What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2022-23 Penn State Nittany Lions

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.
 
Reddington said:
The goalie for Mercyhurst had a .97 save percentage in game two and stole game 2...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.
Click to expand...

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.

oggie said:
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 possession and then panics. The D core as a whole overhandle 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 turnover machines the horses can’t run. Maybe they are working too hard during the week, because to me it looked like they had heavy legs in game two - the effort was definitely there.
Click to expand...

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).
 
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.
 
Reddington said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
PSUfan said:
Penn State has at least 4 players graduating this year (Gangarosa, Hemminger, Correia and MacKay) so there must be more signings coming.
Click to expand...

According to collegecomitments.com, there are two more players coming next season, too:

Taya McDonald, defense, London Jr. Devilettes (PWHL)
Giavanna Mancy, defense, Hill School (US Tour)
 
I just looked at the upcoming schedule and I have to say I am impressed. I see Yale for two and then Minnesota followed by either Yale or BU. This is definitely not a cupcake schedule. Mel Ruzzi is a good coach today for Brown. I think Newkirk was there last year. Besides Cariocchi being there this year and the Newkirk adds a little extra drama today. These two games are imperative if PSU wants to get to 20 wins.
 
After one period it's Penn State up 1-0 vs Brown, on a powerplay goal from Olivia Wallin. Brown leads the shots on goal 8-4, and each team took a penalty. Brown was all over Penn State in most of the first period, and Penn State didn't manage a shot on goal for the first 14 minutes of the period. The usual dump and chase game plan isn't working at all, so Penn State better figure something else out during the intermission.
 
After two, Penn State is up 3-0 on goals from Alyssa Machado and Tessa Janecke. Shots on goal are 15-14 for Penn State, and Penn State took the only penalty of the period. I don't know who said what during the first period intermission, but Penn State finally looked like themselves in the second, with a lot of really good chances. The goal from Tessa Janecke was one of those that make you scratch your head, wondering how she put the puck where she put it - she's a special player.
 
Correia is a great passer. They should just plug her in with whoever has the hot stick all year long (except against the Lakers :-) ).

Nice set up by Zanon on Janecke’s snipe from the top of the circle. earlier I was thinking Janecke looked tired or something; who knows maybe just a smart player who doesn’t waste energy. Penn State in control 3-0 going in to the third. Sunday Monday… more unusual scheduling but so far they are handling it well.
 
ZedLeppelin said:
After two, Penn State is up 3-0 on goals from Alyssa Machado and Tessa Janecke. Shots on goal are 15-14 for Penn State, and Penn State took the only penalty of the period. I don't know who said what during the first period intermission, but Penn State finally looked like themselves in the second, with a lot of really good chances. The goal from Tessa Janecke was one of those that make you scratch your head, wondering how she put the puck where she put it - she's a special player.
Click to expand...

People talk about how this generation of women’s hockey players can shoot the puck in a way prior generations couldn’t and Janecke
is such a good example of that.
 
Penn State comes away with the 3-0 win over Brown. The third period was Penn State playing like Penn State again, so I don't know what they were doing in the first, but they corrected it and played their game the rest of the way. Back at it tomorrow at 2:00 (Eastern).
 
Lindsay said:
Correia is a great passer. They should just plug her in with whoever has the hot stick all year long (except against the Lakers :-) ).
Click to expand...

I wish Penn State had another season with Correia after this year. You're so right about her passing and play making.

I was thinking Janecke looked tired or something; who knows maybe just a smart player who doesn’t waste energy.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that a few times with Janecke, and then you blink and she's off to the races, so who knows? I kind of think she's still trying to settle in to what she's going to do on her line...whether she sets up plays or takes the puck herself and drives on the net. She's deceptively quick, for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top