Where do you rank Messier on an all-time list?

[finchster]

Top Five, maybe three or four. Best leader to where a hockey jersey.

I am curious who is your top 5 of all time, wear is Howe or Orr placed?

 

[overpass]

I've been looking into the idea that he got "far" more icetime than he deserved, and I'm not so sure. In particular, the 1998 and 2001 seasons that I was describing:

- In 1998 he had 22.7 minutes per game. Who deserved some of those minutes? Linden? Zezel?

- In 2001, he played a full minute per game less than Nedved, and two minutes more than 3rd-liner Mike York. In fact, he played less at even strength than York. It was his PP time (almost certainly deserved over York) that gave him more minutes and undoubtedly helped to give him so many more points. Again, who would some of those minutes have gone to? that was pretty much a peak icetime year for Nedved and I'm not sure he should have been relied on any more than he was.

Messier's even strength scoring tanked starting in 1997-98. He was a below-average even strength scorer (on a per minute basis) for the rest of his career. It's difficult to argue that he deserved the big minutes when most other players who played those minutes were scoring a lot more.

He still played a lot on special teams, but how much was he really helping? Of the 14 special teams units Messier "starred" on in the last 7 years of his career, 1 was above average - the PP of the 00-01 Rangers (thanks Brian Leetch!)

Maybe the blame should go to his teams for not having enough good players to push Messier down the depth chart. Although it's hard to blame Vancouver too much - they thought they were getting a star in Messier.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Those last few years sure as hell "undid" his reputation as "the greatest leader ever". Up to '97, I see a solid argument for him having that mantle. Afterward? Not so much so.

So, he lost his leadership skills with age?

More likely he lost his leadership skills with the lost of talent around him.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Just because you mentioned Esposito, I think there's a very good argument for Messier over Esposito - it centers around his far superior Hart record, his better rounded game, the fact that he has a long record of being a an all-time great superstar without Gretzky (while Espo really has the Summit Series without Orr and that's it), his superior playoff record, and his vastly superior longevity.

Espo has a significant edge in regular season peak offense over Messier. That's really it.

That's a pretty big one, though.

Perhaps the most significant hockey tourney ever and Espo was the best player and the leader of the (barely) winning side.

 

[Regal]

So, he lost his leadership skills with age?

More likely he lost his leadership skills with the lost of talent around him.

I think it was more or a case of seeing his leadership skills in a new light. As Vadim Sharifijanov said earlier, perhaps his leadership wasn't always right for every situation. And I think he had become such a major influence in New York, that he just expected things to be the same in Vancouver without him earning it first.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Messier's final seven years might not have enhanced his status but it did not hurt him either. He kept playing for the love of the game an dhe could have signed with a better team then the Rangers but his heart was with New York.

Phil Esposito was one of the greatest players to ever play the game but I do know from what I have seen of both players and I have seen more of Messier of course then Espostio. I would take Messier ahead of Esposito any time.

Now no one can argue the fact that Esposito was better offensively then Messier. Esposiot scored more and got more points then Messier when you look at his production. He was moe creative as well. Now both were helped in their careers playing with great players. I think though that Esposito was helped by Orr more so then Messier by Gretzky. I am not saying that Esposito would not have been as great without Orr but that helped him quite a bit. Espostio's points went up drstically when he went to Boston and alot of that has to do with Orr. Messier's best days were when he was no longer on the same team as Gretzky. I am just making the point that when you look at Espostio's numbers especially in the early to mid seventies Orr's presence was a major inlfuence into his numbers

Their are things though that Messier did that does not translate to stats but does translate to wins and losses. Messier was one of the most feared players in the league. He was bigger then most and was nasty. He was one of the dirtiest players in the league and put the fear in the opposition and his own players just ask Kent Nilsson. There was a saying when it came to Messier. Don't wake him up. There was a reason for this. Messier could change a game just by his physical play and a look.

Esposito only won 2 cups as a player that is it. Yes it takes a team to win and in the 70's you had the Canadiens and the Flyers who were good and won cups but in the end the greats find a way to win the cup. Eposito never broguht his game up when it was needed the most. What I mean is that after 72' when Orr was playing on one knee and sometimes no knees he was doing everything he could to win but it just didn't feel like Esposito was able to bring his game up. He played the regular season at such a high level that when the playoffs came that was it he couldn't raise it anymore

Messier's regular season might not have been to the level of Esposito but when it came to the playoffs he raised his level so much. It was Messier who scored the biggest goal in Oilers history against the Islanders. In the 1990 playoffs he changed the series around against Chicago and of course we all know what happened in 1994. Their are many more times Messier did this. Whether it was a big hit or a key faceoff or even blocking shots. Messier would do what ever was needed to win for his teams. This is what makes him way above Esposito for playoffs and has a captain

No disrespect to Espostio as he was amazing but in the end Messier brought more to the table then Esposito. Both played for a high scoring team at one point and both at one point in their careers played with arguably the two best players ever respectively. The only difference was that Messier was on a different line and was not the primary center on the team. Where Esposito played almost all the time with Orr when Orr was healthy of course. With Orr Esposito's averaged aprox. 124pts a season without Orr he averaged 71pts of course taking out his first and last season

Messier averaged 89 pts with Gretzky not counting his rookie year. Up to the age of 37 without Gretzky he averaged 87 pts

For playoffs Espostio averaged 13pts a year with Orr. Without Orr he average 6pts not inlcuding his rookie year and never won the cup without Orr

Messier averaged 18pts when with Gretzky on his team not including rookie year. without gretzky on his team he averaged 18pts and won 2 cups

So yes Espostio might have had a better peak but just how much of that is attributed to Orr.

What would make you think that Espo always played with Orr?

With the length of some of Espo's shifts, he played pretty much with all the B's defensemen.

Having seen Espo play a lot in Boston, believe me he was at least as good a player as Messier. I rated him higher on my list, but whe you're talking about the difference between guys in the 15-25 range, there isn't a big gap in talent level.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That's a pretty big one, though.

Perhaps the most significant hockey tourney ever and Espo was the best player and the leader of the (barely) winning side.

Of course, it's big. But it was only 8 games. That's less than a full playoff year.

Even if you want to equate it to the playoffs, is it more impressive than Messier's actual Conn Smythe or his excellent playoff performances in 1990 or 1994?

I mean, I know what the Summit Series meant politically. But in terms of "raising one's game," does it add more to a player's "greatness" than a legendary playoff run would?

So, he lost his leadership skills with age?

More likely he lost his leadership skills with the lost of talent around him.

I think it proved that Messier's leadership style was very dependent on his self-confidence and being able to perform up to his huge faith in himself. "I'll show you guys how it's done," and he followed through! Once his skills eroded, he still had the ego (if anything, it was even bigger after 1994), but he could no longer live up to what he thought he could do.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You've got to be joking...

Look very closely at the 2 side by side season by season and who they played with and tell me there is a big gap between them offensively.

Messier was the better goal scorer to be sure but Francis was one hell of a good offensive player no matter how you slice it and he aged better IMO as well.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Look very closely at the 2 side by side season by season and who they played with and tell me there is a big gap between them offensively.

You mean how Francis peaked at 9th in scoring without Jaromir Jagr on his line?

Or how Messier was behind only Gretzky and Lemieux for 2 Art Ross trophies? Or how he barely got to take any offensive zone faceoffs in Edmonton, since Gretzky was getting those?

What about playoffs?

Messier: 295 points in 236 games.
Francis: 143 points in 171 games.

 

[Starchild74]

What would make you think that Espo always played with Orr?

With the length of some of Espo's shifts, he played pretty much with all the B's defensemen.

Having seen Espo play a lot in Boston, believe me he was at least as good a player as Messier. I rated him higher on my list, but whe you're talking about the difference between guys in the 15-25 range, there isn't a big gap in talent level.

I am not saying that Esposito played every minute with Bobby Orr. I am just saying that Esposito's stats were more likely helped and inflated more by Orr and that is why his peak is just that much better then Messier's.

I did say that when it comes to pure skill Esposito is the better player however not by as much as some belive. I just feel Messier was the more complete player. That is all

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

You mean how Francis peaked at 9th in scoring without Jaromir Jagr on his line?

Or how Messier was behind only Gretzky and Lemieux for 2 Art Ross trophies? Or how he barely got to take any offensive zone faceoffs in Edmonton, since Gretzky was getting those?

What about playoffs?

Messier: 295 points in 236 games.
Francis: 143 points in 171 games.

Francis' playoff numbers might have been a bit better if he spent his first 12 years in Edmonton.

Not saying he was as good as Messier, but those numbers are pretty misleading.

Francis did outscore Jagr in 4 of his first 5 seasons in Pittsburgh in the playoffs. And you know he was playing a much better all around game as well.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Top Five, maybe three or four. Best leader to where a hockey jersey.

This question is kind of specified for Doctor No who rules with an ironfist generally: is it at all difficult to not infract (?) posters/posts like this? I know I would struggle with it.

Anyhow, I mean, you look at the all-time numbers which are certainly valuable to an extent but as pointed out earlier in the thread: [Messier - 2, 4, 6, 7, 7, 10] that is decidedly unimpressive for a 2+ decade career even vs. Gretzky et al.

I know it's been touched on briefly, but his relativity to Bobby Clarke is interesting, if not helpful...

Top 10 scoring:
Messier: 2, 4, 6, 7, 7, 10
Clarke: 2, 2, 5, 6, 8, 8, 10

Top 3 assists:
Messier: 2, 3
Clarke: 1, 1, 3

Hart:
Messier: 1, 1, 2, t-9
Clarke: 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 6, 6, 8, t-10, t-10

Selke (top-5):
Messier: N/A
Clarke: 1, 4

First-team all-star:
Clarke: 74-75, 75-76
Messier: 81-82 (LW), 82-83 (LW), 89-90 (C), 91-92 (C)

Second-team all-star:
Clarke: 72-73, 73-74
Messier: 83-84 (LW)

"Third"-team all-star:
Messier: 95-96 (C)
Clarke: 76-77

I believe that's all correct...everything is even or goes to Clarke except for Messier taking advantage of a weak position (LW) in the early 80's with Gretzky. The Hart Trophy voting record heavily favors Clarke and the 3 Hart trophies by Clarke should not be understated. As most here are well aware, only Gretzky (9), Howe (6), Shore (4) have won more...only Lemieux, Morenz and Orr have 3 also. All the aforementioned are firmly within the top 10 except for Morenz who is ranked 11th. Clarke is an outlier, and not too unfairly, at 21.

Let's take a quick peek at Ron Francis is regularly regarded as a non-top 100 player or a fringe top-100.

Hart: 6th, t-9th
Selke (top-5): 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th

First team all-star: -0-
Second team all-star: -0-
"Third" team all-star: 3

Top 10 goal finishes: -0-
Top 10 assist finishes: 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 7, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10
Top 10 point finishes: 4, 5, 5, 8, 9

Now certainly this isn't on par with Messier. But like Messier, it leaves you wanting more versus all-time numbers. Francis has comparable or better top-10 finishes in scoring. Messier's Hart Trophies blow Francis away. Counting just center all-star nods, Francis 3 "third" teamers versus Messier's 2 first and 1 third is again the step above that Messier possesses but is it worth 100 players on an all-time level?

With that said, I wouldn't think Messier is top 20...probably around 25, but maybe just outside of it. But I'm just a drop in the bucket of this debate...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Of course, it's big. But it was only 8 games. That's less than a full playoff year.

Even if you want to equate it to the playoffs, is it more impressive than Messier's actual Conn Smythe or his excellent playoff performances in 1990 or 1994?

I mean, I know what the Summit Series meant politically. But in terms of "raising one's game," does it add more to a player's "greatness" than a legendary playoff run would?

I think it proved that Messier's leadership style was very dependent on his self-confidence and being able to perform up to his huge faith in himself. "I'll show you guys how it's done," and he followed through! Once his skills eroded, he still had the ego (if anything, it was even bigger after 1994), but he could no longer live up to what he thought he could do.

To me, absolutely.

I think if you lived through that tournament you would understand why.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Francis' playoff numbers might have been a bit better if he spent his first 12 years in Edmonton.

Not saying he was as good as Messier, but those numbers are pretty misleading.

Francis did outscore Jagr in 4 of his first 5 seasons in Pittsburgh in the playoffs. And you know he was playing a much better all around game as well.

Obviously playing in Edmonton helped Messier a lot. But the difference in numbers is staggering.

And most of Francis's playoff games were in Pittsburgh, the best offensive team of early 90s, often by a wide margin.

I'm also not sure what Francis's "first 5 seasons in Pittsburgh" vs. Jagr is supposed to show. Jagr didn't win his first Art Ross until 1994-95, Francis's 5th season in Pittsburgh.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Now certainly this isn't on par with Messier. But like Messier, it leaves you wanting more versus all-time numbers. Francis has comparable or better top-10 finishes in scoring. Messier's Hart Trophies blow Francis away. Counting just center all-star nods, Francis 3 "third" teamers versus Messier's 2 first and 1 third is again the step above that Messier possesses but is it worth 100 players on an all-time level?

With that said, I wouldn't think Messier is top 20...probably around 25, but maybe just outside of it. But I'm just a drop in the bucket of this debate...

Than Messier?

Francis: 4th, 5th, 5th, 8th, 9th
Messier: 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 7th, 10th

I really don't see how this can be anything but a clear advantage for Messier.

For what it's worth, Messier was top 10 in goals 4 times (8th, 9th, 9th, 9th), while Francis never was.

Edit: Compare "points-per-game" also, which takes into account the fact that Messier's robust style often had him missing about 10 regular season games in a season:

Francis: 4th, 4th, 7th, 10th
Messier: 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 10th, 10th

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

To me, absolutely.

I think if you lived through that tournament you would understand why.

Fair enough. I mean, I got the tail end of the hatred for the Soviets in the 1980s, so I largely get it.

My point I guess was that hockey players already do everything they can to win in the playoffs, so I don't know how they can do more than "everything to win" in a series like the Summit Series.

But whatever, it's splitting hairs.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Fair enough. I mean, I got the tail end of the hatred for the Soviets in the 1980s, so I largely get it.

My point I guess was that hockey players already do everything they can to win in the playoffs, so I don't know how they can do more than "everything to win" in a series like the Summit Series. But whatever, it's splitting hairs.

Fair enough.

But one thing they did was break an ankle intentionally to win.

 

[Starchild74]

People often overlook the fact that Esposito had already risen to great offensive heights before Orr fully emerged. He won the Art Ross in 1968-69, setting the record for most points in a season up to that point. Orr "only" had 64 points that year. The previous season, Phil's first in Boston, he was second in league points. Orr only played 46 games, scoring 31 points that year. Prior to Orr exploding in 1970, Espo already had a Hart, an Art Ross + runner-up, 1st and 2nd team all-star selections, and two other top-10 scoring finishes from his Chicago days. Only Mikita, Hull, and Howe outscored him in the time spanning from his first full season until 1970.



Well said. You'd have to completely ignore this very important aspect of Messier's game in order to start making laughable comparisons to Ron Francis that we saw earlier in the thread.



I wasn't alive to see it, but this is never the impression I've gotten. When Esposito went out injured in 1973 playoffs, the Bruins folded like a cheap tent to the underdog Rangers, despite Orr's presence. I've never heard Phil criticized for not coming to play when it mattered. The only criticism seems to be that the Bruins were a bunch of party animals and that's why they only won two Cups. Phil is of course as guilty as the rest of them in that, but the whole group bears responsibility. Judging players by how much they raised their game has its pitfals in this case, where the player was already playing at elite HOF level. Glenn Anderson was notorious for raising his game in the playoffs, while Guy Lafleur merely maintained his pace. Still, who was the better playoff performer?

I agree with you that Esposito was already a good player before Boston but when comparing players and looking at peak years. Espostio's peak years were playing first line center to probably the best offensive team of the 70's and playing with arguably one of the top 2 players of all time.

If I made it sound as though Esposito wasn't good in the playoffs that isn't what I meant. I just meant that to me it felt that the Bruins won and lost on the shoulders or knees of Orr. It seemed that if Orr was playing well and somewhat healthy then the Bruins seemed to have good playoff years. When Orr was injured or could not perform because of his injuries the Bruins faultered. Not that Esposito didn't have big games or plays in the playoffs it just seems as though all the best and most important plays in the playoffs for the Bruins were Bobby Orr. Johnny Bucyk seemed to be the heart of the team. Not knocking Orr or Esposito but from the few playoff games I saw of the Bruins he seemed to be the leader or the heart and sould of the team. Or at least more so then Esposito. Whereas Messier was the heart and sould of the Oilers. Gretzky had heart and played with passion too but because of Messier's style it just seemed like as long as Messier was being Messier the Oilers couldn't lose and because of Messier playing th eway he did made it difficult for the opposition to focus too much on Gretzky's line

I am not saying that a player who raises his game more in the playoffs means more then anyone else. Like your example of Glenn Anderson compared to Lafleur. It is just that to a degree Messier was playing at an elite level during the regullar season as Esposito but when the playoffs came around Messier raised his play to next level. Not too many players can do this. Actually only very few great players can do this. Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, etc... can do this. Messier was one of them. Once again not trying to put Esposito down just feel that Messier when you take everything into account is my oppinion a minute hair ahead of Esposito when ranking the greatest of all time or at least players that I have seen enough play.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Obviously playing in Edmonton helped Messier a lot. But the difference in numbers is staggering.

And most of Francis's playoff games were in Pittsburgh, the best offensive team of early 90s, often by a wide margin.

I'm also not sure what Francis's "first 5 seasons in Pittsburgh" vs. Jagr is supposed to show. Jagr didn't win his first Art Ross until 1994-95, Francis's 5th season in Pittsburgh.

Jagr is on the same level as Messier, I would think. Surely I used a misleading argument since Francis' first 5 years in Pittsburgh were also Jagr's first 5 years as a pro. Just trying to show how numbers (like Messier vs. Francis in playoffs) can be selective for argument sake.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Than Messier?

Francis: 4th, 5th, 5th, 8th, 9th
Messier: 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 7th, 10th

I really don't see how this can be anything but a clear advantage for Messier.

For what it's worth, Messier was top 10 in goals 4 times (8th, 9th, 9th, 9th), while Francis never was.

Edit: Compare "points-per-game" also, which takes into account the fact that Messier's robust style often had him missing about 10 regular season games in a season:

Francis: 4th, 4th, 7th, 10th
Messier: 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 10th, 10th

Yeah, I suppose that's right...I was kind of wooed by Francis assist finishes/totals. Point well taken.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Jagr is on the same level as Messier, I would think. Surely I used a misleading argument since Francis' first 5 years in Pittsburgh were also Jagr's first 5 years as a pro. Just trying to show how numbers (like Messier vs. Francis in playoffs) can be selective for argument sake.

Gotcha. I actually rank Jagr and Messier very close to each other, but Jagr wins in regular season offense and ability to elevate the numbers of his linemates quite easily, I think.

 

[canucks4ever]

Rank him alongside trottier, clarke and lalfuer if you like, but i hate it when people have him above mikita, morenz or jagr. Those 3 are clearly a class above messier and i actually like him. I actually changed my opinion and choose to rank ted lindsay above him.

Honestly, it wouldn't be wrong to have bill cook or syll apps above him either. Those 2 tend to get very underrated for some reason. Cook and apps are the greatest players for original 6 teams.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yeah, I suppose that's right...I was kind of wooed by Francis assist finishes/totals. Point well taken.

I'm on a personal internet crusade to stop people from looking at goals and assists as separate entities.

Seriously though, all it does is make the less balanced player look better.

I watched the majority of the careers of these guys, and frankly, Messier was a true superstar, while Francis was considered a level below the true superstars for his long, excellent career.

I'm actually starting to warm up to the use of points-per-game stats (so long as you also look at overall points) because it was true that prime Messier played like a psychopath, causing him to miss about 10 games per year in the regular season, while always showing up for the playoffs.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Rank him alongside trottier, clarke and lalfuer if you like, but i hate it when people have him above mikita, morenz or jagr. Those 3 are clearly a class above messier and i actually like him. I actually changed my opinion and choose to rank ted lindsay above him.

Honestly, it wouldn't be wrong to have bill cook or syll apps above him either. Those 2 tend to get very underrated for some reason. Cook and apps are the greatest players for original 6 teams.

Jagr was not a "class above" Messier to those of us who saw them both in their primes.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Jagr was not a "class above" Messier to those of us who saw them both in their primes.

I was a big fan of Messier in the 80s but people trying to equate him with Jagr or Esposito just seems nuts to me. These guys have almost as many Art Rosses as Messier has Top 10 finishes.