Lacrosse is a sport that's fairly new to the mainstream - if you even consider it to have arrived - and considering advanced statistics are a niche market for a sport as popular as basketball, it stands to reason that they're practically non-existent for "the fastest game on two feet."
Enter Syracuse blog Orange:44, which tried to establish a possession-based method of analysis for the sport. This is similar to tempo-free statistics in basketball, though the possessions aren't equal for each side, as faceoffs and the ride/clear game combine to mean teams won't each possess the ball the same number of times. The method is imperfect, and record-keeping in lacrosse isn't widespread (particularly at the club level, where I'm focusing in this post), but it's better than nothing, no?
Without further ado, the stats are derived like so:
- Possessions = Faceoff wins + clearing attempts + opponent failed clears.
- Efficiency = Goals/Possessions.
For discussion of why those equations are what they are, visit the above-linked Orange:44 post.
| Arizona |
| Arizona | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 9 | Faceoff Wins | 15 |
| Clearing | 7-18 | Clearing | 18-26 |
| Possessions | 35 | Possessions | 52 |
| Goals | 5 | Goals | 15 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .143 | Offensive Efficiency | .288 |
In the opening game of the season, Michigan dominated possession (as we'll see, that will be a theme throughout the season), and also was more efficient in scoring goals on each of those possessions than were the Wildcats.
| Arizona State |
| Arizona State | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 4 | Faceoff Wins | 21 |
| Clearing | 18-36 | Clearing | 17-25 |
| Possessions | 48 | Possessions | 64 |
| Goals | 10 | Goals | 11 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .208 | Offensive Efficiency | .172 |
Another theme we'll see over the course of the season: Michigan is less efficient on a per-possession basis than the top-flight competition that they face.
| BYU |
|---|
| BYU | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 8 | Faceoff Wins | 17 |
| Clearing | 13-21 | Clearing | 24-30 |
| Possessions | 35 | Possessions | 55 |
| Goals | 9 | Goals | 13 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .257 | Offensive Efficiency | .236 |
Again, the Wolverines were less efficient than the opponent on a goals-per-possession basis, but dominated possession in order to come away with a comfortable win.
| Simon Fraser |
|---|
| Simon Fraser | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 10 | Faceoff Wins | 27 |
| Clearing | 16-33 | Clearing | 27-29 |
| Possessions | 45 | Possessions | 73 |
| Goals | 10 | Goals | 22 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .222 | Offensive Efficiency | .301 |
In the first home game of the year, Michigan dominated possession once more (look at that gaudy number on clears), and was also more efficient than the opponent.
| Eastern Michigan |
| Eastern Michigan | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 8 | Faceoff Wins | 17 |
| Clearing | 8-25 | Clearing | 16-18 |
| Possessions | 35 | Possessions | 52 |
| Goals | 2 | Goals | 19 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .057 | Offensive Efficiency | .365 |
Eastern Michigan was terrible (as were most of Michigan's CCLA opponents), so this number isn't particularly meaningful going forward.
| Oregon |
| Oregon | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 5 | Faceoff Wins | 7 |
| Clearing | 16-27 | Clearing | 21-30 |
| Possessions | 41 | Possessions | 48 |
| Goals | 4 | Goals | 5 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .098 | Offensive Efficiency | .104 |
This game took place on a horrible, windy, snowy day in Dallas, and both teams' offenses were unable to put the ball in the back of the net with any efficiency. The Wolverines won on an overtime goal.
| Minnesota-Duluth |
| Minnesota-Duluth | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 11 | Faceoff Wins | 13 |
| Clearing | 12-22 | Clearing | 13-24 |
| Possessions | 44 | Possessions | 47 |
| Goals | 7 | Goals | 14 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .159 | Offensive Efficiency | .298 |
This was the closest any opponent came all year to Michigan in terms of sheer number of possessions, but the Wolverines were still able to come away with the win because they were much more efficient offensively.
| Western Michigan |
| Western Michigan | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 12 | Faceoff Wins | 26 |
| Clearing | 14-26 | Clearing | 21-25 |
| Possessions | 42 | Possessions | 63 |
| Goals | 5 | Goals | 29 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .119 | Offensive Efficiency | .460 |
CCLA competition. Make mental adjustments accordingly.
| Central Michigan |
| Central Michigan | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 2 | Faceoff Wins | 22 |
| Clearing | 8-20 | Clearing | 15-18 |
| Possessions | 25 | Possessions | 52 |
| Goals | 1 | Goals | 19 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .040 | Offensive Efficiency | .365 |
This was by far Michigan's best game of the year - though again, keep in mind that the level of competition was low - dominating possession and efficiency.
| Colorado |
| Colorado | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 8 | Faceoff Wins | 18 |
| Clearing | 19-29 | Clearing | 20-27 |
| Possessions | 44 | Possessions | 55 |
| Goals | 12 | Goals | 10 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .273 | Offensive Efficiency | .182 |
In Michigan's lone loss of the year, they had a sizable advantage in possession, but were unable to put the ball in the net - mostly on account of a stellar day by Buffs goalie Bradley MacNee - whereas Colorado had one of the most efficient performances of any offense against Michigan's defense.
| Colorado State |
| Colorado State | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 5 | Faceoff Wins | 15 |
| Clearing | 18-31 | Clearing | 19-27 |
| Possessions | 44 | Possessions | 55 |
| Goals | 6 | Goals | 10 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .136 | Offensive Efficiency | .182 |
Michigan rebounded from their first loss in more than two years by sticking to their gameplan: dominate possession. They were also more efficient than the Rams on this day.
| Purdue |
| Purdue | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 4 | Faceoff Wins | 30 |
| Clearing | 15-29 | Clearing | 22-24 |
| Possessions | 35 | Possessions | 68 |
| Goals | 2 | Goals | 28 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .057 | Offensive Efficiency | .412 |
Good day against bad competition.
| Michigan State |
| Michigan State | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 7 | Faceoff Wins | 15 |
| Clearing | 16-34 | Clearing | 18-22 |
| Possessions | 45 | Possessions | 55 |
| Goals | 8 | Goals | 11 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .178 | Offensive Efficiency | .200 |
In the first matchup between the in-state rivals, Michigan won the possession battle and was slightly more efficient than the opponent. That's a great recipe for success.
| Miami OH |
| Miami OH | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 7 | Faceoff Wins | 24 |
| Clearing | 11-26 | Clearing | 14-18 |
| Possessions | 37 | Possessions | 57 |
| Goals | 5 | Goals | 23 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .137 | Offensive Efficiency | .404 |
CCLA Competition.
| Michigan State |
| Michigan State | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 9 | Faceoff Wins | 18 |
| Clearing | 14-19 | Clearing | 14-22 |
| Possessions | 36 | Possessions | 45 |
| Goals | 11 | Goals | 13 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .306 | Offensive Efficiency | .289 |
Michigan, per usual, won the possession battle - but they were actually less successful on their clears than were the Spartans. This game was won at the faceoff X, as Stats was slightly more efficient offensively, as well. State's great goalie, Dean Hall, had a hand in that.
| Texas State |
| Texas State | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 6 | Faceoff Wins | 20 |
| Clearing | 13-32 | Clearing | 23-24 |
| Possessions | 39 | Possessions | 63 |
| Goals | 3 | Goals | 19 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .077 | Offensive Efficiency | .302 |
The opening game of the MCLA National Tournament was a demonstration of the enormous gap between the #1 team and the #16 (ish) team in the country.
| BYU |
| BYU | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 7 | Faceoff Wins | 24 |
| Clearing | 11-26 | Clearing | 14-18 |
| Possessions | 37 | Possessions | 57 |
| Goals | 5 | Goals | 23 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .137 | Offensive Efficiency | .404 |
Though BYU is a national power, and gave Michigan a (somewhat) competitive game earlier in the year, Michigan rode the Cougars into a horrible clearing percentage, owned faceoffs, and nearly tripled up the Cougars' efficiency mark en route to a dominant win.
| Chapman |
| Chapman | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 11 | Faceoff Wins | 14 |
| Clearing | 9-19 | Clearing | 16-23 |
| Possessions | 37 | Possessions | 47 |
| Goals | 10 | Goals | 12 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .270 | Offensive Efficiency | .255 |
Michigan was less efficient than Chapman (unsurprising, given the wealth of offensive talent the Panthers had last year), and only had a slight edge on faceoffs. The riding game was the key to this win.
| Arizona State |
| Arizona State | Michigan |
| Faceoff Wins | 9 | Faceoff Wins | 17 |
| Clearing | 15-23 | Clearing | 15-16 |
| Possessions | 33 | Possessions | 41 |
| Goals | 11 | Goals | 12 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .333 | Offensive Efficiency | .293 |
The national championship game was an instant classic, as ASU scored with 34 seconds left to bring the game within a single mark. The Sun Devils were very efficient, but Michigan's typical advantage in possession helped them win the day.
So What Does it All Mean?
So, uh, we've seen Michigan's possession and efficiency numbers over the course of the year, so what conclusions can we draw from the numbers?
- The CCLA is bad. Outside of Michigan and Michigan State, the teams in the CCLA were very bad last year. There's been some conference reorganization, but don't expect the Wolverines to get many serious challenges in the league except from Michigan State.
- Michigan dominates on faceoffs and clears. The Wolverines won the battle at the center of the field in every single game, typically in dominating fashion, for a year-end win percentage over 70. They also had a better clear% in nearly every game (thanks in part to the trademark 10-man ride), to dominate possessions for the season.
- Against good competition, Michigan doesn't have an efficiency edge. Arizona State (twice), BYU, Colorado, Michigan State, and Chapman were all able to operate on a more efficient level than Michigan in individual games this year. However, only Colorado was able to get the win, as Michigan dominated possession.
So, now we know that, while the Wolverines had high and low moments in efficient offensive play, that's not how they won games. They also had high and low moments in defensive play, but again, that's not the driving force behind the 3-year run of 58-1. It's dominating in possession, both on the ride/clear game and on the faceoff.
No comments:
Post a Comment