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

[TheDevilMadeMe]

A comparison of Messier's top ten scoring finishes with those of his historic competition (who played in the NHL) among forwards.

Messier: 2, 3, 5, 5, 7, 10

Gretzky: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4

Lemieux: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8

Mikita: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4

Hull: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

Richard: 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,

Howe: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 9

Beliveau: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 8, 8, 9

Jagr: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9

Lafleur: 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 4

Lindsay: 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 7, 9

Clarke: 2, 2, 5, 6, 8, 8, 10

Bossy: 2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6,

Trottier: 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10

Morenz: 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 10

Yzerman: 3, 3, 4, 7, 7, 10

Sakic: 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 8, 10

Esposito: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 7, 9

The vast majority of these players are far ahead of Messier offensively. I would say his results are comparable with only Trottier, Clarke and Yzerman. Interestingly, each of those players was better than Messier defensively over the course of their careers. Leadership and grittiness are well and good, but it isn't going to make up the gap for Messier in most cases, and plenty of those listed players were great leaders and gritty anyway. As most of the players listed above were also tremendous in the playoffs, there is little reason to rate Messier above many of them for that reason either.

Factor in defencemen including Orr, Harvey, Bourque, Shore, Lidstrom and Potvin, along with goaltenders like Hasek, Roy, Plante and Sawchuk, and the idea of putting Messier in the top 10 is honestly laughable. I can't see Messier legitimately being ranked any higher than 22, with only Sakic, Yzerman, Trottier, Bossy and Plante or Sawchuk being potentially behind Messier among those players I've mentioned.

Yzerman was not better than Messier defensively over the course of his career. Messier was a very good defensive player even before he became an offensive threat. By the time Yzerman had surpassed Messier in defensive play, he was no longer a Top 10 scorer. Likewise, Sakic didn't become a good defensive player until the second half of his career (though he did still have a few more top 10 finishes after becoming good all-round).

Why stop at top 10 finishes? Look at Top 20 or Top 25 finishes, and suddenly Messier looks better than Lafleur and perhaps Bossy.

Ted Lindsay finished 2nd quite often, but he was often 2nd to his linemate Gordie Howe, who was likely helping Lindsay's stats. Look at 51-52:

1. Gordie Howe*-DET 86
2. Ted Lindsay*-DET 69
3. Elmer Lach*-MTL 65
4. Don Raleigh-NYR 61

There is no way that Lindsay was a better offensive player than Lach that year; I'm sorry.

Morenz was definitely a better player than Messier (IMO), but there's no way that a 10th place finish in the talent pool of the 1930s is the same as it was in the 1980s and 1990s.

Then of course, there's the obvious fact that Messier got very little PP time for much of his time in Edmonton.

___________

Of the players you listed, I think Messier is easily ahead of Sakic, Yzerman, and Lindsay. I would personally rank him ahead of Lafleur, Clarke, Bossy, Trottier, and Esposito, as well, though I see arguments to the contrary. Esposito is the best case to be ranked over Messier (he blows him away in regular season peak). But Messier was a better all-round player than Espo and beats him in the playoffs, while beating him easily in longevity.

Messier vs. Jagr gives me trouble. Watching hockey since the early 90s, I would honestly rather have Messier on my team - he was just that much harder to stop when the games mattered the most. But looking back on it, Jagr was so statistically dominant with little help. But the fact that Messier vs. Jagr is even a question to me shows just how highly I view Messier.

 

[Big Phil]

A more dominant season than Messiers 90 season? Leading scorer(130pts) and Captain of the Stanley Cup Champs. Mess also Won the Hart Trophy that season as well. I guess we should should also value guys like Joe Thornton (who has yet to show up in the playoffs) for his great dominating regular seasons. I really do fail to see your logic here in picking Jagr over Mess. Jagr has a grand total of one better season then Mess (149 I think).

When examining the regular season alone Jagr certainly does have two years (at least) better than Messier's. 1999 for sure, he just literally tore apart the entire NHL and this was the time when he truly separated himself from the rest of the pack.

