http://www.elynah.com/?editorial&id=23
I fast forwarded straight to the score predictions...good work, Ari--no shutout predictions! ;-)
Age and Ari, thanks so much for producing these Cornell hockey columns! I can't get enough of Cornell hockey and it always seems like Juan Martinez gives us the cold shoulder unless he would get embarrassed for ignoring our big games.
Nice column and most everyone agrees Cornell's work ethic pays off. At the same time, so does luck. If you win say two-thirds of your close games then maybe you are good and not just lucky. Right now we're sort of unlucky in games of one goal or less - the OT win against Union offset by three one-goal losses to Dartmouth, BC (plus an ENG), and Harvard, plus two OT ties. We have 4 of a possible 12 points.
Sabermetricians in baseball often point out that winning or losing one run games is mostly a matter of luck. Great teams don't win all the close the ones, as some say, but instead make sure a lot of games are not close (win by several runs). Stats do seem to point to this conclusion.
Hockey's a different sport and the style of play that Cornell employs will, I think, tend to result in more close games. (The LA Dodgers of 2003, as much of a pitching defense team as any in recent memeory, was still a lot more likely to post a 10-2 win on any given night than Cornell hockey is.) However, I suspect the close-game-are-luck idea still comes into play here, albeit to a lesser degree. If your lead is one goal then a bad bounce, a break or a short stretch of bad play can cost you the game pretty quickly (see the game at Vermont). The best way to win a lot of games is not to win the close ones. It's to to make sure games aren't that close. (Note: I'm not playing the Chief's role here. In the Cornell hockey context a two goal lead can make a big difference.)
Call "close games" those which are within a +/-1 goal margin with less than 10 minutes to play in regulation.
T 1-1 at Michigan State
T 2-2 at Vermont
L 1-2 at Dartmouth
W 5-3 Princeton (4-3 with 8:50 to play)
L 2-4 vs BC (2-3 with 1:08 to play)
W 4-3 vs Maine
L 0-1 at Harvard
W 2-1 at Union
Record in close games: 3-3-2
The only games which have changed state at any point within the third period or overtime are:
T 2-2 at Vermont (blew at 2-0 lead in the third) Net point loss: 1
L 1-2 at Dartmouth (blew a 1-1 tie in overtime) Net point loss: 1
L 2-4 vs BC (blew a 2-2 tie in the third) Net point loss: 1
L 0-1 at Harvard (blew a 0-0 tie in the third) Net point loss: 1
W 2-1 at Union (overcame a 1-1 tie in overtime) Net point gain: 1
So that might be a cause for concern: a net point loss of 3 in the third period and overtime for the season. In fact, prior to the Union win, in 16 games Cornell was 0-3-1 in games which changed state compared to 10-1-1 in games which remained stable.
Best use of "chang[ed] state" outside of physics or chemisty I've heard lately. You're right that a game that's close in the third period or with 10 minutes to go is probably a better indication of a close game than the final score. And by that measure also our record is less than stellar.
Keith noted that one-run / one-goal games are often a matter of luck. A 9-8 game may be more a matter of luck than a 2-1 game but they're equally scary because it's still one breakaway or lucky wrist shot away from being tied.
Funny how being ahead 4-2 in the third seems a fragile lead, and being behind by the same score seems to be insurmountable.