Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 9

[Hockey Outsider]

Conacher - five excellent years with little else

I brought this up briefly yesterday, but I want to emphasize that essentially all of Conacher's case rests on five seasons - 1931, 1932 and 1933 through 1935.

VsX - points, best five years

9	Bobby Hull	111.6
10	Howie Morenz	111.1
11	Marcel Dionne	108.7
12	Jean Beliveau	108.5
13	Ted Lindsay	108.3
14	Charlie Conacher	106.6
15	Sidney Crosby	104.6
16	Maurice Richard	104.5
17	Bill Cowley	103.6
18	Bill Cook	103.2
19	Andy Bathgate	103.2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

VsX - goals, best five years

Rank	Player	VsX
1	Bobby Hull	74.9
2	Maurice Richard	70.6
3	Gordie Howe	69.5
4	Phil Esposito	66.6
5	Charlie Conacher	65.3
6	Wayne Gretzky	63.9
7	Brett Hull	62.7
8	Alex Ovechkin	61.3
9	Mario Lemieux	58.4
10	Bill Cook	58.3

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Obviously Conacher is in excellent company on both lists. During his five year peak, he's essentially as good a goal-scorer as Esposito and Gretzky, and in terms of overall offense, he's in the same range as Beliveau, Crosby and Richard.

VsX - points, next five years

128	Dany Heatley	59.2
129	Bill Barber	58.7
130	Joe Mullen	58.5
131	Bun Cook	58.4
132	Phil Housley	58.4
133	Charlie Conacher	58.3
134	Michel Goulet	58.2
135	Tony Amonte	58.2
136	Alex Tanguay	58.1
137	Woody Dumart	58.0
138	Dean Prentice	57.9

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

VsX - goals, next five years

206	Claude Provost	22.5
207	Don Marshall	22.3
208	Brad Richards	22.3
209	Mike Foligno	22.3
210	Jason Pominville	22.2
211	Charlie Conacher	22.0
212	Ron Stewart	21.9
213	Brian Rolston	21.9
214	Eric Nesterenko	21.9
215	Blake Wheeler	21.8
216	Justin Williams	21.8

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Needless to say, that's an enormous drop-off. Is it unfair to focus on a player next five best years? I don't think so. I'm definitely not saying that Conacher is really a Barber/Mullen/Goulet level scorer. But on further reflection I don't think I can have a player whose case rests so heavily on his best five years in my top fifty (full disclosure - I had him at 45 on my original list, but I think that's too high).

Guy Lafleur's case rests pretty much entirely on his six best years - but I see that as less problematic. For one thing, that's six great years, not five (20% more). Also, Lafleur walked away with two Harts (and three Pearsons), and was top five in voting each year. Conacher had 2nd and 4th place finishes, and that's it. Six years of dominating the Hart voting is much more impressive than five years, only two of which garnered any significant votes.

One argument in Conacher's defense - like Lafleur, he was a great playoff performer at his prime. If we cherry-pick those five years (you can't do this on hockey-reference.com, since you'd have exclude 1933 - but I can do this with my database), Conacher leads all players in playoff goals and points. He's also 5th in goals per game and 3rd in points per game during that span.

Someone might mention that Conacher was a second-team all-star in 1933 (despite a huge drop-off in his offense). I'm not impressed with that performance. He was only tied for 16th in scoring in a pretty weak year (he was beaten by numerous non HOFers including Baldy Northcott, Paul Haynes, Johnny Gagnon, Normie Himes, and Jimmy Ward). His linemate Busher Jackson was far more productive that season. And it's not like he faced a ton of competition for that second all-star spot - aside from Bill Cook (who was runner-up to Eddie Shore for the Hart), only four of the top 20 scorers were RW (and none aside from Cook or Conacher ever made the Hall of Fame, which suggests they may have been low "star power" seasons). Besides, he was completely shut down in the playoffs (a goal and an assist in nine games), as the Leafs lost in the Stanley Cup finals.

One thing that would be interesting to learn more about - to what extent was Conacher the catalyst on his line? During his prime, he was on the Kid Line with Joe Primeau (think Adam Oates with way less longevity) and Busher Jackson (speedy scoring winger). They were also supported by King Clancy, just behind Shore as the top offensive defenseman of the era. Given that Conacher led his team in scoring four of those five years (once tied, thrice outright), he was surely one of the drivers, but it would be interesting to hear more.

 

[quoipourquoi]

First impression is that Chris Chelios, Ken Dryden, Paul Coffey, and Syl Apps stand out in a big way. Not sure I mind the concentrated excellence of Conacher at this point, though I make more allowance for Dryden due to the circumstances surrounding his.

I still think it’s too early for Brad Park.

 

[ted2019]

• Brad Park : I like Park I think more then most on here, might make my top 5.
• Charlie Conacher. 5 years of dominance.
• Chris Chelios : Not sure yet. I think the inclusions of Boucher & Richard might hold him back for me this round.
• Frank Boucher : Will be in my top 4.
• Henri Richard : Same as above. Richard is one of the most underrated players in history.
• Ken Dryden : Not high on Dryden. Still think that he was a product of his team more so then anyone.
• King Clancy : Originally had him much lower, but he has warmed on me a bit. Still too early to tell.
• Paul Coffey: No
• Pierre Pilote : Could be my next defenseman voted in. Another player who doesn't get enough credit.
• Syl Apps: LOVE him at this point. Will be in my top 4 somewhere.
• Valeri Kharlamov : Will be my next Russian player in. Not sure if he will make it in for me this round.
• Vladislav Tretiak: I think this is way too early for Tretiak.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Now, I'm okay with a staked position of "not-recommended-for-advancement-at-this-time" re: Charlie Conacher. However, to frame him as a premature nominee and unworthy of the upper half of the list?! No. I think that's taking things too far. I'll be happy to go deeper in those waters next Round, where I might find myself having to defend Conacher against the likes of Sprague Cleghorn and Georges Vézina...

I'm much more forgiving of a shortened career value for Forwards- a position I staked way, way back in early October:

Much of our thought, I'm sure, had to do with HOW we value players- and I'm finding that I have differing standards for different positions. In a nutshell:
...Forwards: Peak, Prime, career. A certain set of Superstar Forwards can go into "take-over-game" mode (in spite of being on the ice less than half the time) and affect opposition game plans to the point where rival coaches have to answer the question "what do we do about this guy?"- before they can address any other matters.

On the topic of "taking over games" and "what do we do about this guy?," We might not find a better illustration of that concern being generated by a Forward, from now until the end of the Project, than the concern that attached to mitigating Kharlamov.

"[He] was killing us."

"Somebody had to do [something]..."

 

[wetcoast]

Most(?!)

He might be (in my mind) a better option than a couple of the players, but [independent of how we feel], we like to keep the conversation focused on the players who were nominated.

Find a Russian Hockey-Enthusiast over the age of 50, and try to argue that Malkin is a superior player to Tretiak and Kharlamov, and see how far you get with that assertion...

Might say more about Russian Hockey-Enthusiast over age 50 than Malkin.

And yes I'm over the age of 50.

But he isn't available yet.

Kharlamov might very well be the Russian equivalent of Maurice Richard in terms of the legends of both players.

 

[MXD]

I've been describing Charlie Conacher as the worst statistical outlier for a while, and I think that sums him up perfectly.

 

[MXD]

While I myself think Malkin wouldn't look that bad in this group, I'm not quite sure there's any upside to having a discussion about him at this point.

 

[ted2019]

Henri Richard:
Thanks to TDMM for the bio:

Frank Selke said:

Over the years I have been blessed with a great number of superstars. But game in, and game out, Henri Richard was the most valuable player I ever had
Click to expand...​

Among the drafted players who Selke managed were: Rocket, Beliveau, Harvey, Geoffrion, Plante, Apps, Kennedy, Clancy

Henri Richard might not have been the most important player on the Habs in any one year, but an argument can be made that over his entire career he was. In fact, as I've noted above, Frank Selke Sr. even said as much. (tommygunn from the last Top 100 list discussion)

Summary

-Ranked 30th on the THN Top 100 list
-Ranked 55th on the HOH Top 100 list
-Ranked the 5th Best (non-goalie) Montreal Canadien of all time by Red Fisher (behind only Beliveau, Rocket, Lafleur, and Harvey).

-11 Stanley Cups, 5 of them centering his brother Maurice at even strength.

-From 1955-56 to 1966-67, (over a period of 12 years), Henri Richard was the best even strength scorer in the league. Post-prime Howe was 2nd, Beliveau and Bathgate tied for 3rd. Richard falls below them on overall leaderboards because one of the best PP players of all time (Beliveau) usually played the full PP during this time (as was customary).

-Henri Richard scored these points while being arguably the best even strength shut down center in the league.

-Richard's coach always had him out there for the first shift after every PP or PK to control momentum for the Canadiens and generally matched him against the opponent's best center.

-Won the Masterdon Trophy in 1974
-Inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1979
-First Team All-Star in 1958 (over Jean Beliveau)
-Second Team All-Star in in 1959, 1961, and 1963 (to Beliveau, Beliveau, Mikita)

-The writers who vote on Post-Season All Star Teams do not like voting for 2 centers from the same team. In fact, since the All-Star Teams were created at the end of the 1931 season, both center spots have been taken by teammates only 3 times - all of them by Jean Beliveau and Henri Richard (in 1958, 1959, and 1961). For a modern example, neither Forsberg or Sakic could make it onto the 2nd Team when the other was on the 1st Team.

Playoffs
- 2 Stanley Cup winning goals - 1966 Game 6 OT and 1971 breaking a 2-2 tie to win Game 7 3-2.
- Led the cup winner in scoring in in 1960.

Offense

The best even strength point producer in the league over a 12 year period:

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.


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.
Click to expand...
Overall finishes:

Points: 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 9th, 9th, 10th
Assists: 1st, 1st, 4th, 7th, 8th, 8th 10th
Goals: 5th, 7th

All these finishes are despite receiving very little PP time.

n Larry Robinson's book, he tells a story about how after Philly (led by Bobby Clarke) beat Montreal in Game 1 in the `73 semis, (Richard's coach) pointed at Bobby Clarke then said to Richard simply "He's yours." Richard completely shut down Clarke the rest of the series.

Joe Pelletier said:

Henri also earned a reputation as one of hockey's most relentless forecheckers of all time....one of the best two way players of all time​

Dark Shadows and Canadiens1958 are long-time hockey fans who watched Richard play:

Dark Shadows said:

Henri Richard was a phenomenal defensive player. Such a Dogged/tenacious player.​

Dark Shadows said:

...one of the greatest two way forwards ever to play...Henri Richard was always matched up against the opposing teams top line. That much is 100% certain.​

Canadiens1958 said:

Henri Richards was definitely the best that I've ever seen at the transition game from offense to defense.​

Canadiens1958 said:

Claude Provost defensive game zoomed after he became the RWer on Henri Richard's line circa 1962. Took awhile for their strengths to come together but once they were used to each other combined with a support from the defense and a solid LWer they were a force defensively. Previously Provost had the usual defensive responsibilities and was solid not outstanding. While Henri Richard and Claude Provost were pivotal in the Canadiens defense against Bobby Hull there is a view that it was a team effort spearheaded by Henri Richard's ability at limiting the Hawks defense at transitioning the puck to Bobby Hull. This view is somewhat supported by the 1971 finals where a rookie - Rejean Houle assumed Provost's role and limited Bobby Hull to 1G and 3A at even strength over 7 games.​

Canadiens1958 said:

Henri Richard, independent of the wingers that he played with, was the best at transitioning from an offensive attacking role to a defensive role hounding the other team's d-man who managed to get the puck,hindering the important first pass or outlet pass, forcing the short safety valve pass to the second defenseman or lagging winger.​

Toe Blake said:

We had to sign him. At camp, he took the puck and nobody could take it away from him. He was just too good not to sign​

InsideHockey: The Golden Years said:

While Maurice excelled from the blue line in, Henri held his own all over the ice. He had speed and maneuverability as well as the capability to hold the puck for as long as he wanted to keep it.Within a few days of the camp’s opening, veterans were impressed; some suggesting that scrimmages ought to have two pucks, one for Richard and one for the rest of the guys to play with.​

Toe Blake said:

when Richard was on the ice, nobody else had the puck.​

Rudy Pilous said:

Looks like Henri Richard brought his own puck to the rink again​

Red Fisher said:

(Toe Blake said, ) "At the start of training camp, we had no idea what we had. At the end, we couldn't send him back. The only thing we had to find out was how this little guy would react to the rough stuff. We didn't want a situation where Maurice would have to ride shotgun for him."

Henri was tested early and often, as Canadiens management had feared. What they discovered quickly was that Richard didn't want, nor did he need, help from his older brother. He was fearless. He was a Richard.

You should know that in the six-team NHL, bench- clearings were the rule rather than the exception. Teams met 14 times during the regular season, often on back-to-back nights. The benches cleared in Boston one night, and there was young Richard in the middle of it, taking on four Bruins, one after the other. He won the first three fights, including one over Jack Bionda, who towered over him. An exhausted Richard fought to a draw in a fourth against Fern Flaman, who was among the NHL's best and most feared fighters.

