2012-13 Boston Bruins Season Preview: Lots of promise without Thomas

Eric T.
August 21 2012 06:53PM

Anton Khudobin
By goaliej54 [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

The Bruins enter 2012-13 season with largely the same roster for the third year in a row. There have been some small tweaks here and there, replacing Tomas Kaberle with Joe Corvo and letting Tyler Seguin grow into Mark Recchi's minutes, but the core has largely remained intact.

With one notable exception.

How critical has Tim Thomas been to their recent success? What should we expect from the team going forwards?

Offense

Boston qualcomp plot

Boston boasts a very deep forward group, allowing them to finish second in the league in scoring without having a single player in the top 25 in points or goals.

The plot above (explained here) shows that their top two lines faced virtually identical opponents -- all six players saw very similar opposing defenses and forwards, as the team's depth ensured that all of them got a bit of time against the opposing second and third pairings. That undoubtedly helped Seguin, who didn't have the very best sophomore season ever, but is in pretty lofty company nonetheless.

The Bruins probably got a bit lucky this year, as they ranked second in the league in 5-on-5 shooting percentage. New readers might be wondering why I assume that has to involve luck; I'll give three different answers.

The first answer is theoretical: a year seems like a long time, but when you're trying to tell the difference between 9.4% shooting and 8.8% shooting, 2000 shots isn't nearly enough for random bounces to even out (it's a difference of just 12 goals). The second answer is semi-practical: we've seen that the spread between teams in shooting percentage is pretty close to what you'd get by random chance even if every team had the same talent. And finally, a purely empirical answer: with a very similar roster the year before, they shot substantially worse, and they were dead last in the league the year before that.

Their deep forward group probably is a legitimately above-average shooting team, but it's not reasonable to expect 9.4% shooting at 5-on-5 again next year. If they land somewhere around 8.5%, that would be about 20 goals fewer.

As for the power play, there we have an interesting story. Each of the last two years they've been a middling team at generating shots (19th last year, 11th the year before), which is the best predictor of future power play success. And each year, they've indeed had middling power play results, so I see no reason to predict otherwise this year.

This section wouldn't be complete without at least mentioning their comically bad power play results in the playoffs the last two years. After posting a middling shot rate and shooting percentage during the regular season, each year they fell to the bottom four in both shot rate and shooting percentage in the playoffs. It's not something I'd fret about -- we're talking about a total of 180 minutes of play over two years, after all -- but that's not an easy thing to tell a Bruins fan who watched their team lose in seven games while going one-for-eight on the power play in four one-goal losses.

Defense

Charazilla

The Bruins have a precious rare commodity in a true alpha defenseman, but their defense group is not spectacular as a whole. They finished 12th in shots against per 60 minutes of 5-on-5 play this year, and while that number can be slightly inflated by score effects, looking at situations where score effects are reduced still tells the same story.

Again, many of the readers are preparing to argue that a good defense will push shots to the outside and that shot totals don't tell the whole story. And this is true, to a small extent, but the good defense that prevents a good chance from getting a high-quality shot also prevents a mediocre chance from getting even a low-quality shot -- the net result is overall a lower number of shots from a similar distribution of locations.

The result is that team effects on save percentage are modest, and a modest assessment of a team's defense can come from their shots against rate. This, of course, accepts the adage that the best defense is a good offense -- Boston's quality forwards keeping the puck at the other end of the ice probably do as much to limit shot totals as the team does by breaking up the opponent's opportunities.

So the Bruins, despite Chara's skill, don't appear to be anything special on defense. And really, the skew of their team towards forwards seems to be deliberate choice -- only Minnesota, Toronto, and Los Angeles have more money committed to forwards for next year, but 14 teams already have more committed to defensemen and a few others will pass them as RFAs continue to sign.

Others, like the Rangers, spend less because all of their defensemen are on cost-controlled entry-level or RFA contracts, but Boston's blue line is dominated by veterans.

Which brings us to one significant change from last year: Dougie Hamilton is likely to make his NHL debut. I wouldn't expect him to have a major impact as a rookie, since defensemen are a bit unpredictable and generally take a while to develop. But they have things set up correctly from a team lifecycle management perspective: if things go the way you hope they will for a top-10 pick, he'll be taking on top-pairing minutes as Chara reaches the tail of his career.

All in all, if there's a reason to predict a significant change in their goals against, it will be the...

Goaltending

Tim Thomas Facebook post

Remember when the funniest thing about Tim Thomas was Down Goes Brown's joke about him eating a bag of $100 bills? Well, it still probably is, because DGB is great, but Thomas' outspokenness and unconventional decisions have made for some enjoyable webfare over the last year.

But now it has come to this. He will put his time and energies into those areas and relationships that he has neglected.

Thomas led the league in save percentage two of the last four years, setting a record in the process. He is the active leader in career save percentage. He is the reason a team that was consistently middle-of-the-road in shots against finished 1st, 2nd, 2nd, and 6th in goals against the last four years. This is obviously a big loss for the Bruins.

Of course, Tuukka Rask has not exactly been terrible either. His career save percentage is actually higher than Thomas's, and he led the league in save percentage himself one year. Unfortunately, since shooting percentages are variable, even after 102 games we still don't know exactly how good he is. But it's completely reasonable to expect him to be a top-10 goalie, and maybe better than that. The dropoff from Thomas to Rask might scarcely be felt. He can even match Thomas in the internet sensation department.

However, this means the backup goalie spot transitions from Rask to Anton Khudobin, who posted .914 and .919 save percentages in the AHL the last two years. Goalies are variable enough that translations are a bit unreliable, but our best estimate is that this puts him at somewhere around .910 in the NHL. If he plays something like 25 games, the dropoff from Rask to Khudobin at backup goalie could cost the team somewhere around 10 goals. The damage to depth is bad too -- if Rask gets hurt, it could be worse than that.

What happened last year

Through 40 games, the Bruins had the most goals scored, the fewest goals allowed, and the best record in the league.

At that point they had only a modest edge in shots, but an enormous shooting percentage (10.5% at 5-on-5) and save percentage (94.5% at 5-on-5). But if there's one thing I hope I've made clear, it's that shot totals chart the path amidst fluctuating shooting percentages.

Over the remainder of the season, they shot a slightly-above-league-average 8.3% and had a downright-wretched 90.0 save percentage at 5-on-5. They picked up just 45 points over those 42 games. They drew a first round opponent who finished the season strong and lost as tight a playoff series as you can have. I can't help but wonder whether the frustrations of that finish led to Thomas' decision to put hockey behind him for a while.

Overall

With the offense's shooting percentage regression costing them about 20 goals and the loss of Thomas costing them about 10, it looks like I'm projecting them to slip by about 30 goals next year. That would leave them with a goal differential of about +31, which would put them at about 102 points.

Coincidentally enough, that's the same total they had last year, and one less than the year before. I've gone through all this trouble to conclude: the team that has basically the same roster as the last two seasons should end up with about the same point total.

I hate it when that happens.

2654ef2681c88bc3252431ec45e30590
Eric T. writes for NHL Numbers and Broad Street Hockey. His work generally focuses on analytical investigations and covers all phases of the game. You can find him on Twitter as @BSH_EricT.
Avatar
#2 BaconWrapped
August 22 2012, 07:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Thanks to Lowetide for pointing out these fascinating preview articles. I've caught up on them now and plan to read them as they come out. One niggly thing though, its difficult to find them. I had to just scroll back page by page. Could you link them all up somehow? Maybe link the preview to the team's page? Or add links to all other previews at the end of each one?

Avatar
#3 MikeBosse
August 23 2012, 07:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I think by mid season they'll be crying for him to come back. Rask is good, but pressure is better and will win over young players all the time.....watch for a big decline in the Bruins play and some panic trading near the deadline......GO LEAFS

Avatar
#4 Mook
August 23 2012, 08:09AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Poorly written, and your statistical "evidence" is based on too many assumptions.

Also, Horton missed most of the second half to injury which would have contributed to the drop-off.

Having a low "Shots against" is not a measure of good defence...ever.

Avatar
#6 Mook
August 29 2012, 02:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Ok...

Prediction of future performance based on independently random events in the past is obviously the point, but the further you get into details and metrics the assumptions begin to pile-up.

A basic example is connecting shots and goals. There is a correlation, but without considering the infinitum of outside factors (quality of shots, offensive systems, etc) the coefficient can close to zero(which means it is insignificant, and simply based on chance). The Bruins defensive game is to force opponents to have low-percentage shots with an emphasis on NOT getting sticks and skates in the way (to avoid unwanted defelctions...watch any coaches corner and see Cherry gripe about this). This differs from, say, the Habs who play more of a man-on-man system.

Horton's presence (or absence) means the entire line production changes...Lucic's production sagged, as did Krejci's. It is worth mentioning that a team's (presumed) top scorer is sidelined when discussing their drop in offensive production.

"Having a low "Shots against" is not a measure of good defence...ever."

The universe proves this for me. You need to support your claim! You're basically saying "Prove God doesn't exist".

Hey, I appreciate your articles but "Sports statistics" is not the same as "statistics". I believe your ultimate points prediction is correct.

Comments are closed for this article.