WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

[uwbadgers14]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Not that this really matters, but the Badgers moved up to 9th in the PWR after last week. I'm not sure if we were even in the top 20 at this point last year so it definitely has been a good start.

Is anyone as surprised as me about CC? They're 8th in the PWR and off to a 7-2-1 start. We'll see how they do when their schedule toughens up though.

Rk Team PCWs W-L-T Win % Rk RPI Rk
1 Miami 24 8-1-3 .7917 4t .6410 1
2 Bemidji State 23 8-1-1 .8500 2 .6318 2
3 Quinnipiac 22 8-1-0 .8889 1 .6184* 3
4 Michigan State 21 9-2-1 .7917 4t .6145 4
5 North Dakota 20 7-2-1 .7500 7t .6017* 5
6 Mass.-Lowell 19 7-2-1 .7500 7t .5907 6
7 Massachusetts 18 7-2-0 .7778 6 .5816* 7
8 Colorado College 17 7-2-1 .7500 7t .5776 8
9 Wisconsin 16 6-3-1 .6500 13t .5770 9
10 Denver 15 6-3-1 .6500 13t .5759 10
11 Cornell 14 4-1-0 .8000 3 .5741* 11
12 Alaska 13 7-2-1 .7500 7t .5619* 12
13 Minnesota-Duluth 12 7-4-1 .6250 17t .5599 13
14 Boston College 11 4-3-1 .5625 24 .5533 14
15 Providence 10 6-3-0 .6667 11t .5425 15
16 Ferris State 9 7-3-2 .6667 11t .5423 16
17t Union 7 5-3-3 .5909 21t .5398* 17
17t Nebraska-Omaha 7 5-2-3 .6500 13t .5374* 18
19t St. Cloud State 6 4-4-2 .5000 27t .5336 19
19t Rensselaer 6 7-4-1 .6250 17t .5320* 20
21 Princeton 4 3-2-1 .5833 23 .5262 21
22 Notre Dame 3 5-5-2 .5000 27t .5222 22
23 Merrimack 2 6-4-0 .6000 19t .5220 23
24 Vermont 1 4-4-1 .5000 27t .5193 24
25 Colgate 0 5-2-4 .6364 16 .5190 25

What I don't get is Bemidji being so high, is it just a freak of nature that they finally start to get some respect after they make the frozen four. the PWR is not suppose to have any human element in it what so ever but this season i have my doubts. don't get me wrong i'm glad they are where they are and have earned it.

As for wisconsin being 9 in the power, its nice to see we are not in a giant hole that we have to battle all year to get a at large bid, don't get me wrong there is still a lot of work to be done but its nice to be where we are at this time of the year for once and with a successful road trip have the ability to climb even higher before returning home for December. I remember back in 05-06 you looked at our defense and you thought, man this is nice to have, a defense that is going to keep us in every game and if we get the lead a defense that has the ability to win the game. Obviously it was a bonus to have Brian Elliott back there as well, but i look at this years team and i get that same feeling that we are going to be in every game and once we get the lead we are going to be very difficult to come back on.

One thought i had about the goaltending situation last night is it seems that the team plays better defensively when Bennett is in goal, i don't know if that is just by chance or what but Gudmandson seems to face more shots and has to make better saves so that may be factoring into who is getting the starts as well...

 

[blockski]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

It doesn't matter because it is only possible to get one goal out of a 2 minute PP. But the method also works for the 5 minute major, as I showed below.

But I think it does matter, because you're asserting (with a pure rate calculation) that a team can do better than 1 goal per 2 minutes of PP time.

This is demonstrably wrong because one case gives you 1 goal/30 sec and the other gives you 0 goals/30 sec. How can you say these two produce the same result?

I didn't say they produce the same result, I'm saying the metric you propose can't tell the difference between a PP that's 30 seconds long and one that ends at 30 seconds because of a goal. When all tossed together in the aggregate, those two disparate outcomes are considered the same.

The circumstances for the 30 seconds of PP time is totally different in these two cases, yet a rate calculation treats them the same.

With respect, you said below it was.

Stop arguing and sleep on it.

Yes, I did - for a 5 minute major.

For the rest, I posed it as a rhetorical question - because it's impossible to know that for a regular 2 minute minor.

If you're proposing to count every standard PP as 2 mins of PP time, and then prorate the truncated PPs on a per second basis, that's one thing. But that's not what you said, nor is that an easy calculation with the way we get statistics in the aggregate.

 

[blockski]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Don't even bother looking at the PWR right now.

 

[brianvf]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Don't even bother looking at the PWR right now.

Quinnipiac is a #1 seed!?!?!
OMG!!!

 

[RedFreak]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

But I think it does matter, because you're asserting (with a pure rate calculation) that a team can do better than 1 goal per 2 minutes of PP time.

That's absurd. One doesn't follow from the other. I'm smart enough to compare team's PP rates without coming to the dopey conclusion that a team can score more than one goal per PP. And so are you.

I didn't say they produce the same result, I'm saying the metric you propose can't tell the difference between a PP that's 30 seconds long and one that ends at 30 seconds because of a goal.

I don't even know what this means. I'm not trying to "tell the difference" between individual power plays. I'm proposing a better metric for calculating the seasonal success of a team on the power play that avoids the problem of PPs of different lengths.

If you're proposing to count every standard PP as 2 mins of PP time, and then prorate the truncated PPs on a per second basis, that's one thing. But that's not what you said, nor is that an easy calculation with the way we get statistics in the aggregate.

How is that not what I said? Read it again.: "You keep a season long running total of i) power play goals scored, and ii) the total running number of seconds the team had a numerical advantage. You divide the two."

 

[VarsityWisconsin]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Don't even bother looking at the PWR right now.

Eh, It's fun. I know it doesn't mean much, but it's fun to take a snapshot of where we are at this point in the season. On another interesting note, the KRACH says we've had the 9th toughest schedule in the nation so far.

 

[Almington]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

The point is that you can't infer what would happen in the remainder of the power play because it never happened. So, a team scores in the first 15 seconds - let's say it's a 5 minute major - and doesn't score again. That's either really good or not so great, depending on how you interpret that data.

If you're only going to give a partial credit/demerit to a power play that gets cut off by another penalty, then why would you also give that same partial credit to a PP that scores - also cutting off the remaining penalty time?

You don't count the time that lost when the PP ends from scoring a goal.

If Team A and Team B are both 3 for 8 on the PP, but if team A has 3 goals in 10.5 minutes and Team B has 3 goals in 15.25 minutes, I'd propose that for the same amount of PP time team A is more likely to score then team B.

So yes, given a normalized rate, a team can do better then just one goal for every 2 minutes of PP time. It is a measure of saying if you give, over the course of a game a team a total of 8 minutes of PP time, how many goals can you expect to be scored against you. It would say nothing about what would happen in the course of a single PP.

A similar measure would be: On average, how many minutes of PP time would you have to give a team before they scored a PP goal. Assuming that a team has a current PP% of 25%, which is saying that they score one goal in every 4 PP, or at a maximum on goal in every 8 minutes of PP time. Every hockey fan knows that not all of those PP's go the full 2 minutes. Thus, you would be looking at a team only having roughly ~6 minutes of actual PP time and that their true percentage if each PP was the full two minutes would be closer to 33%.

An example for team C:

PP1: Cut off after 15 seconds by a penalty
PP2: All 2 minutes elapse with no goal
PP3: Goal after 45 seconds
PP4: All 2 minutes elapse with no goal
PP5: Cut off after 90 seconds with a penalty

By the traditional measure this team was 1 for 5 on the PP, but they only had 6:30 of total PP time, thus for 2 minutes of PP time they would have a total of 0.325 goals, or put another way, a success percentage of 32.5% per 2 minutes of PP time.

 

[RedFreak]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

You don't count the time that lost when the PP ends from scoring a goal.

If Team A and Team B are both 3 for 8 on the PP, but if team A has 3 goals in 10.5 minutes and Team B has 3 goals in 15.25 minutes, I'd propose that for the same amount of PP time team A is more likely to score then team B.

Yes.

So yes, given a normalized rate, a team can do better then just one goal for every 2 minutes of PP time. It is a measure of saying if you give, over the course of a game a team a total of 8 minutes of PP time, how many goals can you expect to be scored against you. It would say nothing about what would happen in the course of a single PP.

Yes.

An example for team C:

PP1: Cut off after 15 seconds by a penalty
PP2: All 2 minutes elapse with no goal
PP3: Goal after 45 seconds
PP4: All 2 minutes elapse with no goal
PP5: Cut off after 90 seconds with a penalty

By the traditional measure this team was 1 for 5 on the PP, but they only had 6:30 of total PP time, thus for 2 minutes of PP time they would have a total of 0.325 goals, or put another way, a success percentage of 32.5% per 2 minutes of PP time.

You can convert it back to a 2 minute PP if you want, but I think it makes it more confusing than it needs to be. In your example I would just leave it at Team C scores at a rate of 0.15 goals/min. This rate can then be compared to all the other teams rates to see how good or bad your PP is.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............

 

[blockski]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

You don't count the time that lost when the PP ends from scoring a goal.

No, you don't - I'm arguing that you should, however - if you want a better metric. If you're going to pro-rate PP's that get cut off due to other penalties, you shouldn't also pro-rate them for PPs cut off due to goals scored.

You have to normalize for a regular 2 min PP though, that's what I've been trying to say. The very best outcome of your garden variety 2 minute PP is 1 goal. That could happen in the first 5 seconds or the last 5 seconds - that shouldn't matter in terms of effectiveness.

So - in a 2 min PP that isn't interrupted by another penalty, there are two possible outcomes - 1 (a goal) and 0 (no goal).

This isn't to say that the overall rate can't be better than 1 goal per 2 minutes of PP time - it could be. But the individual calculation for one PP cannot and should not exceed the maximum. The best you ought to be able to do in a PP is go 1/1.

If you only do a pure rate calculation, a team that scores early could (in theory) achieve a better rate than the maximum - the max being 1 goal per 2 minutes of PP time.

Is that an indication of a team that's better at scoring goals? Maybe. Is that an indication of a better PP? I don't think so, because that's not how the rules of the game are set up for minor penalties.

An example for team C:

PP1: Cut off after 15 seconds by a penalty
PP2: All 2 minutes elapse with no goal
PP3: Goal after 45 seconds
PP4: All 2 minutes elapse with no goal
PP5: Cut off after 90 seconds with a penalty

By the traditional measure this team was 1 for 5 on the PP, but they only had 6:30 of total PP time, thus for 2 minutes of PP time they would have a total of 0.325 goals, or put another way, a success percentage of 32.5% per 2 minutes of PP time.

(not sure your math is right on that rate - for 2 min of PP time, they'd have .308 goals, not .325. I think you divided the whole time by 2 (minutes) instead of by 1 (goals scored) ).

The way I'd propose it be calculated is like this:

PP1 - counts for 15 seconds
PP2 - counts for 2 mins
PP3 - counts for 2 mins, Goal scored
PP4 - counts for 2 mins
PP5 - counts for 1.5 mins

So, you've got 1 goal for 6:30 of actual PP time, but you would have expected (barring other penalties) 7.75 minutes of PP time, not the 6.5 that you got. The difference is the 1:15 that was remaining on PP3 when the goal was scored.

Hence:

Traditional measurement - 1/5, 20% (1 goal/10 'assumed' minutes from 5 pp's, *2 min per PP = 20%)
Your measure - 1/6.5 min, (1 goal/6.5 minutes, *2 min per PP = 30.8%)
My measure - 1/7.75 min, (1 goal/7.75 minutes, *2 min per PP = 25.8%)

If you're a coach and want an internal metric to see how well you're team is doing, then a pure rate calculation might work well for internal purposes.

However, for a more objective measure of a team's effectiveness on the PP, I think you have to treat all PP's where a goal is scored as if the PP would have run for the fully allotted time.

