2021-2022 Bruins Season Thread

[cshea]

Bergy is probable for tomorrow. He had to have surgery for an infection on his elbow. Follow up appointment tomorrow to hopefully get the all clear.

View: https://twitter.com/ConorRyan_93/status/1506669051124273157?s=20&t=OFbziDhKGgEX05tCMkl_SQ


Also for the numbers types, Lindholm is going to wear 27. He was 47 in Anaheim. Josh Brown isn't with the team yet due to visa issues.

 

[Maximus]

First practice post-deadline. Bergy is back in his normal spot. Lindholm is with McAvoy. Reilly/Clifton splitting time with Forbort on the 3rd pair.

Marchand - Bergeron - DeBrusk
Hall - Haula - Pastrnak
Frederic - Coyle - Smith
Foligno - Nosek - Lazar
Blidh - Studnicka - McLaughlin

Lindholm - McAvoy
Grzelyck - Carlo
Forbort - Reilly/Clifton

Swayman
Ullmark

This is probably close to the game 1 lineup, assuming health. I'd like to see more tinkering to see if they can find better combos. The 3rd line worries me, the actual results have been excellent but the underlyings not so good. I'd be hesitent to keep them together and just hope the hockey gods keep smiling on them.

It's a beaten bush but any scenario where Reilly is the odd man out over Forbort and Clifton is a bad one for the Bruins.

Reilly should be playing. Forbort should be on the 9th floor.

 

[The Napkin]

March Munch for breakfast. Pasta Pasta for dinner. We just need a desert of some type.

View: https://twitter.com/Bmarch63/status/1506669790403964933

 

[biff_hardbody]

Just need Bergeron's Brownies.

Collectively, the perfection dine.

 

[TheRealness]

March Munch for breakfast. Pasta Pasta for dinner. We just need a desert of some type.

View: https://twitter.com/Bmarch63/status/1506669790403964933

Cereal is a desert.

 

[Marciano490]

Cereal is a desert.

Add milk.

 

[burstnbloom]

Something can be a weakness even if it’s not the primary attribute of recent cup winning teams.

In baseball, infield defense can be a weakness, even if teams with the best infield defense are some of the worst in the league.

The narrative of defining every criticism as a narrative in an effort to undermine the position by implying that it reflects a popular misconception that doesn’t reflect reality merely because it doesn’t show up in the statistics not intended to assess it is pretty silly.

It’s not a “narrative” and it’s not a myth. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.

The point is there is no correlation between "toughness" and success and the narrative is that its important. Well if you think its important, prove it. There is a correlation between success and puck possession, though.

 

[burstnbloom]

Nothing and I'm not advocating that they should have done anything. But citing a player getting hurt on a physical play by a player who was on the Blues for his physical presence while saying the Blues physical play had little to do with them winning is not a good argument.

It wasn't physical, it was illegal. Talk about a bad argument.

 

[burstnbloom]

By the NHL's supremely flawed and dumb stat, the Bruins are 3rd in hits per 60 and 4th in total hits.


I don't know how you quantify this. Yes, they have some smaller players like Grzelyck that they feel can get exposed by bigger forwards on the forecheck. They've tried to address this by augmenting the defense with bigger dudes like Forbort and Lindholm. The forward group is a pretty good blend of skill, size and toughness in my opinion.

This is exactly right, of course. The "toughness" crowd wants people who punch. People who punch are bad at hockey, most of the time. In 10 years we will look at those arguments the way people look at people citing batting average to evaluate a hitter.

 

[Myt1]

The point is there is no correlation between "toughness" and success and the narrative is that its important. Well if you think its important, prove it. There is a correlation between success and puck possession, though.

That’s a different argument than the one that you make every time someone raises the issue, though. And the one that you make every time very much seems to be a response to a strawman grounded in the fact that there’s not a stat that measures the subject of the more inchoate criticism.

We know that there’s a correlation between possession and success. Neat. It’s just utterly irrelevant to this particular criticism.

When someone says “X matters,” and your response is “No, Y matters, and here’s the evidence,” that’s not a refutation that renders the first statement a “myth” or a “narrative.”

Conversations about DeBrusk seem to devolve into the same sort of lack of direct clash.

 

[Myt1]

This is exactly right, of course. The "toughness" crowd wants people who punch. People who punch are bad at hockey, most of the time. In 10 years we will look at those arguments the way people look at people citing batting average to evaluate a hitter.

See? Same strawman. Why do you do this?

 

[Myt1]

It wasn't physical, it was illegal. Talk about a bad argument.

Why is it a bad argument because it was illegal? If hits like that are the likely end result to the style of play and personnel the team uses, why is looking at that result rendered a bad argument merely because the hit was illegal and dangerous, but not necessarily egregiously so?

The hit by the Islanders that knocked Carlo out last year was clean. It was also the sort of heavy forecheck hit that seems to be less prevalent among the Bruins in recent memory than their playoff opponents. Does @kenneycb get to talk about that one because there was no suspension?

 

[kenneycb]

This is exactly right, of course. The "toughness" crowd wants people who punch. People who punch are bad at hockey, most of the time. In 10 years we will look at those arguments the way people look at people citing batting average to evaluate a hitter.

