i don't doubt that messier, like hull and gretzky, were well liked because they were available and friendly and in hull's case at least forthcoming and understood the game of saying semi-provocative things. but i think messier in 1990 and 1992 also got this residual trottier bump. as in, in the early 80s i think a lot of ppl wanted to make an argument that trottier was the best player in the world that he was perfect, everything a franchise wanted to build around. only there was this guy scoring 200 pts a year. so giving trophies to messier becomes this way of rectifying that in the years after gretzky is scoring 200 and in the gap between '89 and '93 mario.
While I doubt that anyone was specifically thinking about Trottier, I do think that Messier's ascendance in 1989-90 symbolically marked the return of hockey played in a more traditional style for pundits and players alike.
And neither won the trophy for Most Outstanding Player that Mark Messier did in 1991-92. That’s why the Hart-focused parallel does not work. Same with why the 1975 parallel that Big Phil presented does not work (Bobby Clarke winning the Hart; Bobby Orr winning the Pearson under the old definition) when he originally asked “did anyone in the NHL think Messier was a better player than Lemieux that year?”
The winds were shifting, I suppose. Writers began noticing that gaudy numbers didn't necessarily translate to positive game impact.
Thought experiment:
Using completely arbitrary numbers, let's say that Gretzky at his peak was a high-event player who outscored his opponents 6-3 in X minutes. Let's say that Messier at his peak was someone who generally outscored his opponents 3.5-2 in X minutes. Let's say that a defensive center like Bergeron is a low-event player that outscores his opponents 2-1 in X minutes. As such, in X minutes of playing time, Gretzky was +3, Messier was +1.5, and Bergeron is +1.
After half a decade of outscoring opponents 6-3 in X minutes, Gretzky finally meets the wrong side of the age curve. In the last couple of years in Edmonton, he's only outscoring his opponents by 5.5-3.5, so now he's only +2 in X minutes. That's still better than Messier or Bergeron at their peaks (+1.5 and +1 respectively).
Then, "The Trade" happens. He was already in decline, but it becomes obvious in L.A. Gretzky is only outscoring his opponents 5-4 in X minutes now, or +1 in X minutes. Just like that, his positive impact on the game is smaller than Messier, despite still scoring way more. Just like that, three consecutive second-round exits (two against against Messier in Edmonton) happen.
Then, the Suter hit happens. Suddenly, Gretzky is now being outscored by his opponents 4-5 in X minutes while he continues to try playing the same high-event one-way game that he's played since his Edmonton days. And yet, Gretzky is still able to easily contend for the Art Ross (when Lemieux is sidelined). His 4 points/whatever in X minutes is still higher than Messier's 3.5 in X minutes.
What do these completely made-up numbers have to do with anything? Multiply Gretzky's hypothesized scoring in X minutes by 33.33:
6 x 33.33 = 200 (1981-86)
5.5 x 33.33 = 183 (1986-88)
5 x 33.33 = 167 (1988-91)
4 x 33.33 = 133 (1991-94)
That's actually pretty close to Gretzky's actual scoring levels (and actual game impact) at various points in his career, and so my narrative is not completely bunk. Messier's 3.5 points/whatever in X minutes? Multiply that by 33.33 and you get 117, which is pretty close to his scoring at that period of time. The scary part is the fact that despite barely moving the needle from 5.5-3.5 to 5-4, Gretzky goes from being an incredible out-scorer to a more typical one.
In the regular season of 1991-92, Lemieux was very much of the "outscore his opponents 5-4" variety. In 80% of games available, Lemieux would still easily win the Art Ross (80% x 5 = 4 x 33.33 = 133)... but overall versus Messier? I don't think that it's completely out of the blue that people might consider Messier better.
It was easy enough for the players to notice as well. In the regular season, the Penguins were just another team despite their otherworldly-talented center. Who didn't win nearly as often as the Oilers once did. Who also didn't score as much as Gretzky did (except for what could have been considered a fluke season where even Bernie Nicholls scored a bunch).
Messier, though, was showing that he could keep winning wherever he went. Also, players were likely a whole lot more bruised after playing against him, so they would likely remember him as a force to be reckoned with. A winning force to be reckoned with.
(Although I suppose it is fair to note that we don't know the breakdown of player voting, so maybe it was really close?)