Thursday, October 31st, 2024
 
 
 
Updates automatically
Twitter Link
CHN iOS App
 
NCAA
1967 1970

ECAC
1967 1968 1969 1970 1973 1980 1986 1996 1997 2003 2005 2010

IVY
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1977 1978 1983 1984 1985 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2012 2014

Cleary Jell-O Mold
2002 2003 2005

Ned Harkness Cup
2003 2005 2008 2013
 
Brendon
Iles
Pokulok
Schafer
Syphilis

The GAA Battle

Posted by Beeeej 
The GAA Battle
Posted by: Beeeej (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: January 30, 2005 09:33AM

I just sent a brief note to USCHO's Stats department. I'm probably not only wasting my time, but obsessing a bit much. :-)

I understand that GAA is typically only *represented* in stats to the second decimal place. But the fact that David McKee's GAA *rounds up* to 1.43 (1.427363078875) and Matti Kaltiainen's GAA *rounds down* to 1.43 (1.43060319585) tells me something's wrong with the way you're listing them on the stats page. It's one thing to *list* them both has having a 1.43 GAA, that I understand. I simply dispute whether it's accurate to list them as being *tied* by virtue of those "matching" 1.43 GAAs.

Beeeej

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)
Date: January 30, 2005 11:47AM

Yes. You are obsessing too much. And this coming from me.
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: Beeeej (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: January 30, 2005 11:49AM

I'm a black kettle!!

Thanks, pot. ;-)

Beeeej

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: January 30, 2005 12:38PM

To get an idea, McKee's GAA would be exactly equal (to several decimal points) to Kaltiainen's had McKee played 2:51 less, or had Kaltianianen played 1:49 seconds more. So we're talking a margin of error of less than what a goalie could be pulled for delayed penalties and extra man attempts. While the numbers are big enough (i.e. not a few seconds) to argue that McKee may indeed have played a tiny, tiny bit better, I also can't blame them for calling it a tie.
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: Beeeej (---.nyc.rr.com)
Date: January 30, 2005 12:52PM

I can't, either - in fact it's probably an algorithm rather than any conscious choice on USCHO's part. I don't have to like it, though. :-{)}

Beeeej

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: andyw2100 (---.twcny.rr.com)
Date: January 30, 2005 02:25PM

[Q]So we're talking a margin of error of less than what a goalie could be pulled for delayed penalties and extra man attempts. [/Q]

Does the time the goalie is off the ice for delayed penalties really come out of his time played stats? (I'm sure you're right that it does...I just never realized that it did.)

Thanks.
Andy W.
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: January 30, 2005 03:22PM

[Q]andyw2100 Wrote:

Does the time the goalie is off the ice for delayed penalties really come out of his time played stats? (I'm sure you're right that it does...I just never realized that it did.)[/q]

I could have sworn it didn't, but I couldn't find anything about GAA in the NCAA rules.



 
___________________________
JTW

@jtwcornell91@hostux.social
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: French Rage (---.Stanford.EDU)
Date: January 30, 2005 03:47PM

Hasnt Matti only played half the total time McKee has?
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: Avash (---.twcny.rr.com)
Date: January 30, 2005 04:11PM

[Q]French Rage Wrote:

Hasnt Matti only played half the total time McKee has?[/q]

David has played 1261:04, and Matti (who has been sharing goaltending duties with Cory Schneider, who happens to be 4th in the country in GAA) has played 796:52

The Kaltiainen/Schneider duo is having the same type of success that, recently, Howard/Doyle and Underhill/LeNeveu had.


 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: January 30, 2005 04:58PM

Yes, it's obsessive. But does one more decimal place really make a difference, on GAA or save pecentage? As others noted, for GAA the rounding difference amounts to to perhaps 5 minutes played more or less if you carry the season out to three deccimal places.

Remember the term JND, or just noticeable difference? I think if you carry it out one more decimal place, you've gotten beyond what's noticeable.

With save percentage, a third decimal place implies precision that isn't matched in reality because the stat-keepers are going to miss the odd save here or there, or give credit to a shot gloved just outside the cage. McKee has 432 saves on 462 shots allegedly on goal, or .935. (actually .9351 so it rounds legitimately to .94). But if the scorekeeper misses one save per game, which wouldn't be hard, it's 412/442=.932, and if the scorekeeper was overly optimistic and counted one shot each game as a save when it was outside the cage, it would be be 452/482=.938, still rounding to .94. So there's a danger in thinking that because you can move the decimal places out, you should.

I'd say if two goalies finish the season with a .95 save average or a 1.40 GAA average, it's a tie, regardless of whether they're really .951 and .952 on saves, or 1.399 and 1.401 on goals. It's a tie.

Maybe we're on this thread because game clocks now count the final minute in tenths. Really, it should only be the final ten seconds in tenths, which divides the final ten seconds alone into 100 components. On the court for the players, coaches, and fans, it makes sense to go to tenths at 1:00 remaining and not :10 remaining because if you glance up and see a 1 and a 5, you might not know if it's 15 or 1.5 seconds remaining.

But are sports that granular as the final minute in 600 segments? I think there should be a journalist's code of ethics (oxymoron, right, like legal ethics?) that says you only cite the tenths in the last five seconds. The fact that morons on TV do it doesn't mean the print media with hopefully more brains if not such whitened teeth should follow suit. Bill Russell was great expounding on whether the clock had a long or short two seconds left in the fourth quarter. Other than that, there isn't a JND.

Let's get back to something more useful, like Cornell's chances of getting a #1 seed.
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: January 30, 2005 05:21PM

wrong thread ;)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2005 05:21PM by DeltaOne81.
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: jeh25 (---.ri.ri.cox.net)
Date: January 30, 2005 06:13PM

[Q]billhoward Wrote:


Remember the term JND, or just noticeable difference? I think if you carry it out one more decimal place, you've gotten beyond what's noticeable.

[/q]

Back to intro psych for you, Bill. :p

I may not play one on TV, but I am in fact a psychophysicist in real life, and you've utterly abused a technically precise piece of jargon here. Weber is rolling in his grave as we speak.

The concept I think you are looking for here is one of significant digits, not simulus intensity.

Pedantically yours. ;)

jh





 
___________________________
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team... :(
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: jkahn (---.client.comcast.net)
Date: January 30, 2005 09:39PM

[Q]billhoward wrote:
I'd say if two goalies finish the season with a .95 save average or a 1.40 GAA average, it's a tie, regardless of whether they're really .951 and .952 on saves, or 1.399 and 1.401 on goals. It's a tie.[/Q]
So, .9451 and .9549 would be a tie (though separated by .0098), but .9449 and .9451 would produce a clear winner? This makes no sense at all. Whoever has the best save percentage (or GAA), no matter how many decimal places it takes, is the person who has the best percentage.

 
___________________________
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: January 31, 2005 03:09PM

One can carry the math out to four, five, six decimal places to produce a goaltending number that's just slightly different from another ... but the margin of error is higher (for save percentage certainly) because of the vagaries of stat-keeping.

That's why three decimal places of precision for GAA is enough (1.xx) and two for save percentage (0.xx) where it's possible to be off by several shots a game on shots that may or may not have been saves.

Ditto for, say, points and assists per game. Does the ref always get that second assist right?
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: cornelldavy (---.lawnet.ucla.edu)
Date: January 31, 2005 03:37PM

This reminds me of the American League batting title race of 1910 (who could forget it?) between Ty Cobb and Nap Lajoie. The winner of the batting crown was to receive a new car, and because Cobb was so hated, when Lajoie played in St. Louis on the last day of the season, the Browns' manager ordered his third baseman to play on the outfield grass to allow Lajoie to bunt for hits all day long in order to pass Cobb. Lajoie went 8 for 9, but even with the help, he lost the race to Cobb with batting averages of .384944 to .384084. What's the point of all this? Even though at the time, it seemed like Cobb won by going to the fourth (and generally unseen) decimal place, historical research ultimately has shown that Lajoie actually won the race, .384 to .383. Cobb still got the car, and the research was done after Lajoie's death, so I'm sure it's hardly consolation.

 
___________________________
Alex F. '03 * [www.uclahockey.org]
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: January 31, 2005 03:51PM

Didn't I answer this last week? Yes, it's counted as "Empty Net" when the goalie comes off for a delayed penalty. No, he doesn't get credit for playing goal when he's sitting at the bench.

 
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: January 31, 2005 04:02PM

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

One can carry the math out to four, five, six decimal places to produce a goaltending number that's just slightly different from another ... but the margin of error is higher (for save percentage certainly) because of the vagaries of stat-keeping.

That's why three decimal places of precision for GAA is enough (1.xx) and two for save percentage (0.xx) where it's possible to be off by several shots a game on shots that may or may not have been saves.

Ditto for, say, points and assists per game. Does the ref always get that second assist right?[/q]

First off, we're NOT talking about SV%. There's no margin of error for GAA. The number of goals allowed is known and the time he's played is known.

Second, regarding SV%, would you say there's a margin of error on game scores? What if you don't think a goal should have counted, but the ref does? It's still a goal. Just the same, there's an official who counts shots on goal. Whatever he deems a shot on goal is a shot on goal. Those stats don't carry a margin of error; they're official. And since a shot on goal is 1.000000... shot on goal and not approximately one shot on goal, you can, and should, take the stats out to as many decimal places as needed to break a tie.

Whatever is on the official scoresheet, be it shots, goals, assists, or minutes played is all that matters and the only thing ever used to calculate stats, no matter what you happen to think about it.


 
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: jeh25 (---.epsy.uconn.edu)
Date: January 31, 2005 04:51PM

Bill is arguing false precision as far as I can tell...

Age is arguing that no such thing exists in sports because, as sports fans, we collectively agree to treat numbers veridically, noise and all. Is there noise in the system? Certainly, but we all agree to pretend it doesn't exist.

I gotta go with Age on this one.

A hit is a hit, an at bat is an at bat and a goal is a goal. Do timekeepers shave seconds off the clock, affecting GAA? Certainly. Do homer score keepers inflate shots boosting SV%? Certainly. But for the purpose of records we all agree to pretend it doesn't exist.

Football has perhaps the best example of this convenient fiction with spotting the ball. The ref spotting the ball is inherently inaccurate but we pretend it is an accurate event and then watch as they measure with the chains.

just my $.02

 
___________________________
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team... :(

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2005 04:53PM by CowbellGuy.
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: January 31, 2005 04:53PM

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:
First off, we're NOT talking about SV%. There's no margin of error for GAA. The number of goals allowed is known and the time he's played is known.

Second, regarding SV%, would you say there's a margin of error on game scores? What if you don't think a goal should have counted, but the ref does? It's still a goal. Just the same, there's an official who counts shots on goal. Whatever he deems a shot on goal is a shot on goal. Those stats don't carry a margin of error; they're official. And since a shot on goal is 1.000000... shot on goal and not approximately one shot on goal, you can, and should, take the stats out to as many decimal places as needed to break a tie.

Whatever is on the official scoresheet, be it shots, goals, assists, or minutes played is all that matters and the only thing ever used to calculate stats, no matter what you happen to think about it.[/q]
While there's not a margin or error on goals (or at least, not unless its a really contrived scenario), there is a margin of error on time played. Some score keepers take off for delayed penalty goalie pulls, some don't. There's of course a question of a few seconds on that even if you do. Is it when he leaves the net, when the other guy hits the ice, when he leaves the ice? Same goes for end of game empty net scenarios - do you take that out? Usually, but what's the timing exactly? A few seconds here or there different. So while the difference is certainly less than for SV%, there is still a practical margin of error.

That was my point for doing out the time difference that would make them equal (note I didn't do a goals difference).

Sorry to contradict you on several threads today, Age... it's nothing personal! :-D
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: January 31, 2005 04:58PM

Of course there's some error from the timekeepers, but whatever's on the official box score, for the purpose of keeping records, is the Word of God, and may be used with as much precision as anyone needs.

 
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: January 31, 2005 05:17PM

[q]Of course there's some error from the timekeepers, but whatever's on the official box score, for the purpose of keeping records, is the Word of God, and may be used with as much precision as anyone needs.[/q]If what you're trying to do is decide on a qualitative level whether goalie A is better than goalie B it's silly to look at the third or further decimal place. But if you want to say who had the better GAA or Sv% stat this year then the official stats are, as Age puts it, the Word of God.
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: ugarte (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)
Date: January 31, 2005 05:19PM

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:

Of course there's some error from the timekeepers, but whatever's on the official box score, for the purpose of keeping records, is the Word of God, and may be used with as much precision as anyone needs.[/q]
Until, say, someone goes back and awards the 1910 batting title to Nap Lajoie.


 
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: January 31, 2005 05:28PM

If we carry GAA out to 1.xxx instead of 1.xx, sooner or later we'll have a tie, there, too, that maybe is broken by going to 1.xxxx GAA.

As for save percentage, which others have remarked on as well - why is it listed as 94% not 94.2% on USCHO - one of the two component numbers is suspect. The number of goals allowed is pretty concrete (well, maybe Dartmouth was offside and it shouldn't have counted, but it did). The number of shots at the goalie is rife for potential error because a human is judging them, and from a lot farther away than the refs whose judgment is grist for a lot of postings here already.

The scorekeeper might favor the home team and see shots-just-wide (that are gloved) as saves for the home goalie, or he'll only notice two of the three shots hitting the goalie in a flurry in front of the net, or he'll count all three shots as shots on goal even though the second hit a defenseman not the goalie and the third was gloved wide of the net. Maybe the errors cancel themselves out, maybe not. Once the record book is signed, it's possible to carry the save percentage out to two, three, or four decimal places of precision, but that's not the same as two, three or four decimal places of accuracy. G.I.G.O.

Three and a half decades later, does it matter whether Ken Dryden saved 93.9 percent or 94 percent of the shots that the scorekeeper says Dryden faced? In some ways, it's probably better to remember 94 percent, because it's an accurate enough reflection on his career. Dave LeNeveu I believe was 93.8 or 94 percent on saves, take your pick, and if you go with the 94% number, it says these two remarkable goalies (or extraordinary and merely remarkable) goalies, playing a generation apart, stopped 94 of every 100 shots they faced. If those were in fact Dryden's and LeNeveneu's save percentages, is someone going to say LeNeveu was a better goalie? The difference is something like 2, 3 or 4 saves over the career: 938 vs. 939 saves out of every thousand shots faced.

A lot of this is a philosophical discussion and it's shaped by how you see the world or what your job is. I've had to explain with broad brush strokes to people who want to see the big picture and not have them caught up in minutiae, for instance buying one PC instead of a another because its Winstone score is 28.8 when someone else is 28.1. (Which all gets lost when the bleeping computer crashes every hour because the clock got pushed or some piece of software disagreed with XP and lost.) If I was the timekeeper for Nascar, then, yeah, I'd want the stopwatch to measure fractional seconds out to three places. And if I ever my eyes lasered, I think I'd like the surgeon to work out the cutting patters to about nineteen decimal places.

(True story. My colleague, five-six years ago, goes in for the eye surgery. She's patient No. 1 in the office at 9 a.m. She's waiting. She's nervous. She hears the doctor fire up the computer in the operating room. She hears the Windows 98 bootup chime. She knocks on the door: "Um, doctor, would it be okay if I was your *second* procedure today?";)

 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: Robb (---.169.137.235.ts46v-07.otnc1.ftwrth.tx.charter.co)
Date: January 31, 2005 06:51PM

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:

I just sent a brief note to USCHO's Stats department. I'm probably not only wasting my time, but obsessing a bit much.

I understand that GAA is typically only *represented* in stats to the second decimal place. But the fact that David McKee's GAA *rounds up* to 1.43 (1.427363078875) and Matti Kaltiainen's GAA *rounds down* to 1.43 (1.43060319585) tells me something's wrong with the way you're listing them on the stats page. It's one thing to *list* them both has having a 1.43 GAA, that I understand. I simply dispute whether it's accurate to list them as being *tied* by virtue of those "matching" 1.43 GAAs.

Beeeej[/q]
I'll sign your petition if you go along with mine asking that all scoring stats be on a "per game played" basis, the way goalie stats are done.
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: Beeeej (---.nycmny83.dynamic.covad.net)
Date: January 31, 2005 07:20PM

I've been shouting into the wind on that one for ages. Gee, I wonder why there are no Cornellians on the Goals Scored leader board? Could it be because we pay several fewer games?! Blah.

Beeeej

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: RichH (---.stny.rr.com)
Date: January 31, 2005 07:26PM

[Q]Robb Wrote:
I'll sign your petition if you go along with mine asking that all scoring stats be on a "per game played" basis, the way goalie stats are done.
[/q]
Or, you could use collegehockeystats.com, where all but PPG, SHG, and GWG are on a per-game basis.
[www.collegehockeystats.com]
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: Beeeej (---.nycmny83.dynamic.covad.net)
Date: January 31, 2005 07:29PM

[Q]RichH Wrote:Or, you could use collegehockeystats.com, where all but PPG, SHG, and GWG are on a per-game basis.[/q]

...and where Matti Kaltiainen is correctly listed as second, not tied for first, in GAA.

Beeeej

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: Beeeej (---.nycmny83.dynamic.covad.net)
Date: January 31, 2005 07:30PM

By the way, don't you love that our "clutch-and-grab" team is 49th out of 58 teams in penalty minutes per game for the season?

Beeeej

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.rr.com)
Date: January 31, 2005 07:32PM

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:

By the way, don't you love that our "clutch-and-grab" team is 49th out of 58 teams in penalty minutes per game for the season?

Beeeej[/q]
we just know how to get away with it ... duuhhhh, c'mon beeeej nut

 
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.rr.com)
Date: January 31, 2005 07:34PM

and if it weren't for mr. o'byrne we'd be even lower on that list

 
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: Will (---.cable.mindspring.com)
Date: January 31, 2005 07:35PM

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

and if it weren't for mr. o'byrne we'd be even lower on that list[/q]

Hey, it's not O'Byrne's fault he's that big. It's just good genes and upbringing. :-D

 
___________________________
Is next year here yet?
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.rr.com)
Date: January 31, 2005 07:37PM

sure it is ... so i guess this explains his propensity for stupid penalties?

 
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: Will (---.cable.mindspring.com)
Date: January 31, 2005 07:46PM

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

sure it is ... so i guess this explains his propensity for stupid penalties?[/q]

Well, some of us have been saying for a while that O'Byrne gets penalized simply because he's too big for his own good.

 
___________________________
Is next year here yet?
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.rr.com)
Date: January 31, 2005 07:54PM

[Q]Will Wrote:

ben03 Wrote:

sure it is ... so i guess this explains his propensity for stupid penalties?[/Q]
Well, some of us have been saying for a while that O'Byrne gets penalized simply because he's too big for his own good.[/q]
but holding/tripping/interfering your opposition directly in front of the referee is somehow not his fault?
your defense was the case with Stephen Bâby but i'll have to disagree with you for big'ole #2.

 
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: jeh25 (---.ri.ri.cox.net)
Date: January 31, 2005 07:56PM

[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Once the record book is signed, it's possible to carry the save percentage out to two, three, or four decimal places of precision, but that's not the same as two, three or four decimal places of accuracy.[/q]

We get it Bill. We know it isn't accurate. We don't care. You're missing the point.

As sports fans, we've agreed to to live by the fiction that:

a) the numbers are accurate
and
b) absurd numbers of decimal places have meaning.

LaDainian Tomlinson's 2,370 single season yards from scrimmage in 2003 are certainly not meaningfully different from Barry Sanders' 2,358 yards in 1997 given that there was certainly some error in spotting the ball on Barry's 335 rushes and 33 receptions. But they aren't listed as a tie in the books - by convention, we put Tomlinson ahead of Sanders.

Does the third digit in a playoff batting average really mean anything? Of course not. But we still talk about Barry Bonds' .222 average in the playoffs instead of saying he was 2 for 9.

[Q]billhoward Wrote:
A lot of this is a philosophical discussion and it's shaped by how you see the world or what your job is.
[/q]

Gotta disagree. We have a future judge, an ecommerce web programmer, a psychophysicist, and a rocket scientist here. We all use numbers very differently in our jobs, yet as sports fans we all seem to have reached consensus on how stats are used in a sports context.

You seem to want to make this a philosophical discussion to justify your assertion that 93.8 = 93.9, but you're running headlong into 100+ years of sports history here.











 
___________________________
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team... :(
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: January 31, 2005 08:06PM

[q]Or, you could use collegehockeystats.com, where all but PPG, SHG, and GWG are on a per-game basis.
[www.collegehockeystats.com] [/q]Ugh. Did you have to point me to stats that show only one Cornellian in the top 50 (Moulson at #31) and two in the top 100 (Hynes at #57)? :-/
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: Lauren '06 (---.twcny.rr.com)
Date: January 31, 2005 08:43PM

[Q](Hynes at #57)? [/q]
Wow.
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: January 31, 2005 08:55PM

Last year at the Frozen Four I made myself little cheat sheets to see how many minutes Jimmy Howard had to play, for a given number of additional GA, to break LeNeveu's 1.202271... GAA record. In some hypothetical cases, I had to go to the sixth decimal place to discriminate between them. If Howard had been pulled at the 2:14 mark of the third period of the championship game, he and Lenny would literally have been tied.



 
___________________________
JTW

@jtwcornell91@hostux.social
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: RichH (---.stny.rr.com)
Date: January 31, 2005 09:01PM

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

Ugh. Did you have to point me to stats that show only one Cornellian in the top 50 (Moulson at #31) and two in the top 100 (Hynes at #57)? [/q]
Well, look at it this way. Several people here have expressed some concern that all the scoring is coming from one source (#24). One could use this as counter-evidence and re-make the "wow, this team is deep and doesn't rely on one line to get all the points" argument, especially when you throw in the #14 total offense rank.

Also, consider that the 1 PPG usually impresses us. In the national picture, that gets you #57. There are a LOT of NCAA D-1 players. (1200+, by my dirty estimate).

I'm more proud of our #1 Defense and #1 Scoring Margin rankings anyway, given our team philosophy.

 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: January 31, 2005 09:44PM

[Q]jeh25 Wrote:I get 47 mpg. What are you doing to reduce your oil consumption? [/q]

(You get forty-seven-point how many miles per gallon? <g> Is that miles per gallon or passenger miles per gallon? A loaded SUV getting 11 miles per gallon does better than two people in a 30 mpg Focus SVT or one person in a 50 mpg alternative fuel car. 'Course, most of the time Shamu just has the driver, her not-hands-free cellphone, and her Starbucks coffee on the dash, so it's still 11 not 77 passenger miles per gallon.) My commuter vehicle gets probably 100 passenger miles per gallon and rides like it's on rails because it is.

About stats and decimal places, in a parallel universe, or maybe next week, I could just as happily argue the opposite, that USCO should bring the stats out one more decimal point to keep sports fans happy. (If we take out back and shoot every announcer and writer who mentions a key three-pointer or game tying goal with "51.2" WTF difference does it make not 51 seconds left, I'd cease and desist.) In fact with the USCHO save percentage table, it's so narrow you'd swear there's one more decimal place and it's just not showing up on your PC.

As a service organization that wants to keep readers happy, USCHO should probably keep the stats lovers happy. It ticks off more people to see two decimal places than it annoys people seeing three places (me and Edward Tufte if he even gives a rap about hockey). And it should list the top 100 scorers the way collegehockeystats.com does - or the whole of Division 1 for that matter - but it doesn't.

 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: Beeeej (---.nycmny83.dynamic.covad.net)
Date: January 31, 2005 09:50PM

Nobody's asking USCHO to carry GAA out one more decimal place. We're asking them to stop representing two different GAAs (despite them appearing the same as a result of rounding) as a tie.

Beeeej

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: jeh25 (---.epsy.uconn.edu)
Date: February 01, 2005 12:01PM

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

jeh25 Wrote:I get 47 mpg. What are you doing to reduce your oil consumption? [/Q]
(You get forty-seven-point how many miles per gallon? <g> Is that miles per gallon or passenger miles per gallon? A loaded SUV getting 11 miles per gallon does better than two people in a 30 mpg Focus SVT or one person in a 50 mpg alternative fuel car.

[/q]

Rule #2 on eLF is never to bring up alternative fuels while I'm in the room - just ask Hovorka or VJ. (Rule #1 being don't piss off certain people or you'll find your browser magically forwarded to goatse.cx...)

But since you asked, that would be 45.8 vehicle mpg over the life of the car. But then again, I regularly carpool with my boss once or twice a week, so on those days, I get 91.6 passenger mpg.

And then I run a ~B40 biodiesel blend from time to time (11 of my last 32 tanks to be exact) which displaces 40% of my petroleum usage on those tanks. Thus, I'd be getting 76.3 miles per petrogallon when driving solo, or 152.6 passenger miles per petrogallon if I'm carpooling...

Your point about passenger miles is well taken, but I disagree with the assertion that a loaded SUV getting 60, 70 or even 80 passenger mpg using gasoline is better than a solo driver 50 mpg vehicle using renewables. Hell, even a Sebring getting just 20 mpg on E85 is getting 133 miles per petrogallon.









 
___________________________
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team... :(
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: February 01, 2005 01:08PM

[OT] Good stuff so long as one includes the energy input at the other end. We (Americans) are more concerned about MPG, when we're concerned about it all. The Europeans' hot button (other than not liking the president) is global warming although when you aggressively tax any engine larger than a lawn mower, that tends to drive up MPG.

Too bad there isn't a way to measure and tax (just kidding; hello, big brother) one's total energy consumption. It's easy to hang it all on the car. A couple lives in a 4,000 square foot house with drafty windows and a 65" plasma TV (500W dissipation) and drives a Prius, they're not 100% earth friendly.

Okay, back to the important stuff like 2, 3, or 4 numbers of precision.
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: February 01, 2005 04:37PM

[Q]billhoward Wrote:Too bad there isn't a way to measure and tax (just kidding; hello, big brother) one's total energy consumption. It's easy to hang it all on the car. A couple lives in a 4,000 square foot house with drafty windows and a 65" plasma TV (500W dissipation) and drives a Prius, they're not 100% earth friendly. [/q]
Aren't their fuel, heating and electricity consumption the measure of their energy consumption, and the cost (including taxes) the penalty for it?

 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: jeh25 (---.epsy.uconn.edu)
Date: February 01, 2005 05:30PM

[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:

Aren't their fuel, heating and electricity consumption the measure of their energy consumption, and the cost (including taxes) the penalty for it?

[/q]

Except that regulators keep electricity and natural gas pricing very low as freezing fixed income old people to death is bad PR.

Conversly, if you can afford a McMansion, the cost of heating and cooling it isn't gonna make you choose a smaller house. Still, that status symbol has an huge environmental footprint in terms of total energy demand.

Bill is absolutely right that its too easy to place all the blame on the transportation sector. The guy that lives in a 2000 sq ft house 4 miles from work and drives an 8 mpg Excursion has a much smaller energy demand that the guy that lives in a 4000 sq ft McMansion and commutes 30 miles in his 30 mpg Audi or 45 mpg Prius. Yet culturally, we allow the Prius owner to feel morally superior to the Excursion owner.

One solution would be progressive pricing on electricity and natural gas where the first X kWh or CCF costing less, but I'm not holding my breath. The problem is harder with fuel oil since it isn't metered monthly.


 
___________________________
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team... :(
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: nyc94 (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 01, 2005 05:40PM

[Q]jeh25 Wrote:
Yet culturally, we allow the Prius owner to feel morally superior to the Excursion owner.
[/q]

Who is "we"?
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 01, 2005 05:46PM

[q]One solution would be progressive pricing on electricity and natural gas where the first X kWh or CCF costing less, but I'm not holding my breath.[/q]Yeah, but then you get some self-righteous legislators or regulators deciding what is the "necessary" or appropriate amount of energy consumption that will be untaxed or lightly taxed. No thanks.
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: Robb (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 01, 2005 06:46PM

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

One solution would be progressive pricing on electricity and natural gas where the first X kWh or CCF costing less, but I'm not holding my breath.[/Q]
Yeah, but then you get some self-righteous legislators or regulators deciding what is the "necessary" or appropriate amount of energy consumption that will be untaxed or lightly taxed. No thanks.[/q]
Why not? They already do it (totally arbitrarily) with income - the first $X aren't taxed, whether you live in rural Alabama or downtown Manhattan.
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: February 01, 2005 06:56PM

[q]Why not? They already do it (totally arbitrarily) with income - the first $X aren't taxed, whether you live in rural Alabama or downtown Manhattan. [/q]The fact that it's already done for one thing doesn't mean we should do it for others.
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)
Date: February 01, 2005 07:17PM

[Q]KeithK Wrote:Yeah, but then you get some self-righteous legislators or regulators deciding what is the "necessary" or appropriate amount of energy consumption that will be untaxed or lightly taxed. No thanks.[/q]Specious argument. It isn't the legislator or the regulator who chooses policy, it's us through the electoral process. If the policies don't match what people want, they either aren't enacted in the first place or they are overthrown from the voting booth. That's why we don't have the highly progressive income brackets of the 50's and 60's (which never seemed to slow down the economy or the entrepeneurial spirit, by the way) anymore, and also why we'll never have a truly exemption-free (as in, no home mortgage interest write-off) flat rate. The voters keep both the Mommy State of the left and the Kleptocracy of the right in line.
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: jeh25 (---.ri.ri.cox.net)
Date: February 01, 2005 08:35PM

[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:

KeithK Wrote:Yeah, but then you get some self-righteous legislators or regulators deciding what is the "necessary" or appropriate amount of energy consumption that will be untaxed or lightly taxed. No thanks.[/Q]
Specious argument. It isn't the legislator or the regulator who chooses policy, it's us through the electoral process. If the policies don't match what people want, they either aren't enacted in the first place or they are overthrown from the voting booth. That's why we don't have the highly progressive income brackets of the 50's and 60's (which never seemed to slow down the economy or the entrepeneurial spirit, by the way) anymore, and also why we'll never have a truly exemption-free (as in, no home mortgage interest write-off) flat rate. The voters keep both the Mommy State of the left and the Kleptocracy of the right in line.[/q]

Moreover, it pretends that the energy market is some sort of Smithian free market when it is about the most regulated market I can think of. And clearly, deregulation and for-profit energy companies are so much better than the bad old public owned utility days. I know I loved living with rolling blackouts in Oakland. And look what a bang up job FirstEnergy did in investing in their infrastructure in Ohio.

We have a 3rd world power system in this country. Maybe its time we acknowledge that is a public good. We maintain interstate highways with federal dollars. Why not the power grid?

But back to the original point, it ain't sexy like fuel cells or geothermal, but conservation (negawatts) is one of the best ways to reduce consumption. But folks in Cupertino or Fairfield will never conserve as long as a)power is cheap and b) they can dump the pollution on Richmond or New Haven.

Keith, in the big picture, encouraging wiser use via tiered pricing is a lot cheaper than restarting Rancho Seco.



 
___________________________
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team... :(
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: Willy '06 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: February 01, 2005 08:54PM

We Fairfielders don't dump our pollution on New Haven, we dump it on Bridgeport.
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: February 01, 2005 08:59PM

[Q]nyc94 Wrote:
jeh25 Wrote:
Yet culturally, we allow the Prius owner to feel morally superior to the Excursion owner.
[/Q] Who is "we"?
[/q]

[more OT stuff] We is everybody who does a story in the New York Times about "gas-guzzling" Suburbans and never a word about big houses or multiple houses and the ski house is always heated ... who don't question the validity of the Prius as the only car when you've got kids (then you need two cars to take five kids to soccer) (not that Prius isn't an amazing feat, but so is a regular Honda Civic or a diesel VW Jetta) ... those of us flying to Europe on vacation vs. taking a train or bus (like that'll ever happen) to Cape Cod or the Jersey shore ... who write about GM's alleged reluctance to tighten CAFE and pollution another 10% when half of all pollution is caused by the dirtiest 10% of cars (which happen to be owned disproportionately by the poor) ... who have an outdoor Jacuzzi that's heated year-round ... who help their kids write papers about energy conservation and let them take 25 minute hot-water showers ... who think diesel is dirty because of the olfactory issue (you notice the smell so it must be polluting) .... who don't wonder how that ultra-clean-burning hydrogen got compressed to 5,000 psi to go in your 2010 zero-emissios vehicle (maybe it was a solar powered compressor and hydrogen extractor) ...

Rational energy usage is so complex and yet we simplify it by calling out a few demons.

I think one of the important advances of the next generation will be to maintain our lifestyle while scaling back energy consumption. I bet it can be done. Frankly, I don't want to be taking one shower a week and living in an un-air conditioned house.

Sheesh, I hope the student senate, if it still exists, doesn't try to do its part by urging Lynah to refrigerate the ice but only down to a more energy efficient 38 degrees.

 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: ugarte (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 02, 2005 03:56PM

This conversation is boring. I demand that you stop it.

Love,
that guy from another post

 
 
Re: The GAA Battle
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: February 02, 2005 04:39PM

[Q]ugarte Wrote:

This conversation is boring. I demand that you stop it.

Love,
that guy from another post[/q]

LOL! :-)
 

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login