Oh yeah - the hockey. Great to see Pasta - and Pasta's laser - back in the lineup. What a huge missing piece.
When it happened? I think most reasonable people realized it was the rational move at the time.When do we start giving credit to Sweeney for choosing to play the kids over Chara? This defensive group has been largely fantastic throughout the first 10 games. There's been a few bad periods, but that's everybody. I was very skeptical, but it seems to have worked out just fine so far.
I think most of us realized it was the right move, but I don't think many thought it would work out this well.When it happened? I think most reasonable people realized it was the rational move at the time.
I thought the defense was going to be a mess for the first 1/3 of the season. Pleasantly surprised.I think most of us realized it was the right move, but I don't think many thought it would work out this well.
Exactly my thought, except replace "mess" with "tire fire".... instead, the kids stepped in and appear to be mostly ready to go, even after a short camp. It's a real credit to the organization.I thought the defense was going to be a mess for the first 1/3 of the season. Pleasantly surprised.
Haven't gotten to watch as much as I've wanted to being on the west coast, hoping to change that.
And 81st in AAV.He's a top 3-5 player in the league and might be creeping towards best player.
I wonder if maybe there could be some correlation between better team defense and a lower save percentage? Like, they are giving up roughly the same amount of goals as usual, just allowing fewer overall shots. I would guess that someone like Brodeur, during the peak NJ years, would have been victim of this...he'd allow his typical 2 goals a night on like 12 shots.Fluto pointed this out on twitter, but a kind of wild thing is the Bruins have been super unlucky this year. Their PDO is .964, 2nd lowest in the league. Shooting percentage is 2nd lowest, save percentage is 4th lowest. All that, plus playing 8 of 10 against the cream of the East and it hasn't mattered, 7-1-2. Their expected goals for is 56% but their actual goals for is 46%. Rask will start making saves at some point, and they should get some better puck luck on the offensive end.
That's some of it, but I also think Rask is just off to a sluggish stat. .888 in 6 games thus far. Last year he was .952 through 6 appearances, .902 the year before and .898 3 years ago. So it's not totally unusual for him. He's had a few pinball in on him which has sagged his save percentage, but he's also not making as many high danger saves as he usually does. He's at .742 so far this year (31/43), last season he was .876.I wonder if maybe there could be some correlation between better team defense and a lower save percentage? Like, they are giving up roughly the same amount of goals as usual, just allowing fewer overall shots. I would guess that someone like Brodeur, during the peak NJ years, would have been victim of this...he'd allow his typical 2 goals a night on like 12 shots.
I admit to being completely ignorant when it comes to advanced hockey stats, but does their shooting percentage being super-low indicate that they've been unlucky more than it indicates that they don't have many finishers and/or the absence of Pasta for the first 2 weeks of the season? In other words, are they unlucky or do they just lack scoring touch beyond the first line?Fluto pointed this out on twitter, but a kind of wild thing is the Bruins have been super unlucky this year. Their PDO is .964, 2nd lowest in the league. Shooting percentage is 2nd lowest, save percentage is 4th lowest. All that, plus playing 8 of 10 against the cream of the East and it hasn't mattered, 7-1-2. Their expected goals for is 56% but their actual goals for is 46%. Rask will start making saves at some point, and they should get some better puck luck on the offensive end.
It's a bit of both, I'd say. With shooting percentage, sometimes you make the perfect play and take the perfect shot but the goalie robs you. Other times a floater bounces off two legs and and as and goes into the net. They are currently 5.9% at even strength, it should move towards 8%ish.I admit to being completely ignorant when it comes to advanced hockey stats, but does their shooting percentage being super-low indicate that they've been unlucky more than it indicates that they don't have many finishers and/or the absence of Pasta for the first 2 weeks of the season? In other words, are they unlucky or do they just lack scoring touch beyond the first line?
Where does he one on most goals scored from one knee?
NHL Public Relations
@PR_NHL
David Pastrnak is climbing this list in a hurry. Just 393 games into his career,
@pastrnak96
is tied for the sixth-most hat tricks among active NHL players – playing between 418 and 857 games fewer than every other active player with at least nine to their credit. #NHLStats
So is hockey shooting % somewhat akin to BABIP, in that it normalizes over a larger sample?It's a bit of both, I'd say. With shooting percentage, sometimes you make the perfect play and take the perfect shot but the goalie robs you. Other times a floater bounces off two legs and and as and goes into the net. They are currently 5.9% at even strength, it should move towards 8%ish.
That said, I think they've been more unlucky on the defensive end with the save percentage. At 5x5 they have scored 15 goals this season. Their expected goals for is 16.24. Expected goals is determined by assigning a value for every shot taken based on a variety of factors such as shot location. They are only 1 goal below their xGF so they aren't significantly under performing. On the defensive end, they've allowed 17 goals against at ES against an expected goals against of 12.54. So they've allowed almost 5 more goals against than expected based on the quality of shots against. That should improve significantly.
I don't think the Bruins depth stinks at scoring. Some of it is the system. The Bruins are elite at suppressing quality chances against. They're always at the top of allowing the fewest shots, scoring chances and high danger chances against. As a result, they pay for it offensively. They are always middle of the pack to below average in generating their own scoring and high danger chances. They play a very tight and structured system at ES. The forwards are disciplined and chip in defensively before worrying about offense.They grind you to death at even strength and usually come out on top. Add in the best power play in the league for 3-4 years now and it's a tough combination for other teams to beat.
PDO is probably a more analogous. PDO is shooting percentage plus save percentage. The stats guys have figured out that over time it should normalize to around 1000. If you're over, you're probably due for some regression. If you're under, you're probably due for better results.So is hockey shooting % somewhat akin to BABIP, in that it normalizes over a larger sample?
I would assume that some of those 5 are the odd-bounce variety and some are softies that "should" have been stopped? Is that broken out anywhere, or is the sample too small at this point?That said, I think they've been more unlucky on the defensive end with the save percentage. At 5x5 they have scored 15 goals this season. Their expected goals for is 16.24. Expected goals is determined by assigning a value for every shot taken based on a variety of factors such as shot location. They are only 1 goal below their xGF so they aren't significantly under performing. On the defensive end, they've allowed 17 goals against at ES against an expected goals against of 12.54. So they've allowed almost 5 more goals against than expected based on the quality of shots against. That should improve significantly.
Kind of. There isn't really a standard that applies to all players as a whole like BABIP but you can look at a player's performance and see fluctuations and a return to their averages are fairly predictive. If you look at a guy like Mike Zibanejad, he's seeing some wild fluctuations the last season plus. Some of his season last year was probably an advancement of skill and playing on a PP with Panarin, but he's traditionally shot around 12 ish % and last year he shot 19.7%. The result was 41 goals in 57 games. Had he shot at his career average, he would have scored 37 goals over and 81 game pace. That feels more like his true talent level. This year the NYR press is wondering if Covid is having an effect on him and all sorts of stuff like that but the truth is he's only shooting 3%. If he shoots at his career average given the shot volume, he's on a 33 goal pace.So is hockey shooting % somewhat akin to BABIP, in that it normalizes over a larger sample?
They could lose one of Zboril or Lauzon to Seattle. Vaakanainen is exempt from the expansion draft. As I see it, if they don't make any side deals, the most likely losses for the expansion draft are Kase or Ritchie depending on who they choose to protect, or Lauzon or Zboril.Where do we think Vaakanainen fits in? We have long-term control of the 3 current LD starters, and Clifton too. Nice to have the depth but at a certain point we're going to want to see what he's got.
The Bruins will end up exposing three of Kase, Ritchie, Frederick and Bjork, and three of Grzelcyk, Lauzon, Zboril, and Clifton.If Zboril continues his pretty good play throughout the year, I think he's gone to seattle. He's a young, cost controlled D with a pedigree and a tool box you can dream on. He's playing sheltered but very good minutes this year. I'm worried they will lose him. I'd much rather lose one of the other three, though I see value in all of them. Even Ritchie, who has been very good and will make me eat crow.
Following up on this -Who's their starting goaltender?
I'm not sold on Washington this year. Outside of C they have very little depth, and their record was better than their actual play last year. They could easily be on the outside looking in this year if Samsonov isn't great.