What's with the disrespect of Maurice Richard?

[The Panther]

I don't get it. Richard is clearly one of the great and era-defining players in history. He was awesome from 1943 to 1958 or so, and played on two of the greatest teams of his era, one arguably the greatest of all time. (He also played for worse teams, and was still awesome.) He was the elite goal-scorer of his era, and is arguably the best playoffs' goal-scorer ever. Like Gordie Howe, but more temperamental, he was a bad-ass who punched and fought his way to the net in a rough-and-tough era while racking up numbers. For fourteen seasons in a row, he was rated the best or second-best (usually to Gordie Howe) right-wing in hockey. He retired with far and away the most goals in NHL history, a total thought impossible to break at the time.

Yet I keep seeing dismissal of him from today's fans. On a contemporary thread on his very forum, one poster writes that Richard dominated a watered-down League (referring, presumably, to the War period) and then rode the coat-tails of a Dynasty team (or words to that effect). And thus his career is dismissed.

I get that Richard's scoring totals benefited from the war-absence of some key players, but that lasted for only two seasons of his early prime: 1943-44 and 1944-45. In those two seasons, he scored 82 goals, which is 21% more than the #2 guy. There were five other Hall of Famers in the top-10 guys those two seasons, and they all "benefited" from the same watered-down League.

Then, between the war-years and the famous 50s' Canadiens' dynasty lie 10 seasons. So, are people just dismissing those seasons? For that decade, the NHL's top goal scorers were:
335 - Richard
271 - Howe
247 - Lindsay
Or, if you prefer, goals-per-game (min. 200 games):
0.55 Richard
0.47 Howe
0.46 Geoffrion
(M. Richard also leads that 10-year period in points, albeit is just second to Gordie in PPG.)

Then, he wins 5 Cups in a row to finish his career, as a veteran. Okay, by '59 and '60 he was old and had lost a step or two, but check out what he did in the playoffs (supposedly on the second line) in 1956, 1957, and 1958 (this, at the ages of 34 to 36):
24 goals and 40 points in 30 games
He scored more goals than Beliveau, Geoffrion, or anyone else those three years, and was 10 or more years older than those guys. Actually, at his age then, most players had retired. He also had 9 game-winners, with the next guy on the club having 4.

Above all, his 81 goals in his first 121 playoff games is insane. It's not like goal-scoring was high in this era (well, a bit in the '45 playoffs maybe).

Now, no one has ever argued that Richard was a complete offensive player. He was a goal-scorer who picked up assists along the way when his charge to the net failed or his rebound went to a teammate. Consequently, he never won the scoring title (though he would have in '55 but for the League banning him with three games left), but he was 2nd five times, and seven times he was top-3. And, as I mentioned, he led the NHL in points for many long periods, including 1945 to 1955.

Anyway, I'm just wondering why today's hockey fans are downgrading him? Obviously distance in time is a factor... otherwise, am I missing something??

Click to read more...

 

[gotyournose]

Any person who disrespects the Rocket doesn't know hockey. He was made and built for his era. You think players like Jagr or Kane could survive Richard's era? Not a snowballs chance in hell. Gordie Howe was the better RW, but Rocket is second and in some ways better than Gordie.

Just look into Rocket Richard's eyes. If you aren't motivated or excited to watch or play hockey than you've got something wrong with you. He was a natural born leader. The first superstar the NHL had, he was worth the price of admission alone. He had an awful temper that included punching a referee and getting suspended for a long time. He is a legendary French Canadian icon now and till the end of time. A riot happened in large part because of him. He was no average Joe. Rocket Richard was larger than life, but to him he was just a hockey player

Name one other player who had a similar career or impact?

Edit: who can forget the hockey sweater book, only the Rocket could be the one special enough to have a book in large part about him

 

[Moose Head]

Now, no one has ever argued that Richard was a complete offensive player. He was a goal-scorer who picked up assists along the way when his charge to the net failed or his rebound went to a teammate. Consequently, he never won the scoring title (though he would have in '55 but for the League banning him with three games left), but he was 2nd five times, and seven times he was top-3. And, as I mentioned, he led the NHL in points for many long periods, including 1945 to 1955.

As an aside, There is that old theory that the NHL suppressed Richards assist numbers and inflated Howe’s. I wonder if an analysis was ever done to test the theory.

 

[Moose Head]

I haven’t seen too many top 10-15 lists without Richard listed, so I don’t think the contingent that disrespects Richard is all too large.

 

[daver]

Seems he is just a hair behind Hull and Beliveau (and soon to be Crosby) all-time. Who cares about what younger generation thinks? They seem to have less common sense than a walnut.

 

[Johnny Engine]

When I started discussing hockey history in various places on the internet, the consensus seemed to be that Richard was as much a lock for 5th all time as Mario was for 4th, and that pointing out the holes in his resume was controversial, perhaps more so than even lifting him as high as 3rd. There may still be people who feel he needs to be knocked down a peg because of that, even if consensus mostly has him in a sensible place, as described by daver above.

You see the same thing with Forsberg (overrated by people who only look at youtube clips) and Brodeur (overrated for a short period by the mainstream media at about the time he broke the wins and shutouts record), where the cachet they hold among a loud minority causes some unnecessary backlash.

 

[NyQuil]

They named a trophy after him.

 

[The Macho King]

The league was diluted at minimum until the 47-48 season, and you can argue the following season as well.

The "disrespect " argument is what exactly - some people dont think hes a top 10 player? I agree. There are a lot of eras in hockey, and at least one player that defines each one. To the extent the war years + early 06 were defined by the Rocket - I mean okay. Great player. Great playoff performer.

 

[JackSlater]

1. He played a very long time ago, so some fans will always downgrade him for that. Among players that are still well known in the mainstream Richard is the oldest, as I don't think that Shore/Morenz/Lalonde etc. are that well known among many fans anymore. His raw numbers also don't stand out anymore, unlike Howe's, so without considering the context of when he played he can be dismissed by many.

2. Reaction to the soft consensus that Richard was the fifth best player ever. Taking a long look at what he did, and looking at video of Richard, weakens his case for fifth best in my opinion unless someone really heavily values goal scoring and "playoffs" above all else.

 

[Voight]

He only won a single Hart Trophy and never won a scoring title.

So that factors in when ranking him all time, even if he was the first to score 500 and the all-time leader until Howe surpassed him.

 

[Staniowski]

How much complete-game video is there of the Habs in Rocket's era?

 

[GMR]

1. He played a very long time ago, so some fans will always downgrade him for that. Among players that are still well known in the mainstream Richard is the oldest, as I don't think that Shore/Morenz/Lalonde etc. are that well known among many fans anymore. His raw numbers also don't stand out anymore, unlike Howe's, so without considering the context of when he played he can be dismissed by many.

2. Reaction to the soft consensus that Richard was the fifth best player ever. Taking a long look at what he did, and looking at video of Richard, weakens his case for fifth best in my opinion unless someone really heavily values goal scoring and "playoffs" above all else.

I was surprised when I came to this forum to see he was ranked below Harvey, Beliveau, and Hull. I figured the goal scoring and playoff performance would have him 5th all time on most lists.

 

[Bouboumaster]

I was surprised when I came to this forum to see he was ranked below Harvey, Beliveau, and Hull. I figured the goal scoring and playoff performance would have him 5th all time on most lists.

I'd rank Beliveau above him.
Richard is a legend, a top 10 or top 15 best player ever, and a National Hero in Canada (and especially here in Quebec) and he was a badass, to boot, but Beliveau was something else.
I'd put Beliveau behind Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr and Howe (for sure), but there's an argument for him as the 5th best ever.

 

[Michael Farkas]

For me, after looking deeper into it with video/reading/greater understanding of the game as a whole...

- I didn't realize that the War years weren't just 1944 and 1945. The league doesn't seem to really recover in terms of quality of play until around 1950. Which doesn't invalidate everything Richard did until then, certainly. You can only play the hand you're dealt. But I don't hold a lot of reverence for that era - much like I don't for the early 80's, which were similarly weak.

- I didn't realize his limitations as a player. Technically, he's the most skilled player in the history of the league up to 1950...perhaps further. He wasn't smartest one though. He played the game fast and worked hard because he had to...you can see in his backchecking and in his playmaking that he wasn't exactly a visionary...but he was better and faster than everyone, so, good luck...

But therein lies the rub...one would suspect that a player who gets 50 goals in 50 games at the age of 23 would certainly improve upon that number as he developed...but he doesn't...despite ending up with 20 more games per season to do it in...in fact, he only hits 40 twice more in the non-War-effected years (as I see them)...and they're both right after the War years in 50 and 51...

Richard never really got any better at reading the game once he was in it (which is typical for players of his type, or even in general)...the league got better at a faster rate than he did...

Meanwhile, a smarter player like Beliveau - who got a later start at the NHL level and was developed a little more properly - explodes in his 23 year old season (First-Team, 70+ points), comes back the next year and leads the league in goals and points and wins the Hart, and is a legitimate Hart candidate for the rest of the decade. Much more consistent, less sporadic.

The immature-ness to his game - for those that don't want to pursue video for whatever reason - can probably be best summed up in 1945...Richard scores 50 goals in 50 games and not only doesn't win the Hart unanimously...but his own center beats him out pretty handily...moreover, Bill Cowley's - known one-way player - 65 point/4th place scoring finish just about nips Richard's historic year in terms of Hart voting...

I'm not as enamored with streak-and-score wingers as many others are and Richard is the best one of them ever, but that's not a top 15 player for me give or take...much less top 5...he deserves a great deal of respect, but his game was more hollow than his legend in my research...

 

[The Macho King]

The immature-ness to his game - for those that don't want to pursue video for whatever reason - can probably be best summed up in 1945...Richard scores 50 goals in 50 games and not only doesn't win the Hart unanimously...but his own center beats him out pretty handily...moreover, Bill Cowley's - known one-way player - 65 point/4th place scoring finish just about nips Richard's historic year in terms of Hart voting...

I don't know how the league worked w/r/t French players - was Lach also French? Could him losing to Lach come from one being FC and the other not?

 

[MXD]

I don't know how the league worked w/r/t French players - was Lach also French? Could him losing to Lach come from one being FC and the other not?

Lach wasn't French.

 

[quoipourquoi]

As an aside, There is that old theory that the NHL suppressed Richards assist numbers and inflated Howe’s. I wonder if an analysis was ever done to test the theory.

Would be interesting. When we were doing the playoff project, we were researching playoff overtime scoring. I was expecting Richard to look marvelous (and in terms of goals, he did), but there was a shockingly low number of overtime assists relative to what other players we were looking at had.

 

[The Macho King]

As an aside, There is that old theory that the NHL suppressed Richards assist numbers and inflated Howe’s. I wonder if an analysis was ever done to test the theory.

Would home/road splits tell part of the story there?

Also - I mean, when did this "suppression" start and stop, because Beliveau had no problem putting up assists despite being French. That seems... overly conspiratorial to me. It's not like the NHL was centrally dictating boxscores back then and correcting them like they do now.

 

[MadLuke]

You think players like Jagr or Kane could survive Richard's era?

Jagr would have been pretty much the biggest and one of the strongest player of that era no ? (well of any era), He played comfortably over 2000 professional games and was quite though. Feel like a special athlete with a special love of playing that could have succeeded in all eras, at least physically.

Has for the subject, I feel it is common to almost all older player before the 70s, is Richard specially more than the average older era player ?

 

[JianYang]

They named a trophy after him.

They, as in the habs donated the trophy to the league

I don't think he was discredited by the habs organization. Growing up, Richard felt like he was the face of the organization until he passed away, then it became beliveau.

I think this topic is more about his external perception, and not how the habs perceived him as.

 

[daver]

Any person who disrespects the Rocket doesn't know hockey. He was made and built for his era. You think players like Jagr or Kane could survive Richard's era? Not a snowballs chance in hell.

So in response to this questionable disrespect (certainly he is respected in the HOH Forum) you decide to disrespect current players?

 

[The Panther]

For me, after looking deeper into it with video/reading/greater understanding of the game as a whole...

- I didn't realize that the War years weren't just 1944 and 1945. The league doesn't seem to really recover in terms of quality of play until around 1950. Which doesn't invalidate everything Richard did until then, certainly. You can only play the hand you're dealt. But I don't hold a lot of reverence for that era - much like I don't for the early 80's, which were similarly weak.

- I didn't realize his limitations as a player. Technically, he's the most skilled player in the history of the league up to 1950...perhaps further. He wasn't smartest one though. He played the game fast and worked hard because he had to...you can see in his backchecking and in his playmaking that he wasn't exactly a visionary...but he was better and faster than everyone, so, good luck...

But therein lies the rub...one would suspect that a player who gets 50 goals in 50 games at the age of 23 would certainly improve upon that number as he developed...but he doesn't...despite ending up with 20 more games per season to do it in...in fact, he only hits 40 twice more in the non-War-effected years (as I see them)...and they're both right after the War years in 50 and 51...

Richard never really got any better at reading the game once he was in it (which is typical for players of his type, or even in general)...the league got better at a faster rate than he did...

Meanwhile, a smarter player like Beliveau - who got a later start at the NHL level and was developed a little more properly - explodes in his 23 year old season (First-Team, 70+ points), comes back the next year and leads the league in goals and points and wins the Hart, and is a legitimate Hart candidate for the rest of the decade. Much more consistent, less sporadic.

The immature-ness to his game - for those that don't want to pursue video for whatever reason - can probably be best summed up in 1945...Richard scores 50 goals in 50 games and not only doesn't win the Hart unanimously...but his own center beats him out pretty handily...moreover, Bill Cowley's - known one-way player - 65 point/4th place scoring finish just about nips Richard's historic year in terms of Hart voting...

I'm not as enamored with streak-and-score wingers as many others are and Richard is the best one of them ever, but that's not a top 15 player for me give or take...much less top 5...he deserves a great deal of respect, but his game was more hollow than his legend in my research...

I dunno about some of these takes...

I mean, I have read historical players' takes that the 40s in general (not just the war period) was a 'wilder', freer era of less systematic hockey compared to the 50s/60s. I really don't know how much of that has to do with the war. And why would the League not recover to "quality play" until 1950? I can't think of any reason for that.

And if everything got better and faster, leaving Richard behind, why was he still dominating goal-scoring in the post-season up to 1958, just the same as he had in 1944?

I also wouldn't put any stock into his not winning the Hart in 1945. I suspect that's a combination of (a) anti-French bias, and (b) voters sticking with the more established guy (Lach). I can imagine if this forum existed in 1944, all the posts would be: "Richard is a product of Lach!". (Not saying Lach wasn't great, of course.)

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

At the time of his retirement, which is how I believe players should be assessed, he was likely top 3 all-time.

 

[gotyournose]

So in response to this questionable disrespect (certainly he is respected in the HOH Forum) you decide to disrespect current players?

Because that's where the biased narrative comes from people who want to diminish him and his achievements. That rocket wasn't as talented as we say he was, that he's just lucky to have played in era. He was made and built for his era.

I disrespect current players because they couldn't do what rocket did in terms of playing style in the O6 era.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I dunno about some of these takes...

I mean, I have read historical players' takes that the 40s in general (not just the war period) was a 'wilder', freer era of less systematic hockey compared to the 50s/60s. I really don't know how much of that has to do with the war. And why would the League not recover to "quality play" until 1950? I can't think of any reason for that.

And if everything got better and faster, leaving Richard behind, why was he still dominating goal-scoring in the post-season up to 1958, just the same as he had in 1944?

I also wouldn't put any stock into his not winning the Hart in 1945. I suspect that's a combination of (a) anti-French bias, and (b) voters sticking with the more established guy (Lach). I can imagine if this forum existed in 1944, all the posts would be: "Richard is a product of Lach!". (Not saying Lach wasn't great, of course.)

The players went to fight in a World War. A world ******* war. That's not like coming home from a long day at the office where you throw your keys down on the counter and pop a couple of Bud Heavies...they went to another continent and faced people trying to kill them in any way possible...you think the players that left there completely unphyscially injured were fine? You think the loss of life was just limited to the NHL...? No minor leaguers? No top prospects? No one quit sports at all after fighting the nazis? Seems unrealistic...I seriously doubt that in 1946, everyone just drove home from Japan and was like, "ok hun, I'm gonna go back on the road for seven months to play a game for a while..."

"K, honey, bring home some milk if you remember!"

Really an odd scenario to envision...plus, the rise and modernization of other pro sports like football and basketball in the 1950s gives credence to the NHL likely evolving around the same time...

Weird to pick and choose around to 1958. From 1952 to 1957, he scored a rate worse than Boom Boom, Beliveau, and Lindsay...he did out-goal Floyd Curry by 5 in that time, so...that's something. We can all cherry pick. Is this case it favors my stance.

Sounds good. When in doubt, blame an agenda...an agenda that they must have gotten over so incredibly fast given the Richard and Bouchard voting of 1947...but yeah, '45, the historic season, that was bias...checks out.