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

[frisco]

Winning board battles, coming back hard on the backcheck, blocking shots, stealing pucks, etc. There are many things in the game that involve hard work and/or toughness that don't result in points (but can improve your chances of winning).

I don't think Turgeon was necessarily a liability defensively. I remember him being a master at the stick lift from behind with a steal of the puck in the neutral zone. He didn't block shots or play a particular physical game. But he also didn't put his team down as far as SH situations go. He definitely absorbed a lot of abuse (without retaliating) a lot which is a form of toughness. Probably average on faceoffs. He was a plus +139 on average-ish teams for his career. The stat has it's flaws but by definition teams weren't scoring a lot while he was on the ice and that's over a nineteen year career.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

but he is also a Chris Osgood of forwards. There might be a time when Osgood gets into the HHOF because it will be 30-40 years after he finished playing and there are some shiny numbers out of context that a committee who never saw him play might just as well assume he was an elite goalie.

We saw Osgood play. He was a "good" goalie and that's about it. To mention he was an elite goalie is just false because most of us saw his career and you just never thought that when watching him play.

I don't know if Osgood has a whole lot of outstanding individual stats other than wins, which is more of a team stat. Other than one or maybe two seasons his save percentage was pretty average to below average. In fact, Osgood is diametrically opposite to Turgeon. Osgood was a good player but lifted by superior teammates and supporting cast. Turgeon, more of a standout on fair to middling teams.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

I don't know if Osgood has a whole lot of outstanding individual stats other than wins, which is more of a team stat. Other than one or maybe two seasons his save percentage was pretty average to below average. In fact, Osgood is diametrically opposite to Turgeon. Osgood was a good player but lifted by superior teammates and supporting cast. Turgeon, more of a standout on fair to middling teams.

My Best-Carey

Going 401-216-95 will garner some attention. Unfortunately you look and see that despite those stats he wasn't considered an elite goalie. Finished 2nd and 7th in Vezina voting, 10th another time. That's not good. But they'll look at his wins and his playoff career with three Cups (one as a back up) and 74 playoff wins and figure he was a central part of the Wings.

If Turgeon would have won the Cup he'd have been a more central figure than Osgood on the Wings, but in 20 years he was never close. Turgeon may have had 1327 points but he did it over 20 years. To have that many points and all but once or twice being among the best doesn't strike me as a HHOFer.

 

[frisco]

Going 401-216-95 will garner some attention. Unfortunately you look and see that despite those stats he wasn't considered an elite goalie. Finished 2nd and 7th in Vezina voting, 10th another time. That's not good. But they'll look at his wins and his playoff career with three Cups (one as a back up) and 74 playoff wins and figure he was a central part of the Wings.

Frankly, I have no idea what Osgood and Turgeon have in common. Osgood was a goalie on great teams whose only real impressive numbers were wins mostly because of the team he had in front of them. His individual stats weren't good and mostly people understand his GAA was propped up by playing on some of the great regular season teams of all time. Turgeon almost always was on average and below average teams and excelled individually without a lot of support.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

Turgeon may have had 1327 points but he did it over 20 years.

If Turgeon's totals are primarily because he played a long time then his per game production should be relatively low. Unfortunately, what you're alluding to is not correct. Turgeon had a higher points/game mark than:

Sittler
Selanne
Fleury
Mullen
Kariya
Ratelle
Robitaille
Ciccarelli
Gilbert
Thornton
Fedorov
Recchi
Alfredsson
Gartner
McDonald
St.Louis
Nieuwendyk
Modano
Shanahan

Turgeon produced at a high level for a long time. Turgeon had 13 seasons of at least 0.95 points per game (40+ GP minimum). Gretzky, Howe, Dionne, Sakic, Beliveau, Francis, Messier, Coffey, Jagr, Bourque, Mikita, Yzerman. 12 players, all beyond a doubt HOFers, are the only players in NHL history with more. Other players who matched Turgeon's 13: Esposito, Hull, Hawerchuk, Modano, Perreault, Sundin. Again, HOFers all.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

If Turgeon's totals are primarily because he played a long time then his per game production should be relatively low. Unfortunately, what you're alluding to is not correct. Turgeon had a higher points/game mark than:

Sittler
Selanne
Fleury
Mullen
Kariya
Ratelle
Robitaille
Ciccarelli
Gilbert
Thornton
Fedorov
Recchi
Alfredsson
Gartner
McDonald
St.Louis
Nieuwendyk
Modano
Shanahan

Turgeon produced at a high level for a long time. Turgeon had 13 seasons of at least 0.95 points per game (40+ GP minimum). Gretzky, Howe, Dionne, Sakic, Beliveau, Francis, Messier, Coffey, Jagr, Bourque, Mikita, Yzerman. 12 players, all beyond a doubt HOFers, are the only players in NHL history with more. Other players who matched Turgeon's 13: Esposito, Hull, Hawerchuk, Modano, Perreault, Sundin. Again, HOFers all.

My Best-Carey

PPG isn't a stat you use to measure great seasons. Of all those players you mentioned, why did all of them have more great seasons than Turgeon? Don't you see that there is something wrong with a guy who has that many points and that high of a PPG in his career only to not have great seasons like the others? He has that many points but only finished in the top 12 in scoring twice? Not great.

Players with a higher PPG than Turgeon in his career (he ranks 44th):

Nicholls
Kerr
Palffy
Nilsson

Did Turgeon really have more "great" or "good" seasons than Bernie Nicholls? Because I wouldn't put either of them in the HHOF.

Frankly, I have no idea what Osgood and Turgeon have in common. Osgood was a goalie on great teams whose only real impressive numbers were wins mostly because of the team he had in front of them. His individual stats weren't good and mostly people understand his GAA was propped up by playing on some of the great regular season teams of all time. Turgeon almost always was on average and below average teams and excelled individually without a lot of support.

My Best-Carey

They are both two players that might get in someday because so much time will have passed and the committee will look a numbers without context and figure that's good enough for them.

 

[frisco]

PPG isn't a stat you use to measure great seasons. Of all those players you mentioned, why did all of them have more great seasons than Turgeon? Don't you see that there is something wrong with a guy who has that many points and that high of a PPG in his career only to not have great seasons like the others?

You tell me how a guy can have 1327 in 1294 games and 13 (straight) seasons where he finished with at least 0.95/points per game and a low finish 35th in scoring and that's a bad thing. He had 132 points one year. Here's guys with less than 13 0.95/point seasons (min. 40 GP):
Lemieux
Crosby
Bobby Hull
Kurri
Selanne
Trottier
Oates
Ovechkin
Malkin
Sittler
Gartner
Gilmour
Robitaille
Mullen
Savard
Stastny
Clarke
Lafleur
Recchi
Alfredsson
McDonald
Nieuwendyk
Goulet
Lafontaine
Kariya
Fedorov
Shanahan

There's really too many great players to list them all. Turgeon was consistently great AND played and had a long career.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

Players with a higher PPG than Turgeon in his career (he ranks 44th):

Nicholls
Kerr
Palffy
Nilsson

Number of players who aren't in the Hall who had better points/game production and more total points than Turgeon? One. Jaromir Jagr and he's got a good chance to go in someday. That is greatness long time consistently superior performance. That's really what the Hall Of Fame is about.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

You tell me how a guy can have 1327 in 1294 games and 13 (straight) seasons where he finished with at least 0.95/points per game and a low finish 35th in scoring and that's a bad thing. He had 132 points one year. Here's guys with less than 13 0.95/point seasons (min. 40 GP):
Lemieux
Crosby
Bobby Hull
Kurri
Selanne
Trottier
Oates
Ovechkin
Malkin
Sittler
Gartner
Gilmour
Robitaille
Mullen
Savard
Stastny
Clarke
Lafleur
Recchi
Alfredsson
McDonald
Nieuwendyk
Goulet
Lafontaine
Kariya
Fedorov
Shanahan

There's really too many great players to list them all. Turgeon was consistently great AND played and had a long career.

My Best-Carey

I didn't say it was a bad thing, I just am saying it is strange that he didn't regularly finish high in the scoring race. For a guy with that many points he sure didn't have the elite seasons you would expect. In other words, he isn't like the guy in your profile picture, very comfortably in the HHOF.

 

[Neutrinos]

I didn't say it was a bad thing, I just am saying it is strange that he didn't regularly finish high in the scoring race. For a guy with that many points he sure didn't have the elite seasons you would expect. In other words, he isn't like the guy in your profile picture, very comfortably in the HHOF.

At quick glance, it appears Perreault only finished in the top 10 in PPG on 4 occasions, finishing 4th, 7th, 7th, 10th

So it would seem that his impressive scoring finishes were often a result of more productive players missing games

 

[Big Phil]

At quick glance, it appears Perreault only finished in the top 10 in PPG on 4 occasions, finishing 4th, 7th, 7th, 10th

So it would seem that his impressive scoring finishes were often a result of more productive players missing games

What is it with this thread and the obsession with partial seasons and PPG? This is the only thread I have ever seen on these boards that disregards a great FULL season year after year and elevates a partial year.

 

[frisco]

In Turgeon's 13 seasons where he had over 0.95 points/game he averaged 72 games played per year. And that includes the 94-95 season at 48 games because of a labor stoppage. So it is not like there are 22 game seasons in there or whatever. Like has been mentioned before, over those 13 seasons he finished sixth overall in scoring. That's raw totals and not points/game.

Here's the top six and their averages per year in that span (1988-89 to 2000-01):
Yzerman 74 GP, 92.6 points. 13 seasons.
Gretzky 72 GP, 108.0. 11 seasons.
Sakic 72 GP, 90.6. 13 seasons.
Oates 73 GP, 89.1. 13 seasons.
Hull 73 GP, 86.0. 13 seasons.
Turgeon 72 GP, 84.8. 13 seasons.

7-12 are Jagr, Francis, Lemieux, Robitaille, Messier, Recchi.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

In Turgeon's 13 seasons where he had over 0.95 points/game he averaged 72 games played per year. And that includes the 94-95 season at 48 games because of a labor stoppage. So it is not like there are 22 game seasons in there or whatever. Like has been mentioned before, over those 13 seasons he finished sixth overall in scoring. That's raw totals and not points/game.

Here's the top six and their averages per year in that span (1988-89 to 2000-01):
Yzerman 74 GP, 92.6 points. 13 seasons.
Gretzky 72 GP, 108.0. 11 seasons.
Sakic 72 GP, 90.6. 13 seasons.
Oates 73 GP, 89.1. 13 seasons.
Hull 73 GP, 86.0. 13 seasons.
Turgeon 72 GP, 84.8. 13 seasons.

7-12 are Jagr, Francis, Lemieux, Robitaille, Messier, Recchi.

My Best-Carey

And yet the guy never finished higher than tying for 5th in scoring. 7th another time. Then 13th. Sorry, that isn't a HHOFer when the guy is relying a lot on offense to make his case and doesn't bring much else to the table.

If Turgeon was so great of a player then why can't we find all of these times he was a top 10 player in the game in any given season? Top 15? Top 20? There should be several but there aren't. That ought to tell you something.

 

[frisco]

And yet the guy never finished higher than tying for 5th in scoring. 7th another time. Then 13th.

What does it matter? The thirteen seasons of data show way more information than individual seasons. Look at Hull and Turgeon. Hull had 1118 points over those thirteen seasons and Turgeon 1102. So Hull was very slightly better in points production than Turgeon by 16 total points. I mean you can break the scoring down by year or month or whatever but I can't see how that makes a difference.

Here's their finishes each year (Hull first then Turgeon from 1988-89):
28/22 Turgeon advantage +6
5/7 Hull advantage +2
2/29 Hull advantage +27
4/13 Hull advantage +9
19/6 Turgeon advantage +13
12/14 Hull advantage +2
16/24 Hull advantage +8
27/18 Turgeon advantage +9
18/13 Turgeon advantage +5
18/24 Hull advantage +6
41/29 Turgeon advantage +12
55/37 Turgeon advantage +18
23/17 Turgeon advantage +6

Hull average finish (20.6). Turgeon average finish (19.5). So practically identical as you'd expect with guys with the same point totals. Hull finishes higher six of the 13 years to seven (obviously) for Turgeon. I can't see how anyone from a pure points perspective can say either was substantially "better" than the other in this area. Hull bounced around a little more in range (2-55) to Turgeon (6-37) but both were remarkably consistent.

My Best-Carey

 

[Neutrinos]

And yet the guy never finished higher than tying for 5th in scoring. 7th another time. Then 13th. Sorry, that isn't a HHOFer when the guy is relying a lot on offense to make his case and doesn't bring much else to the table.

If Turgeon was so great of a player then why can't we find all of these times he was a top 10 player in the game in any given season? Top 15? Top 20? There should be several but there aren't. That ought to tell you something.

How many times did Dino Ciccarelli, Joe Niewendyk, Bernie Federko, Glenn Anderson, Mike Gartner, etc. finish higher than 5th in scoring?

So the problem seems to be that you're holding Turgeon to a standard that just hasn't applied to previous inductees

The reality is that based on the current standard, Turgeon more than meets that criteria

 

[Big Phil]

What does it matter? The thirteen seasons of data show way more information than individual seasons. Look at Hull and Turgeon. Hull had 1118 points over those thirteen seasons and Turgeon 1102. So Hull was very slightly better in points production than Turgeon by 16 total points. I mean you can break the scoring down by year or month or whatever but I can't see how that makes a difference.

Here's their finishes each year (Hull first then Turgeon from 1988-89):
28/22 Turgeon advantage +6
5/7 Hull advantage +2
2/29 Hull advantage +27
4/13 Hull advantage +9
19/6 Turgeon advantage +13
12/14 Hull advantage +2
16/24 Hull advantage +8
27/18 Turgeon advantage +9
18/13 Turgeon advantage +5
18/24 Hull advantage +6
41/29 Turgeon advantage +12
55/37 Turgeon advantage +18
23/17 Turgeon advantage +6

Hull average finish (20.6). Turgeon average finish (19.5). So practically identical as you'd expect with guys with the same point totals. Hull finishes higher six of the 13 years to seven (obviously) for Turgeon. I can't see how anyone from a pure points perspective can say either was substantially "better" than the other in this area. Hull bounced around a little more in range (2-55) to Turgeon (6-37) but both were remarkably consistent.

My Best-Carey

Did I just see a post where things were shifted to a point where Turgeon is compared to Brett Hull? Impossible, not on HFboards. I have said this before on this thread but it continues to be a thread where I just simply have never seen stuff like this before. If you don't know why Brett Hull is in the HHOF and why Turgeon isn't, then I don't know what else to say. Hull produced his entire career, he simply never stopped scoring goals and he has a much longer peak than Turgeon. And that doesn't even touch upon their playoff records. The less comparison there is to that the better it is for Turgeon.

How many times did Dino Ciccarelli, Joe Niewendyk, Bernie Federko, Glenn Anderson, Mike Gartner, etc. finish higher than 5th in scoring?

So the problem seems to be that you're holding Turgeon to a standard that just hasn't applied to previous inductees

The reality is that based on the current standard, Turgeon more than meets that criteria

I wouldn't have inducted Nieuwendyk personally. Anderson got in for much more than his regular season resume, he got in because there are only 3 players in NHL history with more playoff points than him. Gartner is in the HHOF because of his remarkable consistency and the fact that he never stopped scoring his entire career. Dino, like Gartner, hit his goal totals the right way, not the Andreychuk way, by retiring as soon as he wasn't scoring anymore and not padding his stats. Federko was remarkably consistent to the point where he held the record for most consecutive 50+ assist years before Gretzky broke it. He's often thought to be on the fence.

None of it has to do with Turgeon, a player has to make it in on their own merit.

 

[Bluesguru]

Did I just see a post where things were shifted to a point where Turgeon is compared to Brett Hull? Impossible, not on HFboards. I have said this before on this thread but it continues to be a thread where I just simply have never seen stuff like this before. If you don't know why Brett Hull is in the HHOF and why Turgeon isn't, then I don't know what else to say. Hull produced his entire career, he simply never stopped scoring goals and he has a much longer peak than Turgeon. And that doesn't even touch upon their playoff records. The less comparison there is to that the better it is for Turgeon.



I wouldn't have inducted Nieuwendyk personally. Anderson got in for much more than his regular season resume, he got in because there are only 3 players in NHL history with more playoff points than him. Gartner is in the HHOF because of his remarkable consistency and the fact that he never stopped scoring his entire career. Dino, like Gartner, hit his goal totals the right way, not the Andreychuk way, by retiring as soon as he wasn't scoring anymore and not padding his stats. Federko was remarkably consistent to the point where he held the record for most consecutive 50+ assist years before Gretzky broke it. He's often thought to be on the fence.

None of it has to do with Turgeon, a player has to make it in on their own merit.

Holy Cow, I did not know that about Bernie. Honestly, I never thought of Bernie as a hall of famer and it surprised me that he got in. But I will say this, if Bernie was a gifted skater, he would of been fantastic. He actually had that Gretzky like vision/mind but Bernie just didn’t have the wheels. But he got Brian Sutter a ton of goals and Mark Hunter scored 110 as his RW over 3 year period. That says a lot about Bernie and how good he was.

 

[frisco]

Did I just see a post where things were shifted to a point where Turgeon is compared to Brett Hull? Impossible, not on HFboards. I have said this before on this thread but it continues to be a thread where I just simply have never seen stuff like this before. If you don't know why Brett Hull is in the HHOF and why Turgeon isn't, then I don't know what else to say. Hull produced his entire career, he simply never stopped scoring goals and he has a much longer peak than Turgeon. And that doesn't even touch upon their playoff records. The less comparison there is to that the better it is for Turgeon.

That was not really close to the point of the post.

Hull and Turgeon (1988-89 through 2000-2001) were within sixteen points of one another so that's why I used those two. That is a undeniable fact. Hull might be way better in your eyes or whatever, but in points for that 13-year period he was about one point per year higher.

What I was trying to point out is that Hull had one or two more higher finishes but had some low years (55th one year) to balance that out. Turgeon didn't have the high placements but his "floor" was higher as he rarely dropped out of the top 25. In the end, their production ended up being about the same.

To simplify, let's say one player goes 125-65-55 while another goes 82-81-82 over a three year span. The first guy some people say is better because of the peak 125 year. Others would opt for the consistent production over the second guy. I'd say both produced 245 points and were pretty much even.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

I wouldn't have inducted Nieuwendyk personally. Anderson got in for much more than his regular season resume, he got in because there are only 3 players in NHL history with more playoff points than him. Gartner is in the HHOF because of his remarkable consistency and the fact that he never stopped scoring his entire career. Dino, like Gartner, hit his goal totals the right way, not the Andreychuk way, by retiring as soon as he wasn't scoring anymore and not padding his stats. Federko was remarkably consistent to the point where he held the record for most consecutive 50+ assist years before Gretzky broke it. He's often thought to be on the fence.

None of it has to do with Turgeon.

Of course it does, the whole point of the discussion essentially is asking if Turgeon is a HOFer. The best, fairest, and easiest way to do so is compare Turgeon to players that are in the Hall already. That is pretty self-evident.

One of the de facto standards for induction seems to be career points, for example. This fact is crystallized by the fact that of the 38 top eligible point producers in NHL history, 37 are in the Hall. Turgeon being the only one not in. Or in a similar fashion, there are 40 or so modern era forwards in the Hall with less career points than Turgeon.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

That was not really close to the point of the post.

Hull and Turgeon (1988-89 through 2000-2001) were within sixteen points of one another so that's why I used those two. That is a undeniable fact. Hull might be way better in your eyes or whatever, but in points for that 13-year period he was about one point per year higher.

What I was trying to point out is that Hull had one or two more higher finishes but had some low years (55th one year) to balance that out. Turgeon didn't have the high placements but his "floor" was higher as he rarely dropped out of the top 25. In the end, their production ended up being about the same.

To simplify, let's say one player goes 125-65-55 while another goes 82-81-82 over a three year span. The first guy some people say is better because of the peak 125 year. Others would opt for the consistent production over the second guy. I'd say both produced 245 points and were pretty much even.

My Best-Carey

The guy who has a 125 point year could win the Art Ross, so yeah I'll take his three years. If he has a 65 or 55 point season after getting 125 it almost certainly means he missed time.

But that is besides the point, are you trying to compare Turgeon to Hull? It really looks like it to me. This is how I am seeing it. You are saying that in a 13 year span Turgeon is one point lower per year and that essentially that matches him up with Hull. I am just seeing if this is what you are claiming.

