Why is Barber in the Hof but Not Macleish

[rnhaas]

I wasn't alive in the '70s and have seen very little footage of the Broad Street Bullies. I've long been curious as to why Bill Barber is in the Hall of Fame but not Rick MacLeish. MacLeish led the playoffs in scoring twice and goals once, and averaged almost as high a PPG as Barber over the regular season (and unlike Barber saw that increase in the playoffs). Is it because Barber was a LW and MacLeish was a second line centre and so he was likely beating up on weaker competition in the playoffs?

 

[Mike C]

I wasn't alive in the '70s and have seen very little footage of the Broad Street Bullies. I've long been curious as to why Bill Barber is in the Hall of Fame but not Rick MacLeish. MacLeish led the playoffs in scoring twice and goals once, and averaged almost as high a PPG as Barber over the regular season (and unlike Barber saw that increase in the playoffs). Is it because Barber was a LW and MacLeish was a second line centre and so he was likely beating up on weaker competition in the playoffs?

That's a really good question. Barber had over 100 more regular season pts but they had essentially the same career total playoff points

Barber was considered a little more well rounded but not by terribly much. MacLeish did fall victim to playing behind Clarke at C but he could a slide up to either wing if needed and was above avg on face offs. That guy was REALLY fast


You pose an excellent question--one I've never pondered

Curious to see other's responses

 

[Fatass]

Didn’t know RM isn’t in the Hall. He certainly should be, especially since guys like Keven Lowe are.,

 

[Moose Head]

By the same token, why is Shutt in the Hall but not P Mahovlich? Has to be the All Star noms. The thing is, Barber and Shutt were compete against Martin, Gillies, Simmer and OReilly. MacLeish and Mahovlich were competing with Espo, Clarke, Perreault, Dionne, Trottier, Lemaire, Ratelle and Sittler.

 

[JackSlater]

I don't think it's that surprising. Each was part of the Stanley Cup winning teams, but Barber played longer and had better numbers. While neither his games played nor his scoring stats are drastically better, if the committee just wanted to add another player from those Philadelphia teams (which is most likely) that's an easy excuse to pick one and not the other. Barber was also just a generally more prominent player, partly due to position. Barber made a best on best team Canada (plus the Challenge Cup team) and was a post-season all star three times while MacLeish never was. Barber was in the all star game six times while MacLeish was three times, which doesn't mean everything but does give an idea of their respective prominence. Barber also stayed in the hockey world upon retiring while MacLeish didn't, as far as I know anyway.

Barber was not really better than MacLeish, but on paper he looks a bit better and he was a more famous player. I don't believe that the committees dig much deeper than that when it comes to making these decisions.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I wonder how close it really was...Barber is probably overrated - like many LWs - by all star nods.

I'll just present a couple of points to chew on...
1. Team fatigue? Clarke and Parent absolutely had to get...stuff. Barber at LW gets nods. What are you gonna do, fill your whole ballot with all Flyers players?

2. Does MacLeish winning the 1975 Conn Smythe change this question or even change his trajectory all together? Even if he plays the same, do the voters show him any greater favor now that he's "in"? Who knows...but after single-handedly eliminating the Isles in game 7 of the Semi-Final, MacLeish was on his way to a 24-point playoff. That's a good-sized number for that time. But Shero instead left him to focus on just shutting down Gilbert Perreault in the Final - which he did. As a result, likely, the tide tipped towards Parent. And now Parent is the legend and MacLeish isn't...

 

[GKJ]

Barber being the Flyers all-time leader in goals helps set him apart, too.

 

[Buffalowing1988]

I wonder how close it really was...Barber is probably overrated - like many LWs - by all star nods.

I'll just present a couple of points to chew on...
1. Team fatigue? Clarke and Parent absolutely had to get...stuff. Barber at LW gets nods. What are you gonna do, fill your whole ballot with all Flyers players?

2. Does MacLeish winning the 1975 Conn Smythe change this question or even change his trajectory all together? Even if he plays the same, do the voters show him any greater favor now that he's "in"? Who knows...but after single-handedly eliminating the Isles in game 7 of the Semi-Final, MacLeish was on his way to a 24-point playoff. That's a good-sized number for that time. But Shero instead left him to focus on just shutting down Gilbert Perreault in the Final - which he did. As a result, likely, the tide tipped towards Parent. And now Parent is the legend and MacLeish isn't...

I want to hate MacLeish but between him covering Perreault like a glove for a bit and him coming through for the team that is considered a premier squad (not a dynasty), he deserves more attention.

There's a really fun video floating around YouTube where he goes against Perreault in a skills challenge. It seems odd to be Perreault as the guy he goes against when the obvious comp would be Rick Martin.

I'd say he's the slightly less skilled but more successful version of Rico.

 

[BadgerBruce]

MacLeish was an outstanding player, one of my absolute favourites to watch, but he doesn’t quite have a Hall of Fame career, though his outstanding point production in the playoffs makes for a legitimate discussion. Does Bill Barber? Borderline, but his longtime association with Clarke definitely helps him, just as Steve Shutt’s association with Lafleur does no harm.

Anyway, a few thoughts on Rick MacLeish. I’m going at this in a roundabout way, so be patient here.

How many of you remember when Pete Mahovlich centred Lafleur and Shutt? Killer trio, right?

But do you remember the Habs’ second line centre during those years? It was Hall of Famer Jacques Lemaire. Was Lemaire a first-line centre talent? After the Habs re-deployed (and later just traded) Pete Mahovlich, Lemaire stepped into the top role. Had he not been given that opportunity, which he seized, he’d likely be remembered as a great #2 centre on a great dynasty team. Not at the Henri Richard 2C level (who is?), but still pretty damn sweet. Sweet enough to get him into the Hall of Fame? I say probably not. He needed those big years centring the first line to seal the deal. Take those away and he’s got Ralph Backstrom-like numbers. Hall of Very Good.

MacLeish played behind Bobby Clarke, not Pete Mahovlich. Clarke was extremely durable and rarely missed more than a few games in a season. Unlike Pete Mahovlich, who saw his game demonstrably fall off, Clarke maintained 1C level play throughout the decade when he and MacLeish were teammates. This kept MacLeish, who I always believed was a legitimate 1C talent, playing most of his career between Ross Lonsberry and Gary Dornhoefer, two solid but unspectacular linemates.

The Lemaire-MacLeish comparison has a few other noteworthy features.

Both were excellent skaters, both had absolutely wicked wrist shots, both could move to the wing if need be, both were high level special teams guys. Lemaire is known for his 200 foot game and defensive conscience, but I would ask folks to watch some of the footage from the ‘75 finals, when Shero put MacLeish head-to-head against Perreault. There were very few NHL centres with the wheels and anticipation acumen to take on that task for an entire series. Not only did MacLeish totally shut down Perreault, but he cleanly out pointed him and ended up leading the playoffs in points for the second consecutive year. While Lemaire was a relentless, high-motor/ waterbug type, MacLeish was a significantly smoother skater who was an exceptional read-and-react type. Both got the job done.

In sum, Rick MacLeish was a joy to watch and a superb player. But he played behind one of the best and most durable centres in the game, and thus didn’t ever get the chance to be the number one pivot. That’s not his fault — nobody in the league at that time could have knocked Clarke out of the role. But it means he doesn’t quite have Hall of Fame credentials.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Barber drew more penalties.

 

[Staniowski]

Barber drew more penalties.

That was the plan!

 

[Staniowski]

Barber and MacLeish were both really good players; Barber was better and is generally underrated, at least a little.

One thing to remember about the two of them, is that MacLeish (like Clarke, like Leach) was probably at his best during the Cup wins, and Barber (who was a bit younger) wasn't. He at his best a bit later, in the late '70s and early '80s.

