ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

[Skate79]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

They are relevant for me because that is all I have seen of Harvard's play. As for the past being relevant, those were different teams.

I wouldn't use NU's performance in the Beanpot against Harvard as a predictor of what will happen this weekend. I would instead focus on H2H matchups and recent play in HE to gauge how the Huskies will or will not perform this weekend. In conference is far different than out of conference play especially where Harvard is concerned because their record out of conference these past couple of seasons has not been good against ranked teams. Against the ECAC with the exception of games vs. Cornell, Harvard has fared much better and as has been discussed, against SLU, we have done very well both in the regular season and the playoffs. That means nothing in my book going into Friday's matchup except that the Crimson have to feel confident about their chances to advance.

 

[NUWH DogHouse]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

I wouldn't use NU's performance in the Beanpot against Harvard as a predictor of what will happen this weekend. I would instead focus on H2H matchups and recent play in HE to gauge how the Huskies will or will not perform this weekend. In conference is far different than out of conference play especially where Harvard is concerned because their record out of conference these past couple of seasons has not been good against ranked teams. Against the ECAC with the exception of games vs. Cornell, Harvard has fared much better and as has been discussed, against SLU, we have done very well both in the regular season and the playoffs. That means nothing in my book going into Friday's matchup except that the Crimson have to feel confident about their chances to advance.

First of all they didn't play us at all. Second I am not basing my team's future performance on those games completely, though assuming we move on to Sunday, which as a fan I will, we play either bu or bc again which we did in the Beanpot antoher high stress tournament. So yes performance against those teams there is valid. All I was saying about Harvard was that they didn't show up for the two games I saw them play in a tournament they normally do well in. And I think you guys discount the Beanpot a little too much. SLU came to Mathews and played tough hockey that they seem to have been playing since Thanksgiving and all I am saying is I think SLU comes through when it matters this year.

 

[dave1381]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

All I was saying about Harvard was that they didn't show up for the two games I saw them play in a tournament they normally do well in. And I think you guys discount the Beanpot a little too much. SLU came to Mathews and played tough hockey that they seem to have been playing since Thanksgiving and all I am saying is I think SLU comes through when it matters this year.

Ok, well it all goes back to the same question -- is SLU's sweep of Northeastern/BC compared to Harvard's lousy Beanpot a more relevant predictor than SLU's awful performance before Thanksgiving and in recent past seasons?

As far as I can tell, the only two reasons why you put more weight on the former set of games are that (1) you saw those games, and you didn't see the Harvard-SLU games and (2) those Beanpot/Matthews games were all more recent. Point (1) is irrelevant. Point (2) I mentioned earlier may be relevant, but Harvard's success against SLU may represent a general matchup problem for SLU even if SLU has improved dramatically -- it's harder to call it coincidence when Harvard has given SLU its worst four defeats in the last two seasons.

If you want to make a good argument for SLU, it's this: Harvard has generally had poor results in the its biggest games of the last 2.5 years, e.g. Beanpot/ECAC semis/NCAAs. Harvard has also had little success in high-profile series like Cornell and Minnesota. Harvard also lost to Dartmouth in the ECAC semis last year after a sweep before Thanksgiving. Now it's not like SLU has a comparable body of work -- SLU has no Beanpot and has not reached ECAC semis or NCAAs during the tenure of the current coach & players. But we do know that Harvard lately has not really stepped up when it needs to. All that said, I still think the balance of evidence favors Harvard here.

 

[ARM]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

Point (1) is irrelevant.

To an extent, but not entirely. We all do this, where we weight what we've seen more heavily than what we haven't. Other than the Beanpot games, all I've watched from Harvard are highlight videos. From the highlights, I could conclude that: a) Harvard scores on every opportunity; b) Bellamy never allows a goal. Just like the highlights don't tell the whole story, neither do the Beanpot games, but neither can be totally thrown out either. Somewhere beneath those Harvard uniforms and a team capable of dominating SLU is also a team that inspires people to wonder if they all had the flu at the Beanpot. I agree with you and skate, but I sure agree with DogHouse as well.

 

[Skate79]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

To an extent, but not entirely. We all do this, where we weight what we've seen more heavily than what we haven't. Other than the Beanpot games, all I've watched from Harvard are highlight videos. From the highlights, I could conclude that: a) Harvard scores on every opportunity; b) Bellamy never allows a goal. Just like the highlights don't tell the whole story, neither do the Beanpot games, but neither can be totally thrown out either. Somewhere beneath those Harvard uniforms and a team capable of dominating SLU is also a team that inspires people to wonder if they all had the flu at the Beanpot. I agree with you and skate, but I sure agree with DogHouse as well.

Agreed. It is hard not to base judgements on what we have seen up close and personal versus video highlights. If the Beanpot and out of conference play is all you are going on, then I suppose you can draw the conclusion that Harvard is not all that great a team. But if you use in conference play, you would say they are the second best team in the conference and next to SLU and Cornell, are playing the best hockey. Entirely different view of the same team but using data against different teams and conferences. The fact remains that in the past two or three years, Harvard has not shown up and played to their potential against the better teams outside the conference and in the ECAC semis. Why that is baffles all of us that follow the team.

Does anyone think that Northeastern is a better team today than it was in November when it played SLU? How about BC? For that matter, given that Harvard belted SLU twice earlier in the season, does anyone think that Harvard is a better team today than in November? Should the fact that SLU has been white hot since the end of November mean that despite Harvard's record, they, not the Crimson, should be favored to win on Friday? You can debate this until the cows come home and not come up with a definitive answer other than the teams that most deserve to be in their conference frozen fours are there and whoever plays the best this weekend will emerge as the champion. I realize that is a cop out but there are so many ways you can spin this to convince yourself and others that one team should win and other should lose that it can make your head spin.

 

[ARM]

Re: ECAC Quarterfinal Playoff 2012 thread Which May be the, 'Semi's'?

Re: ECAC Quarterfinal Playoff 2012 thread Which May be the, 'Semi's'?

Good points. We can favor who we like, but once the game starts, they set the scoreboard to 0-0.

 

[dave1381]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

You can debate this until the cows come home and not come up with a definitive answer other than the teams that most deserve to be in their conference frozen fours are there and whoever plays the best this weekend will emerge as the champion. I realize that is a cop out but there are so many ways you can spin this to convince yourself and others that one team should win and other should lose that it can make your head spin.

Sure, you're not going to be convince yourself who should win, but saying that Harvard or SLU is a slight favorite is a much more defensible position than claiming that either team deserves to be a heavy favorite. Whether Harvard or SLU is the slight favorite is a more difficult proposition but I think it's feasible to come to consensus about which argument is better.

As for watching games, well, when I evaluate a team, I consider how the game I watched looks on paper compared to other games on paper, and adjust my evaluation appropriately to the best I can. If you're watching a team play it's worst game of the season on paper and then you come post here and say that team is overrated because you saw them play and they were lousy, you're just not making use of all the information that's readily available.

 

[Skate79]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

As for watching games, well, when I evaluate a team, I consider how the game I watched looks on paper compared to other games on paper, and adjust my evaluation appropriately to the best I can. If you're watching a team play it's worst game of the season on paper and then you come post here and say that team is overrated because you saw them play and they were lousy, you're just not making use of all the information that's readily available.

There are two criteria that I use when watching a game versus on paper that tell me more about a team's performance, the scoreboard notwithstanding. They are puck possession and quality shots on goal versus just the shot totals. Why this criteria? Puck possession in hockey is similar to a running game in football; it can easily frustrate an opponent and cause them to make more mistakes in trying to counter your holding the puck for good chunks of time. Quality shots, especially in women's hockey, make all the difference in the world. The women for the most part don't generate shots that would force a goalie to make tough saves routinely. At least not in the games that I've watched over the years. True it doesn't always work that way but floaters from the blue line are far less threatening than close in wristers or backhands. Yet as shots on goal, they all look and count the same on paper. On paper, you can't measure puck possession but you can't miss it when you are watching live or on TV. So while the conventional measures on paper can tell me something about a game, there are other measurements that you won't find on paper that often tell the real story. The one caveat being that at the end of the game, it's the scoreboard that matters and nothing else.

 

[NUWH DogHouse]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

Sure, you're not going to be convince yourself who should win, but saying that Harvard or SLU is a slight favorite is a much more defensible position than claiming that either team deserves to be a heavy favorite. Whether Harvard or SLU is the slight favorite is a more difficult proposition but I think it's feasible to come to consensus about which argument is better.

I'm not saying SLU is a heavy favorite at all. I just think they will win in probably a close game but still prevailing.

 

[papulaisle]

ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

Doghouse- Your kind of like a fresh voice here to me. May be that I concentrate on ECAC play and therefore haven't paid (as) much attention when others (from other conferences) speak, share. Also I see you joined in 2011. Many of us have longer histories- at least on USCHO- by your posts it is difficult to judge if your collective knowledge might include some of the things I speculate on below.

It has been MY feeling the Harvard women tend to ease, say, their way into the season. And while it is important to keep winning- at least enough so as to be positioned to MAKE playoffs, I see them year in year out kind-a just skimming by enough so that they can/will be there at the finale.

Getting enough good results to ensure being there for post season play.

I kid and say they are keeping their cool; "We are HARVARD, after all, we can AFFORD to occasionally make rink turns and take in a greater world view!"

It may be, too, that sometimes they 'drift' along too long and aren't ready, sharp or even under consideration once season's end arrives. But they are no- are NEVER, Rocky! You won't see them ever- emotionally, certainly in my view, entirely leave it all on the ice as Rocky did in the ring.

Too, I am for Dartmouth and Dart and Harv have perhaps somewhat of a singularly focused, say, rivalry: on each other. Not quite a grudge but rarely will Harv say good things about Green and vice versa. So results between them might not lend themselves, be appropriate, when speculating (on one or the other's team's) overall prospects.

All this said- Harvard tends to shine when the cameras are rolling. Maybe its the reflected glow of years of success (in the east and even at times, in the Frozen Four/Beanpot, etc.) or the Hall of Fame of stars emanating form Bright EXPECTING their successors to reach new heights.

IMHO Harvard PAID ATTENTION this season (more; NEVER pay enough attention...), however! Did not wander around lost like did do so much in year's past. AND have the results to show for it. Also- it is that 'shine' that the rest of the ECAC, others, have to deal with when the Crimson comes to town- and it seem as especially to have been so for SLU.

This is why I am thinking Harvard will prevail Friday night.

 

[NUWH DogHouse]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

Doghouse- Your kind of like a fresh voice here to me. May be that I concentrate on ECAC play and therefore haven't paid (as) much attention when others (from other conferences) speak, share. Also I see you joined in 2011. Many of us have longer histories- at least on USCHO- by your posts it is difficult to judge if your collective knowledge might include some of the things I speculate on below.

I started following women's hockey in the '07-'08 season really getting into it post '08 Beanpot so my collective knowledge is not at the level of the more seasoned posters. I mostly stayed away from posting here from things I heard on the NU forums but I finally decided to put another NU voice out there.

I pat attention to Harvard from a distance because they are a regular Beanpot foe and a local contender for TUC and the such. My knowledge of them is only what I see which is very little. Like you said they typically show up when the game is big. I am especially remembering the '10 Beanpot final which was a 1-0 contest that Harvard just said no to NU. Just this year like you said they did not pay "enough" attention again I go to the Beanpot, because that is that I have seen, where against bu they looked listless and didn't know what was going on (before the game they tried to get onto the ice from a corner with no gate, that just seemed to spell out their night). Then the next week against bc they again didn't seem there which was surprising because I had never seen them not play it tough in the Beanpot. Yes I know it isn't their normal weekend slate and it is a Tuesday game, but it is a Tuesday game they play twice EVERY year. And players do get up for these games one for the recognition but two these games, especially this year, have major implications on end of the year play. Harvard is a good team I just don't get the feeling they will play it up enough this weekend. And then in the SLU game I saw they played with a swagger like they knew they belonged. The only other team that came into Matthews like that was bc. And I think SLU realizes they have a bad past and want to change it, that inspired NU this year after so long of not quite being there.

