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

[frisco]

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

Good question. That being said, why are some so opposed to him going in? I think Turgeon is an interesting case. There are literally dozens and dozens of forwards in the Hall with hundreds of less points than he has. It stands out that he's not in from that perspective.

My Best-Carey

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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?

is that sarcastic or a rhetorical question?

i look forward to the jeremy roenick threads after turgeon gets inducted. JR will be so much more fun to look back and remember.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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

it's like ppl completely ignored my post about hawerchuk and turgeon's european competition because it invalidated their point

so here's another one—

from his rookie season to 1990, comprising a nine year prime that includes eight of his nine highest placing seasons, hawerchuk is fifth in total points. two of the guys ahead of him are european.

from his second season to 1998, comprising a nine year prime that includes eight of his nine highest placing seasons, turgeon is sixth in total points, behind five canadian players.

———

showing my work:

hawerchuk: 12, 16, 11, 3, 9, 7, 4, 11, 34 / 17, 11, 26, 24

turgeon: 18, 7, 27, 13, 5, 14, 22, 17, 13 / 24, 27, 35, 16

Rk	Player	PTS	From	To	Active	GP	G	A	G	A	PTS
1	Wayne Gretzky*	1678	1981	1990	9	688	571	1107	0.83	1.61	2.44
2	Jari Kurri*	968	1981	1990	9	679	442	526	0.65	0.77	1.43
3	Peter Stastny*	950	1981	1990	9	672	346	604	0.51	0.90	1.41
4	Denis Savard*	938	1981	1990	9	660	323	615	0.49	0.93	1.42
5	Dale Hawerchuk*	929	1981	1990	9	713	379	550	0.53	0.77	1.30

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

Rk	Player	PTS ▼	From	To	Active	GP	G	A	G	A	PTS
1	Wayne Gretzky*	1036	1988	1997	9	639	279	757	0.44	1.18	1.62
2	Mario Lemieux*	978	1988	1997	8	453	398	580	0.88	1.28	2.16
3	Steve Yzerman*	930	1988	1997	9	668	375	555	0.56	0.83	1.39
4	Adam Oates*	875	1988	1997	9	649	220	655	0.34	1.01	1.35
5	Brett Hull*	850	1988	1997	9	665	494	356	0.74	0.54	1.28
6	Pierre Turgeon	822	1988	1997	9	674	330	492	0.49	0.73	1.22

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

 

[frisco]

Hawerchuk top ten points/game finishes and leaders ahead: 1985 (3rd)-Gretzky, Kurri. 1988 (5th)-Gretzky, Lemieux, Savard, Yzerman.

Turgeon top ten points/game finishes and leaders ahead: 2000 (4th)-Jagr, Sakic, Bure. 1998 (5th)-Jagr, Forsberg, Selanne, Modano. 1993 (6th)-Lemieux, LaFontaine, Oates, Mogilny, Yzerman. 1994 (8th)-Gretzky, Neely, Lindros, Fedorov, Oates, Yzerman, Bure. 1990 (9th)-Lemieux, Gretzky, Messier, Yzerman, Lafontaine, Nicholls, Hull, Savard.

Hawerchuk 2nd, 5th highest scoring amongst Canadians. Turgeon 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th highest scoring amongst Canadians. Don't really know what this proves or doesn't prove.

My Best-Carey

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Don't really know what this proves or doesn't prove.

the points behind my two sets of data are

1. hawerchuk and turgeon overlapped for five prime seasons, so it doesn't make so much sense to act like they played in totally different eras and qualities of competition

2. hawerchuk played in a league with high end non-canadian competition (for example 1988, when there were six euro/US players in the top twenty in scoring, or his entire prime in competition with stastny and kurri)

3. turgeon played prime years where there was next to no high end european competition (1990, '91, and '92, when there was one, one, and zero european in the top twenty in scoring, respectively—both on the fringes, end of prime jari kurri and tomas sandstrom)

but my real point is this: when we talk about competition at the level you want to talk about it, it really doesn't matter how many dmitri khristiches are in the league, or even how many mats sundins, for the same reason that we don't care how many bengt-ake gustafssons peak hawerchuk "competed" against (the answer is less, obviously).

how many european players are truly high end competition in the '80s? two: kurri and stastny. how many european players are truly high end competition between the end of kurri and stastny's primes and the end of turgeon's? jagr, forsberg, selanne, and bure. you get mogilny in two spurts just like hawerchuk had kent nilsson.

if you count up all the non-injured relevant seasons between forsberg, selanne, and bure in the nine seasons from 1993 to 2001, you get 15. in those first nine years of hawerchuk's career, stastny and kurri combined for 14 relevant seasons. not a lot of daylight there. basically the difference between those two guys' "competition" is the sole existence of jagr.

 

[Neutrinos]

it's like ppl completely ignored my post about hawerchuk and turgeon's european competition because it invalidated their point

so here's another one—

from his rookie season to 1990, comprising a nine year prime that includes eight of his nine highest placing seasons, hawerchuk is fifth in total points. two of the guys ahead of him are european.

from his second season to 1998, comprising a nine year prime that includes eight of his nine highest placing seasons, turgeon is sixth in total points, behind five canadian players.

———

showing my work:

hawerchuk: 12, 16, 11, 3, 9, 7, 4, 11, 34 / 17, 11, 26, 24

turgeon: 18, 7, 27, 13, 5, 14, 22, 17, 13 / 24, 27, 35, 16

Rk	Player	PTS	From	To	Active	GP	G	A	G	A	PTS
1	Wayne Gretzky*	1678	1981	1990	9	688	571	1107	0.83	1.61	2.44
2	Jari Kurri*	968	1981	1990	9	679	442	526	0.65	0.77	1.43
3	Peter Stastny*	950	1981	1990	9	672	346	604	0.51	0.90	1.41
4	Denis Savard*	938	1981	1990	9	660	323	615	0.49	0.93	1.42
5	Dale Hawerchuk*	929	1981	1990	9	713	379	550	0.53	0.77	1.30

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

Rk	Player	PTS ▼	From	To	Active	GP	G	A	G	A	PTS
1	Wayne Gretzky*	1036	1988	1997	9	639	279	757	0.44	1.18	1.62
2	Mario Lemieux*	978	1988	1997	8	453	398	580	0.88	1.28	2.16
3	Steve Yzerman*	930	1988	1997	9	668	375	555	0.56	0.83	1.39
4	Adam Oates*	875	1988	1997	9	649	220	655	0.34	1.01	1.35
5	Brett Hull*	850	1988	1997	9	665	494	356	0.74	0.54	1.28
6	Pierre Turgeon	822	1988	1997	9	674	330	492	0.49	0.73	1.22

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

Non-Canadians that finished in the top 10 in scoring from 1982 up until 2001:
'82 - Stastny
'83 - Stastny, Nilsson, Kurri
'84 - Stastny, Kurri
'85 - Kurri
'86 - Kurri, Stastny, Naslund, Broten
'87 - Kurri
'88 - Stastny, Loob
'89 - Mullen, Kurri, Carson
'90 - Hull*, LaFontaine
'91 - Hull*
'92 - Stevens, Hull*, Roenick, Leetch
'93 - LaFontaine, Selanne, Mogilny
'94 - Fedorov, Roenick, Bure, Jagr
'95 - Jagr, Zhamnov, Renberg, LeClair
'96 - Jagr, Forsberg, Selanne, Fedorov, Mogilny
'97 - Selanne, LeClair, Jagr, Sundin, Palffy
'98 - Jagr, Forsberg, Bure, Palffy, LeClair, Selanne, Stumpel
'99 - Jagr, Selanne, Forsberg, Yashin, LeClair, Demitra
'00 - Jagr, Bure, Selanne, Amonte, Modano
'01 - Jagr, Elias, Straka, Kovalev, Bure, Weight, Forsberg, Palffy

So from '82 - '91, 2 non-Canadians per year finished in the top 10 on average

From '92 - '01, 5 non-Canadians per year finished in the top 10 on average

 

[seventieslord]

Non-Canadians that finished in the top 10 in scoring from 1982 up until 2001:
'82 - Stastny
'83 - Stastny, Nilsson, Kurri
'84 - Stastny, Kurri
'85 - Kurri
'86 - Kurri, Stastny, Naslund, Broten
'87 - Kurri
'88 - Stastny, Loob
'89 - Mullen, Kurri, Carson
'90 - Hull*, LaFontaine
'91 - Hull*
'92 - Stevens, Hull*, Roenick, Leetch
'93 - LaFontaine, Selanne, Mogilny
'94 - Fedorov, Roenick, Bure, Jagr
'95 - Jagr, Zhamnov, Renberg, LeClair
'96 - Jagr, Forsberg, Selanne, Fedorov, Mogilny
'97 - Selanne, LeClair, Jagr, Sundin, Palffy
'98 - Jagr, Forsberg, Bure, Palffy, LeClair, Selanne, Stumpel
'99 - Jagr, Selanne, Forsberg, Yashin, LeClair, Demitra
'00 - Jagr, Bure, Selanne, Amonte, Modano
'01 - Jagr, Elias, Straka, Kovalev, Bure, Weight, Forsberg, Palffy

