LaxPower Back-Up Stick

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 9:57 am wow, great game penn/yale.

to gallagher, junkin, mathias, dunn and all the other heroes from penn... fantastic effort.

defenses seem to be behind and with no counter now that the coaches have unleashed their teams... great for fans and you better be in shape and willing to play as hard as these 2 teams did if you wanna win.

Good post..."heroes" is not an exaggeration. The determination to win by both teams was remarkable! I was pulling for Penn...to have to beat a team like Yale three times in one season is impossible.

10stone5 wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 11:16 am

johnnyonthegunpowder wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 10:44 am Cabrini's in the finals, so they will bring out even more of the hometown next week.

Yes.
Its high times for SE PA lacrosse.
Cabrini. Penn almost makes it. Penn State.
Grant Ament out of Haverford. Matt Moore played for Frank Urso at Garnet Valley. Drexel the sponsor of the Finals.

Quite a few of Urso's guys on Cabrini.

Is the Stadium that was used for Sunday’s games where next year NC weekend for next year?

Two excellent games again yesterday, if Penn State can just win 40% of their face-offs against Yale Im not sure the game will be all that competitive. Expecting the attack unit will be too much for Yale to handle. Jack Starr is going to have to come up with some big time saves, similar to what he did at last years semi final. I just don't see anyone stopping this Penn State offense right now, the question is can their defense hold a Yale offense to under 15 goals? Four very exciting teams to watch on Saturday, looking forward to it! Lacrosse is on the rise and this weekend was indicative of that, if you watched these four games there is no way you can't enjoy watching the sport.

admin wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 11:32 am 6 Things We Learn from Today's FanLax Computer Rankings
The NCAA picked the right At-Large Teams … according to the FanLax Computer Rankings.

I don't think is justified. The FanLax rankings on Selection Sunday had Cornell at #6, ahead of #7 Maryland, #8 Johns Hopkins, #9 Loyola, #10 Notre Dame, #11 Towson, and #12 Syracuse. Those teams were all given the chance to play another highly-ranked opponent; Cornell was not. Three of them (JHU, Towson, and Cuse) lost that game, one of them (JHU) in a blow-out to a team Cornell had beaten (ND) a few weeks earlier (both games in the rain at ND).

Moving up in the rankings by losing does not seem reasonable to me.

xxxxxxx wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 10:30 pm

rasheed wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 8:47 pm

Chuckman wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 2:42 pm

random observer wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 2:31 pm

b1w7o9y7h wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 2:29 pm Or karma evening out things? The clear foot on the crease should have negated a first half Maryland goal (if there was instant replay). And the clear pipe non-goal should have not counted (if there was instant replay). Net result - each team got a goal that should not have counted. Am I not seeing that right?

Bingo. Announcers were right that the UVA goal call was more inexcusable, but ultimately there is no difference. Each team got a goal that they shouldn't have. Slate is clean.

No. VA was offsides on one of their first half goals.. So two for VA and One for MD.

Frankly the offside and foot in the crease were nothing compared to the horrendous call at end. Should never have been called , or at least talked over with some discussion. Just the place ball bounced to should have given refs some doubt.

Oh well. It’s over. It’s done. Virginia headed to Philly. Conrad should be 1st Team AA. Tillman lost this game.

UVA crossbar goal.

The ball rocked off the crossbar and went out of bounds near midfield, yes the net moved a little. There is no way a ball that crosses the line goes that far off the bounce. On TV it was a no brainer, live it should have been brainer. Absolutely the worst call I have ever seen in 40 years of watching the game.

The nets were very loose on Saturday. They moved a lot on a bunch of pipe shots that were even more obviously not a goal than the one they did call a goal.

Watching the game live I was thinking the same thing, it was way too early for MD to start the stall ball and the thought came through that this is going to come back on them.

Those were 2 really bad calls on BOTH of those goals and BOTH should have been called. I really felt that crew of refs were struggling the entire game.

Chuckman wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 2:36 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 2:25 pmWorst. Call. Ever.

That may have been. But Tillman lost this game, not that call. His stall ball with 5-6 minutes to go was the complete stupidity. MD was going toe to toe with Va and winning battles.

Va is too explosive to think about stalling with that much time. Bad Coaching.

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 10:53 am Compared to some great teams in the past (including the recent past), none of the Final Four teams play really good defense. Look at all the unassisted goals scored by Penn against Yale. For Penn State, defense seems like an afterthought. Both Duke and Virginia won shootouts.

Yes, there was some fine goalie play. But for the most part, it was a shooting gallery out there.

If you like the trash that is (may soon be “was”) the MLL, that’s ok. However, some of us appreciate a bit more balance in the game.

Fun games to watch this weekend because of the OTs, but at some points I got the same mind-numbing sensation as watching those overdone action finales in Marvel and DC flicks.

DocBarrister

All we hear for a decade is not enough goals... and now there's too many?? We've really come full circle here

CU77 wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 2:31 pm I don't think is justified. The FanLax rankings on Selection Sunday had Cornell at #6, ahead of #7 Maryland, #8 Johns Hopkins, #9 Loyola, #10 Notre Dame, #11 Towson, and #12 Syracuse. Those teams were all given the chance to play another highly-ranked opponent; Cornell was not. Three of them (JHU, Towson, and Cuse) lost that game, one of them (JHU) in a blow-out to a team Cornell had beaten (ND) a few weeks earlier (both games in the rain at ND). Moving up in the rankings by losing does not seem reasonable to me.

CU, you're making a valid point. With this said, the reason why Cornell fell and others went up was that we used to use the previous Rankings as the Starting Point for the current Rankings. We stopped this and started using the previous Rankings to create a Starting Point based on each team's Best Wins. This struck us as a fairer way to evaluate the teams. (Starting Points for each Ranking can be tricky.) So Cornell didn't drop and the others didn't rise because of their losses. (at least the teams that lost. Teams are never rewarded for losing.) This occurred because we put a heavier emphasis on Best Wins. There were points during the season that wins over Towson and Notre Dame were impressive. But today, the Notre Dame win is still pretty good but the Towson W is less impressive. And, besides these 2, Cornell runs short on quality Ws.

hens62 wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 3:17 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 10:53 am Compared to some great teams in the past (including the recent past), none of the Final Four teams play really good defense. Look at all the unassisted goals scored by Penn against Yale. For Penn State, defense seems like an afterthought. Both Duke and Virginia won shootouts.

Yes, there was some fine goalie play. But for the most part, it was a shooting gallery out there.

If you like the trash that is (may soon be “was”) the MLL, that’s ok. However, some of us appreciate a bit more balance in the game.

Fun games to watch this weekend because of the OTs, but at some points I got the same mind-numbing sensation as watching those overdone action finales in Marvel and DC flicks.

DocBarrister

All we hear for a decade is not enough goals... and now there's too many?? We've really come full circle here

Wait until they put in instant replay.
That’ll really screw the pooch.

admin wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 3:31 pmCU, you're making a valid point. With this said, the reason why Cornell fell and others went up was that we used to use the previous Rankings as the Starting Point for the current Rankings. We stopped this and started using the previous Rankings to create a Starting Point based on each team's Best Wins. This struck us as a fairer way to evaluate the teams.

OK, then what would the new rankings have looked like on Selection Sunday? That's the fair way to evaluate the selection committee's choices.

And: why did you feel the need to suddenly change your ranking system? I hope it wasn't because certain favored teams weren't being ranked highly enough ...

CU77 wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 6:18 pmOK, then what would the new rankings have looked like on Selection Sunday? That's the fair way to evaluate the selection committee's choices.

And: why did you feel the need to suddenly change your ranking system? I hope it wasn't because certain favored teams weren't being ranked highly enough ...

Good idea. Give me a second.

For sure not for homer reasons. I have no dog in these fights. Don't even root for my HS and college. just like good lacrosse. but to answer your question... there were teams that, based on the metrics we were using, should have been #1 or #2 or whatever. And... They weren't. So, after taking a look, the issue was the Starting Points. Team A is 10 Points better than B but B is starting with 900 Points while A is starting with 860 Points so, even with the 10 Points, they're still behind Team B... and it was bothersome. (As an aside, this wasn't with D1 Men. It was some of the others.) If there was a good reason why Team B was starting with 40 more Points than A it may have made sense but... there wreally wasn't a good reason. So... A more merit-based Starting Point system seemed to make more sense. Anyway... BRB.

Computer Rankings are for the jock-sniffers of the world. They have as much predictive ability as a ouija board. You guys should stick to your knitting which is managing a well respected, quality, comprehensive, and accessible group forum. Leave the computers to the fantasy league laxbro fan boys typing away madly in their parent's basement about their latest bangin' string job.

CU, I removed all the Tourney games and scores and turned the Starting Points back to May 5th and... This is what it looked like. I'm turning back time so there may be human errors involved but I think it's pretty clean. the obvious flags (maybe red) is High Point but... When I look closer, having them so high isn't so ridiculous. Either way, that's what came out and... it's getting late and... miles to go before I sleep.

GSP, our interest is not to be predictive. It's to evaluate. to try to create an objective system that will evaluate the relative successes of teams. to each their own.

GSP wrote
Computer Rankings are for the jock-sniffers of the world. They have as much predictive ability as a ouija board. You guys should stick to your knitting which is managing a well respected, quality, comprehensive, and accessible group forum. Leave the computers to the fantasy league laxbro fan boys typing away madly in their parent's basement about their latest bangin' string job.

That's a little harsh if not down right rude. Am not a fantasy league kind of guy, not much for rankings, polls, stats, and the like. Am pretty much just interested in seeing what happens when teams face it off and play the game, but because someone likes the numbers part of the game you have to come on and call them jock sniffers and basement dwellers? What the heck?

DMac wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 10:11 pmThat's a little harsh if not down right rude...

You think...

Computers do not play the games, players and coaches do!

Rankings which take zero account of future weather, field conditions, sickness, minor injuries, scholastic loads, exams, fan attendance, which team of referees will work future games and the million other factors coursing through teenager's bodies and are therefore literally useless.

Lastly, there is a clear and very significant intellectual conflict in having a website that both produces a computer generated ranking with (as in any computer environment, a garbage in-garbage out risk) and opinion pieces by writers affiliated with the website. Any human who's organization produces a computer generated evaluation or ranking will have a very human desire or tendency toward wanting their ranking to be justified. It is 100% normal for a non-celestial being to be subject to those forms of intellectual pressures. It cannot help by introduce confirmation bias into the opinion based articles it produces.

It is not a healthy situation to produce both.

GSP,

With 8 posts, what rock did you crawl out from under? Or is it your mom's basement.
Your handle should be Sactimonious.
Sticks and stones man. Sticks and stones.