Whither Mike Schafer?

What about if we played on small ice but MN actually had their best forward (Hirsch) and one of their top PP defenseman (Goligoski) in the game?

It's fine that we're all drinking the Kool-aid here on eLynah. I thought that we lost the UNH game in 2003, although again we had a very good team, for just about the same reasons: need a little more speed and a little more scoring punch. Lenny had one goal that he would have liked back but I think the better team won (and then got clobbered by MN 5-1).

But I do have the faith that we'll get there. Schafer should have no problems recruiting great goalies and d-men and one year we'll have a few snipers clicking together and we'll win the Big One. We just differ on how close we've been the last couple of years.

[Q]RatushnyFan Wrote:

What about if we played on small ice but MN actually had their best forward (Hirsch) and one of their top PP defenseman (Goligoski) in the game? [/q]

In that case I think Minnesota has a slight advantage, but not 70:30. I think the KRACH ratings would back me up on that. I'm not saying they're perfect, but you can use them to set odds on games, if you adjust for other factors like injuries, rink size etc.

[Q]RatushnyFan Wrote: I thought that we lost the UNH game in 2003, although again we had a very good team, for just about the same reasons: need a little more speed and a little more scoring punch. Lenny had one goal that he would have liked back but I think the better team won (and then got clobbered by MN 5-1).

[/q]

Can't argue that we lost, but unlike this year, I don't and never will believe the better team won. The waved off goal was a huge momentum swing and Lenny wasn't on his game until the 3rd period. It was extremely unusual for him to let in 2 goals on 3 shots in the 2nd period. Had we won, we might have had problems with Minny's even better speed, but hockey results aren't transitive, so you can't say that we would have lost just because UNH lost 5-1.

In any case the point I was making was that UNH didn't skate circles around us in those games, while the Gophers did for most of the 1st two periods, hence ice size does make a difference. I've watched a lot of hockey played by many different teams this year, and can assert that objectively. After only several minutes of the Ohio St. game, I knew we would have our hands full, and then some, with Minnesota at the Mooch.

here are some number for thought, conclude whatever you like:

Atlantic Hockey: 8/9 play on 200'x85' 
                 1/9 (army)plays on 200'x90'

CCHA: 10/12 play on 200'x85
      2/12 (NMU, UAF) play on 200'x100'

CHA: 6/6 play on 200'x85'

ECACHL: 9/12 play on 200'x85'
        2/12 (UVM and DC) play on 200'x90'
        1/12 (sucks) plays on 204'x87' 

Hockey East: 4/9 play on 200'x85'
	     1/9 (BC) plays on 200'x87'
             2/9 (N'estrn, BU) play on 200'x90'
	     1/9 (Umass) plays on 200'x95' 
	     1/9 (UHN) plays on 200'x100' 

WCHA:  3/10 (DU, MTU) play on 200'x85'
       1/10 (UMD) plays on 190'x85'
       1/10 (Wisc) plays on 200'x97'
       5/10 play on Olympic 200'x'100'

Total Division I hockey teams: 58 teams

69% (40/58) teams play on 200'x85'
14% (8/58) teams play on 200'x100'
9% (5/58) teams play on 200'x90'
9% (5/58) teams play on some variation in between

Anybody know the planned dimensions for the as-yet-theoretical new rink at Quinny?

Wow, makes me want to go see a game at UMD. Must be like ol' Walker.

Jackie-boy?

Do you mean 4th best of all time or that year? Dryden, McKee, LeNeveau, Cropper, Underhill, Duffis, Elliot. Did I hit his name yet? I am not totally trying to be funny, I am just curious of whom we are referring.

[Q]Steve M Wrote:
In any case the point I was making was that UNH didn't skate circles around us in those games, while the Gophers did for most of the 1st two periods, hence ice size does make a difference.[/q]

That isn't really a "hence," since it doesn't logically follow that if we were more evenly matched against UNH than Minny that the ice must have been difference. Cornell 2005 may be < Cornell 2003, and/or Minny 2005 > UNH 2003.

Fair enough. I should have said "most likely" instead of hence. In any case as far as speed goes I do think Minn 2005 > UNH 2003, but I also think Cornell 2005 > Cornell 2003, even though the 2003 team was better overall.

I'd agree with that.

He meant in the fall 2002, when nyiballs was a walk-on backup for the Red.

What the hell are you agreeing to, Greg? You don't reply to messages and you didn't quote anything.

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:

What the hell are you agreeing to, Greg? You don't reply to messages and you didn't quote anything.[/q]

all you crazy threaded kids. with the flat view, everything makes sense he's replying to the post right above his...

Given that it came in one minute later, I'm pretty sure he is agreeing with my assessment of comparative team speed in my last post titled: "Rink size, speed, and passing."

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:

What the hell are you agreeing to, Greg? You don't reply to messages and you didn't quote anything.[/q]

The one directly above. Thread view is suck.

Which is of course not to say (see, replying to the one above again), that the eLynah thread view in particular is suck. Scrolling all the messages is more convenient than having to click each message within each thread. I'll try to quote more often to avoid angering the forum gods.

I agree that it's really annoying to have to click on each and every message in threaded view. OTOH, I am very glad that there are topic threads. An overall flat view like the old Clarkson Round Table would be equally annoying, especially when folks get sidetracked into discussions of Phil Collins.

I do try to hit reply to help our threaded brethren.

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:

CowbellGuy Wrote:

What the hell are you agreeing to, Greg? You don't reply to messages and you didn't quote anything.[/Q]
The one directly above. Thread view is suck.[/q]You've stumbled onto the solution Greg (and I'd appreciate it if you kept using it). You are often replying to posts that have been separated by a comment or five, so your answers are inscrutable without backtracking. Using "quote this post" keeps the answer nested with its thread AND allows flat view readers to figure out what you are talking about. (I'm a flat view guy myself.)

 

___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2005 04:22PM by ugarte.