Can offensive skills be taught at this level?

Poll

Can offensive skills be taught/coached at this level?

Only registered users are allowed to vote for this poll.
61 votes were received.

Absolutely, it is the coaches responsibility to improve this aspect of the game	18		30%
Yes, but there is a limit to what can be expected	33		54%
A little, players have already developed about as far as their talent will allow	4		7%
Almost nothing, players bring an offensive skill set that is as developed as it is going to be when the join the team.	1		2%
Don't know	5		7%

---

There has been a lot of talk about whether it is actually possible to teach/coach the skill set necessary improve a players and teams offensive capability.

Currently, the majority (6 of 11) voted for the second choice "Yes, but there is a limit to what can be expected "

I am one of those six. With unlimited time, I expect there is a lot the coaches can do help the players improve on their offensive skills. But, we all know that time is not an unlimited commodity in the life of a an Ivy League student-athlete.

Shorter poll:

A. "Don't Know"

B. "I have deluded myself into thinking I am competent to answer this question."

Trotsky
Shorter poll:

A. "Don't Know"

B. "I have deluded myself into thinking I am competent to answer this question."

It is going to be a long offseason we have to occupy ourselves somehow. I may delude myself that I am competent to answer the question but I have no allusions about this discussion having any impact on the real world of Cornell Hockey. Idle amusement is all I seek.

Towerroad

Trotsky
Shorter poll:

A. "Don't Know"

B. "I have deluded myself into thinking I am competent to answer this question."

It is going to be a long offseason we have to occupy ourselves somehow. I may delude myself that I am competent to answer the question but I have no allusions about this discussion having any impact on the real world of Cornell Hockey. Idle amusement is all I seek.

Me too. Picking this fight is my way of amusing myself. (Although I'm also right.)

Towerroad

Trotsky
Shorter poll:

A. "Don't Know"

B. "I have deluded myself into thinking I am competent to answer this question."

It is going to be a long offseason we have to occupy ourselves somehow. I may delude myself that I am competent to answer the question but I have no allusions about this discussion having any impact on the real world of Cornell Hockey. Idle amusement is all I seek.

But I think the term "offensive skills" is too broad. That even includes better screening of the goalie. If you meant shooting ability, or being a sniper, that's a lot different.

Jim Hyla

Towerroad

Trotsky
Shorter poll:

A. "Don't Know"

B. "I have deluded myself into thinking I am competent to answer this question."

It is going to be a long offseason we have to occupy ourselves somehow. I may delude myself that I am competent to answer the question but I have no allusions about this discussion having any impact on the real world of Cornell Hockey. Idle amusement is all I seek.

But I think the term "offensive skills" is too broad. That even includes better screening of the goalie. If you meant shooting ability, or being a sniper, that's a lot different.

+1. Good team offense, like Union practices, is highly coachable. (Source: I play hockey.) Sniping/deking/sick moves/extreme puck handling, perhaps not so much.

Kyle Rose

Jim Hyla

Towerroad

Trotsky
Shorter poll:

A. "Don't Know"

B. "I have deluded myself into thinking I am competent to answer this question."

It is going to be a long offseason we have to occupy ourselves somehow. I may delude myself that I am competent to answer the question but I have no allusions about this discussion having any impact on the real world of Cornell Hockey. Idle amusement is all I seek.

But I think the term "offensive skills" is too broad. That even includes better screening of the goalie. If you meant shooting ability, or being a sniper, that's a lot different.

+1. Good team offense, like Union practices, is highly coachable. (Source: I play hockey.) Sniping/deking/sick moves/extreme puck handling, perhaps not so much.

I also play and I completely agree with Kyle.

I agree with the general trend of the conversation. Offensive systems can be taught and set plays can be learned by rote, but stickhandling, quickness, the confidence to look up to be able to see the cutters instead of looking down at the puck, etc must be learned over thousands of hours spent on the ice. Those sorts of things are not likely to improve drastically during 4 years of college.

Conversely, a coach can also adapt his offensive system to suit the skillset of the players he has, and we would see offensive production increase. Does that count as "teaching/coaching offense?"

If we can attribute a team's defense to teaching and adhering to "the system" then surely the same can be said for offense....

MattS

Kyle Rose

Jim Hyla

Towerroad

Trotsky
Shorter poll:

A. "Don't Know"

B. "I have deluded myself into thinking I am competent to answer this question."

It is going to be a long offseason we have to occupy ourselves somehow. I may delude myself that I am competent to answer the question but I have no allusions about this discussion having any impact on the real world of Cornell Hockey. Idle amusement is all I seek.

But I think the term "offensive skills" is too broad. That even includes better screening of the goalie. If you meant shooting ability, or being a sniper, that's a lot different.

+1. Good team offense, like Union practices, is highly coachable. (Source: I play hockey.) Sniping/deking/sick moves/extreme puck handling, perhaps not so much.

I also play and I completely agree with Kyle.

As someone who can't even skate, I'd imagine that in theory, shooting ability would be a tiny bit teachable/practicable. Like free throw shooting. If you shoot 500 free throws a day, you're going to get better, even if you're already playing at a high level.

That being said, who has time for that. And maybe I'm just wrong, too.

Having watched a Cornell lacrosse goalie become a highly regarded LSM since his talent was being wasted riding the bench behind Matt McMonagle, I know that a good athlete can be coached/trained to be much more highly skilled, even at this level. Whether it is learning to be smarter about playing the position or learning how to execute a skill more effectively [cycling down low, slapshot, etc.] why shouldn't this be true of Division I hockey players? Even NHL players utilize skating coaches and goalie coaches -- little things can improve a players' game considerably.

I don't know. I've played hockey, but never close to D-1 collegiate level. I've never even seen a practice.

I'm going to the Falconry thread for my off-season amusement. It's my favorite (non-lacrosse) off-season topic since trebuchets.

Dafatone

MattS

Kyle Rose

Jim Hyla

Towerroad

Trotsky
Shorter poll:

A. "Don't Know"

B. "I have deluded myself into thinking I am competent to answer this question."

It is going to be a long offseason we have to occupy ourselves somehow. I may delude myself that I am competent to answer the question but I have no allusions about this discussion having any impact on the real world of Cornell Hockey. Idle amusement is all I seek.

But I think the term "offensive skills" is too broad. That even includes better screening of the goalie. If you meant shooting ability, or being a sniper, that's a lot different.

+1. Good team offense, like Union practices, is highly coachable. (Source: I play hockey.) Sniping/deking/sick moves/extreme puck handling, perhaps not so much.

I also play and I completely agree with Kyle.

As someone who can't even skate, I'd imagine that in theory, shooting ability would be a tiny bit teachable/practicable. Like free throw shooting. If you shoot 500 free throws a day, you're going to get better, even if you're already playing at a high level.

That being said, who has time for that. And maybe I'm just wrong, too.

I suppose a coach can give you the right drills to practice, but I see practice and spending time with the puck as separate from coaching.

Robb
I suppose a coach can give you the right drills to practice, but I see practice and spending time with the puck as separate from coaching.

I can imagine that a good coach might be able to watch what you are doing and provide feedback. Just because it may require drillsd repition to improve a skill doesn't mean that coaching can't direct and possibly speed that process.

Take this with a big grain of salt, but here are my two cents worth. I have played some hockey (rec league and slightly more competitive). I could not put the puck in the ocean if I was standing on an island and I lacked speed. Because of that, I always focused more on being in position and making sure I covered my person/area in the D-zone and didn't get caught in the offensive zone. As such, I have a definite bias on this.

I think it is easier to teach a good defense (The System) because if your players have good discipline, good positioning, and some quickness (lateral movement, head on swivel type reaction), and work as a unit (knowing who you are marking and when to switch off) you can hold your own most of the time. Since Mike Schafer has arrived, we have always focused on being strong from the net out. Take care of our own zone first mentality. I'm okay with that because if you work hard and do your job, you will win many battles.

In the offensive zone, you need more creativity and here I think natural talent is key. That can come from gifted players that can see the openings and have the hand/eye coordination to thread that pass through traffic to someone standing on the back post, or just to put it in the net themselves. It can come from players that can anticipate (you know those players that seem to have eyes in the back of their helmet) where the open ice is so that after their teammates have worked the puck in the corners they are wide open for a shot on goal, or to make that pass in anticipation of a teammate being in the right spot. These are things you cannot teach. We have had some players that were late bloomers and became very good goal scorers (Matt Moulson), but post 1994 ish (when I became a member of the Faithful) there have been flashes (Vinnie Auger anyone), but nothing sustained.

I think Cornell is the type of program that draws disciplined, hard working players. Part of that is due to the academics, part due to the lack of athletic scholarships, and part due what our current coaching staff emphasizes. If a young teen-aged hockey player is a gifted talent that wants a college education, chances are they are going to a good school on a full scholarship (BC, Michigan, Wisconsin etc.).

As Kyle and Matt have said, you can teach an offensive system(s). However, you need the talent to close the deal (score the goal). I don't know the numbers, but let's just say for the sake of discussion that a really good offensive team have 1/10 of their offensive zone possessions end in a goal or a shot on goal that the goalie saves and covers up (thus ending the play). If you are a less offensively talented team, let's say that is 1/18. Now, you might be able to improve that to 1/15, but that requires taking risks such as having the d-men jump into play, and/or sending all three forwards deep into the zone. Now are those risks worth the other team getting a potentially easy scoring chance? Especially knowing that you have a solid defensive core, but like your forwards, not the upper echelon of talent?

It is a trade-off. We don't know how willing the forwards are to take those risks? Are they confident in their own skills and abilities, and as importantly their teammates ability to cover for them when they do? They know their teammates strengths and weaknesses better than we do. Some d-men might feel more comfortable jumping into a play when a certain forward line is on the ice because he knows they can cover him if he gets caught. I think Cornell attracts players that are more team-first/responsible maybe because that has been their role on their previous teams and they are comfortable with that philosophy and guess what, that is what our coaching staff has implemented.

I would like to see Cornell work to get more shots on goal. How many games have we had where in the 2nd period we barely broken double digits SOG? Can't score if you don't shoot. So I do think Cornell's offensive system needs to be altered so we do generate more SOGs. That you can teach. However, it is that player's talent level that influences the quality of the shot and the hard-work/grittiness of his linemates who might be able to turn a poor shot into a "garbage goal". I'm also okay with tweaking the risk factors so that we can generate more SOGs and yes, that does mean allowing certain players to take more chances (with the caveat that their linemates realize this and are willing to cover some butts). I hope the coaching staff is willing to give players like Ferlin, Ryan, Hilbrich and Bardreau more freedom on the ice to create.

I don't think Cornell will ever be able to recruit talent to be an offense first team. But I'm okay with us being a defensive team known for The System and winning games 2-1. I also try to keep in mind that Cornell Hockey Players are 17-23 years old "kids"/young men, who are carrying a full load of classes, are active in the community and that is in addition to hockey practice and weight room work. However, they are still kids and maturing the way we all did in college. I want them to do well, win ECAC championships and go to the NC$$s. However, that isn't going to happen every year, but when it does, it is special (and makes the pessimist in me a bit optimistic).

Once upon a time (1970), Cornell was able to recruit a team that scored an average of 6.2 gpg and allowed an average of 1.9 gpg, winning every game that year by an average margin of 4.2 gpg. The season had 3 shutouts and 11 games in which opponents scored only 1 goal (out of 29 games). The most any teams scored against Cornell that year was 5 goals, once against Harvard (Cornell scored 6) and once against Princeton (Cornell scored 11). The most Cornell scored that season was 14 goals in a 14-0 blowout against Dartmouth.

Now admittedly times have changed, primarily because there is more parity. But in 2012-13, Yale won the NC with gpg averages of 3.1 scored, 2.6 against, and a margin of 0.5 gpg. That same year, Cornell averaged 2.4, 2.7, and -0.2 gpg (for, against, and margin). Cornell and Yale were very close in goals given up, but Yale averaged 0.7 more goals scored per game. Yale scoring and Cornell defense had identical variation (S.D. = 2.0 gpg), but Yale's defense was more consistent (S.D. = 1.7 gpg) than Cornell's, and Cornell's scoring was consistently low (S.D. = 1.4 gpg).

Now you can say Yale has some recruiting advantages: a bit more prestige, an urban location, and a better endowment for need-based financial aid. I don't think the prestige differential is that great, and Schafer has said Cornell's more plebian demographics helps attract hockey players, who typically don't come from elite backgrounds. Cornell also has the recruiting advantages of a wider range of disciplines, some with lower entrance requirements than A&S or Engineering. As for urban location, Yale's in New Haven, after all, and New Haven without Yale is Bridgeport. As for financial aid, Cornell has New York State scholarships and in-state tuition in the contract colleges. (The latter clearly helps lacrosse, but increasingly so for hockey too.) So I Yale's recruiting advantage is slight, if any, and is more likely to attract players looking for different things than players of drastically different quality.

