Re: Powerplay Percentage
posted at 2/19/2013 9:57 AM EST
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.