Henri Richard vs. Dave Keon

[IMLACHnME]

Here we have two centers who provided plenty of offense while being defensively responsible. Compare them in terms of their heydays and their careers generally.

Click to read more...

 

[kmad]

Henri offensively, Keon defensively, but Henri overall

 

[Hardyvan123]

Henri offensively, Keon defensively, but Henri overall

pretty much this but both guys tend to get over rated here and people here often say how they were limited offensively by their circumstances, especially Keon, were there is lots of evidence that he wasn't on any sort of leash.

I'll take Richard though without a second thought.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

pretty much this but both guys tend to get over rated here and people here often say how they were limited offensively by their circumstances, especially Keon, were there is lots of evidence that he wasn't on any sort of leash.

I'll take Richard though without a second thought.

Such as???

Anyway, Henri was quite a bit better offensively, so I think he's an easy pick even if Keon was even better than Henri defensively.

 

[Killion]

... Henri was quite a bit better offensively, so I think he's an easy pick even if Keon was even better than Henri defensively.

Well, what makes you say that? Just look at their statistics TD. Keon's numbers are far superior and that on a team that was entirely defensively oriented though into the late 60's & early 70's they'd opened up a lot.... So no, Keon was superior IMO not only offensively but so too defensively.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Well, what makes you say that? Just look at their statistics TD. Keon's numbers are far superior and that on a team that was entirely defensively oriented though into the late 60's & early 70's they'd opened up a lot.... So no, Keon was superior IMO not only offensively but so too defensively.

Henri Richard top 10 scoring finishes: 2, 4, 5, 9, 9, 9, 10
Dave Keon top 10 scoring finishes: 9, 10

And that's without considering the fact that Richard received very little PP time. I think Keon was underrated by his overall stats due to Toronto's system, but Richard was underrated by his overall stats due to lack of PP time:

Here are the top even-strength scorers in the NHL from 1955-56 (when Richard broke in as a 19 year old) to 1966-67, a 12 year period.

Player | Years | GP | Pts | ESG | ESA | ESP | PPG | PPA | PPP | ESP/G | PPP/G
Richard | 56-67 | 764 | 710 | 222 | 343 | 565 | 41 | 97 | 138 | 0.74 | 0.18
Howe | 56-67 | 826 | 920 | 245 | 330 | 575 | 120 | 192 | 312 | 0.70 | 0.38
Beliveau | 56-67 | 745 | 830 | 217 | 300 | 517 | 126 | 181 | 307 | 0.69 | 0.41
Bathgate | 56-67 | 811 | 825 | 232 | 326 | 558 | 55 | 205 | 260 | 0.69 | 0.32
Ullman | 56-67 | 817 | 703 | 233 | 290 | 523 | 55 | 102 | 157 | 0.64 | 0.19
Delvecchio | 56-67 | 816 | 691 | 191 | 267 | 458 | 65 | 144 | 209 | 0.56 | 0.26

This table doesn't cover Gordie Howe's prime, and doesn't include Mikita and Hull who starred during the latter part of this period. Still, it's very impressive that Henri Richard was (probably) the best player in the league at even-strength over a 12 year period.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Such as???

Anyway, Henri was quite a bit better offensively, so I think he's an easy pick even if Keon was even better than Henri defensively.

Well he was 5th and 7th in SOG in 70 and 71 with totals of 284 and 277 SOG and reached that area for 5 straight years and often was in the top 2 or leading the Leafs for the records we have for that time period.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Henri Richard top 10 scoring finishes: 2, 4, 5, 9, 9, 9, 10
Dave Keon top 10 scoring finishes: 9, 10

And that's without considering the fact that Richard received very little PP time. I think Keon was underrated by his overall stats due to Toronto's system, but Richard was underrated by his overall stats due to lack of PP time:

I don't think Richard received that much less PP time than Keon, especially early in his career. He had 160 career PP points. He had finishes of 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 5th on his team in PP points in his career.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't think Richard received that much less PP time than Keon, especially early in his career. He had 160 career PP points. He had finishes of 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 5th on his team in PP points in his career.

Overpass did a more detailed analysis found in the centers project and found that through the 1950s Henri received got a decent amount of PP points, but through the mid-late 60s, his PP time (and scoring) all but disappeared.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Overpass did a more detailed analysis found in the centers project and found that through the 1950s Henri received got a decent amount of PP points, but through the mid-late 60s, his PP time (and scoring) all but disappeared.

That's pretty much what I said, isn't it? I mean, Keon's career high in PPP was 25, and Richard's was 20. Now, Keon did have seven seasons between 15 and 19 PPP while Richard had three, but my point was not that Keon did not get more PP time, just that he did not get as much more (overall) as you seemed to be saying. Keon's career-high points season was 76, and he only had 17 PPP that year (but also 11 SHP!), while Richard's best was 80 points with 20 PPP.

I just don't think you can characterize Richard receiving "very little" PP time for his career. At the end of his career, certainly, but not for the first half of it at least.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That's pretty much what I said, isn't it? I mean, Keon's career high in PPP was 25, and Richard's was 20. Now, Keon did have seven seasons between 15 and 19 PPP while Richard had three, but my point was not that Keon did not get more PP time, just that he did not get as much more (overall) as you seemed to be saying. Keon's career-high points season was 76, and he only had 17 PPP that year (but also 11 SHP!), while Richard's best was 80 points with 20 PPP.

I just don't think you can characterize Richard receiving "very little" PP time for his career. At the end of his career, certainly, but not for the first half of it at least.

Keon's raw stats look better because he had more peak seasons post-expansion (such as his 76 points, good for 9th in the league). Henri's 80 points was good for 2nd

I think that's the difference here - half their respective primes overlap, so it would appear one could compare their stats without adjustments, but the halves of their careers that don't overlap were under very different circumstances - low scoring 1950s for Richard, higher scoring post-expansion period for Keon (I realize Richard played a few seasons post-expansion too).

 

[tony d]

Henri Richard for me.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here is overpass's megapost on Henri Richard's offense from the HOH Top Centers project:

The data is from the Hockey Summary Project. I downloaded the data files from the Yahoo group and compiled the number of points at each game state - ES, PP, SH. The numbers are exactly what you would find if you went to the HSP site and clicked through each boxscore for each game and added them up.

Hockey-reference uses this data source for their ES/PP/SH assists breakdowns from 1967-68 to 1986-87. They could use it for earlier seasons but for whatever reason have chosen not to. I wouldn't be surprised if they have it on their site at some point in the future.

Here's a link to the file.

Here are Henri's scoring placements season by season. Top 10s are bolded.

1955-56:
Even strength - 34 points. Tied for 13th in the league and 5th on the team. Leader - Bathgate/Beliveau with 49.
Power play - 5 points. Tied for 38th in the league and 7th on the team. Leader - Beliveau/Howe with 37.

1956-57:
Even strength - 39 points. 10th in the league and 3rd on the team. Leader - Howe with 57.
Power play - 15 points. Tied for 13th in the league and 5th on the team. Leader was Beliveau with 31.

1957-58:
Even strength - 60 points. 1st in the league. Horvath was 2nd with 55.
Power play - 20 points. 7th in the league, 3rd on the team. Leader was Moore with 33.

1958-59:
Even strength - 41 points. Tied for 12th in the league, 3rd on the team. Leader was Moore with 65.
Power play - 11 points. Tied for 23rd in the league, 6th on the team. Leader was Beliveau with 34.

1959-60:
Even strength - 54 points. 4th in the league, 1st on the team. Leader was Hull with 67.
Power play - 17 points. Tied for 9th in the league, 4th on the team. Leader was Horvath with 30.

1960-61:
Even strength - 51 points. 7th in the league, 2nd on the team. Leader was Mahovlich with 64.
Power play - 16 points, 10th in the league, 5th on the team. Leader was Geoffrion with 38.

1961-62:
Even strength - 43 points, 12th in the league, 3rd on the team. Leader was Hull with 64.
Power play - 7 points, tied for 36th in the league, 8th on the team. Leader was Mikita with 25.

1962-63:
Even strength - 60 points, tied for 1st in the league with Bathgate.
Power play - 11 points, tied for 19th in the league, 3rd on the team. Leader was Howe with 30.

1963-64:
Even strength - 48 points, tied for 7th in the league and 1st on the team. Leaders were Bathgate and Mikita with 54.
Power play - 5 points, tied for 41st in the league and 10th on the team. Leader was Mikita with 34.

1964-65:
Even strength - 41 points, tied for 7th in the league and 2nd on the team. Leader was Mikita with 61.
Power play - 11 points, tied for 28th in the league and 7th on the team. Leader was Howe with 30.

1965-66:
Even strength - 49 points, tied for 3rd in the league and 1st on the team. Leader was Hull with 58.
Power play - 10 points, tied for 27th in the league and 6th on the team. Leader was Rousseau with 37.

1966-67:
Even strength - 45 points. 8th in the league, 1st on the team. Leader was Mikita with 68.
Power play - 9 points. Tied for 30th in the league, 5th on the team. Leader was Cournoyer with 27.

Henri was 9 times in the top ten for ES points, and 3 times in the top ten for PP points. He led the league twice in ES points and never finished higher than 7th in ES points.

Let's break down the 12 year period above into two 6 year periods.

1955-56 to 1960-61 - top scorers

Player | GP | G | A | PTS | ESP | PPP | ESP/G | PPP/G
Jean Beliveau | 387 | 218 | 268 | 486 | 295 | 185 | 0.76 | 0.48
Gordie Howe | 408 | 198 | 270 | 468 | 291 | 161 | 0.71 | 0.39
Andy Bathgate | 415 | 171 | 289 | 460 | 316 | 134 | 0.76 | 0.32
Dickie Moore | 399 | 174 | 247 | 421 | 266 | 153 | 0.67 | 0.38
Bernie Geoffrion | 324 | 177 | 207 | 384 | 233 | 149 | 0.72 | 0.46
Henri Richard | 397 | 140 | 226 | 366 | 279 | 84 | 0.70 | 0.21
Don McKenney | 412 | 137 | 195 | 332 | 251 | 71 | 0.61 | 0.17
Alex Delvecchio | 398 | 127 | 187 | 314 | 215 | 84 | 0.54 | 0.21
Vic Stasiuk | 401 | 135 | 179 | 314 | 242 | 68 | 0.60 | 0.17
Norm Ullman | 408 | 122 | 185 | 307 | 238 | 58 | 0.58 | 0.14

Over this six-year period Richard played on the PP but wasn't featured on the PP like a Howe or a Beliveau. His PP scoring was similar to second-tier offensive players like McKenney, Delvecchio, Ullman, and Stasiuk. However, at even strength he produced with the best - close behind Beliveau, Bathgate, Howe, and Geoffrion and just ahead of Moore.

1961-62 to 1966-67 - top scorers

Player | GP | G | A | PTS | ESP | PPP | ESP/G | PPP/G
Stan Mikita | 413 | 188 | 316 | 504 | 331 | 166 | 0.80 | 0.40
Bobby Hull | 397 | 269 | 212 | 481 | 327 | 140 | 0.82 | 0.35
Gordie Howe | 418 | 180 | 272 | 452 | 281 | 153 | 0.67 | 0.37
Norm Ullman | 409 | 172 | 224 | 396 | 285 | 97 | 0.70 | 0.24
Alex Delvecchio | 418 | 142 | 235 | 377 | 243 | 121 | 0.58 | 0.29
Andy Bathgate | 396 | 121 | 244 | 365 | 250 | 114 | 0.63 | 0.29
Frank Mahovlich | 397 | 168 | 184 | 352 | 259 | 91 | 0.65 | 0.23
Jean Beliveau | 358 | 125 | 219 | 344 | 219 | 124 | 0.61 | 0.35
Henri Richard | 367 | 124 | 220 | 344 | 286 | 53 | 0.78 | 0.14
John Bucyk | 388 | 136 | 204 | 340 | 256 | 77 | 0.66 | 0.20

Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita were the class of the league in even strength scoring in the mid-60s. But surprisingly Henri Richard was very close behind them, and well ahead of stars like Howe, Beliveau, and Mahovlich.

On the power play, Richard now had a considerably smaller role than any of the other star scorers listed above.

I would like to see a similar PP/ES breakdown for Keon, but for Keon, it would need to include shorthanded scoring, since he was such a shorthanded thread (Montreal didn't use its stars to kill penalties)

 

[Canadiens1958]

Henri Richard PP

Here is overpass's megapost on Henri Richard's offense from the HOH Top Centers project:



I would like to see a similar PP/ES breakdown for Keon, but for Keon, it would need to include shorthanded scoring, since he was such a shorthanded thread (Montreal didn't use its stars to kill penalties)

Re the Overpass mega post, Henri Richard's two best PPP seasons where 1957-58 and 1959-60 when Jean Beliveau missed 15 and 10 regular season games respectively.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Re the Overpass mega post, Henri Richard's two best PPP seasons where 1957-58 and 1959-60 when Jean Beliveau missed 15 and 10 regular season games respectively.

Not surprising. Without Beliveau, I think Henri Richard's raw stats would have been a lot better... and he would have won many fewer Cups.

 

[Big Phil]

I'll take Henri here. Nice comparison though.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Here is overpass's megapost on Henri Richard's offense from the HOH Top Centers project:

It doesn't appear you're getting what I'm saying. I don't disagree that Richard did not get as much PP time as most top centres from his time, that's fairly obvious. What I disagree with is the statement that he received "very little" PP time. To me "very little" is something very different than "less than most top centres". His five top-five team finishes in PPP suggests he had at least five seasons in which he spent significant time on the first PP unit. Since many forwards get literally almost no PP time, I can't see this being called "very little."

Also, relative to other top centres, Keon got less PP time as well. Certainly more than Richard, but as I said he only cracked 20 PPP once in his career.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It doesn't appear you're getting what I'm saying. I don't disagree that Richard did not get as much PP time as most top centres from his time, that's fairly obvious. What I disagree with is the statement that he received "very little" PP time. To me "very little" is something very different than "less than most top centres". His five top-five team finishes in PPP suggests he had at least five seasons in which he spent significant time on the first PP unit. Since many forwards get literally almost no PP time, I can't see this being called "very little."

Also, relative to other top centres, Keon got less PP time as well. Certainly more than Richard, but as I said he only cracked 20 PPP once in his career.

I guess I thought you had a hockey-related point other than arguing over the meaning for the words "very little.".

I should have said "relatively little," not "very little," OK?

We know Henri Richard scored as disproportionately low ℅ of his offense on the PP. What were Keon's splits? Were his relatively low PP #s due more to lack of PP time or relative lack of talent? I've seen accounts that Keon wasn't a good center for Mahovlich because he wasn't very good at passing to his left.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I should have said "relatively little," not "very little," OK?

That's all I was getting at. I can only address what you say, not what I might assume you mean. It would be unfair of me to make assumptions about what you mean.

We know Henri Richard scored as disproportionately low ℅ of his offense on the PP. What were Keon's splits?

For his career, Keon scored 22% of his NHL points on the PP. Richard is 15.5%. Compare that to say Beliveau, who is over 35%.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

For his career, Keon scored 22% of his NHL points on the PP. Richard is 15.5%. Compare that to say Beliveau, who is over 35%.

I don't know exactly what the average was, but Keon seems a little bit below average - not surprising, really - Punch Imlach has a reputation as a coach who didn't role just one unit on the PP like most teams at the time.

Comparing to Believeau doesn't make much sense though, as Beliveau was the most power play dependent star forward of the era. (Note I said "star" to specifically leave out PP specialists like Camille Henry).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Seems to me that when they were both playing, they were considered comparable.

Once the comparison went strictly to numbers because people hadn't seen them at their best, a gap between them was created.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Seems to me that when they were both playing, they were considered comparable.

Once the comparison went strictly to numbers because people hadn't seen them at their best, a gap between them was created.

I don't think that is the case.

The THN Top 100 list of 1998 was compiled mostly by "experts" who had seen them both play, and they ranked Henri Richard 30th and Dave Keon 69th: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_100_greatest_hockey_players_by_The_Hockey_News

Henri Richard was a 1st Team All-Star once, 2nd Team 3 Times. Keon was a 2nd Team All-Star twice, never 1st.

I see it as the majority of traditionalists always had Henri ahead, but about 5 years ago, there were a small group of very vocal posters on this forum who convinced most of us that the traditionalists were wrong and Henri was overrated.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

You sure about that?

The THN Top 100 list of 1998 was compiled mostly by "experts" who had seen them both play, and they ranked Henri Richard 30th and Dave Keon 69th: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_100_greatest_hockey_players_by_The_Hockey_News

Henri Richard was a 1st Team All-Star once, 2nd Team 3 Times. Keon was a 2nd Team All-Star twice, never 1st.

Actually, no, I'm not really sure about anything. Just from what I recall, when both were playing it seemed they were regarded as near equals.

Richard had his 1st team AS and one of his 2nd team AS before Keon was in the league. When both were playing, each had two 2nd team AS.

THN Top 100 List? Really?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Comparing to Believeau doesn't make much sense though, as Beliveau was the most power play dependent star forward of the era.

It was precisely to illustrate what a forward could have if they received boatloads of PP time. To provide context. Keon was much closer to Richard than he was to Beliveau.

Richard had his 1st team AS and one of his 2nd team AS before Keon was in the league. When both were playing, each had two 2nd team AS.

Well, if we want to start playing that game, we can point out that Keon's first All-Star season was when Richard missed over 20% of the schedule, and his second was when Richard was past his prime (recall that he was four years older than Keon.)

On the other hand, when Richard was First-Team All-Star, he displaced Jean Beliveau, who had won the award three straight years, and would win it for the next three as well. Yes Beliveau missed time that year, but it's still an accomplishment.

There's a number of ways you can spin these things. I just can't see Keon being ahead of Richard though. Or even equal.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It was precisely to illustrate what a forward could have if they received boatloads of PP time. To provide context. Keon was much closer to Richard than he was to Beliveau.


Well, if we want to start playing that game, we can point out that Keon's first All-Star season was when Richard missed over 20% of the schedule, and his second was when Richard was past his prime (recall that he was four years older than Keon.)

On the other hand, when Richard was First-Team All-Star, he displaced Jean Beliveau, who had won the award three straight years, and would win it for the next three as well. Yes Beliveau missed time that year, but it's still an accomplishment.

There's a number of ways you can spin these things. I just can't see Keon being ahead of Richard though. Or even equal.

No game here.

Check my original post. I stated, "when both were playing". I'm not old enough to recall Richard's best years in the late 50's. My only point was that they were considered comparable at the time, by my recollection.