Cmon, don't prove me right;

"See if you just keep putting down & saying you've answered the question when in fact you havent' people get sick of reading it & then just say leave it alone. Then you go onto the next thread saying "(frank) man, we answered your questions, you are just stupid". When in fact you didn't. You wouldn't. You refused to. But still you want to continue like you did. "
- Aussiepenguin

Putting things in italics doesn't make what you write any more true. You scroll back, you'll see J.boyd clearly responds to your bullpoop, yet you keep saying nobody answers your questions.

But hey, keep saying nobody answers your questions in some weird attempt to show nobody is proving you wrong. You're wrong before you even start typing.

Putting things in italics doesn't make what you write any more true. You scroll back, you'll see J.boyd clearly responds to your bullpoop, yet you keep saying nobody answers your questions.

But hey, keep saying nobody answers your questions in some weird attempt to show nobody is proving you wrong. You're wrong before you even start typing.


- Rinosaur

It's in italics to show quotation. Now you're getting desperate to complain on how things are written.

Are you suggesting as you haven't brought the information over, that quoting points per 60 answers my questions?

If you are suggesting that then refer to my comment that actually quotes that data, & asks using that information, who would win if 3 PP were successful for 1 team but no even point scoring, against a team that scored - using the data provided because, well, that's supposed to prove something, who didn't score on the PP but did get the 54 minutes of points the 2.4/60 would suggest?

Now if someone brings up ridiculous analytics that use math formulae to create a total, then I use that same data in an example I supplied then if you call my example stupid or whatever it was called, then surely the data is also stupid?

Still, no one has replied to why the man advantage only produces a minority of results - I used 30% & that is very generous.

So rather than flog that dead horse about me being stupid & the answers being answered (even though you won't produce the information you say is there ), how about pulling your head in & either have the balls to answer the questions or just be quiet as was asked of you earlier.

Putting things in italics doesn't make what you write any more true. You scroll back, you'll see J.boyd clearly responds to your bullpoop, yet you keep saying nobody answers your questions.

But hey, keep saying nobody answers your questions in some weird attempt to show nobody is proving you wrong. You're wrong before you even start typing.


- Rinosaur

Cmon, don't prove me right;

"See if you just keep putting down & saying you've answered the question when in fact you havent' people get sick of reading it & then just say leave it alone. Then you go onto the next thread saying "(frank) man, we answered your questions, you are just stupid". When in fact you didn't. You wouldn't. You refused to. But still you want to continue like you did. "

Rinosaur and Aussie up in a tree...

Rinosaur and Aussie up in a tree...
- MattStrat

You forgot the individual that calls people rètards. He is responsible for the depth at which This has got to.

Rinosaur just jumps onto opportunities to be a Richard!

I'm actually looking at the PP rates right now, wow if it's easier to score not all teams are playing by those rules.

You forgot the individual that calls people rètards. He is responsible for the depth at which This has got to.

Rinosaur just jumps onto opportunities to be a Richard!

I'm actually looking at the PP rates right now, wow if it's easier to score not all teams are playing by those rules.
- Aussiepenguin

Well... I'M a firm believer that every man is responsible for his own words and actions, so you didn't have to engage him after being called that. That's not to say if I was called that I wouldn't of engaged haha. My sh!t stinks too.

Admitidelly, I haven't read all of your back and forths... But what did you mean by the last paragraph there?

Well... I'M a firm believer that every man is responsible for his own words and actions, so you didn't have to engage him after being called that. That's not to say if I was called that I wouldn't of engaged haha. My sh!t stinks too.

Admitidelly, I haven't read all of your back and forths... But what did you mean by the last paragraph there?
- MattStrat

Steamer commented that even strength scoring was harder than power play scoring.

I said that was a false statement.

Boyd came out & called me a retard saying the man advantage gives a team the advantage.

My rebuttal was that if that was the case, why are PP% not a majority of scoring if the advantage was so great. I gave 30% as a generous example. I also threw in a few other points as to why it's not. A question that hasn't been responded to no matter what Richardosaur says.

So now I'm actually looking at PP% & some are 14% which Is very low - providing more evidence that it's not a fact that PP is easy to score on. Not to mention the PK which I haven't got to yet!

The only thing I like about the Wilson contract is that it insures for the foreseeable future the pens will be playing against him multiple times in the regular season. Hopefully at one of those games the pens have developed a player of size and strength that decides Wilson needs to be ended. By ended I would like to mean terribly maimed to the point if not playing hockey and providing a spectacular life for himself by playing a game that’s fun as hell, but that would just be ruthless. He needs embaressed. The rules in this NHL protect TomWilson. Reaves could do it but he wanted a good contract. I want a Steve Downie type player that values the purity of hockey over his next contract to embaress Wilson. I would prefer it to be a penguin.
- Grinder47

Wilson hid behind the linesman when Oleksiak wanted to fight. Big rig could end him haha

Steamer commented that even strength scoring was harder than power play scoring.

I said that was a false statement.

Boyd came out & called me a retard saying the man advantage gives a team the advantage.

My rebuttal was that if that was the case, why are PP% not a majority of scoring if the advantage was so great. I gave 30% as a generous example. I also threw in a few other points as to why it's not. A question that hasn't been responded to no matter what Richardosaur says.

So now I'm actually looking at PP% & some are 14% which Is very low - providing more evidence that it's not a fact that PP is easy to score on. Not to mention the PK which I haven't got to yet!
- Aussiepenguin

The PP does give the team an advantage to score though, come on now Aussie, you know better than that.

Pens wouldn't of made playoffs without PP this past season.

The PP does give the team an advantage to score though, come on now Aussie, you know better than that.

Pens wouldn't of made playoffs without PP this past season.
- MattStrat

Come on, just answer his question.

Wilson hid behind the linesman when Oleksiak wanted to fight. Big rig could end him haha
- 668710

Yeah, Wilson is the Milan Lucic-type. He will fight anyone smaller than him but as soon as a Colton Orr or John Scott want to fight him he hides behind the ref. Too bad we can use a time machine to bring Tie Domi from 1995-2000 to the present, dressed under a different name. Get someone else to rip off Wilson's helmet and then have Domi rearrange his face. With the way how the league is now, unfortunately the way to deal with someone like Wilson is not by fighting but rather by a flying elbow to the head, Pronger/Cooke/Torres/Downie-style.

Steamer commented that even strength scoring was harder than power play scoring.

I said that was a false statement.

Boyd came out & called me a retard saying the man advantage gives a team the advantage.

My rebuttal was that if that was the case, why are PP% not a majority of scoring if the advantage was so great. I gave 30% as a generous example. I also threw in a few other points as to why it's not. A question that hasn't been responded to no matter what Richardosaur says.

So now I'm actually looking at PP% & some are 14% which Is very low - providing more evidence that it's not a fact that PP is easy to score on. Not to mention the PK which I haven't got to yet!
- Aussiepenguin

Does the word frequency mean anything to you?

I can't believe I'm actually going to acquiesce and get involved in this dumb discussion...

Man Advantage:
When you have a man advantage your chances of scoring increase; this isn't rocket science and certainly doesn't need any stats to back it up.

-You spend more time in the other team's zone and your time & space increases.

-It's easier to take the time to create high-danger scoring chances because there's more time and space.

-You have more sustained presence in the other team's zone.

-You will have a low percentage of actual goals because it simply happens less frequently, WHICH OTHERS HAVE POINTED OUT.

In lay terms, this means you will score a smaller percentage of your goals on the PP because you spend less time on the PP.

Yes, they answered your question in this thread. If you had 10 chances on the PP every single game you can bet any amount of money that your PP goals will go up dramatically.

Some players thrive on the man advantage because they have more time and space to roam and create.

Even Strength:
-You have less time and space to move around.

-The flow of the game is more back and forth with less sustained attack time.

-More players on the ice means less room to create chances.

-More players on the ice means more players to defend against you.

-More goals will be scored at ES because teams spend FAR MORE time at ES than on the PP, but doesn't mean it's easier, because again, you spend MORE TIME at ES than on the PP.

In lay terms, this means you will have a higher percentage of your goals scored at ES, not because it's easier.

Ok... go ahead and tell me I'm still not answering your question.

I can't believe I'm actually going to acquiesce and get involved in this dumb discussion..
- Rinosaur

Hmm seems you forgot several emojis, he may not quite get it.

Hmm seems you forgot several emojis, he may not quite get it.
- 668710

Ohhh snap

My bad

The PP does give the team an advantage to score though, come on now Aussie, you know better than that.

Pens wouldn't of made playoffs without PP this past season.
- MattStrat

Yes, having an extra man in theory does give you the opportunity to score more. In saying that, the actual % that teams are scoring at doesn't suggest it's an easy thing to do. I gave 30% as A generous scoring rate, where in fact no team has that rate, not even the Pens. The lower teams are at 14%, & that team has arguably the best attacking player in the league on it - Edmonton. So only looking at that suggests the ease at which PP can be scored at isn't the same for all teams (naturally), & there's no majority or overwhelming efficiency at which goals are being scored - even having an extra man advantage.

So, teams load up their PP with their best attack, most will drop a defender, this suggests to me that it's necessary to tilt the scales even further in an attempt to score - even though with the man advantage it should be easy right?

So there are games with teams having 5 or 6 PP's & not scoring. The Pens V Caps late in the season was just that. But they had the man advantage on 5 occasions I think & couldn't score even though they scored at even strength. So does the statement scoring on the PP is easier than even strength stand for that game? And that's just 1 I can remember.

You've also got to take into account the defensive structure the PK will adopt - it's doing everything it can not to get scored on. Will it get stuck in its own zone? More than likely, but that doesn't mean it's going to give up any goals.

If you look at the PK on teams, some are up around 85%, so will scoring against those teams be easy?

As I gave an example yesterday (my time), if a player like Bryan Rust plays on the 4th line which he did for the Pens, is he going to find it harder to score against the opposing 4th line & 3rd pair D men, or on the 2nd PP against defence structured to stop him scoring.

This started as a simple discussion, I was insulted very quick even though I produced statistics that does question the ease of scoring on the PP.

My comment that saying scoring even strength is harder than on the PP is false still stands in my opinion, as it is a blanket statement that certainly is not true in all games.

Some games go without PP goals & 4/5 even strength goals - was it easier to score with the man advantage in those games? 100% not!

I can't believe I'm actually going to acquiesce and get involved in this dumb discussion...

Man Advantage:
When you have a man advantage your chances of scoring increase; this isn't rocket science and certainly doesn't need any stats to back it up.

-You spend more time in the other team's zone and your time & space increases.

-It's easier to take the time to create high-danger scoring chances because there's more time and space.

-You have more sustained presence in the other team's zone.

-You will have a low percentage of actual goals because it simply happens less frequently, WHICH OTHERS HAVE POINTED OUT.

In lay terms, this means you will score a smaller percentage of your goals on the PP because you spend less time on the PP.

Yes, they answered your question in this thread. If you had 10 chances on the PP every single game you can bet any amount of money that your PP goals will go up dramatically.

Some players thrive on the man advantage because they have more time and space to roam and create.

Even Strength:
-You have less time and space to move around.

-The flow of the game is more back and forth with less sustained attack time.

-More players on the ice means less room to create chances.

-More players on the ice means more players to defend against you.

-More goals will be scored at ES because teams spend FAR MORE time at ES than on the PP, but doesn't mean it's easier, because again, you spend MORE TIME at ES than on the PP.

In lay terms, this means you will have a higher percentage of your goals scored at ES, not because it's easier.

Ok... go ahead and tell me I'm still not answering your question.
- Rinosaur

Firstly, thanks for a normal & intelligent reply - it wasn't so hard was it?

Ok, you say your chances of scoring will increase. I'm not disputing nor have ever disputed that.

The Caps Pens game late in the season, 1-3 was the score. Pens scored even strength & had 5 PP opportunities through the game. That tells me that game that scoring even strength was easier than scoring on the PP.

So to say even strength scoring is harder than PP scoring, you are not correct.

Also, to say that the game is played more in even strength doesn't change the original comment I first responded to. It was a simple statement that I said was completely false - which it is. Your scoring % referred to above have nothing to do with the fact teams are scoring on the PP at 14% which is not good. Check who the bottom team is.

CAR: Faulk
CBJ: Savard
NJD: Boyle
NYI: Boychuk
NYR: Skjei
PHI: Voracek
PIT: Dumoulin
WSH: Wilson
- Feds91Stammer

I really need to know where you got Voracek?
GP G
82 20 65 85 10 50 5 35 0 0 3 1 228 8.8