Why isn't Pierre Turgeon in the HHOF

[vadim sharifijanov]

early 90s—turgeon traded for fellow superstar pat lafontaine

shanahan awarded as compensation for franchise-altering superduperstar scott stevens

mid-to-late 90s—turgeon (and mathieu schneider) traded for kirk muller (and vlad malakhov)

shanahan traded for chris pronger and keith primeau

turgeon traded again for shayne corson

————

adam oates—third in pts, second in ppg in 1990 behind gretzky

third in pts, third in ppg in 1993 behind mario and lafontaine

led two stanley cup finalists in scoring as an old man with no scoring support in sight

turgeon—at best his best year can hang with oates’ third best year

 

[Big Phil]

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 had 7 finishes in the top 10 in points
3, 3, 3, 7, 10, 10, 10

Turgeon
5, 7

Should we expand it? Let's go top 20 to be fair and gain a bigger picture here.

Oates
3, 3, 3, 7, 10, 10, 10, 13, 16, 19

Turgeon
5, 7, 13, 13, 14, 17, 18

You still give the edge to Oates here. Turgeon is just what a lot of people remember him for. A good scorer, often in the top 20. Never thought to be among the cream of the crop of NHL centers, never led the NHL in any category either. Oates led the NHL in assists three times. One of those times it was in 1993, a pretty heavy season for star forwards. Turgeon just always was a step below in his career and throughout the league. His teams barely got out of the 1st round of the playoffs, he did make players around him better, but Oates has legendary status when it comes to this. Look at Hull, Bondra, Neely and even Chris Simon. He was their center in the best years of their career.

Then there is the playoffs. I wouldn't call Oates a legend in the postseason, but he did reach the finals twice and had some better runs than Turgeon. Everyone thinks Brian Propp has the most playoff points of a player who never won the Cup, not true, it's Oates.

I've said this before and had arguments over it, but Turgeon is right there with Nicholls when it comes to the HHOF. Neither should be in and will only get in if people look at certain numbers and get the wrong idea.

 

[brachyrynchos]

Most points in the '90s:
1 Gretzky 1020 (257-763)
2 Oates 927 (234-693)
3 Yzerman 918 (363-555)
4 Sakic 917 (352-565)
5 Hull (512-384)
6 TURGEON 867 (349-518)
7 Jagr 862 (345-517)
8 Francis 842 (238-604)
9 Recchi 840 (332-508)
10 Fleury 820 (360-460)
11 Messier 819 (275-544)
12 Gilmour 793
13 Robitaille 783
14 Lemieux 779

Does any of this matter? I don't know, but I was surprised to see Turgeon with the 6th most points in that decade.

 

[frisco]

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

Turgeon is holding his own or bettering a bunch of no doubt HOFers and you take this as a mark against him?

My Best-Carey

 

[GreatGonzo]

Turgeon is holding his own or bettering a bunch of no doubt HOFers and you take this as a mark against him?

My Best-Carey

Love how you left out how he finishes top 10.....

Not sure what your definition of “bettering” or “holding his own” is, and I would love to hear what No doubt HOFers he “bettered.”

The stats clearly show he finished top 10 in points and goals, while being 13th in assists and had the least amount of top 10 finishes. It shows he was consistent, but not at a very high level, and not for that long. His ‘93 season was the only season where he actually stood out, finishing top 10 in nearly every category. That one year made up a majority of his top 10 finishes.

And like ‘97-‘01 shows us pretty much the same thing.

 

[Thenameless]

turgeon—at best his best year can hang with oates’ third best year

That's exaggerating a bit don't you think? Some would even think their best seasons are fairly equal with Oates scoring 45-97-142 and Turgeon scoring 58-74-132. Oates getting 10 more points is nicely offset by Turgeon getting 13 more goals. And that's the way I see their careers. Oates was a pure playmaker who got the benefit of setting up guys like Brett Hull and Cam Neely, while Turgeon was a more balanced offensive threat. I really wouldn't feel that my team was at a disadvantage if Turgeon was my first line center and Oates was the first line center for the opposing team (with the rest of the teams being fairly equal).

 

[GreatGonzo]

Most points in the '90s:
1 Gretzky 1020 (257-763)
2 Oates 927 (234-693)
3 Yzerman 918 (363-555)
4 Sakic 917 (352-565)
5 Hull (512-384)
6 TURGEON 867 (349-518)
7 Jagr 862 (345-517)
8 Francis 842 (238-604)
9 Recchi 840 (332-508)
10 Fleury 820 (360-460)
11 Messier 819 (275-544)
12 Gilmour 793
13 Robitaille 783
14 Lemieux 779

Does any of this matter? I don't know, but I was surprised to see Turgeon with the 6th most points in that decade.

How many times did he finish top 10 in any statistic compared to the players listed? Probably the least amount.....

Like I’ve said, if look at the totals without any context, they appear more prestigious than they are.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Tavares is a pretty good comparable for this fella. Eh, a lot of points here and there but what does it amount to? I do expect Toronto to win the cup within the next five years or so but....

 

[MadLuke]

Most points in the '90s:
7 Jagr 862 (345-517)


Does any of this matter? I don't know, but I was surprised to see Turgeon with the 6th most points in that decade.

Jagr felt too low for me in the 90s rankied so I check on nhl.com:
NHL.com - Stats

From 01/01/1990 to 12/31/1999

Jagr seem to be second in the 90s

*Not in the hall of fame

1- Gretky: 940
2- Jagr: 938*
3- Oates: 902
4- Yzerman: 896
5- Sakic: 895
6- Hull: 870
7- Reechi: 866
8- Turgeon: 858*
9- Fleury: 822*
10-Francis: 822
11- Roenick: 793*

Gilmour: 784
Messier: 773
Robitaille: 752
Sundin: 746
Modano: 731

I imagine you used complete season .

Does not change anything to your point and he look good there surrounded of hall of famer, is prime start in the 89-90 season and ended 2000-2001, so I imagine that is one of the best cut-off to look good for him that we are using, but still, offensive production is certainly there for a Hall of Fame argument.

That said with Fleury and Roenick not yet in the hall either and how those player were big character and memorable for their cities and the league in general, not being in the hall while being so close to Turgeon make him not out of place in the hall but not out of place outside of it either has long has those 2 are not in.

 

[brachyrynchos]

How many times did he finish top 10 in any statistic compared to the players listed? Probably the least amount.....

Like I’ve said, if look at the totals without any context, they appear more prestigious than they are.

I agree with what you're saying, numbers and context aside, I figured Turgeon was more in the 10-15 range, not 6th. And even then, I still wouldn't consider him a top center or a top player, but that's just me. His playoff performances were lacking, scoring a few multipoint games while being mostly a no show in others especially when it mattered most.

 

[GreatGonzo]

I agree with what you're saying, numbers and context aside, I figured Turgeon was more in the 10-15 range, not 6th. And even then, I still wouldn't consider him a top center or a top player, but that's just me. His playoff performances were lacking, scoring a few multipoint games while being mostly a no show in others especially when it mattered most.

I agree. I was shocked myself. It’s almost like he walks that fine line of “Hall of very good” and “good enough” to be a HOFer.

I agree, he was hardly ever a top top center or even player. But for sure some playoff and/or international success would have helped him.

 

[seventieslord]

How many times did he finish top 10 in any statistic compared to the players listed? Probably the least amount.....

Like I’ve said, if look at the totals without any context, they appear more prestigious than they are.

For all the criticism you've levied his way about how he looks at nothing but points per game, you're kinda focusing on top 10 stuff alot, aren't ya?

 

[seventieslord]

Tavares is a pretty good comparable for this fella. Eh, a lot of points here and there but what does it amount to? I do expect Toronto to win the cup within the next five years or so but....

He's been a Hart finalist, has never disappointed in the playoffs and has definitely been a more highly regarded player.

 

[Neutrinos]

How many times did he finish top 10 in any statistic compared to the players listed? Probably the least amount.....

Like I’ve said, if look at the totals without any context, they appear more prestigious than they are.

Player A could finish with 40 goals and 40 assists and not finish top 10 in either category

Player B could finish with 50 goals and 30 assists and finish in the top 10 in goals

Player C could finish with 20 goals and 60 assists and finish in the top 10 in assists


Are B and C really deserving of more praise than Player A?

 

[seventieslord]

Jagr felt too low for me in the 90s rankied so I check on nhl.com:
NHL.com - Stats

From 01/01/1990 to 12/31/1999

Jagr seem to be second in the 90s

*Not in the hall of fame

1- Gretky: 940
2- Jagr: 938*
3- Oates: 902
4- Yzerman: 896
5- Sakic: 895
6- Hull: 870
7- Reechi: 866
8- Turgeon: 858*
9- Fleury: 822*
10-Francis: 822
11- Roenick: 793*

Gilmour: 784
Messier: 773
Robitaille: 752
Sundin: 746
Modano: 731

I imagine you used complete season .

Does not change anything to your point and he look good there surrounded of hall of famer, is prime start in the 89-90 season and ended 2000-2001, so I imagine that is one of the best cut-off to look good for him that we are using, but still, offensive production is certainly there for a Hall of Fame argument.

That said with Fleury and Roenick not yet in the hall either and how those player were big character and memorable for their cities and the league in general, not being in the hall while being so close to Turgeon make him not out of place in the hall but not out of place outside of it either has long has those 2 are not in.

Or maybe using timeframes that favor some players and not others isn't the best way to do this.

 

[93LEAFS]

He's been a Hart finalist, has never disappointed in the playoffs and has definitely been a more highly regarded player.

and regularly got taken by Canada to best on best events where he won medals.

 

[seventieslord]

Player A could finish with 40 goals and 40 assists and not finish top 10 in either category

Player B could finish with 50 goals and 30 assists and finish in the top 10 in goals

Player C could finish with 20 goals and 60 assists and finish in the top 10 in assists


Are B and C really more deserving of more praise than Player A?

You are of course right. Statistically, none of them are superior. More context would be needed to decide.

 

[brachyrynchos]

Jagr felt too low for me in the 90s rankied so I check on nhl.com:
NHL.com - Stats

From 01/01/1990 to 12/31/1999

Jagr seem to be second in the 90s

*Not in the hall of fame

1- Gretky: 940
2- Jagr: 938*
3- Oates: 902
4- Yzerman: 896
5- Sakic: 895
6- Hull: 870
7- Reechi: 866
8- Turgeon: 858*
9- Fleury: 822*
10-Francis: 822
11- Roenick: 793*

Gilmour: 784
Messier: 773
Robitaille: 752
Sundin: 746
Modano: 731

I imagine you used complete season .

Does not change anything to your point and he look good there surrounded of hall of famer, is prime start in the 89-90 season and ended 2000-2001, so I imagine that is one of the best cut-off to look good for him that we are using, but still, offensive production is certainly there for a Hall of Fame argument.

That said with Fleury and Roenick not yet in the hall either and how those player were big character and memorable for their cities and the league in general, not being in the hall while being so close to Turgeon make him not out of place in the hall but not out of place outside of it either has long has those 2 are not in.

Thanks for fact checking, I appreciate it. Turgeon has the stats, no doubt. If I had to choose Turgeon or Roenick as center for my team, I take Roenick, for his compete level, grit, and for the fact that I'd rather play with him than against him...Turgeon might be more offensively skilled but never really battled in the corners, does he have his teammates back? Did he kick it into a higher gear? I like Turgeon, I'm just not sure if he is a Hall of Famer. When I hear his name, I think Hunter, because I can't recall any highight reel moments, or other "Turgeon won that series for us".

 

[MadLuke]

Or maybe using timeframes that favor some players and not others isn't the best way to do this.

It is a terrible way to rank or evaluate player sure, but when talking Fame/Hall of Fame it is not that bad, there is some fame value to have been the most anything under some timeframe people look at like decade (or between 2 lock-out).

A bit like giving any relevance to an Art Ross vs a second place, round number like 500/1000, first too do X, being from a small hockey nation and a national hero, long face captain of a franchise, stanley cup win are terrible way to evaluate/rank players, but not a bad way to evaluate and rank fame.

 

[seventieslord]

It is a terrible way to rank or evaluate player sure, but when talking Fame/Hall of Fame it is not that bad, there is some fame value to have been the most anything under some timeframe people look at like decade (or between 2 lock-out).

A bit like giving any relevance to an Art Ross vs a second place, round number like 500/1000, first too do X, being from a small hockey nation and a national hero, long face captain of a franchise, stanley cup win are terrible way to evaluate/rank players, but not a bad way to evaluate and rank fame.

but if we want to be fair about it, what we would have to do is take the best 10 year period for every individual player or it's not apples to apples. For turgeon that might be from 1990 to 2000, but for Sundin it might be 1993 to 2002. And for fleury it might be 1992 to 2002. And for Mario Lemieux it might be 1987 to 1997. And so on.

