The Powerplay!

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to islamorada's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    My point is it is essentially a power play goal.  The stats would then change if included.  I tend to agree with the NAS stat conclusion on the powerplay effectiveness this year, yet it is not conclusive to say the Bs are winning 5 on 5.   If and only if the Bs play Pittsburgh in the ECF, the Bs powerplay will have to be more effective.  

     

    First a comment, then a question Islam.  It certainly "is" essentially a pp goal, and kind of supports  comments that the current group certainly has it in them to be better.  6 on 5 is tougher than 5 on 4, and the B's looked like they were employing a bit different approach than predictaly looking to set up the Dman for the big slapper with no net front presence in those examples you bring up. The question is,  do you agree with the "stat conclusion" that Boston was 26th in PP conversion, or the posters attempt to validate his earlier opinion that scoring on the PP has no correlation to winning, or do you agree with both.

     

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to BsLegion's comment:

    The only series where the PP was evident is in the SJ - LA series. both team won games because they had 5 on 3 late and in OT.   5 on 3 !!!  this type of PP should have a stat on it's own.

    stevegm,  sure PPs can win you a game, but so does a shorthanded goal (see Ottawa) or any goal for that matter.   In the regular season I find it's important to move up in the standings, refs will call penalties at will but the playoffs , rarely is a win attached to a PP.

     


    This thread is being re-introduced by NAS to again attempt to sell the old, PP doesn't matter.  We went all through this several months ago.  He clearly stated it didn't matter.

    It clearly does matter.  It's just a matter of degree.  You and I are on the same page. 

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment: 

    here's an interesting set of numbers from the playoffs. Here is the 5-on-5 goals for/goals against ratio.



    The majority of the game is played 5x5.  You can bank on that.  You can't bank on powerplay time.  Great stat 1916.

     

    Virtually every single game, teams have a power play.  It's  extremely rare, for a team to go an entire game without one.  Therefore, the above statement is incorrect.

    Oh, come on, steve, you know what he's saying.  You can't bank on sufficient powerplay time to overcome significant deficiencies in other parts of your game, and 5 on 5 proficiency is a better indicator of overall team success because so much more of the game is played 5 on 5.  Given that the best PP in the league this year scored slightly better than one goal every four chances, and they just got bounced in large part because they didn't get enough PP time (just ask Ovechkin), I would think that's fairly defensible.

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment: 

    here's an interesting set of numbers from the playoffs. Here is the 5-on-5 goals for/goals against ratio.



    The majority of the game is played 5x5.  You can bank on that.  You can't bank on powerplay time.  Great stat 1916.

     

    Virtually every single game, teams have a power play.  It's  extremely rare, for a team to go an entire game without one.  Therefore, the above statement is incorrect.

     

     

    Oh, come on, steve, you know what he's saying.  You can't bank on sufficient powerplay time to overcome significant deficiencies in other parts of your game, and 5 on 5 proficiency is a better indicator of overall team success because so much more of the game is played 5 on 5.  Given that the best PP in the league this year scored slightly better than one goal every four chances, and they just got bounced in large part because they didn't get enough PP time (just ask Ovechkin), I would think that's fairly defensible.




    Book, you're getting quite predictable when it comes to jumping to Nas's defense every time he gets called on something.  It's hilarious you would suggest I "know what he's saying", when you're defending the guy whose every other post is either nit picking, or attempting to stir the pot.

    For some strange reason, you came to his rescue when he pointlessly argued "there is no correlation between scoring on the PP and winning", so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

    And you're getting almost as bad as he is for dreaming up defenses to something no ones saying.  Whose saying you can "bank on sufficient pp time to overcome deficiencies in other parts of your game". 

    You just fluckin made that up!  Are you nas's father?

    And... no one ever, ever said the PP was a better indicator of anything !  You made that up too.

    Finally...I can't believe someone who is as "hopelessly analytical" as you say you are....would say something as generic, and unsubstantiated as "lack of PP time", did in the Capitals.  I'd love to hear what a group of hockey insiders would say about that proclamation.

    All anyones ever argued, is that, scoring on the PP, "can, and does" have some "correlation" to winning.

    You were both nuts back then for arguing something so fundamental.  Obviously, you're both still hugely affected by it.

    Get over it.

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    If the Bruins score 2 more PP goals during the 2009, 2010 and 2012 playoffs they move on. NHL team presidents, GMs and coaches talk about having an effective powerplay becuase they know how important it is.

     

    There is a reason that the OP of this thread is not in the front office of an NHL team and it is on every thread started about the powerplay.

     

     

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    I think the place where the numbers get lost is that total powerplay conversion rate is probably not nearly as important as the timing of the conversions.

    A late 3rd period PP goal to increasing a 3 goal lead to a 4 goal lead is not as important as, say, a 3rd period goal to tie the game after just giving up the lead.  The overall conversion rate gives no way to distinguish between these.  Sure, a better powerplay should lead to more timely goals, but that's still missing information.

     

    As a side note, if this thread is going to go more than a couple pages, would it be possible for some consensus about what the points being argued?  Last time, people seemed to be talking past one another about different subjects, more often than not.

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    If the Bruins score 2 more PP goals during the 2009, 2010 and 2012 playoffs they move on. NHL team presidents, GMs and coaches talk about having an effective powerplay becuase they know how important it is.



    Well, that just isn't correct.  How would two powerplay goals in the 2010 Game 2 vs. Philly have helped them win Game 7?

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to DrCC's comment:

    As a side note, if this thread is going to go more than a couple pages, would it be possible for some consensus about what the points being argued?  Last time, people seemed to be talking past one another about different subjects, more often than not.



    Is a powerplay required to be successful?

    Does a good powerplay mean success?

    I say "no" to both questions and have provided general stats to back that up, not to mention the last two Cup winning teams had bad powerplays.

    The proponents of the powerplay's importance have nothing more than "YES IS IT" and "THEY SAY IS SO IT IS" to go on.

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to DrCC's comment:

     

    As a side note, if this thread is going to go more than a couple pages, would it be possible for some consensus about what the points being argued?  Last time, people seemed to be talking past one another about different subjects, more often than not.

     



    Is a powerplay required to be successful?

     

    Does a good powerplay mean success?

    I say "no" to both questions and have provided general stats to back that up, not to mention the last two Cup winning teams had bad powerplays.

    The proponents of the powerplay's importance have nothing more than "YES IS IT" and "THEY SAY IS SO IT IS" to go on.



    Then you're changing your story.  You originally proclaimed there is "no correlation between winning and the powerplay".  That's what the argument was then, and that's why you brought this up today.

    No one has ever argued that a good power play guarantees anything.  This stupidity originally started when you got caught insisting the Bruins would have no better odds of winning, even if their pp improved.  It didn't matter you said.  You have not brought one ounce of logic that would ever support that notion, and the trend continues today.  All you had to do, was admit the pp was maybe a little important, but nope, you couldn't do that.  Amazingly, Bookboy jumped in about that time, to help you defend that lunacy.

    So per Drcc's suggestion, lets re define.  You've always said, "no correlation to winning"....."doesn't matter".  All everyone else has ever done, is attempt to correct you on that.  No ones ever said it's the be all end all.  Nobody';s ever argued the fact that lots of teams have good powerplays, but don't go all the way.  Nobody's argued the point that 2 pp goals in a 7-2 romp are the sole reason a team achieved victory.  All anyone's argued, is that, like success in any special team, or any facet of the game, success on the pp increases ones potential to win.  You would have no part of any of that.  

    Now you're squirming, softening your stance a bit.  OK, you say "a power play is not required"(this is too easy).  Only 1 team in NHL history ever won a 7 game series without 1 pp goal, so that in itself should tell you it's not something to be taken for granted.  No team in NHL history has ever won the Stanley cup with zero pp goals.  Therfore it's indisputable that a pp is pretty much necessary.  All that's left for debate, is how good does that pp need to be.

    2.  Now, you're also saying a "good pp doesn't mean success".  Other than the fact it doesn't make any sense coming in behind your first statement,.. you're suggesting something no ones ever argued.  Of course a pp goal won't guarantee victory, but all we need to do, is review past games, and we can easily pick out many that are won solely because of pp goals. Therfore, "completely dismissing" the potential, and reality of powerplay strikes(which is EXACTLY what you've been doing)in the NHL is factually, and totally incorrect.  Up til now, that's been the whole debate,  your total dismissal.

    All our side ever had to do, was prove it at least had some impact.

     

    At least up til now.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: The Powerplay!

    So how about those Red Sox?

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    If the Bruins score 2 more PP goals during the 2009, 2010 and 2012 playoffs they move on. NHL team presidents, GMs and coaches talk about having an effective powerplay becuase they know how important it is.

    Well, that just isn't correct.  How would two powerplay goals in the 2010 Game 2 vs. Philly have helped them win Game 7?




    Tell your story to people that work for NHL teams, it's not working here.

    Good luck

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    I worry more about Bruins not getting powerplays,seems like every game other team gets double or triple amount of power plays.yes I'm complaining about reffs sory

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    Is a powerplay required to be successful?

     

    Does a good powerplay mean success?

     



    Of course a good powerplay is not required to be successful any more than it be required that the team with the best goalie or best overall player win the cup. Hockey is a team game and a team lives and dies by its overall proficiency in multiple areas.

    What a powerplay does, of course, is increase the chances for a team offensively by having an extra player on the ice while the opponent is stuck on the defensive for a period of time. Thus, the more pp opportunities one team has relative to its opponent, the greater the chances to score.

    Why is this important? Because more chances to score will, in all likelyhood, lead to more goals for teams that can take advantage of their opportunities. And, ultimately, scoring more goals than the other team is the only requirement for success in a hockey game.

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    Seems to me that Special Teams are still a part of the game.  Having an effective PP is a good thing, as is having an effective PK. 

    Not sure what we're arguing here? 

     

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    Steve, the posters seem to be performing exploratory analysis of the current dataset.  Noone intends to submit these 'stats' for peer review. I thought you stated the differences well, Textbook even.  I believe you are correct. I believe the posters are correct in the context of the forum.

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to stevegm's comment:



    Then you're changing your story.  You originally proclaimed there is "no correlation between winning and the powerplay".  That's what the argument was then, and that's why you brought this up today.



    My stance has been the same.  It doesn't matter if the goals come on the powerplay or not.  If a team is great 5x5 and can kill penalties, the powerplay is irrelevant.

    A team at the top of the standings can have a terrible powerplay and it's okay.  It doesn't need to be fixed unless they're constantly giving up goals with the man advantage. 

    No need to complicate it or attempt to pick my words to the bone.  It's very simple. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: The Powerplay!

    So if I'm getting this straight what NAS is saying is that a team with a terrible (I'm guessing bottom 5 or so??) power play and still finish on top. He's provided numbers to prove his theory.

    Now to me, the only way to prove his theory wrong would be to find a team that had terrible 5 X 5 numbers and shared the same success.

    Same for the penalty killing. If neither of those exist, then that means a team with a bad power play can win it all, but teams with terrible 5 on 5 numbers and penalty kill units can't. Thus rendering the power play not as significant as the other two.

    My guess is the teams at the bottom of either of those categories have never shared such success.

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    I've given facts and stats, no spin, showing that teams without a good powerplay are successful.  The last two Cup champs had terrible powerplays. 

    The only thing my detractors say in return is, "But NAS, everyone says it's important!"

    Someone give me stats that support the theory, please!

    If you can score 5x5 and you can keep pucks out of your net, a powerplay is unimportant.  It is important to have a good penalty kill, however, because goals against lose games.  Goals for win games, and if those goals come 5x5, what happens during the powerplay doesn't matter.

    If a team has goes 0 for 3 on the powerplay, that a mere 10% of the game.  What happens during the 90% remaining matters.

    But, you know, "they" say it's detrimental.

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment: 

    here's an interesting set of numbers from the playoffs. Here is the 5-on-5 goals for/goals against ratio.



    The majority of the game is played 5x5.  You can bank on that.  You can't bank on powerplay time.  Great stat 1916.

     

    Virtually every single game, teams have a power play.  It's  extremely rare, for a team to go an entire game without one.  Therefore, the above statement is incorrect.

     

     

    Oh, come on, steve, you know what he's saying.  You can't bank on sufficient powerplay time to overcome significant deficiencies in other parts of your game, and 5 on 5 proficiency is a better indicator of overall team success because so much more of the game is played 5 on 5.  Given that the best PP in the league this year scored slightly better than one goal every four chances, and they just got bounced in large part because they didn't get enough PP time (just ask Ovechkin), I would think that's fairly defensible.


     

    Book, you're getting quite predictable when it comes to jumping to Nas's defense every time he gets called on something.  It's hilarious you would suggest I "know what he's saying", when you're defending the guy whose every other post is either nit picking, or attempting to stir the pot.

    For some strange reason, you came to his rescue when he pointlessly argued "there is no correlation between scoring on the PP and winning", so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

    And you're getting almost as bad as he is for dreaming up defenses to something no ones saying.  Whose saying you can "bank on sufficient pp time to overcome deficiencies in other parts of your game". 

    You just fluckin made that up!  Are you nas's father?

    And... no one ever, ever said the PP was a better indicator of anything !  You made that up too.

    Finally...I can't believe someone who is as "hopelessly analytical" as you say you are....would say something as generic, and unsubstantiated as "lack of PP time", did in the Capitals.  I'd love to hear what a group of hockey insiders would say about that proclamation.

    All anyones ever argued, is that, scoring on the PP, "can, and does" have some "correlation" to winning.

    You were both nuts back then for arguing something so fundamental.  Obviously, you're both still hugely affected by it.

    Get over it.




    Two points then I'm done responding to you.  I find it incomprehensible that you're unable to follow the line of argument in a thread; it's not worth the energy to recap the line of argument every time I respond.

    My post was "defending" bostonfan191646, not NAS.  bostonfan191646 posted the 5on5 stats to show that most of the top teams in 5on5 efficiency are, well, top teams.  He then suggested that this might be a better indicator of success than overall PP rate - in a discussion that started by showing that the distribution of teams having playoff success this year doesn't map out against top PP efficiency rates.  You, predictably, heard your dime drop when NAS commented on bostonfan's post.  Did you read the rest of the thread or just jump in at the end? 

    If you want an "insider" to tell you about the disappearance of the PP opportunities in the Washington series and how that affected the outcome, again, as Alex Ovechkin.  You know him, right?  Had one goal in 7 games - on the PP - after leading the NHL in goals and scoring exactly half of his 32 goals on the PP for the team with the best overall PP% in the league?  That team that got shut out in the final two games of the series?

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    I've given facts and stats, no spin, showing that teams without a good powerplay are successful.  The last two Cup champs had terrible powerplays. 

    The only thing my detractors say in return is, "But NAS, everyone says it's important!"

    Someone give me stats that support the theory, please!

    If you can score 5x5 and you can keep pucks out of your net, a powerplay is unimportant.  It is important to have a good penalty kill, however, because goals against lose games.  Goals for win games, and if those goals come 5x5, what happens during the powerplay doesn't matter.

    If a team has goes 0 for 3 on the powerplay, that a mere 10% of the game.  What happens during the 90% remaining matters.

    But, you know, "they" say it's detrimental.

    Bruins Cup year they had a regular season PK of 82.6%, good for 16th in the NHL.  Improved slightly in the playoff run to 84.4%.  Coincidentally, they ranked 20th in the league in PP%.  Have to ask the question, why again does PK matter, but PP is irrelevant?  Does a goal against your PK count less than a goal against at even-strength?

    That same year, the Canucks ranked 1st in the league in regular season PP% @ 24.3%.  Playoff run dipped to 20.4%.  Think this is an example of a season by a team that was able to leverage a very good PP to help propel their success.  Unless you think going to game 7 in the SCF to be unsuccessful?

    Fairly surprised to see some good hockey minds having such trouble with this.  Situational hockey is an important part of the game.  Additonally, DrCC makes a good point about the importance of timing, much more difficult to quantify.  Can a poor PP be overcome?  Of course it can, no better example than the 2010-11 Bruins.  It is not the lone variable to correlate success, have not seen 1 person argue that it is.  That said, if given the choice between a 20% PP and a 12% PP, guess which one I am choosing?  Sounds like a number of posters would coin-flip on that question.

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:



    Then you're changing your story.  You originally proclaimed there is "no correlation between winning and the powerplay".  That's what the argument was then, and that's why you brought this up today.

     

     



    My stance has been the same.  It doesn't matter if the goals come on the powerplay or not.  If a team is great 5x5 and can kill penalties, the powerplay is irrelevant.

     

    A team at the top of the standings can have a terrible powerplay and it's okay.  It doesn't need to be fixed unless they're constantly giving up goals with the man advantage. 

    No need to complicate it or attempt to pick my words to the bone.  It's very simple. 



    Neither complicating it, or picking you apart NAS.  "Irrelevant" is hopelessly understating a fundamental reality.  The more you try and explain it, the worse it gets.  The Bruins "do" sometimes win, simply because of their PP.  They sometimes lose, strictly due to the oppositions.  Its important.  Improving any special team is a constant work in progress for any NHL club, and choosing to ignore that is unwise.

    Above, you at least infer, the PK is somewhat important.  The only reason a PK would be important...is if someones PP is too.

    What you're saying is exactly the same as , 1 goal should win the game.  As long as you have good team defense and a good goalie, scoring multiple goals is unneccessary.  While this is true in some situations, it's not smart to ignore scoring.

    I really don't like arguing this, but as long as there is potential for one hockey fan to buy in to this flawed logic, I'll keep on going. 

    I'm absolutely certain, 30 NHL coaches, 30 NHL managers, and every single assistant coach and GM in the league, would forcefully dismiss the notion that,  good teams "can have a terrible PP and it's ok".

    When you're the best in the world, any shortcoming that can be pointed out, gets considerable focus, and it should.  This is really fundamental.

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    So if I'm getting this straight what NAS is saying is that a team with a terrible (I'm guessing bottom 5 or so??) power play and still finish on top. He's provided numbers to prove his theory.

    Now to me, the only way to prove his theory wrong would be to find a team that had terrible 5 X 5 numbers and shared the same success.

    Same for the penalty killing. If neither of those exist, then that means a team with a bad power play can win it all, but teams with terrible 5 on 5 numbers and penalty kill units can't. Thus rendering the power play not as significant as the other two.

    My guess is the teams at the bottom of either of those categories have never shared such success.



    There's no debate whether anyone "can" win with a poor PP Kel.  It's happenned.  There's been no debate about which is "better",  5 on 5, the PK, or the PP either.

    The debate isn't about any of that.  We know Boston and LA won the Cup with PP's below the norm.  We also know that a great PP will not gurantee a win, or a great any ONE thing for that matter.  No one's arguing FOR....anything.  They're just arguing AGAINST the notion that the PP means nothing.

    Nas's  "theory", is that the PP is inconsequential.  "Irrelevant", in his words, and he goes on to say a "top team can have a terrible pp, and it's OK".  the numbers he's provided, have NOT backed this up. 

    This debate is, and has been about 2 very seprate and distinct philosophies, and one can only be on one side or the other,.. no gray area here at all.

    Either one agrees that the Powerplay is "irrelevant", or one doesn't.  Pick your poison.

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    I've given facts and stats, no spin, showing that teams without a good powerplay are successful.  The last two Cup champs had terrible powerplays. 

    The only thing my detractors say in return is, "But NAS, everyone says it's important!"

    Someone give me stats that support the theory, please!

    If you can score 5x5 and you can keep pucks out of your net, a powerplay is unimportant.  It is important to have a good penalty kill, however, because goals against lose games.  Goals for win games, and if those goals come 5x5, what happens during the powerplay doesn't matter.

    If a team has goes 0 for 3 on the powerplay, that a mere 10% of the game.  What happens during the 90% remaining matters.

    But, you know, "they" say it's detrimental.

     

     

    Bruins Cup year they had a regular season PK of 82.6%, good for 16th in the NHL.  Improved slightly in the playoff run to 84.4%.  Coincidentally, they ranked 20th in the league in PP%.  Have to ask the question, why again does PK matter, but PP is irrelevant?  Does a goal against your PK count less than a goal against at even-strength?

    That same year, the Canucks ranked 1st in the league in regular season PP% @ 24.3%.  Playoff run dipped to 20.4%.  Think this is an example of a season by a team that was able to leverage a very good PP to help propel their success.  Unless you think going to game 7 in the SCF to be unsuccessful?

    Fairly surprised to see some good hockey minds having such trouble with this.  Situational hockey is an important part of the game.  Additonally, DrCC makes a good point about the importance of timing, much more difficult to quantify.  Can a poor PP be overcome?  Of course it can, no better example than the 2010-11 Bruins.  It is not the lone variable to correlate success, have not seen 1 person argue that it is.  That said, if given the choice between a 20% PP and a 12% PP, guess which one I am choosing?  Sounds like a number of posters would coin-flip on that question.



    The PK is someone elses PP, so to place emphasis on one and not the other, is contradictory.

    Frustrating thing for me Crowls, is I don't think they're "having trouble with it" at all.  

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

    Fairly surprised to see some good hockey minds having such trouble with this.  Situational hockey is an important part of the game. 

    Frustrating thing for me Crowls, is I don't think they're "having trouble with it" at all.  



    I hear you Steve, starting to wonder the same thing. 

    Did you know that the LA Kings ranked 29th in regular season blocked shots LY?  The Devils were 30th?  The B's were 15th in blocked shots in 2010-11.  Chicago was 17th in 2009-10.

    Somebody tell Boychuk to get the heck out of the way!

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: The Powerplay!

    All that matters is that you score more than your opponent.  It does't matter how or when you score them. If anything in the playoffs, some refs become hesitent to call what they consider "weak" penalties.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share