NESCAC

[Hopkins92]

Rant - speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way.

=-=-=-=-=

Do I sense a bit of passion in your post? Sure, but it was well-stated and certainly not "wild" by any stretch. A few points:

1) I, too, am a goalie and garnered some measure of individual recognition. I whole-heartedly agree that almost all stats measuring the position in soccer are fairly useless. So many of them, as you correctly point out, have nothing to do with the actions of the goalie. I would quibble with completely discounting Shutouts, but only to say Goals Against/per game is a decent overall depiction of a defense. And if you are of the opinion that the GK position should be at least co-captain of the D (along with one of the CB's), then pitching a shutout is the ultimate goal. But I'm cool with using goals allowed per game, along with save percentage as reasonable markers.

2) Man, do I love what you say at the very end about evaluating goalies. So few people understand the importance and the nuances of positioning. You can make really difficult shots look like routine saves through proper positioning and anticipation. I'll expand the universe to include TV commentators.. Hoo boy do most of those guys not know what they're looking at. Almost 100 percent of non-GK announcers are ONLY looking at the GK's reaction at the moment the shot is taken. Very few understand that the GK was exactly where they needed to be and just got beat by an impossible-to-save shot. Conversely, they routinely fail to notice when a GK allowed a goal or failed to prevent a dangerous situation because they were too far back on their line or cheating to snuff out a cross, etc. etc.

3) Overall, kudos for that breakdown. To be fair to the folks involved in the debate, it is the nature of this board to rely on statistics, because it is darn near impossible to truly observe enough of the teams and players to perform the "eye test" you so correctly point to as the key measuring stick, not just for GKs but all players on the field.

[Michel Bernstini]

As HiYa is speaking to, stats and soccer have never been a great fit.  (I personally believe that this is one of the reasons why America took so long to embrace soccer.  Football, basketball, and baseball are much more stat friendly and, for whatever reason, Americans like stat sports.  Soccer isn't so much a stat sport.)  As technology has progressed, soccer stats have improved.  e.g. How far a player ran in a game is interesting.  But, still, stats and soccer continue to be a mismatch in terms of evaluating players.  Stats to evaluate soccer teams is different.  But evaluating players, much more difficult.

[Buck O.]

I won't quote it because it's so long, but I'll add mu kudos for hiyasoccer.  What you said is exactly what I had in mind.  There are lots of stats out there, but many aren't useful with respect to evaluating performance, and even the ones that are, are limited.  For example, I recall watching a game in which the announcer referred to Blake Mullen, the former St. Josephs's (ME) GK, as the top keeper in the country.  Well, he led the country in GAA that year because that's the year that St. Joe's didn't give up any goals, but their schedule was ... not exactly a NESCAC or UAA schedule. 

Now, it's possible to evaluate this sort of thing using stats.  While a simple save percentage considers all SOGs the same, for example, it is certainly possible to quantify the difficulty of stopping a particular shot.  It simply requires a lot better data than the traditional statistics can provide, but with technological advances over the last several years, this is now feasible.  I know more about this in the context of football and baseball, but just as it's possible to quantify the likelihood that an average outfielder would be able to catch a given ball or that an average QB would be able to complete a given pass, it's possible to quantity the likelihood that an average GK would be able to stop a given shot.  Then you have a relevant benchmark against which to evaluate the performance of the outfielder/QB/GK.

To the extent that we don't have those data, we have to acknowledge the deficiencies of the data that we do have, and that's where subjective analysis of play needs to fill in the holes.  Obviously that's not ideal, as subjective analysis has its own deficiencies, but that's not a reason to discount it entirely when we know that the available stats provide an incomplete picture.

[Michel Bernstini]

Conn is going to hold the #3 spot in your head but no where else on the planet.  Enjoy the delusion.

Based on Ws and Ls, who goes ahead of them?

[PaulNewman]

Conn is going to hold the #3 spot in your head but no where else on the planet.  Enjoy the delusion.

Based on Ws and Ls, who goes ahead of them?

I think you're serious....based on Ws and Ls?  Amherst, Tufts, Calvin, Messiah, Centre, Kenyon, John Carroll, RPI, F&M, W&L, Hopkins, Chicago, Montclair....to name a few.

Conn is a very good team, but other than you and even including anyone quoting Massey, I seriously doubt there is another person who thinks Conn is the third best team in the country.  It is certainly arguable that they are somewhere in the #7 or #8 to #15 range, but that's based on giving them credit for factors other than Ws and Ls.  Please explain for example how you current have Conn ahead of Calvin who has a FAR SUPERIOR W-L record and has been in four out of the last five final fours?  And if Conn is #3 does that make Midd #4?

[Michel Bernstini]

re: the "delusional" comment above, as HiYa spoke to, one cannot lean to heavily on objective metrics and... Nor too heavily on subjective opinions.  But objectivity and subjectivity both have a place.  One can evaluate D3 teams in innumerable ways: win %, Goal differential, strength of schedule and win %, etc.  I happen to enjoy playing around with this stuff and did for 2 seasons with lacrosse (mostly D1 and d3 mens but then... Men's D1, D2, D3, Women's D1, D2, D3, NJCAA, NAIA, MCLA, WCLA, every Boys and Girls HS team, etc.) and... There are benefits and flaws to every metric but some are more flawed than others.  Anyway, you may not agree with Conn College at #3 but it's not based on my subjective opinion.  It's based on a rational system.  So, as much as we pause and say, What's the best stat for a goalie?, we can do the same for the teams.  And teams are much easier.  The heart of my rankings are (1) Each team's three Best Wins (2) Three Worst Losses as well as (3) one Best Tie and one Worst Tie.  So a team can be amazing, undefeated, best in the nation in everyone's eyes, but if they haven't beaten good teams to demonstrate this, then they won't be #1 in the rankings.  Best Wins, Worst Losses, Best Tie, Worst Tie.  (Oh, one more thing.  Come play-offs, when you beat a team, you automatically step in front of them in the Rankings.  i.e. RPI, Centre, or whoever may not "deserve" to be #8, #10, etc. but if they beat the #9, #11, etc. team in the playoffs, they get the spot.)  You may not love the system but it's fair and it most certainly isn't delusional. 

This is the D3 Men rankings: http://app.endlesssoccer.com/category/ranking/54/2019
This is the system behind the rankings: http://endlesssoccer.com/2019/10/23/endless-soccer-computer-ranking-how-it-works/

And, because I find these fun, helps to keep me organized, etc.:
Best Games: http://app.endlesssoccer.com/category/best/games/54/2019
Best Upsets: http://app.endlesssoccer.com/category/best/upsets/54/2019
Best Upcoming Games: http://app.endlesssoccer.com/category/upcoming/games/54/2019

[PaulNewman]

re: the "delusional" comment above, as HiYa spoke to, one cannot lean to heavily on objective metrics and... Nor too heavily on subjective opinions.  But objectivity and subjectivity both have a place.  One can evaluate D3 teams in innumerable ways: win %, Goal differential, strength of schedule and win %, etc.  I happen to enjoy playing around with this stuff and did for 2 seasons with lacrosse (mostly D1 and d3 mens but then... Men's D1, D2, D3, Women's D1, D2, D3, NJCAA, NAIA, MCLA, WCLA, every Boys and Girls HS team, etc.) and... There are benefits and flaws to every metric but some are more flawed than others.  Anyway, you may not agree with Conn College at #3 but it's not based on my subjective opinion.  It's based on a rational system.  So, as much as we pause and say, What's the best stat for a goalie?, we can do the same for the teams.  And teams are much easier.  The heart of my rankings are (1) Each team's three Best Wins (2) Three Worst Losses as well as (3) one Best Tie and one Worst Tie.  So a team can be amazing, undefeated, best in the nation in everyone's eyes, but if they haven't beaten good teams to demonstrate this, then they won't be #1 in the rankings.  Best Wins, Worst Losses, Best Tie, Worst Tie.  (Oh, one more thing.  Come play-offs, when you beat a team, you automatically step in front of them in the Rankings.  i.e. RPI, Centre, or whoever may not "deserve" to be #8, #10, etc. but if they beat the #9, #11, etc. team in the playoffs, they get the spot.)  You may not love the system but it's fair and it most certainly isn't delusional. 

This is the D3 Men rankings: http://app.endlesssoccer.com/category/ranking/54/2019
This is the system behind the rankings: http://endlesssoccer.com/2019/10/23/endless-soccer-computer-ranking-how-it-works/

And, because I find these fun, helps to keep me organized, etc.:
Best Games: http://app.endlesssoccer.com/category/best/games/54/2019
Best Upsets: http://app.endlesssoccer.com/category/best/upsets/54/2019
Best Upcoming Games: http://app.endlesssoccer.com/category/upcoming/games/54/2019

So you're selling a business lol?

And you confirmed what I said.....it's YOUR ranking system and yours only.  Just above you replied it was based on Ws and Ls, but now.....there's more?  How about you throw in the steak knives and then we'll talk.  If you're gonna sell something at least give it some prima facie validity.

P.S.  And a tip if you're actually serious.  Instead of bursting in and proclaiming that Conn is the 3rd best team in the country as though that is objective fact, you'd do better to say "According to my own personal ranking system algorithm that I developed Conn lands at #3..."

[Michel Bernstini]

Please explain for example how you current have Conn ahead of Calvin who has a FAR SUPERIOR W-L record and has been in four out of the last five final fours?  And if Conn is #3 does that make Midd #4?

My Rankings need a starting point.  If the starting point is the NCAA Rankings, then Conn College is ahead of Calvin.  If the starting point circles back to my own rankings, then Calvin is #2, then Tufts, then Conn College at #4.  (I prefer the latter so that's what the current rankings are based off of.)  But to answer your question, this is exactly my point.  W-L Record is a legit metric to decide which team is better.  But obviously, W-L while ignoring SOS (strength of schedule) creates very real issues.  Calvin's SOS is #82 in the nation.  Conn College's is #8.

Four out of the five last final fours... Another great example and, personally, I believe that this is the greatest problem for the mainstream rankings: teams' brands.  Teams' brands and group think.  College Football is a good example.  (I'm not a big CFB fan but the rankings are controversial so I couldn't resist.  Across the board, Clemson and Georgia are #3 and #4.  But, objectively, it makes no sense.  At least with Clemson, you can argue that they deserve to be there because of their game scores (though I do not agree.  Amherst beat Tufts 2-1, Babson beat them 2-0.  Grossly simplifying the metric but... this doesn't mean babson is better than Amherst.  I like Ws and Ls, not game scores) but... It makes no sense.  Some teams can have a terrible loss and then season is over.  A team like Georgia can lose to a south Carolina and it's treated very differently.  For obvious reasons, this isn't fair, isn't right, and, for me, isn't an accurate ranking.  In terms of Group Think, I don't think it's a coincidence that ESPN or whoever forgives Georgia for a loss and then the rest follow suit.  Bothers me...

No, Middlebury is #9.

[Michel Bernstini]

So you're selling a business lol?

No.  I'm sharing a passion.  In this case, a passion for D3 Men's Soccer.  A business involves $.  My passion doesn't involve $.  Just interest and passion.

[Michel Bernstini]

it's YOUR ranking system and yours only.  Just above you replied it was based on Ws and Ls, but now.....there's more?  How about you throw in the steak knives and then we'll talk.  If you're gonna sell something at least give it some prima facie validity.

If it was based solely on Ws and Ls, it'd simply be Winning % and, as already spoken to, this is a very dull tool to assess teams.  I already put the link to how the system works.  It's based on Best Ws and Worst Ls.  Not solely Ws and Ls.  A tool based solely on Ws and Ls (that isn't a closed system where every team plays basically the same schedule thus countering any SOS issues) is silly. 

[PaulNewman]

it's YOUR ranking system and yours only.  Just above you replied it was based on Ws and Ls, but now.....there's more?  How about you throw in the steak knives and then we'll talk.  If you're gonna sell something at least give it some prima facie validity.

If it was based solely on Ws and Ls, it'd simply be Winning % and, as already spoken to, this is a very dull tool to assess teams.  I already put the link to how the system works.  It's based on Best Ws and Worst Ls.  Not solely Ws and Ls.  A tool based solely on Ws and Ls (that isn't a closed system where every team plays basically the same schedule thus countering any SOS issues) is silly.

Look, I was just responding to your exact words.  When I challenged Conn being at #3, did you not post this?

"Based on Ws and Ls, who goes ahead of them?"

Now you're saying you factor in more than that.  Glad you've found a passion, though.  Not everyone can say that. 

[Michel Bernstini]

Yes!    Of course it's not just Ws and Ls.  It's Ws and Ls and who those Ws and Ls are against.  Ws and Ls is short-hand.  With this said, based on Ws and Ls (and Ties) and who those Ws and Ls (and ties) are against, Why would you put so many teams ahead of Conn College?  e.g. Messiah (and several more).  Based on their season, I don't see how they go ahead of Conn College.  Do you just not like the camels?  Keep in mind, in the play-offs, Conn College just beat JHU.

Separately... Champions League at 1! 

[lastguyoffthebench]

I think it's a fair assessment to place Conn in the 10-16 range.  The Camels got by Catholic and had a solid day vs JHU.   Beating Swat on their home field was a good result but one of the more favorable match-ups in the sweet 16.   W&L would have advanced over Conn, IMO.

In terms of the Coaches Ranking, they will land in the 5th-6th spot... depending on who wins the title.

8 Luther
7 Montclair St
6 RPI - advanced over Middlebury and beat Messiah, lost to Amherst
5 Conn - beat Catholic, beat JHU, beat Swat, lost to Tufts

They are a young squad and will return a solid core...  expect them to reach Sweet 16 next year at the very least.

Massey has them high due to incredible SOS and consistent results, but the eye test doesn't match up to me... 

Lastguyoffthebench slots CONN at 10th

[Buck O.]

re: the "delusional" comment above, as HiYa spoke to, one cannot lean to heavily on objective metrics and... Nor too heavily on subjective opinions.  But objectivity and subjectivity both have a place.  One can evaluate D3 teams in innumerable ways: win %, Goal differential, strength of schedule and win %, etc.  I happen to enjoy playing around with this stuff and did for 2 seasons with lacrosse (mostly D1 and d3 mens but then... Men's D1, D2, D3, Women's D1, D2, D3, NJCAA, NAIA, MCLA, WCLA, every Boys and Girls HS team, etc.) and... There are benefits and flaws to every metric but some are more flawed than others.  Anyway, you may not agree with Conn College at #3 but it's not based on my subjective opinion.  It's based on a rational system.  So, as much as we pause and say, What's the best stat for a goalie?, we can do the same for the teams.  And teams are much easier.  The heart of my rankings are (1) Each team's three Best Wins (2) Three Worst Losses as well as (3) one Best Tie and one Worst Tie.  So a team can be amazing, undefeated, best in the nation in everyone's eyes, but if they haven't beaten good teams to demonstrate this, then they won't be #1 in the rankings.  Best Wins, Worst Losses, Best Tie, Worst Tie.  (Oh, one more thing.  Come play-offs, when you beat a team, you automatically step in front of them in the Rankings.  i.e. RPI, Centre, or whoever may not "deserve" to be #8, #10, etc. but if they beat the #9, #11, etc. team in the playoffs, they get the spot.)  You may not love the system but it's fair and it most certainly isn't delusional. 

This is the D3 Men rankings: http://app.endlesssoccer.com/category/ranking/54/2019
This is the system behind the rankings: http://endlesssoccer.com/2019/10/23/endless-soccer-computer-ranking-how-it-works/

And, because I find these fun, helps to keep me organized, etc.:
Best Games: http://app.endlesssoccer.com/category/best/games/54/2019
Best Upsets: http://app.endlesssoccer.com/category/best/upsets/54/2019
Best Upcoming Games: http://app.endlesssoccer.com/category/upcoming/games/54/2019

Some thoughts:

1.  What's magical about the number three?  Why is it that the best three wins and the worst three losses are all that matters?
2.  Similarly, what's magical about playoff games?  Why should they receive greater consideration in determining who should be ranked where?  UMBC beat UVA in the 2018 NCAA basketball tournament, but that didn't make them better than UVA.
3.  Why not use scores?  There's lots of valuable information there that you're discarding.  This is particularly true with respect to teams that may otherwise be hard to rank because of limited info.  For example, if a team with an excellent record, but which has played a pretty weak schedule, has played only one really good team, I'm going to look at them rather differently if they lost that game 5-0 than if they lost 2-1.  Now, one can go too far here--you shouldn't lean too far on one game in making assessments--but nevertheless focusing solely on W/L/T will reduce the accuracy of your assessments.
4.  There seems to be a significant bias in favor of teams with tough schedules inherent in your method.  To use an extreme example, suppose my schedule is exclusively against top-20 teams and I go 3-13.  If I understand your method correctly, you're going to conclude that I'm awesome because my best three wins are against top-20 teams and my worst three losses are also against top-20 teams.  I might very well be in the top 20.  But, at the end of the day, I did only win three times in 16 attempts against that level of competition.  I don't belong in the top 20.

[Michel Bernstini]

1.  What's magical about the number three?  Why is it that the best three wins and the worst three losses are all that matters?
2.  Similarly, what's magical about playoff games?  Why should they receive greater consideration in determining who should be ranked where?  UMBC beat UVA in the 2018 NCAA basketball tournament, but that didn't make them better than UVA.
3.  Why not use scores?  There's lots of valuable information there that you're discarding.  This is particularly true with respect to teams that may otherwise be hard to rank because of limited info.  For example, if a team with an excellent record, but which has played a pretty weak schedule, has played only one really good team, I'm going to look at them rather differently if they lost that game 5-0 than if they lost 2-1.  Now, one can go too far here--you shouldn't lean too far on one game in making assessments--but nevertheless focusing solely on W/L/T will reduce the accuracy of your assessments.
4.  There seems to be a significant bias in favor of teams with tough schedules inherent in your method.  To use an extreme example, suppose my schedule is exclusively against top-20 teams and I go 3-13.  If I understand your method correctly, you're going to conclude that I'm awesome because my best three wins are against top-20 teams and my worst three losses are also against top-20 teams.  I might very well be in the top 20.  But, at the end of the day, I did only win three times in 16 attempts against that level of competition.  I don't belong in the top 20.

1. Just a good number and we need to draw a line somewhere.  You can't do all Ws count because weaker schedules have a large disadvantage.  This is particularly true for HS teams in non-hotbed regions.  you can't do 1 win because 1 game is only 1 game.  So, the question is, How many games does a team need to win to prove that they're legit.  1, too few.  2, better.  And... 3 just seems to be a good number.  (Also, allows for wins to count 3x more than a tie.  i.e. One tie is counted.  Three wins and three losses are counted.  And the "3 Points for a Win, 1 Point for a Loss" formula is all but universal.)
2. UMBC is a unique example.  None the less, they earned the spot.  Bottomline, play-off games are not the same as regular season games.  they're later in the season and... They simply mean more.  The team that wins the National C'ship Tourney should be #1 (as long as they layed the top teams to win it all).
3. Just a philosophical difference.  Teams play to win, not to win by as many points as possible.  Especially teams who play 3 or so games per week.  Lots of teams pace themselves and they shouldn't be punished for doing so. 
4. I disagree.  If a team beats #18, #19, and #20 and loses to #1-#16, they should be the #17 team in the country.