Tonight's game v. Penn State

[marty]

From today's USCHO article, an interesting quote.

"I'm shocked," said Cornell head coach Mike Schafer when asked about the play of his team's young goalies. "Not having Joakim Ryan on the blue line and having all of those new defensemen to go along with two new goaltenders, then looking at our defensive performance leaves me shocked."

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/2014/11/30/cornell-goalies-gillam-stewart-no-longer-unknown-commodities/#ixzz3KXz3Dl6G

And more from Adam's article in CHN:

Schafer coaches patience, cycling, waiting for the high percetage shot; Gadowsky trains his teams to throw the puck on net from everywhere, and create havoc in front. They represent the two extremes of options that all coaches emply, in varying degrees, from time to time.

The result Saturday, in shot differential, was typical: Penn State outshot Cornell, 38-25.

"I told my guys, don't look at the shot clock," Schafer said. "They fire shots from everywhere. After the first period, as badly as we played (Penn State outshot Cornell, 12-5), when we tracked the statistics, they had three really good scoring chances, and we had two. Shots and plus-minus are some of the biggest misleading statistics in the game."

I'm pretty sure SOG is the most representative commonly used statistic regarding how good a team is...not sure why Schafer thinks it's misleading.

Because he is more concerned with scoring chances, which I admit is somewhat subjective, than just any shot on goal. In fact I can take it one step further. Sometimes when the puck is just flipped down the ice, no SOG nor save is registered.  However if he doesn't stop it, it would be a goal, so shouldn't it be a save, but not a scoring chance?

But almost every shot on goal IS a scoring chance.  Most girls aren't pretty--they come on tips or rebounds or go off a player's skate.  The two most popular advanced stats look at total shots as a proxy for puck possession, which is the best measure of a team's success: http://bluejackets.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=99406

Well in the seventies, the hockey team seemed to have a good choice of pretty ones.  I guess times have changed? And I haven't seen the off the skate move but I guess that could be a bizarre metaphor.

[imafrshmn]

From today's USCHO article, an interesting quote.

"I'm shocked," said Cornell head coach Mike Schafer when asked about the play of his team's young goalies. "Not having Joakim Ryan on the blue line and having all of those new defensemen to go along with two new goaltenders, then looking at our defensive performance leaves me shocked."

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/2014/11/30/cornell-goalies-gillam-stewart-no-longer-unknown-commodities/#ixzz3KXz3Dl6G

And more from Adam's article in CHN:

Schafer coaches patience, cycling, waiting for the high percetage shot; Gadowsky trains his teams to throw the puck on net from everywhere, and create havoc in front. They represent the two extremes of options that all coaches emply, in varying degrees, from time to time.

The result Saturday, in shot differential, was typical: Penn State outshot Cornell, 38-25.

"I told my guys, don't look at the shot clock," Schafer said. "They fire shots from everywhere. After the first period, as badly as we played (Penn State outshot Cornell, 12-5), when we tracked the statistics, they had three really good scoring chances, and we had two. Shots and plus-minus are some of the biggest misleading statistics in the game."

I'm pretty sure SOG is the most representative commonly used statistic regarding how good a team is...not sure why Schafer thinks it's misleading.

Because he is more concerned with scoring chances, which I admit is somewhat subjective, than just any shot on goal. In fact I can take it one step further. Sometimes when the puck is just flipped down the ice, no SOG nor save is registered.  However if he doesn't stop it, it would be a goal, so shouldn't it be a save, but not a scoring chance?

But almost every shot on goal IS a scoring chance.  Most girls aren't pretty--they come on tips or rebounds or go off a player's skate.  The two most popular advanced stats look at total shots as a proxy for puck possession, which is the best measure of a team's success: http://bluejackets.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=99406

Jason Weinstein, I believe, called Schafer's and Gadowsky's offensive philosophies polar opposite. Schafer is all about "scoring chances". Pitfalls: forgetting how to finish chances and not generating dirty goals. Gadowsky's system is all about the dirty goals, but perhaps lacks the organization to consistently generate "chances".

[BearLover]

Most girls aren't pretty--they come on tips or...

"Oh, ha, what an unfortunate typo."

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2014 06:39PM by BearLover.

... wait, that wasn't the typo?

Hahaha, been a long day.  Point still stands about the goals, though.

[Jim Hyla]

From today's USCHO article, an interesting quote.

"I'm shocked," said Cornell head coach Mike Schafer when asked about the play of his team's young goalies. "Not having Joakim Ryan on the blue line and having all of those new defensemen to go along with two new goaltenders, then looking at our defensive performance leaves me shocked."

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/2014/11/30/cornell-goalies-gillam-stewart-no-longer-unknown-commodities/#ixzz3KXz3Dl6G

And more from Adam's article in CHN:

Schafer coaches patience, cycling, waiting for the high percetage shot; Gadowsky trains his teams to throw the puck on net from everywhere, and create havoc in front. They represent the two extremes of options that all coaches emply, in varying degrees, from time to time.

The result Saturday, in shot differential, was typical: Penn State outshot Cornell, 38-25.

"I told my guys, don't look at the shot clock," Schafer said. "They fire shots from everywhere. After the first period, as badly as we played (Penn State outshot Cornell, 12-5), when we tracked the statistics, they had three really good scoring chances, and we had two. Shots and plus-minus are some of the biggest misleading statistics in the game."

I'm pretty sure SOG is the most representative commonly used statistic regarding how good a team is...not sure why Schafer thinks it's misleading.

Because he is more concerned with scoring chances, which I admit is somewhat subjective, than just any shot on goal. In fact I can take it one step further. Sometimes when the puck is just flipped down the ice, no SOG nor save is registered.  However if he doesn't stop it, it would be a goal, so shouldn't it be a save, but not a scoring chance?

But almost every shot on goal IS a scoring chance.  Most goals aren't pretty--they come on tips or rebounds or go off a player's skate.  The two most popular advanced stats look at total shots as a proxy for puck possession, which is the best measure of a team's success: http://bluejackets.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=99406

That's the whole point, the final edition of it, that is:-}. Schafer would look at chances for tip in or rebound as a good scoring chance. A shot on goal, without traffic in front, would not be a good scoring chance. Basically, if the shot is such that any college hockey goalie should stop it, without a juicy rebound, then it's not a good scoring chance. And what should be said about total shots as a proxy for puck possession, is that it's the easiest proxy for possession, but it's certainly not the best measurement for possession.

[KGR11]

Aren't CU band/opposing band/DJ/PA cues agreed upon mutually?  I just assumed that's what the headsets are for.

Accepting headsets is the first mistake. ([Clandestine unplug. Tap, tap, tap.] "Oh, too bad, it's not working." ) ACM and the band have always been able to handle that delicate dance without much communication at all.

And, no, these arrangements are not arrived at in any sort of mutual fashion these days. More and more, college pep bands are dictated to. Every DJ overreaches, and it's beyond me why they're given license to do so.

It's part of the national sporting conversation that we're not having nearly often enough: are college athletics for the students or not? If they are, and there's a band in attendance, the DJ should take the night off. Let the band play.

(And my advice to the current band: Play over everyone and everything except opposing bands and rink announcers. We always did—"Nobody puts Baby in the corner." Anyway, running interference on those who would muzzle you is what head managers are for.)

Opposing band cues are mutual.  As Scersk says, the DJ/PA pretty much dictate who can play when.  I feel incredibly fortunate to have been a member of a pep band with a home rink where the number of times the PA talks during stoppages can be counted on one hand.  For all of the criticisms we have about the current Lynah atmosphere, the fact that there's no canned music and limited advertising announcements IS special and should be cherished.

Scersk, I'm not sure that undergrad band leaders read eLynah.  If you want them to read your advice, you could probably e-mail them directly.

The "stick it to the man" attitude of the pep band wasn't that strong when I was in it.  I think there a couple of possible reasons for this:

1.  The band isn't louder than a modern PA system, so if the powers that be in MSG think that we're playing when we shouldn't, they will (and have) play canned music over the band.
2.  Zealous (and sometimes classless) cheering by the band led to threats from Athletic Directors to revoke the privilege to play at games.  I know that I was a more cautious band leader because of these events and wouldn't be surprised if that had a ripple effect to future years.

[ugarte]

From today's USCHO article, an interesting quote.

"I'm shocked," said Cornell head coach Mike Schafer when asked about the play of his team's young goalies. "Not having Joakim Ryan on the blue line and having all of those new defensemen to go along with two new goaltenders, then looking at our defensive performance leaves me shocked."

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/2014/11/30/cornell-goalies-gillam-stewart-no-longer-unknown-commodities/#ixzz3KXz3Dl6G

And more from Adam's article in CHN:

Schafer coaches patience, cycling, waiting for the high percetage shot; Gadowsky trains his teams to throw the puck on net from everywhere, and create havoc in front. They represent the two extremes of options that all coaches emply, in varying degrees, from time to time.

The result Saturday, in shot differential, was typical: Penn State outshot Cornell, 38-25.

"I told my guys, don't look at the shot clock," Schafer said. "They fire shots from everywhere. After the first period, as badly as we played (Penn State outshot Cornell, 12-5), when we tracked the statistics, they had three really good scoring chances, and we had two. Shots and plus-minus are some of the biggest misleading statistics in the game."

I'm pretty sure SOG is the most representative commonly used statistic regarding how good a team is...not sure why Schafer thinks it's misleading.

Because he is more concerned with scoring chances, which I admit is somewhat subjective, than just any shot on goal. In fact I can take it one step further. Sometimes when the puck is just flipped down the ice, no SOG nor save is registered.  However if he doesn't stop it, it would be a goal, so shouldn't it be a save, but not a scoring chance?

But almost every shot on goal IS a scoring chance.  Most goals aren't pretty--they come on tips or rebounds or go off a player's skate.  The two most popular advanced stats look at total shots as a proxy for puck possession, which is the best measure of a team's success: http://bluejackets.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=99406

That's the whole point, the final edition of it, that is:-}. Schafer would look at chances for tip in or rebound as a good scoring chance. A shot on goal, without traffic in front, would not be a good scoring chance. Basically, if the shot is such that any college hockey goalie should stop it, without a juicy rebound, then it's not a good scoring chance. And what should be said about total shots as a proxy for puck possession, is that it's the easiest proxy for possession, but it's certainly not the best measurement for possession.

Ryan Lambert wrote an interesting article on Penn State and their shooting strategy in the context of shots-for analysis (it follows his discussion of Merrimack): http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2014/11/11_second_thoughts.php

[Josh '99]

Was that Rob Pannell on the ice during the second intermission??  I was in the presence of greatness!

Yes, along with (if I recall correctly) John Glynn.  They rather stunk up the joint when pitted against Penn State lacrosse alumni in the "score a goal from the red line, the far blue line, and the far faceoff circle" contest, but given all they did for the lacrosse team, I think maybe we can let it slide.

[Scersk '97]

2.  Zealous (and sometimes classless) cheering by the band led to threats from Athletic Directors to revoke the privilege to play at games.  I know that I was a more cautious band leader because of these events and wouldn't be surprised if that had a ripple effect to future years.

I get this; the leash is so short these days. But, still, threats are threats. There would be quite a brouhaha if the band were prevented from playing. The band has quite a bit more latitude than it thinks.

As far as keeping it classy goes? Of course. In my day, we were, you might be surprised to hear, always classy. Cutting, sardonic, cruel, obnoxious, yes, but always classy.

[Jim Hyla]

2.  Zealous (and sometimes classless) cheering by the band led to threats from Athletic Directors to revoke the privilege to play at games.  I know that I was a more cautious band leader because of these events and wouldn't be surprised if that had a ripple effect to future years.

I get this; the leash is so short these days. But, still, threats are threats. There would be quite a brouhaha if the band were prevented from playing. The band has quite a bit more latitude than it thinks.

As far as keeping it classy goes? Of course. In my day, we were, you might be surprised to hear, always classy. Cutting, sardonic, cruel, obnoxious, yes, but always classy.

Yes, you can cheer the house down and still keep it classy. Just check my signature below. We even were loud back then.::banana::

[David Harding]

I'm guilty of holding several empty seats.  We had tickets, as for all the MSG games this century, but I spent Saturday doped up in a hospital trying to flush out some kidney stones.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

I'm guilty of holding several empty seats.  We had tickets, as for all the MSG games this century, but I spent Saturday doped up in a hospital trying to flush out some kidney stones.

That would be a legitimate excuse.::scream::

[adamw]

Ryan Lambert wrote an interesting article on Penn State and their shooting strategy in the context of shots-for analysis (it follows his discussion of Merrimack): http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2014/11/11_second_thoughts.php

For the record, I disagree, somewhat with Lambert - and told him so before I published his article

If shots were the end all be all, Penn State would win every game.

[ugarte]

Ryan Lambert wrote an interesting article on Penn State and their shooting strategy in the context of shots-for analysis (it follows his discussion of Merrimack): http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2014/11/11_second_thoughts.php

For the record, I disagree, somewhat with Lambert - and told him so before I published his article

If shots were the end all be all, Penn State would win every game.

But he basically says that Penn State's strategy is a good strategy for Penn State; they take a lot of bad shots because, given their talent level, the alternative would be "very few shots" instead of "better shots". He basically credits Gadowsky for optimizing the performance of a weak team. It isn't strictly in praise of a raw number. Anyway, thanks for hitting publish on it.

[KeithK]

Ryan Lambert wrote an interesting article on Penn State and their shooting strategy in the context of shots-for analysis (it follows his discussion of Merrimack): http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2014/11/11_second_thoughts.php

For the record, I disagree, somewhat with Lambert - and told him so before I published his article

If shots were the end all be all, Penn State would win every game.

But he basically says that Penn State's strategy is a good strategy for Penn State; they take a lot of bad shots because, given their talent level, the alternative would be "very few shots" instead of "better shots". He basically credits Gadowsky for optimizing the performance of a weak team. It isn't strictly in praise of a raw number. Anyway, thanks for hitting publish on it.

Puck possession stats are necessarily affected by the strategies that the teams employ.  If you took a bunch of teams with neutral "shot strategies" (middle ground between Schafer and Gadowsky) I can believe that puck possession would correlate well with talent. Likewise if you had a sample of teams with the same extreme strategy. But the different strategies are likely going to throw noise into the data and make it difficult to interpret the data conclusively.

IMO sports analytics proponents have a tendency to draw conclusions that are too strong given the available data.

[Jim Hyla]

Ryan Lambert wrote an interesting article on Penn State and their shooting strategy in the context of shots-for analysis (it follows his discussion of Merrimack): http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2014/11/11_second_thoughts.php

For the record, I disagree, somewhat with Lambert - and told him so before I published his article

If shots were the end all be all, Penn State would win every game.

But he basically says that Penn State's strategy is a good strategy for Penn State; they take a lot of bad shots because, given their talent level, the alternative would be "very few shots" instead of "better shots". He basically credits Gadowsky for optimizing the performance of a weak team. It isn't strictly in praise of a raw number. Anyway, thanks for hitting publish on it.

Puck possession stats are necessarily affected by the strategies that the teams employ.  If you took a bunch of teams with neutral "shot strategies" (middle ground between Schafer and Gadowsky) I can believe that puck possession would correlate well with talent. Likewise if you had a sample of teams with the same extreme strategy. But the different strategies are likely going to throw noise into the data and make it difficult to interpret the data conclusively.

IMO sports analytics proponents have a tendency to draw conclusions that are too strong given the available data.

That's the clue, especially with the minimal data that we have for college hockey.