Cornell 4 @ Harvard 3 postgame thread (11/11/05)

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]Robb Wrote:

 USHO?[/q]

Sorry, fixed

[dadeo]

Ive been at too many games where we are losing to Harvard in the 3rd period.
(however, approximately half of those we eventually won)
thinks 2001, 2002, 2004...hmmm.  just that same feeling that "this isnt happening again, is it.  there are different players on the ice, yet..."
lol - anyone else get that?

[Steve M]

I wish I could have been there, it sounds like it was a great game.  Did Chris Abbott and Gleed play?

[DeltaOne81]

I didn't notice Chris, but I'm not really the player-noticing type of fan, so I'd bet he did. Gleed I did notice though, so definite yes on thatone.

[Jordan 04]

Gleed definitely was, and I'm embarrassed to say I can't even remembe if Chris was on the ice.  I'm thinking he was though.

[Trotsky]

Chris was 4th line center between Mugford and Carefoot, according to Gametracker.  I don't recall his name being called much, if at all.

Cam, on the other hand... :-)

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

 Al, Did you get from Boston to Cape Cod that fast, or was this written on a Blackberry? Please, we'd love more morsels about the game we missed. Was it everything the Cornell and Harvard announcers (when All Access didn't crap out) declared it to be?

FYI re Al's reference to Mike Teeter: We had noticed Mike, friend of Cornell hockey extraordinaire and with a Big Red hockey pedigree dating to the Ned Harkness era (before?), was not with the team at Yale. Good to see he's back on the road. [/q]
Home before 11, Bill.  Only 80 minutes from Allston.  

Really good game to watch.  Cornell looked much better than in either game last weekend.  Crisper passing through the neutral zone.  Frequently carried the puck into the offensive zone to create chances rather than just dumping.  Fewer bumbles in front of McKee--although O'Byrne did hand one away just in front of the crease in the first.  Harvard came out fast and their hustle and jump led to the quick first goal.  We sat at the Cornell offensive end the second and third periods so didn't get good looks at the last two Harvard goals.  The third one looked like a picture-perfect power play setting up Johnson at the back door.  Conflicting reports on whether the second goal was tipped or McKee just missed it.  

Even though we came too close to losing this one, I'm much more encouraged than I was after last week's sweep.  There were extended periods where we really controlled play.  Interesting that Schafer had Seminoff on the ice at the start of the PK with 2:00 to go in the game.  He must like what he sees so far.  I didn't notice Glover on the ice for quite some time in the second period, but he played quite a bit in the third.  Scott was simply everywhere on the ice.  He is quite amazing, and it's fitting he scored the game-winner.  Hope they can come down to earth before 7pm tomorrow night.  Dartmouth will be steaming after losing tonight with a 2:1 advantage in shots on goal.

[Beeeej]

I haven't read the game thread yet, and I want to go to sleep, so I'll just comment that I thought the last six and a half minutes was the best hockey I've seen Cornell play so far this year.  Unfortunately, there were extended stretches during tonight's game when it was the Cornell of Game 2, Period 2 vs. MSU.  We were making dumb passes, just not paying attention or thinking - and cough-ups were rampant.  I expected a Schafer-scolded team to come out for the third fired up and clicking, but it was more of the same sluggishness - Hahvahd beat us to every puck and had us in circles.

Thank God for that time-out with six and a half to go, and thank God for whatever Schafer said, 'cause it worked.  Six and a half minutes of beatifully executed hockey won't be enough to win most games, but it was enough to win this one - and it was oh, so incredibly satisfying when the Hahvahd fans got quiet.  :-D

I also noticed Seminoff getting serious ice time, and from what I see I think this kid will be the heart of the team in a couple of years.

McKee?  Well - he's still playing better than I could.  What else can you say?  I didn't think any of the goals tonight were "soft."  Hahvahd has great skaters and puts a ton of pressure on the slot.

Wish I could be at Dartmouth and go to tomorrow night's wedding, but no such luck.  Go Red!

Beeeej

[Jordan 04]

[q]McKee? Well - he's still playing better than I could. What else can you say? I didn't think any of the goals tonight were "soft." Hahvahd has great skaters and puts a ton of pressure on the slot. [/q]

Hahvahd's 3rd goal was anything but soft.  Perfect feed across the crease for a quick one-time.

And the first one wasn't exactly "soft" either.  I guess he gave up a rebound, but the puck was just lost in the scramble, as would happen to any goalie.

[DeltaOne81]

Yeah, it was off a scramble - I guess fluke is also a fair term for that first goal. Maybe i'm still spoiled by Lenny (or even the McKee of last year), who would pounce on a rebound like that and not even allow the scramble to happen. So by those standards, I still think it was "soft", but by standard college hockey goaltending standards, not so much.

[Beeeej]

[Q]Jordan 04 Wrote:
And the first one wasn't exactly "soft" either.  I guess he gave up a rebound, but the puck was just lost in the scramble, as would happen to any goalie.[/q]

I had a perfect view of that goal - he gave up three rebounds before Dufault finally knocked it in.  Unfortunately he was using his pads, so he wasn't in a position to cover up.  I think perhaps the 2002-03 D would've cleared it, but this year's D couldn't.  I'm beginning to come around, at least a little bit, to the view that the D helped make Lenny's and McKee's numbers what they were those seasons.

Beeeej

[Oat]

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:
Hahvahd has great skaters and puts a ton of pressure on the slot.

Beeeej[/q]

Shane Hynes used to terrorize the opponents in the slot. No one could get him away from where he wanted to be. This year, I just don't think our offense is doing enough of this (Sawada wanders off to the board too much).

[kaelistus]

My own random thoughts about the game (First game I've seen all season)

 - McKee was okay. I missed the first goal, but the second and third goal were not stoppable. There were a few moments when McKee failed to gobble up the rebound, so he wasn't perfect, but the goals were not at all his fault.

 - Scott is a monster. I've never seen anyone skate around everyone as much as tonight. He is just damn fast. I'm utterly amazed and happily shocked by the skill this kid showed. If he only gets better from here - watch out!

 - Glover was all over the place in D. Another guy that I hadn't paid attention before, but I'm sure watching now.

 - Our 'O' was solid. Very much so. I don't think I've ever seen such nice pass setups from the red.. We must have the most potent O in at least 10 years.

 - Our team is faster than Harvard's team. Traditionally I've always felt that they were faster and we were stronger, so it was a strange thing to watch.

 - Our positional 'D' was weaker than usual. Not awful but we were caught out of position a few times in the game. Schafer's teams are NEVER caught out of position, so its bizarre to see it happen. Hopefully we will improve on this quickly.

 - I didn't catch many freshmen out there except for Seminoff who was out there regularly.

[ursusminor]

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:

 GF-GA stands at 17-12, if you leave off empty netters.  Say those 29 goals are randomly distributed among the 5 games.  What are the odds of Cornell getting x points?

If I ever knew the math, I've forgotten it.[/q]

>> Greg,
It's too early in the morning to think about the exact way to do this, so I wrote a Matlab program for a Monte Carlo simulation. Here is what I got for 50,000 runs (from 0 to 10 points):

         0
         0
    0.0000
    0.0005
    0.0210
    0.0845
    0.3117
    0.3302
    0.2222
    0.0284
    0.0015

Then I did it again which gives an indication of the accuracy

         0
         0
    0.0001
    0.0004
    0.0205
    0.0862
    0.3118
    0.3295
    0.2228
    0.0271
    0.0017

A third set

         0
         0
    0.0000
    0.0004
    0.0198
    0.0840
    0.3137
    0.3311
    0.2218
    0.0275
    0.0018

The average number of points for each set of 50,000 runs are  6.7379, 6.7342, and 6.7394.

Just remember that this was calculated by someone with several degrees from the same school that brought you the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge, and it was figured out at 5 am. :-D

[Cornell95]

A really great game, and the Lynah Faithful were in full force.  If it is possible I think the Harvard student section was even more pathetic this year than years past (they had plenty to cheer about too)

Some thoughts not mentioned yet that I will add...
Everyone is mentioning Scottt, and deservedly so, but the new player that I noticed the most was Barlow... when he is on the ice you know it, and generally in a good way.  Looked like he was a little fond of action after the play and the occassional slash... but I was very impressed.

Krantz had a sort of rough game, if he hadnt shot that laser of a goal I think everyone would be talking about some of his defensive lapses again.

To be honest I was really dissappointed with Sasha's play as well... particularly in the 1st it was as if someone had given him the wrong stick as a prank.  There was one shift where he couldnt seem to get the puck settled on the blade and actually started out of the corner without the puck (not realizing that it was left behind him).  He just looked uncomfortable out there to me, and we need him to anchor the D as they get experience and gel.