UNH Wildcats 2013-14 Season Thread

[CarlS]

Re: UNH goalie situation

Chuck - hope all is well with you - can't remember which Bruin coach it was (several years ago) that said, after several losses where the Bs outshot their opponents by a wide margin, something to the effect: you can have all the shots on goal you want, but at some point you have to put the puck in the net.

As for high scoring recruits from the BCHL - I am still gunshy after Travis Banga.

[Chuck Murray]

Re: UNH Wildcats 2013-14 Season Thread

SOG's are just a superficial count that offers absolutely zero insight into the quality of those shots. Ask yourself these questions (among many others, I'm sure):

* Is a shot from the slot off the iron less relevant than a clear-in from center ice that happens to be on goal? Only the latter counts as a SOG;

* Is a missed breakaway where the attacker fires wide less relevant than an unscreened slapper from the point into the goalie's midsection? Ditto;

* What Hockey East team had the most SOG's last season? Allowed the least?? I have no idea, but I'd be willing to bet the latter is more important than the former.

The only "advanced analytical" stat I've even paid slight attention to is plus-minus, and to be honest, at the end of the day that's another simplistic attempt to explain what's happening out there, and there are some HUGE holes in that measurement as well.

It's almost like the *vaunted* "pitch counts" you see all over baseball these days ... which somehow include intentional walk pitches, but overlooks pre-game and in-game warm-up pitches, throws over to first base to check a runner, etc. I'm not saying there isn't some limited insight to be gained from superficial hockey stats like SOG's, plus-minus or even possession ( ... but what do you do with that possession???). But ultimately, that's all new-age stuff, and the last time I checked, the measure of success is how often your team outscores the other team, and whether they can do it at the end of the season when the important awards are handed out.

And while I know sonar's comments are meant somewhat in jest, I think that issue is actually a lot more relevant than many of the superficial stats we see. JMHO.

Now, onto the other issue ...

Occasionally, a recruit who was no higher than a top-40 scorer in his USHL career will blossom into a top-tier NCAA player - Kevin Goumas is an example.

I was making two points in my post. First, focusing only on recruits who played in the USHL overlooks some very good college players. UNH players like Bobby Butler (EJHL), Paul Thompson (EJHL). Austin Block (NAHL), Damon Kipp (BCHL), Connor Hardowa (AJHL), Trevor van Riemsdyk (EJHL), Brett Pesce (EJHL), and Grayson Downing (BCHL) come to mind, I believe that UNH has continued to attract top recruits from these other leagues.

I think the last decade has really eroded our perceptions of what a "top tier" and "very good" college player looks like. Is Goumas really a "top tier" player? I see a lot of skill but I see some pretty big holes in his game. I would allow him as "very good" to be fair, but not "top tier". As to the players classified above as "very good" ... I don't see any of Kipp, Block or Hardowa in that category. Average to slightly above average, tops. I'm not even sure Downing or Thompson get much beyond "above average". Butler and TVR are the only two who right now impress me as having been clear-cut "very good" college hockey players, to my thinking.

And therein lies the rub. I have to agree that the level of talent coming into the program has fallen off - gradually over time, but markedly if you compare the rosters from the early part of this decade to the early part of the last decade. I do hope this new approach to getting in the recruits at a younger age turns things back around ...

[Chuck Murray]

Re: UNH goalie situation

Chuck - hope all is well with you - can't remember which Bruin coach it was (several years ago) that said, after several losses where the Bs outshot their opponents by a wide margin, something to the effect: you can have all the shots on goal you want, but at some point you have to put the puck in the net.

As for high scoring recruits from the BCHL - I am still gunshy after Travis Banga.

Good to hear from you too, Carl. It's been too long. Although a few more of those Banga comments might send me away for another Rip Van Winkle sabbatical ...

