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.

 

[HangFromRafts]

Nichols
Points: 4,6
Goals: 2.10
Assists: 5,6
Hart: nil
Other: nil

Lafontaine
Points: 2,8
Goals: 5,5
Assists: 2
Hart: 3,5
Other: 1x2nd AS at C

Almo
Points: 7,9
Goals: 1,3,6
Assists: nil
Hart: nil
Other: rocket. Byng. 2x2nd AS at RW

- all 3 have one massive outlier year
- lafontaine I'm pretty confident he has the best career here. Paces for a top 5 finish in 92, would've won the AR in 93 in pretty much any non Wayne or mario winning year. Has the hart record to show for it
- I'm not so confident in Nichols Vs mogilny. Almo is not good in the playoffs, he has a lot of off years. Won a cup in jersey in 2000, played 23 games and scored... 7 points, closer to their worst player than their best. While I give mostly full credit to Almo for 93 (I don't think he was significantly propped up by lafontaine, but if he wasn't playing with Pat he probably doesn't win the rocket)

 

[Gerulaitis]

1. Mogilny
2. Lafontaine
3. Nicholls

 

[pandro]

All three of them are similar in a sense that if you remove their single highest scoring season, they're probably not in the conversation for the HHOF. LaFontaine maybe less so, but Mogilny and Nicholls definitely are.
Now you take Crosby and Ovechkin. Remove their 5 best seasons, and they're still slam-dunk first-ballot HHOFers.

 

[The Panther]

All three of them are similar in a sense that if you remove their single highest scoring season, they're probably not in the conversation for the HHOF. LaFontaine maybe less so, but Mogilny and Nicholls definitely are.

Well, let's see how these things go without each guy's single highest scoring season (i note NHL top-40 and team top-5 finishes) :

Nicholls
NHL Scoring Finish: 6, 12, 13, 15, 15, 20, 36
Team Scoring Finish: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3 (2), 3, 3, 5
Lafontaine
NHL Scoring Finish: 8, 15, 16, 18, 22, 22
Team Scoring Finish: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3
Mogilny
NHL Scoring Finish: 9, 15, 15, 22, 24, 30
Team Scoring Finish: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4

There's not a huge amount of difference here when we eliminate the one huge season by each. Nicholls has the highest scoring-finish season of the three, and he has the most top-20 finishes of anyone (twice Mogilny's).

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

To be fair too, Lafontaine's AS finishes are artificially diminished by being a center in the 80s/90s. To get 1 or 2 you have to dethrone one or both of Mario and Gretzky + beat out Messier.

edit: and if Lafontaine wasn't in the HOF that wouldn't bother me, same way Mogilny is not a HOF player.

 

[JackSlater]

Interesting read. I'm comfortable with Lafontaine as the best of the three. I'd put Mogilny at two, but I can see putting Nicholls there if someone is looking for more consistent value.

 

[NordiquesForeva]

Lafontaine was an incredibly talented player, on the same level as Yzerman. He was held back offensively when playing with the conservative Islanders for his first 4 or 5 seasons, but he finally was able to fulfill his potential beginning in the 1989-1990 season. Not sure if he was a top-5 forward in the NHL (Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, Yzerman, Hull) that season, but he would have been close to it. Obviously everything culminated for Lafontaine with his massive 1992-93 season.

I think with Lafontaine, there is some "what could have been?" going on, given his relatively slow start and his injury-riddled prime. There is enough meat on the bone there to make his HHOF nod well-deserved, but he had the potential to be one of the game's greats. One of my favourite players from that era.

 

[Dingo]

I also consider Laffy the best of the three, but the numbers really do match up for all three.

 

[K Fleur]

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

hint: he never played for buffalo

And the worst playoff performer among the three is the only one that won a Cup.

 

[MadLuke]

To be fair too, Lafontaine's AS finishes are artificially diminished by being a center in the 80s/90s.

Imagine peaking in 1989 in that regard... you could score 150 and get only 2 third place vote...

It is not like Nicholls was not a center during the 80s-90s

 

[buffalowing88]

Really??

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

Okay, that may have been a bit exaggerated haha. But I do think in terms of impact when on the ice, he was Top-5 from 89-93.

Messier, Hull, Lemieux, and Gretzky form a pretty solid Top-4 in that era but I'm not sure LaFontaine isn't the 5th in line here. Yzerman vs. LaFontaine is about it for that last spot in the Top-5. I'm not making much of a reach by putting LaFontaine during that era into this category.

 

[MadLuke]

feel a bit harsh on Yzerman here, he outscore Lafontaine relatively cleanly:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Hull scored a lot of goals, Oates helped people score a lot of goals, Gilmour was really good, he was for sure in that conversation too.

 

[tabness]

I've posted about both Mogilny and LaFontaine recently, but Bernie Nicholls, despite not having the same skating ability as the other two, was otherwise a supremely smart and talented player, who has become a bit of a trivia question (who scored 150 points blah blah blah) and just dismissed as a product of Gretzky when he was anything but.

I believe that he would have been a shoe in for the hall of fame had he not suffered that mid career dip in the early nineties due to the illness and passing of his infant son. He'd have almost certainly scored 500+ goals without that trauma, and would have had a continuity of his career to the excellent early and late parts.

Other things of note regarding Nicholls:

• Considered lazy and unmotivated due to a happy go lucky persona, Nicholls was a top notch athlete and generally considered to be the best conditioned player on the Kings.
• Nicholls, not Robitaille, not Carson, not whoever, was considered to be the best player on the Kings in the late eighties with Dionne's decline before Gretzky came on board.
• The stat drop off from LA to the Rangers is attributed naively to Gretzky, while there's a bit of that as there would be for any player, in general, LA of the time was probably the most offensive team, and New York under Neilson was a defensive team, any player would have seen their numbers drop.

Bringing up some stuff I wrote about Nicholls before:

ATD 2020 Draft Thread IV

... quest to be the ATD team with the strongest mustache game. If you ain't got Lanny, you're just whistlin' in the wind. EDIT: You also have Lanny! Hands down, the lipbush trophy goes to your squad.

forums.hfboards.com

Some nice features on Nicholls from different stages of his career:

It's Pumper-Nicholl on a roll

HOCKEY; When a Crisis Sets In, Nicholls Puts Family First

https://vault.si.com/vault/1995/04/...dured-tragedy-on-his-way-back-to-nhl-eminence

Rick Vaive on his commitment and conditioning being so top notch despite his personality (this remembering the 1985 World Championships early in his career): "We got along fine with Bernie. I had no idea he didn't drink, because he was always the life of the party. The stuff he did, you wouldn't have expected he'd be so disciplined. After the pre-game meal, he would sneak into one of the guys' rooms, get in the bathtub, pull the curtains and hide. One afternoon, I was sitting on the can - next thing he comes flying through the curtains screaming. I almost had a heart attack."

Nice Be a Player feature on Bernie from his resurgence in Chicago in the mid nineties:

 

[MS]

Lafontaine was considered a bit of a weird/surprising induction in 2003 - especially that he went in so quickly after retirement - but that has basically normalized out since, especially with the subsequent Neely and Bure inductions.

 

[Gorskyontario]

1. Lafontaine, this isn't debatable since he played with Mogilny at their best, and was clearly the better player on the same line.
2. Nicholls
3. Mogilny


All 3 should probably be in the HHOF with current standards. All 3 were better than Andreychuk for example.

 

[Crosby2010]

I once wondered which player desperately needed a Cup in order to be in the HHOF. You can argue Nicholls belongs in this group. He always seemed to be just missing a team when they won. Came to New York, then was traded in the Messier trade to Edmonton when they weren't winning anymore. Goes to Jersey, leaves after 1994 a year before their Cup. He is right there with the puck nearly bouncing in the net in the Game 7 overtime in 1994 with the Rangers/Devils series. A minute later Matteau scores and its over. But in all honesty if that puck bounces off Nicholls and into the net, or he gets his stick on it, they are in the Cup final and would be favoured against the Canucks. Does a Cup catapult him into the HHOF? Is that the final piece of the puzzle for Nicholls? He doesn't win the Conn Smythe (at least Stevens, Brodeur and Claude Lemieux are ahead of him on the team) but he is the #1 centre on a Cup winner. Nicholls reminds me a lot of Bobby Smith this way. Maybe Turgeon as well. Their numbers on the surface look good. All three have a big season (although Smith's is smaller than the other two). Neither have a 1st or 2nd all-star selection in what was a very hard era to stand out as a centre. Nicholls is better than Turgeon in the playoffs and all around, but Smith is easily the best playoff performer here and it almost surprises you that this never tipped the scales for him. He's a Cup winner and has 160 points with plenty of good runs. Smith scored 114 points in 1982 and was still just 7th in all-star voting at centre. That's how deep it was.

So I don't know if any of them did enough to stand out amongst their peers. Someone like Hawerchuk is the same age more or less as Nicholls. He stood out. He had more elite years and drove the bus for his teams. Savard stood out in the same era too. Smith didn't. Nicholls didn't, Turgeon didn't and while we're at it Federko didn't either (although pretty good in the playoffs for a non-Cup winner).

So you can't really put him in the HHOF. None of those I mentioned (Federko, Smith, Turgeon, Nicholls) did something that forces you to put them there. It wasn't enough. Even though two are in there.

With Lafontaine I am okay with it. We saw how huge of an individual talent he was in his career. And he had a nice string from 1987-'93. That was some elite level of play in a row. That 1993 season puts him over the top, but from a PPG standpoint he is better than Nicholls and Mogilny.

That being said it goes Lafontaine > Mogilny > Nicholls from a pure individual perspective. However, flip Nicholls and Mogilny career-wise.

 

[Albatros]

Nicholls, not Robitaille, not Carson, not whoever, was considered to be the best player on the Kings in the late eighties with Dionne's decline before Gretzky came on board.

One can argue I suppose, but I'd argue for Dave Taylor. He was very highly rated in LA.

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

I once wondered which player desperately needed a Cup in order to be in the HHOF. You can argue Nicholls belongs in this group. He always seemed to be just missing a team when they won. Came to New York, then was traded in the Messier trade to Edmonton when they weren't winning anymore. Goes to Jersey, leaves after 1994 a year before their Cup. He is right there with the puck nearly bouncing in the net in the Game 7 overtime in 1994 with the Rangers/Devils series. A minute later Matteau scores and its over. But in all honesty if that puck bounces off Nicholls and into the net, or he gets his stick on it, they are in the Cup final and would be favoured against the Canucks. Does a Cup catapult him into the HHOF? Is that the final piece of the puzzle for Nicholls? He doesn't win the Conn Smythe (at least Stevens, Brodeur and Claude Lemieux are ahead of him on the team) but he is the #1 centre on a Cup winner. Nicholls reminds me a lot of Bobby Smith this way. Maybe Turgeon as well. Their numbers on the surface look good. All three have a big season (although Smith's is smaller than the other two). Neither have a 1st or 2nd all-star selection in what was a very hard era to stand out as a centre. Nicholls is better than Turgeon in the playoffs and all around, but Smith is easily the best playoff performer here and it almost surprises you that this never tipped the scales for him. He's a Cup winner and has 160 points with plenty of good runs. Smith scored 114 points in 1982 and was still just 7th in all-star voting at centre. That's how deep it was.

So I don't know if any of them did enough to stand out amongst their peers. Someone like Hawerchuk is the same age more or less as Nicholls. He stood out. He had more elite years and drove the bus for his teams. Savard stood out in the same era too. Smith didn't. Nicholls didn't, Turgeon didn't and while we're at it Federko didn't either (although pretty good in the playoffs for a non-Cup winner).

So you can't really put him in the HHOF. None of those I mentioned (Federko, Smith, Turgeon, Nicholls) did something that forces you to put them there. It wasn't enough. Even though two are in there.

With Lafontaine I am okay with it. We saw how huge of an individual talent he was in his career. And he had a nice string from 1987-'93. That was some elite level of play in a row. That 1993 season puts him over the top, but from a PPG standpoint he is better than Nicholls and Mogilny.

That being said it goes Lafontaine > Mogilny > Nicholls from a pure individual perspective. However, flip Nicholls and Mogilny career-wise.

I agree with a number of your points here. What you're saying about Nicholls, is true. I think almost anyone who's ever followed hockey, if the question was asked, who's greater, Lafontaine or Nicholls, I would expect the answer to be Lafontaine almost every time. But I don't see what's so great about Lafontaine at the end of the day, that separates him so much in people's minds, from someone like Nicholls; once you pop the hood and do some investigating. So even if they answer Lafontaine, I'm not so sure that's actually the correct answer anymore.

Lafontaine only played 178 games after the age of 30. His PPG was never really in jeopardy of being dragged down like the other two.

Lafontaine's playoff numbers aren't particularly great, and he only played 5 games after the age of 30; when he had just turned 30.

On the flipside, there's another thread up titled "Superstars Who Have Won Extra Awards/Accolades by Proxy", but there could be a separate thread going in the other direction, with Bernie Nicholls being one of the greatest examples of someone who wasn't even getting any sort of consideration for an award (Hart), because a teammate of his was blocking him. Nicholls doesn't even get a single vote for essentially doing the same thing that Lafontaine would do in 1992-93.

I'm not saying Nicholls should have gotten any votes either, he's up against peak Lemieux, Gretzky, and peak Yzerman. Those 3 gobbled up the votes, with only Patrick Roy (2), Joe Mullen (1), and Chris Chelios (1) picking up the rest.

Even someone like Dennis Maruk finishes 6th in Hart voting in '82. or Steve Larmer and Theo Fleury tied for 5th in 1990-91.

Another argument against Lafontaine with the Islanders, was that he wasn't always surrounded with particularly good talent. I think that's fair. Yet, the Islanders with Turgeon, went to the Conference Finals in '93, finished .500 to get ousted in the 1st round in '94, but most importantly, he himself goes off for 58 goals, 74 assists, 132 points in '93, finishing 4th directly behind Lafontaine in Hart voting, and Turgeon's essentially playing with a host of the same guys that Lafontaine was playing with.

The Islanders weren't making any noise with Lafontaine. Even Turgeon got more out of that team, and his teammates (IMO). In fact, Lafontaine goes down in 1993-94, and the team somehow performs better (43-32-9).

Turgeon with the Islanders, in 255 games, he registered 147 G, 193 assists for 340 points. Now, Lafontaine with the Sabres, 269 games, he registered 158 G, 227 assists for 385 points.

Back to Mogilny. If Turgeon playing with the Islanders manages to go off for 132 points - which Lafontaine never did with the Islanders - why are we over-crediting Mogilny's success being because of Lafontaine? Lafontaine didn't have a track record of elevating guys prior to playing with Mogilny (unlike Oates with Juneau for Boston in 1992-93), so why exactly does he get most of the credit in that pairing?

 

[Crosby2010]

I agree with a number of your points here. What you're saying about Nicholls, is true. I think almost anyone who's ever followed hockey, if the question was asked, who's greater, Lafontaine or Nicholls, I would expect the answer to be Lafontaine almost every time. But I don't see what's so great about Lafontaine at the end of the day, that separates him so much in people's minds, from someone like Nicholls; once you pop the hood and do some investigating. So even if they answer Lafontaine, I'm not so sure that's actually the correct answer anymore.

Lafontaine only played 178 games after the age of 30. His PPG was never really in jeopardy of being dragged down like the other two.

Lafontaine's playoff numbers aren't particularly great, and he only played 5 games after the age of 30; when he had just turned 30.

On the flipside, there's another thread up titled "Superstars Who Have Won Extra Awards/Accolades by Proxy", but there could be a separate thread going in the other direction, with Bernie Nicholls being one of the greatest examples of someone who wasn't even getting any sort of consideration for an award (Hart), because a teammate of his was blocking him. Nicholls doesn't even get a single vote for essentially doing the same thing that Lafontaine would do in 1992-93.

I'm not saying Nicholls should have gotten any votes either, he's up against peak Lemieux, Gretzky, and peak Yzerman. Those 3 gobbled up the votes, with only Patrick Roy (2), Joe Mullen (1), and Chris Chelios (1) picking up the rest.

Even someone like Dennis Maruk finishes 6th in Hart voting in '82. or Steve Larmer and Theo Fleury tied for 5th in 1990-91.

Another argument against Lafontaine with the Islanders, was that he wasn't always surrounded with particularly good talent. I think that's fair. Yet, the Islanders with Turgeon, went to the Conference Finals in '93, finished .500 to get ousted in the 1st round in '94, but most importantly, he himself goes off for 58 goals, 74 assists, 132 points in '93, finishing 4th directly behind Lafontaine in Hart voting, and Turgeon's essentially playing with a host of the same guys that Lafontaine was playing with.

The Islanders weren't making any noise with Lafontaine. Even Turgeon got more out of that team, and his teammates (IMO). In fact, Lafontaine goes down in 1993-94, and the team somehow performs better (43-32-9).

Turgeon with the Islanders, in 255 games, he registered 147 G, 193 assists for 340 points. Now, Lafontaine with the Sabres, 269 games, he registered 158 G, 227 assists for 385 points.

Back to Mogilny. If Turgeon playing with the Islanders manages to go off for 132 points - which Lafontaine never did with the Islanders - why are we over-crediting Mogilny's success being because of Lafontaine? Lafontaine didn't have a track record of elevating guys prior to playing with Mogilny (unlike Oates with Juneau for Boston in 1992-93), so why exactly does he get most of the credit in that pairing?

Fair points. I guess if you compare the Nicholls vs. Lafontaine thing you have to ask in their prime do you really take Nicholls? I don't think any of us do. And look, I like Nicholls, and 150 points is still 150 points, but I think what separates Nicholls in 1989 with Lafontaine in 1993 is that Gretzky was paving a bit of the path while Lafontaine was the driver of the bus on the team. You have to give credit where it is due and while I don't want to take anything away from Nicholls in 1989 there is no chance he comes near that if he is the #1 centre. While Lafontaine actually did do 148 points as a #1 centre, So I think it comes down to how much heavy lifting was being done, and Lafontaine definitely was doing more lifting.

Another thing I always say is who do you want on your team, Nicholls in 1989 or Lafontaine in 1993? If you are a GM is there one in the NHL that takes Nicholls? Probably not, the explosiveness of Lafontaine enough puts him over the top here. Another thing is goal scoring. Lafontaine is on a very short list for most assists in a season (95) since only 7 players did more in a season. But his goal scoring is better than Nicholls. Despite some injury woes, he had 41-54 goals in a straight 6 year span. 1992 he had 46 goals in 57 games. Also, Lafontaine missed most of 1994, 1995 and 1997. That was some serious time that was shelved right in his prime. That 1996 season where he has 91 points gives you a peek into what he could have done those other years. This is why he is the classic "per game" type of player, although I think his career is just slightly above the bar as it is.

Mentioning Turgeon, it is funny how they were traded for each other. Lafontaine was more popular in Buffalo than Turgeon was and Turgeon did take the Islanders further than Lafontaine did (although he was hurt in the Pens series in 1993 and wasn't a factor).

I think with the Mogilny/Lafontaine pairing you can say they were the perfect pair but that Lafontaine drove the bus more on that line. Two very talented boys though, hard to not like what they did together, but just based on his past seasons I think you give the edge to Lafontaine here. And he also had 21 more points that season between them two. And that Isles team in 1990 was just bad offensively. Lafontaine had 105 points while Brent Sutter was next with 68. He had no one to play with. So he was a great player long before 1993.

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

I've posted about both Mogilny and LaFontaine recently, but Bernie Nicholls, despite not having the same skating ability as the other two, was otherwise a supremely smart and talented player, who has become a bit of a trivia question (who scored 150 points blah blah blah) and just dismissed as a product of Gretzky when he was anything but.

I believe that he would have been a shoe in for the hall of fame had he not suffered that mid career dip in the early nineties due to the illness and passing of his infant son. He'd have almost certainly scored 500+ goals without that trauma, and would have had a continuity of his career to the excellent early and late parts.

Other things of note regarding Nicholls:

• Considered lazy and unmotivated due to a happy go lucky persona, Nicholls was a top notch athlete and generally considered to be the best conditioned player on the Kings.
• Nicholls, not Robitaille, not Carson, not whoever, was considered to be the best player on the Kings in the late eighties with Dionne's decline before Gretzky came on board.
• The stat drop off from LA to the Rangers is attributed naively to Gretzky, while there's a bit of that as there would be for any player, in general, LA of the time was probably the most offensive team, and New York under Neilson was a defensive team, any player would have seen their numbers drop.

Bringing up some stuff I wrote about Nicholls before:

ATD 2020 Draft Thread IV

... quest to be the ATD team with the strongest mustache game. If you ain't got Lanny, you're just whistlin' in the wind. EDIT: You also have Lanny! Hands down, the lipbush trophy goes to your squad.

forums.hfboards.com

Some nice features on Nicholls from different stages of his career:

It's Pumper-Nicholl on a roll

HOCKEY; When a Crisis Sets In, Nicholls Puts Family First

https://vault.si.com/vault/1995/04/...dured-tragedy-on-his-way-back-to-nhl-eminence

Rick Vaive on his commitment and conditioning being so top notch despite his personality (this remembering the 1985 World Championships early in his career): "We got along fine with Bernie. I had no idea he didn't drink, because he was always the life of the party. The stuff he did, you wouldn't have expected he'd be so disciplined. After the pre-game meal, he would sneak into one of the guys' rooms, get in the bathtub, pull the curtains and hide. One afternoon, I was sitting on the can - next thing he comes flying through the curtains screaming. I almost had a heart attack."

Nice Be a Player feature on Bernie from his resurgence in Chicago in the mid nineties:

Thank for the links!

It's Pumper-Nicholl on a roll

A fun article:

- Nicholls "being portrayed as a Bambi-killer before the folks in Jane Fonda country".
- Some choice words about Gretzky in '82, and his apologizing to him after the fact. Also some interesting comments about L.A. women.
- Next time someone brags about being from God's country, you can quickly reply with, "Oh, wow, you're from West Guilford, Ontario?"

He reminds me of Curt Hennig, without the demons. On another note, I wonder what Joe Murphy thinks of Nicholls. He played some of his best hockey when they were together.