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.