HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Why isn't Pierre Turgeon in the hall of fame?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-05-2017, 12:10 PM
  #126
decma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
You have to look at how he did in the series his team lost. It was rarely good. Most of the time he did not show up. You point to 1993, that's good, as I mentioned it was a good playoff for him. He did his part. Here are the times he did NOT though. These are his stats in the final games of the playoffs.

1988 - Game 5 & 6 - 0 points
1989 - Game 5 - 0 points
1990 - Game 6 - 0 points (0 shots on net, -2)
1991 - Game 5 & 6 - 0 points
1994 - Game 4 - 1 assist (only point of the series)
1997 - Game 3, 4 & 5 - 0 points (2 points in whole series)
1998 - Game 5 & 6 - 0 points (3 points in the series)
2000 - Game 7 - 0 points
2001 - Game 5 - 0 points
2003 - Game 5 - 0 points (1 point in whole series)
2004 - Game 5 - 0 points
2006 - Game 3, 4 & 5 - 0 points (2 points whole series)

That's it. This is basically his whole playoff career. The only other playoff years in there are 1993, 1996 and 1999. I'll give him credit, in 1996 he had 6 points in 6 games and all of them came in the final 4 games (all losses). This was unusual with Turgeon, he never showed up in those types of games but he did. However, the Habs didn't get out of the first round, so you can't say it was a good playoff run. 1993, he did well obviously against Washington, was out for Pittsburgh and had a point in all 4 games he played against Montreal. He's probably still reeling from that Hunter hit, so this is one of those times you give him credit. Still, was 1993 a good playoff run? No. 1999 is the only other postseason not mentioned yet. It was good. Played well against Phoenix. Okay against Dallas, a 5 point effort in a 6 game series loss. Had his points spread out.

You mentioned 2000. Yes, he had a 3 point effort to force a Game 7. That's good. It is a shame he didn't show up for Game 7 though and even more bizarre that he didn't have a goal the entire series. 7 assists in 7 games is okay, but when you are the first seed against the 8th seed it should be better. This should have been his moment, and it wasn't.

I'm not making this stuff up. When his teams were facing elimination he went belly up. Those are just horrible stats I posted of him. You should see a pattern, because he had a bit of a reputation because of that pattern. This is a big reason why he isn't in the HHOF. Shouldn't a guy with over 1300 career points lay claim to at least one good postseason run over 20 years?

For much of Daniel Alfredsson's postseason career you can do the same thing. People forget, he disappeared when it mattered quite often as well. He did redeem himself in 2007 though and it offsets a lot. Turgeon doesn't have this though.
You keep shifting the goalposts.

First you said his play depreciated as series went on.
I demonstrated that his scoring rate was actually higher in games 4-7 than in games 1-3.

Then you said he put up a lot of goose eggs in games 6 and 7.
I pointed out that he also had game 6 and 7 heroics.

Now you say you have to look at how he did in series his team lost.
Ok, he had 64 pt in 80 games in series his team lost. 0.8 ppg which is slightly lower than his overall clip. But wouldn't this be true for most players? On average, a team is going to score fewer goals per game in series that they lost than in series that they won, and one would expect players to score fewer points per game in series they lost than in series they won.

In any case, I am not sure why data from series his team lost are more relevant than data from series his team won.


And then you say "when his teams were facing elimination he went belly up."
Per hockey reference, he played 21 games when his team was facing elimination and scored 17 pts in those games. 0.81 ppg. This consistutes going belly up?

One more point and he would match his overall playoff production. So he had one fewer point in games when his teams faced elimination than he would have if his playoff production was constant across all games. This is significant?

And, again, why slice the data? Aren't pretty much all playoff games significant? Aren't game 1s significant? What about game 5s of series that are tied 2-2? Aren't they at least as significant as a game 4 of a series you are down 3-0?

decma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2017, 12:45 PM
  #127
decma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
By the way, I'll be back in here later, but for now, I thought I'd let you know that in their primes (90-02 and 89-01), Sakic was consistently ahead of Turgeon in TOI estimates, by about an ES minute per game. The actual numbers I worked out were 15.86 to 14.97 which is about 6%. So even if all things were equal (and I don’t think they were), Sakic would already be at a 6% disadvantage when comparing goals against per game.
Thanks. Where can you get ice time estimates from that far back? What are the estimates based on?

In any case, accepting those estmates, Turgeon still had fewer goals allowed after controlling for ice time.

decma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2017, 02:34 PM
  #128
cupcrazyman
Chex Lemeneux
 
cupcrazyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Leafland
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,689
vCash: 500
Playing in the All Star Game & being named an All Star are not the same thing.

cupcrazyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2017, 03:46 PM
  #129
Neutrinos
Registered User
 
Neutrinos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,167
vCash: 500
If Modano and Sundin are worthy of induction, then Turgeon should be in as well


Turgeon; 1st overall pick in '87

1327 points in 1294 regular season games (1.03 PPG)
97 points in 109 playoff games (.89 PPG)


Modano; 1st overall pick in '88

1374 points in 1499 regular season games (0.92 PPG)
146 points in 176 playoff games (.83 PPG)


Sundin; 1st overall pick in '89

1349 points in 1346 regular season games (1 PPG)
82 points in 91 playoff games (.9 PPG)

Neutrinos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2017, 04:34 PM
  #130
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Nice quotes. I know some of them at least are mine. Or they sound an awful lot like things I have said. The question is, are those quotes wrong? As I showed very clearly in my last post he did not contribute when they needed him to. His play depreciated as the series wore on. I don't know why that bothers you so much to hear that about Turgeon.
Yes, of course they were all your quotes. I never said I was bothered by anything, did you confuse me with someone else?

I just found it mildly amusing that for the past 6 years you’ve always felt the need to tell us all “the thing with Turgeon”, and have in fact used those exact four words in that order 13 times, to tell us “the thing” and it’s pretty much always a different thing

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
yep, sillly.

VsX and per games are nice, but how can you throw out that henrik has twice as many top ten finishes in points, including and art ross and two finishes higher than turgeon's best, with a straight face?
We don’t even have to talk about per-game, that’s just gravy, really. If VsX does what it’s supposed to do, it represents how close to the leaders a player tended to be, and how often they were close. And yes, Turgeon was often closer. I think you’re above waving an art ross at me like some kind of trump card, or even top-10 finishes for that matter. It’s an arbitrary cutoff. Another arbitrary cutoff is 20th. I could ask you - How can you throw out that Turgeon has two more top-20 finishes in points? Yes, it is true that Sedin has one season better than any of Turgeon’s, but you act like that’s “/discussion” when it’s obviously not.

To answer the question, I don’t “throw out” anything, I just prefer to look at quantities rather than pure rankings, for a clearer picture.

Quote:
three times henrik led the league in assists. he finished top 5 in assists six times in a nine year prime. top 10 in assists eight times in a nine year prime. at that level of playmaking, i think it's safe to say, as one does about adam oates and others, that an assist is just as good as a goal. we're not talking craig janney here; we're talking a historically dominant playmaker.
If an assist is as good as a goal, isn’t a goal as good as an assist? I mean, we started by talking about points, and starting to break it down into goals and assists separately is a clear step backwards.

If Sedin had 15 more goals and 15 fewer assists every season, he wouldn’t be any worse of a player (and would probably be more valuable, honestly, on the strength of diverse skills and less predictability), but then you wouldn’t be able to extol the virtues of high assist totals as though they somehow transcend point totals. Can we stick to points please?

That said, if two players are comparable in points, it is absolutely worth considering who the more versatile scorer is.

Quote:
yes, turgeon generally faced stiffer competition than henrik in the early 90s, when he was his healthiest. and to anticipate the counter-argument, no, turgeon did not face stiffer competition in the late 90s, when he was usually less healthy but when you think he was at his underrated best. like turgeon, his best competition did not play full seasons and, unlike turgeon, a number of them missed almost complete seasons.
I agree re: competition.

Quote:
henrik beat a healthy peak sidney crosby for the art ross and finished behind only peak ovechkin (minus ten games) in points/game, outscoring him overall of course. in '93, turgeon finished behind mogilny in points/game, while outscoring him overall. '93 mogilny was fantastic but he was not '10 ovechkin.
A few things about this:

- Are you misusing the term “peak” or did you mean “healthy peak” as in “the closest thing to a healthy AND peak Crosby”? Because I don’t think 22-year old Crosby was “peak”. Prime, sure, but he was definitely scoring at a noticeably higher rate over the next three seasons. No one is outscoring a healthy and peak Crosby.
- The 2nd part is technically true, but how is it relevant? For starters, it was not just Mogilny who got Mogilny those numbers, it was a dynamic duo creating a perfect storm kinda thing. Second, you ignored the actual differences. Mogilny outscored Turgeon in 1993 by 4% per game; Ovechkin was 10% up on Sedin. Yes, 2010 Ovechkin was a better player and he outscored him by more because of it.
- You seem to be beating a dead horse anyway. You don’t need to tell me Sedin’s best season was better statistically than Turgeon’s – it definitely was. (we could quibble over whether having Daniel Sedin as a linemate over Benoit Hogue is worth that 10%, but whatever)
- I’m not sure a bunch of subjective gushing tells us more than what VsX already does. Sedin scored at 103% of (healthy but not peak Crosby/peak but not healthy Ovechkin). Turgeon scored at 93% the level of peak and healthy Adam Oates. The benchmarks are fair and it reflects that what Sedin did that season was about 10% more impressive than what Turgeon did. You get no argument from me here. It’s all their other good seasons that I’m more concerned with, not just their best single seasons.

Quote:
the table is, shall we say, an interesting way to make it look like a guy who who has two top ten finishes in his entire career was better than a guy who has four. and that is to put a lot of weight on per-game production vs. actual production. we (this board, not literally just you and i) have had this discussion many times: overreliance on per-game ratios over actual production rewards less durable players relative to ones that routinely play through injuries
So if you can’t call 52 dominant games “52 dominant games”, then what can you call it? I don’t accept that a player can’t be credited for a string of excellent hockey games or can only have it treated as though they scored those points in a full 82 games. Where does that get factored into what a player is capable of or how good an offensive player they are? (which, I believe, is what we’re talking about, not just how healthy they are, right?)

And again with the top-10 finishes. They don’t tell the story as clearly as you’d like to think. Some top-10 seasons aren’t as impressive as others that aren’t. Turgeon’s 1990, for example (7th in points), is only his 6th most impressive season by VsX, behind seasons where he finished 13th, 13th, 14th and 16th on really tight leaderboards (3, 4, 5 and 7 points out of 10th). This is why quantity based methods of analysis shine over simple rankings. Sedin ties for 10th in 2015 with three other players (3 points ahead of 19th), and you get to binarily call that a “top-10 season” and Turgeon’s 1992 “not a top-10 season” as though that’s an accurate accounting of their production those seasons.

Quote:
i'm not saying that turgeon would just wantonly miss games where he didn't feel 100% like mario did at times, but i also don't feel comfortable taking too much credence in a ranking system based solely on counting seasons where a guy hit various placement thresholds in points/game finishes when one guy missed 22 and 30 games in his two best points/game seasons, respectively, while the other guy's best two points/game seasons came in the middle of a stretch where he missed zero games over eight seasons.
This glosses over some things. You can complain about using 1998 and 2000 – which were 2/3 ad ¾ - seasons in the table all you like, but even if you completely eliminate them, Turgeon still has 232 games as a top-10 scorer to Sedin’s 246 (six of one, a half dozen of the other, is it not?), 387 games as a top-15 scorer to Sedin’s 246, and 613 games as a top-20 scorer to Sedin’s 410. He simply played more games at a high level.

I should remind you after all this, that Turgeon’s VsX is higher. I don’t even have to make excuses for why it’s not. If I did, then this would be rather interesting. I’ve laid out a lot of “despites” and you seem to be going after those, but even if the linemate difference, goals vs. assists, fewer GP, zone starts and playoff scoring were all completely irrelevant, Turgeon doesn’t need those excuses to be the better offensive player.

VsX shouldn’t be seen as an end-all. It should be a starting point and if two players are close, then you should look deeper. Every way of looking deeper favours Turgeon. They can’t all be meaningless can they?

Quote:
there were years where we can find 52 game stretches where henrik was top five in points/game too.
I can’t actually find any. Can you show me? I mean obviously 2010 and 2011, yes. But I checked 2012 and 2015 and couldn’t find anything. His scoring was very consistent those two seasons. It’s possible to imagine it in 2012 – it would have taken 55 points in 52 games and then just 25 in the other 30. I may not be scouring closely enough. But in 2015, when he was 18th? He’d need 55 in 52 to have a stretch like you’re claiming, which would leave him with just 15 in the other 30 to end up with what he ended up with.

I picked those two as they are his next two best PPG rankings after the obvious, but it should make the point that it’s not as easy or common as you might think. 2009 would be 63 points in 52 games, and 19 in the other 30. Then there’s the lockout year (21st but the season itself wasn’t even 52 games long), and then we’re looking at 2008 – when he was 30th – and that would require him to have just 12 in the other 30 games, and so on from there. Point is, I don’t think you’ll find what you’re looking for (beyond maybe 2012).

And hey, I’m not a fan of compartmentalizing players in strict ways. A game is a game, to some extent. But full seasons do at least provide us with something measurable (for example, I can tell you what it took to be scoring at a top-5 level during the 1997-98 season, but not an exact 52-game segment in 1997-98, and certainly not a span that covers parts of two seasons). But I mean, if you accept those annual thresholds for what it takes to be top-x in PPG are what they are, you can break an individual player’s games up anyway you like for all I care. Use 10 game segments if you wish. Or 20, or 37. And then count how many of those segments one player was over the threshold and in how many they were under. I can confidently tell you that you would still find Turgeon with more elite segments, because the numbers I used would have to be incredibly manipulated or filled with statistical anomalies for a different breakdown to find something different. For emphasis, even though I know 17 is an incredibly odd number – Sedin had only three seasons where he was even in the top-17 in points per game.

Quote:
the bolded viz zone starts is bizarre being that you readily admit that his BEST season, in which he won the hart and art ross, was NOT a spike zone start year, and the years that followed, where he wasn't as good or productive as he was in 2010, were. wouldn't the logical inference be that they hindered, rather than helped, him being that his stats went DOWN as the zone starts went up?
The zone starts are just one factor of many. Their scoring dropped as their zone starts dropped too, starting in 2012. So yes, it appeared to work one way but not the other. Can I claim there’s a perfect correlation? Of course not, but there’s a connection, which should be obvious for anyone who watches hockey. But, it’s true that we can’t say what Turgeon’s zone starts were, and this is honestly the least important piece of the case so we can drop it.

Quote:
if i'm understanding this correctly, wouldn't someone like turgeon centering derek king or the young joe sakic centering tony hrkac look better than, say, adam oates centering brett hull by this metric?
Would they have a higher number than Oates? Yes. But like I said, a higher number in this metric alone is not reason to call a player “better” because it represents more than just one thing.

First, here are the numbers you’re wondering about:
Oates 1990-1992: 1.65
Sakic 1990: 2.54
Turgeon 1992-1994: 1.77

They both have higher “scores” than him (one very much so, in a single season sample, the only full year Hrkac was a Nordique, I’m taking your word for it that they were linemates). But the score itself is not meant to demonstrate a player is better than another. In Oates’ case it is specifically saying “he scored 1.43 PPG and the players who participated on goals with him averaged 0.87”. Turgeon averaged 1.40 PPG and the players who participated on goals with him averaged 0.79. In this particular case it is open to interpretation who the more impressive producer was – the guy who put up 2% more points or the guy who played with players only 91% as potent. Other times it’s better used to further a point – for example, Turgeon scored more and he didn’t have linemates as good.

I guess the tl;dr version is that the collab score itself is useless without first knowing how much the given player scored. I wouldn’t start a conversation with “Sundin was 95% better than his linemates and Sakic was 72% better”*; it would be a supplement to “Sakic scored 1.45 PPG and Sundin scored 1.35 PPG during this time, but….”.

*these are not real numbers.


Last edited by seventieslord: 01-05-2017 at 05:23 PM.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2017, 04:58 PM
  #131
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Panther View Post
Oh, I know, I'm just pullin' your chain good buddy! You think I'm always raggin' on Hawerchuk...


At the end of the day, these discussions of who's in and out aren't really worth getting our collective pantyhose into knots over. By the very nature of a "Hall of Fame" (terrible misnomer there -- it really should be "Hall of Excellence"), there is inevitably an indefinable and abstract barrier between in and out, and no one person can say he/she is the objective source of who is worthy or not. We just have to trust that the inducted Hall members/committee will generally get things about right, which I think they usually do.



(cough...!)
Well we aren't settling World Wars or anything, but it's still fun. If I ever meet Hawerchuk though I am going to tell him that there is this mean Oilers fan that picks on him a lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by decma View Post
You keep shifting the goalposts.

First you said his play depreciated as series went on.
I demonstrated that his scoring rate was actually higher in games 4-7 than in games 1-3.

Then you said he put up a lot of goose eggs in games 6 and 7.
I pointed out that he also had game 6 and 7 heroics.

Now you say you have to look at how he did in series his team lost.
Ok, he had 64 pt in 80 games in series his team lost. 0.8 ppg which is slightly lower than his overall clip. But wouldn't this be true for most players? On average, a team is going to score fewer goals per game in series that they lost than in series that they won, and one would expect players to score fewer points per game in series they lost than in series they won.
Quote:
In any case, I am not sure why data from series his team lost are more relevant than data from series his team won.
Because he didn't win a lot of playoff series in his career. He only won 5 playoff series in his career. If you want to count Pittsburgh in 1993 where he played one game, then it is 6. He wilted when the pressure mounted much more often than when he stepped up. It wasn't hard to read my chart. There were a lot of series that were 6 games where a good performance by Mr. Turgeon changes things.

Quote:
And then you say "when his teams were facing elimination he went belly up."
Per hockey reference, he played 21 games when his team was facing elimination and scored 17 pts in those games. 0.81 ppg. This consistutes going belly up?

One more point and he would match his overall playoff production. So he had one fewer point in games when his teams faced elimination than he would have if his playoff production was constant across all games. This is significant?
Where are you getting your stats from? He had 19 games where his team was facing elimination and he had 9 points by my check. Where do you get 18 points in 21 elimination games? Maybe I missed a game or two, but where are you getting these phantom points?

Also, look deeper than that. When his teams lost he often put up goose eggs in the last 2 games. A couple times three. That could have made a whale of difference if he's scoring there. The times he was respectable are far outweighed by the times he left you thirsting for more. This is why Turgeon had the reputation he did. Also, I said "respectable" numbers. When did Turgeon ever go on a run that made you say "woah!" It didn't happen.

Quote:
And, again, why slice the data? Aren't pretty much all playoff games significant? Aren't game 1s significant? What about game 5s of series that are tied 2-2? Aren't they at least as significant as a game 4 of a series you are down 3-0?
Would you rather be the player that scored plenty of points in the first three games of the series and then disappeared in the last 4 or the guy who struggled early on in the series but found his way in the elimination games?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2017, 05:11 PM
  #132
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Yes, of course they were all your quotes. I never said I was bothered by anything, did you confuse me with someone else?

I just found it mildly amusing that for the past 6 years you’ve always felt the need to tell us all “the thing with Turgeon”, and have in fact used those exact four words in that order 13 times, to tell us “the thing” and it’s pretty much always a different thing 
I'd hate to think how long it took you to dig up those quotes over 6 years. But yeah, they are true. Turgeon gets brought up a lot around here. Like Housley or even Osgood he falls into a category where people look at his stats, deem them worthy enough and figure he should be a HHOFer. This just wasn't the case when he was playing. You never figured Turgeon was a future HHOFer. Or Andreychuk for that matter. Since their careers have come to a close for some reason the opinion is shifting. Mogilny is another case too. I never understand it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neutrinos View Post
If Modano and Sundin are worthy of induction, then Turgeon should be in as well


Turgeon; 1st overall pick in '87

1327 points in 1294 regular season games (1.03 PPG)
97 points in 109 playoff games (.89 PPG)


Modano; 1st overall pick in '88

1374 points in 1499 regular season games (0.92 PPG)
146 points in 176 playoff games (.83 PPG)


Sundin; 1st overall pick in '89

1349 points in 1346 regular season games (1 PPG)
82 points in 91 playoff games (.9 PPG)
Would a GM have traded Modano just to get Turgeon? Granted his 1993 season was better than the one Sundin or Modano had, even though Sundin still had an impressive 114 points. Let's say after 1993 when all of them were comfortably in their prime or entering it, was there a time you'd have taken Turgeon over Modano or Sundin? I know I wouldn't have liked it if the Leafs traded Sundin for Turgeon. Sundin brought more to the table. Modano too. He was so much better defensively. Then look at Modano's playoff resume and it is no contest. You are using PPG to justify things. It doesn't work that way with the playoffs. Bryan Trottier has a 0.83 PPG in the playoffs. Does this mean Turgeon was a better playoff performer?

Sundin doesn't have the luxury Modano does in the playoffs. I would take him over Turgeon on my team but he doesn't have that great run either. 1999 would be his best. What he has going for him over Turgeon was remarkable consistency year in and year out. Something Modano also has. Plus, Sundin aged well, while Turgeon didn't. Sundin grabbed a couple of 2nd team all-stars in his 30s in years that Turgeon was an afterthought. He was a point per game guy his whole career, even in his 2nd last season. You can't buy that kind of consistency. They were both just simply better than Turgeon when they played, and you would have gotten that response back then too.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2017, 06:27 PM
  #133
decma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post

Because he didn't win a lot of playoff series in his career. He only won 5 playoff series in his career. If you want to count Pittsburgh in 1993 where he played one game, then it is 6.
So because his team didn't win a lot of playoff series, that is reason to focus on scoring in series his teams lost rather than on his entire playoff record?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
He wilted when the pressure mounted much more often than when he stepped up. It wasn't hard to read my chart. There were a lot of series that were 6 games where a good performance by Mr. Turgeon changes things.
How do you define when pressure mounted? Late in series rather than early in series? As I demonstrated, his scoring rates were higher in games 4-7 than in games 1-3.

Maybe you define it as games when his team was facing elimination. In such games he scored at practically the same clip as his overall playoff record.

Now you are talking about 6-game series where a good performance by Turgeon changes things. Ok, let's look at all his 6-game series:

1988 against Bos (4-2 series loss).
4 pts in OT win in game 4, blanked in games 5 and 6.
In your view it would have been better if he had been blanked in games 4 and 5 and had scored the 4 pts in game 6? If he doesn't score 4 pts in game 4 there is no game 6. I fail to see why the performance in game 4 of a series when you are down 2-1 should be discounted.

1990 against Mtl (4-2 series loss)
3 pts in game 4, 1 pt in game 5, and blanked in 6.
Again, you think it would be better if the order had been reversed?
If he doesn't have 2 goals, an assist, and a plus 3 in the game 4 win to tie the series at 2, there is no game 6.

1991 against Mtl (4-2 series loss)
2 pts in game 4, blanked in games 5 and 6.
Same - you think it would be better if order were reversed, I think points in game 4 of a series that is 2-1 are important.

1993 against Wsh (4-2 series win)
1 pt in game 4, 1 pt in game 5, 2 pts in game 6.
This passes the Big Phil test. Oh wait, it was a series win, so it doesn't matter. Need to look at games in which his team was eliminated, and ignore all other playoff games.

1996 against NYR (4-2 series loss)
1 pt in game 4, 1 pt in game 5, 3 pts in game 6.
Finally a good series per your criterion. I guess Damphousse had a terrible series b/c 6 of his 8 points were in the first two games, which Mtl won. How ironic, considering that Damphousse's performance relative to Turgeon's in that series is often used to criticize Turgeon.

