What a guy of Palffy's stature was able to achieve in the clutch-and-grab Dead Puck Era remains one of the most underappreciated accomplishments of the last 25 years in the NHL.
5'10", 180 LBS
1993-2006: 708 GP - 338 G - 394 A - 732 PTS
He has no trophies or even All Star Team selections, but he's a Hockey Hall Of Famer to me.
im pretty sure 100% of the fans of buffalo, Vancouver, Toronto and NJ who were lucky enough to watch him play full multiple seasons would agree that Almo was a vastly superior player. I duno what the haters think about him, but the guy was elite in pretty much every facet of the game, and his physical play is highly underrated, Almo threw some big hits, and not just once in a blue moon.
Like TDMM said Almo was the elite player when he wanted to be but if it wasn't a contract year he would often mail in the whole season too.
He was in fact very much like Semin who could be world class for a stretch, even a season, and then be pretty average, considering his skill set for large stretches and whole seasons.
Beyond their two best seasons, they’re practically identical in terms of per-game production when healthy.
Palffy takes this by having the demonstrably better peak.
What?? When was Palffy second in PPG? Which season is that..? I don't recall Palffy doing anything of that magnitude except one of his first seasons with the Kings but I will need to look it up.
Edit: Just realized the season you put him second in PPG he played less than half the season (35 games) I personally would not consider that, but I guess it is preferences.
Mogilny's best season he was fourth in PPG (The year he led in goals scored with Selanne.
Anyway as I have said, I think Mogilny was the better player at his peak and had the better career overall. To play 1114 NHL games and collect 1118 points is a highly admirable feat.
That is not that I don't consider Palffy a great player, he is very underrated on these boards and it was a shame he had to spend his early seasons at the Islanders. He kept that franchise alive though.
I think it is a bit of a trick question. I still took Mogilny, but as we all know he could have off seasons, in fact he did all the time. There is no way I take Palffy over a Mogilny in a contract year though.
I still would take the risk with Mogilny. Palffy was more consistent but never reached Mogilny's heights at his best. He also has more of a Marc Savard syndrome. He was a great "bad team" player. He had little substance to his game. He was a point collector and that's where it would end. He never really helped his team win despite how hard it would be on NYI
I think it is a bit of a trick question. I still took Mogilny, but as we all know he could have off seasons, in fact he did all the time. There is no way I take Palffy over a Mogilny in a contract year though.
I still would take the risk with Mogilny. Palffy was more consistent but never reached Mogilny's heights at his best. He also has more of a Marc Savard syndrome. He was a great "bad team" player. He had little substance to his game. He was a point collector and that's where it would end. He never really helped his team win despite how hard it would be on NYI
Mogilny was a great "bad team player" too, until he was traded to an otherwise stacked Devils team and allowed to be a secondary scoring threat.
Mogilny was a great "bad team player" too, until he was traded to an otherwise stacked Devils team and allowed to be a secondary scoring threat.
There is a little bit more success that was caused because of Mogilny though. Buffalo always fared better with him in the lineup. He also led the NHL in goals once which Palffy never did. (Wow, am I giving Mogilny credit of all players?)
Success caused by Mogilny or caused by Lafontaine?
In my honest opinion they both complemented each other very well and while I would personally take Lafontaine as the better overall offensive player who also had a better year, I think the truth is that these two were a match made in heaven. Plus Mogilny went down with an awful injury in the 1993 playoffs in a year he was playing very well. Buffalo eventually got swept by Montreal in that series (although they likely still lose). So yeah, I think when comparing Mogilny to Palffy you would have to say that Mogilny could and would enhance the success of a team to a better extent.
In my honest opinion they both complemented each other very well and while I would personally take Lafontaine as the better overall offensive player who also had a better year, I think the truth is that these two were a match made in heaven. Plus Mogilny went down with an awful injury in the 1993 playoffs in a year he was playing very well. Buffalo eventually got swept by Montreal in that series (although they likely still lose). So yeah, I think when comparing Mogilny to Palffy you would have to say that Mogilny could and would enhance the success of a team to a better extent.
I think 1992-93 Mogilny was better than anything Palffy did, but how often did Almo come close to that level again?
I think the correct answer here is that Mogilny was better at his best, but Palffy was at his best more often.
It's easy to forget just how little help Palffy had most of the time. Check out the 2002-03 LA Kings:
What a guy of Palffy's stature was able to achieve in the clutch-and-grab Dead Puck Era remains one of the most underappreciated accomplishments of the last 25 years in the NHL.
5'10", 180 LBS
1993-2006: 708 GP - 338 G - 394 A - 732 PTS
He has no trophies or even All Star Team selections, but he's a Hockey Hall Of Famer to me.
I always felt there was a "comfort" with Palffy playing on losing teams. Didn't really see any competitive fire in him, no willingness to win. Just a very slick, superior offensive player who could score points from the perimeter as well as anyone in his time. And again, it's not that Mogilny was Ryan Smyth but in the rare moments when Mogilny was on his game, he was superior to Palffy.
I think your last sentence (bolded) makes the point that I've tried making - that Palffy did well in obscurity, offensively. A little like Marcel Dionne (except not nearly as good), comfortable in a losing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
I think it is a bit of a trick question. I still took Mogilny, but as we all know he could have off seasons, in fact he did all the time. There is no way I take Palffy over a Mogilny in a contract year though.
I still would take the risk with Mogilny. Palffy was more consistent but never reached Mogilny's heights at his best. He also has more of a Marc Savard syndrome. He was a great "bad team" player. He had little substance to his game. He was a point collector and that's where it would end. He never really helped his team win despite how hard it would be on NYI
To continue from my earlier point (in this post) in that Palffy never showed any leadership, passion, winning mentality at all. He showed little emotion and seemed content to put up points and continue losing. I understand there's no way to prove this and being on such a lousy team didn't make it easy for him, but I find it odd that such a great scorer (playing at time when there was player movement) was never added to a contending team for a late season push, the final piece for a winning team.
I hate arguing against Palffy because I happen to think he was a very good hockey player, underrated and underappreciated in his time. He was deceptively good defensively, at least with his positioning and somewhat responsible in back-checking (surprisingly) and had so little offensive support, was a great passer (better vision than Mogilny) and could create offense with an "ease" about it.
But Mogilny, at his peak, was explosive, could play with more emotion and fire and was deadly in the offensive zone (or neutral zone with speed) with a rocket shot that could beat any goalie from the top of the circles. That's where the difference lies.
Neither would be my first choice to win a playoff series but if I had to add one piece to a playoff team, I'd choose Mogilny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
I think the correct answer here is that Mogilny was better at his best, but Palffy was at his best more often.
It's easy to forget just how little help Palffy had most of the time. Check out the 2002-03 LA Kings:
Yeah, I think Mogilny's 1992-93 is pretty clearly the best full season either of them had, inflated by era or not.[/QUOTE]
I mean, it is. But, if we look at adjusted for era numbers, which we all do, it's close, even in goal scoring.
Even if you take adjustments with a grain of salt, can anyone here honestly think that any gap there wouldn't be filled, and likely surpassed, by giving Lafontaine to Palffy... or taking him away from Alex?
For a team in a rotisserie league team, I'd take Mogilny for certain seasons. In a real team where you have to think about everything from chemistry, playing a team system to catering to a fan base, I take Palffy every year.
To continue from my earlier point (in this post) in that Palffy never showed any leadership, passion, winning mentality at all. He showed little emotion and seemed content to put up points and continue losing. I understand there's no way to prove this and being on such a lousy team didn't make it easy for him, but I find it odd that such a great scorer (playing at time when there was player movement) was never added to a contending team for a late season push, the final piece for a winning team.
I hate arguing against Palffy because I happen to think he was a very good hockey player, underrated and underappreciated in his time. He was deceptively good defensively, at least with his positioning and somewhat responsible in back-checking (surprisingly) and had so little offensive support, was a great passer (better vision than Mogilny) and could create offense with an "ease" about it.
But Mogilny, at his peak, was explosive, could play with more emotion and fire and was deadly in the offensive zone (or neutral zone with speed) with a rocket shot that could beat any goalie from the top of the circles. That's where the difference lies.
Neither would be my first choice to win a playoff series but if I had to add one piece to a playoff team, I'd choose Mogilny.
well put.
Yeah that's true. I guess there are two schools of thought here. First, no one like the Red Wings or Avs or Flyers or Devils picked up a guy like Palffy hoping he would be the spark in a late season run for the Cup. Mogilny, on the other hand WAS picked up by New Jersey and won a Cup and reached another final. That has to hurt Palffy there. But..........the way Mad Mike Milbury would trade players like they were stocks it is odd that he took so long to get rid of Palffy. There was a time when Palffy held out and he could have demanded a trade but he didn't. I don't know, who in their right mind wanted to stay on the Island in those years?
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
Did you check to see if this was also true about Palffy?
The only season where he missed time with the Islanders was 1998-'99.
With Palffy: 12-29-9
Without Palffy: 12-19-1
I realize there are contributing factors with things like this, but I never thought then, or now, that Palffy was a player you could and would win with which is why I put him more with a guy like Marc Savard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
I think 1992-93 Mogilny was better than anything Palffy did, but how often did Almo come close to that level again?
I think the correct answer here is that Mogilny was better at his best, but Palffy was at his best more often.
It's easy to forget just how little help Palffy had most of the time. Check out the 2002-03 LA Kings:
Well yes, no argument there that Palffy was the more consistent threat overall. I don't think that was the original question though. What we have to determine was whether or not this consistency was good enough to make up for a player who was elite when he was "on". I don't think it does because Mogilny's highs were pretty darn good.
The only season where he missed time with the Islanders was 1998-'99.
With Palffy: 12-29-9
Without Palffy: 12-19-1
I realize there are contributing factors with things like this, but I never thought then, or now, that Palffy was a player you could and would win with which is why I put him more with a guy like Marc Savard.
And what about with the Kings?
And do you have any idea how the team fared when he was in the lineup and not on the ice? That is a very critical piece of information as well.
And do you have any idea how the team fared when he was in the lineup and not on the ice? That is a very critical piece of information as well.
I could look it up, but he didn't miss a whole lot of chunks with the Kings. They were more or less the same type of team before him. They made the playoffs in 1998 and were always in that mediocre portion of the NHL regardless. Palffy didn't really change a whole lot on that team. They beat Detroit in 2001 in a surprising playoff round and Palffy did fine there, but he was invisible in the 2nd round in a 7 game loss to the Avs. He just wasn't a guy who you ever thought of putting in a clutch situation. Pittsburgh in 2005-'06 was awful when he was there and awful when he retired midseason. He's a player with little substance and that wasn't exactly something that has now been discovered in 2012, he was just always that way.
palffy seems a lot like pat lafontaine to me. often underrated in his own time, but due to per game numbers, becomes overrated as time goes on.
i mean, alex mogilny. of his generation, i have mogilny #3 in terms of raw ability behind jagr and lindros. yeah, he was inconsistent. yeah, he was often maddening when he was on your team. but a guy like that sometimes you just sit back and say, "i could pick him apart for not being what he could be, or i can just shut my mouth and marvel at the things he can do."
now that said, palffy i think is being both overrated and underrated in this thread. at least in '03, i think he should have been a hart finalist. what he did on a completely decimated kings team was ridiculous. what he did against the wings in the first round of the '01 playoffs, and against the avs in the first round of '02 was likewise phenomenal. insofar as a small, soft, one-way player can be an inspirational, team-lifting heart and soul guy, he was that.
on the other hand, let's not pretend palffy was paul kariya. he was a very very good scorer, but he was not at that level. which likewise means he was not alex mogilny, who even coasting for 3/4 of his career still scored at a PPG over 1,000 games.
No, only 47 games in 2004, 19 in 2002, 18 in 2000, and 9 in 2001....
The Islanders one was done manually. I can't find anything on Hockeyreference that can speed up the process and do it for me otherwise. Sorry. If you can, great.
