NESCAC 2014

[Becks]

Conn's press release re their 2014-15 schedule: http://camelathletics.com/sports/wsoc/2013-14/releases/20140606pwh9e2 . 15-game regular season schedule, with non-league games against Albertus Magnus, Johnson & Wales, St Joseph (CT), Coast Guard, and Eastern Connecticut. Last year, Conn played a 14-game regular season schedule, with the same non-league opponents except they played UMass-Dartmouth and did not play Johnson & Wales or St Joes.

[Becks]

Amherst's full schedule is now on the NESCAC website at http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule?team=Amherst . 15-game regular season schedule, with non-league games against Mt Holyoke, Springfield, Lasell, Eastern Connecticut, and Keene State. Last year, Amherst played a 14-game regular season schedule, with the same non-league games except they did not play Lasell. (I had mistakenly thought Amherst had played a 15-game regular season schedule last year, because a rescheduled game on their schedule was listed twice.)

[Becks]

Tufts' full schedule is now on the NESCAC website at http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule?team=Tufts . 15-game regular season schedule, with non-league games against MIT, Suffolk, Lesley, Endicott, and UMass-Boston. Last year, Amherst played a 14-game regular season schedule, with the same non-league games except they played Wheaton and did not play Lesley or UMass-Boston.

[Becks]

Bates' schedule http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule?team=Bates and Middlebury's schedule http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule?team=Middlebury on the NESCAC website both still seem incomplete. Bates only has 2 non-league games listed so far: U of New England and Maine Maritime. MIddlebury only has 3 non-league games listed so far: Castleton St, Keene St, and Plattsburg St.  Both played 4 non-league games last year and will probably play 5 non-league games this year.

[Becks]

Recommended site with interesting ranking info on all college soccer teams, including D3 women's teams: http://bennettranking.com/women/d3 I think this site is a new and improved version of a similar site (collegesoccerranking.com?) that died a few years ago, and I suspect that its rankings are similarly based on the Elo rating algorithm that was originally developed to rate chess players based on match results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

[Becks]

A look at last year's conference-only offensive stats.

Number of shots taken

There is an old soccer adage that "you can't score if you don't shoot".

1 - Williams 174
2 - Amherst 167
3 - Hamilton 151
4 - Middlebury 146
5 - Tufts 133
6 - Bowdoin 124
7 - Bates 122
7 - Conn 122
9 - Trinity 119
10 - Colby 112
11 - Wesleyan 91

Based on NESCAC league stats from 2005 through 2013, the correlation coefficient between a team's number of shots and their number of goals = 0.66, which is a strong positive relationship.

[Becks]

Shots on Goal

Taking a lot of shots suggests that a player is getting sufficiently close to the penalty area that taking a shot seems reasonable. However, not all shooting opportunities are equally likely to succeed. Scoring percentages drop off dramatically as distance increases. According to the ESPN 538 site, professional players score on 38.2% percent of shots from inside the goal area. 13.1% of shots from outside the goal area but inside the penalty area, and only 3.1% of shots from outside the goal area. A shot from outside the goal area is a long shot in both senses.

Percentage of shots taken that were on goal
1 - Wesleyan 54%
2 - Middlebury 52%
3 - Bowdoin 51%
4 - Colby 49%
4 - Hamilton 49%
6 - Tufts 48%
7 - Conn 46%
7 - Williams 46%
9 - Bates 44%
9 - Trinity 44%
11 - Amherst 37%

League average = 47%

Number shots on goal
1 - Williams 80
2 - Middlebury 76
3 - Hamilton 74
4 - Tufts 64
5 - Bowdoin 63
6 - Amherst 62
7 - Conn 56
8 - Colby 55
9 - Bates 54
10 - Trinity 52
11 - Wesleyan 49

Based on NESCAC league stats from 2005 through 2013, the correlation coefficient between a team's number of shots on goal and number of goals scored = 0.77, which is a very strong positive relationship and significantly stronger than the relationship of shots to goals. Not surprising, the key to scoring goals is more getting a lot of shots on goal than merely taking a lot of shots.

[Note that I recalculated that stats above after discovering that the league's stats for total team SOG were inaccurate because for some games no SOG were reported. Instead, the recalculated stats were based on SOG = goals for + opponents saves.]

[Becks]

Corner Kicks

Corner kicks are usually thought of as prime goal-scoring opportunities, so one would think that a team that gets more corner kicks would get more goals.

Number of corner kicks (league only, as usual)
1 - Amherst 73
2 - Conn 51
3 - Hamilton 46
4 - Williams 43
5 - Wesleyan 41
6 - Bowdoin 38
7 - Tufts 37
8 - Middlebury 31
9 - Bates 29
10 - Colby 28
11 - Trinity 28

Even at first glance, the ranking seems surprising, with some low scoring teams (eg Hamilton with 5 goals) near the top and some high scoring teams (eg Trinity with 15 goals) near the bottom. And, in fact, the correlation coefficient between corner kicks and goals for last year's NESCAC women's teams was only 0.14, which is so low that it is considered "no or negligible relationship". In other words, there was no significant relationship last year between the number of corner kicks a team took and the number of goals it scored.

A number of factors may be involved here:

(1) The number of corner kicks a team gets may reflect a team's style of play more than a team's offensive strength. One way a team gets lots of corner kicks is by having wide players who get the ball to the end line. If, however, a team plays with inverted wingers (ie, a right footer on the left and a left footer on the right), their wide players are more likely to cut in and take shots than take the ball to the line and get a corner.

(2) Corner kicks can reflect offensive weakness, as well as offensive strength. While it is good to be able to get to the opponent's end-line, it is better to be able to penetrate up the middle. Weaker teams may be forced to play wide because they are unable to penetrate centrally, whereas better teams are able to penetrate centrally and have no need to go wide.

(3) A corner is generally the result of a blocked cross or a deflected shot. Better to make a successful cross or get a shot on goal.

(4) Girls are generally not very good finishers of aerial crosses, such as corner kicks. Some evidence that this may be a significant factor comes from the fact that, last year, the correlation coefficient between corners and goals for the NESCAC men's teams was 0.46, which indicates a strong positive relationship. For the boys, more corners did generally mean more goals.

Probably some combination of the above factors is involved.

[Becks]

A look at some of last year's conference-only defensive stats.

Shots Allowed and SOG Allowed

Number of shots allowed
1 - Middlebury 74
2 - Williams 86
3 - Trinity 96
4 - Amherst 114
5 - Hamilton 119
6 - Conn 125
7 - Bowdoin 130
8 - Tufts 143
9 - Bates 182
10 - Wesleyan 186
11 - Colby 206

Based on NESCAC league stats from 2005 through 2013, the correlation coefficient between the number of opponent shots taken and number of goals allowed = 0.66, which is a strong positive relationship and the same degree of correlation as between shots take and goals scored

Number of SOG allowed
1 - Williams 39
2 - Trinity 40
3 - Middlebury 44
4 - Amherst 45
5 - Hamilton 55
6 - Bowdoin 60
7 - Tufts 62
8 - Bates 72
9 - Conn 78
10 - Wesleyan 86
11 - Colby 104

Based on NESCAC league stats from 2005 through 2013, the correlation coefficient between the number of opponent shots on goal and number of goals allowed = 0.76, which is a very strong positive relationship and significantly stronger than the relationship of opponents' shots taken to goals allowed.

[Note that I recalculated that stats above after discovering that the league's stats for total team SOG allowed were inaccurate because for some games no SOG allowed were reported. Instead, the recalculated stats were based on SOG allowed = goals against + saves.]

[amh63]

Been following the posts.  The numbers and analyses are intriguing but I have been wondering if the "numbers" are only primarily applicable to women players' game.
My random thoughts on the above point.
In earlier posts, there were numbers related to corner attempts to goals made and where SOGs were attempted.  Even a noted difference between the stats from men's games and women's games. 
In the case of Amherst's games I have watched in the present men's era, a high number of goals are made off of corner attempts.  Seems at times the SOGs are to get the corner kicks attempts.  Amherst has had and have tall men players..in the 6'4" or better range.  They are used to score goals from "headers"....as well as from rebounds, etc. resulting from corner kicks.
The women's game, IMO, does not have the players with the skill level to score from headers at this time...in the conference......therefore the offense attacks/set ups are not used.
I saw a ESPN show recently where they featured an USA team star...woman player...that had the "unique" ability to score off of headers.  The player had the athletic talents and the skill to head the ball with both force and accuracy.  The player worked at it.
At this time, it is my belief that the game of soccer in the conference is played "differently" between men and women and the stats often reflect that.  Such differences are also seen in ice hockey and Lacrosse...and the equipment and rules reflect the differences.

[Becks]

Amh63 - There are definitely differences between the men's game and the women's game, but I have actually been kind of surprised how similar NESCAC men's and women's soccer is from a stats standpoint. Back up in reply #11 I posted some of the men's and women's stats similarities and differences. Goals per game, shots per game, and saves percentage are all almost identical. Corners are one of the few significant statistical differences.

Just looking at 2013 season stats, here are some of the comparisons:

Total goals per team
Men: average 11.9,  most 21, least 5
Women:  average 11.1, most 18, least 5
Difference in M/F averages = 7.2%

Total shots per team
Men: average 128.4, most 172, least 84
Women: average 132.8, most 174, least 91
Difference in M/F averages = 3.4%

Total SOG per team
Men: average 43.9, most 67, least 22
Women: average 50.1, most 76, least 33
Difference in M/F averages = 14.1%

SOG% (% of shots taken that are on goal)
Men: average 34.0. highest 45.0, lowest 20.6
Women: average 37.9, highest 52.1, lowest 25.0
Difference in M/F averages = 11.4%

Total corner kicks per team
Men: average 45.9, most 66, least 31
Women: average 40.5, most 73, least 28
Difference in M/F averages = 13.3%

SOG to G% (percentage of SOG that result in goals)
Men: average 27.7, highest 36.4, lowest 18.8
Women: average 22.5, highest 35.7, lowest 12.2
Difference in M/F averages = 23%

To attempt to summarize, total goals and shots were pretty similar for men and women. Women get a higher percentage of shots of goal, but a lower percentage of the SOGs result in goals, and they take fewer corners. I think the differences may all be related to men's better heading ability. If men are better headers, crosses and corners are more useful. It is harder to get headed or volleyed shots off of crosses and corners on goal, than to get straight on kicks on goal, but when they are on goal a high percentage of them result in goals.

Among, basketball, lacrosse, hockey and soccer, I'd say the differences between the men's and women's games are smallest in soccer. Lax and hockey have different rules for men and women. However, I don't think the differences in the rules reflect differences between men and women, but rather society's different attitudes about men and women - eg that women shouldn't engage in violent contact. The greater differences in basketball are all about height and jumping ability. If men couldn't dunk, I think the games would be about as similar as men's and women's soccer.

[nescac1]

I'll be interested to see how Williams' rising sophomore class develops.  College athletes usually make the biggest leap from their frosh to their sophomore years, and last year's Williams class promised to be one of the best in school history, with two state players-of-the-year and several other heralded recruits coming in.  And indeed, three of Williams' top four goal scorers were frosh: the extremely quick Audrey Thomas (who started nearly every game as a frosh), Katie Wardlaw, and the most heralded of the three, Kristi Kirshe, who led the team in shots but had trouble finding the net early on as she adjusted to the college game and then suffered a concussion, but exploded late in the season, finishing with 6 goals and 2 assists in her last 12 games.  Williams also had three other frosh who each were major contributors, playing in between 18 and 20 games each.  I would expect that those six players will see a lot more playing time and contribute a lot more as sophomores, and that Kirshe, Thomas, and Wardlaw could easily leap from 17 goals combined to around 30, if they all stay healthy.  With Williams losing only three goals to graduation, and with the five top goal-scorers last year all frosh or sophomores, the Ephs' offense should grow increasingly potent over the next two years. 

The Ephs do lose two all-conference defensive-minded players to graduation, but the Ephs still have an elite goalie returning and four players who all saw time as starters in the back, including Lilly Wellenbach who should be back to being an elite defender now that she is more than a full year removed from a serious knee injury. 

[Becks]

College athletes usually make the biggest leap from their frosh to their sophomore years

I think this varies a lot from person to person, depending on injuries, relationship with the coach, and dedication during the off-season. However, for Williams women soccer players, the stats I looked at definitely support your statement. Here's the average number of starts and average season points, for the Williams' last 4 graduating classes ('11, '12, '13, '14):

Average Number of Starts
Frosh year 4.2
Soph year 9.8
Junior year 12.2
Senior year 12.3

Average number of starts more than doubled from frosh year to soph year, climbed a bit more from soph year to junior year and plateaued.

Average Number of Points
Frosh year 2.9
Soph year 5.8
Junior year 5.7
Senior year 5.2

Average number of points doubled from frosh year to soph year and then declined slightly.

[Becks]

nescac1 - Have to agree that the coming season is full of promise for Williams. Based on conference-only stats, they are losing 0 conference goals to graduation and, as you point out, only 2 starters overall.

And that’s from a team that was already #1 or #2 in the league in most of the meaningful statistically categories last year:
- offensively, #3 in goals, #1 in SOG, and #1 in Bennett Ranking.
- defensively, #2 in goals against, #1 in SOGA, and #2 in Bennett Ranking.
- overall, #2 in goal differential, #1 in SOG-SOGA, and #2 in Bennett Ranking.

There is every reason to believe that Williams will be very good this coming year and have a good chance of winning the league.

A few more observations about Williams' offensive stats: Last year Williams had an average SOG%, an average % of assisted goals, and the 3d highest shots/corner kicks ratio. The last stat suggests that Williams generated most of their scoring opportunities up the middle rather than going wide and trying to cross it in. Those stats stand in stark contrast to arch-foe Amherst despite the fact that they ended up with the same number of league goals. Amherst had a below average SOG%, a below average % of assisted goals, took by far the most corner kicks in the league, and had the 2d lowest shots/corner kicks ratio, which suggests that they put a premium on going wide and crossing it in or getting CKs.

[Becks]

Interesting that Williams and Amherst are the only two NESCAC women's teams that post the clubs their players came from. None of the NESCAC men's teams do.