HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Messier overrated?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-30-2011, 12:10 PM
  #76
jcbio11
Registered User
 
jcbio11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bratislava
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 1,971
vCash: 500
Oh I meant Kovalev elbow on Darcy Tucker of course. I don't know why I confused him with Tie Domi.

jcbio11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 01:22 PM
  #77
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
15th best forward, i have never ranked him 15th all time. You once said lafluer and esposito blow jagr out of the water, i couldnt stop laughing when you said that. Either way I decided to change my criteria anyways. Now I rank players based on how they performed in thier first 10 seasons, rather than basing it on career arguments. That is why Joe Sakic and Messier have dropped in my rankings since they were nothing special until they hit thier 30's.
Oh.
Granted you may have changed how you rank players, but you most certainly did rank him 15th and call it a lock

Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
My top 15 is pretty much a lock

1. gretzky
2. orr
3. howe
4. lemieux
5. shore
6. bobby hull
7. harvey
8. bourque
9. beliveau
10. rocket
11. hasek
12.roy
13. plante
14. jagr
15. messier
And ranking players only based on their first 10 years??
This method throws late bloomers or players who had their best years ever outside of that bracket under the truck


Last edited by Dark Shadows: 01-30-2011 at 01:53 PM.
Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 01:34 PM
  #78
JAK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 908
vCash: 500
A head hunting self agenda top notch ***hole.

sure he has points, and trophies, and cups.

but a man that was willing to go out and HURT people in all star games? screw him

and his ego got him an award named after him, while Gretzky still hasn't. how is there justice?

JAK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 01:34 PM
  #79
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,760
vCash: 500
Most of the people in here who actually witnessed at least a portion of Messier's prime years don't seem to feel he's overrated. I think that's quite revealing.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 01:35 PM
  #80
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Yeah, its all good unless it was your son laying on the ice from a dirty premeditated hit like that.. although I suppose you'd be ok paying for your son's new teeth and dealing with the concussion symptoms (possibly for life).
I've had to pay for my own new front teeth. So no need to pull out the melodramatic "think of the chillllldren" card. You are better than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
Gordie Howe was regarded as the best hockey player EVER for almost two decades until Orr came around and still is by many knowledgable fans. Same with Shore before him. Both could be dirty as hell for intimidation purposes. So was Messier. Like it or not it was effective and it helped his teams win hockey games and playoff series and Stanley Cups.
Thank you. The entire point was that Messier didn't want/need anyone's approval. He wanted you to be upset, and intimidated. Worked then...and years later, is clearly evoking some of the same emotions, right here. Part of what makes the game great is the diversity between speed, physicality and yes chippiness. I would never play that way, but I loved watching it. Sure beats a rink full of homagenized, robotic figureskaters.

Quote:
I may think Bobby Hull is arrogant and an ass, Messier an ego-maniac and Clarke a horrible person. If I did think those things it would not diminish what they did on the ice in winning hockey games and being game changing players.
Couldn't stand Clarke and consider him the chippiest player I've ever seen. Can't argue with the results, however.


Last edited by Trottier: 01-30-2011 at 01:53 PM.
Trottier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 01:58 PM
  #81
Roof Daddy
Registered User
 
Roof Daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 8,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags6868 View Post

"He is second all-time in scoring"

Would he be had he retired around 2000? When his elite days were over? He was basically just taking up salary space and demanding attention from New York but he did not play at the level that his salary or even his reputation demanded.
Uh, couldn't this also describe Gordie Howe?

Roof Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 02:42 PM
  #82
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Oh.
Granted you may have changed how you rank players, but you most certainly did rank him 15th and call it a lock

Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
My top 15 is pretty much a lock

1. gretzky
2. orr
3. howe
4. lemieux
5. shore
6. bobby hull
7. harvey
8. bourque
9. beliveau
10. rocket
11. hasek
12.roy
13. plante
14. jagr
15. messier

And ranking players only based on their first 10 years??
This method throws late bloomers or players who had their best years ever outside of that bracket under the truck
I agree with you here and if one uses that criteria how can Harvey be in the top 15?

He didn't even play in the 6 team NHL until he was 23 and hardly set the league on fire in his 1st year either.

Pretty hard for me to figure out how a guy plays in the minors until 23 and still gets to be number 7 overall on this list here?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 03:54 PM
  #83
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,077
vCash: 500
I gained a lot of respect for Kovalev when he elbowed Darcy Tucker. I thought it was hilarious and good to see a "soft skilled player" stand up against that cheapshot artist.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 04:12 PM
  #84
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I gained a lot of respect for Kovalev when he elbowed Darcy Tucker. I thought it was hilarious and good to see a "soft skilled player" stand up against that cheapshot artist.
I admit it made me laugh. Why is Tucker a cheapshot artist? Was it all the Peca hit? I still don't think that was even bad.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 05:02 PM
  #85
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I admit it made me laugh. Why is Tucker a cheapshot artist? Was it all the Peca hit? I still don't think that was even bad.
Can't think of any particularly awful examples of Tucker, honestly. Just lots of them. He always managed to take little shots at opponents after the whistle, then when they retaliated, he'd fall down like he got shot and whine to the refs.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 05:05 PM
  #86
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Oh.
Granted you may have changed how you rank players, but you most certainly did rank him 15th and call it a lock



And ranking players only based on their first 10 years??
This method throws late bloomers or players who had their best years ever outside of that bracket under the truck
Yeah but this was before I decided to learn more about players well before my time like morenz and mikita, two centers that are decisevly better than messier and now lidstrom has boosted his resume quite a bit since that post.

Most forwards born and raised in canada peak earlier, and the ones that dont have longevity suffer from lack of modern advances in technology.

This concept wouldnt really apply to harvey because very few defensemen peak early. Bourque didnt hit his peak until 87-94, lidstrom peaked in 1998, and the other defencemen outside the top 5 really pale in comparison to harvey anyways. Besides lidstrom, shore and bourque, there is no other defenseman that has similar credentials to harvey. The gap between defensemen in rankings is bigger than the gap between forwards. My criteria focuses more on seperating someone like stan mikita from a messier or sakic because his credentials are better and he was much better at 20-29 than they were.


Last edited by ushvinder: 01-30-2011 at 05:20 PM.
ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 05:27 PM
  #87
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I agree with you here and if one uses that criteria how can Harvey be in the top 15?

He didn't even play in the 6 team NHL until he was 23 and hardly set the league on fire in his 1st year either.

Pretty hard for me to figure out how a guy plays in the minors until 23 and still gets to be number 7 overall on this list here?
The circumstances for doug harvey was much different. He was playing in a 6 team league, not 30. He was also playing for the hab's farm team I believe, so only they could take him, its not like he could go and try out for the other teams. Doug Harvey`s first 10 seasons are nothing to laugh at, by the time he was 30 he had four 1st team all stars, yeah hes not exactly a martin st. louis type of late bloomer.

Same thing with johnny bower, the rangers gm decided to take gump worsley instead and bower couldn't sign with the other teams.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 06:35 PM
  #88
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Yeah but this was before I decided to learn more about players well before my time like morenz and mikita, two centers that are decisevly better than messier and now lidstrom has boosted his resume quite a bit since that post.

Most forwards born and raised in canada peak earlier, and the ones that dont have longevity suffer from lack of modern advances in technology.

This concept wouldnt really apply to harvey because very few defensemen peak early. Bourque didnt hit his peak until 87-94, lidstrom peaked in 1998, and the other defencemen outside the top 5 really pale in comparison to harvey anyways. Besides lidstrom, shore and bourque, there is no other defenseman that has similar credentials to harvey. The gap between defensemen in rankings is bigger than the gap between forwards. My criteria focuses more on seperating someone like stan mikita from a messier or sakic because his credentials are better and he was much better at 20-29 than they were.
Excellent. Now we are getting somewhere. I am happy that you took the time to learn about them, and that you are putting more thought into your rankings.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 06:56 PM
  #89
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 8,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I agree with you here and if one uses that criteria how can Harvey be in the top 15?

He didn't even play in the 6 team NHL until he was 23 and hardly set the league on fire in his 1st year either.

Pretty hard for me to figure out how a guy plays in the minors until 23 and still gets to be number 7 overall on this list here?
Really?

Those 7 Norris Trophies in 8 seasons didn't give you a clue?

I believe Harvey was in the service as a teenager so started his hockey career late.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 07:31 PM
  #90
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
The circumstances for doug harvey was much different. He was playing in a 6 team league, not 30. He was also playing for the hab's farm team I believe, so only they could take him, its not like he could go and try out for the other teams. Doug Harvey`s first 10 seasons are nothing to laugh at, by the time he was 30 he had four 1st team all stars, yeah hes not exactly a martin st. louis type of late bloomer.

Same thing with johnny bower, the rangers gm decided to take gump worsley instead and bower couldn't sign with the other teams.
what "all-star" Dmn in Montreal were exactly holding Harvey back from the show until his age 23 season?

The more looks at Harvey, it seems that his reputation is actually bigger than he really was a a player.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 07:40 PM
  #91
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
what "all-star" Dmn in Montreal were exactly holding Harvey back from the show until his age 23 season?

The more looks at Harvey, it seems that his reputation is actually bigger than he really was a a player.
I have no idea why harvey didn't make the team until 23. But I will tell that I started watching hockey in the mid 50's & it was obvious Harvey was something special. Cool under pressure, a great puck handler, a great passer. A joy to watch. and I hated the Habs with a passion.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 08:00 PM
  #92
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Really?

Those 7 Norris Trophies in 8 seasons didn't give you a clue?

I believe Harvey was in the service as a teenager so started his hockey career late.
Maybe if he was in service that might change things a bit but really everyone always stacks up his 7 Norris trophies (as being the best Dmen of 36 in the league) than state that Lidstrom had weaker competition than Bourque for his Norris trophies and I have yet to see this argument applied to Harvey.

To me a lot of his all time ranking, and Shore's for that matter, is based on reputation and doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny IMO.

both were the best Dmen in their times but it wasn't as hard for them to be than the modern Dman IMO.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 10:21 PM
  #93
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Now I rank players based on how they performed in thier first 10 seasons, rather than basing it on career arguments.
I can see the argument that you'd want to rank players based on their best ten years - why does it matter if they were early or late in their career?

For example, if you look at Jagr's first ten years, you're focusing on back-to-back seasons as a teenager, scoring less than 70 points; you're excluding his fifth Art Ross trophy, and his resurgence in New York (2nd place for Hart and Art Ross).

Steve Yzerman is a great example. At the end of his 10th year, he was considered (at best) a player with an incomplete playoff resume and (at worst) a choker who was disappointing in the playoffs. You'd be ignoring his incredible playoff reputation (almost solely based on the last 12 years of his career), not to mention his transformation from an (at best) average defensive player to a Selke winner.

If you stop at ten years, Ron Francis isn't even close to a Hall of Famer. Francis, through ten years, never placed in the top ten in scoring and wasn't regarding as a good defensive player.

Again, if you stop at ten years, we'd remember Teemu Selanne as a player who faded away and was mediocre in San Jose, as opposed to the player who was revitalized post-lockout and who finally earned a Stanley Cup.

Alex Delvecchio was a top ten scorer 11 times; but eight of those seasons came after the end of his tenth year.

Johnny Bucyk is a two-time all-star with six years as a top ten scorer. Both all-star berths, and four of those elite scoring seasons, came after the end of his 10th year.

A method that ignores all these accomplishes simply because they occurred after an arbitrary number of seasons doesn't make sense. If you focused on a player's best ten seasons, I wouldn't agree with it fully, but it would be a lot more meaningful.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 10:38 PM
  #94
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
what "all-star" Dmn in Montreal were exactly holding Harvey back from the show until his age 23 season?
World War II is what hold Harvey back. He was also a fantastic football and baseball player, so he made not have made his decision on which sport he wanted to play extensively yet. He made the Montreal Canadiens team on his first training camp. Although it definitely took him a couple of years before implementing himself as the best defenceman of his era.

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 10:52 PM
  #95
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
I can see the argument that you'd want to rank players based on their best ten years - why does it matter if they were early or late in their career?

For example, if you look at Jagr's first ten years, you're focusing on back-to-back seasons as a teenager, scoring less than 70 points; you're excluding his fifth Art Ross trophy, and his resurgence in New York (2nd place for Hart and Art Ross).

Steve Yzerman is a great example. At the end of his 10th year, he was considered (at best) a player with an incomplete playoff resume and (at worst) a choker who was disappointing in the playoffs. You'd be ignoring his incredible playoff reputation (almost solely based on the last 12 years of his career), not to mention his transformation from an (at best) average defensive player to a Selke winner.

If you stop at ten years, Ron Francis isn't even close to a Hall of Famer. Francis, through ten years, never placed in the top ten in scoring and wasn't regarding as a good defensive player.

Again, if you stop at ten years, we'd remember Teemu Selanne as a player who faded away and was mediocre in San Jose, as opposed to the player who was revitalized post-lockout and who finally earned a Stanley Cup.

Alex Delvecchio was a top ten scorer 11 times; but eight of those seasons came after the end of his tenth year.

Johnny Bucyk is a two-time all-star with six years as a top ten scorer. Both all-star berths, and four of those elite scoring seasons, came after the end of his 10th year.

A method that ignores all these accomplishes simply because they occurred after an arbitrary number of seasons doesn't make sense. If you focused on a player's best ten seasons, I wouldn't agree with it fully, but it would be a lot more meaningful.


I think those examples are perfect to help demonstrate my critiera because francis, selanne, bucyck, are never in my top 50 and yzerman is not in my top 30.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 11:13 PM
  #96
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,388
vCash: 500
The point is you're ignoring relevant information just because it falls outside of an arbitrary time period.

Yzerman would be around 35th all-time on most lists. Stopping at year ten, he's probably in Joe Thornton territory, somewhere between 100th and 150th.

Francis should be around 100th on an all-time list. Ignoring everything he did after year 10, he probably isn't even a top 250 player all time.

Lidstrom is a top 20 player all-time. He probably isn't even a top 20 defenseman if we stop at year 10!

There would be no justification for taking Jagr ahead of Mikita (arguably Mikita still should be ranked ahead based on intangibles, but give Jagr his two additional Hart calibre seasons, 2001 and 2006, and he has a shot of being ranked ahead).

Anyway, I've made my point and will not pursue this further. You can rank players however you want, I just feel that ignoring information because it happens after X number of years (when that number is 100% arbitrary) doesn't make any sense.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 11:18 PM
  #97
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
The point is you're ignoring relevant information just because it falls outside of an arbitrary time period.

Yzerman would be around 35th all-time on most lists. Stopping at year ten, he's probably in Joe Thornton territory, somewhere between 100th and 150th.

Francis should be around 100th on an all-time list. Ignoring everything he did after year 10, he probably isn't even a top 250 player all time.

Lidstrom is a top 20 player all-time. He probably isn't even a top 20 defenseman if we stop at year 10!

There would be no justification for taking Jagr ahead of Mikita (arguably Mikita still should be ranked ahead based on intangibles, but give Jagr his two additional Hart calibre seasons, 2001 and 2006, and he has a shot of being ranked ahead).

Anyway, I've made my point and will not pursue this further. You can rank players however you want, I just feel that ignoring information because it happens after X number of years (when that number is 100% arbitrary) doesn't make any sense.
These are relevant points, but my original reasoning for the 'first 10 years' was to show how messier's was so poor compared to the rest of the alpha dogs in the top 35. He is very poor offensively compared to the big dogs like stan mikita. his offense is barely better than a ron francis or ted kennedy.

The hockey news ranked messier above mikita based on his accomplishments in his 30's, but when you look at thier first 10 seasons its just so lopsided in mikita's favour, it seems like messier is not even in his league.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 11:29 PM
  #98
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,519
vCash: 500
Overrated as a "leader" but not as much as a player.

He alienated teammates, sold out coaches, and had zero tact.

Still, in the history of hockey, there are so few players who combined great physical attributes into one package -- speed, power, strength, finesse. He could kill you with his passing as much as he could with his shot.

Messier was All-NHL as a winger and as a Center.

15th overall sounds about right because you cant ignore the trophies and the two Cups without Gretzky. To me, his 1996 regular season was probably his best overall, as he would have hit 50 goals and 100 points (and almost a 20.0 shooting pct) at the ripe old age of 35.

For the people who put him 25 or below, I'd like to hear who they feel is more deserving. Because we here can find shortcomings in anybody's career.

GWOW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 11:29 PM
  #99
Briere Up There*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Žďár nad Sázavo
Posts: 2,868
vCash: 500
Alright then just say "Messier's comparatively poor offense in his first ten years makes it hard for me to rate him above Mikita and others."

And still, what then? How are his individual season numbers less valuable after 28?

Briere Up There* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2011, 01:14 AM
  #100
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Maybe if he was in service that might change things a bit but really everyone always stacks up his 7 Norris trophies (as being the best Dmen of 36 in the league) than state that Lidstrom had weaker competition than Bourque for his Norris trophies and I have yet to see this argument applied to Harvey.

To me a lot of his all time ranking, and Shore's for that matter, is based on reputation and doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny IMO.

both were the best Dmen in their times but it wasn't as hard for them to be than the modern Dman IMO.
Except a Norris isn't just a Norris. If you ask me, Harvey was so far ahead of the league's other D-men for most, if not all of his 7 norris trophies, that 7 "average" norrises just wouldn't compare.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.