Scott Stevens vs Chris Pronger | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

Scott Stevens vs Chris Pronger

oilexport

Registered User
Aug 29, 2010
2,112
822
Chris Pronger
Games played: 1167
Goals: 157
Assists: 541
Points: 698 (.60 ppg)
PIM: 1590
Norris Trophies: 1 (Plus 3 more nominations)
Hart Trophies: 1
Justin Beibers pinned: 1
Scott Stevens:
Games played: 1653
Goals: 196
Assists: 712
Points: 908 (.54 ppg)
PIM: 2785
Norris Trophies: 0 (Plus 3 more nominations)
Conn Smythe Trophies: 1
Careers ended: too many to count

I would pick Steven's by a little bit, and pronger played for my team in Edmonton.

It's super close thou....your thoughts ?
 
Chris Pronger
Games played: 1167
Goals: 157
Assists: 541
Points: 698 (.60 ppg)
PIM: 1590
Norris Trophies: 1 (Plus 3 more nominations)
Hart Trophies: 1
Justin Beibers pinned: 1
Scott Stevens:
Games played: 1653
Goals: 196
Assists: 712
Points: 908 (.54 ppg)
PIM: 2785
Norris Trophies: 0 (Plus 3 more nominations)
Conn Smythe Trophies: 1
Careers ended: too many to count

I would pick Steven's by a little bit, and pronger played for my team in Edmonton.

It's super close thou....your thoughts ?

I'll take Pronger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tmu84
I think I'll take Stevens' career. But healthy it has to go to Pronger. He just didn't have enough complete years to overtake Stevens but it is close. Stevens was almost never hurt. Let's put it this way, the people that love Niedermayer should compare him to Stevens. To me it is noticeably an advantage for Stevens. When they were teammates no one ever thought Niedermayer was better until 2004, which was Stevens' last year.

I think most of us would take Pronger over Niedermayer though, but to me the career value thing goes like this:

Stevens > Pronger > Niedermayer.

However, there are people who think Niedermayer was better than Pronger. If that is the case then those same people should think that Stevens was easily ahead of Pronger, which he wasn't.

Overall this is how I look at it. Stevens played two different styles and thrived in both of them. He was a playoff beast and won a Conn Smythe by scoring just 11 points and NO ONE complained about it. Compare that to Niedermayer in 2007 when everyone complains about it.
 
Stevens as he was better at everything honestly. The guy could play offensively if wanted to as his early career shows but nobody was better defensively. Pronger was great but used his stick more where as Stevens just hit you like a truck. Both are sure fire greats but Stevens takes this for me. Add in longevity it's not even close.
 
I think I'll take Stevens' career. But healthy it has to go to Pronger. He just didn't have enough complete years to overtake Stevens but it is close. Stevens was almost never hurt. Let's put it this way, the people that love Niedermayer should compare him to Stevens. To me it is noticeably an advantage for Stevens. When they were teammates no one ever thought Niedermayer was better until 2004, which was Stevens' last year.

Yeah, but a lot of those prime years for Stevens were played in the DPE which I would argue worked to the benefit of his style. Pronger has the feathers in his cap of 2006, 2007, and 2010, which I rate really highly. Not many performances I can remember in my lifetime as impressive as anchoring two pretty meh teams to within a game or two of the cup, and actually winning the cup with another.

Pronger wins on peak for me
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkusNaslund19
Stevens as he was better at everything honestly. The guy could play offensively if wanted to as his early career shows but nobody was better defensively. Pronger was great but used his stick more where as Stevens just hit you like a truck. Both are sure fire greats but Stevens takes this for me. Add in longevity it's not even close.
Stevens was excellent defensively, but Lidstrom and Bourque were both better in that regard in traditional sense, transitioning, stick checking and blocking shots. Even when Stevens was focused solely on defense.

Stevens career had 2 different era's. The first half was a more traditional two way defenseman, slightly below the top dogs of his time. Still highly physical. Still very good defensively and offensively. Superstar everyone would want on their team.

The second half of his career is more niche to his physical qualities and a shrewd coach built his team around it and around the capabilities of one of the greatest goalies of all time.

Stevens strength was his physicality. You always marked when Scott Stevens was on the ice. If you didn't, you would regret it. This was a man who made a second half career of bearing down on your blindside. He would be suspended regularly by today's rules, but my god it was something special back when it was legal. If Stevens was in the defensive zone heading towards you as you received the puck, your thought process was different than if another defenseman was coming at you. Your immediate reflex was "get rid of this puck like a hot potato and GTFO of the way". His approaching presence incited panic passes and made you knee jerk react in a way that scrambled your muscle memory and reaction times. instead of sailing the puck to a teammate, you were almost shooting it at him. If it was another defenseman on the devils bearing down on you, you didn't brain scramble quite like you did for Stevens.

You might try to get by another defenseman on the ice crossing center ice, but if you saw Stevens in your way to the offensive zone, you dumped the puck and skated wide. Which played right into Brodeur's strength as possibly one of the best puck playing goalies of all time.

They played the trap and always had 4 men back. It played directly into Stevens strengths in the dead puck clutch and grab era. When you could clutch and grab without drawing a penalty unless someone fell over while you had mitts on them, you could steer them without tugging hard enough to make them fall. Someone on the ice would always latch on and steer you right into that freight train if you did not dump the puck or they would create a funnel which looked like you could possibly squeeze through, but usually had Stevens bulldogging into at top speed to catch you. Everyone knew it. Everyone was afraid of it. It changed the way every forward would play vs Jersey A team was able to build their style around Stevens and Brodeur in that era.


It is hard to even quantify the kind of impact Stevens had. A lot of people on this site try to downplay physicality and say "it doesn't matter as much as skill, and thug can throw a hit", but Stevens was something special. To a player on the ice with Stevens coming your way It was like being a drunk guy who took a wrong turn carrying $2000 through the roughest area of town in Chicago at 2AM and seeing 5 guys marking you, the leader with a Machete out stalking straight towards you like Jason Voorhees in Friday the 13th.

hqdefault.jpg


The cops can't stop Jason. Your friends can't stop Jason. We shot him 6 times and he got back up and now looks mad. For some reason he is looking and coming right at you. Oh yeah, you have the puck. GET RID OF THE PUCK AND HIDE, ITS A HOMING BEACON.


A lot of Coaches and teammates even understood if you wimped out and panic tossed the puck back then when it came to Stevens.
 
If the question is who would I want on my team in their prime, considering what they bring to the table..give me Scott Stevens.
 
Let's put it this way, the people that love Niedermayer should compare him to Stevens. To me it is noticeably an advantage for Stevens. When they were teammates no one ever thought Niedermayer was better until 2004, which was Stevens' last year.

I think most of us would take Pronger over Niedermayer though, but to me the career value thing goes like this:

Stevens > Pronger > Niedermayer.

However, there are people who think Niedermayer was better than Pronger. If that is the case then those same people should think that Stevens was easily ahead of Pronger, which he wasn't.

Logic and syllogisms are a great thing, but I don’t quite agree with your Stevens-Niedermayer point.

For one thing, it’s fundamentally an apples and oranges comparison, given their totally different styles and skills (unlike Stevens-Pronger). Just thinking about the direct comparison feels a bit stilted.

Furthermore, 2004 was not the first and only year in which Niedermayer was “better” than Stevens. Just the season before, Niedermayer was logging a minute and a half more than Stevens in ice time; he had the better +/- of the two (this also happened in ‘94-‘95); and he was arguably the best player on the ice of any team in the playoffs. Bill Clement made the comment, during Game 7 of the Finals, that Niedermayer was very close to being as good a skater as Bobby Orr was (talk about the highest praise at the highest stage!). Stevens himself made the comment that Niedermayer was the key to them winning the Cup.

Digression aside: I agree with the Stevens > Pronger > Niedermayer chain
 
Stevens was excellent defensively, but Lidstrom and Bourque were both better in that regard in traditional sense, transitioning, stick checking and blocking shots. Even when Stevens was focused solely on defense.

