Re: The Powerplay!
posted at 5/20/2013 8:18 AM EDT
In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
We haven't talked about this is a while. Let's take a look at where teams finished during the regular season for powerplay percentage.
There are 3 teams between 1-10 that are still playing.
There are 3 teams between 11-20 that are still playing.
There are 2 teams between 21-30 that are still playing.
5 of 8 team still playing finished 15th or worse on the powerplay.
7 teams between 21-30 did not qualify for the playoffs.
4 team beween 1-10 did not qualify.
3 teams beween 11-20 did not qualify.
1. WAS First round exit
2. PIT Still alive
3. PHI DNQ
4. ANA First round exit
5. Mtl First round exit
6. FLA DNQ
7. SAN Still alive
8. EDM DNQ
9. CGY DNQ
10. LAK Still alive
11. NYI First round exit
12. STL First round exit
13. TBL DNQ
14. TOR First round exit
15. DET Still alive
16. MIN First round exit
17. NSH DNQ
18. DAL DNQ
19. CHI Still alive
20. OTT Still alive
21. NJD DNQ
22. VAN First round exit
23. NYR Still alive
24. COL DNQ
25. PHX DNQ
26. BOS Still alive
27. CAR DNQ
28. CBJ DNQ
29. BUF DNQ
30. WPG DNQ
Nice little excercise, but if you think it means anything statistically, you're mistaken. Not arguing your process, or the factuality of what you have above, only that the implied "meaning" of the results. For arguments sajke, lets agree you have an even spread above. Pretty much an equal number of teams still playing who have a good, fair, and bad pp percentage. Based on that, it would appear the pp means nothing. But that conclusion would get you kicked out of statistical relevance class.An opposite flawed example is a quick review of the TO Bruin series. A great PP got the Bruins a win in game 4(I think). That's fact, backed up by statistic. Saying though...if the B's lose that game, they lose the series, therefore the PP is the "be all, end all....is false. It's incorrectly processing the relevance of stastistcal data.
Just using the Bruins, as one example, one can review the last 57 games played this year and find several(around 6 or more would be huge) that were either won by the B's powerplay, or lost to the opposing PP(and no, that shouldn't be considered the pk).
Just like "playing well", a good PP improves the chance of winning. There are many peripheral issues, like "when" those pp goals are scored which can alter things, but nothing changes the fundamental truth that a good pp does help the potential. A team may have a horrible pp, but it will undoubtedly, "still" win them the odd game, and when the differece between making the playoffs after 82 games is rarely never more than 2 or 3 points, well, it means a lot.
We got all crossed up in this with the Subban thing too, and where we went of the rails was in the statistics. Statistically, some things may point to something, that moving forward, means squat. That's where relevance kicks in. Statistically, there may be some sort of correlation between great players, and the number of vowels in their name. Relying on that information at the draft table though, even if proven statistically....would be a mistake.
And there's no room for "those teams that depend on their PP' in this discussion. Nobody does it. Zero teams in the NHL that depend solely on the PP for offense. That's like saying the B's "depend' on overtime", just because they've been pretty successful there lately.
A decent PP is pretty important. Like every other facet of the game(good goaltending in the playoffs etc), there are times when it just isn't a difference maker. Sport is unpredictable, so of course it is, but that doesn't change the fact that the pp has a pretty big influence on the game.