2015-16

[Trotsky]

As someone said on another thread, next year can't come fast enough.

These are the current commits.

We lose 4 forwards and 2 defensemen.

Assume all the 95s will enter:

F Luc Lalor
F Chad Otterman
F Beau Starrett
F Mitchell Vanderlaan

D Matt Nuttle

Anthony Angello (a 96) was taken in last year's draft, so presumably he's ready:

F Anthony Angello

The question is, will we see additional players brought in to guard against injuries and/or defections?  One would think at least 2 more D will come in, bringing the total to 9.  Conveniently, there are 2 96 Ds:

D Trent Shore
D Brendan Smith

Putting them all together would give this incoming class:

F Anthony Angello
F Luc Lalor
F Chad Otterman
F Beau Starrett
F Mitchell Vanderlaan

D Matt Nuttle
D Trent Shore
D Brendan Smith

Added to the returning 12 F and 6 D, that would give a roster of 17 F and 9 D.

[Scersk '97]

Bringing over a discussion that rests more fruitfully over here...

No one here would deny we were going to lose by 3+ goals to Yale [in 2010] if we matched up with them.

We actually stayed with them during the RS.  We lost at Ingalls in a game that was tied with 6 minutes to go, then lost in overtime at Lynah.  Granted, in the latter game Iles had 52 saves.

This thread is where I'd like to take up in this discussion. Everyone loves to bemoan how awfully we're stacking up with Union and Yale these days, but when one looks at the stats (say, for the last four years), one might change one's tune, as Trotsky has hinted at:

Code Select Expand


Union: 5–5-1 (semifinal loss in 2014; first-round loss in 2015)
Yale:  5-3

To me, that looks pretty good, considering the kind of teams Yale and Union have had for the last few years; indeed, with regard to Yale, we seem to have turned it around after the 1-8-1 (championship game losses in 2009 and 2011) of the previous four. To my mind, one of the teams to be concerned about is...

Code Select Expand


Quinnipiac: 6-8 (quarterfinal win in 2011; quarterfinal loss in 2013)

Whether or not their coach is a "classless asshole," he circulates in a completely different recruiting environment to ours, the Hilbrichs notwithstanding. And, looking into my crystal ball, I can't imagine that we'll have to deal with them much longer. When Notre Dame finally decides to leave Hockey Least, there is little doubt in my mind that QU will make the switch. (Who do we take? I'll guess one of RIT, Niagara, or Mercyhurst.) So, basically, I care but really I don't.

Rather, what gets my goat is how we're playing against the "bottom" of the league:

Code Select Expand


RPI: 1-4-3
Princeton: 6-3-1 (first-round win in 2013)

There is no way on earth that we should play as badly as we do, particularly away (1-2-1) during the regular season, against Princeton. We should destroy them every time we play them; we should drive the puck through their goalies into the net. Everything I've seen over the last four years versus them has been too cute—too much "flash and dash," not enough focus and dirty goals. With regard to RPI, Seth Appert has not turned out to be the world beater they thought he was going to be; to my mind, he and Teddy top my list of "ECAC Coaches That I'm Generally Happy To See Stick Around." Yet, his teams seem to be able to take it to ours...

Let's take a look at how "taking care of business" vs. Princeton and RPI would have increased our standing for the last few years:

Code Select Expand


2012: 1st (actual 2nd); RPI 10th, Princeton 11th
2013: 4th (actual 9th); RPI 2nd, Princeton 8th (RPI, granted; 0-2[!] in the regular season vs. Princeton)
2014: 3rd (actual 4th); RPI 7th, Princeton 12th (to be fair, swept Princeton)
2015: 4th (actual 7th); RPI 9th, Princeton 12th (Oi!)

Lately, RPI gets under our skins. (One could argue that has historically been the case. I remember a 2-2 tie at Lynah that nearly led to a riot.) And, lately, we've made every Princeton goalie look like the second coming of Dryden.

With the two goalies we have now, there are simply no excuses. For my money, it's lack of discipline and lack of "buy in" to The System, which includes, on off nights, pouring the puck on net, scoring dirty goals, and removing any "cuteness" from the game.

So, I look forward to the captaincy of (one would assume) Christian Hilbrich, a return to The (Original) System, a healthy Reece Willcox, and a team that's willing to do what's necessary to put away the bottom of the league next year.

I saw the 1997 team win a championship and make it within a game of the final four even though they really had no business being there. (Oh, but 1996... clang! Damn! Bad memory... We could have won the Unfrozen Four.) Although '97 lacked top-end talent, that team absolutely bought into everything Schafer was selling. The last team that did that was 2010.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Not to mention we lost a few to Dartmouth and Clarkson when they were not having good years.  

So I agree - we need to win the games we should win, and some of the toss-ups.  We haven't been doing that.

[Trotsky]

The table of our head-to-head by final ECAC standing reinforces the concern of Scersk '97.  Between '01  and '10 we were 36-1-3 .938 against the 11 and 12 seeds.  Since '11 we are 11-4-5 .675 against them.

[BearLover]

Bringing over a discussion that rests more fruitfully over here...

No one here would deny we were going to lose by 3+ goals to Yale [in 2010] if we matched up with them.

We actually stayed with them during the RS.  We lost at Ingalls in a game that was tied with 6 minutes to go, then lost in overtime at Lynah.  Granted, in the latter game Iles had 52 saves.

This thread is where I'd like to take up in this discussion. Everyone loves to bemoan how awfully we're stacking up with Union and Yale these days, but when one looks at the stats (say, for the last four years), one might change one's tune, as Trotsky has hinted at:

Code Select Expand


Union: 5–5-1 (semifinal loss in 2014; first-round loss in 2015)
Yale:  5-3

To me, that looks pretty good, considering the kind of teams Yale and Union have had for the last few years; indeed, with regard to Yale, we seem to have turned it around after the 1-8-1 (championship game losses in 2009 and 2011) of the previous four.

My comment about us never beating Yale was more about how we can never beat that type of team: small, fast, skilled.  Union has never, as far as I can tell, really played that style; they were more in the middle (with us and Yale at the two extremes).  In the past few years, Yale has changed its style and they are now the best defensive team in the country, which is one of the reasons we've done better.  Moreover, looking at the last four years doesn't make much sense when I was talking about 2010.  You conveniently started during a season when we broke a MASSIVE losing streak to Yale, and 8 games really isn't much of a sample, especially since we were outshot in probably all of them.  

Now we have a better chance of beating Yale than we did 8 years ago because they changed styles.  The point remains that Yale is still doing much better than us and that we never were able to solve the Yale teams of 2008-2011.

[Rosey]

The point remains that Yale is still doing much better than us and that we never were able to solve the Yale teams of 2008-2011.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Pretty much all it takes to beat Cornell is to play that style, because the coaching staff has no clue how to neutralize it.

[KGR11]

The point remains that Yale is still doing much better than us and that we never were able to solve the Yale teams of 2008-2011.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Pretty much all it takes to beat Cornell is to play that style, because the coaching staff has no clue how to neutralize it.

So, in the past season, who were the teams that play that style? I have no idea because I didn't see all of the games.  Looking at box scores from this season, I don't think any team dominated us in every game we played against them with the exception of Miami.  Perhaps that's also a function of some teams just having a bad day when they play us.

During 2008-2011, it just felt like Yale was going to beat us (and by a wide margin) every single time.  That's not a worry I had this year.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think this team was great, I just don't think they had a systematic flaw that I felt Yale exploited in 2008-2011.

Plus given Trotsky's table, I'd be happy if Brent Brekke.  It looked like he lined up well with Cornell's success.

[Jim Hyla]

The point remains that Yale is still doing much better than us and that we never were able to solve the Yale teams of 2008-2011.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Pretty much all it takes to beat Cornell is to play that style, because the coaching staff has no clue how to neutralize it.

So, in the past season, who were the teams that play that style? I have no idea because I didn't see all of the games.  Looking at box scores from this season, I don't think any team dominated us in every game we played against them with the exception of Miami.  Perhaps that's also a function of some teams just having a bad day when they play us.

During 2008-2011, it just felt like Yale was going to beat us (and by a wide margin) every single time.  That's not a worry I had this year.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think this team was great, I just don't think they had a systematic flaw that I felt Yale exploited in 2008-2011.

Plus given Trotsky's table, I'd be happy if Brent Brekke.  It looked like he lined up well with Cornell's success.

I don't remember anyone playing that style. At that time Yale had a terrific, aggressive, deep 2 man forecheck. At times they had 2 men down near the goal line. They were quick and great with their sticks. I don't think I've seen it since, as it takes a large number of quick forwards to play that style. The reason that Yale changed was that they didn't have that type of player. Since no one else seems to be able to get them either, I'm not going to worry about it. Nor am I going to judge us by it.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

A lot of the ECAC teams didn't play it consistently, but I agree, whenever our guys saw it, they couldn't deal with it and made mistakes.

I remember one game against Princeton, when they played it for the first period, and we fell behind.  They stopped and we came back.

[Scersk '97]

This thread is where I'd like to take up in this discussion. Everyone loves to bemoan how awfully we're stacking up with Union and Yale these days, but when one looks at the stats (say, for the last four years), one might change one's tune, as Trotsky has hinted at:

Code Select Expand


Union: 5–5-1 (semifinal loss in 2014; first-round loss in 2015)
Yale:  5-3

To me, that looks pretty good, considering the kind of teams Yale and Union have had for the last few years; indeed, with regard to Yale, we seem to have turned it around after the 1-8-1 (championship game losses in 2009 and 2011) of the previous four.

My comment about us never beating Yale was more about how we can never beat that type of team: small, fast, skilled.

Well, fine. I'll allow a move of the goalposts; I may even be sympathetic to what you're saying. But you'll have to go into the past and find a team or group of teams, other than late-00s Yale and other than 1980s Harvard, that plays that style and to whom we've consistently lost. My memory stretches back to the beginning of the McCutcheon era, and I can't think of one. To my mind, Allain's bequest from Taylor (including a goalie) was staggering, and what he added in those first years was lightning in a bottle. I'll also bet he'll never be able to put that together again, since his assistant coaches are not the recruiters Tim Taylor was.

Moreover, looking at the last four years doesn't make much sense when I was talking about 2010.  You conveniently started during a season when we broke a MASSIVE losing streak to Yale, and 8 games really isn't much of a sample, especially since we were outshot in probably all of them.

Well, we've got to start somewhere. On the other thread, someone was talking about four-year stretches as reasonable lengths of time across which to evaluate trends. Sure, I cherry picked, but not without reason. Would you deny that we've turned it around against Yale since four years ago? And, although our negative game-to-game and season-long shot differentials have begun to concern me, shot totals do not always indicate the flow of a game, as I'm sure you well know. (Myself, I attribute the downturn in differential to a lack of "grind" and poor shot selection [high and wide rather than low and looking to create a rebound] on the part of our forwards.)

Now we have a better chance of beating Yale than we did 8 years ago because they changed styles.  The point remains that Yale is still doing much better than us and that we never were able to solve the Yale teams of 2008-2011.

There's where you go wrong. I've demonstrated that Yale is not doing "much better" than us anymore. And the past is past, as detractors of Schafer are so fond of reminding us.

[Scersk '97]

Plus given Trotsky's table, I'd be happy [with] Brent Brekke.  It looked like he lined up well with Cornell's success.

Both Brekke's and Russell's bios indicate that they worked mostly with the defense; Garrow's indicates that he worked mostly with the offense.

The interesting point of inflection happens between the 2007 and 2008 seasons, when Brekke leaves. We go from generally (sometimes enormously) outshooting our opponents to being mildly outshot by them. Given that Brekke was a defensive guy and that Garrow was a constant throughout, it's difficult to say why the problem started then.

To my mind, Brekke and Garrow should be candidates should Schafer step down or be let go sometime in the future.

[BearLover]

This thread is where I'd like to take up in this discussion. Everyone loves to bemoan how awfully we're stacking up with Union and Yale these days, but when one looks at the stats (say, for the last four years), one might change one's tune, as Trotsky has hinted at:

Code Select Expand


Union: 5–5-1 (semifinal loss in 2014; first-round loss in 2015)
Yale:  5-3

To me, that looks pretty good, considering the kind of teams Yale and Union have had for the last few years; indeed, with regard to Yale, we seem to have turned it around after the 1-8-1 (championship game losses in 2009 and 2011) of the previous four.

My comment about us never beating Yale was more about how we can never beat that type of team: small, fast, skilled.

Well, fine. I'll allow a move of the goalposts; I may even be sympathetic to what you're saying. But you'll have to go into the past and find a team or group of teams, other than late-00s Yale and other than 1980s Harvard, that plays that style and to whom we've consistently lost. My memory stretches back to the beginning of the McCutcheon era, and I can't think of one. To my mind, Allain's bequest from Taylor (including a goalie) was staggering, and what he added in those first years was lightning in a bottle. I'll also bet he'll never be able to put that together again, since his assistant coaches are not the recruiters Tim Taylor was.

Moreover, looking at the last four years doesn't make much sense when I was talking about 2010.  You conveniently started during a season when we broke a MASSIVE losing streak to Yale, and 8 games really isn't much of a sample, especially since we were outshot in probably all of them.

Well, we've got to start somewhere. On the other thread, someone was talking about four-year stretches as reasonable lengths of time across which to evaluate trends. Sure, I cherry picked, but not without reason. Would you deny that we've turned it around against Yale since four years ago? And, although our negative game-to-game and season-long shot differentials have begun to concern me, shot totals do not always indicate the flow of a game, as I'm sure you well know. (Myself, I attribute the downturn in differential to a lack of "grind" and poor shot selection [high and wide rather than low and looking to create a rebound] on the part of our forwards.)

Now we have a better chance of beating Yale than we did 8 years ago because they changed styles.  The point remains that Yale is still doing much better than us and that we never were able to solve the Yale teams of 2008-2011.

There's where you go wrong. I've demonstrated that Yale is not doing "much better" than us anymore. And the past is past, as detractors of Schafer are so fond of reminding us.

Yale is doing much better than us.  Maybe not head-to-head, but nationally, yes, they are.  

It takes great talent to end up with a team that is skilled and fast enough to play like that, and it's true there may not be many in the ECAC who are styled in that way.  But that doesn't mean they aren't out there.  This problem usually rears its ugly  head whenever Cornell makes it to the NCAAs and is matched up with one of these teams, whether they be Minnesota or UNH or whomever is outshooting Cornell 2-to-1 in the tournament.  This year we played one of them down in Florida (Miami).  I've seen it happen when we play BU at MSG.  It just so happens that one of these powerhouse teams appeared in our own conference for a stretch.  The super skilled teams are just too fast for us to grind down as we do against weaker opponents.  

I've seen flashes of these quick puck movement, fast in transition attacks even from other ECAC teams (e.g., Harvard this season, Q sometimes too), and it has been those plays that Cornell cannot handle. Teams that can do that consistently may not be common, but they are out there, and Cornell has never shown the ability to beat them.  Schafer-led teams are good at hanging on by a thread, but at some point, when the other team is having its way with you in your own zone, McKee, or Iles, or whomever the poor netminder is, is going to let in that 61st shot on goal, and then the season is over.

[BearLover]

(It is possible, of course, that the reason we get annihilated when we play Yale and Minnesota is that they are just that much more talented than us, rather than their particular style of play.  But when we match up against teams that are equally talented but instead bigger and (relatively) slower, like Union and Michigan, we do a lot better.)

[marty]

Plus given Trotsky's table, I'd be happy [with] Brent Brekke.  It looked like he lined up well with Cornell's success.

Both Brekke's and Russell's bios indicate that they worked mostly with the defense; Garrow's indicates that he worked mostly with the offense.

The interesting point of inflection happens between the 2007 and 2008 seasons, when Brekke leaves. We go from generally (sometimes enormously) outshooting our opponents to being mildly outshot by them. Given that Brekke was a defensive guy and that Garrow was a constant throughout, it's difficult to say why the problem started then.

To my mind, Brekke and Garrow should be candidates should Schafer step down or be let go sometime in the future.

I'd like to hear Brekke's whistle return to Lynah, too.

[pfibiger]

Trotsky,

You're missing Alec McCrea, who'll show up next year on defense:

http://wcfcourier.com/sports/hockey/blackhawks/black-hawks-mccrea-commits-to-cornell/article_6958d3cd-3d94-5151-b9c4-f04920bcf0b3.html