Damien Brunner

[Vankiller Whale]

It would have been tough to outscore the Bruins in the 4 losses the way the puck was going into the net. We could add 10 goals to the Sedin line and we still lose.

That has a lot to do with how decimated our blueline was with injuries, and Luongo was far from spectacular in the blowouts as well.

However even 5 goals could have won us the cup, if they were all scored in game 7.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Sedin = 1g, 0a, 1p in 7 games
Sedin = 1g, 3a, 4p in 7 games
Burrows = 2g, 1a, 3p in 7 games
Higgins = 0g, 1a, 1p in 7 games
Kesler = 0g, 1a, 1p in 7 games
Raymond = 0g, 0a, 0p in 6 games

Total top 6: 4g, 6a, 10p in 41 games. 0.24ppg

Hansen = 1g, 2a, 3p in 7 games
Lapierre = 1g, 2a, 3p in 7 games
Torres = 2g, 1a, 3p in 7 games

Total 3rd line: 4g, 5a, 9p in 21 games. 0.43ppg

Toews = 2g, 3a, 5p in 6 games
Kane = 3g, 2a, 5p in 6 games
Sharp = 2g, 0a, 2p in 6 games
Bickell = 1g, 3a, 4p in 6 games
Handzus = 1g, 1a, 2p in 6 games
Hossa = 0g, 2a, 2p in 6 games

Total top 6: 9g, 11a, 20p in 36 games. 0.56ppg

Kruger = 1g, 1a, 2p in 6 games
Bolland = 3g, 2a, 5p in 6 games
Frolik = 0g, 4a, 4p in 6 games

Total 3rd line: 4g, 7a, 11p in 18 games. 0.61ppg


Clearly by looking at the two, the Hawks outplayed our players in the SCF in every facet. But can we please cut out the garbage about our bottom 6 players being the ones letting us down? When our top 6 only score at a 0.24ppg clip in the most important games of their careers, the problem is with them and not the rest of the team.

If it makes you feel better, signing Brunner will bump someone else down and hopefully boost the bottom 6 scoring due to having more talent down there. Of course, signing someone like Brunner should help our top 6 which is the clear issue since, albeit in a limited sample size, he's shown he can put the puck in the net in the playoffs.

I also find it embarrassing that in the SCF our 3rd line can score as many goals as our entire top 6, yet people still think it's our bottom 6 that's the problem. I have excluded the 4th line since it was pretty much a revolving door, but I seriously think that any argument that suggests our 4th line needs to start scoring more and that's the reason we didn't win the Cup should be laughed at, when we see our top 6ers producing like 4th liners.

To wrap it all up, this team very much could use a guy like Brunner. It's not the 4th line that's killing us, it's our top 6 not scoring when we need them to.

I don't really think stats are your thing... This just seems to be a coloured up 7 game sample that shows us nothing of any real significance. Opendoor's post was much more thorough, and of course, included that all important larger sample.

A bit misleading when you know you are excluding the 4th line from the bottom6 (yeah), and are using a limited sample on purpose.

It's our bottom6, as a whole, over the larger sample, that has shown the greatest disparity in goal production between standard levels across _all_teams_. Nothing here refutes that.

 

[GhostofRichardPark]

Brunner would be a good fit in our top 6 if he comes cheap and depending on how long bow hunter Booth is out.

Sedin Sedin Kassian
Burrows Kesler Brunner
Higgins Schroeder? Hansen

Pretty good start to our top 9 even if the 3rd line center spot is still up in the air if you ask me.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

I don't really think stats are your thing... This just seems to be a coloured up 7 game sample that shows us nothing of any real significance. Opendoor's post was much more thorough, and of course, included that all important larger sample.

A bit misleading when you know you are excluding the 4th line from the bottom6 (yeah), and are using a limited sample on purpose.

It's our bottom6, as a whole, over the larger sample, that has shown the greatest disparity in goal production between standard levels across _all_teams_. Nothing here refutes that.

Over the past three seasons, our current top-6 forwards playoff production has been .88PPG(H. Sedin), .81PPG(D. Sedin), .71PPG(Kesler), .62PPG(Burrows), .2PPG(Booth), and 0PPG(Kassian), for an average of .54 PPG.

Our bottom 6 has .29PPG(Hansen), .24PPG(Higgins), Richardson(.23PPG), Weise(0PPG), Sestito(N/A), and Schroeder(N/A), for an average of .19 PPG.

In contrast, the Bruins top-6 has .71PPG(Bergeron), .96PPG(Krejci), 0.63PPG(Lucic), .63PPG(Marchand), 0.80PPG(Iginla), and Eriksson(N/A, but has produced at a 70+ pace for 3 of the past 4 seasons, which would equate to .88PPG pace) which averages to either 0.75PPG or 0.77PPG depending on if you want to include Eriksson's regular season pro-rated.

The Bruins bottom-6 has .35PPG(Kelly), .30PPG(Paille), .11PPG(Thornton), .28PPG(Campbell), Soderberg(N/A), Knight/Caron/etc(N/A), for an average of .26PPG.

That means that on a cup run of say, 25 games, their top-6 forwards would outproduce ours by between 32 - 35 points, while their bottom-6 forwards would outproduce ours by around 11 points.

Factor in that adding another player to our top-6 by default improves our bottom-6 by moving someone like Booth down, and it's easy to see why improving the top-6 should be the priority.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Over the past three seasons, our current top-6 forwards playoff production has been .88PPG(H. Sedin), .81PPG(D. Sedin), .71PPG(Kesler), .62PPG(Burrows), .2PPG(Booth), and 0PPG(Kassian), for an average of .54 PPG.

Our bottom 6 has .29PPG(Hansen), .24PPG(Higgins), Richardson(.23PPG), Weise(0PPG), Sestito(N/A), and Schroeder(N/A), for an average of .19 PPG.

In contrast, the Bruins top-6 has .71PPG(Bergeron), .96PPG(Krejci), 0.63PPG(Lucic), .63PPG(Marchand), 0.80PPG(Iginla), and Eriksson(N/A, but has produced at a 70+ pace for 3 of the past 4 seasons, which would equate to .88PPG pace) which averages to either 0.75PPG or 0.77PPG depending on if you want to include Eriksson's regular season pro-rated.

The Bruins bottom-6 has .35PPG(Kelly), .30PPG(Paille), .11PPG(Thornton), .28PPG(Campbell), Soderberg(N/A), Knight/Caron/etc(N/A), for an average of .26PPG.

That means that on a cup run of say, 25 games, their top-6 forwards would outproduce ours by between 32 - 35 points, while their bottom-6 forwards would outproduce ours by around 11 points.

Factor in that adding another player to our top-6 by default improves our bottom-6 by moving someone like Booth down, and it's easy to see why improving the top-6 should be the priority.

Lol, _so_ bad. I disagree with how you have split the forward count (but I'm not surprised). The numbers for Booth, Kassian and Eriksson are also . But whatever, that's the depth of my engagement with you on this as far as stats go. (interesting to note that the Sedins, Kesler and Burrows still compare favourably). Opendoor's analysis blows this out of the water.

Rather than get into why I think your breakdown is porous at best, I will say search opendoor's post out. It's quite enlightening. Specifically, it pits the top6 and bottom6 against the current field (not mix and match them depending on who was signed, like you have).

Bringing in a top6 player to push down the bottom6, or bringing in another quality bottom6er, both improve the bottom6. Not really a point there to contend. The greatest increase though, per opendoor's breakdown, needs to be seen in the bottom6 over top6 production.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Lol, _so_ bad. I disagree with how you have split the forward count (but I'm not surprised). The numbers for Booth, Kassian and Eriksson are also . But whatever, that's the depth of my engagement with you on this as far as stats go. (interesting to note that the Sedins, Kesler and Burrows still compare favourably). Opendoor's analysis blows this out of the water.

Rather than get into why I think your breakdown is porous at best, I will say search opendoor's post out. It's quite enlightening. Specifically, it pits the top6 and bottom6 against the current field (not mix and match them depending on who was signed, like you have).

Bringing in a top6 player to push down the bottom6, or bringing in another quality bottom6er, both improve the bottom6. Not really a point there to contend. The greatest increase though, per opendoor's breakdown, needs to be seen in the bottom6 over top6 production.

Whether or not you include or exclude Eriksson, the Bruins top-6 forwards still average a lot better playoff production than ours. Having one of Booth or Kassian in the top-6 is not the end of the world, but having both of them, essentially relying on a third of our top-6 to have bounce back/breakout seasons is far too risky. Having just 4 players that compare favourably is not enough - it's called top-6, not top-4.

I haven't seen opendoor's post, and spent a few minutes trying to find it, but without knowing anything other than he's the one who made the post, it would be rather time consuming to find, so hopefully someone else has it on hand.

 

[Barney Gumble]

However even 5 goals could have won us the cup, if they were all scored in game 7.

And if the Bruins scored 6 more goals - spread over the three games they lost (and subtract those 6 goals from game 3) - they would've won all seven games against us.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

And if the Bruins scored 6 more goals - spread over the three games they lost (and subtract those 6 goals from game 3) - they would've won all seven games against us.

Yes. In general, the more you score, the more likely you are to win games.

 

[Barney Gumble]

Yes. In general, the more you score, the more likely you are to win games.

Or in the case of us, scoring *any* goals would be a start. As been said a million times, Luongo had some awful moments in the Finals, but he was far from the first guy I'd point fingers at.....

 

[Bleach Clean]

Whether or not you include or exclude Eriksson, the Bruins top-6 forwards still average a lot better playoff production than ours. Having one of Booth or Kassian in the top-6 is not the end of the world, but having both of them, essentially relying on a third of our top-6 to have bounce back/breakout seasons is far too risky. Having just 4 players that compare favourably is not enough - it's called top-6, not top-4.

I haven't seen opendoor's post, and spent a few minutes trying to find it, but without knowing anything other than he's the one who made the post, it would be rather time consuming to find, so hopefully someone else has it on hand.

Like I said, I'm not going to entertain your "stats" here. The very premise of the analysis is poor and lacking pertinent context. Perhaps PM opendoor?

Not concerned at all on Booth. Having 4 games as a track record is essentially having no track record. The sample size is too ridiculously small to draw anything from, but I'm sure you knew that with your 'in-depth' stats analysis here. After that, it's academic.

I know you want another top6 forwards, and are working backwards in your analysis, trying to get the data to fit. Doesn't work like that. Sorry.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Like I said, I'm not going to entertain your "stats" here. The very premise of the analysis is poor and lacking pertinent context. Perhaps PM opendoor?

Not concerned at all on Booth. Having 4 games as a track record is essentially having no track record. The sample size is too ridiculously small to draw anything from, but I'm sure you knew that with your 'in-depth' stats analysis here. After that, it's academic.

I know you want another top6 forwards, and are working backwards in your analysis, trying to get the data to fit. Doesn't work like that. Sorry.

Well instead of vaguely going off about how lousy it is perhaps you might come up with a counter-analysis? I'm not going to go to the trouble of finding the post, but if you think it's pertinent then go ahead.

Yes Booth only has 5(not 4) playoff games in which he was completely ineffectual. But he was also largely ineffectual this year as well. Compoind that with him having to rehab for yet another injury and it's hard for me to share your optimism that there is no need to worry about Booth producing in the playoffs.

And I'm afraid you're going to have to take my word that I did not work backwards when making the comparison.

But adding a forward for the top-6 kills two birds with one stone, so I'm not sure why you would be against that?

 

[Betamax*]

Brunner would be a good fit in our top 6 if he comes cheap and depending on how long bow hunter Booth is out.

Sedin Sedin Kassian
Burrows Kesler Brunner
Higgins Schroeder? Hansen

Pretty good start to our top 9 even if the 3rd line center spot is still up in the air if you ask me.

The spot you have Brunner occupying ... I'd prefer someone like Jensen provided he shows enough during the pre-season that he gets a shot a a top six/nine role. How many smallish hockey players can the Canucks have on the their top 9 that aren't game changers?

 

[Bleach Clean]

Well instead of vaguely going off about how lousy it is perhaps you might come up with a counter-analysis? I'm not going to go to the trouble of finding the post, but if you think it's pertinent then go ahead.

Yes Booth only has 5(not 4) playoff games in which he was completely ineffectual. But he was also largely ineffectual this year as well. Compoind that with him having to rehab for yet another injury and it's hard for me to share your optimism that there is no need to worry about Booth producing in the playoffs.

And I'm afraid you're going to have to take my word that I did not work backwards when making the comparison.

But adding a forward for the top-6 kills two birds with one stone, so I'm not sure why you would be against that?

I don't feel your analysis warrants a detailed counter-analysis. There were a few points I made there that should outline why it's a poor base to work with, but then I don't expect you to change anything. Or understand why that it is viewed that way.

It doesn't matter to me if you share my optimism visa vie Booth, as I'm not trying to convince you (a pointless endeavor). I will say though that through the numerous Vanek posts on the matter, I think I have a pretty good idea that you want a top6 forward (winger) as _the_ solution to the roster. This stats argument is just an extension of that, IMO. (Word not taken)

Adding a top6 forward does push everything down, but if adding simply any top6 forward would do, the team would have signed Boyes a long time ago, or another 1way soft winger. He put up a good total last year. Brunner isn't as soft (which is why I'm not completely opposed to bringing him in), but I think a trade for a bottom6 type would yield a more useful overall piece. Particularly, if it's a 3rd line C addition. And I'm more concerned about the glaring deficiencies in the bottom6 than I am of 1 player moving up the roster to secure the last top6 spot. Hope that helps.

 

[GhostofRichardPark]

The spot you have Brunner occupying ... I'd prefer someone like Jensen provided he shows enough during the pre-season that he gets a shot a a top six/nine role. How many smallish hockey players can the Canucks have on the their top 9 that aren't game changers?

I think Jensen is a year away still but I didn't follow the prospects camp at all. For all I know he could be closer than I think . Has anyone seen how he looks this year?

We need depth scoring more than a game changer. We saw that Kesler is capable of being a game changer during the Nashville series.

 

[opendoor]

Whether or not you include or exclude Eriksson, the Bruins top-6 forwards still average a lot better playoff production than ours. Having one of Booth or Kassian in the top-6 is not the end of the world, but having both of them, essentially relying on a third of our top-6 to have bounce back/breakout seasons is far too risky. Having just 4 players that compare favourably is not enough - it's called top-6, not top-4.

I haven't seen opendoor's post, and spent a few minutes trying to find it, but without knowing anything other than he's the one who made the post, it would be rather time consuming to find, so hopefully someone else has it on hand.

I'm not sure myself exactly which post is being referenced, but it's a general point I've made in the past.

I guess I see a couple of big things that I disagree with the way you're going about analyzing the top 6 and bottom 6. Firstly, I don't think it's correct to just take the playoff pts/g of players like Hansen or Higgins and apply them to the bottom 6, since a good number of their points were scored while playing in the top 6. In the 10-11 playoffs for instance, the entire bottom 6 only produced something like 7 goals combined in 25 games if you exclude Hansen's points with the Sedins and Higgins' points with Kesler (since by definition they're not produced from the bottom 6).

And a second point that's related to that, I think overall goal production is more important than the individual players' points given the non-static nature of teams' lineups. If the Sedins produce over a goal per game in the playoffs with a rotating cast of Kassian, Burrows, and Hansen as wingers, that's going to shift production away from the 1st line and towards the lower ones if you only look at point totals, since only one of the wingers who got points with the Sedins is going to be credited to their line. However, doing that distorts the reality that is the fact that half the team's production is coming with the Sedins on the ice.

When you compare the Canucks' actual bottom 6 production to a team like Chicago it's pretty stark. In the last 3 playoffs the Canucks have gotten only 10 goals in 34 games out of their bottom 6 which is under 0.3 G/G. In the 2013 playoffs Chicago managed almost a goal per game out of the bottom 6 with the same filtering applied (i.e. Bickell and Shaw's points with Kane are excluded). Conversely, the 2013 Blackhawks' top 6 actually produced fewer goals than the Canucks' did in 2011.

Top end scoring could obviously be better, but in the last few playoffs the top 6 has generally produced about 2 G/G between them which is fairly reasonable production, especially for a Western Conference team. The bottom 6 on the other hand, has basically been a black hole in the post-season. If anything, it's a credit to the Canucks' top 6 that they can still produce at that level with only 4 guys who you'd legitimately consider contender level top 6 players. Unfortunately this year's team isn't really looking any better in that regard.

 

[Tanevian*]

That has a lot to do with how decimated our blueline was with injuries, and Luongo was far from spectacular in the blowouts as well.

However even 5 goals could have won us the cup, if they were all scored in game 7.

I know but I've learned the only way to discuss hockey with some people is to counter their obsessive and ridiculous stat abuse with equally or more insane thoughts.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

I don't feel your analysis warrants a detailed counter-analysis. There were a few points I made there that should outline why it's a poor base to work with, but then I don't expect you to change anything. Or understand why that it is viewed that way.

It doesn't matter to me if you share my optimism visa vie Booth, as I'm not trying to convince you (a pointless endeavor). I will say though that through the numerous Vanek posts on the matter, I think I have a pretty good idea that you want a top6 forward (winger) as _the_ solution to the roster. This stats argument is just an extension of that, IMO. (Word not taken)

Adding a top6 forward does push everything down, but if adding simply any top6 forward would do, the team would have signed Boyes a long time ago, or another 1way soft winger. He put up a good total last year. Brunner isn't as soft (which is why I'm not completely opposed to bringing him in), but I think a trade for a bottom6 type would yield a more useful overall piece. Particularly, if it's a 3rd line C addition. And I'm more concerned about the glaring deficiencies in the bottom6 than I am of 1 player moving up the roster to secure the last top6 spot. Hope that helps.

So you have nothing to back up this statement:

It's our bottom6, as a whole, over the larger sample, that has shown the greatest disparity in goal production between standard levels across _all_teams_.

Seeing as you had posted this:

Opendoor posted a comparison of the bottom6 scoring during the 2011 run.

I take it you were relying on an analysis which is 3 years old. In 2011 I might have agreed with you. But our roster now is not our 2011 roster. I don't know how you can claim that the team needs more help in the bottom-6 than in the top-6 without having put forth anything to back it up.

Whether "officially" a winger or centre, it doesn't particularly matter to me, as long as they are comfortable at wing, as that is the most likely place they would play in our top-6. And just because we need a top-6 forward doesn't mean we should sign Boyes and be done with it(although truth be told I'd prefer Boyes to nobody) any more than teams that needed defensive help were racing to sign Ryan Whitney. Brunner and Prospal are both more appealing than Boyes imo, and a lot also depends on how much those players are asking for.

 

[Bleach Clean]

So you have nothing to back up this statement: Seeing as you had posted this: I take it you were relying on an analysis which is 3 years old. In 2011 I might have agreed with you. But our roster now is not our 2011 roster. I don't know how you can claim that the team needs more help in the bottom-6 than in the top-6 without having put forth anything to back it up.

Whether "officially" a winger or centre, it doesn't particularly matter to me, as long as they are comfortable at wing, as that is the most likely place they would play in our top-6. And just because we need a top-6 forward doesn't mean we should sign Boyes and be done with it(although truth be told I'd prefer Boyes to nobody) any more than teams that needed defensive help were racing to sign Ryan Whitney. Brunner and Prospal are both more appealing than Boyes imo, and a lot also depends on how much those players are asking for.

Please see opendoor's post. Backing it up indeed. I told you I didn't want to engage you on the matter 3 times because I know it wouldn't lead anywhere. You will still either hold to your opinion or not understand how the stats being presented refute your argument. Pointless.

Your second paragraph is irrelevant to the topic.


@opendoor: Glad you posted in the thread. Could you also post your references so that people know where you are pulling your numbers from. Thanks.

 

[opendoor]

@opendoor: Glad you posted in the thread. Could you also post your references so that people know where you are pulling your numbers from. Thanks.

They were mostly determined manually by going through game sheets and cross referencing the numbers to the players' Team GF numbers. Kind of tedious for anything but a small handful of games but it did illuminate the bottom 6's (lack of) production.

WOWY numbers could've achieved largely the same thing, but as far as I'm aware they're not available for the playoffs. You can also sort of get the same info by looking at the Team GF numbers for the team's centers, but you have to allow for times when they play together (such as Kesler and Henrik on the PP) so it's not really cut and dried.

 

[Bro Horvat]

so is there any actual evidence to support that the Canucks even have an interest in Brunner? Or is this purely speculation/discussion?

 

[Bleach Clean]

They were mostly determined manually by going through game sheets and cross referencing the numbers to the players' Team GF numbers. Kind of tedious for anything but a small handful of games but it did illuminate the bottom 6's (lack of) production.

WOWY numbers could've achieved largely the same thing, but as far as I'm aware they're not available for the playoffs. You can also sort of get the same info by looking at the Team GF numbers for the team's centers, but you have to allow for times when they play together (such as Kesler and Henrik on the PP) so it's not really cut and dried.

Thanks. Yes, that does sound mighty tedious. For Team GF numbers for Cs do you mean just looking at nhl.com or other?

 

[Vankiller Whale]

I'm not sure myself exactly which post is being referenced, but it's a general point I've made in the past.

I guess I see a couple of big things that I disagree with the way you're going about analyzing the top 6 and bottom 6. Firstly, I don't think it's correct to just take the playoff pts/g of players like Hansen or Higgins and apply them to the bottom 6, since a good number of their points were scored while playing in the top 6. In the 10-11 playoffs for instance, the entire bottom 6 only produced something like 7 goals combined in 25 games if you exclude Hansen's points with the Sedins and Higgins' points with Kesler (since by definition they're not produced from the bottom 6).

Well if guys in the bottom-6 are forced to play in the top-6 due to injuries to someone like Samuelsson or Raymond, and their replacements aren't up to scratch then that doesn't mean that the bottom-6 players themselves are no good. Luck with being injury free is a big part of winning the cup, and we definitely pulled the short straw when it came to injuries that year.

And a second point that's related to that, I think overall goal production is more important than the individual players' points given the non-static nature of teams' lineups. If the Sedins produce over a goal per game in the playoffs with a rotating cast of Kassian, Burrows, and Hansen as wingers, that's going to shift production away from the 1st line and towards the lower ones if you only look at point totals, since only one of the wingers who got points with the Sedins is going to be credited to their line. However, doing that distorts the reality that is the fact that half the team's production is coming with the Sedins on the ice.

Fair enough. Although the problem with so much of our offense coming from the Sedin line it means that when they go cold so does our team. We need more scoring threats on our 2nd line if we are to help mitigate the risk when the Sedins have a cold streak.

When you compare the Canucks' actual bottom 6 production to a team like Chicago it's pretty stark. In the last 3 playoffs the Canucks have gotten only 10 goals in 34 games out of their bottom 6 which is under 0.3 G/G. In the 2013 playoffs Chicago managed almost a goal per game out of the bottom 6 with the same filtering applied (i.e. Bickell and Shaw's points with Kane are excluded). Conversely, the 2013 Blackhawks' top 6 actually produced fewer goals than the Canucks' did in 2011.

Well when we lost Samuelsson and Malhotra it certainly didn't help the goals from our official "bottom-6". That's why I prefer looking at the merit of individual players playing in our bottom-6 rather than simply goals from the bottom-6, when the bottom-6 when you take out Higgins/Hansen for significant portions is not our bottom-6 at all, except when we have injuries to key players.

Top end scoring could obviously be better, but in the last few playoffs the top 6 has generally produced about 2 G/G between them which is fairly reasonable production, especially for a Western Conference team. The bottom 6 on the other hand, has basically been a black hole in the post-season. If anything, it's a credit to the Canucks' top 6 that they can still produce at that level with only 4 guys who you'd legitimately consider contender level top 6 players. Unfortunately this year's team isn't really looking any better in that regard.

I find that very hard to believe, as our total G/G, period, over that time, was just 2.17 G/G(and that's not even taking into account goals scored by defensemen). Our team is not as good as it was in 2011 though, and over the past two seasons our playoff scoring is at just 1.8 G/G. I can't imagine that our top-6 alone is capable of 2 G/G.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Oh this should be fun. "Official top6" vs. guys like Higgins and Hansen getting regular shifts in the top6. Booth promoted to "official top6" with 4 games of data... Kassian "Official top6" with even less data. Higgins scores at a top6 rate for 2 years in the regular season = Official bottom6. Hansen scores like a 1st liner at ES = Official bottom6. Not convinced of Booth bounce back, but is still Official top6. Kassian has never produced like an NHL top6 player over a decent sample = Official top6. Let the hilarity ensue.

All that matters is who played with who during the respective runs in 2011, 2012 and 2013. That should be the guideline. Injuries or not, because that's the data we have.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Oh this should be fun. "Official top6" vs. guys like Higgins and Hansen getting regular shifts in the top6. Booth promoted to "official top6" with 4 games of data... Kassian "Official top6" with even less data. Higgins scores at a top6 rate for 2 years in the regular season = Official bottom6. Hansen scores like a 1st liner at ES = Official bottom6. Not convinced of Booth bounce back, but is still Official top6. Kassian has never produced like an NHL top6 player over a decent sample = Official top6. Let the hilarity ensue.

All that matters is who played with who during the respective runs in 2011, 2012 and 2013. That should be the guideline. Injuries or not, because that's the data we have.

Of course it matters. Comparing our bottom-6 scoring when we had Malhotra injured and Higgins/Hansen often playing in the top-6 to our bottom-6 scoring that(if healthy) have Higgins/Hansen set in the bottom-6, and even if they move up they will be replaced with a similar calibre player(e.g. Jagr replacing Seguin during the Bruins playoff run) is very misleading.

If the point is simply that when we have injuries to key players then we have trouble scoring then I won't disagree. My issue is that even when healthy our top-6(the 2nd line specifically) does not produce enough, and adding a scoring threat like Brunner would do a lot more to address that then adding another 3C to compete with Schroeder/Gaunce/Horvat/Richardson for a spot.

 

[deckercky]

Whether or not you include or exclude Eriksson, the Bruins top-6 forwards still average a lot better playoff production than ours. Having one of Booth or Kassian in the top-6 is not the end of the world, but having both of them, essentially relying on a third of our top-6 to have bounce back/breakout seasons is far too risky. Having just 4 players that compare favourably is not enough - it's called top-6, not top-4.

I haven't seen opendoor's post, and spent a few minutes trying to find it, but without knowing anything other than he's the one who made the post, it would be rather time consuming to find, so hopefully someone else has it on hand.

Gee....so a team which went to the finals twice in 3 years has high scoring forwards in the playoffs? Thanks. Very surprising information there.