1193 assists for 1887 points and 6 cups. But shhhhh it was the 80's and early 90's so it doesn't count.
Where do you rank Messier on an all-time list?
- Thread starter Big Phil
- Start date
1193 assists for 1887 points and 6 cups. But shhhhh it was the 80's and early 90's so it doesn't count.
SidGenoMario
Registered User
1193 assists for 1887 points and 6 cups. But shhhhh it was the 80's and early 90's so it doesn't count.
Points in a comically high scoring era mean less than points scored in lower scoring eras.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
He has 2 Hart Trophies and a runner up to Mario Lemieux for a 3rd. Or do you think the votes of a couple of homer Edmonton journalists somehow makes Messier a worse player?
If you want to call other people "clowns," you might want to get your facts straight, first. Messier has 1193 assists, not points. He also has 6 Cups.
And he only has 3 votes for 1-10 because in the history of hockey section, we respect players who played before the 1980s.
(I voted 15-20 for what it's worth but can also respect the votes for 20-25).
CHGoalie27
Don't blame the goalie!
How does the 2nd ranked scorer of all time end up getting ranked 20+ ????? The hate on for one of the all time greats here is laughable
this.
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
How does the 2nd ranked scorer of all time end up getting ranked 20+ ????? The hate on for one of the all time greats here is laughable
Where do you rank Francis, the 4th ranked scorer of all time?
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,152
I agree here. We all know Messier is not among the big 4. He certainly is behind Beliveau, Hull and Richard. I couldn't find a way to put him ahead of Harvey either. Then you have Shore and Morenz. That's 10 players right there. Afterwards I'd like to see an argument on putting him above Mikita and Esposito. Personally I can't do this. Throw in Bourque and there's 13 players which puts Messier no better than #14. I would argue in favour of all of those above players. And we aren't even counting the goalies here either. I'd probably have Roy ahead of him. Sawchuk and Hasek make decent cases themselves. And I've seen a poll done on Messier vs. Jagr before and it is certainly interesting. In the end that certainly puts him in the #20 range.
I have Mess ahead of guys like Trottier, Lafleur, Clarke, Yzerman and Sakic, Lidstrom. I can make an argument for him in those cases.
But someone was talking about his playoff heroics. Yes, Messier was a playoff stud. I don't think anyone would take that away from him but the guys rated above him have that playoff pedigree too. Gretzky was better. Beliveau was better. Richard was better for sure. Howe was better. And it isn't as if Lemieux, Hull, Orr, Mikita, Bourque didn't show up in the postseason either. If you want to put Messier ahead of them slightly I can live with that though. But overall, sorry I just can't do it and I would like to see a decent argument for him being top 10. Honestly, who do you kick out?
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Just because you mentioned Esposito, I think there's a very good argument for Messier over Esposito - it centers around his far superior Hart record, his better rounded game, the fact that he has a long record of being a an all-time great superstar without Gretzky (while Espo really has the Summit Series without Orr and that's it), his superior playoff record, and his vastly superior longevity.
Espo has a significant edge in regular season peak offense over Messier. That's really it.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,152
I'd say a pretty significant edge in regular season peak. It sort of embarasses Messier when you bring up his top 10 scoring finishes but here goes:
Esposito - 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 7
Messier - 2, 4, 6, 7, 7, 10
I for sure give the playoff edge to Messier but that peak of Esposito's is unreal and in my mind has always catapulted him to higher status. It isn't as if Espo took a nap in the postseason either. He led a Rangers team to the final when he was an old man while Mess missed the last 7 years of the postseason. In general, while we know that Messier brought a lot to the table, the truth is he does get penalized for having such an underwhelming record in top 10 scoring finishes. You look at every other forward ahead of him and it's not all that close which is why the "2nd all-time in scoring" thing is deceptive. To Mess' credit he had an incredible career from 1979-'97 with good longevity. After that I've always felt that his final 7 years did nothing to enhance his status.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
The gap between them in peak offense is quite large, though it is a bit deceiving - Espo's prime was spent with Bobby Orr on the ice at most times and at all time son the PP. While Messier was given a more defensive role as 2nd line center behind Gretzky for quite a few seasons and didn't seem to get much time on the PP, until a season or two before Gretzky was traded.
I agree with this one for sure.
Just for fun:
Messier's career stats:
1756 games played (2nd all time)
694 Goals (7th all time)
1193 Assists (3rd all time)
1887 Points (2nd all time)
If Messier retired after 96-97 (his last productive season):
1272 games played (59th all time)
575 Goals (19th all time)
977 Assists (11th all time)
1552 Points (11th all time)
I agree with this one for sure.
