CU vs Dartmouth 01/22/16

[Dafatone]

Schafer, from the USCHO recap:

"We refuse to stay in front of the net, we refuse to shoot pucks, [and] now we want to make one extra pass as opposed to putting it on net."

Maybe I do know something about hockey, because I've been frustrated with the same things. Maybe after this weekend we can go back to playing dirty goal, pressure-oriented hockey.

Right? I'm glad he noticed and said something and maybe will do something because I was fully prepared to blame this on the guy in the suit.

As long as Schafer refuses to realize that the vast majority of this is on his conservative neutral zone style which all but concedes both blue lines, its still on the man in the suit.

If you're going to bitch, at least address the Dartmouth game in the Dartmouth thread. Otherwise, start a new thread——"Fire Schafer," I suggest.

We didn't lose the Dartmouth game because of our neutral-zone play, we lost it because of the things Schafer addressed in his quote, i.e., the things that lead to putting the puck in the net when things aren't bouncing your way. As far as I could see, he was spot on. (Which is probably why we saw Anderson back against Harvard, since we know he's willing to get pounded in front of the net.)

For my money, the only thing I care about, honestly, is pucks on net——not wide, not blocked, but on the damn net. Buckles sat vs. Harvard because, more than any other player on the team, he shoots wide or gets blocked. (Willcox is the other offender.) These tendencies were on display vs. Dartmouth.

To my mind, the difference between this team ending up having a mediocre or reasonably good season can be covered by addressing what Schafer mentioned above. This would require, of course, certain players truly buying into their roles not only on the defensive end of the ice but on the offensive end as well. That is, all players not named Vanderlaan, Kubiak, and Angello or who are not having a good night need to understand that their chief function is to deliver the puck to the opposing goalie and crash the net in such a way as to force a face off. Any goals scored by them are simply bonuses.

Here, here, couldn't agree more. (More than what, I don't know. I always wondered about that expression.) When he announces that he wants the players to shoot more, it's hard to blame the coach, unless there are some, unknown to us, behind the scenes issues. Now if it keeps happening, then you need to look "behind the scenes".

I've beat this drum more than enough times. Puck possession is how you get more shots at a sustainable rate. This means good controlled zone entries, stemming from good breakouts, and preventing the opponent from having the same. A.K.A. dominating the neutral zone. While it may not be the reason for being outshot in any one particular game, when being outshot is a CONSISTENT issue you can be pretty damn sure that your team does't have enough of the puck. Over time, offensive zone or defensive zone performance is not markedly different between talented and untalented players. The difference as you can see from the attached article is that the best players are consistently better in the neutral zone. So yes, the reason this team is mediocre is because we're mediocre in the neutral zone. And yes its up to Schafer to do something about it.

I will admit I'm not the most knowledgeable guy about hockey metrics.  Baseball I can talk all day, but hockey not so much.  And some of the ones I've seen I'm skeptical of (Fenwick and Corsi, I'm looking at you.  You don't get to slap your name on shots + misses + blocks.  Someone should have thought of that already).

I wonder if what works best on the highest level of hockey (the NHL) necessarily works on lower levels.  Given the relative lack of skill in college hockey, maybe the values of different strategies or results change.

[css228]

Are advanced hockey analytics something that can be reconstructed for past seasons by looking at game tapes? That would be an interesting project.

Yes this is how the guys at Broad Street Hockey and many of the other excellent analytic focused sites track neutral zone stats. Obviously each stat is somewhat subjective to the individual tracker, but tracking at game speed is near impossible. You need a dvr and a good rewind to track it.

[Scersk '97]

While it may not be the reason for being outshot in any one particular game, when being outshot is a CONSISTENT issue you can be pretty damn sure that your team does't have enough of the puck.

Or maybe, JUST MAYBE[/b], it's because your team consistently doesn't shoot when it has the puck.

I've seen many, many games in my time in which we've had the run of play but somehow gotten outshot. Now, sometimes it's when we're facing a Gadowsky-style outside shot fest; other times, I can't explain it.

All I can say is that I can count on two thumbs and one big toe (Angello, Yates, and Buckles) the forwards whose first impulse seems to be to shoot. Angello and Yates should shoot more; Buckles needs to step back a bit. Anderson and Tiitinen both have cannons and great snap shots——I wish both would shoot more. Then there are the "carriers"——Kubiak, Weidner, Knisley, and Hilbrich——and "muckers"——Freschi and Vanderlaan. (Vanderlaan is a very, very talented mucker, by the way. Quite a find.) The carriers need to leave aside this current obsession with useless wraparounds. Hilbrich needs to get hot; Kubiak, who always looks to pass first, needs (somehow still) to get some confidence in himself. Weidner is fine. Knisley needs to stop thinking he's the second coming of Jason Dailey and pass quickly before lanes close up after he circles the net. (The rest of the forwards? I'm not really sure what they are.)

Basically, our shooters need to shoot, our carriers need to learn to shoot more often, and Buckles needs to figure out whether he's a shooter or a mucker.

I'm not even going to start with the defense on O. Let's just say that I remain as baffled as everyone else as to why Willcox is on one of the power play units. I'd sub in Anderson, who should be comfortable at point.

[css228]

Schafer, from the USCHO recap:

"We refuse to stay in front of the net, we refuse to shoot pucks, [and] now we want to make one extra pass as opposed to putting it on net."

Maybe I do know something about hockey, because I've been frustrated with the same things. Maybe after this weekend we can go back to playing dirty goal, pressure-oriented hockey.

Right? I'm glad he noticed and said something and maybe will do something because I was fully prepared to blame this on the guy in the suit.

As long as Schafer refuses to realize that the vast majority of this is on his conservative neutral zone style which all but concedes both blue lines, its still on the man in the suit.

If you're going to bitch, at least address the Dartmouth game in the Dartmouth thread. Otherwise, start a new thread——"Fire Schafer," I suggest.

We didn't lose the Dartmouth game because of our neutral-zone play, we lost it because of the things Schafer addressed in his quote, i.e., the things that lead to putting the puck in the net when things aren't bouncing your way. As far as I could see, he was spot on. (Which is probably why we saw Anderson back against Harvard, since we know he's willing to get pounded in front of the net.)

For my money, the only thing I care about, honestly, is pucks on net——not wide, not blocked, but on the damn net. Buckles sat vs. Harvard because, more than any other player on the team, he shoots wide or gets blocked. (Willcox is the other offender.) These tendencies were on display vs. Dartmouth.

To my mind, the difference between this team ending up having a mediocre or reasonably good season can be covered by addressing what Schafer mentioned above. This would require, of course, certain players truly buying into their roles not only on the defensive end of the ice but on the offensive end as well. That is, all players not named Vanderlaan, Kubiak, and Angello or who are not having a good night need to understand that their chief function is to deliver the puck to the opposing goalie and crash the net in such a way as to force a face off. Any goals scored by them are simply bonuses.

Here, here, couldn't agree more. (More than what, I don't know. I always wondered about that expression.) When he announces that he wants the players to shoot more, it's hard to blame the coach, unless there are some, unknown to us, behind the scenes issues. Now if it keeps happening, then you need to look "behind the scenes".

I've beat this drum more than enough times. Puck possession is how you get more shots at a sustainable rate. This means good controlled zone entries, stemming from good breakouts, and preventing the opponent from having the same. A.K.A. dominating the neutral zone. While it may not be the reason for being outshot in any one particular game, when being outshot is a CONSISTENT issue you can be pretty damn sure that your team does't have enough of the puck. Over time, offensive zone or defensive zone performance is not markedly different between talented and untalented players. The difference as you can see from the attached article is that the best players are consistently better in the neutral zone. So yes, the reason this team is mediocre is because we're mediocre in the neutral zone. And yes its up to Schafer to do something about it.

I will admit I'm not the most knowledgeable guy about hockey metrics.  Baseball I can talk all day, but hockey not so much.  And some of the ones I've seen I'm skeptical of (Fenwick and Corsi, I'm looking at you.  You don't get to slap your name on shots + misses + blocks.  Someone should have thought of that already).

I wonder if what works best on the highest level of hockey (the NHL) necessarily works on lower levels.  Given the relative lack of skill in college hockey, maybe the values of different strategies or results change.

