Pierre Turgeon

[pluppe]

Doug Gilmour. That's easy.

Touché.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Prove it.

Oh, yeah, that must be the problem.

I think the bigger problem is that you just asked for "proof" of something that is, by nature, a subjective evaluation. But if you ask me, I think Bobby Orr was the best player in 1975-76. I wouldn't give him a Hart. I wouldn't give him an All-Star vote. I wouldn't put him up for the Norris. But I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend that he wasn't the best player just because he was too hurt to play.

And sure, answer with "Doug Gilmour." But if you don't get my point that injured players don't become worse than anyone with a few GPs to their name, then you're just actively trying not to see things from the perspective that believes that talented players are still talented when out-of-the-lineup.

I'm not trying to retro-actively submit Turgeon for an award, but I'm also not going to pretend that he wasn't really, really, really good in 2000. It doesn't matter to me that he wasn't an All-Star; I know what his level of play was that year, and I'm not going to look back at his career and say that he was only the 8th best Center that year just because someone injured him at some point and the voters didn't want to name him as one of their three picks at the position. When you do something like that, you're more or less taking an election result - that is always influenced by GP, since voters get just three picks - as a direct measure of talent.

 

[seventieslord]

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

Just two centers in the league outscored him by more than 11 points. A whole bunch outscored him by 1-11 points while playing 25-42 more games. The formula for hoc much they helped their teams while playing is a lot more complicated than “let’s just look at their point totals, because you aren’t helping if you’re not playing.†Crosby helped his team more than any center in 2001 except Sedin and Stamkos.

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?

Because we’re not talking about all-star nods, we’re talking about what is mostly a few scattered 3rd place votes. I can’t believe you don’t see how meaningless that is.

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.

….so was he an elite 80-game player, then?

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.

So you’re saying Trottier was an elite 80 game player?.... Dionne was an 80 game threat just three times at the same time as Savard… Messier was a LW and then had two injury riddled seasons as a center…. The only thing you’re right about here is that the field opened up starting in the 1998 season, but that’s when Turgeon started being one of the highest scorers in the league for 2/3-3/4 of a season at a time.

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’re right that it’s starting to get silly. This must be really embarrassing for you. No matter how many times I try to tell you what I am NOT arguing, you go ahead and pretend that I am anyway. I never said Savard benefitted from strong goaltending! Only that he received significantly better performances than Turgeon. Of course, you have to pretend I am saying something incorrect here, or you’d have nothing to argue against…

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.

So, the difference in their per-game production in their best seasons is just 12.5% and the 80s were obviously a lot easier to score in, to a certain degree, but let’s just sweep that part under the rug and pretend that the â€real†difference is 12-15%. Forget about credibility, Phil…

 

[WingsFan95]

I don't think he's a Hall of Famer.

Good in the playoffs and nice point production but nothing makes him a Hall of Famer.

 

[Big Phil]

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?

Well its because I don't have a crystal ball to project what they would end up with. I know if they ended up close in points the advantage would have gone to Lindros. People forget just how dominant his game could be when he was healthy and just how Turgeon's game was viewed by many. Lindros played 52 games in 1996-'97 and had 79 points. Turgeon played 52 games and had 66 points in 1999-'00. Lindros finished 9th in Hart voting and actually had a couple 2nd place votes. This tells you what people thought about his overall dominance. So in this case I would try to go beyond strictly numbers - or potential numbers.

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?

Fine, you take Turgeon on your team and I'll take Modano as my top center. Their points per game are equal in a partial season so they are equal right?

I'll tell you one thing, healthy or not, I can probably name about 10 centers in the NHL I'd pick on my team over Turgeon in 1998.

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.

No, definitely not trying to compare games played to talent. But Lemieux certainly didn't have as good of a regular season as Oates did in 1991. However, if healthy was Mario better? Of course. The key word is "if" though. As it stands, Oates had a better year. This isn't rocket science. Orr probably wins the Norris in 1976 if his knees aren't shot over Potvin. But what do you want Orr for 20 games or Potvin for a full year and 98 points? A given.

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..

Oh how I've tried to teach people this on here.............

 

[Big Phil]

Just two centers in the league outscored him by more than 11 points. A whole bunch outscored him by 1-11 points while playing 25-42 more games. The formula for hoc much they helped their teams while playing is a lot more complicated than “let’s just look at their point totals, because you aren’t helping if you’re not playing.†Crosby helped his team more than any center in 2001 except Sedin and Stamkos.

Sidney Crosby isn't on trial here, but since it was brought up he did only play half a season. He wasn't involved in the other 41 games. I wish he were personally because he could have had a season for the ages. But he didn't. Give me what Stamkos, Sedin and Toews accomplished in 2011 and for that matter. Like it or not, they contributed to their teams more than Crosby did. All 4 of those guys finished higher than Crosby in not only Hart voting but in all-star voting at center. It was justified. For sure I want a healthy Crosby on my team over any of them healthy, but I want those guys over a 41 game Crosby. Crosby finished in 15th place in Hart voting with just one 3rd place finish so take it for what its worth. Kesler won the Selke, and Toews finished 2nd in Selke voting. 2011 was not that long ago and I can certainly confirm that the voting reflected on how I perceived the season.

Let's take this up a notch, would Mario have even been in the running for the Hart in 1993 if he'd have never come back from cancer? He would have finished the season with 104 points in 40 games. He wouldn't have cracked the top 5.

The main question is this, how can you be valuable to your team when you aren't playing in half of them?

Because we’re not talking about all-star nods, we’re talking about what is mostly a few scattered 3rd place votes. I can’t believe you don’t see how meaningless that is.

Savard had years where he did a lot better than just "scattered third place votes". You are thinking of Turgeon's track record

….so was he an elite 80-game player, then?

Up until the mid 1980s he was still a good offensive threat. He was a 2nd team all-star in 1984 with 68 games if that tells you something about Trottier.

So you’re saying Trottier was an elite 80 game player?.... Dionne was an 80 game threat just three times at the same time as Savard… Messier was a LW and then had two injury riddled seasons as a center…. The only thing you’re right about here is that the field opened up starting in the 1998 season, but that’s when Turgeon started being one of the highest scorers in the league for 2/3-3/4 of a season at a time.

Dionne till about 1986 or so which covers a chunk of Savard's prime. Gretzky the whole time. Stastny the whole time. Hawerchuk the whole time. Lemieux from 1985-'86 onwards. Yzerman from 1987-'88 on. Trottier till the mid 1980s. Messier specifically from 1986-'87 as a center with full seasons. Then there are spike players like in any other era who had big years at center. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't kick those guys off my team. There is rarely a time in NHL history when the center position wasn't strong, the 1980s are no different.

You’re right that it’s starting to get silly. This must be really embarrassing for you. No matter how many times I try to tell you what I am NOT arguing, you go ahead and pretend that I am anyway. I never said Savard benefitted from strong goaltending! Only that he received significantly better performances than Turgeon. Of course, you have to pretend I am saying something incorrect here, or you’d have nothing to argue against…

Except that's wildly inaccurate as well. Savard didn't have significantly better performances than Turgeon from his goalies. I tried showing you that but instead of re-hashing that I prefer to put the onus on you as to when Savard got much better goaltending as a Hawk than Turgeon in his prime.

