Why is Boston such a good organization?

[Osakahaus]

Yeah, they botched a draft nearly a decade ago. Kind of speaks to the quality of the organization that in the years since then they've been a perennial contender with a trip to the final. Unlike any of the teams that took those players they supposedly whiffed on. You wouldve liked to see another win during the Bergeron era but it is what it is.

And yeah they hired a great coach. Who followed long tenured and successful head coach in Cassidy. Who himself followed a long tenured and successful head coach. Almost like they know what they’re doing in that regard.

They are good. I just think it all boils down to them being a solid organization where Jacobs does at least fund them to be to the best of their ability. Is he a great owner? Absolutely not. But he makes the Bruins system run as intended, even with hints of cancer like signing Mitchell last season.

 

[cneely]

You’re not going to accept any evidence, so why even ask?

Multiple people could bring dozens of things and you’re just going to ignore it, so why even bother?

I’ve been trying to talk to you about game 2 in 2019 and it’s all deflection, deflection, whataboutism, denial, personal attacks, mocking, deflection from you and the other bruins fans in here.

People online tend to do this all the time “that’s not true, show me evidence” - provides evidence “no, that doesn’t count, show me more!” - shows some more evidence “oh you’re just crazy! What even are you talking about? That’s not evidence!”

And never, ever engage in what you requested.

It’s got to be some kind of neurosis. Do you do this in real life too, or is it just online?

It's not that it doesn't count. It's that one game out of the 1,700 or so played over the last 20 seasons isn't really indicative of anything.

I tried to prove my point by linking highlights to a game that the Leafs lost to the Blue Jackets. Do you think that this game is evidence that the Blue Jackets are a better team than the Leafs?

Of course they aren't. Its one random game in a large sample of games that really isn't indicative of any sort of pattern.

You haven't brought any evidence at all, so don't pretend to know how I might react. Neurosis? How dare I expect you to back up random conspiracy claims with actual data.

 

[cneely]

You’re not going to accept any evidence, so why even ask?

Multiple people could bring dozens of things and you’re just going to ignore it, so why even bother?

It’s got to be some kind of neurosis. Do you do this in real life too, or is it just online?

It’s always “more evidence, more evidence, more evidence”.

You won’t even engage with the evidence I brought lmao

We can go through each piece of evidence one by one, but we gotta start somewhere. Let’s start with game 2 2019

Why are you avoiding it?

No one is avoiding it. Both teams got away with a lot in a playoff game. Happens all the time.

 

[wintersej]

No one is avoiding it. Both teams got away with a lot in a playoff game. Happens all the time.

I mean I would even give him that game. Backes came back into the lineup and set a very physical tone and the Bruins all jumped on board way more than Toronto did. But that isn’t anything Boston specific, that’s just the rules sometimes changing in the playoffs. Bruins have been on the other side of that notably against Florida and especially STL. Felt like STL had more suspensions than PKs in that series.

 

[Strangle]

I mean I would even give him that game. Backes came back into the lineup and set a very physical tone and the Bruins all jumped on board way more than Toronto did. But that isn’t anything Boston specific, that’s just the rules sometimes changing in the playoffs. Bruins have been on the other side of that notably against Florida and especially STL. Felt like STL had more suspensions than PKs in that series.

Guy wants to pick and choose what evidence I bring, after asking for evidence.

I am open to discussing this game, but he wants to avoid it at all costs and wants me to pull the slot machine if what he thinks is acceptable (pro tip, nothing I say will ever be accepted as evidence by him) and I’m not going to waste my time on it.

He’d rather just keep replying to me and make us repeat ourselves forever.

Not super interested in that, obviously

I posted the video along with the box score, that is objectively arguable evidence.

I believe it was 2-0 Boston before Toronto got a powerplay in that game.

We cannot possible discuss 300 games at the same time, we need to narrow things down and be specific, we need to define the parameters of discussion.

I’m defining them, to start, with this specific game because it is the easiest argument to make

 

[wintersej]

Guy wants to pick and choose what evidence I bring, after asking for evidence.

I am open to discussing this game, but he wants to avoid it at all costs and wants me to pull the slot machine if what he thinks is acceptable (pro tip, nothing I say will ever be accepted as evidence by him) and I’m not going to waste my time on it.

He’d rather just keep replying to me and make us repeat ourselves forever.

Not super interested in that, obviously

In fairness one game is one game and doesn’t show a pattern, which I think is his point. Bruins get penalized a lot over a long period of time. They also certainly push the envelope more in the playoffs and dare the refs to call it. But they are far far far far from alone on that regards, almost every team that makes it to 16 wins in the postseason plays to the edge and frankly the Bruins inability to do the same has cost them in many a playoff series.

 

[Strangle]

In fairness one game is one game and doesn’t show a pattern, which I think is his point. Bruins get penalized a lot over a long period of time. They also certainly push the envelope more in the playoffs and dare the refs to call it. But they are far far far far from alone on that regards, almost every team that makes it to 16 wins in the postseason plays to the edge and frankly the Bruins inability to do the same has cost them in many a playoff series.

We need to establish what the pattern is first, this is a process. If he can’t meet me at the starting line, if he’s so super defensive and avoidant about even beginning the discussion, how can I trust that he’s sincere asking about evidence.

The way this goes is, we establish criteria to look at and highlight using game 2 as the template, once the terms of the discussion are outlined, we then expand those ideas out into other areas and games and series and results and we build out the case

He doesn’t get this at all. He doesn’t want to even set the groundwork for discussion, he’s not open to the idea at all

It’s a waste of time to talk to him about it

 

[tarheelhockey]

Does that make you feel better? Losing in the final vs. other rounds?

I mean that should make them feel better. In a 32 team league it’s a big deal to even make the Conference Finals multiple times in a decade, let alone make it to the Finals multiple times.

 

[Score08]

You’re not going to accept any evidence, so why even ask?

Multiple people could bring dozens of things and you’re just going to ignore it, so why even bother?

I’ve been trying to talk to you about game 2 in 2019 and it’s all deflection, deflection, whataboutism, denial, personal attacks, mocking, deflection from you and the other bruins fans in here.

People online tend to do this all the time “that’s not true, show me evidence” - provides evidence “no, that doesn’t count, show me more!” - shows some more evidence “oh you’re just crazy! What even are you talking about? That’s not evidence!”

And never, ever engage in what you requested.

It’s got to be some kind of neurosis. Do you do this in real life too, or is it just online?

You come into this thread that’s asking how the bruins have been so good, then proceed to use a one game example to argue their success is from reffing? The entire basis for your arguments are disingenuous, and just an agenda driven bitch fest.

 

[cneely]

Guy wants to pick and choose what evidence I bring, after asking for evidence.

I am open to discussing this game, but he wants to avoid it at all costs and wants me to pull the slot machine if what he thinks is acceptable (pro tip, nothing I say will ever be accepted as evidence by him) and I’m not going to waste my time on it.

He’d rather just keep replying to me and make us repeat ourselves forever.

Not super interested in that, obviously

I posted the video along with the box score, that is objectively arguable evidence.

I believe it was 2-0 Boston before Toronto got a powerplay in that game.

We cannot possible discuss 300 games at the same time, we need to narrow things down and be specific, we need to define the parameters of discussion.

I’m defining them, to start, with this specific game because it is the easiest argument to make

This is just idiotic at this point.

Bring data. If the Bruins were the least penalized team... or the teams they played against lost the most man games to injury after playing them... or... SOMETHING

It's like looking out the window and seeing that it's snowing and saying this is the most snow we've ever had. Well, it might be, but we won't know that until we look at some data. The fact that it's snowing could probably be considered evidence, but its a pretty small and insignificant piece of evidence.

I can't believe I'm having to explain this.

We need to establish what the pattern is first, this is a process. If he can’t meet me at the starting line, if he’s so super defensive and avoidant about even beginning the discussion, how can I trust that he’s sincere asking about evidence.

The way this goes is, we establish criteria to look at and highlight using game 2 as the template, once the terms of the discussion are outlined, we then expand those ideas out into other areas and games and series and results and we build out the case

He doesn’t get this at all. He doesn’t want to even set the groundwork for discussion, he’s not open to the idea at all

It’s a waste of time to talk to him about it

Because I disagree with you it's a waste of time?

Answer me this. Do you think I've demonstrated that the Blue Jackets are a better team than the Leafs?

 

[Strangle]

You come into this thread that’s asking how the bruins have been so good, then proceed to use a one game example to argue their success is from reffing? The entire basis for your arguments are disingenuous, and just an agenda driven bitch fest.

Just don’t reply to me, I’m having a discussion with too many people already

This is just idiotic at this point.

Bring data. If the Bruins were the least penalized team... or the teams they played against lost the most man games to injury after playing them... or... SOMETHING

It's like looking out the window and seeing that it's snowing and saying this is the most snow we've ever had. Well, it might be, but we won't know that until we look at some data. The fact that it's snowing could probably be considered evidence, but its a pretty small and insignificant piece of evidence.

I can't believe I'm having to explain this.



Because I disagree with you it's a waste of time?

Answer me this. Do you think I've demonstrated that the Blue Jackets are a better team than the Leafs?

We will never get there, just stop pinging me

 

[cneely]

Just don’t reply to me, I’m having a discussion with too many people already



We will never get there, just stop pinging me

Do you think I have demonstrated that the Blue Jackets are better than the Leafs?

 

[Score08]

We need to establish what the pattern is first, this is a process. If he can’t meet me at the starting line, if he’s so super defensive and avoidant about even beginning the discussion, how can I trust that he’s sincere asking about evidence.

The way this goes is, we establish criteria to look at and highlight using game 2 as the template, once the terms of the discussion are outlined, we then expand those ideas out into other areas and games and series and results and we build out the case

He doesn’t get this at all. He doesn’t want to even set the groundwork for discussion, he’s not open to the idea at all

It’s a waste of time to talk to him about it

You want to explain how we “establish a pattern “ by using 1 game!!???

 

[cneely]

You want to explain how we “establish a pattern “ by using 1 game!!???

And if (BIG IF) the Bruins were given preferential treatment in that one game, we are now to use that as a template going forward in order to build out the case.

 

[nbwingsfan]

Do you think I have demonstrated that the Blue Jackets are better than the Leafs?

He’s also ignored when evidence of calls going against the Bruins is presented.

Actually he didn’t really ignore it, his reply was just “that call could have been missed by any number of reasons”

When the Bruins get calls missed against them: the refs just missed it, it happens

When the Bruins have calls missed for them: league wide bias to help them win

Wild reasoning.

 

[Strangle]

Do you think I have demonstrated that the Blue Jackets are better than the Leafs?

We aren’t talking about the blue jackets and the leafs, we are talking about how the refs officiate Boston bruins games

 

[cneely]

We aren’t talking about the blue jackets and the leafs, we are talking about how the refs officiate Boston bruins games

We're talking about how you feel it appropriate to demonstrate facts.

Have I demonstrated that the Blue Jackets are better than the Leafs or not?

 

[nbwingsfan]

And if (BIG IF) the Bruins were given preferential treatment in that one game, we are now to use that as a template going forward in order to build out the case.

SJ has a bogus 5min PP against Vegas: clear evidence the league has bias towards SJ

Vegas is given leeway in SCF game against Florida: clear evidence the league now has bias towards Vegas???

