Lacrosse Analytics
-
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:54 pm
- Contact:
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
As always, here is the daily digest for Feb 15, 2020.
Data Engineer/Lacrosse Fan --- Twitter: @laxreference --- Informed fans get Expected Goals, the new daily newsletter from LacrosseReference
-
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:54 pm
- Contact:
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
It's been an offensive-minded start to the season, and there are some gaudy stat lines on this week's list of the top individual statistical performances. But I was honestly surprised to see that scoring wasn't up that much since last year. It's early, so take this with a grain of salt, but as far as goals per game:
2015- 20.5
2016- 20.2
2017- 20.7
2018 - 20.6
2019 - 22.9
2020 - 23.6
Not that big of a jump. Will be curious to see how it changes over the season.
2015- 20.5
2016- 20.2
2017- 20.7
2018 - 20.6
2019 - 22.9
2020 - 23.6
Not that big of a jump. Will be curious to see how it changes over the season.
Data Engineer/Lacrosse Fan --- Twitter: @laxreference --- Informed fans get Expected Goals, the new daily newsletter from LacrosseReference
-
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:54 pm
- Contact:
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
The top movers over the weekend in terms of NCAA tournament probability were:
Cornell +21.2% (now 64.8%)
Robert Morris +19.5% (47.4%)
Virginia +12.8% (79.9%)
Army +11.7% (54.1%)
Yale +11.1% (79.6%)
Duke +10.9% (69.0%)
Loyola +10.0% (61.8%)
Note: this assumes the committee relies heavily on RPI as a criterion again.
Cornell +21.2% (now 64.8%)
Robert Morris +19.5% (47.4%)
Virginia +12.8% (79.9%)
Army +11.7% (54.1%)
Yale +11.1% (79.6%)
Duke +10.9% (69.0%)
Loyola +10.0% (61.8%)
Note: this assumes the committee relies heavily on RPI as a criterion again.
Data Engineer/Lacrosse Fan --- Twitter: @laxreference --- Informed fans get Expected Goals, the new daily newsletter from LacrosseReference
-
- Posts: 23826
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:53 am
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
Min side there’s a primer on the model available that I ultimately need to read but could you Cliff note what drives the scores a little? For example, and I really couldn’t care less but to the eyeball it seems odd: ToMo kid Smith was 8,2 and top the model against Canisius but he took 22 shots so good (above 1/3) but not astounding shot % compared with my guy Jason Knox who was 10,1 on 12 shots (83%) and he has 3gbs, 1TO, 1CT so arguablly a strong overall contribution and the scores have a healthy gap. I really don’t mean to make it “my guy should be higher” just where my domain knowledge is strongest but on the surface I didn’t see smith being more efficient or having other meaningfully superior non scoring contributions. I’m guessing it has something to do with when the scoring game in the game and outcome overall but it still struck me as odd that a guy who takes 22 shots, even with scoring 8 goals would be #1 in offensive efficientylaxreference wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:47 am It's been an offensive-minded start to the season, and there are some gaudy stat lines on this week's list of the top individual statistical performances. But I was honestly surprised to see that scoring wasn't up that much since last year. It's early, so take this with a grain of salt, but as far as goals per game:
2015- 20.5
2016- 20.2
2017- 20.7
2018 - 20.6
2019 - 22.9
2020 - 23.6
Not that big of a jump. Will be curious to see how it changes over the season.
Now I love those cowboys, I love their gold
Love my uncle, God rest his soul
Taught me good, Lord, taught me all I know
Taught me so well, that I grabbed that gold
I left his dead ass there by the side of the road, yeah
Love my uncle, God rest his soul
Taught me good, Lord, taught me all I know
Taught me so well, that I grabbed that gold
I left his dead ass there by the side of the road, yeah
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
I was under the impression that the committee relied on whichever criteria guarantees a barely-.500 Hopkins a shot in the tourney; i.e., last year it was quality wins, though when someone pointed out Cornell had more of those it became top 10 quality wins. If they had had a better RPI that would have been the criteria.laxreference wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:04 pm
Note: this assumes the committee relies heavily on RPI as a criterion again.
-
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:54 pm
- Contact:
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
Great questions. Always happy to describe the philosophy behind the numbers. Your comments had two main themes. First, Knox had more points and a strong over stat line with the GBs and CT. Second, Knox was more efficient in getting 10 goals on 12 shots.Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:39 pm Min side there’s a primer on the model available that I ultimately need to read but could you Cliff note what drives the scores a little? For example, and I really couldn’t care less but to the eyeball it seems odd: ToMo kid Smith was 8,2 and top the model against Canisius but he took 22 shots so good (above 1/3) but not astounding shot % compared with my guy Jason Knox who was 10,1 on 12 shots (83%) and he has 3gbs, 1TO, 1CT so arguablly a strong overall contribution and the scores have a healthy gap. I really don’t mean to make it “my guy should be higher” just where my domain knowledge is strongest but on the surface I didn’t see smith being more efficient or having other meaningfully superior non scoring contributions. I’m guessing it has something to do with when the scoring game in the game and outcome overall but it still struck me as odd that a guy who takes 22 shots, even with scoring 8 goals would be #1 in offensive efficienty
The first one is the easiest to explain, and is the main cause of the discrepancy. Here is the key stat: Knox's 10 goals were split between 8 assisted and 2 unassisted; Smith's 8 goals were 7 unassisted and 1 assisted. And the reason that's a big deal is that the model splits the "value" of a goal between the guy who got the assist and the guy who scored the goal. For unassisted goals, the goal scorer gets the whole "value" added to his total.
Now, you could argue that an offense with a lot of assists is better than an offense where one guy goes and gets a bunch of goals through hero-ball. And while I don't have an empirical argument one way or the other, since this is an individual ranking list, unassisted goals get you higher on the list than assisted goals. Is that fair to someone like Knox? Who knows.
Second factor is the efficiency of the performance. Knox was undoubtedly more efficient. And Hobart has been more efficient than ROMO overall this year (1st in efficiency vs 11th for RoMO). But the model was created was to look at how often different type of plays lead to goals. By that logic, missed shots have a positive value because they are followed by goals for the offense more often than they are followed by goals by the defense. As a result, a missed shot increases a player's EGA. (It should be pointed out that the play values include pre-shot clock games, so eventually, when we can use just post-shot-clock games, that may no longer be the case).
I don't disagree that a more efficient performance is desirable to a less efficient performance. But for me, the benefits of being able to use the "play-values" to aggregate a player's contribution is worth the downside of favoring a player with a high-volume, low-efficiency performance.
Hope that helps. What do you think?
Data Engineer/Lacrosse Fan --- Twitter: @laxreference --- Informed fans get Expected Goals, the new daily newsletter from LacrosseReference
-
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:54 pm
- Contact:
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
This thread has a strict no-conspiracy-theories rule. Ok, not that strict, but I'll leave these discussions to the more partisan threads.ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:58 pmI was under the impression that the committee relied on whichever criteria guarantees a barely-.500 Hopkins a shot in the tourney; i.e., last year it was quality wins, though when someone pointed out Cornell had more of those it became top 10 quality wins. If they had had a better RPI that would have been the criteria.laxreference wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:04 pm
Note: this assumes the committee relies heavily on RPI as a criterion again.
Data Engineer/Lacrosse Fan --- Twitter: @laxreference --- Informed fans get Expected Goals, the new daily newsletter from LacrosseReference
-
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:54 pm
- Contact:
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
Data Engineer/Lacrosse Fan --- Twitter: @laxreference --- Informed fans get Expected Goals, the new daily newsletter from LacrosseReference
-
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:54 pm
- Contact:
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
Data Engineer/Lacrosse Fan --- Twitter: @laxreference --- Informed fans get Expected Goals, the new daily newsletter from LacrosseReference
-
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:54 pm
- Contact:
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
Updated list of Live Win Probability Links
- Marist vs Army
- Fairfield vs Merrimack
- Bryant vs Boston U
- Brown vs Sacred Heart
- Detroit vs Bellarmine
- Marist vs Army
- Fairfield vs Merrimack
- Bryant vs Boston U
- Brown vs Sacred Heart
- Detroit vs Bellarmine
Data Engineer/Lacrosse Fan --- Twitter: @laxreference --- Informed fans get Expected Goals, the new daily newsletter from LacrosseReference
-
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:54 pm
- Contact:
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
Updated list of Live Win Probability Links
- Saint Joseph's vs Delaware
- Michigan vs Canisius
- Holy Cross vs UMass-Lowell
- Villanova vs Maryland
- Richmond vs Navy
- Marist vs Army
- Fairfield vs Merrimack
- Bryant vs Boston U
- Brown vs Sacred Heart
- Detroit vs Bellarmine
- Saint Joseph's vs Delaware
- Michigan vs Canisius
- Holy Cross vs UMass-Lowell
- Villanova vs Maryland
- Richmond vs Navy
- Marist vs Army
- Fairfield vs Merrimack
- Bryant vs Boston U
- Brown vs Sacred Heart
- Detroit vs Bellarmine
Data Engineer/Lacrosse Fan --- Twitter: @laxreference --- Informed fans get Expected Goals, the new daily newsletter from LacrosseReference
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
I guess I thought probability of win would be more predictive. This looks like, to give a nautical analogy, steering by your wake.
