What's with the disrespect of Maurice Richard?

[tarheelhockey]

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.

To be fair, the Ovi argument was based around a hypothetical series of best-case future events. The essence of that conversation was "what would his final career need to look like in order to surpass X?".

In Richard's case, it's hard to imagine any original information being presented. The only thing that has changed is Richard's cultural relevance, and the way we interpret the eras in which he played. The former has faded with time, coincident with a slight loss of prestige (Eddie Shore is going through something similar). The latter seems to be the only real battleground left, hence the direction of this thread.

I'm open to re-considering the WWII era as a topic in its own right, but it's a hell of an uphill climb to say it really influences Richard's all-time reputation or ranking. He's clearly behind Hull IMO, so it's impossible to rank him higher than #6. This board ranked him #9 because they put him behind the top G of all time, and also two of Richard's own teammates. The only way to move him up is to either say goalies have no value (@Doctor No) or to show him superior to Beliveau or Harvey. The premise of him being "underrated" presumes that either of those moves would be obvious... IMO they are not.

The value of his 50/50 season is a sideline topic. Less about Richard's overall reputation, and more about putting a fine point on the exact dynamics of the NHL during that era.

 

[daver]

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.

Can you please quote the post (s) in this thread that forward this position (Richard being #5)? All I am seeing is legitimate questioning of the lower value of his 1940's production by some.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Can you please quote the post (s) in this thread that forward this position (Richard being #5)? All I am seeing is legitimate questioning of the lower value of his 1940's production by some.

More broadly, I think we need to define what we're after in this argument. As @The Macho Man asked earlier -- what's the end game here? Is this entirely about evaluating the significance of Richard's early-40s production, or is there a greater point to be made about how he stands relative to others?

 

[JackSlater]

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.

You don't seem to understand what you're talking about regarding statistics. That the NHL was significantly weaker in 1945 and the surrounding years is beyond obvious. There is no magical statistic that is going to prove it, particularly if someone wants to ignore the unprecedented jump in scoring that happened as the war effort ramped up and the decrease as the NHLers returned to the NHL, but fortunately people have brains that can process and assess information. In this case the relevant information is that a significant number of the top players were missing in the NHL and replaced with worse players. There is no need to look beyond the obvious.

Richard's numbers in the years surrounding 1945 are obviously inflated both in absolute and relative terms. That has nothing to do with either Richard's scoring in the 1950's or Howe's scoring in the 1950's, given that a significant amount of players didn't leave the NHL to go fight in the Korean war or become part of any war effort. I do appreciate that you've at least moved along and gotten closer to the actual point of your posts though, which is predictably trying to lower Howe in an effort to elevate Crosby.

 

[The Macho King]

You don't seem to understand what you're talking about regarding statistics. That the NHL was significantly weaker in 1945 and the surrounding years is beyond obvious. There is no magical statistic that is going to prove it, particularly if someone wants to ignore the unprecedented jump in scoring that happened as the war effort ramped up and the decrease as the NHLers returned to the NHL, but fortunately people have brains that can process and assess information, and the information. In this case the relevant information is that a significant number of the top players were missing in the NHL and replaced with worse players. There is no need to look beyond the obvious.

Richard's numbers in the years surrounding 1945 are obviously inflated both in absolute and relative terms. That has nothing to do with either Richard's scoring in the 1950's or Howe's scoring in the 1950's, given that a significant amount of players didn't leave the NHL to go fight in the Korean war or become part of any war effort. I do appreciate that you've at least moved along and gotten closer to the actual point of your posts though, which is predictably trying to lower Howe in an effort to elevate Crosby.

I also honestly don't see that as a realistic goal - nothing Richard did - even taken as face value without context - changes the fact that Howe was an all-time great, top 3 player of all-time.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I do appreciate that you've at least moved along and gotten closer to the actual point of your posts though, which is predictably trying to lower Howe in an effort to elevate Crosby.

I don't see how @daver is trying to lower Howe. He explicitly says otherwise right here:

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.

What I'm trying to figure out here, is why the post-war inflation even matters to Howe. This is what Howe was doing during the time period when Richard was scoring 50/50, winning a Hart, winning goal titles, and being a perennial 1AS:

1942-43 - 14 years old
1943-44 - 15 years old
1944-45 - 16 years old
1945-46 - 17 years old
1946-47 - rookie season, 7-15-22 in 58 games, no awards consideration
1947-48 - 16-28-44 in 60 games, no awards consideration
1948-49 - 12-25-37 in 40 games, 2AS behind Maurice Richard
1949-50 - 35-33-68 in 70 games, top-3 in goals and points, 2AS behind Maurice Richard

If we were to adjust these years down, what would that look like and why would it even be relevant to Howe's legacy? His rookie and sophomore seasons aren't relevant. Post-1948, when his prime years began, the league was getting back to normal. It seems that the argument here is we should penalize Howe's irrelevant first and second seasons, and I'm struggling to understand the significance of landing that point.

 

[Doctor No]

The only way to move him up is to either say goalies have no value (@Doctor No)

 

[daver]

You don't seem to understand what you're talking about regarding statistics. That the NHL was significantly weaker in 1945 and the surrounding years is beyond obvious. There is no magical statistic that is going to prove it, particularly if someone wants to ignore the unprecedented jump in scoring that happened as the war effort ramped up and the decrease as the NHLers returned to the NHL, but fortunately people have brains that can process and assess information. In this case the relevant information is that a significant number of the top players were missing in the NHL and replaced with worse players. There is no need to look beyond the obvious.

Richard's numbers in the years surrounding 1945 are obviously inflated both in absolute and relative terms. That has nothing to do with either Richard's scoring in the 1950's or Howe's scoring in the 1950's, given that a significant amount of players didn't leave the NHL to go fight in the Korean war or become part of any war effort. I do appreciate that you've at least moved along and gotten closer to the actual point of your posts though, which is predictably trying to lower Howe in an effort to elevate Crosby.

Agree on the absolute, disagree on the relative. How is it obviously inflated in relative terms when he does something similar in 1946/47 and in 1950/51? Shouldn't that objectively introduce some question to your claim? Do you seriously not see that?

 

[The Macho King]

Agree on the absolute, disagree on the relative. How is it obviously inflated in relative terms when he does something similar in 1946/47 and in 1950/51? Shouldn't that objectively introduce some question to your claim? Do you seriously not see that?

Because beating out minor-league level players in a relative sense is not as impressive as beating out NHL-level players.

Who is the greatest AHL scorer of all time? Do you know? Was he as dominant over his peers as Gretzky was? Would you give a shit if he did?

I mean - he can't help who he played against, but dominating scrubs is not as impressive as dominating talented players, and for the war years, there was a dearth of talented players. That's generally why people think 50/51 is a whole hell of a lot more of an impressive season by Richard than those 40s seasons - because he did it against actual good players.

 

[daver]

What I'm trying to figure out here, is why the post-war inflation even matters to Howe.

It doesn't if you think the post war era truly begins before 1950 if not earlier.

I said that there is a more compelling argument that Howe's numbers were inflated due to the "war effect" given his far more notable drop (did Richard even drop at all?) in relative production in the mid-50s.

If one wants to open the "weaker era" can of worms, one has to consider other players besides Richard.

 

[daver]

Because beating out minor-league level players in a relative sense is not as impressive as beating out NHL-level players.

Who is the greatest AHL scorer of all time? Do you know? Was he as dominant over his peers as Gretzky was? Would you give a **** if he did?

I mean - he can't help who he played against, but dominating scrubs is not as impressive as dominating talented players, and for the war years, there was a dearth of talented players. That's generally why people think 50/51 is a whole hell of a lot more of an impressive season by Richard than those 40s seasons - because he did it against actual good players.

Where is the overwhelming statistical evidence that he couldn't have had as dominating a 44/45 season under different circumstances?

 

[The Macho King]

Where is the overwhelming statistical evidence that he couldn't have had as dominating a 44/45 season under different circumstances?

Where's the overwhelming statistical evidence you are capable of breathing through your nose.

This is asinine.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It doesn't if you think the post war era truly begins before 1950 if not earlier.

I said that there is a more compelling argument that Howe's numbers were inflated due to the "war effect" given his far more notable drop (did Richard even drop at all?) in relative production in the mid-50s.

If one wants to open the "weaker era" can of worms, one has to consider other players besides Richard.

Are you saying you think the "war effect" was still pronounced after 1950?

Personally, I would evaluate "war effect" in terms of:
1) Whether there were NHL players held out of the league for war-related reasons
2) The temporary scoring inflation which appears to correspond directly to factor #1

I see this effect being effectively over by about 1948 and definitely over by 1950.

I can't think of a single reason that the effect would have lasted until the mid-1950s specifically.

 

[JackSlater]

Agree on the absolute, disagree on the relative. How is it obviously inflated in relative terms when he does something similar in 1946/47 and in 1950/51? Shouldn't that objectively introduce some question to your claim? Do you seriously not see that?

... because the best players largely weren't there. 1942 was the last season before a noteworthy amount of players left for WW2. The top five goal scorers that season, and seven of the top ten, all missed the 1945 season due to WW2. In 1943 some players are gone for WW2 but still the top four goal scorers and seven of the top ten scorers were missing in 1945 due to WW2. In 1944 most of the best forwards are gone but still the top goal scorer and another top ten scorer are gone by 1945 due to WW2. Notably in 1944 we see some massive spikes in scoring for several of the top scorers, guys who weren't elite before but are now scoring in the top ten in the league and won't be elite scorers again after 1946. In 1946 the top two goal scorers and five of the top ten goal scorers missed the 1945 season due to WW2. In 1947 Richard dominates goal scoring and the next three best goal scorers and six of the top ten goal scorers missed the 1945 season due to WW2. By my count there were 19 different players who had been top ten scorers either shortly before 1945, shortly after 1945, or both before and after 1945, who missed the 1945 season. If even one of them could outscore Cain, career high of 20 goals prior to the war years and an AHL player after 1946, then Richard's relative performance suffers. That's without getting into the advantage that Richard had by not losing an elite defenceman from his team while several other teams did and by keeping his goaltender while half of the league lost their starting goaltenders.

Richard had a great season in 1945. He also had a great season, and I'd lean strongly toward a better season, in 1947. He had a great season in 1951 as well and several other times in his career because he is an all time great. That he had dominant, though not quite as dominant, goal scoring seasons outside of 1945 doesn't mean that we should ignore the obvious weakness of the NHL in 1945.

 

[The Panther]

What I'm wondering is why two posters in particular keep beating the drum of the "years surrounding the war"...? This shouldn't be complicated.

Clearly, 1943-44 and 1944-45 were NHL seasons with significant numbers of players away. By the way, 1944-45 (the '50-in-50' season) had lower scoring than 1943-44. Does this mean the level of play was suddenly higher than the year before? No. (We should be careful to assume, blindly, that higher scoring automatically means "weakened League". As an example, is the NHL today notably weaker than five years ago? No, but scoring is higher.)

Anyway, my question is: Why would anything after September 1945 influence the strength of the League? I think an argument could be made that the League was stronger from 1945-46 or certainly 1946-47 than it was in, say, 1940. This is because NHL teams with decimated rosters had to find ways to get new sources of players. And then when the NHL-ers came back from the War, clubs then had the new players and the old players, which is good for roster depth. There's also the fact that it was mainly forwards who went to war. When NHL teams lose talented forwards, they generally compensate by focusing more on team defence, which doesn't make it easier for people to score, necessarily.

But, anyway, Richard's history could lose everything prior to 1946-47 and his legacy wouldn't be affected. His history of excellence has nothing to do with the War-weakened League, and people need to stop banging on about this.

 

[Michael Farkas]

All of that. All of it...was already discussed very matter of factly. Your choice of the word "blindly" is a decided knock against your comprehension of what has already been discussed...

 

[JackSlater]

What I'm wondering is why two posters in particular keep beating the drum of the "years surrounding the war"...? This shouldn't be complicated.

Clearly, 1943-44 and 1944-45 were NHL seasons with significant numbers of players away. By the way, 1944-45 (the '50-in-50' season) had lower scoring than 1943-44. Does this mean the level of play was suddenly higher than the year before? No. (We should be careful to assume, blindly, that higher scoring automatically means "weakened League". As an example, is the NHL today notably weaker than five years ago? No, but scoring is higher.)

Anyway, my question is: Why would anything after September 1945 influence the strength of the League? I think an argument could be made that the League was stronger from 1945-46 or certainly 1946-47 than it was in, say, 1940. This is because NHL teams with decimated rosters had to find ways to get new sources of players. And then when the NHL-ers came back from the War, clubs then had the new players and the old players, which is good for roster depth. There's also the fact that it was mainly forwards who went to war. When NHL teams lose talented forwards, they generally compensate by focusing more on team defence, which doesn't make it easier for people to score, necessarily.

But, anyway, Richard's history could lose everything prior to 1946-47 and his legacy wouldn't be affected. His history of excellence has nothing to do with the War-weakened League, and people need to stop banging on about this.

I don't know what thread you've been reading, or not reading, when the things you are asking have already been mentioned, you're suggesting that people believe things that they likely don't believe, and no one is attempting to take shots at Richard as you seem to be implying. Applying the accurate context to the league that Richard played in is not a shot at Richard and is not something that anyone should discourage.

Regardless of whether you accept that players who had been stationed overseas and in some cases been fighting in a war for years prior would struggle to play up to their usual standard, we can definitely conclude that the NHL was affected by WW2 by the 1943 season as well. A not insignificant number of players left the league by that season including several HHOFers, the 1942 Hart winner, a few other top players and various depth players, and two of the league's starting goaltenders. It's somewhat mitigated by the dissolution of the league whipping team in Brooklyn, but not enough to match the quality that left the NHL. I doubt that anyone cares either way about Richard's 1943 season though. I can't see how anyone could really conclude that the 1946 season was the NHL at full strength but I do think that it was a big step in the right direction.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

Anyway, my question is: Why would anything after September 1945 influence the strength of the League?

Some players in the service may have not been discharged instantly as of VJ-Day.

I think the factor of players being out of practice by the war and not playing well in the immediate postwar years is blown out of proportion. Turk Broda played for a senior team related to his military unit. Ken Mosdell also played for RCAF teams and one book source Ive read claimed he was deployed to Normandy, although his wiki games played log is making me question the accuracy of that.

Many players who joined the service appear to have spent the war years doing what they were best at all along, just for military teams. If the war had gone poorly they undoubtedly would have been deployed, but I suspect many major public names that enlisted were held back in relatively "safe" positions to avoid shocks to public morale if they were killed.

 

[daver]

Richard had a great season in 1945. He also had a great season, and I'd lean strongly toward a better season, in 1947. He had a great season in 1951 as well and several other times in his career because he is an all time great. That he had dominant, though not quite as dominant, goal scoring seasons outside of 1945 doesn't mean that we should ignore the obvious weakness of the NHL in 1945.

We are obviously not saying any new here. I am a numbers person first and foremost and admittedly am overwhelmed by the knowledge by the usual HOH contributors.

The war years are obviously a unique time period that opens the door to exactly what you are saying but being a numbers person I am inclined to look for statistical confirmation.

One of the faults of some of the HOH posters is looking for something that may not be there or overthinking things. The simple lack of acknowledgement that there isn't statistical confirmation that Richard's 44/45 was a statistical anomaly in terms of relative production makes me think this may be the case here.

I generally ask the question of "is there a reason to think the numbers do not speak for themselves?" and try to add reasonable context to these numbers. Unless there is an overwhelming reason to think the numbers do not speak for themselves (e.g. Esposito's production with the Bruins) then the context can serve to differentiate players with similar numbers/relative dominance vs. their peers but not move them up or down levels. When a player proves he can do something in one season, it makes it reasonable to validate other seasons that may be questionable.

Specific to the OP, I don't see any posters, save for one, that are using this line of thinking to perhaps rate Richard lower all-time than where his numbers should place him. IMO, his most direct and comparable peer is Hull who he should be quite close to albeit slightly behind.

 

[daver]

Are you saying you think the "war effect" was still pronounced after 1950?

Personally, I would evaluate "war effect" in terms of:
1) Whether there were NHL players held out of the league for war-related reasons
2) The temporary scoring inflation which appears to correspond directly to factor #1

I see this effect being effectively over by about 1948 and definitely over by 1950.

I can't think of a single reason that the effect would have lasted until the mid-1950s specifically.

Why would removal of a number of players from the NHL automatically lead to higher scoring? And/or why does higher scoring automatically lead one to conclude a weaker era? There seems to be a bit of a "cause and effect" dynamic here.

Not trying to validate my claim here, which for the record is that there is no statistical reason to think Richard's level of dominance was an anomaly in 44/45, just not quite getting this angle especially when the early 80s is also pointed to as being a weaker era.

I completely acknowledge that a rise in scoring levels opens the door to more extreme gaps between offensive talents. I believe Wayne, Mario and Orr all benefit from this but the counter argument that every player had the chance to score 50 goals or 200 points also applies.

 

[JackSlater]

We are obviously not saying any new here. I am a numbers person first and foremost and admittedly am overwhelmed by the knowledge by the usual HOH contributors.

The war years are obviously a unique time period that opens the door to exactly what you are saying but being a numbers person I am inclined to look for statistical confirmation.

One of the faults of some of the HOH posters is looking for something that may not be there or overthinking things. The simple lack of acknowledgement that there isn't statistical confirmation that Richard's 44/45 was a statistical anomaly in terms of relative production makes me think this may be the case here.

I generally ask the question of "is there a reason to think the numbers do not speak for themselves?" and try to add reasonable context to these numbers. Unless there is an overwhelming reason to think the numbers do not speak for themselves (e.g. Esposito's production with the Bruins) then the context can serve to differentiate players with similar numbers/relative dominance vs. their peers but not move them up or down levels. When a player proves he can do something in one season, it makes it reasonable to validate other seasons that may be questionable.

Specific to the OP, I don't see any posters, save for one, that are using this line of thinking to perhaps rate Richard lower all-time than where his numbers should place him. IMO, his most direct and comparable peer is Hull who he should be quite close to albeit slightly behind.

I suppose the thing is that you're looking for numerical proof of something that can't be numerically proven. What we know is that most of the best forwards were gone and every team other than Montreal lost its starting goaltender. The effect of defencemen missing was probably roughly equal for all teams. The question regarding relative scoring is if Richard loses a goaltending advantage somewhat and several star scorers suddenly show up in the NHL, can one of them get closer to him in goals than Herb Cain did. Keep in mind that Cain was a second liner for years prior to the WW2 exodus and was demoted to the AHL by 1947. There is no way to definitively prove anything either way, but one scenario seems far more likely. Maybe one or more of the players outscores Richard, but I doubt it. Maybe none of the players can outscore the equivalent of a Herb Cain season, but I doubt it. When it comes to something as obvious as "a player won't dominate scoring as much when competing against the best players as he will against lesser players" I would need to see some overwhelming evidence to show that the obvious is incorrect rather than evidence to prove that the obvious is correct.

 

[Big Phil]

I honestly think he gets his due on a board like this. Some 18 year old who can't get his nose away from his cell phone? Sure, he'll downgrade someone like Richard because he played so long ago. But it is a lot like Babe Ruth. People look at grainy old black and white footage of the 1920s and see Ruth trotting around the bases after a home run and figure that is all there was to him. Wrong. Ruth was a tremendous hitter for average, he hit more triples than Rickey Henderson in his career, stole 123 bases in his career (got caught a lot too, but still) and won 94 games as a pitcher and for about half a century owned the World Series record for most consecutive scoreless innings until Whitey Ford broke it in 1960. Also batted .378 one year and I haven't even talked about his home runs yet, in which he hit more than really good teams in his early years in a given season.

Richard isn't quite Ruth of course, but I get that people have this same view of him and his era. What were the WWII years in hockey? 1944 and 1945? Maybe, 1943 although there were still most stars in the NHL then. Richard gets 50-in-50 in 1945 but the thing was no one else was even close to him and everyone else played in the same league shot against the same goalies and skated against the same defenses.

I met Richard around 1990 or so. He still had those eyes. Those piercing eyes. He was rough around the edges, heck, he scared me a bit. He was probably 70 years old at this time and I wouldn't have wanted to anger him. That was just him though, maybe it was a long history of getting the shaft from owners and players and such in the NHL and being on the wrong end of the French/English debate and getting discrimination from that.

It is hard to watch actual game clips of him. Lots of highlights, but the camera angles were different, it is often in slow motion and it likely wasn't on live TV at the time. We see this grainy old footage of him. But if you can ever watch a real time clip of him you'll notice one thing, he was fast! And it isn't always easy to find but if you can find it I remember seeing footage of him where there is little doubt he is an NHL star today.

 

[Theokritos]

...
Bure wouldn't play in the NHL in the 40s because he was in the Soviet Union, likely would have been drafted into the military, and might have died at Stalingrad or during Barbarossa.

Side note: Vsevolod Bobrov was drafted into the Soviet army in 1942 and would have been sent into the battle of Stalingrad, but the army captain who went through the list of names happened to be from the same city and knew that he was a gifted athlete. So he scratched his name off the list respectively assigned him to the Military Academy instead of the front line.

 

[daver]

I suppose the thing is that you're looking for numerical proof of something that can't be numerically proven. What we know is that most of the best forwards were gone and every team other than Montreal lost its starting goaltender. The effect of defencemen missing was probably roughly equal for all teams. The question regarding relative scoring is if Richard loses a goaltending advantage somewhat and several star scorers suddenly show up in the NHL, can one of them get closer to him in goals than Herb Cain did. Keep in mind that Cain was a second liner for years prior to the WW2 exodus and was demoted to the AHL by 1947. There is no way to definitively prove anything either way, but one scenario seems far more likely. Maybe one or more of the players outscores Richard, but I doubt it. Maybe none of the players can outscore the equivalent of a Herb Cain season, but I doubt it. When it comes to something as obvious as "a player won't dominate scoring as much when competing against the best players as he will against lesser players" I would need to see some overwhelming evidence to show that the obvious is incorrect rather than evidence to prove that the obvious is correct.

So if you were making these statements after the 44/45 season, and likely getting flack from the Habs fans in the very least, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that after 46/47 some doubt is cast on your position, and after 50/51, any remaining doubts that Richard could dominate in the league going at full tilt are erased altogether? I.e. "oh, I guess we can't really continue to question Richard's goalscoring dominance after he has spanked everyone besides Howe". Continuing to talk about about how we cannot take his 44/45 season at face value I think would be shouted down by most.

 

[JackSlater]

So if you were making these statements after the 44/45 season, and likely getting flack from the Habs fans in the very least, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that after 46/47 some doubt is cast on your position, and after 50/51, any remaining doubts that Richard could dominate in the league going at full tilt are erased altogether? I.e. "oh, I guess we can't really continue to question Richard's goalscoring dominance after he has spanked everyone besides Howe". Continuing to talk about about how we cannot take his 44/45 season at face value I think would be shouted down by most.

What happened in 1947 or 1951 has no bearing on the reality of the NHL in 1945. I would guess that Richard would have won the 1945 goal scoring title pretty convincingly even if everyone had been there. I think it's fairly obvious that he wouldn't have won it as convincingly had most of his actual competitors actually played and teams been on pretty even footing. What the typical Montreal fan thought in 1945, 1945, 1951, or 2020 makes no difference in my mind. I would expect reasonably hockey fans to fully agree that Richard wouldn't have scored as much in absolute or relative terms in 1945, 1947, 1961, 1992, or 2020. "Question Richard's goal scoring dominance" is a far cry from acknowledging how weak the NHL was in 1945 and the surrounding years and considering the very likely consequences.