http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t147/Coelacanth64/Clarkson%20Black%20Knight%20vs%20Cornell_ELF2017.jpg
Here we go again!
Time to untie this series.
::cheer:: "Go Cornell!!
Nice.
Thank you, sir!
This was the pre-Christmas break movie for my students every year as a reward for their hard work.
Many of them can still recite every line.
Strangely enough, the drama club is presenting Spamalot this year. Funny never dies?
Here's hoping it's a omen!!
::banana::
Best one yet. Excellent.
Quote from: TrotskyBest one yet. Excellent.
:-D Again, many thanks! One more chance to support the program. Glad to be able to contribute, even in this small way.
This is going to be one hell of a series. The teams match up well, play similar games, and although this is cliche I think it's going to come down to who wants it most. Cornell has had their system and consistency pay off for them in the regular season games, working back from two third-period deficits for ties. Clarkson has to have two things to win: killer instinct and consistent defense. We have to be able to put Cornell away. 1-2 goal leads aren't going to do it, because if games go to overtime, Cornell's endurance and play style will wear us out. We don't have enough power in the corners to stay with them physically for 4 periods of hockey a night, and I think we all saw that as the team wore down in the 3rd period to give up the leads this season.
Clarkson needs to score early and get out to 2-3 goal leads if at all possible, and hang on for dear life. We're playing great and our seniors have showed UP the last two weekends (10 points each for Josephs and deHaas in the last 3 games?!?!?) and if that continues, we have a strong shot at Lake Placid. If they regress to the mean, we're in trouble.
It will be a very good series. These teams have a storied history (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1970/box19700321.pdf) of post-season meetings.
(http://elynah.com/media/2004/photos/qf1/photos/DSD_0880.jpg)
Like you do...
or Nickerson today:
https://twitter.com/themdot50
Quote from: underskillor Nickerson today:
https://twitter.com/themdot50
He seems pretty happy, actually.
i think about the 2004 playoffs too much
Quote from: ugartei think about the 2004 playoffs too much
At all is too much, but yeah, that was berry, berry bad.
Current shot from Facebook:
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t147/Coelacanth64/Clarkson%2042.jpg
::flipc::
Quote from: TrotskyIt will be a very good series. These teams have a storied history (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1970/box19700321.pdf) of post-season meetings.
Not that I wasn't happy then, but I like this one. (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1989/box19890304.pdf)
Quote from: Jim HylaNot that I wasn't happy then, but I like this one. (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1989/box19890304.pdf)
Second game in best of three series, with mini-game if necessary? I'm inferring from the fact that Clarkson pulled their goalie in a scoreless game.
Quote from: andyw2100Quote from: Jim HylaNot that I wasn't happy then, but I like this one. (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1989/box19890304.pdf)
Second game in best of three series, with mini-game if necessary? I'm inferring from the fact that Clarkson pulled their goalie in a scoreless game.
Correct (best of two series, really, with a minigame resolving a tie in points).
The Schafer Era has really taken the shock out of that scoreless tie. The prior scoreless tie (http://www.tbrw.info/?/games/cornell_Shutouts.html) had also been against Clarkson, 66 years before. Since 2008 we've played 6 of them.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: TrotskyIt will be a very good series. These teams have a storied history (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1970/box19700321.pdf) of post-season meetings.
Not that I wasn't happy then, but I like this one. (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1989/box19890304.pdf)
My personal favorite (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1986/box19860315.pdf). You never forget your first time.
Game 2 of the 2004 series was my first ever introduction to playoff hockey, and it was an incredible game to be at. Nickerson not fighting Varteressian in game 1 was the key to the whole series.
Lynah has lost its fangs since then, and it is sad. I left that night feeling like I was definitely going to get beat up in the parking garage.
Quote from: daredevilcuLynah has lost its fangs since then, and it is sad. I left that night feeling like I was definitely going to get beat up in the parking garage.
Nobody young, dumb and drunk enough to be a threat drove to the game.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: daredevilcuLynah has lost its fangs since then, and it is sad. I left that night feeling like I was definitely going to get beat up in the parking garage.
Nobody young, dumb and drunk enough to be a threat drove to the game.
The changes to "The Line" I think had a lot to do with it.
Quote from: daredevilcuQuote from: ugarteQuote from: daredevilcuLynah has lost its fangs since then, and it is sad. I left that night feeling like I was definitely going to get beat up in the parking garage.
Nobody young, dumb and drunk enough to be a threat drove to the game.
The changes to "The Line" I think had a lot to do with it.
I'm saying the parking garage is all townies. The students walk.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: daredevilcuQuote from: ugarteQuote from: daredevilcuLynah has lost its fangs since then, and it is sad. I left that night feeling like I was definitely going to get beat up in the parking garage.
Nobody young, dumb and drunk enough to be a threat drove to the game.
The changes to "The Line" I think had a lot to do with it.
I'm saying the parking garage is all townies. The students walk.
I was a student in 2004, drove to the parking garage sober, and
may have thrown a water bottle at some CCT students after game 3. Sorry if that was you, daredevilcu. I was not in a right mind.
Quote from: French RageQuote from: ugarteQuote from: daredevilcuQuote from: ugarteQuote from: daredevilcuLynah has lost its fangs since then, and it is sad. I left that night feeling like I was definitely going to get beat up in the parking garage.
Nobody young, dumb and drunk enough to be a threat drove to the game.
The changes to "The Line" I think had a lot to do with it.
I'm saying the parking garage is all townies. The students walk.
I was a student in 2004, drove to the parking garage sober, and may have thrown a water bottle at some CCT students after game 3. Sorry if that was you, daredevilcu. I was not in a right mind.
You mean you don't even know if you threw it?
Quote from: daredevilcuQuote from: ugarteQuote from: daredevilcuLynah has lost its fangs since then, and it is sad. I left that night feeling like I was definitely going to get beat up in the parking garage.
Nobody young, dumb and drunk enough to be a threat drove to the game.
The changes to "The Line" I think had a lot to do with it.
I know we've beaten this subject to death and back, but as someone who got his first season tickets the year after the line died (the trampling episode), I'm tempted to agree.
It's 9000 other factors too (kids these days, smartphones, more social options, schoolwork, overzealous ushers, overzealous athletics dept policies, the earth's tilt, chemtrails, etc), but I think the line helped make sure that the most passionate kids got tickets. No line + expensive tickets = rich kids get tickets, others don't, and things go downhill. But there are students out there for whom a couple hundred bucks isn't a huge deal, and maybe they miss a bunch of games because it's not a big deal to them.
Not that rich kids can't be passionate.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: French RageQuote from: ugarteQuote from: daredevilcuQuote from: ugarteQuote from: daredevilcuLynah has lost its fangs since then, and it is sad. I left that night feeling like I was definitely going to get beat up in the parking garage.
Nobody young, dumb and drunk enough to be a threat drove to the game.
The changes to "The Line" I think had a lot to do with it.
I'm saying the parking garage is all townies. The students walk.
I was a student in 2004, drove to the parking garage sober, and may have thrown a water bottle at some CCT students after game 3. Sorry if that was you, daredevilcu. I was not in a right mind.
You mean you don't even know if you threw it?
He didn't say he
remained sober.
Quote from: DafatoneNot that rich kids can't be passionate.
"Vampire Weekend in Concert (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_i1xk07o4g)!"
tickets may be over priced, but still far from expensive. about the same price as a movie these days.
Quote from: French RageQuote from: ugarteQuote from: daredevilcuQuote from: ugarteQuote from: daredevilcuLynah has lost its fangs since then, and it is sad. I left that night feeling like I was definitely going to get beat up in the parking garage.
Nobody young, dumb and drunk enough to be a threat drove to the game.
The changes to "The Line" I think had a lot to do with it.
I'm saying the parking garage is all townies. The students walk.
I was a student in 2004, drove to the parking garage sober, and may have thrown a water bottle at some CCT students after game 3. Sorry if that was you, daredevilcu. I was not in a right mind.
Haha, it wasn't me. I didn't go to game 3.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: French RageQuote from: ugarteQuote from: daredevilcuQuote from: ugarteQuote from: daredevilcuLynah has lost its fangs since then, and it is sad. I left that night feeling like I was definitely going to get beat up in the parking garage.
Nobody young, dumb and drunk enough to be a threat drove to the game.
The changes to "The Line" I think had a lot to do with it.
I'm saying the parking garage is all townies. The students walk.
I was a student in 2004, drove to the parking garage sober, and may have thrown a water bottle at some CCT students after game 3. Sorry if that was you, daredevilcu. I was not in a right mind.
You mean you don't even know if you threw it?
He didn't say he remained sober.
I remained sober, at least for the remainder of the driving portion of the night; not sure what I did once back at my house. As for the throwing, I'm hedging against the statue of limitations.
Quote from: daredevilcuWe don't have enough power in the corners to stay with them physically for 4 periods of hockey a night
Even four (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2006/box20060310.pdf) might not be enough (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2006/box20060311.pdf) for these two.
Quote from: Give My RegardsQuote from: daredevilcuWe don't have enough power in the corners to stay with them physically for 4 periods of hockey a night
Even four (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2006/box20060310.pdf) might not be enough (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2006/box20060311.pdf) for these two.
That series was ridiculous.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Give My RegardsQuote from: daredevilcuWe don't have enough power in the corners to stay with them physically for 4 periods of hockey a night
Even four (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2006/box20060310.pdf) might not be enough (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2006/box20060311.pdf) for these two.
That series was ridiculous.
That really was the year for absurd overtime playoff games, wasn't it?
Quote from: Give My RegardsQuote from: daredevilcuWe don't have enough power in the corners to stay with them physically for 4 periods of hockey a night
Even four (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2006/box20060310.pdf) might not be enough (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2006/box20060311.pdf) for these two.
That series was Leggio's coming out party. He was SUPERB both games, over 100 saves for the weekend, and then spent the next two years being a top goalie in the league.
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: Give My RegardsQuote from: daredevilcuWe don't have enough power in the corners to stay with them physically for 4 periods of hockey a night
Even four (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2006/box20060310.pdf) might not be enough (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2006/box20060311.pdf) for these two.
That series was ridiculous.
That really was the year for absurd overtime playoff games, wasn't it?
Ugh (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/2006/box20060326.pdf).
Ah, wish we could make the trip. So long since we made it. This series brings back the first ECAC final as a student,
Championship[edit]
(1) Clarkson vs. (2) Cornell[edit]
March 15,1997 Clarkson 1 – 2 Cornell Olympic Arena
Quote from: jy3Ah, wish we could make the trip. So long since we made it. This series brings back the first ECAC final as a student,
Championship[edit]
(1) Clarkson vs. (2) Cornell[edit]
March 15,1997 Clarkson 1 – 2 Cornell Olympic Arena
http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1997/box19970315.pdf
Hard to believe that was 20 years ago.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: jy3Ah, wish we could make the trip. So long since we made it. This series brings back the first ECAC final as a student,
Championship[edit]
(1) Clarkson vs. (2) Cornell[edit]
March 15,1997 Clarkson 1 – 2 Cornell Olympic Arena
http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1997/box19970315.pdf
Hard to believe that was 20 years ago.
yes, it is! 20 years since Freshman year. Crazy
Adam's rag predicts Clarkson 2-1. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2017/03/09_ecac_quarterfinal_preview.php) Although there's a good description of the teams, they don't give a reason for us losing.
USCHO, on the other hand, (http://www.uscho.com/ecac-blog/2017/03/09/ecac-hockey-quarterfinal-picks/) picks us in 3.
So take your pick from "the experts".
game one we out shot them 31-16 and out chanced them by a ton.
game 2 up there it was much more even stats wise, but they had a good 2nd period.
both games we came from behind to tie. playing much better as the games went on
we have been the better team 3 of the 6 periods, 2 periods pretty even, one period clarkson too it to us.
will come out flying again in which case clarkson will be in trouble?
For that second game, I took a friend for his first Lynah game and a Japanese guy I worked with for his first hockey game ever. Any subsequent games for them must be a letdown.
I think we had to kill a back-to-back major and minor overlapping the end of regulation into OT. Lynah went nuts when those ticked off.
Leggio definitely stood on his head. He had so much work that he was pouring water over his head before nearly every faceoff.
Meh, I remember outlets talking up what was supposedly going to be a tight quarterfinal in 1996...
I have faith in this team, and we should be incrementally healthier to boot.
Quote from: Scersk '97Meh, I remember outlets talking up what was supposedly going to be a tight quarterfinal in 1996...
I have faith in this team, and we should be incrementally healthier to boot.
I think that with Smith gone we'll actually be less healthy than we were before the bye week.
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t147/Coelacanth64/Big%20Red%20Bear%202017.jpg
Let the games begin!!!
::cheer::
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: Scersk '97Meh, I remember outlets talking up what was supposedly going to be a tight quarterfinal in 1996...
I have faith in this team, and we should be incrementally healthier to boot.
I think that with Smith gone we'll actually be less healthy than we were before the bye week.
Agree, unless there is some other miraculous recovery, we're back to 5 "normal" defensemen and Rauter moves back again.
Quote from: Jim HylaAgree, unless there is some other miraculous recovery, we're back to 5 "normal" defensemen and Rauter moves back again.
Something is wrong with my math. We have 9 D on the roster. Bliss, Wedman, and Smith are out. That leave 6. Or is Shore hurt too?
I understand Mike might prefer to drop Rauter back and play Tschantz/Bauld rather than play Shore with Rauter up front, but he isn't forced too, right? Or is there a
fourth D injury I don't know about?
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jim HylaAgree, unless there is some other miraculous recovery, we're back to 5 "normal" defensemen and Rauter moves back again.
Something is wrong with my math. We have 9 D on the roster. Bliss, Wedman, and Smith are out. That leave 6. Or is Shore hurt too?
I understand Mike might prefer to drop Rauter back and play Tschantz/Bauld rather than play Shore with Rauter up front, but he isn't forced too, right? Or is there a fourth D injury I don't know about?
Shore hasn't played since the first game, but I can't remember what the problem is/was. I don't expect to see him.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jim HylaAgree, unless there is some other miraculous recovery, we're back to 5 "normal" defensemen and Rauter moves back again.
Something is wrong with my math. We have 9 D on the roster. Bliss, Wedman, and Smith are out. That leave 6. Or is Shore hurt too?
I understand Mike might prefer to drop Rauter back and play Tschantz/Bauld rather than play Shore with Rauter up front, but he isn't forced too, right? Or is there a fourth D injury I don't know about?
Shore hasn't played since the first game, but I can't remember what the problem is/was. I don't expect to see him.
Actually I do recall Shore played one other game after Smith got hurt the first time, but thereafter it's been Rauter playing D in Smith's absence.
Quote from: scoop85Actually I do recall Shore played one other game after Smith got hurt the first time, but thereafter it's been Rauter playing D in Smith's absence.
He got an assist in the 2/11 game against Yale (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/box/final/20170211/yal/cor/).
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: scoop85Actually I do recall Shore played one other game after Smith got hurt the first time, but thereafter it's been Rauter playing D in Smith's absence.
He got an assist in the 2/11 game against Yale (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/box/final/20170211/yal/cor/).
Thanks, I didn't remember that. I guess Cornell didn't either, as they don't list it on his stats page. (http://cornellbigred.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=42446&path=mhockey) Oh well, but I still don't expect him back.
Quote from: Jim HylaThanks, I didn't remember that. I guess Cornell didn't either, as they don't list it on his stats page. (http://cornellbigred.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=42446&path=mhockey) Oh well, but I still don't expect him back.
I have no issue with him back there except the ripple effect seemed to disturb other lines too. I really enjoy that when we are surging we are putting out four lines that generate good chances. That's only happened a couple other times during my fandom. When Rauter drops back we become a team of two scoring lines and two hold the fort lines.
Is there video for tonight? I don't see the game on IvyLeagueDigitalNetwork's schedule... And Clarkson.tv, or whatever, is showing the Women's game only.
Help!
Quote from: LaJollaRedIs there video for tonight? I don't see the game on IvyLeagueDigitalNetwork's schedule... And Clarkson.tv, or whatever, is showing the Women's game only.
Help!
You have to buy it for $10 off the ECAC site. http://ecachockey.com/men/2016-17/BoxCast/Clarkson_-_Cornell_Game_1
Think red thoughts, all.
So let's just all forget that happened and regroup tomorrow?
Quote from: DafatoneSo let's just all forget that happened and regroup tomorrow?
Forget what happened?
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: DafatoneSo let's just all forget that happened and regroup tomorrow?
Forget what happened?
Wait... There was a game tonight? Wasn't tonight just another night off?
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: DafatoneSo let's just all forget that happened and regroup tomorrow?
Forget what happened?
Wait... There was a game tonight? Wasn't tonight just another night off?
The team apparently thought it was another night off :-/
Luckily they aren't total goal series...
Please don't remind me.
was there an issue with the ice on one end? there was like 40 shot at one goal and 15 at the other. i would rather blame the ice than how poorly we played.
we missed passes by 10-15 ft over and over. too bad the couple posts we hit, but we didnt deserve any better result anyway.
strange how the game turned so quickly on harvard tackling our dude and turning it into a 4x4 that led to the go ahead goal.
At least we're getting some help tonight with UNH pulling out the win among other things.
According to the ECAC box score, we had 2 shots in the first period. And 1 shot in the third period.
And I was sitting in section O... so not a lot of close up scoring views from my vantage point.
It seemed like CU had lots of chances, and I was shocked to see only 2 shots credited in the first.
From my perspective, Cornell was hurt by Clarkson's speed, quick transitional play and relentless forecheck.
CU's passing was not nearly as crisp as usual and they didn't use their bodies enough in the corners of clarkson's end.
Big Red couldn't catch a break as far as any lucky bounces of the puck are concerned and Clarkson got many.
Also a lot of empty seats tonight. I was surprised that the GA sections were so open.
Oh and... Clarkson's rag tag pep band was terrible... so off key. I love pep bands but when they can't hit the notes, it is like fingernails on a blackboard... I'll have to bring Tylenol as I am in that section again tomorrow night.
It seems that the crowd was getting to the Clarkson goalie a bit. At one point when it was 5-2 he was taunting them by pointing to the scoreboard and holding up 5 fingers and then 2 fingers and shaking his stick at the student section. I never saw anything like that happen before, but I only get to Lynah for 4-5 games each year. Is this as uncommon a I assume it is?
passing was so sloppy, just never connected except for about 10 min in the 2nd..
Quote from: GBR1234It seems that the crowd was getting to the Clarkson goalie a bit. At one point when it was 5-2 he was taunting them by pointing to the scoreboard and holding up 5 fingers and then 2 fingers and shaking his stick at the student section. I never saw anything like that happen before, but I only get to Lynah for 4-5 games each year. Is this as uncommon a I assume it is?
Good, they're in his head now. When a goalie (particularly a freshman) starts paying attention to sections A and B, that's a bad sign. A goalie's focus should be on the ice, period.
Such effective psychological warfare used not to be uncommon.
Quote from: IcebergAt least we're getting some help tonight with UNH pulling out the win among other things.
It's too bad Miami just barely lost to a top team for the 100th game in a row.
Quite a night to pick to play your worst game of the year.
Quote from: TrotskyAccording to the ECAC box score, we had 2 shots in the first period. And 1 shot in the third period.
Maybe the slow start was due to the players' shock at no one being in the stands? The Lynah crowds are a joke at this point. I was a student just a few years ago, and we packed Lynah for the ECAC quarterfinals. It's not just the students--the townies don't show up anymore either. Even more disgraceful was 2/3 of the crowd leaving before/during the Senior Night celebrations two weeks ago.
I don't know if it was Rauter or actual D-men on the ice at the time, but Cornell gave up a stupefying number of odd-man chances. The Smith injury was absolutely crushing. It's too bad the defense gets obliterated by injuries the one year Cornell's offense isn't anemic.
Putting one shot on goal when you're losing for the entire period, most of it by two goals, is embarrassing. Cornell could easily win this series, but if they don't, they didn't deserve to, and if they can't get to Lake Placid they won't be deserving of the NCAA tournament either.
My seat was low in sec L and looking directly across the rink in sec D and E, I was stunned that those sections were basically empty. So i moved across the rink for the final two periods for a much better view. Usher told me to sit where i wanted. At a big Cornell game, WHAT! Drove 350 miles for the excitement
of an ECAC quarter final game at Lynah and not only did Cornell play horribly, the poor turnout was more than disappointing. Two shots on goal in the 1st and 1 in the 3rd is nothing short of unimaginable. Let's hope Saturday's game is played with a little more urgency. Very likely an NCAA tourney bid is on the line.
Taking a look at the "highlights" from last night, I'd say the first Clarkson goal was the result of everyone trying to do a bit too much to protect Rauter, who was actually doing fine on the play. Indeed, one could make an argument that Rauter getting hooked down led to the goal, but it was perhaps difficult to see the Clarkson foul with so many white shirts around.
The second goal was a good deflection, but it still had the look of a fluky goal. We've had a bunch of those scored on us this season, and it would seem that the best way to prevent them is to limit opposing shots, which we weren't doing in the first.
The highlighted Vanderlaan miss in the third started with Weidner getting slashed from behind, after which Vanderlaan was absolutely tackled. Both penalties happened right in front of the refs. I mean, I know we had seen at that point our fair share of the penalties, but it frustrates me when refs reflexively put away their whistles in the third.
Power play did look good.
I don't know. I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll be able to come out tonight and find a way to beat them. If there is a game on Sunday, I would say that it's always difficult to beat a team twice in a row. Yeeee...
Apparently Coach Casey Jones had a game plan which neutralized Cornell's offense in the first period, then changed and neutered Cornell's offense again in the third period. There is only a .000000356 probability that all of Cornell's players individually and simultaneously had a random bad game in the first period, recovered in the second period, and then all individually suffered a relapse in the third period.
Quote from: IcebergAt least we're getting some help tonight with UNH pulling out the win among other things.
To me that was a definite negative. We want either BU or UML to win Hockey East. If the 4 Hockey East quarters all go the same way as Friday's games, 3 of the 4 semi-finalists would be teams that jump ahead of us if the win they tournament - and even BC might do that if they get to the finals (obviously depending on how we do from here).
Quote from: HookingApparently Coach Casey Jones had a game plan which neutralized Cornell's offense in the first period, then changed and neutered Cornell's offense again in the third period. There is only a .000000356 probability that all of Cornell's players individually and simultaneously had a random bad game in the first period, recovered in the second period, and then all individually suffered a relapse in the third period.
Hooking, I thought I told you to watch all three periods! Bad Hooking!
we never have a big crowd game 1 of a series. the majority of the townies do not pre buy the playoff tickets anymore. there will be a bigger crowd tonight.
those 2 calls behind the clarkson net in the 3rd when we were still in the game didnt help. you knew we were going to have a couple calls go against us after the early run of clarkson penalties, but also those were so blatant i wasnt sure why the complained so much about them.
there was also a non-charging call where cornell kid got steamrolled behind the net by the D man who had about a 20 ft run up to the check.
still 3 shots in 2 periods is pretty bad hockey.
Interesting that there are no quotes from Schafer in the game story, and he didn't appear at the press conference. I assume his reasoning was that if you can't say something nice ...
Quote from: BearLoverI don't know if it was Rauter or actual D-men on the ice at the time, but Cornell gave up a stupefying number of odd-man chances. The Smith injury was absolutely crushing. It's too bad the defense gets obliterated by injuries the one year Cornell's offense isn't anemic.
Quote from: wakester2468My seat was low in sec L and looking directly across the rink in sec D and E, I was stunned that those sections were basically empty.
I'm in C, so didn't have as good a view of D and E as you did from across the rink wakester, but D was definitely not "basically empty." Jim was there, giving out newspaper before the game, and there were plenty of students accepting the paper. (I saw one woman scrambling to get to Jim, as if he was giving out cash. I wonder at what point the students there will figure out it's really not that hard to bring your own paper.)
Looking across the rink at the townie side, there were empty seats, but not a heck of a lot of them.
Overall it felt like most regular season games to me. Not Harvard, and not what I would consider an appropriate crowd for a playoff game, but also not notably lacking from what has become the norm.
Quote from: scoop85Interesting that there are no quotes from Schafer in the game story, and he didn't appear at the press conference. I assume his reasoning was that if you can't say something nice ...
...and don't open your mouth you won't get suspended by the league.::twak::
Quote from: andyw2100Quote from: BearLoverI don't know if it was Rauter or actual D-men on the ice at the time, but Cornell gave up a stupefying number of odd-man chances. The Smith injury was absolutely crushing. It's too bad the defense gets obliterated by injuries the one year Cornell's offense isn't anemic.
Quote from: wakester2468My seat was low in sec L and looking directly across the rink in sec D and E, I was stunned that those sections were basically empty.
I'm in C, so didn't have as good a view of D and E as you did from across the rink wakester, but D was definitely not "basically empty."
It may have been the camera angle, but during the lineups the stream made D look utterly empty -- so much so that I was shocked. I suppose it may have been E.
The team not giving the crowd anything to cheer about except in the middle frame probably did not help the atmosphere.
Let's hope there will be a good crowd for game three, even though that is statistically improbable.
Quote from: HookingLet's hope there will be a good crowd for game three, even though that is statistically improbable.
Improbable for good or for three?
ok, i was at the game last night and have a question about the fight at the end. we were clearly frustrated but when the ice cleared it was all clarkson players on top of cornell players. and then the clarkson player w/o the helmet left the rink, but didn't receive a DQ or misconduct or penalty, and it resulted in two cornell minors, leading to the 5x3, leading to the 6th goal. so what was the deal with the clarkson player leaving the ice?
Quote from: A-19ok, i was at the game last night and have a question about the fight at the end. we were clearly frustrated but when the ice cleared it was all clarkson players on top of cornell players. and then the clarkson player w/o the helmet left the rink, but didn't receive a DQ or misconduct or penalty, and it resulted in two cornell minors, leading to the 5x3, leading to the 6th goal. so what was the deal with the clarkson player leaving the ice?
From the box,
Fiegl and Malott (x2) were called for three 2 minute minors,
D'Arrisso was called for a minor,
D'Arrisso and Malott were given 10 minute misconducts.
(I didn't notice Malott leave.)
Harvard and Union win, Q and SLU join us tomorrow at 4.
If we can take care of business tomorrow, we will play Union, presumably in the late SF.
Quote from: TrotskyHarvard and Union win, Q and SLU join us tomorrow at 4.
If we can take care of business tomorrow, we will play Union, presumably in the late SF.
Looks like Princeton's season ended on an overtime penalty shot? Oof.
Providence lost for the second night in a row; Penn State down 2-0 in the third.
As usual I didn't get to watch the game. :(
Looked like Clarkson was firing a lot more shots, both on goal and otherwise, and not just on the PP (where Cornell had the advantage). Was that indicative of the run of play?
Quote from: Chris '03Quote from: TrotskyHarvard and Union win, Q and SLU join us tomorrow at 4.
If we can take care of business tomorrow, we will play Union, presumably in the late SF.
Looks like Princeton's season ended on an overtime penalty shot? Oof.
Union also tied that game with 21 seconds to go in regulation.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Chris '03Quote from: TrotskyHarvard and Union win, Q and SLU join us tomorrow at 4.
If we can take care of business tomorrow, we will play Union, presumably in the late SF.
Looks like Princeton's season ended on an overtime penalty shot? Oof.
Union also tied that game with 21 seconds to go in regulation.
Well after Princeton saved their season with :01 against Colgate last week ...
much better effort Still after last nights F I woulnt grade this much better than C+.
I dont think Clarkson has played all that well we just played so badly in many ways,
tonight we got a few shots on net. we finally got an odd man rush and scored.
We are really struggling to pass the puck. those offensive zone penalties up 2-0 were killer and almost cost us
we play like this for a 3rd game and i doubt we win.
Quote from: upprdeckmuch better effort Still after last nights F I woulnt grade this much better than C+.
I dont think Clarkson has played all that well we just played so badly in many ways,
tonight we got a few shots on net. we finally got an odd man rush and scored.
We are really struggling to pass the puck. those offensive zone penalties up 2-0 were killer and almost cost us
we play like this for a 3rd game and i doubt we win.
Great post, appreciate the analysis and the insight.
Passing was a bit better tonight.
Cornell managed to control Clarkson's speedy transitional game much better and used their bodies more aggressively in the corners of the offensive zone.
That, to me was the difference.
Also Lynah was nearly full tonight and the crowd was LOUD and relentless... That always helps!
still we gave up another 2-0 and breakaway.. you can get lucky on those every time.
this is by far the worst the team has looked all year. we never seem to get into the forecheck game and that 5 min major was awful PP.
CLuck Farkson!
So why am I more uptight for these games than I was years ago? I'll preempt the snark by acknowledging one reason may be that as I approach my mid-50's I'm closer to the end than the beginning :-P
Quote from: scoop85So why am I more uptight for these games than I was years ago? I'll preempt the snark by acknowledging one reason may be that as I approach my mid-50's I'm closer to the end than the beginning :-P
Same here, and I think it's because the last several years felt like a mediocre team trying to pull a Cinderella, but this year feels like a good team who needs to fit together some pieces threatened with having the PS end almost before it starts.
This year feels like we have something to lose.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: scoop85So why am I more uptight for these games than I was years ago? I'll preempt the snark by acknowledging one reason may be that as I approach my mid-50's I'm closer to the end than the beginning :-P
Same here, and I think it's because the last several years felt like a mediocre team trying to pull a Cinderella, but this year feels like a good team who needs to fit together some pieces threatened with having the PS end almost before it starts.
This year feels like we have something to lose.
Yes, perfectly stated. The past few years I haven't believed that we were really an upper-echelon team. This year I think that while we're not as strong as a handful of teams, we are pretty darn good and capable of making a good run if we can get into the NCAA's. I think we need this win to validate the season, almost regardless of what might transpire at LP.
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: scoop85So why am I more uptight for these games than I was years ago? I'll preempt the snark by acknowledging one reason may be that as I approach my mid-50's I'm closer to the end than the beginning :-P
Same here, and I think it's because the last several years felt like a mediocre team trying to pull a Cinderella, but this year feels like a good team who needs to fit together some pieces threatened with having the PS end almost before it starts.
This year feels like we have something to lose.
Yes, perfectly stated. The past few years I haven't believed that we were really an upper-echelon team. This year I think that while we're not as strong as a handful of teams, we are pretty darn good and capable of making a good run if we can get into the NCAA's. I think we need this win to validate the season, almost regardless of what might transpire at LP.
Agreed. For me, a good season is getting a 1st round bye in the ECAC tournament, making LP (or Albany or wherever), and making the NCAAs. This team's felt capable of all three, so it'd be more of a letdown than other years.
Also, we've won a whole lot of games. We have the 6th best win% in the country. More of a gut-punch if we come up short than in other years.
Quote from: DafatoneWe have the 6th best win% in the country. More of a gut-punch if we come up short than in other years.
Just. Win. Baby.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: DafatoneWe have the 6th best win% in the country. More of a gut-punch if we come up short than in other years.
Just. Win. Baby.
Done and done.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: DafatoneWe have the 6th best win% in the country. More of a gut-punch if we come up short than in other years.
Just. Win. Baby.
Done and done.
I'm so excited that we get to move on to face Clarkson, with a ticket to the finals vs. Clarkson on the line!
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, after all.
SOG, 32-13 :-O
Quote from: scoop85SOG, 32-13 :-O
One 3rd period shot on goal for Cornell. Turned out to be enough, but...scary.
much better effort than friday, the 3rd period was dodgy but clarkson got shots but really many quality ones just a bunch or shots thrown in from the blue line.
the two breakways and post shot would have made the last few minutes a bit easier to watch.
at least cut down the odd man breaks and 2-0 attempts this game.
Good luck, gents. A series that could have gone either way, it was a good battle.
Cheers!
Drew
Quote from: DrewGood luck, gents. A series that could have gone either way, it was a good battle.
Cheers!
Drew
Sure could have. Thanks for the good wishes. Glad we don't have to play Clarkson again.
Quote from: DrewGood luck, gents. A series that could have gone either way, it was a good battle.
Cheers!
Drew
You had 7 freshman skating tonight, right? I would say Clarkson's going to be a team to beat for the next few years, which will be good. Clarkson, Harvard and Cornell should be good. It's right and proper.
Quote from: DrewGood luck, gents. A series that could have gone either way, it was a good battle.
Cheers!
Drew
You guys deserved better. Thanks for your geniality and best of luck in the battles to come.
I just want to make clear that i spent a lot of time looking for a gif of Matthew Broderick throwing the milkshake at Reese Witherspoon's boss's car in Election to reply to daredevilcu's post if Clarkson won today.
As for the shot totals, going only by the radio call, Cornell didn't even try to generate offense except as counterpunch breakaways. A dubious strategy until the clock struck zero at which point it became brilliant, then the clock was reset to .9 seconds and then less than a second later it became brilliant again.
Indeed, we have to stop meeting in the quarterfinals.
Heck of a showing from Clarkson.
Quote from: ugarteI just want to make clear that i spent a lot of time looking for a gif of Matthew Broderick throwing the milkshake at Reese Witherspoon's boss's car in Election to reply to daredevilcu's post if Clarkson won today.
As for the shot totals, going only by the radio call, Cornell didn't even try to generate offense except as counterpunch breakaways. A dubious strategy until the clock struck zero at which point it became brilliant, then the clock was reset to .9 seconds and then less than a second later it became brilliant again.
Which post?
Quote from: daredevilcuQuote from: ugarteI just want to make clear that i spent a lot of time looking for a gif of Matthew Broderick throwing the milkshake at Reese Witherspoon's boss's car in Election to reply to daredevilcu's post if Clarkson won today.
Which post?
the one where you said someone threw a water bottle at you in the parking garage after Clarkson won game 2 in 2004
our D and its inability to clear with control of the puck was an issue all weekend.. we would lose control or whiff or not get it up the boards all weekend long..
by far the worst the D has looked in awhile, or at least everytime other teams really went with pressure, which will probably be every game from now one.
Quote from: upprdeckour D and its inability to clear with control of the puck was an issue all weekend.. we would lose control or whiff or not get it up the boards all weekend long..
by far the worst the D has looked in awhile, or at least everytime other teams really went with pressure, which will probably be every game from now one.
Smith's absence is quite noticeable. The D is out of whack because of the juggling back there, and while we're doing ok keeping the opposition at bay, our breakout is far less effective.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: daredevilcuQuote from: ugarteI just want to make clear that i spent a lot of time looking for a gif of Matthew Broderick throwing the milkshake at Reese Witherspoon's boss's car in Election to reply to daredevilcu's post if Clarkson won today.
Which post?
the one where you said someone threw a water bottle at you in the parking garage after Clarkson won game 2 in 2004
Actually, that wasn't me. That was one of the other posters admitting to doing the throwing... But it wasn't at me.
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: upprdeckour D and its inability to clear with control of the puck was an issue all weekend.. we would lose control or whiff or not get it up the boards all weekend long..
by far the worst the D has looked in awhile, or at least everytime other teams really went with pressure, which will probably be every game from now one.
Smith's absence is quite noticeable. The D is out of whack because of the juggling back there, and while we're doing ok keeping the opposition at bay, our breakout is far less effective.
Smith was invisible in the best possible way on the ice. Smooth on defense and with the puck, rarely out of position.
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: upprdeckour D and its inability to clear with control of the puck was an issue all weekend.. we would lose control or whiff or not get it up the boards all weekend long..
by far the worst the D has looked in awhile, or at least everytime other teams really went with pressure, which will probably be every game from now one.
Smith's absence is quite noticeable. The D is out of whack because of the juggling back there, and while we're doing ok keeping the opposition at bay, our breakout is far less effective.
The relevant comparison here, in the context of the breakout, is Rauter vs. Smith. I couldn't put my finger on why our breakout has been so terrible, but it's certainly been terrible.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: scoop85Quote from: upprdeckour D and its inability to clear with control of the puck was an issue all weekend.. we would lose control or whiff or not get it up the boards all weekend long..
by far the worst the D has looked in awhile, or at least everytime other teams really went with pressure, which will probably be every game from now one.
Smith's absence is quite noticeable. The D is out of whack because of the juggling back there, and while we're doing ok keeping the opposition at bay, our breakout is far less effective.
The relevant comparison here, in the context of the breakout, is Rauter vs. Smith. I couldn't put my finger on why our breakout has been so terrible, but it's certainly been terrible.
Also credit to Clarkson, who gave us very little time and space.
Quote from: upprdeckour D and its inability to clear with control of the puck was an issue all weekend.. we would lose control or whiff or not get it up the boards all weekend long.
"up but not out" is a phrase I never want to hear again. it was driving me nuts how much trouble we were having getting the puck over the blue line.
I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but I think you have to give credit to Clarkson's 2-man pep band! They had one snare (or similar) drummer, and one trumpet player, and they actually sounded pretty darn good! I'm guessing the rest of the Clarkson band had hotel reservations for just one night, and drove back home after last night's game. That drummer and trumpet player were dedicated!
Quote from: andyw2100I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but I think you have to give credit to Clarkson's 2-man pep band! They had one snare (or similar) drummer, and one trumpet player, and they actually sounded pretty darn good! I'm guessing the rest of the Clarkson band had hotel reservations for just one night, and drove back home after last night's game. That drummer and trumpet player were dedicated!
I heard an audible "Knight" during the anthem and I don't think I've heard that (or U) at Lynah on the broadcast before.
Quote from: ugarteI heard an audible "Knight" during the anthem and I don't think I've heard that (or U) at Lynah on the broadcast before.
I'm pretty sure Clarkson fans shout "knights."
there was a pretty good number of clarkson fans in section o and many season ticket holders who never showed up at all.
not sure which is struggling more the hockey D breakout or the Lax D against the 10 man ride.
Fortunately, the former is still winning games; somehow.
However, my nervous system is suffering.
::rock::
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: scoop85Quote from: upprdeckour D and its inability to clear with control of the puck was an issue all weekend.. we would lose control or whiff or not get it up the boards all weekend long..
by far the worst the D has looked in awhile, or at least everytime other teams really went with pressure, which will probably be every game from now one.
Smith's absence is quite noticeable. The D is out of whack because of the juggling back there, and while we're doing ok keeping the opposition at bay, our breakout is far less effective.
The relevant comparison here, in the context of the breakout, is Rauter vs. Smith. I couldn't put my finger on why our breakout has been so terrible, but it's certainly been terrible.
I was at Lynah on Saturday for the 2-1 win. Very impressed with Rauter's poise on defense. He played both defense and forward in 5 on 5, PP and PK situations. That is unbelievably difficult at this level of competition; speaks to his skating ability, puck protection and hockey smarts. Didn't see the Friday or Sunday's games but I think he played a nearly flawless game on Saturday.
Quote from: RatushnyFanQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: scoop85Quote from: upprdeckour D and its inability to clear with control of the puck was an issue all weekend.. we would lose control or whiff or not get it up the boards all weekend long..
by far the worst the D has looked in awhile, or at least everytime other teams really went with pressure, which will probably be every game from now one.
Smith's absence is quite noticeable. The D is out of whack because of the juggling back there, and while we're doing ok keeping the opposition at bay, our breakout is far less effective.
The relevant comparison here, in the context of the breakout, is Rauter vs. Smith. I couldn't put my finger on why our breakout has been so terrible, but it's certainly been terrible.
I was at Lynah on Saturday for the 2-1 win. Very impressed with Rauter's poise on defense. He played both defense and forward in 5 on 5, PP and PK situations. That is unbelievably difficult at this level of competition; speaks to his skating ability, puck protection and hockey smarts. Didn't see the Friday or Sunday's games but I think he played a nearly flawless game on Saturday.
Agree that Rauter played extremely well, but I think that one problem Saturday was fatigue, especially for the defense. I said at the game that they looked dead. I'd like to see the play times for each player. Does anyone know where to get that? In particular, how much time McCarron logged.
Quote from: Jim HylaI'd like to see the play times for each player. Does anyone know where to get that? In particular, how much time McCarron logged.
I can't find TOI, but check out (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/box/metrics.php?gd=44842) McCarron's shot attempts on Sunday.
McCarron looked gassed at times on Saturday in the 2nd and 3rd period, some 20-30 second shifts where he was looking to get off. He didn't play poorly, I just think they realized the legs weren't there so keep the shifts short. I've never been able to find TOI for college games. I've trolled and I can't find it.
Best stats I can find are here, where you can get +/- (I still like to see it, though not all that useful in a vacuum), shot and penalty info: http://collegehockeystats.net/1617/schedules/corm (http://collegehockeystats.net/1617/schedules/corm)
Quote from: upprdecknot sure which is struggling more the hockey D breakout or the Lax D against the 10 man ride.
No question the Lax D is worse. And it shouldn't be that hard. Your upfield middies and attack work an over-and-back across the midfield line to pop someone open by using the offsides rule. There's always confusion among the riders as to who goes across, especially if you use some picks. You can also play some games sneaking in and out at the substitution boxes.
Thinking a bit more about this past weekend and how Cornell was fortunate to survive it, I'm starting to worry that Cornell has actually just been really lucky this entire season. Our advanced stats (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/#adv) are not good. Meanwhile, the advanced stats of the other teams ranked highly in the PWR are almost universally strong--and in nearly every case better than ours. We've had this debate enough on here, but now we have a full season's sample of games to work with, and Corsi etc. really do seem highly correlated with overall success. Outside of the advanced stats, though, until this past weekend, we've looked pretty consistently good...
No matter how we got here this season is a whole LOT more enjoyable than last season. Now, if Cornell can improve as much again next year . . .
we probably didnt deserve to win, based on the stats, last weekend. but there have been way too many games were we just dominated for 2/3 of the game to think we were lucky the whole season.
Quote from: upprdeckwe probably didnt deserve to win, based on the stats, last weekend. but there have been way too many games were we just dominated for 2/3 of the game to think we were lucky the whole season.
I think we generally over-achieved this season. That's obviously a lot better than under-achieving and we saw plenty of that a few years ago.
You have to think that the defense is getting close to worn out. I posted before that it certainly looked like that was at least part of the problem in the third period of the third game. I suspect they actually did better trying to defend in their zone, rather than getting caught out of position and with no legs, further up the ice.
The defense reminded me some of Schafer's first 2 seasons, 96 & 97, when he won ECAC titles. The strategy then seemed to be, get ahead and ride defense and good goaltending to wins. I wouldn't be unhappy to see that again.
You also wonder what could have been, if we had not lost so many, especially Bliss, on defense.
I'm salivating at the thought of having all our defensemen healthy. Who would you even scratch out of mccarron, wedman, bliss, Smith, kaldis, mccrea, and nuttle?
Quote from: DafatoneI'm salivating at the thought of having all our defensemen healthy. Who would you even scratch out of mccarron, wedman, bliss, Smith, kaldis, mccrea, and nuttle?
Graduation will scratch McCarron.:-/
you start to get tired when you cant get the puck cleared and you cant get a forecheck giong either. We got the puck in deep like 1 period in 3 games and dominated that period..
We were chasing the play a lot of the time, which usually means tiredness. Rauter though -- my God, talk about rising to a challenge.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: DafatoneI'm salivating at the thought of having all our defensemen healthy. Who would you even scratch out of mccarron, wedman, bliss, Smith, kaldis, mccrea, and nuttle?
Graduation will scratch McCarron.:-/
Yeah. I meant in an injury-free fantasy world.
Still, that's a very solid six to begin with next year.
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: DafatoneI'm salivating at the thought of having all our defensemen healthy. Who would you even scratch out of mccarron, wedman, bliss, Smith, kaldis, mccrea, and nuttle?
Graduation will scratch McCarron.:-/
Yeah. I meant in an injury-free fantasy world.
Still, that's a very solid six to begin with next year.
This is assuming Bliss' injury isn't career threatening.
Smith / Kaldis / McCrae is a solid core for the defense and they'll all be here for two more full seasons. Add that we're deep enough on forward to be rolling four decent lines right now, and the big question mark is going to be goaltending.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: DafatoneI'm salivating at the thought of having all our defensemen healthy. Who would you even scratch out of mccarron, wedman, bliss, Smith, kaldis, mccrea, and nuttle?
Graduation will scratch McCarron.:-/
Yeah. I meant in an injury-free fantasy world.
Still, that's a very solid six to begin with next year.
This is assuming Bliss' injury isn't career threatening.
Smith / Kaldis / McCrae is a solid core for the defense and they'll all be here for two more full seasons. Add that we're deep enough on forward to be rolling four decent lines right now, and the big question mark is going to be goaltending.
I thought I heard that he dropped out of school to retain eligibility for 2 more years. Anyone got more data?
Chasing the puck is more tiring than passing the puck. On the bright side, chasing the puck is fine conditioning for both your defensive and offensive players. After the Clarkson series Cornell skaters should be in magnificent skating condition.
Quote from: BearLoverThinking a bit more about this past weekend and how Cornell was fortunate to survive it, I'm starting to worry that Cornell has actually just been really lucky this entire season. Our advanced stats (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/#adv) are not good. Meanwhile, the advanced stats of the other teams ranked highly in the PWR are almost universally strong--and in nearly every case better than ours. We've had this debate enough on here, but now we have a full season's sample of games to work with, and Corsi etc. really do seem highly correlated with overall success. Outside of the advanced stats, though, until this past weekend, we've looked pretty consistently good...
My theory on advanced stats is that they (at least, corsi/Fenwick) don't factor in shooting accuracy or goalie play. On the NHL level, where everyone can shoot accurately and all goalies are at least very good, this is less of an issue. But we've seen some Cornell teams that can't put the puck on net (oh, Cole bardreau, if only you could shoot) much at all.
A few legit snipers and a very good goalie make a big difference.
Then again, I haven't seen a single Cornell season without a good goalie (freshman scrivens / Davenport would probably be the low point), so it's hard to compare.
Quote from: DafatoneThen again, I haven't seen a single Cornell season without a good goalie (freshman scrivens / Davenport would probably be the low point), so it's hard to compare.
The Edmands/Fawcett years were indeed a sight to behold.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: DafatoneThen again, I haven't seen a single Cornell season without a good goalie (freshman scrivens / Davenport would probably be the low point), so it's hard to compare.
The Edmands/Fawcett years were indeed a sight to behold.
Edmands/Fawcett. I started throwing up at the mention. Different world then. As great as Dadswell was, he routinely allowed 3-4 goals. Of course Edmands/Fawcett routinely allowed 5-6.
Quote from: arugulaQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: DafatoneThen again, I haven't seen a single Cornell season without a good goalie (freshman scrivens / Davenport would probably be the low point), so it's hard to compare.
The Edmands/Fawcett years were indeed a sight to behold.
Edmands/Fawcett. I started throwing up at the mention. Different world then. As great as Dadswell was, he routinely allowed 3-4 goals. Of course Edmands/Fawcett routinely allowed 5-6.
Two goals in particular define the Edmands/Fawcett era for me. One was a high hop from the red line with nobody around that went through the wickets. The other was a deflection that went straight up, eldued the rafters, and plunked off the back of the goalie's head and into his net. He never saw it. Dadswell ("But Mom's Terrific" ) showed the difference a great goalie can make all by his lonesome.
1985 save percentage:
.898 Dadswell
.847 Fawcett
.804 Edmands
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: BearLoverThinking a bit more about this past weekend and how Cornell was fortunate to survive it, I'm starting to worry that Cornell has actually just been really lucky this entire season. Our advanced stats (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/#adv) are not good. Meanwhile, the advanced stats of the other teams ranked highly in the PWR are almost universally strong--and in nearly every case better than ours. We've had this debate enough on here, but now we have a full season's sample of games to work with, and Corsi etc. really do seem highly correlated with overall success. Outside of the advanced stats, though, until this past weekend, we've looked pretty consistently good...
My theory on advanced stats is that they (at least, corsi/Fenwick) don't factor in shooting accuracy or goalie play. On the NHL level, where everyone can shoot accurately and all goalies are at least very good, this is less of an issue. But we've seen some Cornell teams that can't put the puck on net (oh, Cole bardreau, if only you could shoot) much at all.
A few legit snipers and a very good goalie make a big difference.
Then again, I haven't seen a single Cornell season without a good goalie (freshman scrivens / Davenport would probably be the low point), so it's hard to compare.
Yes, but shooting accuracy (something Cornell has never particularly excelled at) and goalie play (Gillam's save % is actually lower/the same as most other top teams' goalies) can't account for the (pretty big) disparity between Cornell's advanced stats and those of basically all the other teams around them in the PWR. That's not to say Gillam hasn't been very good--he probably saved us last weekend--but if we were truly limiting other teams' chances to shots from outside that Gillam can see, this would be reflected in an exceptional save %, instead of just a very good one.
True. Funny though that the .898 sp that made Dadswell a life saver then, would have him playing in DIII now. Just a completely different game. My senior year, Nieuwendyk averaged two points a game. Crazy.
My sense from last weekend was that we were in survival mode and the team played very tight against an aggressive team that was not a great match-up for us. My expectation is that we'll play better on Friday, which of course doesn't guarantee a win against a very good team.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: BearLoverThinking a bit more about this past weekend and how Cornell was fortunate to survive it, I'm starting to worry that Cornell has actually just been really lucky this entire season. Our advanced stats (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/#adv) are not good. Meanwhile, the advanced stats of the other teams ranked highly in the PWR are almost universally strong--and in nearly every case better than ours. We've had this debate enough on here, but now we have a full season's sample of games to work with, and Corsi etc. really do seem highly correlated with overall success. Outside of the advanced stats, though, until this past weekend, we've looked pretty consistently good...
My theory on advanced stats is that they (at least, corsi/Fenwick) don't factor in shooting accuracy or goalie play. On the NHL level, where everyone can shoot accurately and all goalies are at least very good, this is less of an issue. But we've seen some Cornell teams that can't put the puck on net (oh, Cole bardreau, if only you could shoot) much at all.
A few legit snipers and a very good goalie make a big difference.
Then again, I haven't seen a single Cornell season without a good goalie (freshman scrivens / Davenport would probably be the low point), so it's hard to compare.
Yes, but shooting accuracy (something Cornell has never particularly excelled at) and goalie play (Gillam's save % is actually lower/the same as most other top teams' goalies) can't account for the (pretty big) disparity between Cornell's advanced stats and those of basically all the other teams around them in the PWR. That's not to say Gillam hasn't been very good--he probably saved us last weekend--but if we were truly limiting other teams' chances to shots from outside that Gillam can see, this would be reflected in a truly exceptional save %, instead of just a very good one.
Of course, Gillam might really be an average or above-average collegiate goaltender in terms of individual ability, in which case a very good save % would still be the result of limiting chances to low percentage shots. This doesn't change your point about the disparity in possession metrics but it does make a difference in how you view Cornell's chances of repeating these outcomes given a similar quality goaltender.
Personally, and as always based strictly on numbers, I suspect Cornell's record this season is on the lucky end - even if you allow for more systematic variance in advanced metrics in the college game such extreme outliers are always suspicious. How lucky has this season been, and how likely is Cornell to regress to the mean vs elevating its baseline, are the real questions. On the one hand, game to game Cornell has almost certainly been lucky to win as often as they have given the possession numbers. On the other hand, so many defensive injuries can really alter a team's play. It might very well be that with a healthy D the possession numbers would've been a lot better for this team, so their luck might've just balanced things out. No way to know, really, but hopefully we get to find out with a healthy team next year, and hopefully that team starts controlling possession to such an extent that they just win all of their games. Hey, I can hope, right?
Anyway, I got curious, so I looked up the advanced metrics for the last 3 years (all CHN has) - this year's team put up by far the highest PDO of the three - 103 even strength, 104.25 close. This is the strongest stats-based argument for the "this team was really lucky" position. For reference, last year's team - same goaltender and a lot of the same scorers - put up a 101.26 and 102 close PDO. Two years ago it was just below 98.4 even strength and 97.4 close, although of course the scoring personnel was quite different. Either this team has some kind of magical mix of NCAA-beating talent and execution in terms of scoring/save efficiency, or we should expect a PDO closer to 100 and a record more reflective of possession numbers next year. The smart money is on the latter - it's just hard to imagine a team that is so efficient when they have the puck and so effective at containing high quality scoring chances and yet does not control overall relative shot totals.
Quote from: Tom LentoQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: BearLoverThinking a bit more about this past weekend and how Cornell was fortunate to survive it, I'm starting to worry that Cornell has actually just been really lucky this entire season. Our advanced stats (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/#adv) are not good. Meanwhile, the advanced stats of the other teams ranked highly in the PWR are almost universally strong--and in nearly every case better than ours. We've had this debate enough on here, but now we have a full season's sample of games to work with, and Corsi etc. really do seem highly correlated with overall success. Outside of the advanced stats, though, until this past weekend, we've looked pretty consistently good...
My theory on advanced stats is that they (at least, corsi/Fenwick) don't factor in shooting accuracy or goalie play. On the NHL level, where everyone can shoot accurately and all goalies are at least very good, this is less of an issue. But we've seen some Cornell teams that can't put the puck on net (oh, Cole bardreau, if only you could shoot) much at all.
A few legit snipers and a very good goalie make a big difference.
Then again, I haven't seen a single Cornell season without a good goalie (freshman scrivens / Davenport would probably be the low point), so it's hard to compare.
Yes, but shooting accuracy (something Cornell has never particularly excelled at) and goalie play (Gillam's save % is actually lower/the same as most other top teams' goalies) can't account for the (pretty big) disparity between Cornell's advanced stats and those of basically all the other teams around them in the PWR. That's not to say Gillam hasn't been very good--he probably saved us last weekend--but if we were truly limiting other teams' chances to shots from outside that Gillam can see, this would be reflected in a truly exceptional save %, instead of just a very good one.
Of course, Gillam might really be an average or above-average collegiate goaltender in terms of individual ability, in which case a very good save % would still be the result of limiting chances to low percentage shots. This doesn't change your point about the disparity in possession metrics but it does make a difference in how you view Cornell's chances of repeating these outcomes given a similar quality goaltender.
Personally, and as always based strictly on numbers, I suspect Cornell's record this season is on the lucky end - even if you allow for more systematic variance in advanced metrics in the college game such extreme outliers are always suspicious. How lucky has this season been, and how likely is Cornell to regress to the mean vs elevating its baseline, are the real questions. On the one hand, game to game Cornell has almost certainly been lucky to win as often as they have given the possession numbers. On the other hand, so many defensive injuries can really alter a team's play. It might very well be that with a healthy D the possession numbers would've been a lot better for this team, so their luck might've just balanced things out. No way to know, really, but hopefully we get to find out with a healthy team next year, and hopefully that team starts controlling possession to such an extent that they just win all of their games. Hey, I can hope, right?
Anyway, I got curious, so I looked up the advanced metrics for the last 3 years (all CHN has) - this year's team put up by far the highest PDO of the three - 103 even strength, 104.25 close. This is the strongest stats-based argument for the "this team was really lucky" position. For reference, last year's team - same goaltender and a lot of the same scorers - put up a 101.26 and 102 close PDO. Two years ago it was just below 98.4 even strength and 97.4 close, although of course the scoring personnel was quite different. Either this team has some kind of magical mix of NCAA-beating talent and execution in terms of scoring/save efficiency, or we should expect a PDO closer to 100 and a record more reflective of possession numbers next year. The smart money is on the latter - it's just hard to imagine a team that is so efficient when they have the puck and so effective at containing high quality scoring chances and yet does not control overall relative shot totals.
This is a great post.
how do the metrics rate puck control and how do they even capture it? is someone reporting it for the teams?
does it measure control in one end versus the other?
the stats seems to point to the last 2 years being pretty close stats wise, yet in person this team was much better to the eye test
Quote from: Tom LentoQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: BearLoverThinking a bit more about this past weekend and how Cornell was fortunate to survive it, I'm starting to worry that Cornell has actually just been really lucky this entire season. Our advanced stats (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/#adv) are not good. Meanwhile, the advanced stats of the other teams ranked highly in the PWR are almost universally strong--and in nearly every case better than ours. We've had this debate enough on here, but now we have a full season's sample of games to work with, and Corsi etc. really do seem highly correlated with overall success. Outside of the advanced stats, though, until this past weekend, we've looked pretty consistently good...
My theory on advanced stats is that they (at least, corsi/Fenwick) don't factor in shooting accuracy or goalie play. On the NHL level, where everyone can shoot accurately and all goalies are at least very good, this is less of an issue. But we've seen some Cornell teams that can't put the puck on net (oh, Cole bardreau, if only you could shoot) much at all.
A few legit snipers and a very good goalie make a big difference.
Then again, I haven't seen a single Cornell season without a good goalie (freshman scrivens / Davenport would probably be the low point), so it's hard to compare.
Yes, but shooting accuracy (something Cornell has never particularly excelled at) and goalie play (Gillam's save % is actually lower/the same as most other top teams' goalies) can't account for the (pretty big) disparity between Cornell's advanced stats and those of basically all the other teams around them in the PWR. That's not to say Gillam hasn't been very good--he probably saved us last weekend--but if we were truly limiting other teams' chances to shots from outside that Gillam can see, this would be reflected in a truly exceptional save %, instead of just a very good one.
Of course, Gillam might really be an average or above-average collegiate goaltender in terms of individual ability, in which case a very good save % would still be the result of limiting chances to low percentage shots. This doesn't change your point about the disparity in possession metrics but it does make a difference in how you view Cornell's chances of repeating these outcomes given a similar quality goaltender.
Personally, and as always based strictly on numbers, I suspect Cornell's record this season is on the lucky end - even if you allow for more systematic variance in advanced metrics in the college game such extreme outliers are always suspicious. How lucky has this season been, and how likely is Cornell to regress to the mean vs elevating its baseline, are the real questions. On the one hand, game to game Cornell has almost certainly been lucky to win as often as they have given the possession numbers. On the other hand, so many defensive injuries can really alter a team's play. It might very well be that with a healthy D the possession numbers would've been a lot better for this team, so their luck might've just balanced things out. No way to know, really, but hopefully we get to find out with a healthy team next year, and hopefully that team starts controlling possession to such an extent that they just win all of their games. Hey, I can hope, right?
Anyway, I got curious, so I looked up the advanced metrics for the last 3 years (all CHN has) - this year's team put up by far the highest PDO of the three - 103 even strength, 104.25 close. This is the strongest stats-based argument for the "this team was really lucky" position. For reference, last year's team - same goaltender and a lot of the same scorers - put up a 101.26 and 102 close PDO. Two years ago it was just below 98.4 even strength and 97.4 close, although of course the scoring personnel was quite different. Either this team has some kind of magical mix of NCAA-beating talent and execution in terms of scoring/save efficiency, or we should expect a PDO closer to 100 and a record more reflective of possession numbers next year. The smart money is on the latter - it's just hard to imagine a team that is so efficient when they have the puck and so effective at containing high quality scoring chances and yet does not control overall relative shot totals.
The strongest argument against "this team was really lucky" is this easily to understand metric we're overlooking (ECAC stats):
2015-16 2016-17
GPG 2.09 3.18
GAPG 2.27 2.32
Yes, I agree, higher-possession teams are more likely to be good. But we increased our ECAC scoring by over a full GPG. Over the course of a 22 game schedule, that's more than luck. That's a young group of forwards developing and building on their skills and adapting to the college game more. Most of our top scorers increased their output by nearly 2x. We're getting the puck in the net better than we were able to last season. We went from 10th in the league in scoring to 3rd, while remaining at the top in team defense.
Most interesting in the stats I looked at is that we're far and away the highest scoring team in the 1st period, and near the bottom in the 3rd.
We don't have to worry about Vigneault next year, as he signed with Columbus after this his Junior season
Always lots of credit or blame ascribed to goalkeepers, offensive units, defensive units, individual players, even FANS (?!)- but NEVER a mention of good or bad coaching or game plans. Coaches do make a difference. I'll bet statistics prove this.
Quote from: HookingAlways lots of credit or blame ascribed to goalkeepers, offensive units, defensive units, individual players, even LUCKY SHIRTS (?!)- but NEVER a mention of good or bad coaching or game plans. Coaches do make a difference. I'll bet statistics prove this.
FYP::burnout::
Quote from: RichHQuote from: Tom LentoQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: DafatoneQuote from: BearLoverThinking a bit more about this past weekend and how Cornell was fortunate to survive it, I'm starting to worry that Cornell has actually just been really lucky this entire season. Our advanced stats (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/#adv) are not good. Meanwhile, the advanced stats of the other teams ranked highly in the PWR are almost universally strong--and in nearly every case better than ours. We've had this debate enough on here, but now we have a full season's sample of games to work with, and Corsi etc. really do seem highly correlated with overall success. Outside of the advanced stats, though, until this past weekend, we've looked pretty consistently good...
My theory on advanced stats is that they (at least, corsi/Fenwick) don't factor in shooting accuracy or goalie play. On the NHL level, where everyone can shoot accurately and all goalies are at least very good, this is less of an issue. But we've seen some Cornell teams that can't put the puck on net (oh, Cole bardreau, if only you could shoot) much at all.
A few legit snipers and a very good goalie make a big difference.
Then again, I haven't seen a single Cornell season without a good goalie (freshman scrivens / Davenport would probably be the low point), so it's hard to compare.
Yes, but shooting accuracy (something Cornell has never particularly excelled at) and goalie play (Gillam's save % is actually lower/the same as most other top teams' goalies) can't account for the (pretty big) disparity between Cornell's advanced stats and those of basically all the other teams around them in the PWR. That's not to say Gillam hasn't been very good--he probably saved us last weekend--but if we were truly limiting other teams' chances to shots from outside that Gillam can see, this would be reflected in a truly exceptional save %, instead of just a very good one.
Of course, Gillam might really be an average or above-average collegiate goaltender in terms of individual ability, in which case a very good save % would still be the result of limiting chances to low percentage shots. This doesn't change your point about the disparity in possession metrics but it does make a difference in how you view Cornell's chances of repeating these outcomes given a similar quality goaltender.
Personally, and as always based strictly on numbers, I suspect Cornell's record this season is on the lucky end - even if you allow for more systematic variance in advanced metrics in the college game such extreme outliers are always suspicious. How lucky has this season been, and how likely is Cornell to regress to the mean vs elevating its baseline, are the real questions. On the one hand, game to game Cornell has almost certainly been lucky to win as often as they have given the possession numbers. On the other hand, so many defensive injuries can really alter a team's play. It might very well be that with a healthy D the possession numbers would've been a lot better for this team, so their luck might've just balanced things out. No way to know, really, but hopefully we get to find out with a healthy team next year, and hopefully that team starts controlling possession to such an extent that they just win all of their games. Hey, I can hope, right?
Anyway, I got curious, so I looked up the advanced metrics for the last 3 years (all CHN has) - this year's team put up by far the highest PDO of the three - 103 even strength, 104.25 close. This is the strongest stats-based argument for the "this team was really lucky" position. For reference, last year's team - same goaltender and a lot of the same scorers - put up a 101.26 and 102 close PDO. Two years ago it was just below 98.4 even strength and 97.4 close, although of course the scoring personnel was quite different. Either this team has some kind of magical mix of NCAA-beating talent and execution in terms of scoring/save efficiency, or we should expect a PDO closer to 100 and a record more reflective of possession numbers next year. The smart money is on the latter - it's just hard to imagine a team that is so efficient when they have the puck and so effective at containing high quality scoring chances and yet does not control overall relative shot totals.
The strongest argument against "this team was really lucky" is this easily to understand metric we're overlooking (ECAC stats):
2015-16 2016-17
GPG 2.09 3.18
GAPG 2.27 2.32
Yes, I agree, higher-possession teams are more likely to be good. But we increased our ECAC scoring by over a full GPG. Over the course of a 22 game schedule, that's more than luck. That's a young group of forwards developing and building on their skills and adapting to the college game more. Most of our top scorers increased their output by nearly 2x. We're getting the puck in the net better than we were able to last season. We went from 10th in the league in scoring to 3rd, while remaining at the top in team defense.
Most interesting in the stats I looked at is that we're far and away the highest scoring team in the 1st period, and near the bottom in the 3rd.
I'm not saying it's all luck, I'm saying I'd expect GFA to come down next year unless the possession metrics improve. The tl,dr; of the below is that goals for is an inherently high variance metric just because of the relative rarity of goal scoring events, and therefore I don't expect it to be all that useful as a predictor of future success.
Let's look at the full season, just for the sake of completeness:
2015-16 2016-17
GPG 2.32 2.97
GAPG 2.41 2.18
One of the problems with the current crop of metrics in hockey is they require huge game samples to really be meaningful. That doesn't mean the metrics are not valuable, it just means you have to adjust your expectations for how much you can assert about a team's performance based on any of this, particularly in the college game. Team goal scoring across seasons is especially bad as a predictive metric since goals are relatively rare events.
Your 22 game goals for/goals against sample is, of course, meaningful as a description of past results, and I'm not going to deny that Cornell has had a marvelous season - I've thoroughly enjoyed following it on paper. However, the question was about whether or not Cornell can sustain this win rate, and I don't think looking at GFA tells us all that much given the sample size. Think about it - the difference between last season and this amounts to 22 goals over 34 games. 22 positive outcomes which are affected by a large number of factors, some of which are effectively random. Consider - this season, Cornell had 150 PP chances in 33 games compared with 97 in 34 games last season, and picked up 9 of those 22 goals on the PP despite a slightly lower conversion rate. Incidentally, that is another potentially interesting stat. Is Cornell drawing more penalties due to systemic improvements (i.e., forcing teams to take penalties or generally wearing them down such that they're behind the play) or is this just a lucky fluke? I have no idea.
Anyhow, here's a little sample size/variance illustration with an advanced metric. Consider PDO, which is save % plus shooting %. It tends to be 100 on a team level in the NHL, and although I haven't done real diligence, in my spot checking it seems to follow a similar trend in the college game. 22 games is about 1/4 of an NHL season. Why is that important? Because of the first table in this article: http://www.pensburgh.com/2010/6/23/1531707/pdo-and-what-it-means
You can see pretty extreme outlier behavior over an approximately 20 game sample, even in a league where the team level talent distribution is likely to be narrower than the college game. Those outliers tend to pull back towards the mean over the course of a larger sample of subsequent games. But - and this is important - PDO is measured across a much, much larger number of events than goals scored. The variance is naturally smaller, and yet you still see a lot of team-level variation over fairly substantial samples of games played.
Back to Cornell and goals scored this year: PDO + corsi doesn't tell you everything, because PDO is based on shots on goal and corsi is based on shot attempts. In Cornell's case, that's important - from eyeballing the shot metrics on CHN, it looks like Cornell's goal scoring increase over last year comes from both more shots on goal (927 of 1710 attempts vs 890 of 1762 attempts) and a higher shooting % (10.5 vs 8.9).
Based on what we know about shooting percentage (via PDO, which in Cornell's case amounts to the same thing - team save % has been just about .920 for each of the last three years) we should expect the latter to come down. Doesn't mean it will - maybe the current crop of forwards have a preternatural ability to convert shots into goals, or maybe they're just a lot better than most at finding the spaces where high shooting percentages happen - but most likely that will regress to the mean.
The shots on goal rate, that I don't know anything about, and that, to me, is the most interesting thing I'm seeing in Cornell's scoring increase. Is shots on goal as a fraction of total shot attempts something a team can reliably control, or is that also subject to a lot of random variance? Anybody know? Intuitively one would think it's more of a controllable thing than shot conversion, but I don't know.
The first vs third period effect you mention is also somewhat interesting. One possible explanation is fatigue, but another could be game score effects. If Cornell often carries a multi-goal lead into the third period we should expect fewer shots for and more shots against with, on average, a corresponding shift in goal scoring. I don't know if this is true because a) I don't care to do that tallying and b) I don't know what constitutes "often" anyway. One simple thing you could do to dig in is look at GF/GA in the third period conditioned on game state - if Cornell tends to score more when losing entering the third and less when leading, that'd be a good indication of strategic shifts rather than fatigue as the explanation for the goal scoring shift.
Disclaimer - I am not an advanced hockey stats expert and I'm actually not fully convinced by all of them - particularly PDO, which is just as ad hoc and nutty as OPS in baseball, although the latter has turned out to be very robust and the analyses I've seen of the former are promising. That said, they've been pretty useful to me in understanding how the team has been playing in the absence of the ability to actually watch games. I do know a bit about measuring probabilistic outcomes, so that's where most of my assertions around metric quality come from, but those assertions are based on general knowledge rather than domain specific expertise.