Future Coaching?

[KeithK]

I'd love to see another bona fide scoring line emerge (I mean, who wouldn't?) to complement JAM.  Call me crazy but I'd like to see Yates center for Rauter and Tschantz, if only to see what a line with absolutely no defensive ability or inclination looks like.  But it would probably give Mike an aneurysm.

But then we'd get a new coach so some folks might support this plan. ::bolt::

[marty]

I'd love to see another bona fide scoring line emerge (I mean, who wouldn't?) to complement JAM.  Call me crazy but I'd like to see Yates center for Rauter and Tschantz, if only to see what a line with absolutely no defensive ability or inclination looks like.  But it would probably give Mike an aneurysm.

But then we'd get a new coach so some folks might support this plan. ::bolt::

We'd only have a change if Andy noticed.

[CowbellGuy]

As far as "the system" goes, it's effectively keeping opponents' chances low and generating a lot of quality chances for Cornell. They're getting a lot of shots on goal, often in close. That's what Mike has influence over. The fact that there are only a couple guys who can effectively finish those chances is the problem. Mike can't score the goals for them (nor would he have been able to when he was playing, for that matter).

Recruiting has shifted toward smaller, faster, more offensively-minded types, so hopefully more of those chances will turn into goals going forward. Recruiting is a terrible business. You have to commit to players long before they've reached their potential, hope they don't back out of verbal commitments (thanks, Ivy League), and you can't have a roster of 30 players while kicking the chaff to the curb like scholarship schools do. When players are paying their way, they expect to play. It's a nasty juggling act I don't envy. I believe, and remain hopeful, that scoring will improve in the next couple years. That Rick Bennett is the only viable candidate y'all could muster is also telling. I don't think Mike is, or should, be going anywhere and on-ice performance going forward should squelch this topic in due time.

[redice]

Ah yes...   The famous quote:  "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

After 20+ years at the helm and a few years behind the time, Mike is finally trying to bring in smaller recruits.   This may, I repeat: "may", lead to a change in their playing style.    Time will tell on that one.   If that is true, I will be overjoyed...   Win or lose, the smaller/quicker teams are a lot more fun to watch.

As for last night's game, about mid-way through the third, I noticed CU going into a more defensive stance.   I said to my friend, "You know what this means, a Union goal is coming!"....   Granted, it took a Union PP, but it happened.    I just do not agree with this "sit on the lead" posture that Mike takes.   He obviously does not have the team to succeed at that....  So, why not just keep up the forecheck, perhaps being a little careful about making sure that Union doesn't get anyone behind your D??    And, maybe, just maybe, that forecheck might result in an additional goal for CU....Stranger things have happened.   To me, this is just another example of Mike's lack of willingness to change to fit current conditions.

[BearLover]

As far as "the system" goes, it's effectively keeping opponents' chances low and generating a lot of quality chances for Cornell. They're getting a lot of shots on goal, often in close. That's what Mike has influence over. The fact that there are only a couple guys who can effectively finish those chances is the problem. Mike can't score the goals for them (nor would he have been able to when he was playing, for that matter).

Is this true?  Cornell is getting outshot more often than not, and I haven't noticed Cornell's shots being consistently better than the opposition's.  I don't think the problem is finishing in close as much as it is controlling the puck through center ice and into the opponent's zone--and stopping the opponent from doing the same.  That is mostly, I think, because our skaters are slower and our passes are less crisp.  That results in a poor shot differential, which results in fewer goals.  Once we can fire as many shots on net as our opponents, then we can talk about putting them in the net.

[marty]

As far as "the system" goes, it's effectively keeping opponents' chances low and generating a lot of quality chances for Cornell. They're getting a lot of shots on goal, often in close. That's what Mike has influence over. The fact that there are only a couple guys who can effectively finish those chances is the problem. Mike can't score the goals for them (nor would he have been able to when he was playing, for that matter).

Is this true?  Cornell is getting outshot more often than not, and I haven't noticed Cornell's shots being consistently better than the opposition's.  I don't think the problem is finishing in close as much as it is controlling the puck through center ice and into the opponent's zone--and stopping the opponent from doing the same.  That is mostly, I think, because our skaters are slower and our passes are less crisp.  That results in a poor shot differential, which results in fewer goals.  Once we can fire as many shots on net as our opponents, then we can talk about putting them in the net.

But if you watched last year's team and compared it to the current team you would realize Age is right. Even without seeing the teams on ice look at the difference between the first round vs. Union for the two years. The system is working but the team isn't scoring as much as it needs to.

Also look at overtime. Saturday was the first overtime win in 2016. But with the exception of BU, Qpuke and the quick goal by St Lawrence the squad has looked good to excellent in the extra period this year. They looked better than excellent vs Providence.

As I mentioned earlier in the season, some see the glass 3/4 empty, I think it's 3/4 full. What we can't do yet is go down to the Creeker to celebrate. :-)

[BearLover]

As far as "the system" goes, it's effectively keeping opponents' chances low and generating a lot of quality chances for Cornell. They're getting a lot of shots on goal, often in close. That's what Mike has influence over. The fact that there are only a couple guys who can effectively finish those chances is the problem. Mike can't score the goals for them (nor would he have been able to when he was playing, for that matter).

Is this true?  Cornell is getting outshot more often than not, and I haven't noticed Cornell's shots being consistently better than the opposition's.  I don't think the problem is finishing in close as much as it is controlling the puck through center ice and into the opponent's zone--and stopping the opponent from doing the same.  That is mostly, I think, because our skaters are slower and our passes are less crisp.  That results in a poor shot differential, which results in fewer goals.  Once we can fire as many shots on net as our opponents, then we can talk about putting them in the net.

But if you watched last year's team and compared it to the current team you would realize Age is right. Even without seeing the teams on ice look at the difference between the first round vs. Union for the two years. The system is working but the team isn't scoring as much as it needs to.

Schafer, in his post-game interview for one of the games in the Union playoff series last weekend (can't remember which), said Cornell actually played well in last year's series too, but the difference this year was Gillam.  IMO, if the system is "working correctly" when we're getting outshot by bad teams, then the system sucks.

[CowbellGuy]

Shots are not a good metric. Most against have been bad angle or from far out. Quality chances are typically closer or often in Cornell's favor and matter a lot more than just shots.

[BearLover]

Shots are not a good metric. Most against have been bad angle or from far out. Quality chances are typically closer or often in Cornell's favor and matter a lot more than just shots.

Shots -are- a good metric: http://www.21stclub.com/2014/12/23/understanding-new-developments-in-shot-based-metrics/

We've had this discussion on this site before, but I believe (someone more up to date with hockey analytics can correct me) that SOGs are still seen as the best non-possession time measure and metrics involving "quality" shots doesn't hold up as anything more than random chance.

[CowbellGuy]

Yeah, but those random chances are the ones that tend to go in. I'll take a bunch of long, bad angle shots against that won't go in all day long.

[Trotsky]

I don't know how to quantify it, but I feel like we've had more good chances the last few weeks than we did all season prior to that, including when we were winning.

We don't have a blue chippah closer, true, but we are getting a lot of great first looks.  I feel as if it's just a matter of time* until the JAM line and the 9-15-16 line start scoring in bunches.

(* this weekend would kinda be the time to start...)

[BearLover]

It'd be interesting to see what the shot differentials were in Schafer's best years.  (Although you'd have to somehow adjust for the fact that we went into the 3rd period with the lead every game.)

[Chris '03]

It'd be interesting to see what the shot differentials were in Schafer's best years.  (Although you'd have to somehow adjust for the fact that we went into the 3rd period with the lead every game.)

Three most recent ECAC titles:

1068-753 in '03 http://collegehockeystats.net/0203/teamstats/corm

830-1025 in '05

982-956 in 10

[Swampy]

It'd be interesting to see what the shot differentials were in Schafer's best years.  (Although you'd have to somehow adjust for the fact that we went into the 3rd period with the lead every game.)

Three most recent ECAC titles:

1068-753 in '03 http://collegehockeystats.net/0203/teamstats/corm

830-1025 in '05

982-956 in 10

Interestingly, we made it to the FF in '03, to the regional finals in '05, and to the regional semi-finals in '10.

I'll take '03 any day.

[BearLover]

It'd be interesting to see what the shot differentials were in Schafer's best years.  (Although you'd have to somehow adjust for the fact that we went into the 3rd period with the lead every game.)

Three most recent ECAC titles:

1068-753 in '03 http://collegehockeystats.net/0203/teamstats/corm

830-1025 in '05

982-956 in 10

Huh?  We were outshot by 200 shots in 2005?

EDIT: Other way around.