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!"
Interesting take. I mean, you have to remember this is an era when hockey players didn't make real money. If they wanted their families to eat, they had to play. Players like Milt Schmidt were back in regular form in the autumn of 1945, not missing a beat.
I live in Japan. In Nagasaki in August, 1945, one bank was near the epicenter of the second Atomic Bomb. The windows were of course all blown out, and several employees died. Several survived. The bank re-opened for regular business two days after the bomb.
People were tough then, by necessity.
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.
The fact remains, for the 10 seasons after WWII, Maurice Richard led the NHL in scoring (and in goals by a country kilometer). He was also probably the NHL's best playoff performer of the 1950s (I guess you can argue about Sawchuk).
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.
I mean, it's pretty obvious there was an anti-French bias in a lot of the NHL's management in the 40s and 50s, particularly after Montreal started getting really good in the early/mid-1940s. There are a lot of stories about "phantom" assists being awarded to Chicago players of that era -- you'll note that Max Bentley won the scoring title over Richard in 1947 by one point. That season, btw, Richard had 50% more goals than the second-best guy in the League. This is two years after the war.
Re: Hart voting, I don't think what I'm suggesting is ridiculous. It's quite common for a younger player, after his first season or two break-out, to be undervalued by voters and fans. Especially in that era. Then, after a few years of the player being elite, opinion changes and the player gets the respect deserved. My guess is that if Richard had scored 50 goals in 50 games in, say, 1948, he would have won the Hart even if Lach had the scoring title.
Anyway, it's not like Richard is lacking in hardware or accolades in a retrospective fashion -- he'd have 5 'Richard' awards (ha,ha), and probably two Conn Smythes. Take away the Chicago phantom assists and the suspension of Richard with three games left in '55 and he has two scoring titles.
Let's look at the playoffs from 1949 to 1958 -- this period encompasses Gordie Howe's prime years on the powerful Detroit team. In goals-per-game, Richard is basically in a dead-heat for these years with the younger Jean Beliveau, and is quite a bit ahead of Gordie Howe. (Howe, of course, produces more points per game.)
It's clear that Maurice Richard was one of the handful of most elite players between 1950 and 1958... Do you agree that this period is after WWII...?
