Gretzky vs Messier: Mr. Regular Season vs Mr. Playoffs

[The Panther]

This is closer to WW2 than now.

Not so much...?

1945 to 1988 = 43 years

1988 to 2024 = 36 years

 

[MarotteMarauder]

Playoffs, much more so than regular season, are about matchups and game plans.

As an opposing coach, who do you spend more time and effort trying to get good matchups against?
Who do you devise a game plan to neutralize as best as possible?

Both answers are Gretzky

 

[Oddbob]

This just feels like a thread to run down Gretzky a bit. He was hands down better than Messier, ALWAYS!

I take one Gretzky over one Messier, but if I'm building a team and have to fill it with one player, I take 12 Messiers over 12 Gretzkys.

Can you imagine the fighting over who gets #11 and the C???? They would implode!

 

[yianik]

This just feels like a thread to run down Gretzky a bit. He was hands down better than Messier, ALWAYS!



Can you imagine the fighting over who gets #11 and the C???? They would implode!

Didn't think of that, would be quite the internal infighting lol

 

[Fourier]

Almost invariably, the only people who feel strongly that Gretzky should've won the '84 Conn Smythe are those who didn't watch a second of the '84 playoffs; I don't think I've ever heard any major issues with Messier winning from anybody who watched.

For me there is no question that Gretzky deserved the Smythe in 1984. I watched every minute of those playoffs including every home game live. Pretty much everyone I knew who was there also felt the same way.

Part of this is the standard that Gretzky was held to. He had to be not only better than others but significantly better. Context also matters, Gretzky often had a shadow and the attention of at least one other player to manage. This often intensified in the playoffs. In fact no player in my life tome came close to Gretzky in terms of the focused attention he received. Teams knew that if you didn't slow Gretzky down you lost to the Oilers. As good as Messier was he never experienced this.

 

[Staniowski]

For me there is no question that Gretzky deserved the Smythe in 1984. I watched every minute of those playoffs including every home game live. Pretty much everyone I knew who was there also felt the same way.

Part of this is the standard that Gretzky was held to. He had to be not only better than others but significantly better. Context also matters, Gretzky often had a shadow and the attention of at least one other player to manage. This often intensified in the playoffs. In fact no player in my life tome came close to Gretzky in terms of the focused attention he received. Teams knew that if you didn't slow Gretzky down you lost to the Oilers. As good as Messier was he never experienced this.

There were many people at the time who thought Gretzky should've won, and many others who thought he was in the conversation, and many who thought Messier should've won. I think the latter were the majority.

I don't have any problem with anybody who watched and thought Gretzky should have won. I wouldn't even have a problem if Gretzky had won, even though I think Messier deserved it more. And, at the time, I actually thought Gretzky would win it, and was pleasantly surprised when Messier was named the winner.

The only issue I have now is people who never watched the '84 playoffs who can't imagine that Messier deserved it, or can't imagine Messier could ever outplay Gretzky.

An important piece of context that was also a factor in favour of Messier, I think, is that there was a lot of talk - and belief - that the Oilers needed to play hungrier, tougher, better defense, etc., rather than just all-out offense, if they were ever going to win the Cup....in other words, more like Messier and Lowe, and less like Gretzky. And that's actually what happened, and when Messier (and Lowe) became more prominent, that's when they won it.

 

[Fourier]

There were many people at the time who thought Gretzky should've won, and many others who thought he was in the conversation, and many who thought Messier should've won. I think the latter were the majority.

I don't have any problem with anybody who watched and thought Gretzky should have won. I wouldn't even have a problem if Gretzky had won, even though I think Messier deserved it more. And, at the time, I actually thought Gretzky would win it, and was pleasantly surprised when Messier was named the winner.

The only issue I have now is people who never watched the '84 playoffs who can't imagine that Messier deserved it, or can't imagine Messier could ever outplay Gretzky.

An important piece of context that was also a factor in favour of Messier, I think, is that there was a lot of talk - and belief - that the Oilers needed to play hungrier, tougher, better defense, etc., rather than just all-out offense, if they were ever going the Cup....in other words, more like Messier and Lowe, and less like Gretzky. And that's actuall to winy happened, and when Messier (and Lowe) became more prominent, that's when they won it.

I think you are changing your position on this to a more reasonable one from:

Almost invariably, the only people who feel strongly that Gretzky should've won the '84 Conn Smythe are those who didn't watch a second of the '84 playoffs; I don't think I've ever heard any major issues with Messier winning from anybody who watched.

My problem with your bolded claim is that it seems to suggest that Gretzky was not part of that transition. I'll specifically address the "hungrier" part of this. In all my years watching hockey I don't think I have ever seen anyone more competitive than Gretzky. Messier's leadership has become part of his legend, but during the 80's the Oiler's undisputed leader was Gretzky and I will bet that if you asked anyone on those teams other than Gretzky himself they would confirm that.

My position is based on watching virtually every game Gretzky played for the Oilers and all but a small handful of home games live. Messier despite his rep was known to take games off and early in his career he was often in Sather's doghouse for this. He was also very undisciplined. Gretzky in contrast was much more likely to play every shift like the one before. Messier learned to play the game "the right way" from Gretzky. Moreover, he would "raise his game" in big situations and people noticed this. But Gretzky was mostly still playing as he did game in and game out. This closing the gap was as you note why he was given so much credit. But it's not because he was somehow doing more than Gretzky to help the team win. It was more that the expectations on Gretzky were such that anything beyond the exceptional were considered ordinary.

In 1984 after every period a group of us would meet under the stands to discuss the game. Most of us had been STH's from the get go. While I am sure you can find STH's who would have chosen Messier, none of my group would have.

 

[Staniowski]

I think you are changing your position on this to a more reasonable one from:


My problem with your bolded claim is that it seems to suggest that Gretzky was not part of that transition. I'll specifically address the "hungrier" part of this. In all my years watching hockey I don't think I have ever seen anyone more competitive than Gretzky. Messier's leadership has become part of his legend, but during the 80's the Oiler's undisputed leader was Gretzky and I will bet that if you asked anyone on those teams other than Gretzky himself they would confirm that.

My position is based on watching virtually every game Gretzky played for the Oilers and all but a small handful of home games live. Messier despite his rep was known to take games off and early in his career he was often in Sather's doghouse for this. He was also very undisciplined. Gretzky in contrast was much more likely to play every shift like the one before. Messier learned to play the game "the right way" from Gretzky. Moreover, he would "raise his game" in big situations and people noticed this. But Gretzky was mostly still playing as he did game in and game out. This closing the gap was as you note why he was given so much credit. But it's not because he was somehow doing more than Gretzky to help the team win. It was more that the expectations on Gretzky were such that anything beyond the exceptional were considered ordinary.

In 1984 after every period a group of us would meet under the stands to discuss the game. Most of us had been STH's from the get go. While I am sure you can find STH's who would have chosen Messier, none of my group would have.

My position hasn't changed at all; it's that (the vast majority of) the people who feel the strongest about Gretzky winning the '84 Conn Smythe are people who don't even remember 1984.

I wasn't trying to associate the word "hungrier"with Gretzky (my writing is bad there), but rather the team as a whole. And with respect to Messier, he led the improvement of the team, and exemplified why the team won. If Messier didn't emerge, and hadnt moved to C, the Oilers might not have won any Cups.

Yes, Gretzky was consistent, and Messier wasn't. That was almost always the case.

It's fine that you and a few people you knew though Gretzky deserved the CS (I'm sure you werent the only ones); but obviously a lot of people who also watched the entire '84 playoffs thought differently.

 

[Fourier]

My position hasn't changed at all; it's that (the vast majority of) the people who feel the strongest about Gretzky winning the '84 Conn Smythe are people who don't even remember 1984.

I wasn't trying to associate the word "hungrier"with Gretzky (my writing is bad there), but rather the team as a whole. And with respect to Messier, he led the improvement of the team, and exemplified why the team won. If Messier didn't emerge, and hadnt moved to C, the Oilers might not have won any Cups.

Yes, Gretzky was consistent, and Messier wasn't. That was almost always the case.

It's fine that you and a few people you knew though Gretzky deserved the CS (I'm sure you werent the only ones); but obviously a lot of people who also watched the entire '84 playoffs thought differently.

I don't really think it is correct to say that Messier led the improvement. As a player he may have seemed to improved more than Gretzky in absolute terms but it is my sense that you can attribute much of his improvement to Gretzky's example. Gretzky was ridiculously driven from day one and everyone who played with him from back then acknowledges this. And really the whole team matured significantly from about 81-84 when they won their first cup.

No one I knew was really all that upset about Messier getting the Smythe, because we were just thrilled for the win and understood why they made the pick. But certainly up to 1985 the Oilers were undisputedly Gretzky's team. He was not only by far their best player but was also the real leader. But as I said in previous posts Gretzky by '84 was held to a very different standard than any other player.

In your previous post you mentioned things like "toughness" for example. The Oilers were a tough team well before they won. This is one of the lesser known facts about them.

 

[The Panther]

We might be over-analyzing this a bit. Back in the late-70s / early-80s (it seems to me), the Conn Smythe was often awarded to a player who wasn't the best player on his team but was a key piece of the puzzle and who suddenly stepped it up, either in the whole playoff, or, notably, in the Finals. So, Reggie Leach and Butch Goring won it. And Messier won it (Messier wasn't "legendary Messier" yet at age 23). And John Tonelli for Canada Cup '84.

I think Gretzky was probably close to Messier in Conn Smythe voting, but it just went Messier's way. It's all good.

Probably if Gretzky had been the hero of game 1 of the Finals (instead of Fuhr and McLelland), or if he had led the series-shifting game three (instead of Messier), he would have won. But Wayne was a kind of a lesser factor in the first two Oiler wins of the Finals. He showed up in a big way in the third and fourth wins, but maybe the tide had turned by then.

Contrast with the 1985 Finals, where the Oilers got smoked in game 1, but then won four in a row, with Wayne scoring seven goals in the four wins. He scored at least one goal in each win.

 

[Albatros]

Not so much...?

1945 to 1988 = 43 years

1988 to 2024 = 36 years

Ah, yeah, was supposed to be another pic from 1984. No Ranford.

 

[Fourier]

We might be over-analyzing this a bit. Back in the late-70s / early-80s (it seems to me), the Conn Smythe was often awarded to a player who wasn't the best player on his team but was a key piece of the puzzle and who suddenly stepped it up, either in the whole playoff, or, notably, in the Finals. So, Reggie Leach and Butch Goring won it. And Messier won it (Messier wasn't "legendary Messier" yet at age 23). And John Tonelli for Canada Cup '84.

I think Gretzky was probably close to Messier in Conn Smythe voting, but it just went Messier's way. It's all good.

Probably if Gretzky had been the hero of game 1 of the Finals (instead of Fuhr and McLelland), or if he had led the series-shifting game three (instead of Messier), he would have won. But Wayne was a kind of a lesser factor in the first two Oiler wins of the Finals. He showed up in a big way in the third and fourth wins, but maybe the tide had turned by then.

Contrast with the 1985 Finals, where the Oilers got smoked in game 1, but then won four in a row, with Wayne scoring seven goals in the four wins. He scored at least one goal in each win.

I think this post pretty much sums it up. Game 1 of the finals was a key turning point. That McLelland goal is possibly the most important in franchise history. The Islanders bouncing back in game 2 was not unexpected, but I think there was still a sense that the Oilers had the upper hand. Game 3 was confirmation and it was Messier's best game of the series. But even so there was still a chance for things to turn if the Islanders won game 4. I'd be lying if I said that I was not still nervous sitting in my seat for the puck drop of game 4. People around me seemed to feel the same. For me Gretzky's early goal in game 4 was the nail in the coffin and he dominated that game. I would also say that from a fan's perspective winning at home was huge. Gretzky made sure that would be the case with another absolutely dominant performance in game 5.

As you say the CS often went to the guy who raised his game the most, especially at a key moment. In a way this makes sense since most of the people voting on the award had at nest a pretty causal acquaintance with what happened over the course of the whole playoffs. Messier's game 3 stood out in this regard and was really why he won the CS I believe. (Anderson may have been as good in that game by the way.) But if the CS was actually awarded to the most valuable player to his team throughout the playoffs, there is still no question in my mind that in 1984 that was Gretzky.

 

[VanIslander]

Gretzky always played well, he was very consistent; but Messier had a couple extra gears that he used when needed the most.

"Extra gears" isn't as apt as SHIFTING ROLES... He and Tikkanen have played very differently in the playoffs when needed.

Their agitating, physical play of the body replaced by puckhounding surging, their willingness to hold onto pucks longer, take more quick shots, abandon positioning for possible rebounds, to wit, play the puck instead of the man.

In the regular season Mess was often content to cruise with his man on the backcheck, suckerpunching, tripping or otherwise preventing that guy passage.

But in the postseason he often anticipated the counterattack and went early into open ice, took the puck further, risking turnovers, chipping and chasing rather than putting deep or passing off.

In short, Messier's style of play changed a lot in the playoffs out of necessity. Howie Meeker and his magic marker used to break it down.

In contrast, Gretzky continued his scoring-first mentality (though his pass vs. shoot decision making changed, he shooting more often when holding the puck longer - there was a great stat on this).

 

[Staniowski]

I think this post pretty much sums it up. Game 1 of the finals was a key turning point. That McLelland goal is possibly the most important in franchise history. The Islanders bouncing back in game 2 was not unexpected, but I think there was still a sense that the Oilers had the upper hand. Game 3 was confirmation and it was Messier's best game of the series. But even so there was still a chance for things to turn if the Islanders won game 4. I'd be lying if I said that I was not still nervous sitting in my seat for the puck drop of game 4. People around me seemed to feel the same. For me Gretzky's early goal in game 4 was the nail in the coffin and he dominated that game. I would also say that from a fan's perspective winning at home was huge. Gretzky made sure that would be the case with another absolutely dominant performance in game 5.

As you say the CS often went to the guy who raised his game the most, especially at a key moment. In a way this makes sense since most of the people voting on the award had at nest a pretty causal acquaintance with what happened over the course of the whole playoffs. Messier's game 3 stood out in this regard and was really why he won the CS I believe. (Anderson may have been as good in that game by the way.) But if the CS was actually awarded to the most valuable player to his team throughout the playoffs, there is still no question in my mind that in 1984 that was Gretzky.

I don't think the Conn Smythe voting was close (i.e. Messier likely won by a big margin), and I doubt Gretzky even finished 2nd. Messier was pretty close to Gretzky in scoring in each of the four series, and he brought a lot of intangibles, which everybody could see....hits, matchups, etc. Remember after Game 7 against Calgary, everybody couldn't stop talking about Messier.

 

[Fourier]

I don't think the Conn Smythe voting was close (i.e. Messier likely won by a big margin), and I doubt Gretzky even finished 2nd. Messier was pretty close to Gretzky in scoring in each of the four series, and he brought a lot of intangibles, which everybody could see....hits, matchups, etc. Remember after Game 7 against Calgary, everybody couldn't stop talking about Messier.

The Oilers did not really use Messier for match-ups back then. Especially vs Calgary. The key strategy was to try and get Gretzky away from his shadow.

Again, Gretzky was the best Oiler in the Calgary series, and certainly in game 7. In game 7, Gretzky had 3 points, was a plus 2 and had 5 shots on goal. Messier did not have a point, was a minus one and took a couple of penalties. The first penalty killed a pp that the Oilers had not long after the Flames pulled within 1. The Flames tied it up on that pp as well.

As I said several times it was not that Messier was better, its just that his game was better than it had been. This is part of the "big gamer" phenomenon. The other thing people forget about Gretzky is that a lot of what he did that made him so special was extremely subtle and often happened away from the puck. Watching Gretzky on TV was not the same as watching him in person and despite his immense skill and some of the spectacular things he did, he was not always incredibly dynamic. And as crazy as it sounds, even in person it took time to learn to fully appreciate his game. People would often go to games to watch Gretzky for the first time and come away sounding somewhat disappointed. And yet he had just put up 4 points in a game that the Oilers scored 5. Messier was the opposite. When he played well it was pretty obvious to everyone.

I love Messier. He is a local guy who was very well known well before he wore an Oiler jersey. But there is no way to convince me based on what I saw with my own eyes that if voting was based on the actual most valuable player the recipient in 1984 should have been anyone but Gretzky.