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.

Mogilny was more four dimensional than Panarin, and he also showed more grit. Yes, the little grit he showed at times, still more than Panarin.

 

[Dingo]

Mogilny was/is pretty overrated. Tons of talent, not a whole lot came out of it. Streaky, a bit of a mental case, really jumped into everyone's radar with that crazy 92-93 season.... at the time I had no way of knowing that season was a blip, and then hose numbers began to look SO good as scoring dried up shortly after. I never thought of him as playoff or international big game player, and, like Fedorov, his regular seasons seemed disappointing in comparison with his perceived ability. (Yes, Fedorov was a stud in playoffs)

Ya, is he better than some guys in there? Sure, but then a LOT of guys have to get in. He wouldnt make my Hall, personally... although i will say neither would many who are in the real one.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Because winning a Rocket doesnt make you a HOF'er?

7/9 point finishes
1/3/6 goal finishes
2x AS-2
Rocket

Honestly, his case is no better than Tkachuk or Brind'amour

 

[Overrated]

He never finished top 5 in points. It's a really low bar.

I do think he'll get in one day. There's been a bit of an opening of arms to 90s era stars recently (Vernon, Roenick, Turgeon, Barasso, Zubov). He fits the bill.

that's due to not playing full seasons

Because winning a Rocket doesnt make you a HOF'er?

7/9 point finishes
1/3/6 goal finishes
2x AS-2
Rocket

Honestly, his case is no better than Tkachuk or Brind'amour

Triple gold club
1000 NHL points
Career over PPG

 

[JackSlater]

that's due to not playing full seasons


Triple gold club
1000 NHL points
Career over PPG

The first of those is completely trivial and the third is a function of him retiring somewhat early that the committee almost certainly doesn't care about. They do clearly care about a round number like scoring 1000 points, but Mogilny didn't really blow that number away. They kept Turgeon out for years and he had ~300 more points, and again he is a poor inductee.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Because winning a Rocket doesnt make you a HOF'er?

7/9 point finishes
1/3/6 goal finishes
2x AS-2
Rocket

Honestly, his case is no better than Tkachuk or Brind'amour

with mogilny, if he got in i’d accept it (vs, say, andreychuk or housley or turgeon or lowe or nieuwendyk or vernon) because on top of being a notable player he was historically significant as a soviet defector.

but if i had to do a power ranking of all the borderline 1,000 pt guys whose names we keep hearing, while adding in one guy who imo we don’t talk about enough, it would go

elias
fleury
brind'amour
bobby smith
mogilny
tkachuk

assuming marleau is inevitable and with doug weight, damphousse, bernie nicholls, etc all below the threshold where we even care

but my cutoff line would be between fleury and brind'amour

 

[WarriorofTime]

with mogilny, if he got in i’d accept it (vs, say, andreychuk or housley or turgeon or lowe or nieuwendyk or vernon) because on top of being a notable player he was historically significant as a soviet defector.

but if i had to do a power ranking of all the borderline 1,000 pt guys whose names we keep hearing, while adding in one guy who imo we don’t talk about enough, it would go

elias
fleury
brind'amour
bobby smith
mogilny
tkachuk

assuming marleau is inevitable and with doug weight, damphousse, bernie nicholls, etc all below the threshold where we even care

but my cutoff line would be between fleury and brind'amour

Mogilny best guy currently getting voted down for me. I think he gets in once a dumba*s like Brian Burke isn't in charge of the committee and the situation is bit more objective.

 

[Overrated]

The first of those is completely trivial and the third is a function of him retiring somewhat early that the committee almost certainly doesn't care about. They do clearly care about a round number like scoring 1000 points, but Mogilny didn't really blow that number away. They kept Turgeon out for years and he had ~300 more points, and again he is a poor inductee.

He was also the first Soviet defector. Nedomansky got props for that.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Mogilny best guy currently getting voted down for me. I think he gets in once a dumba*s like Brian Burke isn't in charge of the committee and the situation is bit more objective.

how is mogilny better than elias?

elias has two cups as a main guy (co-led the 2000 team in scoring including going into the corner with derian hatcher and then passing the puck through him to find arnott wide open in front for the 2OT winner, and even though he had a weaker 2003 playoffs still led the finals in scoring)

mogilny, 31 years old with two very good scoring seasons still ahead of him, was a bit part on the 2000 team and was outscored by both sergei brylin and an ancient claude lemieux

elias finished 3, 6, and 10 in scoring
mogilny has a 7 and 9

obviously mogilny was more gifted, but elias accomplished more, along with being an uncommonly versatile player and also excelling on his own side of the puck

 

[MS]

Did people here watch him play? He was only good during contract years and terrible in the playoffs.

This is up there with 'Montreal had exclusive rights on French players' for the biggest incorrect hockey history myths.

1 of Mogilny's best 5 seasons was in a contract year. His 76-goal season was not a contract year. His 55-goal season in Vancouver was not a contract year.

 

[MadLuke]

Panarin is 5th in points since he entered the league, 6th in ppg, Chicago and Rangers were big market under the radar making the playoff almost always, 120 pts season, that certainly a HHOF career start.

His 76-goal season was not a contract year.

Not super easy to track older era contract, but I think he signed a contract in November 1993 ? Does that not make 92-93 kind of a contract year ?

SPORTS PEOPLE: HOCKEY; Mogilny Signs New Contract With Sabres (Published 1993)

www.nytimes.com

Nov. 4, 1993
Right wing ALEKSANDR MOGILNY, who shared last season's N.H.L. goal-scoring title with TEEMU SELANNE of Winnipeg, signed a multiyear contract with the Buffalo Sabres, the team announced yesterday

He had played for them since october 27 (injury) so I am not sure what was the situation...

 

[MS]

Panarin is 5th in points since he entered the league, 6th in ppg, Chicago and Rangers were big market under the radar making the playoff almost always, 120 pts season, that certainly a HHOF career start.



Not super easy to track older era contract, but I think he signed a contract in November 1993 ? Does that not make 92-93 kind of a contract year ?

SPORTS PEOPLE: HOCKEY; Mogilny Signs New Contract With Sabres (Published 1993)

www.nytimes.com

Nov. 4, 1993
Right wing ALEKSANDR MOGILNY, who shared last season's N.H.L. goal-scoring title with TEEMU SELANNE of Winnipeg, signed a multiyear contract with the Buffalo Sabres, the team announced yesterday

He had played for them since october 27 (injury) so I am not sure what was the situation...

The contract he signed started in the 1994-95 season. 1993-94 was his contract year, and he was signed part-way through it.

1992-93 was not a contract year.

 

[MadLuke]

If that contract was signed before he played a single game in 93-94.... that can become a bit of a semantic, specially if he was holding out.

 

[JackSlater]

He was also the first Soviet defector. Nedomansky got props for that.

I agree that there is at least something to that, in that it is the hall of fame and not the hall of stats or hall of talent. Neomansky came a lot earlier, and Mogilny was close but not quite the first Soviet in the NHL.