So the theory of Fenwick and Corsi is not that shot events are in themselves good events. It is that they are repeatable events, with far greater sample sizes than goals (the most important events in the game). They are proxies for puck possession. In fact Corsi and Fenwick are such good proxies for possession that its pointless to take a stopwatch and time zone time. It also helps to think of it this way.

In any single hockey game, luck (or random chance) is the single biggest determining factor in who wins. But if you are throwing more pucks in the direction of the opposing goal than your opponent is throwing toward yours, over time, the rate at which bounces occur at an average rate. This is why I keep pointing out that guys won't shoot 20% forever, they just don't. When the difference between a goal, a save, and a blocked shot is a few inches either direction, and the shooter is under pressure, the truth is that random chance is usually the determining factor at whether or not the puck gets through (some guys are better at this than others but the difference is negligible). This is not to say take bad shots, but rather that if you put a puck on net you can't really control which blocked shots go to the corner and which ones ricochet of a defender and in. No matter how good a player is sometimes blind luck is just more important.

Now what the supporters of Corsi and Fenwick postulate is that by controlling the puck you're making your own luck over time. The more possession you have the better the chance you're on the favorable side of the bounce, and the less chance the puck is going in off of your shot blocker. People often counter this with the idea that shot quality is more important than quantity, and yes it is obviously true that some shots are better than others. However, there is no evidence of a demonstrated repeatable ability to create better quality shots. It's nice to say we should be able to get the puck open in the high slot more often, but nothing has ever shown that a team can do that repeatedly at a higher rate. The teams that get more of those grade A chances are just teams that generally have more of the puck. The more grade As you get, the more you're bound to score. Likewise, the more the puck is at your offensive end, the less time you spend defending. This means fewer grade As against your team (most of the time). In any one game a hot goalie, bad shooting luck, or special teams may offset a team dominating possession. But you can't really run against the trend forever. Its just a matter of putting your team in a position to have success happen to it.

[KeithK]

When the difference between a goal, a save, and a blocked shot is a few inches either direction, and the shooter is under pressure, the truth is that random chance is usually the determining factor at whether or not the puck gets through (some guys are better at this than others but the difference is negligible).

This is clearly untrue in the extreme case (put me out there and see how well I get the puck through). At the NHL level the difference may be negligible but the difference will increase at some rate as you go down in level.

People often counter this with the idea that shot quality is more important than quantity, and yes it is obviously true that some shots are better than others. However, there is no evidence of a demonstrated repeatable ability to create better quality shots.

This doesn't seem to pass the eye test for college hockey.  There are definitely seem to be some teams that love to shoot and take bad shots (the Gadowsky example that Scersk cites) and likewise some defensive teams that are better at keeping opposing players out of the slot.

I assume most of the hockey analytics that are available are based on NHL data?  I think it's very possible that the trends are different at the college level where there is a bigger spread of talent.

[andyw2100]

One thing that I've noticed that I don't recall seeing too much of before is guys trying to make an extra pass, to set up what would be an even better shot, instead of just taking the shot. Sure, occasionally the pass is completed successfully, the shot is taken, and the goal scored. But more often than not, that last pass is broken up or the pass isn't handled, etc. If the shot were just taken before that extra pass, it may not be as likely to find the back of the net, but at least it would be a shot taken, which comes with possible rebound opportunities.

The positive to take from this is that the guys are playing with the confidence to try to make that extra pass. Another positive is that if I'm right, and if Coach Schafer agrees, it shouldn't be hard to make the adjustment and have the guys just stop trying to be quite that fancy, and just put the puck on the net.

[Jim Hyla]

While it may not be the reason for being outshot in any one particular game, when being outshot is a CONSISTENT issue you can be pretty damn sure that your team does't have enough of the puck.

Or maybe, JUST MAYBE, it's because your team consistently doesn't shoot when it has the puck.[/u][/b]

I've seen many, many games in my time in which we've had the run of play but somehow gotten outshot. Now, sometimes it's when we're facing a Gadowsky-style outside shot fest; other times, I can't explain it.

All I can say is that I can count on two thumbs and one big toe (Angello, Yates, and Buckles) the forwards whose first impulse seems to be to shoot. Angello and Yates should shoot more; Buckles needs to step back a bit. Anderson and Tiitinen both have cannons and great snap shots——I wish both would shoot more. Then there are the "carriers"——Kubiak, Weidner, Knisley, and Hilbrich——and "muckers"——Freschi and Vanderlaan. (Vanderlaan is a very, very talented mucker, by the way. Quite a find.) The carriers need to leave aside this current obsession with useless wraparounds. Hilbrich needs to get hot; Kubiak, who always looks to pass first, needs (somehow still) to get some confidence in himself. Weidner is fine. Knisley needs to stop thinking he's the second coming of Jason Dailey and pass quickly before lanes close up after he circles the net. (The rest of the forwards? I'm not really sure what they are.)

Basically, our shooters need to shoot, our carriers need to learn to shoot more often, and Buckles needs to figure out whether he's a shooter or a mucker.

I'm not even going to start with the defense on O. Let's just say that I remain as baffled as everyone else as to why Willcox is on one of the power play units. I'd sub in Anderson, who should be comfortable at point.

I'm assuming that there is some of this. If there weren't cases where the players don't shoot, Schafer wouldn't be expected to say that he wants the players to shoot more. Of course that doesn't discount that there may be ways for them to even have more opportunities to shoot, but they could start by shooting when they have the chance.

God, what a difference compared to the discussions we used to have about fans yelling "Shoot, Shoot" when we're on the PP.::crazy::

[Trotsky]

One thing that I've noticed that I don't recall seeing too much of before is guys trying to make an extra pass, to set up what would be an even better shot, instead of just taking the shot. Sure, occasionally the pass is completed successfully, the shot is taken, and the goal scored. But more often than not, that last pass is broken up or the pass isn't handled, etc. If the shot were just taken before that extra pass, it may not be as likely to find the back of the net, but at least it would be a shot taken, which comes with possible rebound opportunities.

I used to be a lot more frustrated by this than I am now, because now I assume (possibly mistakenly) that those "refused shots" are cases in which there's a high likelihood of a block followed by a counter attack leaving us flat-footed (skated?) and on the wrong end of an odd-man rush.  During the worst of last year and 2013 those things happened a lot.  We were taking shots, alright -- and we were getting destroyed on the counter.

I'm not happy about a 4-game winless streak but for the most part I like what I see on offense now.  At least the general Plan seems to be much healthier -- we are less predictable and not just setting up the same "(1) pull back to point, (2) pass across to other point, (3) pass down low and hope Hillbrich's 45-foot stickspan sweeps it into the net" pattern.

They are more creative, and they have stretches where they look like they know what they're doing.  It was paying off early in the season and it isn't now, and I have no idea what changed.

[KeithK]

They are more creative, and they have stretches where they look like they know what they're doing.  It was paying off early in the season and it isn't now, and I have no idea what changed.

Clearly the key is health.  If we just could get a whole bunch of players hurt again we'd do better.

[Beeeej]

They are more creative, and they have stretches where they look like they know what they're doing.  It was paying off early in the season and it isn't now, and I have no idea what changed.

Clearly the key is health.  If we just could get a whole bunch of players hurt again we'd do better.

[looks upward] HE WAS JUST KIDDING NOT AT ALL SERIOUS!!!!1!1!!!

[ugarte]

When the difference between a goal, a save, and a blocked shot is a few inches either direction, and the shooter is under pressure, the truth is that random chance is usually the determining factor at whether or not the puck gets through (some guys are better at this than others but the difference is negligible).

This is clearly untrue in the extreme case (put me out there and see how well I get the puck through).

Buddy, you'd never have possession. The stat would be very representative.

[andyw2100]

One thing that I've noticed that I don't recall seeing too much of before is guys trying to make an extra pass, to set up what would be an even better shot, instead of just taking the shot. Sure, occasionally the pass is completed successfully, the shot is taken, and the goal scored. But more often than not, that last pass is broken up or the pass isn't handled, etc. If the shot were just taken before that extra pass, it may not be as likely to find the back of the net, but at least it would be a shot taken, which comes with possible rebound opportunities.

I used to be a lot more frustrated by this than I am now, because now I assume (possibly mistakenly) that those "refused shots" are cases in which there's a high likelihood of a block followed by a counter attack leaving us flat-footed (skated?) and on the wrong end of an odd-man rush.  During the worst of last year and 2013 those things happened a lot.  We were taking shots, alright -- and we were getting destroyed on the counter.

I'm not happy about a 4-game winless streak but for the most part I like what I see on offense now.  At least the general Plan seems to be much healthier -- we are less predictable and not just setting up the same "(1) pull back to point, (2) pass across to other point, (3) pass down low and hope Hillbrich's 45-foot stickspan sweeps it into the net" pattern.

They are more creative, and they have stretches where they look like they know what they're doing.  It was paying off early in the season and it isn't now, and I have no idea what changed.

I don't really disagree with anything you said. One point, though, is that a lot of people agree that to some extent we really were getting somewhat lucky the first half of the season. Some of that luck was some of these "extra" passes being completed successfully, resulting in goals. If the players are trying more of these perhaps subconsciously because of the success early in the season, it could be (or at least become) an issue.

[Tom Lento]

When the difference between a goal, a save, and a blocked shot is a few inches either direction, and the shooter is under pressure, the truth is that random chance is usually the determining factor at whether or not the puck gets through (some guys are better at this than others but the difference is negligible).

This is clearly untrue in the extreme case (put me out there and see how well I get the puck through). At the NHL level the difference may be negligible but the difference will increase at some rate as you go down in level.

People often counter this with the idea that shot quality is more important than quantity, and yes it is obviously true that some shots are better than others. However, there is no evidence of a demonstrated repeatable ability to create better quality shots.

This doesn't seem to pass the eye test for college hockey.  There are definitely seem to be some teams that love to shoot and take bad shots (the Gadowsky example that Scersk cites) and likewise some defensive teams that are better at keeping opposing players out of the slot.

I assume most of the hockey analytics that are available are based on NHL data?  I think it's very possible that the trends are different at the college level where there is a bigger spread of talent.

I wonder about this stuff too, but if you were to compute these based on the shooting stats available for the NCAA I suspect you'd find the difference boils down to higher variance around the advanced metrics.

D-I hockey represents a high level of well-organized play. You aren't talking about a beer league where most teams don't have any concept of support, much less the ability to execute a cycle or carry through the neutral zone, and one really good player will routinely score 5 goals on 12 shots and single-handedly win games despite getting dominated in team possession. Not that this ever happens in my league or anything.

Yes, you get the Paul Kariya types who seem to be able to score at will, but while their quality is clearly on a different level the team concept and execution is still good enough that on average these metrics should tell the same story. The Kariya types effectively increase possession for the team by being able to single-handedly control the puck through the neutral zone and create space to take shots. They seem like they can score at will because they can generate shots at will.

For a team like Cornell, which clearly doesn't have a Kariya-like dominant talent, possession metrics will likely be even more predictive of success.

It would be interesting to compute them over time across the NCAA and see what happens when you replicate some of the studies done on NHL data, but I can't find an easy way to get them without crawling and parsing CHN. I admit I spent all of 10 seconds looking, though, so they're probably more readily available from somewhere.

[Trotsky]

Apropos I just read the following quote of an Italian coach on a USCHO soccer thread.

"One night, I went to a bar, I was with a woman. We talked all night. We laughed, we flirted, I paid for several drinks of hers.

At around 5:00 AM, a guy came in, grabbed her by the arm and took her to the bathroom. He made love to her and she left with him. That doesn't matter though because I had most of the possession on the night."

[Beeeej]

Apropos I just read the following quote of an Italian coach on a USCHO soccer thread.

"One night, I went to a bar, I was with a woman. We talked all night. We laughed, we flirted, I paid for several drinks of hers.

At around 5:00 AM, a guy came in, grabbed her by the arm and took her to the bathroom. He made love to her and she left with him. That doesn't matter though because I had most of the possession on the night."

That's one of most amazing things I've ever read.

ETA: Turns out it was Chilean soccer coach Jorge Sampaoli, though.