Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Only if Mary Parker is able to return. If not, it's a factor and you can't just ignore it. It was one reason why we couldn't finish the deal against Cornell on Saturday.

I don't doubt that any team missing a player with 25 points is really going to miss their presence in the lineup. But it is not an excuse for lack of success either. It just puts more onus on other players to step up and fill the gap. That's what TEAMS are for.

I really think you are overdramatizing her individual importance both to the teams' success overall, and in implying her absence was what largely accounted for the loss to Cornell (perhaps because it meant having to play less talented players more?). Her importance to her team isn't even remotely as close as Ambrose is to Clarkson.

WRT Cornell, excluding the empty net goal, the fact is the team gave up 5 goals on only 24 shots. Wins are highly unusual with 5 goals against, and even the most offensively gifted teams very rarely score 6. Harvard's failings in this game were in the inability to defend adequately, from the goalie up through to the forwards.

Over the season, M Parker has been just middle of the pack within her team in plus/minus. In this game, the third liners and second string defensemen actually had positive plus/minus. It was not their play at all that contributed to the loss in this case. The minus stats in this game were attributable to a combination of most of Harvard's Ivy League/ECAC all-star award-winning goalie, defence, and forwards. That's where responsibility for the loss actually lies.

If Harvard is really that dependent on Mary Parker (and I don't think it is), or any team is that reliant on one player alone to be successful, that team just doesn't belong in the tournament.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

I don't doubt that any team missing a player with 25 points is really going to miss their presence in the lineup. But it is not an excuse for lack of success either. It just puts more onus on other players to step up and fill the gap. That's what TEAMS are for.

I really think you are overdramatizing her individual importance both to the teams' success overall, and in implying her absence was what largely accounted for the loss to Cornell (perhaps because it meant having to play less talented players more?). Her importance to her team isn't even remotely as close as Ambrose is to Clarkson.

WRT Cornell, excluding the empty net goal, the fact is the team gave up 5 goals on only 24 shots. Wins are highly unusual with 5 goals against, and even the most offensively gifted teams very rarely score 6. Harvard's failings in this game were in the inability to defend adequately, from the goalie up through to the forwards.

Over the season, M Parker has been just middle of the pack within her team in plus/minus. In this game, the third liners and second string defensemen actually had positive plus/minus. It was not their play at all that contributed to the loss in this case. The minus stats in this game were attributable to a combination of most of Harvard's Ivy League/ECAC all-star award-winning goalie, defence, and forwards. That's where responsibility for the loss actually lies.

If Harvard is really that dependent on Mary Parker (and I don't think it is), or any team is that reliant on one player alone to be successful, that team just doesn't belong in the tournament.

I think that Harvard is very dependent on any of their top 6 forwards (and Mary is definitely one of these) because when one is out, it creates the need to double-shift other players. So it is not only the player's individual contribution, but the broader affect of shortening an already short bench.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

I think that Harvard is very dependent on any of their top 6 forwards (and Mary is definitely one of these) because when one is out, it creates the need to double-shift other players. So it is not only the player's individual contribution, but the broader affect of shortening an already short bench.

Exactly. Hit the nail on the head here. Missing a top end player, creates a ripple effect, especially if you are already operating with a shorter roster.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

I think that Harvard is very dependent on any of their top 6 forwards (and Mary is definitely one of these) because when one is out, it creates the need to double-shift other players. So it is not only the player's individual contribution, but the broader affect of shortening an already short bench.

The NEED to double-shift? Really? Harvard is very dependent on their top 6 forwards because they choose to be. I have no doubt that their 7th, 8th and 9th forwards points-wise are quite capable as well especially given that all have double digit point totals. It is quite likely that their more modest offensive production relative to the top 6 is at least partially a function of their comparatively far more limited ice time.

Bear in mind that Harvard's leading scorer this season with 38 points was the #8 forward last season with only 13 points. Look what happened when she finally got the ice time to prove herself.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

I think the problem is more relying heavily on 9 F for the year and losing one of them, not relying on 6 F or relying on Mary in particular. This impacted the defense, surely. I haven't seen a Harvard team ever leave their goalie out to dry so many times.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Looking at box scores, Harvard SOG seem fairly balanced across the top 3 lines all regular season.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

I don't doubt that any team missing a player with 25 points is really going to miss their presence in the lineup. But it is not an excuse for lack of success either. It just puts more onus on other players to step up and fill the gap. That's what TEAMS are for.

I really think you are overdramatizing her individual importance both to the teams' success overall, and in implying her absence was what largely accounted for the loss to Cornell (perhaps because it meant having to play less talented players more?). Her importance to her team isn't even remotely as close as Ambrose is to Clarkson.

WRT Cornell, excluding the empty net goal, the fact is the team gave up 5 goals on only 24 shots. Wins are highly unusual with 5 goals against, and even the most offensively gifted teams very rarely score 6. Harvard's failings in this game were in the inability to defend adequately, from the goalie up through to the forwards.

Over the season, M Parker has been just middle of the pack within her team in plus/minus. In this game, the third liners and second string defensemen actually had positive plus/minus. It was not their play at all that contributed to the loss in this case. The minus stats in this game were attributable to a combination of most of Harvard's Ivy League/ECAC all-star award-winning goalie, defence, and forwards. That's where responsibility for the loss actually lies.

If Harvard is really that dependent on Mary Parker (and I don't think it is), or any team is that reliant on one player alone to be successful, that team just doesn't belong in the tournament.

Wow, talk about being overdramatic. I said it was a factor, I didn't say the team would collapse because she wasn't in the lineup. How can you say it isn't a factor when Crowell decides to go with two lines and sub in two other players? You don't think that wore on the team as the Cornell game went on? Sure the D didn't play well and Maschmeyer could have done a better job. And I'm not saying Mary's presence would have changed any of that. But maybe, just maybe, it would have made a difference if Harvard skated three lines consistently. To say otherwise is utter folly.

 

[clarksoncluck]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Wow, talk about being overdramatic. I said it was a factor, I didn't say the team would collapse because she wasn't in the lineup. How can you say it isn't a factor when Crowell decides to go with two lines and sub in two other players? You don't think that wore on the team as the Cornell game went on? Sure the D didn't play well and Maschmeyer could have done a better job. And I'm not saying Mary's presence would have changed any of that. But maybe, just maybe, it would have made a difference if Harvard skated three lines consistently. To say otherwise is utter folly.

Skate79 ???

Who is the 9th forward then? #14? Frazier?

They only have 15 skaters and 2 of them are White and #14. White's a D and #14 plays very little.

I watched the game in person, and I thought both goalies played well.

This was wide open offence with great scoring chances both ways.

The goals on Maschmeyer were:

1st 5 - 3 with a goal mouth pass, 2nd was a D backing into Maschmeyer and the Fulton ripping one shelf, 3rd was a 2 on 1 with Saulnier shooting blocker (1.5' of the ice), 4th was where Maschmeyer made a blocker save and was then taken out by her D (lost stick) and then puck goes to the corner and get passed out to Saulnier (where a Harvard D could have picked her stick/and didn't) and 5th was a 5 on 4 shot from the point and deflected over Maschmeyre's blocker (Brown makes a pass out of the corner and then goes to the net without being picked up). Cornell could have scored 8 - 10 (scored 5). Harvard D although a young D, should really focus on their assignments in front of the net (I didn't see sticks being controlled, I saw loose gap from the red line in.

Does anyone understand goaltending out there??? Have any of you played. It's like everyone just looks at #'s, but I would like to hear from real students of the goaltending game.

Slobodnik played well and gave up 4 goals. Harvard could have scored easily 6-7 (scored 4). I can review those goals as well if you would like.

Howe had 1 goal in 40 shots over the weekend and ends up the loser, but she had the best save %. Slobodnik wins goalie of the tourney (with 4 goals against). I don't disagree that Slobodnik should be the goalie MVP. Observers have to look at chances and really study them. If not, then really your just a fan talking trash.

I thought she (Slobodnik) deserved it, but people really don't seem to know what are great scoring chances, and what are just shots. Just saying

 

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Wow, talk about being overdramatic. I said it was a factor, I didn't say the team would collapse because she wasn't in the lineup. How can you say it isn't a factor when Crowell decides to go with two lines and sub in two other players? You don't think that wore on the team as the Cornell game went on? Sure the D didn't play well and Maschmeyer could have done a better job. And I'm not saying Mary's presence would have changed any of that. But maybe, just maybe, it would have made a difference if Harvard skated three lines consistently. To say otherwise is utter folly.

You were the one who said "only if Mary Parker is in the line-up".

I actually agree with everything you say here. You note that Crowell chooses to go with two lines and then sub in two other players into those lines. I definitely agree that the team would generally be more likely to do better if Harvard skated three lines --or even three sets of wingers and two centres in her absence--consistently. The top 6-7 F & D players with disproportional minutes would probably make far fewer mistakes from exhaustion late in games.

Perhaps the one area where we may not agree is that Harvard could certainly still do that with or without M Parker. But as we know that's not the Harvard Way, and it's even more likely to be costly vs Wisconsin.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Does anyone understand goaltending out there??? Have any of you played. It's like everyone just looks at #'s, but I would like to hear from real students of the goaltending game.

I've never been a hockey goalie, but I watched the game too (online) and completely agree with the general thrust of your assessment that the poor save pct. for Maschmeyer this time was much more about the defense being exceptionally bad than anything that she did. I've said that pretty much every post on the subject. The Harvard players quoted in the Crimson say the same. Almost no one here is saying Maschmeyer was some kind of liability in the ECAC semifinal.

 

[driventoit]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

BTW, this whole series of what has become "You be the Coach" posts was started by three observations (from Watson, dave1381 and driventoit) congratulating Harvard on getting where they are, GIVEN THEIR ISSUES, i.e. the dreaded s.b. (prefer not to type the words). In a missing-the-point scold, Skate replies "Only if Mary Parker is able to return," which is neither here nor there when it comes to acknowledging how improbably successful H has been handling their bench all season. Parker's absence threw yet another wrench in the works, handled one way in the Yale series and another in the Cornell game. All of the subsequent posts are instructive, but the fact that they are occasioned by the prospect of meeting Wisconsin in the tourney should remind us to tip our hats to a pretty impressive job all around, s.b. and all.

 

[NMH]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Hey folks, Wisco fan here looking for perspective on Maschmeyer. We obviously don't get to see any of your games out this way. She wasn't really on my radar until the Patty nod. Then we hear she was benched. Then she returned against Cornell. So what should we expect to see.
It's likely she starts, correct?

It's difficult for someone who never sees her play to understand that Patty Top 10 when you look at stats that say she wasn't even the top goalie in her conference. But I'm guessing it wasn't a bribe or a fluke.

So can someone who has watched her all season tell us the situation with what got her the national attention, what's the situation with the "benching" - is it streaky play, etc ... - and what should we expect to see on Saturday?

Thanks!

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Skate79 ???

Who is the 9th forward then? #14? Frazier?

They only have 15 skaters and 2 of them are White and #14. White's a D and #14 plays very little.

If Mary Parker doesn't play, then Hannah Zarzecki, #14 in your program, is the ninth forward. Abby Frazier has played forward but she has focused on D this year and I doubt that the coaches are going to move her up front and start playing Robin White #11 as the fifth D. Too late for that move.

On Maschmeyer and let me set the record straight here since some people are taking my posts out of context. I never said she was a terrible goalie or that she didn't deserve to start. She had a so-so game against Yale in the first game of the series and the coach decided to start Laing in games two and three. Ask yourself this question - with the season on the line, why would a coach go with a goalie who has played so little and put her in the ultimate pressure situation if she 1. didn't have confidence that Brianna could do the job and 2. has some serious reservations about Maschmeyer. I also speculated that injury or fatigue may be a factor. MAY BE A FACTOR. OKAY? I didn't say she didn't deserve to start. Obviously Crowell felt good enough about going back to her for the Cornell game. I'm not blaming the loss on Maschmeyer. Saying she could have played better is not pinning it on her. The D could have played better; the forwards could have played better. I'm sure the team would say the same.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

You were the one who said "only if Mary Parker is in the line-up".

I actually agree with everything you say here. You note that Crowell chooses to go with two lines and then sub in two other players into those lines. I definitely agree that the team would generally be more likely to do better if Harvard skated three lines --or even three sets of wingers and two centres in her absence--consistently. The top 6-7 F & D players with disproportional minutes would probably make far fewer mistakes from exhaustion late in games.

Perhaps the one area where we may not agree is that Harvard could certainly still do that with or without M Parker. But as we know that's not the Harvard Way, and it's even more likely to be costly vs Wisconsin.

Especially against Wisconsin. They got away with against Yale because the Eli do not have firepower up front. Cornell does and Wisconsin most certainly is a very talented team. Stands to reason that if you are missing an important player who kills penalties and plays on your PP, you will feel it. Doesn't mean Harvard can't win but their strategy of shortening an already short bench flies in the face of reason when you are going up against a deeper team.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

In a missing-the-point scold, Skate replies "Only if Mary Parker is able to return," which is neither here nor there when it comes to acknowledging how improbably successful H has been handling their bench all season. Parker's absence threw yet another wrench in the works, handled one way in the Yale series and another in the Cornell game. All of the subsequent posts are instructive, but the fact that they are occasioned by the prospect of meeting Wisconsin in the tourney should remind us to tip our hats to a pretty impressive job all around, s.b. and all.

What point exactly am I missing? Where did I say that Harvard didn't do a great job getting to the ECAC semis? Read my post after they beat Yale. I specifically pointed out that they played with tremendous heart and courage given what they had to overcome. My point was that if Mary misses this game, it becomes even more difficult going up against a WCHA foe that presumably has better depth. I haven't seen Wisconsin this year but in past years, that team can skate four lines and run you out of a building. Going short against them is a very difficult proposition. How is that scolding???

 

[selfesteam]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

For starters you shouldn't be talking to the players regarding their injuries....its none of your business.....after they respond to your self serving interrogation you find it necessary to blab on the thread that they do indeed have a concussion...why would you want to broadcast something like that??? Don't bother the players ...just be a spectator

 

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Especially against Wisconsin. They got away with against Yale because the Eli do not have firepower up front. Cornell does and Wisconsin most certainly is a very talented team. Stands to reason that if you are missing an important player who kills penalties and plays on your PP, you will feel it. Doesn't mean Harvard can't win but their strategy of shortening an already short bench flies in the face of reason when you are going up against a deeper team.

It's interesting how we all tend to have pre-conceptions of teams based on history that are not always accurate, as well as personal biases obviously.

I have not watched Wisconsin in a couple of years, but i too had assumed that Wisconsin would have had a lot of firepower and roster depth, more like Minnesota.

Having watched the Gophers live this season, I would have to say they are head and shoulders above any other team I have seen, and other than Wisconsin, I've seen the other 7 in the tournament. (The next best in my opinion would be Clarkson, who are quite a ways behind, then a bunch of others another step behind....but that's a whole other post.)

To keep this discussion about Harvard's upcoming challenge relative to its past ones as objective as possible, I decided to crunch some numbers to assess its relative "firepower" to use Skate's term and depth through the lineup. I calculated goals per game per player based on their games played and grouped them in units, to see whether our assumption that Wisconsin was significantly different than Cornell, or for that matter, Yale. The assumption in all cases is that all rostered players are healthy and available to play. Here's what I learned on an equivalized goals per game basis:

From Top 3 Forwards Harvard (w MP) 1.64 Harvard (w/o MP) 1.46 Yale 1.53 Cornell 1.90 Wisco 1.39
From 4th to 6th Forwards Harvard (w MP) 0.72 Harvard (w/o MP) 0.62 Yale 0.70 Cornell 0.64 Wisco 0.81
From 7th to 9th Forwards Harvard (w MP) 0.42 Harvard (w/o MP) 0.25 Yale 0.19 Cornell 0.31 Wisco 0.36
Additional Forwards Harvard (w MP) 0.00 Harvard (w/o MP) --- Yale 0.03 Cornell 0.09 Wisco 0.16

Goals from All Defense Harvard (w MP) 0.33 Harvard (w/o MP) 0.33 Yale 0.44 Cornell 0.73 Wisco 0.36

TOTAL Goals per Game Harvard (w MP) 3.11 Harvard (w/o MP) 2.66 Yale 2.89 Cornell 3.67 Wisco 3.08

As has been discussed, Mary Parker has not yet been able to play in the post-season, and her presence does have a significant impact on Harvard's lineup as the numbers do clearly illustrate.

Surprisingly, assuming healthy line-ups all around, Wisconsin really doesn't have anywhere near the firepower of Cornell, either in their Top 6 forwards, or even moreso in their Defense. They really don't seem to have any significant advantage vs Harvard offensively at all, except perhaps in their ability to use extra forwards to rest key players.

If she is cleared, Harvard seems to match up just fine vs Wisconsin after all. Even if she isn't, at least offensively, Wisconsin doesn't look particularly daunting as compared to Cornell.

 

[KTDC]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Surprisingly, assuming healthy line-ups all around, Wisconsin really doesn't have anywhere near the firepower of Cornell, either in their Top 6 forwards, or even moreso in their Defense. They really don't seem to have any significant advantage vs Harvard offensively at all, except perhaps in their ability to use extra forwards to rest key players.

If she is cleared, Harvard seems to match up just fine vs Wisconsin after all. Even if she isn't, at least offensively, Wisconsin doesn't look particularly daunting as compared to Cornell.

Those are interesting stats and it's a good analysis. But the strength of Wisconsin all year has been their defense, and their downfall has been lack of firepower. They were rated number one defensively all year until the final series against Minnesota in mid-Feb. Wisconsin can skate, and can apply pressure, it's just if they can put it in the net. Or as Mark Johnson said, "get the fish all the way into the boat".

 

[KTDC]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Wisconsin doesn't look particularly daunting as compared to Cornell.

………………….or to put it another way, Wisconsin is beatable because they have trouble scoring, but they are very difficult to beat because it's so hard to score on them.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

………………….or to put it another way, Wisconsin is beatable because they have trouble scoring, but they are very difficult to beat because it's so hard to score on them.

I expected as much though I hadn't analyzed the numbers. That's why I said "at least offensively, Wisconsin isn't as daunting as Cornell". A team doesn't get ranked consistently in top 5 all season without having one or the other.