Just for fun:
Messier's career stats:
1756 games played (2nd all time)
694 Goals (7th all time)
1193 Assists (3rd all time)
1887 Points (2nd all time)
If Messier retired after 96-97 (his last productive season):
1272 games played (59th all time)
575 Goals (19th all time)
977 Assists (11th all time)
1552 Points (11th all time)
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Yes, because nobody ever outscores a player better than them...
and besides, they tied in points... and no one would ever claim Simpson was as important as Messier, or likely even close.
Why no love for him scoring 67 points at age 40, good for 49th in the NHL? And disappointment or not, 60 points at age 37, 39th in the NHL, is nothing to laugh at either.
as for the counting of the top-10s in points, I think people need to start at 1979 and take a look at how historically difficult it has been to amass a large number of top-10s in points. Only Gretzky, Lemieux, and Jagr, score decisive victories in this category, especially after seasons as a top-20 player are taken into consideration as well.
Messier's final seven years might not have enhanced his status but it did not hurt him either. He kept playing for the love of the game an dhe could have signed with a better team then the Rangers but his heart was with New York.
Phil Esposito was one of the greatest players to ever play the game but I do know from what I have seen of both players and I have seen more of Messier of course then Espostio. I would take Messier ahead of Esposito any time.
Now no one can argue the fact that Esposito was better offensively then Messier. Esposiot scored more and got more points then Messier when you look at his production. He was moe creative as well. Now both were helped in their careers playing with great players. I think though that Esposito was helped by Orr more so then Messier by Gretzky. I am not saying that Esposito would not have been as great without Orr but that helped him quite a bit. Espostio's points went up drstically when he went to Boston and alot of that has to do with Orr. Messier's best days were when he was no longer on the same team as Gretzky. I am just making the point that when you look at Espostio's numbers especially in the early to mid seventies Orr's presence was a major inlfuence into his numbers
Their are things though that Messier did that does not translate to stats but does translate to wins and losses. Messier was one of the most feared players in the league. He was bigger then most and was nasty. He was one of the dirtiest players in the league and put the fear in the opposition and his own players just ask Kent Nilsson. There was a saying when it came to Messier. Don't wake him up. There was a reason for this. Messier could change a game just by his physical play and a look.
Esposito only won 2 cups as a player that is it. Yes it takes a team to win and in the 70's you had the Canadiens and the Flyers who were good and won cups but in the end the greats find a way to win the cup. Eposito never broguht his game up when it was needed the most. What I mean is that after 72' when Orr was playing on one knee and sometimes no knees he was doing everything he could to win but it just didn't feel like Esposito was able to bring his game up. He played the regular season at such a high level that when the playoffs came that was it he couldn't raise it anymore
Messier's regular season might not have been to the level of Esposito but when it came to the playoffs he raised his level so much. It was Messier who scored the biggest goal in Oilers history against the Islanders. In the 1990 playoffs he changed the series around against Chicago and of course we all know what happened in 1994. Their are many more times Messier did this. Whether it was a big hit or a key faceoff or even blocking shots. Messier would do what ever was needed to win for his teams. This is what makes him way above Esposito for playoffs and has a captain
No disrespect to Espostio as he was amazing but in the end Messier brought more to the table then Esposito. Both played for a high scoring team at one point and both at one point in their careers played with arguably the two best players ever respectively. The only difference was that Messier was on a different line and was not the primary center on the team. Where Esposito played almost all the time with Orr when Orr was healthy of course.
With Orr Esposito's averaged aprox. 124pts a season without Orr he averaged 71pts of course taking out his first and last season
Messier averaged 89 pts with Gretzky not counting his rookie year. Up to the age of 37 without Gretzky he averaged 87 pts
For playoffs Espostio averaged 13pts a year with Orr. Without Orr he average 6pts not inlcuding his rookie year and never won the cup without Orr
Messier averaged 18pts when with Gretzky on his team not including rookie year. without gretzky on his team he averaged 18pts and won 2 cups
So yes Espostio might have had a better peak but just how much of that is attributed to Orr.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
We all saw the last 7 years of Messier career, and I really don't think he was doing anything to help his team win at the time. When he scored 67 points at age 40, he was getting far more ice time than he deserved, simply because of his reputation and was a major defensive liability (-25). I'm not one who thinks that Messier tarnished his career by playing too long (he can't "undo" what he already accomplished!), but I also don't think that compiling points for 7 additional years, while being a liability otherwise, adds anything to his legacy either.
This is an excellent point. It's also worth noting that in HO's study "removing" Gretzky and Lemieux would give Messier 2 Art Rosses.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I've been looking into the idea that he got "far" more icetime than he deserved, and I'm not so sure. In particular, the 1998 and 2001 seasons that I was describing:
- In 1998 he had 22.7 minutes per game. Who deserved some of those minutes? Linden? Zezel?
- In 2001, he played a full minute per game less than Nedved, and two minutes more than 3rd-liner Mike York. In fact, he played less at even strength than York. It was his PP time (almost certainly deserved over York) that gave him more minutes and undoubtedly helped to give him so many more points. Again, who would some of those minutes have gone to? that was pretty much a peak icetime year for Nedved and I'm not sure he should have been relied on any more than he was.
David Bruce Banner
Nude Cabdriver Ban
Those last few years sure as hell "undid" his reputation as "the greatest leader ever". Up to '97, I see a solid argument for him having that mantle. Afterward? Not so much so.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,306
- 4,359
People often overlook the fact that Esposito had already risen to great offensive heights before Orr fully emerged. He won the Art Ross in 1968-69, setting the record for most points in a season up to that point. Orr "only" had 64 points that year. The previous season, Phil's first in Boston, he was second in league points. Orr only played 46 games, scoring 31 points that year. Prior to Orr exploding in 1970, Espo already had a Hart, an Art Ross + runner-up, 1st and 2nd team all-star selections, and two other top-10 scoring finishes from his Chicago days. Only Mikita, Hull, and Howe outscored him in the time spanning from his first full season until 1970.
Well said. You'd have to completely ignore this very important aspect of Messier's game in order to start making laughable comparisons to Ron Francis that we saw earlier in the thread.
I wasn't alive to see it, but this is never the impression I've gotten. When Esposito went out injured in 1973 playoffs, the Bruins folded like a cheap tent to the underdog Rangers, despite Orr's presence. I've never heard Phil criticized for not coming to play when it mattered. The only criticism seems to be that the Bruins were a bunch of party animals and that's why they only won two Cups. Phil is of course as guilty as the rest of them in that, but the whole group bears responsibility. Judging players by how much they raised their game has its pitfals in this case, where the player was already playing at elite HOF level. Glenn Anderson was notorious for raising his game in the playoffs, while Guy Lafleur merely maintained his pace. Still, who was the better playoff performer?
sr edler
gold is not reality
- Mar 20, 2010
- 11,994
- 6,433
i think i tried to say that even with gretzky out, he didn't lead his teams in playoff scoring very much
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,306
- 4,359
Yup. I've brought this up in the past before as well when the claim that Messier "got way too much ice time" has been made. Messier was a primary PKer in Vancouver, and some of the time in NY part 2 as well, which also contributes to his seemingly high ice-time totals.
Messier played under several different coaches from 1997-98 until the end of his career, so in order to believe that he was consistently overplayed to pad his point totals, you'd also have to believe that a half-dozen coaches were either really stupid, or willing to risk their jobs in order to "appease" Messier.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 29,226
- 17,078
i hate messier as much as the next guy who lived in vancouver from '94 until the end of the decade, but i'm trying my best to be objective here.
messier is an interesting case. usually you would say that there's just as good of a chance that messier's stats go down without gretzky to take away the opposition's best checkers and defenseman away from him as there is of his stats going up. but we saw that messier's numbers did spike after gretzky had left, although he produced at around the same pace as the wayne years outside of his career year in '90.
but if we remove gretzky, it's likely messier puts up at least one other 120 point season in the 80s, and probably scores more than he did with gretzky on his team. he gets more ice-time with coffey, not to mention getting more first unit PP time with kurri. i'd say there's a good chance messier wins another art ross with no gretzky and certainly with no gretzky or lemieux in the league.
i wouldn't say that those last seven years didn't so much undo the myth that messier was the greatest leader ever (though for my money at least beliveau is above him), so much as it revealed that messier's leadership style was extremely effective in certain situations and detrimental in others. the same likely holds for a lot of guys-- sakic for one might not have done as well as he did on the avs on a team that needed kicking in the rear but that didn't have a patrick roy or adam foote to do that for him.
messier is an interesting case. usually you would say that there's just as good of a chance that messier's stats go down without gretzky to take away the opposition's best checkers and defenseman away from him as there is of his stats going up. but we saw that messier's numbers did spike after gretzky had left, although he produced at around the same pace as the wayne years outside of his career year in '90.
but if we remove gretzky, it's likely messier puts up at least one other 120 point season in the 80s, and probably scores more than he did with gretzky on his team. he gets more ice-time with coffey, not to mention getting more first unit PP time with kurri. i'd say there's a good chance messier wins another art ross with no gretzky and certainly with no gretzky or lemieux in the league.
i wouldn't say that those last seven years didn't so much undo the myth that messier was the greatest leader ever (though for my money at least beliveau is above him), so much as it revealed that messier's leadership style was extremely effective in certain situations and detrimental in others. the same likely holds for a lot of guys-- sakic for one might not have done as well as he did on the avs on a team that needed kicking in the rear but that didn't have a patrick roy or adam foote to do that for him.
