Post-Game Talk: meh bruins lose.. again

[bp13]

I'm clearly doing a pizzpoor job of asking my question.

I'm not making excuses for anyone or anything. This is not an indictment on Seguin's play, or anybody's play, good bad or indifferent.

This is what I don't understand:

IF Marchand - Bergeron - Seguin is Boston's most consistently productive line right now, and I think we all agree that it is, and...

IF you'd have to be crazy to break up that line, which seems to be the consensus, then...

WHY is it a good idea to break up that line as soon as you get a man advantage?

One possible reason:

The success of that line is grounded in their cycling. They dump it in and cycle and they create opportunities by being quicker and smarter than the opponents pursuing them.Teams do not pursue nearly as much on the power play, and if you find yourself cycling a lot on the power play, you are badly screwing up the idea of a man advantage. That would be my best guess.

That isn't to say they may not be worth a shot as a PP unit, but I wouldn't conclude that because they dominate at even strength that it would translate against a box defense.

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

One possible reason:

The success of that line is grounded in their cycling. They dump it in and cycle and they create opportunities by being quicker and smarter than the opponents pursuing them.Teams do not pursue nearly as much on the power play, and if you find yourself cycling a lot on the power play, you are badly screwing up the idea of a man advantage. That would be my best guess.

That isn't to say they may not be worth a shot as a PP unit, but I wouldn't conclude that because they dominate at even strength that it would translate against a box defense.

Thank you! That's a good point.

I'd still try it, because what they're doing aint working, and, they'd be able to stay in the rhythm of keeping the lines intact after the PP is over.

There often seems to be a lull after a PP....could be an emotional let-down of not scoring yet again, or could be too much mixing and matching.

Mostly...I just don't see how Rick Peverley, Gregory Campbell or anybody else could be better with Bergy and Marshand than Seguin would be.

 

[Bone for your jar]

If the current trend continues it will be interesting to see what happens come contract time. His numbers when taken as a whole look great, but there are certainly still questionmarks about late goals and holding the fort when the pressure is on. Right now I'm not sold yet on him as a top 10 tender in the league and would be wary of dishing out big $ or term.

Can you guys who question Rask's ability to produce "timely save" support your argument with any evidence? If you're correct, there should be some numbers to back it up, if not conclusively, then at least persuasively.

Until I see convincing evidence otherwise (period-by-period save percentage stats, for example), I'm pinning the vast majority of recent third period goals-against on the skaters (esp. the D), not on Rask.

 

[Over the volcano]

If the current trend continues come contract time and he is 3 rd in average and 4 th in save percentage he is in for a big payday. If the bruins don't sign him there a lot of other teams that will, then what do the bruins do?

Why did you delete the part of the post you quoted that recognized that?

His numbers when taken as a whole look great, but there are certainly still questionmarks about late goals and holding the fort when the pressure is on.

 

[Over the volcano]

Can you guys who question Rask's ability to produce "timely save" support your argument with any evidence? If you're correct, there should be some numbers to back it up, if not conclusively, then at least persuasively.

Until I see convincing evidence otherwise (period-by-period save percentage stats, for example), I'm pinning the vast majority of recent third period goals-against on the skaters (esp. the D), not on Rask.

In 2012-2013 they have 4 losses in 9 games in which they lead going into the thrid period (Rask)
In 2011-2012 they had 0 losses in 32 opportunities (Thomas)
In 2010-2011 they had 2 losses in 30 opportunities(Thomas)
In 2009-2010 they had 4 losses in 22 opportunities (Rask)
In 2008-2009 they had 2 losses in 38 opportunities.(Thomas)
In 2007-2008 they had 0 losses in 31 opportunities. (Thomas)


Rask has given up as many 3rd period leads through half of a half season as Thomas did through four full years.

It's certainly a cause for concern.

They've blown as many third period leads this march as they did in the last four years Thomas was in net combined.

 

[ElkabombKid9]

Sorry if this was recently posted, and I am sure it has been, but is the feeling around here Spooner is a lock to stay up . Even when Kelly and Krejci return? I am slowly losing confidence in Chia and never had it in Clode. But if he gets sent back to keep Caron or Pandolfo hell even Peverly in uniform I'm all set. I know, I know last night was just "one game". If you cant tell....I'm a bit of a pessemist

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

They've blown as many third period leads this march as they did in the last four years Thomas was in net combined.

True, but I'm not pinning all that on Rask. There are some he'd like to have back, but there've been some ugly breakdowns in front of him as well.

This team is NOT playing anywhere near as well defensively as they they did for most of the last 4 years.

 

[Killer B]

"Corsi" is a stat commonly used to measure a team's possession of the puck. It measures all shot attempts, not just shots, so it is often thought of as the best measure of a team's puck control and thus overall performance, as puck possession often translates to success.

2013:
- The Bruins rank 4th overall
- The Bruins rank 2nd overall when LEADING
- The Bruins rank 5th overall when trailing

This tells us that the Bruins outshoot (actual shots, blocked shots, shots missing the net) their opponent when LEADING at a rate which ranks them 2nd best in the NHL. In other words, anyone who wants to claim they they sit back in a shell when they are winning has to argue with actual stats.

If anyone wants to play with these stats, have at it:

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/teamstats.php?disp=1&db=201213&sit=5v5&sort=CFPCT&sortdir=DESC

I think this can be a bit misleading.... When leading, the Bruins are no where near
as dangerous as when they are trailing. The Bruins may continue to shoot the puck,
when winning, but most of these shots tend to be the "harmless" variety (long
distance).

 

[LSCII]

That's kind of nitpicking though isn't it? If the issue is that they sit back with leads, then this stat would confirm that (as it does for some teams). If the issue is that WHEN THEY LOSE LEADS it's because they sit back, then what would you conclude? "Don't sit back", right? Well, these stats say they don't sit back, or at least, they do it as infrequently as to rank them top 3.

I disagree (big shock, I know ). They play a very different game depending on the score, so I don't think it's a stretch to say the results of these numbers could and will probably be different based on situation. I guess you could look at goals given up across all games by situation to see if there's a pattern of sitting back.

 

[Bridges31]

Bruins have lost 3 Tuesday games in a row and all 3 of those losses came as a result of blown leads in the 3rd. I think Tuesdays are just a bad day for Bruins hockey.

 

[the overrated]

True, but I'm not pinning all that on Rask. There are some he'd like to have back, but there've been some ugly breakdowns in front of him as well.

This team is NOT playing anywhere near as well defensively as they they did for most of the last 4 years.

While I actually agree that Rask needs to make the "saved the team's ass there" saves more often, I also agree that it's the team that's blowing these leads rather than just Rask.

Even if the B's still had Thomas, this season is the worst that Chara's looked since putting on a B's uniform, it's easily the worst that Ference & McQuaid have been, and even Boychuck has had his rough outings. Seidenberg has been his normal self, and while Hamilton's been good for a rookie (which means that he's had his warts & occasional brainfarts), he's still just a rookie.

There were plenty of times in the past that the D made Thomas (and Rask, for that matter) look good by clearing the puck from the crease of clearing players out from there, too, and thus far this season the D hasn't done the goalies many favors.

Add in the anemic offense (2 goals or less in 4 of the past 5 games) and it's kind of obvious why the goalie is giving up more games late - it's just straight up harder to hold leads when those leads are only a 1 or 2 goal lead.

 

[BruinsFan64]

Can we get Wheeler back?

 

[bp13]

I disagree (big shock, I know ). They play a very different game depending on the score, so I don't think it's a stretch to say the results of these numbers could and will probably be different based on situation. I guess you could look at goals given up across all games by situation to see if there's a pattern of sitting back.

I think you are misunderstanding LSCII. These stats specifically show they do NOT play a very different game depending on the score. That's the point.

The degree to which they generate shots relative to their opponent is consistent whether they are tied, winning or losing. They are top 5 in all three situations. Simply click the link I provided and you can choose different situations then sort by their Corsi%. You can also sort by their actual shots on net, and you'll find they are top 3 in that area when trailing, tied or winning.

 

[Kaoz*]

I think you are misunderstanding LSCII. These stats specifically show they do NOT play a very different game depending on the score. That's the point.

The degree to which they generate shots relative to their opponent is consistent whether they are tied, winning or losing. They are top 5 in all three situations. Simply click the link I provided and you can choose different situations then sort by their Corsi%. You can also sort by their actual shots on net, and you'll find they are top 3 in that area when trailing, tied or winning.

That's the "never get too high, never get too low" mentality Julien worked so hard to implement and you consistently hear the players talking about. While it can be maddening at times to watch as it can seem at times they aren't playing with any sense of urgency, you can't really argue with the results.

 

[bp13]

I'll make it simple...

When TIED:

The Bruins produce an average of 67 total shots per game
They allow an average of 54.7 shots per game
This difference of 13.7 ranks them 4th in the NHL

When LEADING:

The Bruins produce an average of 57.9 total shots per game
They allow an average of 57.1 shots per game
This difference of .8 ranks them 5th in the NHL

When TRAILING:

The Bruins produce an average of 68.2 total shots per game
They allow an average of 47.1 shots per game
This difference of 21.1 ranks them 5th in the NHL


In each scenario, the percentage of shots for to shots against ranks Boston top 5 in the NHL. In every scenario. What these stats also tell you is that when a team is leading, like it or not, the relative shots for to shots against goes down. It's just human nature. This explains why the Bruins are top 5 in the NHL despite only outshooting opponents by .8 of a shot when leading, and why they outshoot opponents by 20 shots over a game when trailing.

Note: As stated, "shots" includes all attempted shots, meaning shots blocked and missed. And obviously these numbers are adjusted for full games.

 

[BeardBros]

Bruins have lost 3 Tuesday games in a row and all 3 of those losses came as a result of blown leads in the 3rd. I think Tuesdays are just a bad day for Bruins hockey.

In that case, luckily they only have 2 Tue. games left. All set

They started winning all the matinees. Had to drop off somewhere.

 

[ODAAT]

Can we get Wheeler back?

Funny how he, in one game has become more "clutch" if you will against the B`s than Kessel

 

[LSCII]

When TIED:

The Bruins produce an average of 67 total shots per game
They allow an average of 54.7 shots per game
This difference of 13.7 ranks them 4th in the NHL

When LEADING:

The Bruins produce an average of 57.9 total shots per game
They allow an average of 57.1 shots per game
This difference of .8 ranks them 5th in the NHL

When TRAILING:

The Bruins produce an average of 68.2 total shots per game
They allow an average of 47.1 shots per game
This difference of 21.1 ranks them 5th in the NHL


In each scenario, the percentage of shots for to shots against ranks Boston top 5 in the NHL. In every scenario. What these stats also tell you is that when a team is leading, like it or not, the relative shots for to shots against goes down. It's just human nature. This explains why the Bruins are top 5 in the NHL despite only outshooting opponents by .8 of a shot when leading, and why they outshoot opponents by 20 shots over a game when trailing.

Note: As stated, "shots" includes all attempted shots, meaning shots blocked and missed. And obviously these numbers are adjusted for full games.

So you don't think that putting up 10-11 less shots per game when leading versus trailing or tied isn't packing it in and sitting back? I don't care where they relate to rankings against the league, but seeing the discrepancy between when they have a lead and when they're tied or trailing is pretty much backing up people's claim that they sit back, no?

 

[bp13]

So you don't think that putting up 10-11 less shots per game when leading versus trailing or tied isn't packing it in and sitting back? I don't care where they relate to rankings against the league, but seeing the discrepancy between when they have a lead and when they're tied or trailing is pretty much backing up people's claim that they sit back, no?

You can't be serious can you?

I give up. You're right. It's fair to knock them for not maintaining their Corsi rate when leading despite the fact not a single team has been able to maintain anything close to their overall Corsi since they started keeping the stat.

If you're content expecting something no other team has ever accomplished there's clearly no arguing with you. And saying you don't care where they relate to league rankings is akin to saying "I don't care about the nature or context of hockey, or sports in general for that matter, I expect this particular hockey team to be able to defy all those things."

 

[LSCII]

You can't be serious can you?

I give up. You're right. It's fair to knock them for not maintaining their Corsi rate when leading despite the fact not a single team has been able to maintain anything close to their overall Corsi since they started keeping the stat.

If you're content expecting something no other team has ever accomplished there's clearly no arguing with you.

You want to talk about how they rank versus the league, while I'm saying they change their style of play based on the situation. How they stack up versus the league when they have a lead doesn't matter, IMO. What matters is if they're doing anything differently than when they don't have a lead. The CORSI you provided show that this is the case. That was what I was getting to all along. Situation impacts the style of play. When they're tied or losing they're more aggressive and end up shooting more. When they have a lead, they're not.

 

[bp13]

You want to talk about how they rank versus the league, while I'm saying they change their style of play based on the situation. How they stack up versus the league when they have a lead doesn't matter, IMO. What matters is if they're doing anything differently than when they don't have a lead. The CORSI you provided show that this is the case. That was what I was getting to all along. Situation impacts the style of play. When they're tied or losing they're more aggressive and end up shooting more. When they have a lead, they're not.

If you spend a few seconds to think about it, you will likely realize it is impossible to discern whether this relative decrease results from a conscious change in their play, or the expected, 100% predictable, urgency of their opponent. Thus, the only way to judge whether their behavior is abnormal, or even overly conservative or aggressive, is to see how they stack up to all other teams.

This last point I've yours that I bolded...by "they", you mean every single team in recent memory, right? Do you actually expect the Bruins to be able to produce a dominating shots advantage when they're leading, despite the fact no team has been able to do it since they started tracking shots????

 

[Over the volcano]

You want to talk about how they rank versus the league, while I'm saying they change their style of play based on the situation. How they stack up versus the league when they have a lead doesn't matter, IMO. What matters is if they're doing anything differently than when they don't have a lead. The CORSI you provided show that this is the case. That was what I was getting to all along. Situation impacts the style of play. When they're tied or losing they're more aggressive and end up shooting more. When they have a lead, they're not.

I get what you are saying but it's too vague and overlooks the opponents changing strategies when they're trailing to generate more shots. If you could compare their numbers to the rest of the league, or to previous years when they had success in those situations maybe it would start to get somewhere, but in a vaccum I'm not sure that it says much of anything at all,

 

[bp13]

I get what you are saying but it's too vague and overlooks the opponents changing strategies when they're trailing to generate more shots. If you could compare their numbers to the rest of the league, or to previous years when they had success in those situations maybe it would start to get somewhere, but in a vaccum I'm not sure that it says much of anything at all,

And in fact, he won't.

Related, you might be interested to know that in 2010-2011 when the Bruins won the Cup, they produced one more shot per game than their opponent when tied. When leading, they produced 9 FEWER shots per game than their opponent.

Last year's Cup winner, LA, produced 14 more shots per game than their opponent when tied. #1 in the NHL. When leading, they produced 1 shot more per game, #2 in the NHL.

 

[LSCII]

I get what you are saying but it's too vague and overlooks the opponents changing strategies when they're trailing to generate more shots. If you could compare their numbers to the rest of the league, or to previous years when they had success in those situations maybe it would start to get somewhere, but in a vaccum I'm not sure that it says much of anything at all,

Fully agree. That's why I was saying earlier that I'd love to break it down by situation. That way you could possibly see any trends that could add some color to it.

 

[LSCII]

If you spend a few seconds to think about it, you will likely realize it is impossible to discern whether this relative decrease results from a conscious change in their play, or the expected, 100% predictable, urgency of their opponent. Thus, the only way to judge whether their behavior is abnormal, or even overly conservative or aggressive, is to see how they stack up to all other teams.

This last point I've yours that I bolded...by "they", you mean every single team in recent memory, right? Do you actually expect the Bruins to be able to produce a dominating shots advantage when they're leading, despite the fact no team has been able to do it since they started tracking shots????

I fully agree with you and get that. That's why I was saying it would be interesting to see it by situation. You can look at these stats and draw any number of conclusions, but without context, it's just guessing. Really interesting though.