So, the difference in their per-game production in their best seasons is just 12.5% and the 80s were obviously a lot easier to score in, to a certain degree, but let’s just sweep that part under the rug and pretend that the “real†difference is 12-15%. Forget about credibility, Phil…

Well you keep clinging on the per game thing rather than what actually happened in full seasons over their career which favours Savard considerably. But whatever. Even if you adjust that 12.5% that you came up with, Savard still has the advantage from other things that I mentioned in the other poll. He controlled the pace of the game more when he was on the ice. He elevated the play of his teammates more. He was more dangerous. Those attributes alone would make up for any adjusted stats you throw out.

 

[seventieslord]

I don't think he's a Hall of Famer.

Good in the playoffs and nice point production but nothing makes him a Hall of Famer.

I Agree.

Oh how I've tried to teach people this on here.............

How arrogant…

Sidney Crosby isn't on trial here, but since it was brought up he did only play half a season. He wasn't involved in the other 41 games. I wish he were personally because he could have had a season for the ages. But he didn't. Give me what Stamkos, Sedin and Toews accomplished in 2011 and for that matter. Like it or not, they contributed to their teams more than Crosby did. All 4 of those guys finished higher than Crosby in not only Hart voting but in all-star voting at center. It was justified. For sure I want a healthy Crosby on my team over any of them healthy, but I want those guys over a 41 game Crosby. Crosby finished in 15th place in Hart voting with just one 3rd place finish so take it for what its worth. Kesler won the Selke, and Toews finished 2nd in Selke voting. 2011 was not that long ago and I can certainly confirm that the voting reflected on how I perceived the season.

Let's take this up a notch, would Mario have even been in the running for the Hart in 1993 if he'd have never come back from cancer? He would have finished the season with 104 points in 40 games. He wouldn't have cracked the top 5.

The main question is this, how can you be valuable to your team when you aren't playing in half of them?

I won’t even begin to try to explain this part. Proper analysis of numbers has already proven to do nothing but bounce off the outside of your bubble.

Up until the mid 1980s he was still a good offensive threat. He was a 2nd team all-star in 1984 with 68 games if that tells you something about Trottier.

………sooooo, not an elite 80 game threat, like I said?

Dionne till about 1986 or so which covers a chunk of Savard's prime. Gretzky the whole time. Stastny the whole time. Hawerchuk the whole time. Lemieux from 1985-'86 onwards. Yzerman from 1987-'88 on. Trottier till the mid 1980s. Messier specifically from 1986-'87 as a center with full seasons. Then there are spike players like in any other era who had big years at center. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't kick those guys off my team. There is rarely a time in NHL history when the center position wasn't strong, the 1980s are no different.

…..I’m embarrassed for you, Phil.

Except that's wildly inaccurate as well. Savard didn't have significantly better performances than Turgeon from his goalies. I tried showing you that but instead of re-hashing that I prefer to put the onus on you as to when Savard got much better goaltending as a Hawk than Turgeon in his prime.

I already told you what the difference was in their prime and it’s the same as what it was when full career numbers are analyzed. This is nothing more than a complete disregarding of the facts on your part.

Well you keep clinging on the per game thing rather than what actually happened in full seasons over their career which favours Savard considerably. But whatever. Even if you adjust that 12.5% that you came up with, Savard still has the advantage from other things that I mentioned in the other poll. He controlled the pace of the game more when he was on the ice. He elevated the play of his teammates more. He was more dangerous. Those attributes alone would make up for any adjusted stats you throw out.

I’m not “clinging†to any per game thing. You know Savard missed some games in his best 9 seasons too, don’t you? The GP sample sizes we are talking about here are the same: 660 games for Savard and 659 for Turgeon… whoops, hey?

I didn’t come up with the 12.5% thing. That’s the actual raw difference in their points per game.

If Savard was more critical to the offense or whatever, then there would be some sort of numerical proof, like in how many of his team’s goals he scored a point on. But as I already showed, there is simply no difference between the two in that regard. People like you just want to believe Savard’s points somehow meant more because he’s a romanticized 80s hero. The fact that you think the offensive difference between the two is actually more than the raw era-influenced difference between them, is all the proof anyone should need that you’re heavily biased in favour of the 1980s or deliberately arguing disingenuously.

Throwing out words like “dangerous†and “elevating teammates†is something anyone can do without any numerical proof. Savard had Steve Larmer next to him for almost every game in his best 9 seasons; pretending this didn’t have something to do with the offensive edge that ultimately shakes out to be about 2.5% is putting blinders on. I did so generously but it’s obvious that it was beneficial to Savard.

Or was Larmer no better than Derek King and Benoit Hogue and Savard just made him a PPG player throughout the 80s?

 

[Big Phil]

I won’t even begin to try to explain this part. Proper analysis of numbers has already proven to do nothing but bounce off the outside of your bubble.

Yet a legion of hockey writers who had just witnessed that particular season didn't feel Crosby was more valuable than those 4 other centermen who played significant more time than him. It isn't as if this happened in 1961, it happened last year which I assume you were watching the NHL then. Crosby was dominant in 41 games, but he wasn't THAT dominant in those games where I would say he outperformed guys who outpointed him and played a full season helping their team. You would?

………sooooo, not an elite 80 game threat, like I said?

What are you talking about? Trottier missed 12 games and was still a 2nd team all-star over Stastny in 1984. I'd say the guy was a pretty good threat for part of Savard's prime. And yes, an "80" game threat for sure considering he did it in 68.

…..I’m embarrassed for you, Phil.

Well you're obviously one of the type on these boards that thinks the NHL didn't exist until the 1990s. I've asked you your age and you didn't say anything. I swear I saw a post a long time ago that said you were born in 1987. Maybe I am wrong, but if I am then correct me. Because to tell you the truth, I have been providing the stats at my disposal along with plenty of eyewitness accounts and the ability to know what the mood was surrounding those players while they played. You have never said anything regarding that. Not even.........."Yeah I saw Savard in the 1980s, he wasn't all that incredible he was overrated." So were you even alive to see Savard play in his prime?

Either way, say what you want, but the 1980s had some scary top end talent at the center position whether you want to see that or not.

I already told you what the difference was in their prime and it’s the same as what it was when full career numbers are analyzed. This is nothing more than a complete disregarding of the facts on your part.

You ought to have seen the 1985 semi final. Think how bad Fleury has looked in the first three games of the Pens/Flyers series. That was pretty much Bannerman. Not to mention never being a difference maker in the postseason to start with. You got to get this through your thick skull, Savard did not have the advantage of goaltending vs. Turgeon when comparing their primes. Savard didn't get Roy until he was on the decline. Turgeon actually had a capable Fuhr in his prime. But I won't even go as far as saying Turgeon had the advantage because BOTH men didn't exactly have Vezina winners backstopping them.

I’m not “clinging” to any per game thing. You know Savard missed some games in his best 9 seasons too, don’t you? The GP sample sizes we are talking about here are the same: 660 games for Savard and 659 for Turgeon… whoops, hey?

I didn’t come up with the 12.5% thing. That’s the actual raw difference in their points per game.

If Savard was more critical to the offense or whatever, then there would be some sort of numerical proof, like in how many of his team’s goals he scored a point on. But as I already showed, there is simply no difference between the two in that regard. People like you just want to believe Savard’s points somehow meant more because he’s a romanticized 80s hero. The fact that you think the offensive difference between the two is actually more than the raw era-influenced difference between them, is all the proof anyone should need that you’re heavily biased in favour of the 1980s or deliberately arguing disingenuously

.

Well, Savard missed some time too, yes, but he didn't miss much time until 1988. He strung together consecutive elite seasons year after year and that is more difficult than doing it in between injury plagued or so-so years.

There actually is some sort of numerical proof that Savard was more central to his team's success than Turgeon. Other than the eyewitness account from anyone that watched hockey in the 1980s and 1990s (I guess this doesn't count anymore if we have stats all of the sudden?) you can see Savard routinely outpoint the next best Hawk (Larmer) year after year at a higher clip than anything Turgeon did regularly.

1982 - Savard 119; Wilson 85
1983 - Savard 121; Larmer 90
1984 - Savard 94; Larmer 75
1985 - Savard 105; Larmer 86
1986 - Savard 116; Murray 99
1987 - Savard 90; Larmer 84
1988 - Savard 131; Larmer 89
1989 - Larmer 87; Savard 82
1990 - Larmer 90; Savard 80

1989 - Turgeon 88; Housley 70
1990 - Turgeon 106; Andreychuk 82
1991 - Hawerchuk 89; Turgeon 79
1992 - Turgeon 87; Ferraro 80
1993 - Turgeon 132; Ferraro 87
1994 - Turgeon 94; Thomas 75
1995 (Traded midseason)
1996 - Turgeon 96; Damphousse 94
1997 - Hull 82; Turgeon 74 (85 combined because of early season trade)
1998 - Hull 72; Turgeon 68
1999 - Demitra 89; Turgeon 65
2000 - Demitra 75; Turgeon 66
2001 - Turgeon 82; Young 73

So since these are the best years who do you think was more responsible for their team's offense? Turgeon did miss some time in those years, but the last two years for Savard he only was outpointed by Larmer because he missed significant time as well. I think of Larmer as a "close but no cigar" HHOF guy and Savard still outpointed him all the time. Bottom line is, you can't help your team collecting dust in the press box.

No, I don't "romanticize" about 1980s players. There are some who were worse than 1990s/2000s players but here's the kicker............there are some 1980s players that were better than some of the current crop or the 1990s crop. It's a two way street. Grant Fuhr wasn't as good as Hasek, but Billy Smith was better than Osgood. I take it on a case by case basis.

Throwing out words like “dangerous” and “elevating teammates” is something anyone can do without any numerical proof. Savard had Steve Larmer next to him for almost every game in his best 9 seasons; pretending this didn’t have something to do with the offensive edge that ultimately shakes out to be about 2.5% is putting blinders on. I did so generously but it’s obvious that it was beneficial to Savard.

Or was Larmer no better than Derek King and Benoit Hogue and Savard just made him a PPG player throughout the 80s?

Larmer was a fine player, I loved him. Savard however scored 116 points the year before Larmer got there and he always outscored him in the regular season quite often by a substantial margin. Savard was a product of himself. And yes he had a fine winger, and Wilson was a good defenseman, but Turgeon had Andreychuk, Housley, MacInnis, Pronger and Hull as well in his meaty years. But I'm not the type to penalize a guy because he had some talent around him, I just thought since you brought it up and are taking desperate measures to trivialize Savard's career that I'd mention Turgeon didn't always have scrubs supporting him either.

 

[Big Phil]

Look, 70s, I have to ask you. Can you name a season where Turgeon was a top 10 player in the NHL? Outside of 1993 (and even that cuts it a little close) I can't think of a year at all.

I can think of some for Savard but more importantly since we are discussing offense I can think of a ton of times when fans, the media, coaches would have labelled Savard among the top offensive talents in the NHL. There aren't many seasons where Turgeon was considered to be among the top offensive talents in the game. Lets say top 10 or so. His name didn't roll off people's tongues in the 1990s the way it did for Savard in the 1980s for a reason, you know?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

From the coach's and player's polls in the sticky thread. All categories where Savard and Turgeon placed

1984 Coach's Poll

• Best Skater - Paul Coffey (Denis Savard, Rick Middleton, Mike Gartner, Gilbert Perreault)
• Fastest Skater - Glenn Anderson (Mike Gartner, Denis Savard)
• Best Stickhandler - Wayne Gretzky (Rick Middleton, Denis Savard)
• Most Colorful Player - Wayne Gretzky (Denis Savard, Dave Williams)
• Most Natural Ability - Wayne Gretzky (Kent Nilsson, Denis Savard, Rick Middleton, Paul Coffey)

1990 Player's Poll
Who would you want to be on a breakaway for your team with 30 seconds left and the score tied in the 7th game of a Stanley Cup final?
M Lemieux (59), W Gretzky (12), S Yzerman (10), P Turgeon (4), T Steen (3)

Best Puckhandler
M Lemieux (37), W Gretzky (32), D Savard (17), S Yzerman (7), S Makarov (5)

Best Skater
P Coffey (53), M Messier (25), D Savard (8), M Gartner (6), P Lafontaine (4)

Best Playmaker
W Gretzky (102), M Lemieux (6), A Oates (2), S Yzerman (1), D Savard (1), D Brown (1), J Nieuwendyk (1), J Tucker (1)

1993 Coach's Poll
Most Underrated: Larry Murphy (3), Kelly Buchberger (2), Ron Francis (2), Steve Larmer (2), Doug Gilmour (1), Adam Oates (1), Steve Chiasson (1), Kevin Stevens (1), Jeremy Roenick (1), Pierre Turgeon (1), Rod Brind’Amour (1), Kirk Muller (1), Joe Juneau (1), Tony Granato (1), Mark Recchi (1)

1994 Coach's Poll
Best Stickhandler: Jaromir Jagr (5), Sergei Fedorov (4), Alexander Mogilny (4), Wayne Gretzky (3), Alexei Zhamnov (1), Pierre Turgeon (1), Sergei Nemchinov (1), Eric Lindros (1)

 

[seventieslord]

Yet a legion of hockey writers who had just witnessed that particular season didn't feel Crosby was more valuable than those 4 other centermen who played significant more time than him. It isn't as if this happened in 1961, it happened last year which I assume you were watching the NHL then. Crosby was dominant in 41 games, but he wasn't THAT dominant in those games where I would say he outperformed guys who outpointed him and played a full season helping their team. You would?

Like I said, Phil, the question of who helped their team more when one was significantly better over a smaller amount of games is one that is far too complex for me to try to answer to you. You've shown an alarmingly bad level of reading comprehension in this thread. I am not going to just defer to what a small minority of writers checked off on a ballot; the answer to the question is a statistical one.

What are you talking about? Trottier missed 12 games and was still a 2nd team all-star over Stastny in 1984. I'd say the guy was a pretty good threat for part of Savard's prime. And yes, an "80" game threat for sure considering he did it in 68.

......soooo, not 80 games, then. Like I said?

Well you're obviously one of the type on these boards that thinks the NHL didn't exist until the 1990s. I've asked you your age and you didn't say anything. I swear I saw a post a long time ago that said you were born in 1987. Maybe I am wrong, but if I am then correct me. Because to tell you the truth, I have been providing the stats at my disposal along with plenty of eyewitness accounts and the ability to know what the mood was surrounding those players while they played. You have never said anything regarding that. Not even.........."Yeah I saw Savard in the 1980s, he wasn't all that incredible he was overrated." So were you even alive to see Savard play in his prime?

Either way, say what you want, but the 1980s had some scary top end talent at the center position whether you want to see that or not.

I was born in 1981. I used to romanticize the 1980s too... then I grew up. I know very well what Savard brought to the table and the bottom line is, as exciting or "dangerous" as he was, you can judge him by his production because he was an offense only player, regardless of how you spin it. Your particular way of thinking is that 1980s totals should be compared straight up to 1990s totals. I think most people who undnerstand the numbers would laugh at that, but you're free to look at it that way. You and I won't be comparing any 80s and 90s players going forward, though, if you manage to stay off my ignore list.

You ought to have seen the 1985 semi final. Think how bad Fleury has looked in the first three games of the Pens/Flyers series. That was pretty much Bannerman. Not to mention never being a difference maker in the postseason to start with. You got to get this through your thick skull, Savard did not have the advantage of goaltending vs. Turgeon when comparing their primes. Savard didn't get Roy until he was on the decline. Turgeon actually had a capable Fuhr in his prime. But I won't even go as far as saying Turgeon had the advantage because BOTH men didn't exactly have Vezina winners backstopping them.

Phil, I am truly embarrassed to have engaged you on this topic as much as I have. I can take some solace in the fact that this conversation is here for future generations to see, and you just told me I have a "thick skull" when you are willfully ignoring facts. Not to mention when I repeatedly state my position you say "I'LL TELL YOU WHAT YOUR POSITION IS!!!!!!"

Well, Savard missed some time too, yes, but he didn't miss much time until 1988. He strung together consecutive elite seasons year after year and that is more difficult than doing it in between injury plagued or so-so years.

says who?

There actually is some sort of numerical proof that Savard was more central to his team's success than Turgeon. Other than the eyewitness account from anyone that watched hockey in the 1980s and 1990s (I guess this doesn't count anymore if we have stats all of the sudden?) you can see Savard routinely outpoint the next best Hawk (Larmer) year after year at a higher clip than anything Turgeon did regularly.

1982 - Savard 119; Wilson 85
1983 - Savard 121; Larmer 90
1984 - Savard 94; Larmer 75
1985 - Savard 105; Larmer 86
1986 - Savard 116; Murray 99
1987 - Savard 90; Larmer 84
1988 - Savard 131; Larmer 89
1989 - Larmer 87; Savard 82
1990 - Larmer 90; Savard 80

1989 - Turgeon 88; Housley 70
1990 - Turgeon 106; Andreychuk 82
1991 - Hawerchuk 89; Turgeon 79
1992 - Turgeon 87; Ferraro 80
1993 - Turgeon 132; Ferraro 87
1994 - Turgeon 94; Thomas 75
1995 (Traded midseason)
1996 - Turgeon 96; Damphousse 94
1997 - Hull 82; Turgeon 74 (85 combined because of early season trade)
1998 - Hull 72; Turgeon 68
1999 - Demitra 89; Turgeon 65
2000 - Demitra 75; Turgeon 66
2001 - Turgeon 82; Young 73

So since these are the best years who do you think was more responsible for their team's offense? Turgeon did miss some time in those years, but the last two years for Savard he only was outpointed by Larmer because he missed significant time as well. I think of Larmer as a "close but no cigar" HHOF guy and Savard still outpointed him all the time. Bottom line is, you can't help your team collecting dust in the press box.

See, this underscores your lack of statistical background. First, you are failing to recognize that the percentage difference is much more important than the raw difference in numbers. Secondly, if the point is to demonstrate who was more dangerous on the ice than their next best teammate, you should be talking about points per game. Last, most of the time you're comparing Savard to his own linemate but comparing Turgeon to the second best forward on his team, whom he almost never got to play with at even strength and was often another center. It's not even apples to oranges, it's apples to kumquats.

You are the wrong person to talk about numbers with and as soon as you give this up I won't be bothering again.

Larmer was a fine player, I loved him. Savard however scored 116 points the year before Larmer got there and he always outscored him in the regular season quite often by a substantial margin. Savard was a product of himself. And yes he had a fine winger, and Wilson was a good defenseman, but Turgeon had Andreychuk, Housley, MacInnis, Pronger and Hull as well in his meaty years. But I'm not the type to penalize a guy because he had some talent around him, I just thought since you brought it up and are taking desperate measures to trivialize Savard's career that I'd mention Turgeon didn't always have scrubs supporting him either.

You're just naming players who happened to play on the same team as him for short periods of time. Savard had Larmer for almost a decade on the same line.

 

[seventieslord]

Look, 70s, I have to ask you. Can you name a season where Turgeon was a top 10 player in the NHL? Outside of 1993 (and even that cuts it a little close) I can't think of a year at all.

I can think of some for Savard but more importantly since we are discussing offense I can think of a ton of times when fans, the media, coaches would have labelled Savard among the top offensive talents in the NHL. There aren't many seasons where Turgeon was considered to be among the top offensive talents in the game. Lets say top 10 or so. His name didn't roll off people's tongues in the 1990s the way it did for Savard in the 1980s for a reason, you know?

and we're apparently back to the part where you are putting words in my mouth, trying to tell me what my position is.

My position is that they produced at nearly an identical level. That is all. The difference in their production relative to era is about 2%. Nothing you can say can change that. You can add whatever subjective nonsense you want to this conversation - I don't care and I've never cared. Your reading comprehension has been absolutely brutal and you're starting to call me names now. Do you have anything left to say that actually addresses my real viewpoints and not the ones you've made up for me?

 

[Big Phil]

Like I said, Phil, the question of who helped their team more when one was significantly better over a smaller amount of games is one that is far too complex for me to try to answer to you. You've shown an alarmingly bad level of reading comprehension in this thread. I am not going to just defer to what a small minority of writers checked off on a ballot; the answer to the question is a statistical one.

Okay, this topic is going in left field now, but how in the world you think someone who played half a season compared to someone who contributed to their team in every game (you don't have to get a point in every game) and still outpointed that 40 game player is beyond me. I mean, Toews averaged a point a game in 2011 pretty much, do you think he still wasn't doing other things to help the team when he wasn't scoring? He was a Selke finalist for crying out loud! But whatever, its your opinion, not mine.

......soooo, not 80 games, then. Like I said?

What in the world are you even talking about?

I was born in 1981. I used to romanticize the 1980s too... then I grew up. I know very well what Savard brought to the table and the bottom line is, as exciting or "dangerous" as he was, you can judge him by his production because he was an offense only player, regardless of how you spin it. Your particular way of thinking is that 1980s totals should be compared straight up to 1990s totals. I think most people who undnerstand the numbers would laugh at that, but you're free to look at it that way. You and I won't be comparing any 80s and 90s players going forward, though, if you manage to stay off my ignore list.

Okay, no offense, but I understand your position a lot more now since you told me that. You were 9 years old the last time Savard was a Hawk. You might remember the days when he played for the Habs and did a few end to enders and spinoramas at the Forum and then of course winning the Cup in 1993 hampered for part of the playoffs. That's not the Savard the rest of us on here witnessed in the 1980s either. Savard at times was an unstoppable force out there, like a little waterbug. He did things on the ice that almost no one else in history could do. And I'll repeat, a player who controls the pace of the game better is someone more valuable when they are on the ice. Plus, you are over analyzing things way too much, Savard stood out among his peers far more than Turgeon. The offense alone shows that much if not the play on the ice.

1980s point totals are different than 1990s point totals for the most part save for the early 1990s. I don't know why you got the impression that we should be going raw totals to raw totals here, because when you cross eras, you shouldn't do that, and I haven't. I compare how he did against his contemporaries, how GOOD his contemporaries were, how the top level competition was, etc. That's how you compare eras properly in my book.

Also, I know you are past the point where you will agree with anything I said, at least publicly. But at least look at what other people say about Turgeon or Savard, even in this thread. People who, like me, remember hockey in the 1980s and can compare current players to the ones of yesteryear. I don't have nostalgia for the 1980s anymore than I do for the Flyers/Pens game the other day. Some guys in the 1980s were not as good as ones in the 1990s and vice versa. Or since you don't pay attention much to all-star nods or Hart Trophy voting when it goes against you, at least pay attention to other factors. Savard was inducted into the HHOF in his first year of eligibility. No one complained. No one to this day complains. Turgeon has been eligible for two years and isn't in. There are hoards of people who would want the HHOF disbanded if he ever got in, which I don't think he will. I'd like to think that tells you something about these two men, that there is noticeable seperation between them and their game.

And, really, the ignore list? I have never used that from the beginning. Discussing hockey is part of my life even to the ones I disagree with. If you can't do that, the HOH board is hardly the place for you. So relax..............its just a game.

Phil, I am truly embarrassed to have engaged you on this topic as much as I have. I can take some solace in the fact that this conversation is here for future generations to see, and you just told me I have a "thick skull" when you are willfully ignoring facts. Not to mention when I repeatedly state my position you say "I'LL TELL YOU WHAT YOUR POSITION IS!!!!!!"

Your position as you said in the previous post is that Savard's goalies played significantly better in his prime than Turgeon's in the postseason. This is blatantly false and you have never provided examples of a time when Savard got bailed out by his goalie in a series or when his goalie stole a series. I provided it for Turgeon on at least one example. You can either answer the clear question or not, I sure as heck don't find this to be an embarassing discussion............for me.

says who?

A coach, a GM paying you to produce year in and year out consistently, for example. There is a reason Gretzky's 8 Harts in a row or 7 scoring titles in a row look better because they were in succession.
It is always harder to repeat that performance in the season directly afterwards. Like if a team wins the Cup two years in a row it is more impressive than winning it 2 times in 5 years.

See, this underscores your lack of statistical background. First, you are failing to recognize that the percentage difference is much more important than the raw difference in numbers. Secondly, if the point is to demonstrate who was more dangerous on the ice than their next best teammate, you should be talking about points per game. Last, most of the time you're comparing Savard to his own linemate but comparing Turgeon to the second best forward on his team, whom he almost never got to play with at even strength and was often another center. It's not even apples to oranges, it's apples to kumquats.

You are the wrong person to talk about numbers with and as soon as you give this up I won't be bothering again.

You're just naming players who happened to play on the same team as him for short periods of time. Savard had Larmer for almost a decade on the same line.

Probably even more significant that the only player normally within a mile of Savard on his own team was his own linemate.

Besides, you don't have to be a linemate to give your teammate an advantage. Gretzky and Messier never played on the same line, but there is no doubt that each player opened up the ice for the other as well. The opposing team can't put their best checkers on BOTH lines. I am sure the players - the HHOFers - that Turgeon played with on the same team benefitted from him to some degree like he did from them. I am not the type to hold it against them, but in St. Louis I don't think it hurt having two HHOF defensemen on the back end.

and we're apparently back to the part where you are putting words in my mouth, trying to tell me what my position is.

My position is that they produced at nearly an identical level. That is all. The difference in their production relative to era is about 2%. Nothing you can say can change that. You can add whatever subjective nonsense you want to this conversation - I don't care and I've never cared. Your reading comprehension has been absolutely brutal and you're starting to call me names now. Do you have anything left to say that actually addresses my real viewpoints and not the ones you've made up for me?

Calling you names? But anyways.........

So, to answer the question you can't even name a season where the player you are defending was a top 10 player in the NHL? I mean, that was a direct request in my last post. Instead you babble on about how I have no reading comprehension. Well, I'll ask you again.

When was Turgeon a top 10 player in the game?
How many times was he considered among the elite offensive players in the game?

 

[seventieslord]

What in the world are you even talking about?

Not my fault you’ve forgotten… as usual.

Okay, no offense, but I understand your position a lot more now since you told me that. You were 9 years old the last time Savard was a Hawk. You might remember the days when he played for the Habs and did a few end to enders and spinoramas at the Forum and then of course winning the Cup in 1993 hampered for part of the playoffs. That's not the Savard the rest of us on here witnessed in the 1980s either. Savard at times was an unstoppable force out there, like a little waterbug. He did things on the ice that almost no one else in history could do. And I'll repeat, a player who controls the pace of the game better is someone more valuable when they are on the ice. Plus, you are over analyzing things way too much, Savard stood out among his peers far more than Turgeon. The offense alone shows that much if not the play on the ice.

1980s point totals are different than 1990s point totals for the most part save for the early 1990s. I don't know why you got the impression that we should be going raw totals to raw totals here, because when you cross eras, you shouldn't do that, and I haven't. I compare how he did against his contemporaries, how GOOD his contemporaries were, how the top level competition was, etc. That's how you compare eras properly in my book.

Also, I know you are past the point where you will agree with anything I said, at least publicly. But at least look at what other people say about Turgeon or Savard, even in this thread. People who, like me, remember hockey in the 1980s and can compare current players to the ones of yesteryear. I don't have nostalgia for the 1980s anymore than I do for the Flyers/Pens game the other day. Some guys in the 1980s were not as good as ones in the 1990s and vice versa. Or since you don't pay attention much to all-star nods or Hart Trophy voting when it goes against you, at least pay attention to other factors. Savard was inducted into the HHOF in his first year of eligibility. No one complained. No one to this day complains. Turgeon has been eligible for two years and isn't in. There are hoards of people who would want the HHOF disbanded if he ever got in, which I don't think he will. I'd like to think that tells you something about these two men, that there is noticeable seperation between them and their game.

Yes Phil, you are better than me because you’re older.....

I collected highlight videos as a kid; I saw plenty of Savard. He was nice to watch but when it comes time to actually discuss offensive values of players I don’t really give a rat’s ass who was more exciting. Production, the end result, is all that matters. If Turgeon was only 2.5% inferior to Savard in offensive production – the component of their games that contstutes the vast majority of their overall values – then the fact that there is much more than a “2.5% gap” in the overall perceptions of them is a problem that I have identified.

