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.
Beliveau is a guy who I consider the best leader ever. Not that Messier wasn't great too, but Beliveau is my #1 leader. Not to mention he, like all of the all-time greats elevated the play of his linemates too.
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.
And he should and DOES get credit for a brilliant playoff career. There are precious few who were better than Messier in the postseason, but there are a few more who dominated the regular season better. The guarantee is a nice thing he did and it should be respected but I'm not sure it makes him a better player for his career.
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'll give Messier the intangibles over Jagr. But offensively Jagr controlled the pace of the game better than him for sure. We all know Messier was strong, but why do we forget how tough it was to knock Jagr off the puck? Maybe Lemieux is the only one I thought was better at protecting the puck that I saw. If I am a GM it is awfully close for me on who to pick. Plus just look at those Pens teams in like 1999 or 2000. Not very good at all. Jagr took them to the 2nd round both times on his back. He even took the Rangers further than they probably should have gone later in his career. When you look at the all around package you can't help but like Messier but Jagr's talent was so tantalizing and he had such an ability to literally take over a game. Dominance. That's the key word I think of when I think of Jagr.
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
Even if you look at Bourque's playoff numbers he certainly did his part and then some. Once in a while Boston had a healthy Neely, and later there was Oates but that's it. Other than that the best player he played with on Boston was Rick Middleton. Hey nothing against nifty Rick, he's a borderline HHOFer, but no matter when Bourque was a Bruin he always had to carry the Bruins.
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.
They are all important. It is a combination of all of them I think. Peak should never be ignored though when you are comparing players at this level (top 20ish all-time). But for me it's always a combination of such, maybe peak being the most important coupled with playoff resume
teach me more about this GVT! Ramsay, Luce, Clarke, Carbonneau and Gainey topping a defensive statistic, indicates to me that this is a statistic that works. I must know more.
