Round 2, Vote 6 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[Iain Fyffe]

The only issue I have with this conclusion is that we have already seen candidates' cases bolstered by their athletic performance other than time on defense. Conacher's ability as a baseball player is as relevant to his ranking as a defenseman as Clapper's career as a forward (ie, not relevant at all).

Not at all the same thing. One's ability at baseball has nothing to do with one's ability at hockey. One's ability at hockey, though, has a lot to do with one's ability to play centre, and also one's ability to play defence.

If a player's particular skill set lends himself well to two positions, and his coaches use him that way, why would we rank him lower than a similar player whose coaches just stuck him in one position?

Again, it's the confusion of ranking players strictly by position. Players like Clapper and Kelly, considered only at one position, may drop down to the lower portions of the list, but when ranked as a hockey player against all other hockey players, could be ranked quite highly. That's the incongruity we have here.

 

[overpass]

I didn't find a lot of contemporary Bill Quackenbush quotes in the (free) archives. Here are a couple I found.

About the trade to Boston. The Windsor Daily Star, Aug 17, 1949:

The Red Wings announced a major six-player deal in which big Bill Quackenbush, considered the best all-around defenceman in hockey today, was traded to Boston along with Pete Horeck for four players.

"We want the Stanley Cup," (Adams) said yesterday. "We have defencemen. We don't have forwards. You can be sure I hate to lose Quackenbush. But I have watched Peters and Babando since their junior hockey days and they are two players I always have felt would be valuable assets to the Wings."

Later in Quackenbush's career, a positive mention of his playoff performance. Ottawa Citizen, March 30, 1955:

"I think Bill Quackenbush (another defenceman) has been the top Boston player in the series so far," said Irvin. "Then comes Flaman. And Hal Laycoe and Gus Bodnar have been fine as penalty killers."

Since his retirement, Quackenbush has been remembered primarily for his penalty-free streak of 131 games. Neil Campbell, Globe and Mail, Mar 22, 1985:

Bill Quackenbush was more than just a Goody-Goody Two Shoes.

Quackenbush may have played a longer stretch without a penalty than any player in National Hockey League history, but playing within the rules didn't prevent him from playing the game well.

In the 1948-49 season, he was a first-team all-star at defence, the most difficult of positions for a pacifist, playing a full 60- game schedule without drawing a penalty. Those games were part of a string of 131 in a row that Quackenbush played without a penalty.

His accomplishments during the the 1948-49 season made him the first defenceman to win the Lady Byng Trophy, which is awarded each season to the player who best combines fair play and skill.

To put Quackenbush's penalty-free season in perspective, only two other Byng winners have played a full schedule without drawing a penalty, and both - Syl Apps and Max Bentley - were slick, playmaking forwards.

Quackenbush could be slick enough doing his chores, which were that of a conservative, stay-at-home defenceman. His contemporaries remember that he was not quite the paragon his penalty total made him appear to be.

Milt Schmidt played for the Boston Bruins when Quackenbush was anchoring the Detroit Red Wing defence that season. Later, Schmidt was Quackenbush's teammate and then his coach with the Bruins.

Quackenbush and his penalty-free season really had jumped out of the record book and grabbed me, I told Schmidt. "He grabbed a lot of people," Schmidt cracked. "Bill was very cagey at holding people in the corners. He was so strong, he could move you without being seen." "He was very easy-going and he just didn't have a mean streak in him," said Sid Abel, a Red Wing teammate in 1948-49. "But he was very sharp at tugging at a fellow in the corner and turning him around." There was so much less traffic in the Abel-Schmidt-Quackenbush era that it probably was a little easier for a defenceman to play within the rules than it is today. The game was slower, there wasn't the jockeying for position in front of the net and, with only the forwards joining the attack, there were five defenders to parry the opposition's offensive threats. "We played far more in the neutral zone," Schmidt said. "Now the whole game is played in the offensive and defensive zones. With all the forechecking in the game, you'll never see a defenceman go without a penalty today." There were other differences in the game of the Quackenbush era, many of them arising from the speed at which the modern game is played. To oversimplify, the defensive object in the 1940s was to move the puck away from the player; today, the object is to move the player away from the puck. "He was strictly a stick-checker," said Abel, a compliment for a 1940s player that sounds like an insult in an era when coaches rail at stick- checkers. "He was a very good puck-handler and he passed the puck very well," Abel said. "But he stayed back and took care of his knitting." Quackenbush's penalty-free string started March 6, 1948, when referee Melville (Butch) Keeling sent him off for high-sticking. The streak carried through the final five regular-season games and 10 playoff games that spring, 60 regular-season and 11 playoff games in the 1948-49 season and the first 45 games of the 1949-50 season, by which time he had been traded to the Bruins.

Quackenbush died in 1999. From his obituary in the National Post, Sep 17, 1999:

Skating and the ability to break up a play without brute force were Mr. Quackenbush's forte on the ice. Because he knew how to check without creaming an opponent into the boards, he received few penalties. From 1947 to 1949, he played 132 games without a penalty. In the 1948-49 season, he never visited the penalty box once, though he played in every game, making the first all-star team.

That season, Mr. Quackenbush was awarded the Lady Byng trophy for sportsmanship and gentlemanly play. Since a defenceman's job is to defend, few avoid penalties. He was the first defenceman to win the Lady Byng award; only one other has received it since.

During the early 1950s, the Boston Bruins were short of players, especially good players. In 1950-51, they had only three defencemen at the end of the season. In the last few games there was an injury and only Mr. Quackenbush and his brother Max (who played with the Bruins for that one year) were available to cover the positions. During these years -- especially 1951 and 1953 -- Mr. Quackenbush would often play 40 minutes a game or more. In a game against the New York Rangers in February of 1951, he was on the ice for 56 minutes. In a playoff game against the Montreal Canadiens that went into overtime, he played 75 minutes out of a total of 105. He played in eight straight all-star games from 1947 to 1954 and was a member of the Hockey Hall of Fame from 1976.

I think the material on Quackenbush's style of play is very interesting. Primarily a stick checker, but still strong in the corners and he got away with a few things as well. Not sure it adds a lot to the all-star records for strictly ranking purposes, but I like to look at how Quackenbush and other d-men got their results as well as the results.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I don't think it's the same. When we talk about centers, I think there's a big difference between giving Sergie Fedorov credit for playing a full season as an NHLer even though but some of it is on defense, and giving him credit for his golf game in the offseason.

I realize I just gave an absurd example.

It is an absurd example but no offense to tarheelhockey but to equate time spent in the NHL at forward to the same as playing in other sports is equally absurd IMO. One example has relevance to his evaluation and the other doesn't.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not sure how accurate this is for Conacher. For one, other non-defensemen on his team could have stolen Hart votes from him, which would not have affected his all-star finishes. Second, for some of those years only a couple defensemen are even listed in the Hart voting results. All that would tell you is that he wasn't in the top 2. Here's a breakdown year by year...

25'-26': Teammate Worters, a goalie, finishes ahead in Hart voting
26'-27': Teammate Burch, a center, finishes ahead of him in Hart voting, also only 2 defensemen are listed.
27'-28': Only 2 defensemen are listed.
28'-29': Teammate, Worters, a goalie, finishes ahead in Hart voting
29'-30': Teammate Himes, a center, finishes ahead of him in Hart voting.
30'-31': NHL starts giving out post-season all-star awards.

There is at least one issue with every single year before the all-star awards start. I'd rather just say, all-star awards were only handed out during Conacher's career from ages 29-35, here's how he finished, and then just try to find other sources about his performance for the 5 seasons he played before that.

Lets do it quickly. All seasons are estimated based on Hart voting, except 1927-28 where we have actual All Star Teams (which are consistent with Hart voting from that year).

Season|1st Team|1st Team|2nd Team|2nd Team
1925-26|Sprague Cleghorn|King Clancy| Lionel Conache r|Reg Noble
1926-27|Herb Gardiner|King Clancy|Dunc Munro|Georges Boucher
1927-28|Eddie Shore|Ching Johnson|King Clancy|Herb Gardiner
1928-29|Eddie Shore|Sylvio Mantha|King Clancy| Lionel Conacher
1929-30|Lionel Hitchman|King Clancy|?|?

• 1925-26: Conacher was only a few votes behind Clancy in Hart voting. But while he was behind 1 teammates, Clancy was behind 2. So it seems like Clancy was the better defenseman.
• 1926-27: I doubt Conacher would have beaten out Boucher. Boucher was tied for 10th in Hart voting with 19 points (the lowest total we have records for, but he was on the same team as Clancy).
• 1927-28: This is the season from which we have actual All-Star voting from GMs (Source). Eddie Shore and Ching Johnson are 1/2 in Hart voting among defensemen, so this is consistent with our method for other seasons.
• 1928-29: Conacher's goalie won the Hart and Clancy was the top Hart vote getter on Ottawa. So it's possible Conacher would have finished ahead of Clancy if this were Norris voting, not Hart voting. Mantha had 60 points for the Hart, Clancy 50. Conacher's vote total wasn't recorded. Still, I highly doubt he would have gotten enough votes to make up a 10 point difference and then even more. Writers weren't that shy towards giving teammates Hart consideration. Even if Conacher was better than Clancy but less valuable, he was still no better than a 2nd Team All Star.
• 1929-30: Only 2 defensemen finished in the top 8 in Hart voting. Clancy had 77 points. 8th had 60 points. I can't see Conacher making up the difference. He would not have been a first team all star this season.
  
  Further analysis: This was the first year of the forward pass and scoring totals exploded. Yet Conacher only scored 10 points in a season when Clancy, Shore, Mantha, and Joe Simpson all broke 20 points. Also, it was the height of his struggles with alcohol: "Conacher served as player-coach in 1929–30, but his play and health had deteriorated. Two events in that off-season saved Conacher: he swore off alcohol completely upon the birth of his first child, and his playing rights were sold to the Montreal Maroons." In 1930-31, Conacher was played on waivers and nobody claimed him. He would rebound with great seasons in 32-33 and 33-34, but I doubt he was playing at an all-star level in 1929-30.

Conclusion: Lionel Conacher was a 1st Team All Star in 1934 and a 2nd Team All Star in 1933 and 1937. It is very likely that he would have added exactly 2 2nd Team All Stars had they existed through his entire career.

Conacher should be treated as someone who has 1 1st Team and 4 2nd Team nods.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It is an absurd example but no offense to tarheelhockey but to equate time spent in the NHL at forward to the same as playing in other sports is equally absurd IMO. One example has relevance to his evaluation and the other doesn't.

I think my point is being misconstrued. I don't think either is relevant to our list. Kelly's ability to be an all-star winger is irrelevant to how good of a defenseman he was, just like Conacher's all-round athletic ability.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think my point is being misconstrued. I don't think either is relevant to our list. Kelly's ability to be an all-star winger is irrelevant to how good of a defenseman he was, just like Conacher's all-round athletic ability.

Kelly was not a winger. He was a center.

He was not an all-star center.

However, Dit Clapper was an all-star winger and to me it is a lot more relevant than Conacher's all-round athlitic ability.

 

[BubbaBoot]

Rod Langway was a pure defensive defenceman. Rarely played on the power play, played huge minutes on the penalty kill.

His even-strength plus-minus record is a good illustration of the effect role and strength of opposition can play in plus-minus, IMO. His last two seasons in Montreal playing second pairing behind Robinson, he was +53 and +66. In his first two seasons in Washington as the top shutdown option, he was even and +14 - and won the Norris trophy both seasons.

Washington's power play goals against in the two seasons before Langway - 83, 67.
Washington's power play goals against in Langway's first two seasons - 53, 39.

It's hard to match the impact of the other defenceman here as a pure defensive defenceman. But if anyone could, it was Langway.
.

This^

While he was born in Taiwan, he is for all intents and purposes one of the top 3 or 4 American defensemen ever....arguably the best defensive defenseman.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Kelly was not a winger. He was a center.

He was not an all-star center.

However, Dit Clapper was an all-star winger and to me it is a lot more relevant than Conacher's all-round athlitic ability.

I agree with this and guess how I'm treating it is that his coach wanted him to play winger for the team, it wasn't that he could not have played defense for those seasons and we can get a decent idea on how his play would have been as a Dman during those years.

If nothing else it shows how versatile clapper was.

How any player plays an entirely different sport only indicates that they were athletic and those skills and excellence in one sport doesn't always translate to another sport.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I agree with this and guess how I'm treating it is that his coach wanted him to play winger for the team, it wasn't that he could not have played defense for those seasons and we can get a decent idea on how his play would have been as a Dman during those years.

If nothing else it shows how versatile clapper was.

How any player plays an entirely different sport only indicates that they were athletic and those skills and excellence in one sport doesn't always translate to another sport.

My only point, which is now a bit labored, is that giving players like Clapper, Kelly and Howe extra marks for being "rounded" leaves the door open for a Conacher or Fedorov to really push the limits. If this guy is great at faceoffs and that guy is great at hitting a curveball, neither has improved his case as a great defenseman. Allowing one and discarding the other is a bit inconsistent, as this is not a list of "best overall hockey players".

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

My only point, which is now a bit labored, is that giving players like Clapper, Kelly and Howe extra marks for being "rounded" leaves the door open for a Conacher or Fedorov to really push the limits. If this guy is great at faceoffs and that guy is great at hitting a curveball, neither has improved his case as a great defenseman. Allowing one and discarding the other is a bit inconsistent, as this is not a list of "best overall hockey players".

Judging from how easily Potvin beat Kelly and how far Clapper fell, I'm pretty sure we as a group didnt give them bonus points for versatility. Kelly could easily be ranked the 6th-8th best defenseman of all time even if we pretend he retired in 1959. And I don't think all that many people credited Clapper with his peak seasons as forward - though a lot of us gave him the benefit of 20 years as a productive player (which seems to be what you disagree with).

Anyway, I think that given how common it was to for players to play both forward and defense at various times in their career prior to World War 2, we can assume there was a pretty large overlapping of skills.

 

[Hardyvan123]

In no order Howe, Quack, Savard, Lapointe and Nieds are my early guys for top 5 and other are intriguing.

I know that a lot of people are going to let Nieds slide but he was an excellent player and had to contend with forwards that many other players never had to deal with and was the best Dman, arguably in the regular season and playoffs for a period of time in a fully integrated NHL something which many others on this round can't be said of.

He was an extremely important piece on 4 SC winning teams, was still a very effective Dman for Canada in the Olympics at age 36 and probably has the best over age 30 resume of any player left for voting.

Sure he didn't develop as quickly as some in this round, partly due to his coach and the system they used which was better adapted for players like Stevens but Nieds was also way closer to Stevens defensively than Coffey ever was IMO.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I know that a lot of people are going to let Nieds slide but he was an excellent player and had to contend with forwards that many other players never had to deal with and was the best Dman, arguably in the regular season and playoffs for a period of time in a fully integrated NHL something which many others on this round can't be said of.

Hold on. Niedermayer was probably the best defenseman in the league for one calendar year 2003 playoffs and 2003-04 regular season and that's it, and that's only because Lidstrom had an offseason in 03-04. Still, it is impressive to be seen as the second-best defenseman in the league after Lidstrom over 3 to 4 year period, depending on how you view the lockout year. But how does it compare to the rest of the guys who are available?

He was an extremely important piece on 4 SC winning teams, was still a very effective Dman for Canada in the Olympics at age 36 and probably has the best over age 30 resume of any player left for voting.

Depends on what you mean by "extremely important." Nieds had smythe-worthy performances in 2003 and 2007, but was about as important to NJ in 1995 and 2000 as Brian Campbell was to Chicago in 2010.

Sure he didn't develop as quickly as some in this round, partly due to his coach and the system they used which was better adapted for players like Stevens but Nieds was also way closer to Stevens defensively than Coffey ever was IMO.

Neids definitely would have put up better numbers on a team other than NJ, but it's not like they didn't give him lots of ice time in matchups against second rate forwards, so he definitely gets his share of blame for not putting it all together until his 30s.

Edit: Nieds definitely gets credit for stepping up when Stevens went down after getting a puck to the head in the 2003 playoffs and keeping up that level when Stevens came back. But why didn't he stand out before? It's not like teams haven't had 2 standout defenseman at the same time before.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

In no order Howe, Quack, Savard, Lapointe and Nieds are my early guys for top 5 and other are intriguing.

I know that a lot of people are going to let Nieds slide but he was an excellent player and had to contend with forwards that many other players never had to deal with and was the best Dman, arguably in the regular season and playoffs for a period of time in a fully integrated NHL something which many others on this round can't be said of.

He was an extremely important piece on 4 SC winning teams, was still a very effective Dman for Canada in the Olympics at age 36 and probably has the best over age 30 resume of any player left for voting.

Sure he didn't develop as quickly as some in this round, partly due to his coach and the system they used which was better adapted for players like Stevens but Nieds was also way closer to Stevens defensively than Coffey ever was IMO.

I still don't get the Savard hype.

I think both Lapointe and Laperriere were better. Lapointe being far better offensively.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

We do need to realize that Scott Niedermayer isn't the only one with a short peak though. Butch Bouchard in particular had a short peak and Rod Langway's wasn't much longer.

Re: the Canadiens, I would love to hear what some of the long term fans of the team who post here have to say about Laperriere vs Tremblay vs Savard vs Lapointe. I assume nobody here saw Butch Bouchard in his prime.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Hold on. Niedermayer was probably the best defenseman in the league for one calendar year 2003 playoffs and 2003-04 regular season and that's it, and that's only because Lidstrom had an offseason in 03-04. Still, it is impressive to be seen as the second-best defenseman in the league after Lidstrom over 3 to 4 year period, depending on how you view the lockout year. But how does it compare to the rest of the guys who are available?



Depends on what you mean by "extremely important." Nieds had smythe-worthy performances in 2003 and 2007, but was about as important to NJ in 1995 and 2000 as Brian Campbell was to Chicago in 2010.



Neids definitely would have put up better numbers on a team other than NJ, but it's not like they didn't give him lots of ice time in matchups against second rate forwards, so he definitely gets his share of blame for not putting it all together until his 30s.

Edit: Nieds definitely gets credit for stepping up when Stevens went down after getting a puck to the head in the 2003 playoffs and keeping up that level when Stevens came back. But why didn't he stand out before? It's not like teams haven't had 2 standout defenseman at the same time before.

Couple of points to follow up Nieds was in the mix, with Lidstrom for top Dman in an integrated league with the Europeans and united states also providing great Dmen during his time period so it's a little bit better than being the top Dman say in the late 40's for the same time period for example IMO.

from 93 till his retirement in 10 30 of the 68 1st and 2nd all star team selections on defense came from these two new streams that pre 1980 simply didn't happen with any frequency (Salming being the one exception). To simply compare his 3 1st team and 1 2nd team selection with players who played in a Canadian only context is very unfair to Nieds IMO.

95 is also his least impressive performance on the 4 Stanley cup teams he played on the other 3 he was extremely important.

1st to 95 as a 21 year old he was still 6th in team scoring 4th in plus/minus (and sure Stevens got the tougher assignments I recognize that) it's fair to say that he was the 2nd best Dman overall on that drive and perhaps 5-8th for position players.

In 00 he is 10th in team playoff scoring and 1st in Dman minutes to Stevens 25.28 to 25.25.

Rafalski was next with 21.25. a top 3-5 position player that year for that team.

In 03 he is 2nd in team playoff scoring and tied for 2nd in plus/minus (4 guys in total are plus 10-11 after Stevens plus 14).

He logs the most ice time followed by Rafalski and Stevens with 26.07
,25.46 and 24.44 for the 3 guys.

JS Giguere wins the Conn Smythe but Nieds is the arguably the best player on the winning team.

In 06 he wins the Conn Smythe, even if one thinks he didn't deserve it he is in the mix which is what's important.

IMO Nieds has an extremely strong case in being included on the list somewhere in the 26-30 spot.

I would also add that for those who might be giving some sort of credit for not playing in WW2 that they also consider that Nieds could have still kept playing but retired at age 36 to be with his family.

He was still an extremely good Dman as evidenced by his selection and play in the 10 Olympics and his season with the Ducks.

Quite simply he had won at every level and that's extremely important at the end of the day IMO.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Canadiens

We do need to realize that Scott Niedermayer isn't the only one with a short peak though. Butch Bouchard in particular had a short peak and Rod Langway's wasn't much longer.

Re: the Canadiens, I would love to hear what some of the long term fans of the team who post here have to say about Laperriere vs Tremblay vs Savard vs Lapointe. I assume nobody here saw Butch Bouchard in his prime.

In order:

Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe, Jacques Laperriere, J. C. Tremblay.

All four were important contributors to multiple Stanley Cup championship teams.

J.C. Tremblay lacked the consistancy of the other three. Laperriere lacked the offense. Serge Savard had complete games with Savard enjoying a slight longevity and consistancy edge over Guy Lapointe while playing a restrained offensive game. Also Savard was able to sustain a high level of peak performance during the 1969 playoffs which produced a Conn Smythe Trophy.

Savard and Laperriere saw their careers impacted by injuries. Listed Savard`s injuries previously. Laperriere`s career was ended by a 1974 knee injury but he missed more than 10 games in a season three other times during his caree:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/laperja01.html

in fact Laperriere played only 34 more regular season games during his career than Bobby Orr. In terms of longevity he is a bit short.

J.C. Tremblay`s career may be enhanced if we consider his WHA record. This may bump him ahead of Laperriere if you value offensive numbers for defensemen.

 

[Hardyvan123]

We do need to realize that Scott Niedermayer isn't the only one with a short peak though. Butch Bouchard in particular had a short peak and Rod Langway's wasn't much longer.

Re: the Canadiens, I would love to hear what some of the long term fans of the team who post here have to say about Laperriere vs Tremblay vs Savard vs Lapointe. I assume nobody here saw Butch Bouchard in his prime.

I'm not a fan of the team, I was actually a Hab Hater as a kid but here are my observations.

People will rank Lapointe or Savard 1st IMO as they had great play0ff success and played more NHL games than the toehr two guys mentioned.

Laperriere was better defensively than JC Tremblay and considered the better Dman as his 2 1st and 22nd team selections indicate. He only played in 691 regular season games and 88 playoff games. Savard has 1040-136.

Tremblay left for the WHA when his offensive game finally took off but still wasn't an all star in the season before when he was behind Orr, Park, Stapleton and White. Tremblay maybe has an outside chance of being a top 5 Dman in 73 but by 74 it's even doubtful if he would have been still a top 10 Dman in the NHL. (Salming, Potvin and Lapointe were on the scene now)

To sum it up I think most Hab fans would rank them Savard or Lapointe then a drop to Laperriere due to his shorter career then JC Tremblay.

C1958 any thoughts?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Couple of points to follow up Nieds was in the mix, with Lidstrom for top Dman in an integrated league with the Europeans and united states also providing great Dmen during his time period so it's a little bit better than being the top Dman say in the late 40's for the same time period for example IMO.

I remember Niedermayer in the mix with Pronger for the best defenseman in the league not named Lidstrom. I don't remember him in the mix with Lidstrom over any decent length of time.

That does bring an interesting argument though - in a European-less NHL, does Niedermayer win 3 straight Norris trophies?

1st to 95 as a 21 year old he was still 6th in team scoring 4th in plus/minus (and sure Stevens got the tougher assignments I recognize that) it's fair to say that he was the 2nd best Dman overall on that drive and perhaps 5-8th for position players.

On the 1995 Cup winner, Claude Lemieux, Scott Stevens, Martin Brodeur, and Stephane Richer were all easily the 4 most important players. I think Randy McKay, Bobby Carpenter, and Neil Broten may have been more important than Niedermayer. Niedermayer wasn't even necessarily the 2nd most important defenseman on the team. He was still raw defensively and Lemaire broke up the Stevens-Niedermayer pairing early. Shawn Chambers was Stevens' partner against Jagr and Ken Daneyko was Stevens' partner against Lindros.

So I'd say Niedermayer was 5th-10th in terms of importance on that team. Meh.

In 00 he is 10th in team playoff scoring and 1st in Dman minutes to Stevens 25.28 to 25.25.

Rafalski was next with 21.25. a top 3-5 position player that year for that team.

10th in team playoff scoring for a defenseman who didn't get any of the tough matchups? Meh.

Niedermayer was an effortless skater so he could log huge minutes. But there is no way he was as important as Stevens, Elias, or Arnott, and Brodeur proved his importance in the finals. All of Stevens minutes were tough - strictly matched against top lines and an absurd amount of PK time. Niedermayer got a ton of minutes because... he was a lot better than the guys on the bottom pairing at even strength and played both special teams.

Niedermayer was an important support player, but so were Petr Sykora (the 3rd part of the best line in hockey) and Bobby Holik (the best checking center in hockey). Claude Lemieux has a case but I'd probably take Nieds. Brian Rafalski outscored Niedermayer 8-7, while playing with Scott Stevens at even strength against tough opposition. So... Nieds was 5th-9th in importance.

Again, meh.

I'm not denying Niedermayer's importance in 2003 - IMO, he was even better than he was in 2007 when he won the Smythe.

I would also add that for those who might be giving some sort of credit for not playing in WW2 that they also consider that Nieds could have still kept playing but retired at age 36 to be with his family.

No offense, but that's a terrible analogy. Lots of players "could have kept playing" but retired for various reasons. A better analogy would be that Niedermayer won a Norris before the lockout, missed a year, then was 2nd to Lidstrom the next two seasons. For a player with such a short peak, that 1 missing season could be critical to his legacy.

Quite simply he had won at every level and that's extremely important at the end of the day IMO.

IMO, winning in the minor leagues is not relevant at all. And Canadian pros couldn't compete in international tournaments until very recently. And is his winning record any better than Eddie Gerard's, Marcel Pronovost's, or the 60s or 70s Canadien defensemen who are available?

Anyway, if someone values absolute peak really highly and doesn't care as much about longevity as an elite player, I can see voting for Niedermayer now. But I don't think exaggerating his importance in his first two Cup wins is particularly useful. He was a lot more than a role player in 1995 and 2000, but he wasn't a star either.

Edit: I think Niedermayer's early playoff success as a secondary player is relevant when comparing him to someone like Rob Blake (who otherwise has a very similar record to Nieds IMO). But pretending he was a star back then is revisionist history.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I remember Niedermayer in the mix with Pronger for the best defenseman in the league not named Lidstrom. I don't remember him in the mix with Lidstrom over any decent length of time.

That does bring an interesting argument though - in a European-less NHL, does Niedermayer win 3 straight Norris trophies?



On the 1995 Cup winner, Claude Lemieux, Scott Stevens, Martin Brodeur, and Stephane Richer were all easily the 4 most important players. I think Randy McKay, Bobby Carpenter, and Neil Broten may have been more important than Niedermayer. Niedermayer wasn't even necessarily the 2nd most important defenseman on the team. He was still raw defensively and Lemaire broke up the Stevens-Niedermayer pairing early. Shawn Chambers was Stevens' partner against Jagr and Ken Daneyko was Stevens' partner against Lindros.

So I'd say Niedermayer was 5th-10th in terms of importance on that team. Meh.



10th in team playoff scoring for a defenseman who didn't get any of the tough matchups? Meh.

Niedermayer was an effortless skater so he could log huge minutes. But there is no way he was as important as Stevens, Elias, or Arnott, and Brodeur proved his importance in the finals. All of Stevens minutes were tough - strictly matched against top lines and an absurd amount of PK time. Niedermayer got a ton of minutes because... he was a lot better than the guys on the bottom pairing at even strength and played both special teams.

Niedermayer was an important support player, but so were Petr Sykora (the 3rd part of the best line in hockey) and Bobby Holik (the best checking center in hockey). Claude Lemieux has a case but I'd probably take Nieds. Brian Rafalski outscored Niedermayer 8-7, while playing with Scott Stevens at even strength against tough opposition. So... Nieds was 5th-9th in importance.

Again, meh.

I'm not denying Niedermayer's importance in 2003 - IMO, he was even better than he was in 2007 when he won the Smythe.



No offense, but that's a terrible analogy. Lots of players "could have kept playing" but retired for various reasons. A better analogy would be that Niedermayer won a Norris before the lockout, missed a year, then was 2nd to Lidstrom the next two seasons. For a player with such a short peak, that 1 missing season could be critical to his legacy.



IMO, winning in the minor leagues is not relevant at all. And Canadian pros couldn't compete in international tournaments until very recently. And is his winning record any better than Eddie Gerard's, Marcel Pronovost's, or the 60s or 70s Canadien defensemen who are available?

Anyway, if someone values absolute peak really highly and doesn't care as much about longevity as an elite player, I can see voting for Niedermayer now. But I don't think exaggerating his importance in his first two Cup wins is particularly useful. He was a lot more than a role player in 1995 and 2000, but he wasn't a star either.

Edit: I think Niedermayer's early playoff success as a secondary player is relevant when comparing him to someone like Rob Blake (who otherwise has a very similar record to Nieds IMO). But pretending he was a star back then is revisionist history.

In the 1st cup i'm not making the argument that he was the star but he was better than average on that team.

Also for 00 he led the team in minutes played are there really easy minutes in the playoffs. I won't argue that Stevens minutes were harder because they were but minutes are still minutes to some degree aren't they?

Just as a side note some people will bring up Tottier's importance to his 2 cup wins in Pittsburg were those 2 really that much better than 95 and 00? 95 I can see an argument for it but not 00 with all that ice time. (I'm trying to think of a Dman comparable, Bourque in Colorado comes to mind but it's not the right fit in that I think his importance is exaggerated at times and Nieds 95 year especially is in no way comparable but 00 sure is). Tired here calling it a night.

Edit: Nieds scored 2 SHG in the 00 playoffs as well so he msut ahve spent soem time playing on the PK as well.

I have to admit I don't remember the whole playoffs specifically but surely he is closer to 5 than 9 and maybe even higher on position players in that run?

I mean he spent 10 more minutes a game on the ice than Sykora did and Holik was a pretty one dimensional guy as well (an excellent dimension to be sure but still just over 17 minutes a game which i know is 3rd best for forwards).

 

[canucks4ever]

Hopefully lapierre is last, i don't see how his resume is any better than chara or larry murphy's. I feel murphy brought more value to his teams and has the better career overall.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i don't remember niedermayer's roles on the devils in '94 and '95 well at all. but '00 and '01, he may not have been as important as elias or stevens or brodeur, but to my eyes his ability to skate the puck out of the defensive zone and into safe areas was vital to those teams. i'd argue that its impact is comparable to brodeur's puck moving ability.

so turn of the millennium niedermayer didn't have the offensive game we expect from a truly elite defender-- and i think at this point rafalski had overtaken him on the first PP unit-- but i think he really subtly did little things that raise his value to those teams above, say, sykora or even arnott.

(and then you have 2003, where niedermayer combined that skating ability with an amazing first pass, and not only skated the puck out of the zone at will EVERY SINGLE SHIFT, but also controlled the flow of the game offensively and defensively. that year was remarkable, and really he was the only thing that made those finals watchable as a fan with no rooting interest in either team.)

i'm not arguing that niedermayer was a top three player in '00, but i wonder: would it be fair to weight niedermayer's first two cups the way we do jagr's cups?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If we are talking about the 2000 playoffs alone, Arnott was talked about as a Conn Smyte candidate. Niedermayer was not. When they both held out at the start of the following season, fans chanted "we want Arnott.". Nieds was an afterthought. Nieds ended up getting a bigger contract signifying his overall importance to the team. But in the 2000 playoffs alone, Arnott was more valuable.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

In order:

Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe, Jacques Laperriere, J. C. Tremblay.

All four were important contributors to multiple Stanley Cup championship teams.

J.C. Tremblay lacked the consistancy of the other three. Laperriere lacked the offense. Serge Savard had complete games with Savard enjoying a slight longevity and consistancy edge over Guy Lapointe while playing a restrained offensive game. Also Savard was able to sustain a high level of peak performance during the 1969 playoffs which produced a Conn Smythe Trophy.

Savard and Laperriere saw their careers impacted by injuries. Listed Savard`s injuries previously. Laperriere`s career was ended by a 1974 knee injury but he missed more than 10 games in a season three other times during his caree:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/laperja01.html

in fact Laperriere played only 34 more regular season games during his career than Bobby Orr. In terms of longevity he is a bit short.

J.C. Tremblay`s career may be enhanced if we consider his WHA record. This may bump him ahead of Laperriere if you value offensive numbers for defensemen.

I guess there is no one on the boards with more first hand knowledge of this comparison.

Though I notice that when Savard and Laperriere overlapping seasons are compared, Laperriere seems to have a very slight edge in offensive numbers, though you say he lacked the offensive of the others.

And clearly Lapointe was better offensively than Savard. Was he that much better defensively than Lapointe to rank him higher?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hopefully lapierre is last, i don't see how his resume is any better than chara or larry murphy's. I feel murphy brought more value to his teams and has the better career overall.

I think Chara has quietly surpassed several of the current candidate, so I wouldn't single out Laperriere. I don't think Laperriere is the worst guy here though - look at all his top 5 finishes for the Norris.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Hopefully lapierre is last, i don't see how his resume is any better than chara or larry murphy's. I feel murphy brought more value to his teams and has the better career overall.

And with his single 2nd team all-star selection, how is Savard better?

Laperriere had a Norris, two 1st team and 2 second team all-star selections playing in the original 6 era, certainly more demanding than the expansion era where Savard played most of his career.