Powerplay Percentage

  1. 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:

     

    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?




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

    [/QUOTE]


    Whoa.  I never said that.  It's clear for many reasons.  First, you'll never see my start a sentence without a capital letter.  Second, I don't speak like that.  "Would it not be..."  Who talks like that?  Certainly not me.

    I'm not sure what you're trying to pull now, Steve, but clearly misquoting me to total bush league dung.  What's your deal?

     
  2. 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?

     




     

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




    Whoa.  I never said that.  It's clear for many reasons.  First, you'll never see my start a sentence without a capital letter.  Second, I don't speak like that.  "Would it not be..."  Who talks like that?  Certainly not me.

    I'm not sure what you're trying to pull now, Steve, but clearly misquoting me to total bush league dung.  What's your deal?

    [/QUOTE]


    This is getting ridiculous!  That's my quote, not yours!  The "deal" is,... it proves my position is, and has been calm and logical and it's been consistently on topic.  As stated to book....it proves I'm not being argumentive, or reaching to prove a point.  It proves that unless someone else is incredibly argumentive, this should have been over a long time ago.  

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

     

     

     It's germane. 

     



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

     




    to quote Jackie Gleason, "the god damn Germans got nothing to do with this Junior!"

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    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. 



    No, no and no.  The fundamental reality I'm speaking of, isn't "play better, you'll win more".  That's merely a general reality you're using instead of the specific.  That's not the question, and surely we don't have to review the question again do we.  We're on our 10th page.  The last  game the Bruins played shows a "better" pp leads to more wins, so fundamentally, that in itself trumps 10 plus pages of comments to the contrary.

      Regarding your "200 goals" scenario, there are many unincluded facts that could change the outcome significantly.  Once could be.... the team with 45 is clicking on 24%, and the team with 65 is converting at 12%, the latter team has more potential to up it's goal total through the pp, and would get more focus.  All things being equal, more goals= more wins, unless there is a subtraction quotient, which there isn't, therfore more total goals=more potential.  Hardly abstract theory, and I don't want to debate this example forever either.

    My comments stick exactly to your posts.  Please return the favour.  I'm not being disrespectful or incorrect when I state you're going to another planet here.  Attempting to minimize the debate after 200 points by introducing "need" vs "nice"..suggesting now the crux should be "opportunities", suggesting "drawing penalties is a result of diving",  and "people want to see pp goals in games the Bruins lose"...these are precise examples of otherworldly attempts to sidestep and most definately are an attempt at "reframing the topic".   Zero room for argument there.  Pointing out the fact that you're "messing with sample size" is fact too.  You choose a relatively small sample,( 2011 playoffs)then attempt to bury the bad part to bring up your average. 

    One moment you say it doesn't matter to you if the B's score 1 pp goal, then you make an attempt to sell it really isn't that bad.  Seems to be an element of inconsistency there.

    You keep bringing up that I'm failing to allude to the big picture intent of the op.  That's incorrect too. That's why I bumped up one of my early responses.  That's proof I did consider those subtleties, and was looking for clarification.  You and the op obviously disagreed, cuz you actually ramped up your defense/offense after that point.

    Fact is...you and the op have insisted that the pp really doesn't matter.  You've both forcefully said it many different ways.  The more you attempt to validate those thoughts, it just gets clearer that despite your excellent writing skill, the point is flawed.

    If you still feel you have irrefutable evidence to support that claim, i'm open to a change of heart. 

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Look how about I try and clarify something.  I would say NAS's OP point could be boiled down to the following:

    "The only important measure of team success is total goal differential at the end of each game.  Right now, the Bruins are generally outscoring their opponents even with their powerplay underperforming.  Maybe we really don't need to worry about it so much."

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to DrCC's comment:

    Look how about I try and clarify something.  I would say NAS's OP point could be boiled down to the following:

    "The only important measure of team success is total goal differential at the end of each game.  Right now, the Bruins are generally outscoring their opponents even with their powerplay underperforming.  Maybe we really don't need to worry about it so much."




    "goal differential at the end of each game" is a "general" statistic, and is not being debated.  Overall excellence is acheived by looking at, and improving upon "specific" functions though.  Specifically, the best teams in hockey get outscored 30some times a regular season.  That's hardly trivial, and a good pp, has more than an inconsequential chance of making a marked improvement.

    Your interpretation here drcc, is greatly minimizing the intent of the op, and the attempts to defend it.  "Don't worry so much", is a long, long way from "no connection to winning".

    That's how it started on page 1, and  4 or 5 pages later, I tried to steer in the direction you're saying, stating "no reason to panic....wouldn't it be better though to see some improvement?"

    Flatly denied, and several more pages attempting to validate the "it doesn't matter" mentality with recent comments such as "I really don't care if they score a single pp goal". 

     

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    That an improved power play would help is not really being debated though either - only that the amount frustration expressed over the poor powerplay showing is disproportionate to the effect it seems to be having on the Bruins' success.

    I do want to address on issue here:

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     

    "goal differential at the end of each game" is a "general" statistic, and is not being debated.  Overall excellence is acheived by looking at, and improving upon "specific" functions though.  Specifically, the best teams in hockey get outscored 30some times a regular season.  That's hardly trivial, and a good pp, has more than an inconsequential chance of making a marked improvement.



    This does tie into NAS's OP.  If you create a plot of point percent vs powerplay percent , there is a really weak correlation in recent years.  Yes, if you go further back, it's greater - but that suggests that there is a trend that the powerplay is decreasing in importance.  This is visible in playoff statistics too (though then it is wins vs pp%).  I think you may be overestimating the impact of an improved power play.

    On a side note: any chance you know of a website that tabulates a team's total even strength ice time?  I've to PP and PK time, but not the total (and subtraction doesn't work thanks to overtimes).  This thread has inspired me to try to develop a stat that might be interesting to look at for evaluating the importance of special teams, but I need that last set of numbers.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Hmmm - let me see , 5 on 5, or 5 on 4 ??? Which one is better ??? Is it good to take advantage of when the other team has less men on the ice??? Does this help win games??? I'd better get out the old spreadsheet and get to work on that one. I wonder what the stats will show??? Maybe you should be allowed to refuse the man advantage if you're a stronger team 5 on 5. This could take a while.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Okay, this is really the last thing I have to say on this, because when a) Chowdah and NAS are on the same side of a 200+ post thread and b) gnb and DrCC both weigh in and confirm that I'm not out in left field, I'm content to let you go on at your leisure.  Even if nite is tagging along behind with a bag full of confirmation bias.

    I didn't introduce Need vs. Nice.  NAS's point was that you don't need to get better on the PP to win.  Yours has been "but it sure would be nice."  As for "last game showed...", I believe NAS pointed out games where the PP was 50% and the Bruins lost - what does that prove?  If you're going to claim that every PP goal the Bruins score in a win is lights out for your argument, then your mind can be as open as Montana and not much that I write will matter.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    I think both sides have made solid points. Outscoring the opposition regardless of how you score them, is the key ingredient of winning games and having a good PP should make that easier to do. Nobody's absolutely wrong in this debate and frankly, I don't know how an argument on the forum can last so long without it being mostly my fault. Kudos to Book and Steve for making me feel at least slightly saner. I also sincerely wish I was as smart as either of you. Cheers to your good virtual scrap!

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    We're both idiots, dez. 

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    So darn fun to watch though. I love it.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to DrCC's comment:



    This does tie into NAS's OP.  If you create a plot of point percent vs powerplay percent , there is a really weak correlation in recent years.  Yes, if you go further back, it's greater - but that suggests that there is a trend that the powerplay is decreasing in importance.  This is visible in playoff statistics too (though then it is wins vs pp%).  I think you may be overestimating the impact of an improved power play.

    On a side note: any chance you know of a website that tabulates a team's total even strength ice time?  I've to PP and PK time, but not the total (and subtraction doesn't work thanks to overtimes).  This thread has inspired me to try to develop a stat that might be interesting to look at for evaluating the importance of special teams, but I need that last set of numbers.



    http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_team_statistics.php?ds=32&f1=2012_s&f2=BOS&c=0+1+2+3+4+13+14+15+16+17+18+19+20+21+22+23+24+25+26+27+28+29+30+31+32#

    You used behindthenet in your defense of Wideman. Maybe this could help in you spreadsheet developement. 5v5 Vs. 5v5

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    I actually figured out they had that a little while after making my post San.  It's really sloppy to import into excel though.  I might give it a try tomorrow.

    One thing though - however bad the Bruins PP is right now, they still score more per minute on the power play than at even strength.  So declining penalties would not be a benefit.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Jesus.  I feel like Shakespeare with everyone interpreting my initial post.

    It's simple.  When you are winning games at a torrid pace (9-2-2 is torrid!), there is no need to make changes to improve a small facet of the game.  Last year's Cup winning didn't do well on the powerplay.  Two years ago, the Cup winner didn't do well on the powerplay. 

    "But NAS, that's only two years!"

    Yep, and it shows it can be done. 

    Twist my words and thoughts all day.  It doesn't change the fact that making large changes (trade for Ryder...come on) to a successful approach is absurd.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

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

    Jesus.  I feel like Shakespeare with everyone interpreting my initial post.

    It's simple.  When you are winning games at a torrid pace (9-2-2 is torrid!), there is no need to make changes to improve a small facet of the game.  Last year's Cup winning didn't do well on the powerplay.  Two years ago, the Cup winner didn't do well on the powerplay. 

    "But NAS, that's only two years!"

    Yep, and it shows it can be done. 

    Twist my words and thoughts all day.  It doesn't change the fact that making large changes (trade for Ryder...come on) to a successful approach is absurd.



    Yes, I'm sure that's who comes to mind when folks read your posts.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

         "there is no need to make changes to improve a small facet of the game"

    No GM would agree that special teams aren't an intregal part of any good NHL team.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    No GM would agree that special teams aren't an intregal part of any good NHL team.



    Where did I say that?

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment: there is no need to make changes to improve a small facet of the game.  [/QUOTE]

    Hmm I don't know...

     

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Wow San, who knew that a "small facet of the game" could also be "integral". I certainly did not know that.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment: there is no need to make changes to improve a small facet of the game. 



    Hmm I don't know...

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Even taken out of context, it doesn't say that. 

    Good lord, this place is going to hockey sticks in a handbasket.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    If red hot Marchand didn't score the PP goal against the Jets Sunday, the Bruins go into another OT game. That was prevented becuase Boston capitalized on the man advantage like they are supposed too.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    The Bruins have the 4th best road PP in the league. What's the deal with that?

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

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

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment: there is no need to make changes to improve a small facet of the game. 


    Hmm I don't know...



    Even taken out of context, it doesn't say that. 

    Good lord, this place is going to hockey sticks in a handbasket.[/QUOTE]

    You know what I mean though. If I posed that question or made that statement to all 30 GMs in the NHL, I would get laughed at. That is what I meant but you already knew that.

     

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    If red hot Marchand didn't score the PP goal against the Jets Sunday, the Bruins go into another OT game. That was prevented becuase Boston capitalized on the man advantage like they are supposed too.




    That goal came 36 seconds into the third period.  How do you know what might have happened if he didn't score that goal?

    God, this is ridiculous.

     

Share