What's with the disrespect of Maurice Richard?

[tarheelhockey]

Serious question: Are you just trolling right now? I have stated that his goals per game is the metric used to show Richard's 50/51 is on par with his 46/47 in terms of relative dominance.

I get that, but his GPG isn't an outlier in that season. He's 0.04 ahead of Howe. You can't just pretend Howe doesn't exist.

And no, I'm not trolling. I'm not even arguing against you. I'm trying to get past the vague "you can't prove anything on either side" stuff and into a more convincing line of argument, regardless of what it ends up proving.

 

[daver]

I get that, but his GPG isn't an outlier in that season. He's 0.04 ahead of Howe. You can't just pretend Howe doesn't exist.

You are honestly rejecting the argument for 50/51 because there just so happened to be the 3rd best offensive talent all-time playing in the same season?

And we can pretend that the war doesn't happen, no players are missing and Richard doesn't have a third dominant goalscoring season on his resume but cannot pretend that Howe doesn't exist?

You do realize that if Richard doesn't have two more clearly dominant seasons on his resume then I am fully on board with questioning the value of 44/45 right? I don't have any dog in this fight, unless you think that acknowledging statistical realities is subjective.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You are honestly rejecting the argument for 50/51 because there just so happened to be the 3rd best offensive talent all-time playing in the same season?

I’m saying that if you’re going to make an argument based on someone being an outlier, it needs to involve an actual outlier.

And we can pretend that the war doesn't happen, no players are missing and Richard doesn't have a third dominant goalscoring season

Is anyone claiming that Richard wouldn’t have had a great season in a war-free NHL? Unless I’m missing something I think the argument is... he’d have been the best scorer in the league but not but AS large a margin.

My previous post even went pretty deep into whether the margin might still have stayed outlier-level huge. Clearly I’m not bringing some sort of anti-Richard bias here.

You do realize that if Richard doesn't have two more clearly dominant seasons on his resume then I am fully on board with questioning the value of 44/45 right? I don't have any dog in this fight, unless you think that acknowledging statistical realities is subjective.

What you are describing isn’t a “statistical reality”. It’s an inference based on comparing one season to another.

 

[daver]

Is anyone claiming that Richard wouldn’t have had a great season in a war-free NHL? Unless I’m missing something I think the argument is... he’d have been the best scorer in the league but not but AS large a margin.

If you agree that there is a reasonable statistical argument to be made against this vs. no reasonable statistical argument for it then we can call it a day.

And for love of god, please don't say that 50/51 is not an example of a similar level of dominance by Richard.

 

[tarheelhockey]

If you agree that there is a reasonable statistical argument to be made against this vs. no reasonable statistical argument for it then we can call it a day.

I’m not sure why you think anyone would agree with that. At this point you’re simply ignoring what people are saying and calling them “unreasonable” rather than refuting their points.

And for love of god, please don't say that 50/51 is not an example of a similar level of dominance by Richard.

Well, it’s plainly dissimilar by the fact that it took place under completely different circumstances.

If you’re positing that circumstances are irrelevant and the numbers are all that matter, you can call 1947 and 1951 similar. 1945 is a different story... there is a LARGE difference between a 48% lead and a 56% lead, given that each successive percent is more difficult to achieve than the last.

 

[JackSlater]

His GPG in 50/51 was as dominant vs. the average GPGs of the other Top Ten goalscorers (62%) as it was vs. his 46/47 season (60%) and slightly less vs. his 44/45 (67%) season.

I hope you aren't going to deny this statistical reality.

I'm not going to calculate them but I assume that the numbers are correct. The conclusion you are trying to draw is what is obviously wrong. Treating the three seasons in the same manner is nonsense given that in the 1945 season Richard played against a very weak league with many players, including plenty of the top players, missing while that wasn't the case in the other seasons. The top ten goal scorers in 1945 were significantly worse players than the top ten goal scorers in 1947 or 1951. In 1947 we can even see that 7 of the top ten goal scorers and 14 of the top 20 goal scorers were missing in the 1945 season directly due to WW2. Over 80 players missed NHL seasons due to WW2, in a 90 player league, to say nothing of the AHL players who also left. It's crazy to think that such an event would not impact the results of the players who remained, from the best players like a Richard down to the bottom, both in terms of how they performed statistically and how they looked compare to their peers. Again that's without looking at team composition and how every team except Richard's, for instance, lost its starting goaltender.

 

[Moose Head]

I'm not going to calculate them but I assume that the numbers are correct. The conclusion you are trying to draw is what is obviously wrong. Treating the three seasons in the same manner is nonsense given that in the 1945 season Richard played against a very weak league with many players, including plenty of the top players, missing while that wasn't the case in the other seasons. The top ten goal scorers in 1945 were significantly worse players than the top ten goal scorers in 1947 or 1951. In 1947 we can even see that 7 of the top ten goal scorers and 14 of the top 20 goal scorers were missing in the 1945 season directly due to WW2. Over 80 players missed NHL seasons due to WW2, in a 90 player league, to say nothing of the AHL players who also left. It's crazy to think that such an event would not impact the results of the players who remained, from the best players like a Richard down to the bottom, both in terms of how they performed statistically and how they looked compare to their peers. Again that's without looking at team composition and how every team except Richard's, for instance, lost its starting goaltender.

then why didn’t guys like Blake, Carr and O’Connor put up the same types of dazzling numbers? They were also competing against the same watered down league. They were better than Richard before most of the boys went to war, but were well behind in the year Richard got 50.

 

[JackSlater]

then why didn’t guys like Blake, Carr and O’Connor put up the same types of dazzling numbers? They were also competing against the same watered down league. They were better than Richard before most of the boys went to war, but were well behind in the year Richard got 50.

Blake had his highest scoring season ever that year by 14% and it was 34% higher than any season outside of the 1943-1945 seasons when a significant number of players left the league, despite being 32 years old. Carr scored 30% more points that year than he ever did outside of 1943-1945, despite being 34 years old and out of the NHL all together after the next season when he had 14 points total. I'm pretty comfortable surmising that both of them saw their totals inflated by the very weak league they faced.

O'Connor is a bit different case given that he was still in his prime years and he definitely had a superior season in 1948. I'd imagine that it helped that in 1948 he was able to be first line centre rather than Montreal's second line centre, particularly as Montreal's forward depth was worse in 1945 than it had been in his high scoring 1943 season when he played with Drillon (left for WW2) but this example at least shows someone who didn't outperform where you would expect.

As for why these guys didn't put up the same dazzling numbers, I feel comfortable saying that in 1945 Maurice Richard was a better scorer than Toe Blake, Lorne Carr, and Buddy O'Connor were. I certainly think that Blake and Carr, along with Richard, saw an unusual amount of inflation due to the very poor quality of the league though. O'Connor very likely too, but his scoring after 1945 is quite strange.

Not that it's the be all and end all, but when the top players showed up again in 1946 O'Connor's scoring dropped by 50%, Carr's dropped by 71%, Blake's dropped by 25%, and Richard's dropped by 33%. Both O'Connor and Carr played five fewer games and Blake played one more game.

 

[Moose Head]

Blake had his highest scoring season ever that year by 14% and it was 34% higher than any season outside of the 1943-1945 seasons when a significant number of players left the league, despite being 32 years old. Carr scored 30% more points that year than he ever did outside of 1943-1945, despite being 34 years old and out of the NHL all together after the next season when he had 14 points total. I'm pretty comfortable surmising that both of them saw their totals inflated by the very weak league they faced.

O'Connor is a bit different case given that he was still in his prime years and he definitely had a superior season in 1948. I'd imagine that it helped that in 1948 he was able to be first line centre rather than Montreal's second line centre, particularly as Montreal's forward depth was worse in 1945 than it had been in his high scoring 1943 season when he played with Drillon (left for WW2) but this example at least shows someone who didn't outperform where you would expect.

As for why these guys didn't put up the same dazzling numbers, I feel comfortable saying that in 1945 Maurice Richard was a better scorer than Toe Blake, Lorne Carr, and Buddy O'Connor were. I certainly think that Blake and Carr, along with Richard, saw an unusual amount of inflation due to the very poor quality of the league though. O'Connor very likely too, but his scoring after 1945 is quite strange.

Not that it's the be all and end all, but when the top players showed up again in 1946 O'Connor's scoring dropped by 50%, Carr's dropped by 71%, Blake's dropped by 25%, and Richard's dropped by 33%. Both O'Connor and Carr played five fewer games and Blake played one more game.

Point taken but I’m talking more about goal scoring. You’d think some other vet could have kept pace with Richard, but none did. Those three are proof that some good players were still left, but the goal total didn’t increase as much as you’d think given the lower level of competition.

btw, I’m leery of assist totals in that era.

 

[JackSlater]

Point taken but I’m talking more about goal scoring. You’d think some other vet could have kept pace with Richard, but none did. Those three are proof that some good players were still left, but the goal total didn’t increase as much as you’d think given the lower level of competition.

btw, I’m leery of assist totals in that era.

I wouldn't necessarily expect anyone to keep pace with him. It's still a very elite season even with inflated totals and he is still Richard. The closest likely would have been Schriner, well on his way to a career season with 22 goals in 26 games at the age of 33, but obviously he was injured. In any event as has been said it is very possible for Richard's scoring to be inflated and for Richard to still have very likely led the NHL in goal scoring even if the league had been at full strength. They are not mutually exclusive ideas.

 

[daver]

I'm not going to calculate them but I assume that the numbers are correct. The conclusion you are trying to draw is what is obviously wrong. Treating the three seasons in the same manner is nonsense given that in the 1945 season Richard played against a very weak league with many players, including plenty of the top players, missing while that wasn't the case in the other seasons. The top ten goal scorers in 1945 were significantly worse players than the top ten goal scorers in 1947 or 1951. In 1947 we can even see that 7 of the top ten goal scorers and 14 of the top 20 goal scorers were missing in the 1945 season directly due to WW2. Over 80 players missed NHL seasons due to WW2, in a 90 player league, to say nothing of the AHL players who also left. It's crazy to think that such an event would not impact the results of the players who remained, from the best players like a Richard down to the bottom, both in terms of how they performed statistically and how they looked compare to their peers. Again that's without looking at team composition and how every team except Richard's, for instance, lost its starting goaltender.

It is your subjective opinion that the league is weak and that it affected Richard's ability to dominate. I am rejecting that as being fact because it is 100% speculation and there is reasonable statistical evidence that points to the direction of him being able to dominate under any circumstances.

I am simply not a fan of knocking down levels of dominance due to a "weak era" argument. There are far too many variables and dynamics, ones that can be chosen to be ignore to fit a narrative, that enter into the conversation. When a player shows he can repeat a season in a "stronger era" then that should close the book on that narrative.

I will agree that if you are comparing Richard's 44/45 season with another similarly dominant season from strictly a statistical perspective (and the list is very short), I would look at the competition factor as something that may give another season an edge over Richard's. I would be very leery of devaluing Richard's season to the point where it is not viewed as being on the same level of a similarly dominant season.

 

[daver]

I wouldn't necessarily expect anyone to keep pace with him. It's still a very elite season even with inflated totals and he is still Richard. The closest likely would have been Schriner, well on his way to a career season with 22 goals in 26 games at the age of 33, but obviously he was injured. In any event as has been said it is very possible for Richard's scoring to be inflated and for Richard to still have very likely led the NHL in goal scoring even if the league had been at full strength. They are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Very likely wins? You can't be serious. This is a prime example of unreasonably devaluing Richard's 44/45 season with no statistical argument to back it up.

 

[daver]

Blake had his highest scoring season ever that year by 14% and it was 34% higher than any season outside of the 1943-1945 seasons when a significant number of players left the league, despite being 32 years old. Carr scored 30% more points that year than he ever did outside of 1943-1945, despite being 34 years old and out of the NHL all together after the next season when he had 14 points total. I'm pretty comfortable surmising that both of them saw their totals inflated by the very weak league they faced.

You are arguing that these players do not put up the raw numbers that they did in 44/45 if the league wasn't "weak", not that there respective finishes in goalscoring changes nor the that the gap behind Richard is not as wide.

How can you explain that Cain, who finished just behind two-time goal leader Doug Bentley, who clearly was an elite goalscorer before the league was "weakened", in 43/44 did not dominate like Richard did?

What about Carl Liscombe? Also finished 2nd to Bentley in 43/44. Where is his domination in the weak 44/45 season?

Seriously, you are argument seems to be 100% based on the fact that scoring went up, not on the fact that a few players who were elite either pre-war or post war dominated the 1943 - 45 time period.

Why was Richard the only elite goalscorer able to dominate the supposedly much weaker 44/45 season?

 

[varano]

Theres a trophy named after him...

 

[JackSlater]

It is your subjective opinion that the league is weak and that it affected Richard's ability to dominate. I am rejecting that as being fact because it is 100% speculation and there is reasonable statistical evidence that points to the direction of him being able to dominate under any circumstances.

You throw around the word subjective as if it is supposed to make something that is very obvious into something untrue. Richard played in a very weakened league for his first three years. Over 80 players left a 90 player league due to WW2. Some of the top replacement players didn't enter the league due to WW2. It's an unprecedented situation.

I am simply not a fan of knocking down levels of dominance due to a "weak era" argument. There are far too many variables and dynamics, ones that can be chosen to be ignore to fit a narrative, that enter into the conversation. When a player shows he can repeat a season in a "stronger era" then that should close the book on that narrative.

I will agree that if you are comparing Richard's 44/45 season with another similarly dominant season from strictly a statistical perspective (and the list is very short), I would look at the competition factor as something that may give another season an edge over Richard's. I would be very leery of devaluing Richard's season to the point where it is not viewed as being on the same level of a similarly dominant season.

This comes of as nothing other than "lalalalalaa I won't think about anything other than what is directly in front of me" so I don't really know what to say. This is not a debatable "weak era" in any reasonable sense. This is a period when the NHL was far weaker than it's ever been since. There is no possible variable or dynamic that can counter the impact of most of the league's players leaving. If you want to accept everything at face value rather than actually think for a moment then it's you're choice regardless of how ridiculous it is.

Very likely wins? You can't be serious. This is a prime example of unreasonably devaluing Richard's 44/45 season with no statistical argument to back it up.

What would someone say other than "very likely"? It's not a certainty that he would. You also convey again that you don't know what you're talking about when you talk about a "statistical argument" to back up something that we can't derive statistics for. Syl Apps was a better goal scorer than Richard in the seasons bookending his WW2 participation. Doug Bentley led the NHL in goals the two seasons prior to 1945 and then had essentially the same goals per game as Richard did in 1946. There are 11 other HHOF forwards who missed that season, including Max Bentley who outscored Richard the next season. Stewart handily outscored Richard in 1946. We don't know what would have happened had all, or anywhere near all, of the best players been available. It's likely that Richard would have led the league in scoring due to how he blew away the remaining players but going beyond that is too strong.

You are arguing that these players do not put up the raw numbers that they did in 44/45 if the league wasn't "weak", not that there respective finishes in goalscoring changes nor the that the gap behind Richard is not as wide.

How can you explain that Cain, who finished just behind two-time goal leader Doug Bentley, who clearly was an elite goalscorer before the league was "weakened", in 43/44 did not dominate like Richard did?

What about Carl Liscombe? Also finished 2nd to Bentley in 43/44. Where is his domination in the weak 44/45 season?

Seriously, you are argument seems to be 100% based on the fact that scoring went up, not on the fact that a few players who were elite either pre-war or post war dominated the 1943 - 45 time period.

Why was Richard the only elite goalscorer able to dominate the supposedly much weaker 44/45 season?

I am saying that the players do not put up their raw numbers due to the obvious weakness, and also that the players would not dominate to the extent they did in a relative sense if the league was not severely weakened and played with a more balanced composition.

Your examples don't serve your purpose very well. Cain scored 32 goals in 1945. His high total outside of 1943-1945 was 21. That's a 52% increase. Liscombe scored 23 goals in 1945. His career high total outside of 1943-1945 was 14. That's a 64% increase. Both players look to have very inflated totals to me.

Richard like most others had his numbers inflated that year. I would guess that the others didn't dominate to the extent that he did because they weren't as good as he was even though it would have been easier to stand out with so many top players out of the league. Schriner getting injured after scoring 22 goals in 26 games also helps.

This is a question - are you actually trying to deny that the league was weakened in 1945? It's beyond obvious that it was significantly weakened. It's one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in the history section to suggest otherwise.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It is your subjective opinion that the league is weak and that it affected Richard's ability to dominate. I am rejecting that as being fact because it is 100% speculation

That’s like saying it’s a subjective opinion that the AHL is a weaker league than the NHL.

You’re taking a credibility-damaging stance here. The league was self evidently weaker during the war era, for reasons that are thoroughly documented and not in serious dispute.

and there is reasonable statistical evidence that points to the direction of him being able to dominate under any circumstances.

Why was Richard the only elite goalscorer able to dominate the supposedly much weaker 44/45 season?

Nobody has challenged the idea of Richard as the league’s top goal scorer at the time. If Herb Cain or Carl Liscombe had kept pace with him, that would have been odd.

Why did he experience MORE of a boost than Cain and Lipscombe? Well, for one thing, he didn’t spend 20% of the season facing the Montreal Canadiens, who were the best defensive team in the league by a huge margin.

And for another, you’re picking guys who were a year or two from retirement and asking why they fell off compared to a top-10 player just entering his best seasons.

 

[The Macho King]

If anything, Richard gets TOO MUCH RESPECT. He is #9 at the All-Time List. He has ONE Hart and ZERO Art Rosses. Next time we see a player with regular season resume this weak is probably #36 Mike Bossy.

I rarely agree with you.

You're right (although I would argue Ovechkin and Jagr also get too much respect, but their resumes are at least better).

We overvalue one dimensional wingers.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

I rarely agree with you.

You're right (although I would argue Ovechkin and Jagr also get too much respect, but their resumes are at least better).

We overvalue one dimensional wingers.

One of these things is not like the other. Richard and OV were for the most part finishers. Jagr was a goal scorer and a playmaker.

 

[Boxscore]

Personally, I think with the influx of new, younger fans, the respect for past legends lessens--not just in hockey, but in other sports as well. Today, more than ever, we live in a quick-hit, highlight reel, social media, hyperbolistic society where "newer is always greater" seems to reign true. I think part of this has to do with the current NHL marketing machine hyping their players more than ever before--and some modern fans buying the hype hook, line and sinker. I've heard hockey fans recently state emphatically that Crosby and Malkin are better than Lemieux and Jagr. Even some say that McDavid is as great (or better than) Gretzky. The same way I've heard baseball fans say that Mike Trout is 2x the player that Babe Ruth was. Therefore, I am not surprised that a legend like Maurice Richard could be placed on an All-time Greats discount rank, depending on who you ask.

Not only was Richard an elite goal scorer--the best of his era--but he was also a cultural icon and the face of the sport in Quebec province. He played for the most storied franchise in NHL history and is memorialized with a trophy. When the Habs left the Forum, the ovation for Rocket was the single greatest ovation any professional athlete may have received. He lead the NHL in scoring 5x and scored 50 when many thought it could never be done. He was clutch and his passion was legendary.

When judging the Rocket, one must take in the full picture IMHO. Again, fans of sport have become overly analytical in recent years, and rush to judgement based on spreadsheets and numbers--without taking into account the eye test, historic perspectives and sentiment. There is a "feel" to deciding the all-time greats--it's like making the perfect soup.

Any hockey fan who rates the Rocket lower than a top-10 player in history should take up another passion. Based on merit alone Maurice Richard is a top 10 player. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[The Macho King]

Any hockey fan who rates the Rocket lower than a top-10 player in history should take up another passion. Based on merit alone Maurice Richard is a top 10 player. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Clearly me, who has Frank Nighbor over Richard, just does not appreciate the history of the game.

 

[MXD]

How can you explain that Cain, who finished just behind two-time goal leader Doug Bentley, who clearly was an elite goalscorer before the league was "weakened", in 43/44 did not dominate like Richard did?

What about Carl Liscombe? Also finished 2nd to Bentley in 43/44. Where is his domination in the weak 44/45 season?

Seriously, you are argument seems to be 100% based on the fact that scoring went up, not on the fact that a few players who were elite either pre-war or post war dominated the 1943 - 45 time period.

Why was Richard the only elite goalscorer able to dominate the supposedly much weaker 44/45 season?

Because he was the only elite goalscorer in the first place.

 

[MXD]

Not only was Richard an elite goal scorer--the best of his era--but he was also a cultural icon and the face of the sport in Quebec province. He played for the most storied franchise in NHL history and is memorialized with a trophy. When the Habs left the Forum, the ovation for Rocket was the single greatest ovation any professional athlete may have received. He lead the NHL in scoring 5x and scored 50 when many thought it could never be done. He was clutch and his passion was legendary.

When judging the Rocket, one must take in the full picture IMHO. Again, fans of sport have become overly analytical in recent years, and rush to judgement based on spreadsheets and numbers--without taking into account the eye test, historic perspectives and sentiment. There is a "feel" to deciding the all-time greats--it's like making the perfect soup.

Any hockey fan who rates the Rocket lower than a top-10 player in history should take up another passion. Based on merit alone Maurice Richard is a top 10 player. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

He's all these things.

Look... I'm basically the target demographic who should really, really appreciate Richard. I actually kinda do, and at this point, he is in my Top-10 (though solidly in the last quintile).

But I think he's slated to lose his spot sooner or later.

Despite the fact he received the biggest ovation an athlete, retired or active, will ever receive. Sometimes, myths have to be called out for what they are. Richard isn't all myth, very far from it (you want a myth? Terry Sawchuck), but there will be a point when there will be 10 players better than him.

 

[Boxscore]

but there will be a point when there will be 10 players better than him.

I agree--it's inevitable. But today is not that day.

 

[Boxscore]

Clearly me, who has Frank Nighbor over Richard, just does not appreciate the history of the game.

Make room for Rocket in your top 10 or pick up needlepoint.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't have Rocket top 10...I also don't value streak-and-score wingers nearly as much as most here...and I'll assume that gap has widened since we lost C1958...

I also respect Richard that he was very likely the most technically skilled player up to 1950...and perhaps a touch further...