Rick Martin
Zigmund Palffy
Tim Kerr
Mike Rogers
Adam Oates
Bernie Nicholls
While all six men produced at a PPG rate over their careers, none of them ever won an NHL trophy, Stanley Cup, best-on-best tournament or have been inducted into the HHOF.
What's the case for Martin over Palffy other than tradition? I think there's a case that both were on their way to HHOF careers before being cut down with injuries. But other than not playing for a famous line, Palffy may have accomplished more in the NHL
Palffy finished top 10 in NHL scoring 4 times, which is actually not very common after 1995. He finished 5th, 8th, 9th, and 10th in scoring. Rick Martin's two top 10 finishes (in the 70s, centered by Perreault) were 6th and 10th. Was Martin held back by the small rink that much? I don't think Martin has much of a longevity advantage over Palffy.
I'd consider ranking Palffy over Turgeon to be honest - Turgeon kills Palffy in longevity as a productive player, but I think Palffy's 5-6 year prime is more impressive.
I think I'd rank them (gaps intentional):
Adam Oates
Pierre Turgeon
Zigmund Palffy
Rick Martin
Tim Kerr
Mike Rogers
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 03-28-2012 at 06:14 PM.
I would also consider palffy a better player than turgeon, he was underrated defensively and would have had even more top 10 and top 20 finishes if he wasnt injured so much. I think palffy was every bit as good as kariya, but kariya got to play with selanne and he always got more media attention.
I think Palffy would have won the Hart in 2002 if he didn't get hurt. He was carrying that Kings team to the playoffs by himself. Wasn't that the season LA set the single season record for man games lost to injury?
I think Palffy would have won the Hart in 2002 if he didn't get hurt. He was carrying that Kings team to the playoffs by himself. Wasn't that the season LA set the single season record for man games lost to injury?
You must be thinking of a different year. I looked, and Jason Allison led the Kings in points with 74 in 73 games and Palffy had 59 in 63 games. They also made the playoffs in 2002, losing in the first round to Colorado (though Palffy had 9 points in the 7 game loss, leading the Kings).
Rick Martin
Zigmund Palffy
Tim Kerr
Mike Rogers
Pierre Turgeon
Adam Oates
While all six men produced at a PPG rate over their careers, none of them ever won an NHL trophy, Stanley Cup, best-on-best tournament or have been inducted into the HHOF.
Rick Martin (A healthy Martin, and he was rarely healthy, was a scary winger...with elite speed and sniping ability.
Adam Oates
Pierre Turgeon Actually could see an argument for flipping Turgeon and Oates but Oates was better all-around and had better playoffs.
Zigmund Plaffy
Tim Kerr
Mike Rogers
Rick Martin
Zigmund Palffy
Tim Kerr
Mike Rogers
Pierre Turgeon
Adam Oates
While all six men produced at a PPG rate over their careers, none of them ever won an NHL trophy, Stanley Cup, best-on-best tournament or have been inducted into the HHOF.
Doing this before reading anyone else posts so as not to influence my opinion now.
Adam Oates (He won assist titles which is something will make HHOF eventually)
Pierre Turgeon (so many points and longevity)
Rick Martin (His goal scoring is excellent, short career due to injury but never really affected his play while he played, are Barber or Shutt really better in the HHOF?)
Tim Kerr (Goal Machine for a half dozen years)
Zigmund Palffy (excellent small scorer)
Mike Rogers
You must be thinking of a different year. I looked, and Jason Allison led the Kings in points with 74 in 73 games and Palffy had 59 in 63 games. They also made the playoffs in 2002, losing in the first round to Colorado (though Palffy had 9 points in the 7 game loss, leading the Kings).
What's the case for Martin over Palffy other than tradition? I think there's a case that both were on their way to HHOF careers before being cut down with injuries. But other than not playing for a famous line, Palffy may have accomplished more in the NHL
Palffy finished top 10 in NHL scoring 4 times, which is actually not very common after 1995. He finished 5th, 8th, 9th, and 10th in scoring. Rick Martin's two top 10 finishes (in the 70s, centered by Perreault) were 6th and 10th. Was Martin held back by the small rink that much? I don't think Martin has much of a longevity advantage over Palffy.
I'd consider ranking Palffy over Turgeon to be honest - Turgeon kills Palffy in longevity as a productive player, but I think Palffy's 5-6 year prime is more impressive.
I think I'd rank them (gaps intentional):
Adam Oates
Pierre Turgeon
Zigmund Palffy
Rick Martin
Tim Kerr
Mike Rogers
I didn't look at Palffy vs. Martin closely I guess. I thought of the 4 AST's versus 0 and it felt open-and-shut.
Palffy's best 10 percentages if seasons of 75 games or less are made full: 110 100 90 90 87 87 86 85 77 77
Palffy's best 10 rankings if seasons of 75 games or less are made full: 1st, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 23rd, 24th
GP that it takes to get there: 165
outside of those years: 17 points in 38 games
Turgeon's best 10 percentages if seasons of 75 games or less are made full: 110 100 95 93 93 89 86 85 83 83
Turgeon's best 10 rankings if seasons of 75 games or less are made full: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 13th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th
GP that it takes to get there: 82
outside of those years: 438 points in 569 games
so pretend neither player suffered any major injuries and maintained their partial season paces, and Turgeon still looks better in his peak. It's also much less of a "what if" for him, and there's a lot more fluff behind those 10 years as well. (a guy with 438 points in 569 games in the 1988-2006 range would be a AA draft pick!)
Just added Bernie Nicholls to the OP. Forgot he belongs in this "exclusive" group. So now you have 7 players to rank.
I'm thinking...
Oates
Palffy
Kerr
Martin
Nicholls
Turgeon
Rogers
Oates and his integral role in helping Cam Neely and Brett Hull become HHOFers, not to mention that he is 6th all-time in assists (playoffs incl.), make him an easy choice for No. 1 in this group. Palffy's totals, considering that basically his entire career took place in the DPE, makes him the best of the rest. I don't have it in me to bump Kerr any further down. The guy had four straight 50-goal seasons, which is an impressive feat in any era. Martin only had 4 PPG seasons in his career despite being centered by an in-his-prime Gilbert Perreault. Nicholls' postseason avg. of 0.97 points per game ranks only behind Bure, Lindros and Fleury among HHOF snubs who were regular season PPG producers. The difference between Turgeon's regular season and postseason production is very Dionne-esque. As for Rogers, he was a sub-PPG player in the inferior WHA who essentially played just 6 NHL seasons, and while 3 were of those were great, they resulted in nothing by way of postseason runs.
I think I'd rank them (gaps intentional):
Adam Oates
Pierre Turgeon
Zigmund Palffy
Rick Martin
Tim Kerr
Mike Rogers
I like this. In terms of pure talent or an peak impact I would rank Pallfy maybe even above Turgeon, but Pierre obviously destroys him in longevity, so this seems to be right.
What's the case for Martin over Palffy other than tradition? I think there's a case that both were on their way to HHOF careers before being cut down with injuries. But other than not playing for a famous line, Palffy may have accomplished more in the NHL
Palffy finished top 10 in NHL scoring 4 times, which is actually not very common after 1995. He finished 5th, 8th, 9th, and 10th in scoring. Rick Martin's two top 10 finishes (in the 70s, centered by Perreault) were 6th and 10th. Was Martin held back by the small rink that much? I don't think Martin has much of a longevity advantage over Palffy.
I'd consider ranking Palffy over Turgeon to be honest - Turgeon kills Palffy in longevity as a productive player, but I think Palffy's 5-6 year prime is more impressive.
I think I'd rank them (gaps intentional):
Adam Oates
Pierre Turgeon
Zigmund Palffy
Rick Martin
Tim Kerr
Mike Rogers
As an Islander fan I have had the pleasure of watching both Pierre and Ziggy but I disagree. Turgeon and Palffy were certainly different players playing different positions. It would have been great to see their skill on the same line. The chemistry would have been perfect. However Pierre was the better player overall. Pierre was a better playmaker and in general garnered the better average
Just added Bernie Nicholls to the OP. Forgot he belongs in this "exclusive" group. So now you have 7 players to rank.
I'm thinking...
Oates
Palffy
Kerr
Martin
Nicholls
Turgeon
Rogers
Oates and his integral role in helping Cam Neely and Brett Hull become HHOFers, not to mention that he is 6th all-time in assists (playoffs incl.), make him an easy choice for No. 1 in this group. Palffy's totals, considering that basically his entire career took place in the DPE, makes him the best of the rest. I don't have it in me to bump Kerr any further down. The guy had four straight 50-goal seasons, which is an impressive feat in any era. Martin only had 4 PPG seasons in his career despite being centered by an in-his-prime Gilbert Perreault. Nicholls' postseason avg. of 0.97 points per game ranks only behind Bure, Lindros and Fleury among HHOF snubs who were regular season PPG producers. The difference between Turgeon's regular season and postseason production is very Dionne-esque. As for Rogers, he was a sub-PPG player in the inferior WHA who essentially played just 6 NHL seasons, and while 3 were of those were great, they resulted in nothing by way of postseason runs.
- The bolded is a joke, right? Turgeon averaged 0.89 PPG in the playoffs (over a pretty large sample of games) with three of his 4 longest playoff runs coming in the DPE. With a career regualr season average of 1.03, that is a 14% drop. The average drop usually observed is 15-20%, so he is doing just fine there. Dionne's PPG dropped 30% in the playoffs. "Dionne-esque" is Leclair (32%), Selanne (32%), Tkachuk (29%), Nilsson (29%), Andreychuk (27%) or Thornton (25%).
- Nicholls is not in Turgeon's league. If he was loaded with intangibles, sure. But he wasn't. and 0.97 PPG from 1983-1996 is not as good as 0.89 from 1988-2006.
Turgeon is much closer to Savard than he is to Nicholls:
Sorry, guys, but Turgeon won the '93 Lady Byng, so out he goes from the OP.
Is the Bynd really something that noteworthy? Granted it doesn't hurt at all, but does it add much?
Either way I'd still have Oates above Turgeon but of the players involved this is how I rank them:
Oates
Nicholls
Palffy
Kerr
Martin
Rogers
There is a lot of love for Palffy here and I don't understand it. How is he better than Nicholls? For starters, Nicholls thrashes him in longevity, playoff resume and peak season. Say what you want about 1989 and how he had Gretzky on his team for the 150 point year, that's still an insane amount of points that only 4 people in NHL history have reached in a season. Nicholls might not be a player who did much more than get a bunch of points, but if that's the case how do you rate Palffy? It isn't as if he threw thunderous hits or played excellent defense or even led his teams anywhere. I mean, 24 playoff games in his career? That's just not good at all and I realize he spent a lot of that time on the Islanders but I'm not rewarding the guy for "what ifs".
Also when push comes to shove, Palffy missed a lot of time due to injuries. 684 games is very Bure-like, and Palffy didn't have Bure's seasons either.
I don't see it. Turgeon is much closer to Nicholls when push comes to shove. Savard is obviously ahead of both of them without thinking too hard but neither Nicholls or Turgeon should reach the HHOF - they both come up just a little short - and to be honest I don't think there is a lot that seperates them.
What's the case for Martin over Palffy other than tradition? I think there's a case that both were on their way to HHOF careers before being cut down with injuries. But other than not playing for a famous line, Palffy may have accomplished more in the NHL
Palffy finished top 10 in NHL scoring 4 times, which is actually not very common after 1995. He finished 5th, 8th, 9th, and 10th in scoring. Rick Martin's two top 10 finishes (in the 70s, centered by Perreault) were 6th and 10th. Was Martin held back by the small rink that much? I don't think Martin has much of a longevity advantage over Palffy.
I'd consider ranking Palffy over Turgeon to be honest - Turgeon kills Palffy in longevity as a productive player, but I think Palffy's 5-6 year prime is more impressive.
I think I'd rank them (gaps intentional):
Adam Oates
Pierre Turgeon
Zigmund Palffy
Rick Martin
Tim Kerr
Mike Rogers
I agree here in that Palffy should be viewed as better than Martin, and by quite a bit as Palffy left on top and has an international career as well.
Where would you slot Nicolls from the OP?
I have him in the Palffy, Turgeon cluster.
I also think that Mike Rogers might have a case to being really close to Kerr but could see why others would pout Kerr ahead of him with that peak.
I also think that Mike Rogers might have a case to being really close to Kerr but could see why others would pout Kerr ahead of him with that peak.
Frankly, I'm surprised no has suggested Tim Kerr as the group's 2nd best player. The guy was 2 goals away from putting together five consecutive 50-goal seasons, holds the single season powerplay goals record, and two of his teams reached the Stanley Cup finals.
Frankly, I'm surprised no has suggested Tim Kerr as the group's 2nd best player. The guy was 2 goals away from putting together five consecutive 50-goal seasons, holds the single season powerplay goals record, and two of his teams reached the Stanley Cup finals.
Ogie did. I'm tempted to think so too, but I don't know enough about Rick Martin.
I don't see it. Turgeon is much closer to Nicholls when push comes to shove. Savard is obviously ahead of both of them without thinking too hard but neither Nicholls or Turgeon should reach the HHOF - they both come up just a little short - and to be honest I don't think there is a lot that seperates them.
Both were offense-only players and both produced at almost identical levels, relative to era. Where does this argument break down, in your opinion?
