TBRW Statistical Reflections on the 2003 RS

Cornell's 29 GA in 22 GP is the best defensive performance in the history of not only Cornell but the entire ECAC: [www.spiritone.com]

Cornell had 8 4-point weekends out of 11 weekends in ECAC play: [www.spiritone.com]

LeNeveu's 7 shut-outs have set Cornell's alltime single season record; all 7 were in ECAC RS play. His 31 saves were the most by a Cornellian in a shut out in more than 7 years: [www.spiritone.com]

At 11-0-0, Cornell completes the most successful ECAC RS home slate in its history: [www.spiritone.com]

Cornell's 24 wins are 6th on the team's all-time list: [www.spiritone.com]

Cornell wins back-to-back ECAC RS titles for the first time in 30 years: [www.spiritone.com]

Cornell's 39 ECAC RS points are the second-most in team history: [www.spiritone.com]

Cornell's defense has now improved in ECAC RS play for the past 5 seasons: [www.spiritone.com]

Cornell broke 4 goals per game in ECAC RS play for the second time in 11 seasons: [www.spiritone.com]

Cornell wins their first game at Yale since Coach Schafer's first season: [www.spiritone.com]

Cornell was 5-1 against the #2 through #4 teams. Last year they were 3-3: [www.spiritone.com]

Coach Schafer is now over .500 against every ECAC team in RS play except for being just a single game under .500 vs Dartmouth and SLU. Overall, he is a combined 47 games over .500 in 8 seasons: [www.spiritone.com]

Cornell's back-to-back Ivy championships move them to within 7 of Harvard's record 24, despite Harvard having had a 28 year head start, during much of which 4 or fewer teams could qualify for the title: [www.spiritone.com]

Cornell's 7 ECAC RS championships are third place all-time, 1 behind Harvard and 3 behind Clarkson's record of 10: [www.spiritone.com]

Cornell wins the Ivy League title by a remarkable 5 point margin out of 10 games, possibly the largest margin ever: [www.spiritone.com]

Cornell has now been a top 4 RS seed for 4 consecutive years for the first time since the 1966-75 run: [www.spiritone.com]

For the first time in a while, no place in the ECAC standings set either a min or max record for points: [www.spiritone.com]

Princeton's 46 goals in 22 games ties for the 7th worst offensive performance in ECAC RS history: [www.spiritone.com]

[Q]Cornell's defense has now improved in ECAC RS play for the past 5 seasons: [www.spiritone.com]... [/Q]
Shouldn't the bar extend one higher? Rounding up like everything else? Or are you just *that* enthused about this year's team that you feel they deserve the benefit of the doubt

That enthused.

Fixed. Lenny needs to shoot for 0.99 next year. Plenty of room for improvement.

BTW, if you just take out the one Dartmouth loss (with 2 eng) and the Harvard game at Bright, in the remaining ECAC RS games started by Lenny, Cornell's GAA was 17/18 = 0.94

Very cool info there, Greg....it's hard to believe our offense was more inept than this year's Princeton squad just 2 years ago. (oh, and either your GA or the GAA for 2002 is way off...I think it's the GA, since I know our team D was incredible last year too)

> either your GA or the GAA for 2002 is way off

Fixed. It was 34 GA for a (correct) GAA of 1.55.

This is also the first time since before the Great Divorce that Cornell has posted at least one RS win against every ECAC opponent. The closest the Big Red had come to this feat prior to this season was Coach Schafer's first year behind the bench, 1995-96, when Cornell beat every ECAC opponent at least once in the regular season except for RS champ Vermont, whom the Big Red tied twice.

And it appears that Lenny is closing in on another milestone...

From an earlier thread, Ken Dryden appears to hold the Cornell record for most times allowing one goal or fewer in a season, with 17 in 1967-68 (6 shutouts, 11 one-goal games). Dave is currently sitting at 16, with 7 shutouts and 9 one-goalers.

Add Todd Marr's one-goal game against Ohio State, and the Big Red is currently one short of the team record of 18 one-goal-or-fewer games in a season, set last year.

Wowzers.

Mike Schafer also achieved a milestone tonight, with his 150th win at Cornell.

Mike is now 150-87-25 for 325 points in 262 games = .620 percentage.

And another fun stat: Cornell scored 89/(89+29) = 75% of the goals in their ECAC RS games. This was the 5th highest percentage in their history: [www.spiritone.com]

Great stats, but not trying to throw a blanket on the party, there is still that little matter of the Real ECAC Championship.

Greg wrote:

Cornell's 7 ECAC RS championships are third place all-time, 1 behind Harvard and 3 behind Clarkson's record of 10...

It has to be said that until the NCAA put in place the infamous "Colorado College rule" sometime in the 90s, no one gave a hoot in hell about any so-called "ECAC regular season championship."

It never ceases to amuse me when SIDs now write things like Cornell's did last year about "Cornell's first regular season championship since 1973." Having very much enjoyed the 1972-3 season, I'll tell you that no one made any reference at the time to a "regular season ECAC championship." In the early days of the ECAC, some teams played 13 or 14 games against ECAC Division I teams and others played 19 or 20. There was no consistency in common opponents. How meaningful could a "regular season champion" have been during the period when the ECAC was divided into three divisions, where teams played different schedules depending upon which division they were in. No one touted themselves as "ECAC regular season champions." Until a point in time which I can't recall, unfortunately, winning percentage was not even the sole factor used by the ECAC to determine tournament seedings.

Teams played the regular season to position themselves for the tournament. That meant winning regular season games, sure, but it also meant working promising sophomores into the lineup (and then freshmen, when they were given eligibility) in order to prepare them for the post-season, even if that meant a mistake or two might cost you a regular season game. You just didn't worry that a loss in November might drop your computer-generated ranking just enough come March that you'd be left out in the cold.

Measuring "regular season titles" before the institution of the Colorado College rule is like measuring what percentage of shots Cornell's Chuck Rolles made from beyond the three-point line back in the 50s--when there was no three-point line. Even if one knew from what spot on the floor each of his shots was taken, it just didn't matter at the time.

Greg, I don't mean in any way to be picking on you with these comments. No one looks forward more than me to your regular posting of statistical insights like those above. But this extension of "regular season champions" business back into an era when no one paid any attention to it just sticks in my craw.

End of rant.

Al,

I can tell you that I gave a hoot in hell that we hadn't earned the #1 seed in the ECAC tournament during my first 19 years as a Cornell hockey fan. I didn't evaluate ECAC results with respect to NCAA ramifications at all -- I just envied Clarkson and Harvard for their seemingly unerring ability to seal the deal on the #1 seed. The NCAA was a reward at the end of the *real* struggle -- to win the ECACs and hopefully embarrass Harvard along the way.

This emphasis on NCAA consequences of RS actions is actually the new thing that didn't exist before. Up until a few years ago you did what you could to win the ECAC tournament, and otherwise hopefully the guys in the smoke-filled room had been plied with drinks and girls sufficiently in favor of your team that year if you finished just short.

Depressingly, just as in basketball, we now see such a devaluation of the conference tournaments that fans care more about an uptick of one or two PWR slots than they do an uptick of one or two places in the conference standings. Heresy, I say!

Greg said[Q] I just envied Clarkson and Harvard for their seemingly unerring ability to seal the deal on the #1 seed.[/Q]But, I rather liked the ECAC tourney where we could beat those supposed #1 seeds. Al is right, it just didn't mean the same then. Do you suppose that's why they chose to call it the Cleary trophy, so they could be happy while we forgot about it and won the real trophy? Most teams don't say anything about the regular season, unless they didn't win the tourney. Just look at us last year, do you think we would have talked about the regular season if we had won our 10th tourney?

Well, just like Al, I'd better shut-up before I stir up those Clarkson fans.

Hey, a few more Cleary Cups and we'll have tied Clarkson -- though of course we'll have a few more real titles to show for it all.

Well, I admit I'm a bit of a contrarian in this. I find more satisfaction in winning the regular season title which is based on your ability to perform at the highest level over the course of the entire season. Cornell has proved in the past when they won the tourney as a #8 seed that anyone can have a couple good nights and get lucky. In my mind rating the tournament over the regular season is the same as saying UM-Mankato is the best team in the country right now because they beat CC.

That being said you don't have to even bother telling me I'm wrong because I *know* I'm about the only one on the planet who feels this way, and I don't need any help to feel like a Yankee's fan at Fenway.

Greg wrote:

Depressingly, just as in basketball, we now see such a devaluation of the conference tournaments that fans care more about an uptick of one or two PWR slots than they do an uptick of one or two places in the conference standings. Heresy, I say!

And I say amen to this--heartily--although I'm more interested in the tournament placement--and there's only one place that matters--than the regular season finish. It's simply absurd, IMHO, that tournament games get no more weight in the PWR (or KRACH) calculations than a regular season game.

My point is, winning the ECAC meant winning the tournament until the NCAA "rewarded" the regular season winner with an automatic bid. Prior to that point, finishing first rather than second in the regular season meant playing an eighth-seeded slightly sub-.500 team vs. a seventh-seeded slightly sub-.500 team the following Tuesday night--which was barely worth a shrug. If you had a couple of key players nicked up on the final regular season weekend, you rested them for the tournament rather than risking them in the final regular season games to get a #1 seed vs. a #2 seed. After the Colorado and Clarkson "rules" were promulgated, there was suddenly big incentive for finishing #1 (automatic NCAA bid and shot at a bye if you also won your tournament)--so teams pulled out all stops to get that top spot, because it made a difference.

I just think it's misleading to go back in time and attribute something (i.e., a regular season championship) to a team that at the time had no clue they were even winning such a thing--and, more importantly, at a time when the supposed also-rans had no idea they were losing it.

Peter, there are certainly others who feel the way you do. For example, we had some interesting discussions with Clarkson fans in the mid-90s when Cornell won the tournament, and Tech fans were touting that they were the *real* ECAC champions since they won over the course of a long regular season.

My answer to that? To make a fair parallel to professional sports...you can take the Presidents trophy and the best NHL regular season record...I'll take the Stanley Cup over that any year. In MLB, Oakland won a league-high 103 games over a greuling 162-game schedule and a tough AL-West race over 2 strong teams in Anaheim and Seattle. Do you think they're satisfied with the season, given the playoff results? After all, you only have to win 11 games in the playoffs...


Screw the Cleary. I want Whitelaw!

[q]Cornell wins the Ivy League title by a remarkable 5 point margin out of 10 games, possibly the largest margin ever:[/q]

Possible, but unlikely, in so much as Dartmouth went 10-0-0 in Ivy Play back in 58-59. Unless the runner-up went unbeaten and untied against everyone but Dartmouth, they would've finished at least 5 points ahead of the 2nd place team.

Rich, I understand what you're saying, although perhaps it's mainly the word "championship" that's getting you down. Teams did know in the past that they were either winning or losing the #1 seed, and this did mean something for them in the tourny -- relatively weaker opponents in every round, and last line change in every game.

Once upon a time I actually did call it a list of #1 seeds, but I liked the parallelism of the RS/PS titles more.

I argue very much in your vein when it comes to the Ivy League "championships" of the period 1934-1953. There was no Ivy League for hockey prior to 1954, but not only do the teams who finished first in games among the Ivy participants claim those as "titles," but even worse, the Ivy League web site itself lists them as titles. This is much worse, in my opinion -- it's as if Hockey East went back and took the subset records of their members in years prior to 1985 and retroactively awarded Hockey East championships. That's just silly.

