What's new
By:
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.

Minnesota hosts UMD : 11/22 & 11/24

Re: Minnesota hosts UMD : 11/22 & 11/24

Koho said:
Never understood that AM radio signal strength thing. Late at night the local stations get fuzzy yet stations from states or Canada) away suddenly can be heard. Rarely can I get 1500 during the mid-day, but usually comes in well enough to hear in the evening.
Click to expand...
Two items, strength of the signal relative to other broadcasts on frequencies that are close, combined with the signal pattern off the transmitters is one part. The other big factor is the sun... it being below the horizon means that the atmosphere is less charged, so there's not as much interference.
 
Re: Minnesota hosts UMD : 11/22 & 11/24

Steve_MN said:
Two items, strength of the signal relative to other broadcasts on frequencies that are close, combined with the signal pattern off the transmitters is one part. The other big factor is the sun... it being below the horizon means that the atmosphere is less charged, so there's not as much interference.
Click to expand...

You learn something new everyday on USCHO.
 
Re: Minnesota hosts UMD : 11/22 & 11/24

LTsatch said:
You learn something new everyday on USCHO.
Click to expand...

Wife seems to be starting PMS so better to stay on computer than go upstairs, so I actually Googled it: AM waves during the day pass through the ionosphere, causing them to not travel as far, and so AM signals during the day that you can hear are ground waves - essentially, line-of-sight radio waves.

At night, the ionosphere doesn't absorb AM signals, it reflects them, so they can travel an amazingly long way - they literally bounces off the sky, off the ground, off the sky again, off the ground, etc. Radio stations thus must reduce their signals or else they'll interfere with one another.


That is today's lesson. Next week; Relativity.
 
Re: Minnesota hosts UMD : 11/22 & 11/24

I love reading comments trying to qualify a 5 goal margin. How many goals per game are the Gophers averaging right now? I'm not trying to say that the Gophers are on average five goals better than UMD, but last night was definitely was not a case where the game was closer than the score, and that has been a regular result for the Gophers so far this year. Should be a closer match up on Sunday but who knows.
 
Koho said:
Wife seems to be starting PMS so better to stay on computer than go upstairs, so I actually Googled it: AM waves during the day pass through the ionosphere, causing them to not travel as far, and so AM signals during the day that you can hear are ground waves - essentially, line-of-sight radio waves.

At night, the ionosphere doesn't absorb AM signals, it reflects them, so they can travel an amazingly long way - they literally bounces off the sky, off the ground, off the sky again, off the ground, etc. Radio stations thus must reduce their signals or else they'll interfere with one another.


That is today's lesson. Next week; Relativity.
Click to expand...
Oooops... forgot that part :(
 
Re: Minnesota hosts UMD : 11/22 & 11/24

DtownDogs said:
You're own coach even said they had puck luck.
Click to expand...

What's he supposed to say? "We kicked their arse up and down the ice?" It's coach-speak. It's today's sports. Not everyone will spout off like Charles Barkley, Chris Kluwe, whoever.
 
Re: Minnesota hosts UMD : 11/22 & 11/24

Brenthoven said:
What's he supposed to say? "We kicked their arse up and down the ice?" It's coach-speak. It's today's sports. Not everyone will spout off like Charles Barkley, Chris Kluwe, whoever.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The last thing a coach is going to do with a game left against that opponent is make it sound like an butt kicking. He wants to keep his team with its head on straight and he doesn't want to give any added incentive to the other team for the rematch.

The reality is none of those goals was a fluke where you get an odd bounce on a goal, a shot off of a leg that goes in, or something of that ilk. It's not "luck" to make nice skill plays and just flat out beat a goalie with a shot. If that was the case, most goals would be considered "luck" then. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Re: Minnesota hosts UMD : 11/22 & 11/24

The only puck luck I saw was in our own end. Duluth would take a shot, and it would bounce off someone's skate directly on to the tape of a Gopher player skating the other direction. This merely happened a couple times, though, and again it just brings us back to how well this team scores on transition plays.
 
Re: Minnesota hosts UMD : 11/22 & 11/24

Hammy said:
Exactly. The last thing a coach is going to do with a game left against that opponent is make it sound like an butt kicking. He wants to keep his team with its head on straight and he doesn't want to give any added incentive to the other team for the rematch.

The reality is none of those goals was a fluke where you get an odd bounce on a goal, a shot off of a leg that goes in, or something of that ilk. It's not "luck" to make nice skill plays and just flat out beat a goalie with a shot. If that was the case, most goals would be considered "luck" then. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were fluke goals. I just said the gophs put about every chance they had in the back of the net, and that takes some luck. Even in practice if you give a good shooter a chance to go high glove he makes it 1 out of 4 times. To have just about every open shot find the back of the net is having some puck luck.
 
Re: Minnesota hosts UMD : 11/22 & 11/24

DtownDogs said:
I didn't say they were fluke goals. I just said the gophs put about every chance they had in the back of the net, and that takes some luck. Even in practice if you give a good shooter a chance to go high glove he makes it 1 out of 4 times. To have just about every open shot find the back of the net is having some puck luck.
Click to expand...

In the <A href="http://i40.tinypic.com/xm8ww3.jpg">FIRST PERIOD</A>, I have the Gophers taking 16 high to somewhat high percentage shots, and scored on 3 of those shots. 15 total shots on goal, 3 of those went in.

In the <A href="http://i44.tinypic.com/25zm1is.jpg">SECOND PERIOD</A>, I have the Gophers taking 19 high to somewhat high percentage shots, and scored on 3 of those shots. 14 total shots on goal, 3 of those went in.

In the <A href="http://i40.tinypic.com/1177mg3.jpg">THIRD PERIOD</A>, when the Gophers dialed it back a bit with a 6-1 lead, I have the Gophers taking 4 high to somewhat high percentage shots, and scored on 0 of those shots. 5 total shots on goal, and 0 went in.

Please, answer me this. How is this having "just about every open shot find the back of the net"????

In the first period, for example, the Gophers attempted 22 shots. 16 of those, in my opinion, were from high to somewhat high percentage spots on the ice. 3 were blocked and 4 missed the net. This left them with 15 shots on net, in which they scored on 3 of those. That is 1 out of every 5 shots on net going in. That's a 20% shooting percentage.

In the second period, the Gophers attempted 23 shots. 19 of those, in my opinion, were from high to somewhat high percentage spots on the ice. 5 were blocked, 3 missed the net, and 1 hit a pipe. This left them with 14 shots on net, in which they scored on 3 of those. That is slightly better than 1 out of every 5 shots on net going in. That is slightly better than a 20% shooting percentage.

I don't think your argument holds much water. Those shots from high percentage areas that you say sometimes "hit players sticks" and what not, did hit players. Those are called blocked shots. UMD blocked 11 of Minnesota's 56 shots attempted in this game. The Gophers also missed the net a total of 10 times and hit 1 pipe. That's a total of 22 shots of Minnesota's 56 attempted that didn't find the net. The Gophers scored 6 goals on 34 shots on net. The Gophers scored on roughly 17% of their shots, and roughly 69% of those shots came from within high to somewhat high percentage areas on the ice. That's not luck, that is skill.
 
Last edited:
Re: Minnesota hosts UMD : 11/22 & 11/24

DtownDogs said:
I didn't say they were fluke goals. I just said the gophs put about every chance they had in the back of the net, and that takes some luck. Even in practice if you give a good shooter a chance to go high glove he makes it 1 out of 4 times. To have just about every open shot find the back of the net is having some puck luck.
Click to expand...

Not sure what world you live in but usually people equate "puck luck" to mean fortunate bounces that lead to goals or things of that ilk. None of those goals qualify for that definition.
 
Hammy said:
Not sure what world you live in but usually people equate "puck luck" to mean fortunate bounces that lead to goals or things of that ilk. None of those goals qualify for that definition.
Click to expand...

Would definitely be am interesting definition of puck luck. As the post right before yours points out, that's not luck, it's skill
 
Re: Minnesota hosts UMD : 11/22 & 11/24

mnstate0fhockey said:
In the <A href="http://i40.tinypic.com/xm8ww3.jpg">FIRST PERIOD</A>, I have the Gophers taking 16 high to somewhat high percentage shots, and scored on 3 of those shots. 15 total shots on goal, 3 of those went in.

In the <A href="http://i44.tinypic.com/25zm1is.jpg">SECOND PERIOD</A>, I have the Gophers taking 19 high to somewhat high percentage shots, and scored on 3 of those shots. 14 total shots on goal, 3 of those went in.

In the <A href="http://i40.tinypic.com/1177mg3.jpg">THIRD PERIOD</A>, when the Gophers dialed it back a bit with a 6-1 lead, I have the Gophers taking 4 high to somewhat high percentage shots, and scored on 0 of those shots. 5 total shots on goal, and 0 went in.

Please, answer me this. How is this having "just about every open shot find the back of the net"????

In the first period, for example, the Gophers attempted 22 shots. 16 of those, in my opinion, were from high to somewhat high percentage spots on the ice. 3 were blocked and 4 missed the net. This left them with 15 shots on net, in which they scored on 3 of those. That is 1 out of every 5 shots on net going in. That's a 20% shooting percentage.

In the second period, the Gophers attempted 23 shots. 19 of those, in my opinion, were from high to somewhat high percentage spots on the ice. 5 were blocked, 3 missed the net, and 1 hit a pipe. This left them with 14 shots on net, in which they scored on 3 of those. That is slightly better than 1 out of every 5 shots on net going in. That is slightly better than a 20% shooting percentage.

I don't think your argument holds much water. Those shots from high percentage areas that you say sometimes "hit players sticks" and what not, did hit players. Those are called blocked shots. UMD blocked 11 of Minnesota's 56 shots attempted in this game. The Gophers also missed the net a total of 10 times and hit 1 pipe. That's a total of 22 shots of Minnesota's 56 attempted that didn't find the net. The Gophers scored 6 goals on 34 shots on net. The Gophers scored on roughly 17% of their shots, and roughly 69% of those shots came from within high to somewhat high percentage areas on the ice. That's not luck, that is skill.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, how much time did you commit to writing this post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top