Round 2, Vote 1 (HFNYR Top NYR Defensemen)

[Crease]

Before we begin, just a recap on how Round 2 will operate:

Round 2 Vote 1

• The top 10 ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread
• Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
• Voters will rank their top 10 of the available defensemen
• The top 5 vote getters will be added to the final list in order.

Round 2 Vote 2

• The remaining 5 players from Round 2 Vote 1 will be combined with the next 5 ranked players from the aggregate list
• Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
• Voters will rank their top 8 of the available defensemen
• The top 5 vote getters will be added to the final list in order.

These might be tweaked to allow longer or shorter debating periods depending on how the process moves along.

Additionally, there are a couple guidelines we'd ask that everyone agree to abide by:

• Please try to stay on-topic in the thread
• Please remember that this is a debate on opinions and there is no right or wrong. Please try to avoid words like "stupid" "dumb" "wrong" "sophistry" etc. when debating.
• Please treat other debaters with respect
• Please don't be a wallflower. All eligible voters are VERY HIGHLY encouraged to be active participants in the debate.
• Please maintain an open mind. The purpose of the debate is to convince others that your views are more valid. If nobody is willing to accept their opinions as flexible there really is no point in debating.

Eliglible Voters (7):
bernmeister, Chief, Crease, Greg02, mike14, Ratelleitlikeitis, Richter Scale

All posters are encouraged to participate in the debates and discussions, but only those listed above will be eligible for the final votes. Eligible voters submitted a ranked list of 20 defensemen before the deadline specified in the preliminary discussion thread.

On that note, I hope everyone is ready to wrack their brains and debate with fellow Rangers fans and hockey minds. Have fun!

Click to read more...

 

[Crease]

Vote 1 discussion will begin now and will run through Sunday 6/23. Any extension to this time frame will be announced prior to the deadline. Votes must be submitted no later than Midnight on Sunday 6/23. THESE DEADLINES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE SO PLEASE READ THROUGH THE ENTIRE THREAD.

Please PM votes to me, beginning on Thursday 6/20. I will be sending out confirmations when I receive ballots from the voters. Any voter who does not get a confirmation within 24 hours of submitting a ballot should assume I never received it and should either resubmit it or contact me to arrange a different method to submit the ballots.

PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL VOTE FOR YOUR TOP 10 OUT OF THE POOL OF ELIGIBLE PLAYERS.

Vote 1 will be for places 1 through 5 on the Top 10 list.

Here are the candidates, listed alphabetically:

Art Coulter
Bill Gadsby
Ron Greschner
Ott Heller
Harry Howell
Ching Johnson
Brian Leetch
Brad Park
Babe Pratt
Earl Seibert

 

[Crease]

No real surprises among this list. I suppose we should address the elephant in the room first: Leetch or Park?

 

[Greg02]

My first reaction was that this is a much stronger list than the centers, with 8 of the 10 being Hall of Famers, but in terms of HHOF, the centers list actually did surprisingly well.

I already incited Park vs Leetch in the preliminary round (whoops!), but I'll reiterate my feelings: Leetch should get first place by about the same ratio that Frank Boucher did. Park has a very legitimate place in the conversation for first, but on most lists (that is, by most ways of weighing contributions), Leetch's Norrises, Smythe, and most importantly his longevity will win out. If you value Park's Norris runner-ups to Orr very highly, weigh playoff performances less, and focus more on peak, then you should choose Brad Park. But 16 years is a lot longer than 7, Park had little top end competition outside of Bobby Orr, and he never led us to a cup.

Some strict orderings that I'm getting from a quick impression:

Coulter > Pratt
Johnson > Seibert, Heller

Howell vs Gadsby should be interesting. How much was Howell's Norris season an anomaly?

 

[Greg02]

Here are our nominees that got listed on the HOH board's top 60 dmen list. Remember that this is based on career contributions, not just Rangers.

Top 60 Defensemen of All-Time
[table="head;title=list"]Rank|No.|Player|Height|Weight|Born|Died|Career|Nationality
11|22|Brad Park|6'0"|190|1948||1968-1985|Canada
16|17|Earl Seibert|6'2'|198|1911|1990|1931-1946|Canada
21|4|Bill Gadsby|6'0'|180|1927||1946-1966|Canada
23|2|Brian Leetch|6'0"|185|1968||1987-2006|USA
37|3|Ivan "Ching" Johnson|5'11"|210|1898|1979|1926-1938|Canada
54|2|Art Coulter|5'11"|185|1909|2000|1932-1942|Canada
[/table]
​

 

[Crease]

My first reaction was that this is a much stronger list than the centers, with 8 of the 10 being Hall of Famers, but in terms of HHOF, the centers list actually did surprisingly well.

The Rangers are historically deeper at defensemen, no doubt.

I already incited Park vs Leetch in the preliminary round (whoops!), but I'll reiterate my feelings: Leetch should get first place by about the same ratio that Frank Boucher did. Park has a very legitimate place in the conversation for first, but on most lists (that is, by most ways of weighing contributions), Leetch's Norrises, Smythe, and most importantly his longevity will win out. If you value Park's Norris runner-ups to Orr very highly, weigh playoff performances less, and focus more on peak, then you should choose Brad Park. But 16 years is a lot longer than 7, Park had little top end competition outside of Bobby Orr, and he never led us to a cup.

I tend to agree with you. Park's 1971-72 season might be better than anything Leetch ever did as a Ranger, but in terms of longevity and tangible franchise value Leetch wins this contest. I respect the fact that Park could have had four (FOUR!) Norrises as a Ranger in an Orr-less league, but his competition was otherwise weak:

1970 NORRIS: (289)
1. Bobby Orr, Bos 180
2. Brad Park, NYR 58
3. Carl Brewer, Det 22
4. Jacques Laperriere, Mtl 18
5. Jim Neilson, NYR 11

1971 NORRIS: (343)
1. Bobby Orr, Bos 208
2. Brad Park, NYR 57
3. J.C. Tremblay, Mtl 35
4. Pat Stapleton, Chi 23
T5. Bob Baun, Tor 10
T5. Keith Magnuson, Chi 10

1972 NORRIS: (370)
1. Bobby Orr, Bos 204
2. Brad Park, NYR 117
3. Bill White, Chi 25
4. Pat Stapleton, Chi 16
5. J.C. Tremblay, Mtl 8

1974 NORRIS: (399)
1. Bobby Orr, Bos 236
2. Brad Park, NYR 98
3. Bill White, Chi 44
4. Barry Ashbee, Phi 11
5. Borje Salming, Tor 10

In Leetch's Norris years, he beat out the likes of Bourque, Chelios, Lidstrom, Konstantinov and Stevens. Just some food for thought.

And then you have to consider what Leetch and Park brought in the playoffs. This is a table of the top 10 defensemen in NHL history in terms of playoff ppg (minimum 50 gp). If you compare their playoff production to their regular season production, Leetch elevated his game in the playoffs like no other defenseman in NHL history.

[table="head;title=list"]Player | GP | PO PPG | RS PPG | % Elevation
Bobby Orr | 74 | 1.24 | 1.39 | -10.79
Brian Leetch* | 82 | 1.09 | 0.87 | 25.29
Paul Coffey | 194 | 1.01 | 1.09 | -7.34
Paul Reinhart | 83 | 0.93 | 0.86 | 8.14
Al MacInnis | 177 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0
Denis Potvin | 185 | 0.89 | 0.99 | -10.1
Raymond Bourque | 214 | 0.84 | 0.98 | -14.29
Doug Wilson | 95 | 0.84 | 0.81 | 3.7
Ian Turnbull | 55 | 0.82 | 0.7 | 17.14
Brad Park* | 64 | 0.69 | 0.81 | -14.81[/TABLE]

*Used Rangers statistics only

Some strict orderings that I'm getting from a quick impression:

Coulter > Pratt
Johnson > Seibert, Heller

Howell vs Gadsby should be interesting. How much was Howell's Norris season an anomaly?

I think Johnson is the next best (in other words, #3). Coulter/Howell/Gadsby are all fair game for the top 5 as well, and I'll elaborate later.

 

[Chief]

I would just like to point out that Brad Park coming in second to ORR in Norris voting, does not mean Park would win the Norris if not for ORR.

We can't assume the voters who voted for Orr would, instead, vote for Park. That might seem more far-fetched when talking about the 1972 or 1974 Norris trophies but in 1971 only 22 votes separated Park from #3 and in 1970, 36 votes separated Park from #3.

 

[Greg02]

Just for fun, here's my ranking of the top 10 by nickname.

Ching "The Holding Corporation" Johnson
Babe "The Honest Brakeman" Pratt
Harry "Harry The Horse" Howell
Ron "Honker" Greschner
Brian "Leetchie" Leetch
Bill "Gads" Gadsby
Earl "SI" Seibert
Erhardt "Ott" Heller
Art Coulter
Brad Park

 

[Crease]

Johnson was notorious for holding, obstructing, and pinning players against the boards. Hence "the Holding Corporation". He also had a knack for avoiding being called for penalties. Served the Rangers well during two Stanley Cup runs.

 

[bernmeister]

My first reaction was that this is a much stronger list than the centers, with 8 of the 10 being Hall of Famers, but in terms of HHOF, the centers list actually did surprisingly well.

I already incited Park vs Leetch in the preliminary round (whoops!), but I'll reiterate my feelings: Leetch should get first place by about the same ratio that Frank Boucher did. Park has a very legitimate place in the conversation for first, but on most lists (that is, by most ways of weighing contributions), Leetch's Norrises, Smythe, and most importantly his longevity will win out. If you value Park's Norris runner-ups to Orr very highly, weigh playoff performances less, and focus more on peak, then you should choose Brad Park. But 16 years is a lot longer than 7, Park had little top end competition outside of Bobby Orr, and he never led us to a cup.

Some strict orderings that I'm getting from a quick impression:

Coulter > Pratt
Johnson > Seibert, Heller

Howell vs Gadsby should be interesting. How much was Howell's Norris season an anomaly?

Italics: fair enough, I'll rejoind (why isn't this a verb? offering a rejoinder?).

Bold: true, but again, Orr was the Michael Jordan of his day. No one else remotely close. Park only remotely as to across the board. Orr's skating/speed dominates all other bottom lines...

 

[bernmeister]

I would just like to point out that Brad Park coming in second to ORR in Norris voting, does not mean Park would win the Norris if not for ORR.

We can't assume the voters who voted for Orr would, instead, vote for Park. That might seem more far-fetched when talking about the 1972 or 1974 Norris trophies but in 1971 only 22 votes separated Park from #3 and in 1970, 36 votes separated Park from #3.

That also does not mean we can't assume the great majority of them would not vote for Park when Park far and away was the best after Orr in those years, not even close.

When Leetch was the best D in the league, which was shorter window of supremacy that was Park [sans Orr], comparatively, his competition was closer.

For example Leetch was closer to Ray Bourque than Park was to Magnuson, or Tremblay, etc.

If we assume if Martians kidnapped Orr, and the voters respected their charge and voted for the best, most of them would have voted for Park.

Just MO.

 

[bernmeister]

Thinking aloud, sketching this, we are focusing on the first 5:

regardless of your ranking of the top 2, I believe we can agree on the actual top 2:

1 Brad Park
2 Brian Leetch

3 Ching Johnson

Is there a large divergence of opinion there?

I could use some input on the rest of the pecking order, perhaps:

4 Babe Pratt
5 Earl Seibert

----------- cutoff

6 Ott Heller
7 Harry Howell
8 Art Coulter
9 Bill Gadsby
10 Ron Greschner

 

[Greg02]

What's the thought process for Pratt over Coulter? Seems like Coulter is more accomplished. Also, if you have Heller above Howell and Coulter and Gadsby, that would seem to indicate that you're valuing longevity, which goes against your choice to put Park over Leetch.

This is where I'm at right now:

Leetch
Park
Johnson
Coulter
Gadsby
Howell
Seibert
Pratt
Heller
Greschner

 

[Crease]

Greg that's just about where I'm at right now and fortunately we have some time to test these placements. Remember what happened with Gretzky and Esposito's stock in the Centers project over the span of a couple of days.

 

[bernmeister]

What's the thought process for Pratt over Coulter? Seems like Coulter is more accomplished. Also, if you have Heller above Howell and Coulter and Gadsby, that would seem to indicate that you're valuing longevity, which goes against your choice to put Park over Leetch.

This is where I'm at right now:

Leetch
Park
Johnson
Coulter
Gadsby
Howell
Seibert
Pratt
Heller
Greschner

The main point I was making w/my last post was to jump start the discussion. I nominated the first three in some order appear set.

After that, I am going by a recollection of what we posted in the prior related thread, which I have not had chance to review/revisit.

Coulter is more accomplished. I had a brain fart, and confused w/Colville, who was terrif, but I'm trying to adjust some of his career is as F.

Thanks for your input, I will review further in day or 2.

