Tewaaraton Award 2024

[coda]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

Your ongoing, uninformed assertions that, because someone plays in the ACC, he must be better than someone who doesn't, regardless of performance on the field. Stats of non-ACC players must be questioned...now, absurdly, because you assert "the ACC recruits better." Tiresome. Empty. No substance. Blind loyalty.

I didnt say that at all. I actually said Brandau, Malone, and Kirst have outperformed Shelly this year. It seems your issues are with your own reading comprehension, not my actual posts. You have to be living under a rock to think that the ACC does not recruit better than the Big 10 or Ivy. That is just a fact. For the record, I generally root against the ACC. I am just being honest about recruiting.

Does the ACC recruit 'better', or simply more well known? 2024 UNC seems to be a case study in how "name" recruits don't automatically translate to D1 success.

I feel like the Ivies often have far grittier players...a playing personality I personally prefer.

That completely fine. Accumulating talent does not always guarantee success. Things like development and constructing a roster come into play.
The field results are pretty clear on this though. The last 10 years have seen 10 ACC teams reach the finals, 6 Big 10 teams, 3 Ivy, and 1 mid-major (Denver). That includes every member of the ACC making a title game the last 10 years, which is a crazy stat. 2 Big 10 teams (33% of the conference). 2 Ivy teams (28.5%). I would prefer talent to be more spread out, but that does not seem to be happening.

You're counting two years (20-21) when the Ivies didn't even play and two years (22-23) when all other conferences were using Ivy transfers as 5th year players. If you count final four teams, eliminate 2020 and 2021(when the Ivies didn't play), and start in 2015 when the B10 was created, it's pretty balanced. In those 7 seasons - 2015-2019,, 2022-23 - final four representation is:

Big 10 - 10
ACC - 7
Ivy -5
Big East - 3
Others 3

And in 2020, the Ivies had three teams in the top 5 when play was suspended. There just isn't as much disparity in the level of talent across the top 3-4 conferences as you think or claim it to be.

There was no tournament in 2020, my apologies on 2021. I generally root for the Big 10. Big 10 is been Maryland and the others, until the last 2 years (and that 1 run from OSU). Hopefully, that is a sign things are changing. No conference has the kind of balance that the ACC has had. Your numbers are saying I have under-estimated the Big 10, but that is skewed to 1 consistent power. I still think the ACC has basically been the SEC of college lacrosse. Its annoying, but they recruit better. If you have to bet on future champions, you are most likely picking ACC teams first. Its up to the Big 10 and the Ivies to change the current perception among recruits, media, and fans.

I still think your perception and analysis are not borne by the numbers. In those 7 years, all 5 ACC teams made the final four. But 4 Big 10 teams made it and 3 Ivies (with 2 others on the doorstep a few times). So where is this ACC dominance? Yes, the ACC won more titles, and yes they are deep, but taking 7 of 32 spots on Memorial Day weekend does not indicate that the ACC is a monster, especially when 3 of those 7 were last season. So from 2015 to 2022, the ACC took 4 of 24 spots while the Big 10 took 9 and the Ivies 5. It's fairly even. And certainly not enough to denigrate the seasons some Ivy players are having this year. Is the ACC the best conference in the lacrosse in 2023-24? Yes, so far. But it's been a year to year thing for the past decade.

1st you cut off a few years, likely because the ACC had multiple teams in the final 4 in 2014 and 2013. That is how we changed from 10 to 7. You moved to the final 4 , instead of championship. So we have changed the numbers. I did forget about Rutgers. But lets look at the Big 10 vs the ACC, since those are the 2 clearly at the top by both methods..

Starting when Maryland joined to Big 10. 2015-2023 (skipping 2020, covid year)
Big 10- 446-298 with a .599% win percentage.. Total of 14 seasons with losing records (every team but Maryland has at least 2). Maryland is the only team in the BIG 10 never to have a losing season

ACC- 429-211 with a .670% win percentage. Total of 2 losing seasons (Virginia and Cuse).

Win % by Team (ACC in bold):
1. Maryland .818
2. Duke .726
3. Virginia .694
4. ND .690
5. CUSE .617
6. UNC .613
7. Rutgers .612
8. OSU .569
9. PSI .568
10 Hopkins .547
11 Michigan .432

Hard to look at those numbers and think the Big 10 has been on par with the ACC, since 2015.

he attack position is loaded with talent this year and I just can't see rating Shelly, Kavanaugh, O'Neill, or Shelly above Brandau, King, or Kirst just because the former play in the ACC and the latter in the Ivy. And the ACC-Ivy games this season bear that out.

Looks like you edited this in, but again I literally said that Brandau. Kirst,and Malone have had better seasons than Shelly. I am not sure why you continue to pretend I think Shelly deserves it over those guys based on this season. I could see them giving to him as basically a career award, but that is different conversation. I have actually argued that Kirst is under-rated, given his other production and the defensive SOS he has faced, but somehow that makes he an ACC guy.

[wgdsr]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

Your ongoing, uninformed assertions that, because someone plays in the ACC, he must be better than someone who doesn't, regardless of performance on the field. Stats of non-ACC players must be questioned...now, absurdly, because you assert "the ACC recruits better." Tiresome. Empty. No substance. Blind loyalty.

I didnt say that at all. I actually said Brandau, Malone, and Kirst have outperformed Shelly this year. It seems your issues are with your own reading comprehension, not my actual posts. You have to be living under a rock to think that the ACC does not recruit better than the Big 10 or Ivy. That is just a fact. For the record, I generally root against the ACC. I am just being honest about recruiting.

Does the ACC recruit 'better', or simply more well known? 2024 UNC seems to be a case study in how "name" recruits don't automatically translate to D1 success.

I feel like the Ivies often have far grittier players...a playing personality I personally prefer.

That completely fine. Accumulating talent does not always guarantee success. Things like development and constructing a roster come into play.
The field results are pretty clear on this though. The last 10 years have seen 10 ACC teams reach the finals, 6 Big 10 teams, 3 Ivy, and 1 mid-major (Denver). That includes every member of the ACC making a title game the last 10 years, which is a crazy stat. 2 Big 10 teams (33% of the conference). 2 Ivy teams (28.5%). I would prefer talent to be more spread out, but that does not seem to be happening.

You're counting two years (20-21) when the Ivies didn't even play and two years (22-23) when all other conferences were using Ivy transfers as 5th year players. If you count final four teams, eliminate 2020 and 2021(when the Ivies didn't play), and start in 2015 when the B10 was created, it's pretty balanced. In those 7 seasons - 2015-2019,, 2022-23 - final four representation is:

Big 10 - 10
ACC - 7
Ivy -5
Big East - 3
Others 3

And in 2020, the Ivies had three teams in the top 5 when play was suspended. There just isn't as much disparity in the level of talent across the top 3-4 conferences as you think or claim it to be.

There was no tournament in 2020, my apologies on 2021. I generally root for the Big 10. Big 10 is been Maryland and the others, until the last 2 years (and that 1 run from OSU). Hopefully, that is a sign things are changing. No conference has the kind of balance that the ACC has had. Your numbers are saying I have under-estimated the Big 10, but that is skewed to 1 consistent power. I still think the ACC has basically been the SEC of college lacrosse. Its annoying, but they recruit better. If you have to bet on future champions, you are most likely picking ACC teams first. Its up to the Big 10 and the Ivies to change the current perception among recruits, media, and fans.

I still think your perception and analysis are not borne by the numbers. In those 7 years, all 5 ACC teams made the final four. But 4 Big 10 teams made it and 3 Ivies (with 2 others on the doorstep a few times). So where is this ACC dominance? Yes, the ACC won more titles, and yes they are deep, but taking 7 of 32 spots on Memorial Day weekend does not indicate that the ACC is a monster, especially when 3 of those 7 were last season. So from 2015 to 2022, the ACC took 4 of 24 spots while the Big 10 took 9 and the Ivies 5. It's fairly even. And certainly not enough to denigrate the seasons some Ivy players are having this year. Is the ACC the best conference in the lacrosse in 2023-24? Yes, so far. But it's been a year to year thing for the past decade.

1st you cut off a few years, likely because the ACC had multiple teams in the final 4 in 2014 and 2013. That is how we changed from 10 to 7. You moved to the final 4 , instead of championship. So we have changed the numbers. I did forget about Rutgers. But lets look at the Big 10 vs the ACC, since those are the 2 clearly at the top by both methods..

Starting when Maryland joined to Big 10. 2015-2023 (skipping 2020, covid year)
Big 10- 446-298 with a .599% win percentage.. Total of 14 seasons with losing records (every team but Maryland has at least 2). Maryland is the only team in the BIG 10 never to have a losing season

ACC- 429-211 with a .670% win percentage. Total of 2 losing seasons (Virginia and Cuse).

Win % by Team (ACC in bold):
1. Maryland .818
2. Duke .726
3. Virginia .694
4. ND .690
5. CUSE .617
6. UNC .613
7. Rutgers .612
8. OSU .569
9. PSI .568
10 Hopkins .547
11 Michigan .432

Hard to look at those numbers and think the Big 10 has been on par with the ACC, since 2015.

he attack position is loaded with talent this year and I just can't see rating Shelly, Kavanaugh, O'Neill, or Shelly above Brandau, King, or Kirst just because the former play in the ACC and the latter in the Ivy. And the ACC-Ivy games this season bear that out.

Looks like you edited this in, but again I literally said that Brandau. Kirst,and Malone have had better seasons than Shelly. I am not sure why you continue to pretend I think Shelly deserves it over those guys based on this season. I could see them giving to him as basically a career award, but that is different conversation. I have actually argued that Kirst is under-rated, given his other production and the defensive SOS he has faced, but somehow that makes he an ACC guy.

guy just gets bent on anything non-ivy. weird. makes up numbers. pulls last year and 2021 out. the latter bc... the ivy, who has been averaging less than 1 final four appearance per year on his own self-made timeline... decided not to play.

it's 11 ff appearances since (cutoff) 2015. not 7 for 32. not 4 for 24. and in the last decade, 4 more ff's in the previous 2 years. (3 the year before that). and i'd bet good money it was more than that in the previous 10. and 3 of the last 4 titles (cutoffs!). 4 titles in the 8 years since 2015 (ivy only played 7), 3 different teams. ivy has 1, yale, great team. the last title winner since princeton. what are the invitation to nc$$ numbers? even without an autobid except for a couple years and only 5 teams? nc$$ records?

i cheer hard for ivy teams every year. great story in the world of collegiate athletics. they have 2 teams that can win it all this year, and if it's not my team i'd be glad it was them. the only downside is a small minority of ivy-fanlax.

[Gobigred]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

Your ongoing, uninformed assertions that, because someone plays in the ACC, he must be better than someone who doesn't, regardless of performance on the field. Stats of non-ACC players must be questioned...now, absurdly, because you assert "the ACC recruits better." Tiresome. Empty. No substance. Blind loyalty.

I didnt say that at all. I actually said Brandau, Malone, and Kirst have outperformed Shelly this year. It seems your issues are with your own reading comprehension, not my actual posts. You have to be living under a rock to think that the ACC does not recruit better than the Big 10 or Ivy. That is just a fact. For the record, I generally root against the ACC. I am just being honest about recruiting.

Does the ACC recruit 'better', or simply more well known? 2024 UNC seems to be a case study in how "name" recruits don't automatically translate to D1 success.

I feel like the Ivies often have far grittier players...a playing personality I personally prefer.

That completely fine. Accumulating talent does not always guarantee success. Things like development and constructing a roster come into play.
The field results are pretty clear on this though. The last 10 years have seen 10 ACC teams reach the finals, 6 Big 10 teams, 3 Ivy, and 1 mid-major (Denver). That includes every member of the ACC making a title game the last 10 years, which is a crazy stat. 2 Big 10 teams (33% of the conference). 2 Ivy teams (28.5%). I would prefer talent to be more spread out, but that does not seem to be happening.

We're talking about the 2024 Tewaaraton, not history. Here's the kind of analysis I'm looking for from you. Kirst has played two games against the two teams atop the ACC standings (ND and Syracuse), facing their really tough (according to you) defenses. He averaged 5 gpg and 7 ppg. Against five supposedly weak Ivy defenses, he's averaged 2.6 gpg and 4.4 ppg. Surprised?

Let's look at Brandau and Shellenberg against their three common opponents. Brandau totals: 5 goals, 21 points. Shellenberg totals: 3 goals, 13 points. So let's drop this bit about discounting what Brandau's done because he plays in a "not up to par" league. Let's look at the record, how they fared against the same opponents, and skip the generalities.

[coda]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

Your ongoing, uninformed assertions that, because someone plays in the ACC, he must be better than someone who doesn't, regardless of performance on the field. Stats of non-ACC players must be questioned...now, absurdly, because you assert "the ACC recruits better." Tiresome. Empty. No substance. Blind loyalty.

I didnt say that at all. I actually said Brandau, Malone, and Kirst have outperformed Shelly this year. It seems your issues are with your own reading comprehension, not my actual posts. You have to be living under a rock to think that the ACC does not recruit better than the Big 10 or Ivy. That is just a fact. For the record, I generally root against the ACC. I am just being honest about recruiting.

Does the ACC recruit 'better', or simply more well known? 2024 UNC seems to be a case study in how "name" recruits don't automatically translate to D1 success.

I feel like the Ivies often have far grittier players...a playing personality I personally prefer.

That completely fine. Accumulating talent does not always guarantee success. Things like development and constructing a roster come into play.
The field results are pretty clear on this though. The last 10 years have seen 10 ACC teams reach the finals, 6 Big 10 teams, 3 Ivy, and 1 mid-major (Denver). That includes every member of the ACC making a title game the last 10 years, which is a crazy stat. 2 Big 10 teams (33% of the conference). 2 Ivy teams (28.5%). I would prefer talent to be more spread out, but that does not seem to be happening.

We're talking about the 2024 Tewaaraton, not history. Here's the kind of analysis I'm looking for from you. Kirst has played two games against the two teams atop the ACC standings (ND and Syracuse), facing their really tough (according to you) defenses. He averaged 5 gpg and 7 ppg. Against five supposedly weak Ivy defenses, he's averaged 2.6 gpg and 4.4 ppg. Surprised?

Let's look at Brandau and Shellenberg against their three common opponents. Brandau totals: 5 goals, 21 points. Shellenberg totals: 3 goals, 13 points. So let's drop this bit about discounting what Brandau's done because he plays in a "not up to par" league. Let's look at the record, how they fared against the same opponents, and skip the generalities.

I have already pointed out that Kirst has played a tough defensive SOS and that should be considered. I have said the top candidates have out-played Shellenberger, at this point you are just arguing with the voices in your head. If you want to compare the defenses Brandau has faced compared to Kirst and someone like Malone have played get back to me. Its not simply an Ivy thing.

[laxfan1313]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

Your ongoing, uninformed assertions that, because someone plays in the ACC, he must be better than someone who doesn't, regardless of performance on the field. Stats of non-ACC players must be questioned...now, absurdly, because you assert "the ACC recruits better." Tiresome. Empty. No substance. Blind loyalty.

I didnt say that at all. I actually said Brandau, Malone, and Kirst have outperformed Shelly this year. It seems your issues are with your own reading comprehension, not my actual posts. You have to be living under a rock to think that the ACC does not recruit better than the Big 10 or Ivy. That is just a fact. For the record, I generally root against the ACC. I am just being honest about recruiting.

Does the ACC recruit 'better', or simply more well known? 2024 UNC seems to be a case study in how "name" recruits don't automatically translate to D1 success.

I feel like the Ivies often have far grittier players...a playing personality I personally prefer.

That completely fine. Accumulating talent does not always guarantee success. Things like development and constructing a roster come into play.
The field results are pretty clear on this though. The last 10 years have seen 10 ACC teams reach the finals, 6 Big 10 teams, 3 Ivy, and 1 mid-major (Denver). That includes every member of the ACC making a title game the last 10 years, which is a crazy stat. 2 Big 10 teams (33% of the conference). 2 Ivy teams (28.5%). I would prefer talent to be more spread out, but that does not seem to be happening.

We're talking about the 2024 Tewaaraton, not history. Here's the kind of analysis I'm looking for from you. Kirst has played two games against the two teams atop the ACC standings (ND and Syracuse), facing their really tough (according to you) defenses. He averaged 5 gpg and 7 ppg. Against five supposedly weak Ivy defenses, he's averaged 2.6 gpg and 4.4 ppg. Surprised?

Let's look at Brandau and Shellenberg against their three common opponents. Brandau totals: 5 goals, 21 points. Shellenberg totals: 3 goals, 13 points. So let's drop this bit about discounting what Brandau's done because he plays in a "not up to par" league. Let's look at the record, how they fared against the same opponents, and skip the generalities.

I have already pointed out that Kirst has played a tough defensive SOS and that should be considered. I have said the top candidates have out-played Shellenberger, at this point you are just arguing with the voices in your head. If you want to compare the defenses Brandau has faced compared to Kirst and someone like Malone have played get back to me. Its not simply an Ivy thing.

When the analysis considers forced turnovers, ground balls and general riding, CJ Kirst rises to the top. Analyzing who is the best player requires analyzing everything a player does.

[coda]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

Your ongoing, uninformed assertions that, because someone plays in the ACC, he must be better than someone who doesn't, regardless of performance on the field. Stats of non-ACC players must be questioned...now, absurdly, because you assert "the ACC recruits better." Tiresome. Empty. No substance. Blind loyalty.

I didnt say that at all. I actually said Brandau, Malone, and Kirst have outperformed Shelly this year. It seems your issues are with your own reading comprehension, not my actual posts. You have to be living under a rock to think that the ACC does not recruit better than the Big 10 or Ivy. That is just a fact. For the record, I generally root against the ACC. I am just being honest about recruiting.

Does the ACC recruit 'better', or simply more well known? 2024 UNC seems to be a case study in how "name" recruits don't automatically translate to D1 success.

I feel like the Ivies often have far grittier players...a playing personality I personally prefer.

That completely fine. Accumulating talent does not always guarantee success. Things like development and constructing a roster come into play.
The field results are pretty clear on this though. The last 10 years have seen 10 ACC teams reach the finals, 6 Big 10 teams, 3 Ivy, and 1 mid-major (Denver). That includes every member of the ACC making a title game the last 10 years, which is a crazy stat. 2 Big 10 teams (33% of the conference). 2 Ivy teams (28.5%). I would prefer talent to be more spread out, but that does not seem to be happening.

We're talking about the 2024 Tewaaraton, not history. Here's the kind of analysis I'm looking for from you. Kirst has played two games against the two teams atop the ACC standings (ND and Syracuse), facing their really tough (according to you) defenses. He averaged 5 gpg and 7 ppg. Against five supposedly weak Ivy defenses, he's averaged 2.6 gpg and 4.4 ppg. Surprised?

Let's look at Brandau and Shellenberg against their three common opponents. Brandau totals: 5 goals, 21 points. Shellenberg totals: 3 goals, 13 points. So let's drop this bit about discounting what Brandau's done because he plays in a "not up to par" league. Let's look at the record, how they fared against the same opponents, and skip the generalities.

I have already pointed out that Kirst has played a tough defensive SOS and that should be considered. I have said the top candidates have out-played Shellenberger, at this point you are just arguing with the voices in your head. If you want to compare the defenses Brandau has faced compared to Kirst and someone like Malone have played get back to me. Its not simply an Ivy thing.

When the analysis considers forced turnovers, ground balls and general riding, CJ Kirst rises to the top. Analyzing who is the best player requires analyzing everything a player does.

scroll up that has been covered.

[Chousnake]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

Your ongoing, uninformed assertions that, because someone plays in the ACC, he must be better than someone who doesn't, regardless of performance on the field. Stats of non-ACC players must be questioned...now, absurdly, because you assert "the ACC recruits better." Tiresome. Empty. No substance. Blind loyalty.

I didnt say that at all. I actually said Brandau, Malone, and Kirst have outperformed Shelly this year. It seems your issues are with your own reading comprehension, not my actual posts. You have to be living under a rock to think that the ACC does not recruit better than the Big 10 or Ivy. That is just a fact. For the record, I generally root against the ACC. I am just being honest about recruiting.

Does the ACC recruit 'better', or simply more well known? 2024 UNC seems to be a case study in how "name" recruits don't automatically translate to D1 success.

I feel like the Ivies often have far grittier players...a playing personality I personally prefer.

That completely fine. Accumulating talent does not always guarantee success. Things like development and constructing a roster come into play.
The field results are pretty clear on this though. The last 10 years have seen 10 ACC teams reach the finals, 6 Big 10 teams, 3 Ivy, and 1 mid-major (Denver). That includes every member of the ACC making a title game the last 10 years, which is a crazy stat. 2 Big 10 teams (33% of the conference). 2 Ivy teams (28.5%). I would prefer talent to be more spread out, but that does not seem to be happening.

You're counting two years (20-21) when the Ivies didn't even play and two years (22-23) when all other conferences were using Ivy transfers as 5th year players. If you count final four teams, eliminate 2020 and 2021(when the Ivies didn't play), and start in 2015 when the B10 was created, it's pretty balanced. In those 7 seasons - 2015-2019,, 2022-23 - final four representation is:

Big 10 - 10
ACC - 7
Ivy -5
Big East - 3
Others 3

And in 2020, the Ivies had three teams in the top 5 when play was suspended. There just isn't as much disparity in the level of talent across the top 3-4 conferences as you think or claim it to be.

There was no tournament in 2020, my apologies on 2021. I generally root for the Big 10. Big 10 is been Maryland and the others, until the last 2 years (and that 1 run from OSU). Hopefully, that is a sign things are changing. No conference has the kind of balance that the ACC has had. Your numbers are saying I have under-estimated the Big 10, but that is skewed to 1 consistent power. I still think the ACC has basically been the SEC of college lacrosse. Its annoying, but they recruit better. If you have to bet on future champions, you are most likely picking ACC teams first. Its up to the Big 10 and the Ivies to change the current perception among recruits, media, and fans.

I still think your perception and analysis are not borne by the numbers. In those 7 years, all 5 ACC teams made the final four. But 4 Big 10 teams made it and 3 Ivies (with 2 others on the doorstep a few times). So where is this ACC dominance? Yes, the ACC won more titles, and yes they are deep, but taking 7 of 32 spots on Memorial Day weekend does not indicate that the ACC is a monster, especially when 3 of those 7 were last season. So from 2015 to 2022, the ACC took 4 of 24 spots while the Big 10 took 9 and the Ivies 5. It's fairly even. And certainly not enough to denigrate the seasons some Ivy players are having this year. Is the ACC the best conference in the lacrosse in 2023-24? Yes, so far. But it's been a year to year thing for the past decade.

1st you cut off a few years, likely because the ACC had multiple teams in the final 4 in 2014 and 2013. That is how we changed from 10 to 7. You moved to the final 4 , instead of championship. So we have changed the numbers. I did forget about Rutgers. But lets look at the Big 10 vs the ACC, since those are the 2 clearly at the top by both methods..

Starting when Maryland joined to Big 10. 2015-2023 (skipping 2020, covid year)
Big 10- 446-298 with a .599% win percentage.. Total of 14 seasons with losing records (every team but Maryland has at least 2). Maryland is the only team in the BIG 10 never to have a losing season

ACC- 429-211 with a .670% win percentage. Total of 2 losing seasons (Virginia and Cuse).

Win % by Team (ACC in bold):
1. Maryland .818
2. Duke .726
3. Virginia .694
4. ND .690
5. CUSE .617
6. UNC .613
7. Rutgers .612
8. OSU .569
9. PSI .568
10 Hopkins .547
11 Michigan .432

Hard to look at those numbers and think the Big 10 has been on par with the ACC, since 2015.

he attack position is loaded with talent this year and I just can't see rating Shelly, Kavanaugh, O'Neill, or Shelly above Brandau, King, or Kirst just because the former play in the ACC and the latter in the Ivy. And the ACC-Ivy games this season bear that out.

Looks like you edited this in, but again I literally said that Brandau. Kirst,and Malone have had better seasons than Shelly. I am not sure why you continue to pretend I think Shelly deserves it over those guys based on this season. I could see them giving to him as basically a career award, but that is different conversation. I have actually argued that Kirst is under-rated, given his other production and the defensive SOS he has faced, but somehow that makes he an ACC guy.

guy just gets bent on anything non-ivy. weird. makes up numbers. pulls last year and 2021 out. the latter bc... the ivy, who has been averaging less than 1 final four appearance per year on his own self-made timeline... decided not to play.

it's 11 ff appearances since (cutoff) 2015. not 7 for 32. not 4 for 24. and in the last decade, 4 more ff's in the previous 2 years. (3 the year before that). and i'd bet good money it was more than that in the previous 10. and 3 of the last 4 titles (cutoffs!). 4 titles in the 8 years since 2015 (ivy only played 7), 3 different teams. ivy has 1, yale, great team. the last title winner since princeton. what are the invitation to nc$$ numbers? even without an autobid except for a couple years and only 5 teams? nc$$ records?

i cheer hard for ivy teams every year. great story in the world of collegiate athletics. they have 2 teams that can win it all this year, and if it's not my team i'd be glad it was them. the only downside is a small minority of ivy-fanlax.

We can throw different stats around to prove a point. Let me explain what I did and why, because I think you misrepresented it.

So respected and long time lax writer Christian Swezey comes up with a formula for evaluating attack men - G+A+GB+CT-TO. The top three end up being Brandau, King and Kirst. Another poster questioned the formula because the top three players were all from the same conference. When pushed to explain, he stated that he would not question the formula if the top three players were from the ACC because the talent level is just so much higher in that conference vs other conferences. He then tried to back up this point by examining title game appearances in the last 10 years.

I thought that was not a valid method to compare conferences for a number of reasons and instead looked at final four appearances. Some adjustments need to be made to compare "apples to apples."

*The Big 10 lax conference was not formed until 2015.
*Syracuse was in the Big East until 2014
*The Ivy League didn't play in 2021

So looking at 2015-2019 and 2022-23 is the only way to compare current conferences on equal footing. It wasn't done to "favor" the Ivies. That is when the current memberships in all of the major conferences were established (ACC, B10, Ivy, Big East) and when all conferences played.

When you look at final four berths in those seasons, the ACC is not dominant. The B10 has more final four appearances (10) than the ACC(8 - I miscounted the first time). And three of the 8 ACC berths were in 2023. And while the Ivies had 5 appearances, the lost 2020-21 seasons arguably hurt the Ivy League when Cornell, Princeton and Yale had very good teams ranked in the top 5. And all three conferences had appearances from 4 or more teams, which meant that the B10 and Ivy were not carried by one team, but had depth as well.

So, yes, there are other metrics that can be looked at - total bids, overall record, inter conference records, All-American selections, or whatever. The point I was trying to make is that there is quite a bit of balance across the top 3 lax conferences and that the ACC is not so dominant that you dismiss non-ACC players' performances this season because of some notion that they are playing against perceived inferior talent.

[Farfromgeneva]

Let me summarize this leveraging the talents of Dirt Nasty.

Folks, here is what fans of IVy, ACC & Big Ten profiles have been saying to each other for the last…entire thread:

https://youtu.be/smsiGETScR0?si=rWkLY0Mx-1WT63uM

Oh and to be clear for anyone crazy enough to sit through 3:30 of that - Hobart’s stuff Rumbles in the Jungle. The rest of your schools? Take it up at your family reunions.

[Chousnake]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

Your ongoing, uninformed assertions that, because someone plays in the ACC, he must be better than someone who doesn't, regardless of performance on the field. Stats of non-ACC players must be questioned...now, absurdly, because you assert "the ACC recruits better." Tiresome. Empty. No substance. Blind loyalty.

