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

[billhoward]

You guys are amazing. Can you translate into English what that means? (When you're awake.) Does that mean with a 17-12 GF / GA margin in the first 5 games the the most likely outcome is Cornell would come out with 6.7 out of 10 possible points, roughly 3 wins and a tie, and Cornell instead has 8 points out of 10?

[billhoward]

[Q]Beeeej Wrote: Wish I could be at Dartmouth and go to tomorrow night's wedding, but no such luck.  Go Red![/q]There's a thousand golf jokes with a setup line like this.

That is a conflict.

[ursusminor]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

 You guys are amazing. Can you translate into English what that means? (When you're awake.) Does that mean with a 17-12 GF / GA margin in the first 5 games the the most likely outcome is Cornell would come out with 6.7 out of 10 possible points, roughly 3 wins and a tie, and Cornell instead has 8 points out of 10? [/q]
Yes. Actually, 6.7 is the expected number of points. It isn't likely at all that they would get exactly that many. :-P

[jaybert]

I was in section 20...so where Cornell attacked for both the 1st and 3rd period (i.e. I saw all of Cornell's goals + the 2nd one that McKee let in).

My friends and I all thought the second goal that McKee let in was really weak.  It wasnt a very hard shot, just kind of lofted in.  The puck definately got a piece of McKee's glove before it went in.  He got his glove up for the shot, but it wasnt high enough so it more or less skimmed off the top part of his glove and went into the goal.

Also, the shorthanded breakaway stop by Dangineu (sp?) was very impressive from what I could see from the other end of the ice.  It looked like our player had faked him out and was just going to slip the puck in, but he threw out his pads and was able to block it.

Definately an amazing game to goto though...I was there last year for the heartbreaker, so I was probably thinking the same thing as a lot of you when Du got the 3rd score for Harvard.

Also, did anyone notice our first two goals the puck never left the ice surface and went either through the five hole or their goalie just couldnt get the pads down?  I wonder if that was something they scouted since most shots we seem to take always leave the ice at least, or if it just ended up being that way.

[jtwcornell91]

How about a histogram of the distribution of points?

[redhair34]

[Q]Jason L Wrote:
My friends and I all thought the second goal that McKee let in was really weak.  It wasnt a very hard shot, just kind of lofted in.  The puck definately got a piece of McKee's glove before it went in.  He got his glove up for the shot, but it wasnt high enough so it more or less skimmed off the top part of his glove and went into the goal.
[/q]

I couldn't agree more.  I was in Section 20 also.  McKee just wasn't quick enough.  He definitely saw it, he just couldn't get it.

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]redhair34 Wrote:
I couldn't agree more.  I was in Section 20 also.  McKee just wasn't quick enough.  He definitely saw it, he just couldn't get it. [/q]
We were at the other end of the ice for period two, so didn't see this goal well at all.  But the Globe article linked below says it was a deflection.

http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/mens_hockey/articles/2005/11/12/crimsons_lead_isnt_safe/

[rstott]

Harvard's second goal was originally credited to Walsh who took the shot , then changed to Murphy, so it was a delection.

[jaybert]

[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:

 [Q2]redhair34 Wrote:
I couldn't agree more.  I was in Section 20 also.  McKee just wasn't quick enough.  He definitely saw it, he just couldn't get it. [/Q]
We were at the other end of the ice for period two, so didn't see this goal well at all.  But the Globe article linked below says it was a deflection.[/q]

hmm...if it was in fact a deflection, I take it back.  I did not see the deflection, just that McKee got his glove up, but not high enough.  I didnt get a good look at their 1st and 3rd goals, so i cant comment on those...but I do remember a great glove save that McKee made in the 3rd.  Slapshot taken where McKee just threw up his glove and got the puck...maybe it wasnt a very difficult save, but it sure as hell looked cool

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]rstott Wrote:

 Harvard's second goal was originally credited to Walsh who took the shot , then changed to Murphy, so it was a delection.[/q]
I certainly wouldn't call it a delectable. ;-)

[dadeo]

um yea
<- cries a sob for missing cook and murray.
but luckily topher and matt make up for it on the other end

[JimHyla]

Well, now that I've woken up, I drove back after the game, and donated blood, which I hope all of you do regularly, a few comments, all of which agree with Al. :-)

Schafer is a great coach, duh. Where are all of those who used to complain about those 1-0, 2-1 wins. He built this school around defense, but he certainly knows how to win with offense. The difference between this team and those mid 90's ECAC Champions is incredible. Do you remember getting a lead and then trying to hold on by playing defense for the rest of the game? We still toss the puck in and bang the boards, but the ability to circle back to our defensive end and carry the puck in is light-years ahead of past teams. Although I always enjoyed the beauty of the defensive play, watching this team is alot of fun.

The problem I have is still not feeling secure that they will finally score that go ahead goal. :-/ I'd actually become more secure in watching us defend, even against superior offensive teams.  Hopefully I can learn to accept this. Even greater hope is that we can regain some of the old defense. Maybe we used to make the same defensive mistakes, but never got caught, but now I have a sense of worry at times.

Here's hoping we beat D'mth so coach doesn't have a losing record against any ECAC team. If we can combine old defense and new offense, well... (Who knows a smiley for dreaming?)

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]Also, the shorthanded breakaway stop by Dangineu (sp?) was very impressive from what I could see from the other end of the ice. It looked like our player had faked him out and was just going to slip the puck in, but he threw out his pads and was able to block it. [/Q]

I don't remember if it was pads or glove, but yeah. He guess you could call it faked, or otherwise just straight out beaten with some stickwork/deke to the side, and got something (glove, pad) back in time to recover.


Only for Cornell are 3 and 4 goal games consider to be a new wave of offense ;-). I'm sure the increase in offense in intentional, but, within the limit of the new rules, I'm sure Schafer expects to clamp down on D. The team still needs to gel, and the freshman, and other guys who didn't play much last year, need to learn.

Hopefully the last word on McKee, I think what it comes down to, is that he's back to the "good enough to give us a good chance in any game", but not in "can steal the win for us" form. Sure, that's good, but it's not what we're used to. But he did make a great save in the 3rd, as Jason L mentioned.

[Anne05]

Ok, the highlight of this game (for me) besides the GWG was that a Harvard fan and his two kids (who were obnoxious the WHOLE game) got up and left with 5:47 left in the game and said to our section "Better luck next year guys." To which I replied "It ain't over yet."

I was deeply satisfied to have Cornell come back and win and am cherishing the moment he finds out and has to tell his kids that Harvard LOST. Ha ha ha.

This was my first Cornell game this year and it was really fun to watch the high intensity play of this year's team.  Scott was impressive and yes, Chris Abbott did play.  Moulson is awesome as well.  Go Cornell!

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]Anne05 Wrote:
I was deeply satisfied to have Cornell come back and win and am cherishing the moment he finds out and has to tell his kids that Harvard LOST. Ha ha ha.
[/q]
Bet he didn't tell 'em.  ::doh::