[C-H-C]

Re: UNH Wildcats 2013-14 Season Thread

I think the last decade has really eroded our perceptions of what a "top tier" and "very good" college player looks like. Is Goumas really a "top tier" player? I see a lot of skill but I see some pretty big holes in his game. I would allow him as "very good" to be fair, but not "top tier". As to the players classified above as "very good" ... I don't see any of Kipp, Block or Hardowa in that category. Average to slightly above average, tops. I'm not even sure Downing or Thompson get much beyond "above average". Butler and TVR are the only two who right now impress me as having been clear-cut "very good" college hockey players, to my thinking. ...

To some degree, it's a question of semantics.
One thing Butler, Thompson and TvR have in common is that they were All-Americans.

[CrazedUNHfan]

Re: UNH Wildcats 2013-14 Season Thread

Let's leave the absurd pseudo-statistical over-analysis to baseball, can we, please? Just because Bill James and his staff of a half-dozen "Dungeons & Dragons" devotees can justify their existence in another sport, where measurable events are more individualized and repetitive, has NO bearing on hockey - a sport of perpetual motion and countless variables - whatsoever.

SOG's mean absolutely zero. Goals mean everything, and you get those from being talented and creative with the puck, understanding some basics of system play, having an understanding and anticipation of the flow of play, and the determination to win key battles for the puck. And you prevent them from being defensively disciplined, having a clear understanding of your team's defensive system, and how you fit into that system at ALL times to minimize the opposition's chances of generating a quality shot. That determination thingie also figures pretty prominently on the defensive side of the equation, too.

The idea that this all comes down to "luck" or "calibration" or "volatility of small samples" is laughable and incredibly naive. Left unchecked, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the pocket protector brigade puts forth some compelling pseudo-data about "shot counts" and the need to "rest goalies" and "bring in the set-up man and closer" in the third period. God, please give me strength ... they've ruined one sport already, now they're going for the rest, arrrrrggggghhhhhh ...

I find it ridiculous that you try and call me naïve when you are completely dismissing very useful and valid math. I have grown up in a generation where looking inside the numbers has helped predict meaningful outcomes in all sports. You can diss Bill James all you want and throw a few here and there but after reading Moneyball you can tell that all his stats are solid. Before you go and trash anything that sounds outside your comfort zone why don't you try and look at how the statistics work. Calling hockey too back and forth for advanced metrics is completely false and ignorant.

Here is a nice article from the 2011/2012 season on the Minnesota Wild. If you watched them that year they went from 19-7-3 and first in the nhl to finishing with a record of 35-36-11. You can say all you want about culture and a poorly designed powerplay but in the end luck has a lot to do with hockey.
http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2011/1...and-tim-tebow/

When you have possession in the offensive zone you have a chance to score and the other team does not. And as much as you say shot quanity doesn't lead to shot quality I find that false. If you shoot from the point you can get a rebound and that leads to a higher quality shot or if you just put it into the goalie's glove at the end of a shift that leads to an offensive zone faceoff for more scoring chances. UNH has only played 7 games and of our 5 losses and 1 tie we have been within one goal for one and tied after 60 minutes for 3 of them. I don't think that it takes any fancy metric or reasoning outside your comfort zone to realize that UNH has deserved better than what they have gotten. UNH has had possession in the offensive zone and has dominated play for large stretches of some of these games. I think that things will turn around and we will win some games.

I agree with you Chuck on a lot of things you have said about UNH's game. UNH needs to get people in front of the net and play with more grit to convert on these scoring opportunities. The chances are there and I hope the coaching staff has drilled it into their heads that no one is to talented or special to score a tip in or rebound goal. We also need to stop making so many stupid mistakes in the defensive zone because it is absolutely mindboggling how many people have been open for point blank shots and we need at least one game where the goalie steals one for us. We have two very capable goalies that need to step it up and take the job. It is right there for the taking all we need is one of them to get hot.

All of the above mentioned things are typical hockey plays that everyone has been taught since they were 5. I have no doubt that they will start scoring and winning games very soon. And so you have something to hold me on for my use of "Dungeons & Dragons" stats it is predicted that the Toronto Maple Leafs will suffer a similar fate as the Wild did because they have not had good possession numbers and some unsustainable shooting percentages/save percentages.

[sonar]

Re: UNH Wildcats 2013-14 Season Thread

Speaking of statistics (both parametric and non-parametric types) I wonder if anyone has access to the face off winning percentages of .... lets us say Hockey East teams.
I would speculate that UNH would rank near the bottom. This is strange because I must admit that Umile was one of the best faceoff men I have seen in a UNH jersey (yes i did see him play).Winning faceoffs dramatically increases puck possession time.

Of course luck also increases possession time .... but isn't it interesting that lucky people are open to their immediate surroundings, relaxed even. I bet Chuck knew I'd somehow get back to the "constant" in the formula .... "uptightedness."

[e.cat]

Re: UNH Wildcats 2013-14 Season Thread

SOG's are just a superficial count that offers absolutely zero insight into the quality of those shots. Ask yourself these questions (among many others, I'm sure):

* Is a shot from the slot off the iron less relevant than a clear-in from center ice that happens to be on goal? Only the latter counts as a SOG;

* Is a missed breakaway where the attacker fires wide less relevant than an unscreened slapper from the point into the goalie's midsection? Ditto;

* What Hockey East team had the most SOG's last season? Allowed the least?? I have no idea, but I'd be willing to bet the latter is more important than the former.

The only "advanced analytical" stat I've even paid slight attention to is plus-minus, and to be honest, at the end of the day that's another simplistic attempt to explain what's happening out there, and there are some HUGE holes in that measurement as well.

It's almost like the *vaunted* "pitch counts" you see all over baseball these days ... which somehow include intentional walk pitches, but overlooks pre-game and in-game warm-up pitches, throws over to first base to check a runner, etc. I'm not saying there isn't some limited insight to be gained from superficial hockey stats like SOG's, plus-minus or even possession ( ... but what do you do with that possession???). But ultimately, that's all new-age stuff, and the last time I checked, the measure of success is how often your team outscores the other team, and whether they can do it at the end of the season when the important awards are handed out.

And while I know sonar's comments are meant somewhat in jest, I think that issue is actually a lot more relevant than many of the superficial stats we see. JMHO.

Now, onto the other issue ...



I think the last decade has really eroded our perceptions of what a "top tier" and "very good" college player looks like. Is Goumas really a "top tier" player? I see a lot of skill but I see some pretty big holes in his game. I would allow him as "very good" to be fair, but not "top tier". As to the players classified above as "very good" ... I don't see any of Kipp, Block or Hardowa in that category. Average to slightly above average, tops. I'm not even sure Downing or Thompson get much beyond "above average". Butler and TVR are the only two who right now impress me as having been clear-cut "very good" college hockey players, to my thinking.

And therein lies the rub. I have to agree that the level of talent coming into the program has fallen off - gradually over time, but markedly if you compare the rosters from the early part of this decade to the early part of the last decade. I do hope this new approach to getting in the recruits at a younger age turns things back around ...

Not to add fuel to the fire regarding SOG but one very effective but innocuous SOG is the dump on net inside the red line with forwards coming through the neutral with speed and crashing the net forcing the opposing goalie to cover up. OH-fensive zone face-offs are important, especially in tight games assuming you can win the face-off

[CrazedUNHfan]

Re: UNH Wildcats 2013-14 Season Thread

SOG's are just a superficial count that offers absolutely zero insight into the quality of those shots. Ask yourself these questions (among many others, I'm sure):

* Is a shot from the slot off the iron less relevant than a clear-in from center ice that happens to be on goal? Only the latter counts as a SOG;

* Is a missed breakaway where the attacker fires wide less relevant than an unscreened slapper from the point into the goalie's midsection? Ditto;

* What Hockey East team had the most SOG's last season? Allowed the least?? I have no idea, but I'd be willing to bet the latter is more important than the former.

The only "advanced analytical" stat I've even paid slight attention to is plus-minus, and to be honest, at the end of the day that's another simplistic attempt to explain what's happening out there, and there are some HUGE holes in that measurement as well.

It's almost like the *vaunted* "pitch counts" you see all over baseball these days ... which somehow include intentional walk pitches, but overlooks pre-game and in-game warm-up pitches, throws over to first base to check a runner, etc. I'm not saying there isn't some limited insight to be gained from superficial hockey stats like SOG's, plus-minus or even possession ( ... but what do you do with that possession???). But ultimately, that's all new-age stuff, and the last time I checked, the measure of success is how often your team outscores the other team, and whether they can do it at the end of the season when the important awards are handed out.

And while I know sonar's comments are meant somewhat in jest, I think that issue is actually a lot more relevant than many of the superficial stats we see. JMHO.

Do you think that scoring opportunities are completely random? That you are more likely to get said breakaway or hit a post if you are getting outplayed and don’t have the puck for most of the game. You don’t just get quality scoring opportunities from nothing. To think that there is some magical formula that makes it so that you only get quality opportunities you have to tell me.

Based on your logic: Knodel’s goal from the red line against BC was a better play than if we swarmed the net and had 5 shots and didn’t score? One had a goal and one did not so obviously Knodel’s talent is what scored that not just a random bounce that happens once a year for one team.

When you’re in the offensive zone and getting shots something will hit someone and the puck will go in. The overtime goal from the Lowell game was from the point with a deflection in front. The shots do mean something and they will start going in more if we keep the puck in the offensive zone.

Analytics are on the rise and one day people will have to open up to the crazy idea that you can learn something from the numbers. It has not “ruined” baseball. It has helped it evolve and it can do the same thing to a smaller extent for hockey.

[Chuck Murray]

Re: UNH Wildcats 2013-14 Season Thread

Oh boy ... here we go, looks like I got myself an angry SNAHR-metrician by the tail ... hmmm, how does that saying go ... "lies, ****ed lies and statistics" ...

I find it ridiculous that you try and call me naïve when you are completely dismissing very useful and valid math. I have grown up in a generation where looking inside the numbers has helped predict meaningful outcomes in all sports. You can diss Bill James all you want and throw a few here and there but after reading Moneyball you can tell that all his stats are solid. Before you go and trash anything that sounds outside your comfort zone why don't you try and look at how the statistics work. Calling hockey too back and forth for advanced metrics is completely false and ignorant.

Who says the math is "very useful and valid"? Maybe the better question anyway is ... "is it relevant" in hockey? I say no, it isn't. And before you get too full of yourself amd your generation "looking inside the numbers" I can assure you I understand how "the numbers" work very, very comfortably - thank you. Even if I am a generation older than you, we still had thingies like calculus and statistics back in the day. I know - shocking, isn't it? Did pretty well on my standardized testing, too. But all that aside, I do know enough not to wallow in self-assured smugness and self-serving vanity that this is all somehow explainable in numbers and "advanced metrics", and the rest of us (now or before) who have not "seen the light" of advanced metrics in hockey are just plain "ignorant". I think that's what you're saying, right?

When you have possession in the offensive zone you have a chance to score and the other team does not. And as much as you say shot quanity doesn't lead to shot quality I find that false. If you shoot from the point you can get a rebound and that leads to a higher quality shot or if you just put it into the goalie's glove at the end of a shift that leads to an offensive zone faceoff for more scoring chances.

This is really some good stuff, thanks for sharing. I'm going to put that stuff right up on my personal USCHO revelations board, between "penalties are bad because it makes the penalized team play with one less player", and "you can't win if you don't score, and you can't score if you don't shoot".

UNH has only played 7 games and of our 5 losses and 1 tie we have been within one goal for one and tied after 60 minutes for 3 of them. I don't think that it takes any fancy metric or reasoning outside your comfort zone to realize that UNH has deserved better than what they have gotten. UNH has had possession in the offensive zone and has dominated play for large stretches of some of these games. I think that things will turn around and we will win some games.

