Jump to content

Something you don't see often in a box score


nossagog

Recommended Posts

So here's one you don't see in the box score too often.   Matt Cullen, 1 goal, 0 assists and 0(that's zero) shots on goal.    As a matter of fact, Matt Cullen was the only Pens player on the team tonight without a shot, but still credited with a goal with the automatic empty netter from a penalty. 

funnystat.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dammit!!

 

And I had Matt Cullen for a short while on both of my FHL teams.

If I had known he had the ability to score without even taking shots on goal, well, then, who ELSE can do such a thing!??

 

I better hurry on over and see if he is still available.

Don't want some sneaky GM nabbing him and his "no touch" goal scoring ways before I have a chance to re-add him.... :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait.  Cullen was the shortie, wasn't he?   I  was thinking maybe it was a goal put in by the Sens and he was the last to touch it, but he went in on Anderson shorthanded right after the Pens' goalie change.

 

That was not an empty-netter.  Actually a pretty cagey play by Cullen.  Sorry, I'm afraid that box score is wrong  (ESPN has a SOG, so does NHL.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ruxpin said:

Wait.  Cullen was the shortie, wasn't he?   I  was thinking maybe it was a goal put in by the Sens and he was the last to touch it, but he went in on Anderson shorthanded right after the Pens' goalie change.

 

That was not an empty-netter.  Actually a pretty cagey play by Cullen.  Sorry, I'm afraid that box score is wrong  (ESPN has a SOG, so does NHL.com)

no Rux, that was against the Wings the night before. He was pulled down as he had a breakaway on an empty net, so the goal was awarded in spite of no official shot. Kind of neat, if it had happened against some else that is, lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, yave1964 said:

no Rux, that was against the Wings the night before. He was pulled down as he had a breakaway on an empty net, so the goal was awarded in spite of no official shot. Kind of neat, if it had happened against some else that is, lol

 

If they're going to award a goal (based on the assumption that the player would have scored if not pulled down) then logically they should also award a shot on goal for that same reasoning. 

 

Statistical inconsistencyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.................  :572958dbdbdef_bonkingheadonwall:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, yave1964 said:

no Rux, that was against the Wings the night before. He was pulled down as he had a breakaway on an empty net, so the goal was awarded in spite of no official shot. Kind of neat, if it had happened against some else that is, lol

 Oh.  Good catch.  Got it.

 

Carry on, kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...