom Barrasso, JC Tremblay, Carl Brewer, John LeClair, Jeremy Roenick, John Gottselig, John Vanbiesbrouck, Steve Larmer, Theo Fleury, Rick Middleton, Pat Stapleton, Bill White, Sergei Zubov, Jim Thomson, Doug Wilson, Claude Provost, or Keith Tkachuk, so why Turgeon?

 

[Neutrinos]

But the top 10 will still be the top 10. It is like saying the valedictorian at private school is likely still going to be the same at public school or close to it.

Besides, these guys were 6 years apart, not 50! Their careers overlapped 10 seasons. There is lots to compare them to. 1991 when Turgeon was a young 22 year old who already had a 106 point season to his name he was passed up for a more grizzled veteran in Hawerchuk on Team Canada. Hawerchuk still had a couple of good years left of production, but his best offensive years were behind him by then.

You are acting as if no one who played before the European invasion has any validity and are giving players who played in with more Europeans way too much credit. Turgeon never proved on either side of the European invasion that he would be as good as Hawerchuk, he had plenty of time to show this.

Like I said, look at Hall of Fame baseball players prior to and after 1947, there are lots of them. Name one who became significantly worse because of the color barrier breaking.

Please provide the quote(s) that show me acting like that

 

[frisco]

Turgeon never proved on either side of the European invasion that he would be as good as Hawerchuk, he had plenty of time to show this.

Adjusting for era (Hawerchuk's best years were in the during the highest scoring seasons in the history of hockey), Hawerchuk 1139 adjusted for 0.99 points per game. Turgeon 1315 for 1.02 points per game. And Turgeon played more games. How this doesn't favor Turgeon (or least put him in the same class)? I mean the facts are what they are. The "everyone knows" arguments with no evidence to back them up sound kind of lame.

As far as Fleury goes and the playoffs, he only made them eight of his fifteen years. And he got by the first round twice. Nobody is hitching his wagon to Theo. Turgeon's playoff resume isn't his strongest suit, but first of all he made the playoffs fifteen times. That's something. Using a 100 games as a minimum Turgeon scored more on a per game basis in the playoffs than guys like Zetterberg, Goulet, Clarke, Iginla, Bergeron, St.Louis, Shanahan, Toews, and tons of others. As much as you try to malign him it is pretty empty when the stats do not back up your opinion.

My Best-Carey

 

[decma]

I've been on HFboards a long time, this is the first time someone has felt Turgeon could have had a better career over Hawerchuk. For those that saw both of their careers I don't think there was ever any doubt who you pick on your team if you are a GM. Forget about whether they played in a European league or not, they both did. Look at how they were compared to their peers. Is there even any argument that Turgeon was similar amongst his peers than Hawerchuk?

Yes, there is an argument that Turgeon was similar among his peers to Hawerchuk.

They are remarkably close in terms of PPG VsX.

Five-year VsX
Turgeon .890
Hawerchuk .889

Seven-year VsX
Hawerchuk .849
Turgeon .848

Ten-year VsX
Turgeon .807
Hawerchuk .804

Doesn't get much closer than that.