Hockey History Forum flips out over Brian Leetch All-Time ranking

[Henry Gill]

Brian Leetch was ranked 6th best Defenseman of All-Time by hockey fans over on Ranker.com:

The Best Defensemen in NHL History

The best NHL defensemen of all time include Norris Trophy winners, Stanley Cup winners and some of the most talented players to ever put on a pair of skates. These professional hockey defensemen aren't just the best to ever man the blue line in the National Hockey League but also some of the best...

www.ranker.com

So I made a post about the Top 10 Greatest Defensemen, as ranked by the fans, over of the History Forum. They really liked the list EXCEPT for the fact that Leetch was on it (surprise, surprise). The way Leetch is crapped on over there is unbelievable.

This is the post: Top 10 NHL Defensemen All-Time Ranked By Fans

I mean, is it really that shocking that Leetch would make the Top 10? I feel as if he has every right to at least be in the conversation about it. I can't speak for players of the past I didn't see, but I used to watch a lot of hockey in the 90s. Not just the Rangers. And NOBODY was better in the 90s than Leetch as far as Defensemen go.

I guess it shouldn't irk me, but it does. Stupid comments like "Leetch sucked at defense!" NO HE DIDN'T!!! One of the things that made Leetch special was how he controlled BOTH ends of the ice! Why do some people over there continue to INSIST he couldn't play D?

Anyway, at least the fans on Ranker got it right. It's actually a really good Top 10. But man, they really HATE Leetch on the History Forum, LOL!

Click to read more...

 

[mrmovies779]

I love Leetch,but he isn't on my top 10.Hell,I would probably pick Park over him

 

[Henry Gill]

I love Leetch,but he isn't on my top 10.Hell,I would probably pick Park over him

Nah. Leetch is right where he should be in the Top 10. Park was a great player but Leetch was special. "The greatest Ranger ever" according to Mark Messier. I concur.

 

[eco's bones]

He's the best ever Rangers D that I've seen and I'd have Brad Park (who I've also seen--started following the Rangers in 1971-72) second with Adam Fox coming on hard already. It's not that important to me what fans from other fanbases think but of course they're going to have their own takes. IMO Leetch coming in 6th did about as well in the poll as he possibly could. I'm actually surprised that the top 10 include players like Harvey,Shore, Kelly etc. who I'm pretty sure almost no one currently posting on HF have ever seen other than in clips here and there on YouTube.

Like other sports hockey is a game that is always evolving but what's currently going on always takes precedence and has advantage over something that happened in the past and memory really tends to fade the further and further back we go and for shorter term fans there's not even that to fall back on.

 

[NickyFotiu]

6 may be a little high but Brian has a legit case for top 10.

 

[GENESISPuck94]

He's ranked exactly where he should be. I don't really give a shit about other people's opinions.

He is 8th all-time in scoring for defensemen but the caveat is that he played significantly less games than the 7 ahead of him except for Potvin. He also played less games than 3 of the 4 behind him.

Of the top 12 scoring defensemen of all time only 2 players played less games.

Also unlike everyone else on the list he did everything with two ankles held together by pins, on shit teams, through the dead puck era. Almost every other player on the list was insulated by teams stacked with hall of famers. Leetch in his entire NHL career was only ever on 3 good teams. 92, 94, 97. Rangers wasted the rest of his career.

It's not even opinion, it's fact. And the reason he gets shit by the snobs is because Canadian bias and arrogance.

 

[Kocur26]

Americans are obsessed with lists and power rankings.

 

[SML2]

What takes away from Leetch is he spent over half his career on a Ranger team that was awful after 1997. If they had moved him to Detroit the rest of the league did have appreciated him like NY does.

 

[SML2]

The lists comparing players really should define eras and call it a day. Top 5 of the original 6 era. End. Top 5 of the post expansion era. End. Top 5 of the WHA absorption era. End, and so on. To compare players who nobody has ever seen and never played against each other is a fool's errand. Apple's and oranges with all the differences. At the end of the day you still don't have an answer as to who is the best.

 

[NYR94]

He's ranked exactly where he should be. I don't really give a shit about other people's opinions.

He is 8th all-time in scoring for defensemen but the caveat is that he played significantly less games than the 7 ahead of him except for Potvin. He also played less games than 3 of the 4 behind him.

Of the top 12 scoring defensemen of all time only 2 players played less games.

Also unlike everyone else on the list he did everything with two ankles held together by pins, on shit teams, through the dead puck era. Almost every other player on the list was insulated by teams stacked with hall of famers. Leetch in his entire NHL career was only ever on 3 good teams. 92, 94, 97. Rangers wasted the rest of his career.

It's not even opinion, it's fact. And the reason he gets shit by the snobs is because Canadian bias and arrogance.

All of this. It's really sad how bad those dark ages teams were.

 

[Henry Gill]

All of this. It's really sad how bad those dark ages teams were.

We basically wasted a good chunk of Leetch's career. Always bothered me and still does. If they rebuilt right away they could have been decent to good again with a few years, but they were mismanaged horribly.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Leetch was incredible but so were a lot of defensemen in history. I disagree that he sucked at defense, he was good. But in the end, Leetch's prime didn't last so long. Why is Leetch better than Robinson, for example? Robinson was basically Pronger without the suspensions, without the injuries and without the constant changing teams. Wouldn't you take that over Leetch? I know I would, and I like Leetch very much.

Of course it's hard to compare wildly different defensemen prototypes like Robinson/Pronger to a Leetch, who was more of a great skating puck rusher. But then I wonder, why is Brian Leetch better historically than Harry Cameron, who was exactly like Leetch in style, with similar accomplishments? I realize almost nobody know who Harry Cameron is, but if you want to come up with a serious list, you need to know all eras. No way around that. Otherwise it's just lazy.

Red Kelly was definitely better than Brian Leetch. As a defenseman, he was very similar in both style and accomplishments, although even then Kelly accomplished more and at some point was like the best player in the world, in a league that included Gordie Howe, Maurice Richard, Ted Lindsay, etc. But then Kelly got traded to Toronto in his 30s, where he played a key role as a Top 6 center on another dynastic team. Meanwhile Leetch declined in his 30s and did nothing spectacular from that point on.

At his best, I would take Leetch over Chelios, but I wouldn't take him over Ray Bourque. Then again, Chelios was excellent for a very long time.

Bobby Orr and Doug Harvey were definitely better than Leetch any way you slice it. Harvey was an absolute magician on the ice. The real cornerstone of the late-1950's Montreal megadynasty, that included players like prime Jean Béliveau, mid-30s Maurice Richard, prime Jacques Plante, etc. The only way to win a Norris trophy against prime Doug Harvey, is if he missed time due to injury, which only happened once in 8 years.

Eddie Shore was the best player in the world for a good 5 years, maybe more. He won 4 Hart trophies, although in that era it was easier for defensemen to get votes for the Hart than it is today, so you need to adjust for that, but regardless, he was on top.

Denis Potvin was absolutely better than Brian Leetch. He was like Brian Leetch but with Scott Stevens's physicality and Mark Messier's leadership added to the package. Insane.

Lidstrom is Lidstrom, he won 7 Norris. Maybe at his best Leetch was better, but Lidstrom was great for a long time, and was the constant behind all of Detroit's 4 Stanley Cup championships.

Slava Fetisov was basically Ray Bourque playing in the Soviet Union, but with lesser longevity.

Then you add the guys like King Clancy, Sprague Cleghorn, Brad Park, Pierre Pilote, Chris Pronger, Scott Stevens, Tim Horton, Earl Seibert, all of which have a case against Leetch. King Clancy was basically another Leetch in style, and he too had amazing playoff MVP runs.

It's not about devaluing Leetch, it's about being fair to every player from all eras. I don't think Leetch is a Top 10 defenseman ever based on his accomplishment, although on talent he may have been in the 7th-12th range, behind the obvious names like Harvey, Orr, Potvin, etc.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Some things rarely mentioned is there have only been 5 defensemen in history to score 100 points. Brian is 1 of those 5. Another thing that may be even cooler. There are only 3 defensemen to ever have 80 or more assists. Brian is 1. The other 2 were Orr and Coffey.

Some younger fans overrate Lidstroms Norris Trophies in my opinion. Those are sportswriter given awards. Look at the guys Lidstrom had to beat out. Most great dmen were either retired or out of their prime. He was beating guys that could not compare to Leetch.

Chellios was an animal but he did not have the high end ceiling of Leetch. He played forever but I do not even think he was better than Stevens.

I cant speak about Red Kelly or Eddie Shore. They were before my time. I saw a bit of Orr. I did not see Harvey but my dad raved about him.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Some things rarely mentioned is there have only been 5 defensemen in history to score 100 points. Brian is 1 of those 5. Another thing that may be even cooler. There are only 3 defensemen to ever have 80 or more assists. Brian is 1. The other 2 were Orr and Coffey.

Some younger fans overrate Lidstroms Norris Trophies in my opinion. Those are sportswriter given awards. Look at the guys Lidstrom had to beat out. Most great dmen were either retired or out of their prime. He was beating guys that could not compare to Leetch.

Chellios was an animal but he did not have the high end ceiling of Leetch. He played forever but I do not even think he was better than Stevens.

I cant speak about Red Kelly or Eddie Shore. They were before my time. I saw a bit of Orr. I did not see Harvey but my dad raved about him.

This doesn't say much without the context of the league and scoring environment. The value of 100 pts and 80 assists fluctuate every year. No player, including forwards, ever scored 100 pts before Phil Esposito did it in 1969.

I do agree with you that some of Lidstrom's Norris were overrated, especially as his best competitor, Chris Pronger, was often injured or had a tendency to f*** up his regular seasons, and then reveal his true talent in the playoffs. Meanwhile Leetch was facing very tough competition in the early-1990s.

But would I rank Leetch over Lidstrom? It's a tough sell in light of their overall body of work, even if I think Leetch was better at his zenith.

 

[NickyFotiu]

This doesn't say much without the context of the league and scoring environment. The value of 100 pts and 80 assists fluctuate every year. No player, including forwards, ever scored 100 pts before Phil Esposito did it in 1969.

I do agree with you that some of Lidstrom's Norris were overrated, especially as his best competitor, Chris Pronger, was often injured or had a tendency to f*** up his regular seasons, and then reveal his true talent in the playoffs. Meanwhile Leetch was facing very tough competition in the early-1990s.

But would I rank Leetch over Lidstrom? It's a tough sell in light of their overall body of work, even if I think Leetch was better at his zenith.

There were other really good guys playing in the same era as Leetch? Before? After? Outside of Orr and Coffey nobody else has had 80 assists. That is pretty special imo.

I do not know where I have Lidstrom. His career as a whole (like 20 years) is impressive but I never watched him and was like wow that guy is like Orr, Potvin, Coffey, Bourque or Leetch. I have him in my top 10 but really I have no idea where other than to say it would not be top 5.

 

[Machinehead]

Leetch was incredible but so were a lot of defensemen in history. I disagree that he sucked at defense, he was good. But in the end, Leetch's prime didn't last so long. Why is Leetch better than Robinson, for example? Robinson was basically Pronger without the suspensions, without the injuries and without the constant changing teams. Wouldn't you take that over Leetch? I know I would, and I like Leetch very much.

Of course it's hard to compare wildly different defensemen prototypes like Robinson/Pronger to a Leetch, who was more of a great skating puck rusher. But then I wonder, why is Brian Leetch better historically than Harry Cameron, who was exactly like Leetch in style, with similar accomplishments? I realize almost nobody know who Harry Cameron is, but if you want to come up with a serious list, you need to know all eras. No way around that. Otherwise it's just lazy.

Red Kelly was definitely better than Brian Leetch. As a defenseman, he was very similar in both style and accomplishments, although even then Kelly accomplished more and at some point was like the best player in the world, in a league that included Gordie Howe, Maurice Richard, Ted Lindsay, etc. But then Kelly got traded to Toronto in his 30s, where he played a key role as a Top 6 center on another dynastic team. Meanwhile Leetch declined in his 30s and did nothing spectacular from that point on.

At his best, I would take Leetch over Chelios, but I wouldn't take him over Ray Bourque. Then again, Chelios was excellent for a very long time.

Bobby Orr and Doug Harvey were definitely better than Leetch any way you slice it. Harvey was an absolute magician on the ice. The real cornerstone of the late-1950's Montreal megadynasty, that included players like prime Jean Béliveau, mid-30s Maurice Richard, prime Jacques Plante, etc. The only way to win a Norris trophy against prime Doug Harvey, is if he missed time due to injury, which only happened once in 8 years.

Eddie Shore was the best player in the world for a good 5 years, maybe more. He won 4 Hart trophies, although in that era it was easier for defensemen to get votes for the Hart than it is today, so you need to adjust for that, but regardless, he was on top.

Denis Potvin was absolutely better than Brian Leetch. He was like Brian Leetch but with Scott Stevens's physicality and Mark Messier's leadership added to the package. Insane.

Lidstrom is Lidstrom, he won 7 Norris. Maybe at his best Leetch was better, but Lidstrom was great for a long time, and was the constant behind all of Detroit's 4 Stanley Cup championships.

Slava Fetisov was basically Ray Bourque playing in the Soviet Union, but with lesser longevity.

Then you add the guys like King Clancy, Sprague Cleghorn, Brad Park, Pierre Pilote, Chris Pronger, Scott Stevens, Tim Horton, Earl Seibert, all of which have a case against Leetch. King Clancy was basically another Leetch in style, and he too had amazing playoff MVP runs.

It's not about devaluing Leetch, it's about being fair to every player from all eras. I don't think Leetch is a Top 10 defenseman ever based on his accomplishment, although on talent he may have been in the 7th-12th range, behind the obvious names like Harvey, Orr, Potvin, etc.

The "decline of Brian Leetch" was really the decline of the Rangers into otherwise a joke team that had arguably the worst spell of drafting in league history.

2000-01 was Leetch's best season for my money. He was 32. He finished out of the Norris finals. Scott Stevens, who had 31 points to Leetch's 78, was a finalist. That's solely because of the teams they played on, teams where Stevens was the second best defenseman by that point. That's 78 points in the middle of the DPE by the way, which swallowed Leetch's entire 30's.

In the internet age, with our ability to see every player and compile a bunch of stats, guys aren't getting crucified for being on bad teams as much (Fox winning the Norris without skating in a playoff game). It wasn't like that in the early 2000's.

Leetch didn't stop being great. People just forgot he was great because he played on a team that was two-thirds AHL players and won 30 games a year.

 

[NickyFotiu]

The "decline of Brian Leetch" was really the decline of the Rangers into otherwise a joke team that had arguably the worst spell of drafting in league history.

2000-01 was Leetch's best season for my money. He was 32. He finished out of the Norris finals. Scott Stevens, who had 31 points to Leetch's 78, was a finalist. That's solely because of the teams they played on, teams where Stevens was the second best defenseman by that point. That's 78 points in the middle of the DPE by the way, which swallowed Leetch's entire 30's.

In the internet age, with our ability to see every player and compile a bunch of stats, guys aren't getting crucified for being on bad teams as much (Fox winning the Norris without skating in a playoff game). It wasn't like that in the early 2000's.

Leetch didn't stop being great. People just forgot he was great because he played on a team that was two-thirds AHL players and won 30 games a year.

Brian was still a top player in his bad plus minus years. Our goaltending was bad.

 

[Machinehead]

Brian was still a top player in his bad plus minus years. Our goaltending was bad.

Also the team was a massive minus. His numbers were good relative to the rest of the team, a project I did that got lost to a server migration.

 

[CasusBelli]

There were other really good guys playing in the same era as Leetch? Before? After? Outside of Orr and Coffey nobody else has had 80 assists. That is pretty special imo.

I do not know where I have Lidstrom. His career as a whole (like 20 years) is impressive but I never watched him and was like wow that guy is like Orr, Potvin, Coffey, Bourque or Leetch. I have him in my top 10 but really I have no idea where other than to say it would not be top 5.

Lidstrom was consistently smart and responsible. He was an excellent skater and had a pretty good shot, to be sure, but he wasn’t physical by any means. Nor did he have a McCabe or MacInnis slapper. His awareness, positioning and stick were his greatest strengths.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Also the team was a massive minus. His numbers were good relative to the rest of the team, a project I did that got lost to a server migration.

I dont need numbers. I saw with my own eyes. Brian was our best defender. Often the best guys will have bad numbers plus/minus if the goaltending is horrible. That is because they will play they most minutes. Our coaches always had him out killing penalties and protecting 1 goal leads. They would not do that with a bad defender.

Lidstrom was consistently smart and responsible. He was an excellent skater and had a pretty good shot, to be sure, but he wasn’t physical by any means. Nor did he have a McCabe or MacInnis slapper. His awareness, positioning and stick were his greatest strengths.

I agree with you. I'm not bashing Lidstrom. He just did not make my jaw drop going wow.

 

[BenchBrawl]

The "decline of Brian Leetch" was really the decline of the Rangers into otherwise a joke team that had arguably the worst spell of drafting in league history.

2000-01 was Leetch's best season for my money. He was 32. He finished out of the Norris finals. Scott Stevens, who had 31 points to Leetch's 78, was a finalist. That's solely because of the teams they played on, teams where Stevens was the second best defenseman by that point. That's 78 points in the middle of the DPE by the way, which swallowed Leetch's entire 30's.

In the internet age, with our ability to see every player and compile a bunch of stats, guys aren't getting crucified for being on bad teams as much (Fox winning the Norris without skating in a playoff game). It wasn't like that in the early 2000's.

Leetch didn't stop being great. People just forgot he was great because he played on a team that was two-thirds AHL players and won 30 games a year.

Leetch suffered injuries that slowed down his speed and mobility advantage, didn't he? Of course he was still good, and the Rangers being bad didn't help. But I don't buy that he was the same player he was in his 20s. Looking at stats, maybe, but on the ice, I don't see it.

 

[Machinehead]

Leetch suffered injuries that slowed down his speed and mobility advantage, didn't he? Of course he was still good, and the Rangers being bad didn't help. But I don't buy that he was the same player he was in his 20s. Looking at stats, maybe, but on the ice, I don't see it.

He broke his ankle and suffered nerve damage in his neck all the back in 1993. Then he separated his shoulder in 1994 and played on it.

He won a Conn Smythe and Norris after that.

So no, not really.

 

[Heritage Hockey]

Leetch never "declined" the Rangers team did. The history forum doesn't know squat about Leetch. I agree about Lidstrom. There was never anything dynamic about him, he just played on great teams. Highly overrated. Guys like Leetch, Coffey and Bourque were more talented. Bar none.

 

[eco's bones]

Leetch was incredible but so were a lot of defensemen in history. I disagree that he sucked at defense, he was good. But in the end, Leetch's prime didn't last so long. Why is Leetch better than Robinson, for example? Robinson was basically Pronger without the suspensions, without the injuries and without the constant changing teams. Wouldn't you take that over Leetch? I know I would, and I like Leetch very much.

Of course it's hard to compare wildly different defensemen prototypes like Robinson/Pronger to a Leetch, who was more of a great skating puck rusher. But then I wonder, why is Brian Leetch better historically than Harry Cameron, who was exactly like Leetch in style, with similar accomplishments? I realize almost nobody know who Harry Cameron is, but if you want to come up with a serious list, you need to know all eras. No way around that. Otherwise it's just lazy.

Red Kelly was definitely better than Brian Leetch. As a defenseman, he was very similar in both style and accomplishments, although even then Kelly accomplished more and at some point was like the best player in the world, in a league that included Gordie Howe, Maurice Richard, Ted Lindsay, etc. But then Kelly got traded to Toronto in his 30s, where he played a key role as a Top 6 center on another dynastic team. Meanwhile Leetch declined in his 30s and did nothing spectacular from that point on.

At his best, I would take Leetch over Chelios, but I wouldn't take him over Ray Bourque. Then again, Chelios was excellent for a very long time.

Bobby Orr and Doug Harvey were definitely better than Leetch any way you slice it. Harvey was an absolute magician on the ice. The real cornerstone of the late-1950's Montreal megadynasty, that included players like prime Jean Béliveau, mid-30s Maurice Richard, prime Jacques Plante, etc. The only way to win a Norris trophy against prime Doug Harvey, is if he missed time due to injury, which only happened once in 8 years.

Eddie Shore was the best player in the world for a good 5 years, maybe more. He won 4 Hart trophies, although in that era it was easier for defensemen to get votes for the Hart than it is today, so you need to adjust for that, but regardless, he was on top.

Denis Potvin was absolutely better than Brian Leetch. He was like Brian Leetch but with Scott Stevens's physicality and Mark Messier's leadership added to the package. Insane.

Lidstrom is Lidstrom, he won 7 Norris. Maybe at his best Leetch was better, but Lidstrom was great for a long time, and was the constant behind all of Detroit's 4 Stanley Cup championships.

Slava Fetisov was basically Ray Bourque playing in the Soviet Union, but with lesser longevity.

Then you add the guys like King Clancy, Sprague Cleghorn, Brad Park, Pierre Pilote, Chris Pronger, Scott Stevens, Tim Horton, Earl Seibert, all of which have a case against Leetch. King Clancy was basically another Leetch in style, and he too had amazing playoff MVP runs.

It's not about devaluing Leetch, it's about being fair to every player from all eras. I don't think Leetch is a Top 10 defenseman ever based on his accomplishment, although on talent he may have been in the 7th-12th range, behind the obvious names like Harvey, Orr, Potvin, etc.

FWIW there isn't any real way to do justice to players from other eras which when I see 'of all time' or 'ever' kind of makes me cringe because I know even before things start everything is going to handicap in favor of the last 20 years. Just the way it is.

Apart from that the game just ain't the same as it was pre-WWII or post WWII or 1968 expansion or the brawling 70's, 80's, 90's or pre-cap/post-cap. Rules, ice surfaces, equipment, conditioning, nutrition etc. etc. all that shit has been continually evolving the game. When I started following the Rangers there were still guys working summer jobs to make ends meets. Those who didn't mostly looked at training camp as a time to get in shape after a summers spent eating and boozing. As far as $'s the players from the 60's and 70's didn't make shit. Maybe two or three or four times what an ordinary factory worker made. They weren't getting rich. The WHA kind of opened that up a little bit.

 

[Heritage Hockey]

Lidstrom was consistently smart and responsible. He was an excellent skater and had a pretty good shot, to be sure, but he wasn’t physical by any means. Nor did he have a McCabe or MacInnis slapper. His awareness, positioning and stick were his greatest strengths.

I always say Lidstrom is rated way too high. He was really good, for a really long time. And that was enough to rack up Norris wins in a very weak era. But he was never "elite" the way guys like Leetch, Coffey and Bourque were.