The Team this year seems to have alot of Players who play day in, day out solid as a rock. they just do there job, without the recognition that they truely deserve. Everyone hears about Moulson's goals, Mckee's shutouts, and Iggulden's shorthanded miracles.
who is the teams unsung hero? there are alot of them. My Vote goes to Daniel Pegoraro. Pegs works hard every night, plays with confidence and presence in all three zones. He may not score alot of goals, but he gets a fair number of assists.
what does everyone think?
-Perk
Pegoraro is a good choice, but I would give that title to Jeremy Downs. We're gonna miss him next year.
Without hesitation, I choose Chris Abbott. He takes a less offensive role to play his role and does it in outstanding fashion every night. Takes a ton of defensive zone faceoffs and works his ass off every shift. He plays minutes against offensive lines and shuts them down and kills penalties. Pegoraro and Downs would also be considerations, but I definitely go with Abbott.
I was just thinking this weekend how valuable Pegs really is. He was crappy last year for sure, but he has improved his game significantly and is probably the overall most improved from last season.
[Q]Will Wrote:
I was just thinking this weekend how valuable Pegs really is. He was crappy last year for sure, but he has improved his game significantly and is probably the overall most improved from last season.[/q]
After the drunken Clarkson student section started ripping into him last night, I tried to pay more attention to his play to see if what they said was merited. He lacks finish and makes more than a few noticable bad plays, especially in the defensive end last night. I do think he deserves to be in the lineup more than the usual scratches, though.
well, I can't speak for what happened last night because I wasn't there. But I think he is a good player. Abbot, and Downs are both worthy mentions too.
what about mike knopfli thats who i would give my vote to.
I'm guessing it aint Davenport.
I am with you on that one. I would even go as far as to say that Chabot is more valuable than Davenport.
[Q]jhgbn Wrote:
what about mike knopfli thats who i would give my vote to.[/q]Knoepfli is great but I have a hard time calling the team captain an "unsung" hero. ;-)
[Q]Dpperk29 Wrote:
I am with you on that one. I would even go as far as to say that Chabot is more valuable than Davenport.[/q]
you better believe it, bub. hes our only back up this year and next.
[Q]The Rancor Wrote:
[Q2]Dpperk29 Wrote:
I am with you on that one. I would even go as far as to say that Chabot is more valuable than Davenport.[/Q]
you better believe it, bub. hes our only back up this year and next. [/q]
Do we know for a fact that there won't be another goalie recruited for next year?
How about Varteressian? Seems to always work hard, makes some clutch plays, has a very tough job, and he's hardly "sung."
hahah, exactly what i was thinking.
[Q]Will Wrote:
[Q2]The Rancor Wrote:
[Q2]Dpperk29 Wrote:
I am with you on that one. I would even go as far as to say that Chabot is more valuable than Davenport.[/Q]
you better believe it, bub. hes our only back up this year and next. [/Q]
Do we know for a fact that there won't be another goalie recruited for next year?[/q]
No, they have been looking for a goalie for next year and almost got one, but he committed elsewhere. I'd imagine they're still looking.
I don't know if Varteressian would be considered an unsung hero because I don't really think he does that much. Obviously there is no right answer to this question, but I'd give my vote to Carefoot. Great on the PK and on the forecheck.
Gotta be Chabot .... look at that hair!!!!!!!!
Couldn't have worded my thoughts better myself about special K.
As for pegs, he had a pretty good freshman year, struggled last year, seems to be pulling things together a bit this year. Does he suck, no, but there are many other players that i would place as the unsung hero. My vote would be either abbott or downs. Until Iggy got named as the shorthanded hero, and got his 5 (i think?) gwg i would have put him down because of his defensive contributions. But lately he's gotten a more deserving amount of praise so he doesn't fit the bill now either.
Maybe Carefoot?
[Q]Will Wrote:
[Q2]The Rancor Wrote:
[Q2]Dpperk29 Wrote:
I am with you on that one. I would even go as far as to say that Chabot is more valuable than Davenport.[/Q]
you better believe it, bub. hes our only back up this year and next. [/Q]
Do we know for a fact that there won't be another goalie recruited for next year?[/q]
we dont. its a guess mostly. i think all the best of the best goalies are taken right now. and this is cornell hockey. goaltender u. no new goalie next year unless they can get someone like marr off of transfer.
[Q]i think all the best of the best goalies are taken right now. and this is cornell hockey. goaltender u.[/q]
Which makes me ask again how Chabot slipped through the cracks and onto our bench. Was Schafer out for somebody who would be a back up for life, a. k. a. never good enough to quit the team (see Davenport for reference), or did they honestly expect him to perform better? God willing nothing happens to McKee, Chabot will graduate next year with what... something like 8 minutes of career playing time? Yow.
[Q]Section A Banshee Wrote:
God willing nothing happens to McKee, Chabot will graduate next year with what... something like 8 minutes of career playing time? Yow.[/q]
Maybe he'll start Senior Night
:-)
[Q]Jordan 04 Wrote:
[Q2]Section A Banshee Wrote:
God willing nothing happens to McKee, Chabot will graduate next year with what... something like 8 minutes of career playing time? Yow.[/Q]
Maybe he'll start Senior Night
[/q]
Schafer didn't even let Marr start senior night last year and Marr wasn't bad at all.
But things were undecided at that point. I could see him starting Chabot if the win/loss doesn't affect seedings for the playoffs.
But say if we've say already locked up 1st place in the league going into the last home game, i could see Chabot getting the start for the amount of loyalty he's shown to the team. Sure, he's no Mckee, Lenevue, Underhill, etc. but he has had the loyalty to the TEAM (as the practice jerseys say don't they?) to stick around even without getting playing time. Thats more than someone did a couple years ago who got a lot of playing time. Or someone this year who didn't get much playing time although more playing time in his first semester than Chabot has gotten in his three years.
[Q]Section A Banshee Wrote:
God willing nothing happens to McKee, Chabot will graduate next year with what... something like 8 minutes of career playing time? Yow.[/q]
Then again, he would have a better career GAA and sv% than McKee. Or LeNeveu and Dryden, for that matter.
:-)
[Q]puff Wrote:
But things were undecided at that point. I could see him starting Chabot if the win/loss doesn't affect seedings for the playoffs.
[/q]
We already have a test case for this -- last Saturday night. With Cornell having already wrapped up the top spot in the ECACHL, the game against Clarkson was essentially meaningless for the Big Red as far as playoff seeding was concerned. McKee got the start, as he should have. The thing is, while a loss would have had no effect on Cornell's seeding in the ECACHL playoffs, it would have adversely affected the Big Red's potential seeding in the NCAA's.
Now, had the team been comfortably ahead, and had McKee not been working on another shutout, I could maybe see Chabot going in for the last five or ten minutes of the game, as Davenport did against Army.
I agree that Chabot should get some sort of recognition for the dedication and loyalty he has shown to the team, but if McKee is able to play and is not in the middle of some unimaginably hideous slump, McKee should be starting.
True, there may be no precedent for starting Chabot simply because he is a senior.
Although, I don't believe Schafer completely ignores sentimental factors. Pajerski did play (start?) at the end of last year in what certainly seemed to be a pat-on-the-back move by coach.
[Q]Jordan 04 Wrote:
True, there may be no precedent for starting Chabot simply because he is a senior.
Although, I don't believe Schafer completely ignores sentimental factors. Pajerski did play (start?) at the end of last year in what certainly seemed to be a pat-on-the-back move by coach.[/q]
Unfortunately for Chabot, the starting goaltender is slightly more crucial to winning than the sixth defenseman. I would love to see him start just once, though... maybe in next year's exhibition game? Just to see how he plays, and maybe if he's as horrible as his current playing time seems to dictate.
[Q]Section A Banshee Wrote:
[Q2]Jordan 04 Wrote:
True, there may be no precedent for starting Chabot simply because he is a senior.
Although, I don't believe Schafer completely ignores sentimental factors. Pajerski did play (start?) at the end of last year in what certainly seemed to be a pat-on-the-back move by coach.[/Q]
Unfortunately for Chabot, the starting goaltender is slightly more crucial to winning than the sixth defenseman. I would love to see him start just once, though... maybe in next year's exhibition game? Just to see how he plays, and maybe if he's as horrible as his current playing time seems to dictate.[/q]His current playing time doesn't dictate anything. McKee's numbers dictate Chabot's playing time.
[q]Which makes me ask again how Chabot slipped through the cracks and onto our bench. [/q]Recruiting is an inexact science. There have been lots of players who have come to Cornell with some expectation of success and haven't panned out. Goaltenders are no different.
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
[Q2]Section A Banshee Wrote:
[Q2]Jordan 04 Wrote:
True, there may be no precedent for starting Chabot simply because he is a senior.
Although, I don't believe Schafer completely ignores sentimental factors. Pajerski did play (start?) at the end of last year in what certainly seemed to be a pat-on-the-back move by coach.[/Q]
Unfortunately for Chabot, the starting goaltender is slightly more crucial to winning than the sixth defenseman. I would love to see him start just once, though... maybe in next year's exhibition game? Just to see how he plays, and maybe if he's as horrible as his current playing time seems to dictate.[/Q]
His current playing time doesn't dictate anything. McKee's numbers dictate Chabot's playing time.[/q]
If he's as bad as some of us seem to think, then. I amend my statement.
IIRC, several times Schafer has started an all senior lineup for introductions, only to revert to regular lines when the game starts. Schafer could start Chabot for the same reason and then pull him at the first stoppage. I doubt he would do it though - afraid of messing up McKee somehow by breaking the routine.
[Q]ugarte Wrote:
[Q2]Section A Banshee Wrote:
[Q2]Jordan 04 Wrote:
True, there may be no precedent for starting Chabot simply because he is a senior.
Although, I don't believe Schafer completely ignores sentimental factors. Pajerski did play (start?) at the end of last year in what certainly seemed to be a pat-on-the-back move by coach.[/Q]
Unfortunately for Chabot, the starting goaltender is slightly more crucial to winning than the sixth defenseman. I would love to see him start just once, though... maybe in next year's exhibition game? Just to see how he plays, and maybe if he's as horrible as his current playing time seems to dictate.[/Q]
His current playing time doesn't dictate anything. McKee's numbers dictate Chabot's playing time.[/q]
exactly. plus who do you think is the other goalie in practice? he sees plenty of quality shots during the week. as i've said before, if he couldn't do the job, he wouldn't be here. i'm not saying he's some how slighted, because as we all know, mckee and lenny were both amazing, are amazing, and chabbot is the clear #2 at this point in his and mckee's career. but who in the NCAAs isn't second or worse then our #1 (well, #31)
[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote: No, they [Conrell] have been looking for a goalie for next year and almost got one, but he committed elsewhere. I'd imagine they're still looking.[/q]
From what you've heard, how problematic is it in recruiting a goalie that he's unlikely to see ice time until junior year - given McKee appears headed toward breaking Lou Gehrig's record?
There was discussion elsehwhere (here? USCHO?) that players have much better information about team quality and depth, and so if say a team has four quality centers who are freshmen-through-junior, that tends to make a good HS or Junior center look elsewhere.
If Schafer brings in a goalie this fall after losing his #1 choice, it sounds as if he's really going to be hunting *hard* for a goalie two years from now and that means anyone who comes in next fall as an insurance goalie is going to be opening and closing the bench door a lot, if that.
[q]given McKee appears headed toward breaking Lou Gehrig's record?[/q]Gehrig played hockey? I guess we did play the Lions back in 1921. Maybe Larrupin' Lou was in goal for Cornell's 7-3 win...
And the Columbia club team is being coached somehow by Alexei Kasotonov, former CCCP Red Army star defensman.
http://www.collegesports.com/cgi-bin/csvideo.cgi?schools=&sport=ICE+HOCKEY+-+MEN%27S
Right now, the video is 3rd from the bottom.
Also, some articles in the Columbia paper:
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/14/416e3c1fd8040
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/14/416e3e55d9fe5
[Q]"I know it's not easy to be a player and a student. First it's about academics," he said. "But there are examples like Harvard or Cornell that have top-level academics as well as good hockey teams. Why not Columbia? Especially that it's New York City, which has a great tradition with the New York Rangers."[/Q]
No knock on Jan, but he started due to suspensions and injuries to Cornell's starters. Additionally, he was a junior last season, so the start wasn't for sentimental reasons as your post implies. Schafer plays his best available players.
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
[Q2]calgARI '07 Wrote: No, they have been looking for a goalie for next year and almost got one, but he committed elsewhere. I'd imagine they're still looking.[/Q]
From what you've heard, how problematic is it in recruiting a goalie that he's unlikely to see ice time until junior year - given McKee appears headed toward breaking Lou Gehrig's record?
There was discussion elsehwhere (here? USCHO?) that players have much better information about team quality and depth, and so if say a team has four quality centers who are freshmen-through-junior, that tends to make a good HS or Junior center look elsewhere.
If Schafer brings in a goalie this fall after losing his #1 choice, it sounds as if he's really going to be hunting *hard* for a goalie two years from now and that means anyone who comes in next fall as an insurance goalie is going to be opening and closing the bench door a lot, if that.
[/q]
I think that McKee's successor will be a freshman in '06. I'm thinking the reason the recently lost goalie chose the school he did was because their current number one will be a senior next season. It's a pretty tough sell to any top notch goalie that he isn't going to be the full time starter until he's a junior. Even though it seems like McKee won't move, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a freshman goalie in '06 get some games if he is legit as LeNeveu did with Underhill. I still expect a goalie of average caliber to come in next season to at least be the third goalie (more likely the backup though) and then he would battle the '06 freshman for the backup spot when McKee is a senior.
I thought Schafer usually liked to play goalies in tandem anyway. He just needs to find another goalie at or above McKee's level.
[Q]Will Wrote:
I thought Schafer usually liked to play goalies in tandem anyway. He just needs to find another goalie at or above McKee's level.[/q]Sounds like a good plan to me. Any idea where we can find one? :-P
[Q]Will Wrote:
I thought Schafer usually liked to play goalies in tandem anyway. He just needs to find another goalie at or above McKee's level.[/q]
That may take a while.
The optimal outcome, IMHO, would be a pair of strong freshmen in Fall '06, who would then have one season of light duty to break in and then three years to push one another / share the burden. A pair like Harvard's national championship team of Allain Roy and Chuckie Hughes (or the Cornell duo of Corrie D'Alessio and Jim Crozier) would be just fine.
you know. something just hit me, what about Jon Gleed as the unsung hero? he plays solid day in and say out, doesn;t make alot of mistakes, just an all around good player.
[Q]Dpperk29 Wrote:
you know. something just hit me, what about Jon Gleed as the unsung hero? he plays solid day in and say out, doesn;t make alot of mistakes, just an all around good player.[/q]Not a bad call. He's displayed a lot of offensive confidence as well.
basically what it comes down to, is this team is not full of heros. This team is full of good players who do there jobs game in, game out. some get the credit, some don't. but the team does not rely on one person.
Goalies are like quarterbacks: Next to impossible to have two great ones at the same time. One of the two will demand a trade (pro QB) ... leave school ... not come to the school.
Conversely, you can have 2-3 great pitchers with no problem and the only question is who gets the Game 1-4-7 starting call.
[q]Conversely, you can have 2-3 great pitchers with no problem and the only question is who gets the Game 1-4-7 starting call.[/q]Not even 1-4-7 anymore as pitchers these days are too weenie to start on three days rest.
[Q]Will Wrote:
I thought Schafer usually liked to play goalies in tandem anyway. He just needs to find another goalie at or above McKee's level.[/q]
I don't know if a tandem is Coach Schafer's preference. The only time in his ten seasons here that he's had a rotation for the whole year (at least until the playoffs) was in 2001-02 with Underhill and LeNeveu. Other times (Skazyk-Elliott, Elliott-Pelletier, Underhill-Burt) the goalies would more or less rotate until late January, at which time one of them would be picked for the stretch run and playoffs. That said, I have no doubt that if there were a goaltender on the Cornell roster who was as capable as McKee, that guy would be playing.
[Q]fenwick Wrote:
I don't know if a tandem is Coach Schafer's preference. The only time in his ten seasons here that he's had a rotation for the whole year (at least until the playoffs) was in 2001-02 with Underhill and LeNeveu. Other times (Skazyk-Elliott, Elliott-Pelletier, Underhill-Burt) the goalies would more or less rotate until late January, at which time one of them would be picked for the stretch run and playoffs. That said, I have no doubt that if there were a goaltender on the Cornell roster who was as capable as McKee, that guy would be playing.[/q]
I believe there was a decent rotation between Burt and Underhill in 1999-2000 as well. According to USCHO, that season Burt played 15 games and Underhill played 17.
[Q]Will Wrote:
I believe there was a decent rotation between Burt and Underhill in 1999-2000 as well. According to USCHO, that season Burt played 15 games and Underhill played 17.[/q]
That started out as a rotation until the Yale game in December when Burt, who was 1-4 at the time, got yanked with two minutes left. Underhill played the month of January, but after he had two poor performances against Colgate, Burt was back in the rotation. Then they traded games until Underhill faced Dartmouth at the end of February (one of those odd Sunday games, thank you Vermont) and let in the first two shots he saw in the second period. Burt then played the rest of the way, except for the ECAC consolation, which was Chris Gartman's first start.
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Not even 1-4-7 anymore as pitchers these days are too weenie to start on three days rest.[/q]
King George will pay me $10M a year whether I make 32 starts or 40 (or Wilbur Wood's 50). If I make 32 my career lasts into my 40's (if I'm a lefty, god knows how long) while if I make 40 I risk blowing my arm out in my early 30's (unless I'm Nolan "Sid Finch Freakjob" Ryan). Which is my max market return?
Sad day when Trotsky has to lecture the arch-capitalist on economic self-interest. ;-)
Having said which, I do miss the days of 1-4-7 for the ace, 2-5-"ready in the bullpen in 7" for the #2, and 3-6 "hold your breath."
[q]Sad day when Trotsky has to lecture the arch-capitalist on economic self-interest. [/q]As I've demonstrated several times before, my capitalist streak consistently takes a back seat when baseball is concerned. Anyway, I'd argue that 1-4-7 in the playoffs gives no significant increase in injury chances while possibly increasing your reputation as a "big-game pitcher", therefore improving market value.
I still think the 5 man rotation is lame.
[Q]Trotsky Wrote:
Having said which, I do miss the days of 1-4-7 for the ace, 2-5-"ready in the bullpen in 7" for the #2, and 3-6 "hold your breath."
[/q]
It's always fun when the rotation gets shot to hell and someone like Schilling or Johnson has to come in and perform some Herculean feat to beat the Yankees. :-D
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
I still think the 5 man rotation is lame. [/q]
Me too, in spades; I was just pointing out where (I think) it comes from. I'd like to think pitchers could switch gears from every 5th to every 4th day for the playoffs, but I don't remember too many teams going with a four man rotation after going with five all year, even the ones who really should have.
Maybe Houston '86 did. It seemed like every time the Mets turned around they were facing Mike "I don't hate you for cheating, I hate you for starting to cheat after we traded your lame ass" Scott.
It seems to me that switching to a four man rotation in the post-season was the norm through the 80's and only changed at some point during the 90s. But I'd need to do some digging to prove or disprove that recollection.
What about Herschiser (sp?). Didn't he have a series where he started a few games and closed a few others?
[Q]Anne 85 Wrote:
What about Herschiser (sp?). Didn't he have a series where he started a few games and closed a few others? [/q]I believe you're talking about the 1988 NLCS, in which Hershiser pitched 8 innings of shutout ball in game 1 (but his team lost because Jay Howell gave up 3 runs in the 9th), 7 innings in game 3 four days later, closed game 4 the next day, then pitched a complete game shutout in game 7 three days after that.
Then, four days later, Hershiser pitched another complete game shutout in game 2 of the World Series, and closed out the Series with another complete game in game 5 four days after that.
Hershiser was MVP of both series and was a unanimous choice for the NL Cy Young Award. He also won a Gold Glove.
That bastard... the Mets would've won another World Series if it weren't for him. :-(
[Q]jmh30 Wrote:
That bastard... the Mets would've won another World Series if it weren't for him. [/q]
Even with him, the real villain was either Mike Scioscia or Dwight Gooden's connection.
[Q]Trotsky Wrote:
[Q2]jmh30 Wrote:
That bastard... the Mets would've won another World Series if it weren't for him. [/Q]
Even with him, the real villain was either Mike Scioscia or Dwight Gooden's connection.
[/q]
I always thought it was David Cone, for mouthing off about the Dodgers in the newspaper.
[Q]RichH Wrote:
And the Columbia club team is being coached somehow by Alexei Kasotonov, former CCCP Red Army star defensman.
Right now, the video is 3rd from the bottom.
Also, some articles in the Columbia paper:
[Q2]"I know it's not easy to be a player and a student. First it's about academics," he said. "But there are examples like Harvard or Cornell that have top-level academics as well as good hockey teams. Why not Columbia? Especially that it's New York City, which has a great tradition with the New York Rangers."[/Q]
Edited 1 times. Last edit at 02/28/05 06:32PM by RichH.[/q]
Speaking of the Rangers, Mike Richter hanging out with the Yale team didn't seem to help them much this season.
:-P