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.
Patty Kazmaeir 2017
- Thread starter Timothy A
- Start date
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: Patty Kazmaeir 2017
You can be forgiven, it's been *ages* since Wisconsin has won the award, after all
You can be forgiven, it's been *ages* since Wisconsin has won the award, after all
bluffrinkrat
New member
Re: Patty Kazmaeir 2017
And today the name has been shortened in many places to "Kaz Watch '17." I prefer the whole name and I'm glad if you've figured out how to fix the spelling.
And today the name has been shortened in many places to "Kaz Watch '17." I prefer the whole name and I'm glad if you've figured out how to fix the spelling.
Last edited:
Timothy A
Let's go RED!
pokechecker
Banned
Re: Patty Kazmaeir 2017
why didn't you say so? If it says so on the internet, then obviously it is true
so in addition to assuming the research generalizes to women's hockey, we're supposed to assume this decades ago research has temporal significance as well?
It's pretty simple really. If you play great defense and do not give up a goal, you only have to score once to win.
Substitute a different team that isn't quite as good that gives up one goal and they have to to score twice as many to win.
Substitute yet another team even less proficient that gives up two goals and they will have to score three times as many goals to win.
see the pattern yet, Stupid?
No?
OK, an even worse team that gives up three goals is going to have to score four times as many goals to win
And guess what, the team that gives up four ... yes! will have to score five times as many goals to win.
see? it isn't that difficult.
why didn't you say so? If it says so on the internet, then obviously it is true
so in addition to assuming the research generalizes to women's hockey, we're supposed to assume this decades ago research has temporal significance as well?
It's pretty simple really. If you play great defense and do not give up a goal, you only have to score once to win.
Substitute a different team that isn't quite as good that gives up one goal and they have to to score twice as many to win.
Substitute yet another team even less proficient that gives up two goals and they will have to score three times as many goals to win.
see the pattern yet, Stupid?
No?
OK, an even worse team that gives up three goals is going to have to score four times as many goals to win
And guess what, the team that gives up four ... yes! will have to score five times as many goals to win.
see? it isn't that difficult.
Last edited:
bluffrinkrat
New member
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Check the batteries in your troll subtlety filter; I think you might need a fresh set
Re: Patty Kazmaeir 2017
I think one big argument in ARD's favor is Cece's stats when Ann missed time. If it truly was all about the defense in front of the net and anyone could do well in that position, then Cece's numbers should be comparable to Ann's and aren't. Obviously there's the caveats about small sample size and that she's a rookie. But her GAA is double ARD's in the few games she played, belying that bit of conjecture.
For me, Pannek wasn't really in the discussion once her numbers dropped in the second half. It's difficult to argue about someone being dynamic when it was clear so much of their statistical success hinged on playing with another player. That line had special chemistry, but without Cameranesi, they definitely struggled more. I think it's difficult to argue in Pannek's favor there, especially in the face of what Stalder was doing.
I would have liked more focus on Pankowski, but I'm obviously biased. But she's put herself at the top of all the scoring categories despite a slow start and missing time with Team USA. Yes, great players shouldn't have slow starts and I'm definitely willing to argue that point and decide if it's an automatic disqualification type thing, but the fact is that even without scoring a goal in the first nine games, had Annie not missed four games (MN State and Bemidji) to play in the Nations Cup, she's probably be leading some offensive categories. Obvs there's no way to be sure, but I think she was an underrated candidate that isn't getting talked about enough.
I think one big argument in ARD's favor is Cece's stats when Ann missed time. If it truly was all about the defense in front of the net and anyone could do well in that position, then Cece's numbers should be comparable to Ann's and aren't. Obviously there's the caveats about small sample size and that she's a rookie. But her GAA is double ARD's in the few games she played, belying that bit of conjecture.
For me, Pannek wasn't really in the discussion once her numbers dropped in the second half. It's difficult to argue about someone being dynamic when it was clear so much of their statistical success hinged on playing with another player. That line had special chemistry, but without Cameranesi, they definitely struggled more. I think it's difficult to argue in Pannek's favor there, especially in the face of what Stalder was doing.
I would have liked more focus on Pankowski, but I'm obviously biased. But she's put herself at the top of all the scoring categories despite a slow start and missing time with Team USA. Yes, great players shouldn't have slow starts and I'm definitely willing to argue that point and decide if it's an automatic disqualification type thing, but the fact is that even without scoring a goal in the first nine games, had Annie not missed four games (MN State and Bemidji) to play in the Nations Cup, she's probably be leading some offensive categories. Obvs there's no way to be sure, but I think she was an underrated candidate that isn't getting talked about enough.
Re: Patty Kazmaeir 2017
Today's game was a microcosm of why you shouldn't read too much into the drop in Pannek's numbers. She continues to make fantastic passes, it's just that her linemates have started spurning all of the opportunities. Until Marshall sneaked into the slot, Pannek would make great feeds that no one bothered to get their stick on. A couple of times they weren't looking. On others, they just sort of flailed their sticks at the puck as it went by. Pannek was the best non-goalie on the ice today by a significant margin.
Today's game was a microcosm of why you shouldn't read too much into the drop in Pannek's numbers. She continues to make fantastic passes, it's just that her linemates have started spurning all of the opportunities. Until Marshall sneaked into the slot, Pannek would make great feeds that no one bothered to get their stick on. A couple of times they weren't looking. On others, they just sort of flailed their sticks at the puck as it went by. Pannek was the best non-goalie on the ice today by a significant margin.
Re: Patty Kazmaeir 2017
Indeed. Just remember the rule, i before e except after c (or when in doubt look it up before you screw it up).
Indeed. Just remember the rule, i before e except after c (or when in doubt look it up before you screw it up).
Re: Patty Kazmaeir 2017
Hopefully, with Dani now having some extremely competitive games under her belt, our No. 1 line will really start to crank it up again and find ways to put the puck in the net like they did in the first half. If they can do that, while getting the kind of goaltending and team defense we saw earlier today, I do think this team is capable of winning it all...again.
I don't know if "spurning" is the right word, but you would think by now everyone who is on the ice with her would have learned to be ready for the pass at all times. As is so often the case with players on the other team, the Gophers out there with her come to think that she'll put the puck somewhere else, to where logic says it should go, instead of positioning and readying themselves to receive and doing something with it (i.e. "expect the unexpected"). Of course Kelly doesn't always make the right play at the right time, (who does?) - but how many times in the season's second half have we seen such missed passing connections, with nothing to show for it on the scoreboard?
Hopefully, with Dani now having some extremely competitive games under her belt, our No. 1 line will really start to crank it up again and find ways to put the puck in the net like they did in the first half. If they can do that, while getting the kind of goaltending and team defense we saw earlier today, I do think this team is capable of winning it all...again.
Last edited:
Timothy A
Let's go RED!
Re: Patty Kazmaeir 2017
The sad part is I did look it up, but apparently my had eye coordination isn't what it used to be.
I find the discussion of "if only the players playing with Pannek would score more she'd be more deserving"...LAUGHABLE. Really? This coming from the same people who said playing heroically with the flu was no excuse to allow 4 goals?
The sad part is I did look it up, but apparently my had eye coordination isn't what it used to be.
I find the discussion of "if only the players playing with Pannek would score more she'd be more deserving"...LAUGHABLE. Really? This coming from the same people who said playing heroically with the flu was no excuse to allow 4 goals?
bluffrinkrat
New member
Re: Patty Kazmaeir 2017
Not converting on or not cashing in on all the opportunities would have been a better choice of words. I'm sure there is no disdain or contempt by her teammates for the opportunities given by Pannek's passes, just not always the best responses to them.
Not converting on or not cashing in on all the opportunities would have been a better choice of words. I'm sure there is no disdain or contempt by her teammates for the opportunities given by Pannek's passes, just not always the best responses to them.
Last edited:
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
Re: Patty Kazmaeir 2017
Dranksin the thinner again and paying the price after, eh?
Playing heroically with the flu...Do you get a participation ribbon for that? Oh and for the sake of Pete, you shlubs, as the prohibitive favorite, better not lose to BC.
Dranksin the thinner again and paying the price after, eh?
Playing heroically with the flu...Do you get a participation ribbon for that? Oh and for the sake of Pete, you shlubs, as the prohibitive favorite, better not lose to BC.
Blackbeard
Well-known member
Re: Patty Kazmaeir 2017
As good a team as they are I don't buy into the "prohibitive favourite" notion.
If UMD with a seriously depleted bench could take UW into OT and then to the shoot out that followed, not that long ago, then that tells me that UW is very beatable.
While I wouldn't say that the King has no clothes, I would say that his tailor is only human. His raiment/wares have been put on display for all who care to see.
As good a team as they are I don't buy into the "prohibitive favourite" notion.
If UMD with a seriously depleted bench could take UW into OT and then to the shoot out that followed, not that long ago, then that tells me that UW is very beatable.
While I wouldn't say that the King has no clothes, I would say that his tailor is only human. His raiment/wares have been put on display for all who care to see.
pokechecker
Banned
Re: Patty Kazmaeir 2017
and let's not forget the regular season final series at Ridder that ended in ties
I'm not so sure about the very part, but they are beatable
the problem is, to beat WI, your goalie is going to have to play a great game, your defense near flawless, and somebody has to get the puck past Desbiens
it can be done, but there is little room for error
and let's not forget the regular season final series at Ridder that ended in ties
I'm not so sure about the very part, but they are beatable
the problem is, to beat WI, your goalie is going to have to play a great game, your defense near flawless, and somebody has to get the puck past Desbiens
it can be done, but there is little room for error
Blackbeard
Well-known member
Re: Patty Kazmaeir 2017
I agree almost completely. After posting that I thought I should go back and delete the word "very" because it might be too strong a word but decided I'm still on the fence about it.
I was going to go back and add more detail to my comment about what I thought was required for a victory but got sidetracked...and in the meantime you have done an admirable job for me.
I agree almost completely. After posting that I thought I should go back and delete the word "very" because it might be too strong a word but decided I'm still on the fence about it.
I was going to go back and add more detail to my comment about what I thought was required for a victory but got sidetracked...and in the meantime you have done an admirable job for me.
robertearle
Well-known member
Re: Patty Kazmaeir 2017
Maybe I'm wrong, but I understood the "prohibitive" part of the comment to apply to the BC game.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I understood the "prohibitive" part of the comment to apply to the BC game.