US Lacrosse Top 20

[Dr. Pretorious]

You are obvious the one with issues with the above ranting email completely out of the blue (not the first for you).

???
Really? Can you point to an example?
I believe this is the first time I have ever posted on this thread, or any NESCAC-related thread for that matter, so please provide an example of what you’re referring to; thanks.

[Dr. Pretorious]

Isn’t 25-18 a 7 goal win and 8-2 only a 6 goal win? Not sure - I was a history major

Ok; I’ll try to explain ...
(Excuse you for being a history major, no worries).
As the math majors and seasoned sports fans will understand, there is a significant difference in the relative dominance reflected in the two scores. Let’s refer to the 8-2 score as game A and the 25-18 score as game B.

In game A the winning team scored 400% more than the losing team, whereas in game B the winning team scored 138% more than the losing team. That’s virtually 3 to 1 ratio.

In game A the losing team, assuming it gave up no more goals, would have had to increase its own goal scoring output by 300% just to bring the score even, whereas in game B the losing team would have only needed to increase its own goal scoring output by 38% to bring the game even. That’s almost a 9 to 1 ratio.

In game A the losing team scored 25% as much as the winning team, whereas in game B The losing team scored 72% as much as the winning team. Again, virtually a 3 to 1 ratio.

So, just my humble opinion, but once we check our team/conference allegiances at the door and look at it objectively, I don’t think there can really be much argument as to which is the more dominating victory. Again, just my opinion.

And again, wasn’t taking any shots at your conference and if you look at my post I conceded that most years, in and out, it is the strongest conference. I still don’t understand why you guys are so insecure and go from 0 to 100 anytime anyone suggests anything other than Tufts et al are hands-down, unequivocally and without doubt the best teams in D3 bar none. If you go back and look at the original post in this thread that started this debate, someone had suggested that if Tufts had played Salisbury last year, they would have absolutely dominated the game, hands-down, no doubt about it and Salisbury wouldn’t have had a chance. It was that rather extreme opinion that I and others sought to respond to. No doubt Tufts certainly could have/ would have won the game, but it is silly to suggest that it would’ve been a complete domination and that Salisbury wouldn’t have stood a chance. That’s just an absurd opinion in the eyes of anyone who follows D3 lax.

And again, not a Salisbury fan here per se. So you can save the six grade level name-calling in your anticipated responses ...

[Dr. Pretorious]

Hold on now!! Ya'll need to take it easy on Pretorius !! There's a lot of truth to you Tufts fans being thin-skinned - Unknown-Participant, I can almost hear your voice crack when I read your posts "sniff-sniff"- been up all night scouring the stats...

'16 - "Frankly, none of us have quite recovered from them damn flying rats"
'17 - damn flying rats again! NESCAC???
'18 - "The brackets AREN'T FAIR!! - We need to take a good long look at the rules here... cause my Bo's shoulda been in before them damn flying rats"
'19 - Props to Cabrini - ya'll know in your Jumbo hearts them flying rats would of beat your best NESCAC - your best being Amherst
'20 - Bo's on suicide watch cause they knew "THIS WAS O-U-R Y-E-A-R!!" I mean common damn-it!!! You see the score of them "four" games !?!?! I know them damn flying rats were somehow responsible for this pandemic!!

Now quit your whining and instead of blaming some winged varmint, why don't you go spit some of that vitriol at your elitist administration- Man it feels like old times on Laxpower!

Appears Unknown Participant has a serious case of Traumatic Flying Rat Disorder syndrome ... gotta wonder how much space Berkman, his program and all their titles occupy in Unknown Participant’s head??

[remote]

USILA preseason ranking

https://usila.org/news/2021/2/3/mens-la ... -poll.aspx

[remote]

USILA Coaches Poll
1. Salisbury
2. tufts
3. RIT
4. Cabrini
5. williams
6. Ursinus
7. Denison
8. Gettysburg
9. York
10. Wesleyan
11.Union
12. Lynchburg
13.CNU
14. Amherst
15.fisher
16. F&M
17. St Lawr
18.Stevens
19. midd
20. W&L

Also receiving votes: Stevenson (46), Bates (32), Dickinson (31), Ithaca (27), RPI (25), Cortland (21), Ohio Wesleyan (15), Bowdoin (13), Springfield (12), Illinois Wesleyan (9), Colorado College (9), Widener (6), Hampden-Sydney (4), Coast Guard (3), Randolph-Macon (2), Stockton (1), and Grove City (1).

[MrLax2U]

If we're going to start ranking 2021, I'd put Salisbury/Tufts tie for # 1 and move Denison to # 3 or 4. By tradition Cabrini is # 1 until they lose but the ending of 2020 was w/o precedent so I hope the Cavs and their fans understand.

For Dr. Pre and the NESCAC fans common ground would be to pray for a 2016-like Final in 2021. Jumbos going for a three-peat. Coach Daly last game in D III; John Uppgren arguably the best D 3 Attack since Jason Coffman; Tufts dominating fogo. Game of runs; comes down to the last seconds with Uppgren on the doorstep grabbing a pass from behind the goal and slamming the pellet right......

[Nosey Ned]

Hey Mr Lax .... in both 2016 and 2017 on the way to their back-to-backs the Gulls were almost tripped up each year by Denison - ‘16 went to OT and ‘17 another 1goal thriller. I’ve heard it said by many that the winner of the 2017 matchup was going to be National Champion - so if we’re praying for redos, I’m putting in for a redo of that 2017 matchup. And maybe this time #23 gets the ball through to #2 on the crease and the Big Red take their chances in OT.

Oh it sure is fun to dream .... and sometimes dreams come true. Hope to see you in May!

[MrLax2U]

Greetings Ned, Those were two great games; could have gone either way. Large crowd, best two coaches in college lax, men played hard and fair with respect for each other and the game, great weather. Emotions on the Sals side of the stands went from "This is going to be a hard win against an excellent opponent" to "We're liable to lose this."

I noticed Aaron Leeds is listed as a Graduate Assistant Coach on the Gull web site. Would make for a real interesting semi.....

[Dehuntshigwa’es]

Does anyone here really believe that a team other than Salisbury is winning another title this year. Normally calling for the Gulls to win the title isn’t exactly going out on a limb but this year’s team looks like it may be one of those vintage seasons for the Gulls. Between the 9-10 5th year seniors the transfers from Furman and other places. All this, and with several outstanding freshman I think they will steamroll the D3 landscape this year. Btw I’m no fan of the Gulls but respect what they have accomplished

[ergit]

News out of the NCAA, 2021 lacrosse season cancelled.
https://www.ncaa.com/sports/lacrosse-men/d3


... championship awarded to Tuftsbury...

[FannOLax]

News out of the NCAA, 2021 lacrosse season cancelled.
https://www.ncaa.com/sports/lacrosse-men/d3


... championship awarded to Tuftsbury...

Um, this link leads to old news: 2020 season cancelled. Joke or mistake?

[MrLax2U]

Booyah Dehunt,

Does anyone here really believe that a team other than Salisbury is winning another title this year.

For all their size, speed and experience Salisbury has weaknesses.

First is in goal. Ellis has been around but hasn't really proven himself at the highest level. Better goal tending these last several years and Gulls might have 13 or 14 rings. Not to take anything away from Cabrini or Wesleyan.

Second, the first midfield line never really jelled. Snyder, Broms, Wongus etc. are superb individual players but when it counted they fell short.

Third is fogo. Malamphy is on the Gull All-Decade Team but the rules have changed and Brett will have to prove he can adapt. Even the best athlete can have an off day or pull a muscle; just hope it isn't during one and done.

Fourth, Defense is big, strong and experienced. They can be vulnerable to a small, quick run and gun attack on a hot day especially since Berkman resists dropping them back into a tight zone. Even just to throw opponents off stride or as a reset during an offensive run. Common in D I.

Last is the unknown.....

[Nosey Ned]

Greetings Ned, Those were two great games; could have gone either way. Large crowd, best two coaches in college lax, men played hard and fair with respect for each other and the game, great weather. Emotions on the Sals side of the stands went from "This is going to be a hard win against an excellent opponent" to "We're liable to lose this."

I noticed Aaron Leeds is listed as a Graduate Assistant Coach on the Gull web site. Would make for a real interesting semi.....

Haha ... wish he was in street clothes in 2017! That young man made a great defensive play - maybe play of the day! That was a great game - even though my Big Red lost, that was a special team that was a lot of fun to watch play together. Arguably the best all round team (to date) ever for Denison.

[Dehuntshigwa’es]

Booyah Dehunt,

Does anyone here really believe that a team other than Salisbury is winning another title this year.

For all their size, speed and experience Salisbury has weaknesses.

First is in goal. Ellis has been around but hasn't really proven himself at the highest level. Better goal tending these last several years and Gulls might have 13 or 14 rings. Not to take anything away from Cabrini or Wesleyan.

Second, the first midfield line never really jelled. Snyder, Broms, Wongus etc. are superb individual players but when it counted they fell short.

Third is fogo. Malamphy is on the Gull All-Decade Team but the rules have changed and Brett will have to prove he can adapt. Even the best athlete can have an off day or pull a muscle; just hope it isn't during one and done.

Fourth, Defense is big, strong and experienced. They can be vulnerable to a small, quick run and gun attack on a hot day especially since Berkman resists dropping them back into a tight zone. Even just to throw opponents off stride or as a reset during an offensive run. Common in D I.

Last is the unknown.....

When Salisbury matches up with their opponents this year just go down the line player by player for the first 10 starters and see how many players you’d switch out for the oppositions. After you are done doing that look at the next 12 players that get meaning full time and repeat the processs. The talent gap this year will be about as wide as it’s ever been. Not something I’m happy about just the reality. If the Nescac schools shut down for the year( I think they will) the party is over. This is the year I’d love to hear of a Gulls scrimmage w a team ranked 10-20 in D1

[pcowlax]

Isn’t 25-18 a 7 goal win and 8-2 only a 6 goal win? Not sure - I was a history major

Ok; I’ll try to explain ...
(Excuse you for being a history major, no worries).
As the math majors and seasoned sports fans will understand, there is a significant difference in the relative dominance reflected in the two scores. Let’s refer to the 8-2 score as game A and the 25-18 score as game B.

In game A the winning team scored 400% more than the losing team, whereas in game B the winning team scored 138% more than the losing team. That’s virtually 3 to 1 ratio.

In game A the losing team, assuming it gave up no more goals, would have had to increase its own goal scoring output by 300% just to bring the score even, whereas in game B the losing team would have only needed to increase its own goal scoring output by 38% to bring the game even. That’s almost a 9 to 1 ratio.

In game A the losing team scored 25% as much as the winning team, whereas in game B The losing team scored 72% as much as the winning team. Again, virtually a 3 to 1 ratio.

So, just my humble opinion, but once we check our team/conference allegiances at the door and look at it objectively, I don’t think there can really be much argument as to which is the more dominating victory. Again, just my opinion.

And again, wasn’t taking any shots at your conference and if you look at my post I conceded that most years, in and out, it is the strongest conference. I still don’t understand why you guys are so insecure and go from 0 to 100 anytime anyone suggests anything other than Tufts et al are hands-down, unequivocally and without doubt the best teams in D3 bar none. If you go back and look at the original post in this thread that started this debate, someone had suggested that if Tufts had played Salisbury last year, they would have absolutely dominated the game, hands-down, no doubt about it and Salisbury wouldn’t have had a chance. It was that rather extreme opinion that I and others sought to respond to. No doubt Tufts certainly could have/ would have won the game, but it is silly to suggest that it would’ve been a complete domination and that Salisbury wouldn’t have stood a chance. That’s just an absurd opinion in the eyes of anyone who follows D3 lax.

And again, not a Salisbury fan here per se. So you can save the six grade level name-calling in your anticipated responses ...

Got it. So a 1-0 victory is more impressive than 20-1. I actually also was a history major but can fumble enough through the maths to know that is not how people look at scores, for obvious reasons. I get it, you don't like high scoring games. Some people prefer to watch an 8-2 game, some 25-18. The point of the game though is to score more than the other team. The more goals you win by, the more dominant the win. The absolute number for each team reflects the style of play of the game, not the dominance of the margin. I am not a Tufts fan at all. You want an example of an out of the blue rant, just go re-read your post and try to figure out what that was in response to.

[Nosey Ned]

Booyah Dehunt,

Does anyone here really believe that a team other than Salisbury is winning another title this year.

For all their size, speed and experience Salisbury has weaknesses.

First is in goal. Ellis has been around but hasn't really proven himself at the highest level. Better goal tending these last several years and Gulls might have 13 or 14 rings. Not to take anything away from Cabrini or Wesleyan.

Second, the first midfield line never really jelled. Snyder, Broms, Wongus etc. are superb individual players but when it counted they fell short.

Third is fogo. Malamphy is on the Gull All-Decade Team but the rules have changed and Brett will have to prove he can adapt. Even the best athlete can have an off day or pull a muscle; just hope it isn't during one and done.

Fourth, Defense is big, strong and experienced. They can be vulnerable to a small, quick run and gun attack on a hot day especially since Berkman resists dropping them back into a tight zone. Even just to throw opponents off stride or as a reset during an offensive run. Common in D I.

Last is the unknown.....

When Salisbury matches up with their opponents this year just go down the line player by player for the first 10 starters and see how many players you’d switch out for the oppositions. After you are done doing that look at the next 12 players that get meaning full time and repeat the processs. The talent gap this year will be about as wide as it’s ever been. Not something I’m happy about just the reality. If the Nescac schools shut down for the year( I think they will) the party is over. This is the year I’d love to hear of a Gulls scrimmage w a team ranked 10-20 in D1

Hey Dehunt .....
I think Mr Lax is just being a gentleman. Anyone not a Gulls fan would be tickled pink to have the concerns he has voiced. I guess when your teams have been as successful as Coach Berkman's, the scrutiny level is bound to become more demanding!

And you touch on a very important point .... one that I have embraced. Most often the real "difference" between Salisbury and the next 5 top teams in the South, is depth! These other teams, all quality teams in their own right, most often have several players that would play at Salisbury and maybe even a couple/few that could start for the Gulls ... but the length of the bench at Salisbury is the real difference. That's where you see that they are far and away much deeper. They can run a second middie line out there and see little drop off. Most other teams will suffer when playing their second line against them. Then they have invariably have a SOLID #2 FOGO's .... while yours is wearing down, they are beating you consistently at the dot and making you play more defense. And so it goes on down the line. Meaning that for you to beat them in May at their place, you have to bring your best team (no injuries) and be ready to play your best players A LOT and hope they all bring their A game. Then if all that happens, maybe you'll be in position to snatch the game away from them after 60 minutes.

This year? I agree, that is going to be a much much taller order than other years.

[Dr. Pretorious]

Isn’t 25-18 a 7 goal win and 8-2 only a 6 goal win? Not sure - I was a history major

Ok; I’ll try to explain ...
(Excuse you for being a history major, no worries).
As the math majors and seasoned sports fans will understand, there is a significant difference in the relative dominance reflected in the two scores. Let’s refer to the 8-2 score as game A and the 25-18 score as game B.

In game A the winning team scored 400% more than the losing team, whereas in game B the winning team scored 138% more than the losing team. That’s virtually 3 to 1 ratio.

In game A the losing team, assuming it gave up no more goals, would have had to increase its own goal scoring output by 300% just to bring the score even, whereas in game B the losing team would have only needed to increase its own goal scoring output by 38% to bring the game even. That’s almost a 9 to 1 ratio.

In game A the losing team scored 25% as much as the winning team, whereas in game B The losing team scored 72% as much as the winning team. Again, virtually a 3 to 1 ratio.

So, just my humble opinion, but once we check our team/conference allegiances at the door and look at it objectively, I don’t think there can really be much argument as to which is the more dominating victory. Again, just my opinion.

And again, wasn’t taking any shots at your conference and if you look at my post I conceded that most years, in and out, it is the strongest conference. I still don’t understand why you guys are so insecure and go from 0 to 100 anytime anyone suggests anything other than Tufts et al are hands-down, unequivocally and without doubt the best teams in D3 bar none. If you go back and look at the original post in this thread that started this debate, someone had suggested that if Tufts had played Salisbury last year, they would have absolutely dominated the game, hands-down, no doubt about it and Salisbury wouldn’t have had a chance. It was that rather extreme opinion that I and others sought to respond to. No doubt Tufts certainly could have/ would have won the game, but it is silly to suggest that it would’ve been a complete domination and that Salisbury wouldn’t have stood a chance. That’s just an absurd opinion in the eyes of anyone who follows D3 lax.

And again, not a Salisbury fan here per se. So you can save the six grade level name-calling in your anticipated responses ...

Got it. So a 1-0 victory is more impressive than 20-1. I actually also was a history major but can fumble enough through the maths to know that is not how people look at scores, for obvious reasons. I get it, you don't like high scoring games. Some people prefer to watch an 8-2 game, some 25-18. The point of the game though is to score more than the other team. The more goals you win by, the more dominant the win. The absolute number for each team reflects the style of play of the game, not the dominance of the margin. I am not a Tufts fan at all. You want an example of an out of the blue rant, just go re-read your post and try to figure out what that was in response to.

Agreed; clearly not a math major - can’t use a 1-0 score as a ratio for comparison of any statistic since the denominator (0) has no value (it’s infinite) and therefore can’t be used as a basis of comparison of anything ... You were actually correct to choose it as a score to invalidate the theory, but not for the reason that you think

But, we are way, way off topic here. As I stated twice already - it’s simply my opinion that one score reflects a more dominant performance than the other. Has nothing to do with preferring high or low scoring games. Just an opinion as to one way to look at game scores and compare margins of victory, that’s all ... shouldn’t be that hard to comprehend (especially for a history major). Without question you are free to disagree and take another view. But certainly no need for the nasty and insulting retorts - is that how you always respond to people who don’t necessarily agree with everything you have to say?

Again you make reference to my alleged prior “rants” and again I’ll ask you to provide an example, as you must have me confused with another poster. My original post on this thread simply suggested that it was impossible for anyone (me, you, or anyone else) to state unequivocally who would have won a game - played last year - between two teams that never did play each other, never had a common opponent (and I don’t believe even had a game played between their respective conferences), and that no amount of micro analyzing hand picked statistics would be meaningful or absolutely predict the winner of such a game. I believe all the back-and-forth on this thread since then about which statistics should be considered, which represent more meaningful statistics or margins of victory etc. just proves the point. The exercise is a waste of time no matter which side you are trying to suggest would have won the game. Not sure why that’s difficult to understand or worthy of the vitriolic responses, name-calling etc.

After taking a quick look at your history of posts on this forum, across all threads, noting the volume, length and tone, I don’t think you should be pointing fingers at too many folks on this board for ranting, and certainly not for being insulting/ sophomoric and disrespectful towards anyone who disagrees with one of your views.

Done here; enjoy the season and best of luck to whichever team/conferences you will be pulling for - hoping for us all that we get some semblance of a season in.

[ColonelFastBreak]

FXLax wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:08 pm
Isn’t 25-18 a 7 goal win and 8-2 only a 6 goal win? Not sure - I was a history major
Ok; I’ll try to explain ...
(Excuse you for being a history major, no worries).
As the math majors and seasoned sports fans will understand, there is a significant difference in the relative dominance reflected in the two scores. Let’s refer to the 8-2 score as game A and the 25-18 score as game B.

In game A the winning team scored 400% more than the losing team, whereas in game B the winning team scored 138% more than the losing team. That’s virtually 3 to 1 ratio.

In game A the losing team, assuming it gave up no more goals, would have had to increase its own goal scoring output by 300% just to bring the score even, whereas in game B the losing team would have only needed to increase its own goal scoring output by 38% to bring the game even. That’s almost a 9 to 1 ratio.

In game A the losing team scored 25% as much as the winning team, whereas in game B The losing team scored 72% as much as the winning team. Again, virtually a 3 to 1 ratio.

So, just my humble opinion, but once we check our team/conference allegiances at the door and look at it objectively, I don’t think there can really be much argument as to which is the more dominating victory. Again, just my opinion.

And again, wasn’t taking any shots at your conference and if you look at my post I conceded that most years, in and out, it is the strongest conference. I still don’t understand why you guys are so insecure and go from 0 to 100 anytime anyone suggests anything other than Tufts et al are hands-down, unequivocally and without doubt the best teams in D3 bar none. If you go back and look at the original post in this thread that started this debate, someone had suggested that if Tufts had played Salisbury last year, they would have absolutely dominated the game, hands-down, no doubt about it and Salisbury wouldn’t have had a chance. It was that rather extreme opinion that I and others sought to respond to. No doubt Tufts certainly could have/ would have won the game, but it is silly to suggest that it would’ve been a complete domination and that Salisbury wouldn’t have stood a chance. That’s just an absurd opinion in the eyes of anyone who follows D3 lax.

And again, not a Salisbury fan here per se. So you can save the six grade level name-calling in your anticipated responses ...

The math is wrong.

The percent difference between 17 and 25 is not 138%. It is 47% [(25-17)/17]. Allowing 17 goals and outscoring your opponent by 138% would mean scoring 41 goals. 8 is also not 400% greater than 2. It is 4 times greater than two, but it is a 300% difference.

Also, this ratio comparison is just complete foolishness when tested with a variety of scores. By that logic a 3-1 win is more dominant than a 25-10 win, but I cannot imagine anyone here would be silly enough to make that contention. A 9-5 win is less dominant than a 2-1 win. A 7-5 win is more dominant than a 27-20 win. A 4-3 win is more dominant than a 23-18 win. This goes on an on and on....

This all seems willfully ignorant. We should all know an 8-2 win can be more dominant than a 25-17 win and vice versa. The details matter. Was the game played in a hail storm making offense near impossible? Did the winning team go up 8-0 and pull their starters because they are so far superior and the conditions were awful? Or perhaps the 8-2 win was against an incredibly high quality opponent with a high powered offense. Or maybe the game was 5-2 heading into the 4th with sloppy offense by both teams and solid defense, but quite a few posts hit by the trailing team. One goalie excelled in the 4th while another fell to pieces. Is that a dominant win? Was the 25-17 game a back and forth, up-tempo affair that featured three late, empty-net goals? Or perhaps it was 23-6 after 3 quarters and the back ups came on for the winning side. Obviously, the winners would like it if there wasn't such a large drop off, but you get the point. Context matters.

Finally, nobody knows whether Tufts or Salisbury (or someone else) would have won a national championship last year. They didn't get to play and it stunk. Agreed that it would have been a competitive game. The history of the series between the two suggest as much (excepting 2011).

[Dr. Pretorious]

Finally, nobody knows whether Tufts or Salisbury (or someone else) would have won a national championship last year. They didn't get to play and it stunk. Agreed that it would have been a competitive game. The history of the series between the two suggest as much (excepting 2011).

Agreed!
That was the original point before getting all sidetracked and twisted up. Your counter argument to the math drives the point home… There’s no way to cherry pick statistics to guarantee who would’ve won what would have most likely been a terrific game. Hopefully this year…

Thanks for a reasoned (and respectful) response offering a different perspective.
Good luck with your season.

[jrazz44]

What’re everyone’s thoughts on York for the upcoming season?