NHL.com Best Dmen of the Expansion Era

[NickyFotiu]

Some people don't understand how plus/minus works unfortunately. In many instances, such as with Leetch, your plus/minus will suffer greatly if you're a great player on a bad team.

Leetch was very, very good defensively his entire career. On offense he was super elite. The definition of "2-way Defenseman" and very underrated because he played on a lot of bad teams, unfortunately.

Exactly. If you are playing almost 30 minutes a game on a horrible defensive team your plus/minus will be horrible. Leetch went from one of the best in the league at plus 31 to minus 36 the very next season. Do people really think that reflected Leetch declining over the summer?

 

[Bryce Newman]

Exactly. If you are playing almost 30 minutes a game on a horrible defensive team your plus/minus will be horrible. Leetch went from one of the best in the league at plus 31 to minus 36 the very next season. Do people really think that reflected Leetch declining over the summer?

Plus/minus is such a stupid stat that tells you next to nothing about how good a player is defensively. Beukeboom was partners with Coffey and Leetch and says Leetch was better defensively. Yet Coffey retired +298 while Leetch only +25. Anyone who has watched both players will tell you Leetch was always better on the back end, yet Coffey's plus/minus is much higher. It's a misleading stat that many hockey experts think should have been abolished long ago.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Plus/minus is such a stupid stat that tells you next to nothing about how good a player is defensively. Beukeboom was partners with Coffey and Leetch and says Leetch was better defensively. Yet Coffey retired +298 while Leetch only +25. Anyone who has watched both players will tell you Leetch was always better on the back end, yet Coffey's plus/minus is much higher. It's a misleading stat that many hockey experts think should have been abolished long ago.

Yeah its kind of funny. 1 guy gets held responsible for the other 11 guys on the ice. Leetch was actually underrated defensively and physically in my opinion because his offense was so good. He was always on the ice to kill penalties. He was always on the ice to protect late game leads. Coaches do not do that with guys that are not strong defensively. He also was a underrated hitter. He was not Scott Stevens but he would surprise guys with hip checks and open ice eye openers.

 

[Bryce Newman]

Yeah its kind of funny. 1 guy gets held responsible for the other 11 guys on the ice. Leetch was actually underrated defensively and physically in my opinion because his offense was so good. He was always on the ice to kill penalties. He was always on the ice to protect late game leads. Coaches do not do that with guys that are not strong defensively. He also was a underrated hitter. He was not Scott Stevens but he would surprise guys with hip checks and open ice eye openers.

He had one of the best hip checks in the game. Clean hip checks too, never dirty.

One other guy here said Leetch "never hit anyone" so I showed him this:

 

[NickyFotiu]

He had one of the best hip checks in the game. Clean hip checks too, never dirty.

One other guy here said Leetch "never hit anyone" so I showed him this:

Yeah Brian definitely threw some impressive wake up hits. He was built well and had great balance. He wasn't Barry Beck nor Scott Stevens but if you came down his side you better not have your head down.

 

[Boxscore]

I see Pronger has reached Niedermayer's level of being overrated.

How is Pronger overrated? Last defenseman, after Orr, to win the Hart Trophy along with the Norris. Goes to Anaheim, wins a Cup. Goes to Edmonton, carries them to the Cup. Goes to Philly, leads them to a Cup. The Flyers have never been the same since Pronger had to retire prematurely.

Pronger was a massive man who was a workhorse--great at both ends of the ice, nice slapper, physical, mean, smart... and oozed leadership. He's everything you want in a cornerstone defenseman.

 

[Shaman464]

Look, its another topic of people who were weren't born when Lidstrom was drafted to come in and severely underrate him. He was the second best defenseman ever to play. Yeah some put up more points. Some were played on Canadian teams you love. But none of them were as good as Lidstrom. Time to nut up and live with the fact that all round Lids was the 2nd best d-man ever to lace them up.

 

[danincanada]

Look, its another topic of people who were weren't born when Lidstrom was drafted to come in and severely underrate him. He was the second best defenseman ever to play. Yeah some put up more points. Some were played on Canadian teams you love. But none of them were as good as Lidstrom. Time to nut up and live with the fact that all round Lids was the 2nd best d-man ever to lace them up.

I'm a Wings fan too but Bourque definitely has a case as well. I don't necessarily always agree with it but he was consistently great for such a long time and often didn't have great support. If you are asking for a defender to anchor your blueline for 20 years you can't go wrong with either so they're 2a and 2b/3 or whatever to me behind Orr.

 

[danincanada]

How is Pronger overrated? Last defenseman, after Orr, to win the Hart Trophy along with the Norris. Goes to Anaheim, wins a Cup. Goes to Edmonton, carries them to the Cup. Goes to Philly, leads them to a Cup. The Flyers have never been the same since Pronger had to retire prematurely.

Pronger was a massive man who was a workhorse--great at both ends of the ice, nice slapper, physical, mean, smart... and oozed leadership. He's everything you want in a cornerstone defenseman.

Sure, at his best he had lots of qualities you would want in a cornerstone defenseman. Only at his best though. I could do without his inconsistency and undisciplined play, he was prone to injury at times, and he was simply dirty and cheap.

You made it sound like he won 3 Cups. He didn't carry the Oilers and Flyers to Cups, he helped those teams get to the finals.

 

[danincanada]

Leaf fans praising Leetch's brief tenure in Toronto, including his defense:
Brian Leetch - Toronto Maple Leafs

They actually weren't that glowing. They loved his offensive game and puck skills. Sounds like they weren't disappointed with his defense but what were they expecting when he was acquired?

 

[danincanada]

Some people don't understand how plus/minus works unfortunately. In many instances, such as with Leetch, your plus/minus will suffer greatly if you're a great player on a bad team.

Leetch was very, very good defensively his entire career. On offense he was super elite. The definition of "2-way Defenseman" and very underrated because he played on a lot of bad teams, unfortunately.

I've stated numerous times, it's not just about +/-. Leetch was fairly consistently among the most scored on players in the league from '98 until he left the Rangers in '04. You can blame his teammates all you want but at what point does it start to reflect poorly on Leetch himself? How much did he tilt the ice for his team if this was the case? Lidstrom did clearly tilt the ice for the Red Wings in a huge way during that same span and the numbers back it up. He was their shutdown guy and he consistently played more PK than Leetch and less PP. That's the difference you would like to ignore. There is really no comparison to be made here.

The team results are so different as well. Come on, he's your captain until Messier comes back and you miss the playoffs 7 years in a row? He wasn't management or the coach but he was supposed to be the leader of the team and that doesn't reflect well on him either. I have zero confidence he could fill Nick's shoes at that point. The Wings rarely had elite goaltending over the years so we needed that defensive stopper to be elite.

 

[Bryce Newman]

I've stated numerous times, it's not just about +/-. Leetch was fairly consistently among the most scored on players in the league from '98 until he left the Rangers in '04. You can blame his teammates all you want but at what point does it start to reflect poorly on Leetch himself? How much did he tilt the ice for his team if this was the case? Lidstrom did clearly tilt the ice for the Red Wings in a huge way during that same span and the numbers back it up. He was their shutdown guy and he consistently played more PK than Leetch and less PP. That's the difference you would like to ignore. There is really no comparison to be made here.

The team results are so different as well. Come on, he's your captain until Messier comes back and you miss the playoffs 7 years in a row? He wasn't management or the coach but he was supposed to be the leader of the team and that doesn't reflect well on him either. I have zero confidence he could fill Nick's shoes at that point. The Wings rarely had elite goaltending over the years so we needed that defensive stopper to be elite.

As NickyFotio said, you don't get thrown into all types of PK, PP and late game situations if you're bad defensively. Stop trying to push this narrative because it isn't working. Everyone knows Leetch didn't forget how to play hockey after 1997, and that his bad numbers had everything to do with the team he was on than anything he was or wasn't doing. The Rangers at one point tried 6 different Goalies LOL and you think Leetch was the problem? Get serious dude.

And I notice you keep ignoring the point I made about replacing Leetch with Lidstrom on those 98-04 teams. Do you think Rangers fair any better with Lidstrom than with Leetch? Guess what: They would have still missed the playoffs every season, and probably done even worse considering Lidstrom was never in Leetch's league offensively. Rangers were so much better with Leetch on the ice.

And it's funny how Leaf fans don't have one bad word to say about Leetch and loved him during his brief stint there in 2004. You'd think for a guy who was a supposed "train wreck" defensively at least one or two fans would have said it. Instead it was quite the opposite with Leaf fans praising his defense.

Leetch at his best was being compared to Bobby Orr. Lidstrom, as good as he was, was never and will never be compared to Bobby Orr. I respect his accomplishments and recognize that during his career he won a lot. But we're comparing players, not teams. Orr himself "only" won 2 cups and he is considered the greatest ever.

Lidstrom had the "better career" (aka better teams) and will always be ranked higher than Leetch because of that, but I really don't give a crap. I'd take prime Leetch over him in a second.

 

[Confused Turnip]

A complete exaggeration lol. Nobody said Leetch and Coffey were "defensive juggernauts". But for the offense they put up, they didn't need to be better than, lets say, Scott Stevens, to be ranked higher than him.

In other words, Stevens great defense is not enough for someone to say "Yeah I want him over Leetch and Coffey!" because he wasn't a game breaker in the sense that those 2 players were. You have a better chance of winning with prime Leetch or Coffey on your side than you do with prime Stevens. That's why they should be ranked higher, not because they were "juggernauts" on defense.

I know people who value good defense/big hits don't like to hear that, but it's the truth.

I love offensive defencemen and generally consider offence to be under-rated in defencemen. I understand the value of possessing the puck. The difference is that I recognize that this scale doesn't go to infinity. If you think Leetch, maybe the least defensively minded d-man of all time among d-men who were at all successful, isn't past the tipping point on this I don't know what to tell you though. At some point the risks you're adding offensively are no longer worth it.

 

[danincanada]

As NickyFotio said, you don't get thrown into all types of PK, PP and late game situations if you're bad defensively. Stop trying to push this narrative because it isn't working. Everyone knows Leetch didn't forget how to play hockey after 1997, and that his bad numbers had everything to do with the team he was on than anything he was or wasn't doing. The Rangers at one point tried 6 different Goalies LOL and you think Leetch was the problem? Get serious dude.

And I notice you keep ignoring the point I made about replacing Leetch with Lidstrom on those 98-04 teams. Do you think Rangers fair any better with Lidstrom than with Leetch? Guess what: They would have still missed the playoffs every season, and probably done even worse considering Lidstrom was never in Leetch's league offensively. Rangers were so much better with Leetch on the ice.

And it's funny how Leaf fans don't have one bad word to say about Leetch and loved him during his brief stint there in 2004. You'd think for a guy who was a supposed "train wreck" defensively at least one or two fans would have said it. Instead it was quite the opposite with Leaf fans praising his defense.

Leetch at his best was being compared to Bobby Orr. Lidstrom, as good as he was, was never and will never be compared to Bobby Orr. I respect his accomplishments and recognize that during his career he won a lot. But we're comparing players, not teams. Orr himself "only" won 2 cups and he is considered the greatest ever.

Lidstrom had the "better career" (aka better teams) and will always be ranked higher than Leetch because of that, but I really don't give a crap. I'd take prime Leetch over him in a second.

On one hand you say Leetch's teams were terrible and on the other hand I should put a lot of value in him getting tapped on the shoulder to play a lot and in all situations as they continued to be terrible? Something is off about this, no?

Lidstrom was the best defenseman in the world as early as '98 when he should have won his first Norris and was in the conversation for the Conn Smythe in the same year. He continued being the 1st or 2nd best defenseman from then until '04 when he had a down year, then had another run of 3 straight Norris' and captained a team to a Cup, then won his last "controversial" Norris in '11. It's far too long for it to just be about being surrounded by good players. He propped up the team and those players more than they did for him.

Sure, compare '94 Leetch with Orr. He tilted the ice and was a force - great for him and great for you as a Rangers fan. Don't compare '98 to '04 Leetch with Orr though. See, Orr tilted the ice for his team no matter what. Leetch clearly did not and that's my point here. At some point you're going to need to realize he wasn't as positive an affect on the ice for his team as you want to believe. The roster was not void of talent whatsoever and you know this. Part of his role as captain and best player on the team was to bring those groups together and missing the playoffs every year doesn't point to that either.

For the record, I never said Leetch was a train wreck defensively, just that you can't compare him to Lidstrom during that time. I won't convince you that your team would have been better with Lidstrom than with Leetch from '98 to '04 but I don't care. It's super obvious who was the better player in that span.

 

[Bryce Newman]

I love offensive defencemen and generally consider offence to be under-rated in defencemen. I understand the value of possessing the puck. The difference is that I recognize that this scale doesn't go to infinity. If you think Leetch, maybe the least defensively minded d-man of all time among d-men who were at all successful, isn't past the tipping point on this I don't know what to tell you though. At some point the risks you're adding offensively are no longer worth it.

It's clear you never watched Leetch play if you believe he wasn't "defensive minded". Of all the offensive-minded Defensemen, Leetch was amongst the best playing defense. Feel free to look up quotes from his peers and NHL coaches from back in the day if you doubt what I'm saying. You'll find plenty of them.

If a Defenseman is just all offense though, I do agree that's not exactly a great thing unless you're Paul Coffey, who provided so much offense his defensive shortcomings weren't an issue. Leetch, however, does not fall into the category of offensive Dmen who don't play defense well. He was great in the back end. Never out of position and a great open ice hip checker.

 

[Bryce Newman]

On one hand you say Leetch's teams were terrible and on the other hand I should put a lot of value in him getting tapped on the shoulder to play a lot and in all situations as they continued to be terrible? Something is off about this, no?

Lidstrom was the best defenseman in the world as early as '98 when he should have won his first Norris and was in the conversation for the Conn Smythe in the same year. He continued being the 1st or 2nd best defenseman from then until '04 when he had a down year, then had another run of 3 straight Norris' and captained a team to a Cup, then won his last "controversial" Norris in '11. It's far too long for it to just be about being surrounded by good players. He propped up the team and those players more than they did for him.

Sure, compare '94 Leetch with Orr. He tilted the ice and was a force - great for him and great for you as a Rangers fan. Don't compare '98 to '04 Leetch with Orr though. See, Orr tilted the ice for his team no matter what. Leetch clearly did not and that's my point here. At some point you're going to need to realize he wasn't as positive an affect on the ice for his team as you want to believe. The roster was not void of talent whatsoever and you know this. Part of his role as captain and best player on the team was to bring those groups together and missing the playoffs every year doesn't point to that either.

For the record, I never said Leetch was a train wreck defensively, just that you can't compare him to Lidstrom during that time. I won't convince you that your team would have been better with Lidstrom than with Leetch from '98 to '04 but I don't care. It's super obvious who was the better player in that span.

Not even sure what you're talking about, to be honest. Leetch was great, the rest of the team was awful. Is it really that hard for you to understand? I don't mean to be insulting, but this isn't rocket science or some "big mystery". If you're a great player on a bad team, your GA numbers are going to suck big time. You keep wanting to pin that on Leetch for some weird reason.

Bottom line is you swap Lidstrom with Leetch and those awful Ranger teams still miss the playoffs. Ranger fans who watched the team during that terrible stretch will all tell you Leetch was by far the best player and only bright spot during those years and it's highly doubtful Lidstrom replacing Leetch would have made any difference at all. Lidstrom's GA would have been awful too on those teams. You do understand that, right?

 

[Confused Turnip]

It's clear you never watched Leetch play if you believe he wasn't "defensive minded". Of all the offensive-minded Defensemen, Leetch was amongst the best playing defense. Feel free to look up quotes from his peers and NHL coaches from back in the day if you doubt what I'm saying. You'll find plenty of them.

This is called reversing the burden of proof. And honestly while I generally avoid the whole "it's clear you never watched" argument because it's rude and pointless, since you brought it up, it is actually clear you never watched hockey in the '90s from a lot of stuff you've said in this thread. So don't even bother trying this chirp, it will never land coming from you.

 

[danincanada]

Not even sure what you're talking about, to be honest. Leetch was great, the rest of the team was awful. Is it really that hard for you to understand? I don't mean to be insulting, but this isn't rocket science or some "big mystery". If you're a great player on a bad team, your GA numbers are going to suck big time. You keep wanting to pin that on Leetch for some weird reason.

Bottom line is you swap Lidstrom with Leetch and those awful Ranger teams still miss the playoffs. Ranger fans who watched the team during that terrible stretch will all tell you Leetch was by far the best player and only bright spot during those years and it's highly doubtful Lidstrom replacing Leetch would have made any difference at all. Lidstrom's GA would have been awful too on those teams. You do understand that, right?

You don't know what I'm talking about? I think it's been very clear but you just don't want to accept it.

I know, it was 7 years of bad luck for Leetch. He only had Gretzky, Messier, Richter, Nedved, Fleury, Lindros, Graves, and tons of veteran defenseman with him for large portions of time from '98 to '04. Everyone knows those guys weren't in their primes but there was no lack of talent and his team had lots of money to acquire more each summer, which they did. As the core piece and supposed foundation player of that team it was on Leetch to bring that talent together as well. Something was very off in that regard.

Lidstrom wasn't the best defenseman of his generation simply because of his jersey or teammates, he proved it over and over again through his own play and he would have helped tilt the ice for any team he played on during his prime because he was a huge difference maker defensively and offensively. I thought that was common knowledge but I guess it depends on how much cognitive dissonance one is dealing with.

 

[Bryce Newman]

You don't know what I'm talking about? I think it's been very clear but you just don't want to accept it.

I know, it was 7 years of bad luck for Leetch. He only had Gretzky, Messier, Richter, Nedved, Fleury, Lindros, Graves, and tons of veteran defenseman with him for large portions of time from '98 to '04. Everyone knows those guys weren't in their primes but there was no lack of talent and his team had lots of money to acquire more each summer, which they did. As the core piece and supposed foundation player of that team it was on Leetch to bring that talent together as well. Something was very off in that regard.

Lidstrom wasn't the best defenseman of his generation simply because of his jersey or teammates, he proved it over and over again through his own play and he would have helped tilt the ice for any team he played on during his prime because he was a huge difference maker defensively and offensively. I thought that was common knowledge but I guess it depends on how much cognitive dissonance one is dealing with.

LOL "weren't in their primes"is the understatement of the century right there.

Would the Rangers have made the playoffs any of those years if you replace Leetch with Lidstrom? Of course not, which is why you've never made any comment on that despite me bringing it up several times now. Because even you realize how ridiculous it would sound if you made such a ludicrous statement.

Lidstrom would not have done any better on those teams. Bottom line, and you know it.

 

[danincanada]

LOL now you're trying to say the Rangers had good teams from 98-04? Pathetic that your argument has reached such a low. Messier was an old man when he came back in 2000. Lindros was a shell of what he used to be with post concussion syndrome. Fleury was high on cocaine his entire tenure in NY which he readily admits. This is all common knowledge dude.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that Leetch didn't go from being an elite Defenseman (arguably the best in the entire decade of the 90s) to trash overnight. Anyone except you, apparently.

Replace Leetch on those teams with Chelios, MacInnis, Lidstrom, whoever you want to name, and the result would be exactly the same. You know it, but you're trying to promote a false narrative and it's really sad.

Lets leave it at this: Lidstrom had the better career. Leetch was better at his peak. The End.

I didn't say they were a good team and they clearly weren't because they missed the playoffs 7 seasons in a row. Stop pretending Leetch had nothing to work with though because it's not true. He had a lot more to work with in terms of talent than much of the league at the time. The Rangers had talent, they had money, they had Leetch, but they still stunk and that's a huge problem for someone claiming he was just as good as Lidstrom then. Leetch was far from the biggest problem the Rangers had and I agree with that but he wasn't the solution either, as evidenced by those 7 years.

I also didn't say Leetch was trash but don't tell me their teams was the only difference between him and Lidstrom because it's ridiculous. At one point you claimed the Red Wings would have won the same with a "good defenseman" in place of Lidstrom but you believe Leetch was god level in '94, so I assume he was irreplaceable? By the way you discuss this you'd think Leetch was the guy with 7 Norris' and 4 Cups to his name.

 

[Forgot About Drai]

Pronger should be higher. Neids is awesome but a little too high IMO

 

[danincanada]

LOL "weren't in their primes"is the understatement of the century right there.

Would the Rangers have made the playoffs any of those years if you replace Leetch with Lidstrom? Of course not, which is why you've never made any comment on that despite me bringing it up several times now. Because even you realize how ridiculous it would sound if you made such a ludicrous statement.

Lidstrom would not have done any better on those teams. Bottom line, and you know it.

I'm not here to project what would have happened with hypotheticals. We can only go by what did happen and Lidstrom was clearly the better player from '98 on and it wasn't particularly close overall. We can view their individual stats, how their teams did since they were key cogs on their teams, and we can go back and watch...and look at award voting for their perspective from that time.

Do you really believe that I, or anyone else reading this, am going to agree the difference between them was just their teammates? It's really downplaying how much influence players like that have on their teams success. They played half the game and in all key situations so win or lose they have a big influence on how their teams did. It's not everyone else's fault for Leetch and Lidstrom wasn't just riding the coat tails of a great team, they were foundation pieces for their organizations and they need to be judged as such.

 

[Bryce Newman]

I didn't say they were a good team and they clearly weren't because they missed the playoffs 7 seasons in a row. Stop pretending Leetch had nothing to work with though because it's not true. He had a lot more to work with in terms of talent than much of the league at the time. The Rangers had talent, they had money, they had Leetch, but they still stunk and that's a huge problem for someone claiming he was just as good as Lidstrom then. Leetch was far from the biggest problem the Rangers had and I agree with that but he wasn't the solution either, as evidenced by those 7 years.

I also didn't say Leetch was trash but don't tell me their teams was the only difference between him and Lidstrom because it's ridiculous. At one point you claimed the Red Wings would have won the same with a "good defenseman" in place of Lidstrom but you believe Leetch was god level in '94, so I assume he was irreplaceable? By the way you discuss this you'd think Leetch was the guy with 7 Norris' and 4 Cups to his name.

The 4 cups argument is lame considering Leetch would also have 4 playing on those teams. No, Leetch doesn't have 7 Norris Trophies because he didn't play on stacked teams his entire career. Quite the opposite after he turned 28, unfortunately. You need to play on good teams in order to even be considered for the Norris and no Defenseman in NHL history, Paul Coffey aside, has played on more good teams than Nicklas Lidstrom.

Great teams + Weak Defenseman Era equaled a bunch of Norris Trophies for Lidstrom. Sorry, but that's how I feel about it. I think he's overrated based on the eye test and watching him play and certainly would never take him over a prime Leetch who could take over games by himself.

Consider the competition Leetch had for his 2 Norris wins. Now examine Lidstrom's competition. It's a night and day difference. So it's not all about "how many". Competition level has to be weighed heavily too and Lidstrom did not win 1 Norris Trophy during the best Era for Defensemen ever while Leetch won 2. In fact, Lidstrom did not win anything until he was 30 years old. By the time Leetch was 30, he had already won pretty much every major award you can name. This is why Peak Leetch>Peak Lidstrom.

You don't hit your "peak" after age 30, sorry. This to me really exposes, more than anything, that a large portion of Lidstrom's success can be attributed to other great Defensemen getting old and retiring more so than him being this "dominant force". If he was truly the 2nd best Defenseman ever, or whatever overrated spot you want to put him at, he'd have dominated against the very best. But he didn't. He "dominated" against a much weaker crop of Defensemen. Still a great achivement, no doubt. And in that Era, he was arguably "the best". But in the Era before that, he wasn't. That's why he's not Top 5, in my opinion.

 

[Video Nasty]

Little argument for Lidstrom not residing somewhere between #3-5 all time.

The Cups, the Smythe, the playoff runs, the equivalent of over 3 entire seasons’ worth of playoff games.

7 Norris trophies, 13 times a finalist, 16 consecutive years finishing top 6 from 1995-1996 through the end of his career. 12 All-Star nods. Played nearly all the game available night in and night out for 20 years.

Not really seeing why there’s pushback after the pretty firm 1-2 Boston punch of Orr and Bourque.

 

[Boxscore]

He didn't carry the Oilers and Flyers to Cups, he helped those teams get to the finals.

He was 100% the MAIN reason the Oilers and Flyers made it to the Cup. And he was a big part of the Ducks success. Not sure if you want to go there, considering that during his entire career Lidstrom was surrounded by elite talent...

Yzerman
Shanahan
Fedorov
Datsyuk
Zetterberg
Chelios
Larionov
Fetisov
Kozlov
etc.

The only other defenseman in modern history who was surrounded by that much talent was Coffey on the Oilers, Pens, and... oh... Red Wings.

Throughout the large majority of his career, a guy like Bourque had Neely, then a little Oates and Janney. On the Oilers and Flyers, Pronger had Hemsky, Peca, Richards, Carter, etc. No comparison. Lidstrom had the wonderful fortune of spending his career on a powerhouse team(s) that always had high-end star power.