Pierre Turgeon

[vadim sharifijanov]

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

neely, kharlamov, lafontaine, federko, gartner.

coincidentally, other than kharlamov, who never got the chance to compete for the cup, i would label each of them, to varying degrees, among the bottom tiers of players in the hall.

 

[BlueSinceBirth]

This guy was my favorite player growing up....until I began to understand the importance of physical hockey. With all respect though his last few playoffs with the Blues he showed alot of heart and determination.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

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"..??

This. And I don't see how someone who has "studied" (presumably meaning hasn't actually watched much of) someone's career can throw around labels like "intelligent player" without (presumably) actually watching them play.

But yeah, possibly cream of the perimeter-playing crop.

 

[Axxellien]

As an expert in the Original "6",.. i'm always happy to learn about modern Hockey...

 

[Brooklanders*]

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.

Im a Turgeon supporte but I dont know if he belongs in the Hall. He was a great player so for me its close but if you think he was a point compiler then you havent seen Turgeon play much. Pierre never played on a really good team or a team with skilled players around him. With the Isles his linemates were Steve Thomas and Derek King. If you think he idnt make a difference in the playoffs you are wrong. Your going by his stats aloe. The Isles beat Pittsburgh without Turgeon but werent going to get their without him.

 

[Big Phil]

Im a Turgeon supporte but I dont know if he belongs in the Hall. He was a great player so for me its close but if you think he was a point compiler then you havent seen Turgeon play much. Pierre never played on a really good team or a team with skilled players around him. With the Isles his linemates were Steve Thomas and Derek King. If you think he idnt make a difference in the playoffs you are wrong. Your going by his stats aloe. The Isles beat Pittsburgh without Turgeon but werent going to get their without him.

Compiler is more of a vicious word I suppose. I guess when you think of a compiler you think of someone more like Andreychuk who never did have an elite season at Turgeon's level. Turgeon does have 1993, so I guess that can eliminate him from being a "compiler".

But I do stand by the notion that he was a player with a high batting average but not many RBIs. There wasn't a lot of substance to him.

I would say he did have the luxury of playing with good players though at times. There was Housley in Buffalo and then Hawerchuk for a bit. Then not so much until he hit Montreal. He had Recchi and Damphousse on the team with him.

But in St. Louis he never had a shortage of talent to help him. Hull, MacInnis, Pronger and then Demitra at one time. The 2000 Blues led the NHL in points so I don't think he lacked playing with star power at times. That 2000 team had him, Demitra, MacInnis, a Hart winning Pronger and whether you like him or not Turek was a pretty good regular season goalie.

 

[seventieslord]

Turgeon does have 1993, so I guess that can eliminate him from being a "compiler".

Not to mention another 100 point season in 1990, and three potential seasons top-5 in scoring wrecked by injuries.

I would say he did have the luxury of playing with good players though at times. There was Housley in Buffalo and then Hawerchuk for a bit. Then not so much until he hit Montreal. He had Recchi and Damphousse on the team with him.

Hawerchuk was a center like Turgeon. They didn’t play together. I’m not sure Housley really needs to be cited; he’s no better than the defensemen other star forwards can be said to have benefitted from – Oates/Bourque, Gretzky/Coffey, Lemieux/Murphy, Savard/Wilson, and so on.

I don’t know who his ES linemates in Montreal were, do you? I’m not sure it really matters, as it was him making them better, not vice versa. As a Hab he scored 1.22 PPG; well ahead of anyone else on that team including Damphousse and Recchi.

But in St. Louis he never had a shortage of talent to help him. Hull, MacInnis, Pronger and then Demitra at one time. The 2000 Blues led the NHL in points so I don't think he lacked playing with star power at times. That 2000 team had him, Demitra, MacInnis, a Hart winning Pronger and whether you like him or not Turek was a pretty good regular season goalie.

In Montreal he appeared to be just settling into a mike Ribeiro niche , a good but not great offensive player who brought nothing else. But in St. Louis, once he finally had a very strong team around him, he was outstanding. He was credited with ramping up his intensity finally, he won 4 playoff rounds (he had won just one prior to that), and was 8th in the NHL in points per game over those 5 years, behind Jagr, Sakic, Lindros, Kariya, Forsberg, Selanne and Bure. Again, not sure who his linemates there were, but whoever it was, he was outscoring them too. Demitra was the next best Blue per game, with 0.99 in this period.

 

[Big Phil]

Not to mention another 100 point season in 1990, and three potential seasons top-5 in scoring wrecked by injuries.

If you bring up "potential" seasons is that really a good thing. Heck, Pavel Bure "potentially" could have had 10 50 goal seasons but he didn't. I'm not in the business of rewarding a player for what he might have done. And while I think 1990 wasn't a bad year either, it was the year he was given the "Tin Man" reputation in the postseason.

Hawerchuk was a center like Turgeon. They didn’t play together. I’m not sure Housley really needs to be cited; he’s no better than the defensemen other star forwards can be said to have benefitted from – Oates/Bourque, Gretzky/Coffey, Lemieux/Murphy, Savard/Wilson, and so on.

I don’t know who his ES linemates in Montreal were, do you? I’m not sure it really matters, as it was him making them better, not vice versa. As a Hab he scored 1.22 PPG; well ahead of anyone else on that team including Damphousse and Recchi.

Yeah, but Hawerchuk played with him on his team. That was the point. It isn't as if Turgeon was alone in Buffalo. There was Andreychuk as well. The Sabres had a 98 point team in 1990, good for 3rd overall. In Montreal the point was not who was on his line, but his teammates - Damphousse and Recchi when they were good - shows you he had support on that team.

In Montreal he appeared to be just settling into a mike Ribeiro niche , a good but not great offensive player who brought nothing else. But in St. Louis, once he finally had a very strong team around him, he was outstanding. He was credited with ramping up his intensity finally, he won 4 playoff rounds (he had won just one prior to that), and was 8th in the NHL in points per game over those 5 years, behind Jagr, Sakic, Lindros, Kariya, Forsberg, Selanne and Bure. Again, not sure who his linemates there were, but whoever it was, he was outscoring them too. Demitra was the next best Blue per game, with 0.99 in this period.

I don't know how important points per game is when you regularly have 60 games a season. Everyone's PPG looks better the less games they play. But even so, I don't think I saw him ramp it up until 2001. He actually carried a team on his back for a change. They lost in the semis, but it was still something I would have expected to see from Turgeon year in and year out in the postseason. Why did Turgeon not do that regularly but Gilmour did? There's a reason.

 

[seventieslord]

If you bring up "potential" seasons is that really a good thing. Heck, Pavel Bure "potentially" could have had 10 50 goal seasons but he didn't. I'm not in the business of rewarding a player for what he might have done. And while I think 1990 wasn't a bad year either, it was the year he was given the "Tin Man" reputation in the postseason.

Christ, now you're just being obtuse. In 2000, Turgeon had 66 points in 52 games. This was on pace to lead the league. If he suddenly went from scoring 1.27 PPG, to merely 1.00, he was still a 96 point scorer, tying for the league lead with Jagr.

The question is how good a player was when he played, right? Not the timing of his injuries.

Yeah, but Hawerchuk played with him on his team. That was the point. It isn't as if Turgeon was alone in Buffalo. There was Andreychuk as well. The Sabres had a 98 point team in 1990, good for 3rd overall. In Montreal the point was not who was on his line, but his teammates - Damphousse and Recchi when they were good - shows you he had support on that team.

so?

I don't know how important points per game is when you regularly have 60 games a season. Everyone's PPG looks better the less games they play.

LOL, really? You're hilarious.

 

[Big Phil]

Christ, now you're just being obtuse. In 2000, Turgeon had 66 points in 52 games. This was on pace to lead the league. If he suddenly went from scoring 1.27 PPG, to merely 1.00, he was still a 96 point scorer, tying for the league lead with Jagr.

