7 Takes: Hockey Hall of Fame and Four Nations Edition

It was a huge week in women's hockey. Let's get at it, with seven takes.

1- Jayna Hefford was inducted in the Hockey Hall of Fame. For the first time in my life, I sat down and watched most of the induction on TV, especially enjoying Hefford, O'Ree, and St. Louis's speeches. Not surprisingly, Hefford spoke to the importance of creating opportunities for everyone:

We're with you, @J16H 🙌
Congrats to Jayna Hefford on being the sixth woman to be inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame!
Watch her full speech here: https://t.co/aQtSwWqquW#WomensHockey pic.twitter.com/BMkSsI2FcJ

— Women's Hockey Life (@WHLOfficial) November 13, 2018

2- If you haven't read this profile by Eric Duhatschek at The Athletic on Jayna Hefford, you can enjoy it now, unlocked, no subscription required. I think my favorite part of it was how positive Hefford was about her minor hockey experience, and positive about facing the challenges of growing the sport today. Also, the ringette to hockey comparison. "This isn't hockey." Poor ringette.

3- The occasion of Hefford going into the Hall of Fame  resulted in press and questions for her in  her capacity as interim CWHL commissioner. Some of Hefford's comments, as reported in the Toronto Star: “Everybody says they want to support the game and they want to support women’s hockey. But we really need to see it in a tangible way.” It's a message I am seeing more often, and one I am glad to see.

I think for the longest time the focus was on getting girls to play hockey. Now we need to add everything else, and a huge part of that is fans. Personally I never received any messaging that I should be a fan of women's sports. I think there is a real culture of you (meaning us women) play the game until you're done with it, whenever that might be, then you follow NHL if anything, maybe getting into coaching your own kids one day, and that's it. I feel self conscious sometimes, being a fan of women's sports and it's certainly not accessible to me the way men's sports are. But I love following it, and I'm drawn to it and the accessibility is growing. So, bravo to Hefford for inviting people to be fans, inviting people to find a way to support women's hockey, if that is important to them.

4- Today it was announced that Cassie Campbell-Pascal will join the Hockey Hall of Fame Selection Committee. She is the first woman to hold this position, an Olympian with expert knowledge on women's hockey. Women's hockey fans will look to Cassie to be a champion for women deserving to be in the hall. Hopefully she will have the continued assistance of her peers on the committee - to date they have already inducted six players. Cassie has her work cut out for her though, as she is only able to nominate one individual per year. As Eric Duhatscheck, a former selection committee member, has explained, sometimes it takes years to build a case to get someone in the Hall.

This gives Cassie some things to think about. Should she risk not having any woman be inducted, and devote years to building a case for a lesser known but perhaps deserving European player? Next year Wickenheiser is expected to be a slam dunk to be first ballot inductee; is there someone on the committee who will nominate Wick, while Campbell builds a case for someone else? Who will be the champion for American female hockey players? There is lots for fans to debate now, lots for Cassie to consider. Today is exciting, and I commend the Hall of Fame people for putting Cassie on the committee.

As for who should go in next (other than Wickenheiser), it's the builders that I think of. Shannon Miller should go in one day, for her contributions at the minor hockey level, Hockey Canada level, and NCAA level. In terms of NCAA Championships, no head coach has won more than her five, though that record won't stand forever. She's now coaching pro with the Calgary Inferno.

I also think Katie King could in, either as a player or as a builder. She is a three time Olympian, and now a successful college coach at Boston College. Then there is Cassie herself.  Her points and length of playing career were not on par with Hefford or Wickenheiser. Her contribution will dwarf most peoples' though, because of the inroads she made with the NHL as a broadcaster, and the way she has used those relationships to advocate for and bring visibility to women's hockey.

Regardless of which women go in the Hall of Fame and when they go, following women's hockey just got more interesting, with today's Hall of Fame committee announcement.

5- I guess we should talk about the Four Nations tournament. It's no surprise that the USA won, they were favored and had won every major tournament going as far back as 2015. I'm not sure any of us expected the US to look as better than Canada as they did in that final though. The hand wringing is on for Canadian women's hockey fans. The good news, if you're looking for spin and good news (I am) is this: Canada played badly in that gold medal game. Playing badly left them at down 2-1 after one, then the Americans broke it open in the second with two goals very close together in the second to make it 4-1. They tied the third period. Hockey Canada will look at that and say, if we play our best we can win.

More good news is that I think the six month residency period that precedes an Olympics would help the Canadians be better prepared to face the Americans in 'the big one,' the Olympics.

The bad news is that wow, there seems to be no end to pipeline of highly talented young US players. The Americans beat Canada 5-2 in a Championship game without both Lamoureux twins (maternity leave, plan on returning), and without Carpenter and Stack (USA Hockey has moved on from them). Just a year and a half ago, USA needed all four of those players to beat Canada in OT in the 2017 Women's Worlds. Watching the Four Nations gold medal game, I didn't once think about those four players. But I thought Canada was really missing Agosta and Mikkelson, Canada's oldest players, who are both currently on maternity leave but aspire to return to the team.

Canada has its work cut for it and until they win again, every tournament is the big one. I don't know if it's an issue of player selection, coaching, or just depth of the pool of players. My gut says it's a minor hockey issue. The US is getting something right Canada isn't right now, good luck figuring that out. Regardless, the narrative has shifted; it's still one of the greatest rivalries in sports, but the games aren't the coin toss they once were. The new narrative, is how and when will Canada get back on top?

But about those dynamic young American players. I'm not going to go hunt for comprehensive stats (Hilary Knight led the tournament in points, 3 goals 4 assists in four games), but here is who looks scary good on USA to me: Decker, Coyne, Knight, Cameranesi, Keller, somewhat Brandt and Kessel. Samoskevich who I had never even heard of before this tournament had an impact, scoring multiple goals, as did Brodt. That's nine players. On Canada's roster really it was Poulin and Daoust who consistently shone for Canada on forward. Canada's other lines were amazing, but not on the level of the US. Gold medal hightlights here, if you haven't seen.

It will be fascinating to watch this play out, and I am already excited to watch them play again in a three game series in February, before Worlds in April. (h/t @kmtwhelan)

6- Ok, let's switch it up. Face it women's hockey fans, one day there is going to be one league. Until then, and after, we'll hear more and more about Gary Bettman. Might as well get to know him. Enjoy (no seriously, it's good) this Gary Bettman interview with 31 Thoughts the Podcast. No women's hockey talk, just FYI.

7- And lastly, I thought this Jill Saulnier Player's Own Voice Podcast episode was good too. Did you know she blew her knee out in the Olympics? I didn't. But she's back, and she played in the Four Nations and CWHL fans will know she plays for Les Canadiennes, too.

That's all I got, guys.

Mercyhurst loses to Lindenwood, falls to 5-6 on the season

Eleven games into the season the Mercyhurst Lakers are 5-6-0 (CHA 5-2-0). They are 25th in goals for per game, at 2.18, and are 6th worst in goals against per game, averaging 3.45 against. The power play is 21st in the nation at 16.07%, and the penalty kill hovers around 80%.  They sit atop the CHA rankings, leading by a point over Robert Morris and having played one more game than Robert Morris as well.

Last year the Lakers averaged 2.54 goals per game, 2.00 against, had a power play of 12.82%, and the penalty kill came in at 86.78%.

Whether it's too early to compare stats like the above to last year, I really don't know. But I do know that coming into this weekend the Lakers had won five out of their last six, and if they swept the 1-6-1 Lindenwood Lions on the road, they probably would have been ranked tenth in the country, possibly helped their pairwise ranking, and definitely would have brought momentum into next week's non conference match up versus #6 Cornell.

The Lakers dropped game one against the Lions though, and so the outlook changes. Today they will work to earn a split and bring home two league points from the weekend. If the Lakers can earn a split, their road trip to Lindenwood will have gotten the same results as last year's.

Last year the Lakers dropped game one 3-2, then demolished Lindenwood 6-1 the next day. Over four games last year the Lakers outscored Lindenwood 16-5. It's that goal differential that suggests the Lakers really are the better team. Watching yesterday though, it wasn't the case. The shots were in Mercyhurst's favor, but Lindenwood scored on their chances when the Lakers did not. The Lakers failed to keep former Mercyhurst player Nicole Guagliardo off the scoresheet. She had a goal and an assist, playing an inspired game, that included one play where she skated through several Hurst players and getting yet another scoring chance.

In the first period the Lakers controlled the play, outshooting Lindenwood 13-8, but also appeared satisfied with just keeping the puck in the Lions zone, at a ho hum pace of play. When Guagliardo got the go ahead goal for Lindenwood, I thought it might spark the pace of play to a level Lindenwood couldn't maintain. To no avail. In the second period some sloppy play in the Lions zone led to a Lions two on one and goal. At that point it's a two nothing deficit against a team with a capable goalie, on the road, without your leading goal scorer. The Lakers could not dig their way out and fell to 3-1 in the third, and 4-1 with the eventual empty net goal.

It was a bad outing for the Lakers, and all they can do is move forward. Inconsistent play is a feature of college hockey (it is even a feature of NHL hockey). But good teams are consistent at playing near the top of their ability game in and game out, and the more consistent you are at that, the closer you get to great.

In thinking of teams that are ranked in the top ten, one can think they destroy the best teams week in and week out. They don't, really. Mostly, good teams show up and beat most the teams that are on their schedule, regardless of circumstances. The Lakers are still learning how to do that.

The Lions and Lakers meet again today at 1:30. Yesterday Laker fans were hoping for a departure from last year's result of a split. Today, we'd be happy to get one.