That is not what I want or have advocated for at all and your continued reductivism of my argument to the above is getting tiresome.

I don’t think there’s a great way to measure it right now outside of watching the games. Given hockey is a lot more fluid than any other sport I feel confident that there will be things in hockey that are both (1) important to success and (2) difficult to measure. Toughness is one of them IMO given hits is the only real metric and that sucks. If there is something else that measures / proxies it I’m all ears.

 

[lexrageorge]

Why is it a bad argument because it was illegal? If hits like that are the likely end result to the style of play and personnel the team uses, why is looking at that result rendered a bad argument merely because the hit was illegal and dangerous, but not necessarily egregiously so?

The hit by the Islanders that knocked Carlo out last year was clean. It was also the sort of heavy forecheck hit that seems to be less prevalent among the Bruins in recent memory than their playoff opponents. Does @kenneycb get to talk about that one because there was no suspension?

Given the team's history, it's easy to conflate a number of factors, especially when it comes to an attribute like toughness that is hard to measure.

Publicly available statistics on "hits" are of questionable reliability. So we are left to the eye test when it comes to measuring toughness. And the eye test is vulnerable to recency biases. The Carlo example does not necessary reflect on a lack of toughness on the part of the Bruins. It was a single hit that went wrong. The same hit could have happened, and, in the case of Nathan Horton, did happen to the 2011 Cup winning team that had plenty of toughness.

It's a valid question as to whether the Bruins have any players that could deliver similar hits to their opponents at the same frequency. I really don't watch enough of them on TV and live to really know the answer, and I see any hit they deliver as clean and beautiful and any hit they receive as the dirtiest imaginable that should result in a double-major penalty.

I do agree that having toughness and grit is good, just not at the expense of talent; the Islanders' grit isn't helping them a whole lot this year. I cringe whenever I hear KPD say "grit" in any context when it comes to the Bruins, and worry every time I hear about the Bruins signing or trading for a "thumper". I don't think I'm alone, given past history.

 

[Myt1]

Given the team's history, it's easy to conflate a number of factors, especially when it comes to an attribute like toughness that is hard to measure.

Publicly available statistics on "hits" are of questionable reliability. So we are left to the eye test when it comes to measuring toughness. And the eye test is vulnerable to recency biases. The Carlo example does not necessary reflect on a lack of toughness on the part of the Bruins. It was a single hit that went wrong. The same hit could have happened, and, in the case of Nathan Horton, did happen to the 2011 Cup winning team that had plenty of toughness.

It's a valid question as to whether the Bruins have any players that could deliver similar hits to their opponents at the same frequency. I really don't watch enough of them on TV and live to really know the answer, and I see any hit they deliver as clean and beautiful and any hit they receive as the dirtiest imaginable that should result in a double-major penalty.

This is awesome.

I do agree that having toughness and grit is good, just not at the expense of talent; the Islanders' grit isn't helping them a whole lot this year. I cringe whenever I hear KPD say "grit" in any context when it comes to the Bruins, and worry every time I hear about the Bruins signing or trading for a "thumper". I don't think I'm alone, given past history.

Absolutely. And, to the extent that signing Forbort and doing things like that turns into that stupidity, it’s awful and lamentable. But treating every question about Bruins’ toughness like something it’s not just gets old.

 

[LogansDad]

Cereal is a desert.

Add milk.

Hahahahaha.

 

[burstnbloom]

That is not what I want or have advocated for at all and your continued reductivism of my argument to the above is getting tiresome.

I don’t think there’s a great way to measure it right now outside of watching the games. Given hockey is a lot more fluid than any other sport I feel confident that there will be things in hockey that are both (1) important to success and (2) difficult to measure. Toughness is one of them IMO given hits is the only real metric and that sucks. If there is something else that measures / proxies it I’m all ears.

I wasn't addressing you in that post as I clearly responded to another poster. If there were a metric that measures "toughness" you'd have explain why a series of very tough and very gritty teams suck every year. People have spoken ad nauseum about the bruins losing to tampa bay, st louis and the islanders and claimed it was toughness. Unfortunately for that argument, there actually are quantifiable reasons for why they lost those series. For your assertion to be correct, you'd have to be able to disprove the quantifiable arguments and that seems rather daunting. If everything available points to one thing and you insist that your opinion of what matters differs from that, well I admire your confidence.

As far as watching the games, I watch every bruins game and they are as physical a team as there is in the nhl. Do they throw bone crushing hits? no, except for chuck, but they consistently win battles on the wall at a higher rate than most teams. That bears out in their overall numbers. teams can't get to the net against this team. What they don't do, is punch people in the face very often. When someone gets targeted, there is no "dallas game" response with Shane Hnidy beating the shit out of Matt Niskanen. When people who advocate for "toughness" are pressed on that, they always act like thats not what they are talking about. but they are. Because all of the other stuff that comes with physicality - the separating of the opponent from the puck, the keeping opponents from the net, the consistent winning of physical battles, the bruins are one of the better teams in the NHL at that.

 

[mwonow]

Given the team's history, it's easy to conflate a number of factors, especially when it comes to an attribute like toughness that is hard to measure.

Publicly available statistics on "hits" are of questionable reliability. So we are left to the eye test when it comes to measuring toughness. And the eye test is vulnerable to recency biases. The Carlo example does not necessary reflect on a lack of toughness on the part of the Bruins. It was a single hit that went wrong. The same hit could have happened, and, in the case of Nathan Horton, did happen to the 2011 Cup winning team that had plenty of toughness.

It's a valid question as to whether the Bruins have any players that could deliver similar hits to their opponents at the same frequency. I really don't watch enough of them on TV and live to really know the answer, and I see any hit they deliver as clean and beautiful and any hit they receive as the dirtiest imaginable that should result in a double-major penalty.

I do agree that having toughness and grit is good, just not at the expense of talent; the Islanders' grit isn't helping them a whole lot this year. I cringe whenever I hear KPD say "grit" in any context when it comes to the Bruins, and worry every time I hear about the Bruins signing or trading for a "thumper". I don't think I'm alone, given past history.

Thanks for mentioning 2011. My (admittedly not grounded in advanced stats or a vague reference to winning battles "on the wall") memory is that the Bs fortunes turned when they took Sean Thornton out of the press box and put him on the ice - that the team played with swagger after that (though ST didn't spend a bunch of time face-punching vs. the Canucks, IIRC) - and that whatever other observations one cares to offer, the Bs got pushed around by the Blues while winning neither the "on the wall!" battles nor the Cup at the end of the series. Others' MMV, of course...

 

[Myt1]

I wasn't addressing you in that post as I clearly responded to another poster.

You were responding to another poster who was responding to posts about toughness. It wasn’t like his post was in a vacuum.

If there were a metric that measures "toughness" you'd have explain why a series of very tough and very gritty teams suck every year. People have spoken ad nauseum about the bruins losing to tampa bay, st louis and the islanders and claimed it was toughness. Unfortunately for that argument, there actually are quantifiable reasons for why they lost those series. For your assertion to be correct, you'd have to be able to disprove the quantifiable arguments and that seems rather daunting.

This just isn’t how any of this works. In fact, it evinces primary premise fundamental flaws in reason and logic and concepts of causation.

If everything available points to one thing and you insist that your opinion of what matters differs from that, well I admire your confidence.

Dude, this is . . . this is all a lot to unpack.

As far as watching the games, I watch every bruins game and they are as physical a team as there is in the nhl. Do they throw bone crushing hits? no, except for chuck, but they consistently win battles on the wall at a higher rate than most teams. That bears out in their overall numbers. teams can't get to the net against this team. What they don't do, is punch people in the face very often. When someone gets targeted, there is no "dallas game" response with Shane Hnidy beating the shit out of Matt Niskanen. When people who advocate for "toughness" are pressed on that, they always act like thats not what they are talking about. but they are. Because all of the other stuff that comes with physicality - the separating of the opponent from the puck, the keeping opponents from the net, the consistent winning of physical battles, the bruins are one of the better teams in the NHL at that.

Jesus, this is a really specifically weird response.

 

[kenneycb]

I wasn't addressing you in that post as I clearly responded to another poster. If there were a metric that measures "toughness" you'd have explain why a series of very tough and very gritty teams suck every year. People have spoken ad nauseum about the bruins losing to tampa bay, st louis and the islanders and claimed it was toughness. Unfortunately for that argument, there actually are quantifiable reasons for why they lost those series. For your assertion to be correct, you'd have to be able to disprove the quantifiable arguments and that seems rather daunting. If everything available points to one thing and you insist that your opinion of what matters differs from that, well I admire your confidence.

Given my and Myt1 are the only ones taking the opposing view in this back and forth you’re either tangentially responding to me or creating a strawman about some disembodied group so I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I said it was a factor. Similar to everything else I’ve been saying, this is different from the only / primary factor.

And maybe Tampa was able to create more chances because they pinned the Bruins down with a heavy forecheck that made it difficult for the Bruins to set up their breakout and led to a bunch of a turnovers and non-tape to tape passes that had the double effect of tiring out the Bruins and making the defensemen think twice even when making a clean breakout, thus allowing Tampa’s more skilled forwards to take advantage of a tired back end to generate higher quality chances. I don’t know how you quantify any of that except for the very last part. Chances are an end result of a series of actions and you just keep pointing to the end result without touching upon the how outside of some vague notion of skilled hockey players doing skilled things (gross oversimplification of course).

 

[Myt1]

Given my and Myt1 are the only ones taking the opposing view in this back and forth you’re either tangentially responding to me or creating a strawman about some disembodied group so I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I said it was a factor. Similar to everything else I’ve been saying, this is different from the only / primary factor.

And maybe Tampa was able to create more chances because they pinned the Bruins down with a heavy forecheck that made it difficult for the Bruins to set up their breakout and led to a bunch of a turnovers and non-tape to tape passes that had the double effect of tiring out the Bruins and making the defensemen think twice even when making a clean breakout, thus allowing Tampa’s more skilled forwards to take advantage of a tired back end to generate higher quality chances. I don’t know how you quantify any of that except for the very last part. Chances are an end result of a series of actions and you just keep pointing to the end result without touching upon the how outside of some vague notion of skilled hockey players doing skilled things (gross oversimplification of course).

I don’t even know that I’ve taken the opposing view, other than to say that it’s a perfectly cromulent thing to discuss. It’s really, really weird to respond to that discussion with higher level, multi-input statistics and treat those as a refutation, when they are anything but.

The exact same thing happens when anyone dares to discuss Jake DeBrusk in anything other than fawning light. You can’t question whether his effort or conditioning are factors, because, when you look at noisy possession metrics, they’re good and you have to ignore last year, because someone of his talent scoring three goals is driven entirely by linemates and deployment and super mean coaching.

Everything that doesn’t match up with a statistic designed to look at an aspect of the game that correlates with success over a large universe of data is dismissed as a “narrative” or “myth.” That’s just a super weird way to think about things, although the fundamental error in logic described above probably illustrates the underlying flaw.

 

[Myt1]

We also saw a little of this in the discussion of what we should expect from Rask coming into this year. A new, subjective statistic without broader review and context was presented as evidence that it was reasonable to believe that he would be elite, and the facts that he was a 34 year old whose more recent primary value was tied to being around the middle of the pack statistically in any given year—but with an elite, alien level of consistency from year to year—and who missed much of last season and could barely move by the end of it due to serious injury and the knock on physical effects associated with compensating for that injury were given less weight.

 

[cshea]

Anyways, we're sitting out 4th best defenseman tonight for no real reason.

View: https://twitter.com/conroyherald/status/1507013823546355729?s=20&t=I26FQNIsJtgoBk10F4qSYw

 

[LogansDad]

Anyways, we're sitting out 4th best defenseman tonight for no real reason.

View: https://twitter.com/conroyherald/status/1507013823546355729?s=20&t=I26FQNIsJtgoBk10F4qSYw

Oh my god. I'm going to cry.

 

[biff_hardbody]

Reilly better than Carlo? I'm pretty lukewarm on that take. I assume you're relying on advanced #s like Corsi (55.9 for Reilly, 50.8 for Carlo)? That would also indicate Reilly is better than McAvoy, fwiw. In fact, by Corsi, Reilly is better than every Bruins defenseman except Ahcan (58.8 over 5 games) and Zboril (58.6 in 10 games).

No disagreement that Reilly should be playing over Forbort.

 

[burstnbloom]

Reilly better than Carlo? I'm pretty lukewarm on that take. I assume you're relying on advanced #s like Corsi (55.9 for Reilly, 50.8 for Carlo)? That would also indicate Reilly is better than McAvoy, fwiw. In fact, by Corsi, Reilly is better than every Bruins defenseman except Ahcan (58.8 over 5 games) and Zboril (58.6 in 10 games).

No disagreement that Reilly should be playing over Forbort.

It's not just Corsi - its all the data models. Reilly managed a 52% xG with 40% ozone starts playing in Ottawa. Forbort can't manage that here and he played half his minutes with a norris caliber D. I can just feel the decision making "Tampa is a heavy team, we need to play the heavy guy" and then they will shelter the hell out of Forbort and he will still be just ok. In the end, because the top 4 is so good, it won't really matter that much, but the insistence on playing worse players for dumb reasons is annoying,.

 

[cshea]

I'm just not a Carlo guy. It's probably close to a push between Reilly and Carlo but I'll take the guy who can can actually transition the puck in Reilly.

Reilly also grades out stronger by almost every analytical tool, not just shot attempts. In fairness to Carlo he does get leaned on heavily in defensive situations where Reilly gets more o zone starts.

We can quibble over Reilly vs. Carlo but to me, barring injury, it's an egregious coaching decision to sit Reilly over Clifton and Forbort.

 

[BostonFanInCanesLand]

Bergeron’s still out tonight so Studnicka gets another shot centering Marchand and DeBrusk. Lets hope they flash something.

As for the defense - I’m not sure that the future Carlo will ever grow into the player that was hoped for pre-injuries. If he can stay un-concussed then perhaps he can get on a bigger growth trend line but I am skeptical. He still has value but I wouldn’t be upset if he’s packaged to get something better (like a 2C). The Bruins would need to have a good RD for PKing to replace him (so that they can keep themselves from wearing out McAvoy).

One of my fondest wishes for the rest of this season and the playoffs is for Lindholm to be a monster PK weapon so that Bruce can be de-coupled from his LD PK binkie Forbort. If Forbort isn’t seen as critical for the PK, his spot in the lineup is up for grabs. At a minimum that could lead to trading Forbort in the offseason instead of Reilly. Before that it might convince Cassidy to play Reilly more - to try Reilly/Clifton in addition to Forbort/Reilly.

The NHL has moved beyond the 1 speedy offensive/no D plus a bruising stay at home D. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t optimal to have pairs that complement each other - Reilly, like McAvoy, likes to activate in the zone. To do that safely you need to trust that your partner has the awareness to cover (or the chops to recover). The Bruins’ overall team defense concept helps (forwards with heightened awareness and responsibilities) but still, finding the right hybrid players and pairings matters.

The xGF and xGA per 60 are comparable for the Forbort/Clifton and Reilly/Clifton pairings (While the 1st and 2nd pairing numbers with Forbort are atrocious). I think with more time on the ice, the Reilly/Clifton numbers would improve (and match the eye-test of being better than Forbort/Clifton). It’s a shame Zboril is out for the year - he was really coming into his own.

