CU-BU 2023

[Pghas]

Was also lucky enough to attend Saturday night.  What a game!!

In terms of comparing the teams, I think from what I saw, BU has much better overall team speed and with it, skill than Cornell does.  He didnt put up any points, but Mack Celebrini while only 17 is the consensus #1 overall NHL draft pick next year. Lane Hutson was a second round pick for the Canadiens.  BU grabs an awful lot of kids from the USNDTP pipeline and it's really not expected that those kids will stay 4 years.  That said, the skill and talent level is through the roof this year. For the first half of the game it looked like that was really the story.  Cornell really wasn't generating much zone time and at some point was down 18-3 in SOG.  AT which point my son (Cornell '23) turned to me and said no way are we winning this game.

Then it seemed to turn a bit and suddenly Cornell found their legs and played MUCH better.  I think at the end of 2 the shots were 21-15.  I dont think BU stopped skating or couldn't sustain, I think Cornell relaxed a bit and just played and that seemed to work.  I think Cornell is designed to always contend for a title, and that is largely through systems.  Those systems dont seem to attract the highest end talent, so we will often be playing against teams whose top players are better than ours.  But those systems - and historically stout goaltending, which other teams lack - gets us into the top 20 most years and very often gets us to the dance.  It is what it is. The most elite talent isn't interested in playing 4 years at Cornell to win it all in years 3 and 4, those kids want to turn pro.  Celebrini will be playing in San Jose next year (funny since thats where he played youth hockey).

[Trotsky]

I think Cornell is designed to always contend for a title, and that is largely through systems.  Those systems dont seem to attract the highest end talent, so we will often be playing against teams whose top players are better than ours.  But those systems - and historically stout goaltending, which other teams lack - gets us into the top 20 most years and very often gets us to the dance.

Well said and welcome.

[Trotsky]

I am still annoyed at their terror at any forecheck and we have ONE player on the team who likes - actually likes - to shoot the puck (Bancroft) and every time he's on the wing with space, whoever is passing it to him handcuffs him so he can't one-time it. Morgan Barron would have killed someone by now.

I agree with this generally, but Penny and Walsh also like to shoot and, somewhat comically, so do Fegaras and Suda.  We do have a surfeit of excellent playmakers with Castagna, Robertson, Seger.  Other than Bancroft we lack that guy who can bury it.  That guy is not necessarily a 2nd round pick headed for the NHL after sophomore season -- Berard and pre-injury Stienburg had touch.  But since we don't seem to have much of that, we have to grow our own.  It's happened before: Ladouceur, Lemon, Gallagher, Greening, Collins, Yates, Rauter.  I'd love to see DeSantis and Kraft mature into scorers.

[ugarte]

I know you guys feel we were lucky because BU had a bunch of great chances they did not convert, but I think that often happens in games.  Ultimately, the final score is the sole dispositive measure of quality.

Easy now, Bill Parcells.

I was aiming for Schopenhauer.  

What is the nature of reality? The entire world is just an idea. That's it. Kant was so close, but Berkeley fucking nailed it - the entire world is one bigass idea. There are two parts to this idea: object and subject, which sound more complicated than they are. The 'object' is just all the things that anyone perceives; it's the entire world as we know it. Except that you can't have a perception without someone perceiving it, and that is the subject, the 'haver' of the idea. It's like when a bro sees something; his perception of seeing is the object, and the bro himself is the subject, except these are inseparable. You can't have one without the other - there's no thought without a thinker, and you're not thinking if you don't have thoughts. It really is all just one big fucking Idea. Any attempt to separate 'object' and 'subject' into truly different things, rather than parts of the same Idea, is doomed to failure, just like any attempt to separate 'sight' from 'the bro who sees' makes no sense.

But that's not enough. Kant said we want to know ultimate reality behind the Idea, and he was fucking right - we aren't happy being told that it lies beyond our grasp. Fuck that noise - I want to know what my ideas mean, what they say, whether there is any substance behind them, and if that yearning is wrong then I don't want to be right. Of course, Kant was right that we can never grasp ultimate reality from the outside looking in, which is exactly what everyone before me has tried. But where they all fucked up, and what makes me awesome, is that they all imagined themselves as winged cherubs, looking down on the world without being a part of it. But we are in the world as much as anything else; our bodies are objects just like the chair I'm sitting in. What sets my hand apart from the pen it holds? What if my body were just the object I'm closest to, and I had no more control over it than your body, which is also an object to me?

Answer: Pure. Motherfucking. Will. My willpower is the only thing that sets my body apart from any other object; the will manifests itself in the movement of my body. Emotions? Just violent movements of the will, as these too cause my body to react, whether my heart races or my breathing slows or, uh, you know... boners. Only the will allows us to take the body beyond an object of perception. The Will manifests itself into individuals, and these perceive and react, but they all have the same ability to perceive, and that ability is the subject itself.

What sets man apart is his ability to reason, to replace perception with abstract ideas - not only do we perceive individual things, we can categorize them and reason about them. Picture a triangle - got it? Good. No lower animal could complete such an exercise, but we can understand the idea of all triangles, or all numbers, or all cats; behind every perception is an abstract idea. And the idea behind every abstract idea, the highest idea, is pure unadulterated Idea - the Idea of being object for the subject, the Idea of being an Idea. This highest Idea is the ultimate reality - Idea itself. When we strip away even the notions of object and subject, only one thing remains that is neither - the goddamn Will, which is the thing-in-itself that Kant thought we couldn't know. Well there it is, bitches.

The Will is conscious, and is consciousness itself. Individual wills live and die, but they always maintain the Will itself. The Will exists now, in every moment, never in the past or the future. We have free Will indeed, for no reason or necessity or determination can constrain the Will. If we would participate in the thing-in-itself fully, we ought to live only in the present, with no regard for tomorrow or yesterday! By embracing the will, we need not fear death, for death is an illusion for individuals, and the Will we embrace is eternal.

Excerpt from Die Welt als Punktzahl und Gewinnprozentsatz.

Everyone wants to think they're Schopenhauer but

[ugarte]

I am still annoyed at their terror at any forecheck and we have ONE player on the team who likes - actually likes - to shoot the puck (Bancroft) and every time he's on the wing with space, whoever is passing it to him handcuffs him so he can't one-time it. Morgan Barron would have killed someone by now.

I agree with this generally, but Penny and Walsh also like to shoot and, somewhat comically, so do Fegaras and Suda.  We do have a surfeit of excellent playmakers with Castagna, Robertson, Seger.  Other than Bancroft we lack that guy who can bury it.  That guy is not necessarily a 2nd round pick headed for the NHL after sophomore season -- Berard and pre-injury Stienburg had touch.  But since we don't seem to have much of that, we have to grow our own.  It's happened before: Ladouceur, Lemon, Gallagher, Greening, Collins, Yates, Rauter.  I'd love to see DeSantis and Kraft mature into scorers.

I like this about them! It's only comical because we don't, seemingly by design, have anyone down low to help them make it less of a joke.

[Dafatone]

I am still annoyed at their terror at any forecheck and we have ONE player on the team who likes - actually likes - to shoot the puck (Bancroft) and every time he's on the wing with space, whoever is passing it to him handcuffs him so he can't one-time it. Morgan Barron would have killed someone by now.

I agree with this generally, but Penny and Walsh also like to shoot and, somewhat comically, so do Fegaras and Suda.  We do have a surfeit of excellent playmakers with Castagna, Robertson, Seger.  Other than Bancroft we lack that guy who can bury it.  That guy is not necessarily a 2nd round pick headed for the NHL after sophomore season -- Berard and pre-injury Stienburg had touch.  But since we don't seem to have much of that, we have to grow our own.  It's happened before: Ladouceur, Lemon, Gallagher, Greening, Collins, Yates, Rauter.  I'd love to see DeSantis and Kraft mature into scorers.

I like this about them! It's only comical because we don't, seemingly by design, have anyone down low to help them make it less of a joke.

As our offensive talent has increased the last few years, we haven't gotten any smaller, but we seem to have lost some muscle. Offensively talented big guys are used to dominating with skill, not strength. So we've been vulnerable to teams that can push us around down low and clog up the slot. Princeton and Brown seem to be this sort year to year.

[Trotsky]

I like this about them! It's only comical because we don't, seemingly by design, have anyone down low to help them make it less of a joke.

I like D-men with manic shots.  What I find comical about Suda and Fegaras is they're so bad at it!  **]

[Swampy]

I am still annoyed at their terror at any forecheck and we have ONE player on the team who likes - actually likes - to shoot the puck (Bancroft) and every time he's on the wing with space, whoever is passing it to him handcuffs him so he can't one-time it. Morgan Barron would have killed someone by now.

I agree with this generally, but Penny and Walsh also like to shoot and, somewhat comically, so do Fegaras and Suda.  We do have a surfeit of excellent playmakers with Castagna, Robertson, Seger.  Other than Bancroft we lack that guy who can bury it.  That guy is not necessarily a 2nd round pick headed for the NHL after sophomore season -- Berard and pre-injury Stienburg had touch.  But since we don't seem to have much of that, we have to grow our own.  It's happened before: Ladouceur, Lemon, Gallagher, Greening, Collins, Yates, Rauter.  I'd love to see DeSantis and Kraft mature into scorers.

I like this about them! It's only comical because we don't, seemingly by design, have anyone down low to help them make it less of a joke.

As our offensive talent has increased the last few years, we haven't gotten any smaller, but we seem to have lost some muscle. Offensively talented big guys are used to dominating with skill, not strength. So we've been vulnerable to teams that can push us around down low and clog up the slot. Princeton and Brown seem to be this sort year to year.

This also reflects how young we are. For example, when Ben Robinson "tangled" with BU's Case McCarthy we're talking about a 2007 against a 2001. (Elite Prospects lists them as 16 and 22 years old respectively, but EP also lists Robinson's position as "G." So take this with a grain of salt.) Cornell Athletics says Robinson is 5'11" and 185 lb, while BU says McCarthy is 6'1" and 200 lb. So, Robinson was giving up six years, two inches, and 15 lbs to McCarthy. Yet, at least in the moments leading up to Walsh's goal, Robinson held his own quite well against McCarthy. This is also a pretty good comparison because it compares two defensemen.

Actually, as a team (and according to College Hockey News), BU is bigger than Cornell: 6' 1.14" & 191.7 lb. vs 6' 0.71" & 187.7 lb.

Young guys like Robinson might still grow an inch or two, they still might be maturing from childhood with  "delayed puberty," and with more time in the weight room, they will typically bulk up, especially over summers if they follow the trainer's prescriptions. Of course, such considerations will also apply to young players on teams like BU. For example, Macklin Celebrini is listed at 6' 0" & 190 #, but what are the chances of him playing college hockey in two years?

One further item of note is faceoffs. As has already been noted, Seger won 20 out of 30 FO's. But percentage-wise, Castagna matched this, winning 8 of 12. In fact, every Cornell player who took faceoffs won half or more of their draws. In addition to the above, Devlin was 1 for 1, Penny was 2 for 3, and Walsh had the lowest percentage at 6 of 12. Perhaps skill, speed, and size are the most important characteristics in hockey, but they are not the only parts of the game.

[scoop85]

I am still annoyed at their terror at any forecheck and we have ONE player on the team who likes - actually likes - to shoot the puck (Bancroft) and every time he's on the wing with space, whoever is passing it to him handcuffs him so he can't one-time it. Morgan Barron would have killed someone by now.

I agree with this generally, but Penny and Walsh also like to shoot and, somewhat comically, so do Fegaras and Suda.  We do have a surfeit of excellent playmakers with Castagna, Robertson, Seger.  Other than Bancroft we lack that guy who can bury it.  That guy is not necessarily a 2nd round pick headed for the NHL after sophomore season -- Berard and pre-injury Stienburg had touch.  But since we don't seem to have much of that, we have to grow our own.  It's happened before: Ladouceur, Lemon, Gallagher, Greening, Collins, Yates, Rauter.  I'd love to see DeSantis and Kraft mature into scorers.

I like this about them! It's only comical because we don't, seemingly by design, have anyone down low to help them make it less of a joke.

As our offensive talent has increased the last few years, we haven't gotten any smaller, but we seem to have lost some muscle. Offensively talented big guys are used to dominating with skill, not strength. So we've been vulnerable to teams that can push us around down low and clog up the slot. Princeton and Brown seem to be this sort year to year.

This also reflects how young we are. For example, when Ben Robinson "tangled" with BU's Case McCarthy we're talking about a 2007 against a 2001. (Elite Prospects lists them as 16 and 22 years old respectively, but EP also lists Robinson's position as "G." So take this with a grain of salt.) Cornell Athletics says Robinson is 5'11" and 185 lb, while BU says McCarthy is 6'1" and 200 lb. So, Robinson was giving up six years, two inches, and 15 lbs to McCarthy. Yet, at least in the moments leading up to Walsh's goal, Robinson held his own quite well against McCarthy. This is also a pretty good comparison because it compares two defensemen.

Actually, as a team (and according to College Hockey News), BU is bigger than Cornell: 6' 1.14" & 191.7 lb. vs 6' 0.71" & 187.7 lb.

Young guys like Robinson might still grow an inch or two, they still might be maturing from childhood with  "delayed puberty," and with more time in the weight room, they will typically bulk up, especially over summers if they follow the trainer's prescriptions. Of course, such considerations will also apply to young players on teams like BU. For example, Macklin Celebrini is listed at 6' 0" & 190 #, but what are the chances of him playing college hockey in two years?

One further item of note is faceoffs. As has already been noted, Seger won 20 out of 30 FO's. But percentage-wise, Castagna matched this, winning 8 of 12. In fact, every Cornell player who took faceoffs won half or more of their draws. In addition to the above, Devlin was 1 for 1, Penny was 2 for 3, and Walsh had the lowest percentage at 6 of 12. Perhaps skill, speed, and size are the most important characteristics in hockey, but they are not the only parts of the game.

Small correction, it's Robertson

[arugula]

Was also lucky enough to attend Saturday night.  What a game!!

In terms of comparing the teams, I think from what I saw, BU has much better overall team speed and with it, skill than Cornell does.  He didnt put up any points, but Mack Celebrini while only 17 is the consensus #1 overall NHL draft pick next year. Lane Hutson was a second round pick for the Canadiens.  BU grabs an awful lot of kids from the USNDTP pipeline and it's really not expected that those kids will stay 4 years.  That said, the skill and talent level is through the roof this year. For the first half of the game it looked like that was really the story.  Cornell really wasn't generating much zone time and at some point was down 18-3 in SOG.  AT which point my son (Cornell '23) turned to me and said no way are we winning this game.

Then it seemed to turn a bit and suddenly Cornell found their legs and played MUCH better.  I think at the end of 2 the shots were 21-15.  I dont think BU stopped skating or couldn't sustain, I think Cornell relaxed a bit and just played and that seemed to work.  I think Cornell is designed to always contend for a title, and that is largely through systems.  Those systems dont seem to attract the highest end talent, so we will often be playing against teams whose top players are better than ours.  But those systems - and historically stout goaltending, which other teams lack - gets us into the top 20 most years and very often gets us to the dance.  It is what it is. The most elite talent isn't interested in playing 4 years at Cornell to win it all in years 3 and 4, those kids want to turn pro.  Celebrini will be playing in San Jose next year (funny since thats where he played youth hockey).

I always prefer the B+ senior to the A+ freshman.

[George64]

That makes sense.  It's in the contract.

I started watching Ranger hockey at MSG in the mid-50s.  In those days, four guys on skates, with those plow-like shovels, would clear the snow off the ice.  They were followed by another four guys on skates pushing two ice-making contraptions.  They were essentially 55-gallon drums on wheels or skids that spread water on the cleared ice.  Zambonis were in general use everywhere else, so why not at MSG?  I was told it was because of a union contract.

They were probably the same guys who shoveled up the elephant shit when the circus came to MSG.  

This afternoon, I came across this article on the origin of the Zamboni in the latest issue of Smithsonian while waiting to see my doctor.

[BearLover]

While we do not have these stats for college hockey, I would guess that BU's xG from last night was ~5, while Cornell's was ~2. And that's purely based on the quality of these scoring chances in the abstract, without taking into account that BU has some of the best goal scorers in the entire country. That would mean Cornell was very "lucky" (under most hockey fans' sense of the word, at least).

Looks like my intuition about xG was pretty good: https://x.com/BUHockeyStats/status/1729287058189865259?s=20

Cornell was very fortunate to win this game. It would be very interesting (though also frustrating, when Cornell outplays the opponent and loses) if we had these stats for Cornell's other games.

[Trotsky]

I wonder if the Cornell hockey staff keeps them for us.

[Dumbdumbs]

I am still annoyed at their terror at any forecheck and we have ONE player on the team who likes - actually likes - to shoot the puck (Bancroft) and every time he's on the wing with space, whoever is passing it to him handcuffs him so he can't one-time it. Morgan Barron would have killed someone by now.

Cornell has had real trouble with breakouts against any decent forecheck for... I don't know... the past ten seasons? For about half the games each season, you'll see them stuggle on this, and I've asked myself for years now why other teams don't exploit it more.

My only working theories:

1. Cornell doesn't regularly play amazing teams, and it's hard to put up a consistently decent forecheck. So most teams just can't pull this off consistently against Cornell?

And/Or...

2. Most D-1 hockey teams are at a quality level that they'll struggle against a decent forecheck. We're all in the same boat, there's nothing unique about Cornell on this, and I just notice Cornell's struggles more.

[Trotsky]

I think it's 2, but I would argue the 2018 and 2020 teams had no problem breaking out against a forecheck.