Toggle sidebar

Prospect Info: Bruins Prospects XXV

MarchysNoseKnows said:
Well geez, isn’t that the point of those analytics?
Click to expand...
I mean the fact that he looked better than points doesn't mean much when he doesn't get points. Silver lining I guess but nothing to do with the bottom line. Analytics almost makes his offensive acumen look worse to be honest. He played enought with guys he should have scored more.
 
LJReborn said:
He looked better than his points for sure. He had alot of time with scoring players so hopefully he gets top 6 next year.
Click to expand...
How did he have alot of time with scoring players when he didn’t have alot of time period?

I watched every game and disagree. But maybe it will be clearer for me if you define "alot of time with scoring players" for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BronxBruin
DominicT said:
How did he have alot of time with scoring players when he didn’t have alot of time period?

I watched every game and disagree. But maybe it will be clearer for me if you define "alot of time with scoring players" for me.
Click to expand...
He had plenty of time on RW on both big lines that I saw. About a dozen. Enough to score more than 3 assists. There were times he was on the 4th as well or did not play. Maybe you us used the bathroom when he got the good ice time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Andrew Peeke Fan
LJReborn said:
He had plenty of time on RW on both big lines that I saw. About a dozen. Enough to score more than 3 assists. There were times he was on the 4th as well or did not play. Maybe you us used the bathroom when he got the good ice time?
Click to expand...
About a dozen what? Minutes? I've mostly refrained from the Letourneau discourse because it's too early for either his supporters or detractors to be proven right or wrong...so I prefer to take a wait and see approach. With that said, I watched probably close to 90% of BC's games this season and I remember roughly half of one game where he got a regular shift in the top 6 -- and that was only after there were injuries and someone got a game misconduct. I believe he got a handful of shifts with Gasseau and/or Jelvik early in the season but I don't recall it being a regular occurrence. He did get some PP2 time throughout the year though but that wasn't a consistent thing either.
You are right though that he could/should have had more than 3 points. He had a decent amount of opportunities (relative to his ice time) but he (or the players he set up) just didn't cash in.
No one is going to say he had a "good" year...even conservative estimates would have expected better production from him...so you seem to be inventing an argument with no one in particular on that point.
I admittedly don't understand all the fancy advanced metrics and microstats that go around these days but if those numbers suggest he contributed more, in limited ice time, than 3 points would indicate, I would agree with that sentiment. While sparse, he did show occasional glimpses of the tools that led to him being a first round pick. It remains to be seen if he can turn those flashes into consistent contribution and earn the trust of his coaches. If he still is skating on the 4th line and getting under 10 mins of ice time at the end of his sophomore year, then I'll start to get worried. Otherwise it shouldn't have been all that surprising that this past season was essentially a redshirt year for him. I think it is fair to ask whether playing in the USHL or CHL would have been better for him -- but no one can say (yet) that going to BC was definitely the wrong move. Just because he would gotten more ice time and scored more points in other leagues doesn't necessarily mean it would have been better for his long-term development...there's something to be said for playing against stiffer competition.
In conclusion, yes, I would describe his freshman season as underwhelming but no two players improve at the same rate and literally everyone said he would need more time to develop than other 2024 draftees. So I think those who are trashing him and calling him a wasted pick are getting ahead of themselves. They may end up being right in the end but it's too early to make those kind of claims at this point IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trizz617, Dr Hook, Ratty and 4 others
DominicT said:
How did he have alot of time with scoring players when he didn’t have alot of time period?

I watched every game and disagree. But maybe it will be clearer for me if you define "alot of time with scoring players" for me.
Click to expand...

In the beginning of the year he was getting 12-13 minutes most nights with some in the 10-11 range. In January he started getting some 8 min and even 6 min. nights. But his time went back up and he was fairly regularly back in the 12-13 min. He played 15 minutes against Merrimack in March in the last regular season game.

Then in the HE tourney and the Frozen Four tourney his numbers went way down into the single digits. Apparently those BC coaches are incredibly dumb and didn't believe the "objective tracking stats" by not playing him enough in those must win games. They didn't know what they had I guess.

Anyone who wants to go through every game is welcome to:
www.collegehockeynews.com

Boston College 2024‑25 Schedule/Results

Boston College schedule and results for the 2024‑25 season, with links to boxscores, team information and more.
www.collegehockeynews.com www.collegehockeynews.com
 
Last edited:
BronxBruin said:
About a dozen what? Minutes? I've mostly refrained from the Letourneau discourse because it's too early for either his supporters or detractors to be proven right or wrong...so I prefer to take a wait and see approach. With that said, I watched probably close to 90% of BC's games this season and I remember roughly half of one game where he got a regular shift in the top 6 -- and that was only after there were injuries and someone got a game misconduct. I believe he got a handful of shifts with Gasseau and/or Jelvik early in the season but I don't recall it being a regular occurrence. He did get some PP2 time throughout the year though but that wasn't a consistent thing either.
You are right though that he could/should have had more than 3 points. He had a decent amount of opportunities (relative to his ice time) but he (or the players he set up) just didn't cash in.
No one is going to say he had a "good" year...even conservative estimates would have expected better production from him...so you seem to be inventing an argument with no one in particular on that point.
I admittedly don't understand all the fancy advanced metrics and microstats that go around these days but if those numbers suggest he contributed more, in limited ice time, than 3 points would indicate, I would agree with that sentiment. While sparse, he did show occasional glimpses of the tools that led to him being a first round pick. It remains to be seen if he can turn those flashes into consistent contribution and earn the trust of his coaches. If he still is skating on the 4th line and getting under 10 mins of ice time at the end of his sophomore year, then I'll start to get worried. Otherwise it shouldn't have been all that surprising that this past season was essentially a redshirt year for him. I think it is fair to ask whether playing in the USHL or CHL would have been better for him -- but no one can say (yet) that going to BC was definitely the wrong move. Just because he would gotten more ice time and scored more points in other leagues doesn't necessarily mean it would have been better for his long-term development...there's something to be said for playing against stiffer competition.
In conclusion, yes, I would describe his freshman season as underwhelming but no two players improve at the same rate and literally everyone said he would need more time to develop than other 2024 draftees. So I think those who are trashing him and calling him a wasted pick are getting ahead of themselves. They may end up being right in the end but it's too early to make those kind of claims at this point IMO.
Click to expand...
When Jellvik got hurt he was on that line RW. I saw in two of those games at minimum and I remember commenting he looked lost.

