NESCAC 2010

Started by Becks, July 04, 2010, 03:50:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

2xfaux

I appreciate high standards and I admire the elite academics and atheletics of all the NESCAC schools.  My Connecticut relatives disagree with me strongly when I suggest that elite can become effete in the blink of an eye.  That is why I have been exiled to Pennsylvania.

I checked with my wife and she agrees that I have lost touch with reality.  She claims that it dates back to the last Newport Folk Festival in July of 1969.  Who am I to argue.  Several years ago when we took our youngest daughter to Middletown and New London to look at schools I opted out of the side trip to Newport.  How long is the statute of limitations in Rhode Island?

So, if not Wesleyan, then ???

I look forward to the rest of your NESCAC analysis.

2xfaux

Becks

#16
Bowdoin

2009 League Results: 4-5-0 (6); GF: 11 (5), GA: 12 (6), GD: -1 (6)
2008 League Results: 4-3-2 (4); GF: 15 (3), GA: 12 (5), GD: +3 (4)
2007 League Results: 6-3-0 (3); GF: 19 (3), GA: 12 (6), GD: +7 (3)
2006 League Results: 4-4-1 (6); GF: 21 (1), GA: 18 (8), GD: +3 (5)
2005 League Results: 6-3-0 (3); GF: 20 (2), GA: 10 (4), GD: +10 (2)

Bowdoin's league results, GF and GD have all declined significantly over the last 3 years.  GA has remained constant; the culprit has been GF.

The prediction for 2009 had been for both GF and GA to go up a bit since they were graduating only 4% of their scoring, but losing 1M and 2D starters.  However, that was assuming Rebecca Silva (who had been responsible for 16% of 2008 scoring) would be playing.  As it happened, Silva went to Germany to study for the fall and the offense experienced a moderate drop off.  Even though the defense stayed steady, the decline in offense resulted in Bowdoin falling to 6th place in the league table, their worst result ever. (Although to put that in context, 6th place was Wesleyan's best result ever.)

This year, Bowdoin will be losing only 2 players to graduation, both starters: midfielder (and first team all-NESCAC) Dana Riker and defender Larkin Brown.  Bowdoin will only be losing 15% of overall scoring, but the big bonus will be that Silva will be back.  The combination of few graduating seniors and getting Silva back should make Bowdoin a stronger team than in 2009.

Summary:  Bowdoin should be stronger in 2010 than they were in 2009.  They are only losing 2 starters (1 M and 1D) and 15% of total scoring, and will be getting Rebecca Silva back.

onetouch

Becks - just want to say I'm glad your back and posting.  I really appreciate all your information.  Looking forward to fall!

Becks

Where has all the scoring gone?

Average goals per game in NESCAC league games:

2009    2.58
2008    2.82
2007    2.82
2006    3.19
2005    3.11
2004    2.80
2003    3.13
2002    3.58
2001    3.42
2000    3.33

Prior to 2007, there was only one year (2004) where goals per game was below 3.00. Starting with 2007, goals per game has been below 3.00 every year.

2009 was the lowest scoring year ever in NESCAC's short history of league play.

More parity, so fewer blowouts?  More defensive style of play?  Global warming?  I'm guessing it's the first.

Becks

#19
The drop-off in overall scoring over the last 3 years has paralleled a dramatic power outage among upperclassmen.

In the last 3 years, only 1 of the 16 players (6%) who scored 4 or more goals in league play was a senior and only 5 of those 16 players (31%) were upperclassmen (junior or senior).  Contrast that with the prior 3 years, when 9 of the 27 players (33%) who scored 4 or more goals were seniors and 17 of those 27 players (63%) were upperclassmen.