Leadership

-Captain of the Canadiens for the last 4 years of his career, after Beliveau retired. Led them to the 1973 Cup.

InsideHockey: The Golden Years said:

As fierce a competitor as anyone to ever play the game...Fast, shifty and absolutely driven to win at any cost, the kid from Montreal led by example. Never vocal, he let his game do the talking, excelling in every aspect and coming through when the stakes were the highest.​

Montreal Gazette said:

one of hockey's greatest stars, and perhaps its most lion-hearted leader...a fearless, tireless leader​

Jean Beliveau said:

I had enormous admiration for Henri from his earliest days and not only for what he did on the ice....He was a great team player and a superb captain after I retired. It is not by chance that Henri Richard holds the all-time record of 11 Stanley Cup wins.​

http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/will+captain+Habs/1922359/story.html#ixzz1D1jkJxUP

Jean Beliveau said:

Henri was definitely a leader, even before he became captain. His leadership came from his determination on the ice and the fact that he was a team player.​

 

[Theokritos]

While I myself think Malkin wouldn't look that bad in this group, I'm not quite sure there's any upside to having a discussion about him at this point.

Indeed.

The Malkin discussion has been moved to the general project thread.

 

[Batis]

Here are the best-on-best international tournaments numbers of the new available players. Again with a focus on the knockout stage but also taking the overall numbers into account.

Tretiak
Summit Series 1972: 8 gp, 236 saves on 267 shots, 0.883
Canada Cup 1981: 2 gp, 52 saves on 54 shots, 0.963
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage: 10 gp, 288 saves on 321 shots, 0.897
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 19 gp, 524 saves on 577 shots, 0.908

Kharlamov
Summit Series 1972: 7 gp, 3 g, 4 a, 7 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage: 7 gp, 3 g, 4 a, 7 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 7 gp, 3 g, 4 a, 7 pts

Both Tretiak and Kharlamov measures up very well to the other available players when it comes to best-on-best tournaments resumes. Tretiaks clearly strongest best-on-best tournaments performance was at the 1981 Canada Cup where he both made the all-star team and was voted the tournament MVP. His overall stats both at the knockout stage and overall are rather strong as well.

When only looking at the performances up until the famous slash in Game 6 of the Summit Series I think that Kharlamov has a case for having been the best Soviet performer of the series. He was at least very clearly one of the strongest performers up until that point. Unfortunately we only got five and a half games of healthy Kharlamov during that series of course. And even if it not was a best-on-best tournament per se it is perhaps also worth noting that Kharlamov had a truly outstanding performance at the 75/76 Super Series which generally is considered the most competitive edition of the Super Series.

If I would rank the best-on-best tournaments resumes of these players it would probably look something like this.

Chelios/Coffey
Kharlamov/Tretiak
Park
Dryden

Chelios
Canada Cup 1984: 1 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Canada Cup 1991: 3 gp, 0 g, 2 a, 2 pts
World Cup 1996: 4 gp, 0 g, 2 a, 2 pts
Olympics 1998: 1 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Olympics 2002: 3 gp, 1 g, 0 a, 1 pts
World Cup 2004: 2 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Olympics 2006: 1 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage: 15 gp, 1 g, 4 a, 5 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 47 gp, 4 g, 13 a, 17 pts

Coffey
Canada Cup 1984: 3 gp, 1 g, 3 a, 4 pts
Canada Cup 1987: 4 gp, 1 g, 1 a, 2 pts
Canada Cup 1991: 3 gp, 0 g, 2 a, 2 pts
World Cup 1996: 5 gp, 0 g, 2 a, 2 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage: 15 gp, 2 g, 8 a, 10 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 33 gp, 6 g, 25 a, 31 pts

Park
Summit Series 1972: 8 gp, 1 g, 4 a, 5 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage: 8 gp, 1 g, 4 a, 5 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 8 gp, 1 g, 4 a, 5 pts

Dryden
Summit Series 1972: 4 gp, 98 saves on 117 shots, 0.838
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage: 4 gp, 98 saves on 117 shots, 0.838
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 4 gp, 98 saves on 117 shots, 0.838

 

[Batis]

Even if I think that there is some truth to the idea that the legend of Kharlamov is somewhat stronger than his actual achiviements it is worth noting that he already during his career clearly was considered the top forward of his generation by the Soviet player of the year voters as you can see in the post here below.

Sometimes I have heard it being argued that Kharlamov did not really separate himself from his peers both when it comes to statistics and award recognition. While this largely may be true it is also worth pointing out that there is one metric where Kharlamov really separated himself from his peers namely when it comes to Soviet player of the year voting shares. The reason why I think that it is worth looking at voting shares beyond only the voting finishes is that it in my opinion is a more accurate metric. Looking only at voting finishes it is easy to assume that all 1st place finishes hold the same value. But if we for example compare Krutovs 1st place finish in 86/87 with a voting share of 0.985 to Larionovs 1st place finish in 87/88 with a 0.550 voting share it does in my opinion seem very inaccurate to suggest that those two finishes should hold exactly the same value and therefore it is more fair to look at the voting shares.

Anyway here is how Kharlamov does when it comes to SPOTY voting shares and how he compares to the other four great Soviet forwards of his generation.

Valery Kharlamov
71/72: 130/180 = 0.722
72/73: 107/177 = 0.605
75/76: 107/192 = 0.557
74/75: 81/195 = 0.415
68/69: 51/165 = 0.309
70/71: 61/204 = 0.299
78/79': 300/1734 = 0.173
73/74: 26/168 = 0.155
69/70: 20/204 = 0.098
79/80: 19/207 = 0.092
77/78: 15/219 = 0.068
76/77: 5/228 = 0.022
3-year average: 0.628
5-year average: 0.522
7-year average: 0.440

Alexander Maltsev
71/72: 130/180 = 0.722
80/81: 121/222 = 0.545
69/70: 104/204 = 0.510
70/71: 70/204 = 0.343
73/74: 38/168 = 0.226
79/80: 38/207 = 0.184
77/78: 33/219 = 0.151
75/76: 28/192 = 0.146
81/82: 17/222 = 0.077
76/77: 9/228 = 0.039
68/69: 5/165 = 0.030
82/83: 7/243 = 0.029
74/75: 5/195 = 0.026
72/73: 2/177 = 0.011
3-year average: 0.592
5-year average: 0.469
7-year average: 0.383

Boris Mikhailov
77/78: 128/219 = 0.584
73/74: 67/168 = 0.399
76/77: 73/228 = 0.320
78/79': 435/1734 = 0.251
79/80: 49/207 = 0.237
74/75: 44/195 = 0.226
72/73: 34/177 = 0.192
68/69: 30/165 = 0.182
70/71: 5/204 = 0.025
75/76: 4/192 = 0.021
3-year average: 0.434
5-year average: 0.358
7-year average: 0.316

Vladimir Petrov
72/73: 104/177 = 0.588
76/77: 90/228 = 0.395
74/75: 49/195 = 0.251
80/81: 28/222 = 0.126
78/79': 129/1734 = 0.074
77/78: 14/219 = 0.064
75/76: 6/192 = 0.031
70/71: 3/204 = 0.015
73/74: 2/168 = 0.012
69/70: 2/204 = 0.010
3-year average: 0.411
5-year average: 0.287
7-year average: 0.218

Alexander Yakushev
74/75: 58/195 = 0.297
72/73: 46/177 = 0.260
68/69: 22/165 = 0.133
71/72: 19/180 = 0.106
75/76: 17/192 = 0.089
73/74: 12/168 = 0.071
79/80: 5/207 = 0.024
3-year average: 0.230
5-year average: 0.177
7-year average: 0.140

3-year average:
1 Valery Kharlamov: 0.628
2 Alexander Maltsev: 0.592
3 Boris Mikhailov: 0.434
4 Vladimir Petrov: 0.411
5 Alexander Yakushev: 0.230

5-year average:
1 Valery Kharlamov: 0.522
2 Alexander Maltsev: 0.469
3 Boris Mikhailov: 0.358
4 Vladimir Petrov: 0.287
5 Alexander Yakushev: 0.177

7-year average:
1 Valery Kharlamov: 0.440
2 Alexander Maltsev: 0.383
3 Boris Mikhailov: 0.316
4 Vladimir Petrov: 0.218
5 Alexander Yakushev: 0.140

Kharlamov stands out as clearly the top forward of his generation when it comes to SPOTY voting shares. Yes Maltsev is rather close over 3 years but over both 5 and 7 years Kharlamov clearly stands out.

And here is how Kharlamov compares to all Soviet forwards when it comes to SPOTY voting shares.

Soviet player of the year voting shares (67/68-89/90)

3-year average
1 Sergey Makarov 0.747
2 Anatoly Firsov 0.650
3 Vladimir Krutov 0.630
4 Valery Kharlamov 0.628
5 Alexander Maltsev 0.592
6 Boris Mikhailov 0.434
7 Vyacheslav Starshinov 0.432
8 Vladimir Petrov 0.411
9 Helmuts Balderis 0.304
10 Vyacheslav Bykov 0.303

5-year average
1 Sergey Makarov 0.660
2 Valery Kharlamov 0.522
3 Vladimir Krutov 0.516
4 Alexander Maltsev 0.469
5 Anatoly Firsov 0.418
6 Boris Mikhailov 0.358
7 Vladimir Petrov 0.287
8 Vyacheslav Starshinov 0.264 (Only recieved votes in 4 seasons)
9 Helmuts Balderis 0.192
10 Vyacheslav Bykov 0.189

7-year average
1 Sergey Makarov 0.551
2 Valery Kharlamov 0.440
3 Vladimir Krutov 0.388
4 Alexander Maltsev 0.383
5 Boris Mikhailov 0.316
6 Anatoly Firsov 0.299 (Only recieved votes in 5 seasons)
7 Vladimir Petrov 0.218
8 Vyacheslav Starshinov 0.189 (Only recieved votes in 4 seasons)
9 Igor Larionov 0.144
10 Alexander Yakushev 0.140

3. Valery Kharlamov: Kharlamovs results measures up very well even when looking at all forwards and a case can certainly be made for that he has the second most impressive voting record. Kharlamovs 5- and 7-year averages are especially impressive and him recieving votes in 12 seasons is also something that stands out as only Maltsev and Makarov managed to do that among forwards.

 

[Batis]

Continuing on the topic SPOTY voting shares here you can see how outstanding Tretiaks results are there. As DN28 already have pointed out in this thread there are some reasons that suggests that his results probably not should be taken at face value though. There is however no doubt about that his Soviet player of the year voting record is very impressive even when taking that into account.

Last up in my series of posts about SPOTY voting shares we have the player with the highest voting shares of all Vladislav Tretiak. Here are his results season by season.

Vladislav Tretiak
82/83: 222/243 = 0.914
75/76: 139/192 = 0.724
80/81: 158/222 = 0.712
73/74: 113/168 = 0.673
74/75: 107/195 = 0.549
77/78: 110/219 = 0.502
83/84: 114/261 =0.437
76/77: 73/228 = 0.320
81/82: 63/222 = 0.284
72/73: 40/177 = 0.226
78/79': 189/1734 = 0.109
71/72: 17/180 = 0.094
70/71: 12/204 = 0.059
79/80: 7/207 = 0.034
3-year average: 0.783
5-year average: 0.714
7-year average: 0.644

Just for completeness sake here is how the top 10 among all players look.

3-year average:
1 Vladislav Tretiak 0.783
2 Sergey Makarov 0.747
3 Anatoly Firsov 0.650
4 Vladimir Krutov 0.630
5 Valery Kharlamov 0.628
6 Alexander Maltsev 0.592
7 Vyacheslav Fetisov 0.558
8 Boris Mikhailov 0.434
9 Vyacheslav Starshinov 0.432
10 Vladimir Petrov 0.411

5-year average:
1 Vladislav Tretiak 0.714
2 Sergey Makarov 0.660
3 Valery Kharlamov 0.522
4 Vyacheslav Fetisov 0.520
5 Vladimir Krutov 0.516
6 Alexander Maltsev 0.469
7 Anatoly Firsov 0.418
8 Boris Mikhailov 0.358
9 Vladimir Petrov 0.287
10 Vyacheslav Starshinov 0.264 (Only recieved votes in 4 seasons)

7-year average:
1 Vladislav Tretiak 0.644
2 Sergey Makarov 0.551
3 Vyacheslav Fetisov 0.456
4 Valery Kharlamov 0.440
5 Vladimir Krutov 0.388
6 Alexander Maltsev 0.383
7 Boris Mikhailov 0.316
8 Anatoly Firsov 0.299 (Only recieved votes in 5 seasons)
Vladimir Petrov 0.218
Vyacheslav Starshinov 0.189

 

[The Macho King]

Tretiak got pulled against USA in 80.

No real reason to bring it up other than say USA USA USA!

 

[The Macho King]

My biggest hang-up with Henri is he didn't have a lot of impressive offensive regular seasons. So far, to date - everyone who has gotten in (at forward) was elite offensively. That includes guys like Nighbor, Trottier, and Clarke who were fantastic two-way players.

Now maybe it's fine that H. Richard is here now despite never reaching their offensive levels. He has an absurd number of Cups, and was a key player on a few of those runs - but at the same time he wasn't for quite a few more. He led the playoffs in scoring once, but other than that only had one significant run at a PPG.

I don't know - it's tough for me to figure out where to put a good but not remarkable offensive player (two PPG seasons, one other that was pretty close), a good defensive player.

Where would you rank him against other forwards placed defensively? Behind Clarke and Nighbor most certainly. Is he Trottier-tier? Above Trottier?

I don't know - I don't want to give *too* much credit to playing on two dynasties, but I also don't want to discount it either - especially since the second Habs dynasty didn't seem quite as awe-inspiring as the 50s dynasty.

At the same time, he retires and then the Habs win the next 4 Cups. I don't blame him for retiring with his name carved into the Cup so many times, but at least at that point, the Habs clearly were fine without him.

 

[Theokritos]

My biggest hang-up with Henri is he didn't have a lot of impressive offensive regular seasons.

I'm sure someone will come up with the numbers, but Henri Richard has an impressive ES scoring record. Due to Toe Blake's deployment strategies, he received little PP time compared to other forwards of his calibre.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Chelios seems like an easy #1 here. Beating Bourque, Coffey, Macinnis, Stevens and Leetch for the Norris...man!

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

My biggest hang-up with Henri is he didn't have a lot of impressive offensive regular seasons. So far, to date - everyone who has gotten in (at forward) was elite offensively. That includes guys like Nighbor, Trottier, and Clarke who were fantastic two-way players.

Now maybe it's fine that H. Richard is here now despite never reaching their offensive levels. He has an absurd number of Cups, and was a key player on a few of those runs - but at the same time he wasn't for quite a few more. He led the playoffs in scoring once, but other than that only had one significant run at a PPG.

I don't know - it's tough for me to figure out where to put a good but not remarkable offensive player (two PPG seasons, one other that was pretty close), a good defensive player.

Where would you rank him against other forwards placed defensively? Behind Clarke and Nighbor most certainly. Is he Trottier-tier? Above Trottier?

I don't know - I don't want to give *too* much credit to playing on two dynasties, but I also don't want to discount it either - especially since the second Habs dynasty didn't seem quite as awe-inspiring as the 50s dynasty.

At the same time, he retires and then the Habs win the next 4 Cups. I don't blame him for retiring with his name carved into the Cup so many times, but at least at that point, the Habs clearly were fine without him.

No, he was always a key player in the playoffs.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Chelios seems like an easy #1 here. Beating Bourque, Coffey, Macinnis, Stevens and Leetch for the Norris...man!

I'm going to say no, not an easy #1. Won't even be in my top 5.

 

[Nick Hansen]

I'm going to say no, not an easy #1. Won't even be in my top 5.

You've been vocal of your dislike of the guy so it doesn't surprise me. But he is the best defenseman here and I don't really see any forward beating him in the end when it is all said and done, so to speak.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

You've been vocal of your dislike of the guy so it doesn't surprise me. But he is the best defenseman here and I don't really see any forward beating him in the end when it is all said and done, so to speak.

Yes, I dislike him very much.

But I don't think its clear cut that he is the best defenseman here. I ranked Park ahead of him on my original list and now feel Clancy should also have been ahead him.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'm sure someone will come up with the numbers, but Henri Richard has an impressive ES scoring record. Due to Toe Blake's deployment strategies, he received little PP time compared to other forwards of his calibre.

It goes back to what I said in one of my posts on the first page - Henri Richard was an elite ES scorer who received little PP time.

From 1957 to 1966 (a span of ten seasons), Richard led the NHL in ES scoring. He had 491 ES points; the next closest players were Bathgate (487), Howe (485), Hull (455), Ullman (452), Beliveau (444), and Bucyk (400). It's not a matter of Richard being healthier than anyone else; only Hull outscored him on a per-game basis.

He was only 14th in PP scoring during that period. That doesn't sound terrible but he had less than half as many points as the leader. He had fewer PP points than Doug Mohns and Camille Henry (one of the first true PP specialists), and barely separated himself from Don McKenney, Bill Hay and Andy Hebenton.

It's not a matter of Richard getting a lot of ice time with the man advantage, and failing to produce. He ranked 17th in PP goals he was on the ice for during that span (roughly in line with where he ranked in PP scoring). I don't think Richard should get a free pass (him not getting much PP time is problematic - even if he's competing with Beliveau for that role - and he also didn't play much on the penalty kill). But Richard was an ES monster, offensively and defensively, and I think we have to take role into account.

The same story is true in the playoffs. If we cherry-pick a bit and look at the 1956 to 1967 playoffs (twelve seasons, eleven playoff runs, and seven Stanley Cups), Richard led all Canadiens - and all players regardless of team - in ES scoring. But he had less PP production than Dick Duff and Bobby Rousseau.

I have to say that there's no player that I've come to appreciate more than Henri Richard over the past, say, ten years. (Nighbor and Brodeur probably round out the top three). When I started on this site (almost fourteen years ago now!), the argumentation in favour of Richard was poor - it was little more than pointing out that he won more Stanley Cups than any other player. But, in addition to his strong defensive play being fleshed out, the revelation that he was an elite ES scorer (getting limited PP time thanks to Beliveau) has really made me re-evaluate him. There simply isn't a modern comparable, as far as I'm aware (usually it's the opposite direction - a player who's a PP specialist getting sheltered minutes at ES).

One argument against Richard - on the few occasions when he needed to be the top scorer on a team, they didn't go far. I think he only ever led his team in scoring once in his career (1963), and they were trounced in the first round.

He's pretty much the perfect #2 centre - but I don't know how much success he would have had as the star centre on most teams. Whether this is enough to get him into the top 45 - we'll find out soon.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Henri Richard : Same as above. Richard is one of the most underrated players in history.

Followed, closely on its heels, by this:

Henri Richard:
-Ranked 30th on the THN Top 100 list [...]
-Ranked the 5th Best (non-goalie) Montreal Canadien of all time by Red Fisher (behind only Beliveau, Rocket, Lafleur, and Harvey).

The above would be suitable material to unfurl if attempting to make the case that he is one of the most overrated players in history. I can't tell if it's the first entry or the second one that more comprehensively fails the risibility test. The second line is easier to plumb for lolzworthiness, though. Okay, Red- ahead of Lalonde? Ahead of Robinson? Ahead of Morenz?? Really, the guy has to lay off of it just a little bit.

-Ranked 55th on the HOH Top 100 list

All right. Whew. It was getting hard to type, there. That sort of placing would be the one I could see without coughing it up like I had a bolus stuck in my throat. That Top-70 list that placed Henri Richard at 55- you know who was ahead of him?

Every mother-loving player currently up for discussion, bar none.

Easiest NR I'll have this Round. Easiest NR I'm likely to have for the forseeable future.

 

[wetcoast]

Tretiak got pulled against USA in 80.

No real reason to bring it up other than say USA USA USA!

It was a single game but I guess bask in the glory tis the season.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Followed, closely on its heels, by this:

The above would be suitable material to unfurl if attempting to make the case that he is one of the most overrated players in history. I can't tell if it's the first entry or the second one that more comprehensively fails the risibility test. The second line is easier to plumb for lolzworthiness, though. Okay, Red- ahead of Lalonde? Ahead of Robinson? Ahead of Morenz?? Really, the guy has to lay off of it just a little bit.All right. Whew. It was getting hard to type, there. That sort of placing would be the one I could see without coughing it up like I had a bolus stuck in my throat. That Top-70 list that placed Henri Richard at 55- you know who was ahead of him?

Every mother-loving player currently up for discussion, bar none.

Easiest NR I'll have this Round. Easiest NR I'm likely to have for the forseeable future.

Red Fischer intentionally only rated Canadiens he personally saw play during his long career of reporting on the team, so Morenz and Lalonde were not eligible for his list.

And I don't think Henri Richard over Larry Robinson is crazy in the least, even if I wouldn't necessarily do it. (I also don't think Richard over Lalonde is crazy).

 

[The Macho King]

Yes, I dislike him very much.

But I don't think its clear cut that he is the best defenseman here. I ranked Park ahead of him on my original list and now feel Clancy should also have been ahead him.

What's the argument for Park? His 4 non-Orr Norris' would be in the weakest era for Dmen I can think of. Chelios won his 3 in the most competitive era for Dmen.