The Best Defenseman to Never Win the Norris

[ScottM]

Just for the record: I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, and I'm not upset with anyone. I don't want to be the cause for any strife. That's not me.

[jammer2]

@JagerMeister  Here, this video can do the talking for me.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJo_2d3YIgQ

 

 

 Played one year in the OHL....won the Memorial Cup with the Toronto Marlborough's....played as a pro in his mid teens in the WHA....scored 80+ pts in his very first year in the NHL, when the Whalers joined the NHL. Was a STAGGERING plus 85 in 1986....THIS in the most out of control scoring Era in NHL history....at the time, no names like Blaine Stoughton and Al Secord were popping 50 goals like it was easy. That same year...Mark's defense partner was +83....the best plus minus EVER for any pairing in NHL history...AGAIN, at a time when goals were being scored at record rates...alarming rates even....what was Brad Park's best plus minus again?

 

 Let's not even talk wrist shots, cause Howe's was considered one of the best EVER. What part of Brad Parks game was considered the best ever?

[JagerMeister]

@JagerMeister  Here, this video can do the talking for me.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJo_2d3YIgQ

 

 

 Played one year in the OHL....won the Memorial Cup with the Toronto Marlborough's....played as a pro in his mid teens in the WHA....scored 80+ pts in his very first year in the NHL, when the Whalers joined the NHL. Was a STAGGERING plus 85 in 1986....THIS in the most out of control scoring Era in NHL history....at the time, no names like Blaine Stoughton and Al Secord were popping 50 goals like it was easy. That same year...Mark's defense partner was +83....the best plus minus EVER for any pairing in NHL history...AGAIN, at a time when goals were being scored at record rates...alarming rates even....what was Brad Park's best plus minus again?

 

 Let's not even talk wrist shots, cause Howe's was considered one of the best EVER. What part of Brad Parks game was considered the best ever?

thats quite interesting, because I have never seen Mark Howe's name brought up when talking about the best wrist shots of all time, did you mean to say one of the best ever during his prime? that would make more sense...

Oh, and Brad Park was considered one of the best playmakers during his prime.

 

 

+68, but even then that does not really matter, are you seriously using the plus minus stat to prove that Mark Howe is better than Brad Park?...should i say Wayne Gretzky was a tremendous two way player because he has the highest +/- of any forward in a single season and career, or Jagr? Also, you just answered your own question, in the most out of control scoring era in NHL history, Mark Howe getting 80+ points in his first NHL year is not as impressive as it looks, also the fact that he was already 24 years old and already spent 6 years in the WHL, so he had alot of experience already, ofc, WHL was not as good as the NHL, but it was the second best hockey league in the world.

 

Btw, you still havent answered my question, if Howe was better than Park, why does Park have 7 norris runner ups against a peak Potvin and Bobby Orr.compared to Howe, who has 3 Norris runner ups while facing against Coffey, who was not particularly well known for his great defensive play...

 

Is Coffey better than Orr? Or is he better than both Orr and Potvin combined?

[jammer2]

@JagerMeister  Park had stiffer competition at the time he played...yes, no doubt about it, nobody was going to win with Bobby Orr and Potvin skating circles around the league.

 

 Mark Howe played in another professional league (the WHA) for the first six years of his career....only when he switched to the NHL did he become a d-man...so, a guy switching to a different position eventually became the best all round d-man in the league. That is how much God given talent that Mark had. If Park had started playing defense for the first time after being a pro for 6 years....would he still have been runner up so many times?

 

 Look, it's hard to take your opinion seriously on this matter, you never seen either one of these guys play, so you are not exactly an authority on these two....

 

 If you had seen them both play, you would have a different opinion...

 

 Brad Park was an above average d-man who did a lot of things nicely...none of them being great, except his deft play making ability....that was borderline elite.

 

 Howe was an ELITE skater, passer, shooter (yes, one of the very best wristers in the game....and a highly respected slapper also), and had OFF THE CHARTS hockey sense....all this from a guy who switched positions 6 years into his pro career, which is UNHEARD of btw.

[JagerMeister]

@JagerMeister  Park had stiffer competition at the time he played...yes, no doubt about it, nobody was going to win with Bobby Orr and Potvin skating circles around the league.

 

 Mark Howe played in another professional league (the WHA) for the first six years of his career....only when he switched to the NHL did he become a d-man...so, a guy switching to a different position eventually became the best all round d-man in the league. That is how much God given talent that Mark had. If Park had started playing defense for the first time after being a pro for 6 years....would he still have been runner up so many times?

 

 Look, it's hard to take your opinion seriously on this matter, you never seen either one of these guys play, so you are not exactly an authority on these two....

 

 If you had seen them both play, you would have a different opinion...

 

 Brad Park was an above average d-man who did a lot of things nicely...none of them being great, except his deft play making ability....that was borderline elite.

 

 Howe was an ELITE skater, passer, shooter (yes, one of the very best wristers in the game....and a highly respected slapper also), and had OFF THE CHARTS hockey sense....all this from a guy who switched positions 6 years into his pro career, which is UNHEARD of btw.

Sorry, an "above average d man" does not become a runner up 7 times to the greatest defenseman of all time, no, thats a GREAT defenseman....

I can see why you cant take my opinion seriously, but its basically unanimous in HFBoards that Park is the greatest defenseman to never win the Norris.(Yes, ik that might make it  even harder to take me seriously now, but the History Of Hockey section has alot of knowledgeable posters that read hockey history almost religiously, they know their stuff.) Ofc, im not trying to discredit your opinion.

 

Btw, i think the bolded post about Park is quite unfair, it seems to me Mark Howe was a tremendous offensive defenseman, so you could even say Mark Howe had an advantage in offense as a defenseman due to initially being a forward at first.

[jammer2]

Btw, i think the bolded post about Park is quite unfair, it seems to me Mark Howe was a tremendous offensive defenseman, so you could even say Mark Howe had an advantage in offense as a defenseman due to initially being a forward at first.

 

 I was just trying to speak to the greatness of Howe. Not many, if any players switch positons so late into their careers, but to do that AND become elite and one of the best in the league, that is saying something towards God given talent.

 

 Not cutting up the boys at HF boards, but I don't buy that one bit....I saw them both extensively with my own eyes....Mark was better, it was not close.

[JagerMeister]

 I was just trying to speak to the greatness of Howe. Not many, if any players switch positons so late into their careers, but to do that AND become elite and one of the best in the league, that is saying something towards God given talent.

 

 Not cutting up the boys at HF boards, but I don't buy that one bit....I saw them both extensively with my own eyes....Mark was better, it was not close.

Not sure if you will even take the time to read this, cause ya know, hfboards.

But i was wrong actually, its not unanimous but more people think Brad Park as the best defenseman to never win a norris, but Howe was mentioned quite a bit as well, not as much as Park though

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1836659&page=4

 

Also, here's an article on bleacher report, guess who is first? and im assuming this guy watched him play, because he sure talks about Park like he did!!!

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/955310-nhl-history-the-10-greatest-defensemen-to-never-win-a-norris-trophy/page/12

 

@ScottM help me out here....i have never been the strongest of debaters....

[ScottM]

@JagerMeister Actually, I don't think you need my help. That second link you have sums up the case for Park quite well. Lol

I guess one thing I'd add would be simply to mention that Park excelled at both a rush the puck style early in his career and a stay at home style later.

Eddie Giacomin once said of Park's play with the Bruins, "I'd he had played that way in New York, I'd still be playing and have a lot less gray hair." That doesn't really make the case one way or the other, but I thought it was funny and it does speak to the transition in style.

[jammer2]

  This was some real nice research by Chip over on HF boards, worth reposting over here, some Flyer fans might find this interesting. I totally agree with Chip's theory and findings....in short, Mark Howe was indeed the straw that stirred the drink!

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantomas

Howe was second in the voting three times, but look closely at the seasons and his competition. His 86-87 might have been second in the voting, but it is one of the weakest seasons to garner so much support.

Howe would not have been voted in that high had he been the same age 5-10 years later and playing against prime Bourque, Chelios, Stevens, Leetch, MacInnis and Murphy.

Ages of the players mentioned by Fantomas during the 1986-87 season:

Bourque: 25-26 yrs. (DOB 12/28/60)
Chelios: 24-25 yrs. (DOB 1/25/62)
Stevens: 22-23 yrs. (DOB 4/1/64)
Leetch: 18-19 yrs (DOB 3/3/68)
MacInnis: 23 yrs. (DOB 7/11/63)
Murphy: 25-26 yrs. (DOB 3/8/61)

All of the guys mentioned above excluding Leetch were already playing in the NHL in 1986-87, and at least three of them (Bourque, Chelios, and Murphy) were already in or arguably in the beginning of their prime years. (In that general time period and not long before that, many guys entered their prime years in their mid 20s; guys like Bourque, Paul Coffey, and Denis Potvin were 1st team all-NHL in their early 20s, and Coffey, Potvin, and Larry Robinson had won the Norris Trophy by age 25, with Potvin winning it for the first time in his early 20s.) Howe was better than the guys cited by Fantomas above (excluding Bourque) in a "weak" season, a season in which his team had the second-best overall record and made the Stanley Cup Finals in a league that was historically-speaking, unusually balanced (no team more than 106 points, no team less than 64 points in an era where neither "loser points" nor "cheap win points", i.e. wins by shootout, were granted in any games and artificially boosted team point totals).

In addition to the above, here are two other things to consider with Mark Howe's quality, or lack thereof, as a defenseman:

1) Howe spent most of his prime years as an NHL defenseman with the Flyers, stretching roughly from 1982-83 to 1987-88. He played in anywhere from 69 to 77 games during those six seasons. As he progressed into his mid-30s (age 33 and up), he started missing more games, playing 52, 40, 19, and 42 games during his last four seasons (1988-89 to 1991-92) in Philadelphia. The Flyers, who had one of the best teams in the league during most of Howe's tenure, noticeably dropped off as Howe's games played dropped off. Here's a brief chart:

Philadelphia Flyers team points rank during Mark Howe's time with the team
Prime years
1982-83: T2nd (106 points) - 1st team All-Star
1983-84: 6th (98 points)
1984-85: 1st (113 points)
1985-86: 2nd (110 points) - 1st team All-Star
1986-87: 2nd (100 points) - 1st team All-Star
1987-88: T8th (85 points)
Post-prime years
1988-89: T10th (80 points)
1989-90: 18th (71 points)
1990-91: T13th (76 points)
1991-92: 15th (75 points)

The Flyers fell off for various reasons starting in the late 1980s, but one of the biggest reasons was Mark Howe wasn't able to play as much or as at a high a level as he did in the mid-1980s. The fall-off in the Flyers' overall team quality and its correlation with Mark Howe's decreased playing time due to injury is an argument in favor of Howe's quality.

2) The Flyers didn't have many Hall of Famers (or really ANY Hall of Famers) besides Howe who were either in their prime or on the roster period during Howe's prime years with the Flyers, yet they were consistently a top level team. Though the Flyers did have a number of Hall of the Very Good players on their team during the mid-to-late 1980s (including guys like Brian Propp, Tim Kerr, Dave Poulin, Rich Tocchet, Brad McCrimmon, Pelle Lindbergh, and Ron Hextall during all or much of the period), it is VERY unusual for a top level team, especially in a smaller, 21 team league, to be a perennial top level team and truly lack Hall of Famers on it. If you look at almost all top level teams, including the teams the guys mentioned above played for during their prime years, almost all of them had multiple (I'm guessing 3 or more) Hall of Famers on the roster who were in their prime years or if not at the peak of their careers, were still excellent players getting better or slowly descending from their top seasons.

As a point of reference, the Washington Capitals had two of the guys listed above (Murphy and Stevens) AND Rod Langway all on defense AND Mike Gartner as one of their forwards during the 1983-84 to 1987-88 seasons, all of them Hall of Famers and all of them either in their primes or not long before their primes during this period. Despite that, the Flyers had more points than the Capitals in 3 of the 5 seasons and the same number of points in 1 of the other 2 seasons (1987-88); 1983-84 was the only season during the period when the Capitals finished ahead of the Flyers in the standings (by 3 points, 101 vs 98 points). Goals against-wise, the Flyers had a sizable advantage in two of the seasons and the Caps had a sizable advantage in two of the seasons; in the fifth season (1984-85), the two teams were nearly dead-even in goals against (240 for Washington, 241 for Philadelphia). You'd think a team with considerably more Hall of Famers, including three eventual inductees on defense, would be better than a team with one Hall of Famer, particularly one considered marginal by some people.

The fact that the Flyers were able to be a top level team over a 4-5 year stretch while lacking Hall of Famers is primarily a tribute to their depth, but also speaks well for the guys who DID make the Hall of Fame from those teams. Again, this is a point in favor of Mark Howe's quality and importance to his team during his prime years as a NHL defenseman.

Last edited by CHIP72: 03-02-2015 at 03:22 PM.

03-02-2015, 11:12 AM

 

[jammer2]

@JagerMeister Actually, I don't think you need my help. That second link you have sums up the case for Park quite well. Lol

I guess one thing I'd add would be simply to mention that Park excelled at both a rush the puck style early in his career and a stay at home style later.

Eddie Giacomin once said of Park's play with the Bruins, "I'd he had played that way in New York, I'd still be playing and have a lot less gray hair." That doesn't really make the case one way or the other, but I thought it was funny and it does speak to the transition in style.

 

 

 This actually makes a lot of sense. When Brad Parks career started in the NHL, I was 5 years old. Beleive it or not, I hung around with older kids 12-14 yrs old, who greatly influenced my outlook on the league. I thank the good Lord for those older voices, cause it really helped such a young mind put things in proper perspective. BUT...it was not fool proof, and there are gaps in there...so when Brad was with the Rangers, my memory would have been fuzzy....and when he got traded to the Bruins, I was 11 years old...and 18 when he left the Bruins. So, obviously my memories of Brad would have cheated towards the stay at home version later in his career with the Bruins, than the rushing d man who eventually gave way to father time. Not sure, but my guess is my memories between 5-10 (NYR days) are not nearly as strong as his Boston days (11-18 years old). WIth Mark, I was 15 when he entered the league, and have full total memory of all his days as a Flyer.

 

 It may sound odd that a 5 year old has any hockey memories, but honestly, these older kids taught me so well, really molded me ....to the point where I was 7 yrs old, I could hold my own with any adult on players, teams....and I just naturally loved the sport so much, I remembered it all....it all stuck in there. Wish I could find some of those older kids right now and thank them....how do you even thank someone for years and years of memories....it's priceless. I can speak to 70's hockey because of those kids....will always be in their debt. ...and I think they liked teaching me as much as I liked learning. Special thing, Canadian kids and how they chose to interact back then.

[ScottM]

 This actually makes a lot of sense. When Brad Parks career started in the NHL, I was 5 years old. Beleive it or not, I hung around with older kids 12-14 yrs old, who greatly influenced my outlook on the league. I thank the good Lord for those older voices, cause it really helped such a young mind put things in proper perspective. BUT...it was not fool proof, and there are gaps in there...so when Brad was with the Rangers, my memory would have been fuzzy....and when he got traded to the Bruins, I was 11 years old...and 18 when he left the Bruins. So, obviously my memories of Brad would have cheated towards the stay at home version later in his career with the Bruins, than the rushing d man who eventually gave way to father time. Not sure, but my guess is my memories between 5-10 (NYR days) are not nearly as strong as his Boston days (11-18 years old). WIth Mark, I was 15 when he entered the league, and have full total memory of all his days as a Flyer.

 

 It may sound odd that a 5 year old has any hockey memories, but honestly, these older kids taught me so well, really molded me ....to the point where I was 7 yrs old, I could hold my own with any adult on players, teams....and I just naturally loved the sport so much, I remembered it all....it all stuck in there. Wish I could find some of those older kids right now and thank them....how do you even thank someone for years and years of memories....it's priceless. I can speak to 70's hockey because of those kids....will always be in their debt. ...and I think they liked teaching me as much as I liked learning. Special thing, Canadian kids and how they chose to interact back then.

 

I have a couple of thoughts here. One will be a bit of reminiscing on my part and the other will deal with the topic of the thread.

 

I think in some ways I'm jealous of your having those influences when you were a kid. Obviously, I didn't have that growing up in south Mississippi. When I started watching hockey as a kid, it was basically because no one else watched it and it was a way to be different. As you can see, I ended up falling in love with the sport, and at this point it has absolutely nothing to do with who else does or doesn't watch or enjoy it. I have gotten some of my friends to follow it a little, and I do try to sell them on how great the sport is. Anyway, all of that said, I've had to learn it on my own. I did have a church youth director when I was in my late teens who was from Michigan and was a big Red Wings fan. I learned some from him, but I'm mostly self-taught. I would have been nice to have had someone to learn more from. Anyway, I was already a Senators fan before I met him, since that went back to my childhood.

 

Anyway, back to the topic. Park was truly a rare breed in his early career. Of course, there weren't all that many rushing defensemen at the time, with he and Orr easily being the most prominent. Of course, it was the competition with Orr that kept Park from winning any Norris Trophies at that time. I mean, who on earth could have won the award with Orr to compete with? While Orr was certainly far ahead of not only Park, but everyone, Park did have something Orr didn't: longevity. Park had injury issues as well, but proved to be a bit more durable. He had his fair share of knee surgeries, but he was able to continue thanks to the shift in style. He once said about the change, "My wheels aren't as good, but my brains are better." When he retired, he was second in career points among defensemen to Orr. Personally, I think he excelled at both styles.

[jammer2]

@ScottM  In his last 5 years, Park really got masterful at positioning. Even his last 2 years on the Wings...(he never looked right in that uniform btw) when his wheels had almost totally left him, he was so very useful because his positioning was beyond reproach.

 

 Funny, how both guys we are talking about ended their careers with the Wings. I fell really old today....why?  Because Mark Howe turns 60 on May 28th next week....so early Happy 60th Mark. Umm....Hexy....Mark is the Director of Pro Scouting for the Wings....how about stealing him back when the contract comes due??

[JagerMeister]

 

  This was some real nice research by Chip over on HF boards, worth reposting over here, some Flyer fans might find this interesting. I totally agree with Chip's theory and findings....in short, Mark Howe was indeed the straw that stirred the drink!

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantomas

Howe was second in the voting three times, but look closely at the seasons and his competition. His 86-87 might have been second in the voting, but it is one of the weakest seasons to garner so much support.

Howe would not have been voted in that high had he been the same age 5-10 years later and playing against prime Bourque, Chelios, Stevens, Leetch, MacInnis and Murphy.

Ages of the players mentioned by Fantomas during the 1986-87 season:

Bourque: 25-26 yrs. (DOB 12/28/60)

Chelios: 24-25 yrs. (DOB 1/25/62)

Stevens: 22-23 yrs. (DOB 4/1/64)

Leetch: 18-19 yrs (DOB 3/3/68)

MacInnis: 23 yrs. (DOB 7/11/63)

Murphy: 25-26 yrs. (DOB 3/8/61)

All of the guys mentioned above excluding Leetch were already playing in the NHL in 1986-87, and at least three of them (Bourque, Chelios, and Murphy) were already in or arguably in the beginning of their prime years. (In that general time period and not long before that, many guys entered their prime years in their mid 20s; guys like Bourque, Paul Coffey, and Denis Potvin were 1st team all-NHL in their early 20s, and Coffey, Potvin, and Larry Robinson had won the Norris Trophy by age 25, with Potvin winning it for the first time in his early 20s.) Howe was better than the guys cited by Fantomas above (excluding Bourque) in a "weak" season, a season in which his team had the second-best overall record and made the Stanley Cup Finals in a league that was historically-speaking, unusually balanced (no team more than 106 points, no team less than 64 points in an era where neither "loser points" nor "cheap win points", i.e. wins by shootout, were granted in any games and artificially boosted team point totals).

In addition to the above, here are two other things to consider with Mark Howe's quality, or lack thereof, as a defenseman:

1) Howe spent most of his prime years as an NHL defenseman with the Flyers, stretching roughly from 1982-83 to 1987-88. He played in anywhere from 69 to 77 games during those six seasons. As he progressed into his mid-30s (age 33 and up), he started missing more games, playing 52, 40, 19, and 42 games during his last four seasons (1988-89 to 1991-92) in Philadelphia. The Flyers, who had one of the best teams in the league during most of Howe's tenure, noticeably dropped off as Howe's games played dropped off. Here's a brief chart:

Philadelphia Flyers team points rank during Mark Howe's time with the team

Prime years

1982-83: T2nd (106 points) - 1st team All-Star

1983-84: 6th (98 points)

1984-85: 1st (113 points)

1985-86: 2nd (110 points) - 1st team All-Star

1986-87: 2nd (100 points) - 1st team All-Star

1987-88: T8th (85 points)

Post-prime years

1988-89: T10th (80 points)

1989-90: 18th (71 points)

1990-91: T13th (76 points)

1991-92: 15th (75 points)

The Flyers fell off for various reasons starting in the late 1980s, but one of the biggest reasons was Mark Howe wasn't able to play as much or as at a high a level as he did in the mid-1980s. The fall-off in the Flyers' overall team quality and its correlation with Mark Howe's decreased playing time due to injury is an argument in favor of Howe's quality.

2) The Flyers didn't have many Hall of Famers (or really ANY Hall of Famers) besides Howe who were either in their prime or on the roster period during Howe's prime years with the Flyers, yet they were consistently a top level team. Though the Flyers did have a number of Hall of the Very Good players on their team during the mid-to-late 1980s (including guys like Brian Propp, Tim Kerr, Dave Poulin, Rich Tocchet, Brad McCrimmon, Pelle Lindbergh, and Ron Hextall during all or much of the period), it is VERY unusual for a top level team, especially in a smaller, 21 team league, to be a perennial top level team and truly lack Hall of Famers on it. If you look at almost all top level teams, including the teams the guys mentioned above played for during their prime years, almost all of them had multiple (I'm guessing 3 or more) Hall of Famers on the roster who were in their prime years or if not at the peak of their careers, were still excellent players getting better or slowly descending from their top seasons.

As a point of reference, the Washington Capitals had two of the guys listed above (Murphy and Stevens) AND Rod Langway all on defense AND Mike Gartner as one of their forwards during the 1983-84 to 1987-88 seasons, all of them Hall of Famers and all of them either in their primes or not long before their primes during this period. Despite that, the Flyers had more points than the Capitals in 3 of the 5 seasons and the same number of points in 1 of the other 2 seasons (1987-88); 1983-84 was the only season during the period when the Capitals finished ahead of the Flyers in the standings (by 3 points, 101 vs 98 points). Goals against-wise, the Flyers had a sizable advantage in two of the seasons and the Caps had a sizable advantage in two of the seasons; in the fifth season (1984-85), the two teams were nearly dead-even in goals against (240 for Washington, 241 for Philadelphia). You'd think a team with considerably more Hall of Famers, including three eventual inductees on defense, would be better than a team with one Hall of Famer, particularly one considered marginal by some people.

The fact that the Flyers were able to be a top level team over a 4-5 year stretch while lacking Hall of Famers is primarily a tribute to their depth, but also speaks well for the guys who DID make the Hall of Fame from those teams. Again, this is a point in favor of Mark Howe's quality and importance to his team during his prime years as a NHL defenseman.

Last edited by CHIP72: 03-02-2015 at 03:22 PM.

03-02-2015, 11:12 AM

 

 

So you did read the HFboards link i sent you, im pleasantly surprised, i didnt think you would even make it worth your time once you saw "HFBoards"...see? HFBoards has some very knowledgeable posters (specifically when it comes to hockey history) 

 that information doesnt prove Mark Howe was better than Brad Park, but it does prove that he was much better than people would have thought (for those that didnt watch him and just look at accolades and stats)

Fortunately for you, you got to watch a very talented player, and i dont doubt your memory at all 

 

[flyercanuck]

Travis Sanheim