Messier overrated?

[Boxscore]

He isnt a better player than Crosby, McDavid, Ovechkin from the post 2005 era

Depends on the context. If you're looking for intangibles and a leader to control the team, and lead you to championships, I'd take Messier over all of them. Crosby is the only one of the three that comes close. If you're looking for a regular season offensive producer, then an argument could be made for Crosby or McDavid. If you're a GM looking to fill seats and entertain your paying customers, then a clear argument could be made for Ovechkin--or if you want a dynamic goal scoring threat.

Messier's secret sauce is the stuff you don't often see on spreadsheets or post game stats. It comes down to how much credence you put into his leadership and intangibles. And, let's not forget, Messier was a high end scorer as well. If Crosby and McDavid are scoring 115-120 a year, Messier would be scoring 95-100.

 

[Deas]

Mark Messier P/G ranking throughout his career, copied from a study I did to rank the best points producers all time. This doesn't contribute a lot to the discussion, as everyone knows he's allround game was better than his scoring, but I get the feeling some would be surprised by his rankings year by year (like some are concerning Francis, Fedorov, Sundin, Recchi, etc).

Entered league at age 18

79/80 230
80/81 73
81/82 40
82/83 7
83/84 10
84/85 43
85/86 13
86/87 3
87/88 8
88/89 10
89/90 3
90/91 16
91/92 7
92/93 25
93/94 31
94/95 12
95/96 10
96/97 7
97/98 61
98/99 41
99/00 47
00/01 69
01/02 143
02/03 181
03/04 133

Retired at age 43

25 seasons included in the survey.

Number of seasons as 1st: -
Win margin span: -
Number of seasons in top 5: 2
Number of seasons in top 10: 9
Top 10 ratio: 9/25, 36%
Span in years between first and last top 10: 14

Noticeable:
I’m very well aware of how he’s in an extreme group of players concerning contributing more than the numbers. He was a two-way center providing great leadership. Looking at production only, which is all this claims to do, he is however overrated. Having nine top tens is huge, of course, but that’s nine out of 25 with only two top-fives and no win, for a guy many boldly call one of the very greats. He’s high on the best of the rest-list, of course, but not on the A-list if we focus on the all-time best point producers, which is what this study does.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Mark Messier P/G ranking throughout his career, copied from a study I did to rank the best points producers all time. This doesn't contribute a lot to the discussion, as everyone knows he's allround game was better than his scoring, but I get feeling some would be surprised by his rankings year by year (like some are concerning Francis, Fedorov, Sundin, Recchi, etc).

Entered league at age 18

79/80 230
80/81 73
81/82 40
82/83 7
83/84 10
84/85 43
85/86 13
86/87 3
87/88 8
88/89 10
89/90 3
90/91 16
91/92 7
92/93 25
93/94 31
94/95 12
95/96 10
96/97 7
97/98 61
98/99 41
99/00 47
00/01 69
01/02 143
02/03 181
03/04 133

Retired at age 43

25 seasons included in the survey.

Number of seasons as 1st: -
Win margin span: -
Number of seasons in top 5: 2
Number of seasons in top 10: 9
Top 10 ratio: 9/25, 36%
Span in years between first and last top 10: 14

Noticeable:
I’m very well aware of how he’s in an extreme group of players concerning contributing more than the numbers. He was a two-way center providing great leadership. Looking at production only, which is all this claims to do, he is however overrated. Having nine top tens is huge, of course, but that’s nine out of 25 with only two top-fives and no win, for a guy many boldly call one of the very greats. He’s high on the best of the rest-list, of course, but not on the A-list if we focus on the all-time best point producers, which is what this study does.

Ok so you're heavily penalizing him for saying 9 of his seasons his top 10 out of his 25. He clearly wasn't at the peak of his abilities for several of those.

Additionally, Messier's standing in hockey history is supported by his scoring abilities and not because of them.

