Show all posts by user
Discussions about the Cornell men's and women's hockey teams
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style - 7 years ago
I don't know enough about the model/KRACH/etc. to say anything especially productive, but I will say that, as a casual observer, the 98% number, the 91% number from a different model, and the 85% number from the Matrix before the RPI game all failed the eye test. If I had to guess why, it's because KRACH, as adamw said, is meant to be descriptive of what has occurred rather than predictive. Thuby BearLover - Hockey
Re: Clarkson @ Cornell 03/10-3/12?/17 - 7 years ago
Trotsky According to the ECAC box score, we had 2 shots in the first period. And 1 shot in the third period. Maybe the slow start was due to the players' shock at no one being in the stands? The Lynah crowds are a joke at this point. I was a student just a few years ago, and we packed Lynah for the ECAC quarterfinals. It's not just the students--the townies don't show up anymore either. Evenby BearLover - Hockey
Re: Clarkson @ Cornell 03/10-3/12?/17 - 7 years ago
Iceberg At least we're getting some help tonight with UNH pulling out the win among other things. It's too bad Miami just barely lost to a top team for the 100th game in a row. Quite a night to pick to play your worst game of the year.by BearLover - Hockey
Re: Clarkson @ Cornell 03/10-3/12?/17 - 7 years ago
Scersk '97 Meh, I remember outlets talking up what was supposedly going to be a tight quarterfinal in 1996… I have faith in this team, and we should be incrementally healthier to boot. I think that with Smith gone we'll actually be less healthy than we were before the bye week.by BearLover - Hockey
Re: Women's Team 2016-17 - 7 years ago
andyw2100 BearLover I know very little about the women's game, but given the lack of hitting I assume the bar is much lower for a DQ/suspension. That may be, but she wasn't given a game disqualification by the officials. The league chose to get involved. In my opinion, even if the league thought there was enough there to issue the disqualification under normal circumstances, in what I'm sureby BearLover - Hockey
Re: Women's Team 2016-17 - 7 years ago
I know very little about the women's game, but given the lack of hitting I assume the bar is much lower for a DQ/suspension.by BearLover - Hockey
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style - 7 years ago
Beeeej Trotsky Latest odds from PlayoffStatus.com: ECAC Frozen Four: 75% ECAC Title Game: 38% ECAC Champions: 18% (1 in 6) Make the NCAA tourney: 91% Round 2: 43% Frozen Four: 19% (1 in 5) Title Game: 9% (1 in 11) NCAA Champions: 4% (1 in 25) I'll take those odds. After 36 seasons as a fan they don't seem daunting. But Greg, those odds don't take into account the bad bounces tby BearLover - Hockey
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style - 7 years ago
Jeff Hopkins '82 Trotsky Down to 11 after tonight's games. Hrmpf. FWIW, I don't think it matters whether we're 9th or 11th, as long as NoDak stays in the 3-band with us. That means we can't go to Fargo, and have a much better chance of staying east. I'm more concerned with making the tournament.by BearLover - Hockey
Re: Recruits 2016 and Beyond - 7 years ago
This Cody Rosen story is wild. Here's an article about him and a few other publicity picks. But the Isles taking Song in the 6th round makes no sense--I checked, and they had a 7th round pick that year. Unless they thought it would be too obvious if they took him in the 7th round?by BearLover - Hockey
Re: Recruits 2016 and Beyond - 7 years ago
Yeah, don't understand why a team would make a publicity pick in the sixth rather than seventh round (or why it would make a publicity pick at all, for that matter).by BearLover - Hockey
Re: Rankings - 7 years ago
scoop85 Geez, I just checked CHN's probability matrix and they have us at a 98% chance of making the NCAA's. While I like that number, I'm still uptight about it. I'll feel much better if we win our QF series in 2 straight. The probability matrix, as I've argued before, overvalues the chances of a stronger team beating a weaker team. For instance, look at Harvard: the model gives them a 45% chaby BearLover - Hockey
Re: Union @ Cornell 02/25/17 - 7 years ago
We've lost three top-four D-men this year--absolutely devastating, but also makes you realize how good a defensive coach Schafer is that we've been so solid despite this.by BearLover - Hockey
Re: Regular Season MVP - 7 years ago
There is no one I trust the puck on the stick of more than Vanderlaan. But it's possible the rational choice is McCarron, due to the offense he provides over replacement value (generic D vs. generic F).by BearLover - Hockey
Re: Union @ Cornell 02/25/17 - 7 years ago
Cornell had a PP 5:30 into the 3rd. Union took penalty that would have given Cornell nearly two minutes of a 5x3. Buckles got called for embellishment, though, and so it remained 5x4 and Cornell didn't get anything going on the PP. Second embellishment call on Cornell in two nights...by BearLover - Hockey
Re: Union @ Cornell 02/25/17 - 7 years ago
Jim Hyla BearLover Foo likely ending Smith's season is very bad news. Nothing called on the play, and no makeup calls either. Instead, refs rewarded Union with some extremely questionable penalties against Cornell, all on which Union scored. Disastrous injuries to the Red's defensive corps--great work by Cornell to match Union despite this. Did the hit show on ILDN? It'll be interesting iby BearLover - Hockey
Re: Union @ Cornell 02/25/17 - 7 years ago
Trotsky It isn't optimal, of course, but it's nice to have Rauter able to drop back, and if this means both Tschantz and Bauld will be playing in two weeks I don't think we suffer too much of an offensive drop off. There are ripple issues though with line chemistry. If there is any "bright" side to such bad news, the new lines do have 2 weeks to practice together. Certainly not whaby BearLover - Hockey
Re: Union @ Cornell 02/25/17 - 7 years ago
Foo likely ending Smith's season is very bad news. Nothing called on the play, and no makeup calls either. Instead, refs rewarded Union with some extremely questionable penalties against Cornell, all on which Union scored. Disastrous injuries to the Red's defensive corps--great work by Cornell to match Union despite this.by BearLover - Hockey
Re: Union @ Cornell 02/25/17 - 7 years ago
Tonight is about as big as a regular season game gets.by BearLover - Hockey
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style - 7 years ago
There are some on this forum who are downright rude to those who speak out against the ELynah hivemind.by BearLover - Hockey
Re: RPI @ Cornell 2/24/17 - 7 years ago
Dafatone As someone pointed out at some point, our great win% kinda works against us, in that a loss hurts our win% more than a win helps it, due to the math and how fractions work and whatnot. This, if nothing else, is why we want a strong ECAC. 10th in the pairwise with a lower win% (.600 or so) gives us more room to grow and more ability to weather a loss than 10th in the pairwise with a rby BearLover - Hockey
Re: RPI @ Cornell 02/24/17 - 7 years ago
Did the fans forget there was a game tonight?by BearLover - Hockey
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style - 7 years ago
Beeeej You interpreted what I said as suggesting that you think the model gives Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI, then you addressed your arguments to that position instead of my actual one. So I clarified my actual position with smaller words. Then why did you make this point?: BeeeejI don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there'sby BearLover - Hockey
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style - 7 years ago
Beeeej BearLover Beeeej BearLover Beeeej LGR14 BearLover Trotsky Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently: .85 Tourney .42 QF .19 SF .09 F .04 That Which Shall Be Nameless Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high. Withoutby BearLover - Hockey
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style - 7 years ago
Beeeej BearLover Beeeej LGR14 BearLover Trotsky Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently: .85 Tourney .42 QF .19 SF .09 F .04 That Which Shall Be Nameless Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high. Without taking into accoby BearLover - Hockey
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style - 7 years ago
Beeeej LGR14 BearLover Trotsky Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently: .85 Tourney .42 QF .19 SF .09 F .04 That Which Shall Be Nameless Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high. Without taking into account anything elseby BearLover - Hockey
Re: Bracketology 2016-17 Style - 7 years ago
Trotsky Finally, according to this, our probabilities for tourney advance are currently: .85 Tourney .42 QF .19 SF .09 F .04 That Which Shall Be Nameless Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR? Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.by BearLover - Hockey
Re: 2017 ECAC Permutations - 7 years ago
I'm more concerned with making the NCAA's than getting the 1-seed. If, for instance, U beating Colgate would help our PWR but kill our chances at the 1-seed, I think I'd still rather U win.by BearLover - Hockey
Re: Cornell @ Clarkson 2017-02-18 - 7 years ago
Jim Hyla RichH Hooking I was not able to see this game and the comments on the game do not give a clear picture of why Cornell did not defeat Clarkson when they defeated a ranked opponent the previous night? All the numbers and statistics indicate Clarkson should not have been so even a match. Did any one problem stand out, such as defensive strategy, offensive strategy, short depth, or conditionby BearLover - Hockey