JagerMeister Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 58 minutes ago, JR Ewing said: As I would hope, but let's face it: most people settle on an opinion, and then pick and choose the facts which best represent that stance. Well, how about you? who would you pick?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I had a pretty extensive post earlier in the thread, where I asked myself 18 relevant questions. I found Messier edged out over Clarke (I'm still waffling about giving Clarke the bonus point for "positive and intense focus, as I don't think he really transcended the sport itself, which was my idea when coming up with this list) and that it was close all around. They shared many of the same qualities and characteristics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I don't at all have a problem with the Mark Messier Leadership Award being named for him. I think he was a special player. In many ways we are splitting hairs and arguing over which split is bigger. I have no real argument against Messier. I just pick Clarke (who absolutely transcended the sport in Philadelphia and IMO made this City one of the best hockey cities in the world). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 11 minutes ago, JR Ewing said: I had a pretty extensive post earlier in the thread, where I asked myself 18 relevant questions. I found Messier edged out over Clarke (I'm still waffling about giving Clarke the bonus point for "positive and intense focus, as I don't think he really transcended the sport itself, which was my idea when coming up with this list) and that it was close all around. They shared many of the same qualities and characteristics. I like the list generally, but when its incredibly close players such as Messier and Clarke that's when you begin to ask the more complex questions. Does Messier`s longevity negate Clarke`s better top ten point finishes? Does Messier`s superior postseason success negate Clarke`s better regular season accolades? And the list doesn`t exactly go to extensive detail on those things. As Radoran said, its arguing which split is bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 10 minutes ago, radoran said: I don't at all have a problem with the Mark Messier Leadership Award being named for him. I think he was a special player. In many ways we are splitting hairs and arguing over which split is bigger. I have no real argument against Messier. I just pick Clarke (who absolutely transcended the sport in Philadelphia and IMO made this City one of the best hockey cities in the world). I'm not going to really argue anything, because I agree with 99% of what you're saying. My idea behind the "positive and intense focus" question sort of comes down to players who can be famous even among those who don't follow the sport. Guys like Babe Ruth, Wayne Gretzky and Muhammad Ali come to mind, though they are at the absolute extreme end of it. Their fame transcends the sport itself. Then, we have players like Rocket Richard, who was a cultural hero, and for whom I would say yes for the question. Messier, publicly guaranteeing the win in the biggest media market in the world, and then puts up a 3rd period hat trick to do it? The stuff of legend, but still located within the realm of the game itself. Oh. And that killed me. It really killed me. He still should have been an Oiler. Oh well. So, like I was said, I vacillated for a bit over whether or not to give the point to Clarke, and then did give it to him in the end. He was a great, famous and important player, I have no doubt about the effect he had in his market, and I even speculated that he did a lot to help promote the growth of hockey in the United States. I really agree with: we're talking about two great players, and picking one or the other is hardly a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 9 minutes ago, JagerMeister said: I like the list generally, but when its incredibly close players such as Messier and Clarke that's when you begin to ask the more complex questions. Does Messier`s longevity negate Clarke`s better top ten point finishes? Does Messier`s superior postseason success negate Clarke`s better regular season accolades? And the list doesn`t exactly go to extensive detail on those things. As Radoran said, its arguing which split is bigger. This hair splitting doesn't really lead anywhere. Clarke finished top 10 in points 7 times to Messier's 6. Is that enough to definitively say that he was better in this regard? Why top 10? Why not top 5 finishes? Messier had 4 of those to Clarke's 3. Is that enough to say "Oh wait! Forget that: Messier is better." I don't think so. It's an arbitrary cut off, and tells us more about what sound good to us about where a guy finished rather than the value of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 4 minutes ago, JR Ewing said: This hair splitting doesn't really lead anywhere. Clarke finished top 10 in points 7 times to Messier's 6. Is that enough to definitively say that he was better in this regard? Why top 10? Why not top 5 finishes? Messier had 4 of those to Clarke's 3. Is that enough to say "Oh wait! Forget that: Messier is better." I don't think so. It's an arbitrary cut off, and tells us more about what sound good to us about where a guy finished rather than the value of it. It tells us that Messier had better peak years...even more so when you remove Lemieux and Gretzky out of the equation But yeah, it is arbitrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarsippius Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 5 hours ago, JagerMeister said: True, but that is negated by the fact that Messier also won titles with Gretzky and Lemieux Messier played with Lemieux? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 24 minutes ago, sarsippius said: Messier played with Lemieux? Well, with them in the league. Come on.. you know what I meant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 On 16/02/2016 at 0:52 AM, JagerMeister said: 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... LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 First, I'll give my personal take: I think that both of these guys are top-10 career centers, but I give a slight edge to Clarke. I'm not going to get into another "intangibles" debate here, but I do think that the intangibles go to Mess. Depsite the Vancouver debacle, it's hard to argue that he's not an outstanding leader -- one of the best the sport has ever known, quite frankly, and he did, as JR pointed out, transcend the sport at times. Mess also gets the nod on goal-scoring, but I think Clarke is the clear winner on playmaking. After all, he did lead the league in assists twice. Defense is clearly a win for Clarke. Until I saw that JR mentioned the Ultimate Hockey awards, I was going to do that since he sent me those lists a while back. Mess was a good defender, Clarke was elite. The faceoff abilities for Clarke go hand in hand with that too, in my opinion. Winning faceoffs means possession, and if you have possession, the other team can't score. We actually had that conversation a while back with regards to guys like Coffey and Karlsson, and if it stands for them, I think it has to stand here. Clarke also led the league in shorthanded goals twice. Btw, I think the "Gretzky-Lemieux factor" should really be discarded with regards to Mess. Sure, you can argue that he would have had more higher finishes in points without the two of them, but let's not forget that he played with Gretzky for quite a few years. You don't think that helped him? I'd say it's a wash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, ScottM said: Winning faceoffs means possession, and if you have possession, the other team can't score. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 1 minute ago, Podein25 said: . Does that mean you agree or disagree? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 5 minutes ago, ScottM said: Does that mean you agree or disagree? Lol It means I will be rendered speechless, shortly I'm sure, by posters proclaiming faceoffs to be random events of luck and/or a useless stat as well as a useless thing, certainly not one worth paying for, because, you know, you can just go get the puck back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 3 minutes ago, Podein25 said: It means I will be rendered speechless, shortly I'm sure, by posters proclaiming faceoffs to be random events of luck and/or a useless stat as well as a useless thing, certainly not one worth paying for, because, you know, you can just go get the puck back. I'm sure that's coming, but while there are things I value above faceoffs, I think they are quite useful. In the defensive zone, winning the faceoff means a chance to clear your own zone. In the offensive zone, it means a chance to mount an attack. Sure, possession is in flux throughout a game, but there are plenty of occasions when winning a faceoff is a clear advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, ScottM said: Sure, possession is in flux throughout a game, but there are plenty of occasions when winning a faceoff is a clear advantage. scoring chance Or the avoidance of one, in the defensive zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share Posted February 18, 2016 @ScottM Well, when Gretzky left Edmonton thats when Messier had his highest point finishes... He still competed with Gretzky and Lemieux and they were all on seperate teams. In addition to winning all his hardware without Gretzky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share Posted February 18, 2016 @Podein25 Damn Maple Leafs fans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 1 minute ago, JagerMeister said: @ScottM Well, when Gretzky left Edmonton thats when Messier had his highest point finishes... He still competed with Gretzky and Lemieux and they were all on seperate teams. In addition to winning all his hardware without Gretzky. Seventh, fifth, and third with Gretzky as a teammate; tenth, fifth, and second without him. I see little difference there. My point was that if it's going to be said that Mess would've had better finishes without Gretzky and Lemieux in the league, it has to be pointed out that he was probably helped by playing with Gretzky for several years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 1 minute ago, JagerMeister said: Damn Maple Leafs fans.. Is it just them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share Posted February 18, 2016 @Podein25 Oh yeah, and that one uninformed bandwagoner fan as well.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 38 minutes ago, Podein25 said: It means I will be rendered speechless, shortly I'm sure, by posters proclaiming faceoffs to be random events of luck and/or a useless stat as well as a useless thing, certainly not one worth paying for, because, you know, you can just go get the puck back. Faceoffs are about the only thing on the ice I'm good at. Please don't tell me they're useless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarsippius Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 If we're counting Cups, it seems to me Messier captained the same number of Cup Winners that Clarke did....Clarke (or really anybody else) never had that kind of offensive talent around him. Not knocking the Bullies, they had alot more pure skill than the record shows (Barber, MacLeish, Leach.....), but there are no Cups in Philly without Clarke. That statement can't be made (IMO) with Messier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted February 25, 2016 Author Share Posted February 25, 2016 @sarsippiusI think its undeniable that Clarke was more significant to his team than Messier. Clarke had Parent, and Messier had a plethora of noteworthy players with excellent depth. So... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 1 hour ago, sarsippius said: If we're counting Cups, it seems to me Messier captained the same number of Cup Winners that Clarke did....Clarke (or really anybody else) never had that kind of offensive talent around him. Not knocking the Bullies, they had alot more pure skill than the record shows (Barber, MacLeish, Leach.....), but there are no Cups in Philly without Clarke. That statement can't be made (IMO) with Messier. That sort of selective reasoning only gets us so far. Mark Messier captained two different teams to the Stanley Cup. That statement can't be made with Clarke (or any other player). You can't count Cups by taking away 4 extra championships that one guy had, especially when he has a Conn Smythe sitting on his shelf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.