Some observations from the TV broadcast:
1. The Greening-Nash-Barlow line is on a different level from everyone else on the ice. Greening has that rare combination of superior strength and skill. He and Nash really have developed great chemistry; I hope we get to see it for at least one more year. Barlow has an awesome shot, but he missed the net far more often than not. And, what the heck was he thinking when he pulled down the Niagara forward to leave us down two men?
2. Pagliero (sp?) played an excellent game in net for Niagara and really kept them in it in the second period.
3. Speaking of goalies, Scrivens is playing with great confidence, and his positioning seems much improved from a year ago. Niagara had enough good opportunities that one can safely say he really earned that shutout.
4. On a few too many occasions, Niagara forwards were able to come from behind our net unimpeded and get point-blank shots on Scrivens. Something should be done about that breakdown.
5. I thought Sean Collins was an impressive physical force on the forecheck; the scoring will come
6. Blake Gallagher had a few excellent opportunities; clearly one of our more skilled players, and he has a motor that never stops.
7. Defense was reasonably solid, although B. Nash had no business pinching near the end of the game, leading to his taking a penalty.
8. The Niagara broadcasters, while clearly dealing from a Niagara perspective, were professional and knowledgeable. Impressive that the play-by-play guy was able to handle the Cornell names notwithstanding the "throwback" nameplates.
9, Nice to see North Dakota put it to the Goophers last night. Some pretty good results elsewhere for us in general. Who would've figured that Union and RPI would win and tie respectively at Princeton and Q-Pac?
10. Overall, a steady, grind-it-out win against a pretty good and determined team with a hot goalie. Will be interesting to see how we come out tonight.
[quote scoop85]Barlow has an awesome shot, but he missed the net far more often than not. And, what the heck was he thinking when he pulled down the Niagara forward to leave us down two men?[/quote]
My best guess: "I can see the ref, and he's not looking this way", followed shortly thereafter by, "Damn, that's right--extra ref this year."
It was the ref trailing the play that made the call.
[quote scoop85]4. On a few too many occasions, Niagara forwards were able to come from behind our net unimpeded and get point-blank shots on Scrivens. Something should be done about that breakdown.[/quote]Agreed on all of your observations, but this one in particular was painfully obvious. Cornell has not owned the area immediately outside of either crease. The D isn't doing a great job of forcing shots to the periphery. They are doing a great job of blocking shots, and of coming in and immediately clearing out opponents who walk right out in front of the net with the puck, but someday they are going to run into talented forwards with quick shots and/or legs of oak, and then life will become far more earnest for Scrivens.
At the other end, as has been pointed out many times, there is no Immovable Object parked outside the crease waiting for the deflection or the dribbling rebound. Ironically, the guys who might fill that role are more valuable doing other things (Greening, Mugford), but it would be nice to have a threat like that on the intermediary lines.
Anybody know why Scali was sitting?
[quote Trotsky]
Anybody know why Scali was sitting?[/quote]
Dunno. I--and others writing here--thought he had a terrific game against UMass. Perhaps a "chemistry" experiment to get more scoring punch on the Mugford line with P. Kennedy?
[quote Al DeFlorio][quote Trotsky]
Anybody know why Scali was sitting?[/quote]
Dunno. I--and others writing here--thought he had a terrific game against UMass. Perhaps a "chemistry" experiment to get more scoring punch on the Mugford line with P. Kennedy?[/quote]
Based on all the pregame chatter about mixing things up this week, I'm guessing it's chemistry. He played great last week. In particular, his one man PK forecheck in the third last week was easily among the best efforts I've seen out of a Cornellian in that capacity.
Who was it that blocked a shot with his wrist last week? Was it gallagher or scali? I don't remember except that he was back on the ice reasonably soon after. That could also be part of the scratch if it was Scali.
Good observations all. Meanwhile, the ho-hum approach of B. Nash for long stretches continues to puzzle and irritate in equal measure. I can't decide if he's unfocused, or thinks he's too good for these guys and can therefore be half-hearted, or both. I grant that appearances can deceive, and that tall players can seem less engaged/energetic than they really are, but that can't be the full explanation--he can be effective when he puts his mind to it.
[quote Chris '03][quote Al DeFlorio][quote Trotsky]
Anybody know why Scali was sitting?[/quote]
Dunno. I--and others writing here--thought he had a terrific game against UMass. Perhaps a "chemistry" experiment to get more scoring punch on the Mugford line with P. Kennedy?[/quote]
Based on all the pregame chatter about mixing things up this week, I'm guessing it's chemistry. He played great last week. In particular, his one man PK forecheck in the third last week was easily among the best efforts I've seen out of a Cornellian in that capacity.
Who was it that blocked a shot with his wrist last week? Was it gallagher or scali? I don't remember except that he was back on the ice reasonably soon after. That could also be part of the scratch if it was Scali.[/quote]
I suspect it's an injury. I think Scali has gotten to the point where he is too valuable to be a healthy scratch (absent something unusual).
I like the idea of putting Kennedy with Mugford and Kary (assuming it's only for a weekend)--there's a lot he can learn from Mugford about playing Cornell hockey.
[quote HockeyMan]Meanwhile, the ho-hum approach of B. Nash for long stretches continues to puzzle and irritate in equal measure. I can't decide if he's unfocused, or thinks he's too good for these guys and can therefore be half-hearted, or both. [/quote]
*sigh* It's his style. It always has been his style. He's a calm and measured long-striding skater with above average vision of the ice. I honestly don't know what you people want to see out of him...arms and legs flailing everywhere? Constantly gasping for breath? What exactly is irritating you?
No, he's not perfect and has made more than his share of mistakes, but he's really quite talented if you just take the time to watch. He's the closest thing we've had to Pokulok since Sasha's freshman year.
[quote RichH][
*sigh* It's his style. It always has been his style. He's a calm and measured long-striding skater with above average vision of the ice. I honestly don't know what you people want to see out of him...arms and legs flailing everywhere? Constantly gasping for breath? What exactly is irritating you?
No, he's not perfect and has made more than his share of mistakes, but he's really quite talented if you just take the time to watch. He's the closest thing we've had to Pokulok since Sasha's freshman year.[/quote]
Style isn't the issue. The NHL is filled with long-striding d-men who are measured in their approach and who have great vision. BN could be one of them one day; he has the goods. The issue, rather, is the one you yourself articulate: he's a talented guy who makes "more than his share of mistakes." His head doesn't seem in it on a lot of shifts. That's all I'm saying.
[quote RichH]He's the closest thing we've had to Pokulok since Sasha's freshman year.[/quote]
Did you forget that the same people who complained about Sasha are the same ones that are complaining about Bnash? I've stopped trying.
Quote from: [url=http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20090110/SPORTS/901100368&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSELFrom today's IJ[/url]]Jared Seminoff, Brendon Nash and Tyler Mugford were on the ice for all 68 seconds of a Niagara five-on-three, helping the Big Red hold on to its slim one-goal lead.
I think that tells what coach thinks about Brendon Nash. I hope we can all look more closely now.
Updated the brothers goal scoring post (http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,135617,135663#msg-135663) with Michael and Patrick from last night.
Also, M. Kennedy scoring made it 3 straight games that the player on the ticket stub has scored (M. Devin, Greening, and M. Kennedy).
[quote CowbellGuy][quote RichH]He's the closest thing we've had to Pokulok since Sasha's freshman year.[/quote]
Did you forget that the same people who complained about Sasha are the same ones that are complaining about Bnash? I've stopped trying.[/quote]
Not true; I didn't complain about Pokulok. I did not expect as much from him, for one thing--he was a freshman; B Nash is a junior.
He good when he is set in his own zone or planted on the point for the power-play,but on the break out he consistently fumbles the puck with any pressure and I cringe when he gets turned around on opposing rushes,he is good at times,I just wish he could play with more get up and go.
Scali was a healthy scratch. There's just good competition for ice time among the forwards right now.
[quote Jim Hyla]
Quote from: [url=http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20090110/SPORTS/901100368&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSELFrom today's IJ[/url]]Jared Seminoff, Brendon Nash and Tyler Mugford were on the ice for all 68 seconds of a Niagara five-on-three, helping the Big Red hold on to its slim one-goal lead.
I think that tells what coach thinks about Brendon Nash. I hope we can all look more closely now.[/quote]
B Nash gets huge ice time in PK situations, and at key moments late in games. And he should. No one questions his talent, or his importance to this team. It's what he does in the non- or lower-pressure situations that I find puzzling.
So yes, let's all look more closely now.
Brendan Nash is often too hesitant with the puck in the offensive end. His shots have thus been susceptible to being blocked.
Scali is dressed and on the fourth line tonight.
No Jillson tonight. And no B. Nash.
I thought Seminoff skating out during the lineups at the start of the game and breaking his stick Schafer style was a great homage to the jersey he was wearing. Clever stuff, it looked like some of the Niagara players got a kick out of it too.
He did that? Ooooh, I missed it- we couldn't get RedCast working in time. Does anyone have a video?
[quote Jim Hyla]
Quote from: [url=http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20090110/SPORTS/901100368&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSELFrom today's IJ[/url]]Jared Seminoff, Brendon Nash and Tyler Mugford were on the ice for all 68 seconds of a Niagara five-on-three, helping the Big Red hold on to its slim one-goal lead.
I think that tells what coach thinks about Brendon Nash. I hope we can all look more closely now.[/quote]
Guess who has the best +/- for CU. Seminoff and our own B. Nash with +9. They are followed closely by Mugford and R. Nash with +7. Wonder why they get PK? Yes I know +/- doesn't pertain to PK and I'm mixing stats, but since coach sees fit to put him in PK and he doesn't seem to hurt us in +/-, I think we could say he's a big help to the team.
Where do you find plus/minus stats?
[quote BCrespi]Where do you find plus/minus stats?[/quote]
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/team-overall.php?td=18
[quote Jim Hyla]
Guess who has the best +/- for CU. Seminoff and our own B. Nash with +9. They are followed closely by Mugford and R. Nash with +7. Wonder why they get PK? Yes I know +/- doesn't pertain to PK and I'm mixing stats, but since coach sees fit to put him in PK and he doesn't seem to hurt us in +/-, I think we could say he's a big help to the team.[/quote]
I never put too much stock into plus-minus stats. B. Nash is usually on the ice when his brother's line is on the ice, which means the other team usually has their checking line on the ice. By the same token, a team's best defensive pairing is usually going to be on the ice when the other team puts it's top line on the ice. Cornell will usually have one of its checking lines on the ice then. So it stands to figure that the better defensive players often have worse plus-minus figures than the better offensive players, simply because of the dynamics of the lineups.
What I know about B. Nash is that he frequently coughs up the puck in our zone, leading to prime scoring chances for the opposition. There's no doubt he's got a lot of talent, but as has been pointed out in previous posts, his mental lapses often prove costly.
[quote Avash][quote BCrespi]Where do you find plus/minus stats?[/quote]
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/team-overall.php?td=18[/quote]
You can also get them from the ECAC site. Go to Statistics, then the team you want, then click on individuals. You can sort them by any category.
[quote dbilmes][quote Jim Hyla]
Guess who has the best +/- for CU. Seminoff and our own B. Nash with +9. They are followed closely by Mugford and R. Nash with +7. Wonder why they get PK? Yes I know +/- doesn't pertain to PK and I'm mixing stats, but since coach sees fit to put him in PK and he doesn't seem to hurt us in +/-, I think we could say he's a big help to the team.[/quote]
I never put too much stock into plus-minus stats. B. Nash is usually on the ice when his brother's line is on the ice, [/quote]
I don't know that this is true. Do you have any data, or just your observation? And if that's why he has a great +/-, why is it better than his brother's?
QuoteBy the same token, a team's best defensive pairing is usually going to be on the ice when the other team puts it's top line on the ice. Cornell will usually have one of its checking lines on the ice then. So it stands to figure that the better defensive players often have worse plus-minus figures than the better offensive players,
That is true, but since coach seems to feel the Seminoff/B. Nash pairing is one of our best, wouldn't it seem they'd be on with the best opposing offense, and then get bad +/-? I don't know that that is true, as I don't have any data about when defensive pairs are on the ice, but just saying.
QuoteWhat I know about B. Nash is that he frequently coughs up the puck in our zone, leading to prime scoring chances for the opposition. There's no doubt he's got a lot of talent, but as has been pointed out in previous posts, his mental lapses often prove costly.
If they prove so costly, why isn't his +/- showing it. I know stats are not always revealing, but sometimes they are at least as good as impressions.
[quote Jim Hyla][quote dbilmes]I never put too much stock into plus-minus stats. B. Nash is usually on the ice when his brother's line is on the ice, [/quote]
I don't know that this is true. Do you have any data, or just your observation?[/quote]I'd be really surprised if there was a correlation between the shifts for the forwards and D. They seem to be independent.
Unless what's meant is that they happen to be on the ice together often because the Nash line plays a lot and the Nash pairing plays a lot.
There are guys who seem to be magnets for this criticism. Off the top of my head: Gary Cullen, Kent Manderville, Ryan Hughes, Denis Ladouceur, Sasha Pokulok, Brendon Nash...
Scrivens saves B.Nash's butt from having a way worst +/-,I can remember many of times and not to mention his pulldowns and hooks at the worst times in the games.
[quote Avash][quote BCrespi]Where do you find plus/minus stats?[/quote]
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/team-overall.php?td=18[/quote]
It was also in the program this weekend.
[quote Jim Hyla][quote dbilmes][quote Jim Hyla]
Guess who has the best +/- for CU. Seminoff and our own B. Nash with +9. They are followed closely by Mugford and R. Nash with +7. Wonder why they get PK? Yes I know +/- doesn't pertain to PK and I'm mixing stats, but since coach sees fit to put him in PK and he doesn't seem to hurt us in +/-, I think we could say he's a big help to the team.[/quote]
I never put too much stock into plus-minus stats. B. Nash is usually on the ice when his brother's line is on the ice, [/quote]
I don't know that this is true. Do you have any data, or just your observation? And if that's why he has a great +/-, why is it better than his brother's?
[/quote]
I imagine this perception is skewed by the PP time they see together.
I'm even more surprised that Riley (+7) and Greening's (+3) +/- are as different as they are.
+/- is one of the least reliable stats in all of hockey. Talk to any coach or GM and they'll tell you hardly anyone takes stock in that particular statistic.
Additionally, anyone who was in Florida or UMass (as dbilmes was) can tell you that Scrivens bailed out B. Nash a handful of times when his turnovers led to breakaways or odd man rushes. Colgate's shorthanded goal in Florida was the result of a terrible play defensive play by Nash. That said, however, his absence on the top powerplay unit against Niagara was clearly noticeable on the breakout. As much as I like Justin Krueger, Nash can move the puck better when the forecheck isn't a big threat. I've stated my feelings on Nash before, but he would make a great two-way forward if he could skate faster.
[quote BMac]He did that? Ooooh, I missed it- we couldn't get RedCast working in time. Does anyone have a video?[/quote]
No video but it does get mentioned in the IJ http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20090114/SPORTS/901140314/1006
[quote jts15][quote BMac]He did that? Ooooh, I missed it- we couldn't get RedCast working in time. Does anyone have a video?[/quote]
No video but it does get mentioned in the IJ http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20090114/SPORTS/901140314/1006[/quote]
Quote from: IJNiagara earned an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament in 2002 and upset perennial power New Hampshire in the first round.
If only UNH lost in the first round in '02...