Giroux just had a career year with his first 100 point season, can he do it again sure, but the chances are not in his favor. Most likely his point totals will decrease, due to injury or some other reason. Doesn't mean he will play bad, just unlikely.
- Glak18

It was his first year on wing in a long while, his first year on a line with Coots (who is just entering his prime) and his first year being 100% healthy in a while. It was one year under these circumstances. Don’t we need to see a second year before automatically declaring it to be an anomaly? He is in fact a point producer player over his career. All I’m saying is I feel he has earned respect.

It was his first year on wing in a long while, his first year on a line with Coots (who is just entering his prime) and his first year being 100% healthy in a while. It was one year under these circumstances. Don’t we need to see a second year before automatically declaring it to be an anomaly? He is in fact a point producer player over his career. All I’m saying is I feel he has earned respect.
- NC Flyers Fan

He's a point producer for sure. But if I were a betting man, I'd put him in the 80-90 point range if he's healthy as opposed to an annual 100+ point player.

It was his first year on wing in a long while, his first year on a line with Coots (who is just entering his prime) and his first year being 100% healthy in a while. It was one year under these circumstances. Don’t we need to see a second year before automatically declaring it to be an anomaly? He is in fact a point producer player over his career. All I’m saying is I feel he has earned respect.
- NC Flyers Fan

I understand your point and agree that saying he will be a fantasy bust is really selling G short. If he regresses to 75 points - is that a fantasy bust? I personally don't think so.

Glak's point was that there is a high degree of probability that he does not reach the same level of success as last year. That is a fair point as well. That was his best season in the NHL, by far. Everything went right for him, and the line in general. It's risky to predict that this will be the case again.

Most likely case for G is 75 - 90 points. Again, I don't think that is a bust by any stretch.

He's a point producer for sure. But if I were a betting man, I'd put him in the 80-90 point range if he's healthy as opposed to an annual 100+ point player.
- jmatchett383

Barring injury, I’m betting 100 or higher and putting it in ink.

It was his first year on wing in a long while, his first year on a line with Coots (who is just entering his prime) and his first year being 100% healthy in a while. It was one year under these circumstances. Don’t we need to see a second year before automatically declaring it to be an anomaly? He is in fact a point producer player over his career. All I’m saying is I feel he has earned respect.
- NC Flyers Fan

He's a point producer for sure. But if I were a betting man, I'd put him in the 80-90 point range if he's healthy as opposed to an annual 100+ point player.
- jmatchett383

I would have to agree with jmatchett here. Scoring 100 points in the NHL is not easy now a days, it was an amazing bounce back year for him. He does deserve the respect, but the chances of him at 30 years old to have back to back career years is a super longshot. I would say the same, around 80-85 points would still be incredible, hopefully that comes with more wins though.

Barring injury, I’m betting 100 or higher and putting it in ink.
- NC Flyers Fan

If someone put a gun to my head, I would take UNDER 100 in a heartbeat.

I understand your point and agree that saying he will be a fantasy bust is really selling G short. If he regresses to 75 points - is that a fantasy bust? I personally don't think so.

Glak's point was that there is a high degree of probability that he does not reach the same level of success as last year. That is a fair point as well. That was his best season in the NHL, by far. Everything went right for him, and the line in general. It's risky to predict that this will be the case again.

Most likely case for G is 75 - 90 points. Again, I don't think that is a bust by any stretch.
- TheGreat28

Thank you. He will not be a bust and should not be on that list.

It's kind of a schenny day outside, huh?

If someone put a gun to my head, I would take UNDER 100 in a heartbeat.
- Glak18

Of course, I would take less along with better team success. I just think that the bar has been set too low for him. Last season many scoffed that he could reach 60 points and laughed when G said he could get 80. The lack of expectations kept his amazing season from being recognized for what it was.

If someone put a gun to my head, I would take UNDER 100 in a heartbeat.
- Glak18

Agreed. Interestly, my company sells forecasting software that works on probabilities. If we were to model G's potential point production, we'd factor in historically games played, points produced, some advanced metrics, etc. We would then forecast a distribution of all possible points he could produce, and the probability of each point value. Without getting into the math too much, we'd calculate probalisitic ranges - standard deviations away from the mean of the distribution.

Without actually building a model, looking at his historical data we would probably calculate the mean somewhere in the 70 - 75 range. That would be our forecast of what we'd expect him to produce. That would include potential games lost due to injury plus his historical production. If you are familiar with Bell curves, that would likely be the highest point in the curve, e.g. most probable.

If you picture that Bell curve and then think of the area that would be north of 100 points, there is probably < 5% probability that he reaches that again.

Sorry, maybe that was too much math before lunch

It's kind of a schenny day outside, huh?
- hereticpride

It seems every day is

Agreed. Interestly, my company sells forecasting software that works on probabilities. If we were to model G's potential point production, we'd factor in historically games played, points produced, some advanced metrics, etc. We would then forecast a distribution of all possible points he could produce, and the probability of each point value. Without getting into the math too much, we'd calculate probalisitic ranges - standard deviations away from the mean of the distribution.

Without actually building a model, looking at his historical data we would probably calculate the mean somewhere in the 70 - 75 range. That would be our forecast of what we'd expect him to produce. That would include potential games lost due to injury plus his historical production. If you are familiar with Bell curves, that would likely be the highest point in the curve, e.g. most probable.

If you picture that Bell curve and then think of the area that would be north of 100 points, there is probably < 5% probability that he reaches that again.

Sorry, maybe that was too much math before lunch
- TheGreat28

did you just put yourself out of business?

Of course, I would take less along with better team success. I just think that the bar has been set too low for him. Last season many scoffed that he could reach 60 points and laughed when G said he could get 80. The lack of expectations kept his amazing season from being recognized for what it was.
- NC Flyers Fan

Only 3 players put up 100+ points last season (could have been 5 if Malkin and MacKinnon weren't hurt). Do I think Giroux is a good player who will be a top-20 scorer who puts up 80+ points? Sure. Do I expect him to be a top-5 scorer who plays 80+ games every year? No.

Agreed. Interestly, my company sells forecasting software that works on probabilities. If we were to model G's potential point production, we'd factor in historically games played, points produced, some advanced metrics, etc. We would then forecast a distribution of all possible points he could produce, and the probability of each point value. Without getting into the math too much, we'd calculate probalisitic ranges - standard deviations away from the mean of the distribution.

Without actually building a model, looking at his historical data we would probably calculate the mean somewhere in the 70 - 75 range. That would be our forecast of what we'd expect him to produce. That would include potential games lost due to injury plus his historical production. If you are familiar with Bell curves, that would likely be the highest point in the curve, e.g. most probable.

If you picture that Bell curve and then think of the area that would be north of 100 points, there is probably < 5% probability that he reaches that again.

Sorry, maybe that was too much math before lunch
- TheGreat28

Well, we got Patrick.

Brayden Schenn

Go

Only 3 players put up 100+ points last season (could have been 5 if Malkin and MacKinnon weren't hurt). Do I think Giroux is a good player who will be a top-20 scorer who puts up 80+ points? Sure. Do I expect him to be a top-5 scorer who plays 80+ games every year? No.
- jmatchett383

I’m not talking every year, just next season. And yes, top 5.

Scott Wheeler from The Athletic posted an article on the top 50 prospects: Carter Hart is at 27 and Morgan Frost is at 42. Myers is listed as an honorable mention.

did you just put yourself out of business?
- Scoob

Haha. Trust me, none of my customers would be ok with that level of swag guess.

But it's directionally sound. Statistically unlikely that he is north of 100. Doesn't it mean it can't happen though. I'd be thrilled with 85+, because it means he's healthy for the majority of the season and producing at / above a ppg.

Brayden Schenn

Go
- jmatchett383

He plays for st Louis. Not even a flyer anymore. The man-love for him amongst us fans is Is overrated, like voracek and pats steaks.
What I remember most about Brayden Schenn is that one game, on his best shift ever, he crushed someone in open ice and i thought he was the next Mike Richards (before drugs).
Then my next favorite memory of him is the day hextall traded him to st Louis and we drafted farabee because st Louis didn't make the playoffs. I remember schenn was having an "mvp season" when he first got to st Louis but then he turned into the schenn we knew when he was here and he got streaky.

I hope this helps!

A lot of people are concerned with signing Simmonds to a deal with significant term such as 5 years but I haven't heard any objections to Hextall signing 29 year old JVR to a 5 year 7M AAV deal.

I’m not talking every year, just next season. And yes, top 5.
- NC Flyers Fan

Well then we're just gonna disagree, because as much as I like him, I don't think he's a perennial top-5 point producer who will play 80+ games.

A lot of people are concerned with signing Simmonds to a deal with significant term such as 5 years but I haven't heard any objections to Hextall signing 29 year old JVR to a 5 year 7M AAV deal.
- MJL

I was thinking the same thing. And yet Wayne represents everything that a flyer is.... but we want him to walk? 5yr/6.5m will be fine with me. When the kids step up to make the roster you trade him to a team who thinks they are "that player" away and you steal a promising asset to add to the farm for the future.
Trade him 3 years from now

Scott Wheeler from The Athletic posted an article on the top 50 prospects: Carter Hart is at 27 and Morgan Frost is at 42. Myers is listed as an honorable mention.
- Sinisalo4vr

How many goalies were ahead of Hart on his list?

Haha. Trust me, none of my customers would be ok with that level of swag guess.

But it's directionally sound. Statistically unlikely that he is north of 100. Doesn't it mean it can't happen though. I'd be thrilled with 85+, because it means he's healthy for the majority of the season and producing at / above a ppg.
- TheGreat28

I agree

A lot of people are concerned with signing Simmonds to a deal with significant term such as 5 years but I haven't heard any objections to Hextall signing 29 year old JVR to a 5 year 7M AAV deal.
- MJL

boom