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

[MadLuke]

He also called Bob Gainey the best player in the world. So him saying that means less than nothing.

I feel that could how people chose to translate from Russian ?, he said most complete player in the world according to some, which do not sound that unreasonable or hot as a take.
Little wonder that the legendary Soviet Union coach Viktor Tikhonov praised Gainey during the 1981 Canada Cup, calling him "technically the most complete player in the world."

Depends on one define complete... (some could have said Potvin, Trottier, many soviet or others candidate, but it is not best of the world level of pushing it)

 

[VistamarCroissants]

He also called Bob Gainey the best player in the world. So him saying that means less than nothing.

He coached them. He knows better.

Actually, I don't know whether Tikhonov ever said that Gainey is the best. Find me a quote, preferably from a Soviet newspaper.

And maybe Gainey would have become the best player if he was coached by Tikhonov. Who knows?

 

[filinski77]

Mogilny had 1 great season where he was 1st in goals and 7th in points.

Top-10 point finishes = 7/9
Top-10 goal finishes = 1/3/6
Top-10 Hart finishes = none

His accumulated goal/point totals aren't all that impressive since he played his prime in the high-scoring 90's.

If he goes in the hall based on some compiling stats, and those top-end seasons. Then the following players will also have to be in the hall (or one day make the hall) -> Benn, Tavares, Pavelski, Getzlaf, Marchand, Hall, Wheeler, Gaudreau, Pastrnak, Panarin, Spezza, Parise, Lecavalier, Kessel, Backstrom, Scheifele, Perry, Staal, Richards, Kovalchuk, Savard.

A lot of these guys have similar point/goal finishes, similar career totals (when considering they didn't play in the 90's), and a lot actually have a Hart finish.

Some will make the Hall, but this list of comparables does not deserve a thread of "why isn't he in the hall". It's because his comparables is largely hall of very good.

 

[WarriorofTime]

His accumulated goal/point totals aren't all that impressive since he played his prime in the high-scoring 90's.

Adjusted points and actual points are pretty similar actually.

I would not call Mogilny your classic "compiler" as he did not play enough games to really "compile" in the way people use it, just had a lot of pretty consistently good seasons with only a couple seasons that went really off.

 

[MadLuke]

His accumulated goal/point totals aren't all that impressive since he played his prime in the high-scoring 90's.

If we call the high scoring 90s everything before 96-97 and Mogilny prime everything before the lock-out/before going over 35 (he was a ppg his last 2 years in Toronto in 03-04 hockey that not bad at all)

460 of his 956 in his prime games were in the high scoring 90s, 48% of them, half in high scoring, half in low scoring.

It probably balances out career wise close to the average nhler experience, the adjusted and actual being really close said above would not surprise me.

 

[The Panther]

I don't think it's an insult to Mogilny to compare him to Kovalev. I'd say their careers impacts and stats, etc., are pretty similar.

To round-down the two big early-90s' seasons of Mogilny a bit, the ever-popular "Adjusted stats" metric on Hockey-Ref shows each player peaking at 103 "points", and each having four 85+ point seasons. After those biggest four seasons, Mogilny has a slight edge, but they each end up with nine 60+ "point" seasons in total.

One thing Kovalev did that Mogilby didn't is to be a big contributor to a Cup winner ('94 Rangers).

 

[MadArcand]

Mogilny's certainly far closer to Kovalev than either of Fedorov or Bure. I don't know about in North America, but here in the 90s Fedorov was viewed as a Lindros tier superstar and Bure as Hull tier star goalscorer. Mogilny was somewhere between a Shanahan and Kovalev, and was mostly renowned for having an idiotic surname.

 

[filinski77]

If we call the high scoring 90s everything before 96-97 and Mogilny prime everything before the lock-out/before going over 35 (he was a ppg his last 2 years in Toronto in 03-04 hockey that not bad at all)

460 of his 956 in his prime games were in the high scoring 90s, 48% of them, half in high scoring, half in low scoring.

It probably balances out career wise close to the average nhler experience, the adjusted and actual being really close said above would not surprise me.

You're right, he was in high scoring until his like 27 aged season.

When I mentioned the scoring environment, was more geared towards my comparison to the 2000's and 2010's guys. Yes, Mogilny's adjusted and raw stats are super close (within like 20 pts), but compare that to someone like Tavares who has almost 200 more adjusted points

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

If we call the high scoring 90s everything before 96-97 and Mogilny prime everything before the lock-out/before going over 35 (he was a ppg his last 2 years in Toronto in 03-04 hockey that not bad at all)

460 of his 956 in his prime games were in the high scoring 90s, 48% of them, half in high scoring, half in low scoring.

It probably balances out career wise close to the average nhler experience, the adjusted and actual being really close said above would not surprise me.

With Mogilny, I'd say the "high scoring era" knock against him is more the fact that his 3 best seasons 1992, 1993 and 1996. It's a credit to how good he was that he never fully crashed out and never got too far below PPG in any season, but there was a noticeable drop off as league scoring went down.

 

[Michael Farkas]

and was mostly renowned for having an idiotic surname.

Tell me more?

 

[Zine]

Mogilny's certainly far closer to Kovalev than either of Fedorov or Bure. I don't know about in North America, but here in the 90s Fedorov was viewed as a Lindros tier superstar and Bure as Hull tier star goalscorer. Mogilny was somewhere between a Shanahan and Kovalev, and was mostly renowned for having an idiotic surname.

Before he left for the NHL Mogilny was originally viewed as the next big superstar in Soviet Union. He made '88 Olympic team over Fedorov. He was also 'the guy' at the '89 WJC.

Mogilny was more talented than both Fedorov and Bure, imo.
But alas his play resembled his attitude; laid-back as ****. He often played with very little urgency. It's not surprising he had immense difficulty under Tikhonov's rigid control.

 

[Albatros]

Tell me more?

Pertaining to grave.

 

[VistamarCroissants]

Mogilny's certainly far closer to Kovalev than either of Fedorov or Bure. I don't know about in North America, but here in the 90s Fedorov was viewed as a Lindros tier superstar and Bure as Hull tier star goalscorer. Mogilny was somewhere between a Shanahan and Kovalev, and was mostly renowned for having an idiotic surname.

Mogilny was considered the top Russian before Fedorov and Bure had an amazing season in 94. Shanahan and Kovalev weren't in the same conversation with the three

 

[MadLuke]

Considering when Lindros became a superstar (94-95 ?) or Shanahan a star, I am not sure if you are disagreeing here or just on a different timeline ?

 

[MadArcand]

Pertaining to grave.

That's what it means in Russian, but in Czech/Slovak it sounds like drunkenly slurred Mobilný (mobile), which makes it extremely "thank you captain obvious" kinda name. Would be actually funny on someone lacking mobility I suppose.

Considering when Lindros became a superstar (94-95 ?) or Shanahan a star, I am not sure if you are disagreeing here or just on a different timeline ?

Seems like timeline issue to me... Whether he was more talented (like Zine said) and thus higher rated in juniors has no meaning to how his perception was when they all peaked (mid to late 90s). Fedorov was just a tier below Gretzky/Lemieux/Jagr, and even to this day his cards hold some value. Mogilny's? Bulk trash, then and now.

 

[Takuto Maruki]

I will admit, when I created this thread, I probably wrote it making it seem like I was on the side of 'Mogilny should be in the HHOF!' but in reality I don't really have a side in the argument. Really, I was curious as to the general reasoning as to why Mogilny wasn't considered until relatively recently, and didn't exactly feel like the general answers from a wider audience who probably would pull from highlight videos and third/fourth hand accounts would be that enlightening, so I came here.

To expect a seven page thread though, I'm surprised.