Expected Goals

[laxreference]

Offense defense deep dive would be great!
Maybe FO deep dive too. That would be interesting.

You got it. It's in the queue. Might be a few weeks before it comes out in the newsletter though; lots of other DIII - Men requests to go through first.

[laxreference]

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

While the Chatham offense struggled in the 2023 season, their defense showed significant improvement; we'll start with the offense. The unit's opponent-adjusted efficiency dropped from 26.5% in 2022 to 18.4% in 2023 (205th nationally). This decline was driven by a significant increase in turnover rate from 34.9% in 2022 (104th nationally) to 44.8% in 2023 (200th nationally). Their shooting efficiency also decreased from 36.4% in 2022 (129th nationally) to 29.8% in 2023 (206th nationally). Whether it was personnel or just worse decision-making, the offense really struggled to create high-quality shots. That was the bad news.

On the other hand, the defense managed a huge improvement in their efficiency, going from 33.0% in 2022 (210th nationally) to 24.3% in 2023 (79th nationally). This jump was driven by a decrease in shooting percentage allowed from 34.0% in 2022 (219th nationally) to 27.2% in 2023 (115th nationally), as well as a decrease in shooting efficiency allowed from 41.7% in 2022 (212th nationally) to 35.3% in 2023 (107th nationally). In terms of unit strength, the defense and offense essentially switched places compared to last year.

In terms of the possession game, Chatham's per-game possession margin improved from -3.2 in 2022 (157th nationally) to +0.6 in 2023 (120th nationally). This improvement was supported by a boost in their opponent-adjusted faceoff win rate, which increased from 44.0% in 2022 (163rd nationally) to 50.4% in 2023 (132nd nationally). However, the faceoff performance showed a decline in the second half of the season, as their adjusted faceoff win rate dropped from 51.9% in the first half to 49.2% in the second half. So it's a mixed bag; they were better than in 2022, but the challenge is recapturing the magic from the first half.

Overall, despite the improvements in the possession game and on defense, Chatham's offensive struggles canceled all of that out and the team ended up in virtually the same spot in the LaxElo rankings as they ended the 2022 season. With a decline in overall efficiency and shooting percentage, the offense was unable to generate enough scoring opportunities. This, combined with the inconsistent faceoff performance, limited their ability to control possession and put pressure on opponents.

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 Oct 19, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

The defense was the standout unit for John Carroll in the 2023 season. Their opponent-adjusted defensive efficiency of 16.5% (2nd nationally) was a significant improvement from 2022 when it was 20.4% (10th nationally). This improvement was driven by their impressive defensive shooting-efficiency, which improved from 34.0% in 2022 (34th nationally) to 27.2% in 2023 (7th nationally). Additionally, their defensive shooting percentage improved from 25.6% in 2022 (45th nationally) to an impressive 19.0% in 2023 (6th nationally). The improvement in shooting percentage was larger, but shooting efficiency is the more important metric since it focuses more weight on those high-leverage on-cage shots.

On the offensive front, John Carroll's efficiency dipped slightly from 37.5% in 2022 (12th nationally) to 36.2% in 2023 (25th nationally). This decrease can be attributed to a higher turnover rate of 31.0% in 2023 (60th nationally), compared to 30.2% in 2022 (35th nationally). Whether it was decision-making or just a lack of poise under pressure, this is the key area that they'll want to address as a priority next season.

Lastly, their possession game improved, as indicated by a per-game possession margin of +8.7 in 2023 (25th nationally) compared to +7.2 in 2022 (38th nationally). This was driven by the faceoff unit, which saw a significant improvement in opponent-adjusted win rate, going from 56.8% in 2022 (63rd nationally) to 62.2% in 2023 (37th nationally).

Overall, John Carroll had an impressive season that was exemplified by their robust defensive performance. Their ability to significantly improve their defensive efficiency via shooting-efficiency demonstrates their strength and effectiveness on the defensive end of the field. While the offense saw a slight decrease in efficiency, their solid possession margin and improved faceoff win rate showcased their ability to control the game and create scoring opportunities. Together, these statistical areas highlight a well-rounded team that was able to compete at a high level throughout the season. It didn't show up in the LaxElo rankings, where they finished 6th, right where they started the year, but it's still a win given the improvement statistically.

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 Nov 2, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

The analysis covers 13 games from Clarkson's 2023 season, focusing specifically on matches played against conference opponents and teams of similar LaxElo rankings. Their record in these games was 8 wins to 5 losses. The objective here is not to say what they were best at or worst at, but what was most important in whether they won or lost. Tactically, that means looking at specific statistical cut-off points where their win-loss record is as different as possible on either side of the line.

To start, a significant statistical trend emerged around Thomas Fiebich's performance. When Fiebich managed an assist-to-turnover ratio greater than 0.20 (so one assist for every five turnovers), Clarkson was undefeated in six contests, with a 32% scoring rate on their offensive possessions. However, when his ratio fell below this threshold, the team went 0-4, with a decently lower efficiency of 25%. Looking at this another way, they were 8-1 (with the lone loss to RPI) when he had at least one assist and 0-4 when he did not.

And it wasn't just him. The Clarkson midfield unit's performance also proved critical. When this position group, as a whole, had an assist-to-turnover ratio greater than 0.18, Clarkson enjoyed an 8 - 1 record with a 31% score rate (the lone loss here was against St. Lawrence). A ratio under this benchmark saw the team again go 0-4. This is clearly an extension of the trend cited above. Fiebich may have been the poster child, but the fact that it shows up against reinforces the important of assist-to-turnover ratio as a critical metric.

The team's overall passing game also showed statistical significance. When the team assisted on more than 44.4% of their goals, they secured 7 wins with a 32% score rate on possessions. A dip below this percentage reflected a 1 - 4 record and a 24% score rate. This suggests that, of the two facets of assist-to-turnover ratio, the assist half may have been more important.

Summarily, these trends suggest that Clarkson's success is closely tied to both individual players, such as Thomas Fiebich, and the overall team's ability to successfully drive offense through ball movement and effective passing.

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 Wed Oct 25, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

Jake Bennett had a strong season playing for Amherst, as he saw a significant increase his role within the offense and improvement in his skill-based statistical profile. Bennett's performance was marked by an impressive 78th percentile assist rate and a solid 67th percentile shooting efficiency. With respect to his role specifically, with his share of the team's shots increasing from 5.4% in 2022 to a significant 16.5% in 2023. Furthermore, his usage rate (which is a general measure of involvement) saw a considerable increase from 4.3% in 2022 to 10.3% in 2023.

His underlying skill-based statistics also saw a change. While his shooting efficiency improved from the 46th percentile in 2022 to the 67th percentile in 2023, his assist rate slightly declined from the 94th percentile in 2022 to the 78th percentile in 2023. I look at that as a player becoming more well-rounded. I'd always rather have a player that can contribute in multiple ways compared to a player who excels in one area.

A comparison of Bennett's best and worst stretches of games further highlights the fluctuations in his performance. His best four-game stretch occurred between April 29 and May 14, where his individual efficiency rating was in the 87th percentile, and he had a 10.0% share of the team's assists. His worst stretch, on the other hand, was between April 15 and April 29, when his individual efficiency rating dropped to the 49th percentile and his share of team's assists increased to 18.2%.

When he was at his best, he wasn't the assist-guy. His best stretches were when he was scoring lots of goals. As evidence, Bennett's shooting efficiency was the most significant differentiator between his best and worst games. During his best stretch, he had a 91st percentile shooting efficiency compared to a 43rd percentile during his worst games.

Despite the variations in Bennett's performance, his impact on the team's overall results was relatively consistent. And Amherst maintained a 2 - 2 score during both Bennett's best and worst stretches, so it wasn't like his results were determining their outcomes. All in all, Bennett's season was characterized by increased involvement in the team's offense and improved shooting efficiency. He was at his best when he was well-rounded, and over-emphasis on being a facilitator was detrimental to his overall productivity.

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 Nov 4, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

Dylan Hanley had a season to remember with Western New England. His ball security ranked in the respectable 79th percentile, demonstrating his ability make good decisions. Hanley's 80th percentile individual player efficiency showed a marked improvement from his 69th percentile in 2022, highlighting his growth as a player in the more general sense.

Hanley's shooting efficiency, which was in the 82nd percentile, was complemented by his significant 87th percentile share of the team's shots. His assist rate was his most impressive attribute, finishing the year ranked in the 92nd percentile. He was involved in every aspect of the team's offense, but as a distributor, he really shined.

Comparing Hanley's performance from 2022 to 2023, it's clear that his role within the team evolved. His share of the team's assists soared from a relatively miniscule 6.0% in 2022 to a whopping 35.1% in 2023, and his usage rate increased from 5.8% to 12.9%. You read that right: he recorded over a third of the assists for the entire season. The most significant difference in Hanley's performance across these two seasons was his assist rate. It jumped from the 53rd percentile in 2022 to the 92nd percentile in 2023, indicating a significant enhancement in his ability to set up scoring opportunities for his teammates. That he increased his individual efficiency while taking on all the extra responsibility is even more impressive.

Hanley's best 4-game stretch, which fell between Apr 26 and May 6, saw him operating at peak efficiency, ranking in the 92nd percentile for individual efficiency and the 97th for ball security. The team went 4-0 during this period, with wins over Nichols, University of New England, Salve Regina, and Endicott. His worst stretch, on the other hand, saw Western New England go winless and his efficiency dip to the 44th percentile. His ball security during this period was just a 48 (out of 100), making that facet of his game the most notable difference between his best and worst stretches.

And clearly, Western New England's performance was closely tied to Hanley's individual performance since they were undefeated when he was at his best and winless when he was at his worst. This correlation emphasizes the impact Hanley's performance had on the team's success. Perhaps the large increase in his share of the team's assists was a much a function of a general lack of offensive weapons as it was something particular to him?

In summary, Dylan Hanley's season was defined by his remarkable assist rate and significant share of the team's assists. His improved efficiency and ball security were key factors in his successful stretches, while dips in these areas correlated with tougher times for both Hanley and Western New England. Hanley's growth as a player and his increased role within the team were clear across the season, and his impact on the team's performance was undeniable.

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 Nov 10, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

In the 2023 season, Susquehanna's defensive unit stood out as a force to be reckoned with on the lacrosse field. The team's defensive statistics tell a story of a team that was diligent, prepared, and tactically sound. In terms of raw defensive efficiency, Susquehanna ranked in the 73rd percentile, which, after adjusting for the strength of their opponents' offenses, went up to the 78th percentile. This adjustment reflects the high level of competition that Susquehanna faced, showcasing their ability to stand strong against formidable opponents.

The team's best and worst stretches provide insight into their strengths and weaknesses. The team's best defensive period came between March 18 and March 31, where their adjusted defensive efficiency was at 23%, placing them in the 73rd percentile. However, the stretch between March 29 and April 12 was more challenging, with their adjusted defensive efficiency skyrocketing to 40%, sinking them to the 2nd percentile. This disparity can be primarily attributed to the shooting percentage of their opponents; 23% during their best stretch and 38% during their worst. This indicates that their defensive success largely hinges on their ability to suppress their opponents' shooting accuracy.

Further analysis of their games against conference peers and similar LaxElo ranked teams revealed a clear statistical threshold that determined their wins and losses. Specifically, when the opposing teams' shooting percentage exceeded 30.0%, Susquehanna struggled, resulting in a 0-4 record. However, when they managed to keep the opposing teams' shooting percentage under 30.0%, their record improved significantly to 7-2. This emphasizes the crucial role that shooting percentage plays in their defensive strategy and overall success.

The duration of the opposing possessions also played a notable role in Susquehanna's defensive performance. The team's greatest strength lay in defending possessions that lasted longer than 60 seconds, where they allowed goals on only 12.2% of possessions, a remarkable 10.4 percentage points better than the average. However, they struggled in possessions lasting between 20 and 40 seconds, allowing goals on 28.3% of possessions, which was 3.1 percentage points worse than the average. These findings suggest that the team was more effective when given time to settle into their defensive structure, demonstrating a need to improve their early defense and transition.

In conclusion, Susquehanna's defensive performance in the 2023 season was marked by their ability to limit opponents' shooting percentage and their effectiveness in longer possessions. The team's ability to adapt and respond to these key factors played a significant role in their defensive success, shedding light on their tactical strengths and areas for improvement. Despite some challenging stretches, their overall performance demonstrates a strong defensive unit capable of standing tall against strong competition.

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 Nov 14, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

The Western New England defense in 2023 can be characterized as solid, but not outstanding. In terms of raw statistics, their shooting percentages were in the 44th and 40th percentiles, respectively. However, when adjusted for the strength of the opposing offenses, they fared better, with their opponent-adjusted shooting percentage in the 77th percentile. Their best skill was undoubtedly their shot-on-goal rate, where they ranked in the 99th percentile nationally. After adjusting for the strength of the opposing offenses, their opponent-adjusted shot-on-goal rate was 56.6%. If you ignore who they played, this was a 28th percentile defensive unit, but after the adjustment, they finished slightly above average (55th percentile).

When examining the team's best and worst stretches, a key metric emerged as the differentiating factor. In their best 4-game stretch from March 27 to April 4, which included wins over Roger Williams, University of New England, and Curry, and a loss against Amherst, their adjusted defensive efficiency was 22%, ranking them in the 83rd percentile. Conversely, their worst 4-game stretch from March 5 to March 22, which saw them go 0-4 against MIT, Babson, Nazareth, and St. Lawrence, their adjusted defensive efficiency was 34%, placing them in the 8th percentile. The disparity in these stretches was primarily due to their turnover rate, which was higher during the worst stretch. In the best stretch, they forced a turnover rate of 39%, compared to 32% during the worst stretch. This was a pressure-reliant defense (see that 99th percentile SOG rate), but when they went up against teams that could handle it, the defense didn't have an answer.

We can get a different perspective by looking at their performance against conference peers and teams with similar LaxElo rankings. A specific analysis of these 15 contests shows that a key statistical threshold for the team was the assist-to-turnover ratio of the opposing offense. In games where this ratio was greater than 0.45, Western New England struggled, going 1-4 and allowing opponents to score on 37% of their possessions. However, in games where the ratio was less than 0.45, they were dominant, going 10-0 and allowing an opponent efficiency of 23%. This suggests that their ability to disrupt the opposing offense and force turnovers was crucial to their success, but again, when it didn't work, they were vulnerable.

A final interesting trend is how the team's defensive performance varied depending on the length of the opponent's possession. They were most effective in possessions lasting between 20 and 40 seconds, allowing goals on only 21.7% of possessions, which is 3.5 percentage points better than the average. However, as the possession got longer, their performance declined, with goals allowed on 32.6% of possessions lasting between 40 and 60 seconds, which is 4.7 percentage points worse than the average. This indicates that as the opponent had more time to find gaps in their defense, they became more vulnerable. Obviously, that's consistent with the pressure discussion above.

In summary, the Western New England defense in 2023 demonstrated a solid performance, with their shot-on-goal rate being a particular strength. The team's best and worst stretches were largely determined by whether their pressure was able to create turnovers or not. Understanding the length of the opponent's possession also provides insight into the team's defensive 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 Sat Nov 11, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

Maine Maritime showed significant improvement in offensive efficiency during the 2023 season, finishing with a strong 35.2% efficiency (35th nationally) compared to 30.9% in the previous year. This improvement was primarily driven by a reduced turnover rate, which decreased from 38.1% in 2022 (154th nationally) to an impressive 31.1% in 2023 (62nd nationally). Alex <a style='color: #000000; text-decoration:none; border-bottom: 2px solid #189ad3;' href='https://pro.lacrossereference.com/stevensm-4342?t=egq05dlepswmcis'>Stevens,</a> who had the 4th highest play share on the team, exemplified this theme with a turnover rate of 59.8% compared to 78.0% last year, was a key contributor to the team's offensive success.

On the defensive side, Maine Maritime made noticeable strides in limiting the opposition's offense. Their defensive efficiency improved from 26.7% in 2022 (118th nationally) to 25.6% in 2023 (102nd nationally). This improvement can be partly attributed to a decrease in opponent shooting percentage, which dropped from 30.1% in 2022 (157th nationally) to 26.6% in 2023 (103rd nationally). The defense also showed improvement in shooting-efficiency, reducing their opponents' value per shot from 39.0% in 2022 (161st nationally) to 36.5% in 2023 (129th nationally). Shooting efficiency is the more important metric, so the improvement in shooting percentage isn't as impressive as it seems. Still, the defense was inarguably better this year.

In terms of the possession game, Maine Maritime maintained a solid per-game possession margin of +4.1 (72nd nationally) up from +3.7 (82nd nationally) last season. There was no significant year-on-year improvement in faceoff win rate, which remained steady at 51.9% for both seasons. However, the team's overall possession control and efficiency were positive factors in their performance.

Overall, the significant improvements on offense, specifically their ball security, was the primary driver of Maine Maritime's successful season. Their ability to generate quality scoring opportunities while reducing turnovers allowed them to capitalize on possessions and score more efficiently. While improvements in defensive efficiency and opponent shooting metrics were commendable, the offense's impact on the game was more pronounced, contributing to the team's overall success.

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 Nov 16, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

The analysis covers the 13 games that Kenyon played during the 2023 season against conference opponents and teams with similar LaxElo rankings. In these games, the team had an overall record of 10 wins and 3 losses. Our goal here is to not highlight the best or worst facets of their game, but the ones that were the most critical to whether the offense played well or not. The hidden things that really made them tick.

The first important statistical threshold for Kenyon was shooting percentage. In the 9 games where Kenyon had a shooting percentage over 26.8%, the team went 8-1, scoring on 35% of their possessions. Their performance notably dipped in games where the shooting percentage fell below this threshold, recording a 2 - 2 record and an efficiency of only 24%.

Similarly, Kenyon's assist-to-turnover ratio serves as another key determinant of their game performance. When the team's assist-to-turnover ratio exceeded 0.37, they posted an 8 - 1 record and an offensive scoring rate of 35%. However, when the ratio fell below this level, the team's performance suffered, resulting in a 2 - 2 record and an offensive efficiency of 25%. Denison was the one loss when they bested the shooting percentage threshold and the assist-to-turnover ratio threshold.

Assisted shots generally go in at a higher rate, so while the efficiency gap above and below the shooting threshold was larger, I suspect the ball movement/assists finding is actually the more important one here. When they had success creating movement in the defense, it led to better shots and a more efficient offense.

Individual player performance also featured prominently in the team's success, particularly that of David Chintala. Games in which Chintala scored 3 or more goals saw Kenyon maintain an undefeated record of 7 - 0 and an offensive efficiency of 36%. In contrast, games in which he scored less than 3 goals, the team's record was level at 3 - 3 with an efficiency of 27%.

The performance of the midfield and attack units, based on the number of shots taken, is also crucial to Kenyon's success. When the midfield unit took 25 or more shots, the team sustained a perfect record of 5 - 0, scoring on 37% of their possessions. Similar results were seen when the attack unit took 25 or more shots, with Kenyon maintaining an undefeated 6 - 0 record and scoring on 36% of their possessions. Empty possessions were a bad sign for this team.

In summary, Kenyon's performance is significantly influenced by the team's overall shooting percentage, assist-to-turnover ratio, individual player performances (specifically David Chintala), and the number of shots taken by the midfield and attack units. These key statistical factors collectively provide a comprehensive understanding of the team'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.

[laxreference]

This was originally published in the Tue Nov 21, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

The 2023 season was a journey for Lynchburg, with a commendable record of 13 wins and 6 losses in the 19 games that they played against conference rivals and comparably ranked teams. The statistical thresholds defined in this analysis illustrate key indicators of performance are an attempt to isolate, not their best or worst attributes, but the things that they couldn't afford to underperform in.

The Lynchburg offense, notably, thrived in games where the team's overall shooting percentage exceeded 26.5%. A total of 12 wins and just 2 losses were recorded in the 14 games when they hit this mark, demonstrating a correlation between a robust shooting accuracy and successful outcomes. An efficiency of 34% further exemplifies the team's offensive proficiency under these circumstances. They were 0-5 when they shot worse than the 26.5% mark and there was a 12 percentage point gap in their offensive efficiency.

A substantial contribution from Finn Schmidt, the most critical individual bellwether Lynchburg, also played a crucial role in the team's success. In games where Schmidt scored 2 or more goals, Lynchburg went 8-1 versus 3-5 in the games he played where he scored one or fewer goals. Here though, the efficiency gap is less stark, at just 7 percentage points. That means that while it's interesting at an individual level, the team-level metrics were more important to their success. This was clearly not an offense that lived and died on whether Schmidt scored. Instead, you should be thinking about it like this: "something about this offense worked better when Schmidt was involved. Now what is that factor?"

Furthermore, an assist-to-turnover ratio greater than 0.33 (so one assist for every three turnovers) was another critical factor in Lynchburg's success. Achieving this ratio resulted in a record of 11-3, with a noteworthy offensive efficiency rate of 34%. They were 2-3, with a 21% offensive efficiency when they have more than three turnovers for every assist. Typically, I'd look at the ball movement and passing that leads to a better assist-to-turnover ratio as leading to a strong shooting percentage, but I'm not sure that's the case here. They won 2 out of the 5 games where the assist-to-turnover ratio was low. They won zero games when they shot less than 26.5%. They could overcome a lack of assists; they couldn't overcome poor shooting.

Overall, Lynchburg's performance in the 2023 season showcased a team that excelled when they were able to shoot accurately. It was important for them to create offense by getting the defense moving and finding holes, but ultimately, their season hinged on whether their shooters could finish those chances, not as much about the quality of the chances themselves. These statistical trends provide a comprehensive overview of the team's performance dynamics (and offer rival coaches valuable insights for future game-planning against this offense).

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 Nov 23, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

The possession game was a major area of concern for Widener in the 2023 season. They had a per-game possession margin of -11.6, ranking 223rd nationally. This was a significant drop from their -2.9 margin in 2022, which was 154th nationally. The decline in possession margin was primarily driven by their faceoff win rate, which dropped from 43.4% in 2022 to 34.1% in 2023. However, there was a slight improvement in the second half of the season, with a faceoff win rate of 37.9%. This improvement suggests some potential for growth in the possession game if they can carry that trend through to next year.

In terms of offense, Widener made positive steps in multiple areas in the 2023 season. Their offensive efficiency increased from 26.6% in 2022 to 32.0% in 2023, ranking 70th nationally. This improvement can be attributed to a decrease in their turnover rate from 36.9% to 29.7%, ranking 49th nationally. Additionally, their shooting efficiency increased from 36.5% to 40.8%, which was 61st nationally. Bryant Maits, who had the 5th highest play share on the team, exemplified the team's offensive improvement, with his turnover rate dropping from 82.9% to 43.2%.

On the defensive side, Widener struggled in the 2023 season. Their defensive efficiency was 26.6%, ranking 131st nationally, a slight decline from the 25.9% efficiency in 2022. Their opponents' turnover rate also decreased slightly from 39.7% to 39.1%, ranking 105th nationally. Overall, the defense was not able to make opposing offenses uncomfortable and failed to generate turnovers at an effective rate. That's not the only way to be a successful offense, but it helps.

While the offense showed improvement, the lackluster performance in the defensive and possession game areas highlights the overall struggles of Widener in the 2023 season. The team's defensive efficiency, inability to create turnovers, and poor faceoff win rate contributed to a challenging season. Despite the positive developments on offense, the team's weaknesses in these other areas ultimately hindered their overall success.

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 Nov 24, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

Riley Hastings excelled as an initiator in his debut season for Lynchburg. His shooting efficiency, where he rated a 32 (out of 100 points) was the clear area for improvement, but all in all, he put together a solid statistical profile for a freshman. His ball security, sitting comfortably in the 61st percentile, showed his reliable handling and decision-making with the ball.

Hastings was very involved in the offense, as evidenced by his 70th percentile usage rate. And he made the most of his opportunities, with a 72nd percentile individual player efficiency. It's one thing to get a lot of touches, but what we really care about is how much value did you create with those chances. And on that note, the 72nd percentile suggests that he was in the upper third of players nationally in this regard.

The most striking aspect of Hastings' contributions, however, came in the form of his playmaking abilities. An 88th percentile assist rate coupled with an 89th percentile share of the team's assists underscored his vision and solid decision-making, often setting up scoring opportunities for others and enhancing the team's overall offensive dynamics.

During Hastings' best four-game stretch from February 11 to March 4, which included matchups against Ferrum, Saint Mary's (MD), Cabrini, and Salisbury, his performance peaked, with Lynchburg notching an impressive 3-1 record. His individual efficiency rating finished this stretch in the 81st percentile. Crucially, his shooting efficiency was exceptional, ranking in the 95th percentile, and his assist rate remained stellar at the 95th percentile. These games showcased Hastings at his best, where he took a smaller 7.8% share of the team's shots, suggesting a more selective and effective approach to shooting.

Conversely, Hastings experienced a dip in form during his worst stretch from March 14 to March 25, facing tough opponents such as Tufts, St. Lawrence, Franklin & Marshall, and Washington and Lee. Despite the Hornets splitting the results with a 2-2 record, Hastings' individual efficiency plummeted to the 23rd percentile. Notably, his shooting efficiency dramatically dropped to the 8th percentile, a stark contrast to his best games. His ball security slightly improved to the 71st percentile, and his assist rate dipped to the 61st percentile, reflecting a reduction in the effectiveness of his playmaking. During this challenging stretch, Hastings took an increased 18.0% share of the team's shots, which, alongside his low shooting efficiency, could suggest a possible overextension in his offensive responsibilities.

The stark contrast between Hastings' best and worst performances highlights shooting efficiency as the most pivotal factor for his seasonal success. When his shot selection and execution were at their peak, his overall impact on the game was significantly more positive, benefitting not just his individual stats but the team's fortunes as well. Throughout the season, despite the fluctuations, Hastings proved to be a key asset for the Hornets, especially in creating opportunities for his teammates, which remained a consistent thread in his play.

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 Dec 7, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

Brett Jackson's 2023 season with Christopher Newport showcased a player who embraced a significantly expanded role on the team with commendable results. The most notable factor of Jackson's season was his impressive shooting efficiency, which was in the 83rd percentile compared to the 64th percentile in 2022. This uptick is particularly noteworthy considering Jackson's heightened involvement in the offense. His overall usage rate climbed from 1.7% to 7.6% and his share of the team's shots leaped from 3.7% to 18.0%.

Jackson shined brightest during a stretch between April 15 and May 5, when Christopher Newport recorded a flawless 4-0 record against Stockton, Mary <a style='color: #000000; text-decoration:none; border-bottom: 2px solid #189ad3;' href='https://pro.lacrossereference.com/washingtonm-3794?t=egq05dlepswmcis'>Washington,</a> and Kean (twice). During this period, his individual efficiency rated a 93 on our 100-point scale. Jackson's shooting efficiency was at an elite 95th percentile and his ball security was nearly impeccable, ranking in the 99th percentile. However, it's worth noting that his assist rate, while lower at the 30th percentile, didn't detract from the overall impact he had on games. That just was not the role he was asked to play in this offense.

In contrast, Jackson's toughest period came between May 7 and May 21, when the team finished 2-2 against Salisbury, Hope, Gettysburg, and Salisbury again. His individual efficiency dropped to the 56th percentile in these contests. Despite taking on a larger share of shots and assists during this time, Jackson's shooting efficiency decreased to the 70th percentile, and his ball security, while still strong at the 82nd percentile, couldn't match his earlier performance. His assist rate further dipped to the 14th percentile, underscoring a challenging phase in his season. He was a bigger part of the offense during this period, but the efficiency didn't quite keep up in the larger role. This is not uncommon.

Despite some variability in his performance, Jackson maintained commendable ball security throughout the year, with his season culminating in a remarkable 93rd percentile ranking, and a robust 92nd percentile share of the team's shots, underscoring his pivotal role in the offense. Even with a modest 21st percentile in assist rate and a 36th percentile share of the team's assists, Jackson's contributions remained significant. Worth noting though that he was not necessarily a go-do-it-yourself type of player as 68% of his goals were assisted by a teammate.

The contrast between Jackson's best and worst stretches provides valuable insight into his strengths and weaknesses. The drop in shooting efficiency emerges as the most conspicuous factor differentiating his most and least productive periods. And when Jackson performed well, so did Christopher Newport, indicative of his vital contribution to the team's overall performance.

In sum, Brett Jackson's 2023 season was a testament to his ability to handle a larger offensive responsibility with a high level of effectiveness. His enhanced shooting efficiency and steadfast ball security were standout features of a season that, while not without its challenges, affirmed Jackson's status as an above-average and highly efficient player.</p>

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 Dec 11, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

The 2023 season for Saint Vincent reveals a striking correlation between specific player performances and overall team success in the 10 games that they played against conference opponents and teams with similar LaxElo rankings. Saint Vincent finished these matchups with an impressive record of 8 wins to 2 losses. Statistical analysis of these encounters provides a clear illustration of the factors most responsible for whether an individual outing ending with Saint Vincent victorious or not.

The team's offensive efficiency hinged significantly on their shooting accuracy. In the four games where Saint Vincent's shooting percentage exceeded 39.3%, they were undefeated, scoring on 40% of their possessions. This contrasted with a lower 23% efficiency in the games where their shooting percentage dipped below that threshold, leading to a split of 4 wins and 2 losses. They could still win when they weren't shooting well, but the efficiency gap of 17 percentage points when they shot above 39% suggests that the victories were much closer affairs when they weren't as accurate.

Individual player contributions were especially indicative of the team's fortunes. Caleb Hawkins emerged as an offensive linchpin, with Saint Vincent going undefeated in the seven games where he scored two or more goals and managing a 34% scoring efficiency. When he scored zero or one goals, the team went just 1-2 and their efficiency was 12 percentage points worse, on average.

Jordan Billet's role as a facilitator was equally telling; Saint Vincent boasted a perfect 3-0 record and a 43% efficiency in the three games where he tallied four or more assists. When Billet's assist count fell below this mark, the team's win-loss record was 5-2, and their efficiency dropped to 23%. Again, look less at the record and more at the efficiency gap. They were 20 percentage points better on offense when he was dominant as a passer. No other player played such an important role as a facilitator.

Similarly, Jacob Visalli's general offensive involvement was a bellwether for success. When he took seven or more shots, the team went a flawless 5-0 record with a 37% scoring efficiency. A less-involved Visalli, correlated with a less convincing 3-2 record and a 22% efficiency.

As much as Billet's role as a passer was crucial, he was really a multi-faceted contributor. Saint Vincent won all five games when he scored at least two goals, as opposed to a 3-2 record when he did not reach that mark.

This season's analysis underscores that Saint Vincent's offensive potency was frequently concentrated in the hands of a few individuals. Their dependence on key players to meet or exceed certain statistical thresholds was a consistent theme throughout the season. This reliance on individual performance presents a potential vulnerability, as defenses equipped with this knowledge could focus on neutralizing these players to disrupt Saint Vincent's offensive rhythm. The team's statistical trends from the 2023 season offer a blueprint for opposing coaches to strategize effectively against them, highlighting the importance of individual matchups and defensive schemes tailored to limit the impact of Saint Vincent's pivotal players.

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 Wed Dec 20, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

The Hampden-Sydney defensive unit in 2023 demonstrated their mettle, finishing the year as the 6th ranked defense in the country. Their strong performance was underpinned by an impressive statistical profile, with an opponent-adjusted shooting percentage and on-goal shooting percentage in the 89th and 86th percentiles, respectively. As good as those numbers are, the defense's best attribute was their turnover rate, which ranked 2nd nationally, with opponents finishing with an opponent-adjusted turnover rate of 50.8%. These numbers reflect a disciplined and disruptive defensive approach that consistently put pressure on the opposing offense, leading to a lot of poor shots and empty possessions.

The effectiveness of the Hampden-Sydney defense extended across all phases of a possession. Even in their worst segment, possessions that lasted between 20 and 40 seconds, they were still 3.3 percentage points better than the average, allowing goals on 21.9% of possessions. However, once they got past the first half of a possession, the defense truly locked in. In their best segment, possessions that lasted greater than 60 seconds, they allowed goals on just 14.9% of possessions, which is 7.7 percentage points better than the average. This ability to maintain a high level of performance throughout a possession was a testament to their defensive discipline and ability to read and react to the offense. And it's noteworthy too because it means the turnovers that they forced were not just the result of creating a chaos early in opponent possessions and then fading as possessions got long. That's a common pattern you see with teams that use pressure to mask weakness in other facets of defense. It's definitely not the case here.

But as with any team, the Hampden-Sydney defense had their share of highs and lows throughout the season. Their best 4-game stretch, between Mar 31 and Apr 12, saw them go 4-0 with an adjusted defensive efficiency of 5%, placing them in the top percentile. In contrast, their worst 4-game stretch, between Apr 19 and May 4, saw their adjusted defensive efficiency drop to 22%, placing them in the 77th percentile. They dropped contests against Lynchburg and Washington and Lee during this period. The variation were primarily due to the shot-on-goal rate and on-goal shooting percentage allowed during these periods. In their best stretch, they allowed a shot-on-goal rate of 50% and an on-goal shooting percentage of 20%, compared to 70% and 52% respectively during their worst stretch. To me, shot-on-goal rate is a measure of how comfortable an offense is and it's probably that the ability to create turnovers abandoned them during those games.

Here's another way to look at this. When looking at the team's performance against conference peers and teams with similar LaxElo rankings, one key statistical threshold stands out. Games where the opposing offense had an assist-to-turnover ratio greater than 0.45 spelled trouble for Hampden-Sydney, with a 1-2 record and an opponent efficiency of 31%. Conversely, when the opposing offense had an assist-to-turnover ratio less than 0.45, Hampden-Sydney was a perfect 9-0 with an opponent efficiency of 15%. Again, this highlights the importance of forcing turnovers and disrupting the opposing offense's rhythm in Hampden-Sydney's defensive strategy.

In summary, the Hampden-Sydney defense in 2023 was an excellent unit, securing a top 10 national ranking. Their disciplined approach, highlighted by an exceptional turnover rate, and ability to adjust and maintain defensive intensity throughout a possession were key factors in their success.

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 Dec 23, 2023 edition of Expected Goals, my daily newsletter.

Luke Fisher's 2023 season was a season of growth, especially when considering the context of his previous year's performance. He was a solid presence on the field, with his individual player efficiency rising impressively from the 49th percentile in 2022 to the 75th percentile in 2023. This jump reflected Fisher's enhanced impact on the game, especially as a facilitator.

The standout element of Fisher's game was his assist rate, which saw a significant increase from the 78th percentile in the previous year to an outstanding 92nd percentile. Fisher's knack for facilitating goals was complemented by a respectable 64th percentile in shooting efficiency, suggesting that when he did take his chances, they often resulted in valuable contributions. 67% of his goals were assisted, so it's not as if he was out there creating his own offense, but he was effective whether he was on the sending end of a pass or the receiving end.

His ball security was unremarkable in the 42nd percentile, so that was an issue, even accounting for the amount of time he had the ball in his stick. He had a nose for the ball, with a commendable 3.7% ground ball win rate, landing him in the 76th percentile. He was in the 79th percentile with respect to his share of the team's shots and the 87th for overall usage rate. His approach was clearly pass-first, but again, he was effective when the ball ended a possession in his stick.

Fisher's best stretch of games, between April 23 and May 7, was a testament to his high-caliber play. During these matchups against Albion, Hiram, Wooster, and Kenyon, Fisher achieved an individual efficiency rating in the 89th percentile while Denison enjoyed a perfect 4-0 record. In contrast, his most challenging period came earlier in the season, from February 26 to March 18, where his efficiency dipped to the 26th percentile. Despite this, Denison managed a 3-1 record, with the single loss to Washington and Lee.

The clearest indicator of Fisher's varying performance was his ball security. During his peak, he boasted an 86th percentile ranking, compared to just 30th percentile in his less effective games. This stark difference underlines the importance of decision-making in his game. The good news is that he improved in this area as the year went along.

In sum, Fisher's 2023 season was marked by significant strides as a facilitator. His ability to create assisted goals and his improved efficiency were key to his standout season, despite some fluctuations in performance related to ball security, especially early on. The consistency in his role from the previous year allowed Fisher to build on his skill set, culminating in a season that underscored his value to the team and his growth as a player.</p>

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

[Devil4Life]

Anything Dickinson?

[HomerCoach]

Anything Dickinson?

Defensive Deep-Dive: Dickinson
Dickinson's 2023 defense put together a very impressive campaign, finishing the year as the 3rd ranked opponent-adjusted defensive unit in the nation. Their underlying statistics were consistently impressive, with shooting percentage, on-goal shooting percentage, and shot-on-goal rate all ranking in the top percentiles nationally.

Analyzing the team's performance across different stretches of games, the contrast between their best and worst periods was striking. Their best 4-game stretch, between April 15 and April 29, saw them maintain an impressive adjusted defensive efficiency of 9%, which would have put them tops in the nation if you extrapolated it out to an entire season. However, the team faced challenges in the period between March 17 and March 29, with their adjusted defensive efficiency dropping to 24%, highlighting some vulnerabilities. This stretch saw them finish 1-3 with losses to Stevenson, Christopher Newport, and Muhlenberg. The disparity in performance was largely due to variations in on-goal shooting percentage, shooting percentage, and turnover rate. The on-goal shooting percentage stands out the most. In their best stretch, just 27% of the shots that were on-cage went in (73% were saved). During their worst stretch, a whopping 55% of the shots that were on-cage went in. It's hard to say whether that's down to goalie play or the defense giving up worse shots, but it's worth noting that shot-on-goal rate didn't increase nearly as much during the poor stretch of games, which suggests that perhaps it was a goalie issue.

Examining the 18 games that Dickinson played against conference does and similarly ranked LaxElo teams, a key statistical threshold emerged as a significant determinant of victory or defeat for Dickinson. The opposing offense's shooting percentage was a crucial factor; in the seven games where the opponent's shooting percentage exceeded 27.5%, Dickinson had a modest 4-3 record. Conversely, when Dickinson held the opposition's shooting percentage below this threshold, they were a perfect 11-0. The split above and below this threshold with respect to defensive efficiency was 11 percentage points, which underscores how critical it was to both prevent offenses from creating good shots and then stopping those that they did let fly.

Another interesting insight from the data is how the length of the opposing possession affected Dickinson's defensive performance. In possessions lasting between 20 and 40 seconds, they displayed exceptional defensive prowess, allowing goals on only 20.3% of possessions, which was significantly better than the average. However, in shorter possessions, lasting less than 20 seconds, their performance was slightly less exceptional, with a goal allowed percentage of 22.1%, still better than the average but just by a single percentage point. This highlights the team's ability to maintain a strong defensive stance over extended periods, and suggests an area for potential improvement in defending quick transition opportunities.

In conclusion, Dickinson's 2023 defensive unit showed remarkable strength and resilience, as evidenced by their impressive rankings and statistical analysis. Their ability to adjust to the strength of the opposing offenses further solidified their defensive prowess, and the analysis of their best and worst stretches provided valuable insights into the keys to their performance. The importance of shooting percentage and the length of opposing possessions emerged as crucial factors in determining their success, underscoring the team's strategic focus on these areas.

[Devil4Life]

Any analysis of impact of Dickinson face off specialists