Why can't ecac teams score?

[Newbie]

Wow!  Did anyone see that 10-1 North Dakota score?   Those teams out west really know how to put the puck in the net.  Why can't ECAC teams learn how to do it?  What's the matter that we can never score more than 2 or 3 goals?

Grrrrrr:-(

[RedAR]

Well, actually, we have scored 5 or more goals on a couple of occasions this season.

IMHO, I think it could have something to do with the fact that finding several natural goal scorer who meet the academic qualifications of the ECAC institutions.

[Will]

The ECAC over the years has developed into a very defense-oriented conference, which is why in recent years frequently the best goalies in the country have played for ECAC teams, not to mention a lot of great defensemen.

Don't get frustrated over the apparent lack of goal-scoring in the ECAC.  I think a solid defensive matchup can be much better than a run-and-gun goal orgy.

It should also be noted that 10-1 score came in a game between the second-best team in the conference (North Dakota) and the second-worst team in the conference (Minnesota State-Mankato).  Take that for what it's worth.

[Greg Berge]

These things go in cycles.  It wasn't unusual in the late 70's and early 80's for very high scoring games in the ECAC (10-9, 8-7, 10-8, etc...).  Scoring is down over all of hockey since the mid-to-late 80's; it's down a little more in the ECAC, yeah, but most recently that has a lot to do with teams like RPI and Brown copying Cornell's winning defensive style.



Post Edited (02-23-04 00:26)

[Pete]

Most teams out west also play on a bigger sheet of ice which opens things up some.

[RedAR]

Yes, the ECAC, and especially Cornell, has developed into an defense-oriented conference/team.  But I think it has a bit to do with the fact that in order for us to compete without having all the blue-chippers that teams out west have, it is one of the only ways we can truly be competitive.  Of course, in the case of Cornell, Schafer's system dictates that we play solid defense.

[Greg Berge]

Schafer and Bill Wilkinson used the same style to make Western Michigan competitive in the CCHA despite a significant recruiting disadvantage.  When Mike got the Cornell head coach position, one of the first things he said was he planned to make Cornell "a CCHA team in the ECAC."  That meant check-finishing, hard-hitting, and disciplined.  It didn't, and doesn't, necessarily mean we aim to be anemic.  We averaged 4.27 GPG in 1996 and 4.05 GPG in 2003... when we have the horses, Schafer lets them run a little.



Post Edited (02-23-04 10:22)

[Chief Albany Alum Bear (CAAB)]

Thanks for your greetings, Greg ! :-)

Back to scoring...... So we are around 1.7 GPG at the moment... are you suggesting we don't have the "horses" to score?
We have a very marginal defenseman... #2, Mr. O'byrn?  He was awful this weekend.

 CAAB

[CUlater 89]

Greg wrote:

[Q]That meant check-finishing, hard-hitting, and disciplined[/Q]

Does any hockey coach, particularly an incoming coach, NOT want to have all of those things?

Typically, it's the lack of those things that leads to a poor record and the firing of a coach, so naturally the new coach will preach those qualities.  It's when a coach loses the players that those plans break down, thus leading to the hiring of a new coach.

[Section A]

It's a shame that former Big Red assistant coach Jamie Russell hasn't been able to implement the same defensive scheme coaching Michigan Tech (in the CCHA) this season. They have the fourth worst defense in the country, allowing 4.22 goals per game. Assuming he at least tried to stick with the defensive mentality, you still have to have the right kind of players to make it work, and the ECAC, and especially Cornell, thrives on finding excellent two-way/defensive players.



Post Edited (02-23-04 15:36)

[Greg Berge]

I don't know what MTU was like last year, but Cornell under McCutcheon still stressed defense, even if in bad years that amounted to "dump and change."

Also, it takes a little time to fully implement the system (including recruiting to it).  Look at our reduction in GA/GP between Advent and 2003:

GA/GP by year  (http://members.cox.net/tbrwmisc/rptTeamsAlltimeBySeason/rptTeamsAlltimeBySeasonFrame.html)

95 3.45
---------
96 3.00
97 2.86
98 3.09
99 2.86
00 2.70
01 2.00
02 1.55
03 1.32

This year Cornell is 49/27 = 1.81

[Greg Berge]

[q]So we are around 1.7 GPG at the moment... are you suggesting we don't have the "horses" to score?
We have a very marginal defenseman... #2, Mr. O'byrn? He was awful this weekend.[/q]

Our GF/GP is 69/27 = 2.56.  Not great, but hardly 1.7.

O'Byrne has been getting better as the year went on.  The previous weekend against Princeton and Yale he was solid.  He does tend to make obvious mistakes when he makes mistakes, but then again so did Murray and Baby when they were frosh.

We have several highly talented offensive players: Vesce (injured), Cook (injured), Moulson (beat up), Hynes, Bitz.  But because we have a young defense, Mike is holding the reins a little tighter.  The opening weekend was a good example of why he is: 8 goals by WMU in two games.



Post Edited (02-23-04 15:49)

[jtwcornell91]

Greg Berge '85 wrote:

[q]So we are around 1.7 GPG at the moment[/q]

Our GF/GP is 69/27 = 2.56.  Not great, but hardly 1.7.

Chief is throwing out the outliers of the two games against Princeton, which of course biases the average down.  Perhaps a more useful way to construct a statistic robust against blowouts would be to calculate the median number of goals scored in a game.  But you'd need to calculate it over several years and/or for different teams to get a sense of what's high and what's low.

[Pete]

Even without the Princeton games, GPG is still 2.24 (56/25)

[Al DeFlorio]

Interesting tidbit on the subject of scoring:  Against Lowell on Saturday, BC scored its 11th short-handed goal of the season.