 

[NHRangerfan]

I think what you can't capture here is the part of the game the position is named for.

Park was far and away a better defender than Leetch, also more physical and he also fought.

It's a tossup but having seen both play I give Park a slight edge.

 

[Crease]

This is going to ruffle some feathers but here goes...Ching Johnson should be ahead of Brad Park.

PROFILE

Ching Johnson​

|

​

|

Brad Park​

11​

|

Service​

|

6.5​

3*​

|

1st Team​

|

3​

2​

|

2nd Team​

|

2​

1​

|

3rd Team​

|

1​

2nd, 5th​

|

Hart Voting​

|

5th, 8th, 9th​

2​

|

Stanley Cups​

|

0​

* Retro Norris (1931-32)

COMPETITION

Ching Johnson: Eddie Shore, King Clancy, Lionel Hitchman, Lionel Conacher, Dit Clapper, Earl Seibert, Art Coulter
Brad Park: Bobby Orr, Carl Brewer, JC Tremblay, Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe, Borje Salming

Notes:
* In terms of All-Star voting, they are very similar. However I think Johnson was competing against an overall better crop of defensemen during his career
* Johnson's got almost twice the amount of years of Rangers service
* Johnson is one of very few players in Rangers history to have 2 Stanley Cups, and he was a big part of both

PURE DEFENSE

Nels Stewart (1925-1940, 2x Hart Winner):

He calls Hitchman and Ching Johnson the best defensive defensemen of his day. "Johnson broke every rule in the book, using his tremendous strength to hold, maul, and smear up opposing plays" and that he always got away with it. He goes on to say that he never took advantage of his strength in a mean way but "if he did not break every hockey law he at least bent them all considerably".

Globe & Mail, April 20, 1933

Eddie Shore was not even regarded as the best defensive player of his era. Although he was known as a good offensive player, even during his absolute peak (1933), contemporaries thought that there were several other defensemen in the league who were superior defensively (ie King Clancy, Lionel Hitchman, Ching Johnson).

Howie Morenz - Esquire's First Sports Reader - 1945

The toughest men I've encountered are Eddie Shore of Boston and Ching Johnson of the New York Rangers. Both are husky and agile.

PLAYOFFS

Montreal Gazette: 4-6-1928 - Game 1 of the 1928 finals

The two Cooks, with their flashy style, and the crafty Frank Boucher, continue as prime favorites here. But Ching Johnson, 220 pounder on the Ranger defence, is still the local "hate." Johnson plays a clean, robust game. He received as many spills as he handed out last night, particularly when he ran into Dunc Munro and was crashed to the delight of Maroon devotees.

Montreal Gazette: 4-9-1928 - Game 2 of the 1928 finals

Montreal fans still hold Ching Johnson, the big Ranger guard, as their chief "hate." But Johnson plays a game that is much more to the book than the cross-checking style of Taffy Abel, who has a hard time keeping his stick down to the proper level.

Montreal Gazette: 4-11-1928 - Game 3 of the 1928 finals

Red Dutton took the final penalty of the match for chopping at Ching Johnson, Montreal fandom's chief "hate." Dutton objected to Johnson's ubiquitous elbows. The crowd were shrieking for penalties against Ching Johnson, whose style of bringing up the elbow around the face practically every time he bodies an opponent was not to the liking of Maroon supporters.

Nashua Telegraph – Apr. 11, 1932 – Explaining the Rangers loss to Toronto in the 1932 Finals

Most of the Rangers had helped win the cup in the 1928 playoffs but the defense contained three "first year" men in Major League hockey and it was here that they developed a weakness. Big Ching Johnson played a great game and Goalie John Roach shone in the final game Saturday night but they could not handle the job alone.

The Montreal Gazette – Apr. 4, 1933

Bulky Ching Johnson, defence star and rated one of the greatest “money” players in the game, had five stitches on his forehead that were required after the stick of Ebbie Goodfellow, Detroit centre, struck him.

Great Defencemen: Stars of Hockey’s Golden Age By Jim Barber - 1933 Playoffs vs. Detroit

Detroit clamped down on defence, and ramped up the rough play in the second game of the series. Johnson was keeping the Falcons at bay, until Ebbie Goodfellow, whose name belied his violent actions that night, chopped him in the head. While Johnson was in getting repairs, Detroit began to light the goal lamp. Ultimately, Johnson’s return and Dillon’s great offensive play carried the game and the series for New York.

Notes:
* Johnson was part of the core on two of the four franchise championships.
* He was a hard-hitting, physical defensemen who was frequently in discussion for the best defense in his era
* Comparable style to the Devil's version of Scott Stevens, except rarely called for penalties

IN SUM

Johnson has him beat on longevity (as a Ranger). Has him beat in team success, and he didn't exactly ride his team's coattails. He was a driving force on those championship teams. Their All-Star voting records are almost identical. Park brought more offensively, but Johnson one of the best defensive-defensemen in NHL history and almost certainly the best in franchise history.

 

[Greg02]

If you have Ching above Park, then how do you compare him to Leetch?

That was a very convincing post, by the way. By my own voting records, Johnson should definitely be at two considering the weight I place on playoff success.

The lack of Norris trophies is kind of a bit frustrating. I know we have AST voting, but it's not the same.

 

[Crease]

If you have Ching above Park, then how do you compare him to Leetch?

Using the same principles (longevity, playoffs, all-star voting) I have Leetch ahead of Johnson.

LONGEVITY

Leetch has 17 years of service to Ching Johnson's 11.

ALL-STAR VOTING

Leetch has two 1ST AST, three 2ND AST, and one 3RD AST
Johnson has three 1ST AST, two 2ND AST, and one 3RD AST
Leetch has two Norrises
Johnson has one Norris (retroactive)

I consider them just about even in this category, but I think Leetch's era was more competitive than Johnson's (Bourque, Chelios, Lidstrom, Stevens, Coffey, Murphy, Pronger, Neidermeyer, MacInnis)

PLAYOFFS

Leetch has the 2nd highest PPG amongst defensemen in playoff history (behind Orr, min 50gp). Not only that, but he elevated offensive output by >20% in the playoffs compared to the regular season. Saying Leetch found another gear in the playoffs in an understatement. He's got that Conn Smythe too. The HHOF promoted a Retroactive Conn Smythe project in which Boucher and Dillon were awarded the Conn Smythes for the two Cups during Johnson's era.

The lack of Norris trophies is kind of a bit frustrating. I know we have AST voting, but it's not the same.

Do you mean the lack of it's existence before 1954? If yes, I found that there is a strong correlation between Norris voting and AST voting during the years where both existed.

 

[Greg02]

OK, that's right in line with how I was thinking of it (mainly placing Leetch above because of the longevity), but I was curious how you'd weigh the extra cup.

Yeah, I was referring to its lack of existence. When I said that AST is not the same, I really meant it in a more emotional sense- it doesn't have the same glamour. Obviously it's something that I can easily get over, but I think to a degree first reactions towards players like Ching Johnson and Earl Seibert are less than they should be as a result of it.

 

[mike14]

Sweet zombie jesus Crease, you've really thrown the cat among the pigeons now....

I over corrected for ye olde time Rangers during the centers project and so was leery of doing it again, however Johnston still made it to #4 on my original list. It didn't even really occur to me to compare him to Leetch/Park as that sort of seemed like a 2 horse race. Now, it's back to the drawing board to re-evaluate everything...

On a slightly off topic rant: I had NFI who 'Ching' Johnston was until I started doing research for this list, but having read about his career and achievements, I'd easily put him in a team of my favourite Rangers. Why does this organisation do such a piss-poor job of honouring the achievements of its former players? From memory this same complaint was brought up in the top 10 centers discussion, but it boggles my mind. Both these projects have taught me so much more about NYR history then anything that MSG and the Rangers webpage care to achieve.

One thing I'd love to see the Rangers adopt from Aussie Rules football is the recognition of past players in the locker room. Each players locker (replace with stall for hockey) has the name of every player who's worn that # jumper before them. You look at the locker room and you see 140 years of history and the exploits of those who have gone before.

End rant.

 

[Greg02]

The Rangers never won a playoff series with Howell on the team, and Howell never recorded more than a single point any year. People on the HOH Top 60 project seemed to think Howell was a poor playoff performer, but I haven't gotten any quotes with regards to his defensive acumen yet.

 

[Greg02]

Some random facts about Art Coulter:

He captained the Rangers to a cup in 1940, one of only three players to do that (Messier and Bill Cook are the other two). He was the anchor for our innovative PK, which in 1939 outscored the opponents PP by something like 2 to 1. He was also a very generous tipper-- the Rangers appointed cab captains on road trips and reimbursed them. When Lester Patrick asked how much each cab captain was owed, he got responses from $6 to $8.75- except Coulter, who cost the team $12.75. He said since Patrick told him he was in the big leagues, he tipped like a big leaguer.

 

[Crease]

The Rangers never won a playoff series with Howell on the team, and Howell never recorded more than a single point any year. People on the HOH Top 60 project seemed to think Howell was a poor playoff performer, but I haven't gotten any quotes with regards to his defensive acumen yet.

Point totals don't tell the story for Howell. He was a true defensive-defenseman. As far as his playoff performances are concerned, I'll try to dig up some info later.


Legends of Hockey

Although not an overly aggressive rearguard he used his hockey sense to become an extremely effective defensive player. He was quite the unsung hero, buried with the largely unsuccessful Rangers. It was rare that he was rightfully recognized as one of hockey's top players. In fact it was not until 1966-67, his 15th year in the league, that he was honored with the Norris trophy as the league's best defenseman and with all star status.

Who's Who in Hockey

Was called up to the Rangers in 1952. From that time on, Howell established himself as one of the game's best defensive defensemen with his subtle - some deprecatingly called it dainty - style of play.

Earl Ingarfield

A real class act. A top defenseman who was very intelligent and good with the puck. He was big, strong, and steady. Not an offensive type, but one of the best defensemen in the NHL...It was a pleasure to be his teammate.

Shorthanded: The Untold Story of the Seals

He was a classic defensive defenseman.

 

[bernmeister]

This is going to ruffle some feathers but here goes...Ching Johnson should be ahead of Brad Park.

PROFILE

Ching Johnson​

|

​

|

Brad Park​

11​

|

Service​

|

6.5​

3*​

|

1st Team​

|

3​

2​

|

2nd Team​

|

2​

1​

|

3rd Team​

|

1​

2nd, 5th​

|

Hart Voting​

|

5th, 8th, 9th​

2​

|

Stanley Cups​

|

0​

* Retro Norris (1931-32)

COMPETITION

Ching Johnson: Eddie Shore, King Clancy, Lionel Hitchman, Lionel Conacher, Dit Clapper, Earl Seibert, Art Coulter
Brad Park: Bobby Orr, Carl Brewer, JC Tremblay, Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe, Borje Salming

Notes:
* In terms of All-Star voting, they are very similar. However I think Johnson was competing against an overall better crop of defensemen during his career
* Johnson's got almost twice the amount of years of Rangers service
* Johnson is one of very few players in Rangers history to have 2 Stanley Cups, and he was a big part of both

PURE DEFENSE

Nels Stewart (1925-1940, 2x Hart Winner):


Globe & Mail, April 20, 1933


Howie Morenz - Esquire's First Sports Reader - 1945


PLAYOFFS

Montreal Gazette: 4-6-1928 - Game 1 of the 1928 finals


Montreal Gazette: 4-9-1928 - Game 2 of the 1928 finals


Montreal Gazette: 4-11-1928 - Game 3 of the 1928 finals


Nashua Telegraph – Apr. 11, 1932 – Explaining the Rangers loss to Toronto in the 1932 Finals


The Montreal Gazette – Apr. 4, 1933


Great Defencemen: Stars of Hockey’s Golden Age By Jim Barber - 1933 Playoffs vs. Detroit


Notes:
* Johnson was part of the core on two of the four franchise championships.
* He was a hard-hitting, physical defensemen who was frequently in discussion for the best defense in his era
* Comparable style to the Devil's version of Scott Stevens, except rarely called for penalties

IN SUM

Johnson has him beat on longevity (as a Ranger). Has him beat in team success, and he didn't exactly ride his team's coattails. He was a driving force on those championship teams. Their All-Star voting records are almost identical. Park brought more offensively, but Johnson one of the best defensive-defensemen in NHL history and almost certainly the best in franchise history.

Obviously a guesstimate since I didn't see Johnson play.
Ching = or > most aspects of physical play, except on hip checks.
Feel that in 1 on 1, Park was better skater, scorer.
Skating is a big component.
It is the dominant reason why Leetch is close to Park

conclusion: total defense, Johnson probably better
total d with offense combo, Park

Saying it this way:
Park was a no slouch compared to Scott Stevens, and better at skating and offense to boot.

Park is our best all around D. IMO still #1, but chingmeister has moved up a lot.

That was, however, a totally awesome post.