[Lax] Syracuse @ Cornell, 4/9

[jeh25]

You mean this post: ;-)

http://elf.hockey.cornell.edu/read.php?f=1&i=6363&t=6288

Anyway, at the time I meant to post and point out that a 8-5 loss to ranked and still undefeated team in week 1 wasn't such a big deal.  Maybe if I had actually written that post I could have cleared up your confusion.

Of course, it was hard to follow a train of thought in that uber-thread.

[Beeeej]

Now I'm planning on being at the Princeton game, yes.  :-)

Oh, and if you encounter the same hesitation again, just stand near a bunch of Cornell people and say, "Are any of you from the eLynah Forum?  A) Yes B) No C) Bitter, Cranky Old Man."

Beeeej

[jeh25]

ROTFLAO:

Right?
Re: SU should still be ranked #1
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:44:55 GMT
From:

You're right. It was weird. The entire game, Syracuse was sloshing around in puddles, the rain was pouring down on them, the wind howling and it was cold. But Cornell was playing in sunshine, dry conditions and 70 degrees! Those Cornell engineering students are GENIUSES!

That's "'Cuse", as in "Excuse"

[jtwcornell91]

Shouldn't that be "C) A Crotchety Old Fart"?

[jy3]

great game to listen to, wish i had been there like i was 2 years a go for the other upset.
what can u do.
way to go RED!!

[Al DeFlorio]

The LaxPower computer ratings have at last been updated with yesterday's score and, lo and behold, Syracuse remains #1, with an 8-2 record against the sixth strongest schedule in the country, while Cornell, with an 8-1 record against the seventh strongest schedule in the country, is ranked #9.  Hofstra, with a 7-3 record against the eighth toughest schedule, is ranked #6.

They need a KRACH lecture from John. ::help::

See:  http://www.laxpower.com/update02/binmen/rating01.php

Interesting note:  Three assists for Cornell d-men Tuesday--two for DeBlois and one for McClay.

[zg88]

Man, that computer ranking is bizarre -- which is why I prefer the "Coaches-Computer Rating" (it has Cornell at #7!).  :-D

http://www.laxpower.com/update02/binmen/ccr01.php

(I wonder if -- assuming we beat Dartmouth ::uhoh:: -- next week's coaches poll will have a similar rise in ranking for the Big Red...)

[jtwcornell91]

It's understandable that the power ratings don't line up with strength of schedule and won-lost record, since they focus on goal differential (apparently without regard for wins and losses, so if you lost 9 1-goal games and beat a decent team 20-2, you could still be doing pretty well in the power ratings).  Syracuse probably gets a big push from some of their big wins (like 19-4 over Hobart).

Several possible shortcomings of a score-based rating system come to mind (favoring offensive teams over defensive ones, not reducing to winning percentage when applied to a round-robin schedule, potentially being dominated by a few blowouts), but I haven't read the description of the lacrosse power ratings carefully, so I don't know if it suffers from them.  Anyway, I think the other components in the BCS-like formula are supposed to balance it out.  Also, with a short season, it's probably insufficient to look only at outcomes of games without considering extra data like margin of victory.

[zg88]

One of the problems with LaxPower is the confusing array of ratings systems.  I think I've got it figgered out:

First, you have the basic "computer rating", which is based solely on the old "power rating" (Cornell: #9):

http://www.laxpower.com/update02/binmen/rating01.php

Power rating is a comparison of actual game scores and predicted game scores (based on power rating differential between the two teams), adjusted for home-field advantage.  So, while a blow-out could potentially skew things, it's usually moderated by the fact that it's being compared to the predicted result.

Using the 19-4 Syracuse blow-out of Hobart:  While a 15-goal margin is indeed impressive, it's effect is not quite so dramatic because it's compared to the predicted margin of 10 goals (so it gets factored as a "+5" game for Syracuse and a "-5" game for Hobart).

LaxPower's Syracuse page:  http://www.laxpower.com/update02/binmen/XSYRXX.PHP


This focus on evaluating performance based on goal differential is, in effect, an encouragement to "run up the score".  An example:  Cornell is punished heavily by the system for "only" blowing out Canisius by a "mere" 11 goals, not by the "predicted" 17 goals.  Geez...  Bloodthirsty bastards!  ;-)

(On the other hand, the Big Red are rightfully penalized for only beating Colgate by a single goal, rather than the "predicted" (and, in this case, I think fair) margin of 8 goals.  So, I guess it goes both ways...  (My apologies to the deep thinkers who are saying, "DUH!!!")  (And, if I'm full of crap here, then please set me straight!)

LaxPower's Cornell page:  http://www.laxpower.com/update02/binmen/XCORXX.PHP

(BTW:  I just noticed that LaxPower is using the somewhat-widely-reported erroneous score of "15-12" in the CU-SU game -- I wonder how much of a difference that mistake makes in the ratings... (I'm not even gonna try!))


LaxPower's "featured" ranking system is the new "coaches-computer ratings", which combines the USILA/STX coaches poll with the computer rating (power rating) and other factors (SOS, QWF, Loss).  This is supposed to be modeled on football's "BCS" rating system.  (Cornell: #7):

http://www.laxpower.com/update02/binmen/ccr01.php


Here's how Cornell stacks up in the various LaxPower ratings systems:

Coaches-Computer Rating: ......... 7
Coaches Poll: .............................. 9
Computer Rating (Power Rating):  9
Strength of Schedule: ................. 7
Quality Win Factor: ..................... 5
Loss Factor: ................................ 2

NOTES:

-- SOS (to my surprise) is not determined by the average of opponents' power ratings.  It uses the "BCS method" (based on opponents' win/loss records (& opp-opp W/L) -- but the data for this seems to be lagging).  (Cornell benefits here, as their opponents' records (BCS) are somewhat more favorable than their power ratings. (Among the top 13 BCS-ranked teams, Cornell is #7 but has the lowest "average opponents' power rating".))
http://www.laxpower.com/update02/binmen/sos01.php

-- QWF:  a "quality win" is defined as a win over a "quality opponent" (duh!) -- in this case, one who is ranked in the coaches poll.  (Again, Cornell does well:  wins against #'s 1, 14, 17, & 18 (too bad Hahvahd has dropped out of the rankings!);  loss against #4;  yet to play #'s 11 & 19.  Of course, the win over Syracuse (#1) helps most of all! (59% of our total QWF))  :-)
http://www.laxpower.com/update02/binmen/qwf01.php

-- Loss Factor:  weird.  Cornell is #2 in this one, but it seems that this high ranking has as much to do with Cornell's "high" position in the alphabet as it does with their number of losses.  Five teams have one loss each, but Cornell is first within that group (C-J-L-M-V) because of its "C".  Poor Virginia, last within the group, comes in at a lowly #6...  This seems stupid to me.  Can't they use something other than alphabetic order as a tie-breaker?!?!  ::nut::  Even worse:  Army, with 4 losses, is at #17;  UMBC, also with 4 losses, is at #30.  Oh, yeah, that's fair...  ::rolleyes::  (Advice to North Carolina:  drop the "North"! (which they do amongst themselves, anyway...))
http://www.laxpower.com/update02/binmen/loss01.php


A note about UPSETS:  Due to the power ratings differential between Cornell (97.0) and Syracuse (99.9) now being less than 3.0, this dramatic upset doesn't even qualify to be listed in LaxPower's upset rankings:

http://www.laxpower.com/update02/binmen/upset01.php

(This is apparently a change in criteria from last year, when there was no such "3-pt. rule" for inclusion on the upset page.)  Yeah, I know... ::snore:: ... sorry... :-P

[kingpin248]

From the latest "This Week," without the annoying music:

At Ithaca...

Five minutes before the Syracuse-Cornell lacrosse game, cascading sheets of rain pelted Schoellkopf Field last Tuesday. It washed away the detritus left by an earlier dirty snow, along with the playoff hopes of (most likely) an ACC team. For on this day 2,645 fans witnessed an upset of major proportions which is sending shock waves through all of Division I--Cornell upended mighty Syracuse.

A game of streaks, despite the fact that Syracuse never led, began with the Big Red scoring on six of their first seven shots, only to watch in dismay as Syracuse shut out the Cornell offense without a single shot in the second quarter to tie the game, 6-6, at the half.

After knotting once again, 7-7, in the third period, Cornell began another run, this time winning 8 consecutive face-offs.

At 8:23 into the third quarter, Cornell's Mike Riordan took the ball behind the crease, dodged to the front, and scored on an outward-bound dive shot. This was Riordan's first career goal and it is the Swami's "Play of the Week". From that point, Cornell never looked back.

The Big Red were ranked #10 going into this contest. In February the Swami predicted a #7 ranking for the Big Red. Dartmouth and Princeton are next.

The Syracuse lacrosse message board has not been the same since this result was posted. Being composed, in part, of pseudo-fans who brag about their defense "owning" various and sundry of the opponents' attack, they were no doubt surprised to learn that their team was not sufficiently perspicacious enough to purchase the chattel indenture of Cornell freshman Sean Greenhalgh. Mr. Greenhalgh, no doubt offended by this rebuke, promptly vented his indignation by scoring six times on that very same defense. The Ivyman, while not exactly one of the most honored of all Cornell alumni, promptly emailed the Swami stating that Mr. Greenhalgh now "owned" the entire Cruiser defense, which is now for sale under the exclusive agency of Ivy Defense Services, Inc. Any bidders?

That Sean Greenhalgh is the Swami's "Player of the Week" goes without saying. Cornell freshman Justin Redd also added four goals and two assists to what was truly a team effort. Congratulations Cornell.

[Al DeFlorio]

Anyone know who Glatzel covered in Tuesday's game?

[jtwcornell91]

Wow, someone should let this Swami character know that big words are more impressive when used in grammatically well-constructed sentences.  "not sufficiently perspicacious enough"? ::rolleyes::

[zg88]

From "Laximus", one of the prognosticators at Swami's site, a comparison of this year's team with the ones from the glory days in the mid/late-70's... (a trip down memory lane for the older folks (yes, I'm including you in that group, Hillel!) :-D ):

What can you say about Cornell? They did it again (as predicted.) Does this team remind anyone of some teams from the 70's? Big Red has great scoring from a kid from St. Catherine's (French?)....great feeds and scoring from a LI guy (McEneaney?)...a big-game goalie (Mackesey)...a bulldog FO guy (Lasda?)...a middie who can light it up (Marino?)....defenders roaming the crease (Devine, Katz, Kane?) etc., etc.

IIRC, this "Laximus" guy was the only one of Swami's stable of (9?) lax-gurus to correctly call the Cornell-Syracuse upset.

While my own memory of the mid/late-'70's is a little fuzzy, this team's giving me '87-style vibrations... (minus the Goldstein earthquake, of course).

[Beeeej]

Man, I hate it when someone picks on somebody else's grammar.

Beeeej