Did Santa deliver last season?

[hockeymakesmebroke]

Last December, Nicole Haase wrote an article in USCHO titled "Santa’s wish list for D-1" the link follows. http://www.uscho.com/2016/12/15/sant...or-womens-d-i/

I found this article to be an interesting read. I know this is something that I should have done at the end of last season, but just for grins let’s see if Santa delivered or not. If the response is good, I’ll do the rest of the conferences but if it’s a “so what” response I’ll stop here.

Let’s begin with the CHA.

Syracuse needed to stay out of the penalty box in the second half of the season. Did they? In the first 18 games they amassed 116 penalties and followed that up with 68 penalties in the last 16 games. Maybe that is why their record improved from 5-8-5 in the first half to 11-5-0 after Christmas. (Not taking in strength of schedule factors). Santa delivered for Syracuse.

Penn State: The wish was to improve their goal differential. In the first 18 games they scored an average of 2.50 goals per game and gave up 3.22 goals per game. In the second half of the season they scored only 1.71 goals per game while reducing their goals against to 2.71. So, statistically they did not improve their goal differential, even with the reduced goals against.

Mercyhurst: The wish was for more scoring. Through the first 20 games they averaged 2.3 goals scored, while giving up 2.65 goals per game. The second half saw the goals against dip to 2.13 while the scoring rose to 3.06 per game. Again, not taking in strength of schedule, Santa delivered for Mercyhurst.

Lindenwood: Needed to find power-play goals as they converted just 12 percent of the time. While 12% is below average in the league, they actually dropped to 9% in the second half of the season. Santa left a hunk of coal instead of a chunk of goals for Lindenwood.

RIT had hoped to find some offense as they were second-to-last in the country with 1.09 goals per game. I’m happy to report that Santa delivered and RIT lifted that average to 1.79 goals per game scoring, while at the same time reducing their goals against from 3.91 to 2.93 for that period. Their winning percentage climbed considerably in the second half of the season.

Robert Morris: The wish was that they find a better penalty kill as it was reported they had given up 23 pp goals in their first 18 games. Researching this I found that they only game up 17 goals in 169 attempts the entire season for an average of 10.1%, which is very respectable. Santa, did you hit the egg nog a little too hard here?

So, that concluded the CHA. What say the group?

[Lindsay]

Re: Did Santa deliver last season?

I like this. Especially since I think most programs are pretty conference game heavy in the second half. Curious what Clarkson needed, we know what they got.

[ZedLeppelin]

Re: Did Santa deliver last season?

All Penn State wanted for Christmas was a new coach - Santa was a few months off, but he delivered, and it was egg nog for everyone

[hockeymakesmebroke]

Re: Did Santa deliver last season?

Let’s take a look at the ECAC and see if Santa delivered:

Clarkson was looking to improve on the defensive side of the ice. The wish was to be better on the PK and have better goaltending. The first half of the season they averaged 1.73 goals against and improved to 1.32 goals against in the second half. The PK dropped from the opposition scoring at a 13% clip, down to 11% of the time. Did goaltending improve? They won the National Championship with a shutout! Santa found his favorite child I think and gave up all the toys.

St. Lawrence was hoping to not have a second half meltdown and continue their successful 16-2-2 start. They finished the second half at 12-5-2 which is very respectable, but that goes in the negative column on a comparative basis. Defensively SLU fell back a bit giving up 40 goals in the last 19 games compared to only 24 goals in the first 20 games. Nearly half of those 40 goals against came in 4 of the games which they lost. Santa didn’t deliver.

Quinnipiac wanted to try and create some depth with others stepping up on the offensive side of the game. Statistically, Q fell off a little in the second half as scoring fell from 2.9 goals per game to 2.3 gpg. They did however continue the same stingy defense giving up 1.41 goals against in the second half compared to 1.33 in the first. It doesn’t appear that last season produced any new offensive threats, but looking at this year’s numbers, they may have found some depth. Santa didn’t deliver last year but seems to have given them some hope this year.

Cornell was hoping for better success on the road as they were 2-4-1 in the first half. They did improve to 3-3-2 in the second half with a big road win at Clarkson. Two of the four losses were to eventual Champions Clarkson so all in all, I’d say they performed better on the road. Santa delivered.

Colgate was hoping for some confidence and understand that they are a good team. However, they encountered some potholes when travelling on the road. After posting a 6-2 record in the first half, Colgate was 5-5-1 in the second half of the season away from home. In the 5 losses Colgate scored 9 goals, but 4 of them came in one game (7-4 loss) leaving them with an offense that disappeared on the road at times. Santa disappointed.

Princeton was affected by graduation more than they anticipated according to Hasse. They needed to have some players step up and fill the holes. Upperclassmen did most of the damage for Princeton, although Sophomore Lund and Freshmen Bullock were really good. Frosh Thompson also contributed but that was about all. The magic didn’t happen for Princeton so Santa disappointed.

Yale needed to see someone other than the top line step up. It didn’t happen in the second half of the season as production for the top line continued but there was very little contribution from the rest of the team. Yale didn’t win a single game all year if they fell behind in the first period. With an offense that scores on average 2.23 goals per game, that won’t translate into many victories. If the top line didn’t score, Yale lost. Santa failed to deliver.

RPI hoped to unwrap some defense for the second half. It didn’t happen. Opponents scored nearly 18% of the time on the PP. They were outshot on average by 33%. Goals against were better than they were in the first half of the season, dropping from 3.45 to 3.00. Offensively, they didn’t have a single double digit goal scorer on the team. In fact, they didn’t have a single 20 point person on the team. Santa couldn’t carry everything he needed, and failed to deliver for RPI.

Harvard wanted a complete mulligan. After scoring 1.55 goals per game and giving up nearly three, they just need to find their stride. It never really happened, although the goals differential did improve the second half. They averaged 2.5 goals per game and gave up 2.5 goals per game also. All in all, a very blah season for the Crimson. Santa didn’t deliver as Harvard never really got out of their funk.

Brown needed to shore up the special teams. They were last on the PK and scored just 5 PP goals in the first half of the season. Well, they scored 5 more in the second half and were scored on nearly 30% of the time when in the box. I’m not going to say any more about Brown. Santa couldn’t help them, and didn’t.

Dartmouth had to find a way to pull out the close games as Hasse indicated that they lost 7 of 12 by two or fewer goals. Hey, let’s face it goal differential wasn’t the problem with Dartmouth, it was goal scoring. When you average only 1.36 goals per game all season, you won’t win too many games. Santa didn’t deliver.

Union needed to find their early season mojo after posting a few wins and then losing 12 straight. It didn’t happen. After starting out 2-4, they finished the season going 3-24-1. With an offense averaging 1.12 goals per game and your leading scorer posting 7 goals on the season, Santa’s bag just wasn’t big enough. Another failed delivery.

Next up, Hockey East.