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

[Nick Hansen]

Great talent, less of a career.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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.

 

[82Ninety42011]

This thread got me thinking whose the worst player in the HHOF ? One name that I remember was Clarke Gillies I know numbers aren't everything but this guy should never had been elected.

Clark Gillies Hockey Stats and Profile at hockeydb.com

Who else are some others??

 

[Devils090]

Mogilny >>>> all those plug good ol Canada boys like Guy Carbonneau

 

[aufheben]

Alex Mogilny isn't in the HHOF?

 

[barbu]

I an immature I guess.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I dunno...Mogilny was one of the most talented players I have seen but if you take away his one big season you have a career many good players have had and will never get a sniff at the Hall.

This is the issue I have with Mogilny, not anything about his personality.

Here's where Mogilny ranks all-time in scoring (GP in parentheses):

74. Bobby Smith 1036 (1077)
t75. Martin St. Louis 1033 (1134)
t75. Doug Weight 1033 (1238)
77. Alexander Mogilny 1032 (990)
78. Alex Kovalev 1029 (1316)
79. Brian Leetch 1028 (1205)
80. Patrik Elias 1025 (1240)

On that list, the only HOF'ers are St. Louis and Leetch, who should be regarded as unfavorable comparisons for obvious reasons. This is definitely not the part of the list where scoring totals make for an open-and-shut case.

But the trick with Mogilny is... take away his insane 1993 season and the picture looks quite different. If we do the same exercise for everyone on that list, here's how they rank:

Kovalev 934
St. Louis 931
Weight 929
Elias 929
Leetch 926
Smith 922
... in fact, we can add a bunch of new names to the list...
Hunter 941
Gilbert 924
Bellows 923
Malkin 911
Larmer 911
McDonald 908
Propp 907
Mogilny 906

By the end, we're down to a part of the list that doesn't feel very Hall of Fame-y. Scary close to seeing names like Doan, Muller, Arnott. Those who somehow do manage to make it from this range have clear extenuating circumstances -- playing in the 70-game era, or being a defensive specialist, or being a "character guy" (which is synonymous with being a controversial pick). Players who, by and large, you kind of had to see them in action to understand why they're in the HOF. Mogilny is like the opposite of that... he's a guy you contrast negatively against a McDonald or Keon when making the case that stat totals don't tell the full story.

So if Mogilny were to make it, there would be a distinct vibe of getting in based on one extremely good season. An impressive season, for sure, but one where he didn't win any major awards (he was the 2nd All Star at RW) and left no real mark on the league other than an impressive goal total. That would feel extremely weird as the centerpiece of a Hall of Fame induction.

All that being said, the HHOF has been devalued so badly that I wouldn't be surprised or upset to see him make it. Quite frankly, if he were golfing buddies with members of the committee he'd likely already be in.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Like others have said, significance cod defecting, but not for his career. Yeah, others are worse, but they shouldn't be there, either.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This thread got me thinking whose the worst player in the HHOF ? One name that I remember was Clarke Gillies I know numbers aren't everything but this guy should never had been elected.

Clark Gillies Hockey Stats and Profile at hockeydb.com

Who else are some others??

You kind of have to separate this out by era, because some of the very early (1800s - 1910s) inductees were chosen for being "early stars" who built the game rather than for how they stacked up against later players. Even some of the early/mid 20th century players, they were picked against a much smaller field of choices and so naturally the weaker ones in that field are going to compare poorly.

Arbitrarily cutting it off at guys who played the bulk of their careers after 1950, here are the worst players inducted IMO:

Glenn Anderson
Dave Andreychuk
Leo Boivin
Guy Carbonneau
Dick Duff
Clark Gillies
Phil Housley
Bob Pulford
Joe Nieuwendyk
Harry Watson

Almost all of these have in common that they were role players/second-tier scorers/"character guys" on good teams, thereby getting a lot of press and making a lot of golfing buddies around the league.

 

[Homesick]

Longest post in hf history?

I just lost a year of my OLED scrolling past that

 

[93LEAFS]

You kind of have to separate this out by era, because some of the very early (1800s - 1910s) inductees were chosen for being "early stars" who built the game rather than for how they stacked up against later players. Even some of the early/mid 20th century players, they were picked against a much smaller field of choices and so naturally the weaker ones in that field are going to compare poorly.

Arbitrarily cutting it off at guys who played the bulk of their careers after 1950, here are the worst players inducted IMO:

Glenn Anderson
Dave Andreychuk
Leo Boivin
Guy Carbonneau
Dick Duff
Clark Gillies
Phil Housley
Bob Pulford
Joe Nieuwendyk
Harry Watson

Almost all of these have in common that they were role players/second-tier scorers/"character guys" on good teams, thereby getting a lot of press and making a lot of golfing buddies around the league.

I'd classify a couple of those guys more as just people who racked up impressive counting stats that people felt they had to be in (Andreychuk, Anderson, Housley), and I'd add Mike Gartner and Ciccarelli to the list.

Would Mogilny be the worst player in the HHOF. I'm not sure I would vote Mogilny in based on his career because to be honest, there are a bunch of guys in who don't meet my definition of a Hall of Famer. But, if the standard is the lowest, we are going to see a lot of guys in who shouldn't be in.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

Not a Hall of Fame level player IMO. That's why he hasn't gotten in yet.

 

[Balance]

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.

 

[GodPucker]

Longest post in hf history?

I truly admire and respect the guys/gals who make these long posts. Just like the Bure person. This is history my friend. A lot of people now did not see these guys play. It's a privilege to see this stuff and I commend these people for their research and hard work.

I started watching hockey hardcore in 1988, so I seen the true brilliance of Mogilny.

 

[thekernel]

Great write-up, HF could always use some more well-researched deep dives.

I believe he'll be in soon enough. The arguments against just seem so....minuscule and irrelevant.

 

[tom990]

He will get in eventually for sure but he missed a few ticky boxes like 1000 games and 500 goals which he was so close to both. He'd be in by now if he had hit those two. Regardless he will be in shortly.

hate montreal forever for breaking his leg.....ruined the great season

hate the devils for not letting him play, but sending him down to albany, that was a f***ing disgusting move..... he was playing great that season.

in 2005 he had 12 goals and 13 assists in 34 games, then the devils sent him down, pure scum

 

[82Ninety42011]

hate montreal forever for breaking his leg.....ruined the great season

hate the devils for not letting him play, but sending him down to albany, that was a ****ing disgusting move..... he was playing great that season.

in 2005 he had 12 goals and 13 assists in 34 games, then the devils sent him down, pure scum

What was that about don't remember?

 

[Machinehead]

A-

 

[Big Phil]

Mogilny should not be in. Let's not forget that it wasn't a century ago that he played either, most of us - or many of us - saw his whole career. The reputation that he did well in a contract year was a running joke in the NHL during his career. We all knew this about him. Never in his career did you think he was a lock for a future HHOFer. This is all stuff that has come out later after he has retired and things can get glossed over a lot more. He was terribly inconsistent. Seemed to score when he wanted to and was lazy on the ice. Unreliable in the postseason as well. You've got a 30 year old Mogilny on the 2000 Devils. He ought to blow the doors off of things right? Wrong. He had a lousy postseason. This was normal for him. No HHOF.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

You kind of have to separate this out by era, because some of the very early (1800s - 1910s) inductees were chosen for being "early stars" who built the game rather than for how they stacked up against later players. Even some of the early/mid 20th century players, they were picked against a much smaller field of choices and so naturally the weaker ones in that field are going to compare poorly.

Arbitrarily cutting it off at guys who played the bulk of their careers after 1950, here are the worst players inducted IMO:

Glenn Anderson
Dave Andreychuk
Leo Boivin
Guy Carbonneau
Dick Duff
Clark Gillies
Phil Housley
Bob Pulford
Joe Nieuwendyk
Harry Watson

Almost all of these have in common that they were role players/second-tier scorers/"character guys" on good teams, thereby getting a lot of press and making a lot of golfing buddies around the league.

You must think Anderson is in the Hall for his Regular seasons.
Try looking at his playoff numbers.

And AlMo shouldn't get in.

He had 2 great seasons in an otherwise "good" career.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

What was that about don't remember?

They were so ridiculously over the cap, they had to send him down for a few games to circumvent it.

 

[82Ninety42011]

They were so ridiculously over the cap, they had to send him down for a few games to circumvent it.

Wow that's crazy didn't know thanks for sharing. That's insane to treat a veteran like that.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You must think Anderson is in the Hall for his Regular seasons.
Try looking at his playoff numbers.
View attachment 285765
View attachment 285769

No matter what part you look at, Anderson should not be a HOF’er.

 

[FDBluth]

I see JetsAlternate has a new account

 

[The Panther]

No matter what part you look at, Anderson should not be a HOF’er.

Anderson is, to me, very much a borderline Hall of Famer, much like Joe Nieuwendyk. Just based on their regular-season stats' careers (neither of which was shabby -- they were both frequent NHL All Stars), they're probably not in, but close. (Anderson, by the way, was the first Oiler not named Gretzky to score 100 points in a season. Up to 1986, he was out-performing Mark Messier.) But when you look at their contributions to Cup champions and international-hockey champions, they're pushing to the "in" side, which is why they landed there. Anderson was a playoff-stud who always got better when the games got bigger -- the opposite of Keith Tkachuk or Joe Thornton. He was also consistently good: from 1980-81 through 1989-90 he was no "role player" (lol!), he was one of the elite scorers/wingers in the world (the one exception being his poor 1988-89 season).

Now, Mogilny. Did he have Hall of Fame-level talent? Absolutely. Did he peak higher than guys like Anderson or Nieuwendyk? Absolutely, especially in 1992-93 (though a mere +7 on 76 goals is a little suspect), and all the way from 1991 to 1996, his stats are very impressive. But once the Dead-Puck Era set it -- and he was still in his mid-to-late 20s then -- he was pretty much done as an elite scorer, with the notable exception of his contract year with Jersey. Nor did he shine in the playoffs. His 86 points in 124 games (-2) is okay, I guess, but not quite what we'd expect from a guy who out-scored Teemu Selanne's best goal-scoring season. And, again, if we subtract his one peak-season (1993) playoffs, he's sitting at 76 points in 117 games, which is a 53-points-in-82-games pace. As someone mentioned, since Mogilny wasn't bringing a lot of intangibles (if any) to the table, we have to largely judge him on his offensive production.

At some point you have to separate peak-level and talent/ability from actual performance. In the former, Mogilny was one of the great talents of the modern era of hockey; in the latter, he was not at all a Hall of Famer when viewing his entire career.

I say out.