What's going on with this year's team?

I read the Sun article and have been watching some of the games. Seems like culture in the locker room is much improved, and that's contributing to the better performance. Is it that simple? Some talented freshmen definitely helped. Is this sustainable or is this the peak?

I don't know, but it has sure been a pleasant surprise. Weren't we ranked below the Sisters of Mercy preseason (in hockey, not goodness).

I've spent the last few years listening to a lot more games than I've watched, but from what I can tell, we were REALLY bad at finishing our chances the last two years. I was a huge Bardreau fan, but he was constantly getting to the doorstep and not scoring.

This year, we're scoring on a lot of our chances. I wonder if some of it is luck (in that we're scoring on chances at a higher rate than we probably will be for the rest of the year), but mostly I'm willing to buy that last year's seniors were just sort of an unpleasant group or something.

I liked the intensity that Mccarron brought, but he could get very, very chippy. In one of the threads about expectations for this year, I said that an underperforming team + losing a bunch of players = opportunity for unexpected success.

Still WAY too early to draw any conclusions, but it's nice to see (or hear) some goals.

Our wins so far have come against teams that are currently 40th, 48th, and 55th in the PWR. Ask this question again after we've played Yale, Harvrad, Clarkson, St. Lawrence, RPI, BU.....

I like that the goals are coming in all sorts of ways. Screens from the point, pretty passes, one-timers, messy scrums in front. And they're coming from all the lines and the blueline. At the moment we just look like a good team. Big test at Yale next Friday.

wouldnt that be the teams we tended to lose to last year

Maybe those of us who guessed last year that The Three Seasons of Darkness were indicative of a problematic cohort of players, rather than a systemic failure of the hockey program, are correct.

Obviously, it's way too soon to reach any sort of definitive conclusion. But the early returns (as measured by both the process and the results) are encouraging. Through six games, the team has won almost half as many games as it did in 31 games last season. Concededly, this season has not been perfect: The team did not play well for the first periods at Dwyer Arena and Starr Rink and the second period against Quinnipiac. Nevertheless, the team has played its A game a far higher percentage of the time so far this season than it had in the prior three years.

As I wrote nine months ago, if the bad-cohort theory is correct, it doesn't absolve the coaching staff of responsibility. The coaching staff brought in the players. In addition, the head coach did not adjust when the players in the Class of 2015 did not pan out the way we had expected. Leaving a forward in the midst of an 8-point season on the first power-play unit and giving him first-line minutes for 30 of 31 games was an on-ice manifestation of this. Not making the cultural changes sooner was an off-ice failing.

That said, if the bad-cohort theory is correct, then the coaching staff can right the ship. Hopefully, that is what has been happening so far this season.

steveb
Our wins so far have come against teams that are currently 40th, 48th, and 55th in the PWR. Ask this question again after we've played Yale, Harvrad, Clarkson, St. Lawrence, RPI, BU.....

PWR in Mid-November is a ridiculous thing to cite.

Last year, we took 2 points vs Yale, 3 points from Harvard, and swept Clarkson. Only managed a tie vs RPI & got swept by SLU. Certainly those teams haven't remained static either, so a point is taken. At the beginning of last season, Colgate was one of the league favorites & they were the ECAC runner-up. I think by Feb, they will have put up good wins. I don't look at the Spink/Finn squad and see them as being anything other than a team who will be a tough matchup at any point.

Cornell is scoring at a 3.83 GPG clip, which far outpaces last year. The GWG last night was #23 on the season. The 23rd goal of last season came on Jan. 9th. The one thing we've all agreed on is that we needed more offensive output. So far, we're getting it.

I'm one of the last people to admit that "clubhouse chemistry" means anything on the ice, but there has been a change. There are a lot of tests to come for this team, yes. But I'm finding myself looking forward to each game more. There have been fun things to watch. And the other teams in the league are taking notice.

RichH
I'm finding myself looking forward to each game more. There have been fun things to watch.

Very much this.

Trotsky

RichH
I'm finding myself looking forward to each game more. There have been fun things to watch.

Very much this.

And regardless of whether we finish first or last or win trophies isn't this what being a fan is about?

KeithK

Trotsky

RichH
I'm finding myself looking forward to each game more. There have been fun things to watch.

Very much this.

And regardless of whether we finish first or last or win trophies isn't this what being a fan is about?

No.

This is what being a fan is about.

Trotsky

KeithK

Trotsky

RichH
I'm finding myself looking forward to each game more. There have been fun things to watch.

Very much this.

And regardless of whether we finish first or last or win trophies isn't this what being a fan is about?

No.

This is what being a fan is about.

Expected polar bear F-16 video. Was disappointed.

This post is nonsensical, never mind.

Funny - it made perfect sense to ME...

Lauren '06

Trotsky

KeithK

Trotsky

RichH
I'm finding myself looking forward to each game more. There have been fun things to watch.

Very much this.

And regardless of whether we finish first or last or win trophies isn't this what being a fan is about?

No.

This is what being a fan is about.

Expected polar bear F-16 video. Was disappointed.

This exactly.

Dafatone
I've spent the last few years listening to a lot more games than I've watched, but from what I can tell, we were REALLY bad at finishing our chances the last two years. I was a huge Bardreau fan, but he was constantly getting to the doorstep and not scoring.

This year, we're scoring on a lot of our chances. I wonder if some of it is luck (in that we're scoring on chances at a higher rate than we probably will be for the rest of the year), but mostly I'm willing to buy that last year's seniors were just sort of an unpleasant group or something.

I liked the intensity that Mccarron brought, but he could get very, very chippy. In one of the threads about expectations for this year, I said that an underperforming team + losing a bunch of players = opportunity for unexpected success.

Still WAY too early to draw any conclusions, but it's nice to see (or hear) some goals.

If the advanced stats available are to be believed they have been, on average, outplaying their competition so the game outcomes are probably not an egregious lucky run. On the other hand, they have also scored on 12% of their shots. This is very high, so I'd expect goal scoring to fall off somewhat.

They're super young and at least 3 of their games came against pretty bad teams with 2 others coming against a team which has been struggling so far. Maybe the team has a ton of talent and these early results are indicative of things to come for the next few years, or maybe they're a middle of the pack team which happened to take care of business against bottom feeders (but if that's the case, hey, that's a positive change from the recent past).

It's so early I'm not sure any of this means anything, but it's at least more fun to follow along than the past couple of seasons.

Tom Lento

Dafatone
I've spent the last few years listening to a lot more games than I've watched, but from what I can tell, we were REALLY bad at finishing our chances the last two years. I was a huge Bardreau fan, but he was constantly getting to the doorstep and not scoring.

This year, we're scoring on a lot of our chances. I wonder if some of it is luck (in that we're scoring on chances at a higher rate than we probably will be for the rest of the year), but mostly I'm willing to buy that last year's seniors were just sort of an unpleasant group or something.

I liked the intensity that Mccarron brought, but he could get very, very chippy. In one of the threads about expectations for this year, I said that an underperforming team + losing a bunch of players = opportunity for unexpected success.

Still WAY too early to draw any conclusions, but it's nice to see (or hear) some goals.

If the advanced stats available are to be believed they have been, on average, outplaying their competition so the game outcomes are probably not an egregious lucky run. On the other hand, they have also scored on 12% of their shots. This is very high, so I'd expect goal scoring to fall off somewhat.

They're super young and at least 3 of their games came against pretty bad teams with 2 others coming against a team which has been struggling so far. Maybe the team has a ton of talent and these early results are indicative of things to come for the next few years, or maybe they're a middle of the pack team which happened to take care of business against bottom feeders (but if that's the case, hey, that's a positive change from the recent past).

It's so early I'm not sure any of this means anything, but it's at least more fun to follow along than the past couple of seasons.

To me that is the key. I want this team to continue beating those that we should, and be competitive against the rest. That will make watching fun, carry us into the post-season, and build for the future. And with a little luck, we could win a crown.

Last year a co-worker from Syracuse mentioned to me a big, hockey playing kid from Manlius that had declared for Cornell.
He asked if I had heard this. I said I hadn't. He said the kid was someone to watch.
I guess he wasn't kidding!?

Go, Angello! Go, CU!!

Watching the video clip, Angelo's OT shot was an absolute thing of skill and beauty. Very much looking forward to seeing this team here in Florida. Go Big Red.
Tom ILR '74

One thing going on with this year's team is the hottest start (6-1-1) after 8 games since 2003 (7-1-0).

We have so many injuries now that, I think, last year's team (with a smaller roster than this one) wouldn't have even had enough players to fill out a lineup.

Great to see that we have guys who can jump into the lineup and not be blatant weaknesses. I didn't see much of Shore out there tonight (does anybody track TOI?), but I was impressed by McCrae, Rauter, and Fiegl, and of course Angello and Vanderlaan won't surprise anybody at this point. Anderson is dependable (and creative) enough as a forward that I wonder whether Schafer might consider keeping him there and pulling Stoick back to D (where IMHO he belongs).

