How long has Giroux been this good?
Stop being a hypocrite.
Excuse me? In one of the other "big three" threads, I've said that Giroux doesn't belong with the other two. Might be worth doing a bit of research before calling me out, champ.
Excuse me? In one of the other "big three" threads, I've said that Giroux doesn't belong with the other two. Might be worth doing a bit of research before calling me out, champ.
I'm not going to research your posts, bro. Just odd you decided to call out Karlsson rather than Giroux in that post.
The hate for Giroux is hillarious. He's two points behind Stamkos, played in less games, and has almost the same amount of points over the last 2 seasons.
He also has a corsi rating of +9. But yeah, Stamkos is in a different class to Giroux.......
Giroux is one of the worst 1st line centers out there. Malkin is pretty good overall and so is Stamkos but they are not "on a different level" compared to the Sedins, Keslers, Datsyuks and Toews.
I happen to think there are 20 or so current players better than Giroux, which puts me way out on a limb in terms of popular opinion. But even I don't think there are 25-30 centers better than him.
The hate for Giroux is hillarious. He's two points behind Stamkos, played in less games, and has almost the same amount of points over the last 2 seasons.
He also has a corsi rating of +9. But yeah, Stamkos is in a different class to Giroux.......
Raw Corsi means absolutely nothing about individual players when presented in a vacuum, as you just have.
The hate for Giroux is hillarious. He's two points behind Stamkos, played in less games, and has almost the same amount of points over the last 2 seasons.
He also has a corsi rating of +9. But yeah, Stamkos is in a different class to Giroux.......
Besides that one troll, it's not really hate. It's simply pointing out the fact that if you're going to point out the "big three" of the NHL, it's shortsighted to include Giroux
The hate for Giroux is hillarious. He's two points behind Stamkos, played in less games, and has almost the same amount of points over the last 2 seasons.
He also has a corsi rating of +9. But yeah, Stamkos is in a different class to Giroux.......
I think the reason many do not put Giroux on Stamkos's level is that this is Giroux's first season over ppg and this is Stamkos's third and Giroux is two years older than Stamkos. No hate just don't think he is as good as Stamkos yet a season or two more like this and he is absolutely on the same level ( as long as Stamkos doesn't improve as well)
Also Corsi Rel is a much better stat to compare players on different teams and they have the exact same rating of 7.1
I'd like to see Giroux stay on this level for another season before putting him on the same level as Malkin and Stamkos who have proven they can play at this level for multiple seasons. That said, I do hope Giroux can continue playing like this and that his concussion won't have a lasting, negative effect on his game.
The hate for Giroux is hillarious. He's two points behind Stamkos, played in less games, and has almost the same amount of points over the last 2 seasons.
He also has a corsi rating of +9. But yeah, Stamkos is in a different class to Giroux.......
Putting Stamkos over Giroux means people hate Giroux? Bit of an overreaction, I think.
As much as I love Giroux, there is no way he can be considered a part of "The Big Three". The past two years a Sedin Brother won the Art Ross and even then they weren't considered to be a part of any sort of "Big Three". For them the masses called for consistent dominance season after season before they could get in that conversation and the same principle must be applied to Giroux.
The hate for Giroux is hillarious. He's two points behind Stamkos, played in less games, and has almost the same amount of points over the last 2 seasons.
He also has a corsi rating of +9. But yeah, Stamkos is in a different class to Giroux.......
How many points does Giroux have in the last 3 season? how much more does Stamkos have?
Sorry you aren't a top-3 player after 1 year above 80 points.
How many points does Giroux have in the last 3 season? how much more does Stamkos have?
Sorry you aren't a top-3 player after 1 year above 80 points.
I know what you're saying, but you should also take into account that G put up 70+ last year behind Richards and Carter, and it some spots even Briere.. he didn't get the minutes the others did. He can be left out of the "big three" for now, but he's well on his way.
And Giroux puts up those numbers despite being used as a top Flyers PK forward and taking key defensive zone faceoffs regularly.
Compared to the others there are 3 elite two way centers in Giroux, Toews and Datsyuk right now. And the play vastly different then a Stamkos or Malkin or the Sedins whose coaches use them almost exclusively as offensive players.
I don't know why pretty much everyone around here doesn't have a functional memory and is incapable of doing simple math.
Ovechkin's stats dwarf everyone else's in the discussion, and it isn't even close.
Take Ovechkin vs. Malkin for example. They've been in the league the same amount of time. Ovechkin has 136 more goals and 33 more assists. Even if you wanted to pro-rate for Malkin's lack of durability, Ovechkin is still better in every concievable way. Ovechkin is a career 1.23 PPG, Malkin is 1.21. Ovechkins scores .61 GPG. Malkin .48. Ovechkin gets .1 game winning goals per game. Malkin .8.
Crosby arguably rivals Ovechkin - if you pretend durability is not an asset in the game of hockey. Crosby is a 1.39 career PPG guy and a career .52 GPG, but he has 111 fewer goals than Ovechkin in the same number of years and has only .062 game winning goals per game.
On a per season basis Ovechkin is untouchable by any of these guys. Why don't people do analysis on a per season basis (other than because it doesn't suit your agenda)? At the end of your career, people aren't going to make excuses for small numbers due to injuries. And the fact is if you are hurt and making $8.7 million a year, not only are you not an asset to your team, you are actually hurting it.
And don't even get me started on Giroux and his 21 freakin goals per season. Or Stamkos's 1.01 PPG, or the Sedin's identicle .83 PPG, or Datsyuk's .98.
None of these guys is anywhere close to Alexander Ovechkin. There is no big three. There is no big two. There is only a big 1, and that's Ovi. The numbers don't lie.
And Giroux puts up those numbers despite being used as a top Flyers PK forward and taking key defensive zone faceoffs regularly.
Compared to the others there are 3 elite two way centers in Giroux, Toews and Datsyuk right now. And the play vastly different then a Stamkos or Malkin or the Sedins whose coaches use them almost exclusively as offensive players.
I don't know why pretty much everyone around here doesn't have a functional memory and is incapable of doing simple math.
Ovechkin's stats dwarf everyone else's in the discussion, and it isn't even close.
Take Ovechkin vs. Malkin for example. They've been in the league the same amount of time. Ovechkin has 136 more goals and 33 more assists. Even if you wanted to pro-rate for Malkin's lack of durability, Ovechkin is still better in every concievable way. Ovechkin is a career 1.23 PPG, Malkin is 1.21. Ovechkins scores .61 GPG. Malkin .48. Ovechkin gets .1 game winning goals per game. Malkin .8.
Crosby arguably rivals Ovechkin - if you pretend durability is not an asset in the game of hockey. Crosby is a 1.39 career PPG guy and a career .52 GPG, but he has 111 fewer goals than Ovechkin in the same number of years and has only .062 game winning goals per game.
On a per season basis Ovechkin is untouchable by any of these guys. Why don't people do analysis on a per season basis (other than because it doesn't suit your agenda)? At the end of your career, people aren't going to make excuses for small numbers due to injuries. And the fact is if you are hurt and making $8.7 million a year, not only are you not an asset to your team, you are actually hurting it.
And don't even get me started on Giroux and his 21 freakin goals per season. Or Stamkos's 1.01 PPG, or the Sedin's identicle .83 PPG, or Datsyuk's .98.
None of these guys is anywhere close to Alexander Ovechkin. There is no big three. There is no big two. There is only a big 1, and that's Ovi. The numbers don't lie.
I'd say it goes Malkin, then Stamkos, then a whole mess of players who are roughly the same, meaning it's a big 2 for now (though 1 easy to rank above the other) and Crosby is possibly going to make that a big 3 when he returns (I don't doubt he will, but he hasn't played a lot of hockey over the past 2 seasons).
No matter how many times someone tries to say "my *insert star player here* has improved on defense" the fact is their own coaches don't give them PK time and their FO starts are heavily skewed offensive zone. It's not opinion, it's fact. The PK numbers for Stamkos, the Sedins, Malkin, etc.. don't exist because they aren't played on it. Offensive/defensive zone draws are a stat.
When their own coach thinks enough of them to play them differently then I'll regard them differently.
No matter how many times someone tries to say "my *insert star player here* has improved on defense" the fact is their own coaches don't give them PK time and their FO starts are heavily skewed offensive zone. It's not opinion, it's fact. The PK numbers for Stamkos, the Sedins, Malkin, etc.. don't exist because they aren't played on it. Offensive/defensive zone draws are a stat.
When their own coach thinks enough of them to play them differently then I'll regard them differently.
Why would Dan Bylsma.. with Staal, Cooke, Dupuis and Adams on his roster put Malkin on the PK? He doesn't need to. It would be bad coaching.
You're saying these players are better simply because they are put on the PK.. but their teams PK's aren't even good. Philly and Chicago's PK's are pretty terrible and Detroit's is mediocre. Just saying.
I'm not going to research your posts, bro. Just odd you decided to call out Karlsson rather than Giroux in that post. 
