Tweet
I didn't realize this, but...https://twitter.com/PennStateWHKY/st...22763586084865
-
-
After one period, it's scoreless at Pegula Ice Arena. Penn State leads the shots on goal 13-12, but they also took the only two penalties of the period. This game is 100 MPH so far from both teams, and both goalies are standing tall. Great hockey so far!Comment
-
After two, it's tied up 1-1 at Penn State. Shots on goal are 25-15 for Penn State, and Mercyhurst took four penalties to Penn State's one. Mercyhurst was all over Penn State for a lot of the second period, but then they started getting a little reckless with penalties and gave Penn State a 5-on-3 for the tying goal. This game hasn't slowed down a bit.Comment
-
And that's a wrap and a split - Mercyhurst takes this one by a score of 3-1. Shots on goal were 34-23 for Penn State. Mercyhurst took four penalties and Penn State took three. Mercyhurst earned this win 100%.
In my opinion, these are two things that killed the game late for Penn State:
1) On Mercyhurst's second goal, Mallory Uihlein, for some reason, skated away from the player she was covering in front of the net to go after the player who had the puck, on the other side of the crease. Why? This, obviously, left the original Mercyhurst player wide open...her teammate passed across the crease to her and she scored the easy goal to put Mercyhurst up 2-1.
2) When Penn State pulled Josie Bothun late for a 6-on-5 advantage, and had the faceoff in the Mercyhurst zone to start it off, Rene Gangarosa got the puck on the faceoff and immediately just threw a shot towards the net, instead of taking the time to set up a play (there were more than 1-1/2 minutes to go). It went nowhere, bounced off the crowd, and totally wasted the 6-on-5 opportunity before it even started, and resulted in Mercyhurst scoring an empty-netter.Comment
-
One goal didn't do it for Mercyhurst in game 1 and 1 goal didn't do it for Penn State in Game 2. PSU only had even strength goals in one period out of six. The PP did convert three opportunities all weekend. The goalie for Mercyhurst had a .97 save percentage in game two and stole game 2. Zanon's goal was on a 5-3 and she really is a junkyard dog around the net. Her skill set and the tenaciousness around the net is an unusual combination and that is what makes her dangerous. Gangarosa had 6 blocks in game 2 leading the way for both teams. Lobdell has really developed her two way game and is now also prolific at blocking shots. 20 for Mercyhurst is a handful for Mercyhurst. Bothun was solid all weekend. I am surprised that Mercyhurst did not use the Holy Cross goalie who beat Clarkson and received player of the week at all during the the PSU series, but Sisti picked the right goalie in game 2.Comment
-
Just watched the replay of game two Penn State will never go anywhere with this group of D goal # 1 was 4 on one that doesn’t happen in 12 u hockey goal number two starts with 13 controlling the puck in her zone and skating behind her net she has an easy outlet on her forehand in front of her instead for some reason she reversed into two mercyhurst players giving up poession and then panics the d core as a whole over handle the puck and can’t handle pressure for some reason they don’t make the simple play no hockey IQ until they fix the mental errors they will be stuck in mediocrity They have thoroughbreds up front but because the d are turn over machines the horses can’t run maybe they are working to hard during the week because to me it looked like they had heavy legs in game two the effort was definitely there.Comment
-
Ena Nystrom was a good call in net for Mercyhurst, at least in game two. She was really a headache for Penn State forwards in the second game.Originally posted by Reddington View Post
One pet peeve of mine (and it goes back prior to this season) is what you pointed out about when the defense has the puck and are moving behind their own net. Too many times, instead of an outlet pass up ice, if there's any pressure on them at all they opt for this light backhand flick backwards with the puck, and it usually results in either a turnover or at minimum a wasted opportunity up ice. I don't get it. Even the game announcers pointed out how the defense wastes too much time trying to be fancy with the puck, rather than moving it up ice and letting the forwards be the forwards. Jeff Kampersal needs to find six Jocelyn Larocques for the roster (see who recognizes that name...hahaha).Originally posted by oggie View PostComment
-
You'll need a good PK. It isn't that easy to find a half-dozen Team Canada players at any position.Originally posted by ZedLeppelin View Post
"... And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;" -- Rudyard KiplingComment
-
The statistics on your chances of winning when you only score one goal are extremely low. Kampersal hammers even more on getting the first goal as it relates to PSU as he has some statistics on PSU when they are scored on first as opposed to being the first to score that have a significant variance.Comment
-
I can't speak for Penn State, but this is one of my statistical pet peeves. There's nothing magical about scoring the first goal specifically. Yes, there is a fairly high correlation between scoring the first goal and winning, but that is not the same thing as saying that scoring the first goal is especially important. There are three relevant pieces here:Originally posted by Reddington View Post
1) Some of this effect is simply a matter of one team being better than the other. The better team is more likely to win the game, and they are more likely to score the first goal. A fair amount of the correlation between scoring the first goal and winning is nothing more than one team being better. If you want to look at the importance of the first goal, you have to control for this.
2) If you score the first goal of the game, you have guaranteed that you won't be shut out. If there is an X percent chance that a game will end in a shutout, you have eliminated the possibility that it will happen to you. However, you also eliminate this possibility if you score the second goal, or the third goal, or any goal. There is nothing specific to it being the first goal.
3) The third part is sort of a generalization of the second. Every shot a team takes has a probability of becoming a goal. What that probability is depends upon who the shooter is, where the shot is taken from, who the goalie is, where the defenders are, and other factors. For this purpose, what that probability is for any given shot doesn't matter, other than that it is between 0 and 1. When you stipulate that a team scores first, what you are doing is saying that the probability of a shot is now 1, rather than whatever it was at the instant the shot was taken. But that has no effect on the probability than any other shot will go in. It does mean that the number of shots you will take during the game has declined by a small amount, since once the puck goes in, there won't be a rebound, but this effect is small. But the number of goals that you should be expected to score during the game has increased by (1 - the probability that the shot had to go in when it was taken). By declaring that a team scored the first goal, you have increased the total number of goals that they are expected to score. But, again, this is true of every other goal over the course of the game.
What is important is not the correlation between scoring first and winning. What's important is the correlation between scoring the first goal and winning, compared to the correlation between scoring other goals and winning. A few years back, I sat down and calculated this, though I lost the work a couple of new computers ago. What I found is that there is a slightly larger correlation between scoring the second goal and winning than there is between scoring the first goal and winning. Other than that, the differences were negligible.
In short, the focus shouldn't be on the first goal specifically. What matters is just scoring goals and not giving up goals. In other words, the null hypothesis is the winner here.Comment
-
Holy Mackerel that is an in depth response! Thank you for the statistical rundown. Kampersal has a style of play that some disagree with yet he has 400 wins. At the end of the day he can't score goals. The program has been knocking on the door for awhile and has a chance to take the next step this year.Comment
-
I always advise people not to get into an online debate with an autistic overnight security guard. He has more time to kill than you do, and he's not afraid to use it.Originally posted by Reddington View PostComment
-
There are five former PSU players finding success elsewhere: Jess Ciarocchi rolls into town with Brown, she has four assists, Mikayla Lanto is at Long Island Univ and has 8 pts, Amy Dobson is at RIT and has 5 pts, Rachel Weiss is at Providence with 7 pts and Anna Prommersberger is at St Thomas and has one pt. Glad to see the girls getting a chance to fulfill their hockey aspirations. Ciarocchi had a nice Frosh year, Lanto had that big goal against Syracuse, Dobson and Prommersberger played hard throughout their four year career and Weiss seemed to come up big in the CHA playoffs.
Correia and Mackay have been great additions by Kampersal to offset the above attrition.Comment
-
Penn State signed two new players for next season - Karolina Hengelmuller, a defender from the Austrian national team and Shattuck-St.Mary's, and Stella Retrum, a forward from Maple Grove, Minnesota:
https://gopsusports.com/news/2022/11...gning-day.aspxComment
-
Penn State has at least 4 players graduating this year (Gangarosa, Hemminger, Correia and MacKay) so there must be more signings coming.Originally posted by ZedLeppelin View PostComment
Comment