It's almost like the identities of the other players aren't that important, and the point totals of Turgeon and Hawerchuk should just be compared to a generally accepted standard for "the 2nd best non-outlier scorer in the league", eh?

By VsX 10 year (with a few 70s adjustments), I have them at 88 and 83, which is a considerable gap over 10 years.

If you want to single out an 80s center whose long-term offense wasn't any more impressive than Turgeon's, start with Denis Savard (10y score: 84)

 

[frisco]

It's almost like the identities of the other players aren't that important, and the point totals of Turgeon and Hawerchuk should just be compared to a generally accepted standard for "the 2nd best non-outlier scorer in the league", eh?

By VsX 10 year (with a few 70s adjustments), I have them at 88 and 83, which is a considerable gap over 10 years.

Hawerchuk's best ten years adjusted for era: averaged 85.3 points. Turgeon 86.4. Adjustments via Hockey Reference. Career adjusted points per game: Hawerchuk 1.00, Turgeon 1.02. Turgeon played more games and later (age 36 to 33).

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

1. hawerchuk and turgeon overlapped for five prime seasons, so it doesn't make so much sense to act like they played in totally different eras and qualities of competition

Wouldn't really be a big deal except those five seasons Hawerchuk played and Turgeon didn't in the early 80's? The five highest scoring years in NHL history. So, yeah we might want to take that into consideration.

My Best-Carey

 

[seventieslord]

Hawerchuk's best ten years adjusted for era: averaged 85.3 points. Turgeon 86.4. Adjustments via Hockey Reference. Career adjusted points per game: Hawerchuk 1.00, Turgeon 1.02. Turgeon played more games and later (age 36 to 33).

My Best-Carey

I'm surprised you aren't aware that there's a major problem with hockey reference's adjusted points formula in that it badly screws over high scoring players from the 80s. It is mathematically sound, but it does not account for the differences in scoring between first second and third lines that occurred over the years.

Also, I doubt you adjusted turgeon's games played in the 1995 season, right? Because you need adjusted points per adjusted game not adjusted points per game.

That aside, it really cheapens your argument to use career numbers. You should just stop that.

 

[frisco]

I'm surprised you aren't aware that there's a major problem with hockey reference's adjusted points formula in that it badly screws over high scoring players from the 80s. It is mathematically sound, but it does not account for the differences in scoring between first second and third lines that occurred over the years.

Also, I doubt you adjusted turgeon's games played in the 1995 season, right? Because you need adjusted points per adjusted game not adjusted points per game.

That aside, it really cheapens your argument to use career numbers. You should just stop that.

I don't see why we should throw out portions of a player's career when evaluating them. Anyway, it helps Hawerchuk because he was done at 33. Turgeon played until 36 which hurts his rate totals for the most part.

Also, just trying to simplify things as much as possible with the other stuff.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

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

Focusing on the whole European invasion as if it justifies a player from the 1990s. Turgeon had plenty of time to establish himself prior to the European invasion but he didn't stand out amongst the crowd like Hawerchuk did. Nor did he do it afterwards either. You are penalizing players because of the era they played in. Name one player in NHL history who would have been worse if you placed him in a different era that is in the HHOF.

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

The stats totally back up my opinion. You are too "black and white" about this. Of the names you mentioned where Turgeon has a better playoff PPG then, do you honestly want to say that Clarke (captain of 2 Cups) Bergeron, St. Louis, Toews, Zetterberg are worse playoff performers. Goulet is about as similar as you can get to Turgeon. Shanahan won three Cups and is considered the last thing to put Detroit over the top. I'll give you Iginla, but even he had a playoff run that Turgeon never dreamed of. We are talking about a 0.87 to 0.89 disadvantage Zetterberg has to Turgeon. Do you think that is all there is that meets the eye with him? You are forgetting back to back elite playoff runs, one which ended in a Conn Smythe. I mean, come on now! Zetterberg we are talking about. Explain to me when Turgeon ever racked up a bunch of points and shadowed someone effectively like Crosby.

Do you know how many players who will never sniff the HHOF have a better playoff PPG than Turgeon and who aren't known for their postseason resume?
Kamensky, Mats Naslund, Jude Drouin, Paul Reinhart, Bernie Nicholls, Steve Payne (good run once though), Craig Simpson, etc.

Who has more playoff points?
Do you have a minute, this will be a long list...……………..Scott Gomez...………...you get the picture, it's a long list.

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.

These stats are more misleading than adjusted stats. Look at how Hawerchuk fared against in a league that had Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Messier, etc. in their primes. He peaked higher than Turgeon, had more good/great seasons. I mean, are we serious here? Turgeon over Hawerchuk?

 

[frisco]

The stats totally back up my opinion. You are too "black and white" about this. Of the names you mentioned where Turgeon has a better playoff PPG then, do you honestly want to say that Clarke (captain of 2 Cups) Bergeron, St. Louis, Toews, Zetterberg are worse playoff performers. Goulet is about as similar as you can get to Turgeon. Shanahan won three Cups and is considered the last thing to put Detroit over the top. I'll give you Iginla, but even he had a playoff run that Turgeon never dreamed of. We are talking about a 0.87 to 0.89 disadvantage Zetterberg has to Turgeon. Do you think that is all there is that meets the eye with him? You are forgetting back to back elite playoff runs, one which ended in a Conn Smythe. I mean, come on now! Zetterberg we are talking about. Explain to me when Turgeon ever racked up a bunch of points and shadowed someone effectively like Crosby.
----
Hawerchuk peaked higher than Turgeon, had more good/great seasons. I mean, are we serious here? Turgeon over Hawerchuk?

Turgeon's playoff numbers as a point per game basis in a pretty large sample (at least 100+ games) are higher than Shanahan, Bergeron, St.Louis, etc., That is a fact that doesn't change no matter how one feels about it. You can ignore or argue against the fact that it somehow shouldn't be but it is pretty black and white. It is not like Zetterberg or whomever is being discredited. Scoring at a pace below Turgeon is not really the sign of a poor player.

Hawerchuk's only top 10 two point per game finishes were 3rd and 5th. Turgeon's were 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th. If Hawerchuk peaked higher and was clearly better than Turgeon than why do things break down like that? And again nothing against Hawerchuk that, when adjusted for era, he comes out behind Turgeon. Turgeon was a remarkable producer and really should be in the Hall.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

Turgeon's playoff numbers as a point per game basis in a pretty large sample (at least 100+ games) are higher than Shanahan, Bergeron, St.Louis, etc., That is a fact that doesn't change no matter how one feels about it. You can ignore or argue against the fact that it somehow shouldn't be but it is pretty black and white. It is not like Zetterberg or whomever is being discredited. Scoring at a pace below Turgeon is not really the sign of a poor player.

Hawerchuk's only top 10 two point per game finishes were 3rd and 5th. Turgeon's were 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th. If Hawerchuk peaked higher and was clearly better than Turgeon than why do things break down like that? And again nothing against Hawerchuk that, when adjusted for era, he comes out behind Turgeon. Turgeon was a remarkable producer and really should be in the Hall.

My Best-Carey

Turgeon was a shrinking violet, that's why. This is why he was traded all over the place. This is why Patrick Roy made that comment that would probably be censored about his leadership. Hawerchuk missed one game in his first 7 seasons. He did the things he did with a bigger sample size than Turgeon. If you have to resort to PPG arguments then there is something wrong with that. Give me a full years instead of partial years. Unless this is Mario's 1993 season a season where you play 50-60 games isn't an elite year. Like it or not Hawerchuk had several more elite years than Turgeon. The only reason I brought up Hawerchuk was because their playoff careers are somewhat similar in that they don't add a whole lot to their resume. But it wasn't because I thought it would turn into a debate trying to prove that Turgeon was better.

And that playoff thing is so misleading. Great, Turgeon made the playoffs 15 times. But what did he do with it? He got out of the 1st round 4 times! A guy with 1327 points couldn't have even one playoff year that he led his team anywhere decent? Come on. I know Hawerchuk didn't do better in the postseason, but up until his final NHL season he was on teams with major deficiencies. Turgeon at least had good opportunities.

 

[Big Phil]

Maybe I am the crazy one here, I don't know, but does anyone here other than me not even think twice when judging the playoff careers of (and I didn't originally name them I am just repeating it) Clarke, Bergeron and Zetterberg among others in comparison to Turgeon? All three were excellent defensively and all contributed to the Cup. So much of what all three of them did didn't show up on the scoresheet yet they were still good offensively in the playoffs. Turgeon did little in his career but rack up empty points. I've said that Clarke for a player of his all-time caliber has perhaps a less stellar playoff resume than others around his time (Trottier, Lafleur, Esposito, etc.) but I am comparing him to all-time greats, not Pierre Turgeon who I don't even think of comparing.

 

[frisco]

Maybe I am the crazy one here, I don't know, but does anyone here other than me not even think twice when judging the playoff careers of (and I didn't originally name them I am just repeating it) Clarke, Bergeron and Zetterberg among others in comparison to Turgeon? All three were excellent defensively and all contributed to the Cup. So much of what all three of them did didn't show up on the scoresheet yet they were still good offensively in the playoffs. Turgeon did little in his career but rack up empty points. I've said that Clarke for a player of his all-time caliber has perhaps a less stellar playoff resume than others around his time (Trottier, Lafleur, Esposito, etc.) but I am comparing him to all-time greats, not Pierre Turgeon who I don't even think of comparing.

That's really the whole point of this entire thread. There are players who are deemed to be superior to Turgeon, and maybe they are, but a lot of the data shows Turgeon at least in their class. He's underrated. Unfairly insulted. Overlooked. Whatever you want to call it. It is not like I'm demeaning Hawerchuk or something by showing Turgeon was his equal or possibly better when it comes to offensive careers.

So when you say Zetterberg was a great playoff performer, you are right. BTW, I bet no one would've suspected that Turgeon had a higher points/game rate in the playoffs. That might mean Pierre was pretty good in his own right. Instead of just slandering Turgeon incessantly why don't you give him some credit for matching up well statistically with some of these players who you hold in such high regard.

My Best-Carey

 

[Staniowski]

Maybe I am the crazy one here, I don't know, but does anyone here other than me not even think twice when judging the playoff careers of (and I didn't originally name them I am just repeating it) Clarke, Bergeron and Zetterberg among others in comparison to Turgeon? All three were excellent defensively and all contributed to the Cup. So much of what all three of them did didn't show up on the scoresheet yet they were still good offensively in the playoffs. Turgeon did little in his career but rack up empty points. I've said that Clarke for a player of his all-time caliber has perhaps a less stellar playoff resume than others around his time (Trottier, Lafleur, Esposito, etc.) but I am comparing him to all-time greats, not Pierre Turgeon who I don't even think of comparing.

I don't know, both Trottier and Lafleur were notoriously poor playoff performers for most of their careers, in fact, in both cases their numbers outside the Cup years aren't very pretty to look at. And a lot of negative stuff was written about both of them for their playoff struggles. For example, stuff like could the Islanders ever win with Trottier as their #1 centre? He scored 5 goals in his first 42 playoff games, and that was a very good team. Both Trottier and Lafleur scored lots in their Cup years, but so did everyone else on their teams...why didn't they score outside those few years?

 

[Big Phil]

That's really the whole point of this entire thread. There are players who are deemed to be superior to Turgeon, and maybe they are, but a lot of the data shows Turgeon at least in their class. He's underrated. Unfairly insulted. Overlooked. Whatever you want to call it. It is not like I'm demeaning Hawerchuk or something by showing Turgeon was his equal or possibly better when it comes to offensive careers.

So when you say Zetterberg was a great playoff performer, you are right. BTW, I bet no one would've suspected that Turgeon had a higher points/game rate in the playoffs. That might mean Pierre was pretty good in his own right. Instead of just slandering Turgeon incessantly why don't you give him some credit for matching up well statistically with some of these players who you hold in such high regard.

My Best-Carey

Because in the playoffs it is a whole different animal. He was good, not great, but good in the regular season. Didn't stand out like I would have liked to have seen, and I can think of someone like Roenick who isn't in the HHOF that you would have wanted on your team over him during their primes. But with a stellar playoff resume that just might have put Turgeon over the top.

What do you believe is better? A steady diet of first round exits (some justified, some not) where the player put up very moderate and in some cases mediocre (for his skill set) points and where there is not much deviation from it either.

Or................

