Great Fight Debate - II

[Sheppy]

To @Dr Quincy 's point, Savard was hit (also with no response, unless you count Thornton waiting until the next Pens game) while the team was loaded with what you would call "tough guys" (including Thornton who was an enforcer). How did this prevent Savard from getting injured? Did Thornton fighting Cooke that next game bring Savard back any sooner? But since this is an issue only for this year's soft team, how did this stuff continually happen even when the team was tougher and harder to play against?

I wouldn't say it "continually" happened, at least not to the extent it has these past few seasons. Did it happen? Yep, it did. I never once said adding certain guys makes everything 100% preventable, however, I think adding a guy to the bottom 6 mix takes the pressure off of non-fighters than attempt to stand up for their teammates and either get throttled or basically turtle. That's what I'm arguing here. I'm not saying X player completely prevents cheap plays at all.

I think adding a guy like Simmonds immediately helps this team, not only offensively, but physically. I wanted the Bruins to try to snag Ferland, he's a physical kid with some offensive tools. Josh Anderson, too. Sam Bennett is another guy who I think would make an awesome Bruin. I think those players bring more to the table than guys like Heinen, Bjork, Kuraly, Acciari, honestly.

 

[Dr Quincy]

I believe the Bruins have 96 man games lost right now, and that number will increase until Miller, Bergeron and Chara are back. Of those 96 man games lost, they've been to our most important players, so it's not like Joe Blow on the 4th line is missing significant time. It's legitimately our top players.

As of right now they're 5th in the league in terms of man games lost, and expect them to be probably top 2-3 by the time January rolls around.

Last year the Bruins came in 8th with a total of 307 man games lost.

If you look at it by CHIP (Cap Hit of Injured Players- which uses daily cap hit x games missed) they are 6th.

But OTT with Borowiecki, who you pointed out as a tough guy and ANA with Ritchie and Manson and VAN with Gudbranson and Roussel all have lost more man games.

DET who you keep pointing out steamrolled with B's, are right there in a virtual tie with them. Meanwhile, TOR with all of their noted tough guys have the fewest.

So yeah the B's have a lot of injuries this year and important ones. But there are tough teams who have had more and softer teams that have had less.

Maybe the reason BOS has had a lot of bad injuries (Backes, Bergeron, Chara) is that they have a number of older players with a history of injuries. To me that makes as much sense as "They aren't responding to hit"..... but it's not quite as sexy an explanation.

 

[Dr Quincy]

I think those players bring more to the table than guys like Heinen, Bjork, Kuraly, Acciari, honestly.

My dogs and cats would bring more to the table than those guys.

 

[Sheppy]

My dogs and cats would bring more to the table than those guys.

Fair enough, lol.

 

[GordonHowe]

I do think it gets addressed but maybe next year

Neely was at the event yesterday and had I had thought about it I could have asked him if he’s thinking of suiting up on the 4th line to at least settle some scores and see what he says and his reaction- I actually am pretty sure I know what he’d say

I did say to Miller ‘I wish you were on the ice during the scrum’ and he responded emphatically he did too.

Two ways to build this if I’m GM

1. Your bottom 6 is strong defensively and many abrasive players who can hit and a couple of guys who can fight - not cheap but can play a tough hard game

2. You have a Thornton-type on your 4th line to seek retribution after tough guys like Thomas Hickey & Luke Witkowski rough up our guys

As the kid says to Geena Davis in "A League of Their Own" (sic), "Can't we do both?"

 

[Gordoff]

I'm not surprised hes getting targeted been expecting it with more regularity now , just at this stage in his career if he keeps getting rocked like this is it worth the permanent damage that can go with it. 4 huge hits in the last 40 games hes received. Feel the same if you see Bergy get rocked and Backes too

But there's nothing we can do boo hoo be pacifists and let the other teams take out our core players. Speed speed speed and everything will be hunky dorey! Don't hit the other team, turn the other cheek and speed speed speed!

 

[Glove Malfunction]

But there's nothing we can do boo hoo be pacifists and let the other teams take out our core players. Speed speed speed and everything will be hunky dorey! Don't hit the other team, turn the other cheek and speed speed speed!

Has anyone said Don't hit the other team? Nope. Good example of a strawman though.

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

But there's nothing we can do boo hoo be pacifists and let the other teams take out our core players. Speed speed speed and everything will be hunky dorey! Don't hit the other team, turn the other cheek and speed speed speed!

I can see both sides of this debate but I have not seen anyone post this

 

[Salem13]

Has anyone said Don't hit the other team? Nope. Good example of a strawman though.

Hit them with what though, we don't have the weight, speed or agility to even hit.

Seriously, the only guys throwing their bodies around are the tweeners on the verge of a healthy scratch.

Aside from a few bright spots were a team full of middle guys.

If there's one thing I learned from my youth playing a Magnavox Odessy is you don't win with all middle guys.

 

[Salem13]

Welp, it's my night off, I'm going to drown myself in pizza, beer and hockey at times watching all three games simultaneously.

I shall be thinking hard about my Bruins while watching.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

Hit them with what though, we don't have the weight, speed or agility to even hit.

Seriously, the only guys throwing their bodies around are the tweeners on the verge of a healthy scratch.

Aside from a few bright spots were a team full of middle guys.

If there's one thing I learned from my youth playing a Magnavox Odessy is you don't win with all middle guys.

This is fair. We do have a smallish team, especially compared with teams from the relatively recent past. I still stand by my statement that no one has posted that we should not hit the other team.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

Welp, it's my night off, I'm going to drown myself in pizza, beer and hockey at times watching all three games simultaneously.

I shall be thinking hard about my Bruins while watching.

I on the other hand, will be in the office til about 9, trying to work while simultaneously checking on threads here. Coin toss as to which one gets more attention.

 

[DKH]

Welp, it's my night off, I'm going to drown myself in pizza, beer and hockey at times watching all three games simultaneously.

I shall be thinking hard about my Bruins while watching.

Tap your inner wisdom for the answer and let us know

However if you come up with ‘Lucic, Spooner, and Kassian’ I’m going with you tapped into multiple beers

 

[DKH]

I on the other hand, will be in the office til about 9, trying to work while simultaneously checking on threads here. Coin toss as to which one gets more attention.

I’m sitting here wondering if it’s ok to run over to the Paper Store & Modells in Beverly to grab a present for our Christmas party tomorrow- and swing by Sam & Joe’s on way home

It’s 7 right now I’m wondering if I can do it all within an hour

I’m off (reluctantly)

 

[Gordoff]

Has anyone said Don't hit the other team? Nope. Good example of a strawman though.

But we are not hitting the other team. We are not making them "pay the price." Strawman be damned!

 

[Gordoff]

Hit them with what though, we don't have the weight, speed or agility to even hit.

Seriously, the only guys throwing their bodies around are the tweeners on the verge of a healthy scratch.

Aside from a few bright spots were a team full of middle guys.

If there's one thing I learned from my youth playing a Magnavox Odessy is you don't win with all middle guys.

Middle= Mediocrity.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

But we are not hitting the other team. We are not making them "pay the price." Strawman be damned!

As much as I think (and have said on here) that the hits stat is wildly inconsistent and almost always favors the home team due to scorer bias, it's all we've got. And the Bruins are exactly in the middle of the league (16th) in hits per game. Hard to say we're not hitting anyone. Could hit more, and with bigger "bruisier" players, could inflict more damage, I'm sure you'd agree. But to say we're not hitting anyone isn't exactly accurate.

 

[dafoomie]

To @Dr Quincy 's point, Savard was hit (also with no response, unless you count Thornton waiting until the next Pens game) while the team was loaded with what you would call "tough guys" (including Thornton who was an enforcer). How did this prevent Savard from getting injured? Did Thornton fighting Cooke that next game bring Savard back any sooner? But since this is an issue only for this year's soft team, how did this stuff continually happen even when the team was tougher and harder to play against?

Cooke was one of the dirtiest players of his era and was not easily deterred by the consequences of his actions, whether they were fights, suspensions, or the knowledge that he ended careers and caused harm that would last a lifetime. The people we see taking liberties with the Bruins are not Matt Cooke. Aside from Tom Wilson there may not be a Matt Cooke in the NHL anymore. These are ordinary players who are emboldened when they see a small group of forwards who for the most part can't raise their physical game to answer. Teams are game planning around this. They're constructed to be the nail, and we're seeing the results of that.

The solution is not a Matt Martin or Cody McLeod one or two guys on the 4th line, no one would be relevant there. They desperately need size in their top 9, preferably the top 6, guys who can play that game or at the very least won't disappear when the other team does.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

Cooke was one of the dirtiest players of his era and was not easily deterred by the consequences of his actions, whether they were fights, suspensions, or the knowledge that he ended careers and caused harm that would last a lifetime. The people we see taking liberties with the Bruins are not Matt Cooke. Aside from Tom Wilson there may not be a Matt Cooke in the NHL anymore. These are ordinary players who are emboldened when they see a small group of forwards who for the most part can't raise their physical game to answer. Teams are game planning around this. They're constructed to be the nail, and we're seeing the results of that.

The solution is not a Matt Martin or Cody McLeod one or two guys on the 4th line, no one would be relevant there. They desperately need size in their top 9, preferably the top 6, guys who can play that game or at the very least won't disappear when the other team does.

I figured Someone would bring up the Cooke issue with my argument. I still think the question is valid. Bruins injuries did not magically only start happening when they went away from enforcers for speed and skill.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

I went through each game log for the season so far, and beside confirming to me that the hits stat is absurdly unreliable from arena to arena (Montreal's scorer gave the Habs a ridiculous 51 hits to only 27 for the Bruins), but it also confirmed that the Bruins are being outhit. Because of the hits stat, take this with a grain of salt.

In their 26 games thus far, the Bruins have been outhit 642-552.
However, at least some of that can be attributed to the home team bias in some (not all) arenas. In home games, they have been outhit 312-291, or a difference of just under 7%. In away games, they've been outhit 261-330, or over 23%. Some of this is clearly from overattributing hits to the home team, like blatantly happened in Montreal. Some of it, well, is just the Bruins being outhit.

In the 26 games, the Bruins were tied in hits in 2 games, and outhit their opponents in 7 games(3 away, 4 home). They were outhit in 17 games (9 away, 8 home).

How much of this is attributable to lack of a tough guy, meaning, how much more do the Bruins get hit because they don't have a tough guy? I don't know if you can quantify that, but it's probably less than you think. The bigger difference is probably a lack of guys outside of 3 or 4, who are willing to hit (a lot). Almost 36% of our hits are from 3 guys: Wagner, Acciari and Kuraly. Interestingly, the Bruins are smack in the middle of the league in hits per game, so believe it or not, half the league hits even less than we do.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

I went through each game log for the season so far, and beside confirming to me that the hits stat is absurdly unreliable from arena to arena (Montreal's scorer gave the Habs a ridiculous 51 hits to only 27 for the Bruins), but it also confirmed that the Bruins are being outhit. Because of the hits stat, take this with a grain of salt.

In their 26 games thus far, the Bruins have been outhit 642-552.
However, at least some of that can be attributed to the home team bias in some (not all) arenas. In home games, they have been outhit 312-291, or a difference of just under 7%. In away games, they've been outhit 261-330, or over 23%. Some of this is clearly from overattributing hits to the home team, like blatantly happened in Montreal. Some of it, well, is just the Bruins being outhit.

In the 26 games, the Bruins were tied in hits in 2 games, and outhit their opponents in 7 games(3 away, 4 home). They were outhit in 17 games (9 away, 8 home).

How much of this is attributable to lack of a tough guy, meaning, how much more do the Bruins get hit because they don't have a tough guy? I don't know if you can quantify that, but it's probably less than you think. The bigger difference is probably a lack of guys outside of 3 or 4, who are willing to hit (a lot). Almost 36% of our hits are from 3 guys: Wagner, Acciari and Kuraly. Interestingly, the Bruins are smack in the middle of the league in hits per game, so believe it or not, half the league hits even less than we do.

More possession of the puck = less hits than the opponent. A nearly direct correlation.

This has been shown over and over again.

I’m not against some more physicality on this team, but the “hit” count is as close to pointless as you can get.

 

[Therick67]

I’m sitting here wondering if it’s ok to run over to the Paper Store & Modells in Beverly to grab a present for our Christmas party tomorrow- and swing by Sam & Joe’s on way home

It’s 7 right now I’m wondering if I can do it all within an hour

I’m off (reluctantly)

Did you make it

 

[Glove Malfunction]

More possession of the puck = less hits than the opponent. A nearly direct correlation.

This has been shown over and over again.

I’m not against some more physicality on this team, but the “hit” count is as close to pointless as you can get.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the worth of the hits stat. (see my posts above) There is some inverse correlation between possession of the puck and hits (when hits are accurately counted). But since they're what we've got, they're what we've got. And I think it's telling that in the 17 games the Bruins have been outhit, 9 were wins and 8 were losses.

I did some more digging, and looked at how hits correlated with CF% (imperfect possession stat, but best one I know, and one I can actually get). CF% measure shot attempts (on net, wide, blocked) on the ice for / total shot attempts on the ice for. It's used as a proxy for possession, because to shoot the puck, you have to actually have the puck.

Bruins had a negative CF% (<50%) in 13 games, meaning they had less possession than the other team (more accurately, they had fewer shot attempts). In those games, they were were outhit 6 times, outhit their opponent 6 times and tied once.
Bruins had a positive CF% in 12 games. In those 12, they were outhit 10 times and outhit their opponents once and tied for hits once.
Bruins had an even CF% once (Nov 14 vs COL), and were outhit 22-15 (away game)

So yes, there is a correlation between possession and hits, though, for the Bruins, they are as likely to get outhit when they have more possession as they are to outhit their opponents. So, while there is some correlation, it's not as direct as you make it seem.

 

[DKH]

Did you make it

Modells was no longer there went to Paper Store got s gift, then grabbed a pizza on way back and was home at 8:05. By 8:15 I was sitting down eating pizza watching football game and reading texts from Jersey Lou how the Devils are a train wreck

 

[Tbrady12]

More possession of the puck = less hits than the opponent. A nearly direct correlation.

This has been shown over and over again.

I’m not against some more physicality on this team, but the “hit” count is as close to pointless as you can get.

If we're talking about physicality then the hit count, like plus/minus is not the be all and end all, but it does present a picture of who is at least willing to put a body on someone and who is not. There are numerous players who are not initiating contact and that in not because of them having the puck all of the time, it is because that is not a part of their game and they're not paid to do that. They guys paid to do this are Acciari and Wagner. But, other guys need to be willing to be physically engaged. Because Wagner and Acciari play 12 minuets a night.

Guys like JFK, Heinen, Bjork and Donato will not play physical. Bergeron, Krecji, Pasta and Marchand should not play physical. Debrusk is not physical either in that respect. Nordstrom plays a physical game but he is so slight it doesn't make a difference. The guy I'd love to see here above all is Wayne Simmonds. His game is perfect for this top 6 and I do believe he can bring some physicality to the the younger guys by association.