Becks

#20
Colby

2009 League Results: 2-6-1 (8); GF: 3 (9), GA: 14 (8), GD: -11 (8)
2008 League Results: 2-6-1 (8); GF: 2 (10), GA: 16 (8), GD: -14 (8)
2007 League Results: 0-7-2 (9); GF: 5 (9), GA: 19 (8), GD: -14 (8)
2006 League Results: 3-2-3 (5); GF: 10 (7), GA: 8 (3), GD: +2 (6)
2005 League Results: 3-2-4 (6); GF: 17 (3), GA: 11 (5), GD: +6 (6)

Colby, like its NESCAC neighbor Bates, has stuck near the bottom of the league for the last three years, after being more of a mid-table team in the prior couple of years.  GA has actually improved somewhat during the last 2 seasonss, but GF has only totaled 5 goals. Colby lost every game in 2008 and 2009 in which the other team scored.  That's too much pressure on the defense.

The prediction for 2009 had been for an improved team, since only 2 starters were graduating and they were losing no scoring.  However, a tough season was expected because they only had 3 home games. To their credit, Colby was able to achieve the same record as in 2008 and improved GF, GA and GD all slightly.  Most notably, they managed to beat Bowdoin for the first time ever.

This year, Colby will be losing 4 players to graduation, all starters: midfielder Meaghan Edwards, midfielder Meghan Gray, defender Lexi Bohonnon and defender Hannah Holbrook.  The good news is that the departing players only contributed 10% of Colby's goals last year, the bad news is that Colby survives on defense and will have some holes to fill in that area.  Like Bates, Colby needs to get more out of its next recruiting class, as only one 2009 freshmen started more than 5 games last year.

Summary:  Colby may be slightly weaker than last year, since they are losing a slightly larger than average number of starters.  The incoming freshmen class will need to produce a lot more than the 1 starter that the 2009 freshmen class produced if Colby is going to be a stronger team than last year.

Becks

#21
Who got the biggest contribution last year from their freshmen class?

These stats could be a sign of who had good recruiting classes or maybe just which coaches are willing to start/play frosh and which aren't.

# of frosh who started at least ½ of the games; # of total games started by frosh; % of goals scored by frosh

Wesleyan – 4; 54; 57%
Amherst – 2; 38; 42%
Bowdoin – 2; 29; 19%
Trinity – 2; 19; 8%
Colby – 1; 19; 19%
Middlebury – 0; 15; 33%
Bates – 0; 14; 8%
Williams – 0; 8; 14%
Conn – 0; 9; 6%
Tufts – 0; 1; 0%

Clearly, Wesleyan had a good freshmen class and the coach was willing to start them. Wes' 4 frosh starters did not even include FOY Laura Kurash, who missed half the season with an injury.  Amherst also had some good freshmen who generated a lot of offense. Bowdoin frosh also started a fair number of games. The coaches in the rest of the league, however, only found one frosh among them that they were willing to start on a regular basis. Perhaps I was off base suggesting that Colby and Bates had weak frosh classes last year.  Maybe their coaches, like apparently the majority of the coaches in the league, just don't like starting frosh.  Middlebury and Tufts bear special mention.  The fact that the Middlebury frosh scored 33% of their goals suggests that they indeed included some good offensive talent.  Apparently, however, Coach Kim just doesn't like starting freshman.  The Tufts lineup was no doubt tough to crack for an incoming freshman, since all 2008 starters returned for 2009.  Still, only 1 start combined for all frosh and 0 goals?

machine54

Let's look at the freshman contribution from a slightly different angle.

Cumulative Post Season Appearances - Freshman 2009 NESCAC

Williams - 31
Midd - 27 with 7 starts, 4 goals, 1 assist and does not include stats from perhaps their best freshman who went down for the season after just 7 games.  Think Nathan from Amherst for a good comparison.
Amherst - at least 16
Tufts - 1
Wesleyan - ? - Becks you can fill in the ?
Bowdoin - ?
Colby - ?
Trinity - ?
Conn - 0
Bates - 0

How this experience (for the Williams 2009 freshman the gap will only grow over time) plays out down the road should be interesting.   Williams will graduate 9 this year, Midd 8 - after losing 8 last year.  Williams has 4 seniors in 2011 - Midd will only have 2.   
Enjoy the season !!!!   

Becks

#23
Absolute numbers of post-season games played/started and post-season goals scored, shows post-season experience, which one could argue is of value to a team going forward.  But I don't think it really says much about relative contribution of frosh to their teams, since it is highly dependent on number of post-season games the teams played.

Rather looking at  just post-season games, it might be useful to look at frosh contributions in the last 4 meaningful games played by each team (eg, probably league games and post-season games; most non-league regular season games are relatively meaningless).  This would show which teams were getting contributions from their frosh at the end of their respective seasons.  Many coaches may not start frosh at the beginning of the season, but make them earn their starting postion, so comparing end of the season contribution would probably be more meaningful.  Also at lot more work to get those numbers than the season-long numbers, however, since you have to look at all the individual game reports rather than just looking at the season-long stats table.

machine54

Absolute numbers of post-season games played/started and post-season goals scored, shows post-season experience, which one could argue is of value to a team going forward.

Which one could argue ??

Try these numbers

Going into senior season - number of games played by Williams' rising juniors 59,51,59,56,50,57,55,59

and compare to same stats for Wesleyan rising juniors - 43,31,16,31,42

it is a tremendous cumulative advantage and why Williams continues to dominate - the saying goes that by the end of your freshman year you should be playing like a sophomore - Williams does it better than anyone.

Becks

#25
I would agree that playing more games probably helps some.

# of total games played 1996-1996:

Williams -- 59
Amherst -- 53
Middlebury -- 52
Bowdoin -- 49
Tufts -- 48
Colby -- 44
Trinity -- 44
Wesleyan -- 43
Bates -- 42
Conn -- 42

So during that period, Williams players played 40% more games than Bates and Conn players and their playing and practice season probably lasted almost a month longer each year.  That is significant.

However, I would suggest that an additional 3-4 week of playing time probably doesn't matter as much as what the players do in the 36 weeks between the end of one season and the start of the next season.

It's my perception that, on average, female NESCAC players do not improve a lot over their 4 years.  Some definitely improve dramatically, but I think almost an equal number get worse.

In high school, most female players improve a lot over their 4 years because (i) they are still physically maturing and (ii) they are playing year-round at a high level.  In college, physical development is less (although most do get stronger, some put on extra weight) and, in D3 and particularly in NESCAC, off-season training is more inconsistent, less structured, and involves playing a lot fewer games.

On the other hand, I think more D3 men probably continue to improve due to greater improvement in physical maturity.  I also think D1 women players probably continue to improve because of more consistent and structured off-season training.

I'd be curious to see if their are marked differences in what the women at the different NESCAC schools do in the offseason.  Given NESCAC rules, however, that is probably a delicate subject to discuss on a public forum.

Becks

#26
Re Williams' rising seniors -- In many ways, the 2011's have been Williams' golden class.   Started with 9 on the roster as frosh; 3 were regular starters as frosh (started more than 1/2 of the games); they started a total of 52 games as frosh, far more than any other Williams frosh class; 8 players remained from that class last year, 6 were starters; all 8 have been sufficiently injury free during the last couple of years to be able to play in almost every game.

Williams frosh regular starters and total games started by frosh from 2004-2009:
2004 - 1; 18
2005 - 2; 22
2006 - 2; 19
2007 - 3; 52
2008 - 1; 25
2009 - 0; 8

Williams was only a decent NESCAC team before the class of 2011 arrived in fall 2007.  In 2006, they were 4-2-2 in the league, finished in 4th, and lost in the first round of the NESCAC tournament.  Coincidence that Williams' great run started when the 2011's arrived and played tons as frosh?  Based on this, I'm willing to guess that Williams will be great again this year, but there is a good chance they will fall back to the pack next year.

Becks

#27
Conn

2009 League Results: 0-9-0 (10); GF: 1 (10), GA: 32 (10), GD: -31 (10)
2008 League Results: 0-8-1 (10); GF: 5 (9), GA: 20 (9), GD: -15 (10)
2007 League Results: 2-6-1 (7); GF: 9 (6), GA: 27 (10), GD: -18 (9)
2006 League Results: 0-8-1 (9); GF: 10 (8), GA: 24 (9), GD: -14 (9)
2005 League Results: 2-7-0 (8); GF: 10 (9), GA: 24 (9), GD: -14 (9)

Conn has struggled for most of the last 5 years and hit rock bottom last year, when it set the NESCAC record for worst GF (replacing Colby's record of only 2 set in 2008), tied the NESCAC record for 2d worst GA (one short of the 33 allowed by Wes in 2003), and set the NESCAC record for worst GD (replacing Wes's record of –29 set in 2003).

The prediction for 2009 had been for a slightly improved team, since only 2 starters were graduating, and they were only losing 17% of scoring.  Instead both offense and defense went from bad to worse.

This year, Conn will be losing 7 players to graduation, including 6 starters: forwards Sharon Katz and Olivia Gerde, midfielders Erin Davey and Molly McRoskey, defender Jessica Roeder, and keeper Jenna Ross.  6 graduating starters ties Middlebury for most in the league this year and is a lot to replace. The good news is that 71% of the overall scoring remains.  Still, on balance, the loss of all those starters would lead one to expect that the team will be even weaker this year than last.  The only real reason to expect the team to do better this year is that it would be hard for it to do worse.  Conn probably needs a really good frosh class to improve significantly. I hate to say it, but looking at Conn's league record over the last 4 years (2-31-3 in league play), a shake-up in the form of a coaching change may be in order.

Summary:  Conn may be even weaker this year than last, since they are losing 6 starters to graduation.  Only the fact that, when you are on the floor, it is harder to go down than up, offers much hope for significant improvement.

Becks

#28
I've been compariing how many games players start as freshman against how many games the same players start as seniors at different NESCAC schools and found some marked differences.  For example, at Middlebury the incoming players from 2004-2006 were, as a group, likely to start about 3 times as many games as seniors as they started as freshmen and, while only 1 or 2 would start as freshmen, most of the recruiting class would start as seniors.  On the other hand, at Wesleyan, the incoming players from 2004-2006 were, as a group, likely to start only about the same number of games as seniors as they started as freshmen and 2-4 would start as freshmen and the same number (and usually the same players) would start as seniors.

A couple of possible explanations:
1 - Differences in depth of talent within each recruiting class - Wes' typical recruiting class may have less depth of talent than Middlebury's.  Wes may only get 2-4 starter quality players a year, so they play right away and the other players in a recruiting class are never of the caliber to beat out later year's incoming top players.  Middlebury, on the other hand, may get 4-8 starter quality players every year.  This means that not all incoming starter quality players can starter as frosh and they must wait their turn.
2 - Differences in coaching style - The Wes coach may become enamored of a couple of players as freshmen, and give them starts right away and play them all the way through their years.  (But woe to a freshman who is not getting a lot of starts, because chances are it won't change much.)  The Middlebury coach on the other hand may play more of a seniority system -- the longer you're there the greater your chances of playing. (Of course, any differences in coaching style may be driven by the depth of talent -- if you only get a couple of starter-quality players a year, you need to play them right away and can't afford to wait.)
3 - Differences in development - Perhaps differences in in-season or off-season training allow Middlebury players to improve over their years (and thus allow non-starter frosh to improve and beat out later year incoming talent), while Wes players don't improve as much over the years and thus are more apt to get beaten out by incoming players.  (But, of course, the greater  disparity in talent within a given recruiting class, the more difficult it would be for a weaker player to improve enough to beat out incoming starter-quality players from later classes.)

Jim Matson

Managing Editor, D3soccer.com