Powerplay Percentage

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

    But it's fool's logic to think that because it hasn't hurt them yet, it won't next time.  They won the Cup due to some pretty outstanding performances in other areas - goaltending, great 3rd line, shutdown 1st pair D.  The likelihood of that all happening the same way is not very good.  So you need to improve on any asset of the game that is going poorly for you. 

    Maybe next time the goaltending is mediocre or key defensemen are injured, and the only way to overcome those problems is to pour in a few PP goals per game.  Special teams can certainly win or lose games, we all know that.

    To suggest that the PP doesn't matter because the Bruins have gotten by without it a few times in the past is every bit as dumb as the logic arguing that the B's desperately need the PP to be good.

    It's a problem that may or may not really hurt them.  Predicting that it will or it won't is anyone's guess -- the stuff of Stanley.  But the longer it goes on, the greater the probability that it does.




    Then it's not really anyones guess then, is it.

    Any debate arguing the overall importance of decent special teams is silly.  Of course they're very important.

    Teams practice virtually every day in an attempt to get better.  There's an obvious category where the B's have untold potential to impropve, so it should be priority 1.

    The PP.  If every other facet of their game stays as is...and the pp improves, it's a virtual lock they'll win more games.  End of conversation.  A good pp doesn't, nor shouldn't negate the teams ability to play as well short handed, or 5 on 5.

    Fans should forget about 2011.  No team in NHL history won the cup like the B's did that year.  It's doubtful "any" team  will win the cup in this fashion again, let alone our Bruins.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    The Kings did it the very next year - 12.8% to the Bruins' 11.4%.  Difference of 1 goal over 100 attempts.

    And they steamrolled to a 16-4 playoff record.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Really, this conversation comes down to the limited application of a truism.  If you play better, you'll win more.  Isn't that what the whole PP conversation is about?  If you play better, you'll win more.  So we get into this debate about whether the Bruins need to play better on the PP and people say no, they've lost 1 game in regulation, so it isn't a big deal that they're bumping along.  Then other people say well, to win without a PP you have to play better in other areas.  So...play better.  Really, the only part of this that makes sense to me is that you should be able to improve the PP with practice and finding a system that works for your talent.  The Bruins were middle of the pack last year at 17.2%.  No reason they can't get back there, and you'd hope, with Seguin playing more of a role and Horton healthy, that they'd be able to improve on it.

    If the Bruins score 3 goals per game, in whatever phase, and continue to play sound defensive hockey, I don't care if they never score on the PP.  The only thing I'd regret is that they wouldn't be able to make other teams pay for hooking and slashing, but again, they're getting through that garbage to score an average of 3 goals/game.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to perrysound's comment:

    Scotty Bowman always said that if the PP and the PK are about even, then he was happy, so the Bruins okay. Keenan hoped for a 5% to 10% on the +side between the 2. 

    PP is a Skills based activity. If you believe as I do, that today's coaching is very effective in negating PP plans, then it boils down to skill. Maybe the Bruins just don't have that skill level in order to be a great PP team. There are parts there, but not the true high-end talent, such as Mark Savard to set up the easy PP goals. Who on the Bruins can hold and control the puck? I can't think of anyone that has that skill, except Savard. Maybe Hamilton will be the able to develop into that player from the point. But at this time the B's don't have that type of player. 

    It could also be that they do not have someone willing to pay the price in front of the net. These guys are rare. Dino the Dog Ciccirelli took a huge beating to score those goals, but others won't. Horton and Lucic should do this, but don't. I don't blame them as it would be a very painful way of making a living. 

    So my point is this. We don't have the players to have a great PP, so nothing to worry about. 

    Solution: get the players that can, or work on passing skills in practice. 

     

     

     




    Although I agree somewhat with certain elements of your opinion, I disagree whole-heartedly with your overall assesment.

    The PP, is one of the games more fundamental advantages to exploit.  The "team" concept is  more of an issue here than anywhere, therefore it's not all about "skill".  We could trade that word for "IQ" maybe, but "skill" doesn't fit.

    To butcher a baseball phrase, the key is to "pass it where they ain't".  Force movement of the defenders, so as to hi-lite that "extra man".  A good pp, doesn't rely on slick puck handling skills, it's a function of getting the puck to that extra man.  That can mean moving the puck quicker, but if there's no pressure on the carrier...it means slowing things down til there is.  The B's definately, unequivocaly, have those players currently in stock to do a much better job.

    Many argue, it's a strategy thing.  I tend to agree somewhat.    Seems like the whole credo is to move the puck around long enough to give Chara time to wind up.  If the high winger stays on top of 33, the moment doesn't come.  If it does, regardless of the velocity of Chara's canon, umimpeded shots from the point....don't go in that often.

    The Bruins may not have the talent to be the hottest pp in the league.  I don't think anyone would argue that.  They should easily be in the top 8 though.

    In todays defensive game, goals aren't easy to come by.  An improved pp should be expected from this group.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    "The PP, is one of the games more fundamental advantages to exploit. The "team" concept is more of an issue here than anywhere, therefore it's not all about "skill". We could trade that word for "IQ" maybe, but "skill" doesn't fit."

     

    It's not skill per say, but it's a certain or unique skill set that is what some are questioning. If your explanation is accurate, I would wonder how you would describe the different "skills" that a Marc Savard has compared to a Patrice Bergeron, or how PK Subban is different from Zdeno Chara.

     

    "To butcher a baseball phrase, the key is to "pass it where they ain't". Force movement of the defenders, so as to hi-lite that "extra man". A good pp, doesn't rely on slick puck handling skills, it's a function of getting the puck to that extra man. That can mean moving the puck quicker, but if there's no pressure on the carrier...it means slowing things down til there is. The B's definately, unequivocaly, have those players currently in stock to do a much better job."

     

    The key to passing in any sport is always presenting the threat of the shot, without that then passing becomes a contrived and much less effective exercise. It also becomes much harder to do effectively and makes it predictable and easier to defend. So, when mentioning skills, it should be noted that shoot first types who literally can't wait to try and beat the goalie every time they touch the puck is very important to achieving effective passing and moving the defense out of position making them vulnerable. The B's top two centers are reluctant shooters who don't possess a great shot to start with. The guy with the great shot (Seguin) does not enjoy possessing the puck. They are all "skilled", but not necessarily a great skill set for the PP - imo

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    Many argue, it's a strategy thing.  I tend to agree somewhat.    Seems like the whole credo is to move the puck around long enough to give Chara time to wind up.  If the high winger stays on top of 33, the moment doesn't come.  If it does, regardless of the velocity of Chara's canon, umimpeded shots from the point....don't go in that often.

    The Bruins may not have the talent to be the hottest pp in the league.  I don't think anyone would argue that.  They should easily be in the top 8 though.

    In todays defensive game, goals aren't easy to come by.  An improved pp should be expected from this group.




    Well said Steve and that's why myself and SanDog put the majority of the blame on Ward. Every team knows what you're saying above yet this is what he continues to practice , the so called umbrella, Red Wings PP wtv you want to call it . 

    I've been preaching this all season (poor BDC posters) IMO they need to go back to the traditional 2 d-man PP and pair the likes of Chara, Hamilton, Seidenberg and Boychuk. Especially Hamilton , he's very smart and moves the puck well in the offensive zone , he'll get the other d-man free for the big shot and/or he'll put it on net.

    What I haven't seen yet is a speedy forward carrying the puck to the offensive zone that can back the other teams D . Again,  the Bruins have Seguin and Marchand (even Peverley) but not used properly and who's to blame .....  WARD !

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Bottom line it's irrelevant how good your % is on the PP overall , it's when they are behind I would like to see the efficiency of a PP ,  like Neely said , when they need to get a goal aka Caps playoff series.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

     

    The key to passing in any sport is always presenting the threat of the shot, without that then passing becomes a contrived and much less effective exercise. It also becomes much harder to do effectively and makes it predictable and easier to defend. So, when mentioning skills, it should be noted that shoot first types who literally can't wait to try and beat the goalie every time they touch the puck is very important to achieving effective passing and moving the defense out of position making them vulnerable. The B's top two centers are reluctant shooters who don't possess a great shot to start with. The guy with the great shot (Seguin) does not enjoy possessing the puck. They are all "skilled", but not necessarily a great skill set for the PP - imo

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Bologna.  Krejci has a very good wrist shot and this simply doesn't make sense.  Horton's real good on the one-timer too.  Oh, and Chrara's got the hardest shot in the league.  Saying that the Bruins don't have skill sets for the PP is simply wrong, a lousy excuse.  You've got slick passers, speed, power forwards, guys who can cycle, and guys who can launch bombs from the point.  Stop making excuses.  The skill set is fine.  It's a matter of execution.  Other teams would laugh out loud at Bruins fans complaining that Chara and Seguin aren't quite capable of playing with a man advantage.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    The powerplay is a bonus.  When you're this good at 5x5, you don't need the bonus.

    Example:  Last year's Cup winners.

    Other example:  The year before's Cup winners.

    The B's win the game without a powerplay goal and people say, "Yeah, but..."

    Not buts about it.  They won.

    And that's the idea.

    Now, people are predicting the future and suggesting that they know what will happen in games in March or April.  "If they don't fix it now, they'll lose later."  Why?  They're a great team.  Just check the stats.

    This Marc Savard talk is absurd.  They won the Cup without him.  WTF else do you need for proof?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    The Kings did it the very next year - 12.8% to the Bruins' 11.4%.  Difference of 1 goal over 100 attempts.

    And they steamrolled to a 16-4 playoff record.




    Thanks for making my point.  The Kings "steamrolled" to the cup in 12.  The B's certainly didn't in 11.  Boston had 3 game 7's, and I believe they were the first team in history to win a 7 game series without a pp goal. 

    In the 12 playoffs,  the Kings scored twice as many pp goals as their opponents.  In 11, the B's scored half as many as theirs.  The Kings were never outscored on the pp in any series in 12.  The B's were only able to do that in 1 series in 11.

    Your comparison doesn't compare.  

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to JWensink's comment:

    "Other teams would laugh out loud at Bruins fans complaining that Chara and Seguin aren't quite capable of playing with a man advantage."

     

    Yep, they're laughing every time they skate off the ice with another PK due to what you describe as "a matter of execution"

    I'm sure that Marc Savard's "skills" wouldn't change their ability to execute. Oh, and then there's always the results to consider...never mind, my bad.

    I forgot that it's a waste of time trying to exchange opinions with a lying D*bag

     

     




    Yeah, I'm not sure why Fletch would keep arguing with a scum bag like that.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to stevegm's comment:



    Thanks for making my point.  The Kings "steamrolled" to the cup in 12.  The B's certainly didn't in 11.  Boston had 3 game 7's, and I believe they were the first team in history to win a 7 game series without a pp goal. 

     

    In the 12 playoffs,  the Kings scored twice as many pp goals as their opponents.  In 11, the B's scored half as many as theirs.  The Kings were never outscored on the pp in any series in 12.  The B's were only able to do that in 1 series in 11.

    Your comparison doesn't compare.  



    Reviewing these stats, it appears that there is no connection between winning and the powerplay.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Couple points to keep in mind:

     

    1. there are 27 other teams right now with a better PP, including some very bad ones, so it is fixeable. This is a syatemic problem (Ward) not one of personnel.

    2. having a functioning PP is important and the B's have paid a price for not having a good one the past couple of seasons. Yes, there were more than a few reasons why the B's lost to the Caps but even one or two PP goals would have won that series (anyone remember late in game 7?).

    Also, anyone who has been watching the games so far this season can see how a terrible PP is affecting this team. How many times has a PP actually killed this team's momentum or gave the opposition new life after killing one off? This puts unneeded pressure on the rest of the team when your opponent is invigorated. The current PP is not sustainable in the long term.

    The B's do not need a great PP or even a good one. Just one that can pop in a goal or two once in a while to punish their opponent when they make a mistake instead of being a laughingstock.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

     

    2. having a functioning PP is important and the B's have paid a price for not having a good one the past couple of seasons. Yes, there were more than a few reasons why the B's lost to the Caps but even one or two PP goals would have won that series (anyone remember late in game 7?).



    Do you remeber when the B's won the Cup?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to JWensink's comment:

    "Other teams would laugh out loud at Bruins fans complaining that Chara and Seguin aren't quite capable of playing with a man advantage."

     

    Yep, they're laughing every time they skate off the ice with another PK due to what you describe as "a matter of execution"

    I'm sure that Marc Savard's "skills" wouldn't change their ability to execute. Oh, and then there's always the results to consider...never mind, my bad.

    I forgot that it's a waste of time trying to exchange opinions with a lying D*bag

     

     



    Ha.  Someone's throwing a tantrum at the kid's table again.  Surpise, surprise, it's Wensink feeling threatened by another point of view again.  So easy to get you going.  Don't be so afraid of logic and debate, tough guy.

    Savard was great, but 29 other teams don't have him either and most do fine.  You can fall in love with players we don't have until the cows come home, or you can expect better execution from the very talented group we have now.  If they're good enough to consistently score 5 on 5, they should be able to execute with a man advantage.  It's a matter of execution.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    The powerplay is a bonus.  When you're this good at 5x5, you don't need the bonus.

    Example:  Last year's Cup winners.

    Other example:  The year before's Cup winners.

    The B's win the game without a powerplay goal and people say, "Yeah, but..."

    Not buts about it.  They won.

    And that's the idea.

    Now, people are predicting the future and suggesting that they know what will happen in games in March or April.  "If they don't fix it now, they'll lose later."  Why?  They're a great team.  Just check the stats.

    This Marc Savard talk is absurd.  They won the Cup without him.  WTF else do you need for proof?



    See, I think the "bonus" that might have put them over the top in 2011 was the play of Thomas in net.

    They might need another "bonus" to win it again, since the best goaltending percentages ever can't be counted on again.  Maybe it's the PP.  Or at least, maybe a proficient PP makes it so that you could win without the historic play of Thomas or the historic collapse of Luongo.

    With the apparently very thin margin between winning and losing in the playoffs, people are right to be concerned about PP being so poor.

    However, I am one who does think it will get better, without the team desperately trading for some player crush to come in a save it.  Plenty of talent, it has to get better.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    The powerplay is a bonus.  When you're this good at 5x5, you don't need the bonus.

    Example:  Last year's Cup winners.

    Other example:  The year before's Cup winners.

    The B's win the game without a powerplay goal and people say, "Yeah, but..."

    Not buts about it.  They won.

    And that's the idea.

    Now, people are predicting the future and suggesting that they know what will happen in games in March or April.  "If they don't fix it now, they'll lose later."  Why?  They're a great team.  Just check the stats.

    This Marc Savard talk is absurd.  They won the Cup without him.  WTF else do you need for proof?




    I agree with the Savard stuff, but there are no bonuses in pro hockey.  Only things to be practiced and improved upon.  No one is suggesting what will happen in March and April, rather it's an area of concern, and, odds suggest an inept power play may not bode well for another cup run.  The "stats" show that.

    As shown above, using the 2012 Kings as any kind of validation or  trend  that the pp is a "bonus" should be rethought.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    The team has one regulation loss and is one point out of first place in the conference with two games in hand.

    I think they're playing quite well.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Really, this conversation comes down to the limited application of a truism.  If you play better, you'll win more.  Isn't that what the whole PP conversation is about?  If you play better, you'll win more.  So we get into this debate about whether the Bruins need to play better on the PP and people say no, they've lost 1 game in regulation, so it isn't a big deal that they're bumping along.  Then other people say well, to win without a PP you have to play better in other areas.  So...play better.  Really, the only part of this that makes sense to me is that you should be able to improve the PP with practice and finding a system that works for your talent.  The Bruins were middle of the pack last year at 17.2%.  No reason they can't get back there, and you'd hope, with Seguin playing more of a role and Horton healthy, that they'd be able to improve on it.

    If the Bruins score 3 goals per game, in whatever phase, and continue to play sound defensive hockey, I don't care if they never score on the PP The only thing I'd regret is that they wouldn't be able to make other teams pay for hooking and slashing, but again, they're getting through that garbage to score an average of 3 goals/game.




    and I don't understand that.  unless someone believes a good pp will take away from someplace else, a higher success percentage will yield more overall goals, which will undoubtedly lead to more points.  any team as good as the bruins should have a better pp.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Thanks for making my point.  The Kings "steamrolled" to the cup in 12.  The B's certainly didn't in 11.  Boston had 3 game 7's, and I believe they were the first team in history to win a 7 game series without a pp goal. 

     

    In the 12 playoffs,  the Kings scored twice as many pp goals as their opponents.  In 11, the B's scored half as many as theirs.  The Kings were never outscored on the pp in any series in 12.  The B's were only able to do that in 1 series in 11.

    Your comparison doesn't compare.  



    Making your point?  Your comebacks have nothing to do with the original discussion.  That the Bruins won a 7 game series without scoring a PP goal means nothing other than that they were sufficiently better in the other phases of the game to win anyway - if you play better, you will win more.  If the point is PP efficiency, and making the PP better, then whether or not the Kings' opponents scored PP goals doesn't matter.  That's a question of having a great PK.  If that's your measuring stick, the Bruins are currently scoring 33.3% more goals on the PP than they're giving up on the PK, and that looks even better if you factor in the SHG.

    None of it supports the idea that you need the PP to win. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

     

     

    2. having a functioning PP is important and the B's have paid a price for not having a good one the past couple of seasons. Yes, there were more than a few reasons why the B's lost to the Caps but even one or two PP goals would have won that series (anyone remember late in game 7?).

     



    Do you remeber when the B's won the Cup?

     

     




    That was 2 years ago.....get over it. This is 2013. You do know we are in the midst of the second season after the B's won the cup, right? This line or reasoning does have a shelf life. Things change, circumstances change. Personnel change.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:



    Thanks for making my point.  The Kings "steamrolled" to the cup in 12.  The B's certainly didn't in 11.  Boston had 3 game 7's, and I believe they were the first team in history to win a 7 game series without a pp goal. 

     

     

    In the 12 playoffs,  the Kings scored twice as many pp goals as their opponents.  In 11, the B's scored half as many as theirs.  The Kings were never outscored on the pp in any series in 12.  The B's were only able to do that in 1 series in 11.

    Your comparison doesn't compare.  

     



    Reviewing these stats, it appears that there is no connection between winning and the powerplay.

     




    Yes there is nas.  LA had a decent pp in the playoffs last year.  Virtually every year, the cup winner has a decent pp.  The 11 Bruins were an exception.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from watchtower. Show watchtower's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to watchtower's comment:

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

     

    In response to shuperman's comment:

     

    I dont think you snap your fingers and its better.  Its not a secret.  They practice it daily.  Its been like this for yrs.   

     

     



    Nobody is suggesting that it is that easy. However, 27 other teams (including some very bad ones) seem to have found a better way of doing it so their are remedies out there. The mere fact that it has been this bad for so long means it is a systemic issue...cough......Ward.....cough.

     

     




    At the end of the day Ward should be "let-go". Unfortunately, he's being paid as a "special-teams" coach and the PP has not produced. As you all know, his firing in itself may jumpstart the PP. At this point, can it hurt?  An average power play can make the BRUINS 'lights-out". Tukka still has big skates to fill, and I'm sure he will. Thomas was the x-factor during the Cup run that featured a weak PP. A  20% effective PP can at least make up for a teams mistakes during the course of a game, and from a tactical stand-point, make the BRUINS a very difficult team to beat.

     


    I seems to opponents are satisfied with keeping the BRUINS on the perimeter
    and the B's oblige them. How many times this year have you seen a rebound or loose puck in front of the net and no BRUINS in sight. Fold the umbrella. Pucks and players to the net! Too many extra passes.Too much wasted time. Too many PP's with little or no shots on goal.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to watchtower's comment:

     

    I seems to opponents are satisfied with keeping the BRUINS on the perimeter
    and the B's oblige them. How many times this year have you seen a rebound or loose puck in front of the net and no BRUINS in sight. Fold the umbrella. Pucks and players to the net! Too many extra passes.Too much wasted time. Too many PP's with little or no shots on goal.

     




    Happens too much. That's if they even get a shot off instead of acting like the puck is a hand grenade.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share