Q Game Thread

[nshapiro]

Think also how this affects Q. They feel like crap (or hopefully worse) in the loss but get .54 of a win and only .44 of a loss. So they lose but their pairwise goes up?

well, to be anal, they went down too - because their RPI was already above .54

Unless, in that same (anal) vein, adding us as an opponent boosts the other RPI criteria more than the .54 win hurts (and we do have a good winning percentage)

[Trotsky]

And because .8 is not the reciprocal of 1.2 it is only .98 if a game.  Perfect.

I assumed those figures were rounded off and the actual weights are reciprocal.  e.g., .81 and 1.234567 ( a truly awesome value!)

TIL, you can do math in the url field.

[Dafatone]

And because .8 is not the reciprocal of 1.2 it is only .98 if a game.  Perfect.

I assumed those figures were rounded off and the actual weights are reciprocal.  e.g., .81 and 1.234567 ( a truly awesome value!)

TIL, you can do math in the url field.

For what it's worth, every game is .98 of a game, so it kinda evens out. Except neutral site games, I guess.

[Trotsky]

And because .8 is not the reciprocal of 1.2 it is only .98 if a game.  Perfect.

I assumed those figures were rounded off and the actual weights are reciprocal.  e.g., .81 and 1.234567 ( a truly awesome value!)

TIL, you can do math in the url field.

For what it's worth, every game is .98 of a game, so it kinda evens out. Except neutral site games, I guess.

LOL, I guess that is true, yeah.

[marty]

Other than the second period when they had their PP advantage, shots and possession were about even. As you point out, we were missing our top two goal scorers.  And .... we won!  Q is not way better.

I think they're better overall, even accounting for our missing players, but it's not a huge gap. Grady & Tim made a good point on the broadcast that QU has the advantage of having played a season last year. These guys had a chance to have continuity among key lines/players and cemented that knowledge of each others' habits. I don't think you can measure that quantitatively, but I think it counts for something.

Cornell seems susceptible to "rust" in coming back from time off.

They also have a bunch of transfer students who are "attending" whatever it is that passes for a grad school at (s)QU U.

[marty]

Think also how this affects Q. They feel like crap (or hopefully worse) in the loss but get .54 of a win and only .44 of a loss. So they lose but their pairwise goes up?

well, to be anal, they went down too - because their RPI was already above .54

Thanks.

Why not use the 20% bump only in out of conference games if it is in fact supposed to encourage schools with large revenue generating programs to travel?

[BearLover]

It's a net negative because of the same home/road weighting that affects every other team. Cornell will benefit from the same weighting when it goes on the road against Q (or any other team). Because of home/road weighting, all possible outcomes of a home game average out to a net negative.

0.8 of a win is not a net negative -- at least not in the way I'm using the term. If your winning percentage for the day is .800 - then that's going to raise your RPI.

Factoring the home game-penalty across all possible outcomes (win/lose/draw) averages out to a net negative. I.e., playing a home game will, on average, hurt you in the Pairwise. Cornell was hurt last night in the Pairwise, but less so than they would have been had they lost (which, given the quality of the opposition, was more likely).

[arugula]

Perhaps I'm missing this, but it sounds like the OT home "wins" vs Alaska count the same as the Q game.  Wasn't quality of opponent supposed to mean something or is that weighed down by the weakness of Q's schedule?

[scoop85]

Other than the second period when they had their PP advantage, shots and possession were about even. As you point out, we were missing our top two goal scorers.  And .... we won!  Q is not way better.

I think they're better overall, even accounting for our missing players, but it's not a huge gap. Grady & Tim made a good point on the broadcast that QU has the advantage of having played a season last year. These guys had a chance to have continuity among key lines/players and cemented that knowledge of each others' habits. I don't think you can measure that quantitatively, but I think it counts for something.

Cornell seems susceptible to "rust" in coming back from time off.

They also have a bunch of transfer students who are "attending" whatever it is that passes for a grad school at (s)QU U.

Q has a much more experienced roster than we do. This is the year they should make big noise.

[upprdeck]

QUin has 13 kids in their 4-5-6th yr of playing

we have a whole team with 3 and none who played last yr..  thats a huge amount of experience gap.

we have 14 in their first year of hockey.. Played a goalie who has played 3 weeks of games

What Quin does is really limit the mistakes.. Still we had over 6 half dozen chances in the slot to put home.  Their goalie left the same rebounds as ours we just dont have the same presence in the crease to put them home right now.

every time we play a better team we need to continue to elevate our play and get better at the sloppy mistakes..   The PP scored last night which decided the game.

[Trotsky]

Why not use the 20% bump only in out of conference games if it is in fact supposed to encourage schools with large revenue generating programs to travel?

I'll bet the answer is nobody thought to do it.

[andyw2100]

Using the kind of delicate language Trotsky would - Fuck the casual fan.  Scrap the 3-on-3, play a 5-on-5 overtime, in which the winner gets credit for a win, and if you have to, have a shootout for conference purposes that would count as a tie in pairwise.

How about five minutes of 5 on 5 regular OT, with an OT win being a regular win for pairwise purposes, and then a second OT if needed of 3 on 3, which could result in the current pairwise split. This would give us basically what we've had for the last twenty or so years (I don't remember when the OT format last changed before this recent change, but I think it's been at least 20 years), with the 3 on 3 just as a last resort to break ties that would have been ties after a "regular" OT.

[Trotsky]

Or just end the game after 60 minutes as a tie.

[andyw2100]

Or just end the game after 60 minutes as a tie.

My suggestion above was attempting to remain in line with what seems to be the "let's have fewer ties" goal that must have been the cause of the change from the former five minute five on five.

I'd also take no OT.

The 3 on 3 stuff, while less silly than a shootout, still isn't the way to settle a great game that is tied after 60 minutes.

[adamw]

It's a net negative because of the same home/road weighting that affects every other team. Cornell will benefit from the same weighting when it goes on the road against Q (or any other team). Because of home/road weighting, all possible outcomes of a home game average out to a net negative.

0.8 of a win is not a net negative -- at least not in the way I'm using the term. If your winning percentage for the day is .800 - then that's going to raise your RPI.

Factoring the home game-penalty across all possible outcomes (win/lose/draw) averages out to a net negative. I.e., playing a home game will, on average, hurt you in the Pairwise. Cornell was hurt last night in the Pairwise, but less so than they would have been had they lost (which, given the quality of the opposition, was more likely).

We're clearly not talking about the same thing - a regulation win never hurts your Pairwise. You seem to be talking about relative to a road win. Which of course is better. That doesn't mean the home win is a "net negative." Whereas a home OT win clearly is.