2022 Tewaaraton Finalists

[wlaxphan20]

You are correct, Schleicher got the ball, but North took the DC. This has been a pet peeve of mine for some time. DCs should be recorded as in men’s lacrosse where the person taking the draw/FO gets the win if their team gains control. That is a more accurate portrayal of DC success.

Here's a pet peeve of mine. People who try to make a change to the women's game based on something done on the men's side.

How about if we do the reverse? I have an idea to change the men's game. Adopt the women's draw rules instead of the face down or face plant or whatever it is they call the play to start the men's game. The draw takes much more skill. The face plant only requires brute force. Two pigs rolling around in the mud, grunting and squealing, until one emerges with the ball. Not only does the draw take more skill to execute, but it is much more fun to watch from a fan's perspective. Who wants to watch two sumo wrestlers go at it?

So let's make a change to men's lacrosse, adopting a women's rule, for a change.

Now, to your point, which you have made before. It depends on the particular draw as to whether the center should get any credit if her team, but not she, wins the draw. If the center intends to, and does, direct the ball to a teammate on the circle, then, yes, she should get some credit. But if the ball simply squirts out in this direction or that, then, no, she shouldn't because she did nothing to help her team win the draw. Perhaps if there were a PFF type organization, they could provide this type of micro-analysis.

Edit to add: Maryland won the draw 23-14. In your view then, does North get all the blame for BC getting so badly beaten on the draw?

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I can't tell if you are serious with this post or not. As Mrs. CO might tell you, it wouldn't be the first time I failed to read the room. In case this was a sincere post, I will offer a few responses.

I am not trying to change the women's game, I was really just making a nerdy stat-keeping point about how DC success is measured. Maybe, as WLP alluded to, tracking who took the draw could be a supplemental stat, not a replacement. It would actually be quite simple to do. Either the men's way or the women's way of measuring FO/DC success has flaws. In the men's game, you could win control of the clamp, direct it perfectly to a teammate on the wing who flubs it and the other FO specialist gets credit for the win when his teammate makes a spectacular GB pick up. OTOH, a woman taking the draw could direct it perfectly to her teammate who gathers in the easy "pass" and the receiver gets credit for a DC. Recording who took the draw and whether her team gained control is a relevant stat, and yes, in the case of the MD game, I would be arguing against interest in supporting CN's case for the Tewy.

On the larger point of getting upset about "people who try to make a change to the women's game based on something done on the men's side," I really don't see why it's a problem to learn from what's done in the other gender's version of the game or in other sports. Women's NCAA basketball and lacrosse implemented a shot clock before NCAA men did. In each case, the men's pro league in the sport had adopted the shot clock before the NCAA women. Nothing evil there, just good iteration in both directions -- sometimes the men lead, sometimes the women lead. You would be hard-pressed to find many folks today who would say that free movement was a bad rule change. Or that adding fixed sideline and end line boundaries to women's lacrosse was a mistake. Or limiting the number of players involved in the draw area was dumb. Those changes all moved the women's game closer to the men's, but just because they were improvements, it doesn't mean that the women's game should add helmets and padded gloves or eliminate shooting space. Measured, thoughtful progress and evolution is a good thing.

I am confident that your description of the men's faceoff was just hyperbole, but I will address it anyway: "The face plant only requires brute force." Men's FO specialists are highly skilled athletes who need extremely quick reaction time, strategy, multiple moves/counter moves, grit and durability. Conor Calderone, BU's excellent Second Team All Patriot League FO man is listed generously in the program at 5' 7" and 170 pounds. Petey Lasalla, the All American from Virginia, is also 5' 7" and has 27 career goals and 11 assists. Of course you are free to campaign for the men to adopt the women's draw control, but I think you will have an easier time convincing the NRA to renounce the Second Amendment.

Otherwise, not much has changed since you and I agreed about the basic contours of the Tewaaraton race. The most likely scenario is that the winner of today's game will also produce the Tewy winner. That's really cool and exciting. I don't know why you got so angry yesterday when I think we are agreeing on this. Even on the "edge cases" where Carolina wins, but JO has a so-so day while CN has an outstanding individual performance, I don't think we are very far apart. I'd say 60-40 CN in that case, while I think you would acknowledge at least some probability greater than zero for her.

Peace, love & lacrosse.

Oh jeez, I wasn't being entirely serious when I mentioned inventing a new statistic, but if someone was able to find a way to give it meaning I guess it wouldn't hurt. I think it would be difficult because you'd really have to know beforehand what each player taking the draw is intending to do with the ball and if it went as planned. Maybe you could look at information that already exists and compare numbers? You could maybe look at the number of draws taken and compare it to how many are won by the draw taker herself vs how many are won by her team vs how many are lost to the opposing draw taker vs how many are lost to the opposing team. I'm sure coaches keep additional stats than the official game stats and that may be one of them.

I don't mean to split hairs, but It is very rare that you have a player standing alone on our outside of the circle. From what I've seen, 99 times out of 100 the players on the circle will have an opponent standing not just next to them, but often so close that they are touching one another. There will be nothing almost "easy" about catching a ball that is "passed" from the draw taker. It will be contested heavily. Every player on the circle is likely the top 3-4 scrappy, competitive 50/50 ball winners on the team.

In the scenario you described above during a men's face-off - the wing player who picks up the ball is credited with a gb, correct? So they are credited with something, in the women's game it's a draw control. I don't fully understand the point of crediting the face-off win separately from who actually gains possession, but I'm sure there's a reason for it. Perhaps it's because during the men's face-off you aren't allowed to touch the ball so the statistic of a FO win has it's own value because it shows how much success a FO man has beating an opponent to the ball? They were able to "possess it" vs the draw where both players start out with equal "possession" and are both placing force on the ball until it is up in the air. I have no idea, I'm just thinking out loud. All I know is that from my experience and IMO, any ball that is outside of a stick is a 50/50 ball and whoever gains possession of it should be credited.

[njbill]

You are correct, Schleicher got the ball, but North took the DC. This has been a pet peeve of mine for some time. DCs should be recorded as in men’s lacrosse where the person taking the draw/FO gets the win if their team gains control. That is a more accurate portrayal of DC success.

Here's a pet peeve of mine. People who try to make a change to the women's game based on something done on the men's side.

How about if we do the reverse? I have an idea to change the men's game. Adopt the women's draw rules instead of the face down or face plant or whatever it is they call the play to start the men's game. The draw takes much more skill. The face plant only requires brute force. Two pigs rolling around in the mud, grunting and squealing, until one emerges with the ball. Not only does the draw take more skill to execute, but it is much more fun to watch from a fan's perspective. Who wants to watch two sumo wrestlers go at it?

So let's make a change to men's lacrosse, adopting a women's rule, for a change.

Now, to your point, which you have made before. It depends on the particular draw as to whether the center should get any credit if her team, but not she, wins the draw. If the center intends to, and does, direct the ball to a teammate on the circle, then, yes, she should get some credit. But if the ball simply squirts out in this direction or that, then, no, she shouldn't because she did nothing to help her team win the draw. Perhaps if there were a PFF type organization, they could provide this type of micro-analysis.

Edit to add: Maryland won the draw 23-14. In your view then, does North get all the blame for BC getting so badly beaten on the draw?

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I can't tell if you are serious with this post or not. As Mrs. CO might tell you, it wouldn't be the first time I failed to read the room. In case this was a sincere post, I will offer a few responses.

I am not trying to change the women's game, I was really just making a nerdy stat-keeping point about how DC success is measured. Maybe, as WLP alluded to, tracking who took the draw could be a supplemental stat, not a replacement. It would actually be quite simple to do. Either the men's way or the women's way of measuring FO/DC success has flaws. In the men's game, you could win control of the clamp, direct it perfectly to a teammate on the wing who flubs it and the other FO specialist gets credit for the win when his teammate makes a spectacular GB pick up. OTOH, a woman taking the draw could direct it perfectly to her teammate who gathers in the easy "pass" and the receiver gets credit for a DC. Recording who took the draw and whether her team gained control is a relevant stat, and yes, in the case of the MD game, I would be arguing against interest in supporting CN's case for the Tewy.

On the larger point of getting upset about "people who try to make a change to the women's game based on something done on the men's side," I really don't see why it's a problem to learn from what's done in the other gender's version of the game or in other sports. Women's NCAA basketball and lacrosse implemented a shot clock before NCAA men did. In each case, the men's pro league in the sport had adopted the shot clock before the NCAA women. Nothing evil there, just good iteration in both directions -- sometimes the men lead, sometimes the women lead. You would be hard-pressed to find many folks today who would say that free movement was a bad rule change. Or that adding fixed sideline and end line boundaries to women's lacrosse was a mistake. Or limiting the number of players involved in the draw area was dumb. Those changes all moved the women's game closer to the men's, but just because they were improvements, it doesn't mean that the women's game should add helmets and padded gloves or eliminate shooting space. Measured, thoughtful progress and evolution is a good thing.

I am confident that your description of the men's faceoff was just hyperbole, but I will address it anyway: "The face plant only requires brute force." Men's FO specialists are highly skilled athletes who need extremely quick reaction time, strategy, multiple moves/counter moves, grit and durability. Conor Calderone, BU's excellent Second Team All Patriot League FO man is listed generously in the program at 5' 7" and 170 pounds. Petey Lasalla, the All American from Virginia, is also 5' 7" and has 27 career goals and 11 assists. Of course you are free to campaign for the men to adopt the women's draw control, but I think you will have an easier time convincing the NRA to renounce the Second Amendment.

Otherwise, not much has changed since you and I agreed about the basic contours of the Tewaaraton race. The most likely scenario is that the winner of today's game will also produce the Tewy winner. That's really cool and exciting. I don't know why you got so angry yesterday when I think we are agreeing on this. Even on the "edge cases" where Carolina wins, but JO has a so-so day while CN has an outstanding individual performance, I don't think we are very far apart. I'd say 60-40 CN in that case, while I think you would acknowledge at least some probability greater than zero for her.

Peace, love & lacrosse.

Your post today about women's draw stats makes more sense. Teams do perform some of the types of analyses you mention. If one team is predominantly winning the draw, the other team may change the center. Sometimes the match up isn't working and a new one may work better. Sometimes a change of center can throw the other center off her rhythm.

On the other hand, if a team is winning the draw -- the team, not necessarily the center -- the team likely will stay with the same center regardless of whether the center, herself, is winning draws.

It is fair to say that teams do look at whether the team is winning the draw with a particular center.

But it is ridiculous to suggest the center should be credited with a DC if her teammate on the circle actually collects the draw. If a team wins the draw 15-2 in a game with the same center, but the center, herself, only wins two draws, she still gets "credit" in the coach's eye for her team's dominant performance on the draw.

Rewatching Friday's game, it appears North did direct the final draw to a teammate who did collect it. So North should get credit in a broad sense for doing that. Just not on the stat sheet.

Here's my list of changes to the men's game that should be made based on things done in the women's game. Since you are a self-confessed bad reader of the room, these are tongue-in-cheek.

Men should use sticks with real pockets, not fishing nets which require little or no skill.

Men should play on a regulation-sized field, not a little postage stamp.

All players should use the same stick. Why do some get to use pole vault poles?

The goal circle should be inviolate, like in women's. If you enter the goal circle, no goal.

And, as mentioned yesterday, start play with a draw not a face plant. I think even you would acknowledge that the draw requires much more skill and is a lot more fun to watch. I have no idea who you are talking about. I rarely watch a men's game.

You, too, are free to campaign for the face plant to replace the draw in the women's game. I suspect you'd have a better chance convincing the real Mr. North to move from Texas to Boston.

Show me what I said that lead you to believe I was "angry" yesterday. I'll save you time. You can't. Just a cheap shot. I'm not angry, just frustrated that you continue to make these flawed arguments in support of North. As I said, if the Tewaaraton were an offense-only award, she not only wouldn't win, she wouldn't be a finalist. Of course it isn't only an offensive award, which is why a goalie won it recently, a goalie was a finalist last year, and a defender won it about 20 years ago.

Both Ortega and North had six points in the semis. A wash. Yes, I agree it comes down to today. Winner likely takes all. Sure, North has a chance at winning if Boston loses, just as Ortega or Mastroianni could win if UNC loses. Let the games begin.

[DMac]

Just to throw a little more garbage in the game, for the longest time (wooden stick era and parts of the Tupperware era) the ball was placed in the sticks on the face off as it is in the draw and I do believe the stat was kept the same way.
Carry on.

[wlaxphan20]

Just to throw a little more garbage in the game, for the longest time (wooden stick era and parts of the Tupperware era) the ball was placed in the sticks on the face off as it is in the draw and I do believe the stat was kept the same way.
Carry on.

Hahahahaha of course it was

[njbill]

You are correct, Schleicher got the ball, but North took the DC. This has been a pet peeve of mine for some time. DCs should be recorded as in men’s lacrosse where the person taking the draw/FO gets the win if their team gains control. That is a more accurate portrayal of DC success.

Here's a pet peeve of mine. People who try to make a change to the women's game based on something done on the men's side.

How about if we do the reverse? I have an idea to change the men's game. Adopt the women's draw rules instead of the face down or face plant or whatever it is they call the play to start the men's game. The draw takes much more skill. The face plant only requires brute force. Two pigs rolling around in the mud, grunting and squealing, until one emerges with the ball. Not only does the draw take more skill to execute, but it is much more fun to watch from a fan's perspective. Who wants to watch two sumo wrestlers go at it?

So let's make a change to men's lacrosse, adopting a women's rule, for a change.

Now, to your point, which you have made before. It depends on the particular draw as to whether the center should get any credit if her team, but not she, wins the draw. If the center intends to, and does, direct the ball to a teammate on the circle, then, yes, she should get some credit. But if the ball simply squirts out in this direction or that, then, no, she shouldn't because she did nothing to help her team win the draw. Perhaps if there were a PFF type organization, they could provide this type of micro-analysis.

Edit to add: Maryland won the draw 23-14. In your view then, does North get all the blame for BC getting so badly beaten on the draw?

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I can't tell if you are serious with this post or not. As Mrs. CO might tell you, it wouldn't be the first time I failed to read the room. In case this was a sincere post, I will offer a few responses.

I am not trying to change the women's game, I was really just making a nerdy stat-keeping point about how DC success is measured. Maybe, as WLP alluded to, tracking who took the draw could be a supplemental stat, not a replacement. It would actually be quite simple to do. Either the men's way or the women's way of measuring FO/DC success has flaws. In the men's game, you could win control of the clamp, direct it perfectly to a teammate on the wing who flubs it and the other FO specialist gets credit for the win when his teammate makes a spectacular GB pick up. OTOH, a woman taking the draw could direct it perfectly to her teammate who gathers in the easy "pass" and the receiver gets credit for a DC. Recording who took the draw and whether her team gained control is a relevant stat, and yes, in the case of the MD game, I would be arguing against interest in supporting CN's case for the Tewy.

On the larger point of getting upset about "people who try to make a change to the women's game based on something done on the men's side," I really don't see why it's a problem to learn from what's done in the other gender's version of the game or in other sports. Women's NCAA basketball and lacrosse implemented a shot clock before NCAA men did. In each case, the men's pro league in the sport had adopted the shot clock before the NCAA women. Nothing evil there, just good iteration in both directions -- sometimes the men lead, sometimes the women lead. You would be hard-pressed to find many folks today who would say that free movement was a bad rule change. Or that adding fixed sideline and end line boundaries to women's lacrosse was a mistake. Or limiting the number of players involved in the draw area was dumb. Those changes all moved the women's game closer to the men's, but just because they were improvements, it doesn't mean that the women's game should add helmets and padded gloves or eliminate shooting space. Measured, thoughtful progress and evolution is a good thing.

I am confident that your description of the men's faceoff was just hyperbole, but I will address it anyway: "The face plant only requires brute force." Men's FO specialists are highly skilled athletes who need extremely quick reaction time, strategy, multiple moves/counter moves, grit and durability. Conor Calderone, BU's excellent Second Team All Patriot League FO man is listed generously in the program at 5' 7" and 170 pounds. Petey Lasalla, the All American from Virginia, is also 5' 7" and has 27 career goals and 11 assists. Of course you are free to campaign for the men to adopt the women's draw control, but I think you will have an easier time convincing the NRA to renounce the Second Amendment.

Otherwise, not much has changed since you and I agreed about the basic contours of the Tewaaraton race. The most likely scenario is that the winner of today's game will also produce the Tewy winner. That's really cool and exciting. I don't know why you got so angry yesterday when I think we are agreeing on this. Even on the "edge cases" where Carolina wins, but JO has a so-so day while CN has an outstanding individual performance, I don't think we are very far apart. I'd say 60-40 CN in that case, while I think you would acknowledge at least some probability greater than zero for her.

Peace, love & lacrosse.

Oh jeez, I wasn't being entirely serious when I mentioned inventing a new statistic, but if someone was able to find a way to give it meaning I guess it wouldn't hurt. I think it would be difficult because you'd really have to know beforehand what each player taking the draw is intending to do with the ball and if it went as planned. Maybe you could look at information that already exists and compare numbers? You could maybe look at the number of draws taken and compare it to how many are won by the draw taker herself vs how many are won by her team vs how many are lost to the opposing draw taker vs how many are lost to the opposing team. I'm sure coaches keep additional stats than the official game stats and that may be one of them.

I don't mean to split hairs, but It is very rare that you have a player standing alone on our outside of the circle. From what I've seen, 99 times out of 100 the players on the circle will have an opponent standing not just next to them, but often so close that they are touching one another. There will be nothing almost "easy" about catching a ball that is "passed" from the draw taker. It will be contested heavily. Every player on the circle is likely the top 3-4 scrappy, competitive 50/50 ball winners on the team.

In the scenario you described above during a men's face-off - the wing player who picks up the ball is credited with a gb, correct? So they are credited with something, in the women's game it's a draw control. I don't fully understand the point of crediting the face-off win separately from who actually gains possession, but I'm sure there's a reason for it. Perhaps it's because during the men's face-off you aren't allowed to touch the ball so the statistic of a FO win has it's own value because it shows how much success a FO man has beating an opponent to the ball? They were able to "possess it" vs the draw where both players start out with equal "possession" and are both placing force on the ball until it is up in the air. I have no idea, I'm just thinking out loud. All I know is that from my experience and IMO, any ball that is outside of a stick is a 50/50 ball and whoever gains possession of it should be credited.

I agree with this. Coaches understand what is going on and certainly give credit to their centers if the team as a whole dominates the draw. I don't think we need a new DC stat, but I'd have no problem with adding "draws taken" (DT) and "team draws won" (TDW) when the player was at center. This would be in addition to DC which would remain the stat for draws actually collected by the center. This type of info is no doubt kept internally by college teams.

In the work I do in high school (draws are concededly more complex in college), I try to discern what the opponent is attempting to do on the draw. I can usually get a pretty good feel for a team's tendencies if I see the team a couple of times. Does the center usually self-draw? Does she direct it towards a specific teammate? In HS it is pretty common for a center to try to direct the ball to a particular teammate. So if later on I see stats from a game of a team I've scouted, I can say with some degree of confidence that center A probably did a good job of directing the ball to circle player B if B got a lot of DCs. But even that is only roughly accurate.

To really drill down and get accurate info, you'd need to rewatch film of draws to try to analyze who did what on particular draws. Even then you couldn't get inside the heads of those on the draw teams to know what they actually intended.

[DMac]

So does Mastroianni now win it? Played a mighty nice game on the biggest stage in the biggest game.
Ortega, nice game but somewhat restricted.
North, nice game but not enough in the big one.

[@inthe8m]

So does Mastroianni now win it? Played a mighty nice game on the biggest stage in the biggest game.
Ortega, nice game but somewhat restricted.
North, nice game but not enough in the big one.

I am not sure there is a clear front runner after this weekend. While I am inclined to lean to AM, she was 2 for 7 on shooting today with many of them poorly placed stick side right into Hall's stick.

I would not be shocked to see CN win again.

[njbill]

If we just go by today's game, I don't think either of the three separated herself from the other two. Nor do I think any of the three eliminated herself by her play today.

I suppose it is natural for us posters to focus on today's game, but I suspect (hope) the Committee will look at things more broadly.

It would surprise, but not shock, me if North wins, not because she didn't play pretty well this weekend. She did, as did the others. But the award usually goes to someone on the winning team, as I think it should this year.

I'm going to stick with what I said when the finalists were first announced. I want Mastroianni to win, but I think Ortega will. And I'd be fine with that. North, also, has a good resume.

[Laxfan500]

So does Mastroianni now win it? Played a mighty nice game on the biggest stage in the biggest game.
Ortega, nice game but somewhat restricted.
North, nice game but not enough in the big one.

I mean did you watch the game . Forcing everything and 2 charges that were TO and not amazing on draw. They put a FG on the biggest threat and she scored a huge goal to tie or break a tie game . And body of work over the season - and breaking her own single season points record….and ACC attacker of the year .

[DMac]

14-13 on the draws, Charolette wasn't amazing either, and JFTR, Mastroianni is credited with 6 DC wins to North's 2. Yup, she can be aggressive driving to the cage and gets called for the charge sometimes just like Hawryshuk, Scane, and North do (Treanor did too). It's pretty nuts to be knocking Mastroianni, she's a fantastic player and not only at one end of the field. I see North as the biggest offensive threat in the game today but I don't see her as a complete player by a long shot, there are a lot of players out there who give you a more complete game than she does. I hope AM wins it, you hope CN does....okay.

[Can Opener]

Congrats to UNC on a truly remarkable Final Four performance. They provided thrilling comebacks and terrific overall team play.

The Tewaaraton Award is essentially down to North and Ortega. No disrespect to AM whose game I admire, but there is no precedent for someone with her statistics to win the award. When midfielders like Zoe Stukenberg and Katie Schwarzmann won the Tewy, they had significantly higher points along with roughly double the number of ground balls and caused turnovers. The most glaring difference between AM and the previous midfielders to win is that AM only has 9 assists. Don’t kill the messenger. I’m not saying a midfielder’s work is limited to stats, but there is a very clear pattern from the committee historically.

So for me, that means it is down to CN and JO. They are both remarkable players and – from what I know of them – remarkable young women. The strongest argument for JO is that she helped her team win the national championship. That may be enough for the committee. The next best argument for JO is that she had 44 assists to North’s 23 for the season. Other metrics like GBs, CTOs and TOs don’t provide much support for JO’s case.

North has several factors in her favor. Whether they are enough to overcome her team’s loss in the NC is unclear. She had 92 goals to Ortega’s 69 for the season. North is now the all-time leading goal scorer in NCAA history. She also had more points than JO this season. North supporters can also point to her 139 draw controls as evidence of contributions beyond offense. Her performance in the tournament was also significantly better than that of JO or AM. CN had 17 goals on 61% shooting and 21 points overall. JO had 9 goals and 15 points while AM had 8 goals and 9 points. Both Carolina players shot below 50% for the tournament.

I am not a big fan of the eye test, but I think North’s physicality and shot speed are part of what’s made her the number one most recognized woman in the sport right now. She is also a vocal and demonstrative leader on the field. That could cut both ways among committee members, as they may come out on the side of: Yeah, we’re a little tired of the spotlight always shining on Charlotte. Could they go with JO to reward an NC and a remarkable career? Sure. Who knows what the politics are inside the room?

Here are the updated stats for the tournament and the season and my ranking of the candidates.

North
13-8 win over Denver 4G 1A 80%SH 6DC 4TO
20-13 win over Loyola 3G 3A 75%SH 3DC 1TO
17-16 win over Maryland 6G 0A 67%SH 5DC 0TO
11-12 loss to UNC 4G 0A 40%SH 2DC 0TO
Tournament 17G 4A 61%SH 16DC 5TO
Season 92G 23A 53%SH 139DC 36TO

Ortega
24-2 win over UVA 4G 2A 80%SH 0DC 0TO
8-5 win over Stony Brook 0G 1A 0%SH 0DC 2TO
15-14 win over Northwestern 3G 3A 33%SH 0DC 3TO
12-11 win over BC 2G 0A 100%SH 0DC 0TO
Tournament 9G 6A 47%SH 0DC 5TO
Season 69G 44A 52%SH 1DC 30TO

Mastroianni
24-2 win over UVA 3G 1A 100%SH 5DC 0TO
8-5 win over Stony Brook 0G 0A 0%SH 5DC 1TO
15-14 win over Northwestern 3G 0A 33%SH 4DC 2TO
12-11 win over BC 2G 0A 29%SH 6DC 2TO
Tournament 8G 1A 38%SH 20DC 5TO
Season 46G 9A 49%SH 130DC 15TO

Cordingly
19-6 win over Duke 1G 1A 50%SH 0DC 2TO
18-5 win over Florida 3G 0A 75%SH 0DC 0TO
16-17 loss to BC 1G 1A 33%SH 1DC 3TO
Tournament 5G 2A 56%SH 1DC 5TO
Season 67G 51A 58%SH 7DC 40TO

[Laxfan500]

Congrats to UNC on a truly remarkable Final Four performance. They provided thrilling comebacks and terrific overall team play.

The Tewaaraton Award is essentially down to North and Ortega. No disrespect to AM whose game I admire, but there is no precedent for someone with her statistics to win the award. When midfielders like Zoe Stukenberg and Katie Schwarzmann won the Tewy, they had significantly higher points along with roughly double the number of ground balls and caused turnovers. The most glaring difference between AM and the previous midfielders to win is that AM only has 9 assists. Don’t kill the messenger. I’m not saying a midfielder’s work is limited to stats, but there is a very clear pattern from the committee historically.

So for me, that means it is down to CN and JO. They are both remarkable players and – from what I know of them – remarkable young women. The strongest argument for JO is that she helped her team win the national championship. That may be enough for the committee. The next best argument for JO is that she had 44 assists to North’s 23 for the season. Other metrics like GBs, CTOs and TOs don’t provide much support for JO’s case.

North has several factors in her favor. Whether they are enough to overcome her team’s loss in the NC is unclear. She had 92 goals to Ortega’s 69 for the season. North is now the all-time leading goal scorer in NCAA history. She also had more points than JO this season. North supporters can also point to her 139 draw controls as evidence of contributions beyond offense. Her performance in the tournament was also significantly better than that of JO or AM. CN had 17 goals on 61% shooting and 21 points overall. JO had 9 goals and 15 points while AM had 8 goals and 9 points. Both Carolina players shot below 50% for the tournament.

I am not a big fan of the eye test, but I think North’s physicality and shot speed are part of what’s made her the number one most recognized woman in the sport right now. She is also a vocal and demonstrative leader on the field. That could cut both ways among committee members, as they may come out on the side of: Yeah, we’re a little tired of the spotlight always shining on Charlotte. Could they go with JO to reward an NC and a remarkable career? Sure. Who knows what the politics are inside the room?

Here are the updated stats for the tournament and the season and my ranking of the candidates.

North
13-8 win over Denver 4G 1A 80%SH 6DC 4TO
20-13 win over Loyola 3G 3A 75%SH 3DC 1TO
17-16 win over Maryland 6G 0A 67%SH 5DC 0TO
11-12 loss to UNC 4G 0A 40%SH 2DC 0TO
Tournament 17G 4A 61%SH 16DC 5TO
Season 92G 23A 53%SH 139DC 36TO

Ortega
24-2 win over UVA 4G 2A 80%SH 0DC 0TO
8-5 win over Stony Brook 0G 1A 0%SH 0DC 2TO
15-14 win over Northwestern 3G 3A 33%SH 0DC 3TO
12-11 win over BC 2G 0A 100%SH 0DC 0TO
Tournament 9G 6A 47%SH 0DC 5TO
Season 69G 44A 52%SH 1DC 30TO

Mastroianni
24-2 win over UVA 3G 1A 100%SH 5DC 0TO
8-5 win over Stony Brook 0G 0A 0%SH 5DC 1TO
15-14 win over Northwestern 3G 0A 33%SH 4DC 2TO
12-11 win over BC 2G 0A 29%SH 6DC 2TO
Tournament 8G 1A 38%SH 20DC 5TO
Season 46G 9A 49%SH 130DC 15TO

Cordingly
19-6 win over Duke 1G 1A 50%SH 0DC 2TO
18-5 win over Florida 3G 0A 75%SH 0DC 0TO
16-17 loss to BC 1G 1A 33%SH 1DC 3TO
Tournament 5G 2A 56%SH 1DC 5TO
Season 67G 51A 58%SH 7DC 40TO

I think what hurts North is the fact they lost 4 games (3 to UNC) with North getting ball late in game and not being able to finish to give her team a tie/win in 2 of them .She has compelling stats but JO also had a great year only 2 points behind CN and scored while being FG the entire championship game. Yea she has DC over JO but JO also is all time points leader in ACC and is second all time history NCAA points with CN behind her in both. And ACC attacker of the year and tourney MVP. Both made all tourney team for the NCAAs.I’m not sure what criteria they look at .I’d love to be behind the scenes as to what the committee looks at.

[watcherinthewoods]

Congrats to UNC on a truly remarkable Final Four performance. They provided thrilling comebacks and terrific overall team play.

The Tewaaraton Award is essentially down to North and Ortega. No disrespect to AM whose game I admire, but there is no precedent for someone with her statistics to win the award. When midfielders like Zoe Stukenberg and Katie Schwarzmann won the Tewy, they had significantly higher points along with roughly double the number of ground balls and caused turnovers. The most glaring difference between AM and the previous midfielders to win is that AM only has 9 assists. Don’t kill the messenger. I’m not saying a midfielder’s work is limited to stats, but there is a very clear pattern from the committee historically.

So for me, that means it is down to CN and JO. They are both remarkable players and – from what I know of them – remarkable young women. The strongest argument for JO is that she helped her team win the national championship. That may be enough for the committee. The next best argument for JO is that she had 44 assists to North’s 23 for the season. Other metrics like GBs, CTOs and TOs don’t provide much support for JO’s case.

North has several factors in her favor. Whether they are enough to overcome her team’s loss in the NC is unclear. She had 92 goals to Ortega’s 69 for the season. North is now the all-time leading goal scorer in NCAA history. She also had more points than JO this season. North supporters can also point to her 139 draw controls as evidence of contributions beyond offense. Her performance in the tournament was also significantly better than that of JO or AM. CN had 17 goals on 61% shooting and 21 points overall. JO had 9 goals and 15 points while AM had 8 goals and 9 points. Both Carolina players shot below 50% for the tournament.

I am not a big fan of the eye test, but I think North’s physicality and shot speed are part of what’s made her the number one most recognized woman in the sport right now. She is also a vocal and demonstrative leader on the field. That could cut both ways among committee members, as they may come out on the side of: Yeah, we’re a little tired of the spotlight always shining on Charlotte. Could they go with JO to reward an NC and a remarkable career? Sure. Who knows what the politics are inside the room?

Here are the updated stats for the tournament and the season and my ranking of the candidates.

North
13-8 win over Denver 4G 1A 80%SH 6DC 4TO
20-13 win over Loyola 3G 3A 75%SH 3DC 1TO
17-16 win over Maryland 6G 0A 67%SH 5DC 0TO
11-12 loss to UNC 4G 0A 40%SH 2DC 0TO
Tournament 17G 4A 61%SH 16DC 5TO
Season 92G 23A 53%SH 139DC 36TO

Ortega
24-2 win over UVA 4G 2A 80%SH 0DC 0TO
8-5 win over Stony Brook 0G 1A 0%SH 0DC 2TO
15-14 win over Northwestern 3G 3A 33%SH 0DC 3TO
12-11 win over BC 2G 0A 100%SH 0DC 0TO
Tournament 9G 6A 47%SH 0DC 5TO
Season 69G 44A 52%SH 1DC 30TO

Mastroianni
24-2 win over UVA 3G 1A 100%SH 5DC 0TO
8-5 win over Stony Brook 0G 0A 0%SH 5DC 1TO
15-14 win over Northwestern 3G 0A 33%SH 4DC 2TO
12-11 win over BC 2G 0A 29%SH 6DC 2TO
Tournament 8G 1A 38%SH 20DC 5TO
Season 46G 9A 49%SH 130DC 15TO

Cordingly
19-6 win over Duke 1G 1A 50%SH 0DC 2TO
18-5 win over Florida 3G 0A 75%SH 0DC 0TO
16-17 loss to BC 1G 1A 33%SH 1DC 3TO
Tournament 5G 2A 56%SH 1DC 5TO
Season 67G 51A 58%SH 7DC 40TO

Toss up, for sure. CN is def the more "flashy" player, but I think the committee may give JO a nod for lifetime achievement. AM is my dark horse.

[Bart]

Congrats to UNC on a truly remarkable Final Four performance. They provided thrilling comebacks and terrific overall team play.

The Tewaaraton Award is essentially down to North and Ortega. No disrespect to AM whose game I admire, but there is no precedent for someone with her statistics to win the award. When midfielders like Zoe Stukenberg and Katie Schwarzmann won the Tewy, they had significantly higher points along with roughly double the number of ground balls and caused turnovers. The most glaring difference between AM and the previous midfielders to win is that AM only has 9 assists. Don’t kill the messenger. I’m not saying a midfielder’s work is limited to stats, but there is a very clear pattern from the committee historically.

So for me, that means it is down to CN and JO. They are both remarkable players and – from what I know of them – remarkable young women. The strongest argument for JO is that she helped her team win the national championship. That may be enough for the committee. The next best argument for JO is that she had 44 assists to North’s 23 for the season. Other metrics like GBs, CTOs and TOs don’t provide much support for JO’s case.

North has several factors in her favor. Whether they are enough to overcome her team’s loss in the NC is unclear. She had 92 goals to Ortega’s 69 for the season. North is now the all-time leading goal scorer in NCAA history. She also had more points than JO this season. North supporters can also point to her 139 draw controls as evidence of contributions beyond offense. Her performance in the tournament was also significantly better than that of JO or AM. CN had 17 goals on 61% shooting and 21 points overall. JO had 9 goals and 15 points while AM had 8 goals and 9 points. Both Carolina players shot below 50% for the tournament.

I am not a big fan of the eye test, but I think North’s physicality and shot speed are part of what’s made her the number one most recognized woman in the sport right now. She is also a vocal and demonstrative leader on the field. That could cut both ways among committee members, as they may come out on the side of: Yeah, we’re a little tired of the spotlight always shining on Charlotte. Could they go with JO to reward an NC and a remarkable career? Sure. Who knows what the politics are inside the room?

Here are the updated stats for the tournament and the season and my ranking of the candidates.

North
13-8 win over Denver 4G 1A 80%SH 6DC 4TO
20-13 win over Loyola 3G 3A 75%SH 3DC 1TO
17-16 win over Maryland 6G 0A 67%SH 5DC 0TO
11-12 loss to UNC 4G 0A 40%SH 2DC 0TO
Tournament 17G 4A 61%SH 16DC 5TO
Season 92G 23A 53%SH 139DC 36TO

Ortega
24-2 win over UVA 4G 2A 80%SH 0DC 0TO
8-5 win over Stony Brook 0G 1A 0%SH 0DC 2TO
15-14 win over Northwestern 3G 3A 33%SH 0DC 3TO
12-11 win over BC 2G 0A 100%SH 0DC 0TO
Tournament 9G 6A 47%SH 0DC 5TO
Season 69G 44A 52%SH 1DC 30TO

Mastroianni
24-2 win over UVA 3G 1A 100%SH 5DC 0TO
8-5 win over Stony Brook 0G 0A 0%SH 5DC 1TO
15-14 win over Northwestern 3G 0A 33%SH 4DC 2TO
12-11 win over BC 2G 0A 29%SH 6DC 2TO
Tournament 8G 1A 38%SH 20DC 5TO
Season 46G 9A 49%SH 130DC 15TO

Cordingly
19-6 win over Duke 1G 1A 50%SH 0DC 2TO
18-5 win over Florida 3G 0A 75%SH 0DC 0TO
16-17 loss to BC 1G 1A 33%SH 1DC 3TO
Tournament 5G 2A 56%SH 1DC 5TO
Season 67G 51A 58%SH 7DC 40TO

I am partial to two way midfielders as they have to play the entire game both ends of the field and I would go with Ms Mastroianni but I agree with you regarding her chances. She would be my winner but I do not get a vote.

You are to be commended on your constancy regarding CN and JO however. You tout CN's career record for goals but seem to miss JO's second in total points. * It is not just about goals if we are talking about the best player in the country. This is not a goal scoring contest if it were we know who would have won. CN clearly is one of the best goal scorers in recent history but that does not automatically make her the best lacrosse player.

You also discount the gb's and ct's which for both are not tremendous but when looking at the players in question and comparing the stats of each one....they are only two point differential in G's and A's so what else do you compare? GB's, CT's and DC. North clearly has the advantage in DC, as you consistently point out but Ms Ortega does not take them. But JO has better stats for both CT's and GB's so while not tremendous for either player she is has the better line when comparing THESE TWO players so yes, they bolster her case. In my mind the players are as equal as you can get.

But you also mention the "eye" test and this is exactly why I think CN will repeat as the winner. There is too much invested in her being this generational talent. We would all like to think the award is voted/discussed in a vacuum but the reality is the hype (much of it deserved) surrounding Ms North may sway some people. Heck, she was declared the best player of all time just yesterday on the broadcast. We are constantly bombarded about the little kids chanting Charlotte, Charlotte....... You would hope the committee would be insulated to all the outside noise but that is a ton of momentum to overcome.

I think both players are deserving and when comparing them the line separating the two is razor thin but unless they split the award one of them will have to loose. I am of the opinion to the victor go the spoils but as I stated above I think CN will win.

Edit: I had the wrong record book for career points. My apologies to Ms Ohlmiller the record holder.*

[8meterPA]

Congrats to UNC on a truly remarkable Final Four performance. They provided thrilling comebacks and terrific overall team play.

The Tewaaraton Award is essentially down to North and Ortega. No disrespect to AM whose game I admire, but there is no precedent for someone with her statistics to win the award. When midfielders like Zoe Stukenberg and Katie Schwarzmann won the Tewy, they had significantly higher points along with roughly double the number of ground balls and caused turnovers. The most glaring difference between AM and the previous midfielders to win is that AM only has 9 assists. Don’t kill the messenger. I’m not saying a midfielder’s work is limited to stats, but there is a very clear pattern from the committee historically.

So for me, that means it is down to CN and JO. They are both remarkable players and – from what I know of them – remarkable young women. The strongest argument for JO is that she helped her team win the national championship. That may be enough for the committee. The next best argument for JO is that she had 44 assists to North’s 23 for the season. Other metrics like GBs, CTOs and TOs don’t provide much support for JO’s case.

North has several factors in her favor. Whether they are enough to overcome her team’s loss in the NC is unclear. She had 92 goals to Ortega’s 69 for the season. North is now the all-time leading goal scorer in NCAA history. She also had more points than JO this season. North supporters can also point to her 139 draw controls as evidence of contributions beyond offense. Her performance in the tournament was also significantly better than that of JO or AM. CN had 17 goals on 61% shooting and 21 points overall. JO had 9 goals and 15 points while AM had 8 goals and 9 points. Both Carolina players shot below 50% for the tournament.

I am not a big fan of the eye test, but I think North’s physicality and shot speed are part of what’s made her the number one most recognized woman in the sport right now. She is also a vocal and demonstrative leader on the field. That could cut both ways among committee members, as they may come out on the side of: Yeah, we’re a little tired of the spotlight always shining on Charlotte. Could they go with JO to reward an NC and a remarkable career? Sure. Who knows what the politics are inside the room?

Here are the updated stats for the tournament and the season and my ranking of the candidates.

North
13-8 win over Denver 4G 1A 80%SH 6DC 4TO
20-13 win over Loyola 3G 3A 75%SH 3DC 1TO
17-16 win over Maryland 6G 0A 67%SH 5DC 0TO
11-12 loss to UNC 4G 0A 40%SH 2DC 0TO
Tournament 17G 4A 61%SH 16DC 5TO
Season 92G 23A 53%SH 139DC 36TO

Ortega
24-2 win over UVA 4G 2A 80%SH 0DC 0TO
8-5 win over Stony Brook 0G 1A 0%SH 0DC 2TO
15-14 win over Northwestern 3G 3A 33%SH 0DC 3TO
12-11 win over BC 2G 0A 100%SH 0DC 0TO
Tournament 9G 6A 47%SH 0DC 5TO
Season 69G 44A 52%SH 1DC 30TO

Mastroianni
24-2 win over UVA 3G 1A 100%SH 5DC 0TO
8-5 win over Stony Brook 0G 0A 0%SH 5DC 1TO
15-14 win over Northwestern 3G 0A 33%SH 4DC 2TO
12-11 win over BC 2G 0A 29%SH 6DC 2TO
Tournament 8G 1A 38%SH 20DC 5TO
Season 46G 9A 49%SH 130DC 15TO

Cordingly
19-6 win over Duke 1G 1A 50%SH 0DC 2TO
18-5 win over Florida 3G 0A 75%SH 0DC 0TO
16-17 loss to BC 1G 1A 33%SH 1DC 3TO
Tournament 5G 2A 56%SH 1DC 5TO
Season 67G 51A 58%SH 7DC 40TO

Toss up, for sure. CN is def the more "flashy" player, but I think the committee may give JO a nod for lifetime achievement. AM is my dark horse.

I thought CN moved into the lead given her performance late in the MD game, basically put the team on her back. Didn't happen in the championship game, held scoreless in Q4.

So JO wins it, deserves it. I agree about your lifetime achievement award rational....CN got hers last year when BC won, JO gets hers this year with UNC win.

[wlaxphan20]

But you also mention the "eye" test and this is exactly why I think CN will repeat as the winner. There is too much invested in her being this generational talent. We would all like to think the award is voted/discussed in a vacuum but the reality is the hype (much of it deserved) surrounding Ms North may sway some people. Heck, she was declared the best player of all time just yesterday on the broadcast. We are constantly bombarded about the little kids chanting Charlotte, Charlotte....... You would hope the committee would be insulated to all the outside noise but that is a ton of momentum to overcome.

I think both players are deserving and when comparing them the line separating the two is razor thin but unless they split the award one of them will have to loose. I am of the opinion to the victor go the spoils but as I stated above I think CN will win.

Edit: I had the wrong record book for career points. My apologies to Ms Ohlmiller the record holder.*

I agree. And I think the records JO broke were for ACC points and career points at UNC

[8meterPA]

Another way to think about it is that the JO led Tarheels went undefeated while the CN led BC suffered 4 losses. The JO led Tarheels went 3-0 against the CN led Eagles, who were 0-3.

Pretty much crystallizes it for me.

[Lax101]

Don't see how JO gets it when she was not even the best player on her team in the Final Four and CN outplayed her. She also was not the best all round player of the group for the entire season. It is not a lifetime achievement award. First choice for me is CN. Second choice is AM.

[Laxfan500]

Don't see how JO gets it when she was not even the best player on her team in the Final Four and CN outplayed her. She also was not the best all round player of the group for the entire season. It is not a lifetime achievement award. First choice for me is CN. Second choice is AM.

Hmmm that’s a head scratcher that comment: ok take out lifetime achievement:
113 season points (broke another unc record)
ACC Attacker of the Year (in same division as CN and AM)
ACC MVP ….see above ^ ^ and broke ACC record for points at this last game .
With all that output - constantly doubled all year (not CN and AM) and still put up these numbers . Face guard (which you usually do to best player) because AW knew if left to run freely like CN - *see last game ET 1-1 no constant double —— look out .
Finally BC lost 3 games to UNC. First game CN couldn’t get it done ….second game big loss and JO made their goalie look silly . And last game shot 4/10. If she is truly the best player she makes those shots- 1 goal game . Pretty bad
What makes Jamie a special player is her tremendous IQ and ability to know when to let others score ….her assists this year and tremendous ride were a huge asset to leading her team to 22-0 and a natty .
I don’t know who will win I’m hoping it’s a kid from UNC whether it be JO or AM. I just don’t think you reward CN for not getting it done in the biggest, last game of her career.

[njbill]

Don't see how JO gets it when she was not even the best player on her team in the Final Four and CN outplayed her. She also was not the best all round player of the group for the entire season. It is not a lifetime achievement award. First choice for me is CN. Second choice is AM.

You can make a similar argument about North. The coaches in her conference voted Ortega, not her, the best attacker in the ACC.

North’s coach (per that male announcer who fawns over North the way a four-year-old fawns over a new puppy) said North is not the best shooter on BC. I presume she means it’s Medjid.

When North took the biggest shot of her life, with four minutes to go and her team down by one, she shot directly into the goalie’s stick, effectively turning the ball over.

We can go round and round on this. We will know the answer in a couple of days.