2019/20 Roster Thread XXX - AKA the Ghost Thread

[Appleyard]

I’d say Clarke, Parent, MacLeish, Howe, Lindros, Barber.

Top 6, in that order.

Propp & Giroux are at the top of the second tier.

Giroux is a superior player to Barber and MacLeish though...

 

[Starat327]

He's an interesting case... and is one of my favourite players ever. I feel spoiled that I got to watch him play night in and night out for the last 10 years.

That being said - it's called the Hall of Fame - not the Hall of Production or Fancy Stats. So to me, that at least indicates some elements above and beyond production and raw stats that make a player stand out.

I know the HoF seems to have diluted criteria these days - and I honestly don't care either way. It's just not anything important to me as a fan.

So I would think under the current 'criteria', Giroux would get in the HoF. But I would also understand if he didn't, simply because he has 0 awards, 0 cups, and 0 scoring championships. In other words, he hasn't elevated his 'fame' with accomplishments, and he hasn't been a 'benchmark' player that has made a lasting impact on the game (something that I think was in Lindros' favour).

Either way, he will always be one of my favourite players.

I mean, w're kind of nuancin the conversation a bit. Im not talking Fancy stats. His production puts him on par with, or better than, some that are already in there, who also have no 'accomplishments'. Again, this isn't a "he needs to be in there" protest. I think he's deserved it base don his play. If he doesn't get in, its not something im writing the NHL about - but it would be just another instance in a long line of poor NHL decisions.

 

[Appleyard]

I agree. Flyers Hall of Fame for Giroux? Absolutely. NHL HOF? Not by my standards. Does an HOF player get left off an Olympic team in his prime? But by modern standards he may get in.

Number retired? With corporate ownership they might, to reap $$$ out of the ceremony, but again I think retired numbers are for legends, & G is very good, not legendary.

You are talking about 50% of the Hall of Fame there...

Giroux is better than ~40% of the forwards who are in. Without that much debate.

Who has better Hart, point, point-per-game, seven and ten year primes than him and is not in?

No-one. In any of the categories... let alone all.

 

[BiggE]

I’d say Clarke, Parent, MacLeish, Howe, Lindros, Barber.

Top 6, in that order.

Propp & Giroux are at the top of the second tier.

FWIW, here’s how I’d rank the 10 greatest Flyers of all time:

Bobby Clarke
Bernie Parent
Mark Howe
Bill Barber
Eric Lindros
Rick Macleish
Claude Giroux
Tim Kerr
Brian Propp
Eric Desjardins

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Giroux is a superior player to Barber and MacLeish though...

That’s subjective.

 

[Appleyard]

That’s subjective.

Not really.

Vs his peers Giroux has been far more dominant.

Better Hart, Point, Point-per-game finishes than both... 3x offensive seasons better than either of their very best when you consider era scoring.

I mean, I guess maybe someone could argue Barber. But there is a far better argument for Giroux. MacLeish? It just cant be logically argued.

But still... Giroux's 8th best offensive season is ~roughly equivalent to Barber's 2nd best...

The ten best seasons between Giroux & MacLeish? Giroux has 8/10... including the top 3.

 

[Starat327]

Someone's getting appleyarded...

 

[Psuhockey]

He has a clearly better prime than Recchi though... Recchi just played in a crazy high scoring era:

Giroux:

Hart finishes: 3, 4, 4
Point finishes: 2, 3, 3, 10
P/GP: 2, 6, 7

Recchi:

Hart finishes: 6, 9
Point finishes: 3, 4, 5, 10
P/GP: 4, 6, 10

I am not debating that but Recchi ended up winning some cups at the end. Unfortunately it won’t be a strictly numbers decision. It’s going to be a popularity contest between 18 guys, ex players and journalists. Would Philly’s own beat writers consider Giroux a hall of famer? If not I doubt any other journalist would.

 

[Appleyard]

I am not debating that but Recchi ended up winning some cups at the end. Unfortunately it won’t be a strictly numbers decision. It’s going to be a popularity contest between 18 guys, ex players and journalists. Would Philly’s own beat writers consider Giroux a hall of famer? If not I doubt any other journalist would.

The 2010-17 low scoring era for sure does not help.

But if he does not get in that will mean ~10 less players from this era getting in than any other...

if Getzlaf, Backstrom and Tavares get in then Giroux surely will.

 

[mja]

Someone's getting appleyarded...

This is hard to watch. Dale Rolfe fared better.

 

[BiggE]

Giroux is a superior player to Barber and MacLeish though...

No he’s really not. Barber was as good a 2 way player as Couts. QB’d the pp, was on the top PK pair for a decade and the best at his position in the NHL for over half a decade.

Macleish was vitally instrumental in the Flyers winning 2 championships and is the best pure playoff performer in franchise history. Take a moment and look up his playoff numbers from 74 & 75. They’re amazing.

 

[BiggE]

Not really.

Vs his peers Giroux has been far more dominant.

Better Hart, Point, Point-per-game finishes than both... 3x offensive seasons better than either of their very best when you consider era scoring.

I mean, I guess maybe someone could argue Barber. But there is a far better argument for Giroux. MacLeish? It just cant be logically argued.

But still... Giroux's 8th best offensive season is ~roughly equivalent to Barber's 2nd best...

The ten best seasons between Giroux & MacLeish? Giroux has 8/10... including the top 3.

You have to take playoff numbers into consideration. The name of the game is winning and Macleish was pure money in the playoffs

 

[bennysflyers16]

I’d say Clarke, Parent, MacLeish, Howe, Lindros, Barber.

Top 6, in that order.

Propp & Giroux are at the top of the second tier.

No , I was listing my personal Fav players

 

[Psuhockey]

The 2010-17 low scoring era for sure does not help.

But if he does not get in that will mean ~10 less players from this era getting in than any other...

if Getzlaf, Backstrom and Tavares get in then Giroux surely will.

Getzlaf won the cup and two gold medals. Backstrom won the cup. Tavares won a gold medal. As much as these are team accomplishments, they help their cases. Kopitar, Toews, and Bergeron are also likely in ahead of Giroux. The only thing right now Giroux has are numbers. I think that’s going to be borderline HOF without a cup. With a cup he is probably a shoo-in.

 

[flyersnorth]

I mean, w're kind of nuancin the conversation a bit. Im not talking Fancy stats. His production puts him on par with, or better than, some that are already in there, who also have no 'accomplishments'. Again, this isn't a "he needs to be in there" protest. I think he's deserved it base don his play. If he doesn't get in, its not something im writing the NHL about - but it would be just another instance in a long line of poor NHL decisions.

Agreed. I think he gets in, but I also understand if he doesn’t.

Either way it has no bearing on how I feel about G.

 

[FLYguy3911]

G won Gold at the World Cup.

 

[Appleyard]

No he’s really not. Barber was as good a 2 way player as Couts. QB’d the pp, was on the top PK pair for a decade and the best at his position in the NHL for over half a decade.

Macleish was vitally instrumental in the Flyers winning 2 championships and is the best pure playoff performer in franchise history. Take a moment and look up his playoff numbers from 74 & 75. They’re amazing.

Is Mark Stone better than Giroux over career? Because outside of one season that is basically what everything points to Barber being as a winger.

MacLeish produced at a similar level to Voracek over his career... yep, great playoffs, but Danny Briere did too and no-one would claim he was better than G.

 

[Appleyard]

You have to take playoff numbers into consideration. The name of the game is winning and Macleish was pure money in the playoffs

Giroux has almost identical playoff point-per-game numbers than MacLeish in a lower scoring era...

ofc Giroux has not had the opportunity for a cup run or two like MacLeish. But MacLeish also had Clarke, Barber, Leach, the deepest D in the NHL and the goalie with maybe the best peak ever.

 

[Starat327]

G won Gold at the World Cup.

Such a small sample size of international play. He's no Ginning, that's for sure.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Not really.

Vs his peers Giroux has been far more dominant.

Better Hart, Point, Point-per-game finishes than both... 3x offensive seasons better than either of their very best when you consider era scoring.

I mean, I guess maybe someone could argue Barber. But there is a far better argument for Giroux. MacLeish? It just cant be logically argued.

But still... Giroux's 8th best offensive season is ~roughly equivalent to Barber's 2nd best...

The ten best seasons between Giroux & MacLeish? Giroux has 8/10... including the top 3.

Yes. It is subjective. Spreadsheets of points don’t automatically = better player.

By your statistical analysis, Eric Lindros would be objectively the best Flyer in history, above Bobby Clarke, which is frankly asinine.

Rick MacLeish was an instrumental part of 2 Stanley Cup wins, the best playoff performer in Flyers history, had 50 & 49 goal seasons, scored over 30 goals 7 times.

Giroux has had over 30 goals once in his career. Missed the playoffs 4 out of his last 7 seasons. Has been past the first round 3x in his last 11 seasons. 10 points in his last 19 playoff games (all round one losses).

You’re entitled to your opinion. And so am I. What it boils down to is subjectivity. I won’t be told it’s not, or that there’s no argument for ranking MacLeish ahead of Giroux in Flyers history.

 

[BiggE]

Is Mark Stone better than Giroux over career? Because outside of one season that is basically what everything points to Barber being as a winger.

MacLeish produced at a similar level to Voracek over his career... yep, great playoffs, but Danny Briere did too and no-one would claim he was better than G.

Did you actually see Barber or Macleish play? I’m guessing no or you wouldn’t be comparing Barber to Stone. There’s more to the game than numbers when it comes to Barber and Macleish was the best position player in the NHL in back to back playoffs. It’s not a slight against Giroux, but winning does matter. Barber and Macleish played on teams , and were top players, that won Cups and were usually among the best in the league. That will always get more consideration when rating a players career than just what they did in the regular season. Giroux could still make the Hall, but right now he’s borderline at best. I think he’ll need to reach 1000 points and/or Captain the team to a Cup to get in.

 

[Rebels57]

Does Giroux get #28 retired?

I say yes, reality says no. Unless he wins a Cup

If Cup = yes
If HOF = yes (but he will 100% need to win a Cup)
If neither = probably not

He will be considered in the Damphousse, Turgeon, Roenick tier and will not get inducted into the HOF without a Cup win.

Damphousse has over 1200 points
Turgeon has over 1300 points
Roenick has over 1200 points

Giroux might not even reach 1000 points if this season's production is going to be the new norm for him.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Funny thing is, MacLeish’s Flyers reg season ppg is above Giroux’s — .94 vs .91. So get out of here with it’s not subjective & that Giroux is inarguably above MacLeish in Flyers history.

 

[Appleyard]

Yes. It is subjective. Spreadsheets of points don’t automatically = better player.

By your statistical analysis, Eric Lindros would be objectively the best Flyer in history, above Bobby Clarke, which is frankly asinine.

Rick MacLeish was an instrumental part of 2 Stanley Cup wins, the best playoff performer in Flyers history, had 50 & 49 goal seasons, scored over 30 goals 7 times.

Giroux has had over 30 goals once in his career. Missed the playoffs 4 out of his last 7 seasons. Has been past the first round 3x in his last 11 seasons. 10 points in his last 19 playoff games (all round one losses).

You’re entitled to your opinion. And so am I. What it boils down to is subjectivity. I won’t be told it’s not, or that there’s no argument for ranking MacLeish ahead of Giroux in Flyers history.

Lindros at his best was a better player than Clarke... but Clarke ofc had a better career, and was a better Flyer. Not hard for those things to co-exist.

Era matters. MacLeish scored 30 7x times in an era where 30 goals were worth ~25. Jeff Carter>Rick MacLeish as a goalscorer once eras are considered.

I mean, you are entitled to your opinion. But people are entitled to say that David Krejci (a MacLeish level player by most objective measures over career, though MacLeish had a better peak) is better than Claude Giroux as well... does not mean that that opinion is grounded in that much logic...

And I mean, playoffs... that is just not an individual accomplishment is it.

 

[Appleyard]

Funny thing is, MacLeish’s Flyers reg season ppg is above Giroux’s — .94 vs .91. So get out of here with it’s not subjective & that Giroux is inarguably above MacLeish in Flyers history.

Era. Era matters.

MacLeish's best season ever he was 4th in NHL scoring. Giroux's 3rd best he was 3rd.

If all we consider are non-era adjusted production almost the entire Hall would be guys from the late 70s and 1980s...