Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3

[Kyle McMahon]

Mark Messier vs. Ray Bourque

So I kinda peaked four months early on this one, because I didn't expect these two players to be available at the same time. At any rate, to recap where we left off in August, ol' quoipourquoi took on the value of All-Star selections at Center, Left Wing, and Defense (and talked some general **** about Defensemen).

For the voting group and future readers, here's a few excerpts from that discussion followed by some new content:

*********

THN (1998)
12. Messier
14. Bourque

ESPN (2004)
11. Messier
12. Bourque

THN-60 Since 67 (2007)
4. Messier
8. Bourque

The Score (2017)
5. Messier
17. Bourque

USA Today (2017)
8. Messier
16. Bourque

Don’t get me wrong; all of these lists since their careers are, as a whole, pretty awful and inconsistent. But there’s not going to be anyone who has seen Mark Messier and not Ray Bourque or vice-versa because it’s the same career overlap. And yet, there may be a complete absence of a media list with the reverse order - that is to say, Bourque over Messier.

If the gap between the two is that big, how did it escape basically every collective assigned with the same task except this forum? Pretty similar Hart distribution. Probably no way to present a playoff argument for Bourque. The chief difference in Bourque’s favor seems to be that there are fewer Bourque-level defensemen historically than there are Messier-level forwards. Which probably would be huge had they not played at the exact same time over which Messier was received marginally better.

It’s just asking for a lot of people to have been completely wrong in their assessment in the moment, immediate aftermath, and the decades-after reflections. I’ve seen it characterized as 1997ish Messier-mania, but... it hasn’t ended in establishment circles. They gave him an award. Throughout NHL 100, they brought him alongside Gretzky, Orr, and Lemieux now that Howe has passed. How many times has he presented the Hart Trophy? He’s that guy.

If he was competing for awards against Bourque’s competition for accolades (1982 Doug Wilson, 1987 Mark Howe, 1988 Scott Stevens, 1990 Al MacInnis, 1992 Brian Leetch, 1996 Chris Chelios, and 1997 Brian Leetch) would he have any less than the equivalent to what amounts to five Norris Trophies?

*********

So let's dive into the individual seasons of my theory that Mark Messier = Value of 5-7 Norris Trophies if he competed against the same field against which Ray Bourque competed for his positional awards.


1989-90 (Al MacInnis): A lock

Probably the easiest season of the comparison - one where Mark Messier took the first of two 1st Team selections at Center. Had he been competing against Bourque's field of competition led by Al MacInnis, Messier would have clearly come out on top.


1991-92 (Brian Leetch): A virtual lock

The near-unanimous Hart season in Messier's second of two 1st Team selections at Center. I'd say it's a virtual lock because while the Hart was won with a 67 to 2 vote over everybody, the All-Star selection over Lemieux, Gretzky, and Roenick was 38 to 20, 3, and 4 respectively; so there was definitely an element of "most valuable" vs. best. However, Ray Bourque's top competition for the Norris was Mark Messier's own teammate, so I can't see Messier not being rated higher if put to a vote.


1995-96 (Chris Chelios): Incredibly likely

Mark Messier had some legit Hart buzz going into the final stretch of 1995-96, ultimately finishing 2nd in Hart voting to Mario Lemieux, and 3rd in All-Star voting to the other Hart nominee, Eric Lindros.



However this wasn't exactly a light year for Bourque's Norris competition, seeing Chris Chelios take the trophy in a 72-point campaign. The Blackhawks did take somewhat of a step back as this was the first time since 1989-90 that they didn't lead the Western Conference in GA (finishing 39 GA back of Detroit), but practically none of the blowback went on Chelios. Even still, given that Messier finished 1st (10) or 2nd (15) on 46% of the Hart ballots in Lemieux's 161-point season, I don't see the voters not siding with him over the field of defensemen.


1986-87 (Mark Howe): Incredibly likely

For clarification, this is not the signature Mark Howe season (that was in 1985-86) but rather the season where Howe played in 69 games with split attention with Ron Hextall. Messier, in what could be considered his wait-I-thought-you-already-had-a-breakout-season-what's-this season, finished 3rd in points as well as 3rd in points-per-game to Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux - who naturally finished with the 1st and 2nd Team selections at Center.


1987-88 (Scott Stevens): Incredibly likely

For his next trick, Messier finished top-5 in scoring again in Mario Lemieux's 168-point Art Ross season, but this time, placed 3rd in even-strength scoring behind just Gretzky and Lemieux - recording 70 even-strength points in 77 games to Lemieux's 74 even-strength points in 77 games.



Now I make it a policy not to say anything bad about Scott Stevens (and I certainly wouldn't say his name three times while looking into a mirror), but I don't think he would edge out Messier here. I wouldn't give it the ol' Mark Messier guarantee though, because in Wayne Gretzky's absence, you'd like to see Messier pick up the spare Hart votes that instead went to 75-GP Grant Fuhr.


1996-97 (Brian Leetch): Likely

The second of Messier's late career goal-scoring-resurgence seasons, which saw him finish marginally ahead of 2nd Team All-Star Center Wayne Gretzky in points-per-game production (71 games vs. 82 games - so it wasn't a substantial absence by any means). But rather than Mario Lemieux and Messier's teammate Wayne Gretzky, Bourque's top competition was Messier's other teammate, Brian Leetch, who while winning pretty decisively over Sandis Ozolinsh was somewhat taking a backseat to the Messier/Gretzky tandem.



While Messier's 11-games spread across forced timeouts and back issues resulted in him conceding the 2nd Team All-Star selection to Wayne Gretzky, if put head-to-head against Brian Leetch instead, I would bet on Messier.


1981-82 (Doug Wilson): Coin Flip

The first Messier breakout, where as a Left Wing, Messier's 50-goal season (3rd in even-strength goal-scoring behind Wayne Gretzky and Mike Bossy) secured a 1st Team All-Star selection with 25/63 1st-place votes while Doug Wilson edged out 65-GP Bourque with 29/63 1st-place votes. The first of three-consecutive All-Star selections on Left Wing, this pre-peak Messier probably could have coasted to several more had he never been switched to a more difficult position to acquire these accolades (which is kind of the point of this exercise).


...so am I crazy? Would four-time 1st Team All-Star Mark Messier, if held against the same competition against which five-time Norris winner Ray Bourque competed for his positional accolades, have been selected the top player in 5-7 seasons?

Bourque vs Messier could kind of be like the eternal Sakic vs Yzerman debates. Two highly comparable players, but in much the same way that Sakic seems to have gradually become seen as slightly better, I think Bourque also edges out Messier. Close enough for fervent debate, but I bet 4 out of 5 people who do a serious evaluation end up choosing Bourque. I'll give it a go here with a more detailed comparison.

1987-1994. Their peaks overlap almost perfectly here. And when people think of the two players, this is reasonably what springs to mind. Messier got over on Bourque twice in the Cup final, most memorably without Gretzky in 1990. Edged him for the Hart by a couple votes too. And then tack on the infamous guarantee/54-year drought ending in 1994. I think you probably take what Messier did here over what Bourque did. I don't think it's a landslide though, not at all. But in the eyes of a more casual participant in a list-making endeavor, it is a landslide. For a lot of the people, 3 Cups to 0 pretty much ends the debate right then and there, unfortunately.

So it's easy to sort of forget or minimize what happened outside of each player's respective glory years. You have the iconic image of Bourque winning the Stanley Cup at long last...but you don't even associate that with the time frame where he makes the most direct comparison with Messier. Nor do you remember that Bourque was playing at a Hall of Fame level in his rookie season while Messier was sent down to the minors by Glen Sather to "do some growing up".

Looking outside the peak stretch is where I figure Bourque makes his case over Messier.

Messier took a little while to get going. First two seasons add very little in terms of value. 1998 onwards of course detracts from the legacy if anything. You're left with a handful of excellent seasons and a strong three year stretch of post-season play that results in two Stanley Cups and a Smythe. Messier's longevity is impressive, but not overwhelming. 1982-1997 is what his case is built on. 25 seasons looks crazy, but 9 of them are unimportant historically.

Bourque was basically seen as a top 4 defenseman in the NHL immediately upon arrival. He maintains this for 17 consecutive seasons. He's still considered a premier defenseman for a few more years after that, contributing significantly to a Stanley Cup winner.

Outside of the overlapping primes we can start to pare things down. 2001 and 1985 are a reasonable saw off. Both players win Cups as important players, but have at least a couple teammates that clearly played a more vital role in this particular instance. The 1983 season is probably a wash. Both had a great playoff run and lost to the Islanders. That Messier technically went to the Final while Bourque lost the semi-final is immaterial here, merely a result of playoff format. 1982 can wash as well. Messier breaks out for 50 goals, 1st AST. Bourque is Norris runner-up. Playoffs Bourque looks better, but neither has a run of any consequence anyway. 1986...looks close enough to cancel out. Same with 1995. 1996 sees Messier get some Hart buzz and he almost hits 50 goals again in what was his last great season. But Bourque himself is Norris runner up with 82 points/+31 on a Boston roster that is clearly headed nowhere, but still makes the playoffs comfortably. Messier's 1997 and Bourque's 1999 seem close enough to call a tie.

What it leaves us...

Messier: 1984. 2nd team AST, 100 points, Conn Smythe+Stanley Cup winner. As

Bourque: 1980, 1981, 1984, 1997, 1998, 2000. Twice a 1st AST, one a 2nd AST. Significant Norris consideration three times, and none of these accolades is a mismatch with the eye-test or what was being reported. Some lesser Norris/AST support in three other seasons, including being named to the Canadian Olympic team in 1998, which would suggest these weren't just reputation votes. The immediate resurgence in Colorado shows he still was elite, even if the numbers started to erode during the final part of his Bruins career.

Good as 1984 was for Messier, Bourque has an extra half decade worth of historically relevant seasons.

Is Messier's 1987-94 enough to overcome that? No, I don't think so. Despite the 3-0 advantage in Cups won, it's hard to discount what Bourque had to work with in 1988 and 1990 compared to Messier. If Bourque had done anything less than drag two mediocre Bruin teams to the final, maybe it's easier to argue for Messier. But he did, so I don't think you can reasonably say #11 was the greater player those years; both were fantastic and did everything they could to win, but there's only one Cup. Then you also have to realize that Messier did have some off years during the peak stretch. 1989, 91, and 93 were nothing special. Bourque's absolute worst season during the peak stretch was a 2nd team AST during he season where he only played 60 games. 1st AST every other season, a handful of Norris trophies. Messier probably needs that iconic New York Stanley Cup run to nose Bourque out and give him 1987-94 in a photo finish.

 

[seventieslord]

Howie Morenz, Part 1

Very fortunate to have found a series of articles reprinted ten years after his death. Biographical in nature, perhaps flowery given the circumstances.

 

[seventieslord]

Howie Morenz, Part 2

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

a pretty wild stat for bourque—

although tbf gretzky was only 13 games shy, coffey was four goals and 91 games short, and gilmour needed just 26 games and 36 assists; if you take away the games played threshold, sakic, dionne, and mario also all qualify.

 

[seventieslord]

Eddie Shore

Not a heck of a lot about his playing career. But I am posting it anyway because it has some interesting observations about the game in the 40s and 50s. You may even come away thinking Eddie Shore was one of the game's great thinkers.

 

[seventieslord]

 

[quoipourquoi]

Bourque's absolute worst season during the peak stretch was a 2nd team AST during he season where he only played 60 games.

Are all of us not a little too comfortable with the frequency with which Defensemen can do this? See a lot of 60 GP, 65 GP, 65 GP, 67 GP seasons from Centers that still pick up the historically relevant tag the way Bourque did in 40% of his first 10 seasons? A forward can’t even miss 10 games or his VsX craters, but Defensemen can still be All-Stars.

Because it seems like being able to meet the standard of Better than Steve Duchesne might not be this super-high threshold and instead way too much of a safety net for players at the level of a Messier or a Bourque - particularly when juxtaposed with a season in which four Centers score 150+ points. Messier could have just stayed a LW and rubberstamped his way to ~15 All-Star selections too, including that one over Gerard Gallant.

But really, we can compare hyperbolic quotes comparing Bourque to Orr (a comparison emphasized because they both played in Boston... we all get that, right?) and hyperbolic quotes comparing Messier to Howe and see which ones we run out of first.

I like the closeness of the Sakic/Yzerman parallel that Kyle McMahon is drawing, but it loses me once we get into the playoffs, because Sakic (the marginally better regular season performer) was also a notably better playoff performer than Yzerman, whereas in our Bourque/Messier pairing, Mark Messier has 25+ point runs in all six championships and was challenging the goal record until separating his shoulder right before the other of his seven Finals and was a better playoff performer than Bourque or Sakic or Yzerman or really all but six players in history who are already named to this year’s list.

So I guess I’m just not seeing why the player who was largely perceived as the better player of the two (both at the twilight of their careers and decades after), who peaked exactly as high because they were neck-and-neck for the same Hart and Pearson Trophy, who would have won the same number (more?) of top-rank awards if put against the same field of positional competition (even in reality it’s only 4 for Messier against LW/C vs. 5 for Bourque before we get into the respective quality of each other’s fields), who has a much more prolific playoff career (7th in the playoff project underneath six players who have already been named to this list vs. an unranked player) is commonly talked about specifically here as not only being marginally worse but often a tier below and maybe too early for consideration.

And I hope it’s not the greater accessibility to All-Star selections when Bourque was playing those four 60-67 GP seasons or when he’s twice finishing slightly ahead of Desjardins and Blake in their 67-68 GP All-Star seasons. Because I think that might be what’s inflating this perception of Bourque’s greater quantity of historically relevant seasons: the Defensive All-Star selection, often a reputation-based assignment triggered by reaching certain point thresholds.

