Mike Richter

[Asheville]

What's his legacy, be it his NHL/international play, having the distinction as the goalie to backstop the only championship in the league's biggest city in the past 80 years, etc. Whatever perspective you'd like to offer.

Click to read more...

 

[Michael Farkas]

He's a better Bill Ranford...except Richter gets '94 to '97 (just before he hit the Legion...), Ranford gets a little shorter span...

Both had the propensity to steal games...both were plenty capable of giving a series away...


Meh, after typing that, that's more than a little unfair...he was usually much better than anything Ranford could put together on average...but still inconsistent, just with a higher floor than I gave him credit for...

If we did a top-50 goalie list of all time, he probably gets a chance at the end...might be a late cut, late add...

 

[Michael Farkas]

10 year old thread here too: Ranking Mike Richter

 

[tony d]

He had a solid run in the 90's. Not a Hall of Famer but I think he should get Hall of Very Good consideration.

 

[Cruor]

I always thought Vanbiesbrouck was the better goalie, Richter maybe got more opportunities to shine ('94, '96 WC). I think they set a record for starting every other game in one of their seasons together.

Here's a NYT piece from 1990:

Ranger Quandary: Vanbiesbrouck or Richter?

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

I always thought Vanbiesbrouck was the better goalie, Richter maybe got more opportunities to shine ('94, '96 WC). I think they set a record for starting every other game in one of their seasons together.



Here's a NYT piece from 1990:

Ranger Quandary: Vanbiesbrouck or Richter?

Richter also got the nod in the 91 Canada Cup and 92 playoffs. It's a shame he let that goal in vs Pitt that year. He would have had 2 cups. Still think in RANGERS history Lundqvist is better.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Every single time I look at his stat sheet, I'm amazed at how low his save percentages were. My memories of Richter are of him killing it in high profile games, so it's hard to reconcile that with a pretty ordinary career overall.

 

[Doctor No]

I think they set a record for starting every other game in one of their seasons together.

It almost happened in 1990-91, but never actually happened:

1990-1991 New York Rangers Goaltender Game-by-Game Performance

 

[JackSlater]

I'm not a fan. I've never liked goaltenders with high highs and low lows, whether on or against my team. His name gets thrown around on the periphery of HHOF discussions and he certainly has some high end team results, but I certainly think that he is not a HHOF calibre player.

 

[Mandar]

I always thought Vanbiesbrouck was the better goalie, Richter maybe got more opportunities to shine ('94, '96 WC). I think they set a record for starting every other game in one of their seasons together.

Here's a NYT piece from 1990:

Ranger Quandary: Vanbiesbrouck or Richter?

Respectfully disagree....the last goaltender I would want in a big game was Beezer.....not an ounce of clutch in him. Was so glad they decided on Richter.

In my opinion, the NYR don't come close to winning the cup in 94 with VBK.

 

[Cruor]

....the last goaltender I would want in a big game was Beezer.....not an ounce of clutch in him. Was so glad they decided on Richter.

That's fair enough, but goalies ebb and flow a bit. Beezer in '96 was to my mind the best goalkeeper in the world, too bad he ran into a powerhouse Colorado.

 

[mrhockey193195]

My favorite player of all-time. Time for me to put my homer hat on. Sorry in advance...

Richter had two careers in my eyes. One was from the beginning of his career through the end of the 96-97 season, and the other was the 97-98 season until he retired. At the end of his first career, he was on track to be a HOFer - no question in my mind. I think his stature was not too different than Tuukka Rask today, or Pekka Rinne from a few years ago. Basically, he was in the tier of goalies below the very best (Roy & Hasek), along with Beezer, Barrasso, CuJo, & Brodeur (I think Belfour bridged those two groups, and obviously Brodeur ascended quickly into the top group as the 90s came to a close).

In that stretch, he played seven seasons (eight if you include his 23-game rookie year). Only two of those seasons were average or below average (92-93, which was a trainwreck for the entire Rangers team, and 94-95), the five rest were extremely good. In those five good seasons, his SV% ranks were:

1990-91 NHL .903 (3rd)

1991-92 NHL .901 (6th)

1993-94 NHL .910 (8th)

1995-96 NHL .912 (6th)

1996-97 NHL .917 (7th)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In his rookie year where he was ineligible due to too few games played (23), his .904 SV% would have ranked 3rd in the league (behind only Roy and Liut). So I hope that gives some context to this post:

Every single time I look at his stat sheet, I'm amazed at how low his save percentages were. My memories of Richter are of him killing it in high profile games, so it's hard to reconcile that with a pretty ordinary career overall.

Throw in the fact that he was a cup champion, WC gold medalist, and generally had a reputation for 1) being one of the hardest workers on & off the ice in the league, and 2) being a big-game player, and I think you're looking at someone who is in the HOF if his career trajectory stayed on course for another seven or eight years.

Everything after 97 was a bit of a disaster. How much of it was Richter declining vs. Richter's injuries vs. the Rangers turning into a garbage hockey team that could not play defense is debatable. I will say that Mike was still able to produce moments of brilliance (e.g., 2002 Olympics) and play at a very high level despite the team in front of him in certain seasons (e.g., 1998-99 and 1999-00), so I'd like to think that he was still a top goalie that just had little support. Mike had always been susceptible to giving up some real stinkers, and that got magnified in those bad years as well which didn't help his reputation.

All in all, I don't think he belongs in the HOF, but I'm really sad that he was put in a position where he had no chance to succeed in the latter half of his career. That being said, I think his absolute peak level of play would rival almost any goalie in the history of the game. I also think his prime (91-97 or so) was above Vernon', and his consistency (in the first half of his career) was better than Barrasso's - even though those two guys in sum had better careers than Mike did.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Richter also got the nod in the 91 Canada Cup and 92 playoffs. It's a shame he let that goal in vs Pitt that year. He would have had 2 cups. Still think in RANGERS history Lundqvist is better.

I'm going to disagree with you here.
I started watching in 94, so prior to that I can only comment on what I have heard, and I know the Rangers were a fantastic team in 92. Perhaps they win that cup.

However, the 94 team was a desperate gambit that paid off. They sold the farm getting rid of Amonte and Weight to bring in old Oilers.

I doubt they win THAT cup if they don't make those moves, and I doubt they make those moves if they weren't desperate to end 'the curse'.

That said, if they win in 92 and don't deal Amonte or Weight, it leaves them with a better future in the late 90's.

 

[The Panther]

I like Richter a lot. But here's how his career curve went:

Oct. 1989 to May 1997
Stanley Cup, World Cup, two starter-seasons for NHL 1st overall team, 182-113-34 RS record (.605) and 43-33 in playoffs, two top-5 Vezina seasons, three seasons of top-6 save percentage, five seasons in top-8 GSAA.

Oct. 1997 to Nov. 2002
119-145-38 record (.457), no playoff appearances, 4 of 6 seasons with negative GSAA.


Up to 1997, you'd probably say Richter was a borderline future Hall of Fame candidate. With a Cup and the recent US World Cup of Hockey championship behind him, all he had to do was maybe have one more meaningful playoff run or one more big international hockey success, while maintaining a competitive, decent NHL career, and he'd at least have a fighting chance at the Hall of Fame. But the Rangers whole-franchise collapse into the toilet-bowl killed him off.

(I never cared much for Vanbiesbrouck, whom I don't think was all that outside of his two big NHL seasons in 1985-86 and 1993-94, and his 1986 Vezina I find a little suspect. I've also never been able to respect the guy after his racist outbursts as coach were made public, but that's another matter).

 

[MS]

I like Richter a lot. But here's how his career curve went:

Oct. 1989 to May 1997
Stanley Cup, World Cup, two starter-seasons for NHL 1st overall team, 182-113-34 RS record (.605) and 43-33 in playoffs, two top-5 Vezina seasons, three seasons of top-6 save percentage, five seasons in top-8 GSAA.

Oct. 1997 to Nov. 2002
119-145-38 record (.457), no playoff appearances, 4 of 6 seasons with negative GSAA.


Up to 1997, you'd probably say Richter was a borderline future Hall of Fame candidate. With a Cup and the recent US World Cup of Hockey championship behind him, all he had to do was maybe have one more meaningful playoff run or one more big international hockey success, while maintaining a competitive, decent NHL career, and he'd at least have a fighting chance at the Hall of Fame. But the Rangers whole-franchise collapse into the toilet-bowl killed him off.

(I never cared much for Vanbiesbrouck, whom I don't think was all that outside of his two big NHL seasons in 1985-86 and 1993-94, and his 1986 Vezina I find a little suspect. I've also never been able to respect the guy after his racist outbursts as coach were made public, but that's another matter).

Vanbiesbrouck was consistent in a way that Richter never was.

Save % from 1991-97, amongst goalies with 40+ games (or 24 for the lockout season):

1991-92 4th (really t-2nd as three guys were all at .910)
1992-93 5th
1993-94 2nd
1994-95 3rd
1995-96 15th (off-year, but then had his huge 1996 playoffs)
1996-97 6th

Vanbiesbrouck was very good from 1985-88, had a dip from 1988-91 following a severe wrist tendon injury when he fell through a glass table, and was then lights-out for the better part of the 1990s. That 6-year stretch from 1991-97 was elite.

Personally, I value goalies who were durable and consistently top-5 like Vanbiesbrouck over the Barrasso/Richter types who were great one year out of three and then injured or terrible the other two.

 

[JianYang]

First thing that comes to mind when you mention Mike Richter is the 96 world cup.

His performance against Canada was some of the best goaltending I have ever seen. He was ridiculous, and led the upset.

Secondly, I remember him for how far he would come out to challenge shooters, which I guess he would do to
compensate for his size.

 

[vikash1987]

Despite growing up a Devils fan in NY, I always had a soft spot for the Rangers' "Big Four" of Messier, Richter, Leetch and Graves. They wore the red, white and blue in the greatest city in the world, and they wore it proudly.

Richter was, quite simply, a very special goaltender. At his peak, he was the ultimate competitor, and the personification of athleticism in the crease. Some of his clutch saves in '94 were unbelievable, and without him, Ranger fans today would likely be looking at a Cup curse of 80 years and counting.

What made him so great, in my opinion, was his approach to the game, which was second to none. His work ethic, preparation, and commitment to all aspects of the game---both physical and mental, both on the ice and off the ice, etc.---made him a total package and an inspiration to his teammates. At his peak, he really made the most of his talent and potential. Joe Nieuwendyk, who was a buddy of Richter's, once said that he had never been around a goaltender who was so dedicated to his craft and to all the work and preparation that went into it.

 

[Big Phil]

With the exception of Hasek, was there a goalie quite as flexible? Ranford and Fuhr also come to mind and currently someone like Marc-Andre Fleury would be considered in that spot. But as a Canadian Richter just scared the heck out of me. Especially after 1996. That was how it was with him. He could be the star of a game and steal it right from under your eyes. 1994 comes to mind too. Remember that save against Bure on the penalty shot? What human being could make that save? Honestly. I'd be in the hospital for a week if I ever made a move like Richter did on that play.

That was just Richter in a nutshell. He still scared me a bit in the 2002 Olympics even though he was past his prime because he was always capable of stealing games. Good goalie, not HHOFer, but still good.

 

[JianYang]

With the exception of Hasek, was there a goalie quite as flexible? Ranford and Fuhr also come to mind and currently someone like Marc-Andre Fleury would be considered in that spot. But as a Canadian Richter just scared the heck out of me. Especially after 1996. That was how it was with him. He could be the star of a game and steal it right from under your eyes. 1994 comes to mind too. Remember that save against Bure on the penalty shot? What human being could make that save? Honestly. I'd be in the hospital for a week if I ever made a move like Richter did on that play.

That was just Richter in a nutshell. He still scared me a bit in the 2002 Olympics even though he was past his prime because he was always capable of stealing games. Good goalie, not HHOFer, but still good.

I might even add Jonathan quick to that modern day list, although nobody exactly plays like Richter these days.

 

[The Panther]

Vanbiesbrouck was consistent in a way that Richter never was.

Save % from 1991-97, amongst goalies with 40+ games (or 24 for the lockout season):

1991-92 4th (really t-2nd as three guys were all at .910)
1992-93 5th
1993-94 2nd
1994-95 3rd
1995-96 15th (off-year, but then had his huge 1996 playoffs)
1996-97 6th

Vanbiesbrouck was very good from 1985-88, had a dip from 1988-91 following a severe wrist tendon injury when he fell through a glass table, and was then lights-out for the better part of the 1990s. That 6-year stretch from 1991-97 was elite.

Personally, I value goalies who were durable and consistently top-5 like Vanbiesbrouck over the Barrasso/Richter types who were great one year out of three and then injured or terrible the other two.

Why do you think Richter wasn't consistent from 1989 to 1997? Eight years is a long time.

 

[Albatros]

With the exception of Hasek, was there a goalie quite as flexible? Ranford and Fuhr also come to mind and currently someone like Marc-Andre Fleury would be considered in that spot.

Of his contemporaries I felt also Irbe was up there.

 

[MS]

Why do you think Richter wasn't consistent from 1989 to 1997? Eight years is a long time.

1990-91 - very good
1991-92 - ok but significantly outplayed by Vanbiesbrouck
1992-93 - poor
1993-94 - great!
1994-95 - awful
1995-96 - good but hurt for a huge chunk of the season
1996-97 - very good

... isn’t very consistent. He had 3 healthy excellent seasons in his career surrounded by a bunch of crap.

 

[The Panther]

Okay, let's break this down:

First off, you missed 1989-90. Rookie Richter went 12-5-5 with a .904, while Vanbiesbrouck had a .500 record with an .887. (Bob Froese was below .500, with a lousy .873.) It's rather telling that Richter -- a rookie -- got more minutes in the playoffs than Vanbiesbrouck. Both goalies appear to have performed well vs. the Islanders in the first round, but Richter won all 3 of his starts. Vanbiesbrouck did win the only game vs. Washington in round two, to give him his credit, but neither goalie could have won that series for them.

1990-91 - very good

Yes, and for the second season in a row he destroyed Vanbiesbrouck:
Richter: 21-13-7, .903
Vanbiesbrouck: 15-18-6, .891

1991-92 - ok but significantly outplayed by Vanbiesbrouck

Not "significantly" -- that word would apply to Richter over Vanbiesbrouck the previous season -- but this year, it appears Vanbiesbrouck was a bit better. Both had great records. It's a great Richter season.

1992-93 - poor

This is that weird, non-playoff season sandwiched between two great team seasons. Yes, it appears that Vanbiesbrouck had the better season. I wouldn't say Richter was "poor" -- his stats are still above-average, just not anything special.

1993-94 - great!

Yes, a great season and Richter had enormously better numbers than back-up, Glenn Healy.

1994-95 - awful

This one does look pretty weak. It's hard to explain how Healy ended up with better stats than Richter, unless Richter got all the hard starts and Healy the "easy" ones, but in any case not a good Mike Richter season. However, he did perform way better than Healy vs. Quebec in the playoffs. Both struggled vs. Philly.

1995-96 - good but hurt for a huge chunk of the season

Well, he played 41 games and went 24-13-3 (.638), while the team went 17-14-11 (.563) without him in net. This is another great Richter season.

1996-97 - very good

Rangers are .590 with Richter in net, and .333 with Healy in. 'Nuff said. The Rangers also had a surprising playoff run, with at Richter at .932 and playing every minute through three rounds. A fabulous Richter season.

Then, there is the 1994 playoffs. And the 1996 World Cup, at which Richter was probably the best player in the world for those couple of weeks.


So, in conclusion, I would say you're way exaggerating in painting Richter as wildly inconsistent in this 1989-1997 period. In fact, there is only one season where he was kind of poor overall, that being the short 1995 season (the fact that this was the shortened winter-1995-only season might, in itself, be a factor as to why he under-performed, but who knows?). There is one other season, 1992-93, where he was less than great, and even that season his numbers are above average, just nothing special. So, for eight seasons, we've got:
1 x poor
1 x just above-average
6 x fantastic
legendary performances in the '94 playoffs and '96 World Cup

 

[MS]

Okay, let's break this down:

First off, you missed 1989-90. Rookie Richter went 12-5-5 with a .904, while Vanbiesbrouck had a .500 record with an .887. (Bob Froese was below .500, with a lousy .873.) It's rather telling that Richter -- a rookie -- got more minutes in the playoffs than Vanbiesbrouck. Both goalies appear to have performed well vs. the Islanders in the first round, but Richter won all 3 of his starts. Vanbiesbrouck did win the only game vs. Washington in round two, to give him his credit, but neither goalie could have won that series for them.

Yes, and for the second season in a row he destroyed Vanbiesbrouck:
Richter: 21-13-7, .903
Vanbiesbrouck: 15-18-6, .891

Not "significantly" -- that word would apply to Richter over Vanbiesbrouck the previous season -- but this year, it appears Vanbiesbrouck was a bit better. Both had great records. It's a great Richter season.

This is that weird, non-playoff season sandwiched between two great team seasons. Yes, it appears that Vanbiesbrouck had the better season. I wouldn't say Richter was "poor" -- his stats are still above-average, just not anything special.

Yes, a great season and Richter had enormously better numbers than back-up, Glenn Healy.

This one does look pretty weak. It's hard to explain how Healy ended up with better stats than Richter, unless Richter got all the hard starts and Healy the "easy" ones, but in any case not a good Mike Richter season. However, he did perform way better than Healy vs. Quebec in the playoffs. Both struggled vs. Philly.

Well, he played 41 games and went 24-13-3 (.638), while the team went 17-14-11 (.563) without him in net. This is another great Richter season.

Rangers are .590 with Richter in net, and .333 with Healy in. 'Nuff said. The Rangers also had a surprising playoff run, with at Richter at .932 and playing every minute through three rounds. A fabulous Richter season.

Then, there is the 1994 playoffs. And the 1996 World Cup, at which Richter was probably the best player in the world for those couple of weeks.


So, in conclusion, I would say you're way exaggerating in painting Richter as wildly inconsistent in this 1989-1997 period. In fact, there is only one season where he was kind of poor overall, that being the short 1995 season (the fact that this was the shortened winter-1995-only season might, in itself, be a factor as to why he under-performed, but who knows?). There is one other season, 1992-93, where he was less than great, and even that season his numbers are above average, just nothing special. So, for eight seasons, we've got:
1 x poor
1 x just above-average
6 x fantastic
legendary performances in the '94 playoffs and '96 World Cup

His 1992-93 and 1994-95 seasons were both very poor, and he generated below-average numbers behind good teams.

You can't give him credit for a consistent 8-year stretch when he was actually healthy and playing at a high level consistently in only 3 of those years.

 

[mrhockey193195]

His 1992-93 and 1994-95 seasons were both very poor, and he generated below-average numbers behind good teams.

You can't give him credit for a consistent 8-year stretch when he was actually healthy and playing at a high level consistently in only 3 of those years.

I'm scratching my head at this one.

EDIT: I'm not saying Richter wasn't bad in 92-93, but I'm saying that he was bad behind a dysfunctional team. He was not the only reason that team was terrible.

Also, Richter was healthy and playing at a high level in 89-90 (albeit a short stint), 90-91, 91-92, 93-94, and 96-97. He was injured but at a high level in 95-96 (still playing 41 games).