23-24 Bruins Season Thread

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,636
The league wants teams to actually try to score in OT - unlike the old 5 v 5 system which meant if you went for it but got caught in an odd man rush the other way and lost, you got 0 points. 1 point > 0 points. Now teams can play with reckless abandon in OT and it's a more exciting product. You don't lose out on a potential point if you lose in OT - it's already guaranteed. So you're incentivized to try for the win, instead of playing for the tie. I think it's awesome if they have to have some sort of OT / winner as opposed to just ties after 60 minutes (which I wouldn't be opposed to but probably wouldn't be liked by the masses).
I don't understand. You're not incentivized in trying to win if you get 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss? There are no ties in hockey anymore so you either win or you lose. If you get 0 points for a loss, I'd think you're even MORE incentivized to go for the win because getting 2 is way, way better than getting 0.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,323
Hingham, MA
I don't understand. You're not incentivized in trying to win if you get 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss? There are no ties in hockey anymore so you either win or you lose. If you get 0 points for a loss, I'd think you're even MORE incentivized to go for the win because getting 2 is way, way better than getting 0.
In the old system teams would sit back because a tie guaranteed them a point. If they went for a win but something bad happened the other way, they'd lose and end up with 0. So they were very conservative in order to earn that point. Now you can be more aggressive and still get that point even if you lose. Think about a game against a division rival - the Habs or whatever. Do you want to risk them getting 2 points while you get 0? Hell no. 1-1 is way better than 0-2. But now, you can't lose 2 points to the team you are playing - you only lose a single point.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,636
In the old system teams would sit back because a tie guaranteed them a point. If they went for a win but something bad happened the other way, they'd lose and end up with 0. So they were very conservative in order to earn that point. Now you can be more aggressive and still get that point even if you lose. Think about a game against a division rival - the Habs or whatever. Do you want to risk them getting 2 points while you get 0? Hell no. 1-1 is way better than 0-2. But now, you can't lose 2 points to the team you are playing - you only lose a single point.
Yeah I get why the system was changed to its current iteration from the old "we can get a point for a tie" situation. But that's not what I'm talking about. Now, in today's NHL, you can't tie. Every game results in a win or a loss. So why have one point for an overtime loss? Why not just have 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss? You're very much incentivized to win the game because there's no tie to fall back on. Play 4-on-4 to have the game be wide open and teams know that if they don't win, they get zip.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,323
Hingham, MA
Yeah I get why the system was changed to its current iteration from the old "we can get a point for a tie" situation. But that's not what I'm talking about. Now, in today's NHL, you can't tie. Every game results in a win or a loss. So why have one point for an overtime loss? Why not just have 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss? You're very much incentivized to win the game because there's no tie to fall back on. Play 4-on-4 to have the game be wide open and teams know that if they don't win, they get zip.
And if it goes to a shootout you still get zip? Feels harsh.

Edit: I'm 100% a proponent of more regular season ties in all sports. They play 162 games in baseball and 82 in hockey and basketball. It's enough to differentiate teams. Why do we need to declare a winner in every game? Ok off my soapbox.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,202
306, row 14
Yeah I get why the system was changed to its current iteration from the old "we can get a point for a tie" situation. But that's not what I'm talking about. Now, in today's NHL, you can't tie. Every game results in a win or a loss. So why have one point for an overtime loss? Why not just have 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss? You're very much incentivized to win the game because there's no tie to fall back on. Play 4-on-4 to have the game be wide open and teams know that if they don't win, they get zip.
Because they decide these games with a skills competition. Losing in 3 on 3 or a shootout shouldn't be equal to losing in regulation.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,636
Just to be clear, I am not advocating for two points for a win, and zero points for a loss. I am advocating for normal standings based on wins and losses only. You get a win whether you get a win in regulation, in overtime, or by penalty shootout. You get a loss, whether it is a regulation, loss, an overtime, loss, or a loss in a shootout. Just straight win loss standings. Do away with points completely.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,323
Hingham, MA
Just to be clear, I am not advocating for two points for a win, and zero points for a loss. I am advocating for normal standings based on wins and losses only. You get a win whether you get a win in regulation, in overtime, or by penalty shootout. You get a loss, whether it is a regulation, loss, an overtime, loss, or a loss in a shootout. Just straight win loss standings. Do away with points completely.
Again, losing/winning via gimmick shootout would be recognized the same way as winning in regulation. That does not seem right.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,636
Again, losing/winning via gimmick shootout would be recognized the same way as winning in regulation. That does not seem right.
Well in the World Cup teams advance in the knockout stage by penalty kick shootout all the time. It works for them. A win is a win is a win.

In the NFL they have some funky rules for overtime. Even more so in college football. Even in baseball they now have the silly ghost runner on second. But every win counts the same.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,323
Hingham, MA
Well in the World Cup teams advance in the knockout stage by penalty kick shootout all the time. It works for them. A win is a win is a win.

In the NFL they have some funky rules for overtime. Even more so in college football. Even in baseball they now have the silly ghost runner on second. But every win counts the same.
The world cup penalty solution sucks but the difference with hockey is line changes vs having to keep the same 11 on the pitch. You can’t just keep the game going until someone scores. Everyone would just collapse.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,636
The world cup penalty solution sucks but the difference with hockey is line changes vs having to keep the same 11 on the pitch. You can’t just keep the game going until someone scores. Everyone would just collapse.
Understood. My point stands. Lots of sports have weird rules for extra periods of play yet a win counts the same in either case.

I mean if you’re arguing that it would be better for regular season hockey games to be golden goal play period after period until someone scores, I’m good with that.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,323
Hingham, MA
Understood. My point stands. Lots of sports have weird rules for extra periods of play yet a win counts the same in either case.

I mean if you’re arguing that it would be better for regular season hockey games to be golden goal play period after period until someone scores, I’m good with that.
As I have written, I think hockey should just be a tie and 1 point to each team if tied after 3 periods.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The world cup penalty solution sucks but the difference with hockey is line changes vs having to keep the same 11 on the pitch. You can’t just keep the game going until someone scores. Everyone would just collapse.
Or they could allow two subs for each 30 minute overtime period.

and make the goals two feet wider for each OT
 

ColdSoxPack

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
Jul 14, 2005
2,448
Simi Valley, CA
Brazeau is week to week to with an "upper body injury". Not a good sign. Does Pat Falloon slide into the lineup next week?

Boston Herald- “We’ll have a real good report for you (Friday) on the severity and length, but it’s week-to-week right now,” Montgomery told reporters in Raleigh as the B’s prepared to take on the Carolina Hurricanes on Thursday."
 

TheAOE

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
105
Brazeau is week to week to with an "upper body injury". Not a good sign. Does Pat Falloon slide into the lineup next week?

Boston Herald- “We’ll have a real good report for you (Friday) on the severity and length, but it’s week-to-week right now,” Montgomery told reporters in Raleigh as the B’s prepared to take on the Carolina Hurricanes on Thursday."
If Pat Falloon comes back, he is going to be grey and old. And we probably don't want him walking through that door anyways... :)

Perhaps Pat Maroon would be a better fit :)
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,176
I don't understand. You're not incentivized in trying to win if you get 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss? There are no ties in hockey anymore so you either win or you lose. If you get 0 points for a loss, I'd think you're even MORE incentivized to go for the win because getting 2 is way, way better than getting 0.
Would need to eliminate the shootout gimmick, which creates other problems.

I did actually look at this a few seasons back, and the various systems for awarding points usually don't change the standings all that much.
 

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
9,548
The Island
Understood. My point stands. Lots of sports have weird rules for extra periods of play yet a win counts the same in either case.

I mean if you’re arguing that it would be better for regular season hockey games to be golden goal play period after period until someone scores, I’m good with that.
I think you need to look to soccer for why continuous sudden death OT year-round is a bad thing. In hockey, it’s the same problem: you really can’t have a schedule as dense as they have with games potentially lasting more than 3 hours in search of a winner (and if you’re really concerned with style of play in OT, tell the teams that ANY mistake might cost them the game, because I guarantee you’ll see tons of super-conservative strategies like the 1-3-1 in hockey or parking the bus in soccer). Soccer decided that for pool/home-and-away play, ties were acceptable, while in knockouts, 30 minutes of OT, and if that’s not enough, the coin flip of PKs will do. Hockey (and really just the NA pro/junior leagues here), OTOH, decided that the coin flips were acceptable in the regular season, but continuous sudden death OT was what had to be done in the playoffs.

The answer is emerging in European leagues and international tournaments: the 3-2-1-0 points system. 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for OT/SO wins, 1for OT/SO losses, and 0 for regulation losses, incentivizes regulation wins, while not punishing a team that kept the game tied through regulation and a short OT, only to lose in a glorified coin flip.

And to counter what I think has been a hang-up, hockey just doesn’t believe in a pure win-loss decision like baseball, football, and basketball. The leagues don’t, the fans don’t, and I cannot think they ever will.
 

Jungleland

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2009
2,363
I kind of feel like (if you think the shootout is gimmicky and a problem) the solution is simple - 3 points for a "pure" win, 2 points for a SO win, 1 point for a SO loss. Every game worth the same total 3 points, and the shootout counted less than winning outright. (I'd probably be inclined to count overtime pre-shootout as a pure win/loss situation, but I could understand wanting to award the loser point and lower value win the second the third period ends given that taking skaters off the ice instantly changes the game.)
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,515
I kind of feel like (if you think the shootout is gimmicky and a problem) the solution is simple - 3 points for a "pure" win, 2 points for a SO win, 1 point for a SO loss. Every game worth the same total 3 points, and the shootout counted less than winning outright. (I'd probably be inclined to count overtime pre-shootout as a pure win/loss situation, but I could understand wanting to award the loser point and lower value win the second the third period ends given that taking skaters off the ice instantly changes the game.)
There are probably some crusty old farts worried about "records" if teams could suddenly get 3 points for a win.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,202
306, row 14
Trying to sort through the playoff lineup. I think there are some decisions to be made, mostly on defense.

Marchand - Coyle - DeBrusk
Heinen - Zacha - Pastrnak
XXX - Geekie - Frederic
Beecher - Boqvist - XXX

Basically 2 spots for 3, maybe 4 players. If healthy, Brazeau is a probably a lock for 4C. They said Brazeau week to week yesterday which seems ominous considering the playoffs are 2 weeks away. Tea leaves seem to indicate he won't be available. Maroon would certainly be the obvious replacement for Brazeau. He seems to be getting somewhat close to returning, Monty poinint to next Saturday's game against Pittsburgh as a possibility.

That leaves JVR and Lauko for the 3LW. JVR is the veteran and can play special teams, do the net front thing. Lauko in younger, more energetic and faster but brings very little offensively. It seems like they're leaning towards Lauko but that's probably going to be a game-by-game decision.

Defense

I think there are really 3 locks- McAvoy, Lindholm and Carlo. Then there's 5 guys for 3 spots - Grzelyck, Wotherspoon, Lohrei, Peeke, Shattenkirk.

For a lot of the year the top 4 has been:

Grzelyck - McAvoy
Lindholm - Carlo

Lindholm - Carlo has overall been good but were really shaky after Lindholm returned from injury. That has led to Lindholm - McAvoy being a thing for the past few games. They are dominant together. 58.78% xGF%, up 17-8 when they are on the ice together. The question is if they want to stick those 2 together or split them up for more coverage. I think I would split them up to start but know it's in my back pocket if I need it. So I think I stick with the traditional top 4, at least to start.

