The Immaturity Keeping Alexander Mogilny Out Of The Hockey Hall Of Fame - An Article By Kevin Wong

[tarheelhockey]

Hockey is about raw stats,

I’m sorry, that’s completely ridiculous and anyone who remotely understands the topic understands why.

You were in the middle of saying you never said prime Mogilny > prime Ovechkin, then you just turned around and laid out that exact argument.

And lol at being able to see more hockey in the 90’s. That’s just silly, I can see more on YouTube right now than all the 90’s combined.

That’s neat. Meanwhile, the number of hours in a day is the same now as it was in 1990. If you watch one complete game a day you are not, in fact, watching more hockey than you did then. And if you’re spreading that time over 50% more players, guess what... you’re watching each individual player less.

 

[Hatrix]

And you know the state of society is in drastic decline when a player's hall of fame induction is based on his personal traits rather then achievements in the league.

 

[supsens]

I’m sorry, that’s completely ridiculous and anyone who remotely understands the topic understands why.

You were in the middle of saying you never said prime Mogilny > prime Ovechkin, then you just turned around and laid out that exact argument.



That’s neat. Meanwhile, the number of hours in a day is the same now as it was in 1990. If you watch one complete game a day you are not, in fact, watching more hockey than you did then. And if you’re spreading that time over 50% more players, guess what... you’re watching each individual player less.

So the people that voted him in have no idea? And nope sorry the World Wide Web and massive amount of tv channels now available kills what you could see in the 90’s you can’t talk your way into being right no matter how you want to twist it. Your just plain flat out wrong.
He does belong in the hall I told you why, they put him in the hall because...I told you why, so I’m not sure why you can’t see your wrong.
For some reason you think your right and well you can have your opinion, but it’s not correct.
No I never once mentioned either other than asking what on earth are you talking about.
Quick question who is going to finish with more goals and points between the two if that’s the new discussion? Eyoooo
You—the third highest scoring USA born player and fourth highest scoring defenseman all time doesn’t belong in the hall because Moginly isn’t better than AO.
Lol yaaa, that’s some solid logic right there

 

[tarheelhockey]

So the people that voted him in have no idea? And nope sorry the World Wide Web and massive amount of tv channels now available kills what you could see in the 90’s you can’t talk your way into being right no matter how you want to twist it. Your just plain flat out wrong.

Take the chip off your shoulder and think about this for a second. It’s simple math.

Someone who watches all of his team’s games sees 82 complete games. That is as true today as it was in the 90s.

In 2019, there are 30 other teams. You see them each an average of 2.7 times with a minimum of 2.
In 1990, there were 21 other teams. You saw them each an average of 3.9 times with a minimum of 3.

This isn’t even getting into the fact that TOI was more top-heavy during that era, as was scoring. So a larger portion of the time you spent watching the game was spent watching first-liners and top-pair defensemen.

Sure, it’s true that there is more access to OTHER games. But we’re talking about professional journalists here, not out-of-market fans. We know which games they were watching — the ones they were paid to attend and analyze. So we know that Norris voters saw Housley in live action, on average, even more often than they would if he played today.

Choosing to argue the math in an effort to convince people that Norris voters were just randomly filling out ballots for players they hadn’t seen is an incredibly bad angle. But proceed if you still think it’s a good idea.

He does belong in the hall I told you why, they put him in the hall because...I told you why, so I’m not sure why you can’t see your wrong.
For some reason you think your right and well you can have your opinion, but it’s not correct.
No I never once mentioned either other than asking what on earth are you talking about.
Quick question who is going to finish with more goals and points between the two if that’s the new discussion? Eyoooo
You—the third highest scoring USA born player and fourth highest scoring defenseman all time doesn’t belong in the hall because Moginly isn’t better than AO.
Lol yaaa, that’s some solid logic right there

You are, in the clearest terms possible, arguing that we should judge players across eras by raw scoring totals.

It is inherent in your argument that Mogilny’s 73 goal season was more impressive than anything Ovechkin has done.

If you feel that it would be crazy to take Mogilny’s 73 goals at face value in a comparison to Ovechkin, then you need to do the same for Housley when comparing him to defensemen in other eras (especially ones that actually played defense).

You cannot have this one way but not the other. Again, math doesn’t lie.

 

[TheUltimateOiler]

Mogilny should have been in there years ago.
He paved the way for Russians in the NHL.
First to defect.
First European captain.
Scored 50 in 50 even though buffalo played more games, mogilny did not.

 

[supsens]

Take the chip off your shoulder and think about this for a second. It’s simple math.

Someone who watches all of his team’s games sees 82 complete games. That is as true today as it was in the 90s.

In 2019, there are 30 other teams. You see them each an average of 2.7 times with a minimum of 2.
In 1990, there were 21 other teams. You saw them each an average of 3.9 times with a minimum of 3.

This isn’t even getting into the fact that TOI was more top-heavy during that era, as was scoring. So a larger portion of the time you spent watching the game was spent watching first-liners and top-pair defensemen.

Sure, it’s true that there is more access to OTHER games. But we’re talking about professional journalists here, not out-of-market fans. We know which games they were watching — the ones they were paid to attend and analyze. So we know that Norris voters saw Housley in live action, on average, even more often than they would if he played today.

Choosing to argue the math in an effort to convince people that Norris voters were just randomly filling out ballots for players they hadn’t seen is an incredibly bad angle. But proceed if you still think it’s a good idea.




You are, in the clearest terms possible, arguing that we should judge players across eras by raw scoring totals.

It is inherent in your argument that Mogilny’s 73 goal season was more impressive than anything Ovechkin has done.

If you feel that it would be crazy to take Mogilny’s 73 goals at face value in a comparison to Ovechkin, then you need to do the same for Housley when comparing him to defensemen in other eras (especially ones that actually played defense).

You cannot have this one way but not the other. Again, math doesn’t lie.

Take the chip off your shoulder
Less exposure and less coverage does not equal a more informed opinion, yet your trying to argue it does. I can’t take you seriously anymore sorry.
oh and if you value reporters opinion so highly why don’t you value their hall opinion?

3rd most productive USA born player. 4th most productive dman
Ever. Ever. Ever
Can’t diminish it, can’t pretend it didn’t happen and can’t pretend it isn’t a big deal.
what a feat it would be if it were you or your papa. all we would here is...third most...fourth most blah blah best best best

 

[tarheelhockey]

Take the chip off your shoulder
Less exposure and less coverage does not equal a more informed opinion, yet your trying to argue it does.

There’s a certain irony in this turn of argument.

For years, Housley benefitted from the dominance of scoring stats as the only reliable way to compare defensemen. The only other metric widely available was +/-, and as a -53 he certainly wasn’t helped by that one.

He would get eviscerated by modern analytics, which would expose just how badly he surrendered goals in order to rack up all those points. Karlsson gets skewered for it, and Karlsson is twice the player Housley was.

It’s massively to his advantage that he played when he did.

I can’t take you seriously anymore sorry.
oh and if you value reporters opinion so highly why don’t you value their hall opinion?

And you think reporters vote for the HHOF.

3rd most productive USA born player. 4th most productive dman
Ever. Ever. Ever
Can’t diminish it, can’t pretend it didn’t happen and can’t pretend it isn’t a big deal.
what a feat it would be if it were you or your papa. all we would here is...third most...fourth most blah blah best best best

1) Being 3rd among Americans is irrelevant unless we’re talking about the USA HOF.

2) You literally cannot make this argument without running into Mogilny > Ovechkin. Keep saying it if you want, but math is math.

 

[supsens]

There’s a certain irony in this turn of argument.

For years, Housley benefitted from the dominance of scoring stats as the only reliable way to compare defensemen. The only other metric widely available was +/-, and as a -53 he certainly wasn’t helped by that one.

He would get eviscerated by modern analytics, which would expose just how badly he surrendered goals in order to rack up all those points. Karlsson gets skewered for it, and Karlsson is twice the player Housley was.

It’s massively to his advantage that he played when he did.



And you think reporters vote for the HHOF.



1) Being 3rd among Americans is irrelevant unless we’re talking about the USA HOF.

2) You literally cannot make this argument without running into Mogilny > Ovechkin. Keep saying it if you want, but math is math.

Nope no hockey reporters voting for the hall of fame.......haha your always wrong about everything yet you keep typing.

Won and done, night night

 

[tarheelhockey]

Nope no hockey reporters voting for the hall of fame.......haha your always wrong about everything yet you keep typing.

Won and done, night night

On an 18-person panel, there are a whopping 3 journalists. Plus whatever you want to call Pierre McGuire, who is about as much a “journalist” as Brian Burke.

Legends of Hockey - Induction Showcase - Selection Commitee

You appear to be confusing the PHWA, which votes on awards, with the HHOF selection committee. They are two completely different groups of people.

But hey, congrats on your big win I guess.

 

[sr edler]

"What frustration?... I don't have a frustration... I'm smiling. I'm real happy. We are a very happy bunch in here. Everything is great... [Last year] was just a couple lucky goals here and there, an empty-net goal -- a good hip -- that helped... my quickness was gone a long time ago... Why blame the hip?... I mean goals, they are not everything in the world... You just go out there and work hard... There are a lots of things you can do to help this team" - Alexander Mogilny, 2004 (O'Connor 2004).
​

​

I read this passage with a HAL 9000 voice in my head because of all the ... ... and the short sentences.

... What frustration? ... Everything is great...

 

[Ben Grimm]

Pierre Turgeon deserves it more.

 

[spiny norman]

Moved to History forum.

 

[Laphroaig]

That Alex Mogilny and J.C. Tremblay are not in the HHOF is a travesty on par with Joe Cocker's absence from the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

this is bugging the crap out if me. 76. mogilny scored 76 goals in 1993.

 

[The Wizard of Oz]

I just believe that a part of HOF selection should be, on top of having great career achievements (which is warranted for any player with 1000+ points), how good are they are their best? Like, what is their level?

I think that is what separates Mogilny from his peers around him in point totals. He is simply better than them at the top of his game, I want that guy in the HOF. It's nice to be consistent, but it doesn't generate the overall dominance a player needs to get into the HOF in my mind. You have to be a stand out player with a stand out career.

Do you let in Kovalev then? Letting in based on perceived talent level starts a slippery precedent.

 

[The Wizard of Oz]

He’s likely in if those head scratching Messier years in Vancouver didn’t happen. 3 peak years wasted in whatever turmoil was happening. Not sure if Mogilny just checked out, injuries, or what. Bure bounced back stronger than his friend. Great post though thanks for taking the time to collect and present all this information. It’s important as a reminder and as an introduction for those not around to see Mogilny’s career.

 

[Staniowski]

I think Mogilny is almost certain to be inducted in the next several years.

There are going to be a lot of induction spaces to fill and there is a pretty big backlog of star players, many of whom are likely headed to Yonge & Front.

There are still several guys from the '90s generation who are good candidates, and Mogilny is probably the best bet from this group.

He has a lot of advocates among former players and is talked about in the media more than just about any other eligible player.

He should be in there, and he will be.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

An argument can be made that Mogilny deserves to be in the Hall for his historical importance (defection), but he pretty clearly didn't have a Hall of Fame calibre career in the NHL. He was phenomenally talented, but his actual accomplishments are disappointing relative to what he could have achieved (the same true for several other highly skilled but frustratingly inconsistent players, like Vincent Lecavalier, Rick Nash, and Alexei Kovalev).

The arguments against:

• Despite generally being an offense-only player, Mogilny only placed in the top ten in scoring twice in a 16 year career. Someone can counter by saying he was frequently injured. First, that's a strike against him - not an argument in his favour. Additionally, he was only top ten in points per game twice - so this counter-argument doesn't work.
• Mogilny was 19th in scoring over the span of his career. Impressive, but that doesn't make him a Hall of Famer, considering he was outscored by a number of non-HOFers (ie Turgeon, Roenick, Fleury, and Damphousse). He looks better if we're looking at points per game, but he still falls within the range of non-HOFers like Turgeon, Palffy and Fleury.
• He was never considered one of the top players in the NHL - he received votes for the Hart trophy in just one season.
• He was a second-team all-star twice (and never again came close to making the year-end all-star team). That's good, but it doesn't make him a Hall of Famer. Even if we look solely at right wing, there are a number of non-HOFers who have three or more seasons in the top three in all-star voting (Ken Hodge, Mickey Redmond, Rick Middleton, Theo Fleury, Tim Kerr, etc).
• Mogilny won a Stanley Cup, but he wasn't a major contributor. He was tied for 10th in scoring. He was probably something like the 12th most important Devil overall. That's good, but it doesn't scream "Hall of Famer".
• He wasn't a great defensive player, so it's not like there's a lot of value that he brought about what was captured in his offensive stats.

i agree with all of this but want to comment on the bolded.

mogilny is on a whole other level of otherworldly talent than lecavalier, nash, and kovalev. a healthy and head screwed on straight mogilny could have strung together a bossy-level career, at least in the regular season. he had everything, not just really sweet hands and B+ to A- everything else like kovalev.

but yeah, if he's in, i wouldn't complain about recognizing his historical importance. if he doesn't get in, that seems more than fair to me too.

 

[Big Phil]

this is bugging the crap out if me. 76. mogilny scored 76 goals in 1993.

Bernie Nicholls scored 70 in 1989 and 150 points. 23 more than Mogilny in 1993. He isn't in, and won't be.

"Yeah but he had Gretzky that year."

Ever heard of Pat Lafontaine in 1993?

Look, none of that is that big of a deal because if Mogilny did this every year he'd be in by now. But we are looking at things with rose coloured glasses. He was unreliable in the postseason, he was unreliable season per season. You had no idea what sort of player you would get with him on any given day, on any given season and the entire NHL knew about this reputation.