BearLover
We have so many injuries now that, I think, last year's team (with a smaller roster than this one) wouldn't have even had enough players to fill out a lineup.

There are always enough players to fill out the lineup even if you have to call on Damian Rocke.

KeithK

BearLover
We have so many injuries now that, I think, last year's team (with a smaller roster than this one) wouldn't have even had enough players to fill out a lineup.

There are always enough players to fill out the lineup even if you have to call on Damian Rocke.

As long as the Canton Pizza Hut doesn't take out a third of the team.

Anybody have a tally of the players that are currently out of action.

Johnny 5
Anybody have a tally of the players that are currently out of action.

Scratches last night were Hilbrich, Starrett, Knisley, Tschantz, Otterman, Lalor, Smith and Nuttle. First four, at least, are "out of action." Can't speak to the last four.

2 weeks until next league game, hopefully we get a couple back.

What is going on with this year's team? This is a stat I pay attention to on the team statistics page at collegehockeystats.net.

 Conference Only
      MINS
----------------
 +: 137:18 37.4%
 -:  35:34  9.7%
 E: 194:44 53.0%

We're not playing catch-up often. When we do, we answer back quickly.

(And, the league is strong this year. To be clear: the numbers above are not '03,'05, or '10 numbers, but they're getting there. Impressive vs. this competition.)

upprdeck
2 weeks until next league game, hopefully we get a couple back.

Any word on the issue with Hilbrich?

Johnny 5
Anybody have a tally of the players that are currently out of action.

From College Hockey News article on weekend games:

"Cornell played again without six injured forwards, and some defensemen moving up to the wing."

Scersk '97
What is going on with this year's team? This is a stat I pay attention to on the team statistics page at collegehockeystats.net.

 Conference Only
      MINS
----------------
 +: 137:18 37.4%
 -:  35:34  9.7%
 E: 194:44 53.0%

We're not playing catch-up often. When we do, we answer back quickly.

(And, the league is strong this year. To be clear: the numbers above are not '03,'05, or '10 numbers, but they're getting there. Impressive vs. this competition.)

After 10 games, 1 loss.

2016: 1
2015: 4
2013: 3
2012: 3
2011: 6
2010: 2
2009: 1
2008: 5
2007: 3
2006: 3
2005: 2
2004: 2
2003: 1
2002: 2
2001: 3
2000: 6

Trotsky
After 10 games, 1 loss.

It's wrong to still be pissed off about that loss too, right? I'm fine with the record, but not that game.

I'd be curious to see an updated version of the "Should he stay or should he go" survey results based on the season thus far...

RichH

Trotsky
After 10 games, 1 loss.

It's wrong to still be pissed off about that loss too, right? I'm fine with the record, but not that game.

It's wrong, because we've stolen some other games, like Brown and to be honest probably tonight. We're probably equidistant between 10-0-0 and 6-4-0, so I will take where we are.

RichH

Trotsky
After 10 games, 1 loss.

It's wrong to still be pissed off about that loss too, right? I'm fine with the record, but not that game.

Yeah, three goals on 13 shots? What the hell, LeNeveu!

I think we're getting quite lucky, and should be grateful for our record--although to think that we'd be the undefeated one, not Q, had we held on to a 3-goal lead, and that it would have done wonders for our chances at an at-large bid, it's certainly frustrating to have blown that one. Impossible to complain given then expectations and the injuries, though.

Gillam has been strong and the team has looked disciplined (not just penalty-wise, but defensively). No more wild coast to coast action we started to see on the last few teams. The biggest difference between this year's team and past years' is that everyone is contributing, including players who wouldn't have made the lineup if not for the injuries. That includes a lot of young players, which is the most promising sign of all.

Trotsky

RichH

Trotsky
After 10 games, 1 loss.

It's wrong to still be pissed off about that loss too, right? I'm fine with the record, but not that game.

It's wrong, because we've stolen some other games, like Brown and to be honest probably tonight. We're probably equidistant between 10-0-0 and 6-4-0, so I will take where we are.

Completely agree with this. We have at least one win & one tie we shouldn't have gotten. Sign me up for this record in December every year. But that game. In our house, against a team I think could run the table. It's maddening.

Also, we've looked very TIRED in the 3rd periods. Big time luck, great shot-blocking/Goaltending and no way I think we're top 10 *YET*.

RichH
Also, we've looked very TIRED in the 3rd periods. Big time luck, great shot-blocking/Goaltending and no way I think we're top 10 *YET*.

I agree. Hopefully being tired is just a matter of health. We may be playing a full eighteen skaters every game but I bet some of them aren't 100%.

RichH
Sign me up for this record in December every year. But that game. In our house, against a team I think could run the table. It's maddening.

We'll have our chances against high PWR teams, hopefully with a full crew:

1 at Quinnipiac
2 Harvard
2 at Harvard
4 vs Providence
5 vs BC (possibly)
11 Yale
12 at SLU
15 RPI
15 at RPI
16 Dartmouth
16 at Dartmouth

and Merrimack (x2) and Clarkson (x2) aren't bad, either. Not to mention that if we go deep into Placid we'll have probably beaten a high PWR team. By Selection Sunday we could wind up with something like 26 games played against teams in the top 20 at the time of playing, and 6 or 7 against top 5 teams.

Yikes. Then again, KRACH already has our SOS at 11th, so perhaps that's not too much tougher than what we've been seeing? Don't have time to check the math right now....

Robb
Yikes. Then again, KRACH already has our SOS at 11th, so perhaps that's not too much tougher than what we've been seeing? Don't have time to check the math right now....

Most SOS leaders are ECAC teams...as of now.

I'm not going to lie I'm incredibly skeptical of this team. Before the BU game we looked like a good possession team, but we had only played 2 teams with decent possession stats (Yale and Q, who is ) and we went 0-1-1 in those matchups. The rest of the teams were in the bottom 3rd in both CF% and CF% close (which is a better metric by far than PWR or KRACH to compare a team). Since then our possesion stats have gone in a freefall. We currently stand at 47.7% CF and 51.2% CF close. The first might be due to score effects, and the second number isnt bad, but before the BU game it was 53.7% CF close which screams to me that we were beating up on bad teams and now that we've actually had to play a run of good possession teams (BU, Clarkson, and SLU) our possession numbers have basically looked like we've iced a top pair Andrew MacDonald and Dan Girardi. Admittedly, we won the two against Clarkson and SLU, but we pretty much stole both. We're basically a little fluky puck luck away from being winless over any team with a CF% greater than 50%. That doesn't scream good team. It screams at best slightly above average team that has the potential to come apart in the 2nd half of the year.

css228
I'm not going to lie I'm incredibly skeptical of this team. Before the BU game we looked like a good possession team, but we had only played 2 teams with decent possession stats (Yale and Q, who is ) and we went 0-1-1 in those matchups. The rest of the teams were in the bottom 3rd in both CF% and CF% close (which is a better metric by far than PWR or KRACH to compare a team). Since then our possesion stats have gone in a freefall. We currently stand at 47.7% CF and 51.2% CF close. The first might be due to score effects, and the second number isnt bad, but before the BU game it was 53.7% CF close which screams to me that we were beating up on bad teams and now that we've actually had to play a run of good possession teams (BU, Clarkson, and SLU) our possession numbers have basically looked like we've iced a top pair Andrew MacDonald and Dan Girardi. Admittedly, we won the two against Clarkson and SLU, but we pretty much stole both. We're basically a little fluky puck luck away from being winless over any team with a CF% greater than 50%. That doesn't scream good team. It screams at best slightly above average team that has the potential to come apart in the 2nd half of the year.

Sorry to be a horrible killjoy.

css228

css228
I'm not going to lie I'm incredibly skeptical of this team. Before the BU game we looked like a good possession team, but we had only played 2 teams with decent possession stats (Yale and Q, who is ) and we went 0-1-1 in those matchups. The rest of the teams were in the bottom 3rd in both CF% and CF% close (which is a better metric by far than PWR or KRACH to compare a team). Since then our possesion stats have gone in a freefall. We currently stand at 47.7% CF and 51.2% CF close. The first might be due to score effects, and the second number isnt bad, but before the BU game it was 53.7% CF close which screams to me that we were beating up on bad teams and now that we've actually had to play a run of good possession teams (BU, Clarkson, and SLU) our possession numbers have basically looked like we've iced a top pair Andrew MacDonald and Dan Girardi. Admittedly, we won the two against Clarkson and SLU, but we pretty much stole both. We're basically a little fluky puck luck away from being winless over any team with a CF% greater than 50%. That doesn't scream good team. It screams at best slightly above average team that has the potential to come apart in the 2nd half of the year.

Sorry to be a horrible killjoy.

On the other hand, we've got a slew of injuries, so there's some reason to believe the team could improve.

Our record is better than our goal differential, so on some level we've been getting "lucky". Plenty of hockey left to sort this out.

We outshot both Yale and SLU "close."

Small sample size, relatively better competition than you're allowing. (The ECAC is better overall this year.)

