Where does Neidermayer rank?

[tjcurrie]

bravecanadian basically said it for me. but just so we don't have this infuriating conversation yet again, the difference between 1 and 2 is enormous. the difference between 2 and 5 is significant, but smaller. so the difference between 35 and 55 isn't all that big at all. the difference between 250 and 350 is probably almost nothing.

So if I said that Zubov is right there with Niedermayer and Murphy, maybe rank them 32, 33, and 34 in any order - is there much of an argument against? Or would that be easily possible since there isn't much of a difference between say 35 and 55 or so? Can you basically pick the next 30 names out of a hat once you get to about 30? The problem is though Zubov wasn't ranked 55, he wasn't even in the top 60. So does that mean that yes there's a larger gap between him and those ranked in the early-mid 30s? Or is it still splitting hairs? And if it is splitting hairs, then yes I should be able to place him up there with those guys and there shouldn't be much on argument. The answer should be "yes its very possible". Not a definitive "no way".

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

So if I said that Zubov is right there with Niedermayer and Murphy, maybe rank them 32, 33, and 34 in any order - is there much of an argument against? Or would that be easily possible since there isn't much of a difference between say 35 and 55 or so? Can you basically pick the next 30 names out of a hat once you get to about 30? The problem is though Zubov wasn't ranked 55, he wasn't even in the top 60. So does that mean that yes there's a larger gap between him and those ranked in the early-mid 30s? Or is it still splitting hairs? And if it is splitting hairs, then yes I should be able to place him up there with those guys and there shouldn't be much on argument. The answer should be "yes its very possible". Not a definitive "no way".

no no no.

i mean, niedermayer was better than both murphy and zubov. and murphy was better than zubov.

now what i'm saying, and bear with me here because this involves numbers, is that while the degree of difference between #1 and #5 (orr and lidstrom) may be much bigger than the degree of difference between #32 and #50 (lapointe and murphy), there still happens to be a lot more guys who fit between #32 and #50 than between #1 and #5. therefore, whatever zubov might have placed, whether it's #61 or #70 or whatever, is closer to murphy (#50) or blake (#44) or niedermayer (#33) than how big the numerical gap really is.

which is to say that you keep harping on this gap of 30 between niedermayer and zubov, but the number of guys between them doesn't correlate to the size of the gap. it just correlates to the number of guys in a certain tier of defenseman.

but i think what you're really forgetting here is that larry murphy played for the stars once too.

 

[Plural]

Exactly.

One way to look at it is a pyramid.

The highest tier of players is the tip of the pyramid, in this case we are talking about D, so it's Orr.
Next level of the pyramid is wider, including guys like, Potvin, Bourque, Lidstrom...
Next level is again wider, so is the next one.

When we get to the 30-50-70 numbers the level of the pyramid is so wide that a range of 20 defenseman can be slotted in the same tier.

But they still need to be ranked, and that is where the numbers are needed.

 

[tjcurrie]

no no no.

i mean, niedermayer was better than both murphy and zubov. and murphy was better than zubov.

now what i'm saying, and bear with me here because this involves numbers, is that while the degree of difference between #1 and #5 (orr and lidstrom) may be much bigger than the degree of difference between #32 and #50 (lapointe and murphy), there still happens to be a lot more guys who fit between #32 and #50 than between #1 and #5. therefore, whatever zubov might have placed, whether it's #61 or #70 or whatever, is closer to murphy (#50) or blake (#44) or niedermayer (#33) than how big the numerical gap really is.

which is to say that you keep harping on this gap of 30 between niedermayer and zubov, but the number of guys between them doesn't correlate to the size of the gap. it just correlates to the number of guys in a certain tier of defenseman.

but i think what you're really forgetting here is that larry murphy played for the stars once too.

I understand what you're saying. But the fact is that regardless of the number of positions between them on the list, if the actual gap isn't much then there's easily an argument for Zubov to be ranked much higher, right? You might not personally agree with it, but being that it's a small gap - you have to allow for a margin of error and say that yes it is possible for Zubov to be ranked much higher. I mean, it's not an exact science, is it?

Yes I have the Pro-Set card too. And personally I take Zubov on my team ahead of Murphy. But since there isn't much of a gap either way, I'm willing to accept an argument for Murphy and say that yes that's possible too.

You can't on one hand say that there isn't much of a gap, and then refute any argument for them to be shuffled around.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm surprised nobody picked up on there being only 5 post-1980 defensemen between 34 and 60, while there were 6 of them between 18 and 29.

Is it because there actually is a huge drop off in modern defensemen after Mark Howe and Rod Langway?

Or were we unintentionally biased towards superstar defensemen we actually saw play while being biased against still great but flawed defensemen we saw play?

 

[ot92s]

Chara already has, Keith never will.

You'd have to be blind to say neids game was more impactful than chara so we agree there. But Keith is already every bit the player neidemeier was too, so you're wrong about that.

Neids is currently holding the title belt for most overrated player in history around here. The other day people were saying he was better than forsberg.

 

[Big Phil]

There's another interesting thread. Murphy vs. Niedermayer. Again, I can't say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Niedermayer is ahead of him, there are lots of cases for both.

As for the one talking about Zubov, I agree, Zubov isn't that far behind him. He's behind him alright, but there is still a lot to like about Zubov. For whatever reason people seem to think Niedermayer was infallible.

 

[tjcurrie]

There's another interesting thread. Murphy vs. Niedermayer. Again, I can't say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Niedermayer is ahead of him, there are lots of cases for both.

As for the one talking about Zubov, I agree, Zubov isn't that far behind him. He's behind him alright, but there is still a lot to like about Zubov. For whatever reason people seem to think Niedermayer was infallible.

Zubov was always one of the top few Dmen when compared to his contemporaries (early 90s on) and was right there with the pack when it came to Lidstrom, Pronger, Niedermayer, Blake so I find it hard to believe that there is 30+ players between the tail end of that pack and Zubov. Seems pretty random and once again proves how overlooked he is.

Again, I have no problem with someone ranking Niedermayer ahead, but there's also an argument to rank Zubov ahead of him. But there shouldn't be a gap anywhere there. They're extremely close, great comparisons, and should be ranked pretty much side by side regardless of order.

Anyways, we could beat this thing to death again and again and again. That's my story and I'm s-s-s-stickin' to it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Zubov was always one of the top few Dmen when compared to his contemporaries (early 90s on) and was right there with the pack when it came to Lidstrom, Pronger, Niedermayer, Blake so I find it hard to believe that there is 30+ players between the tail end of that pack and Zubov. Seems pretty random and once again proves how overlooked he is.

Again, I have no problem with someone ranking Niedermayer ahead, but there's also an argument to rank Zubov ahead of him. But there shouldn't be a gap anywhere there. They're extremely close, great comparisons, and should be ranked pretty much side by side regardless of order.

Anyways, we could beat this thing to death again and again and again. That's my story and I'm s-s-s-stickin' to it.

Not a very good one, IMO. The argument for Zubov is basically that Niedermayer's worst was worse than Zubov's worst. And that's true - Zubov was always a "very good" defenseman through the 90s, while Niedermayer was more up and down.

At their best, Niedermayer was better. And Niedermayer was at his best for longer than Zubov was. Talk about Niedermayer's short peak all you want, Zubov was really only at his best for 1-2 seasons.

 

[Big Phil]

Zubov was always one of the top few Dmen when compared to his contemporaries (early 90s on) and was right there with the pack when it came to Lidstrom, Pronger, Niedermayer, Blake so I find it hard to believe that there is 30+ players between the tail end of that pack and Zubov. Seems pretty random and once again proves how overlooked he is.

Again, I have no problem with someone ranking Niedermayer ahead, but there's also an argument to rank Zubov ahead of him. But there shouldn't be a gap anywhere there. They're extremely close, great comparisons, and should be ranked pretty much side by side regardless of order.

Anyways, we could beat this thing to death again and again and again. That's my story and I'm s-s-s-stickin' to it.

No, there isn't a whole lot separating them at all. Zubov's lone 2nd team all-star in 2006 hurts him in these discussions though. Niedermayer, Pronger, Lidstrom and even Blake were just peaking higher than him. Zubov in 1994 was something to behold though. Can't blame him for not getting an all-star that year since he had Bourque, Stevens, Leetch and MacInnis to compete against. I don't think Niedermayer's best season would fare any better in 1994 either.

Leetch, Messier and Richter always get the credit for 1994. Modano, Hull and Belfour for 1999. Zubov was on both teams and played great for both teams.

I really don't know why he wasn't noticed more. Overshadowed in the NHL I guess. Does anyone know why Zubov didn't play for Russia after the 1996 World Cup? There has to be a reason. No way he isn't good enough for the team.

I guess a lot of people thought of him as a Phil Housley type. Not overly physical, didn't stand out defensively, although he did fine I thought.

Yeah, not sure why he gets underrated.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I understand what you're saying. But the fact is that regardless of the number of positions between them on the list, if the actual gap isn't much then there's easily an argument for Zubov to be ranked much higher, right? You might not personally agree with it, but being that it's a small gap - you have to allow for a margin of error and say that yes it is possible for Zubov to be ranked much higher. I mean, it's not an exact science, is it?

Yes I have the Pro-Set card too. And personally I take Zubov on my team ahead of Murphy. But since there isn't much of a gap either way, I'm willing to accept an argument for Murphy and say that yes that's possible too.

You can't on one hand say that there isn't much of a gap, and then refute any argument for them to be shuffled around.

well i invited you to make that argument, didn't i?

with a straight face, tell me why zubov belongs in the same sentence as larry murphy.

 

[seventieslord]

You'd have to be blind to say neids game was more impactful than chara so we agree there. But Keith is already every bit the player neidemeier was too, so you're wrong about that.

Neids is currently holding the title belt for most overrated player in history around here. The other day people were saying he was better than forsberg.

You're the second person to respond to that, so let me add that Niedermayer was abnormally good after age 30 compared to before age 30. If Keith does the exact same thing... sure, he'll be better. But then he'd be experiencing the same abnormality.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The reason why things get so "muddy" with most of these guys is due to lack of consistency.

They all had ups and downs, some pretty severely in both directions.

Niedermayer is overrated in general IMO.

Chara goes from looking like the immovable object countering the unstoppable force one season to being just another good D-man the next.

Zubov gets overrated on his later defensive play constantly. He went from being a liability positionally to not being a liability, that's it. He was still horrible in the corners, still horrible in front of his own net and he still lost a lot of his one on one battles.

Pronger had anger and injury issues, nuf said.

We still don't know which Keith we're going to see year to year. The one that could take over games for stretches or the one that just does his job and nothing more.

Blake was good and he was consistent, the issue I always had with Blake was that his best simply wasn't as good as a lot of these others best. It was their bad/average years that allowed Blake to look better.

When one looks at the top 20-30 you just simply see more out of those players than you do of the ones mentioned here.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yes this again. Is that okay?

My mistake. I thought he was about 27th.

Regardless, that doesn't change anything really. I'm not saying 27th or 33rd is unreasonable. I'm saying 30+ spots between he and Zubov is. It's 100% ridiculousness.

Probably the difference between a Hall of Famer and a Not Hall of Famer.