This Weekend, Mind Your Qs & Ps

[Al DeFlorio]

Actually makes sense when you consider the time spent at practice and the numbers of participants.  A football game runs about an hour of actual time with 22 competitors on the field, vs.  a two hour practice with most of a 44 man roster involved.  I'm surprised it's not higher.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and Donna.

Thanks.  And to you and Maggie.  Boys, too.

[css228]

I'm talking from a style point of view. This team has been relatively entertaining compared to Schafer's prior strategies but that wasn't a high bar to clear. They also haven't really been good. Their Corsi is only 47.9% at even strength and Fenwick only 48.8%. Do we really have to retread the same ground, or was last year's collapse enough to prove my point that playing a lot without the puck is not conducive to long term success?

OK, Mr. Pro NHL advanced metrics. Let's hash this out. I'm not completely DISAGREEING with you or saying the stats aren't useful, but my stance is that the sample size of college hockey will never be large enough to correlate to these incredibly well to performance.  Here's some of top teams in Fenwick, all > 54% (with KRACH listed parenthetically): RIT (41), Yale (51), Mich Tech (37), Wisconsin (20), Providence (29), Bowling Green (30), Northeastern (27), Dartmouth (33). More than half of the top 15 teams in Fenwick aren't registering anywhere close to top 15 in KRACH.  Basically I believe that the spread of skill that exists in the NCAA is much broader than in the professional leagues, and it's much more likely for a good Corsi team to have a bad record and vice versa.

Honestly, you're forcing me to look at college Corsi numbers for the first time in any sort of depth, and I'm kind of learning a bit. I don't think it will be anything I'll pay too close attention to going forward, because at this level, it's a boring stat for me. A fun test comes Dec 1-2 when the #1 Corsi team (63%) plays the third worst (40.8%).

The other problem with using the stats in the NCAA, and especially this early, is that we don't have enough games to make it valid. Aside from needing enough games, it depends upon who the teams have played. Teams play different defenses, and that can change the offensive style. Q often made us dump the puck in by controlling the blue line. Maybe later in the season we'll see a better correlation between outcome and metrics.

The second post here is a much better criticism of my argument. Besides if the sample is too small for Corsi and Fenwick at this point it is definitely too small for a stat like KRACH which depends on outcomes of games, of which there have been far fewer of than shot attempts. But just watch when we don't make the NCAAs again this year. Calling it now. Willing to eat crow if we get in  with a top 15 pairwise spot (no points for magical PDO fueled playoff runs).

[RichH]

But just watch when we don't make the NCAAs again this year. Calling it now. Willing to eat crow if we get in  with a top 15 pairwise spot (no points for magical PDO fueled playoff runs).

Oh wow, bold. Nobody here is boasting  that we're a lock for a top-15 slot. I think most of us would be pleased with being in the bubble discussion, considering the recent seasons. Incremental improvement.

[ugarte]

But just watch when we don't make the NCAAs again this year. Calling it now. Willing to eat crow if we get in  with a top 15 pairwise spot (no points for magical PDO fueled playoff runs).

Oh wow, bold. Nobody here is boasting  that we're a lock for a top-15 slot. I think most of us would be pleased with being in the bubble discussion, considering the recent seasons. Incremental improvement.

AND MAGICAL RUNS ARE MAGICAL FLAGS FLY FOREVER

[css228]

But just watch when we don't make the NCAAs again this year. Calling it now. Willing to eat crow if we get in  with a top 15 pairwise spot (no points for magical PDO fueled playoff runs).

Oh wow, bold. Nobody here is boasting  that we're a lock for a top-15 slot. I think most of us would be pleased with being in the bubble discussion, considering the recent seasons. Incremental improvement.

We finished ~20 last year in PWR if I remember correctly. Improvement in process would be ~50% ES possession. Improvement in results would basically put us in NCAAs. I see neither of those happening. And FWIW I'll call that we don't do either of those for the next two years as well.

[BearLover]

But just watch when we don't make the NCAAs again this year. Calling it now. Willing to eat crow if we get in  with a top 15 pairwise spot (no points for magical PDO fueled playoff runs).

Oh wow, bold. Nobody here is boasting  that we're a lock for a top-15 slot. I think most of us would be pleased with being in the bubble discussion, considering the recent seasons. Incremental improvement.

We were the first team out of the tournament two of the past three seasons.

[Trotsky]

I'm talking from a style point of view. This team has been relatively entertaining compared to Schafer's prior strategies but that wasn't a high bar to clear.

This is the last 4 years of Cornell.  Let's not backslide.

[css228]

I'm talking from a style point of view. This team has been relatively entertaining compared to Schafer's prior strategies but that wasn't a high bar to clear.

This is the last 4 years of Cornell.  Let's not backslide.

Even blind squirrels occasionally find a nut.