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

[frisco]

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.

And Turgeon was in the NHL at 18 and put in three full seasons while Hull was playing B.C. Tier Two in the Okanogan or something. They both played almost the same amount of games in the end.

My Best-Carey

 

[trentmccleary]

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?

This ignores EV/PP/SH and just counts goal collaborations. These are the players he scored the most with:
74 - P. Demitra
73 - B. Hull
71 - S. Young
42 - G. Courtnall
19-28: Pellerin, Drake, Hecht, Murphy
59 - MacInnis
56 - Pronger

 

[Big Phil]

Roenick > Turgeon

Agree

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?

It has been more or less, yeah

 

[Big Phil]

And Turgeon was in the NHL at 18 and put in three full seasons while Hull was playing B.C. Tier Two in the Okanogan or something. They both played almost the same amount of games in the end.

My Best-Carey

But they weren't at the same level career wise. I don't care that Hull is a late bloomer. None of that matters to be honest. He was a 741 goal scorer despite all of that. He had an 86 goal season when the next best in the NHL was 51, a league that Turgeon was in at the time too. Hull was just simply more dominant, he was just the better and more dangerous player. Even in 1997 or 1998 when they were teammates do you think Turgeon was the better player? I didn't. If you'd have asked me then I'd have picked Hull to have on my team in a second. Think of Hull like Stamkos in a way, just slightly better. And we already did the head to head thing with Stamkos and Turgeon and it did not end well for Pierre.

Put it this way, you have an obsession with PPG as if it is the only thing we ought to use to judge. Well, Ray Whitney had a career 0.80 PPG. Vincent Lecavalier had 0.78. Whitney had over 100 more points in his career. So does this mean their careers are equal? Of course not. Whitney was a solid player, but Lecavalier was clearly the better player with definitely the better career. This despite the fact he probably should have peaked a lot earlier in his career and he wasn't the same sort of player past his prime, some say after the Cooke hit in 2009.

Why was Lecavalier better? Because there were a couple of years where he was a very, very good player. Great even. Led the NHL in goals once. The fact of the matter is that even in some of his "down" years where he wasn't as good he still had better seasons than Whitney had pretty much all of the time. It is playing a longer time for Whitney that helped and the fact that he was always more or less a 60ish point guy at best. That isn't a HHOFer. Lecavalier won't get in either, but he at least played like one at some point. Whitney didn't.

 

[frisco]

But they weren't at the same level career wise. I don't care that Hull is a late bloomer. None of that matters to be honest.

Why was Lecavalier better? Because there were a couple of years where he was a very, very good player. Great even. Led the NHL in goals once. The fact of the matter is that even in some of his "down" years where he wasn't as good he still had better seasons than Whitney had pretty much all of the time.

Hull was a superior goal scorer of course. As point producers, Hull and Turgeon were close. That is what I'm saying. Not who was more revered, feared, or whatever.

If you don't like points per game it is hard to argue with 1327 raw, unadulterated scoring points. Hull had more but like within 70 or so. Yes, Hull was a greater goal scorer. No question. That's why he's in the Hall. I am not arguing that. I'm saying points-wise Turgeon and Hull were close. Turgeon had 12 top-30 finishes in scoring, Hull had 11. Hull's best seven years he averaged 102.6 points to 99.4 for Turgeon. He has the edge.

This is not Brett Hull vs. Pierre Turgeon. Hull is far, far over the standard for an offensive forward to get into the Hall. Turgeon might not have Hull's numbers but he's in the near vicinity. He's also comfortably over the bar for the Hall of Fame. He doesn't have to be Brett Hull to be Hall-worthy. Just like you don't have to be Walter Payton to get a statue in Canton. There's room for Jerome Bettis and Thurman Thomas.

My Best-Carey

 

[Neutrinos]

Everyone knows that Hull peaked way higher than Turgeon

Hull's career high was 131 points

Turgeon's was only 132

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Roenick > Turgeon

It's telling that Turgeon and Roenick played the same position in the same era - Roenick placed in the top five in year-end all-star voting five times, Turgeon never did that once.

In three of the four years Turgeons got any year-end all-star votes, it was a single third-place vote. Roenick got multiple first- and/or second-place votes in each of those five years - Turgeon didn't get a single first- or second-place vote in his entire career. That's not to say that the voters are perfect, but this is a large gap between them.

Turgeon had more solid/good years than Roenick, but I'm not sure that makes up for the difference in terms of their peak (or the fact that Roenick was a far superior defensive player, or the fact that he was once the leading scorer on a Stanley Cup finalist). Roenick wouldn't be in my Hall either, for the record.

 

[Neutrinos]

It's telling that Turgeon and Roenick played the same position in the same era - Roenick placed in the top five in year-end all-star voting five times, Turgeon never did that once.

In three of the four years Turgeons got any year-end all-star votes, it was a single third-place vote. Roenick got multiple first- and/or second-place votes in each of those five years - Turgeon didn't get a single first- or second-place vote in his entire career. That's not to say that the voters are perfect, but this is a large gap between them.

Turgeon had more solid/good years than Roenick, but I'm not sure that makes up for the difference in terms of their peak (or the fact that Roenick was a far superior defensive player, or the fact that he was once the leading scorer on a Stanley Cup finalist). Roenick wouldn't be in my Hall either, for the record.

I'm not sure what makes you think Roenick peaked higher than Turgeon, because the numbers simply don't support that line of thinking

Roenick's career high was 53 goals, 107 points in 84 games

Turgeon's best season was 58 goals, 132 points in 83 games

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'm not sure what makes you think Roenick peaked higher than Turgeon, because the numbers simply don't support that line of thinking

Roenick's career high was 53 goals, 107 points in 84 games

Turgeon's best season was 58 goals, 132 points in 83 games

Both players finished in the top ten in scoring twice in their careers, in exactly the same positions - 5th and 7th. Superficially Turgeon looks better because one of his big years was 1993 (a freakish season when scoring among stars was higher than any season in NHL history) but his relative ranks in the scoring race were exactly the same as Roenick's. You're giving Turgeon undue credit simply because the best year of his career happened to be 1993.

Their Hart voting is close (both had one year peaking at 5th - Turgeon got zero votes the rest of his career, Roenick got exactly one). But Roenick was a much better defensive player, had one historically significant playoff run during this period, and blows Turgeon away in all-star voting. Roenick is the 3rd most recent player (behind McDavid and Ovechkin) to have three consecutive 100 point seasons (Turgeon only had two over his 19 year career). For these reasons, Roenick had the higher peak.

 

[Neutrinos]

Both players finished in the top ten in scoring twice in their careers, in exactly the same positions - 5th and 7th. Superficially Turgeon looks better because one of his big years was 1993 (a freakish season when scoring among stars was higher than any season in NHL history) but his relative ranks in the scoring race were exactly the same as Roenick's. You're giving Turgeon undue credit simply because the best year of his career happened to be 1993.

Their Hart voting is close (both had one year peaking at 5th - Turgeon got zero votes the rest of his career, Roenick got exactly one). But Roenick was a much better defensive player, had one historically significant playoff run during this period, and blows Turgeon away in all-star voting. Roenick is the 3rd most recent player (behind McDavid and Ovechkin) to have three consecutive 100 point seasons (Turgeon only had two over his 19 year career). For these reasons, Roenick had the higher peak.

Roenick's best season was also '93, but he finished 25 points behind Turgeon

And using 100+ point seasons is rather arbitrary

Roenick had four 90+ point seasons, Turgeon had 5

Turgeon also had 94 points in 69 games in '94, so another 100+ point season was all but assured had he not missed some games

 

[JianYang]

This ignores EV/PP/SH and just counts goal collaborations. These are the players he scored the most with:
74 - P. Demitra
73 - B. Hull
71 - S. Young
42 - G. Courtnall
19-28: Pellerin, Drake, Hecht, Murphy
59 - MacInnis
56 - Pronger

All these forwards were mentioned other than Pellerin, drake, and hecht. I didn't include dmen though.

The one interesting thing here is how high demitra is here, which is probably an indication of their PP effectiveness.

 

[frisco]

Their Hart voting is close (both had one year peaking at 5th - Turgeon got zero votes the rest of his career, Roenick got exactly one). But Roenick was a much better defensive player, had one historically significant playoff run during this period, and blows Turgeon away in all-star voting. Roenick is the 3rd most recent player (behind McDavid and Ovechkin) to have three consecutive 100 point seasons (Turgeon only had two over his 19 year career). For these reasons, Roenick had the higher peak.

When you are evaluating players there's enough good solid data available that to say one guy is better than another because of one fourth place vote here and there when there are hundreds of votes cast just doesn't make sense to me.

Roenick/Turgeon from best seasons. Roenick listed first.
107/132
107/106
103/96 3 year: 105.7/111.3
94/95
78/94 5 year: 97.8/104.6
76/88
72/85 7 year: 91.0/99.4
69/82
67/80
66/79 10 year 83.9/93.7
59/68
58/66
56/65 13 year 77.9/87.4

The rest are a few more 40 point seasons. Matched up head-to-head so to speak, Turgeon "wins" 11-2.

I don't see how Roenick had better top seasons or if you go by best one, best three, best five, etc., And Turgeon beats him over the longer durations, also.

My Best-Carey

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So basically, the case for Turgeon involves ignoring the context that is the 92-93 season?

(And ignoring All-Star voting, etc)

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Roenick's best season was also '93, but he finished 25 points behind Turgeon

Again, you're comparing stats from 1993 to other years without considering the scoring context. 1993 was pretty clearly not Roenick's best year. That would be either 1994 (when he finished a career-high 5th in scoring) or 1992 (when he was 7th in scoring, but a career-high 5th in Hart voting, and top ten in Selke voting).

And using 100+ point seasons is rather arbitrary

Roenick had four 90+ point seasons, Turgeon had 5

Let's criticize someone for using 100+ point seasons on the basis of it being arbitrary - but let's use an equal arbitrary measure (90 point seasons) in the next sentence!

Even if we're not adjusting for the fact that Turgeon's best season took place during the freakishly high-scoring 1993, Roenick still has two of the top three, and three of the top five highest-scoring seasons between them. And was clearly a better defensive player. And is the only one of them with a notable playoff run. And obliterates Turgeon in all-star voting. Any argument beyond reading a spreadsheet indicates that had the higher peak. (Again, Turgeon had more good/solid years than Roenick and was a productive scorer for longer - but I can't imagine that anybody who followed both of their careers would conclude that Turgeon peaked higher than Roenick).

Turgeon also had 94 points in 69 games in '94, so another 100+ point season was all but assured had he not missed some games

The "had he not missed some games" is another way of saying he didn't do it.

 

[Neutrinos]

Again, you're comparing stats from 1993 to other years without considering the scoring context. 1993 was pretty clearly not Roenick's best year. That would be either 1994 (when he finished a career-high 5th in scoring) or 1992 (when he was 7th in scoring, but a career-high 5th in Hart voting, and top ten in Selke voting).



Let's criticize someone for using 100+ point seasons on the basis of it being arbitrary - but let's use an equal arbitrary measure (90 point seasons) in the next sentence!

Even if we're not adjusting for the fact that Turgeon's best season took place during the freakishly high-scoring 1993, Roenick still has two of the top three, and three of the top five highest-scoring seasons between them. And was clearly a better defensive player. And is the only one of them with a notable playoff run. And obliterates Turgeon in all-star voting. Any argument beyond reading a spreadsheet indicates that had the higher peak. (Again, Turgeon had more good/solid years than Roenick and was a productive scorer for longer - but I can't imagine that anybody who followed both of their careers would conclude that Turgeon peaked higher than Roenick).



The "had he not missed some games" is another way of saying he didn't do it.

I didn't criticize anyone, I merely pointed out it was an arbitrary point total to settle on

I then gave another arbitrary point total to highlight that


Turgeon produced at the level of a 100+ point scorer that season, whether or not you want to give him credit for being that productive is between you and your God, because frankly, I couldn't care less

 

[Hockey Outsider]

When you are evaluating players there's enough good solid data available that to say one guy is better than another because of one fourth place vote here and there when there are hundreds of votes cast just doesn't make sense to me.

Who's talking about "one fourth place vote here and there"? Here's a complete list of votes for the centre position from 1990 to 2002 (weighted the way the votes are tabulated - 1st place vote is worth five, 2nd place vote is worth three, 3rd place vote is worth one):

Player	Votes
Mario Lemieux	1,103
Wayne Gretzky	916
Joe Sakic	736
Mark Messier	579
Peter Forsberg	481
Steve Yzerman	311
Mike Modano	311
Eric Lindros	288
Sergei Fedorov	246
Adam Oates	206
Ron Francis	198
Mats Sundin	188
Alexei Yashin	178
Jeremy Roenick	150
Doug Gilmour	137
Pat LaFontaine	100
Jason Allison	66
Doug Weight	34
Alex Zhamnov	33
Martin Straka	18
Craig Conroy	14
Joe Nieuwendyk	11
Pierre Turgeon	10
Bobby Holik	7
MISSING DATA	6
Jaromir Jagr	5
Keith Primeau	4
Theoren Fleury	4
Geoff Sanderson	3
Joe Thornton	3
Craig Janney	2
John Cullen	2
Petr Sykora	1
Viktor Kozlov	1
Mike Ricci	1
Igor Larionov	1

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

It's not a perfect ranking, but it's a reasonable approximation of the top centers from 1990 to 2002. Roenick is 14th in votes, and is the 2nd highest ranked player outside of the Hall. Turgeon ranks 23rd. If Turgeon is a Hall of Fame forward, why did he get, over his entire career, so little recognition?

Let's take 100 votes as a cut-off point. 14 of the 16 centres above that are in the Hall. Roenick is borderline; Yashin has too many negatives (terrible in the playoffs, held out a year, not very good defensively) to qualify.

There are 19 centres with under 100 votes. A few of them are (or will be) in the Hall. Jagr, obviously, is a RW and the votes were erroneous. Larionov and Thornton peaked before and after this time period, respectively. The only "legitimate" HOFer (that is, someone who was actually a centre and actually peaked in this era) with under 100 votes is Joe Nieuwendyk. He's routinely considered a weak HOFer, but unlike Turgeon, he has a great (even if it's somewhat overrated) reputation in the playoffs.

To be clear, my point isn't that Roenick should be in the Hall of Fame. He shouldn't be. But Turgeon has no business in the Hall either. If he was such a great player, why did he receive so little recognition during the entirety of his career? I mean, if he hasn't distinguished himself from Jason Allison, Doug Weight, and Alexei Zhamnov in the eyes of the awards voters, what possible business does he have being in the Hall of Fame? (And, again, unlike Nieuwendyk, he doesn't have a strong playoff reputation to suggest that his regular season resume underrates him).

I don't see how Roenick had better top seasons or if you go by best one, best three, best five, etc., And Turgeon beats him over the longer durations, also.

My Best-Carey

See my previous post. The case for Roenick having the higher peak is obvious. The only reason it looks close is because those arguing for Turgeon are (intentionally or not) ignoring the context from the 1993 season.

====

One more point to illustrate why it's important not to over-rate Turgeon's 1993 season.

In 1993, the top ten scorers (excluding Lemieux) averaged 130.7 points. Turgeon scored 132 points - 1% above the average top ten scorer.

In 1994 (Roenick's best offensive season), the top ten scorers (excluding Gretzky) averaged 106.1 points. Roenick scored 107 points - also 1% above the average top ten scorer. Their offensive peaks were equally good - these seasons are one year apart, the peer groups are virtually identical, just that 1993 was a perfect storm that boosted scoring upwards for everyone. This has been discussed in detail in other threads.

Some concrete examples - Adam Oates finished 3rd both years, with 142 points in 1993, and 112 points in 1994. Doug Gilmour's stats plummeted in 1994 (dropping from 127 points to 111 points) - but he jumped from 7th to 4th in scoring. Dave Andreychuk scored 99 points both years; in 1994 that was good enough for 9th, the year before, he was out of the top 20. It's pretty obvious that 1993 was an unusual fluke, and those numbers need to be discounted before they're compared to other seasons.

 

[Neutrinos]

Roenick averaged 1.27 points per game in '94

Turgeon averaged 1.36

 

[frisco]

See my previous post. The case for Roenick having the higher peak is obvious. The only reason it looks close is because those arguing for Turgeon are (intentionally or not) ignoring the context from the 1993 season.

====

One more point to illustrate why it's important not to over-rate Turgeon's 1993 season.

The thing is Roenick best season (or tied for best points-wise) was also 1993. So, if you're going to downgrade Turgeon's 132 points then you have do the same to Roenick's 107 points that same year. That's why my year-by-year comparison is completely valid why of looking at things. From an offensive perspective from any point (best one, best three, best five, best seven, best ten, best thirteen) Turgeon is clearly superior.

My Best-Carey

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The thing is Roenick best season (or tied for best points-wise) was also 1993. So, if you're going to downgrade Turgeon's 132 points then you have do the same to Roenick's 107 points that same year. That's why my year-by-year comparison is completely valid why of looking at things. From an offensive perspective from any point (best one, best three, best five, best seven, best ten, best thirteen) Turgeon is clearly superior.

My Best-Carey

As already demonstrated by Hockey Outsider, Roenick's best seasons were 91-92 and 93-94.

Unless you are one of those people who think that 20+ forwards were better in 1992-93 than Sidney Crosby (2nd in NHL scoring, 2nd in Hart voting with 100 points) was last year.

 

[frisco]

So basically, the case for Turgeon involves ignoring the context that is the 92-93 season?

If you just complete throw out 1993 this is how the season-to-season comparison looks:

Roenick/Turgeon from best seasons. Roenick listed first.
107/106
103/96
94/95
78/94
76/88
72/85
69/82
67/80
66/79
59/68
58/66
56/65

Of the twelve seasons, Turgeon comes out ahead ten times. He beats Roenick by an average of about 8.5 points per season.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

Who's talking about "one fourth place vote here and there"?

As far as AS votes Roenick received votes five years (three 5th place, two 4th place finishes). Turgeon received votes in four years (two 6th place, two 8th). If you put your complete case on AS voting for 4-5 seasons of their careers and basically ignore the rest of their NHL years Roenick does have the edge.

My Best-Carey

 

[VanIslander]

JR was a force without the puck, Pierre wasn't.

Let's not be reductionist about a player's greatness and reduce it to only points.

 

[decma]

I think a good way to measure marginal offensive value is to compare how many points a guy scored relative to what the marginal second liner scored in that many games that season. E.g., in a 21-team league, the 63rd most productive forward is a proxy for the marginal first liner, and the 126th most productive forward is a proxy for the marginal second liner.

This is a higher reference point than value above replacement, but comparing to the fringe second liner rather than 4th liners takes into account that 3rd and 4th liners have different roles, rarely see power play time, etc. By comparing guys like Roenick and Turgeon to fringe second liners, it is more of an apples-to-apples comparison. In any case, I think its a good starting point for measuring marginal offensive value.

In his best season, 93/94, Roenick scored 107 points in 84 games. The marginal second line forward that season (Martin Rucinsky) scored 0.53 pts/game, which is 44.8 points in 84 games. So Roenick scored 62.2 points more than the marginal 2nd line forward scored (over 84 games). In other words, Roenick's offensive value added above the fringe second line forward was 62.2 points.

This method account for seasons with missed games by only giving credit for points actually scored, relative to how many points the fringe second liner that season would have scored in that many games. E.g., in Roenick's 20-game debut in 88/89, he scored 18 points. The marginal second liner that season scored at 0.64 pts/game, which would have been about 12.8 points in 20 games. So Roenick, in his 20 games played, added about 5 points relative to the fringe second liner.

Here is how Roenick and Turgeon stand in terms of points scored above the marginal second liner in their best seven seasons:

Roenick
62.2 (93/94)
59.8 (92/93)
57.0 (91/92)
50.1 (90/91)
41.6 (99/00)
40.1 (00/01)
36.3 (98/99)

Turgeon
85.3 (92/93)
57.2 (93/94)
55.3 (89/90)
55.0 (95/96)
50.7 (91/92)
47.7 (96/97)
46.5 (00/01)

Turgeon's best season is much better than Roenick's best.
Roenick's 2nd and 3rd best are marginally better than Turgeon's 2nd and 3rd.
Turgeon's 4th through 7th (and beyond) are significantly better than Roenick's.

Totals across best X seasons:
3 Seasons
Turgeon 198
Roenick 179

5 Seasons
Turgeon 303
Roenick 271

7 Seasons
Turgeon 398
Roenick 347

10 Seasons
Turgeon 518
Roenick 450

12 Seasons
Turgeon 588
Roenick 497

 

[frisco]

Point/game seasons (50+ games min.):
Roenick-7
Turgeon-11

Top scoring finishes (top 30):
Roenick-5, 7, 11, 12, 15, 20.
Turgeon - 5, 7, 13, 13, 14, 17, 18, 22, 24, 24, 29, 29.

Top points/game finishes (50+ games min.):
Roenick-10, 10.
Turgeon-4, 5, 6, 8, 9.

Roenick was more physical, in the end how much that actually contributed to winning games is possibly debatable. As a defender, I don't recall Roenick being anything particularly special or employed as shutdown guy or anything like that. Then again, I could be wrong. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is Roenick routinely put his team down short-handed 40-45 times a season. Turgeon maybe 10-12 on average. That counts. But realistically, these guys contributions are measured on the scoresheet.

I actually love Roenick. He'd get my vote for the Hall. I think Turgeon had the better career all things considered.

My Best-Carey

 

[Staniowski]

Turgeon and Roenick are likely both getting in.