Cornell 1 vs. Merrimack 0 1/7/17

The first game of 2017 and last out-of-conference game of the regular season. Merrimack has not looked very good recently but they are still playing at home.

Streaming, by the way, if you want to pony up the $9.95.

[www.merrimackathletics.tv]

As of 6:30 there are still waves of stupid emanating from WHCU.

Ah. There's Jason now.

Tim Vanini is doing color beside Jason. I wonder if he lives in the Andover area.

Trotsky
Tim Vanini is doing color beside Jason. I wonder if he lives in the Andover area.

He doesn't. He lives in Buffalo. No idea what he's doing in Andover.

The streak continues, as Cornell records a shutout in the 22nd consecutive season under Schafer. Our last 4 shutouts have all been 1-0.

With the results so far tonight we're back up to 15 in PWR. Miami beat St. Cloud tonight; it looks like they may be turning things around and if they keep winning it sure will help us out.

scoop85
With the results so far tonight we're back up to 15 in PWR. Miami beat St. Cloud tonight; it looks like they may be turning things around and if they keep winning it sure will help us out.

SLU sitting in 14th leading us down to the 5th decimal place in RPI. 12th pretty much a breath away.

RichH

scoop85
With the results so far tonight we're back up to 15 in PWR. Miami beat St. Cloud tonight; it looks like they may be turning things around and if they keep winning it sure will help us out.

SLU sitting in 14th leading us down to the 5th decimal place in RPI. 12th pretty much a breath away.

wow just imagine if we'd BEATEN CC!

*throws chair through window*

ugarte

RichH

scoop85
With the results so far tonight we're back up to 15 in PWR. Miami beat St. Cloud tonight; it looks like they may be turning things around and if they keep winning it sure will help us out.

SLU sitting in 14th leading us down to the 5th decimal place in RPI. 12th pretty much a breath away.

wow just imagine if we'd BEATEN CC!

*throws chair through window*

CC after tying #1 Duluth last night held them off in the third tonight to preserve a 2-1 win. So yeah.

ugarte

RichH

scoop85
With the results so far tonight we're back up to 15 in PWR. Miami beat St. Cloud tonight; it looks like they may be turning things around and if they keep winning it sure will help us out.

SLU sitting in 14th leading us down to the 5th decimal place in RPI. 12th pretty much a breath away.

wow just imagine if we'd BEATEN CC!

*throws chair through window*

We'd be 10th in pwr

Who cares? It's early January

underskill
Who cares? It's early January

One loss made a difference last year.

marty

underskill
Who cares? It's early January

One loss made a difference last year.

And two years before that too.

But honestly, our last six games have been against bad teams. On average, we barely outplayed them. For us to have gone 5-1 over that stretch is lucky, not unlucky. And that's what has made 2014, 2016, and quite possibly this year too, feel strange: though we barely missed, no one really thought we were actually good. Above average, sure, but not so good that we "deserved" to make the NCAAs. And those years--like this year--we weren't even close to the best teams in our own conference.

I think it should be pretty clear by now that an improved ECAC has not helped Cornell at all, at least so far. Not in national success, not in in-conference success (obviously), not in recruiting, not in attendance.

Well, we are about to hit the point where the wheels fell off in the past few seasons.

On the one hand, we have been beating crappy teams. But on the other hand we have been beating crappy teams. We just won't know what we've got until we start playing the tougher league opponents. After Princeton (who's been hot) we've got 4 in a row.

It's an odd anomaly that after our 16th game we will only have played at Lynah 4 times. That then launches a string of 7 home games in 9. Including a presumptive initial home series, 11 of the next 15 at home. Can't hurt.

BearLover

marty

underskill
Who cares? It's early January

One loss made a difference last year.

And two years before that too.

But honestly, our last six games have been against bad teams. On average, we barely outplayed them. For us to have gone 5-1 over that stretch is lucky, not unlucky. And that's what has made 2014, 2016, and quite possibly this year too, feel strange: though we barely missed, no one really thought we were actually good. Above average, sure, but not so good that we "deserved" to make the NCAAs. And those years--like this year--we weren't even close to the best teams in our own conference.

I think it should be pretty clear by now that an improved ECAC has not helped Cornell at all, at least so far. Not in national success, not in in-conference success (obviously), not in recruiting, not in attendance.

So does this mean you agree with UnderS and don't care that we lost to CC - a bad team that just beat Duluth? I wish we had won or tied that game.

I think it's important to keep in mind that there isn't really enough season to sort out who is and isn't good. At the very least, not through 10-15 games.

Princeton might actually be pretty solid. CC might not be garbage. Etc etc.

I meant who cares where that one loss puts us in PWR at this point in the season. I agree it's a bad loss but saying we could be 12 in pwr had we won is kinda irrelevant this early.

marty

BearLover

marty

underskill
Who cares? It's early January

One loss made a difference last year.

And two years before that too.

But honestly, our last six games have been against bad teams. On average, we barely outplayed them. For us to have gone 5-1 over that stretch is lucky, not unlucky. And that's what has made 2014, 2016, and quite possibly this year too, feel strange: though we barely missed, no one really thought we were actually good. Above average, sure, but not so good that we "deserved" to make the NCAAs. And those years--like this year--we weren't even close to the best teams in our own conference.

I think it should be pretty clear by now that an improved ECAC has not helped Cornell at all, at least so far. Not in national success, not in in-conference success (obviously), not in recruiting, not in attendance.

So does this mean you agree with UnderS and don't care that we lost to CC - a bad team that just beat Duluth? I wish we had won or tied that game.

I obviously care a lot that we lost that game--I'm just saying that even despite that loss we are probably currently higher in the PWR than we deserve to be, and so it's not really fair to complain about it.

Dafatone
I think it's important to keep in mind that there isn't really enough season to sort out who is and isn't good. At the very least, not through 10-15 games.

Princeton might actually be pretty solid. CC might not be garbage. Etc etc.

underskill
I meant who cares where that one loss puts us in PWR at this point in the season. I agree it's a bad loss but saying we could be 12 in pwr had we won is kinda irrelevant this early.

Adam would disagree with you.

"In reality, the Pairwise, in the large majority of seasons, is, by New Year's Day (or sooner), already largely indicative of what teams will make the NCAA tournament. In fact, you can stretch that back as early as Dec. 10 of a given season if you want to."

From [www.collegehockeynews.com]

abmarks

Dafatone
I think it's important to keep in mind that there isn't really enough season to sort out who is and isn't good. At the very least, not through 10-15 games.

Princeton might actually be pretty solid. CC might not be garbage. Etc etc.

underskill
I meant who cares where that one loss puts us in PWR at this point in the season. I agree it's a bad loss but saying we could be 12 in pwr had we won is kinda irrelevant this early.

Adam would disagree with you.

"In reality, the Pairwise, in the large majority of seasons, is, by New Year's Day (or sooner), already largely indicative of what teams will make the NCAA tournament. In fact, you can stretch that back as early as Dec. 10 of a given season if you want to."

From [www.collegehockeynews.com]

See, I look at those numbers and I don't think there's that much of a conclusion to draw. It makes sense that most of the top teams are currently towards the top of the pairwise, but there's certainly room for mobility. Northeastern was all the way down at 50 and made it? Damn. Could you imagine the wailing going on here if we were 50th?

in 3-4 weeks we will probably have a sense of who we are. so far playing so many road games we really dont have a sense of anything..

all you can do is beat the "bad" teams and we have done that, except for game 1 and a florida tourney road trip game off a long lay off.

after this its 9 home vs 4 away to finish the season. if we are no worse than 3-3 after the next 6 games we will be in a pretty good to control home ice.

as to whether PWR goes up or down off of that who knows.

Odds are Cornell will have to score more than one goal per game to win a majority of remaining games, no matter how well the team plays defense.

