|
Post by seobrien on Apr 8, 2024 19:22:36 GMT
Yeah, I've no idea what to make of this at all. I'd be lying if I didn't say facing the Bolts in the first round turns my stomach. I couldn't handle losing to them very well.
Can they get through the gauntlet? Likely not, but hey...maybe they can? They've certainly overperformed to this point. If you told me they'd win the Adams division at the beginning of the year and that Danton Heinen would be 7th player, I'd have told you to put the crack pipe down. Yet here they are. Apparently Monty's bag skate pumped them up down the stretch, but it means nothing come 2 Saturdays from now. They're still one of the smaller teams in the playoffs and we'll see how they respond to getting pushed around...and like others I have visions of Gryz and Shatty getting muscled on the forecheck. I think we're all still carrying a lot of trepidation after last year colossal crumble.
With that said, who the ever loving fuck knows?? Hopefully it can be a rewarding deep run and Monty keeps them focused.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Apr 8, 2024 20:03:19 GMT
They could be in the Cup finals, they could be out in first round. I have no idea, but lets go, should be fun. Yes. Especially when there is a ton of parity this year, as far as I can tell. I don't look at any opponent in the East and think "oh, the Bruins are gonna whoop them". I also don't fear any opponent, at all. Nobody is that impressive. Any team could win Round 1, for sure. I think the Bruins are a little thin on Defense, a little thin at Center, and probably have less key leadership than in recent years (no Chara, no Bergeron). But every team seems a little thin on defense, honestly. And most have worse goaltending than the Bruins. Most of the playoff teams are more streaky, have worse records, and less playoff experience. And nobody really expected a 60-point season from Coyle, and more-or-less 20g-20a seasons from Frederic, Geekie, and Heinen. They might actually be better than they are perceived on paper. I don't think much about who they get in Round 1. Whoever it is -- they could lose and they could win. Let's get on with it, and stop the hand-wringing that they might not be good enough to win a Cup. That feeling could be directed at every single NHL team. Only team I would fear in the 1st round is the Rags. Think the Bs could beat any other team in East. Doesn't matter who Boston gets, it's going to be tough. The great teams under Julien struggled in the 1st round. Just want the post-season to start yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by #4 Bobby Orr! GOAT! on Apr 8, 2024 20:12:18 GMT
I don’t fear any team at all to play against. I only fear the Bruins bring their bitch team. They all man up, I can handle a loss, they don’t play and lose, will drive me.
Oh, I always fear the mighty ref team and tranta reviews. They are the fucking hardest to beat, no matter what anyone says
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Apr 8, 2024 20:39:22 GMT
By the way, I'M GOING ALL CAPS..FUCK EVERY LAST ONE YOU NAYSAYING, BUTT-HURT, MOFOS...SUCK IT UP AND BE A B'S FAN...IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO SHOW CONFIDENCE AND BE WILLING TO JUST SAY LAST YEAR FUCKING HAPPENED, JUST LIKE 2019, AND 1979, AND THE OILERS JINX, AND 2013 AND 2010...IT'S CALLED FUCKING HOCKEY...ASSSHOLES..SO SICK OF THE WOE IS ME, OH IT'S SO HARD TO ROOT FOR THE TEAM BECAUSE THEY ARE ABOUT TO FAIL, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...OMG..IT'S LIKE READING A STEVEGM POINT-COUNTER POINT...TIRED OF IT....*steve, it's just an analogy, not to be taken seriously, and actually you have more confidence then about 10 posters in here."....and oh yeah....Go B's!.... some like to engage in logical hockey talk. that seems to threaten you....and I guess it should because you rarely make, or counter any of it. you just squeal more often, and louder than anyone else here. "woe is fuckin me"? is that your interpretation to what those guys are saying???
the reality is simple. most of the professional hockey world does not include the B's as Cup favorites. it isn't negativity, nor is it gospel. it just is.
the interesting discussion should be "why". why are most saying and thinking this?
it also shouldn't be lost on you... that year in and year out, most of them are wrong. virtually every team is not going to win the stanley cup, and some fans "attitude" isn't going to change that. the difference between last years team and this one? they appeared much stronger than anyone else, therefore were assigned the best odds. most don't see that level of strength going in this year. is that surprising?
so to give you an analogy, Gladys Kravitz..many thought the Bruins should win. Now they think it's a possibility they can win. if you asked all of those pundits you're so rattled by..just one question, it would screw your head on correctly for a moment. "so do you think it's impossible for the Bruins to win the Cup?" Every single one would say,.. "of course not, you dope".
virtually every year, some cup favorites go down in the first round. everyone of hockey substance, then updates their thought process. you always try and villanize that, in favour of your mindless screaming.
that gets tiring tooNow, that is a reference, steve. Ultra nosey neighbour who was always screaming her head off about weird stuff she saw in Darren and Samantha Stevens' home. She could never prove to anyone of her beliefs which would often make her wonder if she was losing it.
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Apr 8, 2024 21:00:35 GMT
Yeah, I've no idea what to make of this at all. I'd be lying if I didn't say facing the Bolts in the first round turns my stomach. I couldn't handle losing to them very well. Can they get through the gauntlet? Likely not, but hey...maybe they can? They've certainly overperformed to this point. If you told me they'd win the Adams division at the beginning of the year and that Danton Heinen would be 7th player, I'd have told you to put the crack pipe down. Yet here they are. Apparently Monty's bag skate pumped them up down the stretch, but it means nothing come 2 Saturdays from now. They're still one of the smaller teams in the playoffs and we'll see how they respond to getting pushed around...and like others I have visions of Gryz and Shatty getting muscled on the forecheck. I think we're all still carrying a lot of trepidation after last year colossal crumble.With that said, who the ever loving fuck knows?? Hopefully it can be a rewarding deep run and Monty keeps them focused. I posted earlier that I thought our general stance was to get in the playoffs and see how it goes, seo. They could make Round Two. I'm not sure which list would be longer: one for why they'll beat whomever faces them or a list of reasons why it'll be another first round boot. If I had to choose I think the one for why they'll knock off Tampa or some other club would edge out the other. Gut feeling, man. All I got.
|
|
|
Post by pletchner on Apr 8, 2024 21:13:54 GMT
As a fellow Bruin fan said to me, "this is a flawed Boston team". I agree and very "bipolar" if you will. A player like Grzelcyk will get pounded and exposed in the post-season. But it's all about the 1st round. I do think the Bruins can get into the 2nd round with this roster. And like 2019, after that, you just never know. They could be in the Cup finals, they could be out in first round. I have no idea, but lets go, should be fun. Exactly. I’m not saying the Bs won’t win the cup. I’m just not feeling it. And in support of Steve’s analysis (which I agree with, absent the attacks on harmless Danny), last year at this point I was only wondering if the Bs could beat the Oilers in the finals. My feelings don’t have squat impact on how the Bs do.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Apr 8, 2024 21:42:26 GMT
*harmless Danny*....right now envision me as the Indian on the side of road with a tear drop as another car dumps trash on to the highway.
|
|
|
Post by pletchner on Apr 9, 2024 1:42:45 GMT
*harmless Danny*....right now envision me as the Indian on the side of road with a tear drop as another car dumps trash on to the highway. View AttachmentI said harmless, not sympathetic or likable. 🤓
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Apr 9, 2024 1:43:15 GMT
*harmless Danny*....right now envision me as the Indian on the side of road with a tear drop as another car dumps trash on to the highway. View AttachmentSo you're an Italian fake shilling for the soft drink industry?
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Apr 9, 2024 1:56:42 GMT
They could be in the Cup finals, they could be out in first round. I have no idea, but lets go, should be fun. Exactly. I’m not saying the Bs won’t win the cup. I’m just not feeling it. And in support of Steve’s analysis (which I agree with, absent the attacks on harmless Danny), last year at this point I was only wondering if the Bs could beat the Oilers in the finals. My feelings don’t have squat impact on how the Bs do. it wasn't as much an analysis, as it was defending positions beyond the kindergarten bathroom. nobody is "wrong' at this point for not feelin it(or the other end of the spectrum). multiple posts saying they are...is juvenile. and..i was merely returning serve. twas "harmless danny" getting his stick up, initiating a scrum, then acting like a victim. surprised u fell for it. nobody had them as favorites in 11. cripes nobody had them as favorites in the finals. we've had better teams than 11 and went down early. it was kinda a miracle we didn't get shown the door in round one that year too. round 1 is so tough, because almost overnight, the reality sets in your season could only be 4 games. whose tight, whose loose, is a huge factor, and the lower seed benefits a bit from that, if they get a break or 2. And an unearned break or 2, can define your playoff season, which it doesn't do in the previous 6 months. Marchand converts on one golden opportunity....one...and Florida has their ass handed to them, in an easy series win. the margins are razor thin, but so many aren't willing to accept that..leading to exasperation and over reaction. bookboy penned a fine counter to the "why' I mentioned earlier. certainly, they are to be expected to defeat a 7th or 8th seed. but expectation means jack. certainly, if they have a winning record against virtually all playoff teams, they shouldn't be expected to lose. but they aren't. they just aren't favorites. but I think there are other reasons many aren't assigning the odds their record suggests they should have. -the bruins have the best goaltending in the league. they haven't had great goaltending in the playoffs -the Middleton years for example, were a 1 line team, and it's less difficult to counter that, than a couple big lines like we had in 11, and most of the last 15 years, cept this. if the competition really zones in on Marchand and Pastr, or if they aren't "hot"..does that lesson the odds? -are some of these guys, who have had their critics in the past, like Coyle...are they now for real? the Heinens, JVR's, can they be expected to chip in, like they have, and will they continue to over deliver? Is the D tough and deep enough -I think one of the biggest reasons..and also the least logical, is the "hangover". it's easy post hoc to assume if they couldn't do it last year...they certainly won't this year. that's why toronto gets no love outside the GTA..they simply haven't done it lately, so they'll have to show us first. good news for me, is that the Bruins have not had any post season luck since 11, when they had an absolute horseshoe. we've had a lot of bad luck, and we're due for some good. the key is round one and getting acclimated. Kel nailed it....gonna be fun.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Apr 9, 2024 2:14:40 GMT
*harmless Danny*....right now envision me as the Indian on the side of road with a tear drop as another car dumps trash on to the highway. View Attachmentthis is a more appropriate than the Indian.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Apr 9, 2024 5:08:37 GMT
*harmless Danny*....right now envision me as the Indian on the side of road with a tear drop as another car dumps trash on to the highway. View Attachment View Attachmentthis is a more appropriate than the Indian. His dad was a pretty darn good boxer
|
|
|
Post by #4 Bobby Orr! GOAT! on Apr 9, 2024 10:12:20 GMT
More like this
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Apr 9, 2024 12:13:25 GMT
They could be in the Cup finals, they could be out in first round. I have no idea, but lets go, should be fun. Yes. Especially when there is a ton of parity this year, as far as I can tell. I don't look at any opponent in the East and think "oh, the Bruins are gonna whoop them". I also don't fear any opponent, at all. Nobody is that impressive. Any team could win Round 1, for sure. I think the Bruins are a little thin on Defense, a little thin at Center, and probably have less key leadership than in recent years (no Chara, no Bergeron). But every team seems a little thin on defense, honestly. And most have worse goaltending than the Bruins. Most of the playoff teams are more streaky, have worse records, and less playoff experience. And nobody really expected a 60-point season from Coyle, and more-or-less 20g-20a seasons from Frederic, Geekie, and Heinen. They might actually be better than they are perceived on paper. I don't think much about who they get in Round 1. Whoever it is -- they could lose and they could win. Let's get on with it, and stop the hand-wringing that they might not be good enough to win a Cup. That feeling could be directed at every single NHL team. The bold is the most important aspect of assessing the Bs stats with opponents. Contending teams eams have been streaky with the likes of injuries, growth of younger players, unsteady goaltending, and simply poor coaching during the season. Regular season stats are correct but only to a point, the Bs are included. The Rangers look for real at this point, I guess. I am looking forward to see how the Bs perform during the playoff stretch. Caveat: I have not watched enough of the other contending teams to make a real proper eye test judgment.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Apr 9, 2024 12:39:56 GMT
I kind of lost feeling in a few of my fingers typing these posts....:-)
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Apr 9, 2024 12:42:16 GMT
Yes. Especially when there is a ton of parity this year, as far as I can tell. I don't look at any opponent in the East and think "oh, the Bruins are gonna whoop them". I also don't fear any opponent, at all. Nobody is that impressive. Any team could win Round 1, for sure. I think the Bruins are a little thin on Defense, a little thin at Center, and probably have less key leadership than in recent years (no Chara, no Bergeron). But every team seems a little thin on defense, honestly. And most have worse goaltending than the Bruins. Most of the playoff teams are more streaky, have worse records, and less playoff experience. And nobody really expected a 60-point season from Coyle, and more-or-less 20g-20a seasons from Frederic, Geekie, and Heinen. They might actually be better than they are perceived on paper. I don't think much about who they get in Round 1. Whoever it is -- they could lose and they could win. Let's get on with it, and stop the hand-wringing that they might not be good enough to win a Cup. That feeling could be directed at every single NHL team. The bold is the most important aspect of assessing the Bs stats with opponents. Contending teams eams have been streaky with the likes of injuries, growth of younger players, unsteady goaltending, and simply poor coaching during the season. Regular season stats are correct but only to a point, the Bs are included. The Rangers look for real at this point, I guess. I am looking forward to see how the Bs perform during the playoff stretch. Caveat: I have not watched enough of the other contending teams to make a real proper eye test judgment. The Rags numbers 5 V 5 stink, they better hope they get lots of PP's but we know how that works in the playoffs once Brind' Amour starts complaining.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Apr 9, 2024 14:27:21 GMT
The bold is the most important aspect of assessing the Bs stats with opponents. Contending teams eams have been streaky with the likes of injuries, growth of younger players, unsteady goaltending, and simply poor coaching during the season. Regular season stats are correct but only to a point, the Bs are included. The Rangers look for real at this point, I guess. I am looking forward to see how the Bs perform during the playoff stretch. Caveat: I have not watched enough of the other contending teams to make a real proper eye test judgment. The Rags numbers 5 V 5 stink, they better hope they get lots of PP's but we know how that works in the playoffs once Brind' Amour starts complaining. I wouldn't say they stink. They're middle of the pack, just 6 goals back of the Bruins 5v5. I'm not sure how much it means, but the Bruins are +35 over the Rangers at 5v5 - 6 more goals for and 29 fewer goals against. The Rangers' special teams are a net 6% better than Boston's, being just slightly better on the PK and significantly better on the PP, especially if you compare to the second half PP numbers. Since the ASG, the Bruins PP is just 16.5% and the Rangers are still up around 25%. Ouch. So if they do meet in the ECF, stay the frack out of the box!
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Apr 9, 2024 15:00:19 GMT
Yes. Especially when there is a ton of parity this year, as far as I can tell. I don't look at any opponent in the East and think "oh, the Bruins are gonna whoop them". I also don't fear any opponent, at all. Nobody is that impressive. Any team could win Round 1, for sure. I think the Bruins are a little thin on Defense, a little thin at Center, and probably have less key leadership than in recent years (no Chara, no Bergeron). But every team seems a little thin on defense, honestly. And most have worse goaltending than the Bruins. Most of the playoff teams are more streaky, have worse records, and less playoff experience. And nobody really expected a 60-point season from Coyle, and more-or-less 20g-20a seasons from Frederic, Geekie, and Heinen. They might actually be better than they are perceived on paper. I don't think much about who they get in Round 1. Whoever it is -- they could lose and they could win. Let's get on with it, and stop the hand-wringing that they might not be good enough to win a Cup. That feeling could be directed at every single NHL team. The bold is the most important aspect of assessing the Bs stats with opponents. Contending teams eams have been streaky with the likes of injuries, growth of younger players, unsteady goaltending, and simply poor coaching during the season. Regular season stats are correct but only to a point, the Bs are included. The Rangers look for real at this point, I guess. I am looking forward to see how the Bs perform during the playoff stretch. Caveat: I have not watched enough of the other contending teams to make a real proper eye test judgment. There are so many variables in a season and it's almost impossible to attribute results to any one of them, but if they pile up against you or for you it can really skew perception. To be honest, I think this is a lot of what happened last year - a lot of things that are almost accidentals to the game on the ice or team composition combined to give the false impression that the Bruins were destined to win a Cup when in reality they were a team led by some aging HoFers that had overachieved with goalies who have little playoff experience. Back-to-backs, home games where you play the day after a road game and your opponent has had a day to acclimate, catching good opponents on cold streaks, catching good opponents when they have a key injury, good opponents choosing to play the backup goalie against you to save the #1 for a different matchup, good ice/bad ice neutralizing advantages - especially in multipurpose buildings where you may or may not play the night after a Taylor Swift concert, refs having a bad day, playing a team right after a coaching change, playing a team right after a big trade, playing a team before it makes big trade deadline moves vs. after. On and on and on. Poster child for all of this is the 2018-19 Blues who went from the worst record in the league to being the second best team in terms of record from Jan 1 to the playoffs, and then won a Cup. Jekyll, meet Hyde. All of that means you're likely smart to be skeptical about what you think you know from watching the regular season or looking at metrics over 82 games. But that said, I remember what Lucic said when he went to the Oilers and was asked about how his time in Boston might help him lead the Oilers and he emphasized the importance of extending winning streaks and cutting losing streaks short before they become a monkey on your back. I think that sounds like motherpie and applehood in a way, but it's also kind of insightful. Contenders usually have done this and that's why they have a good record. But being able to bear down after a loss and not lose two or three in a row...that's not a given, and it's never a bigger deal than in the playoffs where losing two in a row can mean death. The flip side, though, is exactly what you say about watching other teams as intently as we watch the Bs. One of the points I tried to make about Grz is that if you were to watch every game for pretty much any other team, I would be very surprised if you didn't think their 5-6 were on par with or worse than Grz. Other teams - other top contenders - also blow big leads late in games. The league has gone that way in it's emphasis on scoring - you can't just wrap your opponents in shrinkwrap for a period to nurse a 2-1 lead the way you could in the 90s. And it's kind of funny that we expect it, "we" in this case being anyone who remembers the NHL of the 70s and 80s. When was a lead safe in that era? I remember lots of discussions about "Kitty, bar the door!" being the equivalent of the NFL's prevent defense - it prevents you from winning. But after the dead puck era of the trap and interference galore, this notion that if you have a lead late in games, you should never ever give it up unless your team is flawed was allowed to take root and flourish. And not putting the Bruins' challenges in context makes you doubt them more than maybe you should (generic you). Like losing after leads. The Bruins have only lost one game in regulation all year when leading after the first period. They haven't lost a single game in regulation where they went into the third with the lead. But they do have 2 OTL when leading after 1 and 3 OTL when leading after 2. The two OTL when leading after the first is tied with a bunch of teams including Vancouver, Edmonton, Vegas, and Carolina. the 3OTL after 2 is the second worst mark in the league behind SJ...but tied with Colorado and Vancouver, both 100+ point teams. I think it's fair to say that their record, their record against playoff teams, and (despite our perception that they can't hold a lead), their record when they've had a lead at the end of 1 or 2 periods (and no 3v3 or SO in the playoffs so the OTLs are another matter) says that there is no reason that this roster can't win a Cup. There's nothing in the regular season that suggest they can't win 4/7 against any team except perhaps the Rangers. Everything else is coaching, tactics, and the players executing to their abilities when the time comes.
|
|
|
Post by thanx4memORRies on Apr 9, 2024 16:18:17 GMT
The bold is the most important aspect of assessing the Bs stats with opponents. Contending teams eams have been streaky with the likes of injuries, growth of younger players, unsteady goaltending, and simply poor coaching during the season. Regular season stats are correct but only to a point, the Bs are included. The Rangers look for real at this point, I guess. I am looking forward to see how the Bs perform during the playoff stretch. Caveat: I have not watched enough of the other contending teams to make a real proper eye test judgment. There are so many variables in a season and it's almost impossible to attribute results to any one of them, but if they pile up against you or for you it can really skew perception. To be honest, I think this is a lot of what happened last year - a lot of things that are almost accidentals to the game on the ice or team composition combined to give the false impression that the Bruins were destined to win a Cup when in reality they were a team led by some aging HoFers that had overachieved with goalies who have little playoff experience. Back-to-backs, home games where you play the day after a road game and your opponent has had a day to acclimate, catching good opponents on cold streaks, catching good opponents when they have a key injury, good opponents choosing to play the backup goalie against you to save the #1 for a different matchup, good ice/bad ice neutralizing advantages - especially in multipurpose buildings where you may or may not play the night after a Taylor Swift concert, refs having a bad day, playing a team right after a coaching change, playing a team right after a big trade, playing a team before it makes big trade deadline moves vs. after. On and on and on. Poster child for all of this is the 2018-19 Blues who went from the worst record in the league to being the second best team in terms of record from Jan 1 to the playoffs, and then won a Cup. Jekyll, meet Hyde. All of that means you're likely smart to be skeptical about what you think you know from watching the regular season or looking at metrics over 82 games. But that said, I remember what Lucic said when he went to the Oilers and was asked about how his time in Boston might help him lead the Oilers and he emphasized the importance of extending winning streaks and cutting losing streaks short before they become a monkey on your back. I think that sounds like motherpie and applehood in a way, but it's also kind of insightful. Contenders usually have done this and that's why they have a good record. But being able to bear down after a loss and not lose two or three in a row...that's not a given, and it's never a bigger deal than in the playoffs where losing two in a row can mean death. The flip side, though, is exactly what you say about watching other teams as intently as we watch the Bs. One of the points I tried to make about Grz is that if you were to watch every game for pretty much any other team, I would be very surprised if you didn't think their 5-6 were on par with or worse than Grz. Other teams - other top contenders - also blow big leads late in games. The league has gone that way in it's emphasis on scoring - you can't just wrap your opponents in shrinkwrap for a period to nurse a 2-1 lead the way you could in the 90s. And it's kind of funny that we expect it, "we" in this case being anyone who remembers the NHL of the 70s and 80s. When was a lead safe in that era? I remember lots of discussions about "Kitty, bar the door!" being the equivalent of the NFL's prevent defense - it prevents you from winning. But after the dead puck era of the trap and interference galore, this notion that if you have a lead late in games, you should never ever give it up unless your team is flawed was allowed to take root and flourish. And not putting the Bruins' challenges in context makes you doubt them more than maybe you should (generic you). Like losing after leads. The Bruins have only lost one game in regulation all year when leading after the first period. They haven't lost a single game in regulation where they went into the third with the lead. But they do have 2 OTL when leading after 1 and 3 OTL when leading after 2. The two OTL when leading after the first is tied with a bunch of teams including Vancouver, Edmonton, Vegas, and Carolina. the 3OTL after 2 is the second worst mark in the league behind SJ...but tied with Colorado and Vancouver, both 100+ point teams. I think it's fair to say that their record, their record against playoff teams, and (despite our perception that they can't hold a lead), their record when they've had a lead at the end of 1 or 2 periods (and no 3v3 or SO in the playoffs so the OTLs are another matter) says that there is no reason that this roster can't win a Cup. There's nothing in the regular season that suggest they can't win 4/7 against any team except perhaps the Rangers. Everything else is coaching, tactics, and the players executing to their abilities when the time comes. Sold! Now I give the B’S a 6.5% chance that they lift Lord Stanley….
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Apr 9, 2024 16:52:42 GMT
There are so many variables in a season and it's almost impossible to attribute results to any one of them, but if they pile up against you or for you it can really skew perception. To be honest, I think this is a lot of what happened last year - a lot of things that are almost accidentals to the game on the ice or team composition combined to give the false impression that the Bruins were destined to win a Cup when in reality they were a team led by some aging HoFers that had overachieved with goalies who have little playoff experience. Back-to-backs, home games where you play the day after a road game and your opponent has had a day to acclimate, catching good opponents on cold streaks, catching good opponents when they have a key injury, good opponents choosing to play the backup goalie against you to save the #1 for a different matchup, good ice/bad ice neutralizing advantages - especially in multipurpose buildings where you may or may not play the night after a Taylor Swift concert, refs having a bad day, playing a team right after a coaching change, playing a team right after a big trade, playing a team before it makes big trade deadline moves vs. after. On and on and on. Poster child for all of this is the 2018-19 Blues who went from the worst record in the league to being the second best team in terms of record from Jan 1 to the playoffs, and then won a Cup. Jekyll, meet Hyde. All of that means you're likely smart to be skeptical about what you think you know from watching the regular season or looking at metrics over 82 games. But that said, I remember what Lucic said when he went to the Oilers and was asked about how his time in Boston might help him lead the Oilers and he emphasized the importance of extending winning streaks and cutting losing streaks short before they become a monkey on your back. I think that sounds like motherpie and applehood in a way, but it's also kind of insightful. Contenders usually have done this and that's why they have a good record. But being able to bear down after a loss and not lose two or three in a row...that's not a given, and it's never a bigger deal than in the playoffs where losing two in a row can mean death. The flip side, though, is exactly what you say about watching other teams as intently as we watch the Bs. One of the points I tried to make about Grz is that if you were to watch every game for pretty much any other team, I would be very surprised if you didn't think their 5-6 were on par with or worse than Grz. Other teams - other top contenders - also blow big leads late in games. The league has gone that way in it's emphasis on scoring - you can't just wrap your opponents in shrinkwrap for a period to nurse a 2-1 lead the way you could in the 90s. And it's kind of funny that we expect it, "we" in this case being anyone who remembers the NHL of the 70s and 80s. When was a lead safe in that era? I remember lots of discussions about "Kitty, bar the door!" being the equivalent of the NFL's prevent defense - it prevents you from winning. But after the dead puck era of the trap and interference galore, this notion that if you have a lead late in games, you should never ever give it up unless your team is flawed was allowed to take root and flourish. And not putting the Bruins' challenges in context makes you doubt them more than maybe you should (generic you). Like losing after leads. The Bruins have only lost one game in regulation all year when leading after the first period. They haven't lost a single game in regulation where they went into the third with the lead. But they do have 2 OTL when leading after 1 and 3 OTL when leading after 2. The two OTL when leading after the first is tied with a bunch of teams including Vancouver, Edmonton, Vegas, and Carolina. the 3OTL after 2 is the second worst mark in the league behind SJ...but tied with Colorado and Vancouver, both 100+ point teams. I think it's fair to say that their record, their record against playoff teams, and (despite our perception that they can't hold a lead), their record when they've had a lead at the end of 1 or 2 periods (and no 3v3 or SO in the playoffs so the OTLs are another matter) says that there is no reason that this roster can't win a Cup. There's nothing in the regular season that suggest they can't win 4/7 against any team except perhaps the Rangers. Everything else is coaching, tactics, and the players executing to their abilities when the time comes. Sold! Now I give the B’S a 6.5% chance that they lift Lord Stanley…. Well, just by virtue of being 1/16 teams to make the dance, they have a 6.25% chance....
|
|
|
Post by thanx4memORRies on Apr 9, 2024 17:36:40 GMT
Sold! Now I give the B’S a 6.5% chance that they lift Lord Stanley…. Well, just by virtue of being 1/16 teams to make the dance, they have a 6.25% chance.... Then 6.25% it is….
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Apr 9, 2024 17:56:42 GMT
The bold is the most important aspect of assessing the Bs stats with opponents. Contending teams eams have been streaky with the likes of injuries, growth of younger players, unsteady goaltending, and simply poor coaching during the season. Regular season stats are correct but only to a point, the Bs are included. The Rangers look for real at this point, I guess. I am looking forward to see how the Bs perform during the playoff stretch. Caveat: I have not watched enough of the other contending teams to make a real proper eye test judgment. There are so many variables in a season and it's almost impossible to attribute results to any one of them, but if they pile up against you or for you it can really skew perception. To be honest, I think this is a lot of what happened last year - a lot of things that are almost accidentals to the game on the ice or team composition combined to give the false impression that the Bruins were destined to win a Cup when in reality they were a team led by some aging HoFers that had overachieved with goalies who have little playoff experience. Back-to-backs, home games where you play the day after a road game and your opponent has had a day to acclimate, catching good opponents on cold streaks, catching good opponents when they have a key injury, good opponents choosing to play the backup goalie against you to save the #1 for a different matchup, good ice/bad ice neutralizing advantages - especially in multipurpose buildings where you may or may not play the night after a Taylor Swift concert, refs having a bad day, playing a team right after a coaching change, playing a team right after a big trade, playing a team before it makes big trade deadline moves vs. after. On and on and on. Poster child for all of this is the 2018-19 Blues who went from the worst record in the league to being the second best team in terms of record from Jan 1 to the playoffs, and then won a Cup. Jekyll, meet Hyde. All of that means you're likely smart to be skeptical about what you think you know from watching the regular season or looking at metrics over 82 games. But that said, I remember what Lucic said when he went to the Oilers and was asked about how his time in Boston might help him lead the Oilers and he emphasized the importance of extending winning streaks and cutting losing streaks short before they become a monkey on your back. I think that sounds like motherpie and applehood in a way, but it's also kind of insightful. Contenders usually have done this and that's why they have a good record. But being able to bear down after a loss and not lose two or three in a row...that's not a given, and it's never a bigger deal than in the playoffs where losing two in a row can mean death.The flip side, though, is exactly what you say about watching other teams as intently as we watch the Bs. One of the points I tried to make about Grz is that if you were to watch every game for pretty much any other team, I would be very surprised if you didn't think their 5-6 were on par with or worse than Grz. Other teams - other top contenders - also blow big leads late in games. The league has gone that way in it's emphasis on scoring - you can't just wrap your opponents in shrinkwrap for a period to nurse a 2-1 lead the way you could in the 90s. And it's kind of funny that we expect it, "we" in this case being anyone who remembers the NHL of the 70s and 80s. When was a lead safe in that era? I remember lots of discussions about "Kitty, bar the door!" being the equivalent of the NFL's prevent defense - it prevents you from winning. But after the dead puck era of the trap and interference galore, this notion that if you have a lead late in games, you should never ever give it up unless your team is flawed was allowed to take root and flourish. And not putting the Bruins' challenges in context makes you doubt them more than maybe you should (generic you). Like losing after leads. The Bruins have only lost one game in regulation all year when leading after the first period. They haven't lost a single game in regulation where they went into the third with the lead. But they do have 2 OTL when leading after 1 and 3 OTL when leading after 2. The two OTL when leading after the first is tied with a bunch of teams including Vancouver, Edmonton, Vegas, and Carolina. the 3OTL after 2 is the second worst mark in the league behind SJ...but tied with Colorado and Vancouver, both 100+ point teams. I think it's fair to say that their record, their record against playoff teams, and (despite our perception that they can't hold a lead), their record when they've had a lead at the end of 1 or 2 periods (and no 3v3 or SO in the playoffs so the OTLs are another matter) says that there is no reason that this roster can't win a Cup. There's nothing in the regular season that suggest they can't win 4/7 against any team except perhaps the Rangers. Everything else is coaching, tactics, and the players executing to their abilities when the time comes. Somehow you refuse to "drop the quarter" on Gryz. I do watch enough of Gryz to know he wilts with pressure, he did so the last game. That does not mean he is a norm of the NHL in "3rd" pairings.... or whatever or whoever (pairing) you play him with in a given game. Truth in stats today is a matter of the argument being made. Unlike some I will say when his outlet passes are superior. Right now Weatherreport is a better defenseman. I highlight the Lucic quote as an example of sheer understanding of the game by game dynamics of the regular season. I think of his "shift" video as proof he knew what to do in a game. No need of analysis as it is level of thinking beyond current stats. It is an excellent example of how to assess a player. The Great One had the ability to handle the game on skates as if it was a chess board or pool table. Anyone playing with him benefitted. Orr is the prima facia evidence for a defenseman influencing the tenor of the game. The rest of your post is spot on with regard to winning 4 of 7. It is akin to Lucic's comment of knowing when to emotionally change the flow of the game. The Bs have two players who can change the complexion of the game in McAvoy and Pasta. They have playoff levels to their games. The goalies are a given. No stats are needed to understand that aspect of the game. BTW I have watched a lot of hockey over the years, not watching other teams was an understanding that my views are somewhat biased, but not wrong. People will do anything, no matter how absurd, to avoid facing their own souls. Or the truth within. Your stubborn adherence to plus minus in assessing Gryz is admirable to a point. Plus Minus, oh my goodness. I thought your understanding of the game was on par with OC. Nice analysis post nontheless. You are one of the better posters on here. I appreciate your insight, yet it is in the old sense of the word "perfect".
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Apr 9, 2024 18:01:00 GMT
Well, just by virtue of being 1/16 teams to make the dance, they have a 6.25% chance.... Then 6.25% it is…. I like this as a measure of what everyone's expectations are. Keeps the drama llamas calm when they want to get dramatic about what a colossal choke it is to have something that was 93.75% likely to happen come to pass. I think you can modify it some. I like the list of where cup winners finished in the regular season overall standings that I think it was pletch compiled (and apologies if it was someone else). I think it's about right to say that you are 4 times more likely not to win the Cup as win it even if you are the best regular season team. And that your odds are worse than that if you don't finish first. And that your odds are approaching zero if you finish below 6th. Though there's also some "gambler's fallacy" in there in suggesting that the odds this year are in any way affected by what happened in years past. I think they have about a 15% chance.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Apr 9, 2024 18:34:11 GMT
I like this as a measure of what everyone's expectations are. Keeps the drama llamas calm when they want to get dramatic about what a colossal choke it is to have something that was 93.75% likely to happen come to pass. I think you can modify it some. I like the list of where cup winners finished in the regular season overall standings that I think it was pletch compiled (and apologies if it was someone else). I think it's about right to say that you are 4 times more likely not to win the Cup as win it even if you are the best regular season team. And that your odds are worse than that if you don't finish first. And that your odds are approaching zero if you finish below 6th. Though there's also some "gambler's fallacy" in there in suggesting that the odds this year are in any way affected by what happened in years past. I think they have about a 15% chance. this isn't Powerball, it's RollerBall at best.
|
|
|
Post by thanx4memORRies on Apr 9, 2024 18:51:54 GMT
I like this as a measure of what everyone's expectations are. Keeps the drama llamas calm when they want to get dramatic about what a colossal choke it is to have something that was 93.75% likely to happen come to pass. I think you can modify it some. I like the list of where cup winners finished in the regular season overall standings that I think it was pletch compiled (and apologies if it was someone else). I think it's about right to say that you are 4 times more likely not to win the Cup as win it even if you are the best regular season team. And that your odds are worse than that if you don't finish first. And that your odds are approaching zero if you finish below 6th. Though there's also some "gambler's fallacy" in there in suggesting that the odds this year are in any way affected by what happened in years past. I think they have about a 15% chance. 15% sounds about right….
|
|