What’s Different About This Year

locknload

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
3,773
Haverhill MA
Statistically the biggest difference is high danger save percentage. Last season, in all situations, Ullmark had a .824 high danger save percentage, 22nd among goalies who played 1000+ minutes. This season that has improved to .865, 4th among goalies with 1000+ minutes behind Sansonov, Swayman and Kochetkov (who has only played 19 games). Swayman's high danger turnaround has been far more drastic, going from .802 last year to .881 this year.

I don't know enough about the technical points of the position to identify exactly what Ullmark and Swayman are doing different. All I would do is tip my hat to Goalie Bob. There's a reason he's been here forever and we never usually have goalie problems. Last year an "average" season was a bad one by previous standards set.
Not to mention his secondary scoring!
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,761
I'm in agreement with everything that has been said but the one thing I can't get over is the improvement from Ullmark. Not saying he is a primary reason but I find it incredible that he is .20 over his save % the last couple years and I believe he is #1 overall in saves above expected. Is it simply getting more comfortable in Boston? Sway has virtually the same stats this year and last so I don't think the system has made Ullmark that much better, is it Essensa magic? Really curious what is leading to his career year. To me he looked a bit slower last year and was more reactive vs being more Rask like in his movement this year but that is purely the eyeball test so completely subjective and probably wrong.
IANAG but to my extremely untrained eye, Ullmark appeared to get beat badly by movement last year. All goalies do, of course, thats why we pass across the slot and why guys deke on the breakaway. But something about Ullmark made him seem extremely open when he moved laterally last year and he also seemed a bit slow as a result. This year, he's staying big and closed as he moved laterally. I'd put money that he worked specifically on staying closed when moving laterally since he arrived here.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
The other piece that is interesting to me in terms of the transition game are the locations and speed of the recipients that they're making their second breakout pass to. I'm seeing a lot more stuff up the seams and behind the first wave of defenders to a player already in motion horizontally across the opposing blue line.
I see a lot of those passes and think "15 years ago, the recipient would have been knocked unconscious by an open-ice check." But now, passes like that are not only common, but necessary.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
I think the overall responses in this thread are spot on, but want to talk for a moment about what many of you are seeing as more creativity from the players this year, and especially the defensemen. I think Butch was an excellent coach. I had a good relationship with him, and pretty much all positive interactions. He was a confident coach who was very much invested in his system, and loathe to change. Unfortunately, imo, this led to some predictability on the part of the Bruins in things like leaving their own end. My thoughts on this are somewhat borne out by the fact that the Bruins DZ turnover percentage is actually lower this year, even with the added "creativity" from the players.
My theory on NHL coaches (and other sports to some degree) is that their success is very situation-dependent. Claude Julien (even as he could be frustrating), Butch Cassidy, Jim Montgomery are all good or very good coaches, but that doesn't mean they are going to be equally good for any team. Julien is the winningest coach in franchise history, one of the few who won a Stanley Cup here, and none of that is an accident. But going from Julien to Cassidy was a positive move for the team because the team needed something different from its coach, and Cassidy delivered on that. Same thing going from Cassidy to Montgomery.

I put a lot of the credit for this year on the McAvoy/Lindholm combo. These are 2 of the the more complete defensemen you will find anywhere: offense, defense, transition. Maybe without two players at that level anchoring the defense, this would not be the right place for Montgomery. (Not that he'd be bad, but maybe we would not see what looks like an enormous change from last year).
 

Reardon's Beard

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2005
3,795
All great points.

To me, I think they’re playing for Bergeron and everyone buys into it. From the veterans to the next generation it’s part of what is driving players to be their best and go beyond where they have been in the past.
 

h8mfy

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
336
Orange County, CA
This has been a fascinating thread so as a mostly-lurker I wanted to post to thank you all for the analysis.

My observation is more anecdotal from reading game threads but ISTM the Bruins had a bad tendency to give up goals late in periods the last years, to the point where I noticed it and began to expect it in the few games I’d get to watch here in SoCal.

I never saw an explanation or pattern and don’t really know how to find the stats - but has Monty fixed that somehow? Is it just the accountability change mentioned above?
 

TSC

SoSH's Doug Neidermeyer
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2007
12,280
Between here and everywhere.
Not sure if it's a strength and conditioning thing, or a deployment thing, or what - but when most teams are wearing down in the 3rd, the Bruins are finding that extra gear.

The stat mentioned on todays broadcast was absurd. +54 in the third period this season.

For context. There are no other teams IN THE LEAGUE who are +54, period.
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
14,913
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
I don't think it's conditioning, I just think they are extremely deep and they play a very easy and fluid style.

They also have a lot of team speed and shifty players. Other teams can't keep up.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
913
100% agree. The team is using more stretch passes in the DZ, fewer outlets along the boards, and has had a drastic reduction in dump outs. Part of that is personnel, but it's clearly a strategic change by the coaching staff, as well. Good offense starts in your own end.
Less dump outs and less dump ins too I think. Not sure if there is a way to measure that, but this year's team appears to possess the puck more in transition and entering the offensive zone rather than chasing the puck.

And, as always, it comes back to the goalie and this tandem has been fantastic this year.
 

The Mort Report

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 5, 2007
6,904
Concord
This has been a fascinating thread so as a mostly-lurker I wanted to post to thank you all for the analysis.

My observation is more anecdotal from reading game threads but ISTM the Bruins had a bad tendency to give up goals late in periods the last years, to the point where I noticed it and began to expect it in the few games I’d get to watch here in SoCal.

I never saw an explanation or pattern and don’t really know how to find the stats - but has Monty fixed that somehow? Is it just the accountability change mentioned above?
I had this exact thought a couple games ago. I don't know if the numbers bear it, but they felt like they had to be at the bottom of the league in goals scored in the last minute of periods the last few years, especially last. I think it's probably a Monty thing, because they seem to be able to exit the D zone much more cleanly this year. I think it's because Monty gives the Dmen more freedom with the puck, that they aren't forcing passes and taking the ice if it's there. The whole operation just seems to hum now
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,761
Less dump outs and less dump ins too I think. Not sure if there is a way to measure that, but this year's team appears to possess the puck more in transition and entering the offensive zone rather than chasing the puck.

And, as always, it comes back to the goalie and this tandem has been fantastic this year.
There is and the bruins are making a concerted effort to leave the zone with the puck and enter the zone with the puck. It's widely accepted (proven?) that exits with possession lead to entries with possession. Entries with possession are twice as likely to end in a goal than a dump in. The Bruins prioritize the blue line, especially on the offensive end.
 

Frisbetarian

♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2003
5,261
Off the beaten track
More great stuff, guys!

I want to talk briefly about OZ entries. As a few of you have noted, the Bruins are definitely bringing the puck into the OZ with control a lot more this year than last. And it is true there is a correlation between exits with possession and entries with possession. Also, entries with possession, especially carry-ins, do lead to more scoring chances. There is little difference in percentage of scoring chances between a successful pass in and a recovered dump in, however, but pass ins are completed at a significantly higher rate than dump ins are recovered. It is also worth noting there are teams who dump the puck in a ton and are very successful in recovery and scoring. Carolina is the perfect example. I guess in my own convoluted way I'm trying to say OZ entry success and strategy is not as cut and dried/linear as it may appear at first glance.

On a completely different topic, do you think there would be any interest in a thread discussing how the game changes in the playoffs?
 
Last edited:

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
More great stuff, guys!

I want to talk briefly about OZ entries. As a few of you have noted, the Bruins are definitely bringing the puck into the OZ with control a lot more this year than last. And it is true there is a correlation between exits with possession and entries with possession. Also, entries with possession, especially carry-ins, do lead to more scoring chances.
This is interesting. I have been frustrated at times by what seemed like an unfortunate frequency of offensive blue line turnovers. But I guess that's just the price of doing business. Teams that dump-and-chase rarely are going to turn it over there. But the Bruins are so relatively good at it, that they are controlling at entry, making it a whole lot easier to start the offense from below the goal line. And it works hand-in-hand with the aggressive defensemen. Think of how many times the dman keeps on going down low, instead of -- - even if he made a successful entry with the puck -- getting to the invisible line and dumping it.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,333
This is interesting. I have been frustrated at times by what seemed like an unfortunate frequency of offensive blue line turnovers. But I guess that's just the price of doing business. Teams that dump-and-chase rarely are going to turn it over there. But the Bruins are so relatively good at it, that they are controlling at entry, making it a whole lot easier to start the offense from below the goal line. And it works hand-in-hand with the aggressive defensemen. Think of how many times the dman keeps on going down low, instead of -- - even if he made a successful entry with the puck -- getting to the invisible line and dumping it.
Bertuzzi made a play last night that was so emblematic of the strategy. IIRC it was the end of a long-ish shift and he was carrying the puck through the neutral zone, basically alone. Easy and obvious dump-in situation, but instead he pulled up before the blue line, held the puck for an extra beat, and found DeBrusk streaking past just on from the bench. Bertuzzi laid it off, Jake cruised into the O-Zone in attack mode, and drew a tripping call.

It’s just a much more dynamic way to play. I am not at all an Xs and Os guy especially when it comes to hockey but it seems to me this regularly sets themselves up to not only carry the puck into the zone, but to have numbers as well as a defense on its heels. The dump and chase is safe but you have to win a puck battle and often multiple puck battles just to get any kind of secure possession, with that possession probably more likely to be in a static set up with defenders at the blueline, forwards grinding out a cycle, and all 5 opposing skaters in between the puck and the goal.

The risk probably isn’t worth it for some teams that can’t defend but the Bs are filled with guys who are adequate to great defensively and a goalie having a Vezina season. Hell, more often than not, it seems like they win the puck back most of the time anyway even if they do lose it.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
More great stuff, guys!

I want to talk briefly about OZ entries. As a few of you have noted, the Bruins are definitely bringing the puck into the OZ with control a lot more this year than last. And it is true there is a correlation between exits with possession and entries with possession. Also, entries with possession, especially carry-ins, do lead to more scoring chances. There is little difference in percentage of scoring chances between a successful pass in and a recovered dump in, however, but pass ins are completed at a significantly higher rate than dump ins are recovered. It is also worth noting there are teams who dump the puck in a ton and are very successful in recovery and scoring. Carolina is the perfect example. I guess in my own convoluted way I'm trying to say OZ entry success and strategy is not as cut and dried/linear as it may appear at first glance.

On a completely different topic, do you think there would be any interest in a thread discussing how the game changes in the playoffs?
There used to be an old joke about the dump and chase game that went something like this: Q: "What does a Bruin player do on a breakaway?" A: "Throw it into the corner and muck for it."

I have never had anything to do with hockey analytics, but just in the watching and following hockey, I've always thought that the technique of getting dump and chase right always got short shrift. Generally speaking, I grew up thinking that the highly skilled teams/players would tend to carry the puck into the zone while the less skilled players would have to dump it in. I suppose that is true to some degree. But if dump ins are done right, and in the right situation, the offensive team is almost certain to get the puck. If the defense is backing up at their blue line without a lot of speed and there is an offensive player skating fast through the neutral zone, and the dump is is timed right, there's no time for a defender to pivot and speed up before the offensive player is by him. Of course, if the dump in is late the offensive player will go offsides, and if it is too soon or the offensive team doesn;t have a guy picking up speed through the neutral zone then the defense is almost sure to recover the puck. And, some dump ins come after the defense has stood the offneisve team up at its blue line and that is never going to work either. I would guess that Carolina is so succefful with it because they coach it well.

A thread about how the game changes in the playoffs would be great.
 

Jordu

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2003
8,962
Brookline
On a completely different topic, do you think there would be any interest in a thread discussing how the game changes in the playoffs?
Oh yeah, for sure. I’d like to see analytics on playoff beards, although that might be one factor in which the eye test works best.

We all talk about how much more physical the playoffs are, but I don’t know how to quantify that. “Hits“ wouldn’t do it. Is there some way to measure the physicality of a game?

What would be quantifiable are odd-man rushes. There just seem to be fewer of them in the playoffs. There should be fewer of them in the playoffs. Are there?
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,582
South Boston
My WAG eye-test tells me that they’re getting and—especially—finishing breakaways at a higher rate than in prior years. Far from the main driver in the difference in results, but I’d be interested in knowing whether that’s right.
 

Frisbetarian

♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2003
5,261
Off the beaten track
Excellent points about bringing the puck in with control, the defensemen's role in that for this Bruins team, and the differences between a good dump and chase team and a strong controlled entry team. There really is a ton of hockey knowledge in this small forum.


Hell, more often than not, it seems like they win the puck back most of the time anyway even if they do lose it.
Absolutely true. The Bruins are outstanding on contested loose pucks. A pure effort based stat.

My WAG eye-test tells me that they’re getting and—especially—finishing breakaways at a higher rate than in prior years.
Great call! I can't give much detail, but the team is getting almost 50% more odd man rushes this year, and their overall finish down low has been better.
 
Last edited: