Re: The Powerplay!
posted at 5/20/2013 3:31 PM EDT
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.