I'm not sure what this whole best start in 36 years thing means - best start since the second year of the Ratelle/Park era.

Love the Bill Parcell's line that you are what your record says you are, but the record right now seems inflated.  Are they really playing that well?  Better to start a year than at any time in Ray Bourque's entire career?  With Lucic sitting on four goals, Bergeron and Seguin with three, and the entire third line with a total of four?  And zero PPG at home?  Yes, the defensive game has been solid except against the Sabres and the PK has been beyond expectations.  But this good?

Then I wonder if it's the quality of opposition.  How many games have the Bruins played against playoff teams?  The answer based on today's standings is 5 of 15, and four of the 5 are Toronto, Montreal, Carolina and TBay.  In other words, teams that didn't make the playoffs last year.  It looks a bit like the schedule has helped, but then again, the Bruins haven't lost to any of the teams that are currently playoff teams either.  Who are the teams I think they need to beat to show that they're for real?

The only team in the East that they haven't played that fits that bill is Pittsburgh.

It's a weird season, folks, and even though the Bruins haven't been really clicking like we've seen in years past when they had a huge GF/GA differential, they're earning top spot in the East (allowing for games in hand).  2/3rds of the season to go, of course, and it gets harder in terms of scheduling, but I think this start is legit.

The odd thing is that they look like a shell of the team that steamrolled everyone for two months last year. Yet, that team couldn't get out of the first Round.

The NHL is just plain wacky. I'd rather skip the actual record, and just look at their play. As long as they are incrementally getting stronger, all we have to do is sit back and enjoy the ride.

...........not worrying about having 8 teams in front of you in a 48 game season. 

In response to asmaha's comment:

That team was one goal away from the second round.  Yes, they didn't get there, but "couldn't get out of the first round" sounds like a 4-0 loss.

 

In response to Bookboy007's comment:

To men, it means they have been fun to watch so far and that they have a chance to win it all.  Most years, we spend a lot more time watching the regular season than we do watching the playoffs.  It's a lot more enjoyable when they win.  This is a good team.

The rest of that stuff has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the games.  They've played all NHL teams and have won most of them.  How those NHL teams did last season doesn't change the fact that I'm watching Bruins games and victories.

The same goes for the powerplay at home.  "Wow, the B's won 3-1 but they were 0-3 on the powerplay.  That sucked."  Never heard that...outside of here.

 

True that, but I think to me that means the story of the great start is a non-story.  This is a good team playing well enough to win on 7 of every 10 nights.  Everything else is column inches.  I was looking to see if there was anything to back up the impression that they're doing something above and beyond and I didn't find it.

In response to Bookboy007's comment:

That's just odd stats that people like to talk about.  If the '83-84 team started out 20-0, it would have no bearing at all on today, right?

Just another case of people using stats incorrectly. 

Outside of Pitt and the B's, the East stinks!

In response to asmaha's comment:

I think one of the reasons the Bruins steam rolled through last Nov.-Dec. was that the scoring was spread out. The 4th line has been brutal minus- 9 so far this year and the 3rd line has been discussed at nauseum cause it isn't clicking like last season.

Great things that can carry you through until the bad tangibles that get worked on. PK, goaltending and overall defense have been awesome, i'll leave out the third defensive pairing.

I am worried about the strength of schedule but becuase of the really good things that the Bruins are doing right now, I think they will weather 34 games in 63 days. Take it from a former swabby like me, it is going to be some ruff seas out there.

Funny Pittsburgh was mentioned, I watched them last night and they are not as good as they or media thinks they are. Can't wait for that game.

That team was one goal away from the second round.  Yes, they didn't get there, but "couldn't get out of the first round" sounds like a 4-0 loss.

There's so much talk around here trying to equate their play right now with what they will do in the playoffs. I'm saying that it really doesn't matter as long as we can enjoy wins and see some progress. The point about the WSH series was that getting the perfect team or seeing perfect play right now doesn't matter...last year we all thought they were invincible for a stretch and turned out not to be the case.

OP threw out the question what does this all mean? My answer is very little other than we get to watch a pretty good team win some games. That's all.

 

In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

I agree, their defence or goaltending on any given night can be really bad as witnessed in that game against Philly. Fleury is sort of like Bryzgalov, you never know which guy will show up, ok maybe not that bad but Fleury can look pretty shaky some nights. Maybe a better comparison would be Leaky Lou who let in his favorite number against the Wings. Vigneault left him in for all 8, gotta love it.

In response to asmaha's comment:

that team didn't get out of the first round for two main reasons. 1. they cannot win without patrice bergeron. 2. they ran into a goalie that played like dryden for a month

In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

After their incredible Nov-Dec run last year Horton got hurt which messed the B's up considerably .  That was a considerable factor in addition to the schedule and spread out scoring.

In response to asmaha's comment:

I couldn't agree more!

In response to lucdufour's comment:

With Horton healthy and the 3rd line contributing I think the Bruins can take any team right now in a 7 game series including the Hawks and Ducks. That changes if the Bruins head into the playoffs with Bourque on the 3rd line, the 4th line keeps playing horribly, bottom D pairing continues its negeative trend and the top 6 forwards are soley relied on to score.

The Bruins can get away with these things mentioned against the Tampas, Floridas, Islanders, bottom wellers but they won't against the better teams.

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

Anyone quoting stats has an agenda and use stats to prove it.

Yes, I'm guilty as charged.  and I think everyone else is, too.

 

As for the OP, a great start doesn't mean that much come playoff time.

The worst start or losing streak in 36 years would mean more come playoff time.

A good example of "using stats incorrectly" is the mere mention of the B's in Nov and Dec of last year.  The Bruins season comprised of almost 6 full months.  Outside of the anomoly mentioned, the B's weren't even a 500 team.  Despite everyones assertion the B's should have won against Washington(me included), both their play and results were indicative of the large sample.

In response to asmaha's comment:

Pretty well sums up the B's season so far.

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

And you're the only one whose ever said it....anywhere.