Re: NESCAC 2020
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2020 4:16 pm
Don’t be surprised if you see some gnarly news about some ac players and post game activities that recently took place 
Gee whiz - must have really hit a nerve!ah23 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:22 pmSpeaking of insecurity. I can only speculate about how it feels when another team gets the early season coronation that Salisbury fans expect their team to get. Not a good look.Dr. Pretorious wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 7:16 am
The comment about fourth-quarter scoring is also similarly narrow minded. The vast majority of all the goals that Salisbury has given up this year have also come in the fourth quarter, against their second and third team defenseman. Salisbury is also averaging 20 goals a game and could easily put up 25 to 30 per game except that Berkman shows more class and doesn’t feel the need to run up the score to cover any insecurities…
I have to address the arguments, because they are wrong on all counts and I have a pathological need to call BS out when I see it.
Fourth quarter goals allowed:"The vast majority of all the goals that Salisbury has given up this year have also come in the fourth quarter, against their second and third team defenseman."
- Salisbury: 32.56% (14 goals out of 43 total)
- Tufts: 35.71% (15 goals out of 42 total)
Fourth quarter shots faced:
- Salisbury: 31.12% (61 shots out of 196 total)
- Tufts: 32.93% (54 shots out of 164 total)
Which team did you say was more impacted by letting off the gas in garbage time?
Fourth quarter goal scoring in 2020:"Salisbury is also averaging 20 goals a game and could easily put up 25 to 30 per game except that Berkman shows more class and doesn’t feel the need to run up the score to cover any insecurities…"
- Salisbury: 24.53% (33 goals out of 134 total)
- Tufts: 20.00% (20 goals out of 100 total)
Fourth quarter shots taken
- Salisbury: 22.89% (87 shots out of 380 total)
- Tufts: 21.32% (68 shots out of 319 total)
Which team did you say was the one "showing more class" by not running up the score?
Are they playing Berry every week? Then sure! Otherwise, not a chance in the world."Salisbury...could easily put up 25 to 30 per game"
- Salisbury vs. unranked opponents: 23.25 GPG (93 goals in 4 games vs. Berry/Coast Guard/OWU/Rhodes)
- Salisbury vs. ranked opponents: 13.66 GPG (41 goals in 3 games vs. Lynchburg, Gettysburg, Stevens)
Anyone can score on cupcakes. Colby scored 27 goals against Husson earlier this year. That is irrelevant. Salisbury's offense having a ten-goal dropoff between ranked and unranked opponents tells us something.
But wait, let's be fair. Maybe Tufts suffered the same massive dropoff in scoring when they faced ranked opponents. Let's take a look.
- Tufts vs unranked opponents: 24.5 GPG (49 goals in 2 games vs. Colby/Springfield)
- Tufts vs. ranked opponents: 25.5 GPG (51 goals in 2 games vs. Amherst, Ithaca)
Whoops. Guess not.
Let's keep going with this. Maybe Salisbury just has been the only team to figure out some of the country's best defenses! Maybe 13.66 GPG against their slate is actually super impressive!
- Lynchburg has played three other ranked teams this year. Both F&M (19) and Cabrini (17) scored more against the Hornets than Salisbury (16) did.
- Stevens has played one other team that was ranked (at the time) - Dickinson. Dickinson scored 13 on Stevens; Salisbury scored 14.
- Gettysburg has faced three other ranked teams this year. W&L scored the same amount as Salisbury did (11). Stevenson (5) and York (6) both scored less.
Hmm. So Salisbury's offense truly doesn't stand out when compared to other ranked teams.
Yet again, let's try to play both sides here. Maybe Tufts wasn't doing anything special. Maybe they were just beating up on bad defenses who had been lit up by other teams too!
Colby goals allowed: 3, 19, 24 (Tufts). Non-Tufts avg.: 11.00 gaa
Springfield goals allowed: 14, 14, 16, 25 (Tufts). Non-Tufts avg.: 14.66 gaa
Amherst goals allowed: 8, 8, 9, 25 (Tufts). Non-Tufts avg.: 8.33 gaa
Ithaca goals allowed: 5, 9, 12, 18, 26 (Tufts). Non-Tufts avg.: 11.00 gaa
Ah. Nope. Not even close.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look. Salisbury is obviously a great team and a great program. I do the weekly FanLax forum poll, and I had the Gulls ranked #1...until this week, when Tufts showed that they are capable of blowing top five title contenders off the field like a midseason tuneup. No one else in the country has shown anything close to that ability. I don't have any doubts that Salisbury is/was (we'll see what happens with the season) the second-best team in the country this year, but the gap between Tufts and everyone else - even given the small sample size - looked significant.
Hope you didn’t take too much time away from your job/ family to research & compose your magnum opus. But the time spent is telling - sorry about getting you so upset.
I clearly must not have done a good job with my initial post because you also seem to have completely missed the point I was trying to make.
I was not arguing that Tufts may not be the best team in the country; I was also not arguing that Salisbury was ... Quite the contrary, my whole point was that it was far, far too early in the season (the virus not withstanding) to crown anybody as the best in the country after 1/4 of the season is played. Not Tufts, not Salisbury, not RIT, Amherst or any one else. Not sure why that is so hard to understand.
Finally, I am not a Salisbury fan. Indeed, having lived my entire 62+ years in eastern Pennsylvania, I am a huge fan of the Centennial Conference. Nothing would please me more than to see Gettysburg or F&M take down all of the above mentioned teams. I do however note, with some amusement, your apparent need to weave the snarky comments about Salisbury and their fans Into your argument. That does seem to suggest an insecurity lurking real close to the surface ...
Some might also say it’s a sign of ignorance, or perhaps arrogance, to presume to know what is in the mind of someone you’ve never met, or who they root for - and then to feel compelled to attempt to belittle them for it.
on here.