Hey Clownlover, the sky isn't falling: this year's team is last year's team.

[margolism]

I think the biggest reason(s) we are where we are today are:

1. Defensive performance, starting with goaltending. In many games, this has resulted in us playing from behind, which I am sure impacts the approach to the game, scoring, trying to do more resulting in being out of sync, etc.

2. Absence of Gabe Seeger, which has impacted the team's offensive production.  Especially his 30 assists. Not to mention his wine % on face-offs, and I believe he also contributed on the PK.

3. Bad puck luck, some of which might be attributed to both of the above.

Injuries happen every year.  Hard to say to what extent people have been playing injured and thus haven't been able to play at 100%, especially when it comes to forechecking and back checking.  

Similarly, while I am sure that two new coaches could have an impact on the team's performance, once again, it is really hard to say to what extent this has actually impacted W-L-T.  

I am curious what the psyche is of the team.  They have to be disappointed (to put it lightly.)  They are competitive athletes and want to win as much as anyone.  I wonder if a sports psychologist is working with the team given where they are right now.

[fastforward]

I get it; Seger is gone. But no matter how many times it's brought up, he's not coming back.
We need to have forward vision, and stop looking over our shoulders. They need to make the best with whoever is healthy and hope for the best.
I'm sure it's frustrating for the players but they know injuries happen

[ice]

The lack of scoring during 5x3's is very notable.  Something is really wrong there.

[BearLover]

Because numbers talk and clownlover shouldn't.

Clownlover has been all over the place; beside himself that the team is blowing their opportunity in what he declared to be a year where we're supposed to legitimately contend for the national title.

Let's get a little perspective here and look at what we did last year. Did we make a deep run?   Yes.   But arguably we overachieved last year after going on a quite unlikely tear.


11 games in we were 6W-3L-1T-1OTL.

In 2023-2024, The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 40 comparison wins and an rpi of .5239

Including all playoff games, we improbably went 16W-3L-5T the rest of the way.

Now let's compare to this season.

After our 11th game on 12/7, out record stood at
4W-3L-3T-1OTW.

In 2024-2025 The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 39 comparison wins and an rpi of .5231

I don't know what happened last year to get the team on track after the holiday break, but something tells me it was part coaching and quite a bit of run good to over achieve.  Basing expectations for this year on where we finished last year and not looking at how we got there is  a mistake.   So far, this year's team and last year's team are effectively the same.

So how'd that turn out?

[Trotsky]

We won't know until March.

[abmarks]

Because numbers talk and clownlover shouldn't.

Clownlover has been all over the place; beside himself that the team is blowing their opportunity in what he declared to be a year where we're supposed to legitimately contend for the national title.

Let's get a little perspective here and look at what we did last year. Did we make a deep run?   Yes.   But arguably we overachieved last year after going on a quite unlikely tear.


11 games in we were 6W-3L-1T-1OTL.

In 2023-2024, The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 40 comparison wins and an rpi of .5239

Including all playoff games, we improbably went 16W-3L-5T the rest of the way.

Now let's compare to this season.

After our 11th game on 12/7, out record stood at
4W-3L-3T-1OTW.

In 2024-2025 The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 39 comparison wins and an rpi of .5231

I don't know what happened last year to get the team on track after the holiday break, but something tells me it was part coaching and quite a bit of run good to over achieve.  Basing expectations for this year on where we finished last year and not looking at how we got there is  a mistake.   So far, this year's team and last year's team are effectively the same.

So how'd that turn out?

Clownlover is still managing to miss my point ffs.

By any measure, we overachieved in the second half last year.  And even with that hot run needed to win the ecac tourney to get into the NCAA tournament. If the second half was replayed 100 times, with everything the same, I doubt we even sniff the ncaas 10 percent of the time.  We ran hot.

Overachieving last year raised expectations too high amongst some observers: most notably Clownlover.

While we're underperforming against even reasonable expectations so far this year, the injury situation has got to be the undisputed primary cause now that we've been treated to multiple viewings of the Rayhill show.

[BearLover]

Because numbers talk and clownlover shouldn't.

Clownlover has been all over the place; beside himself that the team is blowing their opportunity in what he declared to be a year where we're supposed to legitimately contend for the national title.

Let's get a little perspective here and look at what we did last year. Did we make a deep run?   Yes.   But arguably we overachieved last year after going on a quite unlikely tear.


11 games in we were 6W-3L-1T-1OTL.

In 2023-2024, The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 40 comparison wins and an rpi of .5239

Including all playoff games, we improbably went 16W-3L-5T the rest of the way.

Now let's compare to this season.

After our 11th game on 12/7, out record stood at
4W-3L-3T-1OTW.

In 2024-2025 The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 39 comparison wins and an rpi of .5231

I don't know what happened last year to get the team on track after the holiday break, but something tells me it was part coaching and quite a bit of run good to over achieve.  Basing expectations for this year on where we finished last year and not looking at how we got there is  a mistake.   So far, this year's team and last year's team are effectively the same.

So how'd that turn out?

Clownlover is still managing to miss my point ffs.

By any measure, we overachieved in the second half last year.  And even with that hot run needed to win the ecac tourney to get into the NCAA tournament. If the second half was replayed 100 times, with everything the same, I doubt we even sniff the ncaas 10 percent of the time.  We ran hot.

Overachieving last year raised expectations too high amongst some observers: most notably Clownlover.

While we're underperforming against even reasonable expectations so far this year, the injury situation has got to be the undisputed primary cause now that we've been treated to multiple viewings of the Rayhill show.

??

The point you are making is completely nonsensical. By your logic, taking the second half of last season as given, if the first half was replayed 100 times, Cornell would make the NCAAs 90/100 times. As this example demonstrates, it makes literally no sense to view things this way.

Last year Cornell was 13th in the PWR as of the start of the NCAA tournament. That takes into account both the first and second half of the season. By your deranged logic, my expectations were too high because Cornell happened to win more games in the second half than in the first half? Huh?

It's totally irrelevant the order in which Cornell won the games. The end result was an NCAA bid. You're cherry-picking a random chunk of the season and then saying Cornell overachieved during the rest of the season, but you could just as easily do the reverse: pick a different chunk of the season and then argue Cornell underachieved the rest of the season. Or, you could do what anybody with an actual brain would do and evaluate last season in its totality, the result of which was making the NCAA tournament as the 13th best team in the country (and then winning a round before losing to the eventual champs).  

I can't tell if you actually believe the things you say or if you think I'm stupid enough to let you dig out of the hole you dug when you started this thread.

[abmarks]

Because numbers talk and clownlover shouldn't.

Clownlover has been all over the place; beside himself that the team is blowing their opportunity in what he declared to be a year where we're supposed to legitimately contend for the national title.

Let's get a little perspective here and look at what we did last year. Did we make a deep run?   Yes.   But arguably we overachieved last year after going on a quite unlikely tear.


11 games in we were 6W-3L-1T-1OTL.

In 2023-2024, The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 40 comparison wins and an rpi of .5239

Including all playoff games, we improbably went 16W-3L-5T the rest of the way.

Now let's compare to this season.

After our 11th game on 12/7, out record stood at
4W-3L-3T-1OTW.

In 2024-2025 The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 39 comparison wins and an rpi of .5231

I don't know what happened last year to get the team on track after the holiday break, but something tells me it was part coaching and quite a bit of run good to over achieve.  Basing expectations for this year on where we finished last year and not looking at how we got there is  a mistake.   So far, this year's team and last year's team are effectively the same.

So how'd that turn out?

Clownlover is still managing to miss my point ffs.

By any measure, we overachieved in the second half last year.  And even with that hot run needed to win the ecac tourney to get into the NCAA tournament. If the second half was replayed 100 times, with everything the same, I doubt we even sniff the ncaas 10 percent of the time.  We ran hot.

Overachieving last year raised expectations too high amongst some observers: most notably Clownlover.

While we're underperforming against even reasonable expectations so far this year, the injury situation has got to be the undisputed primary cause now that we've been treated to multiple viewings of the Rayhill show.

??

The point you are making is completely nonsensical. By your logic, taking the second half of last season as given, if the first half was replayed 100 times, Cornell would make the NCAAs 90/100 times. As this example demonstrates, it makes literally no sense to view things this way.

Last year Cornell was 13th in the PWR as of the start of the NCAA tournament. That takes into account both the first and second half of the season. By your deranged logic, my expectations were too high because Cornell happened to win more games in the second half than in the first half? Huh?

It's totally irrelevant the order in which Cornell won the games. The end result was an NCAA bid. You're cherry-picking a random chunk of the season and then saying Cornell overachieved during the rest of the season, but you could just as easily do the reverse: pick a different chunk of the season and then argue Cornell underachieved the rest of the season. Or, you could do what anybody with an actual brain would do and evaluate last season in its totality, the result of which was making the NCAA tournament as the 13th best team in the country (and then winning a round before losing to the eventual champs).  

I can't tell if you actually believe the things you say or if you think I'm stupid enough to let you dig out of the hole you dug when you started this thread.

Literacy check?

If the second half was replayed 100 times, with everything the same, I doubt we even sniff the ncaas 10 percent of the time.

Talk about interpreting something the way you want to see it.   My fault for leaving room to read that two different ways.

When I said "with everything the same" I meant no variables, like injuries, change. The inputs are constant, not the outputs.  Rewind the time machine to puck drop for each of those games and replay it 100 times.

Picture a monte carlo sim where first half results are fixed but second half varies per a monte carlo simulation.

Our second half record is going to be worse almost every time and we only finish on the bubble or in the tourny 10 percent.   We whiff the tournament over 90 percent of the time.

[The Rancor]

It's totally irrelevant the order in which Cornell won the games. The end result was an NCAA bid.

This is where you're wrong. In sports, things come in streaks, you get hot and cold. There are intangibles like momentum. If Cornell went on a 20 game heater to start the season then collapsed to lose 7 and tie 6 over the last month, that's a very different team with different expectations. Last year they got hot and made a run. That's hockey.

[BearLover]

Because numbers talk and clownlover shouldn't.

Clownlover has been all over the place; beside himself that the team is blowing their opportunity in what he declared to be a year where we're supposed to legitimately contend for the national title.

Let's get a little perspective here and look at what we did last year. Did we make a deep run?   Yes.   But arguably we overachieved last year after going on a quite unlikely tear.


11 games in we were 6W-3L-1T-1OTL.

In 2023-2024, The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 40 comparison wins and an rpi of .5239

Including all playoff games, we improbably went 16W-3L-5T the rest of the way.

Now let's compare to this season.

After our 11th game on 12/7, out record stood at
4W-3L-3T-1OTW.

In 2024-2025 The day after our 11th game, our pwr rank was 25th with 39 comparison wins and an rpi of .5231

I don't know what happened last year to get the team on track after the holiday break, but something tells me it was part coaching and quite a bit of run good to over achieve.  Basing expectations for this year on where we finished last year and not looking at how we got there is  a mistake.   So far, this year's team and last year's team are effectively the same.

So how'd that turn out?

Clownlover is still managing to miss my point ffs.

By any measure, we overachieved in the second half last year.  And even with that hot run needed to win the ecac tourney to get into the NCAA tournament. If the second half was replayed 100 times, with everything the same, I doubt we even sniff the ncaas 10 percent of the time.  We ran hot.

Overachieving last year raised expectations too high amongst some observers: most notably Clownlover.

While we're underperforming against even reasonable expectations so far this year, the injury situation has got to be the undisputed primary cause now that we've been treated to multiple viewings of the Rayhill show.

??

The point you are making is completely nonsensical. By your logic, taking the second half of last season as given, if the first half was replayed 100 times, Cornell would make the NCAAs 90/100 times. As this example demonstrates, it makes literally no sense to view things this way.

Last year Cornell was 13th in the PWR as of the start of the NCAA tournament. That takes into account both the first and second half of the season. By your deranged logic, my expectations were too high because Cornell happened to win more games in the second half than in the first half? Huh?

It's totally irrelevant the order in which Cornell won the games. The end result was an NCAA bid. You're cherry-picking a random chunk of the season and then saying Cornell overachieved during the rest of the season, but you could just as easily do the reverse: pick a different chunk of the season and then argue Cornell underachieved the rest of the season. Or, you could do what anybody with an actual brain would do and evaluate last season in its totality, the result of which was making the NCAA tournament as the 13th best team in the country (and then winning a round before losing to the eventual champs).  

I can't tell if you actually believe the things you say or if you think I'm stupid enough to let you dig out of the hole you dug when you started this thread.

Literacy check?

If the second half was replayed 100 times, with everything the same, I doubt we even sniff the ncaas 10 percent of the time.

Talk about interpreting something the way you want to see it.   My fault for leaving room to read that two different ways.

When I said "with everything the same" I meant no variables, like injuries, change. The inputs are constant, not the outputs.  Rewind the time machine to puck drop for each of those games and replay it 100 times.

Picture a monte carlo sim where first half results are fixed but second half varies per a monte carlo simulation.

Our second half record is going to be worse almost every time and we only finish on the bubble or in the tourny 10 percent.   We whiff the tournament over 90 percent of the time.

Who cares about any of that stuff? Why would you hold the first half fixed? Your point is still total nonsense. You're choosing to hold the worst stretch of the season as fixed and then argue we overachieved because we got lucky in the second half.

You're not making any coherent point by doing this. If anything, you're bolstering my point that we were pretty fucked as of the end of first semester this season. But that's not what you're trying to say. You're trying to say my expectations were too high because Cornell won much more in the second half of the season than in the first half. You're treating the worst stretch of the season as indicative of the team's ability rather than the full season.

There are many reasons why expectations were rightfully high for this team. I'm not going to repeat them here because it's outside the scope of this conversation. The only thing I need to say is this: your point is incoherent because there is no justification for holding constant the worst chunk of the season and then arguing the rest was lucky.

[BearLover]

It's totally irrelevant the order in which Cornell won the games. The end result was an NCAA bid.

This is where you're wrong. In sports, things come in streaks, you get hot and cold. There are intangibles like momentum. If Cornell went on a 20 game heater to start the season then collapsed to lose 7 and tie 6 over the last month, that's a very different team with different expectations. Last year they got hot and made a run. That's hockey.

I think most studies have shown momentum isn't really a thing. Good teams just happen to win a bunch of games in a row sometimes. In any case, I'm not disagreeing with you and whether or not momentum exists, it doesn't change the fact that abmarks's argument is nonsense. Look at the season as a whole, don't cherry pick a random chunk to make a point.

[adamw]

This is the same guy who insisted last season was going to go backwards from the year before ... and then when it actually didn't, is now trying to insist last season is perfectly indicative of where they should've been.

Any wonder ...

[BearLover]

This is the same guy who insisted last season was going to go backwards from the year before ... and then when it actually didn't, is now trying to insist last season is perfectly indicative of where they should've been.

Any wonder ...

Lol, so I'm instead supposed to pretend we were mediocre last season? It's called updating your view with new data instead of sticking to the same stubborn viewpoint. Maybe you should try it.

Last year I predicted we finish in the 20s in the Pairwise because we lost like 5/8 of our leading scorers from the prior season and were going to be playing 8+ freshmen every game. This year I thought we would be better given we were very good last year and returned almost everybody. Both were very reasonable predictions whether or not they turned out correct. At least I justify my thinking with more than "Schafer good coach."

[adamw]

This is the same guy who insisted last season was going to go backwards from the year before ... and then when it actually didn't, is now trying to insist last season is perfectly indicative of where they should've been.

Any wonder ...

Lol, so I'm instead supposed to pretend we were mediocre last season? It's called updating your view with new data instead of sticking to the same stubborn viewpoint. Maybe you should try it.

Last year I predicted we finish in the 20s in the Pairwise because we lost like 5/8 of our leading scorers from the prior season and were going to be playing 8+ freshmen every game. This year I thought we would be better given we were very good last year and returned almost everybody. Both were very reasonable predictions whether or not they turned out correct. At least I justify my thinking with more than "Schafer good coach."

::rolleyes::

your drivel would have more merit if you didn't basically call me an idiot for suggesting last year that the team would be better than the year before.

[Trotsky]

I am once again asking people to chill the fuck out.  I made an ad hom thread for a reason.  If you must act like 10-year old boys, please do it there.