Here's another comparison. Admittedly again, 2013 was an unusually down year for Cornell. But in 2012, Cornell made it to the NC$$ quarter finals, scoring 2.9 gpg, yielding 2.2 gpg, and with a margin of 0.6 gpg, on average. The standard deviations were all smaller than in 2013 (1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 gpg for goals for, goals against, and margin), indicating greater consistency.

For 2013-2014, Cornell scored on average 2.41 gpg and gave up 2.31 gpg, scoring about the same as last year but giving up about 0.4 gpg less. Compared to 2012, this year's team averaged about 0.5 gpg less scoring and gave up about 0.1 gpg more -- very likely the latter would have been smaller had Cornell scored more and therefore not been in position to give up as many ENG's.

So what we've seen this year is an improvement in defense over last year's debacle, and a return to form ca. 2012, but not a scoring increase over last year, much less a return to the scoring levels of 2 years ago. With Bardreau's return, this is hard to fathom.

So maybe the question needs to be put in this context. Coaching is about the same as in 2012, and Cornell's competition for recruiting hasn't changed that much. In other words, why is our scoring off so much? To get back to the NC$$'s we probably need to match 2012's 2.9 gpg scoring, and to win the NC$$'s, we'd probably need to get it up over 3 gpg.

Look at this year's FF. BC has he strongest numbers, scoring 4.1 gpg and giving up 2.28. Union, which better reflects ECAC style, is a close second, scoring 3.7 gpg and allowing 2.05. For BC the difference between averages for scored and given up in gpg is 1.82; for Union, 1.65; for Cornell 2014, 0.1; for Cornell 2012, 0.6.

It's hard to escape the obvious. If Cornell wants to get back to the NC$$'s, it needs to increase its scoring by at least about 0.7 gpg. If it wants to compete with the top teams in the NC$$s, scoring prowess has to increase in the neighborhood of 1.3 gpg.

As for whether or not this can be taught, I think this depends first on style. A style focused on team scoring will differ from one focused on individual talent.Second, it depends on the player's level coming in. A player who is closer to his peak has less headroom for improvement than one lower down. Third, some scoring skills can be learned. Albany's Thompson brothers learned to play lacrosse by playing a game in which the goal mouth was only a small hole. This suggests that every Cornell hockey player should spend at least an hour this summer practicing shooting pucks into a 6" diameter hole. Similarly, every team sport has all sorts of drills and games that improve scoring in small spaces, with and without pressure. The point is that individual scoring habits and instincts can improve with lots so practice designed specifically to improve scoring skill.

Also similarly, Cornell players need to work on passing and receiving the puck. One thing I noticed this year was how often passes did not connect. I think if you compared this to the better teams, you'd see statistical differentials similar to those above.

Finally, coaching has at least two roles. One is to help players improve their skills along the lines mentioned above: scoring, passing, receiving. The other is to develop team strategies for putting players into position to score more goals: Do you float someone by the blue line for a breakaway? Do you screen the opposing goalie every chance you get, or do you sometimes move away from the goal to clear some space and look for a backdoor pass or rebound? Do you set legal picks? Etc. These are things the coaches have to decide and emphasize in team practice.

With all the NHL draft picks on the Big Red, and with guys like Buckles who averaged 1.4 gpg in the OJHL, it's hard to believe that this team's scoring ceiling is less than 2.5 gpg. Also, looking at the competition, I don't buy the argument that you have to give up defense to gain offense -- at least not within reasonable limits.

Goals per game for, against, and margin for the top 10 in PWR:

01 3.51 - 2.00 +1.51 Minnesota
02 4.10 - 1.77 +2.33 BC
03 3.70 - 2.05 +1.65 Union
04 3.24 - 2.57 +0.67 Wisconsin
05 3.21 - 2.19 +1.02 Ferris State
06 3.53 - 2.03 +1.50 Quinnipiac
07 2.83 - 1.88 +0.95 Lowell
08 3.00 - 2.15 +0.85 Notre Dame
09 3.58 - 2.82 +0.76 St. Cloud
10 3.17 - 2.32 +0.85 Mankato 
17 2.41 - 2.31 +0.10 Cornell

It looks like if Cornell can improve their goals margin, through any combination of increased goals for and decreased goals against, by a net 1.00, they would be a solid top 8 and challenger for the F4. A Cornellianish 50/50 split in improvement would make them a 2.91 - 1.81 Lowell. An 80/20 split would make them a 3.21 - 2.11 Ferris.

A 1.5 net gain would put them among the elite of the league -- a solid F4 and challenger for national champion. An 80/20 split would make them a 3.61 - 2.01 U or Q. A more Cornellian 50/50 would yield 3.16 - 1.56.

The 2003 squad was 3.69 - 1.36 +2.33, exactly BC's margin this year. This analysis just made me very sad. (UNH that year was 3.71 - 2.29 +1.42, which doesn't help. Eventual champion Minnesota was 4.20 - 2.71 +1.49.)

Trotsky
Goals per game for, against, and margin for the top 10 in PWR:

01 3.51 - 2.00 +1.51 Minnesota
02 4.10 - 1.77 +2.33 BC
03 3.70 - 2.05 +1.65 Union
04 3.24 - 2.57 +0.67 Wisconsin
05 3.21 - 2.19 +1.02 Ferris State
06 3.53 - 2.03 +1.50 Quinnipiac
07 2.83 - 1.88 +0.95 Lowell
08 3.00 - 2.15 +0.85 Notre Dame
09 3.58 - 2.82 +0.76 St. Cloud
10 3.17 - 2.32 +0.85 Mankato 
17 2.41 - 2.31 +0.10 Cornell

It looks like if Cornell can improve their goals margin, through any combination of increased goals for and decreased goals against, by a net 1.00, they would be a solid top 8 and challenger for the F4. A Cornellianish 50/50 split in improvement would make them a 2.91 - 1.81 Lowell. An 80/20 split would make them a 3.21 - 2.11 Ferris.

A 1.5 net gain would put them among the elite of the league -- a solid F4 and challenger for national champion. An 80/20 split would make them a 3.61 - 2.01 U or Q. A more Cornellian 50/50 would yield 3.16 - 1.56.

The 2003 squad was 3.69 - 1.36 +2.33, exactly BC's margin this year. This analysis just made me very sad. (UNH that year was 3.71 - 2.29 +1.42, which doesn't help. Eventual champion Minnesota was 4.20 - 2.71 +1.49.)

Based solely on the margin, BC and Union have to be the favorites. It's too bad they play each other on the 10th. I'd much prefer to see BC vs Minny and Union vs ND. Oh well, with luck it will be Union vs ND in the final. (Not that I like ND. I just dislike it less than I dislike MN & BC.)

But looking at your stats, about half the top ten teams have margins between .5 and 1.0. Add FS @ 1.02 to get 6 teams. Q is at 1.5, and the remaining 3 are in the F4. So these statistics do seem valid.

Among the middling 6, I'd most want to be Wisconsin because it's averaging 3.24 gpg -- not too far below MN or U -- so its offense has some teeth. OTOH, its goals against score of 2.57 about .5 gpg above Q, the second lowest. This implies W can be dangerous for both scoring and defending.

I think it was before we played Ferris State in 2012 that Schafer was interviewed, and he said something like this. "It's no secret what we'll try to do. We'll defend, hope you make a mistake, and then try to take advantage of it." I'd much rather have a team that's capable of winning tightly checked, low-scoring games as well as shoot-outs. In the legendary, undefeated 1970 year, we beat Wisconsin in the national semi-finals 2-1. We also beat Harvard in the ECAC semi-finals 6-5 and beat Clarkson in the national championship game, 6-4. That's what I'm talking about.

Right now, Cornell seems too much like a one-trick pony. And if we don't hold the other team to 2 goals or less (frequently 1 goal or less), we lose.

Swampy

Trotsky
Goals per game for, against, and margin for the top 10 in PWR:

01 3.51 - 2.00 +1.51 Minnesota
02 4.10 - 1.77 +2.33 BC
03 3.70 - 2.05 +1.65 Union
04 3.24 - 2.57 +0.67 Wisconsin
05 3.21 - 2.19 +1.02 Ferris State
06 3.53 - 2.03 +1.50 Quinnipiac
07 2.83 - 1.88 +0.95 Lowell
08 3.00 - 2.15 +0.85 Notre Dame
09 3.58 - 2.82 +0.76 St. Cloud
10 3.17 - 2.32 +0.85 Mankato 
17 2.41 - 2.31 +0.10 Cornell

It looks like if Cornell can improve their goals margin, through any combination of increased goals for and decreased goals against, by a net 1.00, they would be a solid top 8 and challenger for the F4. A Cornellianish 50/50 split in improvement would make them a 2.91 - 1.81 Lowell. An 80/20 split would make them a 3.21 - 2.11 Ferris.

A 1.5 net gain would put them among the elite of the league -- a solid F4 and challenger for national champion. An 80/20 split would make them a 3.61 - 2.01 U or Q. A more Cornellian 50/50 would yield 3.16 - 1.56.

The 2003 squad was 3.69 - 1.36 +2.33, exactly BC's margin this year. This analysis just made me very sad. (UNH that year was 3.71 - 2.29 +1.42, which doesn't help. Eventual champion Minnesota was 4.20 - 2.71 +1.49.)

Based solely on the margin, BC and Union have to be the favorites. It's too bad they play each other on the 10th. I'd much prefer to see BC vs Minny and Union vs ND. Oh well, with luck it will be Union vs ND in the final. (Not that I like ND. I just dislike it less than I dislike MN & BC.)

But looking at your stats, about half the top ten teams have margins between .5 and 1.0. Add FS @ 1.02 to get 6 teams. Q is at 1.5, and the remaining 3 are in the F4. So these statistics do seem valid.

Among the middling 6, I'd most want to be Wisconsin because it's averaging 3.24 gpg -- not too far below MN or U -- so its offense has some teeth. OTOH, its goals against score of 2.57 about .5 gpg above Q, the second lowest. This implies W can be dangerous for both scoring and defending.

I think it was before we played Ferris State in 2012 that Schafer was interviewed, and he said something like this. "It's no secret what we'll try to do. We'll defend, hope you make a mistake, and then try to take advantage of it." I'd much rather have a team that's capable of winning tightly checked, low-scoring games as well as shoot-outs. In the legendary, undefeated 1970 year, we beat Wisconsin in the national semi-finals 2-1. We also beat Harvard in the ECAC semi-finals 6-5 and beat Clarkson in the national championship game, 6-4. That's what I'm talking about.

Right now, Cornell seems too much like a one-trick pony. And if we don't hold the other team to 2 goals or less (frequently 1 goal or less), we lose.

And in the 67 Semis, we beat ND 1-0 with a "disputed" Stanowski goal.

Overall, what I've learned from this thread is that a better goals margin will improve our chances of winning and moving on.

Just do it.

Jim Hyla
And in the 67 Semis, we beat ND 1-0 with a "disputed" Stanowski goal.

Which up until three weeks ago had been the only 1-0 playoff win in Cornell history.

I have never heard about the "disputedness" of the Stanowski goal (or for that matter even the story of the goal). I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate. All's I know is this.

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
And in the 67 Semis, we beat ND 1-0 with a "disputed" Stanowski goal.

Which up until three weeks ago had been the only 1-0 playoff win in Cornell history.

I have never heard about the "disputedness" of the Stanowski goal (or for that matter even the story of the goal). I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate. All's I know is this.

I'll try to look up the write-up when I get home, but as I remember he came out of the penalty box to get a pass. The question was whether he was onside. If I remember correctly, there was some rule about having to be "behind the play" before he could get the pass. But I have the game write-ups at home so I'll check them.

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
And in the 67 Semis, we beat ND 1-0 with a "disputed" Stanowski goal.

Which up until three weeks ago had been the only 1-0 playoff win in Cornell history.

I have never heard about the "disputedness" of the Stanowski goal (or for that matter even the story of the goal). I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate. All's I know is this.

I'll try to look up the write-up when I get home, but as I remember he came out of the penalty box to get a pass. The question was whether he was onside. If I remember correctly, there was some rule about having to be "behind the play" before he could get the pass. But I have the game write-ups at home so I'll check them.

Cool, thank you!

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
And in the 67 Semis, we beat ND 1-0 with a "disputed" Stanowski goal.

Which up until three weeks ago had been the only 1-0 playoff win in Cornell history.

I have never heard about the "disputedness" of the Stanowski goal (or for that matter even the story of the goal). I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate. All's I know is this.

I'll try to look up the write-up when I get home, but as I remember he came out of the penalty box to get a pass. The question was whether he was onside. If I remember correctly, there was some rule about having to be "behind the play" before he could get the pass. But I have the game write-ups at home so I'll check them.

Jim, I'll save you the trouble.

Here are the Ithaca Journal article, and the relevant rule from the NCAA hockey rule book (1968 version, but the rule hadn't changed from the previous year).

Offensive skills can be taught and executed at this level although the Shafer system does not promote an offensive approach. And, if the players deviate from the system, they will sit!

Second violation of face off by same team on same faceoff: minor penalty.

I wonder if that has ever been called in the history of hockey.

Thanks Arthur. The write up brings back a lot of memories, the rule included.

Trotsky
Second violation of face off by same team on same faceoff: minor penalty.

I wonder if that has ever been called in the history of hockey.

With the NCAA and the pros both using the newly-adopted rule (actually I guess it isn't even all that new anymore) not to allow teams a line change before the faceoff following an icing, I've thought on more than one occasion that teams so penalized should have three or four skaters who they don't really want taking the faceoff to each go to the circle and get tossed out of the draw deliberately before the actual designated faceoff-taker takes his turn. This rule would seem to discourage that sort of trickery, though, as you noted, it'd be surprising if a penalty has ever been given for it.

Josh '99

Trotsky
Second violation of face off by same team on same faceoff: minor penalty.

I wonder if that has ever been called in the history of hockey.

With the NCAA and the pros both using the newly-adopted rule (actually I guess it isn't even all that new anymore) not to allow teams a line change before the faceoff following an icing, I've thought on more than one occasion that teams so penalized should have three or four skaters who they don't really want taking the faceoff to each go to the circle and get tossed out of the draw deliberately before the actual designated faceoff-taker takes his turn. This rule would seem to discourage that sort of trickery, though, as you noted, it'd be surprising if a penalty has ever been given for it.

I've always wondered: what happens if they all get thrown out? Do you just cycle back to the first one? I've only ever seen two get thrown out, but hey if you're down to 3...

In a WHL game I saw a visiting player get thrown out, followed by two home players. After the second one a drunk a couple sections over threw a Big Gulp on the ice, and once they'd cleaned it up (and thrown him out) the original two guys just glided into the circle and did the faceoff. I assume at that point the officials just wanted to go home.

Trotsky

Josh '99

Trotsky
Second violation of face off by same team on same faceoff: minor penalty.

I wonder if that has ever been called in the history of hockey.

With the NCAA and the pros both using the newly-adopted rule (actually I guess it isn't even all that new anymore) not to allow teams a line change before the faceoff following an icing, I've thought on more than one occasion that teams so penalized should have three or four skaters who they don't really want taking the faceoff to each go to the circle and get tossed out of the draw deliberately before the actual designated faceoff-taker takes his turn. This rule would seem to discourage that sort of trickery, though, as you noted, it'd be surprising if a penalty has ever been given for it.

I've always wondered: what happens if they all get thrown out? Do you just cycle back to the first one? I've only ever seen two get thrown out, but hey if you're down to 3...

Maybe they'd call the minor penalty, and thus consider the faceoff for the PP a different faceoff, at which point all players are eligible to take it.

I also wonder: a team ices the puck, and then gets a minor on the ensuing faceoff, do they still have to keep (a subset of) the same players on the ice for the PK? Or does the PK count as a totally new segment, one not bound by the consequences of the icing?

ftyuv

Trotsky

Josh '99

Trotsky
Second violation of face off by same team on same faceoff: minor penalty.

I wonder if that has ever been called in the history of hockey.

With the NCAA and the pros both using the newly-adopted rule (actually I guess it isn't even all that new anymore) not to allow teams a line change before the faceoff following an icing, I've thought on more than one occasion that teams so penalized should have three or four skaters who they don't really want taking the faceoff to each go to the circle and get tossed out of the draw deliberately before the actual designated faceoff-taker takes his turn. This rule would seem to discourage that sort of trickery, though, as you noted, it'd be surprising if a penalty has ever been given for it.

I've always wondered: what happens if they all get thrown out? Do you just cycle back to the first one? I've only ever seen two get thrown out, but hey if you're down to 3...

