Can you break down those minutes & games they were played in & see whether they were actually goals that meant 'something', like GWG or at least winning the games thanks to those goals - if not they are worthless if you are trying to educate people about their importance.

See this is exactly what analytics guys do - cherry pick a stat & run with it without offering any further detail because it supports their argument.

Arguing less than .1 of a 'point' is also quite bizarre but again it suits your opinion so you bang it home as if it's a huge margin that actually matters! Again, if you would like to elaborate your statistics to include games won & lost & when points were scored it would assist you in your attempts to look half intelligent!

But if you're just going to continue to cherry pick numbers that you can work with to try & justify your opinion or negate the opinion of others, you're just an arse - which again I will say you don't have to keep proving this, I already know!
- Aussiepenguin

Game 1 vs CBJ - 1st Pens goal of the game to tie it at 1
Game 2 - No goals
Game 3 - GWG
Game 4 - 3rd goal in the 1st to go up 3-0, which they lost in OT
Game 5 - No goals
Game 6 - GWG

Game 1 vs NYR - Tied the game at 2 in the 2nd, lost 3-2
Game 2 - Put pens up 2-0, won 3-0 after empty net
Game 3 - Jokinen scores to put Pens up 2-0
Game 4- Jokinen from Neal nets GWG
Game 5 - no goals
Game 6 - no goals
Game 7 - Tied the game at 1

So.. as you can see, they were contributing with GWG, game tying goals, and goals to put the Pens multiple goals ahead.

Also, just for comparisons sake, in 333 minutes of TOI in the regular season, at 5v5 they produced 27 goals for, and 8 goals against for xGF60 and xGA60 of 2.99 and 2.33. So their xGF60 and xGA60 both went UP in the playoffs, showing that goals may not be "harder to come by" considering they were scoring at higher rates during the playoffs.

How's that?

Game 1 vs CBJ - 1st Pens goal of the game to tie it at 1
Game 2 - No goals
Game 3 - GWG
Game 4 - 3rd goal in the 1st to go up 3-0, which they lost in OT
Game 5 - No goals
Game 6 - GWG

Game 1 vs NYR - Tied the game at 2 in the 2nd, lost 3-2
Game 2 - Put pens up 2-0, won 3-0 after empty net
Game 3 - Jokinen scores to put Pens up 2-0
Game 4- Jokinen from Neal nets GWG
Game 5 - no goals
Game 6 - no goals
Game 7 - Tied the game at 1

So.. as you can see, they were contributing with GWG, game tying goals, and goals to put the Pens multiple goals ahead.

Also, just for comparisons sake, in 333 minutes of TOI in the regular season, at 5v5 they produced 27 goals for, and 8 goals against for xGF60 and xGA60 of 2.99 and 2.33. So their xGF60 and xGA60 both went UP in the playoffs, showing that goals may not be "harder to come by" considering they were scoring at higher rates during the playoffs.

How's that?

- j.boyd919

Now just to clarify your original post, you said 6 goals for & 1 against in 78 minutes of TOI?

Above you have 13 games which equals 780 minutes which equates to 10 minutes of ice time (average), per game. Are you saying that the 2nd line only spent 10 min together (average, & this is a serious question as I don't know) each game? But you stated they had 78 minutes total which is (average again) 6 minutes per? If they were such a good line combo wouldn't they have spent more time together?


The above has 8 goals scored. Your comment said 6 for & 1 against? Firstly why the difference in goals for? 2nd you didn't show when GA were scored? So it's very confusing???

Also, just to confirm, don't you criticise +- all the time? What you are saying are GF v GA which is another way of saying +- isn't it?

I can't follow your logic here with the information you have provided as it appears inaccurate & a little contradictory. Sorry!

Now just to clarify your original post, you said 6 goals for & 1 against in 78 minutes of TOI?

Above you have 13 games which equals 780 minutes which equates to 10 minutes of ice time (average), per game. Are you saying that the 2nd line only spent 10 min together (average, & this is a serious question as I don't know) each game? But you stated they had 78 minutes total which is (average again) 6 minutes per? If they were such a good line combo wouldn't they have spent more time together?


The above has 8 goals scored. Your comment said 6 for & 1 against? Firstly why the difference in goals for? 2nd you didn't show when GA were scored? So it's very confusing???

Also, just to confirm, don't you criticise +- all the time? What you are saying are GF v GA which is another way of saying +- isn't it?

I can't follow your logic here with the information you have provided as it appears inaccurate & a little contradictory. Sorry!
- Aussiepenguin

So, the production of 5 GF and 1 GA was production the 3 had at 5v5. It did not account for PP, PK, 4v4, 5v6, 6v5 time. 2 of the 8 goals may have come in those instances, or they may have come when one of the guys on the line made an on the fly change. I chose to include all 8 goals to further show how effective those 3 players were when they were on the ice, therefore counter-proving their "epic failures" as mentioned by T-Train.

Average TOI for a 2nd line player at 5v5 is usually anywhere from 10-13 minutes. Now they also switched up the lines that year to Kunitz-Sid-Malkin because Sid's line was not doing anything, that line also played 74 minutes. Those were the only 2 lines worth anything during those playoffs, so it was a juggling attempt by Bylsma to try and get the other lines going, which is why the Jokinen-Malkin-Neal line was broken up. He put Sutter with Jokinen and Neal for an extended time.

I didn't include the 1 goal against, because frankly, that does not matter, its one goal against, and your question was not about the one goal against, it was about the goals they had scored (when they happened in the game, gwg, etc. etc.) so I used hockey reference's game logs (because its my fastest way to finding the data) and included all goals scored with either of those 3 on the ice. Corsica only has combos of 3, so it is likely 2 of those goals came during line changes, or possibly when Malkin was swapped for Sutter.

Yes, I do criticize plus minus all the time, because it arbitrarily leaves certain goals out when calculating plus/minus, as I've stated before, and because of this goal differential isn't another way of saying plus minus.