Re: Union College: 2015-2016
The following is a simple accumulation of the numbers of non-senior players on each ECAC team, listed in the final USCHO ECAC league statistics for ECAC points. (http://www.uscho.com/stats/conference/ecac/2014-2015/) There were 80 players on the list and 24 were seniors. The seniors are assumed to be graduating and not returning and are not included in this count.
There is no accounting here with regard to players who have jumped into the pros. For example, I believe Colgate has lost at least 1
There is no adjustment for players who have missed games due to injuries or adjustments for scoring intensity (Points/Game).
This is a possible proxy for scoring depth and one of many possible metrics that we can look at to predict how the Dutchmen will do next year.
Number of returning players from USCHO ECAC top 80 (56 total)
St. Lawrence = 9
Harvard = 8
Yale = 7
Q = 6
Colgate = 6
Clarkson = 6
Union = 5
RPI = 3
Cornell = 2
Brown = 2
Dartmouth = 2
Princeton = 0
Footnote:
Those teams that went deep into the ECAC tournament played more games and added more points and are thus slightly advantaged.
- We return Vec, Wilkins, Taylor, Foo and Scarfo and 70% of our scoring.
- Harvard only loses 1, returns Vesey, Criscuolo, Moy, Kerfoot, Malone, Esposito, Hart, Newell. They only loose McNally (ugh)
- I did not include the Colgate losses of Johnson and Baun. Johnson did not make the top 80 anyway.
- Q loses Peca, Agosta, Federico but still have 6 returning.
- Yale loses NO ONE (double ugh)
- Dartmouth gets decimated, loses 6 and virtually all of its offense.
- Cornell loses 2 and returns 2
- RPI loses 3, returns 3
- Brown loses 1, returns 2
- St. Lawrence loses 2 and returns 9
The following is a simple accumulation of the numbers of non-senior players on each ECAC team, listed in the final USCHO ECAC league statistics for ECAC points. (http://www.uscho.com/stats/conference/ecac/2014-2015/) There were 80 players on the list and 24 were seniors. The seniors are assumed to be graduating and not returning and are not included in this count.
There is no accounting here with regard to players who have jumped into the pros. For example, I believe Colgate has lost at least 1
There is no adjustment for players who have missed games due to injuries or adjustments for scoring intensity (Points/Game).
This is a possible proxy for scoring depth and one of many possible metrics that we can look at to predict how the Dutchmen will do next year.
Number of returning players from USCHO ECAC top 80 (56 total)
St. Lawrence = 9
Harvard = 8
Yale = 7
Q = 6
Colgate = 6
Clarkson = 6
Union = 5
RPI = 3
Cornell = 2
Brown = 2
Dartmouth = 2
Princeton = 0
Footnote:
Those teams that went deep into the ECAC tournament played more games and added more points and are thus slightly advantaged.
- We return Vec, Wilkins, Taylor, Foo and Scarfo and 70% of our scoring.
- Harvard only loses 1, returns Vesey, Criscuolo, Moy, Kerfoot, Malone, Esposito, Hart, Newell. They only loose McNally (ugh)
- I did not include the Colgate losses of Johnson and Baun. Johnson did not make the top 80 anyway.
- Q loses Peca, Agosta, Federico but still have 6 returning.
- Yale loses NO ONE (double ugh)
- Dartmouth gets decimated, loses 6 and virtually all of its offense.
- Cornell loses 2 and returns 2
- RPI loses 3, returns 3
- Brown loses 1, returns 2
- St. Lawrence loses 2 and returns 9
Comment