Why isn't Pierre Turgeon in the hall of fame?

[GreatGonzo]

If you think people are arguing that Turgeon was robbed of a place on a 5-3-1 ballot in his best years, then you are either not reading or not comprehending people's replies to you.

Then what exactly is being said? Because all I've been reading is excuse after excuse as to why his AS votes are so weak compared to his peers....

Have you read Friscos posts? "He was competing with guys like Messier, Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Oates, LaFontaine, Fedorov, Forsberg, etc.....that's why!"

Clearly the word "compete" is being used loosely, but still. It has nothing to do with the FACT that he rarely got any votes, it's the justifications as to why that are beyond idiotic.

 

[frisco]

If Turgeon was "robbed" of AS votes due to the competition, then that means many other centers should have had better voting results. It's an excuse that can be used for really anyone not named Gretzky or Lemieux.

I didn't say Turgeon was robbed. I said because of the historic competition he didn't get as many votes. Steve Yzerman averaged about 120 points over six seasons in the late 80's and early 90's but didn't make first or second AS team in any of those years. Is that because he didn't distinguish himself enough and wasn't elite or does it mean that competition was fierce? You decide.

All of the great C of that era were hurt in voting because there was just too many great C. Gretzky himself could have had 12-13 first AS selections but even he was hurt by the extreme competition of the era. I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall again.

My Best-Carey

 

[GreatGonzo]

I didn't say Turgeon was robbed. I said because of the historic competition he didn't get as many votes. Steve Yzerman averaged about 120 points over six seasons in the late 80's and early 90's but didn't make first or second AS team in any of those years. Is that because he didn't distinguish himself enough and wasn't elite or does it mean that competition was fierce? You decide.

All of the great C of that era were hurt in voting because there was just too many great C. Gretzky himself could have had 12-13 first AS selections but even he was hurt by the extreme competition of the era. I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall again.

My Best-Carey

Where exactly would you rate Turgeon among centers during his playing days?.....

I feel your overrating Turgeon as a player, which explains a lot. No, I simply think he just didn't match up well against those centers for the most part. They were more consistent more often, and most of the time were a step above. You can blame it on "fierce competition", but that's really only if you actually believed he deserved 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd Team Honors.

Depends what you define "hurt." Sure nobody was getting 1st or 2nd Honors for the most part, but Yzerman received honors: 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th during that era, and eventually received 1st team honors in 2000. That's pretty distinguished. Oates, Modano, and LaFontaine had 2nd team Honors. Gilmore and Francis were voted 3rd multiple times....

Sure, there were a lot of amazing centers during his playing....but they were also better than him. He was far from being considered one of the top centers

 

[Thenameless]

Steve Shutt, Clark Gillies, Glenn Anderson, Dave Andreychuk. Three of these guys played on dynasties, and the fourth capped off his career nicely by finally winning one. Pierre Turgeon was a better player than any of these guys. If he were on the 70's Habs, he could have given Lafleur more scoring support by carrying his own line. He would have made the Habs dynasty even stronger. Clark Gillies brings the physical element to the game that Turgeon cannot. But again, if you put Turgeon on those early 80's Islander teams, I suspect that they still do just as well, and he ends up with 4 Cups. Glenn Anderson was such a clutch player, that I don't think Turgeon could have done any better than him on those Oilers during the playoffs. Turgeon could however, compile a lot more regular season points with Gretzky, Kurri, Coffey, Messier, et al. On that team, his regular season numbers would be through the roof. Andreychuk with his big body was an efficient scorer in the slot. Again, Turgeon could do so much more than him.

If these guys are in the Hall of Fame, Turgeon should probably be too. Now, if you don't think these guys should be in the Hall of Fame, then there's a case for leaving Turgeon out too.

 

[frisco]

Where exactly would you rate Turgeon among centers during his playing days?.....

I'd say during his career Turgeon was one of the top 16-18 forwards . I'd have him behind Gretzky, Jagr, Lemieux, Messier, Francis, Sakic, Forsberg, Hull for sure. I think he ranks with Sundin, Lafontaine, Modano, Recchi. Selanne, Oates, Gilmour, Robitaille, Shanahan, Fedorov, Andreychuk, Roenick, Nieuwendyk, Anderson, Kariya. Some of these guys don't completely overlap Turgeon perfectly but it is a rough gauge. All of these guys are HOFers sans Roenick and a great majority of them first ballot guys.

I know point shares has it detractors but I don't think it over or under values Turgeon either way and gives a good ballpark type of ranking. Here's some contemporary forwards.

1. Wayne Gretzky* 1979-99 251.01
4. Jaromir Jagr 1990-18 216.48
21. Mario Lemieux* 1984-06 167.90
22. Joe Sakic* 1988-09 167.83
24. Steve Yzerman* 1983-06 166.66
27. Mark Messier* 1979-04 160.45
32. Brett Hull 154.36
36. Ron Francis* 1981-04 149.48
38. Brendan Shanahan* 1987-09 147.96
39. Mark Recchi* 1988-11 147.53
42. Mike Modano* 1989-11 144.88
44. Mats Sundin* 1990-09 144.41
54. Luc Robitaille* 1986-06 138.65
59. Pierre Turgeon 1987-07 134.34
61. Daniel Alfredsson 1995-14 133.64
72. Jeremy Roenick 1988-09 125.77
73. Sergei Fedorov* 1990-09 125.59
76. Keith Tkachuk 1991-10 125.13
78. Patrik Elias 1995-16 124.70
79. Dave Andreychuk* 1982-06 124.59
91. Joe Nieuwendyk* 1986-07 120.05
94. Doug Gilmour* 1983-03 118.71
99. Adam Oates* 1985-04 117.07
109. Dale Hawerchuk* 1981-97 112.11
112. Alexander Mogilny 1989-06 111.50
119. Theoren Fleury 1988-03 110.27
122. Paul Kariya* 1994-10 109.33

My Best-Carey

 

[ResilientBeast]

Why do you keep using a career metric?

So Fedorov is worse than Turgeon?

Shanahan the guy Kariya kept beating for AST is ahead of Turgeon

Point shares suck, just because you don't think they help or hurt Turgeon doesn't mean they're unbiased and fair to use

And no they don't give a good ball park rating, just looking at that rating I can point out some major issues with it

 

[ResilientBeast]

Gilmour, Oates, Fedorov are definitely better than Turgeon

This is likely a universal truth among regulars here

 

[Neutrinos]

Where exactly would you rate Turgeon among centers during his playing days?.....

I feel your overrating Turgeon as a player, which explains a lot. No, I simply think he just didn't match up well against those centers for the most part. They were more consistent more often, and most of the time were a step above. You can blame it on "fierce competition", but that's really only if you actually believed he deserved 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd Team Honors.

Depends what you define "hurt." Sure nobody was getting 1st or 2nd Honors for the most part, but Yzerman received honors: 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th during that era, and eventually received 1st team honors in 2000. That's pretty distinguished. Oates, Modano, and LaFontaine had 2nd team Honors. Gilmore and Francis were voted 3rd multiple times....

Sure, there were a lot of amazing centers during his playing....but they were also better than him. He was far from being considered one of the top centers

Everyone not named Lemieux and Gretzky were "far from being considered one of the top centers"

 

[frisco]

Why do you keep using a career metric?

So Fedorov is worse than Turgeon?

Shanahan the guy Kariya kept beating for AST is ahead of Turgeon

Point shares suck, just because you don't think they help or hurt Turgeon doesn't mean they're unbiased and fair to use

And no they don't give a good ball park rating, just looking at that rating I can point out some major issues with it

Of course it has issues. It is one of many ways to look at players in a different context, though.

Thought it might be a nice switch from comparing AS votes for the zillionith time. You know those aren't perfect either right? It is really, really easy to find weird outliers and massive discrepancies in those but you have no problem accepting them as gospel truth.

And what's wrong with looking at a guy's career once in while instead of just 40% of it or whatever "peak" value might be?

There's no evidence point shares are biased toward Turgeon, either.

My Best-Carey

 

[Neutrinos]

Gilmour, Oates, Fedorov are definitely better than Turgeon

This is likely a universal truth among regulars here

In his best seasons, was Oates even considered the best player on his team?

What would Turgeon's best seasons look like had he played with Ray Bourque or had a prime Brett Hull on his wing?

I wouldn't be comfortable claiming that at their respective best, "Oates was definitely better than Turgeon"

 

[frisco]

Where exactly would you rate Turgeon among centers during his playing days?.....

I feel your overrating Turgeon as a player, which explains a lot. No, I simply think he just didn't match up well against those centers for the most part. They were more consistent more often, and most of the time were a step above. You can blame it on "fierce competition", but that's really only if you actually believed he deserved 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd Team Honors.

Depends what you define "hurt." Sure nobody was getting 1st or 2nd Honors for the most part, but Yzerman received honors: 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th during that era, and eventually received 1st team honors in 2000. That's pretty distinguished. Oates, Modano, and LaFontaine had 2nd team Honors. Gilmore and Francis were voted 3rd multiple times....

Your fetish with AS voting/ranking/selections/rankings/points is bordering on unhealthy. You realize it has its flaws, right? Especially, when you are unable to view them in the correct context.

My Best-Carey

 

[ResilientBeast]

Of course it has issues. It is one of many ways to look at players in a different context, though.

Thought it might be a nice switch from comparing AS votes for the zillionith time. You know those aren't perfect either right? It is really, really easy to find weird outliers and massive discrepancies in those but you have no problem accepting them as gospel truth.

And what's wrong with looking at a guy's career once in while instead of just 40% of it or whatever "peak" value might be?

There's no evidence point shares are biased toward Turgeon, either.

My Best-Carey

There's evidence that it's a garbage half baked statistic, so drawing any conclusions from it is a mistake.

But in your quest for the objective that doesn't matter, please regale us with how career plus/minus is a stat to compare players with

 

[ResilientBeast]

In his best seasons, was Oates even considered the best player on his team?

What would Turgeon's best seasons look like had he played with Ray Bourque or had a prime Brett Hull on his wing?

I wouldn't be comfortable claiming that at their respective best, "Oates was definitely better than Turgeon"

That's a fair criticism but at least against the same competition Oates was an AST factor year in and year out managing to finish top 3 in points 3 times

I'd say fairly comfortably Oates had the better career and managed to put together a very strong HHOF resume due to his longevity as an elite playmaker.

If we're going to play the linemate and teammate game who knows what "could've" happened Oates was the playmaker for two 50 in 50 seasons that's pretty special

 

[GreatGonzo]

I'd say during his career Turgeon was one of the top 16-18 forwards . I'd have him behind Gretzky, Jagr, Lemieux, Messier, Francis, Sakic, Forsberg, Hull for sure. I think he ranks with Sundin, Lafontaine, Modano, Recchi. Selanne, Oates, Gilmour, Robitaille, Shanahan, Fedorov, Andreychuk, Roenick, Nieuwendyk, Anderson, Kariya. Some of these guys don't completely overlap Turgeon perfectly but it is a rough gauge. All of these guys are HOFers sans Roenick and a great majority of them first ballot guys.

I know point shares has it detractors but I don't think it over or under values Turgeon either way and gives a good ballpark type of ranking. Here's some contemporary forwards.

1. Wayne Gretzky* 1979-99 251.01
4. Jaromir Jagr 1990-18 216.48
21. Mario Lemieux* 1984-06 167.90
22. Joe Sakic* 1988-09 167.83
24. Steve Yzerman* 1983-06 166.66
27. Mark Messier* 1979-04 160.45
32. Brett Hull 154.36
36. Ron Francis* 1981-04 149.48
38. Brendan Shanahan* 1987-09 147.96
39. Mark Recchi* 1988-11 147.53
42. Mike Modano* 1989-11 144.88
44. Mats Sundin* 1990-09 144.41
54. Luc Robitaille* 1986-06 138.65
59. Pierre Turgeon 1987-07 134.34
61. Daniel Alfredsson 1995-14 133.64
72. Jeremy Roenick 1988-09 125.77
73. Sergei Fedorov* 1990-09 125.59
76. Keith Tkachuk 1991-10 125.13
78. Patrik Elias 1995-16 124.70
79. Dave Andreychuk* 1982-06 124.59
91. Joe Nieuwendyk* 1986-07 120.05
94. Doug Gilmour* 1983-03 118.71
99. Adam Oates* 1985-04 117.07
109. Dale Hawerchuk* 1981-97 112.11
112. Alexander Mogilny 1989-06 111.50
119. Theoren Fleury 1988-03 110.27
122. Paul Kariya* 1994-10 109.33

My Best-Carey

Your list has Turgeon ahead of Fedorov, Gilmore, and Oates. Do you feel he was a better player than those guys?

Also Shanahan is placed ahead of Turgeon....

Your fetish with AS voting/ranking/selections/rankings/points is bordering on unhealthy. You realize it has its flaws, right? Especially, when you are unable to view them in the correct context.

My Best-Carey

what? I was clearly showing you how all those players still managed to distinguish themselves even among guys like Lemieux, Gretzky, and Messier....pretty simple.

In his best seasons, was Oates even considered the best player on his team?

What would Turgeon's best seasons look like had he played with Ray Bourque or had a prime Brett Hull on his wing?

I wouldn't be comfortable claiming that at their respective best, "Oates was definitely better than Turgeon"

cool more "should of could of would have" talk....

I feel Oates had the better career and was an overall better player than Turgeon. His playmaking abilities can't be ignored, he was among the best during his days.

Everyone not named Lemieux and Gretzky were "far from being considered one of the top centers"

so everyone behind those two is just lumped together equally?....

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Turgeon is exactly the type of player Point Shares is biased in favour of.

As I mentioned in the link, one of the biggest flaws in Point Shares is it treats all ice time as equal, so a player who gets "easy" minutes (from a defensive standpoint) on the powerplay will see their DPS get inflated - which is exactly what happened with Turgeon.

From 1999 (the first year ice time was tracked) to 2004, Turgeon ranks 40th among forwards in DPS. Over that period, he ranked 459th in TOI on the penalty kill, averaging 7 seconds per game. I realize that there's defense at even strength too, but does it really make sense to rank a forward who isn't entrusted to kill penalties ahead of Bobby Holik, Steve Yzerman, Kris Draper, Mike Peca, John Madden, etc.?

Presumably Turgeon's ranking is inflated because he got a lot of ice time on the powerplay (69th among forwards) - which increases his total ice time, which is what the Point Shares system cares about, even though it's obvious that playing a lot on the PP has little meaning when assessing defensive play.

The other big problem with DPS is the calculation is based on plus/minus, which is a flawed statistic. Even if it were valid, it's not really a defensive statistic - it's based on both offense and defense. So Turgeon's offense is actually getting double-counted, since he first gets credit for it under OPS, then he gets (partial) credit for it again under DPS.

As an extreme example, look at the 2006 season. Jaromir Jagr is ranked the #1 defensive forward in the league, presumably because he spent 6+ minutes per game on the powerplay (though virtually no time on the PK).

These points aren't exclusive to Turgeon, obviously, but they help to illustrate the design flaws in the static. The results might be considered marginally interesting, but they shouldn't be used as the basis for an argument of one player over another.

 

[frisco]

Turgeon is exactly the type of player Point Shares is biased in favour of.

These points aren't exclusive to Turgeon, obviously, but they help to illustrate the design flaws in the static. The results might be considered marginally interesting, but they shouldn't be used as the basis for an argument of one player over another.

Agreed. That being said, I think guys like Brett Hull, Kariya, Shanahan, Robitaille, and that "type" of player (heavy PP use, limited PK) could be compared using Point Shares. Also, the Point Share ranking, once a person knows the context, has some value in as much as the rankings don't seem particularly out of whack (Gretzky, Jagr, Lemieux, Sakic, Yzerman, Messier are the top six forwards) although obviously one could argue players that subjectively could rank higher or lower according to taste.

What do you like if you had to use a "catch all" stat to cover a player's entire career? Is GVT better? I'd prefer something that didn't just focus on peak. I do agree PS has severe limitations but taken together with other measures, has some value.

How about Offensive Point Shares as at least a measure of production? It wouldn't seem to have the bias with the SH ice time factor.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

Your list has Turgeon ahead of Fedorov, Gilmore, and Oates. Do you feel he was a better player than those guys?

I just listed (in no order) player's who could be identified in Turgeon's "class". Specifically, I like Turgeon vs. Oates (more goals which I weigh heavier than assists). Gilmour is probably better if you believe his defensive reputation is warranted. Fedorov was a better player all-around.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

cool more "should of could of would have" talk....

I don't understand how you easily comprehend other "could of factors" like Kariya production being reduced due to the DPE but ignore others like quality of linemates (i.e. Oates playing with Brett Hull or Cam Neely) which "could of" positively or adversely affected the end results. If you're just going to stick to "what actually happened" with no consideration given to context (era, linemates) then Kariya's 99 point season is just that. On par, with Blair MacDonald's 1980 output or something.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

There's evidence that it's a garbage half baked statistic, so drawing any conclusions from it is a mistake.

You know that every measure is not perfect, right? I could literally find hundreds of stupid AS voting mistakes and yet that is sacrosanct? How come you're not disregarding Hart voting just because some guy gave Chris Simon a 3rd place vote one year?

My Best-Carey

 

[GreatGonzo]

I just listed (in no order) player's who could be identified in Turgeon's "class". Specifically, I like Turgeon vs. Oates (more goals which I weigh heavier than assists). Gilmour is probably better if you believe his defensive reputation is warranted. Fedorov was a better player all-around.

My Best-Carey

But his goal totals aren't nearly as impressive as his assists totals. Talent vs talent though, they are similar. All subjective really.

I feel Gilmore and Fedorov were better players, but that's no knock against Turgeon.

I don't understand how you easily comprehend other "could of factors" like Kariya production being reduced due to the DPE but ignore others like quality of linemates (i.e. Oates playing with Brett Hull or Cam Neely) which "could of" positively or adversely affected the end results. If you're just going to stick to "what actually happened" with no consideration given to context (era, linemates) then Kariya's 99 point season is just that. On par, with Blair MacDonald's 1980 output or something.

My Best-Carey

Because there is a lot of "what ifs" going around to help people's agendas. Sure, Turgeon didn't have the best linemates.....why is that going to be a knock against Oates for playing with Hull or Kariya playing with Selanne?

Facts are facts. I just go off of what exactly happened because the extra situations don't mean much because they didn't happen. I mean by your logic, Jari Kurri wasn't as good because he was centered by Wayne Gretzky.

 

[frisco]

Because there is a lot of "what ifs" going around to help people's agendas. Sure, Turgeon didn't have the best linemates.....why is that going to be a knock against Oates for playing with Hull or Kariya playing with Selanne?

Facts are facts. I just go off of what exactly happened because the extra situations don't mean much because they didn't happen. I mean by your logic, Jari Kurri wasn't as good because he was centered by Wayne Gretzky.

But isn't it best to look all factors when making evaluations? Kariya'a point totals pale in comparison to Dale Hawerchuk if you don't make the adjustment for era. Turgeon didn't play with great linemates, while Oates did. That's something to look consider. Blair MacDonald looked like Mike Bossy one year, mostly because he played with Gretzky. Larry Robinson is plus 700 some for his career. He was great but also was fortunate to play on some of the greatest teams ever assembled.

My Best-Carey

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Agreed. That being said, I think guys like Brett Hull, Kariya, Shanahan, Robitaille, and that "type" of player (heavy PP use, limited PK) could be compared using Point Shares. Also, the Point Share ranking, once a person knows the context, has some value in as much as the rankings don't seem particularly out of whack (Gretzky, Jagr, Lemieux, Sakic, Yzerman, Messier are the top six forwards) although obviously one could argue players that subjectively could rank higher or lower according to taste.

What do you like if you had to use a "catch all" stat to cover a player's entire career? Is GVT better? I'd prefer something that didn't just focus on peak. I do agree PS has severe limitations but taken together with other measures, has some value.

How about Offensive Point Shares as at least a measure of production? It wouldn't seem to have the bias with the SH ice time factor.

My Best-Carey

I'm not aware of any "catch-all" statistic that I'd trust over the collective opinions of a large, impartial group of experts. Again, I say that as a "stat guy" who has spent countless hours over the years studying this stuff (and making a few systems of my own).

