News Article: The Boston Bruins Look Good On Paper, So Why Do They Suck?

[Mpasta]

Easiest? Or hardest? Because the Bruins tend to royally screw themselves against weaker teams or in situations that they should be ok.

They tend to screw themselves against both types of teams. It's not like they have a good record against good teams.

No team in the entire league (including Colorado) has less wins (5) against top 16 teams. However, these stats are compiled as the opponents current record so it's slightly misleading.

 

[CBove1]

I suppose there may be some element of bad luck in the sub-6.0 shooting percentage. However, lack of skill is a far bigger driver, IMO.

Look at the Caps last night -- it was at one point 1-0 Washington with the shots at 6-2 B's. Both of the Caps' shots to that point were scary, high-quality chances. Even when they didn't generate a shot, they were buzzing all over the place and I was holding my breath, praying we could chip it out and get a change. Possession time favored Boston, but I can't remember a quality chance resulting from it. The instant the Caps gained possession, I assumed something bad was about to happen.

Caps' speed and skill creates much more -- probing and penetrating, and creating passing lanes and cracks in the opponent's checking. They are s are near the top of the heap in terms of skill (at least 8-19-77 are), but most nights it's apparent the B's could put 40-50 on net and still struggle to get more than 2 home.

 

[wintersej]

I know that it happens in baseball all the time. I've spent the last two years listening to the Yankees manager talk about how players are going to "break out" of months long slumps because they're "putting together good at bats" only to see nothing come of it. Some players who played well the previous year, others who did not.

I compare advanced stats to meteorology. For all the data that gets put into their supercomputers, there's still plenty of busts. As us New Englanders should know

I think that's totally fair. I am not here saying "its all luck and they are a great team and its going to regress to the mean". Some of it is luck. Some of it is that too many of these shots are coming from Schaller, Hayes and Nash types. And that their ONLY RELIABLE offensive threat from the blue line also isn't seeing his shots go in. My argument is that the system and Julien are sound. But, there isn't enough talent on the team. BUT, I also don't think the Bruins are as far away as the fellowship of the miserable. The need another d-man who can move the puck and contribute in the offensive zone. And they need an above average middle sixer. Ideally, that person is a winger for Krejci. With the cap being what it is, at least one of the holes is going to have to be filled by a kid stepping up. I still think the team AS IS should make the playoffs... but I also felt the same way last year and they took a dump on my face.

 

[Gator Mike]

To that point, the team right now is a collective -71. The year before, they were a plus 20. The year before that they were a plus 62. Before that, plus 392, plus 111, and plus 286.

Did you get those numbers by adding up every player's plus/minus? Because if that's what this is, then it's pretty flawed.

But if you're in to plus/minus, the Bruins have scored 84 Even Strength goals this year, and they've allowed 100. They've scored 6 Shorthanded goals, and they've allowed 5. As a team, they're -15.

So what's the real outlier here? A slight dip in shooting percentages or a huge decline in plus minus by the entire team?

1. It's not a slight dip.

2. You're looking at a symptom and trying to convince me it's the cause.

3. If your plus/minus is going down, it's because you're allowing more goals, scoring fewer goals, or both. I don't know how you can look at plus/minus by itself, and diagnose the defense as the issue.

2015-16: 2.40 GF/60 (6th), 2.29 GA/60 (21st)
2016-17: 1.98 GF/60 (23rd), 2.36 GA/60 (20th)

They're basically the same defensive team as they were last year. (You could make a case that they're better defensively...) They're much worse offensively. Last year, they were a middle-of-the-pack team when it came to Even Strength Shooting Percentage, and this year, they're nearly historically bad.

Fact is this team is terrible defensively to the point where forwards are being forced to do more on the defensive side, just to try and cover up those glaring holes, and the scoring has declided greatly because of it, IMO.

So, the forwards are so focused on playing defense that they're leading the league in shots? And the historical shot charts don't suggest that the shots they're taking are lower quality.

Patrice Bergeron in 2015-16 when he shot 11.3%:

Patrice Bergeron in 2016-17 when he's shooting 6.3%:

I'm not buying it. I think you have a theory as to what's wrong with the Bruins, and you're using statistics (...often incorrectly) to try and back it up. That's how you get bad statistical analysis.

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

These advance stat charts are just looking like rorschach tests to me now. So far I have seen my long passed Grandmother, a Chevy Nova, my dog...I am getting a headache. Meanwhile the Bruins are just average.

 

[Buckets and Gloves]

The Bruins are what they have been last 2 seasons... a team scratching for the playoffs who haven't replaced key guys or elements they have slowly lost since 2011...

They don't look good on paper, their defence unit looks bottom 10 in the league, forward group is in the 10-15 range with a top 10 goaltender.

Overall you have a very average team, with that you get average results.

 

[ODAAT]

The Bruins are what they have been last 2 seasons... a team scratching for the playoffs who haven't replaced key guys or elements they have slowly lost since 2011...

They don't look good on paper, their defence unit looks bottom 10 in the league, forward group is in the 10-15 range with a top 10 goaltender.

Overall you have a very average team, with that you get average results.

agreed and I`ll add..

... a fan base who predicted this at the beginning of the year yet can`t understand where this team is right now?

 

[bobber]

Some teams win a cup then start to become mediocre when the key players are traded off or leave for greener pastures(more cash). Did that happen in Boston?

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

Bruins have a number of high priced players locked into long term contracts, which aren't really serving the Bruins now and in the future.
Bruins do have some depth in at the junior and NCAA level. They have to hope those guys make the the team soon as cheap, good guys on ELCs are needed for any hope that the Bruins can move up to be an elite team in the East.
Realistically right now, they are just a middling team.

 

[Gator Mike]

They don't look good on paper, their defence unit looks bottom 10 in the league, forward group is in the 10-15 range with a top 10 goaltender.

How are you determining how they "look"???

I mean, are there numbers that you're looking at to come to that conclusion? Or are you looking at a depth chart and not liking the names you see?

 

[Terrier]

Here is a curious tidbit: the lowest price on StubHub for tonight's Celtics-Lakers game is $47. For tomorrow night's Bruins-Leafs game, it's $102. I realize it's a terrible Lakers team, but still.

 

[Buckets and Gloves]

How are you determining how they "look"???

I mean, are there numbers that you're looking at to come to that conclusion? Or are you looking at a depth chart and not liking the names you see?

Eye test, standings and depth chart.

Leafs 3 points back, 5 games in hand... Leafs don't even need to play .500 hockey and they bump us out of playoffs.

 

[Jean_Jacket41]

Eye test, standings and depth chart.

Leafs 3 points back, 5 games in hand... Leafs don't even need to play .500 hockey and they bump us out of playoffs.

Bruins win tomorrow and they are 5pts up on the Leafs.

To make the playoffs, Bruins only need to stay ahead of Toronto, Florida, Buffalo, Tampa Bay and Detroit. Not that great of a competition. I expect them to win the race against these teams who are all worse than the Bruins IMO.

They would then have a 1st round matchup against Ottawa while Mtl plays Wsh/Pitt/Clb/NYR.

 

[bobber]

These advance stat charts are just looking like rorschach tests to me now. So far I have seen my long passed Grandmother, a Chevy Nova, my dog...I am getting a headache. Meanwhile the Bruins are just average.

I thought they were topo maps of a lake I fished bass on last year. I was going to copy them and put them n my boat

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

Here is a curious tidbit: the lowest price on StubHub for tonight's Celtics-Lakers game is $47. For tomorrow night's Bruins-Leafs game, it's $102. I realize it's a terrible Lakers team, but still.

Serious question... how many of you are still willing to pay that much for a ticket to see this team?

 

[Buckets and Gloves]

Bruins win tomorrow and they are 5pts up on the Leafs.

To make the playoffs, Bruins only need to stay ahead of Toronto, Florida, Buffalo, Tampa Bay and Detroit. Not that great of a competition. I expect them to win the race against these teams who are all worse than the Bruins IMO.

They would then have a 1st round matchup against Ottawa while Mtl plays Wsh/Pitt/Clb/NYR.

Even if the beat Leafs tonight in regulation... Leafs can still catch up.

I know you're an eternal optimist and that's great but I can't see this team in the same light you do unfortunately

 

[Braunbaer]

The Bruins look good on paper?
Maybe 3 - 7 years ago. But today? I disagree.

 

[Trap Jesus]

2016/17 Bruins have the second worst PDO (shooting % + save % at ES) since that stat started being used in 2007/08. Shortened season 2012/13 Panthers are the only team that is worse. If you look at other teams near the bottom, the expected goals and scoring chance numbers of the Bruins (which are strong) stick out like a sore thumb. This has been a very frustrating season.

 

[Taz#24]

Not seeing the look go on paper part

The only line that can consistently produce offence is the BERGERON line. BERGERON's massive defensive responsibilities limit that line from their full output potential, plus he and MARCHAND play of a lot of PK and that can taxing.

KREJCI still makes thing happen but we don't seem to have a winger with the skill-set to work well with DK. He likes to slow down the play and make passes that are typically unexpected. VATRANO likes that one-timer but offers little of anything else. BACKES is a third line centre, period, full stop. As for the guys that have played bottom six, are you kidding me? They all suck. Has NASH ever won a physical battle? SPOONER has high O but makes stupid, low % plays regularly. HAYES is useless. MOOORE works hard and could be an effective depth guy/4th liner but that's it. CZARNIK just doesn't have the physical tools or willingness to get involved to overcome his small stature. BLIDH may be an effective fourth line pest one day but I question his hockey IQ. Shawn THORNTON could make more happen with less skill-set.

On D, CHARA is done like dinner. He still has a decent game here and there but he is getting beaten wide on a regular basis now. KRUG is a gamer but he's NOT a prototypical #1 D. He's way more suited as a high end second tier puck mover and PP guy. CARLO will develop if he's put in the right situation but a lot of people expected BIG things from the kid and that's too much to ask for a D-man who made the jump at 19. He will make mistakes that will ideally become less and less frequent as he gains experience. C. MILLER is really starting to step it up IMHO. He may be a decent choice top 4 guy soon. MCQUAID and K. MILLER are redundant. One guy on your D in this mould would suffice and let's face it, CHARA's decline in essence gives us three heavy footed guys who are very susceptible to outside speed and/or quicker/smaller guys who can water-bug.

RASK is a world class goaltender but let's face it, the team in front of him is average at best.
His lacklustre play of late is no doubt due to no back up support. The mere psychology of realizing you have to step up ever night without occasional relief has to be mentally draining.

I've never been a supporter of sell, sell, sell but I am this year. It's time to blow it up and utilize the resources acquired in the recent re-tool in conjunction with the ones we get from guys like CHARA , KREJCI, MOORE one of K. MILLER or MCQUAID etc, perhaps a team would show interest in either BACKES or BELESKEY (both good players but both over-paid considerably), for the right return we should listen. Maybe even RASK if the return makes sense to a re-build. He can be like a wall back there but because the team in front of him can not defend or provide O for him. it's like a wall but the other teams all have ladders now.

WAKE UP DS, we are not tweeners with a shot at sneaking in, we are a non-playoff team.

That said, as the title suggests not seeing Terrence Doyle's view about looking good on paper whatsoever.

 

[blurbruin]

Serious question... how many of you are still willing to pay that much for a ticket to see this team?

I noticed even vs Arizona on a Tuesday the cheapest tickets are $50+. I'd rather watch them on tv and eat/drink at a bar for that price.