LP Games

[Dafatone]

I was not at all surprised by the outcome... but I was actually pleasantly surprised by Cornell's performance. Union was clearly the superior team going into this game, but it didn't feel like Cornell was outclassed talent-wise. The problems I saw boil down to two things: (1) Cornell made more mistakes on defense, and (2) Union created more scoring opportunities.

To the second point, one thing I liked about Union was how they always had some guy trailing the man going in deep on the chase: if that guy got to the puck first, he just dinked it back to the teammate he knew was there behind him, which led to at least one goal and several other great opportunities in the slot and right around the crease.

Until Cornell got tired late in the third, I felt like their breakouts and passing were just as good as Union's, and I would be willing to bet puck possession time was similar for both teams. The difference was that Union created scoring opportunities when they had the puck deep in our zone, whereas Cornell's approach seems mostly to be "get it in the zone and pray something good happens"... which, as it so happens, sounds an awful lot like their ineffective power play, as well.

I feel like the D will improve next year, but their biggest hurdle IMO is creating more scoring opportunities.

I think you nailed it -- Union just better at getting higher quality scoring chances.

When we got to within 3-2, I really thought we had a great chance to pull it out.  Giving up that goal on the next shift was just a back-breaker.

Agreed.  We played a really, really good second period.  To go 2-2 in that period hurt.

But I felt like we skated well with Union, weren't that far behind in possession time and chances (though Union did a better job clogging on D against our chances), and generally felt like we belonged.  Solid effort against a better team.

[redice]

Union was clearly the better team.    The way they answered our goals in the second told me that it was a hopeless cause.   Union simply was NOT going to allow a loss and they have the talent to make it happen.

[upprdeck]

for all the union is better  and they are. still if we score on the PP and not union on theirs its a 3-3 game late..  the early post didnt help.  isles let a somewhat soft goal get in early as well.  the 2nd we dominated for most but we still left it down 2.  not a bad effort, the better team won.

[Rosey]

Union simply was NOT going to allow a loss and they have the talent to make it happen.

I think it's more likely they had the coaching to make it happen. Union appears to have set-plays designed specifically to create scoring opportunities where the D or the goaltender is caught out of position. No, they don't work every time, but they don't have to. Cornell doesn't seem to do this: they have a system on defense, and hope/hustle on offense.

The advantage of surprise always goes to the guy with the puck, so (combined with the fact that at least one goal is required to win a game) it's critical to use that advantage in a systematic way.

To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

[redice]

To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

Maybe so...  But, it would appear that the people choosing the all-star teams/Hobey Baker don't necessarily agree on your talent comparison.    I believe Union players are doing quite nicely in consideration for post-season awards.      I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

[Rosey]

To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

Maybe so...  But, it would appear that the people choosing the all-star teams/Hobey Baker don't necessarily agree on your talent comparison.    I believe Union players are doing quite nicely in consideration for post-season awards.      I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

I think it's impossible to adequately separate individual performance from the performance of an entire team. If anything, disciplined play within a system will necessarily tend to suppress those qualities that make a single individual stand out.

What I witnessed yesterday was disciplined play on both sides, but only for an incomplete part of Cornell's offensive game. With the exception of #14's remarkable two-way speed, I didn't see any Union players owning the ice or hot-dogging or making sick moves to get the drop on Cornell defenders. I saw good players doing their jobs within an offensive system that generated a ton of scoring chances against a good defense. The ones who get the accolades in such a system are those who net the goals and assists: that system makes those players look better than they would be without that leadership, and better than great players being individual heroes in undisciplined play. (Ever play hockey against a mediocre team with one ringer? Being too good for your own team is a net-negative.)

Nobody's going to pay a lot of attention to better-than-average players on a team that doesn't produce unless they really dominate: Ferlin, for instance, is really good at puck control, but you don't give individual league awards for puck control. You give them to individuals whose performances materially improve game outcomes and standings.

There may in fact be a talent gap, but it was not obvious and anyway that is not what lost the game for Cornell yesterday.

[redice]

To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

Maybe so...  But, it would appear that the people choosing the all-star teams/Hobey Baker don't necessarily agree on your talent comparison.    I believe Union players are doing quite nicely in consideration for post-season awards.      I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

I think it's impossible to adequately separate individual performance from the performance of an entire team. If anything, disciplined play within a system will necessarily tend to suppress those qualities that make a single individual stand out.

What I witnessed yesterday was disciplined play on both sides, but only for an incomplete part of Cornell's offensive game. With the exception of #14's remarkable two-way speed, I didn't see any Union players owning the ice or hot-dogging or making sick moves to get the drop on Cornell defenders. I saw good players doing their jobs within an offensive system that generated a ton of scoring chances against a good defense. The ones who get the accolades in such a system are those who net the goals and assists: that system makes those players look better than they would be without that leadership, and better than great players being individual heroes in undisciplined play. (Ever play hockey against a mediocre team with one ringer? Being too good for your own team is a net-negative.)

Nobody's going to pay a lot of attention to better-than-average players on a team that doesn't produce unless they really dominate: Ferlin, for instance, is really good at puck control, but you don't give individual league awards for puck control. You give them to individuals whose performances materially improve game outcomes and standings.

There may in fact be a talent gap, but it was not obvious and anyway that is not what lost the game for Cornell yesterday.

You are entitled to your perceptions, as I am to mine.   But, I have seen these situations play out too many times.   I'm telling you that, if Cornell had thrown down the gauntlet & scored 6 goals, I'd bet money on Union finding a way to score 7 or more.   No way to prove that.   But, cream rises to the top.   In this case, "cream" & "talent" are synonymous.    Since this is just a matter of opinion and we all know about opinions, I'm out.    Go ahead and have the last word by stating your opinion as fact.   I'm cool with that, Kyle.   TTFN

[Rosey]

To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

Maybe so...  But, it would appear that the people choosing the all-star teams/Hobey Baker don't necessarily agree on your talent comparison.    I believe Union players are doing quite nicely in consideration for post-season awards.      I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

I think it's impossible to adequately separate individual performance from the performance of an entire team. If anything, disciplined play within a system will necessarily tend to suppress those qualities that make a single individual stand out.

What I witnessed yesterday was disciplined play on both sides, but only for an incomplete part of Cornell's offensive game. With the exception of #14's remarkable two-way speed, I didn't see any Union players owning the ice or hot-dogging or making sick moves to get the drop on Cornell defenders. I saw good players doing their jobs within an offensive system that generated a ton of scoring chances against a good defense. The ones who get the accolades in such a system are those who net the goals and assists: that system makes those players look better than they would be without that leadership, and better than great players being individual heroes in undisciplined play. (Ever play hockey against a mediocre team with one ringer? Being too good for your own team is a net-negative.)

Nobody's going to pay a lot of attention to better-than-average players on a team that doesn't produce unless they really dominate: Ferlin, for instance, is really good at puck control, but you don't give individual league awards for puck control. You give them to individuals whose performances materially improve game outcomes and standings.

There may in fact be a talent gap, but it was not obvious and anyway that is not what lost the game for Cornell yesterday.

You are entitled to your perceptions, as I am to mine.   But, I have seen these situations play out too many times.   I'm telling you that, if Cornell had thrown down the gauntlet & scored 6 goals, I'd bet money on Union finding a way to score 7 or more.   No way to prove that.   But, cream rises to the top.   In this case, "cream" & "talent" are synonymous.    Since this is just a matter of opinion and we all know about opinions, I'm out.    Go ahead and have the last word by stating your opinion as fact.   I'm cool with that, Kyle.   TTFN

Or we could end this with some facts. Like NHL draft picks:

http://collegehockeyinc.com/pages/nhl-draft-picks-playing-college-hockey

Cornell has (had) 7 playing this year. Union? 1.

This fantasy that Cornell has a recruiting gap with any team they lose to has to be dispelled. It's a myth. There is simply no evidence to support it. But please don't let my facts get in the way of your overwhelming opinion.

[BearLover]

To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

Maybe so...  But, it would appear that the people choosing the all-star teams/Hobey Baker don't necessarily agree on your talent comparison.    I believe Union players are doing quite nicely in consideration for post-season awards.      I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

I think it's impossible to adequately separate individual performance from the performance of an entire team. If anything, disciplined play within a system will necessarily tend to suppress those qualities that make a single individual stand out.

What I witnessed yesterday was disciplined play on both sides, but only for an incomplete part of Cornell's offensive game. With the exception of #14's remarkable two-way speed, I didn't see any Union players owning the ice or hot-dogging or making sick moves to get the drop on Cornell defenders. I saw good players doing their jobs within an offensive system that generated a ton of scoring chances against a good defense. The ones who get the accolades in such a system are those who net the goals and assists: that system makes those players look better than they would be without that leadership, and better than great players being individual heroes in undisciplined play. (Ever play hockey against a mediocre team with one ringer? Being too good for your own team is a net-negative.)

Nobody's going to pay a lot of attention to better-than-average players on a team that doesn't produce unless they really dominate: Ferlin, for instance, is really good at puck control, but you don't give individual league awards for puck control. You give them to individuals whose performances materially improve game outcomes and standings.

There may in fact be a talent gap, but it was not obvious and anyway that is not what lost the game for Cornell yesterday.

You are entitled to your perceptions, as I am to mine.   But, I have seen these situations play out too many times.   I'm telling you that, if Cornell had thrown down the gauntlet & scored 6 goals, I'd bet money on Union finding a way to score 7 or more.   No way to prove that.   But, cream rises to the top.   In this case, "cream" & "talent" are synonymous.    Since this is just a matter of opinion and we all know about opinions, I'm out.    Go ahead and have the last word by stating your opinion as fact.   I'm cool with that, Kyle.   TTFN

Or we could end this with some facts. Like NHL draft picks:

http://collegehockeyinc.com/pages/nhl-draft-picks-playing-college-hockey

Cornell has (had) 7 playing this year. Union? 1.

This fantasy that Cornell has a recruiting gap with any team they lose to has to be dispelled. It's a myth. There is simply no evidence to support it. But please don't let my facts get in the way of your overwhelming opinion.

All of those players were recruited multiple years ago, before Union was any good.  Just look at Yale: they were getting nobody until they started winning the past few years, and now they have among the best talent in the ECAC.  The recruiting advantage that Cornell has over Union will continue to close.

[Dafatone]

To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

Maybe so...  But, it would appear that the people choosing the all-star teams/Hobey Baker don't necessarily agree on your talent comparison.    I believe Union players are doing quite nicely in consideration for post-season awards.      I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

I think it's impossible to adequately separate individual performance from the performance of an entire team. If anything, disciplined play within a system will necessarily tend to suppress those qualities that make a single individual stand out.

What I witnessed yesterday was disciplined play on both sides, but only for an incomplete part of Cornell's offensive game. With the exception of #14's remarkable two-way speed, I didn't see any Union players owning the ice or hot-dogging or making sick moves to get the drop on Cornell defenders. I saw good players doing their jobs within an offensive system that generated a ton of scoring chances against a good defense. The ones who get the accolades in such a system are those who net the goals and assists: that system makes those players look better than they would be without that leadership, and better than great players being individual heroes in undisciplined play. (Ever play hockey against a mediocre team with one ringer? Being too good for your own team is a net-negative.)

Nobody's going to pay a lot of attention to better-than-average players on a team that doesn't produce unless they really dominate: Ferlin, for instance, is really good at puck control, but you don't give individual league awards for puck control. You give them to individuals whose performances materially improve game outcomes and standings.

There may in fact be a talent gap, but it was not obvious and anyway that is not what lost the game for Cornell yesterday.

You are entitled to your perceptions, as I am to mine.   But, I have seen these situations play out too many times.   I'm telling you that, if Cornell had thrown down the gauntlet & scored 6 goals, I'd bet money on Union finding a way to score 7 or more.   No way to prove that.   But, cream rises to the top.   In this case, "cream" & "talent" are synonymous.    Since this is just a matter of opinion and we all know about opinions, I'm out.    Go ahead and have the last word by stating your opinion as fact.   I'm cool with that, Kyle.   TTFN

Or we could end this with some facts. Like NHL draft picks:

http://collegehockeyinc.com/pages/nhl-draft-picks-playing-college-hockey

Cornell has (had) 7 playing this year. Union? 1.

This fantasy that Cornell has a recruiting gap with any team they lose to has to be dispelled. It's a myth. There is simply no evidence to support it. But please don't let my facts get in the way of your overwhelming opinion.

All of those players were recruited multiple years ago, before Union was any good.  Just look at Yale: they were getting nobody until they started winning the past few years, and now they have among the best talent in the ECAC.  The recruiting advantage that Cornell has over Union will continue to close.

Or Union'll be terrible in a few years.  There's no real way to know, and going by recent ECAC history, the best teams don't always stay good.

Princeton had a few very good teams recently.  This year they went 6-26.

[Rosey]

All of those players were recruited multiple years ago, before Union was any good.

This is a great illustration of the other problem: no matter what evidence I come up with, someone will decide it isn't good enough to refute their own pet theory. I imagine it's a lot like battling climate change skeptics, or creationists. Now we've got "coaching matters"-deniers.

[KeithK]

All of those players were recruited multiple years ago, before Union was any good.  Just look at Yale: they were getting nobody until they started winning the past few years, and now they have among the best talent in the ECAC.  The recruiting advantage that Cornell has over Union will continue to close.

Sure, if Union continues to play at a high level they will likely improve their recruiting prospects going forward. So maybe the Cornell advantage will diminish. That doesn't imply that at the moment Union had better, more talented players than Cornell. Nor does it mean that they will going forward, since recruiting is hardly as exact science.

Draft picks is one mesure of talent, which favors Cornell over Union right now. But drafting is not an exact science either. It's projecting what a kid will be like in a few years.  If talent and success were all about draft picks then Harvard would still be dominating the ECAC.

[redice]

So, the games are over, Union is 2014 ECAC Champs.  Congrats to the Dutchmen!

Now, I have to ask if anyone else found the title game on tv?      We came home from errands expecting to catch the game in-progress on DirecTV's Ch. 623 ( where the semi's were carried)..    All we found on 623 was a floating DirecTV logo.   And the game was on no other channel.     I wonder who is responsible for this work of wonderment (NOT broadcasting the Title game).

[RatushnyFan]

I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

I am a big fan of his, but I used to think that he could be manhandled in front of Cornell's net.  Not sure if others agree with that assessment.  I think he has improved his defensive play.  The kid is tough too, he blocked a shot with his facemask against Quinnipiac in their barn.  Shook it off on the bench and kept going.  To me he's not as good as some of our prior first-team ECAC players like Murray or Ratushny but on par with a player like Steve Wilson.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

So, the games are over, Union is 2014 ECAC Champs.  Congrats to the Dutchmen!

Now, I have to ask if anyone else found the title game on tv?      We came home from errands expecting to catch the game in-progress on DirecTV's Ch. 623 ( where the semi's were carried)..    All we found on 623 was a floating DirecTV logo.   And the game was on no other channel.     I wonder who is responsible for this work of wonderment (NOT broadcasting the Title game).

I found it just where I expected it - Fox Sports Atlantic.  And Fox Sports Central had the WCHA final.