pierre turgeon
- Thread starter Bohemian93
- Start date
lextune
I'm too old for this.
Roy is the first name I see that I forgot, and I will definitely add him.
Ray was already on the Bruins
, (obviously Ray would be on the list).Sakic, in his third season, would have been very close in my opinion, but even adding him to the list still leaves Cam among the most elite.
I cannot imagine St. Louis turning down an Oates for Neely trade.
Bear of Bad News
Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
- Sep 27, 2005
- 13,697
- 33,268
I don't recall where you've rigourously defined your methodology. Could you please supplement?
It's awfully hard to understand something when it's a black box.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,197
- 17,171
I agree that Mogilny and Turgeon are comparable but I think that few, if any, regulars on the History of Hockey forum think Mogilny deserves a spot in the HOF.
Despite all of his talent, Mogilny only had three great seasons ('93, '96 and '01 -- maybe '03 as well). For the majority of his career he was either injured or apparently indifferent. You never knew what you would get -- he had some occasional years as a top ten scorer, several 70 point "floating" years, and even more 45 point "injury years".
His production took a huge drop in the playoffs (falling from 1.04 ppg to 0.69 ppg). This should be adjusted to take into account the fact that he played a disproportionate percentage of his playoffs games when he was past his prime, but his performance still wasn't great. He advanced to the Eastern Conference Finals (or beyond) for three straight years and scored just 34 points in 68 games. He brought very little aside from scoring.
Mogilny had HOF talent -- but his weaker playoff record, frequent injuries, and an apparent lack of consistency/effort means he simply didn't accomplish enough to be a Hall of Famer.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
'Good'? Come on, now. With the recent rash of posts calling Adam Graves 'great', I think people are over-rating Graves and significantly under-rating Pierre.
Pierre was a player who produced at all stages of his career, beginning, middle, and end.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I don't think anyone really thinks Mogilny is a great HHOF candidate, so this is not a good comparison.
As for ogopogo's system, it looks to me like a poor-man's version of pnep's hhof monitor points. Adding up the best seasons a player had and attempting to quanitfy how good each season was with a rigid points system is a good step towards doing something objectively, but the system is definitely missing some important things.
- There are players who experienced greater longevity due to the fact that the league expanded as they were getting old.
- There are players who made the leaderboards solely due to WW2 or the fact that 30-40% of the world's best players were scattered throughout the WHA and europe in the 70's, or that 15-20% of the best were in europe during the 80's, or that nearly half of the best players were out west in the 1918-1926 seasons.
- One point for a 7th place finish, none for an 8th? And the guy in 6th gets twice as many? And the guy in 5th gets three times as many?
- What about goals and assists?
- What about making the playoff leaderboards as well? I see nothing about leading the playoffs in points.
- Don't you care who the runner-up was for an award like the hart? or the norris?
- The Norris winner always makes the first all-star team. The runner-up is usually the other 1st team defenseman. By winning the Norris, one gets 12 points, the other five. Is that fair? is that representative of how much better he was than the runner-up?
- 2 points for winning the cup, but the finalist gets 0, just like a guy who went out in round 1, or missed the playoffs entirely?
- The percentage of scoring done by defensemen has fluctuated drastically over the years. Giving D-men points only for making the top-7 in the league is highly biased against them. What about where they ranked among defensemen in the league? Lidstrom, for example, has ranked around 30th among all players while leading all defensemen in points.
and so on.
Last edited:
Bear of Bad News
Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
- Sep 27, 2005
- 13,697
- 33,268
Thanks, Thornton_19!
As for the system itself, it's certainly defensible although the factors chosen and weights assigned seem arbitrary. Not wrong, but based on the creator's opinions of what best correlates to greatness.
In that light, I don't think it's fair to say that people who disagree with the rankings suffer from a lack of understanding.
As for the system itself, it's certainly defensible although the factors chosen and weights assigned seem arbitrary. Not wrong, but based on the creator's opinions of what best correlates to greatness.
In that light, I don't think it's fair to say that people who disagree with the rankings suffer from a lack of understanding.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Agree.
And despite some obvious glaring weaknesses in the system, the list doesn't come out looking completely bad. In the top-50 of his most recent list there is only one player who didn't make the HOH top-100 - Harry Cameron.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,197
- 17,171
You are correct. That is the old methodology from about 5 years ago; things have been refined considerably since.
Bear of Bad News
Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
- Sep 27, 2005
- 13,697
- 33,268
Feel free to elaborate. It might help to clear up the comprehension and misunderstanding issues which seem to plague most people around here.
Besides Krutov, Larionov, Makarov, Balderis, Kasatonov and Fetisov. Who else was the nhl missing from the 80s? All the swedes and finns were there, the czech superstar Stastny was there.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,178
There are people calling Adam Graves great? Wow. Didnt see those ones. Anyways, he was not great. Turgeon was better than Graves career wise no doubt, and I doubt you'll get much of an argument from anyone about that.
I believe Turgeon is in the Hall of Very Good IMO. He just doesnt fit into the HHOF though
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,178
Got to disagree with that. The Isles got their butts kicked in that Lafontaine/Turgeon trade. If we're talking purely player vs. player there is no doubt that Lafontaine was better at that time, and still ended up with the more storied career.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I have to disagree with that, Makarov and Balderis would have prolly cracked the top 10 4-6 times. Larionov and Krutov maybe once or twice. No one was going to take top 10 spots away from Gretzky, Lemieux, Kurri, Coffey, Bossy, Savard, Hawerchuk, Stastny and Dionne.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,933
- 18,685
... Have you seen how Goulet's career ended? I don't remember le Forum (or the Bell Center) being so silent during a game, and that includes that absolutely freak McCleary injury. Goulet might have ended up with 1500 pts once everything is said and done.
Part of me would like Turgeon to be in (only because many Pejorative Slurs here will whine about the HHOF not accepting a Québecois, and I don't want to hear that) but part of me also knows that he shouldn't be in. And the reason for that is that he was never, ever, ever a Top-6 C in the game, when considering every aspect of the game, and his non-offensive skills makes him an unlikely candidate to ever play on 2nd/3rd/4th lines. I seriously doubt the guy would have had a job in the O-6, unless you're talking about a job in the AHL. And there are some fine 1st C's from the O-6 era that didn't make the Hall.
Now you'll say that there was an influx of europeans... Gretz, Lemieux, Lafontaine, Oates, Francis and let's say JR were all superior to Turgeon. And they're all from the New World.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Potentially, they could have. This concept certainly devalues a 7th-10th place spot on the scoring list during the 1980's.
When I said that 15-20% of the best players were in Europe, I meant 15-20% of the best, as in the best 20-30 players. I didn't mean there were 100 players who could take NHL jobs. Just that there were 5-6 who could be top-20 or top-30 players.
Yes. Gravy was being revered on the Islander Board, of all places. It blew my mind. I don't know if they were misguided Isles fans w/Ranger envy or what, but Graves was simply a good player.
I'm right there w/you on Pierre however.... likely not a HOFer. In my opinion, he would have been, had it not been for the Hunter cheapshot. Afterwards, he simply was never the same. He had a swagger about his play prior to the 93 playoffs. He lost that, and subsequently lost the ability to separate himself and make him a special player.
Further, after reading some shocking stuff on Turgeon that I had never known of (his lack of participation in the Punch-up in Piestany). Not being from Canada, can anyone comment on this or the thoughts of Turgeon at the time of this instance? I can't believe he wouldn't get off the bench to help his teammates... then again, from a selfish standpoint, I can see him not wanting to get injured and jeopardize his draft status/NHL career. Amazing stuff, regardless.
I know this probably isnt popular on this board but i dont think you can hold something he did when he was like 18 years old against him.
Agreed. That day in October was a sad, sad day for me. However, the 92-93 Conference Finals run was a nice thing to help make me forget. Gotta remember, the Isles netted Uwe Krupp in that deal, who was a very under-rated defenseman.
But yes, LaFontaine was easily the best player in that deal and hence: advantage Buffalo.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,178
He did get some negative exposure on that one. There was talk that something like that would hurt his draft status and the thought was that Shanahan was a more deserving #1 overall pick. It didnt happen. Although most of us agree Shanahan is a future HHOFer. The Sabres wanted so badly for Turgeon to be the clone of Gilbert Perreault and that didnt happen
Bill McCreary
Self-Righteous
A couple of years back I decided to stop posting my rankings and methodology because I don't have the time or desire to respond to literally dozens of posts of insults and indignation that result.
Last edited by a moderator:
