BklyNBruiN
Registered User
For the sake of comparison, Pittsburgh's (most goals) shot chart:
And now the Rangers, who lead the league in shooting percentage:
Thanks for sharing this, it sure does say a lot..
News Article: The Boston Bruins Look Good On Paper, So Why Do They Suck?
- Thread starter smithformeragent
- Start date
Thanks for sharing this, it sure does say a lot..
Gator Mike
Registered User
Meh.
Zdeno Chara
2007-16: 4.75 Shot Attempts/Game, 6.2% Shooting Percentage
2016-17: 3.54 Shot Attempts/Game, 4.0% Shooting Percentage
Torey Krug
2013-16: 5.30 Shot Attempts/Game, 4.7% Shooting Percentage
2016-17: 6.23 Shot Attempts/Game, 2.8% Shooting Percentage
Adam McQuaid
2009-16: 1.92 Shot Attempts/Game, 3.7% Shooting Percentage
2016-17: 2.06 Shot Attempts/Game, 2.1% Shooting Percentage
Kevan Miller
2013-16: 2.09 Shot Attempts/Game, 5.6% Shooting Percentage
2016-17: 1.71 Shot Attempts/Game, 3.6% Shooting Percentage
Colin Miller
2015-16: 3.33 Shot Attempts/Game, 5.1% Shooting Percentage
2016-17: 3.97 Shot Attempts/Game, 5.5% Shooting Percentage
Brandon Carlo
(Seidenberg) 2015-16: 2.16 Shot Attempts/Game, 1.5% Shooting Percentage
(Carlo) 2015-16: 2.48 Shot Attempts/Game, 6.3% Shooting Percentage
Allow me to help:
Bergeron - 11.3% vs. 6.0% (2nd lowest in his career; Career average 10.0%)
Eriksson - 16.3% vs. 9.6% (Backes; 2nd lowest in career; Career average 12.5%)
Spooner - 8.0% vs. 6.9%
Hayes - 10.2% vs. 3.4% (Career average 10.7%)
Marchand - 14.8% vs. 13.5% (Career average 14.8%)
Krejci - 11.9% vs. 9.2% (Career average 11.4%)
Beleskey - 8.9% vs. 3.8% (Career average 9.3%)
Your guess is as good as mine as to why the shooting percentages are down virtually across the board.
Rumpy
Registered User
LoL won't even bother to read the article.
Worse team on paper how can they be .500 should be the article.
Worse team on paper how can they be .500 should be the article.
wintersej
Registered User
Gator Mike
Registered User
For everyone that continues to not understand the premise of the article, this is the piece of paper that the Bruins look good on:
hoss75
Registered User
And what about these ones...
(still getting my feet wet with this)
2013-2014: 3.15 G/Ga (ranked 3rd) and 9.87 Sh% (ranked 4th)
2011-2012: 3.17 G/Ga (ranked 3rd) and 9.8 Sh% (ranked 5th)
Incidentally, both years after they went to the finals.
These look like some guy got drunk at the holiday office party and tried to photocopy himself.
LouJersey
Registered User
is "Advanced Stats" just hockey's version of participation trophies? Kind of like being the best team points wise that didn't make the play-offs or being one of four teams to make the second round of the play-offs in consecutive seasons?
That one chart has Pittsburgh and Chicago on the "dull" line. Pretty much all you need to know about these particular stats.
That one chart has Pittsburgh and Chicago on the "dull" line. Pretty much all you need to know about these particular stats.
Mpasta
Registered User
- Oct 6, 2008
- 5,804
- 722
A team with arguable the best line in hockey is the "worse team on paper"? Strong hyperbole with that one.
wintersej
Registered User
You are not reading the chart correctly. The line is separating good from bad (based on # of shots, not taking into account quality). Pit, Dallas, Tor are all closer to the "fun" zone (lots of shots for and against). STL and Ana closer to the "dull" zone (not a lot of shots for or against).
Spanky185
Registered User
Sabremetrics, to use the baseball term, are about extrapolation. For example there's a pitching stat that tries to separate the pitcher from his defense (as a good pitcher with a bad defense will still get scored on, thus making traditional stat ERA ineffective). It's called FIP. There's been plenty of pitchers with good to great FIP and xFIP that suck in actual game action.
Relying solely on advanced analytics is an exercise in frustration because they don't always line up with reality. And this is coming from a big Sabremetrics guy. Baseball is the sport that's AA is the most far along, so hockey analytics should certainly be taken with a few salt grains
Also the talk about high shooting% yet low scoring sounds a lot like a baseball player "putting together good at bats" but still making out. Eventually good at bats don't matter when he's hitting .175
Last edited:
Bergyesque
Been there, done that.
