Which do you prefer in playing styles?

Obviously a clear shot at a certain Yahoo user who shall remain nameless? Obviously quality over quantity anytime but there is a carrot with the guys who shoot with great frequency (in hockey....not Y/A). Goalies sometimes leave a loose puck out there for guys to pick up or you get a crazy bounce that leads to a scramble and eventually a goal. Now of course that is great on the ice....in other instances you lose respect (if you had any to begin with) and on the odd time you come up with a good question or answer it goes largely unappreciated. Says a lot about the quality of that persons life.....rather than earn some respect via a well thought out Q or A they feel the need to be that kid who cant stop talking in spite of themselves just for attention (bad attention is better than none at at?....to some I suppose it is!).

I come here to hear other logical opinions...share some of mine....take away knowledge others can share that I didnt know....and occasionally share my knowledge. I dont do it for validation and most of the good contributors also dont seek glory or validation....they simply love the game and like to hear differing opinions and share knowledge. But in some pathetic lives a TC badge gives them "importance". Kinda feel sorry for them that they need to use Y/A to feel any form of validation....tells you how real life has treated them (or how they treat real life).

In hockey I prefer a player taking less shots and scoring, shows how good that player is when it comes to shooting the puck. Take Helm for example, Great player with tons of speed, now if he could just score more often he would be the complete package lol

As far as the Y/A....My answer stays the same. Quality over Quantity. Anyone can answer simply with one word or sentence, but when it requires REAL thought and feelings on something, not everyone can do that. That person would rather gain points and be a top 3 for the given section than actually care about whatever the section is.

The second one is more entertaining to watch (suspense, finesse,etc) and less disappointing, but if I had to choose one for my team, I'd take the first guy anytime. I'll always been for a ''persevering''style of play, and that's how I play as well. If you keep trying over and over again, there are more chance for you to get a goal, unless you shoot wide a lot.With tries, the goals will come, even if you have to score ugly, it still look the same on the score sheet as some people would say. Gretzky said '' you'll miss 100% of the shots you don't take'' and I completely agree, if you don't attempt something, you don't get a shot at getting something. If you wait too much, you will miss scoring chances and there is a risk of losing the puck more easily.

Other question: yeah definitely. It's better to answer less frequently but give informative and useful answers, than answer just to get the points and say pointless things. Well that's my opinion, of course people are free to say whatever they want to but I prefer users who actually give helpful inputs. I try to act like I would like people to act towards me so that's what I'd choose.

"You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take." - Wayne Gretzky

If they both score with the same frequency though, I will take the player with less shots. Getting pucks to the net is one thing, but shooting for the sake of shooting is another. Constantly shooting from the blueline means little if the goalie can make saves all day. A bit more patience and skill means better quality shots, and better quality scoring chances.

Add:

I would take down that Gretzky quote that's for sure and stick to what I said above, quality over quantity. Badges and standings don't mean anything when it goes against the best interests of the "community" (as Yahoo likes to call it).

I would rather take a player who shoots more scoring the same amount of goals compared to the same person who shoots less and scores the same amount of goals.

Reasoning behind this, you can't score if you don't shoot, and shooting creates rebounds which creates scoring opportunities for yourself or teammates to bang home rebounds.

On the other hand, a player who doesn't shoot as much still has the ability to make a pass and create a scoring opportunity as well.

I would take the player who shoots more because I feel that it is easier to score a goal on a rebound than it is to make a tape to tape pass through the D zone, with goal scoring the exact same.

One of my favorite hockey player quotes was by Mike Ribiero when he was being interviewed about having the highest scoring percentage in the NHL at the time.. the interview asks him "Mike with a accuracy like that why dont you take a few more shots on goal?" to that Mike responded something along the lines of "If I would take more shots then i wouldn't have the highest percentage anymore would I?"

That style of play is just more pleaseing to watch to me then the machine gun spaying 1000 rounds to hit a target once i would much rather see the sniper shot of 1 hit with 1 bullet... thats how you end up seeing a guy eel his way around 2 Dmen to write one at the in to the roof..Finesse above force for sure

I don't mind a player shooting a lot with limited success as long as there are guys from his team around the cage that can bang her home or at least regain possession. If a player is shooting a lot and its resulting in turn overs or unneeded faceoffs then I'd rather he doesn't shoot so much...

Shoot more, You never know what could happen if you throw the puck at the net, u may get a luckey bounce or deflection

I think taking lots of shots is better because of rebounds and strange things happening