Except when you’re Pittsburgh last night.

How does a team loaded like that not score on a full 5-on-3? They did score on one earlier in the game, but the first penalty had only 3 or 4 seconds left.

Could you please describe the dimension of your x-axis? I bet it’s seconds, but it’s a thing I (and all other nerds) have, that it should be properly adressed.

There was a game earlier in the year when Carlyle was given a choice by the referees of how he wanted to serve a weird string of penalties. He had the choice of killing two minutes of 5-on-3, or four minutes of 5-on-4.

Carlyle opted for the latter, and it was killed off (I believe the Kings took a minor in the middle of the four minutes), and now it seems that the choice was more than justified. Apparently four minutes of 5-on-4 looks somewhat equivalent to 80 seconds of 5-on-3 (though I’m just eyeballing).

Nicely done, Gabe.

I think we’ve only got one.

Wait… 5-on-3’s lead to more scoring?! What if we allowed 5-on-2’s?!

Signed,

Li’l Gary

Unless you are the New York Rangers, with their power play you really have to worry about being scored on four defenders or three …

I would say that your average 5-3 is just under a minute. Let’s say it’s 45 seconds to 60 seconds. That’s the duration of the two-man advantage.

So it makes sense to say that for the duration of an average 5-3, your chances of scoring are a little less to a little more than the duration of a regular power play. So in reality, when the advantage expires, there isn’t really a greater probability of scoring. On average.

Make sense? Obviously the numbers get skewed when the 5-3 extends past a minute, which makes sense as well.