PNCLL Week #2 (2/6-2/12) -- Predict/Report Scores/Discuss

[woulax4]

Sorry my post was deleted. Here it is again.

How does Southern get credited for a win against PSU? If this is the case shouldn’t Willamette get credited for a loss?

[Mark Brown]

Probably the same way that PLU vs PSU will count, we paid for refs and put it on the schedule as a game instead of a scrimmage w/o refs.

Congrats to Will and the Willamette team for the OOC win in overtime!

[Steno]

oh ok, well, we definitely don't want to pay for refs. thanks!

-Matt

[Dan Wishengrad]

To the good men of Willamette:

My preview article questioned the 36 saves your goalie was credited with against UOP last season. I predicted this would get a response, which came in both your game reports from this weekend's games, including this little gem:

"...our goalie played another brilliant game (and the save stats were provided by Pacific's very good and very nice score keeper for all you haters out there)."

No hating here, and no disparagement of your goalie's great game a year ago was intended. But goalie saves are a subjective stat, which is the main reason why the MCLA national statistics don't even include the saves category.

Pacific -- my alma mater who I certainly don't hate either -- struggled mightily in 2007 to generate much offense at all. The five goals scored against the Bearcats matched their season high, in fact, during a winless campaign. The Tigers averaged less than 2 1/2 goals per game for the entire season. When doing my research for the preview article, I inquired of a friend (who shall remain nameless as per his request) for some sense of what UOP might be like this year. This source did not see them play in 2007, but had heard from numerous others who had seen them that the UOP offense was certainly the weakest in the WCLL, and that their offensive players were not, shall we say, either very accurate or prolific shooters. The cumulative season stats for Pacific bear testament to this.

In the '07 WU-UOP game, the Tigers were listed as taking 43 shots. Five goals were scored, a simple and objective stat that can't be questioned. If your Goalie actually did make 36 saves -- which is a phenomenal number to be recorded in a lacrosse game but by no means impossible -- this means that Pacific must have put 41 of 43 shots on goal, for better than 95% shooting accuracy. This would be a statistical anomaly, for certain. No more than two shots could have hit a pipe or been off the mark. This does seem highly unlikely for a team which only scored 17 times during the entire season.

I call 'em as I see them, fellas, and if you take umbrage at any of my comments well you are surely entitled. This is not the first time I have ruffled some feathers, nor will it be the last. My volunteer efforts as a PNCLL weekly previewer is one I take seriously, and I do try to do "my homework".

Best of luck to the Bearcats for the remainder of the season, I'll be rooting for you guys to win again in '08.

[NCInDaPlaceTaBe]

I don't think it's a the save stat that's subjective. In my experience, someone TOOK A SHOT and:

A) I touched the ball in any way and, as a result, they didn't score making that a save

or B) Anything else

The subjectivity lies with the stat-keeper. While keeping track of a million other things and sitting 50ish yards away from either goal, it's often hard to tell for them if it was a save or not, or even if it was a shot. I've seen it a hundred times, through no ill-will on their part, a stat-keeper credits more saves than a goalie has for fear of missing any and giving them less.

Im no expert on stat taking, and I doubt any stat-keeper's going to admit they messed up.

Where's Ali on the forums when you need her?

[TheBearcatHimself]

Dan, reaction to your words was not singularly directed at you, but everyone who last year questioned our goalie and his abilities. Last year as a player-coach I did not have the ability to secure the "best stats." And yes, I agree that 36 was likely too high a number for reality. I would like to point out that Pacific's offense is much improved.

I apologize for any misinterpretation, most likely I misinterpreted your original words as well.

I also would like to relay that our trip to California was again a memorable one and a GREAT experience!! The WCLL hosts were top notch in hospitality and as I told some of the people setting up for games they were spoiling us with their amenities. I can only hope our home field is as friendly as those in the WCLL, sadly I cannot import the 70 degrees and sunshine in February.

[Ryan Hanavan]

PS Great decision we made to cancel the SFU and UW games at Wazzou and Idaho this weekend and re-schedule for April. Snoqualmie Pass has been closed since early Friday morning and has not even reopened tonight yet due to avalanches and heavy snowfall to clear. Neither the Huskies nor the Clansmen nor the refs would have been able to get over to the Palouse this weekend had we even wanted to.

It is too bad, we actually started thawing out and uncovered our field yesterday. But, coming in April should ensure sunshine so bring those shades!

[Dan Wishengrad]

I don't think it's a the save stat that's subjective. In my experience, someone TOOK A SHOT and:

A) I touched the ball in any way and, as a result, they didn't score making that a save

Spoken like the great goalie you are, Nate! But the actual definition of a save in the NCAA Mens Rules (Appendix II, sec. 1) is different:

"A save is recorded any time a ball is stopped or deflected by the goalkeeper's body or crosse in such a manner that had the ball not been stopped or deflected, it would have entered the goal" (emphasis added)

So here's the rub, and where subjectivity enters into things. Let's say an opposing player shoots, and you make a great deflection of the ball. You goalies always want a save recorded when this happens, but sometimes the shot is not on goal, and had you not touched the ball at all it would have hit a pipe, gone wide or high. No matter how great your deflection was, this is not a save, Nate. A scorekeeper or statistician often will credit a save based on a goalie's great dig or deflection, but the shot may not have actually been on goal. How many times have you reached above the crossbar or outside a pipe to snag an errant shot? Quite often, I'll bet. And no matter how athletic your effort may have been, sorry but this should not be recorded as a save.

The essence of this specific debate is that if the team in question shot 43 times, scored five goals and the opposing goalie made 36 saves, then there could have been only two shots that were not fired on goal. This is highly unlikely for any team.

In our game against WWU last weekend, I recorded the Huskies as taking 44 shots. We scored 14 goals, and Vikings Goalie Ian LaBelle was credited with 13 saves. Both our number of shots and his saves could be inaccurate, but for this example if the numbers are correct this would mean that 17 of UW's shots were off target. I do know for a fact that some of our shots bounced high over the goal off the hard Astroturf at Western's field, and that some went wide. We certainly didn't shoot at 95% accuracy, as UOP was credited as having done a year ago against Willamette.

PS Welcome back to the forums, Nate. I enjoyed reading your well-written articles here last year, and look forward to reading your '08 submissions later this season.

[Forty Two]

Dan -

Thanks for your detailed posts and genuine concern for statistical accuracy and fairness. Don't let anyone chide you for adding minutia to set the record straight and helping folks learn.

[Kyle Berggren]

I've done the score book & kept stats in Dallas for the past 2 years... For Nate, I will say I've made mistakes (and will in the future). I remember sitting at the table arguing over whether shots were on cage or not. Several games I'd have keepers with 6,7,8,9 saves... and they had great games.

I do still believe though, that a division 2 goalie has a much better shot at 30 saves than a D1 goalie. Shooting is less accurate @ D2 & there are typically far fewer chances in D1.

[Shawn Carman]

Dan,

I agree with you completely! However I wanted to add some fuel to the fire!

Take for example, an attack player attacks the goal from behind the cage. The attack player beats the defender and the 2nd slide is not in time. Now it is a one on one, the goalie vs the attack player coming around the side of the crease. Lets say that the goalie holds his ground, sticks to the pipe preventing the shooter to get an angle on the cage.

The attack player now has to choose to either shoot the ball now or risk coming across the crease further to meet that late defensive 2nd slide. Lets figure that the attack player wants the goal so he shoots the ball. In shooting the ball it goes wide of the cage and out of bounds, barely missing the goalie and the pipe.

In this case the goalie did his job, forcing the attack player to chose a poor shot, resulting in no goal scored. Should he (the goalie) not get credit for this save or an earlier save that may not have been recorded in the book?

Being a goalie myself I know that there are moments in a game where you can actually force a shooter to take a certain shot. I know that it is not a save by the written rules, but an A for effort. Maybe we need to add a Barry Bonds *(astrix) next to the number of saves made by a goalie for every game they play.

I believe that in the end, plain and simple it comes down to how people interpret the rules and their meaning and that it will never be perfect.

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

In this case the goalie did his job, forcing the attack player to chose a poor shot, resulting in no goal scored. Should he (the goalie) not get credit for this save or an earlier save that may not have been recorded in the book?

No, he should not get a save here. It is not a save. It is solid goalie play, but not a save. . .Dan's earlier description is right. There are many scenarios you could put forth to make an argument, but the bottom line is that great goalie positioning does not equal a save.

I see your point, but here are two other scenarios that further show that logic doesn't work:
example #1:
If a goalie comes out on a fast break and de-cleats an attackman, saving a goal. . .no save. Great goalie play, but not a save.
example #2:
If a defenseman lifts an attackman's stick right as he shoots, and the shot comes to you at 40 mph. . .you get a save. . .do you deserve it when my 5-year old son could catch that ball? Maybe not, but it's a save.

A save is as earlier described. Ball shot on cage and goalie interferes with ball's path to cage.

I hate to say it, but I agree with the guy with the really cool shades.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Week #2 is complete -- but not quite "in the books".

A gentle reminder to all teams to please try to get all their stats, game report write-ups and ref evaluations completed within 24 hours of all home games and ASAP after road games. The "Civil War" has yet to be officially reported by either participant.

[GrizLens]

Any chance that we had a photographer or two at any of this weekend's games? Shore would be nice to give the PNCLL some photo love on the main page! Civil War, maybe?

[Ryan Hanavan]

example #2:
If a defenseman lifts an attackman's stick right as he shoots, and the shot comes to you at 40 mph. . .you get a save. . .do you deserve it when my 5-year old son could catch that ball? Maybe not, but it's a save.

I hate to say it, but I agree with the guy with the really cool shades.

Maybe we need to start recording defensive saves?