Guys like Patrice Bergeron. Perhaps a slightly less PPG than Turgeon, but the difference just offensively is minimal. Yet he blows Turgeon out of the water defensively, is now going to be in his 3rd Cup final which is a lot of his doing, has a couple of Smythe worthy years (was thought to be the Bruins' winner had they won in 2013) and maybe there is the odd year he didn't produce offensively which makes his PPG lower but at the end of the day is anyone taking Turgeon for a playoff run over Bergeron? Please, let that GM be trading with me if he does.

Turgeon is similar in the playoff to Hawerchuk, Sundin, Goulet, among others who isn't "bad" per se in the playoffs but never did a lot to elevate their game. I know this because these are certain players who always had that knock against them. Throw in Joe Thornton for the heck of it. Other than Turgeon though they are all HHOFers, or will be, for other reasons outside of the playoffs and because they had better careers, but neither of them dine on their playoff record because it could be better. It is just moderate with no peaks or valleys.

Give me the guy with peaks in the playoffs. Logan Couture has a much better playoff resume than Turgeon. Daniel Briere does. Martin St. Louis does as well even if he has less (?) PPG in the playoffs. When did Turgeon hit the level of St. Louis in the 2004 playoffs? Or even 2011? I never saw it with him.

I'll take the playoff careers over these guys because they proved it, while Turgeon never did. I'm sorry, I can't pump the guy's postseason up, it is not much different than Phil Housley's but for a forward.

 

[Albatros]

Housley had 4 points in 18 games in his deep playoff run, Turgeon 15 in 15.

 

[Big Phil]

I don't know, both Trottier and Lafleur were notoriously poor playoff performers for most of their careers, in fact, in both cases their numbers outside the Cup years aren't very pretty to look at. And a lot of negative stuff was written about both of them for their playoff struggles. For example, stuff like could the Islanders ever win with Trottier as their #1 centre? He scored 5 goals in his first 42 playoff games, and that was a very good team. Both Trottier and Lafleur scored lots in their Cup years, but so did everyone else on their teams...why didn't they score outside those years?

With Trottier I am going to say wear and tear, just like with every other Islander, took its toll after 1984. When you are arguably the driving force behind a dynasty (Potvin is who I usually pick but it is so close a case can be made for Trottier or Bossy as well with Smith a little further behind) do you really need to prove outside of the 5 STRAIGHT years you reached the Cup final that you can play in the playoffs? It was a rough start to his career in the playoffs as was with Bossy. Only Potvin was strong in those early losses. But I am pretty sure there are only 3 players in NHL history who have had at least 20 points in a playoff year 4 years in a row. Trottier, Bossy and Fedorov. Potvin is a point out of that. 183 playoff points, I think it is safe to say Trottier could play. 3 straight years of 29 points, a Conn Smythe, 6 Cups. The later Islander years and the years on Pittsburgh with a different role are what brings down his PPG. I don't think there is any shame with the fact that Goring came in and helped Trottier tremendously.

Lafleur is a case where he has 4 years where no one bats an eye if he wins the Conn Smythe. A year before the dynasty where he wins it as well if the Habs win the Cup (1975). I am not too concerned outside of those years. He was the face of a dynasty. He ran into injury trouble after 1980 and that slowed him down but there has rarely been someone as clutch in his prime as Lafleur.

 

[Staniowski]

With Trottier I am going to say wear and tear, just like with every other Islander, took its toll after 1984. When you are arguably the driving force behind a dynasty (Potvin is who I usually pick but it is so close a case can be made for Trottier or Bossy as well with Smith a little further behind) do you really need to prove outside of the 5 STRAIGHT years you reached the Cup final that you can play in the playoffs? It was a rough start to his career in the playoffs as was with Bossy. Only Potvin was strong in those early losses. But I am pretty sure there are only 3 players in NHL history who have had at least 20 points in a playoff year 4 years in a row. Trottier, Bossy and Fedorov. Potvin is a point out of that. 183 playoff points, I think it is safe to say Trottier could play. 3 straight years of 29 points, a Conn Smythe, 6 Cups. The later Islander years and the years on Pittsburgh with a different role are what brings down his PPG. I don't think there is any shame with the fact that Goring came in and helped Trottier tremendously.

Lafleur is a case where he has 4 years where no one bats an eye if he wins the Conn Smythe. A year before the dynasty where he wins it as well if the Habs win the Cup (1975). I am not too concerned outside of those years. He was the face of a dynasty. He ran into injury trouble after 1980 and that slowed him down but there has rarely been someone as clutch in his prime as Lafleur.

I understand that Trottier put up points in the 4 years they won the Cup. All of his teammates did too. But excusing him for the entire remainder of his career (i.e. the large majority of his career) really doesn't make sense. He didn't do anything before the Cup years, and he didn't do anything after (including only 14 points in 21 games in '84), although he played a useful role (but certainly nothing great) on the Penguins.

Why should anyone consider him a great playoff performer when, for the large majority of his playoff seasons, he wasn't?

 

[Staniowski]

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?

Well, I don't think this big interest in Turgeon is really about the HHOF per se. At least not primarily. Rather, I think it's mostly about the very wide range of opinions about Turgeon, about his game, his personality, Piestany.

For example, I find the topic interesting, just seeing all the different opinions, and I have zero interest in the Hall of Fame. But I do have opinions about Turgeon, and I think he's unfairly maligned by a lot of people. That's why I defend him a little, and I sense that's why some others defend him too.

You talk about people willing to go to the wall for Turgeon, but I think his detractors are more interesting than his defenders, and I think his detractors are actually more responsible for these long threads. There are obviously a lot of people who dislike Turgeon, some mild and some more extreme. Some of the latter almost seem like they believe Turgeon should be severely punished in some way, merely because he didn't fight Alex Mogilny or somebody in 1987. The hostility towards Turgeon is quite something, to say the least.

Sometimes reading this thread almost seems like the culture wars.

In comparison, I don't think there is much diversity of opinion concerning Guy Carbonneau or Daniel Alfredsson or Steve Larmer.

 

[Doshell Propivo]

I understand that Trottier put up points in the 4 years they won the Cup. All of his teammates did too. But excusing him for the entire remainder of his career (i.e. the large majority of his career) really doesn't make sense. He didn't do anything before the Cup years, and he didn't do anything after (including only 14 points in 21 games in '84), although he played a useful role (but certainly nothing great) on the Penguins.

Why should anyone consider him a great playoff performer when, for the large majority of his playoff seasons, he wasn't?

Wow. I'm learning that Trottier, who won 4 straight cups (and 6 overall), 19 straight playoff series (and 37 overall), Conn Smythe winner and probably the best two-way player in the history of the game was not a very good playoff performer.

Yeah, ok, whatever you say. lol!!!

Trottier could have sat on his ass and ate bon bons all the other years outside the cup years and he would STILL be considered a great playoff performer.

Jesus Christ these posts...

 

[Staniowski]

Wow. I'm learning that Trottier, who won 4 straight cups (and 6 overall), 19 straight playoff series (and 37 overall), Conn Smythe winner and probably the best two-way player in the history of the game was not a very good playoff performer.

Yeah, ok, whatever you say. lol!!!

Trottier could have sat on his ass and ate bon bons all the other years outside the cup years and he would STILL be considered a great playoff performer.

Jesus Christ these posts...

You might not realize it, but Trottier was harshly criticized for his many poor playoff performances, as was Guy Lafleur. They both played on great, Cup-winning teams, but neither of them did much of anything outside those years, unlike some of their star teammates, and unlike other players, including, among others, Gretzky, who always performed well, whether he won the Cup or not.

I understand that winning Cups forgives a lot, but there is more to the story than just how you perform in years that you win the Cup.

 

[seventieslord]

Well, I don't think this big interest in Turgeon is really about the HHOF per se. At least not primarily. Rather, I think it's mostly about the very wide range of opinions about Turgeon, about his game, his personality, Piestany.

For example, I find the topic interesting, just seeing all the different opinions, and I have zero interest in the Hall of Fame. But I do have opinions about Turgeon, and I think he's unfairly maligned by a lot of people. That's why I defend him a little, and I sense that's why some others defend him too.

You talk about people willing to go to the wall for Turgeon, but I think his detractors are more interesting than his defenders, and I think his detractors are actually more responsible for these long threads. There are obviously a lot of people who dislike Turgeon, some mild and some more extreme. Some of the latter almost seem like they believe Turgeon should be severely punished in some way, merely because he didn't fight Alex Mogilny or somebody in 1987. The anger towards Turgeon is quite something, to say the least.

Sometimes reading this thread almost seems like the culture wars.

In comparison, I don't think there is much diversity of opinion concerning Guy Carbonneau or Daniel Alfredsson or Steve Larmer.

I don't strongly disagree with anything in this.