>
> There is one major personnel change for Lowell between last year and this
> year.  Greg Bullock left Lowell and turned pro after his sophomore year
> last year, a year in which he had 25-40--65 (18-29--47 HE) and amassed 125
> penalty minutes (60 HE).
>
 
I don't think it's that simple.  Bullock did have his problems with consistency
and self-control last year.  Significant problems.  However, I didn't view him
as Evil Incarnate in a UML uniform.  Put another way, his jersey number wasn't
666.  :-)
 
Bullock certainly wasn't a negative the previous year (his freshman year) when
Lowell made their first Div 1 trip to the NC$$s and nearly made the Final Four.
On that team he was a freshman on a team loaded with seniors.  A late recruit,
he came in and led Hockey East in scoring and I never caught hint of any
negative vibes about him.
 
Last year, however, WAS different.  Did his freshman success go to his head?
Perhaps.  Was he unprepared for the leadership demands that were thrust on him
after all those seniors left?  Perhaps.  Was he emotionally unable to deal with
the constant defensive focus on him, being shadowed on many occasions, after so
much of Lowell's offense graduated?  Perhaps.  Or was he really a problem all
along that only became obvious last year after the seniors who held him in
check left?  Perhaps.
 
But there WERE problems.  There were games when he was moved to the fourth
line and others when he was benched for the remainder of a period.  Usually
for stupid penalties.  Bullock's PIMs soared from 52 in his freshman year
to 125, despite Crowder's demands and attempts at discipline.  Some of this
was due to the increased defensive attention he was getting, but some of it
was clearly the result of emotions that were out of control.  And of course
the culmination of it all was his self-immolation in the Hockey East
consolations against Maine, when he was left in the locker room for the third
period.
 
I was one of those who had hoped that Bullock would come back this year, but
return as a more mature Bullock.  I was disappointed that he didn't because he
was a lot of fun to watch when he came to play.
 
On the surface it WOULD appear that Lowell's turnaround this year was addition
by subtraction.  But is it?
 
I would contend that the single most significant personel move for Lowell this
year was not Bullock's subtraction, but Fillion's TOTAL turnaround from his
rookie season.  I'm not sure if anyone but Lowell fans realized just how poor
the River Hawks goaltending was last year.  There were scattered games of good
goaltending but on the whole it was awful, clearly the worst in Hockey East.
There were times I wanted to start a Sieve chant on our own goalies.  There
were times when our defenseman would protect our goalies, and an evil part of
my brain would wish that they'd step aside and let the opposing forwards cream
the Swiss Cheesers.  I'm sure it seemed even worse since we'd gone from
All-Everything Goalie Dwayne Roloson to last year's trio, but in any objective
sense the goaltending last year was a disaster.
 
Using the stats that Mike provided, Lowell has gone from 4.83 goals/HE game
last year to 3.86 this year.  Bullock wasn't the greatest player in his
defensive zone, but 99.9999% of this goal-a-game drop has nothing to do with
him.
 
Last year I made the prediction that if UML got middle-of-the-road goaltending,
then they could finish in the top 3.  Some people thought I was nuts at the
time, but as things turned out they instead got roadkill goaltending.  This
year they have done exactly what I predicted for last year.
 
I'd also discount any Bullock-effect on Christian Sbrocca's PIMs.  In Sbrocca's
freshman year, BEFORE Bullock arrived, Sbrocca had 63 PIMs.  The following
year, Bullock's freshman year, Sbrocca had 80, more than Bullock's 52.  Last
year, while Bullock was running amok, Sbrocca *lowered* his PIMs to 56.  I
don't really find any Bullock effect in any of this.
 
Now has Bullock's offense been missed?  Goalscoring is up (4.38 up to 4.73).
However, Lowell did struggle at the beginning of the season with their scoring.
The coaches even commented that it would take some time to replace Bullock's
offense.  As things have turned out, Brendan Concannon has upped his production
(among other incremental improvements due to maturity, development, and playing
time) but IMO Marc Salsman and Ryan Sandholm have been the biggest improvments
to the offense since their emergence has given Lowell three lines that can
score.  In any case, I believe he was missed at the beginning of the year.
 
So has this year's success been purely "addition by subtraction" and
attributable primarily to Bullock's departure?  I would disagree.  There have
been other factors.  Had Bullock come back this year with his freshman year's
attitude, I think the RiverHawks would be an even stronger team.
 
*****************************************************        ,-******-,
* Dave Hendrickson    "Robo"     [log in to unmask] *     *'     ##     '*
*        A Hockey Polygamist and Get-A-Lifer        *   *##   ___##___   ##*
* GO BROONS!!!      Go Red Wings!!      Go Canucks! *  *   ##|   ___  \##   *
* GO UMASS-LOWELL!!! Go BU!! Go Maine! Go Michigan. * *      |  |___)  |     *
* --------------------------------------------------* *######|   ___  <######*
* Although I can't remember ever having an original * *      |  |___)  |     *
* thought, and am certainly parroting someone who   *  *   ##|________/##   *
* actually has a brain, these opinions are mine,    *   *##      ##      ##*
* not Hewlett-Packard's.                            *     *,     ##     ,*
*****************************************************        '-*******-'
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.