Next Year's predictions/Expectations 2017-18

Poll

What would meet your expectations?

This poll has expired. Voting is no longer possible.
62 votes were received.

ECAC Bottom Third	0		0%
ECAC First Round Home	4		6%
ECAC First Round Bye	3		5%
Lake Placid	12		19%
NCAA Regionals	38		61%
NCAA Frozen Four	4		6%
NCAA Champs	1		2%

---

So here's Beeeej's preseason poll.

Beeeej
Make Your Prediction: What performance would meet your expectations of Big Red Men's Hockey in 2016-17?

73 votes were received.

ECAC Bottom Third 	1 	1%
ECAC First Round Home 	24 	33%
ECAC First Round Bye 	15 	21%
Lake Placid 	        18 	25%
ECAC Champions and/or 
NCAA Regionals 	        12 	16%
Frozen Four 	        1 	1%
National Champions 	2 	3% 

So I guess we met/exceeded most peoples expectations.

Using the same criteria, what are you expecting for next season?

Was last years poll taken right after our elimination?

I have a feeling we have more extreme expectations (good or bad) right after the prior season ends than just before the coming season begins.

Trotsky
Was last years poll taken right after our elimination?

I have a feeling we have more extreme expectations (good or bad) right after the prior season ends than just before the coming season begins.

No it was in the fall, but much to your point, I thought it might be interesting to see how they differ this fall, from now.

What would meet my expectations for the Cornell Hockey program generally, or how do I expect them to finish next year? The former: NCAA appearance; the latter: Lake Placid

BearLover
What would meet my expectations for the Cornell Hockey program generally, or how do I expect them to finish next year? The former: NCAA appearance; the latter: Lake Placid

How you expect them to finish in 2017-18. There wouldn't be much point in doing the poll annually if it were the former.

How the mighty have fallen. From statistical analysis to predictions/Expectations! Of course there could be a lot of overlap here. There certainly is in reports by stock-market/investment touts.

Hooking
How the mighty have fallen. From statistical analysis to predictions/Expectations! Of course there could be a lot of overlap here. There certainly is in reports by stock-market/investment touts.

Fuck off.

+1

Hooking
How the mighty have fallen. From statistical analysis to predictions/Expectations!

Hooking (eight days earlier)
Cornell wins, 3-1.

(deleted)

Trotsky
Early TBRW? 2018 Predictions! (subject to change):

Bottom Line:

 1 31 Cor  0
 2 30 Qpc +3
 3 29 Hvd -5
 4 28 Uni -6
 5 27 SLU -1
 6 22 Prn +3
 7 21 Clk -2
 8 20 Yal +2
 9 18 Drt +2
10 16 Cgt +1
11 14 RPI +2
12  9 Brn +2

Never Explain:

		RS    PS	 IMP??	Prior	Ret%	  Ret	Inc%	Avg10	 Reg	 Nieu	 Norm	Pred
Brown		7	 0	  0	 7	.91	 6.38	.09	14.20	 .63	 7.01	 8.60	12
Clarkson	23	 0	  0	23	.55	12.65	.45	21.30	4.79	17.44	21.41	 7
Colgate		15	 0	  0	15	.60	 9.00	.40	19.70	3.94	12.94	15.88	10
Cornell		31	 1	  0	32	.63	20.06	.37	25.70	4.79	24.86	30.50	 1
Dartmouth	16	 0	  0	16	.73	11.74	.27	20.30	2.70	14.44	17.73	 9
Harvard		34	 0	  1	35	.51	17.89	.49	22.50	5.50	23.39	28.70	 3
Princeton	19	 0	  0	19	.88	16.70	.12	17.60	1.06	17.77	21.80	 6
Quinnipiac	27	 1	  0	28	.76	21.17	.24	27.10	3.31	24.47	30.03	 2
RPI		12	 0	  0	12	.74	 8.87	.26	19.30	2.52	11.39	13.97	11
SLU		28	-1	  0	27	.69	18.74	.31	22.10	3.38	22.12	27.15	 5
Union		34	-1	 -3	30	.56	16.71	.44	27.10	6.00	22.71	27.87	 4
Yale		18	 0	  0	18	.69	12.40	.31	26.90	4.18	16.58	20.35	 8

I believe that your column headings have an issue - should be RS PS and maybe IMP...although I doubt 10 teams did exactly the same as they did from first half to second half...and IMP would have to sum to zero...so I have no idea what the AW column is.

Imp is divided by 2, rounded down, so it doesn't have to sum to zero.

There is an issue, though. I'll get there...

OK. Let's try this again.

Bottom line:

 1. Harvard
 2. Cornell
 3. Quinnipiac
 4. Union
 5. SLU
 6. Clarkson
 7. Princeton
 8. Yale
 9. Colgate
10. RPI
11. Dartmouth
12. Brown

I think Union's too high -- they've lost too much top-end talent. And I think Yale will be a bit higher -- maybe 5th or 6th.

scoop85
I think Union's too high -- they've lost too much top-end talent. And I think Yale will be a bit higher -- maybe 5th or 6th.

I was thinking about applying a punishment for teams that lose a ton of players. Right now they just have their percentage of new players multiplied by their average points from the past ten years. That means if a team has been very good for a long period they hold or even improve their estimate if they lose a lot of production (the theoretical justification being good teams tend to recruit good replacements).

My thought was I could only give them credit for some percentage of that anticipated incoming strength. For example giving them only half would scale up the "punishment" for losing production.

I will run the numbers to see what happens. I do not particularly like it when a power team loses everything but still retains a high standing. That happens sometimes but by no means always.

I ran it with Fut weighted .5.

Changes:

Harvard 1 --> 3
Cornell 2 --> 1
Quinnipiac 3 --> 2
Union 4 --> 4
SLU 5 --> 6
Clarkson 6 --> 7
Princeton 7 --> 5
Yale 8 --> 8
Colgate 9 --> 11
RPI 10 --> 9
Dartmouth 11 --> 10
Brown 12 --> 12

"Good things come to those who wait." ~ Arthur Guiness
Summer can now be better tolerated.
And, perhaps not all of Cornell athletics is in a death spiral?
Hope springs eternal......

Johnny 5
"Good things come to those who wait." ~ Arthur Guiness
Summer can now be better tolerated.
And, perhaps not all of Cornell athletics is in a death spiral?
Hope springs eternal......

But I don't like to ever be predicted to be #1. Unless Ned Harkness were to be the coach, of course.

Trotsky
I ran it with Fut weighted .5.

Changes:

Harvard 1 --> 3
Cornell 2 --> 1
Quinnipiac 3 --> 2
Union 4 --> 4
SLU 5 --> 6
Clarkson 6 --> 7
Princeton 7 --> 5
Yale 8 --> 8
Colgate 9 --> 11
RPI 10 --> 9
Dartmouth 11 --> 10
Brown 12 --> 12

So interestingly, no big deal.

Jim Hyla
So interestingly, no big deal.

If you drop Fut entirely Union comes in 6th.

With the new roster out, here's our depth by position. Superlative performers in bold. It is not a star-studded group, but Mike sounds like he is continuing to transition to a faster, more agile team.

G (3)

Stewart
Galajda
McGrath

D (9)

Kaldis
McCray
Bliss
Smith
Nuttle
Cairns
Green
Haiskanen
Shore

F (16)

Vanderlaan
Angello
Yates
Starrett
Fiegl
Tschantz
Malott
Rauter
Bauld
Murphy
Hoffman
Mullin
Betts
Baron
Locke
Donaldson

Trotsky
With the new roster out, here's our depth by position. Superlative performers in bold. It is not a star-studded group, but Mike sounds like he is continuing to transition to a faster, more agile team.

G (3)

Stewart
Galajda
McGrath

D (8)

Kaldis
Bliss
Smith
Nuttle
Cairns
Green
Haiskanen
Shore

F (16)

Vanderlaan
Angello
Yates
Starrett
Fiegl
Tschantz
Malott
Rauter
Bauld
Murphy
Hoffman
Mullin
Betts
Baron
Locke
Donaldson

Do you know something about Alec McCrea that we don't, or is this just sloppy?

ACM
Do you know something about Alec McCrea that we don't, or is this just sloppy?

Fixed above.

Trotsky

ACM
Do you know something about Alec McCrea that we don't, or is this just sloppy?

Fixed above.

Changed. Not fixed. Is that Matt or Mark you're referring to?

ACM
Changed. Not fixed. Is that Matt or Mark you're referring to?

Not my fault he spells his name wrong.

Don't count on Bliss being available

Trotsky

ACM
Changed. Not fixed. Is that Matt or Mark you're referring to?

Not my fault he spells his name wrong.

But it is your fault that you do. McCrea, not McCrae. Is that so difficult?

Cop at Lynah
Don't count on Bliss being available

This is ridiculous. Either post the basis for your claim, or don't post wild speculation.

Trotsky
With the new roster out, here's our depth by position. Superlative performers in bold. It is not a star-studded group, but Mike sounds like he is continuing to transition to a faster, more agile team.

G (3)

Stewart
Galajda
McGrath

D (9)

Kaldis
McCrae
Bliss
Smith
Nuttle
Cairns
Green
Haiskanen
Shore

F (16)

Vanderlaan
Angello
Yates
Starrett
Fiegl
Tschantz
Malott
Rauter
Bauld
Murphy
Hoffman
Mullin
Betts
Baron
Locke
Donaldson

Starrett (4-10-14) is a "superlative performer" but Rauter (8-9-17 while playing much of the season on D) isn't?

BearLover
Starrett (4-10-14) is a "superlative performer" but Rauter (8-9-17 while playing much of the season on D) isn't?

Your bold choices may vary. To this day I have seen no Cornellian more bold than Terry Gage.

ACM

Trotsky

ACM
Changed. Not fixed. Is that Matt or Mark you're referring to?

Not my fault he spells his name wrong.

But it is your fault that you do. McCrea, not McCrae. Is that so difficult?

Fixed above.

New predictions with Hayton gone and some other tweaks. Lines whenever any gap is .GTE. 3.

 1.	Harvard		31
 2.	Cornell		30
 3.	Quinnipiac	29
 4.	Union		28
 5.	Clarkson	22
 6.	SLU		22
 7.	Princeton	21
 8.	Yale		21
 9.	Colgate		18
10.	RPI		18
11.	Dartmouth	16
12.	Brown	 	 8

Harvard is Coaches' Choice in 2017-18

1. Harvard (9)    119 pts
2. Quinnipiac (1) 106 pts
3. Cornell (1)     95 pts
4. Clarkson (1)    91 pts
5. Princeton       80 pts
6. Union           72 pts
7. St. Lawrence    69
8. Yale            54
9. Dartmouth       33
10. Rensselaer     32
11. Colgate        23
12. Brown          18

Harvard tops ECAC Hockey Media Association Poll

Team                          Points
1. Harvard (25)                 342
2. Quinnipiac (3)               324
3. Cornell (1)                  272
4. Princeton                    246
5. Clarkson                     231
6. Union (1)                    195
7. Yale                         195
8. St. Lawrence                 188
9. Dartmouth                    110
10. Rensselaer                  82
11. Brown                       76
12. Colgate                     68

Coaches’ Preseason All-League Team Announced

Player's Name Position Class    School
Max Veronneau	F	Jr.	Princeton
Joe Snively	F	Jr.	Yale
Ryan Donato	F	Jr.	Harvard
Chase Priskie	D	Jr.	Quinnipiac
Adam Fox	D	So.	Harvard
Merrick Madsen	G	Sr.	Harvard

It would be a shame to prove them wrong.

Someone voting Union first with all the talent they lost is eye-opening.

CU2007
Someone voting Union first with all the talent they lost is eye-opening.

It means somebody at the hockey office gave the sheet to an intern who thought, "hey, Union's good, right?"

Johnny 5
It would be a shame to prove them wrong.

I think we're picked exactly right. Can't pick us any higher with unknowns in net (assuming Stewart will be bypassed).

I'm impressed that they caught Princeton's rise. The Tigers looked at times like they might be poised to jump right into the top flight. As much as I hope for overall improvement by the whole conference, we need to be mindful that with Yale dropping out of contention Princeton has probably simply replaced them.

FWIW: Alex Rauter was mentioned as a "hockey-playing workout buddy" of Johnny Hockey's in a Sports Illustrated article about Gaudreau's off-season workout regimen (September 25, 2017 print edition). Sorry for the blurry pic.

Trotsky
I think we're picked exactly right. Can't pick us any higher with unknowns in net (assuming Stewart will be bypassed).

Who says Stewart will be bypassed? He looked pretty good to me in reduced action last year, and he fills up a lot of net. (Besides, his career numbers, such as they are, are comparable to Gillam's, although probably amassed against less tough competition.)

He style is very different from Gillam's, which was more in the Andy-Iles/mobile-goalie range. Yet we've done very well with less mobile goalies in the past. Team just needs to adjust.

Scersk '97
Who says Stewart will be bypassed? He looked pretty good to me in reduced action last year, and he fills up a lot of net. (Besides, his career numbers, such as they are, are comparable to Gillam's, although probably amassed against less tough competition.)

He style is very different from Gillam's, which was more in the Andy-Iles/mobile-goalie range. Yet we've done very well with less mobile goalies in the past. Team just needs to adjust.

It was something I heard in passing. Not from a team source. It may be nothing. Personally, I have no problem with Stewart, though I wish we also had an Eddy and a Buffalo.

Trotsky

Scersk '97
Who says Stewart will be bypassed? He looked pretty good to me in reduced action last year, and he fills up a lot of net. (Besides, his career numbers, such as they are, are comparable to Gillam's, although probably amassed against less tough competition.)

He style is very different from Gillam's, which was more in the Andy-Iles/mobile-goalie range. Yet we've done very well with less mobile goalies in the past. Team just needs to adjust.

It was something I heard in passing. Not from a team source. It may be nothing. Personally, I have no problem with Stewart, though I wish we also had an Eddy and a Buffalo.

I wish we had a Dryden.

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky

Scersk '97
Who says Stewart will be bypassed? He looked pretty good to me in reduced action last year, and he fills up a lot of net. (Besides, his career numbers, such as they are, are comparable to Gillam's, although probably amassed against less tough competition.)

He style is very different from Gillam's, which was more in the Andy-Iles/mobile-goalie range. Yet we've done very well with less mobile goalies in the past. Team just needs to adjust.

It was something I heard in passing. Not from a team source. It may be nothing. Personally, I have no problem with Stewart, though I wish we also had an Eddy and a Buffalo.

I wish we had a Dryden.

He did only play three years.

Trotsky

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky

Scersk '97
Who says Stewart will be bypassed? He looked pretty good to me in reduced action last year, and he fills up a lot of net. (Besides, his career numbers, such as they are, are comparable to Gillam's, although probably amassed against less tough competition.)

He style is very different from Gillam's, which was more in the Andy-Iles/mobile-goalie range. Yet we've done very well with less mobile goalies in the past. Team just needs to adjust.

It was something I heard in passing. Not from a team source. It may be nothing. Personally, I have no problem with Stewart, though I wish we also had an Eddy and a Buffalo.

I wish we had a Dryden.

He did only play three years.

And our team was better after he left.

KenP

Trotsky

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky

Scersk '97
Who says Stewart will be bypassed? He looked pretty good to me in reduced action last year, and he fills up a lot of net. (Besides, his career numbers, such as they are, are comparable to Gillam's, although probably amassed against less tough competition.)

He style is very different from Gillam's, which was more in the Andy-Iles/mobile-goalie range. Yet we've done very well with less mobile goalies in the past. Team just needs to adjust.

It was something I heard in passing. Not from a team source. It may be nothing. Personally, I have no problem with Stewart, though I wish we also had an Eddy and a Buffalo.

I wish we had a Dryden.

He did only play three years.

And our team was better after he left.

Not really. I know you were probably only semi-serious. But, sure we had 1 great year, however I'd take his 3 years over any other 3.

USCHO Preview.

Trotsky
USCHO Preview.

Seems like the same thing every year.

This "expert" predicts Princeton to finish third and us to finish fifth, even though we both have question marks in goal.

dbilmes
This "expert" predicts Princeton to finish third and us to finish fifth, even though we both have question marks in goal.

I can see Princeton in 3rd. Us in 5th seems pretty tough. Union in 10th is interesting. This person is definitely using lost performers as a big driver.

Brown 8th. Well, alrighty, then.

It looks like we’re on track to fulfill most peoples expectations.

Jim Hyla
It looks like we’re on track to fulfill most peoples expectations.

And 7 people have already popped the champagne corks.

It's funny, but given how everyone (including Coach Schafer) has been talking about the way this team outperformed expectations for such a freshman-heavy squad, about 61-69% of us are looking pretty prescient right now. At least that's until you remember that we lost in the ECAC semifinals, which in most other seasons would probably have landed us right below the bubble for an at-large bid. In fact that's exactly what happened in 2008 and 2014 - and in 2011, we made it all the way to losing in the ECAC finals and still didn't get a bid. It's by virtue of our unexpectedly great regular season record that we got the at-large and the 1 seed this year despite the early departure in Lake Placid.

So I'm also still looking at this season as outperforming expectations, this poll notwithstanding. (Maybe we should also poll on expectations for regular season record?)

That doesn't mean it's not still really disappointing that we couldn't get further this weekend. I'm one of many who believe that the team did just about all the things they needed to do on Saturday, but didn't get the bounces against a good team, and sometimes that's just how it goes. But it's always sad when a promising season ends, and I'm not going to be interested in polling on next year for a while, especially when we know so little so far about our OOC schedule. In fact, I'm kind of shocked Jim posted this poll so soon after last year's much more humiliating defeat to UMass-Lowell.

May your off-season be filled with optimism.

Expectations are a moving target. The season exceeded my pre-season expectations but not my January expectations. But although going one and out in both Placid and Worcester is a bummer, Being There was still a good feeling. I hope that no matter how well we do in future getting to the ECAC SF and the NCAA 1R will always feel good.