What's with the disrespect of Maurice Richard?

[daver]

Yes, I would agree that the period roughly after 1950 is post-War time...I wish there was a little more footage of the 40's available to be even more sure, but from what I have seen, the league is still messy and unkempt throughout most of the 40's...

So by default Richard's goalscoring dominance in the 40s should be viewed as "messy and unkempt"?

Richard's 2nd most dominant goalscoring year is arguably 50/51 and his 4th best is 49/50.

How can you make any statistical argument that his goalscoring numbers were inflated in the '40s when he was, in theory, in his prime and should be putting up peak seasons, when he followed that up with similar dominance into the early 50s and an expected presence among the league's best goalscorers into the mid and late 50s.

Where is the statistical anomaly or outlier that backs up this claim of "messy and unkempt"?

 

[The Macho King]

So by default Richard's goalscoring dominance in the 40s should be viewed as "messy and unkempt"?

Richard's 2nd most dominant goalscoring year is arguably 50/51 and his 4th best is 49/50.

How can you make any statistical argument that his goalscoring numbers were inflated in the '40s when he was, in theory, in his prime and should be putting up peak seasons, when he followed that up with similar dominance into the early 50s and an expected presence among the league's best goalscorers into the mid and late 50s.

Where is the statistical anomaly or outlier that backs up this claim of "messy and unkempt"?

Here's the thing - there are examples of players who looked good during the war years and then looked... notsogood when talent rebounded.

Richard is not one of those players. You can put some of the raw numbers in context (and should) for those seasons, but he proved enough after it to get the benefit of the doubt regarding the talent level.

 

[daver]

Here's the thing - there are examples of players who looked good during the war years and then looked... notsogood when talent rebounded.

Richard is not one of those players. You can put some of the raw numbers in context (and should) for those seasons, but he proved enough after it to get the benefit of the doubt regarding the talent level.

Why should we? Richard showed a similar goalscoring dominance in the 1944/45 to 48/49 time period as Howe did in his peak (51 to 54).

Why should Richard's #'s need context and not Howe's? Richard was matching Howe in his first two years of his peak. To me that should not raise any red flags over Richard's raw numbers in the '40s.

 

[The Macho King]

Why should we? Richard showed a similar goalscoring dominance in the 1944/45 to 48/49 time period as Howe did in his peak (51 to 54).

Why should Richard's #'s need context and not Howe's? Richard was matching Howe in his first two years of his peak. To me that should not raise any red flags over Richard's raw numbers in the '40s.

I mean... he never approached a goal per game pace against quality competition. So you realize that those numbers are an anomaly.

Don't think that's a controversial opinion - the raw numbers during a 50 game season are inflated. He was still the best RW (and probably player) in the league at that time. And Howe's numbers don't need "context" because the quality of the league as a whole had rebounded by the time he peaked, whereas Richard's absolute RS peak coincided with a lack of talent (and further dilution of prospect pools, coaches, etc.) due to the war that took years to rebound from.

 

[daver]

I mean... he never approached a goal per game pace against quality competition. So you realize that those numbers are an anomaly.

Don't think that's a controversial opinion - the raw numbers during a 50 game season are inflated. He was still the best RW (and probably player) in the league at that time. And Howe's numbers don't need "context" because the quality of the league as a whole had rebounded by the time he peaked, whereas Richard's absolute RS peak coincided with a lack of talent (and further dilution of prospect pools, coaches, etc.) due to the war that took years to rebound from.

Are you saying his raw numbers are inflated or his dominance vs. his peers was inflated? If it's the latter, then he showed a similar dominance in 50/51 aside from Howe. That's the point I am making. He was dominant into his 30s as the league became more "unkempt". As dominant as his 50 in 50? Nope, that's his peak season that every great player had in their 20s e.g. Howe, Hull, Beliveau, Wayne, Mario etc...

I don't see any reason to doubt his greatness if he started in the 50s.

 

[scott clam]

According to Hockey Reference, Jagr was 6'3, 230 lbs during his NHL career, while Richard was 5'10, 170 lbs during his

Seems rather silly to suggest that Jagr wouldn't have survived in that era

Yeah, I know eh. This guy would get eaten alive:

 

[Sentinel]

Richard is where he is because of his consistency of excellence in the playoffs while not being a negative defensively. Ovi is a net negative defensively with basically two good playoff runs over his entire career.

I'm fairly low on the Rocket myself, but I don't think Ovi has passed him.

So we all agree that Ovechkin passed Richard in the RS. The question is: how far behind Richard is he in playoffs that his RS dominance won't overcome this aspect? Will another good run do it?

Bossy is also ahead of Ovy in playoffs, yet it's pretty clear that Ovy's RS dominance is too great and has overcome it as far as Bossy goes

 

[Michael Farkas]

So by default Richard's goalscoring dominance in the 40s should be viewed as "messy and unkempt"?

Richard's 2nd most dominant goalscoring year is arguably 50/51 and his 4th best is 49/50.

How can you make any statistical argument that his goalscoring numbers were inflated in the '40s when he was, in theory, in his prime and should be putting up peak seasons, when he followed that up with similar dominance into the early 50s and an expected presence among the league's best goalscorers into the mid and late 50s.

Where is the statistical anomaly or outlier that backs up this claim of "messy and unkempt"?

In order:
- Already commented on that. In fact, prefaced my thoughts with that.
- Neato.
- Very, very easily. As I've stated in this thread and several others.
- It feels like an illegitimate ask, so forgive me for initially treating it as such. But you're not at all familiar with the War era NHL? Because I'm getting a mixed message...

 

[MXD]

So we all agree that Ovechkin passed Richard in the RS. The question is: how far behind Richard is he in playoffs that his RS dominance won't overcome this aspect? Will another good run do it?

Bossy is also ahead of Ovy in playoffs, yet it's pretty clear that Ovy's RS dominance is too great and has overcome it as far as Bossy goes

Ovi had arguably passed Bossy in RS by... I don't know, 2014?

 

[Sentinel]

Ovi had arguably passed Bossy in RS by... I don't know, 2014?

No argument here... So when is he going to pass Richard? Bossy can't be THAT far behind Richard, can he?

 

[MXD]

No argument here... So when is he going to pass Richard? Bossy can't be THAT far behind Richard, can he?

In terms of regular season? I don't see it as particularily close.

 

[JackSlater]

Now let me ask you this: can / will Ovechkin pass Richard?

Ovechkin has 3 Harts to Richard's 1, 1 Art Ross to Richard's 0, and 8 (possibly 9), well, Richards to Richard's 5.

Sure, Richard beats Ovechkin in playoff goalscoring, but we all know Ovy was / is no slouch in that department either. That leaves... what, Cups?

I'd probably rank Ovechkin ahead right now, not certainly but probably. It'll be easier if and when he tacks on a few more quality seasons for longevity purposes, which seems quite likely.

 

[Sentinel]

In terms of regular season? I don't see it as particularily close.

Overall, goddamnit.

 

[MXD]

Overall, goddamnit.

I don't really see them as close at all, but that's probably because, everything Bossy did, Richard did, but better and longer.

 

[Sentinel]

I don't really see them as close at all, but that's probably because, everything Bossy did, Richard did, but better and longer.

Forget Bossy. I am talking Richard vs. Ovechkin. Overall.

At this point Ovechkin is comfortably in the Top 3 goalscorers of all time, with a real potential of ending up as #1. Richard is not usually named in the Top 3. Given that both Richard and Ovechkin are primarily seen as goalscorers and not much else (leadership goes to Richard, physicality and passion a toss-up), logic dictates that Ovechkin has already surpassed Richard. Am I wrong?

 

[Michael Farkas]

I had them both in the 20's on my initial list for the top 100...so, yes, I think they're pretty close...

Naturally, Richard being an all time playoff dynamo and Ovechkin being routinely escorted out is a mustard stain that your tie can't quite cover...

 

[MXD]

Forget Bossy. I am talking Richard vs. Ovechkin. Overall.

At this point Ovechkin is comfortably in the Top 3 goalscorers of all time, with a real potential of ending up as #1. Richard is not usually named in the Top 3. Given that both Richard and Ovechkin are primarily seen as goalscorers and not much else (leadership goes to Richard, physicality and passion a toss-up), logic dictates that Ovechkin has already surpassed Richard. Am I wrong?

Playoffs, again. That Top-3 distinction seems... artificial. I reckon that AO isn't THAT far from Richard (and definitely closer to Richard than to Bossy at this point).

 

[The Panther]

I mean... he never approached a goal per game pace against quality competition. So you realize that those numbers are an anomaly.

People make too much of Richard's 1944-45 season of 50 goals. It was an amazing season, to be sure, but it's not what his legacy rests on. It's just one of a number of great seasons he had. You could delete his 50-in-50 season and nothing really changes about his career or legacy.

On a slightly separate point, I will never understand the attitude (I'm not saying you have it, because you don't) that a player's legacy should be punished because he dominated when competition was weaker. Huh? Dominating when competition is weaker is exactly what every great player should do.

I feel like the Richard detractors would rank him higher if he'd scored 30 goals in 1945 instead of 50, because they're somehow offended that he excelled when the League was slightly weaker. I guess he'd be better if he'd sucked against lower competition...

 

[The Panther]

I'm sure there have been threads about this, but exactly how many NHL regulars left the NHL for, say, a full season or more to join the War effort? I know the "Kraut line" did, so Boston was hit hardest, perhaps...

 

[Sentinel]

People make too much of Richard's 1944-45 season of 50 goals. It was an amazing season, to be sure, but it's not what his legacy rests on. It's just one of a number of great seasons he had. You could delete his 50-in-50 season and nothing really changes about his career or legacy.

Literally, the opposite is true. Richard is mostly remembered for the "50 in 50." Hell, one of Gretzky's signature achievements is breaking (obliterating) that record.

On a slightly separate point, I will never understand the attitude (I'm not saying you have it, because you don't) that a player's legacy should be punished because he dominated when competition was weaker. Huh? Dominating when competition is weaker is exactly what every great player should do.

Again, no. Dominating when competition is STRONGER is what great players do. That's fairly axiomatic.

 

[The Panther]

Literally, the opposite is true. Richard is mostly remembered for the "50 in 50." Hell, one of Gretzky's signature achievements is breaking (obliterating) that record.

But that's exactly what I don't understand. A guy wins 5 goals-title, wins the Hart trophy, is 1st-team All Star eight times, wins 8 Stanley Cups, and retires as far-and-away the top goal-scorer in NHL history, and all today's fans bother to learn is "he scored 50-in-50" early in his career. It's like all people remembered Ovechkin for is winning the Calder.

Again, no. Dominating when competition is STRONGER is what great players do. That's fairly axiomatic.

Of course, dominating when competition is stronger (which Richard did numerous times) is the most impressive thing. But that's completely aside from my point. My point is that I see today's fans using the "50-in-50" stat and "War-weakened League" as a stick to beat Richard with, which is absurd.

 

[wetcoast]

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

I'm guessing Morenz, Shore, Richard and...who would have been 4th and 5th all time in 1960?

It opens an interesting discussion since in the most recent top 100 players project it went like this for pre 1960 players

9. Maurice Richard
11. Howie Morenz
14. Eddie Shore
20. Frank Nighbor
33. Cyclone Taylor
34. Bill Cook
39. Newsy Lalonde
42. Frank Boucher
44. King Clancy
45. Syl Apps

That would make it the top 10 of all time up to that point (excluding players who were still playing) of which Howe would make the list but who else of current 1960 players?

Also the breakdown would be 8 forwards and 2 Dmen in the top 10 list in 1960 and zero goalies unless a current 1960 gets slotted into that top 10.

Had Jacques Plante done enough by 1960 to be considered a top 10 player of all time up to that point?

I think that he probably had but.....he really only had 6 seasons as a starter up until 1960.

 

[The Panther]

It opens an interesting discussion since in the most recent top 100 players project it went like this for pre 1960 players

9. Maurice Richard
11. Howie Morenz
14. Eddie Shore
20. Frank Nighbor
33. Cyclone Taylor
34. Bill Cook
39. Newsy Lalonde
42. Frank Boucher
44. King Clancy
45. Syl Apps

Gordie Howe?

Ted Lindsay?

(Sawchuk?)

 

[wetcoast]

Richard is where he is because of his consistency of excellence in the playoffs while not being a negative defensively. Ovi is a net negative defensively with basically two good playoff runs over his entire career.

I'm fairly low on the Rocket myself, but I don't think Ovi has passed him.

I'm probably lower on both wingers than most but Ovechkin has 5 elite elvel playoff type of runs or at least excellent ones.

His first 3 years are excellent as are his last 2 runs.

All 5 of those years are better than Richard in 49, 50, 52 and 54.

While it's a fact that most people, heck almost everyone would agree that Richard was the better playoff performer, the gap isn't as large as you are suggesting here.

 

[wetcoast]

Gordie Howe?

Ted Lindsay?

(Sawchuk?)

Sawchuk was 35th and Lindsay was 38th on the top 100 list.

While Sawchuk's prime is definitely before 1960 he had just come off 5 really meh seasons and I think in 1960 most observers would have had Plante over him easily.

I think Lindsay was too high on the list at 38 and I really wonder in 1960 if people would really have had him all time in the top 10 (even if we could sweep the union stuff aside, which in 1960 would be doubtful)