The general issue is that hockey is a messy enough game that it's almost impossible to capture everything numerically. (Just to be clear, there's a lot that can be learned from analyzing different aspects of the game numerically. But I don't know one "master system" that puts it all together very well - the main reason is defense is notoriously difficult to analyze).

The single best system that I've found is Alan Ryder's "Point Contribution". The three main problems are:
1) Since it requires so much data it can only be used from 1999-2000 onwards.
2) I don't think that most people who read it (including me) fully understand all of Ryder's complex adjustments.
3) By definition, it takes the data "literally" - so in 2003, it read Hejduk as more valuable than Forsberg, even though it was obvious to anyone watching that Foppa helped his linemate more than the other way around. (Another example - Jonathan Cheechoo was ranked as the 4th best forward in 2006, as the system can't tell how much Thornton helped him).
Link - http://hockeyanalytics.com/2004/03/player-contribution/

I haven't looked into GVT. Someone just provided the link a few pages back. I'll review it when I have time and share my comments when I have time.

I think Offensive Point Shares is a decent metric for ranking a player's contributions. It gives too much weight to goals, in my opinion, so elite playmakers like Oates, Thornton, Forsberg, etc are likely underrated. I agree that on average a goal is worth more than an assist, but that's not necessarily the case for elite playmakers.

Still, like any other career-based metric, it counts the total value of a player's career, but it doesn't consider how that value is distributed across seasons. What I mean by that is it's generally better for a player to have a more dominant peak, and this metric doesn't differentiate between "consistently good" versus someone with an elite peak but a weaker second half. I think most hockey fans would value the latter, as it's easier to win a Stanley Cup with a game-breaking talent. For example, career OPS has Lafleur and Tkachuk close. They're also fairly close in games played. But even if their career value is almost the same, everyone would still prefer LaFleur because he was one of the two or three best players for six years - but Tkachuk came close to catching up in career value because his 7th best season was better than LaFleur's 7th best, and the same is true of the 8th, 9th, etc. In other words - any purely career-based metric counts the total, but it doesn't show the shape or pattern of a player's career, and that's an inherent flaw.

 

[GreatGonzo]

But isn't it best to look all factors when making evaluations? Kariya'a point totals pale in comparison to Dale Hawerchuk if you don't make the adjustment for era. Turgeon didn't play with great linemates, while Oates did. That's something to look consider. Blair MacDonald looked like Mike Bossy one year, mostly because he played with Gretzky. Larry Robinson is plus 700 some for his career. He was great but also was fortunate to play on some of the greatest teams ever assembled.

My Best-Carey

It's the issue of holding it against players that had great line mates, while giving players the benefit of the doubt that they would have done better with better linemates

Kariya and Oates are HOF talents in their rights, while Blair MacDonald was simply a complimentary player to Gretzky. So your comparison is trash.

Bossy had Trottier, but again, that doesn't mean that neither are the amazing players we know and love without each other.

Oilers, Islanders, Canadiens, Wings, they all had amazing talented rosters, but I feel it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a Blair MacDonald and a Jari Kurri....don't you think?

 

[frisco]

Oilers, Islanders, Canadiens, Wings, they all had amazing talented rosters, but I feel it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a Blair MacDonald and a Jari Kurri....don't you think?

Between the insults you're actually agreeing with me. You should re-read my post.

My Best-Carey

 

[Neutrinos]

But his goal totals aren't nearly as impressive as his assists totals. Talent vs talent though, they are similar. All subjective really.

I feel Gilmore and Fedorov were better players, but that's no knock against Turgeon.

Because there is a lot of "what ifs" going around to help people's agendas. Sure, Turgeon didn't have the best linemates.....why is that going to be a knock against Oates for playing with Hull or Kariya playing with Selanne?

Facts are facts. I just go off of what exactly happened because the extra situations don't mean much because they didn't happen. I mean by your logic, Jari Kurri wasn't as good because he was centered by Wayne Gretzky.

Stating 'prime Turgeon played with less high-end talent than prime Oates' isn't an insult to Oates

It actually has nothing to do with the abilities of either player