Powerplay Percentage

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Why would I bother thinking about a game that is now in the past ?

    Of course I don't care what happened after Marchand's PP goal, it's in the books.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

     

    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.



    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.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course he did San. He'd also be the first one to call out another poster over the precise wording of a statement yet when someone else does it, they're just being picky. I just find the behavior laughable, especially since I'm apparently the bully now.  Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzUPEB1TkkI

     
  3. 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 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.



    Yes,  it's always ridiculous when you get proven wrong. 

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    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.

     


    The only thing that's been confirmed is how 3 or 4 highly intelligent posters are being both anal and bullheaded over something that's so logically against their argument. Every organization in the world of sports where there's specialty teams. Wants those specialty teams to have some success, because it increases the chances of winning. Now, regardless of how many cult followers you get to go against this. The logic and intelligence of this logic won't change- no matter how many lines you write trying to change the logic to pacify your argument.  

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    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.




    I keep arguing your position with logic, and specifics, and you come up with zero.  The best you can do, is delude yourself into believing if a few other people agree, you must be right.  Again, you're misrepresenting things.  Your argument has been the pp "doesn't matter".  Mine has been "it certainly does".  After all this time...there's no changing that.  I merely moved down to "would be nice", as a way to allow you a way out.

    You would have none of it.  You insisted it doesn't matter.

    It's also noted you've brought up...not less than 4 times, that someone's mentioned you're losing this debate.  The fact you bring it up with such regularity suggests such a notion has devastated you.  Your posts since that time, reveal that being wrong is a really big deal to you.  The fact you feel solace, validation, and comfort, while in the company of nas and chowdah further implies that insecurity.  When someone suggested you may be losing, it's like a shot went off, and you couldn't stop coming after me.

    I've read enough of your stuff to come to 2 pretty good realizations.  You're a pretty knowledgable hockey guy, and more important, your fairly intelligent.  You've been way beneath yourself since this "losing' stuff hit, and frankly, I'm disappointed you're so driven by it.   

    I'm not here to win.  I'm here to talk hockey and learn.  I've dug my heels in, not because I'm motivated to scrap, or I need to win, but because this is one of those things that just isn't subjective.  I've not been on the offense, but on the defense.

    Finally, I'm not going to make a list of the posters who disagree with the notion that "there is no correlation to scoring on the pp and winning hockey games", but you should again be reminded there are many very intelligent posters here who disagree with you, as well as most NHL coaches and GM's.   

    There's still lots of beer left......

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

    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!




    when someone says, "I don't care if they ever score a single pp goal"......that's not suggesting....it's yelling, the fact that a good pp doesn't matter.

    I think that's absolutely incorrect.  What am I missing?

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




    Leave it to you.  You remind me of my 4 year old niece when she's playing Snow White.  "Aren't I the prettiest girl in the world?"

    You really need a little more self awareness.  In that category you're almost up there with Stanley. 

    That "torrid" pace equates to "scoring less goals" more than 30% of the time.  That's  significant.

    The "extent' of those changes is a whole other topic.  If we had 12 pages of "trade for Ryder and we'll win the Cup".....you'd be right, however as stated before, that isn't the case.

    As per usual, no ones twisiting your words...you are !!!  

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

     

    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!

     




     

    when someone says, "I don't care if they ever score a single pp goal"......that's not suggesting....it's yelling, the fact that a good pp doesn't matter.

    I think that's absolutely incorrect.  What am I missing?




    My take was that they feel it doesn't matter how you score goals as long as you score more than the opposition. That makes sense to me but I also think there's logic in the idea that a good PP makes it easier to do that.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Just for information sake I did a quick look at what the B's record is when they score a PPG and when they don't.

    When they do : 3-1-1-0

    When they don't : 6-1-1-0

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Now you're interpreting my posts to divine things about my psychological makeup?  One thing in this entire discussion I have not done is make you part of the topic, steve.  Playing this "I'm the rational one" card while, at the same time, trying to tell me why I've posted what I've posted is silly. 

    Here is the post you love to quote: 

    If the Bruins score 3 goals per game, in whatever phase, and continue to play sound defensive hockey, I don't care if they never score on the PP. The only thing I'd regret is that they wouldn't be able to make other teams pay for hooking and slashing, but again, they're getting through that garbage to score an average of 3 goals/game.

