Speculation: What Went Wrong?

[shelbysdad]

Not sure of the cause of it but the mental errors.

Bad decisions all over, from passes, clears, bad penalties away from the play, line changes, over passing , not shooting when they have a chance... looking for perfect play.

Overthinking and not being instinctive. They play like they are mentally exhausted.

 

[bigbadbruins1]

situation is 75% upper management. Sweeney continually gets a free pass on poor drafting, middling UFA signings, and poor player development. If you really look at our team Swayman, Lohrei (meh) and Beecher are the only drafted players from Sweeney ( not counting 2015 since he took the job in may 2015) still on the roster.

That is horrid, unacceptable, and a fireable offense in its own right. His only saving grace was the aging core of Bergy, krejci, etc that kept this team afloat for so long.

That and they actually believe Marchand is a Captain. I understand the thought process, but making our only agitator player have to now play by the rules/ be a respected captain after years of debauchery is just insulting to us as fans.

 

[Raleighfern]

situation is 75% upper management. Sweeney continually gets a free pass on poor drafting, middling UFA signings, and poor player development. If you really look at our team Swayman, Lohrei (meh) and Beecher are the only drafted players from Sweeney ( not counting 2015 since he took the job in may 2015) still on the roster.

That is horrid, unacceptable, and a fireable offense in its own right. His only saving grace was the aging core of Bergy, krejci, etc that kept this team afloat for so long.

That and they actually believe Marchand is a Captain. I understand the thought process, but making our only agitator player have to now play by the rules/ be a respected captain after years of debauchery is just insulting to us as fans.

McAvoy, Frederic, Carlo, Poitras

 

[Ladyfan]

situation is 75% upper management. Sweeney continually gets a free pass on poor drafting, middling UFA signings, and poor player development. If you really look at our team Swayman, Lohrei (meh) and Beecher are the only drafted players from Sweeney ( not counting 2015 since he took the job in may 2015) still on the roster.

That is horrid, unacceptable, and a fireable offense in its own right. His only saving grace was the aging core of Bergy, krejci, etc that kept this team afloat for so long.

That and they actually believe Marchand is a Captain. I understand the thought process, but making our only agitator player have to now play by the rules/ be a respected captain after years of debauchery is just insulting to us as fans.

Brad is an excellent captain

 

[BMC]

It does, but it also makes you wonder how much of our perception is influenced by good goaltending.

Over the summer, lots of media and analysts were saying that the Bruins defense was actually bad last year, and that it was being propped up by their goalies.

To a certain extent it was. The Ullmark/Swayman tandem was just unreal that last season. We all saw how many times one of them would make a great save after a defenseman blew his assignment somehow.

 

[elMatador]

situation is 75% upper management. Sweeney continually gets a free pass on poor drafting, middling UFA signings, and poor player development. If you really look at our team Swayman, Lohrei (meh) and Beecher are the only drafted players from Sweeney ( not counting 2015 since he took the job in may 2015) still on the roster.

That is horrid, unacceptable, and a fireable offense in its own right. His only saving grace was the aging core of Bergy, krejci, etc that kept this team afloat for so long.

That and they actually believe Marchand is a Captain. I understand the thought process, but making our only agitator player have to now play by the rules/ be a respected captain after years of debauchery is just insulting to us as fans.

GM has failed the team again.

With Chara and Krug gone, there is no D replacement of the same quality.
With Bergeron and Krejci retired, there is no center replacement of the same quality.
Made the best agitator a captain, there is no agitator replacement of the same quality.

Simply, there is no succession plan at all.

 

[ON3M4N]

situation is 75% upper management. Sweeney continually gets a free pass on poor drafting, middling UFA signings, and poor player development. If you really look at our team Swayman, Lohrei (meh) and Beecher are the only drafted players from Sweeney ( not counting 2015 since he took the job in may 2015) still on the roster.

That is horrid, unacceptable, and a fireable offense in its own right. His only saving grace was the aging core of Bergy, krejci, etc that kept this team afloat for so long.

That and they actually believe Marchand is a Captain. I understand the thought process, but making our only agitator player have to now play by the rules/ be a respected captain after years of debauchery is just insulting to us as fans.

You're missing some guys that have been drafted under Sweeney. I'm not sure how we can discredit guys drafted in 2015, but then complain that Sweeney is terrible at drafting. Many consider the 2015 draft by Sweeney to be his worst draft.

I also don't know that I'd say he gets a "free pass" because there are many post on here calling out Sweeney for his drafting, signings and development of players.

 

[Dr Hook]

"Expected goals (xG) is a metric that estimates how likely a shot is to be scored based on a number of factors. It's calculated using a statistical model that assigns a probability value to each shot.

Factors considered; Distance to goal, Angle to goal, Shot type, Assist type (i.e. shots off a cross ice pass are more likely to be scored), Goalkeeper position...

How it's calculated

1. A model is used to calculate the probability of scoring based on the shot's characteristics
2. The model assigns a value between 0 and 1 to the shot
3. A shot with a value of 0.3 is likely to be scored about 3 out of every 10 times based on all shots taken in the league that meet the same criteria.

The xG metric is used to measure the quality of a chance to score. It can be used to estimate how many goals a player or team should have scored based on the shots they took. Conversely xG against is used to determine how many goals a team should have allowed based on the shots they give up."

AI is scary.

It is an interesting consideration. What I don't like about it is that it isn't actual goals. No matter how much statistical prediction is done, there are way too many factors in a fast moving game like hockey to actually assign definitive values to variables. It would actually be interesting after a season to run a simulated season based on the advanced stats and see what outcomes were produced. Maybe it has been done? Would the standings look the same? Would player production?

What bothers me about this in relation to this years Bruins xGF and xGA (?) is that the defense is not better than last season. The stat says the Bruins should have let in 17 fewer goals, but they did let those goals in. So in a model that has goaltending as worse and defense as better, where did those 17 goals come from? And if it is off that much through 2/3 of a season, what will it look like at the end? That amount of goals would nearly wipe out the negative goal differential.

Maybe worse is that it is probably being used in part by the FO to evaluate the path forward, and I hope they aren't looking at that and thinking all is actually pretty well and not a lot needs to be done in terms of change.

As always, I am willing to have my mind changed on this topic. I am a humanities guy and always somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to social science and stat-based attempts to predict human behavior

 

[GordonHowe]

A friend I work with at the pro shop calls high school and college hockey.

He suggested Todd Nelson as head coach for the Bruins.

Check this resume. Extremely impressive,

Todd Nelson (ice hockey) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[JAD]

It is an interesting consideration. What I don't like about it is that it isn't actual goals. No matter how much statistical prediction is done, there are way too many factors in a fast moving game like hockey to actually assign definitive values to variables. It would actually be interesting after a season to run a simulated season based on the advanced stats and see what outcomes were produced. Maybe it has been done? Would the standings look the same? Would player production?

What bothers me about this in relation to this years Bruins xGF and xGA (?) is that the defense is not better than last season. The stat says the Bruins should have let in 17 fewer goals, but they did let those goals in. So in a model that has goaltending as worse and defense as better, where did those 17 goals come from? And if it is off that much through 2/3 of a season, what will it look like at the end? That amount of goals would nearly wipe out the negative goal differential.

Maybe worse is that it is probably being used in part by the FO to evaluate the path forward, and I hope they aren't looking at that and thinking all is actually pretty well and not a lot needs to be done in terms of change.

As always, I am willing to have my mind changed on this topic. I am a humanities guy and always somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to social science and stat-based attempts to predict human behavior

Well, if I counted correctly the Bruins have given up 12 empty net goals this year. So, that would account for about half the goal differential. The other half comes from being down already at least one goal in those games.

 

[RoccoF14]

Well, if I counted correctly the Bruins have given up 12 empty net goals this year. So, that would account for about half the goal differential. The other half comes from being down already at least one goal in those games.

We also scored empty net goals as well, no? After being up at least one goal.

 

[BlackFrancis]

It is an interesting consideration. What I don't like about it is that it isn't actual goals. No matter how much statistical prediction is done, there are way too many factors in a fast moving game like hockey to actually assign definitive values to variables. It would actually be interesting after a season to run a simulated season based on the advanced stats and see what outcomes were produced. Maybe it has been done? Would the standings look the same? Would player production?

What bothers me about this in relation to this years Bruins xGF and xGA (?) is that the defense is not better than last season. The stat says the Bruins should have let in 17 fewer goals, but they did let those goals in. So in a model that has goaltending as worse and defense as better, where did those 17 goals come from? And if it is off that much through 2/3 of a season, what will it look like at the end? That amount of goals would nearly wipe out the negative goal differential.

Maybe worse is that it is probably being used in part by the FO to evaluate the path forward, and I hope they aren't looking at that and thinking all is actually pretty well and not a lot needs to be done in terms of change.

As always, I am willing to have my mind changed on this topic. I am a humanities guy and always somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to social science and stat-based attempts to predict human behavior

The real problem, at least as far as I know, is that nobody has done a mathematical proof of the correlation between actual goals and expected goals. You can find a proof for Pythag's GF/GA -> W/L record, thus pythag is pretty much unassailable. xG and xGA does not have this support currently.

There's a million little things in hockey that are seemingly common sense, but no one has really done the work and proven it.

 

[BigGoalBrad]

So the west playoff teams are set in stone.

8 teams are in and the 8 that will miss it the Bruins aren't going to finish below in the standings should we miss out. 4 awful teams in the west. Realistically maybe we could out tank 1 of them but if we don't make it we are picking 12-16 which is a nightmare. Only saving grace would be Sweeney being fired.

Worried about the Korpisalo starts. I don't really think there's anyone worth adding and the prices would be too high. Would love to move out Carlo or Coyle and have 10 mil extra cap space this summer.

 

[JAD]

We also scored empty net goals as well, no? After being up at least one goal.

That's true, I did think to count them. But I think my thinking was most of the differential is accounted for in about a half dozen+/- games where the wheels fell off. But idk ... sounded good at the time, lol. I'm old, tired, and going to bed.

 

[BigGoalBrad]

How the hell are we dead even with friggin Columbus?

 

[DKH]

Good night for Sweeney

Draftees Swaydog & kids Lohrei & Poitras coming on strong

College FA via Yotes Michael Callahan looking once again like a 500 game vet

Another very strong game from Elias Lindholm as he gets more comfortable

UFA signing Morgan Geekie looks every bit the part of a power forward who’s going to start stringing 30 goal seasons together

Sacco 35 games close to 100 point pace without Hampus

 

[GordonHowe]

People need to stop comparing Marchand to Bergeron and Chara. He's a damn good leader but his style is very different from his predecessors. Marchand gets what it takes to be a Boston Bruin. He's worked his ass off to get to where he is. It is that work ethic and ability to relate to the younger guys that makes him a great leader. He's also not afraid to say what needs to be said and he's always in front of the media taking accountability.

Marchand was not please with the Swayman shit being so public and subtly made it known.

^

Coyle and Carlo are the guys who should be wearing an A.

I like David and Charlie a lot, but they are not leaders in the truest sense.

As noted by some in the media, this roster also has little in the way of veteran leadership. Veterans who have been around that command respect.

You can't put it all on Brad's shoulders, especially in a season when nearly everything that can go wrong has, in spades.

Get off Marchy's back.

The blame in this instance, like most of what ailes this "team," belongs at SweeNeely's feet.

 

[GordonHowe]

A hundred years ago I was told by a coach that what happened happened, he was more concerned how we react to it.

I say that now because I'm more interested in how Sweeney will react to it.

Are you?

 

[PlayMakers]

What bothers me about this in relation to this years Bruins xGF and xGA (?) is that the defense is not better than last season. The stat says the Bruins should have let in 17 fewer goals, but they did let those goals in. So in a model that has goaltending as worse and defense as better, where did those 17 goals come from? And if it is off that much through 2/3 of a season, what will it look like at the end? That amount of goals would nearly wipe out the negative goal differential.

Well, I think you're misunderstanding the stat. It says nothing directly about the goaltending. It simply says the Bruins should have let in 17 fewer goals based on the shot quality they've allowed. It's up to us to interpret why those goals went in.

The obvious answer is bad goaltending, which is backed up by traditional stats like save percents and advanced stats like goals saved above expected stats, which both had the Bruins ranked at the bottom of the league in the first 35 games.

 

[BlackFrancis]

The real problem, at least as far as I know, is that nobody has done a mathematical proof of the correlation between actual goals and expected goals. You can find a proof for Pythag's GF/GA -> W/L record, thus pythag is pretty much unassailable. xG and xGA does not have this support currently.

There's a million little things in hockey that are seemingly common sense, but no one has really done the work and proven it.

Not to quote my own post like a dickhead, but I bring up pythag at least once a year, it seems.

If anyone is sick of hearing about it with no explanation, here's a pdf of the actual paper.

 

[Dr Hook]

Well, I think you're misunderstanding the stat. It says nothing directly about the goaltending. It simply says the Bruins should have let in 17 fewer goals based on the shot quality they've allowed. It's up to us to interpret why those goals went in.

The obvious answer is bad goaltending, which is backed up by traditional stats like save percents and advanced stats like goals saved above expected stats, which both had the Bruins ranked at the bottom of the league in the first 35 games.

Fair enough- I arrived at that conclusion because it isn't apparent what the answer would be otherwise. The defense is better according to xGA but those goals still happened. The goaltending was not great to start, particularly Swayman, but at the same time, watching many of those games left me feeling that the problem wasn't always between the pipes, but also in defensive coverage. The coaches talked about it, and so did other analysts.

Anyways, I don't want to drag this too far down the statistics rabbit hole (especially as my stat-fu is a little weak), just wanted to say that I've always felt hockey is very a difficult sport to attach analytics to and this illustrates why. But the stats are still useful and do often say something meaningful.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

So the west playoff teams are set in stone.

8 teams are in and the 8 that will miss it the Bruins aren't going to finish below in the standings should we miss out. 4 awful teams in the west. Realistically maybe we could out tank 1 of them but if we don't make it we are picking 12-16 which is a nightmare. Only saving grace would be Sweeney being fired.

Worried about the Korpisalo starts. I don't really think there's anyone worth adding and the prices would be too high. Would love to move out Carlo or Coyle and have 10 mil extra cap space this summer.

That's a nightmare?

If it were 12th it would be the Bruins highest pick since 2011.

 

[Dr Hook]

That's a nightmare?

If it were 12th it would be the Bruins highest pick since 2011.

I am speculating that's because it is allegedly a weak draft where you have a pick that in other years would feel like a really good chance to get a solid player (unlike the late round options generally). Not sure why the cutoff was 16, though, and nightmare is overstating it by a lot. Experts might call it a weak draft, but I am guessing that a number of useful NHL regulars will come out of it, just like always.

 

[BruinDust]

A friend I work with at the pro shop calls high school and college hockey.

He suggested Todd Nelson as head coach for the Bruins.

Check this resume. Extremely impressive,

Todd Nelson (ice hockey) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Always felt he got shafted after taking a truly awful Oilers team that was .307 in pts. % after 31 games (7-19-5) to a somewhat respectable .422 in his 51 games behind the bench (17-25-9). Oilers wanted that experienced brand-name coach and turned to Todd McLennan.

 

[Wulfgar]

As an outsider, this regression was expected. It was now or never in 2022/23 and sadly it didn´t work out. The only question is do you go for a full rebuild and write off next few seasons?