What's new
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.

RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

One of a coaches main jobs is to recruit the best talent available to him and I think on that score SA does a very good job and works tirelessly at it. A second job, and no less important, is to evaluate that talent and mesh the various aspects into a team that can play well together. The beauty of hockey is that it is a team sport-with everyone having to fit together and contribute. No one, expect the goalie, gets to stay on the ice an entire game. The third thing a coach should do(and this is just my opinion as usual) is create a system to take advantage of the talents he has brought into the program. If you recruit fast small forwards, then create offense tactics to utilize that to best advantage. If you recruit big power forwards, create the scheme that works best for them. Find the defensive pairings that work best together whether it be defensive defense pairings, or offensive defensemen joining the play. But the key is you adapt YOUR SYSTEM that you use to the talents you have on your bench. You cannot and do not change 20 year old hockey players and expect them to fit YOUR system that you feel they should play. These boys have been playing this game for a long time, they are not some 15 year old high schoolers. They have played hundreds or thousands of games and for the most part, what they have at that age, is what you got. And you often have to remember, most of these forwards and defensemen are playing positions that you yourself either never played, or are certainly not as talented playing as they are.
I think it is a bit absurd to keep trying to play a system that the players you have brought in, not only do not buy into, but for the most part cannot buy into since it is a style of game they just cannot play. With rare exceptions, as has been pointed out, we bring in some stellar boys who seem to have so much potential. But each year they just do not progress and often regress. If this happens one year or two years, then i would give it some time. But after 9 years, no one can possibly explain to me how all these years of recruits can be at fault. it has to be the system they are being forced to play. The fundamentals of which are an abomination-I cannot believe someone in this group cannot consistently win face offs, or clear the defensive zone, or work together on a power play with constant movement and motion instead of throwing the puck backwards to the point.
For years, the leading shot takers on our teams have been defensemen. Is the system being played encouraging this? Why do we not have forwards taking more of the shots. Why do we have one of the worst special teams every year? Why are our line changes on the fly so often timed so badly. How often have we been given an odd man rush(or it seems like one) only to dump the puck in and take a line change?
I know this is a long rant but my simple thought is instead of trying to have all these players alter their style of play(which is why they were recruited in the first place), why is the system not constantly changed to fit the talents of the players. I am so tired of hearing that we need to play our game, we need to buy into the system and we keep losing the one on one battles. Hockey is a team battling out there, and although there are instances of one on one battles, it is not a one on one sport. I have followed this team for more years than I want to count and have seen so many teams that we play every year and the successful ones adapt their style to what they have. We used to do that. Say what you will about past coaches but they took what they had and tried to utilize it the best they could. It seems now that we take the players and force them to play a robotic predetermined style. And god help a player who doesn't do it. They are either sat down, or given less ice time, or demoted to a fourth line, or worse-they leave.
I will not ever give up my support for the boys who play for RPI. But I can no longer sit back and watch this without saying what has been obvious to me for many years now. Glad i can get this off my chest-we have a great group of kids and we have had great groups every year. We also have a great group of posters here who feel as i do but are just not given to this kind of explosive outburst.
OK-now that i got that out-go RED and sweep Brown and Yale so I can begin to sleep nights better.
 
Last edited:
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

I'd like to nominate the above for post of the year. :)
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

One of a coaches main jobs is to recruit the best talent available to him and I think on that score SA does a very good job and works tirelessly at it. A second job, and no less important, is to evaluate that talent and mesh the various aspects into a team that can play well together. The beauty of hockey is that it is a team sport-with everyone having to fit together and contribute. No one, expect the goalie, gets to stay on the ice an entire game. The third thing a coach should do(and this is just my opinion as usual) is create a system to take advantage of the talents he has brought into the program. If you recruit fast small forwards, then create offense tactics to utilize that to best advantage. If you recruit big power forwards, create the scheme that works best for them. Find the defensive pairings that work best together whether it be defensive defense pairings, or offensive defensemen joining the play. But the key is you adapt YOUR SYSTEM that you use to the talents you have on your bench. You cannot and do not change 20 year old hockey players and expect them to fit YOUR system that you feel they should play. These boys have been playing this game for a long time, they are not some 15 year old high schoolers. They have played hundreds or thousands of games and for the most part, what they have at that age, is what you got. And you often have to remember, most of these forwards and defensemen are playing positions that you yourself either never played, or are certainly not as talented playing as they are.
I think it is a bit absurd to keep trying to play a system that the players you have brought in, not only do not buy into, but for the most part cannot buy into since it is a style of game they just cannot play. With rare exceptions, as has been pointed out, we bring in some stellar boys who seem to have so much potential. But each year they just do not progress and often regress. If this happens one year or two years, then i would give it some time. But after 9 years, no one can possibly explain to me how all these years of recruits can be at fault. it has to be the system they are being forced to play. The fundamentals of which are an abomination-I cannot believe someone in this group cannot consistently win face offs, or clear the defensive zone, or work together on a power play with constant movement and motion instead of throwing the puck backwards to the point.
For years, the leading shot takers on our teams have been defensemen. Is the system being played encouraging this? Why do we not have forwards taking more of the shots. Why do we have one of the worst special teams every year? Why are our line changes on the fly so often timed so badly. How often have we been given an odd man rush(or it seems like one) only to dump the puck in and take a line change?
I know this is a long rant but my simple thought is instead of trying to have all these players alter their style of play(which is why they were recruited in the first place), why is the system not constantly changed to fit the talents of the players. I am so tired of hearing that we need to play our game, we need to buy into the system and we keep losing the one on one battles. Hockey is a team battling out there, and although there are instances of one on one battles, it is not a one on one sport. I have followed this team for more years than I want to count and have seen so many teams that we play every year and the successful ones adapt their style to what they have. We used to do that. Say what you will about past coaches but they took what they had and tried to utilize it the best they could. It seems now that we take the players and force them to play a robotic predetermined style. And god help a player who doesn't do it. They are either sat down, or given less ice time, or demoted to a fourth line, or worse-they leave.
I will not ever give up my support for the boys who play for RPI. But I can no longer sit back and watch this without saying what has been obvious to me for many years now. Glad i can get this off my chest-we have a great group of kids and we have had great groups every year. We also have a great group of posters here who feel as i do but are just not given to this kind of explosive outburst.
OK-now that i got that out-go RED and sweep Brown and Yale so I can begin to sleep nights better.

Doc I am sure that most of the poster here agree totally with your rant. I know I do. But I have a question.
How does he get these talented recruits to come to Troy? What does he tell them? It makes no sense that year after year we get talented kids coming to RPI based on a story that the coaching staff is selling. After so many years of frustration, how is the coaching staff convincing these kids and there families and representatives to come here?
I have talked to a couple of parents, and they have been totally behind this coach. It makes no sense to me. Anyone have any ideas?
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Doc I am sure that most of the poster here agree totally with your rant. I know I do. But I have a question.
How does he get these talented recruits to come to Troy? What does he tell them? It makes no sense that year after year we get talented kids coming to RPI based on a story that the coaching staff is selling. After so many years of frustration, how is the coaching staff convincing these kids and there families and representatives to come here?
I have talked to a couple of parents, and they have been totally behind this coach. It makes no sense to me. Anyone have any ideas?

Good question since Fridgen's recruiting went downhill his last couple of years.

As to what the parents tell you, unless they know you real well, they won't say anything bad about the coach.
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Well it is time to pack their bags. Tonight's results have just about guaranteed a road trip for the first round (I wouldn't recommend packing for more than a two-day stay). With the modified KRACH ratings and the remaining schedules for the final three weekends the Monte Carlo simulation gives the following probabilities for RPIs ECAC finish:

7th - 0.8%
tie 7th - 0.0%
8th - 2.0%
tie 8th - 0.0%
9th - 30.6%
tie 9th - 4.0%
10th - 12.6%

Probability of being on the road - 97.2%

Not that other people aren't allowed to post this sort of thing, but my KRACH calculations are both more extensive and if you don't mind me saying, a lot better. My ratings disagree with almost everything you say, and a lot of what you say doesn't make any sense. We're on the road 97.2% of the time, but we're only in 9th or 10th 47.2% of the time? Are we in 11th and 12th 50% of the time? And if we are, what drug is your calculator smoking? We have a 9 point lead on Brown with 6 games left.

I don't disagree that we're likely to hit the road in the first round, but something's extremely wonky in either your simulation or your typing it here.
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Not that other people aren't allowed to post this sort of thing, but my KRACH calculations are both more extensive and if you don't mind me saying, a lot better. My ratings disagree with almost everything you say, and a lot of what you say doesn't make any sense. We're on the road 97.2% of the time, but we're only in 9th or 10th 47.2% of the time? Are we in 11th and 12th 50% of the time? And if we are, what drug is your calculator smoking? We have a 9 point lead on Brown with 6 games left.

I don't disagree that we're likely to hit the road in the first round, but something's extremely wonky in either your simulation or your typing it here.

Something tells me there are some wonky assumptions, like perhaps he's assuming we're going to lose out.
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Doc I am sure that most of the poster here agree totally with your rant. I know I do. But I have a question.
How does he get these talented recruits to come to Troy? What does he tell them? It makes no sense that year after year we get talented kids coming to RPI based on a story that the coaching staff is selling. After so many years of frustration, how is the coaching staff convincing these kids and there families and representatives to come here?
I have talked to a couple of parents, and they have been totally behind this coach. It makes no sense to me. Anyone have any ideas?

SA is an extremely glib and savvy man. he makes a wonderful personal appearance, he speaks incredibly well, and he is a great salesman for our program and our school. He is an A+ recruiter. I suspect he is also honest with the recruiting kids and their parents. I would never want that to change. I think what is needed is a truly offensively oriented and fundamental tactical assistant who can make use of all the talent that SA brings to the program. I hate to point out the obvious, but if we just won faceoffs yesterday, we probably do not lose the game. It was one of the most glaring examples of how poor fundamentals have cost us. There are so many examples of the past few years (being on a 5 on 3 against QU late in the game and giving up a short handed goal). It seems like every game we make a few to many fundamental errors or lapses that other teams just either do not make or make less often.
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Not that other people aren't allowed to post this sort of thing, but my KRACH calculations are both more extensive and if you don't mind me saying, a lot better. My ratings disagree with almost everything you say, and a lot of what you say doesn't make any sense. We're on the road 97.2% of the time, but we're only in 9th or 10th 47.2% of the time? Are we in 11th and 12th 50% of the time? And if we are, what drug is your calculator smoking? We have a 9 point lead on Brown with 6 games left.

I don't disagree that we're likely to hit the road in the first round, but something's extremely wonky in either your simulation or your typing it here.

Well I'm glad someone read that post and figured it made no sense. My only lame excuse was that it was after midnight and I was tired thus did not proof the copy. I have corrected the post now that I discovered my formula error - yes probabilities should add to 100%! Anyway here are the correct outputs. And you are on the mark in pointing out that we cannot finish 11th or 12th with any reasonable expectation. The bottom line is that my original point still is valid - we only have a 5.6% chance of hosting round 1.

7th - 1.6%
tie 7th - 0.0%
8th - 4.0%
tie 8th - 0.0%
9th - 61.2%
tie 9th - 8.0%
10th - 25.2%

Probability of being on the road - 94.4%

I don't doubt that your analysis is more rigorous than mine and has more fidelity. Still if your numbers significantly differ from mine I would like to know. As the KRACH changes with every game result, it would be much more complicated to write a program that includes that dynamic. Accordingly I froze the KRACH values at the time I did the run. If you use the current values which reflect all western games completed after the RPI_CU result, the outputs will be a bit different.
 
Last edited:
Good question since Fridgen's recruiting went downhill his last couple of years.

As to what the parents tell you, unless they know you real well, they won't say anything bad about the coach.

Hard to land a recruit when the administration didn't support you. They treated Fridgen terrible his last three years.

They have bent over backwards for Appert and he has landed some great players. Too bad he can't coach. With his record it's amazing that any parent would let there son play hockey at RPI.
 
Last edited:
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Well I'm glad someone read that post and figured it made no sense. My only lame excuse was that it was after midnight and I was tired thus did not proof the copy. I have corrected the post now that I discovered my formula error - yes probabilities should add to 100%! Anyway here are the correct outputs. And you are on the mark in pointing out that we cannot finish 11th or 12th with any reasonable expectation. The bottom line is that my original point still is valid - we only have a 5.6% chance of hosting round 1.

7th - 1.6%
tie 7th - 0.0%
8th - 4.0%
tie 8th - 0.0%
9th - 61.2%
tie 9th - 8.0%
10th - 25.2%

Probability of being on the road - 94.4%

I don't doubt that your analysis is more rigorous than mine and has more fidelity. Still if your numbers significantly differ from mine I would like to know. As the KRACH changes with every game result, it would be much more complicated to write a program that includes that dynamic. Accordingly I froze the KRACH values at the time I did the run. If you use the current values which reflect all western games completed after the RPI_CU result, the outputs will be a bit different.

Lugnut froze KRACH also. If I read things correctly, you included a general factor for ties and lugnut ignored them since KRACH doesn't predict ties. He did many more simulations than you, but that shouldn't substantially affect the chance of being at home vs. on the road.

I also add that I am writing this while half asleep, so I may have forgotten something.
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Hard to land a recruit when the administration didn't support you. They treated Fridgen terrible his last three years.

They have bent over backwards for Appert and he has landed some great players. Too bad he can't coach. With his record it's amazing that any parent would let there son play hockey at RPI.

Losing builds character. :) I suspect that winning vs. losing is only one factor which recruits and their parents consider.
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Lugnut froze KRACH also. If I read things correctly, you included a general factor for ties and lugnut ignored them since KRACH doesn't predict ties. He did many more simulations than you, but that shouldn't substantially affect the chance of being at home vs. on the road.

I also add that I am writing this while half asleep, so I may have forgotten something.

Having just woke up, I'm not sure if lugnut is running every possible permutation or not, or if his possibility-to-finish is only based off 10^6 simulations, because it is possible for RPI to get 11th or 12th, as it is possible for Brown to get 8th. Are these improbable? Yes. Not without possibility, though.
 
Losing builds character. :) I suspect that winning vs. losing is only one factor which recruits and their parents consider.

One factor yes, but a significant one. Motivation for choosing a school is different for each individual, but playing for a winning program with a chance to play for league titles and NCAA berths is probably high on most kids' lists.
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Having just woke up, I'm not sure if lugnut is running every possible permutation or not, or if his possibility-to-finish is only based off 10^6 simulations, because it is possible for RPI to get 11th or 12th, as it is possible for Brown to get 8th. Are these improbable? Yes. Not without possibility, though.

I should let him answer himself, but an "x" means that it never came up in his 10^6 simulations. It may or may not be possible. 0.0 just means that it happened fewer than 500 times of the 10^6 (i.e., less than 1/2000 chance).
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

One factor yes, but a significant one. Motivation for choosing a school is different for each individual, but playing for a winning program with a chance to play for league titles and NCAA berths is probably high on most kids' lists.

I agree that it is significant. The question is how it compares to other factors.
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Having just woke up, I'm not sure if lugnut is running every possible permutation or not, or if his possibility-to-finish is only based off 10^6 simulations, because it is possible for RPI to get 11th or 12th, as it is possible for Brown to get 8th. Are these improbable? Yes. Not without possibility, though.

Understood. I am only showing results to one significant figure. If we need to know what those fringe probabilities are, we would likely need to run tens of millions of iterations. With 36 ECAC games left and three possible outcomes for each there are 3^36 possible permutations which is 1.5x10^17. I doubt that lugnut has all of those covered.
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Understood. I am only showing results to one significant figure. If we need to know what those fringe probabilities are, we would likely need to run tens of millions of iterations. With 36 ECAC games left and three possible outcomes for each there are 3^36 possible permutations which is 1.5x10^17. I doubt that lugnut has all of those covered.

He mentioned that he runs 10^6 permutations, which mind you, could give 10^6 outliers. For what it's worth, RPI can go all the way up to second. Once again, improbable, but not without possibility. Not to mention, you must take into account your tiebreaking scenarios. Are you using the ECAC format, or are you using a pessimistic (i.e. RPI loses all tiebreakers) view?
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Understood. I am only showing results to one significant figure. If we need to know what those fringe probabilities are, we would likely need to run tens of millions of iterations. With 36 ECAC games left and three possible outcomes for each there are 3^36 possible permutations which is 1.5x10^17. I doubt that lugnut has all of those covered.

10^6 out of 1.5x10^17 won't catch everything, but it is good enough for what he wants to do. He proved to my satisfaction a year two ago by comparing two sets of 10^6 selections.
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015 Part II: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

I do include a flat 13.45% chance of tie factor (I counted how many ties happened in the last five years or something like that). I'm not rigorously checking every single possibility, because as I and others have noted, that would require >10[sup]17[/sup] simulations. My tiebreaking can't handle anything greater than a three way tie, and if two teams are still tied after the ECAC win tiebreak, I flip a coin and break the ties that way.

EDIT: Outcomes with an "x" rather than a number never occurred in my simulation, but may be possible. I defer to FD08 on tiebreaking and whether something is possible or not.

MORE EDIT: I just don't understand how you're getting us in ninth (alone or as a tie) 69% of the time, which is nearly double what I have. Here is the relevant line from my post in the other thread:
Code:
   |  KRACH |     1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9    10    11    12 |Avg Rk |AvgPts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RP |   53.0 |     x   0.0   0.0   0.2   0.5   1.3   3.2   8.5  37.2  48.9   0.1     x |  9.27 | 18.43
Would you mind sharing your code? I can post mine too and we can compare.

pastebin with my python code
 
Last edited:
Back
Top