As far as Clarkson goes, good thing we have a great goalie; yet, I bet the late 90s Clarkson teams used to "out-Corsi" us too——same result.

When all else fails, we've got the D.

PS On KRACH, I've found it pretty accurate after Christmas break. Let's see where we are then.

Scersk '97
We outshot both Yale and SLU "close."

Small sample size, relatively better competition than you're allowing. (The ECAC is better overall this year.)

As far as Clarkson goes, good thing we have a great goalie; yet, I bet the late 90s Clarkson teams used to "out-Corsi" us too——same result.

When all else fails, we've got the D.

PS On KRACH, I've found it pretty accurate after Christmas break. Let's see where we are then.

As I said its a really small sample size. but against competition that has a CF% close of 50 or greater (Brown, Yale, Clarkson, SLU, Q, BU) our CF% close is 47.3% (172 CF, 192 CA), but our record is 3-1-2.

Against Colgate (46.2% CF close), Princeton (46.8%), and Niagara (43.5%) who are absolutely the definition of terrible teams, or CF% close is 57.2% (167 CF 125 CA). Our record, as it should be when you dominate possession like we have against these teams, is 5-0-0.

All I'm saying is that while the first paragraph is a small sample size, that is an absolutely unsustainable trend. Our PDO is 105.6. Now maybe in college you can sustain a slightly higher shooting percentage and save percentage, but do you really want to bet that we're going to shoot 12% all season (the average is somewhere between 8-9%) AND get .940 goaltending? I don't. This seems like a team tailor made to come back to earth a bit when the competition gets better. Our true talent is probably closer to 50% CF close than the early possession stats that made us look like LA. On the bright side, at least our season is only 27 games long, so we've banked good results on luck for at least 50% of the year.

I think the takeaway from the stats you're presenting is that we've overachieved somewhat. Considering what we expected from this squad that's almost certainly true. I wouldn't take the results so far to mean that we are a true talent top 10 team (yet). How we do in the second half will depend on how quickly the guys get healthy and how the younger players continue to develop.

One thing: I suspect that with the shorter season that a team has a better chance to float by with lesser fundamentals. What you can't sustain through 80 games at the pro level might work for 20-30.

until we actually play a stretch of games with the kids we hoped would be starting not sure you can use any stats to guess at how it will all play out. using puck possession stats when you are trying to survive with D is not always good..

we played last weekend with 4-5 kids who probably shouldnt have been on the ice they were so banged up but we needed to fill out a lineup

we cant even fully practice right now we have so few bodies, lets hope a few weeks off helps.

css228

css228
cool albeit depressing stuff

Sorry to be a horrible killjoy.

You can't kill the record, so no worries.

Are you calculating the analytics yourself or are they tracked someplace? I'd love to see our Corsi / Fenwick.

Oh, and for the Gen Pop, here is a nice rundown on puckanalytics. PDO is new to me.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

css228

css228
I'm not going to lie I'm incredibly skeptical of this team. Before the BU game we looked like a good possession team, but we had only played 2 teams with decent possession stats (Yale and Q, who is ) and we went 0-1-1 in those matchups. The rest of the teams were in the bottom 3rd in both CF% and CF% close (which is a better metric by far than PWR or KRACH to compare a team). Since then our possesion stats have gone in a freefall. We currently stand at 47.7% CF and 51.2% CF close. The first might be due to score effects, and the second number isnt bad, but before the BU game it was 53.7% CF close which screams to me that we were beating up on bad teams and now that we've actually had to play a run of good possession teams (BU, Clarkson, and SLU) our possession numbers have basically looked like we've iced a top pair Andrew MacDonald and Dan Girardi. Admittedly, we won the two against Clarkson and SLU, but we pretty much stole both. We're basically a little fluky puck luck away from being winless over any team with a CF% greater than 50%. That doesn't scream good team. It screams at best slightly above average team that has the potential to come apart in the 2nd half of the year.

Sorry to be a horrible killjoy.

I honestly wish there was more of this here. It's not positive but it isn't Chicken Little bullshit. And it really isn't all that far away from what most of us say/believe anyway.

I don't think anyone is convinced that we're a top 10 team. I'd guess that the eLF crowd is pleasantly surprised with the results to date, expecting some slippage, figuring there is a good chance to snag an at-large ahead of schedule with the freshmen and hoping that the full squad is healthy at the end of the year to make a run.

This wasn't supposed to be the year for great things. It was supposed to be a rebuilding year and we've been a skating infirmary. That's what your stats say to me. No reason to think that makes you a killjoy.