All that being said ARM is right the scoreboard will read 0-0 at the start and I plan on following the game as I can during the day.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

All that being said ARM is right the scoreboard will read 0-0 at the start and I plan on following the game as I can during the day.

The SLU - Harvard game is in the evening.

 

[NUWH DogHouse]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

The SLU - Harvard game is in the evening.

I meant day as in Friday in general.

 

[brookyone]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

It may be, too, that sometimes they 'drift' along too long and aren't ready, sharp or even under consideration once season's end arrives. But they are no- are NEVER, Rocky! You won't see them ever- emotionally, certainly in my view, entirely leave it all on the ice as Rocky did in the ring.

I'm never entirely convinced I understand what you are saying, but If I've made a lucky guess in this instance I did get a very different impression of Harvard efforts in their NCAA games I've watched. The cameras were rolling on those occasions though. Didn't H have an intimidating, extremely long winning streak going into one of the NCAA tournaments several years ago?

I think it's somewhat easier to appear to leave it all in the ring for Rocky since it's a movie vs. a non scripted real live sporting contest. I recall reading Sly took a pretty serious beatin' when during filming he wanted to box for real in place of the typical choreographed fight scene.

Edit: My assumption is you were speaking of Harvard per a long term, historical type point of view. Could be a mistaken interpretation.

 

[dave1381]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

I guess I can translate to some degree.

Harvard did have some disappointing efforts against Dartmouth in ECACs: the 2000 semi, 2003 final, 2011 semis. (I'll avoid getting into Dartmouth's fairly lousy postseason history apart from these upsets, perhaps the 2001 & 2009 ECAC titles being the bright spots, but the NCAAs that followed)

Harvard did perform well in the spotlight, the 1999 final, the 2003-2005 NCAA finals. It would be ridiculous to say those four Harvard teams didn't leave everything they had on the ice (though I'd like back the first minute of period 3, 2004... also first 5 minutes of period 2 in the 2008 NCAA semifinal while we're at it...)

On the subject of history, it's kind of amazing SLU doesn't have a single ECAC title given how much they've been in the thick of things this past decade, including Frozen Fours in 2001, 2004-2007.

 

[papulaisle]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

If you can't read/understand, then say so- site case in point, people. Don't appreciate slurs (Dave, Brooky).

I never have seen them leave it, etc., as I said. Rocky example is apt. Can nitpick around edges but my point is I think quite clear.

And not, "ridiculous". I just have never seen them seem to go, 'all in'. Does not characterize Crimson women's hockey I do not think. Are you suggesting it does?
And I am welcome to my view whether it matches other's view or no.

Irritated.

 

[dave1381]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

papulaisle - I appreciate your views and I regret offending you, and I did like a lot of what you had to say there in your post.

I would be interested in having a civil discussion about what you mean by Crimson women's hockey never going "all in." Sure it's your opinion, but I do think it's insulting to some past Harvard teams and not borne out by the evidence as far as I can tell, and if you have an opinion that's insulting to others without some reasonable evidence to back it up, then I don't appreciate it. But I would be interested to know where you're coming from. Maybe I'm off base.

At least from my perspective, I've seen the 2003 Harvard team play UMD to double overtime, the 2005 Harvard have a really dramatic second half turnaround, beat Mercyhurst in triple overtime, and play a heavily favored Minnesota team even to the final minute of play, and then the 2007 Harvard team played BC to triple overtime, and played Wisconsin to quadruple overtime.

In my mind, all of the above are examples of really inspiring Harvard teams that went "all in" and Harvard participated in some of the most dramatic games in NCAA history during that 2003-2007 (not coincidentally, the span of Julie Chu's career). While yes, I do agree there are examples of Harvard teams that didn't give their best effort, like the 2000/2003/2011 teams that lost to Dartmouth, so certainly Harvard has no always gone "all in" but who has a perfect record in that regard? (Well, Mark Johnson's teams are pretty darn close ) So I'm just confused as to how you could say Harvard is a program whose players NEVER go "all in" and would like to know where you're coming from.

 

[ARM]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

... who has a perfect record in that regard? (Well, Mark Johnson's teams are pretty darn close )

Luckily, we were able to witness the 2008 final, proving that they are in fact mortal and not the supreme beings I had come to suspect.

 

[Watson Rink]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

Just to add some further complicating context to a somewhat tangential aspect of this excellent in-depth discussion of the upcoming SLU-H match:

Papulaisle observed:"Too, I am for Dartmouth and Dart and Harv have perhaps somewhat of a singularly focused, say, rivalry: on each other. Not quite a grudge but rarely will Harv say good things about Green and vice versa."

The rivalry between the two colleges, as distinct from the two women's hockey programs, goes back to the mists of time, and at one time -- now, mercifully, long in the past -- was far more than a grudge, it was a Clash of Civilizations (capital letters meant to be ironic). Only people my age, perhaps, remember that before the days of women's hockey -- indeed, before the days of coeducation -- Dartmouth sported an Animal House ethos that, shall we say, contrasted with the prevalent between-the-sexes ethos of the more urban Ivies, who had to coexist with the (even at that time) quick-to-offend Seven Sisters while the Men of Dartmouth repaired to Green Mountain Junior College (which they charmingly referred to as The Groin) for their social life. Many H-Y-P chaps felt that vis-a-vis D they were being typecast in a Hemingway v. Scott Fitzgerald, heman v. sissy way. So, to the extent that this old stereotype may subliminally continue, H types may reflexively think, gee, if the Canadian women like to indulge in a cigar after winning a tournament, the D women must live up to the Men of Dartmouth tradition by lighting up stogies after every practice.

What I've just said is, of course, very ancient history and pure bunkum as it applies to the last several decades of Dartmouth students and alumni. But the contrast was once there and I suspect the prejudice lingers at some subliminal level.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: ECAC Playoff 2012 thread

Just to add some further complicating context to a somewhat tangential aspect of this excellent in-depth discussion of the upcoming SLU-H match:

Papulaisle observed:"Too, I am for Dartmouth and Dart and Harv have perhaps somewhat of a singularly focused, say, rivalry: on each other. Not quite a grudge but rarely will Harv say good things about Green and vice versa."

The rivalry between the two colleges, as distinct from the two women's hockey programs, goes back to the mists of time, and at one time -- now, mercifully, long in the past -- was far more than a grudge, it was a Clash of Civilizations (capital letters meant to be ironic). Only people my age, perhaps, remember that before the days of women's hockey -- indeed, before the days of coeducation -- Dartmouth sported an Animal House ethos that, shall we say, contrasted with the prevalent between-the-sexes ethos of the more urban Ivies, who had to coexist with the (even at that time) quick-to-offend Seven Sisters while the Men of Dartmouth repaired to Green Mountain Junior College (which they charmingly referred to as The Groin) for their social life. Many H-Y-P chaps felt that vis-a-vis D they were being typecast in a Hemingway v. Scott Fitzgerald, heman v. sissy way. So, to the extent that this old stereotype may subliminally continue, H types may reflexively think, gee, if the Canadian women like to indulge in a cigar after winning a tournament, the D women must live up to the Men of Dartmouth tradition by lighting up stogies after every practice.

What I've just said is, of course, very ancient history and pure bunkum as it applies to the last several decades of Dartmouth students and alumni. But the contrast was once there and I suspect the prejudice lingers at some subliminal level.

Given this discussion, time to dust of this Gem for some comic relief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmDYXaaT9sA

A Harvard grad speaking at a Dartmouth Commencement. Cracks me up everytime I watch it, simply brilliant.


For what it is worth, pleased I started this discussion way back a few days ago. Never envisioned it would go this "deep".