Ziggy Palffy

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,584
15,946
i have mentioned this before, but i don't see that much realistically separating palffy from lafontaine. but my caveat is unlike many i tend to see lafontaine as a very high HOVG.

lafontaine: 2.5 superstar seasons, finishing 2nd and 8th in points and 3rd in PPG in the abbreviated season
palffy: 4 seasons that look like he was a superstar in hindsight, though nobody really noticed him at the time, finishing 5th, 8th, 9th, and 10th in scoring

lafontaine: okay playoff record before his prime, almost no playoff record during his prime but had one excellent series and two good ones out of five in his prime (two of which he did not finish)
palffy: almost no playoff record, but two excellent series out of four total

lafontaine: 1013 points in 865 games, with all but his last year in the high scoring era
palffy: 713 points in 684 games, with all but 1.5 of his prime years in the DPE

the difference is obviously total points, one crazy spike season by lafontaine, what amounts to effectively two extra seasons played by lafontaine, and the fact that lafontaine got to 1.5 years out of his ideal situation (mogilny, hawerchuk on the point, andreychuk for most of it) while palffy got probably 80 games total out of the extremely injury-prone LAPD line, including only four in the playoffs.

beyond that, they were very similar i think. both injury prone guys, both smallish, both unbelievably fun to watch, both toiled for garbage islanders teams, both stepped into promising situations after leaving the island that were ultimately disappointing from a team standpoint (partially derailed by injuries to themselves and other key players). neither really brought anything beyond scoring, but both were extremely complete offensive threats: A+ playmakers who could also score goals with the best of them.



if it were up to me, it would go kariya > lafontaine > palffy, but with a lot less separating them than you would probably think. and all would be beneath my HHOF cut off line.
 

authentic

Registered User
Jan 28, 2015
25,393
10,411
i have mentioned this before, but i don't see that much realistically separating palffy from lafontaine. but my caveat is unlike many i tend to see lafontaine as a very high HOVG.

lafontaine: 2.5 superstar seasons, finishing 2nd and 8th in points and 3rd in PPG in the abbreviated season
palffy: 4 seasons that look like he was a superstar in hindsight, though nobody really noticed him at the time, finishing 5th, 8th, 9th, and 10th in scoring

lafontaine: okay playoff record before his prime, almost no playoff record during his prime but had one excellent series and two good ones out of five in his prime (two of which he did not finish)
palffy: almost no playoff record, but two excellent series out of four total

lafontaine: 1013 points in 865 games, with all but his last year in the high scoring era
palffy: 713 points in 684 games, with all but 1.5 of his prime years in the DPE

the difference is obviously total points, one crazy spike season by lafontaine, what amounts to effectively two extra seasons played by lafontaine, and the fact that lafontaine got to 1.5 years out of his ideal situation (mogilny, hawerchuk on the point, andreychuk for most of it) while palffy got probably 80 games total out of the extremely injury-prone LAPD line, including only four in the playoffs.

beyond that, they were very similar i think. both injury prone guys, both smallish, both unbelievably fun to watch, both toiled for garbage islanders teams, both stepped into promising situations after leaving the island that were ultimately disappointing from a team standpoint (partially derailed by injuries to themselves and other key players). neither really brought anything beyond scoring, but both were extremely complete offensive threats: A+ playmakers who could also score goals with the best of them.



if it were up to me, it would go kariya > lafontaine > palffy, but with a lot less separating them than you would probably think. and all would be beneath my HHOF cut off line.

Obviously Lafontaine had the best peak season, but Palffy's prime was better for sure. Anything beyond 3 seasons is in Palffy's favour, Kariya was a bit better than both.
 

Ziggy Stardust

Master Debater
Jul 25, 2002
63,032
33,984
Parts Unknown
It really is a shame that Palffy was stuck playing on some below average to average at best hockey teams throughout his career.

Having only appeared in 24 career playoff games (which obviously isn't his fault) and the lack of individual awards will likely hold him back from receiving any consideration for the HHOF.

He will likely be remembered for being one of the best and most productive players of the dead puck era. It's a shame that his shoulder injuries cut his NHL career short. What could have been had he stuck around with the Penguins and remained healthy?
 

Gylf

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
145
0
Doesn't Nilsson have a reputation of someone who was lazy and usually disappeared in the playoffs? I don't think either can be said for Pálffy.

The comparable is that they both were great players, that for some reason (if it's reputation of being lazy or something else) did not make a big lasting impact on the teams they played for. Not in the sense of being HHOFers or getting their jersey retired somewhere in the NHL.

Palffy was far better than Nilsson. Not even debatable.

Kent Nilsson:
NHL 553 GP 686 Pts (1.24 ppg)
Stanley Cup: 59 GP 52 Pts (0.88 ppg)
Cup-winner and still has the swedish record for most points in a season. Would be 2nd for slovakian players.

Zigmund Palffy:
NHL 684 GP 713 Pts (1.04 ppg)
Stanley Cup 24 GP 19 Pts (0.79 ppg)
No Cup and is 12th (5th player) for the record for single season in points for slovakian players. Would be 21st for swedish players.


Sure different eras but "not even debatable" to Palffys favour?

I disagree.
 

Ivo

Registered User
Dec 29, 2008
3,011
2,887
Rotterdam, NL
The comparable is that they both were great players, that for some reason (if it's reputation of being lazy or something else) did not make a big lasting impact on the teams they played for. Not in the sense of being HHOFers or getting their jersey retired somewhere in the NHL.



Kent Nilsson:
NHL 553 GP 686 Pts (1.24 ppg)
Stanley Cup: 59 GP 52 Pts (0.88 ppg)
Cup-winner and still has the swedish record for most points in a season. Would be 2nd for slovakian players.

Zigmund Palffy:
NHL 684 GP 713 Pts (1.04 ppg)
Stanley Cup 24 GP 19 Pts (0.79 ppg)
No Cup and is 12th (5th player) for the record for single season in points for slovakian players. Would be 21st for swedish players.


Sure different eras but "not even debatable" to Palffys favour?

I disagree.

You can't just dismiss the era like that. Nilsson benefited from the highest scoring era in modern NHL history, Palffy quite the opposite.

Adjusted points per HR:
Nilsson: 553 games - 546 points - 0.99 PPG
Palffy: 684 games - 784 points - 1.15 PPG
 

authentic

Registered User
Jan 28, 2015
25,393
10,411
The comparable is that they both were great players, that for some reason (if it's reputation of being lazy or something else) did not make a big lasting impact on the teams they played for. Not in the sense of being HHOFers or getting their jersey retired somewhere in the NHL.



Kent Nilsson:
NHL 553 GP 686 Pts (1.24 ppg)
Stanley Cup: 59 GP 52 Pts (0.88 ppg)
Cup-winner and still has the swedish record for most points in a season. Would be 2nd for slovakian players.

Zigmund Palffy:
NHL 684 GP 713 Pts (1.04 ppg)
Stanley Cup 24 GP 19 Pts (0.79 ppg)
No Cup and is 12th (5th player) for the record for single season in points for slovakian players. Would be 21st for swedish players.


Sure different eras but "not even debatable" to Palffys favour?

I disagree.

Actual stats in comparison to their peers agree.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=200&threshhold=5&order_by=points_per_game

Palffy is tied with Bure in points per game with a much larger sample of games, and look at the names of the only 7 ahead of him in that 10 year span.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=200&threshhold=5&order_by=points_per_game

Nilsson does better here than I expected, however he is tied for 11th over an 8 year span.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...1val=24&threshhold=5&order_by=points_per_game

Tied for 40th in points per game in the playoffs over that span? 40th?

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...1val=24&threshhold=5&order_by=points_per_game

Palffy was 27th.

So we have 8th and 27th vs. 11th and 40th. 10 year period vs. 8. Palffy was better.
 

Gylf

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
145
0
You can't just dismiss the era like that. Nilsson benefited from the highest scoring era in modern NHL history, Palffy quite the opposite.

Adjusted points per HR:
Nilsson: 553 games - 546 points - 0.99 PPG
Palffy: 684 games - 784 points - 1.15 PPG

I didn't dismiss era. I dismissed the "not debatable".

Since your now debating. I guess it's debatable.

I agree with Palffy being the better player, but like Nilsson he doesn't have the legacy of a HHOFer.
 

creg78*

Guest
Nilsson way way worse then Plaffy.... Plaffy was a gamer despite being small and on terrible teams, Nilsson was by far the most lazy talent I've ever seen, awful in the playoffs, awful attitude, just a lazy lazy player all around, obviously extremely talented though.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,584
15,946

Obviously Lafontaine had the best peak season, but Palffy's prime was better for sure. Anything beyond 3 seasons is in Palffy's favour, Kariya was a bit better than both.

here's something else lafontaine, palffy, and kariya all have in common: all are short career and short peak guys who all held out when they were at their absolute best and lost valuable points that their legacies ended up needing.

palffy missed the first 32 games of the '99 season. he was coming off three straight top ten seasons and probably would have added a fourth straight. he was traded to LA a year later, where injuries prevented him from another top ten in year 5 of his peak, and he hits the top ten again in years 6 and 8. with a little injury luck and a less broke ownership group, palffy could have been top ten 7 out of 8 years. even though that's realistically only an extra 50 odd points to his career total i think we'd all be talking much more loudly about his HHOF chances if that had been the case.

kariya held out in the '98 season and got hurt two months after he came back. with a full season that year, he could have contended for the art ross and hart. he almost certainly would have made it over the 1,000 game and 1,000 point marks, as well as finishing with a career total above a PPG, too (as it stands, he finished just under both marks and finished at exactly one point per game). and i bet dollars to nonis that he would be in the HHOF right now with an extra 30 goals and 60 points (which is actually a pretty conservative estimate for what he might have done that year).

lafontaine obviously didn't end up needing the games/production he lost in the '92 season. but i would personally feel a lot better about him being in the hall if he'd had three MVP-contending seasons in four years, instead of two and a what-if. not to say that he would have been that good had he stayed on the island (he sure sulked his way through the '91 season) but if he would have been as good in the games he missed that year as the games he played, we're talking about a prorated 64 goals and 130 points. actually according to the math, it would have put him at 64.56 goals, 130.526 points, which would have been less than half a point behind mario for the art ross.

for years said that eric lindros with a reasonably healthy '92 and '01 season (likely pushing him above 400 goals and 1,000 points) would have been in the hall no question asked. also a moot point now, but still.
 

Sticks and Pucks

Registered User
Jan 2, 2008
2,282
152
So which team do you think Palffy would have benefitted most if he had played for them? My vote goes to Colorado. Playing alongside Forsberg and Sakic. Palffy was more talented than Hejduk and even Hejduk managed to win a Rocket Richard. Palffy probably wins a few Cups and the Avs' legacy would be remembered as "Sakic, Forsberg, Palffy, Roy". A shoo-in Hall of Famer then.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
I didn't see Palffy play too much, but I'm not seeing the argument for him over Lafontaine. Lafontaine had six consecutive 40+ goal seasons (two of them 50+). How many guys in history have even done that?

I get that Palffy's raw stats were reduced by the onset of the Dead-puck era in the middle of his prime, but still... after three 40+ goal seasons, it was another three years before he hit 30 again.

Let's see, from mid-1986 to mid-1993 (seven season stretch), Pat Lafontaine is 5th in goals, behind Lemieux, Yzerman, Hull, Robitaille (and ahead of Gartner, Gretzky, Ciccarelli).

For Palffy, from mid-1995 to mid-2003 (eight season stretch), he's also 5th, behind Jagr, Bondra, Selanne, Tkachuk (and ahead of Shanahan, Leclair, Kariya).

So that's pretty close, but what about playmaking? I think you'd have to give Lafontaine the edge there.

Anyway, they're closer than I might have initially thought, but I think I'd go with Patty over Palffy.
 

feffan

Registered User
Sep 9, 2010
1,949
146
Malmö
So which team do you think Palffy would have benefitted most if he had played for them? My vote goes to Colorado. Playing alongside Forsberg and Sakic. Palffy was more talented than Hejduk and even Hejduk managed to win a Rocket Richard. Palffy probably wins a few Cups and the Avs' legacy would be remembered as "Sakic, Forsberg, Palffy, Roy". A shoo-in Hall of Famer then.

For some reason I would really like to see what would have happened if NJ had went after Palffy instead of Mogilny in march 2000. Preferably even earlier...
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
So which team do you think Palffy would have benefitted most if he had played for them? My vote goes to Colorado. Playing alongside Forsberg and Sakic. Palffy was more talented than Hejduk and even Hejduk managed to win a Rocket Richard. Palffy probably wins a few Cups and the Avs' legacy would be remembered as "Sakic, Forsberg, Palffy, Roy". A shoo-in Hall of Famer then.

I'm not saying you're wrong or anything...

But to say that a player would've been a shoo-in Hall of Famer had he been in the most favourable setting (or one of the most favourable settings at the very least, and that caveat is mostly for cautiousness only) possible for his era basically implies that he wasn't a Hall of Famer to begin with.
 

Ohashi_Jouzu*

Registered User
Apr 2, 2007
30,332
11
Halifax
Was looking at his stats and saw how dominant he was when playing...

"Dominant" isn't how I'd describe Palffy at all. Really good and very productive, sure. Could have had a more illustrious career in another setting, no doubt. But I think Eliteprospects puts it best: "reliable goal/point scorer." Best player the Isles had, so every puck went through him, but not really enough of a player on his own right to actually dictate flow/pace of play the way "dominant" players do - even when not putting the puck in the net. I consider Lafontaine a more "dominant" player without hesitation, since he has been brought up.
 

double5son10

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
1,149
456
Denver
Got to watch Palffy as a youngster playing in the IHL for the Denver Grizzlies. Kid just oozed talent. I was always a fan & continued to follow him from afar. Shame he had so many injuries. He'd be held in higher regard if not for the team's he played on. Definite HOVG.
 

Ziggy Stardust

Master Debater
Jul 25, 2002
63,032
33,984
Parts Unknown
This discussion about one of my favorite players of the late 90s to early 2000s gave me the urge to watch some old highlights of Ziggy.

The man was just so smooth with the puck and made a lot of things look so effortless, and he had impeccable offensive awareness, always knowing where to be in offensive situations and didn't shy away from going into the tough areas (which is why he had to deal with numerous shoulder injuries throughout his career).

















 

Talisman

Registered User
Nov 7, 2015
465
57
i think that Kent nilsson and palffy share the same thing that someone also mentioned here!!. they both did`nt really played in really stacked teams , during the careers!!. off course we have to count out the oilers team 1987 which Nilsson played!!.
 

Talisman

Registered User
Nov 7, 2015
465
57
So which team do you think Palffy would have benefitted most if he had played for them? My vote goes to Colorado. Playing alongside Forsberg and Sakic. Palffy was more talented than Hejduk and even Hejduk managed to win a Rocket Richard. Palffy probably wins a few Cups and the Avs' legacy would be remembered as "Sakic, Forsberg, Palffy, Roy". A shoo-in Hall of Famer then.

how about Penguins in season 2000-01 with

Palffy-Lemieux-Jagr
Lang-Straka-Kovalev
 

ytsur*

Guest
LAPD in full flight as Palffy finishes off a PP from Allison and Deadmarsh on opening night in the ol' Chevrolet unis to honor the era of then-Phoenix coach Wayne Gretzky. Those Kings & Coyotes get-ups...pure awesomeness:

[Yt]ld9YwcSvrG0[/MEDIA]
 

Sticks and Pucks

Registered User
Jan 2, 2008
2,282
152
how about Penguins in season 2000-01 with

Palffy-Lemieux-Jagr
Lang-Straka-Kovalev

No doubt playing for the Pens would have been good for Palffy for a couple seasons but there were a few years in the late '90s when the Pens weren't that good and Lemieux had retired. There were also some non-playoff years in the early 2000s after Jagr had left.
 

Zolik37

#1 Nate Guenin fan
Aug 17, 2011
333
94
Pálffy is probably the most skilled Slovak to ever play in the NHL IMO, but he just doesnt have the individual awards or playoff success to be in the HOF.
 

authentic

Registered User
Jan 28, 2015
25,393
10,411
Pálffy is probably the most skilled Slovak to ever play in the NHL IMO, but he just doesnt have the individual awards or playoff success to be in the HOF.

Yeah it's probably between him Hossa and Gaborik. I think I would go Palffy>Hossa>Gaborik.
 

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
11,845
6,289
"Dominant" isn't how I'd describe Palffy at all. Really good and very productive, sure. Could have had a more illustrious career in another setting, no doubt. But I think Eliteprospects puts it best: "reliable goal/point scorer." Best player the Isles had, so every puck went through him, but not really enough of a player on his own right to actually dictate flow/pace of play the way "dominant" players do - even when not putting the puck in the net. I consider Lafontaine a more "dominant" player without hesitation, since he has been brought up.

Yeah, I agree with this. Palffy was a top calibre scorer but he wasn't really this rare elite player who took over a game on his own and dictated everything.

I'm also not fully on board with this narrative that he was robbed by not playing with super stars. You can say that about a bunch of other players too. Pavel Bure for example never had much of super star linemates. Any winger would probably benefit some from playing with a guy like Peter Forsberg, for example. Both Palffy and Bure were players that could create chances on their own though. They didn't need someone to feed them. And as the top player on those Islanders & Kings teams Palffy probably got all the ice time he wanted.

It's not a given he would have produced a lot more on any other team. What if he ended up on Dallas with Hitchcook's system, shared PP time and rotating lines?
 

Sticks and Pucks

Registered User
Jan 2, 2008
2,282
152
Yeah it's probably between him Hossa and Gaborik. I think I would go Palffy>Hossa>Gaborik.

Gaborik is super underrated. Stuck in a trap system with Minny in his early years and derailed by injuries after he left the Wild. Skill and talent-wise, I'd say it goes Gaborik > Palffy > Hossa. Accomplishment wise, it's definitely the other way around.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->