Pierre Turgeon in the playoffs

[Stephen]

Booing used to be less of a big deal than it seems to have become. Montreal's an emotional crowd and they let their feelings known, and that obviously isn't a judge of a player's career.

That said, the Habs really wanted Pierre Turgeon to be that Francophone great and he really was not up to the task.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Booing used to be less of a big deal than it seems to have become. Montreal's an emotional crowd and they let their feelings known, and that obviously isn't a judge of a player's career.

That said, the Habs really wanted Pierre Turgeon to be that Francophone great and he really was not up to the task.

it’s interesting to read some of those early 90s articles on the habs/sabres series and see how they’d anointed richer to be the next morenz/rocket/LGB/flower before turgeon got it. another guy who was booed the fff out of town.

 

[overpass]

Who would be a good contemporary example of Pierre Turgeon? I think it would be someone similar to a Jason Spezza for offensive production. He’s going to be an important piece on a team but not necessarily going to be very competitive in the playoffs.

Ahhh...this one is in my wheelhouse because I watched Spezza’s whole career in Ottawa. I rate Spezza a cut or two above Turgeon as a playoff performer.

I think Spezza is considered to be one of the best playoff performers in franchise history (for whatever that is worth...I know.) He showed well in a few games in the 2003 playoffs and had the fans and media begging with Jacques Martin to play him more.

He was good in the 2006 playoffs. The loss was disappointing but Spezza was well down the list of people to blame.

For the first 3 rounds of the 2007 playoffs, he dominated. He really used his size well and took control in the offensive zone, including on the boards, and was very dangerous winning pucks on the boards and bringing them off the boards for a pass to a teammate in scoring position. To my eye he was a little behind Alfredsson (who was playing like a man possessed) and definitely ahead of Heatley through 3 rounds. I don’t think we ever saw Pierre Turgeon play as well as Spezza did in those playoffs.

He disappointed in the 2007 final and the 2008 first round. To be fair, the whole team did but the Heatley-Spezza combo did not show well in either round. I thought Heatley and Spezza were less than the sum of their parts when Alfredsson wasn’t with them, as Spezza deferred to Heatley and looked to set up Heatley’s shot all the time when both of them had the size and skill to attack the defence more aggressively, especially Spezza. I was really excited when the Sens got Heatley to pair with Spezza but in hindsight I think they were a bad mix and it hurt Spezza’s career. I blame Heatley a bit more but maybe that’s my irrational attachment to Spezza. “Poor Jason...if only he hadn’t fallen in with that awful boy Dany. He’s a bad influence!”

Spezza was good in the playoffs in 2010 and 2012, carrying a heavy offensive load. He was outplayed by Crosby in 2010 but what can you do. Everyone went crazy for that Crosby play where he spun back and forth on Spezza behind the net and fed Letang, but while Spezza was clearly less agile on his skates and couldn’t match Crosby’s edgework, he stuck with him and didn’t get beat cleanly either. In 2012 he was dragging Colin Greening and Milan Michalek around on his line, so he got a ton of defensive attention and didn’t score as much as he could in their first round loss to the Rangers’ stifling defence, but he was bringing the effort and was the same player who finished 6th in Hart voting in the regular season. In 2013 he wasn’t great but he was coming back from an injury and playing hurt. And I didn’t watch him in Dallas but he was a point per game in 2016. Not bad.

 

[VanIslander]

I was at Windsor Spitfires games in 2000-01 when the home crowd BOOED Spezza and cheered Steve Ott.

Why?

Because Spezza was lazy, didn't backcheck, and that cost them games sometimes.

Ott always hustled and disrupted the opposition. He didn't have the puckhandling skills, but he was the respected leader.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Patrick Roy. There. Was pretty easy actually.

Montreal doesn't count. People are crazy here.

Doug Harvey was also booed at the beginning of his career so it goes back a long way. I think the reason was that he didn't rush the puck enough like Kenny Reardon used to do it in the 1940's.

 

[Hobnobs]

Montreal doesn't count. People are crazy here.

Doug Harvey was also booed at the beginning of his career so it goes back a long way. I think the reason was that he didn't rush the puck enough like Kenny Reardon used to do it in the 1940's.

I added some more players later for that particular reason

 

[VanIslander]

"Breeze-by! Breeze-by!" Habs fan would chant when Brisebois touched the puck. I was at the game and the sound was deafening.

 

[Albatros]

That said, the Habs really wanted Pierre Turgeon to be that Francophone great and he really was not up to the task.

To be fair no one would have been under those conditions, like Thibault he played some of the best hockey in his career at the time but the organization was trending differently. They weren't the Roy and Béliveau that the fans desired, but still in any reasonable context the players didn't fail them.

 

[BenchBrawl]

"Breeze-by! Breeze-by!" Habs fan would chant when Brisebois touched the puck. I was at the game and the sound was deafening.

Brisebois was a special case. The crowd really got on his case unlike any other player and it seriously affected him (by his own admission). Thankfully for him he came back as a veteran and salvaged this relationship and now he's beloved.

 

[Stephen]

Ryan Johansen also reminds me a bit of Turgeon in reputation.

 

[JianYang]

it’s interesting to read some of those early 90s articles on the habs/sabres series and see how they’d anointed richer to be the next morenz/rocket/LGB/flower before turgeon got it. another guy who was booed the fff out of town.

Richer had everything you look for in a dominant scorer, and it was puzzling why he could not do more than a couple 50 goal seasons.

Later on, he revealed his ongoing battle with mental health, which probably explains alot of it. I mean, I recall Richer saying that he had a gun in his mouth just after winning the cup in 95.

 

[frisco]

To me Sundin and Turgeon had similar output and had the same type of careers for the most part. #1 overall guys. Consistent offensive numbers but did not have the chance to play on contenders. Just not a lot of top tier talent around these guys. Both did as well as can be expected in the playoffs but just weren't running with the horses that is going to go very deep in the post-season.

That being said, Sundin made the HOF on the first ballot and Turgeon is still waiting. I would attribute that to the Toronto-centric hockey media and Sundin was given the chance to compete and shine on the international stage.

My Best-Carey

 

[Staniowski]

Booing used to be less of a big deal than it seems to have become. Montreal's an emotional crowd and they let their feelings known, and that obviously isn't a judge of a player's career.

That said, the Habs really wanted Pierre Turgeon to be that Francophone great and he really was not up to the task.

Actually, Turgeon *was* up to the task. It was Montreal's disastrous management and coaches who were not up to the task of doing even a decent job. Turgeon was doing just fine, and Montreal made a big mistake in their handling of Turgeon.

From the day Turgeon arrived in Montreal, until the day he left (so, a bit more than 100 games), these were the top 10 scorers in the NHL:
1. Jagr
2. Lemieux
3. Sakic
4. Forsberg
5. Francis
6. Selanne
7. Lindros
8. Messier
9. Gretzky
10. Turgeon
10. Mogilny (tied)

Now, it should be obvious that this is one of the best quality scoring leaders in NHL history. And Turgeon is only slightly behind Gretzky, Messier, Lindros and Selanne. So, only the 3 Pens and 2 Avs were significantly ahead of Turgeon.

In addition, Turgeon had a better +/- (+35) than all 9 players who had more points than him. I generally don't like +/-, but at least it shows that good things were happening for the Habs when Turgeon was on the ice.

Turgeon wasnt bad defensively.

He scored a point per game in the playoffs, which was better than many other star players that season.

So, what does Mario Tremblay do to this player who's been as good a scorer as anybody in the NHL in this period, other than Jagr, Lemieux, Sakic, and Forsberg?

He decides to put him on the 3rd line. Tremblay decides Damphousse and Koivu are his #1 and #2 centres.

Apparently Turgeon plays on the 3rd line for each of the 9 games in '96-'97, except for 1 game, when he plays on the first line. In his 1 game on the first line, he scores 4 points.

Turgeon is traded.

In the following 5 seasons, combined, their rankings in points-per-game among all NHL players:

Turgeon - 9th
Damphousse - 42nd
Koivu - 39th

Mario Tremblay was a complete disaster for the Habs.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Does anyone here have any particularly strong memories of how many of Nieuwendyk's winning goals were what you'd call "clutch", vs how many were the 3-0 goal in a game the Stars eventually won 5-2?
I'm just going to throw it out there that I don't know or have any opinion on the matter, so when I go and look and come back in a bit with an answer, you'll know that I'm not trying to prove a point.

I looked into that a few years ago, and despite the fact that the GWG is dubious at best, Nieuwendyk really was a clutch scorer in the spring of 1999:

1. Round 1, game 3 vs Edmonton: Dallas had just crawled back from a 2-0 deficit in the 3rd. Two minutes after Modano tied the game, Nieuwendyk scored with 7.5 minutes remaining to give the Stars a 3-2 lead. It was an excellent wrist shot, off a great pass from Jamie Langenbrunner (he was coming in one-on-one against a defender).
2. Round 1, game 4 vs Edmonton: the Stars were trying to sweep the upstart Oilers (this was their third year in a row facing each other). Nieuwendyk ties the game late in the 2nd period. Then he scores the series-winning goal in triple OT (tipping Zubov's shot from the point).
3. Round 2, game 2 vs St. Louis: another big game. Nieuwendyk scores a goal and an assist in regulation, then scores the overtime winner to give the Stars a 2-0 series lead. I couldn't find footage of this goal.
4. Round 3, game 2 vs Colorado: the game was tied 2-2 entering the third, and Nieuwendyk scored the winning goal with eight minutes to go. He was inexplicably left alone in front of Roy and cashed in a rebound from Verbeek's shot. (Modano scored a few minutes later to make it 4-2).
5. Round 3, game 3 vs Colorado: this shows the dubious definition of GWG. Nieuwendyk scored the game's first goal (two minutes into the second) and got credit for the GWG because Belfour stopped all 34 shots. But make no mistake - Nieuwendyk had a great night, assisting on Dallas's other two goals.
6. Round 4, game 3 vs. Buffalo: the Sabres scored early in the second. Late in the frame, on a shift where the Sabres' defense is laughable, Nieuwendyk shows patience and strength to control a bobbling puck, collecting his own rebound, then sending it past the sprawling Hasek. Midway through the third, he scores the only other goal of the night. He's, again, inexplicably left alone in front and, off another great Langenbrunner pass, he cleanly beats Hasek.

As I said, usually the GWG is of questionable significance. But Nieuwendyk really did score some big goals in the 1999 playoffs. All that being said, I don't know if I'd have him in my top three for the Conn Smythe (Modano, Belfour and Hasek all have valid cases).

 

[Johnny Engine]

I looked into that a few years ago, and despite the fact that the GWG is dubious at best, Nieuwendyk really was a clutch scorer in the spring of 1999:

1. Round 1, game 3 vs Edmonton: Dallas had just crawled back from a 2-0 deficit in the 3rd. Two minutes after Modano tied the game, Nieuwendyk scored with 7.5 minutes remaining to give the Stars a 3-2 lead. It was an excellent wrist shot, off a great pass from Jamie Langenbrunner (he was coming in one-on-one against a defender).
2. Round 1, game 4 vs Edmonton: the Stars were trying to sweep the upstart Oilers (this was their third year in a row facing each other). Nieuwendyk ties the game late in the 2nd period. Then he scores the series-winning goal in triple OT (tipping Zubov's shot from the point).
3. Round 2, game 2 vs St. Louis: another big game. Nieuwendyk scores a goal and an assist in regular, then scores the overtime winner to give the Stars a 2-0 series lead. I couldn't find footage of this goal.
4. Round 3, game 2 vs Colorado: the game was tied 2-2 entering the third, and Nieuwendyk scored the winning goal with eight minutes to go. He was inexplicably left alone in front of Roy and cashed in a rebound from Verbeek's shot. (Modano scored a few minutes later to make it 4-2).
5. Round 3, game 3 vs Colorado: this shows the dubious definition of GWG. Nieuwendyk scored the game's first goal (two minutes into the third) and got credit for the GWG because Belfour stopped all 34 shots. But make no mistake - Nieuwendyk had a great night, assisting on Dallas's other two goals.
6. Round 4, game 3 vs. Buffalo: the Sabres scored early in the second. Late in the frame, on a shift where the Sabres' defense is laughable, Nieuwendyk shows patience and strength to control a bobbling puck, collecting his own rebound, then sending past the sprawling Hasek. Midway through the third, he scores the only other goal of the night. He's, again, inexplicably left alone in front and, off another great Langenbrunner pass, he cleanly beats Hasek.

As I said, usually the GWG is of questionable significance. But Nieuwendyk really did score some big goals in the 1999 playoffs. All that being said, I don't know if I'd have him in my top three for the Conn Smythe (Modano, Belfour and Hasek all have valid cases).

You know, I looked into that too, and then forgot which thread I posted this in as there are a couple of related ones going. What you say is true.

 

[c9777666]

late 80s early 90s Adams Division hockey was so predictable. Montreal and Boston, year after year, round 2, variety lacking, basically BUF/HAR/QUE basically trapped beneath the big two.

 

[sr edler]

Actually, Turgeon *was* up to the task. It was Montreal's disastrous management and coaches who were not up to the task of doing even a decent job. Turgeon was doing just fine, and Montreal made a big mistake in their handling of Turgeon.

From the day Turgeon arrived in Montreal, until the day he left (so, a bit more than 100 games), these were the top 10 scorers in the NHL:
1. Jagr
2. Lemieux
3. Sakic
4. Forsberg
5. Francis
6. Selanne
7. Lindros
8. Messier
9. Gretzky
10. Turgeon
10. Mogilny (tied)

Now, it should be obvious that this is one of the best quality scoring leaders in NHL history. And Turgeon is only slightly behind Gretzky, Messier, Lindros and Selanne. So, only the 3 Pens and 2 Avs were significantly ahead of Turgeon.

In addition, Turgeon had a better +/- (+35) than all 9 players who had more points than him. I generally don't like +/-, but at least it shows that good things were happening for the Habs when Turgeon was on the ice.

Turgeon wasnt bad defensively.

He scored a point per game in the playoffs, which was better than many other star players that season.

So, what does Mario Tremblay do to this player who's been as good a scorer as anybody in the NHL in this period, other than Jagr, Lemieux, Sakic, and Forsberg?

He decides to put him on the 3rd line. Tremblay decides Damphousse and Koivu are his #1 and #2 centres.

Apparently Turgeon plays on the 3rd line for each of the 9 games in '96-'97, except for 1 game, when he plays on the first line. In his 1 game on the first line, he scores 4 points.

Turgeon is traded.

In the following 5 seasons, combined, their rankings in points-per-game among all NHL players:

Turgeon - 9th
Damphousse - 42nd
Koivu - 39th

Mario Tremblay was a complete disaster for the Habs.

I think what the poster you quoted meant was, up to the task of leading the team on and off the ice as an overall player/captain, not up to the task of putting up points in general. For the same reasons the Bruins traded Thornton but kept Bergeron, the Canadiens traded Turgeon and kept Koivu. Koivu felt like a guy more involved, on and off the ice, and he had actual clutch playoff moments too, bouncing off the Bruins. Koivu at the time also had an upward trajectory, that's what managements do most of the time, plan for players to develop.

I can't believe I'm posting in yet another Turgeon thread.

 

[Theokritos]

Sundin was given the chance to compete and shine on the international stage.

Looking at the schedule, Turgeon could have played for Canada at the World Championships almost every year throughout his NHL career. Was he snubbed for those too or wasn't he interested in playing? Considering some of the mediocre rosters Canada iced there, one have to assume they would have been glad to add Turgeon. Sundin on his part went to the World Championships regularly, put up strong performances and earned several individual awards.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Richer had everything you look for in a dominant scorer, and it was puzzling why he could not do more than a couple 50 goal seasons.

Later on, he revealed his ongoing battle with mental health, which probably explains alot of it. I mean, I recall Richer saying that he had a gun in his mouth just after winning the cup in 95.

iirc, sylvain turgeon, pierre’s older brother who also played on the habs, is another guy with mental health problems.

 

[JianYang]

iirc, sylvain turgeon, pierre’s older brother who also played on the habs, is another guy with mental health problems.

That I did not know about, but I know he was picked very high in his draft as well. I want to say #2. I've heard injuries derailed him, but thats another sad story if true.

 

[seventieslord]

It’s fair to consider the expectations for Turgeon’s teams. Looking at the preseason Vegas odds on hockey-reference, converting them to probabilities and adding up the expected values, Turgeon’s teams over his career were expected to win a cumulative 1.019 Cups. They ended up winning 0 Cups, making 0 finals, and only making the conference finals twice, one of which he was injured for. I’d say his teams performed below expectations.

Interesting stuff. Just curious, if you take all the preseason vegas odds for all teams, and convert them to probabilities, do they add up to exactly 100%? If not, did you do any adjustments to the results so that they squared up?

I'm just wondering because vegas odds are designed in a way that the bet-takers make money in the long run, while on the other hand, if you add up the odds in, say, THN, heading into the playoffs, they tend to suggest, mathematically, that there's about a 130% chance that someone will win the cup. Both ways are flawed if trying to determine actual perceived probabilities.

 

[overpass]

Interesting stuff. Just curious, if you take all the preseason vegas odds for all teams, and convert them to probabilities, do they add up to exactly 100%? If not, did you do any adjustments to the results so that they squared up?

I'm just wondering because vegas odds are designed in a way that the bet-takers make money in the long run, while on the other hand, if you add up the odds in, say, THN, heading into the playoffs, they tend to suggest, mathematically, that there's about a 130% chance that someone will win the cup. Both ways are flawed if trying to determine actual perceived probabilities.

No I didn’t. CG did a better calculation later in the thread.

Technically you're supposed to remove the vig, which usually ends up being around 4% for series and something like 40% for Stanley Cup odds (although both rates vary a lot from year to year).

Obviously that affects the probabilities from the Cup odds a lot more than the series odds. For example, I just ran the numbers for Turgeon and got 0.76 expected Cups for his career based on the pre-playoff odds (after adjusting each year so that the probabilities sum to 1.00).

 

[Staniowski]

I think what the poster you quoted meant was, up to the task of leading the team on and off the ice as an overall player/captain, not up to the task of putting up points in general. For the same reasons the Bruins traded Thornton but kept Bergeron, the Canadiens traded Turgeon and kept Koivu. Koivu felt like a guy more involved, on and off the ice, and he had actual clutch playoff moments too, bouncing off the Bruins. Koivu at the time also had an upward trajectory, that's what managements do most of the time, plan for players to develop.

I can't believe I'm posting in yet another Turgeon thread.

Yes, I know exactly what the other poster meant.

The Habs were wrong, just as the Islanders were wrong before them.

The Islanders improved when they acquired Turgeon, and had three decent seasons when he was there....then Lorne Henning takes over as coach, the team gets off to a slow start, Henning starts benching Turgeon, Thomas, King...then they lose a bunch of games, then they trade Turgeon because he's not a guy they can win with, then they miss the playoffs for the next 7 consecutive seasons.

The Habs improve as soon as Turgeon arrives (but still miss the playoffs), they have a decent '95-'96, Tremblay decides Turgeon is their 3rd line centre, he demands a trade, then the Habs decline further and don't match the full season Turgeon was there for another 8 seasons....

There was no issue with Koivu....he could've thrived with Turgeon on the team. Tremblay just handled it badly.

For both the Islanders and Canadiens, Pierre Turgeon was the least of their problems. They were both in decline, and they both made their situations worse in how they handled Turgeon.

 

[JianYang]

Yes, I know exactly what the other poster meant. The Habs were wrong, just as the Islanders were wrong before them.

The Islanders improved when they acquired Turgeon, and had three decent seasons when he was there....then Lorne Henning takes over as coach, the team gets off to a slow start, Henning starts benching Turgeon, Thomas, King...then they lose a bunch of games, then they trade Turgeon because he's not a guy they can win with, then they miss the playoffs for the next 7 consecutive seasons.

The Habs improve as soon as Turgeon arrives (but still miss the playoffs), they have a decent '95-'96, Tremblay decides Turgeon is their 3rd line centre, he demands a trade, then the Habs decline further and don't match the full season Turgeon was there for another 8 seasons....

There was no issue with Koivu....he could've thrived with Turgeon on the team. Tremblay just handled it badly.

For both the Islanders and Canadiens, Pierre Turgeon was the least of their problems. They were both in decline, and they both made their situations worse in how they handled Turgeon.

Damphousse was a winger in Montreal for a couple years at least after he arrived there, if i remember correctly.

If you have Koivu coming in, and turgeon at center, why not just keep damphousse on the wing?

In retrospect, that was probably the way to keep everyone happy, and you maintained tremendous flexibility if one of turgeon or Koivu got hurt. As we found out later, Koivu would have alot of physical ailments especially in his first 6 or years in the league, so it would have really been helpful to keep turgeon around.

 

[Staniowski]

Damphousse was a winger in Montreal for a couple years at least after he arrived there, if i remember correctly.

If you have Koivu coming in, and turgeon at center, why not just keep damphousse on the wing?

In retrospect, that was probably the way to keep everyone happy, and you maintained tremendous flexibility if one of turgeon or Koivu got hurt. As we found out later, Koivu would have alot of physical ailments especially in his first 6 or years in the league, so it would have really been helpful to keep turgeon around.

Yes, there is no reason why they couldn't have kept them all happy, at least for that season.

Yes, Damphousse played wing for the large majority of the roughly first half of his career (he did play centre now and then during some of these seasons). He was moved to centre by Mario Tremblay in the fall of '95.

Tremblay coached the Habs for less than 2 seasons. Within the first year, his 2 best players - first Roy, then Turgeon - demanded to be traded because of him. And I think he got into some kind of a fight with Donald Brashear too, and they had to trade him.

At the end if '96-'97, Tremblay officially resigned, but it might have ended in him being fired anyway. The media and fans were all over him. He did a lot of damage to the team.