On the subject of the Ivy League championships - the web site's listings for hockey become more curious in light of the fact that for many other sports (basketball, lacrosse, soccer, football), champions are only listed from 1955-56 (1956 for football), which I believe was when full round-robin play began (though the Ivy Group Agreement was signed in 1954).

As far as the RS ECAC 'title' and tourny title being compared to the President's Trophy and the Stanley Cup, I have to say it's a bit different.

The Stanley Cup playoffs are 4 series of 7 games. It's nearly impossible to knock off a top seed simply because you got lucky. You need to get lucky 4 times. That doesn't happen very often, and so if a team wins after finishing the RS poorly, they deserve the Cup the most...it takes consistently good hockey against the best of the best for the entire playoffs. The ECAC (and NCAA) title can be won by a #4 seed pretty easily...they need to beat a lower opponent in 2 of 3 (which shouldn't be tough), then have 2 good games. One good game to knock off the top seed. Needless to say, it's a lot easier for the top seed to lose the ECACs and have a cinderella team win.

I personally hold a little more weight to the Cleary as far as determining the better team. Although I consider the ECAC Championship to be the tourny. Were we the best team in the ECAC last year? Yes, I think so. Were we the ECAC champions...no. But the Cleary is a damn proud achievement, and I think is more prestigious than an Ivy title. I DO think it would be nice to track the Cleary Cup wins on our banners....heck, we put up banners for NCAA tourny appearances. The banners woudn't have to say anything about ECAC champions...just put 2003 - Cleary Cup.

Jordan

Don't get me wrong. I value earning as high a place in the regular season as possible. My senior year, I was tickled to have made it all the way to #4, and the following year, the fight for the top seed with a great Todd White led Clarkson team was very exciting. But the thrill, intensity, and a sort of urgency to the post-season made those playoff runs in '96-'97 more important to me than what happened in the regular season. After all is said and done, more people (including the players and coaches) care about how you performed when it "counted" (to use an awkward word in this situation). Sort of a "put your money where your mouth is" type of challenge. Your opinion is valid, I just disagree. There's also the fact that the award we receive has a name that is synonymous with a hated rival. Up until recently, there was no pomp or award other than gaining the #1 seed.

As far as the banners go, I'm starting to agree that the NCAA Tournament participant banners are getting less meaningful. When the tourney consisted of a 4 team field (up to 1980), I think they meant something more. With the field increasing from 12 to 16 teams this year, it's certainly easier to grab a spot than it was when the banners started going up (which was when?). Perhaps that should just be a list on one of the banners on the West wall with the Olympians. But at least we don't hang banners for ECAC Final Four like they do at Brown (I think it was Meehan where we saw that).

NCAA appearances aren't all *that* degraded. Back when the tourny was 4 teams, there were really only about 20 teams that would ever have a shot in their wildest dreams -- the other 10+ D1 teams were strictly ballast. Now it's 16 teams out of 60, but with the CHA and MAAC bids almost all 60 have a shot. A higher ratio, but not insanely higher. For that matter, the ratio of ECAC members:ECAC teams in the NCAA has actually remainded stable, from a dependable 17:2 to a current 12:1.5ish

I for one love the NCAA appearance banners. Even in the relatively less "pure" 8- and 12- seed periods, from 82 through 85, then from 87 through 90, then from 92 through 95, and then from 98 through 2001, Cornell failed to qualify. Those were long periods, often corresponding with an entire graduating class' tenure. It's a big accomplishment and it deserves recognition. Also, note that although it may seem like everybody's making it these days, the ECAC is only throwing one legit team into the mix this year (and hopefully only one rep!). After the grad wave, making the NCAAs at all next year with such a young team would be one helluva accomplishment.

True enough, Greg. I retract my dissing of the NCAA tournament banners. I'll just enjoy the rafters getting really crowded.

Jordan Steele '01 wrote:

I DO think it would be nice to track the Cleary Cup wins on our banners....heck, we put up banners for NCAA tourny appearances. The banners woudn't have to say anything about ECAC champions...just put 2003 - Cleary Cup.

Do you really think we're ever going to hang Cleary's name from the rafters as long as Schafer (long may he reign) is head coach?

I think Mike would be in favor for anything involving hanging Cleary.

Greg wrote:

I argue very much in your vein when it comes to the Ivy League "championships" of the period 1934-1953. There was no Ivy League for hockey prior to 1954, but not only do the teams who finished first in games among the Ivy participants claim those as "titles," but even worse, the Ivy League web site itself lists them as titles...That's just silly.

Greg, in my view what you've written above describes precisely what it is to attribute a "regular season championship" to the #1 seed prior to the ECAC describing it as a championship and giving some kind of award or recognition for it. Especially in the pre-divorce era, when schedules were wildly inconsistent, it makes no sense. As you wrote above, it's "just silly."

Now in saying this, in no way do I or did I intend to open again the whole discussion of "which championship is more important." That's irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. The "championship" is whatever the ECAC says is the "championship." If the ECAC says there are two championships, then there are two championships. Rank their importance as you wish--or perhaps ask the players which one they think matters most.

Back on the original point: in my opinion, you can call someone an "ECAC regular season champion" dating from whatever point in time--and I have no idea when that was--the ECAC recognized the existence of such a championship. Awarding championships retroactively to teams that didn't realize they were competing for such championships is...well..."just silly."

I just want to make things a bit clearer, since I didn't say it explicitly earlier: I would rather have an ECAC Championship (tourny) than the Cleary Cup any day. I was at the final last year, and it was agonizing. However, my point was that I view the RS 'champ' as probably the league's best team. If they lose in the tourny, they weren't the best on that day, but are still probably the better team overall.

Anyway, I just hope we can kick Harvard's teeth in should we play them in the ECAC finals... I want revenge on last year, darnit!

Rich Hovorka '96 wrote:

Screw the Cleary. I want Whitelaw!

Well, since we already have the Cleary, I want both.

Speaking of revenge, I thought the "best" playoff structure would be Colgate in the quarters, Dartmouth in the semi's, and Hahvahd in the final. Not the easiest mind you, but most satisfying should we get through it. Had Dartmouth only not passed Yale, we'd be set up perfectly for it. Instead, it's not possible. Although, the concept of going to Albany with a guaranteed final of Hahvahd *or* Dartmouth, isn't too bad. Again, this all being if we make it that far, as we deserve to.

Well, I think we're circling the drain, here. The "Championship" has been, is, and will remain the Tourny Champion, but there's no harm in tracking who won the #1 RS seed.

As for it being silly, well, silly can be good. Osama and Saddam could use a little silly. Dubya... well, no, Dubya's already silly enough.

Don't know if anyone has posted this yet (I've been too busy to keep up with the traffic ) but Lenny is now averaging a shut out every 3.5 games while 2001 Hobey Baker winner Rayn Miller averaged a shut out every 4.0 games. Just thought this was kinda neat and should be mentioned.


BTW, here are their numbers:

                  W-L-T         SV %          GAA           SO
Ryan Miller      31-5-4        .950           1.32          10
David LeNeveu    22-2-1        .943           1.16           7

Ever closer...

ECAC record in RS play, 1964-2003

Clarkson 650-329-61 .654 (down .004 from 2002)
Cornell  632-328-60 .649 (up .005 from 2002)

Post Edited (03-07-03 12:22)

Cornell's last 25 ECAC RS games vs Non-Ivy teams: 23-1-1

I don't know if this was mentioned elsewhere, but I just noticed that the the perfect home record does not have any 1-goal games. Thanks to the empty-net goal at the end of Union, every home game has at least a 2 goal margin.

And until Colgate spoiled it, Cornell had won every home game by at least a 3 goal spread. The home numbers are truly incredible: in 13 games, 61 GF and 12 goals against, and that's excluding the 9-1 thumping put on York in the exhibition. The season ticket holders definitely got their money's worth.