TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: BC Women's Hockey, 2015-2016: Embrace The Cupcake Diet
That was the case in 2014 as well if memory serves
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.
BC Women's Hockey, 2015-2016: Embrace The Cupcake Diet
- Thread starter TonyTheTiger20
- Start date
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
Re: BC Women's Hockey, 2015-2016: Embrace The Cupcake Diet
I'm thinking this is the BC thread but I'm not sure...
So BC has issues that posters like wwhyte pointed out which do seem legit. These seem like issues that, with the talent level that BC has, can be overcome. But that probably depends on the coaching staff being able to make some adjustments to their systems.
I'm thinking this is the BC thread but I'm not sure...
So BC has issues that posters like wwhyte pointed out which do seem legit. These seem like issues that, with the talent level that BC has, can be overcome. But that probably depends on the coaching staff being able to make some adjustments to their systems.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: BC Women's Hockey, 2015-2016: Embrace The Cupcake Diet
But I didn't expect the country's best offense to accomplish so little versus the Terriers, whose scoring defense was middle of the pack at best. Given the Beanpot got away, I expected BC's determination to match that of BU with a trophy on the line.
I realize that a concept like "most surprising" is subjective, so people will reach different conclusions. IMO, the most surprising BC result was the 4-1 loss to BU in the HEA tourney. The tie in Canton came in early in the season when results tend to be more erratic. A good goalie was able to hold the Eagles to two goals; it happens. We've seen road teams come up short on trips to the North Country over the years, and I'm sure we will again.
But I didn't expect the country's best offense to accomplish so little versus the Terriers, whose scoring defense was middle of the pack at best. Given the Beanpot got away, I expected BC's determination to match that of BU with a trophy on the line.
It was an Olympic year. The really good players were absent with their national teams. But we'll still take it!
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: BC Women's Hockey, 2015-2016: Embrace The Cupcake Diet
Rumor has it there will actually be a play by play (called by the BC radio station) on BC's streams this year.
Rumor has it there will actually be a play by play (called by the BC radio station) on BC's streams this year.
driventoit
New member
Re: BC Women's Hockey, 2015-2016: Embrace The Cupcake Diet
Good news for Eagle fans, but just hope they are schooled by Brown's Mike Rubin. Mediocre to bad play-by-play (the standard) is worse than none at all. (Though I suppose you need some sound on the radio other than whistles and skates carving ice.) Actually, no sound on the NCAA FF video coverage would have been better too, for those of us who didn't make the trip.
Good news for Eagle fans, but just hope they are schooled by Brown's Mike Rubin. Mediocre to bad play-by-play (the standard) is worse than none at all. (Though I suppose you need some sound on the radio other than whistles and skates carving ice.) Actually, no sound on the NCAA FF video coverage would have been better too, for those of us who didn't make the trip.
Last edited:
Re: BC Women's Hockey, 2015-2016: Embrace The Cupcake Diet
BC picked to finish first
http://hockeyeastonline.com/women/pres1516/201509/sep21wpp.php
BC picked to finish first
http://hockeyeastonline.com/women/pres1516/201509/sep21wpp.php
Re: BC Women's Hockey, 2015-2016: Embrace The Cupcake Diet
Was anyone picked to finish second?
Was anyone picked to finish second?
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: BC Women's Hockey, 2015-2016: Embrace The Cupcake Diet
"Second place is the first loser."
Hux
Alfond to Ridder & rinks in between
Re: BC Women's Hockey, 2015-2016: Embrace The Cupcake Diet
They used to be in the Big East. Then BC fled for the ACC, after decrying other teams leaving the conference, and Syracuse cried foul. I don't think the teams are exactly on the best of terms with one another.
They used to be in the Big East. Then BC fled for the ACC, after decrying other teams leaving the conference, and Syracuse cried foul. I don't think the teams are exactly on the best of terms with one another.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: BC Women's Hockey, 2015-2016: Embrace The Cupcake Diet
Cuse and BC don't really have any problems (and they never really did, honestly, outside of the fact that their football fans are rather obnoxious). The animosity is mostly with UConn (who, by the way, is already in Hockey East).
I'm not really sure which direction Hockey East should go to get back to even teams but I suppose they could do worse than Syracuse. I would rather it be a team that wasn't as far away though.
IMO the best case scenario is Notre Dame men join the NCHC (no one in Hockey East wants them here and Notre Dame feels like an outsider) and Hockey East replaces them with Quinnipiac. Problem solved.
Ha yes.
Cuse and BC don't really have any problems (and they never really did, honestly, outside of the fact that their football fans are rather obnoxious). The animosity is mostly with UConn (who, by the way, is already in Hockey East).
I'm not really sure which direction Hockey East should go to get back to even teams but I suppose they could do worse than Syracuse. I would rather it be a team that wasn't as far away though.
IMO the best case scenario is Notre Dame men join the NCHC (no one in Hockey East wants them here and Notre Dame feels like an outsider) and Hockey East replaces them with Quinnipiac. Problem solved.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: BC Women's Hockey, 2015-2016: Embrace The Cupcake Diet
ECAC Hockey may not see that as being as much of a solution as you do.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: BC Women's Hockey, 2015-2016: Embrace The Cupcake Diet
I'm aching for hockey season so I started playing with some stats.
Specifically, I was interested in BC's power play, which was God-awful last year. How God-awful? Well... that's what I seeked to find out.
BC was 15th in PP% last year which on its face is pretty average, until you realize that BC was by far the highest scoring team in the country last year. How could the highest scoring team in the country be 15th in PP%?
I tried to adjust the power play rankings instead by how many more goals you score per 60 minutes on the power play versus 60 minutes on even strength.
***Skip ahead if you don't care how I got to the numbers I got.***
To do this, I would need to know how many goals teams scored per power play minute, and to know that, i would need to know how many minutes teams spent on the average power play (it's not 2:00 -- power plays don't always last the full two minutes).
For lack of a better source, I pulled up last year's NHL stats. The average power play length in the NHL last year was 1:41, and that was pretty darn consistent between teams. No one was lower than 1:34 or higher than 1:45 and 90% of teams were within a few seconds of 1:41.
Since the NHL has a higher conversion percentage than women's hockey, I took the average power play time of the 13 teams with the PP% closest to that of women's hockey. The end result was that I used an average power play time of 1:42
I used a rough estimate of 60 minutes per game, subtracted number of minutes on the power play and penalty kill from total minutes played, and that's how I got the number of minutes on the PP and number of minutes even strength. Then it was just a matter of dividing even strength goals by even strength minutes and power play goals by power play minutes.
***You can come back now!***
The end result is that BC's power play last year was pretty ****ing terrible. They were the 3rd worst team in the country, better than only St. Lawrence and RIT, at improving their scoring rate on the power play.
You would think that maybe with BC already scoring a lot of goals that it would be hard for them to improve their scoring rate much... except Minnesota was 2nd in the country and Harvard was in the top ten.
The numbers show that in a 60 minute game played entirely at even strength, BC would score about 5.10 goals per game. In a 60 minute game played entirely on the power play, BC would score just one additional goal. That is incredibly bad. One additional goal if they played an entire game on the power play.
It got even worse in the 2nd half. In the 2nd half, BC was 25th in PP%, which on its own is pretty embarrassing. But after January 1st, BC scored 4.43 goals per 60 even strength minutes, and just 4.52 goals per 60 power play minutes. In the second half, BC scored at effectively the same rate on the power play as it did even strength, good for, again, third worst in the country behind SLU and RIT.
That...................... needs to be fixed.
I'm aching for hockey season so I started playing with some stats.
Specifically, I was interested in BC's power play, which was God-awful last year. How God-awful? Well... that's what I seeked to find out.
BC was 15th in PP% last year which on its face is pretty average, until you realize that BC was by far the highest scoring team in the country last year. How could the highest scoring team in the country be 15th in PP%?
I tried to adjust the power play rankings instead by how many more goals you score per 60 minutes on the power play versus 60 minutes on even strength.
***Skip ahead if you don't care how I got to the numbers I got.***
To do this, I would need to know how many goals teams scored per power play minute, and to know that, i would need to know how many minutes teams spent on the average power play (it's not 2:00 -- power plays don't always last the full two minutes).
For lack of a better source, I pulled up last year's NHL stats. The average power play length in the NHL last year was 1:41, and that was pretty darn consistent between teams. No one was lower than 1:34 or higher than 1:45 and 90% of teams were within a few seconds of 1:41.
Since the NHL has a higher conversion percentage than women's hockey, I took the average power play time of the 13 teams with the PP% closest to that of women's hockey. The end result was that I used an average power play time of 1:42
I used a rough estimate of 60 minutes per game, subtracted number of minutes on the power play and penalty kill from total minutes played, and that's how I got the number of minutes on the PP and number of minutes even strength. Then it was just a matter of dividing even strength goals by even strength minutes and power play goals by power play minutes.
***You can come back now!***
The end result is that BC's power play last year was pretty ****ing terrible. They were the 3rd worst team in the country, better than only St. Lawrence and RIT, at improving their scoring rate on the power play.
You would think that maybe with BC already scoring a lot of goals that it would be hard for them to improve their scoring rate much... except Minnesota was 2nd in the country and Harvard was in the top ten.
The numbers show that in a 60 minute game played entirely at even strength, BC would score about 5.10 goals per game. In a 60 minute game played entirely on the power play, BC would score just one additional goal. That is incredibly bad. One additional goal if they played an entire game on the power play.
It got even worse in the 2nd half. In the 2nd half, BC was 25th in PP%, which on its own is pretty embarrassing. But after January 1st, BC scored 4.43 goals per 60 even strength minutes, and just 4.52 goals per 60 power play minutes. In the second half, BC scored at effectively the same rate on the power play as it did even strength, good for, again, third worst in the country behind SLU and RIT.
That...................... needs to be fixed.
Last edited:
Re: BC Women's Hockey, 2015-2016: Embrace The Cupcake Diet
Interesting. You'd rather have the Q than Notre Dame? Is that from a men's point of view also? NCHC would seemingly trip overthemselves for that result.
Interesting. You'd rather have the Q than Notre Dame? Is that from a men's point of view also? NCHC would seemingly trip overthemselves for that result.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: BC Women's Hockey, 2015-2016: Embrace The Cupcake Diet
It's also possible that my perception is flavored by having watched so much of UM's PP scoring at ~ a 30% rate the last few years so that the average lenght of a power play seems shorter.
My guess would be that is too long by a little bit. One reason is that in women's hockey we often see the scenario where Team A gets a penalty, and seconds into Team B's PP, Team B commits a penalty of its own. If there are no additional penalties for the next couple of minutes, then each team winds up with a PP of just a few seconds. I don't see that nearly as often in the NHL, but I've seen women's NCAA games where it will happen three or four times in one game within the first 30 seconds of the initial penalty.
It's also possible that my perception is flavored by having watched so much of UM's PP scoring at ~ a 30% rate the last few years so that the average lenght of a power play seems shorter.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: BC Women's Hockey, 2015-2016: Embrace The Cupcake Diet
Also, the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th best NHL power plays all had 1:41, and the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th worst all had 1:41. 19 of the 30 teams were within 1 second of the league average, and 24 of the 30 were within 2 seconds.
Point is, on the whole there's a small but measurable difference in length of power play compared to conversion percentage, but it's not really large enough to make any meaningful change in the data.
I have a feeling this is just your perception. We have no way of actually measuring this, so it doesn't matter, but the net difference in the two would be a second at most even if you're right.
Ha... There is no doubt that Minnesota's average power play length is somewhat shorter than the others with that ridiculously high conversion percentage. But consider: The top three conversion percentages in the NHL (25, 24, and 23%) had a time per power play of 1:34, 1:36, and 1:39 respectively. The worst three conversion percentages in the NHL (16, 15, and 13%) had time per power play of 1:41, 1:41, and 1:43.
Also, the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th best NHL power plays all had 1:41, and the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th worst all had 1:41. 19 of the 30 teams were within 1 second of the league average, and 24 of the 30 were within 2 seconds.
Point is, on the whole there's a small but measurable difference in length of power play compared to conversion percentage, but it's not really large enough to make any meaningful change in the data.
Last edited: