2019/20 Roster Thread XXX - AKA the Ghost Thread

[Philly Fanatik]

Just wondering...I see back in the 2006 NHL Entry Draft that Chris Stewart was the 18 overall and our Hall of Famer to be Claude Giroux was 22nd player picked that year!
Imagine that!!!!

 

[Appleyard]

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.

I was not alive at that venture... so unfortunately I have not seen them live.

But I have seen them extensively on tape... Barber might have been the best defensive winger in the league, he probably was. But it does not change the fact his scoring was pretty mediocre really when he played alongside Bobby Clarke. Like low-end 1st line level with one great season.

Mark Stone is also clearly the best defensive winger in the NHL. Who scores at around the same rate (slightly better actually) than Barber barring one season.

Cups and winning matter. For teams. But Marcel Dionne never won one and was probably the 2nd-3rd best player on earth for a pretty long time. And the league was 12 teams then... (basically ~5 who could actually win, now that is double each year, albeit that is NO slight to the Flyers considering what they had to do to break up the establishment.)

 

[Ghosts Beer]

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.

Point is you contend it’s “not really” subjective to rank MacLeish over Giroux in Flyers history, meaning you think Giroux has had the objectively better career, meanwhile MacLeish has the superior regular season ppg (despite playing on the 2nd line), MacLeish was INSTRUMENTAL in 2 Stanley Cup championships, MacLeish has a superior playoff record in general, in many more & deeper playoff appearances.

So, yeah, it is subjective, & there’s a damn good argument for MacLeish. And that’s the side I’m on.

 

[Philly Fanatik]

Simply put....
No HOF and no Lord’s Stanley for Claude Giroux!
There’s no manipulation of numbers that can achieve these massive goals for #28...
You can debate this with analytics all you want but it not happening...nice but not goin’ happen!
Winning is big outfit here and I do PRAY Giroux gets a sip for his hard work and determination that has been evident in Philly over his illustrious career!
And a little side note...I’m not partial to a Bourque end of a career trade to get a Cup either!
Like to remember G as Flyer...that’s it!

 

[Striiker]

All this talk of team achievements when judging an individuals career and HoF/retired-number-worthiness is really depressing. I understand that it matters to the clueless voters, so you guys are probably right, but it obviously shouldn't.

Team achievements should have nothing to do with discussing the quality of individuals, just like individual achievements have nothing to do with discussing the quality of teams.

 

[Starat327]

All this talk of team achievements when judging an individuals career and HoF/retired-number-worthiness is really depressing. I understand that it matters to the clueless voters, so you guys are probably right, but it obviously shouldn't.

Team achievements should have nothing to do with discussing the quality of individuals, just like individual achievements have nothing to do with discussing the quality of teams.

Now we're blaming voters? Ugh. Your lies have no end. I taught you better.

 

[Tripod]

I wonder how many times Appleyard has to mention era adjusted points?

 

[Striiker]

Now we're blaming voters? Ugh. Your lies have no end. I taught you better.

Depends... Does JVR vote?

 

[renberg]

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

Did you ever see Barber and MacLeish play in their prime? This is the problem that arises when younger generations of fans attempt to evaluate the ones from the past. All too often fans' recollection of what the "Bullies" were is just Clarke and a goalie that got on a hot streak. Barber, MacLeish and Parent could carry a club on any given night. Giroux would have been a third line player on that team.

 

[deadhead]

Giroux lost out in 2017-18 b/c of Couts, who had a season of similar caliber, while Hall was alone.

 

[Striiker]

I wonder how many times Appleyard has to mention era adjusted points?

Yeah, that's pretty important...

There's a big difference between scoring on this...

and this...

 

[BiggE]

Eras matter, but at his peak, 73-78, Macleish scored 468 (222 goals) points in 442 games and 78 (38 goals, 8 game winners) points in 66 playoff games. That’s pretty impressive in any era.

 

[BiggE]

Yeah, that's pretty important...

There's a big difference between scoring on this...

and this...

True, but it’s also easier to score with composite sticks over wood and in an era where the D cannot hook and hold you to death and outright mug you in the playoffs.

 

[Striiker]

True, but it’s also easier to score with composite sticks over wood and in an era where the D cannot hook and hold you to death and outright mug you in the playoffs.

Sure, there’s lots of differences, pluses and minuses.

That’s my point though, they were very different leagues so scoring comparisons have to be viewed a certain way.

 

[Starat327]

I wonder how many times Appleyard has to mention era adjusted points?

More often, apparently. There are some that acknowledge it and some that just outright ignore it even when Appleyard calls it out.

Coincidentally, that same person tends to also ignore aspects of statistics in all of their arguments here, too. So, yay consistency, at least?

 

[Striiker]

More often, apparently. There are some that acknowledge it and some that just outright ignore it even when Appleyard calls it out.

Coincidentally, that same person tends to also ignore aspects of statistics in all of their arguments here, too. So, yay consistency, at least?

This sentence could be applied to like a dozen different topics.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Did you ever see Barber and MacLeish play in their prime? This is the problem that arises when younger generations of fans attempt to evaluate the ones from the past. All too often fans' recollection of what the "Bullies" were is just Clarke and a goalie that got on a hot streak. Barber, MacLeish and Parent could carry a club on any given night. Giroux would have been a third line player on that team.

No, Giroux would not have been a 3rd line player on that team.

Yes, I have watched actual games from that era. A good number of them.

 

[Appleyard]

Point is you contend it’s “not really” subjective to rank MacLeish over Giroux in Flyers history, meaning you think Giroux has had the objectively better career, meanwhile MacLeish has the superior regular season ppg (despite playing on the 2nd line), MacLeish was INSTRUMENTAL in 2 Stanley Cup championships, MacLeish has a superior playoff record in general, in many more & deeper playoff appearances.

So, yeah, it is subjective, & there’s a damn good argument for MacLeish. And that’s the side I’m on.

I mean:

Better Hart record (easily)
Better point finishes (easily)
Better P/GP finishes (easily)
Better 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 year peak/primes (easily)

vs

Flyers being better in the 1970s in a higher scoring era

Like, if I had a choice of what to argue in a court it would not be MacLeish.

Plus, Giroux is almost certainly better in his own end than MacLeish...

 

[Striiker]

I'm glad we could extend the negative Giroux exaggerations to a whole different decade.

Variety is the spice of life.

 

[YEM]

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.

this is where I fall
they were both better than Giroux imo
Macleish is underrated

Plus, Giroux is almost certainly better in his own end than MacLeish...

macleish was a +192 during his prime years...

 

[renberg]

No, Giroux would not have been a 3rd line player on that team.

Yes, I have watched actual games from that era. A good number of them.

He's not pushing Clarke or MacLeish off of the center spot. He also wouldn't push Barber, Leach, Dornhoefer or Lonsberry off of a wing.

 

[Appleyard]

Did you ever see Barber and MacLeish play in their prime? This is the problem that arises when younger generations of fans attempt to evaluate the ones from the past. All too often fans' recollection of what the "Bullies" were is just Clarke and a goalie that got on a hot streak. Barber, MacLeish and Parent could carry a club on any given night. Giroux would have been a third line player on that team.

Yep, I have watched a lot of the games. I love hockey history. I also watched a lot of other games from the era (mainly because of Gilbert Perreault... one of the most enjoyable players to watch ever in my eyes... even if also not quite as good as Giroux.)

Clarke was arguably the best player in the league.
Parent was THE best goalie in the league.
They arguably had 6x top 3-4 Dmen.

Rick MacLeish at his very best could just about ~hang with Giroux offensively I guess. But his defense was worse... and he had 2 high end seasons (none of which really were at the same level as Giroux's best 3... MacLeish also playing wing at times...).

Barber was a great player. But he played with the best centre in the league and still only managed one really high end offensive season.

Giroux would very likely have been the 2nd best skater on that team. And 3rd best player. He is not in Clarke or Parent's stratosphere. I mean, yeh, at Giroux's best his offence was not that far off Clarke... but Clarke was also the best defensive player in the league.


I mean, the problem with some of the older generations is they over-romantisise the mid 70s to mid 90s, because it was a consistently high scoring era where players could have the equivalent of 50-55 point down years these days and the totals would still look nice even though they were 60-80th in league scoring...

 

[Striiker]

this is where I fall
they were both better than Giroux imo
Macleish is underrated

macleish was a +192 during his prime years...

+/- is not a measure of defensive quality.

 

[Beef Invictus]

He's not pushing Clarke or MacLeish off of the center spot. He also wouldn't push Barber, Leach, Dornhoefer or Lonsberry off of a wing.

Clarke? No.

Anyone else? Sure.


You're drastically underrating Giroux, especially if we are talking about G in his prime.

 

[Appleyard]

He's not pushing Clarke or MacLeish off of the center spot. He also wouldn't push Barber, Leach, Dornhoefer or Lonsberry off of a wing.

Dornhoefer? Lonsberry? Voracek is better than both. Like quite easily.

Don Saleski basically pushed Lonsberry out of the top 6 for a time... before talking about Bridgman.