An early look at 2019-2020

[upprdeck]

just dont lose those 3-4 games we totally dominated and everything else too care of itself..

[Trotsky]

ASU showed this year that wining is the answer. Beat enough so-so teams and it doesn't matter that much that your record against the good teams is so-so. 2-10-1 against teams that ended up in top 20 of PWR. Overall record was 21-13-1, so 19-3-0 against the others.

We couldn't do as well against the teams we should have beaten, even though we didn't really have trouble with ASU. As previously noted by Adam, if we had beaten those teams, a lot higher PWR. So just win baby, win, even if all you schedule are the "cream puffs".

I am sorry for my ignorance but what is the tool and the url for where I can go back and flip a result or two and see the consequences?  (I want to flip both RPI games to wins and see what happens, but I figure I may want to mess about with it further.)

[CU2007]

For the near future, this means getting players like Barron to stay at least three years is a big deal. And next year's recruiting class looks deep, but they're replacing one of the best classes under Schafer. As others have alluded to, I expect Regush and Andreev to make the jump to top-six forward roles, the incoming freshmen defensemen to get a lot of playing time, and the team to again compete for an ECAC Championship and NCAA birth.

Although it's not plug and play I can see Andreev take Starrett's slot and Regush take Vanderlaan's.  Ironic since Max plays similar to Mitch and Regush to Beau.

The more the season went on the more Regush looked like a great sleeper.  As good as Max looked early, Regush looked even better, and more complete, in crunch time.  Max was certainly impeded both in growth and then execution by his injury so I hope next year he can flourish uninterrupted.

Assuming scoop's 12 forwards and 6 defensemen returning, the freshman class is the quantitative measure of our depth, and Heisenberg has that as 5 forwards (Tupker x 2, Berard, O'Leary*, Malone)  and 5 defensemen (Malinski, Lagerstrom, Mitchell, Dervin, Muzyka).  That's a lot of guys to carry, but the past few seasons seem to indicate it's prudent.

* Both Heisenberg and Elite Prospects are projecting O'Leary for Fall 2019.

Safe bet that a few underclassmen guys will not be back and potentially a deferral from a recruit up front

[arugula]

ASU showed this year that wining is the answer. Beat enough so-so teams and it doesn't matter that much that your record against the good teams is so-so. 2-10-1 against teams that ended up in top 20 of PWR. Overall record was 21-13-1, so 19-3-0 against the others.

We couldn't do as well against the teams we should have beaten, even though we didn't really have trouble with ASU. As previously noted by Adam, if we had beaten those teams, a lot higher PWR. So just win baby, win, even if all you schedule are the "cream puffs".

I am sorry for my ignorance but what is the tool and the url for where I can go back and flip a result or two and see the consequences?  (I want to flip both RPI games to wins and see what happens, but I figure I may want to mess about with it further.)

At CHN, go to customize.  If we flip a very few reasonable results-split with MSU, get one off RPI, win Colgate, beat Dartmouth- we're like at 3 or 4.  
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/ncaapwcr.php#

[Swampy]

Seems we're mixing two different goals of scheduling that are better treated separately.

One is related to PWR and qualifying for the NC$$s. We've discussed this to death.

The other is developing the team over the season. I'm not the Cornell coach, and that's a very good thing, but I would want some early games against easier competition to (1) work on some things that the team needs to work on and that are not easily worked on without competition and (2) to experiment and see how some players do when they "play up" on lines they wouldn't ordinarily play on and against the other team's better players.

There's a reason why the team scrimmages other teams and plays generally weaker Canadian college teams before taking on better teams.

From a PWR standpoint, this year we dug ourselves a hole being swept by MSU. In hindsight, perhaps Mercyhurst or Canisius would have been wiser choices for opening weekend, given that the opposing team has the advantage of having 4-5 games under its belt.

OTOH, from a team-development standpoint, maybe being swept by a middling team was just what the doctor ordered to light a fire underneath the guys who were too complacently reading their press clippings,

[Swampy]

For the near future, this means getting players like Barron to stay at least three years is a big deal. And next year's recruiting class looks deep, but they're replacing one of the best classes under Schafer. As others have alluded to, I expect Regush and Andreev to make the jump to top-six forward roles, the incoming freshmen defensemen to get a lot of playing time, and the team to again compete for an ECAC Championship and NCAA birth.

Although it's not plug and play I can see Andreev take Starrett's slot and Regush take Vanderlaan's.  Ironic since Max plays similar to Mitch and Regush to Beau.

The more the season went on the more Regush looked like a great sleeper.  As good as Max looked early, Regush looked even better, and more complete, in crunch time.  Max was certainly impeded both in growth and then execution by his injury so I hope next year he can flourish uninterrupted.

Assuming scoop's 12 forwards and 6 defensemen returning, the freshman class is the quantitative measure of our depth, and Heisenberg has that as 5 forwards (Tupker x 2, Berard, O'Leary*, Malone)  and 5 defensemen (Malinski, Lagerstrom, Mitchell, Dervin, Muzyka).  That's a lot of guys to carry, but the past few seasons seem to indicate it's prudent.

Schafer essentially said as much at the alumni dinner in New Haven.

[Swampy]

Assuming scoop's 12 forwards and 6 defensemen returning, the freshman class is the quantitative measure of our depth, and Heisenberg has that as 5 forwards (Tupker x 2, Berard, O'Leary*, Malone)  and 5 defensemen (Malinski, Lagerstrom, Mitchell, Dervin, Muzyka).  That's a lot of guys to carry, but the past few seasons seem to indicate it's prudent.

Heisenberg also shows a ton of names crossed out for several teams (e.g., BC), which I assume means the players de-committed. Any idea what this is about?

[Trotsky]

Assuming scoop's 12 forwards and 6 defensemen returning, the freshman class is the quantitative measure of our depth, and Heisenberg has that as 5 forwards (Tupker x 2, Berard, O'Leary*, Malone)  and 5 defensemen (Malinski, Lagerstrom, Mitchell, Dervin, Muzyka).  That's a lot of guys to carry, but the past few seasons seem to indicate it's prudent.

Heisenberg also shows a ton of names crossed out for several teams (e.g., BC), which I assume means the players de-committed. Any idea what this is about?

He started showing decommits a couple years ago for completeness (and it reduces confusion).  As far as the increase in decommits, it seems to be NCAA-wide.  I have no idea why it has accelerated.  Perhaps players are committing earlier and then things change.  Perhaps players and families are more witting about the process now and/or less willing to be fucked over by the schools.

Or maybe we're seeing guys who wanted to come but couldn't make the admissions standards.  I mean, it does happen, presumably.

[scoop85]

Assuming scoop's 12 forwards and 6 defensemen returning, the freshman class is the quantitative measure of our depth, and Heisenberg has that as 5 forwards (Tupker x 2, Berard, O'Leary*, Malone)  and 5 defensemen (Malinski, Lagerstrom, Mitchell, Dervin, Muzyka).  That's a lot of guys to carry, but the past few seasons seem to indicate it's prudent.

Heisenberg also shows a ton of names crossed out for several teams (e.g., BC), which I assume means the players de-committed. Any idea what this is about?

A lot of those guys ditched the NCAA and opted for major juniors

[Trotsky]

Assuming scoop's 12 forwards and 6 defensemen returning, the freshman class is the quantitative measure of our depth, and Heisenberg has that as 5 forwards (Tupker x 2, Berard, O'Leary*, Malone)  and 5 defensemen (Malinski, Lagerstrom, Mitchell, Dervin, Muzyka).  That's a lot of guys to carry, but the past few seasons seem to indicate it's prudent.

Heisenberg also shows a ton of names crossed out for several teams (e.g., BC), which I assume means the players de-committed. Any idea what this is about?

A lot of those guys ditched the NCAA and opted for major juniors

But that's always happened.

[BearLover]

Yes, I know it doesn't necessarily help PWR (that's been made very clear to me), but wouldn't playing a better team help you be a better team, even if your Pairwise drops or stays flat with a loss or tie?  If the standard is winning uber alles than why not just play Mercyhurst, Army, and Canisius to make wins more likely.

Because that's not the only standard. Sure, as you said, playing better teams helps you get better. That's two separate discussions. The Pairwise part is simply factual. And just playing Mercyhurst, et al only helps your Pairwise IF you win them ALL. You darn well better.

Basically, there is an inverse ratio between Strength of Schedule and Expected Win Percentage.  Seems obvious, but people are constantly trying to game the system.  There is no way to game it, really. Not in hockey.  You play harder teams, you may win less - you play weaker teams, you may win more.  Either way, Pairwise is the same.  But - if you win a couple more vs. those harder teams - or you lose a couple vs. those weaker teams - it all blows up.  There's just no way to know in advance - so scheduling to game the Pairwise is useless.

In theory, you're right that the PWR perfectly accounts for the greater difficulty of harder opponents by weighting wins proportionally more and losses proportionally less, and vice versa for weaker opponents. But in practice, do we really have a sense of whether that weighting is correct? PWR is basically RPI, which CHN says is computed as follows:
(1) A team's own winning percentage (25%)
(2) The average of the team's opponents' winning percentages (21%)
(3) The average of the team's opponents opponents' winning percentages (54%)

Do we actually have a good sense for whether these numbers are calibrated properly? I.e., is this truly the ideal ratio of (1), (2), and (3) for determining how good a team is? If the breakdown were 35/16/49, for instance, it would be more beneficial than it is now to schedule easier opponents. And the opposite would be true if the breakdown were 15/26/59. These are just hypothetical numbers; the the point is: what makes the 25/21/54 breakdown "right"? How did we arrive there? It's highly possible the numbers are off, and the ideal ratio of (1), (2) and (3) for evaluating teams is something else, such that under the current RPI it is beneficial to schedule easier opponents, or harder opponents.

The same goes for the home/away weighting, as Dafatone alluded to. I recall seeing somewhere that teams receive a 1.2x boost for an away win, and likewise suffer only .8x as much of an RPI hit for an away loss. Are these 1.2/.8 numbers based on a real study of the benefit of home-ice advantage, or just conjecture? Before we treat the PWR/RPI as the be-all-end-all, we should probably confirm the formulas on which they are based.

[Jim Hyla]

Yes, I know it doesn't necessarily help PWR (that's been made very clear to me), but wouldn't playing a better team help you be a better team, even if your Pairwise drops or stays flat with a loss or tie?  If the standard is winning uber alles than why not just play Mercyhurst, Army, and Canisius to make wins more likely.

Because that's not the only standard. Sure, as you said, playing better teams helps you get better. That's two separate discussions. The Pairwise part is simply factual. And just playing Mercyhurst, et al only helps your Pairwise IF you win them ALL. You darn well better.

Basically, there is an inverse ratio between Strength of Schedule and Expected Win Percentage.  Seems obvious, but people are constantly trying to game the system.  There is no way to game it, really. Not in hockey.  You play harder teams, you may win less - you play weaker teams, you may win more.  Either way, Pairwise is the same.  But - if you win a couple more vs. those harder teams - or you lose a couple vs. those weaker teams - it all blows up.  There's just no way to know in advance - so scheduling to game the Pairwise is useless.

In theory, you're right that the PWR perfectly accounts for the greater difficulty of harder opponents by weighting wins proportionally more and losses proportionally less, and vice versa for weaker opponents. But in practice, do we really have a sense of whether that weighting is correct? PWR is basically RPI, which CHN says is computed as follows:
(1) A team's own winning percentage (25%)
(2) The average of the team's opponents' winning percentages (21%)
(3) The average of the team's opponents opponents' winning percentages (54%)

Do we actually have a good sense for whether these numbers are calibrated properly? I.e., is this truly the ideal ratio of (1), (2), and (3) for determining how good a team is? If the breakdown were 35/16/49, for instance, it would be more beneficial than it is now to schedule easier opponents. And the opposite would be true if the breakdown were 15/26/59. These are just hypothetical numbers; the the point is: what makes the 25/21/54 breakdown "right"? How did we arrive there? It's highly possible the numbers are off, and the ideal ratio of (1), (2) and (3) for evaluating teams is something else, such that under the current RPI it is beneficial to schedule easier opponents, or harder opponents.

The same goes for the home/away weighting, as Dafatone alluded to. I recall seeing somewhere that teams receive a 1.2x boost for an away win, and likewise suffer only .8x as much of an RPI hit for an away loss. Are these 1.2/.8 numbers based on a real study of the benefit of home-ice advantage, or just conjecture? Before we treat the PWR/RPI as the be-all-end-all, we should probably confirm the formulas on which they are based.

Agree and that's the rub. How do you do the confirmation, or do you use KRACH?

Personally I think that ASU showed this year that PWR is not the be-all and end-all. The question is, is it the best we can get?

[Chris '03]

Opponent news/not exactly early departure? Lackey you PC.

https://twitter.com/markdivver/status/1113830806005350400?s=21

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

All that I heard was that in the next 2 years we're going to ASU and Las Vegas.

This is great news.  I assumed Tempe but didn't know about Vegas (or had forgotten).  Is the latter part of a new tournament?

If I were ASU I would so host a Christmas tournament in Vegas.  I'll bet they could get anybody there.

http://icevegasinvitational.com

Where is Cornell on the 2019 schedule? What am I missing?

The part where Trotsky asked if this was part of a new tournament, and I responded. The 2019 tournament has already passed, as it was in January; we may or may not be in the 2020 or 2021.

According to Annie and Ned Dykes, Schafer told CHA that we will be in the Vegas tournament next year and postpone the "and home" with ASU to the following year.

[Scersk '97]

One begins to hope that the sirens of pro contracts sing unusually well toward Providence this year. Lots of drafted juniors...