How good a player was Mark Messier? Where does he rank?

[bobholly39]

For some reason, when I think of extremely talented players, and superstars, Messier is very low on my list.

Guys like Lemieux, Gretzky, Jagr, Sakic, Yzerman, Crosby, Malkin, Lindros, Bure, etc etc come up way before Messier does (to only name more modern players). And that's by no means a complete list, I can probably come up with a list of at least 10-15 more forwards who I thought were more talented than Messier post 80s.

How do others view Messier? Was he a superstar on the level of some of those guys?

This may sound like me bashing or knocking Messier - but I actually view it as the exact opposite. Aside from Gretzky, Messier achieved more than every single other player I listed in his career, even though I view them all as better talents - that's a testament to his insane level of compete/consistency.

But what do others think? Where do you place Messier? He's second all time in scoring in NHL history, and second also all-time for centers - yet in my mind he's nowhere near being the second best player, or center of all-time.


In terms of who the "best player", so let's say his peak, how low does Messier rank in an all-time centers list?

 

[Plural]

Messier is not 2nd best center ever. But a very good case could be made that he is third best center since Gretzky entered the league.

HOH center project had him listed as 6th greatest/best center ever.

Gretzky
Lemieux
Beliveau
Morenz
Mikita
Messier

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1531045

I think Messier has often underrated offensive peak. He was the kind of player who showed importance in many aspects so maybe we sometimes forget how good Messier actually was offensively. He beat out prime Yzerman in points. Finishing 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 5th and 7th in scoring.

 

[bobholly39]

Messier is not 2nd best center ever. But a very good case could be made that he is third best center since Gretzky entered the league.

HOH center project had him listed as 6th greatest/best center ever.

Gretzky
Lemieux
Beliveau
Morenz
Mikita
Messier

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1531045

I have no problem ranking him high if you look at his overall career, it's an amazing career. It's a testament to Messier - who I don't think is the second best player ever (or close) - that he placed so high on the all-time scoring list.

But would you pick Messier over Sakic? Yzerman? Crosby? Forsberg? Lindros? Malkin? Stamkos?

He didn't score nearly as much as those guys could at their best did he? If I had Messier on my team I would trade him for any of those players I listed I think, and probably a few more I didn't list (assuming each player played in the same year and were in their relative primes).

Or am I completely wrong to think so?

 

[Plural]

I have no problem ranking him high if you look at his overall career, it's an amazing career. It's a testament to Messier - who I don't think is the second best player ever (or close) - that he placed so high on the all-time scoring list.

But would you pick Messier over Sakic? Yzerman? Crosby? Forsberg? Lindros? Malkin? Stamkos?

He didn't score nearly as much as those guys could at their best did he? If I had Messier on my team I would trade him for any of those players I listed I think, and probably a few more I didn't list (assuming each player played in the same year and were in their relative primes).

Or am I completely wrong to think so?

For one single season, you can't go wrong with any of those guys. But if I have 20 year old Messier locked up in contract and I know what I know now, I wouldn't trade him for any of those guys.

Messier scored as much as those players did and more than some of them. Stamkos is not as good offensively as Messier was. 6 100+ point seasons peaking at 129 points while outscoring on game-by-game basis Yzerman. So, it's not absurd to think Messier was offensively as good as those guys.

 

[Sentinel]

He is very low on my list, but then again, I'm in a small company. Mostly because of the last eight years of his career, which were probably the biggest and the worst impact a player can have on an organization (two, in fact). I also don't think his peak was as high as any of the players you mention. He also benefited from playing behind Gretzky and drawing easier matchups.

 

[pld459666]

I think that Mark Messier was at one point THE prototypical hockey player.

A player that had the skills needed to play a finesse game

A player that had the skating ability to play a fast game

A player that had the awareness to play a checking role

A player that had the snarl to play a physical game.

There's no doubt that the name you listed were all more talented, but in terms of being the total package, I think that's where Messier seperated himself fropm those guys.

I would take an in his prime Messier over an in their prime Sakic, Bure, Jagr, Lindros and Yzerman.

Later in Yzerman's career, he became a different player. More commited to the team game and overall a player just as good (one could make the argument better) than Messier.

Messier could win you games defensively that alot of those other guys could not offer. Yzerman, again, developed into that player later in his career.

As careers tailed off, Yzerman maintained a better level of defensive ability and therefore was a more valuable player, but that defensive ability didn't really manifest itself in his game until his 10th or 11th season.

Messier on the other hand started fading hard defenively beginning with his 19th season in the NHL (1st with Vancouver)

I thought he stuck around a little two long. Thought he should have hung up his skates after the Vancouver run, but it's hard to tell a 39 year old player that just posted 67 points in a dead puck era that he's finished.

 

[Big Phil]

But would you pick Messier over Sakic? Yzerman? Crosby? Forsberg? Lindros? Malkin? Stamkos?

Messier over Sakic? By a bit.

Yzerman? By a bit.

Crosby? Hard to say, Messier sure didn't have the gaps in the postseason the way Crosby did. But I think Crosby will have the better career at the end

Forsberg? No question Messier was better, peak and career.

Stamkos? You're killing me. No, seriously, Stamkos has done nothing to look like a prime Messier yet.

Malkin? Yes, still I would take Messier. Malkin would be a shoo-in here if he played the way he's capable of playing every day

Lindros? For sure. Look, we did a poll a while back and it was asking whether or not you'd want a prime Lindros vs. a prime Messier. I think the author of the thread did the poll assuming that Lindros would win in a walk. I picked Messier. All day, everyday. There is no way I would take a single season in Lindros' career over a 1990 Messier. No way, sir. When did Messier ever disappoint you in the postseason? Almost never. Messier is one of those guys and there are a select few (Gretzky, Richard, Beliveau, maybe Roy to an extent) where they not only won a ton in their lives but they never seemed to be the cause when their teams lost. You thought all the time that Lindros could play better, you almost never thought Messier could and should have played better.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I have no problem ranking him high if you look at his overall career, it's an amazing career. It's a testament to Messier - who I don't think is the second best player ever (or close) - that he placed so high on the all-time scoring list.

But would you pick Messier over Sakic? Yzerman? Crosby? Forsberg? Lindros? Malkin? Stamkos?

He didn't score nearly as much as those guys could at their best did he? If I had Messier on my team I would trade him for any of those players I listed I think, and probably a few more I didn't list (assuming each player played in the same year and were in their relative primes).

Or am I completely wrong to think so?

scoring rates vary between eras, but those guys' best seasons:

messier - 1990 - 129 points - 2nd in the league - hart trophy - captain on SC winner - led the playoffs in scoring (tied)

sakic - 2001 - 118 points - 2nd in the league - hart trophy - captain on SC winner - led the playoffs in scoring

yzerman - 1989 - 155 points - 3rd in the league - pearson award - lost in the first round

crosby - 2007 - 120 points - art ross - hart trophy - lost in the first round

forsberg - 2003 - 106 points - art ross - hart trophy - lost in the first round

lindros - 1995 - 120 points (prorated) - 1st in the league (tied) - hart trophy - lost in the third round

malkin - 2009 - 113 points - art ross - hart trophy runner up - conn smythe - led the playoffs in scoring

stamkos - come on

 

[quoipourquoi]

But would you pick Messier over Sakic? Yzerman? Crosby? Forsberg? Lindros? Malkin? Stamkos?

He didn't score nearly as much as those guys could at their best did he? If I had Messier on my team I would trade him for any of those players I listed I think, and probably a few more I didn't list (assuming each player played in the same year and were in their relative primes).

Or am I completely wrong to think so?

Yeah, I'd take Mark Messier at his best over any of those guys in his era, but not necessarily in this era.

First of all, Mark Messier was an extremely talented offensive player before his injuries in 1996-97, scoring an average of 100 points per 82 GP through his first 18 seasons, including being in the top-10 in points or points-per-game in 10 of those years and rarely playing fewer than 70 GP. More than that, his playoff production was even higher at this same time.

And that's just the first element of Mark Messier's game.

It's not everyone's cup of tea, but in the era that Messier played, the penalties for cheapshots weren't nearly as severe as they are now, and Mark Messier played a brand of hockey that involved hurting people. Sometimes Islanders legends. Sometimes three Calgary Flames in a Game 7. Sometimes the Blackhawks' and Canucks' captains. His reputation was so great that in 1985, the Winnipeg Jets wouldn't even dress Dale Hawerchuk for a playoff game because they knew Messier would target his injured ribs even further. And crazily enough, this was all respected by many of the coaches and teammates of the players he was doing it to.

And that's just the second element of Mark Messier's game.

He was so respected for the offensive and physical aspects that despite starting out rather immature, he developed into a great leader - with or without the "C" on his jersey. Depending on how the rest of his team was playing, he would amplify the offensive or the physical sides of his game to increase the teams' chances of victory (which explains why his playoff offense is uncharacteristically higher than his regular season offense). Dozens of players have talked about his command of locker rooms that feature some of the best players of the era.

And he was a fantastic skater too.

There's enough YouTube out there too that will satisfy any curiosity of why he's considered a top player in the history of the league.

 

[Barnum]

He is very low on my list, but then again, I'm in a small company. Mostly because of the last eight years of his career, which were probably the biggest and the worst impact a player can have on an organization (two, in fact). I also don't think his peak was as high as any of the players you mention. He also benefited from playing behind Gretzky and drawing easier matchups.

So, the guy that makes post after post about how winning the Cup or winning in the international circle is the most important thing to judge a player by; is all of a suddenly is not so important for Messier. Every Red Wing or Russian player you defend, that's your entire thesis as to why they are great; Cups, Golds and WC wins.

6 Cups, 6 Cups and again that is 6 Cups, he was Captain for every single one of them and the only athlete in any sport (baseball, football, basketball or what have you) that captained two different teams to the promise land. The only thing Messier does not have is a gold medal because unlike professional Soviet players Canadian professionals were not allowed to play in the Olympics during his prime years.

Anyhow, 6 Cups is more than any of your Red Wings or any of your Russian players you defend adamantly....

I guess I don't know why you knock down The Moose when he has more Cups than any single player I have seen you defend.

 

[Big Phil]

He is very low on my list, but then again, I'm in a small company. Mostly because of the last eight years of his career, which were probably the biggest and the worst impact a player can have on an organization (two, in fact). I also don't think his peak was as high as any of the players you mention. He also benefited from playing behind Gretzky and drawing easier matchups.

Gretzky was long gone by 1990, Messier's best season. The Hart season. If anything, with a season like this we saw just what he might have been capable of doing with a non-Gretzky Oilers team carried on his back. We don't know, but we do know what he did do with and without Gretzky, and I can assure you, the Moose didn't need any charity.

Yeah, I'd take Mark Messier at his best over any of those guys in his era, but not necessarily in this era.

First of all, Mark Messier was an extremely talented offensive player before his injuries in 1996-97, scoring an average of 100 points per 82 GP through his first 18 seasons, including being in the top-10 in points or points-per-game in 10 of those years and rarely playing fewer than 70 GP. More than that, his playoff production was even higher at this same time.

And that's just the first element of Mark Messier's game.

It's not everyone's cup of tea, but in the era that Messier played, the penalties for cheapshots weren't nearly as severe as they are now, and Mark Messier played a brand of hockey that involved hurting people. Sometimes Islanders legends. Sometimes three Calgary Flames in a Game 7. Sometimes the Blackhawks' and Canucks' captains. His reputation was so great that in 1985, the Winnipeg Jets wouldn't even dress Dale Hawerchuk for a playoff game because they knew Messier would target his injured ribs even further. And crazily enough, this was all respected by many of the coaches and teammates of the players he was doing it to.

And that's just the second element of Mark Messier's game.

He was so respected for the offensive and physical aspects that despite starting out rather immature, he developed into a great leader - with or without the "C" on his jersey. Depending on how the rest of his team was playing, he would amplify the offensive or the physical sides of his game to increase the teams' chances of victory (which explains why his playoff offense is uncharacteristically higher than his regular season offense). Dozens of players have talked about his command of locker rooms that feature some of the best players of the era.

And he was a fantastic skater too.

There's enough YouTube out there too that will satisfy any curiosity of why he's considered a top player in the history of the league.

Yeah but he would adjust. Gordie Howe was famous for using his elbows too. The advent of video replay would make these guys behave a bit better but they would still be vicious. Ovechkin up until 2010 was pretty reckless out there. Remember him hitting Briere from behind? Stuff like that, he was hitting all over the place and let's not pretend his style didn't give him some room. But I wouldn't have called Ovechkin "mean."

Messier even today would be mean. He'd probably be similar to Pronger in the way that he'd do things subtly but it would gain him a lot of room in the NHL. He may not lay a flying elbow when he sees you coming to check him, but he would do enough in the NHL - maybe get suspended just to make a point - that players would still fear him. The last thing we saw Messier do was in 2004 when he speared Martin Skrbak. Yeah a few things have changed in 10 years, but believe me, Messier would still be doing this stuff here and there. If Matt Cooke was doing it, I think Messier would do it since he always had an ulterior motive for it.

 

[Passchendaele]

I'm not sure why Messier would be ahead of Sakic.

Top-tens

Messier:

- Goals - 8th, 9th, 9th, 9th
- Assists - 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 6th, 8th
- Points - 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 7th, 10th

Sakic:

- Goals - 2nd, 5th, 6th, 6th, 10th
- Assists - 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th
- Points - 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 8th, 10th

Sakic's resume is superior. Leadership? Don't make me laugh, I'd rather have Sakic as my captain than Messier's oversized ego. Cups? Put Sakic on the 1980s Oilers and he does just as good as Messier.

 

[Thesensation19*]

So, the guy that makes post after post about how winning the Cup or winning in the international circle is the most important thing to judge a player by; is all of a suddenly is not so important for Messier. Every Red Wing or Russian player you defend, that's your entire thesis as to why they are great; Cups, Golds and WC wins.

6 Cups, 6 Cups and again that is 6 Cups, he was Captain for every single one of them and the only athlete in any sport (baseball, football, basketball or what have you) that captained two different teams to the promise land. The only thing Messier does not have is a gold medal because unlike professional Soviet players Canadian professionals were not allowed to play in the Olympics during his prime years.

Anyhow, 6 Cups is more than any of your Red Wings or any of your Russian players you defend adamantly....

I guess I don't know why you knock down The Moose when he has more Cups than any single player I have seen you defend.

He was not the Captain of every single one of the Cups.
He was captain for 2 of them. 5th Oilers and Rangers 4th.
Wayne Gretzky was Captain up until then.

Mark was Assistant I think in the 2nd one.

Messier was a #1 center who played behind the best player ever. Gretzky was traded and Messier shocked the world by continuing the dynasty in Edmonton. Messier then was traded to The Rangers where he promised and delivered a Cup to a team that waited 41 or more years.

There were times his regular season stats were average among elite players. But people forget to judge playoff stats. And his playoffs were pretty dam good. Especially in 1994. What was it? 30 points?


He is an excellent player. There were def some better individuals, talented for sure, but I think Messier is highly underrated.

 

[Big Phil]

I'm not sure why Messier would be ahead of Sakic.

Top-tens

Messier:

- Goals - 8th, 9th, 9th, 9th
- Assists - 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 6th, 8th
- Points - 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 7th, 10th

Sakic:

- Goals - 2nd, 5th, 6th, 6th, 10th
- Assists - 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th
- Points - 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 8th, 10th

Sakic's resume is superior. Leadership? Don't make me laugh, I'd rather have Sakic as my captain than Messier's oversized ego. Cups? Put Sakic on the 1980s Oilers and he does just as good as Messier.

Well, we don't know that though do we? I'd prefer to stick to the things we do know. Sakic does have a season pretty comparable overall to Messier. 1996 and 2001 come to mind for Sakic. Messier has 1990 and 1992 as his best ones to compare. I'd say Messier in 1988 was nearly as good as well. 1987 is another one.

Sakic could compete with Messier defensively. He was very responsible at that end of the ice as we know. I think there are certain things I pick Messier for though. The physical game. Messier could strike fear into an opponent. He could beat you in so many ways. Sakic beat you on the scoresheet and while there are a lot of intangibles Sakic has I still think Messier had more.

Messier did manage to pluck the 1984 Conn Smythe trophy out of Gretzky's hands. Now, I myself have said that was one of those years where I'd have given it to Gretzky, but at the same time this is what the voters saw. They saw Messier scoring a series defining goal, they saw him shut down Trottier, they saw him become basically a forward version of Denis Potvin - mean and intimidating. The voters felt that this was enough to make up for Gretzky's offensive edge. Either way you slice it, Messier did this, Sakic "might" have done this. Messier seemed content and was certainly capable playing either role. He was fine when he was second banana with Gretzky (by the way Sakic would be too) and he was great when he was left as the top dog. Two Harts, and two Cups later...............

So I don't like to downgrade Joe at all, because I love Sakic, but yeah I'll still take the Moose when push comes to shove. And both aged well just so we know. Messier was great up until 1997, finished 2nd in hart voting in 1996.

 

[Barnum]

He was not the Captain of every single one of the Cups.
He was captain for 2 of them. 5th Oilers and Rangers 4th.
Wayne Gretzky was Captain up until then.

Mark was Assistant I think in the 2nd one.

Messier was a #1 center who played behind the best player ever. Gretzky was traded and Messier shocked the world by continuing the dynasty in Edmonton. Messier then was traded to The Rangers where he promised and delivered a Cup to a team that waited 41 or more years.

There were times his regular season stats were average among elite players. But people forget to judge playoff stats. And his playoffs were pretty dam good. Especially in 1994. What was it? 30 points?


He is an excellent player. There were def some better individuals, talented for sure, but I think Messier is highly underrated.

You are right, I was trying to think back, he had the A for 2-4, than had the C after Gretzky left. That year he took the Hart also. Point was, and it was to Sentinel, everything Messier accomplished, if it was a Red Wing or Russian, it would have been an argument as to why that player was the greatest ever but for Messier, it's not.....

Should be noted, Messier was a winger for his first few years with the Oilers, they didn't win the Cup until Messier was moved to center. Interesting and more proof how valuable the Moose was in winning Cups.

BigPhil - hit on another point, Messier more than proved he was not riding the shirt tails of Gretzky.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Messier was everything Eric Lindros wished he could be.

 

[Fred Taylor]

I have no problem ranking him high if you look at his overall career, it's an amazing career. It's a testament to Messier - who I don't think is the second best player ever (or close) - that he placed so high on the all-time scoring list.

But would you pick Messier over Sakic? Yzerman? Crosby? Forsberg? Lindros? Malkin? Stamkos?

He didn't score nearly as much as those guys could at their best did he? If I had Messier on my team I would trade him for any of those players I listed I think, and probably a few more I didn't list (assuming each player played in the same year and were in their relative primes).

Or am I completely wrong to think so?

I would take all those guys except Stamkos just slightly over Messier, but it's a tough decision I admit. Stamkos is not nearly as good as Messier though.

 

[billybudd]

It's not everyone's cup of tea, but in the era that Messier played, the penalties for cheapshots weren't nearly as severe as they are now, and Mark Messier played a brand of hockey that involved hurting people. Sometimes Islanders legends. Sometimes three Calgary Flames in a Game 7. Sometimes the Blackhawks' and Canucks' captains. His reputation was so great that in 1985, the Winnipeg Jets wouldn't even dress Dale Hawerchuk for a playoff game because they knew Messier would target his injured ribs even further. And crazily enough, this was all respected by many of the coaches and teammates of the players he was doing it to.

I have often wondered how much space Messier got specifically because he was willing to injure players on purpose and the league let it go. If he stopped getting a wide berth because he stopped elbowing people, what does that do to his offensive numbers? Food for thought.


That said, I like him over most everybody TC mentioned other than 66 and 99. Messier vs the 19s and 68 is up in the air. I take him over the 19s, probably not 68, but that ordering is definitely arguable.

I think Crosby should finish as a "greater" player, but I'm not willing to say he's there quite yet.

88 wasn't a better player than Moose. He could have been. But he wasn't.

 

[bobholly39]

Messier over Sakic? By a bit.

Yzerman? By a bit.

Crosby? Hard to say, Messier sure didn't have the gaps in the postseason the way Crosby did. But I think Crosby will have the better career at the end

Forsberg? No question Messier was better, peak and career.

Stamkos? You're killing me. No, seriously, Stamkos has done nothing to look like a prime Messier yet.

Malkin? Yes, still I would take Messier. Malkin would be a shoo-in here if he played the way he's capable of playing every day

Lindros? For sure. Look, we did a poll a while back and it was asking whether or not you'd want a prime Lindros vs. a prime Messier. I think the author of the thread did the poll assuming that Lindros would win in a walk. I picked Messier. All day, everyday. There is no way I would take a single season in Lindros' career over a 1990 Messier. No way, sir. When did Messier ever disappoint you in the postseason? Almost never. Messier is one of those guys and there are a select few (Gretzky, Richard, Beliveau, maybe Roy to an extent) where they not only won a ton in their lives but they never seemed to be the cause when their teams lost. You thought all the time that Lindros could play better, you almost never thought Messier could and should have played better.

Well. Just keep in mind, i'm not talking about whose career was better. Messier's career was arguably better than everyone I listed. I'm talking about who was the better player?

Without being able to predict the remainder of their career, at their best, do you pick Messier, or Crosby? Messier was never the best player in the league or close, I think Crosby is quite a bit above that.

You don't think Forsberg is a better/more talented player than Messier was?

And Stamkos? Messier's season of 129 points looks good, but it's also the only one that really stands out. Stamkos has so far had multiple 50+ goal seasons, in a much lower scoring era. So yeah, Stamkos above Messier too

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Well. Just keep in mind, i'm not talking about whose career was better. Messier's career was arguably better than everyone I listed. I'm talking about who was the better player?

Without being able to predict the remainder of their career, at their best, do you pick Messier, or Crosby? Messier was never the best player in the league or close, I think Crosby is quite a bit above that.

You don't think Forsberg is a better/more talented player than Messier was?

And Stamkos? Messier's season of 129 points looks good, but it's also the only one that really stands out. Stamkos has so far had multiple 50+ goal seasons, in a much lower scoring era. So yeah, Stamkos above Messier too

Stamkos really shouldn't be getting kicked around this much.

He's only 24. Played regular as an 18 year-old. Led the league in goals as a 19 year-old. Led the league again with 60 goals as a 21 year-old. Came in 2nd twice more. Has been 2nd in scoring twice, four times in the top 5. Did I mention he's only 24?

 

[The Panther]

Messier is easily way above all the guys listed in the OP, with the exception of Gretzky, Lemieux, and Jagr when considering his endless play at a high level. (Not that Messier is any slouch there either -- he averaged 100 points a year for 18 years.)

Messier was an 80s/90s Gordie Howe (except faster) -- the complete package. He had a similar lengthy range of quality seasons. His first and only 50-goal season was when he was 20, and when he was 35 he was about to have his 2nd, but an end-of-season injury took him out of the last half-dozen games.

I can only assume people are joking when they pick Stamkos over Messier, or that they never saw Messier play before the 2000s. That's ridiculous.

I suggest younger fans watch the video about the New York Rangers' 1991-92 season (I think it's on YouTube). In the late 80s and early 90s, Messier was God-like in pro-hockey. For two out of three seasons, he won the Hart Trophy during the prime of Gretzky and Lemieux. Many people thought he was better than Mario Lemieux in the late 80s and early 90s. Listen to what the Rangers' players say when Messier joined the team in October 1991. Basically, they all feel that Gordie Howe or Bobby Orr just joined their team -- they're in total awe of him.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Well. Just keep in mind, i'm not talking about whose career was better. Messier's career was arguably better than everyone I listed. I'm talking about who was the better player?

Without being able to predict the remainder of their career, at their best, do you pick Messier, or Crosby? Messier was never the best player in the league or close, I think Crosby is quite a bit above that.

That's ridiculous. He won two Hart Trophies and two Lester B. Pearson Awards in three years. He played in the same era of Gretzky/Lemieux and no one else could be the best player in that era but Gretzky/Lemieux, yet Messier at his peak stole trophies from them - and nearly had a third Hart trophy in 1995-96 - because he had elements to his game that they didn't.

Messier is not all-career; at his peak, he was really good - and even better in the playoffs than in the regular season (something that Sidney Crosby is not). If you can't recognize that because Gretzky/Lemieux played in the era too, then that's less of a problem with Messier and more of a problem of you not recognizing that they were exceptional and precluded anyone else from being the "best player in the league".

You don't think Forsberg is a better/more talented player than Messier was?

He sure as hell wasn't healthier.

And Stamkos? Messier's season of 129 points looks good, but it's also the only one that really stands out. Stamkos has so far had multiple 50+ goal seasons, in a much lower scoring era. So yeah, Stamkos above Messier too

That's the only season of Messier's that stands out?!




67 1st Place Hart votes. Only two people didn't pick him, and they both said he was 2nd. Putting Stamkos above Messier is completely wrong.

 

[Passchendaele]

88 wasn't a better player than Moose. He could have been. But he wasn't.

From 1995-97, Lindros reached a higher level of dominance than Messier ever did.

 

[The Panther]

This is really all that needs to be said:

This is the ultimate Messier hockey game -- Oilers' season/dynasty on the line (they're facing a 3 - 1 deficit in games if they lose) on the road. Messier takes two nasty penalties (and elbows Savard in the head and gets away with it), scores two spectacular goals with speed and determination, sets up two more, single-handedly wins the game for Edmonton, which thereafter went 6 and 1 and won the Stanley Cup.

I have never seen one player dominate a team's success as much as Mark Messier with Edmonton in 1989-90 (and I watched Gretzky in the mid-80s). In fact, from 1989 to 1992 he was better than Gretzky overall, and he probably did more than Lemieux, too.

 

[The Panther]

From 1995-97, Lindros reached a higher level of dominance than Messier ever did.

Based on what?

Messier 1989-90 / 1990-91 / 1991-92
Two Hart Trophies (beating Gretzky and Lemieux)
Two Pearsons
One Stanley Cup
Co-led playoffs in scoring once
Two First-Team All Star

Lindros 1995 / 1995-96 / 1996-97
One Hart Trophy
One Pearson (both of the above in a strike-shortened season)
One (shared) Art Ross
One First-Team All Star
Led playoffs in scoring once


And these three years were Lindros's absolute peak. I'm picking 1989-1992 as Messier's (and that with two different franchises, which is unheard of), but I could almost as easily pick any time from 1981 to 1996.