Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Centers)

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
Basic 1966-67 Chicago lines were Chico Maki - Phil Esposito - Bobby Hull and Ken Wharram - Stan Mikita - Doug Mohns. Plus a third/fourth line Eric Nesterenko/Ken Hodge - Angotti/Boyer/Hodge - Dennis Hull, dictated by injuries, game situations, extra shifting.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1967.html

The core PP was basically the Esposito line with Mikita and Pilote playing the points or the Mikita line with Hull and Pilote playing the points. In both cases Bobby Hull was the first option. The difference in PP time was Hull and Mikita getting point time. In Boston Esposito did not play the point. Mainly Orr and Stanfield.

In terms of PP ice time Phil Esposito was not shorted in Chicago. Simply his role was different, doing the board and corner work especially if the Hawks played Wharram instead of Chico Maki on RW.

Interesting tidbit. 1966-67 PPGs, 70 game season Boston 34, Chicago 51. 1967-68 PPGs, 74 game season Boston 45, Chicago 37. Suggesting Phil Esposito may have had a more important role on the Chicago PP than he receives credit for.

Here are the PP point totals for everyone who scored at least 3 PPP for Chicago in 1966-67. Everyone who missed more than 2 games has been indicated.

Mikita 26
B Hull 23 (missed 4 games)
Wharram 18
Pilote 17
Mohns 12 (missed 9 games)
Esposito 8
Maki 5 (missed 14 games)
D Hull 4
Nesterenko 4
Stapleton 4
Hodge 3
Angotti 3 (missed 7 games)

Based on these totals, it seems to me like the Mikita Line (aka the Scooter Line with Mohns and Wharram) plus Hull and Pilote playing the points was the most common set up.
 

tony d

Registered User
Jun 23, 2007
76,594
4,555
Behind A Tree
Clarke's an interesting case for sure. I picked him, of course, in the 2013 ATD but due to his "poor" offensive #'s I came off as less than impressed by him. The guy was a great player for sure but if we weight offense over defense in this rankings and the ATD it would negatively affect Clarke.
 

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
Clarke's an interesting case for sure. I picked him, of course, in the 2013 ATD but due to his "poor" offensive #'s I came off as less than impressed by him. The guy was a great player for sure but if we weight offense over defense in this rankings and the ATD it would negatively affect Clarke.

Offense and defense are both quite important for the center position. If we were ranking wingers...well, we will eventually rank the wingers, and there won't be any real defensive guys in the top-10 (the first wingers worth a damn defensively will probably be Kurri and Joliat...blah blah Gordie Howe), but these are centers and defense is quite important to the position. Like Frank Nighbor was to the Sens, there is a good argument that Bobby Clarke was more important defensively to those Flyers teams than were any of their defensemen.

Hockey games are won by scoring more than you give up. If you give up fewer, you don't need to score as many to be just as effective. I don't see why offense should be weighed more heavily than defense in this project.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,779
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
1967-68 PP Data

Here are the PP point totals for everyone who scored at least 3 PPP for Chicago in 1966-67. Everyone who missed more than 2 games has been indicated.

Mikita 26
B Hull 23 (missed 4 games)
Wharram 18
Pilote 17
Mohns 12 (missed 9 games)
Esposito 8
Maki 5 (missed 14 games)
D Hull 4
Nesterenko 4
Stapleton 4
Hodge 3
Angotti 3 (missed 7 games)

Based on these totals, it seems to me like the Mikita Line (aka the Scooter Line with Mohns and Wharram) plus Hull and Pilote playing the points was the most common set up.

Building on the data presented previously. 1967-68 regular season.
PPGs data. Chicago 37 PPG, Stan Mikita 13G+14A, Boston 45 PPG, Phil Esposito 9G+19A,Montreal 50 PPG Bobby Rousseau 7G+16A, Jean Beliveau(59 games) 9G+13A.

Bobby Rousseau played the right point on the Canadiens PP, whereas Mikita rotated between center and right point. So over a season we are looking at a differential in the 6 point range between the key PP players on three teams. Interestingly, the loss of Phill Esposito led to Stan Mikita dominating a weaker Chicago PP, 37PPG with Mikita involved in 27 goals.

The perception that Bobby Orr drove the Bruins PP and hence skyrocketed Phil Espositos numbers bears further examination.

1970-71 season, Boston scored 80 PPG, Phil Esposito 25G+26A, Bobby Orr 5G+42A, John Bucyk 22G+24A :

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/BOS/1971.html

Canadiens scored 71 PPG with a rather makeshift PP, constants Yvan Cournoyer 18G+15A, J.C. Tremblay 5G+29A.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1971.html

Effectively the difference between Orr on a loaded Boston PP vs J.C. Tremblay on a makeshift Montreal PP is 9 PPG over the regular season.

How much of an impact did Bobby Orr actually have on Phil Eaposito's PP production?
 

bigbuffalo313

Registered User
Apr 28, 2012
4,135
57
New York
I find defensive play from forwards to be overrated. Yes it is a great aspect and a reason why Clarke is so well known, but I typically favor offensive forwards more. Clarke is still in the top ten for me, but I just don't think he should be number 6. I would have him at 9, but it seems like he will be 6th from the discussions so far
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
I find defensive play from forwards to be overrated. Yes it is a great aspect and a reason why Clarke is so well known, but I typically favor offensive forwards more. Clarke is still in the top ten for me, but I just don't think he should be number 6. I would have him at 9, but it seems like he will be 6th from the discussions so far

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Votes for 6th-9th last round were awfully close, and I would at least like to think that Nighbor and Sakic will get strong consideration this round.

Personally, I have a hard time justifying Clarke over Messier at the moment, even if I understand the argument. Messier's advantages in longevity as an impact player and in the playoffs are not small.
 
Last edited:

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,425
17,842
Connecticut
Offense and defense are both quite important for the center position. If we were ranking wingers...well, we will eventually rank the wingers, and there won't be any real defensive guys in the top-10 (the first wingers worth a damn defensively will probably be Kurri and Joliat...blah blah Gordie Howe), but these are centers and defense is quite important to the position. Like Frank Nighbor was to the Sens, there is a good argument that Bobby Clarke was more important defensively to those Flyers teams than were any of their defensemen.

Hockey games are won by scoring more than you give up. If you give up fewer, you don't need to score as many to be just as effective. I don't see why offense should be weighed more heavily than defense in this project.

So how can Gretzky & Lemieux possibly be ranked 1 and 2?
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,425
17,842
Connecticut
Also of note Bobby Hull was in on 73 of Phil's ES points in Chicago and 10 more on the PP. Phil scored 174 points in total with the Hawks.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...TzlMX2RRWXUwb3hzbDIwTUJGbFE&usp=sharing#gid=2

Phil was simply one of the problems in the playoffs with the Hawks as well. He was 29-4-4-8 in the playoffs with the Hawks, presumably playing alot with Hull, of that I don't know.
And age shouldn't matter, Mikita has a much better line despite starting earlier in his 1st 4 years with the Hawks, without hull as a regular line mate (as far as I know) and Stan was well above the PPG mark in the playoffs using the same comparison for age and time in the league ect...

Pappyline could shed some light on Phil and his windy city days to help clarify it here I'm hoping.

Even with his scoring exploits with the Bruins there are too many red flags in his career to slot him in the top 4 in this round IMO.

Mikita was 33-9-17-26 in the same playoffs. Significantly better than Esposito, but Mikita was a 3 time Art Ross winner in that time fame. He only led Chicago in scoring once in those 4 years. Esposito was only a 21 year old in the first year and barely played in the playoffs.

Looks to me like Mikita was at least as much of a problem in the playoffs as Esposito in that 4 year stretch.
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,251
1,643
Chicago, IL
Does anyone have something that can give us all an idea of what each player's longevity was relative to their own era?

I am thinking particularly of comparing the longevity of guys like Clarke and Trottier, who played in an era where a star player's prime tended to be shorter than a star players prime in the Messier/Yzerman/Sakic eras.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,779
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Productive Longevity.

Productive longevity is a consideration.

Mark Messier did not contribute much after 1997. Others did. Trottier with the SC Penguins, Clarke > 1PPG in his second to last season, Esposito going to the 1979 SC Finals, Yzerman, Sakic strong contributors late in their career.Nighbor 1927 Senators SC. Others less so, although at times under less than ideal circumstances.
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,251
1,643
Chicago, IL
Productive longevity is a consideration.

Mark Messier did not contribute much after 1997. Others did. Trottier with the SC Penguins, Clarke > 1PPG in his second to last season, Esposito going to the 1979 SC Finals, Yzerman, Sakic strong contributors late in their career.Nighbor 1927 Senators SC. Others less so, although at times under less than ideal circumstances.

Yes that is definitely what I meant...longevity as a productive or impact player. Thanks for clarifying.
 

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,104
1,391
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
Guess now's as good a time as any to start working on the "Messier>Clarke" case...

Clarke career points-per-game: 1.06
Messier career points-per-game: 1.07
Clarke total career games: 1144
Messier total career games: 1756

In other words, Messier's offensive production rate is no worse than equal-
[I'd say it's better, mostly because »goals« > »assists«]
and had another- eh.. two-thirds of a career added to his total.

Yes, you can make the point that Clarke had less teammate help than Messier- but if you're also a contributor who's fastidiously avoided mention of Hull's potential boon to the career of Stan Mikita, I reserve the right to call Selective Application.

One of the big problems with leaning too much on playoff performance is that you're more likely to encounter small sample-size... but (especially in the case of Messier) there's little danger of that, since he's played three regular seasons worth of playoff games...

Messier playoff games: 236
Clarke playoff games: 136- yup- 100 less
Messier playoff points-per-game: 1.25
Clarke playoff points-per-game: .875

(In fairness to Clarke), Clarke leads the Hart trophy race-- 3 to 2... but Messier leads in Pearson/Lindsay consideration-- two awards to one. Messier also has that 1-0 Smythe advantage.

Did Messier hang around too long? Yeah, sure... but he was top-drawer until his ill-advised migration to Vancouver. His points-per-game in his first stint in New York, ages 31-36, was 1.23... and this included some seasons at the Dawn of the Dead-Puck-Era.

I won't deny Clarke's defensive edge- but I don't think it makes up for all that extra offensive output.
 
Last edited:

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
Productive longevity is a consideration.

Mark Messier did not contribute much after 1997. Others did. Trottier with the SC Penguins, Clarke > 1PPG in his second to last season, Esposito going to the 1979 SC Finals, Yzerman, Sakic strong contributors late in their career.Nighbor 1927 Senators SC. Others less so, although at times under less than ideal circumstances.

Meh, Messier was a regular Hart finalist around the same age Trottier was a third line center. Trottier was several years retired by the age Messier was in 1997.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,779
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Longevity

Yup- that's the best way to make "apples-to-apples" longevity-comparisons.

To make longevity comparisons using more artificial constructs smacks of that forbidden word found in Plato's writings that the Athenians defined as "making the worse appear the better cause."

Can't have an end(longevity) without a beginning. Not artificial constructs or philosophical.

As 19 year olds in the NHL. Bryan Trottier 32G + 63A = 95 PTS, MarK Messier 12G + 21A = 33 PTS, Stan Mikita 8G + 18A = 26PTS.

There is no defined growth path nor a maturation path in the NHL. Players grow and mature differently, often dictated by injury.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Mikita was 33-9-17-26 in the same playoffs. Significantly better than Esposito, but Mikita was a 3 time Art Ross winner in that time fame. He only led Chicago in scoring once in those 4 years. Esposito was only a 21 year old in the first year and barely played in the playoffs.

Looks to me like Mikita was at least as much of a problem in the playoffs as Esposito in that 4 year stretch.

Exactly how is a 33-9-17-26 line worse of a problem than a 29-4-4-8 line? It's not like Phil was even close to Stan in terms of defensive play was it?

here is the case for Phil,

1) He was elite offensively in Boston

2) He is a legend for the 72 series

Here is the case agaisnt him starting with your logic

1) If he was so good in 72 why did the series go the distance? everyone expected Canada to walk over the Soviets right?

2) Too much reliance on Orr for his peak

3) Defense or 2 way play is meh for this round at best, or better than Wayne and Mario but how far from the rest of the pack?

4) His pre and post Boston days just aren't all that great, played with Hull for the black Hawks and the center he was flipped for outperformed him the rest of the way in their careers (similar age sets).

At this stage (top 8) there are simply too many other guys with a better mix of a great career and less question marks around it.
 

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,104
1,391
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
Not artificial constructs or philosophical.
You may feel so- but the point is- you claimed:
Mark Messier did not contribute much after 1997. Others did...Clarke > 1PPG in his second to last season...
... as a breezy juxtaposition, as if the situations were in any way analogous... which of course they aren't. Of course one can credibly say that Mark Messier didn't contribute much after 1997. By the end of the 97-98 season, he was 37 years old. At a parallel age, (i.e.: 37), Clarke was out of the league- as he was at age 36... and age 35. What was Mark Messier doing at age 35? Tallying nearly 100 points as the league slipped further into the DPE.

Comparing Clarke's accomplishment at age 33 (his best season since he was a 28 year-old... NMTB about the previous four seasons when he averaged less than a point a game) with Messier's record at age 37 and beyond is... well... there's a word for it--- but let's just say you're not comparing like-to-like when you attempt to draw such comparisons.
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
1997-98

Prior to his first game with the Vancouver Canucks, Mark Messier had already played 1,324 regular season games and 236 playoff games for a total of 1,560 games of professional hockey (WHA/NHL). Much of his career after this point is a disaster that somehow becomes the focal point of every discussion about Messier on HOH. How does the length of his pre-Vancouver career compare to the length of the full careers of some of the other Centers in this round (leaving out Lalonde, Nighbor, and Taylor)?

Name | RS GP | P GP | Total GP | GP to #11 Bobby Clarke |1144|136|1280|-280
Phil Esposito |1282|130|1412|-148
Stan Mikita |1394|155|1549|-11
Joe Sakic |1378|172|1550|-10
Bryan Trottier |1279|221|1500|-60
Steve Yzerman |1514|196|1710|+150

* Only Yzerman recorded more games than Messier did prior to the 1997-98 season, so comparing the downside of Messier's career (1997-98 to 2003-04) to that of a player who hadn't played enough to reach his equivalent of Vancouver years needs to be taken into consideration.
* Messier recorded his 1,560th game in 1996-97. It was a 1.18 point-per-game season (7th in the league), book-ended by seasons of 1.34 (Hart nomination) and 0.73 (Vancouver).
* Yzerman recorded his 1,560th game in 2003-04. It was a 0.68 point-per-game season, book-ended by seasons of 0.50 and 0.56 (retirement).
* Mikita recorded his 1,324th regular season game in 1978-79. It was a 0.85 point-per-game season, book-ended by seasons of 0.78 and 0.41 (retirement).
* Sakic recorded his 1,324th regular season game in 2007-08. It was a 0.91 point-per-game season, book-ended by seasons of 1.22 (8th in the league) and 0.80 (retirement). He probably could have been a Hart nominee - a la John Tavares - had the Avalanche made the playoffs in 2006-07 (missed by a tie-breaker).
* Yzerman recorded his 1,324th regular season game in 2001-02. It was a 0.92 point-per-game season followed by a Conn Smythe worthy playoff.

Though a very physical player, Mark Messier only played 70 GP or fewer three times leading up to the Vancouver years (1985, 1986, 1991). He did, however, often miss an average of 5 games in the other seasons, which can certainly impact the raw scoring race - even though he had basically played the full season. From 1982-83 to 1996-97, Mark Messier ranked top-ten in either points or points-per-game 10 times (in 15 seasons). The years without such a placement include the three aforementioned injury seasons, as well as 1993 and 1994.

Bobby Clarke had eight seasons in the top-ten (two fewer).
Phil Esposito had ten seasons in the top-ten (same).
Stan Mikita had ten seasons in the top-ten (same).
Joe Sakic had eleven seasons in the top-ten (one more).
Bryan Trottier had six seasons in the top-ten (four fewer).
Steve Yzerman had eight seasons in the top-ten (two fewer).

Only Joe Sakic exceeds the number of seasons Mark Messier spent as a de facto top-ten scorer in the NHL.

Mark Messier's NHL statistics up to this point were 575 Goals and 1,552 Points; fifth all-time and directly behind Phil Esposito. His 1.22 regular season points-per-game were exceeded by his 1.25 playoff points-per-game - which boosted his cumulative points-per-game marginally ahead of Phil Espositio's 1.22 (1,412 GP) despite already exceeding him in GP by nearly 100 GP. It was only after playing far beyond what Phil Esposito had played that Mark Messier's statistical record no longer resembled his offensively. While this does not acknowledge the obvious differences in era, differences in style of play, etc. it is important to understand that Mark Messier was a 1.22/1.25 player at a time when he could have retired with more GP than everyone but Steve Yzerman (he finished his career 1.07/1.25 and often gets treated by younger posters as another Ron Francis offensively).

Around this time, The Hockey News' panel of writers, journalists, and broadcasters rated him the 4th best Center of all-time - behind Jean Beliveau, ahead of Howie Morenz.


Mark Messier's Seven Stanley Cup Finals

Year | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | PTS/GP 1983 |15|15|6|21|N/A|1.40
1984 |19|8|18|26|+9|1.37
1985 |18|12|13|25|+13|1.39
1987 |21|12|16|28|+13|1.33
1988 |19|11|23|34|+9|1.79
1990 |22|9|22|31|+5|1.41
1994 |23|12|18|30|+14|1.30

* Never scored fewer than 25 points in a Stanley Cup winning run
* Was challenging Reggie Leach (19 Goals) in 1983 until separating his shoulder
* Scored an additional 100 playoff points outside of these runs


Quotes From the 1984-1990 Playoffs

George Johnson of The Calgary Herald said:
The destruction he could wreak was perhaps never better exhibited than in Game 7 of the 1984 series against the rival Flames.

That night, Messier proved to be a one-man war of attrition, knocking three Calgary players out of action during the decisive third period. Paul Reinhart had long since been stretchered off; Mike Eaves lay crumpled like a discarded cigarette pack in a corner after being run over ("It was as if he got hit by a bus," recalled Oilers goaltender Grant Fuhr. "There were tire tracks running up and down his back."); and Al MacInnis exited early after being cut down by a knee injury. All courtesy of one man.

Carnage. Sheer carnage. Messier carnage.

"That Messier!" Flames coach Badger Bob Johnson would growl after that game. "That Messier! He knocked three of our guys out of the game! Three! That was …" He stammered. "That was …" He glowered. "That was …" He paced the hallway, apparently enraged at the injustice of it all. "That was …" His face lapsed into a look above appreciation, arguably approaching awe. "Amazing!"

The Boston Globe said:
Should they prevail, [Mark Messier] stands to reap rewards beyond the shared glory of the Cup. As the triggerman of the Oilers' offense - and the neutralizing force that has helped shackle the Islanders' superlative center, Bryan Trottier - Messier has emerged as the frontrunner for the Conn Smythe Trophy, which is awarded to the most valuable player in the playoffs.

Exploiting his Mr. Universe physique and style, Messier has led an unprcedented Edmonton attack that has throttled the Islanders in Games 1 (a 1-0 victory), 3 and 4. As Wayne Gretzky, another Edmonton center, observed, "Forechecking is the best defense." And Messier has been the Oilers' foremost forechecker.

With 15 games left before the playoffs, Oilers coach Glen Sather decided to shift Messier to center on a line with Glenn Anderson and Willy Lindstrom. On the surface, it seemed like turning Barbra Streisand into a pantomimist, but Sather had his reasons.

Philadelphia Daily News said:
There are goals and there are goals. There are goals that nobody sees, and there are goals that nobody forgets. There are shots that carom off skate, pad and armpit on their way to the red light, and there are majestic offensive feats on which you could base a movie. Last night in Northlands Coliseum, it was Mark Messier of the Edmonton Oilers, screen-testing for Chariots of Ice.

The Calgary Herald said:
He is an intimidating sight, Mark Messier is - the new wave leader of hockey's new wave. He has been the most intimidating sight for New York Islanders.

"If the series ends Saturday, he will win the Conn Smythe Trophy," said teammate Dave Lumley.

The myths that have long surrounded Edmonton Oilers are quickly disappearing as are the myths that have surrounded Messier.

Long considered to be living and playing on the fringe, Messier not only has established himself with his Stanley Cup play, but has put to rest any of the Team Gretzky, Edmonton Gretzkys, one-man team commentaries that have so often afflicted the Oilers.

The Boston Globe said:
Yesterday morning, [Mark Messier] began communicating again. "He told me, I'm going to go out and lead this hockey team," recalled Kevin Lowe, Messier's teammate and housemate. "He's always determined, but he seemed especially so this morning."

The Calgary Herald said:
It took Trottier, the game's star, exactly 60 minutes and 10 seconds to get into the spirit of the final. The first 60 came in the first game when he made a negligible contribution to the Islanders' 1-0 loss. The 10 seconds came last night, when the Oilers' Mark Messier flattened him with one of the hardest playoff checks in the first minute of the game.

Star-Phoenix (Saskatoon) said:
And, unlike last spring, forward Mark Messier is healthy. Playing left wing last spring, Messier labored with a separated shoulder in the final and was easily nullified by the hard-checking Islanders.

"Gawd, it's nice to be going into the Stanley Cup final healthy," said Messier, now playing centre. "Last year I was hurt but I really didn't think much about it. I found myself getting caught up in the excitement. Still, the shoulder was significant."

This year the shoulder has been significant because of the solid hits it has been handing out. Those hits, the Oilers realize, will be essential in the final, especially if they again meet the Islanders.

"Mark is so strong and against their big guys, (Bryan) Trottier and (Denis) Potvin especially, that's important," Lowe said.

The Globe and Mail said:
"When Mark takes that little turn back into his own end and winds up, there's not too many guys in hockey can stop him," Winnipeg Jet coach Barry Long said.

"What he has going for him are his strength and speed. He's not a plodding-type player, and it takes a big person to counter that. We don't truly have the size at centre ice to do it. We had Laurie Boschman on him. Laurie tried, but he can't skate as well and he's not as strong."

And there's always the matter of Messier's temperament. Although he's a clean player most of the time, there have been enough departures from the straight and narrow to make opposition players wary. Messier has served suspensions for assaulting players with his stick, and the elbow that broke Valdimir Kovin's nose in the Canada Cup series would have landed Messier in the Lubyanka had it taken place in the Soviet Union.

"He has a little mean streak," a reporter suggested to Long.

"Little?" Long responded.

Long, a fairly rough player in his own day, laughed. "That's what makes him even scarier. The fact that he does have that mean streak is what separates him from ordinary people. But speed and size and meanness are what you look for when you're trying to draft a player. You want to draft a player that has all those three qualities. They got lucky with him."

In fact, Long said, the presence of Messier in the Oiler lineup is one of the reasons that Jet captain and scoring leader Dale Hawerchuk has not returned wearing a flak jacket to protect his cracked rib. Hawerchuk has been scratched from tonight's fourth - and probably final - game of the series. "It's Mark out there I don't trust," Long said. "He'd run right over his mother, so he'd for sure run over Dale Hawerchuk. And it's such a well-publicized injury. I don't think there's a kid in Canada who doesn't know what's broken."

When Long says things such as this about Messier, he says them with a tone of admiration, not bitterness. "I wouldn't expect anything else from the Oilers," he said. "If the situation were reversed, I wouldn't expect my guys to go out there and say, 'Oh-oh, we can't hit him.' You have to hit him."

The Globe and Mail said:
A local newspaper conducted a telephone poll of fans yesterday and they favored Coffey with 47.1 per cent of the vote, then Fuhr with 33.7 and Gretzky third at 19.2.

The question was put to someone who should know, Edmonton Oiler coach Glen Sather.

"Here's a question for you to dodge, Slats. Who deserves to win the Conn Smythe Trophy, Gretzky or Coffey?"

"I'm dodging that one. And, anyway, what about Grant Fuhr?"

"All right, then. Who's going to win the Conn Smythe Trophy, Gretzky, Coffey or Fuhr?"

"One of those three guys. But don't forget about Mark Messier."

Sather has a point. Messier, who won the trophy last year, also has been a major contributor this season. He was especially strong in the two middle series - against the Winnipeg Jets and the Chicago Black Hawks - and has been quietly effective against the Philadelphia Flyers. When the Oilers badly needed a win in the Spectrum, it was Messier who won 36 of 50 faceoffs.

The Globe and Mail said:
"We did a good job on Gretzky and just as good a job on Mark Messier," Demers continued. "We're just as afraid of him as we are of Gretzky. Messier comes at you like a bulldozer."

The Globe and Mail said:
The large and fearsome form of the Edmonton Oilers' Mark Messier has cast another shadow over the Stanley Cup hopes of the Philadelphia Flyers.

Mark Howe, the Flyers' superb veteran defenceman, is hobbling on a swollen left knee and bruised left leg, suffered in a collision in the first period of Edmonton's 4-2 win Sunday in the opening game of the Cup final.


While Howe says he will be ready for tomorrow night's second match, he did not skate with the team yesterday "and if I had to play tomorrow (today), I couldn't."

The Globe and Mail said:
At any time, in hockey, and especially in the playoffs, a good player will do much more than contribute to the offence. No one who plays the game professionally, even the greatest of superstars, is able to score every night. Sometimes, they can't even set up goals for others. But the quality players make their presence felt in every game, whether the average fan notices or not.

From the Edmonton Oilers ' point of view, the offensive star of the fourth game of the Stanley Cup finals against the Philadelphia Flyers was Wayne Gretzky. But equally important - perhaps even more so, if all things were considered - was Mark Messier.

As is usually the case, Messier handed out some punishing bodychecks -the kind that make any opponent lose his concentration. And he was excellent on faceoffs. When they held a two-goal lead, the Oilers were quite willing to slow down the play by taking faceoffs in their own end. Goaltender Grant Fuhr froze the puck whenever he had an opportunity, feeling confident that Messier would be able to win the ensuing faceoff and thereby relieve the pressure.

Messier's influence on the Oilers is often underestimated. Throughout his career, he has played in the shadow of Wayne Gretzky, and although most observers consider him to be one of the league's top 10 stars, he still can't escape being stereotyped as a backup - part of Gretzky's supporting cast. But the Oilers will tell you that when it comes to being a team leader, a clubhouse firebrand, nobody does it like Mark Messier. Nobody.

It was Messier who took charge when the National Hockey League's greatest players met in Quebec City for the Rendez-Vous '87 series. Although he had been designated no particular authority, he stood up and spelled out exactly what was expected of every player, right down to the nature of the pre-game warmup

"He just said, 'This is the way it's going to be,' " recalled the Washington Capitals' Rod Langway. "He told us everything we were going to do. Then he asked if anybody had any problems with that. Nobody did. We all just sat there. He was great."

It is also Messier who takes over when the Oilers need some sort of spark - as he decided they did when they went into the third period of the second game trailing 2-1 at home. And it was Messier, not coach Glen Sather, who did the shouting after Friday's game in Philadelphia. Messier exploded in the dressing room, telling his teammates that they had been guilty of throwing away a game that they should have won. He was especially unhappy with Esa Tikkanen for taking a retaliatory penalty which led to a Flyers goal.

"Who told you that?" asked Sather. "I'm surprised that anybody would talk about what went on in here. I believe that what is said in here, should stay in here."

But did Messier makes the speech or did he not? "Well," said Sather, "I think if anybody made a speech like that, Messier would be the guy." In fact, the words from Messier's speech were still ringing in his teammates' ears when they took to the ice last night.

The Globe and Mail said:
In a performance that will go down with some of the more memorable displays in playoff history, Mark Messier led the Edmonton Oilers to a 4-2 victory over the Chicago Blackhawks last night. Messier was everywhere. He scored two goals, set up two others and led the Oilers' strong checking game by example.

As a result, the Oilers tied the Campbell Conference best-of-seven final 2-2. The fifth game is tomorrow in Edmonton.

The Oilers considered the game to be crucial if they are to win another Stanley Cup. Not surprisingly, Messier came through when he was needed the most. He was easily the most visible player on the ice as he dominated the Blackhawks, both with his physical play and with his finesse. He earned an assist on the Oilers' first goal by Glenn Anderson. He blazed down the wing to pick up a loose puck before scoring their second. And he assisted on the third by Craig Simpson before scoring the fourth
goal on a breakaway.

In between, he was rattling Blackhawks against the boards, blocking shots and running interference for his teammates.

"When you really need it the most, he's there," said Oiler general manager Glen Sather. "He did it against the Islanders (when the Oilers won their first Stanley Cup). He has done it a lot through the years and he has done it a lot this year. He did it against Winnipeg when we were down."


1994

GO RANGAHS!! GRAVES! LEETCH! RICHTAH!! THE MESSIAH!! :sarcasm:




Let's be serious: The man is an icon. Very few Centers remaining have a moment this big that is remembered for all of the right reasons (Bobby Clarke...). On the ice, we watched Messier lead the Rangers into stealing a losing game from the Devils and three of the generation's most poised players (Scott Stevens, Claude Lemieux, Martin Brodeur). It doesn't define his career - and it wasn't even his best playoff run, but it is the go-to moment when you want to talk about the it-factor that Mark Messier had as a playoff legend. His game against the Devils in 1994. His series against Chicago in 1990. His playoff run in 1984.


Conclusion

Mark Messier was offered a lot of money to play for Vancouver at a time when he had already played enough GP to justify hanging up the skates as a player with a very full career. Only 14 other skaters in history had reached 1,324 regular season games when Mark Messier signed with the Canucks, and up until Chris Chelios and Nicklas Lidstrom, no other skater had reached 236 playoff games. That's a lot of hockey. But Vancouver offered a lot of money. And ice-time. And I'm not sure that liking these things makes someone a worse hockey player - even if we're all young enough (even Killion!) to have seen this particular player extend a 1st-ballot HOF career through the worst of it. We're talking about $42 million between salary and bonuses from 1997-98 to 2003-04. They kept offering; he kept signing.

So, think of him as the legend he was, with a cumulative total of 684 Goals and 1,844 Points in 1,508 NHL Games while being relied on for face-offs, playing competent defensive hockey and a boatload of PK time, and without a trace of those awful compiling seasons.

Wait - he had that many points as of 1997? Holy ****.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,779
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
I See....

You may feel so- but the point is- you claimed:... as a breezy juxtaposition, as if the situations were in any way analogous... which of course they aren't. Of course one can credibly say that Mark Messier didn't contribute much after 1997. By the end of the 97-98 season, he was 37 years old. At a parallel age, (i.e.: 37), Clarke was out of the league- as he was at age 36... and age 35. What was Mark Messier doing at age 35? Tallying nearly 100 points as the league slipped further into the DPE.

Comparing Clarke's accomplishment at age 33 (his best season since he was a 28 year-old... NMTB about the previous four seasons when he averaged less than a point a game) with Messier's record at age 37 and beyond is... well... there's a word for it--- but let's just say you're not comparing like-to-like when you attempt to draw such comparisons.

Outlined productive longevity with a few examples which seemed to please certain participants then balanced it with a few words about the start of careers using an underage 19 year old example after you contributed the age-to-age aspect. Obviously the age-to-age does not favour everyone equally either.

You see analogies and comparisons. So be it.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,425
17,842
Connecticut
Exactly how is a 33-9-17-26 line worse of a problem than a 29-4-4-8 line? It's not like Phil was even close to Stan in terms of defensive play was it?

here is the case for Phil,

1) He was elite offensively in Boston

2) He is a legend for the 72 series

Here is the case agaisnt him starting with your logic

1) If he was so good in 72 why did the series go the distance? everyone expected Canada to walk over the Soviets right?

2) Too much reliance on Orr for his peak

3) Defense or 2 way play is meh for this round at best, or better than Wayne and Mario but how far from the rest of the pack?

4) His pre and post Boston days just aren't all that great, played with Hull for the black Hawks and the center he was flipped for outperformed him the rest of the way in their careers (similar age sets).

At this stage (top 8) there are simply too many other guys with a better mix of a great career and less question marks around it.

You should really work on your reading comprehension.

I did not say Mikita's line was a worse problem than Espo's. Said it was as much of a problem. For the top scorer in the league to not even be the top scorer on his team in the playoffs, that's a problem. Black Hawks were counting on Miktia, not Esposito, in the playoffs.

Where are you using my logic? What are you talking about?

Esposito was that good in the Summit Series and it did go the distance. So I guess the answer would be the Soviets were just as good the Canadians.

Orr didn't play in the Summit Series, did he?

What does Jean Ratelle have to do with anything? If he outperformed Esposito then he outperformed Mikita too. So what?

Seems to me you are just determined to not give Esposito any credit, for whatever reason. Guess its time for me to give up this foolish bantering.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
You should really work on your reading comprehension.

I did not say Mikita's line was a worse problem than Espo's. Said it was as much of a problem. For the top scorer in the league to not even be the top scorer on his team in the playoffs, that's a problem. Black Hawks were counting on Miktia, not Esposito, in the playoffs.

Where are you using my logic? What are you talking about?

Esposito was that good in the Summit Series and it did go the distance. So I guess the answer would be the Soviets were just as good the Canadians.

Orr didn't play in the Summit Series, did he?

What does Jean Ratelle have to do with anything? If he outperformed Esposito then he outperformed Mikita too. So what?

Seems to me you are just determined to not give Esposito any credit, for whatever reason. Guess its time for me to give up this foolish bantering.

Really at this point of the project players should have the strongest resumes possible, every player after Wayne has a reason why they aren't #1?

The more questions and less consistency in their resumes the further they should be dropped IMO.

A spot on this list isn't given, it's earned, and quite simply there are too many questions, weak points...whatever with Phil, compared to the other candidates, to be in the top 8 IMO.

Maybe Phil wasn't getting huge PP time in the windy city, he also was playing with the best winger and probably best player of the 60's on his line as well.

Furthermore PP scoring wasn't as high in the 60's as it would later become as well.

Although there seems to be a definite spike after expansion.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/stats.html
 
Last edited:

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
13,468
8,013
NYC
www.hockeyprospect.com
Guess now's as good a time as any to start working on the "Messier>Clarke" case...

Clarke career points-per-game: 1.06
Messier career points-per-game: 1.07
Clarke total career games: 1144
Messier total career games: 1756

In other words, Messier's offensive production rate is no worse than equal-
[I'd say it's better, mostly because »goals« > »assists«]
and had another- eh.. two-thirds of a career added to his total.

Yes, you can make the point that Clarke had less teammate help than Messier- but if you're also a contributor who's fastidiously avoided mention of Hull's potential boon to the career of Stan Mikita, I reserve the right to call Selective Application.

One of the big problems with leaning too much on playoff performance is that you're more likely to encounter small sample-size... but (especially in the case of Messier) there's little danger of that, since he's played three regular seasons worth of playoff games...

Messier playoff games: 236
Clarke playoff games: 136- yup- 100 less
Messier playoff points-per-game: 1.25
Clarke playoff points-per-game: .875

(In fairness to Clarke), Clarke leads the Hart trophy race-- 3 to 2... but Messier leads in Pearson/Lindsay consideration-- two awards to one. Messier also has that 1-0 Smythe advantage.

Did Messier hang around too long? Yeah, sure... but he was top-drawer until his ill-advised migration to Vancouver. His points-per-game in his first stint in New York, ages 31-36, was 1.23... and this included some seasons at the Dawn of the Dead-Puck-Era.

I won't deny Clarke's defensive edge- but I don't think it makes up for all that extra offensive output.

Messier also played on very, very offensive teams. The 80's Oilers and then some of those Rangers teams really liked to push the pace as well with four-man attacks. Not that Mike Keenan was Mr. Offense, but that '94 team didn't sit back and lie in the weeds.

Bobby Clarke was on a defensive team that never really had a #1 PMD. Messier had Coffey and Leetch and Zubov. Clarke had whom to outlet the puck to him? Who had the bomb from the point that could penetrate from distance? I'm not sure what the adjustment is for goals per game in the seasons in question and how that would effect the even ppg pace, but further adjustment for style of play and teammates must be considered here I feel. When you factor that in and then factor in how much Clarke was defensively than Messier, it gets pretty tight, I feel.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,798
16,540
Messier also played on very, very offensive teams. The 80's Oilers and then some of those Rangers teams really liked to push the pace as well with four-man attacks. Not that Mike Keenan was Mr. Offense, but that '94 team didn't sit back and lie in the weeds.

Bobby Clarke was on a defensive team that never really had a #1 PMD. Messier had Coffey and Leetch and Zubov. Clarke had whom to outlet the puck to him? Who had the bomb from the point that could penetrate from distance? I'm not sure what the adjustment is for goals per game in the seasons in question and how that would effect the even ppg pace, but further adjustment for style of play and teammates must be considered here I feel. When you factor that in and then factor in how much Clarke was defensively than Messier, it gets pretty tight, I feel.

Actually...
Just to put things in context.
Who's the best PMD the Flyers had during Clarke's tenure...?

Best I could come up with is... well, it's either Behn Wilson or Bob Dailey. I think we're on to something here.
 

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
So how can Gretzky & Lemieux possibly be ranked 1 and 2?

Because they are so far ahead of everybody else offensively that it outweighs their relative lack of defensive contributions. This offense/defense balance is somewhat played out not only in how we weigh their careers in this project, but also in where they expended effort during their actual playing days. Both men were so offensively talented that it was generally not the best use of their energy to hustle a lot on defense.

Gretzky, specifically, could play both ways when he really wanted to, and was actually quite good at reading plays, getting his stick into passing lanes, etc. on defense when so inclined, as he often was in the playoffs. But most of the time he glided on defense, like many of those Oilers, because it simply wasn't the best use of his finite energy. Mario, I dunno. I'm not sure I ever saw him backcheck. It is also of course the case that the best defense is a good offense, and the offensive players who are able to drive possession for long periods of time at even strength are playing a form of de facto defense by not letting the other team have the puck. It's an effect that's difficult to quantify, but it's there. Again, this applies moreso to Gretzky than to Lemieux, who was, relatively speaking, more of a powerplay specialist.

But then again, I'm one of those people who thinks that Mario is somewhat overrated due to being "spectacular". I still rated him second, though I had to think a lot about whether I wanted to put Beliveau there. In retrospect, I probably should have had Beliveau second, although playing lots of defense was also not really his role, either (though he clearly could do it).

If I rephrased it as "I'm not sure why we should weigh goals scored more than goals prevented", would it make more sense to you?
 

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
13,468
8,013
NYC
www.hockeyprospect.com
Actually...
Just to put things in context.
Who's the best PMD the Flyers had during Clarke's tenure...?

Best I could come up with is... well, it's either Behn Wilson or Bob Dailey. I think we're on to something here.

Inability to move the puck forward is usually a good formula for losing. Think of the dynasties or near-dynasties that we've seen...which ones didn't have a legit #1 PMD?

Comes full circle. Flyers in 2012 had some Pronger, Matt Carle, and a little more capable Kimmo Timonen to move the puck forward. Lost Pronger and Carle in 2013 and failed to replace them with NHL level players (Bruno Gervais and Kurtis Foster was among the purported solutions, fringe NHLers). Giroux goes from 3rd in the NHL in points in 2012 and then barely eclipsed a point per game in 2013. Same deal this year, six points in 13 games. Tried with Mark Streit, but he's clearly lost a step and can't be counted on. Timonen has been putrid and is a little more of a defensive-minded player than he ever got credit for. But that's another story.

Clarke's assist numbers (and his teammates numbers) suggest to me - if I didn't see (well, study) a single game from the era - that Clarke got the puck from deep in his own end and did his own transition. A three-zone carrier in all likelihood, old school, O6 hockey. Not sure if the requisite skills for transition (technical or skating) existed on the backline for Philadelphia in the mid-70's, that puts a lot of pressure on the center not only defensively but now the offense not only runs through him but it's very potential generation or spark is unilaterally controlled by him. Not many players are capable of that I would surmise. Clearly valued by the coaches of the time, clearly valued by the award voters as well as he excels in both beyond what his numbers might suggest.

Value of it should be weighed...to whatever degree a voter sees fit.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad