What are your thoughts about Richard's 1944/45 season?

[JackSlater]

To prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Richard wasn't capable of dominating the league in scoring in 44/45 under any circumstances? Nope.

I don't mind some context on that season but to remove the possibility that he could have dominated against under any circumstances is not reasonable. To doubt whether he could have even won the goalscoring title that season is nothing but irrational speculation.

IMO, at worst, it is his 3rd best goalscoring season of his career and on the same the same level in terms of dominance as his 46/47 and 50/51 seasons.

I get the unique circumstances around the war. The issue here is how to interpret the missing talent which, IMO, goes exclusively into into the subjective and into speculation where one's biases or leanings can dictate one's interpretations.

For example, with the missing talent, other players obviously were given the opportunity to increase their relative production with an increase in offensive responsibilities. If you are a big Richard fan and hold dear his 50 in 50 season, you can choose to say that explains any increase in the relative production of some players in the war years. If you are a fan of Hull or OV or any other GOAT goalscorer, you can choose to say that obviously the league was weaker and use the increase in relative production as proof of this.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting the responses, and I still think some are arguing the number of goals by Richard rather than his level of dominance but I am honestly surprised that the majority of the regular HOH posters are willing to significantly devalue that season.

That being said, I think only one poster is willing to take that as a reason to rate Richard clearly below the apparent consensus range that the HOH has him.

The irony is that I think all O6 scoring finishes need statistical context when compared to scoring finishes from seasons where there are many more teams.

Your expectations are strange at best but more realistically absurd. It is your interpretation of the information that is ridiculous as well as your implicit denial of the context of the season. No one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt whether Richard would or would not have scored just as much in a relative or absolute sense, just as no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jimmy Orlando wouldn't have scored 100 goals in 1944-1945 had he played. Most people have the capacity for basic logic however and apply that to see what result is most likely given various factors.

Given the quality and quantity of the players that left the NHL, as well as the composition of the remaining teams, the most reasonable guess is that Richard scores less and stands out less among the competition if WW2 is not going on and the league is not significantly weakened.

 

[daver]

Given the quality and quantity of the players that left the NHL, as well as the composition of the remaining teams, the most reasonable guess is that Richard scores less and stands out less among the competition if WW2 is not going on and the league is not significantly weakened.

It is not unreasonable to guess that. My issue is that guessing he could get close to that level of domination seems to be deemed as not a possibility when there are reasonable statistical arguments that back that up. That this premise is being dismissed in somewhat of a rhymes with punty manner by some (not you) has pissed me off.

If we agree that nothing can be said with absolute certainty besides what actually happened, I am happy to move on.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Post #75, at best, proves that you are not reading and/or comprehending what has been posted. At worst, requires moderation. Either way, I think we're done here. What a colossal waste of internet...

 

[tarheelhockey]

It needs some context. I do think that his 1947 season with 45 goals, his Hart year, was more impressive since the next best was 30. 1945 does get a bad rap. I think there were still some good players in the NHL. Richard, Blake, Lach, Cowley, Kennedy, Mosienko, Syd Howe, etc. Sure they were missing the Bentley brothers, the Kraut Line, Syl Apps, goalies like Turk Broda. Durnan and Lumley were still in the NHL.

You still had the rest of the league playing against the same players. If Richard was a star in those two years and never after that then you'd have a case, but he wasn't.

Kennedy was a teenager (and led his team in scoring!). Howe was a year from retirement. Lumley, as noted above, the youngest goalie ever to play in the league at age 17. He would be the youngest player in history if the Bruins hadn’t recently resorted to playing Bep Guidolin at 16.

Mosienko, a good support scorer for a long time. 44 and 45 were the only time he ever received AS recognition.

Cowley, a legit star. He was in his 30s by then. In the war years he won a Hart, scored at a shocking 2-PPG pace in 44, and received AS recognition every year. Clearly inflated, but yes he was a good player and finished behind only Habs in scoring.

The other 4 you mentioned... Richard’s teammates.

The examples serve to underscore the point — of the few name-brand players remaining, almost all of them sort into one of these categories:
1) Guys who were way too young, or simply not good enough at that time, to be leading NHL teams
2) Guys whose retirement was being pushed back
3) The Montreal Canadiens

 

[JackSlater]

It is not unreasonable to guess that. My issue is that guessing he could get close to that level of domination seems to be deemed as not a possibility when there are reasonable statistical arguments that back that up. That this premise is being dismissed in somewhat of a rhymes with punty manner by some (not you) has pissed me off.

If we agree that nothing can be said with absolute certainty besides what actually happened, I am happy to move on.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that anyone is claiming that there is no chance at all that Richard could come close to that level of domination if every player was there. Most people seem to be assuming the obvious - that giving Richard stronger competition would reduce his dominance over his peers. No one can guarantee what would happen, but that doesn't stop people from recognizing the most likely scenario either.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that anyone is claiming that there is no chance at all that Richard could come close to that level of domination if every player was there. Most people seem to be assuming the obvious - that giving Richard stronger competition would reduce his dominance over his peers. No one can guarantee what would happen, but that doesn't stop people from recognizing the most likely scenario either.

You are not wrong. That is exactly what people are saying.

There are all sorts of theoretical timelines. There's a timeline where Richard scores 100 goals, and there's a timeline where he scores 20, and there's a timeline where Harry Lumley snipes 50 from the other end of the ice.

We can, without any logical contradiction, acknowledge that all of these timelines are possible while also acknowledging that they are NOT equally likely.

The consensus is that 1945 Richard was likely to lead the NHL in goals regardless of context, because by consensus he was the best goal scorer alive at the time. It is still possible that some missing player may have outscored him. Given the range of career trajectories and potential team situations, Richard is a safer bet than any other individual... perhaps a 50/50 bet against the entire field, given his trajectory in following seasons and what we know about variation in goal scoring leaders. "Richard would probably have led the league regardless of context" is a reasonable way to encapsulate this idea.

The consensus is that 1945 Richard would likely not have established a 56% lead over all other players in the world, had they been present. It hardly needs to be explained that a 56% lead over the field is a highly abnormal result, and in this case we can easily identify a direct reason for that aberration (the absence of several players who would very likely have reduced that 56% to a smaller figure). While any potential outcome is still possible, it is overwhelmingly likely that re-inserting top goal scorers would reduce Richard's lead to 40%, or 30%, or 20%, or some other number. "The proportion of Richard's lead was inflated by circumstance" is a reasonable way to encapsulate this idea.

Raw scoring was inflated during this time period. We know this for an indisputable fact. "Richard's 50 in 50 was the result of wartime inflation" should, hopefully, be universal consensus.

Taking the bolded statements together, there is no need to refute statements like "it's impossible that X", or to talk about "absolute certainty" of any given outcome. We can, completely reasonably, conclude that the overwhelming likelihood favors Richard dominating the goal scoring race to a lesser extent even though he would likely still have won the title (or been beaten by a fluke).

Critically, none of the statements above introduce a bias or narrative. This is simple, logical recognition that the things we know beyond dispute favor certain potential outcomes over others, while still leaving intact the possibility of a whole range of less-likely outcomes.

 

[The Macho King]

You are not wrong. That is exactly what people are saying.

There are all sorts of theoretical timelines. There's a timeline where Richard scores 100 goals, and there's a timeline where he scores 20, and there's a timeline where Harry Lumley snipes 50 from the other end of the ice.

We can, without any logical contradiction, acknowledge that all of these timelines are possible while also acknowledging that they are NOT equally likely.

The consensus is that 1945 Richard was likely to lead the NHL in goals regardless of context, because by consensus he was the best goal scorer alive at the time. It is still possible that some missing player may have outscored him. Given the range of career trajectories and potential team situations, Richard is a safer bet than any other individual... perhaps a 50/50 bet against the entire field, given his trajectory in following seasons and what we know about variation in goal scoring leaders. "Richard would probably have led the league regardless of context" is a reasonable way to encapsulate this idea.

The consensus is that 1945 Richard would likely not have established a 56% lead over all other players in the world, had they been present. It hardly needs to be explained that a 56% lead over the field is a highly abnormal result, and in this case we can easily identify a direct reason for that aberration (the absence of several players who would very likely have reduced that 56% to a smaller figure). While any potential outcome is still possible, it is overwhelmingly likely that re-inserting top goal scorers would reduce Richard's lead to 40%, or 30%, or 20%, or some other number. "The proportion of Richard's lead was inflated by circumstance" is a reasonable way to encapsulate this idea.

Raw scoring was inflated during this time period. We know this for an indisputable fact. "Richard's 50 in 50 was the result of wartime inflation" should, hopefully, be universal consensus.

Taking the bolded statements together, there is no need to refute statements like "it's impossible that X", or to talk about "absolute certainty" of any given outcome. We can, completely reasonably, conclude that the overwhelming likelihood favors Richard dominating the goal scoring race to a lesser extent even though he would likely still have won the title (or been beaten by a fluke).

Critically, none of the statements above introduce a bias or narrative. This is simple, logical recognition that the things we know beyond dispute favor certain potential outcomes over others, while still leaving intact the possibility of a whole range of less-likely outcomes.

But the objective statistics disagree with this!

(sorry didn't want to wait for daver to post so getting a jumpstart on the debate)

 

[Big Phil]

Kennedy was a teenager (and led his team in scoring!). Howe was a year from retirement. Lumley, as noted above, the youngest goalie ever to play in the league at age 17. He would be the youngest player in history if the Bruins hadn’t recently resorted to playing Bep Guidolin at 16.

Mosienko, a good support scorer for a long time. 44 and 45 were the only time he ever received AS recognition.

Cowley, a legit star. He was in his 30s by then. In the war years he won a Hart, scored at a shocking 2-PPG pace in 44, and received AS recognition every year. Clearly inflated, but yes he was a good player and finished behind only Habs in scoring.

The other 4 you mentioned... Richard’s teammates.

The examples serve to underscore the point — of the few name-brand players remaining, almost all of them sort into one of these categories:
1) Guys who were way too young, or simply not good enough at that time, to be leading NHL teams
2) Guys whose retirement was being pushed back
3) The Montreal Canadiens

Well I think you are missing the point. Richard isn't Herb Cain here. The numbers are inflated for 1945 as they are for everyone, but he was a star regardless of who was in the NHL, War years or not. 1947 puts that idea to bed. I just don't think 1945 is a knock against him because he did similar things (like led the NHL in goal scoring) in other years with a full league back. I think there needs to be some context, but it doesn't have to be completely ignored. They still awarded the Stanley Cup that year.

 

[Michael Farkas]

We know. We all agree to some degree. Except one. Let's move on.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Well I think you are missing the point. Richard isn't Herb Cain here. The numbers are inflated for 1945 as they are for everyone, but he was a star regardless of who was in the NHL, War years or not. 1947 puts that idea to bed. I just don't think 1945 is a knock against him because he did similar things (like led the NHL in goal scoring) in other years with a full league back. I think there needs to be some context, but it doesn't have to be completely ignored. They still awarded the Stanley Cup that year.

I just wrote almost 500 words on how nobody is saying Richard somehow wasn't really a star or taking his 1945 as a negative mark against him.

Taking it "in context" in this case means recognizing that 87 NHL and high-minor players did active military service rather than play hockey in 1945. This does not count players who left for reasons other than active duty. With rosters capped at 14, there were only 84 roster spots available in the NHL.

An extremely large portion of Richard's competition that season were AHL-level replacements, teenagers, and veterans who would otherwise have stepped away from the game. The only 20-29 year old HOF forwards in the league were Mosienko, and three members of the Habs. It was, effectively, not an "NHL season" in the way we ordinarily assign value to that phrase.

What we can say about Richard's 1945 is that it doesn't count against him. It validates that he was playing at a high enough level that if there had been a regular NHL that year, he would have competed for hardware. But realistically, what kind of credit are we supposed to give for numbers achieved mainly against AHL-level competition? At most, it's a placeholder season where you can give him some sort of "projected" credit like we do for players who missed prime years in 2004-05.

 

[Big Phil]

I just wrote almost 500 words on how nobody is saying Richard somehow wasn't really a star or taking his 1945 as a negative mark against him.

Taking it "in context" in this case means recognizing that 87 NHL and high-minor players did active military service rather than play hockey in 1945. This does not count players who left for reasons other than active duty. With rosters capped at 14, there were only 84 roster spots available in the NHL.

An extremely large portion of Richard's competition that season were AHL-level replacements, teenagers, and veterans who would otherwise have stepped away from the game. The only 20-29 year old HOF forwards in the league were Mosienko, and three members of the Habs. It was, effectively, not an "NHL season" in the way we ordinarily assign value to that phrase.

What we can say about Richard's 1945 is that it doesn't count against him. It validates that he was playing at a high enough level that if there had been a regular NHL that year, he would have competed for hardware. But realistically, what kind of credit are we supposed to give for numbers achieved mainly against AHL-level competition? At most, it's a placeholder season where you can give him some sort of "projected" credit like we do for players who missed prime years in 2004-05.

I hear ya..............and yet the Habs didn't win the Cup that year either. Or even make the Cup final. So perhaps there was a little bit more resistance than what we think.

 

[Michael Farkas]

They played like .815 hockey in 44 and 45...

 

[ImporterExporter]

I want to see a full list of players who missed that season because i know it was A LOT and many of the games best. I've long argued the 50 in 50 is quite overrated due to the very weak nature of the league because of WWII. And why?

Despite getting to play in 70 games by 49-50 Richard never really came close to hitting 50 overall let alone 50 in 50. If that doesn't give you pause i don't know what else to say. There just is no logical way for me to project 50 in 50 if the league isn't incredibly watered down.

Now the degree of context to be applied needs to be studied thoroughly before settling on an acceptable level.

And I still think Richard is a top 10 player of all time btw. Was just never THAT impressed with the war year scoring spikes.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Just a remark about the "50 in 50": Since when do we take any player's totals at face value? Haven't we been past that for at least 10 years on this forum? Not sure why all of a sudden we care about it.

I understand the psychological impact of the 50 in 50, which I covered earlier in the thread, but on this forum we're usually above judging a player because he scored X goals or Y points taken at face value.

Take the average goalscoring leader in history and 1945 Richard was probably around that mark. Plus give him some minor credit for actually scoring the 50 in 50, which he had pressure to accomplish psychologically because everyone wanted to see him do it. But that's as far as I'm gonna go in giving importance to goal totals.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I want to see a full list of players who missed that season because i know it was A LOT and many of the games best. I've long argued the 50 in 50 is quite overrated due to the very weak nature of the league because of WWII. And why?

Despite getting to play in 70 games by 49-50 Richard never really came close to hitting 50 overall let alone 50 in 50. If that doesn't give you pause i don't know what else to say. There just is no logical way for me to project 50 in 50 if the league isn't incredibly watered down.

Now the degree of context to be applied needs to be studied thoroughly before settling on an acceptable level.

And I still think Richard is a top 10 player of all time btw. Was just never THAT impressed with the war year scoring spikes.

That's somewhere in this thread

 

[Michael Farkas]

We don't. Thus my comment in the original Richard thread:

Everything needs context. Everything ever. If you're taking anything at face value, you're doing it wrong or lazy or wrong and lazy...

 

[JackSlater]

Just a remark about the "50 in 50": Since when do we take any player's totals at face value? Haven't we been past that for at least 10 years on this forum? Not sure why all of a sudden we care about it.

I understand the psychological impact of the 50 in 50, which I covered earlier in the thread, but on this forum we're usually above judging a player because he scored X goals or Y points taken at face value.

Take the average goalscoring leader in history and 1945 Richard was probably around that mark. Plus give him some minor credit for actually scoring the 50 in 50, which he had pressure to accomplish psychologically because everyone wanted to see him do it. But that's as far as I'm gonna go in giving importance to goal totals.

Yes, which is why I find the first option in the poll very strange. Numbers don't speak for themselves. Context isn't some dirty assessment tool that is only selectively applied. It should always be considered.

 

[daver]

The consensus is that 1945 Richard would likely not have established a 56% lead over all other players in the world, had they been present. It hardly needs to be explained that a 56% lead over the field is a highly abnormal result, and in this case we can easily identify a direct reason for that aberration (the absence of several players who would very likely have reduced that 56% to a smaller figure). While any potential outcome is still possible, it is overwhelmingly likely that re-inserting top goal scorers would reduce Richard's lead to 40%, or 30%, or 20%, or some other number. "The proportion of Richard's lead was inflated by circumstance" is a reasonable way to encapsulate this idea.

Where does the 56% number come from? Is it that much higher than what he did in 46/47 or in 50/51 (in terms of goals per game minus Howe)? What about Howe's best goalscoring seasons, or Hull's?

If he, and Howe, and Hull, all accomplished close to this 56% figure how can you say it is highly abnormal thus needs to be explained?

 

[daver]

Yes, which is why I find the first option in the poll very strange. Numbers don't speak for themselves. Context isn't some dirty assessment tool that is only selectively applied. It should always be considered.

If you are trying to compare numbers from different seasons, for sure context is needed. In this case, Option 1 is asking whether you think raw numbers for that season need context in light of the number of regulars being absent or whether you think he could have scored 50 goals regardless of who was in the league.

I have been very clear that I don't take any raw numbers at face value, it's all about how a player performs vs. his direct peers.

 

[daver]

I want to see a full list of players who missed that season because i know it was A LOT and many of the games best. I've long argued the 50 in 50 is quite overrated due to the very weak nature of the league because of WWII. And why?

Despite getting to play in 70 games by 49-50 Richard never really came close to hitting 50 overall let alone 50 in 50. If that doesn't give you pause i don't know what else to say. There just is no logical way for me to project 50 in 50 if the league isn't incredibly watered down.

Now the degree of context to be applied needs to be studied thoroughly before settling on an acceptable level.

And I still think Richard is a top 10 player of all time btw. Was just never THAT impressed with the war year scoring spikes.

It means league scoring levels go up and down. After 44/45 league scoring levels went down so nobody, not a peak Howe or a peak Beliveau, was going to hit 50 until a GOAT goalscorer barely hit that number 20 years later. Richard was nearly as dominant in 46/47 and 50/51 so there should be no doubt he could have been as dominant as he was in 44/45, much moreso than the possibility of him not winning the goalscoring title that season.

This is akin to players reaching Howe's peak point totals in the late '50s. Should we question the value of Howe's peak if players were matching it very soon after? There is actually a better argument to question Howe's peak than Richard's 44/45 season given Howe started losing Art Rosses in the late 50's while Richard had two more generationally dominant goalscoring seasons.

 

[daver]

Raw scoring was inflated during this time period. We know this for an indisputable fact. "Richard's 50 in 50 was the result of wartime inflation" should, hopefully, be universal consensus.

Raw scoring was up thus Richard's raw total of 50, and the raw totals of others, were up too. That is an indisputable fact. Whether something is "inflated", unless you mean "up", is a subjective term thus is an opinion, not a fact.

I will join the likely consensus opinion on the HOH that Richard's total of 50 likely is not achieved under different circumstances, that his level of dominance measured by the 56% number is "inflated", but I am not convinced by any stretch that that level of dominance is significantly decreased under different circumstances and saying that his chances of winning the title are 50/50 vs. the field to be significantly undervaluing that season. That goes too far into the realm of reasonable speculation.

Honestly, my biggest beef with this is when some statistical evidence is thrown into the mix like Richard's level of domination in 50/51, there is an effort to dismiss that in order to continue to hold one's position. I have no issue with putting numbers into context as long as those numbers are not first spun to fit a narrative.

My other beef is the hypocritical and frankly condescending response to offering some statistical context to the discussion as the very foundation of the discussion is trying to put Richard's 44/45 stats into context.

 

[Michael Farkas]

there is an effort to dismiss that in order to continue to hold one's position.

Yes, that would be ever so tragic...

 

[JackSlater]

If you are trying to compare numbers from different seasons, for sure context is needed. In this case, Option 1 is asking whether you think raw numbers for that season need context in light of the number of regulars being absent or whether you think he could have scored 50 goals regardless of who was in the league.

I have been very clear that I don't take any raw numbers at face value, it's all about how a player performs vs. his direct peers.

The context of the season, the team, the player etc. should be considered every time. Even within that season different teams and players were playing in very different situations from each other.

It means league scoring levels go up and down. After 44/45 league scoring levels went down so nobody, not a peak Howe or a peak Beliveau, was going to hit 50 until a GOAT goalscorer barely hit that number 20 years later. Richard was nearly as dominant in 46/47 and 50/51 so there should be no doubt he could have been as dominant as he was in 44/45, much moreso than the possibility of him not winning the goalscoring title that season.

This is akin to players reaching Howe's peak point totals in the late '50s. Should we question the value of Howe's peak if players were matching it very soon after? There is actually a better argument to question Howe's peak than Richard's 44/45 season given Howe started losing Art Rosses in the late 50's while Richard had two more generationally dominant goalscoring seasons.

You do realize that in the 1945 season a huge number of NHLers, hall of famers and all stars and depth players, were missing from the NHL while that wasn't the case outside of 1943, 1944, 1945 right? Applying a player's later performance backward doesn't make very much sense. Wayne Gretzky couldn't lead the NHL in scoring when he was 12 years old even though he put up big stats in his 12 year old league and proved when he was 19 that he could set scoring records in the NHL.

 

[The Macho King]

The context of the season, the team, the player etc. should be considered every time. Even within that season different teams and players were playing in very different situations from each other.



You do realize that in the 1945 season a huge number of NHLers, hall of famers and all stars and depth players, were missing from the NHL while that wasn't the case outside of 1943, 1944, 1945 right? Applying a player's later performance backward doesn't make very much sense. Wayne Gretzky couldn't lead the NHL in scoring when he was 12 years old even though he put up big stats in his 12 year old league and proved when he was 19 that he could set scoring records in the NHL.

He knows this. It doesn't matter.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Where does the 56% number come from? Is it that much higher than what he did in 46/47 or in 50/51 (in terms of goals per game minus Howe)? What about Howe's best goalscoring seasons, or Hull's?

If he, and Howe, and Hull, all accomplished close to this 56% figure how can you say it is highly abnormal thus needs to be explained?

56% is gained by taking the difference (18) between Richard's total (50) and Cain's second-place total (32) and then doing 18/32 = 56%. Thus, 56% is the proportion by which Richard exceeded the next-highest goal scorer that season.

This sort of margin has only been accomplished 10 times by 6 players in the entire history of the league. Usually we can see a clear explanation for why it happens:

Brett Hull 1991 - 69% - Hull & Oates + Mario absent
Wayne Gretzky 1984 - 55% - Peak Gretzky, peak Oilers
Phil Esposito 1971 - 49% - Wildly imbalanced league (expansion) + stacked Bruins (top 4 point scorers)
Bobby Hull 1967 - 49% - Stacked Blackhawks (top 3 goal scorers)
Bobby Hull 1966 - 69%
Bobby Hull 1962 - 52% - Hull started using a banana curve before anyone else
Gordie Howe 1953 - 53%
Gordie Howe 1952 - 52%
Maurice Richard 1947 - 50% - War-impacted league? If so, less obvious than 1945.
Maurice Richard 1945 - 57% - Wildly imbalanced league (war) + stacked Habs (top 3 point scorers)

I think it's fair to say that every single name on that list ranks very high among the greatest goal-scorers of all time. However, in most cases an abnormally-high margin of victory has a clear connection to some sort of extenuating circumstance. For a player to trot out a 50% margin of victory under ordinary circumstances is nearly unheard of, after a century of play.

(and to be clear... there is a BIG difference between 49% and 57%)

Raw scoring was up thus Richard's raw total of 50, and the raw totals of others, were up too. That is an indisputable fact. Whether something is "inflated", unless you mean "up", is a subjective term thus is an opinion, not a fact.

Yes, I just mean "up". Simply observing that scoring was up about 20% over the historical norm that season.

saying that his chances of winning the title are 50/50 vs. the field to be significantly undervaluing that season. That goes too far into the realm of reasonable speculation.

It's just that betting against 'the field' is a big risk when it comes to goal scoring titles. There is a lot of room for flukes in the goal scoring race... look no further than the next season, when Gaye Stewart won. I don't think anyone saw that coming, any more than they expected Horvath or Stoughton or Hedjuk.

I think Richard had the best chance of any one given player to finish 1st... saying he had an even chance against the entire field is a compliment, not an insult. In the preseason, the favorite to win the Stanley Cup typically has around 10% odds. 50% would be unthinkable.