Why isn't Pierre Turgeon in the HHOF

[njdevils1982]

I would respond with 2 things:

1) It takes more than one season to make a HoF career.

2) We can't really induct players based on "could have" and "would have"'s

lindros

 

[Captain Bowie]

lindros

That's a different argument all together, but he hit highs in limited (relatively) games that very few in the history of hockey ever hit, Turgeon couldn't hold a candle to that level at his best.

 

[SPLBRUIN]

Really good player, just not HOF good enough.

 

[MadLuke]

lindros

Lindros actual achievement are up there, he was considered good enough to make Team Canada from 1991 to 2002.

Lindros prime look like this:

Rk	Player	PTS	Tm	Pos	From	To	Active	GP	G	A	+/-
1	Jaromir Jagr	642	PIT	RW	1993	1999	6	431	252	390	125
2	Wayne Gretzky*	529	TOT	C	1993	1999	6	443	129	400	-80
3	Eric Lindros*	525	PHI	C	1993	1999	6	370	222	303	149
4	Teemu Selanne*	512	TOT	RW	1993	1999	6	401	237	275	41
5	Joe Sakic*	507	TOT	C	1993	1999	6	415	188	319	26
6	Ron Francis*	500	TOT	C	1993	1999	6	447	138	362	69
7	Theoren Fleury	477	TOT	RW	1993	1999	6	448	211	266	67
8	Adam Oates*	469	TOT	C	1993	1999	6	416	121	348	15
9	John LeClair	468	TOT	LW	1993	1999	6	442	240	228	168
10	Mats Sundin*	466	TOT	C/RW	1993	1999	6	453	193	273	29
11	Pierre Turgeon	455	TOT	C	1993	1999	6	403	179	276	58
12	Keith Tkachuk	450	TOT	LW	1993	1999	6	426	241	209	25
13	Steve Yzerman*	443	DET	LW/C	1993	1999	6	421	147	296	79

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Lindros team statistics when he was on or off the ice was really crazy (has reflected on is and Leclair +/- during that time), one of the most dominant regular season prime in the history of the league, more details here:
Adjusted Even-Strength Plus-minus 1960-2017

 

[Neutrinos]

That's not overly impressive. He's only 9th in scoring over the span of his career. For PPG he's all the way down at 20th.

Majority of his scoring was done from 88-96, and especially high scoring era. However in that era he does not fare any better against his competition.

In '98 he finished tied for 4th in PPG, and in '00 he tied for 3rd

I think most would consider his prime from '89 - '01

 

[ClydeLee]

So why was he never on team Canada as a professional. You compare him to 2 same era players but it's the hockey hall of fame, and those are two prolific great members of their international teams and 1 who never played for his as a pro

 

[SC2GM]

Absolute ROB JOB. As with most things in life, irrelevant stuff bleeds into things for no reason. Oh... was this guy not extroverted or didn't fight in a game we thought he should have? Well, time to act like players far inferior than he is should be in the hall of fame, as we enshrine player after player who is worse than Turgeon.

Acting like a big shot is more important than being one. Perception is everything, even when it comes to "experts in the field." It's pathetic. Until Turgeon is in the HOF, the HOF may as well be run by TMZ.

 

[Captain Bowie]

In '98 he finished tied for 4th in PPG, and in '00 he tied for 3rd

I think most would consider his prime from '89 - '01

There are too many guys from that era that were simply good at putting up points, without adding much else to their argument; like defensive play, physicality, playoff success, individual awards, longevity, ect.

The line needs to be drawn somewhere. In my opinion, it should be drawn above guys like Turgeon, Roenick, Damphousse, Fleury, Tkachuk, Larmer, ect.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Absolute ROB JOB. As with most things in life, irrelevant stuff bleeds into things for no reason. Oh... was this guy not extroverted or didn't fight in a game we thought he should have? Well, time to act like players far inferior than he is should be in the hall of fame, as we enshrine player after player who is worse than Turgeon.

Acting like a big shot is more important than being one. Perception is everything, even when it comes to "experts in the field." It's pathetic. Until Turgeon is in the HOF, the HOF may as well be run by TMZ.

Can't say I don't admire your passion on the topic. However I was not aware he was a part of that World Juniors game until today.

 

[Neutrinos]

There are too many guys from that era that were simply good at putting up points, without adding much else to their argument; like defensive play, physicality, playoff success, individual awards, longevity, ect.

The line needs to be drawn somewhere. In my opinion, it should be drawn above guys like Turgeon, Roenick, Damphousse, Fleury, Tkachuk, Larmer, ect.

The problem with lumping Turgeon in with the players you listed is that he has noticeably superior numbers

Statistically speaking, Turgeon is on the same level as players like Denis Savard, Dale Hawerchuk, Mats Sundin, Gilbert Perrault, etc.

 

[SwaggySpungo]

Top-30 point finishes??? That's your standard?

Pretty crazy.

Might as well call it “The Hall of Eh, He Was Pretty Good, I Suppose”

 

[ClydeLee]

The problem with lumping Turgeon in with the players you listed is that he has noticeably superior numbers

Statistically speaking, Turgeon is on the same level as players like Denis Savard, Dale Hawerchuk, Mats Sundin, Gilbert Perrault, etc.

Except those guys all have noticeably superior numbers too. Save for maybe Sundin but that's where Turgeon never playing for team Canada beyond juniors also stands out vs several of these other guys who build better Hockey career hofs.

 

[The Kingslayer]

Should be

 

[Neutrinos]

Except those guys all have noticeably superior numbers too. Save for maybe Sundin but that's where Turgeon never playing for team Canada beyond juniors also stands out vs several of these other guys who build better Hockey career hofs.

When you adjust for era, Turgeon actually has better numbers than Savard, Perreault and Hawerchuk

Their respective adjusted stats:

Turgeon; 1315 points in 1294 games

Savard; 1123 points in 1196 games

Perreault; 1134 points in 1191 games

Hawerchuk; 1189 in 1188 games

Sundin; 1410 in 1346 games


For comparison sake:

Damphousse; 1193 points in 1378 games

Roenick; 1228 points in 1363 games

 

[JamieG19]

Oh please no. No way.

But considering the other guys who are in it, why not.

But if you still believe the Hall is supposed to be truly great players, then absolutely not.

Turgeon was a good player. One dimensional, but good at what he did. But he was never anything more.
Would he ever have been chosen top 5 in his position for multiple years? Even top 10? I don't think so.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Why isn't this in the HOH board?

 

[GlitchMarner]

Top-30 point finishes??? That's your standard?

A More Realistic Look At The HOF...

The number of top 30 scoring finishes the following Hall of Famers had:

Lanny McDonald: Six (five in the top 20)

Glenn Anderson: Five (four in the top 20)

Joe Mullen: Seven (four in the top 20)

Joe Nieuwendyk: Five (three in the top 20)

Dino Ciccarelli: Six (three in the top 20)

Mike Gartner: Five (two in the top 20)


I think Turgeon has more top 20 scoring finishes than any of these players had top 30 scoring finishes. He wouldn't be the worst Hall of Fame member by any means.

 

[stl76]

Except those guys all have noticeably superior numbers too. Save for maybe Sundin but that's where Turgeon never playing for team Canada beyond juniors also stands out vs several of these other guys who build better Hockey career hofs.

Honest question: how much do you think not fighting against Russia in the WJrs had to do with Turgeon never playing for Team Canada again? Obivously Team Canada had some other pretty good C's during Turgeon's prime, but was he really never one of their top 12 options?

Guess I'm just curious to what extent (if any) politics and/or reputation played a role in limiting Turgeon's international career...

 

[GlitchMarner]

Doesn't mean they deserved to get in. Both those guys basically got in for political reasons. Modano for being all-timer American point leader, and Sundin for being a Toronto fan favourite. If Modano was Slovakian and Sundin played for Anaheim, would be different.

Yeah, sure. You do realize both those guys are better than players like Gillies, Anderson, Andreychuk, Ciccarelli, Mullen, Gartner, Nieuwendyk, Duff, Housley, McDonald right? They're easily above the HHOF threshold.

 

[GlitchMarner]

The only things distinguishing Sundin from Turgeon are playing for Toronto and international play. Sundin was actually less consistent than Turgeon. International play is a real point though.

Do you have anything to back this up? Any statistical information?

Sundin: 1.05 adjusted points per game (1346 games)

Turgeon: 1.02 adjusted points per game (1294 games)

 

[AnInjuredJasonZucker]

Honest question: how much do you think not fighting against Russia in the WJrs had to do with Turgeon never playing for Team Canada again? Obivously Team Canada had some other pretty good C's during Turgeon's prime, but was he really never one of their top 12 options?

Guess I'm just curious to what extent (if any) politics and/or reputation played a role in limiting Turgeon's international career...

I'd wager that this had a major impact on his selection (or lack thereof) for Team Canada. I heard an interview with Theo Fleury a few years ago where he talked about that night, and he talked about how bad he felt for Turgeon. He was not a fighter in the first place, but add in that he barely spoke English and was a bit of an outcast on the team, as he could only communicate with a couple of other guys. That brawl was a bad situation, and he was a kid expected to jump into that situation?

 

[SI90]

I’m embarrassed to say I thought he was in. Now I’m upset that he’s not. Seems strange to me.

Over 1,300 pts and over a PPG for his career. Early in his career he was a beast for BUF and NYI.

 

[Pizza!Pizza!]

lindros

They just put him in so his family wouldn't sue over CTE.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

When you adjust for era, Turgeon actually has better numbers than Savard, Perreault and Hawerchuk

Their respective adjusted stats:

Turgeon; 1315 points in 1294 games

Savard; 1123 points in 1196 games

Perreault; 1134 points in 1191 games

Hawerchuk; 1189 in 1188 games

Sundin; 1410 in 1346 games


For comparison sake:

Damphousse; 1193 points in 1378 games

Roenick; 1228 points in 1363 games

Good lord just stop already. How about you provide some context to the players ACTUAL point totals. A player's compiled stats are only part of the argument as to why they should be in the Hall of Fame. Adjusted stats are also a highly suspect and weak argument for a player...very few view them with much credibility.

A superior way in which to look at a player's stats is to see how they compare to their peers and what else they brought to the table (ie. leadership and defensive abilites).

Sundin

Top 20 goal seasons
2,8,10,11,14,15,17,18,20

Top 20 assist seasons
10,14,15,18

Top 20 point seasons
4,7,11,11,12,14,17,20

Hawerchuk

Top 20 goal seasons
7,7,10,12,15,19

Top 20 assist seasons
4,4,5,6,9,13,13,14,19,10

Top 10 point seasons
3,4,7,7,9,11,11,11,12,16,17

Savard

Top 20 goal seasons
9,13,15

Top 20 assist seasons
2,3,3,6,7,12,18

Top 20 point seasons
3,3,6,7,7,12,16

Perreault

Top 20 goal seasons
6,7,7,9,11,18

Top 20 assist seasons
8,9,19,11,11,20

Top 20 point seasons
3,4,5,8,9,14,15,15,15

Turgeon

Top 20 goal seasons
6,12,14,19,20

Top 20 assist seasons
8,9,10,11,11,10

Top 20 point seasons
5,7,13,13,14,14,18

Turgeon's seasons are nothing to sneeze at but it's clear looking at the numbers that the other players' high end productivity was a clear step up from Turgeon and in many cases (Hawerchuk, Perreault, Sundin) the frequency of their best seasons were of a higher calibre.

In the cases of Hawerchuk, Perreault, and Sundin there are the significant contributions at the Olympics and Canada Cups to be taken into consideration...something that Turgeon failed to accomplish anything.

Overall, these players have produced numbers that Turgeon failed to reach. That is why they are in the Hall of Fame and Pierre is not. With that said, when the likes of compilers like Dave Andreychuk get in, there should be hope for Turgeon in the coming years...he is just not at the level of the above players, that much is pretty clear.

 

[Neutrinos]

Good lord just stop already. How about you provide some context to the players ACTUAL point totals. A player's compiled stats are only part of the argument as to why they should be in the Hall of Fame. Adjusted stats are also a highly suspect and weak argument for a player...very few view them with much credibility.

A superior way in which to look at a player's stats is to see how they compare to their peers and what else they brought to the table (ie. leadership and defensive abilites).

Sundin

Top 20 goal seasons
2,8,10,11,14,15,17,18,20

Top 20 assist seasons
10,14,15,18

Top 20 point seasons
4,7,11,11,12,14,17,20

Hawerchuk

Top 20 goal seasons
7,7,10,12,15,19

Top 20 assist seasons
4,4,5,6,9,13,13,14,19,10

Top 10 point seasons
3,4,7,7,9,11,11,11,12,16,17

Savard

Top 20 goal seasons
9,13,15

Top 20 assist seasons
2,3,3,6,7,12,18

Top 20 point seasons
3,3,6,7,7,12,16

Perreault

Top 20 goal seasons
6,7,7,9,11,18

Top 20 assist seasons
8,9,19,11,11,20

Top 20 point seasons
3,4,5,8,9,14,15,15,15

Turgeon

Top 20 goal seasons
6,12,14,19,20

Top 20 assist seasons
8,9,10,11,11,10

Top 20 point seasons
5,7,13,13,14,14,18

Turgeon's seasons are nothing to sneeze at but it's clear looking at the numbers that the other players' high end productivity was a clear step up from Turgeon and in many cases (Hawerchuk, Perreault, Sundin) the frequency of their best seasons were of a higher calibre.

In the cases of Hawerchuk, Perreault, and Sundin there are the significant contributions at the Olympics and Canada Cups to be taken into consideration...something that Turgeon failed to accomplish anything.

Overall, these players have produced numbers that Turgeon failed to reach. That is why they are in the Hall of Fame and Pierre is not. With that said, when the likes of compilers like Dave Andreychuk get in, there should be hope for Turgeon in the coming years...he is just not at the level of the above players, that much is pretty clear.

Scoring totals for individual seasons don't account for things like missed games due to injury, or quality of competition (based on the increased number of players from overseas, it would've been harder to finish in the top 20 during the 90's than it would've been in the 80's)

With that said, because of your "Good lord just stop already" holier-than-thou approach to the discussion, I won't be responding to anymore of your posts