The problem I see with the pure rate calculation you propose is that you'd artificially inflate the success rates of teams that score fast on the PP. I think a 2 minute minor penalty should be assessed with a goal being the max value - whether scored 10 seconds in or 110 seconds in. The traditional PP percentage metric would count that as 1/1, which I think is a good starting point.

Prorating the time should happen for PPs truncated by other penalties or the end of the game. Not sure how to calculate 5 on 3s...

 

[aktick]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Would you girls get a room already?

 

[Arpod]

Rumble Rink

Rumble Rink

Hey there, Badgers. I inquired about this in the 'foul-mouthed student section' thread and didn't get a response, so I figured I'd ask here: Is the 'Rumble Rink' cheer still a part of Badger Hockey games? When I was a student in Madison and the Badgers played at the Dane County Colluseum, between periods 2 and 3 a couple (3?) kids whose identity was obscured would appear on the balcony at one end of the ice holding a hockey stick off which was dangling a rubber chicken. The place would get dead-quiet and the chicken dudes would chant something like 'Is this not the Rumble Rink?' and the entire - I mean ENTIRE - crowd would reply 'Yes, this is the Rumble Rink'. It went on for several other Q and As and ended with everyone chanting 'Rumble Rink, Rumble Rink...' It was crazy-Stepford-drink-the-koolaid fun. My brother was visiting and attended a game once and it completely freaked him out.

Is this still done?

 

[aktick]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Oh geeze, now we're going to have to hear about that from MCR again.

It's no longer done...hasn't been for a good 15-20 years, I believe. A couple of true fans here have attempted or wanted to attempt to get it going again, but the general stupidity of the students today has made it a lost cause, I think.

 

[blockski]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Well, it was never so much a team cheer as it was a cheer led by that one guy.

It would be like if Phil left. No one can fill those shoes.

As it is, something new comes along.

 

[Arpod]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Thanks for the info. It was a looooong time ago, to be sure.

 

[Scottyp]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

- The guys who came up with "What the F" after the "drop the puck" drum cadence should be lined up and shot. Or, at the very least, they should be made to s*it hot knives. They sat next to my group in 113/4 for two seasons (06-07 and 07-08, if I remember correctly). I'm pretty sure they weren't even students anymore. One was bald. The other guy had long, wavy hair (looked kind of like Mark Boone Junior) and always wore a top hat for some reason. I'm describing them so, if you guys ever see them, you can tell them that they can go eat a bag of dicks. I'm secretly hoping that one of them posts here. Rep me and let me know how I can find you. I just might do it, just to tell you what a bunch of tools you guys are. They showed up late for every single game, rarely before the first intermission. They just started shouting "what the F!!!" really loud after every "drop the puck" drum cadence. They thought it was hilarious. I can't believe its caught on. This is your student section, people.

This chant was popular 25 years ago when I first started getting season tickets at the Dane and the band played over the top of the glass. It seemed to go away for a while, but now its back.

 

[skeptic]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Bloski and Red Freak,

So if we apply a little science...one goal per 2 minute power play cannot be exceeded....kind of like the speed of light at 186,000 miles per second cannot be exceeded. So then when a team scores five or more goals in a five minute major, is that tantamount to Darth Helmet taking his ship to Ludicrous Speed in "Space Balls" the movie?

 

[blockski]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Bloski and Red Freak,

So if we apply a little science...one goal per 2 minute power play cannot be exceeded....kind of like the speed of light at 186,000 miles per second cannot be exceeded. So then when a team scores five or more goals in a five minute major, is that tantamount to Darth Helmet taking his ship to Ludicrous Speed in "Space Balls" the movie?

Was the part where I noted I was talking specifically and only about your standard, 2 minute minor penalty not clear enough?

 

[skeptic]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Was the part where I noted I was talking specifically and only about your standard, 2 minute minor penalty not clear enough?

That's it, I am going to have to reveal that my Schwartz is bigger than yours. And, no, I didn't take the time to read much ofthe pp correspondence.

 

[RedFreak]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

That's it, I am going to have to reveal that my Schwartz is bigger than yours.

I think you understand Blockski, my friend.