The Powerplay!

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:


    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!



    Mock the idea all you want, Crowls, but also continue to fail to provide any data that shows the importance of a good powerplay.

     
  2. 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 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?

     

      stevegm response 

    Bookboy, I get quite animated when reasonably intelligent people choose filibuster and irrelevance over the wiser option of consideration, or the other tried and true, when one is too stubborn to admit a more logical approach.  Silence.

    I certainly "am" following the line of argument here, and I'm incensed you'd reach so to suggest otherwise.  Where in the world did that come from?  Disgusting.  I will attack flawed logic fairly aggressively, especially when I know it's coming from someone who should know better.  I won't stoop to absolute chicanary in an attempt to make myself appear right.

    If your post was defending Bostonfan, you're the one needing reading lessons.  Usually people respond to "comments".  The hi-lited wasn't a comment to Bostonfan.  I was responding to Nas's comment, and your comment was regarding my response to nas.  If your response to me, was in regard to something bostonfan said....you made a mistake.  And your "dime drop" arrogance is incorrect as well.  I'll await your apology on both.  I went to considerable effort to respectfully and mindfully add to Bostonfans "stats".  Appears he doesn't have a big problem.  If you do, maybe you should stick to topic and point out precisely what you disagree with, instead of making generic, baseless attacks on me.

    Also, I never argued the reality of those "disappearing PP opportunities".  I instead strongly argued the notion that "they got bounced in large part, because they didn't get enough PP time."  That's nowhere near, "in large part".  At best, it's one very small factor.  Arera's that reasonable people would consider "large", would be the play of Lundquist, overall Ranger team defence, Washingtons sudden inability to score "Any" goals, let alone PP goals.  When a team gets shut out 2 games in a row, no sensible person ever chooses to hi-lite their pp as the main cause. 

    Washingtons inability to procure PP time is no bigger story than the Rangers "discipline", in avoiding stupid penalties, and we all know....that ain't much of a story when summarizing the entire series.

    We can go further.  Of the 7 games between the Rangers and Washington, the first 5 were all impacted by PP goals.  That's hardly insignificant, it borders on huge.

    Finally, your irrelevant, arrogant, condescending Ovechkin comment has been noted.  It hit home while reading your entire pointless final paragraph.

     

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

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

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:


    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!

     



    Mock the idea all you want, Crowls, but also continue to fail to provide any data that shows the importance of a good powerplay.

     



    Cited two examples re: B's PK% & Canucks PP% in previous post.

     
  4. 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:

    Also, I never argued the reality of those "disappearing PP opportunities".  I instead strongly argued the notion that "they got bounced in large part, because they didn't get enough PP time."  That's nowhere near, "in large part".  At best, it's one very small factor.  Arera's that reasonable people would consider "large", would be the play of Lundquist, overall Ranger team defence, Washingtons sudden inability to score "Any" goals, let alone PP goals.  When a team gets shut out 2 games in a row, no sensible person ever chooses to hi-lite their pp as the main cause.



    I've read this a few times.  Doesn't this say that the powerplay wasn't important?

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:


    Cited two examples re: B's PK% & Canucks PP% in previous post.



    The Canucks had a good powerplay percentage and got to the Cup final.

    The Bruins didn't have a good playerplay percentage and got to the Cup final.

    What does that prove?

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

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

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

     


    Cited two examples re: B's PK% & Canucks PP% in previous post.

     



    The Canucks had a good powerplay percentage and got to the Cup final.

     

    The Bruins didn't have a good playerplay percentage and got to the Cup final.

    What does that prove?


    You said that I didn't provided any data, I did.  Doesn't fit your arguement, so you want to dismiss it.

    More data points:

    2010-11: Canucks SCF ranking 1st in regular-season PP%

    2009-10: Flyers SCF ranking 3rd in regular-season PP%

    2008-09: Wings SCF ranking 1st in regular-season PP%

    2007-08: Wings win Cup ranking 3rd in regular-season PP% (Pens SCF w/ 4th ranked PP%)

    2006-07: Ducks win Cup ranking 3rd in regular-season PP%

     

    So, in the last 6 seasons, 50% of the teams in the SCF have had a regular-season PP% ranked in the top-4. 

     
  7. 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 Crowls2424's comment:


    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!

     



    Mock the idea all you want, Crowls, but also continue to fail to provide any data that shows the importance of a good powerplay.

     



    NAS, you've been shown tons, you just don't appear interested in considering it.  Here's a couple more.

     Washington vs New York.  May 2013   Washington wins the game in O/T on a PP goal.  Any PP that results in a goal for...is widely considered  "good" . 

    Boston vs Toronto  May 2013.  Boston squeaks a win by scoring 2 pp goals.

     

    In both examples, if the pp goals are subtracted, so is the win.  These are concrete examples.  Your stats at the beginning of this thread, although correct, don't diminish the potential of the PP.

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    Stand up in a meeting with NHL coaches, assistant coaches, general manager(s), scouts, ex-players that are now in the front ofiice and declare that "a good powerplay is useless".

                   "Please go enjoy the left over donuts in the break room"

    Is the answer you will get and deservedly so.

     
  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 stevegm's comment:

     

    Also, I never argued the reality of those "disappearing PP opportunities".  I instead strongly argued the notion that "they got bounced in large part, because they didn't get enough PP time."  That's nowhere near, "in large part".  At best, it's one very small factor.  Arera's that reasonable people would consider "large", would be the play of Lundquist, overall Ranger team defence, Washingtons sudden inability to score "Any" goals, let alone PP goals.  When a team gets shut out 2 games in a row, no sensible person ever chooses to hi-lite their pp as the main cause.

     



    I've read this a few times.  Doesn't this say that the powerplay wasn't important?

     



    Don't think so.  Just disagreeing that pp "opportunities" was the biggest reason for their demise.  The pp had already won them a game in that series.  Can't be expected to win all of them.

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

    2011-12:  Kings win Cup ranking 17th in regular season PP%

    2011-12:  Devils SCF ranking 14th in regular season PP%

    2010-11: Canucks SCF ranking 1st in regular-season PP%

    2010-11:  Bruins win Cup ranking 20th in regular-season PP%

    2009-10: Flyers SCF ranking 3rd in regular-season PP%

    2009-10:  Chicago win Cup ranking 16th in regular-seaosn PP%

    2008-09: Wings SCF ranking 1st in regular-season PP%

    2008-09:  Pittsburgh win Cup ranking 20th in regular season PP%.

    2007-08: Wings win Cup ranking 3rd in regular-season PP% (Pens SCF w/ 4th ranked PP%)

    2006-07: Ducks win Cup ranking 3rd in regular-season PP%

    2006-07:  Ottawa SCF ranking 14th in regular season PP%

    So, in the last 6 seasons, 50% of the teams in the SCF have had a regular-season PP% ranked in the top-4. 



    And in the last six seasons, 50% of the teams in the SCF have had a regular season PP% ranked 14th or worse.

    Why stop at six years?

    '06:  14th and 17th (<--- Oh, that's why!)

    Rules change here, but let's see anyway.

    '04:  16th and 21st

    '03:  16th and 30th

    '02:  2nd and 12th

    '01:  1st and 3rd

    '00:  3rd and 17th

    '99:  6th and 21st

    '98:  6th and 13th

    What does this show?  It shows me that a good powerplay is not needed to be successful.

     
  11. 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:

    Stand up in a meeting with NHL coaches, assistant coaches, general manager(s), scouts, ex-players that are now in the front ofiice and declare that "a good powerplay is useless".

                   "Please go enjoy the left over donuts in the break room"

    Is the answer you will get and deservedly so.

     




    This is all you ever say about it.  "But, but, but THEY say it's important!"

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    An individual good powerplay in a single game and a statistically good powerplay over a long stretch of time are different entities.

    Is someone actually arguing that scoring a powerplay goal in an specific game won't help win the game?  Because that's not what I've been getting out of it.

     
  13. 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:

    An individual good powerplay in a single game and a statistically good powerplay over a long stretch of time are different entities.

    Is someone actually arguing that scoring a powerplay goal in an specific game won't help win the game?  Because that's not what I've been getting out of it.




    Not me.  A goal is a goal and any goal is a good good.  My point is that a team doesn't need powerplay goals (or even worse, a high powerplay percentage) to be successful. 

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

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

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

     

    2011-12:  Kings win Cup ranking 17th in regular season PP%

    2011-12:  Devils SCF ranking 14th in regular season PP%

    2010-11: Canucks SCF ranking 1st in regular-season PP%

    2010-11:  Bruins win Cup ranking 20th in regular-season PP%

    2009-10: Flyers SCF ranking 3rd in regular-season PP%

    2009-10:  Chicago win Cup ranking 16th in regular-seaosn PP%

    2008-09: Wings SCF ranking 1st in regular-season PP%

    2008-09:  Pittsburgh win Cup ranking 20th in regular season PP%.

    2007-08: Wings win Cup ranking 3rd in regular-season PP% (Pens SCF w/ 4th ranked PP%)

    2006-07: Ducks win Cup ranking 3rd in regular-season PP%

    2006-07:  Ottawa SCF ranking 14th in regular season PP%

    So, in the last 6 seasons, 50% of the teams in the SCF have had a regular-season PP% ranked in the top-4. 

     



    And in the last six seasons, 50% of the teams in the SCF have had a regular season PP% ranked 14th or worse.

     

    Why stop at six years?

    '06:  14th and 17th (<--- Oh, that's why!)

    Rules change here, but let's see anyway.

    '04:  16th and 21st

    '03:  16th and 30th

    '02:  2nd and 12th

    '01:  1st and 3rd

    '00:  3rd and 17th

    '99:  6th and 21st

    '98:  6th and 13th

    What does this show?  It shows me that a good powerplay is not needed to be successful.



    Not a requirement, but sure can help. 

    Even as you dismiss the fact the 50% of SCF teams over the past 6 years have had an elite PP, you are blind to the fact that the data you provided demonstrates that 100% of the the SCF over the past 6 years had a PP in the top 2/3 of the league.  67% of those teams had a PP in the top 50%.

    Doesn't the data suggest that it is unlikely to make a SCF with a bottom-3rd PP?

    Hardly irrelevent.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: The Powerplay!

    I think the debate is about the degree of a PP's importance to team success.

    I dont think anybody is arguing that a good PP doesnt help a team.

    As is usually the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle (Its more important than the people who are arguing that the importance of a PP is overrated make it seem, but less important than the people who are countering the arguement make it seem). 

    -NeutralDrewski5

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:


    Not a requirement, but sure can help. 

    Even as you dismiss the fact the 50% of SCF teams over the past 6 years have had an elite PP, you are blind to the fact that the data you provided demonstrates that 100% of the the SCF over the past 6 years had a PP in the top 2/3 of the league.  67% of those teams had a PP in the top 50%.

    Doesn't the data suggest that it is unlikely to make a SCF with a bottom-3rd PP?

    Hardly irrelevent.



    Being in the Top 20 of a list of 30 isn't anything to hang a hat on. 

    Of the teams with a bottom third powerplay, how many of them were awful teams? 

    Maybe a way to look at it is, "You don't need a good powerplay to be a good team".  Is that fair?

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to DrCC's comment:

    An individual good powerplay in a single game and a statistically good powerplay over a long stretch of time are different entities.

    Is someone actually arguing that scoring a powerplay goal in an specific game won't help win the game?  Because that's not what I've been getting out of it.

    stevegm

    The other camp is saying the PP is "irrelevant", so they're covering off everything.  We really don't need to go very deep into this.  

    This months old debate is a great example of how the misuse of statistical significance can alter ones sense of reality.  Every time one changes the information for input...the results change.  The object is to get enough data to accurately summarize what's happened to this point, when planning ahead, or breaking things down from the past.

    If you want to analyze why a team won or lost something, you consider everything as compared to the base line.  You don't look to the past to draw conclusions about the game....you look at the game "over" the base line(past) to draw your conclusions.

    The fundamental problem with dismissing the potential of the PP, is in the refusal to understand it isn't a constant.  Your teams pp, the other teams pp, can, and from time to time, actually dictate the results of a game.

    A team with a poor average PP, that wins a 1 goal game with 2 pp goals..."on that night", is not a team with a poor pp.  They're actually a really, really good pp team.

    In the 2011 Stanley Cup finals, Vancouver converted on 25% of it's pp's.  Because thats a high percentage, and because Vancouver didn't win the cup, NAS uses this kind of stat to say the pp doesn't matter.  That's coming to an incorrect conclusion.  

    Now the Bruins in 11.  They did the opposite of Vancouver.  They overachieved their baseline in many,many of those same categories.  Boston indeed had a good PP(23%es).  Short hand strikes were an astronomical(14%).  Average scoring was up over the base,  and GAA was below.  Statistically, one can be right in saying the B's won a cup with a poor PP, however, a more detailed analysis shows that's also not really true.

    The key to this argument, is merely pointing out the folly in assuming the PP "doesn't matter".  It does.  We could argue into eternity how much it matters, but pointing out the fact of "some" relevance is really easy. 

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    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

     



    Or...

     

    6 of the 7 bottom PP teams DID NOT make the playoffs,

    where as 

    5 of the 7 top PP did make the playoffs. 

     

    I am a believer that the pp makes it easier on a team to win games. Not essential as we all know, but the extra goal here and there might allow teams with less depth than a team like the Bruins to roll 4 lines more, rest top talent late in the game, etc....

    Don't know how to find it out, but what has the Detroit's PP been like over the last 15 years? I think we can safely say they are as close to seting the bar as any team has been during that period, so over an extended period, has their PP help them consistantly be an elite team? 

     

     

     
  19. 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:

    In the 2011 Stanley Cup finals, Vancouver converted on 25% of it's pp's.  Because thats a high percentage, and because Vancouver didn't win the cup, NAS uses this kind of stat to say the pp doesn't matter.  That's coming to an incorrect conclusion. 



    Wrong.  I haven't stated that the powerplay is irrelevant because Vancouver lost with a high percentage.  I've stated that is is irrelevant because the Bruins and Kings won with a low percentage.  Big difference.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: The Powerplay!

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

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:

     


    Not a requirement, but sure can help. 

    Even as you dismiss the fact the 50% of SCF teams over the past 6 years have had an elite PP, you are blind to the fact that the data you provided demonstrates that 100% of the the SCF over the past 6 years had a PP in the top 2/3 of the league.  67% of those teams had a PP in the top 50%.

    Doesn't the data suggest that it is unlikely to make a SCF with a bottom-3rd PP?

    Hardly irrelevent.

     



    Being in the Top 20 of a list of 30 isn't anything to hang a hat on. 

     

    Of the teams with a bottom third powerplay, how many of them were awful teams? 

    Maybe a way to look at it is, "You don't need a good powerplay to be a good team".  Is that fair?



    I see a good PP as kind of like a safety net.  Kind of like a baseball pitcher.  If you throw 99, you can afford to throw a fastball when the count doesnt warrant it, or throw a fastball that gets too much plate. If you throw 89, you have to be perfect.  You have to mix up your pitches very well, and have pinpoint location.

    If you dont have a great PP (like the Bruins in 2011 or the Rangers in 2013), you have to be very good in all other areas.  You need top goaltending, 5 on 5 dominance, and a great PK.  However, if you have a great PP, you can afford a goaltender who lets one through once in a while, a team that doesnt always play a full 60...

    You can win the cup without a good PP, but you have to be rock solid in all other facets.  If you have a good PP, you can afford a minor slip up here and there.  I bolded minor because I am certainly not implying that a good PP can compensate for porous goaltending, a team that consistently shows up for 40/60 minutes...

    Just my opinion

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

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    I think the debate is about the degree of a PP's importance to team success.

    I dont think anybody is arguing that a good PP doesnt help a team.

    As is usually the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle (Its more important than the people who are arguing that the importance of a PP is overrated make it seem, but less important than the people who are countering the arguement make it seem). 

    -NeutralDrewski5




    No it's not Drew.  When someone proclaims the PP is "irrelevant"....it's pretty obvious what they mean.  The "degree" of importance is not part of this whatsoever, and both sides have clearly shown that.

    No one is "overrating" the pp.  I f you read through, you'll see that is very, very clear.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: The Powerplay!

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    I think the debate is about the degree of a PP's importance to team success.

    I dont think anybody is arguing that a good PP doesnt help a team.

    As is usually the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle (Its more important than the people who are arguing that the importance of a PP is overrated make it seem, but less important than the people who are countering the arguement make it seem). 

    -NeutralDrewski5

     




     

    No it's not Drew.  When someone proclaims the PP is "irrelevant"....it's pretty obvious what they mean.  The "degree" of importance is not part of this whatsoever, and both sides have clearly shown that.

    No one is "overrating" the pp.  I f you read through, you'll see that is very, very clear.




    Disagree.  I say sh*t I dont mean all the time.  Terrible but very common character flaw.  Im working on it.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: The Powerplay!

    Maybe some posters said that a PP is irrelevant, but if they are generally good posters, they were probably either fired up or using hyperbole to make a point.

    I said a bunch of stuff I tried to backpeddle away from in the Iginla thread.  We (you and I) had it out, but after I calmed, and was able to articulate my thoughts w/ a cool head, we realized that we both had great points and werent as far off in opinion as we thought.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: The Powerplay!

    On page 6, I was literally posting:

    I know what I posted on page 3, but this is what I mean...Disregard that other stuff, I was fired up....Sorry.

     
  25. 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:

     

    In the 2011 Stanley Cup finals, Vancouver converted on 25% of it's pp's.  Because thats a high percentage, and because Vancouver didn't win the cup, NAS uses this kind of stat to say the pp doesn't matter.  That's coming to an incorrect conclusion. 

     



    Wrong.  I haven't stated that the powerplay is irrelevant because Vancouver lost with a high percentage.  I've stated that is is irrelevant because the Bruins and Kings won with a low percentage.  Big difference.

     


    Didn't say that NAS.  I said you used logic consistent with that.  C'mon now, surely you realize...."irrelevance"....is hardly achieved when only 2 teams in the games history pull off something that's never been accomplished before. 

    You're also choosing to ignore the B's had a very deadly pp against Vancouver.

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share