Keep voting For McKee

[Greg Berge]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

 [Q2] Although to be honest, I think Moulson is starting to make a compelling argument for being a legitimate contender himself.[/Q]
Oh please.  Moulson has been fantastic of late and he's certaonly carrying a lot of the offensive load for the team.  But he doesn't show in the top 20 in scoring (NCAA).  There is absolutely no chance that he'll get a Hobey nomination, let alone win.  The basic numbers (goals, points) rule the day for this kind of award, not any sabermetric stats we can devise (which on another thread Bill Howard showed do not favor Moulson that much anyway).[/q]

I meant contender = "deserving to be considered as a finalist," not "going to win."  He's starting to look like he might be the most gifted scorer in the conference.  That's nothing to "oh please" at.  ::screwy::

[KeithK]

[q]However, Cornell is known as a defensive team, so to see Moulson tear it up as he has of late, he could get considered by voters.[/q]You're kidding yourself.  Certainly Moulson should get "credit" for the context.  But that's not how it works with the voting.  Forwards win the Hobey based on gaudy offensive numbers.  Defensemen too.  Goalies need exceptional defensive numbers combined with a lack of outstanding offensive candidates in order to win.  And LeNeveu shows that this isn't always enough.

Not trying to be antagonistic here, just realistic.  I'd love to see Cornell players get recognized on the national stage.  I just think it's unlikely to happen this year

Edit: I posted this right at the same time that Greg posted his follow up above.  To make it clear, I agree that Moulson deserves some consideration.  I just don't think he will get it.

[Brian]

I am referring to the weekend as a whole.  The Colgate/St. Lawrence game was played in the St. Lawrence end for most of the first period due to stupid penalties, including several 5 on 3 situations.  To only let up one goal, that's spectacular, not to mention he controlled pratically ever rebound in front of the net against us.  I will say that we were off the mark for most of the game though, a lot of our shots weren't even close to being on net, especially Cook early on.  But overall, I would give goalie of the week to McKenna over McKee.  McKee seems to be having problems controlling his rebounds of late.  There were several times this weekend where our defense could have been helped out by controlling the rebounds, something to work on.

[Tom Lento]

McKee was absolutely outplayed by McKenna in the Cornell-SLU game.  I don't know if McKenna would be consistently better over the course of a season, but McKee is not nearly as good as his numbers (he's a pretty good goaltender, but his numbers are ridiculous) and McKenna played like he's better than his numbers would indicate.

This has nothing to do with the number of shots faced.  McKenna stayed in position, generally stayed under control, and stuffed several high-quality chances.  He got away with a couple of mistakes, but in the end it took a wicked wrister off a great setup to beat him.  He deserved to be the winning goalie in that game.  

At the other end, McKee was pulling himself out of position by chasing wide shots, leaving the post open, and apparently having some trouble following the puck as he was slow to recover more than once (he may also be banged up).  He also left some big rebounds out in front and got lucky on a couple of open nets where the SLU players just plain missed.  On the other hand, he stuffed a couple of good scoring chances in the third to preserve both the 0-0 tie and the 1-0 lead, stayed tough down low, and ended up with a shutout, so it's not like he had a terrible night or anything.  I just think McKenna was better.

[ben03]

[Q]Brian Wrote:
But overall, I would give goalie of the week to McKenna over McKee.[/q]
Here are the numbers for the ECACHL goalies:

(W,W) David McKee              .956%  (44/46)  1.00 GAA (2GA)
(W,W) Dan Yacey                .938%  (45/48)  1.50 GAA (3GA)
(W,W) Dov Grumet-Morris        .925%  (37/40)  1.50 GAA (3GA)
(W,W) Adam D'Alba              .914%  (53/58)  2.50 GAA (5GA)
(W,L) Steve Silverthorn        .935%  (43/46)  1.50 GAA (3GA)
(L,L) Mike McKenna             .945%  (69/73)  2.00 GAA (4GA)

as much as i agree that McKenna stood on his head, it's hard to give goalie of the week to a two loss netminder.
i think it'll be a toss-up between McKee and Yacey. again, i know these awards are pretty meaningless but whatever :-)
i think all six of these guys had pretty good weekends (by the numbers anyway)

[billhoward]

Haven't a couple of goalies (SLU, Union) had super games against Cornell ... in defeat?

If McKee is having his ups and downs, it still wasn't enough to convince Davenport he saw light at the end of the tunnel.

[Avash]

In the 8 games played in 2005, McKee has a 7-1 record, a 1.00 GAA and a .953 save percentage, with 2 shutouts. Not bad. He's had to play well, since only one of those 8 games (the 5-0 win @ RPI) was decided by more than 2 goals.

[KeithK]

Only a .853 Pct and 1.00 GAA?  Man, McKee really sucks...

[atb9]

Moulson is up to 15th while McKee is holding steady at 4th!  Great job, guys!

[RichH]

[Q]Avash '05 Wrote:

 In the 8 games played in 2005, McKee has a 7-1 record, a 1.00 GAA and a .953 save percentage, with 2 shutouts. Not bad.
[/q]
Since the topic du-jour is precision and significant digits, I get his GAA for January to be 0.994, thanks to the Union OT game.  (Using game minutes in USCHO's box scores)

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]RichH Wrote:

 [Q2]Avash '05 Wrote:

 In the 8 games played in 2005, McKee has a 7-1 record, a 1.00 GAA and a .953 save percentage, with 2 shutouts. Not bad.
[/Q]
Since the topic du-jour is precision and significant digits, I get his GAA for January to be 0.994, thanks to the Union OT game.  (Using game minutes in USCHO's box scores)
[/q]
That's six goals given up on one thousand shots-on-goal.  David musta been pretty busy in January. ;-)

[Beeeej]

[q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
[q]Since the topic du-jour is precision and significant digits, I get his GAA for January to be 0.994, thanks to the Union OT game.  (Using game minutes in USCHO's box scores)
[/Q]
That's six goals given up on one thousand shots-on-goal.  David musta been pretty busy in January.[/q]

It would be if he'd said "Save %" instead of "GAA."

Beeeej

[Greg Berge]

What is the weighting on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place votes?  3:2:1?  5:3:1?

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:

 [Q2]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
[Q2]Since the topic du-jour is precision and significant digits, I get his GAA for January to be 0.994, thanks to the Union OT game.  (Using game minutes in USCHO's box scores)
[/Q]
That's six goals given up on one thousand shots-on-goal.  David musta been pretty busy in January.[/Q]
It would be if he'd said "Save %" instead of "GAA."

Beeeej[/q]
Oops.  Got me.  Not used to seeing GAA below 1.0.  ::uhoh::  ::screwy::

[Dart~Ben]

[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:

 What is the weighting on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place votes?  3:2:1?  5:3:1?[/q]

5:3:1