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

[Neutrinos]

Monahan's better defensively. I think it's a wash.

Monahan has 363 points in 471 games, and a lone 20th place finish for the Selke

Even if you want to adjust for era, he's only got 388 points

Turgeon is over a point per game in 1294 career games, whether you adjust for era or not

Monahan's defense doesn't make up for the discrepancy in offensive production

 

[Staniowski]

I really liked watching Turgeon play - such an awesome talent, great goal scorer, great playmaker, skater, always produced. He wasn't perfect, but he was a really good hockey player. His biggest problem is that he played for a lot of average and bad teams. Playing for great teams forgives a lot.

I don't really care about the HHOF, but I think he will get in eventually.

He should've been on Team Canada in both '96 and '98.

A good comparison is with Sakic, who was the same age as Turgeon. During their first 12 common seasons (which is the bulk of their careers), they scored about the same number of points and about the same number of points per game. Neither had any 1st or 2nd team all star seasons. Of course Sakic kept producing and Turgeon was close to finished. And Sakic got 3 1st team all stars in his 30s (aided by injuries to Lindros, Lemieux, Forsberg, and the lack of new talent at centre).

Re: Piestany - I watched the game live in '87, there is really no need for people to be ripping mad at Turgeon 32 years later, or at all. If he had gone on the ice with the rest of the team (or shortly after), its unlikely anything would've changed. He wasn't going to fight regardless, and there were others on both teams not fighting. Stephane Roy blamed Kerry Huffman for not helping him. Turgeon did eventually join the brawl, but didn't throw any punches.

There was something wrong with that team. They were in 3 brawls (or near brawls) within 10 days or so. Fleury and Sanipass were more responsible than anybody for the final brawl, along with a unique sequence of events.

 

[frisco]

Would you rather look at points per game?

Barry Pederson, Ken Linseman, Dennis Maruk, Mark Pavelich, Jason Allison, Craig Simpson, Thomas Gradin, Paul Reinhart, Bernie Nicholls, Steve Payne, Daniel Briere, Rick MacLeish, Jude Drouin, Bill Goldsworthy, Craig Janney, John Tucker

True, but I set a 100 game standard which would eliminate a lot of the guys listed here.

My Best-Carey

 

[Big Phil]

There's two factors here to consider:

(1) Turgeon will never overcome the stigma of Piestany. He did the 'soft scorer guy' thing of not getting involved, but it was the wrong time and place to do that because this wasn't some standard theatrics at the end of a blowout regular season game where everyone knows exactly what the situation is and why things are happening.

When Canada went to Eastern Europe to play the Soviets there was always a 'backs against the wall' 'all hands on deck' element to it because of the politics - both in the world at-large and the IIHF specifically. This was always going to be looked at as much bigger than whether a guy is a fighter or not. Turgeon as a kid was probably not in a position to understand that on a rational level..but perhaps the fact he didn't *feel* it on an instinctive level is indicative of a certain aloofness.

(2) Turgeon as a NHL player was a good 1C, but no-one ever felt 'wow this Turgeon kid is putting together a HOF career here' at the time of him playing. The entire argument is basically that being a good 1C for X number of seasons is in itself a HOF case. That generally isn't going to gain a ton of traction with folks unless it's guys seen as special for intangible reasons..which Turgon never was even ignoring factor (1). But (1) is basically the nail in his coffin. Though I guess we just have to wait another 20 years in social change for him to get hailed as an early pioneer fighting against 'toxic masculinity' and get a trophy named after him.

The NHL won't ever get that bad in our lifetimes will it? Will it? Anyone?

I honestly don't know if the Piestany thing is the reason why he's out. I honestly don't think he stood out enough in his era. The "soft" reputation followed him past 17 years old. I will honestly say that even though I knew full well about the fight in 1987 I didn't know about Turgeon (or a couple others on that team) not contributing until I read Gare Joyce's(?) book on it. So I just thought Turgeon was soft because of his NHL play personally.

 

[Big Phil]

Daniel Briere didn't take teams "on his back" during any post season. In 05–06 he had one more point than Chris Drury when the Sabres reached the CFs, and in 2010 with Philly he scored a lot of points but was pretty putrid defensively and both Pronger and Richards were obviously more important players overall which anyone who watched an actual game could see while half-sleeping.

I would take Pronger as the Conn Smythe winner if I had to pick on that Flyers team. That being said, three straight years Briere went to the semi finals from 2006-'08. In 2010 he reached the final with 30 points in those playoffs. He had 12 points in 6 games in the final. He was +9 the entire postseason. Nothing against Richards, he was right there too with the tougher match ups, but how is that team even in the final without Briere?

All I am saying is that Briere never peaked as high as Turgeon and yet he was a much better playoff performer over his career. Briere is a guy who will never see the light of day at the HHOF, nor should he, but was it too much to ask to see Turgeon do this sort of run like Briere had in 2010 even once? When did he ever elevate his game?

Just being a bit of a devil's advocate, but it could be fairly argued that it's still somewhat of a special feat. Winning all your cups on the same team could have the implication of being on a dynasty - stability helps with things like team chemistry, and thus remaining dominant. If you win Cups with 3 different teams you:

A) first have to be wanted by those teams
B) obviously you have to contribute to each team
C) you have to find a way to fit in, at least on the second and third teams

The last one is important, because not all trades or free agent signings turn out so well.

It is unique and special but no one can even bring up Nieuwendyk's name without talking about it. I remember the media just in love with him, and that stat, to the point of Scott Niedermayer overrated-ness. Someone wrote an article in the Hockey News once the year he was going to be inducted and it was one of those "Okay, slow down, the guy just retired 4 years ago, he is definitely NOT one of those guys who you induct immediately." Nieuwendyk, at best, was a guy who you sit back and reflect on after 15 years or so and if he passes the smell test then he can be considered. It's been 12 years, he's in way premature, and to be honest I still don't see why. Can someone even name a singular season where he was a top 10 player in the game? A top 10 forward even?

 

[Big Phil]

Forwards in the HOF (likely future guys) with over 100 playoff games who averaged less points/game than Turgeon: Bobby Clarke, Henrik Zetterberg, Yvan Cournoyer, Alex Develcchio, Frank Mahovolich, Jonathon Toews, Bill Barber, Dino Ciccarelli, Ron Francis, Martin St.Louis, Johnny Bucyk, Mike Modano, Brian Trottier, Daniel Alfredsson, Dickie Moore, Jean Ratelle, Luc Robitaille, Jeremy Roenick, Mark Recchi, Patrick Elias, Norm Ullman, Joe Thornton, Patrice Bergeron, Mike Gartner, Corey Perry, Joe Mullen, the Sedins, Joe Mullen, Joe Nieuwendyk, Brendan Shanahan, Marian Hossa, Pavel Datsyuk, Lanny McDonald, Brad Richards, Patrick Marleau, Teemu Selanne, Igor Larionov, Dave Andreychuk, Clark Gillies, Bert Olmstead, Bob Gainey.

All were outproduced by the ordinary Turgeon in the playoffs.

My Best-Carey

A couple things here and we talked about it already, but there are a ton of names on there where we all know Turgeon did not have a better career than them. Bobby Clarke, we all know this. That's easy, so I'll just isolate it to the playoffs. I like that post up a bit that showed all of the players who have no chance at the HHOF who either had more points or a better PPG in the playoffs than Turgeon. It tells a lot.

Alright, Cournoyer, Zetterberg, Toews, Trottier, Nieuwendyk, Richards and Gainey all won the Conn Smythe. Trottier has about the same playoff points as Crosby and sits pretty high all-time. Where his PPG takes a hit is post-1984 and especially the two Pens Cup wins where he is only getting 7 points per playoff on a much different role. I know you wouldn't have substituted Turgeon in favour of Trottier. Zetterberg has back to back runs where he possibly wins a 2nd one in 2009 if Detroit wins. Cournoyer? There are a couple of other runs outside of 1973 where he was in the mix to win it too. Is there anyone who thought Turgeon was a better playoff performer than him? Nieuwendyk and Richards aren't HHOFers in my book, but Toews and Gainey have multiple Cups as well as playing a much different role that doesn't always favour PPG.

Mahovlich, Barber, St. Louis, Clarke, Modano, Bucyk, Bergeron Mullen, Hossa, Datsyuk, Moore did not win a Smythe, but had years where they could have. All of them proved to be better playoff performers.

Delvecchio, Francis, Recchi, Elias, Shanahan, Olmstead all won lots of times while being the secondary support at times.

Ciccarelli, , Alfredsson, Ratelle, Robitaille, Roenick, Ullman, Thornton, Gartner, Perry, Sedins, McDonald, Marleau, Selanne, Larionov, Andreychuk, Gillies are left.

Perry will never make the HHOF. Hopefully Marleau doesn't either. Larionov was actually surprisingly efficient in the playoffs despite his age. Gillies shouldn't be in there. Roenick may never get in and not everyone is sold on the Sedins. Thornton is a lock, Robitaille is in there and the rest either got into the HHOF based on what they did in the regular season or how they peaked. None have a playoff record that you can't ignore although Ciccarelli probably has the most impressive one of them all with 73 goals.

That last group isn't the best to judge because some aren't even HHOFers.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

A good comparison is with Sakic, who was the same age as Turgeon. During their first 12 common seasons (which is the bulk of their careers), they scored about the same number of points and about the same number of points per game. Neither had any 1st or 2nd team all star seasons. Of course Sakic kept producing and Turgeon was close to finished. And Sakic got 3 1st team all stars in his 30s (aided by injuries to Lindros, Lemieux, Forsberg, and the lack of new talent at centre).

come on man

sakic: 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th team all-star, conn smythe

turgeon: 6th, 6th team all-star, period, full stop.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I guess we just have to wait another 20 years in social change for him to get hailed as an early pioneer fighting against 'toxic masculinity' and get a trophy named after him.

don’t do that dude. this isn’t an mra issue and your fragility or perceived persecution is not the counterargument. reasonable ppl who believe society can be less harmful can agree that pierre turgeon did not behave in an honourable way in 1987.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

He was a rich man's Craig Janney... which still makes him a poor man's Hall of Famer.

He was an offensively talented player who never seemed to lead or carry his team in any perceivable manner. Kind of the anti-Messier. About the only time I can remember him "putting the team on his back" was in the Washington series where Dale Hunter gave him his legendary cheap shot.

I'm trying to think of a modern comparable... how about Sean Monahan?

Would anyone say Sean Monahan is carving out a HoF career?

tyler seguin. and the answer is no

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

don’t do that dude. this isn’t an mra issue and your fragility or perceived persecution is not the counterargument. reasonable ppl who believe society can be less harmful can agree that pierre turgeon did not behave in an honourable way in 1987.

It's a joke, buddy, I don't give two craps about MRA. But it's 2019 and there's people here trying to make Turgeon not just not a bad guy for Piestany (which is defensible) but somehow *better* for doing what he did which is stretching it.

 

[trentmccleary]

He cracked 70 GP in a season only 4 times after the age of 23 yo and one of those seasons was 76-15-25-40.

 

[frisco]

A couple things here and we talked about it already, but there are a ton of names on there where we all know Turgeon did not have a better career than them. Bobby Clarke, we all know this. That's easy, so I'll just isolate it to the playoffs. I like that post up a bit that showed all of the players who have no chance at the HHOF who either had more points or a better PPG in the playoffs than Turgeon. It tells a lot.

Alright, Cournoyer, Zetterberg, Toews, Trottier, Nieuwendyk, Richards and Gainey all won the Conn Smythe. Trottier has about the same playoff points as Crosby and sits pretty high all-time. Where his PPG takes a hit is post-1984 and especially the two Pens Cup wins where he is only getting 7 points per playoff on a much different role. I know you wouldn't have substituted Turgeon in favour of Trottier. Zetterberg has back to back runs where he possibly wins a 2nd one in 2009 if Detroit wins. Cournoyer? There are a couple of other runs outside of 1973 where he was in the mix to win it too. Is there anyone who thought Turgeon was a better playoff performer than him? Nieuwendyk and Richards aren't HHOFers in my book, but Toews and Gainey have multiple Cups as well as playing a much different role that doesn't always favour PPG.

Mahovlich, Barber, St. Louis, Clarke, Modano, Bucyk, Bergeron Mullen, Hossa, Datsyuk, Moore did not win a Smythe, but had years where they could have. All of them proved to be better playoff performers.

Delvecchio, Francis, Recchi, Elias, Shanahan, Olmstead all won lots of times while being the secondary support at times.

Ciccarelli, , Alfredsson, Ratelle, Robitaille, Roenick, Ullman, Thornton, Gartner, Perry, Sedins, McDonald, Marleau, Selanne, Larionov, Andreychuk, Gillies are left.

Perry will never make the HHOF. Hopefully Marleau doesn't either. Larionov was actually surprisingly efficient in the playoffs despite his age. Gillies shouldn't be in there. Roenick may never get in and not everyone is sold on the Sedins. Thornton is a lock, Robitaille is in there and the rest either got into the HHOF based on what they did in the regular season or how they peaked. None have a playoff record that you can't ignore although Ciccarelli probably has the most impressive one of them all with 73 goals.

That last group isn't the best to judge because some aren't even HHOFers.

The thing is my post is constituted of data on what the players actual performance on a points/game was in the playoffs. Yours is full of your own subjective opinion based on...what you think is right with no real factual analysis to back it up. Mine was the reality of a simple list of players who had less points/game than Turgeon (in a 100+ game sample size) in the playoffs.

The other thing is the whole point of my post was list guys who are known as good playoff performers with a lot of HOFers included. Turgeon does not really have a great playoff reputation but looking at the cold, hard facts of the thing, he's right there with some of these guys and in cases better. Turgeon's achievments have not been recognized and/or have been underrated. It's not that I'm denigrating Hank Zetterberg. More like I'm saying, "everyone knows that Zetterberg was a great playoff performer. But why know what? Pierre Turgeon produced at a higher rate than Zetterberg. He can't be as bad as everyone seems to think".

Clarke-Better player and career. But Turgeon produced at a higher points/game in the playoffs. That's a fact and despite how one feels about it is absolutely true.

Cournoyer-Great playoff performer. Deserved his Smythe and multiple Cups. Did you know Turgeon produced at a higher points/game in the playoffs than Cournoyer?

Zetterberg/Toews-Have had great playoff successes. Obviously, bring a lot to the table. As far as pure offensive production Turgeon has them beat. This is not a smear on either Zetterberg's or Toews' playoff resumes. Turgeon was pretty good, too.

Trottier-Had some unbelievable playoff years, some of the best ever. Yes, his points/game drops with some unproductive playoffs with the Islanders later on and then long runs with Pittsburgh where he was in a secondary role. Turgeon also had some playoffs late in his career (33/34/36 years of age) where he was under a half point a game. All in all, on a points/game basis Turgeon is higher.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

He cracked 70 GP in a season only 4 times after the age of 23 yo and one of those seasons was 76-15-25-40.

True enough. He did crack the lineup enough to place 65th on the all-time GP list.

How come when Turgeon is injured he's derided? But when Bure/Kariya/Neely/Mario/Lindros miss games with injury (or holdouts) it is all about what more they could have accomplished had they had they played? Seems to be a double standard. Give Turgeon an extra 10 games for some of those 69 game seasons and he's sitting in the top 20 or 25 on the all-time points list.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

come on man

sakic: 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th team all-star, conn smythe

turgeon: 6th, 6th team all-star, period, full stop.

Turgeon and Sakic first 12 common years. Turgeon listed first:

GP: 853/852
Goals: 409/403
Assists: 612/657
Points: 1021/1060
+/-: +116/-44

It is not a huge stretch to say they were similar, is it?

My Best-Carey

 

[seventieslord]

tyler seguin. and the answer is no

Bingo, Tyler Seguin is the new Turgeon.

 

[Big Phil]

Clarke-Better player and career. But Turgeon produced at a higher points/game in the playoffs. That's a fact and despite how one feels about it is absolutely true.

Cournoyer-Great playoff performer. Deserved his Smythe and multiple Cups. Did you know Turgeon produced at a higher points/game in the playoffs than Cournoyer?

Zetterberg/Toews-Have had great playoff successes. Obviously, bring a lot to the table. As far as pure offensive production Turgeon has them beat. This is not a smear on either Zetterberg's or Toews' playoff resumes. Turgeon was pretty good, too.

Trottier-Had some unbelievable playoff years, some of the best ever. Yes, his points/game drops with some unproductive playoffs with the Islanders later on and then long runs with Pittsburgh where he was in a secondary role. Turgeon also had some playoffs late in his career (33/34/36 years of age) where he was under a half point a game. All in all, on a points/game basis Turgeon is higher.

My Best-Carey

But like I said before, Turgeon had a ton of "vanilla" postseasons. Lots of first round exits. 1990 is a good example. Lost to Montreal. The Sabres had home ice and while they lost to a good team Turgeon had 6 points in 6 games. It sounds alright on the surface, but this was pretty much who he was in a nutshell. He had 106 points that year, the Habs weren't unbeatable in these days, Boston beat them like a rented mule regularly in the postseason. Turgeon didn't get out of the 1st round until 1993. It sucks what Hunter did to him because he had a good series vs. Washington, but it is almost as if he just never mentally "had it" after that, and even before that he was a little shaky. I can't remember what year the "Tin Man" nickname came up, but his 1991 postseason was bad and maybe that was what led to his trade.

1994, 1997 were bad postseasons too. The others were similar ones where he did the bare minimum. 1996, 1998. 2000 was one of those years where he could have really established himself. Instead the Blues were the 2019 Lightning and Turgeon didn't score a goal the entire series vs. San Jose.

Turgeon in a way is similar to the way we might look at John Tavares today and let me explain. Tavares is a fine scorer but we have yet to see him carry his team anywhere. It is true the Islanders were horrible, but even this year I was sort of waiting to see him take the Leafs on his back, even for just one series. It hasn't happened. He's only 28, so he has plenty of time to redeem himself. But other than his 2015 season where he almost won the Smythe it almost feels as if all of the goals he has gotten were just empty. Turgeon reminds me of this. Tavares probably gets into the HHOF someday but you sort of get the picture. Why can't a player of this magnitude raise his game?

The PPG thing in the playoffs needs context. Clarke did plenty of other things rather than just score. Plus you have to look at what he did do. Three straight years of 16 points in the playoffs. Two straight Cup wins as captain and from 1974 to 1980 he was a force in the playoffs. The years after 1980 are where he loses a bit in the PPG battle. Trottier is the same way after 1984 here. No one would even think for a second Turgeon is their equal in the playoffs and I say this despite the fact that Clarke arguably could have had a better postseason record for a player of his caliber. But he still had a playoff peak that you can't ignore.

At the end of the day their playoff PPG are for Turgeon 0.88 and Clarke 0.87. Man, that is marginal, even just looking at if from that context.

I use this argument with Marcel Dionne too. For a guy of his caliber, couldn't there be just one time where Dionne took a team to the cleaners in a series? Like, 10 points in 5 games or something? He never won a 7 game series in his career. Dionne is obviously a notch or two higher than Turgeon and his regular seasons are too much to ignore keeping him out of the HHOF but the same thing can apply with Turgeon.

 

[frisco]

How many players really just carried a team on their backs to win a Cup? Zetterberg won the Smythe, but that team was stacked. Clarke was a great playoff guy but without Parent, MacLeish, Shero et al he isn't winning any Cups. Trottier is one of the best playoff performers ever. But he's not going far if Potvin, Bossy, Goring, Smith, Arbour aren't all along for the ride. Even Mario needed Kevin Stevens, Francis, Murphy, Barrasso, Jagr and some great coaches to win.

It sounds like you're ripping Turgeon because he wasn't on great teams. But he did produce in the playoffs. A 100+ games sample is not small. He outproduced many a high profile player.

My Best-Carey

 

[The Panther]

The Mods need to start the Pierre Turgeon discussion page. Clearly, his lack of Hall of Fame credentials is the most burning issue in hockey.

 

[SotasicA]

So many people who didn't watch Pierre Turgeon calling for his induction based on points alone.

f*** POINTS

Believe us who watched him every week for years - he was good, but not great. So many better players from that era.

 

[The Panther]

So many people who didn't watch Pierre Turgeon calling for his induction based on points alone.

**** POINTS

Believe us who watched him every week for years - he was good, but not great. So many better players from that era.

Right, but unfortunately the inductions of Andreychuk and Housley have now created a precedent. There's an argument for everyone who had one season as a top-twenty forward (like Andreychuk) now.

 

[SotasicA]

Right, but unfortunately the inductions of Andreychuk and Housley have now created a precedent. There's an argument for everyone who had one season as a top-twenty forward (like Andreychuk) now.

But let's just all agree Housley doesn't belong (because he doesn't) instead of adding every other top line forward and top pair d-man to the Hall of Fame.

Andreychuk probably doesn't belong either, but he was a great story. I'll allow it. Unlike that f***face Housley. Never liked him.

 

[frisco]

So many people who didn't watch Pierre Turgeon calling for his induction based on points alone.

**** POINTS

Believe us who watched him every week for years - he was good, but not great. So many better players from that era.

Why use stupid, unreliable statistical measures like goals and points when random observations of guys on Internet message boards clearly is the most effective method of evaluation?

My Best-Carey

 

[c9777666]

Sidenote: why did they give the Turgeon the C in Montreal?

Knowing what we know about Pierre, why not make him an alternate captain ala the Blues?

He was probably the most skilled player on those 1997-2001 Blues, but willingly by comparison deferred the team leadership department to Hull/Pronger/MacInnis.

He clearly was not a leadership guy, but it didn't hurt him in STL the way it did in MTL.

(And in retrospect, Damphousse should have worn the C. Turgeon being an assistant captain would not have been the worst thing IMO)

 

[Albatros]

Sidenote: why did they give the Turgeon the C in Montreal?

Arena move, had to be a high-profile French guy.

 

[Big Phil]

Arena move, had to be a high-profile French guy.

That still could have been Damphousse. The guy was the leading regular season and playoff scorer on the 1993 Habs. I honestly have no idea why they didn't pick him at that time.

Right, but unfortunately the inductions of Andreychuk and Housley have now created a precedent. There's an argument for everyone who had one season as a top-twenty forward (like Andreychuk) now.

I am not a fan of the movement of inducting a guy based on a weak induction that should never have been there in the first place. If Clark Gillies was the standard we would have a lot more guys in there.

How many players really just carried a team on their backs to win a Cup? Zetterberg won the Smythe, but that team was stacked. Clarke was a great playoff guy but without Parent, MacLeish, Shero et al he isn't winning any Cups. Trottier is one of the best playoff performers ever. But he's not going far if Potvin, Bossy, Goring, Smith, Arbour aren't all along for the ride. Even Mario needed Kevin Stevens, Francis, Murphy, Barrasso, Jagr and some great coaches to win.

It sounds like you're ripping Turgeon because he wasn't on great teams. But he did produce in the playoffs. A 100+ games sample is not small. He outproduced many a high profile player.

My Best-Carey

No one can carry a team on his back alone. Gretzky in 1993 is about the best example of a team that would have not gotten out of the 1st round without him. But all of those other guys had big runs, multiple ones. Bossy and Potvin were there for Trottier but he also won a Smythe directly against these guys and he had the numbers on his own to prove it. MacLeish even led the playoffs in scoring twice on those two Cup winning teams.

I am not penalizing Turgeon for playing on poor teams, because he normally played on "good" teams and had some windows where he could have gone the distance. The 2000 Blues are an example.

But you have to use things in context here. You say "he outproduced many a high profile player". You are simply just adding up a bunch of vanilla years in the playoffs and showing that he has a better PPG than some guys who played in more games. You can never pick a year where he "wowed" anyone. Nor is there a year where he did what some of these above guys did. In a way, he is Joe Thornton in the playoffs. Thornton never had that one playoff run either.