The question is how good a player was when he played, right? Not the timing of his injuries.

Lots of NHLers had injuries that year. It was a year similar to 2011, or 1997 or 1994 for example. Lots of players missed time. Turgeon was one of them but if we reward him with 66 points in 52 games then where does it end? He had a 66 point season. He WOULD have had more, but he wasn't there for 30 games.

The Blues were a 114 point team, the best in the NHL in 2000. They lost to the Sharks who were an 87 point team. That 7 game series between the two should have never gotten that far. You can blame Turek for allowing a long goal to Nolan in Game 7 but the truth is at a time when Turgeon had a lot to prove and the best regular season team in the NHL he had 7 assists in those 7 games. No goals. Just when you hoped he would take the team by the scruff of their necks, he didn't. We saw Savard do that enough times though.

LOL, really? You're hilarious

Well that brought nothing to the table. I already explained to you above, and in the other thread that has turned into a Turgeon one, the dangers of crediting a player with playing 50-60 game seasons. When you get into the "what ifs" you are fishing.

 

[Brooklanders*]

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.

Housley belongs in the Hall of Fame. The only reason Phil is not in is because he didnt win anything but his play constituted the induction.

 

[Al Bundy*]

Turgeon, IMO, could have been better and done more, but until he went to St. Louis, his teams were not exactly stacked.

Buffalo- That 1990 team with Housley, Andreychuk, and Puppa was third overall- and his Sabre teams were not awful- but they were stuck in the Adams Division in an era and format where Boston and Montreal always won. You put his teams in the Patrick Division, and maybe things are different. Turgeon might have been better suited if he wasn't in the small rinks of that division. It didn't help to play in a division during a stretch were the Habs and Bruins loomed over everyone else.

Islanders- They were never, ever known for goalie stability. The one year they had it, they let him go to the Rangers and made the Hextall trade a year later.

Montreal- He, Recchi, Damphousse, Koivu- not a bad armada. I still wonder what the Habs were thinking when they traded him for Corson.

St. Louis- Location, location, location. This was smack in the middle of the 'Detroit, Dallas, Colorado, and everybody else' Western Conference.

You could make a case Turgeon had a lot of bad timing and luck.

 

[seventieslord]

Lots of NHLers had injuries that year. It was a year similar to 2011, or 1997 or 1994 for example. Lots of players missed time. Turgeon was one of them but if we reward him with 66 points in 52 games then where does it end? He had a 66 point season. He WOULD have had more, but he wasn't there for 30 games.

answered this same point in the other thread.

The Blues were a 114 point team, the best in the NHL in 2000. They lost to the Sharks who were an 87 point team. That 7 game series between the two should have never gotten that far. You can blame Turek for allowing a long goal to Nolan in Game 7 but the truth is at a time when Turgeon had a lot to prove and the best regular season team in the NHL he had 7 assists in those 7 games. No goals. Just when you hoped he would take the team by the scruff of their necks, he didn't. We saw Savard do that enough times though.

So exactly how much more are goals worth than assists, when you need them to be to suit your argument? 7 assists in 7 games sounds like a point per game to me.

How many more points should he have had to overcome Turek's league worst .882 sv%?

Well that brought nothing to the table. I already explained to you above, and in the other thread that has turned into a Turgeon one, the dangers of crediting a player with playing 50-60 game seasons. When you get into the "what ifs" you are fishing.

the point was, your statement was incorrect. Players don't have higher PPG averages by playing fewer games. Statistically, all it means is that there is a greater likelihood of a wild fluctuation (either up or down) from the norm. That's why I laughed, it was your misunderstanding of statistics that brought it on.

 

[JCD]

Very sad to see the Hall of Fame reduced to a door prize for hitting a point threshold.

It used to be reserved for only famous players. Guys you paid to see or represented the best the game had to offer.

When Pierre Turgeon is mentioned for the Hall of Fame, I know that the Hall has become a joke and isn't worth thinking about any more.

Might as well drop an "Achievement unlocked! Welcome to the Hall!" banner when the player scores his 900th point and drop the wait.

 

[Brooklanders*]

Very sad to see the Hall of Fame reduced to a door prize for hitting a point threshold.

It used to be reserved for only famous players. Guys you paid to see or represented the best the game had to offer.

When Pierre Turgeon is mentioned for the Hall of Fame, I know that the Hall has become a joke and isn't worth thinking about any more.

Might as well drop an "Achievement unlocked! Welcome to the Hall!" banner when the player scores his 900th point and drop the wait.

I dont believe Turgeon will get in as I dont believe Palffy belongs as well. But the question then begs, "Does Oates belong."? "How about a guy like Dino Ciccarelli?"
"Joe Mullen"?

 

[Big Phil]

Housley belongs in the Hall of Fame. The only reason Phil is not in is because he didnt win anything but his play constituted the induction.

You won't get a whole lot of support for Housley around here. His Norris voting record is okay, but not a deal breaker. People complained about Mike Green when he was scoring a ton (hope he does that again though) but Green was in my mind a bigger prescence and difference maker on the ice when he got those two first team all-stars. Time will tell with Green, but Housley just didn't bring it when it mattered either.

So exactly how much more are goals worth than assists, when you need them to be to suit your argument? 7 assists in 7 games sounds like a point per game to me.

How many more points should he have had to overcome Turek's league worst .882 sv%?

When you look at things deeper it becomes problematic in that series. Turgeon had 7 assists which is okay on the surface. However, in the 4 losses by the Blues he collected one measley assist. These were all close games to with San Jose where a goal here or there changes a lot. In Game 7 he had 0 points and one shot despite having 23 minutes of ice time. That isn't good. In total he had 6 shots on goal and one assist in those 4 losses. Yes its true Pronger and Turek as well as Demitra (God rest his soul) didn't step up either. But the thread is about Turgeon, and this happened far too often with him.

1990? 6 games series vs. Montreal. In the 4 losses he had one assist. There are just too many times when Turgeon had the ability to be a difference maker but had the "deer in the headlights" look to him. Almost passive if anything. This is probably what has kept him out of the HHOF.

the point was, your statement was incorrect. Players don't have higher PPG averages by playing fewer games. Statistically, all it means is that there is a greater likelihood of a wild fluctuation (either up or down) from the norm. That's why I laughed, it was your misunderstanding of statistics that brought it on

Well, take a guy like Crosby. He probably doesn't maintain 1.61 PPG over a full season. He never has in the past. But he has that this year, and in 41 games last year he did too. I don't think Crosby holds that pace and we are talking about Sidney Crosby here in comparison with Turgeon by the way. When the checking gets tighter and your body wears on you over 82 games it is very, very hard to produce MORE while playing more games.

I dont believe Turgeon will get in as I dont believe Palffy belongs as well. But the question then begs, "Does Oates belong."? "How about a guy like Dino Ciccarelli?"
"Joe Mullen"?

Oates belongs. Much more revered during his career which was simultaneous with Turgeon. Dino is controversial, but I'd take him over Turgeon as well. Palffy? No. Mullen? Just barely I suppose, but he gets a lot of flack.

 

[seventieslord]

When you look at things deeper it becomes problematic in that series. Turgeon had 7 assists which is okay on the surface. However, in the 4 losses by the Blues he collected one measley assist. These were all close games to with San Jose where a goal here or there changes a lot. In Game 7 he had 0 points and one shot despite having 23 minutes of ice time. That isn't good. In total he had 6 shots on goal and one assist in those 4 losses. Yes its true Pronger and Turek as well as Demitra (God rest his soul) didn't step up either. But the thread is about Turgeon, and this happened far too often with him.

1990? 6 games series vs. Montreal. In the 4 losses he had one assist. There are just too many times when Turgeon had the ability to be a difference maker but had the "deer in the headlights" look to him. Almost passive if anything. This is probably what has kept him out of the HHOF.

Yes, it happened so often that he ended up with 0.89 PPG in a large sample of games...

Oh yeah, and scoring more in your wins and less in your losses.... not a revelation. For any player. Sorry.

Well, take a guy like Crosby. He probably doesn't maintain 1.61 PPG over a full season. He never has in the past. But he has that this year, and in 41 games last year he did too. I don't think Crosby holds that pace and we are talking about Sidney Crosby here in comparison with Turgeon by the way. When the checking gets tighter and your body wears on you over 82 games it is very, very hard to produce MORE while playing more games.

I don't care if you think you have an example. There is absolutely no correllation between GP and PPG.

 

[Al Bundy*]

1990? 6 games series vs. Montreal. In the 4 losses he had one assist. There are just too many times when Turgeon had the ability to be a difference maker but had the "deer in the headlights" look to him. Almost passive if anything. This is probably what has kept him out of the HHOF.

Look who he had to play- not easy to score a ton on the mighty Patrick Roy and the defensively-dominate Habs of Pat Burns.

Now, put them in the Patrick Division, OTOH, against less-inspiring goalies and who knows.

 

[Big Phil]

Yes, it happened so often that he ended up with 0.89 PPG in a large sample of games...

Oh yeah, and scoring more in your wins and less in your losses.... not a revelation. For any player. Sorry.

0.89 is alright, but nothing earth shattering. Rarely a time where he stepped up and led his team. And if I am a coach I certainly think it matters if a player doesn't step up at all in the losses. Issues like that can very well be the reason the team loses without those important goals.

I don't care if you think you have an example. There is absolutely no correllation between GP and PPG.

Well there are several examples of this. I said it about as clear as possible in the last thread. It happens to every player, even Wayne Gretzky. Look at 1983-'84. He averaged 3 points a game on his 51 game point streak. It "dropped" the last 20 or so games when he came back from his injury. You certainly have a clear advantage of having a better PPG with less games, all I am saying.

Look who he had to play- not easy to score a ton on the mighty Patrick Roy and the defensively-dominate Habs of Pat Burns.

Now, put them in the Patrick Division, OTOH, against less-inspiring goalies and who knows.

Patrick division was hardly any easier. There weren't any gimmes there either. I know there have been countless times on here where Mario Lemieux has been given the benefit of the doubt over Gretzky because Gretzky played in the so called "easier" Smythe division and Mario had wars in the harder Patrick division. The bottom line is to be the best you play the best. And since Turgeon bounced around a lot in his career, he wasn't in the same division, or even conference his whole career. Kind of a moot point.

 

[seventieslord]

0.89 is alright, but nothing earth shattering. Rarely a time where he stepped up and led his team. And if I am a coach I certainly think it matters if a player doesn't step up at all in the losses. Issues like that can very well be the reason the team loses without those important goals.

You're criticizing him for being something he's not, while also pretending another offense-only forward was that something.

Someone said a good line a few months ago, and it really rings true. "To win, you need your Toews, but you also need your Kane".

You're a Leafs fan. Do you appreciate Kessel for what he is? Or do you malign him because he's not a leader and has 4 hits all season?

Well there are several examples of this. I said it about as clear as possible in the last thread. It happens to every player, even Wayne Gretzky. Look at 1983-'84. He averaged 3 points a game on his 51 game point streak. It "dropped" the last 20 or so games when he came back from his injury. You certainly have a clear advantage of having a better PPG with less games, all I am saying.

..........I can't tell if you're trolling now, seriously.

So Gretzky had more PPG in his 51 game point streak than outside of it? YOU DON'T SAY!!!

 

[Big Phil]

You're criticizing him for being something he's not, while also pretending another offense-only forward was that something.

Someone said a good line a few months ago, and it really rings true. "To win, you need your Toews, but you also need your Kane".

You're a Leafs fan. Do you appreciate Kessel for what he is? Or do you malign him because he's not a leader and has 4 hits all season?

Having a front seat view of Kessel this year I can say that he did not step up when his team needed him. I cannot count the amount of times when the Leafs - still in a playoff spot - could use precious points by getting a big goal by him in a tight game. It didn't happen. The numbers might cover it up, but what they won't tell you is how poor his performance has been down the stretch. 14 goals in the first 20 games. 22 in the last 58. If the writers who vote on the Hart trophy actually did watch Kessel play this year they'll know the little impact he made in close games as the season wore on. You can have him.

As for Nicholls, he wasn't Mr. Intangibles, but I'd say he was a bit better than Turgeon in that department. Hey the HHOF seems to agree, they haven't put either one of them in and I'm fine with that. But since it seems their scoring is very similar how are they not in the same neighbourhood?

..........I can't tell if you're trolling now, seriously.

So Gretzky had more PPG in his 51 game point streak than outside of it? YOU DON'T SAY!!!

Are you even attempting to understand what I am saying. If Gretzky washes his hands and doesn't play another game the rest of the year he has a higher PPG. Lemieux in 2000-'01 is a good example too. He had 35 goals in 43 games and on pace for 67 goals over 82 games. History has proven to us that a player usually doesn't maintain that pace over 82 games. I've always felt that if a person accuses another one of trolling then they have no interest in that person's counterpoint regardless of how much sense it makes. It's a cop out really.

So I want to clarify this...........you don't really see the logic how it is easier to have a better PPG playing 40 games than 80? I really don't understand how you can't see that.

And come on, trolling? I've been posting here since 2003, three years earlier than you, and have about 12,000 posts. Who the heck starts trolling then?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Are you even attempting to understand what I am saying. If Gretzky washes his hands and doesn't play another game the rest of the year he has a higher PPG. Lemieux in 2000-'01 is a good example too. He had 35 goals in 43 games and on pace for 67 goals over 82 games. History has proven to us that a player usually doesn't maintain that pace over 82 games.

For every one of them, there is a Corey Perry in 2011 or a Dominik Hasek in 1998 who improved in the back-end of a long season. If you're going to argue that PPG goes down with increased GP, you should be presenting evidence that the league average goals-per-game goes down from October to March - not isolated accounts of marquee players.

 

[Big Phil]

For every one of them, there is a Corey Perry in 2011 or a Dominik Hasek in 1998 who improved in the back-end of a long season. If you're going to argue that PPG goes down with increased GP, you should be presenting evidence that the league average goals-per-game goes down from October to March - not isolated accounts of marquee players.

Hasek had 6 shutouts in December of 1997, just to let you know. Perry is a rare example of things going the other way. While I am not sure how to actually draw the facts from each season, it is almost universally known that scoring goes down as the playoff races tighten and the season is in the home stretch. Playoff scoring goes down too. That really isn't a secret at all. But either way, the point stands, it is harder to maintain a PPG over 82 games than 40 or 50 or even 60. The Corey Perry cases are the exception, rather than the rule.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Hasek had 6 shutouts in December of 1997, just to let you know. Perry is a rare example of things going the other way. While I am not sure how to actually draw the facts from each season, it is almost universally known that scoring goes down as the playoff races tighten and the season is in the home stretch. Playoff scoring goes down too. That really isn't a secret at all. But either way, the point stands, it is harder to maintain a PPG over 82 games than 40 or 50 or even 60. The Corey Perry cases are the exception, rather than the rule.

Hasek also had a .898 in his first 20 games. Just to let you know.

 

[Big Phil]

Hasek also had a .898 in his first 20 games. Just to let you know.

I think it was pretty spread out. He had 6/13 of his shutouts in one month - December. By the Olympics in February it was pretty much a done deal he was winning the Hart barring a major collapse. Hasek is a poor example, he almost never had bad stretches in his prime, early or late.