Ceramic Dalmatians, 2026-27

[adamw]

Sezenack's data suggested he was a below average goalie last year after accounting for the team he was on. He had a slightly negative goals saved ahove expected. (I don't know where this data comes from or how accurate it is; are people actually mapping every shot, including type of shot, that every college goalie faces, and it's all publicly available?)

It comes from people at the arena -> Genius software and pipeline -> College Hockey News

Which means, no, it's not extremely accurate, but collectively, ok enough to give a good picture.

[The Rancor]

Sezenack's data suggested he was a below average goalie last year after accounting for the team he was on. He had a slightly negative goals saved ahove expected. (I don't know where this data comes from or how accurate it is; are people actually mapping every shot, including type of shot, that every college goalie faces, and it's all publicly available?)

It comes from people at the arena -> Genius software and pipeline -> College Hockey News

Which means, no, it's not extremely accurate, but collectively, ok enough to give a good picture.

Hard to for the non hockey people to understand, but, you can be a good goalie, or skater, and it sometimes doesn't 100% show on a stat sheet. I'm pretty confident in Rousseau, I hope he gels in the locker room, and that the Roest and Katz get a shot, too. I'm sure one will see a game, or at least a period of pre-season. I love having a dominant starter, but a capable platoon is better- for both the internal competition, and the plan B.

[BearLover]

Sezenack's data suggested he was a below average goalie last year after accounting for the team he was on. He had a slightly negative goals saved ahove expected. (I don't know where this data comes from or how accurate it is; are people actually mapping every shot, including type of shot, that every college goalie faces, and it's all publicly available?)

It comes from people at the arena -> Genius software and pipeline -> College Hockey News

Which means, no, it's not extremely accurate, but collectively, ok enough to give a good picture.

I've seen people critique this data for not denoting shot type (slapshot, wrist shot, deflection, etc.). That seems to call into question the quality of the data, if true.

[stereax]

Sezenack's data suggested he was a below average goalie last year after accounting for the team he was on. He had a slightly negative goals saved ahove expected. (I don't know where this data comes from or how accurate it is; are people actually mapping every shot, including type of shot, that every college goalie faces, and it's all publicly available?)

It comes from people at the arena -> Genius software and pipeline -> College Hockey News

Which means, no, it's not extremely accurate, but collectively, ok enough to give a good picture.

Hard to for the non hockey people to understand, but, you can be a good goalie, or skater, and it sometimes doesn't 100% show on a stat sheet. I'm pretty confident in Rousseau, I hope he gels in the locker room, and that the Roest and Katz get a shot, too. I'm sure one will see a game, or at least a period of pre-season. I love having a dominant starter, but a capable platoon is better- for both the internal competition, and the plan B.

We have an inter-team scrimmage so I'd assume one or both play in that, just based off, you know, counting.

[The Rancor]

 
[/quote]
We have an inter-team scrimmage so I'd assume one or both play in that, just based off, you know, counting.
[/quote]

Haha, well, yes. I was thinking maybe against Waterloo. But, Katz & Roest vs Rousseau would be fun.

[arugula]

I think we'll be good this year. I don't know why everyone is acting like Rousseau is some midget who's a total bum. He played for canadas world junior team and is the same height as many goalies who we've made look real good in the past. I think he has a save percentage around .920.

I'm sure he'll do well with us! I'm not saying he's a midget or a bum. Just that he's shorter than Cournoyer (and short for a goalie), and that his results last year were so-so (but part of it can be attributed to the team he was on). I think .910 is a reasonable aspiration; if he hits .920 it's DC season.

You sound like me when I would grouse about Shane's smaller stature.  Then we got a tall one and I missed Shane.  So who knows?

[ugarte]

Sezenack's data suggested he was a below average goalie last year after accounting for the team he was on. He had a slightly negative goals saved ahove expected. (I don't know where this data comes from or how accurate it is; are people actually mapping every shot, including type of shot, that every college goalie faces, and it's all publicly available?)

It comes from people at the arena -> Genius software and pipeline -> College Hockey News

Which means, no, it's not extremely accurate, but collectively, ok enough to give a good picture.

I've seen people critique this data for not denoting shot type (slapshot, wrist shot, deflection, etc.). That seems to call into question the quality of the data, if true.

so analyze the data for validity by measuring how well past performance predicts future results. "people say" doesn't call anything into question at more than an extremely superficial level.

[arugula]

I'm sure he'll do well with us! I'm not saying he's a midget or a bum. Just that he's shorter than Cournoyer (and short for a goalie) . . .

The goalie for the only undefeated D1 NCAA championship hockey team was 5'6" Brian Cropper.

It was the system.

It was, but also very different times, 6'3" or 4" Dryden notwithstanding.  Even into the 80's NHL goalies like Vanbiesbrouck and Fuhr were well under 6 feet.  Maybe not 5'6" but Eddie Giacomin was 5'8."  People were smaller in those days.  Must've been the smoking and scotch.

[BearLover]

Sezenack's data suggested he was a below average goalie last year after accounting for the team he was on. He had a slightly negative goals saved ahove expected. (I don't know where this data comes from or how accurate it is; are people actually mapping every shot, including type of shot, that every college goalie faces, and it's all publicly available?)

It comes from people at the arena -> Genius software and pipeline -> College Hockey News

Which means, no, it's not extremely accurate, but collectively, ok enough to give a good picture.

I've seen people critique this data for not denoting shot type (slapshot, wrist shot, deflection, etc.). That seems to call into question the quality of the data, if true.

so analyze the data for validity by measuring how well past performance predicts future results. "people say" doesn't call anything into question at more than an extremely superficial level.

No, you misunderstand. The "people say" part refers to the claim I've seen people make that college hockey shot data does not include the type of shot. I don't have a way to verify that claim because I don't have access to the data.

Assuming the claim is true, i.e. the data does not include the type of shot, then the data might be of low quality, though I'm not certain. That is based on my own guess, not on what "people say."

There's the claim about the data lacking shot type, and then separately there's the question of whether the data is worth considering, assuming it is lacking in shot type.

[Trotsky]

We have NPI.

Code Select Expand

# Team (W-L-T) Our Dates
 6 Qpc (3-1-0) 11/6, @1/16
 7 Uni (2-0-0) @1/8, 2/27
23 Clk (1-1-0) 11/20, @2/6
29 RPI (1-1-0) @1/9, 2/26
35 Cgt (0-2-0) 1/29, @1/30
56 SLU (0-3-0) 11/21, @2/5