Cornell Goaltenders

[WillCMJr]

Troy Davenport  1 0  0 1 7:48 0
               EMPTY NET     0 0:05 0
             Troy Davenport  1 0  0 1 6:57 0
               EMPTY NET     0 0:18 0
             Troy Davenport  0 0  0 0 1:02 0
               EMPTY NET     0 0:03 0
 Troy Davenport (L, 11-5-2)  1 9 4 14 43:47 5

It's separated by times he came out of the net for extra attacker.  That last line is not a total, it's the last 43:47 of the game.  Add the columns.

[WillCMJr]

Cornell in the last 9 games:

Scrivens 2-2-1 .932 1.98GAA - Offensive Production 2.4 Goals/Game

Davenport 3-1  .915 2.5GAA  - Offensive Production 4.25 Goals/Game


Scrivens has been the better goalie, but the offense has just been better on Davenport's nights.

[Chris '03]

[quote WillCMJr]Cornell in the last 9 games:

Scrivens 2-2-1 .932 1.98GAA - Offensive Production 2.4 Goals/Game

Davenport 3-1  .915 2.5GAA  - Offensive Production 4.25 Goals/Game


Scrivens has been the better goalie, but the offense has just been better on Davenport's nights.[/quote]

Now take out the Princeton outlier... it impacts both gpg and gaa.

[Jim Hyla]

[quote WillCMJr]The defense may have allowed some difficult situations, but they still only gave up 21 shots.  Many times those rebounds are the goalie's fault.  When you know you have an odd man rush coming, you know you either need to hold on to the puck or deflect it laterally.  If your deflecting it back out for a rebound shot, that's all on you.  We could ask Coach Shafer's opinion, but he started Scrivens the next night, that says a lot after several good games.  Coach is experienced, if he thought that was the defense's fault, Davenport would have been between the pipes again the next night.[/quote]

But also on the odd man rush, it's the defensive teams responsiblility to tie up the offensive players, so they can't get a second shot off. The goalies main job is the shooter, stop the goal. The team has to be responsible to tie up the other offensive players. That's one reason why the grinding out offense works. You keep working the puck around the boards, waiting for an openning and getting the defense tired and out of position. You get a chance, take a shot and your guy is there for a rebound, since the defense is tired and not in position.


It's not that a goalie doesn't try and not give up a rebound, but rather that it's the whole team's responsibility to cover their players or their spot on the ice. That's why it's called team defense.We used to do it well, this year we have been suspect. Just look at the goal Harvard scored after we tied it up. That was a classic Cornell goal, work it, work it, work it, then a shot, some offense not tied up and a chance to poke it in. Just bad team defense.

[calgARI '07]

[quote WillCMJr]Cornell in the last 9 games:

Scrivens 2-2-1 .932 1.98GAA - Offensive Production 2.4 Goals/Game

Davenport 3-1  .915 2.5GAA  - Offensive Production 4.25 Goals/Game


Scrivens has been the better goalie, but the offense has just been better on Davenport's nights.[/quote]

The numbers may indicate that, but Davenport has unquestionably been the better goaltender.

[WillCMJr]

[quote calgARI '07]unquestionably[/quote]

I question it.  I've thought from day one Scrivens is a better goaltender.  Davenport may be more polished, as he's had more experience, but I truly feel more confident with Ben in the net.  I also feel he's outshined Davenport this latter part of the season, which is the money time.

[calgARI '07]

[quote WillCMJr][quote calgARI '07]unquestionably[/quote]

I question it.  I've thought from day one Scrivens is a better goaltender.  Davenport may be more polished, as he's had more experience, but I truly feel more confident with Ben in the net.  I also feel he's outshined Davenport this latter part of the season, which is the money time.[/quote]

The away Clarkson-SLU and Union-RPI weekends really stand out to me.  Scrivens was terrible when he played those games while Davenport was solid.  Davenport has had some rough moments but he has definitely looked more comfortable.  He is more experienced and has played in bigger games.  Scrivens has played better of late but he has looked horrible periodically this season and has cost the team more points than Davenport has IMO.

[Jim Hyla]

[quote calgARI '07][quote WillCMJr][quote calgARI '07]unquestionably[/quote]

I question it.  I've thought from day one Scrivens is a better goaltender.  Davenport may be more polished, as he's had more experience, but I truly feel more confident with Ben in the net.  I also feel he's outshined Davenport this latter part of the season, which is the money time.[/quote]

The away Clarkson-SLU and Union-RPI weekends really stand out to me.  Scrivens was terrible when he played those games while Davenport was solid.  Davenport has had some rough moments but he has definitely looked more comfortable.  He is more experienced and has played in bigger games.  Scrivens has played better of late but he has looked horrible periodically this season and has cost the team more points than Davenport has IMO.[/quote]

Totally agree. I didn't see the Union/RPI games, but after the northcountry weekend, I think I posted that I hoped that put an end to the goalie controversy. Scrivens was terrible. Yes I've gotten more comfortable with him in net, but Davenport seems to me to be more polished now and with more upside potential.

We also have to realize that coaches change goalies for more reasons than just bad play; teams respond differently when goalies are changed, often times for the better. Often, when you make a change, you are trying to tell a team that you'd better play better defense.

[bandit1]

This is a fun thread to read, but my money is on Mike making the correct call......

[KeithK]

[quote bandit1]This is a fun thread to read, but my money is on Mike making the correct call......[/quote]No offense intended, but comments like this always annoy me. I realize that I and most of the folks here are not qualified to coach a college hockey team.  That's why we're in the stands and not behind the bench.  but it's far from a given that coaches, even a good one like ours, will always make the right call.  Coaches make mistakes just like everyone else.  It's our prerogative as fans to analyze and/or criticize the decisions of the coach.


Saying "Mike will make the right call" can mean one of two things.  In can mean that you have faith in the knowledge and abilities of the coach and thus are willing to trust his judgement.  Nothing wrong with that - it's probably a good thing.  But it can also mean "shut up you fools, you're not qualified to comment on this".  I am NOT saying that you necessarily meant it this way but it has been used to convey that meaniing on this board before.
[/rant]

[Omie]

Why cause you say so? The fact that this thread exists and that Schafer has been rotating goalies even thought Davenported was the starting goalie at the beginning of the season say otherwise.

[Omie]

Totally disagree. Half of Ben's losses have come when he has had to come in relief of Davenport after he put us in a huge hole. Wayne State, Maine and Colgate, for example. Davenport played awful against Dartmouth both times and put us in huge holes against RPI at home, Wayne State, Maine, at Quinipiac, and at Colgate. Davenport has had more than his fair share of awful games. If Davenport may be more polished but Scrivens has more potential for growth and more of an upside.

[WillCMJr]

[quote Omie]Totally disagree. Half of Ben's losses have come when he has had to come in relief of Davenport after he put us in a huge hole. Wayne State, Maine and Colgate, for example. Davenport played awful against Dartmouth both times and put us in huge holes against RPI at home, Wayne State, Maine, at Quinipiac, and at Colgate. Davenport has had more than his fair share of awful games. If Davenport may be more polished but Scrivens has more potential for growth and more of an upside.[/quote]

Thank you.  Everything I was thinking you just put into words.  But I'm at work and don't have the time to type them  :-)

[RichH]

[quote Omie]Scrivens has more potential for growth and more of an upside.[/quote]

OK, but how exactly?  What about him makes you believe these two things?

Scrivens is much improved from his first few starts.  Probably the most improved player on the team, IMO.  But I'll always see him as a bit of a flopper.  Every so often, I still see him leave his feet to stop a puck headed for his chest, and the flying glove flourish on pucks outside the post may look good, but are dangerous.  I'll take a calm, quiet, technically-sound goaltender just about every day over a flopper.  Davenport has several big weaknesses, that I believe can be fixed with work.  Right now, I think it's a #1 and #1A situation, and given what we have, I'm fine with that.  But for the reasons I gave above, I think Davenport has a higher potential and the better goaltender right now.

I respect your opinion and your relentless Scrivens fandom, Omie.  But what are your reasons?

[bandrews37]

Not sure what games you were watching, but they sure weren't the ones I saw. At SLU, he got peppered with 17 shots in 15 minutes - stopping 14 of them. Yeah, he gave up an easy one that got him pulled, but how's that any different than the three easy rebounds Davenport gave up at Dartmouth? Scrivens didn't play at Clarkson, and played pretty damn well at Union, making 31 stops - more than Davenport had made at that point in the season, then didn't play at RPI. Had he not played well in the third period at Union, that's another loss and we're playing this weekend.

Thing is, Scrivens, while he may or may not be better, has at least been more consistent than Davenport. Davenport's much more likely to follow up a stellar shutout with a ghastly stinker. As proof, I implore you to check out the two shutouts he has posted this year - against Wayne State and against Quinnipiac. The following game, what did he do?

RPI - 32:35, 3 GA
Princeton - 60:00, 4 GA

Anyway, more examples....
Last six appearances for both goalies, regardless of time played
Davenport
2/23 @ Dartmouth - 5 GA, 16 svs - L
2/17 vs. Princeton - 4 GA, 37 svs - W
2/16 vs. Quinnipiac - 0 GA, 27 svs - W
2/10 @ RPI - 1 GA, 28 svs - W
1/25 @ Colgate - 2 GA, 4 svs - no decision (L)
1/19 vs. Yale - 2 GA, 15 svs - T

Scrivens
2/24 @ Harvard - 3 GA, 36 svs - L
2/9 @ Union - 3 GA, 31 svs - T
2/3 vs. SLU - 2 GA, 21 svs - L
2/2 vs. Clarkson - 2 GA, 26 svs - W
1/27 vs. Colgate - 1 GA, 24 svs - W
1/25 @ Colgate - 1 GA, 6 svs - L (in relief)

Say what you will, but I'll take the more consistent player any day of the week. At this point, isn't consistency what this team needs more of anyway?