Cornell at RPI 3/1

[Trotsky]

Also is Keopple good now?

He's had to face a few flurries where he held up fine, but he hasn't really seen much action in the latter parts of this game as we piled on the goals.

Copy that! So do we start Shane in the postseason or Keopple...

Mike will start Shane.  Senior.  Loyalty.

True, but we're not playing a best of 3 vs Yale, are we?

Correct: it's a single elimination game.

So if Keopple is seen as giving a better chance to win...

Everything I know about Mike tells me Shane starts unless he is hurt.

[CU2007]

Watson stays in?  Were they really trying to fuck Stanley with a DQ?

Once I saw he put his stick in the RPI player's face, I knew it would be five minutes. He's consistently been in the middle of some scrums this year.

Also, Yale is the worst matchup IMO. There are points this year where they gave Cornell issues and Allain is a smart enough coach where he could get his team to steal a win.

They've won 6 games all season and are RPI-wise one of the worst teams in the country. In one game, anything can happen. But there's just no way Cornell can lose this game. ..........right?

[stereax]

Watson stays in?  Were they really trying to fuck Stanley with a DQ?

Once I saw he put his stick in the RPI player's face, I knew it would be five minutes. He's consistently been in the middle of some scrums this year.

Also, Yale is the worst matchup IMO. There are points this year where they gave Cornell issues and Allain is a smart enough coach where he could get his team to steal a win.

They've won 6 games all season and are RPI-wise one of the worst teams in the country. In one game, anything can happen. But there's just no way Cornell can lose this game. ..........right?

I'm gonna go out tomorrow and knock on every tree in Ithaca.

[sah67]

[ugarte]

gotta lend that hard hat to schaefer

[Trotsky]

gotta lend that hard hat to schaefer

Little late.

[BearLover]

I swear, I was gonna say before the game started: "this game is totally meaningless, so of course Cornell is going to win 6-0." But I didn't say it, because my posts were getting to be too negative even for me.

Well, I've learned a hard lesson about abstaining from posting. Never again!

[stereax]

buddy please do not eat the puck

[chimpfood]

I think it's gotta be keopple next week. Even though I don't think he's the better goalie he has definitely been more consistent this year and against a team as bad as Yale that's all we need. Shane could put up a 30 save shutout but he could just as easily let in 3 softies and we go out with a whimper. But it'll be interesting to see what Schaf does. Great win today, nice to end the weekend happy.

[Trotsky]

buddy please do not eat the puck

[ugarte]

I think it's gotta be keopple next week. Even though I don't think he's the better goalie he has definitely been more consistent this year and against a team as bad as Yale that's all we need. Shane could put up a 30 save shutout but he could just as easily let in 3 softies and we go out with a whimper. But it'll be interesting to see what Schaf does. Great win today, nice to end the weekend happy.

i thought about this but he's barely played. .940 in a SSS. the last two years in similarly limited action he was under .900 in net. i don't think a change is made unless Shane looks awful in practice.

[chimpfood]

I think it's gotta be keopple next week. Even though I don't think he's the better goalie he has definitely been more consistent this year and against a team as bad as Yale that's all we need. Shane could put up a 30 save shutout but he could just as easily let in 3 softies and we go out with a whimper. But it'll be interesting to see what Schaf does. Great win today, nice to end the weekend happy.

i thought about this but he's barely played. .940 in a SSS. the last two years in similarly limited action he was under .900 in net. i don't think a change is made unless Shane looks awful in practice.

Exactly why I wish they gave him more run this year, would be an easier decision that way.

[BearLover]

I really don't understand how the coaching staff handled the starting goalie situation this year. IMO it wasn't very logically consistent.
1. Clearly the coaching staff felt Shane was the best goalie on the roster. He continued getting starts despite struggling throughout the season. The coaches see the goalies in practice, and I assume Shane was just much better in practice.
2. But several times this year Shane was pulled, Keopple came in and generally had good results. (Whether he played well/looked good is a different story—I didn't watch enough to know.)
3. Based on Keopple playing well in relief of Shane,  the coaching staff rewarded Keopple with the start the following night, where again he had good results.

