seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I didn't know where to put this, so this thread seemed like the most appropriate place to post these arguments. Recently Matt Larkin posted a THN online article titled, "Who Will Join Jarome Iginla in the 2020 Class?" I don't expect everyone to perfectly agree on everything, so I have no interest in picking apart the whole article (nor am I saying it even needs picking apart), but I did read two things that bothered me and I wanted to reply to them.
Under Rodney Dangerfield All-Stars he lists Alexander Mogilny:
Under Volume-stat picks he lists Patrik Elias:
For starters, it's not true that everyone wants Mogilny in. It may be true that he regularly populates "best non-HHOF players" lists but who is making and posting these lists? I think citing his single-season goal peak is a poor place to start his case, because it takes a lot of luster off it when you are reminded that not only did another player hit a career high with 77 goals that season, but Mario Lemieux had 69 in just 60, and two other players managed 60. This was NOT a normal season and he knows it. Besides, Mogilny's 7th-place finish in points is a truer representation of his offensive value that season. Remember though, he played the whole season with an even better player at center: Pat LaFontaine, who had 148 points. That is reason enough to curb one's enthusiasm about his 1992-93.
His 990-game NHL career length shouldn't matter. It didn't matter for Neely (as he correctly noted), Lindros, Bure, Kariya or Forsberg, so why does it matter for Mogilny? I believe what he's getting at is that he didn't have a strong enough prime/peak and would needed some compiling years to pump up his case. Lindros/Bure/Kariya/Forsberg did not need that, because they were clearly good enough that their career length was almost irrelevant. And I'm not interested in getting into a HHOF debate about Neely/Mogilny, as the former is a widely panned induction and career length isn't the only reason why (not to mention, their HHOF cases are built completely differently FUTURE EDIT: just remembered that Larkin made the point that Neely never led the league in goals. This is true, but how much do your want to bet that in 35 more games in 1993-94 he'd score at least 10 more goals? But what I find more egregious is the idea that mogilny has a better playoff legacy than Neely because he won a cup. Slightly different eras, but my God, Neely had nearly as many playoff GOALS per game as mogilny had points per game!) If you don't have a strong enough prime/peak, that should be the end of the discussion. Let's all stop obsessing about career totals. Which brings me to Patrik Elias.
Let me just begin by saying it is an insult to categorize Patrik Elias as a volume-stat pick. Yes, he ended up with a nice career total, but for some reason, (much like Mark Recchi) it is forgotten that he put together many elite seasons to get that career total - not the least of which are three seasons over a 13-year period, of 3rd, 6th and 10th in points. (try finding some other players with top-10 seasons 13 seasons apart!)
He starts with a couple of positives, but then asks if Elias was ever a top-10 player aside from 2000-01? Well, no, probably not, but that's an awfully high bar to clear. Was Ron Francis ever a top-10 player? Brendan Shanahan? Mark Recchi? Luc Robitaille? And I'm only mentioning the "good" HHOFers, not the obvious poor recent inductions who don't meet that standard. Back to Mogilny for a second - was he ever a top-10 player even the one time? 1992-93, you say? Hmm, are you sure? He was only tied for 7th in points and I don't think anyone else in that top-8 you'd take after Mogilny. Turgeon, maybe. Then you have Yzerman behind him, still better by reputation. Last seasons Hart winner Mark Messier and the one from before that, Brett Hull. Wayne Gretzky. Then you have to include at least a few defensemen - Bourque and Chelios for sure, Stevens and Leetch probably. And then there's Patrick Roy, and the winner of 2 of the last 3 Vezinas, Ed Belfour. Heck, I'm starting to wonder, was Mogilny a top-20 player that season??
I took a look at THN's list from that season and they also had Lindros ahead of him (in anticipation of a huge sophomore season), Roenick (who was just the toast of the town for a few seasons), and Kevin Stevens (hogwash). They also had Bourque, Leetch, Messier, Bure, and Oates after him, among players I named above. In all, probably a little too favorable a ranking for him, but still not top-10. The only other time he had a hope at the top-10 was following 1995-96 (his only other top-10 scoring season) and they had him 21st. So let's dispense with the notion that there's a prerequisite that you have to have been a top-10 player, or that Mogilny has an edge in this regard.
(Mogilny's total placements in league-wide THN lists: 13, 21... that's all. It's true that there was no list in 1995 and 1997, but he was no lock to make it and if he did, it would have been right near the bottom. He also would have missed prior to 1993, of course. Patrik Elias: 32, 17, 28, 42, 26, 18, 12, 11. This is actually a remarkably consistent record. Making the list 8 straight times is not easy, nor is it common)
Their best placements on THN wingers-only lists: Mogilny 3, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 11, 12, 15, 19. Elias 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5.
Don't forget Hart voting, in which Elias peaked at 6th in 2001, as Matt stated. Apparently that's not a positive in his favour, but it's not mentioned in Mogilny's case that he peaked at 18th in 1995-96 with a grand total of two votes (the only two he'd earn in his career). Not that I care that much, but Elias also earned 11 votes in 2004, finishing 14th. Nothing really even worth mentioning, but more significant than any Mogilny season.
Lastly, with their full careers in the books, the historians here at hfboards conducted a massive project to name the top wingers of all-time. Elias finished 45th all-time, while Mogilny only came up for discussion in the final round and ultimately would come out at least 20 spots below Elias, had we gone further down.
All of this points to players who may have had similar high-end peaks, with one of them - Elias - having a lot more meat on the bone. I think this is the case. I've already gone over their subjective rankings over the years, let's look at some objective matters:
- Mogilny actually beats Elias in 7-year VsX, 81 to 79, but Elias's next best 7 seasons were at a 55 level, compared to 52 for Mogilny. Mogilny missed more games over these periods, so it's arguable that he was a slightly more accomplished producer over their respective careers, but there is more context to keep in mind:
- Mogilny's very best seasons were often helped by a superior linemate (usually LaFontaine). The only time he ever put up a truly excellent full season where he was his line's/team's best forward was 1995-96. Elias, on the other hand, was his team's best forward for basically the entire 2000s, until the emergence of Zach Parise.
- Elias was an excellent two-way player. Not selke-caliber, but excellent nonetheless. He was always the best defensive player on his line - was there ever a time that he wasn't, seriously? Points aren't scored in a vaccuum and the point of hockey isn't just to rack up points, but to win games. Not only Elias, who scored an essentially equal amount while playing excellent defense contribute more to the goal of winning games, but he also likely demonstrated his greater ability to score more points in an imaginary scenario in which he had wanted to be more selfish and focus solely on offense - like Mogilny did, for almost his entire career.
- It's impossible to categorize the Devils as a certain kind of team over a span of 18 seasons, but they were typically a defensive-minded, low-event team, the opposite of run-and-gun. For a time they were an excellent offensive team too, placing 2nd, 2nd, 1st in goals in the NHL, and the last of those three seasons, guess who was their best offensive player? Patrik Elias. Again, points aren't scored in a vaccum, and a point scored for one team is not the same as a point scored for another team. It is important to realize that the Devils, over Elias' career, were 8% below the league average in total GF+GA, indicating a very conservative team. Mogilny's teams were 3% above the average during his career. He was in an environment where the play was looser, which did lend itself to higher stats.
- Playoff production has to be considered, as well. Never mind cups and finals runs, just to match Elias' career playoff stat line, Mogilny would have to play 38 more games and score 39 more points in those games. A rather tall order, given his career playoff PPG average of 0.69. The difference in their playoff production is even more stark considering the following:
- Mogilny played 37 playoff games in the higher-scoring 1990s before Elias' career began, and Elias played 60 after the end of Mogilny's playoff career. Adjusting all that is tricky business, but suffice to say, Elias' superior playoff production would look even more superior if one did the work. When in the league together, Elias played just 19 more playoff games, but had 27 more points than Mogilny in those games. Heck, they even had two very long playoff runs together, and they both played all 48 of those games. Mogilny was the 7th-highest scoring Devil over those two playoffs with 23 points, while Elias led the team with 43.
The thing about Elias is, his career mattered. He checks all the boxes everyone typically wants to see. He has the high career totals, at least by today's standards. He didn't amass those high career totals by hanging on forever and compiling. In other words, he had a very good prime. He played the game the right way. He won championships, and he was a very important piece on those championships. People often criticize the inductions of players like George Armstrong and Bob Pulford, because of their relatively modest offensive numbers, but they mattered and their careers mattered. They were cornerstones of a dynasty. This dynasty played a certain way (that limited their offensive totals) and they not only bought into it, but exemplified how a Maple leaf was supposed to play. Elias is like a 2000s version of that, except he also had a great offensive peak. This isn't the hall of compiling stats, so don't judge him solely on the basis of his regular offensive stats, and don't do it for Mogliny either. Both judgments will yield a result much too far from their actual overall values as players, and the legacies they earned as players.
I started by saying I don't think everyone has to agree on everything. I think that Patrik Elias is a HHOFer. I realize it's arguable that he isn't. I also think that Alexander Mogilny should not be in the HHOF. I realize it's arguable that he should be. But, I think that if you want Alexander Mogilny in the hall AND Patrik Elias out, you may want to evaluate your value system.
Under Rodney Dangerfield All-Stars he lists Alexander Mogilny:
Under Volume-stat picks he lists Patrik Elias:
For starters, it's not true that everyone wants Mogilny in. It may be true that he regularly populates "best non-HHOF players" lists but who is making and posting these lists? I think citing his single-season goal peak is a poor place to start his case, because it takes a lot of luster off it when you are reminded that not only did another player hit a career high with 77 goals that season, but Mario Lemieux had 69 in just 60, and two other players managed 60. This was NOT a normal season and he knows it. Besides, Mogilny's 7th-place finish in points is a truer representation of his offensive value that season. Remember though, he played the whole season with an even better player at center: Pat LaFontaine, who had 148 points. That is reason enough to curb one's enthusiasm about his 1992-93.
His 990-game NHL career length shouldn't matter. It didn't matter for Neely (as he correctly noted), Lindros, Bure, Kariya or Forsberg, so why does it matter for Mogilny? I believe what he's getting at is that he didn't have a strong enough prime/peak and would needed some compiling years to pump up his case. Lindros/Bure/Kariya/Forsberg did not need that, because they were clearly good enough that their career length was almost irrelevant. And I'm not interested in getting into a HHOF debate about Neely/Mogilny, as the former is a widely panned induction and career length isn't the only reason why (not to mention, their HHOF cases are built completely differently FUTURE EDIT: just remembered that Larkin made the point that Neely never led the league in goals. This is true, but how much do your want to bet that in 35 more games in 1993-94 he'd score at least 10 more goals? But what I find more egregious is the idea that mogilny has a better playoff legacy than Neely because he won a cup. Slightly different eras, but my God, Neely had nearly as many playoff GOALS per game as mogilny had points per game!) If you don't have a strong enough prime/peak, that should be the end of the discussion. Let's all stop obsessing about career totals. Which brings me to Patrik Elias.
Let me just begin by saying it is an insult to categorize Patrik Elias as a volume-stat pick. Yes, he ended up with a nice career total, but for some reason, (much like Mark Recchi) it is forgotten that he put together many elite seasons to get that career total - not the least of which are three seasons over a 13-year period, of 3rd, 6th and 10th in points. (try finding some other players with top-10 seasons 13 seasons apart!)
He starts with a couple of positives, but then asks if Elias was ever a top-10 player aside from 2000-01? Well, no, probably not, but that's an awfully high bar to clear. Was Ron Francis ever a top-10 player? Brendan Shanahan? Mark Recchi? Luc Robitaille? And I'm only mentioning the "good" HHOFers, not the obvious poor recent inductions who don't meet that standard. Back to Mogilny for a second - was he ever a top-10 player even the one time? 1992-93, you say? Hmm, are you sure? He was only tied for 7th in points and I don't think anyone else in that top-8 you'd take after Mogilny. Turgeon, maybe. Then you have Yzerman behind him, still better by reputation. Last seasons Hart winner Mark Messier and the one from before that, Brett Hull. Wayne Gretzky. Then you have to include at least a few defensemen - Bourque and Chelios for sure, Stevens and Leetch probably. And then there's Patrick Roy, and the winner of 2 of the last 3 Vezinas, Ed Belfour. Heck, I'm starting to wonder, was Mogilny a top-20 player that season??
I took a look at THN's list from that season and they also had Lindros ahead of him (in anticipation of a huge sophomore season), Roenick (who was just the toast of the town for a few seasons), and Kevin Stevens (hogwash). They also had Bourque, Leetch, Messier, Bure, and Oates after him, among players I named above. In all, probably a little too favorable a ranking for him, but still not top-10. The only other time he had a hope at the top-10 was following 1995-96 (his only other top-10 scoring season) and they had him 21st. So let's dispense with the notion that there's a prerequisite that you have to have been a top-10 player, or that Mogilny has an edge in this regard.
(Mogilny's total placements in league-wide THN lists: 13, 21... that's all. It's true that there was no list in 1995 and 1997, but he was no lock to make it and if he did, it would have been right near the bottom. He also would have missed prior to 1993, of course. Patrik Elias: 32, 17, 28, 42, 26, 18, 12, 11. This is actually a remarkably consistent record. Making the list 8 straight times is not easy, nor is it common)
Their best placements on THN wingers-only lists: Mogilny 3, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 11, 12, 15, 19. Elias 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5.
Don't forget Hart voting, in which Elias peaked at 6th in 2001, as Matt stated. Apparently that's not a positive in his favour, but it's not mentioned in Mogilny's case that he peaked at 18th in 1995-96 with a grand total of two votes (the only two he'd earn in his career). Not that I care that much, but Elias also earned 11 votes in 2004, finishing 14th. Nothing really even worth mentioning, but more significant than any Mogilny season.
Lastly, with their full careers in the books, the historians here at hfboards conducted a massive project to name the top wingers of all-time. Elias finished 45th all-time, while Mogilny only came up for discussion in the final round and ultimately would come out at least 20 spots below Elias, had we gone further down.
All of this points to players who may have had similar high-end peaks, with one of them - Elias - having a lot more meat on the bone. I think this is the case. I've already gone over their subjective rankings over the years, let's look at some objective matters:
- Mogilny actually beats Elias in 7-year VsX, 81 to 79, but Elias's next best 7 seasons were at a 55 level, compared to 52 for Mogilny. Mogilny missed more games over these periods, so it's arguable that he was a slightly more accomplished producer over their respective careers, but there is more context to keep in mind:
- Mogilny's very best seasons were often helped by a superior linemate (usually LaFontaine). The only time he ever put up a truly excellent full season where he was his line's/team's best forward was 1995-96. Elias, on the other hand, was his team's best forward for basically the entire 2000s, until the emergence of Zach Parise.
- Elias was an excellent two-way player. Not selke-caliber, but excellent nonetheless. He was always the best defensive player on his line - was there ever a time that he wasn't, seriously? Points aren't scored in a vaccuum and the point of hockey isn't just to rack up points, but to win games. Not only Elias, who scored an essentially equal amount while playing excellent defense contribute more to the goal of winning games, but he also likely demonstrated his greater ability to score more points in an imaginary scenario in which he had wanted to be more selfish and focus solely on offense - like Mogilny did, for almost his entire career.
- It's impossible to categorize the Devils as a certain kind of team over a span of 18 seasons, but they were typically a defensive-minded, low-event team, the opposite of run-and-gun. For a time they were an excellent offensive team too, placing 2nd, 2nd, 1st in goals in the NHL, and the last of those three seasons, guess who was their best offensive player? Patrik Elias. Again, points aren't scored in a vaccum, and a point scored for one team is not the same as a point scored for another team. It is important to realize that the Devils, over Elias' career, were 8% below the league average in total GF+GA, indicating a very conservative team. Mogilny's teams were 3% above the average during his career. He was in an environment where the play was looser, which did lend itself to higher stats.
- Playoff production has to be considered, as well. Never mind cups and finals runs, just to match Elias' career playoff stat line, Mogilny would have to play 38 more games and score 39 more points in those games. A rather tall order, given his career playoff PPG average of 0.69. The difference in their playoff production is even more stark considering the following:
- Mogilny played 37 playoff games in the higher-scoring 1990s before Elias' career began, and Elias played 60 after the end of Mogilny's playoff career. Adjusting all that is tricky business, but suffice to say, Elias' superior playoff production would look even more superior if one did the work. When in the league together, Elias played just 19 more playoff games, but had 27 more points than Mogilny in those games. Heck, they even had two very long playoff runs together, and they both played all 48 of those games. Mogilny was the 7th-highest scoring Devil over those two playoffs with 23 points, while Elias led the team with 43.
The thing about Elias is, his career mattered. He checks all the boxes everyone typically wants to see. He has the high career totals, at least by today's standards. He didn't amass those high career totals by hanging on forever and compiling. In other words, he had a very good prime. He played the game the right way. He won championships, and he was a very important piece on those championships. People often criticize the inductions of players like George Armstrong and Bob Pulford, because of their relatively modest offensive numbers, but they mattered and their careers mattered. They were cornerstones of a dynasty. This dynasty played a certain way (that limited their offensive totals) and they not only bought into it, but exemplified how a Maple leaf was supposed to play. Elias is like a 2000s version of that, except he also had a great offensive peak. This isn't the hall of compiling stats, so don't judge him solely on the basis of his regular offensive stats, and don't do it for Mogliny either. Both judgments will yield a result much too far from their actual overall values as players, and the legacies they earned as players.
I started by saying I don't think everyone has to agree on everything. I think that Patrik Elias is a HHOFer. I realize it's arguable that he isn't. I also think that Alexander Mogilny should not be in the HHOF. I realize it's arguable that he should be. But, I think that if you want Alexander Mogilny in the hall AND Patrik Elias out, you may want to evaluate your value system.
Last edited:
