Powerplay Percentage

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    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.




    Nothing anyone has done in the current era has proven to be "good enough to win multiple cups" so if that's what we're talking about, I would also suggest they get better at scoring 5 on 5, better on the PK, cut down the GAA to about 1.00, and probably replace most of the players with Terminator T-2000 models.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Bookboy007'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.

     



    I don't think there is a single reputable poster who has explicitly said the B's will definitely not win the cup without a good PP.  Nor should anyone pretend that a PP this bad makes no difference whatsoever to the long term success of this team in 2013. That is almost as overly dramatic.

     

    Again, there were various reasons why the B's lost to the Caps, most of which is simply not fixeable (aka injuries or even the signing of Joel Ward.....lol). A horrendous PP is, however a major reason for the loss and, unlike other things on NAS' list, can be fixed. To ignore it is folly.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

     

    In response to Bookboy007'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.

     


    sorry, duplicate.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Does it not seem that generally speaking the Bruins have to fight to the bitter end of a game on most nights? They don't blow out teams very often.

    If nothing else, would a better PP not make their journey easier? And over a long season, and a longer post-season, does that not give you an advantage? You can balance your ice time more effectively? Can you play your 3 D pairing more often, reducing the load on Chara?

    Those come from behind games are exciting, but also taxing on the top lines. There is only so much gas in the tank. As we have seen, the playoffs are a long a grueling trip, and if they can cut 1 or 2, or 3 games off, then all the better.  

    jm hit it right on the spot. "To ignore something that can be fixed with the probable result of making the team better is folly, even with the terrific start.".

     

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to jmwalters's comment:

    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.

     



    Like a Kaberle maybe?

    Replacing Bourque is all well and good, but as I posted on another thread, right now the problem with the bottom six is they're getting hit for too many goals against, not that they're not scoring.  A PP specialist who could be stashed on the third or fourth line isn't going to improve that, and I have no faith that it would improve results any time soon either - again, see Kaberle.

    I don't include Ward in my earlier comments - you could hire an additional coach for the PP without giving up a player from the lineup.  My concern is that people want to make roster moves to change the lineup just so the PP can be better.  As with the third line example above, I don't even know that that's the best direction to make this team better and more successful.  The PP can certainly be better, but it gets a disproportionate amount of attention. 

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to perrysound's comment:

    Does it not seem that generally speaking the Bruins have to fight to the bitter end of a game on most nights? They don't blow out teams very often.

    If nothing else, would a better PP not make their journey easier? And over a long season, and a longer post-season, does that not give you an advantage? You can balance your ice time more effectively? Can you play your 3 D pairing more often, reducing the load on Chara?

    Those come from behind games are exciting, but also taxing on the top lines. There is only so much gas in the tank. As we have seen, the playoffs are a long a grueling trip, and if they can cut 1 or 2, or 3 games off, then all the better.  

    jm hit it right on the spot. "To ignore something that can be fixed with the probable result of making the team better is folly, even with the terrific start.".

     




    They don't have to blow teams out.  They just have to win by one goal. 

    Ask Devils fans.  One goal victories are still victories.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to jmwalters' comment:


    I don't think there is a single reputable poster who has explicitly said the B's will definitely not win the cup without a good PP.  Nor should anyone pretend that a PP this bad makes no difference whatsoever to the long term success of this team in 2013. That is almost as overly dramatic.

     

    Again, there were various reasons why the B's lost to the Caps, most of which is simply not fixeable (aka injuries or even the signing of Joel Ward.....lol). A horrendous PP is, however a major reason for the loss and, unlike other things on NAS' list, can be fixed. To ignore it is folly.



    And we are not saying anything like this either.

    As I continue to make the same point, you keep massaging yours to enter weaker comebacks to a failed point.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    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.



    This isn't close to being truthful. It was talked about the whole playoffs how the Kings were winning without the PP working.

    They finished with 2 more goals then the Bruins did the previous year (12 to 10) with a % of 12.8 compared to the bruins 11.4 %.

    A decent PP ? 1.4% higher says no.


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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to perrysound's comment:

    Does it not seem that generally speaking the Bruins have to fight to the bitter end of a game on most nights? They don't blow out teams very often.

    If nothing else, would a better PP not make their journey easier? And over a long season, and a longer post-season, does that not give you an advantage? You can balance your ice time more effectively? Can you play your 3 D pairing more often, reducing the load on Chara?

    Those come from behind games are exciting, but also taxing on the top lines. There is only so much gas in the tank. As we have seen, the playoffs are a long a grueling trip, and if they can cut 1 or 2, or 3 games off, then all the better.  

    jm hit it right on the spot. "To ignore something that can be fixed with the probable result of making the team better is folly, even with the terrific start.".

     



    To make changes in pursuit of better PP stats without knowing the impact of those changes on your  current success is also folly - setting your sights on the method and not the goal.

    Are we now talking about wanting winning the Cup to be easier, rather than what needs to be done?  The Bruins crushed a lot of teams last year and had a massive 5 on 5 GF/GA ratio at +1.32.  The only teams that were better were St. Louis and Detroit, and the Bruins had a better PP than both of them.  Yet they still got bounced by the Capitals.  Margin of victory doesn't tell you much.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

     Like a Kaberle maybe?

     

    Replacing Bourque is all well and good, but as I posted on another thread, right now the problem with the bottom six is they're getting hit for too many goals against, not that they're not scoring.  A PP specialist who could be stashed on the third or fourth line isn't going to improve that, and I have no faith that it would improve results any time soon either - again, see Kaberle.

    I don't include Ward in my earlier comments - you could hire an additional coach for the PP without giving up a player from the lineup.  My concern is that people want to make roster moves to change the lineup just so the PP can be better.  As with the third line example above, I don't even know that that's the best direction to make this team better and more successful.  The PP can certainly be better, but it gets a disproportionate amount of attention. 

     



    Kaberle is a defenceman....try again. If you think a proven PP performer cannot somehow be an improvement over or at least as "good" as Bourque or ST 5 on 5 and still help the PP then there really is not much to say to you further on this subject.

    Example: Iginla gets picked up at the deadline as a rental. He becomes the triggerman on the PP (a role he has done for over a decade with success) and still plays a regular shift on the third line. How is that not an improvement.

    ps. before anyone skewers me on picking up Iginla, this was just an example.....

     

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

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

    In response to perrysound's comment:

     

    Does it not seem that generally speaking the Bruins have to fight to the bitter end of a game on most nights? They don't blow out teams very often.

    If nothing else, would a better PP not make their journey easier? And over a long season, and a longer post-season, does that not give you an advantage? You can balance your ice time more effectively? Can you play your 3 D pairing more often, reducing the load on Chara?

    Those come from behind games are exciting, but also taxing on the top lines. There is only so much gas in the tank. As we have seen, the playoffs are a long a grueling trip, and if they can cut 1 or 2, or 3 games off, then all the better.  

    jm hit it right on the spot. "To ignore something that can be fixed with the probable result of making the team better is folly, even with the terrific start.".

     

     




    They don't have to blow teams out.  They just have to win by one goal. 

     

    Ask Devils fans.  One goal victories are still victories.



    There are Devils fans?

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

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

     

    In response to perrysound's comment:

     

    Does it not seem that generally speaking the Bruins have to fight to the bitter end of a game on most nights? They don't blow out teams very often.

    If nothing else, would a better PP not make their journey easier? And over a long season, and a longer post-season, does that not give you an advantage? You can balance your ice time more effectively? Can you play your 3 D pairing more often, reducing the load on Chara?

    Those come from behind games are exciting, but also taxing on the top lines. There is only so much gas in the tank. As we have seen, the playoffs are a long a grueling trip, and if they can cut 1 or 2, or 3 games off, then all the better.  

    jm hit it right on the spot. "To ignore something that can be fixed with the probable result of making the team better is folly, even with the terrific start.".

     

     




    They don't have to blow teams out.  They just have to win by one goal. 

     

    Ask Devils fans.  One goal victories are still victories.

     



    This team is a couple years older, and although there are some new young legs, the core is that much older, especially Chara. A good PP might give them the rest they will need.

     

     And have you seen their March/April Schedule? Wow, is rest ever going to be important. 

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

     



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

    [/QUOTE]

    I actually see it the other way around.  Two bows for Nas and Bookboy.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    They don't have to blow teams out.  They just have to win by one goal. 

     

    Ask Devils fans.  One goal victories are still victories.

     



    There are Devils fans?

     



    There is that 300 club (or something like that) from that snowstorm in the 80's.....that's about it I think...:)

     
  15. 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:


    I don't think there is a single reputable poster who has explicitly said the B's will definitely not win the cup without a good PP.  Nor should anyone pretend that a PP this bad makes no difference whatsoever to the long term success of this team in 2013. That is almost as overly dramatic.

     

     

    Again, there were various reasons why the B's lost to the Caps, most of which is simply not fixeable (aka injuries or even the signing of Joel Ward.....lol). A horrendous PP is, however a major reason for the loss and, unlike other things on NAS' list, can be fixed. To ignore it is folly.

     



    And we are not saying anything like this either.

     

    As I continue to make the same point, you keep massaging yours to enter weaker comebacks to a failed point.

     

    Umm, yes you are. To quote you on this thread:

    "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."


    My point is Neely's...no more no less. I think you may be having some trouble on your side. You can argue until you are blue in the face about how a bad PP had nothing to do with losing to the Caps in 2012 or how it means nothing now. I however, tend to believe the President of the team over your assertions.

     

     

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

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

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



    So by extension, if the Bruins had signed Ward, do they win? And is that not any different than them trying to get someone to help their PP? 

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to jmwalters' comment:



    My point is Neely's...no more no less. I think you may be having some trouble on your side. You can argue until you are blue in the face about how a bad PP had nothing to do with losing to the Caps in 2012 or how it means nothing now. I however, tend to believe the President of the team over your assertions.



    If Benoit Pouliot hadn't turned the puck over in the neutral zone and the B's had scored instead, how would the powerplay had been a factor in the victory?

    If I remember correctly, it was Game 7 in OT. 

    In Game 4, the B's went 0-5 on the powerplay.  They won 4-3.  If they had gone 5-5 on the powerplay that game and won 9-3, their powerplay stats would be much better.  And what does that mean?  Nothing.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to perrysound's comment:



    So by extension, if the Bruins had signed Ward, do they win? And is that not any different than them trying to get someone to help their PP? 



    If the Caps didn't trade Varlamov to Colorado, the Bruins would have won that series.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

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

    If Benoit Pouliot hadn't turned the puck over in the neutral zone and the B's had scored instead, how would the powerplay had been a factor in the victory?

     

    If I remember correctly, it was Game 7 in OT. 

    In Game 4, the B's went 0-5 on the powerplay.  They won 4-3.  If they had gone 5-5 on the powerplay that game and won 9-3, their powerplay stats would be much better.  And what does that mean?  Nothing.



    Again, please read the Neely quote posted by SanDog on this thread.

    Good argument.

    Cheers

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to jmwalters's comment:

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

     

    In response to jmwalters's comment:

     

    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.

     

     



    Like a Kaberle maybe?

     

    Replacing Bourque is all well and good, but as I posted on another thread, right now the problem with the bottom six is they're getting hit for too many goals against, not that they're not scoring.  A PP specialist who could be stashed on the third or fourth line isn't going to improve that, and I have no faith that it would improve results any time soon either - again, see Kaberle.

    I don't include Ward in my earlier comments - you could hire an additional coach for the PP without giving up a player from the lineup.  My concern is that people want to make roster moves to change the lineup just so the PP can be better.  As with the third line example above, I don't even know that that's the best direction to make this team better and more successful.  The PP can certainly be better, but it gets a disproportionate amount of attention. 

     



    Kaberle is a defenceman....try again. If you think a proven PP performer cannot somehow be an improvement over or at least as "good" as Bourque or ST 5 on 5 and still help the PP then there really is not much to say to you further on this subject.

     



    Firstly, I mentioned Kaberle because he was brought in for exactly the same reason - to juice the PP.  Not because he could be a replacement for Bourque.  I think you know that.

    Secondly, who is the proven PP performer that the Bruins can a) get for a price that means the only other change is plugging him in for Bourque or ST and b) will make the kind of impact you envision working within the current PP?  If you look at the list of proven PP scorers from last year, you're not going to find many guys who are "specialists".  Most of the guys who scored enough to give you any hope that they would help the Boston PP are players in the top six of their current teams and guys who play an important role in all phases.   You'd have to give up something significant to get any of these guys, and that's where I'd question the wisdom.

    Back to Kaberle for a minute - I still say that deal was justifiable but only because it cost the Bruins nothing off of the active roster.  If you'd sent any of the players who won the Cup the other way, it's an instant fail and I wonder if they still win the cup.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to perrysound's comment:


    This team is a couple years older, and although there are some new young legs, the core is that much older, especially Chara. A good PP might give them the rest they will need.

     

     And have you seen their March/April Schedule? Wow, is rest ever going to be important. 

     




    The core aged quicker than the team?

    Lucic is 24.

    Marchand is 24.

    Bergeron is 27.

    Krejci is 26.

    Seguin is 21.

    Horton is 27.

    Old men.  Probably collecting SSI in a year or so.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to jmwalters' comment:


    Again, please read the Neely quote posted by SanDog on this thread.

     

    Good argument.

    Cheers



    Please don't end your posts with "cheers".  That signifies two things.  1.  You're English.  2.  You're a hipster deeeebag.

    As for what Neely has stated...I don't care.  His words aren't gospel. 

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to jmwalters's comment:

    Again, please read the Neely quote posted by SanDog on this thread.

     

    Good argument.

    Cheers



    Really not trying to bust your cojos, jm, but...we all know that Bruins presidents have never, ever scapegoated one elemet of the team in order to take control of the conversation after a playoff loss.  It's unthinkable!

     
  24. 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:

     


    Again, please read the Neely quote posted by SanDog on this thread.

     

    Good argument.

    Cheers

     



    Please don't end your posts with "cheers".  That signifies two things.  1.  You're English.  2.  You're a hipster deeeebag.

     

    As for what Neely has stated...I don't care.  His words aren't gospel. 




    Both of the above actually. Need to go earn a paycheck, though. See you later. (better?)

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    In response to jmwalters's comment:

     

    Again, please read the Neely quote posted by SanDog on this thread.

     

    Good argument.

    Cheers

     



    Really not trying to bust your cojos, jm, but...we all know that Bruins presidents have never, ever scapegoated one elemet of the team in order to take control of the conversation after a playoff loss.  It's unthinkable!

     




    Agreed. Just saying that Neely is much more informed than us and his opinion has much more authority than ours do. He is quite explicit in his comments so I believe him over you and NAS.

    At any rate, got to go.

     

    Cheers (sorry NAS)

     

Share