In response to Bookboy007's comment:
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.
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.
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.