Everybody who watched hockey in the 1980s will remember that we got to know Gretzky primarily from his regular season statistics, and we got to know Messier overwhelmingly because of his playoff performances.
After Messier moved to C in early 1984, the two players were the Oilers #1 and #2 centres for five playoff seasons. In each of these five seasons, Gretzky outscored Messier in every regular season and every playoff.
However, in every one of these seasons, the difference in scoring between them decreased dramatically in the playoffs as compared to the regular season, as follows:
'84 - RS - Gretzky 2.77 ppg; Messier 1.38 ppg
84- playoffs - Gretzky 1.84 ppg; Messier 1.37 ppg
So, the RS difference was 1.39 ppg, and the playoffs difference was 0.47 ppg; and the difference between those two was 0.92 ppg.
For the five years, these are the ppg differences of the the regular season vs playoff differences, all showing Messier dramatically gaining on Gretzky:
So, this is one statistical representation of what we were watching with respect to Gretzky and Messier, and why everybody was so impressed with Messier. Gretzky always played well, he was very consistent; but Messier had a couple extra gears that he used when needed the most.
Here are the score effect points of Gretzky and Messier from 1979-1980 to 1987-1988.
Definitely a larger percentage of blowout and insurance points for Gretzky than Messier, but honestly less than I expected (Messier himself got a lot of blowout and insurance points).
Unfortunately, I never finished the project to get the playoff stats from the old stats api and now it looks like the NHL has moved to a new one...
@pnep (who else?) of course has posted on the "score close" playoff scoring which does show Messier closer to Gretzky than all up points:
Players PO Scoring, "Score Close" situations (PO Seasons 1918-2021). "Score Close" is defined as a score that is tied (including 0-0) or team is leading by 1 goal/trailing by 1 goal. GAG - go-ahead Goal (scoring while game is tied, incl. 0-0) GAPTS - go-ahead PTS (scoring while game...
forums.hfboards.com
In any case, I remember looking at 1984 in particular and there Gretzky got a lot more blowout points than Messier (also scored more in games where the series was all but decided anyway rather than the more critical games). Somewhat explains why Gretzky basically got no love for the Conn Smythe in 1984.
• blowout: goal scored means leading by 4 or more
• insurance: goal scored means leading by 2 or 3
• go ahead: goal scored means leading by 1
• tie: goal scored means game tied
• comeback: goal scored means trailing by 1
• rally: goal scored means trailing by 2 or more
• first: point on first goal of the game
• second: point on second goal of the game
Gretzky >> Messier all day long, for both playoffs and regular season.
There's such a huge logic gap in these arguments for Messier. "Gretzky is better than me by this much <------> in season, but only by this much <--> in playoffs - ie, Messier is better in playoffs". No - Gretzky is still better lol.
Gretzky 100% should have won the smythe in 1984. Removed Gretzky from the team vs remove Messier from the team - the Gretzky gap is a much more difficult one to overcome.
Here are the score effect points of Gretzky and Messier from 1979-1980 to 1987-1988.
Definitely a larger percentage of blowout and insurance points for Gretzky than Messier, but honestly less than I expected (Messier himself got a lot of blowout and insurance points).
Unfortunately, I never finished the project to get the playoff stats from the old stats api and now it looks like the NHL has moved to a new one...
@pnep (who else?) of course has posted on the "score close" playoff scoring which does show Messier closer to Gretzky than all up points:
Players PO Scoring, "Score Close" situations (PO Seasons 1918-2021). "Score Close" is defined as a score that is tied (including 0-0) or team is leading by 1 goal/trailing by 1 goal. GAG - go-ahead Goal (scoring while game is tied, incl. 0-0) GAPTS - go-ahead PTS (scoring while game...
forums.hfboards.com
In any case, I remember looking at 1984 in particular and there Gretzky got a lot more blowout points than Messier (also scored more in games where the series was all but decided anyway rather than the more critical games). Somewhat explains why Gretzky basically got no love for the Conn Smythe in 1984.
• blowout: goal scored means leading by 4 or more
• insurance: goal scored means leading by 2 or 3
• go ahead: goal scored means leading by 1
• tie: goal scored means game tied
• comeback: goal scored means trailing by 1
• rally: goal scored means trailing by 2 or more
• first: point on first goal of the game
• second: point on second goal of the game
Let's look at 1984 scoring in-depth game by game, to try and decide who of Gretzky or Messier had more key offensive points & goals that contribute to game wins, and series wins in key moments.
Round 1:
Game 1 - Oilers win 9-2. Gretzky primary assist on 1-0 lead 40 seconds into game...sets the tone. Important. 3 points total
Messier secondary assist on 6-1 goal. Not important.
Game 2 - Gretzky tying goal in first (1-1). Primary assist on tying goal in 3rd (4-4). Important points, 2 points
Messier - 2 primary assists, including OT winner. Also important point.
Game 3 - Gretzky pointless. Messier does have a goal, to make game 3-1 in a 4-1 win.
Overall edge - slightly Gretzky. He set the tone in game 1, both are important in game 2...game 3 well in hand for Oilers series victory, neither a big difference maker but edge Messier. Overall Gretzky more critical to victory, but it's close.
Round 2:
Game 1 - Gretzky with primary assist late in first for tying goal (1-1) and game winning goal (3-1) in 2nd. Adds another critical primary assist to make it 4-2 early in 3rd to avoid a CGY comeback, and finishes with EN goal. 4 points, important game.
Messier - 1 secondary assist
Game 2 - Oilers lose in OT....but Gretzky with a tying goal with 45 seconds to go in 3rd to push to OT. 2 points each for Gretzky & Messier, but edge Gretzky.
Game 3 - assist on winning goal for Gretzky, Messier pointless. Small edge Gretzky
Game 4 - 2 points for Messier (including GW), 1 for Gretzky. Edge Messier
Game 5 & 6 - two losses to allow CGY to tie series 3-3. Messier 6 points vs 2 for Gretzky...big edge for Messier...yet Oilers lose both games.
Game 7 - Messier 0 points, Gretzky 3 points. Important ones too - a goal 20 seconds after 1st Oiler goal to make it 2-0...critical. After CGY ties it - an assist on go ahead 3-2 goal a minute into 2nd period....but CGY scores 2 to make it 4-3 CGY...no problem, Gretzky primary assist on tying goal 4-4. Messier ends game -1, Grezky +4.
Overall edge - Gretzky by a lot. A lot more critical points in the series, and a huge game 7. Messier did great in a losing cause in game 5, but Gretzky saved the day in a winning cause in game 7. A lot more points in tying/go ahead goals too.
Round 3:
Game 1 - Gretzky huge again to get Oilers off on the right foot. 2 primrary assist and 1 goal to make Oilers go up 4-0 in game 1. 4 points total. Messier, only one secondary assist.
Game 2 - Gretzky with primary assist to make Oilers go 3-2 in 3rd....and OT goal to win the game. Messier with 1 assist (in OT). Edge Gretzky again.
Game 3 - Gretzky goal early to pull Oilers ahead 2-0....but North Star claw back to 5-2 lead. Messier secondary assist late in 2nd to go 5-3, Gretzky secondary assist early in 3rd to go 5-4...Messier late SH goal to go 7-5, followed by Gretzky insurance SH goal to go 8-5 30 secons later...Messier 4 points Gretzky 3. Both do well here, maybe slight edge Messier for 4 points to 3.
Game 4 - by then, series already in the bag for Oilers. Oilers win 3-1, both Gretzky (primary) and Messier (secondary) have an assist in EN goal to seal victory.
Overall edge - again, Gretzky. Definitely better in games 1 and 2 to put series in control of Oilers...both good in game 3. Maybe slight edge Messier, but both are good.
Round 4:
Game 1 - Oilers win 1-0, both are pointless.
Game 2 - Oilers lose 6-1, both are pointless
Game 3 - Messier 2 goals (including key tying 2-2 goal), vs 2 secondary assist for Gretzky. Ok, definitely edge Messier here.
First time so far that this far into a series it's offensive edge to Messier in terms of key offensive contributions.
Game 4 - Gretzky 1-0 goal early in first to set the tone. Messier 3-1 goal late in first after NYI goal. Both with 2 points...let's call it a tie?
Game 5. Most critical game of all. Oilers up 3-1 in series, but this is against Dynasty Islanders who won 4 straight cups....
First period - Gretzky first goal. Gretzky 2nd goal. Oilers up 2-0 after 1.
Second period - Gretzky assist 38 seconds in, Oilers up 3-0.
Oilers win 5-2. Gretzkty 3 points, Messier 0. Big edge to Gretzky.
Overall edge...again Gretzy. First 2 games are a wash, Messier definitely better for game 3 than Gretzky, but Gretzky is even better then that for key game 5 win.
Summary:
In round 1 - 2 good games each. Edge to Gretzky for setting the tone in game 1 to take lead and strong in game 2, vs Messier doing better in game 3.
In round 2 - Game 1, 2, 3 edge Gretzky. Game 4 edge Messier. Games 5& 6 losses - edge Messier. Game 7 huge edge Gretzky. Overall - this is Gretzky again. Messier not able to lead team to win in games 5 or 6, Gretzky steps up huge in game 7. Was also better early in series.
In round 3 - Gretzky big edges in games 1 and 2. Both good in game 3 (maybe slight edge Messier) and wash for game 4. Overalll edge - Gretzky.
In round 4 - both wash in games 1 & 2. Edge Messier in game 3....wash for game 4, Gretzky huge edge in key game 5 win. Overall edge, Gretzky.
So there you go. Round by round, game by game, I went over all of their points, and Gretzky 100% has the edge for me in offensive contributions.
Messier was a playoff stud, as we all know. One thing about his Cup-run scoring, though, was that he often went on an offensive downslide in the Finals. Not to say this is unusual, as everyone goes down in the Finals, and since Gretzky / Kurri / whoever was also scoring, the Oilers' 2nd line didn't necessarily need to light it up. (This is also why clubs that have two elite lines often win Stanley Cups, because when one line is shut down, the other can pick up the pace.)
Anyway, Messier's scoring in rounds 1-3 vs. round 4:
1984 Rounds 1--3
22 PTS / 14 GP (1.57PPG) Round 4 (Final)
4 PTS / 5 GP (0.8PPG)
1985 Rounds 1--3
19 PTS / 13 GP (1.46PPG) Round 4 (Final)
5 PTS / 4 GP (1.25PPG)
1987 Rounds 1--3
23 PTS / 14 GP (1.64PPG) Round 4 (Final)
5 PTS / 7 GP (0.43PPG)
1988 Rounds 1--3
31 PTS / 14 GP (2.21PPG) Round 4 (Final)
3 PTS / 4.5 (?) GP (0.67PPG)
As I said, it's expected for any player's scoring to drop off a lot in the FInal... it's just really hard to put up points in the Final. Still, Mess's scoring drop-off there is quite notable.
I'm too lazy right now to do the same comparison for Gretzky. He was 1.00 PPG in the 1983 Final, and a bit below part in 1987. He was solid in 1984 and 1985, and outstanding in 1988.
Messier was a playoff stud, as we all know. One thing about his Cup-run scoring, though, was that he often went on an offensive downslide in the Finals. Not to say this is unusual, as everyone goes down in the Finals, and since Gretzky / Kurri / whoever was also scoring, the Oilers' 2nd line didn't necessarily need to light it up. (This is also why clubs that have two elite lines often win Stanley Cups, because when one line is shut down, the other can pick up the pace.)
Anyway, Messier's scoring in rounds 1-3 vs. round 4:
1984 Rounds 1--3
22 PTS / 14 GP (1.57PPG) Round 4 (Final)
4 PTS / 5 GP (0.8PPG)
1985 Rounds 1--3
19 PTS / 13 GP (1.46PPG) Round 4 (Final)
5 PTS / 4 GP (1.25PPG)
1987 Rounds 1--3
23 PTS / 14 GP (1.64PPG) Round 4 (Final)
5 PTS / 7 GP (0.43PPG)
1988 Rounds 1--3
31 PTS / 14 GP (2.21PPG) Round 4 (Final)
3 PTS / 4.5 (?) GP (0.67PPG)
As I said, it's expected for any player's scoring to drop off a lot in the FInal... it's just really hard to put up points in the Final. Still, Mess's scoring drop-off there is quite notable.
I'm too lazy right now to do the same comparison for Gretzky. He was 1.00 PPG in the 1983 Final, and a bit below part in 1987. He was solid in 1984 and 1985, and outstanding in 1988.
To add to this, going by the discussed pre finals candidates in the papers, it seems that Messier has lost the Conn Smythe in the finals, certainly in 1990, and for 1987 he would have been the Oiler pre final favorite/co with Fuhr. Then again he won it over Fuhr who was the Oilers pre final favorite but got hurt in 1984.
Gretzky still the tops in "score close" points (tying goal, go ahead goal, first insurance goal) with 252, Messier got 200, which almost halves the gap between 382 and 295.
More pronounced closing of the gap is the points on first goal. Gretzky at 53, Messier at 48.
Someone giving his near 100% all the time cannot have much of an extra gear, which is often a balancing act when talking about people that elevate in the playoff, in a sport for which energy-body wear and tear must be managed, big minutes hockey player 80 games-4 playoff round certainly are but in other like plate appearance in baseball for a batter, low minute hockey player... seem like saying a lack of focus the rest of the time.
Could be a shortcut for saying when most others go down by the pressure, they stay up, more than actually elevating.
There's such a huge logic gap in these arguments for Messier. "Gretzky is better than me by this much <------> in season, but only by this much <--> in playoffs - ie, Messier is better in playoffs". No - Gretzky is still better lol.
Everytime I look, I have to adjust my brain that Hasek was 10 months older than Roy (and that you can compare them 1:1 when they were both in the league directly without much issue)...
At least Roy-Hasek are close in the playoff here and the part of their shared nhl career exclude 86 Roy and other part of his peak, 3 cup to 1 winning twice as many games to make it more of a conversation:
Here's the Gretzky/Messier data broken down by round. This is the totals, I have the Edmonton/Los Angeles/New York splits as well (spoiler: doesn't help Messier either).
Messier
GF
GA
Games
G
A
Pts
+/-
Shots
ESP
PPP
SHP
G%
P%
Rd1
334
251
82
38
74
112
18
259
66
35
11
0.114
0.335
Rd2
288
235
70
32
50
82
7
191
52
26
4
0.111
0.285
Rd3
200
148
46
28
42
70
19
130
45
23
2
0.140
0.350
Rd4
132
100
38
11
20
31
7
89
21
8
2
0.083
0.235
Total
954
734
236
109
186
295
51
669
184
92
19
0.114
0.309
Gretzky
Rd1
326
246
73
39
101
140
45
234
87
44
9
0.120
0.429
Rd2
262
244
68
42
73
115
13
225
64
40
11
0.160
0.439
Rd3
165
115
36
23
51
74
20
129
44
23
7
0.139
0.448
Rd4
103
88
31
18
35
53
14
109
33
18
2
0.175
0.515
Total
856
693
208
122
260
382
92
697
228
125
29
0.143
0.446
Also, in terms of Game 5 in 1984, not only did Gretzky score the first 2 goals, but when LaFontaine scored 2 goals to make it 4-2, he was Messier's responsibility both times (also, both Gretzky and Messier were on-ice for the empty net goal by Lumley).
Players who increase their production in the playoffs are often romanticized over players who maintain their excellence, even at a higher level, in all situations. It is just something that happens in sports, hockey or otherwise.
Messier spent a lot of time as a great player. You'd still take Gretzky over him in the regular season or the playoffs comfortably.
There's such a huge logic gap in these arguments for Messier. "Gretzky is better than me by this much <------> in season, but only by this much <--> in playoffs - ie, Messier is better in playoffs". No - Gretzky is still better lol.
There is no argument being made that Messier was better than Gretzky in the playoffs. It's merely a comparison of their regular season offensive numbers and their playoff offensive numbers, which provides a small amount of insight into why Messier, in particular, was famous for his playoff performances (where he was likely in the Conn Smythe conversation in all five of Edmonton's Cup wins).
Someone giving his near 100% all the time cannot have much of an extra gear, which is often a balancing act when talking about people that elevate in the playoff, in a sport for which energy-body wear and tear must be managed, big minutes hockey player 80 games-4 playoff round certainly are but in other like plate appearance in baseball for a batter, low minute hockey player... seem like saying a lack of focus the rest of the time.
Could be a shortcut for saying when most others go down by the pressure, they stay up, more than actually elevating.
Yes, that's correct....that's a significant part of it - Gretzky was consistent, and Messier wasn't.
I always give the examples of Gretzky and Bourque, who almost always looked the same, whether in Game 47 of the regular season, or in the Cup Finals. This is why Gretzky (and Bourque) won so many awards, etc. So, yes, they didn't really have an extra gear because they were always in (close to) top gear.
Messier, on the other hand, wasn't nearly as consistent, but he put in a full, focused effort when he needed to.
But I think that's only part of it. The other part is that Messier actually could do things against tougher opposition that Gretzky couldn't do. Messier was a more powerful skater, stronger, tougher, could play better defense. And it wasn't just the playoffs where this gap narrowed; it also happened in the regular season as their careers moved into the late '80s.
I think when it comes to the playoffs there is a smaller window to dominate. You might play 20 games. That is a bit harder to have some separation than an 80 game season. In this case Gretzky is always going to have less of an advantage.