Columbus has goal hit the netting but isn’t whistled down: clear evidence that the league is biased towards Columbus and hates Boston

Blatant trip in SCF game leading to goal against Boston: see, more evidence the league hates the Bruins

But wait, earlier that post season Boston (and Toronto) were given leeway in a chippy game: clear evidence the league was biased towards the Bruins (but then later decided they didn’t like them)

I wish the league would just make it obvious and stop rotating who they hate and love dearly

 

[Strangle]

You want to explain how we “establish a pattern “ by using 1 game!!???

Sure, the Leafs took more penalties than Boston did but committed less infractions total.

The refs held off calling a powerplay for the leafs (even though they had multiple opportunities, legitimately several opportunities) until Boston was winning 2-0, there was no way the refs, with the bruins down 1 game to none were going to call a leafs powerplay until Boston was winning the game.

How’s that? Next, if you want to participate, you can count the infractions in the video and see what the variance in infractions vs penalties are for both teams.

Once this pattern is established, let’s find some other games were that pattern might be repeated

 

[jgatie]

Sweet Jesus, he's doubling down.

 

[Come Gun]

Sure, the Leafs took more penalties than Boston did but committed less infractions total.

The refs held off calling a powerplay for the leafs (even though they had multiple opportunities, legitimately several opportunities) until Boston was winning 2-0, there was no way the refs, with the bruins down 1 game to none were going to call a leafs powerplay until Boston was winning the game.

How’s that? Next, if you want to participate, you can count the infractions in the video and see what the variance in infractions vs penalties are for both teams.

Once this pattern is established, let’s find some other games were that pattern might be repeated

This has to be a troll right? How is that a pattern? For reference a pattern is something that is repeated, not a single occurrence.

You are working this from the wrong angle. You don't use less than 1% of the available data and work your way out, you use all data available and work your way in to support the conclusion you have come to.

In my world, if any member of my team approached me with a recommendation using this approach, I would quickly throw it in the trash and find a replacement for them asap.

 

[jgatie]

This has to be a troll right? How is that a pattern? For reference a pattern is something that is repeated, not a single occurrence.

You are working this from the wrong angle. You don't use less than 1% of the available data and work your way out, you use all data available and work your way in to support the conclusion you have come to.

In my world, if any member of my team approached me with a recommendation using this approach, I would quickly throw it in the trash and find a replacement for them asap.

As I said earlier, logic and debate should be required courses in every school.

 

[Nothingbutglass]

Sure, the Leafs took more penalties than Boston did but committed less infractions total.

The refs held off calling a powerplay for the leafs (even though they had multiple opportunities, legitimately several opportunities) until Boston was winning 2-0, there was no way the refs, with the bruins down 1 game to none were going to call a leafs powerplay until Boston was winning the game.

How’s that? Next, if you want to participate, you can count the infractions in the video and see what the variance in infractions vs penalties are for both teams.

Once this pattern is established, let’s find some other games were that pattern might be repeated

Absolutely the stupidest argument Ive read on here in a long time.

 

[cneely]

Ok... I've humored you and watched that 5 min clip.

The two worst missed calls were the high sticking by Grzelcyk on Tavares and Tavares shoving Rask in the blue paint.

One missed call each way is now demonstrative of favoritism.

BTW, the dirtiest play in that clip is obviously Kadri cross checking Debrusk in head after a totally legal hit.

The knee on knee with Debrusk and Kadri was borderline. I didn't really see Debusk stick out a leg, so it looked more incidental to me.

 

[Nothingbutglass]

Ok... I've humored you and watched that 5 min clip.

The two worst missed calls were the high sticking by Grzelcyk on Tavares and Tavares shoving Rask in the blue paint.

One missed call each way is now demonstrative of favoritism.

BTW, the dirtiest play in that clip is obviously Kadri cross checking Debrusk in head after a totally legal hit.

The knee on knee with Debrusk and Kadri was borderline. I didn't really see Debusk stick out a leg, so it looked more incidental to me.

I guess the next step is to break down the other 900 games the Bruins played in the last decade to look for "patterns"