Cornell 1 vs. Merrimack 0 1/7/17

[Trotsky]

Well, we are about to hit the point where the wheels fell off in the past few seasons.

On the one hand, we have been beating crappy teams.  But on the other hand we have been beating crappy teams.  We just won't know what we've got until we start playing the tougher league opponents.  After Princeton (who's been hot) we've got 4 in a row.

It's an odd anomaly that after our 16th game we will only have played at Lynah 4 times.  That then launches a string of 7 home games in 9.  Including a presumptive initial home series, 11 of the next 15 at home.  Can't hurt.

[marty]

Who cares? It's early January

One loss made a difference last year.

And two years before that too.  

But honestly, our last six games have been against bad teams.  On average, we barely outplayed them.  For us to have gone 5-1 over that stretch is lucky, not unlucky.  And that's what has made 2014, 2016, and quite possibly this year too, feel strange: though we barely missed, no one really thought we were actually good.  Above average, sure, but not so good that we "deserved" to make the NCAAs.  And those years--like this year--we weren't even close to the best teams in our own conference.  

I think it should be pretty clear by now that an improved ECAC has not helped Cornell at all, at least so far.  Not in national success, not in in-conference success (obviously), not in recruiting, not in attendance.

So does this mean you agree with UnderS and don't care that we lost to CC - a bad team that just beat Duluth? I wish we had won or tied that game.

[Dafatone]

I think it's important to keep in mind that there isn't really enough season to sort out who is and isn't good.  At the very least, not through 10-15 games.

Princeton might actually be pretty solid.  CC might not be garbage.  Etc etc.

[underskill]

I meant who cares where that one loss puts us in PWR at this point in the season. I agree it's a bad loss but saying we could be 12 in pwr had we won is kinda irrelevant this early.

[BearLover]

Who cares? It's early January

One loss made a difference last year.

And two years before that too.  

But honestly, our last six games have been against bad teams.  On average, we barely outplayed them.  For us to have gone 5-1 over that stretch is lucky, not unlucky.  And that's what has made 2014, 2016, and quite possibly this year too, feel strange: though we barely missed, no one really thought we were actually good.  Above average, sure, but not so good that we "deserved" to make the NCAAs.  And those years--like this year--we weren't even close to the best teams in our own conference.  

I think it should be pretty clear by now that an improved ECAC has not helped Cornell at all, at least so far.  Not in national success, not in in-conference success (obviously), not in recruiting, not in attendance.

So does this mean you agree with UnderS and don't care that we lost to CC - a bad team that just beat Duluth? I wish we had won or tied that game.

I obviously care a lot that we lost that game--I'm just saying that even despite that loss we are probably currently higher in the PWR than we deserve to be, and so it's not really fair to complain about it.

[abmarks]

I think it's important to keep in mind that there isn't really enough season to sort out who is and isn't good.  At the very least, not through 10-15 games.

Princeton might actually be pretty solid.  CC might not be garbage.  Etc etc.

I meant who cares where that one loss puts us in PWR at this point in the season. I agree it's a bad loss but saying we could be 12 in pwr had we won is kinda irrelevant this early.

Adam would disagree with you.

"In reality, the Pairwise, in the large majority of seasons, is, by New Year's Day (or sooner), already largely indicative of what teams will make the NCAA tournament. In fact, you can stretch that back as early as Dec. 10 of a given season if you want to."

From http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2017/01/02_heed_the_pairwise__now.php

[Dafatone]

I think it's important to keep in mind that there isn't really enough season to sort out who is and isn't good.  At the very least, not through 10-15 games.

Princeton might actually be pretty solid.  CC might not be garbage.  Etc etc.

I meant who cares where that one loss puts us in PWR at this point in the season. I agree it's a bad loss but saying we could be 12 in pwr had we won is kinda irrelevant this early.

Adam would disagree with you.

"In reality, the Pairwise, in the large majority of seasons, is, by New Year's Day (or sooner), already largely indicative of what teams will make the NCAA tournament. In fact, you can stretch that back as early as Dec. 10 of a given season if you want to."

From http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2017/01/02_heed_the_pairwise__now.php

See, I look at those numbers and I don't think there's that much of a conclusion to draw.  It makes sense that most of the top teams are currently towards the top of the pairwise, but there's certainly room for mobility.  Northeastern was all the way down at 50 and made it?  Damn.  Could you imagine the wailing going on here if we were 50th?

[upprdeck]

in 3-4 weeks we will probably have a sense of who we are.   so far playing so many road games we really dont have a sense of anything..

all you can do is beat the "bad" teams and we have done that, except for game 1 and a florida tourney road trip game off a long lay off.

after this its 9 home vs 4 away to finish the season.   if we are no worse than 3-3 after the next 6 games we will be in a pretty good to control home ice.

as to whether PWR goes up or down off of that who knows.

[Hooking]

Odds are Cornell will have to score more than one goal per game to win a majority of remaining games, no matter how well the team plays defense.

[Dafatone]

Odds are Cornell will have to score more than one goal per game to win a majority of remaining games, no matter how well the team plays defense.

Good thing we're just under 3 goals a game.

[KGR11]

Odds are Cornell will have to score more than one goal per game to win a majority of remaining games, no matter how well the team plays defense.

Our offense was doing pretty well going into Florida. Last two games could be minor road bump...or a downward trend like last year.

I'm just saying that even despite that loss we are probably currently higher in the PWR than we deserve to be.

This prompts the question: How high do they deserve to be? They have the 9th best winning percentage, but it's against a mediocre-strength schedule (ranked 34th). However, they've only played 29% of their games at home. In scoring margin, they're ranked 16th. Average shot margin is +1.36/game (Wish they tracked shot margins better).

Here are the most up-to-date rankings:
Pairwise: 15
RPI: 15
KRACH: 16
USCHO Poll: 19

Given the games played so far and the statistics we have, I think Cornell is in the right PWR neighborhood. The problem with introducing luck into the conversation is that I doubt anyone can adequately quantify the luck experienced by every college hockey team. Sure, Cornell is lucky it won some of the games it may have lost, but isn't that true with every team?

[Trotsky]

This prompts the question: How high do they deserve to be?

"You are what your record says you are."  John has worn me down to the point where I accept KRACH as my personal savior.  We "deserve" to be 16th.

[Dafatone]

Something to keep in mind.  RPI is purely a function of win percentage, opponents' win percentage, and opponents' opponents' win percentage.

This means that wins are interchangeable.  Sure, had we beaten CC, we'd be better off.  But we'd be in exactly* the same spot had we beaten CC and lost Saturday to Merrimack.

*okay, not exactly the same, since the college hockey RPI formula gives more credit for road wins than home wins (or, presumably, neutral site wins).  There's also a bonus for beating top 20 teams.  But in general, wins are interchangeable.

[ugarte]

This means that wins are interchangeable.  Sure, had we beaten CC, we'd be better off.  But we'd be in exactly* the same spot had we beaten CC and lost Saturday to Merrimack.

who was proposing that we should have lost to merrimack twice instead

[upprdeck]

it is interesting how many teams we have played that we say are not very good and then the next week they turned around and beat someone who is suppose to be good.