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:


    read the post.  being a "factor' isn't/wasn't part of the discussion.



    It's the whole discussion!

     

     
  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:

     


    read the post.  being a "factor' isn't/wasn't part of the discussion.

     



    It's the whole discussion!

     

     




    stop acting like such a child !  the post you're referring to clearly addresses "differences" in the 2 pp's, not "factors".

    if you're unable to grasp that, call mommy.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Because stevegm loves percentages, here's one:

    Tonight's Bruins powerplay scored on 50% of their chances.

    And they lost.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Here's a May22, 2012 story in last year's playoffs from the L.A. Times on how "decent" the Kings power play was.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/22/sports/la-sp-0522-elliott-kings-coyotes-20120522

    Coach Sutter jokes about it :


     Since the Kings got this far with a power play converting at an 8.6% rate  and since the Bruins won the Cup with a power play that converted 11.4% of its chances is the value of the power play overrated?

    "No. Power play is so key," Kings defenseman Drew Doughty said.

    "Yep," Coach Darryl Sutter said.

    How so?

    "The Bruins won the Stanley Cup," Sutter said, drawing laughter from reporters Monday at the Kings' El Segundo practice facility.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    did you read the headline chowda?  or consider the spirit in which the article was written?  pretty clear that a decent pp makes the overall job easier.  from what i've been reading, that's all anyone's been saying.

     
  6. 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:

    did you read the headline chowda?  or consider the spirit in which the article was written?  pretty clear that a decent pp makes the overall job easier.  from what i've been reading, that's all anyone's been saying.




    This thread isn't about making anyone's job easier.  It's about everyone's constant crying about the powerplay...year after year...and how it is stupid to do so.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    did you read the headline chowda?  or consider the spirit in which the article was written?  pretty clear that a decent pp makes the overall job easier.  from what i've been reading, that's all anyone's been saying.



    Sure, getting goals in all ways (PP, shorthanded, 5 on 5) helps win games.

    What others are saying is the necessity to have a good PP is not the be all to end all to winning. 

    Despite you massaging the Kings numbers to say it was decent, anyone who had watched last year's playoffs would know that it wasn't. 

    Their PP struggled. 





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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    Yeah, see - this thread was started in response to a bunch of other threads where people propose trades and all sorts of other measures in order to improve the Bruins' PP.  If you look only at what people have said on this thread, you're not looking at the whole picture.  People aren't saying "well, it would be better if the PP was good."  That just fits within the position I've adopted all along - if they play better, they'll win more.  That could be on the PP, but it could also be lights out goaltending or four goals a night 5 on 5.

    Where this whole thread comes from is people saying the Bruins should reacquire Ryder because if they don't fix the PP they aren't going to win.  Or that the Bruins need to get a top-notch sniper or they won't win.  Basically, all of the other threads where people say "the team is doing well, but they aren't going to win another Cup if they don't improve on the PP."  And that's just not true.  Shifting the point to PP would make it easier - sure it would.  But what do you do to improve the PP to make it easier?  Given that we're now talking about "making it easier", I don't know that I'd mess with a winning formula to get better PP results.

    Last year, they had the third highest PP% the team has had since 1997.  And it wasn't considered good enough.  They play ugly hockey on the PP, same as last year, and I've got a dollar that says they end up somewhere between 14 and 17% for the year - just like every year.  With this group of personnel.  It will average out.  It's not worth the airtime it gets.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    I find this whole discussion hilarious. 100% of players, coaches and GMs at the highest level all say converting on the PP is important and a critical factor to winning. I'm gonna go ahead and believe them, not posting clowns.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to asmaha's comment:

    I find this whole discussion hilarious. 100% of players, coaches and GMs at the highest level all say converting on the PP is important and a critical factor to winning. I'm gonna go ahead and believe them, not posting clowns.



    Have you followed the Bruins the last few years ?

    If it was such a critical factor in winning shouldn't their record indicate it ?

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to asmaha's comment:

    I find this whole discussion hilarious. 100% of players, coaches and GMs at the highest level all say converting on the PP is important and a critical factor to winning. I'm gonna go ahead and believe them, not posting clowns.




    If it were a critical factor in winning, the Kings and the B's wouldn't have won the last two Cups.

     
  12. 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:

     

    did you read the headline chowda?  or consider the spirit in which the article was written?  pretty clear that a decent pp makes the overall job easier.  from what i've been reading, that's all anyone's been saying.

     



    Sure, getting goals in all ways (PP, shorthanded, 5 on 5) helps win games.

    What others are saying is the necessity to have a good PP is not the be all to end all to winning. 

    Despite you massaging the Kings numbers to say it was decent, anyone who had watched last year's playoffs would know that it wasn't. 

    Their PP struggled. 





     




    I didn't "massage" the numbers.  that's an outright lie.  I introduced other "correct" numbers to shed more light.  20% of the Kings scoring was from the pp.  That proves it's importance to that team, at that time.  The Bruins scored a ton more goals than the Kings, and fewer were on the pp so it obviously wasn't as important to the success of the B's.

    Indisputable fact. 

    The B's scored an average of 3.2 even strength goals per game.  That's probably good enough to win a cup.

    The Kings scored 2.35 even strength goals per game.  That probably isn't good enough to win a cup.     Therefore, isn't it obvious that those pp goals were a much bigger part of LA's success????  Doesn't that show a huge difference between the 2 clubs?

     

     
  13. 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 didn't "massage" the numbers.  that's an outright lie.  I introduced other "correct" numbers to shed more light.  20% of the Kings scoring was from the pp.  That proves it's importance to that team, at that time.  The Bruins scored a ton more goals than the Kings, and fewer were on the pp so it obviously wasn't as important to the success of the B's.

    Indisputable fact. 

    The B's scored an average of 3.2 even strength goals per game.  That's probably good enough to win a cup.

    The Kings scored 2.35 even strength goals per game.  That probably isn't good enough to win a cup.     Therefore, isn't it obvious that those pp goals were a much bigger part of LA's success????  Doesn't that show a huge difference between the 2 clubs?



    Once again proving my point that there is little relation between the powerplay and winning.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Yeah, see - this thread was started in response to a bunch of other threads where people propose trades and all sorts of other measures in order to improve the Bruins' PP.  If you look only at what people have said on this thread, you're not looking at the whole picture.  People aren't saying "well, it would be better if the PP was good."  That just fits within the position I've adopted all along - if they play better, they'll win more.  That could be on the PP, but it could also be lights out goaltending or four goals a night 5 on 5.

    Where this whole thread comes from is people saying the Bruins should reacquire Ryder because if they don't fix the PP they aren't going to win.  Or that the Bruins need to get a top-notch sniper or they won't win.  Basically, all of the other threads where people say "the team is doing well, but they aren't going to win another Cup if they don't improve on the PP."  And that's just not true.  Shifting the point to PP would make it easier - sure it would.  But what do you do to improve the PP to make it easier?  Given that we're now talking about "making it easier", I don't know that I'd mess with a winning formula to get better PP results.

    Last year, they had the third highest PP% the team has had since 1997.  And it wasn't considered good enough.  They play ugly hockey on the PP, same as last year, and I've got a dollar that says they end up somewhere between 14 and 17% for the year - just like every year.  With this group of personnel.  It will average out.  It's not worth the airtime it gets.




    The "airtime" book, is the result of pretty much one cementhead insisting it "doesn't matter".  You're going against your own judgement, and your own comments, attempting to validate those ramblings.

    You accuse me of "reaching", then have the gall to suggest what people are saying on "this thread" doesn't really count.  Incredible!  You talk about drama and such, but this was a pretty logical discussion for the most part, til numbnuts jumped in again, and you attempted to back him.

    We've got 7 pages of comments here.  Basically no one is saying it's the be all end all.  Virtually no one is suggesting blowing anything up in an attempt to make it better.  Most merely agree it should be significantly better.

    Asmaha is right, this is hilarious.  Balance is better than imbalance.  More goals are better than less.  Unless more pp goals magically displaces even strength or shorties, this is picking fly sh!t out of pepper.

    I suspect if someone proclaims the pk to be another bonus, we'll have more drama. 

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    I didn't "massage" the numbers.  that's an outright lie.  I introduced other "correct" numbers to shed more light.  20% of the Kings scoring was from the pp.  That proves it's importance to that team, at that time.  The Bruins scored a ton more goals than the Kings, and fewer were on the pp so it obviously wasn't as important to the success of the B's.

    Indisputable fact. 

    The B's scored an average of 3.2 even strength goals per game.  That's probably good enough to win a cup.

    The Kings scored 2.35 even strength goals per game.  That probably isn't good enough to win a cup.     Therefore, isn't it obvious that those pp goals were a much bigger part of LA's success????  Doesn't that show a huge difference between the 2 clubs?

     

     



    Comparing even strength goals of the two teams and saying the Kings pp goals were a much bigger part of LA's success ?

    Ridiculous.

    Try "introducing other correct" numbers. Keeping the puck out of their own net. This is what difference was. Not the PPG's . 

    On the defensive end ........ L.A.'s 1.50 GAA compared to Bruins 2.12. The Kings needed less goals to win games then the Bruins did. 

    Quick and the Kings defensive game were the bigger diferences in winning the cup, not the Kings woeful PP. Both teams PP's were terrible and had little bearing with their cup wins. If you would have watched the playoffs more closely you would have known this.





     

     

     
  16. 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:

     

    I didn't "massage" the numbers.  that's an outright lie.  I introduced other "correct" numbers to shed more light.  20% of the Kings scoring was from the pp.  That proves it's importance to that team, at that time.  The Bruins scored a ton more goals than the Kings, and fewer were on the pp so it obviously wasn't as important to the success of the B's.

    Indisputable fact. 

    The B's scored an average of 3.2 even strength goals per game.  That's probably good enough to win a cup.

    The Kings scored 2.35 even strength goals per game.  That probably isn't good enough to win a cup.     Therefore, isn't it obvious that those pp goals were a much bigger part of LA's success????  Doesn't that show a huge difference between the 2 clubs?

     



    Once again proving my point that there is little relation between the powerplay and winning.

     



    you struggle with the concept of proof, as well as statistical significance.  comparing 2 aspects of 2 teams over 2 consecutive years, does not translate into other aspects, of all teams over all time.

     
  17. 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:

     

    did you read the headline chowda?  or consider the spirit in which the article was written?  pretty clear that a decent pp makes the overall job easier.  from what i've been reading, that's all anyone's been saying.

    when most of the crying on thread that YOU strated...is from you....maybe you should rethink your position

     




    This thread isn't about making anyone's job easier.  It's about everyone's constant crying about the powerplay...year after year...and how it is stupid to do so.

     




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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

     

    not ridiculous at all. sure the Kings gaa was huge, but we were talking about goals for....so I was just sticking to topic.

     if you want to veer off course again and talk gaa...ok.  I'll go out on a limb and suggest very few teams will win the stanly cup with a 1.50 gaa.  I could argue scoring doesn't matter, neither does the pk, you just have to stop all the shots...the Kings did it.

    But I won't........., cuz it's unlikely.  It can happen, but it's a poor thing to assume.




     

     

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     

    not ridiculous at all. sure the Kings gaa was huge, but we were talking about goals for....so I was just sticking to topic.

     if you want to veer off course again and talk gaa...ok.  I'll go out on a limb and suggest very few teams will win the stanly cup with a 1.50 gaa.  I could argue scoring doesn't matter, neither does the pk, you just have to stop all the shots...the Kings did it.

    But I won't........., cuz it's unlikely.  It can happen, but it's a poor thing to assume.




     

     




    [/QUOTE]

    If you want to say that the Kings PP made a huge difference for them ( all the while sticking to the topic and not veering off course, of course ) and not recognize what the real difference was..........that's fine with me too.

    It's a ridiculous thought proven wrong if you had ..........here we go again ..............watched the games !






     
  20. 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:

     

     

    not ridiculous at all. sure the Kings gaa was huge, but we were talking about goals for....so I was just sticking to topic.

     if you want to veer off course again and talk gaa...ok.  I'll go out on a limb and suggest very few teams will win the stanly cup with a 1.50 gaa.  I could argue scoring doesn't matter, neither does the pk, you just have to stop all the shots...the Kings did it.

    But I won't........., cuz it's unlikely.  It can happen, but it's a poor thing to assume.




     

     

     




     



    If you want to say that the Kings PP made a huge difference for them ( all the while sticking to the topic and not veering off course, of course ) and not recognize what the real difference was..........that's fine with me too.

    It's a ridiculous thought proven wrong if you had ..........here we go again ..............watched the games !






    [/QUOTE]


    what i said....was that the Kings ppg's were a bigger part of their offense, than the B's pp goals.  what part of that don't you get?

    your insistance that i didn't see the games is very clever and mature. 

     

     

     
  21. 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:

      what i said....was that the Kings ppg's were a bigger part of their offense, than the B's pp goals.  what part of that don't you get?

     

    your insistance that i didn't see the games is very clever and mature. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Bigger part of their offense ? Yes, monumental.

    And I wasn't clever or mature enough to use the words cementhead and numbnuts ( as you did ) so I had to take another approach.


     
  22. 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:


    you struggle with the concept of proof, as well as statistical significance.  comparing 2 aspects of 2 teams over 2 consecutive years, does not translate into other aspects, of all teams over all time.

     



    We aren't talking about all teams over all time.  The powerplay prowess and significance of the 1940 Rangers isn't very important.  We're talking about today, so the last two years is pretty relevant.

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

    Re: Powerplay Percentage

    However, if you want to talk history, let's take a look.  I found this online, so it might be wrong, but I'm not doing the math to vett the entire list.  Teams in bold won the Cup:

     

    Here's a list of every team that has broken 25%
    31.88 1977-78 Montreal Canadiens (73/229)
    31.72 1975-76 New York Islanders (92/290)
    31.28 1977-78 New York Islanders (71/227)
    31.15 1978-79 New York Islanders (81/260)
    29.73 1973-74 New York Rangers (66/222)
    29.34 1980-81 New York Islanders 93/317)
    29.25 1982-83 Edmonton Oilers (86/294)
    29.03 1969-70 Boston Bruins (81/279)
    29.17 1979-80 Montreal Canadiens (77/264)
    28.91 1971-72 Boston Bruins (75/256)
    28.89 1973-74 Boston Bruins (65/225)
    28.79 1972-73 Philadelphia Flyers (74/257)
    28.76 1974-75 Boston Bruins (86/299)
    28.62 1974-75 Philadelphia Flyers (83/290)
    28.46 1987-88 Calgary Flames (109-383)
    28.38 1974-75 New York Rangers (84/296)
    28.33 1978-79 Montreal Canadiens (68/240)
    28.17 1981-82 New York Islanders (80/284)
    27.96 1977-78 New York Rangers (78/279)
    27.80 1972-73 Boston Bruins (67/241)
    27.73 1989-90 Calgary Flames (99/357)
    27.68 1970-71 Boston Bruins (80/289)
    27.39 1974-75 Buffalo Sabres (83/303)
    27.22 1982-83 Chicago Black Hawks (86/316)
    27.07 1971-72 Montreal Canadiens (72/266)
    27.03 1982-83 Vancouver Canucks (90/333)
    26.98 1980-81 Philadelphia Flyers (75/278)
    26.91 1980-81 Calgary Flames (81/301)
    26.90 1981-82 Calgary Flames (78/290)
    26.88 1976-77 Los Angeles Kings (68/253)
    26.76 1983-84 Minnesota North Stars (91/340)
    26.70 1988-89 Philadelphia Flyers (98/367)
    26.69 1981-82 Philadelphia Flyers (79/296)
    26.69 1979-80 Los Angeles Kings (83/311)
    26.64 1975-76 Boston Bruins (77/289)
    26.60 1975-76 Montreal Canadiens (75/282)
    26.44 1985-86 Edmonton Oilers (78/295)
    26.43 1981-82 Quebec Nordiques (83/314)
    26.38 1982-83 Minnesota North Stars (91/345)
    26.29 1974-75 Montreal Canadiens (92/350)
    25.99 1979-80 New York Rangers (79/304)
    25.95 1995-96 Pittsburgh Penguins (109/420)
    25.84 1982-83 New York Islanders (69/267)
    25.64 1970-71 New York Rangers (71/286)
    25.63 1984-85 New York Islanders (71/277)
    25.60 1985-86 Chicago Black Hawks (85/332)
    25.50 2008-09 Detroit Red Wings (90/353)
    25.47 1983-84 Edmonton Oilers (81/318)
    25.46 1987-88 Winnipeg Jets (110/432)
    25.44 1980-81 Boston Bruins (87/342)
    25.44 1975-76 Buffalo Sabres (73/287)
    25.36 1985-86 Montreal Canadiens (87/343)
    25.26 1984-85 Edmonton Oilers (74/293)
    25.24 2008-09 Washington Capitals (79/313)
    25.22 2008-09 Washington Capitals (85/337)
    25.22 1981-82 Edmonton Oilers (86/341)
    25.16 1986-87 Calgary Flames (80/318)
    25.09 1969-70 St. Louis Blues (72/287)
    25.08 1983-84 New York Rangers (74-295)
    25.07 1981-81 Toronto Maple Leafs (85/339)
    25.00 1984-85 Calgary Flames (79/316)

     

    I think it's 15 for 61.  It's interesting to see that, outside of the '86 Canadiens, all of the teams with the high powerplay conversions and Cups were superteams.  Early 70's Bruins, mid-70's Flyers, late 70's Habs, early 80's Islanders, Gretzky's Oilers.

    It's also interesting that the last team to have a very high powerplay conversion rate and a Cup was the '86 Habs. 

     
  24. 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:

     

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

     

    In response to stevegm's comment:

      what i said....was that the Kings ppg's were a bigger part of their offense, than the B's pp goals.  what part of that don't you get?

     

    your insistance that i didn't see the games is very clever and mature. 

     

     




    Bigger part of their offense ? Yes, monumental.

    And I wasn't clever or mature enough to use the words cementhead and numbnuts so I had to take another approach.


    [/QUOTE]


    Ha.  those descriptors weren't addressed to you(unless you have another account here), rather to someone who routinely throws em my way as well.  To this point, I was making every attempt at civility with you.  I don't throw mud first either

    Anyway, this whole Kings/B's thing isn't the issue.  Wouldn't you agree that a better pp(more goals scored) would be a pretty big benefit to the Bruins? 

    I like to "discuss" this stuff, rather than argue, and i'm open to other opinions, but it seems like those that are keeping this thread alive, are those that simply ignore what's been said up to now.  

    Do you really feel a good pp is merely "a bonus"? Or are we just arguing for sport.  I really don't enjoy that

     

     
  25. 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:

    Ha.  those descriptors weren't addressed to you(unless you have another account here), rather to someone who routinely throws em my way as well.  To this point, I was making every attempt at civility with you.  I don't throw mud first either



    I'm sure that was directed at me.  I invite you to point out any post of mine that has me using such or similar descriptors for you.

    Let me save you the hassle:  They don't exist.  I discuss hockey and topics here.  I may throw a barb or two at a total dope like heyoo or Stanley, but it is not common practice for me to attack people.  Topics, yes.  People, no.

     

Share