How good was Howie Morenz?

[nabby12]

I want to start by saying that I'm not trying to knock Howie Morenz at all. I just wanted to post some notes on some things I noticed when researching Morenz and see what other think of him as well, and where he stands on the All-Time list of greatest players of all time. I noticed that Morenz generally gets taken anywhere from 10-18 in the ATD, and I'm curious if that's an accurate place for him.

There's a lot of massive amount of biases placed on Morenz as he played for the most historic franchise, the Montreal Canadiens, and also died during his playing career, which just increased the legend of Morenz that still exists to this day.

Morenz didn't exactly blow up the NHL in stats during his career, like say a Joe Malone did in that era with all of his goals. Sure you can point to the three Hart Trophies he won which is a massive achievement, but Morenz had a lot of "down years" throughout his career where he was putting up a point every two games on average. His peak did not last very long. And over the course of his career, he wasn't a PPG player, scoring just 472 points in 550 games. I'm also well aware that there wasn't lots of scoring in this era, but you'd still think that someone of Morenz' legend stature would have blown up the score sheet a little more throughout his career.

I know that people will point to the 1927-28 season where Morenz posted some great stats. However, when I look at his other great season (1929-30), where he scored 40 goals in 44 games, scoring was just up that season and he finished behind Cooney Weiland (43 goals in 44 games) and Dit Clapper (41 goals in 44 games).

Will post more notes as they come up, but wanted to hear some thoughts from others.

Click to read more...

 

[MadLuke]

I think a lot of his legend come from the 2 way play (that position when he played was quite over the ice and being a strong skater gave him a lot of advantage, he started to play before the forward pass in the offensive zone started in 1929, after that the offside was different for an other season), than his scoring, specially in the playoff is not that special.

During his prime:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

PPG leader
Morenz..: .99
Conacher: .95
Cook....: .90
Stewart.: .86

GPG
Morenz.: 0.63
Stewart: 0.61

To note the player keeping up with him are also highly rated.

In the playoff, third in total points, 4th in goals, 8th in ppg, he does not seem to really separate himself statistically more than any other Art ross winners type, there a season of dominance but that would have been quite noisy-small sample.

 

[DitchMarner]

I know HR adjusted stats aren't everyone's cup of tea, but it's worth mentioning that the site gives him the highest adjusted point total for a single season in NHL history (Gretzky is second, I believe).

However, his next-best total is nowhere close and Gretzky and Lemieux combined probably have at least 12 seasons better.

His peer domination in 1928 is nice but not nearly as uncanny as that total of 190 adjusted points.

Whether you go by adjusted points or scoring relative to other top scorers, his best season does seem like an outlier and is his best by far.


His other Art Ross season (1930-1931):

 

[MadLuke]

I know HR adjusted stats aren't everyone's cup of tea, but it's worth mentioning that the site gives him the highest adjusted point total for a single season in NHL history (Gretzky is second, I believe).

barely sneeking in over Weiland:

1.	Howie Morenz*	190	1927-28
2.	Wayne Gretzky*	170	1985-86
3.	Cooney Weiland*	168	1929-30

I think 20s and 30s HR adjusted stats are no one cup of tea, it is more after the 50s that some give them good credence or not, before there is not much of a debate that they have too much issues to be used, roster size, deployment and scoring by position is too different for HR raw approach.

The idea than this:
Points

1.	Howie Morenz* • MTL	51
2.	Aurele Joliat* • MTL	39
3.	Frank Boucher* • NYR	35
	George Hay* • DTC	35
5.	Nels Stewart* • MTM	34

Should adjust a lot higher than
Points

1.	Wayne Gretzky* • EDM	215
2.	Mario Lemieux* • PIT	141
3.	Paul Coffey* • EDM	138
4.	Jari Kurri* • EDM	131
5.	Mike Bossy* • NYI	123

Gretzky outscored the 2nd scorer by 52% and the 5th scorer by 75%, Morenz did it by 31% and 50%, Gretzky outscored the 10th place scored by 105%, Morenz by 112.5%.

Even without talking about league size and ice usage what it mean for the competition scoring at the time, just raw numbers adjusting it should be at least very close but it seem Gretzky could even be ahead.

 

[Stephen]

Forward passing in the offensive zone wasn't even allowed in the 1927-28 season, so those era adjusted numbers would have to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Forward passing in the offensive zone wasn't even allowed in the 1927-28 season, so those era adjusted numbers would have to be taken with a grain of salt.

As should all adjusted stats.. but ya, some of them are clearly out in left field

 

[The Panther]

It's obviously difficult with players for whom we have little (Morenz) or no video footage of. Even when we have footage, it's kind of meaningless unless you're able to watch many games and get a full sense of the player, his team, the context, etc.

The stats are helpful to a degree, but as the Hockey Ref. (or other) "adjusted" stats show, trying to find a level playing field for 1920s' stats compared to say, 1990s' stats, is a slippery slope at best.

Inevitably, what we're mainly left with is the literature and the recorded descriptions / recollections of that time period. To a large extent, that has to determine much of our evaluation (not to say it's totally accurate). We know that the Canadian Press, in 1950, named Morenz the best player of the first half of the 20th century, which is no small accolade. In 1950, it had been 13.5 years since Morenz's last game, and maybe 18 years since his prime ended. (So, this would be comparable to the press today evaluating maybe Jagr or Sakic).

On the other hand, it seems clear that, in the first half of the century, Montreal and Toronto dominated the hockey media -- esp. Montreal. I mean, we've seen how suprisingly low the status of a player like Frank Brimsek was for years simply due to playing for Boston in the 1940s. So, it's likely that Morenz got a media "push" from playing in Montreal (not unlike how players since maybe the 1990s get the same for playing in New York).

Anyway, we kind of have to go with contemporary reports and evaluations by those who saw him play, as I don't think the statistics tell much of a story prior to about 1930.

 

[MadLuke]

Montreal had the best defense in the league (both regular season and playoff among team with more than 12 games played) during Morenz prime, normally a single center impact could be limited and not that telling with what their team do, but back then he would have played a lot of the team minutes a like a basketball star at the big position, the top 3 forward scored almost 100% of the team goal some season.

 

[DitchMarner]

Forward passing in the offensive zone wasn't even allowed in the 1927-28 season, so those era adjusted numbers would have to be taken with a grain of salt.

I agree with that. The OP claims that Morenz didn't often set the NHL on fire, so to speak, during his prime, and I think stats do support that notion. Obviously it's tough making a meaningful statistical comparison between seasons from the 20s and 30s and 80s and 90s. What is telling, however, is that during his own era, Morenz' 1928 stands out as a personal anomaly. That's not to say he wasn't good otherwise. But this could be a case of one season really elevating a player's reputation and standing (maybe similar to Fedorov and 1994 from more recent times).

Inevitably, what we're mainly left with is the literature and the recorded descriptions / recollections of that time period. To a large extent, that has to determine much of our evaluation (not to say it's totally accurate). We know that the Canadian Press, in 1950, named Morenz the best player of the first half of the 20th century, which is no small accolade. In 1950, it had been 13.5 years since Morenz's last game, and maybe 18 years since his prime ended. (So, this would be comparable to the press today evaluating maybe Jagr or Sakic).

On the other hand, it seems clear that, in the first half of the century, Montreal and Toronto dominated the hockey media -- esp. Montreal. I mean, we've seen how suprisingly low the status of a player like Frank Brimsek was for years simply due to playing for Boston in the 1940s. So, it's likely that Morenz got a media "push" from playing in Montreal (not unlike how players since maybe the 1990s get the same for playing in New York).

Anyway, we kind of have to go with contemporary reports and evaluations by those who saw him play, as I don't think the statistics tell much of a story prior to about 1930.

I think MadLuke is on the right track that he probably contributed a lot outside of offense and that has a lot to do with with why he's regarded so highly. Contemporaries could probably see that his overall game impact was very strong for his time.

One thing you do have to think about when you go really far back in hockey history is the fact that there was still so much room and opportunity for growth and development for players. I'm not sure people from Morenz' prime could have fathomed a Gordie Howe, let alone a Lemieux or McDavid. People who watched Orr are adamant he was great all these years later. I do wonder what observers of Morenz would have thought of some stars from later eras in comparison to Morenz.

 

[overpass]

I know HR adjusted stats aren't everyone's cup of tea, but it's worth mentioning that the site gives him the highest adjusted point total for a single season in NHL history (Gretzky is second, I believe).

View attachment 904845


However, his next-best total is nowhere close and Gretzky and Lemieux combined probably have at least 12 seasons better.

His peer domination in 1928 is nice but not nearly as uncanny as that total of 190 adjusted points.

I think Morenz's 1927-28 season is the only season in NHL history where a player had a point on more goals than his team allowed. Morenz had 33 goals, 51 points, and the Habs allowed only 48 goals.

I do wonder what observers of Morenz would have thought of some stars from later eras in comparison to Morenz.

Some hockey people in the age of Howe, Hull, Orr, and Gretzky still remembered Morenz as the fastest skater in history.

Cooney Weiland, Bruins centre and Harvard coach who grew up near Morenz, said in 1968 that Morenz was the fastest skater ever.

"No other player I ever saw could skate as fast as Morenz could. In three strides he would be at full sail. He attacked defences so fiercely and at such reckless speed that it was a wonder either side survived. Morenz was absolutely fearless."

Toe Blake played with Morenz as a rookie, and saw all the greats of subsequent decades in his brilliant playing and coaching career. He remembered Morenz in 1978.

"He was that good and better. You know how good he was, end to end? You know Bobby Orr? The same thing, the blinding speed but without the manoeuvrability, the reason being that Morenz didn't care how hard he got hit or how often."

When you hear how many end-to-end rushes Morenz made, you immediately ask "Toe, was Howie a hog?"

"Never was he a hog," Toe shot back, "and God, how he set up Joliat and the other guys. And I'll tell you another thing, one of the greatest back-checkers I ever saw."

Columnist Jim Coleman (born in 1910) watched Morenz play, and maintained for decades that Morenz was the best ever. In a 1982 column, he wrote that Gretzky had a chance to pass Morenz, and said maybe by the 1984 Canada Cup he would have proved he was better than Morenz or anyone else.

"There never was a skater like Morenz. He was so fast and he skated with such brilliance that he appeared to be skimming about two inches above the ice surface. He burst through the defence like a cannonball. His wicked lefthanded shots actually curved upward and outward in flight. Morenz was Man O'War, Rudolf Nureyev and Dylan Thomas, all rolled into one."

"Gretzky can do things that Morenz couldn't. He isn't nearly as fast as Morenz or Bobby Hull but he's so very clever with the puck and he has the best goal-scoring instinct I've ever seen. Two of the very few players who had better lateral movement and were niftier with the puck were Aurel Joliat and Gordon Howe.'

King Clancy, born the same year as Morenz and around the NHL his whole life, compared Morenz to Gretzky and Orr in 1982.

"Gretzky is one of the greatest...But I still say the greatest player ever was Howie Morenz. He could skate even better than Bobby Orr. He was just as great after you hit him as before."

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Not as good as Eddie Shore.

 

[Staniowski]

It's very difficult to properly evaluate players like Morenz because we can't watch them play, and most people don't have a good knowledge of the hockey environment of the early eras. Players from these eras shouldn't be ranked with players who've played after 1950 (who we can watch).

What we do know is that Morenz was a major superstar of his era, and he had a big impact on the NHL itself.

But it's extremely unlikely that he was as good a hockey player as Mike Modano or Evgeni Malkin or Gilbert Perreault. There just weren't enough people playing serious hockey during Morenz's era. He was a pretty big fish, but in a very small pond.

 

[Michael Farkas]

From what little I have seen from Morenz, he's a terrific skater vs. the field, and particularly good on his edges which made him elusive. I wish I had more video (period) of him on both sides of liberalized forward passing.

The style of play can be a little odd to watch sometimes. Like, Morenz will literally just skate directly into two guys standing still. But I guess that was kind of the style at the time...? I don't know, it's so tough to discern who is who in those old clips sometimes.

The hockey from the 20's and 30's is actually quite good it seems (though, most of the viewings are from Stanley Cup Final action, so...maybe the bottom of the league stinks)...and there's more than a few guys that can really handle the puck. It makes it a little surprising to me how much Morenz is discussed as virtually peerless for the era...

Not that scoring is everything and assists were weird and all...but it's actually kind of hard to get the seasons just right for him to have any statistical advantage over guys like Conacher or even Busher Jackson...then it's worse in the playoffs - which again, has its own data sample issues especially here.

Again, I see it...but from what I've seen, I kinda agree with the math on this one...he's probably really good for his era, but he's not so much better than everyone that we need him to be a top 10 or 15 player ever probably...but that's more feeling than actual work by me. I think there are aspects to the game before 1950 that I just don't quite understand...

 

[MadLuke]

Morenz was Man O'War, Rudolf Nureyev and Dylan Thomas, all rolled into one."

"Gretzky can do things that Morenz couldn't. He isn't nearly as fast as Morenz or Bobby Hull but he's so very clever with the puck and he has the best goal-scoring instinct I've ever seen. Two of the very few players who had better lateral movement and were niftier with the puck were Aurel Joliat and Gordon Howe.'

This is great stuff for an 1982 article, Gordon instead of Gordie, a 50s-60s Ballet Dancer, 20s racehorse and do not go gentle into that good night poet ?

Just the notion that there were still people in the Morenz is the best ever camp after Richard, Howe, Orr, etc... 50 years later just show how it is probably impossible for the best of your youth to ever completely fade away for them.

 

[The Panther]

Maybe Morenz's rep was still high among some in the early-80s? If you read Peter Gzowski's The Game of Our Lives (1981/1982), he's still very high on Morenz and talks about him a great deal, calling him the game's greatest star and bigger than Rocket Richard, etc. (Gzowski traces the history of Canadian hockey via Morenz, Richard, Howe, Hull, Orr, Gretzky). By the early 80s, it had been 50+ years since Morenz's prime and 48-50 years since his death, so I guess 65-year-olds who were still working around the game in say, 1982, could remember Morenz's day first-hand. By the late 80s, all those guys were retired.

Because I started watching NHL regularly around 1986-87, it's always weird to me how "close" even the early-1980s was to the proto-NHL days. Like, Yzerman started playing just 3 years after Gordie Howe retired. When Yzerman was a rookie, Sid Abel (born 1911 and preceding Howe on the Wings by about seven years) was the color-commentator on TV broadcasts...

 

[overpass]

On the thread topic of why Howie Morenz's points scored don't match his reputation, Zotique Lesperance wrote a 1944 column (in French) in which he compared young Maurice Richard to Howie Morenz, and quoted Jack Adams on the topic. Both Lesperance and Adams mentioned in Richard's favour that he had a knack for scoring points.

The phrasing is interesting, because often when we compare forwards, points are the main thing we look at. But for Lesperance and Adams, it was just one piece of the puzzle.

Lesperance (translated): "Comparing Maurice Richard to Howie Morenz is impossible, because of the difference styles of each and the type of game at their respective stages of big league hockey. On a rink-length rush, Morenz was faster, from the blue line to the opposing net, Richard has no equal. To get back on defense, Morenz was the perfect skater thanks to his great speed, but for eluding a rival defender, Maurice is the ace of aces. Morenz had more colour, a consistent dynamism. He was was a race car at all times and also, the game play of his time allowed individual plays of brilliance. The current style, with its power plays and its passing to the centre, cannot permit a Richard to copy Morenz, but nevertheless, the brilliant Canadiens winger knows how to rally, and when he is at his full performance, it's a magnificent picture. And above all, he has the art of scoring many points, never in the same way."

After the game last Thursday, Jack Adams, manager of Red Wings, declared categorically "He's the best hockey player of the last 20 years." And yet Adams has seen Morenz, Joliat, Conacher, Cook, Schmidt, Apps, and others at work. Adams added that Richard is better than Apps because he is more durable. Apps couldn't take body checks, but this Richard is made of iron. Adams added that Richard is faster than Morenz, and what is even more impressive is that Maurice knows the technique of scoring points. "In a stride or two, Richard gets more speed than any speed merchant of the past," concluded Adams.

This is great stuff for an 1982 article, Gordon instead of Gordie, a 50s-60s Ballet Dancer, 20s racehorse and do not go gentle into that good night poet ?

Just the notion that there were still people in the Morenz is the best ever camp after Richard, Howe, Orr, etc... 50 years later just show how it is probably impossible for the best of your youth to ever completely fade away for them.

Colourful indeed. The comparison to Nureyev brings to mind Syl Apps' nickname, "Nijinsky of the ice."

From what little I have seen from Morenz, he's a terrific skater vs. the field, and particularly good on his edges which made him elusive. I wish I had more video (period) of him on both sides of liberalized forward passing.

The style of play can be a little odd to watch sometimes. Like, Morenz will literally just skate directly into two guys standing still. But I guess that was kind of the style at the time...? I don't know, it's so tough to discern who is who in those old clips sometimes.

Morenz was known for being absolutely fearless at driving the middle of the ice and trying to shoot the gap between the defencemen. It probably wasn't uncommon to see him skate into a waiting defenceman, when the play didn't work.

The praise for his toughness and fearlessness does seem out of proportion at times. It's great that he was so tough and could take so many hits, but isn't it better to be shifty and avoid the hits, like his winger Joliat? Maybe it's similar to the way running the ball in American football has been highly valued for its physical dimension, sometimes out of proportion to its effectiveness at the pro level.

Eddie Shore always said Morenz was the greatest player he played against. Soon after Shore retired from the NHL, he said the most remarkable thing about Morenz was the way he could take a hit and bounce back.

Shore: "Morenz, when you could catch him, was the defenseman's dream. He came so fast that he carried his own pass to the stretcher right with him."

Shore went on to tell a story about a game where Lionel Hitchman caught Morenz three different times with a huge bodycheck, and Morenz kept coming back at full speed. Shore contrasted Morenz with himself, and said that he considered himself a tough player, but when Dunc Munro caught him with a hit like that early in his career, he was slow and ineffective for the rest of the game.

 

[overpass]

In 1944, Charles Mayer wrote that young Maurice Richard had speed that brought to mind Morenz. He added that Richard didn't skate in a straight line like Morenz, but could make stops and spins like Joliat.

In February 1945, Zotique Lesperance responded to recent Morenz-Richard comparisons to stand up for Morenz. Recently Jack Adams had said Richard was better than Morenz, Conn Smythe had called Richard a second Morenz, and Dick Irvin had rated the Blake-Lach-Richard line above the old Joliat-Morenz-Gagnon line.

(translation from French): Why compare Richard to Morenz, two players of a very different style? Argue that Richard is better than Nels Stewart and Newsy Lalonde, two expert opportunists, very well! But never compare Richard to Morenz, simply because Richard has nothing resembling the style of the grand Howie, unless to know which one skated the fastest when underway. Morenz was a monarch in his style. He was a race car whose electrifying bursts lifted the crowds. A Morenz rush was comparable to a Babe Ruth home run. He was always skating at a furious speed, either to charge forward, or to return to the defense and wipe out the enemy counterattack. He also had a thunderbolt shot that goalies feared. Morenz had dynamism, he battled and cashed in, he also developed when hockey had the most fearsome power on the defense.

Richard, for his part, also has his dynamism and he is also a race car, but he concentrates his efforts only to take advantage of opportunities to score. Defensively, Richard is an ordinary backchecker. His opportunistic style does not allow him to specialize in monitoring his rivals. But if an opening presents itself, Richard has no equal in breaking through the rival defense, in putting himself in a good position to score. Thanks to his very strong legs and arms, he will not give an inch to anyone and thanks to a repertoire of mystifying shots, he will get the better of the enemy goaltenders. Richard has a rare mastery and skill around the nets, and he also has no equal in reaching excessive speeds in the shortest bursts.

 

[Overrated]

It's very difficult to properly evaluate players like Morenz because we can't watch them play, and most people don't have a good knowledge of the hockey environment of the early eras. Players from these eras shouldn't be ranked with players who've played after 1950 (who we can watch).

What we do know is that Morenz was a major superstar of his era, and he had a big impact on the NHL itself.

But it's extremely unlikely that he was as good a hockey player as Mike Modano or Evgeni Malkin or Gilbert Perreault. There just weren't enough people playing serious hockey during Morenz's era. He was a pretty big fish, but in a very small pond.

I think it's possible he was as good as Modano, Malkin or Perreault. I think it is extremely unlikely he was better. Couple that with his poor longevity I could never place him in the top100.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I think it's possible he was as good as Modano, Malkin or Perreault. I think it is extremely unlikely he was better. Couple that with his poor longevity I could never place him in the top100.

He didn't have poor longevity. He died 4th in GP in NHL history (4 back of 3rd) and was the 10th oldest player in the league.

For his era, he had strong longevity before dieing.

 

[Overrated]

He didn't have poor longevity. He died 4th in GP in NHL history (4 back of 3rd) and was the 10th oldest player in the league.

For his era, he had strong longevity before dieing.

He only made the top5 in scoring a handful of times like 5 times which for the supposed old school GOAT in a non competitive era isn't very impressive. Maybe his overall longevity wasn't bad in comparison to other players but he just didn't stand out as much as I think someone could in his time.

 

[The Panther]

It's quite difficult to get a clear sense of the differences between Morenz and Richard when so many of the first-hand memories are conflicting! But such is the nature of hockey and subjectivity...

The one thing that does seem consistent in the memories is that Morenz was superior at full-length-of-the-rink skating, as well as back-checking (such as it was, in the 1920s) and that Richard was superior at taking the puck at the blue-lne and attacking the net fearlessly. I remember Jean Beliveau's book where (in English translation) he describes Richard (and Beliveau mostly missed peak-years' Richard) as insanely "hell-bent" to get to the net.

It's also not surprising that during 1944-45 there was talk of Richard maybe being Morenz's superior for the first time, and that there was a lot of blowback against that. This is how it always is, even today -- when the new superstar is ascending to the throne, there's always a large contingent that resists it, sometimes out of nostalgia more than accuracy.

 

[nabby12]

Great discussion so far on Morenz!

While we're on the subject, I just dropped a new story "Signing Howie Morenz" on my NHL History Substack newsletter tonight.

The story can be viewed at the here: Signing Howie Morenz.

Cheers!

 

[Overrated]

It's quite difficult to get a clear sense of the differences between Morenz and Richard when so many of the first-hand memories are conflicting! But such is the nature of hockey and subjectivity...

The one thing that does seem consistent in the memories is that Morenz was superior at full-length-of-the-rink skating, as well as back-checking (such as it was, in the 1920s) and that Richard was superior at taking the puck at the blue-lne and attacking the net fearlessly. I remember Jean Beliveau's book where (in English translation) he describes Richard (and Beliveau mostly missed peak-years' Richard) as insanely "hell-bent" to get to the net.

It's also not surprising that during 1944-45 there was talk of Richard maybe being Morenz's superior for the first time, and that there was a lot of blowback against that. This is how it always is, even today -- when the new superstar is ascending to the throne, there's always a large contingent that resists it, sometimes out of nostalgia more than accuracy.

The question is was there still the aforementioned blowback in let's say 1950?

 

[Michael Farkas]

The question is was there still the aforementioned blowback in let's say 1950?

Of course...because the case for Morenz over Richard isn't impossible to see still. It certainly wasn't impossible to see in 1950. If anything, there's hardly a case for Richard over him by 1950 because he was mostly tearing apart a War-torn league...

 

[The Panther]

Of course...because the case for Morenz over Richard isn't impossible to see still. It certainly wasn't impossible to see in 1950. If anything, there's hardly a case for Richard over him by 1950 because he was mostly tearing apart a War-torn league...

Well, except it was a half a decade after the War ended...