    Let's walk you through it, because despite your compliments on my writing style, I'm not sure you understand grammar.  First word of that paragraph is "if" which puts everything else in the realm of the conditional.  The next two phrases establish conditions under which the proposition that follows would be a true statement - they are that the Bruins score 3 goals a game and continue to play the quality of defensive hockey they are known for.  Under those conditions, I would not care if any of those 3 goals/game came on the powerplay.  I tried to make this statement fairly realistic, and maybe that's the problem.  I should have said, if the Bruins score an average of 5 goals per game.  Or if the Bruins win at least 4 of every 7 games no matter how you cut the 7....  But dez clearly got it.

    This was also part of that post - which I think was my second on this discussion:

    Really, the only part of this that makes sense to me is that you should be able to improve the PP with practice and finding a system that works for your talent. The Bruins were middle of the pack last year at 17.2%. No reason they can't get back there, and you'd hope, with Seguin playing more of a role and Horton healthy, that they'd be able to improve on it.

    My first post, and the one you dug your heels in to argue about, was that the Kings won the Cup one year after the Bruins with a PP% that was 1.4% better than the Bruins'.  2 goals.  Totally incomparable you said, partly because LA scored such a high percentage of their total goals on the PP.  Which, if anything, shows that you can win with a 12.4% PP even if the rest of your offense is also weak if you play well in all other facets. 

    I brought up a group of posters who have accurately understood what I've been posting.  The only point I made about them agreeing was Chowdah agreeing with NAS, and I made the point largely to keep it light because I think most people on this board know that for them to align is sort of a warning sign about Ghozer the Ghozarian.  I responded to nite, and only to nite, saying I was losing this conversation because it's nite, and because nite and I had a recent conversation where he was losing his nut because he started a trade thread and it turned into an e-harmony/binky conversation he hadn't anticipated.

    I'm willing to let this die, but I'm not going to walk away from a patronizing post that speculates about why I've written what I've written.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    [quote]

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

     

    Just for information sake I did a quick look at what the B's record is when they score a PPG and when they don't.

    When they do : 3-1-1-0

    When they don't : 6-1-1-0

    [/quote]




    How can that be?  30 NHL GMs, coachs and players focus on this integral part of the game.  If they don't do it well, they should have losses piling up.

     

    You mean to tell me that good 5x5 teams can be successful without a high PP conversion?  Yeah, right.  Look at last year's Cup winners.  The Kin... Wait.  Look at the Cup winners two years ago.  The Bru... Wait.

    Look at the 1979 Canadiens.  Now, you, NAS and Book are idiots and I buzz in your general direction.  I refuse to accept facts and stats.  I'm going to fight for 12 pages, say nothing and tell you time and time again that you've lost and you're wrong.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    I'm willing to let this die, but I'm not going to walk away from a patronizing post that speculates about why I've written what I've written.



    As we continue to offer facts and stats, others discuss us.

    Who's on more solid ground? (or, some here might say, "solid-er ground")

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment: How can that be?  30 NHL GMs, coachs and players focus on this integral part of the game.  If they don't do it well, they should have losses piling up.

    [/QUOTE]


    Making stuff up again.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

     

    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!

     




     

    when someone says, "I don't care if they ever score a single pp goal"......that's not suggesting....it's yelling, the fact that a good pp doesn't matter.

    I think that's absolutely incorrect.  What am I missing?

     




    My take was that they feel it doesn't matter how you score goals as long as you score more than the opposition. That makes sense to me but I also think there's logic in the idea that a good PP makes it easier to do that.

     




    2  very different scenarios here dez.  Certianly scoring more than the opposition wins, and obviously that can't be reasonably argued(nor has it).  They're arguing the pp is irrelevant to winning though...it's a bonus, it's importance is nil.

    Your last line appears to disagree with that notion.

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     



    2  very different scenarios here dez.  Certianly scoring more than the opposition wins, and obviously that can't be reasonably argued(nor has it).  They're arguing the pp is irrelevant to winning though...it's a bonus, it's importance is nil.

     

    Your last line appears to disagree with that notion.

     

     

     

     

     



    I don't get that impression from anyone's comments.

     

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

     

     SanDogBrewin'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.



    [/QUOTE]


    The above is an example of the comments early in this thread.  That fairly straight forward notion, and many like it, have been argued vigorously. 

     
  17. 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:

     



    2  very different scenarios here dez.  Certianly scoring more than the opposition wins, and obviously that can't be reasonably argued(nor has it).  They're arguing the pp is irrelevant to winning though...it's a bonus, it's importance is nil.

     

    Your last line appears to disagree with that notion.

     

     

     

     

     



    I don't get that impression from anyone's comments.

     




    If you do a quick review chowda, you;ll see it's the fundamental argument.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

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

    [quote]

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

     

    Just for information sake I did a quick look at what the B's record is when they score a PPG and when they don't.

    When they do : 3-1-1-0

    When they don't : 6-1-1-0

    [/quote]




    How can that be?  30 NHL GMs, coachs and players focus on this integral part of the game.  If they don't do it well, they should have losses piling up.

     

    You mean to tell me that good 5x5 teams can be successful without a high PP conversion?  Yeah, right.  Look at last year's Cup winners.  The Kin... Wait.  Look at the Cup winners two years ago.  The Bru... Wait.

    Look at the 1979 Canadiens.  Now, you, NAS and Book are idiots and I buzz in your general direction.  I refuse to accept facts and stats.  I'm going to fight for 12 pages, say nothing and tell you time and time again that you've lost and you're wrong.


    You continue to spew innuendo generalities and garbage.  We're not picking one old example to base our point(79 Canadiens), we're merely pointing out the fact that every cup winner since then, had a better pp than the Bruins.

     

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

     

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     



    2  very different scenarios here dez.  Certianly scoring more than the opposition wins, and obviously that can't be reasonably argued(nor has it).  They're arguing the pp is irrelevant to winning though...it's a bonus, it's importance is nil.

     

    Your last line appears to disagree with that notion.

     

     

     

     

     



    I don't get that impression from anyone's comments.

     

     




     

    If you do a quick review chowda, you;ll see it's the fundamental argument.



    Less ? Yes. Nil and irrelevant ? No. 

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    So last year playoffs

    LA PP was 12.8 so why did not Nashv 12.2, SJ 11.8, Bos 8.7 or Chi 5.3 win the cup, because aPP goal would have come in handy.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Now you're interpreting my posts to divine things about my psychological makeup?  One thing in this entire discussion I have not done is make you part of the topic, steve.  Playing this "I'm the rational one" card while, at the same time, trying to tell me why I've posted what I've posted is silly. 

    Here is the post you love to quote: 

    If the Bruins score 3 goals per game, in whatever phase, and continue to play sound defensive hockey, I don't care if they never score on the PP. The only thing I'd regret is that they wouldn't be able to make other teams pay for hooking and slashing, but again, they're getting through that garbage to score an average of 3 goals/game.

    Let's walk you through it, because despite your compliments on my writing style, I'm not sure you understand grammar.  First word of that paragraph is "if" which puts everything else in the realm of the conditional.  The next two phrases establish conditions under which the proposition that follows would be a true statement - they are that the Bruins score 3 goals a game and continue to play the quality of defensive hockey they are known for.  Under those conditions, I would not care if any of those 3 goals/game came on the powerplay.  I tried to make this statement fairly realistic, and maybe that's the problem.  I should have said, if the Bruins score an average of 5 goals per game.  Or if the Bruins win at least 4 of every 7 games no matter how you cut the 7....  But dez clearly got it.

    This was also part of that post - which I think was my second on this discussion:

    Really, the only part of this that makes sense to me is that you should be able to improve the PP with practice and finding a system that works for your talent. The Bruins were middle of the pack last year at 17.2%. No reason they can't get back there, and you'd hope, with Seguin playing more of a role and Horton healthy, that they'd be able to improve on it.

    My first post, and the one you dug your heels in to argue about, was that the Kings won the Cup one year after the Bruins with a PP% that was 1.4% better than the Bruins'.  2 goals.  Totally incomparable you said, partly because LA scored such a high percentage of their total goals on the PP.  Which, if anything, shows that you can win with a 12.4% PP even if the rest of your offense is also weak if you play well in all other facets. 

    I brought up a group of posters who have accurately understood what I've been posting.  The only point I made about them agreeing was Chowdah agreeing with NAS, and I made the point largely to keep it light because I think most people on this board know that for them to align is sort of a warning sign about Ghozer the Ghozarian.  I responded to nite, and only to nite, saying I was losing this conversation because it's nite, and because nite and I had a recent conversation where he was losing his nut because he started a trade thread and it turned into an e-harmony/binky conversation he hadn't anticipated.

    I'm willing to let this die, but I'm not going to walk away from a patronizing post that speculates about why I've written what I've written.




    Both paragraphs you're hi-liting here...are really early in the thread.  Incidentally, before anyone suggested you may be wrong....and you decided my disagreement with someone else should become your crusade.

    I've not made unsubstantiated suggestions about anything.  

    Since that time, you've distanced yourself from the "should be able to improve" part, and hunkered down to the "it has no bearing on winning" idea.  You did that, because that was my argument, and if you didn't continue to challenge that, this thread would be over after about the 3rd page, and you'd lose the opportunity to KO the poster who dared infer you may be wrong.

    Lets me illustrate the point.

    On page 4 you said:  "..winning a 7 game series without scoring  a pp goal means nothing".  "..if you play better you win more".

    page 5.   "making changes in pursuit of a better pp percentage without knowing the impact of those changes is folly".  It should be pointed out that your statement here, is in response to someones suggestion to merely change the lines around a bit, NOT, trading players, or firing people.  That's a very reasonable fundamental thought, yet you strongly disagree.

    page 6.  you and nas smugly claim victory shortly after your brilliance is questioned, in attempt to get out and save face.

    page 7.  you state again.  "if they play better, they'll win more".  

    Page 8.  you say "if you concentrate too much on the pp, you can come to rely on it, and that can burn you".  ......."play better, any phase, win more".  ......."focusing too much on the pp can stymie your talent".  Again, statements that go to considerable lengths to say the pp doesn't matter

    page 9.  you again counter the specific with a generality.  "if you play better, you win more".  You then go on to suggest it's incorrect to even assume more goals correlates to winning, let alone pp goals.  in another post on the same page, "play better you win more". 

    page 10. you confirm you're now able to let go, not because of any point you contributed, but because you have the validation of a select few posters.

     

    My last kick at the cat Book.  Fact is, you go to great lengths to diminish the importance of a good pp.  You go to greater lengths in that area, than anyone does in trying to elevate the other side.  That's really key here, and foundationally exposes the error in your opinion.

    Obviously, the crux of your position is "play better, win more".  I've never argued that, however, it's a statement as factually incorrect as "a better pp will give you a better chance at winning".

    Before you go on,  just contemplate that sentence for a moment.

    The Bruins, and every other team in the league win games where they "don't play better", and they all do it more than once in a while.  

    Regardless, I accept the spirit in which you make that comment to be a fundamental reality.  I can show countless examples where playing better doesn't win.....but that's being anal.

    A "much better pp will contribute to Boston's point toal"..... that's equally,... also..., fundamentally correct.  You and nas have been clutching one fundamental truth,..... while going to ridiculous lengths to mimimize another.  That's why this thread didn't wrap up, 150 posts ago.

    The use of a seatbelt has, in rare cases, caused death.  That doesn't change the overall reality, that seatbelts save lives.  In order to refute that generally accepted reality, one needs a ton of conflicting evidence.  You guys have offerred up nothing but generalities, innuendo, and personal opinion.     

    I'm done.  If either of you feel my refusal to participate from here on signifies defeat....let me be the first to congratulate you. 

      

     

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    I will play the good old days card - which I try to avoid.

     

    Those Bobby Orr days Bruins....

    they're on a PK - they might score!

    they're on a PP - they might score!

    That was fun.  

    I don't care what records and stats anybody brings up, it seemed like their pp was killer.  And I know they scored a lot of goals on the pk, too.

    That was fun.

    It would be fun to see a killer pp again.

    oh yah, and for those that like to say about this team 'but they won the cup', well back then they won a couple of cups.

    It was fun.  It was exciting.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

     

    AndI vote for Lindy Ruff for the PP coach.

     
  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:

    I'm done.  If either of you feel my refusal to participate from here on signifies defeat....let me be the first to congratulate you. 



    The last high scoring team on the man advantage (25% success or better) to win the Cup was in 1986.  The last low scoring team on the man advantage (13% or worse) to win the Cup was last year.

    Fixing the powerplay isn't necessary when the 5x5 play is this good.

     

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

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

     

    The last high scoring team on the man advantage (25% success or better) to win the Cup was in 1986.  The last low scoring team on the man advantage (13% or worse) to win the Cup was last year.

     

    Fixing the powerplay isn't necessary when the 5x5 play is this good.

     




    Of course it isn't necessary.  

    By that rationale they could have the worst pk and pp in the world and still win a Stanley Cup.

    I will never be convinced that fixing the pp would be a bad thing no matter what stats anyone brings up.

    I'm not a professional statistician.  I only act like one on this forum.  Here's what I've come up with.  The winning team in every game in NHL history that I can find has scored more goals than their opposition.  So goals are a good thing (ok, that's only my opinion).  A good pp results in more goals.  Why would that be a bad thing?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share