Q Game Thread

I take full responsibility for today’s loss, as I never started the game thread. So since I’m the last winner, I’m starting it now.

the storm is coming

Let this be a lesson to both of us.

We, along with Harvard and Clarkson, will have our chances to spoil QU’s “golden season.” (Perhaps “silver season,” considering how old their team is.)

It would be great to get a win tonight, but it’s more important to get healthy while getting a taste of playing against them.

I want them to remain the ECAC’s UNH.

Scersk '97
I want them to remain the ECAC’s UNH.

That's Clarkson.

Q is the ECAC's Lowell.

Trotsky

Scersk '97
I want them to remain the ECAC’s UNH.

That's Clarkson.

Q is the ECAC's Lowell.

UHN has won Hockey East twice; Lowell has won thrice. The University of No Hardware has been to the Frozen Four seven times; crucially, they have never won. Lowell has gone once.

At least in hockey:

UNH:QU::Lowell:Colgate

Clarkson is sui generis.

I rest my case.

Great job by the Tupker line so far. We are playing very well.

5 on 5, please.

Ian gives up a ton of rebounds. I need harder drugs for this.

Shots 19-3 in the second, Q.

Trotsky
Shots 19-3 in the second, Q.

Q: 6 minutes on the PP
C: 5 seconds on the PP

But yeah, they are skating circles around us. Our guys seem too intimidated by Q's speed to handle the puck. A lot of flailing and throwing it away from one Q guy only to have it go right to another Q guy.

Q is great at closing gaps in all zones, and they’re excellent with their sticks. Makes it hard for opponents to gain much traction.

scoop85
Q is great at closing gaps in all zones, and they’re excellent with their sticks. Makes it hard for opponents to gain much traction.

i'm sure they do but the number of times a cornell player has the puck on their stick and throws it blind right to someone on Q is not a question of Q closing gaps.

My wish is for Motley to cash in on one of those great chances he keep finding.

ugarte

Trotsky
Shots 19-3 in the second, Q.

Q: 6 minutes on the PP
C: 5 seconds on the PP

But yeah, they are skating circles around us. Our guys seem too intimidated by Q's speed to handle the puck. A lot of flailing and throwing it away from one Q guy only to have it go right to another Q guy.

I don’t think it’s being intimidated. I think there’s been an effort to move the puck more quickly than they have most season, knowing the opponent. That has translated into more blind passes that you’re just hoping goes to the right jersey color. Often, it’s the wrong color, but I think the risk has been minimal.

very frustrating goal to give up in light but given how bad it could have been if shane didn't save the team i'll take the OT point and hope for more

Super exciting 3-on-3 hockey. Yawn.

Well, regardless of the outcome, this is like 90% a tie for RPI reasons. Which isn't bad.

Nice move by Mitchell!

Woo hoo!!

ugarte
very frustrating goal to give up in light but given how bad it could have been if shane didn't save the team i'll take the OT point and hope for more

hell yeah

If I ruled the world, the end of the game would be extended if there's a power play.

Also, if you're in the box, you have to stay there during intermission.

ugarte

ugarte
very frustrating goal to give up in light but given how bad it could have been if shane didn't save the team i'll take the OT point and hope for more

hell yeah

Throwing a crooked number in their loss column. First time since November they’ve allowed 2. Fun game to watch. I’ll take it.

Great effort after last night’s stinker and missing our top 2 scorers. Really admire the resiliency of this team.

RichH

ugarte

ugarte
very frustrating goal to give up in light but given how bad it could have been if shane didn't save the team i'll take the OT point and hope for more

hell yeah

Throwing a crooked number in their loss column. First time since November they’ve allowed 2. Fun game to watch. I’ll take it.

Oh yeah, and getting Pecknold pissed off. That’s never a bad thing.

This reminds me of the baseball player who went 0-4 with four strikeouts, then hit a game-winning home run in his last at-bat and said, "I don't know if I had a terrible night or a great one."

I'm not sure if Cornell hockey's weekend was terrible or great, but we beat the #1 team in the country, so I'll say great. Friday night's game was a learning experience, and I believe the Pairwise allows you to designate three games per season as "learning experience" that don't affect your RPI. (Quinnipiac will want to do that for tonight's game...

)

Jim Hyla
I take full responsibility for today’s loss, as I never started the game thread. So since I’m the last winner, I’m starting it now.

JIM FOREVER

RichH

Jim Hyla
I take full responsibility for today’s loss, as I never started the game thread. So since I’m the last winner, I’m starting it now.

JIM FOREVER

+1

LOL. Cornell drops in PWR.

Saw the drop in the pwr. Who wants to take a shot at explaining that?

arugula
Saw the drop in the pwr. Who wants to take a shot at explaining that?

Game counts as .44 wins and .54 losses, which certainly lowers our win %.
It's 55% win x .8 (home win factor) and 45% loss x 1.2 (home loss factor).

But shouldn’t the fact that the opponent was the number 1 team matter? They dropped 3 spots for a home regulation loss to Princeton and 2 spots for an ot win over q. Make sense?

I didn’t want the technical explanation. I know that. I wanted a sensible explanation.

arugula
But shouldn’t the fact that the opponent was the number 1 team matter? They dropped 3 spots for a home regulation loss to Princeton and 2 spots for an ot win over q. Make sense?

I didn’t want the technical explanation. I know that. I wanted a sensible explanation.

It should matter. But it's three factors. Your record. Your opponents' record. Your opponents' opponents' record. The first factor doesn't care about who you play. The second and third don't care if you win or lose.

Dafatone

arugula
But shouldn’t the fact that the opponent was the number 1 team matter? They dropped 3 spots for a home regulation loss to Princeton and 2 spots for an ot win over q. Make sense?

I didn’t want the technical explanation. I know that. I wanted a sensible explanation.

It should matter. But it's three factors. Your record. Your opponents' record. Your opponents' opponents' record. The first factor doesn't care about who you play. The second and third don't care if you win or lose.

Soooo...I take this to mean Quinnipiac's opponents have a bad record?

arugula
But shouldn’t the fact that the opponent was the number 1 team matter? They dropped 3 spots for a home regulation loss to Princeton and 2 spots for an ot win over q. Make sense?

I didn’t want the technical explanation. I know that. I wanted a sensible explanation.

Gad, you sound like me, just feels better to have won at home in OT, ignore the logic at least while we savor victory for one night. But nice to be reminded how not winning outright bites us in the butt.

Any way you slice it, we should not be going down in the Pairwise based on the result of tonight’s game against Qpac. The formula clearly needs some “tweaking”, to put it mildly.

djk26
Soooo...I take this to mean Quinnipiac's opponents have a bad record?

They have a worse record than before playing Q, now with two exceptions.

No matter what PWR says, it's going to be a long 4-1/2-hour bus ride back to Hamden.

The Bobcat skaters can take some measure of solace from this Quinnipiac student's challenging senior week.
Dropout calls in graduation bomb threat to hide from family

someone needs to explain why Cornell limited students to 50 per section for safety but then decides those 50 can all sit in the same 20 sq ft? if thats the case then why did numbers matter at all?

upprdeck
someone needs to explain why Cornell limited students to 50 per section for safety but then decides those 50 can all sit in the same 20 sq ft? if thats the case then why did numbers matter at all?

The rules make absolutely no sense and never have. It’s all “doing something” for the sake of saying they’re doing something.

Nice job by undermanned Cornell to gut out a tie/OT win in a game where they were badly outmatched. Shane was incredible. Quinnipiac is the best opponent I have seen in years at taking away time and space. Cornell was outshot 2:1 in regulation, which felt like a good approximation of possession. Maybe with Andreev and Stienburg back, Cornell could put up more of a fight at maintaining possession, but I think this year Q is just way better.

BearLover

upprdeck
someone needs to explain why Cornell limited students to 50 per section for safety but then decides those 50 can all sit in the same 20 sq ft? if thats the case then why did numbers matter at all?

The rules make absolutely no sense and never have. It’s all “doing something” for the sake of saying they’re doing something.

So typical of the Cornell Ticket Office, throughout the past several regimes. Probably things dictated from above.

jkahn

arugula
Saw the drop in the pwr. Who wants to take a shot at explaining that?

Game counts as .44 wins and .54 losses, which certainly lowers our win %.
It's 55% win x .8 (home win factor) and 45% loss x 1.2 (home loss factor).

the formula should not result in an OT win at home being worth less than a neutral site tie. that's dumb. (not your math, the rules that led to your math).

ugarte

jkahn

arugula
Saw the drop in the pwr. Who wants to take a shot at explaining that?

Game counts as .44 wins and .54 losses, which certainly lowers our win %.
It's 55% win x .8 (home win factor) and 45% loss x 1.2 (home loss factor).

the formula should not result in an OT win at home being worth less than a neutral site tie. that's dumb. (not your math, the rules that led to your math).

The home/away formula is dumb, and possibly not rooted in reality (is it actually that much harder to win on the road?), but from what I understand, it isn’t actually competitively unfair. The formula might bias more against home teams than home-ice advantage is actually worth in reality. But such bias kicks in whether the home team wins, loses, or ties. So, for instance, Cornell might not have gotten as many points for an OT tie thanks to this bias, but this same bias would have hurt Cornell just the same had it lost in OT, or lost in regulation. The delta between outcomes (win, tie, loss) is no different whether you’re at home or on the road. The home/away bias means there is more to lose at home, and more to gain on the road, but the absolute stakes are exactly the same. Therefore, from a competition standpoint, assuming all teams play the same ratio of home and away games, this weird quirk in the formula should be a wash.

The 55/45 breakdown on OT win/OT loss is a subjective weighting of how much 3v3 overtime should count. Personally, I’m okay with this weighting. 3v3 OT is exciting and fans hate ties; but it’s a gimmick, and should not be afforded nearly the same weight as a game decided in regulation. But a slight effect on the PWR makes the OT at least somewhat meaningful.

Does it feel strange that Cornell beat a top team (#6 in the PWR prior to tonight) and dropped in the PWR? Sure, but the same quirks in the PWR that caused us to drop with an OT win would have caused us to drop more with an OT loss, and quite a bit more with a regulation loss. Those are the alternatives Cornell was facing tonight, and why the outcome was still just as important as that of any other game (actually slightly more important given the quality win bonus).

Bottom line - it isn't really a "win" as far as Pairwise is concerned. That's why the team dropped. Quinnipiac result was a net negative - just like the Brown win and Alaska wins were. You can partially blame ECAC - including Cornell - for these "rules." ECAC fought hard to have home/road weightings in the RPI because it felt like it was always being hurt in Pairwise by playing so many road non-league games -- because the "big" schools wouldn't come to play at their arenas. And Mike Schafer was among the big advocates for a tiny bump -- 55/45 -- for 3x3 OT wins. And I don't blame him - because 3x3 is a jokey gimmick and isn't a real win anyway.

It's basically a tie - which is what the game really was. The other shenanigans are not the game.

If you want to get credit for winning the game - win the actual hockey game. Not the other exercises.

So - yeah, it's weird that it feels good to "win" against Quinnipiac, but really have it not be good. But reality is, it's a net negative. What can I tell ya.

adamw
Bottom line - it isn't really a "win" as far as Pairwise is concerned. That's why the team dropped. Quinnipiac result was a net negative - just like the Brown win and Alaska wins were. You can partially blame ECAC - including Cornell - for these "rules." ECAC fought hard to have home/road weightings in the RPI because it felt like it was always being hurt in Pairwise by playing so many road non-league games -- because the "big" schools wouldn't come to play at their arenas. And Mike Schafer was among the big advocates for a tiny bump -- 55/45 -- for 3x3 OT wins. And I don't blame him - because 3x3 is a jokey gimmick and isn't a real win anyway.

It's basically a tie - which is what the game really was. The other shenanigans are not the game.

If you want to get credit for winning the game - win the actual hockey game. Not the other exercises.

So - yeah, it's weird that it feels good to "win" against Quinnipiac, but really have it not be good. But reality is, it's a net negative. What can I tell ya.

It’s a net negative because of the same home/road weighting that affects every other team. Cornell will benefit from the same weighting when it goes on the road against Q (or any other team). Because of home/road weighting, all possible outcomes of a home game average out to a net negative. The baseline against which we should compare tonight’s game isn’t the outcome of some game in a vacuum against a random opponent. Instead, the baseline should be the possible outcomes of a home game against the #6 pairwise team. So, it really isn’t worth dwelling on whether tonight was a net negative. The likely outcome heading into the game was a loss and a resulting bigger tumble in the pairwise, and that is the baseline against which we should compare tonight’s OT win and two spot fall in the pairwise. I.e., not a bad outcome.

jkahn

arugula
Saw the drop in the pwr. Who wants to take a shot at explaining that?

Game counts as .44 wins and .54 losses, which certainly lowers our win %.
It's 55% win x .8 (home win factor) and 45% loss x 1.2 (home loss factor).

Think also how this affects Q. They feel like crap (or hopefully worse) in the loss but get .54 of a win and only .44 of a loss. So they lose but their pairwise goes up?

And because .8 is not the reciprocal of 1.2 it is only .98 if a game. Perfect.

BearLover

ugarte

jkahn

arugula
Saw the drop in the pwr. Who wants to take a shot at explaining that?

Game counts as .44 wins and .54 losses, which certainly lowers our win %.
It's 55% win x .8 (home win factor) and 45% loss x 1.2 (home loss factor).

the formula should not result in an OT win at home being worth less than a neutral site tie. that's dumb. (not your math, the rules that led to your math).

The home/away formula is dumb, and possibly not rooted in reality (is it actually that much harder to win on the road?), but from what I understand, it isn’t actually competitively unfair. The formula might bias more against home teams than home-ice advantage is actually worth in reality. But such bias kicks in whether the home team wins, loses, or ties. So, for instance, Cornell might not have gotten as many points for an OT tie thanks to this bias, but this same bias would have hurt Cornell just the same had it lost in OT, or lost in regulation. The delta between outcomes (win, tie, loss) is no different whether you’re at home or on the road. The home/away bias means there is more to lose at home, and more to gain on the road, but the absolute stakes are exactly the same. Therefore, from a competition standpoint, assuming all teams play the same ratio of home and away games, this weird quirk in the formula should be a wash.

The 55/45 breakdown on OT win/OT loss is a subjective weighting of how much 3v3 overtime should count. Personally, I’m okay with this weighting. 3v3 OT is exciting and fans hate ties; but it’s a gimmick, and should not be afforded nearly the same weight as a game decided in regulation. But a slight effect on the PWR makes the OT at least somewhat meaningful.

Does it feel strange that Cornell beat a top team (#6 in the PWR prior to tonight) and dropped in the PWR? Sure, but the same quirks in the PWR that caused us to drop with an OT win would have caused us to drop more with an OT loss, and quite a bit more with a regulation loss. Those are the alternatives Cornell was facing tonight, and why the outcome was still just as important as that of any other game (actually slightly more important given the quality win bonus).

explain the logic of 3x3 counting less in the first place.. you can have 3x3 OT even in a game with reg OT rules.. we actually won on a 4x3 play. I can see saying a shootout is different but 3x3 happens all the time in a game so no reason to value it any less.

BearLover
The home/away formula is dumb, and possibly not rooted in reality (is it actually that much harder to win on the road?)

I think the purpose was to provide an incentive for teams to travel -- particularly teams with huge rinks who suffer a non-trivial revenue hit when they sacrifice a home date.

Trotsky

BearLover
The home/away formula is dumb, and possibly not rooted in reality (is it actually that much harder to win on the road?)

I think the purpose was to provide an incentive for teams to travel -- particularly teams with huge rinks who suffer a non-trivial revenue hit when they sacrifice a home date.

Yup. I still think it goes too far, but it makes some sense given that goal.

Trotsky

BearLover
The home/away formula is dumb, and possibly not rooted in reality (is it actually that much harder to win on the road?)

I think the purpose was to provide an incentive for teams to travel -- particularly teams with huge rinks who suffer a non-trivial revenue hit when they sacrifice a home date.

you could also put limits on home.away games to force teams to travel which would allow the formula to not need as much tweaking.

marty

jkahn

arugula
Saw the drop in the pwr. Who wants to take a shot at explaining that?

Game counts as .44 wins and .54 losses, which certainly lowers our win %.
It's 55% win x .8 (home win factor) and 45% loss x 1.2 (home loss factor).

Think also how this affects Q. They feel like crap (or hopefully worse) in the loss but get .54 of a win and only .44 of a loss. So they lose but their pairwise goes up?

And because .8 is not the reciprocal of 1.2 it is only .98 if a game. Perfect.

Right, someone else may not /need/ to explain this to me, but /I/ need it explained.

DL

marty

jkahn

arugula
Saw the drop in the pwr. Who wants to take a shot at explaining that?

Game counts as .44 wins and .54 losses, which certainly lowers our win %.
It's 55% win x .8 (home win factor) and 45% loss x 1.2 (home loss factor).

Think also how this affects Q. They feel like crap (or hopefully worse) in the loss but get .54 of a win and only .44 of a loss. So they lose but their pairwise goes up?

And because .8 is not the reciprocal of 1.2 it is only .98 if a game. Perfect.

Right, someone else may not /need/ to explain this to me, but /I/ need it explained.

The key is to view OT games as essentially a tie, for PWR purposes. Cornell has played five such games this year: two against Alaska, one against Brown, one against Clarkson, one against Q. In my mind, those games were ties. The ones against Alaska and Brown were poor performances. The ones against Clarkson and Q were fine outcomes (notwithstanding the collapse against Clarkson). Everyone needs to get on the same page with what counts as a win. No more dropping OT wins into the W column.

BearLover

DL

marty

jkahn

arugula
Saw the drop in the pwr. Who wants to take a shot at explaining that?

Game counts as .44 wins and .54 losses, which certainly lowers our win %.
It's 55% win x .8 (home win factor) and 45% loss x 1.2 (home loss factor).

Think also how this affects Q. They feel like crap (or hopefully worse) in the loss but get .54 of a win and only .44 of a loss. So they lose but their pairwise goes up?

And because .8 is not the reciprocal of 1.2 it is only .98 if a game. Perfect.

Right, someone else may not /need/ to explain this to me, but /I/ need it explained.

The key is to view OT games as essentially a tie, for PWR purposes. Cornell has played five such games this year: two against Alaska, one against Brown, one against Clarkson, one against Q. In my mind, those games were ties. The ones against Alaska and Brown were poor performances. The ones against Clarkson and Q were fine outcomes (notwithstanding the collapse against Clarkson). Everyone needs to get on the same page with what counts as a win. No more dropping OT wins into the W column.

That is, in fact, now the reality. Given that, why bother with overtime at all? And, why do it with a bogus three-on-three format? Worse, if we should think of it as a tie, anywsy, why add a meaningless shoot-out on top of an unresolved overtime? That's all now unnecessary. Why require six numbers to show a team's overall record when three would do? Classic case of over-thinking something when there's an obvious simple solution.

Al DeFlorio

BearLover

DL

marty

jkahn

arugula
Saw the drop in the pwr. Who wants to take a shot at explaining that?

Game counts as .44 wins and .54 losses, which certainly lowers our win %.
It's 55% win x .8 (home win factor) and 45% loss x 1.2 (home loss factor).

Think also how this affects Q. They feel like crap (or hopefully worse) in the loss but get .54 of a win and only .44 of a loss. So they lose but their pairwise goes up?

And because .8 is not the reciprocal of 1.2 it is only .98 if a game. Perfect.

Right, someone else may not /need/ to explain this to me, but /I/ need it explained.

The key is to view OT games as essentially a tie, for PWR purposes. Cornell has played five such games this year: two against Alaska, one against Brown, one against Clarkson, one against Q. In my mind, those games were ties. The ones against Alaska and Brown were poor performances. The ones against Clarkson and Q were fine outcomes (notwithstanding the collapse against Clarkson). Everyone needs to get on the same page with what counts as a win. No more dropping OT wins into the W column.

That is, in fact, now the reality. Given that, why bother with overtime at all? And, why do it with a bogus three-on-three format? Worse, if we should think of it as a tie, anywsy, why add a meaningless shoot-out on top of an unresolved overtime? That's all now unnecessary. Why require six numbers to show a team's overall record when three would do? Classic case of over-thinking something when there's an obvious simple solution.

I would guess that 3-on-3 OT plus shootout to determine a winner is much more entertaining to the casual fan than simply ending a game in a tie or playing 5 minutes or 5-on-5.

Other than the second period when they had their PP advantage, shots and possession were about even. As you point out, we were missing our top two goal scorers. And .... we won! Q is not way better.

JohnF81
Other than the second period when they had their PP advantage, shots and possession were about even. As you point out, we were missing our top two goal scorers. And .... we won! Q is not way better.

I think they’re better overall, even accounting for our missing players, but it’s not a huge gap. Grady & Tim made a good point on the broadcast that QU has the advantage of having played a season last year. These guys had a chance to have continuity among key lines/players and cemented that knowledge of each others’ habits. I don’t think you can measure that quantitatively, but I think it counts for something.

Cornell seems susceptible to “rust” in coming back from time off.

BearLover
It’s a net negative because of the same home/road weighting that affects every other team. Cornell will benefit from the same weighting when it goes on the road against Q (or any other team). Because of home/road weighting, all possible outcomes of a home game average out to a net negative.

0.8 of a win is not a net negative -- at least not in the way I'm using the term. If your winning percentage for the day is .800 - then that's going to raise your RPI.

BearLover

Al DeFlorio

BearLover

DL

marty

jkahn

arugula
Saw the drop in the pwr. Who wants to take a shot at explaining that?

Game counts as .44 wins and .54 losses, which certainly lowers our win %.
It's 55% win x .8 (home win factor) and 45% loss x 1.2 (home loss factor).

Think also how this affects Q. They feel like crap (or hopefully worse) in the loss but get .54 of a win and only .44 of a loss. So they lose but their pairwise goes up?

And because .8 is not the reciprocal of 1.2 it is only .98 if a game. Perfect.

Right, someone else may not /need/ to explain this to me, but /I/ need it explained.

The key is to view OT games as essentially a tie, for PWR purposes. Cornell has played five such games this year: two against Alaska, one against Brown, one against Clarkson, one against Q. In my mind, those games were ties. The ones against Alaska and Brown were poor performances. The ones against Clarkson and Q were fine outcomes (notwithstanding the collapse against Clarkson). Everyone needs to get on the same page with what counts as a win. No more dropping OT wins into the W column.

That is, in fact, now the reality. Given that, why bother with overtime at all? And, why do it with a bogus three-on-three format? Worse, if we should think of it as a tie, anywsy, why add a meaningless shoot-out on top of an unresolved overtime? That's all now unnecessary. Why require six numbers to show a team's overall record when three would do? Classic case of over-thinking something when there's an obvious simple solution.

I would guess that 3-on-3 OT plus shootout to determine a winner is much more entertaining to the casual fan than simply ending a game in a tie or playing 5 minutes or 5-on-5.

Using the kind of delicate language Trotsky would - Fuck the casual fan. Scrap the 3-on-3, play a 5-on-5 overtime, in which the winner gets credit for a win, and if you have to, have a shootout for conference purposes that would count as a tie in pairwise.

marty
Think also how this affects Q. They feel like crap (or hopefully worse) in the loss but get .54 of a win and only .44 of a loss. So they lose but their pairwise goes up?

well, to be anal, they went down too - because their RPI was already above .54

Al DeFlorio
Given that, why bother with overtime at all? And, why do it with a bogus three-on-three format? Worse, if we should think of it as a tie, anywsy, why add a meaningless shoot-out on top of an unresolved overtime? That's all now unnecessary. Why require six numbers to show a team's overall record when three would do? Classic case of over-thinking something when there's an obvious simple solution.

The answer is the same any time someone is not doing the obvious simple solution ... it's not like no one is aware of the simple solution - they just don't want to. What we have now is a compromise between people who love 3-on-3 and want NCAA to "be like the NHL" - and those who abhor it and don't want it to count for anything.

adamw

marty
Think also how this affects Q. They feel like crap (or hopefully worse) in the loss but get .54 of a win and only .44 of a loss. So they lose but their pairwise goes up?

well, to be anal, they went down too - because their RPI was already above .54

Unless, in that same (anal) vein, adding us as an opponent boosts the other RPI criteria more than the .54 win hurts (and we do have a good winning percentage)

marty
And because .8 is not the reciprocal of 1.2 it is only .98 if a game. Perfect.

I assumed those figures were rounded off and the actual weights are reciprocal. e.g., .81 and 1.234567 ( a truly awesome value!)

TIL, you can do math in the url field.

Trotsky

marty
And because .8 is not the reciprocal of 1.2 it is only .98 if a game. Perfect.

I assumed those figures were rounded off and the actual weights are reciprocal. e.g., .81 and 1.234567 ( a truly awesome value!)

TIL, you can do math in the url field.

For what it's worth, every game is .98 of a game, so it kinda evens out. Except neutral site games, I guess.

Dafatone

Trotsky

marty
And because .8 is not the reciprocal of 1.2 it is only .98 if a game. Perfect.

I assumed those figures were rounded off and the actual weights are reciprocal. e.g., .81 and 1.234567 ( a truly awesome value!)

TIL, you can do math in the url field.

For what it's worth, every game is .98 of a game, so it kinda evens out. Except neutral site games, I guess.

LOL, I guess that is true, yeah.

RichH

JohnF81
Other than the second period when they had their PP advantage, shots and possession were about even. As you point out, we were missing our top two goal scorers. And .... we won! Q is not way better.

I think they’re better overall, even accounting for our missing players, but it’s not a huge gap. Grady & Tim made a good point on the broadcast that QU has the advantage of having played a season last year. These guys had a chance to have continuity among key lines/players and cemented that knowledge of each others’ habits. I don’t think you can measure that quantitatively, but I think it counts for something.

Cornell seems susceptible to “rust” in coming back from time off.

They also have a bunch of transfer students who are "attending" whatever it is that passes for a grad school at (s)QU U.

adamw

marty
Think also how this affects Q. They feel like crap (or hopefully worse) in the loss but get .54 of a win and only .44 of a loss. So they lose but their pairwise goes up?

well, to be anal, they went down too - because their RPI was already above .54

Thanks.

Why not use the 20% bump only in out of conference games if it is in fact supposed to encourage schools with large revenue generating programs to travel?

adamw

BearLover
It’s a net negative because of the same home/road weighting that affects every other team. Cornell will benefit from the same weighting when it goes on the road against Q (or any other team). Because of home/road weighting, all possible outcomes of a home game average out to a net negative.

0.8 of a win is not a net negative -- at least not in the way I'm using the term. If your winning percentage for the day is .800 - then that's going to raise your RPI.

Factoring the home game-penalty across all possible outcomes (win/lose/draw) averages out to a net negative. I.e., playing a home game will, on average, hurt you in the Pairwise. Cornell was hurt last night in the Pairwise, but less so than they would have been had they lost (which, given the quality of the opposition, was more likely).

Perhaps I’m missing this, but it sounds like the OT home “wins” vs Alaska count the same as the Q game. Wasn’t quality of opponent supposed to mean something or is that weighed down by the weakness of Q’s schedule?

marty

RichH

JohnF81
Other than the second period when they had their PP advantage, shots and possession were about even. As you point out, we were missing our top two goal scorers. And .... we won! Q is not way better.

I think they’re better overall, even accounting for our missing players, but it’s not a huge gap. Grady & Tim made a good point on the broadcast that QU has the advantage of having played a season last year. These guys had a chance to have continuity among key lines/players and cemented that knowledge of each others’ habits. I don’t think you can measure that quantitatively, but I think it counts for something.

Cornell seems susceptible to “rust” in coming back from time off.

They also have a bunch of transfer students who are "attending" whatever it is that passes for a grad school at (s)QU U.

Q has a much more experienced roster than we do. This is the year they should make big noise.

QUin has 13 kids in their 4-5-6th yr of playing

we have a whole team with 3 and none who played last yr.. thats a huge amount of experience gap.

we have 14 in their first year of hockey.. Played a goalie who has played 3 weeks of games

What Quin does is really limit the mistakes.. Still we had over 6 half dozen chances in the slot to put home. Their goalie left the same rebounds as ours we just dont have the same presence in the crease to put them home right now.

every time we play a better team we need to continue to elevate our play and get better at the sloppy mistakes.. The PP scored last night which decided the game.

marty
Why not use the 20% bump only in out of conference games if it is in fact supposed to encourage schools with large revenue generating programs to travel?

I'll bet the answer is nobody thought to do it.

nshapiro
Using the kind of delicate language Trotsky would - Fuck the casual fan. Scrap the 3-on-3, play a 5-on-5 overtime, in which the winner gets credit for a win, and if you have to, have a shootout for conference purposes that would count as a tie in pairwise.

How about five minutes of 5 on 5 regular OT, with an OT win being a regular win for pairwise purposes, and then a second OT if needed of 3 on 3, which could result in the current pairwise split. This would give us basically what we've had for the last twenty or so years (I don't remember when the OT format last changed before this recent change, but I think it's been at least 20 years), with the 3 on 3 just as a last resort to break ties that would have been ties after a "regular" OT.

Or just end the game after 60 minutes as a tie.

Trotsky
Or just end the game after 60 minutes as a tie.

My suggestion above was attempting to remain in line with what seems to be the "let's have fewer ties" goal that must have been the cause of the change from the former five minute five on five.

I'd also take no OT.

The 3 on 3 stuff, while less silly than a shootout, still isn't the way to settle a great game that is tied after 60 minutes.

BearLover

adamw

BearLover
It’s a net negative because of the same home/road weighting that affects every other team. Cornell will benefit from the same weighting when it goes on the road against Q (or any other team). Because of home/road weighting, all possible outcomes of a home game average out to a net negative.

0.8 of a win is not a net negative -- at least not in the way I'm using the term. If your winning percentage for the day is .800 - then that's going to raise your RPI.

Factoring the home game-penalty across all possible outcomes (win/lose/draw) averages out to a net negative. I.e., playing a home game will, on average, hurt you in the Pairwise. Cornell was hurt last night in the Pairwise, but less so than they would have been had they lost (which, given the quality of the opposition, was more likely).

We're clearly not talking about the same thing - a regulation win never hurts your Pairwise. You seem to be talking about relative to a road win. Which of course is better. That doesn't mean the home win is a "net negative." Whereas a home OT win clearly is.

andyw2100

nshapiro
Using the kind of delicate language Trotsky would - Fuck the casual fan. Scrap the 3-on-3, play a 5-on-5 overtime, in which the winner gets credit for a win, and if you have to, have a shootout for conference purposes that would count as a tie in pairwise.

How about five minutes of 5 on 5 regular OT, with an OT win being a regular win for pairwise purposes, and then a second OT if needed of 3 on 3, which could result in the current pairwise split. This would give us basically what we've had for the last twenty or so years (I don't remember when the OT format last changed before this recent change, but I think it's been at least 20 years), with the 3 on 3 just as a last resort to break ties that would have been ties after a "regular" OT.

Ice quality and clock time are the issues, I think. Seems to me the ice was resurfaced for the ten minute overtimes that were played back in the day. That takes time. Back then games were Tuesday night and Saturday night, not Friday/Saturday. With ten minute overtimes a team couldn't play Katy-bar-the-door hockey to settle for a tie against a stronger team.

Just occurred to me that Cornell's last 3 goals have been scored by Berard and assisted by Malinski.

After Princeton I was wondering if Shane would get the start against Q. He did and he was obviously fantastic. I don’t remember, what were the expectations for him when it was announced he’d join Cornell? I’m guessing it’s his crease the rest of the way so long as he doesn’t fall into a funk.

JasonN95
After Princeton I was wondering if Shane would get the start against Q. He did and he was obviously fantastic. I don’t remember, what were the expectations for him when it was announced he’d join Cornell? I’m guessing it’s his crease the rest of the way so long as he doesn’t fall into a funk.

Shane’s backstory is interesting. He had a great W-L record with a strong Chicago Steel team in the USHL in 2019-20, but his save percentage was just .886. Last year he got off to a rough start in Chicago and ended up finishing the season with Bismarck in the NAHL. There his stats improved (2.60 GA average and .914 save percentage), albeit against somewhat inferior competition.

I’m not sure where else Shane had offers, but Howe was probably the more heavily recruited of the two, having chosen Cornell over BC. But at this moment Shane looks like the top guy.

Shane bobbles saves and leaves a metric shit ton of rebounds. I keep expecting him to be absolutely lit up but the only time it's happened was Princeton.

It's like he has such great positioning it makes up for having bad hands, which you'd think would be pretty suboptimal for a goalie.

Al DeFlorio
... why bother with overtime at all? And, why do it with a bogus three-on-three format? Worse, if we should think of it as a tie, anywsy, why add a meaningless shoot-out on top of an unresolved overtime? That's all now unnecessary. Why require six numbers to show a team's overall record when three would do? Classic case of over-thinking something when there's an obvious simple solution.

Fans like outcomes that have a W or L. It was exciting to see Ben Barard score that OT goal. Sunday morning I must have looped the Instagram clip 20 times, and damn if Barard doesn't score each time. Allow me that pleasure. In some way it makes up for the collapse against Wisconsin a couple years back in the NCAA semifinals.

The clip: [www.instagram.com]

Trotsky
Shane bobbles saves and leaves a metric shit ton of rebounds. I keep expecting him to be absolutely lit up but the only time it's happened was Princeton.

It's like he has such great positioning it makes up for having bad hands, which you'd think would be pretty suboptimal for a goalie.

Funny, I was thinking that Howe left a ton of rebounds, metric or not.

I'll give Schafer the nod, that Shane plays better in games than practice and I gather Howe is the reverse.

Jim Hyla

Trotsky
Shane bobbles saves and leaves a metric shit ton of rebounds. I keep expecting him to be absolutely lit up but the only time it's happened was Princeton.

It's like he has such great positioning it makes up for having bad hands, which you'd think would be pretty suboptimal for a goalie.

Funny, I was thinking that Howe left a ton of rebounds, metric or not.

I'll give Schafer the nod, that Shane plays better in games than practice and I gather Howe is the reverse.

And here I'm thinking that McDonald is the one who gives up the most rebounds.

Dafatone

Jim Hyla

Trotsky
Shane bobbles saves and leaves a metric shit ton of rebounds. I keep expecting him to be absolutely lit up but the only time it's happened was Princeton.

It's like he has such great positioning it makes up for having bad hands, which you'd think would be pretty suboptimal for a goalie.

Funny, I was thinking that Howe left a ton of rebounds, metric or not.

I'll give Schafer the nod, that Shane plays better in games than practice and I gather Howe is the reverse.

And here I'm thinking that McDonald is the one who gives up the most rebounds.

I'd agree with that.

But I think the battle is Shane vs Howe. That's why I posted on Howe.

Jim Hyla

Dafatone

Jim Hyla

Trotsky
Shane bobbles saves and leaves a metric shit ton of rebounds. I keep expecting him to be absolutely lit up but the only time it's happened was Princeton.

It's like he has such great positioning it makes up for having bad hands, which you'd think would be pretty suboptimal for a goalie.

Funny, I was thinking that Howe left a ton of rebounds, metric or not.

I'll give Schafer the nod, that Shane plays better in games than practice and I gather Howe is the reverse.

And here I'm thinking that McDonald is the one who gives up the most rebounds.

I'd agree with that.

But I think the battle is Shane vs Howe. That's why I posted on Howe.

Makes sense. I'd give Howe the occasional start. Rest is good, and Howe looked great early in the season before he got hurt. Shane is definitely the #1 though.

Jim Hyla

Dafatone

Jim Hyla

Trotsky
Shane bobbles saves and leaves a metric shit ton of rebounds. I keep expecting him to be absolutely lit up but the only time it's happened was Princeton.

It's like he has such great positioning it makes up for having bad hands, which you'd think would be pretty suboptimal for a goalie.

Funny, I was thinking that Howe left a ton of rebounds, metric or not.

I'll give Schafer the nod, that Shane plays better in games than practice and I gather Howe is the reverse.

And here I'm thinking that McDonald is the one who gives up the most rebounds.

I'd agree with that.

But I think the battle is Shane vs Howe. That's why I posted on Howe.

Goaltender stats: [www.collegehockeynews.com]

Ian Shane Fr       343 min   1.57  .942  4-1-0
Joe Howe  Fr       358       2.35  .905  4-2-0
Nate McDonald Sr   385       2.50  .895  5-1-1

Jim Hyla

Dafatone

Jim Hyla

Trotsky
Shane bobbles saves and leaves a metric shit ton of rebounds. I keep expecting him to be absolutely lit up but the only time it's happened was Princeton.

It's like he has such great positioning it makes up for having bad hands, which you'd think would be pretty suboptimal for a goalie.

Funny, I was thinking that Howe left a ton of rebounds, metric or not.

I'll give Schafer the nod, that Shane plays better in games than practice and I gather Howe is the reverse.

And here I'm thinking that McDonald is the one who gives up the most rebounds.

I'd agree with that.

But I think the battle is Shane vs Howe. That's why I posted on Howe.

Yeah, McDonald is out. He's certainly not horrible—our best third-string goalie in memory.

I saw Shane control a couple of rebounds vs. Quinnipiac at very good times. I recall quite vividly a great second-chance grab off a shoulder save when he had two QU "companions" completely unchallenged and ready to pounce. And then, sometimes, well…

Whichever goalie improves his rebound control is going to be the starter. Right now, I give Shane the edge in positioning and glove hand; I give Howe the edge in stick handling and, well, size. I think at this point it's going to be Shane; I think in the longer term it's going to be Howe. It could be whatever freshman shows up next year.

But I am known (see Elliott, Jason) not to be an astute predictor of goalie development.

you cant also overlook that Shane has played 3 games vs top teams in this stretch and did more than enough to actually win them all.

lets get coach back behind the bench as well soon.

Shane's glove hand has been excellent.

Scersk '97

Jim Hyla

Dafatone

Jim Hyla

Trotsky
Shane bobbles saves and leaves a metric shit ton of rebounds. I keep expecting him to be absolutely lit up but the only time it's happened was Princeton.

It's like he has such great positioning it makes up for having bad hands, which you'd think would be pretty suboptimal for a goalie.

Funny, I was thinking that Howe left a ton of rebounds, metric or not.

I'll give Schafer the nod, that Shane plays better in games than practice and I gather Howe is the reverse.

And here I'm thinking that McDonald is the one who gives up the most rebounds.

I'd agree with that.

But I think the battle is Shane vs Howe. That's why I posted on Howe.

Yeah, McDonald is out. He's certainly not horrible—our best third-string goalie in memory.

I saw Shane control a couple of rebounds vs. Quinnipiac at very good times. I recall quite vividly a great second-chance grab off a shoulder save when he had two QU "companions" completely unchallenged and ready to pounce. And then, sometimes, well…

Whichever goalie improves his rebound control is going to be the starter. Right now, I give Shane the edge in positioning and glove hand; I give Howe the edge in stick handling and, well, size. I think at this point it's going to be Shane; I think in the longer term it's going to be Howe. It could be whatever freshman shows up next year.

But I am known (see Elliott, Jason) not to be an astute predictor of goalie development.

Don't feel bad. I liked Davenport over Scrivens. Mistakes happen.

upprdeck


lets get coach back behind the bench as well soon.

And Andreev and Stienburg back on the ice.
.

Dafatone

Scersk '97
But I am known (see Elliott, Jason) not to be an astute predictor of goalie development.

Don't feel bad. I liked Davenport over Scrivens. Mistakes happen.

In my defense, Skazyk did backstop us to victory over Harvard early in the '95–'96 season.

That being said, the depths of my error were later completely exposed by Elliott's masterpiece: the 3–0 semifinal win over an absolutely stacked (including Todd White) Clarkson, which was perhaps the most satisfying game of my undergrad years.

George64

upprdeck


lets get coach back behind the bench as well soon.

And Andreev and Stienburg back on the ice.
.

anyone know which one is walking around with the arm in a sling this weekend? with masks on no idea who is who.

upprdeck

George64

upprdeck


lets get coach back behind the bench as well soon.

And Andreev and Stienburg back on the ice.
.

anyone know which one is walking around with the arm in a sling this weekend? with masks on no idea who is who.

Let's hope it's Mike Schafer (rather than any on-ice players).

billhoward
Fans like outcomes that have a W or L.

Citation needed.

Scersk '97
That being said, the depths of my error were later completely exposed by Elliott's masterpiece: the 3–0 semifinal win over an absolutely stacked (including Todd White) Clarkson, which was perhaps the most satisfying game of my undergrad years.

This, for me, will always be Elliott's masterpiece. He was so badly banged up that he could barely move, but he willed himself to survive. One of the most amazing goaltending performances I've ever seen.

Trotsky

Scersk '97
That being said, the depths of my error were later completely exposed by Elliott's masterpiece: the 3–0 semifinal win over an absolutely stacked (including Todd White) Clarkson, which was perhaps the most satisfying game of my undergrad years.

This, for me, will always be Elliott's masterpiece. He was so badly banged up that he could barely move, but he willed himself to survive. One of the most amazing goaltending performances I've ever seen.

Certainly a great performance, but it's difficult to separate the road win at RPI from what happened in the PIG afterward, when we barely stood in the way of the first of Princeton's decadal charges. Of course, when your alternative is the wonderfully pugnacious but diminutive Ian Burt, you do what you have to do.

Scersk '97
when your alternative is the wonderfully pugnacious but diminutive Ian Burt, you do what you have to do.

Was he "We gonna go?" "Um. No? "Wrong." "Oh. I guess so then."

And who was that? Yacey's Mom?

Trotsky

Scersk '97
when your alternative is the wonderfully pugnacious but diminutive Ian Burt, you do what you have to do.

Was he "We gonna go?" "Um. No? "Wrong." "Oh. I guess so then."

And who was that? Yacey's Mom?

This was by far the best player quote from that era.

Trotsky

Scersk '97
when your alternative is the wonderfully pugnacious but diminutive Ian Burt, you do what you have to do.

Was he "We gonna go?" "Um. No? "Wrong." "Oh. I guess so then."

And who was that? Yacey's Mom?

Leeor Shtrom, I believe.