Cornell 4 @ Harvard 3 postgame thread (11/11/05)

An instant classic in the Cornell-Harvard series.

Despite an early lead, Cornell is down 3-2 with 5 minutes to play in the third ... gets two quick goals to go ahead 4-3 ... only to have to fight off a penalty with just over 2 minutes to play. Moulson continues his point-producing ways but the light shines on Topher Scott and the winning goal.

In any game decided by one goal, it's a tossup who wins. Over time, the better team wins them. And it's now three one-goal wins in a row over Yale (plus an ENG), Brown (OT), Harvard. Plus the win over MSU was by one hard-fought goal (plus the ENG).

Okay, so McKee is not going to have a 0.99 GAA this year and make SI's Faces in the Crowd this year for attaining the magical figure. But, admit it, 4-3 is a lot more fun to watch than 2-1 or 1-0. And conversely Cornell has shown, unlike most of the rest of this decade, that a one-goal deficit in the third can be overcome.

Moulson is a pistol - 8 points on the year so far? And Scott is close behind. [edit: Moulson 5-3-8 after 5 games, Scott 2-5-7 after 5 games.]

Tying goal comes from the blue line. Good.

Winning goal comes on a 2-1 breakway, not after 30 seconds of digging in the corner (a test of a superior hockey team, but not real exciting). Excellent for the fans.

Harvard go-ahead third goal comes from too many men on the ice. Not good. Terrible that Cornell would ever get called for that. But better to suffer it now and remember it, than with 10 minutes to go in a one-goal playoff game.

Sounded like a fun game.

Dartmouth got 45 shots on Colgate tonight. The Big Red may need McKee to recapture last year's form for at least one night.

Three straight road wins is impressive. Lets hope the D can clamp down against Dartmouth tomorrow.

Wins like tonight are the mark of a strong team.

McKee may have his form and it may just be it's a more offensive mindset for both sides this year, or so far this year.

Discount the 4-goal MSU outburst second period of game 2 and McKee's / Cornell's GAA is 1.9. Not that bad.

But it's been close so far. Discount empty net goals and the scores have been all one goal margins:

3-2 W MSU (final 4-2)
4-3 L
3-2 W Yale (final 4-2)
3-2 W Brown OT
4-3 W Harvard

The law of averages, which over time is not wrong, says if you play all one goal games, you should right now be 3-2, 2-3, or 2-2-1. Instead we're 4-1 and wishing we were 5-0.

Now let's see how Cornell fares against Dartmouth. Cornell is better on paper than Colgate and Colgate was better on the ice Friday night than Dartmouth by 3-2. So on paper Saturday at Dartmouth ...

We need to await the injury reports and see if anyone such as Sawada is hors de combat Saturday.

Dartmouth outshot Gate 45-23; I'm not sure that qualifies as better on the ice. On the scoreboard, though.

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

The law of averages, which over time is not wrong, says if you play all one goal games, you should right now be 3-2, 2-3, or 2-2-1. Instead we're 4-1 and wishing we were 5-0.

[/q]

No, it would say that for an average team, i.e. GF=GA, then you would tend to be around .500. But for an above average team (e.g. GF/g=GA/g+1, then you would expect a better than .500 record in one goal games.

GF-GA stands at 17-12, if you leave off empty netters. Say those 29 goals are randomly distributed among the 5 games. What are the odds of Cornell getting x points?

If I ever knew the math, I've forgotten it.

[Q]Trotsky Wrote: GF-GA stands at 17-12, if you leave off empty netters. Say those 29 goals are randomly distributed among the 5 games. What are the odds of Cornell getting x points? If I ever knew the math, I've forgotten it.[/q]And the answer is:

d) All the information needed to solve the problem is not available. Enter missing information needed to solve problem here: It is necessary to know the referees for the game played in New Haven and how many Cornell players they plan to eject for the Brown game.

Teeter was at the bench tonight, Bill.

Al, Did you get from Boston to Cape Cod that fast, or was this written on a Blackberry? Please, we'd love more morsels about the game we missed. Was it everything the Cornell and Harvard announcers (when All Access didn't crap out) declared it to be?

FYI re Al's reference to Mike Teeter: We had noticed Mike, friend of Cornell hockey extraordinaire and with a Big Red hockey pedigree dating to the Ned Harkness era (before?), was not with the team at Yale. Good to see he's back on the road.

After watching the 2nd period in the standing room behind the section with the Cornell Band, Little Killer and I decided to stay there for the 3rd period as well. But my wife went back to our ticketed seats on the glass in Section 2, right on the goal line. We told her to be sure to hold up our "Sieve" sign when Cornell scored. So what happens when we score goals 3 and 4? Lots of cheering from that section, but no sign. "What could be wrong?", we wondered. Has the woman totally forgotten her instructions in the heat of the moment?

Come to find out after the game that the sign disappeared. I asked if someone had taken it (FYI, the rink Nazis confiscated my "Harvard Sucks" sign at the door), but no, that wasn't the case. She had the sign propped against the boards in front of her, ready to spring into action. All of a sudden, it slid down between the plywood of the stands and the boards, totally unretrievable. So, she wasn't shirking her duty after all. The rink just sucked it into its own black hole.

Well, one day when they're doing maintenance, someone will find that sign. Too bad we won't be there to fondly remember the outcome of the game. Still, we can take heart in knowing that for every game in the foreseeable future, mere yards from the Harvard goalie resides his true identity - Sieve!

Hmmm, makes one wonder what other little ditties we can leave in that time capsule for future suckies to find.

Signs confiscated at the door? If Little Killer is a kid, he/she should be the one carrying the signs inside his sweatshirt. If rink security tries to search the kid, he's just got learn to to yell, "Dad! Dad! That man touched me in a private place," and then start sobbing hysterically. And the rink Pinkerton will be attending conscioiusness-raising seminars from now until Little Dov gets into the class of 2028.

At Dartmouth, they'd just say, "Don't be such a wuss, kid" and continue probing.

I've been home for a while. The game ended what, not much after 9:00?

It was a hell of a game. If Harvard has won, that big shorthanded breakaway save would be the play of the game. It was a great effort and some luck, but that's the way with a lot of saves. It was of those saves that you figure there's a 75, 80% chance of a goal going back the other way - that kind of a momentum changer.

McKee was alright, but he's definitely not what he was last year. The first goal was kinda soft, he missed scooping up the rebound and then a little tip ended up just inside the post. The second was on the other end so I couldn't see it much, but someone on the game thread made a comment about McKee after the 3rd goal, which as completely not his fault. It was a beautiful sharp pass across the goal mouth that he had no chance on - would have been a spectacular save.

Topher just flies around the ice, it's great to see him get a big goal. The team is good and plays hard, but they just haven't been dominant this year, at least not on the scoreboard. We'll see how they gel, but our competition has sure as heck showed up. It's hard to think that we're not pretty damn good, especially after our performance against MSU (sorry for the typo, I'm tired and I was probably trying go to USCHO at the time and got confused ). Hell, maybe the ECAC is a lot better this year, as the interconference records seem to imply.

USHO?

Amazing! With 8 minutes to go I was lamenting, "Damn...I've been at so many tough 1 goal losses the last few years @ Lynah East."

And then the magic happened.

Way to go Red! Awesome, awesome game.

[Q]Robb Wrote:

USHO?[/q]

Sorry, fixed

Ive been at too many games where we are losing to Harvard in the 3rd period.
(however, approximately half of those we eventually won)
thinks 2001, 2002, 2004...hmmm. just that same feeling that "this isnt happening again, is it. there are different players on the ice, yet..."
lol - anyone else get that?

I wish I could have been there, it sounds like it was a great game. Did Chris Abbott and Gleed play?

I didn't notice Chris, but I'm not really the player-noticing type of fan, so I'd bet he did. Gleed I did notice though, so definite yes on thatone.

Gleed definitely was, and I'm embarrassed to say I can't even remembe if Chris was on the ice. I'm thinking he was though.

Chris was 4th line center between Mugford and Carefoot, according to Gametracker. I don't recall his name being called much, if at all.

Cam, on the other hand...

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

Al, Did you get from Boston to Cape Cod that fast, or was this written on a Blackberry? Please, we'd love more morsels about the game we missed. Was it everything the Cornell and Harvard announcers (when All Access didn't crap out) declared it to be?

FYI re Al's reference to Mike Teeter: We had noticed Mike, friend of Cornell hockey extraordinaire and with a Big Red hockey pedigree dating to the Ned Harkness era (before?), was not with the team at Yale. Good to see he's back on the road. [/q]
Home before 11, Bill. Only 80 minutes from Allston.

Really good game to watch. Cornell looked much better than in either game last weekend. Crisper passing through the neutral zone. Frequently carried the puck into the offensive zone to create chances rather than just dumping. Fewer bumbles in front of McKee--although O'Byrne did hand one away just in front of the crease in the first. Harvard came out fast and their hustle and jump led to the quick first goal. We sat at the Cornell offensive end the second and third periods so didn't get good looks at the last two Harvard goals. The third one looked like a picture-perfect power play setting up Johnson at the back door. Conflicting reports on whether the second goal was tipped or McKee just missed it.

Even though we came too close to losing this one, I'm much more encouraged than I was after last week's sweep. There were extended periods where we really controlled play. Interesting that Schafer had Seminoff on the ice at the start of the PK with 2:00 to go in the game. He must like what he sees so far. I didn't notice Glover on the ice for quite some time in the second period, but he played quite a bit in the third. Scott was simply everywhere on the ice. He is quite amazing, and it's fitting he scored the game-winner. Hope they can come down to earth before 7pm tomorrow night. Dartmouth will be steaming after losing tonight with a 2:1 advantage in shots on goal.

I haven't read the game thread yet, and I want to go to sleep, so I'll just comment that I thought the last six and a half minutes was the best hockey I've seen Cornell play so far this year. Unfortunately, there were extended stretches during tonight's game when it was the Cornell of Game 2, Period 2 vs. MSU. We were making dumb passes, just not paying attention or thinking - and cough-ups were rampant. I expected a Schafer-scolded team to come out for the third fired up and clicking, but it was more of the same sluggishness - Hahvahd beat us to every puck and had us in circles.

Thank God for that time-out with six and a half to go, and thank God for whatever Schafer said, 'cause it worked. Six and a half minutes of beatifully executed hockey won't be enough to win most games, but it was enough to win this one - and it was oh, so incredibly satisfying when the Hahvahd fans got quiet.

I also noticed Seminoff getting serious ice time, and from what I see I think this kid will be the heart of the team in a couple of years.

McKee? Well - he's still playing better than I could. What else can you say? I didn't think any of the goals tonight were "soft." Hahvahd has great skaters and puts a ton of pressure on the slot.

Wish I could be at Dartmouth and go to tomorrow night's wedding, but no such luck. Go Red!

Beeeej

[q]McKee? Well - he's still playing better than I could. What else can you say? I didn't think any of the goals tonight were "soft." Hahvahd has great skaters and puts a ton of pressure on the slot. [/q]

Hahvahd's 3rd goal was anything but soft. Perfect feed across the crease for a quick one-time.

And the first one wasn't exactly "soft" either. I guess he gave up a rebound, but the puck was just lost in the scramble, as would happen to any goalie.

Yeah, it was off a scramble - I guess fluke is also a fair term for that first goal. Maybe i'm still spoiled by Lenny (or even the McKee of last year), who would pounce on a rebound like that and not even allow the scramble to happen. So by those standards, I still think it was "soft", but by standard college hockey goaltending standards, not so much.

[Q]Jordan 04 Wrote:
And the first one wasn't exactly "soft" either. I guess he gave up a rebound, but the puck was just lost in the scramble, as would happen to any goalie.[/q]

I had a perfect view of that goal - he gave up three rebounds before Dufault finally knocked it in. Unfortunately he was using his pads, so he wasn't in a position to cover up. I think perhaps the 2002-03 D would've cleared it, but this year's D couldn't. I'm beginning to come around, at least a little bit, to the view that the D helped make Lenny's and McKee's numbers what they were those seasons.

Beeeej

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:
Hahvahd has great skaters and puts a ton of pressure on the slot.

Beeeej[/q]

Shane Hynes used to terrorize the opponents in the slot. No one could get him away from where he wanted to be. This year, I just don't think our offense is doing enough of this (Sawada wanders off to the board too much).

My own random thoughts about the game (First game I've seen all season)

- McKee was okay. I missed the first goal, but the second and third goal were not stoppable. There were a few moments when McKee failed to gobble up the rebound, so he wasn't perfect, but the goals were not at all his fault.

- Scott is a monster. I've never seen anyone skate around everyone as much as tonight. He is just damn fast. I'm utterly amazed and happily shocked by the skill this kid showed. If he only gets better from here - watch out!

- Glover was all over the place in D. Another guy that I hadn't paid attention before, but I'm sure watching now.

- Our 'O' was solid. Very much so. I don't think I've ever seen such nice pass setups from the red.. We must have the most potent O in at least 10 years.

- Our team is faster than Harvard's team. Traditionally I've always felt that they were faster and we were stronger, so it was a strange thing to watch.

- Our positional 'D' was weaker than usual. Not awful but we were caught out of position a few times in the game. Schafer's teams are NEVER caught out of position, so its bizarre to see it happen. Hopefully we will improve on this quickly.

- I didn't catch many freshmen out there except for Seminoff who was out there regularly.

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:

GF-GA stands at 17-12, if you leave off empty netters. Say those 29 goals are randomly distributed among the 5 games. What are the odds of Cornell getting x points?

If I ever knew the math, I've forgotten it.[/q]

>> Greg,
It's too early in the morning to think about the exact way to do this, so I wrote a Matlab program for a Monte Carlo simulation. Here is what I got for 50,000 runs (from 0 to 10 points):

0
0
0.0000
0.0005
0.0210
0.0845
0.3117
0.3302
0.2222
0.0284
0.0015

Then I did it again which gives an indication of the accuracy

0
0
0.0001
0.0004
0.0205
0.0862
0.3118
0.3295
0.2228
0.0271
0.0017

A third set

0
0
0.0000
0.0004
0.0198
0.0840
0.3137
0.3311
0.2218
0.0275
0.0018

The average number of points for each set of 50,000 runs are 6.7379, 6.7342, and 6.7394.

Just remember that this was calculated by someone with several degrees from the same school that brought you the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge, and it was figured out at 5 am.

A really great game, and the Lynah Faithful were in full force. If it is possible I think the Harvard student section was even more pathetic this year than years past (they had plenty to cheer about too)

Some thoughts not mentioned yet that I will add...
Everyone is mentioning Scottt, and deservedly so, but the new player that I noticed the most was Barlow... when he is on the ice you know it, and generally in a good way. Looked like he was a little fond of action after the play and the occassional slash... but I was very impressed.

Krantz had a sort of rough game, if he hadnt shot that laser of a goal I think everyone would be talking about some of his defensive lapses again.

To be honest I was really dissappointed with Sasha's play as well... particularly in the 1st it was as if someone had given him the wrong stick as a prank. There was one shift where he couldnt seem to get the puck settled on the blade and actually started out of the corner without the puck (not realizing that it was left behind him). He just looked uncomfortable out there to me, and we need him to anchor the D as they get experience and gel.

You guys are amazing. Can you translate into English what that means? (When you're awake.) Does that mean with a 17-12 GF / GA margin in the first 5 games the the most likely outcome is Cornell would come out with 6.7 out of 10 possible points, roughly 3 wins and a tie, and Cornell instead has 8 points out of 10?

[Q]Beeeej Wrote: Wish I could be at Dartmouth and go to tomorrow night's wedding, but no such luck. Go Red![/q]There's a thousand golf jokes with a setup line like this.

That is a conflict.

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

You guys are amazing. Can you translate into English what that means? (When you're awake.) Does that mean with a 17-12 GF / GA margin in the first 5 games the the most likely outcome is Cornell would come out with 6.7 out of 10 possible points, roughly 3 wins and a tie, and Cornell instead has 8 points out of 10? [/q]
Yes. Actually, 6.7 is the expected number of points. It isn't likely at all that they would get exactly that many.

I was in section 20...so where Cornell attacked for both the 1st and 3rd period (i.e. I saw all of Cornell's goals + the 2nd one that McKee let in).

My friends and I all thought the second goal that McKee let in was really weak. It wasnt a very hard shot, just kind of lofted in. The puck definately got a piece of McKee's glove before it went in. He got his glove up for the shot, but it wasnt high enough so it more or less skimmed off the top part of his glove and went into the goal.

Also, the shorthanded breakaway stop by Dangineu (sp?) was very impressive from what I could see from the other end of the ice. It looked like our player had faked him out and was just going to slip the puck in, but he threw out his pads and was able to block it.

Definately an amazing game to goto though...I was there last year for the heartbreaker, so I was probably thinking the same thing as a lot of you when Du got the 3rd score for Harvard.

Also, did anyone notice our first two goals the puck never left the ice surface and went either through the five hole or their goalie just couldnt get the pads down? I wonder if that was something they scouted since most shots we seem to take always leave the ice at least, or if it just ended up being that way.

How about a histogram of the distribution of points?

[Q]Jason L Wrote:
My friends and I all thought the second goal that McKee let in was really weak. It wasnt a very hard shot, just kind of lofted in. The puck definately got a piece of McKee's glove before it went in. He got his glove up for the shot, but it wasnt high enough so it more or less skimmed off the top part of his glove and went into the goal.
[/q]

I couldn't agree more. I was in Section 20 also. McKee just wasn't quick enough. He definitely saw it, he just couldn't get it.

[Q]redhair34 Wrote:
I couldn't agree more. I was in Section 20 also. McKee just wasn't quick enough. He definitely saw it, he just couldn't get it. [/q]
We were at the other end of the ice for period two, so didn't see this goal well at all. But the Globe article linked below says it was a deflection.

[www.boston.com]

Harvard's second goal was originally credited to Walsh who took the shot , then changed to Murphy, so it was a delection.

[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:

redhair34 Wrote:
I couldn't agree more. I was in Section 20 also. McKee just wasn't quick enough. He definitely saw it, he just couldn't get it. [/Q]
We were at the other end of the ice for period two, so didn't see this goal well at all. But the Globe article linked below says it was a deflection.[/q]

hmm...if it was in fact a deflection, I take it back. I did not see the deflection, just that McKee got his glove up, but not high enough. I didnt get a good look at their 1st and 3rd goals, so i cant comment on those...but I do remember a great glove save that McKee made in the 3rd. Slapshot taken where McKee just threw up his glove and got the puck...maybe it wasnt a very difficult save, but it sure as hell looked cool