Why isn't Pierre Turgeon in the HHOF

[Junohockeyfan]

He's not in the HHOF and never will be due to his cowardice during the "Punch-up in Piestany". He's been forever marred by that.

 

[seventieslord]

isn't the mean of the seasons surrounding his two top fives in the late 90s roughly the 1 p/g mark and somewhere in the high teens in points/game?

and isn't another way of looking at/for statistical anomalies to say that being top five in p/g over a full season is not consistent with turgeon's career (being that his career year has him 6th, and his other two top tens were 8th and 9th)?

You can calculate the mean however you feel is fair and logical. How I did it, very roughly, in my head, using only a smartphone this afternoon, was by calculating his average adjusted points per game in the seasons preceding and following the 94, 98 and 00 seasons. I did not even use arguably the most relevant data - how he was performing in those actual seasons. By using the seasons before and after to calculate what he'd have most likely tallied in the missed games and giving him those adjusted totals to close out the seasons, I think I had him tied for 1st, 4th and 7th in points in those years. I think this is actually quite hard on him because of the deliberate omissions of the 94, 98 and 00 seasons themselves.

The above seems to indicate that you'd expect Turgeon to completely tank his seasons in the 15, 22 and 30 missed games, to the point that he would only be roughly a point per game and ~16th in points per game. Is that an accurate description of what you're saying?

I think that's highly inaccurate. You'd need to replay games that were already in the books to make that happen. Turgeon wasn't going to suddenly have 15 points in 30 games in 2000, or have 12 in 22 games in 1998. I mean sure, anything's possible, but that's beyond the realm of what we should consider at all likely.

It's completely fair to think he'd see some regression in those missed games, had he played in them. But it's important to keep in mind what impact they'd actually have on these seasons, which were already 63-82% completed. He'd almost certainly have a lower points per game, but he would definitely have a lot more points, enough to move him up the leaderboards significantly.

I don't think, necessarily, that the only logical statistical explanation for this not being a statistical anomaly would have to be that his scoring rate lowers as it drags on. another reasonable explanation is, like most other players, even those of his offensive calibre, turgeon had hot streaks and dry streaks. and in '98 and '00, he just happened to have hit his yearly hot streaks and avoided the dry streaks in the time he out of the lineup, whereas in '99 he happened to hit his dry streak too (ditto '97, which was a full season), and in '01 he didn't really go off for one of those 20 point months, nor did he have any valleys, so he was just steadily at around a p/g over the full season.

Interesting theory. If it holds any water (if there's any way to even prove whether it does), then it unfortunately tells us we can't trust what happens in 50-69 games, and if we can't, then we really can't have significantly more confidence in what happens in 82 games. We should probably take a step back and look at large samples of hundreds of games to assess what is "normal" for a player.

You mean the year Jagr won the scoring title after missing 20 games?


Or that Sakic had 81 points in 60 games?


Do they get to 'play a full season' in this fantasy of yours? lol

dude, I don't know how much clearer I could have been:

If you replay that season and everything happens the same way it did except for his injury,...

Well Jagr was on pace for 124, Sakic 110, and Bure at 104 with a pace of 64 goals. No matter what circumstances you throw at it, he still doesn’t win the scoring title. Like you said, if everything went perfectly, not if Sakic, Jagr, And Bure miss the time they miss while Turgeon plays a full season. Even then, let’s say Sakic doesn’t miss any time but Jagr still does. It doesn’t end on his favor.

Well that's not true that no matter what circumstances I throw at it, he doesn't win the scoring title. I literally threw the exact circumstance needed for him to win the 2000 scoring title: "If you replay that season and everything happens the same way it did except for his injury,..."

Most of those players had better careers and were overall better players. It takes more than top PPG finishes to get into the Hall. You can’t continue using that statistic as a main line of reasoning.

You can save stuff like this for the people in this thread who don't have a realistic outlook on Turgeon's place in history. Don't confuse me for one of them please.

 

[streitz]

.

I understand what you're saying and I understand he was having a good year that year. I just disagree with the premise of saying he was on pace to win the art Ross except for his injury, when other players had better PPG then him that particular year and also missed substantial time.

 

[GreatGonzo]

You can calculate the mean however you feel is fair and logical. How I did it, very roughly, in my head, using only a smartphone this afternoon, was by calculating his average adjusted points per game in the seasons preceding and following the 94, 98 and 00 seasons. I did not even use arguably the most relevant data - how he was performing in those actual seasons. By using the seasons before and after to calculate what he'd have most likely tallied in the missed games and giving him those adjusted totals to close out the seasons, I think I had him tied for 1st, 4th and 7th in points in those years. I think this is actually quite hard on him because of the deliberate omissions of the 94, 98 and 00 seasons themselves.

The above seems to indicate that you'd expect Turgeon to completely tank his seasons in the 15, 22 and 30 missed games, to the point that he would only be roughly a point per game and ~16th in points per game. Is that an accurate description of what you're saying?

I think that's highly inaccurate. You'd need to replay games that were already in the books to make that happen. Turgeon wasn't going to suddenly have 15 points in 30 games in 2000, or have 12 in 22 games in 1998. I mean sure, anything's possible, but that's beyond the realm of what we should consider at all likely.

It's completely fair to think he'd see some regression in those missed games, had he played in them. But it's important to keep in mind what impact they'd actually have on these seasons, which were already 63-82% completed. He'd almost certainly have a lower points per game, but he would definitely have a lot more points, enough to move him up the leaderboards significantly.



Interesting theory. If it holds any water (if there's any way to even prove whether it does), then it unfortunately tells us we can't trust what happens in 50-69 games, and if we can't, then we really can't have significantly more confidence in what happens in 82 games. We should probably take a step back and look at large samples of hundreds of games to assess what is "normal" for a player.



dude, I don't know how much clearer I could have been:

If you replay that season and everything happens the same way it did except for his injury,...



Well that's not true that no matter what circumstances I throw at it, he doesn't win the scoring title. I literally threw the exact circumstance needed for him to win the 2000 scoring title: "If you replay that season and everything happens the same way it did except for his injury,..."



You can save stuff like this for the people in this thread who don't have a realistic outlook on Turgeon's place in history. Don't confuse me for one of them please.

That’s exactly my point on why it’s flawed, everyone else: Sakic, Jagr, Bure, they would all have to be injured in order for Turgeon to actually have a shot at the scoring title, and even then you can’t say he would have regardless. which is not just a weird circumstance, but has to many variables attached to it. The same could be said for Sakic or Bure, so saying he would have GIVEN show everything played out EXCEPT his injury could be an excuse for multiple people. It holds no weight and doesn’t work, that was my point.

I’m not saying he would have tanked those games he didn’t play, your the one suggesting he would havd gained ground over Jagr and Sakic.....which again is silly. He was behind significantly on points with Jagr while being behind Sakic, and close with Bure. By your logic, every other player would have to completely tank with Turgeon going on a frenzy....it sounds nice but again, it’s illogical.

I never quoted you on that, that was clearly for @frisco, who continues to think that having more PPG finishes makes someone superior, or on par with another player who had less but achieved more.

 

[The Panther]

I remember he scored a game seven OT winner against Phoenix in 1999.

Fair enough, but this is the first time I've seen this. Hopefully, the Hall of Fame committee has seen more games than I have, but an OT goal scored in Phoenix doesn't really have the sex appeal.

 

[frisco]

Most of those players had better careers and were overall better players.

If most of those players had better careers then why does Turgeon rank above them in both cumulative points and points/game? It doesn't make it so just by saying it. That's why we should be looking to reliable statistical measures.

Top ten points/game finishes is an objective measure that calculates dominance and is era neutral. Can't say that about a lot of the arguments against Turgeon on here. I mean some posters are going on and on about lack of memorable goals , not being tied to one franchise, didn't jump off the bench and cost Canada a gold medal as a 17- year-old, etc., as their main criteria.

My Best-Carey

 

[The Panther]

I mean some posters are going on and on about lack of memorable goals , not being tied to one franchise... as their main criteria.