Another thing to note about Barber is that his style of play was probably the most unlike the Flyers overall style of play of all the Flyers players. He wasn't really feisty, overly-aggressive, or dirty in the same way as many of the other guys.

But Barber's game was very adaptable. He was a very smart player, good mobility, great shooter (slapper, backhand, good strength, etc.), good passer, played well in traffic and along the boards. Played the point on the PP, a good quarterback. Good defensively. He was definitely close to being the most complete forward of the 1970s.

 

[Staniowski]

But do you remember the Habs’ second line centre during those years? It was Hall of Famer Jacques Lemaire. Was Lemaire a first-line centre talent? After the Habs re-deployed (and later just traded) Pete Mahovlich, Lemaire stepped into the top role. Had he not been given that opportunity, which he seized, he’d likely be remembered as a great #2 centre on a great dynasty team. Not at the Henri Richard 2C level (who is?), but still pretty damn sweet. Sweet enough to get him into the Hall of Fame? I say probably not. He needed those big years centring the first line to seal the deal. Take those away and he’s got Ralph Backstrom-like numbers. Hall of Very Good.

Well, I think it's true that playing with Lafleur helped Lemaire's reputation a little bit. Afterall, this is about the only times we ever hear about Lemaire. However, Lemaire only played with Lafleur for 15% (or so) of his career. It's a pretty small part of Lemaire's career.

Lemaire's best years were not with Lafleur (and Shutt). He was actually Montreal's #1 C for multiple years before Lafleur.

Lemaire probably played with Cournoyer more than anybody.

And, remember, Lemaire was moved to Lafleur's line to help Lafleur, not the other way around. It was done deliberately to improve the line.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

MacLeish was a bigger piece of the Cup winners and should be in.

He led the playoffs in scoring in the 2 Philly Cups and led in goals once. He also has the better point finishes between the 2 with 4,4

 

[Gorskyontario]

Lemaire's best years were not with Lafleur (and Shutt). He was actually Montreal's #1 C for multiple years before Lafleur.

When? Lemaire mostly played winger in the late 60s and early 70s. Exactly which seasons was he montreals #1c?

 

[archangel2]

I am more interested in why after the 83/84 season, Clarke and Barber both retired at 34 and 31 respectably. And MacLeish retired that year as well at the age of 33.

 

[overpass]

I am more interested in why after the 83/84 season, Clarke and Barber both retired at 34 and 31 respectably. And MacLeish retired that year as well at the age of 33.

Clarke retired as a player because he was offered the general manager position instead and decided it would be a good opportunity to start his post hockey career.

Barber's knees were shot. He actually didn't retire until after the 84-85 season when he gave up on making it back after surgery.

 

[Staniowski]

I am more interested in why after the 83/84 season, Clarke and Barber both retired at 34 and 31 respectably. And MacLeish retired that year as well at the age of 33.

Barber retired due to a knee injury, he was still a good player and could've played several more years otherwise. His career point totals would likely be 1,100 or 1,200 if not for his injury.

 

[Staniowski]

When? Lemaire mostly played winger in the late 60s and early 70s. Exactly which seasons was he montreals #1c?

Lemaire was the C on the #1 line for most of '72, '73, and '74. He played mostly with Cournoyer, and they had several LWs through those years. During this period Lemaire and Cournoyer were at the peaks of their careers, and were two of the best players in the NHL.

If we back up to the start of Lemaire's career, he played both LW and C in his first four seasons ('68, '69, '70, '71), but LW the large majority, I think.

Then the Big Guy retired, and Lemaire played mostly C after that, and I assume those two things are related.

So, Lemaire was the Habs C on their top line for most of 6 of the 8 years he played mostly C. In the middle two of those, Pete was playing C with Lafleur and Shutt.

Lemaire probably received significant Conn Smythe votes multiple times before he ever played with Lafleur.