 

[Neutrinos]

The guy who has a 125 point year could win the Art Ross, so yeah I'll take his three years. If he has a 65 or 55 point season after getting 125 it almost certainly means he missed time.

But that is besides the point, are you trying to compare Turgeon to Hull? It really looks like it to me. This is how I am seeing it. You are saying that in a 13 year span Turgeon is one point lower per year and that essentially that matches him up with Hull. I am just seeing if this is what you are claiming.

Their 3 best PPG seasons:

Hull
1.68, 1.49, 1.41

Turgeon
1.59, 1.33, 1.31


Now, in Turgeon's best season, his linemates were Steve Thomas and Derek King, or possibly Benoit Hogue

And in Hull's best season where he averaged 1.68, he didn't even lead his team. Oates did with 1.89

 

[frisco]

The guy who has a 125 point year could win the Art Ross, so yeah I'll take his three years. If he has a 65 or 55 point season after getting 125 it almost certainly means he missed time.

But that is besides the point, are you trying to compare Turgeon to Hull? It really looks like it to me. This is how I am seeing it. You are saying that in a 13 year span Turgeon is one point lower per year and that essentially that matches him up with Hull. I am just seeing if this is what you are claiming.

As far as the 125 point guy let's say they both played full seasons all three years. Do you feel the 125-65-55 guy is "better" than 82-81-82? All other things being equal.

As far as Turgeon/Hull goes I didn't make up the stats. That is what they were from 1988-89 to 2000-01. Whatever conclusions someone wants to draw from that is fine. But the stats are accurate.

Hull 1118 in 949 GP.
Turgeon 1103 in 932 GP..

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

Hull four top 10 finishes in points per game: 3, 5, 7, 9.
Turgeon five top 10 finishes in points per game: 4, 5, 6, 8, 9.

To bring the two up in the same conversation isn't an insult to Hull nor is it some sort of blasphemy. They were comparable point producers.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

Hull four top 10 finishes in points per game: 3, 5, 7, 9.
Turgeon five top 10 finishes in points per game: 4, 5, 6, 8, 9.

To bring the two up in the same conversation isn't an insult to Hull nor is it some sort of blasphemy. They were comparable point producers.

My Best-Carey

Been on these boards 15 years and I've never heard someone figure Turgeon is comparable to Hull.

Hull had a three year span where he was a Hart finalist every year and won it once. You really think their peak seasons are close? Hull was clearly the superior player to Turgeon. He was then, and he still is looking back. He led the NHL in goals three seasons in a row. He also delivered in the playoffs, even before his Cup wins. Those Blues teams in the early 1990s weren't any better than the ones in the late 1990s and yet Hull produced very, very well those years.

Honestly, don't embarrass yourself and start a poll with a Hull vs. Turgeon thing, but I just might do it to make a point that you can't just look at a spreadsheet and think you have seen everything.

 

[Neutrinos]

Been on these boards 15 years and I've never heard someone figure Turgeon is comparable to Hull.

Hull had a three year span where he was a Hart finalist every year and won it once. You really think their peak seasons are close? Hull was clearly the superior player to Turgeon. He was then, and he still is looking back. He led the NHL in goals three seasons in a row. He also delivered in the playoffs, even before his Cup wins. Those Blues teams in the early 1990s weren't any better than the ones in the late 1990s and yet Hull produced very, very well those years.

Honestly, don't embarrass yourself and start a poll with a Hull vs. Turgeon thing, but I just might do it to make a point that you can't just look at a spreadsheet and think you have seen everything.

Without Oates feeding him passes, Hull's career high was 57 goals in 81 games, or .70 GPG

Turgeon's career high was 58 goals in 83 games, or .70 GPG


Hull's career high in points was 131 in 78 games, or 1.68 (again, with Oates feeding him passes)

Turgeon's career high was 132 in 83 games, or 1.59


In Hull's best season, he averaged 1.68 points per game, which was 2nd on the team behind Oates who averaged 1.89

In Turgeon's best season, he averaged 1.59 points per game, while 2nd place on his team (Steve Thomas) averaged 1.10