Penn State Womens Hockey

[pennpapa]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

First of all I'd like to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas or holiday.

I can't believe no one is interested in Penn state hockey. We have had some fairly good attendance at our games and also at away games . I miss PENN STATE WOMENS HOCKEY as he tucked his tail and won't blog anymore. Step up, don't let these so called experts push you around.. Some followers could stand some straight talk. I think he had some good thoughts as to what this team needed to accomplish this year. I also didn't think he was critisizing the team but stating facts. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

I wathced the Saturday game of the St. Lawrence series and saw a moment of what this team can do. In the second period for about 5 minutes, PSU started being agressive and put ST. Lawrence back on their heals. PSU started forchecking and made them miss their passes, fumble the puck and look in disaray. I thought, WOW, WE ARE! But as soon as they started to take over, they went back to the same old, same old. The forwards went back in the defensive zone and started taking a pummeling again.

The team is young but I think we can win a few games the second half and I think coach will alow them to play aggressive and they will be able to win more than everyone thinks they will. We have very good goalies and some very good players who can get the job done.

Comments are encouraged. Coe out and cheer for our team! Happy New Year!

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Without having seen Penn State this year, the comment I can offer is that I think the key is continuing to play aggressive. Watching hockey at a bunch of different levels, I've seen teams fall back on a conservative style and think that because they can keep games close against good teams it means that they are better than they really are. The fallacy is that goal differential is the key stat when it's really goal ratio. A team that consistently loses 2-1 is no better than a team that consistently loses 4-2 or 6-3. The confounding element is that variance in one goal games can lead such a team to end up with a fluky good record. A team that plays aggressively is less likely to get fooled by chance and will have a better idea of how good, or bad, it really is.

There is also the psychological element. I hope your team can weather the hard parts of having a bad record. It's going to be bad for a few years. With good coaching, the young women involved in the beginnings of this program can understand that their measure isn't the won/loss record and can also stay sufficiently connected that, when the team does finally enjoy success, even if it is well after they have graduated, they can feel a part of it.

 

[WIrinkrat]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Without having seen Penn State this year, the comment I can offer is that I think the key is continuing to play aggressive. Watching hockey at a bunch of different levels, I've seen teams fall back on a conservative style and think that because they can keep games close against good teams it means that they are better than they really are. The fallacy is that goal differential is the key stat when it's really goal ratio. A team that consistently loses 2-1 is no better than a team that consistently loses 4-2 or 6-3. The confounding element is that variance in one goal games can lead such a team to end up with a fluky good record. A team that plays aggressively is less likely to get fooled by chance and will have a better idea of how good, or bad, it really is.

I couldn't disagree more with this sentiment. Sure a loss is a loss is a loss, but all losses are definitely not created equally. A team that loses 2-1 is one save or good bounce away from stealing a point. A team that loses 6-3 or 50-25 is not even close to being in the game. If you have the horses to win a run and gun uptempo game, go for it. If you don't, don't. The fact that a weaker team is being conservative against a stronger opponent shows that they know they have work to do not that they somehow think they are better than they are.

And even if what you're saying were true...would you rather have a room of less talented players who think they are capable and on the verge of getting a win against a better team, or would you want them to feel like they were constantly losing by 3 or 4 goals and that even if they got a goal better they are still way out of the game? Try explaining your goal ratio theory to a locker room of young women to make them feel better after they get blown out.

 

[Hux]

I couldn't disagree more with this sentiment. Sure a loss is a loss is a loss, but all losses are definitely not created equally. A team that loses 2-1 is one save or good bounce away from stealing a point. A team that loses 6-3 or 50-25 is not even close to being in the game. If you have the horses to win a run and gun uptempo game, go for it. If you don't, don't. The fact that a weaker team is being conservative against a stronger opponent shows that they know they have work to do not that they somehow think they are better than they are.

And even if what you're saying were true...would you rather have a room of less talented players who think they are capable and on the verge of getting a win against a better team, or would you want them to feel like they were constantly losing by 3 or 4 goals and that even if they got a goal better they are still way out of the game? Try explaining your goal ratio theory to a locker room of young women to make them feel better after they get blown out.

Agree. While you don't want to sit back on your heels 100% of the time, you are better off keeping your team within striking distance. As noted, a good bounce can win you some points when you are down 2-1. More importantly from an outsider's viewpoint a 2-1 or 3-1 loss looks a lot better than 6-3 etc. That "viewpoint" could ultimately mean the difference between landing an A grade player that can close the gap or a B grade player that can't.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Sure a loss is a loss is a loss, but all losses are definitely not created equally. A team that loses 2-1 is one save or good bounce away from stealing a point.

As I've said before, goal ratio is a better predictor of future success than goal differential. Teams with the same ratio of goals scored to goals allowed but at a lower level do not win more often than teams that score and give them up at a higher level. In aggregate there is more variance in their records, but they are not more likely to win. You've hit on the mechanism that causes the higher variance but seem to have mistaken it for changing the expected outcome. If you allow twice as many goals as you score overall, your expected winning percentage is the same whether your average loss is 2-1 or 4-2. It doesn't matter. While I haven't seen any research on this specifically for women's college hockey, the data is overwhelming on this point at the professional level. Goal ratio is what matters.

And even if what you're saying were true...would you rather have a room of less talented players who think they are capable and on the verge of getting a win against a better team, or would you want them to feel like they were constantly losing by 3 or 4 goals and that even if they got a goal better they are still way out of the game? Try explaining your goal ratio theory to a locker room of young women to make them feel better after they get blown out.

My preference is to teach young people how the world actually works. And, as I said, the empirical evidence on this is pretty clear. As for what takeaway is preferable, think about it like this: if the team thinks they're better than they really are, what is their reaction going to be when the wins don't come like they think they should? A team that loses 2-1 is not any closer to becoming a winning team than one that loses 4-2. I tried explaining this to Minnesota Wild fans for years as they watched Jacques Lemaire teams that they thought were so close to being really good because they lost so many low scoring games. Sure enough, they never took that next step, because they were never as good as either the team or the fans thought.

However, I've found that there are a lot of people who prefer to delude themselves than actually develop an honest appreciation of things.

 

[WIrinkrat]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

As I've said before, goal ratio is a better predictor of future success than goal differential. Teams with the same ratio of goals scored to goals allowed but at a lower level do not win more often than teams that score and give them up at a higher level. In aggregate there is more variance in their records, but they are not more likely to win. You've hit on the mechanism that causes the higher variance but seem to have mistaken it for changing the expected outcome. If you allow twice as many goals as you score overall, your expected winning percentage is the same whether your average loss is 2-1 or 4-2. It doesn't matter. While I haven't seen any research on this specifically for women's college hockey, the data is overwhelming on this point at the professional level. Goal ratio is what matters.



My preference is to teach young people how the world actually works. And, as I said, the empirical evidence on this is pretty clear. As for what takeaway is preferable, think about it like this: if the team thinks they're better than they really are, what is their reaction going to be when the wins don't come like they think they should? A team that loses 2-1 is not any closer to becoming a winning team than one that loses 4-2. I tried explaining this to Minnesota Wild fans for years as they watched Jacques Lemaire teams that they thought were so close to being really good because they lost so many low scoring games. Sure enough, they never took that next step, because they were never as good as either the team or the fans thought.

However, I've found that there are a lot of people who prefer to delude themselves than actually develop an honest appreciation of things.

Please do not go anywhere near a bench, or more preferably anywhere near a locker room containing young hockey players.

 

[Captain Obvious]

As I've said before, goal ratio is a better predictor of future success than goal differential. Teams with the same ratio of goals scored to goals allowed but at a lower level do not win more often than teams that score and give them up at a higher level. In aggregate there is more variance in their records, but they are not more likely to win. You've hit on the mechanism that causes the higher variance but seem to have mistaken it for changing the expected outcome. If you allow twice as many goals as you score overall, your expected winning percentage is the same whether your average loss is 2-1 or 4-2. It doesn't matter. While I haven't seen any research on this specifically for women's college hockey, the data is overwhelming on this point at the professional level. Goal ratio is what matters.

My preference is to teach young people how the world actually works. And, as I said, the empirical evidence on this is pretty clear. As for what takeaway is preferable, think about it like this: if the team thinks they're better than they really are, what is their reaction going to be when the wins don't come like they think they should? A team that loses 2-1 is not any closer to becoming a winning team than one that loses 4-2. I tried explaining this to Minnesota Wild fans for years as they watched Jacques Lemaire teams that they thought were so close to being really good because they lost so many low scoring games. Sure enough, they never took that next step, because they were never as good as either the team or the fans thought.

However, I've found that there are a lot of people who prefer to delude themselves than actually develop an honest appreciation of things.

Sounds like someone got a new TI-82 for Christmas.

 

[LG4]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

I believe eeyore is correct from the developmental point of view being able to score a lot involves a certain creativity . Systems to shut teams down will work only on weaker teams consistently. i heard a coach say he would rather lose 6 to 5 vs 2 to 1. I agree because if I knew in a close game my team could score I think it is easier to make that adjustment to ratchet up the d.

 

[WIrinkrat]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

I believe eeyore is correct from the developmental point of view being able to score a lot involves a certain creativity . Systems to shut teams down will work only on weaker teams consistently. i heard a coach say he would rather lose 6 to 5 vs 2 to 1. I agree because if I knew in a close game my team could score I think it is easier to make that adjustment to ratchet up the d.

6-5 vs 2-1 is apples to oranges. it would be 10-5 using eeyores rationale to be making the same comparison. the reality is that most NCAA teams at all levels don't have the talent to consistently score that many goals and be able to win games. you have to coach to the strengths of your team until you are able to build new strengths. if you don't have goal scorers you hope you have a strong goalie and try to win a low scoring game. then you try to sell that competitiveness to recruit a few goal scorers. then maybe you can play a different kind of game.

your sole job as a hockey coach in terms of coaching the game is to put your players in the best possible chance to be successful. unless you're one of the top 10 or so teams you better not be trying to play run and gun against the other top tier teams.

 

[ARM]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

While I haven't seen any research on this specifically for women's college hockey, the data is overwhelming on this point at the professional level. Goal ratio is what matters.

Given the vast differences between how teams are populated and the available talent pool for the NHL and NCAA women, it is a giant leap to conclude that a mathematical model can translate from one to the other. If you are using math as the basis of your argument, you'd have to be able to support this step, not just say that research shows it to be true in the NHL, so therefore, it must be true for NCAA women.

So much of the NCAA women's game is about limiting the mistakes that your team makes and capitalizing on the mistakes of the other team. You can say that you want to play aggressively and force those mistakes, but if you attempt to pressure too hard with your forecheck and you lack the team speed to cause turnovers, it leaves a team very vulnerable behind that pressure. A coach has to scheme to the available talent, not assume that the best strategy is what works for the L.A.Kings.

 

[pennpapa]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Amen Brother!
The coach has his hands full. PSU has 17 freshmen, 3 transfers and 4 or 5 players from last years club team. I think he is trying to play defense and hope for a mistake that will result in a score. We get one or two chances a period and our goalies are fighting for their lives. 35 to 50 shots a game.

The teams we play have older players and they are faster and stronger than our players. Especially if they have to start by their own goal line. They have to get by the other teams defensive players. Tuff job.

There are some scrapy very good players on the team and they do get by occasionally.

Looking forward a couple of years I think this will be a very good team as a result of the difficulties they face each game.
We start off with a D3 team when they get back and hopefully they will get to work on the things that normally they can't do, like touch the puck. This should help them when they play the tougher teams like Mercyhurst and Robert Morris. The second half appears to be tougher than the first half.

Come out and see a game or two. For a first year team with the younger players, I think they will impress you.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Sounds like someone got a new TI-82 for Christmas.

No. Someone has spent almost three decades involved in and following the relevant research. Admittedly, serious hockey research is a much more recent development than the same with baseball, but it's been interesting to see how much similarity the team level results have between the two sports. One of the similarities is that the Pythagorean approach to expected win percentages works equally well for hockey as it does baseball, albeit the more sophisticated models produce a slightly different exponent for hockey.

Now, I have stated things a bit more dogmatically than is really the case, but only a bit. In practice, the lower the aggregate goal scoring, the closer to .500 the expected winning percentage is. This is because the variance will tend to do this at the margin, but the bigger effect is that lower aggregate goal scoring leads to more ties. The expected ratio of wins to losses will be largely unaffected, but winning percentage will be closer to .500 because of the results that are neither. However, the effect is not large. Using the values calculated for the NHL (which likely overstate the difference for a couple of reasons) and the current goals for and goals allowed by Penn State, increasing scoring by 50% for both teams would lead to a prediction of about 1.5 fewer wins per year.

My guess is that that difference would be swamped by psychological factors and random chance. The thing is, I'd bet a fair amount of money that those psychological factors are a lot more complicated than you seem to believe and that neither of us should be claiming with any confidence that we know how they would play out. They would vary a lot depending upon the particular players involved, the particular coaches and the particular circumstances and they would not point in the same direction for all teams.

In the end, my guess is that a lot of what you think the correct approach is depends upon what your goals are. If the goal is simply to increase the chances of winning one game right now, there is probably a small bias in favor of trying to hold the aggregate score down. If the goal is to win more games in coming years, my bias would be in favor of playing a more aggressive style largely because I think that that's the approach that's more likely to build a mindset of trying to win rather than trying not to lose. But, as I said, a lot of it is going to depend upon specific circumstances and won't always break that way. However, one of the reasons that I enjoy watching MSU-Mankato play is that Eric Means doesn't seem to have bought into the idea that low aggregate scoring is always the right approach for a lower division team to take.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Given the vast differences between how teams are populated and the available talent pool for the NHL and NCAA women, it is a giant leap to conclude that a mathematical model can translate from one to the other. If you are using math as the basis of your argument, you'd have to be able to support this step, not just say that research shows it to be true in the NHL, so therefore, it must be true for NCAA women.

Obviously there are a lot of unknowns. However, the robustness of the basic Pythagorean model across a wide variety of sports means that it there should be a strong prior assumption that it holds for women's college hockey. As you change the exponents, you get models that have r-squareds greater than .9 for sports as diverse as European soccer and NBA basketball. In sports where significant research has been done across different levels of competition, especially baseball, the same thing is true. So, sure, women's college hockey could be completely different, but the burden of proof ought to be on those who want to argue that it is different from all of the other sports that have been looked at.

 

[ARM]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

So, sure, women's college hockey could be completely different, but the burden of proof ought to be on those who want to argue that it is different from all of the other sports that have been looked at.

This isn't law; it is science. If you want to use math and data to prove that something is true, then you need to do so. It isn't good enough to throw out a theory and tell people to prove that it isn't true. That's not how science works. Baseball is irrelevant, because each team can only score in half of any inning, so an attempt to increase offense doesn't put the defense at risk in the same manner. But unless you can concede that Major League Baseball, where the very worst teams still win at least a quarter of the time, does not have the talent disparity that can be found on NCAA women's hockey rosters where some teams only win a time or two, I don't think we have enough common ground to discuss this.

With that said, for my part, I'll let the good people of Penn State have their thread back.

 

[D2D]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

I believe Penn State will evenutally be very competitive, both in men's and women's hockey. However, with respect to the women's program in particular, I think it is unrealistic to expect competitive results against the majority teams in PSU's first year of D1 caliber competition. Their club level (ACHA) team last year did not even qualify for the national tourament (must be ranked in the Top 8) so to expect competitive results facing most D1 compeitttion is at best jumping the gun a little IMO.

 

[vcuongpx]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

I think it is unrealistic to expect competitive results against the majority teams in PSU's first year of D1 caliber competition

 

[spwood]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Well, they'd better at least be prepared to work this weekend. While they are playing a Div III team that is consistently near the bottom for the entire country, don't sleep on their goaltender. She is extremely talented. Against the #1 team in the country this year, she saved 116 out of 126 shots she saw (a .921 save percentage). I would definitely try to bury some pucks early....

 

[pennpapa]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Hopefully she will have eaten to much Christmas stuffing and partied to hard tonite and we will be able to sneak a few in. If she faced 126 shots. she will be a busy girl Friday and Saturday nite. We don't score all that many goals but I think the girls will have some fun out there this weekend. They worked out today and I hope coach will have them ready after the vacation.

Happy New Year All!

 

[pennpapa]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Anyone know how the play offs stack up. I have heard so many different scenarios.

I know Penn State is in sixth place but I don't know who we will be playing. I also know that Mercyhurst is first and Sracuse is second. The race is on between RIT, Robert Morris and Lindenwood. Good Lucy to all!

How will third place be decided?

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

How will third place be decided?

By pistols at dawn. Penn State players will be the seconds.