Can Opener wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 7:04 am
Still curious about which 10 members of the Tewaaraton selection committee cast an unethical vote and lied about their true feelings. Which ones succumbed to the “hype” and voted for CN instead of their real choice of JO?
This is a very odd comment. Sounds libelous. Who has accused anyone on the committee of casting an unethical vote or "lying" about their true feelings? What is your proof, CO?
Many of us would like to see more details about the Tewaaraton votes, but the committee has determined to remain close lipped. Does the finalist who gets the most votes win, even if fewer than 50%? If so, maybe North got, say, 7 votes and the remaining 12 were spread among the other finalists. Or maybe she got all 19 votes. If no one gets a majority on the first ballot, do they then drop the person with the lowest vote total and do another ballot, repeating the process until someone gets at least 51% of the votes? We don't know.
I can understand why committee members wouldn't want their own votes made public, but why not disclose the raw vote totals for each finalist?
After today….Izzy doesn’t even need to show up to DC to get the trophy
Yeah. Medjid is a great player who had a very good season and a good game today, but she has the misfortune of being up for the award in a year in which one of her opponents is a generational player.
Regardless of what either player does on Sunday, Scane wins the Tewaaraton.
An outstanding day for Izzy Scane in her campaign for the Tewaaraton. Barring something exceptional in the championship game, she very likely locked up the award yesterday. If BC faceguards her and holds her to 1 or 2 goals on a lot of shots – while Medjid goes 5 & 3 in a BC win – maaaaybe the committee goes with the NCAA championship athlete, but even that’s unlikely. Congrats to Meghan Tyrell and Isabella Peterson on terrific seasons, but it is very unlikely that either one of them will win the Tewaaraton, so I have not updated their stats.
Here are the numbers on the finalists (minus Peterson and Tyrell) ranked in order of yesterday’s performance.
Scane
8-7 win over Michigan 1G 1A 10%SH 1TO 1YC
16-6 win over Loyola 7G 3A 54%SH 0TO
15-7 win over Denver 6G 2A 46%SH 4TO 1YC
Tournament 14G 6A 39%SH 5TO
Season 95G 33A 47%SH 32TO
Medjid
9-7 win over Penn 2G 1A 67%SH 0TO
20-6 win over ND 4G 3A 44%SH 0TO
8-7 win over Syracuse 5G 0A 83%SH 3TO
Tournament 11G 4A 61%SH 0TO
Season 82G 23A 54%SH 28TO
Coykendall
8-7 win over Michigan 2G 1A 50%SH 1TO 1YC
16-6 win over Loyola 3G 1A 60%SH 3TO
15-7 win over Denver 2G 3A 67%SH 1TO
Tournament 7G 5A 58%SH 4TO
Season 55G 48A 53%SH 29TO
njbill wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 9:39 am
Why do you exclude draw controls, ground balls, and caused turnovers?
Oh, silly question.
Not sure the point you are trying to make. The three “finalists” have a combined 4 draw controls, for instance. I really don’t have time to include all 16 columns worth of stats from a typical box score. If you’d like to supplement my numbers, knock yourself out.
njbill wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 9:39 am
Why do you exclude draw controls, ground balls, and caused turnovers?
Oh, silly question.
Not sure the point you are trying to make. The three “finalists” have a combined 4 draw controls, for instance. I really don’t have time to include all 16 columns worth of stats from a typical box score. If you’d like to supplement my numbers, knock yourself out.
I’m pretty sure that NJBILL was being sarcastic because the 5 finalists are all attackers with no middies or defenders.
My point was the last two years Can Opener drummed it into us time and time again how important draw controls are. Now, when the candidate he wants to win has hardly any draw controls, he drops the statistic from the discussion.
Oh, and there are five finalists, not three.
He is being a homer in favoring the Boston College player. That’s fine. But his statistical analysis cherry picks (if Bart will let me use his phrase) the stats. He includes turnovers, but not caused turnovers or ground balls. Why? Look at Scane’s numbers in those categories compared to Medjid’s. There’s your answer.
njbill wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 2:24 pm
My point was the last two years Can Opener drummed it into us time and time again how important draw controls are. Now, when the candidate he wants to win has hardly any draw controls, he drops the statistic from the discussion.
Oh, and there are five finalists, not three.
He is being a homer in favoring the Boston College player. That’s fine. But his statistical analysis cherry picks (if Bart will let me use his phrase) the stats. He includes turnovers, but not caused turnovers or ground balls. Why? Look at Scane’s numbers in those categories compared to Medjid’s. There’s your answer.
Again, if you’d like to add more numbers, have at it. JM has more DCs, better FPS %, and fewer yellow cards than IS. Scane has more GBs and CTOs. Not a conspiracy, bro, just trying to add a few facts to the discussion. If you’d like to add more facts, I’m sure readers would appreciate that.
Not sure where you get your free position percentages and yellow card stats, but I’ll take you at your word. More draw controls? Lol. Medjid has 2 and Scane has 1. I was talking about Peterson, as you know.
I just can’t imagine anyone would seriously would pick medgid over scane if you could one of them for your team for four years. Scane wins this award—and deserves it.
Yeah, I didn't think there were other arguments--I've been onboard the Scane train since she started making noise at NU--but I will admit that I don't really pay close attention to other teams and was willing to hear other arguments if they existed.
Still, as excited as I was for her to be playing again at the start of the season, I had underestimated exactly what "Izzy Scane is back" would mean. Like, lots of people can make great plays happen, but Izzy Scane seems to make them happen at an astonishing level of frequency. The plays she makes aren't freakishly unreal, either, like Katrina Dowd's last-second, no-look overtime goal versus Penn in '09; they seem to mostly be hustle plays from someone who has a neverending supply of hustle. Maybe it's freakish that she seems to have an ability to will a play to happen at the slightest hint of opportunity. It's a little funny how she's always giving her teammates credit for creating opportunities for her when so much of the time it seems like she's creating opportunities out of nothing.
And on top of that, she seems like a nice kid, too.
