Expected Goals

[laxreference]

This was originally published in the Sun Oct 8, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

Grace Lane of the University of Scranton had a solid 2023 season, characterized by strong performances and impressive statistics. In a vacuum, she was solid but not spectacular, but when you compare her 2022 with her 2023, there are some warning signs. One of the most notable factors of her season was her elevated usage rate, which increased to 14.5% from a previous 7.8%. This is a clear indication that Lane's role on the team expanded significantly this year, a challenge she embraced with gusto. But her individual efficiency rating went from a 91 (out of 100) in 2022 to a 73 this past year.

During her best four-game stretch between March 28 and April 6, Lane truly shone. Playing against Kean, Misericordia, Elizabethtown, and Moravian, she helped her team secure a 3-1 record. Her individual efficiency rating was in the 87th percentile during this period. Her shooting efficiency was in the 45th percentile, while her assist rate reached the 80th percentile. Most notably, her ball security was in the impressive 74th percentile, underscoring her ability to maintain possession under pressure.

Contrasting this, Lane's most challenging period was between March 18 and March 28, where the team recorded a 2-2 record against St. John Fisher, Rowan, Juniata, and Kean. During this stretch, her individual efficiency rating dropped to the 28th percentile. Her shooting efficiency was in the 25th percentile, and her assist rate was in the 48th percentile. Most significantly, her ball security dipped to the 2nd percentile, indicating a real struggle with decision-making.

When we look at the season as a whole, Lane's shooting efficiency was a highlight of her game, moving from the 59th percentile in 2022 to the 71st percentile in 2023. However, her ball security saw a decline from the 66th percentile in 2022 to the 33rd percentile in 2023. It's important to note that Lane's larger role on the team might have contributed to the increased pressure and subsequent drop in ball security. It's hard to be as efficient when defenses make you the focal point of their strategy; that may have had a role here.

Overall, Lane's 2023 season was characterized by her resilience and adaptability. Her increased usage rate is a testament to her importance on the team. Her shooting efficiency improved notably, and even though there was a dip in her ball security, her overall contribution remained significant although not as efficient as 2022. Her best and worst periods of the season provided valuable insight into her strengths and areas of improvement. The University of Scranton team undoubtedly benefited from Lane's contributions, and her performance was a key factor in their season.


If you want 5-10 minutes of team and player analysis in your inbox every morning, sign up for Expected Goals here.

[laxreference]

This was originally published in the Sat Oct 14, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

Chloe Parker had a solid season playing for Rhodes in 2023, building on the foundation that she built the previous year. She demonstrated significant growth in her usage rate, which went from 5.9% to 10.1% and her share of the team's total shots; she took 8.5% of the team's shots in 2022, compared to 15.1% this past season. This indicates Parker's increased involvement in the team's offensive scheme. She was a focal point in a way that she simply wasn't in 2022.

Parker also displayed tremendous improvement in her underlying skill-based statistics, particularly in her ball security. Her ball security shot up from the very average 53rd percentile to the very impressive 95th percentile in 2023, underscoring her decision-making capabilities and poise under pressure.

Parker's season can be best understood by comparing her best four-game stretch with her worst. Her best stretch came early, between February 24 and March 7, with games against Illinois Wesleyan, Colorado College, Birmingham-Southern, and Capital University. During this period, Rhodes went 3-1, and Parker's individual efficiency rating scored as a 94 (out of 100). Her shooting efficiency was at the 99th percentile, her ball security was at the 95th percentile, and her assist rate was at the 85th percentile.

In contrast, her worst four-game stretch occurred between March 8 and March 26 against Rensselaer, Babson, Hope College, and Sewanee. Rhodes recorded a 2-2 record during this stretch, and Parker's individual efficiency rating fell to a 47 on that same 100-point scale. Her shooting efficiency decreased to the 82nd percentile, her ball security dropped slightly to the 86th percentile, and most notably, her assist rate fell to the 57th percentile.

The most significant variation between Parker's best and worst games can be attributed to her assist rate. This statistic reveals the crucial role Parker plays in contributing to the team's scoring opportunities. When her assist rate was high, the team performed better, indicating her key role in the team's offensive success. Yes, her shooting stats fell as well, but not nearly as much as her assist rate. When she was at her best, it was a well-rounded contribution.

Overall, Parker's 2023 season was characterized by her increased involvement in the team's offense, her exceptional improvement in ball security, and her crucial role in creating scoring opportunities through assists. Her phenomenal 93rd percentile shooting efficiency and impressive 73rd percentile assist rate were key contributors to her overall 91 score for individual player efficiency.

If you want 5-10 minutes of team and player analysis in your inbox every morning, sign up for Expected Goals here.

[laxreference]

This was originally published in the Sat Oct 28, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

Sydney Landauer's 2023 season for Pomona-Pitzer showcased her exceptional talent and ability to deliver a consistently high performance. To put some numbers to that statement, Landauer rated a 95 (out of 100) for her individual player efficiency; essentially, how much value did she produce in the opportunity that she had. This functionally the same as her 2022 performance, when she was rated a 96. Clearly, this was not a one-off. The interesting thing is that she had a fairly low usage rate this year (56th percentile), so there is an open question about how her efficiency would have held up in a larger role.

A key aspect of Landauer's role that evolved from 2022 to 2023 was her share of the team's assists, which jumped significantly from 7.4% to 18.8%. For the season, she recorded every fifth assist for the Sage Hens. She was much more involved in creating offense this year, compared to 2022. In terms of her underlying skill-based statistics, a prominent area of improvement was her shooting efficiency. Landauer exhibited a significant upgrade in this area, moving from the 77th percentile in 2022 to an impressive 92nd percentile rating this year, showing off the fact that hers was a well-rounded game.

Throughout the season, Landauer had periods of exceptional play, particularly between April 15 and April 29, where she delivered the goods against Chapman, Claremont-Mudd-Scripps, Colorado College, and Cal Lutheran. During these four games, her individual efficiency rating was in the 98th percentile, her shooting efficiency was in the 83rd percentile, her ball security was at a high of 99th percentile and her assist rate represented a top-percentile performance.

However, every player experiences fluctuations, and for Landauer, her more challenging stretch came between May 3 and May 21. This period saw games against Occidental, George Fox, Kenyon, and Franklin & Marshall, where her individual efficiency rating dropped to the 79th percentile. Her shooting efficiency dipped to the 47th percentile and her ball security came in at the 39th percentile, while her assist rate remained strong at the 98th percentile.

The key difference in her performance during these two periods seems to be ball security, which dropped significantly during her challenging period. She was still creating offense, but the turnovers that came with them were damaging. It's hard to say whether this was because of defensive pressure or just poor decision-making on her part, but for someone with such stellar numbers, it's nice to have something to work on.

Sydney Landauer, with her high ranking across multiple statistics, and particularly her impressive 99th percentile assist rate and 92nd percentile shooting efficiency, proved to be a crucial player for Pomona-Pitzer in the 2023 season. Her admirable improvement in skills such as shooting efficiency demonstrates her potential to keep growing as a player. You wonder if her usage rate will finally catch up to her efficiency numbers next year?

If you want 5-10 minutes of team and player analysis in your inbox every morning, sign up for Expected Goals here.

[laxreference]

This was originally published in the Fri Oct 27, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

The 2023 defensive unit for Christopher Newport displayed a solid performance, with a few rough patches. Looking at the key underlying statistics, the defense's shooting percentage was in the 41st percentile, while their on-goal shooting percentage and shooting efficiency were in the 27th and 38th percentiles, respectively. However, it's important to note that these raw numbers don't account for the quality of the opposing offenses. Once we adjust for that, the picture becomes considerably more rosy. For example, their opponent-adjusted shooting percentage and opponent-adjusted on-goal shooting percentage were in the 95th and 89th percentiles, respectively, highlighting the defense's effectiveness in limiting opponent's shooting opportunities and forcing them into tough shots. Their opponent-adjusted shot-on-goal rate was in the 100th percentile, indicating an excellent ability to clog passing lanes and force low-quality opportunities. The best summary stat that we have for a given defense is adjusted defensive efficiency, which takes into account the quality of the opponent. On this measure, they were in the 93rd percentile, finishing the year as the 37th ranked defensive unit in the country (out of 281 teams). Overall, Christopher Newport's defense was a formidable unit, especially when considering the strength of the opposing offenses they faced.

The team's performance varied throughout the season, with their best 4-game stretch occurring between May 3 and May 14, and their worst coming just prior, from April 1 and April 15. In the best stretch, their adjusted defensive efficiency was a remarkable 17%, placing them in the 98th percentile. They went 2-2 with wins over Mary Washington, Johnson & Wales (Providence), and losses against Salisbury, Gettysburg. In contrast, their adjusted defensive efficiency during the worst stretch was 27%, placing them in the 67th percentile. It's worth noting that the 27% efficiency number is good, but not great. If they had played that way for a full season, they would have been the 116th ranked defensive unit in the country. They went 3-1 in this stretch with wins over Rowan, Randolph-Macon, St. Mary's (MD), and a loss against Roanoke. Don't be fooled by the records, even though they had a better record during their worst defensive stretch, that's the area where you'd want to look to find out how to make this a more solid unit.

The disparity in their performance during these periods can be attributed to variations in their key defensive metrics. For example, their shooting percentage allowed was 49% during the worst stretch, compared to just 39% during the best. Similarly, their shot-on-goal rate allowed was 78% during the worst stretch, compared to 60% during the best. Given that shot-on-goal rate was their highest-ranking defensive metric, I'm inclined to give that precedence as the key difference in their two stretches.

When looking at games against conference peers and similarly ranked teams (based on the LaxElo rankings), it became clear that there was a single key statistical threshold that had an outsized impact on Christopher Newport's success. That threshold was the number of shots faced on a per-possession basis. In games where the opposing offense took more than 0.59 shots per possession, Christopher Newport had a 6-4 record and an opponent-adjusted efficiency of 33%. However, when they were able to limit the opposition to fewer than 0.59 shots per possession, their record was a perfect 5-0, with an opponent-adjusted efficiency of just 19%. This suggests that the team's success hinged on their ability to limit the opponent's shot opportunities, reinforcing the importance of making opponents uncomfortable, which is the common thread connecting the shot-on-goal rate finding above.

Finally, analyzing the team's defensive performance depending on the duration of the opposing possessions revealed an interesting pattern. While the defense excelled in possessions that lasted less than 20 seconds, allowing goals on just 12.2% of these possessions, they struggled as the possession lengthened. For possessions lasting longer than 20 seconds, their performance was only at par with the national average, indicating a potential vulnerability in sustaining defensive discipline over longer periods. I'm guessing that they were able to create a lot of turnovers in the early part of opposing possessions, which is great, but the next step is how do you avoid the breakdowns that can come after an offense gets into their set.

In conclusion, the 2023 Christopher Newport defensive unit showcased a strong performance, with notable variations in their performance over time and in different game scenarios. Their ability to limit shot opportunities and shooting efficiency was a key factor in their success, and their defense was particularly effective in shorter possessions. However, their performance in longer possessions and during their rough patches revealed areas for improvement.

If you want 5-10 minutes of team and player analysis in your inbox every morning, sign up for Expected Goals here.

[laxreference]

This was originally published in the Mon Nov 13, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

The analysis at hand zeroes in on Carroll (WI)'s performance during the 2023 season, focusing exclusively on their 10 games against conference opponents and teams with similar LaxElo rankings. In these match-ups, Carroll had a 7-3 record.

Diving into the specifics of their victories, it was identified that when the midfield unit, took 9 or more shots, Carroll was unbeatable, boasting a 7-0 record. The team's offensive efficiency spiked at 36% during these games. However, in contrast, when the midfield unit took less than 9 shots, the team suffered all their three losses, with a substantial drop in efficiency to 13%. And no one is saying that those shots had to go in, but it was clearly important that the midfield was involved in the offense.

Another key factor influencing Carroll's victories was their overall shooting percentage. In each of their seven wins, the team had a shooting percentage exceeding 40.5%. When their shooting percentage fell below this crucial threshold, the team recorded all three of their losses. Sometimes you'll see that a team really couldn't win if they had too many turnovers or not enough assists; that's not the case here.

It wasn't all team-level stuff though. When Rebecca Hallman scored 2 or more goals, the team was 6-0. When she scored less than 2 goals, the team's record dipped to a less than stellar 1-3. She was the bellwether for this offense. They were much more successful in games where she was able to get going.

Similarly, when the attack unit had 5 or more goals, Carroll won six games, but when they recorded fewer than five goals, the team only managed to secure one victory out of four games. Lastly, in games where the team took more than 0.73 shots per possession, they secured all five of their victories, but when they took fewer than 0.73 shots per possession, they recorded two wins and three losses.

In conclusion, Carroll's success during the 2023 season correlates strongly with their midfield unit's shots, overall shooting percentage, goal-scoring ability of Rebecca Hallman and the attack unit, and the number of shots taken per possession. Conversely, their losses were predominantly characterized by lower shot counts, reduced goal-scoring, and fewer shots per possession. While it is not clear if these statistical trends are cause or effect, it is evident that they provide a clear snapshot of Carroll's strengths and potential vulnerabilities.

If you want 5-10 minutes of team and player analysis in your inbox every morning, sign up for Expected Goals here.

[Dr. Tact]

Have you profiled York? Curious what your analytics show...yes I have an interest

[laxreference]

This was originally published in the Wed Nov 15, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

The possession game of Capital University notably regressed from the previous season, as evidenced by their per-game possession margin, which decreased from +11.1 (11th nationally) in 2022 to +7.0 (39th nationally) in 2023. This drop of 28 spots in the national ranking indicates a significant year-to-year change. Despite this, their draw-control win rate actually improved, rising from a 60.5% win rate (21st nationally) in 2022 to a 64.7% win rate (17th nationally) in 2023. The juxtaposition of an improved draw-control win rate with a declined possession margin suggests that other factors, perhaps the clearing / riding game, might have contributed to the overall decrease in possessions.

On offense, Capital University experienced a decrease in efficiency, sliding from a 40.7% efficiency (7th nationally) in 2022 to 38.8% (31st nationally) in 2023. This change represents a drop of 1.9 percentage points and a fall of 24 spots in the ranking. Moreover, their offensive turnover rate marginally increased from 22.8% (4th nationally) to 23.5% (22nd nationally), suggesting that turnovers hampered their offensive unit's ability to maintain their high efficiency from the previous season.

Defensively, the team's performance took a downturn as well, with defensive efficiency going from 21.3% (16th nationally) to 27.1% (111th nationally), a notable 5.8 percentage point increase. Even more drastic was the plunge in their opponents' turnover rate, which diminished sharply from 41.9% (18th nationally) to 31.1% (199th nationally). This 10.9 percentage point decrease and drop of 181 spots in the ranking underscores a significant area of decline for the defensive unit. Less pressure lead to more comfortable offenses, which led to the fall in defensive efficiency.

The defensive statistics for the season exemplify the mixed results of the year. Despite a decline in defensive efficiency and a stark drop in forcing turnovers, these factors did not seem to disproportionately affect the team's outcome in terms of wins and losses. This suggests that while defensive lapses did occur, they were perhaps mitigated by other facets of the team's play, such as their improved draw-control win rate, which could have compensated for some of the defensive shortcomings. The end result was a modest fall in the LaxElo rankings; probably a smaller drop than you'd expect given the numbers we've gone through here.

If you want 5-10 minutes of team and player analysis in your inbox every morning, sign up for Expected Goals here.

[laxreference]

Have you profiled York? Curious what your analytics show...yes I have an interest

I have. I did a an offensive deep-dive and a defensive deep-dive.

Will be curious to hear what you think...

And if you have any individual players you think deserve a write-up, let me know!

[Dr. Tact]

Have you profiled York? Curious what your analytics show...yes I have an interest

I have. I did a an offensive deep-dive and a defensive deep-dive.

Will be curious to hear what you think...

And if you have any individual players you think deserve a write-up, let me know!

Thanks, those were a good read. I'll PM you on the thoughts about individual(s).

I am interested in your Assist to Turnover ratio. The eye test for me, last year, was that they did get a good amount of assists, but they tended to have tight feeds in the fan that either led to assist (good) or TO (bad). Not as much solo dodging in their games last year as I would want, so they lived/died by that cutting pass that would show up in your A-T ratio. I understand through decades of watching LAX, assists are the lifeblood of a good team. That said, I would have liked to see York offset that tendency with some forceful driving/dodging.

[lax410]

Have you profiled York? Curious what your analytics show...yes I have an interest

I have. I did a an offensive deep-dive and a defensive deep-dive.

Will be curious to hear what you think...

And if you have any individual players you think deserve a write-up, let me know!

Is your platform searchable?

[laxreference]

Have you profiled York? Curious what your analytics show...yes I have an interest

I have. I did a an offensive deep-dive and a defensive deep-dive.

Will be curious to hear what you think...

And if you have any individual players you think deserve a write-up, let me know!

Is your platform searchable?

It is not. But if there is a team you are interested in, I can check and see if I've done any articles on them.

[laxreference]

This was originally published in the Wed Dec 6, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

This analysis for Gordon's offense centered on the 13 games against conference adversaries and opponents with similar LaxElo rankings, where the team finished with a 6-7 record. Filtering games like this helps because it focuses on games against comparable levels of competition and reduces the distorting impact of schedule-strength. As we dive in, one thing became clear. The numbers laid bare the offense's reliance on specific players.

Hailey Beling was the cornerstone here. The team was 6-2 in the 8 games where Beling took 3 or more shots, boasting a 6-2 record and an offensive efficiency of 33%. In stark contrast, when Beling's shot count fell below 3, the team did not win a game and scored on only 15% of their possessions. Typically, a shot-count total is about having a balanced offense where multiple players are involved, even if they aren't scoring.

That is not the case here. Whether Beling's shots resulted in goals was also key. With 2 or more goals from Beling, Gordon's record stood at an impressive 5-1, with an offensive efficiency of 36%. Conversely, when she scored less, the record plummeted to 1-6, and efficiency dropped to 19%. The shot number is likely more an issue of whether the opposing defense was able to take her out of the game or not.

Her most important role was clearly that of a finisher. However, Beling's assist-to-turnover ratio also correlated with overall offensive effectiveness. A ratio greater than 0.75 (3 assists for every 4 turnovers) saw Gordon go 3-1 with a 39% scoring rate, while a lower ratio resulted in a 2-5 record and a 19% possession score rate. She had the ability to find open teammates...if she was able to get her hands on the ball. Of course, they still were able to win 2 games when her assist-to-turnover ratio was low, so this was not nearly as important as whether she was scoring.

Kaitlyn Mini (scoring over or under 4 goals) and Abbie Zorrilla (taking 2 or more shots) also showed up in the numbers, so it was not purely a Beling-or-bust thing. But obviously, if you were trying to stop this defense, it was about stopping Beling. My guess is that these players were on the receiving end of some of the Beling assists that I mentioned above.

In sum, Gordon's offensive success in the 2023 season hinged heavily on the performance of individual players, particularly in their shot and goal production. The team's reliance on these key individuals, especially Hailey Beling was clear. It will be interested if they are able to become more balanced going forward.

If you want 5-10 minutes of team and player analysis in your inbox every morning, sign up for Expected Goals here.

[laxreference]

This was originally published in the Tue Dec 5, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

The 2023 season for the Stevens defense was marked by exceptional performances and some challenging stretches. Overall, they finished as the 14th ranked defensive unit in the country. The defense's strongest skill was shooting percentage, where they ranked in the 96th percentile nationally, holding opponents to an adjusted shooting percentage of 30.3%. The offenses that they faced were largely average, so there wasn't a huge gap between their adjusted and unadjusted numbers.

Looking at the team's best and worst stretches on defense provides a good feel for what their most impactful skills were. Their best four-game stretch, between May 3 and May 14, saw the team put together a combined adjusted defensive efficiency of 11%, placing them in the top percentile. This stretch included wins over Lycoming, Misericordia, and University of Scranton, with their sole loss against York. Conversely, their worst stretch, between March 15 and April 1, saw an adjusted defensive efficiency of 33%, placing them in the 30th percentile. Despite this, they still managed to secure wins over Mary Washington, FDU Florham, and DeSales, with their loss again coming against York. The key metric responsible for this disparity was the number of shots allowed per possession, which was significantly higher during the worst stretch. More shots allowed per possession means that the efficiency can be worse even if you are allowing the same shooting-percentage.

A deeper analysis of games against conference peers and teams with similar LaxElo rankings reveals another interesting trend. The number of offensive possessions for the opposing team emerged as a pivotal statistical threshold. In games where the opposing offense had more than 36 offensive possessions, Stevens struggled, going 2-3 and allowing opponents to score on 29% of their possessions. On the other hand, when the opposing offense had fewer than 36 offensive possessions in the game, Stevens excelled, going a perfect 12-0 and reducing the opponent's efficiency to 18%. You can maybe make out a connection between these two points. More shots-per-possession typically means longer possessions. Obviously more possessions means more time on defense. Is it possible that conditioning or tired legs was an issue here? Hard to say from the data we have access to, but it would tie these two findings together.

In conclusion, the 2023 season showcased the strength and resilience of the Stevens defense. Despite some challenging periods, the team consistently ranked among the top defensive units in the country. The analysis of the team's best and worst stretches and the impact of total offensive possessions for the opposition provide valuable insights into the team's defensive strategy and areas for potential improvement.

If you want 5-10 minutes of team and player analysis in your inbox every morning, sign up for Expected Goals here.

[2004wrongisland]

I'd be interested in the analytics of Tufts and Margie Carden. She broke the Tufts all time single season goal scoring record as a freshman ( I wonder how many freshman have done that) and equaled it in her sophomore year. She's poised to beat Tufts career goal scoring record as a junior . Yes, I'm a fan of her game and of Tufts.

[laxreference]

I'd be interested in the analytics of Tufts and Margie Carden. She broke the Tufts all time single season goal scoring record as a freshman ( I wonder how many freshman have done that) and equaled it in her sophomore year. She's poised to beat Tufts career goal scoring record as a junior . Yes, I'm a fan of her game and of Tufts.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll add a review of her 2023 season to the queue. That, and an overall Tufts roster rundown will be in the newsletter over the next week or so.

[laxreference]

This was originally published in the Tue Jan 2, 2024 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

The most dramatic shift for Sweet Briar occurred within their defense, which had a tough 2023. Their defensive efficiency plummeted from a rate of 29.3% in 2022, ranking 132nd nationally, to a troubling 47.3% in 2023, falling to 278th. This was driven in part by an increase in shots-per-possession, which increased dramatically from 0.64 (80th) to 1.09 (282nd), indicating that opponents were taking significantly more shots each time they had the ball.

Offensively, the team also faced substantial setbacks. Their offensive efficiency dropped from 17.3% (260th) to just 9.2% (277th), while their shooting-efficiency fell from 41.7% (259th) to 28.8% (279th). Contributing to this drop was a decline in shooting percentage, from 34.8% (252nd) to 22.2% (279th), and a decrease in shots-per-possession, from 0.52 (256th) to 0.39 (272nd). These statistics underscore a significant struggle to convert possessions into shots and shots into goals.

In the possession game, Sweet Briar's performance was equally concerning. The per-game possession margin regressed from -6.9 (234th) to -11.4 (255th). This was influenced by a decline in draw-control win rate from 36.1% (262nd) to 28.9% (271st), indicating difficulties in securing the ball off the draw. Furthermore, their clear rate saw a drastic drop from an acceptable 86.5% (188th) to a distressing 61.6% (279th), hampering their ability to transition from defense to offense effectively.

The offensive stats, particularly the shooting-efficiency and shooting percentage, epitomized Sweet Briar's dismal season. The significant drop in these metrics not only reflects a lower ability to score but also a decrease in shot quality and frequency. When an offense is unable to capitalize on its chances, it places excessive pressure on the defense and limits the team's opportunities to control the game's tempo, contributing to their overall poor performance.

If you want 5-10 minutes of team and player analysis in your inbox every morning, sign up for Expected Goals here.

[laxreference]

This was originally published in the Thu Feb 29, 2024 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

In a game that was anticipated to be competitive, Franklin & Marshall managed to assert control, culminating in a 14-10 triumph over York. This victory not only improved their season record to 2-1 but also showcased their ability to make in-game adjustments.

Defensively, Franklin & Marshall either had a different approach versus York or their strategy just yielded different results. Their adjusted turnover rate in this game was 35.2%, a decrease from last season's average of 40.3% and much lower than the 45.8% mark seen in their first two games. Despite fewer turnovers, their opponent-adjusted defensive efficiency was excellent, finishing at 12.6% for this game. That's quite a bit better than the 21.7% mark they put together in the the 2023 season. A contributing factor here was their ability to limit York to a mere 0.31 shots per possession, a remarkable improvement from the 0.51 average of the preceding season. They produced fewer turnovers, relatively, but they were really stellar at limiting York to one shot per-possession.

The disparity between the two halves of the game was stark, with Franklin & Marshall's defensive efficiency dramatically improving from 36.8% in the first half to 14.3% in the second. This shift was critical as they entered the third quarter with a slender 9-7 lead and a 72% win probability. The defense's intensified pressure resulted in an increased forced turnover rate from 11% to 33%. Additionally, the goalkeeping performance improved post-intermission, with their save percentage rising from 30% to a more robust 50%. Although this uptick could be attributed to improved shot-stopping, the increased turnover rate suggests it was as much, if not more, about the defense disrupting what York wanted to do. Save percentage is as much an overall defensive stat as it is a goalie stat.

On the offensive side, Franklin & Marshall was excellent at avoiding turnovers, with an opponent-adjusted turnover rate of 7.8%. That's better than their already solid 23.6% mark from last year and the 9.1% from their earlier games. However, this careful ball management did not translate to increased offensive efficiency, which saw a slight decrease to 38.1% from the previous year's 42.7%. Sometimes, if you are too cautious, you can lose the aggressiveness that leads in better scoring chances and potentially more giveaways.

In sum, while Franklin & Marshall's offensive efficiency showed a marginal decline, their defensive adjustments in the second half, including a more disruptive approach, were instrumental in their command of the game. This defensive uptick, coupled with excellent ball security on offense, allowed Franklin & Marshall to secure a decisive victory in a match that was expected to be closely contested.

If you want 5-10 minutes of team and player analysis in your inbox every morning, sign up for Expected Goals here.

[Dr. Tact]

This was originally published in the Thu Feb 29, 2024 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

In a game that was anticipated to be competitive, Franklin & Marshall managed to assert control, culminating in a 14-10 triumph over York. This victory not only improved their season record to 2-1 but also showcased their ability to make in-game adjustments.

Defensively, Franklin & Marshall either had a different approach versus York or their strategy just yielded different results. Their adjusted turnover rate in this game was 35.2%, a decrease from last season's average of 40.3% and much lower than the 45.8% mark seen in their first two games. Despite fewer turnovers, their opponent-adjusted defensive efficiency was excellent, finishing at 12.6% for this game. That's quite a bit better than the 21.7% mark they put together in the the 2023 season. A contributing factor here was their ability to limit York to a mere 0.31 shots per possession, a remarkable improvement from the 0.51 average of the preceding season. They produced fewer turnovers, relatively, but they were really stellar at limiting York to one shot per-possession.

The disparity between the two halves of the game was stark, with Franklin & Marshall's defensive efficiency dramatically improving from 36.8% in the first half to 14.3% in the second. This shift was critical as they entered the third quarter with a slender 9-7 lead and a 72% win probability. The defense's intensified pressure resulted in an increased forced turnover rate from 11% to 33%. Additionally, the goalkeeping performance improved post-intermission, with their save percentage rising from 30% to a more robust 50%. Although this uptick could be attributed to improved shot-stopping, the increased turnover rate suggests it was as much, if not more, about the defense disrupting what York wanted to do. Save percentage is as much an overall defensive stat as it is a goalie stat.

On the offensive side, Franklin & Marshall was excellent at avoiding turnovers, with an opponent-adjusted turnover rate of 7.8%. That's better than their already solid 23.6% mark from last year and the 9.1% from their earlier games. However, this careful ball management did not translate to increased offensive efficiency, which saw a slight decrease to 38.1% from the previous year's 42.7%. Sometimes, if you are too cautious, you can lose the aggressiveness that leads in better scoring chances and potentially more giveaways.

In sum, while Franklin & Marshall's offensive efficiency showed a marginal decline, their defensive adjustments in the second half, including a more disruptive approach, were instrumental in their command of the game. This defensive uptick, coupled with excellent ball security on offense, allowed Franklin & Marshall to secure a decisive victory in a match that was expected to be closely contested.

If you want 5-10 minutes of team and player analysis in your inbox every morning, sign up for Expected Goals here.

I didn't see the game, but my thoughts looking at the stats....

• York didn't score for nearly 30 minutes
  York only had 1 assisted goal
  York had 18 turnovers
  York had 7 cards

Cant win big games with the above stats...Play like that is going to make it tough for York to wade through the gauntlet of their OOC games. F&M, William Smith, Gettysburg, W&L, CNU(?) and Salisbury.

Maybe they were a bit overrated?