What's with the disrespect of Maurice Richard?

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

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...

The Rangers are considered to have been decimated the most. You could make an argument that theyve never really rebounded from WW2

 

[daver]

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...

I guess you are in the "higher scoring league = weaker era" line of thinking and are more focused on totals rather than % dominance vs. peers which is my focus.

If the league was easier to score in the 40s, and the numbers do back that up, why weren't other players hitting much higher totals as Richard was?

If you are simply stating that Richard's 50 in 50 likely wouldn't happen in the '50s, I agree. If you are simply stating that a handful of other players in NHL history could have hit 50 in 50 in the 44/45 season, I agree. If you think the latter diminishes his goalscoring legacy, I disagree.

 

[The Macho King]

I guess you are in the "higher scoring league = weaker era" line of thinking and are more focused on totals rather than % dominance vs. peers which is my focus.

If the league was easier to score in the 40s, and the numbers do back that up, why weren't other players hitting much higher totals as Richard was?

If you are simply stating that Richard's 50 in 50 likely wouldn't happen in the '50s, I agree. If you are simply stating that a handful of other players in NHL history could have hit 50 in 50 in the 44/45 season, I agree. If you think the latter diminishes his goalscoring legacy, I disagree.

They were fighting the Nazis.

 

[daver]

They were fighting the Nazis.

I guess this is supposed to be a "drops the mike" type of comment but I assume you are capable of having an objective discussion.

Explain 1950/51 then:

Why couldn't anyone besides Howe get within 33% of Richard's GPG that year? It was almost as dominant as his 44/45 season. Are the other great goalscorers still figuratively fighting the Nazis? If so, when do we start to question Howe's peak seasons as also needing context. There is an equally compelling, if not more compelling, statistical argument that Howe wasn't as dominant as his four year peak seems to indicate. He started losing Art Rosses in the late '50s while he was still in his prime and the two he won were less dominant than his peak wins.

Richard showed an equally impressive goalscoring resume after his peak season as he got older as Howe did after his peak points season as he got older. And both of those resumes do not have anything that indicates a statistical anomaly that needs digging into.

Seems pretty selective (and suspicious) to draw a line at 1950 as when the "post war" era begins and raw points and % gaps over peers are taken at face value.

 

[The Macho King]

I dont get what you're arguing. Richard was a good hockey player. You win. I have been thoroughly owned.

 

[daver]

I dont get what you're arguing. Richard was a good hockey player. You win. I have been thoroughly owned.

Arguing your and Farkas' contention that Richard's margin of victory in 44/45, be it in raw goals or % over his peers, needs context; context which brings into question the value of that season vs. his all-time goalscoring peers.

I have yet to see any reasonable statistical argument put forth that makes one reasonably ask if Richard's level of dominance in the '40s needs context other than to point out that players weren't hitting 50 goals again for another 20 years. All that is bringing attention to is scoring levels in the league. Howe kicked the shit out his competition in a year or two in goals in a similarly dominant fashion as Richard's 44/45 season but couldn't crack 50 because less goals were being scored in general.

 

[The Macho King]

Arguing your and Farkas' contention that Richard's margin of victory in 44/45 be it in raw goals or % over his peers, needs context; context which brings into question the value of that season vs. his all-time goalscoring peers.

So basically you want to rehash the same argument that was going on for the past three pages without adding anything new to the discussion? Okay cool. Let's do that - sounds fun.

 

[daver]

So basically you want to rehash the same argument that was going on for the past three pages without adding anything new to the discussion? Okay cool. Let's do that - sounds fun.

If you agree that the argument against Richard is subjective and the argument for Richard is based on statistical evidence, then we are done here.

 

[The Macho King]

If you agree that the argument against Richard is subjective and the argument for Richard is based on statistical evidence, then we are done here.

You're acting like there's a "right answer" in these discussions, when any historical analysis *has* to be subjective to have any merit. Anyone can look up a f***ing hockey reference page. That is not interesting, and it does not add value to any discussion.

But I guess props to your ability to google "Maurice Richard stats"?

 

[daver]

You're acting like there's a "right answer" in these discussions, when any historical analysis *has* to be subjective to have any merit. Anyone can look up a ****ing hockey reference page. That is not interesting, and it does not add value to any discussion.

But I guess props to your ability to google "Maurice Richard stats"?

I am a fan of acknowledging statistical realities before adding context rather than denying those realities with subjective opinions, especially "strength of era" ones.

So what are your thoughts on 50/51? I am curious as to the context that needs that to be added to this season which on the surface appears to confirm Richard's continuing ability to dominate the league in the goalscoring department and his peak season at age of 24, about the same age that Wayne, Mario, OV, Hull, Beliveau, Crosby etc.. had their peak seasons.

 

[JackSlater]

Arguing your and Farkas' contention that Richard's margin of victory in 44/45, be it in raw goals or % over his peers, needs context; context which brings into question the value of that season vs. his all-time goalscoring peers.

I have yet to see any reasonable statistical argument put forth that makes one reasonably ask if Richard's level of dominance in the '40s needs context other than to point out that players weren't hitting 50 goals again for another 20 years. All that is bringing attention to is scoring levels in the league. Howe kicked the **** out his competition in a year or two in goals in a similarly dominant fashion as Richard's 44/45 season but couldn't crack 50 because less goals were being scored in general.

Milt Schmidt, Woody Dumart, Bobby Bauer, Bryan Hextall, Lynn Patrick, Sid Abel, Syl Apps, Gordie Drillon, Roy Conacher, Doug Bentley, Max Bentley, Billy Taylor, Red Hamill, Gaye Stewart, Joe Benoit. All of those forwards except for the last four (still top scorers at the time) are in the HHOF, and all were in their primes in the mid 1940s, and each one of them missed Richard's 50 in 50 season due to WW2. Wally Stanowski, Tommy Anderson, Jack Stewart, Art Coulter, Neil Colville (depending on where he was used) were all post season all star defencemen who also missed that year due to WW2. Johnny Mowers, Turk Broda, and Frank Brimsek were post season all star goaltenders who missed that season due to WW2, and this is a league with only six teams. Most of these players also missed the 1944 season.

To pretend that the mid 40s seasons don't require a significant amount of context to view correctly is the mental equivalent of someone covering their ears and going "lalalalalalalala I can't hear you". A significant number of the best players were gone. They were replaced with worse players and as expected scoring went up.

 

[mbhhofr]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I've seen both Howe and Richard play. I've been on the ice with Howe. Howe was the better all around player. Richard was more exciting to watch. I got to see him score the last goal of his illustrious career and it was against Montreal's arch rival Toronto.

When I go to a hockey game, I want to be entertained. Without hesitation, if Howe and Richard were playing in the same city on the same day, at different rinks, I would pay my money to go see Richard.

 

[daver]

Milt Schmidt, Woody Dumart, Bobby Bauer, Bryan Hextall, Lynn Patrick, Sid Abel, Syl Apps, Gordie Drillon, Doug Bentley, Max Bentley, Billy Taylor, Red Hamill, Gaye Stewart, Joe Benoit. All of those forwards except for the last four (still top scorers at the time) are in the HHOF, and all were in their primes in the mid 1940s, and each one of them missed Richard's 50 in 50 season due to WW2. Wally Stanowski, Tommy Anderson, Jack Stewart were all post season all star defencemen who also missed that year due to WW2. Johnny Mowers, Turk Broda, and Frank Brimsek were post season all star goaltenders who missed that season due to WW2, and this is a league with only six teams. Most of these players also missed the 1944 season.

To pretend that the mid 40s seasons don't require a significant amount of context to view correctly is the mental equivalent of someone covering their ears and going "lalalalalalalala I can't hear you". A significant number of the best players were gone. They were replaced with worse players and as expected scoring went up.

Again, where is the statistical confirmation that Richard's domination over his peers in the '40s is, without question, inflated? It's not there in 49/50. It's not there in 50/51. Then he hits his 30's where a slow decline is expected but he wins the goalscoring title two more times after that while being T1 with Boom Boom in playoff GPG. He has a solid argument to be the league's best goalscorer in the 1952 to 1958 time period when you look at both the regular and the playoffs.

Yet we are to believe that, without question, he wouldn't put up 50 in any other season with a similar scoring level or dominate the field in any other season as he did in 44/45?

Look at 1949 to 1951, his GPG is 54% higher than the next best (excluding Howe):

NHL.com Stats


Look at 1943/44 to 1947/8, his GPG is 40% higher than the next best:

NHL.com Stats

His 50/51 season sees his GPG at 63% better than the avg. GPG of the next best four goalscorers (excl. Howe).

His 44/45 season sees his GPG at 69% better than the avg. GPG of the next best four goalscorers.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Everything needs context. Everything ever. If you're taking anything at face value, you're doing it wrong or lazy or wrong and lazy...you keep throwing around the word "context" in a seemingly disingenuous way...I'm also unconvinced you're comprehending what's being said here. Whether it's our inability to communicate it or your unwillingness to grasp it, there's a chasm that seems to not be narrowing...

 

[JackSlater]

Again, where is the statistical confirmation that Richard's domination over his peers in the '40s is, without question, inflated? It's not there in 49/50. It's not there in 50/51. Then he hits his 30's where a slow decline is expected but he wins the goalscoring title two more times after that while being T1 with Boom Boom in playoff GPG. He has a solid argument to be the league's best goalscorer in the 1952 to 1958 time period when you look at both the regular and the playoffs.

Yet we are to believe that, without question, he wouldn't put up 50 in any other season with a similar scoring level or dominate the field in any other season as he did in 44/45?

Look at 1949 to 1951, his GPG is 54% higher than the next best (excluding Howe):

NHL.com Stats


Look at 1943/44 to 1947/8, his GPG is 40% higher than the next best:

NHL.com Stats

His 50/51 season sees his GPG at 63% better than the avg. GPG of the next best four goalscorers (excl. Howe).

His 44/45 season sees his GPG at 69% better than the avg. GPG of the next best four goalscorers.

There is no "statistical confirmation" that will prove what you're asking "without question" and only a poor grasp of statistics could lead someone to believe that such a thing was possible. The spike in total scoring from 1944-1946, where goals per game rose to a level that wouldn't be seen again until 1981, isn't even necessary to make the situation obvious. You would think that everyone could recognize that in a season with a huge proportion of the best players missing the numbers of the remaining players are inflated and accomplishments become much easier. Boston lost its top line and a very strong depth scorer in Conacher. New York lost its two best scorers. Toronto lost its best scorer. Chicago lost its best scorers. Detroit lost arguably its best scorer. Toronto, Boston, and Detroit (60% of the teams Richard faced) lost their starting goaltenders and New York was without the guy who arguably would have become its starting goaltender during that span in Rayner. Some of the top defencemen that would have been used to stop Richard were now gone.

This really should be very simple to understand. That Richard was still a great player later on is a credit to him but has nothing to do with the obvious reality that the NHL was very, very weak in 1945 and the surrounding years.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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.

Around 1960, I think most would say Bill Durnan or Terry Sawchuk were the best goaltenders in history. There wasn’t nearly as much emphasis on length of career then as there is now. For one, I think Harry Lumley had the longest career to that point and no one was going to confuse him for having been as successful as many others. I don’t think it was until after the 1960-1970 period that it swung towards recognizing iron men of the position.

 

[daver]

There is no "statistical confirmation" that will prove what you're asking "without question" and only a poor grasp of statistics could lead someone to believe that such a thing was possible. The spike in total scoring from 1944-1946, where goals per game rose to a level that wouldn't be seen again until 1981, isn't even necessary to make the situation obvious. You would think that everyone could recognize that in a season with a huge proportion of the best players missing the numbers of the remaining players are inflated and accomplishments become much easier. Boston lost its top line and a very strong depth scorer in Conacher. New York lost its two best scorers. Toronto lost its best scorer. Chicago lost its best scorers. Detroit lost arguably its best scorer. Toronto, Boston, and Detroit (60% of the teams Richard faced) lost their starting goaltenders and New York was without the guy who arguably would have become its starting goaltender during that span in Rayner. Some of the top defencemen that would have been used to stop Richard were now gone.

This really should be very simple to understand. That Richard was still a great player later on is a credit to him but has nothing to do with the obvious reality that the NHL was very, very weak in 1945 and the surrounding years.

Why does higher scoring = easier accomplishments?

Still not getting what is being questioned here. Richard's goal total that year or that he was as dominant over his peers as he was? I don't see a reason to question the latter given what he accomplished later on, at least from a statistical perspective.

 

[JackSlater]

Why does higher scoring = easier accomplishments?

Still not getting what is being questioned here. Richard's goal total that year or that he was as dominant over his peers as he was? I don't see a reason to question the latter given what he accomplished later on, at least from a statistical perspective.

Replacing many, arguably most when it comes to forwards and goaltenders, of the best players with inferior players makes both scoring and collecting various accomplishments easier. Richard's scoring in absolute and relative terms is not in question because it is a fact. How impressive it is is a very valid question given the very weak state of the NHL that season. Richard's scoring in 1947 for instance is less impressive than his 1945 scoring if we take the numbers at face value, but I would consider 1947 to be a more impressive season pretty comfortably.

 

[daver]

Everything needs context. Everything ever. If you're taking anything at face value, you're doing it wrong or lazy or wrong and lazy...you keep throwing around the word "context" in a seemingly disingenuous way...I'm also unconvinced you're comprehending what's being said here. Whether it's our inability to communicate it or your unwillingness to grasp it, there's a chasm that seems to not be narrowing...

I will ask you the same question. What context does Richard's 50 goal season need? You questioned the value of it based on him not doing it again in your original post.

Does this mean you question the raw goal total of 50? The gap between him and the other top goalscorers? Or both of these.

I have no issue applying context to the number of 50. That's a no-brainer. But that also means we apply context to the other top goalscorers that year too. I think getting into "what if" scenarios that devalue his relative domination are sketchy at best as the door is opened to biases or preconceived notions.

 

[The Macho King]

I'm getting a concussion from banging my head against the wall.

 

[daver]

Replacing many, arguably most when it comes to forwards and goaltenders, of the best players with inferior players makes both scoring and collecting various accomplishments easier. Richard's scoring in absolute and relative terms is not in question because it is a fact. How impressive it is is a very valid question given the very weak state of the NHL that season. Richard's scoring in 1947 for instance is less impressive than his 1945 scoring if we take the numbers at face value, but I would consider 1947 to be a more impressive season pretty comfortably.

That's fair. My ultimate point is that if the question of all-time great goalscoring years come up, Richard's 50 is not dismissed due to the reasons stated. If you want to pick another similarly impressive season, in terms of domination of peers, that's fine. Anything beyond that is getting too far into speculation, IMO. As it stands, I think Richard's numbers, in the context of how he matched up to his peers, speak for themselves. That one or two players could have been closer to him in 44/45 than 32 goals means very little in regards to his overall legacy.

On a separate note, you mention 1947 as being impressive, other posters would argue that 1947 was still affected by the war and it wasn't until the 50s that context wasn't needed on players accomplishments. One could argue that given Richard stayed an as elite scorer into Howe's peak years that the mid-50s is perhaps when the "post-War

 

[Michael Farkas]

A) This is brutal. I know you know that.

In order:
- The league is significantly weakened by a World War. It is not of the same quality. The same reason we don't talk about Alexandre Giroux's 50 and 60 goal seasons back to back in the AHL along side Alexander Ovechkin's is the same reason why we're hesitant about giving Richard full marks for this. He deserves credit (and gets it...plenty of it) for dominating with the hand he was dealt.

- Notice how much weird stuff happens in that time period? Players that had no real history of doing anything getting significant scoring finishes, trophy voting, etc. Games with double-digit margin of victories, 3-0 series deficits overcome, teams nearly folding, teenagers coming in by the droves and dominating (when that was super irregular for 2+ generations on either side), etc. it's a league out of sorts. When a bunch of weird stuff like that happens and scoring balloons, that's unequivocally the sign of a weakness in the league. It's weird that no red flags are set off to you here.

- I don't "question" anything because I'm not asking anything.

- Everything requires context. Not just the 1945 season, not just the 1946 season, not just the 1955 season, not just the 1968 season, not just the 2020 season...everything requires context and understanding. Taking things at face value - again - is for slobs.

Non-sequitur:

B) If his 50-goal season is absolute nails (which I don't doubt it was) and maybe he would have had 75 goals but 25 of them were somehow assigned to Black Hawks players and whatever else happened...how bad is his 1946 season? A similarly weak year, he's at 72% of the goal scoring lead (37 vs 27) and isn't the leading goal scorer on his own team...

The sporadic nature of Richard's goal scoring dominance speaks to my technical redress of him in this and previous threads.

 

[daver]

Everything requires context. Not just the 1945 season, not just the 1946 season, not just the 1955 season, not just the 1968 season, not just the 2020 season...everything requires context and understanding. Taking things at face value - again - is for slobs.

I don't think what you are saying is unreasonable.

Do you see why the context that is applied to Richard's 44/45 season is questionable given he gave us every reason to believe that could be seen as his peak season as he had other ones that were close in domination most notably 50/51 which took place well after the war years?

 

[JackSlater]

That's fair. My ultimate point is that if the question of all-time great goalscoring years come up, Richard's 50 is not dismissed due to the reasons stated. If you want to pick another similarly impressive season, in terms of domination of peers, that's fine. Anything beyond that is getting too far into speculation, IMO. As it stands, I think Richard's numbers, in the context of how he matched up to his peers, speak for themselves. That one or two players could have been closer to him in 44/45 than 32 goals means very little in regards to his overall legacy.

On a separate note, you mention 1947 as being impressive, other posters would argue that 1947 was still affected by the war and it wasn't until the 50s that context wasn't needed on players accomplishments. One could argue that given Richard stayed an as elite scorer into Howe's peak years that the mid-50s is perhaps when the "post-War

I don't know what you're getting at. There is a very clear and obvious reason to be skeptical about the 1945 season. WW2 created a very unique situation in the NHL that we haven't seen since and hopefully never will again. I don't believe anyone is saying to throw the season away, but it is extremely likely that if not for WW2 Richard scores fewer goals and there would be players closer to him than the 18 goal gap that he had that year. I do think that Richard would have been the leading scorer in the NHL that season regardless of the impact of WW2, but not by the same absolute and relative margins.

The 1947 season was played in a stronger NHL than the 1945 season was as almost all of the top players were back by that point, but we can still pretty easily surmise that it was weaker due to WW2 than would otherwise be the case. A season can be impressive even if the league is not as strong as you'd like to see. We see this all the time when comparing players in the CHL. I think that you didn't finish your post given how you ended it but yeah Richard stayed as an elite scorer well into the 1950s. In any event, context is always necessary as numbers never speak for themselves in any meaningful way outside of what the scoreboard says.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't think what you are saying is unreasonable.

Do you see why the context that is applied to Richard's 44/45 season is questionable given he gave us every reason to believe that could be seen as his peak season as he had other ones that were close in domination most notably 50/51 which took place well after the war years?

What "context"? What is being applied exactly? You keep using that word, but I'm unconvinced it means the same thing to you as it does to me, and by extension perhaps, us...

Also, 23 is not "peak" at this time...young players were accelerated into the league in the weak years (War, the early 1980's, etc.) but it is not the statistical peak...though, players of his type, tend to peak earlier. Ted Lindsay - fairly similarly flawed/similarly gifted - peaked at ages 23 and 24.

But, on the whole, the statistics really don't back you up here...
Age = Age
Col 1 = 0.75 pts/gm seasons between 1930 and 1966
Col 2 = 0.75 pts/gm seasons between 1950 and 1966

Age	Col 1	Col 2
20	10	4
21	17	11
22	34	14
23	43	19
24	51	24
25	58	26
26	61	24
27	58	19
28	64	24
29	61	22
30	47	20
31	40	15
32	30	12
33	23	10
34	11	6
35	8	4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Peak in this era is age 25 thru 29. But again, context is needed because of player types. I wish C1958 was still around to list off some players similar to Richard and Linday...that is, players that played the game like they were being chased by bees...