Player Discussion Jesper Boqvist

[Fenian24]

Received one 4th place vote for the Lady Byng.

Strike against him

 

[rocketdan9]

Funny stat - he played 70 games last year and had just 2 penalty minutes.

Lady Byng quality

 

[rocketdan9]

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

I agree for the second part of the year, after christmas break, they won a lot of games where goalies saved their ass, they ve been opportunistic, they were not playing good, bad turnovers, soft plays etc...sometimes it was brutal to watch

When was it brutal to watch? They went 37-8-1 after the break.

 

[HumBucker]

I wouldn't 100% disagree. There were multiple games where we won and in the post game thread the consensus was we couldn't believe they they came back to pull out the win and this team never quits. If fairness though, to set the single season record for wins and points, you're going to need some puck luck.

I always find it amusing how "puck luck" is used to discount winning and success, but hardly ever to account for losses and failures.

If we miss the playoffs by 2 pts, the blame falls on the coach/players/management. Never on bad puck luck throughout the season. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Gordoff]

Very mature/humble guy. At 24 years old there can be big upside. Definitely worth the price.

 

[JEM28]

Disagree.

Bruins dominated the regular season, as all the numbers show.

To imply they somehow were fortunate, as if they didn't earn it, just isn't right.

For context you really need to look at the post I replied to which said Monty pulled a rabbit out of the hat last year.

To be clear I certainly don’t attribute ALL of their success to being fortunate as you may have interpreted. But I do believe that as good as the bruins were last year (and yes that was a very very good team and season) they weren’t as good as their record, and some of that has to do with the factors I mentioned, breaks and some out of this world goaltending, or unsustainable performances etc.

In no way am I implying the record was solely luck driven. But unless I’ve lost my marbles there were a fair amount of games where in the post game analysis, fans said “how the hell did we pull that game out”.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Where have they expected Beecher to be a top 6 producing forward? They haven't done anything of the sort.

What if he's not a top 9 producing forward? And since I know you like statistical analysis, what is the statistical data for players with his post draft offensive output and their chances of being a "top 9" F?

We all had high hopes for Beecher...perhaps he's over the the peer competition anxiety? pro level? whatever? adjustment.

Has all the tools...needs to pull it together.

I disagree that he has all the tools. I'd say he's missing quite a few. He has athletic tools: size, speed. He's missing hockey tools... vision, stickhandling, powerful shot.

Teams (all NHL teams) do this a lot... they see a hockey player with good raw athletic ability at 18 and think they can learn the game, develop the skills, become instinctual... and it occassionally works, but most often you get Chad Kilger... who was also a big guy who could skate (arguably a faster player than Beecher).

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

What if he's not a top 9 producing forward? And since I know you like statistical analysis, what is the statistical data for players with his post draft offensive output and their chances of being a "top 9" F?

What if he's a 4C or 4LW? That would be great.

And I don't do NHLe. Go find Bader if you want to do that mess.

 

[Dr Quincy]

nevermind

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

Ready to admit that Mattias Maccelli is a better player, or are you still holding onto that one?

You're misrepresenting my argument, but no I'm not.

 

[KnightofBoston]

f***.

No no this is good, Pittsburgh penguins scoring on bruins making everyone here lose their minds Danton Heinen

 

[ON3M4N]

I always find it amusing how "puck luck" is used to discount winning and success, but hardly ever to account for losses and failures.

If we miss the playoffs by 2 pts, the blame falls on the coach/players/management. Never on bad puck luck throughout the season. Can't have it both ways.

There's a stat called PDO, which is essentially puck luck. The Bruins ranked #1 during the regular in PDO at 1.036 (1 would be average). In the playoffs, they had a .983 PDO at 5v5, which would indicate they were a little unlucky in the series. On the opposite side FLA had a 1.017 PDO, which would indicate they had better puck luck in the series. Just looking at other metrics, the Bruins had more possession than Florida. They also outshot Florida and out-chanced Florida. I'm not having it both ways. Bruins had very good puck luck in the regular season and bad puck luck in the playoffs. NaturalStatTrick has data going back to the '07-'08 season and no team during that time frame finished the season with a higher PDO than Boston had this year.

 

[LSCII]

Well never being in the plans for this year is even worse than not being keen...lol.

Its pretty sad a teams 1st round pick, after his D+4 season isn't in any plans, especially with the openings they should have.

I think it's more of a commentary on their drafting and the player's skill sets they deemed to be worthy of using a first rounder on. Not looking so hot at this point and I never held out much hope on him to start with since he was always more of a complimentary style player than a can't miss prospect. Doesn't mean he doesn't have a shot or value, just that he's got a lot of work to do to be ready for prime time.

 

[HumBucker]

There's a stat called PDO, which is essentially puck luck. The Bruins ranked #1 during the regular in PDO at 1.036 (1 would be average). In the playoffs, they had a .983 PDO at 5v5, which would indicate they were a little unlucky in the series. On the opposite side FLA had a 1.017 PDO, which would indicate they had better puck luck in the series. Just looking at other metrics, the Bruins had more possession than Florida. They also outshot Florida and out-chanced Florida. I'm not having it both ways. Bruins had very good puck luck in the regular season and bad puck luck in the playoffs. NaturalStatTrick has data going back to the '07-'08 season and no team during that time frame finished the season with a higher PDO than Boston had this year.

Uh, no. According to Sportsnet: (PDO) "This statistic adds together a team’s shooting and save percentages at 5-on-5. The NHL terms this stat “shooting plus save percentage.” The shooting percentage represents the frequency a team scores on one of its shots, while the save percentage is the frequency of saves made by its goalies."

That's nothing at all like "puck luck." As least not as I understand it. Puck luck is when the puck hits the boards and bounces to your player instead of an opposing team's player. A puck, being a disc of frozen rubber, and not a spherical ball, will bounce in a relatively more random, unpredictable way. Puck luck is when the shot from the point deflects off the D-man's shin and right onto the blade of an opposing player with an open net to shoot at. Puck luck is when the shot hits the crossbar, drops down while gyrating, and bounces out instead of bouncing in.

Puck luck is the element of randomness that enters every game.

 

[JEM28]

We all had high hopes for Beecher...perhaps he's over the the peer competition anxiety? pro level? whatever? adjustment.

Has all the tools...needs to pull it together.

There are 7 players from that draft who have played less than 20 NHL games. Beecher was 30/31 in the first round.

Picks 28,29,30 and 31 have played a grand total of 1 NHL game.

I think Beecher having not arrived yet is more the rule than the exception at least if you’re looking at the 2019 draft.

But go back to 2018 and 2017 drafts and it’s a bit of a different story, no one’s blown the roof off but more late picks have had some success.

All that said, it’s fair to expect significantly more of the kid this year and next. Opportunity doesn’t last forever.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

For context you really need to look at the post I replied to which said Monty pulled a rabbit out of the hat last year.

To be clear I certainly don’t attribute ALL of their success to being fortunate as you may have interpreted. But I do believe that as good as the bruins were last year (and yes that was a very very good team and season) they weren’t as good as their record, and some of that has to do with the factors I mentioned, breaks and some out of this world goaltending, or unsustainable performances etc.

In no way am I implying the record was solely luck driven. But unless I’ve lost my marbles there were a fair amount of games where in the post game analysis, fans said “how the hell did we pull that game out”.

Beat Pittsburgh 6-5 in OT on November 1.

Bruins came back from 5-2 down. Lindholm assists on the 3 goals that tied it and then scored the OT goal.

Pretty much the only "how the hell did we pull that game out" I could find.

 

[ON3M4N]

Uh, no. According to Sportsnet: (PDO) "This statistic adds together a team’s shooting and save percentages at 5-on-5. The NHL terms this stat “shooting plus save percentage.” The shooting percentage represents the frequency a team scores on one of its shots, while the save percentage is the frequency of saves made by its goalies."

That's nothing at all like "puck luck." As least not as I understand it. Puck luck is when the puck hits the boards and bounces to your player instead of an opposing team's player. A puck, being a disc of frozen rubber, and not a spherical ball, will bounce in a relatively more random, unpredictable way. Puck luck is when the shot from the point deflects off the D-man's shin and right onto the blade of an opposing player with an open net to shoot at. Puck luck is when the shot hits the crossbar, drops down while gyrating, and bounces out instead of bouncing in.

Puck luck is the element of randomness that enters every game.

There are lots of good articles out there about it, but this was from an article on the NHL site:

SPSV% (PDO)
"Puck luck" is a term that's used with ambiguity in hockey, but by adding on-ice shooting percentage and on-ice save percentage (SPSV%, also known as PDO) it gives us a statistic that measures that concept. The idea was developed by Brian King, who began using it in comments on Barnes' blog under the username PDO.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

There are 7 players from that draft who have played less than 20 NHL games. Beecher was 30/31 in the first round.

Picks 28,29,30 and 31 have played a grand total of 1 NHL game.

I think Beecher having not arrived yet is more the rule than the exception at least if you’re looking at the 2019 draft.

But go back to 2018 and 2017 drafts and it’s a bit of a different story, no one’s blown the roof off but more late picks have had some success.

All that said, it’s fair to expect significantly more of the kid this year and next. Opportunity doesn’t last forever.

He just turned 22. One pro season under his belt. The Bruins took away a potential slot for him by signing Lucic. 4LW would be a perfect place for him to break in, but now it’s taken.

So his opportunity this year is to win the 4C job over a NHL journeyman…but who is right handed. And there has been public mention of the need for a RH center. So odds are tough.

Other option would be to beat out Greer et al for 13F, but would you want him sitting on the bench instead of playing every night?

I wouldn’t take Beecher being in Provy this year on its face as a bad thing or that he underperformed. If he falls on his face in camp and in preseason games, different story. But he has a tough battle to be in Boston because of circumstances.

 

[EvilDead]

*sigh* This is what Don Sweeney's wasting his money on? More top 9 to bottom 6 fodder? What's the point of having prospects if the Bruins are just gonna block every opportunity for them to play? The player has some upside I guess, but Boqvist's essentially what Frederic should be given where the Bruins drafted T-Fred. Like...what's the point? If this is to replace T-Fred and move Frederic on for picks and prospects, then fine. I will accept it. If this is just to give T-Fred a new line mate then boo this move. Boo.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Uh, no. According to Sportsnet: (PDO) "This statistic adds together a team’s shooting and save percentages at 5-on-5. The NHL terms this stat “shooting plus save percentage.” The shooting percentage represents the frequency a team scores on one of its shots, while the save percentage is the frequency of saves made by its goalies."

That's nothing at all like "puck luck." As least not as I understand it. Puck luck is when the puck hits the boards and bounces to your player instead of an opposing team's player. A puck, being a disc of frozen rubber, and not a spherical ball, will bounce in a relatively more random, unpredictable way. Puck luck is when the shot from the point deflects off the D-man's shin and right onto the blade of an opposing player with an open net to shoot at. Puck luck is when the shot hits the crossbar, drops down while gyrating, and bounces out instead of bouncing in.

Puck luck is the element of randomness that enters every game.

In "general" when looking at every team over the course of the season, in the abstract you could say PDO generally does kinda sorta correlate to puck luck.

But in specific cases, it might be a team just has a really good or really bad goalie, or really good or really bad shooters.

I don't think the difference between Florida and Boston in the playoffs can just be chalked up to puck luck. I also don't think they were necessarily lucky during the regular season. They got great goaltending during the season, they got mediocre to poor goaltending (from both guys) in the playoffs. There were other factors as well.

 

[DiggityDog]

Beat Pittsburgh 6-5 in OT on November 1.

Bruins came back from 5-2 down. Lindholm assists on the 3 goals that tied it and then scored the OT goal.

Pretty much the only "how the hell did we pull that game out" I could find.

That Calgary game was my first thought.

 

[McGarnagle]

Beat Pittsburgh 6-5 in OT on November 1.

Bruins came back from 5-2 down. Lindholm assists on the 3 goals that tied it and then scored the OT goal.

Pretty much the only "how the hell did we pull that game out" I could find.

The irony is that if they didn't come back and win that game, the Penguins make the playoffs over Florida and the Bruins would've been much better off in the big picture.

As for the question the other "how the hell" game was the one in Calgary where they got outshot by like 40 shots and still won

 

[JEM28]

I wouldn’t take Beecher being in Provy this year on its face as a bad thing or that he underperformed. If he falls on his face in camp and in preseason games, different story. But he has a tough battle to be in Boston because of circumstances.

I wouldn’t either. But at the same time fair to expect solid growth from a guy you thought worthy of a 1st round pick. Mid year of the season after this upcoming season he turns 25 and things change quickly then.

I like him. I think he has a shot to make it in the 2024-5 campaign. I’d like to see him make the FO more confident of the th at prospect this year.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

That Calgary game was my first thought.

OK, I'll give you that one.

But we really do know how they won it. Ullmark.

And the Bruins were up 2-0 after one, 2-1 after two.