Mike Richter

[Edge]

Widely viewed as one of the core four on that '94 Rangers team, along with Messier, Leetch and Graves.

A clutch goalie whose contributions on the national stage aren't mentioned nearly enough.

Arguably one of the most well-read athletes I've ever interacted with. Reporters used to joke that he was the type of player who would tell them how to build a watch if they asked him for the time.

Richter's overall legacy suffers a bit because the era where he was at the top of his game and the clear-cut number one goalie, and the time frame during which the Rangers were truly competitive, is relatively small. When all is said and done, you're only talking about a four year span where the stars were in alignment.

Adding to the challenge, the Rangers were one of the few remaining teams that tried to play a wide-open style while the rest of the league was converting to more defensive-oriented systems and the trap.

The end result is a goalie, on a team attempting to utilize an outdated style of play, going up against clutch and grab teams, who play a style in which their own netminders are only giving up 2-2.5 goals per game.

In many ways, the worst thing Richter ever did for his legacy numbers, and arguably his career, is stick with the Rangers. Neither he nor Leetch would ever see the playoffs in a Rangers uniform beyond their 30th and 29th birthdays respectively.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

In many ways, the worst thing Richter ever did for his legacy numbers, and arguably his career, is stick with the Rangers. Neither he nor Leetch would ever see the playoffs in a Rangers uniform beyond their 30th and 29th birthdays respectively.

This made me sad.

 

[Edge]

This made me sad.

Yeah, I think it's one of those overlooked details when reviewing both players' careers. The Rangers were essentially done as a contender when both guys still had plenty of time left.

Heck, even Lundqvist made it to 36 before living through the agony of a time period where the playoffs were not assumed to be on the horizon.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

Yeah, I think it's one of those overlooked details when reviewing both players' careers. The Rangers were essentially done as a contender when both guys still had plenty of time left.

Heck, even Lundqvist made it to 36 before living through the agony of a time period where the playoffs were not assumed to be on the horizon.

Crazy how a 30 year old back then was still in his prime, whereas now they're washed up cows that should be taken out to the pasture and shot. Makes you wonder if it's due to kids being more NHL ready at a younger age than the past.

I still remember the moves Smith was making after we won the Cup. One painful decision after another. I'm glad Gorton didn't make those mistakes. Sad thing is if Smith did clean house and push a rebuild, or a even a re-tool (which was certainly a lot easier pre-cap), things could have maybe been different for guys like Leetch and Richter.

 

[Machinehead]

Richter had hills and valleys.

He had years he was straight up bad but years he was elite. We don't win the Cup in '94 with a league-average goalie. Not even close.

Underrated outside of New York for sure.

 

[Machinehead]

To hang as a goaltender at the professional level you either have to be insanely competitive or so happy and laid back that the scrutiny doesn't get to you.

Hank is the former and Mike was the latter. They both had what it took to succeed and I enjoyed both of their personalities.

 

[Chalfdiggity3]

Disagree completely.

I know this will be taken the wrong way. I believe that Mike Richter is partially responsible for the early years of the Dark Ages. He's never been a goaltender than can win the 2-1 game, which was absolutely necessary in that Dead Puck Era. Richter would always give up a really awful goal, worse than Lundqvist's softies. Back then, that soft goal was the difference in many games. Lundqvist CAN win that 2-1 game and he always had. He did drag mediocre Ranger teams into the playoffs with those performances. Richter never did that. He could win that 4-3 game, but needed that offensive cushion to be comfortable.

This isn't meant to bag on Richter; it's just that he was a different style goaltender, built for a different style game. And when the game was his style, he was dominant.

The difference wasn't richters soft goal it was the style of play we played in the late 80s and early 90s. We played a complete lack of defensive in games. Richter would constantly be put against breakaways, 2 on 1s and 3 on 2s I which he was forced to make those ridiculous and acrobatic saves.

Richter is by far my favorite player of all time and is known for being one of the 4 horsemen during our cup days with leetch, messier, and gravy. He deserves more credit than he is being given

 

[romba]

Richter will always be remembered for stopping Bure's penalty shot in the SCF, but his best playoff performance was probably during the ECF run in 1997. He was phenomenal against the Devils, definitely the MVP of that series.

I had the pleasure of meeting him once and he's such a friendly and approachable guy, if he ever runs for office he would be great at schmoozing.

And the Florida series prior to the NJD as well. However, I remember the Rangers received the benefit of numerous Devils overturned goals due to players sniffing the crease area. The Devils were swarming all series long and the rule really hurt them. Don't get me wrong, everyone had the same rules to play by, and I was thrilled each time it overturned, but any other year and there's no way the Rangers take the series against them.

 

[NYR94]

Definitely underrated outside of NY. Played during an era with a lot of great goalies that kind of overshadowed him (Brodeur, Roy, Hasek, Belfour), but like Edge said, the Rangers' style of play did him no favors. But he was awesome in the playoffs in 94 and 97. Very frustrating as a Rangers fan how Richter and Leetch's later seasons as Rangers turned out though.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

I went to a Rangers practice when I was around 10-11 years old at Playland, a puck got deflected over the glass and was coming down right to me, as it was falling it got stuck in the wall scoreboard. I was pretty devastated..then I heard someone banging their stick, I look up and it's Richter...he then tossed me a puck. Every since then I've been one of his biggest fans. Great great guy.

 

[romba]

#BringBackStandUpAcrobatics

 

[Crease]

Hot take alert. While I agree Richter is underrated across the league, I think he's overrated within the fanbase to the extent people think he's better than Lundqvist. No one would argue Jon Quick is better than Lundqvist and Quick is the modern day Richter.

Great guy though and my favorite hockey player ever.

 

[Thirty One]

Hot take alert. While I agree Richter is underrated across the league, I think he's overrated within the fanbase to the extent people think he's better than Lundqvist. No one would argue Jon Quick is better than Lundqvist and Quick is the modern day Richter.

Great guy though and my favorite hockey player ever.

Lots of people would argue that Quick is better than Lundqvist, though.

 

[pld459666]

I believe that Mike's most dominant stretch was for Team USA in the 1996 World Cup.

That was a sick display of skills.

 

[Cassano]

Widely viewed as one of the core four on that '94 Rangers team, along with Messier, Leetch and Graves.

A clutch goalie whose contributions on the national stage aren't mentioned nearly enough.

Arguably one of the most well-read athletes I've ever interacted with. Reporters used to joke that he was the type of player who would tell you how to build a watch if they asked him for the time.

Richter's overall legacy suffers a bit because the era where he was at the top of his game and the clear-cut number one goalie, and the time frame during which the Rangers were truly competitive, is relatively small. When all is said and done, you're only talking about a four year span where the stars were in alignment.

Adding to the challenge, the Rangers were one of the few remaining teams that tried to play a wide-open style while the rest of the league was converting to more defensive-oriented systems and the trap.

The end result is a goalie, on a team attempting to utilize an outdated style of play, going up against clutch and grab teams, who play a style in which their own netminders are only giving up 2-2.5 goals per game.

In many ways, the worst thing Richter ever did for his legacy numbers, and arguably his career, is stick with the Rangers. Neither he nor Leetch would ever see the playoffs in a Rangers uniform beyond their 30th and 29th birthdays respectively.

That's criminal if you think about it.

 

[Edge]

Hot take alert. While I agree Richter is underrated across the league, I think he's overrated within the fanbase to the extent people think he's better than Lundqvist. No one would argue Jon Quick is better than Lundqvist and Quick is the modern day Richter.

Great guy though and my favorite hockey player ever.

I am somewhat torn on this.

There’s no doubt that Lundqvist is the more talented goalie - the numbers, the consistency, the results, etc.

But in a do or die game, I think you can make just a good case for Richter. Be it against The Devils, or Vancouver, or Team USA, there are very few big game goalies like Richter.

To put it more simply, am I more comfortable putting Lundqvist on the 1994 or 1997 Rangers, or Richter on the 2012 or 2014 Rangers? That answer isn’t as clear cut to me as I’d initially suspect.

 

[nyr2k2]

IDK, Hank has his thing with Game 7s. He won his gold medal. He had his WC medal. A Vezina. All the awards from his time in the SHL. He's incredibly accomplished. He's a big game goalie.

Literally the only thing that prevents a Richter vs Lundqvist debate from being no debate at all is the Kings series. We pull that out, we win the Cup, Hank's resume blows Richter's out of the water, IMO. It still probably does, but I know for a lot of people the Cup will always be the difference.

It's too bad for Hank, honestly.

 

[Machinehead]

Lots of people would argue that Quick is better than Lundqvist, though.

Lots of people would be wrong.

 

[Thirty One]

Lots of people would be wrong.

Yes, people are often wrong, unfortunately.

