Tanner Glass

[BarbaraAlphanse]

What is my personal agenda? For the Rangers to ice as strong a team as possible?

If you want to argue why it's not important that he's been a puck possession anchor for six seasons, or why the 30 year old is suddenly going to change, I'd be open to hearing your argument. I think the "You're hoping against Glass" and the "he's looked good in 30 preseason minutes" angles are well played out, however.

All I am saying is that it seems absolutely pointless to continue to push this narrative on a player that will be the 12th forward, at best, throughout his contract with the Rangers... before he has even played a ****ing regular season game with them.

Best case he provides something this team lacks, size and grit, while effectively being able to play the boards with consistent energy.

Worst case is that he begins looking out of place, causes several odd man rushes, and he is quickly scratched in place of someone else.

That's the beauty of a 12th forward who is making an astounding 2.1% (percentage set to decrease in following two seasons) of our cap... you can scratch him without feeling any serious cap ramifications! Wow, what a concept!

So tell me, what is the ****ing point of this whole tirade? To tell us that you told us all in the event that Glass doesn't fit with this team? Great! And guess what, I'll be just as happy if he doesn't work out and a rookie gets an opportunity and kills it for us. But until then? I'll be rooting hard for Tanner to play well... because it makes no sense to do otherwise.

 

[Thirty One]

And guess what, I'll be just as happy if he doesn't work out

That's shameful. He's a Ranger now. Get behind your team.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

That's shameful. He's a Ranger now. Get behind your team.

Haha HFBoards 101 - twist the words of what someone is saying and create a tangent to avoid facing the topic at hand.

 

[Thirty One]

Haha HFBoards 101 - twist the words of what someone is saying and create a tangent to avoid facing the topic at hand.

The irony.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

The irony.

To make it seem that I twisted your point is incredibly manipulative.

You're constant berating of Glass's possession statistics and contract is enough evidence to see what you're trying to push.

In reality there are 2 statistics that matter: he is the 12th forward, and he is making 2% of our cap.

Who is the one grasping at straws, in this scenario?

 

[Thirty One]

To make it seem that I twisted your point is incredibly manipulative.

You're constant berating of Glass's possession statistics and contract is enough evidence to see what you're trying to push.

In reality there are 2 statistics that matter: he is the 12th forward, and he is making 2% of our cap.

Who is the one grasping at straws, in this scenario?

So because he's playing on the 4th line and making less than $2 million, he can't be a negative influence on the team? Is that really your point?

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

So because he's playing on the 4th line and making less than $2 million, he can't be a negative influence on the team? Is that really your point?

My point is that if he became a negative influence he is the easiest player on the team to substitute for someone else.

My point is that thus far, in this system, for this coach, on this team, he has looked fine in the role given to him - so your *****ing and whining about how he played for the Penguins 3 years ago doesn't really mean anything to me or this team going forward.

And my point is that you actually took the time to go through "mounds of evidence" to try and construct a point about a player when there was absolutely no point in doing so.

He is on this team, I don't care about how he played in the past. If he can play well for us, then that is all that counts in my book. And until he starts looking as bad as the picture that you've been painting of him ("worst 5 player in NHL", "grossly overpaid", blah blah) I will support him and what he brings to the table - which hopefully will be heart, energy, grit, size, and good battling ability on the boards.

 

[Thirty One]

My issue, as I've said before, goes beyond Tanner Glass.

They had serious cap issues, and the first thing they did this summer was spend a scarce resource on Tanner Glass. That scares me. You may be able to laugh off a 525K cap penalty, but not me.

I'd be perfectly content to not discuss Glass again until 40 games into the season, but if people keep running to this thread every time Glass has a shift where he doesn't fall down, I'll struggle with that.

 

[Garv23]

Glass is a Ranger now and I'm pulling' for him. I like that we have a guy like this on the team.

 

[THE BIG WHISTLE]

My issue, as I've said before, goes beyond Tanner Glass.

They had serious cap issues, and the first thing they did this summer was spend a scarce resource on Tanner Glass. That scares me. You may be able to laugh off a 525K cap penalty, but not me.

I'd be perfectly content to not discuss Glass again until 40 games into the season, but if people keep running to this thread every time Glass has a shift where he doesn't fall down, I'll struggle with that.

Why, are you paying the 525K cap penalty ???

 

[nyr2k2]

Why, are you paying the 525K cap penalty ???

Ha, this is great. Express serious concerns about a player on the Rangers, and you're accused of not being a real fan. Express concern about the team's cap situation, and you're mocked.



I think I'm done with this thread. For every person making one reasonable argument in favor of why Tanner Glass might work out, there's three guys like this that do nothing but throw gas on the fire.

 

[Ail]

To make it seem that I twisted your point is incredibly manipulative.

You're constant berating of Glass's possession statistics and contract is enough evidence to see what you're trying to push.

In reality there are 2 statistics that matter: he is the 12th forward, and he is making 2% of our cap.

Who is the one grasping at straws, in this scenario?

What is he trying to push exactly? That Tanner Glass is bad? Well yeah, because he is.

However, even if that were not the case and he were somehow trying to spin the data to make it look like Glass sucked anyway, what is the gain in doing that? More hits for his blog? What exactly is the "personal agenda" here that you seemed so concerned about just because someone decided to point out an off-season acquisition has the potential to be a very poor signing? I'm trying really hard here to understand what it is exactly you are taking exception to.

As far as the 12th forward and 2% of the cap is concerned, regardless of where in the line-up a player is playing, and regardless of his salary, do you not want that roster spot to be filled by the best player possible, for as cheaply as possible? If your answer is no, you're lying. The guy will be on the ice every game and his play will affect the outcome of games. It absolutely matters if he cannot help the team win games. Something that remains to be seen, but based on the data available, I wouldn't count on it.

I hope he scores 100 goals, I hope he has solid shifts every time he hits the ice, but until he does he is just a player who has not shown he has the ability to improve a team that strives to be strong at possessing the puck.

 

[Thirty One]

What is he trying to push exactly? That Tanner Glass is bad? Well yeah, because he is.

However, even if that were not the case and he were somehow trying to spin the data to make it look like Glass sucked anyway, what is the gain in doing that? More hits for his blog? What exactly is the "personal agenda" here that you seemed so concerned about just because someone decided to point out an off-season acquisition has the potential to be a very poor signing? I'm trying really hard here to understand what it is exactly you are taking exception to.

As far as the 12th forward and 2% of the cap is concerned, regardless of where in the line-up a player is playing, and regardless of his salary, do you not want that roster spot to be filled by the best player possible, for as cheaply as possible? If your answer is no, you're lying. The guy will be on the ice every game and his play will affect the outcome of games. It absolutely matters if he cannot help the team win games. Something that remains to be seen, but based on the data available, I wouldn't count on it.

I hope he scores 100 goals, I hope he has solid shifts every time he hits the ice, but until he does he is just a player who has not shown he has the ability to improve a team that strives to be strong at possessing the puck.

Stop kidding yourself. There is no difference between recognizing a player's flaws and actively rooting for them to get ebola virus.

 

[Badko]

The problem is that he's getting a chance over someone who actually deserves a spot. If they'd abandon the archaic idea of needing protection, they could put an entire skilled lineup out there capable of skating opposing forwards into the ground. We could ice a fourth line of Fast-Moore-Stempniak when everyone's healthy.

I'm sure if AV thinks that is best, that's what he'll do.

 

[Badko]

It's called an aging curve. Glass has been awful his whole career. He's 31 now. To think the pre-season is a signal that he's suddenly become a legitimate player is ridiculous.

As is the concept of thinking you know better than AV. This is a team sport. While Duclair may score more goals than Glass, if Glass is on the roster, it will be because he plays a part in the TEAM concept AV has in mind.

 

[Badko]

I guess I'm unclear on why a player shouldn't be judged by their past performance.

Perhaps because life is generally lived in the present. And the Stanley Cup isn't won on paper. Stats can be useful, but they don't determine the future.

 

[Badko]

It is baffling to me that there is such passionate stances here against Tanner. Baffling.

Is he on our team? Yes. We should all be rooting for him to succeed.

He's looked fine so far. No one is in here expecting him to be the key part to making the playoffs.

He's here to forecheck well, penalty kill, and protect our players. To that extent, he has looked fine.

Under the event that he does not fulfill these responsibilities, we should all be quite pleased that we have such young depth that can slide in and assume the role he was given.

But until that time, what is the point? He's a 4th line player who can easily be a healthy scratch. He makes 1.4 million dollars? So ****ing what? By year 3 of his contract that will be the same percentage of the cap as a 1 million dollar contract is now.

He doesn't have good "advanced" statistics? All i've read on here is that he's one of the worst players in the league respective to teams having the puck. No ****, who would feel comfortable with Tanner Glass controlling and skating with the puck? He dumps it in, immediately becomes defensive. Board battles, forechecks, penalty kills... He is not an offensive player... and looking at our current roster build up - i'm perfectly fine with that. If our top 3 lines perform as we expect them to then this is a moot point.

As long as he come in, plays hard, wins board battles, penalty kills effectively, and protects our key players... then to me, he is earning his contract and his place on the starting 12. We should all be rooting for that.

Instead, what's the objective and incentive here to fervently argue about how bad he has been and what his advanced statistics "prove"? That you may be right and can tell us "I told you so?". Seems some of you have your agendas in the wrong order.

Bravo!!! Great post!

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Stop kidding yourself. There is no difference between recognizing a player's flaws and actively rooting for them to get ebola virus.

Ever heard of the expression - beating a dead horse?

My point seems to have gone right over your head.

 

[Badko]

Another day, another "you're rooting against Glass" strawman.

ZZZZZZZzzzzz.

This fight is really unfair. You guys have all these creative narratives and all I have is mounds of evidence.

We want to live in the present...you want to dwell on the past.

 

[nyr2k2]

We want to live in the present...you want to dwell on the past.

Past performance is the best predictor of future performance. You get that, right?

You've basically come into the tail end of the thread and made no effort to address any of the actual arguments other than to say "nuh-uh!"

 

[nyr2k2]

Ever heard of the expression - beating a dead horse?

My point seems to have gone right over your head.

So what, only "pro-Glass" posters are allowed to post? Everyone else is just beating a dead horse?

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

So what, only "pro-Glass" posters are allowed to post? Everyone else is just beating a dead horse?

How many "pro-Glass" posters do you surmise come on here just to make a point of proving BB (-31-)'s whole "I have numerical evidence so your point is null" way of arguing wrong?

We see it year in and year out, players that have been written off for "legitimate" reasons... and prove everyone wrong.

I don't get this passionate argument. I'm arguing moderation. He has a probability of being bad, he has a probability of surprising people in a good way. What the **** is wrong with admitting that both are a strong possibility?

And in under that logic, I simply cannot comprehend how someone can argue so passionately in either way. It seems to me that the "anti-Glass" supporters are much more passionate on their end than the "pro-Glass" supporters. "Pro-Glass" supporters seem to have more incentive to come on and try and prove the opposing side wrong - the other side is incapable of admitting the possibility that there is more to the future than the past.

History is not prophecy.

 

[nyr2k2]

I have repeatedly stated that I'm all for giving Glass a chance before we start killing him. I just don't understand why people are so quick to disregard the statistical evidence that points to him being a bad player.

Actually--I do know why. It's just like it was a decade or so ago on Usenet when advanced baseball metrics were first becoming widespread. A lot of people didn't understand them, and replied with things like, "The scouts/managers know best," "my eyes tell me otherwise," "the numbers don't tell the whole story," etc., etc. It's no different. I was on the stat-nerd side of that debate, and so while I don't feel that strongly about Glass either way, I feel very passionate about what BB and the others are trying to convey. And when people come in with those non-responses that amount to "the stats don't matter," it pisses me off.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I have repeatedly stated that I'm all for giving Glass a chance before we start killing him. I just don't understand why people are so quick to disregard the statistical evidence that points to him being a bad player.

Actually--I do know why. It's just like it was a decade or so ago on Usenet when advanced baseball metrics were first becoming widespread. A lot of people didn't understand them, and replied with things like, "The scouts/managers know best," "my eyes tell me otherwise," "the numbers don't tell the whole story," etc., etc. It's no different. I was on the stat-nerd side of that debate, and so while I don't feel that strongly about Glass either way, I feel very passionate about what BB and the others are trying to convey. And when people come in with those non-responses that amount to "the stats don't matter," it pisses me off.

Stats do matter. To neglect, or even not put more of an emphasis on them, than an eye test would be ignorant and foolish.

But downfalls come by relying on just statistics, too. I'm not going to take stats as 100% law. I'm certainly not going to take an eye test as something concrete, either.

I'm happy with how Glass has performed thus far, and in the event that he eventually regresses (which as you, and BB, and Ail, and whomever else in this thread has stated is more probable than not) the Rangers have quality quality depth to turn to.

But I don't understand the point in already starting this discussion when he hasn't even played 1 regular season for us. It was like when Carcillo came last year and no one gave him a chance. What gives? He served his purpose, and he served it well.

Had he not, i'm sure we could have leaned on another player.

 

[Thirty One]

How many "pro-Glass" posters do you surmise come on here just to make a point of proving BB (-31-)'s whole "I have numerical evidence so your point is null" way of arguing wrong?

We see it year in and year out, players that have been written off for "legitimate" reasons... and prove everyone wrong.

I don't get this passionate argument. I'm arguing moderation. He has a probability of being bad, he has a probability of surprising people in a good way. What the **** is wrong with admitting that both are a strong possibility?

And in under that logic, I simply cannot comprehend how someone can argue so passionately in either way. It seems to me that the "anti-Glass" supporters are much more passionate on their end than the "pro-Glass" supporters. "Pro-Glass" supporters seem to have more incentive to come on and try and prove the opposing side wrong - the other side is incapable of admitting the possibility that there is more to the future than the past.

History is not prophecy.

Go read the responses after Glass looked fine in his second preseason game. Tell me that's moderation.

I recognize that the possibility that Glass performs well exists. There will always be players who improve dramatically at non-typical points in their career. The fact that Zdeno Chara became what he is now from what he is makes little sense.

But does the existence of pattern-breaking samples mean looking for patterns is useless and the past can tell us nothing of the future?

I have repeatedly stated that I'm all for giving Glass a chance before we start killing him. I just don't understand why people are so quick to disregard the statistical evidence that points to him being a bad player.

Actually--I do know why. It's just like it was a decade or so ago on Usenet when advanced baseball metrics were first becoming widespread. A lot of people didn't understand them, and replied with things like, "The scouts/managers know best," "my eyes tell me otherwise," "the numbers don't tell the whole story," etc., etc. It's no different. I was on the stat-nerd side of that debate, and so while I don't feel that strongly about Glass either way, I feel very passionate about what BB and the others are trying to convey. And when people come in with those non-responses that amount to "the stats don't matter," it pisses me off.

Somewhat off-topic, but this reminded me of this Ken Hitchcock quote:

“It took me a year and a half to get past being offended by somebody telling me to look past the visual,†he said. “I was (angry) about analytics coming in, but now it’s changed. I see how useful it is, but I had to get past, ‘You’re telling me ...’ I found it offensive when I first started. Now I use it for what it is and it’s good, but I had to get past the mental block of that. I take pride in being able to watch a game and understand exactly what happened, and this was information that was not making sense to me because my feel and what I wrote down on my paper wasn’t being projected. After I got my stubbornness out of the way, I looked at it and he was right, so I bought in.

It mirrors the views of many who start out on this topic (myself included).