# Powerplay Percentage

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

Re: Powerplay Percentage

In response to Bookboy007's comment:

In response to stevegm's comment:

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.

[/QUOTE]

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

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.

In 2011, only around 10% of Bostons playoff goals were pp goals, suggesting very little parallel to the Kings.

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.

2. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

Re: Powerplay Percentage

Back to the original meaning of the thread. they won a Cup with a struggling power play, so it's not the be all end all. In those playoffs, I truly think the play of Thomas made the struggling PP a wash..Last year, it's easy to point out that the ineffectiveness off the PP cost them versus the Caps...Who knows? I know that if their power play can contribute, especailly come playoff time where every part of the game seems more magnified, it sure would help.

As far as fixing it, who the heck knows. Seems they've tried everything.

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

Re: Powerplay Percentage

After reading all the posts I'll state the obvious:

It's not a matter of bringing in a PP specialist to give them a boost. It's a matter of rethinking the PP philosophy with regards to the current players. They've pretty much stunk for 3 years now. With the existing talent level I would expect at least middle of the pack. I just don't see the creativity, puck movement, or skating that a team like the Blues brings to the PP.

A good PP is certainly ok to wish for and may take a load off the big guns TOI in a few instances, but it isn't a total detriment to being the last team standing (as we've all seen).

IMO, there certainly isn't any such thing as a bottom 6 PP specialist. I'm not sure that even bringing in Iginla would make a huge difference on the PP without a philisophical change in how the PP is run.

I'm just glad they can win with a crummy one.

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

Re: Powerplay Percentage

In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

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.

YOU'D BETTER LEARN TO LOOK A BIT DEEPER BEFORE YOU START ACCUSING SOMEONE OF NOT BEING TRUTHFUL.

YOU'RE WAY OUT OF LINE.

5. 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:

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

The difference between those two teams on a per game average is 33%.  I was being kind in only generalizing at over 20%.

Oh my WORD.  The difference is two goals.  How pathetic you are for using the percentage instead to enhance your argument.

6. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

Re: Powerplay Percentage

Now there's some sense to the comments. The process that the Bruins use on the PP needs to change. In the last Rangers game the Bruins showed what should be done by scoring two goals, IN CLOSE, to tie the game. The dreaded" umberella and feed Chara", doesn't work cause nobody is in front jamming for rebounds. This " system" hasn't produced for THREE [count them] years. They also slow the game down in the existing "system". Doesn't work. If there's no other justification for getting rid of the coach... CHANGE THE SYSTEM.

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

Re: Powerplay Percentage

Note: LA had 6 more powerplay opportunities that Boston did, despite playing 5 fewer games. That is the reason they scored more PP goals per game, not because they had a significantly better powerplay.

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

Re: Powerplay Percentage

In response to Bookboy007'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. [/QUOTE]

I don't have to worry about any of the tangibles you've mentioned. Using those bright spots to cover up an awful part of the Bruins game is not cutting it. Having a halfway decent PP would allow the Bruins to survive a "Horton-type" injury in close games.

The President of the organization, who was part of great PPs, acknowledges the his teams putrid PP needs to be improved. Before you pull "Neely didn't win a cup", Cam didn't have those other great things you just mentioned.

And replacing an AHL 3rd line winger is not E-Harmony, it is adressing a problem. You know like making sure if a key top 6 forward goes down (AGAIN+Horton) with an injury in the playoffs, having a vastley improved PP would make up for that lack of offense.

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

Re: Powerplay Percentage

Oh my WORD.  The difference is two goals.  How pathetic you are for using the percentage instead to enhance your argument.

[/QUOTE]

how pathetic you are for being so stupid.  they played a different number of games.  scored a different amount of goals.

thought maybe you'd be quick enough to skewer me on the typo regarding the games played for LA, but see that flew right over your head too.

you're going to laughable extremes in your attempt to sell the fact that pp's don't matter.

you're spiraling down a deep dark abyss.

give it up

10. 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:

thought maybe you'd be quick enough to skewer me on the typo regarding the games played for LA, but see that flew right over your head too.

you're going to laughable extremes in your attempt to sell the fact that pp's don't matter.

you're spiraling down a deep dark abyss.

give it up

I was foolish to think your stats were correct.  I'll be sure to check them in the future.

How to tell when you've lost an argument:  You go out of your way to tell someone else they have.  It's a common trend around here for those would constantly look stupid.

11. 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:

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.

Chara 33

Ference 31

Seidenberg 31

Boychuck 29

Hamilton - still sucking on mom's bosom.

Not old, but not young in NHL years.

It's a young man's game. As I've stated, and will again, this team doesn't need much more. But an effective PP - an improvement of 5-6%, might make it easier for the stretch run, where it counts.

Have you seen their schedule for March and April? KILLER!

And as you have said, there are many reasons they lost last year, but this is an easy one to identify, and correct. What does it hurt? And I believe it's a personel thing, not coaching.

Through all of this back and forth, it leaves me with one question. Do you think this team is good enough to go all the way? If not what do they need to get there? It appears that you don't think an improvement to the PP is top priority?

12. 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:

thought maybe you'd be quick enough to skewer me on the typo regarding the games played for LA, but see that flew right over your head too.

you're going to laughable extremes in your attempt to sell the fact that pp's don't matter.

you're spiraling down a deep dark abyss.

give it up

I was foolish to think your stats were correct.  I'll be sure to check them in the future.

How to tell when you've lost an argument:  You go out of your way to tell someone else they have.  It's a common trend around here for those would constantly look stupid.

the only one going out of their way is you.  the stats minus that one typo are correct.  20% of LA's goals were pp..  10% of the Bruins were.

When comparing things, it's usually a good rule of thumb to bring up comparables.

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:

the only one going out of their way is you.  the stats minus that one typo are correct.  20% of LA's goals were pp..  10% of the Bruins were.

When comparing things, it's usually a good rule of thumb to bring up comparables.

And when the percentages are extreme but the stats are close, it's ridiculous to use percentages.

Over the course of two weeks, Player A had 50% more goals than Player B!

Over the course of two weeks, Player A had 2 goals while Player B had 1.

Get real.

14. 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:

In response to stevegm's comment:

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.

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.

[/QUOTE]

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.

[/QUOTE]

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.

15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rufus604. Show Rufus604's posts

Re: Powerplay Percentage

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

In response to stevegm's comment:

the only one going out of their way is you.  the stats minus that one typo are correct.  20% of LA's goals were pp..  10% of the Bruins were.

When comparing things, it's usually a good rule of thumb to bring up comparables.

And when the percentages are extreme but the stats are close, it's ridiculous to use percentages.

Over the course of two weeks, Player A had 50% more goals than Player B!

Over the course of two weeks, Player A had 2 goals while Player B had 1.

Get real.

Agreed that stats can be meaningless in a limited time frame.  And yes LA may have twice as many Pp goals but the Bruins have a better 5 on 5 ratio (11 in the league vs 19th)

16. 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:

the only one going out of their way is you.  the stats minus that one typo are correct.  20% of LA's goals were pp..  10% of the Bruins were.

When comparing things, it's usually a good rule of thumb to bring up comparables.

And when the percentages are extreme but the stats are close, it's ridiculous to use percentages.

Over the course of two weeks, Player A had 50% more goals than Player B!

Over the course of two weeks, Player A had 2 goals while Player B had 1.

Get real.

there you go again,  using an example that has no bearing on the conversation. You wouldn't make that comparison if 1 guy played 1 game and the other played 3.  Actually, you probably would, but most people would know better.

Anyway, the stats you are blindly hanging onto, don't tell the whole story.  They paint a picture as cloudy as the one you're dissing on.  When looked at in more detail, it's obvious the two pp's are a distinctly different part of their teams dna.  They really aren't comparable when considering multiple facts.

Now if you could just enlighten us with more wisdom surrounding the unimportance of power plays, it would be greatly appreciated.

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

Re: Powerplay Percentage

In response to stevegm's comment:

Anyway, the stats you are blindly hanging onto, don't tell the whole story.  They paint a picture as cloudy as the one you're dissing on.  When looked at in more detail, it's obvious the two pp's are a distinctly different part of their teams dna.  They really aren't comparable when considering multiple facts.

Now if you could just enlighten us with more wisdom surrounding the unimportance of power plays, it would be greatly appreciated.

So now you're arguing that the importance of the PP varies from team to team depending on their make-up?  A team like the Bruins can outscore the rest of the playoff teams on 5 on 5 goals alone, so maybe the PP isn't as important to the way they play, where a team like LA depends on the PP to get just enough offense to support all-world goaltending?  'Cause that's where you've gone in order to suggest just comparing the efficiency of the PP's is irrelevant.

18. 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:

there you go again,  using an example that has no bearing on the conversation. You wouldn't make that comparison if 1 guy played 1 game and the other played 3.  Actually, you probably would, but most people would know better.

Anyway, the stats you are blindly hanging onto, don't tell the whole story.  They paint a picture as cloudy as the one you're dissing on.  When looked at in more detail, it's obvious the two pp's are a distinctly different part of their teams dna.  They really aren't comparable when considering multiple facts.

Now if you could just enlighten us with more wisdom surrounding the unimportance of power plays, it would be greatly appreciated.

And yet, both teams recently won the Cup.

Case closed.

Let's go have a beer.

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

Re: Powerplay Percentage

In response to stevegm's comment:

I love it when a plan comes together.

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

Re: Powerplay Percentage

[/QUOTE]

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.

[/QUOTE]

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.

[/QUOTE]

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.

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

Re: Powerplay Percentage

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.

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.

[/QUOTE]

maybe while you and nas are out strokong each others ego, you can figure out where you stand on this.

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

Re: Powerplay Percentage

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

In response to stevegm's comment:

thought maybe you'd be quick enough to skewer me on the typo regarding the games played for LA, but see that flew right over your head too.

you're going to laughable extremes in your attempt to sell the fact that pp's don't matter.

you're spiraling down a deep dark abyss.

give it up

I was foolish to think your stats were correct.  I'll be sure to check them in the future.

How to tell when you've lost an argument:  You go out of your way to tell someone else they have.  It's a common trend around here for those would constantly look stupid.

This sounds totally believable coming from the one poster who's almost literally perfected the lost art losing arguments while acting like a doooosh bag.

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

Re: Powerplay Percentage

In response to Bookboy007's comment:

In response to stevegm's comment:

Anyway, the stats you are blindly hanging onto, don't tell the whole story.  They paint a picture as cloudy as the one you're dissing on.  When looked at in more detail, it's obvious the two pp's are a distinctly different part of their teams dna.  They really aren't comparable when considering multiple facts.

Now if you could just enlighten us with more wisdom surrounding the unimportance of power plays, it would be greatly appreciated.

So now you're arguing that the importance of the PP varies from team to team depending on their make-up?  A team like the Bruins can outscore the rest of the playoff teams on 5 on 5 goals alone, so maybe the PP isn't as important to the way they play, where a team like LA depends on the PP to get just enough offense to support all-world goaltending?  'Cause that's where you've gone in order to suggest just comparing the efficiency of the PP's is irrelevant.

No book, merely sticking to the fact that there are big differences between LA's powerplay in 12, and the B's in 11.  Fact. The B's scored less pp goals/game than the Kings.  Fact, the B's relied much less on their pp for overall goal production.  Those 2 facts clearly refute your proclamation that the two teams basically travelled the same road as far as their pp is concerned.  Stop trying to muddy the water.  Your nas like tactics here are not very becoming.

24. 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:

No book, merely sticking to the fact that there are big differences between LA's powerplay in 12, and the B's in 11.  Fact. The B's scored less pp goals/game than the Kings.  Fact, the B's relied much less on their pp for overall goal production.  Those 2 facts clearly refute your proclamation that the two teams basically travelled the same road as far as their pp is concerned.  Stop trying to muddy the water.  Your nas like tactics here are not very becoming.

Both teams won the Cup yet one scored less powerplay goals than the other.

So, the powerplay wasn't a factor?

25. 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:

No book, merely sticking to the fact that there are big differences between LA's powerplay in 12, and the B's in 11.  Fact. The B's scored less pp goals/game than the Kings.  Fact, the B's relied much less on their pp for overall goal production.  Those 2 facts clearly refute your proclamation that the two teams basically travelled the same road as far as their pp is concerned.  Stop trying to muddy the water.  Your nas like tactics here are not very becoming.

Both teams won the Cup yet one scored less powerplay goals than the other.

So, the powerplay wasn't a factor?

read the post.  being a "factor' isn't/wasn't part of the discussion.

Sections
Shortcuts