HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Round 2, Vote 10

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-16-2008, 10:22 AM
  #201
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
Smarter? Yes
Faster? No
Stronger? Yes
Leadership? Yes by a longshot
Defensive play? Equal
Goalscoring? Wash. Fedorov was 3rd once and never top 10 again. Richard cracked the top 10 twice
Passing? Richard was MUCH better than Fedorov in this department. Fedorov was only 9th in assists once. Richard finished 1st in assists twice, and was top 10 7 times.
Wow.
Fedorov won Hart. Selke. Lester B. Pearson.
Defensive play equal? No way. Fedorov won Selke and put 120 points. Far better accomplishment than Richard ever achieved.

He is 6'2" 206lb, Richard is 5'7'' 160lb. So he is definitely stronger.

Fedorov is one of the best playoff performers ever.
How many players put 4 consecutive 20+ points playoff appearances?

As for goalscoring ability, Fedorov is easily better sniper. Not even close.

And Fedorov was universal player, he could play any position except for goalie and he was still great.

Leadership? That is purely your opinion. You never were in their locker room. I do consider Fedorov a great leader. He always made a big play when needed.

You seriously overrate Henri Richard. Fedorov had much better peak, won awards, unlike H.Richard.


Last edited by Reds4Life: 05-16-2008 at 10:44 AM. Reason: grammar, spelling
Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2008, 10:47 AM
  #202
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
Wow.
Fedorov won Hart. Selke. Lester B. Pearson.
Defensive play equal? No way. Fedorov won Selke and put 120 points. Far better accomplishment than Richard ever achieved.

He is 6'2" 206lb, Richard is 5'7'' 160lb. So he is definitely stronger.
I guarantee Richard was a stronger, more tenacious player, both along the boards and on the ice. I watched both of them play. The fact that you are basing your opinion on size differences from 40 years apart in era's tells me a lot

Quote:
Fedorov is one of the best playoff performers ever.
How many players put 4 consecutive 20+ points playoff appearances?
More players WOULD have done it if they actually played 20+ playoff games in Richard's time.

Quote:
As for goalscoring ability, Fedorov is easily better sniper. Not even close.
How do you figure? Richard cracked the top ten in goal scoring twice. More than Fedorov's once
Quote:
And Fedorov was universal player, he could play any position except for goali and he was still great.
So? Put Richard on Defense, and he would have been a Demon. Defensively, they were equal

Quote:
Leadership? That is purely your opinion. You never was in their locker room. I do consider Fedorov a great leader. He always made a big play when needed.
Terrible English Caught it before you edited for fun. I watched them play bud. Jean Beliveau, the Habs captain is on record for saying Henri was the real leader of this team before he passed him the Captains C. He was a key member of 11 cups and a key leader on all of them

Quote:
You seriously overrate Henri Richard. Fedorov had much better peak, won awards, unlike H.Richard.
If the Selke trophy actually existed in Richard's day, he would have won several of them. And Bragging about the 120 points in the highest scoring year in the history of the NHL? You do know 120 points in 1993-94 was equal to roughly 80 points in Richard's extremely low scoring era right?

I already said, Fedorov had a great prime. Great. But it was 2 years long.
He is easily 15 spots below Richard on my list, and most people's lists judging by the fact that Fedorov's name is not even eligible for voting yet


Last edited by Dark Shadows: 05-16-2008 at 10:56 AM.
Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2008, 10:57 AM
  #203
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
I guarantee Richard was a stronger, more tenacious player, both along the boards and on the ice. I watched both of them play
In what era? Do you think H.Richard would stand a chance in 90's?

Quote:
More players WOULD have done it if they actually played 20+ playoff games in Richard's time.

How do you figure? Richard cracked the top ten in goal scoring twice. More than Fedorov's once
So? Put Richard on Defense, and he would have been a Demon. Defensively, they were equal
Would, could..

This does not count. They did not.

Quote:
Terrible English Caught it before you edited for fun.
yeah, sorry. I am not very good at English.

Quote:
I watched them play bud. Jean Beliveau, the Habs captain is on record for saying Henri was the real leader of this team before he passed him the Captains C. He was a key member of 11 cups and a key leader on all of them
Beliveu said it? OK. Ted Lindsay said Konstantinov was the greatest player. This does not count.

Quote:
If the Selke trophy actually existed in Richard's day, he would have won several of them. And Bragging about the 120 points in the highest scoring year in the history of the NHL? You do know 120 points in 1993-94 was equal to roughly 80 points in Richard's extremely low scoring era right?
120 points is never equal to 80. You might consider adjusted stats, but they are still only adjusted stats. If player A scores 80 points in low scoring era, you cannot possibly know he would score 120 in higher scoring era. Simply because he did not. Those would be phantom points.
Fedorov played against much better goalies. You give Richard credit for being good offensive player. But look at the goalies. Put there 1994 Fedorov and you would see..he would embarrass them.
If you want to compare their eras, do it all, not just parts you like.
Fedorov has much better shot. Not even close.

Quote:
I already said, Fedorov had a great prime. Great. But it was 2 years long.
He is easily 15 spots below Richard on my list, and most people's lists judging by the fact that Fedorov's name is not even eligible for voting yet
Most people who vote here don't even consider many great players, but they give all the credit to great Canadian players, who played against tough competition. So what. Still, Fedorov is much better player.

Yeah. You think Richard was better hockey player. Tell me why?

You say they are defensively equal. How is Richard better player? In what parts of the game was he better?
Fedorov was better skater, shooter, passer.

Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2008, 10:58 AM
  #204
Pwnasaurus
Registered User
 
Pwnasaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Robot City
Country: United States
Posts: 5,826
vCash: 500
I never saw Richard play live but Fedorov is one of the smartest hockey players I've ever seen.

Pwnasaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2008, 11:57 AM
  #205
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
In what era? Do you think H.Richard would stand a chance in 90's?
Oh please. The 50's and 60's were among the most brutal, physical era's in the history of the game. The 90's don't compare by any stretch of the imagination. In either case, its irrelevant. Fedorov was a non physical player, and you judge them based on how they performed against their peers. Richard was stronger.


Quote:
Would, could..

This does not count. They did not.
Yes it does. Unless you are going to just compare Fedorov to only other players who played 20+ playoff games in one run. Fedorov would not have hit those 20+ point benchmarks in the 50's either because he wouldn't play that many playoff games.


Quote:
yeah, sorry. I am not very good at English.
That's fine. I was just poking fun



Quote:
Beliveu said it? OK. Ted Lindsay said Konstantinov was the greatest player. This does not count.
The entire Habs team looked to Richard as a leader. Beliveau was the captain, stating that he felt Richard was the true Captain. Nobody ever said or thought the same about Fedorov.



Quote:
120 points is never equal to 80. You might consider adjusted stats, but they are still only adjusted stats. If player A scores 80 points in low scoring era, you cannot possibly know he would score 120 in higher scoring era. Simply because he did not. Those would be phantom points.
Fedorov played against much better goalies. You give Richard credit for being good offensive player. But look at the goalies. Put there 1994 Fedorov and you would see..he would embarrass them.
If you want to compare their eras, do it all, not just parts you like.
Fedorov has much better shot. Not even close.
Yes it does. Again, you are trying to pull the "Bilros argument" that players and goalies sucked in the 50's compared to the 90's. Doesn't fly in hockey History section. You base comparisons of players on how they dominated their peers if judging over a giant era gap. Fedorov was never a top goal scorer except once in his career when he cracked top 10 once. He never cracked top 10 again. Richard cracked top 10 in goals scored twice against his peers.

When it comes to assists, Richard blew Fedorov out of the water. Fedorov only came in 9th in assists once. Richard came in top 10 for assists 7 times. Richard was a much better passer.

If you are one of those Bilros types who will go on and on about how modern players are all better, just leave this section. Nobody here wants to hear that drivel.


Quote:
Most people who vote here don't even consider many great players, but they give all the credit to great Canadian players, who played against tough competition. So what. Still, Fedorov is much better player.
The people voting here are among the most knowledgeable hockey fans and analysts on the internet, and nobody here is pro Canadian.

Quote:
Yeah. You think Richard was better hockey player. Tell me why?
I have been telling you why for the last 4 posts

Quote:
You say they are defensively equal. How is Richard better player? In what parts of the game was he better?
Fedorov was better skater, shooter, passer.
Again, Fedorov was not a better scorer or passer. I proved as much above. You are judged based on how you did against your peers. Fedorov was top 10 in goal scoring once, and top 10 in assists once.

Henri Richard was top 10 in goal scoring twice, and top 10 in assists 7 times(2 first place finishes). Ill say the goal scoring is a wash, although Richard had more top 10 finishes, but for Playmaking/passing? Richard blows Fedorov out of the water, no question.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2008, 11:58 AM
  #206
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,792
vCash: 500
I think Fedorov had the potential to be one of the top 50 players of all-time. But Reds left out two key areas, when evaluating Fedorov, that keep him from the top 50: consistency and reliability.

Fedorov went through prolonged stretches in which he was ineffective. It's the reason he's had one season with more than 70 points since 1996. And that was in a contract year. When he wanted to, he could single-handedly take over a game, and dominate it in any way he wanted. He could dominate with his skill, his two-way game, his speed, etc. It's just that after his Hart Trophy season in 1994, those occasions were rare. Even in 1995 and 1995-96, there were criticisms about his consistency.

I would describe his Selkes in 1994 and 1996 as dubious, at best. Same with Gilmour in 1993 and Francis in 1995. Voters were giving the award to offensive players who did the best at back-checking. After Fedorov's win in 1996 (when the top five in Selke voting all had at least 80 points) voters were resoundingly criticized. They made a renewed effort the following year. I don't think Fedorov's been a finalist since. And if the Selke was around when Richard played, he probably wins it a couple times.

Fedorov played on the blue-line, but those occasions were rare, short-lived, and usually a wake-up call for his spotty play.

Most of Reds' comments become apples vs. oranges. Can't argue 20-point playoffs for Richard. That's what happens when you play two rounds each year for the best years of your career. I watched Fedorov in the 1995 playoffs. He put up monster numbers against an overmatched San Jose club, but in the next two rounds, his effectiveness diminished. And nobody was singing Fedorov's praises after the 1996 playoffs. Outside of Primeau, he was one of Detroit's most criticized players.

Could Fedorov have been a better player? Perhaps. Was he a better player? Not at all. Richard never left you wanting more. Better leader. Better player. Talent only takes you so far.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2008, 03:58 PM
  #207
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post

And while you include Canadian hockey greats from 40's, you totally ignore great hockey players from Europe saying "for lack of evidence".

For example Zábrodský. He was better hockey player than Henri Richard, but you totally ignore him because he played for LTC and other clubs in what was then Czechoslovakia, while Richard played for Canadiens.
OK, make a case for Zabrodsky then, I'm all ears. You can't just tell me Zabrodsky (who I must admit I've never even heard of) is better than Richard and just expect us to take your word for it. Make an argument for him that you can back up, I'm sure all of us would like to learn more about him.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2008, 05:10 PM
  #208
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
OK, make a case for Zabrodsky then, I'm all ears. You can't just tell me Zabrodsky (who I must admit I've never even heard of) is better than Richard and just expect us to take your word for it. Make an argument for him that you can back up, I'm sure all of us would like to learn more about him.
Zábrodský was center.He was a bit selfish on the ice, but he had to be to score so many goals.
He scored 158 goals in 93 games for the National team.
He played 18 seasons in Czechoslovakian league (230 games) and scored 306 goals.
6 times World Champion.
He played for LTC Prague, Spartak CKD Sokolovo and Bohemians CKD Prague.
5 times best goalscorer of the Czechoslovakian league.
He was called "Boss" some of his teammates call still call him Boss.
He was the leader of World Champions 1947 and 1949.
Phenomenal goalscorer. His backhand shoot is legendary.
He remarkably affected whole team in both National and Club competition. He was the cornerstone of those teams.

The Best Czech Hockey player of the Century:
voted by 50 experts, played-out pros, coaches and refs.

Quote:
rank name points
1. DOMINIK HAŠEK 472
2. JAROMÍR JÁGR 357
3. VLADIMÍR ZÁBRODSKÝ 240
4. VLADIMÍR MARTINEC 235
5. IVAN HLINKA 181
6. VLASTIMIL BUBNÍK 160
7. JAN SUCHÝ 154
8. JIŘÍ HOLÍK 136
9. JOSEF MALEČEK 121
10. VÁCLAV NEDOMANSKÝ 98
11. Jiří Holeček 97
12. Bohumil Modrý 93

Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2008, 06:16 PM
  #209
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
Zábrodský was center.He was a bit selfish on the ice, but he had to be to score so many goals.
He scored 158 goals in 93 games for the National team.
He played 18 seasons in Czechoslovakian league (230 games) and scored 306 goals.
6 times World Champion.
He played for LTC Prague, Spartak CKD Sokolovo and Bohemians CKD Prague.
5 times best goalscorer of the Czechoslovakian league.
He was called "Boss" some of his teammates call still call him Boss.
He was the leader of World Champions 1947 and 1949.
Phenomenal goalscorer. His backhand shoot is legendary.
He remarkably affected whole team in both National and Club competition. He was the cornerstone of those teams.

The Best Czech Hockey player of the Century:
voted by 50 experts, played-out pros, coaches and refs.
Interesting, thanks. The Czech experts rank him third, that certainly lends credibility to his case. That list has him ahead of Jan Suchy, who I have listed on my original top 120, and ahead of Malecek whom I considered.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2008, 06:17 PM
  #210
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,760
vCash: 500
Did he win any international award?

FissionFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 02:35 PM
  #211
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
Norm Ullman is probably the best example since his NHL career literally spanned the same time frame as Henri Richards (both played exactly the same number of NHL seasons during exactly the same years).

Richard's 1046 career points came in 1259 games for a 0.83 PPG average. In the same number of seasons Ullman scored 1229 career points in 1410 games for a 0.87 PPG average. Ullman didn't just score more points, he was a slightly more productive player on a per game basis as well. Not only that, but over the course of both players 20 year careers Ullman was the more durable guy, playing 151 more games. As mentioned before in the Bobby Orr and Mario Lemieux debates, actually playing in the games is pretty darn important since you are worthless to your team in the pressbox. So by the numbers Ullman in the regular season was the slightly better scorer and the far more durable player.

At first glance the playoff numbers look like a clear win for Richard. His 129 playoff points are a sizable chunk more than Ullman's 83. Does that make Richard the better playoff guy? Not quite. Richard scored his points in 180 playoffs games for a 0.72 PPG playoff average. Ullman's points came in only 106 games for a 0.78 PPG average. Again Ullman was the slightly better producer in the playoffs and his PPG margin over Richard is actually LARGER in the playoffs than in the regular season. So again the numbers support Ullman over Richard for playoff production.

What about their peaks? Richard's best regular season was his 2nd year when he scored 80 points in 67 games. That's the only time he ever reached that level. Ullman's best season was an 83 point campaign. He reached 80 points in one other season. Only once in his career did Richard reach 30 goals (and it was exactly 30). Ullman topped 40 once and reached 30 goals 4 other times. He fell only 10 goals short of scoring 500 in his NHL career and probably would have gotten it had he not spent his final two years in the WHA (where he scored 130 points in 144 games). Ullman's regular season peaks were higher than Richards.

The Richard playoff legend takes another beating when you look at his postseasons. Only once in his career did he score more than a point-per-game in a playoff season (1.5 in 1959-60) and 3 other times he was exactly 1 PPG. Ullman scored above a point-per-game in 4 consecutive playoff seasons (1.45, 1.21, 1.43, and 1.25 from 1962-63 through 1965-66).

How did they stack up to their peers? Well Richard appeared in the top 10 for goals, assists, or points a combined 16 times in is 20 season career. Ullman appeared on those same lists a combined 26 times in his career. Nearly half his seasons in the NHL Norm Ullman was on the top 10 list for at least one of the major offensive categories.

Henri Richard
Goals (2): 5th, T-7th
Assists (7): 1st (x2), 4th, 7th, 8th, T-8th, 10th
Points (7): 2nd, 4th, T-5th, 9th (x3), 10th

Norm Ullman
Goals (9): 1st, T-3rd, T-4th, 6th, T-7th (x2), T-8th, 10th, T-10th
Assists (9): T-4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, T-8th (x2), T-9th, T-10th (x2)
Points (8): 2nd, 3rd, 6th (x3), 7th, 8th, 10th

Anyways, my point here is that Ullman and Richard are nearly identical players and Ullman even has a slight edge by the numbers. Both were known as strong two-way players as well. How is one guy nearly a top 50 hockey player ever to many yet the other isn't even considered on anyones "next up" lists unless the accomplishments of a team award (11 Cups) are given a disproportionately large amount of worth compared to the non-factor not winning any was to a guy like Brad Park?
I totally missed this argument the first time through and I was rereading this thread in order to get a better view of your stance, but I feel a specific point needs to be addressed.

Ullman was a 1st line center, playing with Gordie Howe and Delvechio was on his LW(Who moved there after Lindsay left). He was getting the PP time as well as 2 spectacular players helping his numbers out.

Henri Richard was a 2nd line center behind Beliveau and did not have the same scoring linemates. Pocket Rocket rarely received Power play time, and his job was to shut down the other teams top scorers.

The year Beliveau, Geoffrion, Olmstead and Maurice Richard were walking wounded(Playing less and injured) and Henri and Dickie Moore were given more icetime was the year both broke out and had all star years. Maurice Richard was never the same, but Beliveau and Geoffrion resumed their usual spot on the top line with Moore instead of Olmstead(Who was left unprotected due to his knees)


The comparison does not fit at all.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 03:36 PM
  #212
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,760
vCash: 500
That may be true, but then you are saying Richard was better based on what he could have done (potential) if given a bigger role instead of what he actually did (the numbers). I've never really been a huge "what if" guy, and frankly Richard's career is one big "what if" statistically and centers alot around Cup counting to many, another metric I consider relatively useless. Simply put, he's a guy full of "potential" and "intangibles" but very little substance on paper. It's really very similar to the Yzerman vs. Sakic argument where Yzerman backers resort alot to intangibles in the argument. Henri Richard is a sentimental favorite to many and the majority of arguments I read supporting him are not based in hard evidence but rather speculation, Cup counting, and intangibles. To me that's a borderline Top 100 guy, not a borderline Top 50 guy.

FissionFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 04:09 PM
  #213
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
I totally missed this argument the first time through and I was rereading this thread in order to get a better view of your stance, but I feel a specific point needs to be addressed.

Ullman was a 1st line center, playing with Gordie Howe and Delvechio was on his LW(Who moved there after Lindsay left). He was getting the PP time as well as 2 spectacular players helping his numbers out.

Henri Richard was a 2nd line center behind Beliveau and did not have the same scoring linemates. Pocket Rocket rarely received Power play time, and his job was to shut down the other teams top scorers.

The year Beliveau, Geoffrion, Olmstead and Maurice Richard were walking wounded(Playing less and injured) and Henri and Dickie Moore were given more icetime was the year both broke out and had all star years. Maurice Richard was never the same, but Beliveau and Geoffrion resumed their usual spot on the top line with Moore instead of Olmstead(Who was left unprotected due to his knees)


The comparison does not fit at all.
Got to correct a couple of points. I believe the only 2 seasons that Ullman was on the first line were 56-57 with howe & lindsay and 58-59 with howe & delvecchio. 58-59 may be the only full year Delvecchio played LW. He mainly played centre on the Howe line which had various LWers ( lindsay, Wilson, alcorn, stasiuk, Parker Macdonald etc.).

Henri Richard played mainly with the Rocket & Moore in his early years. I think there was one season where Moore played with Beliveau & Bonin was inserted on the Richard line. After Rocket retired, Henri played a lot with Provost as RW. I don't remember Henri being used a lot in a checking role (may be wrong here). That usually fell to guys like Marshall & Backstrom.

IMO, Montreal & Detroit both had 2 strong lines during the late 50's & early 60's. Would describe them as 1A & 1B.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 06:06 PM
  #214
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
That may be true, but then you are saying Richard was better based on what he could have done (potential) if given a bigger role instead of what he actually did (the numbers). I've never really been a huge "what if" guy, and frankly Richard's career is one big "what if" statistically and centers alot around Cup counting to many, another metric I consider relatively useless. Simply put, he's a guy full of "potential" and "intangibles" but very little substance on paper. It's really very similar to the Yzerman vs. Sakic argument where Yzerman backers resort alot to intangibles in the argument. Henri Richard is a sentimental favorite to many and the majority of arguments I read supporting him are not based in hard evidence but rather speculation, Cup counting, and intangibles. To me that's a borderline Top 100 guy, not a borderline Top 50 guy.
However, the parallels in the other thread I made concerning him and Messier make them almost seem like the same player. Is Messier overrated then? Yzerman's stats look dizzyingly similar as well, and he was a full time top line guy.

The Coaches and Teammates all give him unbelievable Credit, and having seen him first hand and his tenacity, will, and play, I completely agree with them. Heck, his OPPONENTS all praise him into the sky.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
Got to correct a couple of points. I believe the only 2 seasons that Ullman was on the first line were 56-57 with howe & lindsay and 58-59 with howe & delvecchio. 58-59 may be the only full year Delvecchio played LW. He mainly played centre on the Howe line which had various LWers ( lindsay, Wilson, alcorn, stasiuk, Parker Macdonald etc.).
I am 100% certain I saw Ullman play with Howe multiple seasons(Certainly more than 2), and that I considered them a duo for years.

Lemme do a quick bit of checking.
Quote:
The Detroit Red Wings of the 1950s were a celebrated and very powerful team. They had captured four Stanley Cup championships six seasons preceding Ullman's ascension to the NHL ranks, including the celebration of 1954-55. "I was certainly in awe playing on the same team with Howe and Lindsay and Sawchuk and Delvecchio and Kelly and Pronovost. Those were great, great hockey players. That first year, they worked me in slowly. I played a fair amount but didn't get as much icetime as I did later on." Nevertheless, Norm earned 18 points and proved he was of NHL caliber. "I had a half decent first year, I guess. I didn't score a lot of goals or get a lot of points but I proved I could play there."

"The following year, they put me on a line with Howe and Lindsay. It was amazing for a young guy coming in to get that chance," beams Ullman. "I played about two-thirds of the season with them, then I got injured." In Norm's sophomore season, he went from nineteen points to 52. "The following year, Lindsay got traded to Chicago but I still played with Howe for most of the next couple of seasons. After that, I pretty much played with a whole bunch of guys." Norm finished the 1956-57 tenth in regular season scoring. "For a few years, New York and Boston were fairly weak so you naturally got more points against those teams but it was tough to play against the better teams. Montreal won the Cup five years in a row my first five years in the league. They had a powerhouse and it was always tough to play against them. Toronto wasn't tough when I first came in but they became a pretty big force later on. They were always difficult to play against."
That is his one on one from Legends of Hockey

Another
http://redwingslegends.blogspot.com/...rm-ullman.html
Quote:
Norm, an Edmonton, Alberta product, is best known as a member of the Detroit Red Wings. For a lucky 13 seasons Norm as was a star center iceman, often playing on a line with Gordie Howe. Norm broke in with the Wings at the tail end of their dynasty teams in 1955-56 and never won the Stanley Cup, but was fine player nonetheless.

"I was certainly in awe playing on the same team with Howe and Lindsay and Sawchuk and Delvecchio and Kelly and Pronovost. Those were great, great hockey players.
http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/...io&list=#photo
Quote:
Ullman led all playoff scorers with 16 points in 1962-63 even though the Red Wings lost out to Toronto. In 1964-65, he led the league with 42 goals and was selected to the NHL First All-Star Team. For a time, he enjoyed playing on a potent line with Gordie Howe and Alex Delvecchio. He also played with Bruce MacGregor and Paul Henderson on the energetic Hummer Line
Quote:
Henri Richard played mainly with the Rocket & Moore in his early years. I think there was one season where Moore played with Beliveau & Bonin was inserted on the Richard line. After Rocket retired, Henri played a lot with Provost as RW. I don't remember Henri being used a lot in a checking role (may be wrong here). That usually fell to guys like Marshall & Backstrom.
For the first 2 years when Henri was just a rookie, His older brother the Rocket was still in form. However, by the time Henri and Dickie Moore were getting more icetime 2 years later(due to many team injuries), Rocket was missing half seasons and was nt what he used to be. The year Henri R and Moore broke out, they decided to let LW Olmstead go unprotected to put Moore with Geoffrion and Beliveau.


Last edited by Dark Shadows: 01-03-2009 at 06:17 PM.
Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 07:21 PM
  #215
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
However, the parallels in the other thread I made concerning him and Messier make them almost seem like the same player. Is Messier overrated then? Yzerman's stats look dizzyingly similar as well, and he was a full time top line guy.

The Coaches and Teammates all give him unbelievable Credit, and having seen him first hand and his tenacity, will, and play, I completely agree with them. Heck, his OPPONENTS all praise him into the sky.



I am 100% certain I saw Ullman play with Howe multiple seasons(Certainly more than 2), and that I considered them a duo for years.

Lemme do a quick bit of checking.

That is his one on one from Legends of Hockey

Another
http://redwingslegends.blogspot.com/...rm-ullman.html

http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/...io&list=#photo



For the first 2 years when Henri was just a rookie, His older brother the Rocket was still in form. However, by the time Henri and Dickie Moore were getting more icetime 2 years later(due to many team injuries), Rocket was missing half seasons and was nt what he used to be. The year Henri R and Moore broke out, they decided to let LW Olmstead go unprotected to put Moore with Geoffrion and Beliveau.
I was there too and I am absolutely certain that Ullman was not Howe's regular centre for more than 2 or 3 years. Howe's centres during Ullman's tenure were:
55-56 reibel
56-57, 58-59, 59-60 Ullman
57-58,60-61,62-63,63-64, 64-65, 65-66, 66-67,67-68 Delvecchio

I think this is pretty accurate. Not absolutely sure about 59-60 & 64-65. I am sure Ullman got a lot of power play time with Howe as I think Delvecchio moved to the point on the PP.

Regarding the Richard line, I thik that the only full season that Moore played with Beliveau was 58-59. Other than that he played with Henri. I think Provost moved up to the RW when the Rocket was injured.

Ab Mcdonald, Bonin, Giles Tremblay all played LW on the Beliveau line after Olmstead left.


Last edited by pappyline: 01-03-2009 at 07:30 PM.
pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 07:46 PM
  #216
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,760
vCash: 500
Yes, I feel Messier is horribly overrated. Considering I think Richard is horribly overrated that probably doesn't suprise you. Yzerman I don't consider a good comparable at all because unlike Richard he had an incredible peak while still maintaining strong consistency during his career. He's still a legend to many though and I expect over time his place in history will slide down to where it belongs. In that way I feel he's very comparable to Richard - viewed far more favorably in their time but will eventually slide down the lists to where they actually. I also believe pappy when he says Richard wasn't 2nd fiddle as you portray him to be and that Ullman was not the top dog you feel he always was. I said it before and I still stand by it that Henri Richard and Norm Ullman are very good comparables and that they IMO do not belong more than 5 spots apart on the final list, so if Richard is a top 50 guy, then so is Ullman. I just happen to feel that neither of them are and that both belong in the 80s and 90s at best.

Beyond that you mention teammate/coaches comments (not really objective sources), opponent comments (far more useful), and a collection of intangibles that seems to overshadow his actual production (tenacity? will? does it get more subjective?). Lots of players had incredible intangibles, but they don't override the actual production nor should they. Good "tenacity and will" should maybe tweak a player a spot or two on the list, not be the difference between the 50s and the 90s. I value your opinions and thoughts, but I cannot agree with you at all on Richard and frankly until someone comes up with some way to quantify these intangibles that make Richard so much greater than players who actually produced more on the scoresheet I doubt anyone ever will.

FissionFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 08:42 PM
  #217
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,388
vCash: 500
A lot of people say that Henri Richard was a "key" member of eleven Stanley Cup winning teams. After looking at the numbers, I'm convinced that the Habs won so many championships due to their star fowards (and Doug Harvey) stepping up in the playoffs. Richard actually scored a lot less during the playoffs, and Beliveau and the others had to pick up the slack.

Offensive Production: regular season PPG vs playoffs PPG on the 11 Stanley Cup winning teams
Minimum 250 RS games and 40 PO games

PlayerRegSeasonPlayoffs%Change
Doug Harvey 0.56 0.82 46.4
J.C. Tremblay 0.52 0.75 44.2
Bernie Geoffrion 1.11 1.39 25.2
Dickie Moore 1.03 1.16 12.6
Maurice Richard 0.94 1.05 11.7
Yvan Cournoyer 0.88 0.94 6.8
Jacques Lemaire 0.86 0.91 5.8
Jacques Laperriere 0.41 0.43 4.9
Jean Beliveau 1.16 1.19 2.6
Terry Harper 0.19 0.18 -5.3
Ralph Backstrom 0.6 0.54 -10
Henri Richard 0.83 0.74 -10.8
Ted Harris 0.28 0.24 -14.3
Claude Provost 0.62 0.51 -17.7
John Ferguson 0.56 0.46 -17.9
Bobby Rousseau 0.91 0.64 -29.7
Tom Johnson 0.35 0.24 -31.4
Don Marshall 0.4 0.27 -32.5
Jean-Guy Talbot 0.27 0.18 -33.3
Claude Larose 0.44 0.25 -43.2
Bob Turner 0.18 0.09 -50

There were five players that significantly increased their scoring rate in the playoffs. This includes Harvey (clearly the Habs best defensemen), Tremblay, and three of their four best forwards (Geoffrion, M. Richard and Moore).

There were four more players that slightly increased their scoring rate in the playoffs. This includes the Habs' best forward (Beliveau), two more first-line scorers (Cournoyer & Lemaire), and one defensemen (Laperriere).

There were six players that slightly decreased their scoring rate in the playoffs: two of them were defensive blueliners (Harper and Harris), three were two-way forwards (Backstrom, Provost, H. Richard), and one was a goon (Ferguson).

There were six players that significantly decreased their scoring rate in the playoffs: two two-way forwards (Rousseau and Marshall), two defensive defensemen (Johnson and Talbot), and two depth forwards (Larose and Turner).

This analysis suggests that the reason the Habs won so many Stanley Cups is because Doug Harvey and their key scoring forwards (Geoffrion, Moore, Rocket, Cournoyer, Lemaire and Beliveau) improved their level of play in the postseason. Given that so much of Richard's legacy is based on the number of Stanley Cups he won, I was surprised to see that he ranks so poorly compared to his teammates here. I realize that Richard was a two-way forward and he probably increased his defensive responsibilities in the playoffs... but it still looks to me like the Habs won thanks to Geoffrion & the other scoring forwards stepping it up in the playoffs.

(One more thing to add: if anything I'd say that Richard is underrated as a regular season player, and overrated as a playoff performer)


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 01-04-2009 at 12:45 AM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 08:52 PM
  #218
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
Yes, I feel Messier is horribly overrated. Considering I think Richard is horribly overrated that probably doesn't suprise you. Yzerman I don't consider a good comparable at all because unlike Richard he had an incredible peak while still maintaining strong consistency during his career. He's still a legend to many though and I expect over time his place in history will slide down to where it belongs. In that way I feel he's very comparable to Richard - viewed far more favorably in their time but will eventually slide down the lists to where they actually. I also believe pappy when he says Richard wasn't 2nd fiddle as you portray him to be and that Ullman was not the top dog you feel he always was. I said it before and I still stand by it that Henri Richard and Norm Ullman are very good comparables and that they IMO do not belong more than 5 spots apart on the final list, so if Richard is a top 50 guy, then so is Ullman. I just happen to feel that neither of them are and that both belong in the 80s and 90s at best.

Beyond that you mention teammate/coaches comments (not really objective sources), opponent comments (far more useful), and a collection of intangibles that seems to overshadow his actual production (tenacity? will? does it get more subjective?). Lots of players had incredible intangibles, but they don't override the actual production nor should they. Good "tenacity and will" should maybe tweak a player a spot or two on the list, not be the difference between the 50s and the 90s. I value your opinions and thoughts, but I cannot agree with you at all on Richard and frankly until someone comes up with some way to quantify these intangibles that make Richard so much greater than players who actually produced more on the scoresheet I doubt anyone ever will.
I of Course rate Yzerman much higher than Pocket Rocket, but they are not all that different.

Yzerman's points:
Points
1988-89 NHL 155 (3)
1989-90 NHL 127 (3)
1990-91 NHL 108 (7)
1991-92 NHL 103 (7)
1992-93 NHL 137 (4)
1999-00 NHL 79 (10)

Richard's points:
Points
1956-57 NHL 54 (9)
1957-58 NHL 80 (2)
1959-60 NHL 73 (5)
1960-61 NHL 68 (9)
1962-63 NHL 73 (4)
1965-66 NHL 61 (9)
1966-67 NHL 55 (10)

Yzerman's single 1st team against HR's 1st and three 2nd teams. Obviously, playing against Lemieux/Gretzky makes selections and scoring finishes ridiculously difficult, but its not Like it was easy for HR to compete with Beliveau, Mikita at center, or Howe + Hull for points playing on the second line. Obviously Richard has a big advantage with supporting cast, even on the second line, and of course, I see Yzerman as 20+ spots ahead of Richard, but I still think Richard is very worthy of being in that 55-70 area.

We just agree to disagree I guess. You know I value your opinion as well and think you are a great hockey mind. I keep wracking my brain trying to put it into words how valuable Richard is and just how much I could "see" when I watched him play. He just had that game stealing presence in my eyes, regardless of where he finished in scoring. In fact, I might just sift through some of his games and try to snag some clips. I have a few Montreal games vs Toronto on my Hard Drive and a few on Cassette.

I think Pappyline's argument is that Ullman is Underrated, not that Richard is overrated. My original vote for Pocket Rocket was 49, and after much learning of Pre1950's Hockey over the course of the project(As well as a few Czech's and Russians I initially forgot), he was bumped to 60 on my revised list. Pappy voted Richard in 56th and Pappy's revised list still has him at 56, with Ullman at 82 on both lists. I had Ullman 94 on my original, and 107 on my revised list.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 09:09 PM
  #219
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,991
vCash: 500
Jeez. I've been keeping a mental checklist about how my rankings are going to change for the next top-100 project and thanks to this project it's gettng full. There's no way there should be 30-40 spots between Richard and Ullman. Also, Messier is overrated. Also, the difference between the Bentleys isn't as significant as we made it out to be.

Adding to that, that I think Gilmour isn't far off from Fedorov and is better than Francis, plus there are two other guys I want to find room for and three more I want to take off, and the large upward adjustments for Lalonde and Taylor and the downward adjustment for Maurice Richard (I'm probably going to have him 13th!) it's creating quite the jumble in my head. I need to start writing this down.

HO - Nice analysis of the Hab cup winners. personally I like to use a ratio rather than just subtracting the two numbers. What's your reasoning for comparing the two averages the way that you do?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 09:12 PM
  #220
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
I think Pappyline's argument is that Ullman is Underrated, not that Richard is overrated. My original vote for Pocket Rocket was 49, and after much learning of Pre1950's Hockey over the course of the project(As well as a few Czech's and Russians I initially forgot), he was bumped to 60 on my revised list. Pappy voted Richard in 56th and Pappy's revised list still has him at 56, with Ullman at 82 on both lists. I had Ullman 94 on my original, and 107 on my revised list.
My list is constantly being revised and after reading the comments & hockey outsider's stats, I am starting to think I have Richard too high and will likely be moving him lower on my next revision. Not so sure about moving Ullman up but do think he & Richard should be closer. Only reason for Richard being 26 places higher is cup counting (which I detest)

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 09:30 PM
  #221
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,552
vCash: 500
in the video i've seen from the mid '60s (which was ullman's peak), ullman didn't play with howe. delvecchio was 1st C, and ullman was 2nd.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 09:47 PM
  #222
tommygunn
Registered User
 
tommygunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 554
vCash: 500
"I have been blessed with a lot of great stars over the years. But game in, and game out, Henri Richard may have been the most valuable player I ever had."
-Frank Selke Sr.

tommygunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 11:09 PM
  #223
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
My list is constantly being revised and after reading the comments & hockey outsider's stats, I am starting to think I have Richard too high and will likely be moving him lower on my next revision. Not so sure about moving Ullman up but do think he & Richard should be closer. Only reason for Richard being 26 places higher is cup counting (which I detest)
Certainly, as do I. However, I am sure you do not think he is simply a "borderline top 100 guy". You saw him play. He was one of the best Defensive forwards of his time and he was a damn good scorer to boot. I appreciate the work you put into gathering that info HO, but this is one of those times when Stats are failing, because Pocket Rocket was money in the bank in the playoffs.


Last edited by Dark Shadows: 01-03-2009 at 11:15 PM.
Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 11:13 PM
  #224
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommygunn View Post
"I have been blessed with a lot of great stars over the years. But game in, and game out, Henri Richard may have been the most valuable player I ever had."
-Frank Selke Sr.
Here are a few more for ya

Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post

"Henri is always there. Every time I pick up the puck he's coming at me from somewhere. He's been hit quite a few times; by me, by our defense, but he doesn't stop. It's frustrating when you outweigh a guy by 20 pounds, knock him down and he's up and gone before you are." - Bobby Clarke

"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." - Toe Blake

"Looks like Henri Richard brought his own puck to the rink again." - Rudy Pilous

"You can take Beliveau and all the others. Give me Henri. That little bugger could skate for five minutes without getting tired." - Ken Reardon
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
For awhile I thought Henri Richard was slightly overrated just due to the number of Cups; I still think his rank in the THN list was too high.
But now I think things may have gone full-circle and he's now somewhat underrated on here. Whenever I read a hockey book or browse old newspaper articles I always try to pay attention to quotes from other players, and it seems that there's two players who are consistently and repeatedly mentioned by their peers as not getting the credit they were due. One is Serge Savard, the other is Henri Richard.

Just to pull a quote from Phil Esposito's book: "Henri Richard. That son of a ***** was the best centre I ever played against. He was good on faceoffs. He was fast. The little ******* could score. He was a tough little guy and I respected him. Henri was the most underrated player on the Canadiens."

In 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, Scotty Bowman pointed at Bobby Clarke then said to Richard simply "He's yours." Richard completely shut down Clarke the rest of the series.

Now I know you could find anecdotes about any player, but they seem to come up about Richard more than most players.


Edit: While I was typing my post, it seems that BM67 was posting a post with more quotes that proved my point.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 12:40 AM
  #225
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
HO - Nice analysis of the Hab cup winners. personally I like to use a ratio rather than just subtracting the two numbers. What's your reasoning for comparing the two averages the way that you do?
Thanks. Actually, I think your method makes more sense. I modified my post so now everything is shown in percentage differences. Harvey was amazing.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:22 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.