Powerplay Percentage

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    11 pages debating if a strong PP has an impact on a teams chances to win. And, using stats to help determine the importance of scoring when the opponent has fewer men on the ice. Maybe teams should stop pulling the goaltender at the end of games because they're a great 5 on 5 team. Or maybe, they should pull someone off the ice because the stats say they're an awesome shorthanded team.  Maybe the PP would be an opportunity to rest the best players, it can be used like a time out. This way they're even stronger 5 on 5. Wonder what the percentages would show in that scenario. Wow ...this is the kind of deep thinking that you can't find anywhere else. Thank god there are some real good posters on here who know the game on a different level than the rest of us.  

    This is way more intelligent and enlightened than Stanley's predictions.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Since some people seem to have missed the point - this thread hasn't been about whether improving the power play while leaving everything else the same would help, this has been about

    1. Would such an improvement make much of a difference for a team that is very strong 5v5 and already has a high winning percentage?
    2. Is improving the power play at the expense of other parts of the game worthwhile?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to DrCC's comment:

    Since some people seem to have missed the point - this thread hasn't been about whether improving the power play while leaving everything else the same would help, this has been about

    1. Would such an improvement make much of a difference for a team that is very strong 5v5 and already has a high winning percentage?

         2. Is improving the power play at the expense of other parts of the game worthwhile?

    # 2 Makes no sense at all. There would be no tax at all to say the Bruins 5v5 or PK abilities by improving the powerplay. When Boston goes on a powerplay I want a better chance to help win the game, especially in tight games. When Chiarelli brings in that winger, and he will cause Bourque hasn't helped the PP at all, he could possibly make the 5v5, PK and PP better not make the team worse.

    The NHL HOF President of the Bruins openly admitted last years PP was a complete failure and as a result it helped Boston right out of the 1st round. You don't win an argument over Cam Neely when it comes to what he knows what is good and not good for the Bruins.

    Please feel free to once again misconstrue helped as the main reason the Bruins were bounced in the first round of the playoffs last season.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    In response to DrCC's comment:

    Since some people seem to have missed the point - this thread hasn't been about whether improving the power play while leaving everything else the same would help, this has been about

     

    1. Would such an improvement make much of a difference for a team that is very strong 5v5 and already has a high winning percentage?

         2. Is improving the power play at the expense of other parts of the game worthwhile?

     

    # 2 Makes no sense at all. There would be no tax at all to say the Bruins 5v5 or PK abilities by improving the powerplay. When Boston goes on a powerplay I want a better chance to help win the game, especially in tight games. When Chiarelli brings in that winger, and he will cause Bourque hasn't helped the PP at all, he could possibly make the 5v5, PK and PP better not make the team worse.

    The NHL HOF President of the Bruins openly admitted last years PP was a complete failure and as a result it helped Boston right out of the 1st round. You don't win an argument over Cam Neely when it comes to what he knows what is good and not good for the Bruins.

    Please feel free to once again misconstrue helped as the main reason the Bruins were bounced in the first round of the playoffs last season.


    #2 makes sense when in reference to people who want to do more than just replace Bourque with someone that will contribute on the powerplay.  Of course, effective offensive players aren't cheap.  Getting one without making changes to the remainder of the roster may not be feasible.

    As for last season, I think the powerplay was a huge reason for the loss to the Caps, but not in the way you may think.  It looked to me like the entire game plan for the Caps was to play as much of the game as possible as if they were on a PK, thus taking advantage of the B's greatest weakness.  The question is, do you change your team simply because you are worried another team may try this?

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Lets follow the bizzaro world equation and assume that there is some correlation between 5 on 5 and pp effectiveness. If that were so ,(it isn't)  then it would be equally fair to assume the way to improve on your 5 on 5 play is to do worse on your PP. Ridiculous on the first page as it is on the 12th.

    There is no point to be missed, never was a point. Scoring more goals is good, having a chance to achieve that when the other team has less men on the ice is also good.

    Can it happen without taking advantage of it ? - yes.  Does that mean anything  ? - no

    This is starting to head into planet of the apes logic

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Simple (and extreme) example: take this team and replace Chara with Markov or Campbell.   You've improved your powerplay.  Your PK suffers and your 5v5 play is probably worse.  

    These things are only disconnected if you change players that have limited roles on the team, e.g. Bourque.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Why a new player?  Why not just simply bring in a new (another) pp coach?  After all, they have skating coaches and stickhandling coaches, why not bring in someone who's sole responsibility is to beef up the power play?

    I don't feel this is a personnel issue.  I thnk they have the horsepower.

    From a purely intuitive point of view and not studying the x's and o's, their pp stirkes me as something not right.  The puck movement isn't right, the players seem to be standing still to much.  

    It just doesn't look right.  At least to me.  It looks like a lot of passing just for the sake of passing.

    Again, only based on an intuitve level, no chaulkboard - a power play looks right when they very deliberately move the puck and scoring seems like it might be imminent, guys get pucks where it looks like they might shoot, but don't.  Their power play it seems like guys rarely even get that good shooting chance and when they do, of course they take it because it seems rare.

    It seems that most of the pp goals are greasy ones on loose puck scrambles.  It seems there are some, but very few 'orchestrated' goals.

    Who knows?  Maybe Ward will be like CJ where he seems like Elmer Fudd for years on end until one day he turns a corner and becomes an elite coach.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to JWensink's comment:

    This is starting to head into planet of the apes logic



    I think Richard Zanuck's logic was awesome. A) walk up to Linda Harrison at Beverley Hills party and tell her he will put her in his movie if she...

     

    B) Zanuck makes every man that saw "Planet of the Apes" and "Beneath the Planet of the Apes" very, very happy by putting half naked Linda Harrison in loin cloth!

    "The question is, do you change your team simply because you are worried another team may try this ?" Again

    I already think Chiarelli has made up his mind he is going to bring in a winger that will kick start the 3rd line but still give Ray Jr. plenty of time. And the answer to your question is yes, I would study Dale Hunters (not miraculous) approach at beating the current Bruins.

    Did Peverley and Kelly ruin the Bruins chemistry two years ago ?

    Did the Bruins with the game against Winnipeg with the help of the PP ?

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    "The question is, do you change your team simply because you are worried another team may try this ?" Again

    I already think Chiarelli has made up his mind he is going to bring in a winger that will kick start the 3rd line but still give Ray Jr. plenty of time. And the answer to your question is yes, I would study Dale Hunters (not miraculous) approach at beating the current Bruins.

    Did Peverley and Kelly ruin the Bruins chemistry two years ago ?

    Did the Bruins with the game against Winnipeg with the help of the PP ?



    This isn't about chemistry, it's about skill.  +Peverley + Kelly - Wheeler - Caron.  That looks like a net gain in abaility in almost all aspects of the game to me.

    Yes the powerplay helped them beat Winnipeg - I'm not sure why that is important here.

     

    Improving their PP results with the current roster, or with a third line improvement(which would be a double bonus since they've been bad 5v5 too) would be great.  It seems like that's been a goal of this team forever though.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to DrCC's comment:

    "The question is, do you change your team simply because you are worried another team may try this ?" Again

    I already think Chiarelli has made up his mind he is going to bring in a winger that will kick start the 3rd line but still give Ray Jr. plenty of time. And the answer to your question is yes, I would study Dale Hunters (not miraculous) approach at beating the current Bruins.

    Did Peverley and Kelly ruin the Bruins chemistry two years ago ?

    Did the Bruins with the game against Winnipeg with the help of the PP ?


    This isn't about chemistry, it's about skill.  +Peverley + Kelly - Wheeler - Caron.  That looks like a net gain in abaility in almost all aspects of the game to me.

    Yes the powerplay helped them beat Winnipeg - I'm not sure why that is important here.



    Then we are at an impass with that answer. Skill brings chemistry to the table, that is why Peverley and Kelly fit in so quickly. So replacing an overmatched career AHLer will improve the team that is why PC will make the move.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

     

    Then we are at an impass with that answer. Skill brings chemistry to the table, that is why Peverley and Kelly fit in so quickly. So replacing an overmatched career AHLer will improve the team that is why PC will make the move.

     



    That we can definitely agree on.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Just put Chara in front of the net...oh, nevermind.

    Seriously though, I was watching the Penguins PP last night and they keep Malkin up high near the blue line and the other 4 are down low and ALWAYS moving.  Once Malkin gets it to the net all 5 crash.  Granted having Malkin, Crosby, Neal etc. helps a bit too.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    B's may have settled the argument  last night vs TB by getting zero PP chances. 

    Seems like PP Opportunities are part of the equation.  B's rank 3rd lowest in the league @ 3.29 PP Opportunities per game with SJ at the top @ 4.93.  The Montreal Diving Team is 2nd @ 4.82.

    Home PP is abyssmal,  0-23, while very good on the road 6-23 (26.1%).  Go figure.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    I wish the B's had a better powerplay.  They could have gotten two wins out of last night's game.

    Alas, their powerplay stinks and they failed to record a PP point...leaving them with only a 4-2 win.

    How will they ever go anywhere with only one win in a game with no powerplay goals?

     
  15. 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:


    Then we are at an impass with that answer. Skill brings chemistry to the table, that is why Peverley and Kelly fit in so quickly. So replacing an overmatched career AHLer will improve the team that is why PC will make the move.



    What on Earth does that mean?

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

    B's may have settled the argument  last night vs TB by getting zero PP chances. 

    Seems like PP Opportunities are part of the equation.  B's rank 3rd lowest in the league @ 3.29 PP Opportunities per game with SJ at the top @ 4.93.  The Montreal Diving Team is 2nd @ 4.82.

    Home PP is abyssmal,  0-23, while very good on the road 6-23 (26.1%).  Go figure.



    Yah it helps when you actually go on a powerplay.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Forgetaboutit Sandog! Logic doesn't fit into this thread. Even if every coach & GM in all of the sporting universe works on specialty teams, or tries to bring in someone to help out specifically with the specialty teams, the bullheaded & the know-it-alls (take your pick) will still think they're right; that specialty teams don't matter as long as you win. They refuse to see the logic, because they think they have a monoply on knowledge over everyone including those that coach & manage professional sports for a living. 

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

    Forgetaboutit Sandog! Logic doesn't fit into this thread. Even if every coach & GM in all of the sporting universe works on specialty teams, or tries to bring in someone to help out specifically with the specialty teams, the bullheaded & the know-it-alls (take your pick) will still think they're right; that specialty teams don't matter as long as you win. They refuse to see the logic, because they think they have a monoply on knowledge over everyone including those that coach & manage professional sports for a living. 



    Would you prefer the B's go 3-3 on the powerplay and lose?

    Here's your new team:  http://oilers.nhl.com/

    Time to get yourself a pretty Yakupov jersey!

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

    Forgetaboutit Sandog! they refuse to see the logic, because they think they have a monoply on knowledge over everyone including those that coach & manage professional sports for a living.


    I think great points were made on both sides. But hey how could I get down about a road PP % this good, I'll just revel in it. Hope it stays this way in the playoffs, couldn't ask for more than that. You know when the team president is making sure his coaches, he is over, work hard on a malignet Powerplay.

    I gotta say though nite, I do like to make them keep trying to make their point even when I already know what it is they are trying to get at. :D

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

     

    Let me get this straight.

    Having a good PP necessarily means that the team will play poorly and other areas and lose games.

    And not scoring on the PP necessarily means that they will win.

     

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to BadHabitude's comment:

    Let me get this straight.

    Having a good PP necessarily means that the team will play poorly and other areas and lose games.

    And not scoring on the PP necessarily means that they will win.



    Also, if Cam Neely said it to the press, it's 100% true.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to BadHabitude's comment:

     Let me get this straight.

    Having a good PP necessarily means that the team will play poorly and other areas and lose games.

    And not scoring on the PP necessarily means that they will win.

     

    Uh, no.  These things all tie into how a team is built, though.  In a salary-capped league, being great at all aspects of a game is unlikely.  Right now this team's biggest weakness is the home powerplay (that road vs home difference must be one of the weirdest things going on in the league right now).  If they can fix that without having to remove a key PK or 5v5 player from the roster, the rest of the league will be in trouble.

    If they can't, they still seem to be a very good team, so let's enjoy the ride.

     
  23. 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:

     

    Forgetaboutit Sandog! Logic doesn't fit into this thread. Even if every coach & GM in all of the sporting universe works on specialty teams, or tries to bring in someone to help out specifically with the specialty teams, the bullheaded & the know-it-alls (take your pick) will still think they're right; that specialty teams don't matter as long as you win. They refuse to see the logic, because they think they have a monoply on knowledge over everyone including those that coach & manage professional sports for a living. 

     



    Would you prefer the B's go 3-3 on the powerplay and lose?

     

    Here's your new team:  http://oilers.nhl.com/

    Time to get yourself a pretty Yakupov jersey!



    I don't want the B's to lose PERIOD, but I'd like for a decent pp to be able to help get thru those games where other things aren't working well. The theory that I have is hellava a lot better than yours. And I know it's better than yours because I have coaches & managers on my side of the line. Professional's I might add. You on the other hand have NOBODy, but a bunch of couch GM's & coaches; who no matter how intelligent they try to sound claiming a bad PP doesn't matter are wrong. It wouldn't matter if the the B's were 14-0. If they're PP still sat at the 13% range there's still room for an improvement. No matter which way you slice it. A better pp increases the chance of getting a win. 

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    I just don't get it.  The team is 10-2-2. 

    Home Record:  4-1-1, powerplay bad bad bad

    Road Record:  6-1-1, powerplay good good good

    It sure would be great if they could score more, but if they did, what would be the result?  14-0-0.  That's unrealistic, even with the best players ever.  This isn't Russia vs. CIH (Cayman Islands Hockey) with 94-0 blowouts.

     

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:



    I don't want the B's to lose PERIOD, but I'd like for a decent pp to be able to help get thru those games where other things aren't working well. The theory that I have is hellava a lot better than yours. And I know it's better than yours because I have coaches & managers on my side of the line. Professional's I might add. You on the other hand have NOBODy, but a bunch of couch GM's & coaches; who no matter how intelligent they try to sound claiming a bad PP doesn't matter are wrong. It wouldn't matter if the the B's were 14-0. If they're PP still sat at the 13% range there's still room for an improvement. No matter which way you slice it. A better pp increases the chance of getting a win. 



    You have ideas on your side.

    I have stats on mine.

    The awful powerplay has produced a 10-2-2 record.

    I'm good with that.

     

Share