US Lacrosse Top 20

[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.

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.

You really are something. I’ll try explain this to you. The 1-0 score was chosen intentionally because of the 0 denominator. It was a example of what a ridiculous idea it is to try to compare the dominance of scores by looking at marginal percentage of victory. No one compares scores by percentage margins, just margin of victory. The further examples, after pointing out the math errors, with 22-8 being less “impressive” than 3-1 fully show that. Who knows who would have one last year. If they played this year, which they won’t because of boneheaded NESCAC administrations, Salisbury would be heavily favored with their PG team.

[DeepPocket]

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

I like York’s talent level. Strong fifth year returners who lead their positions in Mid. Reynolds and Def. Kennedy. Strong goalie in Michael. Strong transfers in the form of Mid. Dembeck out of Jacksonville/Salisbury, and Mid. Witman out of Tampa. Also this will be the first full year of production out of Harford CC transfer Att. Schmidt. He still sits second all time in goals there & he didn’t disappoint in the glimpse we got last year.

Looks like the regular season will be MAC only (unified Commonwealth & Freedom). But with both Stevens and Stevenson in the ranking conversation, depending on which poll you chose, they will get some tests in. Plus getting to see 17 different opponents in a “conference only” scenario is a huge plus over others stuck in similar circumstance.

Been practicing, schedule drop won’t be far off. It’s an exciting time, and it’s been too long. Let these men play.

[Dr. Pretorious]

[/quote]
No compares scores by percentage margins, just margin of victory. The further examples, after pointing out the math errors, with 22-8 being less “impressive” than 3-1 fully show that. Who knows who would have one last year. If they played this year, which they won’t because of boneheaded NESCAC administrations, Salisbury would be heavily favored with their PG team.
[/quote]

Thank you, thank you for finally agreeing with me. If you go back and look at (and understand) my original post, which was in response to someone proclaiming unequivocally that because Tufts had a higher goals/game average, they would have won the game in question. My first post simply said that no one could unequivocally guarantee the outcome of the hypothetical game by manipulating statistics, and suggested that a higher scoring game didn’t necessarily imply a better team or more dominant performance on the field. When pressed further, I offered an opinion that comparing goal totals in and of themselves wouldn’t be indicative of which is the better team, because such doesn’t take into account defensive effort, flow of the game (as pointed out by another poster here) etc. The subsequent posts from you and others offering additional, different takes on the statistics simply drives the point home.

Bottom line is we disagree. You believe a 40-30 score (10 goal margin) is be more impressive/dominant etc. than a 10-1 score (9 goal margin). You are absolutely entitled to believe that and you fashion a reasonable argument. At the same time, I disagree and take the opposite view. We should be able to disagree gracefully, and accept differing opinions respectfully, no?

“No compares scores by percentage margins, just margin of victory.”

So you speak for everyone?

“Salisbury would be heavily favored with their PG team.”

Wait for it ... And there it is ... another non-sequitur shot at Salisbury from left field .
Think we’ve gotten to the root of your ire ...
Gotta ask - what is it about Salisbury that triggers you so?

[jrazz44]

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

I like York’s talent level. Strong fifth year returners who lead their positions in Mid. Reynolds and Def. Kennedy. Strong goalie in Michael. Strong transfers in the form of Mid. Dembeck out of Jacksonville/Salisbury, and Mid. Witman out of Tampa. Also this will be the first full year of production out of Harford CC transfer Att. Schmidt. He still sits second all time in goals there & he didn’t disappoint in the glimpse we got last year.

Looks like the regular season will be MAC only (unified Commonwealth & Freedom). But with both Stevens and Stevenson in the ranking conversation, depending on which poll you chose, they will get some tests in. Plus getting to see 17 different opponents in a “conference only” scenario is a huge plus over others stuck in similar circumstance.

Been practicing, schedule drop won’t be far off. It’s an exciting time, and it’s been too long. Let these men play.

York is going to surprise a lot of people this year. The talent has been its deepest since 2019 and they bring a lot of starters back on both side of the ball. York’s defense will be a top unit in the country and there are a ton of no-names on offense who will open eyes quick. I would keep an eye out for Wilhelm, O’Sullivan, Wolf, and Ranck. Excited to see what they bring to the table.

[DeepPocket]

York is going to surprise a lot of people this year. The talent has been its deepest since 2019 and they bring a lot of starters back on both side of the ball. York’s defense will be a top unit in the country and there are a ton of no-names on offense who will open eyes quick. I would keep an eye out for Wilhelm, O’Sullivan, Wolf, and Ranck. Excited to see what they bring to the table.

Couldn’t agree more on their depth, but personally I prefer “hidden gems” to “no-names.” York’s ability to consistently recruit players that have both the skills to contribute and a attitude that gels with their team culture has laid the ground work for what the program has become. While they’ve had their share of AAs, scoring by committee has been one of their greatest strengths. When their offense is at it’s best, everyone seems to find the back of the net. And now, as the positive team culture has also consistently been a culture of winning and competing nationally, you’re seeing those players who might previously have overlooked York, taking a look their way for recruitment and transfers.

I think York’s days of surprising other teams have been gone for a few years now. And if an opponent does underestimate them, they’ll learn not to make that mistake again, that’s for sure.

As far as the defense goes, that is the only position where they don’t have a full compliment of returning starters. I don’t know who will slot into that third spot yet. Greene seems the natural fit. 6’5” 230lbs Junior ready to take his place as a starter? Or maybe we see Nation slide down from LSM. He’s got the size, and has faced some of the the best offensive talent in DIII over the last few years, plus there is plenty of LSM depth down the line to fill in. Only time will tell.

[ah23]

The lacrosse played in the northern half is notoriously known for generally not playing much defense; typical scores in the NESCAC are 25-17, whereas typical scores in games played south of DC are like 11-8

I don't think I need to legitimize something this ignorant with a response.

I think one of the key differences is that Salisbury was putting up 20+ goals against teams who actually commit to playing defense

- Salisbury scored 20+ goals in 4 of 7 games against Berry (1-4, NR), Coast Guard (2-4, NR), Ohio Wesleyan (2-3, NR), and Rhodes (5-2, NR, gave up 22 goals to both Salisbury and Southern Virginia)).
- Tufts scored 20+ goals in 4 of 4 games against Colby (1-2, NR), Springfield (0-4, NR), Amherst (3-1, #7 final poll), and Ithaca (2-3, #20 final poll)

Let's go game-by-game by goals allowed - Tufts' games are bolded and italicized:

Colby: 24, 3, 19 - 11.00 non-Tufts GAA, 24 GA (+13) vs. Tufts
Amherst: 8, 8, 25, 9 - 8.33 non-Tufts GAA, 25 GA (+16.67) vs. Tufts
Springfield: 14, 16, 25, 14 - 14.67 non-Tufts GAA, 25 GA (+10.33)vs. Tufts
Ithaca: 18, 5, 12, 9, 26 - 11.00 non-Tufts GAA, 26 GA (+15) vs. Tufts

How interesting.

But the fact that you have to go back three years to find an outlier team to support the notion that someone in the NESCAC committed to playing defense kind of makes the point, no?

It seems like you approve of common opponent comparisons, so here are some from 2019 - the last time we had a full lacrosse season.

How many goals did the following teams score against each opponent?

- Stevenson vs: Ursinus (9), Gettysburg (9), Salisbury (9), Lynchburg (9), York (4), Tufts (7, 4), F&M (12)
- Lynchburg vs: Salisbury (9, 10), F&M (11), Cabrini (8), York (11), Wesleyan (8), W&L (9, 7)
- RIT vs: Bates (14), York (10), Amherst (16), Cortland (14), RPI (22), Ithaca (18), Union (12, 14, 10), St. Lawrence (17), Williams (11)
- Union vs: Williams (11), Ithaca (14), St. Lawrence (12), RPI (17, 13), Cortland (12), RIT (9, 6, 9)
- WNE vs: Amherst (11), Bates (8), Williams (7), Wesleyan (8)
- F&M vs: Lynchburg (8), W&L (13), Amherst (9), Denison (12), Gettysburg (13), Ursinus (15, 11)
- Cabrini vs: Dickinson (14), Ithaca (17), York (7, 11), Salisbury (5, 16), Stevenson (17), Amherst (16)
- RPI vs: Williams (7), Ithaca (13), RIT (13), Union (12, 8)

NESCAC teams performed the same, worse, or in multiple examples noticeably better than other top teams from around the country when facing common opponents.

If someone had the time and the interest, a more accurate statistic

Oh the irony in lecturing other people about "accurate statistics".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before the inevitable "muh Jumbos" or "muh NESCAC" response...1. I am not a Tufts fan, player, alum, or whatever 2. Posting accurate stats to dispel a false narrative about a particular team/conference is not bias for or against that team/conference. It is bias in favor of facts.

[Unknown Participant]

No compares scores by percentage margins, just margin of victory. The further examples, after pointing out the math errors, with 22-8 being less “impressive” than 3-1 fully show that. Who knows who would have one last year. If they played this year, which they won’t because of boneheaded NESCAC administrations, Salisbury would be heavily favored with their PG team.
[/quote]

Thank you, thank you for finally agreeing with me. If you go back and look at (and understand) my original post, which was in response to someone proclaiming unequivocally that because Tufts had a higher goals/game average, they would have won the game in question. My first post simply said that no one could unequivocally guarantee the outcome of the hypothetical game by manipulating statistics, and suggested that a higher scoring game didn’t necessarily imply a better team or more dominant performance on the field. When pressed further, I offered an opinion that comparing goal totals in and of themselves wouldn’t be indicative of which is the better team, because such doesn’t take into account defensive effort, flow of the game (as pointed out by another poster here) etc. The subsequent posts from you and others offering additional, different takes on the statistics simply drives the point home.

Bottom line is we disagree. You believe a 40-30 score (10 goal margin) is be more impressive/dominant etc. than a 10-1 score (9 goal margin). You are absolutely entitled to believe that and you fashion a reasonable argument. At the same time, I disagree and take the opposite view. We should be able to disagree gracefully, and accept differing opinions respectfully, no?

“No compares scores by percentage margins, just margin of victory.”

So you speak for everyone?

“Salisbury would be heavily favored with their PG team.”

Wait for it ... And there it is ... another non-sequitur shot at Salisbury from left field .
Think we’ve gotten to the root of your ire ...
Gotta ask - what is it about Salisbury that triggers you so?
[/quote]

Gee'z buddy, you can't even honestly describe the post that triggered your first post. That poster stated merely that Tufts' smallest "margin of victory was 10 goals against the defending national runner up." The clear take away being that Tufts had a very good team and proved it by outscoring another very good team by 10. That poster in no way proclaimed (as you claim) "unequivocally that because Tufts had a higher goals/game average, they would have won the game in question."
.

[ah23]

If you go back and look at (and understand) my original post, which was in response to someone proclaiming unequivocally that because Tufts had a higher goals/game average, they would have won the game in question.

This is a fabrication of what the original comment said.

Here is the entire comment you responded to (it was mine):

There was no right/wrong answer last year, but I would have absolutely gone with Tufts. Their smallest margin of victory was beating national runner-up Amherst by 10 goals. Beat Ithaca (who - transitive property alert - beat Cabrini) by 15, beat Springfield by 19. I don't know how anyone would have been able to play with them for four quarters.

They bring back most of last year's team for 2021. I really hope NESCAC leadership figures itself out and lets the season happen, because a potential Tufts-Salisbury matchup would be D3 lacrosse nirvana.

I did not "proclaim unequivocally" that Tufts would have won. I said there was no right/wrong answer, but I would have picked Tufts to win.

I also did not mention either team's goals/game average. I brought up the fact that Tufts' closest game was a ten-goal win against the 2019 national runners up to note a contrast with Salisbury, which had faced three teams ranked below #7 Amherst (#9 Gettysburg, #17 Lynchburg, and #19 Stevens) and beaten them each by single digits (11-5, 16-10, and 14-8), including trailing at halftime against Stevens.

Obviously it's an imperfect evaluation. That shouldn't be surprising, given that there is literally no foolproof way to predict the result of an unplayed game whether or not the teams involved have common opponents.

That doesn't mean people can't attempt to evaluate teams and make predictions anyway, provided those people bring actual statistics/data to the table and don't rely on fabricated/exaggerated narratives to make their points.

[BeatenZone]

Please Dear God stop. No More. You are usually respected for your lacrosse knowledge and insight but you are losing the rest of us.

[COGULL]

Please Dear God stop. No More. You are usually respected for your lacrosse knowledge and insight but you are losing the rest of us.

Please dear God let the NESCAC administration come to their senses and allow there to be a season for their conference! And please dear God allow the Gulls & Jumbos to square off in late May '21... Because this will be the "ONLY WAY" you're going to make one half of this group shut-up.... for at least a portion of one offseason.

GO GULLS!!!

[UpperCorner]

Amen.

Vaccine over 40MM and vaccinating 1.5MM a day.
Conservatively 50MM people have had Covid... prob more.
It doesn't affect the young the same way it effects the elderly.
D1 is playing.
D3 is playing.
Even Cuomo is announcing the opening of indoor family entertainment.
And these administrators are so scared of playing sports.
I don't get it and I'm getting really angry.
I don't care who's ranked number 1 - I want them to play!!!

[ah23]

I don't care who's ranked number 1 - I want them to play!!!

Amen to that.

[nehslaxfan]

Amen.

Vaccine over 40MM and vaccinating 1.5MM a day.
Conservatively 50MM people have had Covid... prob more.
It doesn't affect the young the same way it effects the elderly.
D1 is playing.
D3 is playing.
Even Cuomo is announcing the opening of indoor family entertainment.
And these administrators are so scared of playing sports.
I don't get it and I'm getting really angry.
I don't care who's ranked number 1 - I want them to play!!!

Don’t forget the studies done during the NFL and college football seasons that showed no increase in the spread of Covid through the participation in thousands of football games. The Super bowl had fans, parties attended by thousands and reports of no masks, yet the trend two weeks later in Tampa area is still downward. What happened to follow the science?

[UpperCorner]

Amen.

Vaccine over 40MM and vaccinating 1.5MM a day.
Conservatively 50MM people have had Covid... prob more.
It doesn't affect the young the same way it effects the elderly.
D1 is playing.
D3 is playing.
Even Cuomo is announcing the opening of indoor family entertainment.
And these administrators are so scared of playing sports.
I don't get it and I'm getting really angry.
I don't care who's ranked number 1 - I want them to play!!!

Don’t forget the studies done during the NFL and college football seasons that showed no increase in the spread of Covid through the participation in thousands of football games. The Super bowl had fans, parties attended by thousands and reports of no masks, yet the trend two weeks later in Tampa area is still downward. What happened to follow the science?

*MADISON SQUARE GARDEN WILL ALLOW FANS FOR KNICKS GAME FEB. 23

It just keeps getting better and better - so glad they're protecting our young men .