They both started their PPG+ play in 1988-1989. Their point-per-game level of play both ended in 2000-2001.
In that "long prime" of 12 seasons, Oates is 3rd for total points and 8th for points per game with 1.23 PPG. Turgeon is 6th for total points and 9th for points per game with 1.20 PPG.
In their "short prime", 88-89 to 95-96, Oates is 4th in both points and PPG while Turgeon is 7th and 9th, respectively.
From 96-97 to 00-01 though, Turgeon is 13th in points and 9th in PPG while Oates is 14th in points and 22nd in PPG.
Looks to me that Oates had a better peak but you could say that Turgeon had more top 10 seasons.
They both started their PPG+ play in 1988-1989. Their point-per-game level of play both ended in 2000-2001.
In that "long prime" of 12 seasons, Oates is 3rd for total points and 8th for points per game with 1.23 PPG. Turgeon is 6th for total points and 9th for points per game with 1.20 PPG.
In their "short prime", 88-89 to 95-96, Oates is 4th in both points and PPG while Turgeon is 7th and 9th, respectively.
From 96-97 to 00-01 though, Turgeon is 13th in points and 9th in PPG while Oates is 14th in points and 22nd in PPG.
Looks to me that Oates had a better peak but you could say that Turgeon had more top 10 seasons.
So Oates has five more top ten scoring finishes and more top three scoring finishes than Turgeon has top ten finishes.
Ah, you beat me to it. That is exactly what I was going to post. That right there should tell a big chunk of the story. Oates was deceptively a top notch scorer. Turgeon did have a couple seasons where he was 4th and 5th in PPG, but if we are going to allow him those extra points for being healthy then we have to do it for Sakic, Jagr etc. Therefore he never wins a major award.
Plus not like either player had a great track record on the Hart trophy voting, but Oates finished 4th one year where Turgeon never cracked that.
Oates was probably the best forward on two teams that reached the final. Turgeon never did this and while he set up a great season for Scott Young once, Oates did this to Bondra, Neely, Hull, Juneau and Chris Simon. The comparisons are far apart.
Another thing, Andreychuk didn't have the seasons he had around Turgeon that he did with Gilmour. The reason I say this, is because Oates and Gilmour constantly get compared and it stands to reason that once Andreychuk was with a better center, he put up more points.
Oates wins this hands down and while Turgeon does get unfairly treated around here I can say in my mind a poll like this should be unanimous
Ah, you beat me to it. That is exactly what I was going to post. That right there should tell a big chunk of the story. Oates was deceptively a top notch scorer. Turgeon did have a couple seasons where he was 4th and 5th in PPG, but if we are going to allow him those extra points for being healthy then we have to do it for Sakic, Jagr etc. Therefore he never wins a major award.
There's nothing wrong with saying, "If Turgeon stays healthy and all else remains as it was..."
To go back to the OP:
- How much teammates and linemates matter in the production levels of these players,
- How much more, if at all, goalscoring should be valued compared to playmaking.
- How important is just being a good player, as opposed to staying healthy for 12-30 more games in a few seasons throughout your career for prettier finishes and totals. (example, Crosby did not have the best season but he did clearly demonstrate he was the best player, in the same way you could say Turgeon had four seasons where he didn't have a top-10 season but was a top-10 offensive player)
If none of these things sway you then you are stuck looking at raw point totals and raw point finishes. I think this goes deeper than that, personally.
Quote:
Plus not like either player had a great track record on the Hart trophy voting, but Oates finished 4th one year where Turgeon never cracked that.
You're being silly. Technically it's right but Turgeon was 5th once. What a big difference, hey?
Quote:
Oates was probably the best forward on two teams that reached the final. Turgeon never did this and while he set up a great season for Scott Young once, Oates did this to Bondra, Neely, Hull, Juneau and Chris Simon. The comparisons are far apart.
- In 2003, Kariya, Rucchin and even Niedermayer were more valuable.
- What he did with Hull and Simon was awesome. But Neely had already scored 50+ twice without Oates. Bondra led the NHL in goals once without Oates. Let's not pretend that he deserves all the credit here. Turgeon never played with a goalscorer close to prolific as those guys.
- You're forgetting three years of DFK in New York.
Quote:
Another thing, Andreychuk didn't have the seasons he had around Turgeon that he did with Gilmour. The reason I say this, is because Oates and Gilmour constantly get compared and it stands to reason that once Andreychuk was with a better center, he put up more points.
Soooo... Turgeon at 19, 20, 21 is not as good as Gilmour at 29, 30, 31?
Big surprise. Honestly, I'd go as far as saying he's not as good as him at all, the ages that they both had Andreychuk with them only exacerbates the difference in Andreychuk's production that was observed.
That is, of course, assuming Andreychuk actually played with Turgeon. I don't know if he did. It was common for players like that to be split up. Can someone confirm?
Since we're dealing with a player that missed a significant amount of games during his prime I think a good way of accounting for this is games played at a top-pace (see this thread: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=878672). Comparing the two players we get:
Games played at a top-pace:
Top-5
Top-10
top-20
Oates
220
220
698
Turgeon
112
342
646
Based on these numbers, I would say that they are indeed comparable offensively.
How is it possible that Oates has as many games played at a top 5 pace as at a top 10 pace?
Scoring wise they're not far off but Oates was far better at what he did best than Turgeon at what he did best (playmaking centre vs. goal scoring centre). Turgeon had exceptional skills for offense but was even softer and lazier than Oates at times and his career took a sharp dive starting at age 32 when he signed with Dallas. To be fair, at age 32 (interestingly their birthdays are separated by 1 day in August but 7 years apart) Oates had five fewer years of experience due to not being drafted and not signed until 1985 when he was already 23. Therefore less time to be worn down. But even if you go to seasons after Oates turned 37 he was an elite passer and fared better than Turgeon, who could not adapt to the demands of the NHL as he aged and never developed a checking game to fall back on. He retired at age 37 cause he realized he'd be nothing more than a PP specialist for hire and a low paid one at that.
Meanwhile Oates at age 39 led the league in assists with 64 and had 78 points in 80 games and was still highly regarded enough to be the centrepiece of a huge trade package by the Flyers to Washington (that the Caps blew but the Flyers never should've offered- Maxime Oullet, a hot goalie prospect at the time, and their 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounders in 2002!? It was poetic justice on Bobby Clarke that the Flyers were then beaten in 5 by Ottawa and scored a historic low 2 goals while doing so- both goals assisted on by Oates by the way). Interestingly his first 2 trades were fleecings for St. Louis (only giving up an aging, declining Federko and hot-and-cold, well-traveled sniper Tony McKegney and Paul MacLean went along with him too! Then the Blues only got Janney- a poor man's Turgeon- and Quintal- a knuckleheaded pylon in the long run. Only Boston got something for him by getting Allison, Anson Carter out of it).
Oates only slowed down in seasons at age 40 (but still helped lead a team in scoring en route to losing game 7 of he finals) and especially at age 41- though I believe he wasn't signed through training camp and at his age that obviously hurt his forgettable final season as an Oiler). Oates also had an impressive 156 playoff points in 163 games, a better PPG than Turgeon despite having five playoff runs beyond 13 games. I say despite because longer runs tend to drag a players playoff PPG down. Turgeon made decent numbers in several 1st round exits where points come easier than in a Conf. Final or Cup Final (much like new inductee Nieuwendyk did in between cups in losing causes and what Dionne did his whole career) and he still had a PPG a shade under Oates, never playing too many powerhouse teams until he went to the Blues.
Turgeon only played in a playoff beyond 13 games once (2001, when his game was last at a star's level) and when he was on the 03 Stars and 06 Avs who won a round, he figured into only half the games anyway. Turgeon is, was and never will be a HOF'er in my mind. His paper achievements seem nice but he's the definition of a numbers guy and too many deserving impact performers will stand in his way. Much noise is made about his 92-93 and he was phenomenal that year (still just a minus-1 which shows he loooved PPs) but never managed to ascend to superstar for a lasting time after that. I find it hard to believe a healthy Pierre freaking Turgeon was the difference between the Isles losing to Montreal and beating them. Sure it might've gone 6 or even 7, but Roy had his mojo going. No dice on that argument when longtime Isles fans have dragged it up either here or on youtube.
Oates from 1990-96 was a superstar with HOF performance level, proving he could be lethal with Hull and without Hull (not much Neely in 92-93, folks, and he still had career highs that, even if you factor in the higher scoring, were just about the best numbers he displayed aside from 90-91. He chalked up 97 assists with average finishers like Joe Juneau, Dmitri Kvartalnov, Steve Leach, Ted Donato and Steve Heinze. Not to mention 45 goals, by far a career high. Oates is the biggest reason Neely was able to go from mere 50 goal man to a goal-a-game beast in that magical 93-94 comeback season). Naturally, it was with Hull that he was at his best and his 90-91 season pro rates to something like 32 goals-119 assists-151 points over a full 80 games and no reason to believe he wouldn't have done it and Hull wouldn't have topped 90. And even after that the guy was an elite playmaker (6th in assists in 1997, 5th in 1998, 2nd in 2000, 2nd in 2001 and as I mentioned earlier 1st in 2002). I know Oates didn't play a robust game, backcheck much or play great two-way hockey but he certainly has an edge on Pierre. I'd take Oates in the games that mattered in a heartbeat.
Last edited by Hab-a-maniac: 06-30-2011 at 06:05 AM.
... conclusion ... Sundin ...led his team in scoring by margins ... his team's best offensive player ... good player ... staying healthy ... top-10 offensive player ... important ... has HHOF numbers and offensive dominance ...
Just joking around a bit in my previous post. Well, perhaps not that much?
To reply more seriously on your original post here, and the replies, I agree you did a good comparison. And you - like others here - obviously knows hockey and stats, which makes it interesting and educating to be here.
Oates has the better offensive stats.
Influence of +/- (or rather playing style/balance) on points production.
You didn't include +/-, or pay attention to goals for and/or against. Is it partly because you compared two offensive producers, and think +/- and GA would say more about their teammates than about Oates and Turgeon themselves?
I think +/- during ES should be considered important also when looking at scoring. For example, some guy may play 54-54 during a season, while some other guy may rather play 42-42. In that case, the first guy may be favoured in the scoring, having been on the ice for 12 more goals. We may for example think about the Bobby Clarke threads here, where Clarke had a very low GA (I think much better than Orr, or then Gretzky).
I think the net result during ES is what count (thus also my nickname here). And balance is a key word. One should be optimally offensive minded and optimally defensive minded.
Couldn't basically all players/lines increase their scoring by x percent, just by playing a more offensive minded style? Why do they not? Well, because they try to play with a balance that creates the best net result (GF minus GA).
Again, maybe in this case it's not as important to think of? While in other cases (involving Bobby Clarke or other defensive stars) it is?
Much more can be said on the subject (perhaps better in a separate thread). But to put forward another thought/question. Offensive numbers are often quite consistent season by season. That is probably a case for G, A and Pts being reliable statistic meassurements. +/- tends to differ a lot.
Adjusted stats mixed by non-adjusted
There is a section where you write about linemates and number of goals scored by linemates (e.g. Derek King). I think adjusted goals would have been more suitable to look at, rather than actual goals. If so, the effects would be at least slightly different, although your points still seem valid.
Importance of goals vs 1st assists vs 2nd assists.
I think this would require a topic on its own. It's an interesting subject that I think should be studied more carefully.
My impressions are that goals and assists are pretty equal in importance. Great playmakers can make reletively mediocre goal scorers into good goal scorers (Oates/C.Simon, Mario/R.Brown, J.Thornton/Cheechoo, Gretzky, Forsberg). Great goal scorers might in their turn help guys getting assists. I don't think assists are of less value than goals.
I think we should also think of all the great "assists" great playmakers make that do not result in goals. (Or are there an equal amount of "should have scored if only I received a better pass (or had a better playmaker feeding me)"?)
Something I would like to see more of, is the sort of calculating I did in the Naslund vs Forsberg thread here, where I calculated what their teams' win-lose record would look like if eliminating every goal they had a point on. (It has its limitations though, as in reality - if replacing the player with some other guy - some amount of goals would likely still have been scored. And it doesn't consider GA.)
Scoring wise they're not far off but Oates was far better at what he did best than Turgeon at what he did best (playmaking centre vs. goal scoring centre).
On the other hand, Turgeon was much better at what he did worse (playmaking) than Oates was at what he did worse (goal scoring).
As I showed, Turgeon enjoyed a more substantial edge in goalscoring in his respective prime, than Oates did in playmaking in his. That is certainly food for thought.
Quote:
But even if you go to seasons after Oates turned 37 he was an elite passer and fared better than Turgeon
Their career paths started and ended at different ages but were pretty much the same. Both had a period of 13 seasons where they were a top offensive producer.
Quote:
Meanwhile Oates at age 39 led the league in assists with 64 and had 78 points in 80 games
That's the 13th of his 13 seasons as a top producer. Turgeon, in his 13th, scored 82 points in 79 games, including 30 goals.
Yes, he was younger, but you've already conceded that the different career paths could have a lot to do with their respective experience levels based on when their careers started.
