Hull VS Richard

[Kant Think]

Hi all,

I'm personally undecided on this one, even though I prefer Richard it's mostly because I admire his clutch play (I might also be biased).

But still, they are both surefire top 10 players of all-time, arguably # 5 and 6 (as per the 2008 top 100), primary goal scorers and great post-season performers.

I would enjoy a good in-depth discussion between these 2 greats, as would, I'm sure of it, most of us.

Let it be.

Click to read more...

 

[begbeee]

What's clutchness? Isn't it just coincidence?
I would take Hull.

 

[KingGallagherXI]

What's clutchness? Isn't it just coincidence?
I would take Hull.

I don't think it's coïncidence. Richard hated losing so much that it made him physically ill. He raged when he lost (though never at his teamates) and was a passionate winner, and he was at his absolute best when it counted the most.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

What's clutchness? Isn't it just coincidence?
I would take Hull.

When a player has a history of scoring timely goals, it's not just coincidence. It's also painfully obvious players do not react the same way in high-pressure situations.

 

[Killion]

I don't think it's coïncidence. Richard hated losing so much that it made him physically ill. He raged when he lost (though never at his teamates) and was a passionate winner, and he was at his absolute best when it counted the most.

For these reasons alone Id be going Richard all the way. Hull could be laissez faire at times. Though I never saw Richard play & grew up idolizing Hull for a few years in his prime, those who would know claim their was no one ever more determined from the blue-line in than Richard. Almost Supernatural. Like a man possessed. Id take that over Hull, slapshot n' all.

 

[Zine]

I don't think it's coïncidence. Richard hated losing so much that it made him physically ill. He raged when he lost (though never at his teamates) and was a passionate winner, and he was at his absolute best when it counted the most.

I don't think it has to do with winning and losing. If Richard was at his best when it counted most, that would insinuate that he chose not to be at his best at other times, which runs counter to him hating to lose.

Rather, I think Richard had a unique ability to handle stressful situations, thus allowing him to be able to perform while under pressure.

 

[JaymzB]

Bobby Hull is the better hockey player.

 

[Killion]

Bobby Hull is the better hockey player.

Thats akin to saying the Beatles are a better band than the Rolling Stones or that you think Expressionistic painting is better than Surrealism. Its not objective, its purely subjective. The era's & skill-sets both possessed were as different as chalk & cheese. Richard came up the hard way; Hull in comparison a pretty boy, and much more the "modern" player. For sheer grit & determination, Richard would be your Rolling Stones; Hull the Beatles. I love them both but if I had to choose in a winner take all game Id side with Keef & Mick... a Hell of a lot tougher than your ethereal George & lazy Ringo.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Maurice Richard

A few comments about Maurice Richard. For his size, 5'10" < 175 lbs he was incredibly strong, great stamina, low center of gravity, great balance and leverage. Very important assets late in a game and in overtime which he exploited to his advantage.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What's clutchness? Isn't it just coincidence?
I would take Hull.

Here's a basic statistical analysis I did on Richard's playoff goal scoring in the last ATD:

Maurice Richard's playoff goal scoring

We all know that The Rocket's legend is based on his ability to score goals in the playoffs, so I thought I would examine just how much better than everyone else he was.

I think it's fair to consider only players who peaked before expansion, since playoff scoring was generally low during this period and the playoffs were only 2 rounds long.

I realize it might seem a bit hypocritical to consider only goal scoring, after my rants about how we need to consider a player's overall offense via points. To an extent, that might be true. But I'm also bit of a hockey traditionalist in how I view this. And there is a reason that the Hart Trophy basically tracks the Art Ross, while the Conn Smythe conversation is just as likely to follow the goals race as the points race - there is just something to be said for being able to finish things off in the playoffs, when the games are tighter and the pressure is higher.

Total career goals among pre-expansion players

1. Maurice Richard 82
2. Jean Beliveau 79
3. Gordie Howe 68
4. Bobby Hull 62
5. Stan Mikita 59

All these players played a number of seasons after expansion, except for Richard.

Top career GPG among pre-expansion players

1. Maurice Richard 0.617
2. Bobby Hull 0.521
3. Gordie Drillon 0.520 (only 7 seasons)
4. Jean Beliveau 0.488
5. Bernard Geoffrion 0.439
6. Gordie Howe 0.433 (includes a ton of post-prime seasons)

Maurice scored 16.6% more goals per game in the playoffs than Bobby Hull

Put it in context

To properly consider their goals per game averages, let's knock off the Rocket's 1944 and 1945 playoffs when he obliterated competition hurt by World War 2 to the tune of 18 goals in 15 games across both seasons. But to be fair, we should also knock off his 1959 and 1960 seasons (1 goal in 12 games), when he was injured and past his prime, and openly said that he would have retired if he didn't enjoy playing with his younger brother so much (and was used in a more defensive role FYI).

We are left with 63 goals in 103 career playoff games or 0.612 goals per game over a period of 13 seasons (including 11 playoff years).

In other words, in the playoffs, the Rocket averaged 4.3 goals per 7 game series over a sample size of 103 games over 13 years that took him through the lowest scoring period in NHL history (early 1950s) after the advent of the Red Line. Truly extraordinary!

Compare to Bobby Hull's 60 goals in 110 playoff games over 11 seasons after the age of 22 and before he left for the WHA - 0.545 goals per game.

Maurice Richard's scored 11% more goals per playoff game over 13 seasons (11 playoffs) than Bobby Hull did over his 11 season prime NHL playoff career (10 playoffs). If anything, these numbers are favorable for Bobby Hull, since he didn't play in the super low-scoring early 1950s.

Gordie Howe is a harder comparison because he played for so long, but his playoff peak appears to be the 16 season stretch between 1949 and 1965 (15 playoffs). In this time frame, Howe has 60 goals in 123 games - 0.488 goals per game. Note that I picked such a long stretch because the first and last year of the stretch actually bring the average up. Howe's average is dragged down by several seasons in the early 1960s.

Maurice Richard scored 20% more goals over his best 13 year (non-WW2) stretch than Howe did over his best 16 year stretch. Howe obviously had more assists and overall points, so it isn't a complete comparison of their offensive value, however, especially since Howe was arguably a better playmaker than goal scorer.

In conclusion

We've all heard statements that the Rocket was "the best ever from the blueline in" or "a highly specialized weapon." There has been a lot of emphasis over the past few years on what Maurice isn't an all-time great at - he's "middling" defensively, an unimpressive playmaker, and while he took more abuse than perhaps any other star player ever and never backed down, he wasn't one to really initiate body checking. But I think we've been forgetting just what the upside is - just how special the specialized weapon was.

 

[Killion]

Here's a basic statistical analysis I did on Richard's playoff goal scoring in the last ATD:

Excellent work & well laid out. I kinda feel gypped' that I wasnt around to see Richard in his prime however, virtually every single solitary person whose opinions are worth respecting put Maurice in a singular category; one of blood, guts, passion, determination, honor, integrity, reach. He wasnt a big guy really, not the most fluid of skaters, neither a heavy & hard nor terribly accurate shot, yet he got the job done & your stats back up those contentions.

btw; whats an ATD?.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

ATD is the "All Time Draft."

If I was to do the above comparison again, I would have mentioned more prominently that judging Gordie Howe by goals was doing him a big disservice. Not just for the fact that he had much better intangibles than Richard or Hull. But despite his reputation, Howe seems to have actually been a slightly better playmaker than goal scorer in the regular season. And in the playoffs, his playmaking is particularly strong compared to his goal scoring.

 

[shazariahl]

Going in to this I was ready to select Hull. For a long time I was on the fence between these two, but in recent years Hulls % of goal scoring dominance and other factors have swayed me heavily in his favor.

Reading this thread again has reminded me how special Richard was, and how I used to consider the two of them so evenly matched. I think for now, I am once again undecided.

 

[Hardyvan123]

ATD is the "All Time Draft."

If I was to do the above comparison again, I would have mentioned more prominently that judging Gordie Howe by goals was doing him a big disservice. Not just for the fact that he had much better intangibles than Richard or Hull. But despite his reputation, Howe seems to have actually been a slightly better playmaker than goal scorer in the regular season. And in the playoffs, his playmaking is particularly strong compared to his goal scoring.

Agree pretty much with the playoff analysis and will add a couple of points.

Although goal scoring can be the most independent of variables when it comes to scoring team makeup and the opposition do come into play as well.

Also 20% better over a small sample is easier to achieve than say the differences in regular season scoring. Hull also was the better point getter in the playoffs between the 2 guys.

At the end of the day while I agree that Richard was more clutch and the better goal scorer in the playoffs sometimes too fine of a point is made of it and it's only part of the comparison between these 2 guys.

If we look at the regular season and Hull's WHA days which have to count for something I'll take Hull over Richard 7 days a week although they really aren't that far apart.

As a side note for those that take Richard for his playoff dominance I wonder if they will also take Lidstrom over Bourque for the same reasons?

 

[Stonefly]

A few comments about Maurice Richard. For his size, 5'10" < 175 lbs he was incredibly strong, great stamina, low center of gravity, great balance and leverage. Very important assets late in a game and in overtime which he exploited to his advantage.

This is true. I remember meeting him as a boy, was 12 or 13, just after he retired. He was doing some kind of cross country tour, don't recall for what. But I remember thinking the man was huge, but not because he was tall. He had a barrel for a chest.

 

[Shameus]

That's enough, keep on topic and discuss the topic and not posters.

 

[rymr66]

Thats akin to saying the Beatles are a better band than the Rolling Stones or that you think Expressionistic painting is better than Surrealism. Its not objective, its purely subjective. The era's & skill-sets both possessed were as different as chalk & cheese. Richard came up the hard way; Hull in comparison a pretty boy, and much more the "modern" player. For sheer grit & determination, Richard would be your Rolling Stones; Hull the Beatles. I love them both but if I had to choose in a winner take all game Id side with Keef & Mick... a Hell of a lot tougher than your ethereal George & lazy Ringo.

sorry but the rolling stones aren't in the same league as the beatles.

as for who was better hull or richard, i'd say you gotta go with the guy who won way more stanley cups and it's not even close (8 - 1 i think)

 

[Hardyvan123]

sorry but the rolling stones aren't in the same league as the beatles.

as for who was better hull or richard, i'd say you gotta go with the guy who won way more stanley cups and it's not even close (8 - 1 i think)

Early Stones stuff was awesome although the beatles have a better body of work.

also I didn't realize that they handed out Stanley cups to players now, last time i looked TEAMS won cups and not players.

Even the great one didn't win a CUP all by himself outside of Edmonton which should tell us something.

 

[MJB Devils23*]

Maurice paved the way for 50 goal scorers. But I think Hull is the guy who made it sexy.

 

[mbhhofr]

I saw both play. I was on the ice as an Linesman when Hull played in the WHA. I met Richard in 1953 when I was 14 years old. I saw him score, what turned out to be, the last goal of his career, in the third game of the 1960 SCF. One of the biggest disappointments that I had was when Richard only coached the Quebec Nordiques for two games before quitting. I was so looking forward to participating in a game that he was involved in and I never got the opportunity. They were two different styles of players. In my opinion, Maurice Richard was a much more exciting player to watch than Bobby Hull.

 

[rymr66]

as for the richard/hull thing, hull played on some really great teams with the hawks in the 60's and early 70's yet was only able to win one cup. i'm not saying that's his fault but big players are supposed to come up big when it matters most, and for whatever reason, the player who seemed to be able to do that most often and when his club needed a big goal, was richard. (i'm saying this as a jets fan, but maybe my opinion is a little slanted right now because i just watched the movie about richard. maybe if they make a movie called, 'the golden jet', i'll change my mind).

i'm at a slight loss though because i never got to see either player play live so i had to look things up. interesting fact that i just discovered, apparently bobby hull, aka the golden jet, also played for the chicago blackhawks and not just the winnipeg jets. very interesting. (actually i learned this in kindergarten at my school library which had a section of books on great players from the nhl. what a shock it was to see them talking about bobby hull of the chicago blackhawks, because when i was 5, i only knew about bobby hull of the winnipeg jets)

 

[rymr66]

oh, and why choose either of them. hull played lw and richard played rw. why not take them both and put them on the same line together. man would that ever have been scary.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The vastly differing team situations makes it especially tough to compare Richard with Hull. With the search function down, I can't find it, but articles recently posted from the 1960s indicate that it wasn't uncommon for Hull and Mikita to see 40 minutes of ice time in particular games due to Chicago's lack of depth.

I think this does an awful lot to explain why Hull and Mikita have traditionally been ranked lower than what their raw stats would indicate. (I mean in traditional historical canon where, for example, Richard is often thought of as the 4th best forward of all-time, not on HOH where it has practically become canon that Hull should have that title).

I have also seen it posted fairly recently that all the ice time in the regular season was sometimes blamed for Chicago's stars being burnt out by the time the playoffs hit.

So Bobby Hull's case over Richard (better regular season stats) and Richard's case over Hull (more individual contribution to team success) could both largely be functions of Montreal's superior depth.

 

[Killion]

So Bobby Hull's case over Richard (better regular season stats) and Richard's case over Hull (more individual contribution to team success) could both largely be functions of Montreal's superior depth.

Sure, but coming out of the depths of WW2 no way did the Habs' enjoy any particular 'luxury' in terms of depth so do me a favor & 'splain' that one?. Hell, if not for Torontonian Selke who begat Sam Pollock Montreal wouldve been DOA.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sure, but coming out of the depths of WW2 no way did the Habs' enjoy any particular 'luxury' in terms of depth so do me a favor & 'splain' that one?. Hell, if not for Torontonian Selke who begat Sam Pollock Montreal wouldve been DOA.

Can you be more specific - in a lot of ways WW2 was the turning point in Canadiens history - not only did Montreal's roster escape relatively unscathed, but they also drafted Richard himself.

Montreal by the late 50s at least, had useful forwards in every roster position and regularly used all its three lines.

For most of his career, Richard had to share ice time at right wing with Bernard Geoffrion, a superstar in his own right. Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita were no doubt doubleshifted in close games because they were far better than the other options.