Why isn't Pierre Turgeon in the HHOF

[streitz]

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)?

Maybe if they beat the kings.

 

[frisco]

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.

Who cares about top tens? Turgeon had more points in the 90's than Francis, Messier, Recchi, and a bunch of others. That's the facts.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

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.

I don't know about this top ten fetish. Over a ten year period, two players score 300 goals. One is in the top ten three times, the other not once. Is the first guy "better" than the second because of the top tens? I don't see how. They're essentially the same.

My Best-Carey

 

[seventieslord]

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 scorin. 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 igt happened)?

Jeez, let's assume 3rd in playoff scoring, ok? I doubt he's touching 1st or 2nd.

I'm guessing no. Just 15 more playoff games and 17 more points isn't going to tip the scales.

Now on the other hand, 67 more regular season games (with any reasonably realistic amount of points) in 93-94, 97-98 and 99-00, now that would get him in the HOF.

 

[seventieslord]

I don't know about this top ten fetish. Over a ten year period, two players score 300 goals. One is in the top ten three times, the other not once. Is the first guy "better" than the second because of the top tens? I don't see how. They're essentially the same.

My Best-Carey

Yeah maybe it's getting to the point of fetish for him, but the point is true. You still need to put up some dominant seasons. Turgeon had two, and 181 other dominant games spread out over three seasons. The rest of the 88-01 period? Good, even great, but not at the level of those 4-seasons-worth-of-games-in-5-years. Anyone who wants to defend his lack of induction can point to this fact, and they're not wrong. It doesn't reflect how good a player he was, because if it did, he'd be in, because he was a HHOF talent, but it's completely fair game to question whether he had a HHOF career - and for now, the prevailing sentiment is that he didn't.

Now, the key argument against that is that just playing some of the games he missed in three seasons might have tipped the scales. How many post-expansion players guys who were top-10 in points five times are not in the hall? Actually, the answer is zero. I can only find two four-timers who aren't in: Palffy and LeClair.

It's possible that even with a string of scoring finishes of 1-3-5-5-7 they still make an example out of him, because scoring isn't everything, and someone has to be the poster child for that mantra, and someone will always have to be the best scorer outside of the hall. But I doubt it - that would be too dominant to leave out - and all it would have taken is 67 points in his 67 missed games in those three seasons (which is not asking a lot because his cumulative PPG average was 1.26 in those three seasons, in the games he did play)

And if people can acknowledge that, then one would think that it would follow that we shouldn't hold 67 missed games in a 1300-game career against a player. But to many people, that's not enough.

 

[GlitchMarner]

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.

What do you think of my post on page ten of this thread that compares Turgeon's adjusted points per game paces in his best seasons in which he played at least 75 games to Modano's and Sundin's in their best seasons in which they played at least 75 games? Outside of his absolute best season, Turgeon was basically at the same level offensively as Sundin and Modano in the seasons I highlighted.

Not surprisingly, the VsX 7 scores for these players are similar. Their best seven scoring finishes are comparable as well.

They were on about the same level offensively in their best healthy seasons. The question is: How much could Turgeon have separated himself offensively from Modano and Sundin with better health in '94, '98 and/or '00?

If he had been healthy in those seasons (or a couple of them), we might be saying he was a better offensive player than those two, which would then arguably overcome Modano's superior all-around game and history of performance in the playoffs and Sundin's superior offensive longevity and International career and get him in.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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).

oates had the benefit of setting up whom in 1993?

turgeon in 1993 finished tied for 5th in pts, 6th in p/g, 6th best center in AST voting. 132 pts, 83 games.

oates in 1994 finished 3rd in pts, 5th in p/g, 4th best center. 112 pts, 77 games.

give 1994 oates six more games, let’s say that’s 10 pts. gee, 122 is pretty close to 132 right? as close as 132 is to 142?

 

[GreatGonzo]

I don't know about this top ten fetish. Over a ten year period, two players score 300 goals. One is in the top ten three times, the other not once. Is the first guy "better" than the second because of the top tens? I don't see how. They're essentially the same.

My Best-Carey

Fetish? It’s objective stats....something you have been preaching about. You have had a fetish for PPG finishes this entire thread, yet you ignore all his other finishes? Or lack of?

I compared him from ‘89-‘96, and he had the LEAST amount of top finishes compared to his competition. That’s what this is about. He could barely crack any top 10 lists....usually high level players are more consistent at that higher level, something Oates was very familiar with. Between that same time frame, he had 793 points in 569 games. He was top 10 in points 6 times(Turgeon 2) assists 7 times(Turgeon 1)and 3 times PPG(Turgeon also had 3). What’s the same about that? Their talent level may be close, but Oates separated himself, especially as a playmaker. Becoming one of the greatest of all time.

It’s about distinguishing yourself from your peers. That’s what makes players HOFers. Turgeon had little to distinguish himself. What impact did he make? What exactly did he do to carve his name in NHL glory? I’m not saying all HOFers legit deserve to be there, but they are very few. Turgeon has been passed over because, as talented as he was, he just wasn’t THAT great.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Yeah maybe it's getting to the point of fetish for him, but the point is true. You still need to put up some dominant seasons. Turgeon had two, and 181 other dominant games spread out over three seasons. The rest of the 88-01 period? Good, even great, but not at the level of those 4-seasons-worth-of-games-in-5-years. Anyone who wants to defend his lack of induction can point to this fact, and they're not wrong. It doesn't reflect how good a player he was, because if it did, he'd be in, because he was a HHOF talent, but it's completely fair game to question whether he had a HHOF career - and for now, the prevailing sentiment is that he didn't.

Now, the key argument against that is that just playing some of the games he missed in three seasons might have tipped the scales. How many post-expansion players guys who were top-10 in points five times are not in the hall? Actually, the answer is zero. I can only find two four-timers who aren't in: Palffy and LeClair.

It's possible that even with a string of scoring finishes of 1-3-5-5-7 they still make an example out of him, because scoring isn't everything, and someone has to be the poster child for that mantra, and someone will always have to be the best scorer outside of the hall. But I doubt it - that would be too dominant to leave out - and all it would have taken is 67 points in his 67 missed games in those three seasons (which is not asking a lot because his cumulative PPG average was 1.26 in those three seasons, in the games he did play)

And if people can acknowledge that, then one would think that it would follow that we shouldn't hold 67 missed games in a 1300-game career against a player. But to many people, that's not enough.

It’s more odd to declare it a “fetish” while that criteria alone is(for the most part) a big deal when validating a HOF.....

Like you said, he wasn’t nearly as dominant as others, and didn’t stick out among his peers. Top 10 finishes do showcase a high level of skills. Doesn’t mean your not skilled. Doesn’t mean if A has one while player B as none, that player A is automatically better, but to string together a good amount of them....that’s what a majority of the Hall is.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Who cares about top tens? Turgeon had more points in the 90's than Francis, Messier, Recchi, and a bunch of others. That's the facts.

My Best-Carey

Then who cares about PPG? Might as well throw it all out since using top 10 finishes to help evaluate a players talent suddenly doesn’t work...

How about some context, shall we?

Messier
Hart Trophy winner(2/3)
Pearson winner(2)
Stanley cup champ
3x Top Ten points
3x Top Ten assists
2x Top Ten goals

Francis
Selke winner(1/2)
Stanley cup champ 2x
8x Top Ten assists
4x Top Ten points

You honestly believe Turgeon was better during the 90s than these guys because he scored more points? No one would pick Turgeon over Francis or Messier during that time frame, he has a better shot replacing Recchi, and even then....Recchi was just as great in the regular season. except actually had playoff success with impressive post season numbers.

Just because Turgeon scored more doesn’t mean he was more significant, especially when many of those seasons he wasn’t even a top offensive player, just consistent.

 

[streitz]

I'd honestly take Canucks Messier over prime Turgeon lol.

 

[frisco]

You honestly believe Turgeon was better during the 90s than these guys because he scored more points? No one would pick Turgeon over Francis or Messier during that time frame, he has a better shot replacing Recchi, and even then....Recchi was just as great in the regular season. except actually had playoff success with impressive post season numbers.

I didn't say he was better than Messier. I'm say Messier, Francis, Recchi, Sundin, Modano, Gilmour, Robitaille were all pretty good players. The fact that Turgeon outproduced these top end guys in the 90's in their primes should make us take notice that Turgeon was pretty damn good, also.

BTW, Recchi with his impressive post season numbers was 0.79 points/game in the playoffs in his career. Turgeon was 0.89.

And with the "top ten" finishes you're saying that a guy that scores 15-18-46-21 is clearly better than a guy that goes 25-25-25-25 in that same four year span because of the one big year doesn't make sense. Sorry.

My Best-Carey

 

[Thenameless]

give 1994 oates six more games, let’s say that’s 10 pts. gee, 122 is pretty close to 132 right? as close as 132 is to 142?

Well, like I said, that 132 point season also came with 58 goals. I really do believe that Turgeon is more capable of creating/generating offense on his own (which has its own merit), while Oates is better at creating chances for teammates.

Two clones of Turgeon could amply feed off of each other, creating and finishing for each other. Two clones of Oates; who puts the puck in the net? I guess their third linemate?

Turgeon's a 500 goal scorer and that's pretty significant. He's certainly on the lower end of players who have scored a minimum of 500 goals, but he did make the bar nonetheless.

 

[GreatGonzo]

I didn't say he was better than Messier. I'm say Messier, Francis, Recchi, Sundin, Modano, Gilmour, Robitaille were all pretty good players. The fact that Turgeon outproduced these top end guys in the 90's in their primes should make us take notice that Turgeon was pretty damn good, also.

BTW, Recchi with his impressive post season numbers was 0.79 points/game in the playoffs in his career. Turgeon was 0.89.

And with the "top ten" finishes you're saying that a guy that scores 15-18-46-21 is clearly better than a guy that goes 25-25-25-25 in that same four year span because of the one big year doesn't make sense. Sorry.

My Best-Carey

Then what’s significant about him having more points?No one is saying Turgeon wasn’t good. I have no idea why you keep pushing that idea.

In the 90s(the time frame you referred to) Recchi was 51-21-38-59(Turgeon: 61-22-31-53) with a stanley cup. That’s what I was referring to. Their production in the regular season is close though. They are the most comparable IMO.

Gilmour was one of the best two way players during his days with a much better peak than Turgeon, while Robitaille was one of the best goal scorers and most productive wingers of the 90s. By the late 90s, Modano and Sundin were hitting their primes and establishing themselves as top centers in the game.

Once again, you don’t like context. You simply use blanket statements without any reasoning. It sounds good to say “he out scored all these players in the 90s,” yet if you actually look at their careers side by side, Turgeon is still the weaker link among everyone except Recchi.

No, it doesn’t break down that way. Turgeon has very little top finishes for a guy with as many points as he does. But he has very little big/elite seasons to go off of. Like I said before, he was consistent, but rarely at a high enough level to be one of the best.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Well, like I said, that 132 point season also came with 58 goals. I really do believe that Turgeon is more capable of creating/generating offense on his own (which has its own merit), while Oates is better at creating chances for teammates.

Two clones of Turgeon could amply feed off of each other, creating and finishing for each other. Two clones of Oates; who puts the puck in the net? I guess their third linemate?

Turgeon's a 500 goal scorer and that's pretty significant. He's certainly on the lower end of players who have scored a minimum of 500 goals, but he did make the bar nonetheless.

Oates had 45 goals in his 142 season. Both were unable to repeat those goal scoring highs while Oates maintained his elite playmaking.

 

[Thenameless]

Oates had 45 goals in his 142 season. Both were unable to repeat those goal scoring highs while Oates maintained his elite playmaking.

And 515 career goals is significantly more than 341 career goals. It's really six of one, and half a dozen of the other. I think what really hurts Turgeon is Piestany, a lack of playoff success, and the expectations of being a first overall draft pick. Had he gone undrafted like Oates, he might actually receive more credit for grinding out a 500 goal, 1,000 point career.

 

[GreatGonzo]

And 515 career goals is significantly more than 341 career goals. It's really six of one, and half a dozen of the other. I think what really hurts Turgeon is Piestany, a lack of playoff success, and the expectations of being a first overall draft pick. Had he gone undrafted like Oates, he might actually receive more credit for grinding out a 500 goal, 1,000 point career.

I was talking more about their highest goal scoring seasons. No doubt Turgeon was a better goal scorer, but I’d argue Oates was a better playmaker than Turgeon was a scorer.

Some playoff success would have definitely done him wonders. Look at Andreychuk. His storyline of being the 22 year veteran “leading” his team to their first, and his first ever stanley cup. It was his ticket to the Hall for the most part. But Andreychuk being 14th in goals and top 30 in points had him in the conversation. At least Turgeon was never a compiler.

 

[Thenameless]

I was talking more about their highest goal scoring seasons. No doubt Turgeon was a better goal scorer, but I’d argue Oates was a better playmaker than Turgeon was a scorer.

And you'd be right. I'd have Oates at about 8.5 for playmaking (exceptional historically) and about 4.5-5.0 (average to slightly below average among notable forwards) in goal scoring. I'd have Turgeon around 6.5-7.0 (solidly better than average) for both.

 

[streitz]

BTW, Recchi with his impressive post season numbers was 0.79 points/game in the playoffs in his career. Turgeon was 0.89.

That's generally what happens when you have a bunch of long playoff runs after the age of 35.



Really insightful observation.

 

[GreatGonzo]

And with the "top ten" finishes you're saying that a guy that scores 15-18-46-21 is clearly better than a guy that goes 25-25-25-25 in that same four year span because of the one big year doesn't make sense. Sorry.

So in ‘92 he had 95 points in 77 games...That had him 13th in league scoring. These are the bottom 3 of the top 10....

8. Yzerman: 103
9. Leetch: 102
10. Oates: 99

Your basically saying that it doesn’t mean Yzerman, Leetch or Oates were better just because they finished ahead....

How about ‘96? He finished with 96 points in 82 games, good for 18th. These are the players ahead of him before the top 10.

17. Fleury: 96
16. LeClair: 97
15. Tkachuk: 98
14. Nedved: 99
13. Messier: 99
12. Gretzky: 102
11. Weight: 104

So once again, apparently it doesn’t matter that 7 people finished ahead of him, doesn’t make them better players.

Turgeons problem is his scoring pace and finishes are extremely up and down

‘89: 22nd
‘90: 7th
‘91: 27th
‘92: 13th
‘93: 6th
‘94: 14th(9th PPG)
‘95: 22nd
‘96: 18th
‘97: 13th
‘98: 24th(6th PPG)
‘99: 27th(16th PPG
‘00: 37th(4th PPG)
‘01: 17th

He has 3 seasons where his PPG is significantly better than where he finished in his point totals. His best being 2000. He missed over 20 games in ‘98 and ‘00 with 13 in ‘94. You have an argument for those 3 years, and that’s it. Even then, we have no idea how his point totals would have been because he missed so many games.

As you can see, you can’t simply write off the fact that he was “better” despite not having the point finishes to back it up.

 

[Thenameless]

You honestly believe Turgeon was better during the 90s than these guys because he scored more points? No one would pick Turgeon over Francis or Messier during that time frame, he has a better shot replacing Recchi, and even then....Recchi was just as great in the regular season. except actually had playoff success with impressive post season numbers.

Yeah, I wouldn't go as far comparing Turgeon to Messier or Francis (two guys that are locks and near the top of the Hall really), but, of course, you also don't have to be a Messier or Francis level player to make the Hall either.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Yeah, I wouldn't go as far comparing Turgeon to Messier or Francis (two guys that are locks and near the top of the Hall really), but, of course, you also don't have to be a Messier or Francis level player to make the Hall either.

Of course. They aren’t the standard that needs to be met. His idea is that it’s good enough that he finihed with more points than them in a decade span. I understand where he’s coming from, but he is simply leaving it at the raw stat totals and name dropping players that Turgeon had more points than to had more of that “wow!” Factor.

 

[Thenameless]

Of course. They aren’t the standard that needs to be met. His idea is that it’s good enough that he finihed with more points than them in a decade span. I understand where he’s coming from, but he is simply leaving it at the raw stat totals and name dropping players that Turgeon had more points than to had more of that “wow!” Factor.

The Devil's in the Details so to speak. In this particular scenario, one must also realize that Francis and Messier are older than Turgeon and did a greater percentage of their damage in the 80's. The 90's is Turgeon's sweet spot. But still, I think he gets a bit of an undeserved bad rap, and was pretty darn good.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

He's not in the Hall, because he's not a HoFer.

 

[Big Phil]

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....

Tavares' career is only half deep right now. He's only 28. He'll get in there eventually I think. But expect him to have a lot more meaningful points from here on. That being said, with the Islanders he still finished 3rd for the Hart twice, lost the Art Ross in 2015 on literally a last minute assist by Jamie Benn. Weak offensive year for stars or not, he still nearly won the Art Ross.

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)?

If the Islanders make it to the finals in 1993 what role does he play? Because he sat out the Penguins series other than playing sparingly in Game 7. I don't know if that makes the Islanders as a team look better doing it without him or bad on Turgeon that his team beat the heavy favourites without him. I think people's perception of him changes a lot if he is in the Cup final and performs well, especially if they win. Then we are talking about possibly a Conn Smythe for him.

It is just that he played in the NHL for two decades and we never saw him play a lot of inspired hockey in the playoffs. Usually a player of his ilk has at least one great run, but he doesn't. If Daniel Briere has multiple runs why can't Turgeon?

I wouldn't ever put him in. But there might someday be a push for Patrick Marleau to get in, so if he's getting in then Turgeon definitely will. Not that I will like it anymore, but Turgeon is one of those checkmarks where you will get the idea which direction the HHOF wants to go if he gets in. Housley is already in. Osgood shouldn't ever get in but might someday, Andreychuk already is in, maybe Nicholls too? Once this stuff happens then it will be obvious the HHOF is looking at some out of context offensive numbers that look shiny, and nothing about the player they were.