-
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:54 pm
- Contact:
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
Updated list of Live Win Probability Links
- Princeton vs Colgate
- Saint Joseph's vs Delaware
- Michigan vs Canisius
- Holy Cross vs UMass-Lowell
- Villanova vs Maryland
- Richmond vs Navy
- Marist vs Army
- Fairfield vs Merrimack
- Bryant vs Boston U
- Brown vs Sacred Heart
- Detroit vs Bellarmine
- Princeton vs Colgate
- Saint Joseph's vs Delaware
- Michigan vs Canisius
- Holy Cross vs UMass-Lowell
- Villanova vs Maryland
- Richmond vs Navy
- Marist vs Army
- Fairfield vs Merrimack
- Bryant vs Boston U
- Brown vs Sacred Heart
- Detroit vs Bellarmine
Data Engineer/Lacrosse Fan --- Twitter: @laxreference --- Informed fans get Expected Goals, the new daily newsletter from LacrosseReference
-
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:54 pm
- Contact:
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
Haha, well I look at it this way. Would you be shocked if a .263 hitter and a .312 hitter got back to back base hits? That's the statistical equivalent of both Marist and Villanova winning today. Based on the probabilities, there was an 8% chance of that happening since MD had a 74% chance of winning and Army's was 69%.
Data Engineer/Lacrosse Fan --- Twitter: @laxreference --- Informed fans get Expected Goals, the new daily newsletter from LacrosseReference
-
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:54 pm
- Contact:
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
As always, here is the daily digest for Feb 18, 2020.
Data Engineer/Lacrosse Fan --- Twitter: @laxreference --- Informed fans get Expected Goals, the new daily newsletter from LacrosseReference
-
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:54 pm
- Contact:
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
I did an analysis of the relationship between turnover rates and saved shots. I wanted to see if there was any useful information to be gleaned by looking at possessions and ending one of three ways:
1. Goal
2. TO
3. Saved/Missed shot
I feel like you hear about turnover rates and you definitely hear about offensive efficiency, but this third outcome is somewhat less analyzed. Turnovers are usually described as an error from the offense, while saves are typically thought of as an accomplishment by the goalie.
But an offense that minimized turnovers by gifting easy saves because of poor shots wouldn't have an obvious flaw (i.e. a high turnover rate), yet might be a horrendous offense. I wanted to dig in and see if the numbers help describe the trade-offs involved.
1. Goal
2. TO
3. Saved/Missed shot
I feel like you hear about turnover rates and you definitely hear about offensive efficiency, but this third outcome is somewhat less analyzed. Turnovers are usually described as an error from the offense, while saves are typically thought of as an accomplishment by the goalie.
But an offense that minimized turnovers by gifting easy saves because of poor shots wouldn't have an obvious flaw (i.e. a high turnover rate), yet might be a horrendous offense. I wanted to dig in and see if the numbers help describe the trade-offs involved.
Data Engineer/Lacrosse Fan --- Twitter: @laxreference --- Informed fans get Expected Goals, the new daily newsletter from LacrosseReference
-
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:54 pm
- Contact:
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
Data Engineer/Lacrosse Fan --- Twitter: @laxreference --- Informed fans get Expected Goals, the new daily newsletter from LacrosseReference
-
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:54 pm
- Contact:
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
Data Engineer/Lacrosse Fan --- Twitter: @laxreference --- Informed fans get Expected Goals, the new daily newsletter from LacrosseReference
-
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:54 pm
- Contact:
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
Here are the statistical previews for all of today's games. Lots of tournament implications today.
Data Engineer/Lacrosse Fan --- Twitter: @laxreference --- Informed fans get Expected Goals, the new daily newsletter from LacrosseReference
-
- Posts: 1260
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 10:21 am
Re: Lacrosse Analytics
Although as a Big Red fan, I like seeing that our chances went up 21%, but we kept seeing this last year and I believe after we beat ND on the road, our chances were like 80%, and we all know how that ended, so like I said, Im pleased our chances went up, but until we either win the AUTOMATIC bid, or when the bids come out that we got and at-large, I will continue to be of the mindset that the NCAA will find a way to screw us like they did last year.laxreference wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:04 pm The top movers over the weekend in terms of NCAA tournament probability were:
Cornell +21.2% (now 64.8%)
Robert Morris +19.5% (47.4%)
Virginia +12.8% (79.9%)
Army +11.7% (54.1%)
Yale +11.1% (79.6%)
Duke +10.9% (69.0%)
Loyola +10.0% (61.8%)
Note: this assumes the committee relies heavily on RPI as a criterion again.
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78