My point wasn't he was a bust. My point was I guess you can find something to make anyone look "good". He had 20 games of double digit ice time. He had entire games he was on the RW top 6. Every forward on that team who played more than 5 games had a goal. He played 36. That was my point. He seemed to be coming around in February and his best game IMO was vs NH and one later, I can't remember vs who and a good weekend vs UNH. He should hopefully get better but it's hard for me to get on people who think the pick was messed up when you see how a guy like Greentree produced in his D+1 year, who many people wanted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Andrew Peeke Fan and DominicT
Dr Quincy said:
In the beginning of the year he was getting 12-13 minutes most nights with some in the 10-11 range. In January he started getting some 8 min and even 6 min. nights. But his time went back up and he was fairly regularly back in the 12-13 min. He played 15 minutes against Merrimack in March in the last regular season game.

Then in the HE tourney and the Frozen Four tourney his numbers went way down into the single digits. Apparently those BC coaches are incredibly dumb and didn't believe the "objective tracking stats" by not playing him enough in those must win games. They didn't know what they had I guess.

Anyone who wants to go through every game is welcome to:
www.collegehockeynews.com

Boston College 2024‑25 Schedule/Results

Boston College schedule and results for the 2024‑25 season, with links to boxscores, team information and more.
www.collegehockeynews.com www.collegehockeynews.com
Click to expand...
I know what his ice time was. I write about it every week.

My question to Lou was to define what "a lot of time with scoring players" is.
 
Dr Quincy said:
Then in the HE tourney and the Frozen Four tourney his numbers went way down into the single digits. Apparently those BC coaches are incredibly dumb and didn't believe the "objective tracking stats" by not playing him enough in those must win games. They didn't know what they had I guess.
Click to expand...
This is silly and overwrought.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Dr Quincy
MarchysNoseKnows said:


👀
Click to expand...

You and I often share our differences openly. However I hope I’m also fair when I think you’re right.

I don’t see an issue showing some data that implies that this season wasn’t just all terrible for one of our top prospects. It wasn’t the year anyone had hoped for, but this shows at least a little optimism. That perhaps with a little more opportunity, there’s something he can build on for next year.

Why can’t something like this be welcomed rather than ridiculed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blade of Schmautz, McBrom7, jahbrations and 3 others
Mr. Make-Believe said:
You and I often share our differences openly. However I hope I’m also fair when I think you’re right.

I don’t see an issue showing some data that implies that this season wasn’t just all terrible for one of our top prospects. It wasn’t the year anyone had hoped for, but this shows at least a little optimism. That perhaps with a little more opportunity, there’s something he can build on for next year.

Why can’t something like this be welcomed rather than ridiculed?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Not once did I say that actually, these numbers show he had a good year. Nothing like that.

Some people are just completely averse to any analytics whatsoever. Which is always funny to me because all teams use them extensively, even more so with the new tracking data. Of course teams had them privately first, but now that the models are public, why dismiss them when the people making actual hockey decisions use them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Make-Believe
Liked what I saw from Locmelis in the game against Utica, Bruins got smoked until they decided to show up but Locmelis fit right in. Could absolutely see him being our 3rd line C in a few years and he'll probably put some sweat under Poitras' collar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HustleB
Mr. Make-Believe said:
You and I often share our differences openly. However I hope I’m also fair when I think you’re right.

I don’t see an issue showing some data that implies that this season wasn’t just all terrible for one of our top prospects. It wasn’t the year anyone had hoped for, but this shows at least a little optimism. That perhaps with a little more opportunity, there’s something he can build on for next year.

Why can’t something like this be welcomed rather than ridiculed?
Click to expand...

Thanks for this- my sentiments exactly. We all would have liked Dean to have had a stronger season, but for whatever reason, he didn't, and it's nice to see some positives. Every one of our prospects always seem to have their detractors who are ready to call them busts the minute they aren't living up to some set of expectations. In a way, that is safe position to take, because most *will* bust; that is just how it works for every team. I'd rather hope our prospects can turn into useful or good players for the Bruins. If they don't, they don't. I never stopped hoping Senyshyn would somehow turn it around and become an NHL player until it was clear it was over. So, I'll take any positive news we can get that keeps the hope alive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blade of Schmautz, Mr. Make-Believe, JoeIsAStud and 1 other person
MarchysNoseKnows said:
This is silly and overwrought.
Click to expand...
Is that objective or subjective?

BTW I like analytics and I'm fine with ones that say Letourneau did some positive possession things this year.

That said, I want to see the raw data for some of them. The primary pts/60 thing in particular doesn't seem right to me. If he played 300 minutes 5 on 5 (just picking an avg number, I think he was higher than that) and all 3 of his assists were primary, that's a about .6 a pt per 60 minutes. I find that number to be lower than what I'd expect for the bar graph that he has demonstrating it.

Perhaps I'm missing something.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom