So if Messier stayed a Left Wing and retired with, like, 15 All-Star selections, do you perceive him to be a better player not because of a difference in performance but because of a difference in the field against which All-Star selections are assigned? He took All-Star selections in his three seasons leading into the position switch (1982, 1983, 1984). It’s not far-fetched he’d keep accumulating them if he’s not fighting for a spot on 5-3-1 ballots at the deepest position in maybe the most top-heavy era in that position’s history.
Also, you’re citing media-narratives as inflating Messier’s reputation while citing a media-voted award (defensive All-Star) as a reason to elevate Bourque’s. Not sure I follow. If the same media which awarded Bourque these accolades also thought Messier was a better player, why would that make their opinion of Messier relative to Bourque less reliable?
If we look at his career if he stayed at the wing position and assume that he would produce the same amount, the seasons that you could award him with AS team selections are 86/87, 87/88, 88/89, 89/90, 91/92, 94/95, and 95/96. That would give him a total of 10 AS team selections (along with 1982, 1983, 1984). Considering how weak the wing position was at the time, I wouldn't view his career any differently. He would be around a top 6-8 winger and still around the same range on my all-time list.
I don't think it's too much to ask for him to at least be a top 3 player at his position during his prime if Lemieux and Gretzky didn't exist. Let's say we removed Lemieux and Gretzky from the equation, would his competition for AS recognition still be greater than Bourque's at the D position? Messier would be battling with Yzerman, Fedorov, Oates, Roenick, Hawerchuk, Francis, and Lindros. Bourque was battling with Chelios, Leetch, Coffey, Lidstrom, MacInnis, Langway, and Potvin in his later prime years. That competition seems pretty even to me to say the least. In his healthy seasons without Lemieux and Gretzky, he would still likely get beat out by his competition in most years other than '90 and '92. So if that were the case, he'd end up with around 5 or 6 AS team selections. Again, that's still pretty great but it still wouldn't move the needle for me on an all-time centers list nor on an all-time players list.
As far as his playoff performances go, that's where he obviously has a significant advantage over Bourque but he has also played on significantly better teams over his career. Bourque didn't have the luxury of playing on a dynasty team and that's what really elevates Messier over Bourque in all-time discussions. Messier has this whole aura about him as a playoff monster who willed his team to a guaranteed victory with an empty-net goal hat trick. He has that intangible factor that the media always fawn over. That's what I was alluding to when I was mentioning that his reputation as an all-time player is largely media-driven. I'm sure if Bourque was given an opportunity to play with all-star caliber players, he would have produced more legendary moments that would raise his status over Messier among the mainstream media.
I don't really put much value on those sort of things which is why he's so low on my list. I wouldn't blame anyone who would place him in their top 15 if they really valued playoff moments but that's not me. I value consistency, regular season play, and peak above anything else. Bourque has him beat in those departments in my opinion.
Also, to your point above, Lindsay also has an award that was renamed after him and has been presenting it every season except for this past one. Does that mean that he should be elevated to a top 10-15 player just because he's respected by the NHL community? Also, I don't have the stats on this but wasn't it more difficult for a defense man to garner Hart consideration back then and wouldn't that make it more difficult to compare their Hart voting records?
