So, *why* is Alex Mogilny not in the HHOF?

[tarheelhockey]

I don’t understand why these borderline cases develop such a bandwagon. Did anyone think they were watching a HOF’er when Mogilny was playing? Why is there so much energy behind this guy?

 

[JackSlater]

The HHOF's bar for entry is way lower than "best player in the league for any length of time." If guys like Joe Mullen and Dino Ciccarelli are in, Mogilny deserves to be there. Plus he's a pioneer for how he got to the NHL in the first place.

I said in the conversation for best player, not best player - significant difference. I do agree that there are already bad selections like Mullen and Ciccarelli, also Duff, Lowe, Carbonneau, Housley and some others. That worse players who should not be in the hall of fame happen to be there is a pretty poor argument to me.

I don’t understand why these borderline cases develop such a bandwagon. Did anyone think they were watching a HOF’er when Mogilny was playing? Why is there so much energy behind this guy?

I wonder that too. It is similar to Turgeon's case where few other than fans of his teams really cared about him or viewed him that way, but then years later people declare it an injustice because memories of the actual player fade. With Turgeon it was about numbers, regardless of context. It's harder to pinpoint with Mogilny. He doesn't have the best numbers of players not in the HHOF. He isn't the best player who isn't in the HHOF. He doesn't have the best career of players not in the HHOF. Maybe it's romanticism about a very skilled player (who didn't live up to that skill) and who has a memorable introduction to the NHL, not sure.

 

[overpass]

Mogilny should absolutely be in by all standards. He got all the usual “Russian enigma” nonsense over his career.

It may not be fair to apply the "Russian enigma" stereotype to every Russian player, but it's a pretty weird argument to say the stereotype exists, therefore any criticism of a Russian player's consistency and effort is wrong.

Mogilny may be the individual who is most responsible for Russian players getting this reputation!

This is argument by sneer and a complete failure to engage with Mogilny's actual history.

The existence (taken for true for discussion of purposes) of other puzzling inclusions/exclusions wouldn’t make the reasoning behind this particular one untrue because of other reasons. Turgeon took a long time despite an easy HHOF resume for not joining a brawl for instance.

Ha, another conspiracy theory. Turgeon was criticised throughout his career for disappearing in the playoffs and for playing soft. He left Buffalo, the Islanders, and Montreal as a playoff disappointment for his actual performance in the NHL. I never heard anyone mention what he did or didn't do at the world Juniors until Gare Joyce wrote that book.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Based on who is already in, AlMo should be as well imo.

Ya he was inconsistent and often meh in the playoffs but he also won a Cup and intentionally. He famously defected and was ridiculously talented before his hip broke down.. enough to score 50 and 76 goals..

He’s a weaker induction for sure but there are already a pile of them so who cares

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Mogilny had the reputation of a goal scorer but was never a HHOF-caliber player outside of three seasons spread far apart. There was no bias against him at the time as he made it impossible to overlook his inconsistency. Simply put, he wasn’t among the elite wingers in a given season far too often. I think he epitomized woulda, coulda, shoulda. Ranks in goals 1991-2006:

33rd
28th
1st
43rd
29th
3rd
27th
88th
141st
56th
6th
56th
20th
292nd

To be completely honest, I think he’s not even talked about as an option if 1992-93 was a 50-goal season instead of the 76. It vaulted him into the stratosphere and made him legendary, even though Leclair, Fleury, and Larmer were more consistent (and Cup winners) as wingers.

EDIT: And I think if you polled GMs in 1991-92, most would take Larmer over Mogilny.

If you polled them in 1994-95, most would take Fleury, warts and all.

And if you polled them in 1998-99, most, if not all, would take Leclair.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

He had like 2 hall of fame type seasons and didn’t have enough consistency to hang his hat on that

 

[seventieslord]

I don’t understand why these borderline cases develop such a bandwagon. Did anyone think they were watching a HOF’er when Mogilny was playing? Why is there so much energy behind this guy?

So many of the big names in media right now are guys who were 8 to 13 years old right when Mogilny was at his peak. I feel like they were just the right age to be wowed by the 76 goals and that number has just stuck with them all these years without context.

 

[MXD]

Because he absolutely doesn't HAVE to be there.

 

[MadLuke]

It could be a the NHL 94 generation is in full control now for sure and 76 goals being a big mark (is it better than Bondra best season, Stamkos 60 goals or Iginla in 2002 goal scoring wise ? maybe, maybe not, but much bigger number).

Turgeon was an expected guy with the most points not in the HHOF, there will always be one, but Turgeon you had to go down a more than 100 points and a lot of name before finding an non HHOF on the list in Nicholls who played virtually all his years in the highest scoring era of hockey. He his is followed by Damphousse, Brind'amour still waiting, those won cup and had 2 way forward reputation, so there will not be energy for Nicholls just on that.

People brings Mogilny level of talents, but that was never a question, an hockey phenom scoring goals on the 1988 olympics soviet super team as an 18 years old, he had by a good amount more than enough talents to make the HHOF, reached regular season peak that are obviously more than high enough, pre-nhl story more than enough interesting as a prospect, but how better than Markus Naslund-LeClair of a career did he really had ? What about Kovalev ?

kovalev could sound like a joke comparison but career:

Points Per Game

1992-93 NHL 1.65 (4th)

1995-96 NHL 1.35 (9th)

vs
Points Per Game

2000-01 NHL 1.20 (6th)

2001-02 NHL 1.13 (4th)

Kovalev was a bigger part of the cup team on a more legendary cup win, could have a MTL push... both are in the below 500 goals but over 1000 pts club, both ridiculous talents even if Kovalev was no Mogilny, Kovalev just played longer and got less injured, but did pretty much as much. Kovalev has 100 playoff points

 

[Stephen]

I said in the conversation for best player, not best player - significant difference. I do agree that there are already bad selections like Mullen and Ciccarelli, also Duff, Lowe, Carbonneau, Housley and some others. That worse players who should not be in the hall of fame happen to be there is a pretty poor argument to me.

The fundamental conflict here is people’s imaginary standards for the HHOF are not aligned with what the actual bar is. Mogilny wasn’t my favorite player back in the day before he got to Toronto and he wasn’t my favorite when he became a Leaf. Seemed mercurial and enigmatic, a distant personality that didn’t always show up. But the resume more than passes the real life bar for what the HHOF actually is. It’s not a poor argument, it’s just precedent.

If you were to set up a new elite HHOF maybe the cut off is higher but it is what it is.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I’d go Mogilny over T. Fleury. Not that Fleury is a bad choice. Just never peaked as high as Mogilny, Mogilny better PPG, more leaned more goal scoring, more of a trailblazer

 

[jigglysquishy]

Just looking at the "edge" cases in the last ten years amongst forwards

Points
H. Sedin - 1, 4, 7, 10
Recchi - 3, 4, 5, 10
D. Sedin - 1, 8
Alfredsson - 4, 8, 9
Turgeon - 5, 7
Hossa - 5, 7
Roenick - 6, 7
Mogilny - 8, 10
Andreychuk - 9
Carbonneau -


Hart
H. Sedin - 1, 9, 10
D. Sedin - 2
Turgeon - 5
Alfredsson - 5
Roenick - 5
Recchi - 6, 9
Hossa - 10, 10
Mogilny -
Carbonneau -
Andreychuk -

Zero times top 10 in Hart voting. Zero times top 5 in points. Only twice top 10 in points.

Carbonneau has the Selke streak. But looking at it like this, Mogilny and Andreychuk are terrible entries.

 

[MadLuke]

I’d go Mogilny over T. Fleury. Not that Fleury is a bad choice. Just never peaked as high as Mogilny, Mogilny better PPG, more leaned more goal scoring, more of a trailblazer

True, but how big of a gap result wise are we talking about.

top 10 finish
Points
Fleury.: 6-7-8
Mogilny: 7-9

PPG
Fleury.: 6-7-7-10
Mogilny: 4-9

Goals
Fleury.: 2-6-7
Mogilny: 1-3-6

79 pts in 77 playoff games for Fleury, vs 86 in 124 for Mogilny (62 in 85 if we remove Toronto post prime from the resume, to keep with Fleury that did not play in the playoff during his older age).

 

[seventieslord]

It could be a the NHL 94 generation is in full control now for sure and 76 goals being a big mark (is it better than Bondra best season, Stamkos 60 goals or Iginla in 2002 goal scoring wise ? maybe, maybe not, but much bigger number).

Turgeon was an expected guy with the most points not in the HHOF, there will always be one, but Turgeon you had to go down a more than 100 points and a lot of name before finding an non HHOF on the list in Nicholls who played virtually all his years in the highest scoring era of hockey. He his is followed by Damphousse, Brind'amour still waiting, those won cup and had 2 way forward reputation, so there will not be energy for Nicholls just on that.

People brings Mogilny level of talents, but that was never a question, an hockey phenom scoring goals on the 1988 olympics soviet super team as an 18 years old, he had by a good amount more than enough talents to make the HHOF, reached regular season peak that are obviously more than high enough, pre-nhl story more than enough interesting as a prospect, but how better than Markus Naslund-LeClair of a career did he really had ? What about Kovalev ?

kovalev could sound like a joke comparison but career:

Points Per Game

1992-93 NHL 1.65 (4th)

1995-96 NHL 1.35 (9th)

vs
Points Per Game

2000-01 NHL 1.20 (6th)

2001-02 NHL 1.13 (4th)

Kovalev was a bigger part of the cup team on a more legendary cup win, could have a MTL push... both are in the below 500 goals but over 1000 pts club, both ridiculous talents even if Kovalev was no Mogilny, Kovalev just played longer and got less injured, but did pretty much as much. Kovalev has 100 playoff points

That's super charitable to Kovalev though, as he was heavily boosted by the Jagr/Lemieux effect, and could not post a top-10 PPG season on his own.

235 points in three seasons in 200 Pittsburgh GP, 794 in 1116 outside of those three years. And those were almost the three lowest-scoring seasons he played in.

Astonishingly, that's a 66% higher PPG rate than he had throughout the rest of his career. There are not many players you can say that about for a three-season span.

I don't want to see Mogilny in the hall, but it wouldn't be a travesty if he made it. Kovalev would be a travesty. I don't think he achieved even close to what Mogilny did.

 

[MadLuke]

I don't want to see Mogilny in the hall, but it wouldn't be a travesty if he made it. Kovalev would be a travesty. I don't think he achieved even close to what Mogilny did.

Hey you are talking about the guy that had by far the best offensive season since a season that has been old enough to drink for a while by now.... sadly right (he was around #20 in 2008 when he was 11th in points in PPG, he just played 82 games).

But I am not sure how much the hall voters hurt guys for playing with greats.

 

[JackSlater]

The fundamental conflict here is people’s imaginary standards for the HHOF are not aligned with what the actual bar is. Mogilny wasn’t my favorite player back in the day before he got to Toronto and he wasn’t my favorite when he became a Leaf. Seemed mercurial and enigmatic, a distant personality that didn’t always show up. But the resume more than passes the real life bar for what the HHOF actually is. It’s not a poor argument, it’s just precedent.

If you were to set up a new elite HHOF maybe the cut off is higher but it is what it is.

He doesn't really do anything other than straddle the line of the general standards. There are some worse players who are in the HHOF, but there are some better players who are not in. It's a poor argument for why he should be there. Roenick just got in this year and his case is better than Mogilny's, he also waited years. Mogilny is not some strong case where we can't figure it out. There is enough groundswell that he will get in as a weak inductee some year before long, but it's not at all surprising that he is currently on the outside.

 

[tabness]

I don’t understand why these borderline cases develop such a bandwagon. Did anyone think they were watching a HOF’er when Mogilny was playing? Why is there so much energy behind this guy?

I mean speaking for myself, while I really don't think too much about the hall of fame at all until a player retires or is about to retire...

yes absolutely thought that Mogilny was one of the absolutely most talented players I've ever seen, it was never about his numbers or awards (or anything derived from it like points finishes), dude was just an insanely sublime talent who only a handful of players could match when he was on (and he played with in a such a good time for top end talent)

knock on him was his consistency but even with that he still did so much he was so freaking good, seems like just as with the great JR superstar last year the injustice of keeping him out gonna be righted soon given the hype that's going around

 

[MXD]

I dunno, I watched Mogilny's whole career and "sublime talent who only a handful of players could match" is definitely describing someone else than him. Or I'm sticking a bit too much to Merriam-Webster's definition of "handful".

 

[Stephen]

He doesn't really do anything other than straddle the line of the general standards. There are some worse players who are in the HHOF, but there are some better players who are not in. It's a poor argument for why he should be there. Roenick just got in this year and his case is better than Mogilny's, he also waited years. Mogilny is not some strong case where we can't figure it out. There is enough groundswell that he will get in as a weak inductee some year before long, but it's not at all surprising that he is currently on the outside.

He’s also a historical figure for defecting from the USSR at 20 or 21 and carving out his career in North America. Which paved the way for the Euro and Eastern Bloc invasion in the early 90s after the fall of Communism. Which opens the conversation to the inclusion of Soviet players who are in the HHOF but didn’t have a superstar impact or any kind of career in the NHL.

Anyway he’s not a personal favorite of mine but I think the hall is richer with him in it than not.

 

[JackSlater]

He’s also a historical figure for defecting from the USSR at 20 or 21 and carving out his career in North America. Which paved the way for the Euro and Eastern Bloc invasion in the early 90s after the fall of Communism. Which opens the conversation to the inclusion of Soviet players who are in the HHOF but didn’t have a superstar impact or any kind of career in the NHL.

Anyway he’s not a personal favorite of mine but I think the hall is richer with him in it than not.

It's an interesting part of Mogilny's story, but you already had Soviets in the NHL before that and you had a prominent, HHOF level defector in Stastny with his own interesting. Fleury has probably a stronger case and his story is also very prominent and historically unique, yet he remains out. I do think that the HHOF badly needs to induct some of the European greats who never had the chance to play in the NHL, mainly the Soviets.

 

[MadLuke]

Anyway he’s not a personal favorite of mine but I think the hall is richer with him in it than not.

I feel that a strong point, in 150 years, an historian would write the history of hockey without having any mention of Mogilny could feel wrong to most.

Not that it should be an automatic, telling the history of hockey without mentioning Probert could feel wrong, does not mean he need to go into the hall.

Mogilny could be a should clearly be in, will be in, but can and should have to wait a bit to get in and they are handling it perfectly fine.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

I don’t understand why these borderline cases develop such a bandwagon. Did anyone think they were watching a HOF’er when Mogilny was playing? Why is there so much energy behind this guy?

I think the stats just look good... If Phil Housley can get in, surely Mogilny can too.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Did anyone think they were watching a HOF’er when Mogilny was playing?

I think it's OK to generally defer to more objective measures than general "vibes" and assumed zeitgeist, which is subject to a lot of human bias.

When people watch John Tavares, do they "think they're watching a HOF'er"... maybe? Idk. But he'll easily get in.

 

[MadLuke]

I think the stats just look good... If Phil Housley can get in, surely Mogilny can too.

We can disagree with how much voters value longevity, but a lot of them know from first hand personnal experience what it take and what it says about a player to have a long career, we could be humble and go with them in that regard or at least respect it.

And voter seem to value longevity a lot, only 22 players played more regular season game than Phil Housley, he was a Calder finalist at 18 years old and got his last all star team random vote almost 20 years later at 38 (still finishing top 20 in points among Ds).

Mogilny was a big deal from 1992 to 2003 for a bit less than 800 games and played in total just below 1000 games in the 80+ games a year era.

Argument can be made the comparable are more the Lafontaine, Panarin, Lindros, Forsberg, Datsyuk, Kovalchuck, Heatley, Kariya, etc...

NHL Stats

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

www.nhl.com

Someone trying to get in without having compiling an especially big body of work of good seasons, Mogilny played 5 times 70 games or more in the nhl, 5 time he got any vote for an all star team, his two second all star team finish being the only time he made the top 5.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think it's OK to generally defer to more objective measures than general "vibes" and assumed zeitgeist, which is subject to a lot of human bias.

When people watch John Tavares, do they "think they're watching a HOF'er"... maybe? Idk. But he'll easily get in.

Sure, but if you’re sitting there for a decade thinking a guy isn’t among your 30 most feared opponents, that’s a lot of vibes going the opposite direction of HHOF candidacy.

Tavares is barely 34 and already over 1000 points, about to hit 500 goals, playing mostly on crap teams in a low scoring era, and a multi-Hart finalist. He at least gives off faint HHOF vibes, even for a guy who subjected himself to being 2C on the Leafs during this era of endless gut-punches. At the same age, Mogilny had less than a full season left in his entire career.