True, we must not take all what advanced stats give at face value.
But then...
If this years' Bs are only hitting .175, they were much better at it last year, the year before, the year before that, etc.
It's not like they've been consistently hitting .175 over the last few years.
Overall since 2009-2010, excluding this year, their Sh% sits at 8.9%, 21st.
Overall over the last 5 years, excluding this year, their Sh% sits at 9.1, 13th.
This year, their Sh% sits at 7.2%, 3rd worst in the league.
Since the 2009-2010 season, this year's Sh% is the 6th worst among 240 team-year.
Since the 1987-1988 season (which seems to be as far as the nhl.com stat pages go back for Sh%), this year's Bs Sh% is 9th worst among 795 team-year.
Their Sh% this year is almost historically bad. Why this year? What's different?
bobber
Registered User
Ten Thousand Hours
Registered User
Shots on goal aren't "advanced stats". Don't rail against stats because the Bruins are good at one basic one and not good at winning.
Micah Blake McCurdy (@IneffectiveMath on Twitter) has some solid charts and visuals, including a heat map showing shot locations relative to league averages. Here's the most recent one.
You can see more Bruins stats here.
I love these graphics. Looks like a lack of shots from the dirty area...
Anyone know how hockeyviz.com gets the shot data?
LSCII
Cup driven
Again, all shots are not equal. The B's excel at getting long range, un-screened shots off from the point, with nobody driving to the net for rebounds. So of course they can throw a million of those on net, but they're never really valid scoring chances.
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 25,298
- 24,197
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.
It's almost ludicrous how many here criticize this team or that team as a "bad team" and the Bruins should easily defeat them, or at the very least not lose to them, essentially because they believe the Bruins are better on paper, which really means nothing.
Fact is, this is an average team on paper, executing like a bad team on the ice. So is this an average team or a bad team. It's a bad team, period.
Ten Thousand Hours
Registered User
Yes. That's obvious and lacking when looking at a basic statistic, like shots on goal. That's why I say it's not an advanced stat even if you call it corsi. A better stat would tell more of the story.
Gator Mike
Registered User
Agreed that not all shots are created equal.
That said, if you compare their shot chart from this year to previous years when they scored lots of goals, there are more similarities than differences. (Lots of shots from the point and the high slot, very few shots from close in, etc.)
So, why are shots going in at a much lower rate this year?
FWIW, a working theory... the reason teams like Pittsburgh and the Rangers get a ton of chances from in close is because they have the kind of team speed that allows them to get closer to the net before defensemen can deal with them. Check this out...
Wouldn't explain why the Bruins' shooting percentage is down so much this year, but it would partially explain why it's been so consistently blue in front of the other team's net over the past few years.
Bergyesque
Been there, done that.
That's how they've been playing throughout Julien tenure as HC.
The system is basically the same, at least that's how I see it.
Why this abysmal Sh% now?
I only see lack of execution (due to lack of talent and/or young players) and bad luck as culprits.
Gator Mike
Registered User
Taz#24
Registered User
This is a time for patience
I have a good feeling about several prospects that should make the team in the next 1-2 years.
Our future D has great potential IMHO
MCAVOY, ZBORIL, and LAUZON all appear to have near future top 4 potential. CARLO is already proving to be in that category, although he has struggled of late, that's not uncommon for young players.
KRUG is still young enough to provide continuity.
C. MILLER and Joe MORROW are both decent bottom pairing guys and dark horses like O'GARA, GRZELCYK and ARNESSON create competition, one perhaps soon pushing MORROW out of the picture.
LILES is moving on after the season and the speed new NHL will probably soon leave guys like MCQUAID and K. MILLER behind making room for MCAVOY, ZBORIL and LAUZON.
Up front, DEBRUSK, SENYSHYN, FORSBACKA-KARLSSON and possible HEINEN and CEHLARIK have top six potential. Young players like VATRANO and CZARNIK have versatility and top 9 skill sets. Add that to a young enough veteran core group of a BERGERON, MARCHAND, KRECJI, BACKES and PASTRNAK and again the near future looks bright.
I can realistically see 17-18 as;
RASK
SUBBAN
KRUG-CARLO
CHARA-MCAVOY
MORROW-C. MILLER
One of K. MILLER or MCQUAID
MARCHAND-BERGERON-PASTRNAK
VATRANO-KRECJI-SENYSHYN
DEBRUSK or HIENEN-BACKES-CZARNIK
Fourth line candidates - BLIDH, SCHALLER, NASH, ACCAIRI
HAYES buried, BELESKEY expansion draft
18-19
RASK
SUBBAN
KRUG-CARLO
UFA-MCAVOY
ZBORIL-C. MILLER....LAUZON may challenge for a regular spot
GRZELCYK, O'GARA or ARNESSON.
MARCHAND-BERGERON-PASTRNAK
DEBRUSK, HIENEN or CEHLARIK-KRECJI-SENYSHYN
VATRANO, HIENEN, CEHLARIK or DEBRUSK-JFK-BACKES
Fourth line candidates...BLIDH, GABRIELLE, CZARNIK, ACCAIRI
I have a good feeling about several prospects that should make the team in the next 1-2 years.
Our future D has great potential IMHO
MCAVOY, ZBORIL, and LAUZON all appear to have near future top 4 potential. CARLO is already proving to be in that category, although he has struggled of late, that's not uncommon for young players.
KRUG is still young enough to provide continuity.
C. MILLER and Joe MORROW are both decent bottom pairing guys and dark horses like O'GARA, GRZELCYK and ARNESSON create competition, one perhaps soon pushing MORROW out of the picture.
LILES is moving on after the season and the speed new NHL will probably soon leave guys like MCQUAID and K. MILLER behind making room for MCAVOY, ZBORIL and LAUZON.
Up front, DEBRUSK, SENYSHYN, FORSBACKA-KARLSSON and possible HEINEN and CEHLARIK have top six potential. Young players like VATRANO and CZARNIK have versatility and top 9 skill sets. Add that to a young enough veteran core group of a BERGERON, MARCHAND, KRECJI, BACKES and PASTRNAK and again the near future looks bright.
I can realistically see 17-18 as;
RASK
SUBBAN
KRUG-CARLO
CHARA-MCAVOY
MORROW-C. MILLER
One of K. MILLER or MCQUAID
MARCHAND-BERGERON-PASTRNAK
VATRANO-KRECJI-SENYSHYN
DEBRUSK or HIENEN-BACKES-CZARNIK
Fourth line candidates - BLIDH, SCHALLER, NASH, ACCAIRI
HAYES buried, BELESKEY expansion draft
18-19
RASK
SUBBAN
KRUG-CARLO
UFA-MCAVOY
ZBORIL-C. MILLER....LAUZON may challenge for a regular spot
GRZELCYK, O'GARA or ARNESSON.
MARCHAND-BERGERON-PASTRNAK
DEBRUSK, HIENEN or CEHLARIK-KRECJI-SENYSHYN
VATRANO, HIENEN, CEHLARIK or DEBRUSK-JFK-BACKES
Fourth line candidates...BLIDH, GABRIELLE, CZARNIK, ACCAIRI
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
Clearly the Bruins ARE NOT a CRAPPY TEAM ON paper that are UNDERACHIEVING
we have a 500 record and are in the middle of the standings for 30 teams
So take your pick... a good team on paper underachieving
OR
a crap team on paper overachieving
OR
a mediocre team on paper playing up to (or down to) expectations
honestly imho there's maybe 5 teams in the conference and 10 in the league that don't qualify as mediocre playing to expectations
The league wanted parity with its changes and now it has achieved parity with its changes
we have a 500 record and are in the middle of the standings for 30 teams
So take your pick... a good team on paper underachieving
OR
a crap team on paper overachieving
OR
a mediocre team on paper playing up to (or down to) expectations
honestly imho there's maybe 5 teams in the conference and 10 in the league that don't qualify as mediocre playing to expectations
The league wanted parity with its changes and now it has achieved parity with its changes
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 25,298
- 24,197
With drastically uneven amount of games played, who cares about the standings.
The Bruins are one of if not the worst teams in the Eastern Conference since about mid-November. What does that tell you? A lot more than their place in the friggin' standings.
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
Probably tells me you need to check the record since mid november?
From my recollection we were around 3 games over 500 then... I think we are around 3 games over 500 now... basically we've been 1-2-3 games over 500 most the season
There's been around 10-12 teams at/below 500 whenever I check the standings. Sometimes one of these teams win 3-4 games in a row and almost catch us...there's another 7-8 teams that might win 6-7 in a row and pass us for a week or 2 weeks
Today Toronto is better... maybe Philly is too? I'm not sure... maybe vancouver? Honestly I didn't check before this post. In a week we might be ahead of these teams and maybe Carolina and Dallas will be ahead... maybe in 2 weeks buffalo and Nashville will be ahead
Honestly we are all mediocre teams that might finish between 10 and 25 in standings
But Check games over 500 if you are worried about games played... baseball uses this type of measure to balance out standings... its not that hard
I know some people want to say we suck but in reality we are average it might be tougher to complain about but most teams are in the same boat we are
Last edited:
