This Weekend, Mind Your Qs & Ps

[Trotsky]

Vanderlaan has certainly been the best player on the ice for the Red almost every game this season.

He's fun to watch.  Heck, the whole team is fun to watch, for the first time in a long time*.

* If challenged I will deny ever saying this.  It was the kittens.  They have sussed out my password.

[scoop85]

Vanderlaan has certainly been the best player on the ice for the Red almost every game this season.

He's fun to watch.  Heck, the whole team is fun to watch, for the first time in a long time*.

* If challenged I will deny ever saying this.  It was the kittens.  They have sussed out my password.

"Fun to watch" is a good description. I know I'm not alone in saying that the past few years we'd seen a fair amount of boring hockey. While it's a fairly small sample size, I do see an emphasis on a more up-tempo style, with plays being made off the rush that we haven't often seen lately.  Saturday it also seemed the defensemen, especially McCarron and Kaldis, taking a more aggressive role in the offensive zone than I'm used to seeing from our defensive corps.

In the past couple of years I think we would have likely been dead in the water falling behind 2-0 (even against Princeton), but based on our early season performances I had hope that we could come back

[marty]

In the past couple of years I think we would have likely been dead in the water falling behind 2-0 (even against Princeton), but based on our early season performances I had hope that we could come back

I had hope we could come back based on Princeton's early season performance. They were ahead of Clarkson, Harvard and Colgate before losing to all three. They have led in 4 of their 6 losses!

[css228]

Vanderlaan has certainly been the best player on the ice for the Red almost every game this season.

He's fun to watch.  Heck, the whole team is fun to watch, for the first time in a long time*.

* If challenged I will deny ever saying this.  It was the kittens.  They have sussed out my password.

"Fun to watch" is a good description. I know I'm not alone in saying that the past few years we'd seen a fair amount of boring hockey. While it's a fairly small sample size, I do see an emphasis on a more up-tempo style, with plays being made off the rush that we haven't often seen lately.  Saturday it also seemed the defensemen, especially McCarron and Kaldis, taking a more aggressive role in the offensive zone than I'm used to seeing from our defensive corps.

In the past couple of years I think we would have likely been dead in the water falling behind 2-0 (even against Princeton), but based on our early season performances I had hope that we could come back

They're fun to watch relative to the other teams Schafer has put out there. It's still not the Dallas Stars.

[Jim Hyla]

Vanderlaan has certainly been the best player on the ice for the Red almost every game this season.

He's fun to watch.  Heck, the whole team is fun to watch, for the first time in a long time*.

* If challenged I will deny ever saying this.  It was the kittens.  They have sussed out my password.

"Fun to watch" is a good description. I know I'm not alone in saying that the past few years we'd seen a fair amount of boring hockey. While it's a fairly small sample size, I do see an emphasis on a more up-tempo style, with plays being made off the rush that we haven't often seen lately.  Saturday it also seemed the defensemen, especially McCarron and Kaldis, taking a more aggressive role in the offensive zone than I'm used to seeing from our defensive corps.

In the past couple of years I think we would have likely been dead in the water falling behind 2-0 (even against Princeton), but based on our early season performances I had hope that we could come back

They're fun to watch relative to the other teams Schafer has put out there. It's still not the Dallas Stars.

Nor is any other NCAA team. Someone always has to throw water on a "happy" parade.::twak::

Look, I think this has been evolving for a number of years. Coach Schafer had his defensemen move into the play for some time. He's said for a few years that the game is changing and that he was trying to recruit players to fill that roll. I think the difference so far this year is one of degree, rather than a dramatic change. He now has a few years of recruiting the type of player that he's wanted. Therefor the change in the style of play is more obvious.

I'm hopeful that the younger players will evolve further and that when we get some of the wounded back, we'll be even better. But remember last season we started strong, Angello was especially so, but we finished weaker. Hopefully that was because of a young team and they'll reverse that trend.

My biggest concern is, why do we have so many pre and early season injuries? Do they practice too hard, or is it a fluke?

[andyw2100]

My biggest concern is, why do we have so many pre and early season injuries? Do they practice too hard, or is it a fluke?

I'm not suggesting the following is the case, but what if a study were done across the Ivy League Schools vs the rest of the NCAA schools, and it turned out that there were significantly more early-season injuries among the Ivies? One might then be able to conclude that the later start, the limitations on practices, etc. isn't actually helping anything, but rather resulting in the players pushing themselves harder, (or the coaches pushing them harder), with the undesired consequence being more early season injuries.

I think this would be an interesting study.

[Trotsky]

My biggest concern is, why do we have so many pre and early season injuries? Do they practice too hard, or is it a fluke?

Two of the injuries don't appear to be in any way related to training, weight room, practice, etc.  One is a chronic issue that simply continued to worsen.  One was just a dumb mistake.

Injuries seem to be more prevalent now but (1) we probably always think that because of cognitive bias, and (2) players in the past should have been treated more carefully but the vanity of the "Me play through pain, ugh!" posturing was still living in people's heads.

[CU2007]

My biggest concern is, why do we have so many pre and early season injuries? Do they practice too hard, or is it a fluke?

Two of the injuries don't appear to be in any way related to training, weight room, practice, etc.  One is a chronic issue that simply continued to worsen.  One was just a dumb mistake.

Injuries seem to be more prevalent now but (1) we probably always think that because of cognitive bias, and (2) players in the past should have been treated more carefully but the vanity of the "Me play through pain, ugh!" posturing was still living in people's heads.

What was the dumb mistake?

[Al DeFlorio]

Just saw a statistic, and have no idea where it came from, that 62% of injuries to high school athletes happen in practice.  Take it for what it's worth.

[css228]

Vanderlaan has certainly been the best player on the ice for the Red almost every game this season.

He's fun to watch.  Heck, the whole team is fun to watch, for the first time in a long time*.

* If challenged I will deny ever saying this.  It was the kittens.  They have sussed out my password.

"Fun to watch" is a good description. I know I'm not alone in saying that the past few years we'd seen a fair amount of boring hockey. While it's a fairly small sample size, I do see an emphasis on a more up-tempo style, with plays being made off the rush that we haven't often seen lately.  Saturday it also seemed the defensemen, especially McCarron and Kaldis, taking a more aggressive role in the offensive zone than I'm used to seeing from our defensive corps.

In the past couple of years I think we would have likely been dead in the water falling behind 2-0 (even against Princeton), but based on our early season performances I had hope that we could come back

They're fun to watch relative to the other teams Schafer has put out there. It's still not the Dallas Stars.

Nor is any other NCAA team. Someone always has to throw water on a "happy" parade.::twak::

Look, I think this has been evolving for a number of years. Coach Schafer had his defensemen move into the play for some time. He's said for a few years that the game is changing and that he was trying to recruit players to fill that roll. I think the difference so far this year is one of degree, rather than a dramatic change. He now has a few years of recruiting the type of player that he's wanted. Therefor the change in the style of play is more obvious.

I'm hopeful that the younger players will evolve further and that when we get some of the wounded back, we'll be even better. But remember last season we started strong, Angello was especially so, but we finished weaker. Hopefully that was because of a young team and they'll reverse that trend.

My biggest concern is, why do we have so many pre and early season injuries? Do they practice too hard, or is it a fluke?

I'm talking from a style point of view. This team has been relatively entertaining compared to Schafer's prior strategies but that wasn't a high bar to clear. They also haven't really been good. Their Corsi is only 47.9% at even strength and Fenwick only 48.8%. Do we really have to retread the same ground, or was last year's collapse enough to prove my point that playing a lot without the puck is not conducive to long term success?

[RichH]

I'm talking from a style point of view. This team has been relatively entertaining compared to Schafer's prior strategies but that wasn't a high bar to clear. They also haven't really been good. Their Corsi is only 47.9% at even strength and Fenwick only 48.8%. Do we really have to retread the same ground, or was last year's collapse enough to prove my point that playing a lot without the puck is not conducive to long term success?

OK, Mr. Pro NHL advanced metrics. Let's hash this out. I'm not completely DISAGREEING with you or saying the stats aren't useful, but my stance is that the sample size of college hockey will never be large enough to correlate to these incredibly well to performance.  Here's some of top teams in Fenwick, all > 54% (with KRACH listed parenthetically): RIT (41), Yale (51), Mich Tech (37), Wisconsin (20), Providence (29), Bowling Green (30), Northeastern (27), Dartmouth (33). More than half of the top 15 teams in Fenwick aren't registering anywhere close to top 15 in KRACH.  Basically I believe that the spread of skill that exists in the NCAA is much broader than in the professional leagues, and it's much more likely for a good Corsi team to have a bad record and vice versa.

Honestly, you're forcing me to look at college Corsi numbers for the first time in any sort of depth, and I'm kind of learning a bit. I don't think it will be anything I'll pay too close attention to going forward, because at this level, it's a boring stat for me. A fun test comes Dec 1-2 when the #1 Corsi team (63%) plays the third worst (40.8%).

[Jim Hyla]

I'm talking from a style point of view. This team has been relatively entertaining compared to Schafer's prior strategies but that wasn't a high bar to clear. They also haven't really been good. Their Corsi is only 47.9% at even strength and Fenwick only 48.8%. Do we really have to retread the same ground, or was last year's collapse enough to prove my point that playing a lot without the puck is not conducive to long term success?

OK, Mr. Pro NHL advanced metrics. Let's hash this out. I'm not completely DISAGREEING with you or saying the stats aren't useful, but my stance is that the sample size of college hockey will never be large enough to correlate to these incredibly well to performance.  Here's some of top teams in Fenwick, all > 54% (with KRACH listed parenthetically): RIT (41), Yale (51), Mich Tech (37), Wisconsin (20), Providence (29), Bowling Green (30), Northeastern (27), Dartmouth (33). More than half of the top 15 teams in Fenwick aren't registering anywhere close to top 15 in KRACH.  Basically I believe that the spread of skill that exists in the NCAA is much broader than in the professional leagues, and it's much more likely for a good Corsi team to have a bad record and vice versa.

Honestly, you're forcing me to look at college Corsi numbers for the first time in any sort of depth, and I'm kind of learning a bit. I don't think it will be anything I'll pay too close attention to going forward, because at this level, it's a boring stat for me. A fun test comes Dec 1-2 when the #1 Corsi team (63%) plays the third worst (40.8%).

The other problem with using the stats in the NCAA, and especially this early, is that we don't have enough games to make it valid. Aside from needing enough games, it depends upon who the teams have played. Teams play different defenses, and that can change the offensive style. Q often made us dump the puck in by controlling the blue line. Maybe later in the season we'll see a better correlation between outcome and metrics.

[Trotsky]

Bill has never made a Fenwick post.  I find this endlessly amusing.  

I'm at work.  The bar is low.

[RichH]

Bill has never made a Fenwick post.  I find this endlessly amusing.

Funny story on how Corsi got its name because of a rad mustache: http://www.tsn.ca/talent/mckenzie-the-story-of-how-corsi-got-its-name-1.100011

[TimV]

Actually makes sense when you consider the time spent at practice and the numbers of participants.  A football game runs about an hour of actual time with 22 competitors on the field, vs.  a two hour practice with most of a 44 man roster involved.  I'm surprised it's not higher.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and Donna.