 

[Deas]

Ok so you're heavily penalizing him for saying 9 of his seasons his top 10 out of his 25. He clearly wasn't at the peak of his abilities for several of those.

Additionally, Messier's standing in hockey history is supported by his scoring abilities and not because of them.

Obviously (concerning not being at peak ability for 25 years). Of course age becomes a factor. Also, 9 top 10:s is great. When I really go into it and compare the best of the best I have for example removed the last 5ish years for players playing up to a very high age. I too think peak ability (if not just for a couple of years or so) is more interesting than someone being top 40 for 25 years as injury-free in a high scoring era (that's not bad of course, but when it puts you among the all-time greats in overall scoring those career totals really don't show the whole picture).

In a best of the best comparison however Messier's production ranking isn't in the picture. Again, I don't think most people think he would be, but I still think there's a group who wouldn't guess his numbers rank as "non-high" as they do.

 

[MadLuke]

I’m very well aware of how he’s in an extreme group of players concerning contributing more than the numbers. He was a two-way center providing great leadership. Looking at production only, which is all this claims to do, he is however overrated. Having nine top tens is huge, of course, but that’s nine out of 25 with only two top-fives and no win, for a guy many boldly call one of the very greats. He’s high on the best of the rest-list, of course, but not on the A-list if we focus on the all-time best point producers, which is what this study does.

I think it would perfectly fair in some context (specially when he was not on is team anymore) to consider Lemieux and Gretzky some exceptional status in that regard, Gretzky all around and when talking PPG Lemieux for sure as well.

Say 89-90, yes Messier do not lead the league in ppg but:

Points Per Game

1.	Mario Lemieux* • PIT	2.08
2.	Wayne Gretzky* • LAK	1.95
3.	Mark Messier* • EDM	1.63
4.	Steve Yzerman* • DET	1.61
5.	Pat LaFontaine* • NYI	1.42
6.	Bernie Nicholls • 2TM	1.42
7.	Brett Hull* • STL	1.41
8.	Denis Savard* • CHI	1.33
9.	Pierre Turgeon • BUF	1.33
10.	Paul Coffey* • PIT	1.29

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

That above a prime Yzerman, not a bad number 1 (if we remove 99 and 66) in term of all time competition.

This one is more debatable, than the really impressive above but still:
86-87 Points Per Game

1.	Wayne Gretzky* • EDM	2.32
2.	Mario Lemieux* • PIT	1.70
3.	Mark Messier* • EDM	1.39
4.	Jari Kurri* • EDM	1.37
5.	Doug Gilmour* • STL	1.31
6.	Dino Ciccarelli* • MNS	1.29
7.	Denis Savard* • CHI	1.29
8.	Michel Goulet* • QUE	1.28
9.	Tim Kerr • PHI	1.27
10.	Brian Propp • PHI	1.26

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

But he has arguably 2 times leaded the league ppg among the mortals.

A bit like Richard-Yzerman-Sakic sharing 0 Art Ross while St-Louis, Been and Geoffrion have 5 together require some double looking before judging to fast and taking the second group over the first one, competition-timing matter, has well has the whole prime versus singular peak.

 

[scott clam]

Depends on the context. If you're looking for intangibles and a leader to control the team, and lead you to championships, I'd take Messier over all of them. Crosby is the only one of the three that comes close. If you're looking for a regular season offensive producer, then an argument could be made for Crosby or McDavid. If you're a GM looking to fill seats and entertain your paying customers, then a clear argument could be made for Ovechkin--or if you want a dynamic goal scoring threat.

Messier's secret sauce is the stuff you don't often see on spreadsheets or post game stats. It comes down to how much credence you put into his leadership and intangibles. And, let's not forget, Messier was a high end scorer as well. If Crosby and McDavid are scoring 115-120 a year, Messier would be scoring 95-100.

It's not as if those other players don't have intangibles either. Let's also remember that Messier couldn't play like Messier in today's era.

 

[Deas]

I think it would perfectly fair in some context (specially when he was not on is team anymore) to consider Lemieux and Gretzky some exceptional status in that regard, Gretzky all around and when talking PPG Lemieux for sure as well.

Say 89-90, yes Messier do not lead the league in ppg but:

Points Per Game

1.	Mario Lemieux* • PIT	2.08
2.	Wayne Gretzky* • LAK	1.95
3.	Mark Messier* • EDM	1.63
4.	Steve Yzerman* • DET	1.61
5.	Pat LaFontaine* • NYI	1.42
6.	Bernie Nicholls • 2TM	1.42
7.	Brett Hull* • STL	1.41
8.	Denis Savard* • CHI	1.33
9.	Pierre Turgeon • BUF	1.33
10.	Paul Coffey* • PIT	1.29

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

That above a prime Yzerman, not a bad number 1 (if we remove 99 and 66) in term of all time competition.

This one is more debatable, than the really impressive above but still:
86-87 Points Per Game

1.	Wayne Gretzky* • EDM	2.32
2.	Mario Lemieux* • PIT	1.70
3.	Mark Messier* • EDM	1.39
4.	Jari Kurri* • EDM	1.37
5.	Doug Gilmour* • STL	1.31
6.	Dino Ciccarelli* • MNS	1.29
7.	Denis Savard* • CHI	1.29
8.	Michel Goulet* • QUE	1.28
9.	Tim Kerr • PHI	1.27
10.	Brian Propp • PHI	1.26

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

But he has arguably 2 times leaded the league ppg among the mortals.

True, playing in the same era as the two freaks in a way means automatically dropping two spots. At the same time, they were part of his peers, the competition during his era, so I can't erase them. If I removed them I should do the same with everyone else in the study. Playing in Howe's era automatically dropped his peers down one spot, because they were behind him, but that's just what it was. Also, Messier's two 3rd place finishes aren't devalued by the huge margin up to the first place.

Good point though, it's a factor in a way.

 

[MadLuke]

True, playing in the same era as the two freaks in a way means automatically dropping two spots. At the same time, they were part of his peers, the competition during his era, so I can't erase them. Good point though, it's a factor in a way.

I think when comparing people outside the Big 4 it is close to ok to simply erase them, Messier would be an exception in that regard (when he was playing with one), same for Kurri-Coffey, I have a gut feeling that simply erasing them is a step too much (say post 1991 Gretzky or pre 1987 Lemieux could be going too far with it for sure), but I also have a strong feeling that if we compare Messier to Crosby-Ovechkin, him never finishing 1st in PPG is an unfair way to look at it, except if we consider those 2 would have done it against those 2.

Look at what leading the league in ppg meant during Messier career until 2001:

2000-01	Mario Lemieux*	1.767
1999-00	Jaromir Jagr	1.524
1998-99	Jaromir Jagr	1.568
1997-98	Jaromir Jagr	1.325
1996-97	Mario Lemieux*	1.605
1995-96	Mario Lemieux*	2.300
1994-95	Eric Lindros*	1.522
1993-94	Wayne Gretzky*	1.605
1992-93	Mario Lemieux*	2.667
1991-92	Mario Lemieux*	2.047
1990-91	Wayne Gretzky*	2.090
1989-90	Mario Lemieux*	2.085
1988-89	Mario Lemieux*	2.618
1987-88	Wayne Gretzky*	2.328
1986-87	Wayne Gretzky*	2.317
1985-86	Wayne Gretzky*	2.688
Season	Player	PTS/G
1984-85	Wayne Gretzky*	2.600
1983-84	Wayne Gretzky*	2.770
1982-83	Wayne Gretzky*	2.450
1981-82	Wayne Gretzky*	2.650
1980-81	Wayne Gretzky*	2.050
1979-80	Wayne Gretzky*	1.734

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The first time it was possible was 94-95, he was already 34 years old (which is really old for ppg affair, Crosby last one he was 27, Jagr last one he was 27 has well) and he had to beat a peak Lindros/prime Jagr after that it was a fully peak Jagr to beat for an 37 year's old, that is not realistic to take it against him to not have win a PPG title during that era.

Arguably no one outside Howe has much of a shoot getting one in there. It is not like he was losing to Todd Bertuzzi during is peak year's.

 

[Boxscore]

It's not as if those other players don't have intangibles either.

They do--just not Messier's package of intangibles--which is like Top-5 all-time IMO.

Let's also remember that Messier couldn't play like Messier in today's era.

Not sure if I want to go there, because then we can easily say that Crosby and McDavid couldn't play like themselves in the violent, physical and clutch-and-grab era of the 80's and 90's. If those guys could adapt their games, so could Messier. Look at Matthew Tkachuk--he's highly effective today and he's nowhere near the talent level Messier was at.

 

[BudBundy]

Messier is absolutely not over-rated. If you started watching hockey in 1997, I can understand why you might feel that way, but it doesn’t make it accurate.

For you younger gentlemen: Imagine Nathan MacKinnon played a game similar to Tom Wilson. So you’ve got a guy that isn’t going to win the scoring title, not while Connor McDavid is around, but he’s always near the top. He’s not going to win the Rocket Richard Trophy with Ovie, Matthews, McDavid, Draisaitl and Pasternak around, but he’s always near the top. And he’s seldom going to play all 82 games because he plays a punishing style. But imagine a guy who does all that, is one of the best skaters in the league, is strong as an ox, is an incredible penalty killer, is beloved by teammates, and he is an absolute menace who legitimately intimidated people. That’s what Messier was.
He was an absolute son of a bitch who could beat you with skill or with force on any given night. There has been very few players like him. Given how savage the era was, compared to today, there might never be another one.

 

[scott clam]

They do--just not Messier's package of intangibles--which is like Top-5 all-time IMO.



Not sure if I want to go there, because then we can easily say that Crosby and McDavid couldn't play like themselves in the violent, physical and clutch-and-grab era of the 80's and 90's. If those guys could adapt their games, so could Messier. Look at Matthew Tkachuk--he's highly effective today and he's nowhere near the talent level Messier was at.

Players like Crosby and McDavid would be allowed more creativity in '80s NHL. McDavid in particular would exploit that era with his insane skating ability.

Ovechkin is even more of a physical powerhouse than Messier, so he would fit in perfectly. Not to say Ovie would ever play as dirty, but who knows.

None of this is a knock on Messier: his skillset and physicality would easily allow him to excel in any era.

 

[Deas]

I think when comparing people outside the Big 4 it is close to ok to simply erase them, Messier would be an exception in that regard (when he was playing with one), same for Kurri-Coffey, I have a gut feeling that simply erasing them is a step too much (say post 1991 Gretzky or pre 1987 Lemieux could be going too far with it for sure), but I also have a strong feeling that if we compare Messier to Crosby-Ovechkin, him never finishing 1st in PPG is an unfair way to look at it, except if we consider those 2 would have done it against those 2.

Look at what leading the league in ppg meant during Messier career until 2001:

2000-01	Mario Lemieux*	1.767
1999-00	Jaromir Jagr	1.524
1998-99	Jaromir Jagr	1.568
1997-98	Jaromir Jagr	1.325
1996-97	Mario Lemieux*	1.605
1995-96	Mario Lemieux*	2.300
1994-95	Eric Lindros*	1.522
1993-94	Wayne Gretzky*	1.605
1992-93	Mario Lemieux*	2.667
1991-92	Mario Lemieux*	2.047
1990-91	Wayne Gretzky*	2.090
1989-90	Mario Lemieux*	2.085
1988-89	Mario Lemieux*	2.618
1987-88	Wayne Gretzky*	2.328
1986-87	Wayne Gretzky*	2.317
1985-86	Wayne Gretzky*	2.688
Season	Player	PTS/G
1984-85	Wayne Gretzky*	2.600
1983-84	Wayne Gretzky*	2.770
1982-83	Wayne Gretzky*	2.450
1981-82	Wayne Gretzky*	2.650
1980-81	Wayne Gretzky*	2.050
1979-80	Wayne Gretzky*	1.734

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The first time it was possible was 94-95, he was already 34 years old (which is really old for ppg affair, Crosby last one he was 27, Jagr last one he was 27 has well) and he had to beat a peak Lindros/prime Jagr after that it was a fully peak Jagr to beat for an 37 year's old, that is not realistic to take it against him to not have win a PPG title during that era.

Arguably no one outside Howe has much of a shoot getting one in there. It is not like he was losing to Todd Bertuzzi during is peak year's.

My counter would just become repetitive from my last post I think. Deciding what era was best is tricky (though some individual outliers are obvious of course, such as the "two freaks."), so I do prefer comparing players to their peers. The coming years 1st place for anyone but McDavid will be very tough, but yes, finishing 1st is tough, and someone being a lot more productive than you is not a reason to say "I'm really the best producer it's just bad luck this guy during my era is way better." And there aren't many cases of a not very good player getting 1st place. You bring up Bertuzzi as an example of a potential downside of this approach of ranking player's production, but he can be used the other way around too, as he really is the only very unexpected name among the 1st place finishes. Given his results throughout his career he "shouldn't" be up there, but very likely he wouldn't have if not for injuries to Lemieux and Forsberg.

At the same time I don't have much of a "counter." I do agree it's a relevant point, as mentioned. I guess I just think it's a less strong point than you do.

 

[The Panther]

PPG finishes in top ten:

Oates
3 times @ 2, 3, 5
Stastny
6 times @ 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8
Yzerman
7 times @ 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9
Sakic
9 times @ 2, 3, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 8
Messier
9 times @ 3, 3, 7, 7, 7, 8, 10, 10, 10

So, first of all, Mess has as many or more top-10 scoring seasons than all these guys. He has more than Yzerman easily, and trounces Adam Oates.

All of these guys competed against Gretzky and/or Lemieux in scoring (a little less so Sakic later in his career), so we don't need to adjust or re-interpret finishes. That said, both of Mess's 3rd-place finishes were behind prime Gretzky and Lemieux. Removing Wayne and Mario, the scoring titles go:
0 Sakic
1 Oates
1 Stastny
1 Yzerman
2 Messier

Now, I realize there's some context here -- Maybe, in a non-Lemieux world, Sakic takes an Art Ross in 2001 since Jagr wouldn't have been fired up by Mario's return, and maybe in a non-Gretzky world Messier doesn't finish 1st in 1987. But the point is, if someone's trying to diminish Messier's scoring totals, you also have to dismiss Yzerman, Sakic, Stastny, Oates... so, besides Jagr, who are we left with?

 

[MadLuke]

PPG finishes in top ten:

I think all the time (excluding this season), ppg top 10:

G. Howe*	20
W. Gretzky*	16
J. Beliveau*	13
B. Hull*	12
S. Crosby	12
M. Lemieux*	12
M. Richard*	12
C. Denneny*	12
E. Malkin	10
S. Mikita*	10
J. Sakic*	9
J. Jagr	9
M. Messier*	9
M. Dionne*	9
P. Esposito*	9
A. Bathgate*	9
B. Geoffrion*	9
T. Lindsay*	9
N. Stewart*	9
A. Joliat*	9
A. Ovechkin	8
P. Forsberg*	8
E. Lindros*	8
M. Bossy*	8
A. Delvecchio*	8
H. Richard*	8
H. Morenz*	8

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[scott clam]

Here is how Messier and Yzerman's offense actually stack up between 1982/83 and 1996/97(Messier's first and last top 10 p/pg season)

Player	GP	G	A	P	P/GP
Messier	1047	490	878	1368	1.31
Yzerman	1023	539	801	1340	1.31

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Of course this is effectively Messier's prime(I guess ppl can call 81/82 the beginning of Mess's prime if they want), whereas Yzerman didn't even play until the second year in this span. Yzerman also has some good years left after this- including a Top 10 Scoring Finish/Selke season.

Aside from the identical p/pg, what strikes me the most about this chart is how close they are in games played: despite Yzerman not playing an entire season due to his age.

 

[Sadekuuro]

Here is how Messier and Yzerman's offense actually stack up between 1982/83 and 1996/97(Messier's first and last top 10 p/pg season)

Player	GP	G	A	P	P/GP
Messier	1047	490	801	1368	1.31
Yzerman	1023	539	878	1340	1.31

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Of course this is effectively Messier's prime(I guess ppl can call 81/82 the beginning of Mess's prime if they want), whereas Yzerman didn't even play until the second year in this span. Yzerman also has some good years left after this- including a Top 10 Scoring Finish/Selke season.

Aside from the identical p/pg, what strikes me the most about this chart is how close they are in games played: despite Yzerman not playing an entire season due to his age.

If those are the right G/A totals, 490+801 = 1291 (not 1368) and 539+878 = 1417 (not 1340)

 

[scott clam]

If those are the right G/A totals, 490+801 = 1291 (not 1368) and 539+878 = 1417 (not 1340)

oops, I mixed up Messier's and Yzerman's assists.

update: Fixed!

 

[zar]

Put a lie detector on any Flames/Canucks player and fan... ask them if 1981-1991 Messier is over rated. Then go to all of the Devil/Islander players/fans of the 1990s. Then go ask all of the Oiler/Ranger players/fans. Then all of the Team Canada fans/players of the 1980s/early 90s... and all of the Russian fans/players.

You will then have your answer... NO!

Messier was much more than his point totals. He was a leader, offensively gifted, great shot, excellent skater, very good defensively, excellent on draws, strong, mean, tough and intimidating.

 

[Sinistril]

Top 20-40 forward of all time. His leadership is the most overrated lie to ever exist in hockey. Leaders do not act like he did. There was a reason he was the teacher's pet of the biggest bully ever to coach professional hockey. It's ironic in the Iron Mike thread someone mentioned Brett Hull being stripped of his Captaincy by Keenan for standing up for his teammate. Why did the greatest leader of all time never lose his captaincy under Keenan? Because he never stood up for his teammates under Keenan.

That said, he was relatively consistent as a elite forward. Certainly not the most offensively gifted (we could name 5+ in any given era) nor the most defensively gifted (likewise). Nor was he the best all around player in any given era. But he was relatively well rounded, which helps his stock. But really... once you stop buying the leadership/intangibles BS, there is just a wealth of players that were objectively better. Feels like he's a slightly more offensively gifted, slightly less defensively gifted version of Toews.

What is left to discuss? Longevity? Ok. But do you really take him over players that did not play as much due to injury like Lindros, Bossy, or Foppa, etc? No way.

 

[The Panther]

Top 20-40 forward of all time. His leadership is the most overrated lie to ever exist in hockey. Leaders do not act like he did. There was a reason he was the teacher's pet of the biggest bully ever to coach professional hockey. It's ironic in the Iron Mike thread someone mentioned Brett Hull being stripped of his Captaincy by Keenan for standing up for his teammate. Why did the greatest leader of all time never lose his captaincy under Keenan? Because he never stood up for his teammates under Keenan.

1) Messier played under Keenan for 2.5 seasons out of 25 in his career, including only one season (barely) in his prime.
2) While Messier played under Keenan, he led a players' mutiny against Keenan during the playoffs.
3) Messier's teams defeated Keenan twice in the Finals.

Nor was he the best all around player in any given era.

Yep, I'll bite -- who was a better all-around player from 1984 to 1992?

But really... once you stop buying the leadership/intangibles BS...

Nobody here who rates Messier highly is doing so because of "leadership / intangibles BS". We do so because of what he accomplished on the ice. What we watched him do.

But do you really take him over players that did not play as much due to injury like Lindros, Bossy, or Foppa, etc?

I guess only if you want those Stanley Cup thingies.

 

[scott clam]

What is left to discuss? Longevity? Ok. But do you really take him over players that did not play as much due to injury like Lindros, Bossy, or Foppa, etc? No way.

I guess only if you want those Stanley Cup thingies

To be fair, Bossy isn't exactly lacking in the rings department...

 

[Big Phil]

Messier is one of those players who has gotten flack in hindsight. People forget that there were few more complete players in NHL history. Name one situation where you don't want Messier on the ice. Because I can't think of one. Even the people criticizing Messier would cut their left arm off to have him on their team. There might be 20, maybe, maybe 25 players better than him at the very most in the history of the NHL.

 

[Boxscore]

Messier is one of those players who has gotten flack in hindsight. People forget that there were few more complete players in NHL history. Name one situation where you don't want Messier on the ice. Because I can't think of one. Even the people criticizing Messier would cut their left arm off to have him on their team. There might be 20, maybe, maybe 25 players better than him at the very most in the history of the NHL.

Exactly. And, IMO, this is even if you don't put credence into intangibles, leadership, physical intimidation, etc. If I'm starting a franchise from scratch and all players are 18 years old and will spend their prime on my team--I don't even think I can name 20 that I'd rather have than Messier in the history of the game.

Top line, elite centerman: CHECK
Ability to shift to wing: CHECK
Great leader and captain material: CHECK
Excels in all special team scenarios: CHECK
Ability to be on the ice to protect a lead: CHECK
Good in the faceoff dot: CHECK
Offensively gifted; able to score above a PPG in most seasons: CHECK
Physically intimidating: CHECK
Ability to pass and shoot equally well: CHECK
Hard to play against: CHECK
Winner and champion: CHECK
Durable: CHECK
Clutch: CHECK

Outside of the immortal Mount Rushmore and a couple of mega elite D, there's an argument to be made that Messier should be atop the next tier of player you select. Messier is in my Top-10 because I value those intangibles and want a full meal centerman like him to lead my club. Granted, personal preference will always come into play.

 

[86Habs]

Messier is more underrated than overrated. I never liked the indiscriminate violence that he inflicted on his opponents from time to time through his career (completely unnecessary, imo), but certainly one of the top five players I've seen play the game in my lifetime.

 

[Big Phil]

Exactly. And, IMO, this is even if you don't put credence into intangibles, leadership, physical intimidation, etc. If I'm starting a franchise from scratch and all players are 18 years old and will spend their prime on my team--I don't even think I can name 20 that I'd rather have than Messier in the history of the game.

Top line, elite centerman: CHECK
Ability to shift to wing: CHECK
Great leader and captain material: CHECK
Excels in all special team scenarios: CHECK
Ability to be on the ice to protect a lead: CHECK
Good in the faceoff dot: CHECK
Offensively gifted; able to score above a PPG in most seasons: CHECK
Physically intimidating: CHECK
Ability to pass and shoot equally well: CHECK
Hard to play against: CHECK
Winner and champion: CHECK
Durable: CHECK
Clutch: CHECK

Outside of the immortal Mount Rushmore and a couple of mega elite D, there's an argument to be made that Messier should be atop the next tier of player you select. Messier is in my Top-10 because I value those intangibles and want a full meal centerman like him to lead my club. Granted, personal preference will always come into play.

Yeah I was doing a worst case scenario with 25 players. Heck, even 20. You could argue he should probably be no worse than 15th all-time. The place he fits among centres is among the Mikita/Esposito level. He's ahead of Sakic and Yzerman as far as I am concerned. Ahead of Trottier too. Heck, probably even ahead of Espo and Mikita. If I knew what I was getting with him over a career I'd pick him over anyone I named.