View Single Post
Old
06-22-2011, 09:21 AM
  #110
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScopeHockey View Post
They were fifth in the league in goals for in the regular season. They were also the best 5-on-5 team statistically in the entire league.
They also had historically high goaltending, and a very high shooting percentage, two elements which are not likely to be sustainable, especially on the offensive side.

The Bruins were among the worst in the league last year for shooting percentage and, correspondingly, one of the lowest-scoring teams in the league. Their true offensive talent is somewhere in the middle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScopeHockey View Post
Why would you look at the names on the roster - doesn't it make more sense to look at what they've accomplished?
I am, that's precisely why I'm not impressed. I'm looking at more in-depth stats than most people do, however, which gives a better picture of the how-and-why they ended up where they did.

They were a fairly pedestrian club in terms of puck possession and chance generation, riding unreal goaltending and a very good streak of, let's call it "transient opportunism".

Wandering off-topic though. Suffice to say I think that the Bruins are a poor measuring stick. Compare with Washignton, Pittsburgh, or heck, Vancouver, Detroit and Chicago for a yardstick of excellent team depth.

MathMan is offline