2019-02-22: RPI 3 Cornell 2 (ot)

[BearLover]

RPI certainly played well tonight. We've been getting out-muscled down low throughout the season. We kept the puck on the doorstop all night but RPI pushed us out of scoring chances.

Topher opined that despite our control of territory all night we had very few quality scoring chances.  The question is how much of that was RPI and how much of it was us?

Except for the one minute against Brown and the entire Yale game, I think we've been playing very well in these maddening games.  I thought that Cam being back settled the lines and in particular the Starrett line was stellar (Malott had 2 or 3 chances for the hats).  And I thought our D was great against RPI -- we held them to 5 total SOG in periods 2-3.

It's bad to drop so many points to bottom-third teams, absolutely.  It's a bummer to blow first place.  But I think this is a really good team.

Here's the reality: last year's team was overall very lucky, and this year's team is overall unlucky. That's normal in hockey--there's a lot of random variance. Just look at our shooting% and save% last year: 10.8% and .937, respectively. This year, those numbers are 9.4% and .911. Did Galajda regress in the offseason? Are we taking worse shots this year? I don't think either of those things are true. I actually think we've dominated at least as many games this season as we did the last. Last year, we were winning many of the one-goal games that we've been losing lately. Last season a ton of seeing-eye wristers from the point found the back of the net. Those haven't gone in this season. Given that we lost Angello, Yates, and Rauter, our top-three scorers last year, it's hard to really complain about the offense. If there's a visible difference versus last year, it's awful turnovers in the D-zone. Maybe due to injury, maybe due to losing some defensively sound forwards. But altogether I think more than anything we've just been unfortunate this year.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Not passing (not looking) in the offensive or defensive end is symptomatic of unfamiliar offensive and defensive pairing or poor coaching, or both.

I didn't think we weren't passing. We just kept trying to pass to guys in front of the net and make cross-crease passes. RPI controlled the crease well.

What I saw was basically a team that offensively never even tried to get the puck back to the point, except occasionally on the power play and even then, not enough.  That lets teams like RPI pack everyone around the goalie.  It makes those centering passes from the circles impossible to connect on.  They knew our offensive style and countered it.

I have no idea what happened in the first 10 minutes of the game.  We've always been able to handle a single forechecker, but last night for some reason, we kept making bad passes.  We also kept trying to clear the puck past the half-boards instead of trying to be patient and carry it out.  RPI had a guy stationed there and that led to the first two goals.

[ugarte]

What I saw was basically a team that offensively never even tried to get the puck back to the point, except occasionally on the power play and even then, not enough.  That lets teams like RPI pack everyone around the goalie.  

*ding*

[Tom Lento]

What I saw was basically a team that offensively never even tried to get the puck back to the point, except occasionally on the power play and even then, not enough.  That lets teams like RPI pack everyone around the goalie.  

*ding*

I don't doubt what you saw (I didn't see the game) but from looking at the stats it's kind of hard to argue with the team's offensive approach in this one.

When you have more shots on goal than the other team has shot attempts you're in line for a win. That isn't dominating shot counts by flinging random crap in the general direction of the end boards, that's just dominating.

Cornell has lost *two* of those games in the new year - Colgate and RPI. Sure, there were terrible defensive breakdowns and maybe they can do something to mix up the offense but at the end of the day those are pretty unlucky results.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

What I saw was basically a team that offensively never even tried to get the puck back to the point, except occasionally on the power play and even then, not enough.  That lets teams like RPI pack everyone around the goalie.  

*ding*

I don't doubt what you saw (I didn't see the game) but from looking at the stats it's kind of hard to argue with the team's offensive approach in this one.

When you have more shots on goal than the other team has shot attempts you're in line for a win. That isn't dominating shot counts by flinging random crap in the general direction of the end boards, that's just dominating.

Cornell has lost *two* of those games in the new year - Colgate and RPI. Sure, there were terrible defensive breakdowns and maybe they can do something to mix up the offense but at the end of the day those are pretty unlucky results.

I was actually at the game.

FWIW, they did get the puck to the point more against Union.  They had a lot fewer SOG in the Union game although they had plenty of possession.  But Union is clearly a better team than RPI.

[osorojo]

All year long Cornell has been told it is a good team. Good teams score pretty goals. Winning teams score goals.

[ursusminor]

RPI certainly played well tonight. We've been getting out-muscled down low throughout the season. We kept the puck on the doorstop all night but RPI pushed us out of scoring chances.

Topher opined that despite our control of territory all night we had very few quality scoring chances.  The question is how much of that was RPI and how much of it was us?

Except for the one minute against Brown and the entire Yale game, I think we've been playing very well in these maddening games.  I thought that Cam being back settled the lines and in particular the Starrett line was stellar (Malott had 2 or 3 chances for the hats).  And I thought our D was great against RPI -- we held them to 5 total SOG in periods 2-3.

It's bad to drop so many points to bottom-third teams, absolutely.  It's a bummer to blow first place.  But I think this is a really good team.

I would be happy if it were RPI, but I suspect that it's Cornell. BTW, your "Kepler's 3 Laws" seem to be valid again this year.

[osorojo]

Since before the season began Cornell hockey has has been told it is a good team. Good teams score pretty goals. Winning teams score goals.

[Trotsky]

I would be happy if it were RPI, but I suspect that it's Cornell. BTW, your "Kepler's 3 Laws" seem to be valid again this year.

I have no doubt that the 3 Laws will reassert themselves as a regression to the mean of the universe, but we haven't been living up to them lately.

4 first place finishes since 2002 and a shot at another this year.

1-4 in ECAC finals since 2005, and 1-3 in ECAC SF since 2012.  Those numbers are Clarksonian.

F: 011.101.101.00110.100

SF: 1111.101100000.11010.00111.0111101.110010

[Dafatone]

Since before the season began Cornell hockey has has been told it is a good team. Good teams score pretty goals. Winning teams score goals.

Was Regush's goal two weeks ago not pretty enough for you?

[Give My Regards]

I have no doubt that the 3 Laws will reassert themselves as a regression to the mean of the universe, but we haven't been living up to them lately.

4 first place finishes since 2002 and a shot at another this year.

1-4 in ECAC finals since 2005, and 1-3 in ECAC SF since 2012.  Those numbers are Clarksonian.

F: 011.101.101.00110.100

SF: 1111.101100000.11010.00111.0111101.110010

Not to increase the pressure or anything, but if Cornell doesn't pick up an ECAC championship this season, it will guarantee at least a ten-year stretch between tournament titles, matching the one from 1986-1996.  During that other stretch, two head coaches got canned.

Mitigating circumstance would be that during the current drought, the Big Red will have gone to at least three NCAA tournaments, and during the other stretch they went to one.

[Swampy]

I have no doubt that the 3 Laws will reassert themselves as a regression to the mean of the universe, but we haven't been living up to them lately.

4 first place finishes since 2002 and a shot at another this year.

1-4 in ECAC finals since 2005, and 1-3 in ECAC SF since 2012.  Those numbers are Clarksonian.

F: 011.101.101.00110.100

SF: 1111.101100000.11010.00111.0111101.110010

Not to increase the pressure or anything, but if Cornell doesn't pick up an ECAC championship this season, it will guarantee at least a ten-year stretch between tournament titles, matching the one from 1986-1996.  During that other stretch, two head coaches got canned.

Mitigating circumstance would be that during the current drought, the Big Red will have gone to at least three NCAA tournaments, and during the other stretch they went to one.

Seems very unlikely. Our sophomore class is the best in recent memory. Next year's frosh class is deliberately large, so we can't be decimated by injuries as we have been this year. Pro defections at high-level scholly schools, have made teams like ours are extremely competitive. At least the next 2 years look very promising for the Red. This year too, if we get healthy and composed again.

[scoop85]

I have no doubt that the 3 Laws will reassert themselves as a regression to the mean of the universe, but we haven't been living up to them lately.

4 first place finishes since 2002 and a shot at another this year.

1-4 in ECAC finals since 2005, and 1-3 in ECAC SF since 2012.  Those numbers are Clarksonian.

F: 011.101.101.00110.100

SF: 1111.101100000.11010.00111.0111101.110010

Not to increase the pressure or anything, but if Cornell doesn't pick up an ECAC championship this season, it will guarantee at least a ten-year stretch between tournament titles, matching the one from 1986-1996.  During that other stretch, two head coaches got canned.

Mitigating circumstance would be that during the current drought, the Big Red will have gone to at least three NCAA tournaments, and during the other stretch they went to one.

Seems very unlikely. Our sophomore class is the best in recent memory. Next year's frosh class is deliberately large, so we can't be decimated by injuries as we have been this year. Pro defections at high-level scholly schools, have made teams like ours are extremely competitive. At least the next 2 years look very promising for the Red. This year too, if we get healthy and composed again.

My thoughts too. If we get health enough (and Galajda can get close to where he was last year) we can make a deep run this year.  The next couple of years, on paper at least, should keep us in the hunt.  If you check out the Union thread on the USCHO forum, they're lamenting their program's decline and lack of impact recruits coming in.

[Trotsky]

I have no doubt that the 3 Laws will reassert themselves as a regression to the mean of the universe, but we haven't been living up to them lately.

4 first place finishes since 2002 and a shot at another this year.

1-4 in ECAC finals since 2005, and 1-3 in ECAC SF since 2012.  Those numbers are Clarksonian.

F: 011.101.101.00110.100

SF: 1111.101100000.11010.00111.0111101.110010

Not to increase the pressure or anything, but if Cornell doesn't pick up an ECAC championship this season, it will guarantee at least a ten-year stretch between tournament titles

Cornell has won 2 ECAC titles in every decade: 60s (3), 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and got off to a great start in 2010... and that's been it.  They have only one more chance to nail down #2 for this decade, so they gotta make it count.

[BearLover]

This team really needs Donaldson. He does things no one else who has played for Cornell in the past ten years is even capable of. Not even Riley was this fast and tenacious. If Donaldson is healthy enough for the playoffs and we get Andreev back, we can beat anybody. Though our sixth defenseman is a glaring weak link.