Messier Vs Yzerman

pdd

Registered User
Feb 7, 2010
5,572
4
Great thread, although one small point:

There's really zero chance that Messier gets the Hart in 1996 if Lemieux didn't play that year, IMO.

Jagr or Sakic likely would've won the scoring title and would have been the front-runners. Or maybe Lindros. I dunno, it was a little weird that Messier was #2 in Hart voting that year as it was.

This is exactly the kind of phenomenon I believe could have caused Yzerman to end up with the 1988 1st team selection and/or the 1991 2nd team selection in a no Gretz/Lemieux league. He actually DID end up 4th in Hart voting in 1987, AHEAD of Savard (who was 3rd in C voting), and was just a shade behind Sakic (who would have been 2nd without Gretz and Lemieux in 1991). It's admittedly a bit of supposition, but different voters vote the way they do for different reasons.

Oftentimes the runner-up to the Hart is a weird pick, but that doesn't mean they would've definitely won if the first-place guy had never existed. Would Rod Langway really have snagged the Hart in 1982 if Gretzky hadn't existed? No, it probably would have gone to Mike Bossy posting the second-highest point total of all time. Same goes for Mike Liut in 1981. Etc.

Liut almost beat Gretzky, and Dionne was third with only 24 points. Of 27 voters, I can account for 15 third-place votes definitively by point totals listed in the awards thread (from guys with totals that don't divide by 5 or 3) including at least 2 for Gretzky and 1 for Liut. He takes it home if Gretz isn't around, it's just that a split vote between Dionne and Bossy would have been much closer to him (remember, Bossy was actually 4th in Hart voting - with Trottier 5th and Potvin 9th).

Not taking away anything from Messier--I think I'd probably vote for him in this poll--but that 1996 season seems a tad overrated.

A little bit. As I said before, I rank six or seven centers above him in performance that season (I still put him among my top ten forwards; that season is one of the more center-heavy years in recent memory.)

I think you're getting hung up on 1984 (particularly since all of Trottier's offense was from one game...), when he was credited with stopping Trottier in 1983 as well. Whereas with or without Yzerman in the lineup, Gretzky was putting a real hurt on the Red Wings in 1988.

The Wings had to rely on a battery of John Chabot and Shawn Burr to do Yzerman's defensive work. While they were decent, they weren't Yzerman in ANY zone.

That seems like an odd jump to a conclusion. Coffey credits Messier for demythicizing the Islanders' superiority in the 1984 Finals after bowling over Denis Potvin.

I was speaking with regards to the comment about "talking to make noise." That sounds almost like a veiled stab at Messier. I wonder if Coffey and Messier were on bad terms when PC left Edmonton, or if that perhaps spurred the initial trade? Remember, Messier was also shopped before Coffey was traded, but not again until he himself was traded.

of course. but my point was that messier's game was so defined by his physicality that, like scott stevens, it becomes almost impossible to talk about his defensive play without focusing on the physicality. all i'm saying is that it seems like jumping to conclusions to assume that writers discussing messier's defensive play were confusing physicality with defensive ability, as you suggest.

Many do confuse defense and physical play. While physical play can be an effective form of defense, that does not mean a physical player is effective defensively. People have started to realize this over the years, but we still see lapses in judgement (Rob Blake in 1998, Dion Phaneuf in 2008, Sheldon Souray and Kevin Bieksa being considered good defensively at any point in their careers, etc.)

i don't think i suggested that yzerman did or did not shut down gretzky. all i was saying is that the same team did just as well the next year, which might suggest that it was as much demers' coaching as yzerman's stellar play. i don't doubt that yzerman was great. whether it was messier in '84 great... well if it was, that's conn smythe great.

If Yzerman had enough support to top Edmonton in that 1987, he likely would have won the Smythe that year. He was scoring at a higher rate than any Flyer forward and had shut down Gretzky; that would have earned him the Smythe barring a complete collapse by Yzerman individually in the Finals. It was a Smythe-level performance on a non-Finals team.

we would do well to notice that outside of one single game where the islanders won, trottier scores one point in four oilers wins. that's a LOT lower than his playoff average. which is to say, you need four games to win a playoff series. messier neutralized trottier four times out of five.

Again with the ignoring Trottier's playoff average against other teams that season. He scored MORE per-game against Edmonton that year than in other playoff series. Despite Messier "shutting him down".

right. the point is, if the team can add john chabot to fill yzerman's role and not miss a beat... well you connect the dots. john chabot, for the record, played his entire relatively brief career in the 80s and never scored more than 60 points in any season.
chabot was capable of filling Yzerman's defensive role to finish out the season. Also, Oates had missed 17 games that year and scored 19 points in the 15 games he played without Yzerman; that's compared to 35 in 48 before the injury. A young center about to break out and become an elite center taking advantage of a severe injury to Yzerman to show his wares... sound familiar? Except Oates wasn't quite "there" yet, it would take another year or two. Fedorov could probably have hit that 1994 level a year earlier given the chance.

oates, klima, probert, they were all there in '87 too.
Ok, and I'll refer you to the 2008 and 2009 Finals, or the 1983 and 1984 Finals. The team remained almost identical in roster (Hossa was actually on the other side in 2009, which should have made it more lopsided) yet the result was that the team which proved significantly better the first year was not the winner in the second year. In the two Det/Edm series, it was similar except instead of one team being better, it was a matter of closeness. Detroit was very close to Edmonton all series in 1987 and wasn't close in 1988. Far enough away that an injured Yzerman came to play for three games and scored 4 points. Which should illustrate how important he was to the team.

i can buy that. i mean, not that yzerman in '93 was as great as lafontaine, gilmour, or oates, but i can buy that he was starting to become underrated after fedorov came onto the scene. classic what you have done for me lately syndrome.

"best hockey player hardly anyone has heard of" is a little much though, considering that his face was on the upper deck box alongside gretzky, messier, and hull.

but all of this is okay. we all acknowledge that yzerman was a phenomenal player. and i acknowledge that his '93 season was excellent. but the suggestion several pages back that he should have been the second team all-star center would have seemed ridiculous at the time, and seems ridiculous in retrospect.

What's so ridiculous about it? LaFontaine didn't have a defensive game to speak of. Yzerman's defensive game was noticeably better than that of Oates. He outscored Gilmour by ten points while putting up 26 more goals. Gilmour was the only other "all-around" center anywhere among the scoring leaders, and it's difficult to justify leaping him over LaFontaine or Oates. Yzerman was close enough to them in points (and better in goals, with worse linemates) that his defensive game can legitimately be argued as a "jumper" reason.

i mean, the guy had a scorching hot end to the season, played in an original six market that was newly reinvigorated, was the captain of a marquee first place team. seems like if he was really as good as those other three centers (and yeah, maybe in most years stevie's '93 season would be a second team all-star year in many other years, but '93 was a very very special season for four other centers), all the pieces were in place for him to take that second team all-star spot. it's not like he was playing on a last place team in hartford.

LaFontaine played on a highly touted line with 76-goal Mogilny. And he had Andreychuk for half the year (before Gilmour got him). Oates played in Boston, which gets infinitely more media attention than Detroit did at the time.

I take Sakic over Yzerman, let alone Messier.

And this is what's wrong with HF. People remember post-2000 Yzerman and Sakic, but not the 90s of either or 80s Yzerman. They look at 80s Yzerman and think "yeah but high scoring..." and then think about the idea that he changed his game to become a better defensive player (which means to many people that he was Pavel Bure at center until 1994, when he suddenly became Guy Carbonneau to those people). The idea that a top scorer who is alo good defensively can get BETTER defensively is apparently unheard of. Unless you're Sidney Crosby, in which case wanting to be better defensively makes you a Selke candidate in some fans' eyes, regardless of ACTUAL defensive performance or responsibilities (or being on the ice).
 

toob

Registered User
Dec 31, 2010
746
2
I think you're getting hung up on 1984 (particularly since all of Trottier's offense was from one game...), when he was credited with stopping Trottier in 1983 as well. Whereas with or without Yzerman in the lineup, Gretzky was putting a real hurt on the Red Wings in 1988.

Well im focusing on 84 (also he had points in games 2/3) because until now the only example bought up was 84 and this is all stemming from my discussion with Hockey Outsider. Never heard of the 83 shut down job though, do you have any links?

of course. but my point was that messier's game was so defined by his physicality that, like scott stevens, it becomes almost impossible to talk about his defensive play without focusing on the physicality. all i'm saying is that it seems like jumping to conclusions to assume that writers discussing messier's defensive play were confusing physicality with defensive ability, as you suggest.

I wasnt suggesting that though. The writers in question actually werent discussing Messier's defensive game. They were discussing his physical game explicitly. I felt that Hockey Outsider was using quotes based on this notion of completeness to mean more (e.g. specifically defensive play) than it was actually stating (physical play and playmaking). The one anecdote that specifically discussed Messier's D was the Trottier 84 one (which i acknowledged too).

i don't think i suggested that yzerman did or did not shut down gretzky. all i was saying is that the same team did just as well the next year, which might suggest that it was as much demers' coaching as yzerman's stellar play. i don't doubt that yzerman was great. whether it was messier in '84 great... well if it was, that's conn smythe great.

The 88 series doesnt seem to be nearly as low scoring as the 87 series and Gretzky scored a lot more. I dont doubt Demers coaching was huge in 87. It takes more than stopping 1 player to have 4 close games against the best defensive team. IMO individualistic declarations in the media like "Messier shut down Trottier"/"Yzerman shut down Gretzky" are made for exaggerated effect even if they are based in reality.

In 88 during the Edmonton series there was the Goose Loonies incident that is pointed to (fairly or unfairly) as the point when Demers lost credibility with the team..

right. the point is, if the team can add john chabot to fill yzerman's role and not miss a beat... well you connect the dots. john chabot, for the record, played his entire relatively brief career in the 80s and never scored more than 60 points in any season.

oates, klima, probert, they were all there in '87 too.

i think you attributed this quote to the wrong person

i can buy that. i mean, not that yzerman in '93 was as great as lafontaine, gilmour, or oates, but i can buy that he was starting to become underrated after fedorov came onto the scene. classic what you have done for me lately syndrome.

"best hockey player hardly anyone has heard of" is a little much though, considering that his face was on the upper deck box alongside gretzky, messier, and hull.

but all of this is okay. we all acknowledge that yzerman was a phenomenal player. and i acknowledge that his '93 season was excellent. but the suggestion several pages back that he should have been the second team all-star center would have seemed ridiculous at the time, and seems ridiculous in retrospect. i mean, the guy had a scorching hot end to the season, played in an original six market that was newly reinvigorated, was the captain of a marquee first place team. seems like if he was really as good as those other three centers (and yeah, maybe in most years stevie's '93 season would be a second team all-star year in many other years, but '93 was a very very special season for four other centers), all the pieces were in place for him to take that second team all-star spot. it's not like he was playing on a last place team in hartford.

So again at least IMO the years by Lafontaine/Oates/Gilmour seem to be absurdly great and may very well have been more deserving of accolades than Yzerman's. I dont see Messier's 90/92/96 trumping any of them either though. :D

The Wings had to rely on a battery of John Chabot and Shawn Burr to do Yzerman's defensive work. While they were decent, they weren't Yzerman in ANY zone.

Ive had this discussion with you before but you are underrating Burr. Even in the mid 90s the guy was an very good checker and from all ive read he was just that before.
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
Well im focusing on 84 (also he had points in games 2/3) because until now the only example bought up was 84 and this is all stemming from my discussion with Hockey Outsider. Never heard of the 83 shut down job though, do you have any links?

You mean the one Hockey Outsider talked about several days ago that you quoted and responded to with the Yzerman scouting report?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=56559391&postcount=38
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,987
Perhaps the quotes I selected initially focused too much on Messier's physicality, and not enough on his defensive skills. Here are some quotes (plundered from Seventieslord's Messier ATD biography):

"despite age, is strong defensively, a good penalty killer and checker of opposition's best pivot" - The Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1982

"pound for pound, one of hockey's best all-around players... big, strong, fast... excels on offense as well as defensively... one of the best at winning faceoffs..." - The Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1986

"he has applied more and more of his considerable skill to checking and his defensive chores (he is an excellent defensive forward, coing back very deeply into the Oilers' one with his check)" - Hockey Scouting Report 1986-87

"defensively he is unparalleled, simply skating over the opposing center almost without exception. He backchecks excellently and is aided by his play reading ability and hockey sense... a powerful and mature leader... loves challenges and loves to respond to them... The best two-way player in the game, better than Bryan Trottier in his prime because of superior strength and speed." - Hockey Scouting Report 1987-88

"Considered by many to be hockey's most complete player..." - The Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1988

"Messier, fast, powerful and physical, was a perfect two-way player, able to excel at both ends of the ice. " - loh.net

"If there is a better two-way player, leader, grinder, and generally bad dude anywhere in hockey, he has yet to make himself known." - Hockey Almanac 1993-94

"his once-dominant, two-way game has left him, making him more of a PP specialist these days." - McKeen's Hockey Pool Guide 2001-02

"By the stretch run, he was taking most of the key faceoffs and shouldering a lot of the penalty killing chores. " - Jeff Z. Klein: Messier: The Unauthorized Biography

"he can do it all... excellent penalty killer, good checker..." - The Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1983

"solid all-around player who's also an excellent penalty killer." - The Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1984

Again, there's been some good evidence that Yzerman was solid defensively early in his career, but I don't think that his defensive play has been praised as profusely or as consistently as Messier's. My position remains that although Yzerman was better offensively in his prime (about 20% better based on my calculations), Messier offsets most of his offensive disadvantage through his defensive play and other intangibles.

====

I think my usage of of the best defensive forward and best penalty killer polls was unclear. I didn't intend to use Messier's slim advantage over Yzerman as proof that the Moose was better defensively; what I intended to show was that neither of them was considered elite defensively. You have to be more than average (Yzerman) or very good (Messier) to consistently earn Selke votes, which neither of them did during their primes.

Similarly, I didn't intend to use the player/coaches poll to show that Messier was superior defensively. The fact that both players had very few votes indicates that neither was elite defensively (i.e. as good as someone like Carbonneau). The other evidence I've presented shows that Messier, although not Selke-calibre or "best defensive forward" calibre, was still ahead of Yzerman.

Yzerman's apparent ability to shut down Gretzky in the 1987 playoffs is absolutely a point in his favour (unless there's some evidence to the contrary, but none has been presented).

Some asked why Messier should get credit for shutting down Trottier in the playoffs when #19 scored more against the Oilers than any other team. There are a few possibilities:

1. According to a Sports Illustrated article, "Arbour also split up usually inseparable linemates Bossy and Trottier in order to spur them into productivity" - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1122041/2/index.htm. Trottier appears to have been reunited with his usual linemates in the Stanley Cup finals, when Bossy and/or Gillies scored/assisted on three of his four points in the series.

2. Trottier was likely injured for the first part of the playoffs. He scored just 1 point in the first 6 games. Although I don't have evidence that he was injured, I find it unlikely that a playoff warrior like Trottier would score so little without fighting some type of injury.

3. Outside of one game (where Fuhr allowed 6 goals on 26 shots), Trottier was completely invisible in the finals, with 1 assist in the other four games. After getting out of that nasty six game skid to start the postseason, Trottier was remarkably consistent, scoring at least 1 point in 9 out of 10 games.

Even though Trottier statistically did as well in the SCF as he did in previous rounds, that's actually a testament to Messier's shut-down capabilities given than Trottier was (likely) injured at the start of the playoffs, had much better linemates in the SCF than he did earlier, and was far less consistent.
 
Last edited:

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
"defensively he is unparalleled, simply skating over the opposing center almost without exception. He backchecks excellently and is aided by his play reading ability and hockey sense... a powerful and mature leader... loves challenges and loves to respond to them... The best two-way player in the game, better than Bryan Trottier in his prime because of superior strength and speed." - Hockey Scouting Report 1987-88

Bolded is a perfect description of Messier.
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
I don't even think it's worth arguing.Messier is clearly the best.
 
Last edited:

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,585
15,948
W
I wasnt suggesting that though. The writers in question actually werent discussing Messier's defensive game. They were discussing his physical game explicitly. I felt that Hockey Outsider was using quotes based on this notion of completeness to mean more (e.g. specifically defensive play) than it was actually stating (physical play and playmaking). The one anecdote that specifically discussed Messier's D was the Trottier 84 one (which i acknowledged too).

i thought you were referring to the messier quotes i'd linked from seventieslord's ATD profile, which hockey outsider has now reposted above. my mistake.



i think you attributed this quote to the wrong person

oops, sorry about that. cut/paste error. that was EU0's quote. trust me, i (and i assume everyone else) can certainly tell the difference between your and his comments.
 

pdd

Registered User
Feb 7, 2010
5,572
4
My position remains that although Yzerman was better offensively in his prime (about 20% better based on my calculations), Messier offsets most of his offensive disadvantage through his defensive play and other intangibles.

Toews vs Stamkos, who's your pick?

[/quote]
Some asked why Messier should get credit for shutting down Trottier in the playoffs when #19 scored more against the Oilers than any other team. There are a few possibilities:

1. According to a Sports Illustrated article, "Arbour also split up usually inseparable linemates Bossy and Trottier in order to spur them into productivity" - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1122041/2/index.htm. Trottier appears to have been reunited with his usual linemates in the Stanley Cup finals, when Bossy and/or Gillies scored/assisted on three of his four points in the series.
[/quote]

Bossy scored 8 goals in 16 games before the Finals and none in the Finals. Hardly Bossy-like numbers. And with no goals in the finals, it's hard to argue that he was a factor in Trottier's offensive increase as anything more than "he happened to be on the ice". Which, given the decription of Messier's checking on Trottier, and the way Messier generally played defense best over the course of his career (aggressive as opposed to passive), would stand to suggest that Trottier's improvement was in spite of his linemates, not because of them.

2. Trottier was likely injured for the first part of the playoffs. He scored just 1 point in the first 6 games. Although I don't have evidence that he was injured, I find it unlikely that a playoff warrior like Trottier would score so little without fighting some type of injury.

Now explain Bossy.

3. Outside of one game (where Fuhr allowed 6 goals on 26 shots), Trottier was completely invisible in the finals, with 1 assist in the other four games. After getting out of that nasty six game skid to start the postseason, Trottier was remarkably consistent, scoring at least 1 point in 9 out of 10 games.

Even though Trottier statistically did as well in the SCF as he did in previous rounds, that's actually a testament to Messier's shut-down capabilities given than Trottier was (likely) injured at the start of the playoffs, had much better linemates in the SCF than he did earlier, and was far less consistent.

As I stated earlier; If your linemates aren't performing, are they "much better" than less talented linemates who ARE? A recent example I have had many discussions about is a comparison of slumps between Johan Franzen, Dan Cleary, and Jiri Hudler in 2010-11. Hudler started the year with 1-5-6 in 30 games, and then went 9-22-31 in his next 43. He lost out on PP time, ES time, and was even a healthy scratch in some games because of his slump. He played most of his slump on a line with a terrible match for a center in Mike Modano (who also began the year on a horrible slump), and an injured Dan Cleary (who was generally ineffective offensively until he recovered - making his stats that year that much more impressive). Franzen, OTOH, scored 26 goals in his first 49 games (pace for over 40, obviously) playing mostly with Datsyuk, and with Zetterberg or sometimes Filppula when Datsyuk was out injured - and for a short period where Dats centered Hudler and Cleary and the line scored like Warren Beatty. Franzen finished the year with 2 goals in his last 27 games, and a total of 28 in 76. Cleary finished with 26 in 68 games, and didn't have the linemates, TOI, or number of PP opportunities Franzen had (Franzen had 10 PPG to Cleary's 5). And ironically, Franzen's slump was resonsible for breaking up the Hudler/Dats/Cleary line - Babcock wanted to "get him going" - and it sent Cleary and Hudler to the third and fourth lines and scoring slumps.

But my point over this rant is this: Most Wings fans would say Franzen is and has been the best player of those three. From 2/4/11 to the end of that season he was not better than Hudler or Cleary. So the "better player" wasn't better. And that's a much larger time frame. Before you go all "but the playoffs are different!" I can use Franzen and Hudler again in the 2012 playoffs. Hudler was the only Wings forward aside from Zetterberg and Datsyuk doing ANYTHING offensively against the Preds, and Hudler was the only Wings player to score a goal in the last two games of the series. Franzen? He put the Wings up 3-1 in the second period of Game 2. That's his only point of the series.
 

toob

Registered User
Dec 31, 2010
746
2
You mean the one Hockey Outsider talked about several days ago that you quoted and responded to with the Yzerman scouting report?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=56559391&postcount=38

Gotchya. I was assuming the quote was about 84 because that is the well known year when Messier won his Conn Smythe. The 84 quote is: "Messier and defensive specialist Kevin McLelland did a superb job of shutting down Islander star Bryan Trottier in the Cup finals." Though the 83 series seems to be the least impressive as Messier scored only 1 goal, whereas in 84 he contributed offensively (and Yzerman in 87 also contributed offensively).

Perhaps the quotes I selected initially focused too much on Messier's physicality, and not enough on his defensive skills. Here are some quotes (plundered from Seventieslord's Messier ATD biography):

"despite age, is strong defensively, a good penalty killer and checker of opposition's best pivot" - The Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1982

"pound for pound, one of hockey's best all-around players... big, strong, fast... excels on offense as well as defensively... one of the best at winning faceoffs..." - The Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1986

"he has applied more and more of his considerable skill to checking and his defensive chores (he is an excellent defensive forward, coing back very deeply into the Oilers' one with his check)" - Hockey Scouting Report 1986-87

"defensively he is unparalleled, simply skating over the opposing center almost without exception. He backchecks excellently and is aided by his play reading ability and hockey sense... a powerful and mature leader... loves challenges and loves to respond to them... The best two-way player in the game, better than Bryan Trottier in his prime because of superior strength and speed." - Hockey Scouting Report 1987-88

"Considered by many to be hockey's most complete player..." - The Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1988

"Messier, fast, powerful and physical, was a perfect two-way player, able to excel at both ends of the ice. " - loh.net

"If there is a better two-way player, leader, grinder, and generally bad dude anywhere in hockey, he has yet to make himself known." - Hockey Almanac 1993-94

"his once-dominant, two-way game has left him, making him more of a PP specialist these days." - McKeen's Hockey Pool Guide 2001-02

"By the stretch run, he was taking most of the key faceoffs and shouldering a lot of the penalty killing chores. " - Jeff Z. Klein: Messier: The Unauthorized Biography

"he can do it all... excellent penalty killer, good checker..." - The Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1983

"solid all-around player who's also an excellent penalty killer." - The Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1984

Again, there's been some good evidence that Yzerman was solid defensively early in his career, but I don't think that his defensive play has been praised as profusely or as consistently as Messier's. My position remains that although Yzerman was better offensively in his prime (about 20% better based on my calculations), Messier offsets most of his offensive disadvantage through his defensive play and other intangibles.

====

I think my usage of of the best defensive forward and best penalty killer polls was unclear. I didn't intend to use Messier's slim advantage over Yzerman as proof that the Moose was better defensively; what I intended to show was that neither of them was considered elite defensively. You have to be more than average (Yzerman) or very good (Messier) to consistently earn Selke votes, which neither of them did during their primes.

Similarly, I didn't intend to use the player/coaches poll to show that Messier was superior defensively. The fact that both players had very few votes indicates that neither was elite defensively (i.e. as good as someone like Carbonneau). The other evidence I've presented shows that Messier, although not Selke-calibre or "best defensive forward" calibre, was still ahead of Yzerman.

Thanks for the clarifications and the quotes. These statements are certainly explicitly about D like the ones i provided for Yzerman. Im not sure i would agree that Messier has the degree of defensive adv on Yzerman that you are concluding but i think it is fair to say the praise for Messier is more consistent at least from what has been presented so far. I do think Messier has a significant physical/intimidation advantage and that has to make up for some of the offensive gap.

However i also think the offensive gap is larger than the 20% figure due to the reasons ive mentioned before; linemates until 93, team situation in 91/92/50 games of 93, and i also favor Yzerman's goal scoring which is where the difference is. You are correct to point out that Messier had a similar situation with Gretzky taking offensive ice time but that doesnt seem to be the case after 88 and i think Messier had better linemates even while behind Gretzky. Thus you can guess my opinion is like yours where i give Yzerman the advantage in his prime but by a larger degree. :)

Some asked why Messier should get credit for shutting down Trottier in the playoffs when #19 scored more against the Oilers than any other team. There are a few possibilities:

1. According to a Sports Illustrated article, "Arbour also split up usually inseparable linemates Bossy and Trottier in order to spur them into productivity" - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1122041/2/index.htm. Trottier appears to have been reunited with his usual linemates in the Stanley Cup finals, when Bossy and/or Gillies scored/assisted on three of his four points in the series.

2. Trottier was likely injured for the first part of the playoffs. He scored just 1 point in the first 6 games. Although I don't have evidence that he was injured, I find it unlikely that a playoff warrior like Trottier would score so little without fighting some type of injury.

3. Outside of one game (where Fuhr allowed 6 goals on 26 shots), Trottier was completely invisible in the finals, with 1 assist in the other four games. After getting out of that nasty six game skid to start the postseason, Trottier was remarkably consistent, scoring at least 1 point in 9 out of 10 games.

Even though Trottier statistically did as well in the SCF as he did in previous rounds, that's actually a testament to Messier's shut-down capabilities given than Trottier was (likely) injured at the start of the playoffs, had much better linemates in the SCF than he did earlier, and was far less consistent.

This is pretty convincing. I am inclined to agree that Trottier would likely have been injured early on based on the kind of player he was, and the linemates thing is an important detail.
 
Last edited:

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,987
Toob, I don't think our opinions are too far apart. We both agree that Yzerman had the better prime. I think it's close and you think it's probably not too close, but I see where you're coming from.

I realize that there are more assists than goals, but when we're talking about elite playmakers, I don't "discount" assists very much, if at all. For example, I've argued several times that Sakic > Forsberg despite both players having similar points-per-game (adjusted for age/era) and Sakic being a far superior goal-scorer. What I'm trying to say is I haven't argued that goal-scorers > playmakers in the past (in a situation when doing so clearly would have strengthened my argument), so I'm not being inconsistent by ignoring Yzerman's superior goal-scoring here. You're free to disagree of course, but I'd like to think that I'm consistent.

I agree that Messier played on better teams, even post-Gretzky, but I also think it's possible for excellent players to rack up a lot of points on bad teams when they play a ton of ice time and their team has so few options that any offense must flow through them.


====
If we select Yzerman's best seasons (1988-1994), he outscored Messier by 20%. Stamkos outscored Toews by 41% over the past three seasons - not a meaningful comparison. I've excluded the 2009 campaign, because I don't think that what Stamkos did as an 18 year old rookie is representative of his level of play over the past three seasons.

If we look at points-per-game, Yzerman scored Messier by 17% during those years I mentioned. Stamkos outscored Toews by 24% per game over the past three seasons on a per game basis. It's closer but I still pick Stamkos (note: I also picked Yzerman).

====
Re 1984 Stanley Cup finals. That's exactly my point - even though the Islanders reunited their top line (Trottier, Bossy, Gillies), they were shut down in the SCF.

Fact: we have a written account from 1984 (not a romanticized account written many years later) from an impartial source (as opposed to, say, an article from the Edmonton Journal) specifically stating that Messier (and his linemates) shut down Trottier.

Fact: as you yourself have proven, Bossy was on fire all playoffs until the SCF, when Messier was matched up against the Trio Grande line.

Fact: after his cold streak to start the postseason, Trottier scored in 9 out of the next 10 playoff games heading into the SCF. Outside of one game where Fuhr appears to have played terribly (6 goals on 26 shots), Trottier was limited to one assist in four games.

Perhaps each of these facts could be explained away on their own. But all the evidence, taken as a whole, gives us a consistent story. We know that Messier was matched up against Trottier, we have have clear statistical proof that Trottier (and Bossy too) started scoring far less in the the SCF than in previous rounds, and we have an objective contemporary account specifically stating that Messier shut down Trottier - frankly it's historical revisionism to suggest that Messier didn't do a masterful job of shutting down the most dangerous line in the NHL. It wasn't all Messier of course, but the contemporary accounts & awards voting (see below) gave him the majority of the credit.

It's also worth noting that Messier won the Smythe in 1984. Personally, I would have voted for Gretzky, but it counts for something. (Similarly, I wouldn't have voted for Niedermayer to win the 2007 Smythe, but he clearly played very well and was very highly regarded - even though I would have voted for Pronger). This shows that even though Messier was clearly outproduced offensively, he made up for that with strong defensive play. Messier was rewarded for sacrificing offense (he scored 1.57 ppg, a 129-point pace, heading into the final) for the good of the team (he only scored 3 goals in the SCF, but that's three more goals than Trottier and Bossy combined to score).
 

pdd

Registered User
Feb 7, 2010
5,572
4
I had a thought.

Yzerman played in what I've been calling the "timeshare" system in 1990-91 and 1991-92 as well as the first half (approximately) of 1992-93. Below is my quoted post regarding the 1992-93 numbers.

Fedorov posted 24-27-51 in 45 games before the trade (pace for 45-50-95 on 84 GP) and 10-26-36 in 28 games (pace for 30-78-108) after the trade. His final line was 34-53-87 in 73, pace for 39-61-100 in 84GP.

Yzerman put up 21-43-64 in 31 games after the trade (pace for 57-117-174 in 84, which would win the Ross and assist title) compared to 37-36-73 in 53 (59-57-117 in 84) before the trade.

For completeness, Jimmy Carson posted 26-25-51 in 52 games (pace for 42-40-82 in 84) with Detroit, and 12-10-22 in 34 (pace for 30-25-55 in 84) with LA. So clearly Carson was the big beneficiary of the "timeshare" system - he finished with 38-37-73 in 86 (NHL record for GP!).



Yzerman's per-game change was as such:

x0.97GPG (basically the same, as seen above with 57 vs 59 pro-rated seasons in a year Yzerman actually scored 58 in)
x2.04APG (pretty significant increase, perhaps unsustainable)

Now, what happens if we adjust Yzerman's numbers by those percentages for goals and assists for the previous two seasons?

90-91 49-116-165
91-92 44-118-162

The assist numbers seem outlandish, given where scoring leaders were at. Of course, Paul Coffey had been added when Yzerman got that extra ice time, which provides even more bonus (Coffey put up 30p in 30gp as a Wing that year). So let's scale the change down by 50% to diminish the possible Coffey effect. Now 0.99 and 1.52 are the new numbers.

90-91 50-87-137
91-92 45-88-133

That seems like a reasonable range for Yzerman to have been in with normal first-line duties and ice time, especially given what we saw in other years where he wasn't on the "timeshare" system. For reference, his uninterrupted "non-timeshare" stat line from 87-88 through 93-94

87-88 64GP, 50-52-102 (pace for 63-65-128 on a full 80)
88-89 80GP, 65-90-155
89-90 79GP, 62-65-127
93-94 58GP, 24-58-82 (pace for 35-84-119 in a full 84 games, playing far fewer mins/gp with Coffey)

So if we take all the seasons outside the timeshare and average them, we get 201-265-466 in 281 GP, or 57-75-132 in 80 games. Very close to the estimated 90-91 and 91-92 seasons I listed above. I think it's safe to say that those numbers are probably within 10 points of what would have happened with Yzerman in a "normal" situation. And with Detroit still being fairly thin at forward (the depth started to come in 1993 and 1994) there's a decent chance Yzerman, Lemieux, and Messier toss the votes in the air in 1992; I add Lemieux because if Yzerman were to score that much that year, you'd have the natural three-way argument of "Well, Yzerman's clearly more valuable than Messier because he scored so much. But Lemieux scored as much as Yzerman in 16 fewer games! But I actually WATCHED the games, and trust me, Messier is more valuable than Lemieux."
In 1991 Yzerman might snag the 2nd team selection, depending on how many people valued Oates' PPG, and the value of goals over assists. Unlikely either unseats Gretzky's 163 point season (unless you use my first raw adjustment, where Yzerman wins the Art Ross in 1991 with 116 assists).

So yeah... Bryan Murray kind of tanked Yzerman's chances at winning hardware in his prime. Murray did have the right idea; he built the team around three first-line centers down the middle. The problem is that they were also the team's top three forwards. It's like Pittsburgh a few years back if Staal only played offense, and Crosby was better defensively back then. And the solution was to put Crosby on line 3 and Staal on line 1. That's basically what Murray's solution was. Not to trade Stal for a checking line center and a defenseman, or winger, or something else. Put the star center on line 3. Good job Bryan.
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
I was speaking with regards to the comment about "talking to make noise." That sounds almost like a veiled stab at Messier. I wonder if Coffey and Messier were on bad terms when PC left Edmonton, or if that perhaps spurred the initial trade? Remember, Messier was also shopped before Coffey was traded, but not again until he himself was traded.

Oh, I know what you were talking about, and it's still ridiculous. Coffey has praised Messier enough times in his life that we know none of your speculation is true.


And this is what's wrong with HF. People remember post-2000 Yzerman and Sakic, but not the 90s of either or 80s Yzerman.

And everyone has crystal clear memory of Mark Messier? Two people (including yourself) were claiming that he was Gretzky's left-wing in his three All-Star selections.
 

pdd

Registered User
Feb 7, 2010
5,572
4
Oh, I know what you were talking about, and it's still ridiculous. Coffey has praised Messier enough times in his life that we know none of your speculation is true.




And everyone has crystal clear memory of Mark Messier? Two people (including yourself) were claiming that he was Gretzky's left-wing in his three All-Star selections.

He did play with Gretzky parts of those seasons.

There were times when it was Messier/Gretzky/Anderson. Sometimes Messier/Gretzky/Kurri. And often Anderson/Gretzky/Kurri.

If you don't believe me about that, take a look at Glenn Anderson's All-Star voting. People don't get voted in multiple positions significantly unless they are playing multiple positions throughout the year. Zetterberg in 2007-08 is another example. In 1995-96 Sergei Fedorov received first-place votes on both wings as well as 0-3-7 at center.
 

toob

Registered User
Dec 31, 2010
746
2
So yeah... Bryan Murray kind of tanked Yzerman's chances at winning hardware in his prime. Murray did have the right idea; he built the team around three first-line centers down the middle. The problem is that they were also the team's top three forwards. It's like Pittsburgh a few years back if Staal only played offense, and Crosby was better defensively back then. And the solution was to put Crosby on line 3 and Staal on line 1. That's basically what Murray's solution was. Not to trade Stal for a checking line center and a defenseman, or winger, or something else. Put the star center on line 3. Good job Bryan.

This doesnt make sense for a couple of reasons.

First Murray still played Yzerman the most of all his centers and Carson the least. Yes Yzerman lost ice time and his numbers were hurt but Carson's fizzling out might also have to do with being a 3rd line center. Carson may not have seen any PK time or played in defensive situations like Yzerman/Fedorov because he wasnt well suited to those but it isnt like he was the 1st line center as that was clearly Yzerman.

Second Murray did not build the team in the way you imply. Fedorov was drafted in 89. Carson came over in a trade during the 90 season. Murray took over as GM/coach after both. He is actually the guy who went and tried to improve the situation on the wings. He went and got Sheppard and Ciccarelli. He had long tried to get a superstar D. He got one (past his prime) but not really a defensive one in Coffey by leveraging his strength at center. And I know that Cheveldae is now considered a big joke but at the time Murray put a lot of faith in him it seemed like the right choice. And after the 93 playoffs he started looking for a new goalie and a defensive defenseman which were the team needs.

Murray's time in Detroit is a clear example of success IMO. He came in from Washington and implemented some of his system in Detroit to improve the team D but he also recognized that his team was talented offensively and tried to maximize that. Look at the 93 ssn. Yes a big disappointment in the playoffs but what a success from just a couple years back. He wasnt given as many chances as Bowman was to get it right but he certainly had the team going in the right direction.
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
He did play with Gretzky parts of those seasons.

There were times when it was Messier/Gretzky/Anderson. Sometimes Messier/Gretzky/Kurri. And often Anderson/Gretzky/Kurri.

If you don't believe me about that, take a look at Glenn Anderson's All-Star voting. People don't get voted in multiple positions significantly unless they are playing multiple positions throughout the year. Zetterberg in 2007-08 is another example. In 1995-96 Sergei Fedorov received first-place votes on both wings as well as 0-3-7 at center.

The fact that Glenn Anderson and Jari Kurri (who was transitioning from LW to RW) were moving around is not evidence that Messier played with Gretzky in his three All-Star selections.

Hit HSP and come back with some even-strength numbers.
 

thom

Registered User
Mar 6, 2012
2,261
8
It may be closer than people think but I also give Mark Messier the edge
 

RedWingsForPresident

Registered User
Nov 20, 2012
2,066
6
Indiana
Steve Yzerman played on a terrible Red Wings team for about 10 years of his career and still lit it up. Messier was always on good teams and was on the maybe the best team of all time in the 80's Oilers dynsaty. Yzerman played about 200 less regular season games and has about the same stats. Messier has more playoff numbers because the Oilers in the 80's
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
Steve Yzerman played on a terrible Red Wings team for about 10 years of his career and still lit it up. Messier was always on good teams and was on the maybe the best team of all time in the 80's Oilers dynsaty.
The problem with that is that it’s debatable whether playing on the Oilers actually helped Messier’s stats. He was not a 1st liner or a 1st PP unit guy on that team. And being on a poor team doesn’t necessarily make high scoring stats more impressive. As the saying goes, “someone has to score on a bad teamâ€. It’s quite possible that on a better team Yzerman has to share the prime scoring opportunities and actually scores less, even if the team is more successful. Like what happened with Messier…

Also, the “10 years†thing is very misleading. The last time Detroit missed the playoffs was 1990, Yzerman’s 7th season. So you can only mean 7 at most. And Detroit was a playoff team in 6 of those years, and a division winner in two of them. They averaged 71 points over that time, which is not good, but not “terribleâ€, either.

Yzerman played about 200 less regular season games and has about the same stats. Messier has more playoff numbers because the Oilers in the 80's

Then how do you explain his 30-point playoffs in 1990 and 1994? Yzerman’s peak was 24 points.

Remove those seasons entirely and, Mess had 77 points in 72 playoff games from 1989-1997, at ages 28-36. At the same ages, yzerman had 113 in 120, without removing any seasons. (if you remove his two best, it’s 66 in 75)

Yzerman was not the playoff producer Mess was, and it’s really not that close. Nothing to be ashamed of. Mess is in the top-10 playoff producers of all-time.
 

pdd

Registered User
Feb 7, 2010
5,572
4
The fact that Glenn Anderson and Jari Kurri (who was transitioning from LW to RW) were moving around is not evidence that Messier played with Gretzky in his three All-Star selections.

Hit HSP and come back with some even-strength numbers.

Messier played with Gretzky on the PP through most of his Oilers tenure... why do you find it so hard to believe that he would have spent time with Gretzky during a season where he actually spent his ES time on the wing?
 

bluesfan94

Registered User
Jan 7, 2008
30,720
8,081
St. Louis
Messier played with Gretzky on the PP through most of his Oilers tenure... why do you find it so hard to believe that he would have spent time with Gretzky during a season where he actually spent his ES time on the wing?

In 1981-82, if we discredit Messier for playing LW with Gretzky, how much credit do we need to give either Anderson or Kurri for carrying the 2nd line by themselves?
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Messier played with Gretzky on the PP through most of his Oilers tenure... why do you find it so hard to believe that he would have spent time with Gretzky during a season where he actually spent his ES time on the wing?

Messier actually received limited PP time in Edmonton until the late 80s. He obviously saw some PP ice time with Gretzky, but he wasn't getting 1st line minutes on the PP until a few years before Gretzky was traded.

Count me among those who thinks the empirical evidence is obvious that Messier's stats were hurt, rather than helped, by the Gretzky factor.
 

Ohashi_Jouzu*

Registered User
Apr 2, 2007
30,332
11
Halifax
The fact that Glenn Anderson and Jari Kurri (who was transitioning from LW to RW) were moving around is not evidence that Messier played with Gretzky in his three All-Star selections.

Hit HSP and come back with some even-strength numbers.

They closed out games together at ES all the time, from what I remember. Heck, the only time Moose ever hit 50 goals was in '81/82 with an ES goal, at the end of a game, primary assist: Wayne Gretzky. There isn't a whole lot in the '81/82 statistical record showing the two played together, but it didn't take me long to find Wayne and Mark getting both assists on goals by Lumley (his 27th) and Semenko (his 9th) at even strength within a week of each other, suggesting it wasn't exactly blue moon rarity to see them on ES ice together as early as '81/82. Gretzky's 78th that year was ES, about a week earlier, assisted by Messier, etc.

Is that enough HSP evidence to make you soften your stance a little bit? I mean, I started at the end of '81/82 and worked backwards, and quickly found those barely going back as far as the trade deadline.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->