View Single Post
Old
08-18-2010, 01:24 PM
  #15
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 24,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasJ13 View Post
Truth be known, there are probably just as many (if not more) "injuries ruined are season" Bruin fans than there are "injures are for babies" Bruin fans. If your criterion for proper analysis of this subject lies in whether or not the analyst has watched all of the Bruins games, then what's the next step? If 90% of the folks in here said that injuries were inconsequential to the 09-10 season, I wouldn't really care what a Sabre fan thought. But that isn't the case, at least from what I've heard and read. There are plenty of Bruins fans, who watched every game, who think that injuries played a significant role. It has nothing to do with my personal opinion - just a quest for more information on an interesting topic.

Just as I am wary of knee-jerk "injuries ruined are season" mantras, I am also somewhat wary of "injuries are an excuse" mantras from fans perhaps more interested in establishing their cred and 'objectivity' than being reasonable. Not saying this is you, you are obviously a knowledgeable fan. But I've long suspected that there are those in any teams fanbase who revel in taking a contrarian, extreme position to distance themselves as far as possible from what they perceive as the "[insert color] glasses wearing koolaid crowd," so much so that their own objectivity might be tainted.

That's why I like to listen to outside opinions and see (where possible) outside statistical analyses on these kinds of subjects. Just gives another perspective amidst the noise.
The main reason I bring up the amount of time spent following the team as a criteria for having a knowledgeable opinion is mainly due to having to view the team before and after the injuries to really understand the impact they had. Even before their players started getting hurt it was pretty evident that this team lacked something. They played uninspired hockey, lacked emotion, were too easily hemmed into their own zone for long stretches, couldn't convert on scoring chances, etc...

The injuries certainly made it more apparent (and challenging), but even while fully healthy they still had glaring holes in their game, IMO. So to me, if you didn't see them play regularly, you could easily chalk up their struggles to injury, which would be easy to do, but inaccurate. If fans of the team are honest with themselves, it was clear that the team was just lacking from the get go. However, when they started to play with some emotion, down the stretch run and into the playoffs, the team got on a roll and performed at a much higher level than before despite missing their leading scorer in Sturm and Seidenberg during this time. That all comes down to heart to me, which is why I tend to be dismissive about injuries being the main factor for their struggles last year.

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote