Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Boston College Women's Hockey 2018-2019: NO COMMERCIALS, NO MERCY

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Boston College Women's Hockey 2018-2019: NO COMMERCIALS, NO MERCY

    Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
    This thread is much better than the ones talking about the Frozen Four imo
    I have certainly lived through the end of seasons such that I can fully relate; e.g., 2008 came to a painful end.

    This year, I'm at peace with the Gophers' season being kaput and I am looking forward to the FF. There was a part of you that knew back when Barnes was called up that BC's season was not going to end well, but since then, you watched too many pucks go in the net and thought, "Maybe we can outscore them." It would be interesting to look back through the stats and find the worst defensive team to win an NCAA Title.
    "... And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breathe a word about your loss;" -- Rudyard Kipling

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Boston College Women's Hockey 2018-2019: NO COMMERCIALS, NO MERCY

      I'd love to see BC win. I routed for them in the game against Minnesota, the only time they made the title game. However, until BC starts scheduling harder teams on a more consistent basis, I don't see it happening. They'll have a dominant offense against most of Hockey East and when they play teams that have better defenses, the Eagles won't be able to figure it out in time.
      "So life's a *****. What do you want to do, cry about it? " - Kara "Starbuck" Thrace

      "Wanna go get sugared up on mochas?" - Willow Rosenberg

      Check my website. College hockey; it's what it's all about!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Arafel View Post
        I'd love to see BC win. I routed for them in the game against Minnesota, the only time they made the title game. However, until BC starts scheduling harder teams on a more consistent basis, I don't see it happening. They'll have a dominant offense against most of Hockey East and when they play teams that have better defenses, the Eagles won't be able to figure it out in time.
        I’ve never followed BC closely but have they ever had 3 Olympic D on the roster at one time before? I have to think they are going to be absolutely loaded next year.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Lindsay View Post
          I’ve never followed BC closely but have they ever had 3 Olympic D on the roster at one time before? I have to think they are going to be absolutely loaded next year.
          They will be a very strong team but would be concerned with goaltending although if you can’t get to the net, how much does it matter?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Boston College Women's Hockey 2018-2019: NO COMMERCIALS, NO MERCY

            Originally posted by ARM View Post
            There was a part of you that knew back when Barnes was called up that BC's season was not going to end well, but since then, you watched too many pucks go in the net and thought, "Maybe we can outscore them."
            Yeah, basically this. Plus it's not like we had no shot -- we had a puncher's chance against anyone. But everyone else did against us, too. You're right though that deep down I knew this team just wasn't quite there. I kept telling myself that everyone else is flawed too this year -- which is true -- but BC's flaws were just a little too much I guess.

            Originally posted by Arafel View Post
            However, until BC starts scheduling harder teams on a more consistent basis, I don't see it happening.
            We're doing the best we can. Wisconsin and Minnesota won't play us so we've got the series with Duluth, which is fine. As for the eastern teams, everyone's scheduled a couple years in advance and some of these teams it's hard to predict where they're gonna go. Harvard shouldn't be this bad and we play them 1-2 times a year. We usually have a pair with SLU or Clarkson. Quinnipiac was in there for a while and they were good but now they aren't. The Beanpot takes away two games, one of which is usually Harvard, who, again, used to be good all the time. We do play Syracuse every year but that's because something something ACC and that's not going away.

            So I mean I don't think there's anything more we can do W/R/T OOC scheduling. We're doing the best we can and that's what have to roll with.

            Originally posted by Puckdrop14 View Post
            They will be a very strong team but would be concerned with goaltending although if you can’t get to the net, how much does it matter?
            Yeah I mean losing Burt definitely sucks, but at this point we've got a pretty strong history of bringing in talented goaltenders and putting them in a position to succeed off the bat. There's not much more we could ask for recruiting-wise for an incoming freshman goalie than the starting Canadian U18 who was peppered by a significantly better Team USA squad like a half dozen times. So while goalie is definitely a question mark, I don't think we could have ourselves in a better situation for losing our starter.
            Last edited by TonyTheTiger20; 03-14-2018, 06:44 PM.
            Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
            Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
            Twitter: @Salzano14


            Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Boston College Women's Hockey 2018-2019: NO COMMERCIALS, NO MERCY

              Originally posted by ARM View Post
              It would be interesting to look back through the stats and find the worst defensive team to win an NCAA Title.
              So I did, and the worst teams in terms of allowing goals were mostly early on. I bolded the worst defensive championship year for each program. So, there was a champ that allowed more than BC (1.97 GAA), but it was a long time ago. At the end, BC was only outscoring teams about 2/1 (4.02 Opp. GAA), and UMD in 2010 was the only winner with a lower ratio.