But let's point out one thing - and I assume this is what the thread was about - and that is that Messier is a legitimate all-time great not only in the regular season but especially in the playoffs. I honestly think that for whatever reason if it is possible he gets overlooked in the playoffs at times. It is not like we forget him but after Gretzky how many players have a better playoff resume than Messier? I mean this seriously? Who would they be? Patrick Roy might be the best guess, probably Maurice Richard. You can argue Jean Beliveau. Honestly, who else? Howe perhaps? Mario and Orr just weren't in the playoffs enough times I don't think. I am not saying Messier has a playoff year like Mario in 1991 or 1992 but his body of work in the playoffs is almost peerless.
We tend to overlook it at times because he lost in 1983, won the Conn Smythe in 1984 despite Gretzky outscoring him but definitely having an impact on the Islanders that spring and playing two way hockey. Then the rest of the Cups with Gretzky he is #2 there. But in 1990 and 1994 he's the man. In both cases I would suggest he was the front runner for the Conn Smythe entering the final and in both cases he did fine in the final, but it was Ranford and then Leetch in 1994 who had otherworldly performances that earned them the Smythe. No one has captained two teams to the Cup. He'll sit 2nd all-time in playoff points long after he's in the grave. 295 points, Crosby is tied for 5th with 201 and is the highest active player and we all know Crosby is a playoff legend. So who will ever catch him? Or even come CLOSE to catching Messier for 2nd? Malkin has 180, Kucherov 167. Nice numbers, but all are older and in Kucherov's case his team is likely to have long runs again. That leaves McDavid at 117, MacKinnon at 114 and Draisaitl at 108. Even if they double all of their playoff point totals they still aren't close to Messier.
I don't think people appreciate just how many times Messier had a great postseason. Honestly, when did he ever have a bad one?
There is no argument being made that Messier was better than Gretzky in the playoffs. It's merely a comparison of their regular season offensive numbers and their playoff offensive numbers, which provides a small amount of insight into why Messier, in particular, was famous for his playoff performances (where he was likely in the Conn Smythe conversation in all five of Edmonton's Cup wins).
This is sort of why I called out the "big four" out in the overrated Mount Rushmore topic, somehow even noting things like this or pointing out why another player won some award become perceived slights nowadays lol
Just one nitpick, Messier doesn't seem to have gotten any love for 1985 based on my Conn Smythe project a while back (mainly between Gretzky and Coffey, with Fuhr and Kurri a bit also getting mention).
Grant Fuhr on the other hand seemed to be in the discussion for all four he was in, and Ranford obviously won the 1990.
Gretzky himself seemed to be in the running in three of his, all but 1984.
Everytime I look, I have to adjust my brain that Hasek was 10 months older than Roy (and that you can compare them 1:1 when they were both in the league directly without much issue)...
At least Roy-Hasek are close in the playoff here and the part of their shared nhl career exclude 86 Roy and other part of his peak, 3 cup to 1 winning twice as many games to make it more of a conversation:
oh, dont get me wrong - the gap between Messier and Gretzky is much bigger. Just the concept reminded me of the "but Roy stepped up his game in the playoffs more" when there was more room to step his game up (if we are giving save% full credit, which we probably shoudnt.... but points for forwards arent perfect, either)
I am also certain that Messier was the better player in 1989-90 for both regular season and playoffs (having followed both Edmonton and L.A. closely that whole season). Messier was voted best player in the League by his peers.
While we're at it, what about 1995-96? It could be argued that Messier was the better player that regular season.
And in 1996-97, with both on the Rangers:
1.18 PPG Messier
1.18 PPG Gretzky
Hell, in the first 35 games of 1997-98, when Messier was supposedly a trainwreck on the Canucks, he was ahead of Gretzky in scoring.
I am also certain that Messier was the better player in 1989-90 for both regular season and playoffs (having followed both Edmonton and L.A. closely that whole season). Messier was voted best player in the League by his peers.
While we're at it, what about 1995-96? It could be argued that Messier was the better player that regular season.
And in 1996-97, with both on the Rangers:
1.18 PPG Messier
1.18 PPG Gretzky
Hell, in the first 35 games of 1997-98, when Messier was supposedly a trainwreck on the Canucks, he was ahead of Gretzky in scoring.
It seems to me the more applicable criteria for "Mr. Playoffs" or "Mr. Regular Season" is the totality if their respective accomplishments in the playoffs and the regular season.
A few points from a couple of articles written during the 1984 finals, both of which supported Messier for Conn Smythe. It might be worth engaging with these points if you think Gretzky should have won.
Dave Lumley said of his teammate Messier "If the series ends Saturday, he will win the Conn Smythe Trophy." So it wasn't just a media narrative, at least one of their teammates picked Messier.
If the Oilers have the league's best player in Gretzky, they may also have the second best in Messier.
Messier has so dominated the Islanders, they have used all four centres against him, none successfully.
Gretzky is the leader on the ice, Messier is the leader in the dressing room.
More than any other player in the league, Messier combines brute strength, speed, shot-making, and toughness.
If the vote for Conn Smythe trophy were taken today, Mark Messier would win by a dozen lengths.
Messier was converted from wing to centre in January, with the Islanders in mind. And as good as he was at wing, he is even better at centre.
Strength down the middle is the difference between the 1983 Oilers (Gretzky, Linseman, Roulston, Cote) and the 1984 Oilers (Gretzky, Messier, Linseman, McClelland).
Gretzky still the tops in "score close" points (tying goal, go ahead goal, first insurance goal) with 252, Messier got 200, which almost halves the gap between 382 and 295.
More pronounced closing of the gap is the points on first goal. Gretzky at 53, Messier at 48.
After Messier moved to centre, his line normally took the first shift of each period, followed by Gretzky's line. Which could be a factor in the first goal stats.
I have noticed before that Gretzky was a relatively slow starter when it came to scoring early in games. For example, in their peak years Mike Bossy actually had more points than Gretzky in the first 5 minutes of games. Again, possibly in part because Gretzky didn't usually start the game or the period. I wonder if his slow starts (relatively speaking) were also because much of what he did was taking what the other team gave him, so he got better as the game went on.
i would assume, with no evidence, that a player like Gretzky would do much better in the later stages of a period when legs have slowed down and space has opened.
I mean, I also assume that scoring in general opens up as a period goes on, but that some players need space to do their thing more than others do.
A few points from a couple of articles written during the 1984 finals, both of which supported Messier for Conn Smythe. It might be worth engaging with these points if you think Gretzky should have won.
Dave Lumley said of his teammate Messier "If the series ends Saturday, he will win the Conn Smythe Trophy." So it wasn't just a media narrative, at least one of their teammates picked Messier.
If the Oilers have the league's best player in Gretzky, they may also have the second best in Messier.
Messier has so dominated the Islanders, they have used all four centres against him, none successfully.
Gretzky is the leader on the ice, Messier is the leader in the dressing room.
More than any other player in the league, Messier combines brute strength, speed, shot-making, and toughness.
If the vote for Conn Smythe trophy were taken today, Mark Messier would win by a dozen lengths.
Messier was converted from wing to centre in January, with the Islanders in mind. And as good as he was at wing, he is even better at centre.
Strength down the middle is the difference between the 1983 Oilers (Gretzky, Linseman, Roulston, Cote) and the 1984 Oilers (Gretzky, Messier, Linseman, McClelland).
After Messier moved to centre, his line normally took the first shift of each period, followed by Gretzky's line. Which could be a factor in the first goal stats.
I have noticed before that Gretzky was a relatively slow starter when it came to scoring early in games. For example, in their peak years Mike Bossy actually had more points than Gretzky in the first 5 minutes of games. Again, possibly in part because Gretzky didn't usually start the game or the period. I wonder if his slow starts (relatively speaking) were also because much of what he did was taking what the other team gave him, so he got better as the game went on.
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.
This is sort of why I called out the "big four" out in the overrated Mount Rushmore topic, somehow even noting things like this or pointing out why another player won some award become perceived slights nowadays lol
Just one nitpick, Messier doesn't seem to have gotten any love for 1985 based on my Conn Smythe project a while back (mainly between Gretzky and Coffey, with Fuhr and Kurri a bit also getting mention).
Grant Fuhr on the other hand seemed to be in the discussion for all four he was in, and Ranford obviously won the 1990.
Gretzky himself seemed to be in the running in three of his, all but 1984.
Oh, that's right, it was likely dominated by Gretzky and Coffey in '85.
---------------------
Re: criticism of Gretzky and the others....I think there's a couple reasons for it. One is that Gretzky, especially, has a LOT of fans. So, his fans jump on any criticism of him, no matter how obviously true the criticism is. In this group, it's also very true of Howe, who many people rush to protect. And Lemieux is the opposite, it's an anti-Lemieux group, hut anti-Lemieux is fairly normal in the hockey world. He was always disliked by many, especially in comparison to Gretzky.
But the other reason is just a lack of knowledge of history, ironically, here in the history subforum. Even knowledge of the 1980s - not very long ago - is pretty low.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
