Pat Lafontaine HHOF vs Mogilny vs Nicholls

[BarnabyJones PI]

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.

A couple of counter-points.

Mogilny played 7 less games that year, and that could make up a lot of that ground, especially in 1992-93. Secondly, you'll almost never see a high scoring winger produce at the same pace as a high scoring centerman.

Mogilny's games missed in 1992-93:

GF/GA 1992-93

• TBL GF 21st of 24, GA 19th of 24
• SJS GF 23rd of 24, GA 24th of 24
• EDM GF 22nd of 24, GA 20th of 24

Lafontaine is those games:

• vs TBL - 1G, 1A
• vs SJS - 2G, 3A (1G, 2A on the PP)
• vs EDM - 2G, 1A

One would think that Mogilny would have made up a lot of the difference in those games.

Another point is that Lafontaine went off for 95 assists in 1992-93. Yet, his 2nd best would be 51 assists in 1991-92 again in 1995-96. In terms of pace, his 2nd best assist-to-game ratio would be in 1991-92.

He also racked up a lot of those on the PP.

My point here, is that he's doing this playing with Mogilny. He has no track record of being an elite playmaker outside of that stretch, as does Bernie Nicholls of having a track record of being a 70 goal scorer. Both of these seasons (or stretches of 1 1/2 years), are outliers. Lafontaine isn't going to have that kind of a stretch, unless he's playing with Mogilny (and maybe the 1992-93 version of Selanne when he was at his fastest).

Derek King wasn't doing much on those Lafontaine teams, but the year Turgeon comes, he becomes a 30 G, 70 PT-player.

On the flipside, Mogilny wasn't responding to Turgeon or Hawerchuk, like he was with Lafontaine. I still think they both elavated each other equally. Mogilny was a more responsible player, and probably covered up a bit for Lafontaine; though I'd take that with a grain of salt because they both tilted the ice during their run together (they're probably not spending too much time in their own zone).

While it's impressive to see what Lafontaine was doing in 1995-96 (33-42-7), the team made the playoffs the year before (22-19-7, 1st round exit), and the year after (40-30-12, 2nd round exit), when he either missed significant time, or had moved on to the Rangers.

Also, how much of Lafontaine's great production, resulted in his team playing meaningful hockey?

He's relatively well insulated at the beginning of his career with the Islanders. Yes, they weren't going to win any cups once the Oilers grabbed it by '84, but the Islanders were still good for a few years after that. He plays 48 of his 69 playoff games, prior to his breakout season in 1989-90, but at his peak, he only plays 21 more playoff games going forward. Bad luck, injuries, but I'm not convinced Lafontaine's style leads to deep playoff runs.

Lafontaine's last season was 1997-98, but by then, Turgeon played in 59 playoff games, scoring 55 points in those games. No one is writing about Turgeon's playoff excellence, and I don't think up to that point, he played on better teams than Lafontaine.

Nicholls by contrast, moved around a lot in the '90s, but makes multiple Conference Finals (3 times) on two teams (IMO) that probably shouldn't even be there. He wasn't getting monster numbers by that point, but he was a significant piece for the Oilers and the Blackhawks.

This is also what hurts people's perception of Nicholls. He started out his career in L.A. (sort of a Siberia until Gretzky arrived), he's an afterthought behind Dionne, then certainly with Gretzky; probably even with Robitaille and Carson from 1986-1988). I think he's linked with those yellow/purple jerseys, Jim Fox, meaningless Kings-games, etc. And while we're here, 5'8" Jim Fox went 10th overall in 1980, and Nicholls went in the 4th round, 73rd overall in that same draft.

I don't know why Babych gets the two-sticker slot here.

 

[tabness]

My point here, is that he's doing this playing with Mogilny. He has no track record of being an elite playmaker outside of that stretch, as does Bernie Nicholls of having a track record of being a 70 goal scorer. Both of these seasons (or stretches of 1 1/2 years), are outliers. Lafontaine isn't going to have that kind of a stretch, unless he's playing with Mogilny (and maybe the 1992-93 version of Selanne when he was at his fastest).

Derek King wasn't doing much on those Lafontaine teams, but the year Turgeon comes, he becomes a 30 G, 70 PT-player.

I sort of made this point in the previous topic of LaFontaine/Mogilny in 1992-1993, but while LaFontaine was super criticized for being a helicopter player in his time on the Island, wasn't it the right concession to his situation as well as his ability? This isn't like a Nate MacKinnon during the 2022 playoffs playing super individualistically even though he's absolutely surrounded by world class talent (lucky for Nate it looks like his mind has caught up to his physical gifts the past couple years), Pat LaFontaine had basically no help as he emerged into a superstar in the late eighties, but he was so f***ing talented, that he could and did do it all himself many times, and it's hard to knock his hockey sense and creativity with the way he could make plays with Mogilny later.

As for Derek King, his numbers jump with Turgeon generally have more to do with a player who is entering his prime and more importantly, finally getting a shot on the powerplay (so like even strength scoring rate is similar before and after). I won't even necessarily argue too much against a point that Turgeon used King more than LaFontaine did, but then again, Turgeon wasn't the skater that LaFontaine was, and Turgeon simply couldn't do it himself like LaFontaine could, so maybe he was forced to have to use King more than LaFontaine in terms of the best play available to him.