I didnt say that at all. I actually said Brandau, Malone, and Kirst have outperformed Shelly this year. It seems your issues are with your own reading comprehension, not my actual posts. You have to be living under a rock to think that the ACC does not recruit better than the Big 10 or Ivy. That is just a fact. For the record, I generally root against the ACC. I am just being honest about recruiting.

Does the ACC recruit 'better', or simply more well known? 2024 UNC seems to be a case study in how "name" recruits don't automatically translate to D1 success.

I feel like the Ivies often have far grittier players...a playing personality I personally prefer.

That completely fine. Accumulating talent does not always guarantee success. Things like development and constructing a roster come into play.
The field results are pretty clear on this though. The last 10 years have seen 10 ACC teams reach the finals, 6 Big 10 teams, 3 Ivy, and 1 mid-major (Denver). That includes every member of the ACC making a title game the last 10 years, which is a crazy stat. 2 Big 10 teams (33% of the conference). 2 Ivy teams (28.5%). I would prefer talent to be more spread out, but that does not seem to be happening.

You're counting two years (20-21) when the Ivies didn't even play and two years (22-23) when all other conferences were using Ivy transfers as 5th year players. If you count final four teams, eliminate 2020 and 2021(when the Ivies didn't play), and start in 2015 when the B10 was created, it's pretty balanced. In those 7 seasons - 2015-2019,, 2022-23 - final four representation is:

Big 10 - 10
ACC - 7
Ivy -5
Big East - 3
Others 3

And in 2020, the Ivies had three teams in the top 5 when play was suspended. There just isn't as much disparity in the level of talent across the top 3-4 conferences as you think or claim it to be.

There was no tournament in 2020, my apologies on 2021. I generally root for the Big 10. Big 10 is been Maryland and the others, until the last 2 years (and that 1 run from OSU). Hopefully, that is a sign things are changing. No conference has the kind of balance that the ACC has had. Your numbers are saying I have under-estimated the Big 10, but that is skewed to 1 consistent power. I still think the ACC has basically been the SEC of college lacrosse. Its annoying, but they recruit better. If you have to bet on future champions, you are most likely picking ACC teams first. Its up to the Big 10 and the Ivies to change the current perception among recruits, media, and fans.

I still think your perception and analysis are not borne by the numbers. In those 7 years, all 5 ACC teams made the final four. But 4 Big 10 teams made it and 3 Ivies (with 2 others on the doorstep a few times). So where is this ACC dominance? Yes, the ACC won more titles, and yes they are deep, but taking 7 of 32 spots on Memorial Day weekend does not indicate that the ACC is a monster, especially when 3 of those 7 were last season. So from 2015 to 2022, the ACC took 4 of 24 spots while the Big 10 took 9 and the Ivies 5. It's fairly even. And certainly not enough to denigrate the seasons some Ivy players are having this year. Is the ACC the best conference in the lacrosse in 2023-24? Yes, so far. But it's been a year to year thing for the past decade.

1st you cut off a few years, likely because the ACC had multiple teams in the final 4 in 2014 and 2013. That is how we changed from 10 to 7. You moved to the final 4 , instead of championship. So we have changed the numbers. I did forget about Rutgers. But lets look at the Big 10 vs the ACC, since those are the 2 clearly at the top by both methods..

Starting when Maryland joined to Big 10. 2015-2023 (skipping 2020, covid year)
Big 10- 446-298 with a .599% win percentage.. Total of 14 seasons with losing records (every team but Maryland has at least 2). Maryland is the only team in the BIG 10 never to have a losing season

ACC- 429-211 with a .670% win percentage. Total of 2 losing seasons (Virginia and Cuse).

Win % by Team (ACC in bold):
1. Maryland .818
2. Duke .726
3. Virginia .694
4. ND .690
5. CUSE .617
6. UNC .613
7. Rutgers .612
8. OSU .569
9. PSI .568
10 Hopkins .547
11 Michigan .432

Hard to look at those numbers and think the Big 10 has been on par with the ACC, since 2015.

he attack position is loaded with talent this year and I just can't see rating Shelly, Kavanaugh, O'Neill, or Shelly above Brandau, King, or Kirst just because the former play in the ACC and the latter in the Ivy. And the ACC-Ivy games this season bear that out.

Looks like you edited this in, but again I literally said that Brandau. Kirst,and Malone have had better seasons than Shelly. I am not sure why you continue to pretend I think Shelly deserves it over those guys based on this season. I could see them giving to him as basically a career award, but that is different conversation. I have actually argued that Kirst is under-rated, given his other production and the defensive SOS he has faced, but somehow that makes he an ACC guy.

I left out 2013 and 2014 because the B10 did not exist, Maryland was in the ACC, JHU was an independent, and Syracuse was in the Big East.

