Pat Lafontaine HHOF vs Mogilny vs Nicholls

[BarnabyJones PI]

For starters, I do think that Pat Lafontaine should be in the HHOF. I want to get that out of the way.

I compared Lafontaine vs Nicholls in another thread months back, and I wanted to look to see how both Mogilny and Nicholls stacked up against Lafontaine's career numbers/totals.

First, let's look at their 7 best seasons; though it's debatable what those 7 seasons could be. I went with the following:

Lafontaine

Mogilny

Nicholls

• Lafontaine, 520 GP, 326 G, 376 A, 702 PTS
• Mogilny, 513 GP, 309 G, 323 A, 632 PTS
• Nicholls, 541 GP, 297 G, 416 A, 713 PTS

An argument made against Mogilny in a thread that I read today, pointed out that Mogilny's resume isn't very impressive, since he only registered two +100 point seasons. But Lafontaine, only registered two +100 point seasons himself.

Lafontaine also had the luxury of playing pretty much the entirety of his career, in a high scoring era, similar to Nicholls. Mogilny played through the entire run of the DPE (1997-98, through to 2003-04).

Now, let's look at their career totals.

Lafontaine

Mogilny

Nicholls

Now, Lafontaine only played in 865 games, scoring 468 goals, to go along with 545 assists.

How did Mogilny do after his first 865 games played? He scored 433 goals, added 489 assists for 922 points.

How about Nicholls after 865 games played? He scored 410 goals, added 596 assists, for 1,006 points.

Let's take a look at their playoff totals.

Lafontaine

Mogilny

Nicholls

Also note that Lafontaine's last run in the playoffs came at the age of 30. Let's take a look at how Mogilny and Nicholls did in the playoffs up to until the age of 30 (note that Nicholls was still 30 and not 31 when the Oilers were in the playoffs in '92).

• Lafontaine, 69 GP, 26 G, 37 A, 63 PTS.
• Mogilny, 37 GP, 15 G, 24 A, 39 PTS.
• Nicholls, 65 GP, 35 G, 40 A, 75 PTS.

I'm pointing this out, because Mogilny's PPG takes a nosedive after the age of 30, and his production is in line with Lafontaine's (albeit in less games played).

Personal thoughts:

• I'm impressed with Mogilny's scoring relative to Lafontaine's, with consideration that high scoring wingers generally don't produce at an equal rate to what high scoring centers do.
• People often point out how Mogilny needed Lafontaine, but there's just as much evidence that Lafontaine needed a Mogilny to go off like he did. I doubt that there's another winger that could skate with Lafontaine, and read off of what he was doing (processing that in real time). Lafontaine could be a bit of a high wire act, compared to other high scoring centers.
• Should Nicholls' 1988-89 season take a backseat to Lafontaine's 1992-93 season? I certainly preferred watching Lafontaine's 1992-93 run, but they both went off for a year-and-a-half at a similar rate. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think Lafontaine's Hart consideration (3rd) - which I'm fine with - trumps Nicholls' getting no consideration in 1988-89.
• I don't think it's a crime if neither Mogilny nor Nicholls ever gets into the HHOF. I do think that if Lafontaine is in, and no one seems to have a problem with that, perhaps more people should make a stink about Nicholls in particular. I don't really see what Lafontaine did that was so much greater than Nicholls. In fact, I find Nicholls a little more interesting because he adapted his game, became more defensively sound (even if he was only above average at best), in the latter part of his career.
• Again, I'm (very) okay that Lafontaine is in the HHOF. Of the three players, Lafontaine was the most thrilling guy to watch in his prime.

Click to read more...

 

[buffalowing88]

LaFontaine was a top-5 forward in the league at this peak for multiple years. He was the straw that stirred the drink for Mogilny when he was peaking.

Nicholls is one of my favorite players but at no point was he as good as peak LaFontaine or Mogilny.

 

[The Panther]

LaFontaine was a top-5 forward in the league at this peak for multiple years.

Really??

I'd say Lafontaine was a top-5 forward for exactly the same duration that Nicholls wasー 1.5 seasons.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

tbf who has by far the best playoff run between these three?

hint: he never played for buffalo

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

Really??

I'd say Lafontaine was a top-5 forward for exactly the same duration that Nicholls wasー 1.5 seasons.

Lafontaine:

Nicholls:

Nicholls plays 126 G with the Kings over that year and a half. Lafontaine plays 141 G with the Sabres.

Nicholls registers 97 G, 128 A, 225 PTS in 126 G. 1.786 PPG
Lafontaine registers 99 G, 142, 241 PTS in 141 G. 1.709 PPG

Nicholls is producing at a slightly higher PPG clip. If you don't change Nicholls' environment, and he plays the additional 15 games to make up the difference, I'm not sure that Lafontaine is even ahead when factoring in the adjustments in league scoring.

The league average goals:

• 3.74 1988-89
• 3.68 1989-90
• 3.48 1991-92
• 3.63 1992-93

Power Play Opportunities:

• 5.04 1988-89
• 4.58 1989-90
• 5.02 1991-92
• 5.28 1992-93

Lafontaine was killing it on the PP, with 111 PTS on the PP (43 G, 68 A) vs 79 PTS (29 G, 50 A) for Nicholls (*15 less GP).

Another argument, could be that Lafontaine was a Top 5 forward in 1989-90. Personally, I don't think that he was, even though he finished 5th in the Hart vorting that year. Interestingly enough, the Rangers (with Nicholls) took the Islanders out in the first round that year. After aquiring Nicholls, the Rangers went 18-10-4, and they were 18-21-9 prior to that trade.

While I do agree that Lafontaine realized his potential in Buffalo, I thought that he was a bit overrated with the Islanders prior to the Sabres acquiring him via trade. I remember reading at least a couple of times, via whatever magazine back then (circa 1990, 1991-ish), that the Detroit Red Wings were interested in trading Yzerman for Lafontaine. But I never agreed then, that Lafontaine's 1989-90 season, put him ahead of Yzerman (who finished 7th) that same year, or on equal footing.

I get that Lafontaine is American, that the Red Wings had Fedorov by this point, maybe Jimmy Carson could recapture his old form, but a straight up trade back then, made no sense to me. At best, it was a sideways deal.