Hall of Shame: Alex Mogilny Should be in HOF

[MaxV]

Who would be a sensible comparison for Housley? Zhitnik?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Who would be a sensible comparison for Housley? Zhitnik?

Main Board answer: Karlsson

 

[MXD]

Who would be a sensible comparison for Housley? Zhitnik?

Housley is just a bad inductee.

There's probably 100 Canadian players and 20 American who should make it before Housley...

 

[tony d]

I think he should as well. A player I've always liked. Hoping he'll get in some day.

 

[MaxV]

He was, rightfully, seen as the player who always rose up to the occasion. The occasion usually being contract year.

This statement is actually one I would like to explore further because it keeps on getting repeated over and over again.

I might be wrong, but I believe that this statement has only been true once in his career, 2000-01 season.

 

[Theokritos]

My statement remains.

Go look at HHOF.

Check out how many Russians are there and how many from USA.

Then tell me that my statement is incorrect.

The answer is this:

There have been considerably more American NHLers than Russian. The HOF, in most cases, other than the early 1990's, and the odd token Soviet star, is based on NHL play. There is no conspiracy.

Should more European stars (especially Soviets and Czechoslovaks) from before the fall of the Iron Curtain be in the HHOF? Absolutely. For years this very community has been pretty vocal in its opinion that Sergey Makarov deserves to be a lock before he was finally inducted in 2016. Now that he's in, there are still quite a few players who are no-brainers. But all of them are guys who didn't play in the NHL at all or only little or when their best years were behind them. Players from Mogilny to Malkin are a different group altogether. What evidence is there that they were systematically shortchanged in the NHL votings?

 

[Big Phil]

He wasn't a two season wonder, he had a good career.

But I don't think people who were watching him in his late 20s and 30s ever felt they were watching a Hall of Fame career play out. Even borderline guys usually give you that feeling.

This feels like one of those things where you start wondering when Danny Gare is going to pop up as the next candidate.

Pretty much. Look, there are some players who benefit from the rose coloured glasses syndrome. Mogilny has been one of them for sure. Look, he had talent and there were times I wonder if the sky couldn't have been the limit for him. But I don't know if he thought that. Or if he did he seemed interested only a portion of the time. So there is basically two options here. He either could do it but chose not to or truly didn't have it in him to do it year after year. I think it is the former, and it explains the reputation that dogged him his whole career. Honestly, are there not people who watched hockey before the lockout? It was a standing joke that he only performed at his best in a contract year.

This is going to be controversial, but I genuinely think that Russian players needed to do something truly special to get award considerations.

I'm sorry but there is a pretty significant Canadian good ole boy network. Good ole boy network with a memory of the 70s and 80s.

The fact that Zubov has such a underwhelming award resume is ridiculous. Mogilny also.

I think Zubov can get underrated at times. But I don`t see where he or Mogilny got shafted for awards.

He was, rightfully, seen as the player who always rose up to the occasion. The occasion usually being contract year.

Yes.

 

[seventieslord]

eligible Post-1980 wingers I would induct before Mogilny, in no order:

Brian Propp
Steve Larmer
Keith Tkachuk
Rick Middleton
Theoren Fleury

and that's just post-1980 wingers, never mind centers, defensemen, goalies and players from the 90 years before 1980. He's just not really a huge priority if we're trying to right the wrongs of the HHOF.

 

[seventieslord]

Who would be a sensible comparison for Housley? Zhitnik?

Dan Boyle?

 

[MXD]

Dan Boyle?

or Mike Green.

 

[MXD]

eligible Post-1980 wingers I would induct before Mogilny, in no order:

Brian Propp
Steve Larmer
Keith Tkachuk
Rick Middleton
Theoren Fleury

and that's just post-1980 wingers, never mind centers, defensemen, goalies and players from the 90 years before 1980. He's just not really a huge priority if we're trying to right the wrongs of the HHOF.

Actually, Mogilny's award "sheet" is eerily similar to Alex Kovalev.

 

[seventieslord]

or Mike Green.

Mike green at least made two first all-star teams.

I know, i know, he didn't deserve them, but at least his offensive numbers were outlier good, and not just in the top-5 mix...

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

[Mod] What the heck has Larmer ever done to be in the HHOF? His entire career basically spanned the scoring bonanza of the 80s and he's barely PPG...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

eligible Post-1980 wingers I would induct before Mogilny, in no order:

Brian Propp
Steve Larmer
Keith Tkachuk
Rick Middleton
Theoren Fleury

and that's just post-1980 wingers, never mind centers, defensemen, goalies and players from the 90 years before 1980. He's just not really a huge priority if we're trying to right the wrongs of the HHOF.

i would subtract tkachuk from that list, add kariya, add leclair, and probably add kovalchuk. i think mogilny and larmer are pretty neck and neck, all told, below the middleton and propp level.

but no, i don't see any reason to induct mogilny though he might have been the second most talented winger of his generation.

Actually, Mogilny's award "sheet" is eerily similar to Alex Kovalev.

mogilny was better than kovalev in every conceivable way. and his trophy case is literally twice as big.

retro rocket richard: mogilny 1, kovalev 0
2nd team all-star: mogilny 2, kovalev 1
top ten in scoring: mogilny 2, kovalev 1
top ten in goals: mogilny 3, kovalev 2

mogilny: 3 more career points in 326 fewer games

 

[MXD]

i would subtract tkachuk from that list, add kariya, add leclair, and probably add kovalchuk. i think mogilny and larmer are pretty neck and neck, all told, below the middleton and propp level.

but no, i don't see any reason to induct mogilny though he might have been the second most talented winger of his generation.



mogilny was better than kovalev in every conceivable way. and his trophy case is literally twice as big.

retro rocket richard: mogilny 1, kovalev 0
2nd team all-star: mogilny 2, kovalev 1
top ten in scoring: mogilny 2, kovalev 1
top ten in goals: mogilny 3, kovalev 2

mogilny: 3 more career points in 326 fewer games

... But Kovalev has a 3rd AST and actually has more Hart support than Mogilny.

The AST's are the following :
Kovalev : 2 - 3 - 7 - 10 - 15 - 20
Mogilny : 2 - 2 - 7 - 10 - 10 - 12

I mean, Mogilny was a better player than Kovalev, but the only way to make Mogilny twice better than Kovalev is to carefuly carve out what's important and what's not.

Kovalev also was a significantly better playoff performer.

The issue is, if a player is that close to Kovalev, he's not an HHOF. And since the only thing that makes those players no close are selective arguments, well..

 

[seventieslord]

[Mod] What the heck has Larmer ever done to be in the HHOF? His entire career basically spanned the scoring bonanza of the 80s and he's barely PPG...

Mogilny was the more productive scorer, there's no doubt about that. But Larmer has him beat in every other area.

i would subtract tkachuk from that list, add kariya, add leclair, and probably add kovalchuk. i think mogilny and larmer are pretty neck and neck, all told, below the middleton and propp level.

but no, i don't see any reason to induct mogilny though he might have been the second most talented winger of his generation.

I would not subtract Tkachuk, but yes, definitely add Kariya, LeClair and Kovalchuk. See, my list was made rather hastily. Now I'm already at 8.

... But Kovalev has a 3rd AST and actually has more Hart support than Mogilny.

The AST's are the following :
Kovalev : 2 - 3 - 7 - 10 - 15 - 20
Mogilny : 2 - 2 - 7 - 10 - 10 - 12

I mean, Mogilny was a better player than Kovalev, but the only way to make Mogilny twice better than Kovalev is to carefuly carve out what's important and what's not.

Kovalev also was a significantly better playoff performer.

The issue is, if a player is that close to Kovalev, he's not an HHOF. And since the only thing that makes those players no close are selective arguments, well..

You know better than to cite 7th-20th place finishes in AST voting and act like it means anything at all.

I'm surprised you think they're all that close - I really don't. The playoff piece is true; Kovalev did have a handful of productive playoffs. Other than that, Mogilny is the better producer day-to-day, did not have the help of Lemieux/Jagr spiking his totals in 4 of his 5 best seasons, and is actually ahead in intangibles (and we can't really say that when comparing Mogilny to most players).

From 93-03, Mogilny scored 1.10 PPG, and the average PPG of players who participated on goals with him was 0.66.
From 99-09, Kovalev scored 0.88 PPG, and the average PPG of players who participated on goals with him was 0.66.

 

[MXD]

You know better than to cite 7th-20th place finishes in AST voting and act like it means anything at all.

I'm surprised you think they're all that close - I really don't. The playoff piece is true; Kovalev did have a handful of productive playoffs. Other than that, Mogilny is the better producer day-to-day, did not have the help of Lemieux/Jagr spiking his totals in 4 of his 5 best seasons, and is actually ahead in intangibles (and we can't really say that when comparing Mogilny to most players).

The first paragraph is odd, because Mogilny looks slightly ahead by that measure.
Take them out, and it's 2, 2 vs. 2, 3. Mogilny is still ahead, but is it that significant?

And in Mogilny's "spike" season, he wasn't the best forward on his team either.

Again, there's nothing wrong with what you said either. I never said Kovalev was better than Mogilny because he wasn't better than Mogilny. My point is mostly that if a player's "high" are sooooo close to Alex Kovalev, then he's probably not a player that HAS to be in the HHOF.

 

[sr edler]

Mogilny reportedly could be quite a sourpuss, to journalists or fans, so I don't think he's winning any extra points to a potential case with his off ice charm. Same goes for Tkachuk, by the way.

 

[Morbo]

Agreed 100%.

Although the Leafs got him at the end of his career with the hip problems already hampering him, he was still their best forward a lot of nights.

A remarkable skillset.

 

[seventieslord]

The first paragraph is odd, because Mogilny looks slightly ahead by that measure.
Take them out, and it's 2, 2 vs. 2, 3. Mogilny is still ahead, but is it that significant?

No, but it's also not something we should really care about all that much. Halfway through the wingers project I think I sufficiently demonstrated why focusing too heavily on all-star teams is a poor method of evaluation.

case in point, 1993 vs. 2008. Scoring was higher, but we don't think 84 points really compares to 127, do we?

And in Mogilny's "spike" season, he wasn't the best forward on his team either.

No, he wasn't, but he scored at 94% of the rate of that guy. In the best of Kovalev's 4 seasons in Pittsburgh, he hit 88% of his benefactor's scoring rate.

Again, there's nothing wrong with what you said either. I never said Kovalev was better than Mogilny because he wasn't better than Mogilny. My point is mostly that if a player's "high" are sooooo close to Alex Kovalev, then he's probably not a player that HAS to be in the HHOF.

I think if Kovalev's highs were that close to Mogilny's you'd have a good point. It's correct in principle, but Mogilny at his best was a lot better.

 

[Eisen]

Second team all-star (twice) and goal scoring leader (once) are really the only significant achievements here.

I'm going to vote no for the Hall.

That's how I see it, too. He was great, just not HHoF great.

 

[MXD]

No, he wasn't, but he scored at 94% of the rate of that guy. In the best of Kovalev's 4 seasons in Pittsburgh, he hit 88% of his benefactor's scoring rate.

... I was, without mentionning it, mostly referring Kovalev's 2008 season, for which he was himself the benefactor, and to 1996's Mogilny's season, specifically to keep linemates out of this.

And the idea is, if Mogilny was playing with Lemieux (and to a lesser extent, Jagr), his scoring rate % would probably have been lower too.

I remember your point about AST's and all. Both players were somewhat contemporaries. Of course I'd rank Mogilny ahead of Kovalev if the idea was to come up with who was the best player. AST's as achievement are relevant, because they have decent predictive balue.

I don't expect 2 x 2nd AST players (and especially wingers) to make the HHOF unless they hit a ton of other marks, like 1500 points.

(And that's also mostly beside the point...)

 

[FrozenJagrt]

Mogilny reportedly could be quite a sourpuss, to journalists or fans, so I don't think he's winning any extra points to a potential case with his off ice charm. Same goes for Tkachuk, by the way.

He was aloof. The guy kept to himself, almost like a Phil Kessel type. That can lead to a negative perception of the player.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

... But Kovalev has a 3rd AST and actually has more Hart support than Mogilny.

The AST's are the following :
Kovalev : 2 - 3 - 7 - 10 - 15 - 20
Mogilny : 2 - 2 - 7 - 10 - 10 - 12

I mean, Mogilny was a better player than Kovalev, but the only way to make Mogilny twice better than Kovalev is to carefuly carve out what's important and what's not.

Kovalev also was a significantly better playoff performer.

The issue is, if a player is that close to Kovalev, he's not an HHOF. And since the only thing that makes those players no close are selective arguments, well..

true that looking only at the "traditional" metrics does a disservice to kovalev, relative to mogilny. but i thought that was what you meant by "award sheet," which is literally twice as long.

and agree on principle that mogilny is way too close to kovalev to even have an argument as a borderline HHOFer.

i do think, however, as seventieslord seems to also be suggesting, that mogilny's top gear was significantly higher than kovalev's. at the end of the day, when we have two guys who were almost exact contemporaries where one guy scored almost exactly the same amount of points in 326 more games, you'd say that the guy who played four fewer full seasons probably was the significantly better player.

insofar as adjusted points means anything, going by h-f's calculations, kovalev finishes with 50 more career adjusted points than mogilny, so he makes up ground somewhat for being younger and not making it to the NHL until '94, but still, four full seasons (and change) and only 50 points more.

and it's not like kovalev was any more consistent than mogilny, or had any intangibles that mogilny didn't. but playoffs, yeah you have to give that to kovalev, though i don't think they're as far apart as the numbers make it look.

I would not subtract Tkachuk, but yes, definitely add Kariya, LeClair and Kovalchuk. See, my list was made rather hastily. Now I'm already at 8.

maybe it's just because tkachuk is one of my least favourite players of all time, but i just don't see a case for tkachuk in the company of those other guys you listed. i have him as basically bondra. terrible in the playoffs, hart voting record at almost zero (bondra actually got more hart votes over his career than tkachuk), low points totals, lives and dies on a pair of 50 goal years and high goals finishes. if bondra and tkachuk switched sides, wouldn't bondra be the one with the AST record of 2, 2, 3, 3 and tkachuk with 4, 4, 5, 5? they have exactly the same peak.

but i digress. the main point, that there's a long list of guys in his own era that need to be talked about for the HHOF before mogilny i totally agree with.

but fwiw, if we're talking HOVG european wingers of that era, i would go: bondra, palffy, kovalev, mogilny. mogilny lives and dies on two years, but those two years are so far ahead of anything those other three guys ever did.

 

[seventieslord]

maybe it's just because tkachuk is one of my least favourite players of all time, but i just don't see a case for tkachuk in the company of those other guys you listed. i have him as basically bondra. terrible in the playoffs, hart voting record at almost zero (bondra actually got more hart votes over his career than tkachuk), low points totals, lives and dies on a pair of 50 goal years and high goals finishes. if bondra and tkachuk switched sides, wouldn't bondra be the one with the AST record of 2, 2, 3, 3 and tkachuk with 4, 4, 5, 5? they have exactly the same peak.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Tkachuk is a "high goals, relatively low points" kind of player, but Bondra is that and even more. Neither was top-10 in points, but Tkachuk was top-15 4 times. Bondra's best 5 were 12th, 19th, 24th, 25th, 33rd.

Tkachuk is a full 10% ahead of Bondra by VsX and that's in fewer games as well.

Also, I'm going to sound like a broken record, but we should really try not to judge players who were never actually among the five most valuable players in the league by the number of times a voter mistakenly dubbed them one. (Bondra received 18 career votes in thousands of opportunities, Tkachuk 13, should we care about this at all?)

and don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put anyone in anyone else's company here. That was just a group of guys more deserving than Mogilny. There is still a wide range of HHOF worthiness in between "more worthy than Mogilny" and "not quite a HHOFer".