[BigTurn]

Think Brandau and Kirst’s teams missing the tourney all but takes them out of the running. Shelly also had two tough goes v ND and Oneill just dropped another stinker against them as well. PKavs numbers don’t pop, but if ND repeats, it’d be hard to imagine him not winning.

[Finster]

Think Brandau and Kirst’s teams missing the tourney all but takes them out of the running. Shelly also had two tough goes v ND and Oneill just dropped another stinker against them as well. PKavs numbers don’t pop, but if ND repeats, it’d be hard to imagine him not winning.

If I’m giving it to someone from ND, I’m giving it to Entenmann.

[BigTurn]

Think Brandau and Kirst’s teams missing the tourney all but takes them out of the running. Shelly also had two tough goes v ND and Oneill just dropped another stinker against them as well. PKavs numbers don’t pop, but if ND repeats, it’d be hard to imagine him not winning.

If I’m giving it to someone from ND, I’m giving it to Entenmann.

If he keeps up his play from this weekend, I’d have to agree. Think he averaged 71-72%. Absurd.

[jersey shore lax]

Liam Entenmann

[Hooz123]

Hey remember that chump that was on his knees trying to convince us that the Ivy wasn’t “down”. Poor Brandau. There’s a reason why all the top point guys this year are from the Ivies. Cupcake league.

[lorin]

Hey remember that chump that was on his knees trying to convince us that the Ivy wasn’t “down”. Poor Brandau. There’s a reason why all the top point guys this year are from the Ivies. Cupcake league.

Army played 2 ACC teams put up 14 and 13 won both, ACC not far from cup cake league besides ND

[NYlax222]

Generally, not for the principle of individual awards should be influenced by Champion status, but, perhaps this is year where Goalie should get Award. Bit ironic in a way given the generational talent at attack this year, but perhaps that's the most elegant solution - avoid picking amongst Kav/Shelly/O'Neill, Brandau/Kirst and give to Entemann, especially if ND wins. Critics (or fans of other goalies) claim he benefits from ND"s system, and while that's true in part, he simply makes saves others likely wouldn't.

[lorin]

Generally, not for the principle of individual awards should be influenced by Champion status, but, perhaps this is year where Goalie should get Award. Bit ironic in a way given the generational talent at attack this year, but perhaps that's the most elegant solution - avoid picking amongst Kav/Shelly/O'Neill, Brandau/Kirst and give to Entemann, especially if ND wins. Critics (or fans of other goalies) claim he benefits from ND"s system, and while that's true in part, he simply makes saves others likely wouldn't.

Please please stop using generational talent not one of them will be stop 30 in PPG in the history of the game, one of them yesterday had a clear open shot with his off hand and decided to dump it off. It's like the number 22 can we wait and see please Carc. Generational talent should be putting up 5 os 6 points every game and demanding the F??cking ball.

[Finster]

Generally, not for the principle of individual awards should be influenced by Champion status, but, perhaps this is year where Goalie should get Award. Bit ironic in a way given the generational talent at attack this year, but perhaps that's the most elegant solution - avoid picking amongst Kav/Shelly/O'Neill, Brandau/Kirst and give to Entemann, especially if ND wins. Critics (or fans of other goalies) claim he benefits from ND"s system, and while that's true in part, he simply makes saves others likely wouldn't.

I REALLY like Entenmann. And if he wins the award, no one will complain.

I’m looking at his season statistics and I see a problem. Hes #26 in save percentage. I thought he was much higher. I’m not so sure he can win the award without an incredible run in the tournament.

This year is so bizarre for this award. I thought it was easily Brandau’s, but then his team faltered and he’s out for the year.

I think (still) that Shellenberger is the best player in D1, but his team has also faltered.

I can see the committee giving it to PKav if they run the table.

Color me confused.

[coda]

Generally, not for the principle of individual awards should be influenced by Champion status, but, perhaps this is year where Goalie should get Award. Bit ironic in a way given the generational talent at attack this year, but perhaps that's the most elegant solution - avoid picking amongst Kav/Shelly/O'Neill, Brandau/Kirst and give to Entemann, especially if ND wins. Critics (or fans of other goalies) claim he benefits from ND"s system, and while that's true in part, he simply makes saves others likely wouldn't.

I REALLY like Entenmann. And if he wins the award, no one will complain.

I’m looking at his season statistics and I see a problem. Hes #26 in save percentage. I thought he was much higher. I’m not so sure he can win the award without an incredible run in the tournament.

This year is so bizarre for this award. I thought it was easily Brandau’s, but then his team faltered and he’s out for the year.

I think (still) that Shellenberger is the best player in D1, but his team has also faltered.

I can see the committee giving it to PKav if they run the table.

Color me confused.

I think this year more than any year, the tournament will decide who gets the Tewaaraton.