Bottom pair, I think I stick with Wotherspoon. He's played well all year and I think he's earned the job. Defensively, he's been the best of the bottom pair guys. I'm not sure who the other player should be. I think I'm leaning towards Shattenkirk. I like the mobility, I worry that Wotherspoon and Peeke would just get stuck in their own end and not be able to exit. Worthspoon - Shattenkirk also has a 59% xGF% together in a small sample, 128 minutes. The only downside is Shattenkirk doesn't kill penalties, though he would provide value on the PP.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,202
306, row 14
I think Monty (and probably Sweeney) really like Peeke’s defense, especially on the PK. I would be surprised if he isn’t on the playoff roster every night.
You are probably right but I don't love it. I think they become too lumbering and immobile. I think they can only play 1 of Wotherspoon and Peeke and Wotherspoon has been better across the board.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,515
JVR has 1 assist in his last 17 games since February 19 so he's not adding much, at least on the scoresheet.
I think he might've hit some kind of wall. And while JVR does theoretically help the offense, I think Lauko, despite the size difference, might be a more physical player. That's something they seem to want/need in the playoffs.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,736
South Boston
Yeah I get why the system was changed to its current iteration from the old "we can get a point for a tie" situation. But that's not what I'm talking about. Now, in today's NHL, you can't tie. Every game results in a win or a loss. So why have one point for an overtime loss? Why not just have 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss? You're very much incentivized to win the game because there's no tie to fall back on. Play 4-on-4 to have the game be wide open and teams know that if they don't win, they get zip.
Because shootouts are completely ridiculous. 3-3 barely less so. The loser point recognizes this, while also providing timely finality. You’ve offered nothing but status quo bias in support of your position. This is just a different—yet similarly arbitrary—way of effecting certain motivations.
 

bosox33

New Member
Oct 11, 2008
16
You are probably right but I don't love it. I think they become too lumbering and immobile. I think they can only play 1 of Wotherspoon and Peeke and Wotherspoon has been better across the board.
To my eye Peeke has been much more mobile than I anticipated he was based on reports. I think he's more mobile than Carlo. Just about every game he's made a few plays where I think he might get stuck but he's able to find a way out of whatever jam he's in. Personally I want both Peeke and Wotherspoon in the lineup every game if healthy. I'd rotate Grz and Shattenkirk based on matchups and health.
 

bosox33

New Member
Oct 11, 2008
16
To my eye Peeke has been much more mobile than I anticipated he was based on reports. I think he's more mobile than Carlo. Just about every game he's made a few plays where I think he might get stuck but he's able to find a way out of whatever jam he's in. Personally I want both Peeke and Wotherspoon in the lineup every game if healthy. I'd rotate Grz and Shattenkirk based on matchups and health.
Small Sample size I know, but for those who don't like the eye test I tried to pull the average game score for Bruins D. Granted small sample size for Peeke but the numbers back up the eye test for how he's looked so far. I can't figure out how to link the picture here, but through stat cards he has the second best average game score for the B's D at 0.76.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,202
306, row 14
Fluto suggested that Anthony Richard could be a postseason callup. He played well with Boqvist and Brazeau earlier in the year during his 9 games (1 more makes him waiver-required). He has 24g for providence this year.

https://theathletic.com/5386658/2024/04/03/anthony-richard-bruins-prospect-nhl-playoffs/
I'm not sure I agree with Fluto. I don't think they're going to stash Richard down in Providence and then suddenly call him up for the playoffs. They certainly sent him down for asset management reasons prior to the trade deadline but I think they would've called him up by now if he was a legitimate playoff option. Basically what they've done with Beecher. Richard also has a 36.64% xGF%, lowest on the team. He's got some wheels but I'm not sure I'd consider his 9-game game run as good. He's taxi squad material for me but well behind Maroon, Lauko, Beecher, JVR, etc.

