which version? like, you know I can see how many times you go back and edit and add and change things right? you've edited that one 4 times since I started posting this.
That’s a bullshit, dishonest response unless you think I somehow went back and edited my conversation with burstnbloom from this afternoon after you posted, and I’m pretty sure you know that.which version? like, you know I can see how many times you go back and edit and add and change things right? you've edited that one 4 times since I started posting this.
Here, I’ll even help:It's okay to just say "you're right, I was was wrong about that" without being a dick about it
I wasn't saying you said that, I was saying you needed to spend money on a second goalie. The Bruins clearly went into the offseason thinking they needed to hold serve in net. They wanted a viable NHL starter to replace Rask's minutes and Swayman would take Halaks. Halak was not an option for that. He was below replacement level and had already lost his job to Swayman (and by all accounts was pissed about it.)
. . .
You're suggesting the Bruins should have signed a cheaper goalie to play with Swayman but the only way to do that would have been to severely downgrade the position as a whole and hope for Rask to come back.
You’re basing your argument that Halak is a severe downgrade—not just 1 to 1 vs. Ullmark, but downgrading the position as a whole—on a single abbreviated season, during which Halak got COVID, right?
Because Halak’s stats look better for the other two of the past three years, don’t they? Or is that the Boston/Buffalo thing at play, and you’ve corrected for that somehow? If so, I’d love to see it. Which stats for which years show that Halak is a severe downgrade from Ullmark?
What part of that is, “I certainly haven’t looked at Ullmark’s and Halak’s stats; somebody please post their career stats to help me?” instead of a very specific request about very specific stats to a specific poster?That’s fine. I think you mistake your preference for immutable reality and engage in silly rhetorical bolstering in service of that, but I screwed up the timing of the signing of Oleksiak in the 20 minutes I spent looking at this, so we can still be friends.
I would be interested in seeing the Halak to Ullmark evidence, though. It would be nice to have even more stat-based evidence of his skill—goalie stats strike me as annoyingly variable and noisy.
I never watch anything live these days.And they won today.
It’s Kenney for fucks sake.Are you fucking serious? There’s literally an entire run of posts that preceded this. There’s like a multiple post conversation about it.
I was absolutely wrong about Oleksiak. What I took issue with was the common dishonest bolstering that we might have lost McAvoy in Kenny’s kind alternate universe where he gave me a pass on that.
The issue with this is selling low. Are you better off hoping Jake doesn’t suck anymore or trading him for pennies? I probably lean towards keeping him but don’t feel too strongly on that. I haven’t been a fan since he was an RFA but think he’s cratered his value at this point where you can’t get much useful.After a promising rookie season, Debrusk has failed. At this point, maybe they should look to move on? Whether it’s breaking in another rookie/young player on the 3rd line or establishing veterans, I no longer think the future potential from Debrusk is better than trying someone new.
It’s possible he just clashes with Bruce and will be better on another team. But that doesn’t help the Bruins either.
Oh, absolutely. My only point in response was that it obviously wasn’t going McAvoy, so why do that? I didn’t think it was a particularly sarcastic response, so far as those things go.It’s Kenney for fucks sake.
And I didn’t suggest anything outside of laying out what needed to happen to get him to point out the absurdity of the suggestion. Letting go of any of those three for a mediocre UFA D would be dumb that I wrongly assumed was self-evident.
I hope it's OK I quote your post. I don't want to start an argument about whether the schedule should or should not be a factor in the team's performance. But I do want to cite the schedule as a solid reason for fan (and SoSH poster) frustration.The schedule excuse sucks. If we want to say that they are still coming together as a team, that's fine, but this is a team full of professionals that have been in the league for a while. The coaching and leadership on the team is the most consistent in the league.
They're a mediocre team, it's not surprising. They've done nothing to improve themselves in the past few offseasons and have tried to ride depend on the core guys. It was a fine strategy, but it was obvious that it was going to end up this way.
He's been fine, a little snakebitten. He's been on the ice for 2 goals for and 3 against, so a whole lotta nothing. Which really is OK given the usage of the 4th line. The underlyings are good though. His xGF% is 54%, and he has a solid 59% HDCF% (high danger chances for %). Right now, they have a on-ice shooting percentage of 2.7% with Nosek on the ice which is ridiculously low. That is why he only has 2 even strength points. He won't turn magically into an offensive dynamo mut the on-ice shooting percentage should positively regress a bit and he'll collect a few more points.I am not handy with the advanced numbers, but my eyeballs have Nosek just kind of floating around and being large.
I'm interested to see how this all shakes out. Do they carry 3 goalies? Send Swayman down? If Swayman keeps it up for another month, do they tell Rask no-thanks?Boston remains Tuukka Rask’s top priority, but the timeline for a return isn’t set.
Could they trade Ullmark or does he make too much money?From Friedman's 32 Thoughts:
I'm interested to see how this all shakes out. Do they carry 3 goalies? Send Swayman down? If Swayman keeps it up for another month, do they tell Rask no-thanks?
I don't think Rask's return is imminent, but he has been skating/working out at Warrior so he's not terribly far away either. Swayman has settled in and the small sample, inexperience tag drops a bit with each passing start. I think Ullmark has largely been fine, numbers impacted by a lousy Edmonton game that wasn't all his fault. They can't do anything roster-wise with him unless he gets hurt.
I would've thought the original plan was for Swayman to hold down the fort as backup until Rask was ready, but the big what-if is what if Swayman is the #1 at the time Rask is ready?
Ullmark's got a no-move. If Rask is in their plans, I suspect it'll only be for the end of this year. He's 34 and coming off major surgery. Goalies tend to age better than skaters so maybe he has more left in the tank than your typical 34 year old, but they can just kick that decision out to the offseason.Could they trade Ullmark or does he make too much money?
In each of six of the past seven seasons Rask was roughly a league average starting goalie whose primary elite skill was consistency from year to year. His combined stats over that period of time rank near the top of the heap because he seems to be subject to less variability than other NHL goalies (my guess is that the Bruins’s reasonably strong team possession and defense over that period of time have a fair amount to do with his consistency, especially when you look at how good his backups’ stats have been).I see your point, @cshea, but it’s hard for me to imagine the Bruins working with Rask throughout his rehab and then, when he’s ready, saying “been nice working with you.” If Rask gets into playing shape & Swayman and Ullmark stay healthy, then Swayman goes to Providence when Rask gets back.
Swayman is proving himself to be a good rookie NHL goalie but you want to go into the end of the season and (we hope) playoffs with the best goalie you have, and that’s Rask. Swayman spends his time in Providence keeping sharp in case Rask or Ullmark get hurt.
Two seasons ago Rask was an All-Star who led the league in GAA and was second in save percentage. I’m expecting a repaired Rask to be an elite goalie.
After crunching the numbers from the Bruins’ 13 games this season and Rask’s performance from the two previous seasons, Clear Sight Analytics determined that the 2013 Vezina Trophy winner’s goals saved above expectation would be 1.99 goals better than Swayman’s and 1.22 goals higher than Ullmark’s. The latter result factors how Rask would have fared, in all likelihood, against Edmonton and Toronto, two of the flammable opponents Ullmark drew.
In Swayman’s case, a 1.99-goal delta may not seem like much over seven starts. It’s difficult to say, in other words, if the Bruins would have won either of the two games Swayman lost (6-3 to Philadelphia, 3-0 to Carolina) had Rask been in net.
But by projecting similar performance for Swayman over 56 games, which would be a reasonable workload for Rask, the goals saved above expectation would swell to 15.92 goals.
In the analytics community, the belief is that two goals saved above expectation equal one point in the standings. In this simulation, then, a Rask-for-Swayman full-season swap would net the Bruins approximately eight points. In 2018-19, the NHL’s most recent 82-game season, the Bruins finished with 107 points. Carolina, the first wild-card entry, had 99.
Fluto obviously shows a much more objective and stat based basis for his opinion, but to my entirely subjective eye test, I view the Bruins goalies when all healthy as Rask—>Swayman->Ullmark. Rask is so quiet in his movements, but is always in the right position, and almost never moving on most shots. That ability to get square to the shooter and stay “quiet” in his movements allows better rebound control, better angles, and overall a more consistent approach. Rask’s movement and quiet nature of his mechanics sort of cause folks to think he’s not as good as he is. He really is a HOF level goaltender to me, even though he makes so much of what he does easy.In each of six of the past seven seasons Rask was roughly a league average starting goalie whose primary elite skill was consistency from year to year. His combined stats over that period of time rank near the top of the heap because he seems to be subject to less variability than other NHL goalies (my guess is that the Bruins’s reasonably strong team possession and defense over that period of time have a fair amount to do with his consistency, especially when you look at how good his backups’ stats have been).
And now he’s quite a bit older and coming off of a hip labrum tear.
If someone has a good argument for why we should expect Rask to be an elite goalie relative to other goalies in this particular half year, I’m all ears. Because that just doesn’t seem to be supported by the data. He’s certainly capable of it. But why isn’t he more likely to be the roughly .915 save percentage guy he largely has been over a longer period of time, instead of the two season ago All-Star?
Yeah, it’s an awesome article (I started laughing when I got my email from The Athletic this morning). I have a little bit of suspicion about a stat that has the Bruins as 17th in team defense last year, but second so far this year, but it’s a great piece and good food for thought.Fluto tries to answer that exact question.
View: https://twitter.com/flutoshinzawa/status/1461391085075419141?s=21
Rask is absolutely a HoF goalie. The quietness and staying up on his edges are really, really incredible improvements that he made later in his career as the game adjusted a bit. When he’s rested and healthy, his discipline in staying in that form is incredible to watch. I don’t know shit about it, but there’s art in his economy of motion that’s not unlike watching a top fighter who uses distance and angles to avoid harm. To my eye, his puck handling also improved a fair amount over his career.Fluto obviously shows a much more objective and stat based basis for his opinion, but to my entirely subjective eye test, I view the Bruins goalies when all healthy as Rask—>Swayman->Ullmark. Rask is so quiet in his movements, but is always in the right position, and almost never moving on most shots. That ability to get square to the shooter and stay “quiet” in his movements allows better rebound control, better angles, and overall a more consistent approach. Rask’s movement and quiet nature of his mechanics sort of cause folks to think he’s not as good as he is. He really is a HOF level goaltender to me, even though he makes so much of what he does easy.
I'm not familiar with it, but I enjoyed the article and thought it was timely for your post. I am a little skeptical about using historical data to project specific outcomes like this (if Rask faced Swayman or Ulmarks actual shots he would do X) but it could be that Fluto is being a bit surface level on how their model works and it holds up to scrutiny. I just don't know. I can say their model does use similar data to other models. EH has Rask as 21.5 GSAA and Moneypuck has him at 21.3 GSAE over the same time period that CSA has him at 25.8, so they are operating from a similar foundation. Hard to know what kind of real projection utility it has.Rask is absolutely a HoF goalie. The quietness and staying up on his edges are really, really incredible improvements that he made later in his career as the game adjusted a bit. When he’s rested and healthy, his discipline in staying in that form is incredible to watch. I don’t know shit about it, but there’s art in his economy of motion that’s not unlike watching a top fighter who uses distance and angles to avoid harm. To my eye, his puck handling also improved a fair amount over his career.
I’ll keep serving them up if you’ll keep spiking them down.
Thanks for the additional context. I appreciate it.I'm not familiar with it, but I enjoyed the article and thought it was timely for your post. I am a little skeptical about using historical data to project specific outcomes like this (if Rask faced Swayman or Ulmarks actual shots he would do X) but it could be that Fluto is being a bit surface level on how their model works and it holds up to scrutiny. I just don't know. I can say their model does use similar data to other models. EH has Rask as 21.5 GSAA and Moneypuck has him at 21.3 GSAE over the same time period that CSA has him at 25.8, so they are operating from a similar foundation. Hard to know what kind of real projection utility it has.
My guess is its a bit rosy. Those numbers are all bouyed by Rask's 2019-2020 season before he got hurt when he was roughly 17 GSAE. Is he that guy still at 34 after major surgery? I don't know. He was an above average goalie last year, though, and he could barely move, so there's a good chance its somewhat true that he'd be an upgrade.
Do not like. I want to see Zboril play with Carlo and see if he's finally become something. Put Forbort on the right with Reilly - he's done it before.Defense shakeup today. Looks like Zboril will stay in tomorrow (and it's deserved) and Grzelyck is back with McAvoy. Forbort-Carlo apparently a thing.
Marchand - Bergeron - Pastrnak
Hall - Coyle - Foligno
DeBrusk - Haula - Smith
Blidh - Nosek - Lazar
Grzelyck - McAvoy
Forbort - Carlo
Reilly - Zboril/Clifton
Zboril had another strong weekend, even in the Flames game. Still at 67% xGF% with 5 games played and 78 5x5 minutes. He deserves to stay in.
Then things go sideways. Clifton is the collateral damage to Zboril's mini-breakout. This is unfair. Clifton has been pretty good overall, victimized by some bad luck (.901 PDO due in part to a .843 on ice save percentage). The Bruins have a 78-56 scoring chance advantage with Clifton on the ice. Sure he can make dumb decisions that lead to chances against, but overall he hasn't been a problem. Meanwhile the 2 lugs on the backend, Forbort and Carlo are getting paired together. The Bruins are getting outchanced 113-88 with Carlo on the ice and 95-83 when Forbort is on the ice. Both have sub 50% xGF%. I pity the forwards that get stuck on the ice with this pairing. They've played 33 minutes together this year and goals are 4-0 for Boston but the underlyings don't support that differential (once ice shooting percentage is almost 18%) and they will likely get caved in.
Sure - I was being a bit unfair. It just seems really obvious that this team needs the second line to be a strength, they showed themselves to be one (albeit in limited ice time) and now he's not putting them back together when all the numbers say they should.I was going to mention Smith/Foligno too but got too mad at the Forbort - Carlo thing that I forgot.
I think on the whole Butch is pretty good analytically. The Grzelyck thing is enfurating (for fucks sake, leave him with McAvoy) but on the whole he gets it right. I actually think my problem with Butch is in the playoffs he kind of leans in on the analytics when you can't really do that in a short series. In the Islanders series last year, the Bruins dominated analytically but not on the scoreboard. He was content on playing it out and hoping the scoreboard results would catch up to the analytical results. Can't really do that in the postseason, and he didn't try any adjustments until it was too late. Foligno/Smith is kind of a reverse of that. He's got the runway to let Hall/Coyle/Smith regress to the mean but isn't going there.
Forbort - Carlo just makes no sense from an analytical or eye test standpoint. They should only be together on the PK. At even strength, I don't see how that pair is going to get the puck out of their own end. It's going to be a parade of pucks chipped out off the glass.
He had some quotes about this in training camp that gives credence to this possibility. There is something going on, that's for sure. I usually like, don't love, Carlo's game. There's something to be said for a guy who just erases anything exciting from happening but this year he's only erasing Bruin's offense. Something is up.I wonder whether Carlo is consciously or unconsciously worried about contact catching him by surprise when he’s retrieving the puck. His decision making and vision have been inexplicable at times—handling the puck like a hand grenade.
I get what you’re trying to say but I’m just going to take this moment to remind the class that tinordi had a 33% xG last year and was the worst player I’ve ever seen. We must not invoke his name.If he can't erase opponents offense, he essentially becomes Tinordi with no fighting.
$4.1 million for 5 more years.