Stevens career had 2 different era's. The first half was a more traditional two way defenseman, slightly below the top dogs of his time. Still highly physical. Still very good defensively and offensively. Superstar everyone would want on their team.

The second half of his career is more niche to his physical qualities and a shrewd coach built his team around it and around the capabilities of one of the greatest goalies of all time.

Stevens strength was his physicality. You always marked when Scott Stevens was on the ice. If you didn't, you would regret it. This was a man who made a second half career of bearing down on your blindside. He would be suspended regularly by today's rules, but my god it was something special back when it was legal. If Stevens was in the defensive zone heading towards you as you received the puck, your thought process was different than if another defenseman was coming at you. Your immediate reflex was "get rid of this puck like a hot potato and GTFO of the way". His approaching presence incited panic passes and made you knee jerk react in a way that scrambled your muscle memory and reaction times. instead of sailing the puck to a teammate, you were almost shooting it at him. If it was another defenseman on the devils bearing down on you, you didn't brain scramble quite like you did for Stevens.
You might try to get by another defenseman on the ice crossing center ice, but if you saw Stevens in your way to the offensive zone, you dumped the puck and skated wide. Which played right into Brodeur's strength as possibly one of the best puck playing goalies of all time.

They played the trap and always had 4 men back. It played directly into Stevens strengths in the dead puck clutch and grab era. When you could clutch and grab without drawing a penalty unless someone fell over while you had mitts on them, you could steer them without tugging hard enough to make them fall. Someone on the ice would always latch on and steer you right into that freight train if you did not dump the puck or they would create a funnel which looked like you could possibly squeeze through, but usually had Stevens bulldogging into at top speed to catch you. Everyone knew it. Everyone was afraid of it. It changed the way every forward would play vs Jersey A team was able to build their style around Stevens and Brodeur in that era.


It is hard to even quantify the kind of impact Stevens had. A lot of people on this site try to downplay physicality and say "it doesn't matter as much as skill, and thug can throw a hit", but Stevens was something special. To a player on the ice with Stevens coming your way It was like being a drunk guy who took a wrong turn carrying $2000 through the roughest area of town in Chicago at 2AM and seeing 5 guys marking you, the leader with a Machete out stalking straight towards you like Jason Voorhees in Friday the 13th.

hqdefault.jpg


The cops can't stop Jason. Your friends can't stop Jason. We shot him 6 times and he got back up and now looks mad. For some reason he is looking and coming right at you. Oh yeah, you have the puck. GET RID OF THE PUCK AND HIDE, ITS A HOMING BEACON.


A lot of Coaches and teammates even understood if you wimped out and panic tossed the puck back then when it came to Stevens.

Probably best response I've ever had to a post and I agree 100% with your take on Stevens play and his deployment by coaches. Lidstrom and Bourque could be argued were defensively better as well but it's pretty close regardless. Thanks for your thoughtful response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConorMcGregor
I hated them both with a passion when they played, but I'd take Pronger 10 times out of 10.

Honestly I'm a little surprised so many are picking Stevens. Great Dman for sure but I've never seen him strap a team on his back in the playoffs the way Pronger did multiple times.
 
The 2 left under weird circumstances. One was kind of shot down for being dirty. (See Pavel Kubina's shot)
The other one got one too many hits, the last one coming from Grabovski ?!? lol
Which is dirtiest, I cannot tell. It was cool before we knew how concussions affected people.
 
Last edited:
I hated them both with a passion when they played, but I'd take Pronger 10 times out of 10.

Honestly I'm a little surprised so many are picking Stevens. Great Dman for sure but I've never seen him strap a team on his back in the playoffs the way Pronger did multiple times.
While I have not seen much from Pronger, his stints in Edmonton and afterward, Anaheim showed that he would bring a lot once he came in. He wasn't the Hart trophy winner caliber guy but I know, especially seeing him as an Oiler, he made his presence felt. In Anaheim, he had more support and got the cup. - Stevens.. I don't know if he changed under Lemaire (POSSIBLY!!). Became a real stay at home feared guy on the 2nd end of his career. Would get points, play physical and fight early during his time in Washington and St.Louis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lazlo Hollyfeld
Logic and syllogisms are a great thing, but I don’t quite agree with your Stevens-Niedermayer point.

For one thing, it’s fundamentally an apples and oranges comparison, given their totally different styles and skills (unlike Stevens-Pronger). Just thinking about the direct comparison feels a bit stilted.

Furthermore, 2004 was not the first and only year in which Niedermayer was “better” than Stevens. Just the season before, Niedermayer was logging a minute and a half more than Stevens in ice time; he had the better +/- of the two (this also happened in ‘94-‘95); and he was arguably the best player on the ice of any team in the playoffs. Bill Clement made the comment, during Game 7 of the Finals, that Niedermayer was very close to being as good a skater as Bobby Orr was (talk about the highest praise at the highest stage!). Stevens himself made the comment that Niedermayer was the key to them winning the Cup.

Digression aside: I agree with the Stevens > Pronger > Niedermayer chain

When was this you mean? Game 7 of the finals? That must be 2003. I can agree this was the time Niedermayer surpassed Stevens in the playoffs. This was the passing of the torch. I don't disagree with you about Niedermayer's skating. He was a great skater from day one in the NHL. But so was Jay Bouwmeester. Like Bouwmeester, Niedermayer didn't use that to his advantage in the first 10 years of his career like he should have. Niedermayer eventually seemed to figure it out and strung a few good years at the end but he was always seemed to hold himself back.

I think when you think of those Devils teams that won you think of Stevens first for sure. Then you think of Brodeur, perhaps the Devils system and then the overall defense (Stevens, Niedermayer, Rafalski, Daneyko) and then perhaps their offensive players like Elias, Sykora, Arnott, Gomez, etc. But you definitely knew that Stevens was the straw that stirred the drink on that team.
 
Stevens as he was better at everything honestly. The guy could play offensively if wanted to as his early career shows but nobody was better defensively. Pronger was great but used his stick more where as Stevens just hit you like a truck. Both are sure fire greats but Stevens takes this for me. Add in longevity it's not even close.

See, I would have this the other way around.

To my recollection, Pronger was the more complete player. He'd hurt you offensively, then turn around and hurt you defensively, and then hurt you literally just for kicks. If there was a fight, he'd probably win that too.

With Stevens, if you wanted the offense you'd have to give up the defense. If you wanted the defense you had to give up the offense. He could do it all, but not at the same time. So one way or another, he was fairly one-dimensional on the ice (relative to the caliber of player we're comparing him to here... obviously he was one of the best D in the league).

What hurts Pronger here:
1) He entered the league in a significantly more challenging environment for young defensemen than Stevens (mid-90s vs early 80s), and even at that he was pretty raw and immature when he arrived, and then on the other end of his career he was injured and retired early. So there's a HUGE gap between them in terms of longevity at an elite level.
2) He's an intelligent guy, but he didn't have the best of judgment when it came to things like taking penalties and suspensions. He frequently seemed to be a little more on the temperamental "edge" than the situation warranted, and that hurt his teams. Whereas Stevens was just cold-blooded and calculated. I don't remember Stevens doing a whole lot of dumb things to hurt his team, either on or off the ice.

If I were trying to win one game, I'd take Pronger without much hesitation. If I were choosing a player to draft, I'd hesitate and take Stevens for the sake of stability and longevity.
 
See, I would have this the other way around.

To my recollection, Pronger was the more complete player. He'd hurt you offensively, then turn around and hurt you defensively, and then hurt you literally just for kicks. If there was a fight, he'd probably win that too.

With Stevens, if you wanted the offense you'd have to give up the defense. If you wanted the defense you had to give up the offense. He could do it all, but not at the same time. So one way or another, he was fairly one-dimensional on the ice (relative to the caliber of player we're comparing him to here... obviously he was one of the best D in the league).

What hurts Pronger here:
1) He entered the league in a significantly more challenging environment for young defensemen than Stevens (mid-90s vs early 80s), and even at that he was pretty raw and immature when he arrived, and then on the other end of his career he was injured and retired early. So there's a HUGE gap between them in terms of longevity at an elite level.
2) He's an intelligent guy, but he didn't have the best of judgment when it came to things like taking penalties and suspensions. He frequently seemed to be a little more on the temperamental "edge" than the situation warranted, and that hurt his teams. Whereas Stevens was just cold-blooded and calculated. I don't remember Stevens doing a whole lot of dumb things to hurt his team, either on or off the ice.

If I were trying to win one game, I'd take Pronger without much hesitation. If I were choosing a player to draft, I'd hesitate and take Stevens for the sake of stability and longevity.
Interesting but Stevens still takes it for me as Pronger though might have had some ups and downs with injuries and bone head plays Stevens was deadly consistent and never hurt his team. Both were cornerstones and you can't go wrong with either but for me Stevens was the rock more so.
 
Yeah, good question, it's basically a toss-up. Two great players.

I'm thinking Pronger might have been a bit more 'team dominant' than Stevens. Pronger seemed capable at times of controlling play on the ice (semi-legally) in both directions. Not that Stevens was any slouch in this area, but there were times earlier in his career where he was considered his team's third-best defenceman (behind Langway and Murphy).

Too close to call, though.
 
Career it's Stevens, peak it's Pronger. Pronger is the best defense man I have ever seen. Lidstrom's basement was higher, but Pronger at his best was the best I've seen since 94.

He carried two mediocre teams to the cup finals with M.A. Bergeron and Matt Carle as his respective primary partners. Both played in the league for years after based largely on how good they looked with him. Both proved to be barely (Carle for awhile) or not (Bergeron) NHL quality away from Pronger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HF007
Career it's Stevens, peak it's Pronger. Pronger is the best defense man I have ever seen. Lidstrom's basement was higher, but Pronger at his best was the best I've seen since 94.

He carried two mediocre teams to the cup finals with M.A. Bergeron and Matt Carle as his respective primary partners. Both played in the league for years after based largely on how good they looked with him. Both proved to be barely (Carle for awhile) or not (Bergeron) NHL quality away from Pronger.

Was Bergeron really his most common partner that year? Pronger averaged 18 minutes of ice time just at even strength those playoffs. Bergeron didn’t even average 15 minutes in all situations. Bergeron wasn’t even dressed for a quarter of the games that run.
 
Career it's Stevens, peak it's Pronger. Pronger is the best defense man I have ever seen. Lidstrom's basement was higher, but Pronger at his best was the best I've seen since 94.

He carried two mediocre teams to the cup finals with M.A. Bergeron and Matt Carle as his respective primary partners. Both played in the league for years after based largely on how good they looked with him. Both proved to be barely (Carle for awhile) or not (Bergeron) NHL quality away from Pronger.
I'm pretty sure Roloson was Edmonton's most important player. If Roloson played like he normally did in his career, Edmonton would be lucky to make it out of the first round. Regardless of what Pronger did. In Philadelphia, they had a lot of forwards that were dynamic in those playoffs. So I don't think Pronger "carried" either team. You could say he was the best player on both teams, though. Carrying a team to the Finals would be Giguere in 2003. Not many other examples of that. Usually a team effort.

How come Pronger didn't have more deep playoff runs with the Blues? Those Blues teams had more way more talent than Edmonton or Philadelphia. He also had MacInnis on those teams. My guess is the other teams in the West were better in the late 90's and early 2000's (Colorado, Detroit, Dallas).

Anyway, Pronger is still the answer to this question. Stevens was a good offensive player early in his career, then his numbers took a mysterious nosedive. His defense was always pretty solid, though. However, Pronger was a better player on both sides of the ice in his peak. If I'm starting a franchise, I'd rather have Pronger than Stevens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad