JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,045
- 14,302
To prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Richard wasn't capable of dominating the league in scoring in 44/45 under any circumstances? Nope.
I don't mind some context on that season but to remove the possibility that he could have dominated against under any circumstances is not reasonable. To doubt whether he could have even won the goalscoring title that season is nothing but irrational speculation.
IMO, at worst, it is his 3rd best goalscoring season of his career and on the same the same level in terms of dominance as his 46/47 and 50/51 seasons.
I get the unique circumstances around the war. The issue here is how to interpret the missing talent which, IMO, goes exclusively into into the subjective and into speculation where one's biases or leanings can dictate one's interpretations.
For example, with the missing talent, other players obviously were given the opportunity to increase their relative production with an increase in offensive responsibilities. If you are a big Richard fan and hold dear his 50 in 50 season, you can choose to say that explains any increase in the relative production of some players in the war years. If you are a fan of Hull or OV or any other GOAT goalscorer, you can choose to say that obviously the league was weaker and use the increase in relative production as proof of this.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting the responses, and I still think some are arguing the number of goals by Richard rather than his level of dominance but I am honestly surprised that the majority of the regular HOH posters are willing to significantly devalue that season.
That being said, I think only one poster is willing to take that as a reason to rate Richard clearly below the apparent consensus range that the HOH has him.
The irony is that I think all O6 scoring finishes need statistical context when compared to scoring finishes from seasons where there are many more teams.
Your expectations are strange at best but more realistically absurd. It is your interpretation of the information that is ridiculous as well as your implicit denial of the context of the season. No one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt whether Richard would or would not have scored just as much in a relative or absolute sense, just as no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jimmy Orlando wouldn't have scored 100 goals in 1944-1945 had he played. Most people have the capacity for basic logic however and apply that to see what result is most likely given various factors.
Given the quality and quantity of the players that left the NHL, as well as the composition of the remaining teams, the most reasonable guess is that Richard scores less and stands out less among the competition if WW2 is not going on and the league is not significantly weakened.