Theo Fleury Should Be in the Hall of Fame
View Single Post
07-01-2012, 12:07 AM
Join Date: Nov 2003
Originally Posted by
Czech Your Math
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.
Just that no one ever really faults Parise for a loss. No, he isn't at Fleury's level yet, but its just that he always is in the mix and gives it his all from what we've seen from him so far.
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.
He will. Another reason why I think stats aren't something we should solely rely upon.
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.
It isn't, he is in that "no man's land" area. In other words without the 2007 playoffs we might not be talking about him, but with another couple strong playoff showings, he might be considered close to a lock. He's really on the fence.
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?
I don't think he would have been. For starters, Fleury is not Marcel Dionne skill-wise. Secondly, he did better in the postseason than Dionne. Lastly, he only has two instances where he made it out of the first round, once winning the Cup. The first time was a rookie and the other time was in 1999 where I will admit he could have produced better in the later rounds. That was a 7 game series against Dallas, a close series, and a goal or two would have changed the outcomes.
But with Turgeon you have lots of those moments. You can look and say that his numbers are alright at first glance, even out of the first round, but check out the crucial games.
1990 - 0 points in final 6th game
1991 - 0 points in last two games of series
1993 - believe it or not, the year he was hurt he had 5 points in 4 games of the last series
1994 - 1 assist in a sweep
1996 - Ironically had all 6 points in the 4 losses. Did his part
1997 - 0 points last three games of first round series
1998 - 0 points last 2 games of playoffs, 1 point last 5 games vs. Detroit
1999 - Did alright in the closing games, not a bad postseason
2000 - 0 points in Game 7. 7 assists for whole series loss
2001 - 0 points in elimination game, but overall a good postseason
There are too many times when Turgeon didn't show up and take the bull by the horns. The stats might show he was close to a point per game in the postseason, but he earned the "Tin Man" nickname for a reason early on. Too many times he didn't show up.
Mogilny was much of the same way, only worse. Wasn't a big factor in 2000, it wasn't a contract year. Won a Cup that year though. In 2001 they made it back to the final, but he had 3 points in 7 games and 4 points overall in the final 12 postseason games. This happened all too often with him.
Kovalev performed better in the postseason than Mogilny did. He just never was able to string any elite seasons together. You also didn't know what to expect from him. Was he going to dive on the ice and roll around letting on he was hurt? Or was he going to use his talents to win a game? You never knew with him - ever.
With Fleury you knew what he would bring to the table. He was excellent, even in elimination games where they lost. That's a guy that lost, but exceeded his part in a losing cause. I think knowing that he could play in a pressure game internationally that Fleury would have been just fine had his team's gotten out of the first round more often. Even if he wouldn't have been scoring points, you know he'd still be contributing in other ways. Did anyone ever see Mogilny, Turgeon or Kovalev sacrifice their body to block a shot?
View Public Profile
Big Phil's albums
Find More Posts by Big Phil