Pierre Turgeon

[Big Phil]

I'm not sure how to answer that... I'm just saying that Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Messier - clearly superior players - never shat the bed for one year to open the door for him to get all-star votes.

Personally I don't know how to answer that myself. The lone all-star selection between the two of them is a 2nd team all-star selection in 1983 for Savard. He finished 3rd in points that year well behind Gretzky and 3 points behind Stastny. He also had 121 points and 1980s or not that almost always put you near the top. Why should he not be rewarded for it? It was a stellar season.

Are you kidding me? Look at the names.

The star players to compete against in the 1980s vs. the 1990s are almost always similar and if anything it was virtually impossible to ever be the best at anything in the 1980s with Gretzky in there. But are the names similar? I think so.

1980s - Gretzky, Stastny, Trottier, Bossy, Hawerchuk, Dionne, Messier, Lemieux, Kurri and even Coffey and Yzerman later in the decade.

1990s - Lemieux, an older Gretzky, Yzerman, Jagr in later years, Sakic in later years, Forsberg, Lindros, Bure, Selanne, Kariya, possibly Hull in earlier years, Oates...........

How is it much harder during the 1990s to stand out? There was plenty of elite talent in the 1980s as well so I think its a cop out. Savard wasn't going to win an Art Ross we know this, but he came closer to it on a regular basis than Turgeon did. Bottom line is there were a lot of players who scored a lot of points in the 1980s and two players did it better than Savard. With all the window dressing you cannot possibly make Turgeon's best years look as good.

no, not a complete season like that. But he played at least 181 more games at that same level in 1994, 1998 and 2000. You're still getting too caught up in how many points a player compiled from October to March.

Well you do get a "little" bit of a break from March to October. I don't know about you, but I want a guy who does it a little more consistent. Savard did that and if you can have a player you can pencil in for 100 points a season for a decade don't you take him?

Never said they were a "big factor"... they were pretty average. Turgeon's goalies, however, were a huge factor, and not in a good way.

I just don't understand why this point of the conversation is still going on.

Me: Savard received much better goaltending help in the playoffs than Turgeon

You: No, his goalies weren't any good - look at their names

me: I'm not talking about their names, I'm talking about how they performed.

you: But look at their GAA's, they sucked!

me: that's far less meaningful than looking at sv% versus the league average. The number show that they weren't great, but at least they were average.

you: well then they weren't a big factor then, were they?

me now: average is a hell of a lot better than terrible!

When did one of Savard's goalies ever have a run like Healy in 1993? (yeah Roy, but Savard wasn't the man in Montreal either). And Turgeon did have Grant Fuhr who still played well late in his career while they were in St. Louis. In reality, both players never had that advantage, especially in their primes of stellar goaltending year in and year out. That was by far the Hawks' weakness in the 1980s without a doubt so why you are hung on giving the advantage to Savard I don't understand.

Besides, I compared the GAA to other goalies in the postseason in those years, definitely a fair comparison and the Hawks goalies weren't known to shut the door either, nor did they most of the time.

Horrible comparison. Bobby Orr never had a season where he was clearly the best defenseman in the league and didn't win the norris due to a 20-30 game injury. Big difference between projecting seasons that were never played, and projecting seasons that were well over half completed.

Well the important thing to ask is does Turgeon lose out on an award or even an all-star selection in the years he missed time? I don't think he does personally, he didn't miss significant time until 1994.

1994 - Wouldn't have received much Hart consideration with a full season anyway considering Recchi and even Bure didn't. All-stars at center would still have been Fedorov and Gretzky

1998 - Forsberg is still 1st team all-star. Gretzky is probably still 2nd team all-star. Lots of centers missed time that year too. Lindros, Sakic, also missed time as well.

1999 - Even if healthy would not have made a dent

2000 - A bad year for forwards and he might have snagged a 2nd team all-star if he were healthy. But then again, Lindros missed a lot of time, Sakic missed a lot of time and Yashin held out the whole year after being a 2nd team all-star in 1999.

In 2001 he actually played a full season and by my count had his first elite year since 1993 but was behind a handful of centers for sure.

I don't think a lot changes for him.

Turgeon's 9 most dominant seasons are in an 11-year span (1990-2000) with "off years" of 1991 and 1995 in there. Savard's best 9 seasons happened to all come in a row (1982-1990). Who cares? We still have 9 great seasons by both players to compare. Does it make his 9 best seasons any less impressive, because he was "only" 22nd and 27th in scoring those other two years in there?

That and the fact he has unfinished seasons that had him nowhere close to the leaders. The harsh reality here that you aren't willing to agree with is that Turgeon basically had one "elite" season in his career which was 1993. 1990 was pretty close as well but obviously not as good. Savard had more than two elite offensive years. He probably had closer to half a dozen with some other good ones. This is why there is a clear seperation between these two.

ummm, is that what "RBIs" mean now? Wasn't this term used to describe Marc Savard a few years ago, with the context being that he'd score the 5th goal in a 5-1 game? In other words, meaningless, lower value, "fluff" points. That is what I am asking you to prove. Did Turgeon have a high proportion of crap points? Did Savard have an unusually high proportion of important points on game tying and winning goals? Because if they did, you would definitely be onto something. But without a properly executed study, that's just subjective, memory based nonsense.

I don't care about intangibles. I know Turgeon had none (It's not like Savard had a lot either, but whatever). This is just about offensive production. I've never once heard of intangibles being the basis for the "RBI" analogy used in hockey

Its more along the lines of a point collector who didn't do anything else. Never led his team anywhere, never elevated his play when the chips were down.........that's someone who lacks RBIs

 

[Big Phil]

As a sidebar, if you asked people who the most offensive players were in Savard's time how would be pan out? He'd be very close to the top of the list.

Cut to Turgeon and how many people would have him among the top 5 offensive players in the NHL in his prime? Top 10? I can probably think of 10 players in Turgeon's era that were more offensive players than him. You can't with Savvy

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I personally have no respect for Dale Hunter.

I don't mind a cheapshot here and there in the heat of the moment and I'm not a anti-violence in hockey guy , but after a guy scores a goal and taking him out like this was just an horrifying move.Disgusting.

Likewise. I love physical hockey within the rules (Scott Stevens was my favorite player growing up after all and I have a lot of respect for guys like Iginal). A cheapshot in the heat of the moment is unfortunate but not a big deal.

But what Hunter did to Turgeon... Ugh. Made worse by the fact that he never apologized and to this day insists he thought the play was still going on.

Ovechkin is one of my favorite players in the league (I realize that's not a popular sentiment anymore), but I find it hard to root for him if it means Dale Hunter is a success at coach.

 

[Al Bundy*]

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Turgeon was drafted by the Devils rather than the Sabres in 1987.

How would he have meshed with the likes of Muller/MacLean/Verbeek?

(Remember, that season was when New Jersey nearly made the Cup Finals. THAT is an interesting Turgeon what-if

 

[seventieslord]

Personally I don't know how to answer that myself. The lone all-star selection between the two of them is a 2nd team all-star selection in 1983 for Savard. He finished 3rd in points that year well behind Gretzky and 3 points behind Stastny. He also had 121 points and 1980s or not that almost always put you near the top. Why should he not be rewarded for it? It was a stellar season.

The star players to compete against in the 1980s vs. the 1990s are almost always similar and if anything it was virtually impossible to ever be the best at anything in the 1980s with Gretzky in there. But are the names similar? I think so.

1980s - Gretzky, Stastny, Trottier, Bossy, Hawerchuk, Dionne, Messier, Lemieux, Kurri and even Coffey and Yzerman later in the decade.

1990s - Lemieux, an older Gretzky, Yzerman, Jagr in later years, Sakic in later years, Forsberg, Lindros, Bure, Selanne, Kariya, possibly Hull in earlier years, Oates...........

How is it much harder during the 1990s to stand out? There was plenty of elite talent in the 1980s as well so I think its a cop out. Savard wasn't going to win an Art Ross we know this, but he came closer to it on a regular basis than Turgeon did. Bottom line is there were a lot of players who scored a lot of points in the 1980s and two players did it better than Savard. With all the window dressing you cannot possibly make Turgeon's best years look as good.

I think you're forgetting why we're even on this part of the conversation. This was from when vecens24 brought up all-star voting records. The point was if you're not among the top-3 centers you aren't going to, and shouldn't get any votes. If you look at the names ahead of Turgeon it was clearly more difficult to be recognized in all-star voting for centers. Then when the field of centers weakened and he could have been an all-star he got injured.

For Savard there was always Gretzky, and at first Trottier and then Lemieux (and some Yzerman at the tail end) but beyond that the field was wide open. there was always room for getting 3rd place votes. Peter Statsny, Dale Hawerchuk, and the one year wonders here and there, these aren't top-100 players nor are they significantly better than him.

Turgeon had Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Sakic, Messier just as he peaked - that's five top-40 players right there. Then you have Oates, Gilmour's two incredible seasons coincided with his, and LaFontaine & Lindros, who each had an amazing peak for a few years. The competition at center was significantly stronger; that was always the point, and I'm not really interested in getting into whatever it is you're trying to get into.

Well you do get a "little" bit of a break from March to October. I don't know about you, but I want a guy who does it a little more consistent. Savard did that and if you can have a player you can pencil in for 100 points a season for a decade don't you take him?

Is a guy who scores 100 points in 80 games twice as good as a guy who scores 50 points? Sounds like you want to say yes right off the bat. I want to know, how many games did the 50 point guy play. We're just different that way I guess...

When did one of Savard's goalies ever have a run like Healy in 1993? (yeah Roy, but Savard wasn't the man in Montreal either). And Turgeon did have Grant Fuhr who still played well late in his career while they were in St. Louis. In reality, both players never had that advantage, especially in their primes of stellar goaltending year in and year out. That was by far the Hawks' weakness in the 1980s without a doubt so why you are hung on giving the advantage to Savard I don't understand.

Besides, I compared the GAA to other goalies in the postseason in those years, definitely a fair comparison and the Hawks goalies weren't known to shut the door either, nor did they most of the time.

Why are you still doing this?

Why are you talking about GAA as though it's a serious rebuttal to sv%?

Why are you asking me questions that were already answered in the link you never read?

Healy wasn't even that good in 1993. He had some good performances, but also some bad ones mixed in there. he was still 12 points below the league average, which means it was among the better goaltending performances Turgeon received in his career, but it wasn't average, or even close.

Here is the table again.

Year | Savard GP | Savard goalies | Turgeon GP | Turgeon goalies
1981 | 3 | 2 | |
1982 | 15 | 13 | |
1983 | 13 | -4 | |
1984 | 5 | 2 | |
1985 | 15 | -13 | |
1986 | 3 | -69 | |
1987 | 4 | -8 | |
1988 | 5 | -6 | 6 | -13
1989 | 16 | 16 | 5 | 0
1990 | 20 | -3 | 6 | -48
1991 | 13 | 3 | 6 | -54
1992 | 11 | 7 | |
1993 | 14 | 33 | 11 | -12
1994 | | | 4 | -81
1995 | 16 | 30 | |
1996 | 10 | 14 | 6 | 0
1997 | 6 | -47 | 5 | 10
1998 | | | 10 | -6
1999 | | | 13 | -17
2000 | | | 7 | -36
2001 | | | 15 | 9
2002 | | | |
2003 | | | 5 | 0
2004 | | | 5 | -73
2006 | | | 5 | -4
Totals/weighted averages | 169 | 5 | 109 | -17

So, to answer your question, did Savard's goalie ever perform as well as Healy in 1993? Yes, in 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, and 1996. If Savard played for the Isles in 1993, that would have been the 4th worst playoff goaltending help he received in his entire career.

If we isolate it just to the prime years, Savard's weighted average is -1 and Turgeon's is -20 so it doesn't really matter whether we look at whole careers or primes, the gap is still in the range of about 20 sv% points.

In the link you never read, the point of brining up goaltending was explaining why Savard got into so many more playoff games, as their adjusted point production in the playoffs was virtually even.

Now can you please stop asking stupid questions that this chart already answers? Savard's goalies were average over his career. Turgeon's were awful. End of story.

Well the important thing to ask is does Turgeon lose out on an award or even an all-star selection in the years he missed time? I don't think he does personally, he didn't miss significant time until 1994.

1994 - Wouldn't have received much Hart consideration with a full season anyway considering Recchi and even Bure didn't. All-stars at center would still have been Fedorov and Gretzky

1998 - Forsberg is still 1st team all-star. Gretzky is probably still 2nd team all-star. Lots of centers missed time that year too. Lindros, Sakic, also missed time as well.

1999 - Even if healthy would not have made a dent

2000 - A bad year for forwards and he might have snagged a 2nd team all-star if he were healthy. But then again, Lindros missed a lot of time, Sakic missed a lot of time and Yashin held out the whole year after being a 2nd team all-star in 1999.

In 2001 he actually played a full season and by my count had his first elite year since 1993 but was behind a handful of centers for sure.

I don't think a lot changes for him.

So then both of them would have a 2nd all-star team in a weak year for centers... like I said.

This part of the conversation would be over too, if you hadn't begun putting words in my mouth yet again (the numbers "favour Turgeon")

That and the fact he has unfinished seasons that had him nowhere close to the leaders. The harsh reality here that you aren't willing to agree with is that Turgeon basically had one "elite" season in his career which was 1993. 1990 was pretty close as well but obviously not as good. Savard had more than two elite offensive years. He probably had closer to half a dozen with some other good ones. This is why there is a clear seperation between these two.

Well what is the "clear separation"? I asked you for your opinion on that and you completely disregarded the most productive part of my post, choosing to nitpick and pick stupid little battles. What is the separation, Phil?

Its more along the lines of a point collector who didn't do anything else. Never led his team anywhere, never elevated his play when the chips were down.........that's someone who lacks RBIs

if you ever feel like proving that his points somehow could for less please let me know. Until then.... enjoy your pie.

As a sidebar, if you asked people who the most offensive players were in Savard's time how would be pan out? He'd be very close to the top of the list.

Cut to Turgeon and how many people would have him among the top 5 offensive players in the NHL in his prime? Top 10? I can probably think of 10 players in Turgeon's era that were more offensive players than him. You can't with Savvy

A slave to "rankings" yet again, pretending that quantity and era don't matter. The presence or absence of other players doesn't make another player better or worse. Turgeon was 7th in points between 1990 and 2000, less than 100 behind the leader (Gretzky) and just 55 behind 2nd (Oates) in 30 fewer games.

I mean, I don't know why you keep going back to these pointless, simplistic arguments. CYM and I have already gone well beyond this crap. Just answer the question already - what percentage do you see the difference at, keeping in mind that the PPG difference even if raw and unadjusted was just 12.5%?

Keep in mind that if you claim it to be in that range you are telling us all that you think 1980s and 1990s point totals should all be compared at face value. Also keep in mind that I did a lot of work to make concessions in Savard's favour, and in case you didn't understand all of it, in layman's terms it basically meant that even though scoring was 16% higher in his prime, he shouldn't have to outscore Turgeon by that full 16% to be his equal - this is where my 2.5% figure came from (1-4% with margin of error)

 

[quoipourquoi]

2000 - A bad year for forwards and he might have snagged a 2nd team all-star if he were healthy. But then again, Lindros missed a lot of time, Sakic missed a lot of time and Yashin held out the whole year after being a 2nd team all-star in 1999.

You don't think Turgeon takes the 1st Team if he was healthy? He was only 15 points behind the leading scorer at his position. If we give him his health, he has 30 games to bolster his 66 points and +30 - so even if he was only operating at 50% efficiency, he outscores every other center. I think both he and Sakic were unfortunate to have lost out to Modano and Yzerman in what should have been slam-dunk selections in 70-80 GP seasons, so for you to say that Turgeon "might have snagged a 2nd team" if we were to improve his health alone is kinda undercutting what he was doing relative to the others at his position.

Points-Per-Game
1. Sakic, 1.35
2. Turgeon, 1.27
3. Lindros, 1.07
4. Modano, 1.05
5. Forsberg, 1.04

 

[Big Phil]

You don't think Turgeon takes the 1st Team if he was healthy? He was only 15 points behind the leading scorer at his position. If we give him his health, he has 30 games to bolster his 66 points and +30 - so even if he was only operating at 50% efficiency, he outscores every other center. I think both he and Sakic were unfortunate to have lost out to Modano and Yzerman in what should have been slam-dunk selections in 70-80 GP seasons, so for you to say that Turgeon "might have snagged a 2nd team" if we were to improve his health alone is kinda undercutting what he was doing relative to the others at his position.

Points-Per-Game
1. Sakic, 1.35
2. Turgeon, 1.27
3. Lindros, 1.07
4. Modano, 1.05
5. Forsberg, 1.04

We'd see how things went the last 30 games. If Lindros or Sakic were even close to his point production they would have taken those spots because of other things they brought to the game outside of offense. But again, be careful of awarding a player for things he didn't do, when he didn't do it.

I think you're forgetting why we're even on this part of the conversation. This was from when vecens24 brought up all-star voting records. The point was if you're not among the top-3 centers you aren't going to, and shouldn't get any votes. If you look at the names ahead of Turgeon it was clearly more difficult to be recognized in all-star voting for centers. Then when the field of centers weakened and he could have been an all-star he got injured.

For Savard there was always Gretzky, and at first Trottier and then Lemieux (and some Yzerman at the tail end) but beyond that the field was wide open. there was always room for getting 3rd place votes. Peter Statsny, Dale Hawerchuk, and the one year wonders here and there, these aren't top-100 players nor are they significantly better than him.

Turgeon had Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Sakic, Messier just as he peaked - that's five top-40 players right there. Then you have Oates, Gilmour's two incredible seasons coincided with his, and LaFontaine & Lindros, who each had an amazing peak for a few years. The competition at center was significantly stronger; that was always the point, and I'm not really interested in getting into whatever it is you're trying to get into.

I thought this was the thread where I saw TheDevilMadeMe do a comparison on where each player finished at the center all-star position in voting but I guess not. So I'll do it, and I'll name the players Savard was behind.

Savard - 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Turgeon - 6, 7, 8, 9

Now, on the surface that is a significant advantage for Savard considering just how many fill-in votes are there for Turgeon in many of his rankings. But since you feel that Turgeon had it a lot tougher for centers in his era I think we should see who was ranked ahead of each player in their best years.

Savard 1982 - Gretzky, Trottier, Stastny, Maruk, Savard
1983 - Gretzky, Savard
1985 - Gretzky, Hawerchuk, Dionne, Sutter, Carpenter, Savard
1986 - Gretzky, Lemieux, Stastny, Savard
1988 - Lemieux, Gretzky, Savard

Turgeon 1990 - Messier, Gretzky, Yzerman, Lemieux, Lafontaine, Turgeon
1993 - Lemieux, Lafontaine, Gilmour, Oates, Yzerman, Turgeon
1997 - Lemieux, Gretzky, Forsberg, Modano, Lindros, Sundin, Sakic, Turgeon
2000 - Yzerman, Modano, Sakic, Roenick, Sundin, Sakic, Gilmour, Turgeon

One thing we know for sure with these rankings, Savard put a bigger dent against his peers than Turgeon did. He also had to contend with a prime Gretzky and an early but still impossible Lemieux. Hawerchuk, Stastny, Trottier, Dionne, etc. yeah, that's pretty stiff competition not to mention Messier and Yzerman were also in the picture too.

Turgeon in three of those cases has a single vote. Almost a fill in. Maybe it was a Blues writer who knows? But either way, he didn't put a dent at all in the center position against competition that wasn't any stronger than Savard's. Remember, there was an oft injured/retired Lemieux and an older Gretzky in Turgeon's time, it wasn't as if he knew he could do no better than 2nd like in the 1980s when Savard competed against Gretzky. Those are some nice names ahead of Turgeon, but he didn't have it any harder than Savard.

Is a guy who scores 100 points in 80 games twice as good as a guy who scores 50 points? Sounds like you want to say yes right off the bat. I want to know, how many games did the 50 point guy play. We're just different that way I guess...

I'll say he had a better season. For example, Claude Giroux had a better season than Crosby. We all know Crosby is the better player but injuries kept him out. However, Giroux had the better year and if that becomes a habit where Giroux plays full seasons near the top of the NHL pecking order and Crosby is constantly injured then who do you think has the better career when all is said and done? Lindros was an actual better PLAYER than Oates, but Oates had the better career because he proved it on the ice year after year. You can't penalize Oates because Lindros didn't keep his head up or had meddling parents.

Healy wasn't even that good in 1993. He had some good performances, but also some bad ones mixed in there. he was still 12 points below the league average, which means it was among the better goaltending performances Turgeon received in his career, but it wasn't average, or even close.

Here is the table again.

Year | Savard GP | Savard goalies | Turgeon GP | Turgeon goalies
1981 | 3 | 2 | |
1982 | 15 | 13 | |
1983 | 13 | -4 | |
1984 | 5 | 2 | |
1985 | 15 | -13 | |
1986 | 3 | -69 | |
1987 | 4 | -8 | |
1988 | 5 | -6 | 6 | -13
1989 | 16 | 16 | 5 | 0
1990 | 20 | -3 | 6 | -48
1991 | 13 | 3 | 6 | -54
1992 | 11 | 7 | |
1993 | 14 | 33 | 11 | -12
1994 | | | 4 | -81
1995 | 16 | 30 | |
1996 | 10 | 14 | 6 | 0
1997 | 6 | -47 | 5 | 10
1998 | | | 10 | -6
1999 | | | 13 | -17
2000 | | | 7 | -36
2001 | | | 15 | 9
2002 | | | |
2003 | | | 5 | 0
2004 | | | 5 | -73
2006 | | | 5 | -4
Totals/weighted averages | 169 | 5 | 109 | -17

So, to answer your question, did Savard's goalie ever perform as well as Healy in 1993? Yes, in 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, and 1996. If Savard played for the Isles in 1993, that would have been the 4th worst playoff goaltending help he received in his entire career.

If we isolate it just to the prime years, Savard's weighted average is -1 and Turgeon's is -20 so it doesn't really matter whether we look at whole careers or primes, the gap is still in the range of about 20 sv% points.

In the link you never read, the point of brining up goaltending was explaining why Savard got into so many more playoff games, as their adjusted point production in the playoffs was virtually even.

Now can you please stop asking stupid questions that this chart already answers? Savard's goalies were average over his career. Turgeon's were awful. End of story.

See, this is where if you SAW both play like you claim you did that it wouldn't be much of a debate. I don't remember a time when Savard was in a Blackhawks uniform where a goalie stole a series for them. Healy did it for Turgeon and the Isles in 1993. Disregard his GAA or sv% for a second here and look at the actual happenings of 1993. He is most responsible for unseating the two-time defending Cup champs. Among the most prolific offenses in the history of the NHL we saw Healy keep them at bay long enough for David Volek to be a hero. In that series, Turgeon only played parts of one game. So spin the numbers all you want, there was never a time Savard had that luxury in his prime. Yes he had Roy in later years, but we are talking prime vs. prime here.

Now, Bannerman is most responsible for what I believe is still the highest scoring playoff series of all-time the 1985 Oilers/Hawks. It was blasphemous to be honest. You can't blame Savard there. And if you look deeper with things you'll see that Belfour was often labelled a playoff choker until 1999. I know I certainly remember that vibe he had around the NHL at the time. Now, the last time Savard contributed in a big way to a deep playoff run was 1995. He was past his prime by now but the Hawks had a good team. They probably don't beat the Red Wings anyway but Belfour didn't do them any favours either. On the surface if you choose to look at only numbers then you think Belfour did alright. Wrong. He let in three overtime goals in that Detroit series with one weak shot just inside the blueline on a harmless rush from..........Vladdy Konstantinov. That made the series 3-0 and all but impossible to come back.

So, while stats are a good guide to use for things it should always be coupled with a much deeper perspective. Did Savard ever as a Blackhawk have a goalie who out and out stole a playoff series from under the other team's nose? I don't see it. Turgeon had Healy in 1993 and at least had a capable Fuhr in the late 1990s. I'm not giving Savard an edge here or anything but for the life of me I don't know why you continue to do it for Turgeon.

Keep in mind that if you claim it to be in that range you are telling us all that you think 1980s and 1990s point totals should all be compared at face value. Also keep in mind that I did a lot of work to make concessions in Savard's favour, and in case you didn't understand all of it, in layman's terms it basically meant that even though scoring was 16% higher in his prime, he shouldn't have to outscore Turgeon by that full 16% to be his equal - this is where my 2.5% figure came from (1-4% with margin of error)

The chart I did earlier in this very post tells a lot more about where Savard was ranked and how he was revered during his time in the NHL in comparison to Turgeon. You over analyze things too much and rely on them too heavily as if it is the be all and end all. The eye test favours Savard. He outscored his peers by a higher percentage and in more seasons than Turgeon and he didn't need adjusted points to make it look better or get extra brownie points for missed time just because of a possible "projection". I'll take Savard if I need a late goal, I'll take Savard for a guy that gets a cluster of points and beats a team with his offense alone and I'll take Savard for a guy who elevated the play of Larmer to the point where a minority of posters want him in the HHOF.

 

[Al Bundy*]

I want to run two Turgeon scenarios by Big Phil:

1. If he was drafted by the Devils rather than the Sabres in 1987. How would he have meshed with Muller/MacLean/Verbeek- keep in mind that team nearly made the Cup Finals.

2. If they lose their 1992-93 season finale, draw Pittsburgh in round 1, and the Dale Hunter cheapshot never happens. Does Turgeon go in a different direction without the hit that altered his game? Not likely they make their Cinderella run, but it may have benefitted Turgeon long-term.

 

[Big Phil]

I want to run two Turgeon scenarios by Big Phil:

1. If he was drafted by the Devils rather than the Sabres in 1987. How would he have meshed with Muller/MacLean/Verbeek- keep in mind that team nearly made the Cup Finals.

2. If they lose their 1992-93 season finale, draw Pittsburgh in round 1, and the Dale Hunter cheapshot never happens. Does Turgeon go in a different direction without the hit that altered his game? Not likely they make their Cinderella run, but it may have benefitted Turgeon long-term.

Question #1. I don't know. That team did go to the conference final but they also needed an overtime goal in the last game of the regular season to get into the playoffs. I don't think much would have changed, the Sabres had a decent young core in 1987 and were a fairly good team eventually. I would think a Muller type would have given hell to Turgeon a little bit more.

Question #2. We'll never know. It would have been nice to find out. 1993 was his banner year and he did things in that season that he had never done before - or since. It was the one season that started to remove the tag of the "tin man". There isn't any proof that the Hunter hit affected him but I personally think it did on a mental and emotional level. He went back to being a perimeter player and was never the same.

 

[markrander87]

I thought this was the thread where I saw TheDevilMadeMe do a comparison on where each player finished at the center all-star position in voting but I guess not. So I'll do it, and I'll name the players Savard was behind.

Savard - 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Turgeon - 6, 7, 8, 9

Now, on the surface that is a significant advantage for Savard considering just how many fill-in votes are there for Turgeon in many of his rankings. But since you feel that Turgeon had it a lot tougher for centers in his era I think we should see who was ranked ahead of each player in their best years.

Savard 1982 - Gretzky, Trottier, Stastny, Maruk, Savard
1983 - Gretzky, Savard
1985 - Gretzky, Hawerchuk, Dionne, Sutter, Carpenter, Savard
1986 - Gretzky, Lemieux, Stastny, Savard
1988 - Lemieux, Gretzky, Savard

Turgeon 1990 - Messier, Gretzky, Yzerman, Lemieux, Lafontaine, Turgeon
1993 - Lemieux, Lafontaine, Gilmour, Oates, Yzerman, Turgeon
1997 - Lemieux, Gretzky, Forsberg, Modano, Lindros, Sundin, Sakic, Turgeon
2000 - Yzerman, Modano, Sakic, Roenick, Sundin, Sakic, Gilmour, Turgeon

.

This is a very telling post.

Take out Lemieux and Gretzky and there finishes look like:

Savard: 1,1,2,4,5

Turgeon: 4,5,6,8

 

[quoipourquoi]

We'd see how things went the last 30 games. If Lindros or Sakic were even close to his point production they would have taken those spots because of other things they brought to the game outside of offense. But again, be careful of awarding a player for things he didn't do, when he didn't do it.

So it's better to pretend that Turgeon was only the eighth/ninth best center in 1999-2000 because of award voting (which often leads to inconsistent ranking of injured players) than assume that he's capable of at least half-a-point per game for 30 games? Of course he didn't fare well in All-Star voting; there's only three votes per position. How is that a reasonable way of judging how good an injured player was? That's like saying that Chris Pronger was only the 10th best defenseman in 2001, or that Sidney Crosby was only the 5th best center in 2011.

Only Sakic was a better scorer at center and no one else was close to either of them. And if you want to keep pretending that his points-per-game would've dropped because there is a negative correlation with GP, then I'll point you to Modano (36 points in 28 games after All-Star break) and Yzerman (29 points in 25 games after All-Star break) and ask once again for you to prove how GP leads to a lesser points-per-game total.

Turgeon was a top-two center in 2000 - certainly not tied for eighth with Viktor Kozlov.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

This is a very telling post.

Take out Lemieux and Gretzky and there finishes look like:

Savard: 1,1,2,4,5

Turgeon: 4,5,6,8

I don't know how much that really "tells", depending on what you think of Trottier, Stastny, Maruk, Hawerchuk, Dionne, Sutter, and Carpenter as "contemporary competition" vs Messier, Yzerman, Lafontaine, Gilmour, Oates, Forsberg, Modano, Lindros, Sundin, and Roenick (Gretzky and Lemieux as the only "givens" excluded). Looking at the forwards/centres that come after Savard in some of those scoring races, for example, I don't see many players I'd take over most of the guys in Turgeon's list of contemporaries (in an ATD, on paper, or whatever).

 

[seventieslord]

I thought this was the thread where I saw TheDevilMadeMe do a comparison on where each player finished at the center all-star position in voting but I guess not. So I'll do it, and I'll name the players Savard was behind.

Savard - 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Turgeon - 6, 7, 8, 9

Now, on the surface that is a significant advantage for Savard considering just how many fill-in votes are there for Turgeon in many of his rankings. But since you feel that Turgeon had it a lot tougher for centers in his era I think we should see who was ranked ahead of each player in their best years.

Savard 1982 - Gretzky, Trottier, Stastny, Maruk, Savard
1983 - Gretzky, Savard
1985 - Gretzky, Hawerchuk, Dionne, Sutter, Carpenter, Savard
1986 - Gretzky, Lemieux, Stastny, Savard
1988 - Lemieux, Gretzky, Savard

Turgeon 1990 - Messier, Gretzky, Yzerman, Lemieux, Lafontaine, Turgeon
1993 - Lemieux, Lafontaine, Gilmour, Oates, Yzerman, Turgeon
1997 - Lemieux, Gretzky, Forsberg, Modano, Lindros, Sundin, Sakic, Turgeon
2000 - Yzerman, Modano, Sakic, Roenick, Sundin, Sakic, Gilmour, Turgeon

One thing we know for sure with these rankings, Savard put a bigger dent against his peers than Turgeon did. He also had to contend with a prime Gretzky and an early but still impossible Lemieux. Hawerchuk, Stastny, Trottier, Dionne, etc. yeah, that's pretty stiff competition not to mention Messier and Yzerman were also in the picture too.

Turgeon in three of those cases has a single vote. Almost a fill in. Maybe it was a Blues writer who knows? But either way, he didn't put a dent at all in the center position against competition that wasn't any stronger than Savard's. Remember, there was an oft injured/retired Lemieux and an older Gretzky in Turgeon's time, it wasn't as if he knew he could do no better than 2nd like in the 1980s when Savard competed against Gretzky. Those are some nice names ahead of Turgeon, but he didn't have it any harder than Savard.

You're approaching the all-time record for most missed points in a thread here. With three votes given per voter, all-star voting is a horrible way to come to a conclusion about these players (and even if it was, we would be trying to ascertain who was better overall and not dealing with the simple matter of point production, which I am) Besides, I told you I'm not interested in getting into this, it started with an argument you generated out of thin air by forgetting what we had even started talking about.

I agree with Ohashi here. The players who also had great seasons when Turgeon had a season that was potentially all-star caliber, clearly have a huge edge over Savard's contemporaries. Both competed against Gretzky and Lemieux to some degree. Trottier's last season as an elite 80 game player was 1982. So the field was wide open for Savard, until Yzerman started to explode in 1988. Turgeon had top-40 players Sakic, Yzerman, Messier, top-100 guys Gilmour, Fedorov, and Forsberg, a cinch for the top-40 if he had a full career (Lindros) and three others with extremely strong short peaks (Lafontaine, Gilmour, Oates). The Stastny/Hawerchuk duo is a little stronger than Modano/Sundin but then that's Savard's prime competition versus maybe the 11th-12 biggest worries for Turgeon.

You should be embarrassed to be pushing the opinion that the field of centers in the 80s was even close to the 90s.

See, this is where if you SAW both play like you claim you did that it wouldn't be much of a debate. I don't remember a time when Savard was in a Blackhawks uniform where a goalie stole a series for them. Healy did it for Turgeon and the Isles in 1993. Disregard his GAA or sv% for a second here and look at the actual happenings of 1993. He is most responsible for unseating the two-time defending Cup champs. Among the most prolific offenses in the history of the NHL we saw Healy keep them at bay long enough for David Volek to be a hero. In that series, Turgeon only played parts of one game. So spin the numbers all you want, there was never a time Savard had that luxury in his prime. Yes he had Roy in later years, but we are talking prime vs. prime here.

Now, Bannerman is most responsible for what I believe is still the highest scoring playoff series of all-time the 1985 Oilers/Hawks. It was blasphemous to be honest. You can't blame Savard there. And if you look deeper with things you'll see that Belfour was often labelled a playoff choker until 1999. I know I certainly remember that vibe he had around the NHL at the time. Now, the last time Savard contributed in a big way to a deep playoff run was 1995. He was past his prime by now but the Hawks had a good team. They probably don't beat the Red Wings anyway but Belfour didn't do them any favours either. On the surface if you choose to look at only numbers then you think Belfour did alright. Wrong. He let in three overtime goals in that Detroit series with one weak shot just inside the blueline on a harmless rush from..........Vladdy Konstantinov. That made the series 3-0 and all but impossible to come back.

So, while stats are a good guide to use for things it should always be coupled with a much deeper perspective. Did Savard ever as a Blackhawk have a goalie who out and out stole a playoff series from under the other team's nose? I don't see it. Turgeon had Healy in 1993 and at least had a capable Fuhr in the late 1990s. I'm not giving Savard an edge here or anything but for the life of me I don't know why you continue to do it for Turgeon.

wow, so let me get this straight, Healy played his best in the Pittsburgh series, in which Turgeon didn't even play, and this means Turgeon received good goaltending?

It's also quite foolish to pretend like even if you were right and Healy managed to post extremely mediocre numbers in a playoff in which he was actually stellar, that this somehow refutes all the work I did above. It is one season; it's 10% of Turgeon's playoff career, it has a proportional impact on the career average the table generates. Same with Bannerman for Savard. There's nothing wrong with the way the data is presented, it is correct. It's a 20 sv% point difference, nothing you can say can change that.

I'm embarrased for you that we are still on this topic. If I were you, long ago I would have said "yes, obviously Turgeon had crappier goaltending in the playoffs. The numbers clearly demonstrate that. But I would expect a great player to transcend this crappy goaltending and find a way to win a playoff round" - you'd be wrong, but at least it would just be a wrong opinion and not a complete avoidance of fact!

The chart I did earlier in this very post tells a lot more about where Savard was ranked and how he was revered during his time in the NHL in comparison to Turgeon. You over analyze things too much and rely on them too heavily as if it is the be all and end all. The eye test favours Savard. He outscored his peers by a higher percentage and in more seasons than Turgeon and he didn't need adjusted points to make it look better or get extra brownie points for missed time just because of a possible "projection". I'll take Savard if I need a late goal, I'll take Savard for a guy that gets a cluster of points and beats a team with his offense alone and I'll take Savard for a guy who elevated the play of Larmer to the point where a minority of posters want him in the HHOF.

You have a problem with answering questions, don't you?

Let's see how you do with fill-in-the-blanks.

I think they are very close offensively because after accounting for all factors to the best of my ability I see the actual difference separating them to be 1-4%. Phil thinks they are not close offensively at all, and sees the difference separating them to be about ____%.

Just man up and answer it.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

I definitely prefer Savard over Turgeon based on his creativity, natural ability to carry a team when the opportunity presented and his flair. But I also believe these two players are viewed through vastly different lenses. Savard was chosen 3rd overall in 1980 while Turgeon was chosen first overall in 1987. These respective draft spots carry much different expectations. Turgeon will forever be compared to Lafleur, Lemieux, Crosby and other extremely successful first overall selections that led their teams to SC's. Savard, at least in my mind, is remembered as the player who should have been chosen first overall, but did pretty damn good for a third overall selection (I still wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat screaming for Irving Grundman's head). There's more. Sakic was chosen 18th overall in 1987 further tarnishing Turgeon's legacy. Need I say more. These are the main reasons Turgeon is remembered as a point collector.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Just a comment on the 7 consecutive years vs 7 random years in a player's career.I think having consecutive seasons is superior because it gives your team a window of opportunity where you know you can count on the player for sure.It's also harder to do things consecutively without taking a break in between.

Not really related to the Savard-Turgeon discussion , speaking in generalities here.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Just a comment on the 7 consecutive years vs 7 random years in a player's career.I think having consecutive seasons is superior because it gives your team a window of opportunity where you know you can count on the player for sure.It's also harder to do things consecutively without taking a break in between.

But that's only in retrospect. I don't see how it's superior.

 

[Big Phil]

This is a very telling post.

Take out Lemieux and Gretzky and there finishes look like:

Savard: 1,1,2,4,5

Turgeon: 4,5,6,8

That isn't lost on me, believe me

So it's better to pretend that Turgeon was only the eighth/ninth best center in 1999-2000 because of award voting (which often leads to inconsistent ranking of injured players) than assume that he's capable of at least half-a-point per game for 30 games? Of course he didn't fare well in All-Star voting; there's only three votes per position. How is that a reasonable way of judging how good an injured player was? That's like saying that Chris Pronger was only the 10th best defenseman in 2001, or that Sidney Crosby was only the 5th best center in 2011.

Only Sakic was a better scorer at center and no one else was close to either of them. And if you want to keep pretending that his points-per-game would've dropped because there is a negative correlation with GP, then I'll point you to Modano (36 points in 28 games after All-Star break) and Yzerman (29 points in 25 games after All-Star break) and ask once again for you to prove how GP leads to a lesser points-per-game total.

Turgeon was a top-two center in 2000 - certainly not tied for eighth with Viktor Kozlov.

Except he wasn't. And yes you need to judge a player based on what he did accomplish in said season. In 2000 if everybody plays 82 games Sakic is projected to have the most points at center followed by Turgeon and not very far at all behind that is Lindros. Now, if Lindros is anywhere from 5-10 points behind Turgeon he's going to snag that 2nd team all-star spot. He did in 1996 when three other centers outpointed him and that's just based on his all around game and the force that he was. So if we're going to give the benefit of the doubt to Turgeon, let's do it for everyone shall we?

Turgeon's season is sort of like Modano's 1997-'98 season. Everyone stops short at what might have been without Marchment's hit. Granted it was only November when Modano got kneed but he was certainly a leading Hart candidate at the time. Yet there were several centers who had a better year than him. Could he have surpassed them? Yeah, but focus on the word "could" for a second. Once you say that word you're fishing a bit.

And while we're at it, Crosby WAS only about the 5th best center in 2011. He played 41 games and got clocked. He had 66 points and it was being compared to very deservingly like Jagr's 1999 season. But he didn't play a full season, and I wish he did. There were 41 games where he did not help his team at all. Henrik, Stamkos, all had better years at center. Probably Toews as well. Why? Because they were there for their team the whole season. And other than Toews, they outscored Crosby by a significant margin. Henrik had 9 more assists than Crosby had points. Give credit where credit is due. Applaud Turgeon's 1993 season, not the ones where he didn't contribute to 40% of his team's games.

 

[Big Phil]

You're approaching the all-time record for most missed points in a thread here. With three votes given per voter, all-star voting is a horrible way to come to a conclusion about these players (and even if it was, we would be trying to ascertain who was better overall and not dealing with the simple matter of point production, which I am) Besides, I told you I'm not interested in getting into this, it started with an argument you generated out of thin air by forgetting what we had even started talking about.

So why do we bother even bringing up the all-star nods if it means nothing. In 20 years we are going to look back and see that Malkin was a 1st team all-star in 2011 while Stamkos (presumably) is the 2nd team all-star. That's important to know who the writers who had just witnessed that particular season revered more. If the all-star nods favoured Turgeon considerably like they do Savard would you feel the same way?

I agree with Ohashi here. The players who also had great seasons when Turgeon had a season that was potentially all-star caliber, clearly have a huge edge over Savard's contemporaries. Both competed against Gretzky and Lemieux to some degree. Trottier's last season as an elite 80 game player was 1982. So the field was wide open for Savard, until Yzerman started to explode in 1988. Turgeon had top-40 players Sakic, Yzerman, Messier, top-100 guys Gilmour, Fedorov, and Forsberg, a cinch for the top-40 if he had a full career (Lindros) and three others with extremely strong short peaks (Lafontaine, Gilmour, Oates). The Stastny/Hawerchuk duo is a little stronger than Modano/Sundin but then that's Savard's prime competition versus maybe the 11th-12 biggest worries for Turgeon.

You should be embarrassed to be pushing the opinion that the field of centers in the 80s was even close to the 90s

Actually Trottier was a 2nd team all-star in 1984 again. He had 111 points in 68 games. After around 1986 he was no longer the offensive threat anymore, not 1982 like you claimed. So he certainly was a credible peer of Savard's for a while.

Your claim that the field was wide open for Savard from 1982-'88 is false. It was not easy to garner all-star nods then either. Which is why Stastny doesn't have any at all in the 1980s. By the way, it is false to compare Modano/Sundin to Stastny at the top of his game. Stastny on one occasion had more points than anyone in a season not named Gretzky. Modano and Sundin were durable point a game buffs who are best known for their consistency, not their peak value. They never came close to Stastny at his best. Bringing their names up isn't all that different than bringing Bernie Federko's name up for Savard. He was normally just consistent, but rarely a serious threat.

Between 1982 and 1988 you are forgetting Dionne's still very elite years, I already mentioned Hawerchuk and Trottier and Hawerchuk was very much on the same page as Stastny. There was Lemieux as early as 1986. Messier was there the WHOLE time which you conveniently forgot. You add Messier in the 1990s but forget that he was an Oiler in the 1980s? There were also peak years from Gilmour, Pederson, Maruk.

Starting in 1985-'86 all the way to 1990 the first and second team all-stars at center were Gretzky and Mario or the other way around. 1990 was the only time another player (Messier) got in there. So how was it smooth sailing for Savard?

The key here is Gretzky. You entered the season knowing you wouldn't get any better than a 2nd team all-star. Gretzky was good but not infallible during Turgeon's time. Lemieux had 5 seasons once Turgeon got good when he played enough games to make an impact, the he retired. It was more smooth sailing for centers from 1997-'01 than any time in Savard's prime.

Gretzky alone in the 1980s makes up for two of the normal centers Turgeon had to compete with - at least. I haven't forgotten how utterly dominant he was which is why you can never take the 1980s lightly for the competition either. Does it trump Turgeon's competition? No, because overall I don't think it was any harder/easier.

wow, so let me get this straight, Healy played his best in the Pittsburgh series, in which Turgeon didn't even play, and this means Turgeon received good goaltending?

It's also quite foolish to pretend like even if you were right and Healy managed to post extremely mediocre numbers in a playoff in which he was actually stellar, that this somehow refutes all the work I did above. It is one season; it's 10% of Turgeon's playoff career, it has a proportional impact on the career average the table generates. Same with Bannerman for Savard. There's nothing wrong with the way the data is presented, it is correct. It's a 20 sv% point difference, nothing you can say can change that.

I'm embarrased for you that we are still on this topic. If I were you, long ago I would have said "yes, obviously Turgeon had crappier goaltending in the playoffs. The numbers clearly demonstrate that. But I would expect a great player to transcend this crappy goaltending and find a way to win a playoff round" - you'd be wrong, but at least it would just be a wrong opinion and not a complete avoidance of fact!

This portion of the argument is starting to get silly. I've been on these boards for almost 10 years and I believe this board in particular knows the history of the game as well as anywhere on the net. Yet in all that time I have never once heard that Savard benefitted from strong goaltending while he was on the Hawks. This is really news to me. This isn't to say that Turgeon had Vezina winners on his team either, but neither man had elite goalies behind them carrying the load. Adjust all you want till the cows come home but where the heck were you in the 1980s? Savard was the "man" on that team and if the Hawks had better goaltending they'd have been in better shape. It was mediocre.

That being said the Healy example for Turgeon shows you that without Healy's heroics Turgeon isn't in the third round. It doesn't matter anyway, but that is an example of a goalie who did steal a series for Turgeon.

I'll stick to my original theory, neither player had the gift of strong goaltending in their prime but if I had to pick a goalie on my side who do you want, a late 1990s Fuhr or Bannerman? So really, this argument does nothing in Turgeon's favour at all.

You have a problem with answering questions, don't you?

Let's see how you do with fill-in-the-blanks.

I think they are very close offensively because after accounting for all factors to the best of my ability I see the actual difference separating them to be 1-4%. Phil thinks they are not close offensively at all, and sees the difference separating them to be about ____%.

Just man up and answer it

12-15%. Based on their totals relative to their peers, their finishes relative to league scoring, their PPG in comparison to other superstars of their time and the ability to control the pace of the game better, which Savard did. As a sidebar, when I looked at the stats for Nicholls and Turgeon I didn't see a whole lot of seperation but maintain that Turgeon was better offensively based on the numbers AND what we saw on the ice. He was more central to his team than Nicholls. But while I'm at it, I am going to apply the same logic to Savard vs. Turgeon. Savard controlled the game better while he was on the ice, so I'm being fair with both comparisons. And I saw them all from beginning to end.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Except he wasn't. And yes you need to judge a player based on what he did accomplish in said season. In 2000 if everybody plays 82 games Sakic is projected to have the most points at center followed by Turgeon and not very far at all behind that is Lindros. Now, if Lindros is anywhere from 5-10 points behind Turgeon he's going to snag that 2nd team all-star spot. He did in 1996 when three other centers outpointed him and that's just based on his all around game and the force that he was. So if we're going to give the benefit of the doubt to Turgeon, let's do it for everyone shall we?

Turgeon was on pace for 104 points in 82 games. Lindros was on pace for 88 points in 82 games. How is that "not very far at all behind?" In 1995-96, Lindros had the second-best points-per-game among forwards. That was not the case in 2000. Did you even look at their points-per-game numbers in 2000 before arguing this point?

Turgeon's season is sort of like Modano's 1997-'98 season. Everyone stops short at what might have been without Marchment's hit. Granted it was only November when Modano got kneed but he was certainly a leading Hart candidate at the time. Yet there were several centers who had a better year than him. Could he have surpassed them? Yeah, but focus on the word "could" for a second. Once you say that word you're fishing a bit.

Actually, I'd say Modano's 1997-98 season was more like Turgeon's 1997-98 season, where their 1.13 points-per-game numbers were second in their position to Forsberg. But we're not going to talk about that, because according to All-Star voting, there were at least 12 centers better than Turgeon, right?

And while we're at it, Crosby WAS only about the 5th best center in 2011. He played 41 games and got clocked. He had 66 points and it was being compared to very deservingly like Jagr's 1999 season. But he didn't play a full season, and I wish he did. There were 41 games where he did not help his team at all. Henrik, Stamkos, all had better years at center. Probably Toews as well. Why? Because they were there for their team the whole season. And other than Toews, they outscored Crosby by a significant margin. Henrik had 9 more assists than Crosby had points. Give credit where credit is due. Applaud Turgeon's 1993 season, not the ones where he didn't contribute to 40% of his team's games.

You see, I look at how good of a player they actually are. Saying that Crosby is the fifth-best center is arbitrary. He was the best until someone hurt him, period. You're trying to compare GP to talent, which is akin to saying that a rock is heavier than a string is long.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The amount of credit being assigned for shoulda woulda coulda in this thread is pretty huge.

As we've seen more recently with the "Can Stamkos hit 70 goals", Ovechkin's all but forgotten half season, and Crosby's now mythical and legendary half season... lots of things can change when you play a full season.

Turgeon was a fabulously talented and smart player.. he didn't always apply himself and he got hurt a lot.

He still had a great career but those injuries cost him a chance at more recognition because the accolades generally aren't given out for what might have been..

 

[BraveCanadian]

You see, I look at how good of a player they actually are. Saying that Crosby is the fifth-best center is arbitrary. He was the best until someone hurt him, period. You're trying to compare GP to talent, which is akin to saying that a rock is heavier than a string is long.

You're on the other extreme of this scale, however.

You can't be the best player when you can't play.

 

[quoipourquoi]

You can't be the best player when you can't play.

Yes, you can. You're still the best player; you're just injured.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Yes, you can. You're still the best player; you're just injured.

Prove it.

Oh, yeah, that must be the problem.

 

[pluppe]

Prove it.

Oh, yeah, that must be the problem.

I see your point but I think it´s a bit black and white. Let´s say I ask you, January 20th 1993, "who is the best player in the game"? What would you answer?

 

[BraveCanadian]

I see your point but I think it´s a bit black and white. Let´s say I ask you, January 20th 1993, "who is the best player in the game"? What would you answer?

Doug Gilmour. That's easy.