Pierre Turgeon

[Axxellien]

Having studied Pierre Turgeon's remarkable career, i am impressed by his great record & very good #Statistics!!... A very intelligent and durable Performer!

Click to read more...

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Having studied Pierre Turgeon's remarkable career, i am impressed by his great record & very good #Statistics!!... A very intelligent and durable Performer!

A career spent on the perimeter = durability

 

[Pog Form]

Pierre, is that you?

 

[tommygunn]

Don't take this the wrong way.. but, I've kind of noticed.. a lot of your threads really don't have any substance to them.. like, are you going to make a thread for every player in history and comment "they're pretty good"..??

 

[canucks4ever]

Pierre Turgeon had a very durable career, he will eventually get inducted into the hall of fame, they wont ignore him whether people on this board agree or not. There are many people in the hall of fame that he's better than.

 

[seventieslord]

Turgeon probably gets a rougher ride than he deserves from guys like us, but make no mistake, he deserves a rough ride!

 

[Sticks and Pucks]

Don't take this the wrong way.. but, I've kind of noticed.. a lot of your threads really don't have any substance to them.. like, are you going to make a thread for every player in history and comment "they're pretty good"..??

haha I've wondered the same thing. axxellien, you just seem very excited to be able to post on a forum. how old are you anyway? just wondering...

 

[Epsilon]

Turgeon probably gets a rougher ride than he deserves from guys like us, but make no mistake, he deserves a rough ride!

Personally I think he gets too rough a ride a lot of the time. There are certainly aspects of his career that merit criticism: his noticable overall drop in production during the playoffs; his uneven, inconsistent playoff performances; and the fact that he was rarely able to elevate the teams he was playing for at a level similar to his personal statistics.

That being said, far too much is made of him being "soft" and "not playing the game the right way". Some people have taken a negative slant with his entire career simply because he refused to engage in a brawl during a junior hockey tournament.

 

[Big Phil]

Pierre Turgeon had a very durable career, he will eventually get inducted into the hall of fame, they wont ignore him whether people on this board agree or not. There are many people in the hall of fame that he's better than.

I wouldnt quite go that far as to induct him in the HHOF. He's better than maybe Clark Gillies and Dick Duff and Edgar Laprade but if you want to pick the slugs of the HHOF and say Turgeon is able to compete with them that doesnt give him the right to get in just because the Hall made some mistakes before.

Just say his name: Pierre Turgeon. Does the Hall of Fame roll off your tonque right after that? It sure doesnt for me. To tell you the truth his playoff numbers aren't too bad, they are average but he failed to make an impact in the postseason and lead his teams anywhere. He could best be described as a point compiler, or a player that had a good batting average but no RBI's.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Pierre Turgeon had a very durable career, he will eventually get inducted into the hall of fame, they wont ignore him whether people on this board agree or not. There are many people in the hall of fame that he's better than.

Doubtful. If we're going to induct guys with good stats and little else, Phil Housley has only 100 or so fewer points than Turgeon, and he did it as a defenseman. And he's not in the Hall. Dino Ciccarelli should be inducted before Turgeon too, and he isn't in the Hall either.

 

[canucks4ever]

I wouldnt quite go that far as to induct him in the HHOF. He's better than maybe Clark Gillies and Dick Duff and Edgar Laprade but if you want to pick the slugs of the HHOF and say Turgeon is able to compete with them that doesnt give him the right to get in just because the Hall made some mistakes before.

Just say his name: Pierre Turgeon. Does the Hall of Fame roll off your tonque right after that? It sure doesnt for me. To tell you the truth his playoff numbers aren't too bad, they are average but he failed to make an impact in the postseason and lead his teams anywhere. He could best be described as a point compiler, or a player that had a good batting average but no RBI's.

He's better than bill barber, lanny mcdonald and joe mullen. Name one year when he was on a team that was expected to win the cup, use common sense and stop punishing guys that played for crappy teams.

You make it seem like he was a dave andreychuk or dino cicarelli. I can let you know that he was on pace to crack the top 5 scorers in both 1998 and 2000 and he has a 135 point season and 105 point season to his resume, hardly the stats of an 'average' player. Larry Murphy is in the hall of fame and his name really doesnt roll of my tongue. Sure you will respond by saying he has cups and ast selections, but that doesnt matter to me, Larry Murphy was never even the best player on his own team. He was an offensive defencemen that was very average his whole career.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

He's better than bill barber, lanny mcdonald and joe mullen. Name one year when he was on a team that was expected to win the cup, use common sense and stop punishing guys that played for crappy teams.

You make it seem like he was a dave andreychuk or dino cicarelli. I can let you know that he was on pace to crack the top 5 scorers in both 1998 and 2000 and he has a 135 point season and 105 point season to his resume, hardly the stats of an 'average' player. Larry Murphy is in the hall of fame and his name really doesnt roll of my tongue. Sure you will respond by saying he has cups and ast selections, but that doesnt matter to me, Larry Murphy was never even the best player on his own team. He was an offensive defencemen that was very average his whole career.

Unfortunately, what matters to the Hall of Fame selection committee is Stanley Cup rings (see Bill Barber, Lanny MacDonald & Joe Mullen). Consider that out of the last 27 NHL elected members only 5 do not own a Stanley Cup ring.

For borderline candidates like a Pierre Turgeon it's enough to keep him on the outside looking in.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

You make it seem like he was a dave andreychuk or dino cicarelli. I can let you know that he was on pace to crack the top 5 scorers in both 1998 and 2000 and he has a 135 point season and 105 point season to his resume, hardly the stats of an 'average' player. Larry Murphy is in the hall of fame and his name really doesnt roll of my tongue. Sure you will respond by saying he has cups and ast selections, but that doesnt matter to me, Larry Murphy was never even the best player on his own team. He was an offensive defencemen that was very average his whole career.

When your argument includes the words "on pace to crack the top 5 scorers" it's a losing argument...

 

[MXD]

Unfortunately, what matters to the Hall of Fame selection committee is Stanley Cup rings (see Bill Barber, Lanny MacDonald & Joe Mullen). Consider that out of the last 27 NHL elected members only 5 do not own a Stanley Cup ring.

For borderline candidates like a Pierre Turgeon it's enough to keep him on the outside looking in.

Well, the thing with Mullen is that he was arguably(IMO, certainly...) the best offensive forward on a Cup winner and an important part of another cup winner. (and a not-so-important part of another).

Those guys get in. Usually. Especially if they're the first american to score 500 goals.

 

[canucks4ever]

Unfortunately, what matters to the Hall of Fame selection committee is Stanley Cup rings (see Bill Barber, Lanny MacDonald & Joe Mullen). Consider that out of the last 27 NHL elected members only 5 do not own a Stanley Cup ring.

For borderline candidates like a Pierre Turgeon it's enough to keep him on the outside looking in.

Mike Gartner is a first ballot hall of famer.

 

[MXD]

Mike Gartner is a first ballot hall of famer.

700 goals means first ballot. Not that i agree, but that's the way it is.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Mike Gartner is a first ballot hall of famer.

700 goals means an automatic induction.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Having studied Pierre Turgeon's remarkable career, i am impressed by his great record & very good #Statistics!!... A very intelligent and durable Performer!

i don't think reading the back of a hockey card counts as studying a player's career.

You make it seem like he was a dave andreychuk or dino cicarelli. I can let you know that he was on pace to crack the top 5 scorers in both 1998 and 2000 and he has a 135 point season and 105 point season to his resume, hardly the stats of an 'average' player.

ciccarelli's 10 best regular seasons:

1981-82 21 Minnesota North Stars NHL 76 55 51 106
1982-83 22 Minnesota North Stars NHL 77 37 38 75
1985-86 25 Minnesota North Stars NHL 75 44 45 89
1986-87 26 Minnesota North Stars NHL 80 52 51 103
1987-88 27 Minnesota North Stars NHL 67 41 45 86
1988-89 28 2 Teams NHL 76 44 30 74
1989-90 29 Washington Capitals NHL 80 41 38 79
1991-92 31 Washington Capitals NHL 78 38 38 76
1992-93 32 Detroit Red Wings NHL 82 41 56 97
1994-95 34 Detroit Red Wings NHL 42 16 27 43

pierre turgeon's best 10 regular seasons

1988-89 19 Buffalo Sabres NHL 80 34 54 88
1989-90 20 Buffalo Sabres NHL 80 40 66 106
1990-91 21 Buffalo Sabres NHL 78 32 47 79
1991-92 22 2 Teams NHL 77 40 55 95
1992-93 23 New York Islanders NHL 83 58 74 132
1993-94 24 New York Islanders NHL 69 38 56 94
1994-95 25 2 Teams NHL 49 24 23 47
1995-96 26 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 38 58 96
1996-97 27 2 Teams NHL 78 26 59 85
2000-01 31 St. Louis Blues NHL 79 30 52 82

these are just raw unadjusted totals, but i don't think were statistically far apart. even if you look at turgeon's freak 132 point year, he finished tied for 5th that year. ciccarelli finished 6th in points in 86-87. so i think turgeon is a lot closer to ciccarelli than he is to the HHOF.

 

[lextune]

Mike Gartner is a first ballot hall of famer.

Sadly.

 

[canucks4ever]

i don't think reading the back of a hockey card counts as studying a player's career.



ciccarelli's 10 best regular seasons:

1981-82 21 Minnesota North Stars NHL 76 55 51 106
1982-83 22 Minnesota North Stars NHL 77 37 38 75
1985-86 25 Minnesota North Stars NHL 75 44 45 89
1986-87 26 Minnesota North Stars NHL 80 52 51 103
1987-88 27 Minnesota North Stars NHL 67 41 45 86
1988-89 28 2 Teams NHL 76 44 30 74
1989-90 29 Washington Capitals NHL 80 41 38 79
1991-92 31 Washington Capitals NHL 78 38 38 76
1992-93 32 Detroit Red Wings NHL 82 41 56 97
1994-95 34 Detroit Red Wings NHL 42 16 27 43

pierre turgeon's best 10 regular seasons

1988-89 19 Buffalo Sabres NHL 80 34 54 88
1989-90 20 Buffalo Sabres NHL 80 40 66 106
1990-91 21 Buffalo Sabres NHL 78 32 47 79
1991-92 22 2 Teams NHL 77 40 55 95
1992-93 23 New York Islanders NHL 83 58 74 132
1993-94 24 New York Islanders NHL 69 38 56 94
1994-95 25 2 Teams NHL 49 24 23 47
1995-96 26 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 38 58 96
1996-97 27 2 Teams NHL 78 26 59 85
2000-01 31 St. Louis Blues NHL 79 30 52 82

these are just raw unadjusted totals, but i don't think were statistically far apart. even if you look at turgeon's freak 132 point year, he finished tied for 5th that year. ciccarelli finished 6th in points in 86-87. so i think turgeon is a lot closer to ciccarelli than he is to the HHOF.

Pierre Turgeon spent half of his career in the trap. You left out his 2000 season where he scored 66 points in 52 games, 3rd in points per game. I would say that's better than cicarelli's 70 point seasons in the 80s. Finishing 3rd in points per game is alot more impressive than finishing 40-55th in the scoring race.

Turgeon scored over 80 points 8 times, Cicarelli did it 5 times. Turgeon played when scoring was lower, turgeon is above andreychuk and cicarelli.

 

[Sens Rule]

Let's throw out a similar but I think a better and more valuable player in Damphousse. Damphousse was I think far better defensively than Turgeon was.. and he was just as good and he made a ton of linemates far more productive than they otherwise would have been.

He has impressive but less exciting career total than Turgeon. If I could draft either one and keep them on my team for the rest of their careers I would take Damphousse every time. Damphousse even as his career wound down was a very valuable player... he was not merely padding stats.

I don't hate Pierre Turgeon.. I think he was a very, very good player but very one dimensional. I would not mind if he made the Hall but I would vote for a ton of other players in his era before I would vote for him... like Propp, Howe, Dino, Damphousse, Fleury...I am sure there are other borderline guys that is off the top of my head.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Pierre Turgeon spent half of his career in the trap. You left out his 2000 season where he scored 66 points in 52 games, 3rd in points per game. I would say that's better than cicarelli's 70 point seasons in the 80s. Finishing 3rd in points per game is alot more impressive than finishing 40-55th in the scoring race.

Turgeon scored over 80 points 8 times, Cicarelli did it 5 times. Turgeon played when scoring was lower, turgeon is above andreychuk and cicarelli.

well, first i would say that ciccarelli and turgeon are a lot closer to each other than either of them is to andreychuk.

second, like i said, i was going by raw unadjusted totals (i.e., highest scoring seasons relative to team games played). and both players have almost identical top ten finishes (two each: 5, 8 for PT; 6, 9 for DC). so no, that doesn't account for the trap, and that doesn't account for the three years in st. louis where turgeon missed some games but was still a PPG or >PPG player. but i think it's fair to also recognize that, past the age of 28, ~60-65 games was what turgeon generally played. you can give him extra points for the twenty games he'd miss every year, or you can say, "that's pierre turgeon. we expect him to give us 65-70 points in 60-65 games." i mean, in his last ten years in the league (counting the lockout year), he only had two healthy seasons.

so you can say, "oh turgeon has more 80 point seasons," and i can say, "oh ciccarelli has twice as many 40 goal seasons and almost twice as many 35 goal seasons." but let's call it what it is. at this point, we're counting mike gartner-type seasons, not truly elite seasons. and if we're counting who has more mike gartner seasons, we're not really talking about the hall of fame now are we?*



*yes, mike gartner is in the hall of fame. but i think we both agree he shouldn't be.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Players eligible for the HHOF, that are not yet in and were better Hockey Players than Turgeon:

Countless Euros
Rick Middleton
Mark Howe
JC Tremblay
Doug Gilmour
Adam Oates
Dino Ciccarelli

That's that. There are more players out of the HHOF, that were better than Turgeon, than there are players in it, that Turgeon was better than.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

You don't get a nickname like "The Tin Man" for nothing.

 

[Stonefly]

A career spent on the perimeter = durability

Unfortunately, what matters to the Hall of Fame selection committee is Stanley Cup rings (see Bill Barber, Lanny MacDonald & Joe Mullen). Consider that out of the last 27 NHL elected members only 5 do not own a Stanley Cup ring.

For borderline candidates like a Pierre Turgeon it's enough to keep him on the outside looking in.

Just curious about the first quote. Who else would qualify?

And again just curious, who are the 5 without cups?