HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Hawks PK - first impressions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-25-2013, 11:04 PM
  #51
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
17% actually outside of 5 and 4/3's and an own goal.
Lol.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:04 PM
  #52
Martini*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
Considering those units had 110, 109 point seasons from Ovechkin, a 101 point season from Backstrom, a 73 and 76 point season from Mike Green, and a 97 point season from Datsyuk... Yea, again... I'd say you're in a bit over your head.
Wow.

Never thought I would see such on this forum.

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:05 PM
  #53
Chris Hansen
THESE LEGS ARE FRESH
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
The Hawks are currently producing at a 4.8% higher clip than the best powerplay of the past decade. Sample size I know, but his original claim was that our PP looked "bad".
Whoops, for some reason I thought they were at 22% right now.


The powerplay has looked a good deal better than last year's. Much more movement, and while the net presence hasn't been perfect, at least guys are there. Shaw and Stalberg, namely. They'll get better at it with some time.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:05 PM
  #54
Martini*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
Lol.
Really? Where are the statistics wrong?

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:06 PM
  #55
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 31,438
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
You can keep stating that, but it doesn't change the fact that everything you've said in this thread has been debunked.

But please, continue to misconstrue the data as if your cherry picked stats that don't apply to another single team in the league with such a minute sample size have any basis in reality.

Still waiting on why we should have the single greatest man advantage powerplay since the 70's Canadiens.

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:07 PM
  #56
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 31,438
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
Wow.

Never thought I would see such on this forum.
What does this even mean?

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:09 PM
  #57
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
Really? Where are the statistics wrong?
The own goal was a deflection off a stick that was going in regardless. You make it sound like a Dallas player took the Sharp pass, controlled it and then fired it into his own net. That pass was going to result in a goal regardless.

As for the rest of the nit-picking, I could care less. 22% without the 5-on-3 and 4-on-3 goals. 22%. Not 17, 22.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:13 PM
  #58
Martini*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
You can keep stating that, but it doesn't change the fact that everything you've said in this thread has been debunked.

But please, continue to misconstrue the data as if your cherry picked stats that don't apply to another single team in the league with such a minute sample size have any basis in reality.

Still waiting on why we should have the single greatest man advantage powerplay since the 70's Canadiens.
There is no cherry picking stats here. Take away three of the Hawks PP goals, one gimmie goal, one at a two man advantage, and one on a 4/3, thats how you tell just how good the Hawks PP has been. Thats three almost gimmie goals there and puts the PP at 17%.

Just being objectionable with statistics provided. You cannot expect the Hawks to get 5/3 every other game, nor can you expect teams to give up own goals every game. If you dont look deeper into the statistics provided, sooner rather then later many here will be saying just how bad the PP is.

I just beat everybody else to the punch on this one.

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:17 PM
  #59
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 31,438
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
There is no cherry picking stats here. Take away three of the Hawks PP goals, one gimmie goal, one at a two man advantage, and one on a 4/3, thats how you tell just how good the Hawks PP has been. Thats three almost gimmie goals there and puts the PP at 17%.

Just being objectionable with statistics provided. You cannot expect the Hawks to get 5/3 every other game, nor can you expect teams to give up own goals every game. If you dont look deeper into the statistics provided, sooner rather then later many here will be saying just how bad the PP is.

I just beat everybody else to the punch on this one.
I just.... I don't even...

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:18 PM
  #60
Cullksinikers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 'Merica
Country: United States
Posts: 15,173
vCash: 500
I haven't gone through this mess, but is Martini saying the PK has been good or bad?

Cullksinikers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:18 PM
  #61
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 31,438
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
There is no cherry picking stats here. Take away three of the Hawks PP goals, one gimmie goal, one at a two man advantage, and one on a 4/3, thats how you tell just how good the Hawks PP has been. Thats three almost gimmie goals there and puts the PP at 17%.

Just being objectionable with statistics provided. You cannot expect the Hawks to get 5/3 every other game, nor can you expect teams to give up own goals every game. If you dont look deeper into the statistics provided, sooner rather then later many here will be saying just how bad the PP is.

I just beat everybody else to the punch on this one.
Like when Nick Leddy didn't make the team?

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:18 PM
  #62
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 31,438
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cullksinikers View Post
I haven't gone through this mess, but is Martini saying the PK has been good or bad?
In full blown make absolute no sense, the argument is about our PP.

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:19 PM
  #63
RayP
Registered Dad
 
RayP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Atlanta
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 67,837
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cullksinikers View Post
I haven't gone through this mess, but is Martini saying the PK has been good or bad?
I've been keeping up, and I have absolutely no idea what he is trying to say. I think his new tactic is to just confuse the hell out of everyone so no one can say he is wrong.

RayP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:20 PM
  #64
Cullksinikers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 'Merica
Country: United States
Posts: 15,173
vCash: 500
How can one ***** and moan about a PP that potted three the last game and scored a PP goal in the other three games, too? It doesn't matter how you get them if you are putting the puck in the back of the net.

Cullksinikers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:21 PM
  #65
Martini*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
The own goal was a deflection off a stick that was going in regardlessYou make it sound like a Dallas player took the Sharp pass, controlled it and then fired it into his own net. That pass was going to result in a goal regardless.

No it wasnt. You had Stalberg on the other end and even then it would have been 50/50 if he could have touched the puck and I am being generous with that. Pure speculation with the end result being an own goal. Not that I dont mind, mind you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
As for the rest of the nit-picking, I could care less. 22% without the 5-on-3 and 4-on-3 goals. 22%. Not 17, 22.
I refuse to could the own goal.

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:21 PM
  #66
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
There is no cherry picking stats here. Take away three of the Hawks PP goals, one gimmie goal, one at a two man advantage, and one on a 4/3, thats how you tell just how good the Hawks PP has been. Thats three almost gimmie goals there and puts the PP at 17%.

Just being objectionable with statistics provided. You cannot expect the Hawks to get 5/3 every other game, nor can you expect teams to give up own goals every game. If you dont look deeper into the statistics provided, sooner rather then later many here will be saying just how bad the PP is.

I just beat everybody else to the punch on this one.
The third "gimme goal" goes from a shouldn't count "own goal" to now a "gimme" because you were so, so, soo wrong in your orginal portraying of what happened on that goal? Lol. That "gimme goal" was on a 5-on-4 and it was created by excellent puck-movement by Kane and Sharp. Plain and simple. Why are you trying so hard when you're so clearly wrong? Why do you continue to stick to trying to take away that one extra goal?

22% Marty.. 22%. Just move on.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:23 PM
  #67
Cullksinikers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 'Merica
Country: United States
Posts: 15,173
vCash: 500
Calling Sharp's PP goal that deflected off Daley an "own goal" when you consider that if Daley doesn't make an attempt to stop it or get it out of harm's way, Stalberg has a tap-in goal is foolish.

Cullksinikers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:24 PM
  #68
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post

No it wasnt. You had Stalberg on the other end and even then it would have been 50/50 if he could have touched the puck and I am being generous with that. Pure speculation with the end result being an own goal. Not that I dont mind, mind you.

I refuse to could the own goal.
Dear lord. It's just funny at this point Marts. Not "Ha ha" funny, mind you.. more "Why?" funny, if y'know what I mean.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:25 PM
  #69
Cullksinikers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 'Merica
Country: United States
Posts: 15,173
vCash: 500
The power play has proven it can succeed in all situations. It can succeed 5-on-4, 5-on-3, or 4-on-3. It can also succeed when we need one to get back in it, tie the game, extend a lead, or win the game. All of this has happened this year. A power play goal in each of the first four games and three the last. Scores off these have come in various different manners, different times, with different personnel, and different number of players on the ice. For anyone to say the seventh best power play in the league right now is getting lucky or isn't worth of praise can GTFO.

Cullksinikers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:26 PM
  #70
Martini*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
Like when Nick Leddy didn't make the team?

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:29 PM
  #71
Chris Hansen
THESE LEGS ARE FRESH
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
There is no cherry picking stats here. Take away three of the Hawks PP goals, one gimmie goal, one at a two man advantage, and one on a 4/3, thats how you tell just how good the Hawks PP has been. Thats three almost gimmie goals there and puts the PP at 17%.
"There is no cherry picking stats here."
*Cherry picks stats in next sentence*

Beautiful.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:32 PM
  #72
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
Oh no! A turnover that neither Leddy or Roszival reacted well too? Welp.. there goes Leddy's career. Back to the AHL with you Ledds.. that is.. if you can survive. I've heard rumors that guys like Leddy and Kruger wouldn't survive in the AHL. It's too.. manly; too.. rough.

OOOHHHHH! The horror! Why Chicago! Why are you sending poor Nick Leddy to the A...

Wait... What? Nick Leddy's been playing very well in Chicago? He's not getting sent down? He's on a 4-game point streak?!?


HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:34 PM
  #73
Cullksinikers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 'Merica
Country: United States
Posts: 15,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
You are blaming Nick Leddy for Rozy's egregious turnover?

Please, for the love of all that is holy, get some perspective and learn more about the game of hockey and stop holding unnecessary personal grudges against 21-year-old kids making obvious strides in their game.

Cullksinikers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:36 PM
  #74
Chris Hansen
THESE LEGS ARE FRESH
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,540
vCash: 500
Leddy was in the correct position to begin with on that play. Outlet for Roszival (and one that he should have used, evidently). That goal was completely on Roszival.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 12:00 AM
  #75
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,696
vCash: 500
I am just waiting for Martini to blame global warming on Leddy too.

Plus I love how a gimme goal doesn't count, last time I checked the team created the gimme goal but it doesn't count because it was easy to score, so I guess the only goals that count are ones that are hard to score.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:19 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.