And yes, if the raw difference is 12% and you claim that the “real” difference is 12-15% after considering eras, then you are giving ZERO consideration to how much easier it was to score in the 1980s. Not sure how you can see that any differently. This is why it's so easy to call you out for having a pro-1980s bias.

I love how you waste about a page in every post talking about the overall perceptions of the players and/or their HHOF status and crap like that even though I have told you a dozen times by now that it was never my intention to discuss that stuff. In the link you obviously never read I said "if I have a gun to my head I choose Savard" and that has never changed but you've steadfastly dismissed the claim that their production levels were similar when every method of statistal analysis agrees that they were. It's almost like you just can't stand the indignity Savard is suffering for even being compared to the Tin Man...

and when it's shown that they produced the same, it's the same old anti-Turgeon crap you see everywhere... they must have been meaningless, non-RBI points... they were the non-teammate-elevating variety of points even though there is absolutely nothing in the numbers to support that... and people would take Savard over Turgeon, that makes his numbers better... oh, and by the way, Savard was in the hall, that makes his numbers better too...

And, really, the ignore list? I have never used that from the beginning. Discussing hockey is part of my life even to the ones I disagree with. If you can't do that, the HOH board is hardly the place for you. So relax..............its just a game.

You’ve made a mockery of everything a reasonable person would consider a guideline to fair or good faith debating. This should be fun and I’m incredulous at the tactics you’ve employed and the alarming level of obtusity you've displayed - and I suspect most of it has been deliberate. Rather than stress over your BS, you’re just getting ignored.

Your position as you said in the previous post is that Savard's goalies played significantly better in his prime than Turgeon's in the postseason. This is blatantly false and you have never provided examples of a time when Savard got bailed out by his goalie in a series or when his goalie stole a series. I provided it for Turgeon on at least one example. You can either answer the clear question or not, I sure as heck don't find this to be an embarassing discussion............for me.

You are still talking about this after all this? Remember when I asked you if you were trolling? You should have just been honest back then.

I don’t have to provide specific examples. The chart showed exactly what I wanted to show. 20 sv% points is a huge difference. I shouldn't be surprised that you have no willingness or ability to contextualize goalie numbers though, since you won't do it for offensive forwards either, apparently. At least you're equal-opportunity obtuse.... Why don't you post some GAA figures again, that'll show me!!!

And you just don’t embarrass as easily as you should.

A coach, a GM paying you to produce year in and year out consistently, for example. There is a reason Gretzky's 8 Harts in a row or 7 scoring titles in a row look better because they were in succession.
It is always harder to repeat that performance in the season directly afterwards. Like if a team wins the Cup two years in a row it is more impressive than winning it 2 times in 5 years.

All you’re telling me is “people like streaks”.

There is absolutely no reason to think that 9 good years in 9 years is better than 9 good years in 11 years. It's just a straw to grasp at.

See all the Yzerman/Sakic debates that have popped up over the years.

So, to answer the question you can't even name a season where the player you are defending was a top 10 player in the NHL?

Turgeon was a top-10 offensive player in the game in 1990, 1993, 1994, 1998 and 2000. Since we’re talking about offensive production here. Or at least I've been. A guy like Joe Thornton was 12th in scoring this year but has the track record to earn the benefit of the doubt to still be in the top-10 conversation. Basically from 1990 to 2001 Turgeon was in that conversation just like Savard was in that conversation from 1982 to 1990. But this is getting into the "rankings trap" all over again. I couldn't really care less if the same level of adjusted production was worth 8th in the 80s and just 28th in the 1990s if both contributed to winning games with the same effectiveness. You pretend quantity doesn't matter. It does.

It's pretty hard to overcome the following: Turgeon's best 9 seasons were 12.5% below Savard's in points per game, but they came in an environment that was 19.2% lower in scoring. I could just stop there and claim Turgeon is superior offensively, but since I am arguing fairly, trying to get to the bottom of this, and not just digging my heels in for the sake of it, I did a lot more work with CYM's help to show that an 80s/90s comparison is just not that simple. You can't expect the same player to score 19% more just because scoring is 19% higher. Only about half that higher scoring showed up in the top players on the leaderboards. As it turned out, Savard's "expected" advantage in points was only about 10%, leaving about 2.5% as the result of actually being better. I don't expect you to understand the work that got us to that point but the point is I split the difference in the interest of fairness and actually getting to the right answer. You've had no interest in actually working with me here. This is why you're getting ignored.

 

[Big Phil]

Not my fault you’ve forgotten… as usual.

Oh I haven't forgotten, I just don't know what point you are trying to make. Trottier outproduced guys in 1984 by playing 68 games and it is meaningless because it wasn't 80 games? It isn't as if he had 80 points, he had 111 that year.

Yes Phil, you are better than me because you’re older.....

I collected highlight videos as a kid; I saw plenty of Savard. He was nice to watch but when it comes time to actually discuss offensive values of players I don’t really give a rat’s ass who was more exciting. Production, the end result, is all that matters. If Turgeon was only 2.5% inferior to Savard in offensive production – the component of their games that contstutes the vast majority of their overall values – then the fact that there is much more than a “2.5% gap†in the overall perceptions of them is a problem that I have identified.

And yes, if the raw difference is 12% and you claim that the “real†difference is 12-15% after considering eras, then you are giving ZERO consideration to how much easier it was to score in the 1980s. Not sure how you can see that any differently. This is why it's so easy to call you out for having a pro-1980s bias.

I love how you waste about a page in every post talking about the overall perceptions of the players and/or their HHOF status and crap like that even though I have told you a dozen times by now that it was never my intention to discuss that stuff. In the link you obviously never read I said "if I have a gun to my head I choose Savard" and that has never changed but you've steadfastly dismissed the claim that their production levels were similar when every method of statistal analysis agrees that they were. It's almost like you just can't stand the indignity Savard is suffering for even being compared to the Tin Man...

and when it's shown that they produced the same, it's the same old anti-Turgeon crap you see everywhere... they must have been meaningless, non-RBI points... they were the non-teammate-elevating variety of points even though there is absolutely nothing in the numbers to support that... and people would take Savard over Turgeon, that makes his numbers better... oh, and by the way, Savard was in the hall, that makes his numbers better too...

You have never thought for a moment why there is a collective agreement on this board that Savard is a lock cinch HHOFer while no one bothers going to bat for Turgeon? That doesn't tell you that smart hockey people on here see a distinct seperation between the two? You don't have to answer but in reality, it should.

Yes, I read your charts. I don't engage in arguments if I ignore things. You aren't going to make up a chart that downgrades Turgeon though. Adjusted stats will never favour a player in a higher scoring era. I'd like to think you know this deep down and you should know I certainly am not the only one on here who thinks this way.

top 20 scoring finishes between the two:
Savard - 3, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16
Turgeon - 6, 7, 13, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20

This stat doesn't discriminate whether you cross eras or not. Give me that over adjusted stats. This chart tells me something I already knew. Savard had more high end offensive years by a decent margin. Both players would have a couple higher finishes too if not for some injuries so it evens out. This was in comparison to the NHL field. In my opinion, this is the fairest way to judge a player vs. his contemporaries.

You are still talking about this after all this? Remember when I asked you if you were trolling? You should have just been honest back then.

I don’t have to provide specific examples. The chart showed exactly what I wanted to show. 20 sv% points is a huge difference. I shouldn't be surprised that you have no willingness or ability to contextualize goalie numbers though, since you won't do it for offensive forwards either, apparently. At least you're equal-opportunity obtuse.... Why don't you post some GAA figures again, that'll show me!!!

And you just don’t embarrass as easily as you should.

Okay, you told me all I need to know. Even you can't dig up a series in Savard's prime where goaltending bailed him out. I knew my memory to start with was sharp but I was still challenging you to find a year where this happened so you could at least prove the whole "Savard had better goaltending." But you can't, and your charts are statistics that might tell half the story. When I actually was around to see hockey being played I use my memory, the eye test AND stats to back up a point. You're only using stats but I'd better stop since I'm trolling now apparently...........

Anyway, my point is proven, enough said. I gave you a fair chance.

All you’re telling me is “people like streaksâ€.

There is absolutely no reason to think that 9 good years in 9 years is better than 9 good years in 11 years. It's just a straw to grasp at.

See all the Yzerman/Sakic debates that have popped up over the years.

I'll refer to a Glen Sather quote: "I found winning the first Cup to be a relief, we finally got it over with. But I found defending the cup is harder than winning it in the first place."

I'm not trying to downgrade a more staggered career, but I do believe it is more impressive and more DIFFICULT to string together successive great years. You have more of a target on your back. Teams learn how to defend against you better. I don't know if Sakic is the best example though either, he had crazy longevity and had 100 point seasons almost 20 years apart. He had a couple valleys in his career, but he more than made up for it.

Turgeon was a top-10 offensive player in the game in 1990, 1993, 1994, 1998 and 2000. Since we’re talking about offensive production here. Or at least I've been. A guy like Joe Thornton was 12th in scoring this year but has the track record to earn the benefit of the doubt to still be in the top-10 conversation. Basically from 1990 to 2001 Turgeon was in that conversation just like Savard was in that conversation from 1982 to 1990. But this is getting into the "rankings trap" all over again. I couldn't really care less if the same level of adjusted production was worth 8th in the 80s and just 28th in the 1990s if both contributed to winning games with the same effectiveness. You pretend quantity doesn't matter. It does.

Okay, this is when it is important to also rely on your instincts and your memory in this case, not just stats. The seasons you picked are all exactly the years where Turgeon was a PPG player. That's fine, but at the time did he really have the benefit of the doubt in 2000? After a few injury riddled seasons was he even on the radar for most people at that time? He had a great "potential" season I'll admit but even in those years was he thought of to be an elite offensive talent? 1998? 2000? Or even 1990 when he broke out? Its close in 1990, but he would definitely be behind the ones he is behind in scoring that year. Nicholls is the only doubtful one. Behind him is Lafontaine, Robitaille, Coffey and because of injuries - Savard among others.

I also think that there is a large gap between how Savard was perceived in 1990 compared to Turgeon in 2000. We didn't know at the time that Savard was going to drop in production anymore than we knew Turgeon would after 2001. But at that time there was the benefit of recent history and considering Savard was routinely at the top of the charts and Turgeon wasn't do you really think people pegged him to be at Savard's level at that time. I can attest that no one would have thought that then.

I'll agree with 1993. I'll also throw in 1994, no doubt he was still on a high from the previous year and he was revered higher at that time. For argument's sake, what the heck, 1990 too. But 1998 and 2000 considering there were several years since the last time we had seen Turgeon as an elite offensive player? I personally don't think so. He wasn't even on the radar for the 1998 Olympics either.

And if you asked people at the end of those seasons who the most offensive players in the game were it would probably look like this in random order:

1998 - Jagr, Bure, Forsberg, Sakic, Lindros, Kariya, Selanne, probably still Gretzky, Leclair, Palffy (hey I stuck up for the guy), probably even Francis. Not to mention others who would likely have been revered higher: Modano, Sundin, Hull and possibly even Oates. Maybe Fleury? Maybe Yzerman still?

2000 - Jagr, Bure, Selanne, Kariya, Selanne, Forsberg, Sakic, Lindros, Modano, Leclair and possibly even Recchi and Yzerman. Turgeon is a bubble guy at best in that case and this was a weak season for forwards in the NHL. The guy wasn't really on the radar by then.

To be fair, if you compare this same logic to Savard you'd have several more years among the top offensive players in the game. There are times when the mood and the opinions at the NHL at the time tell more about a player than actual stats.

 

[seventieslord]

You have never thought for a moment why there is a collective agreement on this board that Savard is a lock cinch HHOFer while no one bothers going to bat for Turgeon? That doesn't tell you that smart hockey people on here see a distinct seperation between the two? You don't have to answer but in reality, it should.

Yes, I read your charts. I don't engage in arguments if I ignore things. You aren't going to make up a chart that downgrades Turgeon though. Adjusted stats will never favour a player in a higher scoring era. I'd like to think you know this deep down and you should know I certainly am not the only one on here who thinks this way.

top 20 scoring finishes between the two:
Savard - 3, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16
Turgeon - 6, 7, 13, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20

This stat doesn't discriminate whether you cross eras or not. Give me that over adjusted stats. This chart tells me something I already knew. Savard had more high end offensive years by a decent margin. Both players would have a couple higher finishes too if not for some injuries so it evens out. This was in comparison to the NHL field. In my opinion, this is the fairest way to judge a player vs. his contemporaries.

and you've come full circle, bravo. Rankings suck. This is why you use them. This is why you're being ignored.

Okay, you told me all I need to know. Even you can't dig up a series in Savard's prime where goaltending bailed him out. I knew my memory to start with was sharp but I was still challenging you to find a year where this happened so you could at least prove the whole "Savard had better goaltending." But you can't, and your charts are statistics that might tell half the story. When I actually was around to see hockey being played I use my memory, the eye test AND stats to back up a point. You're only using stats but I'd better stop since I'm trolling now apparently...........

Anyway, my point is proven, enough said. I gave you a fair chance.

wow... bye.

I'll refer to a Glen Sather quote: "I found winning the first Cup to be a relief, we finally got it over with. But I found defending the cup is harder than winning it in the first place."

I'm not trying to downgrade a more staggered career, but I do believe it is more impressive and more DIFFICULT to string together successive great years. You have more of a target on your back. Teams learn how to defend against you better. I don't know if Sakic is the best example though either, he had crazy longevity and had 100 point seasons almost 20 years apart. He had a couple valleys in his career, but he more than made up for it.

....so people like streaks then. good to know.

Okay, this is when it is important to also rely on your instincts and your memory in this case, not just stats. The seasons you picked are all exactly the years where Turgeon was a PPG player. That's fine, but at the time did he really have the benefit of the doubt in 2000? After a few injury riddled seasons was he even on the radar for most people at that time? He had a great "potential" season I'll admit but even in those years was he thought of to be an elite offensive talent? 1998? 2000? Or even 1990 when he broke out? Its close in 1990, but he would definitely be behind the ones he is behind in scoring that year. Nicholls is the only doubtful one. Behind him is Lafontaine, Robitaille, Coffey and because of injuries - Savard among others.

I also think that there is a large gap between how Savard was perceived in 1990 compared to Turgeon in 2000. We didn't know at the time that Savard was going to drop in production anymore than we knew Turgeon would after 2001. But at that time there was the benefit of recent history and considering Savard was routinely at the top of the charts and Turgeon wasn't do you really think people pegged him to be at Savard's level at that time. I can attest that no one would have thought that then.

I'll agree with 1993. I'll also throw in 1994, no doubt he was still on a high from the previous year and he was revered higher at that time. For argument's sake, what the heck, 1990 too. But 1998 and 2000 considering there were several years since the last time we had seen Turgeon as an elite offensive player? I personally don't think so. He wasn't even on the radar for the 1998 Olympics either.

And if you asked people at the end of those seasons who the most offensive players in the game were it would probably look like this in random order:

1998 - Jagr, Bure, Forsberg, Sakic, Lindros, Kariya, Selanne, probably still Gretzky, Leclair, Palffy (hey I stuck up for the guy), probably even Francis. Not to mention others who would likely have been revered higher: Modano, Sundin, Hull and possibly even Oates. Maybe Fleury? Maybe Yzerman still?

2000 - Jagr, Bure, Selanne, Kariya, Selanne, Forsberg, Sakic, Lindros, Modano, Leclair and possibly even Recchi and Yzerman. Turgeon is a bubble guy at best in that case and this was a weak season for forwards in the NHL. The guy wasn't really on the radar by then.

To be fair, if you compare this same logic to Savard you'd have several more years among the top offensive players in the game. There are times when the mood and the opinions at the NHL at the time tell more about a player than actual stats.

I didn't read most of this but it started out exactly as I imagined it would... talking about how they were "perceived" instead of actual production. And really, team Canada? Do I need to go over the list of great centers who never had a shot or were passed over despite being great offensively? The list includes Denis Savard...

Good day, Phil. Going forwawrd you don't get to change the goal posts on me anymore. other people can deal with you if they choose.

 

[Big Phil]

and you've come full circle, bravo. Rankings suck. This is why you use them. This is why you're being ignored.

Rankings hardly suck. They do tell a good part of the story, but I also use another trick at my disposal, eye witness accounts that back up their offensive production. Obviously Savard stuck out better from an offensive standpoint. Anyway life is short, someone else can try and talk to you about stars back before you could tie your shoes.

wow... bye.

Well what do you expect? You were adamant Savard had significantly better goaltending than Turgeon in his prime. When I pressed you to actually find a time when a goalie played out of his mind in the 1980s for Savard you couldn't answer it. Don't feel bad, neither can I.

....so people like streaks then. good to know.

It'd be a little bit better if Turgeon actually had a decade's worth of play to match Savard's whether it was scattered or not, but he doesn't.

I didn't read most of this but it started out exactly as I imagined it would... talking about how they were "perceived" instead of actual production. And really, team Canada? Do I need to go over the list of great centers who never had a shot or were passed over despite being great offensively? The list includes Denis Savard...

No, but Savard was considered at least to be on those teams, and even in hindsight as difficult as it would have been to crack the 1987 team, he wouldn't have looked out of place there. Even in hindsight no one ever wonders why Turgeon wasn't on a top level Canadian team from 1991 onwards. There is a reason for that and personally a reason I think you should "get" since people who were around then seem to do no problem.

And if we rely only on production does that mean Marc Savard had a better year in 2007 than Ovechkin? Savard beats Turgeon when it comes to stats and on-ice dominance. If you don't use both tools at your disposal you don't see the whole picture.

For whatever reason, you seemed to have gotten it a couple of years ago when you wrote in this very thread (page 6) :
"Turgeon probably gets a rougher ride than he deserves from guys like us, but make no mistake, he deserves a rough ride!"

You went from that opinion of the man to comparing him closely with a lock cinch HHOFer. Its a little strange.

 

[BraveCanadian]

You went from that opinion of the man to comparing him closely with a lock cinch HHOFer. Its a little strange.

I imagine it happened right around the time he was desperate for a 2nd scoring center in the ATD last year.

 

[seventieslord]

I imagine it happened right around the time he was desperate for a 2nd scoring center in the ATD last year.

nope, that is incorrect on the timing and also the part about me being "desperate", but nice try.

 

[AlexandreTheNotSoGreat]

Well, there were a lot of tangents in this thread, but from the statistics presented their offensive production looks similar to me. I don't really understand what the whole argument is over. If it boils down to one of you claiming they produced offensively at "a nearly identical level," while the other claims Savard was a better player, then these two positions do not need to be in disagreement.

It is entertaining to follow, though.

 

[seventieslord]

Well, there were a lot of tangents in this thread, but from the statistics presented their offensive production looks similar to me. I don't really understand what the whole argument is over. If it boils down to one of you claiming they produced offensively at "a nearly identical level," while the other claims Savard was a better player, then these two positions do not need to be in disagreement.

I should have just said this a long time ago. haha.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I should have just said this a long time ago. haha.

Naw, I appreciated reading every resultant post.

 

[seventieslord]

Naw, I appreciated reading every resultant post.

....that is no consolation.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Naw, I appreciated reading every resultant post.

I was particularly entertained by the quick turnaround of Big Phil bringing up GAA for the sake of condemning the statistic in post #52 only to use the GAA of Chicago goaltenders (in the save percentage era) as the focal point of his argument in post #89.

 

[pluppe]

Rankings hardly suck. They do tell a good part of the story, but I also use another trick at my disposal, eye witness accounts that back up their offensive production. Obviously Savard stuck out better from an offensive standpoint. Anyway life is short, someone else can try and talk to you about stars back before you could tie your shoes.



Well what do you expect? You were adamant Savard had significantly better goaltending than Turgeon in his prime. When I pressed you to actually find a time when a goalie played out of his mind in the 1980s for Savard you couldn't answer it. Don't feel bad, neither can I.


It'd be a little bit better if Turgeon actually had a decade's worth of play to match Savard's whether it was scattered or not, but he doesn't.




No, but Savard was considered at least to be on those teams, and even in hindsight as difficult as it would have been to crack the 1987 team, he wouldn't have looked out of place there. Even in hindsight no one ever wonders why Turgeon wasn't on a top level Canadian team from 1991 onwards. There is a reason for that and personally a reason I think you should "get" since people who were around then seem to do no problem.

And if we rely only on production does that mean Marc Savard had a better year in 2007 than Ovechkin? Savard beats Turgeon when it comes to stats and on-ice dominance. If you don't use both tools at your disposal you don't see the whole picture.

For whatever reason, you seemed to have gotten it a couple of years ago when you wrote in this very thread (page 6) :
"Turgeon probably gets a rougher ride than he deserves from guys like us, but make no mistake, he deserves a rough ride!"

You went from that opinion of the man to comparing him closely with a lock cinch HHOFer. Its a little strange.

You understand that he never claimed any of the bolded. I think it is hard to read the stats in any other way than that Seventies is right and that Savard had average goaltending in the playoffs for his prime and career which is relatively better than Turgeon who had really bad goaltending for his prime and career.

If one had a worse or better performande once is not relevant. It´s like claiming Gagner was the best player this year because "I dare you to find another 8 point game, hah, you can´t, I win".