Cornell 2005-2006 - My Opinion

[Ben Rocky '04]

Not wanting to open up another fight about him, but wasn't that O'Byrne?

[Lauren '06]

[quote Ben Rocky 04]Not wanting to open up another fight about him, but wasn't that O'Byrne?[/quote]
No, it was definitely Pokulok.  He passed the puck left and it went on the stick of the Princeton player, then tried to catch up to him to interrupt the breakaway, but didn't succeed.

[Steve M]

[quote Trotsky]
Can't get too grumpy about 1 loss in 10 games.  A bad night happens.  If it carries over to next weekend, okay, make a fuss.  But for now, this is most likely just a bump.[/quote]

I'll bet Schafer isn't very happy either.  Only 1 loss in 10 games sounds great, but a 7-1-2 record is actually disappointing when none of the 10 opponents is a top 30 KRACH team, and the loss drops Cornell to 17th in the PWR during a season in which the team's goal from the outset was not just an ECAC championship, but an NCAA title.  Who knows, maybe the team is bored from its easy schedule and the arrival of SLU next week will get them going.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote Trotsky]
Who knows, maybe the team is bored from its easy schedule and the arrival of SLU next week will get them going.[/quote]

Bored, I sure as heck hope not. But at least it'll be nice to have a good late season test run with a SLU x 2, Clarkson x 2, Colgate x 2, Dartmouth, and Harvard as 8 of our last 12 games.

It'll also be relatively nice to have our SOS probably increase as we go - since our conference schedule so far has consisted of Princeton x 2, QU x 2, Yale, Brown, RPI, Union, Harvard, and Dartmouth - instead of our typical SOS slide as we hit the conference schedule.

One thing's for sure, the next 6 weeks will show if this team can get it together and fulfill their potential, or if they'll sputter to a disappointing end.

[jtwcornell91]

[quote Steve M]
I'll bet Schafer isn't very happy either.  Only 1 loss in 10 games sounds great, but a 7-1-2 record is actually disappointing when none of the 10 opponents is a top 30 KRACH team.[/quote]

7-1-2 is 16 points in 10 games, which we'd expect if we were four times as good as our average opponent over that stretch.  Of course, our average opponent over that stretch was not so good, so out of curiosity I used the DIY script (versatile, isn't it?) to work out what KRACH that 7-1-2 performance corresponds to.

Since those 10 games include the RIT game, I included them in the mix: http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/2006/cgi-bin/rankings.cgi?dispPWR=true;dispKRACH=true;PWCdetails=true;PCTweight=25;OPPweight=50;OOPweight=25;topqual=15;homebon=.0010;neutbon=.0020;roadbon=.0030;rpifudge=playoff;PWCtb=RPI;PWCtbwt=0;PWCh2hwt=0;PWCh2h=per%20game;PWCtucwt=0;TUCdefcrit=rpi;TUCdefrel=ge;TUCdefcut=.500;PWCtuccrit=pct;PWCtucomit=true;PWClastwt=1;PWClastnum=10;PWClastcrit=hhwp;PWCcomwt=0;PWCcommingm=1;PWCcommintm=1;PWCcomcrit=pct;scoresel=current;scores=;includeRIT=true and came up with a KRACH of 244.9 (look at the comparison grid).  That's better than our overall KRACH of 191.6 (again including RIT) and would be good enough for #9 in the nation and an RRWP of over .680.

If you exclude RIT (so we're 6-1-2 in the last nine games that count) http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/2006/cgi-bin/rankings.cgi?dispPWR=true;dispKRACH=true;PWCdetails=true;PCTweight=25;OPPweight=50;OOPweight=25;topqual=15;homebon=.0010;neutbon=.0020;roadbon=.0030;rpifudge=playoff;PWCtb=RPI;PWCtbwt=0;PWCh2hwt=0;PWCh2h=per%20game;PWCtucwt=0;TUCdefcrit=rpi;TUCdefrel=ge;TUCdefcut=.500;PWCtuccrit=pct;PWCtucomit=true;PWClastwt=1;PWClastnum=9;PWClastcrit=hhwp;PWCcomwt=0;PWCcommingm=1;PWCcommintm=1;PWCcomcrit=pct;scoresel=current;scores= you get a KRACH of 223.0 compared to our actual 178.7.  Our KRACH based on our performance over those 9 games would make us #13 with an RRWP around .660.

[Steve M]

Thanks for crunching the numbers John.  So Cornell's play over the last 10 games is at least NCAA tourney worthy, but not Frozen Four likely.  That at least meets my post mid-November hopes.

[KeithK]

I think the lesson is that even though we think our team should sweep everyone in the bottom half of the standings, it doesn't usually work out that way.  The odds are against it.

[Robb]

[quote KeithK]I think the lesson is that even though we think our team should sweep everyone in the bottom half of the standings, it doesn't usually work out that way.  The odds are against it.[/quote]
Good point.  We play 11 ECAC teams, so figure the bottom half is 11 games (2 each against the bottom 5, and count one of the games against #6).  Even if we had a 90% of winning each of those games, we'd only have a 31% chance of winning all of them (.9^10).  To be good enough to even have a 50-50 shot at sweeping the bottom half of the league, you'd have to be good enough to have a 94% chance of winning each game (.5^(1/11)).

[KeithK]

Anyone have a composite schedule for 1970?  I'm curious how unlikely 29-0-0 was according to KRACH (using the fictitious team fix for perfection, of course).

[Trotsky]

[quote KeithK]I think the lesson is that even though we think our team should sweep everyone in the bottom half of the standings, it doesn't usually work out that way.  The odds are against it.[/quote]
Here's the h2h by rank of opponent: http://www.tbrw.info/ecac/ecac_h2hbyyear.html

2005 was an exceptional year: Cornell swept the bottom 7 teams in the standings.  Here are the totals x/y/z, x the number of teams swept starting from the bottom of the standings, y the total number of teams below Cornell swept, z the total number of teams below Cornell:

86: 2/5/9
87: 1/2/3
88: 4/6/9
89: 2/3/7
90: 0/3/9
91: 2/3/10
92: 0/1/7
93: 1/1/1 easy to be perfect when you finish 11th...
94: 2/2/4
95: 1/1/3
---------
96: 1/4/8
97: 2/5/10
98: 0/0/4
99: 1/2/5
00: 0/2/7 not counting Elephant Walk
01: 1/2/8
02: 2/7/11
03: 4/8/11
04: 3/5/10
05: 7/7/11

[ithacat]

[quote Will]
I would argue that most of Moulson's goals this year are goals that most of our forwards should be able to score as well.  And yet, they're not, it would seem.  Moulson's presence would appear to not be solving the problems of the overall offense, and dependence on Moulson to score 1/4 of our goals may even be promoting stagnation in others' scoring attempts.  I have to wonder if Moulson's eventual departure will help to serve as the kick in the pants Cornell needs to get their offense going once again.  Of course, this is all wildly speculative on my part, I admit.[/quote]

I hope you're right. Of course, I'd like to see more than one goal scorer on this team. If they're waiting for next year, it may be here quicker than most of us would like.