Tom Naeger
"Happy Talk" Ends Here...
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
When your are 3-1, you can be picky on your wants
When your are 3-1, you can be picky on your wants
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.
>>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
- Thread starter Ed Trefzger
- Start date
- Status
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
So I was browsing the USCHO page today and noticed that the Atlantic Hockey standings page is still using the old Standings format (W-L-T, with 2 for a win and 1 for a tie). They did approve a new standings format this year, didn't they? 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie after 5 on 5 OT, and one bonus point for a win in the 3 on 3 or shootout?
I only ask because the change in standings format really messes with my database that keeps track of winning percentage by senior class. I do have a work around to calculate a weighted winning percentage that treats every game played as equal, but it definitely is going to make the spreadsheet more complicated until the 2021-22 Senior Class graduates.
So I was browsing the USCHO page today and noticed that the Atlantic Hockey standings page is still using the old Standings format (W-L-T, with 2 for a win and 1 for a tie). They did approve a new standings format this year, didn't they? 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie after 5 on 5 OT, and one bonus point for a win in the 3 on 3 or shootout?
I only ask because the change in standings format really messes with my database that keeps track of winning percentage by senior class. I do have a work around to calculate a weighted winning percentage that treats every game played as equal, but it definitely is going to make the spreadsheet more complicated until the 2021-22 Senior Class graduates.
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
It's on the list to get updated. With the site relaunch, the staffer in charge of it has not had the opportunity yet.
It's on the list to get updated. With the site relaunch, the staffer in charge of it has not had the opportunity yet.
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
I had a couple of free minutes so I jumped in and made the update, so it's correct now.
I had a couple of free minutes so I jumped in and made the update, so it's correct now.
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
Yes, but the shots are going in! Over the last few seasons, RIT tended to pepper the net, but got little puck luck. I'd rather 22 SOG with 4 goals than 40 SOG with 1 goal.
Looking forward to the tilt between RIT and AFA tonight.
Yes, but the shots are going in! Over the last few seasons, RIT tended to pepper the net, but got little puck luck. I'd rather 22 SOG with 4 goals than 40 SOG with 1 goal.
Looking forward to the tilt between RIT and AFA tonight.
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
RIT is getting high percentage shots. During the games, we get the shot charts that show where the shots come from and the Tigers have gotten a lot of pressure from in close.
Tomorrow night!
RIT is getting high percentage shots. During the games, we get the shot charts that show where the shots come from and the Tigers have gotten a lot of pressure from in close.
Tomorrow night!
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
Check out the image in this article. That's where RIT is getting a lot of shots thus far this season.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">When it comes to dangerous scoring areas on the ice, it's no secret where most goals are scored: the slot. <a href="https://twitter.com/TLPF_Hockey?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TLPF_Hockey</a>'s Mike Coldham on how to effectively defend it.<a href="https://t.co/MIhcF3nZ3L">https://t.co/MIhcF3nZ3L</a></p>— The Coaches Site (@TheCoachesSite) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheCoachesSite/status/1187036220171472903?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Check out the image in this article. That's where RIT is getting a lot of shots thus far this season.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">When it comes to dangerous scoring areas on the ice, it's no secret where most goals are scored: the slot. <a href="https://twitter.com/TLPF_Hockey?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TLPF_Hockey</a>'s Mike Coldham on how to effectively defend it.<a href="https://t.co/MIhcF3nZ3L">https://t.co/MIhcF3nZ3L</a></p>— The Coaches Site (@TheCoachesSite) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheCoachesSite/status/1187036220171472903?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Tom Naeger
"Happy Talk" Ends Here...
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
We do see an uptick in shooting percentage in our small sample size...
2019-2020 13.3%
2018-2019 10.3%
2017-2018 10.1%
2016-2017 8.5%
Be interesting to see what happens to the number when they generate a lot of shots. The most shots they had was against Ohio State at 25, when you include the 14 shot game at Colgate this really looks like a padded number thanks to low shot total that has to normalize. I would be interested to see the total number of shots that generate in that area a game versus games from last season. I do think some people are glossing over the fact that they have been out played territoriality over the young season. What has made the difference is goaltending, plus they do seem to capitalize on a higher number of quality scoring chances, not sure if they are generating the number of chances though, that is really the stat I'd like to see which I don't think they have anywhere, number of quality scoring chances a game.
It would be interesting to hear Wayne's thoughts on how his team has done producing quality scoring chances, is he satisfy with it? cough cough Ed
Wayne can call me a grumpy old man if he wants, my birthday is coming up and it ends in a 0 
We do see an uptick in shooting percentage in our small sample size...
2019-2020 13.3%
2018-2019 10.3%
2017-2018 10.1%
2016-2017 8.5%
Be interesting to see what happens to the number when they generate a lot of shots. The most shots they had was against Ohio State at 25, when you include the 14 shot game at Colgate this really looks like a padded number thanks to low shot total that has to normalize. I would be interested to see the total number of shots that generate in that area a game versus games from last season. I do think some people are glossing over the fact that they have been out played territoriality over the young season. What has made the difference is goaltending, plus they do seem to capitalize on a higher number of quality scoring chances, not sure if they are generating the number of chances though, that is really the stat I'd like to see which I don't think they have anywhere, number of quality scoring chances a game.
It would be interesting to hear Wayne's thoughts on how his team has done producing quality scoring chances, is he satisfy with it? cough cough Ed
Wayne can call me a grumpy old man if he wants, my birthday is coming up and it ends in a 0 Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
I like to keep a spreadsheet of team and individual stats for the entire D1 era. The current pace (13.3%) would be the highest in RIT D1 History.
Here are the rest of the years:
2015-2016 9.0%
2014-2015 8.9%
2013-2014 7.8%
2012-2013 9.6%
2011-2012 7.3%
2010-2011 9.8%
2009-2010 10.3%
2008-2009 11.8%
2007-2008 8.7%
2006-2007 12.3%
2005-2006 11.0%
Individual career shooting percentage is also eye-opening. Of the top 10 in RIT D1 history, 5 are current on the team.
1) Andrew Rinaldi 25.0%
2) Alden Dupuis 21.4%
3) Simon Lambert 20.7%
4) Elijah Gonsalves 20.0%
5) Kobe Walker 18.2%
6) Jeff Smith 17.4%
7) Brennan Sarazin 17.4%
8) Erik Brown 16.1%
9) Jordan Peacock 15.9%
10) Chris Tanev 15.6%
Admittedly, Rinaldi and Gonsalves have a very small sample size... But 11th on the list is Jake Hamacher, so even if you made the list include only guys with 30 games or more, you'd still have 4 in the top 10. I think it's pretty obvious that there has been a significant change in how the team plays offensively. It's no longer about getting the puck to the net at all costs. Finding better, higher percentage opportunities has become an important factor.
I like to keep a spreadsheet of team and individual stats for the entire D1 era. The current pace (13.3%) would be the highest in RIT D1 History.
Here are the rest of the years:
2015-2016 9.0%
2014-2015 8.9%
2013-2014 7.8%
2012-2013 9.6%
2011-2012 7.3%
2010-2011 9.8%
2009-2010 10.3%
2008-2009 11.8%
2007-2008 8.7%
2006-2007 12.3%
2005-2006 11.0%
Individual career shooting percentage is also eye-opening. Of the top 10 in RIT D1 history, 5 are current on the team.
1) Andrew Rinaldi 25.0%
2) Alden Dupuis 21.4%
3) Simon Lambert 20.7%
4) Elijah Gonsalves 20.0%
5) Kobe Walker 18.2%
6) Jeff Smith 17.4%
7) Brennan Sarazin 17.4%
8) Erik Brown 16.1%
9) Jordan Peacock 15.9%
10) Chris Tanev 15.6%
Admittedly, Rinaldi and Gonsalves have a very small sample size... But 11th on the list is Jake Hamacher, so even if you made the list include only guys with 30 games or more, you'd still have 4 in the top 10. I think it's pretty obvious that there has been a significant change in how the team plays offensively. It's no longer about getting the puck to the net at all costs. Finding better, higher percentage opportunities has become an important factor.
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
Wow. I didn't think you were 50 yet!
It would be interesting to hear Wayne's thoughts on how his team has done producing quality scoring chances, is he satisfy with it? cough cough Ed
Wow. I didn't think you were 50 yet!
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
I'd say Walker also has sample size issues - we're talking 4 goals on 22 shots there. I'd say you have to get to around 15-20 goals over your career for those numbers to start to have even some relevance. (For reference, Dupuis and Hamacher are both at 18 goals and Peacock is at 15 for their careers). From what we've seen so far, I'd expect everyone we've mentioned except Hamacher and maybe Peacock to end their careers with a lower shot percentage than they have now.
Overall that list is extremely interesting. Even Dupuis feels like he doesn't belong among the rest of those names - every other name except Tanev (who only played one season himself and thus has a smaller sample size than the rest) had more goals in one season than any of the current players have through their career, and when I think of Dupuis, being a "finisher" isn't exactly the first thing that comes to mind as it does with guys like Brown or Matt Smith, or even Tyler Brenner (who did funnel a lot of pucks towards the net, to be fair).
It's also worth noting that conference wide last year was notable for low save %'s (and thus high shot %'s) throughout the conference. Last year the AHA only had two goaltenders above .910 in save % in conference play (Drackett was 3rd at exactly .910), and none over .930. The year before saw 6, and unfortunately after that uscho's database for Atlantic Hockey stats seems to be missing games. But I remember a couple tweets last year indicating that save % throughout the conference was way, way down compared to historical for whatever reasons (doesn't necessarily have to be worse goalies - could also be increased shot blocking on less dangerous shots, worse defending in front of the net, etc.) So in that respect RIT's players' shot % increase which mostly came from last season (more than half of all the current player's goal totals came from last year) could simply be derived from the conference trends.
I'd say Walker also has sample size issues - we're talking 4 goals on 22 shots there. I'd say you have to get to around 15-20 goals over your career for those numbers to start to have even some relevance. (For reference, Dupuis and Hamacher are both at 18 goals and Peacock is at 15 for their careers). From what we've seen so far, I'd expect everyone we've mentioned except Hamacher and maybe Peacock to end their careers with a lower shot percentage than they have now.
Overall that list is extremely interesting. Even Dupuis feels like he doesn't belong among the rest of those names - every other name except Tanev (who only played one season himself and thus has a smaller sample size than the rest) had more goals in one season than any of the current players have through their career, and when I think of Dupuis, being a "finisher" isn't exactly the first thing that comes to mind as it does with guys like Brown or Matt Smith, or even Tyler Brenner (who did funnel a lot of pucks towards the net, to be fair).
It's also worth noting that conference wide last year was notable for low save %'s (and thus high shot %'s) throughout the conference. Last year the AHA only had two goaltenders above .910 in save % in conference play (Drackett was 3rd at exactly .910), and none over .930. The year before saw 6, and unfortunately after that uscho's database for Atlantic Hockey stats seems to be missing games. But I remember a couple tweets last year indicating that save % throughout the conference was way, way down compared to historical for whatever reasons (doesn't necessarily have to be worse goalies - could also be increased shot blocking on less dangerous shots, worse defending in front of the net, etc.) So in that respect RIT's players' shot % increase which mostly came from last season (more than half of all the current player's goal totals came from last year) could simply be derived from the conference trends.
Last edited:
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
I want perfection
Interesting discussion about the stats for the year. I still think it's hard to judge some of these things early in the season when facing non-conference teams - especially teams that are expected to be better than RIT like Bowling Green and Ohio State.
When your are 3-1, you can be picky on your wants
I want perfection
Interesting discussion about the stats for the year. I still think it's hard to judge some of these things early in the season when facing non-conference teams - especially teams that are expected to be better than RIT like Bowling Green and Ohio State.
Tom Naeger
"Happy Talk" Ends Here...
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
Agreed it all could be outliers, but interesting nonetheless...
This is why I'm glad you don't send a birthday card, now if you'll excuse me I have to help my wife breath because she is laughing too hard...
I want perfection
Interesting discussion about the stats for the year. I still think it's hard to judge some of these things early in the season when facing non-conference teams - especially teams that are expected to be better than RIT like Bowling Green and Ohio State.
Agreed it all could be outliers, but interesting nonetheless...
Wow. I didn't think you were 50 yet!
This is why I'm glad you don't send a birthday card, now if you'll excuse me I have to help my wife breath because she is laughing too hard...
Last edited:
Tom Naeger
"Happy Talk" Ends Here...
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
Orange Cat Review RIT Vs. Air Force – Game 1
Puck Drop: Coming off a 4-0 Homecoming win and impressive nonconference start to the season RIT dropped into Colorado Springs to start league play against their old friends from Air Force. League play, but seem to be same script for the Tigers get out played, out shot, but Logan Drackett is still on the type season that if he keeps it up will not only take home league goaltending awards, MVP, he liable to get some Hobey votes. Can’t over state how good he has been. Wayne’s post game was great “About as bad as we’ve ever played” and “Logan Drackett”. The bad news and the Good News
Blame Game: : I’m going to blame the Network Administrators at the Air Force Academy. They had a bad night, sounded like the entire network drop. Flo Hockey and WITR went down. Ended up not being about to see either RIT Goal.
Hockey Hero: I’m going to quote Wayne Wilson, “Logan Drackett”.
Any questions?
Turing Point: Not long after Shawn Cameron got out work on what looked like a nifty stick lift by Matt Pulver who finally beat Drackett for Air Force’s only goal of the night, Air Force could have tied it when Brubacher lost an edge at the Falcon blue line causing a 2-1 the other way. Drackett looked like he got beat making the initial move, but made an amazing stick save along the ice. Did we Mention Logan Drackett?
Hey, You Did Good: The other formula that has been working for the Tigers Shawn Cameron scored his 4th goal, and all 4 have been on the power play. And a Freshman found the score sheet, Elijah Gonsalves his second of the season ended up being the Game Winner. LOGAN DRACKET!!! yeah he did good....
Look, You Need to Do Better: I know I am an old grumpy man (NOT THAT OLD ED!!). But RIT has now been outshoot 166 to 83. I think Logan Drackett played a good game, did you hear?
Good Move Wayne: You started Logan Drackett
WILSON!!!!!!!!! (Second-Guessing Wilson): I think Wayne summed it perfectly when he said “Not worth watching the tape”. You know Air Force is the one place you honestly happy when they come home with a point on a weekend, maybe Dywer Tigers have not played well there at times, but Air Force always tough. So any win is great, but Wayne sounded not happy at all…
Breathless: Logan Drackett, could just say that, but his save percentage, I got .958, I think Ed said he calculated .959, Ed is old and math can be hard, but Ed also gets more updated stats than me, either way Logan Drackett is so good, he just amazing, unbelievable, just the best, in case Donald Trump didn't tell you...
Next Shift Up: Time to see if you can get bonus points on the weekend after playing “the worst we ever played here”. I think Logan might start in net… Thanks for reading….
Orange Cat Review RIT Vs. Air Force – Game 1
Puck Drop: Coming off a 4-0 Homecoming win and impressive nonconference start to the season RIT dropped into Colorado Springs to start league play against their old friends from Air Force. League play, but seem to be same script for the Tigers get out played, out shot, but Logan Drackett is still on the type season that if he keeps it up will not only take home league goaltending awards, MVP, he liable to get some Hobey votes. Can’t over state how good he has been. Wayne’s post game was great “About as bad as we’ve ever played” and “Logan Drackett”. The bad news and the Good News
Blame Game: : I’m going to blame the Network Administrators at the Air Force Academy. They had a bad night, sounded like the entire network drop. Flo Hockey and WITR went down. Ended up not being about to see either RIT Goal.
Hockey Hero: I’m going to quote Wayne Wilson, “Logan Drackett”.
Any questions?
Turing Point: Not long after Shawn Cameron got out work on what looked like a nifty stick lift by Matt Pulver who finally beat Drackett for Air Force’s only goal of the night, Air Force could have tied it when Brubacher lost an edge at the Falcon blue line causing a 2-1 the other way. Drackett looked like he got beat making the initial move, but made an amazing stick save along the ice. Did we Mention Logan Drackett?
Hey, You Did Good: The other formula that has been working for the Tigers Shawn Cameron scored his 4th goal, and all 4 have been on the power play. And a Freshman found the score sheet, Elijah Gonsalves his second of the season ended up being the Game Winner. LOGAN DRACKET!!! yeah he did good....
Look, You Need to Do Better: I know I am an old grumpy man (NOT THAT OLD ED!!). But RIT has now been outshoot 166 to 83. I think Logan Drackett played a good game, did you hear?
Good Move Wayne: You started Logan Drackett
WILSON!!!!!!!!! (Second-Guessing Wilson): I think Wayne summed it perfectly when he said “Not worth watching the tape”. You know Air Force is the one place you honestly happy when they come home with a point on a weekend, maybe Dywer Tigers have not played well there at times, but Air Force always tough. So any win is great, but Wayne sounded not happy at all…
Breathless: Logan Drackett, could just say that, but his save percentage, I got .958, I think Ed said he calculated .959, Ed is old and math can be hard, but Ed also gets more updated stats than me, either way Logan Drackett is so good, he just amazing, unbelievable, just the best, in case Donald Trump didn't tell you...
Next Shift Up: Time to see if you can get bonus points on the weekend after playing “the worst we ever played here”. I think Logan might start in net… Thanks for reading….
Last edited:
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
I think we can all agree that they're not going to win many games getting outshot by a 4:1 ratio
Hopefully they can add to the 3 points they got tonight with a better all around performance tomorrow. You have to think Air Force is gripping their sticks a little tightly after tonight and last weekend's series against ASU...
I think we can all agree that they're not going to win many games getting outshot by a 4:1 ratio
Hopefully they can add to the 3 points they got tonight with a better all around performance tomorrow. You have to think Air Force is gripping their sticks a little tightly after tonight and last weekend's series against ASU...
Russell Jaslow
Registered User
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
So, Tom, I'm having a tough time here. Who was in goal for RIT?
So, Tom, I'm having a tough time here. Who was in goal for RIT?
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
When every other phrase from the play by play is "save made by Logan Drackett" or some sort of derivation of that, it's not a good thing.
Drackett is covering up some issues RIT has right now. They only have 13 goals in their 5 games for a 2.6 average. Drackett playing out of his mind has allowed the Tigers to win 4 of them. I'm sure the coaching staff knows that they need to get this offensive problem fixed so that they can take some pressure off Drackett.
I think we can all agree that they're not going to win many games getting outshot by a 4:1 ratio
When every other phrase from the play by play is "save made by Logan Drackett" or some sort of derivation of that, it's not a good thing.
Drackett is covering up some issues RIT has right now. They only have 13 goals in their 5 games for a 2.6 average. Drackett playing out of his mind has allowed the Tigers to win 4 of them. I'm sure the coaching staff knows that they need to get this offensive problem fixed so that they can take some pressure off Drackett.
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
This thread, earlier this week:
This thread, today:
NOT LIKE THAT.
Powers &8^]
This thread, earlier this week:
This thread, today:
NOT LIKE THAT.
Powers &8^]
Tom Naeger
"Happy Talk" Ends Here...
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
We got a note on Facebook from Derek, apparently it still George Eliopoulos..................
So, Tom, I'm having a tough time here. Who was in goal for RIT?
We got a note on Facebook from Derek, apparently it still George Eliopoulos..................
Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2019-2020: "We're on the clock" <<<
The shooting percentage is simply not sustainable. Drackett is playing like the walrus in the Geico commercial when it's no sleepies. Not to mention, Air Force very much controlled the puck and territory. Take away every stat except for the score of the game and ask someone who didn't know the result who won, they would probably say Air Force by a score of something like 4-1. It's good to get a win at Air Force, which RIT has not done often, but they will need to play better on offense for them to get where they want to be.
It's one thing to be outshot by 5 - 10 or so. But being outshot by 33 just shouldn't happen to RIT. They are way better than that.
The shooting percentage is simply not sustainable. Drackett is playing like the walrus in the Geico commercial when it's no sleepies. Not to mention, Air Force very much controlled the puck and territory. Take away every stat except for the score of the game and ask someone who didn't know the result who won, they would probably say Air Force by a score of something like 4-1. It's good to get a win at Air Force, which RIT has not done often, but they will need to play better on offense for them to get where they want to be.
It's one thing to be outshot by 5 - 10 or so. But being outshot by 33 just shouldn't happen to RIT. They are way better than that.
- Status