PDA

View Full Version : Wisconsin Hockey: Episode XXXI: A New Hope



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

WiscTJK
12-17-2014, 07:59 AM
On the positive side, we can regain our status as an elite team at some point in the future. Whether that happens or not starts with the athletic dept.

markwojo
12-17-2014, 01:01 PM
If people are holding out hope for Boeser, they should stop now and save themselves the hassle.

Stopped hoping when he decommitted. Almost 100% of the time, when a kid decommits, they don't end up with the orginal school. I used hopefully as a combo of being sensitive to those who may be hoping and maybe a little spiteful that by reneging on UW he'll end up a bust wherever he ends up.

XYZ
12-18-2014, 02:07 AM
It's not what you were suggesting but then you suggest the very same thing? Are we even speaking the same language here?

We said very different things.


Not that it matters, but they're a 3rd year program. They beat us in OT in '12-'13.

My bad. Strike up the band. Assuming there's a band to strike up, of course.

Now how about you answer the question and stop vortexing?

Wisko McBadgerton
12-18-2014, 09:31 AM
We said very different things.



My bad. Strike up the band. Assuming there's a band to strike up, of course.

Now how about you answer the question and stop vortexing?

If I'm "vortexing" it's probably because I'm somewhat predisposed to not taking people that say things like "because I'm in a good mood, I will (respond)" as much more than arrogant ******-bags, or alternatively, 12 year old's. My best guess is you're inclined toward the first, but I really have little to go on so I suppose the second must logically remain a possibility.

As for your question, which I can only gather was the incredibly original question regarding Eaves being at fault for the program's state, if you want to follow along it is being discussed on and off by folks who have put time and effort into contributing information to this thread, rather than just drive-by with snarky comments. If you're expecting me to summarize the various points for you, especially when you've contributed next to nothing else to the conversation as of late, well, it's probably not happening. Having said that, I hope this won't put you off of our pleasant little exchange. Call me crazy, but somehow I don't think it will.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-18-2014, 10:00 AM
Interesting Badger factoid of the day:

Kevin Schulze is #1 in the nation with 3.17 blocked shots/game. (38 in 12gp)

WiscDC
12-18-2014, 12:01 PM
Interesting Badger factoid of the day:

Kevin Schulze is #1 in the nation with 3.17 blocked shots/game. (38 in 12gp)

Interesting. Bad, but interesting (though not surprising when I think about it).

Chuck Schwartz
12-18-2014, 12:07 PM
Interesting Badger factoid of the day:

Kevin Schulze is #1 in the nation with 3.17 blocked shots/game. (38 in 12gp)

I don't know what to think about stats like that. On face value it seems nice, but it also means you're probably giving up a lot of shots. It's like hits, if you've got a ton of hits, that means you don't have the puck very much. You win games when you have the puck. You know what the perfect game is? No blocked shots, no hits. It means you always have the puck. So, while it's nice to block a shot if that's the position you're in, I'm not sure it's a good thing to lead the nation in that category.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-18-2014, 12:50 PM
I don't know what to think about stats like that. On face value it seems nice, but it also means you're probably giving up a lot of shots. It's like hits, if you've got a ton of hits, that means you don't have the puck very much. You win games when you have the puck. You know what the perfect game is? No blocked shots, no hits. It means you always have the puck. So, while it's nice to block a shot if that's the position you're in, I'm not sure it's a good thing to lead the nation in that category.

Right, but since a 100% puck possession game is never happening, low shot block #'s and low hit #'s don't really represent incremental steps toward that hypothetical perfect game by themselves. High shot blocks and low sog is a fairly good thing. High block #'s and still high sog isn't, of course.

Here it probably just shows that K.Shulze is working his *** off on a team that's obviously been challenged. I'd suggest his other numbers (like pts.) would likely be much better if he hasn't had to sort of play deep safety a lot of the time in order to be in position to cover up his D-partner's penchant for turning the puck over. He's got some offensive upside, but so far it seems he's been a bit reluctant to get up into the offensive zone much. It looks to me that it's by design, but I don't have anything concrete from the coaches to base that on.

Timothy A
12-18-2014, 12:50 PM
Interesting. Bad, but interesting (though not surprising when I think about it).

On the plus side, it means there were at least 3 less chances of a goal getting scored in the game and probably more since no rebounds/shots off rebounds were give up on those shots that didn't hit the goalie. Let's wrap a positive aura things.

WiscTJK
12-18-2014, 01:52 PM
Mr Schulze has the worst +/- on the team at -17, but the poor guy is on the ice all the time.

I wish they had his ice time shown, as it would be by far the highest on the team.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-18-2014, 02:16 PM
Mr Schulze has the worst +/- on the team at -17, but the poor guy is on the ice all the time.

Yeah, and it just seems like if either of the opposition's top two lines are out there, somehow he is too. Plus he's playing big pk minutes. Guy must just be one big bruise about now.

And Davison is, almost inexplicably, +3... While he's made (more than) his share of mistakes, he really just seems to have some of that intangible knack for making plays. Things just seem to happen around him when he's on the ice. Hard to find guys like that. Plus he's a character and a half. I really do like that kid.

oldicecoach
12-18-2014, 02:37 PM
Wisko forgot to mention that Davison is also 2nd on the team in scoring with 6 pts. He has done this even though he was concussed early in the season and missed several games.

This doesn't say much for the forward production.

Chuck Schwartz
12-18-2014, 03:57 PM
Mr Schulze has the worst +/- on the team at -17, but the poor guy is on the ice all the time.

I wish they had his ice time shown, as it would be by far the highest on the team.

+/- is he worst stat in hockey for individuals, in my opinion. Or at least one of the worst.

ExileOnDaytonStreet
12-18-2014, 04:25 PM
+/- is he worst stat in hockey for individuals, in my opinion. Or at least one of the worst.

It certainly tells an incomplete story, to say the least.

WiscTJK
12-19-2014, 07:53 AM
+/- is he worst stat in hockey for individuals, in my opinion. Or at least one of the worst.


It certainly tells an incomplete story, to say the least.

I prefaced it with he is on the ice all the time. And on most PK's, and against the best lines. I feel for him. The guy is giving it all this year. The team as a whole is -77, or something like that. Ouch.

drop_the_puck
12-19-2014, 11:07 AM
So, I just saw an another interesting stat (probably pointless) in the "college hockey demographics" thread. The top five point scorers this year in college hockey from the state of Wisconsin do not play for Wisconsin.

Admittedly, I know nothing about the history of the five players (recruiting, family connections, etc), just thought it was interesting that none play at Wisconsin.

WiscDC
12-19-2014, 11:48 AM
I prefaced it with he is on the ice all the time. And on most PK's, and against the best lines. I feel for him. The guy is giving it all this year. The team as a whole is -77, or something like that. Ouch.

Unless they do it differently in college hockey, you don't get a minus for goals against while shorthanded.

WiscTJK
12-19-2014, 11:59 AM
+/- is he worst stat in hockey for individuals, in my opinion. Or at least one of the worst.


Unless they do it differently in college hockey, you don't get a minus for goals against while shorthanded.

I didn't know that. Thanks.

ExileOnDaytonStreet
12-19-2014, 03:44 PM
So, I just saw an another interesting stat (probably pointless) in the "college hockey demographics" thread. The top five point scorers this year in college hockey from the state of Wisconsin do not play for Wisconsin.

Admittedly, I know nothing about the history of the five players (recruiting, family connections, etc), just thought it was interesting that none play at Wisconsin.

That is quite curious.

markwojo
12-19-2014, 06:11 PM
So, I just saw an another interesting stat (probably pointless) in the "college hockey demographics" thread. The top five point scorers this year in college hockey from the state of Wisconsin do not play for Wisconsin.

Admittedly, I know nothing about the history of the five players (recruiting, family connections, etc), just thought it was interesting that none play at Wisconsin.

It is odd that of the top 5 in Alaska, Minnesota, Michigan, Mass, NY, Colorado, & Connecticut...at least one goes to an in state school.