Maybe they'd call the minor penalty, and thus consider the faceoff for the PP a different faceoff, at which point all players are eligible to take it.

I also wonder: a team ices the puck, and then gets a minor on the ensuing faceoff, do they still have to keep (a subset of) the same players on the ice for the PK? Or does the PK count as a totally new segment, one not bound by the consequences of the icing?

Interesting question. I'm certainly not sure, but I'd guess it's a new play, so they change. If not, it's likely TO time.

ACM

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
And in the 67 Semis, we beat ND 1-0 with a "disputed" Stanowski goal.

Which up until three weeks ago had been the only 1-0 playoff win in Cornell history.

I have never heard about the "disputedness" of the Stanowski goal (or for that matter even the story of the goal). I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate. All's I know is this.

I'll try to look up the write-up when I get home, but as I remember he came out of the penalty box to get a pass. The question was whether he was onside. If I remember correctly, there was some rule about having to be "behind the play" before he could get the pass. But I have the game write-ups at home so I'll check them.

Jim, I'll save you the trouble.

Here are the Ithaca Journal article, and the relevant rule from the NCAA hockey rule book (1968 version, but the rule hadn't changed from the previous year).

That school year's "Sun" is one of the few that is still waiting to be digitized for lack of funding. [cdsun.library.cornell.edu]

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit. "

~unknown

Special teams now updated.

To give an idea of the impact of the junior class, here's a summary of scoring by graduation year.

Trotsky
Special teams now updated.

To give an idea of the impact of the junior class, here's a summary of scoring by graduation year.

And it looks like the best class was:

1967, GP 732 (sixth), G 322 (first), Pts 810 (first), and last but not least PIM 1017 (third, but probably first in PIM/GP) Jim Hyla '67

Greg, do you have the special teams data and yearly records on a single spreadsheet, so they could be easily compared?

Whilst scanning through this summary of scoring by class, I noted some dropoffs five or so years after assistant coaching changes. One would think these were the senior years of classes for which there was likely a bit of recruiting "chaos." For example, look at 1999, the graduating year of the first class that Schafer et al. brought in, and then the next couple of years. Not exactly stellar classes. The Carlin/Garrow to Brekke/Russell transtion seems to have gone unusually smoothly, and then some hiccups in the late 00s. The 2011 seniors are the last fruits of Brekke's association with the program, perhaps, and then there would be chaos for 2012–14. Perhaps 2015 is the last class that Casey has his stamp on, and then there's another transition.

Whether I'm grasping at straws here or "seeing deep patterns," I can't tell. But I'm trying to come up with a way to evaluate assistant coaches, both behind the bench and on the trail. Which brings me to my point:

We'd best have a fantastic freshman class next year. If we do, I think we're set up for another 2002–2006 kind of cycle, as long as we see strong development out of this year's freshmen/next year's sophomores, who I kind of like as a group; if not, methinks it's time for a change in assistant coaches.

Jim Hyla

Trotsky
Special teams now updated.

To give an idea of the impact of the junior class, here's a summary of scoring by graduation year.

And it looks like the best class was:

1967, GP 732 (sixth), G 322 (first), Pts 810 (first), and last but not least PIM 1017 (third, but probably first in PIM/GP) Jim Hyla '67

Greg, do you have the special teams data and yearly records on a single spreadsheet, so they could be easily compared?

I could create one. I could even run a regression analysis on winning percentage as a function of special teams, gfa, and gaa, if I remembered (1) how to do that and (2) whether it was methodologically sound (since all the variables would not be entirely mutually independent).

Trotsky

Jim Hyla

Trotsky
Special teams now updated.

To give an idea of the impact of the junior class, here's a summary of scoring by graduation year.

And it looks like the best class was:

1967, GP 732 (sixth), G 322 (first), Pts 810 (first), and last but not least PIM 1017 (third, but probably first in PIM/GP) Jim Hyla '67

Greg, do you have the special teams data and yearly records on a single spreadsheet, so they could be easily compared?

I could create one. I could even run a regression analysis on winning percentage as a function of special teams, gfa, and gaa, if I remembered (1) how to do that and (2) whether it was methodologically sound (since all the variables would not be entirely mutually independent).

Whether it's methodologically sound only pertains to whether or not you should run the regression. If this were a criterion for whether or not people could run a regression, we'd have but a small fraction of the regression models we have now.