I mean, it would either be that or we’re assigning too much meaning to Bourque getting to that level two seasons earlier (1980, 1981) and Messier only staying at that level one season later (1997) when we all just had a conversation yesterday about how Defensemen tend to be able to have greater longevity than other positions (particularly when looking at several of Bourque’s contemporaries who one-after-the-other were taking runs at the Norris from 1999-2003). Much more rare for forwards in Messier’s age range to have his longevity than what was seen from the forwards 10 years down the line (Jagr, Sakic, Selanne).

 

[daver]

Do we do that for other strong playoff runs of players here? How good were the goalies and defenders in the playoffs that Potvin faced in his best runs? How about Messier? Think we're being a bit too harsh on active players in recent runs we remember.

Philly was 16th in goals against that year - that's league average. Washington was 15th. One rank higher.

Both Elliott and Neuvirth had better sv% than Holtby that season too.

When the Oilers were playing low seeds in a 21 team league vs. a 30 team league, you can almost guarantee that he faced teams that were lower ranked in GAA than Crosby's opponents.

And do we really need to penalize players for doing what they had to do to advance in the playoffs? I really don't get this line of thinking. Do we know for a fact the Pens advance regardless in any series that Crosby put up gaudy numbers? That seems like a pretty questionable assumption. The Caps in 2009 comes to mind. Ottawa in 2010, the Islanders in 2013 and the Flyers last year took them to six.

IMO, the numbers speak for themselves. The best per game producer of his era had a handful of series where he dominated. No surprise there. Any talk of struggling against elite defenses should have been put to bed in 2017 when the Pens took on the #1 and #2 best defensive teams in the first two rounds and Crosby excelled before getting whacked in the head.

If Crosby played against such weak defensive teams, why didn't other members of the Pens, notably Malkin, also put up gaudy numbers?

Against the Caps in 2009:

Crosby - 13 points
Malkin - 10
Guerin - 6
LeTang - 6

Against the Sens in 2010:

Crosby - 14 points
Malkin - 8
Geurin - 6

 

[daver]

What is this?

Crosby was 11pts behind the leader, not even PPG, a minus player. OV was the top goal scorer, 5pts behind the leader, PPG+, plus player, top 5 in hits. Stop comparing them, OV's run was way better.

Jagr wasn't a better player, OV's peak is just as good. OV's goal scoring and 200+ hits make up for Jagr's bigger PPG separation from peers. One thing Jagr was better at was quitting on teams. More adaptable? Like when he whined and sulked when asked to change his game? Better playoff resume? Where's his smythe? Has he ever passed the 2nd round when he was the main man? True he was the best player in the world for a half decade. But wasn't OV the best player from 05/06-09/10 (he was better than Crosby in 4/5 seasons)? If he was the best in goals where's his rocket? OV always plays with Backstrom/Kuznetsov? Were they in the league when OV scored 98 goals in his first 2 seasons? And I'm sure rookie Backstrom's (who didn't play with OV until the 2nd half of 07/08) 69pts played a huge role in OV's 65 goal/112pt season.

Hart finishes
OV: 1,1,1,2,2,6,6,9 (13 seasons)
Jagr: 1,2,2,2,2,3,4,7 (24 seasons)

Jagr has an extra nomination, but OV has 2 extra wins. Both have 8 top 10 finishes but Jagr played 10 more seasons. Definitely edge to OV.

Peak season: coin flip Ovechkin 07/08 or Jagr 98/99
Extended peak: coin flip OV 07/08-09/10 or Jagr 97/98-99/00 (not including Lemieux boosted 95/96 or 00/01)
Prime: probably Jagr, but OV is still going strong
Playoffs: Ovechkin
International: Jagr
AST: 7-7 1st, 4-1 2nd---11-8 OV
Awards: 16-9 OV
--OV has won every possible realistic award (ross, Rocket, hart, lindsay, smythe, calder) while Jagr has no rocket, no smythe, no calder

Ovechkin is with Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux as the only players with 3 harts and a smythe. He has the most goal scoring titles in history and will go down as the GOAT goal scorer. He is ahead of Jagr at this point.

This needs comment:

"Extended peak: coin flip OV 07/08-09/10 or Jagr 97/98-99/00 (not including Lemieux boosted 95/96 or 00/01)"

How can you say Jagr's point totals were boosted with 100% certainty to the point where you drop them completely from consideration.

He was clearly as productive in 98/99 and 99/00 as he was in 95/96, and more than he was in 00/01; both seasons that would better at least two of OV best seasons numbers-wise.

We have no idea what Jagr does in those seasons if Mario did not play; speculating that he would have been worse than he was from 97-00 is unreasonable speculation.

 

[bobholly39]

Are all of us not a little too comfortable with the frequency with which Defensemen can do this? See a lot of 60 GP, 65 GP, 65 GP, 67 GP seasons from Centers that still pick up the historically relevant tag the way Bourque did in 40% of his first 10 seasons? A forward can’t even miss 10 games or his VsX craters, but Defensemen can still be All-Stars.

Because it seems like being able to meet the standard of Better than Steve Duchesne might not be this super-high threshold and instead way too much of a safety net for players at the level of a Messier or a Bourque - particularly when juxtaposed with a season in which four Centers score 150+ points. Messier could have just stayed a LW and rubberstamped his way to ~15 All-Star selections too, including that one over Gerard Gallant.

But really, we can compare hyperbolic quotes comparing Bourque to Orr (a comparison emphasized because they both played in Boston... we all get that, right?) and hyperbolic quotes comparing Messier to Howe and see which ones we run out of first.

I like the closeness of the Sakic/Yzerman parallel that Kyle McMahon is drawing, but it loses me once we get into the playoffs, because Sakic (the marginally better regular season performer) was also a notably better playoff performer than Yzerman, whereas in our Bourque/Messier pairing, Mark Messier has 25+ point runs in all six championships and was challenging the goal record until separating his shoulder right before the other of his seven Finals and was a better playoff performer than Bourque or Sakic or Yzerman or really all but six players in history who are already named to this year’s list.

So I guess I’m just not seeing why the player who was largely perceived as the better player of the two (both at the twilight of their careers and decades after), who peaked exactly as high because they were neck-and-neck for the same Hart and Pearson Trophy, who would have won the same number (more?) of top-rank awards if put against the same field of positional competition (even in reality it’s only 4 for Messier against LW/C vs. 5 for Bourque before we get into the respective quality of each other’s fields), who has a much more prolific playoff career (7th in the playoff project underneath six players who have already been named to this list vs. an unranked player) is commonly talked about specifically here as not only being marginally worse but often a tier below and maybe too early for consideration.

And I hope it’s not the greater accessibility to All-Star selections when Bourque was playing those four 60-67 GP seasons or when he’s twice finishing slightly ahead of Desjardins and Blake in their 67-68 GP All-Star seasons. Because I think that might be what’s inflating this perception of Bourque’s greater quantity of historically relevant seasons: the Defensive All-Star selection, often a reputation-based assignment triggered by reaching certain point thresholds.

I mean, it would either be that or we’re assigning too much meaning to Bourque getting to that level two seasons earlier (1980, 1981) and Messier only staying at that level one season later (1997) when we all just had a conversation yesterday about how Defensemen tend to be able to have greater longevity than other positions (particularly when looking at several of Bourque’s contemporaries who one-after-the-other were taking runs at the Norris from 1999-2003). Much more rare for forwards in Messier’s age range to have his longevity than what was seen from the forwards 10 years down the line (Jagr, Sakic, Selanne).

I feel like you're asking a lot of very interesting questions but you aren't providing your own answers or opinions on them. How do you think this should affect our rankings? Are you saying Messier should be ranked above Bourque?

In vote 1 there was a talk track at some point about Orr losing out multiple harts (and even to his own teammates was only 4-3) - and I brought up the fact that as someone who values offense i don't necessarily disagree with an anti-defender bias.

I'm guessing this is the case here. Who makes those types of lists? Same type of people who vote on hart trophies i expect, and they are generally more pro forward than defender.

Can you tell off hand if other defenders/forwards seem to be ranked lower/higher than you'd normally expect, or does Bourque vs Messier really stand out on its own as an exception?

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I've left this lying on the floor for a while- now seems as good a time as any to pick it up:

Somehow I still see Eddie Shore at the bottom of the list of defencemen.

He must have done something to your grandfather. I can't believe we still need to defend a 4 Harts / 8 Norrises defenseman.

Perhaps his grandfather is... Ace Bailey.

Seriously, though, we should discuss this a little- especially you and me, Sentinel. We've talked before about what we thought of the Clarke-Kharlamov incident. I'd go as far as to say we share a common opinion on that. [Even though 'Philly" is my last name, I'm not going to be any kind of unapologetic homer for Clarke.] Now, I'm hoping that anyone who cares enough about Hockey History to collate, cull, and formulate a nominating list of 120 players is already well-aware of the Shore-Bailey encounter. And lest some might think that judging on account of the Shore piledrive or the Clarke slash constitutes some kind of beyond-category moralizing, I'd say "false" to that. Our mission is to judge the players "on their performance as hockey players." So- if there's an on-ice incident that brings shame and disrepute to the game, then it's perfectly legitimate to hold that against a player's memory.

Now, I'm not making some sort of fundamentalist argument that one ill-judged foul wipes away any significant part of the careers of certain upper-division Hall-of-Fame players. I AM saying that if we're running into a snag in finding space between one player and another, then the shit-heel factor is completely justifiable as a tie-breaker.

 

[sr edler]

Don't want to spend too much time on this- but fortunately, it shouldn't take too long to send the "a-goal-is-a-goal" canard off-to-bed without supper.

Two 60 goal scorers, one is 25% power-play dependent (15 Pwr Play G), and one is 40% power-play dependent (24 Pwr Play G). Now, you're going to The Playoffs, where you KNOW whistles are going to stay in the pockets more. Here, it's not really a close call which player's goal-scoring pattern counts for more.

While I see where this line of reasoning comes from, and while I partially agree with it, I don't think you can make a blanket statement where a player who is good on the power play is deemed less good or important than another guy. It depends a bit on the circumstances, I think. Sometimes when you have a guy on the other team who is great on the PP, the opposite team could be less willing to playing it rough, risking to go shorthanded.

Being good on the PP is also a skill that could be very valuable, and not every player is good at it, making zone-bound set pieces. Ask Tortorella about newly traded speedster Carl Hagelin, for instance. That's actually one of the things I was impressed with with Mikael Samuelsson when he played in VAN, his ability to make the clap-clap PP magic work with the Sedins (and he was also injured down the stretch in the 2011 playoffs when VANs PP completely dried up).

The problem probably starts when PP things are the only thing (or one of the few things) your star guy can do, like say a washed up Scott Gomez or (dare I say) the current version of Patrik Laine. Canadiens version of Gomez still worked some PP voodoo on a few teams in the 2010 playoffs though (among those teams the Presidents' Trophy winning club Washington Capitals, with Ovechkin).

It's a bit like free kicks in soccer. If your guy is lethal on it (Gianfranco Zola), it brings another dimension, or a fear factor to the other team. But if it's the only thing your guy can do, it can be a detriment because just-right-outside-the-box free kicks aren't given away like free candy, and sometimes in the SC playoffs the whistle is put away pretty deep in the pocket of the referee.

Best thing is obviously if your star guy can play in all situations (ES, PP, SH), because then he can also be a threat in all situations. I use to bring up this point when comparing or discussing Jagr, Selänne, Bure. Two goals: Russia 3-0 on Finland in the semis in the 98 Olympics. VAN 2-0 up on STL in game 7 of the 95 SC playoffs. Jagr or Selänne wouldn't have scored any of those (important) goals, because they didn't figure on any respectable PK units, or any PK units at all to be honest. Ovechkin wouldn't have either.

 

[The Macho King]

Are all of us not a little too comfortable with the frequency with which Defensemen can do this? See a lot of 60 GP, 65 GP, 65 GP, 67 GP seasons from Centers that still pick up the historically relevant tag the way Bourque did in 40% of his first 10 seasons? A forward can’t even miss 10 games or his VsX craters, but Defensemen can still be All-Stars.

Because it seems like being able to meet the standard of Better than Steve Duchesne might not be this super-high threshold and instead way too much of a safety net for players at the level of a Messier or a Bourque - particularly when juxtaposed with a season in which four Centers score 150+ points. Messier could have just stayed a LW and rubberstamped his way to ~15 All-Star selections too, including that one over Gerard Gallant.

But really, we can compare hyperbolic quotes comparing Bourque to Orr (a comparison emphasized because they both played in Boston... we all get that, right?) and hyperbolic quotes comparing Messier to Howe and see which ones we run out of first.

I like the closeness of the Sakic/Yzerman parallel that Kyle McMahon is drawing, but it loses me once we get into the playoffs, because Sakic (the marginally better regular season performer) was also a notably better playoff performer than Yzerman, whereas in our Bourque/Messier pairing, Mark Messier has 25+ point runs in all six championships and was challenging the goal record until separating his shoulder right before the other of his seven Finals and was a better playoff performer than Bourque or Sakic or Yzerman or really all but six players in history who are already named to this year’s list.

So I guess I’m just not seeing why the player who was largely perceived as the better player of the two (both at the twilight of their careers and decades after), who peaked exactly as high because they were neck-and-neck for the same Hart and Pearson Trophy, who would have won the same number (more?) of top-rank awards if put against the same field of positional competition (even in reality it’s only 4 for Messier against LW/C vs. 5 for Bourque before we get into the respective quality of each other’s fields), who has a much more prolific playoff career (7th in the playoff project underneath six players who have already been named to this list vs. an unranked player) is commonly talked about specifically here as not only being marginally worse but often a tier below and maybe too early for consideration.

And I hope it’s not the greater accessibility to All-Star selections when Bourque was playing those four 60-67 GP seasons or when he’s twice finishing slightly ahead of Desjardins and Blake in their 67-68 GP All-Star seasons. Because I think that might be what’s inflating this perception of Bourque’s greater quantity of historically relevant seasons: the Defensive All-Star selection, often a reputation-based assignment triggered by reaching certain point thresholds.

I mean, it would either be that or we’re assigning too much meaning to Bourque getting to that level two seasons earlier (1980, 1981) and Messier only staying at that level one season later (1997) when we all just had a conversation yesterday about how Defensemen tend to be able to have greater longevity than other positions (particularly when looking at several of Bourque’s contemporaries who one-after-the-other were taking runs at the Norris from 1999-2003). Much more rare for forwards in Messier’s age range to have his longevity than what was seen from the forwards 10 years down the line (Jagr, Sakic, Selanne).

I hope I can find time to respond to this today in detail, but my shorthand reply is "D get shafted in Hart voting and Bourque should have a few as well as probably 2-3 more Norris trophies."

 

[MXD]

When the Oilers were playing low seeds in a 21 team league vs. a 30 team league, you can almost guarantee that he faced teams that were lower ranked in GAA than Crosby's opponents.

And do we really need to penalize players for doing what they had to do to advance in the playoffs? I really don't get this line of thinking. Do we know for a fact the Pens advance regardless in any series that Crosby put up gaudy numbers? That seems like a pretty questionable assumption. The Caps in 2009 comes to mind. Ottawa in 2010 and the Flyers last year took them to six.

IMO, the numbers speak for themselves. The best per game producer of his era had a handful of series where he dominated. No surprise there. Any talk of struggling against elite defenses should have been put to bed in 2017 when the Pens took on the #1 and #2 best defensive teams in the first two rounds and Crosby excelled before getting whacked in the head.

... Will you continue posting next round?

 

[daver]

I really don't get how anyone could look at Crosby's playoff numbers with qualifying narrative of weak defensive opponents/goalies or "disappointing" runs particularly vs. Messier.

I think Messier has the superior playoff resume but not necessarily because Crosby's is lacking anything other than longevity.

In comparison to Crosby, Messier faced easier defensive teams in general based on opponent's finishes in league GAA, would have faced easier matchups given their opponents focus on Wayne, been relied on less to generate offense because of Wayne, and had better linemates.

 

[daver]

... Will you continue posting next round?

I have made comments on other players when I felt comfortable doing so and will continue to do so. I find the discussions fascinating.

I don't think I have made any comments that aren't respected, if not accepted, by the majority.

 

[MXD]

I really don't get how anyone could look at Crosby's playoff numbers with qualifying narrative of weak defensive opponents/goalies or "disappointing" runs particularly vs. Messier.

I think Messier has the superior playoff resume but not necessarily because Crosby's is lacking anything other than longevity.

In comparison to Crosby, Messier faced easier defensive teams in general based on opponent's finishes in league GAA, would have faced easier matchups given their opponents focus on Wayne, been relied on less to generate offense because of Wayne, and had better linemates.

You realize that, before you posted that, there was probably no comparison whatsoever to be made between Crosby (to me, the best skater coming in) and Messier (to me, the 2nd worse skater coming in), and that, since you did, there's one?

 

[daver]

I am I the only one who finds the position of treating # of Cups wins with no context despite the five to six fold increase of teams since the '20s vs. treating season and career point totals with context given the # of games played differed significantly from the '20s thru to now a bit hypocritical?

 

[daver]

You realize that, before you posted that, there was probably no comparison whatsoever to be made between Crosby (to me, the best skater coming in) and Messier (to me, the 2nd worse skater coming in), and that, since you did, there's one?

Isn't that the whole point of the exercise, to compare and then rate them?

Messier comes in as the best playoff skater according to the HOH does he not?

 

[BenchBrawl]

There's so many eligible players it gets hard to keep track

Mid-week impressions

Howie Morenz is still my #1 largely based on star power.

Sidney Crosby, Jacques Plante and Eddie Shore hanging around the upper echelons of my list.

Mark Messier was my wildcard, and he's picking up steam.He has the star power, the playoffs, the leadership, the complete game.Longevity is a bonus.A great power vs. power center, can face anyone in a playoff series and have a good chance of victory.Definitely prefer Messier over Mikita; hesitate to push him over Crosby or Morenz, but I'd love to, especially over Crosby.Speaking of which, I'm around 87% sure Messier should be ranked over Bourque.

Among the rest I prefer Denis Potvin, but I'm not going against the wind with that one, I'm driving straight into an F5 tornado with debris and cows flying all around me.

 

[MXD]

I am I the only one who finds the position of treating # of Cups wins with no context despite the five to six fold increase of teams since the '20s vs. treating season and career point totals with context given the # of games played differed significantly from the '20s thru to now a bit hypocritical?

Provide example of somebody doing exactly that in this thread. Be specific.

 

[bobholly39]

Provide example of somebody doing exactly that in this thread. Be specific.

If this project is a closed project that doesn't allow non-voters to make comments it should be announced in the OP and access should be restricted to voters.

Otherwise - whats with the attitude?

So long as rational arguments are being brought forth i dont see the issue.

 

[MXD]

If this project is a closed project that doesn't allow non-voters to make comments it should be announced in the OP and access should be restricted to voters.

Otherwise - whats with the attitude?

So long as rational arguments are being brought forth i dont see the issue.

I'm asking for the substantiation of a claim that pertained to a possible flaw in our methodology.

As for my attitude, if you have an issue with it (which you appear to have), contact a project admin.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I feel like you're asking a lot of very interesting questions but you aren't providing your own answers or opinions on them. How do you think this should affect our rankings? Are you saying Messier should be ranked above Bourque?

Oh. I guess that was unclear.

Yes, I - like maybe every media list - consider Mark Messier to be marginally better than Ray Bourque.

But I understand why people might not share that same opinion. Mark Messier leaned heavily into violence, which isn’t exactly a great look for the league as it is currently regulated. For example, I don’t think you’ll have opposing coaches applauding him for injuring three of their players in a Game 7 (1986 Calgary), or being hesitant to put an injured star like Hawerchuk into the lineup because of what Messier might do to him (1985 Winnipeg).

Violence, while never fully endorsed with a golden statue of a head on a pike, unquestionably played a greater role in hockey prior to the crackdown at the end of Messier’s career - which has more or less made the Lady Byng meaningless. I have faith that Gritty will bring the pain, but that version of hockey like the idealized version of the Old West in cinema, is probably gone - with Messier and Lindros and Stevens as the last of the celebrated gunslingers. Science has understandably won, and with our better understanding of concussions, what was once a great trait - a star forward who could police himself without using an extra roster spot for protection - is less important now than it was then.

Not lost, however, is Messier’s success on Wing or at Center, or his ability to transition between high-ratio goal-scoring or high-ratio playmaking dependent upon demand, or his practice at integrating rookie forwards into his line. And if he played in a less physical league, his VsX likely goes up because he won’t be missing those small patches of games here and there. His 10 seasons where he’s top-10 in points/points-per-game probably lose their qualifier. He could function; his skating ability was top-notch, so I dispute any claim that he was overachieving relative to his skill set. But he would be different.

It’s like picking chocolate or vanilla ice cream. There’s no wrong answer. To me, I only raise a red flag when it becomes Bourque is the 3rd or 4th best Defenseman and Messier is the 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th best Center so Bourque is better. Given how close their careers parallel each other, if you have a gap between the two because 3/4 is less than 5/6/7/8, maybe consider the ratio of Centers to Defensemen - or at least acknowledge that if Messier stayed a Left Wing, he’d be ranked 2nd or 3rd in the position.

 

[The Macho King]

It’s like picking chocolate or vanilla ice cream. There’s no wrong answer. To me, I only raise a red flag when it becomes Bourque is the 3rd or 4th best Defenseman and Messier is the 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th best Center so Bourque is better. Given how close their careers parallel each other, if you have a gap between the two because 3/4 is less than 5/6/7/8, maybe consider the ratio of Centers to Defensemen - or at least acknowledge that if Messier stayed a Left Wing, he’d be ranked 2nd or 3rd in the position.

Deposition got pushed back an hour, so I can at least reply to this part now.

I don't know of anyone making that argument. Some of what you say has a lot of merit - just counting AS nods (when 4 D versus 2 C get picked every season, and for a good stretch of that time the 2C that pretty much monopolized those spots were two of our top 4 players of all time). And I also don't think I saw anyone use the above logic when choosing Bourque over Messier.

My issue with looking at media reports is this - if we're going to give them so much weight, why don't we just reprint those reports and be done with it? Messier and Bourque both had their primes in probably a plurality if not majority of voters memory, and their games are pretty easy to find online (versus say - a game with Morenz or Fred Taylor) so it's pretty easy to judge them as contemporaries *for ourselves*. I think media rankings regularly undersell Dmen, because the focus is on how many goals go in and not how many don't.

Messier was a great two-way player though, so I don't mean to discount him here. And I also don't think anyone is just measuring trophy cases to make their call. The media has regularly underrated Dmen though. The guy out there 30-35 minutes a night, tasked with (in Bourque's case) of both being the driver on offense AND being their primary defensive tool, and *excelling in that role* - him not winning some Harts (or at least non-99/66 retro-Harts) is kind of nuts.

Also - I mean look at this vote:

1989-90 NHL Awards Voting | Hockey-Reference.com

Messier over Bourque had the same # of first place votes, fewer second place votes, but Bourque didn't appear on numerous ballots for third place votes while Messier did. If that's not close to conclusive evidence of anti-Defenseman bias among Hart voters (to go along with Orr not winning the Hart one of the years he won the Art Ross), I don't know what is.