Based off the silly, rightfully locked, 82 1-point games vs 1 82-point game poll.
So, which would you rather have? A guy who makes a small contribution each and every game, or a guy who makes a significant contribution every other game?
Meh this is a tough question but I go with 41 2 point games just because 1 goal rarely wins games but 2 goals every other game gives you better odds to win. I take a streaky game changer over a steady player.
Give my the stability in the goaltending and defence probably.
In second/third line winger, maybe the big gamebreaker once in a time, but it depends.
For the example, the 41 2-pointers for a good team is great, in the playoff having 2 points every 2 games make your team hard to beat in a 4 of 7 imo. I'll take him.
Doesn't matter and/or depends. If you don't allow many goals and you don't score many, either, 2x41 is arguably better. If you score a ton, it probably doesn't matter. If you have a young and inconsistent team or other top line players, a 1x82 guy could be a steadying influence. That said, 2x41 is ridiculously consistent, too, so whatever.
I don't have proof for this, but my gut tells me that more multi-point games at least could suggest more powerplays and/or more consistent powerplay production. And that could add a dimension or some confidence to your team. Assuming all point types are equal, though, it's fairly even with 2x41 getting the slight nod.
At least your team is *guaranteed* to score one goal per game with that guy in the lineup. There won't be a single game where you will be shut out. He's contributing each and every game, as opposed to showing up one game, then being a no-show the next.
Wait, so it's 1+ all 82 games or 2+ every other game 1 and 2 being the primary targets but more is still plausible especially if the guy who gets 2 every other game can record a point through each of the other 41.
Wait, so it's 1+ all 82 games or 2+ every other game 1 and 2 being the primary targets but more is still plausible especially if the guy who gets 2 every other game can record a point through each of the other 41.
Aaa eee. Gotta add that in.
The OP's post was extremely clear in his intent...
I'll take the player that scores a point every game. Your team would never be shut out and the player won't disappear after a big 2-point game.
I don't understand the repeated comments about this theoretical guy "disappearing" in games in which he doesn't score. In any given year, there are about 30 players or so who break the .85 points per game mark. This year, teams are scoring something like 2.7 goals per game. There are what, 1.5 assists per goal on average? So if you spread it around maximally (for the sake of being really generous to the other side of the argument), on any given night, 6-7 players get points on each team. You'd say that the rest of the scoring players on those teams have disappeared?
Never mind the fact that more often than not, guys drive to the net, create screens, generate a turnover or a keep-in that is crucial to the play, but don't get points on the play.
I think it's safe to assume that Mr. 2x41 does not simply disappear on nights when he doesn't tally a point. Otherwise, you're talking about at least half of the league's scoring-role players being completely invisible every night. The hypothetical is strange, but that is absurd.
2 point player for 41 games. Not sure why it's such an important thing to not be shutout. you can be shutout and still win, or you can score 1 goal and still lose. Scoring 2 goals every other game gives way more advantage in that game. You basically start the game up 2-0 and hope your pluggers or other star players put the puck in the net, or that your goalie keeps pucks out of the net. with a good coach it wouldn't be that hard to make the playoffs. in the other 41 games there is no advantage to either team. 1 goal games are fickle just ask the anaheim ducks who are 13-2-0 when the other team scores first. How many of those were 1 goal games? 9.
i'd be hesitant to pick the 2x 41 option only because if the team still loses on a 2 point night, that sets them back.
Plus being shut out sucks, I'd almost rather lose a game 7-2 than 2-0. While losing is never easy, it's nice when you can take silver linings out of a loss in things that went well. 12 forwards all coming up blanks, it's hard to take a positive for them.
Wait, so it's 1+ all 82 games or 2+ every other game 1 and 2 being the primary targets but more is still plausible especially if the guy who gets 2 every other game can record a point through each of the other 41.
Aaa eee. Gotta add that in.
Not sure why you seem to have so much trouble understanding my OP. I was pretty darn clear. But to spell it out further:
Both players score 82 points in 82 games.
Player A does it by scoring 1 point in each of the 82 games.
Player B does it by scoring 2 points in the odd numbered games (1, 3, 5, 7, ..., 77, 79, 81).
Just look at the percentage of times team with a 1-0 lead end up winning the game and compare that to the amount of time teams with a 2-0 lead win and then assume the 2 pt/game player's team wins 50% of the remaining 41 games and you should be able to solve this pretty easily.
Obviously a simplistic assumption assuming the team is average and such. Of course if the team has a superstar goalie and defense the 1 pt for 82 games player would be better and if the team is extremely weak on D/goalie you'd probably prefer the 2 point guy.
zac rinaldo murdered the starting and back up goalies, so Crosby had his way with the goaltending coach.
