Mr.Rights Thoughts

[D3soccerwatcher]

I spoke to the AD at Gordon a while back and he said that DeClute turned Gordon into a relevant program. Sometimes numbers do not give you 100% of the story and everything is not always so black and white. To be honest with you I do not care either way anymore. There are way more interesting items to be discussing than a historic dormant program that may or may not be turning into something of relevance

To quote W. Edwards Deming...

"WITHOUT DATA YOU'RE JUST ANOTHER PERSON WITH AN OPINION."

[Mr.Right]

your data is skewed.

[Mr.Right]

Indeed. I remember when Midd actually had a grass field there about 10 years ago. The had to go to turf because the field is at the bottom of that hill and would always collect all the rain after a storm. It really did not drain well

How is the women's field there?  Could they improve that field?

The women's field is extremely narrow as it plays inside a track.

[D3soccerwatcher]

your data is skewed.

My data is accurate...and you have no data.

[Mr.Right]

My opinion is better than your data

[lastguyoffthebench]

My opinion is better than your data

Sounds like something a 60 year old friend of mine would say while we're betting the ponies and drinking cheap beer and whiskey

[Mr.Right]

LOL....I like that one

[Mr.Right]

Hmmmmm....2014 Player of the year voting poll has a FAITH BASED whiff to it.    7 of 20 players.....

I voted for big ole Sam Williams but I would have like to see  :               ****other

Tufts and Nescac get the shaft. When Nescac teams play about 6 or 7 games less than the others your stats will not be comparable. Disappointed to say the least.

[Brother Flounder]

Hmmmmm....2014 Player of the year voting poll has a FAITH BASED whiff to it.    7 of 20 players.....

I voted for big ole Sam Williams but I would have like to see  :               ****other

Tufts and Nescac get the shaft. When Nescac teams play about 6 or 7 games less than the others your stats will not be comparable. Disappointed to say the least.

Yep, numbers will not look good to the rest due to the lower number of games. I wonder how many coaches outside of New England are even aware of that fact.....

[Flying Weasel]

Hmmmmm....2014 Player of the year voting poll has a FAITH BASED whiff to it.    7 of 20 players.....

I voted for big ole Sam Williams but I would have like to see  :               ****other

Tufts and Nescac get the shaft. When Nescac teams play about 6 or 7 games less than the others your stats will not be comparable. Disappointed to say the least.

Yep, numbers will not look good to the rest due to the lower number of games. I wonder how many coaches outside of New England are even aware of that fact.....

They play 6 or 7 games less?!?!  Really?!?  Exaggerate much?

●	9 of the 11 NESCAC schools began play on Tuesday (9/2) or Wednesday (9/3) of the first week of the season, only half a week after most other Division III teams.
●	Through 11/9/2014 (prior to the NCAA tournament), the average number of games played by the 11 NESACAC teams was 16.27 and the average for the remaining 393 Division III teams was 18.73 games.  That's a 2.46 game difference.
●	For the full season (incl. the NCAA tournament), the average number of games played by the 11 NESACAC teams was 17.27 and the average for the remaining 393 Division III teams was 19.14 games.  That's a 1.86 game difference.
●	Of the NCAA tournament participants, the average number of games played by the 3 NESACAC participants was 21.00 and the average for the remaining 58 participants was 21.69 games.  That's a 0.69 game difference.
●	Of the teams ranked in the final D3soccer.com Top 25, the average number of games played by the 2 ranked NESACAC teams was 21.50 and the average for the remaining 23 ranked teams was 22.48 games.  That's a 0.98 game difference.

6 or 7 games less?  Try 1 to 2, maybe 3 games less.

So let's look at five of the top forwards from the NESCAC and proportion their stats for having played three additional games.
     Greg Conrad (Middlebury) 8g, 6a --> 10g, 7a
     Zach Grady (Williams) 10g, 0 a --> 12g, 0a
     Nico Pascual-Leone (Amherst) 7g, 8a --> 8g, 9a
     Maxime Hoppenot (Tufts) 3g, 3a --> 4g, 4a
     Gus Santos (Tufts) 10g, 2a --> 12g, 2a

Do you think those players would have garnered more national recognition with those increased totals?

[Brother Flounder]

Hmmmmm....2014 Player of the year voting poll has a FAITH BASED whiff to it.    7 of 20 players.....

I voted for big ole Sam Williams but I would have like to see  :               ****other

Tufts and Nescac get the shaft. When Nescac teams play about 6 or 7 games less than the others your stats will not be comparable. Disappointed to say the least.

Well thought out...what are the numbers if you don't include the NCAA tourney games???

Yep, numbers will not look good to the rest due to the lower number of games. I wonder how many coaches outside of New England are even aware of that fact.....

They play 6 or 7 games less?!?!  Really?!?  Exaggerate much?

●	9 of the 11 NESCAC schools began play on Tuesday (9/2) or Wednesday (9/3) of the first week of the season, only half a week after most other Division III teams.
●	Through 11/9/2014 (prior to the NCAA tournament), the average number of games played by the 11 NESACAC teams was 16.27 and the average for the remaining 393 Division III teams was 18.73 games.  That's a 2.46 game difference.
●	For the full season (incl. the NCAA tournament), the average number of games played by the 11 NESACAC teams was 17.27 and the average for the remaining 393 Division III teams was 19.14 games.  That's a 1.86 game difference.
●	Of the NCAA tournament participants, the average number of games played by the 3 NESACAC participants was 21.00 and the average for the remaining 58 participants was 21.69 games.  That's a 0.69 game difference.
●	Of the teams ranked in the final D3soccer.com Top 25, the average number of games played by the 2 ranked NESACAC teams was 21.50 and the average for the remaining 23 ranked teams was 22.48 games.  That's a 0.98 game difference.

6 or 7 games less?  Try 1 to 2, maybe 3 games less.

So let's look at five of the top forwards from the NESCAC and proportion their stats for having played three additional games.
     Greg Conrad (Middlebury) 8g, 6a --> 10g, 7a
     Zach Grady (Williams) 10g, 0 a --> 12g, 0a
     Nico Pascual-Leone (Amherst) 7g, 8a --> 8g, 9a
     Maxime Hoppenot (Tufts) 3g, 3a --> 4g, 4a
     Gus Santos (Tufts) 10g, 2a --> 12g, 2a

Do you think those players would have garnered more national recognition with those increased totals?

[Flying Weasel]

Well thought out...what are the numbers if you don't include the NCAA tourney games???

Look at my second bullet item.

Now granted, Tufts' run to the final skews the NESCAC averages some, so for that reason I rounded UP from the 2.46 game difference in the regular season and chose to use an increase of 3 games for bumping up the stats of the top forwards.  If voters were going solely based on numbers (and we don't how many of them are, if any), I don't see how three more games would have made any difference this year for the NESCAC players.  Forget about games played, their GPG and PPG are low relative to many other forwards in the running for All-American honors, and for all we know the voters are looking at "per game" stats like GPG, APG, and PPG instead of the raw totals.

I don't point this out to say none of the NESCAC players are deserving of All-American honors, just to say that (a) they don't play that many fewer games than other teams and (b) even if they had a few more games they still would need voters to look past the numbers.

[Brother Flounder]

Well thought out...what are the numbers if you don't include the NCAA tourney games???

Look at my second bullet item.

Now granted, Tufts' run to the final skews the NESCAC averages some, so for that reason I rounded UP from the 2.46 game difference in the regular season and chose to use an increase of 3 games for bumping up the stats of the top forwards.  If voters were going solely based on numbers (and we don't how many of them are, if any), I don't see how three more games would have made any difference this year for the NESCAC players.  Forget about games played, their GPG and PPG are low relative to many other forwards in the running for All-American honors, and for all we know the voters are looking at "per game" stats like GPG, APG, and PPG instead of the raw totals.

I don't point this out to say none of the NESCAC players are deserving of All-American honors, just to say that (a) they don't play that many fewer games than other teams and (b) even if they had a few more games they still would need voters to look past the numbers.

I said in an earlier post that POY often favors forwards due to the tangible scoring numbers.  Unfortunately, this prejudices defenders and midfielders to a degree.....

[Flying Weasel]

I said in an earlier post that POY often favors forwards due to the tangible scoring numbers.  Unfortunately, this prejudices defenders and midfielders to a degree.....

No doubt.  It's unfortunate, but the reality and I don't see that changing.  Even if Division III sports got more exposure and voters cold see more games/players beyond their schedule and their region, I still don't know if it would change.  This is an issue in sports in general.  In football, QB's especially and RB's and WR's are going to be MVP 90% of the time.  Increased exposure and coverage would help the situation.  But that needs to be much more than just the availability of live streaming video of games.  Coaches (and/or SIDs) are not going to have time (they have their own games and practices and scouting and game prep) to be watching games just for the sake of finding out about teams and players they otherwise would not see play.

Just thinking of All-Conference, All-Region, and All-American honors in general, I think defensive midfielders are the most overlooked players.  As a voter, how would you even know who was a defensive midfielder  when you see names from other regions and from teams you never saw play?  And so you have all midfielders (attacking central mids, outside mids, central mids, holding mids, defensive mids, etc...) lumped into one pot, and some of those employed in a more attacking role have these great stats (goals and assists) while a defensive mid has little or nothing that can be quantified into a list or table for the voter.

[Brother Flounder]

I said in an earlier post that POY often favors forwards due to the tangible scoring numbers.  Unfortunately, this prejudices defenders and midfielders to a degree.....

No doubt.  It's unfortunate, but the reality and I don't see that changing.  Even if Division III sports got more exposure and voters cold see more games/players beyond their schedule and their region, I still don't know if it would change.  This is an issue in sports in general.  In football, QB's especially and RB's and WR's are going to be MVP 90% of the time.  Increased exposure and coverage would help the situation.  But that needs to be much more than just the availability of live streaming video of games.  Coaches (and/or SIDs) are not going to have time (they have their own games and practices and scouting and game prep) to be watching games just for the sake of finding out about teams and players they otherwise would not see play.

Just thinking of All-Conference, All-Region, and All-American honors in general, I think defensive midfielders are the most overlooked players.  As a voter, how would you even know who was a defensive midfielder  when you see names from other regions and from teams you never saw play?  And so you have all midfielders (attacking central mids, outside mids, central mids, holding mids, defensive mids, etc...) lumped into one pot, and some of those employed in a more attacking role have these great stats (goals and assists) while a defensive mid has little or nothing that can be quantified into a list or table for the voter.

Yes, that is so true.....