Harvard 2021-22: Back to Work

[thirdtime's . . .]

H3 Q2 F

(Harvard's second win over a ranked opponent since BC)

 

[Scott_TG]

Harvard played well and had a little bit of luck after the Stefan-esque whiff at the mouth of the empty net.

 

[Skate79]

Great weekend for the Lady Crimson. Sweeping Pinceton and Qpac in their buildings is tough and i thought the Crimson acquitted themselves very well. I don’t think the Bobcats are as good as their ranking. And certainly the Crimson deserve to move up. Was hoping that Becky Dutton would get the three peat shut out. Two one goal wins on the road has to be a confidence boost going into next weekend. Hoping that Harvard lifts the spectator restrictions although I’m not holding my breath.

 

[Watson Rink]

Hoping that Harvard lifts the spectator restrictions although I’m not holding my breath.

Problem is that they may not be commonsensical enough to distinguish between crowded, dangerous events like men's basketball and hockey or squash, and socially distanced events like women's hockey.

 

[Watson Rink]

Yes, wonderful streak...five and oh over the last nine days, whipping some undermanned teams and shaving by some quite good teams, mostly on the road. Dutton has played the best hockey of her career.

Is it too early for prognostications?

Don't be too complacent about the current standings, because everybody else has a couple games in hand on us, and Yale has an exceptionally easy schedule remaining. So here are the remaining opponents for the conference leaders:

Hvd: Clarkson, Q, Colgate, Pr, StL, Cornell, RPI and U. Predict at least 17 points for a total of 51+ points
Yale: Clarkson, Q, Pr, StL, RPI 2, Union 2, Brown 2,Predict at least 23 points for a total of 51.5+ points
Q: Hvd, Y, Clarkson, Colgate, Stl, Cornell, RPI, Br, D,Predict at least 21 points for a total of 48+ points
Clarkson: Hvd, Y, Q, Colgate 2, Cornell, Pr, Br, D 2,Predict at least 19 points for a total of 47.5+ points
Colgate: Hvd, Cl, Q, Cornell, Pr, Stl, RPI, , D 2, U,Predict at least 21 points for a total of 43.5+ points
Pr:Hvd, Y, Clarkson, Colgate, Stl, Cornell, RPI, Br, D,Predict at least 22.5 points for a total of 42+ points
StL:Hvd, Y, Q, Colgate 2, Cornell, Pr, Br, D 2,Predict at least 18 points for a total of 40+ points

 

[Watson Rink]

Much as it was satisfying to see Harvard clock as good a team as Clarkson (scoring a superabundance of goals that admittedly would have been more useful in any of the seven consecutive losses to Clarkson going back to [gulp!] 2013), here is the headline that will immortalize this game:

KATEY PLAYED A FIFTH LINE!

Well....Admittedly, the player who climbed onto the ice was ineligible because she wasn't on the game roster, but was, nonetheless, a 13th forward, and it therefore counts as using a fifth line, sort of.

 

[Watson Rink]

Keeley Moy alert!
Switzerland and Canada will play at 11:10 pm Eastern on Wednesday, February 2 and that game will air live on USA Network in the US.
What if Emerance Maschmeyer gets the nod in goal?

 

[ARM]

... Yale has an exceptionally easy schedule remaining. So here are the remaining opponents for the conference leaders:

Hvd: Clarkson, Q, Colgate, Pr, StL, Cornell, RPI and U. Predict at least 17 points for a total of 51+ points
Yale: Clarkson, Q, Pr, StL, RPI 2, Union 2, Brown 2,Predict at least 23 points for a total of 51.5+ points

On paper, it seemed that way.

 

[thirdtime's . . .]

KATEY PLAYED A FIFTH LINE!

Some eagle-eyed sleuth on the Clarkson bench called the refs’ attention to an “illegal lineup,” and sure enough, Harvard got a minor team penalty for the appearance on ice (very briefly, which I know is neither here nor there) of a skater who wasn’t on the dance card. Wow. I don’t know who made the illicit appearance, but it wasn’t Botterill or Ruggiero (which I also know is neither here nor there). The penalty was called at the start of the second period (00:00 in the box score), so the discovery must have been made at the first intermission, with H up 4-1 (which I know again is neither here nor there). But wow again. I guess it’s in the Rules & Regs, but the ensuing successful PK was the most gratifying PK I have ever held my breath for.

 

[Skate79]

Much as it was satisfying to see Harvard clock as good a team as Clarkson (scoring a superabundance of goals that admittedly would have been more useful in any of the seven consecutive losses to Clarkson going back to [gulp!] 2013), here is the headline that will immortalize this game:

KATEY PLAYED A FIFTH LINE!

Well....Admittedly, the player who climbed onto the ice was ineligible because she wasn't on the game roster, but was, nonetheless, a 13th forward, and it therefore counts as using a fifth line, sort of.

Yeah, that was surprising about the additional player. Never would have thought that would happen to the Crimson. Nonetheless, tremendous to finally take out the frustrations of the past six or seven years on Clarkson. Harvard was overdue for a game like this one.

The schedule is going to be tough given the makeups. Wondering if they will make up the SLU game. That's a long trip for one game but I'm guessing there will be standings ramifications for both teams. Thinking that Harvard may have to play that game on the Monday or Tuesday after the Union/RPI weekend.

 

[thirdtime's . . .]

For yesterday’s game I had to rely on live stats for the first time in a very long time, and what a trip it was! Eighty percent of the shots came “from behind the net” and, not surprisingly, MISSED. Most of the rest came “from the rear center of the attack zone” and were invariably WIDE. There was one outlier “from the neutral zone” (MISSED!), and just a few “from in front of the goal,” but their fate was unknown. GOAL did pop up five times, but none of them seemed to come from any direction at all. The one feature I did appreciate from this ticker tape was the names of the players on ice during the scores. That’s the last thing some of our “play by play” guys think to give us fans squinting at a live feed.

It occurred to me that this had to be the first time at Matthews for these Harvard players. Old hat to HE, but a treat for first-timers, a real throwback barn. Ticker tape in a good sense. And even if the attendance was half of the 1,250 announced, it must have seemed like a Stanley Cup game to these Covid-starved athletes.

In the second game I was hoping for a Huskies win, since Harvard needs to go ten rounds with a heavyweight before the tournaments begin, but the Beanpot finals tend to bring out the heavyweight in everyone, so I’ll happily settle for BC.

 

[Watson Rink]

Some eagle-eyed sleuth on the Clarkson bench called the refs’ attention to an “illegal lineup,” and sure enough, Harvard got a minor team penalty for the appearance on ice (very briefly, which I know is neither here nor there) of a skater who wasn’t on the dance card. Wow. I don’t know who made the illicit appearance, but it wasn’t Botterill or Ruggiero (which I also know is neither here nor there). The penalty was called at the start of the second period (00:00 in the box score), so the discovery must have been made at the first intermission, with H up 4-1 (which I know again is neither here nor there). But wow again. I guess it’s in the Rules & Regs, but the ensuing successful PK was the most gratifying PK I have ever held my breath for.[/COLOR

Remember the decade or more of coaches stopping play to challenge the bend, camber, torque or whatever of "banana blade" sticks?
Thank goodness that fad went away!

 

[Watson Rink]

It occurred to me that this had to be the first time at Matthews for these Harvard players. Old hat to HE, but a treat for first-timers, a real throwback barn.

And, speaking of throwbacks, does anybody else remember those places near the Arena (sorry, Matthews Arena) that were eager to address the thirsts of under-drinking-age fans...such as The Tam or Crusher Casey's?

 

[Watson Rink]

Well...........when was the last time you saw a shorty scored in a 6-on-3 situation? From 190 feet away?

Here's Emma Buckles' chance to come up with some tongue-in-cheek quotes:

Q - "After the second penalty was called, were you surprised to score right off the draw? A - "No, once we realized it was a 6-on-3 we remembered the set play off the faceoff just like we've always practiced it."
Q - "when did you last practice it?" A - "sophomore year, I think."
Q - "what did Coach say?" "She chewed out KDR because the draw back was our second option set play: KDR was supposed to win the other way and put it in the net herself."
Q - "What was your third option?" A - "That I pass it to the goalie and let her take the shot."
A- "By the way, it wasn't a 190 foot goal". Q - "No?" A- "No, I was cheating up from the goal line. It was only about 187 feet."

 

[Skate79]

Well...........when was the last time you saw a shorty scored in a 6-on-3 situation? From 190 feet away?

Here's Emma Buckles' chance to come up with some tongue-in-cheek quotes:

Q - "After the second penalty was called, were you surprised to score right off the draw? A - "No, once we realized it was a 6-on-3 we remembered the set play off the faceoff just like we've always practiced it."
Q - "when did you last practice it?" A - "sophomore year, I think."
Q - "what did Coach say?" "She chewed out KDR because the draw back was our second option set play: KDR was supposed to win the other way and put it in the net herself."
Q - "What was your third option?" A - "That I pass it to the goalie and let her take the shot."
A- "By the way, it wasn't a 190 foot goal". Q - "No?" A- "No, I was cheating up from the goal line. It was only about 187 feet."

While it was a great draw and play by KDR and Buckles, the fact that Harvard was down 6 on 3 was inexcusable. They lacked discipline and focus in taking those penalties and it could have been disastrous for the Crimson. From near the end of the second period until the final whistle, Harvard played far too loose in their D zone and it almost cost them. The power play saved their bacon yesterday.

 

[Watson Rink]

While it was a great draw and play by KDR and Buckles, the fact that Harvard was down 6 on 3 was inexcusable. They lacked discipline and focus in taking those penalties and it could have been disastrous for the Crimson. From near the end of the second period until the final whistle, Harvard played far too loose in their D zone and it almost cost them. The power play saved their bacon yesterday.

Agree, especially when they must have been aware how the PK had fared against Colgate's power play just the day before

 

[Watson Rink]

Updated predictions reflecting Saturday'a results but not Sunday's results: the same parity among the top five ECAC teams that we see reflected in the Pairwise and the polls also suggests a down to the wire horse race in the ECAC itself. Qualifying for one of the top three seeds will mean you'll avoid facing a national top ten opponent early on, as the fourth and fifth seeds will have to do. Imagine finishing in the top ten in the national poll and having to play an away series against another top ten team...in the initial round of your own conference tourney!

My guesses:

Hvd: Q, Pr, StL, RPI and U.(Previous prediction 51.5+) Predict at least 11 points for a total of 51+ points
Yale: Q, Clarkson, StL, Pr, U. (Previous prediction 51.5+) Predict at least 11 points for a total of 49.5+ points
Q: Hvd, Y, StL, RPI, Br, D. (Previous prediction 48+) Predict at least 14 points for a total of 47+ points
Clarkson: Y, Colgate, Cornell, Br. (Previous prediction 47.5+) Predict at least 8.5 points for a total of 47+ points
Colgate: Clarkson, Cornell (2), Stl, RPI, U. (Previous prediction 43.5+) Predict at least 15 points for a total of 45.5+ points
Pr: Hvd, Y, Br, D 2. (Previous prediction 42+) Predict at least 9.5 points for a total of 32.5+ points
StL:Hvd, Y, Q, Colgate, Cornell, Br. (Previous prediction 40+) Predict at least 7 points for a total of 38+ points

 

[thirdtime's . . .]

Well...........when was the last time you saw a shorty scored in a 6-on-3 situation? From 190 feet away?

Allow me to get back to the shorty for a moment. D zone draws aren’t a usual feature of pond hockey, but freeze this at 1:06 and you can picture a classic pond hockey scene: a menacing swarm of local youngsters poised to take on a few older siblings — all for naught. A beautiful goal as empty netters go.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipoFveVwh1sr

 

[Watson Rink]

Allow me to get back to the shorty for a moment. D zone draws aren’t a usual feature of pond hockey, but freeze this at 1:06 and you can picture a classic pond hockey scene: a menacing swarm of local youngsters poised to take on a few older siblings — all for naught. A beautiful goal as empty netters go.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipoFveVwh1sr

Okay, and let's also imagine Buckles giving a parody of the cliched interview with the old-time NHL player: "you think that shot was a fluke? Hey....my parents did build a rink in our back yard but it wasn't full size, and I knew that some day I would need some skills that a rink that size couldn't teach. So every night after I finished milking the cows I would take a lantern, a shovel and a bucket of pucks out onto Lake Wissiwassiassinippi, shovel off a lane 200 feet long, put my two mittens at the far end as a goal and fire all the pucks the length of the lane. 200 pucks every night. It was hard work, but I knew it would be necessary to my development as a 200 foot player."

 

[Watson Rink]

Yesterday's upsets have put a crimp in Q and Colgate's chances to finish among the top three seeds, though a single loss doesn't entirely clap a stopper on their antics (to use a phrase from the Aubrey/Maturin novels).

And Cornell and StL's accomplishments yesterday remind us that having to face them in the first round will not be exactly a picnic for the top seeds.

Guesses:

Hvd: Q, Pr, StL, RPI and U.(Previous prediction 51.5+) Predict at least 11 points for a total of 51+ points
Yale: Q, Clarkson, StL, Pr, U. (Previous prediction 51.5+) Predict at least 11 points for a total of 49.5+ points
Q: Hvd, Y, RPI, Br, D. (Previous prediction 47.5+) Predict at least 11 points for a total of 44+ points
Clarkson: Y, Colgate, Cornell, Br. (Previous prediction 47.5+) Predict at least 8.5 points for a total of 47+ points
Colgate: Clarkson, Cornell, Stl, RPI, U. (Previous prediction 45.5+) Predict at least 11.5 points for a total of 42+ points
Pr: Hvd, Y, Br, D 2. (Previous prediction 42+) Predict at least 9.5 points for a total of 32.5+ points
StL:Hvd, Y, Colgate, Cornell, Br. (Previous prediction 38.5+) Predict at least 7.5 points for a total of 41.5 points
and now
Cornell: Clarkson, Colgate, StL, RPI, U. Predict at least 9.5 points for a total of 36.5+ points