 

[Maximus]

I'm just not a Carlo guy. It's probably close to a push between Reilly and Carlo but I'll take the guy who can can actually transition the puck in Reilly.

Reilly also grades out stronger by almost every analytical tool, not just shot attempts. In fairness to Carlo he does get leaned on heavily in defensive situations where Reilly gets more o zone starts.

We can quibble over Reilly vs. Carlo but to me, barring injury, it's an egregious coaching decision to sit Reilly over Clifton and Forbort.

This. I am not a Carlo guy either, very soft for a such a big man. Sitting Reilly over Clifton and Forbort is malpractice.

 

[cshea]

Forbort - Clifton has actually been OK. 55% xGF% in 384 minutes and 46$ ozone start.

I think we're going to have to accept and live with Forbort. He leads the team in average time on ice shorthanded at 3:06 per game and is decent enough at killing penalties. It's kind of like McQuaid. You can ice the puck all day long on the PK, you don't need to break it out and transition. Lindholm is a capable penalty killer but they aren't going to just hand him the top job and banish Forbort.

Ultimately they're going to have to decide between Reilly on his off side or Clifton is the 3rd pair RD.

 

[biff_hardbody]

What I like about Carlo is his (seemingly rare) combination of size and speed. The fact he was playing in the NHL at a young age made me hopeful he would develop puck moving skills and physicality as he got older. That hasn't really happened and the head injuries are cause for concern. That said, he appears to me to be an excellent penalty killer and his absence when he is out of the lineup is noticeable. He was a big part of the 2019 cup run and each year he has been injured before or during the playoffs have been a big hit to the Bruins.

The injuries , especially given his contract length, could be a problem and he has not developed as I had hoped. But I can't quit the size/speed combo from a shutdown defenseman.

 

[cshea]

What I like about Carlo was his (seemingly rare) combination of size and speed. The fact he was playing in the NHL at a young age made me hopeful he would develop puck moving skills and physicality as he got older. That hasn't really happened and the head injuries are cause for concern. That said, he appears to me to be an excellent penalty killer and his absence when he is out of the lineup is noticeable. He was a big part of the 2019 cup run and each year he has been injured before or during the playoffs have been a big hit to the Bruins.

The injuries , especially given his contract length, could be a problem and he has not developed as I had hoped. But I can't quit the size/speed combo from a shutdown defenseman.

He's a good defensive defenseman. On the whole he's a low event guy. When he is on the ice, nothing happens. He surpresses shots, chances and goals at both ends of the ice. That's not necessarily a bad thing. He's mobile for a big guy which helps him stick with guys defensively and close gaps. He's a disaster with the puck on his stick. Between regular and post season he's over 400 games played in the NHL. He's not going to suddenly develop offensive puck moving skills. It's just not there.

I'm not trying to knock him, he's a good player and helps the team. For me personally I'd trade a little of the defensive stoutness for more transition and puck moving. A problem the Bruins have had in the past, and still do to some extent, is they end up with a defense group that is too heavily specialized. Carlo is one of those specialists. Really good at one thing, not so good at another.

 

[Zososoxfan]

Just to add something on the toughness debate, the toughness I always worry about these days isn't fighting (almost a non-issue) nor delivering big hits (more important, but not huge), but rather net presence. In the playoffs when the whistles get swallowed more often it's important to be able to generate ugly chances when the skill lines aren't putting up points. Getting in front of the goalie and making life tough for the defense is a change of pace and requires the D to be sharp around their net. It also helps move guys out of the low slot on the defensive end. Of course these type of players are going to have more trouble in transition and getting up and down the ice, but having a couple of guys who can do dirty work down low is helpful for a well-rounded team. All that said, I have no idea how the Bruins stack up in that department or if there are any metrics to analyze something like that.

 

[durandal1707]

Just to add something on the toughness debate, the toughness I always worry about these days isn't fighting (almost a non-issue) nor delivering big hits (more important, but not huge), but rather net presence. In the playoffs when the whistles get swallowed more often it's important to be able to generate ugly chances when the skill lines aren't putting up points. Getting in front of the goalie and making life tough for the defense is a change of pace and requires the D to be sharp around their net. It also helps move guys out of the low slot on the defensive end. Of course these type of players are going to have more trouble in transition and getting up and down the ice, but having a couple of guys who can do dirty work down low is helpful for a well-rounded team. All that said, I have no idea how the Bruins stack up in that department or if there are any metrics to analyze something like that.

This captures my thoughts on "toughness" perfectly, especially regarding why the 2019 team came up short. Also, I think there's a bit of disservice done by flattening "skill" down to things that are usually the province of smaller and lighter players like speed and shooting%. Net-front presence is a skill as well, and it's been one the Bs have been sorely lacking since the departure of Lucic IMO. It's not just being a big body, it's about the ability and willingness to take some punishment and still being able to fight for and find rebounds, either keeping possession alive or cashing in some greasy goals. (Nick Ritchie is the perfect example of a guy who had the physique but lacked this skill.) Combined with their defense back then not being as active in the oZone, their fatal flaw was that they could be boxed out of the center of the ice with ease, forced to take low-danger periphery shots. And that's exactly what the Blues did once they got the lead in Game 7. On the other end of the ice, the Blues also had their way of pushing around the Bruins dmen and getting in front of Tuukka.

I think it's a little less of a problem with this year's team. Between Grz, Reilly, and a more mature McAvoy now they have enough defensemen who are comfortable going deep in the offensive zone and can break down defenses who try to park the bus. In the previous few seasons, they've been a team that relied on their top-tier power play to take and build leads and then played low-event 5v5 hockey in front of an elite goaltender. (Which is highly dependent on getting penalty calls, which is why I think they were a dominant regular-season team but highly flawed in the playoffs where the whistles generally get put away.) Now they're generating high-danger chances regularly, and even though they still have a lack of finish overall they're playing a much more reliable game.

 

[Salem's Lot]

This captures my thoughts on "toughness" perfectly, especially regarding why the 2019 team came up short. Also, I think there's a bit of disservice done by flattening "skill" down to things that are usually the province of smaller and lighter players like speed and shooting%. Net-front presence is a skill as well, and it's been one the Bs have been sorely lacking since the departure of Lucic IMO. It's not just being a big body, it's about the ability and willingness to take some punishment and still being able to fight for and find rebounds, either keeping possession alive or cashing in some greasy goals. (Nick Ritchie is the perfect example of a guy who had the physique but lacked this skill.) Combined with their defense back then not being as active in the oZone, their fatal flaw was that they could be boxed out of the center of the ice with ease, forced to take low-danger periphery shots. And that's exactly what the Blues did once they got the lead in Game 7. On the other end of the ice, the Blues also had their way of pushing around the Bruins dmen and getting in front of Tuukka.

I think it's a little less of a problem with this year's team. Between Grz, Reilly, and a more mature McAvoy now they have enough defensemen who are comfortable going deep in the offensive zone and can break down defenses who try to park the bus. In the previous few seasons, they've been a team that relied on their top-tier power play to take and build leads and then played low-event 5v5 hockey in front of an elite goaltender. (Which is highly dependent on getting penalty calls, which is why I think they were a dominant regular-season team but highly flawed in the playoffs where the whistles generally get put away.) Now they're generating high-danger chances regularly, and even though they still have a lack of finish overall they're playing a much more reliable game.

Horton was great at using his size around the net as well. That really was a great all around line.

In hindsight, what a steal it was to get Horton for Dennis Wideman and the 1st round pick that ended up being Derek Forbort.

 

[Frisbetarian]

I'm finding the toughness argument fascinating, and want to attempt to add some perspective. I have to thread a bit of a needle here as I cannot divulge anything with internal Bruins data and/or discussions, so everything below will be based on publically available data.

I don't think I'm speaking out of school when I share that the toughness discussion played out in every pro meeting I attended (7+ years with the team). In particular, many in the room were concerned about toughness and physicality in the playoffs. I am going to focus here on postseason play, and how it differs from the regular season.

There's a perception that the refs swallow the whistles in the playoffs, but is that actually true? Looking strictly at the number of penalties called, it is not. Over the past 3 seasons, teams have averaged 3.20 power play opportunities (and PK's obviously) per game in the postseason vs 2.97 PPO/G in the regular season, an almost 10% increase. Quick aside here, but in the 5 seasons prior to this penalties per game in the postseason and regular season were close to even. But I do not think the number of penalties tells the whole story.

Hits (which I agree is a terrible stat, but the following also is true using more accurate internal measures) increase by over 50% in the postseason. Over the past 3 seasons, NHL teams have averaged 33.5 hits per game in the playoffs, while just racking up 22.1 hits per game in the regular season (+52%). This matters because there is a very strong correlation between hits and penalties in the regular season. Looking at all NHL players with over 500 minutes in a season over the last 3 years (almost 1700 player seasons), and we see a correlation (r) over 50% between the number of hits a player had and the penalties they committed.



On the above, hits are on the Y axis, penalties on the X axis. FYI, the outliers in penalties (above 8) include Brendan Lemieux (twice), Nicolas Deslauriers, and Nick Ritchie, outliers in hits (over 20) we have Ryan Reeves (twice), Matt Martin (twice), and William Carrier. No surprises there.

The above strongly suggests the game is called differently in the postseason, with the refs letting a lot more go. I think this is to the detriment of the game, and I won't even start on the Blues hits vs penalties numbers in THAT SERIES!

Does this mean teams need more toughness in the postseason? I'll withhold comment, but do think it's a fucking joke to have different rules in the playoffs.

 

[Myt1]

I'm finding the toughness argument fascinating, and want to attempt to add some perspective. I have to thread a bit of a needle here as I cannot divulge anything with internal Bruins data and/or discussions, so everything below will be based on publically available data.

I don't think I'm speaking out of school when I share that the toughness discussion played out in every pro meeting I attended (7+ years with the team). In particular, many in the room were concerned about toughness and physicality in the playoffs. I am going to focus here on postseason play, and how it differs from the regular season.

There's a perception that the refs swallow the whistles in the playoffs, but is that actually true? Looking strictly at the number of penalties called, it is not. Over the past 3 seasons, teams have averaged 3.20 power play opportunities (and PK's obviously) per game in the postseason vs 2.97 PPO/G in the regular season, an almost 10% increase. Quick aside here, but in the 5 seasons prior to this penalties per game in the postseason and regular season were close to even. But I do not think the number of penalties tells the whole story.

Hits (which I agree is a terrible stat, but the following also is true using more accurate internal measures) increase by over 50% in the postseason. Over the past 3 seasons, NHL teams have averaged 33.5 hits per game in the playoffs, while just racking up 22.1 hits per game in the regular season (+52%). This matters because there is a very strong correlation between hits and penalties in the regular season. Looking at all NHL players with over 500 minutes in a season over the last 3 years (almost 1700 player seasons), and we see a correlation (r) over 50% between the number of hits a player had and the penalties they committed.

View attachment 50410

On the above, hits are on the Y axis, penalties on the X axis. FYI, the outliers in penalties (above 8) include Brendan Lemieux (twice), Nicolas Deslauriers, and Nick Ritchie, outliers in hits (over 20) we have Ryan Reeves (twice), Matt Martin (twice), and William Carrier. No surprises there.

The above strongly suggests the game is called differently in the postseason, with the refs letting a lot more go. I think this is to the detriment of the game, and I won't even start on the Blues hits vs penalties numbers in THAT SERIES!

Does this mean teams need more toughness in the postseason? I'll withhold comment, but do think it's a fucking joke to have different rules in the playoffs.

Super interesting as usual, @Frisbetarian

And there’s yet a third set of playoff rules in which the later a game gets, the more that gets let go until some chickenshit nonsense that’s nowhere near as bad as the shit that’s been happening all game finally gets called as the refs decide to “try to get control” of the game.

 

[burstnbloom]

Thanks so much for sharing @Frisbetarian. By definition, a player can only accumulate a hit when the other team has the puck. Is there further information correlating the hitting with the penalties? Is there a similar correlation between constantly defending and penalties? I’m sure front office data teams are constantly trying to isolate causation in order to drive performance on the ice. When you show up with posts like this I just want to ask you 10000 questions. Great stuff, thanks.

 

[Frisbetarian]

And there’s yet a third set of playoff rules in which the later a game gets, the more that gets let go until some chickenshit nonsense that’s nowhere near as bad as the shit that’s been happening all game finally gets called as the refs decide to “try to get control” of the game.

This would actually be interesting to try to quantify. If I get some time to look, I'll let you know what I find.

Thanks so much for sharing @Frisbetarian. By definition, a player can only accumulate a hit when the other team has the puck. Is there further information correlating the hitting with the penalties? Is there a similar correlation between constantly defending and penalties? I’m sure front office data teams are constantly trying to isolate causation in order to drive performance on the ice. When you show up with posts like this I just want to ask you 10000 questions. Great stuff, thanks.

You are of course 100% correct that hits can only occur when the opposition has the puck. effectively making it a negative stat (the more hits, the more you are defending). One possible way to correct this would be to look at hits as a function of opposition possession. Your question about constantly defending and penalties is a good one, but it's not an easy one to research. Hockey is such a fluid sport that trying to find relationships between defensive actions (blocked shots, blocked passes, blue line holds, etc.) and penalties would in all probability be an exercise in futility.

 

[Haunted]

I’d love to see some kind of study on that effect Myt1 references. It’s one of those things that seems to happen constantly, but does it? Is it really even a thing?

 

[burstnbloom]

I’d love to see some kind of study on that effect Myt1 references. It’s one of those things that seems to happen constantly, but does it? Is it really even a thing?

I think Micah did a study on this, I’ll try to find it. It would be really surprising if it wasn’t a thing, wouldn’t it? It feels like an accepted part of the game that we’ve all given up on a remedy happening. It would be crazy if the numbers showed otherwise.

 

[The Napkin]

sidetrack from this excellent conversation:

 

[pk1627]

I'm finding the toughness argument fascinating, and want to attempt to add some perspective. I have to thread a bit of a needle here as I cannot divulge anything with internal Bruins data and/or discussions, so everything below will be based on publically available data.

I don't think I'm speaking out of school when I share that the toughness discussion played out in every pro meeting I attended (7+ years with the team). In particular, many in the room were concerned about toughness and physicality in the playoffs. I am going to focus here on postseason play, and how it differs from the regular season.

There's a perception that the refs swallow the whistles in the playoffs, but is that actually true? Looking strictly at the number of penalties called, it is not. Over the past 3 seasons, teams have averaged 3.20 power play opportunities (and PK's obviously) per game in the postseason vs 2.97 PPO/G in the regular season, an almost 10% increase. Quick aside here, but in the 5 seasons prior to this penalties per game in the postseason and regular season were close to even. But I do not think the number of penalties tells the whole story.

Hits (which I agree is a terrible stat, but the following also is true using more accurate internal measures) increase by over 50% in the postseason. Over the past 3 seasons, NHL teams have averaged 33.5 hits per game in the playoffs, while just racking up 22.1 hits per game in the regular season (+52%). This matters because there is a very strong correlation between hits and penalties in the regular season. Looking at all NHL players with over 500 minutes in a season over the last 3 years (almost 1700 player seasons), and we see a correlation (r) over 50% between the number of hits a player had and the penalties they committed.

View attachment 50410

On the above, hits are on the Y axis, penalties on the X axis. FYI, the outliers in penalties (above 8) include Brendan Lemieux (twice), Nicolas Deslauriers, and Nick Ritchie, outliers in hits (over 20) we have Ryan Reeves (twice), Matt Martin (twice), and William Carrier. No surprises there.

The above strongly suggests the game is called differently in the postseason, with the refs letting a lot more go. I think this is to the detriment of the game, and I won't even start on the Blues hits vs penalties numbers in THAT SERIES!

Does this mean teams need more toughness in the postseason? I'll withhold comment, but do think it's a fucking joke to have different rules in the playoffs.

So wonderful to see your insight back, Fris- in both this thread and the Sale thread.

It is absolutely inconceivable to me that the NHL allows their best players to face such head hunting in the playoffs. I used to really look forward to hockey playoffs. Now I wonder who’s going to go down. It’s hard to watch.

 

[nclauser]

Great discussion, folks. I’m wondering if anyone knows how problematic it is to compare per-game stats across regular and postseason? Just looking at last year’s Bruins postseason, and doing the math in my head, it looks like they played about 50 extra minutes over 11 games, so about 4.5 extra minutes per game, or something like 7-8%. If that’s representative of overall postseason TOI, it could skew things a fair amount, (Even after acknowledging that regular season games obviously average slightly more than 60 minutes.)

 

[Frisbetarian]

Great discussion, folks. I’m wondering if anyone knows how problematic it is to compare per-game stats across regular and postseason? Just looking at last year’s Bruins postseason, and doing the math in my head, it looks like they played about 50 extra minutes over 11 games, so about 4.5 extra minutes per game, or something like 7-8%. If that’s representative of overall postseason TOI, it could skew things a fair amount, (Even after acknowledging that regular season games obviously average slightly more than 60 minutes.)

Excellent point!! When I did this for the team, I used per 60 minutes as opposed to per game, and that is of course a more accurate method to compare regular and postseason. I was lazy and didn’t want to do that work here (especially using publicly available data), so I went with per game. Great catch!
Fwiw, using penalties per 60 doesn’t change things much, but it does lower the post and regular season penalty discrepancy. This makes the lack of calls considering the huge increase in hits look a touch more egregious.

 

[Myt1]

sidetrack from this excellent conversation:

I think I found my calling. I can curse in multiple Massachusetts dialects.

 

[nclauser]

Thanks, Frisbetarian. My posts are rare as hen's teeth, so I feel like I'd better contribute when I actually peek my head out of my lurker cave. This is obviously something you've thought about before, do you have a sense of what the average playoff game time is? I can't think where to even start looking. (The first couple pages of Google results were no help.)

 

[Frisbetarian]

Thanks, Frisbetarian. My posts are rare as hen's teeth, so I feel like I'd better contribute when I actually peek my head out of my lurker cave. This is obviously something you've thought about before, do you have a sense of what the average playoff game time is? I can't think where to even start looking. (The first couple pages of Google results were no help.)

You can get team time on ice info on NaturalStatTrick under Team Season Totals. Selecting all strengths and all scores will give you the total time on ice for each team, along with their games played. Download the info by clicking CSV all, and when you have it in your spreadsheet program total both the TOI and games, and divide to get the average TOI per game. FWIW, for the 2020-21 season teams averaged 60.8 min per game during the regular season, and 63.3 min/game in the postseason.

There may be easier ways to do it; I am not super familiar with public hockey data.

Post more.

 

[Over Guapo Grande]

You can get team time on ice info on NaturalStatTrick under Team Season Totals. Selecting all strengths and all scores will give you the total time on ice for each team, along with their games played. Download the info by clicking CSV all, and when you have it in your spreadsheet program total both the TOI and games, and divide to get the average TOI per game. FWIW, for the 2020-21 season teams averaged 60.8 min per game during the regular season, and 63.3 min/game in the postseason.

There may be easier ways to do it; I am not super familiar with public hockey data.

Post more.

I am surprised that it is only 2.5 more mpg in the postseason. No game can end in under 60... so I guess it is confirmation bias that makes me think of games that go 2OTs in the post season, and not recall games that are quickly resolved in OT (or the 2020-21 postseason didn't have many of those marathon games...?)

 

[cshea]

The forward lines are starting to come together

Marchand - Bergeron - DeBrusk...71% xGF%
Hall - Haula - Pastrnak 57% xGF%
Frederic - Coyle - Smith 51% xGF%
Foligno - Nosek - Lazar 64% xGF%

Haula as 2C is scary. but it's been working and he has experience doing it in the past. The 3rd line has been vastly outperforming their underlying numbers (actual goals are 13-2) but nosing over 50% xGF% is a good sign. They are due for regression but have been playing much better the past few games. The 4th line is basically the opposite of the 3rd line. They have been very good but don't have the actual results (0-4 actual goals). They could use one going in for them. 64% xGF% is impressive given their usage and zone starts.

Still think I would give Studnicka a ride with Hall and Pasta before the end of the season in case Haula crumbles but little else to complain about.