I mentioned those two things not because I think they're legit criteria for preventing his entry to the Hall but because I think they're actual impediments to his getting in (which may not be fair at all).

The fact is, if you are remembered for big playoff plays (Clark Gillies, Glen Anderson) or if you're remembered as the main guy of a major franchise for a long time (Sundin), you have a better chance. I'm not saying it's fair, but I'm saying it's part of the reason he's not in.

 

[MXD]

Dale Hunter deserved to get Matt Cook'ed for what happened to Turgeon, and it's a shame it didn't happen.

 

[streitz]

Dale Hunter deserved to get Matt Cook'ed for what happened to Turgeon, and it's a shame it didn't happen.

Hunter did plenty worse before the Turgeon hit, lol.



I'd say his hit on Nieuwendyk was even more dangerous.

 

[GreatGonzo]

If most of those players had better careers then why does Turgeon rank above them in both cumulative points and points/game? It doesn't make it so just by saying it. That's why we should be looking to reliable statistical measures.

Top ten points/game finishes is an objective measure that calculates dominance and is era neutral. Can't say that about a lot of the arguments against Turgeon on here. I mean some posters are going on and on about lack of memorable goals , not being tied to one franchise, didn't jump off the bench and cost Canada a gold medal as a 17- year-old, etc., as their main criteria.

My Best-Carey

Your using PPG as the only measure to define a player though. And to ask your opening question is rather odd....you can have an overall better career with better numbers and not have as many PPG finishes.

Turgeon was simply not as good as his numbers indicate. You seem to be lumping him with others simply because he has more top 10 PPG finishes, yet leaving out tons of context behind it. The key word here is “fame” isn’t it? What did Turgeon do that would have made him a memorable player because even his best seasons didn’t receive tons of notice.

For example, Turgeon having better points and PPG finishes than Brett Hull doesn’t mean he is equal to Brett Hull, who won a Hart(3 time nominee) led the league in goals 3 consecutive years, won 2 cups, and is one of the greatest pure goal scorers and RWers to ever play.....yet with you, that extra context doesn’t matter....only PPG and accumulate points do.

Turgeon was a good player, but he wasn’t anything special.

 

[WingsFan95]

Turgeon; 1st overall pick in '87

1327 points in 1294 regular season games (1.03 PPG)
97 points in 109 playoff games (.89 PPG)


Modano; 1st overall pick in '88

1374 points in 1499 regular season games (0.92 PPG)
146 points in 176 playoff games (.83 PPG)


Sundin; 1st overall pick in '89

1349 points in 1346 regular season games (1 PPG)
82 points in 91 playoff games (.9 PPG)

I agree, more so with Sundin being in but that's the Toronto bias. He would be in if he won a Cup though I think. Particularly 93 Islanders.

 

[Big Phil]

No, Sundin missed like 2 games his whole career and only ever had any top-10 finishes because he played 82 game seasons, passing other players who got hurt. In comparison, Turgeon missed the 70 game mark 7 times out of 10 seasons between the ages of 24-33.

Turgeon, Sundin and Modano were in the same tier as offensive players. Turgeon was a slightly better offensive player than the other 2. He isn't in the HHOF because he was a completely hollow player (who offered nothing beyond his offense) and had a very long career filled with losing.

I think that says it all right there. No question about it he did not have the overall game of the other two. Sundin wasn't great defensively like Modano, but he was more durable, more consistent and there was not a time in either of their primes where a GM wanted Turgeon over Sundin. 1993? Yeah, that would be about it. After that it was Sundin a GM would want on his team.

 

[frisco]

Turgeon was simply not as good as his numbers indicate. You seem to be lumping him with others simply because he has more top 10 PPG finishes, yet leaving out tons of context behind it. The key word here is “fame” isn’t it? What did Turgeon do that would have made him a memorable player because even his best seasons didn’t receive tons of notice.

Turgeon was a good player, but he wasn’t anything special.

I guess that's the whole point. Does a player's image and fame factor outweigh their actual measurable accomplishments or vice-versa? I'll take the objective data over the subjective "yeah, he just wasn't that good" eye test given the choice. It just doesn't seem right that Turgeon might be in the Hall had he earned the "great quote" rep like Shanahan or ran around like Eddie Shack or something. Should be the on-ice stuff that matters. And when it comes to offensive forwards production really is the first measuring stick and Turgeon comes out just fine in that regard. He should be a HOFer.

My Best-Carey

 

[MadLuke]

After that it was Sundin a GM would want on his team.

What Turgeon was traded for after Lafontaine really make it unsurprising that he is not in the hall yet.

An aging Kirk Muller (that had a 57 points season in 93-94 and 19 points in 33 games before the trade), not sure Schneider has that much more value than Malakhov at the time to explain that one.

An aging Shane Corson comging from 46, 54, 36, 46 points seasons and 3 points in 11 game before the trade.

Those numbers are all pre-DPE, during is 25-28 year's old prime that you can acquire by giving those piece really does not scream Hall of Fame and show that is value was much lower than is number indicate.

Probably way too low and a mistake by those GM, loosing Turgeon for not much by the Habs was one of those move that put them in a long misery of below mediocrity (with trading Damphousse for almost nothing to the Sharks, Marc Reechi for Zubrus and so on)

 

[Big Phil]

What Turgeon was traded for after Lafontaine really make it unsurprising that he is not in the hall yet.

An aging Kirk Muller (that had a 57 points season in 93-94 and 19 points in 33 games before the trade), not sure Schneider has that much more value than Malakhov at the time to explain that one.

An aging Shane Corson comging from 46, 54, 36, 46 points seasons and 3 points in 11 game before the trade.

Those numbers are all pre-DPE, during is 25-28 year's old prime that you can acquire by giving those piece really does not scream Hall of Fame and show that is value was much lower than is number indicate.

Probably way too low and a mistake by those GM, loosing Turgeon for not much by the Habs was one of those move that put them in a long misery of below mediocrity (with trading Damphousse for almost nothing to the Sharks, Marc Reechi for Zubrus and so on)

I remember the Corson/Turgeon trade. It didn't make sense. I think Turgeon left a lot to be desired, but for Shayne Corson?

I guess that's the whole point. Does a player's image and fame factor outweigh their actual measurable accomplishments or vice-versa? I'll take the objective data over the subjective "yeah, he just wasn't that good" eye test given the choice. It just doesn't seem right that Turgeon might be in the Hall had he earned the "great quote" rep like Shanahan or ran around like Eddie Shack or something. Should be the on-ice stuff that matters. And when it comes to offensive forwards production really is the first measuring stick and Turgeon comes out just fine in that regard. He should be a HOFer.

My Best-Carey

The thing is, Adam Oates has the same sort of passive and quiet play on the ice and off it for that matter and he's comfortably in the HHOF. You don't have to be rambunctious or goofy off the ice to get noticed. Roenick isn't in yet right? I think the difference being is that Oates led the league in certain categories and was regularly among the top point producers for quite some time. Plus he did do better in the postseason than Turgeon. Oates is not a punishing hitter, or a fighter. He had the same amount of career fights as Turgeon - 2. Oates never fought after 1988. You don't have to do this to get into the HHOF, regardless of the era. You just have to be regularly elite. Oates did this, Turgeon didn't. Oates may have been underrated at times, but his 10 best seasons are better than Turgeon's.

 

[GreatGonzo]

I guess that's the whole point. Does a player's image and fame factor outweigh their actual measurable accomplishments or vice-versa? I'll take the objective data over the subjective "yeah, he just wasn't that good" eye test given the choice. It just doesn't seem right that Turgeon might be in the Hall had he earned the "great quote" rep like Shanahan or ran around like Eddie Shack or something. Should be the on-ice stuff that matters. And when it comes to offensive forwards production really is the first measuring stick and Turgeon comes out just fine in that regard. He should be a HOFer.

My Best-Carey

What accomplishments do you speak of outside of his few PPG finishes?

See, your problem is your looking at his stats without any context or without any sort of idea of the player that he actually was. You are just like every other poster who sees 500 goals and 1000 points and automatically thinks they are a HOFer. Turgeon is the perfect example of a good player, but simply not good enough to be a HOFer, at least right now. With less and less strong inductions, he will most likely be at one point.

You talk about eye test yet your contradicting yourself by just looking at his stats, which are good, but underwhelming. He wasn’t near the top of the elite, but the tier below for the most part. He has very little regular season success, no playoff or international success....which helps any player out.

Your once again not understanding and putting to much emphasis on “rep.” Shanahan and Shore didn’t get in because of their rep.

Offensive production is of course a big factor, but your still only looking at the numbers without the context. There is a reason why guys like Turgeon, Roenick, And Mogilny haven’t been inducted, and why guys like Andreychuk took so long to get in. Offense only goes so far to a certain extent.

 

[frisco]

What accomplishments do you speak of outside of his few PPG finishes?

See, your problem is your looking at his stats without any context or without any sort of idea of the player that he actually was. You are just like every other poster who sees 500 goals and 1000 points and automatically thinks they are a HOFer. Turgeon is the perfect example of a good player, but simply not good enough to be a HOFer, at least right now. With less and less strong inductions, he will most likely be at one point.

You talk about eye test yet your contradicting yourself by just looking at his stats, which are good, but underwhelming. He wasn’t near the top of the elite, but the tier below for the most part. He has very little regular season success, no playoff or international success....which helps any player out.

Your once again not understanding and putting to much emphasis on “rep.” Shanahan and Shore didn’t get in because of their rep.

Offensive production is of course a big factor, but your still only looking at the numbers without the context. There is a reason why guys like Turgeon, Roenick, And Mogilny haven’t been inducted, and why guys like Andreychuk took so long to get in. Offense only goes so far to a certain extent.

You continue to throw out your opinions like they're facts. At least attach some evidence to your subjective analysis. There is seriously not a hard core fact in your entire post. I mean it is hard to continue a discussion when you impart your slanted judgment on Turgeon without a stich of corroboration. Next you'll be talking about the "it" factor that guys like Shanahan had and Turgeon didn't. It's a superficial understanding simply based on your gut feelings. What is this mysterious "context" you speak of that somehow reduces Turgeon's effectiveness beyond his numbers?

Anyway, he'll get in. A little later than he probably should and behind some guys that weren't as good.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

The thing is, Adam Oates has the same sort of passive and quiet play on the ice and off it for that matter and he's comfortably in the HHOF. You don't have to be rambunctious or goofy off the ice to get noticed. Roenick isn't in yet right? I think the difference being is that Oates led the league in certain categories and was regularly among the top point producers for quite some time. Plus he did do better in the postseason than Turgeon. Oates is not a punishing hitter, or a fighter. He had the same amount of career fights as Turgeon - 2. Oates never fought after 1988. You don't have to do this to get into the HHOF, regardless of the era. You just have to be regularly elite. Oates did this, Turgeon didn't. Oates may have been underrated at times, but his 10 best seasons are better than Turgeon's.

Like I mentioned, Oates finished in the top ten in points/game three times, Turgeon five. And Oates played with superior linemates.

my Best-Carey

 

[GreatGonzo]

You continue to throw out your opinions like they're facts. At least attach some evidence to your subjective analysis. There is seriously not a hard core fact in your entire post. I mean it is hard to continue a discussion when you impart your slanted judgment on Turgeon without a stich of corroboration. Next you'll be talking about the "it" factor that guys like Shanahan had and Turgeon didn't. It's a superficial understanding simply based on your gut feelings. What is this mysterious "context" you speak of that somehow reduces Turgeon's effectiveness beyond his numbers?

Anyway, he'll get in. A little later than he probably should and behind some guys that weren't as good.

My Best-Carey

Just for the sake of argument. Here are the stat leaders from ‘89-‘96. I purposely stopped before the DPE. I’ll do another one from ‘97-‘02 but that time frame was the majority of his career.

Points
1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. Yzerman
4. Oates
5. Hull
6. Sakic
7. Turgeon
8. Messier
9. Robitaille
10. Francis

Goals
1. Hull
2. Yzerman
3. Lemieux
4. Robitaille
5. Turgeon
6. Andreychuk
7. LaFontaine
8. Gartner
9. Sakic
10. Shanahan

Assists
1. Gretzky
2. Oates
3. Coffey
4. Lemieux
5. Francis
6. Yzerman
7. Gilmour
8. Messier
9. Bourque
10. Sakic
11. Janney
12. Leetch
13. Turgeon

Points Per Game
1. Yzerman
2. Gretzky
3. Sakic
4. Messier
5. Oates
6. Hull
7. Turgeon
8. Coffey
9. Francis
10. Robitaille

Now their top 10 finishes

Goals
1. Hull(6)
2. Lemieux(5)
3. Yzerman(5)
4. Robitaille(5)
5. LaFontaine(2)
6. Sakic(2)
7. Andreychuk(2)
8. Gartner(2)
9. Shanahan(1)
10. Turgeon(1)

Assists
1. Oates(7)
2. Francis(6)
3. Gretzky(5)
4. Lemieux(5)
5. Coffey(5)
6. Messier(4)
7. Janney(4)
8. Gimour(3)
9. Leetch(3)
10. Bourque(3)
11. Sakic(3)
12. Yzerman(3)
13. Turgeon(1)

Points per game(500 games played)
1. Yzerman(6)
2. Gretzky(5)
3. Sakic(4)
4. Messier(4)
5. Oates(3)
6. Hull(3)
7. Turgeon(3)
8. Coffey(3)
9. Francis(2)
10. Robitaille(2)

Points
1. Lemieux(6)
2. Gretzky(6)
3. Oates(6)
4. Yzerman(5)
5. Sakic(4)
6. Hull(3)
7. Messier(3)
8. Robitaille(3)
9. Francis(2)
10. Turgeon(2)

@frisco as you see, this is the context I was talking about. Turgeon maintained a good level of consistency, but within those 8 years, he wasn’t to much of a standout.

It’s not “mysterious”, it’s objective stats that you love to quote so much. The only issue is you don’t go any deeper than the totals.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Like I mentioned, Oates finished in the top ten in points/game three times, Turgeon five. And Oates played with superior linemates.

my Best-Carey

Oates also finished
-7 times within the top 10 in points(three times in the top 3)
-12 times within the top 10 in assists(three times led the league)
Finished his career
-18th in points
-7th in assists
-with a higher PPG(1.062 compared to 1.026).

But apparently none of this matters due to your obsession with PPG, which is the only thing you like to bring up while ignoring all this.

Your infatuation with Turgeon is clouding your judgement to a point where your simply just being deliberately obtuse and bias. It doesn’t take a genius to know Oates was a better, more consistent, and more of a stand out player.

 

[streitz]

Oates was also better defensively, better on faceoffs and had the misfortune of being a late bloomer where he didn't play in the NHL till he was like 24.



Anyone seriously comparing Oates and Turgeon clearly doesn't have a good understanding of hockey.



You want some good comparisons to Turgeon?

Craig Janney.

 

[GreatGonzo]

@frisco

‘97-‘01

Points
1. Jagr
2. Selanne
3. Sakic
4. Forsberg
5. Sundin
6. Modano
7. Kariya
8. Palffy
9. Fleury
10. Recci
11. Amonte
12. Francis
13. Turgeon

Assists
1. Jagr
2. Forsberg
3. Oates
4. Sakic
5. Francis
6. Weight
7. Selanne
8. Recchi
9. Lidstrom
10. Fleury
11. Sundin
12. Yzerman
13. Turgeon

Points per game(300 games played)
1. Jagr
2. Sakic
3. Forsberg
4. Kariya
5. Selanne
6. Bure
7. Palffy
8. Turgeon
9. LeClair
10. Modano

Turgeon sits 24th in goals during this time frame so I’m just going to skip it

Top 10 finishes

Points
1. Jagr(5)
2. Selanne(4)
3. Forsberg(3)
4. Sakic(3)
5. Kariya(3)
6. Palffy(3)
7. Francis(2)
8. Recchi(1)
9. Amonte(1)
10. Sundin(1)
11. Modano(1)
12. Fleury(1)
13. Turgeon(0)

Assists
1. Jagr(4)
2. Oates(4)
3. Forsberg(4)
4. Sakic(3)
5. Weight(3)
6. Francis(3)
7. Selanne(3)
8. Lidstrom(2)
9. Fleury(2)
10. Turgeon(2)
12. Sundin(1)
13. Yzerman(1)
14. Recchi(1)

Points per game
1. Jagr(5)
2. Sakic(4)
3. Forsberg(4)
4. Sakic(3)
5. Kariya(3)
6. Bure(2)
7. Turgeon(2)
8. LeClair(1)
9. Modano(1)
10. Fleury(1)

 

[The Panther]

It doesn’t take a genius to know Oates was a better, more consistent, and more of a stand out player.

I agree that Oates was a better, more consistent player than Turgeon.

However, I'm not sure it's as clear-cut as you're implying.

-- Their career PPGs are virtually identical (both started around the same time and both had similarly long careers)
-- Turgeon had 12 PPG seasons; Oates had 10 PPG seasons
-- Turgeon had a better plus/minus result, despite playing (so I guess, not sure) on slightly weaker teams

I think with Oates, we remember a few special things:
-- set-up man for Hull's peak seasons; best passer other than Gretzky
-- five or six salad years on O6 franchise (Boston)
-- good at face-offs

Turgeon just doesn't seem to have any intangibles or anything he was ever 'best' or near-best at. We're just left with the scoring stats, impressive as they are.

 

[The Panther]

Someone (upthread) mentioned the Turgeon trade out of Montreal. I do not get that one, either.

According to Hockey-Reference:
October 29, 1996: Pierre Turgeon traded to St. Louis by Montreal with Rory Fitzpatrick and Craig Conroy for Murray Baron, Shayne Corson and St. Louis' 5th round choice (Gennady Razin) in 1997 Entry Draft.

Granted, Craig Conroy was still an unknown at the time, but the Habs gave St.Louis a 27-year-old former 1st overall who'd captained and led the team in scoring the year previous, and a future long-term 2nd/3rd-line player who'd go on to play until he was 39 (Conroy)... for a stay-at-home defenceman (career -57) and the dying body of Shayne Corson.

I mean, that trade is hard to understand. It's a bit like the Hall for Larsson trade a couple years ago where you know there were some behind-the-scenes culture problems or "franchise statement" kind of things trying to be dealt with.

 

[trentmccleary]

It was the 90's; the era of Neely, Lindros, Stevens, Shanahan, Tkachuk, etc. Lots of big guys drafted in the first round, a premium price pair for power forwards and a lot of injured stars from the mid-90's to the mid-00's. Corson was worth a lot more at the time than we would assume now. He was a young, 2-way, power forward with leadership skills and a lot of playoff experience. I think I saw it implied that Turgeon deserves the HHOF more than Shanahan. In the 1990's, Shanahan probably would have been worth two Pierre Turgeon's.

Turgeon trades - it felt like with every one of them the team was giving up on him and trading him for qualities that they couldn't seem to get with him (leadership, grit, defense, winning experience, etc).

PPG arguments vs. HHOF legacies - these are very different things. HHOF legacies are built on peak achievements and legendary stories. PPG arguments can be compelling in whose better comparisons, but they don't typically get you into the HHOF. Does this mean that there are better players outside the HHOF than inside? ... In some cases, yes.

If the Sedin twins played two NHL seasons together and then retired:
Daniel:
80-35-65-100 (Art Ross win)
80-24-25-49
160-59-90-149, 0.93

Henrik
75-27-38-75
75-27-38-75
150-54-76-150, 1.00

Daniel is going to the HHOF, Henrik is not. However, there's a legitimately debatable argument as to who was better.