Player Discussion Tanner Glass...a BIG reason we're better...right? (Mod: not a bashing thread)

[silverfish]

I think if Glass fought Dumont that the Rangers would've won last night.

Mostly because Glass would've been in the box for 5 minutes.

 

[Thirty One]

I am not saying I want Glass playing in the PO but say another forward got hurt. Who would I rather have? Glass or Pirri on the fourth line? How about we consider the role instead of possession stats for the moment. What does Pirri do aside from miss the net with his "terrific" shot? I'll wait. "He drives possession", so did friggin Hrivik and his 2 points in 16 games where all of the NHL passed on claiming him too. I wanna see Pirri in the PO so bad when the games get sooooo friggin tight and there is no room to maneuver. Any puck battle he will lose, isn't that good defensively and will be just as useless as Glass, like some of you claim he is.

What you and others frequently do when talking replacements for Glass is to make them sound like they just blend in to the play without providing anything noticeable, while ignoring how that could still be an upgrade on The Tanner.

 

[Thirty One]

Why keep rehashing the GF/60 etc though?

Because I care about such things as goals.

That is basically complaining that he is in the lineup.

No argument that I'm complaining about him in the lineup. That's not blaming the loss on him though.

Puempel and Pirri have been given ample opportunity.

I'm quite certain Glass has too.

 

[Anthony5967]

What you and others frequently do when talking replacements for Glass is to make them sound like they just blend in to the play without providing anything noticeable, while ignoring how that could still be an upgrade on The Tanner.

4 goals in his last 48. What has he done to be THAT noticeable on the fourth line? He gets rag dolled, knocked off pucks with a pinky flick, isn't a great skater, has never been great defensively. If he doesn't have a wide open shot it's like he is useless.

 

[Ail]

4 goals in his last 48. What has he done to be THAT noticeable on the fourth line? He gets rag dolled, knocked off pucks with a pinky flick, isn't a great skater, has never been great defensively. If he doesn't have a wide open shot it's like he is useless.

Now ask yourself the same question for Tanner without using intangibles and complete fairy tale BS that has no measurable outcome on the results of a game.

The difference between Glass and every single player he has found ice time over, is that those players had something tangible and measurable you could point to, to justify playing them. (Over TG.)

 

[Anthony5967]

Because I care about such things as goals.


No argument that I'm complaining about him in the lineup. That's not blaming the loss on him though.


I'm quite certain Glass has too.

Glass has been given ample chances. Not even here to defend he is some star. Just saying, the singling out and hate when there are 11 other forwards in the lineup who stopped playing from periods 2-3 is a bit ridiculous. So if they dress Pirri is he gonna drive the net down a goal when they need more greasy chances from in between the circles?? Don't see how adding a guy like that would change things dramatically.

 

[Thirty One]

4 goals in his last 48. What has he done to be THAT noticeable on the fourth line? He gets rag dolled, knocked off pucks with a pinky flick, isn't a great skater, has never been great defensively. If he doesn't have a wide open shot it's like he is useless.

I'm not making the argument he's been noticeable. I'm saying there's:

Noticeably good
Not noticeable
Noticeably bad

I prefer the 2nd option to the 3rd.

 

[Anthony5967]

I'm not making the argument he's been noticeable. I'm saying there's:

Noticeably good
Not noticeable
Noticeably bad

I prefer the 2nd option to the 3rd.

To say in the first few games he was up here he was not noticeable is a crock because he had a few games where you could see he was playing well. Retrieving pucks, tough on the walls, made passes to guys which even reached sticks which I was surprised to see. Not fair to say he has not been noticeable.

 

[Trxjw]

I have no idea how else physical play is measured

You can be tough to play against. Limit time and space. Be physical without being credited with a hit, surely. Generally though, you have to be able to actually keep up with the play to do that. Not really Glass's forte.

Therein lies the problem. The whole point is that it isn't completely measurable. Saying you can reduce physical play down to 'hits' is ridiculous.

 

[Thirty One]

Glass has been given ample chances. Not even here to defend he is some star. Just saying, the singling out and hate when there are 11 other forwards in the lineup who stopped playing from periods 2-3 is a bit ridiculous. So if they dress Pirri is he gonna drive the net down a goal when they need more greasy chances from in between the circles?? Don't see how adding a guy like that would change things dramatically.

That brings me to another point: if Glass can get the credit for the Rangers having lots of energy, is it also fair for him to get the blame when they have little?

I'm not suggesting a dramatic shift. I'm saying there's a marginal negative impact each game when Glass is in the lineup over a reasonable replacement.

To say in the first few games he was up here he was not noticeable is a crock because he had a few games where you could see he was playing well. Retrieving pucks, tough on the walls, made passes to guys which even reached sticks which I was surprised to see. Not fair to say he has not been noticeable.

I didn't say he wasn't noticeable. Are you even reading my posts?

 

[silverfish]

Therein lies the problem. The whole point is that it isn't completely measurable. Saying you can reduce physical play down to 'hits' is ridiculous.

Is there a better proxy, though? And if there isn't, then you get into the weeds. What you think is good physical play and what I think is good physical play could be two totally different things. How important you think physical play is and how important I think physical play is could be two totally different things.

Then, we'll both be arguing things that neither of us can prove, but simultaneously believe.

 

[Anthony5967]

That brings me to another point: if Glass can get the credit for the Rangers having lots of energy, is it also fair for him to get the blame when they have little?

I'm not suggesting a dramatic shift. I'm saying there's a marginal negative impact each game when Glass is in the lineup over a reasonable replacement.


I didn't say he wasn't noticeable. Are you even reading my posts?

Noticeable
Not noticeable


You are saying Glass is not noticeable and said you weren't making the point in saying Pirri was or wasn't. Yea I see what you said. I saw where you could've gotten confused once I re read it. My bad.

 

[Trxjw]

Is there a better proxy, though? And if there isn't, then you get into the weeds. What you think is good physical play and what I think is good physical play could be two totally different things. How important you think physical play is and how important I think physical play is could be two totally different things.

Then, we'll both be arguing things that neither of us can prove, but simultaneously believe.

There is no proxy, and there doesn't have to be one. You like to view things from a statistical angle and that's totally fine. I like to believe that there are simply some aspects of the game that aren't quantifiable, and that's totally fine as well. The problem is that when we debate this stuff, you're always circling it back to shot metrics, and I'm always clinging to "it's not that simple."

Do I think Glass is a great hockey player? No, but I do think a teammate saying they feel a little more confident when he's on the team can be enough to overlook a lousy CF% in 8-9 minutes of ice time a night. Particularly when I believe that particular metric is overblown in his case.

I believe there is a need for a guy like that on the team. Are there better options around the league? Yes. Are there better options in the organization? Unfortunately not.

 

[silverfish]

There is no proxy, and there doesn't have to be one. You like to view things from a statistical angle and that's totally fine. I like to believe that there are simply some aspects of the game that aren't quantifiable, and that's totally fine as well. The problem is that when we debate this stuff, you're always circling it back to shot metrics, and I'm always clinging to "it's not that simple."

Do I think Glass is a great hockey player? No, but I do think a teammate saying they feel a little more confident when he's on the team can be enough to overlook a lousy CF% in 8-9 minutes of ice time a night. Particularly when I believe that particular metric is overblown in his case.

I believe there is a need for a guy like that on the team. Are there better options around the league? Yes. Are there better options in the organization? Unfortunately not.

If I'm presenting something that I truly believe, then I like to have some semblance of objectivity behind it. It doesn't mean that I believe that there aren't aspects of hockey that aren't (yet) quantifiable. Of course I believe that. But, I don't believe that there are aspects of hockey that aren't yet quantifiable that marginally impact the game on the ice to a degree of deciding whether or not one team will win, or one team will lose.

I think Glass is terrible at hockey relative to other professional hockey players.

I think a player saying they like having Glass in the lineup is just being a good teammate. What else do you want them to say? There's a reason that every player in the NHL plays in front of the league's greatest fans.

Is there a need for a guy like that on an NHL squad? Sure. Is there much more of a need for a guy like that on an NHL squad who can simultaneously not be a detriment when he steps on the ice? I think we'd agree here, too.

Do I want Glass in the lineup over a guy like Pirri who can actually bring offense because Glass plays hockey differently than Pirri? No. Because, at the end of the day, the Rangers are a better team with Pirri in the lineup over Glass. With Puempel in the lineup over Glass. With Vesey or Buch (when one of these guys gets benched for Fast) over Glass.

 

[vladmyir111]

Stats aside, since Glass and Smith joined the team I see other players actually following suit and hitting people and not being total cream puffs in the crease. You're not going to win in the playoffs if at least some part of your team isn't difficult to play against, all the fancy passing and skating doesn't add up to much when you're getting hooked and interfered with all playoffs long with the refs putting their whistles away.

Hell we had Dorsett playing in the finals last time, is someone actually going to tell me he was better at anything than glass?

 

[Ail]

Hell we had Dorsett playing in the finals last time, is someone actually going to tell me he was better at anything than glass?

Yes, actually.

 

[Thirty One]

Hell we had Dorsett playing in the finals last time, is someone actually going to tell me he was better at anything than glass?

Um, yes.

 

[vladmyir111]

Um, yes.

Did his one assist in 23 games send us to the finals?

 

[Ail]

Do I think Glass is a great hockey player? No, but I do think a teammate saying they feel a little more confident when he's on the team can be enough to overlook a lousy CF% in 8-9 minutes of ice time a night. Particularly when I believe that particular metric is overblown in his case.

How far does that confidence go? Does it translate in to goals, in to wins? Even if the team truly does believe that, if it has no effect on winning then it should be ignored. These players have a job to do whether or not Tanner Glass is on the roster. I am very skeptical that Tanner Glass somehow makes enough of a difference in his presence for the remainder of the team to make up for his deficiencies on the ice.

 

[vladmyir111]

And just to be clear I couldn't care less if it's Glass filling the spot, I'm just saying we need a few guys playing like glass does, Smith does, and Klein used to before he became a hipster.

Pumple and Pirri are in the same range of joke land that Glass is.

 

[Thirty One]

Did his one assist in 23 games send us to the finals?

I can live with players not being offensively impactful, but there's a football field between that and being the on-ice drain that Glass is.

 

[Trxjw]

If I'm presenting something that I truly believe, then I like to have some semblance of objectivity behind it. It doesn't mean that I believe that there aren't aspects of hockey that aren't (yet) quantifiable. Of course I believe that. But, I don't believe that there are aspects of hockey that aren't yet quantifiable that marginally impact the game on the ice to a degree of deciding whether or not one team will win, or one team will lose.

But that's the point. You don't believe these things have that impact, and you also admit they aren't measurable. So how is that doing anything but putting an entirely unrealistic burden of proof on anyone who holds a differing point of view?

I think Glass is terrible at hockey relative to other professional hockey players.

I just said the same thing. I think the difference is where we weigh his value against other players who I deem to be terrible, but you see value in because of their advanced stats.

I think a player saying they like having Glass in the lineup is just being a good teammate. What else do you want them to say? There's a reason that every player in the NHL plays in front of the league's greatest fans.

That's quite a slippery slope you're establishing here.

Is there a need for a guy like that on an NHL squad? Sure. Is there much more of a need for a guy like that on an NHL squad who can simultaneously not be a detriment when he steps on the ice? I think we'd agree here, too.

Yes. Like I said, where we disagree is that Glass is a "detriment" to his team. I don't believe he has as severe of an impact as you believe he does.

Do I want Glass in the lineup over a guy like Pirri who can actually bring offense because Glass plays hockey differently than Pirri? No. Because, at the end of the day, the Rangers are a better team with Pirri in the lineup over Glass. With Puempel in the lineup over Glass. With Vesey or Buch (when one of these guys gets benched for Fast) over Glass.

I put Pirri and Puempel right in the same category as Glass. Not very good players. What makes the Rangers a better team with Pirri in the lineup?

 

[Revel]

Have any statsters done a look-up of 4th line CF% since Tanner Glass has been re-introduced...and then compared it to the 4th line CF% pre-Glass?

 

[Raspewtin]

Stats aside, since Glass and Smith joined the team I see other players actually following suit and hitting people and not being total cream puffs in the crease. You're not going to win in the playoffs if at least some part of your team isn't difficult to play against, all the fancy passing and skating doesn't add up to much when you're getting hooked and interfered with all playoffs long with the refs putting their whistles away.

]

Great, pinpoint exactly where Glass has played his part in this. Other than just by virtue of being tuff

Hell we had Dorsett playing in the finals last time, is someone actually going to tell me he was better at anything than glass?

Uh, without any reasonable doubt.

 

[silverfish]

But that's the point. You don't believe these things have that impact, and you also admit they aren't measurable. So how is that doing anything but putting an entirely unrealistic burden of proof on anyone who holds a differing point of view?

Because things that can be proven should be proven. If they can't, then so be it, but I'm trying to limit my time arguing things that can't be proven. Unfortunately, this has garnered me the reputation of "not caring about other people's opinions" which is not true. I care, I just don't want to put in the time debating someone else's opinion. Not like I'm going to sway them off it, nor them off mine. So, when that happens, I open work back up

I just said the same thing. I think the difference is where we weigh his value against other players who I deem to be terrible, but you see value in because of their advanced stats.

Yes. I think this is a fair summation. But I also like what I see from Pirri and Puempel a lot more than what I see from Glass.

That's quite a slippery slope you're establishing here.

Well, I believe it, but that's me. There's a reason I don't watch player interviews, pre-game, intermission, or post-game anymore.

Yes. Like I said, where we disagree is that Glass is a "detriment" to his team. I don't believe he has as severe of an impact as you believe he does.

Well, IMO, we're back to icing a fourth line where it's an accomplishment in the game if they don't get out-attempted, or if they don't get scored on. We used to have a fourth line where more was expected of them. It's a waste of 8-10 minutes of 5v5 ice every game.

I put Pirri and Puempel right in the same category as Glass. Not very good players. What makes the Rangers a better team with Pirri in the lineup?

The only way I can respond to this is with stats, which seems unwelcome, so I won't. You know why I like Pirri and Puempel better than Glass. I see it when I watch the game, I see it when I study the game after I watch the game.

Is there a distinction between the type of player that Glass is, and the type of players that Pirri and Puempel are? Sure. They are different. If we had a guy like Sean Avery on the roster, I'd gladly put him in the lineup over all three of those dudes. But we don't. However, that doesn't mean we should sacrifice 8-10 mins of 5v5 ice a night to play a "player like Glass" when he is hurting the team when he's on the ice. I do not believe that Pirri and Puempel hurt the Rangers when they are on the ice.