the most overrated Hockey player of all time

[marty 4 hart*]

Hasek or Lidstrom.

 

[Giuseppe Franco]

What I recall about Messier was that after the Rangers' Cup win, he became God-like to the media. Writers were conjecturing that Messier was a greater factor in team success than Gretzky. After all, the Oilers won a Cup without the great one and Messier won with another team while Gretzky hadn't. He could do know wrong. It got to the point that whenever Messier didn't play well (especially in the playoffs) it was because he had an injury that would debilitate normal humans but Mess played through it (even though he would say he wasn't hurt).

I've heard more than a few fans say that Messier was even better than Gretzky because of that argument. It's that kind of crazy talk which leads a great player like Messier to be labeled overrated. I think it was last year when ESPN was listing their 10 greatest players of all time and Linda Cohen (a supposedly big hockey fan) said something like, "no Messier?" after the list was shown. The way that some media and the NHL talk about him, you'd think he was on the level of Gretzky, Orr, Howe and Lemieux. Like I said, obviously great player, but tends to be overrated by the media and especially the casual hockey fan (kind of like Pete Rose in baseball).

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

I've heard more than a few fans say that Messier was even better than Gretzky because of that argument. It's that kind of crazy talk which leads a great player like Messier to be labeled overrated. I think it was last year when ESPN was listing their 10 greatest players of all time and Linda Cohen (a supposedly big hockey fan) said something like, "no Messier?" after the list was shown. The way that some media and the NHL talk about him, you'd think he was on the level of Gretzky, Orr, Howe and Lemieux. Like I said, obviously great player, but tends to be overrated by the media and especially the casual hockey fan (kind of like Pete Rose in baseball).

Truthfully, though, the only people I've ever heard make that argument are the people who for whatever bizarre reason are desperately trying to discredit Gretzky.

 

[CJV123]

Hasek or Lidstrom.

Disagree on Hasek- I always thought the book on him was pretty accurate.

 

[Bexlyspeed]

Firstly, I disagree with that premise. Secondly, if skill does not translate to results, it is worthless.

Gretzky, Howe and Orr had the greatest career results in NHL history. Lemieux is a distant #4.

distant? please! has same amount of cups as orr, more mvps that him. Mario dominated like no other played on some terrible teams during his career, most of it with a bad back. came back from cancer to win the scoring title. is it really all about numbers? and ill say it again put them all side by side and nobody had more skill that mario lemieux and you saw it every shift, and you make it sound like he had skill but did nothing with it?

now im not saying who is better than who, because i believe that when you get into that skill level its up to whom you prefer, but to say mario is a distant 4th? its laughable

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Truthfully, though, the only people I've ever heard make that argument are the people who for whatever bizarre reason are desperately trying to discredit Gretzky.

Around 1994, not too many people wanted to say anything negative about Gretzky.

 

[Hardyvan123]

And this is the response I was eventually expecting. No fact, no numbers to back anything up. Just, 'Messier was a cancer, he hated Saint Linden, and he ruined the team'. This has become dogma in Vancouver and no amount of objective fact will ever change some minds.

The team standings you posted seem to show that the Canucks had their best year in five with Messier do they not? Not to mention the fact that Vancouver's record with Mess was far better than when he was injured and out of the lineup. AND those two terrible years coincide with Bure holding out and Linden and MacLean completely losing their games. Its disingenous to point to that say, 'see! Messier! Cancer!'

And I'll take those player quotes at face value since they coincide more with what we know about Messier everywhere else he played than the unsubstantiated Vancouver-based Messier was a cancer mythos.

The next step in this debate will be Nuck fans resorting to, 'whatever, man, you don't know what it was like to watch that team' and, 'you don't know what Linden meant to this city'.

No facts? No numbers?

We saw how the team did even worse with Moose then in year 3 with the emergence of Naslund, Bert, Jovo and Ohlund becoming the focal point of the team the Canucks started their rise.

You obviously don't think so but they went up to 90 points with Cassels, Morrison, a rookie Sedin and the infamous Harold Druken as their centers the year the Moose departed for his swan song in the Big Apple.

I think Messier is a great player but your revisionism of his time in Vancouver is either ignorance or a deliberate love affair with the Moose.

The facts are pretty plain and simple.


You obviously have no pulse to what was happening on the Canucks from in the Messier era.

There are countless reports were players spoke off the record to the idea about the Moose and his desire to control that dressing room.


Was Keenan part of the problem as well-yes. Ownership-yes. but let's not forget the Moose had support and wasn't always top dog on some of his teams as well so it works both ways.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Ranking Messier in the 20-40 all time group (depending on how you try to sort them) seems right to me. he has an incredible resume but it tails away dramatically (although longevity is a trait of its own).

He was a Hart runner-up in his 18th season of professional hockey (and he possibly wins it if he does not get injured and miss the last six games of the year - during which the Rangers go 1-5 and lose the division without him). Why does anything after that season even factor into the perception of his longevity? He saw a sharp decline in Year 20. Very few players are still capable of playing in the league at that point.

 

[MS]

Except none of this actually happened. This is an internet myth, and has been debunked time and time again.

Was Messier a declining player in Vancouver? Yes. Was he a cancer who didn't care and half-assed it? No. Did he come into Vancouver and dismantle a powerhouse team that had just made it to game seven of the SCF? No, that team already sucked. And if Messier is going to be blamed for dismantling this mythical Linden-led powerhouse (which, again, never actually existed) then he's probably the best GM Vancouver ever had because Bertuzzi, Naslund and Jovanovski were all brought in during his time there. And all those players credited Messier with having a postive effect on his development. But again, this is all irrelevant because there's no evidence that Messier exerted that kind of influence over Canck personnel moves.

And if he did... Well, Lemieux has been blamed for the Pens moving Zubov and Naslund in terrible deals. Its kind of funny that thats never brought up as 'tarnishing' his legacy while Messier's resume has been repeatedly attacked over GOOD trades that he may or may nt have had anything to do with.

His return to the Rangers was a nice PR story at the time but no one expected Messier to turn them around at that point. So he guaranteed the playoffs and it didnt happen. So what? What was he supposed to say? The Rangers were a mess before he got there, and remained a mess for about another decade. I fail to see how not being able to turn around that train-wreck at age 40 is a knock against one of the great careers in hockey. I watched a largely useless Yzerman captain Detroit to one of the great playoff upsets against Edmonton at a simar age. No one brings that up as tarnishing his legacy. All players decline with age. Strange that its only held against Messier.

Its really sad to see how some braying internet fanboys have managed to largely impact how a lot of people view one of the absolutely premier players of his or any era. If anything, Messier has become underrated by people buying into this Vancouver myth.

And this is the response I was eventually expecting. No fact, no numbers to back anything up. Just, 'Messier was a cancer, he hated Saint Linden, and he ruined the team'. This has become dogma in Vancouver and no amount of objective fact will ever change some minds.

The team standings you posted seem to show that the Canucks had their best year in five with Messier do they not? Not to mention the fact that Vancouver's record with Mess was far better than when he was injured and out of the lineup. AND those two terrible years coincide with Bure holding out and Linden and MacLean completely losing their games. Its disingenous to point to that say, 'see! Messier! Cancer!'

And I'll take those player quotes at face value since they coincide more with what we know about Messier everywhere else he played than the unsubstantiated Vancouver-based Messier was a cancer mythos.

The next step in this debate will be Nuck fans resorting to, 'whatever, man, you don't know what it was like to watch that team' and, 'you don't know what Linden meant to this city'.

You honestly don't have a freaking clue. Zero. None.

The notion that this is an ‘internet myth’ is utter hogwash. This was a massive deal in the media in Vancouver at the time, long before anybody was on internet message boards.

When you’re the captain of an NHL team, you don’t sit courtside at NBA games with your team’s owner every night. You don’t throw your coach under the bus. You don’t manoeuvre behind the scenes to get the coach fired and bring in the coach of your choice to replace him. You don’t intentionally divide the dressing room in an attempt to remove any influence from the team’s former captain. You don’t act as the de-facto co-GM alongside Keenan and have an impact on player moves. And so on.

And play a heartless, floating, zero-effort disgrace of a game the entire time, and essentially steal $21 million from the franchise and the fans who paid for tickets. He’s the most hated person in Vancouver sports history for a damned good reason.

I had season tickets through that stretch and remember everything clear as day. If you weren’t in Vancouver at the time, don’t even bother commenting. Messier’s behaviour was so odd and completely off the plot it was almost impossible to believe.

The evidence?

Go look up the comments of Gino Odjick on Messier after Odjick was traded.

Go look up the comments by Messier toward Tom Renney when he was trying to get Renney fired.

Reporter : Mark, what are your thoughts on Tom Renney?

Messier : Well, my mother once told me, if you don’t’ have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.

Just freaking weird. Can you imagine a captain making that sort of statement about an NHL head coach today? After only 8-10 games under that head coach?

See if you can find the comments by Messier at the time of trades, too, explaining why moves were made. No influence? Not bloody likely.

Problem is that a lot of the evidence is damned hard to find 15 years later. But anyone who followed the team at the time remembers everything quite well indeed.

 

[quoipourquoi]

We saw how the team did even worse with Moose then in year 3 with the emergence of Naslund, Bert, Jovo and Ohlund becoming the focal point of the team the Canucks started their rise.

No facts? No numbers?


1999-2000 Canucks
With Messier: 27-21-11-7; 90-point pace
Without Messier: 3-8-4-1; 57-point pace

Points-per-Game
Messier: .82
Mogilny: .81
Naslund: .79
Cassels: .78
Bertuzzi: .63

 

[Hardyvan123]

No facts? No numbers?


1999-2000 Canucks
With Messier: 27-21-11-7; 90-point pace
Without Messier: 3-8-4-1; 57-point pace

Points-per-Game
Messier: .82
Mogilny: .81
Naslund: .79
Cassels: .78
Bertuzzi: .63

Gee I forgot he only played 1 year in Vancouver right?

Moose still led the forwards in a minus 15 rating that year despite the team being worse when he was out of the lineup.

it goes to show that a 16 game sample doesn't really tell the whole story of a 3 year picture.

Moose played in all 82 games in his 1st season in Vancouver right?

Pittsburgh did even better with Crosby out in 11 as I recall right but does that say anything about Crosby in the end though?

 

[saskganesh]

It's the objective measurements which can be looked at subjectively. Brodeur is overrated by those that look at wins, Cups and records, but underrated by those who focus on SV%.

OK, but let's have a stronger definition by the OP and subsequent posters then. I know I sound like I am threadcrapping here, but could we least have some coherency? I really don't know what this thread is about.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

No facts? No numbers?


1999-2000 Canucks
With Messier: 27-21-11-7; 90-point pace
Without Messier: 3-8-4-1; 57-point pace

Points-per-Game
Messier: .82
Mogilny: .81
Naslund: .79
Cassels: .78
Bertuzzi: .63

And if you look at the 98-99 season as well, you'll see that the Canucks went a grand total of 7-23-8-1 in the 39 games Messier missed during his tenure in Vancouver. Over the course of the three seasons there:

Points % with Messier: .440

Points % without Messier: .295

Whether or not Canucks fans want to admit it, their team was significantly worse with Messier out of the lineup. If Messier truly was "awful in every respect" as many suggest, the numbers certainly don't bear it out.

 

[Ogopogo*]

distant? please! has same amount of cups as orr, more mvps that him. Mario dominated like no other played on some terrible teams during his career, most of it with a bad back. came back from cancer to win the scoring title. is it really all about numbers? and ill say it again put them all side by side and nobody had more skill that mario lemieux and you saw it every shift, and you make it sound like he had skill but did nothing with it?

now im not saying who is better than who, because i believe that when you get into that skill level its up to whom you prefer, but to say mario is a distant 4th? its laughable

Please provide some evidence for the bolded statement.

Having cancer does not make a player great. Are you trying to say that Lemieux is great because of games not played?

If Mario actually played a full career, he might be closer to the top 3 but, by missing so much time, he didn't accomplish nearly as much as Gretzky, Howe and Orr.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

And if you look at the 98-99 season as well, you'll see that the Canucks went a grand total of 7-23-8-1 in the 39 games Messier missed during his tenure in Vancouver. Over the course of the three seasons there:

Points % with Messier: .440

Points % without Messier: .295

Whether or not Canucks fans want to admit it, their team was significantly worse with Messier out of the lineup. If Messier truly was "awful in every respect" as many suggest, the numbers certainly don't bear it out.

yeah, but what does that really prove?

when we say cancer, we don't mean it's better if he's not on the ice/bench. we mean it's better when he's not on the team. it's not like he's out there on the ice shooting pucks at his own goalie or intentionally firing off suicide passes to his wingers.

and yes, obviously an old, lazy, disruptive messier is still a better player on the ice than brian noonan or peter zezel or, lower down the roster, the garbage AHLers that the '98-'00 teams were icing. when messier is out of the lineup, brandon convery enters the lineup. dave scatchard or mike sillinger become your number one center.

he's mark messier. two time MVP, six time cup winner, one of the 30 greatest players of all time (and, for the record, someone who i don't consider overrated). of course a garbage team is better with him in the lineup than without him. we're still pissed after all these years and call him a cancer because there was some actual talent on the roster, and yet he got the worst from bure, from mogilny, and from linden and gelinas for the brief spell they were still there. the funk that surrounded that team didn't magically disappear when messier was eating baked lays in the press box.

marty gelinas, guy should have retired a canuck. just like if there's any justice, alex burrows will retire a canuck. gelinas would be a big part of two cup runs before he retired, and in one of them scored 3 (4?) series winning OT goals, including the one that knocked our team out of the playoffs. other than a goalie and a first line center, what were the naslund/bertuzzi canucks' most in need of? a gritty, playoff tested two-way winger who could score big goals when bertuzzi and naslund started squeezing their sticks. but no, gelinas had to go because he was one of "quinn's boys." lottery team superstar geoff sanderson was so awesome, by the way, that we traded him for frickin' brad may a month later.


and as for the claim, made above, that naslund and bertuzzi credited messier with their development, i have two responses:

1. they are lying. naslund himself has equivocated on messier's leadership, and its divisiveness, in the past.

2. even if it's true, who cares? would any of us really want to thank mark messier for turning naslund and bertuzzi into the disappointing, chokey losers that they became? for taking naslund under his wing and grooming him into a captain who couldn't right the ship, fire up the team, or control the loose cannons when things were going bad? or for taking bertuzzi under his wing and presumably grooming him into the moody, lazy, p.o.s. he was in '04 between when he ended his holdout and when he did what he did to steve moore (incidentally, very similar to the moody, lazy, p.o.s. that messier was when he was here)?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

yeah, but what does that really prove?

when we say cancer, we don't mean it's better if he's not on the ice/bench. we mean it's better when he's not on the team. it's not like he's out there on the ice shooting pucks at his own goalie or intentionally firing off suicide passes to his wingers.

and yes, obviously an old, lazy, disruptive messier is still a better player on the ice than brian noonan or peter zezel or, lower down the roster, the garbage AHLers that the '98-'00 teams were icing. when messier is out of the lineup, brandon convery enters the lineup. dave scatchard or mike sillinger become your number one center.

he's mark messier. two time MVP, six time cup winner, one of the 30 greatest players of all time (and, for the record, someone who i don't consider overrated). of course a garbage team is better with him in the lineup than without him. we're still pissed after all these years and call him a cancer because there was some actual talent on the roster, and yet he got the worst from bure, from mogilny, and from linden and gelinas for the brief spell they were still there. the funk that surrounded that team didn't magically disappear when messier was eating baked lays in the press box.

marty gelinas, guy should have retired a canuck. just like if there's any justice, alex burrows will retire a canuck. gelinas would be a big part of two cup runs before he retired, and in one of them scored 3 (4?) series winning OT goals, including the one that knocked our team out of the playoffs. other than a goalie and a first line center, what were the naslund/bertuzzi canucks' most in need of? a gritty, playoff tested two-way winger who could score big goals when bertuzzi and naslund started squeezing their sticks. but no, gelinas had to go because he was one of "quinn's boys." lottery team superstar geoff sanderson was so awesome, by the way, that we traded him for frickin' brad may a month later.


and as for the claim, made above, that naslund and bertuzzi credited messier with their development, i have two responses:

1. they are lying. naslund himself has equivocated on messier's leadership, and its divisiveness, in the past.

2. even if it's true, who cares? would any of us really want to thank mark messier for turning naslund and bertuzzi into the disappointing, chokey losers that they became? for taking naslund under his wing and grooming him into a captain who couldn't right the ship, fire up the team, or control the loose cannons when things were going bad? or for taking bertuzzi under his wing and presumably grooming him into the moody, lazy, p.o.s. he was in '04 between when he ended his holdout and when he did what he did to steve moore (incidentally, very similar to the moody, lazy, p.o.s. that messier was when he was here)?

This should demonstrate how awful the rest of the roster was during Messier's time there. And this is without mentioning the goaltending circus either. This team was terrible when Messier arrived, and remained so during his tenure, though the .440 points percentage indicates that they were only "below average" with him playing, as opposed to the laughing stock they were without him.

Too many people (not you) act like Messier came to a Cup contender, sewered them, then had them return to glory the moment he left. Reality is, he came to a bad team, failed to improve the situation, and the team returned to the playoffs when he left due to young players coming into their own. Messier didn't make them terrible, management had already done that damage. The Messier signing was a short-sighted desperation move to save a sinking ship. Like most of those moves, it failed.

I think most of the vitriol towards Messier is due to him apparently forcing Trevor Linden and other fan favorites out the door. Based on the direction the team was going, was this honestly such a bad result? In hindsight, Linden for Bertuzzi was robbery considering Linden spent the rest of his career as a support player while Bertuzzi rose to stardom for a few years.

 

[quoipourquoi]

yet he got the worst from bure, from mogilny, and from linden and gelinas for the brief spell they were still there.

Was he supposed to stop pucks for Kirk McLean and Sean Burke too? The team scored just seven fewer goals than the division winning Colorado Avalanche in 1997-98. The problem was that they had two goaltenders with save percentages in the .870s. They had a winning record when Irbe (.907) was in net, but that was only 31 decisions.

If the team had a "cancer," it was in the crease.


EDIT: And for the record, that was Bure's first point-per-game season in four years, so I don't know what you're talking about when you say "he got the worst from Bure."

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Was he supposed to stop pucks for Kirk McLean and Sean Burke too? The team scored just seven fewer goals than the division winning Colorado Avalanche in 1997-98. The problem was that they had two goaltenders with save percentages in the .870s. They had a winning record when Irbe (.907) was in net, but that was only 31 decisions.

If the team had a "cancer," it was in the crease.


EDIT: And for the record, that was Bure's first point-per-game season in four years, so I don't know what you're talking about when you say "he got the worst from Bure."

most will tell you that was the laziest, most selfish, most gunning-for-50-goals-to-hit-a-contract-bonus-with-no-regard-for-the-team that bure ever played.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

most will tell you that was the laziest, most selfish, most gunning-for-50-goals-to-hit-a-contract-bonus-with-no-regard-for-the-team that bure ever played.

I would certainly agree with that. Having said that, didn't Bure claim that Keenan told him he could play however he wanted, to get that milestone, after the team was already out of contention?

 

[Czech Your Math]

Was he supposed to stop pucks for Kirk McLean and Sean Burke too?

The problem was that Messier had this myth surrounding them that his mere presence and leadership made his team substantially better, apart from his actual value as a player. It wasn't as if Messier tried to resist that image as some sort of supernatural leader either, if anything he perpetuated it. I think his later years really exploded that myth, as he played on some teams with decent/good talent, but they couldn't even make the playoffs year after year.

 

[billybudd]

Anderson, clearly.

Regardless of where someone might 'rate' Messier, he was a Hall of Fame talent with a Hall of Fame career. Hell, his talent was such that he did his part in getting a bum like Anderson the type of numbers that got him into the Hall of Fame, when he didn't have the talent (or work ethic) to be within a block of it on his own.

Please provide some evidence for the bolded statement.

Having cancer does not make a player great. Are you trying to say that Lemieux is great because of games not played?

If Mario actually played a full career, he might be closer to the top 3 but, by missing so much time, he didn't accomplish nearly as much as Gretzky, Howe and Orr.

Gretzky's got a bullet-proof argument as the greatest player ever.

Putting the other two above Lemieux isn't something that can be done without having standards that morph for the specific purpose of putting Mario below them.

If you value longevity so much, then it makes sense to put Howe above him. But Orr was even less durable than Lemieux and coped with his health issues worse (Mario once lead the league in points per game while, not only old, but mostly stationary during his shifts due to back and hip problems that prevented him from really skating...Orr never did anything like that), so if that's your criterion, Orr, necessarily, is put below Lemieux by it.

If you're valuing pure excellence more, I guess one could say Orr was better (I wouldn't, but it's not crazy to think). But under that standard, Howe didn't do anything as well as either of them and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath.

You need to pick a standard and stick to it, not change it to get the outcome you, for whatever reason, want.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Gretzky's got a bullet-proof argument as the greatest player ever.

No, he really doesn't.
The only completely non-arguable thing that ever comes out of any vote is that Lemieux is clearly 4th.
I think on the last vote between experts, Gretz, Orr and Howe were separated by less than 10% total in first place votes.
I'll have to dig up the link.
Edit: I can't find it, search doesn't go back far enough.
Anyway, Gretz had the single highest % of 1rst place votes. He was just over 30% total, Orr around 30%, Howe in the mid-high 20's and Mario coming in around in the low teens.

Suffice to say, Gretzky in no way, shape or form ran away with it.


As far as the thread goes...as some have mentioned, it's very subjective and usually a matter of context.
I don't think Crosby is overrated...until you see an article calling him the greatest Penguin ever or that he is as good or better than Jagr or that he going to catch Gretzky or something else silly. In that context, he IS overrated.

 

[seventieslord]

As far as the thread goes....

Well said, my friend, because this is as far as the thread goes. We are approaching 1000 posts rather quickly.