Lax Swami's anti-Big Red bias continues

[billhoward]

The Lax Swami, most important prognosticator in lacrosse (would you settle for mostself-important?) devotes 1225 words to this week's games. The Cornell-Penn game merits four: "The Swami likes Cornell." (See also the Yale-Princeton game where TLS opines that Princeton may have a better team than Cornell. Does the Swami's rankings relate to the school's distance from Fort Sumter?) I would say he's safe in saying that a loss to Princeton puts Yale in a position of likely not being able to win the Ivy League.

[quote LaxSwami]Saturday, March 31, 1:00 PM, Multi-Sport Field, Washington, DC

TV broadcast: 4:30 PM (delayed), Middle Atlantic Sports Network (MASN), DirecTV channel 626.
Radio: WNAV AM 1430 (Annapolis) with webcast; WFED AM 1050 (Washington) with webcast. WFED also offers cellular phone reception.

(Game times are approximate and subject to adjustment, so check schedules for changes. College radio is often hit or miss, and the Swami's media links may not always work).

1. Navy (#5) at Georgetown (#10)--(Saturday, March 31, 1:00 PM, Washington, DC)--DELAYED TV GAME--With North Carolina once again falling off the radar screens, and with Maryland struggling, Navy must win at Georgetown or beat Hopkins at Homewood Field if it wants an at-large invitation and/or respectable seeding in the NCAA Tournament. The easier of those options presents itself next Saturday in Washington. With their only notable win over schizophrenic North Carolina, the 2007 Mids are largely an unknown quantity. Georgetown will not wait to test Navy. The Hoya defense held an attack led by Matt Danowski and Zack Greer to a total of six goals. But the Mids' defense leads Division I. The key to this game is which Navy offense will show up? The one that scored 19 against North Carolina, or the one that scored six goals against Bucknell? The Swami likes Navy, but if the offense doesn't show up, the defense will have to play its best game of its 2007 campaign.  

2. Delaware (#11) at Duke (#6)--(Friday, March 30, 3:00 PM, Durham, NC)--Just how far apart are Duke and Delaware? Maybe not as far as most fans think. In games with two common opponents, Georgetown and St. Joseph's, the Blue Men don't look bad by comparison. Georgetown eked out a single goal win in Newark two weeks ago, then hosted Duke and lost 6-4. Both teams were big winners over St. Joe's: Duke by 18-4, and Delaware by 23-6. After giving up 11 goals in its first game, Duke has held all opponents to single digits. Delaware has only broken into double digits against Manhattan, St. Joe's, and Mount St. Mary's. So this game may boil down to whether Delaware can generate some offense. The Swami likes Duke, but Delaware should surprise no one this season, and two key players who missed the Hofstra game may be back in the lineup for the Blue Men.  

3. Penn State (unranked) at UMass (unranked)--(Saturday, March 31, 12 Noon, Amherst, MA)--UMass, last season's #2 team, has fallen upon hard times. The Minutemen, now with five losses, have beaten just two teams--which, collectively, had a single victory among them (at the time of the games)--and that was a win over winless Wagner. The problem? Scoring. The Minutemen are averaging about eight goals a game--a far cry from their average in 2006. The Swami likes Penn State.

4. Princeton (#3) at Yale (unranked)--(Saturday, March 31, 1:00 PM, New Haven, CT)--Is this outcome foretold? Yale was skunked by Cornell (19-8), and the Swami thinks that Princeton has a better team than the Big Red. Cornell won its tryst with the Bulldogs by pulling off a 13 goal run. When was the last time that happened? Despite the sick looking stats (Cornell took 48 shots in the game while Yale managed only 4 in the vital third quarter), the Swami is not giving up on the Eli. Yale has a good young team, and should comport itself better this weekend. But, if Yale has any pretensions as a playoff team in 2007, they had better be unleashed this weekend. With only Princeton, Albany, and (maybe) Maryland as competitive teams left on its schedule, its a cinch that a loss to Princeton puts Yale in the position of not being able to win the Ivy League and having to defeat probably both its remaining top opponents to have life in May. The Swami, nonetheless, likes Princeton.

5. Syracuse (#9) at Loyola (#14)--(Saturday, March 31, 1:00 PM, Baltimore, MD)--TV GAME--This should be a better game than many think. Loyola is improving after a puzzling start this year. The Greyhounds seemed to be coalescing late last season, and only lost 2.5% of their 2006 scoring. Nevertheless, Loyola managed to lose to Towson at home and Notre Dame on the road. Significantly, though, no team has broken into double digit figures on the Greyhounds this season. The Swami senses an upset here and likes the Greyhounds.  

6. Johns Hopkins (#2) at North Carolina (#16)--(Saturday, March 31, 2:00 PM, Chapel Hill, NC)--The Swami refuses to be drawn into the "what's going on with North Carolina?" debate. With a school that is highly attractive to prospective students, gets top-notch recruits, and offers a program that has a National Championship history, why can't this team at least be consistent? Against Navy, the Tarheels looked clueless; against Maryland, incompetent. The Tarheels have 229 shots on goal so far this season, against 179 by their opponents. But they also have only 88 saves against 135 by their opponents. Yes, UNC gets good recruits, but, many times, they seem to be the wrong players in the wrong positions. Unless the Tarheel offense can hold on to the ball, this game will be over in the first quarter. The Swami likes Hopkins.

7. Maryland (#12) at Virginia (#1)--(Saturday, March 31, 3:00 PM, Charlottesville, VA)--It's often said that, in the ACC, any team can beat any other team regardless of past performance. Will that hold true with the Terps and Cavaliers this weekend? Naw. Virginia sails.  

8. Penn (unranked) at Cornell (#4)--(Saturday, March 31, 3:00 PM, Ithaca, NY)--The Swami likes Cornell.

9. Army (#8) at Colgate (unranked)--(Saturday, March 31, 3:00 PM, Hamilton, NY)--This is oing to be a tough game. It's tempting to take Colgate. But Army has been defying the experts all season. The Black Knights are adept at finding different ways to win each game. The Swami will go with the visitors.  
10. Fairfield (unranked) at Hobart (unranked)--(Saturday, March 31, 3:30 PM, Saturday, March 31, Geneva, NY)--Hobart is halfway into a losing season (3-4). But the Statesmen are only six goals away from being undefeated. They lost to both Bucknell and Rutgers by a single goal, and to Syracuse and Georgetown by two goals. Fairfield was undefeated until it met Penn State last week. Even though the Stags are stepping into the belly of the beast in hostile Geneva, NY, the Swami likes Fairfield--but only narrowly. This will be one of the best games of the week.  


11. Harvard (unranked) at Denver (unranked)--(Saturday, March 31, 9:30 PM [EDT], Denver, CO)--TV GAME--The Swami's intuition warns that this might be the tightest contest of the week. These two teams share only one common opponent: Stony Brook. Harvard lost to Stony Brook by a score of 13-8 on the road. Denver lost to the Seawolves at home, 11-8. Both of these squads are rebuilding from playoff years. Everyone was high on Harvard this season because, as the Swami predicted, the Crimson made the playoffs in 2006. After going 0-4, then narrowly defeating Penn (7-6), everyone then got down on (1-5) Harvard. Well, the pendulum has swung too far in both directions. Harvard will win this contest. This is a TV game. Watch it.  [/quote]
http://www.laxswami.com/tw07-05.html  <-- set your speakers to mute, or least get the dog out of the room, before clicking. He created the music to repel wood-boring insects.

[ugarte]

[quote billhoward]The Lax Swami, most important prognosticator in lacrosse (would you settle for mostself-important?) devotes 1225 words to this week's games. The Cornell-Penn game merits four: "The Swami likes Cornell." [/quote]
It is clear that the Swami thinks that Cornell is overrated - hardly a crime, though a view that has him stuck in last place in his own competition. I don't know that the terse review is much evidence of bias. He not only picked Cornell, he made it his 10 point game. I think the paucity of analysis is because he thinks the game isn't going to be close.

At the same time, his Princeton support is explained a little more at the bottom of the page. (All rankings Laxswami's) #3 Princeton has two losses: to #1 Virginia and #2 JHU. And he's got Cornell at #4 now. He, like probably everyone, thinks the JHU loss to Albany was an abberation. If the scrimmage against Cornell is to be believed, he's probably right.

[DeltaOne81]

Scrimmages mean nothing. We didn't have Siebald and the coaches are playing around with different matchups, etc. Okay, well, they mean *something*, but it is has very little to do with the final score.

I do agree, ugarte, that his paucity of analysis is not an indication of bias really, and is much more likely because he doesn't feel it will be close.

Still, Swami this season has been southern bias personified. Check his own personal top 16 (?) list. In Cornell's case, he ignored the quantity of wins and comments on us only having one 'good' win. Of course, apparently two good loses (Princeton) is better than a good win? Oh, speaking of good wins, what about Albany? In that case he ignores good wins when it doesn't suit him.

Is Cornell overrated at #1? Distinctly possible, or even probable. Right now we're playing like one of the best and very few others have stepped up. Only UVa may has a very legitimate claim to #1. Maybe Albany. Fact is, if I were (so self-important as) to do my own top 10 list, I probably wouldn't put Cornell #1, but its his reasoning and contradiction in reasoning.

Put it this way, if Cornell had lost to both UVa and JHU, even by just one goal, would he actually comment on that as a positive? I highly doubt it. Only Princeton is southern enough for that to be a good thing.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote ugarte]If the scrimmage against Cornell is to be believed, he's probably right.[/quote]
If last year's Cornell scrimmage against Hopkins were to be believed, we'd be defending national champions now.

[BillCharlton]

Until we win the title, or at least get to the championship game and give a good showing, self-proclaimed pundits will discount our regular season accomplishments. When was the last time we won the title? Almost 30 years ago. Princeton has won a number of titles since we last won, so it is not surprising that they get the benefit of the doubt. Virginia and Hopkins have had recent successes, as well. Just as with hockey, we have to produce the ultimate result before we earn the respect we feel we deserve.

[billhoward]

Swami stands for a half-century of southern disbelief that the sport of lacrosse can be played competently north of Baltimore. When it came time for an NCAA playoff at last -- rather than a poll deciding whether this year to annoint Maryland, Hopkins, Navy or perhaps Virginia -- the first NCAA title was won by Cornell and the north final (Cornell 17, Army 16) made for an anti-climactic final win over a much weaker Maryland team. Had the late 1960s Harkness/Moran era allowed for playoffs, it's likely Cornell and not the South's old school network would have won a couple of them, too. When Cornell went through a rough stretch, Princeton and Syracuse more than picked up the slack.

To give Johnny Reb credit: They do pack the stands right well in and around Maryland.

I'm waiting for the Cornell-Princeton-Syracuse-UMass (or Army or Hofstra) Final Four. Gotta happen one of these times.

[Hillel Hoffmann]

For cryin' out loud, if there's any sports-related Web site that screams out "THIS IS ENTERTAINMENT, DO NOT TAKE ME SERIOUSLY," it's Swami's. Besides, it's not exactly a Southern bias. It's more like an I-Love-the-Naval-Academy-and-Mock-Everything-Else bias. For example, I dig the way he pees on all things Hopkins. That's such a rare and beautiful thing for someone who's based in Baltimore -- I have no problem putting up with his dismissal of Cornell in exchange for that. I remember times when those in the Suthrin lax aristocracy loathed Swami because he was vaguely pro-Syracuse, or at least teased Hopkins and Maryland more than Syracuse.

Edit: Also, it's worth remembering how important he has been as source of lacrosse information and entertainment, particularly in the 1990s, before there was a reasonably wide range of lax resources online. He would post game stories and invaluable tips about recruiting at a time when it was almost impossible to find info anywhere else.

[DeltaOne81]

Okay Hillel, you're right, it shouldn't be taken too seriously.

But that doesn't mean putting Princeton over Conell for now still isn't ludicrous at this point (note: that doesn't mean they can't beat us, or that they won't go further in the end, or anything else - all it means it that based on current evidence, there's no way you can say that here and now).

[JasonN95]

And he's at it again.

In the "Big Boys" competition (if your not familiar with it, it's several lax "pundits" that pick the outcome of a select group of each weekend's games as a season long contest).  For this week, everyone picked Cornell over Harvard.  All but two put their confidence on that outcome at 11 (the highest possible); the other two had there confidence set at 10 and 2. Swami was the 2.  Of course, if Harvard does beat an over confident Cornell, he'll be able to say he had a feeling this game was a trap (insert "It's a trap!!!" graphic here) and almost look like the lax genius he thinks he is. ::panic:: :-P

[KeithK]

[quote DeltaOne81]...all it means it that based on current evidence, there's no way you can say that here and now.[/quote]If you restrict yourself to considering only game results as evidence you're right.  But if you include other things like recent history, how teams played, opponents, it's possible you could come up with another conclusions.  Now, these other factors may have less relevance than record and some may be subjective but they're still evidence of a sort.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote KeithK][quote DeltaOne81]...all it means it that based on current evidence, there's no way you can say that here and now.[/quote]
If you restrict yourself to considering only game results as evidence you're right.[/quote]

Forgive me if this made me chuckle. Oh no, restrict it to only game results. How unfair

But if you include other things like recent history, how teams played, opponents, it's possible you could come up with another conclusions.  Now, these other factors may have less relevance than record and some may be subjective but they're still evidence of a sort.

Isn't 'recent history' called bias? They played well for several years a few years back, so therefore we give them more credit now? What does history have anything to do with this season? I'm not saying that this doesn't creep up in all polls - absolutely it does - I'm saying that the make it outweigh numerous other factors is completely indefensible.

How are 'how teams played' and 'opponents' not game results? That's completely fair. And I don't see how you can put Princeton ahead using either of those to date.

Let me quickly cover the comparisons:
- Cornell has the better record (for starters)
- Cornell has the higher RPI (#1 vs. #14) (not from lax power, see below - from lax power is #1 vs. #16)
- Cornell has the higher SoS! (#5 vs. #7 on what formula laxpower uses)
- using the RPI SoS fomula, Cornell is #3 to Princeton's #23!
- Cornell has the higher modified SOS, using only top 10 opponents, as used by the selection committee - although right now that's same as SoS as no one has played more than 10 games
- Cornell has more quality wins against top 15 RPI teams - 1 against 1-5, 1 against 6-10, versus Princeton's zero.
- Cornell has the higher computer ranking on lax power (however that is computed), #1 vs #2
- Finally, in the one common opponent, Cornell scores 19 goals and won by 11 (was up by 14(?) before the scrubs came in). Princeton won by 2 and scored only 5.

Again, none of this means that it will continue. That we haven't been playing over our head or Princeton under. That we won't stumble and they excel. Who knows about the future. All I'm saying is to date, is there is no reasonable rationale.

FYI, here is the site I used for statistics that were not from laxpower:
http://lacrosse.homelinux.net/rpi

Its good because they actually explain the equations and they match typically known numbers, unlike the lax power one.

[ugarte]

[quote JasonN95]And he's at it again.

In the "Big Boys" competition (if your not familiar with it, it's several lax "pundits" that pick the outcome of a select group of each weekend's games as a season long contest).  For this week, everyone picked Cornell over Harvard.  All but two put their confidence on that outcome at 11 (the highest possible); the other two had there confidence set at 10 and 2. Swami was the 2.  Of course, if Harvard does beat an over confident Cornell, he'll be able to say he had a feeling this game was a trap (insert "It's a trap!!!" graphic here) and almost look like the lax genius he thinks he is. ::panic:: :-P[/quote]
I'm not sure why, but I think he is trying to make up ground by being an iconoclast. He "knows" that Cornell will win but he's hoping to make up ground by getting big points from games that others don't have and taking chances on the sure things. If he were in first, Cornell would be a 10 or 11.

[KeithK]

I wasn't trying to say that only using game results is unfair.  I'm just saying that it's not unreasonable to use other factors when making predictions about the future.  It's not necessarily bias.  If a team has great paper talent, good coaching and a long term record of winning over many seasons it's not unreasonable to expect them to be very successful going forward even if they started 3-2.

Example: If Minnesota starts next hockey season with losses in 3 of 4 games I will still expect them to finish with a 20 win season, because they have proved to be an excellent team under Don Lucia. I don't think this is bias because lord knows I don't want the Gophers to be successful.  It's just expectation.

BTW - I'm not saying that Swami is right.  I'm just saying that expecting success out of successful programs isn't necessarily bias.  It might be, but doesn't have to be.

Keith

P.S. for the record I meant win-loss when I said "game results".  I didn't mean the details of the game.

[ugarte]

[quote DeltaOne81]Isn't 'recent history' called bias?[/quote]
No, it's called evidence. There wasn't so much turnover on Princeton's team that using last year's results as evidence of how they did in 2006 provides no information about how good they are in 2007. You might be wrong, but you also might be wrong if you think that the score in the Cornell-Duke game accurately represents the relative strengths of the teams.

They played well for several years a few years back, so therefore we give them more credit now? What does history have anything to do with this season? I'm not saying that this doesn't creep up in all polls - absolutely it does - I'm saying that the make it outweigh numerous other factors is completely indefensible.

Polls during a season should reasonably reflect a combination of how teams have done and how you think they will do. Because they are actually meaningless, the word "indefensible" is more than a little strong. The only time that looking to 2006 or finding excuses ("starting goalie was injured") for wins/losses so they get deemphasized is indefensible is during tournament selection. I don't even mind if the latter factor is used in tournament seeding.

Let me quickly cover the comparisons:

All of your comparisons were interesting but they don't inexorably lead to the conclusion that Cornell is better or that placing Princeton ahead of Cornell is evidence of bias. With all of your stats, there are still two things to consider: First, Cornell had stronger opponents in all of it's wins than Princeton did in all of its wins - but Princeton's two losses were, at the time, against the top two teams in Swami's estimation. Second, the Swami's rankings are forward-looking; he isn't arguing about who has played the best so far. He is trying to predict who will be on top when the season ends. Princeton is ahead of Cornell because he fully expects Princeton to beat Cornell when they play and when they do, if nothing changes between now and then, he will pick Princeton.

Given the amount of lax that I am sure that he watches, if he has seen the teams (or their opponents) play, his ranking is anything but "indefensible".

That said, the comment that "Cornell's best win is over Duke, by a single goal" is sort of stupid when Swami has Duke as the #4 team in the country. Neither of the teams above Cornell has a stronger win than that, score be damned - especially because everyone knows that a standout game by the Duke goalie kept Cornell's one-goal win from being a blowout. It would be more honest to just write "They have played very well but I just don't think that they are as good as their record and Princeton - or someone else - will prove it in the next couple of weeks" instead of coming up with a silly bit of datum to justify his ranking.

[DeltaOne81]

All of your comparisons were interesting but they don't inexorably lead to the conclusion that Cornell is better or that placing Princeton ahead of Cornell is evidence of bias.

For the record, I don't know or care whether its bias or just stupid. My point is only that it flies in the face of this season thus far.

Princeton's losses, *at the time* may have been against the top 2 teams, but the Blue Jays have since proven to be less than the top team that everyone though they'd be. Sans that, they only have a 1 goal loss to UVa. If the weight of that alone is enough to get you #2, then Drexel should be #-1.

No, it's called evidence. There wasn't so much turnover on Princeton's team that using last year's results as evidence of how they did in 2006 provides no information about how good they are in 2007. You might be wrong, but you also might be wrong if you think that the score in the Cornell-Duke game accurately represents the relative strengths of the teams.

And last year's Hurricanes won the Stanley Cup < cough, choke, gag >. Teams can easily drop off while keeping much of the same staff, if they lose a missing ingredient or two, or were a bit extra lucky last year. I can't think of a single instance in sport where last season's result impact your ranking or seeding this year. Its that way for a reason, IMHO. I'm not saying you have to ignore history entirely (although I think you probably should), but at some point, it doesn't overcome numerous different facts about this team, this year.

That said, the comment that "Cornell's best win is over Duke, by a single goal" is sort of stupid when Swami has Duke as the #4 team in the country. Neither of the teams above Cornell has a stronger win than that, score be damned - especially because everyone knows that a standout game by the Duke goalie kept Cornell's one-goal win from being a blowout. It would be more honest to just write "They have played very well but I just don't think that they are as good as their record and Princeton - or someone else - will prove it in the next couple of weeks" instead of coming up with a silly bit of datum to justify his ranking.

Exactly. He's giving more credit to Princeton for losing twice than to Cornell for winning once. And exactly who were we supposed to beat that's better than Duke? The teams we didn't schedule?

If he said that it was based on a hunch or Princeton's team on paper, that could at least be respected. But his own argument, as you said, is 'stupid'.

Btw, the only reason this bugs me is not because I expect us to go undefeated - if I did, I'd just sit back and let him keep being wrong. I still figure we'll lose a game or two this year. Maybe Princeton, or Cuse at the dome, or Hobart, or a 'bad' loss somewhere in Ivy play. And if we don't get credit for playing very very well thusfar, when are we going to get credit for it? Oh yeah, maybe next year he can let our play thusfar this year boost our ranking :-P