View Single Post
08-31-2009, 04:59 PM
Dark Shadows
Registered User
Dark Shadows's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
Out of curiosity, if Henri Richard's game can't be appreciated by "bogus stats" why did the writers who did watch him year after year never give him much Hart consideration? Why did he have such a poor All-Star record relative to his contemporaries? I'd think it was because of Believeau but the writers twice voted Richard 2nd behind Jean so they didn't seem to have some bias against voting players from the same team into the 1/2 spot.
One would ask the same question about Ted Lindsay, when looking at Hart consideration right? I know you support him, and think he is far more than the sum of his statistics and awards.

Even though a few times he did get 2nd team selections behind Beliveau, I would say there definitely was a bias regarding selecting 2 members of the same team to a 1st and 2nd all star spot at the same position. How often has that happened in History really?

I remember you once saying that "Al Macinnis is a guy who has all the right awards, statistics, and selections, but I never saw the greatness when he was playing, so I rate him lower, despite these statistics". Would not the opposite ring true for a player whom you saw greatness from, but did not top the league? Particularly one of the greatest two way forwards ever to play?

While Richard did lead the league twice in assists, don't try overstating it. Outside of those two 1sts he finished higher than 7th only once.

Why is Richard's pedestrian Hart record and average All-Star record enough to place him far above a player like Earl Seibert, who had more All-Star berths and a similar Hart record as a defenseman? I don't see how Richard can be highly ranked unless Seibert is right there with him.

One more hockeyreferece correct that Henri Richard never scored a shorthanded goal in the final 12 seasons of his career (when the stat started being tracked)? For a player who was such a key part of the PK as I've been told and who played many minutes on it that seems like a statistical impossibility. Richard was only 27 in the first year it was tracked so it's not like he was well past his prime. It might be possible that his "prime" (1957-58 to 1962-63) is being remembered as the norm for his career. I can't believe that a player who was a primary PK option would go 12 years without a shorthanded goal. Maybe his role on the PK might be exaggerated?
Henri Richard was always matched up against the opposing teams top line. That much is 100% certain. Regarding how much I saw him kill penalties, I cannot say with 100% proof anything other than I know he did play on the PK enough. He was not their primary PKer(The habs had other guys for that), But neither was Trottier or several other good defensive two way players.

In that era, Shorthanded goals were the sort of thing that was rare to begin with. People scored them when they were down a goal and needed a goal badly. When you were up a goal, as those Habs teams often were, you simply play it safe and keep. Between 1963-1969, the Habs averaged 4 shorthanded goals a year.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote