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

[Hockey Outsider]

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)

Okay, so you've taken Turgeon's stats from 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1996 without any context. (For Roenick you took 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 2000 season - the latter of which was from a much lower-scoring era than any of those five years you used for Turgeon - and again 1993 was Turgeon's best season, and only 5th best for Roenick in terms of where he ranked in the scoring race, so the adjustment for 1993 would have a much larger impact on Turgeon).

The fact that you're continuing to take the raw data without adjusting it (even after this has been explained to you four times) tells me that you're not interested in a serious discussion. You appear to simply be trying to promote your viewpoint using whatever means you can - regardless of whether you're doing so in an honest way.

Here's the irony:

Adjusted for era, Weight scored 295 goals in 1238 games (0.24 goals per game)

Richards netted 337 goals in 1126 games (0.30 goals per game)

If my math is correct, that's a difference of less than 5 goals per 82 game season

In another thread, you seem to casually understand and accept the validity of adjusting stats. So it's not a matter of you not understanding or not accepting the concept - you're content to do this when other players are involved, but apparently not for Turgeon.

Good luck with this approach. I have better things to do with my time.

 

[Neutrinos]

Okay, so you've taken Turgeon's stats from 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1996 without any context. (For Roenick you took 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 2000 season - the latter of which was from a much lower-scoring era than any of those five years you used for Turgeon - and again 1993 was Turgeon's best season, and only 5th best for Roenick in terms of where he ranked in the scoring race, so the adjustment for 1993 would have a much larger impact on Turgeon).

The fact that you're continuing to take the raw data without adjusting it (even after this has been explained to you four times) tells me that you're not interested in a serious discussion. You appear to simply be trying to promote your viewpoint using whatever means you can - regardless of whether you're doing so in an honest way.

Here's the irony:



In another thread, you seem to casually understand and accept the validity of adjusting stats. So it's not a matter of you not understanding or not accepting the concept - you're content to do this when other players are involved, but apparently not for Turgeon.

Good luck with this approach. I have better things to do with my time.

Okay, let's just use their top 4 seasons up until '94

Roenick
411 points in 327 games (1.26 PPG)

Turgeon
427 points in 309 games (1.38 PPG)


Now you mentioned having better things to do with your time, but post #744 suggests otherwise

So my apologies for not reading your lengthier messages, but I'm just not that interested

 

[frisco]

I guess everyone had made their arguments. Overall philosophies I sort of wonder about.

1) Obsession with peak. Why are a the best 3-5 seasons considered so heavily? Most players that merit some HOF consideration basically had careers of 15-20 years. To purposely cherry pick a smaller sample and hold that up as the main comparison seems to be a step backwards in analysis. Look at it from a GM's point of view when drafting a player looking forward. Does he say, well I hope if this guy plays 18 years for us that he has three really super outstanding seasons in there somewhere and to hell with what he does the other fifteen?

This sort of applies to AS and hardware voting. Player A let's say goes 115-70-110-65-75. Player B goes 90-85-80-90-90. Now I'd say that is similar production. But Player A because of the two bigger years is going probably count heavier in the AS/Award area and might be considered superior. Is that really the right way to look at things?

2) Partial or injured seasons. I've read a lot of posts saying a season totals are what matters most with GP ignored. Basically, Cam Neely's 50 goals in 49 GP is just the same as someone's 50 goals in 81 games. That just isn't right. If Neely played another 30 games on one leg and scores another three goals that would make his season better because 53 is higher than 50? Just doesn't make sense to me. Yet, I see rankings and systems that ignore production on a per game basis vs. season total only comparison.

My Best-Carey

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

....

 

[The Panther]

At this time, I would like to point out that the part one of this thread ran for 37 (!) pages, with 1098 posts.

Part two of this thread has run for 26 (and counting) pages, and mine will be post number 755.

SO FAR, we have 63 pages of discussion, with 1,853 posts arguing why Pierre Turgeon should or should not be in the Hall of Fame.

Carry on as you see fit, but just to point out that if aliens were to come to earth and see this thread, it would be justification to blow up the earth.

 

[Big Phil]

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

(And ignoring All-Star voting, etc)

Welcome to what I've been debating (among other things) on this thread for quite a while.

But seriously, if you saw Turgeon's career then you saw Roenick's. Not that there is HUGE separation between the two, but it is noticeable as a player that Roenick was just simply better and for longer. I'll say it again, but I just don't get the "revisionist" thinking with this sort of thread. First Roenick, then Stamkos then Hull. I've just never seen a debate about Hull and Turgeon in the 16 years I have been on this board and figured I wouldn't either.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Welcome to what I've been debating (among other things) on this thread for quite a while.

But seriously, if you saw Turgeon's career then you saw Roenick's. Not that there is HUGE separation between the two, but it is noticeable as a player that Roenick was just simply better and for longer. I'll say it again, but I just don't get the "revisionist" thinking with this sort of thread. First Roenick, then Stamkos then Hull. I've just never seen a debate about Hull and Turgeon in the 16 years I have been on this board and figured I wouldn't either.

I intentionally picked Roenick, because I think Roenick vs Turgeon is a legit argument to be had. I'm obviously on the Roenick side, as were most but not all people who watched them play in their primes, I'm pretty sure. But it's not a crazy discussion to be had. Hull vs Turgeon though... that is getting into crazy talk.

 

[Big Phil]

I intentionally picked Roenick, because I think Roenick vs Turgeon is a legit argument to be had. I'm obviously on the Roenick side, as were most but not all people who watched them play in their primes, I'm pretty sure. But it's not a crazy discussion to be had. Hull vs Turgeon though... that is getting into crazy talk.

I can live with Roenick. It at least can have some discussion to it. I am on the Roenick side too, but this thread has just gotten derailed. I remember the 1990s, I am sure many do. Hull and Turgeon were teammates at one point, I don't remember it ever being "Turgeon's" team over Hull's. I don't remember Turgeon being considered a better player than Hull in the 1990s.

 

[frisco]

Welcome to what I've been debating (among other things) on this thread for quite a while.
Not that there is HUGE separation between the two, but it is noticeable as a player that Roenick was just simply better and for longer.

This is where one would think there would be like evidence or something presented to show the validity of this opinion and why you think it is true. If it is just your gut instinct/opinion and nothing else it doesn't leave a lot to refute or agree with.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

I can live with Roenick. It at least can have some discussion to it. I am on the Roenick side too, but this thread has just gotten derailed. I remember the 1990s, I am sure many do. Hull and Turgeon were teammates at one point, I don't remember it ever being "Turgeon's" team over Hull's. I don't remember Turgeon being considered a better player than Hull in the 1990s.

Hull came about in the fact that nobody argues against Hull as a HOFer. He's a no doubt first ballot guy. If Turgeon actually has some similar numbers that are in the near vicinity of a guy who is WAY over the bar like Hull then that strengthens Turgeon's argument for induction. Turgeon doesn't have to be Hull to make the Hall of Fame. If he's relatively close then he's over the standard. At least that was the point of bringing Hull into the discussion. If Hull is super clear cut and Turgeon is a notch or two below then Turgeon may be worthy.

My Best-Carey

 

[decma]

Welcome to what I've been debating (among other things) on this thread for quite a while.

But seriously, if you saw Turgeon's career then you saw Roenick's. Not that there is HUGE separation between the two, but it is noticeable as a player that Roenick was just simply better and for longer. I'll say it again, but I just don't get the "revisionist" thinking with this sort of thread. First Roenick, then Stamkos then Hull. I've just never seen a debate about Hull and Turgeon in the 16 years I have been on this board and figured I wouldn't either.

Why do you continue to assume that the pro-Turgeon contingent is comprised of people too young to have seen him play, and applying revisionist thinking? I can't speak for Neutrinos, but I was of age for their entire careers, and I am pretty sure Frisco was too.

 

[frisco]

Why do you continue to assume that the pro-Turgeon contingent is comprised of people too young to have seen him play, and applying revisionist thinking? I can't speak for Neutrinos, but I was of age for their entire careers, and I am pretty sure Frisco was too.

I started watching hockey in 1973. That being said, they do keep fairly good records of stuff so to make judgments based on vague recollections and to ignore the data is rarely prudent.

Anyway, the whole thread is basically inspired by the fact that Turgeon seems to be underappreciated, under the radar, undervalued, underrated, during his playing days and after by fans and the media. That the whole general consensus may have been wrong. He played on middling teams, wasn't outspoken or particularly flashy, had a long string of excellent seasons instead of high peaks and valleys, played in the same era as Lemieux, Gretzky, Yzerman et al, had some of his big seasons marred by injury, may have all contributed to this.

Then you look at some of the guys in the Hall Of Fame. Here's Turgeon vs. a first ballot HOFer that nobody really questions their standing as a HOF player. Turgeon listed first:

GP: 1294/1111
Goals: 512/500
Points: 1327/1006
Points/game: 1.03/0.91
+/-: +139/+39
Playoff points: 97/84
Best Five Season Point Average: 104.6/90.6
Best Ten Season Point Average: 92.5/82.8

The player in question wasn't known to be a physical force or defensive stalwart and he played in a way higher scoring era to boot. Turgeon has more GP, points, goals, points/game, +100 better plus/minus, more playoff points and a higher peak. And some of these differences aren't nitpicking but large advantages. Yet, Lanny McDonald waltzed into the Hall with nary a dissenter on his first try while Turgeon has been waiting 9-10 years on the outside. Why is Pierre Turgeon not in the HOF?

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

At this time, I would like to point out that the part one of this thread ran for 37 (!) pages, with 1098 posts.

Part two of this thread has run for 26 (and counting) pages, and mine will be post number 755.

SO FAR, we have 63 pages of discussion, with 1,853 posts arguing why Pierre Turgeon should or should not be in the Hall of Fame.

Carry on as you see fit, but just to point out that if aliens were to come to earth and see this thread, it would be justification to blow up the earth.

Come on. You like it. It's got to be a nice change from polls of "who's better" between any combination of Barkov, Matthews, McDavid, Kucherov, peak Forsberg, and MacKinnon that crop up every 20 minutes or so in the current NHL discussion section.

My Best-Carey

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I started watching hockey in 1973. That being said, they do keep fairly good records of stuff so to make judgments based on vague recollections and to ignore the data is rarely prudent.

Anyway, the whole thread is basically inspired by the fact that Turgeon seems to be underappreciated, under the radar, undervalued, underrated, during his playing days and after by fans and the media. That the whole general consensus may have been wrong. He played on middling teams, wasn't outspoken or particularly flashy, had a long string of excellent seasons instead of high peaks and valleys, played in the same era as Lemieux, Gretzky, Yzerman et al, had some of his big seasons marred by injury, may have all contributed to this.

Then you look at some of the guys in the Hall Of Fame. Here's Turgeon vs. a first ballot HOFer that nobody really questions their standing as a HOF player. Turgeon listed first:

GP: 1294/1111
Goals: 512/500
Points: 1327/1006
Points/game: 1.03/0.91
+/-: +139/+39
Playoff points: 97/84
Best Five Season Point Average: 104.6/90.6
Best Ten Season Point Average: 92.5/82.8

The player in question wasn't known to be a physical force or defensive stalwart and he played in a way higher scoring era to boot. Turgeon has more GP, points, goals, points/game, +100 better plus/minus, more playoff points and a higher peak. And some of these differences aren't nitpicking but large advantages. Yet, Lanny McDonald waltzed into the Hall with nary a dissenter on his first try while Turgeon has been waiting 9-10 years on the outside. Why is Pierre Turgeon not in the HOF?

My Best-Carey

A few things:

1) On this particular forum at least, Lanny McDonald is widely considered one of the weaker HHOFers. It's derisively said that he got in largely due to an iconic mustache and and iconic photo of him hoisting the Cup in his retirement year.

2) As for Lanny McDonald getting in first ballot? His career stats looked really good at the time, as he was a few years removed from being the first generation of players to play entirely post-expansion. He also got the good old-fashioned Maple Leafs boost.

3) MacDonald peaked at a slightly lower scoring time for stars than Turgeon did. It doesn't erase the offensive advantage you are trying to show for Turgeon, but it does narrow it.

4) To McDonald's credit, in terms of intangibles and leadership, McDonald murders Turgeon. That has to count for something.

5) McDonald won both the Masterdon and Clancy awards in separate years. Does it make him a better player? Not really. Does it help his HHOF case? Maybe.

6) My take? They seem like similar quality players. McDonald probably shouldn't be in the HHOF, but I get that he was a really well-respected player during his day, and for good reason. Turgeon wasn't.

 

[The Panther]

I certainly agree that Lanny is one of the weaker HOF inductees, but, then again, he does have two 2nd-team All Star nods, competing with peak Guy Lafleur and peak Mike Bossy, and a Stanley Cup ring. Of those three significant things from his playing career, Turgeon has none.

 

[frisco]

1) On this particular forum at least, Lanny McDonald is widely considered one of the weaker HHOFers. It's derisively said that he got in largely due to an iconic mustache and and iconic photo of him hoisting the Cup in his retirement year.

I haven't heard a lot of anti-McDonald sentiment. As opposed to Phil Housley or something who probably had 200+ more points than McDonald but whose name comes up in 85% of HOF posts.

Using the basic Hockey Reference adjustment for era McDonald vs. Turgeon best seven seasons:

McDonald-81, 81, 79, 78, 72, 72, 63.
Turgeon-106, 92, 89, 89, 88, 86, 84.

4) To McDonald's credit, in terms of intangibles and leadership, McDonald murders Turgeon. That has to count for something.

I don't know if he "murders" Turgeon. He was popular with fans and the media and a good teammate but nothing spectacular in this area.

My Best-Carey

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I haven't heard a lot of anti-McDonald sentiment. As opposed to Phil Housley or something who probably had 200+ more points than McDonald but whose name comes up in 85% of HOF posts.

Using the basic Hockey Reference adjustment for era McDonald vs. Turgeon best seven seasons:

McDonald-81, 81, 79, 78, 72, 72, 63.
Turgeon-106, 92, 89, 89, 88, 86, 84.

I don't know if he "murders" Turgeon. He was popular with fans and the media and a good teammate but nothing spectacular in this area.

My Best-Carey

Hockey-reference's adjusted points are pegged to the league average player, rather than first liners. Since a much higher percentage of overall league offense was scored by first liners during the 1990s (especially 1993) than in the 1980s, this metric will be grossly unfair to McDonald. This is the entire reason VsX was created.

_____

Edit, that said, Turgeon looks to be a somewhat better point producer, that is true.

 

[Big Phil]

Why do you continue to assume that the pro-Turgeon contingent is comprised of people too young to have seen him play, and applying revisionist thinking? I can't speak for Neutrinos, but I was of age for their entire careers, and I am pretty sure Frisco was too.

Because this thread screams of revisionist thinking. I just haven't seen it quite like this in my 16 years on this board.

Hull came about in the fact that nobody argues against Hull as a HOFer. He's a no doubt first ballot guy. If Turgeon actually has some similar numbers that are in the near vicinity of a guy who is WAY over the bar like Hull then that strengthens Turgeon's argument for induction. Turgeon doesn't have to be Hull to make the Hall of Fame. If he's relatively close then he's over the standard. At least that was the point of bringing Hull into the discussion. If Hull is super clear cut and Turgeon is a notch or two below then Turgeon may be worthy.

My Best-Carey

Because even when Hull was past his so-called prime, he was a better player than Turgeon. This isn't 1991 or anything. If that is the case then Turgeon loses badly here. By the later 1990s Hull was still a very, very good goal scorer, but it was obvious he wasn't going to be "the" guy to lead the NHL in goals anymore. Last time he threatened was 1994 when he finished 2nd. Yet in 1997 and 1998 he and Turgeon are teammates. 1997 Hull outscores him. 1998 Hull outscores him. You can only hang onto 1993 for so long. Yes, Turgeon had a great year, but even then he still finished just tied for 5th. He didn't peak like Hull finishing 2nd to Gretzky in scoring. He didn't lead the NHL in a very important stat for three years in a row in a league with Gretzky, Yzerman and Lemieux. Hull was just simply better because the stats show it, our memory shows it and the eye test showed it. This doesn't even take into account the playoff record. Hull is one of the most prolific playoff performers of all-time. He murders Turgeon in this category.

 

[Big Phil]

I certainly agree that Lanny is one of the weaker HOF inductees, but, then again, he does have two 2nd-team All Star nods, competing with peak Guy Lafleur and peak Mike Bossy, and a Stanley Cup ring. Of those three significant things from his playing career, Turgeon has none.

One is a winger and one a centre. Both from different eras, their careers overlapped for two years. There is certainly controversy over McDonald getting in but it is important to take into account that the 500 goal club was a much more exclusive club before the 1980s and 1990s era players capitalized on it. His first couple seasons and then his last three years aren't great and they don't help his PPG status but from about 1975-'84 or so he was very good year in and year out and I get the feeling if he isn't in the HHOF right now then he is a guy we are asking about a lot, such as Middleton.

This is why I like picking players from their own era to compare. Turgeon has Oates, Francis, Roenick, Weight, Recchi, Sakic, etc. guys like that. Not all are in the HHOF and that is the point. But their careers overlapped most if not all of each other's careers. So you compare how he ranks to those guys and there seems to be a general feeling that Roenick is ahead of him on the pecking order and many including myself don't see him as a HHOFer, which he isn't.

For example, if I were to pick a player that he was comparable to from the mid 1990s up until he was still "good" it would be Weight. Obviously Turgeon has more on Weight overall because he had some good years before the mid 1990s and that outweighs the fact that Weight was still pretty good after 2001 while Turgeon wasn't. So for career value and HHOF chances, it is still Turgeon. But if this was, say, 1998 or so, and you do a Turgeon vs. Weight poll. I don't think there is any difference and Weight in my mind was never a HHOF candidate.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

One is a winger and one a centre. Both from different eras, their careers overlapped for two years. There is certainly controversy over McDonald getting in but it is important to take into account that the 500 goal club was a much more exclusive club before the 1980s and 1990s era players capitalized on it. His first couple seasons and then his last three years aren't great and they don't help his PPG status but from about 1975-'84 or so he was very good year in and year out and I get the feeling if he isn't in the HHOF right now then he is a guy we are asking about a lot, such as Middleton.

This is why I like picking players from their own era to compare. Turgeon has Oates, Francis, Roenick, Weight, Recchi, Sakic, etc. guys like that. Not all are in the HHOF and that is the point. But their careers overlapped most if not all of each other's careers. So you compare how he ranks to those guys and there seems to be a general feeling that Roenick is ahead of him on the pecking order and many including myself don't see him as a HHOFer, which he isn't.

For example, if I were to pick a player that he was comparable to from the mid 1990s up until he was still "good" it would be Weight. Obviously Turgeon has more on Weight overall because he had some good years before the mid 1990s and that outweighs the fact that Weight was still pretty good after 2001 while Turgeon wasn't. So for career value and HHOF chances, it is still Turgeon. But if this was, say, 1998 or so, and you do a Turgeon vs. Weight poll. I don't think there is any difference and Weight in my mind was never a HHOF candidate.

Bolded is kind of an indirect anti-McDonald argument isn't it? At the time, McDonald's 500 goals sure looked amazing, but that's largely because he was a member of one of the first generation to really take advantage of the explosion in offensive opportunities that post-expansion presented. Through no fault of Turgeon, by the time he played, scoring 500 goals wasn't nearly so rare.

Re: Weight, a more detailed analysis of Weight vs Turgeon could be interesting, as Weight mostly missed the high scoring 80s and early 90s.

 

[frisco]

Because even when Hull was past his so-called prime, he was a better player than Turgeon. This isn't 1991 or anything. If that is the case then Turgeon loses badly here. He murders Turgeon in this category.

This is point/game over 3/5/7/10/15 years time spans according to VsX:

Brett Hull	0.93	0.89	0.85	0.81	0.77
Pierre Turgeon	0.91	0.89	0.85	0.81	0.75

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So, Hull is better but to say Turgeon is a the same vicinity isn't stretching things. And again, if you read my post I agree Hull is a no doubt, way over qualified, HOF guy. So if Turgeon is reasonably close where does that put him?

Lanny McDonald

0.82

0.78

0.75

0.71

0.63

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

McDonald really isn't in the same area.

My Best-Carey

 

[The Panther]

Sorry if I missed it in this thread's 50,000 pages, but does anyone have the VsX for Turgeon vs. Roenick and Weight?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sorry if I missed it in this thread's 50,000 pages, but does anyone have the VsX for Turgeon vs. Roenick and Weight?

@Hockey Outsider is probably the one to ask for their year-by-year scores, but here are some 7-year scores of post-expansion centers compared to Turgeon:

7 year VsX:
Dale Hawerchuk 86.0
Gilbert Perreault 85.7
Darryl Sittler 85.7
Denis Savard 85.5
Eric Lindros 85.0
Henrik Sedin 84.5
Ryan Getzlaf 83.7
John Tavares 83.3
Pavel Datsyuk 82.5
Pierre Turgeon 82.1
Mats Sundin 82.1
Doug Gilmour 82.0
Mike Modano 81.5
Jeremy Roenick 81.2
Tyler Seguin 81.0
Sergei Fedorov 80.8
Bernie Nicholls 80.6
Eric Staal 80.2
Henrik Zetterberg 79.5
Anze Kopitar 79.2
Jason Spezza 79.1
Pat LaFontaine 78.5
Doug Weight 78.3
Brad Richards 78.0
Jacques Lemaire 77.9
Bernie Federko 77.6
Alexei Yashin 77.1
Vincent Lecavalier 76.9

Makes the Sundin, Lafontaine, and Federko enshrinements look not so hot, eh? Lafontaine does have injuries to blame, of course.

 

[seventieslord]

@Hockey Outsider is probably the one to ask for their year-by-year scores, but here are some 7-year scores of post-expansion centers compared to Turgeon:

7 year VsX:
Dale Hawerchuk 86.0
Gilbert Perreault 85.7
Darryl Sittler 85.7
Denis Savard 85.5
Eric Lindros 85.0
Henrik Sedin 84.5
Ryan Getzlaf 83.7
John Tavares 83.3
Pavel Datsyuk 82.5
Pierre Turgeon 82.1
Mats Sundin 82.1
Doug Gilmour 82.0
Mike Modano 81.5
Jeremy Roenick 81.2
Tyler Seguin 81.0
Sergei Fedorov 80.8
Bernie Nicholls 80.6
Eric Staal 80.2
Henrik Zetterberg 79.5
Anze Kopitar 79.2
Jason Spezza 79.1
Pat LaFontaine 78.5
Doug Weight 78.3
Brad Richards 78.0
Jacques Lemaire 77.9
Bernie Federko 77.6
Alexei Yashin 77.1
Vincent Lecavalier 76.9

Makes the Sundin, Lafontaine, and Federko enshrinements look not so hot, eh? Lafontaine does have injuries to blame, of course.

And Nieuwendyk is right off the charts! (And not in a good way)

 

[frisco]

Sorry if I missed it in this thread's 50,000 pages, but does anyone have the VsX for Turgeon vs. Roenick and Weight?

VsX (15 year):

Hull 77.7
Turgeon 71.9
Roenick 68.5
Weight 61.9
McDonald 54.5

My Best-Carey