Yale 11/23

Clint Bourbonais has left the building.

Trotsky
Clint Bourbonais has left the building.

So, does this suggest that we may have a chance Saturday night?

Johnny 5

Trotsky
Clint Bourbonais has left the building.

So, does this suggest that we may have a chance Saturday night?

The last four games have been two wins and two one-goal losses, one of them in overtime, so we certainly have a shot.

any way to view the game tonight? free stream??

hockeyfan23
any way to view the game tonight? free stream??

Last night there were people close to giving away extra tickets outside Lynah.

If Lynah isn't full for the national champs...

Lynah's full, the crowd is loud, and the boys are playing hard! LGR

I don't want to start a fight or anything, but I'm going to side with BearLover and say that I definitely don't think it is in Cornell's interest for Yale to win this game.

Great game by both teams and great result!

What a great game! I haven't seen such an exciting 2-1 game in a long time.

My two, admittedly trivial in context, consternations:

(1) We're being slightly cute with the puck on 2-on-1s and 3-on-2s. Ferlin, Lowry, Mowrey, and, in particular, Ryan ought to have the green light to be as cute as they want. The rest of the boys (even Bardreau, I think, because his snap shot is his best weapon) need to learn to get the puck on net, low and hard, and look for rebounds.

(2) To my eyes, the problem with our defensive shell right now is that there seems to be a little bit of confusion on the part of the forwards, I think, as to the role of the defensemen in that style of play. The defensemen are going to hang back a bit, naturally, and not pinch, generally. Right now, I think our non-puck-side forward is getting a bit too deep, thinking that the defenseman behind him is there to back up for the pinch. (Five-on-five, the defensemen are fantastic at this; indeed, I'm not sure I've seen a Cornell team where the defensemen pinched as effectively as these guys do. In 2003 and 2005, the puck possession was mostly due to cycles by the forwards, so our defense could hang back a bit more.) So, there's a bit of a gap between forward and defender, and when we're not able to set up the shell the other team can come through the neutral zone with speed, exactly what we're trying to avoid. I almost wish we wouldn't play the shell because our pinching defensemen are so effective. I know it's important; I want us to be able to sit on one-goal and two-goal leads with confidence again. But maybe practice it against teams that aren't Yale?!

There haven't been many nights lately when I wished I was in Ithaca.

This is one of those nights.

I am going to disagree with Bearlover regarding the crowd. I thought it was pretty dead except at obvious times like when we scored a goal or Andy made a save. This was the defending national champions, for crying out loud. Cornell dominated every facet of the game and the place was silent.

The band was presumably missing the football component so was a little rag-tag. The group that did perform did not do well in its cheerleading. No rousing tunes when play stopped and no LGR. I went to watch wrestling between periods so don't know what they played during the intermissions. I did not hear GG at the start of the 3rd period.

dag14
I am going to disagree with Bearlover regarding the crowd. I thought it was pretty dead except at obvious times like when we scored a goal or Andy made a save. This was the defending national champions, for crying out loud. Cornell dominated every facet of the game and the place was silent.

The band was presumably missing the football component so was a little rag-tag. The group that did perform did not do well in its cheerleading. No rousing tunes when play stopped and no LGR. I went to watch wrestling between periods so don't know what they played during the intermissions. I did not hear GG at the start of the 3rd period.

Not sure we dominated every facet of the game, but it was clearly our best game so far. The band... well they were bad, but GG did play at the beginning of the 3rd.

You are right. We were outshot 31-29. What other facet of the game did we not control? Time of possession? Hits? PP? PK? Not only was this our best game so far this season, this was the best game I have seen a Lynah since I can't remember when. Gives one hope for the rest of the season.

I was most impressed with the fact that the only penalty called on us was the too-many-men call. It was also nice to see our big advantage in faceoff wins.

Was this the first time Cornell has beaten the defending national champion since the 1990 ECAC Quarterfinals?

dag14
You are right. We were outshot 31-29. What other facet of the game did we not control? Time of possession? Hits? PP? PK? Not only was this our best game so far this season, this was the best game I have seen a Lynah since I can't remember when. Gives one hope for the rest of the season.

+1

I thought CU by far played the better game. I guess if I had one place to complain it would be them keep missing the empty net!

yep three good shots at an empty net and one post and two sort of near misses - Otherwise I agree was a great game with Cornell out playing Yale fairly completely in the first period.... Middle period was more equal as Yale seemed to find some wind and started to skate. The third period was also fairly equal towards beginning but we seemed to stop our aggressive fore-check and pull back to a more defensive shell (trap). Yale tried real hard and couldn't quite find the next tying goal. Although they dominated for some time in later part of third period, but Cornell seemed to also kick it up a notch. YEAH ! LGR

My parents were so stoked they just had to call me on their way to post-game ice cream. I haven't heard them so pumped over Cornell hockey in years - really great to hear the excitement in their voices!

dag14
You are right. We were outshot 31-29. What other facet of the game did we not control? Time of possession? Hits? PP? PK? Not only was this our best game so far this season, this was the best game I have seen a Lynah since I can't remember when. Gives one hope for the rest of the season.

Well the shots weren't really the problem. You're going to give up shots when you're leading the entire game, especially in the 3rd period. If you looked at all shot attempts I'm pretty sure the corsi numbers would be close if not in our favor. I'd say our zone entries could be better. We definitely carried and passed in more often than usual, but there was still too much dump and chase. You generate more shots on carry in and pass ins than dump ins and shoot ins. The PK was great and the power play was very good I'm most worried about our zone exits from the defensive zone. We get the puck out, but without possession far too often. More and more evidence is showing that the most important zone in hockey is the neutral zone. We played well there, but did not dominate it by any stretch of the imagination. Still a good game against a good team. If we play like this we'll have a good season. If we go back to what we were doing before this is a .500 team at best.

css228

dag14
You are right. We were outshot 31-29. What other facet of the game did we not control? Time of possession? Hits? PP? PK? Not only was this our best game so far this season, this was the best game I have seen a Lynah since I can't remember when. Gives one hope for the rest of the season.

Well the shots weren't really the problem. You're going to give up shots when you're leading the entire game, especially in the 3rd period. If you looked at all shot attempts I'm pretty sure the corsi numbers would be close if not in our favor. I'd say our zone entries could be better. We definitely carried and passed in more often than usual, but there was still too much dump and chase. You generate more shots on carry in and pass ins than dump ins and shoot ins. The PK was great and the power play was very good I'm most worried about our zone exits from the defensive zone. We get the puck out, but without possession far too often. More and more evidence is showing that the most important zone in hockey is the neutral zone. We played well there, but did not dominate it by any stretch of the imagination. Still a good game against a good team. If we play like this we'll have a good season. If we go back to what we were doing before this is a .500 team at best.

Corsi is probably not the best metric for what Schafer is trying to accomplish. If you listen to him talk about such things, he's wants the team to limit shots to be from the periphery at bad angles. Is there any metric that actually takes the shooter's location into account?

Swampy

css228

dag14
You are right. We were outshot 31-29. What other facet of the game did we not control? Time of possession? Hits? PP? PK? Not only was this our best game so far this season, this was the best game I have seen a Lynah since I can't remember when. Gives one hope for the rest of the season.

Well the shots weren't really the problem. You're going to give up shots when you're leading the entire game, especially in the 3rd period. If you looked at all shot attempts I'm pretty sure the corsi numbers would be close if not in our favor. I'd say our zone entries could be better. We definitely carried and passed in more often than usual, but there was still too much dump and chase. You generate more shots on carry in and pass ins than dump ins and shoot ins. The PK was great and the power play was very good I'm most worried about our zone exits from the defensive zone. We get the puck out, but without possession far too often. More and more evidence is showing that the most important zone in hockey is the neutral zone. We played well there, but did not dominate it by any stretch of the imagination. Still a good game against a good team. If we play like this we'll have a good season. If we go back to what we were doing before this is a .500 team at best.

Corsi is probably not the best metric for what Schafer is trying to accomplish. If you listen to him talk about such things, he's wants the team to limit shots to be from the periphery at bad angles. Is there any metric that actually takes the shooter's location into account?

Unfortunately no there is not, because shot quality has been found to be less correlated with success and just taking shots. While some shots are clearly better than other shots, there is no evidence that a team can consistently game after game create better quality shots in a way that would appreciably affect shooting percentages. The idea of shot quality is appealing, but at the end of the day a puck bouncing around is a matter of chance. Its a matter of luck whether or not you get that flat puck in the slot with a clear lane, and you can't really count on that appearing.It's better to be the LA Kings or the Chicago Blackhawks (two of the best possession teams in the NHL the last few years) than it is the Maple Leafs. Therefore shooting more is inherently better, because the more shots you take, the better chances you will get. Its essentially the problem we saw on the odd man rushes today, trying to force a cute saucer pass instead of ripping a shot low at the pads and driving the net for a rebound. There are a lot of good articles on the subject, but I like this one in particular. I mean its completely possible that Schafer and the Leafs have created some system where shot quality has become a repeatable phenomenon, but none of the evidence at the moment supports the idea that shot quality trumps just shooting.

css228

Swampy

css228

dag14
You are right. We were outshot 31-29. What other facet of the game did we not control? Time of possession? Hits? PP? PK? Not only was this our best game so far this season, this was the best game I have seen a Lynah since I can't remember when. Gives one hope for the rest of the season.

Well the shots weren't really the problem. You're going to give up shots when you're leading the entire game, especially in the 3rd period. If you looked at all shot attempts I'm pretty sure the corsi numbers would be close if not in our favor. I'd say our zone entries could be better. We definitely carried and passed in more often than usual, but there was still too much dump and chase. You generate more shots on carry in and pass ins than dump ins and shoot ins. The PK was great and the power play was very good I'm most worried about our zone exits from the defensive zone. We get the puck out, but without possession far too often. More and more evidence is showing that the most important zone in hockey is the neutral zone. We played well there, but did not dominate it by any stretch of the imagination. Still a good game against a good team. If we play like this we'll have a good season. If we go back to what we were doing before this is a .500 team at best.

Corsi is probably not the best metric for what Schafer is trying to accomplish. If you listen to him talk about such things, he's wants the team to limit shots to be from the periphery at bad angles. Is there any metric that actually takes the shooter's location into account?

Unfortunately no there is not, because shot quality has been found to be less correlated with success and just taking shots. While some shots are clearly better than other shots, there is no evidence that a team can consistently game after game create better quality shots in a way that would appreciably affect shooting percentages. The idea of shot quality is appealing, but at the end of the day a puck bouncing around is a matter of chance. Its a matter of luck whether or not you get that flat puck in the slot with a clear lane, and you can't really count on that appearing.It's better to be the LA Kings or the Chicago Blackhawks (two of the best possession teams in the NHL the last few years) than it is the Maple Leafs. Therefore shooting more is inherently better, because the more shots you take, the better chances you will get. Its essentially the problem we saw on the odd man rushes today, trying to force a cute saucer pass instead of ripping a shot low at the pads and driving the net for a rebound. There are a lot of good articles on the subject, but I like this one in particular. I mean its completely possible that Schafer and the Leafs have created some system where shot quality has become a repeatable phenomenon, but none of the evidence at the moment supports the idea that shot quality trumps just shooting.

Well perhaps I should have been more clear. I don't think Schafer is trying to get Cornell to take only "quality shots." But he has said he wants the team to limit opponents to shots from the periphery and at bad angles. My guess is in both cases, the more Cornell shots and the fewer opponents' shots, the happier he'd be.

css228

Swampy

css228

dag14
You are right. We were outshot 31-29. What other facet of the game did we not control? Time of possession? Hits? PP? PK? Not only was this our best game so far this season, this was the best game I have seen a Lynah since I can't remember when. Gives one hope for the rest of the season.

Well the shots weren't really the problem. You're going to give up shots when you're leading the entire ed game, especially in the 3rd period. If you looked at all shot attempts I'm pretty sure the corsi numbers would be close if not in our favor. I'd say our zone entries could be better. We definitely carried and passed in more often than usual, but there was still too much dump and chase. You generate more shots on carry in and pass ins than dump ins and shoot ins. The PK was great and the power play was very good I'm most worried about our zone exits from the defensive zone. We get the puck out, but without possession far too often. More and more evidence is showing that the most important zone in hockey is the neutral zone. We played well there, but did not dominate it by any stretch of the imagination. Still a good game against a good team. If we play like this we'll have a good season. If we go back to what we were doing before this is a .500 team at best.

Corsi is probably not the best metric for what Schafer is trying to accomplish. If you listen to him talk about such things, he's wants the team to limit shots to be from the periphery at bad angles. Is there any metric that actually takes the shooter's location into account?

Unfortunately no there is not, because shot quality has been found to be less correlated with success and just taking shots. While some shots are clearly better than other shots, there is no evidence that a team can consistently game after game create better quality shots in a way that would appreciably affect shooting percentages. The idea of shot quality is appealing, but at the end of the day a puck bouncing around is a matter of chance. Its a matter of luck whether or not you get that flat puck in the slot with a clear lane, and you can't really count on that appearing.It's better to be the LA Kings or the Chicago Blackhawks (two of the best possession teams in the NHL the last few years) than it is the Maple Leafs. Therefore shooting more is inherently better, because the more shots you take, the better chances you will get. Its essentially the problem we saw on the odd man rushes today, trying to force a cute saucer pass instead of ripping a shot low at the pads and driving the net for a rebound. There are a lot of good articles on the subject, but I like this one in particular. I mean its completely possible that Schafer and the Leafs have created some system where shot quality has become a repeatable phenomenon, but none of the evidence at the moment supports the idea that shot quality trumps just shooting.

I am fairly, but not intimately, familiar with the hockey analytics you're writing about, and I want to raise a couple of caveats.

First, shot attempts are merely a proxy for puck possession. We use it because that's the most freely available data. Shot attempts are a good proxy---better than I had thought intuitively---but it's still only a proxy. When Rodger Craig or Tony Bergin scrapes the puck along the boards in the offensive zone, the puck is 160 feet away from our net. For that time and the next few seconds, the other team isn't scoring. (Then again, until Rodger can turn those extend possessions into scoring chances, neither are we.) In addition, CORSI can be manipulated by specific strategies. As Adam Wodon would write, given equal offensive zone time, a Guy Godowsky coached team

Swampy

css228

Swampy

css228

dag14
You are right. We were outshot 31-29. What other facet of the game did we not control? Time of possession? Hits? PP? PK? Not only was this our best game so far this season, this was the best game I have seen a Lynah since I can't remember when. Gives one hope for the rest of the season.

Well the shots weren't really the problem. You're going to give up shots when you're leading the entire game, especially in the 3rd period. If you looked at all shot attempts I'm pretty sure the corsi numbers would be close if not in our favor. I'd say our zone entries could be better. We definitely carried and passed in more often than usual, but there was still too much dump and chase. You generate more shots on carry in and pass ins than dump ins and shoot ins. The PK was great and the power play was very good I'm most worried about our zone exits from the defensive zone. We get the puck out, but without possession far too often. More and more evidence is showing that the most important zone in hockey is the neutral zone. We played well there, but did not dominate it by any stretch of the imagination. Still a good game against a good team. If we play like this we'll have a good season. If we go back to what we were doing before this is a .500 team at best.

Corsi is probably not the best metric for what Schafer is trying to accomplish. If you listen to him talk about such things, he's wants the team to limit shots to be from the periphery at bad angles. Is there any metric that actually takes the shooter's location into account?

Unfortunately no there is not, because shot quality has been found to be less correlated with success and just taking shots. While some shots are clearly better than other shots, there is no evidence that a team can consistently game after game create better quality shots in a way that would appreciably affect shooting percentages. The idea of shot quality is appealing, but at the end of the day a puck bouncing around is a matter of chance. Its a matter of luck whether or not you get that flat puck in the slot with a clear lane, and you can't really count on that appearing.It's better to be the LA Kings or the Chicago Blackhawks (two of the best possession teams in the NHL the last few years) than it is the Maple Leafs. Therefore shooting more is inherently better, because the more shots you take, the better chances you will get. Its essentially the problem we saw on the odd man rushes today, trying to force a cute saucer pass instead of ripping a shot low at the pads and driving the net for a rebound. There are a lot of good articles on the subject, but I like this one in particular. I mean its completely possible that Schafer and the Leafs have created some system where shot quality has become a repeatable phenomenon, but none of the evidence at the moment supports the idea that shot quality trumps just shooting.

Well perhaps I should have been more clear. I don't think Schafer is trying to get Cornell to take only "quality shots." But he has said he wants the team to limit opponents to shots from the periphery and at bad angles. My guess is in both cases, the more Cornell shots and the fewer opponents' shots, the happier he'd be.

Yes, I'm not trying to say all shots are equal, and I don't think that really is the point of Corsi and Fenwick either. The point is more that as cbuckser is saying, its a very good proxy for possession and the more possession you have, the more chances you have. I will say though that while Corsi can be manipulated it'd be by just shooting from anywhere and everywhere which would be stupid to say the least. The point is more that over the course of a season quality of chances and shots will most likely even out and there really isn't much difference in the results you get from 400 shots with an 8% shooting percentage and 375 at 8.5%. Basically I'm with cbuckser that its really much more a matter of puck possession + luck = scoring chances and scoring chances + luck = goals. Its just if you are not taking a lot of shots and more importantly driving play forward, you're not as likely to achieve the primary goal of a hockey team, which is scoring more goals than the other team. That's why I've harped on things like Cornell's fairly high PDO (1062 coming into this week) and shooting percentage. Those are indicators of luck having been on our side. You're not going to score on 16% of your shots forever, and when you're not doing that it helps to take more shots. Sorry if this was rambling, but I do think you're right that at the end of the day there is nothing incompatible with the idea of a team that would dominate Fenwick and Corsi and what Schafer wants to see out of his team. I've said it before and said it again, you can push play flying up and down the ice like the Blackhawks, or you can dominate the offensive zone grinding like the Kings. Both strategies work, and both teams have excellent possession numbers.

cbuckser

css228

Swampy

css228

dag14
You are right. We were outshot 31-29. What other facet of the game did we not control? Time of possession? Hits? PP? PK? Not only was this our best game so far this season, this was the best game I have seen a Lynah since I can't remember when. Gives one hope for the rest of the season.

Well the shots weren't really the problem. You're going to give up shots when you're leading the entire ed game, especially in the 3rd period. If you looked at all shot attempts I'm pretty sure the corsi numbers would be close if not in our favor. I'd say our zone entries could be better. We definitely carried and passed in more often than usual, but there was still too much dump and chase. You generate more shots on carry in and pass ins than dump ins and shoot ins. The PK was great and the power play was very good I'm most worried about our zone exits from the defensive zone. We get the puck out, but without possession far too often. More and more evidence is showing that the most important zone in hockey is the neutral zone. We played well there, but did not dominate it by any stretch of the imagination. Still a good game against a good team. If we play like this we'll have a good season. If we go back to what we were doing before this is a .500 team at best.

Corsi is probably not the best metric for what Schafer is trying to accomplish. If you listen to him talk about such things, he's wants the team to limit shots to be from the periphery at bad angles. Is there any metric that actually takes the shooter's location into account?

Unfortunately no there is not, because shot quality has been found to be less correlated with success and just taking shots. While some shots are clearly better than other shots, there is no evidence that a team can consistently game after game create better quality shots in a way that would appreciably affect shooting percentages. The idea of shot quality is appealing, but at the end of the day a puck bouncing around is a matter of chance. Its a matter of luck whether or not you get that flat puck in the slot with a clear lane, and you can't really count on that appearing.It's better to be the LA Kings or the Chicago Blackhawks (two of the best possession teams in the NHL the last few years) than it is the Maple Leafs. Therefore shooting more is inherently better, because the more shots you take, the better chances you will get. Its essentially the problem we saw on the odd man rushes today, trying to force a cute saucer pass instead of ripping a shot low at the pads and driving the net for a rebound. There are a lot of good articles on the subject, but I like this one in particular. I mean its completely possible that Schafer and the Leafs have created some system where shot quality has become a repeatable phenomenon, but none of the evidence at the moment supports the idea that shot quality trumps just shooting.

I am fairly, but not intimately, familiar with the hockey analytics you're writing about, and I want to raise a couple of caveats.

First, shot attempts are merely a proxy for puck possession. We use it because that's the most freely available data. Shot attempts are a good proxy---better than I had thought intuitively---but it's still only a proxy. When Rodger Craig or Tony Bergin scrapes the puck along the boards in the offensive zone, the puck is 160 feet away from our net. For that time and the next few seconds, the other team isn't scoring. (Then again, until Rodger can turn those extend possessions into scoring chances, neither are we.) In addition, CORSI can be manipulated by specific strategies. As Adam Wodon would write, given equal offensive zone time, a Guy Godowsky coached team

Thanks for clarifying some of the points I missed.

Yikes. I tried to write the post on my phone and posted prematurely. I'll try again from the beginning.

I am fairly, but not intimately, familiar with the hockey analytics you're writing about, and I want to raise a couple of caveats.

First, shot attempts are merely a proxy for puck possession. We use it because that's the most freely available data. Shot attempts are a good proxy---better than I had thought intuitively---but it's still only a proxy. When Rodger Craig or Tony Bergin scrapes the puck along the boards in the offensive zone, the puck is 160 feet away from our net. For that time and the next few seconds, the other team isn't scoring. (Then again, until Rodger can turn those extend possessions into scoring chances, neither are we.) In addition, CORSI can be manipulated by specific strategies. As Adam Wodon would write, given equal offensive zone time, a Guy Godowsky coached team would have more shot attempts than teams that are more selective with their shots. There is no publicly available way to compensate accurately for this.

Second, it's not very surprising that dump ins yield fewer shots than carrying the puck into the offensive zone. But, given the limited number of studies of this, how much of the correlation can we say is causation? The decision to dump or carry is impacted tremendously by player personnel and positioning. I can't think of a time in tonight's game when I thought that Cornell unwisely chose to dump the puck in when the team could have carried the puck into the zone with a high likelihood of success. The Bardreau and Mowrey lines didn't seem remotely reluctant to carry the puck into the Yale zone.

Overall, I was very pleased with the team's puck management. I counted only two defensive turnovers by defensemen in the first two periods. Against Yale, that's terrific. There were six more in the third period, many of which came in the last several minutes. Fortunately, none of those ended up in the back of the Cornell net.

cbuckser
Was this the first time Cornell has beaten the defending national champion since the 1990 ECAC Quarterfinals?

It's possible. Between this and this the research beckons!

Swampy
Is there any metric that actually takes the shooter's location into account?

Winning percentage.

Trotsky

cbuckser
Was this the first time Cornell has beaten the defending national champion since the 1990 ECAC Quarterfinals?

It's possible. Between this and this the research beckons!

Well, since you asked so nicely... yes, this is Cornell's first win over the defending NCAA champ since 1990. This is also the first time Cornell has hosted the defending champ since 1990, which correlates nicely with this being the first time an ECAC team won the title since 1989.

Here are Cornell's games against the defending NCAA champion since then:

1/1/94    L 4-1  vs Maine, Mariucci Classic consolation
11/21/95  L 7-1  at BU
1/7/97    T 3-3  at Michigan
12/27/97  L 5-1  vs North Dakota, Grand Rapids Tournament
11/28/09  T 3-3  vs BU, Madison Square Garden

Cool thank you!

I am going to take a flyer and posit that Coach Schafer doesn't put together his game plan based on hockey analytics. If he thinks his players can beat a team to the puck, he will dump and chase. Last night he was right.

The save of the game was the shot Knisley stopped that was heading into an open net. That was a game changer for sure.

cbuckser
Yikes. I tried to write the post on my phone and posted prematurely. I'll try again from the beginning.

I am fairly, but not intimately, familiar with the hockey analytics you're writing about, and I want to raise a couple of caveats.

First, shot attempts are merely a proxy for puck possession. We use it because that's the most freely available data. Shot attempts are a good proxy---better than I had thought intuitively---but it's still only a proxy. When Rodger Craig or Tony Bergin scrapes the puck along the boards in the offensive zone, the puck is 160 feet away from our net. For that time and the next few seconds, the other team isn't scoring. (Then again, until Rodger can turn those extend possessions into scoring chances, neither are we.) In addition, CORSI can be manipulated by specific strategies. As Adam Wodon would write, given equal offensive zone time, a Guy Godowsky coached team would have more shot attempts than teams that are more selective with their shots. There is no publicly available way to compensate accurately for this.

Second, it's not very surprising that dump ins yield fewer shots than carrying the puck into the offensive zone. But, given the limited number of studies of this, how much of the correlation can we say is causation? The decision to dump or carry is impacted tremendously by player personnel and positioning. I can't think of a time in tonight's game when I thought that Cornell unwisely chose to dump the puck in when the team could have carried the puck into the zone with a high likelihood of success. The Bardreau and Mowrey lines didn't seem remotely reluctant to carry the puck into the Yale zone.

Overall, I was very pleased with the team's puck management. I counted only two defensive turnovers by defensemen in the first two periods. Against Yale, that's terrific. There were six more in the third period, many of which came in the last several minutes. Fortunately, none of those ended up in the back of the Cornell net.

On the second note. Of course the decision to dump is impacted by position, but theres actually been analysis showing that the old Soviet strategy of holding onto the puck going back and regrouping, then trying to gain the zone with possession, will lead to more shots than dumping. But are there times when dumping is the right play? Absolutely, when its a choice between a turnover at the blue line or a turnover below the goal line by all means dump and chase, but if you have the regroup option, or you can carry in that's the right choice. Furthermore if you're a handsy guy like Ferlin or Bardreau (and those are the two that do this the most), why not try to beat a single defender if the opening looks like it's there. I'm not suggesting the Craig or our other fourth liners should be carrying and shooting all the time, Craig's surprsing hands on the union goal 2 years ago notwithstanding.

Post-game interview, evidently held in an FBI interrogation room.

The players have the musical taste of 12-year old girls.

cbuckser

css228

Swampy

css228

dag14
You are right. We were outshot 31-29. What other facet of the game did we not control? Time of possession? Hits? PP? PK? Not only was this our best game so far this season, this was the best game I have seen a Lynah since I can't remember when. Gives one hope for the rest of the season.

Well the shots weren't really the problem. You're going to give up shots when you're leading the entire ed game, especially in the 3rd period. If you looked at all shot attempts I'm pretty sure the corsi numbers would be close if not in our favor. I'd say our zone entries could be better. We definitely carried and passed in more often than usual, but there was still too much dump and chase. You generate more shots on carry in and pass ins than dump ins and shoot ins. The PK was great and the power play was very good I'm most worried about our zone exits from the defensive zone. We get the puck out, but without possession far too often. More and more evidence is showing that the most important zone in hockey is the neutral zone. We played well there, but did not dominate it by any stretch of the imagination. Still a good game against a good team. If we play like this we'll have a good season. If we go back to what we were doing before this is a .500 team at best.

Corsi is probably not the best metric for what Schafer is trying to accomplish. If you listen to him talk about such things, he's wants the team to limit shots to be from the periphery at bad angles. Is there any metric that actually takes the shooter's location into account?

Unfortunately no there is not, because shot quality has been found to be less correlated with success and just taking shots. While some shots are clearly better than other shots, there is no evidence that a team can consistently game after game create better quality shots in a way that would appreciably affect shooting percentages. The idea of shot quality is appealing, but at the end of the day a puck bouncing around is a matter of chance. Its a matter of luck whether or not you get that flat puck in the slot with a clear lane, and you can't really count on that appearing.It's better to be the LA Kings or the Chicago Blackhawks (two of the best possession teams in the NHL the last few years) than it is the Maple Leafs. Therefore shooting more is inherently better, because the more shots you take, the better chances you will get. Its essentially the problem we saw on the odd man rushes today, trying to force a cute saucer pass instead of ripping a shot low at the pads and driving the net for a rebound. There are a lot of good articles on the subject, but I like this one in particular. I mean its completely possible that Schafer and the Leafs have created some system where shot quality has become a repeatable phenomenon, but none of the evidence at the moment supports the idea that shot quality trumps just shooting.

I am fairly, but not intimately, familiar with the hockey analytics you're writing about, and I want to raise a couple of caveats.

First, shot attempts are merely a proxy for puck possession. We use it because that's the most freely available data. Shot attempts are a good proxy---better than I had thought intuitively---but it's still only a proxy. When Rodger Craig or Tony Bergin scrapes the puck along the boards in the offensive zone, the puck is 160 feet away from our net. For that time and the next few seconds, the other team isn't scoring. (Then again, until Rodger can turn those extend possessions into scoring chances, neither are we.) In addition, CORSI can be manipulated by specific strategies. As Adam Wodon would write, given equal offensive zone time, a Guy Godowsky coached team

This brought a smile to my face - haven't thought about Tony Bergin in quite a while.

Josh '99
his brought a smile to my face - haven't thought about Tony Bergin in quite a while.

Then I can bring this thread full circle. Among the four losses to defending national champions between March 1990 and last weekend that Give My Regards kindly listed was the 11/21/95 shellacking at BU. My strongest memory of that game is watching Tony Bergin waive bye-bye at a BU player after an altercation, apparently not realizing that he, too, was about to get DQ'd.