[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by kirant

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.

Unfortunately, and I'm not trying to be pedantic or obtuse, but individual stats don't count for anything in a league determined by wins. Missing games = missing opportunity to help your team WIN, and one of the other constants of Glencross' career in the NHL is that his teams don't win much. They would probably win more if he was in more games, but that's the issue with using PPG instead of the simpler 'points'.

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.

This further speaks the point I made above. Chances are when he comes back from an injury, he's not up to 100% of his ability, so he's actually playing even more games at a less effective rate than his PPG would indicate.

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.

Yep, agreed there, but it also raises another drawback with Glencross, he is streaky. When the capitals first got him, he was a streaky goal scorer. Now, however, without that goal scoring/point production, Washington obviously doesn't feel that he brings very much. Without scoring, he doesn't bring enough to justify being in the lineup of a playoff team. The old Glencross perhaps brought defensive play and physicality, but he hasn't been that player since Iginla was in the lineup, and Washington is experiencing that now.

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.

Agreed, the difference of course is that many flames fans and perhaps the organization saw him as a top 6 player, but when he was a top 6 forward for Calgary, they never won anything, which as mentioned, is the ultimate metric. Washington has decided ultimately that Glencross isn't going to help them win either.