Powerplay Percentage

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

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

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

     

    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. 

     




    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.



    OK Nas whatever you say.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

                        Powerplay goal was the game winning goal tonight!

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

                        Powerplay goal was the game winning goal tonight!

     




    we'll make this thread the PP tracker.  When it makes them win and when they failed on PP where it could have made a difference.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to BsLegion's comment:

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

     

                        Powerplay goal was the game winning goal tonight!

     

     




    we'll make this thread the PP tracker.  When it makes them win and when they failed on PP where it could have made a difference.

     




    Please B's...lets not do that.  Scoring on the pp, is a marked improvement over not scoring on the pp.  there is already boundless information to drive home that fundamental truth.  lets just let this go away.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    The Bruins PP now stands at 13%.  At the end of the season, it will probably end up around last year's 17%. 

    The top team last year had a 21% success rate.  The B's had 250 PP opportunities in 82 games last year.  Using those numbers, if the B's had the best PP in the league last year, they would have scored an extra 10 goals in the entire season.  How many more wins would the B's have had with those 10 extra goals.  They won 60% of their games.  Just going with the percentages, 6 goals would have come in those wins and 4 in defeats.  Most of the wins come against weaker teams with inferior PK's, so in reality, it would've probably been more something like 7 or 8 goals coming in the wins and 2 or 3 in defeats.  It's not like you can choose when you get those 10 goals (in a tie game or when the B's are down by 1).

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from No4BobbyOrrGOAT2. Show No4BobbyOrrGOAT2's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    1st OT loss we were 1/5 nyr 0/5 lost 4-3 in OT.

    2nd loss to Buf 7-4 our PP 0/4 Buf PP 1/4 on a 2man advantage plus an empty netter.

    3rd loss 4-3 SO to NYR  our PP 0/4 and theirs 0/4 including extended 5 on 3.

    4th loss 4-2 Buf        our PP 1/2  and Buf PP 0/3

     

    4 losses 2/15 for and  1/16 against  hard to go against the numbers, tho a pp goal in 2 games would see us with 2 more wins, 4ppg in another would have been another win but the final game we could not win with a perfect pp.

     

    We have wins directly related to PPgoals

    Berg goal in 3-1 win over Buf, March against wpg, against Car a 5-3 win with Z scoring one and Seg scoring another into an empty net.  3 of our 5 road wins because of PP goals.

    I guess there is a good argument to score on PP, at least on the road.

     

     

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

    The Bruins PP now stands at 13%.  At the end of the season, it will probably end up around last year's 17%. 

    The top team last year had a 21% success rate.  The B's had 250 PP opportunities in 82 games last year.  Using those numbers, if the B's had the best PP in the league last year, they would have scored an extra 10 goals in the entire season.  How many more wins would the B's have had with those 10 extra goals.  They won 60% of their games.  Just going with the percentages, 6 goals would have come in those wins and 4 in defeats.  Most of the wins come against weaker teams with inferior PK's, so in reality, it would've probably been more something like 7 or 8 goals coming in the wins and 2 or 3 in defeats.  It's not like you can choose when you get those 10 goals (in a tie game or when the B's are down by 1).

     

     




    first, the question was about the b's abysmal pp(which is 13%), and whether that's an important thing to consider improving on.  Over the last 14 years, not 1 team has the won the cup with an 11.4% pp except the Bruins.  Not 1 !!  The fact that the Bruins won with such a poor pp is an "anomoly" which translates quite clearly into "something which shouldn't be counted upon".  If the b's end with 17 or 18%, and convert around that ratio in the playoffs, we're looking at a whole different scenario.

    No one says you "Can't" win a hand of blackjack with a 7 down.  Just because someone has won with a 7 though, doesn't mean it's as good as an Ace. That would be a laughable argument, yet.....................   

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to No4BobbyOrrGOAT2's comment:

    1st OT loss we were 1/5 nyr 0/5 lost 4-3 in OT.

    2nd loss to Buf 7-4 our PP 0/4 Buf PP 1/4 on a 2man advantage plus an empty netter.

    3rd loss 4-3 SO to NYR  our PP 0/4 and theirs 0/4 including extended 5 on 3.

    4th loss 4-2 Buf        our PP 1/2  and Buf PP 0/3

     

    4 losses 2/15 for and  1/16 against  hard to go against the numbers, tho a pp goal in 2 games would see us with 2 more wins, 4ppg in another would have been another win but the final game we could not win with a perfect pp.

     

    We have wins directly related to PPgoals

    Berg goal in 3-1 win over Buf, March against wpg, against Car a 5-3 win with Z scoring one and Seg scoring another into an empty net.  3 of our 5 road wins because of PP goals.

    I guess there is a good argument to score on PP, at least on the road.

     

     




    First loss, our PP was 20%.  Only 3 teams were over 20% last year.

    Second loss, our PP would've needed to be at 50% to be tied 6-6.  We don't deserve to win if we give up 6 goals anyway.

    Third loss, our PP needed to be at 25% to get a win.  The top team last year had a 21% PP.

    Fourth loss, our PP was 50%.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

     

     

     

     




     

    first, the question was about the b's abysmal pp(which is 13%), and whether that's an important thing to consider improving on.  Over the last 14 years, not 1 team has the won the cup with an 11.4% pp except the Bruins.  Not 1 !!  The fact that the Bruins won with such a poor pp is an "anomoly" which translates quite clearly into "something which shouldn't be counted upon".  If the b's end with 17 or 18%, and convert around that ratio in the playoffs, we're looking at a whole different scenario.

    No one says you "Can't" win a hand of blackjack with a 7 down.  Just because someone has won with a 7 though, doesn't mean it's as good as an Ace. That would be a laughable argument, yet.....................   




    Over the last 2 years, 2 teams have won the cup with a PP under 13%.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

     

     

     

     




     

    first, the question was about the b's abysmal pp(which is 13%), and whether that's an important thing to consider improving on.  Over the last 14 years, not 1 team has the won the cup with an 11.4% pp except the Bruins.  Not 1 !!  The fact that the Bruins won with such a poor pp is an "anomoly" which translates quite clearly into "something which shouldn't be counted upon".  If the b's end with 17 or 18%, and convert around that ratio in the playoffs, we're looking at a whole different scenario.

    No one says you "Can't" win a hand of blackjack with a 7 down.  Just because someone has won with a 7 though, doesn't mean it's as good as an Ace. That would be a laughable argument, yet.....................   

     




    Over the last 2 years, 2 teams have won the cup with a PP under 13%.

     




    that's been said before.  and your point is.....

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

     

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

     

     

     

     


     

     




     

    that's been said before.  and your point is.....



    My point is what I said in my first post.  The Bruins will probably finish the season with a 17-18% PP.  That will be less than 5% behind the league leaders.  When you average 3 PPs/game, a 5% difference doesn't produce as many goals people think.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    "Pretty basic." Marchand said of the execution.  "It's things we've worked on, trying to find holes and trying to use speed. It's an example of when you execute it right, it will work" - Brad Marchand after last night's win over the Jets. 

    Does this then suggest it's the players who are at fault for their general inability to operate the PP without much success rather than Ward's strategy being flawed? 

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    When the Bruins needed a PP goal to help with the victory, it was there for them.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    "the question was about the b's abysmal pp(which is 13%), and whether that's an important thing to consider improving on." - stevegm.

    I think you're over-simplifying the question, steve.  You've left out a few elements of NAS's OP that are important to the whole discussion and are partly behind the post of mine where you bolded me saying that the PP is bad and it would be nice if it wasn't.  When you make it this simple, why not just take the PP out of it and say "it is important to keep trying to improve your team?"  If you play better, you win more....

    Look at NAS's OP again.  I've highlighted the four things I think are important.

    "Lots of time is spent discussing the powerplay and how to fix it.  There are some good teams with high powerplay percentages and some awful ones as well.  There are some good teams with low  powerplay percentages and some awful ones as well.

    I see no connection between scoring on the powerplay and winning hockey games. "Yeah, but NAS, they've been lucky.  If they don't start scoring on the powerplay, they're doomed."  100% incorrect.  This team can score 5x5.  If they couldn't (see:  Edmonton), it would be an issue.  "     - NAS's OP.

    1. People discuss it endlessly.  On all sorts of threads, especially the e-harmony ones and the trade Krejci ones, improving the PP is a rationale given for all sorts of moves as though a broken PP = a broken team.  This thread was sparked by the disproportionate emphasis on the PP and what people have suggested as "fixes".  Take for granted that the PP has been bad so far this year (at home, anyway), and that it would be nice if it was better. Stop and think about how far the Bruins should go to make that happen when they've only lost two games in regulation and neither by only one goal. 

    2. There isn't a reliable connection between simply scoring more goals and winning, so how could it matter if you're scoring more goals specifically on the PP?  This is where this long thread veers into how the Bruins would address the PP.  Play better/fire Ward/change who rolls over the boards when?  That would be consistent with saying "everything else will remain the same, but we'll look for better PP results."  In other words, play the hand you're dealt better.  This is also where the question veers into should they be better, not whether they need to be better to win.  As in, there's no excuse for the current group to fail on the PP.

    3 and 4. This part is key.  Are they doomed if they don't fix the PP?  Not "is it worth trying to improve on the PP" but "do they need a better PP?"  They had some truly awful stretches on the PP last year but still ended up with a middle of the pack annual PP% - maybe they don't need to improve so much as let the law of averages work itself out?  Maybe the more important PP number is "opportunities" - the Bruins were 25th in the league in opportunities last year, meaning with an average PP% they only had 43 goals. They weren't very good at drawing penalties (read: diving).  On the other hand, nobody scored more 5 on 5 goals than the Bruins, and only the Penguins had more total goals.  (LA barely scored at all - only 188 goals all year and 49 on the PP.)  If you can score as well or better than any other team 5 on 5, the need to improve on the PP decreases.  It really doesn't look like a need; all the posts here saying it will be easier are conceding that the Bruins don't need a better PP - it would just be nice.

    What people see to really want is PP goals in the games the Bruins lose, but as gnb points out above, you don't get to pick and choose, and even if you could, you don't necessarily need a 20%PP to score timely PP goals.

    Lastly, let's not forget that the Bruins 10 ppg in the 2011 run came in 18 games, not 25.  Take away the ridiculous showing against Montreal, and the PP% was closer to 16% (don't have time to work it out right now).  There is more precedent for teams to make the finals with that kind of performance since the lockout.  In the first two years, Carolina was nearly 25%, but Edmonton was 17%.  Ottawa (19%) lost to Anaheim (15.2%).  Detroit, Pittsburgh and Chicago would fit into the category of simply being very good on offense in their years.

     

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

     

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

     

     

     

     


     

     




     

    that's been said before.  and your point is.....

     



    My point is what I said in my first post.  The Bruins will probably finish the season with a 17-18% PP.  That will be less than 5% behind the league leaders.  When you average 3 PPs/game, a 5% difference doesn't produce as many goals people think.

     




    your comment has some validity, however, it's not a point realative to the discussion.   It's whether a good pp would increase the Bruins chances of winning.

      Not to be nit picky, but it's not 5% behind the leaders either.  based on your example,(17-18 vs 22-23) is around 29%behind the leaders.  big difference.  where the team will end the year, and any predictions weren't part of the equation either. 

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    When the Bruins needed a PP goal to help with the victory, it was there for them.



    Looks like the naysayers are ignoring your point that the PP goal was the game winner last night. Feels very good to type that out for once....

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

     

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

     

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

     

     

     

     


     

     




     

    that's been said before.  and your point is.....

     



    My point is what I said in my first post.  The Bruins will probably finish the season with a 17-18% PP.  That will be less than 5% behind the league leaders.  When you average 3 PPs/game, a 5% difference doesn't produce as many goals people think.

     

     




     

    your comment has some validity, however, it's not a point realative to the discussion.   It's whether a good pp would increase the Bruins chances of winning.

      Not to be nit picky, but it's not 5% behind the leaders either.  based on your example,(17-18 vs 22-23) is around 29%behind the leaders.  big difference.  where the team will end the year, and any predictions weren't part of the equation either. 




    OK, I guess the B's PP wasn't 5% behind the leaders, but my numbers were accurate.  Last year, they had 11 fewer goals on the PP than the top PP team (same number of PP opportunities).  That's one goal every 7.5 games.  What are the odds of that goal happening in the game that they need it to tie or go ahead by one.

    And that's compairing the B's to the top PP team in the NHL.  Are we expecting the B's to be have the best PP, PK and be the top team 5v5.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    When the Bruins aren't the best 5v5 team on the ice, I expect the PP to help them win like last night.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    "the question was about the b's abysmal pp(which is 13%), and whether that's an important thing to consider improving on." - stevegm.

    I think you're over-simplifying the question, steve.  You've left out a few elements of NAS's OP that are important to the whole discussion and are partly behind the post of mine where you bolded me saying that the PP is bad and it would be nice if it wasn't.  When you make it this simple, why not just take the PP out of it and say "it is important to keep trying to improve your team?"  If you play better, you win more....

    Look at NAS's OP again.  I've highlighted the four things I think are important.

    "Lots of time is spent discussing the powerplay and how to fix it.  There are some good teams with high powerplay percentages and some awful ones as well.  There are some good teams with low  powerplay percentages and some awful ones as well.

    I see no connection between scoring on the powerplay and winning hockey games. "Yeah, but NAS, they've been lucky.  If they don't start scoring on the powerplay, they're doomed."  100% incorrect.  This team can score 5x5.  If they couldn't (see:  Edmonton), it would be an issue.  "     - NAS's OP.

    1. People discuss it endlessly.  On all sorts of threads, especially the e-harmony ones and the trade Krejci ones, improving the PP is a rationale given for all sorts of moves as though a broken PP = a broken team.  This thread was sparked by the disproportionate emphasis on the PP and what people have suggested as "fixes".  Take for granted that the PP has been bad so far this year (at home, anyway), and that it would be nice if it was better. Stop and think about how far the Bruins should go to make that happen when they've only lost two games in regulation and neither by only one goal. 

    2. There isn't a reliable connection between simply scoring more goals and winning, so how could it matter if you're scoring more goals specifically on the PP?  This is where this long thread veers into how the Bruins would address the PP.  Play better/fire Ward/change who rolls over the boards when?  That would be consistent with saying "everything else will remain the same, but we'll look for better PP results."  In other words, play the hand you're dealt better.  This is also where the question veers into should they be better, not whether they need to be better to win.  As in, there's no excuse for the current group to fail on the PP.

    3 and 4. This part is key.  Are they doomed if they don't fix the PP?  Not "is it worth trying to improve on the PP" but "do they need a better PP?"  They had some truly awful stretches on the PP last year but still ended up with a middle of the pack annual PP% - maybe they don't need to improve so much as let the law of averages work itself out?  Maybe the more important PP number is "opportunities" - the Bruins were 25th in the league in opportunities last year, meaning with an average PP% they only had 43 goals. They weren't very good at drawing penalties (read: diving).  On the other hand, nobody scored more 5 on 5 goals than the Bruins, and only the Penguins had more total goals.  (LA barely scored at all - only 188 goals all year and 49 on the PP.)  If you can score as well or better than any other team 5 on 5, the need to improve on the PP decreases.  It really doesn't look like a need; all the posts here saying it will be easier are conceding that the Bruins don't need a better PP - it would just be nice.

    What people see to really want is PP goals in the games the Bruins lose, but as gnb points out above, you don't get to pick and choose, and even if you could, you don't necessarily need a 20%PP to score timely PP goals.

    Lastly, let's not forget that the Bruins 10 ppg in the 2011 run came in 18 games, not 25.  Take away the ridiculous showing against Montreal, and the PP% was closer to 16% (don't have time to work it out right now).  There is more precedent for teams to make the finals with that kind of performance since the lockout.  In the first two years, Carolina was nearly 25%, but Edmonton was 17%.  Ottawa (19%) lost to Anaheim (15.2%).  Detroit, Pittsburgh and Chicago would fit into the category of simply being very good on offense in their years.

     




    I'm not over simplifing at all book.  you're overly complicating a very fundamental reality, and i'm not saying that to be argumentive, or cocky, or stubborn.  Again, I'll go over the question since you have it right here. 

    I succinctly answered what you're saying in the first paragraph earlier, and I answered that exact question in great detail.  I can bump it back up I guess.  If you see holes in the logic, by all means, bring them up, don't wear me out with the same questions unless I'm so rude as to not answer them. 

    Lets look again at what's hi-lited.  The first thing is a general comment.  Hardly important.  "Lots of time" could be at the pool hall, or someones living room.  I answered that one too.  This time I'll be even more blunt.  Attempting to interpret what's in 9 pages of this thread, to mean assorted comments in other threads, that don't really compare... is ridiculous.  Again, that's been covered.

    Paragraph 2.  This is where it starts to get important..."no connection between scoring on the pp and winning".  That's the heart and soul of this discussion.  The part about "doom" is just exaggerated filler(which I also expanded on earlier).  On this thread, no one is speaking anywhere close to those terms, only the OP, so it's adding hysteria when supposedly, the writer is disgusted by it.  Notice the last line..." if they couldn't it would be an issue".  Well.....sometimes they can't....that's why it is an issue.  That's why the whole establishment says it is.

    OK... #1.  Yes, people "have" discussed this endlessly I guess.  We're going on 10 pages.  It should have been done in only a few, and would have been if some people weren't so stubborn.  there's no room for opinion here.  we've got access to tons of info here to validate a very elemantary, fundamental truth., and attempting to introduce tertiary stuff only serves to take ones eye off the ball.  A 2 week trip to the north pole in winter hardly changes the fact that the sun comes up every morning just about everywhere.  More important is the fact that what people say on other threads has no place here.  It doesn't matter, and is unfair to even bring up.  An adult discussion or debate is always based on the information at hand.

    #2.  THERE IS "a reliable connection between simply scoring more goals and winning".  Maybe that's the problem here...and it's anything but a subtle one.  The pk, offense, defense, goaltending, the home rink and several other issues point to a "substantial connection".  You can plug in data that from time to time changes that, but it doesn't change the fundamental truth.  You can win a hand of blackjack with a 7 down, but your chances are much better, with an Ace.  "How far should they go" you ask.  That's been answered over these 9 plus pages too.  Overwhelmingly, most think they can do a good enough job within, blowing the "hysteria" thing right back at those who are making the accusations.  There are also many intangible strengths that come from strong special teams but I've stayed away from going there.  Lastly, you ask do they "need" to get better.  btw, please be aware how abstract and nit picky your getting here.  The answer is yes, because the goal is always improvement, they have the tools in place.  They already know how to score, so there is no expectation to reinvent the wheel.  If they're top 6, 5 on 5, it's unacceptable to be 27th on the pp.  A better pp equates to more goals.  more goals points to a clear "connection" to more wins, same as fewer goals scored on, has a connection to fewer losses. 

    3 and 4.  We're still out on Mars here with should vs need.  If anyone on this side inferred, or mentioned "doom", you may have a bit of a point, but since it comes from your camp, it's totally pointless drivel.  nothing key here at all.  as far as the law of average...sure., but you're out there again book.  if it goes to 18 or 19, that;s "marked improvement".  "Opportunities" is only decreasing the sample size and convoluting the obvious, but yeah, they need to improve there too.  they're supposedly an elite team.  assuming drawing penalties, equals diving, is an incredible stretch.  And need vs nice is also grasping.  Minimizing the potential of a pp by saying you have no choice when that goal is scored also applies to 5 on 5 goals, so lets be consistent.  Since we don't know when those 5 on 5 strikes will occur, those extra pp goals add insurance, so yes they're needed.

    When we get to your next to last paragraph,... you leave the galaxy entirely.  Because you can't pick and choose..is preciesly the reason a good pp is fairly important.  No one has inferred a good pp has anything to do with timely goals.  5 on 5 has nothing to do with timely goals either, so throw that out the window.  You focus on each aspect of the game and if you're an elite team, with top level scoring prowess, you don't "accept" the inability to score when things get easier.  And people want to see  "pp goals in games the Bruins lose".................wtf  

    And in your final paragrph you're messing with a reasonable sample size, and diminishing it to have no statistical significance in order to keep this going.  As far as I can go back(14 yrs), no team has won the cup with a pp as bad as Bostons in 11.  They're pretty much in the cellar currently.  We don't have to dust off many Bruin history books to find inarguable proof that there is indeed "a connection to scoring on the pp and winning", even though that stat in itself is trivial when there are mountains more that point to the same conclusion.

    There is no reasonable debate here.  You're arguing what you want the topic to be, when you want it to be, not what it is.  Regardless how good the Bruins get on every other facet of their game, this stays an issue, and it'll be a weakness the industry, not just people on this site, will focus on.

    Your right book, a lot of wasted words here.  I'll bump up something to illustrate that in a moment.

    9 beers

     
  20. 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:

     

     

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

    [/QUOTE]


    That was probably 5 pages ago, and I'm still getting spirited disagreement.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

     

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

     

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

     

     

     

     


     

     




     

    that's been said before.  and your point is.....

     



    My point is what I said in my first post.  The Bruins will probably finish the season with a 17-18% PP.  That will be less than 5% behind the league leaders.  When you average 3 PPs/game, a 5% difference doesn't produce as many goals people think.

     

     




     

    your comment has some validity, however, it's not a point realative to the discussion.   It's whether a good pp would increase the Bruins chances of winning.

      Not to be nit picky, but it's not 5% behind the leaders either.  based on your example,(17-18 vs 22-23) is around 29%behind the leaders.  big difference.  where the team will end the year, and any predictions weren't part of the equation either. 

     




    OK, I guess the B's PP wasn't 5% behind the leaders, but my numbers were accurate.  Last year, they had 11 fewer goals on the PP than the top PP team (same number of PP opportunities).  That's one goal every 7.5 games.  What are the odds of that goal happening in the game that they need it to tie or go ahead by one.

     

    And that's compairing the B's to the top PP team in the NHL.  Are we expecting the B's to be have the best PP, PK and be the top team 5v5.




    Don't start the antics of your brethern now.  That's not, never was relevant.  That's like your 9 year old accusing you of expecting perfection, after you merely grounded him for stealing the family car

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    And I've said all along that the fundamental reality you're referring to is "If you play better, you'll win more."  We could have exactly the same argument about the PK, second line scoring, scoring from the blueline, shootout performance (sadly) etc. etc. etc.  If you have a great PP, but you have trouble getting scoring from the second line, then "would it not be better to see improvement from the second line?"  Of course.  So why do we single out the PP for the kind of attention it gets?  Well, you say poor performance is unacceptable, but that doesn't mean a better PP leads to more wins.  If you have two teams that both score 200 goals in a season, but one scores 65 PPG and the other scores 45 PPG, which team has more wins?

    I think there's absolutely no point in continuing this if you're telling me I'm the one reframing the topic or messing with sample size and choosing evidence to suit my "out in the galaxy" perspective considering you're not willing to consider that the OP frames the thread as a response to a trend on this board, choose to express a difference of 2 total goals as incomparably large, and argue that a difference of 5% in overall PP% between two teams should be expressed so that one is a percentage increase over the other because then it looks significant - even if it means a difference of 5-7 goals over 82 games.  Ditto saying that need to score PPG vs. it would better (nice) if they were better on the PP is "reaching".  It's germane. 

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

     

     It's germane. 



    No wonder I was confused. I thought it was Tito this whole time.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    A Jackson 5 reference was almost your 12,000th post.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    A better PP increases your chance of winning PERIOD!! Over complicating things doesn't change that. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share