Mark Messier vs Bobby Clarke

[JagerMeister]

 They were both some of the most unsportsmanlike superstar players of all time on the ice, with unparalleled compete level in addition to having incredible talent . So who was the superior player?

 

Arguments For Mark Messier

-Better Playoff performer by a significant margin, only one player has more points in the postseason than Messier and you can surmise who it is. In addition to having the fourth highest PPG of all time in the postseason. Playing 236 games. And if anyone attempts to say that Gretzky was a major contributor to his production, explain 30 points as a 33 year old in New York. The Conn Smythe helps too..

-Better goal scorer by a significant margin. Clarke never was a top 10 goal scorer, Messier has been a top ten goal scorer in the league 4 times.

-More durable and better longevity, performed at an adequate rate in his 40s. Kind of like Jagr now, except he was completely loathed and Jagr is adored by anyone with an iota of forgiveness.

- More imposing physical player, was one of the greatest power forwards of all time. 

 

 

Even Ground

 

-I'm astonished, Clarke was actually a top ten point producer more than Messier in addition to being runner up to the art ross twice with exceptional defense, but Messier had his prime with two of the greatest offensive players of all time so his top ten point finishes is rather skewed. Look at the stats for yourself and decide who was better offensively.

Clarke

Points
1971-72 NHL 81 (10)
1972-73 NHL 104 (2)
1973-74 NHL 87 (5)
1974-75 NHL 116 (6)
1975-76 NHL 119 (2)
1976-77 NHL 90 (8)
1977-78 NHL 89 (8)

 

Messier ( With Gretzky and Lemieux )

Points
1982-83 NHL 106 (7)
1986-87 NHL 107 (3)
1987-88 NHL 111 (5)
1989-90 NHL 129 (2)
1991-92 NHL 107 (5)
1994-95 NHL 53 (10)

 

 

 

 

 

Arguments For Bobby Clarke

-Better defensive player by a significant margin. He was never awarded the Selke during his prime because it didn`t exist, yet he managed to win one at the age of 33, far past his offensive and defensive prime. Since he was highly regarded as the best two way forward in his prime, Its almost certain he would have won multiple.

-He is the better playmaker. To my surprise, he actually led the league in assists twice. Something Messier never accomplished while playing with Kurri and Gretzky... and has atleast been among the top ten assist accumulators 9 times in comparison to 6 times for Messier.

 

[JackStraw]

Clarke was far from an imposing physical player. He was built more like Gretzky. Played more like Gretzky too, only dirtier.

[JagerMeister]

6 minutes ago, JackStraw said:

Clarke was far from tn imposing physical player. He was built more like Gretzky. Played more like Gretzky too, only dirtier.

Thanks for the correction. I'll take your word for IT since IM presuming u warcheD him

[JagerMeister]

Apologies for the post above, .... im not actually intoxicated if my post gave that impression, my phone just doesnt function like any other normal phone...

[J0e Th0rnton]

Ill go with Messier here. He was what Lindros was supposed to be

[radoran]

I'll take Clarke*

 

I have a ton of respect for Messier - especially given what he did in New York (despite it being in New York) - but I think Clarke was the more impactful player both when he played and in NHL history.

 

It's a tight race, though.

 

 

* Flyer fan chooses Clarke! Dog Bites Man! Film at 11!

[JagerMeister]

3 hours ago, J0e Th0rnton said:

Ill go with Messier here. He was what Lindros was supposed to be

Except with even more imposing physicality. I'd say Lindros had potential to surpass Messier in every aspect of the game.

[Podein25]

Clarke was a much better passer and playmaker than many people realize. The dirty player that he was has overshadowed his playmaking abilities. He had a drunk right winger who scored over 60 goals.

 

Plus: The. Best. Face-off guy. Ever

[JR Ewing]

Seems like a good spot for the modified Keltner List. For the sake of simplicity, I'll copy/paste my previous entry for Mark Messier from the "Sell Me on Mess" thread...

