Cornell vs. Niagara Postgame

Just a couple of random thoughts on tonight's game...

When Greening returned to the bench after the ref informed him of the results of the video review of the first Niagara goal, he clearly told Schafer, "The video F----d up." He was visibly annoyed. I think there's a 50/50 chance the goal would have been disallowed had there been good video. Definitely ironic that the first ever video review in the history of Lynah Rink goes against us because the technology failed.

We were also quite amused at Schafer's subtle gestures as he attempted to get our fifth skater off during that penalty kill. He had to get the guy off the ice, without any of the officials seeing he was trying to get the guy off the ice. It's not only amazing that he succeeded, and not only amazing that none of the four officials noticed we were skating five guys for at least 10-15 seconds, but what was truly amazing, as pointed out by the fan who sits in front of me, was that none of the guys on the Niagara bench noticed either. I mean had they noticed in time, the coaches would have been yelling at the refs and the players would probably have been banging their sticks on the boards, etc. I really don't understand how --that-- many people missed it. Glad they did, of course, but wow. Just wow.

The Redcast video was behind the play on the (alleged?) interference on Scrivens, and only caught up as he was already falling backwards, so I have no idea how it actually looked or what transpired. Anybody care to detail it?

The video did, however, have a hilarious long shot where you could count all five players on that PK. I bet the Niagara coaches will just love seeing that tape tomorrow.

From the stands I had no idea about the 5 skaters on the PK. Funny stuff. Based on how the Niagara 5x3 went (one shot, one goal), it's good that no one caught that.

You can see why Niagara is 0-4-1. The local paper tried to spin their poor start with some stats:

As for the slow start, that’s nothing new for the Purple Eagles, who have been under .500 at various portions all but once this decade. But Niagara’s ambitious non-conference schedule typically has something to do with that. And after starting a combined a 15-39-4 over the past 10 years, the team has finished with a record of 158-140-33.

Of course, going from facing tough OOC teams to the weak CHA has a lot to do with that. And maybe they'll work their way into the NCAA tournament picture again and this win will look pretty good.

We were faster and stronger than Niagara, but, as it has seemed every other year, we have trouble burying the puck in the net. What was encouraging to see tonight was that we had a steady stream of scoring chances in all three periods. In previous years we might have played pretty even with Niagara in the 2nd and most of the 3rd, and then had a flurry of scoring chances at the end of regulation and in OT. Tonight, it seemed like every couple of minutes we had a good look at the net. We still need people to finish, but hopefully that will come as the season progresses.

Greening is a beast and he seems poised for a huge season. Patrick Kennedy has also looked a lot better, and Axell had some nice shifts tonight. Whitney again had some serious problems defensively and Schafer took him off the first PP early in the game.

Next weekend should be challenging. Dartmouth was up 1-0 after one tonight before Harvard scored 5 unanswered goals en route to winning 5-3. 3 goals on 8 shots in the 2nd. Richter made 41 saves.

Lauren '06
The Redcast video was behind the play on the (alleged?) interference on Scrivens, and only caught up as he was already falling backwards, so I have no idea how it actually looked or what transpired. Anybody care to detail it?

As I saw it Scrivens appeared to briefly make a glove save a ways out in front of the net and then, falling backwards, flung the puck behind him and into the net. I discussed this with a few people, including Jim Hyla between periods, and while I thought Scrivens --may-- have been out far enough that contact with another player would not have invalidated the goal because he was out of the crease, Jim agreed, and he had a better view, I'd guess. So then, as I understand the rules, it would boil down to:

--was the puck knocked out of his glove with a high-stick, which should be a no-goal?
--was the puck knocked out of his glove by incidental contact with a Cornell or Niagara player, which would cause the goal to be a good goal?
--did the puck come out of his glove without any contact at all, just from the momentum of his falling back, and/or due to the puck not having been in the glove solidly in the first place, which would also be a good goal of course.

We may never know.

If anyone saw this differently, or can provide a better analysis, I'd love to hear it.

Related to this item, interesting sentence in today's Ithaca Journal:

Scrivens stopped 28 shots, but Schafer said he wasn't pleased with the first goal -- even though he felt Scrivens was interfered with -- and other things that Scrivens did.

Al DeFlorio
Related to this item, interesting sentence in today's Ithaca Journal:

Scrivens stopped 28 shots, but Schafer said he wasn't pleased with the first goal -- even though he felt Scrivens was interfered with -- and other things that Scrivens did.

Sounds like the typical early-season "We won, but we have a lot of work to do" line; standard for all coaches in all sports, IMO.

Al DeFlorio
Related to this item, interesting sentence in today's Ithaca Journal:

Scrivens stopped 28 shots, but Schafer said he wasn't pleased with the first goal -- even though he felt Scrivens was interfered with -- and other things that Scrivens did.

And, how about that second period play where he flipped the puck in the air from his glove and attempted to swat it out of the air with his stick. "Swing & a miss!!"

I'll bet Coach had some unkind words for him about that little maneuver....

redice

Al DeFlorio
Related to this item, interesting sentence in today's Ithaca Journal:

Scrivens stopped 28 shots, but Schafer said he wasn't pleased with the first goal -- even though he felt Scrivens was interfered with -- and other things that Scrivens did.

And, how about that second period play where he flipped the puck in the air from his glove and attempted to swat it out of the air with his stick. "Swing & a miss!!"

I'll bet Coach had some unkind words for him about that little maneuver....

That was one of the single dumbest plays I have ever seen. It wasn't like no one was around or he was desperate to get the puck out or something. There were at least 3 Niagara players within 15 feet. Scrivens makes more dumb plays than any goaltender I have seen in the last 7 years I've watched CU hockey in person (undergrad + law). I actually felt a lot better with Garman in net during the Windsor game. He's not as good a goalie, but my blood pressure definitely drops a lot because he's not going to do anything stupid. I'll look forward to Iles next year, He'll be coming in with a lot of valuable experience, almost as if he's a soph since he will have played almost a full year's worth of games against college teams...

Back to the game - I couldn't really see what happened on the questionable goal since I was across the way. It looked to me as if the Niagara player's body or stick bumped into Scrivens while Scrivens was already starting to fall backwards. It was difficult to see what happened exactly - hence would have been a GREAT spot for replay. We're really going to have to do a better job with that if we want to have it. I'm not sure why they didn't use the fixed goal cameras not the Redcast. From my spot in Section B, you could see the flatscreen goal camera. Seemed to be working fine.

On the whole, I thought CU looked a lot better for this point in the year than other years. Riley Nash made more great passes in one night than I've seen in a long time. He constantly finds the open man and his passes are not just the standard around the perimeter passes. He's putting the puck through the interior of the defense and finding open guys. They really need to finish better (a constant theme). By far the most impressive player on the ice was Greening. He plays with so much heart and passion. He genuinely looks like a man amongst boys. He's so strong on the puck and he wants it everytime he's on the ice. He could have a MONSTER year. He's turned into what I think we all hoped Byron Bitz would during his time here - a physical, aggressive, scorer who uses his size to maximum advantage. His first goal (did they change the scoring on the second?) was a goal-scorers goal. He took the pass in full stride and in one motion put it into the top nearside corner. It was beautiful because he had a 6in by 6in spot to put the puck and he did it.

Worst player of the night was Brendan Nash who continually makes more stupid plays than any other player on the ice. He continues to look disinterested and looks like a forward who's irked that he's stuck in a defenseman's body. In the last minutes of the game, he shot the puck into the netting, directly into a defenseman's leg (2x) and in a span of 15 seconds managed to almost give up 2 breakaways. Absolutely awful. He's great at handling the puck and skating it out of our zone, but he is liability. He'll really need to get his head straightened out and not make the mental mistakes we're so used to seeing out of him the last few years. Lastly, Mike Devin scored a beautiful GW on a 1-0: beat the goalie nearside high over the blocker - really a pretty goal. He looked solid all night and just missed on a rocket of a one timer from the slot that was gloved on a great save. You could see afterwards he was frustrated he didn't bury it with a better shot more to the corner.

I thought the freshmen looked like, well, freshman - much more so than in the exhibition games. D'Agastino looked nervous everytime he touched the puck and had some "hole-in-the-stick" plays. I'd like to see Birch out there more. I thought he looked better in the exhibitions. Apparently he didn't dress. Axell is BIG - skinny and tall. He's got the frame to be an absolute beast.

As a side note, not to complain, but the reffing was absolutely ATROCIOUS, and at a minimum, very random. All the more obvious penalties seemed not to be called and more questionable calls ALL seemed to be made. Early in the year for the refs too, but not a great start.

CUontheslopes

On the whole, I thought CU looked a lot better for this point in the year than other years. Riley Nash made more great passes in one night than I've seen in a long time. He constantly finds the open man and his passes are not just the standard around the perimeter passes. He's putting the puck through the interior of the defense and finding open guys. They really need to finish better (a constant theme). By far the most impressive player on the ice was Greening. He plays with so much heart and passion. He genuinely looks like a man amongst boys. He's so strong on the puck and he wants it everytime he's on the ice. He could have a MONSTER year. He's turned into what I think we all hoped Byron Bitz would during his time here - a physical, aggressive, scorer who uses his size to maximum advantage. His first goal (did they change the scoring on the second?) was a goal-scorers goal. He took the pass in full stride and in one motion put it into the top nearside corner. It was beautiful because he had a 6in by 6in spot to put the puck and he did it.

Worst player of the night was Brendan Nash who continually makes more stupid plays than any other player on the ice. He continues to look disinterested and looks like a forward who's irked that he's stuck in a defenseman's body. In the last minutes of the game, he shot the puck into the netting, directly into a defenseman's leg (2x) and in a span of 15 seconds managed to almost give up 2 breakaways. Absolutely awful. He's great at handling the puck and skating it out of our zone, but he is liability. He'll really need to get his head straightened out and not make the mental mistakes we're so used to seeing out of him the last few years. Lastly, Mike Devin scored a beautiful GW on a 1-0: beat the goalie nearside high over the blocker - really a pretty goal. He looked solid all night and just missed on a rocket of a one timer from the slot that was gloved on a great save. You could see afterwards he was frustrated he didn't bury it with a better shot more to the corner.

I thought the freshmen looked like, well, freshman - much more so than in the exhibition games. D'Agastino looked nervous everytime he touched the puck and had some "hole-in-the-stick" plays. I'd like to see Birch out there more. I thought he looked better in the exhibitions. Apparently he didn't dress. Axell is BIG - skinny and tall. He's got the frame to be an absolute beast.

Good analysis, but I disagree re the d-men. I'm loving D'Agostino thus far. Nervous? On the contrary, he seems extraordinarily poised, and his decision-making is almost always excellent. I was hard on B.Nash on occasion last year, but I think he's been solid so far in this campaign (nothwithstanding his tripping infraction that created the 5-3). I still wish he'd play with more urgency sometimes--"disinterested" is a good word, I agree. But the player who is really struggling is Whitney,both last night and against the U18s. He's a step slow, and just seems tentative. A temporary sophomore slump, one can hope.

HockeyMan

CUontheslopes

On the whole, I thought CU looked a lot better for this point in the year than other years. Riley Nash made more great passes in one night than I've seen in a long time. He constantly finds the open man and his passes are not just the standard around the perimeter passes. He's putting the puck through the interior of the defense and finding open guys. They really need to finish better (a constant theme). By far the most impressive player on the ice was Greening. He plays with so much heart and passion. He genuinely looks like a man amongst boys. He's so strong on the puck and he wants it everytime he's on the ice. He could have a MONSTER year. He's turned into what I think we all hoped Byron Bitz would during his time here - a physical, aggressive, scorer who uses his size to maximum advantage. His first goal (did they change the scoring on the second?) was a goal-scorers goal. He took the pass in full stride and in one motion put it into the top nearside corner. It was beautiful because he had a 6in by 6in spot to put the puck and he did it.

Worst player of the night was Brendan Nash who continually makes more stupid plays than any other player on the ice. He continues to look disinterested and looks like a forward who's irked that he's stuck in a defenseman's body. In the last minutes of the game, he shot the puck into the netting, directly into a defenseman's leg (2x) and in a span of 15 seconds managed to almost give up 2 breakaways. Absolutely awful. He's great at handling the puck and skating it out of our zone, but he is liability. He'll really need to get his head straightened out and not make the mental mistakes we're so used to seeing out of him the last few years. Lastly, Mike Devin scored a beautiful GW on a 1-0: beat the goalie nearside high over the blocker - really a pretty goal. He looked solid all night and just missed on a rocket of a one timer from the slot that was gloved on a great save. You could see afterwards he was frustrated he didn't bury it with a better shot more to the corner.

I thought the freshmen looked like, well, freshman - much more so than in the exhibition games. D'Agastino looked nervous everytime he touched the puck and had some "hole-in-the-stick" plays. I'd like to see Birch out there more. I thought he looked better in the exhibitions. Apparently he didn't dress. Axell is BIG - skinny and tall. He's got the frame to be an absolute beast.

Good analysis, but I disagree re the d-men. I'm loving D'Agostino thus far. Nervous? On the contrary, he seems extraordinarily poised, and his decision-making is almost always excellent. I was hard on B.Nash on occasion last year, but I think he's been solid so far in this campaign (nothwithstanding his tripping infraction that created the 5-3). I still wish he'd play with more urgency sometimes--"disinterested" is a good word, I agree. But the player who is really struggling is Whitney,both last night and against the U18s. He's a step slow, and just seems tentative. A temporary sophomore slump, one can hope.

Really? I thought Whitney looked good last night. He's got size and a great shot. He's not afraid to skate down with the puck towards the net and draw some people away from the forwards. I thought he played a very good game. It's amazing how two people can watch the same game and come away with completely different takes! Guess that's why sportscasters and commentators can make a living. I'm glad we agree on B. Nash though. The penalty was bad, but it was his play on the point in the offensive end that I thought was pitiful. You just can't do what he did repeatedly. He was quite fortunate that his teammates bailed him out or it could've easily been 3-2 Niagara.

You can see replays of two of the goals on the Athletics website.

The article also says very clearly that the replay equipment was not working:

Niagara got on the board first six minutes into the game on a quirky play. The Purple Eagles' Beattie fired a shot from the point that was heading high of the Cornell goal, but caught in the glove of Scrivens. In the process of pulling the puck down, he appeared to get clipped by a Niagara player, causing the puck to come out of his glove and into the goal. Officials went to check the video replay, only to find the system not working, and the goal stood without evidence to overturn the play.

CUontheslopes
It's amazing how two people can watch the same game and come away with completely different takes! Guess that's why sportscasters and commentators can make a living.

Wow, two people can see the same thing and learn from each other, who'd have thunk that. I guess listening to the broadcast during the game can teach one something. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. For those who don't understand, it's a follow-up from another thread.

I did think that Scrivens was outside the crease on the first goal, but I didn't see how he got hit, dislodging the puck. Overall I still think this is the best developed I have seen a team at this time of the season. The veterans seem together and the frosh fit right in. It's the frosh that really surprise me. I thought the vets would come ready to play, otherwise they'd have gone pro. I don't know how the frosh have fit in so easily. You have to think it's their ability, the coach telling them what they expect when they get here, but I have to think you give a lot of credit to the captains for doing a great job in the preseason captain's practices.

I still disagree with those who criticize B. Nash. Yes he makes mistakes, but I'd put him out in any situation. I wonder how much time he'll log this year?

You have to very optimistic so far. The offense is moving well, both bringing the puck up (do you remember how we used to shudder when we were behind our net and trying to pass the puck up?) and with movement in the O zone. The defense moves in well, including the frosh, and the forwards cover up. The PP is far ahead of past years. They are trying many different things and obviously with Greening have been successful. D has been OK, but I think we are going to give up more goals this year as it seems we are putting more emphasis on our O. I hope we don't forget too much about D that coach makes them clamp back down.

Well it could be a great year and the next month, with it's solid schedule, should give us a good indication of where we are.

redice

Al DeFlorio
Related to this item, interesting sentence in today's Ithaca Journal:

Scrivens stopped 28 shots, but Schafer said he wasn't pleased with the first goal -- even though he felt Scrivens was interfered with -- and other things that Scrivens did.

And, how about that second period play where he flipped the puck in the air from his glove and attempted to swat it out of the air with his stick. "Swing & a miss!!"

I'll bet Coach had some unkind words for him about that little maneuver....

From the Ithaca Journal -- "He has to be stronger," Schafer said of the first goal. "He's got to get away from doing stupid stuff. You know, trying to clear it. I spoke with him between periods and it's ridiculous that he'd even attempt it. Those are some things we need to talk about. He needs to stay in goal and play goal."

Jim Hyla

CUontheslopes
It's amazing how two people can watch the same game and come away with completely different takes! Guess that's why sportscasters and commentators can make a living.

Wow, two people can see the same thing and learn from each other, who'd have thunk that. I guess listening to the broadcast during the game can teach one something. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. For those who don't understand, it's a follow-up from another thread.

I did think that Scrivens was outside the crease on the first goal, but I didn't see how he got hit, dislodging the puck. Overall I still think this is the best developed I have seen a team at this time of the season. The veterans seem together and the frosh fit right in. It's the frosh that really surprise me. I thought the vets would come ready to play, otherwise they'd have gone pro. I don't know how the frosh have fit in so easily. You have to think it's their ability, the coach telling them what they expect when they get here, but I have to think you give a lot of credit to the captains for doing a great job in the preseason captain's practices.

I still disagree with those who criticize B. Nash. Yes he makes mistakes, but I'd put him out in any situation. I wonder how much time he'll log this year?

You have to very optimistic so far. The offense is moving well, both bringing the puck up (do you remember how we used to shudder when we were behind our net and trying to pass the puck up?) and with movement in the O zone. The defense moves in well, including the frosh, and the forwards cover up. The PP is far ahead of past years. They are trying many different things and obviously with Greening have been successful. D has been OK, but I think we are going to give up more goals this year as it seems we are putting more emphasis on our O. I hope we don't forget too much about D that coach makes them clamp back down.

Well it could be a great year and the next month, with it's solid schedule, should give us a good indication of where we are.

I actually was thinking that when I wrote the comment on the 2 people watching, but it's very true. I still have to disagree on B. Nash - he folds like a cheap suit in big spots. He's serviceable regularly and I'll admit he's good on the breakout, but he has no heart and he makes HUGE mistakes at key times. I've got no problem with his physical skills, but he's got to be the dumbest hockey player we've had in a long time. Example, Niagara's goalie loses his stick and is playing with a skater's stick. So what does B. Nash do? First, he shoots it into the d-man's legs right in front of him. Then he gets it back and airmails the goal. Puck comes out to him a third time and he shoots a sick duck that ends up going into the netting. Instead of shooting the puck along the ice b/c the goalie doesn't have his goalie stick, Nash takes 3 horrible shots. And honestly, the two turnovers at the end of the game within 15 seconds that almost lead to two breakaways were unforgiveably bad. Everyone around me thought the game was over twice in span of 15 seconds. I have no idea how we didn't give up either of those breakaways, the second of which would have been a 2-0. I don't like to be critical of our own guys, but this is the fourth year of this. He's better than that.

Jim Hyla

I still disagree with those who criticize B. Nash. Yes he makes mistakes, but I'd put him out in any situation. I wonder how much time he'll log this year?

CUontheslopes

I actually was thinking that when I wrote the comment on the 2 people watching, but it's very true. I still have to disagree on B. Nash - he folds like a cheap suit in big spots. He's serviceable regularly and I'll admit he's good on the breakout, but he has no heart and he makes HUGE mistakes at key times. I've got no problem with his physical skills, but he's got to be the dumbest hockey player we've had in a long time. Example, Niagara's goalie loses his stick and is playing with a skater's stick. So what does B. Nash do? First, he shoots it into the d-man's legs right in front of him. Then he gets it back and airmails the goal. Puck comes out to him a third time and he shoots a sick duck that ends up going into the netting. Instead of shooting the puck along the ice b/c the goalie doesn't have his goalie stick, Nash takes 3 horrible shots. And honestly, the two turnovers at the end of the game within 15 seconds that almost lead to two breakaways were unforgiveably bad. Everyone around me thought the game was over twice in span of 15 seconds. I have no idea how we didn't give up either of those breakaways, the second of which would have been a 2-0. I don't like to be critical of our own guys, but this is the fourth year of this. He's better than that.

