Cornell @ Clark

[jftf1958]

Anyway, so what you're saying is "it's the system" when Iles has a good year or a bad year?  Or no?  I can't tell.

It is whatever you want to believe.

[RichH]

Anyway, so what you're saying is "it's the system" when Iles has a good year or a bad year?  Or no?  I can't tell.

It is whatever you want to believe.

"The Zen Approach to Cornell Goaltending." **]

[css228]

My point is that a goalie's performance is based on his play - meaning overall, not just the conference as his job is to stop that puck regardless of who the opponents are.
I am not referencing goalies from 5 - 10 years ago either.  Iles has been averaging 27 - 28 shots per game/yearly.
The basis of my comments are on the fact that Iles has been rated highly therefore the expectation with experience is that year over year he would produce solid numbers and increased performance %   - that has not happened.  I also stated that the overall accountablity is not with just the goalie postion, I believe it is with the coaching staff, but at the same time, the goalie position is probably (in my opinion) the most important position.    
In terms of :  i]"In regards to Gillam, I guess you agree with me that maybe it was his decision to not come this year. It's not like coach could just call him up and say come, and he'd do it"[/i]  I agree with you that he probably decided not to come given the circumstances - but I disagree that the coach could not just call him up as he could if he would have probably said " I will give you a chance to play and develop and compete for the #1 job."   If Gillam isnt willing to compete for the playing time, then its time to go look for another goalie.  You cannot assess a goalie's playing time  just from practicing at least not good decent talent coming in, nor, is it wise to shelf the backup and if you need him in the final championship game of the year- you are screwed.

But when you're playing different teams each year, you certainly can't compare those, can you? And although you never showed any stats, I assume that you mean that Iles is worse this year than the last two, correct? If so I'd like to parse out the Pks etc. I know you don't feel that which teams we play, nor whether we are 5 on 5 or PK, should make any difference in a goalies performance, however I think the vast majority would disagree with you. A pitchers performance will depend upon which team he plays against, don't you agree?

I can't understand, at all, your comments on Gillam. They don't seem to be in English.

It is quite entertaining how, the moment Iles numbers are looking great, shut outs etc., then his stats are used for awards, and disappointments are expressed on how he would not get recognized for goaltender of the week etc.., if someone should dare share that his great numbers are a result of 'the system' - that individual is crucified.  When Iles numbers are NOT looking so great, then its all kinds of excuses, PK, teams he played against, 5 on 5 etc.etc... I am sure the NHL also shares these views that stats do not mean much if they look bad, but, if they are great, then it due to a highly ranked goalies.  
 
It also seems that while for Gillam to sit out one year is ok as it is to "adjust" but not two years.., yet that would not be the case with Iles' freshman year - Garman sat for two years ? hmmm Garman left, Marozzi left, Gillam will not come in...

I will ignore the fact that you do not understand my English...evidently, on this topic neither does Schaf.  Now, all these opinions aside, sincerely hope the boys turn this around. GO RED

I hope most people aren't contesting that Iles hasn't been playing up to par, that is certainly true during this stretch. However, I am hesitant to lay the majority of the blame at his feet because I don't have the data to prove whether or not the play is purely his fault. I suspect that his 5 v 4 save percentage is lower than average, but that his ES save percentage is at the league average or better. Unfortunately, I do not have the data on my hands to prove that theory. And even then you have to look at where the shots are coming from and what types of goals are being scored before you can just take GAA and blame it on the goalie. Are these open shots from the slot? Are those shots from the slot being created by poor rebound control on shots he should easily save and direct to safe areas or are they off of difficult shots from the slot in the first place? How many shots per game is he facing? Is the PK (as it has often done this season) allowing cross ice passes through the center of its formation. Is the defense blocking shots and clearing the slot of loose pucks. Obviously rebounds should be directed away from the slot, but sometimes the only way to make a save is to put a rebound right back out there, and then it is the D's job to clear it. Are there an inordinate amount of deflection type goals, in which goalie save percentages are typically lower and the blame lies at the feet of the D for not clearing the slot and crease of bodies. Is Iles stickwork behind the net helping the defense by preventing the offenses ability to dump and chase (This is a comment I've made many times, Iles pretty much picks all the right moments to use his stick to affect the play, but his execution leaves much to be desired)? I think after taking what I have seen into account, understanding that I lack the necessary data, such as shot charts and game film, to firmly resolve my theory, I would say Iles has probably been average to slightly above average, with numbers that look poor due to a horrific penalty kill and a stupid propensity to take a lot of penalties. How much blame can be laid at Iles' feet for the PK I don't know. Maybe that is the situation where his lack of size really hurts him. But I pretty much stand by the idea that a goaltender, unless they are as good, relative to their competition, as Domonic Hasek, cannot consistently win a team games that they do not deserve to win. Iles did that a lot last year, and thats what we are basically asking him to do this year. If we had all the data I would like, I'm relatively certain we'd see a team that is a poor posession hockey team, that dumps and chases far too often despite the fact it is proven that carry ins create more shots per zone entry than dump and chase, and a team that gives up its blue line far to easily, constantly losing the neutral zone battle. Iles play is no doubt a part of the problem, but I firmly believe it starts with the 18 skaters that dress every night not driving play and doing the things that are highly correllated with winning.

[Josh '99]

...it is proven that carry ins create more shots per zone entry than dump and chase...

Source?  I'm not disputing what you're saying (though I would be inclined to guess it varies from team to team), but if this has, in fact, been proven, then I'd be curious to read the proof.

[Chris '03]

...it is proven that carry ins create more shots per zone entry than dump and chase...

Source?  I'm not disputing what you're saying (though I would be inclined to guess it varies from team to team), but if this has, in fact, been proven, then I'd be curious to read the proof.

Is shots per zone entry really a valuable number when evaluating contrasting styles? Like, Josh I haven't seen numbers or anything so this is purely stream of consciousness but if carry-in teams only penetrate the zone 60% of the time and get .5 shots per entry and dump and chase teams penetrate 90% of the time and get .3 shots per entry, what difference does it make? Further, what's the meaningful difference between a very low percentage shot from just inside the blue line under duress and a dump in where possession is not established? Both result in change in possession but carry-in teams get another credited shot per possession.

[carpy85]

As fans we may ring our hands and lament the premature end to the season.  But these guys are living it.  Don't think for a minute they are content with where they are, or willing to throw in the towel.  Maybe the fans should back off a little.

I'm sure many fans would be willing to "back off" if there appeared to be even the slightest change in the behavior that is the root of the problem.
Perhaps if they can avoid a DQ this weekend it will restore some faith.
However, I will not be holding my hand over my......

::bang::

I game without a major would be nice too.

The majors is what killed us this entire weekend against both St. Lawrence and Clarkson. If we were able to behave on the ice then its quite possible we could have won at least one of those two games.

[css228]

...it is proven that carry ins create more shots per zone entry than dump and chase...

Source?  I'm not disputing what you're saying (though I would be inclined to guess it varies from team to team), but if this has, in fact, been proven, then I'd be curious to read the proof.

NHL Numbers has a whole series on why a zone entry with possession is better than dump and chase. Also it should just be common sense that your offense should be more effective if you're not risking turning the puck over just to get it back deep. Obviously there's still situations when a dump is a smart play, but the players who drive play and gain zone entry with puck possession are the drivers of offense in hockey.

[KeithK]

...it is proven that carry ins create more shots per zone entry than dump and chase...

Source?  I'm not disputing what you're saying (though I would be inclined to guess it varies from team to team), but if this has, in fact, been proven, then I'd be curious to read the proof.

NHL Numbers has a whole series on why a zone entry with possession is better than dump and chase. Also it should just be common sense that your offense should be more effective if you're not risking turning the puck over just to get it back deep. Obviously there's still situations when a dump is a smart play, but the players who drive play and gain zone entry with puck possession are the drivers of offense in hockey.

One should be careful drawing conclusions about the college game from NHL data. Differens in skill level and speed could easily skew the results.

Carrying in seems like it should be more successful overall than dumping and chasing. But that might be a result of selection bias: sometimes you dump because you can't gain entry (due to your lack of skill or the opponent's defense) rather than intentioanlly.  From what I've read (and I have no doubt I'll be corrected if wrong)Ned's teams were masters of the dump and chase but they could usually beat the opponents to the puck. That kind of skill/ability differential between teams probably ver occurs in today's NHL and probably not much at the college level.

Edit: I haven't read tjhe study.  I keep getting errors when I try to access it.

[Rosey]

NHL Numbers

I love numbers: it's hard to argue with numbers. The analysis here might be missing something, but the difference between dumping and carrying is so large that there would have to be a huge unaccounted-for effect to negate the conclusion from this article.

Good stuff.

[ftyuv]

NHL Numbers

I love numbers: it's hard to argue with numbers.

I could see someone getting high and getting into an extended, loud argument with the number 4. I'm sure stranger arguments have happened.

[billhoward]

...it is proven that carry ins create more shots per zone entry than dump and chase...

Source?  I'm not disputing what you're saying (though I would be inclined to guess it varies from team to team), but if this has, in fact, been proven, then I'd be curious to read the proof.

Sports Illustrated story from last fall, about the NHL, perhaps is one source. Every turnover including a dump-in hurt your chances of scoring (statistically, not just "d'oh, obviously'') so teams shouldn't give up the puck. Perhaps holding onto the puck is especially important if the team is graceful and quick and that might not be Cornell's case.

Maybe if the team is physical, the grinding along the boards wears out the other team and the third period belongs to Cornell.

[Trotsky]

NHL Numbers

I love numbers: it's hard to argue with numbers.

I could see someone getting high and getting into an extended, loud argument with the number 4. I'm sure stranger arguments have happened.

Don't try to argue with pi.

It's irrational.

[BMac]

Did you know some people LIKE the number four?

There's even a mathematical method for it:

[ftyuv]

NHL Numbers

I love numbers: it's hard to argue with numbers.

I could see someone getting high and getting into an extended, loud argument with the number 4. I'm sure stranger arguments have happened.

Don't try to argue with pi.

It's irrational.

It only looks irrational when i argue with it. Yelling at something imaginary will always get you funny looks.

Edit: +1 to the Fourier joke, too!

[css228]

...it is proven that carry ins create more shots per zone entry than dump and chase...

Source?  I'm not disputing what you're saying (though I would be inclined to guess it varies from team to team), but if this has, in fact, been proven, then I'd be curious to read the proof.

NHL Numbers has a whole series on why a zone entry with possession is better than dump and chase. Also it should just be common sense that your offense should be more effective if you're not risking turning the puck over just to get it back deep. Obviously there's still situations when a dump is a smart play, but the players who drive play and gain zone entry with puck possession are the drivers of offense in hockey.

One should be careful drawing conclusions about the college game from NHL data. Differens in skill level and speed could easily skew the results.

Carrying in seems like it should be more successful overall than dumping and chasing. But that might be a result of selection bias: sometimes you dump because you can't gain entry (due to your lack of skill or the opponent's defense) rather than intentioanlly.  From what I've read (and I have no doubt I'll be corrected if wrong)Ned's teams were masters of the dump and chase but they could usually beat the opponents to the puck. That kind of skill/ability differential between teams probably ver occurs in today's NHL and probably not much at the college level.

Edit: I haven't read tjhe study.  I keep getting errors when I try to access it.

The conclusions the authors drew is actually that there is no proof that a turnover at the blueline is any more dangerous than off a dump in, and since every turnover is negating a scoring opportunity, it seems like encouraging players on the third line or lower to dump may even further limit their offensive production. Here is another article on neutral zone play and whether or not it is worthwhile to regroup instead of dump when a carry in is not possible.