View Single Post
Old
08-18-2010, 01:46 PM
  #11
ThomasJ13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
So the team had a consistent goal scoring threat on the wing? They were solid with the transition game and had zero need for a PMD? Those are two huge glaring holes that were never addressed by the FO. Agree or not, but facts are facts, and it was more than obvious to most that they lacked both of those things. They got the scoring winger in Horton this offseason (we hope), but still are lacking a PMD, and to me, Hunwick isn't the answer.

As for the injury thing, you play with who you have, and no contrived stat like GVT or VORP is going to change that. At the end of the day some guys played hurt. How do you figure their value in a GVT type scenario? It certainly impacted their effectiveness, yet they played meaning their GVT would also be impacted, while not counting games lost to inury. Also, saying Trent Whitfield (or Marchand) was the ultimate replacement for Savard is laughable. The guy played all of 16 games for the B's last year, regardless of what he scored. Players shifted up.

Besides, Bergeron's value increased last year from the previous season because he took on a different roll other than shut down center when Savard got hurt. The GVT discussed here didn't take into account their historical performance either, it was based only on last year. It said that Bergeron slid into Savy's spot and Whitfield took PB's. What it lacks is the context to say while playing a defensive role PB scored at X and while playing a more offensive role, he scored at Y. But yet it draws a conclusion of what PB's value was over the course of the season and over his time missed. To me, this is flawed. Whatever role he was playing would be a variable and his GVT would certainly be impacted based on what he was being asked to do, right? And finally, the writer himself says the net result is merely a 2/3 goal (on average) difference over the course of the season. Is that really an impactful number over that span? Strangely enough, the writer included Morris, and the reason Morris missed that percentage of games was due to trade not injury. Again that shows flawed logic to me, and on the flip side did he include Seidenberg's numbers too? Wouldn't Morris' time have been taken by Seids, and what was the drop off or increase in their respective GVT? So basically, if you have to slice the stats to fit an argument, clearly that argument is flawed, no?

To put it in a more simple term, go and look at the team offensively under Julien's tenure. See what season is the statistical anomaly and you'll see your answer about their scoring last year versus previous seasons.
Offensively challenged as constructed? Without a doubt. Most saw that coming into the season. As bad as what they showed offensively in 09-10? Questionable, IMO. I'm just not willing to attribute all of the offensive drop-off to team construction, talent, Julien, heart and desire, while summarily dismissing injuries entirely as some whiny excuse.

The one way that I could be persuaded into the 'injury discussions are for babies" camp is if there was some kind of objective analysis that compared each team's injury fates, and showed that the 09-10 Bruins were not significantly off the league median. I'm not sure such an analysis exists (man-games lost is a joke, and you have pointed out some flaws in this system), so I am again left wondering why non-Bruin hockey fans seem to give more weight to the Bruins' 09-10 injuries than many Bruin fans...

ThomasJ13 is offline   Reply With Quote