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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Out of the blue topic, but does Bucky have anybody in the pipeline (outside of Thompson) to replace Bennett and Guddy next year? Is Thompson highly thought of, or just a practice guy??

i'm sure they do, its time we get a big time goalie that can be effective in the early years. They system we have had is ok, that is learning for 2 years then getting the starting job but there are down falls of that, such as not being use to playing that many games, if the progression doesn't go well you end up with average goaltending (Shane Connelly) although I would probably put shane as above average as far as the league goes but as far as our program he was average. I see other schools win lots of games with freshman or soph. goaltending (BU. UND, DU, BC, CC) There is no reason we can't get the same here, plus you would think top goalies would want to come here because of the defensive system eaves tends to play. So if i had to guess i'm thinking Eaves has his eye on someone that could come in and start as a fresh or soph.

Thompson is just a practice goalie
 
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Out of the blue topic, but does Bucky have anybody in the pipeline (outside of Thompson) to replace Bennett and Guddy after next year? Is Thompson highly thought of, or just a practice guy??

I kind of agree uw14. Although Thompson was asked to walk-on to WI, he was in Bozeman (Tier 2) and not the USHL. IIRC, he had outstanding numbers in high school and was all state but not many, or any, D-1 looks. No knock on him because he now is in D-1, but he will be another Ryan Jeffries/Jeff Henderson...nothin' wrong with that; they BOTH have NC rings!!
 
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

I also hope that they at least have their eye on somebody. Unfortunately, the days of just finding somebody and having Howie coach them into an All-American are over. High hopes for Sanger, but would like to see them give him a little bit of talent to work with. I think they did a good job getting Bennett. Guddy is decent, but personally, if you couldn't beat out Connelly, your not good enough.

Brought it up because SCSU is starting Lee tonight, which was very highly touted. When is the last time Bucky brought in a goalie with any hype??
 
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

I also hope that they at least have their eye on somebody. Unfortunately, the days of just finding somebody and having Howie coach them into an All-American are over. High hopes for Sanger, but would like to see them give him a little bit of talent to work with. I think they did a good job getting Bennett. Guddy is decent, but personally, if you couldn't beat out Connelly, your not good enough.

Brought it up because SCSU is starting Lee tonight, which was very highly touted. When is the last time Bucky brought in a goalie with any hype??

Brian Elliott had a bit of hype, he was the best goalie to come out of ontario by far, mainly because he didn't get drafted into the OHL. People who followed hockey closely knew that Brian Elliott was a very good goalie already when he got here but Bernd bruckler had the job already, had Bruckler turned pro Elliott would have been the starter in his Soph year.
 
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

I also hope that they at least have their eye on somebody. Unfortunately, the days of just finding somebody and having Howie coach them into an All-American are over. High hopes for Sanger, but would like to see them give him a little bit of talent to work with. I think they did a good job getting Bennett. Guddy is decent, but personally, if you couldn't beat out Connelly, your not good enough.

Brought it up because SCSU is starting Lee tonight, which was very highly touted. When is the last time Bucky brought in a goalie with any hype??

Well, hype is overrated. Elliott had negative hype, if that's possible.

I guess Eaves landed Mike Brodeur back in the day, but he bolted for Major Junior after the NCAA dinged him because he played a few minutes in a charity match against MJ players, or some other BS like that.
 
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Brian Elliott had a bit of hype, he was the best goalie to come out of ontario by far, mainly because he didn't get drafted into the OHL. People who followed hockey closely knew that Brian Elliott was a very good goalie already when he got here but Bernd bruckler had the job already, had Bruckler turned pro Elliott would have been the starter in his Soph year.

Yeah, would have to agree Elliot worked out OK ;). Wasn't he brought in pretty late in the game though? I seem to remember that Ottawa let him sign with us a couple of weeks before school started? I guess I was thinking more along the lines of signing someone during the early signing period. I don't remember Bruckler or Melanson being hyped. Valley?
 
Last edited:
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Yeah, would have to agree Elliot worked out OK ;). Wasn't he brought in pretty late in the game though? I seem to remember that Ottawa let him sign with us a couple of weeks before school started? I guess I was thinking more along the lines of signing someone during the early signing period. I don't remember Bruckler or Melanson being hyped. Valley?

for a long time they wanted to bring goalies that would work well in Howards system and were coachable, highly hyped was so much of a priority but now i think it will be from now on.
 
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Here's a shock to no-one:

The Wisconsin State Journal is useless.

If they're going to print that, I suggest we start writing in (see comment #4 in the No Alibis blog post in the link).

Good work, Gandalf. You wizard.

WOW WSJ, you just got owned...

by the way, just throwing this out there, i'm curious to see how he feels about the the current MMA fad going on. you want to stop "fighting" in college hockey, well what about all MMA fighting, which seems to be big in this town, for whatever reason. My personal feelings of MMA aside, its an interesting comparison... It would help of the guy knew what a hockey fight was before writing an article about it. hey i'm just saying. This hockey program is too good for the media in this town that covers it.. plain and simple... i'm so sick of our program getting covered by people that either have never played the game nor have they ever taken the time to learn the game properly...
 
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Yeah, would have to agree Elliot worked out OK ;). Wasn't he brought in pretty late in the game though? I seem to remember that Ottawa let him sign with us a couple of weeks before school started? I guess I was thinking more along the lines of signing someone during the early signing period. I don't remember Bruckler or Melanson being hyped. Valley?

Bruckler was definitely really hyped up. Valley not so much. Melanson not at all. Jim Carey will probably go down as the most hyped goalie in Badger history. He was the talk everywhere.
 
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

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.



(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...

I understand your point and I think that it a slightly better option. But it feels a little odd to reward a team for taking a penalty that ends a PP, but effectively punishing them for being successful and scoring a goal.

I do like that your method effectively caps the team at 1 goal per 2 minutes of PP time, but how would you account for a major penalty then? What about the power plays that normally bookend a 5-on-3 event?

I do think that this has potential for being a valid PP metric.
 
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Should be interesting to see if the league comes down on C Smith for his second CFB.


Heatley is on a scoring spree for the Sharks
 
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Should be interesting to see if the league comes down on C Smith for his second CFB.


Heatley is on a scoring spree for the Sharks

I thought it was a terrible call, it was a penalty but to give him a CFB was overboard IMO. they whole game last night was called horrible. When you have a full period without 5 on 5 hockey you know once again the WCHA refs are trying to take the game over yet again. I use to ask, when's this going to stop but now i'm use to it...
 
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Anybody else a little shocked about the stability of our lineup this early in the season. not very Eaves like but i like it. Only been a couple changes in lines and starting lineups... i feel that this better start then recent years may be in part due to that...
 
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

I understand your point and I think that it a slightly better option. But it feels a little odd to reward a team for taking a penalty that ends a PP, but effectively punishing them for being successful and scoring a goal.

I do like that your method effectively caps the team at 1 goal per 2 minutes of PP time, but how would you account for a major penalty then? What about the power plays that normally bookend a 5-on-3 event?

I do think that this has potential for being a valid PP metric.

I don't think pro-rating PPs that don't run a full 2 minutes is a reward for taking a penalty to end a PP - for one, that works both ways. It works for PPs that are cut short when the attacking team takes a penalty that nullifies their advantage, but it also works for a team that's on the PK and forces the attacking team to take a penalty as well - something that usually results in getting a rather useless, short PP at the end of the 4 on 4.

I get what you're saying about it being a 'reward,' but I think the prospect of losing a man advantage is bad enough. I suppose you could come up with some other adjustment to the total time, compensating for teams that end their PPs with penalties.

For major penalties, I think the solution is simple. With those, it's possible to get more than 1 goal per penalty, so just count those as such (again, pro-rating time if necessary due to offsetting penalties).

For 2 man advantages, I'm not sure what the best approach should be. I almost feel as if a 2 man advantage is both rare enough and substantially more different from a regular PP that it's worth it's own metric.
 
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

My thoughts on this weekend's games courtesy of Charter 87.

I wasn't really happy w/Bennett Friday. The first goal was on the 5 on 3. The SCSU guy walked in and up from the endline, dangling the puck like he was going to pass. There was a another scsu player @ the backdoor wide open. Bennett was cheating further towards the backdoor as the scsu player walked in, then the scsu player shot it past him. On the 4th goal (breakaway), he made the first move and left about a foot of open net on the blocker side right along the ice. I'm not saying UW still doesn't lose if he stops those, but they were weak with fundamental errors. That was a frustrating game because they played well enough to win and didn't.

Saturday Goody played a solid game, I thought scsu carried a bit more of the game vs Friday, but UW converted when they had the chances. The Johnson goal, #4 , was a gushy bad angle goal. Lee made a great assist on goal #3 by Murray, and Murray top shelved the shot like a pure goal scorer.

>Lee is definately coming around.
>The more I see C Smith, the more I like his game.
>Davies will have nightmares about all the chances he did not bury.
>I still think Stephan is a bit MIA.
>The PP still sucks. The guys are not moving the puck man to man quickly enough to avoid the opponents adjusting to the puck movement. And no shots off the pass.
>The thing that really stood out to me was UW's transition game. It is the best I've seen in years. It's gotta be a finish in the top 3 or bust.
 
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

I think Goody deserves a shot at playing both nights.

Not that anybody cares, but we dropped 2 spots in the PWR this week, and UND dropped down to 13 after getting swept by the better Pioneers. Denver is going to be a tough beat when we play them.
 
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

I thought it was a terrible call, it was a penalty but to give him a CFB was overboard IMO. they whole game last night was called horrible. When you have a full period without 5 on 5 hockey you know once again the WCHA refs are trying to take the game over yet again. I use to ask, when's this going to stop but now i'm use to it...

Still what the league sees is two CFB in a short period of time early in someone's first season in the WCHA. I hope it is nothing too long if not nothing at all.
 
Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

I think Goody deserves a shot at playing both nights.

Not that anybody cares, but we dropped 2 spots in the PWR this week, and UND dropped down to 13 after getting swept by the better Pioneers. Denver is going to be a tough beat when we play them.

they always are! i think we are 2-6-0 in the last 8 games against them or something like that, granted a couple of those loses were bad loses but none the less.... so its going to be difficult but its going to be a huge series this year, hopefully we get a better crowd then at the KC then the Minnesota series, both noise and numbers wise...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top