Quote:
Oates also had an impressive 156 playoff points in 163 games, a better PPG than Turgeon despite having five playoff runs beyond 13 games. I say despite because longer runs tend to drag a players playoff PPG down. Turgeon made decent numbers in several 1st round exits where points come easier than in a Conf. Final or Cup Final (much like new inductee Nieuwendyk did in between cups in losing causes and what Dionne did his whole career) and he still had a PPG a shade under Oates, never playing too many powerhouse teams until he went to the Blues.
Scoring does get tougher in later rounds, and per-game scoring numbers are always "more impressive" when achieved over a higher sample size.
I don't think there is any spin that one can place on their playoff numbers that would show Turgeon to be the better playoff producer. His playoff numbers are very good, and very underrated. Oates' are excellent. With that said, Oates getting into a lot of playoff games between 1987 and 1993 when scoring was still high, made quite the impact on his career per-game averages.
I can demonstrate this later, using the league scoring averages by year. But I'm pretty sure the best playoff runs by either player, based on a per-game adjusted production level, was Turgeon in 1999 and 2001, and Oates in 1991 and 1992. If you look at full careers and adjust to scoring levels I imagine Oates comes out no more than maybe 3 or 4 percentage points ahead in points per game, just with 50% more games, which is, no doubt, more impressive.
Quote:
Oates from 1990-96 was a superstar with HOF performance level, proving he could be lethal with Hull and without Hull (not much Neely in 92-93, folks, and he still had career highs that, even if you factor in the higher scoring, were just about the best numbers he displayed aside from 90-91. He chalked up 97 assists with average finishers like Joe Juneau, Dmitri Kvartalnov, Steve Leach, Ted Donato and Steve Heinze. Not to mention 45 goals, by far a career high. Oates is the biggest reason Neely was able to go from mere 50 goal man to a goal-a-game beast in that magical 93-94 comeback season). Naturally, it was with Hull that he was at his best and his 90-91 season pro rates to something like 32 goals-119 assists-151 points over a full 80 games and no reason to believe he wouldn't have done it and Hull wouldn't have topped 90. And even after that the guy was an elite playmaker (6th in assists in 1997, 5th in 1998, 2nd in 2000, 2nd in 2001 and as I mentioned earlier 1st in 2002). I know Oates didn't play a robust game, backcheck much or play great two-way hockey but he certainly has an edge on Pierre. I'd take Oates in the games that mattered in a heartbeat.
That's all well and good to spout off stats like this when talking about Adam Oates… just know that I can give you numbers that are, without considering per-game totals and linemates, only 8% less impressive. That's not a huge difference.
It really depends on your thoughts about per-game numbers, the importance of goals over assists, and the consideration of linemates... which you are not required to consider, but cases can be made for all points. All it really takes is giving full credit for one of those three things and Turgeon is basically on his level offensively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plusandminus
Influence of +/- (or rather playing style/balance) on points production.
You didn't include +/-, or pay attention to goals for and/or against. Is it partly because you compared two offensive producers, and think +/- and GA would say more about their teammates than about Oates and Turgeon themselves?
I did talk about goals against, and I did cursory evaluations of who they had on their bluelines and in net during their careers.
Quote:
Adjusted stats mixed by non-adjusted
There is a section where you write about linemates and number of goals scored by linemates (e.g. Derek King). I think adjusted goals would have been more suitable to look at, rather than actual goals. If so, the effects would be at least slightly different, although your points still seem valid.
You're basically right, I got lazy there, and there would be some impact on those numbers, but not much, so the point stands.
Last edited by seventieslord: 06-30-2011 at 10:24 AM.
New attempt. I hope at least one of us gets at least something of value out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
Linemates
I think you reason well, and we agreed about the adjusted stuff. I would need to dig further ínto stats in order to make more comments. I do try to be thorough, but unfortunately not always have the time or data needed to get where I want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
- How much teammates and linemates matter in the production levels of these players,
- How much more, if at all, goalscoring should be valued compared to playmaking.
- How important is just being a good player, as opposed to staying healthy for 12-30 more games in a few seasons throughout your career for prettier finishes and totals. (example, Crosby did not have the best season but he did clearly demonstrate he was the best player, in the same way you could say Turgeon had four seasons where he didn't have a top-10 season but was a top-10 offensive player)
1. I need to dig deeper into stats. Shallow impression is that Oates probably benefitted more. Perhaps to the extent that it even was what a factor that gave him the edge in points per game, which in that case I think would be an eye-opener.
2. I tried to share my view upon that in my previous reply here. Generally, treat them similarly. To be thorough, analyze individuals more carefully.
3. I think I more than the average person here values "just being a good player". I think Crosby is already HOF, likely Lindros too. I think Forsberg was the best player and scorer during two consecutive seasons. I do understand the other way of looking at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
I think offensive output constitutes the majority of these players' values but it is important to take a look at everything else as well.
That's the general impression yes. But if I understand you, you think that Turgeon is a bit underrated compared to Oates. In order for more people to discover, and agree, on that, I think one needs to be shown eye-opening stats or other info.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
Defense: Adam Oates ... averaged 0.95 adjusted ESGA/GP. Turgeon averaged 0.74. Oates was the beneficiary of better goaltending (Cujo/Kolzig vs. Puppa and late career Fuhr) and better defensemen (Bourque, an extremely solid and balanced WSH corps vs. Housley - who would have made things worse - Malakhov/Norton/Krupp/Kurvers - seriously! - and finally greener pastures with the MacInnis/Pronger situation in STL)
The numbers don't indicate Oates was a better defensive player and though their reputations say that he was, the extreme gap that we're seeing in the numbers is a good indication that even if they're lying to us a bit, these two players are even.
I do not follow you here. Don't you say that Oates averaged .95 ESGA, and Turgeon .74? Doesn't that make Turgeon, not Oates, having the better numbers?
(Edit: Missed the word "don't"! But I got my next sentence right, or?)
And don't you write that Oates seem to have had better defensive names around him than Turgeon? If so, the "gap" between the two would actually increase, wouldn't it? That is, Turgeon not only was .21 better per game, but did it with "worse" names around him?
What I miss here - and you or someone else is welcome to post it or link me to it - is their ESGF. Career wise and/or season by season. GP, ESTOI, ESGF, ESGA, ESgoals, ESass, ESpoints.
I do think that would be interesting information.
That is the thing I would look into when analyzing their ES play.
Then I would analyze their PP stats too. Seperately.
And the SH stats.
That's how my brain tends/wants to work in cases like these.
Overall, you very well may come to better solutions than I would myself. I think forums like this one provides good opportunites for people to co-work in order to try to fine tune things.
Does anyone know where one can find info on the kind of stats I listed above. ESTOI, ESTOIpergame, ESGF, ESGA, ESgoals, ESassists, ESpts? And same for PP and SH? (I'm kind of new here, sorry for that. And I'm not too confident regarding my searching ability.)
I wrote about balance too, and that is something of importance to me, so to the extent that I named myself plus and minus. To me, it is essential when judging players, to look at both. Hockey is so much about role playing, and how to balance things in order to get the best net result. If one should add GF and GA, and divide by GP, one would (obviously) see that some players have a more high scoring style (GF + GA), while others have a more low scoring style (GF + GA) while still producing similar net results (GF - GA).
In this particular comparison, my guess is that it may not affect things much. But if we don't look at it, we won't know for sure.
(Edit: One could for example, recalculate ES points scored, based on ESGF and ESGA. How to do it, I think I have insight into, but won't get into it here. Anyway, by using this technique to adjust ES points, the total points (of course, since they consists of ES+PP+SH) are affect. But as said, this may not be the right place.)
Same with different situations (ES, PP, SH). Obviously, how players are being used affects their stats. If one of the two played more SH than the other, his offensive numbers probably was hurt. (I'm sure most here knows that, but write it anyway, obvious or not.)
Last edited by plusandminus: 06-30-2011 at 02:24 PM.
1. I need to dig deeper into stats. Shallow impression is that Oates probably benefitted more. Perhaps to the extent that it even was what a factor that gave him the edge in points per game, which in that case I think would be an eye-opener.
The key word being "perhaps". I can't conclusively comment on it and I don't know who really can. I have the same shallow impression as you.
Quote:
2. I tried to share my view upon that in my previous reply here. Generally, treat them similarly. To be thorough, analyze individuals more carefully.
There is a case that goals are always worth more than assists, and there is also a case that any point from an elite player is a point that they likely had a lot to do with and therefore they're all just as valuable. With regards to these two, I am not 100% sure where I stand, but I did provide the "goals count for more" viewpoint.
Quote:
And don't you write that Oates seem to have had better defensive names around him than Turgeon? If so, the "gap" between the two would actually increase, wouldn't it? That is, Turgeon not only was .21 better per game, but did it with "worse" names around him?
Yes, that is correct. At the same time I know these numbers can lie, I just question to what extent can they really drag us from the truth.
Quote:
What I miss here - and you or someone else is welcome to post it or link me to it - is their ESGF. Career wise and/or season by season. GP, ESTOI, ESGF, ESGA, ESgoals, ESass, ESpoints.
I do think that would be interesting information.
That is the thing I would look into when analyzing their ES play.
Then I would analyze their PP stats too. Seperately.
And the SH stats.
That's how my brain tends/wants to work in cases like these.
Overall, you very well may come to better solutions than I would myself. I think forums like this one provides good opportunites for people to co-work in order to try to fine tune things.
All this kind of stuff exists already. I didn't bother with PP breakdowns because both players had equal PP opportunities, being their team's best offensive centers for so long. Oates killed more penalties, but not at the expense of offensive time - it was basically tacked on, on top of that, so it gave him the opportunity to look better offensively, and it should. But they were about the same in terms of opportunity at ES and on the PP.
Quote:
Does anyone know where one can find info on the kind of stats I listed above. ESTOI, ESTOIpergame, ESGF, ESGA, ESgoals, ESassists, ESpts? And same for PP and SH? (I'm kind of new here, sorry for that. And I'm not too confident regarding my searching ability.)
PM me for an email address. I will send you a few files.
Quote:
(Edit: One could for example, recalculate ES points scored, based on ESGF and ESGA. How to do it, I think I have insight into, but won't get into it here. Anyway, by using this technique to adjust ES points, the total points (of course, since they consists of ES+PP+SH) are affect. But as said, this may not be the right place.)
No need to recalculate. These numbers exist, thanks to the HSP. I'll include that in the files.
That only really holds up to scrutiny if it can be shown that this is different from other players of his stature. For example, are there game logs that show Adam Oates Joe Nieuwendyk had a propensity to have a 1G, 2A night in a grueling 4-3 game 7 loss? I'm not banking on it; I am sure that any player has lower scoring totals if you look at games in which their team lost.
Sometimes reputations become self-fulfilling and the things we dig up can be pretty predictible if there's something we're trying to prove. I was quite shocked to find out that Turk Broda didn't win a single elimination game in his career aside from the 4 in a row in 1943, for example.
It can also be argued that, if Turgeon had a couple of multi-point games earlier in a series before scoring zero in game 6 or 7, didn't he have a huge part in making sure his team even got to game 6 or 7? Admit it, he could end up with the same totals for a given 7-game series similar to how you describe, with the same point distributions but in different games (like, say, one in the first three, one each in games 4 & 5, and then five in games 6 and 7) and they'd say "he started slow, but he sure got hot when his team needed him! So clutch! When the contrary is also true - that if he had scored as expected in games 1-3 then his team closes out the series before it goes that long.
Good points. Also, one should look at goals against (if possible), in case the players tended to allow goals or not. Being +1 when team loses (no PPGF), could arguably be considered better than being -1 when team wins (no PPGF).
Anyway, since I started arguing with you in this thread, I just thought I could say that I basically agree with you. I would have thought the gap would have been bigger, and looking at stats one might actually come up with them being basically equally good. (Oates perhaps better peak, and other things that already been mentioned.)
Turgeon was a terrific playmaker who made his teammates better. I rather have Turgeon than Oates.
You'll have to dig a bit deeper than that. Oates elevated the play significantly of Hall of Famers. Hull and Neely both had their best seasons with him. Neely never cracks 50 in 49 - in fact he never did - without Oates. We know Hull dropped off to a normal 50+ goal man without him too compared to dominating the NHL in the goal scoring category at 70+. Bondra had his best season too with him. Not a HHOFer though, neither is Simon. Turgeon has Scott Young and that's fine, but if you are comparing him to Oates using that analogy you need to make a better case for Turgeon.
You'll have to dig a bit deeper than that. Oates elevated the play significantly of Hall of Famers. Hull and Neely both had their best seasons with him. Neely never cracks 50 in 49 - in fact he never did - without Oates. We know Hull dropped off to a normal 50+ goal man without him too compared to dominating the NHL in the goal scoring category at 70+. Bondra had his best season too with him. Not a HHOFer though, neither is Simon. Turgeon has Scott Young and that's fine, but if you are comparing him to Oates using that analogy you need to make a better case for Turgeon.
This was all discussed 9 months ago. By you and I, no less.
on that note, Brooklanders is sure good at resurrecting old threads, hey?
