The "insanity" quote is actually attributed to Einstein.
- mont23

It is incorrectly attributed to Einstein. He never said it and you can tell because it's a really dumb cliche and Einstein wasn't dumb, ergo he'd never have said it. But even without using logic, it's just one of those things that people think, that is preposterous, like Daddy Longlegs being the most poison spider, but just lacking the ability to bite.

It is incorrectly attributed to Einstein. He never said it and you can tell because it's a really dumb cliche and Einstein wasn't dumb, ergo he'd never have said it. But even without using logic, it's just one of those things that people think, that is preposterous, like Daddy Longlegs being the most poison spider, but just lacking the ability to bite.
- james_tanner1

Wait. I've been duped my entire life?!?!

It is incorrectly attributed to Einstein. He never said it and you can tell because it's a really dumb cliche and Einstein wasn't dumb, ergo he'd never have said it. But even without using logic, it's just one of those things that people think, that is preposterous, like Daddy Longlegs being the most poison spider, but just lacking the ability to bite.
- james_tanner1

He probably said it one point in his life. I'm sure he said a lot of things over the course of his lifetime. There's really no way to prove that he never said it.

He probably said it one point in his life. I'm sure he said a lot of things over the course of his lifetime. There's really no way to prove that he never said it.
- mont23

I began looking into the quote to find out what Einstein actually said only to find that, in all likelihood, *he never actually said or wrote the witticism about insanity.*

According to Ryan Howes, writing in Psychology Today, the quote has been attributed to Einstein, Ben Franklin and Mark Twain. A good summary of the various places the quote has been used can be found here.

Franklin and Twain are almost certainly not the sources of the quote, witty as those fellows were. Online, sources commonly attribute the quote to Einstein in his *Letters to Solovine: 1906-1955,* although no one seems to be able to produce a page from that volume that holds the quote (and Google books searches have also come up empty).

http://www.news.hypercrit...-probably-didnt-say-that/

Apparently that quote was attributed to multiple people. I find it interesting how that happens.

I began looking into the quote to find out what Einstein actually said only to find that, in all likelihood, *he never actually said or wrote the witticism about insanity.*

According to Ryan Howes, writing in Psychology Today, the quote has been attributed to Einstein, Ben Franklin and Mark Twain. A good summary of the various places the quote has been used can be found here.

Franklin and Twain are almost certainly not the sources of the quote, witty as those fellows were. Online, sources commonly attribute the quote to Einstein in his *Letters to Solovine: 1906-1955,* although no one seems to be able to produce a page from that volume that holds the quote (and Google books searches have also come up empty).

http://www.news.hypercrit...-probably-didnt-say-that/

Apparently that quote was attributed to multiple people. I find it interesting how that happens.
- j.boyd919

We had a really long discussion about this in university once, and to the best of our classes and the professor's ability, we were able to be fairly certain it came from narcotics anonymous in the 70s.

We had a really long discussion about this in university once, and to the best of our classes and the professor's ability, we were able to be fairly certain it came from narcotics anonymous in the 70s.
- james_tanner1

Might as well bring it back with the dummy that wants to bring back "Just say no."

Let me preface this by saying I think the Caps win this series:

1) Stop with the possession stats. They pretty much mean nothing.

2) Advanced stats that show the TYPES of scoring chances are a much better gauge of how a team is playing.

3) Did the Pens play a great game? No. But you're minimizing how good they did play. The Pens owned the 1st half the game and the Caps the 2nd half, but the Caps 2nd half was better than the Pens' 1st half.

4) Fleury won the game while Holtby simultaneously lost the game. Holtby came up for you guys at the right time in the TOR series, but we was mediocre as a whole.

You can comment on how Fleury can't keep up this level of play, but you should be equally as concerned about Holtby. I don't care how good he was in the regular season; he hasn't been very good in the playoffs.

Also understand that what you saw from the Pens last night was also not going to be as bad every game. What the Pens did in the first period can be sustained for a whole game, so you should be very concerned.

All this being said, the Pens defense and their ability to exit the zone will be the small area that probably costs them in the long-run.

Let me preface this by saying I think the Caps win this series:

1) Stop with the possession stats. They pretty much mean nothing.

2) Advanced stats that show the TYPES of scoring chances are a much better gauge of how a team is playing.

3) Did the Pens play a great game? No. But you're minimizing how good they did play. The Pens owned the 1st half the game and the Caps the 2nd half, but the Caps 2nd half was better than the Pens' 1st half.

4) Fleury won the game while Holtby simultaneously lost the game. Holtby came up for you guys at the right time in the TOR series, but we was mediocre as a whole.

You can comment on how Fleury can't keep up this level of play, but you should be equally as concerned about Holtby. I don't care how good he was in the regular season; he hasn't been very good in the playoffs.

Also understand that what you saw from the Pens last night was also not going to be as bad every game. What the Pens did in the first period can be sustained for a whole game, so you should be very concerned.

All this being said, the Pens defense and their ability to exit the zone will be the small area that probably costs them in the long-run.
- Rinosaur

Actually they do mean stuff, they mean that the Pens got swamped in their zone. And then when you dig further into the types of shots, you'll see that not only were they buried in their zone but they also gave up tons of quality chances. Looking at just corsi alone is misleading. But looking at Corsi along WITH scoring chance, high danger chances, zone exit stats, etc. etc. paints a bigger picture.

EDIT: Oh, and when you said "all being said, their defense and inability to exit the zone" can also be reflected by the Penguins corsi against, by the way. So you kind of just countered your number one point.

Actually they do mean stuff, they mean that the Pens got swamped in their zone. And then when you dig further into the types of shots, you'll see that not only were they buried in their zone but they also gave up tons of quality chances. Looking at just corsi alone is misleading. But looking at Corsi along WITH scoring chance, high danger chances, zone exit stats, etc. etc. paints a bigger picture.

EDIT: Oh, and when you said "all being said, their defense and inability to exit the zone" can also be reflected by the Penguins corsi against, by the way. So you kind of just countered your number one point.
- j.boyd919

Ok, let me make an amendment... The zone-exit issue is because they don't have Letang in the line-up. It thrown the whole balance of how the Pens d-pairings should look.

The Pens can get hemmed in, but if they are able to keep a team to the perimeter then they are playing a strong game. If they are making the best of their chances and generating good ones, they are playing a strong game; they didn't do this enough in the 2nd half.

Ok, let me make an amendment... The zone-exit issue is because they don't have Letang in the line-up. It thrown the whole balance of how the Pens d-pairings should look.

The Pens can get hemmed in, but if they are able to keep a team to the perimeter then they are playing a strong game. If they are making the best of their chances and generating good ones, they are playing a strong game; they didn't do this enough in the 2nd half.
- Rinosaur

I just don't understand how Schultz (the closest to Letang we have) and Ian Cole (probably the 2nd best Dman we have right now) had the two lowest TOI among defensemen? What is Hainsey doing with Dumo on the top unit getting the most ice time? It will cost them in the long run if that continues. Dumo needs to be playing with Maatta so Hainsey can be on the 3rd pairing where he belongs.

Ok, let me make an amendment... The zone-exit issue is because they don't have Letang in the line-up. It thrown the whole balance of how the Pens d-pairings should look.

The Pens can get hemmed in, but if they are able to keep a team to the perimeter then they are playing a strong game. If they are making the best of their chances and generating good ones, they are playing a strong game; they didn't do this enough in the 2nd half.
- Rinosaur

I'm not arguing any of that, but they didn't do that and the results reflected it. I agree with you lol but I don't believe that corsi is useless. That was where I disagreed. I 100% think the Pens got lucky and Fleury bailed them out.

I'm not arguing any of that, but they didn't do that and the results reflected it. I agree with you lol but I don't believe that corsi is useless. That was where I disagreed. I 100% think the Pens got lucky and Fleury bailed them out.
- j.boyd919

I'm not saying the Pens got lucky though and that's not coming from a weird sense of black'n'gold pride.

Here's how I look at it overall:
1) The Pens outplayed the Caps in the first half and capitalized on their chances.
2) Caps took over the game in the 2nd half, but Holtby still came up short.

While Fleury definitely is the main reason why they won out in the end, it wasn't luck. It was team being bailed out by one of their players, but also capitalizing on their chances.

That's not luck. That's different parts of your team playing better at different times. Luck would have been a fortunate bounce on a game-tying or GWG, getting a fortunate call. It's not luck when you still ultimately win because of one of your players.

I predicted the Caps in five games, which is looking more likely to be six with getting home-ice back.

The only two things I said would win the Pens the series is Fleury coming up big and making the Caps pay when they sit back and make mistakes.... well they sat back and played sloppy hockey in the first half.

There may not be a better team in the league than the Pens at making teams pay for their mistakes.

You know who deserves to win a hockey game? The team that won. There is no reward for deserving to win. And if they win today it's because they deserve to win again. There is no modern example of the team with the best advanced stats for the regular season or even during the playoffs where they were just this unbeatable force. More often than not the team with the worse stats wins the game and the series. It's just not a perfect science enough to keep dwelling on it. Although it does give you content for your blogs. Yes Hainsy is terrible and I don't understand why they are sticking our best defensive dman with him but I would like to see him hit the bench. Shattenkirk is Keith Yandle to the Rags all over again. He's quite overrated. After the Toronto series and now this first game you could say Shattenkirk is Shatten the bed.