 

[lemonybergamot]

IDK, Hank has his thing with Game 7s. He won his gold medal. He had his WC medal. A Vezina. All the awards from his time in the SHL. He's incredibly accomplished. He's a big game goalie.

Literally the only thing that prevents a Richter vs Lundqvist debate from being no debate at all is the Kings series. We pull that out, we win the Cup, Hank's resume blows Richter's out of the water, IMO. It still probably does, but I know for a lot of people the Cup will always be the difference.

It's too bad for Hank, honestly.

I'm one of those people tbh... as much as I love and respect Lundqvist, Richter will always be a Stanley Cup Champion. Gold medal winner, WC, none of those things sound as good and I don't personally care who wins those. Lundqvist is definitely the more talented goalie though. If he ever won a cup in NY, we wouldn't call him King anymore. We would call him God. Ugh. Freakin Antti Niemi has a Cup and Rangers couldn't score more than 1 damn goal a game

 

[Baby Punisher]

One word comes to mind, Winner.
Richter will always be my number 1.

 

[Baby Punisher]

I attended the Q&A at i-Play America this past June. You always learn one new thing when you attend an event like this. What I learned, and impressed me the most was that Richter and Healey didn't have a goalie coach. They were their own coaches to each other. Dick Todd weighed in on certain things. Other than that they were on their own. That is an incredible feat to play at that level and have minimal coaching and makes Richter's tenure on Broadway that much more respectable.

 

[Kovalev27]

I am somewhat torn on this.

There’s no doubt that Lundqvist is the more talented goalie - the numbers, the consistency, the results, etc.

But in a do or die game, I think you can make just a good case for Richter. Be it against The Devils, or Vancouver, or Team USA, there are very few big game goalies like Richter.

To put it more simply, am I more comfortable putting Lundqvist on the 1994 or 1997 Rangers, or Richter on the 2012 or 2014 Rangers? That answer isn’t as clear cut to me as I’d initially suspect.

Richter wins that 2014 Cup imo. And he no way loses to the devils in 2012. I think he’s a much better big game goaltender. Who didn’t get the opportunity to play in as many as he should have due to the team in front of him.

Hank hasn’t really stolen a series at any point except maybe that Pitt series in 2014. Otherwise I think he lost a lot of series he and the team should have won if he went to that’s next level that Richter was able to get to when it really mattered.

 

[Mandar]

Richter wins that 2014 Cup imo. And he no way loses to the devils in 2012. I think he’s a much better big game goaltender. Who didn’t get the opportunity to play in as many as he should have due to the team in front of him.

Hank hasn’t really stolen a series at any point except maybe that Pitt series in 2014. Otherwise I think he lost a lot of series he and the team should have won if he went to that’s next level that Richter was able to get to when it really mattered.

Hasek or Roy don't even win us the Cup in 2014 due to the horrible officiating. They would get bowled over just as Hank did.

I think you may be underrating Hank in the playoffs....I remember the 2013 playoffs....down 3 games to 2 to a loaded Caps team....and Hank shuts them out in games 6 & 7.....that, along with his game 7 history......as good a big game goalie as anyone.

Loved Richter....we don't win the cup without him (game 6 against the Devils.....he shut the door after they got two....made it possible for Mess's heroics). Would have loved to see how he would have done in shootouts....was the best breakaway goalie in the league.

 

[Edge]

The Lundqvist-Ricther debate is always so tricky on several fronts. Aside from the whole cup vs. no cup aspect, it's difficult to compare their eras or their teams.

How does Richter do in front of a young defense that also blocks shots and is competitive for the better part of 12 years in stead of roughly half that time?

Likewise, how does Lundqvist do in a more wide open, wild-west styled game of the late 80s and early 90s? Those 2.2 goals against averages quickly become closer to 3 in that era.

How does Richter do in the shootout era or without ties cutting into his win totals?

How does Lundqvist do with forwards barreling into him and going up against forwards who score 150 points?

How do system changes impact both guys?

What happens if Richter doesn't lose several near-prime years to splitting time with another 300 game winner? How does that impact Lundqvist in the same scenario, where he's playing every other game?

How does the comparison look if the Rangers go to pot after the 2012 season and Lundqvist is never on another playoff team again after the age of 30?

Where does Lundqvist fit in an era that sees Roy, Hasek and Belfour getting a ton of attention?

I think we've watched Lundqvist for a long time and there's multiple generations of fans who don't really know or remember anything else at this point. And that can cut both ways, with him being taken for granted in some aspects, and also being the be-all, end-all in other aspects.