Hooking
Odds are Cornell will have to score more than one goal per game to win a majority of remaining games, no matter how well the team plays defense.

Good thing we're just under 3 goals a game.

Hooking
Odds are Cornell will have to score more than one goal per game to win a majority of remaining games, no matter how well the team plays defense.

Our offense was doing pretty well going into Florida. Last two games could be minor road bump...or a downward trend like last year.

BearLover
I'm just saying that even despite that loss we are probably currently higher in the PWR than we deserve to be.

This prompts the question: How high do they deserve to be? They have the 9th best winning percentage, but it's against a mediocre-strength schedule (ranked 34th). However, they've only played 29% of their games at home. In scoring margin, they're ranked 16th. Average shot margin is +1.36/game (Wish they tracked shot margins better).

Here are the most up-to-date rankings:
Pairwise: 15
RPI: 15
KRACH: 16
USCHO Poll: 19

Given the games played so far and the statistics we have, I think Cornell is in the right PWR neighborhood. The problem with introducing luck into the conversation is that I doubt anyone can adequately quantify the luck experienced by every college hockey team. Sure, Cornell is lucky it won some of the games it may have lost, but isn't that true with every team?

KGR11
This prompts the question: How high do they deserve to be?

"You are what your record says you are." John has worn me down to the point where I accept KRACH as my personal savior. We "deserve" to be 16th.

Something to keep in mind. RPI is purely a function of win percentage, opponents' win percentage, and opponents' opponents' win percentage.

This means that wins are interchangeable. Sure, had we beaten CC, we'd be better off. But we'd be in exactly* the same spot had we beaten CC and lost Saturday to Merrimack.

*okay, not exactly the same, since the college hockey RPI formula gives more credit for road wins than home wins (or, presumably, neutral site wins). There's also a bonus for beating top 20 teams. But in general, wins are interchangeable.

Dafatone

This means that wins are interchangeable. Sure, had we beaten CC, we'd be better off. But we'd be in exactly* the same spot had we beaten CC and lost Saturday to Merrimack.

who was proposing that we should have lost to merrimack twice instead

it is interesting how many teams we have played that we say are not very good and then the next week they turned around and beat someone who is suppose to be good.

ugarte

Dafatone

This means that wins are interchangeable. Sure, had we beaten CC, we'd be better off. But we'd be in exactly* the same spot had we beaten CC and lost Saturday to Merrimack.

who was proposing that we should have lost to merrimack twice instead

No one in particular. I just find it a strange wrinkle of RPI that we may end the year going "if only we had beaten CC" when a win against any other opponent would have the same impact.

Back in the pre RPI-only days of the pairwise, specific games would have more of an impact.

Trotsky

KGR11
This prompts the question: How high do they deserve to be?

"You are what your record says you are." John has worn me down to the point where I accept KRACH as my personal savior. We "deserve" to be 16th.

Would that be Jesus KRACH?

Dafatone

ugarte

Dafatone

This means that wins are interchangeable. Sure, had we beaten CC, we'd be better off. But we'd be in exactly* the same spot had we beaten CC and lost Saturday to Merrimack.

who was proposing that we should have lost to merrimack twice instead

No one in particular. I just find it a strange wrinkle of RPI that we may end the year going "if only we had beaten CC" when a win against any other opponent would have the same impact.

Back in the pre RPI-only days of the pairwise, specific games would have more of an impact.

Road wins and quality win bonus DO make a difference. Quality Win bonus is for teams in the top 20 in PWR.


We have three remaining road games against teams in the PWR top 20 (assuming pwr stays the same for the sake of argument)



Beating #9 Union is the *best* RPI result and beating #14 St. Lawrence is the second best with a win at Quinny 3rd best. All three are better than a neutral site win vs CC

abmarks

Dafatone

ugarte

Dafatone

This means that wins are interchangeable. Sure, had we beaten CC, we'd be better off. But we'd be in exactly* the same spot had we beaten CC and lost Saturday to Merrimack.

who was proposing that we should have lost to merrimack twice instead

No one in particular. I just find it a strange wrinkle of RPI that we may end the year going "if only we had beaten CC" when a win against any other opponent would have the same impact.

Back in the pre RPI-only days of the pairwise, specific games would have more of an impact.

Road wins and quality win bonus DO make a difference. Quality Win bonus is for teams in the top 20 in PWR.


We have three remaining road games against teams in the PWR top 20 (assuming pwr stays the same for the sake of argument)



Beating #9 Union is the *best* RPI result and beating #14 St. Lawrence is the second best with a win at Quinny 3rd best. All three are better than a neutral site win vs CC

How do these compare with beating Harvard at home?

Swampy

abmarks

Dafatone

ugarte

Dafatone

This means that wins are interchangeable. Sure, had we beaten CC, we'd be better off. But we'd be in exactly* the same spot had we beaten CC and lost Saturday to Merrimack.

who was proposing that we should have lost to merrimack twice instead

No one in particular. I just find it a strange wrinkle of RPI that we may end the year going "if only we had beaten CC" when a win against any other opponent would have the same impact.

Back in the pre RPI-only days of the pairwise, specific games would have more of an impact.

Road wins and quality win bonus DO make a difference. Quality Win bonus is for teams in the top 20 in PWR.


We have three remaining road games against teams in the PWR top 20 (assuming pwr stays the same for the sake of argument)



Beating #9 Union is the *best* RPI result and beating #14 St. Lawrence is the second best with a win at Quinny 3rd best. All three are better than a neutral site win vs CC

How do these compare with beating Harvard at home?

Not nearly as satisfying.

Swampy

abmarks


Road wins and quality win bonus DO make a difference. Quality Win bonus is for teams in the top 20 in PWR.

We have three remaining road games against teams in the PWR top 20 (assuming pwr stays the same for the sake of argument)

Beating #9 Union is the *best* RPI result and beating #14 St. Lawrence is the second best with a win at Quinny 3rd best. All three are better than a neutral site win vs CC

How do these compare with beating Harvard at home?

Good question, and with an answer that surprised me.

TL;DR Summary: Beating Harvard at home improves RPI more than road wins at QU, UN or STL.

W Home v HVD: RPI impact is + .0475 QWB +.028 home win = 0.076

W road v UN: RPI impact is + .0300 QWB +.041 road win = 0.071

W road v STL: RPI impact is + .0175 QWB +.041 road win = 0.059

W road v QU: RPI impact is + .0075 QWB + .041 road win = 0.049


Not sure of the PWR change since I don't know how to calculate PWR comparisons over the course of the full year not yet played.





--If you are interested in why those are the numbers, here is the lopnger version with calculations:

All based on the PWR explanation at CHN [www.collegehockeynews.com]
- RPI for each team is tweaked based on a number of factors. Home win vs. Harvard would be adjusted for home/away and for a quality win bonus.
- RPI is made up of three factors: Team win %, average of opponents winning %, and average of opponents opponents winning percentage:

RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.21) + (OOWP * 0.254)

When comparing the relative value of different wins or losses, CU WP is the most impacted since OWP and OOWP will change much less given the volume of games played used for each stat.

CHN
Home/Road weighting:

For purposes of calculating a final RPI, games are weighted based upon whether they are home or road games. Road wins and home losses are weighted by a factor of 1.2, while home wins and road losses are weighted by 0.8. Unlike basketball, all components of the RPI are weighted. This weighting system was introduced in 2013-14.

This adjustment is calculated in our winning percentage. Win % is ((wins + .5 * ties) / total games played), including only NCAA games. Simply put, a road win is worth effectively 0.4 more wins than a home win when calculating winning percentage. (When adding up wins, you'd use .8 for a home win or 1.2 for a road win. So a harvard home win adds .8 to the numerator while the road wins would add 1.2)

29 NCAA games through the end of the regular season. Based on the WP formula, over 29 games the WP = (wins +.5*ties) / 29.

-Therefore a harvard win at home would change WP by .8/29 = 0.028
-A road win against QU, UN, STL etc would change WP by 1.2/29 = 0.041
> Road win improves RPI by 0.041-0.028= 0.014 more than a home win


The second adjustment is for quality wins.

CHN
Quality Win Bonus (QWB):
A "Quality Win Bonus" was added for the 2013-14 season. For any win against the top 20 of the RPI, a team is awarded "bonus points" on a sliding scale from 1-20. In other words, a team is given a .050 RPI bonus for defeating the No. 1 team, sliding down to .0025 bonus for defeating the 20th team. The total bonus for the season is divided by the amount of games played (weighted for home-road), to give a final bonus figure.

Without showing the math, here are the QWB amounts for the games mentioned, assuming today's PWR.

W v #2 HVD +.0475

W v #9 UN +.0300

W v #14 STL +.0175

W v #18 QU +.0075



So to answer the original question, here are the RPI impacts of the wins.


W Home v HVD: RPI impact is + .0475 QWB +.028 home win = 0.076

W road v UN: RPI impact is + .0300 QWB +.041 road win = 0.071

W road v STL: RPI impact is + .0175 QWB +.041 road win = 0.059

W road v QU: RPI impact is + .0075 QWB + .041 road win = 0.049

abmarks

Swampy

abmarks
Road wins and quality win bonus DO make a difference. Quality Win bonus is for teams in the top 20 in PWR.

We have three remaining road games against teams in the PWR top 20 (assuming pwr stays the same for the sake of argument)

Beating #9 Union is the *best* RPI result and beating #14 St. Lawrence is the second best with a win at Quinny 3rd best. All three are better than a neutral site win vs CC

How do these compare with beating Harvard at home?

Good question, and with an answer that surprised me.

You answered this question with math but the real answer was in your heart all along.

this also assume all games after that are never played true?

so if by beating harvard then they lose 7 in a row doesnt the value get decreased?

upprdeck
this also assume all games after that are never played true?

so if by beating harvard then they lose 7 in a row doesnt the value get decreased?

Incorrect.

As I said above, I was looking at the RPI and more specifically our winning percentage. WP is wins + .5 (ties) divided by games played. I used a full season games played number of 29, not total games to date.


However, to be able to do the math, I had to use current PWR ranking numbers for opponents- those of course will change as the season plays out. So I'm making the simplifying assumption of using current PWR numbers. Quality win bonus figures will change depending on what the final PWR rankings are at season's end.

abmarks

upprdeck
this also assume all games after that are never played true?

so if by beating harvard then they lose 7 in a row doesnt the value get decreased?

Incorrect.

As I said above, I was looking at the RPI and more specifically our winning percentage. WP is wins + .5 (ties) divided by games played. I used a full season games played number of 29, not total games to date.


However, to be able to do the math, I had to use current PWR ranking numbers for opponents- those of course will change as the season plays out. So I'm making the simplifying assumption of using current PWR numbers. Quality win bonus figures will change depending on what the final PWR rankings are at season's end.

So if I understand you correctly, this confirms the axiom, "Just win, baby!"

Swampy

abmarks

upprdeck
this also assume all games after that are never played true?

so if by beating harvard then they lose 7 in a row doesnt the value get decreased?

Incorrect.

As I said above, I was looking at the RPI and more specifically our winning percentage. WP is wins + .5 (ties) divided by games played. I used a full season games played number of 29, not total games to date.


However, to be able to do the math, I had to use current PWR ranking numbers for opponents- those of course will change as the season plays out. So I'm making the simplifying assumption of using current PWR numbers. Quality win bonus figures will change depending on what the final PWR rankings are at season's end.

So if I understand you correctly, this confirms the axiom, "Just win, baby!"

An axiom cannot be "confirmed."