1998 against Det (4-2 series loss)
1 pt in game 4, blanked in 5 and 6
Bad series all around, sequence doesn't matter.

1999 against Dal (4-2 series loss)
1 pt in game 4, blanked in game 5, 1 pt in game 6.
Was this a good series b/c he got a pt in the final game of a 6-game series?

2003 against Ana (4-2 series loss)
DNP in game 4, 1 pt in game 5, blanked in game 6.
This is bad b/c he was blanked in game 6.

And this of course ignores his scoring in game 6s of 7-game series, and in game 6s of 6-game series he won. Overall, he had 12 pts in 12 game 6s, but somehow you conclude he wilted in high-pressure games.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post

Where are you getting your stats from? He had 19 games where his team was facing elimination and he had 9 points by my check. Where do you get 18 points in 21 elimination games? Maybe I missed a game or two, but where are you getting these phantom points?
I said 17 in 21, not 18 in 21. I got the data from hockeyreference. I may have made a mistake in recording or tabulating the data. Here is what I have for games in which his team was facing elimination (let me know which ones differ from yours):

88: 0 pts in game 6 vs. Bos
89: 0 pts in game 5 vs. Bos
90: 0 pts in game 6 vs. Mtl
91: 0 pts in game 6 vs. Mtl
93: 1 pt in game 5 vs. Mtl
94: 1 pt in game 4 vs. NYR
96: 3 pts in game 6 vs. NYR
97: 0 pts in game 6 vs. Det
98: 0 pts in games 5 and 6 vs. Det
99: 1 pt in game 5, 3 pts in game 6, and 1 pt in game 7 vs. Pho
99: 1 pt in game 6 vs. Dal
00: 2, 3, and 0 in games through 7 vs. SJ
01: 0 in game 5 vs. Col
03: 1 and 0 in games 5 and 6 vs. Ana
04: 0 in game vs Col

Total of 17 pts in 21 games.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post

Also, look deeper than that. When his teams lost he often put up goose eggs in the last 2 games. A couple times three. That could have made a whale of difference if he's scoring there. The times he was respectable are far outweighed by the times he left you thirsting for more. This is why Turgeon had the reputation he did. Also, I said "respectable" numbers. When did Turgeon ever go on a run that made you say "woah!" It didn't happen.
So we are now talking about the last 2 games of series in which his team lost?
Ok, by my count his team lost 15 series and he only had 18 pts in those 30 last two games. Not a great clip.

But why the last two games of series his team lost?

How about last 3 games of series his team lost? A much better 37 in 45.

How about last 2 games of series his team won? 12 pts in 10 games.

So he scored more points in series his team won than in series his team lost. Is that surprising? Isn't it true for most players?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Would you rather be the player that scored plenty of points in the first three games of the series and then disappeared in the last 4 or the guy who struggled early on in the series but found his way in the elimination games?
First, Turgeon doesn't fit that pattern. As I mentioned, he scored at a higher clip in games 4 through 7 than in games 1 through 3.

First three games of a series: 49 pts in 59 games (0.83 PPG)
Games 4 through 7: 48 pts in 49 games (0.98 PPG)

You keep ignoring the aggregate data for games 1 to 3 vs. 4 on, and instead point to individual series which fit your pre-conceived notion.

He had some good game 4s and some bad ones. He had some good game 5s and some bad ones. He had some good games 6s and some bad ones. He had one game 7 where he was the hero, one in which he was blanked, and one in which he was a hero for coming back against all expectations.

The bottom line is he actually scored at a higher clip in games 4-7 than in games 1-3.


Second, it doesn't matter. All playoff games are important (with the possible exception of game 4s of series that are 3-0). Game 1s count. So do game 4s. And game 6s. Points in those games matter.


You keep trying to slice the data to fit your theory. The overall data show that he was a solid playoff scorer, and that his scoring rate did not go down as series progressed. Do you disagree with the overall data, or just believe that aggregate data (or even aggregate game 6 data) don't matter because in some particular game 6s that you cite he didn't do well?

decma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2017, 06:49 PM
  #134
tony d
Kyle Turris
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 56,779
vCash: 500
Lack of hardware I would think. Still he's a guy I've always liked, maybe he'll get in the Hall some day.

__________________
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2017, 08:41 PM
  #135
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,612
vCash: 500
i'll respond to the other stuff later. for now,

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I can’t actually find any. Can you show me? I mean obviously 2010 and 2011, yes. But I checked 2012 and 2015 and couldn’t find anything. His scoring was very consistent those two seasons. It’s possible to imagine it in 2012 – it would have taken 55 points in 52 games and then just 25 in the other 30. I may not be scouring closely enough. But in 2015, when he was 18th? He’d need 55 in 52 to have a stretch like you’re claiming, which would leave him with just 15 in the other 30 to end up with what he ended up with.
it's total points, not points/game but here's the leaderboard on game #54 of the 2012 season: http://web.archive.org/web/201202081...statshome.htm?

Quote:
1. Evgeni Malkin PIT 62
2. C. Giroux PHI 60
3. S. Stamkos TBL 58
4. P. Kessel TOR 58
5. H. Sedin VAN 57
and re: how his willingness to play through injuries over full 82 seasons might lower his points/game ratio relative to if he had left the lineup, here's a news article from the very next day: http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/news...couver-canucks

Quote:
Published on Feb. 9, 2012
Henrik Sedin hasn't played in 552 consecutive games by accident.

The Vancouver Canucks' captain—who was hit by a puck on Tuesday, didn't miss a shift, then had to wear a walking boot the following day—does not have a fracture in his ankle and hopes to play Thursday night against the Minnesota Wild.

Sedin tested the ankle at the Canucks' morning skate on Thursday.

“Like I said, I want to play games,” Sedin told reporters. “That’s No. 1 and if they say it’s not going to get any worse and I’m able to play then I am going to play.”

“It’s not about a streak. I have always said if you are good enough to go then you are out there and you have to play at your best. That’s my opinion.”

Sedin, the 2010 Hart Trophy winner and scoring champion, took a heavy slap shot to the foot in the first period of Vancouver's Tuesday game against the Nashville Predators. Despite dealing with obvious pain, Sedin didn't miss a shift and came back to record two assists in Vancouver's 4-3 win.

"That's what leadership is all about right there," goalie Roberto Luongo told the Vancouver Province on Wednesday. "A play like that, most guys would have gone into the locker room and packed it in for the rest of the game.
EDIT:

and re: points/game here is game 52 of the 2012 season: http://web.archive.org/web/201202061...iewName=points henrik, 4th in overall points, with exactly 55 points. as you point out, if he had ended his season that day, at the end of the season he would have finished ahead of spezza in 5th for points/game. as of that day, if the season ended for everyone, he was 8th in points/game but others regressed.

Quote:
Evgeni Malkin PIT 61
C. Giroux PHI 60
S. Stamkos TBL 57
H. Sedin VAN 55


Last edited by vadim sharifijanov: 01-05-2017 at 08:53 PM.
vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2017, 04:10 PM
  #136
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by decma View Post
So because his team didn't win a lot of playoff series, that is reason to focus on scoring in series his teams lost rather than on his entire playoff record?
Yeah, pretty much. Look, Turgeon's teams won 5 playoff series that he was in. 6 if you want to count the 1993 Pens where he played one game. Other than that, over his 20 year career we are left with this being the teams Turgeon beat in a playoff series:

1993 Caps
1999 Coyotes
1998 Kings
2001 Sharks
2001 Stars

I'll give him credit with the 2001 Stars. That was what I would call an elite team. But no one else was. So yeah, when Mats Sundin - a guy who gets compared to him - wins 4 playoff series against the rival Senators alone, shouldn't it be an issue if a guy only won 5 playoff series in his whole carer? Considering he doesn't have a lot to counter with?

Quote:
How do you define when pressure mounted? Late in series rather than early in series? As I demonstrated, his scoring rates were higher in games 4-7 than in games 1-3.

Maybe you define it as games when his team was facing elimination. In such games he scored at practically the same clip as his overall playoff record.
I think the reason being for this is that Turgeon had a lot of blanks in those games but some 2-3 point games in the others. It tends to make the PPG in those playoff games look a little better than they really were.

Quote:
I said 17 in 21, not 18 in 21. I got the data from hockeyreference. I may have made a mistake in recording or tabulating the data. Here is what I have for games in which his team was facing elimination (let me know which ones differ from yours):

88: 0 pts in game 6 vs. Bos
89: 0 pts in game 5 vs. Bos
90: 0 pts in game 6 vs. Mtl
91: 0 pts in game 6 vs. Mtl
93: 1 pt in game 5 vs. Mtl
94: 1 pt in game 4 vs. NYR
96: 3 pts in game 6 vs. NYR
97: 0 pts in game 6 vs. Det
98: 0 pts in games 5 and 6 vs. Det
99: 1 pt in game 5, 3 pts in game 6, and 1 pt in game 7 vs. Pho
99: 1 pt in game 6 vs. Dal
00: 2, 3, and 0 in games through 7 vs. SJ
01: 0 in game 5 vs. Col
03: 1 and 0 in games 5 and 6 vs. Ana
04: 0 in game vs Col

Total of 17 pts in 21 games.
Alright I am going to double check it myself here because I know I've missed some.

18 points in 23 games in elimination playoff games. Sounds alright, 0.78 PPG isn't terrible when your team is facing elimination. But as I mentioned above, Turgeon bunched a lot of those points together and laid a lot of goose eggs while he was at it. It sounds a lot better than it was. Because he doesn't have the playoff heroics to offset this stuff either. He needed that type of stuff to get into the HHOF because his regular seasons weren't good enough.




Quote:
So we are now talking about the last 2 games of series in which his team lost?
Ok, by my count his team lost 15 series and he only had 18 pts in those 30 last two games. Not a great clip.

But why the last two games of series his team lost?

How about last 3 games of series his team lost? A much better 37 in 45.

How about last 2 games of series his team won? 12 pts in 10 games.

So he scored more points in series his team won than in series his team lost. Is that surprising? Isn't it true for most players?
I just pointed out there were years where he didn't show up for some series at all and especially at the end of the series. As I mentioned before, Turgeon didn't beat an elite playoff team other than the 2001 Stars and even then the Blues were only three points behind them. Like I said, is it too much to ask to have him beat a good team more than once? It would have raised his playoff profile quite a bit. He doesn't have any nice runs, that's why.

Quote:
Second, it doesn't matter. All playoff games are important (with the possible exception of game 4s of series that are 3-0). Game 1s count. So do game 4s. And game 6s. Points in those games matter.

You keep trying to slice the data to fit your theory. The overall data show that he was a solid playoff scorer, and that his scoring rate did not go down as series progressed. Do you disagree with the overall data, or just believe that aggregate data (or even aggregate game 6 data) don't matter because in some particular game 6s that you cite he didn't do well?
As I said, I think it looks a lot better because he does have some three point games but is shutout for so many as well. It is a little deceiving, but this is not the sole reason keeping Turgeon out of the HHOF. He never raised his game when it counted, not once. It might be the reason he was kept off of Team Canada all the time. If you are going to have a mediocre playoff career you need to be Selanne, or Dionne or Hawerchuk or someone like that in the regular season.

When I think of a modern guy in the playoffs I think of a guy like Thornton. Granted, he finally put together a nice run in 2016 (2011 was alright too) but he wilted in the final in 2016. Thornton is the type of player that gets a lot of flack for that and maybe he should. After all he won the Hart/Art Ross and has never shown that type of dominance in the postseason, not even once. The thing is, he's comfortably in the HHOF regardless. Turgeon needed those postseasons because he never stood out in the regular season to distinguish himself as a HHOFer. But he never seemed to change his game for the postseason either. Maybe he was too predictable, I don't know, but his teams didn't win and a strong run by him could have changed that.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2017, 10:52 PM
  #137
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post

We don’t even have to talk about per-game, that’s just gravy, really. If VsX does what it’s supposed to do, it represents how close to the leaders a player tended to be, and how often they were close. And yes, Turgeon was often closer. I think you’re above waving an art ross at me like some kind of trump card, or even top-10 finishes for that matter. It’s an arbitrary cutoff. Another arbitrary cutoff is 20th. I could ask you - How can you throw out that Turgeon has two more top-20 finishes in points? Yes, it is true that Sedin has one season better than any of Turgeon’s, but you act like that’s “/discussion” when it’s obviously not.
if i'm understanding VsX correctly, it looks at best seven years right? seven is also an arbitrary number.

what does that stat look like when we compare top five years? top three? (legit curious)

but yes i think we can certainly agree that turgeon was a B+ scorer for longer and for more seasons. but i still maintain that henrik being an A+ scorer for those two seasons, combined with his run of A- and B+ seasons is still stronger than turgeon's A peak seasons (2/3 being incomplete) and large string of B+ seasons. but then we are really just getting down to the definition of "best" in "best offensive player."

but i would put it like this: pretend jamie benn retires tomorrow. who would you say was the better offensive player: benn or ziggy palffy?


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
If an assist is as good as a goal, isn’t a goal as good as an assist? I mean, we started by talking about points, and starting to break it down into goals and assists separately is a clear step backwards.

If Sedin had 15 more goals and 15 fewer assists every season, he wouldn’t be any worse of a player (and would probably be more valuable, honestly, on the strength of diverse skills and less predictability), but then you wouldn’t be able to extol the virtues of high assist totals as though they somehow transcend point totals. Can we stick to points please?
i was only bringing up the assists to preempt the goals > assists argument. but if you're not going there let's not go there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
That said, if two players are comparable in points, it is absolutely worth considering who the more versatile scorer is.
oops.


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
A few things about this:

- Are you misusing the term “peak” or did you mean “healthy peak” as in “the closest thing to a healthy AND peak Crosby”? Because I don’t think 22-year old Crosby was “peak”. Prime, sure, but he was definitely scoring at a noticeably higher rate over the next three seasons. No one is outscoring a healthy and peak Crosby.
i don't think 23-25 crosby were any worse on a purely offensive level than 20 and 21 year old crosby. yes, 2010 happens to be his worst season in that stretch. if you want to say he fell out of his peak and then fell back into it, go nuts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
- The 2nd part is technically true, but how is it relevant? For starters, it was not just Mogilny who got Mogilny those numbers, it was a dynamic duo creating a perfect storm kinda thing. Second, you ignored the actual differences. Mogilny outscored Turgeon in 1993 by 4% per game; Ovechkin was 10% up on Sedin. Yes, 2010 Ovechkin was a better player and he outscored him by more because of it.
point was merely that henrik outscored everyone but peak ovechkin. at his absolute 2010 best he would not have, as '93 turgeon did, finished behind an excellent but clearly inferior winger to ovechkin like mogilny.


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
- I’m not sure a bunch of subjective gushing tells us more than what VsX already does. Sedin scored at 103% of (healthy but not peak Crosby/peak but not healthy Ovechkin). Turgeon scored at 93% the level of peak and healthy Adam Oates. The benchmarks are fair and it reflects that what Sedin did that season was about 10% more impressive than what Turgeon did. You get no argument from me here. It’s all their other good seasons that I’m more concerned with, not just their best single seasons.
i think it's a tidy, consecutive absolute best two-season peak, actually.


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
So if you can’t call 52 dominant games “52 dominant games”, then what can you call it? I don’t accept that a player can’t be credited for a string of excellent hockey games or can only have it treated as though they scored those points in a full 82 games. Where does that get factored into what a player is capable of or how good an offensive player they are? (which, I believe, is what we’re talking about, not just how healthy they are, right?)

. . .

This glosses over some things. You can complain about using 1998 and 2000 – which were 2/3 ad ¾ - seasons in the table all you like, but even if you completely eliminate them, Turgeon still has 232 games as a top-10 scorer to Sedin’s 246 (six of one, a half dozen of the other, is it not?), 387 games as a top-15 scorer to Sedin’s 246, and 613 games as a top-20 scorer to Sedin’s 410. He simply played more games at a high level.

. . .

I can’t actually find any. Can you show me? I mean obviously 2010 and 2011, yes. But I checked 2012 and 2015 and couldn’t find anything. His scoring was very consistent those two seasons. It’s possible to imagine it in 2012 – it would have taken 55 points in 52 games and then just 25 in the other 30. I may not be scouring closely enough. But in 2015, when he was 18th? He’d need 55 in 52 to have a stretch like you’re claiming, which would leave him with just 15 in the other 30 to end up with what he ended up with.

I picked those two as they are his next two best PPG rankings after the obvious, but it should make the point that it’s not as easy or common as you might think. 2009 would be 63 points in 52 games, and 19 in the other 30. Then there’s the lockout year (21st but the season itself wasn’t even 52 games long), and then we’re looking at 2008 – when he was 30th – and that would require him to have just 12 in the other 30 games, and so on from there. Point is, I don’t think you’ll find what you’re looking for (beyond maybe 2012).
i'm going to quote myself here to make sure it doesn't get lost in the shuffle--

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post

it's total points, not points/game but here's the leaderboard on game #54 of the 2012 season: http://web.archive.org/web/201202081...statshome.htm?

Quote:
1. Evgeni Malkin PIT 62
2. C. Giroux PHI 60
3. S. Stamkos TBL 58
4. P. Kessel TOR 58
5. H. Sedin VAN 57
and re: how his willingness to play through injuries over full 82 seasons might lower his points/game ratio relative to if he had left the lineup, here's a news article from the very next day: http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/news...couver-canucks

Quote:
Published on Feb. 9, 2012
Henrik Sedin hasn't played in 552 consecutive games by accident.

The Vancouver Canucks' captain—who was hit by a puck on Tuesday, didn't miss a shift, then had to wear a walking boot the following day—does not have a fracture in his ankle and hopes to play Thursday night against the Minnesota Wild.

Sedin tested the ankle at the Canucks' morning skate on Thursday.

“Like I said, I want to play games,” Sedin told reporters. “That’s No. 1 and if they say it’s not going to get any worse and I’m able to play then I am going to play.”

“It’s not about a streak. I have always said if you are good enough to go then you are out there and you have to play at your best. That’s my opinion.”

Sedin, the 2010 Hart Trophy winner and scoring champion, took a heavy slap shot to the foot in the first period of Vancouver's Tuesday game against the Nashville Predators. Despite dealing with obvious pain, Sedin didn't miss a shift and came back to record two assists in Vancouver's 4-3 win.

"That's what leadership is all about right there," goalie Roberto Luongo told the Vancouver Province on Wednesday. "A play like that, most guys would have gone into the locker room and packed it in for the rest of the game.
EDIT:

and re: points/game here is game 52 of the 2012 season: http://web.archive.org/web/201202061...iewName=points henrik, 4th in overall points, with exactly 55 points. as you point out, if he had ended his season that day, at the end of the season he would have finished ahead of spezza in 5th for points/game. as of that day, if the season ended for everyone, he was 8th in points/game but others regressed.

Quote:
Evgeni Malkin PIT 61
C. Giroux PHI 60
S. Stamkos TBL 57
H. Sedin VAN 55
the crux of this, which was also the crux of my disagreement when we had this discussion during the top centers project, is that comparing these guys by a metric that treats a 2/3 or 3/4 season at top five production as if the guy would have continued to produce at that rate had he played a complete season and then multiplies the value of that season by .66 or .75 doesn't take into account that full seasons often mean playing through nagging injuries. that's why you can't treat a guy who played 82 games as being as good offensively as a guy who scored at the same rate but only played 60 games. it's not just, as you say, that one guy is more durable; it's also that one guy's per game averages were lowered by playing through injuries.

the case of henrik in the 2012 season is case in point. there he was in fifth place, on pace for a third straight top five points finish and top five points/game finish, when he takes a slap shot to the foot. he then scores one point in his next four games. he gets only 17 points in his next 23 games, before healing up just before the playoffs, finishing the year strong and squeaking back into the top ten with eight points in the last five games.

according to your turgeon metric, where we count the number of games he played in seasons he finished in the top 5, 10, 15, etc. of points/game, he would have been better off just pulling the chute on the rest of the season. again, this is a player who missed zero games in eight seasons, for 679 games.


Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
And hey, I’m not a fan of compartmentalizing players in strict ways. A game is a game, to some extent. But full seasons do at least provide us with something measurable (for example, I can tell you what it took to be scoring at a top-5 level during the 1997-98 season, but not an exact 52-game segment in 1997-98, and certainly not a span that covers parts of two seasons). But I mean, if you accept those annual thresholds for what it takes to be top-x in PPG are what they are, you can break an individual player’s games up anyway you like for all I care. Use 10 game segments if you wish. Or 20, or 37. And then count how many of those segments one player was over the threshold and in how many they were under. I can confidently tell you that you would still find Turgeon with more elite segments, because the numbers I used would have to be incredibly manipulated or filled with statistical anomalies for a different breakdown to find something different. For emphasis, even though I know 17 is an incredibly odd number – Sedin had only three seasons where he was even in the top-17 in points per game.
again with the per games...

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2017, 11:12 PM
  #138
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,612
vCash: 500
a tangential point-- look at that day before henrik took the puck off his foot in 2012: he is fifth in points but 8th in points/game. by the end of the season, if he had played no more games, he would have finished fifth in points/game. so what happened to the players who were higher than him in points/game in february? backstrom was hurt missed half the year, and eberle and MSL both regressed about 0.10 points/game (not much more than henrik himself did). because that's often what happens over the course of a long season, you hit a rough patch where you're not 100%.

i hope it's clear i'm not trying to give henrik extra "top 5" points for the 2012 season. i'm using it as an example to show that you can't take a guy's points/game at game 52 at face value. playing/not playing those other 30 games matters to your per game numbers.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2017, 04:18 PM
  #139
Johnny Engine
Moderator
 
Johnny Engine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,593
vCash: 500
Not prepared to respond to all of that, but VsX7 is a metric that works pretty well to include most prime years for most modern players, and not too many off years for older ones. Another approach has been to use VsX7 pre-expansion and VsX10 post-expansion. For individual players, listing various cut offs gives a helpful picture of their career curve (for example, at this point in Erik Karlsson's incomplete career, VsX5 makes him look like Paul Coffey; VsX10 makes him look not much better than Steve Duchesne)

Johnny Engine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2017, 03:43 PM
  #140
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
if i'm understanding VsX correctly, it looks at best seven years right? seven is also an arbitrary number.

what does that stat look like when we compare top five years? top three? (legit curious)
If you use just top-3, Sedin tops Turgeon by 5.6%.
If you use top-5, Sedin tops Turgeon by 2.0%.
If you use top-7, Turgeon is ahead by 1.3%.
For top-9, Turgeon is ahead by 3.1%.
For top-11, Turgeon is ahead by 5.0%.

Basically, the shorter a sample you look at, the better Sedin will look and the longer samples favour Turgeon. Are you comfortable judging how good an offensive player is based on just 3-5 seasons, especially modern players, who played when longevity was the rule and not the exception? I’m definitely not. I actually prefer longer samples like 10 years if it’s modern vs. modern. (TDMM and Sturminator kinda got us all using the 7 year standard as a simple ATD shorthand as most comparisons are not modern vs. modern.)

Quote:
but yes i think we can certainly agree that turgeon was a B+ scorer for longer and for more seasons. but i still maintain that henrik being an A+ scorer for those two seasons, combined with his run of A- and B+ seasons is still stronger than turgeon's A peak seasons (2/3 being incomplete) and large string of B+ seasons. but then we are really just getting down to the definition of "best" in "best offensive player."
Well where would you draw the line between these terms “B+” and “A+”? I assume somewhere between the fairly large drop-offs between Sedin’s best and 2nd best, or 2nd best and 3rd best seasons (103, 95, 85)? I don’t think it would be fair to draw it in a place that includes Henrik’s 2011 and not Turgeon’s 1993. I don’t see any place to draw it where Turgeon’s extremely long run would be outweighed by one superior season by Henrik.

(for example, draw it at 89+, they each have two B+ or better seasons, draw it at 86+, Turgeon has three, Henrik has two, draw it at 83+, Turgeon has seven, Henrik four, draw it at 80+, Turgeon has eight, Henrik four… and so on)

Quote:
i was only bringing up the assists to preempt the goals > assists argument. but if you're not going there let's not go there.
You don’t even have to believe goals > assists (though the vast majority does believe this), but you should believe that balance/unpredictability is better than imbalance/predictability.

Quote:
i'm going to quote myself here to make sure it doesn't get lost in the shuffle--

the crux of this, which was also the crux of my disagreement when we had this discussion during the top centers project, is that comparing these guys by a metric that treats a 2/3 or 3/4 season at top five production as if the guy would have continued to produce at that rate had he played a complete season and then multiplies the value of that season by .66 or .75 doesn't take into account that full seasons often mean playing through nagging injuries. that's why you can't treat a guy who played 82 games as being as good offensively as a guy who scored at the same rate but only played 60 games. it's not just, as you say, that one guy is more durable; it's also that one guy's per game averages were lowered by playing through injuries.

the case of henrik in the 2012 season is case in point. there he was in fifth place, on pace for a third straight top five points finish and top five points/game finish, when he takes a slap shot to the foot. he then scores one point in his next four games. he gets only 17 points in his next 23 games, before healing up just before the playoffs, finishing the year strong and squeaking back into the top ten with eight points in the last five games.

according to your turgeon metric, where we count the number of games he played in seasons he finished in the top 5, 10, 15, etc. of points/game, he would have been better off just pulling the chute on the rest of the season. again, this is a player who missed zero games in eight seasons, for 679 games.
OK, 2012 that meets the criteria I set. But you won’t find any others, will you? That’s still a massive gap in how often these two players were among the best producers in the game.

Suppose he does “pull the chute” on the season in 2011 and preserves his PPG. What does the chart look like then? Find two other really favourable segments 60-70 games long (as Turgeon really only has three of these worth talking about; it’s not like his career is littered with them, and one of them is a great season even with 15 games missed) and assume his season ends/starts at that favourable point. What does that do to his PPG rank in those couple seasons? Does it bump an 82 game segment up into the next bracket a couple times? Does he now look even with Turgeon as a producer? Or even close?

It’s not that there isn’t some merit in what you’re saying, because there is. But the degree to which it matters can’t possibly outweigh the degree to which Turgeon was outproducing him.

Another angle, to demonstrate: If, at any time during one of Turgeon’s 10 best producing season, you checked in on him to see how he was doing and recorded his results, he’d be, on average, producing at a level of the 10th-11th best in the league (no Mario/Gretzky adjustment given – or needed). If you did the same for Sedin, he’d be, on average, producing like the 22nd best scorer in the league. True, you’d also find that Sedin was also on the ice every time you checked in on him, and Turgeon was not 10% of the time, but can that 10% possibly outweigh the significant difference in production when they played? One was producing at a top-17 level nearly every year for 13 years, one did it three times.

The counter argument is you’re not helping when you’re not playing. Of course. But again – when discussing over a reasonable length sample, Turgeon outproduced Sedin anyway , with less help from linemates and more goal/assist balance, in the regular season and in the playoffs, so per-game doesn’t even have to be brought up. It would be a completely different matter if Sedin was consistently a 3-4% better scorer and/or Turgeon consistently missed 3-4% more games than he did, because then we’d have a situation where one player outscored the other, and the other would have better per-game numbers. That would be a good discussion to have, but when the player with fewer games outscores the player with more games, what is there to talk about?

Including playoffs, Crosby now has 40 more points than Ovechkin in 100 fewer games. There’s no discussion about who the better offensive player is on a career basis anymore. A few years ago, maybe there was. There was a time you could say Ovechkin had 70 more career points but in 120 more games. The “per game” people and the “raw totals” people would, and did, have fun with that one.

Quote:
again with the per games...
You can say this to me when I project someone’s totals to a full season and act like they never missed a game. It’s not a fair method analysis to pretend that how good a player was when he was on the ice doesn’t matter. Of course it matters. How healthy they were is another thing. And what their production may have looked like had they not played through injuries is another entirely.

But I should repeat this again, to ensure it does not get lost in the shuffle either: Sedin had only three seasons where he was even in the top-17 in points per game

If we were to take the entire primes of these two players and just boil them into one season and what to expect of them in a 2016-17 context, it would be as follows:

Turgeon: 74 GP, 29 G, 43 A, 72 Pts, 0.97 PPG (11th in NHL) – and had no teammate with as many as 60 points or 0.75 PPG
Sedin: 80 GP, 16 G, 54 A, 70 Pts, 0.87 PPG (22nd in NHL) – and had a linemate that was just behind him with 79-25-43-78 and 23rd in PPG

(and if we project to the playoffs using their primes, both lose round 1 in 7 games, scoring 6 points, Turgeon with 2 goals, Sedin 1, but this is just to satisfy anyone's curiosity about how it ends - rounding eliminated nearly all the difference that existed here)

Why would the player who played less and still had more goals and points not be the better offensive player? Choosing Sedin because his 2010 was better than Turgeon’s, is like saying he had a better season in this example because he had that 12-points-in-7-games explosion in games 45-51 and Turgeon only had 11 points in his best 7 games. Choosing him because he was healthier would be a valid reason if his better health caused him to outproduce Turgeon, but it didn’t.


Last edited by seventieslord: 01-10-2017 at 03:58 PM.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2017, 10:21 PM
  #141
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,612
vCash: 500
there are moments in all that where i find myself almost starting to go "well maybe..." and then i remember that one guy had back to back 1st team all-stars, the secondine by a landslide. the other never finished higher than 6th in AST voting, though admittedly one time did finish 5th for the hart.

and when i read "only finished higher than 17th in points/game three times" i'm like, whoa, because it sounds really bad. until i remember that he has four top ten points finishes. ten is an arbitrary number but when his best seven year consecutive run is 13, 1, 4, 10, 20, crazy everything went to hell year, and 5, how meaningful can your 17th in points/game stat be?

henrik's '11 vs. turgeon's '93? look at their AST voting results that year and tell me there isn't a + or -'s worth of daylight between them.

ultimately i think you are staking an awful lot on #11 years. no henrik doesn't have those. but if a guy plays that long, puts up 1,000 points, and has a memorable two (or if i let my imagination get the better of me and go turgeon with this, 2.5) year peak where he was a legit top player in the league-- top as in a signature superstar guy mentioned as an MVP and scoring race favourite, with the awards and finishes at the end of the year to back it up, to me that beats a lot of extra #11 years.

i see a reality check point to this discussion where the #11 years (and lets be fair, turgeon has 8s and 9s too if we are talking per games) can't make up for the peak disparity, short as it was, because while we're not telling our kids about the times henrik barely hit the top 20, he also isn't peak and nothing else like markus naslund. he has had a long, full, respectable career outside of that peak. or put it another way, and to bring this back to how this digression started: those turgeon #11 seasons will likely place him south of the HHOF's cut off line. there's a decent chance henrik's peak puts him over the line.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 12:12 PM
  #142
trentmccleary
Registered User
 
trentmccleary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alfie-Ville
Posts: 20,731
vCash: 500
I think Turgeon has the numbers to merit a closer look, but I don't think that closer look does him any favours.

For guys whose numbers are close to the line; I think that's when people start looking at intangibles, narratives and peak performances. Turgeon doesn't appear to have peak performances to stand out above other non-inductees. IIRC, he'd been heavily criticized for virtually every intangible quality at some point throughout his career (ie: defense, leadership, physical play, clutch performance, etc). He could get in, but could also go down as possibly the best offensive player not to make it.

trentmccleary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 04:15 PM
  #143
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trentmccleary View Post
I think Turgeon has the numbers to merit a closer look, but I don't think that closer look does him any favours.

For guys whose numbers are close to the line; I think that's when people start looking at intangibles, narratives and peak performances. Turgeon doesn't appear to have peak performances to stand out above other non-inductees. IIRC, he'd been heavily criticized for virtually every intangible quality at some point throughout his career (ie: defense, leadership, physical play, clutch performance, etc). He could get in, but could also go down as possibly the best offensive player not to make it.
That's what hurts him the most, it's the "good batting average, low RBI" type of thinking with him. With the numbers he has, he needs those intangibles to help him. I've said it before, but he's got a lot of the Phil Housley-esque qualities that people didn't like about him. No one denies Housley wasn't good offensively. But when you have someone like Roenick who was basically every bit as good offensively, was more revered among his position, has better playoff runs and overall is considered to be more explosive with better intangibles............and he isn't in either despite the colourful and popular reputation he had..........well, then should Turgeon be in ahead of him?

Two other guys who play different positions come to mind as well. Fleury and Recchi. Yes most of us agree Recchi gets in anyway but he hasn't yet. I'm not sure how Turgeon would ever be rated ahead of these guys.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 08:13 PM
  #144
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 41,728
vCash: 500
Turgeon, Roenick, Recchi, Fleury may all find themselves in the Hockey Hall of Fame one day. Not soon or with any urgency, but one day they'll end up in their on some sleepy nomination, and the response will be "sure, why not?"

One of the reasons will be because when you look at the dead puck generation who came up to the NHL after Selanne's rookie season and the Ovechkin/Crosby rookie season, there's about a dozen draft classes with a real shortage of guys who you think of as Hall of Famers, and they seem to make a habit of inducting about three or four per season.

Those early 90s retreads may find their place yet.

Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2017, 03:48 PM
  #145
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
there are moments in all that where i find myself almost starting to go "well maybe..." and then i remember that one guy had back to back 1st team all-stars, the secondine by a landslide. the other never finished higher than 6th in AST voting, though admittedly one time did finish 5th for the hart.
Remember that we’re only talking about who the better offensive player is. All-star voting is supposed to be a reflection of overall value. It often isn’t, and tracks the points race, but whatever. It shouldn’t be brought up in this discussion because it tells us nothing new. All-star voting doesn’t prove or disprove either of our cases, it’s a composite metric whose main components are the offensive output of the players and the outputs of other centers around them.

In 2010, Henrik outscored all players, so good for him. But look at 2011 vs. 1993. Both players scored point totals that are, by any objective measure, comparable. They finished in the same ranking in the league, too (outlier Mario excluded), and I’m comfortable judging them on those merits. But if you look at all-star voting, one was a 1st team all-star and one was 6th. What gives? I think it might have something to do with the fact that one was the highest scoring center in the league (behind three wingers) and one was the 5th highest scoring center in his league (behind no wingers). That’s really all it means, and I don’t see the point in acting like it goes deeper than that. A Turgeon who had that kind of season in 2011 would have been the 1st team all-star too, and a Sedin who had that kind of season in 1993 wouldn’t have made a dent either.

Quote:
and when i read "only finished higher than 17th in points/game three times" i'm like, whoa, because it sounds really bad. until i remember that he has four top ten points finishes. ten is an arbitrary number but when his best seven year consecutive run is 13, 1, 4, 10, 20, crazy everything went to hell year, and 5, how meaningful can your 17th in points/game stat be?
You mean 13, 1, 4, 7, 20, crazy everything went to hell year, 10.

It should go without saying that if you’re 1st or 4th or 7th in points you’re going to rank fairly highly in points per game. But since you asked, 2015 is the kind of season where you can really see how and where this matters. Sedin was 10th in points and only 18th in PPG. 2 years later you get to rattle that off as a top-10 season that meets that arbitrary mark, but if any one of Tarasenko, Johnson, Getzlaf, Malkin, Datsyuk or Kane doesn’t miss a handful of games, then he’s not in. The 10 represents a mix of how well he scored and how he didn’t miss any games, but the 18 represents only how well he scored.

And I don’t think shifting the conversation to who did what consecutively is very useful. Why is it any more valid than doing the opposite and judging them by the length of time between their first and last great season? It’s true that I couldn’t pick out a consecutive 7-year string of rankings as strong for Turgeon, but who cares? 1992 and 2001 are both among his six best seasons and they span ten calendar years. But who cares?

And if we’re putting that much of a focus on consecutivity, then 2014 has to count because he laid a huge egg that year (92nd). Over 13 seasons, Turgeon never finished below 35th, and never below 27th in a full, healthy season. Surely if we’re matching up consecutive periods and you want to see 2015 included, the fact that Turgeon doesn’t have anything resembling 2014 has to offset the lack of a 2010. Not that I think this is a path worth going down anyway…

Quote:
henrik's '11 vs. turgeon's '93? look at their AST voting results that year and tell me there isn't a + or -'s worth of daylight between them.
Just did.

Quote:
ultimately i think you are staking an awful lot on #11 years. no henrik doesn't have those. but if a guy plays that long, puts up 1,000 points, and has a memorable two (or if i let my imagination get the better of me and go turgeon with this, 2.5) year peak where he was a legit top player in the league-- top as in a signature superstar guy mentioned as an MVP and scoring race favourite, with the awards and finishes at the end of the year to back it up, to me that beats a lot of extra #11 years.
To me it can beat a couple of those “#11 years” but there are too many for this short peak to beat, considering the difference in short peaks isn’t much to speak of anyway. C’mon, 2% over 5 years? With an equally talented linemate helping him? This outweighs nearly twice as many seasons and twice as many games as an elite scorer?

Ultimately, you’re staking an awful lot on 2010, and you should, because it is the only thing that really even begins to push this in Henrik’s favour.

Quote:
i see a reality check point to this discussion where the #11 years (and lets be fair, turgeon has 8s and 9s too if we are talking per games) can't make up for the peak disparity, short as it was, because while we're not telling our kids about the times henrik barely hit the top 20, he also isn't peak and nothing else like markus naslund. he has had a long, full, respectable career outside of that peak. or put it another way, and to bring this back to how this digression started: those turgeon #11 seasons will likely place him south of the HHOF's cut off line. there's a decent chance henrik's peak puts him over the line.
I agree Henrik might get in (art ross, face of a franchise, one finals run), but that’s not the reason we’re having this digression. It was about who the better offensive player was.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2017, 05:36 PM
  #146
ChrisK97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,994
vCash: 500
So is Turgeon the Phil Housley of forwards- gaudy numbers, but not much else?

ChrisK97 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2017, 05:40 PM
  #147
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisK97 View Post
So is Turgeon the Phil Housley of forwards- gaudy numbers, but not much else?
I always say that just from observing their careers even if some get mad at me, haha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
Turgeon, Roenick, Recchi, Fleury may all find themselves in the Hockey Hall of Fame one day. Not soon or with any urgency, but one day they'll end up in their on some sleepy nomination, and the response will be "sure, why not?"

One of the reasons will be because when you look at the dead puck generation who came up to the NHL after Selanne's rookie season and the Ovechkin/Crosby rookie season, there's about a dozen draft classes with a real shortage of guys who you think of as Hall of Famers, and they seem to make a habit of inducting about three or four per season.

Those early 90s retreads may find their place yet.
Wouldn't we be opening the door up a little too liberally then? Not for Recchi of course, he accomplished too much. Fleury is deserving too I think, but after that doesn't it get a little muddy?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2017, 12:43 AM
  #148
The Panther
Registered User
 
The Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 5,133
vCash: 500
If nothing else, this thread has had more written/discussed about Pierre Turgeon than probably any other conversation on earth in history. And SeventiesLord will be Turgeon's biographer.

The Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2017, 01:20 AM
  #149
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Panther View Post
If nothing else, this thread has had more written/discussed about Pierre Turgeon than probably any other conversation on earth in history. And SeventiesLord will be Turgeon's biographer.
He is a player that brings a lot of opinions to the forefront isn't he?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2017, 09:47 AM
  #150
Johnny Engine
Moderator
 
Johnny Engine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,593
vCash: 500

Johnny Engine is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:00 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.