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

[The Panther]

Obviously, he had elite-level talent and his amazing 1992-93 season (and to a lesser extent, 1991-92, 1995-96, and 2000-01) are more than Hall-of-Fame level worthy.

In other words, his ability in a vacuum and his peak-level are easily more than Hall-worthy. But Mogilny is a perfect example of why I personally favor what I sometimes call a consistent prime as a main point of player evaluation. This means the prime (not peak) seasons in a row of a given player. This is where Mogilny's legacy takes a bit of a hit.

Probably only once in his career did he ever string together three 'All-Star" type seasons in a row ('92, '93, and '94). And even in the latter of those three, he takes a massive drop from the level of the first two.

For the rest of his career after that, he had only two or three 'All Star" type seasons spread over ten years, and never even two in a row.

So, that's my personal issue with Mogilny. (But I doubt the actual Hall-of-Cronyism members have sat down and looked at the stats... they probably can't use the Internet. Well, we know Ken Holland can't.)

In addition to that fairly major issue, there's also these mitigating factors:
-- He played for three (or four) teams during his prime. (This isn't unusual of players of his free-agency era, but we've seen how it hurt the legacy of guys like Pierre Turgeon.)
-- He was a total passenger when his team won the Cup in 2000.

 

[Stephen]

I feel that a strong point, in 150 years, an historian would 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.

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.

Yeah, I don't think Mogilny has been aggrieved by not being in the HHOF, but I think it's inevitable, and feels correct for telling the story of a globalized NHL and is a part of the big story. Junior career with Bure and Fedorov. Soviet defection, paving the way for young Russians to come over before the Iron Curtain fell. Still had a HHOF caliber career, warts, reputation, inconsistency and all. Phenomenal individual skill, somewhat not always tapped.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

People talk about Panarin as a long shot, and I think it’s genuinely pretty tough to make a case for Mogilny over Panarin unless you were an excitable teen in the mid-90s.

 

[authentic]

Almo could separate or synergize between his hands and feet like very few others, literally perfect finesse talent, only thing you could ask for when he played was more size, but in today's NHL he'd be perfect

Too bad he didn’t have the drive to be the best, his talent was truly in the upper echelon of NHL greats, but the career he had is not really a HOF lock.

 

[Ishdul]

People talk about Panarin as a long shot, and I think it’s genuinely pretty tough to make a case for Mogilny over Panarin unless you were an excitable teen in the mid-90s.

If Panarin keeps his form for a few more years he's not actually a long shot. Honestly any scenario where he doesn't fall apart in the next 2 years and he's all but guaranteed.

Of course that would also make him a far more deserving inductee than Mogilny.

 

[WarriorofTime]

People talk about Panarin as a long shot, and I think it’s genuinely pretty tough to make a case for Mogilny over Panarin unless you were an excitable teen in the mid-90s.

Not so sure Panarin is a longshot. The book on him is not finished yet. His career totals aren't so high for his age because he had such late start at NHL level, but they will take not the highest career totals if there is a good story for it. He has 2X First Team, 2X Second Team and his career PPG is pretty insanely high (I guess helped by already being around prime aged when he entered NHL). Last year and this year, he looks top of his game despite being at an age where you may expect decline.

I'm not so sure why he is long shot, that feels more HF just not having a great pulse on HHOF Standards.

 

[The Panther]

Yeah, I'd say even if Panarin retired after this season, he has a good chance of Hall entry. He's working on his 7th consecutive season at basically a 90+ point pace. Counting this year, he's 5th highest in scoring for the past eight seasons. Second-highest scoring season in New York Rangers' history last year.

 

[bobholly39]

I don't really get the Mogilny hype to be honest, I never have. He never got any type of hart consideration in any season.

The 76 goal season is amazing, but he simply was never consistent enough.

I think he's one of those types that's more talented than what he accomplished - but it's still accomplishments that matter for hall of fame, not just talent.

 

[sr edler]

I don't care that much about the HHOF, we don't really have hall of fames here in Europe, so I've never really understood the obsession with them. Also, nothing about a player's actual career changes with/without induction into anything.

This said, I would take Mogilny over Panarin for sure (even if it makes me an "excitable teen"), if I ran a hockey club. If your only argument for a player over another player is "oh look how many pointssss this guy constantly scored in the RS" then that's not enough for me, that's waddling into Näslund-ish/Keith Tkachuk-ish territory IMO.

 

[seventieslord]

I don't care that much about the HHOF, we don't really have hall of fames here in Europe, so I've never really understood the obsession with them. Also, nothing about a player's actual career changes with/without induction into anything.

This said, I would take Mogilny over Panarin for sure (even if it makes me an "excitable teen"), if I ran a hockey club. If your only argument for a player over another player is "oh look how many pointssss this guy constantly scored in the RS" then that's not enough for me, that's waddling into Näslund-ish/Keith Tkachuk-ish territory IMO.

But that's the one thing he really has in his favor. So if there's other guys who could be described in the same way, and they're significantly better than him at that thing, what case does he have really?

 

[sr edler]

But that's the one thing he really has in his favor. So if there's other guys who could be described in the same way, and they're significantly better than him at that thing, what case does he have really?

Who's got a case for what? I'm not making any cases here, you know this. I'm talking if a ran a team, it's explicitly stated in the post.