The Responsible Parties

[Eddie Munson]

Probably has something to do with doling out blame for a "litany of flaws" for a team that is currently first in the entire league.

I see, mea culpa then. So your qualm with this is that you think this is a perfect team without flaws which is why they're in first this year? Just want to make sure I get this right so we can get a mod to close this down before we waste anyone else's time who mistakes this as a discussion board aimed at talking about the state of the Bruins and all its nuances.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

I see, mea culpa then. So your qualm with this is that you think this is a perfect team without flaws which is why they're in first this year? Just want to make sure I get this right so we can get a mod to close this down before we waste anyone else's time who mistakes this as a discussion board aimed at talking about the state of the Bruins and all its nuances.

Yeah that’s what I’m saying. Right.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

I see, mea culpa then. So your qualm with this is that you think this is a perfect team without flaws which is why they're in first this year? Just want to make sure I get this right so we can get a mod to close this down before we waste anyone else's time who mistakes this as a discussion board aimed at talking about the state of the Bruins and all its nuances.

You asked why there's pushback to the discussion. @MarchysNoseKnows answered the question. When you're looking at one of the top teams in the league over the last two seasons and your takeaway is their "litany of flaws", it comes across as glass-half-empty.

No one here is claiming perfection. Not mentioned once. But despite an offseason that I panned HARD for the type of player they prioritized, this Bruins club is pretty goddamn good.

You may disagree with that. Many in this thread do. That's where the "discussion" part of the discussion board comes in.

 

[CDJ]

I see, mea culpa then. So your qualm with this is that you think this is a perfect team without flaws which is why they're in first this year? Just want to make sure I get this right so we can get a mod to close this down before we waste anyone else's time who mistakes this as a discussion board aimed at talking about the state of the Bruins and all its nuances.

Not a single person is saying this team is flawless- we are saying it’s preposterous to act like this is a bad team when it’s quite literally #1 in hockey. Thats what it sounds like when you create a thread trying to assign blame for an operation that is first in hockey-preposterous. It sounds disconnected from reality. Especially when everybody before the season thought this was a fringe playoff team, some even thinking not a playoff team at all

 

[goldnblack]

Not a single person is saying this team is flawless- we are saying it’s preposterous to act like this is a bad team when it’s quite literally #1 in hockey. Thats what it sounds like when you create a thread trying to assign blame for an operation that is first in hockey-preposterous. It sounds disconnected from reality. Especially when everybody before the season thought this was a fringe playoff team, some even thinking not a playoff team at all

It sounds a lot like "This is the Devil's music!" when the Beatles came out

 

[Eddie Munson]

Not a single person is saying this team is flawless- we are saying it’s preposterous to act like this is a bad team when it’s quite literally #1 in hockey. Thats what it sounds like when you create a thread trying to assign blame for an operation that is first in hockey-preposterous. It sounds disconnected from reality. Especially when everybody before the season thought this was a fringe playoff team, some even thinking not a playoff team at all

You asked why there's pushback to the discussion. @MarchysNoseKnows answered the question. When you're looking at one of the top teams in the league over the last two seasons and your takeaway is their "litany of flaws", it comes across as glass-half-empty.

No one here is claiming perfection. Not mentioned once. But despite an offseason that I panned HARD for the type of player they prioritized, this Bruins club is pretty goddamn good.

You may disagree with that. Many in this thread do. That's where the "discussion" part of the discussion board comes in.

They're in first is not push back, nor does it help discussion, it's just a fact. But the fact is that sports as a whole are more nuanced than where a team sits in the standings. The thread is to discuss these nuances and how despite many negative factors (again, open for debate) this team continues to top the league.

So far in this and other threads, people have discussed how this team is underwater in CORSI, FENWICK, Shots Against, High Danger Chances. They've rightfully had a drop down in faceoff percentage. The discussion is about who is responsible for these issues? Coaching? Front office? Players?

The people coming in and just stating "they're in first" have added very little to this conversation.

 

[Dreghorn2]

You asked why there's pushback to the discussion. @MarchysNoseKnows answered the question. When you're looking at one of the top teams in the league over the last two seasons and your takeaway is their "litany of flaws", it comes across as glass-half-empty.

No one here is claiming perfection. Not mentioned once. But despite an offseason that I panned HARD for the type of player they prioritized, this Bruins club is pretty goddamn good.

You may disagree with that. Many in this thread do. That's where the "discussion" part of the discussion board comes in.

The problem with the 'look at how good they are this season' outlook is that the NHL regular season has become such an uber watered down representation of what playoff hockey actually is, that those with concerns about the front office almost discount it when it comes to team building.

I'm in that group.

I would suggest that the difference in play, and the requirements to win between regular season and playoff hockey has never been greater in the history of the league.

A single hard check, normal in almost any playoff game is taken as a personal offense amongst players now. The league has settled into a 'don't mess with my livelihood' state of mind that doesn't start disappearing until late in the season and of course the playoffs.

The playoffs are much more physical, are refereed differently and the speed and intensity goes through the roof.

That's why i feel as much as advanced stats have their place, when you look at regular season numbers and see players performing well in a variety of metrics, do they carry over when the intensity and physicality of the playoffs are introduced?

The thread briefly became a discussion on whether Sweeney is on the hotseat and i agree with those saying probably not. The Bruins don't seem to really work like that. However as mentioned in a post a couple of pages back i do agree with those that believe he should be.

Building good regular season teams while impressive, and you do have to make the playoffs, are not how i would be judging any modern NHL GM.

 

[Over the volcano]

That has to do with Boston’s continued success since the late 2000s. Not an in depth look at this particular squad. Two very different questions here.

This isn't directed at you Over the volcano but in general, I'm not quite sure why people are so defensive about this squad? People can want this team to do well in the playoffs but also see the flaws in it's makeup. These two things don't have to be mutually exclusive.

I'm fine with people thinking this squad can go deep in the playoffs. I agree. The COVID year taught us that all it takes can be a hot goalie and a team to get on a streak. But like this team, that team was marred with a litany of flaws. This thread is to discuss what those flaws are and who is responsible.

Biggest fear heading into the playoffs for me is that Montgomery is going to go rogue and over shuffling the roster/lines again. IMO that was their downfall against FLA and if there's a thing they lack in terms of their overall approach is an aggressive identity they can fall back on when things aren't clicking. They've been a read and react, capitalize on mistakes club, not one that imposes itself on opponents and forces those mistakes.

Talent wise across the organization they've done an unbelievable job of maintaining top of the league status through repeated retooling. I'm defensive about this squad because no one thought they'd be as successful as they are, so to pick at em is kinda spitting in the face of a real nice gift of a season we're experiencing.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

They're in first is not push back, nor does it help discussion, it's just a fact. But the fact is that sports as a whole are more nuanced than where a team sits in the standings. The thread is to discuss these nuances and how despite many negative factors (again, open for debate) this team continues to top the league.

So far in this and other threads, people have discussed how this team is underwater in CORSI, FENWICK, Shots Against, High Danger Chances. They've rightfully had a drop down in faceoff percentage. The discussion is about who is responsible for these issues? Coaching? Front office? Players?

The people coming in and just stating "they're in first" have added very little to this conversation.

Are they underwater in these categories? Genuine question as I'm actually unaware.

And follow up... Were they last year as well?

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

The problem with the 'look at how good they are this season' outlook is that the NHL regular season has become such an uber watered down representation of what playoff hockey actually is, that those with concerns about the front office almost discount it when it comes to team building.

I'm in that group.

I would suggest that the difference in play, and the requirements to win between regular season and playoff hockey has never been greater in the history of the league.

A single hard check, normal in almost any playoff game is taken as a personal offense amongst players now. The league has settled into a 'don't mess with my livelihood' state of mind that doesn't start disappearing until late in the season and of course the playoffs.

The playoffs are much more physical, are refereed differently and the speed and intensity goes through the roof.

That's why i feel as much as advanced stats have their place, when you look at regular season numbers and see players performing well in a variety of metrics, do they carry over when the intensity and physicality of the playoffs are introduced?

The thread briefly became a discussion on whether Sweeney is on the hotseat and i agree with those saying probably not. The Bruins don't seem to really work like that. However as mentioned in a post a couple of pages back i do agree with those that believe he should be.

Building good regular season teams while impressive, and you do have to make the playoffs, are not how i would be judging any modern NHL GM.

Oh I get it. Regular season meant nothing last season.

But for this year with this squad? It's all we have to judge.

Is there anything about this roster that you like better than last year's roster? I know as a whole, it's not as good. I'm not arguing that. But is there any aspect of these Bruins that you believe can be argued position them better for playoff success?

 

[Eddie Munson]

Are they underwater in these categories? Genuine question as I'm actually unaware.

And follow up... Were they last year as well?

Yes. Below 50% in all of them which means the other team by and large has more chances, more shots, better shots, and controls the puck for longer than the B's in any given game.

Last year they dominated these stats being closer to 60% if memory serves correct. Even in the series versus Florida they owned these stats. So what happened? Florida got clutch goaltending from Bobrovski and clutch scoring. How have the Bruins had to win this year? Clutch scoring and clutch goaltending.

This is why some people see a flawed roster. Not because they think the team sucks. But because they see a team that is going to have to navigate the playoffs and win in a very specific way. Can they do that? Sure. But that's a much harder road to traverse than if they had more consistent scoring, won over 50% of faceoffs, and out-chanced their opponent more often than not.

To me, that's where this discussion begins.

 

[CDJ]

They're in first is not push back, nor does it help discussion, it's just a fact. But the fact is that sports as a whole are more nuanced than where a team sits in the standings. The thread is to discuss these nuances and how despite many negative factors (again, open for debate) this team continues to top the league.

So far in this and other threads, people have discussed how this team is underwater in CORSI, FENWICK, Shots Against, High Danger Chances. They've rightfully had a drop down in faceoff percentage. The discussion is about who is responsible for these issues? Coaching? Front office? Players?

The people coming in and just stating "they're in first" have added very little to this conversation.

Ok if it’s a fact then why are we “assigning blame” for a team that’s having clear and obvious success? It’s acting like we are bad or dead in the water. Like I said in post 1 it’s like doing an autopsy on a living person. That’s a very different thing than discussing possible flaws with this team, which I’m sure you’ll find everybody here can identify some.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

Yes. Below 50% in all of them which means the other team by and large has more chances, more shots, better shots, and controls the puck for longer than the B's in any given game.

Last year they dominated these stats being closer to 60% if memory serves correct. Even in the series versus Florida they owned these stats. So what happened? Florida got clutch goaltending from Bobrovski and clutch scoring. How have the Bruins had to win this year? Clutch scoring and clutch goaltending.

This is why some people see a flawed roster. Not because they think the team sucks. But because they see a team that is going to have to navigate the playoffs and win in a very specific way. Can they do that? Sure. But that's a much harder road to traverse than if they had more consistent scoring, won over 50% of faceoffs, and out-chanced their opponent more often than not.

To me, that's where this discussion begins.

First, there’s no correlation statistically between faceoff percentage and wins. Either regular season or playoffs. So that’s really not a metric that’s important in the context of what you wrote.

Second, they’re at 51.34% High Danger chances at 5v5. So they’re above water. They’re also at 58%+ HDGF% at 5v5, which is third in the league. Last years numbers were better - shocker! But last year they were 15th in the league at CF% at 5v5 at just over 51%.

Third, regardless of numbers, we’ve seen that this team has only four (4) losses to playoff teams in regulation. Does that hold no water?

Playoff success is a different matter. Using Dom’s model at the Athletic (obviously there are others but they don’t differ all that much) only one team has a 50% chance or better to win two rounds in the East - the Hurricanes, owing to what will be the easiest playoff matchup odds wise in the entire NHL. (I would use Moneypuck, but their model hates the Panthers for some reason and gives Toronto a 5% higher chance of winning two rounds than the Panthers. Their playoff model has always been FUBAR).

Dom has the Bruins with a 55% chance of winning one round, projecting them to play the Maple Leafs, the toughest matchup in the East for a favorite. Even the Panthers are projected as only a 77% favorite in round 1 despite a ridiculously easy WC matchup. There’s an undercurrent of inevitability here that the Bruins are doomed to lose in the playoffs. And yes, that is almost certainly true. But even the best teams have only a 15% odds of winning the Cup.

 

[Babajingo]

The fact they're in first just says they're a good team. Last year they were a great team and got beat in the first round by a team that was built for the playoffs. Oh and is currently 1 point behind the Bruins with a game in hand.

I do believe they are on the downward slope. It's only natural. Same thing is happening to PIT, WASH, CHI, ... just sooner. What will really get me discouraged is if they start treading water again, like they did in the 90s and 2000s. First round exits with mid round draft picks (if they don't trade them away). Useless.
If ownership/FO have any cajones, they should do a rebuild soon.

But what do I know, I thought they'd be a wildcard team, at best. Playoff should be fun. They better hope they get TOR or PHI

 

[Dreghorn2]

Oh I get it. Regular season meant nothing last season.

But for this year with this squad? It's all we have to judge.

Is there anything about this roster that you like better than last year's roster? I know as a whole, it's not as good. I'm not arguing that. But is there any aspect of these Bruins that you believe can be argued position them better for playoff success?

If i had to pick anything, maybe heart? We won't find out until the playoffs.

After last year there was really no assets left to put a really strong playoff team together. They did a very good job filling holes for the regular season however.

It's hockey though, maybe this squad plays out of their minds for a couple of months,

 

[SwayHeyKid]

I want the people responsible for giving me a team that has a legit shot at winning the cup each and every year to be fired at once. I would rather win the Athletic best prospects list every fall.

Oh I get it. Regular season meant nothing last season.

But for this year with this squad? It's all we have to judge.

Is there anything about this roster that you like better than last year's roster? I know as a whole, it's not as good. I'm not arguing that. But is there any aspect of these Bruins that you believe can be argued position them better for playoff success?

This is exactly it. Let the team go through the play-offs, then debate what went wrong or what went right. If any other team in the league lost their top two centers last season would they be first overall on St Patricks Day the next year? I doubt it.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

To preempt the Faceoff conversation, Florida won 45% of their faceoffs in the playoffs last year. Only better than the Kraken and the Wild. VGK was 8th at 51%.

Last years regular season saw the Kings, the Blackhawks, Nashville, Pittsburgh, and the Islanders in the top 10. Florida was 22nd, with a lower percentage than the Bruins have this year.

This year, the top faceoff team in the league is the…Penguins. Devils are 4th. Montreal is 8th. Ottawa is 13th. Colorado and Winnipeg are 22nd and 23rd.

Bruins are 14th in FO win% short handed. Top 3 this year? NJD, Ottawa, and Pitt. Florida is 4th. Montreal is 5th.

 

[Eddie Munson]

First, there’s no correlation statistically between faceoff percentage and wins. Either regular season or playoffs. So that’s really not a metric that’s important in the context of what you wrote.

Second, they’re at 51.34% High Danger chances at 5v5. So they’re above water. They’re also at 58%+ HDGF% at 5v5, which is third in the league. Last years numbers were better - shocker! But last year they were 15th in the league at CF% at 5v5 at just over 51%.

Third, regardless of numbers, we’ve seen that this team has only four (4) losses to playoff teams in regulation. Does that hold no water?

Playoff success is a different matter. Using Dom’s model at the Athletic (obviously there are others but they don’t differ all that much) only one team has a 50% chance or better to win two rounds in the East - the Hurricanes, owing to what will be the easiest playoff matchup odds wise in the entire NHL. (I would use Moneypuck, but their model hates the Panthers for some reason and gives Toronto a 5% higher chance of winning two rounds than the Panthers. Their playoff model has always been FUBAR).

Dom has the Bruins with a 55% chance of winning one round, projecting them to play the Maple Leafs, the toughest matchup in the East for a favorite. Even the Panthers are projected as only a 77% favorite in round 1 despite a ridiculously easy WC matchup. There’s an undercurrent of inevitability here that the Bruins are doomed to lose in the playoffs. And yes, that is almost certainly true. But even the best teams have only a 15% odds of winning the Cup.

View attachment 837826

I think your 4 regular season losses to playoff teams was counted before Detriot clawed back into the WC I believe. Not that it would make a big different. They have one or two losses to them??

Besides the fact that again, they're underwater in the majority of advanced stats. And yes, advanced stats don't win games, but they give you insight into how a team needs to play or what they may need to overcome to win. They also become even less meaningful in a 1 to 1 matchup versus a specific opponent as the B's just seem to have Toronto's number. Matter of fact, I'd rather them play Toronto in round one than Detriot with the way they've played them this year.

I appreciate the honest reply with stats and your opinion. Honestly, that's all I'm asking for in this thread. It felt like people were going to their corner and getting defensive versus discussing the points.

 

[Kalus]

Yes. Below 50% in all of them which means the other team by and large has more chances, more shots, better shots, and controls the puck for longer than the B's in any given game.

Last year they dominated these stats being closer to 60% if memory serves correct. Even in the series versus Florida they owned these stats. So what happened? Florida got clutch goaltending from Bobrovski and clutch scoring. How have the Bruins had to win this year? Clutch scoring and clutch goaltending.

This is why some people see a flawed roster. Not because they think the team sucks. But because they see a team that is going to have to navigate the playoffs and win in a very specific way. Can they do that? Sure. But that's a much harder road to traverse than if they had more consistent scoring, won over 50% of faceoffs, and out-chanced their opponent more often than not.

To me, that's where this discussion begins.

The faceoffs issue is more just a symptom of the real problem; the lack of legitimate top 6 centers on this team. Most Stanley Cup winners have an elite #1 center and a good #2 center. This team has 3 #3 centers. That is the most glaring underlying issue that they can get by with during the regular season but will be very difficult to do so in the playoffs.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

The faceoffs issue is more just a symptom of the real problem; the lack of legitimate top 6 centers on this team. Most Stanley Cup winners have an elite #1 center and a good #2 center. This team has 3 #3 centers. That is the most glaring underlying issue that they can get by with during the regular season but will be very difficult to do so in the playoffs.

Coyle and Zacha aren’t #3 centers. That’s just wrong.

 

[Eddie Munson]

The faceoffs issue is more just a symptom of the real problem; the lack of legitimate top 6 centers on this team. Most Stanley Cup winners have an elite #1 center and a good #2 center. This team has 3 #3 centers. That is the most glaring underlying issue that they can get by with during the regular season but will be very difficult to do so in the playoffs.

As a whole I think it speaks to their underwater possession stats. It's not the end all be all. But if I had a nickel for every time they lost an important 3rd period faceoff with 90 second left and the opponent's goalie pulled..... I'd have a lot of nickels.

They also have given up the most 5v6 goals to an opponent with the goalie pulled this year (disclaimer: this would include goals on delayed penalties, I'm too busy as a new father to do the legwork to pull those out lol). But that's a flaw that can and should be discussed and who is at fault? Are guys underachieving at the dot? Sweeney for not addressing this after BP/DK retirement? Montgomery for not putting out two centers at the end of the game so center one can cheat the draw? Plenty to dig at just in that one area.

And while faceoffs as a stat have never been an indicator of who has won a series. They certainly have lost this team some games this year.

 

[GordonHowe]

Not a single person is saying this team is flawless- we are saying it’s preposterous to act like this is a bad team when it’s quite literally #1 in hockey. Thats what it sounds like when you create a thread trying to assign blame for an operation that is first in hockey-preposterous. It sounds disconnected from reality. Especially when everybody before the season thought this was a fringe playoff team, some even thinking not a playoff team at all

Pointing out legitimate problems with this team is neither preposterous nor disconnected from reality.

Is it "glass half empty"? Yes, it is.

For good or ill, that's how I view the organization.

We shall see.

 

[sarge88]

Time will tell, but as we’ve painfully seen, a team can be constructed for regular season success and playoff failure.

Not suggesting this is ever a conscious decision, but at the very least, the fact that Hathaway was brought in last year and Lucic and later Maroon this year does offer some credence to the fact that they feel that toughness is something this team lacks.

The question that may never be answered is how much toughness is enough?

It’s possible to lose a series where you “out tough” the other team and you can win a series where you get smacked around.

In the end, while either one of the scenarios above can happen, it’s unlikely that you can win four series where you’re the nail and not the hammer.

My biggest concern is not enough toughness in the top 9. Those guys aren’t easy to find, but it isn’t impossible and should be a priority, not only next year, but in perpetuity.

 

[CDJ]

Pointing out legitimate problems with this team is neither preposterous nor disconnected from reality.

Is it "glass half empty"? Yes, it is.

For good or ill, that's how I view the organization.

We shall see.

Again it’s not the pointing out flaws that people have problems with. It’s the “assigning blame” thing? What are we assigning blame for when the team is not only exceeding all expectations, but is in first in all of hockey??? It’s just silly. If this thread was created after they were eliminated from the playoffs then sure, have at it. It would make tons of sense. This thread was created after a win that put them in first in all of hockey what is their to blame on somebody lmao

Like I said- it’s an autopsy on a living body

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

Pointing out legitimate problems with this team is neither preposterous nor disconnected from reality.

Is it "glass half empty"? Yes, it is.

For good or ill, that's how I view the organization.

We shall see.

Describing your post as “pointing out legitimate problems with this team” is a joke. That’s not what you’re doing. You’re writing a eulogy in March and demanding the entire management team get canned. That is the definition of preposterous.