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

[frisco]

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.

Hull and Turgeon aren't really the same type of players. But looking at point production they are remarkably close. Hull had more goals, of course.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

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

And? Is this the best you've got? So you are going to ignore Hull's 3 best seasons just because Oates was his center for 2.5 seasons of it? He was a 57 goal scorer (finished 2nd in the NHL) and a 54 goal man without Oates. Is it possible that the guy was just simply an all-time great goal scorer? He's 4th all-time in playoff goals and only the dynasty Oiler players are ahead of him.

So is that all Oates too or is Hull just a tad bit better than Chris Simon on his own?

 

[Big Phil]

Hull and Turgeon aren't really the same type of players. But looking at point production they are remarkably close. Hull had more goals, of course.

My Best-Carey

But you see their career value to be the same?

If you do, well, I guess there is a first for everything on HFboards.

 

[Neutrinos]

And? Is this the best you've got? So you are going to ignore Hull's 3 best seasons just because Oates was his center for 2.5 seasons of it? He was a 57 goal scorer (finished 2nd in the NHL) and a 54 goal man without Oates. Is it possible that the guy was just simply an all-time great goal scorer? He's 4th all-time in playoff goals and only the dynasty Oiler players are ahead of him.

So is that all Oates too or is Hull just a tad bit better than Chris Simon on his own?

Post #671

Their 3 best PPG seasons:

Hull
1.68, 1.49, 1.41

Turgeon
1.59, 1.33, 1.31


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

In Hull's best seasons, his line was centered by Adam Oates. And in Hull's best season where he averaged 1.68, he didn't even lead his team. Oates did with 1.89


Post #675

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


It certainly didn't look like I was ignoring Hull's best seasons

With that said, I won't be participating in any further discussions with you

 

[frisco]

But you see their career value to be the same?

If you do, well, I guess there is a first for everything on HFboards.

I just posted their point totals and scoring finishes from 1988-89 to 2000-01. Hull had fifteen more total points over that thirteen year span.

Career
Hull: 1391 points in 1226 games.
Turgeon: 1327 points in 1294 games.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

It certainly didn't look like I was ignoring Hull's best seasons

With that said, I won't be participating in any further discussions with you

I just posted their point totals and scoring finishes from 1988-89 to 2000-01. Hull had fifteen more total points over that thirteen year span.

Career
Hull: 1391 points in 1226 games.
Turgeon: 1327 points in 1294 games.

My Best-Carey

I'll ask again, on record are you guys comparing the career of Turgeon to Brett Hull? Anyone can post a bunch of stats, we all have access to the internet. But there is a reason you are posting this and I am assuming it is to show that they are close. But Hull is noticeably better than Turgeon.

Hart finishes:
Hull - 1, 3, 3, 6
Turgeon - 5

Point finishes:
Hull - 2, 4, 5, 12, 15, 18, 18, 19
Turgeon - 5, 7, 13, 13, 14, 17, 18

Hull peaked higher than him and won a major award. Won two Cups, was a stellar playoff performer regardless of where he played, was always good in international tournaments, and is considered one of the best goal scorers of all-time, leading the NHL three times in that category.

In the 1990s do you not remember who was the better player?

 

[frisco]

I'll ask again, on record are you guys comparing the career of Turgeon to Brett Hull?

I just looked at 1988-89 to 2001-01. Here are the scoring finishes (Hull first):

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

For the thirteen year stretch Turgeon finishes higher in the scoring race seven times. Brett Hull is a first ballot HOFer. Turgeon stands pretty close to him as a point producer. Hence, the title thread...

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

I just looked at 1988-89 to 2001-01. Here are the scoring finishes (Hull first):

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

For the thirteen year stretch Turgeon finishes higher in the scoring race seven times. Brett Hull is a first ballot HOFer. Turgeon stands pretty close to him as a point producer. Hence, the title thread...

My Best-Carey

Again, this is just a spreadsheet you are using. Hull peaked a lot higher and for a little longer than Turgeon. You also factor in the playoffs, the goals, the hardware, etc.

I am asking you personally, do you think Turgeon has a similar career value to the lock-cinch HHOFer Hull?

 

[frisco]

I think the most amazing thing Brett Hull ever did was score 70+ goals twice while being a minus player.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

I think the most amazing thing Brett Hull ever did was score 70+ goals twice while being a minus player.

My Best-Carey

Oh come on, really? That's nitpicking quite a bit here. Hull was -1 in 1990, +23 in 1991 and -2 in 1992. In 1992 Shanahan was -3 and Oates was -4. Those Blues teams weren't exactly defensive minded. That was the era that Curtis Joseph was getting a ton of rubber his way. In 1991 they had Scott Stevens, and that helped a lot, but other than that they weren't a shutdown team. Hull had the best plus minus on the Blues in 1991.

That's it? 103 playoff goals and this is the thing you nitpick about? The voters still put him in the top 3 in Hart voting all three of those years. Something Turgeon could only dream about. Let's not get silly here.

 

[frisco]

Oh come on, really? That's nitpicking quite a bit here. Hull was -1 in 1990, +23 in 1991 and -2 in 1992. In 1992 Shanahan was -3 and Oates was -4.

How about Hull in 1992-93 (54 goals, -27), 1993-94 (57 goals, -3), 1996-97 (42 goals, -9), 1988-89 (41 goals, -19)?

I mean Hull was a goal scorer first and foremost (and possibly only). Turgeon was a more all-around offensive contributor. Over 19 seasons each, Hull scored a total of 64 points more than Turgeon. Hull is a first ballot HOFer, rightfully so with his goal scoring pretty legendary. But Turgeon can hold his own overall against Hull. He doesn't look out of place. Best finishes points/game:

Hull: 3, 5, 7, 9.
Turgeon: 4, 5, 6, 8, 9.

Hull was a first ballot guy. Turgeon has been on the ballot for nine years.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

How about Hull in 1992-93 (54 goals, -27), 1993-94 (57 goals, -3), 1996-97 (42 goals, -9), 1988-89 (41 goals, -19)?

I mean Hull was a goal scorer first and foremost (and possibly only). Turgeon was a more all-around offensive contributor. Over 19 seasons each, Hull scored a total of 64 points more than Turgeon. Hull is a first ballot HOFer, rightfully so with his goal scoring pretty legendary. But Turgeon can hold his own overall against Hull. He doesn't look out of place. Best finishes points/game:

Hull: 3, 5, 7, 9.
Turgeon: 4, 5, 6, 8, 9.

Hull was a first ballot guy. Turgeon has been on the ballot for nine years.

My Best-Carey

I see you are resorting to the dreaded PPG stat again, but did you ever wonder why Turgeon is on the ballot and not in while Hull got in right away? It wasn't me doing the voting and I didn't bring Hull up in this conversation, or Stamkos for that matter. Do you think there is more to Turgeon than PPG? Might be the fact that he was only a top 10 scorer twice and didn't bring anything else to the table, perhaps?

 

[frisco]

Might be the fact that he was only a top 10 scorer twice and didn't bring anything else to the table, perhaps?

Your slamming Turgeon for not "bringing anything else to the table" (btw, an empty meaningless statement) is rich. Do you feel Hull's contributions outside his goal scorer were superlative? If there ever was a one trick pony is was Hull. He couldn't skate, defend, hit and never showed the inclination to even try.

And the points/game thing. Why doesn't Hull wipe the floor with Turgeon if he was so much better? Doesn't stand to reason.

Top 30 scoring finishes (not points/game):
Turgeon-12
Hull-11

My Best-Carey

 

[JianYang]

I just looked up his 92/93 season after glancing back in this thread. I was interested to see how much his production was than the next closest guy in his team, given that his linemates were not the greatest.

Turns out that his 132 points was 45 points more than the next closest teammate, with similar number of games played.

It makes you wonder what he could have done with some more talent around him that year.

 

[Jets4Life]

I just looked up his 92/93 season after glancing back in this thread. I was interested to see how much his production was than the next closest guy in his team, given that his linemates were not the greatest.

Turns out that his 132 points was 45 points more than the next closest teammate, with similar number of games played.

It makes you wonder what he could have done with some more talent around him that year.

Probably nothing. He played on a stacked Blues team in the late 90s, and only led the team one year. He was also invisible in the playoffs during their Presidents Trophy season.

 

[JianYang]

Probably nothing. He played on a stacked Blues team in the late 90s, and only led the team one year. He was also invisible in the playoffs during their Presidents Trophy season.

I Remember those blues teams as part of the big 4 in the west back then. They were very good, but I'm trying to recall who were turgeon's linemates at the time?

Seems like he played with hull for the first couple years, and their production was very similar. Then there would be a sizeable drop in production with guys like Geoff Courtnall. And Joe Murphy.

Post hull, it seems like their other best producing forwards were guys like demitra, Young, and handzus. I'm not sure if turgeon played with demitra much though because I thought he was a center..... Could be mistaken.

 

[Staniowski]

Probably nothing. He played on a stacked Blues team in the late 90s, and only led the team one year. He was also invisible in the playoffs during their Presidents Trophy season.

That's obviously because of injuries, not the quality of his play. In fact, he was the Blues' best scorer in 4 of his 5 seasons there, and was top-5 in points-per-game in the entire NHL in 2 of those seasons.

 

[Falco Lombardi]

I Remember those blues teams as part of the big 4 in the west back then. They were very good, but I'm trying to recall who were turgeon's linemates at the time?

Seems like he played with hull for the first couple years, and their production was very similar. Then there would be a sizeable drop in production with guys like Geoff Courtnall. And Joe Murphy.

Post hull, it seems like their other best producing forwards were guys like demitra, Young, and handzus. I'm not sure if turgeon played with demitra much though because I thought he was a center..... Could be mistaken.

He didn't play much with Demitra. Scott Young was pretty much his exclusive RW with a rotating group of LW. Some power play time but Demitra was never his regular linemate. Demitra spent most of his time with Handzus and Lubas Bartecko.

 

[Staniowski]

I Remember those blues teams as part of the big 4 in the west back then. They were very good, but I'm trying to recall who were turgeon's linemates at the time?

Seems like he played with hull for the first couple years, and their production was very similar. Then there would be a sizeable drop in production with guys like Geoff Courtnall. And Joe Murphy.

Post hull, it seems like their other best producing forwards were guys like demitra, Young, and handzus. I'm not sure if turgeon played with demitra much though because I thought he was a center..... Could be mistaken.

During the 5 seasons in which he finished top-10 in NHL in points-per-game, his most common linemates were:

89-90 - Buffalo (9th) - Foligno, Andreychuk
92-93 - NYI (6th) - Thomas, King
93-94 - NYI (8th) - Thomas, King
97-98 - St. Louis (5th) - Hull, G. Courtnall
99-00 - St. Louis (4th) - Young, Hecht, Demitra


And the other 4 seasons of top-20 in ppg:

91-92 - NYI - Thomas, King, Volek
95-96 - Montreal - Recchi, Savage, Kovalenko
96-97 - St. Louis - Hull, G. Courtnall, J.Murphy
98-99 - St.Louis - Demitra, Pellerin

 

[Neutrinos]

Some are critical of Turgeon for his lack of hardware, but he had a Hart caliber season in '93

He was better and/or more valuable in '93 than some players were during their Hart winning season

 

[frisco]

Probably nothing. He played on a stacked Blues team in the late 90s, and only led the team one year. He was also invisible in the playoffs during their Presidents Trophy season.

Turgeon had 355 points in 327 games and plus +65 as a Blue. 45 points in 50 games (plus +4) in the playoffs.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

Your slamming Turgeon for not "bringing anything else to the table" (btw, an empty meaningless statement) is rich. Do you feel Hull's contributions outside his goal scorer were superlative? If there ever was a one trick pony is was Hull. He couldn't skate, defend, hit and never showed the inclination to even try.

And the points/game thing. Why doesn't Hull wipe the floor with Turgeon if he was so much better? Doesn't stand to reason.

Top 30 scoring finishes (not points/game):
Turgeon-12
Hull-11

My Best-Carey

Because his goal scoring was elite. He led the NHL three times and it translated into the postseason as well. Even without Oates he peaked at 57 goals and 2nd in the NHL. It wasn't as if Hull wasn't dominant because of this, or feared.

You stop at 2001 because Turgeon fell off a cliff. Hull still had three good years after that. He won a Cup, had 18 points in that playoff run and had a 37 goal season. He basically scored until he retired.

You really want to start up a Hull vs. Turgeon poll on this board and defend Turgeon? That won't end well.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Roenick > Turgeon

 

[Filthy Dangles]

So if I'm understanding this thread, it's basically two posters cherry-picking PPG to try and make a case for Turgeon being a HoFer?

 

[frisco]

You really want to start up a Hull vs. Turgeon poll on this board and defend Turgeon? That won't end well.

Yeah, a poll with 9 respondents is a great idea. I never once said Turgeon is "better" than Hull. I did present some facts. People can interpret as they like.

My Best-Carey