Staniowski
Registered User
Maurice Richard was once hockey's biggest star.
Has his star faded?
What are your thoughts on his 100th birthday?
Has his star faded?
What are your thoughts on his 100th birthday?
Last edited:
He played on one of the most stacked teams ever yet didn't even get to a positive career PPG. Statistically it doesn't make sense to put him into the top50.I know it’s not a popular take and statistically it doesn’t make sense, but I still have Maurice Richard behind the Big Four.
He played on one of the most stacked teams ever yet didn't even get to a positive career PPG. Statistically it doesn't make sense to put him into the top50.
Yeah that is what I meant lol. Funny post dude.I think you are underestimated how hard it is to have a positive PPG. But to be fair, one could also argue that getting a positive PPG is perhaps very easy. What it comes down to is not having a clue what you mean by a "positive" PPG.
Sarcasm aside, presuming you mean over a PPG, being #2 in PPG and points during his playing career while being the clear best goalscorer in the RS and the playoffs throws a bunch of cold water on your arbitrary metric.
NHL Stats
BTW, the Habs were the clear #2 team for most of Richard's prime.
It is impressive. I also think goals matter a lot more than assists which also matter a lot more than secondary and rebounded assists. He seemed to have been a prolific goal scorer similar to Mike Bossy or Bure or Ovechkin. He might have played in a low scoring era but he also played in a weak era with an extremely shallow talent pool. Not sure why should I put him above the guys mentioned. Well I'd put him over Bure because Bure lacked team accomplishments but that's about it.81 playoff goals in his first 121 playoff games (55 goals per 82 games), in what was generally a very low-scoring era, speaks for itself.
In regular season, he was 1st or 2nd in NHL goals eight times, and twice was a 1st-team All Star over a top-4-all-time player at his peak.
I can't get on board with the whole "blame the guy for when he was born" argument. Besides, how was it a weak era (stable, no expansion) with a shallow talent pool? Where else were the great players in the 40s/50s?It is impressive. I also think goals matter a lot more than assists which also matter a lot more than secondary and rebounded assists. He seemed to have been a prolific goal scorer similar to Mike Bossy or Bure or Ovechkin. He might have played in a low scoring era but he also played in a weak era with an extremely shallow talent pool. Not sure why should I put him above the guys mentioned. Well I'd put him over Bure because Bure lacked team accomplishments but that's about it.
I don't blame anyone for being born in the "wrong" time. Chamberlain played in a weak era and put up impossible numbers. Don Bradman played in a weak era and put up impossible numbers. Bobby Orr played in a weak era and put up impossible numbers. Maurice Richard played in a weak era and put up good numbers. That is the difference.I can't get on board with the whole "blame the guy for when he was born" argument. Besides, how was it a weak era (stable, no expansion) with a shallow talent pool? Where else were the great players in the 40s/50s?
You didn't answer either of my two questions.I don't blame anyone for being born in the "wrong" time. Chamberlain played in a weak era and put up impossible numbers. Don Bradman played in a weak era and put up impossible numbers. Bobby Orr played in a weak era and put up impossible numbers. Maurice Richard played in a weak era and put up good numbers. That is the difference.
I had already answered those before. By shallow talent pool I meant the amount of players that played the sport competitively. Guys who played in the 1940s were all born 20-30 years prior back during the days of WW1. Sports period weren't taken seriously. That is why it was common for many athletes to excel in several sports at once. The competition wasn't the same a century ago as it is now. That is why you sometimes had people who put up numbers that would now be impossible. The first guy in hockey who did that was Orr who at his peak was the best offensive and defensive player at the same time.You didn't answer either of my two questions.
I had already answered those before. By shallow talent pool I meant the amount of players that played the sport competitively. Guys who played in the 1940s were all born 20-30 years prior back during the days of WW1. Sports period weren't taken seriously. That is why it was common for many athletes to excel in several sports at once. The competition wasn't the same a century ago as it is now. That is why you sometimes had people who put up numbers that would now be impossible. The first guy in hockey who did that was Orr who at his peak was the best offensive and defensive player at the same time.
I am not underrating the players of old. Look up the top200. They put 15 guys born in the 19th century into the mix despite the fact only their hockey ability was to be judged and not anything else. That is an extreme amount of overrating. In reality there should be exactly 0 players born in the 19th century in the top200.
I mean doesn't my logic make sense? Since there have been a lot more people playing competitive hockey in the last couple of decades than a century ago should not the top list be full of players born in the last let's say 50-60 years and not full of players whose parents remembered Abraham Lincoln? Of course by the time Richard started his NHL career the game became a lot more competitive so he should be somewhere on the list. I still don't see any reason why should he be put above Crosby or Ovechkin though. Yeah he won many Stanley Cups that's true but back then it was the same three teams winning it for the entirety of his career.
He played on one of the most stacked teams ever yet didn't even get to a positive career PPG. Statistically it doesn't make sense to put him into the top50.
Excellent main board take.
You really need to know something about hockey history to post here.
I had already answered those before. By shallow talent pool I meant the amount of players that played the sport competitively. Guys who played in the 1940s were all born 20-30 years prior back during the days of WW1. Sports period weren't taken seriously. That is why it was common for many athletes to excel in several sports at once. The competition wasn't the same a century ago as it is now. That is why you sometimes had people who put up numbers that would now be impossible. The first guy in hockey who did that was Orr who at his peak was the best offensive and defensive player at the same time.
I am not underrating the players of old. Look up the top200. They put 15 guys born in the 19th century into the mix despite the fact only their hockey ability was to be judged and not anything else. That is an extreme amount of overrating. In reality there should be exactly 0 players born in the 19th century in the top200.
I mean doesn't my logic make sense? Since there have been a lot more people playing competitive hockey in the last couple of decades than a century ago should not the top list be full of players born in the last let's say 50-60 years and not full of players whose parents remembered Abraham Lincoln? Of course by the time Richard started his NHL career the game became a lot more competitive so he should be somewhere on the list. I still don't see any reason why should he be put above Crosby or Ovechkin though. Yeah he won many Stanley Cups that's true but back then it was the same three teams winning it for the entirety of his career.
You should also not clearly have an agenda of pushing your favourite player. Soooo irritating.
Not sure what (or who) you are referring to.
Attempt at a joke (at me) that obviously was lacking in it's delivery.