1966-67 Norris winner

[MS]

In 2008 we look at Howell's induction in the context of all HOF defenseman yet in 79 the HHOF had not yet inducted Park,Potvin,Robinson,LaPointe,Salming,Fetisov,Langway,Bourque,Coffey,Murphy,Macinnes or Stevens.

It's still pretty iffy.

Outside of his Norris season, he had one other year where he finished tied for 5th in Norris voting. He just wasn't an elite player.

The '67 Norris seems to be a recognition of the fact that he was playing ridiculous minutes on a thin team, and perhaps he won for being the 'Most Valuable Defender' that year rather than the 'Best Defender'.

When you look at his career, he seems to be the Kevin Lowe/Brad McCrimmon of that era ... a steady-eddie type who was at times a top-10 defender in the league but not really an elite player. And most guys of this type have not been inducted into the HHOF. Especially when you consider that he didn't win a Cup.

Allen Stanley has a slightly better claim because he was a core member of a dynasty and had 3 post-season All-Star nods. He was also one of the top offensive defenders of his era (despite the fact that I think his reputation is more of the 'plodding steady veteran' variety) and was top-5 in defensive scoring 6 times in 8 years between 1954 and 1962. That's more times finishing top-5 in defensive scoring than Phil Housley, if you can believe that.

But both guys are symptomatic of the fact that 90% of the guys who had a 15-year career in the 1942-67 Original 6 era made it to the HHOF.

 

[Big Phil]

In 2008 we look at Howell's induction in the context of all HOF defenseman yet in 79 the HHOF had not yet inducted Park,Potvin,Robinson,LaPointe,Salming,Fetisov,Langway,Bourque,Coffey,Murphy,Macinnes or Stevens.

In comparison it still looks fairly weak. I personally have never seen much difference between Howell and Carlyle IMO. They didnt have the same style but I mean in terms of HHOF worthiness I just dont see much difference. I will give Howell credit, he did win a Norris. That alone is a great accomplishment and even better considering that only Wilson and Carlyle are the only two that have won one that arent/won't be in the HHOF. Honestly other than Leo Boivin I cant think of a defenseman lower on the pecking order than Howell. And that includes Stanley

 

[justsomeguy]

No, I pretty much agree with what he said. There have been too many times when a defenseman won the Norris based on stats (hello Randy Carlyle). There was a lot more emphasis on the all around play of defensemen at the time. I mean in '81 shoudl Carlyle have won over Potvin? You tell me. Does a couple of points really matter when you have Denis Potvin's all around game coupling with that?

Howell did however acknowledge that the next 10 Norris Trophies would go to Orr, and he was almost right as it was 8. But with all due respect to Howell, while he deserved the Norris that year and was a rock hard defenseman his whole career I think he's a guy that may have slipped under the cracks to get into the HHOF. Just my opinion on the man. He might be among the weakest d-men in the HHOF

That's not all that much of a bad rap, given the Hall's historic preference for forwards but he was one of the most solid and effective, if unspectacular, blueliners in the league for a good number of years, unfortunately also playng for a less than successful franchise.

 

[Wetcoaster]

In comparison it still looks fairly weak. I personally have never seen much difference between Howell and Carlyle IMO. They didnt have the same style but I mean in terms of HHOF worthiness I just dont see much difference. I will give Howell credit, he did win a Norris. That alone is a great accomplishment and even better considering that only Wilson and Carlyle are the only two that have won one that arent/won't be in the HHOF. Honestly other than Leo Boivin I cant think of a defenseman lower on the pecking order than Howell. And that includes Stanley

I watched Howell play for almost ten years on some truly awful Rangers teams. He was a horse. Think Rod Langway as a comparison.

Perhaps the NYR of that era are best summarized by Lorne "Gump" (My face IS my mask) Worsley when he was regularly being vulcanized by opposing teams (40-50 shots was not unusual) before his trade to the Habs. He was asked by an ink stained wretch "Which team gives you the most trouble?"

The Gumper thought carefully, considered his answer and replied - "The New York Rangers."

Harry Howell was often spending 40 minutes a game on the ice just trying to stem the tide. The most amazing thing was he only missed 17 games in his first 16 seasons in the NHL. Quite a feat for a defensive physical Dman.

He was the epitome of a strong dependable stay at home Dman and was deserving of the Norris that season and deserving of his induction in the HHOF.

BTW Howell at the time he retired had played more games than any other D-man. 1,581 games - 1,411 in the NHL and 170 in the World Hockey Association.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Howell's Norris trophy voting record is a little stronger than I expected.

1956: 6th place
1962: 7th place
1964: 5th place
1965: 9th place
1966: 6th place
1967: 1st place

Keep in mind that the data I have is incomplete and it doesn't extend beyond the top five for a few years (1955, 1957, 1961, 1968). Based on the years where we have full data it looks like Howell was generally considered to be at the lower end of the league's top ten defensemen.

 

[Big Phil]

I watched Howell play for almost ten years on some truly awful Rangers teams. He was a horse. Think Rod Langway as a comparison.

Perhaps the NYR of that era are best summarized by Lorne "Gump" (My face IS my mask) Worsley when he was regularly being vulcanized by opposing teams (40-50 shots was not unusual) before his trade to the Habs. He was asked by an ink stained wretch "Which team gives you the most trouble?"

The Gumper thought carefully, considered his answer and replied - "The New York Rangers."

Harry Howell was often spending 40 minutes a game on the ice just trying to stem the tide. The most amazing thing was he only missed 17 games in his first 16 seasons in the NHL. Quite a feat for a defensive physical Dman.

He was the epitome of a strong dependable stay at home Dman and was deserving of the Norris that season and deserving of his induction in the HHOF.

BTW Howell at the time he retired had played more games than any other D-man. 1,581 games - 1,411 in the NHL and 170 in the World Hockey Association.

I watched Howell too. Believe me, in those days players got a lot of credit even if they were on a bad team (Bill Gadsby). Even today you'll notice when a player is great on a bad team. People that saw Howell on a weekly basis only found it once that he was among the top 4 defensemen in the league. Even with the Norris, that is still pretty weak. I don't care that he is a HHOFer, but I won't deny he's weak in many ways too.

 

[ForsbergForever]

Thanks for all the info on Howell and the season the Rangers had that year. JUst to clear up some ewarlier contoversy in this thread, I gave the stats for the other top defenders from the season for comparison's sake and if anything to take them out of the equation because I knew there had to be more to it than their point totals. I didn't know about that midseason Norris vote...sounds like it could kind of skew the overall performance of players for the year, but interesting none the less.