IMO this doesn't really add up. Shane struggled in the games, but kept getting starts because (presumably) he was much better in practice. But then Keopple played well in relief of Shane and was rewarded with a start. If watching them in practice weighed so heavily in the coaches' evaluations, why would the coaches suddenly turn to Keopple after he played well in a fraction of a game in relief of Shane? If seeing him in game action was important, then why not get him more game action to properly evaluate him? The second game against Sacred Heart, once Cornell was <1% to get an at-large bid, was a great opportunity to give Keopple a start, but for some reason they went with Shane again???

Now the coaches are in an impossible position. They've backed themselves into a corner by simultaneously (1) strongly preferring Shane in general and (2) occasionally opening the door for Keopple to perform well, but (3) not in a large enough sample to have any degree of confidence.

[ugarte]

I really don't understand how the coaching staff handled the starting goalie situation this year. IMO it wasn't very logically consistent.
1. Clearly the coaching staff felt Shane was the best goalie on the roster. He continued getting starts despite struggling throughout the season. The coaches see the goalies in practice, and I assume Shane was just much better in practice.
2. But several times this year Shane was pulled, Keopple came in and generally had good results. (Whether he played well/looked good is a different story—I didn't watch enough to know.)
3. Based on Keopple playing well in relief of Shane,  the coaching staff rewarded Keopple with the start the following night, where again he had good results.

IMO this doesn't really add up. Shane struggled in the games, but kept getting starts because (presumably) he was much better in practice. But then Keopple played well in relief of Shane and was rewarded with a start. If watching them in practice weighed so heavily in the coaches' evaluations, why would the coaches suddenly turn to Keopple after he played well in a fraction of a game in relief of Shane? If seeing him in game action was important, then why not get him more game action to properly evaluate him? The second game against Sacred Heart, once Cornell was <1% to get an at-large bid, was a great opportunity to give Keopple a start, but for some reason they went with Shane again???

Now the coaches are in an impossible position. They've backed themselves into a corner by simultaneously (1) strongly preferring Shane in general and (2) occasionally opening the door for Keopple to perform well, but (3) not in a large enough sample to have any degree of confidence.

i wouldn't overthink the thought process going in to the last game of the season against RPI. For all we know they wanted to give Shane a game to clear his head before the do or die starts.

[BearLover]

I really don't understand how the coaching staff handled the starting goalie situation this year. IMO it wasn't very logically consistent.
1. Clearly the coaching staff felt Shane was the best goalie on the roster. He continued getting starts despite struggling throughout the season. The coaches see the goalies in practice, and I assume Shane was just much better in practice.
2. But several times this year Shane was pulled, Keopple came in and generally had good results. (Whether he played well/looked good is a different story—I didn't watch enough to know.)
3. Based on Keopple playing well in relief of Shane,  the coaching staff rewarded Keopple with the start the following night, where again he had good results.

IMO this doesn't really add up. Shane struggled in the games, but kept getting starts because (presumably) he was much better in practice. But then Keopple played well in relief of Shane and was rewarded with a start. If watching them in practice weighed so heavily in the coaches' evaluations, why would the coaches suddenly turn to Keopple after he played well in a fraction of a game in relief of Shane? If seeing him in game action was important, then why not get him more game action to properly evaluate him? The second game against Sacred Heart, once Cornell was <1% to get an at-large bid, was a great opportunity to give Keopple a start, but for some reason they went with Shane again???

Now the coaches are in an impossible position. They've backed themselves into a corner by simultaneously (1) strongly preferring Shane in general and (2) occasionally opening the door for Keopple to perform well, but (3) not in a large enough sample to have any degree of confidence.

i wouldn't overthink the thought process going in to the last game of the season against RPI. For all we know they wanted to give Shane a game to clear his head before the do or die starts.

Sure, could be true. But seems like malpractice to just ride the guy with the .890 save percentage the whole season, never deviating even when the other guy has a .958 over parts of five games... At least give Katz a shot if you don't trust Keopple.