Cornell atop ECAC RS with better PK, PP?

[billhoward]

Discount for a minute Cornell' special teams efforts and we would have won the average game this year almost 4-2. Here is a quick calculation, but I did it in Excel, so it must be correct. (Right: G.I.G.O.)

Cornell played 29 games and outscored opponents 88-74, or 3.0 to 2.6 goals per game. But we spent half the season in special teams situations, 230 power plas of our own and 188 for the other guys. Counting them as two minutes each (which it's not), that gave us ~1364 even-strength minutes out of a possible 1760 (29G + 4 OTs) and we outscored opponents 54-30 outside special teams. (During special teams, we were ouscored 44-34 including 5 SHG for them, 2 for us.) Multiply by 1.9 for a goals/sixty equivalent and you have Cornell winning the average game 3.55 to 1.98. When we muse, "Without the year's penalty kill, we'd be just about as good as the years of David LeNeveu and Doug Murray in the early 2000s," that's not exactly so. But it's a nicer margin than the way it turned out.

A more interesting calculation would be game by game to see where special teams goals cost us the game. We would still have had a zero-point weekend at Dartmouth and Harvard. Actually, for all of February, the only difference would have been our 2-1 loss to St. Lawrence would be a 1-1 tie. (In the 3-3 Union tie, both sides had one SHG; without them it would have been 2-2 and Mitch Carefoot wouldn't be injured.) But over the course of the season I believe we would have won enough games to be at or near the top of the ECAC standings.

[Beeeej]

My biggest problem with this analysis, Bill, is that it assumes that the quality of Cornell's special teams exists in a vacuum.  I will agree that Cornell's power play has been somewhat less imaginative this season than in some seasons past, but I think it's a big mistake to assume that all else is equal - particularly the quality of our opponents' special teams.

In other words, the opponents' human factor is ignored.  Perhaps some of our opponents had better PK this year than last, which would negate any assumption on the part of your mathematical model that all you'd have to do is replace our current PP with our old PP and we'd have scored X more goals.  Even more likely, perhaps our opponents had better PP this year than last, which would negate any assumption on the part of your mathematical model that all you'd have to do is replace our current PK with our old PK and we'd have prevented X more goals.  That our opponents' special teams would have performed exactly the same this year in the face of exactly the same Cornell special teams as last year is simply too large an assumption to make, so I don't find your mathematical model valid.

My other problem with this kind of analysis is that it's a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  If we'd had a world-class, double-jointed goaltender, we would have won enough games to be at or near the top of the ECAC standings.  If we'd had eleven high-producing sharpshooters and our opponents skated on rubber chickens, we would have won enough games to be at or near the top of the ECAC standings.  If the ice at Lynah had been built on a 1% grade tilted west, we would have won enough games to be at or near the top of the ECAC standings.

We have the team we have, and we finished fourth.  Let's see what they can do with it.

[Jim Hyla]

Wow, Beeeej, you spent more words than Bill did to try and prove his post was  much ado about nothing.:-D That's quite a feat.

[Beeeej]

Thanks, Jim, I try.  :-)  Hope you don't mind that I gave away that Dark Snickers last night; I've lost 11 pounds in the last three weeks on a low-carb diet.

[Josh '99]

So you're saying if Cornell were a better team, they might have a better record?  Interesting concept.

[Jim Hyla]

[quote Beeeej]Thanks, Jim, I try.  :-)  Hope you don't mind that I gave away that Dark Snickers last night; I've lost 11 pounds in the last three weeks on a low-carb diet.[/quote]No, I never mind an honorable deed like that. Keep up the good work.

[Beeeej]

Josh, that was clear, concise, and brief.

Turn in your JD immediately.

[billhoward]

You are right: This is analysis-lite. And you're even more right that the games don't exist in a vacuum, that you cannot just multiply the non-special-teams per-game scoring by 2 (since nearly half of every Cornell game was a PP or PK). And on the other hand, a site like this is sort of a community bar albeit where no one buys you a drink (we did extend the offer to RichS who agreed he could do better than a free bottle of Bud), and the level of discussion varies. So: It's fun on a Sunday morning to ever-so-lightly quantify the measure of our special-teams futility. Some people might add to the conversation and some people might say, "What a crock." Eventually it'll slide off the home page.

[Give My Regards]

[quote Beeeej]If the ice at Lynah had been built on a 1% grade tilted west, we would have won enough games to be at or near the top of the ECAC standings.[/quote]

Hold on -- wasn't that part of last year's renovations?  Along with slightly adjusting the angle on the Zamboni doors?

[Trotsky]

SLU and Clarkson are both pretty good teams -- I don't see Cornell getting past either over a 22-game span.  (In Albany, if we can get there, anything can happen).

I do believe that if Cornell had better special teams they might have gotten into 3rd.  We should not have lost to Dartmouth at Lynah, and that 4-point turnaround alone would have put the Red ahead of the Green.

Despite the bitter ending of the RS, I'm extremely happy with a bye.  This was a full-blown reworking of the offense and defense and goaltending, with heavy pressure on freshmen, and yet the team dropped one place in the standings from last season.  That isn't disappointing -- it's damn nearly a miracle.

To put what Schafer has done in perspective, Cornell has finished in the top four in the ECAC for 8 straight years.  Before this streak, Cornell finished in the top 4 in the conference 7 times in 20 years.

[jtwcornell91]

[quote Trotsky]To put what Schafer has done in perspective, Cornell has finished in the top four in the ECAC for 8 straight years.  Before this streak, Cornell finished in the top 4 in the conference 7 times in 20 years.[/quote]

And two of those were under Schafer's tenure in the last 4 of those 7 years.

[KeithK]

[quote Trotsky]Despite the bitter ending of the RS, I'm extremely happy with a bye.  This was a full-blown reworking of the offense and defense and goaltending, with heavy pressure on freshmen, and yet the team dropped one place in the standings from last season.  That isn't disappointing -- it's damn nearly a miracle.

To put what Schafer has done in perspective, Cornell has finished in the top four in the ECAC for 8 straight years.  Before this streak, Cornell finished in the top 4 in the conference 7 times in 20 years.[/quote]Amen.  Back in August, I think most on this forum would have been happy with a 4th place finish after losing its primary scorer, best offensive defenseman, best defensive defenseman and goaltender.  It's been a good season and if it seems disappointing it's only because we've come to expect so much.

Out of curiousity I looked at the preseason polls.  The coaches, the media and TBRW all picked Cornell to finish 4th.  Pretty good huh?  (We won't talk about picks for Harvard, Colgate or SLU...)

[Rita]

[quote KeithK][quote Trotsky]Despite the bitter ending of the RS, I'm extremely happy with a bye.  This was a full-blown reworking of the offense and defense and goaltending, with heavy pressure on freshmen, and yet the team dropped one place in the standings from last season.  That isn't disappointing -- it's damn nearly a miracle.

To put what Schafer has done in perspective, Cornell has finished in the top four in the ECAC for 8 straight years.  Before this streak, Cornell finished in the top 4 in the conference 7 times in 20 years.[/quote]Amen.  Back in August, I think most on this forum would have been happy with a 4th place finish after losing its primary scorer, best offensive defenseman, best defensive defenseman and goaltender.  It's been a good season and if it seems disappointing it's only because we've come to expect so much.

Out of curiousity I looked at the preseason polls.  The coaches, the media and TBRW all picked Cornell to finish 4th.  Pretty good huh?  (We won't talk about picks for Harvard, Colgate or SLU...)[/quote]

Back in August, we sort of thought the team would have a rough start, say, 0-4, but not necessarily finish the regular season 0-4. The good start they had to the season raised expectations quite quickly. Thanks for bringing us back to earth and putting the regular season back in a proper perspective.

[RichH]

[quote KeithK](We won't talk about picks for Harvard, Colgate [/quote]

Aw....why not?  Can we?  Please?

[nyc94]

[quote RichH][quote KeithK](We won't talk about picks for Harvard, Colgate [/quote]

Aw....why not?  Can we?  Please?[/quote]

I'm not going to feel safe until Harvard is eliminated, dead, and buried.  No more March surprises!