HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

How good should the Bruins have been last year?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-18-2010, 10:16 AM
  #1
PBruinsfan10
Registered User
 
PBruinsfan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 128
vCash: 500
How good should the Bruins have been last year?

Damn good. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself.

http://somethingsbruin.net/boston-br...ord-books.html

PBruinsfan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 10:26 AM
  #2
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,799
vCash: 500
Sabremetrics being applied to hockey? Shoot me now. Stat geeks love this crap, but to me, it comes down to whether you can weather the challenges you're faced with, and this team did not.

So to me, this VORP/GVT comp comes off as nothing more than an excuse. Plenty of other teams had injuries, yet were able to perform strongly in the regular season, so why not the B's? I'll tell you why. The Bruins displayed a total lack of heart and played with zero passion last year, regardless of injuries. That's why they weren't very good. No need to look any further. They were a poorly constructed team with glaring flaws. Injuries may have exposed those holes more, but they were still there even if the hurt players had been healthy.

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 12:55 PM
  #3
ThomasJ13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
Sabremetrics being applied to hockey? Shoot me now. Stat geeks love this crap, but to me, it comes down to whether you can weather the challenges you're faced with, and this team did not.

So to me, this VORP/GVT comp comes off as nothing more than an excuse. Plenty of other teams had injuries, yet were able to perform strongly in the regular season, so why not the B's? I'll tell you why. The Bruins displayed a total lack of heart and played with zero passion last year, regardless of injuries. That's why they weren't very good. No need to look any further. They were a poorly constructed team with glaring flaws. Injuries may have exposed those holes more, but they were still there even if the hurt players had been healthy.
I'm just curious, is there any analysis which looks at a teams injuries that is not an "excuse" in your eyes? I know it's popular to establish one's fan-cred by saying things like "all teams have injuries...suck it up," but aside from the horrendously useless man-games lost statistic, are you aware of any objective analysis (such as the one presented) which establishes whether the Bruins were hit similarly with injuries as teams which may have performed better than them in the regular season or playoffs?

I'm not aware of any proper analysis, which is why I'm not so quick to dismiss the Bruins injury situation of 09-10 as being typical, and similarly why I'm not quick to so confidently state that the Bruins were 'poorly constructed with glaring flaws.' I am willing to concede that the nature and timing of the injuries sustained by the Bruins in 09-10 may have made it a little difficult to evaluate the teams construction, heart and/or passion.

Perhaps most tellingly, virtually every non-Bruin hockey fan I know agrees with this assessment. It doesn't mean I think that absent the injuries the Bruins would have been world-beaters, but I also don't think it's fair to condemn the teams construction based on 09-10. If I have to lose some fan-cred for acknowledging that injuries may have played a part in what happened in 09-10, then so be it.

ThomasJ13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 01:08 PM
  #4
jasonbaz77*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 6,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
Sabremetrics being applied to hockey? Shoot me now. Stat geeks love this crap, but to me, it comes down to whether you can weather the challenges you're faced with, and this team did not.

So to me, this VORP/GVT comp comes off as nothing more than an excuse. Plenty of other teams had injuries, yet were able to perform strongly in the regular season, so why not the B's? I'll tell you why. The Bruins displayed a total lack of heart and played with zero passion last year, regardless of injuries. That's why they weren't very good. No need to look any further. They were a poorly constructed team with glaring flaws. Injuries may have exposed those holes more, but they were still there even if the hurt players had been healthy.
I agree with your comments on heart. There was none last year- but I think it was injuries too.

jasonbaz77* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 01:10 PM
  #5
HockeyKrishna43
Registered User
 
HockeyKrishna43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasJ13 View Post
I'm just curious, is there any analysis which looks at a teams injuries that is not an "excuse" in your eyes? I know it's popular to establish one's fan-cred by saying things like "all teams have injuries...suck it up," but aside from the horrendously useless man-games lost statistic, are you aware of any objective analysis (such as the one presented) which establishes whether the Bruins were hit similarly with injuries as teams which may have performed better than them in the regular season or playoffs?

I'm not aware of any proper analysis, which is why I'm not so quick to dismiss the Bruins injury situation of 09-10 as being typical, and similarly why I'm not quick to so confidently state that the Bruins were 'poorly constructed with glaring flaws.' I am willing to concede that the nature and timing of the injuries sustained by the Bruins in 09-10 may have made it a little difficult to evaluate the teams construction, heart and/or passion.

Perhaps most tellingly, virtually every non-Bruin hockey fan I know agrees with this assessment. It doesn't mean I think that absent the injuries the Bruins would have been world-beaters, but I also don't think it's fair to condemn the teams construction based on 09-10. If I have to lose some fan-cred for acknowledging that injuries may have played a part in what happened in 09-10, then so be it.
I just think hockey is a poor sport for advanced statistical analysis. Baseball is perfect for it since it's not really a team sport, it's a sequentially individual sport. Things are broken down into events mostly effected by two individuals. Football is good when you look only at skill players or team numbers. The scoring rate in basketball gives you a decent sample size of events to play with, even if the team influence on each play is hard to eliminate. But hockey has one true measurable event, goal scoring, and it occurs relatively rarely. Everything else like hits, assists, defensive plays, penalties, etc, are judgment calls.

HockeyKrishna43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 01:24 PM
  #6
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasJ13 View Post
I'm just curious, is there any analysis which looks at a teams injuries that is not an "excuse" in your eyes? I know it's popular to establish one's fan-cred by saying things like "all teams have injuries...suck it up," but aside from the horrendously useless man-games lost statistic, are you aware of any objective analysis (such as the one presented) which establishes whether the Bruins were hit similarly with injuries as teams which may have performed better than them in the regular season or playoffs?

I'm not aware of any proper analysis, which is why I'm not so quick to dismiss the Bruins injury situation of 09-10 as being typical, and similarly why I'm not quick to so confidently state that the Bruins were 'poorly constructed with glaring flaws.' I am willing to concede that the nature and timing of the injuries sustained by the Bruins in 09-10 may have made it a little difficult to evaluate the teams construction, heart and/or passion.

Perhaps most tellingly, virtually every non-Bruin hockey fan I know agrees with this assessment. It doesn't mean I think that absent the injuries the Bruins would have been world-beaters, but I also don't think it's fair to condemn the teams construction based on 09-10. If I have to lose some fan-cred for acknowledging that injuries may have played a part in what happened in 09-10, then so be it.
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.

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 01:32 PM
  #7
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonbaz77 View Post
I agree with your comments on heart. There was none last year- but I think it was injuries too.
There's no doubt that injuries limited specific players and their style of play. Lucic was not very effective because he couldn't hit, and with his hand issues, couldn't fight. Chara too was limited with hand issues. However, heart to me isn't just throwing a big check or dropping the gloves when needed. It's stepping up in the face of adversity and overcoming whatever challenge lies before you. This team just didn't do that. Instead, they seemed to use the injury excuse as a crutch (along with the GM and his "once the team gets healthy we'll evaluate" crap), and no one really (outside of a few guys) stepped up and elevated their games when needed. They seemed to wilt under the pressure instead of rising to the occasion.

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 01:33 PM
  #8
ThomasJ13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyKrishna43 View Post
I just think hockey is a poor sport for advanced statistical analysis. Baseball is perfect for it since it's not really a team sport, it's a sequentially individual sport. Things are broken down into events mostly effected by two individuals. Football is good when you look only at skill players or team numbers. The scoring rate in basketball gives you a decent sample size of events to play with, even if the team influence on each play is hard to eliminate. But hockey has one true measurable event, goal scoring, and it occurs relatively rarely. Everything else like hits, assists, defensive plays, penalties, etc, are judgment calls.
Fair enough. Then all of this is opinion. I just find it interesting that whenever I discuss the Bruins with non-Bruins fans, or listen to breakdowns of the 09-10 season by non-Bruin hockey analysts, their opinions tend to be that injuries affected the fate of the 09-10 Bruins season moreso than many other teams. I seem to only hear or read the 'suck it up, all teams have injuries' mantra from Bruin fan opinions. Just wondering why that is, and which perspective might have more validity. Might be nice to get a more objective breakdown, if one is even possible.

ThomasJ13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 01:40 PM
  #9
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: HFL 4 Life
Country: United States
Posts: 36,812
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Good enough to not set the century low water mark for futility.

WBC8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 01:44 PM
  #10
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasJ13 View Post
Fair enough. Then all of this is opinion. I just find it interesting that whenever I discuss the Bruins with non-Bruins fans, or listen to breakdowns of the 09-10 season by non-Bruin hockey analysts, their opinions tend to be that injuries affected the fate of the 09-10 Bruins season moreso than many other teams. I seem to only hear or read the 'suck it up, all teams have injuries' mantra from Bruin fan opinions. Just wondering why that is, and which perspective might have more validity. Might be nice to get a more objective breakdown, if one is even possible.
What has more value to you? The opinions of a collective group of people who've seen just about every second of every Bruins season year over year, or a casual fan/analyst who's seen maybe a handful of B's games? To me, it sounds like you want to believe the non-fans/analysts because their opinion more closely echos your own. If that's the case, I think you can figure out the answer to your question...

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 01:46 PM
  #11
ThomasJ13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,208
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
Old
08-18-2010, 01:54 PM
  #12
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasJ13 View Post
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...
That was discussed pretty heavily here during last year, and I'm sure you can dig up those threads if you're motivated enough to search for them. To give you one example from those discussions, teams like Vancouver were hit much harder by the injury bug to key players, yet they managed to "suck it up" and still play competitive hockey over those spans. Why were they good at it, yet the B's weren't? To me it comes down to heart.

If you want to do it manually, go look at the man games lost for the league and you can see the B's didn't even rank all that high. Take it a step further and you can look at each team and who was hurt to draw your own conclusions. Here's a link to the top 10, and you can see playoff teams like DET, VAN, MTL, & COL all had more man games lost (most to key players) than the B's.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...to-injury.html

I agree that man games lost isn't that great, but if you can tie it to the team and see what players they lost, it gives it some context. Montreal losing Markov was a big example of that. He's their best defender, and he missed serious time.

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 02:08 PM
  #13
ThomasJ13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
What has more value to you? The opinions of a collective group of people who've seen just about every second of every Bruins season year over year, or a casual fan/analyst who's seen maybe a handful of B's games? To me, it sounds like you want to believe the non-fans/analysts because their opinion more closely echos your own. If that's the case, I think you can figure out the answer to your question...
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.

ThomasJ13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 02:16 PM
  #14
ThomasJ13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
That was discussed pretty heavily here during last year, and I'm sure you can dig up those threads if you're motivated enough to search for them. To give you one example from those discussions, teams like Vancouver were hit much harder by the injury bug to key players, yet they managed to "suck it up" and still play competitive hockey over those spans. Why were they good at it, yet the B's weren't? To me it comes down to heart.

If you want to do it manually, go look at the man games lost for the league and you can see the B's didn't even rank all that high. Take it a step further and you can look at each team and who was hurt to draw your own conclusions. Here's a link to the top 10, and you can see playoff teams like DET, VAN, MTL, & COL all had more man games lost (most to key players) than the B's.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...to-injury.html

I agree that man games lost isn't that great, but if you can tie it to the team and see what players they lost, it gives it some context. Montreal losing Markov was a big example of that. He's their best defender, and he missed serious time.
Man-games lost is very misleading. I really wish there was some kind of better analysis. But just being an avid fan and observer, I would say that Vancouver, Philadelphia, Montreal, and Detroit easily were hit at least as hard, and probably harder than the Bruins (at least in the regular season). No question about that. Which is why it's extremely hard IMO to assign adjectives on the 'construction' or 'heart' of those teams heading into the 09-10 season. Just as it is with the Bruins, IMO.

I'm not saying I think the Bruins are a well-oiled machine that, if healthy, are going to challenge for the cup. But I'm also not ready to assign adjectives like 'fatally flawed' and 'heartless,' simply because I think they belong in the discussion of teams who got a little derailed by injuries in 09-10.

ThomasJ13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 02:24 PM
  #15
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,799
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
Old
08-18-2010, 02:34 PM
  #16
ThomasJ13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
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...
Agree on this. I just don't know if it would have continued through 82 games if the injury situation was different. I guess we'll never know, but I hope to find out this year. If the team limps through to December again then I, too, am going to start questioning the heart of the teams core, and maybe even start sharpening my Julien pitchfork. But right now I am on the fence, and my pitchfork remains in the basement.

ThomasJ13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 02:35 PM
  #17
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasJ13 View Post
Man-games lost is very misleading. I really wish there was some kind of better analysis. But just being an avid fan and observer, I would say that Vancouver, Philadelphia, Montreal, and Detroit easily were hit at least as hard, and probably harder than the Bruins (at least in the regular season). No question about that. Which is why it's extremely hard IMO to assign adjectives on the 'construction' or 'heart' of those teams heading into the 09-10 season. Just as it is with the Bruins, IMO.

I'm not saying I think the Bruins are a well-oiled machine that, if healthy, are going to challenge for the cup. But I'm also not ready to assign adjectives like 'fatally flawed' and 'heartless,' simply because I think they belong in the discussion of teams who got a little derailed by injuries in 09-10.
This is a very interesting conversation to me.

Is it on the GM for not getting the team what it needed (IE scoring winger & PMD)? Is it on the coach for not altering his system to fit the players he had? Is it on the players for not having a consistent compete level over the course of the season? Is it due to injuries? The truth probably lies in a combination of those things, and how you assign the percentages is up to you. Having seen the team play inconsistent hockey while both healthy and hurt, I tend to rank the injury thing lower than some. That's just my view of things and certainly open to discussion, but using the statistical analysis the OP did isn't the way to prove it, IMO.

If I had to rate them, I'd say it went like this in order of importance:

Team lacking scoring and PMD
Inconsistent effort by players
Coaching style (mainly during playoffs)
Injuries

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 02:51 PM
  #18
duckchobbins
Registered User
 
duckchobbins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 24,944
vCash: 500
im not using this as an excuse, i dont think the bruins would have beat chicago even if 100% healthy, but injuries play a huge role in the playoffs. of the last 10 years, were there any cup winning teams that had top line players (keyword players, as in more than 1) out for a prolonged period of time late in the post season? i could be way wrong, but i feel like it just doesnt happen very much.

also, i'm sure the majority of cup winning teams in that same time period had at least 1 top shut down D man and at least 1 D man of the top offensive variety.

duckchobbins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 03:05 PM
  #19
ThomasJ13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
This is a very interesting conversation to me.

Is it on the GM for not getting the team what it needed (IE scoring winger & PMD)? Is it on the coach for not altering his system to fit the players he had? Is it on the players for not having a consistent compete level over the course of the season? Is it due to injuries? The truth probably lies in a combination of those things, and how you assign the percentages is up to you. Having seen the team play inconsistent hockey while both healthy and hurt, I tend to rank the injury thing lower than some. That's just my view of things and certainly open to discussion, but using the statistical analysis the OP did isn't the way to prove it, IMO.

If I had to rate them, I'd say it went like this in order of importance:

Team lacking scoring and PMD
Inconsistent effort by players
Coaching style (mainly during playoffs)
Injuries
I've got it this way:

Inconsistent effort by players
Team lacking scoring and PMD / Injuries (about the same influence)
Coaching style (mainly during playoffs)

I put much of last season on the players. Aside from Bergeron, I was pretty disappointed in many of the Bruins' performances much of the time. I wasn't expecting a repeat of 08-09, but I watched this team grow and mature in 07-08, even before the big season in 08-09, and IMO both Julien and Chiarelli (and we as fans) had a right to expect a little better from some of the main cogs of this team. A problem of the 'heart' of these players, or just some kind of hangover from the 08-09 season, exacerbated by too many injuries? Time will tell, I guess.

The one statistical analysis I've always wanted to see on the relative influence of injuries across teams uses something along the lines of the amount of salary in the M*A*S*H unit as a percentage of the total payroll, either on a per-game basis or across the entire season. It would have its flaws to be sure, like overpaid but crappy players that get hurt, or underpaid but great players who get hurt, but I think on balance it might be the most representative. There are so many metrics for player performance and influence, many position dependent, many considered intangible, but ostensibly player salary is the one thing that should encompass all of the other metrics. Not a perfect metric, but I think it might be the best of a bad bunch.

ThomasJ13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 03:13 PM
  #20
Dimaio19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
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?
Not to mention listing Boychuk who missed games because he was healthy-scratched, not injured.

