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.
During his tenure in L.A., the Kings played 311 games with him and 99 without him.
With Palffy in the lineup, the Kings went 144-110-39-18, for a points percentage of 0.554.
With Palffy out of the lineup, the Kings went 34-38-19-8, for a points percentage of 0.480.
So obviously Palffy was a huge net positive.
Which is what we would expect, given his individual numbers.
Maybe my old-age haze is showing, but I find myself scratching my head when people are picking Palffy because of consistency. Neither of those guys had a label of "Consistent" -- it wasn't as though that stuck out about Palffy enough to matter. Both were star players, but Mogilny was an easy choice for me. There was too much talent there to ignore. And it isn't as though Palffy was stacked with intangibles (or consistency) that would make me pause. Even if you thought Mogilny mailed it in, he showed up enough to matter. Palffy was a very talented player on poor teams. I'm not sure how fair it is to hold that against him, but Mogilny was on playoff teams and his presence mattered.
I knock Jagr all the time amongst friends because I still see him as a pouter who chose when to play (or when not to), but that doesn't mean I'd chose Damphousse over him (I know the gap isn't quite as large as that, but as I remember it, it isn't as close as being suggested by some in this thread).
During his tenure in L.A., the Kings played 311 games with him and 99 without him.
With Palffy in the lineup, the Kings went 144-110-39-18, for a points percentage of 0.554.
With Palffy out of the lineup, the Kings went 34-38-19-8, for a points percentage of 0.480.
So obviously Palffy was a huge net positive.
Which is what we would expect, given his individual numbers.
Alright..........where did you get those statistics if I may ask? If those are accurate that's fine and all but I would expect a guy who was a point a game player to make at least some of a difference when he isn't there (although he didn't with the Islanders for some reason). This wasn't really the point I was trying to make, I originally said that Mogilny would leave a bigger hole in your lineup if he were gone, especially if he was "on". And believe me, BOTH players have their warts that we could go on for hours about so I can assure you I am not trying to make a god out of Mogilny, just that he was a more important player.
Alright..........where did you get those statistics if I may ask? If those are accurate that's fine and all but I would expect a guy who was a point a game player to make at least some of a difference when he isn't there (although he didn't with the Islanders for some reason). This wasn't really the point I was trying to make, I originally said that Mogilny would leave a bigger hole in your lineup if he were gone, especially if he was "on". And believe me, BOTH players have their warts that we could go on for hours about so I can assure you I am not trying to make a god out of Mogilny, just that he was a more important player.
I calculated the numbers based on the available data.
I like Almo's 92-93 best because he was such a goal scoring machine, but I'm not sure at all that his 95-96 was any better than Palffy's best years.
I really don't see how it isn't. 55-52-107 is a lot better than Palffy's career high of 90, and also Palffy's top 5 in 97-98 came in a far weaker year than 95-96 was. 95-96 was the last real fire-wagon type season for the NHL with Lemieux and Jagr going off, also huge season's from Sakic/forsbegr/Lindros etc. Mogilny was also a catalyst for his entire team in 95-96, it could be argued that season he was just as brilliant as he was in 92-93.
I really don't see how it isn't. 55-52-107 is a lot better than Palffy's career high of 90, and also Palffy's top 5 in 97-98 came in a far weaker year than 95-96 was. 95-96 was the last real fire-wagon type season for the NHL with Lemieux and Jagr going off, also huge season's from Sakic/forsbegr/Lindros etc. Mogilny was also a catalyst for his entire team in 95-96, it could be argued that season he was just as brilliant as he was in 92-93.
Almo has him in beat in both peak and longevity.
95-96 was the last firewagon-style year, which is why 107 points in 1995-96 might not be any more impressive than 90 in 97-98. As you noticed, 107 points was 10th among his peers, while 90 was 5th in 97-98.
I guess there is a case for Almo's 95-96 based off his goal totals though.
Mogilny was an ultimate weapon offensively. He could do it all - skate, shoot, handle the puck, make plays, make his teammates better - and do it all at a top speed. His problem was that he left you wanting more most years. He had the potential to be a perennial threat for the Richard and the Art Ross Trophies, but instead, you were wondering why he was scoring at a 30-35 goal/70-point clip, instead of challenging the elite players in the game.
Palffy never reached a level shown by Mogilny in a couple spurts from about 1991 to 1996. Yes, he had Lafontaine from 1991-1993. But that was mutually beneficial: two offensively gifted players who could dominate a game with their goal-scoring and playmaking abilities, and to it at top speed. Lafontaine brought out the best in Mogilny; Mogilny was the first comparable talent for Lafontaine since Lafontaine became an elite player in the late 80s.
I was never a Mogilny fan. I found him to be a selfish, difficult player. He couldn't wait to get out of Buffalo or Vancouver.
A healthy, motivated Mogilny was a vastly superior player to Palffy. Palffy was an outstanding offensive threat. But he wasn't in the class of a motivated, healthy Mogilny. At the same time, from 1997 to 2004, it's highly unlikely that any GM would have accepted Mogilny if they were giving up Palffy. Even in 2000-01, when Mogilny scored 43 goals, the last memory for hockey people was Mogilny's pathetic 2001 post-season, when, I believe, he went more than a month without scoring.
Palffy was a great offensive talent who had a great career. Won't get into the HHOF. Won't get any serious discussions. Mogilny had the talent to be an all-time great, and he had some terrific seasons, but had a career best-described as puzzling.
Mogilny was an ultimate weapon offensively. He could do it all - skate, shoot, handle the puck, make plays, make his teammates better - and do it all at a top speed. His problem was that he left you wanting more most years. He had the potential to be a perennial threat for the Richard and the Art Ross Trophies, but instead, you were wondering why he was scoring at a 30-35 goal/70-point clip, instead of challenging the elite players in the game.
Palffy never reached a level shown by Mogilny in a couple spurts from about 1991 to 1996. Yes, he had Lafontaine from 1991-1993. But that was mutually beneficial: two offensively gifted players who could dominate a game with their goal-scoring and playmaking abilities, and to it at top speed. Lafontaine brought out the best in Mogilny; Mogilny was the first comparable talent for Lafontaine since Lafontaine became an elite player in the late 80s.
I was never a Mogilny fan. I found him to be a selfish, difficult player. He couldn't wait to get out of Buffalo or Vancouver.
A healthy, motivated Mogilny was a vastly superior player to Palffy. Palffy was an outstanding offensive threat. But he wasn't in the class of a motivated, healthy Mogilny. At the same time, from 1997 to 2004, it's highly unlikely that any GM would have accepted Mogilny if they were giving up Palffy. Even in 2000-01, when Mogilny scored 43 goals, the last memory for hockey people was Mogilny's pathetic 2001 post-season, when, I believe, he went more than a month without scoring.
Palffy was a great offensive talent who had a great career. Won't get into the HHOF. Won't get any serious discussions. Mogilny had the talent to be an all-time great, and he had some terrific seasons, but had a career best-described as puzzling.
People get on Brodeur for playing poorly in the 2001 finals, and to an extent that's fair, but if Mogilny had shown up for the series, it probably wouldn't have mattered.
Scoring depth was supposed to be NJ's big advantage over a Forsberg-less Avalanche team, but with McKay's injury and Gomez and Mogily no-showing, the scoring was basically A-line vs. Sakic's line and Sakic's line came out on top.
I felt that Palffy was the better player in making his teammates around him better. He did it with the Islanders playing with likes of Travis Green and Niklas Andersson. His first few seasons in LA were quite successful, playing with Stumpel and Robitaille then Allison and Deadmarsh, and the Kings pushed the Avs to 7 games in back-to-back years, however, injuries started to mount and Palffy had a rotating cast of linemates.
Look at his numbers in 2002-03, Palffy scored 85 points. The next closest teammate, Mathieu Schneider, had 43 points, and he was traded at the trade deadline to Detroit. Palffy spent most of that season playing with journeyman center Derek Armstrong and rookie LW Alexander Frolov.
Palffy took a ton of abuse and it wore him down, but he was always productive and was constantly playing hurt. While Mogilny may have been the superior goal scorer, I never considered him to be the type of forward who made his linemates better.
I think the expectations were different for each player. This ultimately changes how we view them. I enjoyed watching ZP offensive game with no expectations and was often surprised at his offensive output. Maybe because AM came from the old USSR, the expectations were much higher. Often he left me wanting more even though I marveled at his skating and skill. AM was more of an enigma to me. no surprise I am a Lafleur fan.
players who had career years on mogilny's line: pat lafontaine, martin gelinas, mats sundin.
Aside from Gelinas, LaFontaine and Sundin were superstars. As far as career years go, Sundin's best individual season was with the Nordiques. His most productive season in Toronto was in 96-97, and that was before Mogilny was ever a Leaf. That season he scored 94 points, and believe it or not, he played with Sergei Berezin for most of that season.
