Why isn't Wayne Gretzky a 4-time Conn Smythe Trophy winner?
View Single Post
07-07-2013, 10:20 PM
Join Date: Dec 2010
Originally Posted by
Since when is the burden to show that Messier
Points came up because I didn't think it was an appropriate characterization of Gretzky's points to say the lead is "an extra one-two goals from Gretzky in every blowout"
It certainly wasn't Gretzky contributing to Oilers' physicality. And again, when did I claim that Messier was the only scorer, only checker, etc. for the Oilers? We're discussing Gretzky/Messier rather exclusively, are we not?
You did say "Gretzky had more room to score goals because Messier was checking Trottier instead of Trottier checking Gretzky the entire series." The Oilers were very physical and Messier was a leader in this regard, but I think it's taking it too far to say Gretzky's goal scoring was the product of the Isles being banged up by Mark Messier.
Physicality. They aren't exactly lining up to write ballads about blowout goals.
only 5 of those points.
The Oilers and the voters were noticing the thing they were perceived to be lacking before, (even though they weren't exactly soft in 1983, they just lost to a team that was better.) Had the storyline said that the Oilers were a physical team completely unable to create scoring chances they'd be more appreciative of the offense.
But with Edmonton the offense was seen as a given. Yes, Gretzky scored some goals, but that's to be expected. Like a real-life election, voters are influenced by expectations. They look at Wayne Gretzky vs Wayne Gretzky's expectations and Mark Messier vs. Mark Messier's expectations, and found that Messier excelled with the easier matchup.
Maybe you missed the memo, but Wayne Gretzky didn't score a goal against the Islanders in 1983, and didn't bury one until Games 4 and 5 of 1984 (when he collected all but one of his points). It wasn't
The Wayne Gretzky Show
until the Islanders were bruised and the floodgates were opening on Smith - the exact moment for the latter coming from one of Messier's goals in Game 3.
Honestly, when you under-cut Messier's offense in the Finals, are you any less guilty of poor phrasing than I am? You're dogging me for equating
with keeping him from scoring goals. Acting like Messier's goal in Game 3 was no different than the 7th goal of that same 7-2 game and deserved no extra commentary is a little worse, don't you think?
I am always guilty of poor phrasing.
So perhaps we should stop adding to our statsheet saga. I understand what you're trying to do with points when trailing, but has anyone else ever tried to use that argument for any other Conn Smythe? If no one else cares about this, why are we talking about it?
Gretzky's points being the go-ahead points in wins is more relevant given the Krejci-Bergeron discussion in this thread, because Gretzky was coming up with the "Bergeron" goals. It's not a bad thing that Mess got goals in losses, but it's a good thing that Gretzky scored three points on the first five goals in a 7-4 win in Game 7. Messier also had an impact (or three), but I've alway been under the impression that the trophies go to the guys who impact scoreboard rather than the opposition's medical bills. Which is why they were discussing Krejci and Bergeron for scoring, and no one mentioned Zdeno Chara as a candidate for punching a 0-point Sidney Crosby in the face.
The first quote probably illustrates the disconnect between us. I don't see the need to credit Messier for every goal that happened after his first one. If the series ends with
the Wayne Gretzky Show
, I would prefer to give credit to Gretzky for taking over a game they may not have won without him, and even give him credit for setting up the game winner, although I also missed the memo where game-winners are less valuable when you're up 2-0 (off of two Gretzky goals) and didn't know it was valuable yet.
In short, you give more credit to Messier for opening the floodgates, I give more credit to Gretzky for being the flood.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by blogofmike