 

1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played?
-Messier’s career overlapped players like Gretzky and Lemieux. No

-During the first half of Clarke's career, Bobby Orr was The Man, and then Wayne Gretzky ruled during the second half. It's a tough argument to make in Clarke's favor, IMO. No.

 

2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played?
-Yes. Messier was named as the top LW two times before his move to centre in 1984, and then top centre in 1990 and ‘92. (1)

-I'd also yes for Clarke on this one as well... Damned Orr... (1)

 

3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)

Messier: Yes, many many times. (2)

Clarke: Exactly the same thing. (2)

4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)

Messier: No, he did not. (2)

Clarke: He led the league in assists in 1975 and '76. (3)

5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run?

Messier: had impact on 6 Cup winners, a Cup runner-up, and dragged a stripped-down Oilers teams to the Conference Finals two times. An emphatic yes. (3)

Clarke: was a key member of 2 Cup winners and 2 additional Cup finals. (4)

6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner?

Messier: was a key member of 6 Cup winners. (4)

Clarke: 2 Cup winners. (5)

7. Was he ever a team Captain?

Messier was Captain of three different teams. (5)

Clarke was Flyers Captain for 9 years. (6)

8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner?

Messier was Captain of 2 different Cup winning teams, and is the only man to hold this distinction. (6)

Clarke was Captain for the Flyers Cup wins in 1974 and '75. (7)

9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player?

Messier: you know how, after 10 or 11 years in the NHL and his offense was fading, Steve Yzerman became a hell of a defensive centre? Mark Messier was excellent offensively AND defensively at the same time from a young age. Barely out of his teens, he was thrown over the boards and given the job of shutting down Bryan Trottier in the Stanley Cup Finals. And did it. Messier faded in this department when he became old and was hanging around too long, but he spent the majority of his career as one hell of a two-way hockey player. Played hard at both ends, minded his positioning, and then absolutely punished opposing players. (7)

Clarke: damn near as good as it gets in this area. Dogged worker on every inch of the ice. While Clarke was a Flyer, the team gave up 3,503 GA, with his own share of it only being 1,021 GA. He was playing nearly 50% of the time, but was only on the ice for 29% of the GA, all while playing the best opposing forward. Great stuff. (8)

10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here)

Messier: intimidated opposing players and even teammates, if he felt they were standing in the way of victory, with punishing hits both legal and outside the bounds. He left a Howe-esque trail of injuries from opposing players, and once during an intermission in the Finals against Philly, grabbed Kent Nilsson (his own teammate) by the throat and told him to quit ****** around out there. An all-timer in this category. (8)

Clarke: there was nothing that Bobby Clarke wouldn't do to win a hockey game, and though not physically imposing like Messier was, he could carve a turkey with his stick. I say yes. (9)

11. Did he play a lot and play well after he passed his prime?

Messier: was extremely durable. and played until he was 43 years old, still able to score 50 Adjusted Points in his final year. (9)

Clarke: hung 'em up at 34, and didn't really play long past his peak. To compare, Messier was scoring 90 adjusted points at that age. Clarke: 47. If Clarke had played longer past his peak, I'm sure he would have scored in this category, but he didn't do that. (9)

12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team?

Messier was named a 1st AS 4 times and a 2nd AS once. (10)

Clarke was a 1st and 2nd AS member 2 times each. (10)

13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF?

All of the players with similar statistics to Messier are in the HOF. (11)

Clarke: same thing applies. (11)

14. Did he win a Hart, Lindsay, Norris or Vezina Trophy? (NOTE for goalies: prior to 1982, use 1st All-Star selections)

Messier: won Hart and Lindsay Trophies each in 1990 and 1992. (12)

Clarke: won the Hart in 1973, '75 and '76, as well as Lindsay in 1973. (12)

15. Did he win a Conn Smythe Trophy? (pre-1965: see resources)

Messier: won the Conn Smythe in 1984 (13)

Clarke: no. (12)

16. Is there any evidence to suggest (due to circumstances beyond his control) that he was significantly better than is indicated by his statistics? (NOTE: We're looking for things like time missed due to global conflict, world politics, league wars, etc... NOT INJURY!)

I don't see it for either player.

17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey?

Messier: is one of the few players who can get a point here, and more than a bit of it is down to his Cup win in 1994, and his becoming a cult hero during his days a New York Ranger, and is considered to be one of the greatest leaders in the history of professional sports. His fame transcends hockey, and people that knew nothing about the sport knew who he was. This is a major deal. (14)

Clarke: I vacillated several times, and re-wrote a few different times... In the end, I'm going to give Clarke a point here. I want to give Clarke a point for being the first man to lead an expansion team to the Stanley Cup. I want to give him a point for having an impact on the development of hockey in the United States when expanding the league wasn't seen by all as a sure fire deal. Hell, I want to give him a point for being able to lead the Flyers to 2 Cups during a period of time when the league gift wrapped championships to the Montreal Canadiens. (13)

18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played?

Messier: great player, but I don’t think he should get a point here. (14)

Clarke: a common thing I hear is that Clarke led the wave of teams gooning it up out there, and winning through intimidation... But that tactic is as old as the game itself, and though we know the 1970s were a violent time in hockey, they were a tea party compared to decades like the 20s and 30s, when swinging your stick like an axe and smashing a fellow on the head was something of a sport all on its own. I just don't see it.

 

-Mark Messier was everything that we were told Eric Lindros would be. He is what every single club that drafts a big centre hopes their kid will become. This man stole MVP awards, both regular season and playoff, from the likes of Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux.

-Bobby Clarke was a tireless worker and outstanding playmaker who overcame physical adversity in a time when his disease would preclude him from success in the eyes of many. His will and skill were an amazing match, and he won MVP trophies during the time of Bobby Orr.

 

One point here or there between these two is a bit... well... beyond the point. The extra point only comes from Messier hanging around, and I have NO doubt Clarke could have done the same thing. They are both giants of the hockey world, and I don't see much difference between the two of them.

 

[JackStraw]

2 hours ago, radoran said:

I'll take Clarke*

 

I have a ton of respect for Messier - especially given what he did in New York (despite it being in New York) - but I think Clarke was the more impactful player both when he played and in NHL history.

 

It's a tight race, though.

 

 

* Flyer fan chooses Clarke! Dog Bites Man! Film at 11!

 

There are no bad dogs. Only bad owners.

[Podein25]

14 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

The extra point only comes from Messier hanging around, and I have NO doubt Clarke could have done the same thing.

 

This is where the diabetes comes in IMHO. Despite being in better shape than any hockey player - arguably any athlete - at the time, the way Clarkie played, along with the diabetes,aged him faster. A career plus 506. #uselessstat 

[JackStraw]

21 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

Clarke was a much better passer and playmaker than many people realize. The dirty player that he was has overshadowed his playmaking abilities. He had a drunk right winger who scored over 60 goals.

 

Plus: The. Best. Face-off guy. Ever

 

Not absolutely positively sure he was better than the guy in red...

 

 

[Podein25]

4 minutes ago, JackStraw said:

Not absolutely positively sure he was better than the guy in red..

 

Ack, me neither. Clarke hardly ever lost a draw. That's how I remember it. A bit biased I guess. I am not quite old enough to have a longer familiarity with Stan. I know he was good.

[JagerMeister]

@Podein25 The plus minus stat can be useful given its context. In this case, I think its still very much team oriented an always will be. But im rather certain Clarke was the best skater on his team the majority of the time.

[JackStraw]

2 hours ago, JR Ewing said:

18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played?

Messier: great player, but I don’t think he should get a point here. (14)

Clarke: a common thing I hear is that Clarke led the wave of teams gooning it up out there, and winning through intimidation... But that tactic is as old as the game itself, and though we know the 1970s were a violent time in hockey, they were a tea party compared to decades like the 20s and 30s, when swinging your stick like an axe and smashing a fellow on the head was something of a sport all on its own. I just don't see it.

 

 

Clarke and the Flyers didn't lead the wave of intimidation, that was a response (at Ed Snider's insistence) to constantly getting mauled physically by the StL Blues (the Plager brothers). Clarke did however bring one and maybe two innovations to the game. He was the first to really set up behind the net. Gretzky himself has said that watching Clarke was what inspired him to play that way, since they were both kind of skinny guys. Behind the net was a safe(r) place. Clarke was also the first player that I can remember to consistently score on the wrap-around, going from one side of the net (behind) and tucking it in the other corner. There may have been other players who did it before but I don't remember seeing it, and certainly not as regularly as he did it.

[JagerMeister]

@JackStraw Wait...Didnt Gretzky say that about Trottier, not Clarke? Im almost 100 percent he said thar about Trottier.

[JackStraw]

2 hours ago, Podein25 said:

 

Ack, me neither. Clarke hardly ever lost a draw. That's how I remember it. A bit biased I guess. I am not quite old enough to have a longer familiarity with Stan. I know he was good.

 

What I remember about Mikita is that his style was different. He didn't "cheat" like most other centers did. You couldn't tell whether he was going forehand or backhand, and his hands were so quick, he was like a pickpocket. I can't really remember Mikita and Clarke going head to head (although I'm sure they did) so I don't know who would win.

[yave1964]

Count the Rings. Count the hardware. Look at the final numbers. Clarke had a very nice run as an elite player and deserves credit as such but Messier is one of the all time greats. No discussion here.

[JackStraw]

18 minutes ago, JagerMeister said:

@JackStraw Wait...Didnt Gretzky say that about Trottier, not Clarke? Im almost 100 percent he said thar about Trottier.

 

What, the behind the net thing? No, it was Clarke.

 

http://www.greatesthockeylegends.com/2015/02/gretzkys-office-thank-bobby-clarke.html

 

"I had a coach when I was 14 years old that said: 'Go watch this guy Bobby Clarke play and watch how he plays. He's not very big, he's smart, he passes the puck and he plays sort of from the corner and a little bit behind the net,"' Gretzky recalled. "So at the age of 14 I started watching him day in and day out.

 

"He probably had the most influence on my career as far as learning how to play the game and the style of game that I played. I learned to play behind the net, and when I started doing that, it was so unique. Nobody had ever tried to defend that. And so I was able to really master it and become really good at it, and that was sort of my forte."

[JagerMeister]

@yave1964 Come on, i like you yave but this reasoning is fallacious and you know It...

 

Their individual hardware is essentially equal,  but to give Messier the edge because of team accomplishments is just wrong.

 

I agree with your choice,  just not your rationale.

[JagerMeister]

@JackStraw Ah, thanks for confirming. You know, Clarke is much better than my initial perception of him.Maybe its because Messier is talked about much more...

[JackStraw]

3 minutes ago, JagerMeister said:

@JackStraw Ah, thanks for confirming. You know, Clarke is much better than my initial perception of him.Maybe its because Messier is talked about much more...

 

Clarke probably doesn't get as much respect as he deserves, because of the whole thug hockey rep. The guy won three Hart Trophies during the prime years of Esposito and Orr. You have to be pretty good to do that. He really was a very similar player to Gretzky. Not saying he was as good, but he used skill and brains- always seemed to know where the puck was going before everyone else.

[yave1964]

3 minutes ago, JagerMeister said:

@yave1964 Come on, i like you yave but this reasoning is fallacious and you know It...

 

Their individual hardware is essentially equal,  but to give Messier the edge because of team accomplishments is just wrong.

 

I agree with your choice,  just not your rationale.

The two of them are not close as players, Clarke was a winner who played a long time in Philadelphia, won two cups and is an icon in  the town. Messier was his equal as a warrior and then some, won in Edmonton and in New York.

 I give more credence to cup wins than you do. You do not win six cups without deserving them. I give that huge credence.

 Clarke had 1200 points, an amazing total. Messier had 1800 points, an all time great total. Clarke had 350 goals, Messier nearly doubled that total. And they were not Mike Gartner compiler type of years. Clarke had a career high of 37 and broke 100 points 3 times, Messier had 37 or more seven times and broke 100 points 7 times.

 

  Hardware was 'essentially even Clarke won a very good 3 Harts and a Masterton, as well as a Pearson and a Selke. Very good hardware.

Messier won 2 Harts and 2 Pearsons as well as a Conn Smythe as the postseason MVP.

 

   IMHO Messier is in the Pantheon of players who have to be considered iconic and all time great, Clarke falls just short but still had one hell of a career.

 

 

[yave1964]

3 minutes ago, JagerMeister said:

@yave1964 Come on, i like you yave but this reasoning is fallacious and you know It...

 

Their individual hardware is essentially equal,  but to give Messier the edge because of team accomplishments is just wrong.

 

I agree with your choice,  just not your rationale.

The two of them are not close as players, Clarke was a winner who played a long time in Philadelphia, won two cups and is an icon in  the town. Messier was his equal as a warrior and then some, won in Edmonton and in New York.

 I give more credence to cup wins than you do. You do not win six cups without deserving them. I give that huge credence.

 Clarke had 1200 points, an amazing total. Messier had 1800 points, an all time great total. Clarke had 350 goals, Messier nearly doubled that total. And they were not Mike Gartner compiler type of years. Clarke had a career high of 37 and broke 100 points 3 times, Messier had 37 or more seven times and broke 100 points 7 times.

 

  Hardware was 'essentially even Clarke won a very good 3 Harts and a Masterton, as well as a Pearson and a Selke. Very good hardware.

Messier won 2 Harts and 2 Pearsons as well as a Conn Smythe as the postseason MVP.

 

   IMHO Messier is in the Pantheon of players who have to be considered iconic and all time great, Clarke falls just short but still had one hell of a career.

 

 

[JagerMeister]

26 minutes ago, yave1964 said:

The two of them are not close as players, Clarke was a winner who played a long time in Philadelphia, won two cups and is an icon in  the town. Messier was his equal as a warrior and then some, won in Edmonton and in New York.

 I give more credence to cup wins than you do. You do not win six cups without deserving them. I give that huge credence.

 Clarke had 1200 points, an amazing total. Messier had 1800 points, an all time great total. Clarke had 350 goals, Messier nearly doubled that total. And they were not Mike Gartner compiler type of years. Clarke had a career high of 37 and broke 100 points 3 times, Messier had 37 or more seven times and broke 100 points 7 times.

 

  Hardware was 'essentially even Clarke won a very good 3 Harts and a Masterton, as well as a Pearson and a Selke. Very good hardware.

Messier won 2 Harts and 2 Pearsons as well as a Conn Smythe as the postseason MVP.

 

   IMHO Messier is in the Pantheon of players who have to be considered iconic and all time great, Clarke falls just short but still had one hell of a career.

 

 

I don't give credence to cup wins, I give credence to individual postseason performances IN cup wins. Which I even said in my original post, that Messier was a superior playoff performer.

 

Yes, Messier has exceeded every offensive career total of Clarke, but wouldn't you concur that's attributed more to longevity and not actual skill as a player?

During their primes, they are incredibly close as players since Clarke's phenomenal two way play negates Messier's small offensive gap.

 

Now that you explained your rationale though, I find myself agreeing with you. During their primes both players were incredibly close, but Messier's moderately better playoff performances and longevity give him a slight edge IMO.