 

[MadLuke]

but if we want to be fair about it, what we would have to do is take the best 10 year period for every individual player or it's not apples to apples. For turgeon that might be from 1990 to 2000, but for Sundin it might be 1993 to 2002. And for fleury it might be 1992 to 2002. And for Mario Lemieux it might be 1987 to 1997. And so on.

We are not really trying to be absolutely fair when evaluating fameness, people playing on good team are advantaged, people that could shine because of lower competition some year and get an Art Ross will be advantaged and so on. If someone prime is timed to make him look good and participated into how famous it ended up to be, so be it.


The 98 and after being so different than 96 and before in scoring make that method also quite less than ideal. that the good side of comparing the same bunch of year's, you compare them playing in the same nhl environment.

That type of work, clearly seem the best at least in what is attempted:
Reference - VsX comprehensive summary (1927 to 2018)

For their seven best year's

Oates: 86.2
Reechi: 84.3
Francis: 84.2
Fleury: 82
Roenick: 81.2
Sundin: 79.9
H. Sedin: 79.5
Turgeon: 78.9
kariya: 78.6
Modano: 77.7
Federov/Gilmour: 77.1

Career point:

Modano: 1,286
Sundin: 1,284
Oates: 1,282
Turgeon: 1,200
Roenick: 1,128
Fleury: 1,011


For some of the names that came up.

Really similar, Sundin/Modano/Turgeon is basically a tie offensively for their 7 year's prime, career the 2 other have about one more good season, Oates had a higher prime according to this.

Looking at those VsX, Turgeon certainly has a case.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Player A could finish with 40 goals and 40 assists and not finish top 10 in either category

Player B could finish with 50 goals and 30 assists and finish in the top 10 in goals

Player C could finish with 20 goals and 60 assists and finish in the top 10 in assists


Are B and C really more deserving of more praise than Player A?

Did player C and B do that more times than player A?

Having such high numbers and finishing among the top producing during his prime, he has the least amount of top finishes out of almost every category says something doesn’t it?

For example, did player B finish 5 times within the top 10 in goals compared to none for player A? Did player C finish 5 times in assists compared to none for player A? I would say player B and C showed more high level of consistency. That’s Turgeons biggest dilemma, he was consistent, but not at a high enough level frequently to be considered among the best. He was an offensive player too, so it’s not like he made up for it defensively.

It’s all about the context. If player B and C only have one top 10 finish each compared to A, then yes it’s highly debatable who is superior.

but if we want to be fair about it, what we would have to do is take the best 10 year period for every individual player or it's not apples to apples. For turgeon that might be from 1990 to 2000, but for Sundin it might be 1993 to 2002. And for fleury it might be 1992 to 2002. And for Mario Lemieux it might be 1987 to 1997. And so on.

This is true. I always saw Turgeons best and most competitive years from ‘89-‘96. After that he had multiple injuries, but was still a good competitor. I went through that time frame seeing how those were arguably his best seasons, plus it was a bulk of his career.

My biggest thing with Sundin was the fact that he was considered and verified as one of the best centers in the game, Same with Modano. Turgeon wasn’t.

Fleury, Roenick, And even Mogilny are very comparabalento Turgeon. But Turgeon has better overall career numbers than all of them. The bigger question is who was “better.”

 

[seventieslord]

Looking at those VsX, Turgeon certainly has a case.

Yes, especially considering Vsx is unforgiving to players who missed games. For as long as he's out of the hall, he will continue to be the best offensive player of all-time not in the Hall.

 

[streitz]

Yes, especially considering Vsx is unforgiving to players who missed games. For as long as he's out of the hall, he will continue to be the best offensive player of all-time not in the Hall.

Theo Fleury was better even if his career was cut short by personal demons.

 

[Jim MacDonald]

I wanted to throw a "what if" scenario with Turgeon....does everyone agree he gets in the HOF if 1) The Islanders make it to the finals in 93 and 2) The Dale Hunter hit never happens, and Turgeon finishes 1st 2nd or 3rd in playoff scoring. I just wondered if those things happened in an alternate universe and this "minor" criteria are met does everyone say he gets in (with this one great 93 postseason if it happened)?