The PWHL has announced the games at TD Garden (BOS) and Madison Square Garden (NY) have sold out.
Ticket sales indicated this was coming anyway, but the post-Olympics boom is REAL.
Add this to both Clarkson’s first years Sara and Kate Manness being first team ECAC players and everyone saying Canadian women’s hockey is doomed can breathe a little.
The current Canadian hockey system will continue to create lots of top tier players.
People slowly start standing up chanting “meat wall, meat wall”
I re read your exact article today as I was thinking/working/failing.
There’s maybe an argument to take the X% of league average? Given the much bigger disparity in college hockey than professional hockey, some teams would have wild profiles but that maybe is the best starting block.
Tagging much smarter folks because I’m having a much tougher time justifying a 13F/7D cutoff type approach and replacement level maybe has an entirely different value in a non-trading or signing system
@evolvingwild.evolving-hockey.com
@hockeyviz.com
@quarkyhockey.bsky.social
Working on a new component for some of my modelling work in college hockey around “replacement level” players.
Given mostly fixed roster properties (e.g teams may not carry more than 8 D), do we think replacement level and its underlying theory is applicable in college hockey as currently used?
I think u18s next year will be really fun. A lot of really great Canadian 09s who didn’t make this year’s team, which admittedly, was also very good.
It’s always more fun to dream and project on the future right?
I do think maybe the absence of both Cooper and Gosling on D in that age range is notable.
But as we’ve talked about, the Canadian 06s and 07s are really great, and truthfully the 08s and 09s might even be better.
This is true, the American team rocks and is super young.
Now everyone go look at the freshman and sophomore scoring leaders in the NCAA. Canada will be more than fine into the next quad.
Putting this out there so I can revisit this in the future but if the 2026 PWHL draft deviates from this order I will be disappointed.
1. Harvey
2. Murphy
3. Edwards
4. Janecke
5. Simms
I will allow (and would encourage) a team needing center depth to take Janecke at 3.
It takes somewhere between 50-60 point shot attempts in womens hockey to result in a goal (tips and screens included), and this game seemingly finally hit the 60 mark for that goal
I think there’s certainly a case to call her that right now. Which leads to the potential for the incredibly funny situation of someone not taking her first overall.
so it really was the leafs all along
I find the angle people take claiming its development interesting. The biggest push back against implementing progressive approaches to youth hockey are people with vested financial interests, and parents.
We do research on half ice hockey and other scaled conditions and people don’t like that!
As the original post says, this is just roster composition.
Canadas 18 and 19 year olds in college are excellent (go look at freshman and sophomore scoring leaders), they just aren’t 22 yet and they aren’t at the Olympics.
Take a look at the top programs in the Canada and the USA, and they run near identically.
Look at the rosters of Shattuck St Mary’s and Bishop Kearney, then go look at the rosters of the Etobicoke Dolphins, Durham West Lightning, and RINK Kelowna.
Filled with D1 commitments, and u18 IIHF players
Double repost here but the Canadian girls and women’s development system isn’t broken. It closely mirrors the USA except for the unique situation that is Minnesota high school hockey.
Hockey Canada has very clear, and at times very centralized development opportunities for girls hockey.
The anti-WCHA stance creeps into the Olympics. Is this Penn State erasure?
Kind of fun to see the top 4 PWHL picks for next years draft look dominant in a Canada USA Olympics game.
Less good for Canadians that all four play for the USA.
While Team USA didn't create a ton of chances via volume, they were able to capitalize on a couple high danger chances. Sometimes that's all it takes in a hockey game.
Team Canada controlled possession for a majority of the game, but Team USA kept them from getting to the dangerous spots over the course of the game extremely well.
A game report showing Team USA scoring 2 goals on 1.66 expected goals on 33 shot attempts, 33 shots, and 6 scoring chances. Canada had 0 goals on 1.13 expected goals on 49 shot attempts, 35 shots on net, and 1 scoring chance.
A game probability worm showing the most likely score in the game would have been 1 to 1.
This past Sunday, team USA won the 2026 IIHF U18 Women’s World Championship 2-0 over Team Canada. A really competitive game from two teams filled with players with bright hockey futures. Here is the game report and game probabilities based on my modelling work in women's hockey.
I don't have many thoughts on Gascon aside from I think she's excellent, so that one may just be an experience angle.
As for Primerano, it was primarily deployment. Limited minutes generally, but limited OZ starts and PP use. Hard for her to show her best with less friendly opportunities.
Signs were there from the rivalry series, but I’ve been wanting a little more opportunity for Nicole Gosling and Kendall Cooper too, though that seems extremely far away now.
The most obvious one is how fundamentally different advantaged rushes are compared to non-advantaged rushes. They're essentially non-comparable, and hard (impossible?) to tease out without detailed data. Here are the two most relevant density maps showcasing this from my article.
An article looking at rush offence using women's Canadian University is up on my website. Had a lot of fun looking at rush offence in response to the discussion in the NHL.
While not directly applicable to the NHL tactically, I think there's important overlaps.
sites.google.com/view/bencsie...
I regularly record shots from inside the crease in my modelling and tracking. A 3 foot increase from low slot to inside crease can make my models xG value jump by ~0.2 at times.
It makes a big difference as you’ve clearly established
This is fundamentally a blocked shot and I have a hard time seeing it in any other light. If a puck hits a defenders stick and doesn’t go at the net then it was impeded.
In my tracking I wouldn’t include that as a shot attempt (nor do I think many people would).
Curious the thought process from the NHL data team here
We can only dream. I’d imagine the NHL has no intention of doing that for a number of reasons, which is sad but that’s show business.
