Phil Housley

[The Panther]

I am not sure there is any evidence that he was any more effective on the PP than other offensive-minded D-men of his era.

Well, he was on the ice for more PP goals than any other player in 1992-93, so there's that.

 

[decma]

Career PPGF/80 games, post-merger to last season:

MacInnis 67.1
Coffey 64.9
Brown 64.1
Bourque 63.2
Leetch 62.8

Suter 61.4
Potvin 59.9
Wilson 58.0
Siltanen 57.9
Hartsburg 57.5

Housley 57.3
Zubov 56.6
Reinhart 55.8
Lidstrom 53.5
Murphy 51.0

 

[The Panther]

Wow, I already thought he was awful defensively and I'd never seen that one!

I either watched, or have seen highlights of, most of the Kings/Oilers' games from 1986-87 and 1987-88 and Duchesne is like a one-man wrecking crew of defensive disastrousness.

 

[ted2019]

I wouldn't even call Housley a defenseman. I look at him more as a Rover if anything.

 

[Big Phil]

Mark Howe and Nik Lidstrom each only fought one time in their NHL careers. Is that a strike against them?

Housley was very good offensively and terrible defensively, but I don't think his lack of fights has any relevance in evaluating how good he was.

Howe and Lidstrom weren't physical defensemen but they made up for it in other areas. They were excellent defensively for starters. What I am saying about Housley is that while we don't deny his offensive contributions, sometimes it came at the expense of his defense and his defense was horrible to begin with. It wouldn't have hurt the guy to learn how to be more solid in his own end.

 

[Big Phil]

I'm not the biggest Housley fan in the world but I tend to break things down to the ridiculous. How many defensemen have played in the NHL over the years? Thousands? I truly have no idea. But, out of all of them combined, only THREE have scored more career points than Phil Housley. I mean, I know he had flaws to his game, but his offensive accomplishments alone warrant the Hall... the more I think about it.

Housley is that sort of player that seems to become more Hall worthy the further we are away from his playing days and I don't think that is a good trait for someone. 20 years in the NHL, all of that offense to show for it and these were his Norris finishes:

3, 5, 5, 5, 9, 10, 14

How do you lead your team in scoring in 1996 as a defenseman with 68 points and only finish 14th in Norris voting? Also, the U.S. nailed him to the bench that fall in the World Cup.

Yet the guy they played regularly was Gary Suter among others. Suter's Norris finishes are like this:

3, 7, 7, 8

There have been some other point producing players who didn't win wherever they went (Hawerchuk and Dionne never got past the second round in their best years, it took Joe Thornton eons to get to the Cup Final and he was also sketchy in the playoffs), but it seems different when you're a forward as opposed to at the blueline.

Some guys at forward aren't always going to be Selke caliber (i.e. Brett Hull's St. Louis years), but guys like that are better at covering up their flaws with their strengths.

Steve Duchesne was maybe the closest thing to Housley (point producer, couldn't win, always had trouble getting past the second round), but he seemed to be on the ice a lot more

Forwards do get less criticism if they don't win. Probably because a star defenseman is on the ice for 30 minutes a game potentially and can make more of a dent for a team to win the Cup. Not that you HAVE to win a Cup as a defenseman either. Brad Park didn't as we know and there is no second guessing him. Bourque won a Cup on the final game of his career. But these guys were no shrinking violets in the playoffs either.

As for the forwards, Hawerchuk, Dionne and Thornton didn't win a Cup, but regularly were among the top scorers in the NHL and considered among the elite talent.

Housley was always an afterthought in that big log jam of elite defensemen during his era. I think somehow we figure this has changed in his favour the further we get away from his career but I don't think it should.