Tewaaraton Award 2024

[Finster]

I’m getting ahead of ourselves by a week, which is when the Tewaaraton Foundation releases its initial ‘watch list’.

I’m a Syracuse fan, so please know that before I tell you that I really hope Connor Shellenberger has a standout final year and wins this award. I thought he deserved it last year. This kid is simply an amazing player, he elevates everyone around him.

My only bias is I live close to Charlottesville so I probably see the Cavs more than any team nowadays. Like most of you on these threads, I played a little, so we all tend to watch games perhaps more silently than most, trying to take in the little things that casual fans don’t much care about. I saw this kid last year maybe 5x in person; he was always the smartest player on the field, always drawing slides, yet somehow getting 84 points.

I don’t even care much about individual awards, but lacrosse might be the one sport where I do. This kid has to earn it again, and I’ll cheer him on against any team but one. Hope he gets it.

[Farfromgeneva]

ONeill is getting it - pay 200 to win 100 if you want it.

[Finster]

ONeill is getting it - pay 200 to win 100 if you want it.

He started well, sort of. But my complaint about him getting it last year is my same complaint looking at his numbers against Bellarmine: he took 13 shots to can 4 goals. That’s 31% shooting. Even Spallina doesn’t fire that much. There has got to be more focus on the conversion rate this year by the Committee.

[Farfromgeneva]

ONeill is getting it - pay 200 to win 100 if you want it.

He started well, sort of. But my complaint about him getting it last year is my same complaint looking at his numbers against Bellarmine: he took 13 shots to can 4 goals. That’s 31% shooting. Even Spallina doesn’t fire that much. There has got to be more focus on the conversion rate this year by the Committee.

Why is conversion rate in isolation such a heavy variable (if over say 28-30% in volume)? When you watch a game those other players are of course super important but he is the focus all the time. Moreso than anyone else out there this year incl Spallina, Kirst and others. Not quantifiable and I’m not riding Oneills jock but his presence commands attention like very few like a Rabil. So as long as he puts up numbers and the team is in the mix at the end it’s hard to see anyone else getting it.

[azim21]

ONeill is getting it - pay 200 to win 100 if you want it.

He started well, sort of. But my complaint about him getting it last year is my same complaint looking at his numbers against Bellarmine: he took 13 shots to can 4 goals. That’s 31% shooting. Even Spallina doesn’t fire that much. There has got to be more focus on the conversion rate this year by the Committee.

Why is conversion rate in isolation such a heavy variable (if over say 28-30% in volume)? When you watch a game those other players are of course super important but he is the focus all the time. Moreso than anyone else out there this year incl Spallina, Kirst and others. Not quantifiable and I’m not riding Oneills jock but his presence commands attention like very few like a Rabil. So as long as he puts up numbers and the team is in the mix at the end it’s hard to see anyone else getting it.

I think Shellenberger was the better all-around player last year. I will say I am bias as a Duke hater but against Notre Dame he was basically a non-factor in both games they played. Whereas Shellenberger was putting up numbers even in the game they lost. I think he's just the better lacrosse player as a whole. If I had to put money on it, I'd put it on Shellenberger this year.

[Finster]

ONeill is getting it - pay 200 to win 100 if you want it.

He started well, sort of. But my complaint about him getting it last year is my same complaint looking at his numbers against Bellarmine: he took 13 shots to can 4 goals. That’s 31% shooting. Even Spallina doesn’t fire that much. There has got to be more focus on the conversion rate this year by the Committee.

Why is conversion rate in isolation such a heavy variable (if over say 28-30% in volume)? When you watch a game those other players are of course super important but he is the focus all the time. Moreso than anyone else out there this year incl Spallina, Kirst and others. Not quantifiable and I’m not riding Oneills jock but his presence commands attention like very few like a Rabil. So as long as he puts up numbers and the team is in the mix at the end it’s hard to see anyone else getting it.

Not in isolation, but I think conversion counts for a lot. Missed shots can be turnovers.

O’Neill is a great player; probably the fastest shot in D1. I watched the highlights on YouTube. Bellarmine chose not to shut him off.

I think if anyone started a team from scratch, you’re choosing Shellenberger 9 out of 10 times over O’Neill.

Both Duke and UVA are loaded. Let’s see who differentiates this year.

[Farfromgeneva]

ONeill is getting it - pay 200 to win 100 if you want it.

He started well, sort of. But my complaint about him getting it last year is my same complaint looking at his numbers against Bellarmine: he took 13 shots to can 4 goals. That’s 31% shooting. Even Spallina doesn’t fire that much. There has got to be more focus on the conversion rate this year by the Committee.

Why is conversion rate in isolation such a heavy variable (if over say 28-30% in volume)? When you watch a game those other players are of course super important but he is the focus all the time. Moreso than anyone else out there this year incl Spallina, Kirst and others. Not quantifiable and I’m not riding Oneills jock but his presence commands attention like very few like a Rabil. So as long as he puts up numbers and the team is in the mix at the end it’s hard to see anyone else getting it.

I think Shellenberger was the better all-around player last year. I will say I am bias as a Duke hater but against Notre Dame he was basically a non-factor in both games they played. Whereas Shellenberger was putting up numbers even in the game they lost. I think he's just the better lacrosse player as a whole. If I had to put money on it, I'd put it on Shellenberger this year.

I agree but it’s kind of like Mickey Mantle. Willie Mays was better at the time it was only The Mick. Not trying to argue my belief of who’s best. Hopefully you see what I’m saying. Everyone who follows lacrosse talks shellenberger but when you watch the game your eyes are on a lot of guys. With Duke I watch the team but it seems like the focus is predominantly Oneil unlike others and that’s hard to beat for a an award like this.

[coda]

ONeill is getting it - pay 200 to win 100 if you want it.

He started well, sort of. But my complaint about him getting it last year is my same complaint looking at his numbers against Bellarmine: he took 13 shots to can 4 goals. That’s 31% shooting. Even Spallina doesn’t fire that much. There has got to be more focus on the conversion rate this year by the Committee.

Why is conversion rate in isolation such a heavy variable (if over say 28-30% in volume)? When you watch a game those other players are of course super important but he is the focus all the time. Moreso than anyone else out there this year incl Spallina, Kirst and others. Not quantifiable and I’m not riding Oneills jock but his presence commands attention like very few like a Rabil. So as long as he puts up numbers and the team is in the mix at the end it’s hard to see anyone else getting it.

I think Shellenberger was the better all-around player last year. I will say I am bias as a Duke hater but against Notre Dame he was basically a non-factor in both games they played. Whereas Shellenberger was putting up numbers even in the game they lost. I think he's just the better lacrosse player as a whole. If I had to put money on it, I'd put it on Shellenberger this year.

I think Shelly is a better overall player. ONeil is a better scorer. Shelly is the Tim Duncan of lacrosse. He is The Big Fundamental. He does not get a lot of highlights plays. Doesnt go behind the back or do flashy moves, so he doesnt get that social media hype. Tim Duncan has always been a bit under-appreciated. Oddly Shelly seems to get a little discount in the same way.

[Farfromgeneva]

ONeill is getting it - pay 200 to win 100 if you want it.

He started well, sort of. But my complaint about him getting it last year is my same complaint looking at his numbers against Bellarmine: he took 13 shots to can 4 goals. That’s 31% shooting. Even Spallina doesn’t fire that much. There has got to be more focus on the conversion rate this year by the Committee.

Why is conversion rate in isolation such a heavy variable (if over say 28-30% in volume)? When you watch a game those other players are of course super important but he is the focus all the time. Moreso than anyone else out there this year incl Spallina, Kirst and others. Not quantifiable and I’m not riding Oneills jock but his presence commands attention like very few like a Rabil. So as long as he puts up numbers and the team is in the mix at the end it’s hard to see anyone else getting it.

I think Shellenberger was the better all-around player last year. I will say I am bias as a Duke hater but against Notre Dame he was basically a non-factor in both games they played. Whereas Shellenberger was putting up numbers even in the game they lost. I think he's just the better lacrosse player as a whole. If I had to put money on it, I'd put it on Shellenberger this year.

I think Shelly is a better overall player. ONeil is a better scorer. Shelly is the Tim Duncan of lacrosse. He is The Big Fundamental. He does not get a lot of highlights plays. Doesnt go behind the back or do flashy moves, so he doesnt get that social media hype. Tim Duncan has always been a bit under-appreciated. Oddly Shelly seems to get a little discount in the same way.

Last I checked Bill Simmons had him in his top ten of all time in his big book of basketball but I haven’t seen all the updates which would have Hebron and Steph up in there so maybe he’s 10-15.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/aw ... ramid.html

[coda]

ONeill is getting it - pay 200 to win 100 if you want it.

He started well, sort of. But my complaint about him getting it last year is my same complaint looking at his numbers against Bellarmine: he took 13 shots to can 4 goals. That’s 31% shooting. Even Spallina doesn’t fire that much. There has got to be more focus on the conversion rate this year by the Committee.

Why is conversion rate in isolation such a heavy variable (if over say 28-30% in volume)? When you watch a game those other players are of course super important but he is the focus all the time. Moreso than anyone else out there this year incl Spallina, Kirst and others. Not quantifiable and I’m not riding Oneills jock but his presence commands attention like very few like a Rabil. So as long as he puts up numbers and the team is in the mix at the end it’s hard to see anyone else getting it.

I think Shellenberger was the better all-around player last year. I will say I am bias as a Duke hater but against Notre Dame he was basically a non-factor in both games they played. Whereas Shellenberger was putting up numbers even in the game they lost. I think he's just the better lacrosse player as a whole. If I had to put money on it, I'd put it on Shellenberger this year.

I think Shelly is a better overall player. ONeil is a better scorer. Shelly is the Tim Duncan of lacrosse. He is The Big Fundamental. He does not get a lot of highlights plays. Doesnt go behind the back or do flashy moves, so he doesnt get that social media hype. Tim Duncan has always been a bit under-appreciated. Oddly Shelly seems to get a little discount in the same way.

Last I checked Bill Simmons had him in his top ten of all time in his big book of basketball but I haven’t seen all the updates which would have Hebron and Steph up in there so maybe he’s 10-15.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/aw ... ramid.html

Tim gets mentioned, but he is most under- publicized NBA great ever. He usually the last mentioned. Simmons is a stat guy, he isn’t going to underrate Duncan. Just saying Tim’s game and Shelly’s are similar. Both are superstars, but do it in an understated manner that can get overlooked

[faircornell]

I thought that O'Neill had a breakout performance playing for Team USA in the World Games in San Diego. He might have gained an additional edge from that experience..

[Finster]

I thought that O'Neill had a breakout performance playing for Team USA in the World Games in San Diego. He might have gained an additional edge from that experience..

Maybe. Or it might have a different impact on him.

I’ll sound like a broken record, but I’m not a fan of anyone taking as many shots as he does, unless he’s converting 50%. Which he’s not.

[MDlaxfan76]

I think we'd all love to have either or, better yet, both these guys on whatever our favorite team is...they do what they do in different ways, but are both huge impact players.

[molo]

Saturday we will get to see a T candidate against a tough opponent. Piling up points in blowouts is one thing. Shellenberger has the opportunity to shine against a quality Michigan team this weekend.

[xxxxxxx]

Who cares, most overhyped award in sports. It's the Attackman of the Year award in the ultimate team sport. All these watch lists are ridiculous with 95 percent of players having no shot to win especially all the ones who don't play attack.

[Matnum PI]

Mike Long could be in the mix.

[Finster]

Mike Long could be in the mix.

Cornell got two on the initial list (Kirst, Kelleher), so maybe Long makes it after a month of playing

[Finster]

It’s not easy doing these lists (I’d love to know who actually compiles it) but the ‘initial’ list is out:

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... nced/62587

It’s apparent that some of the impetus here is politics. Most schools get one candidate. I think only UVA and Duke show 3 on the initial list: UVA Shellenberger, Nunes, and Kastner, Duke Brower, O’Neill, and Naso.

Glad to see Will Mark on it, but how does anyone not put McNaney on? I mean, Chase Ierlan over McNaney? I’m fairly sure most coaches are taking McNaney over Ierlan. Gianforco? Over McNaney? Carroll?

[coda]

It’s not easy doing these lists (I’d love to know who actually compiles it) but the ‘initial’ list is out:

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... nced/62587

It’s apparent that some of the impetus here is politics. Most schools get one candidate. I think only UVA and Duke show 3 on the initial list: UVA Shellenberger, Nunes, and Kastner, Duke Brower, O’Neill, and Naso.

Glad to see Will Mark on it, but how does anyone not put McNaney on? I mean, Chase Ierlan over McNaney? I’m fairly sure most coaches are taking McNaney over Ierlan. Gianforco? Over McNaney? Carroll?

That is ridiculous. Ierlan has always been a solid Goalie, not a star. McNaney is a star. I am starting to lean towards towards Kirst or Kavanaugh. I wonder if O'Neill and Shellenberger will struggle to sufficiently shine in the stat sheets for the award. Zawaada is going to help Duke, but may hurt ONeill and Virginia is just so deep.

[Finster]

It’s not easy doing these lists (I’d love to know who actually compiles it) but the ‘initial’ list is out:

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... nced/62587

It’s apparent that some of the impetus here is politics. Most schools get one candidate. I think only UVA and Duke show 3 on the initial list: UVA Shellenberger, Nunes, and Kastner, Duke Brower, O’Neill, and Naso.

Glad to see Will Mark on it, but how does anyone not put McNaney on? I mean, Chase Ierlan over McNaney? I’m fairly sure most coaches are taking McNaney over Ierlan. Gianforco? Over McNaney? Carroll?

That is ridiculous. Ierlan has always been a solid Goalie, not a star. McNaney is a star. I am starting to lean towards towards Kirst or Kavanaugh. I wonder if O'Neill and Shellenberger will struggle to sufficiently shine in the stat sheets for the award. Zawaada is going to help Duke, but may hurt ONeill and Virginia is just so deep.

McNaney could humble the Tewey voters if he has a good or great game Saturday night at Syracuse.