1996 is a year where he dominated so great offensively that it's hard to ignore.

If you want to combine Messier's 1990 playoffs I can see that then, but it isn't as if Jagr never did his part and then some with his teams. He certainly did. That being said based on Jagr's dominance alone you can easily make a career comparison against Messier. I know it wouldn't be one sided.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Messier fought Jim Nill's wife?

His sister, actually.

But she was bigger than Jim.

 

[Starchild74]

I don't think anyone on these boards undervalues Mess. This is the History of Hockey board, the smartest people I have come across on the internet. It is just that people on this board realize the game has been played for such a long, long time and so many greats have come through. Sure Messier was more than just numbers, and I realize that looking just at top 10 finishes is not the whole story. But others had some intangibles too. Beliveau, Mikita both played well without the puck. Beliveau probably was the best captain of all-time. Hull was more noticeable and the play revolved around him more than it would Messier when he was on the ice, it isn't just the points they put up.

I think in a way Messier falls into a numbers game. He WAS a great one, no one should ever deny that, and his career is one of the best ever but there are some careers and players who did it better and made their mark on the league even bigger.





Something tells me Messier wouldn't lead a team to the Cup whose 2nd best player was Martin Straka. No Jagr never won a cup without Mario. But that is a small part of the whole picture. Jagr was a great playoff performer who took mediocre teams further than they deserved to go. Maybe he didn't have the superb defensive game, but he falls into the category a few notches behind Lemieux and Gretzky in that he was such a shift disturber on the ice and so utterly dominant in the defensive end that your job was to stop Jagr and that was your focus, if you did that.

Peak wise Jagr beats Messier. Mess has 1990 as his best year. Not too shabby but I'll take Jagr in 1996 or even better 1999. Just a more dominant season.



I personally would pick Bourque over Messier all-time. Bourque was a first team all-star his last season and his first season. Not to nitpick, but there were years in the 1980s where Bourque outscored Messier. As for having to "leave Boston to win a Cup" come on. Are we really going down that route? No one can blame Bourque for Boston's failures and especially at the time of his trade they weren't even trying to win and they knew it. So what the only times Bourque made the final he lost to the Oilers. 1988 with Gretzky in his peak and 1990 with a still very formidable Oilers team. I'm not sure I would consider Messier to have "outperformed" Bourque in the 1990 final either. Bourque as always did his part. He had two goals in Game 1 of that classic overtime duel in the final.

But in general, I could easily make a case for Bourque > Messier

Yes it is not about just the points. Messier made everyone around him better and was one fo the best at motivating his team mates. Whether it was what he did on the ice or off the ice. Now players like Beliveau was great but the only player in the history I put along in the same breath of Messier when it comes to leadership and doing it all for his team and giving his all is the Rocket. Others might come close but these were the two greatest leaders ever.

Now if you want to only consider making there mark on the game that is a good one. Their are stars, superstars and then legends. Mark Messier will never be mistaken for a legend. He was not Richard, Orr, Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux etc... When you look at it even Crosby as left a mark on the game even more so then Messier. Messier was never the best even when he was winning Hart Trophies he was never thaught of as in the same breath of Gretzky or Lemieux. So in that reguards you are right. However one thing that will always live on his the legend of the guaranteed win. I mean in 50 years from now no one will ever remember the goal against the Islanders, Or how he changed the series against the Blackhawks for the Oilers. People might never remember the smile Messier had everytime he or a teamate scored. They might never remember the Stanley cup winning goal he scored for the Rangers. But 50 years from now people will still talk about the guaranteed win. He was known as the Messiah in New York. He wasn't the only reason the Rangers won, Truth be told he never really guaranteed the win. He was trying to motivate his team. Not only did he get a goal but he got a hat trick in that game. That is what legends are made of. Stories that get told to generation to generation. So yes maybe some made their mark on the league more so then Messier. But will anyone ever leave a mark on a team or a city like Messier. Richard excepted of course.

What did Jagr do in the playoffs when he wasn't with Lemieux. Honestly what did he do? when was Pittsburgh a mediocre team in the years that you are talking about. Yeah when Lemieux retired the first time the Penguins had nothing. Francis, Kovalev and as you mentioned Straka who when the Penguins went the furthest in 1999 without Lemieux he was their leading scorer in the playoffs. Yes Jagr was hard to stop in the offensive zone. To a degree unstoppable. But not too many people could stop Messier either. I mean if you hit him often you would bounce off of him. How do stop Messier from hitting, How do you stop Messier from using his speed to skate by you. Messier was pretty dominant on the ice as well.

Yes statistically speaking Jagr peak wise he was better then Messier. More Dominant I don't think so. Messier in 1990 won the Hart Trophy and led the Oilers to the Cup. Or does the playoffs not count. Now if we are just talking about offensive skill then that is all you can say Jagr was better at then Messier. Jagr was one of my favourite players and loved watching him but their is no way a GM or anyone in their right mind would pick Jagr over Messier if they were wanting to win the Cup

I am not balming Bourque for not winning the Cup with Boston it was just that when it mattered most Bourque often was beaten by the games best players. Whether it be Gretzky, Lemieux, or others like. Richer, Stevens, Anderson etc... Bourque was great but in the big games he was often not the best player. In 1988 when Boston went to the Finals it was not just Gretzky honestly I doubt anyone could have ahnadled the Oilers that year. I mena in the playoffs they lost just 2 games. However Bourque didn't have that great of a series. In 1990 yes Bourque scored the only two goals in game 1. However for the rest fo the series he was not that good. Messier did out perfrom him no question. I will never forget how easily the kid line would cycle the puck against Bourque. How players like Graves, Murphy and Gelinas at times were able to out muscle Bourque for the puck. Now I do not mean to put Bourque down because I liked him so much but just can't agree that he was better then Messier. Close yes and believe me it is almost a tie. I find it hard to compare defenceman to forwards as that is very hard. For the record even though I said Bourque was the best defenceman in the last 30 years I was just going with the general view I would take Denis Potvin over Bourque any day

Also I ask you this. What is more important Career stats, Peak performances, Playoff stats, Awards, Top ten finishes, awards voting, Stanley Cup wins, Physicall skill, Longevity, Intangibles, etc.... Which is the one that matters the most or all equal. Why is it so important when comparing players to automatically compare peak years. I tshould be everything not just one thing

 

[oil4life97]

Way too much emphasis on top ten finishes and peak seasons going on in this thread. The Messier nay sayers keep bringing up these numbers about the regular season and how it proves Mess doesn't deserve to be in the top 10-15.

Here's a little food for thought for the nay sayers.

Regular season PPG vs Playoff PPG and the difference

Gordie Howe

1.04 vs 1.02 dif less .02

Wayne Gretzky

1.92 vs 1.84 dif less .08

Bobby Orr

1.39 vs 1.24 dif less .15

Mario Lemieux

1.88 vs 1.60 dif less .28

Howie Morenz

0.85 vs 0.43 dif less .42

Stan Mikita

1.05 vs 0.97 dif less .08

Jaromir Jagr

1.26 vs 1.07 dif less .19

Steve Yzerman

1.16 vs 0.94 dif less .22

Bobby Hull

1.10 vs 1.08 dif less .02

Maurice Richard

0.99 vs 0.95 dif less .04

Guy Lafleur

1.20 vs 1.04 dif less .16

Jean Beliveau

1.08 vs 1.08 dif none

Mark Messier

1.07 vs 1.25 dif MORE .18

So the only guy on the list able to elevate his stats in the post season was Messier. There are players on this list from his era and prior. His ability to elevate his game this much in the playoffs is what sets him apart from his peers. No he may not have the same regular season success when it comes to top ten finishes and peak seasons. He has 2nd overall points in the regular season, not too shabby for a guy who played 2nd line minutes for a good chunk of his career.

But when it comes to playoffs, how could anyone argue that he isn't one of the best playoff performers of all time. Last time I checked the playoffs are usually a little more important than regular season. If not Messier better make room for Joe Thornton and all his top ten finishes in the regular season.

 

[JackSlater]

Yzerman was not better than Messier defensively over the course of his career. Messier was a very good defensive player even before he became an offensive threat. By the time Yzerman had surpassed Messier in defensive play, he was no longer a Top 10 scorer. Likewise, Sakic didn't become a good defensive player until the second half of his career (though he did still have a few more top 10 finishes after becoming good all-round).

I'm quite confident that over the course of his career Yzerman was a better defensive player. At his offensive peak he wasn't, but overall he was. Yzerman had numerous years were he was playing defensively at a Selke level. I wasn't able to watch Messier's early years at anything near a meaningful level, but I've never seen anything from that period to make me think he was more than good in that area. Late in his career when Yzerman great defensively, while Messier was never that great defensively. I know that GVT is by no means a perfect stat, but I believe Yzerman is third or so among forwards in defensive GVT since expansion, and roughly 20% above Messier. He was also quite a bit ahead of Messier in terms of per game defensive GVT.

Why stop at top 10 finishes? Look at Top 20 or Top 25 finishes, and suddenly Messier looks better than Lafleur and perhaps Bossy.

I stopped at top 10 finishes because I was looking at all time greats and comparing who was the best. If you're an all time great offensively you should be able to build up a nice collection of top ten scoring finishes. Top 25 finishes might be useful if we were looking at who had the most valuable career, but that's not what I'm interested in. This is especially true with Bossy, as I assume that had he remained healthy he would have had plenty of additional top 25 finishes... if not top 10.

Ted Lindsay finished 2nd quite often, but he was often 2nd to his linemate Gordie Howe, who was likely helping Lindsay's stats. Look at 51-52:

1. Gordie Howe*-DET 86
2. Ted Lindsay*-DET 69
3. Elmer Lach*-MTL 65
4. Don Raleigh-NYR 61

There is no way that Lindsay was a better offensive player than Lach that year; I'm sorry.

Obviously context has to be considered in all of those point finishes. It isn't as if changing that finish to a 3rd or 4th for Lindsay suddenly makes Messier's resume more impressive than Lindsay's though. Plus, considering Lindsay had a third before Howe was a consequential player and a first by a sizable amount over a young Howe and everyone else, I'm still quite comfortable giving him the edge over Messier offensively. Lindsay was also a much better goalscorer.

Morenz was definitely a better player than Messier (IMO), but there's no way that a 10th place finish in the talent pool of the 1930s is the same as it was in the 1980s and 1990s.

I agree regarding the tenth place finish. That being said, Morenz's finishes are still quite a bit better than Messier's. Once again, I agree that context is very important. I wasn't interested in writing out the context of each finish for each player, but I did consider them. For almost all of the players listed the gap is so big that there isn't much point to that anyway. In the cases where the players did have comparable results to Messier, there were cases where the context made me lean more toward the other player (Yzerman) and also some where I leaned toward Messier (Trottier).

Then of course, there's the obvious fact that Messier got very little PP time for much of his time in Edmonton.

Absolutely. Playing on the same team as a peak Wayne Gretzky and Paul Coffey over those years probably makes up for that quite a bit though, plus it isn't as if he had poor linemates by any stretch.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm quite confident that over the course of his career Yzerman was a better defensive player. At his offensive peak he wasn't, but overall he was. Yzerman had numerous years were he was playing defensively at a Selke level. I wasn't able to watch Messier's early years at anything near a meaningful level, but I've never seen anything from that period to make me think he was more than good in that area. Later in his career when Yzerman was great defensively, Messier was never that great defensively. I know that GVT is by no means a perfect stat, but I believe Yzerman is third or so among forwards in defensive GVT since expansion, and roughly 20% above Messier. He was also quite a bit ahead of Messier in terms of per game defensive GVT.
[

What about the fact that Glen Sather matched Messier against Trottier in the two clashes of the dynasties? Or the fact that Messier was always the guy matched against KLM in international play, completely owning Larionov in 1987?

And no, you can't just say that Yzerman at his peak was better offensively and defensively and therefore, he was better. Yzerman only had 1 top 10 finish (10th in 2000) after 1992-93. So his 5 best finishes all happened when he was a 1 way player.

Obviously context has to be considered in all of those point finishes. It isn't as if changing that finish to a 3rd or 4th for Lindsay suddenly makes Messier's resume more impressive than Lindsay's though. Plus, considering Lindsay had a third before Howe was a consequential player and a first by a sizable amount over a young Howe and everyone else, I'm still quite comfortable giving him the edge over Messier offensively. Lindsay was also a much better goalscorer.

Compare Lindsay vs. Messier in terms of Hart records. It's a complete bloodbath in Messier's favor. Even when Lindsay won the Art Ross, his linemate, Sid Abel, won the Hart.

Absolutely. Playing on the same team as a peak Wayne Gretzky and Paul Coffey over those years probably makes up for that quite a bit though, plus it isn't as if he had poor linemates by any stretch.

I think the evidence is strong that playing on the same team as Gretzky hurt Messier. Other than Mess's first few years, they both played center, and Gretzky obviously got the lion's share of PP time and offensive zone faceoffs.

Messier exploded offensively in 1986-87, Gretzky's second to last season with the team. Was he a late bloomer? Maybe. Or maybe he was held back by playing on the same team as Gretzky. The statistics show that he certainly wasn't hurt by Gretzky's departure.

How often did Messier play with Coffey? My guess is that Coffey usually played with Gretzky, while Messier probably spent much more time with Kevin Lowe in a defensive role.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Way too much emphasis on top ten finishes and peak seasons going on in this thread. The Messier nay sayers keep bringing up these numbers about the regular season and how it proves Mess doesn't deserve to be in the top 10-15.

Here's a little food for thought for the nay sayers.

Regular season PPG vs Playoff PPG and the difference

Gordie Howe

1.04 vs 1.02 dif less .02

Wayne Gretzky

1.92 vs 1.84 dif less .08

Bobby Orr

1.39 vs 1.24 dif less .15

Mario Lemieux

1.88 vs 1.60 dif less .28

Howie Morenz

0.85 vs 0.43 dif less .42

Stan Mikita

1.05 vs 0.97 dif less .08

Jaromir Jagr

1.26 vs 1.07 dif less .19

Steve Yzerman

1.16 vs 0.94 dif less .22

Bobby Hull

1.10 vs 1.08 dif less .02

Maurice Richard

0.99 vs 0.95 dif less .04

Guy Lafleur

1.20 vs 1.04 dif less .16

Jean Beliveau

1.08 vs 1.08 dif none

Mark Messier

1.07 vs 1.25 dif MORE .18

So the only guy on the list able to elevate his stats in the post season was Messier. There are players on this list from his era and prior. His ability to elevate his game this much in the playoffs is what sets him apart from his peers. No he may not have the same regular season success when it comes to top ten finishes and peak seasons. He has 2nd overall points in the regular season, not too shabby for a guy who played 2nd line minutes for a good chunk of his career.

But when it comes to playoffs, how could anyone argue that he isn't one of the best playoff performers of all time. Last time I checked the playoffs are usually a little more important than regular season. If not Messier better make room for Joe Thornton and all his top ten finishes in the regular season.

Nobody does. He is, and without question. But comparing scoring rate in regular season vs playoffs is a fallacy. What if Messier scored at 1.30 ppg in the regular season, and therefore 0.05 less in the playoffs, would this make him a lesser player in your eyes? The reason Messier completely dominates those guys in that statistic is because he was the worst offensively in the regular season out of them all. He was definitely a better playoff performer than some of them, maybe even almost all of them, but the stat you show is very flawed.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Nobody does. He is, and without question. But comparing scoring rate in regular season vs playoffs is a fallacy. What if Messier scored at 1.30 ppg in the regular season, and therefore 0.05 less in the playoffs, would this make him a lesser player in your eyes? The reason Messier completely dominates those guys in that statistic is because he was the worst offensively in the regular season out of them all. He was definitely a better playoff performer than some of them, maybe even almost all of them, but the stat you show is very flawed.

It's flawed on it's own. But it does show one thing - Messier more than anyone else, can't really be judge solely on his regular season stats, which is what "counting top 10 finishes" does.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

It's flawed on it's own. But it does show one thing - Messier more than anyone else, can't really be judge solely on his regular season stats, which is what "counting top 10 finishes" does.

Oh I concur, but I think most people agree as well. Based solely on regular season stats, Messier is nowhere near the 15-25 range all-time, but that's where the majority of people place him. Clearly his playoff record is being given appropriate weight by most people.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

It's flawed on it's own. But it does show one thing - Messier more than anyone else, can't really be judge solely on his regular season stats, which is what "counting top 10 finishes" does.

I agree - but I don't think anyone is 'only' counting top 10 finishes.
The fact is, it is something rather lacking from Messier that a lot of the other greats do not lack.
Ultimately, regular season results have to make up the largest piece of the pie, as it places all players on the most equal footing as a basis for making comparisons. But it's clearly not everything - or you would be seeing arguments for Dionne over Messier, and with a 'it's not even close'.

 

[JackSlater]

What about the fact that Glen Sather matched Messier against Trottier in the two clashes of the dynasties? Or the fact that Messier was always the guy matched against KLM in international play, completely owning Larionov in 1987?

And no, you can't just say that Yzerman at his peak was better offensively and defensively and therefore, he was better. Yzerman only had 1 top 10 finish (10th in 2000) after 1992-93. So his 5 best finishes all happened when he was a 1 way player.

Who else was Sather going to use against Trottier? Gretzky? As far as international competition goes, a four game sample against the Soviets isn't all that meaningful to me in terms of establishing Messier's defensive ability. Messier was Canada's best centre not involved with the first line... of course he was going to get those minutes.

I never stated that Yzerman was better because his offensive and defensive peaks were better. You said that Messier was a better defensive player over the course of his career. I presented some evidence that suggests otherwise, although certainly isn't definitive. In terms of defensive GVT per game the only forwards ahead of Yzerman are Ramsay, Luce, Clarke, Carbonneau, Miller and Gainey. That's is meaningful to me. It is also meaningful to me that when Yzerman ceased being an elite offensive player he became elite defensively. Messier didn't. Of course I realise that Messier also deserves quite a bit of credit for being the better defensive player while still in his offensive peak.

Compare Lindsay vs. Messier in terms of Hart records. It's a complete bloodbath in Messier's favor. Even when Lindsay won the Art Ross, his linemate, Sid Abel, won the Hart.

I suspect public opinion had a lot to do with that. Ted Lindsay was one of the most hated players in the NHL during his career. Is it that surprising that his Hart trophy record is relatively poor? Plus, having your prime correspond with the primes of one player definitely better than you (and Messier) and one player quite possibly better than you (and Messier) on your own team in Howe and Kelly definitely hurts as well. Messier wasn't really a Hart calibre player until the year after Gretzky left, so that factor didn't have a tremendous impact on him. Also, Messier is one of the more beloved players from that era, which certainly helped him in Hart voting I suspect. Messier won the 1992 Hart practically because he went to New York. His 1996 second place finish in Hart voting was ridiculous. If Messier was an unpopular player like Lindsay, he likely loses both of his Harts and doesn't come close to second in 1996. This is coming off more negative toward Messier than I intended, but I don't believe that Hart voting comes close to telling us much about Lindsay or Messier.

I think the evidence is strong that playing on the same team as Gretzky hurt Messier. Other than Mess's first few years, they both played center, and Gretzky obviously got the lion's share of PP time and offensive zone faceoffs.

Messier exploded offensively in 1986-87, Gretzky's second to last season with the team. Was he a late bloomer? Maybe. Or maybe he was held back by playing on the same team as Gretzky. The statistics show that he certainly wasn't hurt by Gretzky's departure.

How often did Messier play with Coffey? My guess is that Coffey usually played with Gretzky, while Messier probably spent much more time with Kevin Lowe in a defensive role.

I wasn't suggesting that Messier wasn't hurt somewhat by playing second fiddle. I was suggesting that the negative impact was mitigated by the fact that from time to time he would be on the ice with the greatest scorer ever and the second greatest offensive defenceman ever. Playing against inferior checkers, with a HOF winger on his line many of those years, also helps. I would put Messier's final three years with Gretzky offensively very close to his first, third and fourth years without Gretzky.

 

[oil4life97]

What if Messier scored at 1.30 ppg in the regular season, and therefore 0.05 less in the playoffs, would this make him a lesser player in your eyes?

Now we are at "what ifs"

The fact is Messier elevated his game big time in the playoffs and had big success in the playoffs and regular season as well. I rank him in the 10-12 range. Checking the Hockey News Top 100 Players, Mess is rated 12. So I think I'm pretty close. As far as people ranking him 20+

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Now we are at "what ifs"

The fact is Messier elevated his game big time in the playoffs and had big success in the playoffs and regular season as well. I rank him in the 10-12 range. Checking the Hockey News Top 100 Players, Mess is rated 12. So I think I'm pretty close. As far as people ranking him 20+

Messier only improved 0.18 ppg from regular season to playoffs...Fernando Pisani improved from 0.37 to 0.63! Pisani was a better big-game player than Messier!

 

[overpass]

Then of course, there's the obvious fact that Messier got very little PP time for much of his time in Edmonton.

This factor should be considered, of course. But "very little PP time" is quite an overstatement.

From 1982-88, on the same team as Wayne Gretzky*, Messier was on the ice for 53% of Edmonton's PP goals. He scored 0.34 PP points per game.

From 1989-97, once Gretzky was gone, Messier was on the ice for 68% of his team's PP goals. He scored 0.44 PP points per game.

PP scoring levels and usage pattern for top forwards were fairly similar over these two time periods. So I think 0.1 points per game is a fair estimate for Messier's "lost" power play points.

*The main PP players for Edmonton from 1982-88, by PP%:
Wayne Gretzky - 87%
Paul Coffey - 83%
Glenn Anderson - 60%
Mark Messier - 53%
Jari Kurri - 50%
Charlie Huddy - 50%

plus the likes of Siltanen, Simpson, Krushelnyski, Lowe, Gregg, Tikkanen, and Linseman.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This factor should be considered, of course. But "very little PP time" is quite an overstatement.

From 1982-88, on the same team as Wayne Gretzky*, Messier was on the ice for 53% of Edmonton's PP goals. He scored 0.34 PP points per game.

From 1989-97, once Gretzky was gone, Messier was on the ice for 68% of his team's PP goals. He scored 0.44 PP points per game.

PP scoring levels and usage pattern for top forwards were fairly similar over these two time periods. So I think 0.1 points per game is a fair estimate for Messier's "lost" power play points.

*The main PP players for Edmonton from 1982-88, by PP%:
Wayne Gretzky - 87%
Paul Coffey - 83%
Glenn Anderson - 60%
Mark Messier - 53%
Jari Kurri - 50%
Charlie Huddy - 50%

plus the likes of Siltanen, Simpson, Krushelnyski, Lowe, Gregg, Tikkanen, and Linseman.

Was it you who said that Messier started getting significant PP time in 86-87, the year he really exploded offensively (and 2 years before Gretzky was traded)?

I'm honestly surprised to see Kurri's numbers so low.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Was it you who said that Messier started getting significant PP time in 86-87, the year he really exploded offensively (and 2 years before Gretzky was traded)?

I'm honestly surprised to see Kurri's numbers so low.

Going on memory, Kurri was used on the PK a lot. Just wish we had the TOI to confirm it, as I admit memory can be faulty - but again, Selke voting from the time backs up my observation.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Going on memory, Kurri was used on the PK a lot. Just wish we had the TOI to confirm it, as I admit memory can be faulty - but again, Selke voting from the time backs up my observation.

He did PK a lot, but I thought Gretzky was usually his partner?

 

[RabbinsDuck]

The other thing I will bring up in this thread is Messier's Hart wins often automatically qualify him amongst the other 2 X Hart winners in many rankings. My opinion is that all Hart trophies are not created equally and Messier's both happen to fall into the 'weak' category. I am not sure if there was ever a player in history who capitalized more on media infatuation.

 

[Derick*]

Messier only improved 0.18 ppg from regular season to playoffs...Fernando Pisani improved from 0.37 to 0.63! Pisani was a better big-game player than Messier!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The other thing I will bring up in this thread is Messier's Hart wins often automatically qualify him amongst the other 2 X Hart winners in many rankings. My opinion is that all Hart trophies are not created equally and Messier's both happen to fall into the 'weak' category. I am not sure if there was ever a player in history who capitalized more on media infatuation.

I know what you mean. His 1990 Hart was a fantasticly dominating season by Messier, but maybe Bourque deserved it more...

His 1992 Hart was probably pretty weak as Harts go, I agree.

But on the other hand, Messier was runner up to Mario Lemieux for a third.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

He did PK a lot, but I thought Gretzky was usually his partner?

Going on memory again - but their roles were entirely different. Kurri would play a lot more PK minutes, and in a traditional sense -actually playing defense- but Gretzky would be put on a PK in the closing seconds to generate offense through either a breakout pass or stealing the puck (which he is often underrated for). Oilers scored an incredible amount short-handed.

Now realize you are mainly talking PP - Maybe an Oiler's fans can help, but I do recall Messier getting a good amount of PP time with Gretzky and those PP lines were not the same as ES lines. It would not shock me to see Kurri and Messier with similar PP time, or Messier with more.

 

[overpass]

Was it you who said that Messier started getting significant PP time in 86-87, the year he really exploded offensively (and 2 years before Gretzky was traded)?

I'm honestly surprised to see Kurri's numbers so low.

I've said a lot of things, I don't remember.

Looking at the numbers, his PGF are a little lower in 82 and 85, but the other years are pretty steady. It was 1990 when his PP usage appears to have jumped to the "elite first line scorer" level - but that was more likely an effect than a cause of his big scoring year, as most of his scoring increase came at even strength.

Kurri was used less on the PP in 1982 and 1983, it looks like he had second unit minutes those years. From 1984 to 1988, his PGF were about the same as Anderson and Messier.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I know what you mean. His 1990 Hart was a fantasticly dominating season by Messier, but maybe Bourque deserved it more...

His 1992 Hart was probably pretty weak as Harts go, I agree.

But on the other hand, Messier was runner up to Mario Lemieux for a third.

Messier's runner-up for the Hart that year may be the biggest case of media infatuation I have ever seen. It is hard to justify Messier as anywhere close to either the 2nd best player in the league -or- the 2nd most valuable to his team that year. More like "Most Press of the Year". With no Lemiuex Messier was still not even Top 10 in scoring in 1996. I know Messier was super-human and all, but when has a forward won the Hart without even being in the Top 10 for points???

That year Fedorov finished with more points -and- won the Selke, for example.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

Nobody does. He is, and without question. But comparing scoring rate in regular season vs playoffs is a fallacy. What if Messier scored at 1.30 ppg in the regular season, and therefore 0.05 less in the playoffs, would this make him a lesser player in your eyes? The reason Messier completely dominates those guys in that statistic is because he was the worst offensively in the regular season out of them all. He was definitely a better playoff performer than some of them, maybe even almost all of them, but the stat you show is very flawed.

All of Messier's playoff games came in his prime years. For another 7 years he lowered his regular season PPG but it didnt touch his playoff PPG.

Pre-Vancouver regular season: 1552 points 1272 games, 1.22 PPG.