1. you're not giving me much. no other team in the history of the nhl has ever won a 7 game series without a ppg. thats not rarely...thats never.
2011 bruins scored 10 pp goals in 25 playoff games = .40 pp gpg
2012 kings scored 12 pp goals in 25 playoff games = .60 pp gpg
2. The difference between those two teams on a per game average is 33%. I was being kind in only generalizing at over 20%.
Further, the 2012 Kings scored 59 playoff goals. Almost 20% of all their goals scored were on the pp. That suggests their pp was a pretty significant part of their game.
3. In 2011, only around 10% of Bostons playoff goals were pp goals, suggesting very little parallel to the Kings.
4. I don't know what the argument here is. When a team is top 3, five on five, it makes no sense that they dive to 27th when they have more guys on the ice than they're opponent. Unless some logic can be introduced that the teams 5 on 5 play would decline because of a better pp.....this is ridiculous. It's like arguing that more money doesn't allow increased spending, or 9 hr workdays are the same as 8.
1. And as I wrote above - you're talking about a series where the two teams were evenly matched for 6 of 7 games even if one hadn't scored a PP goal. You didn't need the PP to win 3 games, so while a better PP would be nice, it isn't essential. My point was that it's very rare for a team to go 7 games without scoring a PPG even if they have a lousy PP. So part of the rarity of this feat is for all of the factors to come together - a team scoring no PP goals for 7 games, a series going 7 games, and the team that wins game 7 also being the team that has a 7 game goal-less streak. Your point amounts to playing better would help you win more.
2. So you're saying those two goals make the two situation incomparable? 2 goals. Over the course of an entire playoffs. No basis for comparison. So if Seguin starts focusing on hammering home one-timers, and he scores two fewer goals than Stamkos over the next 25 games, there will be no basis for comparison.
3. This actually supports my point. Boston's PPG as a % of total offense is lower for a couple of reasons - they played more games, and they scored a crapload of 5 on 5 goals. Boston 2011 scored 81 goals in those playoffs. For context, that's 22 more than the next highest scoring team - Tampa Bay had 59, the Canucks only 58. In fact, the Bruins scored 60 5 on 5 goals - more than any other team had total goals. Vancouver played exactly the same number of games, too, so this isn't just a question of more games. Boston's 5 on 5 goal output that year was nearly double Vancouver's: 60-36. They did not have trouble scoring. Teams that have trouble scoring need to score on the PP. The Bruins didn't, so the importance of the PP was neglible. And if the PK had had an answer for PK in the first series, we wouldn't be talkign about almost and what if in that series as though the problem was entirely the PP. The Bruins dominated for long stretches and the PK and some less than world class goals let the Shabs hang around.
4. My point has been the same from the start - all this fixation on the PP doesn't make sense. The only part of it that does is the assertion that if you play better you win more. That includes on the powerplay. What makes no sense to me, and, from his OP, to NAS, is the way some of these discussions seem to lose sight of the fact the goal is to win games, not score more goals on the PP. There just isn't a direct correlation between PP% and winning, so changing the makeup of a team winning more than 70% of its games to pursue a better PP% doesn't make a lot of sense. That doesn't mean they shouldn't do a better job of using the assets they have, and in that case, past record suggests they will get better over the course of the season.
The Bruin PP has been operating at between 16% and 17.5% every year since the lockout with the exception of one year with a healthy Savard and the first year after the lockout when they were down around 14%. If you go back to the beginning of the JT Superstar era, the Bruin PP has been better than last year's 17.2 maybe twice including when they had guys who should have been PP specialists like Thornton, Guerin, and Murray. It hasn't been top of the league in a long time, but they went from jokes to champs with the PP running at pretty much teh same clip all along.
1. welllllll ok. yes the planets do have to allighn, but it's not that big of an allignment. There have been a bazillion 7 game series before, with a bazillion winners, and they all scored on the pp except the B's.
2. You made the point inferring LA won the cup with a pp mirroring the B's as an argument to one of my posts. I correctly pointed out data that showed big differences between the 2. You mention Stamkos-Sequin and 25 games. That's different. Kings-Bruins played a different amount of games, recorded different goal totals, matched up differently. My point was that one stat didn't validate the fact that they were virtually identical in that area. Yes, they had some similarities, namely the data you provided, but what I added showes a very big difference in the two.
3. When we're calculating power play goals as a percentage of total goals, it doesn't matter how many games are played does it? Games isn't part of the equation. I don't see how the number of 5 on 5's impacts that either. Regardless how many goals they scored, they still had the opportunity to score on the pp, and they didn't. Again, it amazes me when I think of those 60 goals scored, but when they have the open man, they freeze up. I haven't, and i've gone through this whole thread again, virtually no one is saying, or has said "it's all the pp's fault", but it's significant.
4. This thread was started by someone who basically said the pp doesn't matter. Differing opinions are neither fixation or high drama. In fact the OP is pretty long on drama. Almost all of the posters feel it can be made better without a trade or anything associated with risk. Where a lot of these threads seem to "lose sight", is when someone decides to argue an inconsequential part of someones post in order to avoid changing their position or the admission that someone else may have a reasonable thought also. Again, virtually no one is suggesting changing the "make up", so while I agree with you, it's a moot point. So is winning games vs scoring more goals. No ones arguing that. If the B's are scoring 200 five on five goals, I think PC and CJ...the whole outfit, expects them to continue doing that. If they get 20 shorties, they should be expected to keep that. If the pp is going along at 7%, and the league average is 16%, I think it's reasonable to expect this team to be able to figure out a way to get there, and it should equate to considerably more goals....we're not losing any of the other ones....and more goals will virtually gurantee more wins. It can't be proven here, but it's pretty much common sense.
If you take a moment and go back through this stuff, I think you'll be surprised at the sensibilities overall. In a moment I'll bump up a thread that pretty much sums up what most feel here.
always a pleasure to read your thoughts