Why isn't Pierre Turgeon in the hall of fame? (Part 2)
- Thread starter frisco
- Start date
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
This method doesn't account for the historical nature of 92-93, when stars beat up on also-runs by a margin significantly more than any other season.
I mean, just the fact that it would have Roenick's 92-93 look better than his obviously superior 91-92, which shows the failure of the formula:
59.8 (92/93)
57.0 (91/92)
Again, 92-93 was the biggest outlier season in modern NHL history in terms of star players beating up on the rest of the league.
By comparison, "your average second liner" would score more in other seasons than in 92-93.
To put it another way, 92-93 was the highest scoring season in NHL history for top players across the board (most 100+ scorers in history by far, etc), while any random season in the 1980s would have lesser players (such as second liners) score more.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Unfortunately, you're probably right. They just inducted the Turgeon of defensemen (Housley), so...
I guess the main difference would be that Turgeon doesn't have the American thing going for him.
Staniowski
Registered User
Not that small. Turgeon was a better scorer than Roenick almost every season in their prime years. In the first 11 common seasons (where both play at least half the season), Turgeon had a higher ppg 9 times, Roenick only twice.
Whatever anybody says about '92-'93, Turgeon outscored Roenick that season by a huge amount, and this is supposedly Roenick's peak.
And Turgeon's 5 best scoring seasons in ppg all had a higher ranking than Roenick's absolute best.
Last edited:
Staniowski
Registered User
Yeah, people are talking about Roenick being very good defensively. I don't remember this either, I'd have to watch some old video. But my memory is that he wasn't very good defensively.
Even if you completely disregard 92/93, Turgeon is still ahead of Roenick in terms of points above marginal second liner.
If you look at points above first liner, instead of second liner, here is what you get for their best seasons:
Roenick
43.7 (93/94)
35.8 (91/92)
31.1 (90/91)
31.0 (92/93)
28.7 (99/00)
20.7 (98/99)
20.3 (00/01)
Turgeon
56.9 (92/93)
42.0 (93/94)
36.3 (95/96)
32.3 (89/90)
31.8 (99/00)
31.1 (97/98)
30.3 (91/92)
Total Points Above Marginal First Liner in Best X Seasons
3 seasons
Turgeon 135
Roenick 111
5 seasons
Turgeon 199
Roenick 170
7 seasons
Turgeon 261
Roenick 211
10 seasons
Turgeon 338
Roenick 263
12 seasons
Turgeon 371
Roenick 282
Total Points Above Marginal First Liner in Best X Seasons, Excluding 92/93
3 seasons
Turgeon 111
Roenick 111
5 seasons
Turgeon 173
Roenick 160
7 seasons
Turgeon 233
Roenick 198
10 seasons
Turgeon 297
Roenick 242
12 seasons
Turgeon 326
Roenick 258
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,784
- 16,234
tbh, i don’t think housley is the turgeon of defenseman. turgeon is a garden variety star scoring center. even post-expansion only, you have to go through probably more than 30 guys, looking at scoring ability only, before you get to the guys where you can make an argument that they are his peers. and that doesn’t even include wingers.
housley was creme de la creme at what he did. are there 10 defensemen post-expansion as good as him offensively?
(not an argument for housley of course)
frisco
Some people claim that there's a woman to blame...
There are 32 forwards who played in the post-expansion era who are below Turgeon in career scoring and in Hall Of Fame.
There are zero eligible forwards ahead of Turgeon in career scoring who are not in the Hall Of Fame.
My Best-Carey
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
That's better... but what does it look like if you compare them to the #2, #5, #10, and #20 scorers? I realize I just asked you to do a lot of work. But I think it's unclear as to whether 1992-93 made it easier on all-first liners (92-93 did see a spike in PP scoring) or whether the scoring inflation was most focused on "star" players in part due to beating up on 2 historically awful expansion teams.
The VsX formula, which compares a player's scoring to a "typical 2nd liner" (there is a sub-formula to adjust for outliers) calculates that Turgeon averaged 82.1% of a typical #2 scorer over his best 7 years, while Roenick averaged 81.2% of a typical #2 scorer over his best 7 years. Over their best 10 years? Turgeon 78.9%, Roenck 76.1%. Source: Reference - VsX comprehensive summary (1927 to 2019) The caveat to VsX is that it is based on full seasonal point totals, and ignores per-game rates.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I think so. Housley's career totals look enticing because he played a long time in a very high scoring era (the Turgeon factor). Off the top of my head, definitely better offensively than Housley post-expansion: Orr, Park, Potvin, Bourque, Coffey, MacInnis, Leetch,
Edit: Ok, maybe one could make a Lidstrom vs Housley argument offensively.
This is more or less the argument that got Housley into the HHOF.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,784
- 16,234
actually, the one i look askance at is gonchar, not lidstrom.
looking at gonchar's placements among defensemen, 2000-2010: 6, 5, 1, 2, 1, (lockout), 8, 2, 2, x, 6. he's competing against lidstrom, so those 2s are against someone really good. but it's not an especially competitive field in those years. the 5 is bourque's last season, he only competes against macinnis one year, leetch is basically over, coffey is long gone. so he's really up against lidsrom, rob blake, and niedermayer.
whereas housley's prime, 1987 to 1996 with extended 18 year prime in parentheses: (9, 4, 5, x) 5, 6, 6, 4, 5, 2, 1, x, 3, 5 (x, x, 6, 5). that's against peak bourque, macinnis, and leetch, and coffey still averaging 95 points.*
gonchar has nothing of note outside of that 10 season run. housley obviously has a lot, though in the early years we do have the how much forward did he play question.
anyway, i think you could make an argument for murphy and gonchar as housley's peers, and by now brent burns probably deserves consideration, but i think everyone else is in his dust. and i'm not so sure there isn't a decent park vs housley argument if we're talking offence only. so i'm pretty comfortable splitting the difference and saying there are only nine guys ahead of him.
and yes, the way i looked up the data was to do this sporcle quiz.
EDIT: i mean look at housley's absolute peak: 1990: fourth behind peak bourque, macinnis' second best year, 100 point coffey; 1991: fifth behind the first season of leetch's peak, 90+ point coffey, peak bourque, macinnis' best year; 1992: second behind leetch's best year; 1993: led the league by ten points; 1995: third behind peak bourque and a year where coffey probably should have won the hart trophy. these are some of the best scoring defenceman seasons of all time. i feel like this is like 1989 yzerman stretched out over half a decade.
Last edited:
I think VsX (with X = 1 or 2 or 3) is good at measuring what is measures - a player's scoring relative to the top or second top (adjusting for outliers) scorers in the league in a particular season.
I am trying to measure something a little different - a player's scoring above replacement (with replacement being measured as the marginal players utilized in scoring situations, rather than a 4th liner).
I guess you could think of it as VsX measuring dominance and points above fringe 2nd liner as measure offensive value added.
Re 92/93, there was definitely a bigger spike in top line scoring than second line scoring or overall scoring. The advent of the TV timeout, increased PP time, other usage pattern changes and perhaps other factors led to an increase in top end scoring but not scoring beyond first liners.
And this is reflected, as it should be, in the two different measures in question.
The value of guys like Oates, Yzerman or Turgeon relative to Lafontaine or Lemieux is properly accounted for in VsX: their points spiked, but their points relative to the league leaders did not.
On the other hand, their value above replacement did increase, and this needs to be accounted for in trying to measure offensive value. The increased ice time and PP ice time did make first liners more valuable, relative to 2nd liners and below, than they had been before. If trying to measure offensive value relative to replacement, rather than relative to elite, this should be taken into account.
Roenick's value relative to Lemieux did not increase because of the high-end scoring spike, but his value relative to Amonte's did. The fact that this value increase was largely driven by structural factors doesn't change this.
I believe you meant typical 2nd in league rather than 2nd liner.
My reasons for comparing against fringe 2nd liner rather than 2nd leading scorer are outlined above.
Re counting stats vs rate, consider two players.
Player A
76 points in 80 games
Player B
75 points in 75 games
VsX (as I understand it) considers Player A to have been more valuable.
I guess the argument is if you aren't playing, you aren't contributing, so no credit to player B for the 5 missed games.
Simply projecting over 80 games would consider B to be more valuable (80 points in 80 games).
I think the better approach is to account for opportunity without simply prorating.
If a top line player is playing, he is using opportunity. First or second line minutes and PP time. His marginal offensive value is how he scored given those opportunities relative to how a replacement player would have scored.
If a fringe 2nd liner scores .6 pts/game, a reasonable starting approximation is he would have scored 48 pts in 80 games. Player A (with his 76 points in 80 games) added 28 points of value above replacement.
The fringe 2nd liner (at his .6 pts per game) would have scored 45 points in 72 games. Player B (with his 75 points in 75 games) added 30 points of value above replacement.
The higher value added for player B reflects that he scored his 75 points using fewer opportunities than player A, without simply prorating and thereby giving credit for points not actually scored.
We can argue about whether fringe first liner of fringe second liner is a better threshold, and for post-98 data we can use ice time data to refine the results, but I think this provides a good starting point for measuring offensive value added.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,144
- 14,456
I've stated numerous times in this thread that Turgeon was a productive player for longer than Roenick (hence he has higher career totals). But you're trying to tell me that when we compare two players, from the same era who played the same position, and one was top five in all-star voting five times, and the other was never top five in all-star voting (and only once in a 19 year career did he earn more than a solitary third-place vote) - that the former doesn't have the higher peak?
(For the record, I agree that Turgeon had a slightly higher offensive peak than Roenick. But there's more to evaluating a hockey player than just unadjusted scoring statistics).
Last edited:
mouser
Business of Hockey
this atrocity should disqualify JR from enshrinement.
Good thing Darian Hatcher isn’t up for discussion for hall of fame enshrinement.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Are you kidding me?
He gets his jaw broken in 23 places and DEMANDS to play, the doctors coming up with that contraption.
Lesser competitors would have taken a whole year off to recover fully before going back on the ice.
"A face is a face," Roenick said. It will heal and he said it is not like a leg or hand that is needed to play hockey.
He gets his jaw broken in 23 places and DEMANDS to play, the doctors coming up with that contraption.
Lesser competitors would have taken a whole year off to recover fully before going back on the ice.
"A face is a face," Roenick said. It will heal and he said it is not like a leg or hand that is needed to play hockey.
frisco
Some people claim that there's a woman to blame...
(
Let's look at Roenick's best year which was probably 91-92. That year Roenick finished fourth and received 4-14-8 in the 1-2-3 voting for 70 points. It was a great season 53-50-103, +23. So that gets Roenick 70 points.
Now if you exclusively used AS voting these seasons to evaluate careers/players these guys are considered nothing or "zeroes" for 91-92:
Adam Oates-99 points in 80 games. No AS votes.
Sergei Fedorov-86 points and 2nd Selke. No AS votes.
Joe Sakic-94 points in 69 games. No AS votes.
Pierre Turgeon-95 points in 77 games. No AS votes.
So Roenick gets 70 points from that year and the four (Oates + Fedorov + Sakic + Turgeon) total 0. That's just not quality delineation. A system that values Roenick in 91-92 at "70" should probably value Oates/Fedorov/Sakic/Turgeon in the 60-66 range or so. But that's not what a 1-2-3 ballot and just counting points does. It just doesn't work that way and I'm much more comfortably using points to measure offensive players value than voting. It's longer story than that but this is just one post.
I feel Turgeon and Roenick were offensive players first and foremost. The value they brought to the team can be almost exclusively captured in that. They played in the same era so I don't think any big adjustments need to be made. There is plenty of data here and quantifiable measurements.
Roenick, some say was better defensively. I didn't see that it watching them play or their utilization. Faceoffs, again I don't know if there was a real difference. Roenick was more physical. How many wins or goals or whatever does that represent? Also, more tangibly Turgeon took way fewer penalties than Roenick which seems to be ignored but realistically is a pretty big factor I would say.
Let's take Roenick's five seasons that he received AS votes as his best five seasons and average them.
GP: 78.6
G: 39.0
Points: 88.2 (1.12 ppg)
+/-: +25.
Turgeon's best five (the four he got votes plus 91-92):
GP: 74.0
G: 38.0
Points: 96.8 (1.31 ppg)
+/-: +11
My Best-Carey
If you base everything on AS voting, I'd say Roenick fared better in that. I'm of the opinion that AS ballot is, let's not say flawed, but not designed the best way to determine who the sixth vs. ninth best C were in a particular year on a 1-2-3 ballot.
Let's look at Roenick's best year which was probably 91-92. That year Roenick finished fourth and received 4-14-8 in the 1-2-3 voting for 70 points. It was a great season 53-50-103, +23. So that gets Roenick 70 points.
Now if you exclusively used AS voting these seasons to evaluate careers/players these guys are considered nothing or "zeroes" for 91-92:
Adam Oates-99 points in 80 games. No AS votes.
Sergei Fedorov-86 points and 2nd Selke. No AS votes.
Joe Sakic-94 points in 69 games. No AS votes.
Pierre Turgeon-95 points in 77 games. No AS votes.
So Roenick gets 70 points from that year and the four (Oates + Fedorov + Sakic + Turgeon) total 0. That's just not quality delineation. A system that values Roenick in 91-92 at "70" should probably value Oates/Fedorov/Sakic/Turgeon in the 60-66 range or so. But that's not what a 1-2-3 ballot and just counting points does. It just doesn't work that way and I'm much more comfortably using points to measure offensive players value than voting. It's longer story than that but this is just one post.
I feel Turgeon and Roenick were offensive players first and foremost. The value they brought to the team can be almost exclusively captured in that. They played in the same era so I don't think any big adjustments need to be made. There is plenty of data here and quantifiable measurements.
Roenick, some say was better defensively. I didn't see that it watching them play or their utilization. Faceoffs, again I don't know if there was a real difference. Roenick was more physical. How many wins or goals or whatever does that represent? Also, more tangibly Turgeon took way fewer penalties than Roenick which seems to be ignored but realistically is a pretty big factor I would say.
Let's take Roenick's five seasons that he received AS votes as his best five seasons and average them.
GP: 78.6
G: 39.0
Points: 88.2 (1.12 ppg)
+/-: +25.
Turgeon's best five (the four he got votes plus 91-92):
GP: 74.0
G: 38.0
Points: 96.8 (1.31 ppg)
+/-: +11
My Best-Carey
Last edited:
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,144
- 14,456
I agree, all-star voting isn't great at differentiating between, say, the 6th and 10th best player at a position in any given year (because there are only so many votes to go around, and they're usually concentrated in the top three to five players). It's a good thing that's not what we're talking about.
First, we're not talking about individual seasons. I posted the complete data for 1991 to 2002. Yes, there are some years where Turgeon walks away with zero votes despite having a great season (such 1992 and 1994). But if he earns virtually zero votes over his entire career - that shows that his peak wasn't as high as some here are suggesting. A great player might miss out occasionally - but not every year over the course of his career. If he misses every year, he's not that great.
Second, my post was talking about peak. You're only going to finish in the top three or five in all-star voting with excellent high-end performances. Someone like, say, Bernie Federko was a really steady, consistent scorer, but his all-star voting record is pretty disappointing. But I wouldn't say that's an issue in how all-star voting is tabulated. Rather, it reflects reality - he had a relatively low peak (for a Hall of Fame forward) and didn't stand out, on a year-to-year basis, over players with clearly superior peaks. I've already said several times that Turgeon was a steady, consistent player, and he has a "longevity of good seasons" advantage over most forwards - but the reality is his peak was lower than some of his peers, such as Roenick, which is what I've been arguing.
You said that Turgeon's value can "almost exclusively" be captured by offense. I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. Hockey is about more than regular season statistics. (I'm definitely a "numbers guy", so I understand the importance of numbers - but whenever I post data, I try to discuss the context behind it and, just as importantly, the flaws or issues in the methodology). Turgeon is a borderline HOFer based on regular season scoring but when you take into account that he's had little success in other areas (no personal awards, no deep Stanley Cup runs, not a great defensive player, no participation in major international tournaments as an adult), it pushes him to the "no" side for me. Look at post #187 in this thread - beyond looking at regular season accumulation stats, Turgeon is less qualified for the Hall than all but the weakest post-expansion HOFers (and of those weakest few, almost all of them have playoff resumes that dwarf Turgeon's - which, fairly or not, is something that we know the HOF voters value).
I found Roenick was noticeably better defensively than Turgeon. I'm reasonably confident that people who watched both of their careers would agree.
At the end of your post, you're re-posting some statistics without any context or analysis. The data that you've posted is, simply put, misleading. Once again, you're including 1993 (one of the highest-scoring seasons in history) for Turgeon, but not Roenick. It's already been explain why this is misleading, yet you continue to do this. (I like how you include a 67 point season for Roenick, but ignore a 107 point season - I get that you've picked the seasons where Roenick received all-star votes, but it's fundamentally misleading to do this when your post is focused strictly on offensive stats).
Anyway, even with the data skewed in Turgeon's favour because of your unwillingness to 1) adjust for the fact that Turgeon gets a big boost because his best year happened to be during the very high-scoring 1993 and 2) not picking optimal seasons for Roenick - Turgeon is only about 10% ahead of Roenick in total production. This isn't an argument, it's just data. Is it your position that whenever there are two players, and one of them is 10% more productive over their five best seasons, that the more productive player is better? Surely that can't be your position as there are numerous counter-examples. (An obvious one would be comparing Phil Esposito and Bobby Clarke from 1973 to 1977 - Esposito out-scored Clarke by about 9.5% over those years, but it's obvious that Clarke was the better player).
Your argument selectively highlights Turgeon's strength (regular season offense) and ignores all the areas that are comparatively weaker (defensive play, playoff performance, minimal Hart and all-star recognition). I think that explains why, despite posting on a regular basis for a year in a series of threads with 1,700+ posts, your arguments aren't persuading most people - you're selectively highlighting whatever supports your favourite player, and ignores and downplays anything that doesn't.
Anyway, at least we're back to comparing Turgeon to Roenick now. That's a fair comparison. What did Brett Hull ever do to get his name dragged into this?
Neutrinos
Registered User
- Sep 23, 2016
- 8,604
- 3,610
The reality is, Turgeon's peak included a 58 goal, 132 point season - which is 25 points higher than Roenick ever managed
So, argue all you like, the data simply doesn't support the claim you're making
GlitchMarner
Typical malevolent, devious & vile Maple Leafs fan
I believe Hockey Outsider is considering "peak"to be an extended stretch or a string of their best seasons as opposed to a single season in this case.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,144
- 14,456
I've already explained three times over the past couple of pages why it's fundamentally misleading to take the stats from 1993 at face value. (This isn't some special case I'm making against Turgeon - I recently argued exactly the same thing about Teemu Selanne in another thread).
See post #716 - once you adjust for the fact that 1993 was such a high-scoring year, you'll see the Roenick's best season was just as good as Turgeon's offensively, relative to the league's top scorers. The math is clear on this point.
And, again, your argument is just quoting (out of context) regular season statistics. There's no acknowledgement of the fact that Roenick was the leading scorer on a Stanley Cup finalist during his best (or perhaps second best) season, or the fact that he was a good defensive player, or the fact that he did so much better in all-star voting. Maybe that's worth the 10% offensive advantage that frisco calculated (which was misleading, as he included 67 point season for Roenick instead of a 107 point season, and didn't discount Turgeon's inflated stats from 1993). But the point is - it would be nice if someone advocating for Turgeon at least acknowledged that hockey goes beyond accumulating regular season statistics. If it's your position that a 10% offensive advantage makes up for Roenick's advantages in other areas, then fine - we disagree, but at least it's an honest argument. It's the outright refusal to discuss anything beyond regular season scoring statistics which has resulted in this thread lasting 1,700+ posts despite there being little substance.
Last edited:
Neutrinos
Registered User
- Sep 23, 2016
- 8,604
- 3,610
Then why did Roenick only manage 107 points during this magical '93 season?
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,144
- 14,456
Who said it was a magical season? (It was only his 5th best season in terms of where he ranked in the scoring race). Of course his stats from 1993 should be discounted too - we have to be consistent in how we're treating both players.
Last edited:
Neutrinos
Registered User
- Sep 23, 2016
- 8,604
- 3,610
Roenick's 5 best offensive seasons he scored 489 points in 402 games (1.22 PPG)
Turgeon's 5 best offensive seasons he scored 522 points in 389 games (1.34 PPG)
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Tappara Tampere @ Pelicans Lahti - Tappara leads series 2-1Wagers: 3Staked: $134.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Eisbaren Berlin @ Pinguins Bremerhaven - Eisbaren Berlin leads series 3-1Wagers: 3Staked: $95.00Event closes- Updated:
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE Bewitch Stakes (Gr. 3) - KEENELAND RACE 8Wagers: 6Staked: $2,300.00Event closes- Updated:
-