I think I come down in between you two. I quite agree that B.Nash is hugely valuable to the team. There are times when the "man among boys" tag applies to him just as much as to Greening. He'll log huge minutes this year, and he should. As I've said before on this list, he's got the tools to play at the next level. But it's precisely for that reason that his lapses and his periodic disinterest are so frustrating.

CUontheslopes
He continues to look disinterested

I swear I simply do not understand this repeated criticism of B. Nash. As in...what does that even mean? Is he yawning? Is he staring into the crowd during play? Is he checking his facebook during faceoffs? The rest of your criticisms of him are totally valid. This isn't. Players carry themselves differently on the ice. Some are frantic with their movements, some aren't. I'm more concerned with the quality of play of players than how interested they "look." You're going to have your Lenny Dykstras and you have your John Oleruds in sports. I'd bet money that everyone out there cares about their performance.

RichH

CUontheslopes
He continues to look disinterested

I swear I simply do not understand this repeated criticism of B. Nash. As in...what does that even mean? Is he yawning? Is he staring into the crowd during play? Is he checking his facebook during faceoffs? The rest of your criticisms of him are totally valid. This isn't. Players carry themselves differently on the ice. Some are frantic with their movements, some aren't. I'm more concerned with the quality of play of players than how interested they "look." You're going to have your Lenny Dykstras and you have your John Oleruds in sports. I'd bet money that everyone out there cares about their performance.

I think we had this debate last year...For me, there's just a lack of urgency at times, especially in his own half of the ice. If the other team is threatening an odd-man rush, he can be maddeningly casual about getting back. Ditto if he's at point and needs to get a shot or a pass off quickly to prevent a possible block and counterattack. Partly this is a matter of appearances deceiving, I grant you--he's a big guy who takes big strides--but not wholly.

On the flip side, I love the offensive flair he brings to a team that needs it. He had a wonderful rush last night that could have led to a great chance. And he's key on the PP.

RichH

CUontheslopes
He continues to look disinterested

I swear I simply do not understand this repeated criticism of B. Nash. As in...what does that even mean? Is he yawning? Is he staring into the crowd during play? Is he checking his facebook during faceoffs? The rest of your criticisms of him are totally valid. This isn't. Players carry themselves differently on the ice. Some are frantic with their movements, some aren't. I'm more concerned with the quality of play of players than how interested they "look." You're going to have your Lenny Dykstras and you have your John Oleruds in sports. I'd bet money that everyone out there cares about their performance.

Agreed. Nobody gets to this level without being tremendously motivated and working extremely hard.

Josh '99

Agreed. Nobody gets to this level without being tremendously motivated and working extremely hard.

Huh? All kinds of players get to this level without working quite as hard all the time as their peers. Is there a more oft-stated line by a coach than "So and so is maybe the hardest worker on this team," or "He's very talented but he sometimes he doesn't give it his all" ?

HockeyMan
On the flip side, I love the offensive flair he brings to a team that needs it. He had a wonderful rush last night that could have led to a great chance. And he's key on the PP.

For me, it's his lack of "offensive flair" on the power play that I find most frustrating. Like many of our defensemen, he seems fascinated with blasting the puck through people from the point. Some defensemen (Cook comes to mind) seem to have the vision necessary to know when to blast and when not to blast, but B. Nash seems constantly to hit defenders and create shorthanded opportunities.

I very much hope that Whitney can become consistent (or regain his consistency) so that he can take over this "key" role on the power play. He at least seems to understand the efficacy of taking a stride and throwing in a wrister on net instead of brainlessly blasting away.

HockeyMan

Josh '99

Agreed. Nobody gets to this level without being tremendously motivated and working extremely hard.

Huh? All kinds of players get to this level without working quite as hard all the time as their peers. Is there a more oft-stated line by a coach than "So and so is maybe the hardest worker on this team," or "He's very talented but he sometimes he doesn't give it his all" ?

Even if maybe some players work a little harder than others, I believe my statement still stands. There is no way Nash gets to the point where he is if he's "disinterested".

Josh '99

HockeyMan

Josh '99

Agreed. Nobody gets to this level without being tremendously motivated and working extremely hard.

Huh? All kinds of players get to this level without working quite as hard all the time as their peers. Is there a more oft-stated line by a coach than "So and so is maybe the hardest worker on this team," or "He's very talented but he sometimes he doesn't give it his all" ?

Even if maybe some players work a little harder than others, I believe my statement still stands. There is no way Nash gets to the point where he is if he's "disinterested".

Honestly - he's not playing on the Red Army Olympic Team or hell, even the NHL. He's playing college hockey. There are a lot of college hockey players, equally talented junior players, etc. Anyone who's seen him play would have to be frustrated with his lapses. A detached observer would tell you hee's disinterested, lackadaisical, or just stupid (hockeywise at least). How many times can you shoot the puck from the point into a forward's legs and almost give up a breakaway in a key spot? Personally, I think he doesn't play with a lot of heart. He still has time to prove me wrong, but he makes far too many freshman mistakes. If we're going to go deep into April, he's going to have pick up his game and lead the defense. I think we can all agree on that.

CUontheslopes
Personally, I think he doesn't play with a lot of heart.

Oh, OK. Heart. Well, maybe he should make a visit to The Wizard then, and get some of that and everything will be A-OK and he'll stop making any mistakes. And what is it visually that has led you to make that diagnosis about his blood-pumping organ?

Sorry for the sarcasm, but the topic of "Intangibles" is usually pretty ridiculous to me when it comes to athletes. Say he makes more physical errors than he should. Say that some of his decisions are poor, but please spare me from this "heart" and "disinterest" crap.

If we're going to go deep into April, he's going to have pick up his game and lead the defense. I think we can all agree on that.

Well, of course. I think we can say that about several key players on this year's squadron. He's certainly one of them, and when he's on his game, he's one of the best d-men in the league.

Say that some of his decisions are poor, but please spare me from this "heart" and "disinterest" crap.

Would 'focus' or 'intensity' be better words?

RichH

CUontheslopes
Personally, I think he doesn't play with a lot of heart.

Oh, OK. Heart. Well, maybe he should make a visit to The Wizard then, and get some of that and everything will be A-OK and he'll stop making any mistakes. And what is it visually that has led you to make that diagnosis about his blood-pumping organ?

Sorry for the sarcasm, but the topic of "Intangibles" is usually pretty ridiculous to me when it comes to athletes. Say he makes more physical errors than he should. Say that some of his decisions are poor, but please spare me from this "heart" and "disinterest" crap.

If we're going to go deep into April, he's going to have pick up his game and lead the defense. I think we can all agree on that.

Well, of course. I think we can say that about several key players on this year's squadron. He's certainly one of them, and when he's on his game, he's one of the best d-men in the league.

Needlessly sarcastic response aside, we can keep giving you synyonyms like "focus" or "intensity" (both of which are apt). I'm certainly not the only one that holds this opinion, nor am I using a phraseology hwolly alien to sports commentary. There's nothing "intangible" about his play. At times, and I emphasise AT TIMES, he makes downright unforgiveably awful plays, especially for a senior. I've given you quite a few examples of how I think he makes stupid plays at times. Saying he looks disinterested or doesn't play with a lot of heart are both fair comments. You can tell when someone's playing with heart or working his ass off. See Greening,Topher, Mugford, Vesce, etc. Nash continues to make mistakes he shouldn't make, doesn't show a lot of hustle to 50/50 pucks or to cover up his own blunders. Would "he's not scrappy and doesn't show a lot of hustle" be better descriptions for you? He's often slow to react and looks out of place or lost. Better descriptions? He only looks comfortable when he's carrying the puck. And there I give him a lot of credit - he's excellent on the breakout and integral to that portion of our play. However, he's neither shut you down defensemen in the model of say...Gleed nor the sharpshooter from the point that Cook was. I hope that clarifies my critique. As I said, I don't like to be critical of our own guys, but your incessant whining about it is irritating.

As an aside, I'd dare you to find anyone on any successful team at any level who calls "heart" or "intensity" crap. Heart and intensity win championships. It's that Rocky mentality that has often seemed to befuddle us when we play ostensibly less-talented, but speedier teams who seem to fly around and skate their hearts out. Personally, I'd take a team of scrappy guys who play with a lot of heart any day...Herb Brooks did. Seemed to work out well for everybody.

CUontheslopes
Needlessly sarcastic response aside, we can keep giving you synyonyms like "focus" or "intensity" (both of which are apt). I'm certainly not the only one that holds this opinion, nor am I using a phraseology hwolly alien to sports commentary. There's nothing "intangible" about his play. At times, and I emphasise AT TIMES, he makes downright unforgiveably awful plays, especially for a senior. I've given you quite a few examples of how I think he makes stupid plays at times. Saying he looks disinterested or doesn't play with a lot of heart are both fair comments. You can tell when someone's playing with heart or working his ass off. See Greening,Topher, Mugford, Vesce, etc. Nash continues to make mistakes he shouldn't make, doesn't show a lot of hustle to 50/50 pucks or to cover up his own blunders. Would "he's not scrappy and doesn't show a lot of hustle" be better descriptions for you? He's often slow to react and looks out of place or lost. Better descriptions? He only looks comfortable when he's carrying the puck. And there I give him a lot of credit - he's excellent on the breakout and integral to that portion of our play. However, he's neither shut you down defensemen in the model of say...Gleed nor the sharpshooter from the point that Cook was. I hope that clarifies my critique. As I said, I don't like to be critical of our own guys, but your incessant whining about it is irritating.

As an aside, I'd dare you to find anyone on any successful team at any level who calls "heart" or "intensity" crap. Heart and intensity win championships. It's that Rocky mentality that has often seemed to befuddle us when we play ostensibly less-talented, but speedier teams who seem to fly around and skate their hearts out. Personally, I'd take a team of scrappy guys who play with a lot of heart any day...Herb Brooks did. Seemed to work out well for everybody.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Calm down. First of all, I never was attacking you personally, and I don't know why you're getting so worked up over this. Yes, my sarcasm was unnecessary (which I apologized for), but everything on this forum is unnecessary. I only used that method to make a funny and amuse myself and possibly others. Incessant whining? I've made two short posts. I'm not participating in this debate because I'm upset you criticized a player I like. I completely approve of and support you being critical of one of our own players. There's nothing wrong with that. As long as you're critical of real things. MOST of the things you (and others) have said are actual empirical observations. Fine. I've noticed myself that B. Nash has streaks lasting for weeks where the quality of his play isn't anywhere near of what he's capable. I've seen BIG mistakes he's made, and I don't hesitate to call him out for it. He absolutely makes stupid plays. But what I'm making fun of here, is when people cross over to talk about "intangibles." I don't care what you call it: Heart, Intensity, Focus, Fortitude, Determination, Disinterest, whatever. These are all intangibles. They can't be measured or proven. It's my opinion that they are made-up quantities based on your own emotional opinions of a guy.

Some of you may have heard of a defunct sports blog titled "Fire Joe Morgan" (FJM) which I thought was wonderfully hilarious. Its point was to basically make fun of dumb sports articles (with an obvious slant towards baseball). Why do I bring this up? Because you used a certain hot-button word for that blog. Recently, FJM had a "reunion" on Deadspin. And that gave us this article, titled "The Utterance Of This Word Should Be Punishable By Death," I ask you to read. Or don't, because I'm going to extract a relevant brief quote from it.

[deadspin.com]

As we all know by now, "scrappy" is a meaningless, arbitrary, clichéd adjective that sportswriters use to describe baseball players they like. Often, these players are small, white, terrible at baseball, David Eckstein, or all four of the above.

...

"They may or may not play every day, but every time they step on the field you're ensured that they're giving it their all."

You know what you're saying, random dude who wrote a very minor Internet-only baseball article that never thought he would get trashed and over-analyzed for little to no reason? You're saying that they look like they're giving it their all. And you know why they look that way? Because they're bad, and it literally takes them the maximum physical effort to accomplish basic baseball tasks like throwing the ball from short to first. When David Eckstein throws the ball to first base, he has to wind up like a shot-putter, spin around forty-three times, and launch it at an angle 89 degrees from the horizontal. Afterwards, he undergoes an IV drip for a fortnight and he's so out of breath that he requires several months of acupuncture to regain the power of speech. For this we laud him.

And that was sort of my point when I was mentioned John Olerud in passing. Pop open the batting helmet lid of C3P-Olerud, and you can probably see the circuitry of that android. That guy has negative perceived "intensity," but that doesn't mean he wasn't a very good player.

I was tempted to go line-by-line of your post saying "yes" and "no" to each point since you flip-flop in between real-world and intangible-world so effortlessly. "He's slow to react" is valid to me. I understand that. "He doesn't play with heart" is meaningless to me. However, your entire 2nd paragraph made me laugh. Heart and intensity don't win championships. BEING CONSISTENTLY GOOD AT HOCKEY wins championships (and getting a couple bounces in your favor can certainly help).

I actually want to thank you for getting me to do a search for "FJM Eckstein" and learning of this FJM Reunion on Deadspin. This is gold to me.

Since you're being thorough, it's also fair to point out that "grit" and "passion" are so archetypical of the timeless Moneyball (and before that, Ball Four) "old fart jock vs unathletic statsgeek" pissing contest that at least one sabremetric-inspired blog, Amazin' Avenue, coined the term "grission" to make the same point.

But. Inexact does not equal non-existent. If we strip away the emotion-laden terminology of "intensity" and "focus" we're still left with personal experiences -- call them "I am trying hard" (or not) and "I give a damn" (or not). Like pornography, while undefinable we know them when we see them. Now, it may be a fair criticism whether external observers can ever evaluate those internal states, since what we take as indicators are highly subjective and often ephemeral (classic example: an "effortless" skating style).

Nice game story in today's Daily Sun: http://www.cornellsun.com/section/sports/content/2009/11/01/greening%E2%80%99s-two-goals-not-enough-so-devin-lends-hand-overtime

It's probably the most accurate and well-written game summary I've seen in the Sun for some time. Kudos to Mitchell Drucker.

For those who weren't aware, from INCH's Power Rankings today:

INCH
Not too shabby when your parents weekend game draws Ron Francis. The Hall of Famer and fourth-leading scorer in NHL history has a daughter at Cornell, and the Hurricanes' Associate Head Coach caught Friday night's win over Niagara.

Perhaps he was also taking a look at Krueger, who's a Carolina draft pick IIRC.

RichH
But what I'm making fun of here, is when people cross over to talk about "intangibles." I don't care what you call it: Heart, Intensity, Focus, Fortitude, Determination, Disinterest, whatever. These are all intangibles. They can't be measured or proven. It's my opinion that they are made-up quantities based on your own emotional opinions of a guy.

This is ridiculous. "Your own emotional opinions"? What? So when I see that, say, Manny Ramirez is disinterested in a given fly ball, and when I hear his coaches complain about his lack of effort, it's just my own emotional opinions at work?

RichH
And that was sort of my point when I was mentioned John Olerud in passing. Pop open the batting helmet lid of C3P-Olerud, and you can probably see the circuitry of that android. That guy has negative perceived "intensity," but that doesn't mean he wasn't a very good player.

A straw man. No one is saying that Olerud--or, more to the point, a player who makes the Red roster--is anything but a very skilled athlete. Obviously, it takes genuine talent and years of hard training to get to this level. But your insistence that the players are therefore all the same in this regard, that we should never differentiate among them re their intensity/effort/heart/desire/focus, is just plain silly.

