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.

 

[JJ18Sniper]

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?

I think the Turgeon success in 93' was boosted by having better depth around him on the Islanders than Lafontaine did in the late 80's / early 90's.
Benoit Hogue and Steve Thomas were both wingers added in simulatanous trades (Lafontaine/Sutter deals in 91') and Derek King suddenly clicked with Turgeon.

And no specific stats to provide, but adding Uwe Krupp (Lafontaine trade), Vlad Malakhov (93' rookie) and Kaspairatis (93' rookie) transformed the defense he played with.

 

[tabness]

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.

So I'm not big into the ranking thing, I feel like people take it way too seriously and are so firm in their opinions based on ranking criteria that seems to be built on house of cards sort of stuff. Turns from something fun into something futile pretty fast lol

I've said before here that while Yzerman and Sakic get compared to each other all the time, for seemingly superficial reasons, the best player comparison for Yzerman is actually LaFontaine.

Both Yzerman and LaFontaine entered the league as finesse centers who were a bit too small and weak initially. Both ascended to superstardom in the late eighties by focusing on getting much stronger and initiating more contact in order to get more space to more effectively use their immense finesse skills.

Even then it isn't a perfect fit stylistically, LaFontaine was a more north south player who enjoyed playing off the rush and using his speed to drive to the net, his skating style saw him sort of crouch down and barrel in. Yzerman would weave more east to west, he didn't have LaFontaine's top speed and thus relied on his agility more, and he'd hold on to the puck longer.

Their playstyles sort of reflect their injuries, LaFontaine was in situations where he'd get nailed in the head more at speed, Yzerman would do the Bobby Orr "dancer" thing as Don Cherry called it and always tweaked his knees.

To try and give some answer to your question, by contemporary acclaim, in the late eighties, Yzerman was usually considered the third best player in the league, but by the early nineties with Yzerman's declining stats under Bryan Murray and LaFontaine's surging stats in Buffalo, it was LaFontaine who'd get tagged as the second best player/center after Lemieux by like The Hockey News/Hockey Digest, so in that sense you can sort of point to the 1991-1992 season as when LaFontaine passed Yzerman.

I posted the Hockey Digest player rankings from around that period before, you can check out where they stacked up there according to this one media outlet:

Hockey Digest Yearbook player rankings

Continuing from this topic: THN Yearbook Rankings - 1992-2008 Before The Hockey News started doing their player rankings in their yearbooks, Hockey Digest would put out a yearbook and started ranking players after the 1987-1988 season. It started off as just Stan Fischler ranking his top ten...

forums.hfboards.com

1987-1988: Yzerman 7, LaFontaine 8
1988-1989: Yzerman 2, LaFontaine out of top 5
1989-1990: Yzerman 3, LaFontaine 5
1990-1991: Yzerman 2, LaFontaine 5
1991-1992: LaFontaine 5, Yzerman 6
1992-1993: LaFontaine 2, Yzerman 4

The Hockey News did a feature on LaFontaine being second behind Lemieux going into 1992-1993, and before they didn't do rankings but in the yearbooks after 1989-1990 and 1990-1991 they called Yzerman the third best player/center respectively after Gretzky/Lemieux.

But a lot of this seems to be flatly based on stats, and I've always felt that too much focus is given to player agency in stats and not enough on other contextual factors, so it's not something super convincing to me to just sort by stats and make a call on who's better.

LaFontaine had basically nothing to work with in the late eighties on the Islanders as I've called out earlier. Yzerman had to split powerplay time in the early nineties and his powerplay stats were surpressed (so look at the breakdown in 1992-1993 where if Yzerman got to be the main guy rather than split with the Fedorov unit, he'd have around 20-30 more powerplay points than he did just with how things shook out and the Wings scoring over 100 powerplay goals where Yzerman was only on the ice for a little more than half).

So no, I don't think it was a case of Yzerman being better earlier in that period and LaFontaine being better later like the rankings of the time reflect, they were basically the same players they were throughout that period just playing in different contexts. Honestly, even accounting for the slight differences between their styles, flip a coin, you got two players that stack up well against anyone in the league besides Lemieux.

As Neil Smith sort of calls out when discussing Lindros, they were among the absolute zenith of superstar centers in the league “With Gretzky, Lemieux, Steve Yzerman, Pat Lafontaine, you’ve got a group of superstars who are tremendously skilled, dominant athletes,” said N.Y. Rangers general manager Neil Smith, “but they don’t have the physical presence to dominate a game. Lindros does.”

I think that Yzerman would be better suited to when they actually played. He was just a little bigger and stronger than LaFontaine in a time when you needed that. I think that LaFontaine would be better suited for today, he would have that edge on speed and playstyle which matches today's game so well, and wouldn't need to worry about being coldcocked nearly as much.

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

So I'm not big into the ranking thing, I feel like people take it way too seriously and are so firm in their opinions based on ranking criteria that seems to be built on house of cards sort of stuff. Turns from something fun into something futile pretty fast lol

That's fair. I recently decided on this approach with movies, tv shows, music rankings and such (to just give up putting them in specific order), I'm just not there yet with sports quite yet. I think it's a healthier approach in the long run. I was thinking about Hawerchuk vs Francis earlier today, who cares, they're sort of in the same general sphere.

I was asking, because I'm under the assumption that Yzerman is your favorite player, and I prefer your type of breaking down - translating - what you've seen on the ice, rather than posts that are bogged down with numbers (adjusted stats and such). Not that there isn't a place for them, they just aren't my favorite types of posts to read through.

I appreciate your response.

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

I think that Yzerman would be better suited to when they actually played. He was just a little bigger and stronger than LaFontaine in a time when you needed that. I think that LaFontaine would be better suited for today, he would have that edge on speed and playstyle which matches today's game so well, and wouldn't need to worry about being coldcocked nearly as much.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that Yzerman deliberately took a step-back/less is more approach after a year of playing with Fedorov (going into 1991-92). I agree that his game was better suited for that era for the reasons you've described, but he also had the forsight to make the necessary adjustments, to set up the back half of his career for success, and to have a better understanding of how to evolve more as a cog in the wheel.

When LaFontaine went off with Buffalo, it felt like he was on borrowed time. That he was an injury waiting to happen. It was sort of miracle in retrospect, that he played all 84 games in 1992-93. I had a similar feeling with Gilmour, same period, but that he was burning himself out by playing the way that he did. They both went all out, during that stretch, but in different ways.

My perception of Yzerman was that once Fedorov came around, he then decided to up his game defensively (competitive spirit). I felt the same with Sakic as well, around the time that Forsberg came into the league. Which takes me back to LaFontaine, because he did play behind Trottier in the early going, and I thought more of Trottier's style would rub off on him.

But I guess you've answered that, because LaFontaine's frame wasn't built for that style of play. I think of the three (Yzerman/LaFontaine/Sakic), the best franchise to start your career off, would have been the Islanders, just because of the veteran leadership, experience, all of the advice, good practice habits, etc, that would help expedite LaFontaine's growth. It's no problem that it took him a few years to make that jump, but by comparison, Yzerman and Sakic were putting up numbers at the start of their careers.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

looking at lafontaine and yzerman side by side in ‘93 is interesting

lafontaine: 83 ES (3rd), 63 PP (1st), 2 SH, 148 pts overall (2nd)
yzerman: 87 ES (2nd), 41 PP (28th), 9 SH (1st), 137 pts overall (4th)


but then to get granular,

pre-coffey trade (50-odd games)

lafontaine: 48 ES (5th), 39 PP (2nd), 2 SH, 89 pts overall (2nd)
yzerman: 49 ES (4th), 19 PP, 5 SH (6th), 73 pts overall (10th)

post-coffey trade (30-odd games)

lafontaine: 35 ES (4th), 24 PP (2nd), 0 SH, 59 pts overall (2nd)
yzerman: 38 ES (2nd), 22 PP (5th), 4 SH (1st), 64 pts overall (1st)


the weird thing is detroit’s PP wasn’t even bad before coffey, but coffey getting there (or carson leaving) seems to have increased yzerman’s role on it.

pre-trade: 4th ranked PP(%), 2nd in PP goals (6th in the league overall)
post-trade: top ranked PP(%), 1st in PP goals (4th in the league overall)

PP pts, pre-trade: ciccarelli (26), carson (24), chiasson (23), fedorov (22), sheppard/yzerman (19)

PP pts, post-trade: yzerman (22), coffey (21), ciccarelli (18), chiasson (10), fedorov/sheppard (9)

and, as i noted in the lafontaine/mogilny thread recently, while buffalo’s players dominated in PP scoring in 1993, the team’s PP overall was in the middle third of the league (8th in PP goals, 10th in PP%).

 

[VanIslander]

I was watching hockey throughout their careers, though LA was an ugh rival, not a great rival, so less attention was paid to Nicholls.

Mogilny is a top 10 ever seen forward in offensive talent. But without the puck, and with injuries, he was challenged,...

Laffy was a puckhandler extrordinaire, a Soviet-worthy forward in terms of anticipation, passing, positioning, but alas, he never had equal linemates and he got gimpy.

They all lesser versions of Makarov:

 

[JackSlater]

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.

I don't think that's accurate. Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Messier, and Hull is a pretty solid top five for that span. LaFontaine would be in the next five. Even in LaFontaine's big year he outscored Yzerman by only 11 points, and Yzerman didn't have a linemate matching him at even strength like Mogilny.

 

[The Panther]

View attachment 947901

Holy crap, I remember these sticker books from when I was a little kid. Amazing!!

 

[The Panther]

Although I'm tempted to also go with Lafontaine here as the best player of the three at his best, I kind of agree with the slight criticism of him (above) that he didn't really tilt the ice for his teams. That is, it's hard to see where his presence obviously contributed to major victories. We can't really fault him for the Islanders' descent into the cellar in the late-80s, of course, so that's whatever. (On the other hand, his presence wasn't dragging them into the playoffs, either.) When Laf went to Buffalo, I can't see where he really make a huge impact on the club's fortunes. (They'd been far better with young Turgeon as their top guy in 1989-90, though that was quite a different club.) When the Sabres found their identity from the mid-1990s onward, it was only after they'd given up on Lafontaine-Mogilny as the guys to build around.

(The one obvious exception to this mild criticism of Lafontaine is, of course, the 1987 game seven overtime goal that eliminated Washington.)

Bernie Nicholls was a really good playoff performer. I wonder how many peeps here -- many of you easterners -- watched the 1992 Edmonton - L.A. playoff series? Nicholls was the best player on either team (better than Gretzky, Kurri, Damphousse, Robitaille, Coffey) and was essentially the difference in the series, for Edmonton. (The Oilers' success as a team that season only began after Nicholls arrived and joined the team in, I think, early December 1991.)

Lafontaine probably didn't appear in enough playoff series to fairly judge his contributions there, but I do feel he wasn't the guy to 'tilt' the ice enough at big moments, without some help anyway.

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

Holy crap, I remember these sticker books from when I was a little kid. Amazing!!

A few picks that stood out to me from those early '80s O-Pee-Chee sticker albums. I think you'll appreciate these.

I wish they'd go back to these types of uniforms for the All Star game.

Note, no Butch Goring prestigious double sticker slot, let alone even a single one.

Sigh, the four divisions...

Ferme la bouche, Pierre Larouche!
​

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

Bernie Nicholls was a really good playoff performer. I wonder how many peeps here -- many of you easterners -- watched the 1992 Edmonton - L.A. playoff series? Nicholls was the best player on either team (better than Gretzky, Kurri, Damphousse, Robitaille, Coffey) and was essentially the difference in the series, for Edmonton. (The Oilers' success as a team that season only began after Nicholls arrived and joined the team in, I think, early December 1991.)

That's exactly when I started to appreciate Nicholls.

​

 

[tabness]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that Yzerman deliberately took a step-back/less is more approach after a year of playing with Fedorov (going into 1991-92). I agree that his game was better suited for that era for the reasons you've described, but he also had the forsight to make the necessary adjustments, to set up the back half of his career for success, and to have a better understanding of how to evolve more as a cog in the wheel.

View attachment 948346​

When LaFontaine went off with Buffalo, it felt like he was on borrowed time. That he was an injury waiting to happen. It was sort of miracle in retrospect, that he played all 84 games in 1992-93. I had a similar feeling with Gilmour, same period, but that he was burning himself out by playing the way that he did. They both went all out, during that stretch, but in different ways.

My perception of Yzerman was that once Fedorov came around, he then decided to up his game defensively (competitive spirit). I felt the same with Sakic as well, around the time that Forsberg came into the league. Which takes me back to LaFontaine, because he did play behind Trottier in the early going, and I thought more of Trottier's style would rub off on him.

But I guess you've answered that, because LaFontaine's frame wasn't built for that style of play. I think of the three (Yzerman/LaFontaine/Sakic), the best franchise to start your career off, would have been the Islanders, just because of the veteran leadership, experience, all of the advice, good practice habits, etc, that would help expedite LaFontaine's growth. It's no problem that it took him a few years to make that jump, but by comparison, Yzerman and Sakic were putting up numbers at the start of their careers.

For Yzerman, I don't think it's necessarily as much Fedorov's arrival in itself, as it is that Bryan Murray was trying to undo what the late era Demers Red Wings had devolved into as well as sort of deal with the embarrassment of riches the Wings suddenly found themselves with at center.

Without getting into too much detail, Bryan Murray sought balance in the lineup, since the whole thing with the Demers era Wings is that they started off as overacheivers who tightened up defensively, to underachievers who kept seeing their roles diminish in a death spiral feedback loop of sulking and sucking and playing less and back again to sulking, while basically Yzerman had to carry them more and more.

Meanwhile, with Fedorov, now the Wings had three top line centers, and Jimmy Carson himself was underachieving. And they seemingly kept getting more centers, Primeau, Sillinger, even Drake came outta nowhere to have a real good rookie year with the Wings in 1992-1993. You can play a guy like Burr on the wing sure, but something's gotta give. So like Murray gives Carson a bigger role on things like powerplay (who isn't the skater that Yzerman or Fedorov are and can't kill penalties and isn't going to get as much time on even strength as them), and Carson naturally responds playing better as compared to him in 1989-1990 or 1990-1991. Yzerman may not have gotten the 150-160 points he could have with a more typical deployment in 1992-1993, but who cares, the Wings scored 100 powerplay points that year anyway, and that powerplay won them quite a few games that year. That's why I take the opinion that Yzerman's best in terms of play year was actually 1992-1993, as I've discussed before. He was just an everything player for them then, and his numbers could have easily been better with just some situational differences for whatever it's worth.

What are the top 3 individual regular seasons of all-time outside of the big 4?

I think between Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux and Howe - they have the best regular seasons in the history of the sport. Maybe as much as the top 15- 20 seasons between the 4 of them. What are the top 3 individual regular seasons of all-time for you outside of the big 4? Regular season only, ignoring...

forums.hfboards.com

And interestingly enough, although it was around the turn of the nineties that both LaFontaine and Yzerman got criticized for being too individualistic, the knock's probably more legit on Yzerman rather than LaFontaine, because the Wings actually went out and got Yzerman's childhood buddy Ray Sheppard to play on the right (Yzerman himself lobbied hard for Sheppard and to Sheppard), and yet when they were put together early in 1991-1992, Yzerman wasn't passing to him anyway. And as Gerard Gallant's play nosedived due to injuries, Yzerman stopped passing to his left as well lol. But thanks to the balance that Bryan Murray struck, Yzerman sort of came around during the 1991-1992 season after a terrible start, and he and Ciccarelli hit it off well the next year, and the year after, Sheppard scored 50 playing with Yzerman.

As for LaFontaine on the dynasty Islanders, he has spoken about this a bit. He never got anything for free coming up with Al Arbour on that team, with all their established veterans. His numbers may not look as good as Yzerman's, but it seems to be more a function of opportunity than anything else. Yzerman was literally the team's first line center from his second shift (his very first shift they started him on the fourth line with Paul Woods, who who become Wings radio color guy that I loved the Canadian accent so much of lol) just not to embarrass the veterans on the team lol, and so he got all the powerplay time and all that.

LaFontaine on the other hand didn't really play on the powerplay until his fourth year, he still scored at a rate of like 50ish even strength points in a full season at the time which is pretty much what Yzerman was doing.

LaFontaine's teammates on the Islanders like Nystrom and Gillies speak pretty glowingly about his talent and fitting in as well, he just seemed to not have everything given to him and he seemed to have taken it in stride. He pretty convincingly took over being the man on that team by the late eighties as he entered his prime though.