I think another emerging lineup question is which goalie gets game 1. Pre-deadline it was obviously Swayman. Now I think it's Ullmark.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,323
Hingham, MA
I think another emerging lineup question is which goalie gets game 1. Pre-deadline it was obviously Swayman. Now I think it's Ullmark.
Did I hear Sean say on the Saturday broadcast that Monty is going to rotate them in the playoffs unlike last year?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,636
I like how they're finishing up the season. Winners of four straight, winning at Carolina. I'd love to go 3-1 over the next four and hit the playoffs winning 7 of their last 8. With good momentum. I definitely want them rotating goalies in the playoffs unless one of them just starts stinking it up.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,388
I'd love to go 3-1 over the next four and hit the playoffs winning 7 of their last 8. With good momentum.
None of this matters. Last year's team went 15-1 in their last 16.

Nothing about the regular season is predictive once the playoffs start. Only thing that matters is getting in.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,202
306, row 14
Wrong data. But the below point stands.

Throw the 82 games out the window come playoff time. They're meaningless.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,663
South Dartmouth, MA
None of this matters. Last year's team went 15-1 in their last 16.

Nothing about the regular season is predictive once the playoffs start. Only thing that matters is getting in.
And they carried that momentum right into the playoffs taking 3 of 4 from the panthers...too soon?
Kidding aside I completely agree that there really is nothing predictive, get in, be as healthy as possible and go from there.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,607
Gallows Hill
And they carried that momentum right into the playoffs taking 3 of 4 from the panthers...too soon?
Kidding aside I completely agree that there really is nothing predictive, get in, be as healthy as possible and go from there.
I would argue that this really makes the point that regular season results really don’t matter in the playoffs. They lost series because when Florida got desperate down 3-1, the Bruins really couldn’t stop them from scoring. That kind of urgency just does not exist in the regular season, or even early in a playoff series. It’s why teams come back from 3-0 and 3-1 deficits in the NHL much more than they do in the NBA or MLB.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,834
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I would argue that this really makes the point that regular season results really don’t matter in the playoffs. They lost series because when Florida got desperate down 3-1, the Bruins really couldn’t stop them from scoring. That kind of urgency just does not exist in the regular season, or even early in a playoff series. It’s why teams come back from 3-0 and 3-1 deficits in the NHL much more than they do in the NBA or MLB.
The question I've been asking for years is how to address the bolded. We all know that the playoffs are an entirely different game but it seems that no one has any clear idea about how to adequately prepare for them. Monty in particular completely fell apart in the playoffs last year.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,663
South Dartmouth, MA
I would argue that this really makes the point that regular season results really don’t matter in the playoffs. They lost series because when Florida got desperate down 3-1, the Bruins really couldn’t stop them from scoring. That kind of urgency just does not exist in the regular season, or even early in a playoff series. It’s why teams come back from 3-0 and 3-1 deficits in the NHL much more than they do in the NBA or MLB.
totally agree. I was just being an ass with that comment quite frankly. Great point about urgency by the way...
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,607
Gallows Hill
The question I've been asking for years is how to address the bolded. We all know that the playoffs are an entirely different game but it seems that no one has any clear idea about how to adequately prepare for them. Monty in particular completely fell apart in the playoffs last year.
I think that the organization thinks that they need to get a little tougher back there around the crease given the moves that they made. The problem is that a lot of those guys that are physical players with the ability to clear the crease are bad at moving the puck. So it’s a delicate balance. Bottom line is it’s really hard to win in the playoffs. You need skill, toughness, goaltending, puck luck, officiating luck, injury luck.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
11,013
Yes, they have talked about continuing to rotate.
I heard on the local news last night that Monty hasn't decided if they will rotate but if they do rotate he will only rotate for games 1-4 then pick a G to ride based on performance.
 

bsl394

New Member
May 17, 2022
406
I heard on the local news last night that Monty hasn't decided if they will rotate but if they do rotate he will only rotate for games 1-4 then pick a G to ride based on performance.
I’d be OK with this. Monty completely fell apart last year - the decision to not start Swayman in game 6 is the type of move that should cost someone their job (if they hadn’t just had the best regular season in his first year on the job).