IT'S A TRAP! Cornell vs Princeton

[abmarks]

Let's appreciate what we have.  Cornell's record after 12 ECAC games, last 5 seasons:

Code Select Expand


18 10-1-1
19  8-3-1
20  9-1-2
22  8-2-2
23  9-3-0


I think we need to differentiate between regulation wins vs. 3x3 OT wins, and between regulation losses vs. 3x3 OT losses. Otherwise these are apples-to-oranges comparisons.

No.  Apples and oranges would be lumping shootout wins and losses in with real wins and losses.  Overtime wins and losses didn't change between the Old and New Testament.  Only the derp points did, and fuck the derp points.

OT wins and losses did change following the switch to 3x3. OT wins/losses used to be worth the same as regulation wins/losses in both the standings and the pairwise. Now, a regulation win is worth 3 points and full PWR credit, while an OT win is worth 2 points and 67% PWR credit. Moreover, in evaluating how good a team is, it is important to differentiate between games that end in regulation versus OT. 3x3 is not representative of a normal hockey game and not worth putting much stake into. Last year's team won four OT games early in the season, which led a lot of people to overrate how good they were. Meanwhile, this year's Harvard game was evenly played, and giving Harvard full credit (and Cornell zero credit) for Harvard's 3x3 OT win does not comport with the standings, the PWR, or how the game played out.

Four of last year's wins were closer to a tie. One of this year's losses was closer to a tie. That's why this year's team looks better and is in a better position than last year's team. You wouldn't know that from equating OT outcomes with regulation outcomes, though.

Trotsky wasn't making comparisons. He was saying and showing that we've had excellent records at this juncture in each of the last seasons.

Why am I not surprised that Bearlover couldn't even take this to heart and instead turns it into a whine about the relative import of close wins and losses or 3x3 vs. 5x5 OT.

What part of "Let's appreciate what we have" did  you not understand?

P.s. Hey Trotsky, you let him get you off your own point and sucked into the Bearlover statistical vortex. What's up with that?

[abmarks]

Trotsky (standing atop a large hill overlooking a lake amidst a densely forested landscape). Speaking to no one in particular he smiles and says:

"What a wonderful view. It's often so lovely this time of year.   Yeah, some years it's been more bleak and gross-looking...but for the last five years or so it's been gorgeous every year."

"We should all be appreciative of what we have".


Out of thin air arrives a strange beast, the demon Bearlover, alongside Trotsky

Bearlover: "But the species mix has changed! Tree census counting guidelines definitions have changed! Maple trees aren't just maple trees anymore, there are different types!"

"BUT THE TREES!!" he roars, incredulously.


Nearby a man is seem smacking his head and grumbling after overhearing the exchange.  

"That demon is a bleeping ingrate. Can't see the  fo....."

[BearLover]

Let's appreciate what we have.  Cornell's record after 12 ECAC games, last 5 seasons:

Code Select Expand


18 10-1-1
19  8-3-1
20  9-1-2
22  8-2-2
23  9-3-0


I think we need to differentiate between regulation wins vs. 3x3 OT wins, and between regulation losses vs. 3x3 OT losses. Otherwise these are apples-to-oranges comparisons.

No.  Apples and oranges would be lumping shootout wins and losses in with real wins and losses.  Overtime wins and losses didn't change between the Old and New Testament.  Only the derp points did, and fuck the derp points.

OT wins and losses did change following the switch to 3x3. OT wins/losses used to be worth the same as regulation wins/losses in both the standings and the pairwise. Now, a regulation win is worth 3 points and full PWR credit, while an OT win is worth 2 points and 67% PWR credit. Moreover, in evaluating how good a team is, it is important to differentiate between games that end in regulation versus OT. 3x3 is not representative of a normal hockey game and not worth putting much stake into. Last year's team won four OT games early in the season, which led a lot of people to overrate how good they were. Meanwhile, this year's Harvard game was evenly played, and giving Harvard full credit (and Cornell zero credit) for Harvard's 3x3 OT win does not comport with the standings, the PWR, or how the game played out.

Four of last year's wins were closer to a tie. One of this year's losses was closer to a tie. That's why this year's team looks better and is in a better position than last year's team. You wouldn't know that from equating OT outcomes with regulation outcomes, though.

Trotsky wasn't making comparisons. He was saying and showing that we've had excellent records at this juncture in each of the last seasons.

Why am I not surprised that Bearlover couldn't even take this to heart and instead turns it into a whine about the relative import of close wins and losses or 3x3 vs. 5x5 OT.

What part of "Let's appreciate what we have" did  you not understand?

P.s. Hey Trotsky, you let him get you off your own point and sucked into the Bearlover statistical vortex. What's up with that?

You've been weirdly obsessed with me for at least three years now

[osorojo]

Is this site about Cornell Hockey or about Cornell hockey fans? A website can not serve two masters.

[BearLover]

I also hadn't even realized that was the intent of Trotsky's post. Anyway, I think the real take-away is that Cornell was an elite program in the four years until Covid hit, then 20-21 got canceled, then in 21-22 Cornell suffered as a result, and now in 22-23 Cornell appears to be back. The other takeaway is that abmarks hasn't added anything of substance to this forum in recent memory.

[Trotsky]

Zaphod's just this guy, you know?

[jtwcornell91]

Let's appreciate what we have.  Cornell's record after 12 ECAC games, last 5 seasons:

Code Select Expand


18 10-1-1
19  8-3-1
20  9-1-2
22  8-2-2
23  9-3-0


I think we need to differentiate between regulation wins vs. 3x3 OT wins, and between regulation losses vs. 3x3 OT losses. Otherwise these are apples-to-oranges comparisons.

No.  Apples and oranges would be lumping shootout wins and losses in with real wins and losses.  Overtime wins and losses didn't change between the Old and New Testament.  Only the derp points did, and fuck the derp points.

I sympathize with the moral high ground of ignoring the shootouts, but having watched 3x3 OT, I can't completely ignore the absence of four players on the ice.  I wish we were doing 5x5 OT in the RS, but given that we're not, it's not completely unreasonable to consider OT wins as slightly less worthy than regulation wins.  They should certainly be worth more than shootout wins, though.  (Yes, this is another argument for the 5-4-3-2-1-0 point system, which I guess counts as 3-2-2-1-1-0 derp points in Trotsky's accounting.)