Does CF Close include special teams play? Because Cornell has been taking more penalties than its opponents, and it has been consistently leading in games. CF Close, despite ignoring large score disparities, still includes the time when Cornell is leading by 1 goal--which has been the case far more often this season than them being down by 1 goal. So it's likely Cornell's numbers would be a bit higher if they weren't nearly always ahead and weren't taking more penalties than their opponents.

With that said, though, one need only watch the 3rd period and OT of the BU game to know Cornell has a long way to go before it's an elite team.

BearLover
Because Cornell has been taking more penalties than its opponents, and it has been consistently leading in

Going off on a tangent. I think Cornell's penalty stats are an interesting story this year. We are 50/60 in terms of penalty minutes, yet, as you said, are penalized more often per game than our opponents (4.4 vs 3.2 penalties). Granted, 5 of our 11 games have come across teams that have fewer penalty minutes. Either way, I love that we have so few penalty minutes and that we haven't committed a major or game misconduct penalty yet.

Another interesting stat: opponents' save percentage. So far this season it's at an atrocious 88.1%. If that represented one goalie, they would rank 78/80 in the NCAAs. Last year, the oppoents' save percentage was 92.9%. Is this increased accuracy a fluke, a trend attributable to a new class, the result of revised coaching or practice techniques, or something else?

KGR11

BearLover
Because Cornell has been taking more penalties than its opponents, and it has been consistently leading in

Another interesting stat: opponents' save percentage. So far this season it's at an atrocious 88.1%. If that represented one goalie, they would rank 78/80 in the NCAAs. Last year, the oppoents' save percentage was 92.9%. Is this increased accuracy a fluke, a trend attributable to a new class, the result of revised coaching or practice techniques, or something else?

All of the above! We have better shooters/finishers, and we had a class of relatively terrible finishers leave. Certainly, there's some luck to it as well. 88.1% is terrible, but 92.9% was great.

Shot charts would tell, but I've had the impression that we're not shooting from the perimeter as much as prior seasons. We've seemed to be able to penetrate defenses, even up the middle, and get rushes and shots from closer in. The Kubiak line especially seems to be built to do this. Hilbrich still menaces the goalie and tries to screen, but the other lines have gotten low and out in front.

OTOH we may just be playing really bad defensive teams.

Trying to jog my memory I came across this. Heckuva job on the first paragraph, USCHO copy editors.

I feel that the stats like time of possession, shots, CF etc. can be skewed against a team that jumps out to an early lead. I would like to see adjusted stats that reflect that a team with a healthy lead would naturally be expected to take fewer shots etc. I haven't checked our stats on that but at least against Q and BU we jumped out to an early lead and probably collapsed into a defensive shell. Are they better teams? Probably. But would we have been a bit more agressive to the puck if we were down a goal? Probably.

The thing that has a seed of concern germinating in my brain is that the whole "we're going to get the puck on net a lot more" thing seems to be losing momentum. Shots are down and there's some more hesitation when there's offensive zone traffic compared to the first few weeks. That and we're starting to panic again when an opponent sends a strong forecheck into our face on the breakout. Falling into old habits is my only fear, other than more injuries.

OTOH, there are bodies established in front of the net consistently, and we're getting the pucks deflecting and tipping way more often than last season.

Regardless with what is going on, this quote from this week's USCHO ECAC column is worth remembering.

Cornell heads into its holiday break on a seven-game unbeaten streak, its best since 2012. At 8-1-2, the Big Red are only three wins shy of their win total from last year.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

BearLover
Does CF Close include special teams play? Because Cornell has been taking more penalties than its opponents, and it has been consistently leading in games. CF Close, despite ignoring large score disparities, still includes the time when Cornell is leading by 1 goal--which has been the case far more often this season than them being down by 1 goal. So it's likely Cornell's numbers would be a bit higher if they weren't nearly always ahead and weren't taking more penalties than their opponents.

With that said, though, one need only watch the 3rd period and OT of the BU game to know Cornell has a long way to go before it's an elite team.

So the answer is because I drew these stats from CHN I'm not 100% sure. Generally the answer is no, but they didn't specify whether their close were taken in all situations or even strength. My bet is even strength, because the whole point of looking at CF% close in the first place is to remove the bias of score effects (close meaning a +/- 1 goal in the first two periods or tied in the third) so it would kind of defeat the point of the stat, but I just can't guarantee 5 v. 4 stats aren't in there because CHN's stat tables just aren't detailed enough.

Roy 82
I feel that the stats like time of possession, shots, CF etc. can be skewed against a team that jumps out to an early lead. I would like to see adjusted stats that reflect that a team with a healthy lead would naturally be expected to take fewer shots etc. I haven't checked our stats on that but at least against Q and BU we jumped out to an early lead and probably collapsed into a defensive shell. Are they better teams? Probably. But would we have been a bit more agressive to the puck if we were down a goal? Probably.

You're absolutely right that CF% is biased by score effects. This is why I cited CF% close (i.e. CF% when the +/- 1 goal in the first two periods or tied in the third and OT).

css228

Roy 82
I feel that the stats like time of possession, shots, CF etc. can be skewed against a team that jumps out to an early lead. I would like to see adjusted stats that reflect that a team with a healthy lead would naturally be expected to take fewer shots etc. I haven't checked our stats on that but at least against Q and BU we jumped out to an early lead and probably collapsed into a defensive shell. Are they better teams? Probably. But would we have been a bit more agressive to the puck if we were down a goal? Probably.

You're absolutely right that CF% is biased by score effects. This is why I cited CF% close (i.e. CF% when the +/- 1 goal in the first two periods or tied in the third and OT).

Oh, CF Close only includes ties in the third? That invalidates most of my earlier point, then.

RichH
Falling into old habits is my only fear, other than more injuries.

I guess it's theoretically possible that we're so young there aren't a lot of old habits to fall into. The class of '15 gobbled up tremendous ice time. The combination of there being a large number of players who saw no or little ice time last year and those who did shifting into new roles, and this may be about as close to a clean slate as one is likely to get.

css228

Roy 82
I feel that the stats like time of possession, shots, CF etc. can be skewed against a team that jumps out to an early lead. I would like to see adjusted stats that reflect that a team with a healthy lead would naturally be expected to take fewer shots etc. I haven't checked our stats on that but at least against Q and BU we jumped out to an early lead and probably collapsed into a defensive shell. Are they better teams? Probably. But would we have been a bit more agressive to the puck if we were down a goal? Probably.

You're absolutely right that CF% is biased by score effects. This is why I cited CF% close (i.e. CF% when the +/- 1 goal in the first two periods or tied in the third and OT).

Thanks. I assumed that it was CF within a certain distance of the net. There goes my chance to have a stat named after me.

Roy 82

css228

Roy 82
I feel that the stats like time of possession, shots, CF etc. can be skewed against a team that jumps out to an early lead. I would like to see adjusted stats that reflect that a team with a healthy lead would naturally be expected to take fewer shots etc. I haven't checked our stats on that but at least against Q and BU we jumped out to an early lead and probably collapsed into a defensive shell. Are they better teams? Probably. But would we have been a bit more agressive to the puck if we were down a goal? Probably.

You're absolutely right that CF% is biased by score effects. This is why I cited CF% close (i.e. CF% when the +/- 1 goal in the first two periods or tied in the third and OT).

Thanks. I assumed that it was CF within a certain distance of the net. There goes my chance to have a stat named after me.

Speaking of, where the hell is Bill?

ugarte

css228

css228
I'm not going to lie I'm incredibly skeptical of this team. Before the BU game we looked like a good possession team, but we had only played 2 teams with decent possession stats (Yale and Q, who is ) and we went 0-1-1 in those matchups. The rest of the teams were in the bottom 3rd in both CF% and CF% close (which is a better metric by far than PWR or KRACH to compare a team). Since then our possesion stats have gone in a freefall. We currently stand at 47.7% CF and 51.2% CF close. The first might be due to score effects, and the second number isnt bad, but before the BU game it was 53.7% CF close which screams to me that we were beating up on bad teams and now that we've actually had to play a run of good possession teams (BU, Clarkson, and SLU) our possession numbers have basically looked like we've iced a top pair Andrew MacDonald and Dan Girardi. Admittedly, we won the two against Clarkson and SLU, but we pretty much stole both. We're basically a little fluky puck luck away from being winless over any team with a CF% greater than 50%. That doesn't scream good team. It screams at best slightly above average team that has the potential to come apart in the 2nd half of the year.

Sorry to be a horrible killjoy.

I honestly wish there was more of this here. It's not positive but it isn't Chicken Little bullshit. And it really isn't all that far away from what most of us say/believe anyway.

I don't think anyone is convinced that we're a top 10 team. I'd guess that the eLF crowd is pleasantly surprised with the results to date, expecting some slippage, figuring there is a good chance to snag an at-large ahead of schedule with the freshmen and hoping that the full squad is healthy at the end of the year to make a run.

This wasn't supposed to be the year for great things. It was supposed to be a rebuilding year and we've been a skating infirmary. That's what your stats say to me. No reason to think that makes you a killjoy.

Agreed, I see that as realistic, not being a killjoy at all.

I have seen 0 minutes of Cornell hockey this year. However, based purely on stats and recaps and discussion here it seems to me this team was beating the teams it should and staying close with better teams despite getting outplayed. They've managed to steal almost all of the available points from the latter while not conceding any to the former. This is not actually a bad thing, but when roughly half of your games are the "try to stay close and hope for the best" variety you are probably not a top contender for a deep NCAA run.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if this team finished the regular season with 20+ wins. Not shocked, because they started so hot, but surprised. I would not be surprised if this team finished with 16 wins. That might feel like failure after this start, but it's in line with a solid season given early expectations, and frankly it seems more in line with the run of play this team has had thus far.

Tom Lento
I'd be pleasantly surprised if this team finished the regular season with 20+ wins. Not shocked, because they started so hot, but surprised. I would not be surprised if this team finished with 16 wins. That might feel like failure after this start, but it's in line with a solid season given early expectations, and frankly it seems more in line with the run of play this team has had thus far.

If the team plays .500 the rest of the way (a line which would have not be out of line with preseason expectations) Cornell would finish the RS at 17-9-2 and 13-8-1 in conference. I'd consider that a successful season given where we were last season.

I still think there are enough positive signs that it's not unreasonable to hope for better than going forward. We'll all be rooting for that. (Well, I'm rooting for a 34-1-2 finish but that is unreasonable.)

its one thing to stay close to better teams.. more interesting in that these better teams have trailed CU by multiple goals fairly late in the game and perhaps if CU had just a few less injuries it holds onto those leads.

upprdeck
its one thing to stay close to better teams.. more interesting in that these better teams have trailed CU by multiple goals fairly late in the game and perhaps if CU had just a few less injuries it holds onto those leads.

Even Brown can be heard singing this song (though I don't know about any injuries there).

They were tied with Providence at the halfway point last night and didn't give up the third goal until 17:06 of the third. Also it's interesting that CHN is reporting no penalties in this game after the first period. That from the ECAC pre-season cellar dweller.

The 4-1 final might have been inevitable but that game must have had Leaman wondering WTF at times.

Dafatone

All of the above! We have better shooters/finishers, and we had a class of relatively terrible finishers leave. Certainly, there's some luck to it as well. 88.1% is terrible, but 92.9% was great.

To back this up, our top three in shot percentage are Angello (33.3%), Vanderlaan (28.6%), and Starrett (20% and tied with Kubiak) -- all frosh. This says something about them, as well as the chemistry of their lines. Angello and Vanderlaan are also tied for second place on the team in +/- with 8. McCrea, another frosh and a defenseman, is tied for third on the team in points and fourth in +/-.

Swampy

Dafatone

All of the above! We have better shooters/finishers, and we had a class of relatively terrible finishers leave. Certainly, there's some luck to it as well. 88.1% is terrible, but 92.9% was great.

To back this up, our top three in shot percentage are Angello (33.3%)

Clearly we just need Angello to take 21 shots per game...

Trotsky

Swampy

Dafatone

All of the above! We have better shooters/finishers, and we had a class of relatively terrible finishers leave. Certainly, there's some luck to it as well. 88.1% is terrible, but 92.9% was great.

To back this up, our top three in shot percentage are Angello (33.3%)

Clearly we just need Angello to take 21 shots per game...

T o achieve that we could just get rid of this whole "line change" thing. We talk about the team playing hard for a full 60 minutes. Why can't he do that specifically?

KeithK

Trotsky

Swampy

Dafatone

All of the above! We have better shooters/finishers, and we had a class of relatively terrible finishers leave. Certainly, there's some luck to it as well. 88.1% is terrible, but 92.9% was great.

To back this up, our top three in shot percentage are Angello (33.3%)

Clearly we just need Angello to take 21 shots per game...

T o achieve that we could just get rid of this whole "line change" thing. We talk about the team playing hard for a full 60 minutes. Why can't he do that specifically?

Nieuwy in '87 essentially did that.

It would be great if there had been TOI for that year. If any forward ever broke 30 it would be him then.

Trotsky

Swampy

Dafatone

All of the above! We have better shooters/finishers, and we had a class of relatively terrible finishers leave. Certainly, there's some luck to it as well. 88.1% is terrible, but 92.9% was great.

To back this up, our top three in shot percentage are Angello (33.3%)

Clearly we just need Angello to take 21 shots per game...

Boy, talk about looking in the mouth of a gift horse.

Cornell featured in this week's USCHO column.