Brian Leetch vs Scott Niedermayer

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Sure his Norris voting wasn't great before winning it for 2 reasons.

His PP usage wasn't top tier and we all know points matter in Norris voting.

He also played under the shadow of Scott Stevens who was everyone's dream player in the clutch and grab era, whee the Devils could corral a player and line them up for that famous Scott Stevens hit (which would be illegal today and for good reason).

Niedermeyer was playing top pairing MPG (24 MPG) form his second season onwards from the data we have.

The first season is 24:40 in 98-99 but if we use the ESGF and ESGA and SOG and compare backwards it's pretty clear he was getting top pairing MPG from 93-94 and probably pretty close to it in 92-93 as well.

I can see why most would take Leetch in his peak and prime (I would too) but careerwise there isn't a huge gap overall IMO.

Leetch really gets the nod in peak and prime for his elite PP QB liability and that's the real difference between the 2 guys.

I am not sure what you mean. He was on the PP from his rookie season onwards. All you have to do is look at the PPF while on the ice. His rookie season he was on the ice for 36 power play goals. I am not sure what it was with him. Was he too timid to reach his potential because a better defenseman like Stevens was there? That sounds like a realistic theory until you realize Brian Rafalski came in 1999 and between 1999-'03 can you say with certainty that Niedermayer was the better defenseman? I can't. Rafalski was a fine defenseman but he wasn't elite during this timeframe. He peaked at 9th in Norris voting in 2001. Good, but not elite. And we are talking about someone who I don't even think Niedermayer was as good as on his own team.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Here is how I think things shake down with defensemen. The usual suspects are among the top 10 but there is some various names that are either late top-1o guys or on the outside. They are Coffey, Chelios, Fetisov, Park, Pilote and maybe even Kelly. Close enough? Alright, after that there is the next tier with the likes of MacInnis, Stevens, Horton, Leetch, etc. After that you've got Pronger, Blake, Niedermayer, Murphy, etc. who are around top 25 material.

Now, Leetch is likely at the bottom of his crop while Pronger is at the top of his crop. Niedermayer is below guys like Pronger, Murphy and more comparable to Blake. Pronovost might be a guy in the mix as well.

I think Chara is probably in that Pronger territory too, which means he is ahead of Niedermayer.

All of this means that Niedermayer is in tough to crack the top 25 of all-time, while Leetch would definitely be in there. If you look at other defensemen ahead of him they had longer primes, higher ceilings, several more great years.

I can see a lot of current defensemen who could have better careers than Niedermayer. Weber, Burns, Doughty all come to mind immediately. Hedman, Karlsson too. This myth that Niedermayer enters some sort of class with guys who were great for 15 years is just unfounded.
 

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,082
5,053
Parts Unknown
Here is how I think things shake down with defensemen. The usual suspects are among the top 10 but there is some various names that are either late top-1o guys or on the outside. They are Coffey, Chelios, Fetisov, Park, Pilote and maybe even Kelly. Close enough? Alright, after that there is the next tier with the likes of MacInnis, Stevens, Horton, Leetch, etc. After that you've got Pronger, Blake, Niedermayer, Murphy, etc. who are around top 25 material.

Now, Leetch is likely at the bottom of his crop while Pronger is at the top of his crop. Niedermayer is below guys like Pronger, Murphy and more comparable to Blake. Pronovost might be a guy in the mix as well.

I think Chara is probably in that Pronger territory too, which means he is ahead of Niedermayer.

All of this means that Niedermayer is in tough to crack the top 25 of all-time, while Leetch would definitely be in there. If you look at other defensemen ahead of him they had longer primes, higher ceilings, several more great years.

I can see a lot of current defensemen who could have better careers than Niedermayer. Weber, Burns, Doughty all come to mind immediately. Hedman, Karlsson too. This myth that Niedermayer enters some sort of class with guys who were great for 15 years is just unfounded.
Honestly, I have Pronger ranked ahead of every player you had in your "middle tier". Certainly ahead of Leetch. Way better two way player, better peak, longer prime, and was the best player on three teams which made the Finals. IMO, there's not much argument that Leetch should be ahead of Pronger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neutrinos

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,671
16,395
I'm preferring Niedermayer due to my general preference for players who grow up into their legacy than ones who fizzle out off theirs.

But I when I think of players that are extremely overrated due to misplaced nostagia and selective memory, those are the first two that comes to mind. Along with Sergei Fedorov (whom I prefer quite a bit to these two, and who is overrated for entirely different reasons, but still).
 
Last edited:

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,663
I'm gonna say right now that, based on peak or prime, Leetch is easily over MacInnis!

It's a bit of that thing that @mrhockey193195 was alluding to early, that we tend to remember players more at the end than at the beginning or middle. We all know MacInnis was still playing on a good team and still looked good up to 2002 or 2003, and we know Leetch fell off by then and in his last couple of years.

But, here's the thing: MacInnis wasn't ever considered the best player on the Flames from 1983 to 1991. Full marks for his '89 Conn Smythe (though no one would have batted an eye had it gone to Gilmour or Vernon... or Mullen), but I never thought MacInnis had the individual impact that Leetch had. Leetch was a star from the moment he stepped into the League in spring '88.

In pure hockey skill, Leetch was all over MacInnis. Leetch is one of the greatest skaters I've ever seen, and had an uncanny lateral movement at the blue-line. While MacInnis certainly had the best slap-shot in the NHL from the point (both for scoring and for deflections/rebounds), Leetch could do any shot extremely well -- snap-shot, wrister, slapper.

Was MacInnis better defensively than Leetch? He probably was... but only by a little, not a lot. I grew up watching MacInnis play, and I always had the impression he was too soft physically for a guy who was obviously strong.

MacInnis was like a power-play specialist who was also above-average at even strength. Leetch was great on power-plays, too, but I don't think he depended on it to contribute to offense as much as MacInnis.

So, did MacInnis age better? Undoubtedly, yes. Did MacInnis have a longer, more consistent career? Yes. Were both awesome players? Yes. But I think Leetch reached a level that MacInnis never could, circa 199o to 1997.

This is pretty far off. MacInnis wasn't "probably" better than Leetch defensively - he was definitely better defensively, especially by the latter part of his prime when he was elite in that regard. I could maybe see Leetch being the better offensive player when each was at his best, but the gap is smaller than the defensive gap that favours MacInnis. MacInnis was a smarter and ultimately more effective player. I do think that Leetch has the better Conn Smythe run, but other than that everything else is very comparable or favours MacInnis. Peak seasons between Leetch and MacInnis are very comparable.

Either one is comfortably over Niedermayer though unless "novelty of trophy case" is weighted heavily in someone's player rating criteria.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Honestly, I have Pronger ranked ahead of every player you had in your "middle tier". Certainly ahead of Leetch. Way better two way player, better peak, longer prime, and was the best player on three teams which made the Finals. IMO, there's not much argument that Leetch should be ahead of Pronger.

Pronger ahead of MacInnis and Stevens too? I can see Leetch if you prefer it, not a heck of a lot of difference between the two but if there is a knock it is the fact Pronger didn't have the full seasons like Leetch. But MacInnis and Stevens? They have a lot of mustard in their careers compared to Pronger. I think in many ways Pronger should have been the next Robinson, but he had trouble staying healthy.

Norris Trophy voting:
Stevens - 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10
MacInnis - 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 6, 7, 8, 8, 8
Pronger - 1, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7, 8, 10, 10

You have to give the edge to the first two here. Don't forget Pronger's playoff criticisms up until 2004. The first two were good from the get-go right until the end, most specifically Stevens. Maybe Pronger "should" have been higher than them, but it wasn't as if the other two weren't playoff warriors. Not to mention I think a bit deeper of a top end pool of elite defensemen to compete against.

I think we can agree Pronger is well ahead of Niedermayer though, and that is more my point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,082
5,053
Parts Unknown
Pronger ahead of MacInnis and Stevens too? I can see Leetch if you prefer it, not a heck of a lot of difference between the two but if there is a knock it is the fact Pronger didn't have the full seasons like Leetch. But MacInnis and Stevens? They have a lot of mustard in their careers compared to Pronger. I think in many ways Pronger should have been the next Robinson, but he had trouble staying healthy.

Norris Trophy voting:
Stevens - 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10
MacInnis - 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 6, 7, 8, 8, 8
Pronger - 1, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7, 8, 10, 10

You have to give the edge to the first two here. Don't forget Pronger's playoff criticisms up until 2004. The first two were good from the get-go right until the end, most specifically Stevens. Maybe Pronger "should" have been higher than them, but it wasn't as if the other two weren't playoff warriors. Not to mention I think a bit deeper of a top end pool of elite defensemen to compete against.

I think we can agree Pronger is well ahead of Niedermayer though, and that is more my point.
Yes, ahead of MacInnis and Stevens. I think Pronger was a more effective player in his prime on both ends of the ice. He was more important to his teams. I have all three of those players pretty close to each other, though. So it's negligible. All three are a tier ahead of Niedermayer or Leetch.

I'm more curios to know how people would compare Erik Karlsson to Brian Leetch? Obviously, Karlsson still has a ways to go and doesn't have much playoff experience. Still, there's similarities with how good both are offensively.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,585
15,948
there is the next tier with the likes of MacInnis, Stevens, Horton, Leetch, etc. After that you've got Pronger, Blake, Niedermayer, Murphy, etc. who are around top 25 material.

imo,

pronger

leetch

chara

niedermayer/blake

murphy

in other words, i think you have leetch one tier too high. (debatable whether pronger is also a tier too low.)
 

ESH

Registered User
Jun 19, 2011
5,294
3,394
Leetch 11/10 times.

Niedermayer got carried by Stevens and Pronger

That’s a lazy argument.

Niedermayer won the Norris in 2004 when Stevens only played 38 games. Niedermayer also didn’t need either of Stevens or Pronger on his team to finish 2nd in Norris voting in 2006.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight

blood gin

Registered User
Jan 17, 2017
4,174
2,203
Sure his Norris voting wasn't great before winning it for 2 reasons.

His PP usage wasn't top tier and we all know points matter in Norris voting.

He also played under the shadow of Scott Stevens who was everyone's dream player in the clutch and grab era, whee the Devils could corral a player and line them up for that famous Scott Stevens hit (which would be illegal today and for good reason).

Niedermeyer was playing top pairing MPG (24 MPG) from his second season onwards from the data we have.

The first season is 24:40 in 98-99 but if we use the ESGF and ESGA and SOG and compare backwards it's pretty clear he was getting top pairing MPG from 93-94 and probably pretty close to it in 92-93 as well.

I can see why most would take Leetch in his peak and prime (I would too) but careerwise there isn't a huge gap overall IMO.

Leetch really gets the nod in peak and prime for his elite PP QB ability and that's the real difference between the 2 guys.

The Devils did not in any way teach hockey players to have poor on ice vision, awareness, and to skate with their head down just to be hit in the distant future by a clean check by Scott Stevens. That is the most absurd thing I've ever read
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,246
10,125
The Devils did not in any way teach hockey players to have poor on ice vision, awareness, and to skate with their head down just to be hit in the distant future by a clean check by Scott Stevens. That is the most absurd thing I've ever read

You really need to watch some of those Scott Steven's hits, they are the poster of what was wrong with hockey in the mid to late 90's.

Steven's was a great player my beef is with Bettman who ignored player safety for ages.
 

blood gin

Registered User
Jan 17, 2017
4,174
2,203
You really need to watch some of those Scott Steven's hits, they are the poster of what was wrong with hockey in the mid to late 90's.

Steven's was a great player my beef is with Bettman who ignored player safety for ages.

They happened in the 80s as well. It was hockey pre snowflake era where those who didn't have the proper awareness paid the price (cleanly) for it. It was an incredible skill he had (and he wasn't the only one) but hockey is not a sport for the faint of heart, nor should it be a sport that rewards meekness and ignorance. If somebody is walking down the railroad tracks texting and gets hit by a train, we don't blame the train
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Phil

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,246
10,125
They happened in the 80s as well. It was hockey pre snowflake era where those who didn't have the proper awareness paid the price (cleanly) for it. It was an incredible skill he had (and he wasn't the only one) but hockey is not a sport for the faint of heart, nor should it be a sport that rewards meekness and ignorance. If somebody is walking down the railroad tracks texting and gets hit by a train, we don't blame the train

The big difference in the 90s was all of the clutch and grabbing that helped to isolate the puck carrier who was prime for that big hit.

The snowflake reference is ignorant as it's really disrespects all of the highly skilled players who suffered injuries needlessly all in the name of "parity" for Bettmans purposes.

It was dark times for the NHL plain and simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrhockey193195

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,351
7,832
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
You really need to watch some of those Scott Steven's hits, they are the poster of what was wrong with hockey in the mid to late 90's.

Steven's was a great player my beef is with Bettman who ignored player safety for ages.

Sorry, I don't mean to quote this, but there is no "dislike" button...so I wasn't sure how to handle it.
 

blood gin

Registered User
Jan 17, 2017
4,174
2,203
The big difference in the 90s was all of the clutch and grabbing that helped to isolate the puck carrier who was prime for that big hit.

The snowflake reference is ignorant as it's really disrespects all of the highly skilled players who suffered injuries needlessly all in the name of "parity" for Bettmans purposes.

It was dark times for the NHL plain and simple.

None of Stevens hits resulted from your mythical "clutch and grab isolation scheme"
 

blood gin

Registered User
Jan 17, 2017
4,174
2,203
did you really like the "quality" of hockey in the 90s?

If so we are going to agree to disagree.

It was both good and bad at points. But the hitting was one of the bright spots. The clutching and grabbing should've been nipped in the bud earlier. But remove clutching and grabbing and Stevens is still crushing players who are not paying attention - just like he did in the 80's
 

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,373
16,650
Mulberry Street
That’s a lazy argument.

Niedermayer won the Norris in 2004 when Stevens only played 38 games. Niedermayer also didn’t need either of Stevens or Pronger on his team to finish 2nd in Norris voting in 2006.

Its the old narrative that Nieds was carried by his elite teams/ d-partners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,246
10,125
None of Stevens hits resulted from your mythical "clutch and grab isolation scheme"

None? That's the problem with absolutes there are seldom true.

I guess the next claim would be that goalie equipment never changed in the 90s either?

You really need to go back and watch some games from the 90s sometime.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,585
15,948
IWas he too timid to reach his potential because a better defenseman like Stevens was there? That sounds like a realistic theory until you realize Brian Rafalski came in 1999 and between 1999-'03 can you say with certainty that Niedermayer was the better defenseman? I can't. Rafalski was a fine defenseman but he wasn't elite during this timeframe. He peaked at 9th in Norris voting in 2001. Good, but not elite. And we are talking about someone who I don't even think Niedermayer was as good as on his own team.

i've always thought rafalski lit a fire under niedermayer's butt. this small guy, with a fraction of his skill, no pedigree, basically took his spot on the PP and established himself as the team's go-to offensive defenseman.

i think it's hard to deny that if there's no rafalski signing in 1999, then there is no 2000 cup or 2001 finals run. but i also wonder, if there is no rafalski, do we also never see 2003 playoffs and after niedermayer? maybe he settles into being bouwmeester?
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,246
10,125
i've always thought rafalski lit a fire under niedermayer's butt. this small guy, with a fraction of his skill, no pedigree, basically took his spot on the PP and established himself as the team's go-to offensive defenseman.

i think it's hard to deny that if there's no rafalski signing in 1999, then there is no 2000 cup or 2001 finals run. but i also wonder, if there is no rafalski, do we also never see 2003 playoffs and after niedermayer? maybe he settles into being bouwmeester?

That's possible.

I also wonder how his career would pan out if he had been drafted by another team that would have let him play a more offensive role?

That being said Leetch was the better pure offensive player to be sure.

Niedermeyer was more Robinson like offensively.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
The big difference in the 90s was all of the clutch and grabbing that helped to isolate the puck carrier who was prime for that big hit.

The snowflake reference is ignorant as it's really disrespects all of the highly skilled players who suffered injuries needlessly all in the name of "parity" for Bettmans purposes.

It was dark times for the NHL plain and simple.

The 1990s was broken up into two parts. The first half of the decade had lots of open hockey, teams were successful by scoring a lot. This stopped right after the mid 1990s and more of the clutch and grab era teams thrived. However, hitting was the same throughout the decade and up until the lockout. Stevens was thought to be the best hitter in the game even in Washington. The problem with the NHL is that they never know how to strike a good balance. The early 1990s had that great balance. Lots of scoring, lots of fights, lots of hitting, lots of animosity and rivalries still. The later part of the 1990s had defensive traps and less scoring but the same physicality. Since 2005 we have seen a lot less of the physical play but more of the skill.

Hockey in all honesty was at its best in my opinion in the early to mid 1990s. We haven't gotten it right since. The NHL has been on one extreme or the other since. We have the skill being showcased but teams practically coddle each other nowadays and it has brought a new breed of casual fan to the game. Not good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Yes, ahead of MacInnis and Stevens. I think Pronger was a more effective player in his prime on both ends of the ice. He was more important to his teams. I have all three of those players pretty close to each other, though. So it's negligible. All three are a tier ahead of Niedermayer or Leetch.

I'm more curios to know how people would compare Erik Karlsson to Brian Leetch? Obviously, Karlsson still has a ways to go and doesn't have much playoff experience. Still, there's similarities with how good both are offensively.

From the moment Karlsson broke out it was Leetch who I immediately thought of when I watched him.

imo,

pronger

leetch

chara

niedermayer/blake

murphy

in other words, i think you have leetch one tier too high. (debatable whether pronger is also a tier too low.)

I am fine with that. Pronger and Leetch, however you want to rank them, are at the top of that tier though.

I honestly would like someone to explain (and I think you did it right) how Niedermayer is clearly better than Rob Blake. I honestly have always liked Blake slightly more. He was better for longer. Peaked about the same but Blake had more longevity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vadim sharifijanov

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->