Brian Leetch: very underrated on hfboards?

[Bryce Newman]

Leetch was a defenseman who could not only put up point, but was in fact not a liability in his own end.

Those defenseman my friends you can count on no more than two hands.

Would you say Leetch was better than, lets say, Al MacInnis defensively?

 

[NickyFotiu]

I think Leetch is easily a Top 10 Defenseman of all-time. The only way he wouldn't be on there is often times when people compile "lists" of the best players in NHL history, they feel compelled to put a bunch of players from the prehistoric age there in the interest of "fairness" which bumps great players like Leetch down much further than they should be. Then the people who make these "lists" can say "See how knowledgeable I am? I included a few guys from the 1930s on there!". And by the time they get to Leetch he's at number 20 or whatever lol.

I'm a huge Leetch fan. I have argued for him being top 10 but I would not say easily. I would say top end is top 10. But I could see anywhere from 10-15. I do not like seeing him below 15. I dont like when people put Chelios or Big Al above him. They were both great in their own way but not as good as Leetch. Leetch won a Norris. I think he could have won 2.

 

[Machinehead]

Would you say Leetch was better than, lets say, Al MacInnis defensively?

I don't think he was any worse. MacInnis was known as an OFD until he played with Pronger on that stupid Blues team that gave up like 80 goals the whole season and then lost in the first round.

 

[Machinehead]

I'm a huge Leetch fan. I have argued for him being top 10 but I would not say easily. I would say top end is top 10. But I could see anywhere from 10-15. I do not like seeing him below 15. I dont like when people put Chelios or Big Al above him. They were both great in their own way but not as good as Leetch. Leetch won a Norris. I think he could have won 2.

He did win 2. He should have won 3. 00-01 was his best season imo. He wasn't even nominated because the Rangers were bad.

But Sc_tt Stevens was nominated with his 31 points.

 

[Edge]

I said this a couple of weeks ago. Fox with 50 powerplay points.

And maybe even a more natural feel for the offensive zone.

When Leetch was drafted there was quite a bit of chatter about whether he'd stick on defense. The contingency plan was to shift him over to center (insert Kakko, Kravtsov, Lafreniere joke here).

But as a whole, Leetch was really like a center who happened to play defense. It really was something to behold back in the day.

 

[NickyFotiu]

He did win 2. He should have won 3. 00-01 was his best season imo. He wasn't even nominated because the Rangers were bad.

But Sc_tt Stevens was nominated with his 31 points.

You are right. He did win two. My memory is not the best. Brian was great. I remember how much different the team looked in the season he hurt his ankle. If We had a healthy Brian we would ave made the playoffs. He was really controlling games in that season. Brian was not great every season but he was underrated for his career. He was better defensively than given credit for in my opinion. He was always out there killing penalties and in the last minutes of games. That is because he was very good defensively.

 

[McRanger]

He did win 2. He should have won 3. 00-01 was his best season imo. He wasn't even nominated because the Rangers were bad.

But Sc_tt Stevens was nominated with his 31 points.

Leetch was awesome but he wasn't better than Lidstrom in '01-'02. Stevens wasn't even the best defenseman on his own team.

Going up against 30's Lidstrom for hardware was like going up against a buzzsaw. Niedermayer was lucky to sneak one in.

 

[AKA Chief]

Leetch was amazing but he took a hit with a lot of Ranger fans and media because he couldn't deliver post-Messier and they blamed some of that on him not being able to handle being the "C."

Guys like Stevens and Pronger get more love because of their physical play. Anybody who diminishes Pronger's ability is nuts. He was a monster. It was no coincidence that he took 3 different teams to the Cup Finals towards the end of his career, including 2 #8 seeds in EDM and PHI (sorry, I did not enjoy mentioning that last one).

Leetch is not better than Bourque or Lidstrom. Sorry. He's in the next tier with Stevens, MacInnis, Chelios and Pronger and I think conventional wisdom might rank him below those 4.

 

[ecemleafs]

the rangers shitting the bed after 97 cost leetch more recognition for his greatness.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Leetch was amazing but he took a hit with a lot of Ranger fans and media because he couldn't deliver post-Messier and they blamed some of that on him not being able to handle being the "C."

Guys like Stevens and Pronger get more love because of their physical play. Anybody who diminishes Pronger's ability is nuts. He was a monster. It was no coincidence that he took 3 different teams to the Cup Finals towards the end of his career, including 2 #8 seeds in EDM and PHI (sorry, I did not enjoy mentioning that last one).

Leetch is not better than Bourque or Lidstrom. Sorry. He's in the next tier with Stevens, MacInnis, Chelios and Pronger and I think conventional wisdom might rank him below those 4.

And just to reiterate, this is not a criticism of Leetch. Being roughly the 25th greatest defenseman in history (repeat: the >120 year history of the sport) is an EXTRAORDINARY accolade. And rightfully so, because Brian was an extraordinary player.

 

[Calad]

Main difference between Fox and Leetch is that Fox is able to slow the game down and pick it apart whereas Leetch pushed the pace and still picked it apart.

 

[Peltz]

Last post from me for the night since I doubt we'll change each other's minds.

Stevens didn't decline overnight, he shifted his gameplay and focus. He went from an elite defender and excellent offensive contributor to one of the greatest defenders in history who no longer got any PP time or took any risks in the offensive zone.

And even so, Calling him a black-hole offensively in his latter years might be a bit of stretch. From 1997-98 until 2003-04, Leetch scored 154 EV points in 495 games (0.31 EV PPG), Stevens scored 134 EV points in 515 games (0.26 EV PPG). That's a difference of 4 even strength points a season in Leetch's favor, hardly worthy of calling Stevens a black hole.


EDIT: I'll also note that Stevens is literally my most hated player of all time. The fact that I'm actually defending him in these posts is making my skin crawl. The fact of the matter is, he is absolutely in the same tier as Leetch and many (probably most) historians have him a half-step above (Stevens in the low 20s, Leetch in the mid 20s).

Yea, I'd also consider him equal to Leetch even though I hated him. He was an excellent defenseman.

 

[Peltz]

Pretty sure most view him as the best rangers D of all time

Is that even disputable? He's maybe the best Ranger in the history of the organization.

Sure, Gretzky was the best player to ever play for the team when you look at his overall career. But Leetch was the best Ranger.

 

[HFBS]

Yes, for several reasons:

1. Leetch was American playing for an American team that spent money. Canadian media establishment never liked that combination unless the player was overwhelmingly dominant.

2. Leetch was never respected for his defense, which was criminally underrated.

3. Rangers sucked for his final 7 seasons. Hurt his production and standing among NHL elites. Cost him a lot of Norris votes.

The bottom line is simple — Leetch, outside of Bobby Orr, had the greatest single postseason run of any defenseman in league history. It will never be duplicated, especially when you factor in the weight of a 54 year jinx, and two 7-game series in the CF and SCF.

Pretty much this. Especially #1.

 

[Bryce Newman]

Leetch was amazing but he took a hit with a lot of Ranger fans and media because he couldn't deliver post-Messier and they blamed some of that on him not being able to handle being the "C."

Guys like Stevens and Pronger get more love because of their physical play. Anybody who diminishes Pronger's ability is nuts. He was a monster. It was no coincidence that he took 3 different teams to the Cup Finals towards the end of his career, including 2 #8 seeds in EDM and PHI (sorry, I did not enjoy mentioning that last one).

Leetch is not better than Bourque or Lidstrom. Sorry. He's in the next tier with Stevens, MacInnis, Chelios and Pronger and I think conventional wisdom might rank him below those 4.

Bourque and Lidstrom's peak weren't as high as Leetch's. They had better overall careers because they played on better teams, but as mentioned here before Bourque had a lot of playoff flops in Boston while Leetch had a historic run in 94.

Leetch actually had more points per game for a Dman in the 90s than Bourque in the playoffs (Leetch #1 overall, Bourque #2) and in my opinion, was the better Defenseman from 92 onward. he was also right behind Bourque for Defensemen points in the 90s. (Regular season, Bourque #1 Leetch #2)

As far as MacInnis and Chelios, Leetch was better. Especially MacInnis. He had a powerful shot, but Leetch pretty much did everything else better. Skating, passing, puck handling etc. And their defense was, at best for MacInnis, equal. Chelios had longevity, but do the Rangers win in 94 if you swap Leetch and Chelios? I think you know the answer to that question is a resounding "no".

Lidstrom just never did anything for me, to be honest. Nobody can ever seem to produce a good highlight reel for this guy. I guess I'll get killed for saying this but I would take prime Leetch over him any day. He played on stacked Wing teams his entire career.

Imagine Leetch on stacked teams where he was just able to focus on his game and wasn't overburdened night after night logging massive minutes trying to do everything. Lidstrom was afforded that luxury his entire career. But Leetch had more natural talent than Lidstrom, in my opinion. Lidstrom to me just doesn't pass the eye test. But to each their own.

 

[blue425]

I think Leetch is easily a Top 10 Defenseman of all-time. The only way he wouldn't be on there is often times when people compile "lists" of the best players in NHL history, they feel compelled to put a bunch of players from the prehistoric age there in the interest of "fairness" which bumps great players like Leetch down much further than they should be. Then the people who make these "lists" can say "See how knowledgeable I am? I included a few guys from the 1930s on there!". And by the time they get to Leetch he's at number 20 or whatever lol.

Would you say Leetch was better than, lets say, Al MacInnis defensively?

Too young too really say to be honest. I was only 10 when Leetch entered the league and all I knew about Macinnis was that shot since I didn't get to see him play all that often. I didn't have the understanding of the game I do now either. To give you a real answer I would have to spend some time watching Macinnis play.

As far as ranked best of lists - I hate them. I am much more a fan of tier lists. That said Macinnis and Leetch probably occupy the same tier with Pronger/Niedemayer simply by going on what I am seeing in this thread, which is amazing company to be in. Any one of those guys could completely take over a game by themselves.

 

[Bryce Newman]

As far as ranked best of lists - I hate them. I am much more a fan of tier lists.

Very interesting. So you mean instead of ranking players by number, you put them in tier categories? I like that. Would be interesting to split that up into a few categories, like "longevity tier" and "peak tier" etc.

 

[Bryce Newman]

Boy look at how "1 dimensional" Leetch is here!

 

[alkurtz]

I think it is also the case that, as posters skew younger and with few if any memories of what an "older" player was like, they tend to underrate the older player. This is normal and really no reason to be upset. And, you certainly don't want to be an old curmudgeon and constantly defend older players and that things were better "in the old days." I seem to remember a poll of Yankee fans that rated whoever was the current Yankee first baseman as being better than Lou Gehrig.

I think in the case with BL. the emergence of Adam Fox has put the spotlight on Leetch and the natural tendency of younger fans is to embrace their "own" to the detriment of "the older generation's favorite." Again, this is normal, and really nothing to be annoyed about.

Even though I have been a fan for many multiple of decades, I personally take pride in never saying that things were better "back in the day" because, honestly, they were not. Changing modes of play, strategy, tactics, and training advances, make it difficult to compare "old" and "young." Without a doubt, the players today, on average, are faster, more skilled, and better conditioned than the players even back circa 1994, which doesn't feel that long ago to me. I take pride in being able to look at things objectively across the years.

Adam Fox is a special player who just might become an all-time franchise player. He is still so young and it is fascinating to think of just how much better he will become with experience. He also plays in a different era than BL did, where an offensively gifted defenseman's role was different and it is unlikely that he will ever put up the numbers that BL did.

BL became a very good defender: he wasn't at the start of his career. I have hope that Fox will show the same progression. Honestly, right now, if we judge AF by his goal front presence and ability to defend down low, he is average at best. But that isn't how Dmen are defined these days and he certainly more than compensates by his extraordinary ability to carry the puck and vision.

But it is unlikely that he will ever surpass BL as BL was an exceptional skater. Fox depends on quickness more than sheer skating ability. I also don't see AF as being as gifted offensively as BL in terms of his shot. He is certainly BL's equal in terms of vision and on-ice IQ. That is saying a lot. The comparison between the two is fascinating and although sports fans across all sports have always enjoyed arguing about who was better over the years, I always try to be objective. BL was perhaps the greatest Ranger of all-time. The passage of years has begun to dim his memories and accomplishments. Younger fans may only have stories of him told by their "elders." It is normal for younger fans to grasp onto their own, especially when their "own" is an exceptional player like Adam Fox. But, those of us who remember Leetch in his prime, recall how incredible he was. Not just an all-star caliber defenseman, but all all-time great, That's not being objective or subjective, that is simply a fact.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Ask yourself: how many of today’s young, puck-moving studs are in the NHL because of Brian Leetch? Approx. 100%? Your Fox, Hughes, Makar, McAvoy, DeAngelo, Hamilton, Werenski, Theodore, and so on.

Not to mention the previous wave of guys like Carlson, Del Zotto, Shattenkirk, Faulk, Krug, Yandle, Fowler, etc.

Think it’s a coincidence that almost all of these players are from the United States?...(I don’t know who Trouba’s favorite player was growing up, unfortunately.)

I'll actually claim the National US hockey program basically copying the heavily reformed Swedish hockey program has alot more to do with it. Some pretty heavy hockey voices in Sweden said especially Swedish junior hockey had to adapt or die and improve in alot of identified key areas. Not enough elite players were developed and too many quit playing too early. This was around 2001-2003. The man in charge was Tommy Boustedt.

Sweden "stole" what they considered the best ideas from other countries how to play hockey (Canada, US, Czech Republic, Finland, Russia, etc) and even ideas and cooperation with other sports how to train (football, tennis, etc) and didn't try to make it a secret, more of the opposite invited international cooperation. The end result was a program of about 100 points in 10 different areas. Boustedt even held lectures about this in many other countries, including the US. Apparantly it was the US hockey federation that took the biggest interest in this reformed program and also started this reform on their own.

Interview with Boustedt in broken English . He talks about the hockey program when it's about -41 minutes left of the interview and specifially of the international cooperation with about -35:45 left.
PODCAST: Boustedt om "juniorutredningen" & svensk hockeys utveckling - Hockeysverige


Not that idols like Leetch are irrelevant -far from it - but I think the hockey program reform for how you systematically train defensemen (and all player positions of course) on a national level has more to do with it. Swedish and US defensemen for example are very similar in playstyle now. Great skaters, good with the puck, very mobile and versatile. Since the US has alot more players to work with, it also produces more elite players than Sweden for example. After the reform, the change in the quality and quantity of US elite players has been quite significant.

US hockey is doing amazing and I think the reformed development program has a huge part in that. I'm not trying to brag Sweden is the cause of it, more that the US hockey federation was smart enough to jump on the train of a real effort.

 

[BKGooner]

Imagine what Fox is going, with even more offensive talent and roughly double the production.

That was prime Brian Leetch.

And ++skating

 

[Inferno]

Last post from me for the night since I doubt we'll change each other's minds.

Stevens didn't decline overnight, he shifted his gameplay and focus. He went from an elite defender and excellent offensive contributor to one of the greatest defenders in history who no longer got any PP time or took any risks in the offensive zone.

And even so, Calling him a black-hole offensively in his latter years might be a bit of stretch. From 1997-98 until 2003-04, Leetch scored 154 EV points in 495 games (0.31 EV PPG), Stevens scored 134 EV points in 515 games (0.26 EV PPG). That's a difference of 4 even strength points a season in Leetch's favor, hardly worthy of calling Stevens a black hole.


EDIT: I'll also note that Stevens is literally my most hated player of all time. The fact that I'm actually defending him in these posts is making my skin crawl. The fact of the matter is, he is absolutely in the same tier as Leetch and many (probably most) historians have him a half-step above (Stevens in the low 20s, Leetch in the mid 20s).

The only reason stevens was an elite defender was because he was the dirtiest player in league history and nobody wanted their career ended by him so they stayed the hell away from his side of the ice.

 

[BKGooner]

One way to look at the problem is to establish the greatest American defensemen to date. The list of contenders is pretty short and Brian Leetch is right at the top for me. Maybe Chelios can compete. Maybe Housley but he was substantially worse defensively. If you get to that point you can start to sort his place among his peers. From the late 80s to late 90s BL is a top 5 to top ten player at his position. So in the history of the league that probably puts him in the top 20-25 historically. Probably a lot of recency bias on my part and just remembering guys I’ve seen.

 

[BKGooner]

I don't think he was any worse. MacInnis was known as an OFD until he played with Pronger on that stupid Blues team that gave up like 80 goals the whole season and then lost in the first round.

MacInnis was a better defensive player but not by much. The only thing really separating MacInnis from other high end defenders was his shot. We should do a mock draft of d only from 85 to 99.

 

[Synergy27]

In today’s NHL that is two slashing penalties in a matter of 1-2 seconds lol. This guy was getting hacked left and right every time he had the puck. Imagine him in his prime with the rules today. Leetch is criminally underrated because he was loyal to fault. As said before by other posters, if he would’ve left his stats and career most likely would’ve been much higher/longer. However don’t think he ever cared about that. He wanted to be a Ranger for life and it crushed him when he was traded. As far as how the rankings go he will always be knocked down a notch because of the dark ages. This guy a treat to watch day in and day out. His style of play would’ve been successful in any era of hockey including today.

And rightfully so, by the way. Those are two legit, forceful hacks. Should have been a penalty then as well.

The NHL has over compensated to a degree. Too much ticky tacky stuff gets penalized nowadays for my liking. But it’s preferable to that era when hacks like that and straight up water skiing hooks went uncalled.