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

Really interesting NAS.  Appears there are definately different dynamics in play nowadays.  In the last 10 years, goals are harder to come by, so maybe the pecentages are impacted too.  Just a thought.  Seems though, pretty much all of the pp leaders, are teams that score well anyway. What seems to be unique about the current Bruins to me, is the fact that they buck the tend by being a a decent scoring team, that can't maintain that role when they have the man advantage.  It just makes no sense to me, that it can't be improved upon without reinventing the wheel.  I think they're capable of around 17 or 18% and figure somehow, it's likely that will equate to a few more points.

Nice stuff.

Stevegm, your stats prove the point that in today's game (and recent history) the PP is no guaranty to Championships.

The last PP year-end leader to win the Cup was way back in 85-86. That's 36 plus seasons ago.

The well rounded team that can kill penalties and play 5-on-5 will beat the best PP just about every time.

In response to Wheatskins' comment:

That's not the debate Wheat.  No one has ever, ever said, implied or inferred that the best pp will ever guarantee a championship on this thread.

What I'm saying, what pretty much everyone in pro hockey is saying, and what most on this thread are saying....is that a good pp will serve a team better than an average or medicore one.  That it will increase your potential to win.

In response to stevegm's comment:

That scoring more goals will help a team win is not in question.  That the B's need to fix the powerplay or they're doomed is.

On other treads, people are honestly mad a Neely, to the point of calling him a liar, for saying they were going to fix the powerplay and not doing so.  We're getting calls for trades to increase the powerplay goals, cries for the return of Savard and Ryder and other absurd notions.  All of this is happening while the Bruins are a top team in the league.

The point of this thread, and I think it's finally been made and accepted, is that a team doesn't need an awesome powerplay to win. 

In response to stevegm's comment:

Ha  those descriptors weren't addressed to you(unless you have another account here), rather to someone who routinely throws em my way as well.  To this point, I was making every attempt at civility with you.  I don't throw mud first eithe

I know they weren't directed at me. Does it matter ? You are questioning one's maturity level while putting out this. Ironic isn't it ?

Anyway, this whole Kings/B's thing isn't the issue.  Wouldn't you agree that a better pp(more goals scored) would be a pretty big benefit to the Bruins? 

Yes I would love to see a better PP. Who wouldn't ?

I like to "discuss" this stuff, rather than argue, and i'm open to other opinions, but it seems like those that are keeping this thread alive, are those that simply ignore what's been said up to now.  

What's being ignored is that Kings power play was terrible in the playoffs. Saying it was a bigger part of their offence should be changed to " it was really bad but just not as bad as the Bruins PP ". Then I'd say "ya you're right". Putting it the way you put makes it look better then it was.

Do you really feel a good pp is merely "a bonus"? Or are we just arguing for sport.  I really don't enjoy that

I am not arguing for sport. I have posted before this discussion started on a different thread stating that the Kings and Bruins both had bad PP's the last 2 years while winning the cup.

[/QUOTE]

In response to stevegm's comment:

Exactly. Right on. Touche. Carry on.

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

 

 

That scoring more goals will help a team win is not in question.  That the B's need to fix the powerplay or they're doomed is.

 

On other treads, people are honestly mad a Neely, to the point of calling him a liar, for saying they were going to fix the powerplay and not doing so.  We're getting calls for trades to increase the powerplay goals, cries for the return of Savard and Ryder and other absurd notions.  All of this is happening while the Bruins are a top team in the league.

The point of this thread, and I think it's finally been made and accepted, is that a team doesn't need an awesome powerplay to win. 

 

Part of the blame has to go to Neely for saying it that way. 

"We will work hard to fix the PP" would have been more appropriate. Saying it "will be fixed" has came back and bit him in the ass. 

Some people hang on every word that someone like Neely puts forth as if he was a prophet. 

 

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

Yes it was, and for heaven sake, you couldn't be more wrong.  Cementhead is run of the mill lockeroom ribbing.  Hyperbole, that no sensible person assumes to be real.  Pathetic, tho, is particularly disparaging and disrepctful.  I didn't even have to go off this thread to find that, and if I did, I'd find many more worse.

Anyway, I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me.  I like to think I have an open mind am willing to change my position as a result of new information on better logic.  Therefore I'll apologize for calling you stupid names even though you started it.  I also promise i'll respond to you with complete professionalism in the future, unless of course you revert to your evil ways.

In response to Bookboy007'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]
No he's kicking your butt in the whole argument. 

In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

cmon chowdah.  you're making a big deal out of this because I said "it was a bigger part of their offense"    instead of      "just not as bad as the Bruins"  .  ok, I'll agree.  You're trying to tell me what I meant, but you don't know.  I was merely pointing out the fact that there were differences between the 2 teams pp 

You didn't answer the question regarding bonus. 

In response to Bookboy007's comment:

 

Yeah, see - this thread was started in response to a bunch of other threads where people propose trades and all sorts of other measures in order to improve the Bruins' PP.  If you look only at what people have said on this thread, you're not looking at the whole picture.  People aren't saying "well, it would be better if the PP was good."  That just fits within the position I've adopted all along - if they play better, they'll win more.  That could be on the PP, but it could also be lights out goaltending or four goals a night 5 on 5.

Where this whole thread comes from is people saying the Bruins should reacquire Ryder because if they don't fix the PP they aren't going to win.  Or that the Bruins need to get a top-notch sniper or they won't win.  Basically, all of the other threads where people say "the team is doing well, but they aren't going to win another Cup if they don't improve on the PP."  And that's just not true.  Shifting the point to PP would make it easier - sure it would.  But what do you do to improve the PP to make it easier?  Given that we're now talking about "making it easier", I don't know that I'd mess with a winning formula to get better PP results.

Last year, they had the third highest PP% the team has had since 1997.  And it wasn't considered good enough.  They play ugly hockey on the PP, same as last year, and I've got a dollar that says they end up somewhere between 14 and 17% for the year - just like every year.  With this group of personnel.  It will average out.  It's not worth the airtime it gets.

 

Where & who said this line? I said I wanted Ryder because the 3rd line on the B's was one of the best in the league when he was here & on it. So who said to bring him in to fix the PP. It sucked when he was here, so why would someone say this? 

It's absolutely fool hardy to think that if the B's had a better pp they wouldn't be an even  better team & woudl have a better chance of winnning more. There's no guarantee's that they'd go further in the play-off's with a better one. However, it's stupid to think that they wouldn't increase their chances of winning with one, instead of having the "doesn't matter attitude". It's a shame that 2 of the who thought were the most knowledgable posters on here refuse to see this logic! 

 

It's not just Neely. Here's Sept 26, 2011  Julien on the team's PP:

"We will be a better team when we get the right guys in the right places. We have to improve on it.”– Claude Julien

I know Boston and LA keep getting mentioned, but they are outlyers. We can't ignore the fact that everyone who is actually in the game harps on the fact that the PP is critical. We look at percentages and win/loss totals and the latest Cup wins, but the guys in the game look at so much more - playing time, limiting shots against by being on the man advantage, getting critical goals in timely situations, busting a slump, wearing down the other team, making a team "pay" so they don't continue to take liberties, etc. It's just simply naive to say that PP doesn't matter. A goal is a goal, and the fact is that it SHOULD be easier to score a goal when you have one more player than the other team.  Think of the BOS-VAN series in reverse...would the Bruins have taken as many liberties if VAN could manage to put the puck int he net on the PP? So you're saying that it diddn't matter that they couldn't score? I call BS. If VAN had a better PP during that series, Boston would've had no choice but to back off.

I don't get it. There's no nuance to me in this dicussion - put more pucks in the net when its easiest to do so, and the games will be easier and the wins more plentiful.

 

In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

Neely is the president of the organization, was part of great PPs and recognized that the Bruins PP is pitiful. Now your making excuses for his reply to the fans and media. Nice try on the spin lol

He should have framed the answer like a politician ?

What a crock of B******!

In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

 

Neely is the president of the organization, was part of great PPs and recognized that the Bruins PP is pitiful. Now your making excuses for his reply to the fans and media. Nice try on the spin lol

 

He should have framed the answer like a politician ?

What a crock of B******!

 

I am making no excuses for him. I am blaming him for phrasing it that way. It was a quote that some have taken as "it should happen because Cam says so". 

Maybe he should apply to become the new Pope . 

 

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

i'm pretty much done here, but nas...your point has certainly not been made, and surely, absolutely not accepted.

and I say that with love and respect.

you again contradict yourself in your very first line.  earlier you  suggest the pp is a "bonus", and in another post state, "it appears there is no connection between winning and the pp.  what's up with that?  sorry

in line 2, you mention that we're saying if the pp isn't fixed, the team is "doomed".  Funny thing is, nobody's sayin that...just you.  you've brought it up twice, and in almost 9 pages of commentary, it's not everyone...it's only you.  sorry I had to call you on it.

Yes, there have been a couple suggestions of trades, but nothing to speak of.  A few have pined about Savard, but hardly a groundswell of opinion.  Most of the posters here disagreed with both of those notions, so why harp about that.  Our side already took care of that.  sorry

The bulk of comments on this thread merely suggest that a better pp, offers a better probabilitiy of success.  nothing more.  What's being said on other threads doesn't even move the needle, as this thread deals exclusively with 1 particular question, so comments here should trump anything on other threads.

then, you talk about the value of an "awesome pp", like it is the assertion of the majority.  Again, that's you.  no one else.  Nowhere is there a comment that suggests the need of an awesome pp.  sorry

You and chowdah seem to be leading the charge over these last few pages, and you accuse me of using selective data to further my case.  Fact is, everything from you is simply based on drama and incredible exaggeration(see above).  You've made excellent attempts to turn this into a Boston vs LA debate, and infer your hysterics are the thoughts of those that disagree, but they're your words, not ours.

The collective opinion on this thread is that the B's should be able to muster up a significantly better pp with the group they have.  Our side hasn't mentioned leading the league, the need for awesome, or anything close to doom.  YOU HAVE.  There's that E word again.

I gave you the deserved credit for taking the time to source the pp info earlier, but please don't confuse that with any kind of validation that it means much to this topic.  There are multiple teams in some years, and although I didn't get into it, a quick glance shows it supports my argument as much, probably more than yours.  there aren't many teams on that list who were mid packers, or teams that didn't regularly post high goal totals otherwise. Also of note here, is the fact that again, there hasn't been 1 poster on this thread whose suggested the B's need a pp anywhere close to those you've provided,,...so in reality...unfortunatley, it really throws the whole thing out the window, and clobbers you with the exageration tag again.

You started this thread by basically stating the pp in Boston doesn't matter.  That's really all there is to it.  It's an illogical, impossible position to defend, and it was soundly dealt with before I chimed in.  You've done your best to wiggle around that(and I congratulate you) by accusing the rest of us of saying and thinking things that exist mainly in your mind, but the jigs up.  Lets discuss something else  

 

I'll buy the beer  

 

Long thread sorry if this point has already been made.  PP TOI.

2011-12 top Bruin PP TOI players

Peverley @ 2:44 (NHL Rank:142)

Chara @ 2:39 (NHL Rank:150)

Seidenberg @ 2:36 (NHL Rank: 158)

Horton @ 2:32 (NHL Rank: 167)

Bergeron @ 2:31 (NHL Rank: 170)

The NHL's top PP TOI player in 2011-12 was Kovalchuk @ 4:55.  7 other players averaged over 4 minutes per game.  Another 108 players averaged over 3 minutes of PP TOI.  None were Bruins. 

The team's top 2 goal scorers were Seguin (29) & Marchand (28).  Seguin averaged 2:27 PP TOI (181st) while Marchand averaged 2:09 (227th).  Seguin ranked 6th on the Bruins in PP TOI while Marchand ranked 10th.

Thus far in 2013, Chara leads the team in PP TOI @ 3:32 (ranked 98th).  Krejci is 2nd on the team @ 3:24 (111th).

Seguin's PP TOI has increased to 3:12, still only good for 135th in the league.  Marchand, the team's leading goal scorer is @ 2:32 (228th).  Dougie Hamilton, for what it's worth, is @ 2:35 (223rd).

My solution would include the trio of Seguin, Hamilton & Marchand and fill in from there.  I want to see these three guys be given the chance to find some rhythm.  The PP stinks anyway, why not try this?

 

In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment: Neely is the president of the organization, was part of great PPs and recognized that the Bruins PP is pitiful. Now your making excuses for his reply to the fans and media. Nice try on the spin lol

 He should have framed the answer like a politician ?

What a crock of B******!

I am making no excuses for him. I am blaming him for phrasing it that way. It was a quote that some have taken as "it should happen because Cam says so". 

Maybe he should apply to become the new Pope .  [/QUOTE]

LOL Well put!

@Crowls Probably the freshest take of the whole thread but it goes back too...

Why isn't Chiarelli, Julien and Ward recognizing this ?

In response to stevegm's comment:

Not in terms of the overall question of the need to improve the PP.  Regardless of what percentage of their goals LA scored on the PP, the fact is that they converted at a terrible percentage.  And they still crushed the West and the Devils.  Because they played a physical, defensively sound Sutter style game backed by great goaltending.  And their PP was terrible. 

@ steve - I'm pretty much done, too.  I don't think we're hearing each other.  A beer and a face to face and we'd probably realize there's a lot of wasted words here (and I'm surprised my faux-quote of you offering to buy took so long to land...).

That said, if nite is telling me you're kicking my arz in the whole debate, maybe I'm going at this the wrong way.

Let me throw out two arguments that aren't part of what's gone before to show why I'm sceptical about the whole connection of the search for a better PP = more wins.

When the Bruins won the Cup, they beat three teams who finished the playoffs with a PP% of better than 20%.  Montreal got over 22% solely agaisnt the Bruins, the Bolts were over 25% for the playoffs - good for 17 goals over three series including 5 vs. the Bruins - and the Canucks were clicking at much better than their final % of 20.4 before they ran into the Bruins.  Like the Bolts, they had 17 PPG through three rounds and added only two in 7 vs. the Bruins.  5 on 5, though, the Bolts were 1.03 F/A, the Canucks 0.88, and the Shabs 0.67.  In other words, those teams looked for the PP to score goals, and when the refs didn't cooperate, they sank.  Those teams were built around the PP.  The Lightning were notorious for not even trying to score during 5 on 5 under old "answered the iron" face.  And if you look at the way those teams were constructed, they had a lot of skilled guys but not a lot of grind-it-out guys who can also produce.  They were built with the pieces you want on a PP.  So argument one is that if you concentrate too much on the PP, you cna come to rely on it, and that can burn you.

Argument 2 is that the Bruins have been trying to solve this problem since about the middle of last year.  Longer really, but the focal point has been there since they started trying to address the one flaw around the time they went from dominating to struggling last winter.  The PP took a lot of heat and a lot of focus, adn the more they worked on it, the worse it got.  The players looks like they weren't reacting, weren't using their talents to make plays - they were struggling to remember which new system they were in and who they were supposed to pass to because that's what the system said they should do.  Focusing too much on the PP can actually stymie your talent.  They just start shooting from all angles hoping for a fluke - then get the fluke - then keep shooting from all angles.  This is the NHL.  If you rely on flukes, you get a 10% or worse PP.  So - over-emphasizing the one thing the team is doing poorly can actually derail them.

I keep coming back to - play better in any phase, win more.  I really don't care if they score a single PP goal (thought watching them struggle will annoy me, so maybe I do care) if they win, and if they're getting 3 or more goals a game without a PP, I will take that and not get greedy.

If that doesn't explain my position better, then screw it.  I'm opening that beer.

 

My solution would include the trio of Seguin, Hamilton & Marchand and fill in from there.  I want to see these three guys be given the chance to find some rhythm.  The PP stinks anyway, why not try this?

 

[/QUOTE]

Agree like hamilton on the pp instead of chara he creates opp instead of just throwing the puck into crowds.

I wish the B's would bring Neely , RAY BOURQUE & Craig Janney in for a PP session. It certainly wouldn't make things any worse. The thing that peeves me off to no end is the fact that the Bruin's coaching staff still allow Ward to coach the PP & we they don't use Jarvis! Jarvis ran the PP in Montreal & it was #1 in the league. 

In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

What types of players did he have to work with there?  The only speedy goal scoring forwards on the B's are Marchand and Seguin.  The rest are either slower moving players or not really goal scorers.

The B's dont' score a lot on the powerplay.  Instead, they score 5x5.  This is good news because most of the game is played 5x5.  And that's why they win a lot more than they lose.

And when you're winning a lot more than you lose because you're successful 50+ minutes out of 60, you don't make major changes to try to take advantage of 2-8 minutes of 60.

In response to Bookboy007's comment:

I get ya book, but I disagree on many levels.  First, the numbers you're talking about are irrelevant.  No one is arguing the best pp wins most, or should.  If that was the debate, you'd be correct.  What's at issue is whether it matters, and is worth trying to fix.

I don't feel any team plans their success mainly on the pp.  There are just too many intangibles, too many holes in that building plan.  The first being the impossibility of controlling how many penalties the opposing team takes. 

 As I tried to point out too, the strike percentage isn't the whole story either, and I'll try and get this across better in one paragraph, and in order to do that, i'll speak in generalities.

It's easier to score on the power play, than it is 5 on 5.  That's the whole concept. The B's are a pretty good scoring team.  Around 6th best or so I believe.(haven't checked)  If they can be that good 5 on 5, it's unacceptable that they can't be somewhere in that vicinity when the potential gets "easier".  On the flip side, if the B's were a low scoring team with a terrible pp, it's a much bigger, tougher problem to solve, and could cause enormous upheaval to address.  That's why I brought up those other stats.  A team that scores 2 pp goals out of 50, relies more on their pp, than the team that scores 2 out of 100, and shows one thing, but when it's revealed that the team that scores 2 out of 50 actually scores 25% more total goals, it forces another look, and changes the scenario.  Someone mentioned Nashville, as an example of the pp's unimportance.  Last year, Nashville was one of the highest scoring teams in the league anyway, so their pp was a function of their already proven ability to score goals.  Good offense is about finding and utilizing the open man(generally speaking).  A pp makes that easier, at least it should. 

I don't know where to start on argument 2.  We don't know how hard they worked on it, and we surely don't know that they over-emphsized it, but assuming you're right, that points to a strategic flaw, not an ability one, and that shouldn't be accepted.  In fact it should be an easy fix.  That has nothing to do with planning on flukes, or styming talent.  You're a great poster, and I rarely disagree with you, but the more explaining you do, the more I disagree.  You're arguing the fact that one critical component of the game doesn't matter.  That is just incorrect.  Especially in this case.

It doesn't matter if the B's score 5 goals a game, in fact the problem becomes more glaring, the more 5 on 5's they score, cuz they're continuing to prove they can score when it's most difficult, yet fall down when it gets easier.  Look again at Nas's list.  You don't see many goal starved teams on there.  they're pretty much all fairly high scoring teams.  The Bruins are a historical blip...you just don't see many good scoring teams near the league cellar while on the pp, and marked improvement will almost surely result in more points.  Again, there can be no argument that a stronger pp should hurt the team in other area's

Finally, the reason this is being debated so tenaciously, isn't because I feel the pp is a huge, monumental issue.  It's the notion of unimportance and acceptance.  That's the heart and soul of this whole thread.  Is it important, or isn't it?

I'm on my 4th beer

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

I believe you are inferring 3 things here that are incorrect. 1.  "speedy goal scoring forwards" are key to a good pp,  2.  The B's don't currently posses the personel to assemble a decent pp, and 3. attempting pp improvement will somewho negatively impact those other 50+ minutes.  

"It's easier to score on the power play, than it is 5 on 5.  That's the whole concept"

Not for the Bruins, this is what you will never get into the heads of that crowd "we don't need a good powerplay" becuase it doesn't fit thier argument.