Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Josh '99]

ESPN has reported that both Nieuwendyk and Sundin (who had an ugly feet-first collision with the boards) are doubtful for tomorrow's game.  That said, you should root for the Leafs anyway, because they longer they stay in, the better the chance Joe will get back into the games.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]jmh30 Wrote:

 ESPN has reported that both Nieuwendyk and Sundin (who had an ugly feet-first collision with the boards) are doubtful for tomorrow's game.  That said, you should root for the Leafs anyway, because they longer they stay in, the better the chance Joe will get back into the games.[/q]

Not to mention the Dryden Factor.

[billhoward]

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

 Never having seen them play in person I can't really say ... so please allow me to rephrase, "Hess-Hubbard-Massey are the best attack line I have ever seen in person." I'm sure French, McEneaney, and Levine were nothing less than AMAZING ... but I feel like we are comparing apples and oranges here. The eras in which these players played are drastically different, as is the way the game is played and coached. If technology has increased shot accuracy as you say ... I counter that the depth of talent is much-much greater across the board now than it was then. As breath taking as the greats of the 70's were ... as effortless as they made it look ... there is no they would put up number anywhere close to what they did then. It just would not happen.
I do believe they would be exceptional today and they would certainly be the Powell's and Gait's of our time.[/q]

Today's players (let's say of the last decade) also had the advantages of more and more intensive practices, possibly longer seasons, better coaching, better tactics, etcetera. Had the 1970s players been born 20 years later, they would have had those advantages, too. Heck, maybe even UnderArmor and PowerAde keeps a player fresher longer into the game.

I haven't factored this in and don't know if it hurts or helps the cause of 1970s Cornell vs 1990s Princeton, but you'd also want to look at an attack trio's scoring vs. the average scoring for D1 lacrosse then, or for the top 20 D1 teams.

Not to knock current and recent past Maine and Cornell goaltending, but isn't it interesting that after a gap of decades when the season GAA average for a goaltender stands inviolate, it's broken twice in two years. I suspect it's a combination of two great goaltenders coming in back to back years, plus coaching styles that teach defense as the way to win games. Unexciting as a 2-1 Cornell win is, it's a lot better than a 6-4 loss.

[ben03]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Today's players (let's say of the last decade) also had the advantages of more and more intensive practices, possibly longer seasons, better coaching, better tactics, etcetera. Had the 1970s players been born 20 years later, they would have had those advantages, too. Heck, maybe even UnderArmor and PowerAde keeps a player fresher longer into the game.

I haven't factored this in and don't know if it hurts or helps the cause of 1970s Cornell vs 1990s Princeton, but you'd also want to look at an attack trio's scoring vs. the average scoring for D1 lacrosse then, or for the top 20 D1 teams. [/q]
On the average scoring note ... I was too lazy to go find those stats but agree that they are relevant in such a comparison.
Anywho, they were both great in their respective eras and will historically be treated as such …
I think we can all agree on that issue. :-)

[KeithK]

Seems to me the only way to compare players of different eras is to see how good they were in comparison to their peers when they played.  Did the player or team from the 70s dominate his era more than the one from the 90s?  It's still a very inexact business, if not apples to oranges, then at least two very dfifferent kinds of apple.

I often hear people make comments like "the best team of all time is any team that's playing today" or "the 2003 Devil Rays would destroy the 1927 Yankees".  Maybe if you could magically transport the D-Rays back to the 20's they would be unbeatable because of improved training, conditioning, strength (, steroids) and new pitches.  But aside from being impossible and unprovable, it's also a unfair.  If you took a great team from long ago and gave them all of today's advantages I'd take my chances that they would still be a very good team.

[billhoward]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

 Seems to me the only way to compare players of different eras is to see how good they were in comparison to their peers when they played.  Did the player or team from the 70s dominate his era more than the one from the 90s?  It's still a very inexact business, if not apples to oranges, then at least two very dfifferent kinds of apple.

I often hear people make comments like "the best team of all time is any team that's playing today" or "the 2003 Devil Rays would destroy the 1927 Yankees".  Maybe if you could magically transport the D-Rays back to the 20's they would be unbeatable because of improved training, conditioning, strength (, steroids) and new pitches.  But aside from being impossible and unprovable, it's also a unfair.  If you took a great team from long ago and gave them all of today's advantages I'd take my chances that they would still be a very good team.
[/q]

If you transported a championship team of 2003 back 50 years and maybe even 25 years, gave both of them the same equipment -- pads, helmets, playing surfaces, graphite not bamboo vaulting poles, whatever -- today's bigger, more-rehearsed, better-coached, more-time-in-the-weight-room, learned-lessons-from-the-past teams would win.

I don't think Babe Ruth did any powerlifting in the off-season, except shot glasses and skirts.

In sports where you can measure results with a stopwatch or a measuring tape, every record has been broken and broken again. It would be an incredible leap of logic to believe only the measuring tape sports have improved so dramatically over the years.

So I guess that means that if you could teleport the 2002-2003 Big Red hockey team back to 1967, 1969, or 1970, and give both sides carbon fiber sticks, the LeNeveu-Murray-Baby-Vesce team would beat the Dryden/Cropper-Lodboa team. And they would crucify the Harkness championship RPI team of 1954.

But when you compare teams against their contemporaries, 29-and-0 is magical in any era.

[jtwcornell91]

What if you took the team from the past, transported them to the future, and let them train intensively with a modern coach to get up to speed on new techniques etc?

Also, I wonder a little bit about transporting teams into the past when there was less equipment.  I imagine a modern goalie sent back in time to play without a mask would let in a lot of goals because he'd duck.

[redice]

The other important and equally unmeasurable point is "the heart" of the players.   Ned's teams of the late 1960's were not only talented but played with a fire that we don't often see today.   As much as we all admire and respect Mike Shafer's coaching abilities, he's no Ned Harkness when it comes to motivating his players.   Ned's teams simply could not stand losing.   Does anyone know how many times (if ever) Ned's teams lost successive games?   I'll bet it was a very rare occurrance.   My recollections of that era is that the next game, after a Cornell hockey loss, was usually a very bad experience for the opposing team.   After a loss, those boys were fired up!!

[ugarte]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:Maybe if you could magically transport the D-Rays back to the 20's they would be unbeatable ...[/q]I think we all know that if we transported the D-Rays back to the 20's one of them would inevitably kill a butterfly with disastrous consequences for the future.

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]redice Wrote:

My recollections of that era is that the next game, after a Cornell hockey loss, was usually a very bad experience for the opposing team.   After a loss, those boys were fired up!![/q]
Sometimes after a close win, too.  See Dartmouth series, 1969-70.

[billhoward]

[Q]ugarte Wrote:

 [Q2]KeithK Wrote:Maybe if you could magically transport the D-Rays back to the 20's they would be unbeatable ...[/Q]
I think we all know that if we transported the D-Rays back to the 20's one of them would inevitably kill a butterfly with disastrous consequences for the future.
[/q]

The butterfly would have to be in Tokyo, right, to affect the mythical storm brewing on the Atlantic Coast?

(I'm impressed by literacy of this crowd. Okay, it's an Ivy League sports hangout, but still ... such cunning linguists.)

[billhoward]

[Q]redice Wrote:

 The other important and equally unmeasurable point is "the heart" of the players.   Ned's teams of the late 1960's were not only talented but played with a fire that we don't often see today.   As much as we all admire and respect Mike Shafer's coaching abilities, he's no Ned Harkness when it comes to motivating his players.   Ned's teams simply could not stand losing.   Does anyone know how many times (if ever) Ned's teams lost successive games?   I'll bet it was a very rare occurrance.   My recollections of that era is that the next game, after a Cornell hockey loss, was usually a very bad experience for the opposing team.   After a loss, those boys were fired up!![/q]

How would the Ned Harkness style play out today? He was a man for his time. But did his time come and go? (I'm not saying it did. I'm saying I wonder.) There was a powerful piece in the New York Times Sunday Magazine (what New Yorkers call the Times Magazine, no prefix needed) about a ~56-year-old HS coach in New Orleans being tossed out, despite an incredible winning record and a record of his athletes doing well later in life because he, ah, spoke harshly to some of his players, and his players' parents at this private school were also potential donors.

[Al DeFlorio]

Beautiful goal by Joe puts Leafs up 2-0 in game five.

[jkahn]

Just back at a hotel from the Air Canada Centre.  Two highlights for me:
1) scratches are announced and Joe isn't one of them
2) Joe scores
Great to see Joe score a Stanley Cup playoff goal live.
They gave out thundersticks.  Fortunately most of the fans didn't overuse them.
It wasn't as exciting as the Frozen Four, and we didn't need props there.
I'm now starting to look forward to my next hockey road trip, probably Michigan St. in November.

[redice]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

 How would the Ned Harkness style play out today? He was a man for his time. But did his time come and go? (I'm not saying it did. I'm saying I wonder.)  [/q]


That is, no doubt, an interesting (although unanswerable) question.   The student-athletes of today are definitely more worldly than those of the 60's.   And, as one would expect, more difficult to motivate.    I don't know the magic words that Ned used to make his players play as hard as they did.    But, he was definitely a master at it.   I will add  this comment:   I've met Ned.   And, after just a few minutes with this man, I found him to be the most engaging person that I have ever met.    Despite rather limited contact with him, I came away with a new understanding of why his players would seemingly run through brick walls for him.    I could easily see how he would command that level of committment from his players.    Would that happen with today's student-athletes?   We'll never know.   If it proves anything, he was able to do it with three different college hockey teams (& other college sports) that spanned  20+ years.    Surely, the student-athlete changed during that time.   Ned's "magic" worked throughout!