And 92-93 was a unique year for both LaFontaine and Mogilny. They never came close to reproducing those numbers. The closest to it would be Mogilny scoring 107 points in 95-96. Gelinas had two very productive years playing with Mogilny, but from what I saw of the Canucks during his time there, they didn't accomplish much with him on their roster. Then again, not all of that can be faulted on Mogilny as the organization started to become a mess after the messy ordeal they went through with Bure and then Mike Keenan.
Aside from Gelinas, LaFontaine and Sundin were superstars. As far as career years go, Sundin's best individual season was with the Nordiques. His most productive season in Toronto was in 96-97, and that was before Mogilny was ever a Leaf. That season he scored 94 points, and believe it or not, he played with Sergei Berezin for most of that season.
And 92-93 was a unique year for both LaFontaine and Mogilny. They never came close to reproducing those numbers. The closest to it would be Mogilny scoring 107 points in 95-96. Gelinas had two very productive years playing with Mogilny, but from what I saw of the Canucks during his time there, they didn't accomplish much with him on their roster. Then again, not all of that can be faulted on Mogilny as the organization started to become a mess after the messy ordeal they went through with Bure and then Mike Keenan.
the year sundin finished fourth in goals and points, mogilny was on his wing.
players who had career years on mogilny's line: pat lafontaine, martin gelinas, mats sundin.
Agreed. Lafontaine's big year in 1993 was part of his own doing of course but the reason he hit a spike like that was because of the chemistry with Mogilny. No doubt Mogilny elevated his teammates to a serious level at some time. Lafontaine never reached that zone again
We all know 92-93 was an outlying year for forwards, in general.
I've taken that into account as well, but there was never another time when Lafontaine finished 2nd in points in the NHL. He peaked higher in 1993 than any other season in his career by a fair margin. If not for that stubborn Mario beating cancer then he wins the Art Ross and who knows, even the Hart (voters might have favoured him over Gilmour with the Mario votes).
I guess we have to look at things one way here. Was Palffy a guy who was capable of leading the NHL in goals? Possibly, he finished 5th twice and was 5 goals away from leading the NHL in 1997. However, Mogilny did lead the NHL in goals and finished 3rd another time behind Mario and Jagr. He easily peaked higher than Palffy. What does Palffy have that offsets those accomplishments of Mogilny? Was he a better playmaker? I don't think he was any better in my opinion.
An interesting stat is that he is tied for the lead in ppg seasons between the lockouts, with 9, with jagr and sakic.
I'm showing 8, with one being exactly PPG, and another less than a half season.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Del_
Even if you thought Mogilny mailed it in, he showed up enough to matter. Palffy was a very talented player on poor teams. I'm not sure how fair it is to hold that against him, but Mogilny was on playoff teams and his presence mattered.
I knock Jagr all the time amongst friends because I still see him as a pouter who chose when to play (or when not to), but that doesn't mean I'd chose Damphousse over him (I know the gap isn't quite as large as that, but as I remember it, it isn't as close as being suggested by some in this thread).
Seriously, you can't compare Jagr's frequency of mailing it in with Mogilny's. Mogilny only played 77% of the regular season games he had available, so it wasn't like he was playing through injuries and almost singledhandedly leading teams to the playoffs. From '97-'02 (ages 27-33), he averaged 64 games and was only PPG once. We know Mogilny should have been a PPG player most years, even battling injuries in DPE. During his 3 big playoff runs in '00-'02, he had 34 points in 68 games. Yes, he was in his 30s and battling injuries, but again we expect a lot more from Mogilny. Jagr had parts of a season or two out of 25 years of pro hockey when he may have often mailed it in, while that was Mo's M.O. for a large part of his career. I'm not saying he didn't show up for the playoffs, but even his playoff performances generally left quite a bit on the table I(MO). Injuries and all, Mogilny should have been a HOFer. I still voted for Mo though, that's how good he was when he was on his game.
Last edited by Czech Your Math: 12-30-2012 at 02:49 PM.
I'm showing 8, with one being exactly PPG, and another less than a half season.
So that makes 9 then...
It's not like there was really a chance he was going to fall below a ppg if he played more games. The other seasons surrounding that one sure don't indicate that.
It's not like there was really a chance he was going to fall below a ppg if he played more games. The other seasons surrounding that one sure don't indicate that.
The 8 included both the 1.00 PPG season and the less than half season > PPG. Your point still stands, he was very good and consistent when healthy.
