Oh sure, and most players will tell you that they'd have "done anything" to make it to the NHL as the vast majority are Foot Soldiers, 2nd & 3rd Liners, 5th or 7th Defenceman, Enforcers, Swing or Utility Players. The minute you hit Major Junior you'd better be adopting that win at all costs attitude or you may not even stick with your Junior club much less cut it in the NHL however there are limits as to just how far anyone will go in "doing anything" to win, to make it to the NHL. Generally back in the day the real head-cases never got out of Junior or if they did wound up in the NAHL or one of the even lower leagues even if they had talent. You cant rely on a guy with a hair trigger temper, entirely capable of at worse homicide at best, maiming people. You dont see much of that anymore of course for a variety of reasons but sure, guys like Maki, Dave Williams, Schultz, Clarke & Messier, Cooke etc etc etc etc etc... they played by an extreme version of The Code, that when the going got crazy (often starting it themselves if their team down) they went pro, no brakes. No pity. To Hell with the Code, this is War. Ingrained, in hockeys DNA. If you cant beat em' in the alley....
Hell, even Brit Selby who won the Calder while with the Leafs carried the heaviest stick in NHL history, regulation sized blade but just a massive shaft on the thing and when he'd hit you with it like being shot. And use it he did. Or Billy Smith. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever his intention was to injure on innumerable occasions. Not just clear the crease or shooting lane, to send a message but to maim. I dont care for those types of players, some with lots of talent like Messier or Clarke, these were guys who were beyond just "players you love to hate". They were Bully's and ya, Cowards at times and Ive got no time for Cowards. If there was any justice in the World guys like that wouldve been clocked, had the snot beaten out of them so badly early in their careers rather than managing to get away with what they did in hiding behind Refs' or their sticks & playing it by The Code then ok. Real simple. You dont suckerpunch, you dont hit from behind or target the head unless the guys heads down, you dont use your stick like a scalpel or brickbat, you dont hit someone when their down & out (like Murray Balfour on Carl Brewer who himself was not playing by The Code but that doesnt excuse Balfour either) and so on & so forth. You just dont do what Messier pulled on Trevor Linden.
And no, no individual player "takes inspiration from" (questionable as well if seeing one of your players beat the Hell out of an opponent in a close game or when your down that it'll turn the tide, or that if losing, game out of reach a good dustup will send a message that "next time we wont be so easy") guys like that, that their going to copy a Link Gaetz or Donald Brashear, but enough do see a Messier or Clarke being deified to think that kind of behaviour is not only acceptable but so too something youd wanna aspire to. That you employ tactics that go well beyond the Rules of Engagement in order to win as if it was a life & death situation. No limits. Now, on the All Time Scale or Ranking of Scoundrels, Messier nowhere near the top, not even close, and while Ive been tough on him, not a fan, I can certainly appreciate why people would be & cut him slack. He spoke with his talent as a player playing it clean for the vast majority of his career. You can still play with an edge, be "edgy" and intimidating without playing it with one foot in the gutter, behaving like an inmate incarcerated in a SuperMax prison during a riot.
As you mention, hockey's history has been full of people doing extremely questionable things. Perhaps of all popular sports, hockey is the closest to a form of brute Game of Thrones-style darwinism.
The concept of sportsmanship was crafted among European noblemen of the 19th century. An idealistic glorification of chivalry in an athletic context. Hockey was played very early on for money and played by very tough and very wild guys from the frontiers of the civilized world (which rural Canada in the late 19th/early 20th century very much was).
Unsurprisingly, the idea of sportsmanship took a long time to really take a hold in the world of hockey and once it did, it took the form of an oft-broken and semi-mythical 'code' that is more similar to such codes among organized criminals than any actual code of justice.
Now, we probably don't want a society that works along such lines, but hockey is a mini-universe separate from society at-large and people enjoy it *because* it is different from our regular world. It offers temporary liberation from the boredom, indecision and endless compromises of modern life. Hockey has seen its share of villains, heroes, jesters, thugs, gentlemen and rogues. There's tales of courage, of cowardice, of mindless brutality, of great humanity, of victory and of defeat.
Messier was not the greatest villain as you also note, but to those who did not rally to the colors that he wore (whether they were those of the Oilers or Rangers or simply Team Canada's) he was nevertheless probably more villain than hero. Yet he's also one of the legends of the game. Why? Because we don't measure hockey players vs the standards we'd use to evaluate our co-workers or neighbors.
In the sphere of hockey, the Stanley Cup is the ultimate prize. It is understood that people will do anything to obtain it. It is part of the spectacle that everyone feels such passion about it, that there's such an intense pursuit. Everything about it feels more in line with pre-modern warfare than our post-modern world.
Messier's opponents were driven by it as much as he was and many of them were willing to perform similar misdeeds to win the ultimate prize. But even those that were not willing to go that far knew that there were those who would. Once you step on the ice, you accepted that the rules of regular society more or less ceased to apply. You're among wolves out there. Messier was one of the baddest wolves and everyone knew that.
I think the lesson here is less about Messier and more about human nature. Once we look at the small details, we realize that the nitty gritty of great victories, of great warriors and leaders is often not especially pretty. That things are done in pursuit of victory, even by admired champions of honor and what else, that are perhaps appalling and against civilized values. Sometimes things that may not even be necessary for victory, sometimes things that make you perhaps realize that a hero in one arena may not be a hero in all arenas.
Winston Churchill ordered the mass killing of German civilians via air raids targeting residential neighborhoods of cities. It is unclear if that actually helped the Allies win. But Winston Churchill is considered one of the great heroes of the 20th century and an iconic figure. How do we reconcile that?
One answer is - you don't. Iconoclasm as the answer. Evey Youtube video on any icon will have its commenters attacking said icon, pointing out their flaws. That's one way to go.
The other way is to say that while perhaps some bad things were done, some evils committed, that the overall benefit generated by the actions taken by these men outweigh the damage done by their bad deeds. An acknowledgement of the complexity of men and their motives, but also the difficulty of decisions made in high-pressure situations without the luxury of distance and hindsight. Perhaps we prefer people who do great things at great cost over those who do not do things, who'd rather stay on the side of moral certainty by the path of inaction.
See Teddy Roosevelt's The Man in the Arena speech:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. 
Maybe it's the wiring of the brain combined with what your parents instill with you that creates ferocious competitors like this.
taking 
lessons. Ha?
Badger Bob the Coach.... Barry Long the ex hockey player or Australian Spiritualist? Not following you here qpq.... 
