2020-02-01: Cornell 5 Princeton 3

[Jim Hyla]

I mean we are complaining about a top 8 PP unit..

the bigger issue is lack of chances for that unit..

for a team thats physical and cycles we dont draw many. we have had
 82 chances vs teams that have had 120/+  now some/much of that is playing fewer games so for the ivies we probably stack up ok.

the PK is the much bigger issue giving up 3 in so few shots is not good.

Agree, Clarkson is 24.3% on PP, but 92.8% on PK, vs our 25.6% & 76.8%.

Clarkson is GF 26, GA 8 for a GF% of 76.5. GF% is GF/GF+GA

We're only GF 21, GA 16 for a GF% 56.8.

If we had a PK of Clarkson's, we'd only have given up 5 goals, or about 0.5 GA/game less than now.

That would give us a 1.2 GA/game. Insane, those are Dryden/LeNeveu stats.

And might have meant we'd have won some of those tied games.

[Swampy]

I mean we are complaining about a top 8 PP unit..

the bigger issue is lack of chances for that unit..

for a team thats physical and cycles we dont draw many. we have had
 82 chances vs teams that have had 120/+  now some/much of that is playing fewer games so for the ivies we probably stack up ok.

the PK is the much bigger issue giving up 3 in so few shots is not good.

Agree, Clarkson is 24.3% on PP, but 92.8% on PK, vs our 25.6% & 76.8%.

Clarkson is GF 26, GA 8 for a GF% of 76.5. GF% is GF/GF+GA

We're only GF 21, GA 16 for a GF% 56.8.
 Respectable
If we had a PK of Clarkson's, we'd only have given up 5 goals, or about 0.5 GA/game less than now.

That would give us a 1.2 GA/game. Insane, those are Dryden/LeNeveu stats.

And might have meant we'd have won some of those tied games.

Five of the GA were by Q. If we omit them, our GF% goes up to 66%: still < CLK, but much more respectable.

Now there are at least three possible factors when considering this loss. One is that the entire team played pretty poorly, and this is true. A second explanation is that Galadja had an off night. A third is that other teams have scouted him and saw a weakness; did you notice how many shots over his glove hand?

[abmarks]

Seriously, is Song a player with any possibility of playing?

no

Do we ever cut anyone?

Why would you in the middle of the season? Scholarships aren't an issue. Rostered players can still have value in practices and such. Players have left the team during off-seasons that may be player or program-based decisions. (So in that respect, yes?)

Who said anything about the middle of the season?

Seriously, is Song a player with any possibility of playing?

no

Do we ever cut anyone?

No.  Song seems to be a Nice Young Man who practices diligently with the team so there's no harm.  Wang drafted him as a show of Chinese hockey strength or as a business deal or something.  Mike recruited him because... I dunno... maybe he owed Triad a favor from his days as an underground drift driver.

Could care less if he's a nice kid or not.

Sure, we need practice players. But there's a limit somewhere - clearly 40 guys would be to many for example.

So what I'm asking is if we ever replace the worst player on the team over the summer?  If 30 s the limit, hypothetically, would we keep a nice kid as our worst player if we could bring in anyone better?

There is some value in keeping a bottom of the roster kid for GPA purposes at times, I suppose, but this isn't football where every team can carry a couple of Rudys and a couple of GPA boosting kids.

[Trotsky]

Well the 3-goalie is where we keep our GPA guy.  ;-)

Nobody really knows whether Song will develop to where he can crack the lineup except for the coaching staff and the Song of himself (sorry; that was a reach).  I trust Mike over anybody here to decide that.  With another largish class on the horizon and a tiny class graduating the coaching staff expects early departures and/or will be doing upgrades.  As long as all the kids keep their admissions packages I am not concerned.

[Jim Hyla]

I mean we are complaining about a top 8 PP unit..

the bigger issue is lack of chances for that unit..

for a team thats physical and cycles we dont draw many. we have had
 82 chances vs teams that have had 120/+  now some/much of that is playing fewer games so for the ivies we probably stack up ok.

the PK is the much bigger issue giving up 3 in so few shots is not good.

Agree, Clarkson is 24.3% on PP, but 92.8% on PK, vs our 25.6% & 76.8%.

Clarkson is GF 26, GA 8 for a GF% of 76.5. GF% is GF/GF+GA

We're only GF 21, GA 16 for a GF% 56.8.
 Respectable
If we had a PK of Clarkson's, we'd only have given up 5 goals, or about 0.5 GA/game less than now.

That would give us a 1.2 GA/game. Insane, those are Dryden/LeNeveu stats.

And might have meant we'd have won some of those tied games.

Five of the GA were by Q. If we omit them, our GF% goes up to 66%: still < CLK, but much more respectable.

Now there are at least three possible factors when considering this loss. One is that the entire team played pretty poorly, and this is true. A second explanation is that Galadja had an off night. A third is that other teams have scouted him and saw a weakness; did you notice how many shots over his glove hand?

I was talking about PP & PK. So the Q loss is meaningless, those 5 goals were not PP goals.

[osorojo]

The PK numbers are interesting but not very informative. More than any offensive situation, the PK depends upon teamwork and positioning. There are no breakaway penalty kills. The fastest, most elusive skater with the best shot is not necessarily the best penalty killer. Discipline and positioning (coaching) are paramount in PK's.

[upprdeck]

we killed 17 in a row until the princ game.. so in that vacuum we are about 3-22 which is actually a good number.

[osorojo]

U.D.: That's pretty good hockey - but not as good as Clarkson's 92.8 PK versus Cornell's 76.8% PK (cited above).

[Swampy]

U.D.: That's pretty good hockey - but not as good as Clarkson's 92.8 PK versus Cornell's 76.8% PK (cited above).

We have to consider the whole season so far overall and in context. The team started out relying on several first-year players to fill spots as defensemen. Its defense was really good 6 v 6, but the PK left much to be desired. What I observed, perhaps incorrectly, was that the PK held its structure fairly well, but opponents were able to take advantage of small mistakes, which led to breakdowns of the defensive structure.

But as the season went on the PK improved. As osorojo suggested, coaching began to impact. Bad habits and mistakes still happen, but they're becoming increasingly rare. Barring unforeseen injuries, I'll be very surprised if our successful PK % does not increase substantially over the rest of the season.

[Jim Hyla]

U.D.: That's pretty good hockey - but not as good as Clarkson's 92.8 PK versus Cornell's 76.8% PK (cited above).

We have to consider the whole season so far overall and in context. The team started out relying on several first-year players to fill spots as defensemen. Its defense was really good 6 v 6, but the PK left much to be desired. What I observed, perhaps incorrectly, was that the PK held its structure fairly well, but opponents were able to take advantage of small mistakes, which led to breakdowns of the defensive structure.

But as the season went on the PK improved. As osorojo suggested, coaching began to impact. Bad habits and mistakes still happen, but they're becoming increasingly rare. Barring unforeseen injuries, I'll be very surprised if our successful PK % does not increase substantially over the rest of the season.

I hope you're correct about our PK% improving. If not we'll have a difficult time getting through the ECAC tournament, say nothing of the NCAAs.

[KenP]

U.D.: That's pretty good hockey - but not as good as Clarkson's 92.8 PK versus Cornell's 76.8% PK (cited above).

We have to consider the whole season so far overall and in context. The team started out relying on several first-year players to fill spots as defensemen. Its defense was really good 6 v 6, but the PK left much to be desired. What I observed, perhaps incorrectly, was that the PK held its structure fairly well, but opponents were able to take advantage of small mistakes, which led to breakdowns of the defensive structure.

But as the season went on the PK improved. As osorojo suggested, coaching began to impact. Bad habits and mistakes still happen, but they're becoming increasingly rare. Barring unforeseen injuries, I'll be very surprised if our successful PK % does not increase substantially over the rest of the season.

I hope you're correct about our PK% improving. If not we'll have a difficult time getting through the ECAC tournament, say nothing of the NCAAs.

Stats are almost guaranteed to improve.  Between now and Lake Placid we have 10 games with 9 of those being against significantly weaker teams.  (Clarkson 2/29 is the lone exception.)

[Trotsky]

Stats are almost guaranteed to improve.  Between now and Lake Placid we have 10 games with 9 of those being against significantly weaker teams.  (Clarkson 2/29 is the lone exception.)

Ahem.

[KenP]

Stats are almost guaranteed to improve.  Between now and Lake Placid we have 10 games with 9 of those being against significantly weaker teams.  (Clarkson 2/29 is the lone exception.)

Ahem.

My comment was about opponent PWR or other rating, not about the difficulties of winning a game in the ECAC
Date -- Opponent -- PWR
07 Fri -- Colgate -- 40
08 Sat -- at Colgate -- 40
14 Fri -- Union -- 52
15 Sat -- Rensselaer -- 39
21 Fri -- at Yale -- 41
22 Sat -- at Brown -- 57
28 Fri -- St. Lawrence -- 59
29 Sat -- Clarkson -- 7
(Assuming we have a, ECAC first round bye, next opponent would be 5-12 in ECAC.  Highest PWR in the bottom 8 is Dartmouth at 31. Again, on paper they are not a strong team.)

[Trotsky]

I thought you were talking about improving PK%.  We gave up 2 vs Union.

[Jim Hyla]

I thought you were talking about improving PK%.  We gave up 2 vs Union.

My thought as well, as he was quoting me and I was talking about PK%.