Hull VS Richard

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,215
Can you be more specific...

If not for Maurice Richard TDMM, its questionable as to whether or not the Habs survive, He personally resurrected the franchise. The 30's & WW2 was cruel to their survival. Hanging on by fingertips. Along comes a local Montreal' born & bread Hero?.... late 40's accused of being a "Conscientious Objector" with more GUTS than Audey Murphy...
 

VMBM

And it didn't even bring me down
Sep 24, 2008
3,813
762
Helsinki, Finland
My 20 cents (Sorry mods! No foul language though :sarcasm:):

Abbey Road, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper >>> any Rolling Stones record

A Day in the Life >>> any Rolling Stones song

The Beatles were forerunners and 'changed the world' in many ways, and the Stones were ("are", if you want to be nice) just a very good rock band, plus they sometimes even aped the Beatles (remember "Their Satanic Majesties" whatever?). The only thing Rolling Stones has over the Beatles is that "they're still together" and that they were "more rock and roll/bluesy". I don't think it's necessarily even opinion that the Beatles is the best and most influental band of all-time. Personally, I like The Band and Little Feat more, but you have to face the facts! And I'm not so crazy about the earlier Beatles material, but even that shows great craftsmanship and it inspired countless artists/bands to write their own songs (which wasn't so common before them).

Oh yeah, I'd take Hull over Richard, but that is largely because I know his 'body of work' far better.
 

Dreakmur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2008
18,617
6,879
Orillia, Ontario
For most of his career, Richard had to share ice time at right wing with Bernard Geoffrion, a superstar in his own right.

5-on-5 he shared, but not on the PP. Wasn't it Montreal's PP that cause the NHL to change the rules in the 50s? Montreal would regularly score multiple goals on a single PP, so the league changed the rules to allow the PP to end with a single goal.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,779
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Montreal PP

5-on-5 he shared, but not on the PP. Wasn't it Montreal's PP that cause the NHL to change the rules in the 50s? Montreal would regularly score multiple goals on a single PP, so the league changed the rules to allow the PP to end with a single goal.

The Montreal PP became dominant when Jean Beliveau matured as a player during the 1954-55 season. Regularly scoring multiple goals might be a bit of a stretch but 8 - 10 times a season during the 1954-55 and 1955-56 seasons would reflect the frequency.

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19550035

The boxscore above from an early 1955-56 game against Boston reflects how the Canadiens PP could change a game. The outcome started the move for the rule change you refer to.

A more detailed look at early 1950's power plays and the Canadiens PP may be found in the following thread:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=1001331
 
Last edited:

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,779
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Details

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.

Rather limited analysis especially given that the careers of the three players shared at most three seasons.

The details reveal a somewhat different picture.

The basic issue is whether a coach uses his star forwards to kill penalties. The Canadiens with Dick Irvin Sr and Toe Blake did not use the star forwards to kill penalties. The two penalty killing forwards were a blend of the two extra forwards or 5th defenseman - John McCormack, Don Marshall, Floyd Curry, Bob Turner, Jim Roberts, Red Berenson, etc. The other teams tended to use their star forwards in PK situations at least partially.

This impacts at two levels. PK is more demanding/tiring since the workload of 5 players is split amongst 4 and it disrupts the lines for the next few shifts as the line rotation has to return to sync.

So while Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita may have had greater TOI totals these extra PK minutes did not produce significant offense.

SH goal data has been kept since the early sixties. Henri Richard and Jean Beliveau total 0 SH goals while Mikita and Bobby Hull are amongst the SH goal leaders for the era.

Depth was not a factor in such decisions. The Hawks at various points during the Hull/Mikita years had qualified PK players on the roster - Earl Balfour, Glen Skov, Reg Fleming, Bob Turner, Lou Angotti amongst others like Eric Nesterenko, Chico Maki, who were regulars, but chose to use their star forwards.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,271
2,807
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.

Thanks for sharing that. Much more exciting than Hull is high praise indeed for Richard.

Someone posted that the Montreal PP was an advantage for Richard. Maybe so, but not until Beliveau and Geoffrion were established as stars. Richard was in his mid 30s then. For most of his prime this wasn't a factor. Hull played on a PP with Mikita and Pilote during his prime years. In fact, Phil Esposito couldn't crack Chicago's first unit in the mid-60s.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
5-on-5 he shared, but not on the PP. Wasn't it Montreal's PP that cause the NHL to change the rules in the 50s? Montreal would regularly score multiple goals on a single PP, so the league changed the rules to allow the PP to end with a single goal.

Yes in the late 50s, by the time Harvey and Beliveau had also reached their prime. This was for probably only about a third of Richard's career.

This is where seeing Richard's even strength vs. PP scoring would be very useful, but I don't think the information goes back that far.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad