View Single Post
06-30-2012, 11:16 PM
Czech Your Math
Registered User
Czech Your Math's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,842
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
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?
I was defending Sundin vs. Turgeon, so we are in agreement.

I wouldn't really blame anyone on the Devils for not winning the Cup, I thought they overachieved. I'm not sure what Parise and Kovalchuk have to do with this. Kovy is probably going to the HOF, despite being the antithesis of a big game player for most of his career. Parise has played well in some big games, but I wouldn't put him on the level of someone like Fleury.

Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
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.
I brought up Modano and Recchi only because they are ahead of Turgeon in adjusted points. Let's face it, the HOF is unlikely to induct anyone in the near future who would be more of a slight than some of those forwards already inducted. I can see why Turgeon isn't in, perhaps less so why others are. The point was that Turgeon will be the at the very top in adjusted points among non-HOFers, that's all.

Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
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 just have a feeling Alfredsson will make it, but that if he played for a handful of teams instead of being captain of a Canadian franchise for his whole career, then he likely wouldn't. I'm not saying he shouldn't be in the HOF, only that his case is not much stronger than that of, say, Elias or Hossa.

Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
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.
I think all 3 could have had significantly better careers, yet still had very good peak seasons. Fleury only got past the first round in his rookie season and ten years later when he was traded to Colorado near the end of the season. Fleury was more consistent in the first round, but Kovalev had the best run in '94. I just don't think Fleury's argument is overwhelming, if it rests in large part on the playoffs, and his biggest roles in series victories were:

- 2 assists in game 4 of the WCF to put Calgary up 3-1
- helping Colorado beat the below-.500 Sharks in the first round

I just wonder how much is perception and how much his reality. Heck, Turgeon outscored Fleury .67 ppg to .48 after the first round, and he got out of the first round more often. Fleury's only times out of the first round were on a Cup-winning team and on perennial Cup-contender Colorado. If Dionne is criticized and penalized for not leading his team farther, how is Fleury a surefire HOFer based on his playoffs? Is it possible that Fleury would have faded after the first round, much like he did with a HOF center in '99?

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote