It only becomes a strike rate of better than 1 in 2 if you ignore the 70 games he played from the bench. I realise it's a generalisation but props have a tendency to play around half of each game they're selected in whether they start those games in the run on side or sat on the bench.

A comparison of strike rates among Leeds current/recently departed props during their Headingley careers show:

Jamie Peacock - 17 in 151 = 0.113 per game
Kylie Leuluai - 15 in 139 = 0.108
Luke Ambler - 1 in 10 = 0.100
Luke Burgess - 6 in 81 = 0.074
Ryan Bailey - 9 in 233 = 0.039

Ben Cross left without scoring and Kyle Amor, Brad Singleton are yet to score.

Leeds' prop with the highest strike rate during the SL Era was George Mann (although he deputised at 6 at times) here he is with a select of others:

George Mann - 4 in 19 = 0.211 per game
Jamie Thackray - 7 in 34 = 0.206
Wayne McDonald - 15 in 91 = 0.165
Barrie McDermott - 40 in 268 = 0.149
Chris Feather - 8 in 56 = 0.143
............
Jamie Mathiou - 4 in 136 = 0.029 (saving Bailey's blushes)

If Bailey's rate of scoring is above Mathiou's how will he be below Mathiou by the end of his Leeds career.

No thats how I worked it out, unless I am misunderstanding the more games he plays without scoring the lower his strike rate would get.

if he continues at the same strike rate of 0.039 his strike rate will be ......

yes you've guessed it 0.039. Which will still be higher than Jamie Matthiou at 0.029.

I get what you mean now, but wasnt what I meant. He hasnt scored for a few years now and if that continues and he continues to play then he will end up below Mathiou.

There is that better

But his strike rate for the last 3 years isn't 0.039. So if he follows the next 3 years the same rate of scoring as his last 3, then the rate will come down.

As clarified earlier that is infact what i meant. if bailey continues as he has for the last few years he will be below mathiou.

Thanks for being pedantic though!

Not being pedantic and you might note that my only reply after your clarification was to a point raised by Gotcha.

You quoted figures and made a comment. if your comment was not meant to reflect the quoted figures then you should have clarified. If you didn't don't blame someone elsre for having issue with your statement.

That worked out pretty well I thought.

All I can add is:

Classic Bailey