Will 2022 have some of the best teams EVER?!?

[Dr. Tact]

The Cuse argument is one that I am not sure about. It isnt like their subs weren't really good. I think of the rating system used for football. Your starter is rated a .950, your back up is a .925 . For what the two players do, is there any contribution drop off from that .025 of a rating point? The subs for those two Cuse starters might have provided 90% of what the starters would have....There are only so many touches and there is only one ball...so the impact (assuming we agree the subs were very high level) in the loss of the starters was likely more emotional than actual...Not taking anything away from the two injured starters...no one wants to see that, but that team gelled after the injuries and who knows if the same results would have happened with the starters....

That’s a very interesting possibility to ponder. Who knows is right.

sort of a similar (but different) argument to BC and UVA when they had their versions of the Big 3. Those 6 ladies were phenomenal players...but I would say that the other 8 field players did a lot of watching (in awe) of them while playing. Less equitable distribution and less growth than if the stars weren't the Big 3. I think of teams when they go head to head as not their best player(s), but their median player on the field. If you are BC, Cuse, UNC this past year you have a very similar median but against anyone else, your top 11/12 are just that much better, that much faster as a team than one with 3 stars and supporting cast. So it is no surprise to me that BC won this year but didnt with the Big 3. Yes CN was a unstoppable force (there is that argument as well, I digress), but I would argue their median was pretty high.

[Bart]

I should clarify, I didn’t mean any specific team as “best ever”, I meant that looking at Carolina, BC, cuse, northwestern and maybe some others, 2022 could be the best ‘collective’ group of teams talent-wise.

The above teams return most/all their key players, plus have high end recruits coming in to add to already stacked teams. Of course all that matters is how they produce on the field, and team chemistry can be fragile, but on paper I’d suggest those 2022 schools have more pure talent than anytime in women’s lacrosse.

I honestly believe u could make a case for any of Carolina, cuse or BC to start season #1

Think of Cuse making ACC and NCAA championship game without arguably their 2 best players, they could be scary good

Then u have Carolina who was red hot goalie, and a BC team playing a near perfect game, away from an undefeated season

My Eagles got it done, and return pretty much everyone too

Giddy up folks, women’s lac entering a golden age of teams at the perfect time with all the new television coverage, gonna be fun!

I could agree with the top paragraph. However, the older (wiser? ) members may comment about comparing eras is hard to do with stick technologies, etc.

The Cuse argument is one that I am not sure about. It isnt like their subs weren't really good. I think of the rating system used for football. Your starter is rated a .950, your back up is a .925 . For what the two players do, is there any contribution drop off from that .025 of a rating point? The subs for those two Cuse starters might have provided 90% of what the starters would have....There are only so many touches and there is only one ball...so the impact (assuming we agree the subs were very high level) in the loss of the starters was likely more emotional than actual...Not taking anything away from the two injured starters...no one wants to see that, but that team gelled after the injuries and who knows if the same results would have happened with the starters....

....But that extra 10% probably would have added three goals in the championship game.......... At the pointy end of the knife the difference between winning and loosing is razor slim.

[Dr. Tact]

I should clarify, I didn’t mean any specific team as “best ever”, I meant that looking at Carolina, BC, cuse, northwestern and maybe some others, 2022 could be the best ‘collective’ group of teams talent-wise.

The above teams return most/all their key players, plus have high end recruits coming in to add to already stacked teams. Of course all that matters is how they produce on the field, and team chemistry can be fragile, but on paper I’d suggest those 2022 schools have more pure talent than anytime in women’s lacrosse.

I honestly believe u could make a case for any of Carolina, cuse or BC to start season #1

Think of Cuse making ACC and NCAA championship game without arguably their 2 best players, they could be scary good

Then u have Carolina who was red hot goalie, and a BC team playing a near perfect game, away from an undefeated season

My Eagles got it done, and return pretty much everyone too

Giddy up folks, women’s lac entering a golden age of teams at the perfect time with all the new television coverage, gonna be fun!

I could agree with the top paragraph. However, the older (wiser? ) members may comment about comparing eras is hard to do with stick technologies, etc.

The Cuse argument is one that I am not sure about. It isnt like their subs weren't really good. I think of the rating system used for football. Your starter is rated a .950, your back up is a .925 . For what the two players do, is there any contribution drop off from that .025 of a rating point? The subs for those two Cuse starters might have provided 90% of what the starters would have....There are only so many touches and there is only one ball...so the impact (assuming we agree the subs were very high level) in the loss of the starters was likely more emotional than actual...Not taking anything away from the two injured starters...no one wants to see that, but that team gelled after the injuries and who knows if the same results would have happened with the starters....

....But that extra 10% probably would have added three goals in the championship game.......... At the pointy end of the knife the difference between winning and loosing is razor slim.

Glad you have that opinion, but 3 goals? That would have made it 16-13? Still a loss. And BTW, 3 goals would be a 30% increase of the actual score (10) or 23% of the projected total (13). So a 10% bump in performance (starter/sub) equates to 23-30% more goal production? I dont buy it. Oh, and you are only replacing 2 players, so that production percentage gets even more steep.

But I do understand the what if argument that folks can make about having the starters. Mine is just a different opinion. I respect yours and others.

[Bart]

I should clarify, I didn’t mean any specific team as “best ever”, I meant that looking at Carolina, BC, cuse, northwestern and maybe some others, 2022 could be the best ‘collective’ group of teams talent-wise.

The above teams return most/all their key players, plus have high end recruits coming in to add to already stacked teams. Of course all that matters is how they produce on the field, and team chemistry can be fragile, but on paper I’d suggest those 2022 schools have more pure talent than anytime in women’s lacrosse.

I honestly believe u could make a case for any of Carolina, cuse or BC to start season #1

Think of Cuse making ACC and NCAA championship game without arguably their 2 best players, they could be scary good

Then u have Carolina who was red hot goalie, and a BC team playing a near perfect game, away from an undefeated season

My Eagles got it done, and return pretty much everyone too

Giddy up folks, women’s lac entering a golden age of teams at the perfect time with all the new television coverage, gonna be fun!

I could agree with the top paragraph. However, the older (wiser? ) members may comment about comparing eras is hard to do with stick technologies, etc.

The Cuse argument is one that I am not sure about. It isnt like their subs weren't really good. I think of the rating system used for football. Your starter is rated a .950, your back up is a .925 . For what the two players do, is there any contribution drop off from that .025 of a rating point? The subs for those two Cuse starters might have provided 90% of what the starters would have....There are only so many touches and there is only one ball...so the impact (assuming we agree the subs were very high level) in the loss of the starters was likely more emotional than actual...Not taking anything away from the two injured starters...no one wants to see that, but that team gelled after the injuries and who knows if the same results would have happened with the starters....

....But that extra 10% probably would have added three goals in the championship game.......... At the pointy end of the knife the difference between winning and loosing is razor slim.

Glad you have that opinion, but 3 goals? That would have made it 16-13? Still a loss. And BTW, 3 goals would be a 30% increase of the actual score (10) or 23% of the projected total (13). So a 10% bump in performance (starter/sub) equates to 23-30% more goal production? I dont buy it. Oh, and you are only replacing 2 players, so that production percentage gets even more steep.

But I do understand the what if argument that folks can make about having the starters. Mine is just a different opinion. I respect yours and others.

I guess I was figuring 10% across the board. That would be a team improvement of 10% for whatever that’s worth.

Oh, I also got the championship and semifinals mixed up.

I also think that 51’s presence on field opens up more opportunities for others even when she does not have the ball. Defenses would “hedge” on her more than any of the subs. Just takes a second to look her way for a back cut and I would imagine this happening more so with her there than not. I hope we find out next season.

I understand your opinion, it is not without merit and makes sense in a straight forward way. I just think adding 1 player let alone 2 with one possibly the best player in the country, adds more intangibles in an abstract fashion that would elevate the entire team. Again, I hope to see if this is right and both players rehab to 100%.

[Dr. Tact]

I guess I was figuring 10% across the board. That would be a team improvement of 10% for whatever that’s worth.

Oh, I also got the championship and semifinals mixed up.

I also think that 51’s presence on field opens up more opportunities for others even when she does not have the ball. Defenses would “hedge” on her more than any of the subs. Just takes a second to look her way for a back cut and I would imagine this happening more so with her there than not. I hope we find out next season.

I understand your opinion, it is not without merit and makes sense in a straight forward way. I just think adding 1 player let alone 2 with one possibly the best player in the country, adds more intangibles in an abstract fashion that would elevate the entire team. Again, I hope to see if this is right and both players rehab to 100%.

yeah 10% across the board either in median player or improvement because of the two players would be a much better team.

I recognize your points above. They are sound and I agree in a what if scenario....I am not smart enough to figure out the analytics (nor do I care about them too much) on player value to other players, but your argument on the attention and focus on one or two additional stars does open the team for elevation. I very much agree with that. I guess my BIG 3 comment was my memory of watching UVA and to a lesser degree BC with their BIG 3. Those girls saw mostly each other and they didn't elevate the rest of the team as maybe one or two stars (your scenario) might. UVA was a shell of their previous year success when they only had Mueller and the rest of the team changed from watching to trying to compete...just didnt work well. Took them a few years to get back to team first play, now they are building back with a more well rounded (median) team. Last comment on UVA is, if the coaching staff doesnt get in the way, they may be a very good team in a few years. They are very young.

I get where you are coming from and if we take the discussion to the elevation of the surrounding cast, I could easily buy into what you are selling. How about that

[BCGold]

I should clarify, I didn’t mean any specific team as “best ever”, I meant that looking at Carolina, BC, cuse, northwestern and maybe some others, 2022 could be the best ‘collective’ group of teams talent-wise.

The above teams return most/all their key players, plus have high end recruits coming in to add to already stacked teams. Of course all that matters is how they produce on the field, and team chemistry can be fragile, but on paper I’d suggest those 2022 schools have more pure talent than anytime in women’s lacrosse.

I honestly believe u could make a case for any of Carolina, cuse or BC to start season #1

Think of Cuse making ACC and NCAA championship game without arguably their 2 best players, they could be scary good

Then u have Carolina who was red hot goalie, and a BC team playing a near perfect game, away from an undefeated season

My Eagles got it done, and return pretty much everyone too

Giddy up folks, women’s lac entering a golden age of teams at the perfect time with all the new television coverage, gonna be fun!

I could agree with the top paragraph. However, the older (wiser? ) members may comment about comparing eras is hard to do with stick technologies, etc.

The Cuse argument is one that I am not sure about. It isnt like their subs weren't really good. I think of the rating system used for football. Your starter is rated a .950, your back up is a .925 . For what the two players do, is there any contribution drop off from that .025 of a rating point? The subs for those two Cuse starters might have provided 90% of what the starters would have....There are only so many touches and there is only one ball...so the impact (assuming we agree the subs were very high level) in the loss of the starters was likely more emotional than actual...Not taking anything away from the two injured starters...no one wants to see that, but that team gelled after the injuries and who knows if the same results would have happened with the starters....

Great points, and I tend to agree with much of what u say. For discussion sake, and we all realize we could “what if” these scenarios forever, I’d say two things

1) starters are starters and subs are subs for a reason, one beat out the other for the starting job, hence coaches think they are better players who give the team a better chance to win. Obv there are exceptions like 6th man in bb, or times when a coach feels a certain player is better as a spark coming off the bench, but for the most part coaches want there best players starting

2) for the reasons u mentioned, often times the drop off between starters and subs isn’t that much, and the emotional factor of a team pulling together when a star goes down may make up any talent difference. But also consider losing 2 top players, then in the championship game losing other top players due to yellow cards… now ur replacing subs with subs… at some point that loss becomes too much to overcome, which is what I think happened in the 2nd half to Syracuse

Point taken tho, look what happened when franchise QB Bledsoe went down and the Pats had to turn to a 5th round draft pick out of Michigan as his sub, worked out ok

[Bart]

I guess I was figuring 10% across the board. That would be a team improvement of 10% for whatever that’s worth.

Oh, I also got the championship and semifinals mixed up.

I also think that 51’s presence on field opens up more opportunities for others even when she does not have the ball. Defenses would “hedge” on her more than any of the subs. Just takes a second to look her way for a back cut and I would imagine this happening more so with her there than not. I hope we find out next season.

I understand your opinion, it is not without merit and makes sense in a straight forward way. I just think adding 1 player let alone 2 with one possibly the best player in the country, adds more intangibles in an abstract fashion that would elevate the entire team. Again, I hope to see if this is right and both players rehab to 100%.

yeah 10% across the board either in median player or improvement because of the two players would be a much better team.

I recognize your points above. They are sound and I agree in a what if scenario....I am not smart enough to figure out the analytics (nor do I care about them too much) on player value to other players, but your argument on the attention and focus on one or two additional stars does open the team for elevation. I very much agree with that. I guess my BIG 3 comment was my memory of watching UVA and to a lesser degree BC with their BIG 3. Those girls saw mostly each other and they didn't elevate the rest of the team as maybe one or two stars (your scenario) might. UVA was a shell of their previous year success when they only had Mueller and the rest of the team changed from watching to trying to compete...just didnt work well. Took them a few years to get back to team first play, now they are building back with a more well rounded (median) team. Last comment on UVA is, if the coaching staff doesnt get in the way, they may be a very good team in a few years. They are very young.

I get where you are coming from and if we take the discussion to the elevation of the surrounding cast, I could easily buy into what you are selling. How about that

It’s all good. Points well taken. Like I said, lets hope we get to see it play out next year.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

women’s lac entering a golden age of teams at the perfect time with all the new television coverage, gonna be fun!

I agree--we are in the early stages of the Golden Age of Women's Lacrosse. No doubt about it with the exploding popularity of lacrosse among young women across this great land. The players who will enter college lacrosse will increase in number as the sport increases in popularity, which as you say will be greatly aided by the increased quality broadcast coverage.

For discussion sake, and we all realize we could “what if” these scenarios forever, I’d say two things

1) starters are starters and subs are subs for a reason, one beat out the other for the starting job, hence coaches think they are better players who give the team a better chance to win. Obv there are exceptions like 6th man in bb, or times when a coach feels a certain player is better as a spark coming off the bench, but for the most part coaches want there best players starting

Great point. BC's Annabelle Hasselbeck immediately came to mind. She had some time on the field this past year. Yet in spite of her flashes of brilliance during the season, it was apparent she needed more seasoning/experience and could be a bit of a liability as the games got more meaningful as the Tournament wore on.

2) for the reasons u mentioned, often times the drop off between starters and subs isn’t that much, and the emotional factor of a team pulling together when a star goes down may make up any talent difference. But also consider losing 2 top players, then in the championship game losing other top players due to yellow cards… now ur replacing subs with subs… at some point that loss becomes too much to overcome, which is what I think happened in the 2nd half to Syracuse

Astute analysis there, BCGold. (Just so happens to coincide with my take on the game but we'll ignore that.)


Point taken tho, look what happened when franchise QB Bledsoe went down and the Pats had to turn to a 5th round draft pick out of Michigan as his sub, worked out ok

6th--but who's counting.

You bring up some great topics and scenarios for discussion. Glad you joined up.