Posted in Ponderings December 31st, 2008
Let’s put this in perspective. The Bruins were 5-3-3 at the end of October. With the win over the Penguins last night, they’ve been 23-2-1 since. A winning percentage like that is something you see in the NBA, where teams can be disproportionately better than others due to the presence of a franchise player (or more). A 23-2-1 record in hockey is almost unfathomable.
On Christmas day, the Globe ran an article that brushed on a topic I’ve been mulling…do the Bruins really need to do anything to the roster to make this team better? In times like this, and especially with a young team, you wonder if adding a veteran presence would be beneficial in the long run. I think that if this team were in, say, a three-way dogfight for the top spot in the Eastern Conference I’d say yes. However, when you’re blowing away nearly all of your competition, it’s hard to justify tweaking your roster with a trade unless they can do something only involving minor draft picks or minor leaguers. In fact, the only way I can see justifying a trade would be if they suffer any more injuries and need to add some depth.
I think Peter Chiarelli and staff have to be given due credit for the team that’s been put together. With the exception of Ryder, the team was mostly quiet in the offseason thus displaying confidence with the team currently on hand. Lord knows they haven’t disappointed. Even Ryder has been extremely productive of late with him now leading the league in game winning goals with seven.
There’s only been one very minor beef I’ve had with the Bruins this year (besides the Pro Shop). The good thing it’s been with marketing and it’s something I’ve forgotten about since October. What’s with the “They want it as bad as you” slogan? Hey, I want it bad, but shouldn’t the players want it MORE than me? Fortunately, the team has answered this question for me.
Posted in Recaps, Ponderings December 20th, 2008
The other night against the Maple Leafs the Bruins did something almost unthought of in this young season: they nearly squandered a four goal lead. Last year, the mere thought of even HAVING a four goal lead was far-fetched, but those kind of leads have become almost commonplace this season. Ten days prior in Tampa Bay, they nearly blew a similar lead against the Lightning. It should be pointed out that in either game no lead was actually lost…but the other team came damn close to tying it.
Such is life in the new Bruins realm. We’ve actually gotten used to winning, and winning big. But is it really GOOD for the Bruins to have it easy, game after game? I think close games are a good thing. It tests the team and forces them to buckle down and play harder. The fact that they didn’t blow either lead shows that they’ve got moxie. As nice as it is to have blowout win after blowout win, that really doesn’t prepare a team for tough times. You want your team to face adversity before the playoffs so that they’re ready for it. You have to wonder if last year’s Patriots wouldn’t have had a better showing against the Giants in the Super Bowl if they had one or two regular season losses under their belt.
For this same reason I’m also subconsciously hoping for a couple of games where the Bruins fall behind by a few goals and rally back. Of course, you’ll never see me admit that when they’re down 3-0 midway through the 2nd period but, hey, if they come out winning in the end it’ll all be fine with me.
Posted in Paraphernalia December 18th, 2008
A big thanks to Cornelius Hardenbergh for procuring two foam Bruins claws for the Doobie family. Dude, you went out of the way to buy and ship them and I really appreciate it. These puppies will be in full use tonight for the Leafs-Bruins tilt.
I’d also like to thank the others who offered to do the same thing. At first I was willing to lump it myself, but then the level of frustration with the Bruins Pro Shop got to be too much and Cornelius’ offer came in at the right time. C’mon, no one can answer a damn phone during business hours in almost three weeks?? And then when I get through at closing time one night, the girl I talked to said they were all out, didn’t know when they would get more and told me to call back next week. In other words, I got the brush-off from someone who wanted to go home. Bruins Pro Shop = FAIL.
Posted in Recaps December 13th, 2008
Well, thank goodness any jinx I may have caused with the arrogance of my last post lasted for only one loss (uh oh…<thunderclap>) as the Bruins soundly…er…thrashed Atlanta last night by a score of 7-3. The most impressive performance IMHO was by Mark Stuart who, incredibly, scored two goals. This is a man who had 6 goals in his first 142 NHL games before last night. On the first goal, you can almost swear you see David Krejci doing a double take seeing Stuart charging up the middle before passing him the puck.
The game was extremely physical, including four fights and a cheap shot on Phil Kessel along the boards by Joey Crabb that earned Crabb a game misconduct. Fortunately Kessel was fine and even scored shortly into third period from the resulting power play. Shawn Thornton was visibly winded in his final fight with Boris Valabik. It’s going to be very interesting to see how this carries over to tonight’s game in Boston.
Hello-goodbye: Aaron Ward returned, but lasted only 62 seconds before leaving after what sounds like a re-aggravation of his ankle injury.
Posted in Bruins History December 10th, 2008
The incredible Bruins success so far this season has had me wondering: if things continue at this pace…especially if it culminates with a Stanley Cup victory…could this be considered the greatest Bruins season of the expansion era?
First of all, I want to stress “season” at this point and not “team”. Even if this season DOES turn out to be the greatest, it would be too soon to supplant the early 70s Hall of Fame teams of Orr, Esposito, Bucyk, Cheevers, etc. with the members of the current squad. For all we know, Kessel, Lucic, Krejci, etc. could flame out in a couple of years leaving a short, but (hopefully) powerful legacy. Granted, some may use the terms “season” and “team” interchangably, but for the sake of this argument, I’m going to keep them separate.
Second, it’s also hard to compare the early century teams, who played both fewer games and against fewer teams. Those include the 1929-30 Bruins (38-5-1) and the 1938-39 Bruins (36-10-2 & a Stanley Cup). I’m also using regular season records since it’s impossible at this point to determine 2008-09 Bruins playoff success. Therefore I won’t be using the 1969-70 Bruins as, even though they won the Stanley Cup, they only had 99 points in the regular season.
Third, it could be way too soon to be making comparisons like this. There’s a very good chance that this team starts to even out, or at least drop off some from this ludicrous level of play.
That being said, I was still curious enough to do some stat digging to find out how these Bruins compare to the Bruins I grew up with. So here’s where the Bruins stand this year in comparison to each of the five Bruins seasons in which they scored 110+ points. These are through the first 27 games of each season and, naturally, the older seasons use ties as opposed to “OT losses”.
2008-09 Bruins (final record: ? ?): 19-4-4, 42 points
1970-71 Bruins (57-14-7, 121 points): 18-5-4, 40 points
1971-72 Bruins (54-13-11, 119 points, Stanley Cup): 19-6-2, 40 points
1973-74 Bruins (52-17-9, 113 points): 20-4-3, 43 points
1975-76 Bruins (48-15-17, 113 points): 14-6-7, 35 points
1977-78 Bruins (51-18-11, 113 points): 17-5-5, 39 points
So in relation to the five best Bruins seasons of the expansion era, the ‘08-’09 Bruins are only second to the start of the ‘73-’74 team which started out 20-4-3. Some news media may dig up a faster start elsewhere along the line, but I’m limiting my research to these teams only.
In the end, it really only matters about the Stanley Cup. Still, it’s nice to know that this year ranks high among the best Bruins seasons of the expansion era…so far.