              Year Team GAA Opp. GAA
              2001 UMD 2.19 5.33
              2002 UMD 1.68 3.86
              2003 UMD 1.78 6.18
              2004 Minn 1.65 4.44
              2005 Minn 1.34 4.89
              2006 Wisco 1.22 3.72
              2007 Wisco 0.85 3.91
              2008 UMD 1.48 4.24
              2009 Wisco 1.28 5
              2010 UMD 1.96 3.27
              2011 Wisco 1.69 5.11
              2012 Minn 1.31 4.39
              2013 Minn 0.86 5.13
              2014 Clark 1.11 3.62
              2015 Minn 1.16 4.44
              2016 Minn 1.26 4.62
              2017 Clark 1.52 3.52
              "... And lose, and start again at your beginnings
              And never breathe a word about your loss;" -- Rudyard Kipling

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Boston College Women's Hockey 2018-2019: NO COMMERCIALS, NO MERCY

                Originally posted by ARM View Post
                So I did, and the worst teams in terms of allowing goals were mostly early on. I bolded the worst defensive championship year for each program. So, there was a champ that allowed more than BC (1.97 GAA), but it was a long time ago. At the end, BC was only outscoring teams about 2/1 (4.02 Opp. GAA), and UMD in 2010 was the only winner with a lower ratio.
                When doing something like this, it's critically important to account for context. As you sort of hint at, different periods of time have different levels of goal scoring, and you have to control for that. Sometimes, it's also important to control for league context.

                Obviously, that makes things a lot more complicated, and I have no intention of doing that work right now, but raw goals allowed tells you very little.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Boston College Women's Hockey 2018-2019: NO COMMERCIALS, NO MERCY

                  Originally posted by Still Eeyore View Post
                  When doing something like this, it's critically important to account for context. As you sort of hint at, different periods of time have different levels of goal scoring, and you have to control for that. Sometimes, it's also important to control for league context.

                  Obviously, that makes things a lot more complicated, and I have no intention of doing that work right now, but raw goals allowed tells you very little.
                  It's a long summer. You'll do that work eventually -- or Grant will. I just wanted to pick the lowest hanging fruit, or maybe those pieces that had already fallen to the ground.
                  "... And lose, and start again at your beginnings
                  And never breathe a word about your loss;" -- Rudyard Kipling

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Boston College Women's Hockey 2018-2019: NO COMMERCIALS, NO MERCY

                    I am looking forward to seeing each teams' returning scoring. I'll be tough to factor in the Olympians but it is what it is.
                    Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
                    Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
                    Twitter: @Salzano14


                    Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Boston College Women's Hockey 2018-2019: NO COMMERCIALS, NO MERCY

                      Originally posted by Still Eeyore View Post
                      When doing something like this, it's critically important to account for context. As you sort of hint at, different periods of time have different levels of goal scoring, and you have to control for that. Sometimes, it's also important to control for league context.
                      Obviously, that makes things a lot more complicated, and I have no intention of doing that work right now, but raw goals allowed tells you very little.
                      What you guys are talking about starts to look like what is sometimes called the 'Pythagorean Theorem of Baseball' or the 'Pythagorean expectation', developed by SABR pioneer Bill James.

                      Basically, it isn't necessarily how many runs a team scores, nor is it the number of runs they give up, but over time, it is the differential of runs scored vs runs given up that will predictively determine how many games they win.

                      As the Wikipedia article mentions, it has been applied (with varying measures of success) to other sports, including hockey; though I assume - without looking - that the application to hockey was to the NHL, where 'over time' involves more games, and would become a better predictor..

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_expectation

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Boston College Women's Hockey 2018-2019: NO COMMERCIALS, NO MERCY

                        Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
                        We're doing the best we can. Wisconsin and Minnesota won't play us...
                        Which has worked out well for Minnesota in its post season games with BC other than that one blip in 2011. OTOH Clarkson is the opposite case. Playing them 5 times in 2010 and 2011 all resulted in wins for Minnesota, but then not playing them till the final game 3 years later did not go so well.

                        Maybe with North Dakota gone the Gophers will finally play a couple home and away series with both BC and Clarkson. They would be fun games to see.
                        Last edited by bluffrinkrat; 03-14-2018, 10:16 PM. Reason: Hilary Price of the hockey forum I'm not.
                        "Everything that rises must converge." Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Boston College Women's Hockey 2018-2019: NO COMMERCIALS, NO MERCY

                          Originally posted by Arafel View Post
                          I'd love to see BC win. I routed for them in the game against Minnesota, the only time they made the title game. However, until BC starts scheduling harder teams on a more consistent basis, I don't see it happening. They'll have a dominant offense against most of Hockey East and when they play teams that have better defenses, the Eagles won't be able to figure it out in time.
                          Well, 3-1 wasn't exactly a rout, but I did root for Minnesota to win that year.

                          I agree that having a harder schedule does help get a team ready for the post season though. Unless you want to go undefeated, then playing teams like Colgate, St Lawrence and New Hampshire in somewhat down years for them probably helps. I'm just very glad the Gophers only played BC once in 2013.
                          Last edited by bluffrinkrat; 03-14-2018, 10:34 PM. Reason: Miss Langer would not have approved.
                          "Everything that rises must converge." Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Boston College Women's Hockey 2018-2019: NO COMMERCIALS, NO MERCY

                            Originally posted by robertearle View Post
                            What you guys are talking about starts to look like what is sometimes called the 'Pythagorean Theorem of Baseball' or the 'Pythagorean expectation', developed by SABR pioneer Bill James.
                            Not really. Pythagorean expectations is good for determining a team's expected winning percentage, and is a better predictor of future winning percentage than actual winning percentage is. However, ARM is asking a slightly different question. Inherent in pythagorean analysis is an assumption that it doesn't matter whether you generate your goals/goals allowed ratio by scoring more, or by giving up fewer. ARM is either suggesting or implying one of two things: that there comes a point at which you can't score enough goals to compensate for giving up more; or that the pythagorean formula breaks down at the extremes.

                            Either one of these could be true. It is definitely the case that there are diminishing returns to becoming better at something you are already good at. If you have an excellent offense and a mediocre defense, it is likely that you will have an easier time reducing the number of goals you allow than to increase the number that you are scoring. So, there is value at looking at the question of just how many goals a team can give up before you conclude that they are unlikely to be able to win a national championship, no matter how good their offense is.

                            Aside from my comment about needing to adjust for context, I'd also say that looking only at the actual national champions leaves you with too small a sample to generate meaningful results. I'd probably extend it to looking at all Frozen Four participants, both to give a larger sample and because once they make it that far, it's possible to for any team to have a fluky weekend and win it all.

                            Basically, it isn't necessarily how many runs a team scores, nor is it the number of runs they give up, but over time, it is the differential of runs scored vs runs given up that will predictively determine how many games they win.
                            To be mathematically precise, it is the ratio of runs to runs allowed that's important, not the differential. To be even more precise, it is that ratio raised to an exponent. The original pythagorean analysis that Bill James created used an exponent of 2, which is why he used the term "pythagorean" to describe it. Later work by Clay Davenport showed that the proper exponent was ~1.8, and that it fluctuated over time. In general, a higher scoring era resulted in a larger exponent, though that wasn't always the case.

                            As the Wikipedia article mentions, it has been applied (with varying measures of success) to other sports, including hockey; though I assume - without looking - that the application to hockey was to the NHL, where 'over time' involves more games, and would become a better predictor..
                            It's actually been very successful across sports, once you adjust the exponent. For basketball, it's much greater than 2; for soccer, a lot less. The values for the NHL are more stable and predictive not just because they play more games, though that's a part of it, but also because the gap in talent between the best teams and the worst is smaller than it is at the college or most minor league levels. As I suggested up top, it wouldn't be surprising if the pythagorean formula starts to break down at the extremes, and trying to use the same formula to predict both Clarkson and RIT could be difficult. A few years ago, I noodled around with the numbers a bit and what I saw was that the exponent for Division 1 women's hockey is probably in the 1.7-1.8 range, but I wouldn't put any level of confidence in that given the very cursory nature of my investigation.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Boston College Women's Hockey 2018-2019: NO COMMERCIALS, NO MERCY

                              Originally posted by Still Eeyore View Post
                              When doing something like this, it's critically important to account for context. As you sort of hint at, different periods of time have different levels of goal scoring, and you have to control for that. Sometimes, it's also important to control for league context.

                              Obviously, that makes things a lot more complicated, and I have no intention of doing that work right now, but raw goals allowed tells you very little.
                              still denying defense wins championships 'eh

                              it's simple math
                              you don't give up any goals, you only need to score one to win
                              you give up one goal, now you hafta score twice as many goals to win
                              you give up two, you hafta score three times as many to win
                              ....it just gets harder to win the more goals you give up
                              Last edited by pokechecker; 03-15-2018, 07:56 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by pokechecker View Post
                                still denying defense wins championships 'eh

                                it's simple math
                                you don't give up any goals, you only need to score one to win
                                you give up one goal, now you hafta score twice as many goals to win
                                you give up two, you hafta score three times as many to win
                                ....it just gets harder to win the more goals you give up
                                It's also easier to win the more goals you score.
                                CCT '77 & '78
                                4 kids
                                5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                                1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                                ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                                - Benjamin Franklin

                                Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                                I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X