What's going on with this year's team?

[css228]

Does CF Close include special teams play?  Because Cornell has been taking more penalties than its opponents, and it has been consistently leading in games.  CF Close, despite ignoring large score disparities, still includes the time when Cornell is leading by 1 goal--which has been the case far more often this season than them being down by 1 goal.  So it's likely Cornell's numbers would be a bit higher if they weren't nearly always ahead and weren't taking more penalties than their opponents.  

With that said, though, one need only watch the 3rd period and OT of the BU game to know Cornell has a long way to go before it's an elite team.

So the answer is because I drew these stats from CHN I'm not 100% sure. Generally the answer is no, but they didn't specify whether their close were taken in all situations or even strength. My bet is even strength, because the whole point of looking at CF% close in the first place is to remove the bias of score effects (close meaning a +/- 1 goal in the first two periods or tied in the third) so it would kind of defeat the point of the stat, but I just can't guarantee 5 v. 4 stats aren't in there because CHN's stat tables just aren't detailed enough.

[css228]

I feel that the stats like time of possession, shots, CF etc. can be skewed against a team that jumps out to an early lead. I would like to see adjusted stats that reflect that a team with a healthy lead would naturally be expected to take fewer shots etc. I haven't checked our stats on that but at least against Q and BU we jumped out to an early lead and probably collapsed into a defensive shell. Are they better teams? Probably. But would we have been a bit more agressive to the puck if we were down a goal? Probably.

You're absolutely right that CF% is biased by score effects. This is why I cited CF% close (i.e. CF% when the +/- 1 goal in the first two periods or tied in the third and OT).

[BearLover]

I feel that the stats like time of possession, shots, CF etc. can be skewed against a team that jumps out to an early lead. I would like to see adjusted stats that reflect that a team with a healthy lead would naturally be expected to take fewer shots etc. I haven't checked our stats on that but at least against Q and BU we jumped out to an early lead and probably collapsed into a defensive shell. Are they better teams? Probably. But would we have been a bit more agressive to the puck if we were down a goal? Probably.

You're absolutely right that CF% is biased by score effects. This is why I cited CF% close (i.e. CF% when the +/- 1 goal in the first two periods or tied in the third and OT).

Oh, CF Close only includes ties in the third?  That invalidates most of my earlier point, then.

[Trotsky]

Falling into old habits is my only fear, other than more injuries.

I guess it's theoretically possible that we're so young there aren't a lot of old habits to fall into.  The class of '15 gobbled up tremendous ice time.  The combination of there being a large number of players who saw no or little ice time last year and those who did shifting into new roles, and this may be about as close to a clean slate as one is likely to get.

[Roy 82]

I feel that the stats like time of possession, shots, CF etc. can be skewed against a team that jumps out to an early lead. I would like to see adjusted stats that reflect that a team with a healthy lead would naturally be expected to take fewer shots etc. I haven't checked our stats on that but at least against Q and BU we jumped out to an early lead and probably collapsed into a defensive shell. Are they better teams? Probably. But would we have been a bit more agressive to the puck if we were down a goal? Probably.

You're absolutely right that CF% is biased by score effects. This is why I cited CF% close (i.e. CF% when the +/- 1 goal in the first two periods or tied in the third and OT).

Thanks. I assumed that it was CF within a certain distance of the net. There goes my chance to have a stat named after me. ::cry::

[Trotsky]

I feel that the stats like time of possession, shots, CF etc. can be skewed against a team that jumps out to an early lead. I would like to see adjusted stats that reflect that a team with a healthy lead would naturally be expected to take fewer shots etc. I haven't checked our stats on that but at least against Q and BU we jumped out to an early lead and probably collapsed into a defensive shell. Are they better teams? Probably. But would we have been a bit more agressive to the puck if we were down a goal? Probably.

You're absolutely right that CF% is biased by score effects. This is why I cited CF% close (i.e. CF% when the +/- 1 goal in the first two periods or tied in the third and OT).

Thanks. I assumed that it was CF within a certain distance of the net. There goes my chance to have a stat named after me. ::cry::

Speaking of, where the hell is Bill?

[Tom Lento]

I'm not going to lie I'm incredibly skeptical of this team. Before the BU game we looked like a good possession team, but we had only played 2 teams with decent possession stats (Yale and Q, who is ) and we went 0-1-1 in those matchups. The rest of the teams were in the bottom 3rd in both CF% and CF% close (which is a better metric by far than PWR or KRACH to compare a team). Since then our possesion stats have gone in a freefall. We currently stand at 47.7% CF and 51.2% CF close. The first might be due to score effects, and the second number isnt bad, but before the BU game it was 53.7% CF close which screams to me that we were beating up on bad teams and now that we've actually had to play a run of good possession teams (BU, Clarkson, and SLU) our possession numbers have basically looked like we've iced a top pair Andrew MacDonald and Dan Girardi. Admittedly, we won the two against Clarkson and SLU, but we pretty much stole both. We're basically a little fluky puck luck away from being winless over any team with a CF% greater than 50%. That doesn't scream good team. It screams at best slightly above average team that has the potential to come apart in the 2nd half of the year.

Sorry to be a horrible killjoy.

I honestly wish there was more of this here. It's not positive but it isn't Chicken Little bullshit. And it really isn't all that far away from what most of us say/believe anyway.

I don't think anyone is convinced that we're a top 10 team. I'd guess that the eLF crowd is pleasantly surprised with the results to date, expecting some slippage, figuring there is a good chance to snag an at-large ahead of schedule with the freshmen and hoping that the full squad is healthy at the end of the year to make a run.

This wasn't supposed to be the year for great things. It was supposed to be a rebuilding year and we've been a skating infirmary. That's what your stats say to me. No reason to think that makes you a killjoy.

Agreed, I see that as realistic, not being a killjoy at all.

I have seen 0 minutes of Cornell hockey this year. However, based purely on stats and recaps and discussion here it seems to me this team was beating the teams it should and staying close with better teams despite getting outplayed. They've managed to steal almost all of the available points from the latter while not conceding any to the former. This is not actually a bad thing, but when roughly half of your games are the "try to stay close and hope for the best" variety you are probably not a top contender for a deep NCAA run.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if this team finished the regular season with 20+ wins. Not shocked, because they started so hot, but surprised. I would not be surprised if this team finished with 16 wins. That might feel like failure after this start, but it's in line with a solid season given early expectations, and frankly it seems more in line with the run of play this team has had thus far.

[KeithK]

I'd be pleasantly surprised if this team finished the regular season with 20+ wins. Not shocked, because they started so hot, but surprised. I would not be surprised if this team finished with 16 wins. That might feel like failure after this start, but it's in line with a solid season given early expectations, and frankly it seems more in line with the run of play this team has had thus far.

If the team plays .500 the rest of the way (a line which would have not be out of line with preseason expectations) Cornell would finish the RS at 17-9-2 and 13-8-1 in conference.  I'd consider that a successful season given where we were last season.

I still think there are enough positive signs that it's not unreasonable to hope for better than going forward. We'll all be rooting for that. (Well, I'm rooting for a 34-1-2 finish but that is unreasonable.)

[upprdeck]

its one thing to stay close to better teams.. more interesting in that these better teams have trailed CU by multiple goals fairly late in the game and perhaps if CU had just a few less injuries it holds onto those leads.

[marty]

its one thing to stay close to better teams.. more interesting in that these better teams have trailed CU by multiple goals fairly late in the game and perhaps if CU had just a few less injuries it holds onto those leads.

Even Brown can be heard singing this song (though I don't know about any injuries there).

They were tied with Providence at the halfway point last night and didn't give up the third goal until 17:06 of the third.  Also it's interesting that CHN is reporting no penalties in this game after the first period. That from the ECAC pre-season cellar dweller.

The 4-1 final might have been inevitable but that game must have had Leaman wondering WTF at times.

[Swampy]

All of the above!  We have better shooters/finishers, and we had a class of relatively terrible finishers leave.  Certainly, there's some luck to it as well.  88.1% is terrible, but 92.9% was great.

To back this up, our top three in shot percentage are Angello (33.3%), Vanderlaan (28.6%), and Starrett (20% and tied with Kubiak) -- all frosh. This says something about them, as well as the chemistry of their lines. Angello and Vanderlaan are also tied for second place on the team in +/- with 8. McCrea, another frosh and a defenseman, is tied for third on the team in points and fourth in +/-.

[Trotsky]

All of the above!  We have better shooters/finishers, and we had a class of relatively terrible finishers leave.  Certainly, there's some luck to it as well.  88.1% is terrible, but 92.9% was great.

To back this up, our top three in shot percentage are Angello (33.3%)

Clearly we just need Angello to take 21 shots per game...

[KeithK]

All of the above!  We have better shooters/finishers, and we had a class of relatively terrible finishers leave.  Certainly, there's some luck to it as well.  88.1% is terrible, but 92.9% was great.

To back this up, our top three in shot percentage are Angello (33.3%)

Clearly we just need Angello to take 21 shots per game...

T o achieve that we could just get rid of this whole "line change" thing.  We talk about the team playing hard for a full 60 minutes. Why can't he do that specifically?

[Trotsky]

All of the above!  We have better shooters/finishers, and we had a class of relatively terrible finishers leave.  Certainly, there's some luck to it as well.  88.1% is terrible, but 92.9% was great.

To back this up, our top three in shot percentage are Angello (33.3%)

Clearly we just need Angello to take 21 shots per game...

T o achieve that we could just get rid of this whole "line change" thing.  We talk about the team playing hard for a full 60 minutes. Why can't he do that specifically?

Nieuwy in '87 essentially did that.

It would be great if there had been TOI for that year.  If any forward ever broke 30 it would be him then.

[Swampy]

All of the above!  We have better shooters/finishers, and we had a class of relatively terrible finishers leave.  Certainly, there's some luck to it as well.  88.1% is terrible, but 92.9% was great.

To back this up, our top three in shot percentage are Angello (33.3%)

Clearly we just need Angello to take 21 shots per game...

Boy, talk about looking in the mouth of a gift horse.