Theo Fleury Should Be in the Hall of Fame
View Single Post
06-30-2012, 06:54 PM
Join Date: Nov 2003
Originally Posted by
Psycho Papa Joe
Perhaps, and i'm not a turgeon fan at all, but looking at the numbers, they were basically the same player.
I don't see either guy as a surefire hofer in my book, especially not a first ballot guy. Better players than Sundin have had to wait.
I may as well paste what I said in the other thread which was in response to pretty much the same question:
He does have a better case. To have watched both you'd have thought Sundin was the more dominant player, more able to carry a team and take control of a shift on his own. The numbers are somewhat similar but Turgeon was hurt a lot, put up far more of his points prior to the dead puck era and didn't age well. Sundin was a 2nd team all-star when he was 31 and 33 years old. Turgeon, not once. So I think when you look at the career numbers it is a little deceptive since Turgeon wasn't considered to be close to an elite player in the dead puck era. Both players were also the same age, and played in the same era.
And of course, consistency. Sundin had 17 straight years, minus the lockouts, of 72 or more points. Made even more impressive that most of it was in a lower scoring era. You knew what you would get with Sundin every year. With Turgeon he could be hurt, traded and of course he did nothing noteworthy after 32 years old. Let's not forget Team Sweden either. Maybe the HHOF still doesn't care and maybe that wasn't the reason he was inducted, but either way that resume of his cannot go unnoticed. And I realize Turgeon had tougher competition for Team Canada, but the guy was never even close to being considered in his career.
Originally Posted by
Czech Your Math
His adjusted totals are higher, if you factor in the lockout he's over 100 goals and 100 points above Turgeon. Turgeon has more playoff points, but similar PPG. Sundin has extras like being good in international play, captain and career records of O6 Canadian team, and considered by most a better two-way player than Turgeon.
Once Shanahan, Modano, and Recchi are inducted, then Turgeon will have the most adjusted points of any non-HOFer. If other players like Alfredsson get inducted, then that's really going to be a slight of Turgeon and others.
Perhaps HOF draws the line at players like Turgeon and Tkachuk, who didn't often get past the first round of the playoffs and didn't do much when they did. They may also exclude high peak players like Kariya, Naslund and LeClair on a similar basis (although Turgeon and Tkachuk has good peaks as well).
Fleury seems more in a category like Mogilny and Kovalev. Very good careers that probably could have been even better but for injuries and other issues. They have good (but not great) career totals, won a Cup, and had very good peaks. Fleury has a significant edge in playoff PPG, bolstering his "big game" image, more grit and presumably a tougher past. Whether that will be enough for him to be inducted is yet to be seen. If it is, that should really open the door for players like Hossa, Elias, Alfredsson and Roenick.
I think the snub - if you want to call it that - of Turgeon has a lot to do with the reputation he had in the postseason. No one ever thought Turgeon would beat you. I have long been a critic of his performances and how they dwindled as time wore on if he ever did get out of the first round. There were lots of tight series in his career and when you compare Fleury's stats in those crucial Game 6 and 7s there is a significant difference. Fleury helped his team win even if they lost. Turgeon so often disappeared when a goal or a point at the right time could have made a difference. Turgeon doesn't have many of those games where he was a difference maker, Fleury certainly does. Even in losses. For example, do you blame Zach Parise or Ilya Kovalchuk more the Devils losing in 2012? Despite the loss, does anyone think Parise is anything but a big game player?
And the others you mentioned all had something over Turgeon. Modano was the best forward on back to back Cup finalists. Some say he was robbed of a Conn Smythe. Dallas had a string of strong playoff runs and their roots start with Modano. Recchi is much of the same way. Yes he did have the benefit of being a supporting member on some great teams, but even in the big games, Recchi didn't disappear. We saw that as recent as his final playoff in 2011. Alfredsson was very much like Turgeon up until 2007 and if anything is probably closer to him in the postseason than Recchi or Modano, for sure.
And again, at first glance, the stats don't look too bad for Alfredsson pre-2007. They aren't great, but they aren't Keith Primeau-style either. He just had a bad knack of not being there on some great teams. Then 2007 came along and his perception changed. But in reality, he really only has that one season. However, it was a Smythe caliber run and that's still something Turgeon never did. Throw in a much better all around game for Alfie and the fact that he was at least on the same page offensively compared to his peers as Turgeon and I think the answer is obvious who belongs in the HHOF first.
I disagree with the last ones too. Fleury was a guy you wanted on your team over Kovalev or Mogilny. Basically Kovalev stuck around so long that he fit into the category of "good but not great scorer who played for close to 20 years who ought to have 1,000 points". He frustrated Rangers fans constantly. Always wondering when he would bust out. He had that one elite year in Pittsburgh and then one in Montreal, but just like Mogilny he was wildly inconsistent. You would put both of those guys among the most talented players to ever play............but you have an asterisk with them. They left you wanting more. Fleury poured his entire soul into a game. Every night. And there is little doubt who you wanted on your team more in the 1990s. Mogilny and Kovalev were either hot or cold, and sometimes very cold. Not what I expect in a HHOFer.
View Public Profile
Big Phil's albums
Find More Posts by Big Phil