HockeyMan
Obviously, it takes genuine talent and years of hard training to get to this level. But your insistence that the players are therefore all the same in this regard, that we should never differentiate among them re their intensity/effort/heart/desire/focus, is just plain silly.

The point is not that some people don't care more or less than others. The point is that you have no earthly idea who - with Manny Ramirez being (to some degree but to a far less degree than you think) the exception to the rule. You see Nash misplay a puck and think to yourself "man, that guy doesn't give a shit; I want him benched." The reason he logs so much ice time is because a guy I am inclined to trust sees that same play and thinks "we are going to have a talk about fundamentals in practice" because he knows how much better he is than the replacement option. See also, Manny Ramirez.

Trotsky
Since you're being thorough, it's also fair to point out that "grit" and "passion" are so archetypical of the timeless Moneyball (and before that, Ball Four) "old fart jock vs unathletic statsgeek" pissing contest that at least one sabremetric-inspired blog, Amazin' Avenue, coined the term "grission" to make the same point.

But. Inexact does not equal non-existent. If we strip away the emotion-laden terminology of "intensity" and "focus" we're still left with personal experiences -- call them "I am trying hard" (or not) and "I give a damn" (or not). Like pornography, while undefinable we know them when we see them. Now, it may be a fair criticism whether external observers can ever evaluate those internal states, since what we take as indicators are highly subjective and often ephemeral (classic example: an "effortless" skating style).

Well said, and I cede your 2nd point. Hockey is an inherently different game than the baseball examples I've given. It is more constant in action and more of a team-oriented game, so there are more things that players can do that don't show up in the stat sheets. An example I'll throw out there is "chemistry" when framed with respect to skating lines. If you put 3 guys out there whose styles work well together to achieve a certain result, and they know each others' habits so well that they can usually expect an action or positioning ahead of time, that can be a big advantage.

scoop85
Nice game story in today's Daily Sun: http://www.cornellsun.com/section/sports/content/2009/11/01/greening%E2%80%99s-two-goals-not-enough-so-devin-lends-hand-overtime

It's probably the most accurate and well-written game summary I've seen in the Sun for some time. Kudos to Mitchell Drucker.

I liked this

We went to the ref and asked him for a video replay... but then I went back over and they said there was just a black screen. They said it was inconclusive, so they counted it as a goal.”

and this

Greening’s Two Goals Not Enough,(headline)

followed by

Senior captain Colin Greening netted a goal and an assist

At least the refs quote is funny.

USCHO poll has Cornell #5. Ditto INCH power rankings: [insidecollegehockey.com]

Thank you, Joe D. OT goal.

[Edit: Make that #6 at USCHO. Their twitter says #5 but maybe that's a hangover from last week's poll.] Meaningless, in any case.]

ugarte

HockeyMan
Obviously, it takes genuine talent and years of hard training to get to this level. But your insistence that the players are therefore all the same in this regard, that we should never differentiate among them re their intensity/effort/heart/desire/focus, is just plain silly.

The point is not that some people don't care more or less than others. The point is that you have no earthly idea who - with Manny Ramirez being (to some degree but to a far less degree than you think) the exception to the rule. You see Nash misplay a puck and think to yourself "man, that guy doesn't give a shit; I want him benched." The reason he logs so much ice time is because a guy I am inclined to trust sees that same play and thinks "we are going to have a talk about fundamentals in practice" because he knows how much better he is than the replacement option. See also, Manny Ramirez.

Totally agree on Manny. He's a good example, because based on the way he plays you would think he doesn't have focus, intensity, heart, etc. However, by all accounts he puts in more time in the cages and studying picthers than anyone. (Although do fertility drugs help your focus?)

It is the same way with Nash. We don't have any idea how much time he puts in outside of practice. He may be in the weight room, or working on condition, or studying film all the time. He could be intensly passionate about the game, with all the focus in the world, but show it like Ramirez (or Olerud, or Drew).

It is the same way with Nash. We don't have any idea how much time he puts in outside of practice.

It is likely this is reflected by ice time. I don't have the TOI, but he is out there in a lot of important situations.

oceanst41
Totally agree on Manny. He's a good example, because based on the way he plays you would think he doesn't have focus, intensity, heart, etc. However, by all accounts he puts in more time in the cages and studying picthers than anyone. (Although do fertility drugs help your focus?)

I can certainly believe that Manny Ramirez puts in the work and cares about hitting. There is no reason to believe that he gives a crap about any other part of the game. Watch him (mis)play the field sometime and tell me he's focused or cares about being a good outfielder.

Diving to cut off a throw in shallow center field? Really?

oceanst41
It is the same way with Nash. We don't have any idea how much time he puts in outside of practice. He may be in the weight room, or working on condition, or studying film all the time. He could be intensly passionate about the game, with all the focus in the world, but show it like Ramirez (or Olerud, or Drew).

We do know that he returned to action six or seven months after suffering a devastating knee injury at the end of his freshman year. Although he was not 100% recovered when he stepped onto the Madison Square Garden ice against BU, it was remarkable that he was able to play two dozen games during his sophomore season. That speaks volumes about his work ethic.