Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
He's played more than 70 games twice in his entire career, therefor 70-80 games is not his 'typical' rate.
|
Fair enough that he's not exactly the healthiest of guys and putting in 70-80 is probably not the right number. His typical range appears to be about 65 to 75 games with a couple down years and a reasonably healthy year (62, 74, 67, 79, 67, 40 in 48, 38, 71 since he became an NHL fixture).
I use 82 game rates as a traditional benchmark for points as it gives a number we can understand and recognize easily as a point rate. It makes in my mind to say that he's got a rate of [x] points over 82 games (or a PPG rate of [y]) as oppose to saying he's got less than 30 points in the last 2 seasons as this second value takes out a lot of considerations, which is the main thrust of what I'm trying to get at; I find it hard to say that 30 points is atypical of his circumstances in either of those two years given the circumstances of his play, namely lockout and particularly bad injury.
In that sense I think the first year is hard to hold against Glencross for being below 30 points. He missed about 17% of the games (fairly standard for him) and had a fairly standard Glencross production rate for the time he was healthy. I would interpret the second year would raise questions about his health than his overall production ability from a purely goals and assists point of view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
If we're going to be fair to Glencross we need to start with an accurate assessment of what he's actually done. The only thing consistent about Glencross appears to be his inability to play a full season.
|
I absolutely agree with that statement. He doesn't play 82 games a year and I think that's part of his lower contract value comes from. A healthy player that runs 82 games and plays them with a great deal of consistency as oppose to players who get into scoring slumps would probably earn more than 2.5 for his typical production rate and overall play.
We all know Glencross is inconsistent and there are parts of the year where he's invisible while in other parts he looks great. I think, much like some of the other supporting players in Calgary in years past, he's probably best described as consistently inconsistent.