TRIBUTE: Rangers to retire #19 for Jean Ratelle

[Sentinel]

A question. Ratelle is commonly ranked below his teammate Park on the list of "greatest players who never won the Cup." Was he really worse than Park? Or, to be more accurate, was he really less valuable to his team than Park?

 

[VanIslander]

Ratelle is commonly ranked below his teammate Park on the list of "greatest players who never won the Cup." Was he really worse than Park? Or, to be more accurate, was he really less valuable to his team than Park?

No.

But,...

Park never won the Norris trophy yet was six (6) times the first-runner-up in Norris trophy voting to Orr and then Potvin. THAT is one impressive fact. If you take Esposito and Clarke away, Ratelle would be the top center of the same decade! So yeah, your point is great. But in terms of trophies, people don't often think that Boston and Philly wouldn't have taken four championships that decade without their star center and Ratelle would have won a couple of cups (the Rags were contenders for much of that decade, just coming up short each time).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

A question. Ratelle is commonly ranked below his teammate Park on the list of "greatest players who never won the Cup." Was he really worse than Park? Or, to be more accurate, was he really less valuable to his team than Park?

Park was runner up for the Norris 6 times, all of them to Orr and Potvin. Ratelle wasnt close to that highly ranked among his position.

Also, take a look at their playoff stats for the Rangers - Park's are outstanding; Ratelle's are terrible.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No.

But,...

Park never won the Norris trophy yet was six (6) times the first-runner-up in Norris trophy voting to Orr and then Potvin. THAT is one impressive fact. If you take Esposito and Clarke away, Ratelle would be the top center of the same decade! So yeah, your point is great. But in terms of trophies, people don't often think that Boston and Philly wouldn't have taken four championships that decade without their star center and Ratelle would have won a couple of cups (the Rags were contenders for much of that decade, just coming up short each time).

Ratelle's terrible playoff performances were a big reason the Rangers underachieved so much in the playoffs.

As for how he ranked among other centers, here is every time he finished top 5 in all star voting for C:

4th in 1968 (behind Mikita, Esposito, Beliveau)
2nd in 1972 (behind Esposito)
5th in 1973 (behind Esposito, Clarke, Perrault, and Lemaire)
5th in 1976 (behind Clarke, Perrault, P Mahovlich, Larouche)

 

[Killion]

Well deserved

Unfortunately, very few fans who watched Boucher and Cook play are still alive, so I doubt the Rangers bother honoring them.

Indeed not. Too bad though. I'd like to see the older era players honored in some way. Cecil Dillon. Ott Heller. Camille Henry. Bill Gadsby. Vic Hadfield. Gump Worsley... and even some of the more recent vintage, not all the "greatest" but "very good" and "extremely popular" Rangers, guys like Greschner, Duguay, Tkaczuk, Nick Fotiu... Pride of Staten Island. Not suggesting # Retirements for all but something that's a "tip of the hat".

 

[VanIslander]

Ratelle's terrible playoff performances were a big reason the Rangers underachieved so much in the playoffs.

Ratelle was a clutch playoff performer where teammates didn't step up to match his play (like Marleau. my fav player this century).

Let's look at all the times his teams have made it to the 2nd round:

vs.

1971 Game 7 Stanley Cup semi-final loss to the Hawks with Ratelle having a team-leading 9 assists (three more than closest teammate Gilbert, with Gilbert getting one less point overall).

1973 again a Stanley Cup semi-final loss to the Hawks, Ratelle tying the team lead in points.

vs.

1974 Stanley Cup semi-final losss to the great Flyers. Yeah, this postseason he only had 6 points in 13 games on a Rags team with Stemkowski as the 2nd line center, not getting the Flyers bashing wrath that lady Byng Ratelle got! Still, this was one (1) off postseason in terms of Ratelle production.

1976 Stanley Cup semi-final loss to the Flyers with Ratelle EASILY the top performer for his new team, the Bruins, finishing with 16 points in 12 games when the nearest teammates had 11.

vs.

1977 Stanley Cup final run (ended by the dynasty Habs) and Ratelle EASILY led the team with 17 points to the nearest teammates' 12 points!

1978 Stanley Cup final run (ended in game 6 by dynasty Habs) saw 37-year-old Ratelle with "only" 10 points in 15 games,

1979 Game 7 Stanley Cup semi-final loss to the dynasty Habs with old Ratelle the team LEADER in points!!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ratelle was a clutch playoff performer where teammates didn't step up to match his play (like Marleau. my fav player this century).

Let's look at all the times his teams have made it to the 2nd round:

vs.

1971 Game 7 Stanley Cup semi-final loss to the Hawks with Ratelle having a team-leading 9 assists (three more than closest teammate Gilbert, with Gilbert getting one less point overall).

1973 again a Stanley Cup semi-final loss to the Hawks, Ratelle tying the team lead in points.

vs.

1974 Stanley Cup semi-final losss to the great Flyers. Yeah, this postseason he only had 6 points in 13 games on a Rags team with Stemkowski as the 2nd line center, not getting the Flyers bashing wrath that lady Byng Ratelle got! Still, this was one (1) off postseason in terms of Ratelle production.

1976 Stanley Cup semi-final loss to the Flyers with Ratelle EASILY the top performer for his new team, the Bruins, finishing with 16 points in 12 games when the nearest teammates had 11.

vs.

1977 Stanley Cup final run (ended by the dynasty Habs) and Ratelle EASILY led the team with 17 points to the nearest teammates' 12 points!

1978 Stanley Cup final run (ended in game 6 by dynasty Habs) saw 37-year-old Ratelle with "only" 10 points in 15 games,

1979 Game 7 Stanley Cup semi-final loss to the dynasty Habs with old Ratelle the team LEADER in points!!

With the NY Rangers, Ratelle had 42 points in 65 playoff games, in an era when top players regularly scored over a point per game. Worse than any prolonged stretch that Marcel Dionne had. And unlike Dionne's teams, Ratelle's teams were favourites to advance.

After the trade to the Bruins, Don Cherry said that he thought Emile Francis had burned out the smaller Ratelle in the regular season by making him practice too much and too hard. And maybe Cherry was right.

1976 and onwards, Ratelle played for the Bruins and was generally good in the playoffs. Why that's relevant to his tenure on the Rangers escapes me....

 

[Iapyi]

They should do what Montreal did a couple of years ago.They started a big program where they retired many numbers.It was a great era for the marketing of the Montreal Canadiens.The Rangers could use that as a marketing strategy, though obviously the franchise has less glory in its past.

But retiring Bill Cook's and Frank Boucher's numbers is a must.Why not do it? I see no good reason not to do it, and plenty of good reasons to do it.

perhaps you can help out and provide a list of this plentiful of reasons. i'd venture to say that at least 95% of their current fans wouldn't have a clue who they are and about the same % that don't care anyway.

 

[pbgoalie]

Ratelle also had injuries in big playoff years.

 

[Johnny Engine]

perhaps you can help out and provide a list of this plentiful of reasons. i'd venture to say that at least 95% of their current fans wouldn't have a clue who they are and about the same % that don't care anyway.

That's the point. If 95% of an original six team's fans don't know the two best players in team history, that has to be fixed. Montreal fans know Howie Morenz. Leafs fans know Syl Apps. Bruins fans know Eddie Shore.

 

[Killion]

perhaps you can help out and provide a list of this plentiful of reasons. i'd venture to say that at least 95% of their current fans wouldn't have a clue who they are and about the same % that don't care anyway.

... disagree about the "not caring" bit there Iapyi.... Plenty of New Yorkers do indeed care about the cities & the Rangers past, history. I'm sure they'd be interested. Not all granted but a pretty decent number. Certainly grab their attention. Tickets to MSG are not cheap, well educated, well heeled. I think they'd care a lot more than you think & suggest.

That's the point. If 95% of an original six team's fans don't know the two best players in team history, that has to be fixed. Montreal fans know Howie Morenz. Leafs fans know Syl Apps. Bruins fans know Eddie Shore.

Exactly the point. If they dont know who Boucher was then they'd find out real quick if he were so honored in a pre-game ceremony.
Done deal. Thats good for the game, for the franchise and the fans. Proud of their past & the players. They should be. Win for everybody.

 

[Iapyi]

That's the point. If 95% of an original six team's fans don't know the two best players in team history, that has to be fixed. Montreal fans know Howie Morenz. Leafs fans know Syl Apps. Bruins fans know Eddie Shore.

i don't disagree.

honour the player not the #.

give contemporary players the opportunity to share the # with all-time greats within the organization.

it will further cement a team mentality and not put the player above the team.

make the ceremony about the player and not the #.

give fans the chance to mix history and current players together. it will be exciting.

at some point teams will run out of #s and to say it's no big deal is selfish.

 

[Zil]

Ratelle broke his ankle late in the 72 season and barely played in the playoffs. My Dad was convinced a healthy Ratelle would've put them over the top that year.

 

[BenchBrawl]

perhaps you can help out and provide a list of this plentiful of reasons. i'd venture to say that at least 95% of their current fans wouldn't have a clue who they are and about the same % that don't care anyway.

Respect of history, consistency, increasing the fanbase's knowledge, marketing, little cost in doing it (so nothing to lose).

 

[cupcrazyman]

Well deserved with regular season 817pts as a Ranger.

 

[Iapyi]

Respect of history, consistency, increasing the fanbase's knowledge, marketing, little cost in doing it (so nothing to lose).

why honour a # then? what did a # ever do? why not honour the player? why not give a future/current player the privilege of wearing the same # as a team great? why eliminate that incentive?

i appreciate and love honouring the history of the game but how does taking a # out of circulation accomplish this? honour the player.

 

[BenchBrawl]

why honour a # then? what did a # ever do? why not honour the player? why not give a future/current player the privilege of wearing the same # as a team great? why eliminate that incentive?

i appreciate and love honouring the history of the game but how does taking a # out of circulation accomplish this? honour the player.

See ''consistency''.This referred to both the caliber of players they retired the number of, and the honoring method of retiring numbers itself.

If you don't want to retire numbers as a way to honor players, fine.But they're already doing it.So retire the greats of the past too.

As for myself, I greatly enjoy the method of retiring numbers.It's just a personal opinion, and I have no logical reason to like it.I just dn the other hand, I think Montreal did it with too many players, especially Emile Bouchard and Bob Gainey.But if Cook played for Montreal, he would need to have his jersey up in the rafters, and that's saying a lot given the competition.

 

[Iapyi]

See ''consistency''.This referred to both the caliber of players they retired the number of, and the honoring method of retiring numbers itself.

If you don't want to retire numbers as a way to honor players, fine.But they're already doing it.So retire the greats of the past too.

As for myself, I greatly enjoy the method of retiring numbers.It's just a personal opinion, and I have no logical reason to like it.I just dn the other hand, I think Montreal did it with too many players, especially Emile Bouchard and Bob Gainey.But if Cook played for Montreal, he would need to have his jersey up in the rafters, and that's saying a lot given the competition.

it's cool.

you like it, i think it's a horrible idea.

at some point a team is going to be so limited in available #s that something drastic will have to be done.

i think honouring the player should be the focus and i see absolutely no logical reason for taking the # itself out of circulation and a host of good reasons for not doing it.

in montreal it seems all a player has to do is play in 10 straight games and the # is retired.

 

[BenchBrawl]

it's cool.

you like it, i think it's a horrible idea.

at some point a team is going to be so limited in available #s that something drastic will have to be done.

i think honouring the player should be the focus and i see absolutely no logical reason for taking the # itself out of circulation and a host of good reasons for not doing it.

in montreal it seems all a player has to do is play in 10 straight games and the # is retired.

Bolded #1: Won't happen, especially with the number of teams in the NHL, which lower the odds of dynasties happening and of any team getting a superstar.

Bolded #2: Outside of maybe Bouchard and Gainey, which Montreal player didn't deserve to get his number retired? Even if you found a couple of others (Lapointe, Savard, Cournoyer, whatever?), you could argue other players that were passed over (Lalonde, Vezina, etc...).

 

[Iapyi]

Bolded #1: Won't happen, especially with the number of teams in the NHL, which lower the odds of dynasties happening and of any team getting a superstar.

Bolded #2: Outside of maybe Bouchard and Gainey, which Montreal player didn't deserve to get his number retired? Even if you found a couple of others (Lapointe, Savard, Cournoyer, whatever?), you could argue other players that were passed over (Lalonde, Vezina, etc...).

#1 - of course it will eventually happen. it might take a long time but at some point it will. especially with the standards being lowered all the time. ray bourque played one year in colarado and had his # retired. that is out and out inane.

#2 - i don't think any player deserves to have their # retired. i believe in honouring the player, not the #.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

And how do you honor the player without honoring the number? Not every stadium has the space to build statues of their greats. Having their name up in the rafters is pretty much what is already done. So what should teams do?

Also retiring numbers IS honoring the player. Number 2 isn't hanging up in the rafters because the Rangers thought it was a nice number. It's up there to signify the importance Brian Leetch has to the Rangers. No one looks up at Bobby Orr's number 4 and thinks "4 is such an important number," they think of Bobby Orr. So retiring the number is the way of honoring the player. You may not like retiring numbers, but don't try to say that the team is honoring the number above the player

 

[Iapyi]

honour the player not the #. the # should be available for other players.

 

[Johnny Engine]

But if your team has set the precedent of retiring numbers, why exclude those two players?

I mean, I get it if you're the Leafs and had only retired numbers in special circumstances*. It's no slight to say, Syl Apps to say that since he didn't suffer the same fate as poor Bill Barilko, his number lives on. But not only have the Rangers already retired a handful of numbers, they've done so for some markedly inferior players to Cook and Boucher. The precedent is there, and within that precedent, Cook and Boucher are more than worthy.

* I'd always liked the Leafs' policy on numbers. It was logical and clearly defined, and suited a team that had accomplished great things, without ever having a lights-out generational superstar like the Rocket, Howe, or Hull. But I understand that, for the Leafs in 2016, the entire concept of "the way we've been doing things" was a noxious stink that they needed to cleanse from the organization. And changing their policy on retired numbers was but one symbolic way of doing that. I'm alright with it.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

honour the player not the #. the # should be available for other players.

But they aren't honoring the number. Do you not get that retiring the number IS honoring the player?

 

[Iapyi]

But they aren't honoring the number. Do you not get that retiring the number IS honoring the player?

why be selfish about it and take the # away from other players? frankly i think the process is flat out stupid.