On the flipside, Mogilny wasn't responding to Turgeon or Hawerchuk, like he was with Lafontaine. I still think they both elavated each other equally. Mogilny was a more responsible player, and probably covered up a bit for Lafontaine; though I'd take that with a grain of salt because they both tilted the ice during their run together (they're probably not spending too much time in their own zone).

I dunno about this. I'll be the first to go to bat that Almo could be an absolute great defensive player just like he could be a great offensive player, that is, whenever he wanted to be. But by his time in Buffalo, LaFontaine had also really rounded out his game nicely. He's sort of stereotyped as a poor defensive player and all, I assume this is partly due to being a small superstar center, partly maybe to his plus minus, but like, I don't see it watching him, especially at the turn of the nineties after a couple years of superstardom. And then you read what David Poille says about him in his NHL 100 entry, you read what the Hockey Scouting Report say about his defensive game then, it all checks out in LaFontaine's favor. Also once Andreychuk was traded, it was Khmylev who was playing that role on the line anyway.

Then again for the purposes of the topic, Bernie Nicholls rounded out into an absolutely great defensive player himself. Makes sense spending time in New York, then Jersey, then Chicago and the way those teams played at that time. Plus his positioning and hockey sense was always top notch, he was great on the penalty kill even in LA, probably an easy adjustment for him to take that sort of additional role in his later years.

While it's impressive to see what Lafontaine was doing in 1995-96 (33-42-7), the team made the playoffs the year before (22-19-7, 1st round exit), and the year after (40-30-12, 2nd round exit), when he either missed significant time, or had moved on to the Rangers.

Also, how much of Lafontaine's great production, resulted in his team playing meaningful hockey?

He's relatively well insulated at the beginning of his career with the Islanders. Yes, they weren't going to win any cups once the Oilers grabbed it by '84, but the Islanders were still good for a few years after that. He plays 48 of his 69 playoff games, prior to his breakout season in 1989-90, but at his peak, he only plays 21 more playoff games going forward. Bad luck, injuries, but I'm not convinced Lafontaine's style leads to deep playoff runs.

I dunno how much you can blame LaFontaine here either. I guess the only thing you could say is that, yeah, in the NHL of those days, with the physicality, and the fearless way LaFontaine played, he was bound to get hurt. If he played in today's powderpuff league, maybe it's McDavid who?

Because like he still is the only player to score a goal in every game of a seven game series (1992), but they still lost to Boston.

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

He's sort of stereotyped as a poor defensive player and all, I assume this is partly due to being a small superstar center, partly maybe to his plus minus, but like, I don't see it watching him, especially at the turn of the nineties after a couple years of superstardom. And then you read what David Poille says about him in his NHL 100 entry, you read what the Hockey Scouting Report say about his defensive game then, it all checks out in LaFontaine's favor. Also once Andreychuk was traded, it was Khmylev who was playing that role on the line anyway.

I wish there was a better way for me to articulate it, but I just think that certain guys tilt the ice, that gives off the impression that they're above average/good in their own end, primarily because they're not in too many situations playing in their own end. I don't think of LaFontaine as being a guy who refined his defensive game, as much as guys like Yzerman and Sakic did over the years. Having said that, I also don't think that LaFontaine was a defensive sieve either.

I do think that between he and Mogilny, Mogilny is less of a puck carrier, would sag off more, and had a great understanding about where to position himself defensively in relation to his teammates. Whether the effort was there or not, he was still defensively sound.

As for Derek King, his numbers jump with Turgeon generally have more to do with a player who is entering his prime and more importantly, finally getting a shot on the powerplay (so like even strength scoring rate is similar before and after). I won't even necessarily argue too much against a point that Turgeon used King more than LaFontaine did, but then again, Turgeon wasn't the skater that LaFontaine was, and Turgeon simply couldn't do it himself like LaFontaine could, so maybe he was forced to have to use King more than LaFontaine in terms of the best play available to him.

Turgeon played a lot of unmemorable hockey compared to LaFontaine, but I do think that he would make better use of his teammates in general. I actually prefer when players need to rely on each other a lot.

I dunno how much you can blame LaFontaine here either. I guess the only thing you could say is that, yeah, in the NHL of those days, with the physicality, and the fearless way LaFontaine played, he was bound to get hurt. If he played in today's powderpuff league, maybe it's McDavid who?

Because like he still is the only player to score a goal in every game of a seven game series (1992), but they still lost to Boston.

Well, that would be interesting. I agree that he'd be awesome in this environment.

It's not so much that I'm blaming everything on LaFontaine (that's not my intention), it's mostly to do with people seem to be underwhelmed by Mogilny and Nicholls (and Turgeon) by comparison. I don't think their arguments/criticisms against those guys, are unwarranted either. The standards we hold against them, somehow, aren't being held against LaFontaine (IMO) to the same degree.

And since you're here, I'm curious, how would you rank Yzerman vs LaFontaine from '89-'94? Did you think that LaFontaine passed Yzerman, at any point of his career? They were on the exact same timeline.

 

[Crosby2010]

A couple of counter-points.

Mogilny played 7 less games that year, and that could make up a lot of that ground, especially in 1992-93. Secondly, you'll almost never see a high scoring winger produce at the same pace as a high scoring centerman.

Mogilny's games missed in 1992-93:

View attachment 947834​

GF/GA 1992-93

• TBL GF 21st of 24, GA 19th of 24
• SJS GF 23rd of 24, GA 24th of 24
• EDM GF 22nd of 24, GA 20th of 24

Lafontaine is those games:

• vs TBL - 1G, 1A
• vs SJS - 2G, 3A (1G, 2A on the PP)
• vs EDM - 2G, 1A

One would think that Mogilny would have made up a lot of the difference in those games.

Another point is that Lafontaine went off for 95 assists in 1992-93. Yet, his 2nd best would be 51 assists in 1991-92 again in 1995-96. In terms of pace, his 2nd best assist-to-game ratio would be in 1991-92.

He also racked up a lot of those on the PP.

My point here, is that he's doing this playing with Mogilny. He has no track record of being an elite playmaker outside of that stretch, as does Bernie Nicholls of having a track record of being a 70 goal scorer. Both of these seasons (or stretches of 1 1/2 years), are outliers. Lafontaine isn't going to have that kind of a stretch, unless he's playing with Mogilny (and maybe the 1992-93 version of Selanne when he was at his fastest).

Derek King wasn't doing much on those Lafontaine teams, but the year Turgeon comes, he becomes a 30 G, 70 PT-player.

On the flipside, Mogilny wasn't responding to Turgeon or Hawerchuk, like he was with Lafontaine. I still think they both elavated each other equally. Mogilny was a more responsible player, and probably covered up a bit for Lafontaine; though I'd take that with a grain of salt because they both tilted the ice during their run together (they're probably not spending too much time in their own zone).

While it's impressive to see what Lafontaine was doing in 1995-96 (33-42-7), the team made the playoffs the year before (22-19-7, 1st round exit), and the year after (40-30-12, 2nd round exit), when he either missed significant time, or had moved on to the Rangers.

Also, how much of Lafontaine's great production, resulted in his team playing meaningful hockey?

He's relatively well insulated at the beginning of his career with the Islanders. Yes, they weren't going to win any cups once the Oilers grabbed it by '84, but the Islanders were still good for a few years after that. He plays 48 of his 69 playoff games, prior to his breakout season in 1989-90, but at his peak, he only plays 21 more playoff games going forward. Bad luck, injuries, but I'm not convinced Lafontaine's style leads to deep playoff runs.

Lafontaine's last season was 1997-98, but by then, Turgeon played in 59 playoff games, scoring 55 points in those games. No one is writing about Turgeon's playoff excellence, and I don't think up to that point, he played on better teams than Lafontaine.

Nicholls by contrast, moved around a lot in the '90s, but makes multiple Conference Finals (3 times) on two teams (IMO) that probably shouldn't even be there. He wasn't getting monster numbers by that point, but he was a significant piece for the Oilers and the Blackhawks.

View attachment 947899​

This is also what hurts people's perception of Nicholls. He started out his career in L.A. (sort of a Siberia until Gretzky arrived), he's an afterthought behind Dionne, then certainly with Gretzky; probably even with Robitaille and Carson from 1986-1988). I think he's linked with those yellow/purple jerseys, Jim Fox, meaningless Kings-games, etc. And while we're here, 5'8" Jim Fox went 10th overall in 1980, and Nicholls went in the 4th round, 73rd overall in that same draft.

View attachment 947901​

I don't know why Babych gets the two-sticker slot here.

Both Lafontaine and Turgeon seemed to elevate their new teams better after the trade. Could be a change of scenery. Neither Turgeon or Lafontaine's playoff record is what got them into the HHOF. Both leave a lot to be desired. Nicholls has a pretty good playoff track record. His teams went a far distance quite often and yet surprisingly never in the Cup final, like Turgeon, but not like Lafontaine who got there in 1984. I agree no doubt Mogilny played a role in the 148 point season. He had a ton of talent and to be that good of a player you are going to benefit from having someone like Lafontaine there. Both were fast, both were skilled and both were explosive offensively. The eye test to me always favours Lafontaine. Nicholls was certainly effective, but if you are watching them all play I think you pick Lafontaine as a GM.

Or to put it in another perspective. If there is a Canada Cup in 1989 does Nicholls make the team? To be honest, I don't know. Gretzky, Mario, Yzerman and Messier you assume are down the middle and at least one of them goes on the wing to make room for a checking centre (let's say Hawerchuk and/or Gilmour). I don't know if he makes it. But does a 1993 Lafontaine make Team Canada? I think he does too much where you couldn't leave him off (I realize Lafontaine is American, it is just an example). At their peak I think you still have to pick him. But I do like your deep dive into it, and the fact Lafontaine got 95 assists is definitely pumped by Mogilny.