Messier vs. Trottier

[WingsFan95]

The only direct comparison I could find was the 2014 playoff discussion. They are so fantastically close. Trottier just slightly edges out in PPG and GPG with a lot fewer games but his +/- is double of Messier. There are marginal differences are Trottier having 1 Art Ross while Messier has an additional Hart.

Mark Messier vs. Bryan Trottier: Head-to-Head Stats Comparison | Stathead.com

Compare Players: Check out the head-to-head stats of Mark Messier and Bryan Trottier including their awards, honors, championships, playoff and regular season stats, and much more on Stathead.com

stathead.com

They also had some stacked teams around them for their prime years, Trottier though arguably coasted with 2 titles on the Pens in his twilight years compared to Messier captaining the 94 Rangers but we do acknowledge that was a very stacked team where he wasn't the best player either.

Some minor additional notes, Trottier was 5th in goals on two occasions while Messier was no higher than 8th, their point finishes are negligible as well as Trottier could be argued got "lucky" with his 1 win and then another runner-up.

The big discussion should be how Trottier didn't play long enough for some of his stats to be diluted and Messier in some low scoring seasons as well. However I also can't ignore peak for peak Messier being on higher scoring teams and not the leader or even secondary (to some extent I know he anchored 2nd line). Trottier also finished 2nd in Selke voting once and his plus/minus even accounting for a shorter career shows him as the better two-way player.

 

[Crosby2010]

You can almost not go wrong either way. But I think there is a bit of a difference between peak vs. peak and overall career. I think you have to give the overall career to Messier. How can you not? Trottier did not have great years in his 30s. He has a 96 point year in 1986, and then 87 points in 1987 and 82 points in 1988. So he's 31 in 1988. Then he falls off of a cliff. Messier obviously doesn't do this. The year he is 30 he wins the Hart Trophy for the second time and still has a lot of good years left. There is 1994 with the Cup and all that happened there. There is 1996 finishing 2nd in Hart Trophy voting. And even as late as 1997 he had 84 points in 71 games, and he's 35. Messier did decline after 1997, but not to the extent of Trottier after 1988 and let's not forget Messier is much older when he declined. So career-wise I think you have to definitely take Messier here.

Peak-wise it is a different story. It is awfully close. You can't underestimate Trottier in those dynasty years. He had that same "it" factor that Messier had. He just didn't do it as long, but lets face it, Trottier still was good for a decent amount of time and I think he hit the ground running quicker than Messier did. I am going to say that 1979 or 1982 are the best years overall for Trottier. Hard to argue with his Art Ross/Hart year in 1979, but I think 1982 with the Cup win and the 29 points in the playoffs. He hit 29 points three years in a row. I am not sure you can have a wrong answer if you were to ask which one of them you want on your team for a playoff run. I might argue Messier would be a guy that would keep me up longer at night if I didn't take him. I get the feeling he would burn you more than maybe Trottier would. But it really doesn't matter either way. I can see it from both sides when looking at how they did at their best. But the career goes to Messier.

 

[57special]

Trottier also had to be "the man" on the 1st line, getting all the tough matchups, while Messier, great as he was, was the #2C for a significant portion of his career. OTOH, Trottier had one of the greatest snipers of all time on his wing.... Anderson was a really good player, but he was no Bossy.

It's a great question, and i'm not sure what the answer is.

 

[MadLuke]

Messier did prove not having issue and winning Harts/cups while being the man too.

Would he have no elite career post 88 we could wonder, but he went hart-scoring 31 pts in 22 game winning the cup after a 129 pts season.

It is hard not to retroactively assume Messier of all players would have not had much issue being the men earlier on, would he had too, speculation, cannot ever know, but the NHL award for leadership has is name.

Often in conversation like this, what you do outside your prime does not affect the answer much and Trottier can still go ahead, but Messier was a solid nhler from 20 to 42, his career outside say his very long prime of roughly 21 to 31 (or 35 even) is a lot.

 

[Cruor]

Messier did prove not having issue and winning Harts/cups while being the man too.

Would he have no elite career post 88, put he went hart-scoring 31 pts in 22 game winning the cup after a 129 pts season.

It is hard not to retroactively assume Messier of all players would have not had much issue being the men earlier on, would he had too, speculation, cannot ever know, but the NHL award for leadership has is name.

Even without the Gretzky influence? I think it's hard to separate.

 

[MadLuke]

Even without the Gretzky influence? I think it's hard to separate.

Impossible to know what all those legendary Oilers become in a non-Gretzky scenario,

1) No one in history would have been the first center guy on a peak Gretzky team.
2) Not many if any have proven themselve more they can be the first center and leader of teams after turning 28 like Messier did.

Which make it quite unfair to make it a point against him in a way, but like injuries or like having the opportunity to play on those Oilers not much is fair in sport, and it would not be fair to not give some credit to Trottier for doing it as a young guy I can imagine.

Trottier was playing on Potvin team too.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Impossible to know what all those legendary Oilers become in a non-Gretzky scenario,

1) No one in history would have been the first center guy on a peak Gretzky team.
2) Not many if any have proven themselve more they can be the first center and leader of teams after turning 28 like Messier did.

Which make it quite unfair to make it a point against him in a way, but like injuries or like having the opportunity to play on those Oilers not much is fair in sport, and it would not be fair to not give some credit to Trottier for doing it as a young guy I can imagine.

Trottier was playing on Potvin team too.

To be fair, Messier's 'non Gretzky' Hart is pretty controversial with a lot of people on the side of Bourque got screwed.

And the 94 Cup was more about Leetch going supernova with 11-23-34, +19 in 23 games than anything Messier did

 

[Cruor]

Impossible to know what all those legendary Oilers become in a non-Gretzky scenario,

1) No one in history would have been the first center guy on a peak Gretzky team.
2) Not many if any have proven themselve more they can be the first center and leader of teams after turning 28 like Messier did.

Which make it quite unfair to make it a point against him in a way, but like injuries or like having the opportunity to play on those Oilers not much is fair in sport, and it would not be fair to not give some credit to Trottier for doing it as a young guy I can imagine.

Trottier was playing on Potvin team too.

It's impossible to prove a negative, but I suspect Messier would have a much more pedestrian looking career sans Gretzky.

 

[GMR]

I feel like 20 years ago, this topic would have been unthinkable. Messier's legacy was so strong then.

I'm picking Messier because Trottier fell off after his early 30's. Messier was probably like 37 when he dipped. He also had better playoff numbers.

Their peaks are much closer as are their scoring finishes.

 

[Crosby2010]

I think we are forgetting the 1990 version of Messier. There is no Gretzky or Coffey. A new goalie in Ranford and more than anyone Messier was responsible for them winning that Cup. I think he is the Conn Smythe favourite going into the final but Ranford just turned on the jets and was the difference. But this was Messier's team more than anything and everyone knew this. I think the whole idea of what he could do without Gretzky has long been put to bed. He won two Harts without Gretzky and even though it is in years where Gretzky played better and Lemieux had some injury issues, so what, no one with the exception of Orr wins a Hart against a healthy Mario or Gretzky in those years. So it is hardly a loss. Then there is 1994 where again I think he is the Conn Smythe favourite going into the Cup final before Leetch goes into his otherworldly level in the final. There should be no question what the Moose could do when he was the guy. Not saying Trottier isn't arguably "the guy" on the Islanders, but I think most people including myself might put Potvin as that guy.

 

[MadLuke]

To be fair, Messier's 'non Gretzky' Hart is pretty controversial with a lot of people on the side of Bourque got screwed.

Yes but would have been a Hart type season none the less and one argument people would make fro him winning over Bourque would be that it was because he proved he could be the men on a team and his strong leader aura, which goes more for than against the spirit of the point being made.

 

[Mandar]

To be fair, Messier's 'non Gretzky' Hart is pretty controversial with a lot of people on the side of Bourque got screwed.

And the 94 Cup was more about Leetch going supernova with 11-23-34, +19 in 23 games than anything Messier did

Game 6 against the Devils…..he certhinly did something, I think.

Leetech was awesome in that whole playoff run….as was Messier. Stupid to downplay his contribution to that Cup

 

[VanIslander]

Trottier was awesome in a duo.
Messier was a force by himself.

 

[LightningStorm]

Messier due to longevity. At their peak they were the same tier, and I even think 1978-1982 Trottier wins in terms of peak. But the way Messier blows Trottier out of the water when it comes to their 30's career is too much not to give him the edge.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i think it depends on how you measure and weigh the distinctions

trottier was significantly better defensively, the difference between elite and very good at best

trottier also had higher end scoring and seemed more naturally like a top 1/3/5 scorer, whereas messier’s 1990 season feels like an outlier offensively

but then you have longevity. to some degree you have to ask acknowledge that for his birth year, trottier had great longevity and that twelve years as a top twemty scorer from teenager thirty is very very good longevity. likewise, him lasting as long as he did was incredible (20th all time when he retired the first time), though he would eventually be lapped in games played by so much of the generation after him. but then messier has ridiculous longevity, both for prime and overall. his prime, from year three up to him leaving new york the first time, is sixteen years long, which is practically as long as trottier’s entire career. and we all know of course that he could have been the all time games played leader if he’d wanted to.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

more thoughts having now read through the thread:

you can say that trottier falls off a cliff at 30, while messier is having his best years, but then you also have to acknowledge that trottier scored 95 pts as a rookie (12th in the league) while messier doesn’t crack the top 30 in scoring until his third season.

if we actually do a season by season comp:

	trottier	messier
year one	12th	/
year two	27th	/
year three	2nd	28th
year four	1st	7th
year five	6th	12th
year six	10th	23rd
year seven	5th	3rd
year eight	19th	5th
year nine	8th	12th
year ten	/	2nd
year eleven	17th	/
year twelve	14th	5th
year thirteen	30th	31st
year fourteen	/	29th
year fifteen	/	10th
year sixteen	/	13th
year seventeen	/	15th

and then to side-by-side the scoring placements:

trottier year four: 1st year three: 2nd year seven: 5th year five: 6th year nine: 8th year six: 10th year one: 12th year twelve: 14th year eleven: 17th year eight: 19th year two: 27th year thirteen: 30th

messier year ten: 2nd year seven: 3rd year eight: 5th year twelve: 5th year four: 7th year fifteen: 10th year five: 12th year nine: 12th year sixteen: 13th year seventeen: 15th year six: 23rd year three: 28th year fourteen: 29th year thirteen: 31st

so at least on paper, longevity of meaningful seasons isn’t as much of a landslide for messier as i think people think. it’s just messier having an extra one of their 7th best season, and an extra one of their 12th best season.

by the same token, if we go just by rank, their peak scoring looks very very similar, which i think is actually quite surprising, relative to what most of us would have expected before looking

 

[MadLuke]

but then you have longevity. to some degree you have to ask acknowledge that for his birth year, trottier had great longevity and that twelve years as a top twemty scorer from teenager thirty is very very good longevity.

I thought he had normal good, not that it was great/special, but...

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Draft class 1972 to 1976 included (so 5 years windows of Trottier 1974 draft), Bob Gainey 1,160 games is the closest to Trottier 1,279 leading that group by a good amount.

211 being the most playoff game as well by a good amount (Potvin 185, gainey 182).

If we go 1970 to 1978, only Dionne and Robinson played more games than Trottier, both of them being on the very special side for longevity.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Trottier was better, but Messier had great longevity.

 

[Staniowski]

I really liked Trottier in the late '70s and early '80s when he was at his best. He was a good all-around offensive player, an excellent puck carrier and passer, a good goal-scorer, smart, played a very effective physical game, worked hard, and he was a naturally good defensive player. He was probably a better scorer than Messier against average NHL opposition; more consistent than Messier; better defensively; and generally more refined skills.

But I think I'd still take Messier in most cases.

 

[MadLuke]

longevity of meaningful seasons isn’t as much of a landslide for messier as i think people think.

by the same token, if we go just by rank, their peak scoring looks very very similar,

Speaking only for me, yes this is vastly different of what I would have guessed (maybe not their best offensive peak because of Messier famous big season, but the second-third best yes) and longevity I vastly underrated Trottier, which could be a common thing to do for under-20 Calder winner.

We can easily overrate a player longevity that was good from 23 to 33 versus the one that was good from 19 to 29. H.Sedin being a first liner from 25 to 34 can feel like he had more longevity than say a Toews that did it from 19 to 30 or so while it was about the same if not shorter (in years, not in games too)

 

[WingsFan95]

Can we say it's a fair tradeoff to compare longevity to two-way play?? I mean we can agree Trottier was a much better two-way player right? And as great as Messier's longevity was it wasn't exactly (IMO) on Jagr, Chelios or Howe level.

 

[Mandar]

Can we say it's a fair tradeoff to compare longevity to two-way play?? I mean we can agree Trottier was a much better two-way player right? And as great as Messier's longevity was it wasn't exactly (IMO) on Jagr, Chelios or Howe level.

Nope....not better....and not even close to being "much better".

Messier was a much more physical player....was a much faster and better skater.....and a much better leader (thats obvious).

Trottier was a perfect fit for those successful isles teams, and was certainly solid.....but (as someone who watched both players for the majority of their careers) there is no major facet of the game that Trottier was superior to Messier in....both on a team level and as an individual player.

 

[Run the Gauntlet]

Can we say it's a fair tradeoff to compare longevity to two-way play?? I mean we can agree Trottier was a much better two-way player right? And as great as Messier's longevity was it wasn't exactly (IMO) on Jagr, Chelios or Howe level.

You mean 3 or 4 goals by Chelios in 81 games? Messier was much better than that.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Chelios is a good example of a guy who played elite into a late age, but also took a while to get going.

Didn't play in the NHL until 22. Not a Norris contender until 26. But still a Norris contender until age 40.

But he was an impact player on Cup wins at age 22 and age 40.

I don't think Chelios got the fairest shake in the early 80s because of his unusual development path. But it is fair to say it's more a Messier career path than a Trottier.

 

[LightningStorm]

We can easily overrate a player longevity that was good from 23 to 33 versus the one that was good from 19 to 29. H.Sedin being a first liner from 25 to 34 can feel like he had more longevity than say a Toews that did it from 19 to 30 or so while it was about the same if not shorter (in years, not in games too)

I never thought of this, but now that you mention it I see this all the time, where longevity is more heavily weighed for when it ended than when it began. Seems like there has to be an extreme case for one to realize being great in late age doesn't always equate to great longevity. To use a baseball example, Randy Johnson was 41 in his last great season, but because he didn't emerge as a superstar pitcher until 30, he's not mistaken for having great longevity, despite him playing roughly 20 seasons. His case is very different from Ray Bourque, who hit the ground running as a great d-man as a teenager and has 2 decades of elite play, making the longevity argument much stronger for him.