Louis Chabot- Senior Weekend

[Jordan 04]

[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:

 If you have to live in touchy-feely land, where everybody has to feel good about themselves, then you just don't understand life in the real world (and I'm not talking MTV).

I respect Louis for sticking it out even though I think he probably knows he'll never see any significant playing time.  But you don't sacrifice everything all of the other players have worked for to give him a warm and fuzzy.[/q]

Ignoring the after-school special lessons on the "real world," (sounds too much like "this is how you're supposed to cheer" comments), I think the point made by those who wouldn't mind seeing Chabot get into the game was that it should be done only if there is nothing being sacrificed by doing so.

Plus, what about all that Chabot "has worked for"?  Hasn't he worked for all the same things that every other guy wearing the uniform has every practice and every game?

Now that I see it's against Harvard, I'd imagine there's almost no chance he would start.  But it wouldn't be the worst thing to see a 3rd period appearance if the game is in hand.

[Ben Rocky '04]

Who is to say that he won't get put in if McKee loses a shutout at some earlier point in this season?  I seem to remember a few games in 02-03 where the minute Lenny lost a shutout, Marr would immediately get put in net just to get him playing time.

[pfibiger]

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
Yeah I know, seriously.  Davenport leaving really put this team one injury away from a major crisis.  Schafer isaying that DiLeo will compete with Chabot for playing time only further highlights this.  I'm pretty sure that a big time goalie (potential-wise that is) will be a freshman at Cornell next year.  For this year, all we can do is pray.[/q]

For what it's worth, there was this bit:

"USHR.com is reporting that Marc Chevrie, a goaltender with the BCHL's Nanaimo Clippers, has narrowed his college choices to UND, Denver, and Cornell. He's a big kid (6'2") and was apparently MVP of the Saskatchewan Midget AAA League last year."

Cheverie appears to be the real deal. Let's hope that Bestwick keeps the Nanaimo pipeline open.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]Ben Rocky 04 Wrote:

 Who is to say that he won't get put in if McKee loses a shutout at some earlier point in this season?  I seem to remember a few games in 02-03 where the minute Lenny lost a shutout, Marr would immediately get put in net just to get him playing time.[/q]

Yeah, but, Marr was pretty good (no Lenny, but at least good) - Louie doesn't seem to find that role.


Btw, I've heard from several people who know people on the team, that Louie is more than happy being the backup, being involved with the team, and going to all the parties, and never needing to set foot on the ice during game time. Maybe not the kind of motivation we'd want from an athlete, but some of the glory, none of the pressure, seems to be perfectly fine with him. Apparently he was scared to death when Davenport left that if McKee got hurt he'd actually have to play. Take it or leave it, but that's what I've heard.

[crodger1]

[Q]Robb Wrote:

 Schafer has also been very explicit in the past that his philosophy is always to put the team on the ice that gives Cornell the best chance to win.[/q]

I know you are right that he has said this at some point, but I've never understood how that statement aligns with him seemingly alternating Leneveu and Underhill through part of 2001-2002.  But perhaps his philosophy has changed, or he couldn't see a difference in how they played?

(For reference, Lenny played 14 games, Underhill 21: http://www.uscho.com/stats/team-overall.php?team=28&gender=m&season=20012002 )

LGR!

Chris

[Jordan 04]

[Q]crodger1 Wrote:

 [Q2]Robb Wrote:

 Schafer has also been very explicit in the past that his philosophy is always to put the team on the ice that gives Cornell the best chance to win.[/Q]
I know you are right that he has said this at some point, but I've never understood how that statement aligns with him seemingly alternating Leneveu and Underhill through part of 2001-2002.  But perhaps his philosophy has changed, or he couldn't see a difference in how they played?

(For reference, Lenny played 14 games, Underhill 21:  )

LGR!

Chris[/q]

And let's also not forget that he switched the regulard Friday/Saturday rotation that year so that Underhill would get the start on Saturday.  So it's not as if Schafer is impervious to sentimentality.

[KeithK]

[q]And let's also not forget that he switched the regulard Friday/Saturday rotation that year so that Underhill would get the start on Saturday. So it's not as if Schafer is impervious to sentimentality. [/q]When you're platooning goalies anyway, switching the order on a particular weekend is not a big deal.  It would have seemed strange if Schafer wouldn't switch the rotation in that instance to let the senior start on senior night.

[q]I know you are right that he has said this at some point, but I've never understood how that statement aligns with him seemingly alternating Leneveu and Underhill through part of 2001-2002. But perhaps his philosophy has changed, or he couldn't see a difference in how they played?[/q]I don't find it too hard to believe that Schafer felt that the senior, All-American goalie was similar in ability to the freshman phenom at the time.  They both played extremely well that season.  Schafer's statement shouldn't be strictly read to say that I he will always play his top goalie at all times, if you have two guys who are similar in ability. When you do it makes sense to get both playing time to hedge angainst possible injury or to see if one gets a "hot hand".  This is giving the team the best chance to win in the long run.  McKee, on the other hand, has been in a situation where he was clearly the best goalie on the team with some margin, so he ended up getting the lion's share of the ice time.

[Trotsky]

I'll bet that when Schafer has goalies of comparable ability, he does assignments based strictly on the in-week practices that none of us see.  He's a pragmatist, not a theorist.  He's a Canadian Mequilladora that turns out wins, not logically-consistent methods.

[nyiballs]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Btw, I've heard from several people who know people on the team, that Louie is more than happy being the backup, being involved with the team, and going to all the parties, and never needing to set foot on the ice during game time. Maybe not the kind of motivation we'd want from an athlete, but some of the glory, none of the pressure, seems to be perfectly fine with him. Apparently he was scared to death when Davenport left that if McKee got hurt he'd actually have to play. Take it or leave it, but that's what I've heard.[/q]


Not a chance!!  No goaltender is ever afraid to get into a game.  Every goaltender wants that chance to be the go-to-guy.  That doesn't mean you cannot be content being a backup.  I know I was content to sit on the bench and wear that jersey when I got the chance.  But even though I knew I was never gonna hit the ice except in practice, in the back of my mind there was always the hope that something would get me in there.

I am sure Louis feels the same way.

That being said, you gotta put your go-to-guy in the game, and that's McKee right now for sure.  You don't let your best player ride the bench, sentimentality be damned.

[KeithK]

[q]You don't let your best player ride the bench, sentimentality be damned.[/q]Unless the game is meaningless.  But as others have reminded us, there are no meaningless games in the college hockey for a team that has tournament aspirations.  If Cornell were to waltze into the final game of the regular season with a 28-0-0 reciord it would still be very possible for the outcome of that game to affect tournament seeding.

[billhoward]

Giving a couple shifts to senior skaters of mixed skills late in the season, late in a two, three-goal lead game is a risk you can take and probably not blow the game. The other skaters and the goalie can bail them out. Putting a seldom played goalie in late in the game, you've replaced 100% of your goaltending, not one-fifth or two-fifths of your marginal skaters. And if the senior skaters have a scary shift, they don't go out the next rotation; the errant goalie you have to very visibly put back on the bench.

Alternating Underhill and LeNeveu through most of the season (Matt got more games partly because he played the playoffs) wasn't much of a risk. They were both great. Chabot is not of the same caliber except when it comes to swinging that bench door open. You have to admire his spirt for sticking it out.

[KeithK]

The one thing Schafer has done is put seniors in the starting lineup, so they get the experience of being introduced to the crowd, but only when they were going to be in the lineup anyway.  You can easily go back to regular lines after one shift.  It makes no sense to put guys in the lineup who aren't going to play more than one shift when it means you'd play with a short bench the rest of the game.

What are the rules about changing goaltenders.  Hypothetically, couldn't a coach put in a senior tender as the starter and then pull him at the first stoppage? The replacement guy (the usual starter) might not get to warm up, but he probably had plenty during warmups.  A risky play, especially against a team of Harvards caliber, so I doubt Schafer would ever do this with Chabot.  But possible unless I'm missing something.  If the senior night game were against a perrenial dormat it would seem more reasonable, but I suspect that the regular goalie would complain that it disrupted his gameday routine.

[Give My Regards]

[Q]Ben Rocky 04 Wrote:

 Who is to say that he won't get put in if McKee loses a shutout at some earlier point in this season?  I seem to remember a few games in 02-03 where the minute Lenny lost a shutout, Marr would immediately get put in net just to get him playing time.[/q]

Marr's only action that season was the four starts he got when Lenny was with the Canadian team.  There was one game later that year when Lenny was removed after losing a shutout late in the third period -- against Vermont, where he gave up a goal with about four minutes left and was replaced shortly afterward.  That game saw Chabot come in for his only ice time to date.  (Cornell was up by 7)

[Give My Regards]

This thread reminds me of something I heard about Yale coach Tim Taylor back in the '90s.  It was apparently his policy to start whichever goalie had the most seniority when Yale hosted Harvard, regardless of their abilities.  This led to situations like the game in 1993, which saw senior John Hockin get the start over sophomore Todd Sullivan, who had been all but carrying the Elis that year.  Hockin was a somewhat decent goalie, but he had been on the shelf all year up to that point with an injury and had only practiced with the team for a few days before Harvard came to town.  The game ended in a 5-5 tie, and the Elis almost assuredly would have won with Sullivan in the net.  Of course, it's only one game, right?  Sure -- but Yale wound up missing out on fourth place (and the home ice that came with it) by one point that year, and lost a closely-contested quarterfinal series at Brown.

Well, surely Sullivan would get the start as a junior when Yale hosted Harvard the following year, right?  Except the Elis then had this other goalie -- Mike Kamatovic, a senior with something like three career starts.  One guess who was in the net.  Taylor was coaching the US Olympic team that year, but the interim guy Poliziani stuck with the policy and tapped Kamatovic for the start.  Yale got slaughtered, 12-1.  Not that Sullivan would have made that much difference, as Harvard was headed for the Frozen Four and Yale was headed for the cellar.

The policy seems to have changed in recent years, as little-used senior Peter Cohen did not get the Harvard start last year.

[min]

for my part, this thread reminds me of the movie "rudy"...