I just got back from the game, and unfortunately, it went much the way most of our games against Yale have gone the past few years. Garman kept us in the game in the first period, but you got the feeling that once Yale broke though, they would get a flurry of goals, and that's exactly what happened in the second period.
Not that it made any difference, but on Yale's first goal, we were killing a penalty and one of our players lifted a clearing pass out of the zone, but it deflected off a lineseman into the stands, and even though the linesman was standing outside the blue line, the ensuing faceoff was held in our zone. Yale controlled the puck on the faceoff, leading to their first goal.
On the second goal, Whitney had a chance to knock down a Yale breakout pass. He missed the puck, and the next thing you knew, the puck was in our net.
I was watching the game with a neutral observer who coaches hockey himself, and he said it looked like Yale just picked its game up a notch in the second period.
Finally, I was wondering why we didn't pull our goalie with about 5 minutes left when we were going on a PP trailing 3-1. Instead, Schafer waited until the PP was almost over to pull Garman.
Finally, to get off topic, unfortunately I was seated near Yale's pep band, which sounded terrible, and the only cheers they had were ones they stole from us, and which no one else joined in with. So at least we still have the better pep band! And I was wondering why Yale has this fancy electronic scoreboard, but doesn't bother posting things on it like penalty calls, goal scorers and assists. Instead, it just said "Yale hockey" on it most of the night, in case we didn't realize we were at a Yale hockey game.
Good turnout of Cornell fans, too!
We were substantially outclassed. The only reason we made it through the first period scoreless is because of Mikey Between The Pipes. The final score notwithstanding, he had himself a great game, and kept us in it as long as he could. Even in the first period, Yale was in control, firing away at our net at will, while we only managed a couple of relatively weak opportunities.
If we have to play someone in the ECACs should we advance to Atlantic City, better it be Yale. Union (the ECAC champ / 1-seed, who would play the lowest survivor) sucked the air out of Cornell. Remember, 2-2-5--9 Cornell shots on goal up in Schenectady. All Yale (2-seed) did was beat us convincingly. With a couple more breaks going our way, we could have tied or beaten Yale, because sometimes the better team loses.
David, I can't recall if the breakout was on the second or third Yale goal, They came so fast. I believe if it was Whitney, he had just come on the ice and he skated over to cover the Yale breakout, but either he didn't skate over at 100% speed, or Yale was the faster team and it didn't matter. I think the culprit was us changing lines at the wrong time (like when Yale had the puck).
I saw a lot of diagonal passes without much zip on them in the first half of the game, which Yale easily intercepted.
We came close to a second shorthand goal in the third (by Birch?). We should have lost 3-2.
Are we reading too much into the new Iles Friday, Garman Saturday rotation? If Schafer sees Iles as the better goaltender, he saw a better chance to tie/win Friday and lock in that first round bye and home ice in the quarterfinals. If Iles plays Friday in the playoffs then he'd also play Sunday if the quarterfinals goes three games, and if we advance to Alb -- ahem, Atlantic City -- he'd be the guy to perform the miracle that takes us to the title game and Schafer could then decide to go with the hot goalie.
Quote from: billhowardUnion (the ECAC champ / 1-seed,
Ahem! Regular season champion. The ECAC Champion is the winner of the tournament.
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: billhowardUnion (the ECAC champ / 1-seed,
Ahem! Regular season champion. The ECAC Champion is the winner of the tournament.
It's still a very weird thing to see (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_RS_Champs_Icon.html).
They say that a 4-seed is a 4-seed is a 4-seed. But why does this year's 4th place finish feel very different from that 4th place finish back in 1996, during Coach Schafer's first season? Why do I still feel depressed?
Quote from: minThey say that a 4-seed is a 4-seed is a 4-seed. But why does this year's 4th place finish feel very different from that 4th place finish back in 1996, during Coach Schafer's first season? Why do I still feel depressed?
Probably because there is a huge gap between the top two teams in the conference and #3. In many other years, this Cornell team wouldn't be in the top half.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: minThey say that a 4-seed is a 4-seed is a 4-seed. But why does this year's 4th place finish feel very different from that 4th place finish back in 1996, during Coach Schafer's first season? Why do I still feel depressed?
Probably because there is a huge gap between the top two teams in the conference and #3. In many other years, this Cornell team wouldn't be in the top half.
Also, I imagine it's because we finished the 1996 regular season with a convincing 10-1-1 run, and not so much this year...and that we had been picked to finish (IIRC) 9th in 1996, and 4th is a lot better than 9th.
Plus, you're now used to the team contending for the top spot every year. It's not an insult to say we've gotten spoiled.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: billhowardUnion (the ECAC champ / 1-seed,
Ahem! Regular season champion. The ECAC Champion is the winner of the tournament.
It's still a very weird thing to see (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_RS_Champs_Icon.html).
Can only be a positive for the league as a whole. So long as we can be competitive in this more difficult ECAC next year...
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: minThey say that a 4-seed is a 4-seed is a 4-seed. But why does this year's 4th place finish feel very different from that 4th place finish back in 1996, during Coach Schafer's first season? Why do I still feel depressed?
Probably because there is a huge gap between the top two teams in the conference and #3. In many other years, this Cornell team wouldn't be in the top half.
Also, I imagine it's because we finished the 1996 regular season with a convincing 10-1-1 run, and not so much this year...and that we had been picked to finish (IIRC) 9th in 1996, and 4th is a lot better than 9th.
Plus, you're now used to the team contending for the top spot every year. It's not an insult to say we've gotten spoiled.
Also, 2011 Cornell is part of a three-way tie for 4th and at .500 overall. Nobody will be the least bit surprised if the team loses in the QF at home, no matter who the opponent is.
Manage expectations and hope for the best.
Quote from: dbilmesI just got back from the game, and unfortunately, it went much the way most of our games against Yale have gone the past few years. Garman kept us in the game in the first period, but you got the feeling that once Yale broke though, they would get a flurry of goals, and that's exactly what happened in the second period.
Not that it made any difference, but on Yale's first goal, we were killing a penalty and one of our players lifted a clearing pass out of the zone, but it deflected off a lineseman into the stands, and even though the linesman was standing outside the blue line, the ensuing faceoff was held in our zone. Yale controlled the puck on the faceoff, leading to their first goal.
On the second goal, Whitney had a chance to knock down a Yale breakout pass. He missed the puck, and the next thing you knew, the puck was in our net.
I was watching the game with a neutral observer who coaches hockey himself, and he said it looked like Yale just picked its game up a notch in the second period.
Finally, I was wondering why we didn't pull our goalie with about 5 minutes left when we were going on a PP trailing 3-1. Instead, Schafer waited until the PP was almost over to pull Garman.
Finally, to get off topic, unfortunately I was seated near Yale's pep band, which sounded terrible, and the only cheers they had were ones they stole from us, and which no one else joined in with. So at least we still have the better pep band! And I was wondering why Yale has this fancy electronic scoreboard, but doesn't bother posting things on it like penalty calls, goal scorers and assists. Instead, it just said "Yale hockey" on it most of the night, in case we didn't realize we were at a Yale hockey game.
Good turnout of Cornell fans, too!
The Cornell Bands are truly awesome! By far the best in the Ivy League. I go to the Cornell/Sucks football games in Cambridge and of late the results on the field are predictable but my favorite part is the band concert after the game.
Quote from: TowerroadQuote from: dbilmesI just got back from the game, and unfortunately, it went much the way most of our games against Yale have gone the past few years. Garman kept us in the game in the first period, but you got the feeling that once Yale broke though, they would get a flurry of goals, and that's exactly what happened in the second period.
Not that it made any difference, but on Yale's first goal, we were killing a penalty and one of our players lifted a clearing pass out of the zone, but it deflected off a lineseman into the stands, and even though the linesman was standing outside the blue line, the ensuing faceoff was held in our zone. Yale controlled the puck on the faceoff, leading to their first goal.
On the second goal, Whitney had a chance to knock down a Yale breakout pass. He missed the puck, and the next thing you knew, the puck was in our net.
I was watching the game with a neutral observer who coaches hockey himself, and he said it looked like Yale just picked its game up a notch in the second period.
Finally, I was wondering why we didn't pull our goalie with about 5 minutes left when we were going on a PP trailing 3-1. Instead, Schafer waited until the PP was almost over to pull Garman.
Finally, to get off topic, unfortunately I was seated near Yale's pep band, which sounded terrible, and the only cheers they had were ones they stole from us, and which no one else joined in with. So at least we still have the better pep band! And I was wondering why Yale has this fancy electronic scoreboard, but doesn't bother posting things on it like penalty calls, goal scorers and assists. Instead, it just said "Yale hockey" on it most of the night, in case we didn't realize we were at a Yale hockey game.
Good turnout of Cornell fans, too!
The Cornell Bands are truly awesome! By far the best in the Ivy League. I go to the Cornell/Sucks football games in Cambridge and of late the results on the field are predictable but my favorite part is the band concert after the game.
FYP. It took me a couple moments to understand that this was a description of the game's combatants, and not (intentionally) an editorial on the current state of the Cornell football program. :)
Noted and fixed. No slight intended.
Quote from: minThey say that a 4-seed is a 4-seed is a 4-seed. But why does this year's 4th place finish feel very different from that 4th place finish back in 1996, during Coach Schafer's first season? Why do I still feel depressed?
That is
exactly what this chart (http://www.tbrw.info/weekly_Updates/cornell_Warmth_ECAC.html) tries to capture.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: minThey say that a 4-seed is a 4-seed is a 4-seed. But why does this year's 4th place finish feel very different from that 4th place finish back in 1996, during Coach Schafer's first season? Why do I still feel depressed?
That is exactly what this chart (http://www.tbrw.info/weekly_Updates/cornell_Warmth_ECAC.html) tries to capture.
It's a good chart, although depressing given all that yellow in the Stretch Run of late. I'd also like to see better normalization. You can't be 10 games above .500 when you've only played nine games. Perhaps some kind of p-value from a binomial distribution would be apropos.
Quote from: dbilmesyou got the feeling that once Yale broke though, they would get a flurry of goals, and that's exactly what happened in the second period.
My thoughts through the first half of the game as well.
It was the first time I'd seen the team in person all year and three things stood out:
1) Dumb penalties. What really stood out to me was that the captain took 6 PIMs, including the first of the game, a completely obvious and unnecessary shove that never should have happened and a hook on the powerplay in the third. I expect more discipline from someone wearing a letter, particularly when a bye is on the line and you're playing a top 5 team knowing it will take a complete effort to win.
2) Physicality on defense. The first goal was a clinic in collapsing the defense on the powerplay. Watching the yale forward basically post up and push his man closer to the crease made it seem like contact was impermissible.
3) Presence in front of the net. Hardly ever saw a red sweater establish any sort of presence in front on either end of the ice, particularly offensively. This was most apparent on the PP in the third but Rondeau was getting clean looks all night.
Finally, the lack of effort on collecting the blue line pass gone bad that led to the ENG was unfortunate.
Looking forward to seeing how Yale stacks up in Bridgeport. They didn't look like a FF team Saturday but who knows how many more gears they have when the games count more. Until then, they better stay away from the pool.
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: minThey say that a 4-seed is a 4-seed is a 4-seed. But why does this year's 4th place finish feel very different from that 4th place finish back in 1996, during Coach Schafer's first season? Why do I still feel depressed?
That is exactly what this chart (http://www.tbrw.info/weekly_Updates/cornell_Warmth_ECAC.html) tries to capture.
...I'd also like to see better normalization. You can't be 10 games above .500 when you've only played nine games. Perhaps some kind of p-value from a binomial distribution would be apropos.
You know what I like in my goofy, I-was-bored-once charts? Complex mathematical formulae.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: SwampyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: minThey say that a 4-seed is a 4-seed is a 4-seed. But why does this year's 4th place finish feel very different from that 4th place finish back in 1996, during Coach Schafer's first season? Why do I still feel depressed?
That is exactly what this chart (http://www.tbrw.info/weekly_Updates/cornell_Warmth_ECAC.html) tries to capture.
...I'd also like to see better normalization. You can't be 10 games above .500 when you've only played nine games. Perhaps some kind of p-value from a binomial distribution would be apropos.
You know what I like in my goofy, I-was-bored-once charts? Complex mathematical formulae.
And chimps.
But actually this (http://www.tbrw.info/coaches/cornell_Seasons_In_The_Red.html) is an attempt to get at just what min means. It compares the "warmth" results from game 10 on. The "hotter" we run, the more satisfaction over the course of the season.
Note 1970. Note also the 3 years immediately prior to Schafer.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: SwampyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: minThey say that a 4-seed is a 4-seed is a 4-seed. But why does this year's 4th place finish feel very different from that 4th place finish back in 1996, during Coach Schafer's first season? Why do I still feel depressed?
That is exactly what this chart (http://www.tbrw.info/weekly_Updates/cornell_Warmth_ECAC.html) tries to capture.
...I'd also like to see better normalization. You can't be 10 games above .500 when you've only played nine games. Perhaps some kind of p-value from a binomial distribution would be apropos.
You know what I like in my goofy, I-was-bored-once charts? Complex mathematical formulae.
And chimps.
But actually this (http://www.tbrw.info/coaches/cornell_Seasons_In_The_Red.html) is an attempt to get at just what min means. It compares the "warmth" results from game 10 on. The "hotter" we run, the more satisfaction over the course of the season.
Note 1970. Note also the 3 years immediately prior to Schafer.
I think this year is wrong there, BTW, since we're in the yellow, not orange for the entire stretch run on the other page.
Quote from: TrotskyBut actually this (http://www.tbrw.info/coaches/cornell_Seasons_In_The_Red.html) is an attempt to get at just what min means. It compares the "warmth" results from game 10 on. The "hotter" we run, the more satisfaction over the course of the season.
Note 1970. Note also the 3 years immediately prior to Schafer.
Something ain't quite right. The 2011 team should be 13 games in yellow instead of orange, like they were in 2007. (Uh-oh) Cornell's best "temperature" (?) this season was +4 after the game at RPI.
Ah, never mind, JTW beat me to it. Nothing to see here, just move along...
Quote from: Chris '03.
3) Presence in front of the net. Hardly ever saw a red sweater establish any sort of presence in front on either end of the ice, particularly offensively. This was most apparent on the PP in the third but Rondeau was getting clean looks all night.
I think they also were way too content to repeatedly take the outside on entry to the zone. Repeatedly they were just getting forced to the boards or to dump it towards the corner. There was one time a forward was coming up between the two Yale defenseman, and they let him have the middle for a second and he still decided to move to the outside. This led to them having a hard time generating good angle shots.
Quote from: Chris '03Quote from: dbilmesyou got the feeling that once Yale broke though, they would get a flurry of goals, and that's exactly what happened in the second period.
My thoughts through the first half of the game as well.
It was the first time I'd seen the team in person all year and three things stood out:
1) Dumb penalties. What really stood out to me was that the captain took 6 PIMs, including the first of the game, a completely obvious and unnecessary shove that never should have happened and a hook on the powerplay in the third. I expect more discipline from someone wearing a letter, particularly when a bye is on the line and you're playing a top 5 team knowing it will take a complete effort to win.
2) Physicality on defense. The first goal was a clinic in collapsing the defense on the powerplay. Watching the yale forward basically post up and push his man closer to the crease made it seem like contact was impermissible.
3) Presence in front of the net. Hardly ever saw a red sweater establish any sort of presence in front on either end of the ice, particularly offensively. This was most apparent on the PP in the third but Rondeau was getting clean looks all night.
Finally, the lack of effort on collecting the blue line pass gone bad that led to the ENG was unfortunate.
Looking forward to seeing how Yale stacks up in Bridgeport. They didn't look like a FF team Saturday but who knows how many more gears they have when the games count more. Until then, they better stay away from the pool.
Good observations about the team's play this year....Notice that word "discipline" again...The lack thereof is one of the big story lines for this team..
Quote from: Give My RegardsQuote from: TrotskyBut actually this (http://www.tbrw.info/coaches/cornell_Seasons_In_The_Red.html) is an attempt to get at just what min means. It compares the "warmth" results from game 10 on. The "hotter" we run, the more satisfaction over the course of the season.
Note 1970. Note also the 3 years immediately prior to Schafer.
Something ain't quite right. The 2011 team should be 13 games in yellow instead of orange, like they were in 2007. (Uh-oh) Cornell's best "temperature" (?) this season was +4 after the game at RPI.
Ah, never mind, JTW beat me to it. Nothing to see here, just move along...
Fixed, thanks. God bless peer review. :)