He had at best three great seasons in the NHL. He'll get in because the standards are low enough for him to get in, but he shouldn't.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Bernie Nicholls scored 70 in 1989 and 150 points. 23 more than Mogilny in 1993. He isn't in, and won't be.

"Yeah but he had Gretzky that year."

Ever heard of Pat Lafontaine in 1993?

Look, none of that is that big of a deal because if Mogilny did this every year he'd be in by now. But we are looking at things with rose coloured glasses. He was unreliable in the postseason, he was unreliable season per season. You had no idea what sort of player you would get with him on any given day, on any given season and the entire NHL knew about this reputation.

He had at best three great seasons in the NHL. He'll get in because the standards are low enough for him to get in, but he shouldn't.

i don’t disagree with any of that.

i was just responding to someone who said “73 goals” over and over again like some kind of mantra in something like twelve straight posts.

 

[BenchBrawl]

i agree with all of this but want to comment on the bolded.

mogilny is on a whole other level of otherworldly talent than lecavalier, nash, and kovalev. a healthy and head screwed on straight mogilny could have strung together a bossy-level career, at least in the regular season. he had everything, not just really sweet hands and B+ to A- everything else like kovalev.

but yeah, if he's in, i wouldn't complain about recognizing his historical importance. if he doesn't get in, that seems more than fair to me too.

Kovalev had one of the greatest arsenal of shots I have ever seen. His shots taken as a whole were A to A+. His wrist shot definitely A+. Slapshot, like A-.

He wasn't a fast skater but had very good lateral movement.

1-on-1, I only saw Lemieux and Jagr that were better. Maybe Datsyuk too. Talking strictly stickhandling past a defender, no speed even needed.

IQ about B+.

Too much Kovalev-underrating on this board.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Anderson was a Mullen, Ciccarelli level scorer who happened to play in the most favorable circumstances possible. Put him on literally any other team and you're talking about a guy who's only occasionally remembered when talking about that era. Trumpeting him as the 4th best playoff scorer of all time looks great until you realize that 1-4 are his own teammates. Making him the 4th best playoff scorer on his own team.

Inducting guys like Anderson is how you get Joe Nieuwendyk in the HOF. And Nieuwendyk opens the door for even more mediocrity. Eventually we are going to end up with Claude Lemieux and this sequence of logic is the reason why.

And you know, it's not like the 5th player on that list is recognized as a super legendary playoff performer neither. That should tell us something about the value of that career stats. BTW, Joe Thornton has scored 100+ playoff points.

 

[DitchMarner]

if you compare Mogilny and Bure their stats are similar.

Bure had more high-end seasons, which is important for players who didn't have long strings of prime Francis or Sundin type seasons.. Bure had seasons of 60, 60, 59, 58 and 51 goals. Mogilny only had two seasons of more than 50 goals (76 and 55).

Bure was a top five goal scorer five times (led the NHL three times), Mogilny twice (led the NHL once).

His best goal scoring season seems better than Bure's at face value (76 goals to 60, 59 or 58), but when you take scoring environments and team circumstances into consideration, it's not much if any more impressive.

Also, Bure was top ten in points four times, Mogilny twice and he had a playoff run that is far better than any of Mogilny's (in 1994).


Bure isn't a good comparable.

 

[gotyournose]

I'd have loved to see the Bure - Fedorov - mogilny line compete at the senior level. Almost happened in 96 world Cup.

 

[Big Phil]

Bure had more high-end seasons, which is important for players who didn't have long strings of prime Francis or Sundin type seasons.. Bure had seasons of 60, 60, 59, 58 and 51 goals. Mogilny only had two seasons of more than 50 goals (76 and 55).

Bure was a top five goal scorer five times (led the NHL three times), Mogilny twice (led the NHL once).

His best goal scoring season seems better than Bure's at face value (76 goals to 60, 59 or 58), but when you take scoring environments and team circumstances into consideration, it's not much if any more impressive.

Also, Bure was top ten in points four times, Mogilny twice and he had a playoff run that is far better than any of Mogilny's (in 1994).


Bure isn't a good comparable.

Bure took a while to get in, mainly because of his injuries and such and because of that so many off years. But he did have 5 great years, and they were dandies. Much more than Mogilny who had 2-3. No one thought Bure in his prime wasn't trying. He wasn't great defensively, never was, but when he was healthy he was exactly as his nickname was - the Russian Rocket. Mogilny had pockets of seasons where he was irrelevant and yet still healthy. You picked him with a great risk, not because he might get hurt, but because he might not try for 50 of 82 games. In his retirement it is like we've forgotten all of this.