How good was Howie Morenz?

[Michael Farkas]

My point was more about the development path of talent. Despite what Frank Selke says, I don't think the loss of a few players here or there would have affected the entire style of play or "quality" of the NHL during the 1945-50 period. I just don't see it.

Are you looking though? Why did the NHL lose such a huge chunk of its workforce but other leagues didn't? If anything, wouldn't those leagues be - at least - just as likely to be affected? The NHL was the most approachable league, it was on the radio, people attended games to get their mind off the War for a minute...that's basically the only reason why the league didn't shut down entirely in 1942 (as was discussed). Morale at home and abroad was among the top reasons to even stay in business at all.

So...you think the AHL and senior amateur circuits were spared?

Up and coming prospects like Aug Herchenratter - point per game AHLer before he left,

On Herchenratter being in Detroit's camp for the 40-41 season.

"...was the league's top sniper." - Winnipeg Tribune Oct. 28, 1940

The Winnipeg Tribune Oct 16, 1943 -

"The services' near-monopoly on senior amateur hockey in Canada is having strange results. For example - player trades between intermediate clubs and the National League."

There was a lot of lament about NHL teams signing 17 year olds from juniors (which was against the rules, but there was such a player shortage of pro-aged (i.e. not junior-aged) players that they had no choice. This likely thwarted the development of a number of players too - even though they did get to play in the NHL - which interrupts the flow of well-rounded, well-developed players (as an Oilers fan, you should be as cognizant of this as anyone haha).

So, the NHL was raided, the minors were raided, as a result juniors were raided...

It's not lookin' good...is there any reason to believe that this didn't happen?

I feel like we have the JFK assassination theories going around here...we got single shooter, we have multiple shooters, we have magic bullet, we have the "limo driver did it", inside job, lone nut, etc.

I feel like your stance is "JFK is alive" haha

 

[MadLuke]

It is likely that the "true" share of team offense is more than the actual P%,

Yes because if you use the points scored / team goal scored metric, Morenz-Joliat-Gagne would have a share of over 100%, Gretzky-Coffey-Kurri-Anderson would have created 137% of the oilers' goal in 1986.

Even then, look at Pavel Bure's 99-00 in comparison to Morenz' 28-29 season.

Well yes, if we compare Morenz lowest scoring season of his career vs the player that scored the most goal in a season over some adjustment method.

Use the year just before, Morenz scored 28.5% of his team goals and 39% of the average teams goals, that what, like scoring 85-90 goals in 00 ?

Just hear the claim, the share of best scorer team offense did not move between a roster of basically 5 players playing all the game versus 18 players teams... Comparing team share of anything in a league that the player play all the game versus one they play 20-25 minutes a game on its face sound like it will lead to strange result. Same would be for the idea to use the assist metric like that, that changed so much over time. in 1928, 18 assists was leading the league by a lot, in 00, 36 assists was 57th in the nhl.

Or using the individual team player amount of goals as a denominator, when he is the main offensive player playing 100% of the games.

If replacement level instead of Morenz Canadian were a 80 goals teams Morenz make them a 116 goals team, what does Morenz points / 116 tell us ?

 

[overpass]

On the topic of the strength of the league Howie Morenz played in, the evidence suggests it was very competitive. The NHL really became big league in the mid 20s with a number of different factors coming together.

The key factor was that American expansion poured money into the game. As a result, the best players outside the NHL were drawn to join the growing league. The Western league folded and NHL teams bought up their players. Southern Ontario players started to flood into the league with players like Hooley Smith and Dunc Munro from the Toronto Granites, Lionel Conacher, Babe Siebert, and Morenz himself. USAHA players like Nels Stewart, Ching Johnson, and Taffy Abel joined the league.

And don't forget that the First World War had disrupted Canadian society every bit as much as the later war, so it took a few years to work through those effects. Even as the NHL expanded rapidly, there was enough talent to fill the growing league.

Pro hockey was a very attractive financial proposition compared to the alternatives when Morenz played. Probably similar to the Original Six era. In the late 20s, as the economy boomed, salaries of $10,000 or more were common in the NHL, at a time when the average household income in Canada was closer to $1000. Jake Forbes, a goalie who spent most of his career in the minors, made $18,000 in one season. Demand for pro hockey players was huge.

Then after the Depression hit, NHL salaries went down to an average of $4000 a season, but that was still very good for half a years work compared to the alternatives during a depression. Even $2000 a season in the minor leagues was a good salary compared to most occupations.

 

[daver]

I'm down - versus the field - on one-way, one-dimensional wingers. And I don't mean to be reductive, but you'd think the alleged best player of all time through, say, 1960 or whatever...you'd think you'd be able to lead the league in points somehow along the way, right?

Seriously?

1944/45 - You would take Elmer Laich over Richard that season? Over half of Laich's assists came on Richard goals.

46/47 - Loses Art Ross by one point. I believe a bias against Richard in giving out assists is a common narrative.

47/48 - 0.02 behind PPG leader

50/51 - 2nd to peak Howe

52/52 - 3rd behind peak Howe and Howe's teammate

53/54 - 2nd behind peak Howe


And it was Richard's playoff performances that was his main claim to fame anyways.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't think my issue is literacy in this case...

 

[VanIslander]

Morenz said his Hart trophy should have gone to Nighbor.

He was a Matthews to a McDavid.

 

[Michael Farkas]

And the guy that led the league in points once (NHA) and only finished top-3 twice is the McDavid here, correct?

 

[overpass]

You're not wrong about staying power though. Gordie Howe had mostly 2 centers when he was putting up his monster years, Metro Prystai and Dutch Reibel, and neither of them were much more than replacement level talents.

It's a bit of a tangent but how do you get Prystai and Reibel as close to replacement level talents? They were both superstars in junior hockey and it's no surprise they had successful NHL careers.

Prystai led the league in scoring twice while playing junior in Moose Jaw, went to the Memorial Cup twice and led the Memorial Cup in scoring. All of which didn't include his final season of junior eligibility, which he played in the NHL. Emile Francis said Prystai was the greatest junior hockey player he had ever seen. And then in the NHL he only centred Howe in one season, 52-53. The rest of his 12 year career was played in all 3 forward positions, on scoring lines and on checking lines. He was a very versatile player and every team in the league would have been happy to add him to their lineup. Far from replacement level.

Reibel led the 1949-50 OHA in scoring with 53 goals and 129 points in 48 games. The OHA was the best junior league in the world. And he led the WHL in scoring the year before he joined the Wings. I guess I can see the case for him being close to the (very high) replacement level for scoring line centres in the six team league, considering he didn't last long after his three seasons with Howe, but this was one of the highest replacement levels in history.

 

[overpass]

In March 1953, the Canadian Press voted on several categories for hockey players, including greatest player, most valuable, most improved, most colorful, and best money player. Gordie Howe was voted the greatest, most valuable, and most improved. Maurice Richard was voted the most colorful and the best money player.

Panelists were asked to compare their choices to greats of the past. For their selection as greatest player, they were asked to compare him to Howie Morenz.

The vote was reported in the Ottawa Citizen, March 25, 1953. The voting for greatest player was as follows: Gordie Howe 21, Maurice Richard 4, Milt Schmidt 1

Red Burnett of the Toronto Daily Star picked Howe – “He can do everything in super-star fashion. He is a better all-round player than Morenz.”

Baz O’Meara, veteran sports editor of the Montreal Star, doesn’t agree Howe is greater than Morenz. “He’s not as colorful and not as fast.”

Dana Mozley of the New York Daily News picked Howe. “He does everything well, most things better than anyone. He is as good as Morenz.”

Bobby Hewitson, Toronto Telegram sports editor and one-time NHL referee, also picked Howe: “He can do anything. He is as good as Morenz.”

Lou Walter, Detroit Times, picked Howe: “He can do more things, and magnificently, than any other player in the game, perhaps in history. Morenz was a thrilling offensive star, but Howe is great both ways.”

Sportscaster Frank Fallon of Boston picked Schmidt: “Milt has lasted as a top-flight player longer than anyone in the league and is the equal of Morenz.”

Marcel Desjardins of Montreal La Presse picked the Rocket: “Morenz never fired the crowds and stimulated interest outside Montreal the way Richard has done.”

So at Gordie Howe's peak, when he was generally acknowledged as the greatest player in the world, some were already rating him ahead of Morenz. Others held back.

 

[jigglysquishy]

One thing that sticks with me about Morenz is his speed. Whether contemporarily, or 20 years later, it's always the first thing brought up.

You see it quite a bit with Cyclone Taylor too, but I don't think anyone else was so synonymous with skating until Orr.

Unfortunately, most of the Morenz footage we have is in 1932 when he's older.

 

[MadLuke]

One thing that sticks with me about Morenz is his speed.

And we can wonder a relatively new sport that has a big characteristic-distinguishing factor to be played on skate, how much being the best skater could have impressed people, that something relatively easy to see by all fans, that something that make radio announced sound louder and more exited when you have the puck.

And when a player played almost all the game like in Basketball, how big of an advantage if you were the most efficient skater and for you following a slower opponent was not a maximum effort

 

[overpass]

Morenz was widely considered the greatest of all time around 1950, as evidenced by the Canadian Press half-century poll. But in his home city of Montreal, some put his linemate Aurel Joliat right up with him, or even above him.

Leo Dandurand was the coach or general manager for Morenz and Joliat's Montreal careers. Dink Carrol asked him which was better and published the response in the Aug 14, 1942 Montreal Gazette. This was Dandurand's response.

"They're always asking me which of them was the best, Morenz or Joliat? It's a hard question to answer. Which would you say was the better ball player--Ruth or Gehrig? That's the way it was with Morenz and Joliat. Howie was the Babe Ruth of hockey and Aurel the Lou Gehrig. Howie caught the crowd's fancy; there'll never be another like him. Aurel was quiet, effective, and highly scientific--one of the very greatest performers of them all."

I posted the all-time teams for old-time Canadiens Wildor Larochelle and Sylvio Mantha, teammates of Morenz and Joliat, in another thread. Larochelle came right out and rated Joliat the greatest player of all time.

Nov 22, 1959
Larochelle on Joliat: “Personally, I consider him as the greatest player of all time, without wishing to underestimate the merits of a Maurice Richard, a Gordie Howe, a Jean Beliveau, or the late Howie Morenz. Joliat was an extraordinary stickhandler and gifted with unparalleled finesse in keeping the puck in his possession. He was a true general in the game. And despite his 135 pounds and his 5’7”, Joliat feared no one. Defensively and offensively, he was a very big star. And I maintain that Joliat would have been a star of modern hockey, even if the rules were modified.”

Sylvio Mantha, like Larochelle, placed both Morenz and Joliat on his all time six in 1955. But he made no claim as to which was better. He did single out Joliat's superb defensive play. Although Joliat was part of the conversation, which could explain why he spoke about Joliat and not Morenz.

Mantha: It gives me pleasure to say for publication that Joliat allowed me to extend my career by three years, as he helped me so much in defense. Often it happened that enemy forwards outwitted me, Aurele almost always came back in time to save the situation.

Arthur Therrien, coach of the junior Verdun Maple Leafs, the man who helped develop Maurice Richard and other future NHLers, praised Joliat very highly in a 1974 interview. He also referenced Mantha's praise of Joliat.

Therrien: Joliat was a real revelation to me and the greatest stick handler of all time, and what's more, he had no equal as a defensive player. "He was our third defenseman," his Canadiens teammate Sylvio Mantha often told me.

So maybe Morenz was the crowd-pleaser but those in the know saw the value of Joliat? Or maybe there's room for both of them at the top of their era. After all, the Canadiens were very successful under Cecil Hart with the two of them leading the way. In the same era, Bill Cook had his brother and Frank Boucher, Nels Stewart had Smith and Siebert, and Charlie Conacher had Jackson and Primeau.

 

[Xelebes]

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.

Just a comparison with inequality comparisons:

Season	Art Ross	Top 2	Top 5	Top 10	Top 20	Mean
2023-2024	Nikita Kucherov	0.7%	5.4%	7.4%	8.4%	5.6%
2022-2023	Connor McDavid	4.4%	6.4%	5.9%	7.1%	6.0%
1985-1986	Wayne Gretzky	10.4%	10.4%	10.9%	11.5%	10.8%
1927-1928	Howie Morenz	6.7%	7.8%	12.3%	16.9%	11.1%

 

[Dog]

Hard to compare the older generation of players as fitness aspect changed with nutrition and equipment. Imagine being goalie sweating in heavy leather pads or on old ice skates weighing you down. Morenz definitely benefited on being on the Canadians and hard for me to judge as never saw him play as was not much footage if any. He was player of his era and was highly respected!

 

[Overrated]

Just a comparison with inequality comparisons:

Season	Art Ross	Top 2	Top 5	Top 10	Top 20	Mean
2023-2024	Nikita Kucherov	0.7%	5.4%	7.4%	8.4%	5.6%
2022-2023	Connor McDavid	4.4%	6.4%	5.9%	7.1%	6.0%
1985-1986	Wayne Gretzky	10.4%	10.4%	10.9%	11.5%	10.8%
1927-1928	Howie Morenz	6.7%	7.8%	12.3%	16.9%	11.1%

Now compare them to the average forward in the league who has played 90% or more of all available games.

 

[MadLuke]

Now compare them to the average forward in the league who has played 90% or more of all available games.

Could be an issue to use the average forward, has many sit on the bench for a vast part of the games, 54 forward played 39 games or more in 1927-1928, 1/4 of them did not score 5goals despite being a league with a lot of goals per forward on the roster , the average "starting" forward could be more appropriate.

Using that way:

Adjusted point - using elite Canadians player scoring

With different previous at adjusting players season, the latest attempt has been the following with those goals: 1) Only use the top players in the league to automatically adjust for scoring distribution change over time, if rules change, style of play, power play habit make scoring more...

forums.hfboards.com

Morenz peak season adjusted around 1989 Yzerman 155 pts season or Joe Sakic 2001/Kucherov 2019 season.

 

[wetcoast]

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...

That and the narrative around Morenz dying from a broken heart does make him mythical and a living person always has a had time being compared to a myth.

Morenz IMO tends to get over rated around here sometimes but such is the nature of narratives.

 

[MadLuke]

around Morenz dying from a broken heart

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, I wonder how far we can dive into it one day. It's on the fringes of film, so we might have half a shot. I mean, on our last list...Morenz is up with Crosby. Joliat is down with Brett Hull. They're that far apart, really?

Maybe. I'm not sure. But, whew, that's quite a statement. Because there's no mistaking Crosby and Hull. If they played on the same ice, it'd be very clear. I wonder...

 

[wetcoast]

Yeah, I wonder how far we can dive into it one day. It's on the fringes of film, so we might have half a shot. I mean, on our last list...Morenz is up with Crosby. Joliat is down with Brett Hull. They're that far apart, really?

Maybe. I'm not sure. But, whew, that's quite a statement. Because there's no mistaking Crosby and Hull. If they played on the same ice, it'd be very clear. I wonder...

Funny I was thinking about this idea the other day concerning the all time lists in that strong arguments could be made that certain players are obviously better than another player higher up on the list but maybe it's also the exception that proves the rule?

Or put another way a guy like Dionne might be better than another player ranked higher but the other 8 or 9 guys between the 2 on average can be easily ranked ahead of Dionne.

Something to ponder for sure and something I will think long and hard about the next time we do an update to any of the top players lists.

 

[pnep]

We've used staying power as a proxy for league quality. Guys putting up 90 points in 1980 are out of the league a few years later (the Blair MacDonald rule).

This works in the 40s too. Billy Taylor finishes 3rd in league scoring in 1946-47 at age 28. He's out of the league two years later. Bud Poile finishes 6th in league scoring in 1947-48 at age 25, he's a minor leaguer three years later.You can find examples of this in any era (is Huberdeau going from 115 points to 52 points in two seasons so different?), but the frequency in the 40s is really high.

By 1948-49 this really slows down. By 1951-52, it's at basically the same rate you saw until expansion.

You could run the math if you had time in Excel on things like average age of the top 10 in scoring or mean birth year, but I think all will come back to some form of really weak hockey until ~1947 that steadily improves into the 50s and reaching relative stability by 1955.

The War Years

Has there ever been a deep dive into this? Two areas stick out as being relevant when looking at the affects of players leaving. 1. Richard's 50 in 50 is certainly in need of some context given that numerous notable goal scorers were not in the league at the time and league scoring took a...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[Staniowski]

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.

Very unlikely Morenz was as good as Modano or Perreault, and almost no chance he was among the 100-best hockey players ever.

There weren't very many people playing hockey in the early decades; therefore the "stars" get overrated in a small pool.

Any real historian who looks at this objectively and honestly would come to the same conclusion.

 

[The Panther]

Any real historian who looks at this objectively and honestly would come to the same conclusion.

Except for the vast majority of actual historians who don't.

 

[Professor What]

Except for the vast majority of actual historians who don't.

You realize you're talking to a brick wall, right?

 

[Overrated]

Very unlikely Morenz was as good as Modano or Perreault, and almost no chance he was among the 100-best hockey players ever.

There weren't very many people playing hockey in the early decades; therefore the "stars" get overrated in a small pool.

Any real historian who looks at this objectively and honestly would come to the same conclusion.

I agree but I don't think the NHL talent pool is linear with the number of people actively participating in hockey. For example back then there were let's say 20 thousand Canadians playing hockey, now it's like 500 thousand. I don't think that necessarily means the best Canadian back then would now average equal number 25.

The reasons many people didn't play sports are obvious. The technology to watch sports in the comfort of your own home wasn't there yet, people didn't have as much free time and worked longer hours, children also had a ton of responsibilities so play time was restricted. The hockey infrastructure was of course missing as well and the sport was quite inaccessible money wise too BUT most Canadian kids likely tried pond hockey at least a few times in their lives and it's very likely that the kids who showed the most aptitude were way more likely to then try and join a team than regular kids. That means the kids in that 20 thousand were not a random selection of the gene pool but largely a preselection of the better part of what was available.

Modano never scored a 100 points while playing his prime in a high scoring era. Morenz was considered the greatest player of the first 50 years of the sport's history. I also underrate (compared to the average poster here) players from the old eras but look at Gordie Howe for example. His generation (he was born in the 20s after all) also wasn't playing hockey that extremely much yet he still ranked #9 in scoring in the WHA at the age of 49 and that was him competing directly against the youngsters brought up in the hockey boom era.