No, sorry ... UNH has gotten exactly what it's deserved. You are what your record says you are, and against a pretty strong schedule to date, UNH has clearly shown it's not up to their level. This is not about "puck luck" evening out. They are simply losing to more talented teams, and teams that are finding a way to win close games.

I remember a discussion we had on here a long time ago, when UNH was knocking on the door of a National Championship, and some folks were bemoaning "puck luck" but were completely assured that eventually "puck luck" would even out, and the title was there for the taking. I laughed at that then, and I laugh at that now.

Hockey is not baseball. In hockey, you have to go toe-to-toe against an opponent for one (1) puck, and if you get the puck, then the only thing that matters is sticking that puck in your opponent's net, with six other players doing all they can - legally and oftentimes illegally - to prevent that from happening. It is physically confrontational in a way baseball does not even approach - aside from an occasional take-out slide, or maybe the emotional factor of avoiding high inside heat. If you can measure heart, determination and "compete level", I'm all ears. In baseball, every single at-bat that's taken place in the last century-plus has come with a pitcher and batter in relatively fixed positions, with fixed distances between the bases, over a fixed ball-strikes count in a fixed number of outs over a fixed regulation number of innings. NONE of that exists with hockey.

I agree with you Chuck on a lot of things you have said about UNH's game. UNH needs to get people in front of the net and play with more grit to convert on these scoring opportunities. The chances are there and I hope the coaching staff has drilled it into their heads that no one is to talented or special to score a tip in or rebound goal. We also need to stop making so many stupid mistakes in the defensive zone because it is absolutely mindboggling how many people have been open for point blank shots and we need at least one game where the goalie steals one for us. We have two very capable goalies that need to step it up and take the job. It is right there for the taking all we need is one of them to get hot.

Has it possibly occurred to you that *maybe* neither of the UNH goalies are "very capable"? Or do you have an advanced metric that says they are? 'Cuz last time I checked, one was a senior career back-up with less career starts than I have fingers (maybe even on one hand?) ... while the other guy has played pretty well for stretches, and played well enough to play the previous senior goalie out of his starting job, while keeping the current (alternate captain) senior goalie in career back-up status ... but has never won recognition outside of his own program. Gosh, isn't UNH lucky to have two "very capable" goalies, and not the run-of-the-mill guys in the league like Hellenbucyk or Gillies.

Oh - BTW - with all the "we" and "us" ... my apologies, I didn't realize you were on the team. Which one are you?

All of the above mentioned things are typical hockey plays that everyone has been taught since they were 5. I have no doubt that they will start scoring and winning games very soon. And so you have something to hold me on for my use of "Dungeons & Dragons" stats it is predicted that the Toronto Maple Leafs will suffer a similar fate as the Wild did because they have not had good possession numbers and some unsustainable shooting percentages/save percentages.

They may "start scoring and winning games very soon" (I sure hope they do, anyway), but that's not down to luck. That's down to the level of the opposition.

As far as Toronto goes, when they eventually fall back (see - we agree! ) it won't be because of some statistical hocus-pocus. It will be because they just aren't that good (yet), but they do have some pretty talented young players, and an above-average coach. And if they can "man up" and find a way to overcome the massive choke job they pulled last Spring to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in their first round playoff loss to the B's, it will be because some of their players learned from the experience, grew up/matured, and will not freeze up (again) in the heat of battle.

Which is a nice way of rounding back to the "sonar theory" (which I wholeheartedly agree with) that you can have all the best numbers in the league, but if you can't handle the pressure of the big moments - on the ice OR behind the bench - you are VERY unlikely to EVER win anything of real significance. And really, that's the way it should be. It's what makes competitive sports different from playing the gaming tables in Vegas, or "fantasy football" with your buddies from work. Numbers don't win you a loose puck, numbers don't throw themselves in front of a 90 MPH slapshot, and numbers don't give you grace and focus under pressure. Thank goodness for that.

[Chuck Murray]

Re: UNH Wildcats 2013-14 Season Thread

Analytics are on the rise and one day people will have to open up to the crazy idea that you can learn something from the numbers. It has not “ruined” baseball. It has helped it evolve and it can do the same thing to a smaller extent for hockey.

You seem to be a relatively young person, right? Big picture thinking now - no "advanced analytics" mumbo jumbo ... do you think baseball (as in "everything else other than MLB") is in better shape now in your generation, with MLB now averaging 3+ hour games, with no day baseball to speak of, and losing ground constantly to other sports like football, hockey, basketball, soccer, lacrosse, etc.? I've coached hundreds of kids over the last dozen years, and most of them have grown up with the "Moneyball" version of baseball being the only baseball they've known. Most of them find baseball boring and silly, and they laugh at the lack of athleticism of many of the players. There's no doubt there's a high degree of hand-eye coordination involved ... but you can arguably say the same about bowling and billiards, can't you? The good high-skill stuff gets lost in the silly prattling on and on about pitch counts, "productive outs", Big Papi needing to "rest" because he's been on base 11 times in three days etc. I'm not arguing the logic on *some* of that stuff, but really ... do you think baseball as a sport has benefitted and "evolved" in a positive way from your "advanced analytics"??

And next season MLB goes into the instant replay era full-bore ... and yes, the emphasis is appropriate. Interminable games get even more interminable. Yippee.

[Ned Braden]

Re: UNH Wildcats 2013-14 Season Thread

Hey Chuck, you could save yourself a lot of typing if you just tell 'em "Get off my lawn!"

[Goldie]

Re: UNH Wildcats 2013-14 Season Thread

Chuck- never surprized when you kick a team when they're down. I would be disappointed in you if you didn't. Don't I remember you bragging in the past of being such a good friend with Umile and family? You sure love taking a poop on their driveway when things aren't well. Did you TP their houses at Halloween? Must be a great burden being the smartest guy in the room all of the time. Don't go if you don't like it. You are a gem.

[Chuck Murray]

Re: UNH Wildcats 2013-14 Season Thread

Chuck- never surprized when you kick a team when they're down. I would be disappointed in you if you didn't. Don't I remember you bragging in the past of being such a good friend with Umile and family? You sure love taking a poop on their driveway when things aren't well. Did you TP their houses at Halloween? Must be a great burden being the smartest guy in the room all of the time. Don't go if you don't like it. You are a gem.

Nope, that's not me. Don't know Coach, and don't know his family. Not even from his town, actually. Sorry to disappoint you ...

[Aerman]

Re: UNH Wildcats 2013-14 Season Thread

I haven't noticed that Chuck is kicking the team. It appears to me that his issue is with that part of the fanbase that feels this team can compete at the highest level (leaving the whole statistical discussion aside). I take Chuck's comments as fairly objective observation. We would all like the team to be doing better, but some of us don't expect a lot given the talent on the ice. FWIW, I'm expecting a win tonight.

[Snively65]

Re: UNH Wildcats 2013-14 Season Thread

One thing Butler, Thompson and TvR have in common is that they were All-Americans.

This thread is FINALLY getting really interesting; nice work, lads. There was a post above that I cannot find about NHL draft picks, not that I think they mean anything. I still like face offs won percentages, though.

Yale 5
Wisco 9
Western Mich 4
UVM 3
Union 1
UML 3
St. Cloud 5
RPI 1
RIT 1
Quinnipiac 5
Providence 5
Penn State 4
Ohio State 6
Notre Dame 11
Northeastern 4
Nodak 15
UNH 2
Omaha 6
Mankato 4
Duluth 7
Minny 14
Michigan Tech 3
Michigan State 5
Michigan 12
Miami 5
Merrimack 1
Massachusetts 1
Maine 4
Harvard 9
Denver 7
Cornell 7
UConn 1
Colorado Coll 5
Colgate 1
Clarkson 3
Brown 1
BU 8
BC 10
Bemidji 1
Alaska 1