In response to stevegm's comment:

Which stats show that an inept powerplay may not bode well for another Cup run?

 

In response to jmwalters' comment:

And your statement was that "the B's have paid a price for not having a good one the past couple of seasons."  So, over the past couple of seasons, they have lost in the first round and won it all.

Tell me about the price they paid over the last couple of seasons.

"Truth is, the Bruins could have and probably should have erased the Capitals in Round 1, and even a half-decent power play would have made that possible. But the power play was an abysmal 2 for 23, which left general manager Peter Chiarelli lamenting the "parity" throughout the league and the narrow margin between winning and losing in today's fast-paced, salary-capped NHL.

All true. Yet, two or three more timely power-play strikes - in a series that had all seven games decided by a single goal - would have meant at least another round or two of playoff hockey around here, and it was Neely who ultimately noted that the club's man-advantage was "static," which is polite terminology for "ossified."

Good power plays, even when they don't score, move the puck quickly and authoritatively around the defensive box, with the five-man unit making quick reads and decisive passes, or mixing in finesse one-touch relays or clever redirections.

When a power play is on, the puck looks light. That is not how the Bruins do it. Their power play is predictable, methodical, stale, the puck sliding like a curling stone.

 When Marc Savard was in residence (more on him later), he quarterbacked the power play from the right corner or half-wall, his quick stick and lightning reads proving the secret sauce of success.

 Here is a good power play by Neely's definition:" Watch a lot of other hockey and a lot of other power plays. What I see is a lot of movement, getting pucks down low, getting them to the net." "I think that's important, but . . . a lot of movement. Make it more difficult for the penalty killers. Thata "n area, when I look at good power plays, that's what I see is coming out of it.

"Confidence, too. When your power play is good, your players have a lot more confidence. You know, they try different things. When you go out there and you are not as confident in your power play, it will show if you don't have the confidence to do what you want to do."

 One way to create effective movement is for a point man to scoot deep down his wing, the opposite point man to shift over to his spot, and for the winger on that latter point man™s side of the ice then to fill the point he has vacated. The Bruins did some of that, and might have done more if it paid off, which goes back to Neelys comment about confidence. When nothing works, confidence remains low and production nonexistent.

The last two years of playoffs have shown that the Bruins either have to find Savard's equal at quarterback (Tyler Seguin is the lone in-house candidate) or find a new way of doing business, getting players in motion, creating passing lanes and looks at the net. Neely touched on that latter point when he said the club needed a œphilosophical difference of how we look at the power play.

Translation: The coaching triumvirate of Claude Julien, Geoff Ward, and Doug Houda has had the better part of two seasons sans Savard to get the power play out of bankruptcy. It was a near-miracle that they won a Cup without one in 2011. They whiffed again on making a remedy in 2012, and in the end, it translated to a first-round knockout.

 If it remains bankrupt next season, leading again to a quick postseason dismissal, Neely and Chiarelli will do more than talk about "tweaks." If the fix isn't in, one or more of the coaching staff will be out."

"We got away with it last year," said Neely. "This year it bit us in the butt."

This post has been removed.

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

Ahh, the semantic argument. Well this is the second season removed from the glorious cup run so my statement is semantically accurate. As you well know, a non-existant PP was a major reason for losing too the caps and in this season is still the weakest part of the team's game.

Probably not a good enough argument for those still basking in the glory of 2011 but I tend to follow the likes of a Cam Neely who has stated publically the PP needs improving and there is nothing in my assertions that contradict what he has said.

 

In response to jmwalters' comment:

A major reason for losing to the Caps?  How about Peverley on the first line?  How about Benoit Pouliot on any line?  How about Joe Corvo in the building?  There are many reasons they lost.  There is nothing that says it was the lack of powerplay goals.

 

 

If they were good enough - they would be executing. 2 years and counting. Debate the results. 

Nobody is throwing a tantrum- you have accused me of some nasty disgusting things, and you made accusations of awful comments you claimed I made about K.Weeks - never happened azzhole. That makes you a vile lying skumbag. No tantrum, thats just the way it is, and the way I deal with punks like you. Rest assured,the last thing you could ever do is make me feel threatened.

You don't like my opinions, just ignore them lying fanboy.

 

[/QUOTE]

Sometimes you get what you give.  At least I'm not crying all over my keyboard at your many insults.

You really think skill and execution are the same thing?  Try again.

 

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. 

[/QUOTE]

 My "comeback" is pointing out the folly in your comparison of LA's 2012 playoff pp vs  Bostons in 11.  If LA averages about 20% more pp goals per playoff game than the Bruins, they're hardly comparable in that category.

And,  if no other team, in the history of the NHL... has ever won a 7 game series without a pp goal...yes, it does mean something.  It "supports the idea", that good playoff teams usually do better if they have decent pp.

In response to stevegm's comment:

This stat is terribly flawed.

How many have won a series with no powerplay goals?

Of the powerplay goals scored, how many actually mattered?  By mattered, I mean goals scored when the game was close.  If it's 3-0 with five minutes left in the third and the team scores on the powerplay to make it 4-0, who cares.

How many teams have won a series with one powerplay goal?

The B's had two powerplay goals against the Caps last year and lost.  How does that affect the view of this stat?

It's an interesting stat, just as the "The Bruins are 29-4-1 when Shawn Thornton scores" stat is interesting, however correlation doesn't imply causation.

In response to JWensink's comment:

The term I used(right or wrong) was IQ.  Subban and Chara are easy.  Subban is much more of an offensive presence.  Savard bent more to the offensive than Bergeron.  I think you hi-lite your assets though.  The B's have tremendous net front presence if they choose to use it.  46 sees the ice incredibly well(IQ). They have the strength to own the corners.  Again, I strongly feel they have the personel to be top 8 in the league.

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

 

 

A major reason for losing to the Caps?  How about Peverley on the first line?  How about Benoit Pouliot on any line?  How about Joe Corvo in the building?  There are many reasons they lost.  There is nothing that says it was the lack of powerplay goals.

 

 

 

Interesting how you name some reasons yet categorically reject that the PP could possibly be one of them. Very selective.

Please read SanDogs post in this thread which has Neely stating explicitly naming the anemic PP as one of the major reasons for losing the series against the Caps.

Spoiler Alert: It does not fit your narrative.

 

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

And it can also be said that lat yr without a PP cost them in a 7 game series NAS.

A decent PpwerPlay

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. 

 

 

 My "comeback" is pointing out the folly in your comparison of LA's 2012 playoff pp vs  Bostons in 11.  If LA averages about 20% more pp goals per playoff game than the Bruins, they're hardly comparable in that category.

And,  if no other team, in the history of the NHL... has ever won a 7 game series without a pp goal...yes, it does mean something.  It "supports the idea", that good playoff teams usually do better if they have decent pp.

[/QUOTE]

Not many blow Bookboy & NAS out of the water in a debate Steve. Take a bow sir!

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

Of course it is, because it proves you wrong, but in a previous post the stat suited your agrument. Sometimes NAS you just need to say "I'm www....wwwwww. Comeon Bud, help me out here...WWWWWWROOONGGGG!! There you go!! I'm here for ya buddy.

In response to stevegm's comment:

I think the point is that a better PP doesn't necessarily correlate to more points.  Neither does more goals.  The way this team plays, I'm ballparking at 3 goals the average number they need to win most nights.  I don't care how they get there or who scores them because they'll get wins.  It really doesn't matter if they win some games 6-2 instead of 3-2 because the PP was working.  Again, look at the top PP teams vs. the standings. Five of the top eight teams by PP would be out of the playoffs is they started today.  The Blues have the best PP in the league but are one point away from being on the outside.

It's also ludicrous to say they need a better PP because they need to score on the PP in the last 5 minutes of key games.  Last year's best PP scored about 1/5th of the time.  There's no guarantee that that meant goals in key situations.  On the flip side, the Bruins just scored two 6 on 5 goals to steal a point against the Rangers.

I'm not saying the Bruins shouldn't be better on the PP than they have been.  It's annoying to watch them.  You can see how it could work with Seguin ripping one timers, Lucic setting screens, Horton collecting rebounds, Marchand walking in off the wall etc. etc.  It's an area where they can be better, and I imagine they're workin on it.  Though Legion will dispute that having Ward work on it is worse than just not practicing it.

And lastly, yeah - I do take the over-blown drama over the PP to mean that some want to see a move to get a PP guy or two, and I do think that risks making the Bruins worse in other areas.  In fact, that's what I fundamentally take these conversations to mean - that "they" want to change the makeup of the team to improve the PP% regardless of the fact that you can't reasonably expect that they're only going to lose 4 games in regulation this season, let alone fewer than 4.

In response to Bookboy007's comment:

In all honesty Book, I fail to see how aquiring a true PP specialist and plugging him in on the 3rth line in place of Bourque or on the 4rth for ST for regular duty can make the team worse. Few here are advocating radical change. Remember, Bourque was supposed to be that PP catalyst, at least that's how he was sold to us at the beginning of the season.  Plus, replacing Ward would alter nothing.

In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

How do you know that?  Was it a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book in which they played again with a better Bruins powerplay and the B's won?

In response to jmwalters' comment:

I posted many reasons for the B's loss.  None are THE reason.  People here are suggesting that the lack of powerplay success is THE reason.

It isn't.

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

This post made my day yes pevs on the first line when he is an average third liner. That would effect the team a little bit. I'd just like to see the pp% go up by 5% and I would be happy that could be the helper in some close games. It would certainly make it easier for the bs in the long road, hopefully dougie gets better as the year goes on and that is all we will need to benefit the pp. 

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

I posted many reasons for the B's loss.  None are THE reason.  People here are suggesting that the lack of powerplay success is THE reason.

 

It isn't.

 

Allthough I cannot speak for other posters, in none of my posts have I stated that the terrible PP was the only reason for the loss. It was, however, a major one....and something that is fixeable (unlike injuries). This has been my argument all along.

 

To ignore something that can be fixed with the probable result of making the team better is folly, even with the terrific start.

Of course, it is possible that tonight the PP will strike on a couple of occasions starting a new era of competence and this thread will become irrelevant.

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

no it's not nas.  sometimes(usually) the interpretation of a stat is what's flawed(cause/causation).  Using your example of the B's vs Washington last year.  Yes, the B's had 2 pp goals.  So did the Caps.  The series went 7 games.  4 into overtime(including the last), and every game was won by 1 goal.  Washington scores 16, the B's get 15.  About as close as it can possibly get.  Pretty hard to say the pp won it for the Caps(despite scoring a ppg with around a minute left in one of those games) or lost it for the B's.  If that total was lopsided though, wouldn't it be reasonable to figure it played a part?  history shows that good playoff teams rarely win the cup with pp's that don't somewhat compare to their opponents.  Vs. Montreal the year earlier, Boston was in the exact same situation after 60 minutes in game 7.  The Bruins got that next goal,(by the grace of god) so everyone just forgets reality and dances on.  Had they not got that 1 goal though, 'virtually all of the experts would blame it on the fact that montreal scored 7 on the pp, and boston got none.(and the coach was a retread choker).  both years, 7 full 60 minute games in the first round, and everyones on the edge of their seat.  One stinkin goal, and the Bruins are on different planets in 1 year.  One goal!, and the experts would pin it all on the pp.

Now, the arguers will say, "but that didn't happen Steve".  True, but one can't be objective by simply burying ourselves in the fact that our team won.  the winning edge is razor thin, and I go along with the thousands who feel a good pp will benefit the Bruins more than a bad one. 

and you can't really look at "those that mattered".  Teams don't get to pick when they go on the pp, and usually don't have the ability to simply turn it on when needed.  Being able to something well is usually based on repetition.

now lets get this back on course.  there are no gurantees.  there is no reason to panic.  the team is playing pretty well for the most part.  would it not be better though...for the Bruins to see some improvement on their pp?

In response to stevegm's comment:
[/QUOTE]


 My "comeback" is pointing out the folly in your comparison of LA's 2012 playoff pp vs  Bostons in 11.  If LA averages about 20% more pp goals per playoff game than the Bruins, they're hardly comparable in that category.

And,  if no other team, in the history of the NHL... has ever won a 7 game series without a pp goal...yes, it does mean something.  It "supports the idea", that good playoff teams usually do better if they have decent pp.

[/QUOTE]

Sorry - what?  "LA averages 20% more pp goals per playoff game than the Bruins"?  Where are you getting that number?  The Kings had 94 pp opportunities over 20 games and scored 12 goals for a 12.8% showing.  The 2011 Bruins had 88 PP's in 25 games scoring 10 goals for an 11.4% showing.  So - are you suggesting that two goal difference is a magical 20%?  And so two teams who are two goals apart in winning the cup are so vastly different that there's no comparison?  That's a reach if I've ever heard one.

I'll give you that teams rarely go 7 games without scoring a PP goal, but look at what you're saying.  The team was good enough to win 3 of 6 without scoring a PP.  I'd actually suggest the idea that this really supports is that winning teams rarely struggle this badly on the PP.  And that's a different point - it begins with the idea that the team is good enough to win and sees the lack of success on the PP as an anomaly that's hard to explain, but not crucial to the future.

Really nite - you think that blew me out of the water?  I call that bias confirmation.

 

The difference of being in 1st place at a 3rd seed in the conference but you end up 2nd place at a 5th seed could be 1 or 2 goals. The team that isn't as good as the Bruins 5 on 5 but do great on the PP will win a closer series. There is no guarantee that the Boston will always out score everyone 5 on 5 every game.

Neely is freely admiting that the odds of teams winning the cup like the Bruins and Kings is a long shot. Denying that one or two goals can't be the difference in a tight NHL playoff series is side stepping. Chiarelli and Neely admitted, what I already know, that having a terrible powerplay can cost an NHL team in a tight playoff series.

No one is proving to me that having the best 5 on 5 team in the NHL is good enough to win multiple cups and that having this even strength superiority is a great reason to leave the PP alone.

In response to jmwalters's comment:

Hardly selective.  The point of this thread at the outset was that the team is winning at a .727 clip with the current PP, yet there is a huge amount of drama about how essential it is for the Bruins to address the PP, change the PP, change the personnel.  People are saying that this one factor - just the PP, only the PP - will mean they cannot win another Cup.  NAS pointed out a dozen other factors that played into the loss to the Caps.  I'll repeat what I've been saying - if they had played better in other areas, they would have won.  Just like if they had scored more on the PP.  Is the PP responsible for them taking a thousand perimeter shots with no traffic in front?  Is the PP responsible for Troy Brouwer's long distance wrister beating Thomas from the outer third of the circle to win game 5? Or the Pouliot penalty that led to it?  Is the PP responsible for the lack of physical presence they showed in that series?

Blaming the PP is easy.  That's part of why Neely, as a Bruins executive, singles it out.  It focuses the disappointment.

If the Caps didn't sign Joel Ward, the Bruins would have won that series.