It's an interesting read, but I think this is wrong:

Quote:
Now, statistics never distribute themselves evenly over a range, but here's something for consideration: if the Bruins had scored one of those 45 goals in each of the games which they gave points in, they could have earned 42 more points, and possibly not have given away another 13. They would have been a +55 compared to their competition in the point column.

Those 42 points, of course, would have easily put them in first place in the East, giving them the Presidents' Trophy they worked so hard to get last year. It would have vaulted them over the Capitals (who they gave 3 points to), would have knocked the Canadiens (6 points) and Rangers (4 points) from the playoffs and set up a first-round matchup with the Thrashers, whom the Bruins had owned all year.

While it stands to reason that the Bruins wouldn't win every one-goal game they played in outright with their full complement of talent, it's worth considering how good they could have been had they stayed healthy, or even played to the potential of a team missing its starters 30% of the time.
What the author seems to neglect is that if you are going to make that type of adjustment for the Bruins, you need to do so for all the other teams. After all, the Bruins aren't the only team who lost games due to injury. There is no doubt the Bruins would have won more games had they had no injuries. There is also no doubt that every other team would perform better with perfect health. Just to use the Montreal example, one of teams that the Bruins would "have knocked out of the playoffs"

Games played, players listed in order of # of points scored:

Plekanec - 82
Gomez - 78
Cammalleri - 65
Gionta - 61
MA Bergeron - 60
Markov - 45
A.Kostitsyn - 59
Metropolit - 69

Dimaio19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 03:29 PM
  #21
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
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...
Would just like to point out that this team didn't even start the season healthy, while the season injuries hadn't started yet, Chara and Lucic were hurt early on, and Krejci was recovering from offseason hip surgery. Furthermore, we had no idea going into the year what we could expect from Bergeron, I don't recall him being used that effectively early in the season either, although I could be wrong there.

I don't honestly know what impact that should have in analysis, just pointing it out. I don't think it's true that this Bruins team was ever actually healthy.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 04:14 PM
  #22
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimaio19 View Post
Not to mention listing Boychuk who missed games because he was healthy-scratched, not injured.

It's an interesting read, but I think this is wrong:



What the author seems to neglect is that if you are going to make that type of adjustment for the Bruins, you need to do so for all the other teams. After all, the Bruins aren't the only team who lost games due to injury. There is no doubt the Bruins would have won more games had they had no injuries. There is also no doubt that every other team would perform better with perfect health. Just to use the Montreal example, one of teams that the Bruins would "have knocked out of the playoffs"

Games played, players listed in order of # of points scored:

Plekanec - 82
Gomez - 78
Cammalleri - 65
Gionta - 61
MA Bergeron - 60
Markov - 45
A.Kostitsyn - 59
Metropolit - 69
This is exactly right. Every team had injuries and every team could have benefited from being healthy. If you want to do this exercise for the B's, you have to do it for everyone to be consistent. Otherwise, it's just flawed.

LSCII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-18-2010, 05:35 PM
  #23
ThomasJ13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimaio19 View Post
What the author seems to neglect is that if you are going to make that type of adjustment for the Bruins, you need to do so for all the other teams. After all, the Bruins aren't the only team who lost games due to injury. There is no doubt the Bruins would have won more games had they had no injuries. There is also no doubt that every other team would perform better with perfect health. Just to use the Montreal example, one of teams that the Bruins would "have knocked out of the playoffs"

Games played, players listed in order of # of points scored:

Plekanec - 82
Gomez - 78
Cammalleri - 65
Gionta - 61
MA Bergeron - 60
Markov - 45
A.Kostitsyn - 59
Metropolit - 69
No question Montreal got hammered with injuries. As did Detroit, Philadelphia, and Vancouver (the Canucks must be the team with the worst luck in professional sports when it comes to injuries). In light of that, I wouldn't be inclined to be posting something like "bah, every team has injuries - get over it" in the Canucks or Canadiens boards, just as I might question such a post on the Bruins board...because I see the Bruins as a team in the mix of teams that were hit fairly hard by injuries. Maybe not the hardest in the league, but certainly enough that it warrants discussion IMO.

ThomasJ13 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 11:41 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.