Favorite Harvard Game Memory

[andyw2100]

Surprised by Jason's (I think) "meaningless" comment after the Clarkson tie was in the books, suggesting that the Cornell coaches probably didn't tell the team, as if the W didn't matter and they'd take their foot off the pedal with "nothing"to play for.sorry to beat the dead horse.

Are you suggesting that on the radio broadcast Jason Weinstein implied that a) the coaches somehow learned of the other game results during the OT and that they he also suggested that they did not share these results with the team? If that's the case, I've got to think Jason Weinstein is badly mistaken on this. I sit two rows behind the bench. The coaching staff was pretty focused on the task at hand, which was beating Harvard. I would be shocked if any of them knew the outcome of the other games, or the impact of said outcomes before our game had ended.

[LGR14]

Schaefer mentions here that they were receiving updates during overtime: http://cornellsun.com/blog/2014/03/03/mens-hockey-icers-down-harvard-in%E2%80%88dramatic-fashion/

[redice]

Surprised by Jason's (I think) "meaningless" comment after the Clarkson tie was in the books, suggesting that the Cornell coaches probably didn't tell the team, as if the W didn't matter and they'd take their foot off the pedal with "nothing"to play for.sorry to beat the dead horse.

Are you suggesting that on the radio broadcast Jason Weinstein implied that a) the coaches somehow learned of the other game results during the OT and that they he also suggested that they did not share these results with the team? If that's the case, I've got to think Jason Weinstein is badly mistaken on this. I sit two rows behind the bench. The coaching staff was pretty focused on the task at hand, which was beating Harvard. I would be shocked if any of them knew the outcome of the other games, or the impact of said outcomes before our game had ended.

It add to your "shock", the updates were coming via the old fashioned way.    I sat in Section N & watched a young fellow running back & forth from the bench area to (presumably) the press box area.   I figured he was bring out-of-town scores.

[Jim Hyla]

Surprised by Jason's (I think) "meaningless" comment after the Clarkson tie was in the books, suggesting that the Cornell coaches probably didn't tell the team, as if the W didn't matter and they'd take their foot off the pedal with "nothing"to play for.sorry to beat the dead horse.

Are you suggesting that on the radio broadcast Jason Weinstein implied that a) the coaches somehow learned of the other game results during the OT and that they he also suggested that they did not share these results with the team? If that's the case, I've got to think Jason Weinstein is badly mistaken on this. I sit two rows behind the bench. The coaching staff was pretty focused on the task at hand, which was beating Harvard. I would be shocked if any of them knew the outcome of the other games, or the impact of said outcomes before our game had ended.

Why not?  If a win, rather than a tie would get a week off, wouldn't you want to know? Sure, they aren't going to tell the team to let up if they didn't need the win for that, but I think the coach would be wrong to not keep getting updated.

[andyw2100]

Schaefer mentions here that they were receiving updates during overtime: http://cornellsun.com/blog/2014/03/03/mens-hockey-icers-down-harvard-in%E2%80%88dramatic-fashion/

I stand corrected. I am pleasantly surprised.

Why not?  If a win, rather than a tie would get a week off, wouldn't you want to know? Sure, they aren't going to tell the team to let up if they didn't need the win for that, but I think the coach would be wrong to not keep getting updated.

I think it's great that the coaching staff was on top of the situation. I just thought Schafer was more "old-school" than that. I'm impressed.

I'm also surprised to read in the "Sun" article that he would have pulled Iles to go for the win to go for the home-ice bye at the possible cost of what the loss could do to the pairwise ranking and the chances of making the NCAA tournament. I'm wondering what others' thoughts are on that.

Personally I kinda like it, as unlike a lot of you here, I've typically placed more value on winning the ECACs than on anything NCAA-wise, probably because the NCAA championship just seems to be such a stretch, but in any given year we really can win the ECACs. So I like the "pull Iles if needed to go for the bye" strategy, but I'm guessing others here might not. Thoughts?

[Chris '03]

I think it's great that the coaching staff was on top of the situation. I just thought Schafer was more "old-school" than that. I'm impressed.

I'm also surprised to read in the "Sun" article that he would have pulled Iles to go for the win to go for the home-ice bye at the possible cost of what the loss could do to the pairwise ranking and the chances of making the NCAA tournament. I'm wondering what others' thoughts are on that.

Personally I kinda like it, as unlike a lot of you here, I've typically placed more value on winning the ECACs than on anything NCAA-wise, probably because the NCAA championship just seems to be such a stretch, but in any given year we really can win the ECACs. So I like the "pull Iles if needed to go for the bye" strategy, but I'm guessing others here might not. Thoughts?

I was wondering if Clarkson would pull the goalie in OT knowing they needed one more point than Cornell. Don't get the sense they did.

[Scersk '97]

Likely issue there is that the Yale game had already ended. If Clarkson hadn't at least preserved the tie, they were certainly in sixth, and the difference between Princeton and others is huge.

[Trotsky]

I was wondering if Clarkson would pull the goalie in OT knowing they needed one more point than Cornell. Don't get the sense they did.

CHN box says they didn't.

I was wondering during the game whether there was any scenario where both Cornell and Harvard would need a win to get over the cliff to the next third, provoking both teams to pull their goalies simultaneously in the final minute of OT.

[Towerroad]

I was wondering if Clarkson would pull the goalie in OT knowing they needed one more point than Cornell. Don't get the sense they did.

CHN box says they didn't.

I was wondering during the game whether there was any scenario where both Cornell and Harvard would need a win to get over the cliff to the next third, provoking both teams to pull their goalies simultaneously in the final minute of OT.

Interesting idea but I don't think the game theory works. If you believe that the side that pulls its goalie is scored on more than it scores (which I believe is true but am too lazy to prove it) then pulling your goalie is better for the other team since it increases its chances of victory. In this case both teams leave their goalie on the ice.

[KeithK]

I was wondering if Clarkson would pull the goalie in OT knowing they needed one more point than Cornell. Don't get the sense they did.

CHN box says they didn't.

I was wondering during the game whether there was any scenario where both Cornell and Harvard would need a win to get over the cliff to the next third, provoking both teams to pull their goalies simultaneously in the final minute of OT.

Interesting idea but I don't think the game theory works. If you believe that the side that pulls its goalie is scored on more than it scores (which I believe is true but am too lazy to prove it) then pulling your goalie is better for the other team since it increases its chances of victory. In this case both teams leave their goalie on the ice.

I don't think  that's quite the right analysis.  Pulling a goalie increases the chance of someone scoring.  It increases the chance of the attacking team scoring 6 on 5 and it increases the chance of the defending team scoring an ENG.  If a team needs a goal in a short period of time then this is a good strategy. In the hypothetical Cornell-Harvard situation, it's a good strategy if a win has significant value (reaching the next playoff band) and a loss is identical to a tie in terms of league standings. Neither team would be impacted by what happens to the other guy so the increased chance of the other scoring isn't really a factor.

Adding PWR into the mix is the factor that makes this improbable for Cornell because a loss would hurt more than a tie.  but if were far away from the bubble it might've been plausible.  And fun!

[Towerroad]

I was wondering if Clarkson would pull the goalie in OT knowing they needed one more point than Cornell. Don't get the sense they did.

CHN box says they didn't.

I was wondering during the game whether there was any scenario where both Cornell and Harvard would need a win to get over the cliff to the next third, provoking both teams to pull their goalies simultaneously in the final minute of OT.

Interesting idea but I don't think the game theory works. If you believe that the side that pulls its goalie is scored on more than it scores (which I believe is true but am too lazy to prove it) then pulling your goalie is better for the other team since it increases its chances of victory. In this case both teams leave their goalie on the ice.

I don't think  that's quite the right analysis.  Pulling a goalie increases the chance of someone scoring.  It increases the chance of the attacking team scoring 6 on 5 and it increases the chance of the defending team scoring an ENG.  If a team needs a goal in a short period of time then this is a good strategy. In the hypothetical Cornell-Harvard situation, it's a good strategy if a win has significant value (reaching the next playoff band) and a loss is identical to a tie in terms of league standings. Neither team would be impacted by what happens to the other guy so the increased chance of the other scoring isn't really a factor.

Adding PWR into the mix is the factor that makes this improbable for Cornell because a loss would hurt more than a tie.  but if were far away from the bubble it might've been plausible.  And fun!

I was operating under the following Hypotheses:

1. For both teams only a victory had any value, the costs associated with a tie or loss were inconsequential.

2. The probability that a team that does not pull its goalie will score when the other team does is greater than the probability that the team that pulled its goalie will score. I believe this is true but have not looked at the data.

Under these 2 assumptions neither team pulls its goalie if they are rational.

[Robb]

I was wondering if Clarkson would pull the goalie in OT knowing they needed one more point than Cornell. Don't get the sense they did.

CHN box says they didn't.

I was wondering during the game whether there was any scenario where both Cornell and Harvard would need a win to get over the cliff to the next third, provoking both teams to pull their goalies simultaneously in the final minute of OT.

Interesting idea but I don't think the game theory works. If you believe that the side that pulls its goalie is scored on more than it scores (which I believe is true but am too lazy to prove it) then pulling your goalie is better for the other team since it increases its chances of victory. In this case both teams leave their goalie on the ice.

I don't think  that's quite the right analysis.  Pulling a goalie increases the chance of someone scoring.  It increases the chance of the attacking team scoring 6 on 5 and it increases the chance of the defending team scoring an ENG.  If a team needs a goal in a short period of time then this is a good strategy. In the hypothetical Cornell-Harvard situation, it's a good strategy if a win has significant value (reaching the next playoff band) and a loss is identical to a tie in terms of league standings. Neither team would be impacted by what happens to the other guy so the increased chance of the other scoring isn't really a factor.

Adding PWR into the mix is the factor that makes this improbable for Cornell because a loss would hurt more than a tie.  but if were far away from the bubble it might've been plausible.  And fun!

I was operating under the following Hypotheses:

1. For both teams only a victory had any value, the costs associated with a tie or loss were inconsequential.

2. The probability that a team that does not pull its goalie will score when the other team does is greater than the probability that the team that pulled its goalie will score. I believe this is true but have not looked at the data.

Under these 2 assumptions neither team pulls its goalie if they are rational.

I disagree.  The 4 permutations might look something like this:

1) We don't pull goalie, they don't pull goalie (i.e. status quo): 5% we score, 5% they score, 90% nobody scores
2) We pull goalie, they don't pull goalie: 10% we score, 50% they score, 40% nobody scores
3) We pull goalie, they pull goalie: 40% we score, 40% they score, 20% nobody scores
4) We don't pull goalie, they pull goalie: 50% we score, 10% they score, 40% nobody scores

Sure, our best chance is if they pull the goalie and we don't (scenario 4, 50%).  But we can't control that.  If time is winding down and they haven't pulled, then pulling our goalie still improves our probability from 5% (scenario 1) to 10% (scn 2), so it is still a rational choice to do so.

Once we have pulled our goalie, they would of course be foolish to follow suit, since at that point THEY would be in their own best case scenario #4. So it becomes a game of chicken - you're best off if the other guy pulls first, but pulling first is still better than if nobody pulls at all.

[Trotsky]

My mental image was a center ice face off (say, the officials blow a call) with time for just one rush.  Both coaches know the odds of winning on the ensuing rush are essentially zero.  Mike looks at Teddy.  Teddy looks at Mike.  Each arches an eyebrow.  They both pull their goalies.  The team that wins the faceoff wins the game; the team that loses gives up nothing.

Now this can't work in reality because of the PWR implications, but imagine if it were say two teams tied for ninth, 1 point out of 8th, both losing their tie breaker to the 8.

[Chris '03]

I was wondering if Clarkson would pull the goalie in OT knowing they needed one more point than Cornell. Don't get the sense they did.

CHN box says they didn't.

I was wondering during the game whether there was any scenario where both Cornell and Harvard would need a win to get over the cliff to the next third, provoking both teams to pull their goalies simultaneously in the final minute of OT.

Interesting idea but I don't think the game theory works. If you believe that the side that pulls its goalie is scored on more than it scores (which I believe is true but am too lazy to prove it) then pulling your goalie is better for the other team since it increases its chances of victory. In this case both teams leave their goalie on the ice.

I don't think  that's quite the right analysis.  Pulling a goalie increases the chance of someone scoring.  It increases the chance of the attacking team scoring 6 on 5 and it increases the chance of the defending team scoring an ENG.  If a team needs a goal in a short period of time then this is a good strategy. In the hypothetical Cornell-Harvard situation, it's a good strategy if a win has significant value (reaching the next playoff band) and a loss is identical to a tie in terms of league standings. Neither team would be impacted by what happens to the other guy so the increased chance of the other scoring isn't really a factor.

Adding PWR into the mix is the factor that makes this improbable for Cornell because a loss would hurt more than a tie.  but if were far away from the bubble it might've been plausible.  And fun!

I was operating under the following Hypotheses:

1. For both teams only a victory had any value, the costs associated with a tie or loss were inconsequential.

2. The probability that a team that does not pull its goalie will score when the other team does is greater than the probability that the team that pulled its goalie will score. I believe this is true but have not looked at the data.

Under these 2 assumptions neither team pulls its goalie if they are rational.

I don't think I agree. The chance of the team that pulls it's goalie will score is greater than the likelihood of it scoring 5x5. Since that team couldn't care less if they lost or tied, they are better off increasing the odds they score in a limited timeframe. Over the course of a 5 minute period it becomes increasingly rational for both teams to pull their goalies because time is the other variable here. If you pull your goalie, it's highly unlikely you can protect an empty net for 5 minutes. If you presume 2:00 is the best you can do, you try to score 5x5 for thee minutes and then pull with 2:00 left. The risk of being scored on is that you lose whatever time is left on the clock to work your 6x5 advantage but that result is no better or worse than the game ending in a draw.  If your likelihood of scoring in any 1 minute of action is X% and the chance you score 6x5 is X+Y%, you'd rather have three shots at Y% and two shots at X+Y% than two shots at X+Y% before the other team ends the game on you, or five shots at X%. Even if your GAA in empty net situations is higher than in normal situations (and the likelihood of being scored on is higher than the likelihood of scoring), all that matters is for you to score a goal and to maximize your chances before either the clock runs out or you are scored on. Since your chances of scoring go up, it's worth doing.  Hopefully that makes some measure of sense....

Edit: What Robb said.

[BMac]

This is a really unstable equilibrium, because order matters.

If I pull my goalie, I have a higher chance of scoring, whether you pull yours or not. So it seems like a Nash equilibrium.

But if you pull your goalie first, though, I'll take my chances.

Q: So... do you get in a situation where I pull, then you pull, then I send back, then you send back, and so on??
A: No. Because if I pulled my goalie, you wouldn't pull yours. You'd take the 50% chance of winning over a 10% chance.

Given that you and I are identivally motivated, I don't think you would pull your goalie.

Assuming this is OT (sudden death) and a loss = a tie:
A. Both sides are incented to pull the goalie initially (10% chance of winning > 5% chance of winning)
B. Both sides are incented to not pull the goalie if the other side already did. (50% > 10%)
C. Whoever pulls their goalie first is the probable loser. So nobody does. Except A says that someone should.

Given that hockey coaches are famously subtle game theoreticians, perhaps it doesn't happen in reality because they've worked this out.