What are your thoughts about Richard's 1944/45 season?

[tarheelhockey]

If you're talking about Herb Cain vs. Liscombe, well...

Wings : 216G, 274A
Bruins : 223G, 323A

Bentley vs Liscombe.

On a team that only scored 178 goals, Bentley scored 38 of them himself and still ended up with more assists than Liscombe.

IMO, that plus the Hart voting demonstrates a pretty clear gap in their performances. Similar number of pucks ended up in the net, but one had a much bigger impact than the other.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Ok, he was more valuable to his team. What does this have to with goal totals?

Well, it’s a bit harder to score when you’re playing for a worse team; when you have fewer linemates contributing; and when you’re setting up assists at a higher rate. It’s not some huge gap, but there’s a clear gap between Bentley’s performance and Liscombe’s in ‘44.

If we’re trying to measure leaguewide dilution, it makes sense to look at Liscombe and wonder why this otherwise unremarkable player suddenly put up numbers comparable to a higher-caliber contributor. That should trigger a “something doesn’t seem right about this” reaction.

And whatever it does mean, have you applied the same evaluation to the seasons top goalscorers who were missing to see if some of their numbers need context too?

I’d love to see the analysis, though I expect it will only reinforce the conclusion that all the other evidence is already indicating.

 

[JackSlater]

Ok, so the point that no pre-war elite scorers were able to dominate a "war weakened" season is even stronger isn't it?

Hextall
Drillon
Patrick
Hamill
Max Bentley

None were able to exploit the 42/43 season, in terms of relative production, like Richard did in 44/45.

There are a variety of reasons for those players not to stand out as Richard did, though the main ones were already named. The 1943 season was still a fair bit stronger in terms of competition than the 1944 and 1945 seasons, and those players weren't as good at scoring goals as Richard was. The league was also quite a bit more balanced in 1943 than it was in the 1944 and 1945 seasons.

 

[daver]

I see two reasons for that :

- The NHL wasn't as depleted in 42-43.
- Maurice Richard was a signficantly better player than any of Hextall, Drillon, Patrick, Hamill and was a significantly better goalscorer than Max Bentley.

...These feel obvious? Good. Because they are.

It was closer to 43/44 and 44/45 than it was to 41/42.

No disagreement to your response. The original post I was referring to stated that anyone who thought Cain's 44/45 season was anywhere near the level of what any of the missing goalscorers could have done was "bonkers".

Seems like everyone in the HOH would disagree with that assessment given the line we can draw from Cain to the best goalscorers of the '40s outside of Richard.

 

[MXD]

Bentley vs Liscombe.

On a team that only scored 178 goals, Bentley scored 38 of them himself and still ended up with more assists than Liscombe.

IMO, that plus the Hart voting demonstrates a pretty clear gap in their performances. Similar number of pucks ended up in the net, but one had a much bigger impact than the other.

I'd say that it was a 1-line team, but the forwards scoring seems to be somewhat similarly split (and Chicago's split seems even less extreme at first glance).

Chicago did score more on the PP though (26 goals vs. 13 goals), and it's probably not a stretch to assume that Bentley played a lot on the PP, and Detroit generally received somewhat better support from D-Men, but the difference isn't huge.

(Speaking of 43-44 and PowerPlays : Boston scored 223 goals, good for 2nd in the league, and only 9 on the PP, when Montreal, league leaders with 234 goals, had scored 30 and Chicago, second worst with 171, had scored 26. How does this even happen? Boston actually led the league in ESGF)

 

[daver]

Well, it’s a bit harder to score when you’re playing for a worse team; when you have fewer linemates contributing; and when you’re setting up assists at a higher rate. It’s not some huge gap, but there’s a clear gap between Bentley’s performance and Liscombe’s in ‘44.

If we’re trying to measure leaguewide dilution, it makes sense to look at Liscombe and wonder why this otherwise unremarkable player suddenly put up numbers comparable to a higher-caliber contributor. That should trigger a “something doesn’t seem right about this” reaction.

That's one dynamic to look at. Greater icetime and opportunity that came with players leaving can explain some of this.

What about the dynamic of an indisputable generational talent putting up a generational season that just so happened to be in a war year?

That no other higher caliber talent was able to have a season that would have been deemed appropriately dominant in the war years should also trigger a “something doesn’t seem right about this” reaction, "this" being we should automatically lower the value of Richard's 50 in 50. The unknown here is that we don't know what another indisputable generational talent would have done in that season. Maybe they do better, maybe they do worse.

 

[blogofmike]

I believe this is still the era where the scorekeepers at Boston Garden didn't track PP goals.

 

[The Macho King]

I'd say that it was a 1-line team, but the forwards scoring seems to be somewhat similarly split (and Chicago's split seems even less extreme at first glance).

Chicago did score more on the PP though (26 goals vs. 13 goals), and it's probably not a stretch to assume that Bentley played a lot on the PP, and Detroit generally received somewhat better support from D-Men, but the difference isn't huge.

(Speaking of 43-44 and PowerPlays : Boston scored 223 goals, good for 2nd in the league, and only 9 on the PP, when Montreal, league leaders with 234 goals, had scored 30 and Chicago, second worst with 171, had scored 26. How does this even happen? Boston actually led the league in ESGF)

I'm curious about PKs in the earlier days generally. I was looking up some game reports for some bios for the ATD and basically it seems like very few PP goals got scored relative to the number of penalties called. Were there any significant rule changes that could explain that?

 

[MXD]

I believe this is still the era where the scorekeepers at Boston Garden didn't track PP goals.

Okay. That would make sense, because 9 power play goals in 50 games is absurdly low.

Wait, what's up with these PIMS? Montreal has nearly 600, only two other teams have more than 300 and Boston has 205.

Montreal did have some serious shit disturbers on their lineup, but what the hell is going on there?

EDIT : 1943-1944.

 

[overpass]

I'd say that it was a 1-line team, but the forwards scoring seems to be somewhat similarly split (and Chicago's split seems even less extreme at first glance).

Chicago did score more on the PP though (26 goals vs. 13 goals), and it's probably not a stretch to assume that Bentley played a lot on the PP, and Detroit generally received somewhat better support from D-Men, but the difference isn't huge.

(Speaking of 43-44 and PowerPlays : Boston scored 223 goals, good for 2nd in the league, and only 9 on the PP, when Montreal, league leaders with 234 goals, had scored 30 and Chicago, second worst with 171, had scored 26. How does this even happen? Boston actually led the league in ESGF)

It could be that Boston wasn't tracking power play scoring properly.

Penalties across the league were down during the war, according to "Checking Back" by Neil Isaacs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...changes/e84952d0-9f40-4694-9e6f-c2cd5e415320/

In his new book, "Checking Back," Neil D. Isaacs recounts the history of the National Hockey League. In this chapter, excerpted with permission from the publishers, Isaacs explains how the league coped with World War II, making changes that were to affect the game from then on.

The Second World War produced, as (hockey announcer) Foster Hewitt put it, a "weird pattern to the game." For a time, it seemed that the NHL would suspend play for the duration, not only because of the mass enlistments of front-line players but also because of the notion around Ottawa that continuance was unpatriotic. On this issue the American Hockey League took over the leadership. Under its president, Maurice Podoloff, and executives like Lou Jacobs of Buffalo, they said that hockey was needed for morale.

Over-aged veterans and under-aged rookies, like Maurice Richard and the 16-year-old zootsuiter. Bep Guidolin, helped to staff the teams. But war-time travel restrictions made it often a problem to meet game schedules. For this reason, pressure was put on officials to speed up play, and they responded by calling fewer penalties and virtually ignoring penalty shots. The latter development has persisted, at the expense s. The latter development has persisted, at the expense of one of hockey's most exciting features. But the most severe casualty of the travel problem came with the abandoment of overtime. Again a significant feature of the game - particularly in terms of fan interest - was sacrificed to expediency. But long after the causes ceased to exist, the effects have been retained.


The official numbers show a wide discrepancy in penalties by team for 1943-44. Even when you break it down and just look at road numbers, Montreal had 390 PIM on the road in 1943-44 (105 minors, 12 majors, 4 match, 4 game misconduct.) Boston had only 101 PIM on the road (48 minor and 1 major) and Chicago had only 105 PIM on the road (45 minor, 1 major, 1 game misconduct). It's really bizarre.

NHL.com Stats

 

[daver]

There are a variety of reasons for those players not to stand out as Richard did, though the main ones were already named. The 1943 season was still a fair bit stronger in terms of competition than the 1944 and 1945 seasons, and those players weren't as good at scoring goals as Richard was. The league was also quite a bit more balanced in 1943 than it was in the 1944 and 1945 seasons.

Just a reminder that this particular line of discussion starts with the extreme opinion that it is "bonkers" to think that Cain's 44/45 is anything close what any of the missing players could have accomplished.

It is not "bonkers", it is a very nuanced discussion which, IMO, is greatly influenced by:

(1) Richard dominates said missing players two years later, and dominates a stronger league, allegedly, in 50/51.

(2) It is not obvious that any missing player who is deemed to be superior to Cain, let alone all of them, was going to be clearly better than Cain was that year. One or two players being closer %-wise seems reasonable

We are on the same page here I believe, not sure why everyone is seemingly jumping to the "bonkers" position.

As for the balanced argument, that sounds like something that can be potentially applied to most O6 seasons but rarely do I see it.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm curious about PKs in the earlier days generally. I was looking up some game reports for some bios for the ATD and basically it seems like very few PP goals got scored relative to the number of penalties called. Were there any significant rule changes that could explain that?

I think @overpass’s post above does a great job of answering that question regarding the war years.

Going back into the 30s and 20s, I think it’s a combination of factors rather than one single thing. A possible contributing factor that comes to mind:

Anecdotally it seems there were more games when a LOT of penalties were called, upwards of 4-6 per period. I’ve seen games of 20+ penalties which were notable but not wildly out of step with the times (imagine 20 minor penalties in a game today... people would want the refs drug-tested). So some of that high penalty rate comes from circumstances where the refs just threw the book at everybody.

But remember, this is pre-coincidental penalties. So if you’re calling 6 penalties in a single period, clearly there’s a high chance of 4-on-4 play and beyond. The most extreme I’ve seen was a 4-on-1.

To a modern sensibility, 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 means more space and therefore offense. But remember, this is pre-forward pass. Whatever benefit the open ice may have created, was likely offset by making the defenders’ jobs easier when facing “line” rushes of only 2 forwards.

Of course there’s no way to know how big a factor this was. Penalty times aren’t noted during that period, so it could have been a lot or a very little. My purely subjective impression is that sub-5/5 even-strength play was commonplace and expected in a given game.

More generally, there was also less action at the points and on the perimeter. This was pre-slapshot and there weren’t a lot of high shots (goalie facial injuries tell us there were some, just not a lot). Long-distance shots tended to beat goalies by deflection or awkward bounces in front of the net, rather than in a direct line. I feel like that has to connect directly to the collapsing defensive systems (kitty-bar-the-door) which must have been permissive of point shots. I suspect that PPs got a lot more dangerous when the Harvey/Kelly generation introduced a greater level of threat from the point, forcing defenses to stay honest and spread out more on the PK.

 

[JackSlater]

Just a reminder that this particular line of discussion starts with the extreme opinion that it is "bonkers" to think that Cain's 44/45 is anything close what any of the missing players could have accomplished.

It is not "bonkers", it is a very nuanced discussion which, IMO, is greatly influenced by:

(1) Richard dominates said missing players two years later, and dominates a stronger league, allegedly, in 50/51.

(2) It is not obvious that any missing player who is deemed to be superior to Cain, let alone all of them, was going to be clearly better than Cain was that year. One or two players being closer %-wise seems reasonable

We are on the same page here I believe, not sure why everyone is seemingly jumping to the "bonkers" position.

As for the balanced argument, that sounds like something that can be potentially applied to most O6 seasons but rarely do I see it.

I am fully aware of the line of discussion. Most people see that the league was significantly weaker and can grasp that it is easier to outperform weaker competition. The league was unbalanced to a degree not seen in the other original 6 years, which much like the quality of the league being much weaker in the WW2 influenced years is generally common knowledge here and shouldn't require detailed explanation.

I will ask though since you put the bolded qualifier in this post and put quotation marks around the claim that the NHL was a weakened league in recent post: are you attempting to say or imply that the NHL was not significantly weaker, or weaker at all, in the 1943, 1944, and 1945 seasons?

 

[daver]

I will ask though since you put the bolded qualifier in this post and put quotation marks around the claim that the NHL was a weakened league in recent post: are you attempting to say or imply that the NHL was not significantly weaker, or weaker at all, in the 1943, 1944, and 1945 seasons?

It was pointing out that 50/51 was allegedly even stronger than 46/47 thus adding more strength to the argument that Richard had the ability to dominate the league in 44/45 (close to the degree he did) with or without the missing players and (since there seems to be a continual focus on the total of 50) not by reaching a total of 50 goals.

 

[daver]

Well, it’s a bit harder to score when you’re playing for a worse team; when you have fewer linemates contributing; and when you’re setting up assists at a higher rate. It’s not some huge gap, but there’s a clear gap between Bentley’s performance and Liscombe’s in ‘44.

This very well be but similar statistical performances having different levels of value is not exclusive to the unique situation created by the war. It happens all the time. Thus the question remains:

Why didn't any of the five or six elite pre-war goals scorers take advantage of the season or two they played in the war era to put up a significantly more productive season, relative to the league, than they did before the war.

I also don't think it's obvious that scoring was up due to the war. It was starting to go up in 40/41 and more dramatically in 41/42 and has historical precedence for rising and falling even more dramatically than it did during that time period and for reaching greater heights than it did in 44/45 (11 times total) notably over 30 years later.

I don't think it's obvious that Richard could not have scored an even higher amount that year given he was similarly dominant in 46/47 and in 50/51 against much tougher competition.

So you can see why I strongly disagree with any more than a moderate level of context being applied to Richard's 44/45 season.

Or that context applied like league imbalance, is not also applied to other notably great statistical seasons in the O6 like Howe's peak seasons when the Wings showed an similar statistical dominance in GFs and GAs vs. the rest of the league like the '43 to '45 Habs.

 

[blogofmike]

This very well be but similar statistical performances having different levels of value is not exclusive to the unique situation created by the war. It happens all the time. Thus the question remains:

Why didn't any of the five or six elite pre-war goals scorers take advantage of the season or two they played in the war era to put up a significantly more productive season, relative to the league, than they did before the war.

I also don't think it's obvious that scoring was up due to the war. It was starting to go up in 40/41 and more dramatically in 41/42 and has historical precedence for rising and falling even more dramatically than it did during that time period and for reaching greater heights than it did in 44/45 (11 times total) notably over 30 years later.

I don't think it's obvious that Richard could not have scored an even higher amount that year given he was similarly dominant in 46/47 and in 50/51 against much tougher competition.

So you can see why I strongly disagree with any more than a moderate level of context being applied to Richard's 44/45 season.

Or that context applied like league imbalance, is not also applied to other notably great statistical seasons in the O6 like Howe's peak seasons when the Wings showed an similar statistical dominance in GFs and GAs vs. the rest of the league like the '43 to '45 Habs.

"We do not want a single man who is fit for some form of military service to be allowed to play hockey. But let's have the rejects, or average players, to fill the ranks until the boys come home from marching." - NHL came close to shutting down during World War II

This sentiment seems to have applied to the goaltenders that the NHL was forced to use, who outside of the guy in Montreal's net, seem to be mostly average rejects: Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

No Brimsek. No Broda. Johnny Mowers wins the 1943 Vezina and Stanley Cup, and is off to the Air Force in 44 and 45. While New York's Ken McAuley could be described as an AHLer, he never acually played pro hockey again after 1945, so I don't know if that works. The Montreal Canadiens had the good fortune of being the only team who found a goaltending improvement in Bill Durnan (who I'm sure you must think is Hasek-calibre?)

As for the elite scorers not taking advantage, short answer is they were almost all gone, but A) playing Montreal gave Richard the biggest advantage and the lowest quality of competition, B) Richard was probably the most dynamic goal-scorer the NHL had seen to that point and more capable of pressing his bigger advantage.

That being said, many top guys missed 1945 and had Richard been drafted you might not have guessed that the Rocket would have led the NHL in goals that year by a wide margin.

How didn't Bentley take advantage? He outscored the entire league, including Richard in 1944, before missing 1945. He torched the AHL-calibre teams with 37 goals in 40 games.

Playmaker Bill Cowley had the three best goal scoring finishes of his career in 43, 44, and 45, after scoring 4 goals in 28 games in 1942.

Sweeney Schriner unretired to score 22 goals in 26 games in 1945.

Bryan Hextall missed 1945, but his Rangers were severely depleted before that, (and didn't have the luxury of shooting on the Rangers) after a dropping from first place to last place from 1942 to 1943. Same goes for Lynn Patrick . A 42 year old Frank Boucher called himself back from retirement and scored 4 goals in 15 games.

Roy Conacher missed all of 43-45.

After a Top 10 finish in 1943, Gaye Stewart missed 44 and 45, before returning to lead the league in goals in 1946.

In 1943 Busher Jackson returned to the Top 20 at age 32, after a two year absence from the Top 40.

The day they left in 1942, Woody Dumart and Milt Schmidt were in the Top 10 goal scorers, and Bobby Bauer was 1 goal back. Each man was a Top 10 goal scorer before, and would be after returning to the NHL. However the Kraut Line missed all of 1943, 44, and 45.

Syl Apps scored 23 goals in 29 games and was 1 goal back of the league lead in 1943 before he was injured. Apps then missed 1944 and 1945.

Gordie Drillon finished in the Top 3 in goals for the first time in 5 years in 1943, then stopped playing hockey due to the war.

 

[daver]

"We do not want a single man who is fit for some form of military service to be allowed to play hockey. But let's have the rejects, or average players, to fill the ranks until the boys come home from marching." - NHL came close to shutting down during World War II

This sentiment seems to have applied to the goaltenders that the NHL was forced to use, who outside of the guy in Montreal's net, seem to be mostly average rejects: Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

No Brimsek. No Broda. Johnny Mowers wins the 1943 Vezina and Stanley Cup, and is off to the Air Force in 44 and 45. While New York's Ken McAuley could be described as an AHLer, he never acually played pro hockey again after 1945, so I don't know if that works. The Montreal Canadiens had the good fortune of being the only team who found a goaltending improvement in Bill Durnan (who I'm sure you must think is Hasek-calibre?)

As for the elite scorers not taking advantage, short answer is they were almost all gone, but A) playing Montreal gave Richard the biggest advantage and the lowest quality of competition, B) Richard was probably the most dynamic goal-scorer the NHL had seen to that point and more capable of pressing his bigger advantage.

That being said, many top guys missed 1945 and had Richard been drafted you might not have guessed that the Rocket would have led the NHL in goals that year by a wide margin.

How didn't Bentley take advantage? He outscored the entire league, including Richard in 1944, before missing 1945. He torched the AHL-calibre teams with 37 goals in 40 games.

Playmaker Bill Cowley had the three best goal scoring finishes of his career in 43, 44, and 45, after scoring 4 goals in 28 games in 1942.

Sweeney Schriner unretired to score 22 goals in 26 games in 1945.

Bryan Hextall missed 1945, but his Rangers were severely depleted before that, (and didn't have the luxury of shooting on the Rangers) after a dropping from first place to last place from 1942 to 1943. Same goes for Lynn Patrick . A 42 year old Frank Boucher called himself back from retirement and scored 4 goals in 15 games.

Roy Conacher missed all of 43-45.

After a Top 10 finish in 1943, Gaye Stewart missed 44 and 45, before returning to lead the league in goals in 1946.

In 1943 Busher Jackson returned to the Top 20 at age 32, after a two year absence from the Top 40.

The day they left in 1942, Woody Dumart and Milt Schmidt were in the Top 10 goal scorers, and Bobby Bauer was 1 goal back. Each man was a Top 10 goal scorer before, and would be after returning to the NHL. However the Kraut Line missed all of 1943, 44, and 45.

Syl Apps scored 23 goals in 29 games and was 1 goal back of the league lead in 1943 before he was injured. Apps then missed 1944 and 1945.

Gordie Drillon finished in the Top 3 in goals for the first time in 5 years in 1943, then stopped playing hockey due to the war.

If you are trying to convince me that Richard doesn't score 50 that year under normal conditions. I am convinced. There is no need for you, or anyone else, to continually use raw goal figures in this discussion.

I am also convinced that under normal conditions none of the missing goalscorers would have gotten that much closer than Cain did to Richard as he also "torched the AHL-calibre league teams in 1944" as Bentley did. This has been discussed as nausem and there are no examples of any pre-war elite goalscorers showing a clear jump in their production, relative to the league, in the one or two war seasons they played in.

 

[JackSlater]

If you are trying to convince me that Richard doesn't score 50 that year under normal conditions. I am convinced. There is no need for you, or anyone else, to continually use raw goal figures in this discussion.

I am also convinced that under normal conditions none of the missing goalscorers would have gotten that much closer than Cain did to Richard as he also "torched the AHL-calibre league teams in 1944" as Bentley did. This has been discussed as nausem and there are no examples of any pre-war elite goalscorers showing a clear jump in their production, relative to the league, in the one or two war seasons they played in.

Schriner did just that in 1945. It's already been discussed. Not that the very specific parameters you laid out have a lot of significance.

 

[daver]

Schriner did just that in 1945. It's already been discussed. Not that the very specific parameters you laid out have a lot of significance.

I assumed that I didn't have to qualify that half seasons obviously need to be taken with a grain of salt. If you want to give Shriner a 35 to 40 goal season that year, that's fine. Unlike Richard, it would been an outlier season for him in terms of production relative to the league so presuming he finishes off that season at anything close his 26 game pace is stretching it.

That's one example. What about the 7 to 8 other opportunities? I am not seeing a convincing argument that it is obvious that Richard's dominance, or even his raw totals, needs context.

I have seen many obvious, and reasonable, arguments presented that make sense but there are some obvious, and reasonable, arguments to be made going the other way.

We cannot say for certain that scoring wasn't going up for reasons other than an absence of players. Scoring has gone up in other years too.

We cannot say for certain that Richard simply did not have the talent to dominate as he did.

We cannot even say for certain that Richard could not have put up even more than 50 that year. Only 16% of his goals came against the hapless Rangers.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I assumed that I didn't have to qualify that half seasons obviously need to be taken with a grain of salt. If you want to give Shriner a 35 to 40 goal season that year, that's fine. Unlike Richard, it would been an outlier season for him in terms of production relative to the league so presuming he finishes off that season at anything close his 26 game pace is stretching it.

That's one example. What about the 7 to 8 other opportunities? I am not seeing a convincing argument that it is obvious that Richard's dominance, or even his raw totals, needs context.

I have seen many obvious, and reasonable, arguments presented that make sense but there are some obvious, and reasonable, arguments to be made going the other way.

We cannot say for certain that scoring wasn't going up for reasons other than an absence of players. Scoring has gone up in other years too.

We cannot say for certain that Richard simply did not have the talent to dominate as he did.

We cannot even say for certain that Richard could not have put up even more than 50 that year. Only 16% of his goals came against the hapless Rangers.

So if you're not going to be convinced by the well thought out reasonable posts from multiple knowledgeable HOH posters, why keep going?

 

[daver]

So if you're not going to be convinced by the well thought out reasonable posts from multiple knowledgeable HOH posters, why keep going?

Here is the poster I was responding to. Is this position of the knowledgeble HOH posters? I was getting the impression it wasn't as the discussion has clearly moved to production relative to the league, not raw numbers.

I am not convinced that a half season by Schriber vs. full seasons by five to six other players is enough to convince me that the conditions were ripe for outlier seasons, in terms of production relative to the league, by the elite goalscorers. No amount of knowledge is needed to make that argument any stronger when the numbers are there clear as day.

So no, it is not obvious that Richard's season needs context, let alone significant context, after all obvious arguments are considered. I am convinced that one or two scorers should be placed closer to Richard than Cain was. Happy?

What an absolutely ridiculous discussion.

Of course Richard's 44-45 season was hugely inflated because of WW 2. Every goalie he was facing was an AHLer and 2/3 of opposition players were AHLers, while most of Montreal's team and their entire superstar line were intact. It's the simplest of simple logic that an all-time dominant line will dominate more against far weaker competition.

As for statistical evidence, look what happens to Montreal's team GF/G during the 1940s. It practically *doubles* when the team is playing garbage opposition (players started leaving in 1941, the full exodus was 43-45, and then trickled back 45-47) before quickly returning to pre-WW2 levels almost as soon as the league returns to full strength.

40-41 2.52
41-42 2.79
42-43 3.62
43-44 4.68
44-45 4.56
45-46 3.44
46-47 3.15
47-48 2.45

The most ridiculous notion here is the using of journeymen like Cain and Liscombe who had absurd career years in 43-44 under the exact same conditions and then didn't build on them in 44-45 as evidence that Richard's 44-45 was legit, rather than the complete opposite.

This was a league in 1943-45 where a decent 2nd liner like Herb Cain could set insane scoring records that lasted for 25 years until post-1967 expansion. Literally everyone knows those Cain marks are totally bogus, but to be arguing that Richard in the exact same situations was totally legit and scored at exactly the same rate he would have against a full-strength NHL is just bonkers.

 

[MXD]

I am not convinced that a half season by Schriber vs. full seasons by five to six other players is enough to convince me that the conditions were ripe for outlier seasons, in terms of production relative to the league, by the elite goalscorers. No amount of knowledge is needed to make that argument any stronger when the numbers are there clear as day.

So no, it is not obvious that Richard's season needs context, let alone significant context, after all obvious arguments are considered. I am convinced that one or two scorers should be placed closer to Richard than Cain was. Happy?

Hopefully you've managed to convince yourself.

 

[JackSlater]

I assumed that I didn't have to qualify that half seasons obviously need to be taken with a grain of salt. If you want to give Shriner a 35 to 40 goal season that year, that's fine. Unlike Richard, it would been an outlier season for him in terms of production relative to the league so presuming he finishes off that season at anything close his 26 game pace is stretching it.

That's one example. What about the 7 to 8 other opportunities? I am not seeing a convincing argument that it is obvious that Richard's dominance, or even his raw totals, needs context.

I have seen many obvious, and reasonable, arguments presented that make sense but there are some obvious, and reasonable, arguments to be made going the other way.

We cannot say for certain that scoring wasn't going up for reasons other than an absence of players. Scoring has gone up in other years too.

We cannot say for certain that Richard simply did not have the talent to dominate as he did.

We cannot even say for certain that Richard could not have put up even more than 50 that year. Only 16% of his goals came against the hapless Rangers.

I'm not giving Schriner any extra goals, I'm noting that he was an elite goal scorer prior to WW2 who had a jump in production relative to the league that was clearly impacted by WW2. Just as Apps did in the war weakened 1943 season before he went to WW2. We had a few guys who had been among the top ten scorers prior to WW2 impacting the NHL like Carr, Cowley, or Cain who all suddenly started to dominate scoring as they hadn't before despite being in their early to mid 30s and who were all out of the NHL two years after most of the players returned from WW2. These aren't new examples though despite you asking for them, and that's without getting into team league dynamics. If you're expecting 7 or 8 for some reason it might prove difficult given that more than 7 or 8 of the league's best goal scorers were out of the NHL due to WW2. I'll also note that there is no reason to restrict such a comparison only to players who had established themselves before the WW2 impacted seasons.

Every season or performance needs context. You talk as if it is something that is only applied sometimes but that isn't the case. I'll also note that I have not seen an obvious or reasonable argument made that goes against the general consensus in the thread.

The last part of your post is pretty ridiculous. We can't say anything for certain outside of some basic math like 2 + 2 = 4. We cannot say for certain that Richard wouldn't have scored 0 goals if WW2 never happened. We cannot say for certain that Bingo Kampman wouldn't have scored 100 goals in 1943, 1944, and 1945 if not for WW2. We can however apply a basic level of logic to the situation and realize that it is easier to dominate against weaker players, particularly when the league is massively uneven with only one team keeping its top line and only one team keeping its goaltender.

 

[daver]

Every season or performance needs context. You talk as if it is something that is only applied sometimes but that isn't the case. I'll also note that I have not seen an obvious or reasonable argument made that goes against the general consensus in the thread.

My real beef is use of the term OBVIOUS, which essentially shuts down any reasonable arguments presented that go against the consensus, when REASONABLE is more appropriate:

If the general consensus is:

- higher scoring = obviously weaker league, I disagree. Look no further than the last thirty years of the league where scoring has gone up and down significantly.

- missing WW11 players = obviously higher scoring league, I disagree. The league may have been heading there anyways as scoring took jumps up in 40/41 and an even bigger one in 41/42. League scoring has yo-yoed throughout the history of the league and reached a level above the 44/45 level eleven times. Common sense would dictate that a "cross the board" exodus of forwards, d-men and goalies doesn't necessarily = higher scoring. It seems reasonable that the chaos that playing with the introduction new players and different linemates that occured with the exodus can explain the increase in scoring. We often see that at the beginning of each season but it doesn't mean the league is weaker.

- that Richard obviously doesn't score 50 in a hypothetical full roster league, I disagree. One can make a reasonable argument that he could have gotten even more than 50 in 44/45. Playing on such a powerhouse team may have held him back. He scored an even higher % of his team's goals in 46/47 and 50/51 (not including the five missed games).

- that obviously any of the missing players gets closer to Richard than Cain did. I disagree. We have half of one season by one player out of five or six other opportunities backing up the premise that other elite goalscorers would have obviously also shown a significant jump in their relative production

- that league imbalance was obviously a factor in Richard reaching 50 as the Habs were a powerhouse that year, I disagree. He reached a level of dominance close to his 44/45 level in two other seasons where the Habs were 2nd (46/47) and 4th (50/51) in GFs and notably were a below .500 team in 50/51.

I think the arguments for all of those are reasonable thus I agree with what appears to be the consensus that Richard's raw goal total of 50 and the % gap over the 2nd place scorer were inflated but not to an extent where one questions his ability to be that dominant or that his 44/45 season is essentially removed from the "greatest goalscoring" seasons discussion.

 

[daver]

I'm not giving Schriner any extra goals, I'm noting that he was an elite goal scorer prior to WW2 who had a jump in production relative to the league that was clearly impacted by WW2. Just as Apps did in the war weakened 1943 season before he went to WW2. We had a few guys who had been among the top ten scorers prior to WW2 impacting the NHL like Carr, Cowley, or Cain who all suddenly started to dominate scoring as they hadn't before despite being in their early to mid 30s and who were all out of the NHL two years after most of the players returned from WW2. These aren't new examples though despite you asking for them, and that's without getting into team league dynamics. If you're expecting 7 or 8 for some reason it might prove difficult given that more than 7 or 8 of the league's best goal scorers were out of the NHL due to WW2. I'll also note that there is no reason to restrict such a comparison only to players who had established themselves before the WW2 impacted seasons.r.

That it wasn't over a full season vs. Bentley's full season in 1944 where he did not show a jump in production relative to the league which should reasonably bring into question of the obviousness of the impact of WW2.

The same applies to Apps in 1942/43, one barely half season of dominance, one that is hardly unique in any season (see Conacher in 39/40) vs. four full seasons of no dominance by the other elite goalscorers that year moves the "obvious" impact of WW2 on that season into outright doubt, let alone reasonably believable.

And there doesn't sound like there is a consensus on 42/43 as being "war weakened". @MXD wanted to downplay the lack of evidence shown in that season by stating that was not as affected by the war despite it clearly falling into the "war weakened" category than not by the number of missing players you presented. So which is it? What is the consensus? If higher league scoring levels = impacted by WWII, then the jump from 3.21 in 41/42 to 3.61 in 42/43, which almost matches the level in 44/45 (3.68), makes it reasonable to believe it similarly "war weakened" like 44/45.