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.

UML '09/'10 Season Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

The disallowed goal came 69 seconds into the game and UML still dominated play. Really wouldn't say it changed the game.

I have to disagree with this. Lowell is 6-2-0 when scoring the first goal this year, but only 5-4-2 when opponents score first. That first goal got that place jumping with excitment of a facility enhancment (LED Ribbon) along with a frustrated fan base back on the wagon hoping that it was going to be a hard earn split of a weekend series. With a win last night, Lowell would have taken the Alumni Cup, only five pts from first place, been tied for fifth w/Amherst and most importantly, the season series/tiebreaker. Now with the sweep, Lowell gave a four point swing to UNH, BC, and Maine, and an eight point swing to UMA and seven pts from first, eight if you count tiebreaker.

Could Lowell have lost that game after leading 1-0, sure, anything could have happen. However, Lowell played right into the Amherst playbook by allowing them to hang around, trap, and win by a goal. I'd have to say the result would have been a lot different had Lowell's goal counted. I had a good feeling after that "first goal" went it. I hate to admit it but when the goal was disallowed, reality set in on how they were going to lose this one.

Lowell had their chances. Missed a breakaway, missed numerous open nets or just didn't get good wood and the puck lazily floated to Dainton* who had time to recover and make a save. Lowell lost this game because they took too many stupid penalties (looking at you Michael Budd), and because Ryan Blair skates as well as Kim Brandvold did, which to say, is not very good.

No argument here, Lowell had plenty of chances to put the puck in the net but couldn't do so when it counted (no pun intended). Lowell did dominate most of that game but the problem is the score is what counts toward winning the game. As another poster said, the BC, UNH, BU's of the world have that instinct to finish games off by tying or winning game they should and sometimes shouldn't. Lowell doesn't; to bolster this point they are just 2-4-0 in games that are tied (or up for grabs) after two periods. This has to get better from this point out.

Sure, talent is some of that over a long stretch (consecutive years), but again, we were "supposed" to have it this year, according to the college hockey media. The penalties have to stop, no matter whom is committing them. Five of the last eight Hockey East points have been lost because of those penalities and this team can't afford to let any more points slip away due to fouls.
 
Last edited:
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

I just deleted a post which contained some nerdier stuff when I didn't realize that there was an easier way... I went into the game stats... which ended up being quicker despite not believing so initially... so here we go.

Relating to the post about scoring the first goal.

BEFORE AND INCLUDING THE FIRST GOAL (~217 minutes... about 3 games and 2 periods)

LOWELL: 2.77 GPG
OPP: 3.60 GPG

AFTER FIRST GOAL (~1178 minutes... about 19 games and 2 periods)

LOWELL: 3.21 GPG
OPP: 2.14 GPG

The shift is 1.9 goals.

Since and including the loss to Providence the shift is 2.45.

I won't go any more recent than that since the difference becomes much more stark... and IMO, that's due to lack of data. Since Thanksgiving we've scored first in 2 of 10 games and the related shift is 5.58 goals.... UML is +1.13 after the first goal is scored. But again, 5.58 figure is a coming from giving up 8 goals in about 81 minutes of 0-0 time.
 
Last edited:
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

when you say goals per game, is that goals per 60 minutes (i.e. extrapolating the goals outwards) or goals in the remainder of the game?
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

when you say goals per game, is that goals per 60 minutes (i.e. extrapolating the goals outwards) or goals in the remainder of the game?

60 minute rates like you would for GAA

late edit: the idea would be to reflect the degree of "shift" we assume they play one way before the first goal and another after. This isn't reflective of what really happens but its one way to look at the issue. There is obviously a disconnect between behavior and effect. If I were to show the true effect I'd scale them down by the amount of time a team would usually spend in those situations.

if I were to do that it'd be

UML: 0.46+2.68=3.12
OPP: 0.60+1.78=2.38

Obviously these figures shouldn't play nicely with each other... its not our true GPG and GAG averages. But they aren't that far off.

For those of you who buy into the "pythagorean" theory of baseball (excess wins or losses can be measured)... we're underachieving by about 3 points in the overall standings... I am not using the pythagorean method.
 
Last edited:
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

Wow. Just wow. That's about all I have to say about this past weekend's results. :(

I have no idea if they'll do it, but they almost have to get four points this weekend. And a win over BC is huge for all sorts of reasons.
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

And a win over BC is huge for all sorts of reasons.

Sure... 2nd place team... hold them down and lift ourselves up, TUC team, could help to win a tie-breaker if needed. Lot of potential... and if we were a program that would see ourselves winning these games then it wouldn't be so huge.

I'm not snarking at you, Monty. I'm just annoyed with the whole situation. I don't think Denver thinks that playing Minnesota is huge... they might say it but they know its not exceptional.

edit: I won't be like this next year when we aren't supposed to be good.
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

Wow. Just wow. That's about all I have to say about this past weekend's results. :(

I have no idea if they'll do it, but they almost have to get four points this weekend. And a win over BC is huge for all sorts of reasons.
Only 13 games left, it's now or never if they hope to get back into the NCAA picture. Time to take care of business.

I agree about this past weekend. Losing is one thing, but they basically beat themselves. Give credit to Amherst, they took advantage of their opportunities, something Lowell failed to do. I wouldn't mind seeing them again in the playoffs.
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

Interesting stats regarding Carter Hutton from Sunday's Lowell Sun article.
And so the strange saga of Carter Hutton continues. The senior goaltender, who owns the second-lowest GA average (2.40) and second-highest save percentage (.909) in school history with a school-record nine shutouts, just can't win if he gives up a goal. His career record in games where he surrenders a goal is just 17-35-8.

That record is hard to believe.

Also:
The River Hawks have put opponents on 34 power plays in the last five games and surrendered seven goals. Meanwhile their own power play is mired in a 1-for-23 slump.

http://www.lowellsun.com/college/ci_14211326
 
Last edited:
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

Interesting stats regarding Carter Hutton from Sunday's Lowell Sun article.

That record is hard to believe.
Thanks for this Bob. It's amazing to think that Hutton has had 61 games in his four years where he only gave up one goal. Add in the shutout record ... this guy has been a phenomenal pick up.
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

Thanks for this Bob. It's amazing to think that Hutton has had 61 games in his four years where he only gave up one goal. Add in the shutout record ... this guy has been a phenomenal pick up.

I think those 61 games are games in which he's giving up at least one goal. I don't remember Lowell losing 35 1-0 games over the past 4 years.
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

I think those 61 games are games in which he's giving up at least one goal. I don't remember Lowell losing 35 1-0 games over the past 4 years.
Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. I'll stick by the last part of my statement though.
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

I would like to see a win against Merrimack, I would love to see a win against BC. Both teams unfortunately are playing really well. And are pretty well coached it appears. Either way I hope its fun to watch.

I do like the new display boards though. Thought the eyes were a little creepy.
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

I think those 61 games are games in which he's giving up at least one goal. I don't remember Lowell losing 35 1-0 games over the past 4 years.

I agree, the wording was misleading. But the record and stats really show the lack of offensive support he has gotten over his career.
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

I agree, the wording was misleading. But the record and stats really show the lack of offensive support he has gotten over his career.

I don't want to be the numbers sherpa again but I wonder what the breakdown in terms of goal support looks like for both goalies.
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

It was a very disappointing weekend but I'm not ready to jump ship. Take the 4 points this weekend and Lowell is right back in the thick of things.

Did anyone else notice the increase in music during stoppages on Saturday night? The ribbon board may turn out to be a bad thing if they continue to crank the tunes every chance they get.
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

It was a very disappointing weekend but I'm not ready to jump ship. Take the 4 points this weekend and Lowell is right back in the thick of things.

Did anyone else notice the increase in music during stoppages on Saturday night? The ribbon board may turn out to be a bad thing if they continue to crank the tunes every chance they get.
That was annoying as hell. We have one of the best bands in HE, and they wouldn't let them play. :mad:
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

That was annoying as hell. We have one of the best bands in HE, and they wouldn't let them play. :mad:

I understand that the students are on break but I felt like I was at an NBA game with all pumped in tunes.

Lets hope the students make it to at least the BC game as I'm not looking forward to more of that garbage this weekend.
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread

Lets all take a deep breath and look at the remaining games:

Merrimack
BC
@Northeastern
BU
@Merrimack
BC
@BC
@Maine
@Maine
Providence
@Providence
UVM
UVM

As it stands Lowell is 4 points out of 3rd place and 3 points out of 4th place with a game in hand over both UMass and Maine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top