Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

[Call It]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Daniels, nasty? That must be the PC adjective. Dirty is more like it. A gritty player is gritty, a dirty player is a gritty player who crosses the line to often. Why does she play like that? Is it because she gets mad that she doesn't score every shift or the opponents play her hard?

Her play with the puck is good. Her play with out the puck is C- at best. Because of that, I don't think USA Hockey will be calling again.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Daniels, nasty? That must be the PC adjective. Dirty is more like it. A gritty player is gritty, a dirty player is a gritty player who crosses the line to often. Why does she play like that? Is it because she gets mad that she doesn't score every shift or the opponents play her hard?

Her play with the puck is good. Her play with out the puck is C- at best. Because of that, I don't think USA Hockey will be calling again.

I wouldn't go there and I'm not just saying that because I'm a Harvard supporter and alum. I've seen her play in person. The worst you can say is that her hits from behind are uncalled for and unnecessary. But I define 'dirty' as someone who intentionally looks to harm another player and I've seen plenty of that from opposing players over the years. Leg whips, high sticks, taking runs at defenseless players, it keeps getting worse every year because the line between the 'body checking' penalty and what is not called keeps expanding. Inconsistency by the officials has led to this in women's hockey and it won't turn around until the rules are enforced. Daniels plays aggressive because that is the direction of women's hockey, not because she is dirty.

 

[D2D]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

The worst you can say is that her hits from behind are uncalled for and unnecessary.

However you define "dirty" the hits from behind can and do cause the worst imaginable injuries.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

However you define "dirty" the hits from behind can and do cause the worst imaginable injuries.

I'm not saying that they can't cause injury but there is a line that is crossed with some players and I just don't feel like Daniels is that type of player. Intent does play a role whether you like it or not.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

I'm not saying that they can't cause injury but there is a line that is crossed with some players and I just don't feel like Daniels is that type of player. Intent does play a role whether you like it or not.

If she consistently checks opponents from behind into the boards, she is that kind of player.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

I wouldn't go there and I'm not just saying that because I'm a Harvard supporter and alum. I've seen her play in person. The worst you can say is that her hits from behind are uncalled for and unnecessary. y.

Hits from behind are not just unnecessary, they are dangerous. Full stop. As dirty as it gets. Intention is irrelevant. Anyone doing it should be thrown out of the game. Until they get the message. And if you are doing it repeatedly, it is intentional. Deliberately running goalies to take them out of the game is just as cheap.

There should be no place in the game for players who choose to play that way. Players lives beyond hockey are at stake.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Hits from behind are not just unnecessary, they are dangerous. Full stop. As dirty as it gets. Intention is irrelevant. Anyone doing it should be thrown out of the game. Until they get the message. And if you are doing it repeatedly, it is intentional. Deliberately running goalies to take them out of the game is just as cheap.

There should be no place in the game for players who choose to play that way. Players lives beyond hockey are at stake.

Then be prepared to toss some players out next season because the game is getting more physical and it isn't just Daniels. Harvard players have taken more than a few shots - Sarah Edney got hit several times this season from behind including the Yale series. Look, I'm not an advocate for this type of play. I agree that serious injury can result. But until the game is enforced by the officials to cut out that nonsense, you will see more of it. You don't like running goalies? How did you like the Canada-US game in December that resulted in a fight? Think the officials could have exerted more influence? Players will take what the officials give them until the officials start whistling these infractions.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

If she consistently checks opponents from behind into the boards, she is that kind of player.

She doesn't do it consistently. If she did, she'd break all kinds of records for penalty minutes.

 

[Watson Rink]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Nice accolade for Maschmeyer. Posting it here rather than on the "Top Five Goalies" thread (which already has something like a dozen nominees), in hopes of avoiding a howl of criticism to the effect of "who are these coaches to think they can better assess goaltenders than we posters are qualified to?"

"HAMDEN, Conn. – Harvard sophomore goaltender Emerance Maschmeyer has been named a Second Team AHCA All-American, the American Hockey Coaches Association announced Thursday. Maschmeyer becomes the 10th Crimson in program history to be tabbed an All-American, and the first since Sarah Vaillancourt '08-09 brought home the honors in 2009.

Maschmeyer backstopped the Crimson to an Ivy League title, an appearance in the ECAC Semifinals and the program's 10th trip to the NCAA tournament in 2013-14. The Bruderheim, Alberta, native was near the top of the nation in every goaltending category this season, including save percentage (.943) and goals against average (1.75).

After earning a 16-7-4 record between the pipes, Maschmeyer raked in regional and national attention for her stellar season; aside from being dubbed an All-American, Maschmeyer was named a Patty Kazmaier Memorial Award Top-10 Finalist, the ECAC Goaltender of the Year and the Co-Ivy League Player of the Year.

Harvard enjoyed a 23-7-4 record, going 16-3-3 in the ECAC this season, picking up an Ivy League title and the No. 2 spot in the ECAC tournament along the way, before ending its season in the NCAA Quarterfinals in Madison, Wis.

 

[Blackbeard]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Nice accolade for Maschmeyer. Posting it here rather than on the "Top Five Goalies" thread (which already has something like a dozen nominees), in hopes of avoiding a howl of criticism to the effect of "who are these coaches to think they can better assess goaltenders than we posters are qualified to?"

Every head coach that I have ever personally known has voluntarily and openly admitted that they knew absolutely nothing about goaltending. And, unless they had been a goaltender themselves at some point, rightfully so, because it is a very technical position and most people know close to nothing about it but everyone has an opinion. (And with each successive confession I admired their honesty).

At this level it is no different except that the head coaches get their information from the goalie coach on staff and form their opinions that way.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Post season awards and captains for next season's team. Interesting that all three captains are players who were not with the team this year.

http://www.gocrimson.com/sports/wice/2013-14/releases/20140419qazwag

 

[UCONN FAN]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Every head coach that I have ever personally known has voluntarily and openly admitted that they knew absolutely nothing about goaltending. And, unless they had been a goaltender themselves at some point, rightfully so, because it is a very technical position and most people know close to nothing about it but everyone has an opinion. (And with each successive confession I admired their honesty).

At this level it is no different except that the head coaches get their information from the goalie coach on staff and form their opinions that way.

The goalie that has the most pucks in front her and not behind her is your goalie.

 

[Blackbeard]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

The goalie that has the most pucks in front her and not behind her is your goalie.

Seems logical when you say it fast enough. Should be that way.

But sometimes it just doesn't work out that way when there is politics, power and leverage at play. And, for good measure if it exists, you can add in the variable of any party to the situation not thinking that it's important to keep their commitments.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Post season awards and captains for next season's team. Interesting that all three captains are players who were not with the team this year.

http://www.gocrimson.com/sports/wice/2013-14/releases/20140419qazwag

There are a number of quite interesting aspects to this. Do all teams elect captains based purely on a team vote of current players? Can it be assumed that this is the case at Harvard?

1) If so, it's particularly surprising that all captains were named from among non-rostered players , especially given that this year's team is quite "bottom heavy", ie. skewed largely to freshmen and sophomores. In that context, it's even more surprising that one of the captains would have received sufficient votes given that more than 2/3 of the roster has never played with her at all.

2) Similarly, 38% of the team has never played with the other two named captains, and the rest did so more than a year ago, as you already mentioned. Was there intervention in the process perhaps?

3) Given the success of the team this past season, which many felt performed above expectations, it makes it especially surprising that the leadership potential of all those currently rostered were believed not deserving of the honor of being at least one of the captains.

4) In fact, those passed over for leadership roles included both the current captain, but also a former National U18 captain, both rising seniors. Apparently both were seen as being inferior in leadership potential to not only one, but 3 less-known entities, at least in terms of their day to day interactions and personal familiarity with those on the current roster. That had to hurt.

5) What is with the naming of 3 captains for one team anyway? I've never understood this at all. It seems to be relatively common for Harvard, though I can't recall it happening too often elsewhere (other than SLU this season). For what purpose? One captain and 2 assistants makes far more sense....or even co-captains if two potentially good leaders exist who get along and have complementary skills.

Do they each vote for one captain, and don't try to break ties, or are they voting for three from the outset? Does it mean that a team is so divided they can't agree on who should be in charge? Is no one seen as being a sufficiently good leader that they feel a troika is necessary? Can't they make a decision? Is it perhaps that the coach worries about ceding too much potential team power in the hands of one player?

Having spoken to some who've been led by a troika of captains in the past, it generally creates really big problems within a team. It's virtually impossible for 3 individuals to share a common view of how to do things, much less lead everyone consistently in the same direction---and even that presupposes the 3 get along really well to begin with....which often tends not to be the case. While it's much tougher to be successful as 1 of 3 captains in that context--and some actually do--, (versus sole or co-captaincy) it also is far more likely to lead to abdication of responsibilities by each, with the rationale that there are others also in the role to pick up the slack. While a poor choice of sole or co-captains can also be problematic, I can't fathom why any team would to add to the challenges of creating the right leadership environment.

What am I missing?

 

[charlieconway]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

There are a number of quite interesting aspects to this. Do all teams elect captains based purely on a team vote of current players? Can it be assumed that this is the case at Harvard?

1) If so, it's particularly surprising that all captains were named from among non-rostered players , especially given that this year's team is quite "bottom heavy", ie. skewed largely to freshmen and sophomores. In that context, it's even more surprising that one of the captains would have received sufficient votes given that more than 2/3 of the roster has never played with her at all.

2) Similarly, 38% of the team has never played with the other two named captains, and the rest did so more than a year ago, as you already mentioned. Was there intervention in the process perhaps?

3) Given the success of the team this past season, which many felt performed above expectations, it makes it especially surprising that the leadership potential of all those currently rostered were believed not deserving of the honor of being at least one of the captains.

4) In fact, those passed over for leadership roles included both the current captain, but also a former National U18 captain, both rising seniors. Apparently both were seen as being inferior in leadership potential to not only one, but 3 less-known entities, at least in terms of their day to day interactions and personal familiarity with those on the current roster. That had to hurt.

5) What is with the naming of 3 captains for one team anyway? I've never understood this at all. It seems to be relatively common for Harvard, though I can't recall it happening too often elsewhere (other than SLU this season). For what purpose? One captain and 2 assistants makes far more sense....or even co-captains if two potentially good leaders exist who get along and have complementary skills.

Do they each vote for one captain, and don't try to break ties, or are they voting for three from the outset? Does it mean that a team is so divided they can't agree on who should be in charge? Is no one seen as being a sufficiently good leader that they feel a troika is necessary? Can't they make a decision? Is it perhaps that the coach worries about ceding too much potential team power in the hands of one player?

Having spoken to some who've been led by a troika of captains in the past, it generally creates really big problems within a team. It's virtually impossible for 3 individuals to share a common view of how to do things, much less lead everyone consistently in the same direction---and even that presupposes the 3 get along really well to begin with....which often tends not to be the case. While it's much tougher to be successful as 1 of 3 captains in that context--and some actually do--, (versus sole or co-captaincy) it also is far more likely to lead to abdication of responsibilities by each, with the rationale that there are others also in the role to pick up the slack. While a poor choice of sole or co-captains can also be problematic, I can't fathom why any team would to add to the challenges of creating the right leadership environment.

What am I missing?

Catch your breath. I'm sure the team picked its leadership group the same way it has for years. And even more certain the players had a strong say in who will take on those roles. Whether the additional two captains wear the "A" or "C", one person almost always separates him or herself as the lead dog on any team at the higher levels. If nothing else, I see rolling three legit captains as a way to reward a couple more players for all the hard work they put in both academically and for their team in a career. Being able to mention "former varsity captain at Harvard University" on a résumé can't hurt after these kids graduate and take on some of the most competitive job markets in the world. Former assistant captain doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

I'd say being able to hand the reigns to two returning Olympians and a former nominated captain in Armstrong (99% sure on that) is a pretty good problem to have.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Catch your breath. I'm sure the team picked its leadership group the same way it has for years. And even more certain the players had a strong say in who will take on those roles. Whether the additional two captains wear the "A" or "C", one person almost always separates him or herself as the lead dog on any team at the higher levels. If nothing else, I see rolling three legit captains as a way to reward a couple more players for all the hard work they put in both academically and for their team in a career. Being able to mention "former varsity captain at Harvard University" on a résumé can't hurt after these kids graduate and take on some of the most competitive job markets in the world. Former assistant captain doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

I'd say being able to hand the reigns to two returning Olympians and a former nominated captain in Armstrong (99% sure on that) is a pretty good problem to have.

Who the selected individuals are, or whether it's Harvard or any other school is irrelevant to the point being made. I don't doubt these players are capable (though I wouldn't necessarily agree that anyone's lofty playing abilities necessarily correlated particularly strongly with superior leadership skills : Easily the best captain one of my kids ever had along the way was a 4th line player who rarely saw ice time, but eventually graduated from HBS). However I also don't doubt each would be much more capable of providing strong team leadership if not part of a triumverate, which is the crux of it.

I am very well aware of the potential value of a captaincy on a resume. However, I was unaware this was an important or even valid reason to choose captains. Surely the rationale for electing leaders to a team isn't about padding future resumes or rewarding specific individuals, but ensuring the team as a whole has the best possible structure to function optimally. To take your point to an extreme to show it's absurdity, why don't you make everyone captain then (to reward more players for all the hard work they put in) ? Or the whole senior class? But of course, being one of 12, or 6, or 3 captains (or assistants) does not have quite the same resume punch as being THE captain. It doesn't really fool too many people.

The optimal functioning of any unit, whether a sports team or a business, relies to a great extent on strong cohesive leadership, which is the reason you put individuals in leadership roles. How many companies do you know who appoint 3 leaders as CEO, to reward them for all the work they put in? Why do think this doesn't happen? Would you want to work for a company with 3 CEOs? Giving three people the same role and expecting them to fight it out between them to be "lead dog" will never be a good recipe leading to the smooth and optimal functioning of an organization, regardless of their separate leadership skills. It also promotes a lot of unneeded drama, disunity, and frustration for the rest of the team.

If it actually worked, you'd see it a lot more often.

 

[charlieconway]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Who the selected individuals are, or whether it's Harvard or any other school is irrelevant to the point being made. I don't doubt these players are capable (though I wouldn't necessarily agree that anyone's lofty playing abilities necessarily correlated particularly strongly with superior leadership skills : Easily the best captain one of my kids ever had along the way was a 4th line player who rarely saw ice time, but eventually graduated from HBS). However I also don't doubt each would be much more capable of providing strong team leadership if not part of a triumverate, which is the crux of it.

I am very well aware of the potential value of a captaincy on a resume. However, I was unaware this was an important or even valid reason to choose captains. Surely the rationale for electing leaders to a team isn't about padding future resumes or rewarding specific individuals, but ensuring the team as a whole has the best possible structure to function optimally. To take your point to an extreme to show it's absurdity, why don't you make everyone captain then (to reward more players for all the hard work they put in) ? Or the whole senior class? But of course, being one of 12, or 6, or 3 captains (or assistants) does not have quite the same resume punch as being THE captain. It doesn't really fool too many people.

The optimal functioning of any unit, whether a sports team or a business, relies to a great extent on strong cohesive leadership, which is the reason you put individuals in leadership roles. How many companies do you know who appoint 3 leaders as CEO, to reward them for all the work they put in? Why do think this doesn't happen? Would you want to work for a company with 3 CEOs? Giving three people the same role and expecting them to fight it out between them to be "lead dog" will never be a good recipe leading to the smooth and optimal functioning of an organization, regardless of their separate leadership skills. It also promotes a lot of unneeded drama, disunity, and frustration for the rest of the team.

If it actually worked, you'd see it a lot more often.

"Make everyone a captain, give everyone a ribbon" was absolutely not the gist of my post. You couldn't have taken me any more out of context. Just speculating all "Cs" could be a bit of a reward for three players instead of one, especially if 2/3 of the group would stand to be an assistant captain anyway.

What's with the comparison to companies and CEOs? This board has made me laugh to the point of tears with posts comparing the women's game to the NHL. Somehow you've managed to top that preposterous comparison. Gold star for you today!

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

There are a number of quite interesting aspects to this. Do all teams elect captains based purely on a team vote of current players? Can it be assumed that this is the case at Harvard?

I don't know about other teams. What i have been told is that the players elect the captain(s) at Harvard.

1) If so, it's particularly surprising that all captains were named from among non-rostered players , especially given that this year's team is quite "bottom heavy", ie. skewed largely to freshmen and sophomores. In that context, it's even more surprising that one of the captains would have received sufficient votes given that more than 2/3 of the roster has never played with her at all.

Not so surprising. In '03, Jennifer Botterill was named captain after returning from the '02 Olympics to a team that had a disproportionate number of freshman and sophomores. Same with Julie Chu in '07 although that team had more players who knew her and played with her.

2) Similarly, 38% of the team has never played with the other two named captains, and the rest did so more than a year ago, as you already mentioned. Was there intervention in the process perhaps?

Doubtful. The three players are well known to a majority of the team. And if you think about the current leaders in the dressing room, sans Gedman, they all know of and or respect the three.

3) Given the success of the team this past season, which many felt performed above expectations, it makes it especially surprising that the leadership potential of all those currently rostered were believed not deserving of the honor of being at least one of the captains.

4) In fact, those passed over for leadership roles included both the current captain, but also a former National U18 captain, both rising seniors. Apparently both were seen as being inferior in leadership potential to not only one, but 3 less-known entities, at least in terms of their day to day interactions and personal familiarity with those on the current roster. That had to hurt.

This is the one surprising element to the story. Marissa Gedman was not included as a captain for next season. I have no idea why ; I can only speculate that she is not returning to the team or is not well-liked in the dressing room. She took a number of really dumb penalties this year and put the Crimson in some tough spots. But she also logged heavy minutes for a short roster.

5) What is with the naming of 3 captains for one team anyway? I've never understood this at all. It seems to be relatively common for Harvard, though I can't recall it happening too often elsewhere (other than SLU this season). For what purpose? One captain and 2 assistants makes far more sense....or even co-captains if two potentially good leaders exist who get along and have complementary skills.

Not true. Yes, we've done it in the past but we don't make it a regular practice.

Do they each vote for one captain, and don't try to break ties, or are they voting for three from the outset? Does it mean that a team is so divided they can't agree on who should be in charge? Is no one seen as being a sufficiently good leader that they feel a troika is necessary? Can't they make a decision? Is it perhaps that the coach worries about ceding too much potential team power in the hands of one player?

Having spoken to some who've been led by a troika of captains in the past, it generally creates really big problems within a team. It's virtually impossible for 3 individuals to share a common view of how to do things, much less lead everyone consistently in the same direction---and even that presupposes the 3 get along really well to begin with....which often tends not to be the case. While it's much tougher to be successful as 1 of 3 captains in that context--and some actually do--, (versus sole or co-captaincy) it also is far more likely to lead to abdication of responsibilities by each, with the rationale that there are others also in the role to pick up the slack. While a poor choice of sole or co-captains can also be problematic, I can't fathom why any team would to add to the challenges of creating the right leadership environment.

What am I missing?

Again, I'm not privy to the voting structure but clearly, the three girls chosen are well respected inside the locker room and as leaders on the team. I know Jo Pucci and it is impossible not to like and respect her. I think this is simply a case of three players who are viewed as leaders and who the team feels can be effective in managing relationships within the team and between the team and the coaching staff.

 

[Drew]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Keep in mind that both Pucci and Armstrong had already been elected captains but, due to injury, had to sit out the seasons that they were initially scheduled to be captains.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Keep in mind that both Pucci and Armstrong had already been elected captains but, due to injury, had to sit out the seasons that they were initially scheduled to be captains.

Good point. I wasn't aware of that fact. Still doesn't explain why Picard was chosen over Gedman. Not that anyone assumes that a junior captain will automatically be elected her senior season. Just seems strange.