The least disciplined team in the ECAC

[Trotsky]

I got the PIM number off each of the teams web sites. I may have misinterpreted the numbers but if I did please show me the errors of my way.

The point is that PIMs include 10-minute misconducts, which don't actually put your team down a man.  Of course, they hurt you in the sense that the player is not available during those 10 minutes, but you don't necessarily play shorthanded.  If a team commits 20 2+10 penalties, that really doesn't hurt them that much more than committing 20 2-minute minors, so PIMs is not the right statistic to look at.  The right thing to look at is the number of times you're shorthanded, or better still, the total amount of time that you spend shorthanded.

The whole system is broken! It's also stupid to represent your PK's success based on the number of PKs you beat, since a 5-second PK counts the same as a full 2 minutes. It should really be a stat like number of minutes of PK before you let in a goal. Similarly on PP.

I believe I've seen that stat collected or at least calculable when playing time is divided betweem strength permutations (5-5, 5-4, etc)

[Towerroad]

I got the PIM number off each of the teams web sites. I may have misinterpreted the numbers but if I did please show me the errors of my way.

The point is that PIMs include 10-minute misconducts, which don't actually put your team down a man.  Of course, they hurt you in the sense that the player is not available during those 10 minutes, but you don't necessarily play shorthanded.  If a team commits 20 2+10 penalties, that really doesn't hurt them that much more than committing 20 2-minute minors, so PIMs is not the right statistic to look at.  The right thing to look at is the number of times you're shorthanded, or better still, the total amount of time that you spend shorthanded.

The whole system is broken! It's also stupid to represent your PK's success based on the number of PKs you beat, since a 5-second PK counts the same as a full 2 minutes. It should really be a stat like number of minutes of PK before you let in a goal. Similarly on PP.

I believe I've seen that stat collected or at least calculable when playing time is divided betweem strength permutations (5-5, 5-4, etc)

Measuring average minutes between PP goals is a measure of the effectiveness of your penalty kill. But I think the topic here is about our propensity to incur more penalties than other teams.

Some have suggested that we control for 10 min misconduct penalties. Here is what I found, comparing us to the 2 best teams in our league. Unfortunately I could not come up with data for a clean comparison but it is instructive (at least to me).

1. This season Cornell has had 453 PIM's of which 80 are 10 min misconduct yielding a net of 373 "regular" penalty minutes. (source, CU Hockey Web Page)
2. Yale has had a total of 371 PIM's but no record I could find of the breakdown by type (Source, Yale Hockey Web Page)
3. Union has a total of 373 PIM but no record I could find of the breakdown by type (Source, Union Hockey Web Page)

So, our "regular" penalty minutes are roughly the same as Yale and Union's total penalty minutes. Even if you assume that Yale and Union incurred no 10 min penalties, the net disadvantage would be our team playing a short a player for 4 periods.

I specifically made the comparison between us and Yale and Union to help explain one dimension of differentiation with respect to the top teams in the league.

[Jim Hyla]

I got the PIM number off each of the teams web sites. I may have misinterpreted the numbers but if I did please show me the errors of my way.

The point is that PIMs include 10-minute misconducts, which don't actually put your team down a man.  Of course, they hurt you in the sense that the player is not available during those 10 minutes, but you don't necessarily play shorthanded.  If a team commits 20 2+10 penalties, that really doesn't hurt them that much more than committing 20 2-minute minors, so PIMs is not the right statistic to look at.  The right thing to look at is the number of times you're shorthanded, or better still, the total amount of time that you spend shorthanded.

The whole system is broken! It's also stupid to represent your PK's success based on the number of PKs you beat, since a 5-second PK counts the same as a full 2 minutes. It should really be a stat like number of minutes of PK before you let in a goal. Similarly on PP.

I believe I've seen that stat collected or at least calculable when playing time is divided betweem strength permutations (5-5, 5-4, etc)

Measuring average minutes between PP goals is a measure of the effectiveness of your penalty kill. But I think the topic here is about our propensity to incur more penalties than other teams.

Some have suggested that we control for 10 min misconduct penalties. Here is what I found, comparing us to the 2 best teams in our league. Unfortunately I could not come up with data for a clean comparison but it is instructive (at least to me).

1. This season Cornell has had 453 PIM's of which 80 are 10 min misconduct yielding a net of 373 "regular" penalty minutes. (source, CU Hockey Web Page)
2. Yale has had a total of 371 PIM's but no record I could find of the breakdown by type (Source, Yale Hockey Web Page)
3. Union has a total of 373 PIM but no record I could find of the breakdown by type (Source, Union Hockey Web Page)

So, our "regular" penalty minutes are roughly the same as Yale and Union's total penalty minutes. Even if you assume that Yale and Union incurred no 10 min penalties, the net disadvantage would be our team playing a short a player for 4 periods.

I specifically made the comparison between us and Yale and Union to help explain one dimension of differentiation with respect to the top teams in the league.

So, making your assumptions of Y and U with no 10 min penalties, we have a net of 373 min, Union has 373, and Yale has 371. That means we're all equal, correct? So, where do you get 4 periods of SH? It seems you used our PIM including the 10 min ones.

[Towerroad]

I got the PIM number off each of the teams web sites. I may have misinterpreted the numbers but if I did please show me the errors of my way.

The point is that PIMs include 10-minute misconducts, which don't actually put your team down a man.  Of course, they hurt you in the sense that the player is not available during those 10 minutes, but you don't necessarily play shorthanded.  If a team commits 20 2+10 penalties, that really doesn't hurt them that much more than committing 20 2-minute minors, so PIMs is not the right statistic to look at.  The right thing to look at is the number of times you're shorthanded, or better still, the total amount of time that you spend shorthanded.

The whole system is broken! It's also stupid to represent your PK's success based on the number of PKs you beat, since a 5-second PK counts the same as a full 2 minutes. It should really be a stat like number of minutes of PK before you let in a goal. Similarly on PP.

I believe I've seen that stat collected or at least calculable when playing time is divided betweem strength permutations (5-5, 5-4, etc)

Measuring average minutes between PP goals is a measure of the effectiveness of your penalty kill. But I think the topic here is about our propensity to incur more penalties than other teams.

Some have suggested that we control for 10 min misconduct penalties. Here is what I found, comparing us to the 2 best teams in our league. Unfortunately I could not come up with data for a clean comparison but it is instructive (at least to me).

1. This season Cornell has had 453 PIM's of which 80 are 10 min misconduct yielding a net of 373 "regular" penalty minutes. (source, CU Hockey Web Page)
2. Yale has had a total of 371 PIM's but no record I could find of the breakdown by type (Source, Yale Hockey Web Page)
3. Union has a total of 373 PIM but no record I could find of the breakdown by type (Source, Union Hockey Web Page)

So, our "regular" penalty minutes are roughly the same as Yale and Union's total penalty minutes. Even if you assume that Yale and Union incurred no 10 min penalties, the net disadvantage would be our team playing a short a player for 4 periods.

I specifically made the comparison between us and Yale and Union to help explain one dimension of differentiation with respect to the top teams in the league.

So, making your assumptions of Y and U with no 10 min penalties, we have a net of 373 min, Union has 373, and Yale has 371. That means we're all equal, correct? So, where do you get 4 periods of SH? It seems you used our PIM including the 10 min ones.

I did not say we were short a player on the ice, I said the team was down a player. I assume that, this translates into a disadvantage as lines get broken up and the other players have to pick up the slack. I also doubt that either Union or Yale went the entire season with out a 10 min penalty but I am willing to conjecture that the incurred fewer.

[ajh258]

I got the PIM number off each of the teams web sites. I may have misinterpreted the numbers but if I did please show me the errors of my way.

The point is that PIMs include 10-minute misconducts, which don't actually put your team down a man.  Of course, they hurt you in the sense that the player is not available during those 10 minutes, but you don't necessarily play shorthanded.  If a team commits 20 2+10 penalties, that really doesn't hurt them that much more than committing 20 2-minute minors, so PIMs is not the right statistic to look at.  The right thing to look at is the number of times you're shorthanded, or better still, the total amount of time that you spend shorthanded.

The whole system is broken! It's also stupid to represent your PK's success based on the number of PKs you beat, since a 5-second PK counts the same as a full 2 minutes. It should really be a stat like number of minutes of PK before you let in a goal. Similarly on PP.

I believe I've seen that stat collected or at least calculable when playing time is divided betweem strength permutations (5-5, 5-4, etc)

Measuring average minutes between PP goals is a measure of the effectiveness of your penalty kill. But I think the topic here is about our propensity to incur more penalties than other teams.

Some have suggested that we control for 10 min misconduct penalties. Here is what I found, comparing us to the 2 best teams in our league. Unfortunately I could not come up with data for a clean comparison but it is instructive (at least to me).

1. This season Cornell has had 453 PIM's of which 80 are 10 min misconduct yielding a net of 373 "regular" penalty minutes. (source, CU Hockey Web Page)
2. Yale has had a total of 371 PIM's but no record I could find of the breakdown by type (Source, Yale Hockey Web Page)
3. Union has a total of 373 PIM but no record I could find of the breakdown by type (Source, Union Hockey Web Page)

So, our "regular" penalty minutes are roughly the same as Yale and Union's total penalty minutes. Even if you assume that Yale and Union incurred no 10 min penalties, the net disadvantage would be our team playing a short a player for 4 periods.

I specifically made the comparison between us and Yale and Union to help explain one dimension of differentiation with respect to the top teams in the league.

So, making your assumptions of Y and U with no 10 min penalties, we have a net of 373 min, Union has 373, and Yale has 371. That means we're all equal, correct? So, where do you get 4 periods of SH? It seems you used our PIM including the 10 min ones.

I did not say we were short a player on the ice, I said the team was down a player. I assume that, this translates into a disadvantage as lines get broken up and the other players have to pick up the slack. I also doubt that either Union or Yale went the entire season with out a 10 min penalty but I am willing to conjecture that the incurred fewer.

I really do not think the issue is with the amount of penalty minutes we're getting or the discipline with the them (although both could definitely be improved). With the exception of the Union games, we've been pretty close in scoring when we've lost.

I think the real issue is connecting on passes, moving the puck to the offensive zone and avoiding stupid turnovers. If we gave away less PPs, things might have been different for a few games. However, if our players are able to communicate better on the ice and organize more successful attacks, we would be a much better team.

[Rosey]

I'm sure nobody is more frustrated than the players about last night.  They outplayed Harvard for large stretches, hit a crossbar and a post, and had a weak goalie seemingly at their mercy time and time again, but three different times they had to dig out of a hole, and the third time was just a bridge too far.

At the end of the day, if they win tonight they will be tied for third.  In the words of Annie Savoy, "it's a long season and you gotta trust it."

I think there is a lot of frustration going around. It looks to me like something is broken and the question is what will we do about it.

The thing that bugs me is that they are making the same stupid mistakes that they did at the beginning of the season, and they still struggle on the breakout. It's not exactly giving me hope.

[Towerroad]

Here is Rev 2. (I am an old number cruncher from way back). I went through the Yale and Union box scores to tease out the 10 min penalties. I will also control for Union playing 34 games to date as opposed to 27 for Cornell and Yale:

1. This season Cornell has had 453 PIM's of which 80 are 10 min misconduct yielding a net of 373 "regular" penalty minutes. (source, CU Hockey Web Page)
2. Yale has had a total of 371 PIM's (Source, Yale Hockey Web Page) and 70 of 10 min misconduct (Source, uscho box scores) for a net regular penalty minutes of 301.
3. Union has a total of 373 PIM (Source, Union Hockey Web Page) and 40 of 10 min misconduct (Source, uscho box scores) for a net regular penalty minutes of 333. Adjusted for the greater number of games (27/34) the adjusted regular penalty minutes are 264.

Two things stand out. Yes, we are being penalized more than the top teams in the league. Union has a very disciplined team (half their misconducts came in a single game which I shall not mention)

I'm done.

[Trotsky]

The thing that bugs me is that they are making the same stupid mistakes that they did at the beginning of the season, and they still struggle on the breakout. It's not exactly giving me hope.

While they still make mistakes, their overall play has improved dramatically from the beginning of the season. I'd say this team has shown the most in-season improvement of any I have seen in (oy!) 30 years.  Union completely outclassed them much in the way Yale did 2 seasons ago.  Yale themselves, well, we'll see this weekend -- we've lost 6 in a row to them, usually being badly outplayed, but Yale has shown flaws lately.  But other than those two teams this really is arguably the 3rd-best team in conference right now.

For the first time this year I can see this team playing well enough to get to Atlantic City without a miracle.  Given how much they lost in the off-season, I think this is one of Schafer's best coaching performances.  Also, look how far the Seniors have come!  They had to assume leadership roles and pick up their game to fill the huge shoes of the 2010 class and they've done a very good job of it since New Year's.  Joe's hot month and Tyler's clutch performance last night typify that.

Instead of the dreadful rebuilding year it could have (should have?) been (ask Colgate and Harvard) it's been a lot of fun with some memorable performances.  I actually am quite hopeful.

[Jim Hyla]

The thing that bugs me is that they are making the same stupid mistakes that they did at the beginning of the season, and they still struggle on the breakout. It's not exactly giving me hope.

While they still make mistakes, their overall play has improved dramatically from the beginning of the season. I'd say this team has shown the most in-season improvement of any I have seen in (oy!) 30 years.  Union completely outclassed them much in the way Yale did 2 seasons ago.  Yale themselves, well, we'll see this weekend -- we've lost 6 in a row to them, usually being badly outplayed, but Yale has shown flaws lately.  But other than those two teams this really is arguably the 3rd-best team in conference right now.

For the first time this year I can see this team playing well enough to get to Atlantic City without a miracle.  Given how much they lost in the off-season, I think this is one of Schafer's best coaching performances.  Also, look how far the Seniors have come!  They had to assume leadership roles and pick up their game to fill the huge shoes of the 2010 class and they've done a very good job of it since New Year's.  Joe's hot month and Tyler's clutch performance last night typify that.

Instead of the dreadful rebuilding year it could have (should have?) been (ask Colgate and Harvard) it's been a lot of fun with some memorable performances.  I actually am quite hopeful.

I totally agree. At the beginning of the season almost everyone felt this was a rebuilding year. To refresh my memory, I'd like to see Age's poll about where we thought they would finish. (Maybe there's a way to find it, but I don't know it.) I think they are doing better than most thought, and yet all we can post is complaint followed by complaint. (Yes, I know that's not literally true.)

I think, like Trotsky, we should be talking about how amazing their growth has been, how incredible it is to be fighting for third place, and what a great job the coaches have done. I still hate our PP and that we cannot figure out how to solve a two man deep forecheck, but damn we can finish third and have a good chance to get to Atlantic City.::pissed::

Again, as Trotsky has said, look at what these seniors have done. Compare this class to last years leaving class. Look at what we lost and yet we could be a top 4 team. I'll take this rebuilding year any  year. We all complain about not being Yale or Union, but the fact is, there are always a group of top teams in the league, by that I mean fighting for home ice teams. Over the years the top teams have varied, but they almost always include Cornell. Maybe in 10 years we will all be complaining that Union and Yale are always winning and there's no room for the rest of us. But for now we are still part of the big gorilla in the house. The parts that make up the rest of the gorilla change over time, but we're always in there.

Hope to see all of you in AC.

[Trotsky]

And also the incoming class looks very good (chart based on Big Red Puckhead -- some may defer or move up).

[Towerroad]

And also the incoming class looks very good (chart based on Big Red Puckhead -- some may defer or move up).

I hope you and Jim are right. If you are then we should expect a much more mature skilled team next year. I am a skeptic but hope springs eternal. I think next year will be important for the coach.

[scoop85]

And also the incoming class looks very good (chart based on Big Red Puckhead -- some may defer or move up).

Interesting that 8 out of the 11 recruits are U.S. born.

[Jim Hyla]

And also the incoming class looks very good (chart based on Big Red Puckhead -- some may defer or move up).

Interesting that 8 out of the 11 recruits are U.S. born.

And some upstate NY kids. It hurts to see some Roch, Syr, and Buf kids go to other IVYs.

[CowbellGuy]

To refresh my memory, I'd like to see Age's poll about where we thought they would finish. (Maybe there's a way to find it, but I don't know it.)

Sorry, the link was broken, but I've fixed it now. In the "Links" section to the right, "Poll Results" now works.

[Jim Hyla]

To refresh my memory, I'd like to see Age's poll about where we thought they would finish. (Maybe there's a way to find it, but I don't know it.)

Sorry, the link was broken, but I've fixed it now. In the "Links" section to the right, "Poll Results" now works.

Thanks. So, overwhelmingly they were picked 1-6, about 50/50 1-3 and 4-6. We're ending up right where we thought we'd be. However, I'd like to talk to those who picked 1-3. Were you smoking or drinking something?::drunk::