What's with the disrespect of Maurice Richard?

[The Panther]

Well, this last page or so of discussion has proven correct my assertion that fans are using the 1944-45 season as a stick to beat Richard with. Good grief, people.

Here's how Richard did in League goal-scoring well after the war and when it was clearly no longer a factor:
1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5

 

[The Macho King]

Well, this last page or so of discussion has proven correct my assertion that fans are using the 1944-45 season as a stick to beat Richard with. Good grief, people.

Here's how Richard did in League goal-scoring well after the war and when it was clearly no longer a factor:
1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5

TIL the 46-47 season was "well after the war and when it was clearly no longer a factor."

Rocket led the league in goal scoring three times in non-war impacted seasons. Which is good. No one is saying Richard isn't a great goalscorer - maybe even the best goal scorer pre-Hull (although a few guys from earlier can give him a run on that). I really don't get the point of this thread. It's a bunch of people advancing crap arguments and ignoring well reasoned critiques of aspects of his resume that are often used to bolster him absent context. Not a single person on here has said Richard isn't an all-time great. No one is cheapening him as a player by pointing out that his goalscoring benefited at least somewhat from possibly the weakest competition in NHL history. Putting the numbers in context does not hurt his reputation.

Like - what's the end goal here? Who are we trying to place Richard above that requires these disingenuous arguments ad nauseum? Do we want to say he's better than... I don't know - Beliveau? Hull? Howe? Like what's the end game here?

 

[BenchBrawl]

I think goalscorers do tend to peak earlier—at least so far as their goalscoring is concerned. Let's look at some goalscorers, chosen on the fly (the list is gonna be really random):

Pavel Bure: Scored back-to-back 60 goals seasons at age 21 and 22. He did have a second peak in Florida at age 28 and 29.

Alex Ovechkin: His 3-years peak occured when he was 22, 23 and 24 years old.

Ilya Kovalchuk: His goalscoring peak or prime was from 20 to 26 years old. Won his only Rocket at age 20.

Mike Bossy: Hard to pinpoint his best stretch since he was consistent, but based on Top Finsihes in goals, I'd say his best stretch was between age 21 to 25.

Charlie Conacher: Won his 5 goalscoring titles from age 21 to 26.

Brett Hull: His 3-years peak was from age 25 to 27.

Bobby Hull: Good from age 21 and throughout his 20s.

Luc Robitaille: Consistent 40+ goals scorer from age 20 to 27, with some spike years here and there.

Maurice Richard (!): Like Hull, he was good throughout his 20s with some off-years here and there. His 50-in-50 was at age 23.

Steven Stamkos: His two best goalscoring seasons were at age 19(!) and 21.

Rick Nash: His only Rocket trophy was at age 19(!).

Dany Heatley: Break out year at age 22 with 41 goals, then his back-to-back 50 goals in Ottawa at age 25 and 26.

Busher Jackson: Goalscoring prime from age 21 to around 26-27.

Jarome Iginla: His two Rockets at age 24 and 26, also had another strong year at 30.

Bryan Hextall Sr.: His back-to-back goalscoring titles at age 26 and 27.

Michel Goulet: From age 21 to 27.

John LeClair: From 26 to 30.

Anyway, this is not exhaustive obviously, but I was just trying to "pass" the intuition that goalscorers tend to have a lot of peak years in their age 20-25 seasons, and probably they peak earlier than playmaking all-around players on average.

Keeping this in mind, it might be unfair to downgrade Richard's 50-in-50 season too much just because he had the bad luck of playing against weak competition. Strictly from an age standpoint, he was around where most goalscorers tend to peak.

 

[JackSlater]

Well, this last page or so of discussion has proven correct my assertion that fans are using the 1944-45 season as a stick to beat Richard with. Good grief, people.

Here's how Richard did in League goal-scoring well after the war and when it was clearly no longer a factor:
1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5

I would love for you to point out the proof for your assertion.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

- 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.

Re: 1942, I was under the impression that the league at that point was still considered more or less full strength. Comparing the 1942 Leafs & Wings against their 1938 counterparts, almost all of the major players were still in place for the 1942 finals

Leafs:
Drillon, Apps, Metz, Broda are on both teams. Busher Jackson was traded to the Amerks, and Charlie Conacher retired to coach junior hockey and did not serve.

Wings:
Abel and Grosso debuted in 1939, Bruteneau, Syd Howe played in both 38 and 42. Mowers was new in 1940-41, but GHL indicates he was brought in as a legitimate replacement for Tiny Thompson. He won the cup in 1943, joined the service, then found he was unable to hack it in the post war NHL.

As far as I know, the transition into the war period goes like

1939
1940
1941: Pretty much business as usual

1942
1943: A few important names enlist, but the level of play is still reasonably high. Im undecided on whether 1943 is an on-par NHL season, but 1942 absolutely is.

1944
1945: Basically the AHL or worse

Fun fact I discovered researching this: Brent Johnson is Sid Abels grandson

 

[daver]

I would love for you to point out the proof for your assertion.

Three posters (you included) are treating some, most or all of his numbers from the '40s as questionable despite overwhelming statistical evidence that his relative dominance in the '40s was what you would expect out of a player who put up the numbers he did in the 5os after he aged out of what would normally be considered his peak years.

This is being done by the usual "cannot be disproven" method when talking about eras and spinning numbers (not you).

One posters asserts that him not 50 hitting again is proof that his 44/45 season is inflated. Noone hit 50 again until the '60s, after Richard had retired, and well after he had reached an age where one expects to put peak seasons. Howe had an equally dominant goalscoring season to Richard's 50 in 50 in 1952/53 but couldn't hit 50.

You seem to give his 46/47 season more, if not full, credit, but two other posters are saying that also was a "was affected" season. I don't doubt the objectivity of the posters but to me it's almost as if a position has been taken and nothing will change their opinions. The lack of acknowledgement of the "overwhelming statistical evidence" referenced above certainly raises suspicions.

I read a lot of the HOH stuff, have brought up Howe's numbers quite frequently, and I have not seen anyone question the strength of his peak seasons given they apparently bordered on the "war years". If we question some of Richard's #'s, why not question all of them as there is nothing that stands out as a statistical anomaly in terms of his domination of peers?

I am not completely against placing some context on his 50 in 50 but not to the extent that it would cost him a place in the all-time rankings which is seems some are doing.

I get the sense that this is more of an automatic defense against a position that his 50 in 50 was the benchmark for goalscoring until Wayne surpassed it. I certainly don't look at it that way.

 

[sr edler]

Is the disrespect in question growing or is it just continuous?

 

[daver]

I thought it was well-known (and frankly, obvious from looking at the players who made all-star teams and reached the top-10 in scoring) that the league took some time to recover in quality after the war had officially ended.

This seems to be the real point of contention.

Seems reasonable to put an asterix to the accomplishments of some of the players who had unusually highly productive career seasons in the "war years" (the number of which is a point of contention in itself). But even then, there has to be some recognition that these players perhaps took their game to another level when given a bigger role and with greater opportunity for offensive production. It also presumes that the players who weren't in the league would have hit their "normal" levels of production.

Richard did not have an unusually high career year in terms of domination of his peers in 44/45. It is was his highest but by a somewhat slim margin over his 46/47 and 50/51 seasons and at age where many a player have hit their peak season.

 

[daver]

TIL the 46-47 season was "well after the war and when it was clearly no longer a factor."

Rocket led the league in goal scoring three times in non-war impacted seasons. Which is good.

Let's put some clarity on this statement. I am presuming his "good" resume of leading in scoring three times after the 'war seasons' is supposed to confirm the need to put his 'war seasons' numbers into context. I am guessing the "war impacted seasons" are before 1949/50 at the very least as he lead in scoring three times after 48/49.

Here are his goal finishes* and GPG* finishes starting in 1943/44 (* indicates a generational/all time great gap between him and the pack):

!943/44 - #6 in goals, #7 in GPG

1944/45 - #1* in goals, #1* in GPG

1945/46 - #4 in goals, #5 in GPG

1946/47 - #1* in goals, #1* in GPG

1947/48 - #3 in goals, #2 in GPG

1948/49 - T11 in goals, T13 in GPG

1949/50 - #1 in goals, #1 in GPG

1950/51 - #2 in goals, #1* in GPG

1951/52 - #T5 in goals, #2 in GPG

1952/53 - #4 in goals, #5 in GPG

1953/54 - #1 in goals, #2 in GPG

1954/55 - #T1 in goals, #1 in GPG

1955/56 - #2 in goals, #2 in GPG

1956/57 - #2 in goals, #2 in GPG

1957/58 - #2 in GPG


If you think his 'post war' resume is "good" his 'war years' resume is hardly any better, and arguably worse especially when age is factored in. Hard to believe his pre-war resume was boosted due to lesser competition.

And if his 'post war' resume is "good", what are your thoughts on Howe's goalscoring resume during the 1950 - 1958 timeframe as one can easily argue that Richard was the superior goalscorer during that timeframe when both regular season and playoffs are included.

 

[The Macho King]

I dont give a ahit about how good of a goalscorer someone is. Howe is the best of the era because he was the most complete hockey player alive - elite goalscoring, elite playmaking, great defense, and a mean sonofabitch to boot.

What's the deal with all of the "are we disrespecting these one dimensional goalscorers" threads recently? The answer is no - we are not. There is more to the game than who the last person was that touched the puck before it went into the net.

 

[daver]

I dont give a ahit about how good of a goalscorer someone is. Howe is the best of the era because he was the most complete hockey player alive - elite goalscoring, elite playmaking, great defense, and a mean sonofabitch to boot.

What's the deal with all of the "are we disrespecting these one dimensional goalscorers" threads recently? The answer is no - we are not. There is more to the game than who the last person was that touched the puck before it went into the net.

That the question of how Richard could possibly have had an arguably better goalscoring resume after the war years and after his expected peak continues to not be answered directly by any of the "his '40s #'s need context" crowd is becoming quite amusing, to say nothing of how that position appears to be very questionable at best.

 

[JackSlater]

Three posters (you included) are treating some, most or all of his numbers from the '40s as questionable despite overwhelming statistical evidence that his relative dominance in the '40s was what you would expect out of a player who put up the numbers he did in the 5os after he aged out of what would normally be considered his peak years.

This is being done by the usual "cannot be disproven" method when talking about eras and spinning numbers (not you).

One posters asserts that him not 50 hitting again is proof that his 44/45 season is inflated. Noone hit 50 again until the '60s, after Richard had retired, and well after he had reached an age where one expects to put peak seasons. Howe had an equally dominant goalscoring season to Richard's 50 in 50 in 1952/53 but couldn't hit 50.

You seem to give his 46/47 season more, if not full, credit, but two other posters are saying that also was a "was affected" season. I don't doubt the objectivity of the posters but to me it's almost as if a position has been taken and nothing will change their opinions. The lack of acknowledgement of the "overwhelming statistical evidence" referenced above certainly raises suspicions.

I read a lot of the HOH stuff, have brought up Howe's numbers quite frequently, and I have not seen anyone question the strength of his peak seasons given they apparently bordered on the "war years". If we question some of Richard's #'s, why not question all of them as there is nothing that stands out as a statistical anomaly in terms of his domination of peers?

I am not completely against placing some context on his 50 in 50 but not to the extent that it would cost him a place in the all-time rankings which is seems some are doing.

I get the sense that this is more of an automatic defense against a position that his 50 in 50 was the benchmark for goalscoring until Wayne surpassed it. I certainly don't look at it that way.

None of that is "proof" that people want to punish Richard, and it is ridiculous to suggest that people who want to look at that time in hockey as it actually was rather than simply gloss over the massive disruption to the league are looking to punish Richard or anyone else. None of this is new stuff and really in the history section people shouldn't need to have the situation in the 1940s spelled out repeatedly. I imagine that your goal is to take a shot at Howe's peak for the purposes of sneaking Crosby onto that level. The blatantly obvious weakness of the NHL in 1945 and the surrounding years has nothing to do with Howe's peak. How WW2 disrupted player development would be the relevant point. I would also suggest that you should look harder because I have seen a few posters suggest over the years that the NHL didn't fully recover until around the mid 1950s based on the disruption to player development.

This also shouldn't need to be mentioned, but playing in a strong league or a weak league in and of itself doesn't make any player better or worse. Richard played in the top league that was available to him. That doesn't make him better or worse, but it also doesn't mean that people should ignore the quality of the league when looking at what he did on the ice.

 

[DannyGallivan]

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??

I don't understand exactly what the beef is. Is it that some people think he's the 15th best player of all time instead of the fifth best? That's not a knock against Maurice at all.

Richard was a great goal scorer who never won the Art Ross! Albeit, he should have won the season he stupidly punched out a linesman, but even if he did, that would have been once for his career. Even Marty St. Louis did better than that (not that I'm really comparing the two). He won the goal-scoring title 5 times, which is very impressive, but not the best even among players in the six team era. And he wasn't even the best player on his team once Beliveau joined. Finally, complain all you want, but the quality of the NHL did suffer during World War II.

Now, after saying all that, I can still place Richard among the greatest players of all time. He was the heart and soul of his team until the day he retired. He was a great playoff performer. I would safely put him among the top 12 to 15 players of all time. I would not put him among the top 10. That's not disrespecting him or his legacy, since being in the top 15 in HISTORY is pretty darn good. But I read of people putting him as high as fifth and I think that's based way more on image and mythology than fact.

 

[daver]

None of that is "proof" that people want to punish Richard, and it is ridiculous to suggest that people who want to look at that time in hockey as it actually was rather than simply gloss over the massive disruption to the league are looking to punish Richard or anyone else. None of this is new stuff and really in the history section people shouldn't need to have the situation in the 1940s spelled out repeatedly. I imagine that your goal is to take a shot at Howe's peak for the purposes of sneaking Crosby onto that level. The blatantly obvious weakness of the NHL in 1945 and the surrounding years has nothing to do with Howe's peak. How WW2 disrupted player development would be the relevant point. I would also suggest that you should look harder because I have seen a few posters suggest over the years that the NHL didn't fully recover until around the mid 1950s based on the disruption to player development.

This also shouldn't need to be mentioned, but playing in a strong league or a weak league in and of itself doesn't make any player better or worse. Richard played in the top league that was available to him. That doesn't make him better or worse, but it also doesn't mean that people should ignore the quality of the league when looking at what he did on the ice.

Based on what exactly? The Pittsburgh Penguins have been the best team in the league this year after losing a significant # of their key players.

The only factual thing you can say about the war years is pointing to rosters before, during, and after and surmising which players would have played. How well they would have played, if they didn't get injured, and whether the difference in overall league play is significant different is all conjecture. Richard's individual numbers point to an argument that it wasn't necessarily different, at least in terms of a generational goalscorer separating himself from the pack.

I don't get the "higher scoring = more diluted/weaker league" argument. Are there examples of this happening in other seasons where it is obvious a player's relative dominance, NOT RAW NUMBERS, is affected? Farkas mentions the early '80s as another time which would seem to indicate a lack of full appreciation for what Wayne did. But then Wayne keeps doing what he is doing into the later '80s and the 90s as he ages. That, like Richard's career trajectory, doesn't scream "inflated numbers/domination".

 

[The Macho King]

Still waiting for someone to define exactly how Rocket Richard - ranked 9th on our HoH Top 100 project - is being "disrespected".

 

[JackSlater]

Based on what exactly? The Pittsburgh Penguins have been the best team in the league this year after losing a significant # of their key players.

The only factual thing you can say about the war years is pointing to rosters before, during, and after and surmising which players would have played. How well they would have played, if they didn't get injured, and whether the difference in overall league play is significant different is all conjecture. Richard's individual numbers point to an argument that it wasn't necessarily different, at least in terms of a generational goalscorer separating himself from the pack.

I don't get the "higher scoring = more diluted/weaker league" argument. Are there examples of this happening in other seasons where it is obvious a player's relative dominance, NOT RAW NUMBERS, is affected? Farkas mentions the early '80s as another time which would seem to indicate a lack of full appreciation for what Wayne did. But then Wayne keeps doing what he is doing into the later '80s and the 90s as he ages. That, like Richard's career trajectory, doesn't scream "inflated numbers/domination".

This is ridiculous. A huge proportion of the league's best players did not play in that season and you're pretending as if we don't know whether the league was weakened or not. I can't believe that anyone could make that claim with a straight face so you might as well come out with whatever you're trying to get at. I also don't believe that you can't grasp that the sudden spike in NHL scoring surrounding 1945 (an unprecedented increase of around 60%) was caused by the sudden weakening of the league given how obvious it is.

If you are actually serious, please explain how the NHL could possibly not be weakened when a huge proportion of its best players were missing and also why there was a sudden unprecedented increase in NHL scoring as NHLers started leaving the league and becoming involved in WW2.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I dont give a ahit about how good of a goalscorer someone is. Howe is the best of the era because he was the most complete hockey player alive - elite goalscoring, elite playmaking, great defense, and a mean sonofabitch to boot.

What's the deal with all of the "are we disrespecting these one dimensional goalscorers" threads recently? The answer is no - we are not. There is more to the game than who the last person was that touched the puck before it went into the net.

Somehow that sounds like disrespect to me.

 

[The Macho King]

Somehow that sounds like disrespect to me.

I mean - we have the two most active threads about whether Richard and Ovi are (apparently?) top 5 players because of their goalscoring. There's more to the game than just goalscoring.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

82 goals in 132 playoff games. In the 40's and 50's.

4th best all-time GPG in playoffs. In the 40's and 50's.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I mean - we have the two most active threads about whether Richard and Ovi are (apparently?) top 5 players because of their goalscoring. There's more to the game than just goalscoring.

In the History of Hockey section?

 

[The Macho King]

I just can't anymore. History of Hockey section isn't for homers.

 

[Moose Head]

Ive never heard of this before. What would the leagues motivation be to do something like that.

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.

I’m probably going to get in trouble for this, but here goes, let’s just say I think, from old school hockey guys point of view, Richard was to Beliveau what Subban was to Iginla, and I’m not talking about ability as hockey players.

 

[The Macho King]

I’m probably going to get in trouble for this, but here goes, let’s just say I think, from old school hockey guys point of view, Richard was to Beliveau what Subban was to Iginla, and I’m not talking about ability as hockey players.

That would be a legitimate point - Beliveau was the "right kind" of French player, basically?

 

[daver]

I imagine that your goal is to take a shot at Howe's peak for the purposes of sneaking Crosby onto that level.

I will take this as an another deflection at having an actual discussion at the statistical level.

You should be arguing with the "war affected years" crowd about Howe's peak possibly being affected. I appear to be arguing the exact opposite. If you actually wanted to engage in statistical discussion you would see that what I am wondering is how Richard can compete with a peak Howe in the goalscoring department in the post war era if one believes his numbers were inflated in the '40s. Something seemingly has to give right?

Either Richard was as good as his numbers in the '40s with very little need, if any, to qualify them, or we apply the same qualification to Howe's numbers.

 

[Fenway]

Maurice Richard is complex

In the Province of Quebec, he was Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson combined in a way that I don't think anglophones can fully grasp. Gordie Howe said as Rocket's funeral the man until the day he died would get a standing ovation at the supermarket.

The Rocket was suspended for the rest of the 1955 season and the playoffs for an ugly incident in Boston when he snapped.

What set Rocket off was linesman Cliff Thompson called Richard a 'frog' and Richard belted him. Thompson never worked another NHL game.



Richard never wanted to be the face of the French rebellion in Quebec but that is how history will remember him.



When Richard died the Boston Globe sent Michael Holley to Montreal to cover the funeral. Holley who is African-American and grew up in Ohio captured what Richard meant to Quebec.