PDA

View Full Version : Maine Black Bears, 2010-2011, Redemption or FORE, I say......



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

Ma#1ne Hky
02-22-2011, 01:24 AM
Would be the first class since the graduating class of 1986.

When was the last time Whitehead got up at a podium and said something along the lines of: we lost tonight, and I take responsibility for it. We didn't prepare properly and we didn't make advantageous adjustment. Better Q: when was the first time?

It's unreal. Every great coach of any sport admits fault and takes accountability somewhere along the line. Going by Tim's self reported record, has he ever made a mistake? TW makes EXCUSE's all the time after the fact...thats his M.O. -- He has the DON"T WORRY be HAPPY Attitude....

Fishman'81
02-22-2011, 01:56 AM
That was my point. It is the president's fault for hiring an incompetent AD who could not see that the coach was heading down the wrong path. It was the coach's fault for recruiting players inept at playing at this level. Besides 6 forwards and 3 defensemen, this Maine team lacks talent.

And that would put Maine ahead of the pack,if they took care of business in their own end.

A decent goalie on board,and Maine might well be 20-6,and looking at a #2 seed in The Show.

(That is all on the coaching,too.)

dmjossel
02-22-2011, 02:35 AM
And that would put Maine ahead of the pack,if they took care of business in their own end.

A decent goalie on board,and Maine might well be 20-6,and looking at a #2 seed in The Show.

(That is all on the coaching,too.)

Wait, so let me get this straight...

What you're saying that all Maine needs is "coaching", which apparently consists of:

1) A new Athletic Director
2) A new hockey head coach
3) New hockey assistant coaches (presumably, most head coaches like to assemble their own staff)
4) Six new forwards
5) Three new defensemen
6) A decent goalie

... then the true 20-win Maine team would be revealed?

Why, it boggles the mind why this wasn't all just accomplished yesterday. I never knew "coaching" was so simple!

I think Maine probably has more justifiable complaints about their head coach than does, say, Boston University. However, there is a huge gap between saying that Whitehead is responsible for everything that has gone wrong, and for that he should go, and saying that if he just goes, everything else will improve.

Everybody keeps talking about talent-- this team has some talent, not enough talent, as much talent as some of the tournament teams, or more talent than their record would indicate. Isn't it just possible that this year's Maine team isn't great-- regardless of whose fault it is that they aren't?

walrus
02-22-2011, 06:13 AM
Isn't it just possible that this year's Maine team isn't great-- regardless of whose fault it is that they aren't?
Its quite possible and only a few posters are thinking the forwards are great, I think they're a far better group then the last 3 years. I can't imagine anyone thinking they were going to compete for a Nat'l Championship, I was hoping for a NCAA bid, probably lose in 1st game but get experience and a taste for the limelight. Neither happens now without a miracle.

Slapshot08
02-22-2011, 06:27 AM
Wait, so let me get this straight...

What you're saying that all Maine needs is "coaching", which apparently consists of:

1) A new Athletic Director
2) A new hockey head coach
3) New hockey assistant coaches (presumably, most head coaches like to assemble their own staff)
4) Six new forwards
5) Three new defensemen
6) A decent goalie

... then the true 20-win Maine team would be revealed?

Why, it boggles the mind why this wasn't all just accomplished yesterday. I never knew "coaching" was so simple!

I think Maine probably has more justifiable complaints about their head coach than does, say, Boston University. However, there is a huge gap between saying that Whitehead is responsible for everything that has gone wrong, and for that he should go, and saying that if he just goes, everything else will improve.

Everybody keeps talking about talent-- this team has some talent, not enough talent, as much talent as some of the tournament teams, or more talent than their record would indicate. Isn't it just possible that this year's Maine team isn't great-- regardless of whose fault it is that they aren't?

You've entirely missed the point of what a coaching change would do. There would be no need for the other 5 changes. The AD would be irrelevant because the team would be better (and he could focus on fixing football and womens basketball). Corkum would be a different - and better - coach.....would no longer be neutered. The goalies would have confidence AND develop. A new coach would get more out of the players we have....they are definitely more capable than they are showing, even - especially - beyond the top 6 forwards and 3 defenseman

walrus
02-22-2011, 06:34 AM
the team would be better

Could be better is more realistic, coaching changes don't always work out, See BC in the early mid 90s

Runsub5
02-22-2011, 08:34 AM
Tim takes responsibility for starting Sullivan in the first Vermont game. See link below. So much for all the statements in this list about his arrogance and unwillingness to accept responsibility for the team's performance. Ultimately, it's up to the young men to perform on the ice. Tim can't skate.

http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/02/21/sports/sullivan-may-provide-consistent-goaltending-for-bears/

Hockeypuck
02-22-2011, 10:17 AM
Tim takes responsibility for starting Sullivan in the first Vermont game. See link below. So much for all the statements in this list about his arrogance and unwillingness to accept responsibility for the team's performance. Ultimately, it's up to the young men to perform on the ice. Tim can't skate.

http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/02/21/sports/sullivan-may-provide-consistent-goaltending-for-bears/So who is responsible for bringing in young men who perform?

walrus
02-22-2011, 10:35 AM
So who is responsible for bringing in young men who perform?

It appears no one:D

MEpucknut
02-22-2011, 11:07 AM
who is responsible for bringing in young men who perform?

what is, the Coach? .....Do I win anything?

TripleE
02-22-2011, 01:19 PM
Tim takes responsibility for starting Sullivan in the first Vermont game. See link below. So much for all the statements in this list about his arrogance and unwillingness to accept responsibility for the team's performance. Ultimately, it's up to the young men to perform on the ice. Tim can't skate.

http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/02/21/sports/sullivan-may-provide-consistent-goaltending-for-bears/

�I threw him a little too early. It was wishful thinking on my part. He had only three days of practice after not being on skates for a month,� he said

I don't know, man. Even that is kind of weak 'fault admission'. A players readiness is different than the systems, adjustments, focus, motivation and matchups that have flat out lost ample games under Tim. Up until this recent 3 game win streak against unranked competition, Maine was sitting with a -4 in the 3rd period.

Even back when we were making the NCAAs, what was the knock on these Tim coached team's? Backing off and blowing leads. Even in the first half of the last decade when there was that carry over streak of 'winning when leading after 2', it only continued as long as it did because we had guys like Jimmy and Frankie saving the team's bacon. It was maddening watching those guys get peppered every 3rd period we had a 1 or 2 goal lead.

Slapshot08
02-22-2011, 02:34 PM
Even back when we were making the NCAAs, what was the knock on these Tim coached team's? Backing off and blowing leads. Even in the first half of the last decade when there was that carry over streak of 'winning when leading after 2', it only continued as long as it did because we had guys like Jimmy and Frankie saving the team's bacon. It was maddening watching those guys get peppered every 3rd period we had a 1 or 2 goal lead.

So I went to the statistics on this at HE Online, http://www.hockeyeastonline.com/men/statistics/1011/oateam.php, did some quick math, and expected to find that Maine was one of the worst 3rd period teams in the league in terms of letting up goals. To my surprise, they are just a middle-of-the-pack team in HE when it comes to the percentage of their goals that are given up in the 3rd period. Funny enough, this weekend's opponent - Merrimack - is the worst 3rd period team in the league, relatively speaking. Of course, that isn't saying much given they have allowed the fewest total goals on the season, so a bad third period for the Mack would be a good 3rd period for Orono High.

Even more surprising is that Maine is the WORST 1st period team, allowing most of their goals. And the BEST 2nd period team in the league, allowing the fewest goals on relative terms (percentage of goals in each period).

This list is sorted by Percentage of goals given up in the 3rd period, worst to best.

Goals Allowed By Period 1st 2nd 3rd OT Total Goals
Merrimack 28% 31% 41% 0% 64
Vermont 23% 39% 37% 1% 97
Northeastern 30% 32% 34% 4% 74
Maine 37% 28% 34% 1% 86
Massachusetts 27% 38% 33% 2% 100
UMass Lowell 31% 36% 33% 1% 123
Boston College 30% 39% 30% 0% 69
Boston University 33% 36% 30% 1% 91
Providence 28% 40% 29% 3% 97
New Hampshire 22% 49% 27% 3% 74

Runsub5
02-22-2011, 03:30 PM
Not only do these posts entertain ourselves as Maine fans, fans of other teams must find this feuding hilarious.:D

GoBlackBears
02-22-2011, 06:02 PM
Whitehead would've just grabbed another piece of gum and started clapping. At least this coach sticks up for his team when getting the shaft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcdEBHOS3rM&feature=player_embedded

FiveHole12
02-22-2011, 07:31 PM
Not only do these posts entertain ourselves as Maine fans, fans of other teams must find this feuding hilarious.:D
Maineuhs are at their best when trashing other fan bases, but you're right, the in-fighting is pretty comical. I stop by every day for a few chuckles. :p

dmjossel
02-22-2011, 09:26 PM
Even more surprising is that Maine is the WORST 1st period team, and the BEST 2nd period team in the league, on relative terms (percentage of goals in each period).


34% of all goals allowed in the 2nd period isn't significant at all, because on average you'd expect in a match between average teams playing at the same level in all three periods, for goals to be equally distributed-- 33.3% in each period. The only significance here is the deviation from that, and 34% is less than 1% deviation.

Even the deviation from 33-37 (1st period) and 33-28 (2nd period) is not that significant. It's not a trend you can see acting within a single game, since in order to have even one goal represent a difference of 10% you need to allow ten goals.

Probably the only significant numbers on that page are UNH's 1st and 2nd period numbers (22 and 49) since they both represent a more than 10% deviation, and Vermont's 23% first period. The rest is noise; Maine is only 4% more likely to give up a goal in the first period than in any average period.

Slapshot08
02-22-2011, 10:10 PM
34% of all goals allowed in the 2nd period isn't significant at all, because on average you'd expect in a match between average teams playing at the same level in all three periods, for goals to be equally distributed-- 33.3% in each period. The only significance here is the deviation from that, and 34% is less than 1% deviation.



I know the numbers are hard to read (I don't know how to put a table in this forum...and too lazy to figure it out!), but Maine allows only 28% of it's goals in the second period, a far cry from UNH's 49% in the second. Who knows...it might mean that Maine is a lot more comfortable playing from the far bench. Or it could mean absolutely nothing.:rolleyes:

The real point of the analysis was that -- statistically -- Maine doesn't have a horrible 3rd period defense....surprising to me, given the number of late leads we have surrendered this year

KnowItAll
02-22-2011, 10:48 PM
Did you even read what I was responding too? I was not making excuses for the team, I was explaining a definition!:confused: Guess I need to add someone else to my growing list of people to ignore.

I wonder, if one ignores years when Maine does not win the national championship, does Maine "always win"?

dmjossel
02-22-2011, 11:03 PM
I know the numbers are hard to read (I don't know how to put a table in this forum...and too lazy to figure it out!), but Maine allows only 28% of it's goals in the second period, a far cry from UNH's 49% in the second. Who knows...it might mean that Maine is a lot more comfortable playing from the far bench. Or it could mean absolutely nothing.:rolleyes:

49% is significant, as it's a deviation of 16 points from what you'd expect. Maine's 28% is not nearly as significant, as it's only 5 points lower than would be expected. Given that these are percentages it's hard to make any significance out of it; even a team that gives up a greater proportion of its goals in the third period can come from behind to win at the end if they also score more in the third period than average, and/or if they allow so few goals on average that the increased likelihood of giving up a late goal makes little difference.


The real point of the analysis was that -- statistically -- Maine doesn't have a horrible 3rd period defense....surprising to me, given the number of late leads we have surrendered this year

Yes, that's true-- statistically, Maine's defense and goaltending are not significantly worse in the 3rd period compared to any other period. However, if you give up a fair number of goals and you only have a one or two goal lead, you can lose that lead and the game while playing a thoroughly average period.

Maine has given up 65 goals in 23 league contests, which is an average of .94 goals per period. So that means sometimes you'll give up one, but sometimes you'll give up two and other times you'll give up none. Two goals is enough to have a one-goal lead turn into a one-goal loss, and that can happen in 7.6 games over the course of the season without deviating at all from the expected results. (Incidentally, Maine has 8 league losses, so they could have given up a third period lead in every loss this season and it wouldn't necessarily indicate anything statistically significant about 3rd period defense, but just an inevitable result of how many you score and how many they score in an average game, regardless of when.)

UNH has given up only 46 goals in those same 23 contests. That's a 2.0 goals against average, even, which means .66 goals per period. That means they give up one goal per period only slightly more often than they give up none. Since they only give up, on average, two goals per game, any period in which they give up a goal has given up 50% of the goals allotted for that game. In short, UNH gives up so few goals that even the 49% given up in the 2nd period may not be much more than statistical noise. The teams that have given up fewer goals will have less statistical significance attached to any per-period trend because the size of the pool is smaller.

I think that 7 blown leads would certainly lead to a subjective opinion that a team has a bad 3rd period defense and can't hold a lead, without that being a valid statistical judgment. We also haven't taken offense into account at all; it can be just as much a failure to maintain a lead as it is giving a lead up, because on average you'd expect your opponent to have their scoring equally distributed as well, and if they average 3 goals per game then odds are they will score one in the third.

Maine is scoring 3.17 goals per game, which is 1.05 goals per period, so the margin is pretty thin. All other things being equal you'd expect them to win a few more games than lose, and win a few more periods than they lose, and of those losses, some would be 3rd period leads lost.

Runsub5
02-23-2011, 11:10 AM
..........UNH has given up only 46 goals in those same 23 contests. That's a 2.0 goals against average, even, which means .66 goals per period. That means they give up one goal per period only slightly more often than they give up none. Since they only give up, on average, two goals per game, any period in which they give up a goal has given up 50% of the goals allotted for that game. In short, UNH gives up so few goals that even the 49% given up in the 2nd period may not be much more than statistical noise. The teams that have given up fewer goals will have less statistical significance attached to any per-period trend because the size of the pool is smaller.

I think that 7 blown leads would certainly lead to a subjective opinion that a team has a bad 3rd period defense and can't hold a lead, without that being a valid statistical judgment. We also haven't taken offense into account at all; it can be just as much a failure to maintain a lead as it is giving a lead up, because on average you'd expect your opponent to have their scoring equally distributed as well, and if they average 3 goals per game then odds are they will score one in the third.

Maine is scoring 3.17 goals per game, which is 1.05 goals per period, so the margin is pretty thin. All other things being equal you'd expect them to win a few more games than lose, and win a few more periods than they lose, and of those losses, some would be 3rd period leads lost.

Good work. What is striking, as you point out, is how few goals UNH has allowed compared to Maine overall.