So we're all sure it's Saturday, not Friday, right?
Making this already important game even moreso, Colgate is one of just three common opponents we have with both Minnesota (RPI, UNH) and Ferris (RPI, SLU).
Quote from: TrotskySo we're all sure it's Saturday, not Friday, right?
Making this already important game even moreso, Colgate is one of just three common opponents we have with both Minnesota (RPI, UNH) and Ferris (RPI, SLU).
But there
Minnesota is 2-0-1 against those teams; we're 1-0-2.
Ferris is 3-3; we're 1-0-3.
We can win the Ferris comparison outright but is Minnesota beyond our grasp? Best we can do is 3-0-2.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: TrotskySo we're all sure it's Saturday, not Friday, right?
Making this already important game even moreso, Colgate is one of just three common opponents we have with both Minnesota (RPI, UNH) and Ferris (RPI, SLU).
But there
Minnesota is 2-0-1 against those teams; we're 1-0-2.
Ferris is 3-3; we're 1-0-3.
We can win the Ferris comparison outright but is Minnesota beyond our grasp? Best we can do is 3-0-2.
We also have the ECAC tourney.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: TrotskySo we're all sure it's Saturday, not Friday, right?
Making this already important game even moreso, Colgate is one of just three common opponents we have with both Minnesota (RPI, UNH) and Ferris (RPI, SLU).
But there
Minnesota is 2-0-1 against those teams; we're 1-0-2.
Ferris is 3-3; we're 1-0-3.
We can win the Ferris comparison outright but is Minnesota beyond our grasp? Best we can do is 3-0-2.
We also have the ECAC tourney.
Good point.
RPI will be the only comparison that matters with Minnesota and Ferris. . .record against common opponents is actually meaningless for these comparisons. Since TUC has been eliminated, there are only three comparisons. For teams that do not have head-to-head match-ups there are only two (RPI and Common Opponents). Since RPI is the tie breaker, it is the only comparison that matters. This will be the case in all comparisons in which there are not head-to-head match-ups.
Quote from: dsk1RPI will be the only comparison that matters with Minnesota and Ferris. . .record against common opponents is actually meaningless for these comparisons. Since TUC has been eliminated, there are only three comparisons. For teams that do not have head-to-head match-ups there are only two (RPI and Common Opponents). Since RPI is the tie breaker, it is the only comparison that matters. This will be the case in all comparisons in which there are not head-to-head match-ups.
...so they managed to make common opponents completely meaningless for most comparisons? Weird.
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: dsk1RPI will be the only comparison that matters with Minnesota and Ferris. . .record against common opponents is actually meaningless for these comparisons. Since TUC has been eliminated, there are only three comparisons. For teams that do not have head-to-head match-ups there are only two (RPI and Common Opponents). Since RPI is the tie breaker, it is the only comparison that matters. This will be the case in all comparisons in which there are not head-to-head match-ups.
...so they managed to make common opponents completely meaningless for most comparisons? Weird.
A cynic might suggest they've added all sorts of esoteric tweaks, subtleties, corrections, adjustments, etc., in a way that has managed to get the seedings back to where they simply mimic RPI.::pissed::
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: dsk1RPI will be the only comparison that matters with Minnesota and Ferris. . .record against common opponents is actually meaningless for these comparisons. Since TUC has been eliminated, there are only three comparisons. For teams that do not have head-to-head match-ups there are only two (RPI and Common Opponents). Since RPI is the tie breaker, it is the only comparison that matters. This will be the case in all comparisons in which there are not head-to-head match-ups.
...so they managed to make common opponents completely meaningless for most comparisons? Weird.
A cynic might suggest they've added all sorts of esoteric tweaks, subtleties, corrections, adjustments, etc., in a way that has managed to get the seedings back to where they simply mimic RPI.::pissed::
I'm picturing the meeting
"So, in cases where the team with the lower RPI won the head-to-head matchup, Common Opponents will be the tiebreaker. All in favor?"
"AYE!"
"Opposed?"
"..."
"The motion carries. Now we'll move on to whether Iles is the answer or it's the system..."
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: dsk1RPI will be the only comparison that matters with Minnesota and Ferris. . .record against common opponents is actually meaningless for these comparisons. Since TUC has been eliminated, there are only three comparisons. For teams that do not have head-to-head match-ups there are only two (RPI and Common Opponents). Since RPI is the tie breaker, it is the only comparison that matters. This will be the case in all comparisons in which there are not head-to-head match-ups.
...so they managed to make common opponents completely meaningless for most comparisons? Weird.
A cynic might suggest they've added all sorts of esoteric tweaks, subtleties, corrections, adjustments, etc., in a way that has managed to get the seedings back to where they simply mimic RPI.::pissed::
I'm picturing the meeting
"So, in cases where the team with the lower RPI won the head-to-head matchup, Common Opponents will be the tiebreaker. All in favor?"
"AYE!"
"Opposed?"
"..."
"The motion carries. Now we'll move on to whether Iles is the answer or it's the system..."
The shame of it is that we have a really good TUC record this year. With UNO just over the .5000 RPI line and SLU just under it, we're at 8-3-3. I think.
USCHO article on our balanced scoring. (http://www.uscho.com/2014/02/05/multiple-waves-of-production-give-cornells-offense-a-valuable-balance/)
Quote from: Jim HylaUSCHO article on our balanced scoring. (http://www.uscho.com/2014/02/05/multiple-waves-of-production-give-cornells-offense-a-valuable-balance/)
As a nit, the lull wasn't the "second half of last season," it was the middle third (http://www.tbrw.info/index.html?/weekly_Updates/cornell_Color_All_Games.html).
We actually played quite well in the final third, going 7-3-1 including the final two losses at Q.
the good news about tonight is that I didn't have to pay any money to see this effort
ugly game from the start
The good news is we haven't played like flaming garbage since game 2 of the Quinnipiac QF.
Actually, the other good news is the game where we got fucked over by the refs did not cost us any points, since that effort would have lost against Huntsville.
It happens. If we play well next weekend then going 2-1 on the killer road trip will look great.
Maybe if Schafer spent some time teaching his players how to kill a penalty and coaching them instead of screaming at the refs, this type of escalation and out of control spiraling would stop happening? But he won't change, and it won't change, and the team will do the same thing they do every year, only slightly worse. The long meaningless winning streaks, the "nationally ranked" squad by coaches that look at box scores and don't watch them play, a middle finish in the ECAC, being on the bubble for the tourney, never making it past the first or second game. Same old, same old. It's just never going to change. He has to go. He just has to go.
"The long meaningless winning streaks"
Interesting concept.
And here I thought McCarron's penalty would be the dumbest thing we'd see tonight.
As I've said before. Where's Facetimer when you need him?
Quote from: Jordan 04"The long meaningless winning streaks"
Interesting concept.
I think it's something like a "long meaningless shutout streak", or a "long meaningless scoring streak".
Long meaningless win streaks are very important. They mean we don't have to see long meaningless posts for long meaningless times. Here's hoping for another long meaningless win streak, so we don't have to see long meaningless posts again.
Let's be clear about the last "winning streak" it is more properly characterized as a "not losing streak" before last night we had not lost the previous 10 games going 6-0-4.
I am ok with this, it is far better than some of the alternatives, however, it is hard to really charaterize it as a winning streak. We have had 1 regular seaon 4-0-0 winning streak and 3 3-0-0 streaks.
By comparison Union, which currently leads the ECAC has had 1 9-0-0 streak 1 4-0-0 streak and 1 3-0-0 streak so far. Q which is currently ranked #2 in the ECAC has had 1 9-0-0 streak and a 12-0-1 not losing streak
Quote from: TowerroadLet's be clear about the last "winning streak" it is more properly characterized as a "not losing streak" before last night we had not lost the previous 10 games going 6-0-4
That's why Zeus created winning percentages. At the moment ours are ECAC .625 (tied 4th in conference) and NCAA .659 (tied 8th in the nation). Those are solid numbers.
For people who really like to think in W-L, take each pair of ties and convert them to 1-1-0. That would make us 10-6-0 / 14-7-1.
Here (http://www.tbrw.info/?/ecac_History/ecac_Points_by_Seed.html) is the historical point swing for seeds. The projected final points by today's percentages:
35.7 Uni
31.6 Qpc
28.9 Col
27.5 Clk
27.5 Cor
Last night's loss was embarrassing and it hurt in the standings, especially since it gave Colgate the tiebreaker. It was not a harbinger of the end of civilization. All it did was end any reasonable shot at the RS title. The race for 4th is still very much in our hands.
26 Uni: @Cor @Col Clk SLU @Yal @Brn
23 Qpc: @Yal @Brn Cor Col @SLU @Clk
21 Col: RPI Uni @Prn @Qpc Hvd Drt
20 Clk: Hvd Drt @Uni @RPI Prn Qpc
20 Cor: Uni RPI @Qpc @Prn Drt Hvd
We will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.
Quote from: TowerroadWe will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.
After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned. They clearly lost their composure. Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them. But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times. Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness. That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.
The product on the ice shows it.
It seems almost every game, even the ones Cornell wins, there are extremely questionable calls from the refs.
Quote from: BearLoverIt seems almost every game, even the ones Cornell wins, there are extremely questionable calls from the refs.
Agreed. Alll the more reason that this team should be conditioned to expect it, accept it, and move past it. To do otherwise hurts their chances for success.
One only need to look back at the 2003 Frozen Four to see how damaging that can be. The refs disallowed a goal for us (for a high stick). The team let down, UNH jumped on us. Season over. Most blame the refs. I think the blame rests with the players who let down for that short period right after the high-stick call. Focus, focus, focus...... They took their eyes off the ball (puck in this case).
That's not much different than the third period @Colgate last evening. We lost focus; Colgate steamrolled us. I give the Raiders all the credit in the world for smelling the blood. Yes, the refs were bad. But, they weren't passing/shooting the puck.
Quote from: rediceQuote from: TowerroadWe will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.
After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned. They clearly lost their composure. Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them. But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times. Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness. That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.
The product on the ice shows it.
Not really. Last year, yes, I would agree it was terribly undisciplined. Before last night's game we were sitting at tenth in ECAC penalty minutes. Only Harard and Yale were behind us, or ahead, depending upon your point of view. That hardly says that they have been undisciplined.
Quote from: Jim HylaNot really. Last year, yes, I would agree it was terribly undisciplined. Before last night's game we were sitting at tenth in ECAC penalty minutes. Only Harard and Yale were behind us, or ahead, depending upon your point of view. That hardly says that they have been undisciplined.
Agreed. They had two serious problems last year: penalties and blowing third period leads. They addressed both effectively. People need to step back from the ledge. This team has its flaws, but it's a competitor for a bye and an bid and IIRC that's all anybody could dream of last August.
OK, people. Calm down. Minnesota lost two to Wisconsin this weekend. Michigan lost to Penn State. It happens.
Quote from: BearLoverIt seems almost every game, even the ones Cornell wins, there are extremely questionable calls from the refs.
I would assume that you believe that all calls that result in a Cornell Power Play were complety justified and called correctly. Only calls that go against Cornell are questionable?
The real quesiton is if the referees are not as good as you would like are they calling penalties consistently. If they are then the ice is level.
I find the idea that somehow the referees are meeting late at night plotting to steal victory from the Big Red suspect at best.
Question for anyone who watched the Colgate video last night. Was it choppy? I've been trying to watch and capture the game. It's very jumpy, just stops, and won't reload.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuestion for anyone who watched the Colgate video last night. Was it choppy? I've been trying to watch and capture the game. It's very jumpy, just stops, and won't reload.
Mine froze every five or six seconds and it was so unwatchable I swithed to Jason's audio after a few minutes. Thought it might be my internet connection though. If other people had the same problem, I guess not.
Quote from: Ronald '09Quote from: Jim HylaQuestion for anyone who watched the Colgate video last night. Was it choppy? I've been trying to watch and capture the game. It's very jumpy, just stops, and won't reload.
Mine froze every five or six seconds and it was so unwatchable I swithed to Jason's audio after a few minutes. Thought it might be my internet connection though. If other people had the same problem, I guess not.
I had the same problem. It didn't freeze, it actually would reset for 2-3 second intervals. It was unwatchable here too.
Quote from: rediceQuote from: TowerroadWe will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.
After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned. They clearly lost their composure. Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them. But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times. Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness. That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.
The product on the ice shows it.
In an attempt to judge the mental toughness of different Cornell squads, I pulled some data from collegehockeystats.net. I think there are three measures that can measure toughness that are readily available: win% when giving up the first goal, win% when losing at the first intermission, and win% when losing at the second intermission. I think we're doing all right. We have a 40% win percentage when losing after the first period, which is our highest mark in almost a decade. Losing after 2 periods, our win% is 27.8%, which is our best mark since the 08-09 season (granted, only slightly higher than 09-10). When we don't score first, however, we win 40% of the time, which is about average going back to '07-'08. I wish that were higher.
I agree that last night definitely showed a lack of composure, but I think mental toughness is a strength this year, as compared to teams of recent past.
Season First Goal
1999-2000 48%
2000-2001 50%
2001-2002 53%
2002-2003 69%
2003-2004 41%
2004-2005 63%
2005-2006 46%
2006-2007 21%
2007-2008 17%
2008-2009 50%
2009-2010 45%
2010-2011 25%
2011-2012 50%
2012-2013 28%
2013-2014 40.0%
Season First Int
1999-2000 30%
2000-2001 45%
2001-2002 50%
2002-2003 60%
2003-2004 35%
2004-2005 64%
2005-2006 13%
2006-2007 22%
2007-2008 10%
2008-2009 29%
2009-2010 25%
2010-2011 14%
2011-2012 33%
2012-2013 35%
2013-2014 40.0%
Season Second Int
1999-2000 10%
2000-2001 0%
2001-2002 0%
2002-2003 25%
2003-2004 18%
2004-2005 50%
2005-2006 25%
2006-2007 6%
2007-2008 0%
2008-2009 32%
2009-2010 25%
2010-2011 8%
2011-2012 20%
2012-2013 12%
2013-2014 27.8%
Colgate internet feed was horrible for the women's game on Friday as well. It was free but I would have preferred to pay if it would mean actually being able to see the games.
Thanks, I guess I've got it as good as it gets.::barf::
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82OK, people. Calm down. Minnesota lost two to Wisconsin this weekend. Michigan lost to Penn State. It happens.
Michigan lost 4-O and it was PSUs first Big 10 win. Time to get rid of Berenson. ;-)
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: rediceQuote from: TowerroadWe will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.
After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned. They clearly lost their composure. Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them. But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times. Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness. That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.
The product on the ice shows it.
Not really. Last year, yes, I would agree it was terribly undisciplined. Before last night's game we were sitting at tenth in ECAC penalty minutes. Only Harard and Yale were behind us, or ahead, depending upon your point of view. That hardly says that they have been undisciplined.
Jim, I think you & I are talking about two different aspects of discipline. I'm referring to the mental discipline that keeps the players focused during the tough times, such as when the refs seem to be picking on them. And, it may well have seemed that way to the players for a while in the 3rd period Saturday. As someone else also acknowledged, they lost composure. There were not taking care of their assignments and Colgate was skating freely into the Cornell zone. The Cornell goalies were being left hanging out to dry. That discipline to maintain composure at a time like that might be different than the discipline that you're thinking of, but it's real & it's a necessary component in a championship team. The good teams have to fight through those moments or get routed 6-1!!
Quote from: KGR11Quote from: rediceQuote from: TowerroadWe will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.
After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned. They clearly lost their composure. Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them. But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times. Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness. That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.
The product on the ice shows it.
In an attempt to judge the mental toughness of different Cornell squads, I pulled some data from collegehockeystats.net. I think there are three measures that can measure toughness that are readily available: win% when giving up the first goal, win% when losing at the first intermission, and win% when losing at the second intermission. I think we're doing all right. We have a 40% win percentage when losing after the first period, which is our highest mark in almost a decade. Losing after 2 periods, our win% is 27.8%, which is our best mark since the 08-09 season (granted, only slightly higher than 09-10). When we don't score first, however, we win 40% of the time, which is about average going back to '07-'08. I wish that were higher.
I agree that last night definitely showed a lack of composure, but I think mental toughness is a strength this year, as compared to teams of recent past.
You don't think mental toughness and composure are inter-twined? I disagree strongly!
Quote from: rediceQuote from: KGR11Quote from: rediceQuote from: TowerroadWe will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.
After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned. They clearly lost their composure. Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them. But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times. Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness. That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.
The product on the ice shows it.
In an attempt to judge the mental toughness of different Cornell squads, I pulled some data from collegehockeystats.net. I think there are three measures that can measure toughness that are readily available: win% when giving up the first goal, win% when losing at the first intermission, and win% when losing at the second intermission. I think we're doing all right. We have a 40% win percentage when losing after the first period, which is our highest mark in almost a decade. Losing after 2 periods, our win% is 27.8%, which is our best mark since the 08-09 season (granted, only slightly higher than 09-10). When we don't score first, however, we win 40% of the time, which is about average going back to '07-'08. I wish that were higher.
I agree that last night definitely showed a lack of composure, but I think mental toughness is a strength this year, as compared to teams of recent past.
You don't think mental toughness and composure are inter-twined? I disagree strongly!
I'll respond to this as well. Sat night was bad, but as evidenced by the close games we have won, you can't generalize to the year. Reread his post, Sat and the year are two different things.
It always amazes me what can happen after one bad game.
Quote from: rediceQuote from: KGR11Quote from: rediceQuote from: TowerroadWe will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.
After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned. They clearly lost their composure. Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them. But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times. Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness. That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.
The product on the ice shows it.
In an attempt to judge the mental toughness of different Cornell squads, I pulled some data from collegehockeystats.net. I think there are three measures that can measure toughness that are readily available: win% when giving up the first goal, win% when losing at the first intermission, and win% when losing at the second intermission. I think we're doing all right. We have a 40% win percentage when losing after the first period, which is our highest mark in almost a decade. Losing after 2 periods, our win% is 27.8%, which is our best mark since the 08-09 season (granted, only slightly higher than 09-10). When we don't score first, however, we win 40% of the time, which is about average going back to '07-'08. I wish that were higher.
I agree that last night definitely showed a lack of composure, but I think mental toughness is a strength this year, as compared to teams of recent past.
You don't think mental toughness and composure are inter-twined? I disagree strongly!
I agree that they're inter-twined. What I don't agree with is taking the characteristics of one game, which features lack of composure/mental toughness/etc., and applying it as a team characteristic. Why should this game, which showed a lack of composure, be considered any more than the Clarkson game at Lynah, where Clarkson got a 2 goal lead thanks to lousy officiating, but Cornell showed great mental toughness and ended up winning? A legitimate answer is that the Colgate is more recent and could indicate a trend. That would be a fair point, but there's no certainty whether Cornell will rebound or if they will still have trouble going forward.
I think using every game to date is a better way to measure the characteristics of this team. Comparing how this team handles a deficit after the first goal or after an intermission to others IS a way to measure mental toughness. I know that you were specifically thinking about how we respond to poor officiating instead of being in a deficit, but there's no stat for that and it's difficult to be objective about it anyways.
Quote from: KGR11Quote from: rediceQuote from: KGR11Quote from: rediceQuote from: TowerroadWe will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.
After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned. They clearly lost their composure. Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them. But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times. Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness. That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.
The product on the ice shows it.
In an attempt to judge the mental toughness of different Cornell squads, I pulled some data from collegehockeystats.net. I think there are three measures that can measure toughness that are readily available: win% when giving up the first goal, win% when losing at the first intermission, and win% when losing at the second intermission. I think we're doing all right. We have a 40% win percentage when losing after the first period, which is our highest mark in almost a decade. Losing after 2 periods, our win% is 27.8%, which is our best mark since the 08-09 season (granted, only slightly higher than 09-10). When we don't score first, however, we win 40% of the time, which is about average going back to '07-'08. I wish that were higher.
I agree that last night definitely showed a lack of composure, but I think mental toughness is a strength this year, as compared to teams of recent past.
You don't think mental toughness and composure are inter-twined? I disagree strongly!
I agree that they're inter-twined. What I don't agree with is taking the characteristics of one game, which features lack of composure/mental toughness/etc., and applying it as a team characteristic. Why should this game, which showed a lack of composure, be considered any more than the Clarkson game at Lynah, where Clarkson got a 2 goal lead thanks to lousy officiating, but Cornell showed great mental toughness and ended up winning? A legitimate answer is that the Colgate is more recent and could indicate a trend. That would be a fair point, but there's no certainty whether Cornell will rebound or if they will still have trouble going forward.
I think using every game to date is a better way to measure the characteristics of this team. Comparing how this team handles a deficit after the first goal or after an intermission to others IS a way to measure mental toughness. I know that you were specifically thinking about how we respond to poor officiating instead of being in a deficit, but there's no stat for that and it's difficult to be objective about it anyways.
I'm getting it now....We're going to add up all the games and divide by XYZ come to the conclusion that, on average, Saturday night just didn't happen. With a little reinforcement from Jim Hyla, we know that to be fact. ::bang::
I'll be out shopping for my rose-tinted (or is that Carnellian-tinted) glasses today. I want to see the world with such wisdom in the future.
Quote from: rediceQuote from: KGR11Quote from: rediceQuote from: KGR11Quote from: rediceQuote from: TowerroadWe will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.
After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned. They clearly lost their composure. Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them. But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times. Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness. That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.
The product on the ice shows it.
In an attempt to judge the mental toughness of different Cornell squads, I pulled some data from collegehockeystats.net. I think there are three measures that can measure toughness that are readily available: win% when giving up the first goal, win% when losing at the first intermission, and win% when losing at the second intermission. I think we're doing all right. We have a 40% win percentage when losing after the first period, which is our highest mark in almost a decade. Losing after 2 periods, our win% is 27.8%, which is our best mark since the 08-09 season (granted, only slightly higher than 09-10). When we don't score first, however, we win 40% of the time, which is about average going back to '07-'08. I wish that were higher.
I agree that last night definitely showed a lack of composure, but I think mental toughness is a strength this year, as compared to teams of recent past.
You don't think mental toughness and composure are inter-twined? I disagree strongly!
I agree that they're inter-twined. What I don't agree with is taking the characteristics of one game, which features lack of composure/mental toughness/etc., and applying it as a team characteristic. Why should this game, which showed a lack of composure, be considered any more than the Clarkson game at Lynah, where Clarkson got a 2 goal lead thanks to lousy officiating, but Cornell showed great mental toughness and ended up winning? A legitimate answer is that the Colgate is more recent and could indicate a trend. That would be a fair point, but there's no certainty whether Cornell will rebound or if they will still have trouble going forward.
I think using every game to date is a better way to measure the characteristics of this team. Comparing how this team handles a deficit after the first goal or after an intermission to others IS a way to measure mental toughness. I know that you were specifically thinking about how we respond to poor officiating instead of being in a deficit, but there's no stat for that and it's difficult to be objective about it anyways.
I'm getting it now....We're going to add up all the games and divide by XYZ come to the conclusion that, on average, Saturday night just didn't happen. With a little reinforcement from Jim Hyla, we know that to be fact. ::bang::
I'll be out shopping for my rose-tinted (or is that Carnellian-tinted) glasses today. I want to see the world with such wisdom in the future.
No one has said that Saturday night didn't happen. But Saturday night was one day (night) out of the season. If it starts a downhill trend, then you are correct. On the other hand, if it's a blip in an otherwise good season, then all of these postings are meaningless. Maybe you never have a bad day, but I certainly do. I don't have rose-tinted glasses, but when they happen, I don't jump off the bridge.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: rediceQuote from: KGR11Quote from: rediceQuote from: KGR11Quote from: rediceQuote from: TowerroadWe will find out what the team is made of in the next 2 weeks.
After watching the third period last evening, I'm concerned. They clearly lost their composure. Yes, the officials were putting the screws to them. But, the good teams have to stay composed during those times. Schafer's last few teams do not seem to possess that mental toughness. That's part of the discipline that Schafer is either no longer recruiting or no longer demanding of his players or both.
The product on the ice shows it.
In an attempt to judge the mental toughness of different Cornell squads, I pulled some data from collegehockeystats.net. I think there are three measures that can measure toughness that are readily available: win% when giving up the first goal, win% when losing at the first intermission, and win% when losing at the second intermission. I think we're doing all right. We have a 40% win percentage when losing after the first period, which is our highest mark in almost a decade. Losing after 2 periods, our win% is 27.8%, which is our best mark since the 08-09 season (granted, only slightly higher than 09-10). When we don't score first, however, we win 40% of the time, which is about average going back to '07-'08. I wish that were higher.
I agree that last night definitely showed a lack of composure, but I think mental toughness is a strength this year, as compared to teams of recent past.
You don't think mental toughness and composure are inter-twined? I disagree strongly!
I agree that they're inter-twined. What I don't agree with is taking the characteristics of one game, which features lack of composure/mental toughness/etc., and applying it as a team characteristic. Why should this game, which showed a lack of composure, be considered any more than the Clarkson game at Lynah, where Clarkson got a 2 goal lead thanks to lousy officiating, but Cornell showed great mental toughness and ended up winning? A legitimate answer is that the Colgate is more recent and could indicate a trend. That would be a fair point, but there's no certainty whether Cornell will rebound or if they will still have trouble going forward.
I think using every game to date is a better way to measure the characteristics of this team. Comparing how this team handles a deficit after the first goal or after an intermission to others IS a way to measure mental toughness. I know that you were specifically thinking about how we respond to poor officiating instead of being in a deficit, but there's no stat for that and it's difficult to be objective about it anyways.
I'm getting it now....We're going to add up all the games and divide by XYZ come to the conclusion that, on average, Saturday night just didn't happen. With a little reinforcement from Jim Hyla, we know that to be fact. ::bang::
I'll be out shopping for my rose-tinted (or is that Carnellian-tinted) glasses today. I want to see the world with such wisdom in the future.
No one has said that Saturday night didn't happen. But Saturday night was one day (night) out of the season. If it starts a downhill trend, then you are correct. On the other hand, if it's a blip in an otherwise good season, then all of these postings are meaningless. Maybe you never have a bad day, but I certainly do. I don't have rose-tinted glasses, but when they happen, I don't jump off the bridge.
That wouldn't help anymore. There are nets. ::whistle::
Quote from: Jim HylaIt always amazes me what can happen after one bad game.
After all these years, it shouldn't. After every terrible game over the last 30+ seasons there has been an enormous overreaction. It's an actual technique used in therapy for people (like me) who have runaway anxiety: assume the absolute worst to stop freefalling, then work backwards to what's likely. Put a boundary around the fear.
There's nothing wrong with it, although it's a little irritating to be inevitably labeled as a Polyanna when pointing out the rather obvious fact that even the best teams sometimes pull a stinker, and making sweeping generalizations from a small sample size is logically suspect.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuestion for anyone who watched the Colgate video last night. Was it choppy? I've been trying to watch and capture the game. It's very jumpy, just stops, and won't reload.
I hope you're working with a "catch and release" policy.
Cornell beat a team that had kicked the crap out of Colgate (Brown). Then Colgate kicks the crap out of us. Such is life in the ECAC. I'm happy we haven't had many ass-kickings this season, and I hope we learn something from this one before the playoffs.
Quote from: RichHI'm happy we haven't had many ass-kickings this season, and I hope we learn something from this one before the playoffs.
Q was an ass-kicking that only taught us Q is better than we are.
Union was an ass-kicking but I'm hoping it taught us something (11 shots is bad, m'kay?). We line up very well against them and I believe we can steal some points. I also believe that game has the potential to be the most boring game in NCAA history if we do it right. I would like to see us play snooker along the boards for 64 minutes and then spring Ferlin on a breakaway.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: RichHI'm happy we haven't had many ass-kickings this season, and I hope we learn something from this one before the playoffs.
Q was an ass-kicking that only taught us Q is better than we are.
Union was an ass-kicking but I'm hoping it taught us something (11 shots is bad, m'kay?). We line up very well against them and I believe we can steal some points. I also believe that game has the potential to be the most boring game in NCAA history if we do it right. I would like to see us play snooker along the boards for 64 minutes and then spring Ferlin on a breakaway.
[Snooker reference] God Bless Yogi Bear Plus Boo-Boo [/Snooker reference]
General feeling? That 5-0-4 was more of a mirage than I think we, collectively, wanted to admit. The last game before the streak was a loss to a TERRIBLE BU team. (We outplayed them, but still.) During the streak we won one game by more than a goal, and that was because of an empty netter against a barely-.500 UNH team in Estero. Ties against Dartmouth and SLU and an escape against a falling-apart Harvard. The team wasn't "lucky" in any single game, necessarily, but the streak looks more like a quirk than evidence of a strong squad.
I don't know if any of you considered Cornell the sixth-best team in the country, but I didn't. I was happy to see them rise in the PWR (and I hope that the computer keeps liking them) but it all feels very tenuous. We are 8th in PWR and 5th in the ECAC standings. I know which one I think says more about the team's prospects. I don't think it "proves" anything about the coaching or the players, but this is a team that missed - and deserved to miss - the tournament in 2013. It is unlikely to me that they are better than a 3 seed and I'll be thrilled with a 4.
Quote from: ugarteGeneral feeling? That 5-0-4 was more of a mirage than I think we, collectively, wanted to admit. The last game before the streak was a loss to a TERRIBLE BU team. (We outplayed them, but still.) During the streak we won one game by more than a goal, and that was because of an empty netter against a barely-.500 UNH team in Estero. Ties against Dartmouth and SLU and an escape against a falling-apart Harvard. The team wasn't "lucky" in any single game, necessarily, but the streak looks more like a quirk than evidence of a strong squad.
I don't know if any of you considered Cornell the sixth-best team in the country, but I didn't. I was happy to see them rise in the PWR (and I hope that the computer keeps liking them) but it all feels very tenuous. We are 8th in PWR and 5th in the ECAC standings. I know which one I think says more about the team's prospects. I don't think it "proves" anything about the coaching or the players, but this is a team that missed - and deserved to miss - the tournament in 2013. It is unlikely to me that they are better than a 3 seed and I'll be thrilled with a 4.
Actually we are tied for fourth in the ECAC, and ninth in PWR. I will post it later, but we are 11 in the USCH0 poll.
Quote from: ugarteGeneral feeling? That 5-0-4 was more of a mirage than I think we, collectively, wanted to admit.
I think it was more a matter of not playing any of the top league teams over the stretch. The first game of the streak was against Colgate (current 3), and we stole a tie in a game we were outplayed. During the streak we missed Union and Q. Then 'Gate ended us. Basically: what you'd expect from a 4th place team.
So now we find out if we can actually challenge the teams we'll need to beat if we are going to win in Lake Placid. If we lose to both Union and Q it will make it look like we're crashing, but
that will be a mirage. It will just mean we are playing to a 4th place level.
Since the 3, 4, 5, 6 are all rotating around a common point, what we're really fighting for is home ice in the QF against the odd man out. If we go 4-2 down the stretch it will probably be good enough for a bye (by a hair). If we blow more points to the other 4 opponents than we steal from Q/U, then we're looking at playing at Hamilton or Potsdam -- no effing thank you.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: ugarteGeneral feeling? That 5-0-4 was more of a mirage than I think we, collectively, wanted to admit.
I think it was more a matter of not playing any of the top league teams over the stretch. The first game of the streak was against Colgate (current 3), and we stole a tie in a game we were outplayed. During the streak we missed Union and Q. Then 'Gate ended us. Basically: what you'd expect from a 4th place team.
So now we find out if we can actually challenge the teams we'll need to beat if we are going to win in Lake Placid. If we lose to both Union and Q it will make it look like we're crashing, but that will be a mirage. It will just mean we are playing to a 4th place level.
Since the 3, 4, 5, 6 are all rotating around a common point, what we're really fighting for is home ice in the QF against the odd man out. If we go 4-2 down the stretch it will probably be good enough for a bye (by a hair). If we blow more points to the other 4 opponents than we steal from Q/U, then we're looking at playing at Hamilton or Potsdam -- no effing thank you.
I take the standings corrections from Jim.
This seems a little off point, though. My point is that we flew up the PWR rankings despite not playing all that well because margin of victory doesn't factor in at all, and while SOS plays into RPI, a winning streak against garbage teams helps because PWR adjusts RPI so a good result against a bad team can't hurt you. Past performance does not guarantee future results but I wouldn't look at that streak and think anything about it can be maintained.
Hang on, everyone. It's gonna be a bumpy ride.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jim HylaIt always amazes me what can happen after one bad game.
After all these years, it shouldn't. After every terrible game over the last 30+ seasons there has been an enormous overreaction. It's an actual technique used in therapy for people (like me) who have runaway anxiety: assume the absolute worst to stop freefalling, then work backwards to what's likely. Put a boundary around the fear.
There's nothing wrong with it, although it's a little irritating to be inevitably labeled as a Polyanna when pointing out the rather obvious fact that even the best teams sometimes pull a stinker, and making sweeping generalizations from a small sample size is logically suspect.
So I've read (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1970/1/12/cornell-defeats-stickmen-3-1-to-take/). I could go for a few more "stinkers" like that. (BTW, if one reads the article, does the losing team's strategy sound vaguely familiar? ::wtf::)
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: ugarteGeneral feeling? That 5-0-4 was more of a mirage than I think we, collectively, wanted to admit.
I think it was more a matter of not playing any of the top league teams over the stretch. The first game of the streak was against Colgate (current 3), and we stole a tie in a game we were outplayed. During the streak we missed Union and Q. Then 'Gate ended us. Basically: what you'd expect from a 4th place team.
So now we find out if we can actually challenge the teams we'll need to beat if we are going to win in Lake Placid. If we lose to both Union and Q it will make it look like we're crashing, but that will be a mirage. It will just mean we are playing to a 4th place level.
Since the 3, 4, 5, 6 are all rotating around a common point, what we're really fighting for is home ice in the QF against the odd man out. If we go 4-2 down the stretch it will probably be good enough for a bye (by a hair). If we blow more points to the other 4 opponents than we steal from Q/U, then we're looking at playing at Hamilton or Potsdam -- no effing thank you.
I take the standings corrections from Jim.
This seems a little off point, though. My point is that we flew up the PWR rankings despite not playing all that well because margin of victory doesn't factor in at all, and while SOS plays into RPI, a winning streak against garbage teams helps because PWR adjusts RPI so a good result against a bad team can't hurt you. Past performance does not guarantee future results but I wouldn't look at that streak and think anything about it can be maintained.
Hang on, everyone. It's gonna be a bumpy ride.
Thank god PWR isn't based on margin of victory. That would destroy the aspirations of any defensive-minded coach.
You have an interesting point that we didn't dominate any of those games, and even had ties that felt like losses at Dartmouth and against SLU. However, I don't think that means we're in the wrong spot as pairwise goes. Right below us right now is Michigan, who has a common opponents record of 4-1-1 (75% win%), versus our 4-1 (80% win%). If you look at those games, the only team they completely destroyed that we didn't was Niagara, 6-0. They went 1-1 vs. UNO while we went 2-0 (all in close games), while they beat BU and we lost to BU (each game by 1 goal). It also took them 2 overtime games to get a win and a tie out of UNH, while we got an empty net goal in our win over them. And their Saturday night was worse than ours, since they got shut out by Penn State, which was just their 5th win of the season.
I have no idea how we compare to others, but I think that we are slightly better than Michigan and deserve to be seeded above them.
Quote from: KGR11Thank god PWR isn't based on margin of victory. That would destroy the aspirations of any defensive-minded coach.
Ratio of victory, on the other hand...
Quote from: KGR11Thank god PWR isn't based on margin of victory. That would destroy the aspirations of any defensive-minded coach.
That's CHODR (and CCHP, which is multiplicative). And you're right, as teams like Cornell & Wisconsin get docked heavily.
http://www.rpihockey.net/misc.rank1.shtml
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteGeneral feeling? That 5-0-4 was more of a mirage than I think we, collectively, wanted to admit. The last game before the streak was a loss to a TERRIBLE BU team. (We outplayed them, but still.) During the streak we won one game by more than a goal, and that was because of an empty netter against a barely-.500 UNH team in Estero. Ties against Dartmouth and SLU and an escape against a falling-apart Harvard. The team wasn't "lucky" in any single game, necessarily, but the streak looks more like a quirk than evidence of a strong squad.
I don't know if any of you considered Cornell the sixth-best team in the country, but I didn't. I was happy to see them rise in the PWR (and I hope that the computer keeps liking them) but it all feels very tenuous. We are 8th in PWR and 5th in the ECAC standings. I know which one I think says more about the team's prospects. I don't think it "proves" anything about the coaching or the players, but this is a team that missed - and deserved to miss - the tournament in 2013. It is unlikely to me that they are better than a 3 seed and I'll be thrilled with a 4.
Actually we are tied for fourth in the ECAC, and ninth in PWR. I will post it later, but we are 11 in the USCH0 poll.
To me it's a bit reminiscent of the early-mid aughts when the WCHA was destroying everyone and it seemed like every year there was a team that was 4th or 5th in the conference standings that wound up really high in the PWR and got a solid seed. I'm not saying the ECAC right now is anywhere near as good as the WCHA was from 2003-05 or so, of course.
Wasn't there a lengthy discussion a few months ago about the merits of plowing over the league, vs. finishing 3rd or 4th in a strong, nationally-ranked conference? IIRC, most argued that the latter was to the benefit of the team, and a preferred path to, and through, the post-season. Well, it seems that's squarely where we are with the '13-'14 squad. We shall see how it ends.
Quote from: Jordan 04Wasn't there a lengthy discussion a few months ago about the merits of plowing over the league, vs. finishing 3rd or 4th in a strong, nationally-ranked conference? IIRC, most argued that the latter was to the benefit of the team, and a preferred path to, and through, the post-season. Well, it seems that's squarely where we are with the '13-'14 squad. We shall see how it ends.
I'm certain you're referring to the discussion that got really rolling with this post (http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,189479,189592#msg-189592) from Kyle. Re-reading the whole thread is pretty funny, considering that some posting in the thread seemed to think Cornell may as well disband the program before the season even got going. Where are those guys now that we've been in the top ten for a few weeks?
Quote from: Jordan 04Wasn't there a lengthy discussion a few months ago about the merits of plowing over the league, vs. finishing 3rd or 4th in a strong, nationally-ranked conference? IIRC, most argued that the latter was to the benefit of the team, and a preferred path to, and through, the post-season. Well, it seems that's squarely where we are with the '13-'14 squad. We shall see how it ends.
I'm one of the guys in favor of the strong conference! I don't stress the loss to Union as much as the tie against SLU.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: Jordan 04Wasn't there a lengthy discussion a few months ago about the merits of plowing over the league, vs. finishing 3rd or 4th in a strong, nationally-ranked conference? IIRC, most argued that the latter was to the benefit of the team, and a preferred path to, and through, the post-season. Well, it seems that's squarely where we are with the '13-'14 squad. We shall see how it ends.
I'm one of the guys in favor of the strong conference! I don't stress the loss to Union as much as the tie against SLU.
While I agree with you on that, it is notable that SLU took down Q in Hamden on Saturday, which was likely overlooked around these parts on account of our own "shit show," as Trotsky so aptly coined it.
Quote from: Jordan 04Wasn't there a lengthy discussion a few months ago about the merits of plowing over the league, vs. finishing 3rd or 4th in a strong, nationally-ranked conference? IIRC, most argued that the latter was to the benefit of the team, and a preferred path to, and through, the post-season. Well, it seems that's squarely where we are with the '13-'14 squad. We shall see how it ends.
We shall. To update the table in that thread with the current PWR:
Top 3 ECAC teams, final (except in 2014) PWR:
2002 9 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color] 18 RPI 22 Clk
2003 1 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color] 12 Hvd 19 Drt
2004 15 Col 16 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color] 20 Drt
2005 5 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color] 9 Hvd 14 Col
2006 5 Hvd 8 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color] 15 Drt
2007 3 Clk 12 SLU 19 Drt
2008 10 Clk 15 Hvd 16 Prn
2009 5 Yal 11 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color] 12 Prn
2010 7 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color] 9 Yal 19 Uni
2011 1 Yal 8 Uni 15 RPI
2012 3 Uni 13 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color] 21 Hvd
2013 1 Qpc 12 Uni 15 Yal
2014 3 Uni 4 Qpc 9 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color]
To put it in perspective, we have the same PWR as we did at the end of 2002. That season the next two best ECAC teams had a total PWR standing of 40. This season it is 7.
The ECAC is a totally different creature.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jordan 04Wasn't there a lengthy discussion a few months ago about the merits of plowing over the league, vs. finishing 3rd or 4th in a strong, nationally-ranked conference? IIRC, most argued that the latter was to the benefit of the team, and a preferred path to, and through, the post-season. Well, it seems that's squarely where we are with the '13-'14 squad. We shall see how it ends.
We shall. To update the table in that thread with the current PWR:
Top 3 ECAC teams, final (except in 2014) PWR:
2002 9 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color] 18 RPI 22 Clk [u]49[/u]
2003 1 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color] 12 Hvd 19 Drt [u]32[/u]
2004 15 Col 16 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color] 20 Drt [u]51[/u]
2005 5 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color] 9 Hvd 14 Col [u]28[/u]
2006 5 Hvd 8 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color] 15 Drt [u]28[/u]
2007 3 Clk 12 SLU 19 Drt [u]34[/u]
2008 10 Clk 15 Hvd 16 Prn [u]41[/u]
2009 5 Yal 11 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color] 12 Prn [u]28[/u]
2010 7 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color] 9 Yal 19 Uni [u]35[/u]
2011 1 Yal 8 Uni 15 RPI [u]24[/u]
2012 3 Uni 13 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color] 21 Hvd [u]37[/u]
2013 1 Qpc 12 Uni 15 Yal [u]28[/u]
2014 3 Uni 4 Qpc 9 [color=#FF0000]Cor[/color] [u]16[/u]
To put it in perspective, we have the same PWR as we did at the end of 2002. That season the next two best ECAC teams had a total PWR standing of 40. This season it is 7.
The ECAC is a totally different creature.
Adding up those positions (underlined), I guess the trend is coming down. But a few more years like this one would cement that.
Quote from: Jim HylaAdding up those positions (underlined), I guess the trend is coming down.
It is, significantly. The equation for the linear trendline is y = -1.5275x + 43.846. That's an across-the-board improvement of 1 place for each of the three teams every two seasons, sustained for 13 seasons.
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jim HylaIt always amazes me what can happen after one bad game.
After all these years, it shouldn't. After every terrible game over the last 30+ seasons there has been an enormous overreaction. It's an actual technique used in therapy for people (like me) who have runaway anxiety: assume the absolute worst to stop freefalling, then work backwards to what's likely. Put a boundary around the fear.
There's nothing wrong with it, although it's a little irritating to be inevitably labeled as a Polyanna when pointing out the rather obvious fact that even the best teams sometimes pull a stinker, and making sweeping generalizations from a small sample size is logically suspect.
So I've read (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1970/1/12/cornell-defeats-stickmen-3-1-to-take/). I could go for a few more "stinkers" like that. (BTW, if one reads the article, does the losing team's strategy sound vaguely familiar? ::wtf::)
I thought "Stickmen" were the lacrosse team. The hockey guys are "Icemen."
Quote from: BearLoverIt seems almost every game, even the ones Cornell wins, there are extremely questionable calls from the refs.
Stop it! Just STOP IT! there are questionable calls (and non-calls) in every freakin game, and I will not stand by while we gradually turn into a crying RPI Section 7/ USCHO purveyors of mindless drivel. I'm beggin' ya.::bang::::bang::::bang::
Except for you, Ralph, if you're lurking out there.
Quote from: TimVQuote from: BearLoverIt seems almost every game, even the ones Cornell wins, there are extremely questionable calls from the refs.
Stop it! Just STOP IT! there are questionable calls (and non-calls) in every freakin game, and I will not stand by while we gradually turn into a crying RPI Section 7/ USCHO purveyors of mindless drivel. I'm beggin' ya.::bang::::bang::::bang::
Except for you, Ralph, if you're lurking out there.
::whistle::