Pierre Turgeon

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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".

Wasn't Murray Bannerman in the conversation for worst performance ever by a goalie to actually win a series in the other thread?

 

[JackSlater]

Turgeon is underrated. If ever there was a guy designed to be disliked by the general fan, it is him. He is not underrated to the point that he is being erroneously kept out of the HOF though. The discussion on "best" vs "valuable" regarding injured players in this thread was pretty good too.

 

[Big Phil]

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".

Well this has been ignored constantly but in his prime Turgeon had Grant Fuhr for a few years. Fuhr had two shutouts in one playoff year and while he was older he was still a good goalie in St. Louis. There was Healy's peak performance in 1993 and I haven't even mentioned it because Turgeon's post 2001 career is just abysmal by his standards but in Dallas he had Belfour followed by Turco. He wasn't in his prime then anymore, but Savard wasn't in his prime either in Montreal when he had Roy and then later when he returned briefly to Chicago and had Belfour. The meat of this argument is that Savard had noticeably better goaltending than Turgeon in the 1980s. This has been false and there were some TERRIBLE series in which Bannerman played. The ones they lost, like in 1985, I am talking "Fleury in 2012" type bad. He was not a difference maker at all. No one ever thought that the key to Chicago was to beat their goaltending. Never. Not then at least. I mean you either remember that, choose not to or are too young to know about it.

Wasn't Murray Bannerman in the conversation for worst performance ever by a goalie to actually win a series in the other thread?

I believe he was TDMM. In this thread I have learned that Bannerman was anything but though..........apparently.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Wasn't Murray Bannerman in the conversation for worst performance ever by a goalie to actually win a series in the other thread?

Should anyone less informed about Bannerman focus on that particular series as most demonstrative of his "overall legacy", or an actual in depth analysis of his numbers relative to his peers? Just wondering, because pointing to one specific series, during a topic of conversation that spans almost a decade in either player's (Turgeon/Savard) case, seems a bit disingenuous to bring up otherwise.

 

[pluppe]

Wasn't Murray Bannerman in the conversation for worst performance ever by a goalie to actually win a series in the other thread?

well, umm, that was my point when stating

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".

I was just pointing out that Seventies is talking about averages. Something that seems to be completely lost on Phil. Statistics may have their flaws but anechdotal evidence downright sucks.

I believe he was TDMM. In this thread I have learned that Bannerman was anything but though..........apparently.

Would you please quote where in this you learned this?

If you don´t understand the important factor of samplesize when discussing averages you really should not be in these conversations. And you really really should not be smug about it.

 

[Big Phil]

Would you please quote where in this you learned this?

If you don´t understand the important factor of samplesize when discussing averages you really should not be in these conversations. And you really really should not be smug about it.

Alright, on average Bannerman was not a great goalie and never considered a threat to steal a series, nor did he ever. Have you ever heard anyone even mildly sing his praises before because I haven't and there is a reason for it, goaltending was the Hawks weak point in the 1980s, they had everything else in place.

 

[blogofmike]

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.

Question about the table. The score is calculated from the difference between NHL save % and team sv% right?

If so (Puppa 922) - (NHL average 890) = +32 for Turgeon 1990, no? That change alone brings the average Turgeon goalie up to -.0128 vs average from -.0172, so the 22 point gap shrink to about 17 for careers, and the prime years probably shrinks to about 15 (you did not specify which years were "prime" so I cannot calculate.)

Also, other years like 1985 should be -18 (tm sv% .882) - (NHL PO avg .864) for Savard, not -13, with minor changes in Savard 84 (+4) and Turgeon 99 (-14) as well.

Your general point still holds up though, that Savard had average playoff goaltending on average and Turgeon had below average goaltending.

Turgeon had 4 awful years, 3 bad years, 5 average years, 2 good years and 1 great year.

Savard had 2 awful years, 1 bad year, 8 average years, 3 very good years, and 2 great years.

 

[Ben Grimm]

Among centers he's top 19 with more assists than Stastny, top 17 with more points than Perreault, and top 15 with more goals than Roenick. He's obviously one of the best post-expansion regular season offensive centers.

 

[seventieslord]

Question about the table. The score is calculated from the difference between NHL save % and team sv% right?

If so (Puppa 922) - (NHL average 890) = +32 for Turgeon 1990, no? That change alone brings the average Turgeon goalie up to -.0128 vs average from -.0172, so the 22 point gap shrink to about 17 for careers, and the prime years probably shrinks to about 15 (you did not specify which years were "prime" so I cannot calculate.)

Also, other years like 1985 should be -18 (tm sv% .882) - (NHL PO avg .864) for Savard, not -13, with minor changes in Savard 84 (+4) and Turgeon 99 (-14) as well.

Your general point still holds up though, that Savard had average playoff goaltending on average and Turgeon had below average goaltending.

Turgeon had 4 awful years, 3 bad years, 5 average years, 2 good years and 1 great year.

Savard had 2 awful years, 1 bad year, 8 average years, 3 very good years, and 2 great years.

Good catches, you are right on both counts. In 1985 I must have assumed Bannerman played all the games. In 1990 - looks like I used the 1991 results

one thing I knew of, but didn't account for, is that once you get to the years of lower scoring (1994 and beyond), a certain number of "points" off the league average is a more profound difference. For example, if you're .900 when the average is .920, your error rate is 25% higher than average, but if you're .860 when the average is .880, your error rate is 17% higher than average. Basically I didn't account for this because using error rates is more work and this was meant to be a quick demonstration, and not definitive, but if it was done this way (which is the most mathematically sound way IMO) the gap would have been wider due to the lower scoring era Turgeon played in