Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor
posted at 4/3/2012 3:55 PM EDT
In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor
In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor : There you go again. Obviously statistics don't shape your opinions much. What does the above have to do with whether the loss of Savard hurt more than 81? Nothing. Whether the team is gearing up for the playoffs has nothing to do with the context of this particular question. Zero. Poor stretches from Jan-March, has nothing to do with anything in this case. Zippo. The Bruins weren't being built for the playoffs in 09/10, in fact they had no real identity then. If they did, it has nothing to do with #81 vs Savard. In fact whatever they were built for that year was compromised in that a key component was deleted at the last minute, without a plan, or the means to replace it. Finally, there was no rebuild going on the year we're talking about. 09/10 was supposed to yield the results of an earlier rebuild.
Posted by stevegm
You know who statistics are for don't you? As always, statistics need context to be valid. What part of the season you are in, ie January or May is important to the numbers.
I'll try to be clearer. The improvement of the team after Savard's injury may be attributed to other factors, other than simply the absence of Savard. For example, as they have done the last couple of years, they may have had a lull after Christmas (resulting in their sub 500 record with Savard) that lasted until the last dozen games or so when they started to gear up for the playoffs (resulting in the 10W-8L record you quoted). You posted the team had a better record after Savard got hurt so I was trying to give other reasons for the improvement.
And yes, they were being built. Chiarelli has a 5 year plan and the Kesel trade was a tweak in that plan. They won the cup the next year. The shift that took place with the subtraction of Kessel was a more balanced approach to scoring. This is what wins in playoffs. Also, and I'm going by memory here, but Chiarelli didn't have much cap room do play with that season, if fact I do remember that they signed Krecji to a contract that off-season with the money they could have spent on Kessel (it was never presented that way but to me it always was Krejci or Kessel). So not immediately replacing Kessel was more a money issue than a fumble by management. Maybe somebody can confirm or refute the cap thing. If they didn't trade Kessel would they have had Krejci? He proved pretty valuable.
Going back to the original question, losing Kessel did reduce the regular season goals for stat, but wasn't the be all and end all of the teams success (or failure) that year.