The Braves, with one game remaining, are one of two teams still undefeated in Section Five. Canandaigua has demonstrated that they are a dominant team in the Section and looking strong to go far into our tournament and possibly the state tournament.
The Strength in the Braves is in their offense, that is not to diminish the play of Scott Bement which I will touch on later. The Braves have 18 offensive players on their roster (11 midfielders and seven attackman), that being said, 22 players have scored goals for the Braves. Every single offensive player has scored at least one goal, additionally four defenseman have points; Evan Roth (7g-3a), Sean Regan (1g-2a), James Bratton (1a) and Chris Tauterouff (1a).
The attack is the basis for the scoring for the Braves. Leading the charge is Connor Henderson; Henderson currently has 45g-26a (71 points – 8th in the Section). Justin Tomzak (after his dominate play against Hamburg) leads the team in assists with 32g-31a (63 points – 14th in the Section). Brian Scheetz (23g-18a), Tanner Schar (18g-12a) and Deven Alves (23g-7a) round out the attackman.
The starting attack (Henderson, Tomzak and Scheetz) are key threats in the Braves arsenal. In their games against Hamburg and Orchard Park they combined for 37 shots (23 on cage) with 17 goals. Hamburg and Orchard Park represent the best in Section VI and Canandaigua’s attack can still score an average of 8.5 goals/game against them.
In the midfield, Andrew Knoblauch (11g-23a) is the only midfield to have more points then the top 5 attackman. Nick Munn (17g-5a), Tom LaCrosse (12g-8a) and Marshall Johnson (11g-6a) also added depth to the midfield.
As mentioned above, although the offensive is the powerhouse of the Braves roster, one cannot ignore Bement when discussing the Braves. Between the pipes Bement is one of, if not the, best goalie in Section Five. Bement has 124s/60ga (67%) on the season so far. These saves are not gumballs like some of the goalies from FL-2 or MC-3 but are against teams like Hamburg (7s – 44%), Penn Yan (12s – 75%), Geneva (24s – 65%) and Orchard Park (10s – 53%).
Overall, the Braves are a dominating team in the Finger Lakes, Section V as well as Western New York. The Braves will look to finish the season undefeated with a home contest against Penn Yan on Thursday.
This week’s article will focus on how Section Five seeds the tournaments. As is posted,
http://sportsfive.net/lore/article.php?id=002, the seeding criteria for Section Five has remained the same for a number of years.
In a nutshell, a team receives points based on the win/loss record of their opponent. If your team beats a team that has won every other game (i.e. 17-1) then you will receive 10 points, however, if your team beats a team that has never won a game (i.e. 0-18) then you will only receive 4 points. Losses work similar, losing to a undefeated team results in 4 points and losing to a team where you were their only victory and you receive 1 point.
The breakdown of when the points change occurs at >75%, >50% and >25%. (10,8,6,4 for a win and 4,3,2,1 for a loss). This is all just a precursor to the information that I really wanted to focus on. I have looked over the past four years and looked at how each league breaks down.
In 2007, a game against a FL-1 opponent “paid out” 5.88 points while a game against a MC-3 team “paid” 4.21 points. Without considering the opponent one could say that just by scheduling a FL-1 team over an MC-3 team you were gaining an average of 1.6 points if your win. In fact, a win against a FL-1 team averaged 8.5 points (8.3 for MC-1, 6.8 for MC-2, 6.5 for GRALL, 6.3 for MC-3, 5.2 for FL-2). Over the past four years FL-1 teams have averaged the highest “pay out” in Sectional seeding points.
When looking at seeding it is almost always better to schedule better teams than to play it safe. A key example came last season with Churchville-Chili. The Saints played a weak MC-3 schedule and although they finished 14-2 they were only seeded seventh, behind RH and Fairport who both finished 9-7 but with MC-1 schedules. Also, Gates Chili (10-6) was seeded below Pittsford (4-9) due to the strength of schedule.
At the same time even teams in the same league that schedule tougher out of league game can have an advantage. Schroeder and Irondequoit were both 14-2 however Schroeder’s seeding points were 0.5 higher. On the other side of the spectrum, Bath and Batavia were both winless last season (0-16), yet Batavia was seeded higher based on playing a MC-3 schedule instead of a GRALL schedule.
In the end, it not only comes down to winning games, but also the quality of opponents that you are facing. Beating up on teams that don’t win many games will never be as advantageous as trying your hand at beating tough out of league games. Remember, losing to a .750 teams is the same points as beating a sub .250 team.
One note to remember. As tempting as it is to try and figure out the seedings. It is extremely difficult. There are too many factors (and too many games left) at this point to accurately predict how seeding will come out in two weeks. As of today, only two teams have “set” their win/loss record; Canandaigua and Penfield (both are guaranteed .7500 even if they lose all their remaining games). Every other team can change which bracket they are in. So, even two weeks out, predicting the seeding is still too difficult a challenge.
This weeks spotlight is a little different. After talking with Paul last week, we noticed some aspects of the leader board that seemed statistically relevant. Looking at the top 16 Points leaders it becomes obvious that non-Monroe County teams dominate the top field. The Top 16 Points athletes are broken down by division as: 7 are from FL-1, 5 are from GRALL, 3 are from MC-1 and 1 is from MC-3.
Having access to a larger list, I pulled the Points all the way down to 50 and looked at what the list said (there were 51 with ties). Here is the breakdown.
By Division:
- MC-1 – 9
- MC-2 – 5
- MC-3 – 7
- FL-1 – 13
- FL-2 – 6
- GRALL – 11
Leading Teams
- Gates Chili – 5
- Livonia – 4
- Penn Yan – 4
- Canandaigua – 4
- Penfield – 3
- Geneva – 3
I then began to think about the various reasons that one may have a high point count. On one hand, the quality of opponent plays a major role. Gates-Chili has had a number of high scoring games against weaker MC-3 opponents. Due to their competition, a multitude of players have had opportunities to score and reach the leader board. On the other hand there is a long list of teams that only have one player in the top 51: Batavia, Ath/Ody, Thomas, CC, Hilton, Eastridge, HFL, RH, Pittsford, Midlakes, BH, Waterloo and Pal-Mac. (Only 6 teams have no one represented: Arc/Oly, Brockport, Spencerport, Brighton, Mynderse and Schroeder).
The aspect that got us interested in looking at the leader board is the fact that in the Top 10 not a single Monroe County player is present. You have look to #11, Kyle Van Thof of Penfield before you find a player from Monroe County. Geneva and Penn Yan both have two on the top of the list and neither can be accused of playing a weak schedule. So does that mean that they have one player that dominates all their scoring? (Like Mitch Ritchie from McQuaid (#2), Nick Scalzo of Thomas(#20), or Tyler Brooks-Lambert of Midlakes (#17)). No. Geneva, as noted above, has three players of the list and Penn Yan has four. Each of these teams are playing difficult opponents, yet still have multiple athletes on the top of the list.
This demonstrates that depth that these teams have. They have multiple scoring threats and if a team manages to shut down one of their top players another steps right up into their place. Team like Geneva (Alex Love (#1), Kyle Boncaro (#3), Eric Legott (#45)) and Penn Yan (Matt Osgood (#6), Adam Trombley (#9), Cole Castle (#30), John Linnan (#40)) demonstrate why teams with multiple threats are hard to deal with.
Canandaigua and Penfield also have multiple players in the top of the leaderboard. Canandaigua (Connor Henerson (#7), Justin Tomzak (T-#12), Andrew Knoblauch (T-34) and Brian Scheetz (T-45)) and Penfield (Kyle VanThof (#11), Kyle Denhoff (#12) and Connor Rice (T-#15)) both fall into the category of teams who have played difficult game but come out on top. Both of these teams have remained undefeated and having multiple scoring threats is a major part of that.
Teams that don’t have players that make the leader board also have high ranking players just off the list. Irondequoit’s Greg Wright (#19) and Drew Coholan (#21) are just off the list.
Overall, I think it is a combination of the two factors. It is both a testament to the strength of programs like Geneva, Penn Yan, Canandaigua and Penfield as well as the schedules of Gates Chili, McQuaid, Livonia and Bath. In the end, one cannot say whether it is solely based on the competition of the strength of the particular athlete, but a combination of both.
This weeks spotlight team is Bath. The Rams have had a turn around year. After not winning a game for 40 consecutive contests, spanning three years, the Rams have come out swinging this year with a 4-2 record. The two losses for Bath both came from GRALL competition in the form of a 7-5 loss to Livonia and a 10-9 loss to McQuaid. The Rams will face Aquinas on Tuesday at 7:00 as they try again for the first GRALL win ever.
Bath has scored 61 goals (31 assists) this season, averaging 10.2 G/game and 5.2 A/game while they have only been scored on 35 times (5.8 GA/game). Over the past four seasons the Rams have never been this strong. The average offense for the Rams has been weak at best: 2007, 5.00; 2006, 3.06; 2005, 6.89; and 2004, 7.1. Their offense was ranked 29th the last two season. Defensively they were not much better: 12.44, 13.00, 10.44 and 9.81 GA/game.
Overall the Rams have had decisive wins over teams who they battled with last season. 12-8 win over Owego (6-2 loss last season), 11-7 win over Mynderse (12-11 loss last season), 14-1 win over Batavia and 10-2 win over Midlakes (14-5 loss and 11-7 loss last season).
Leading the charge this season for the Rams are seniors McKenzie Durham and Dave Harris. Durham and Harris are both tied for leading scoring with 17 goals each. Durham also has 11 assists. Freshman attackman Zach Reed has also been a major component to Bath’s offense. Reed has 13g-10a and is second in total points, behind Durham. ‘
In the cage, junior Chris Wolfer continues his duties from last year. Wolfer finished the 2007 season with 247 saves and a 52.5% average. This season Wolfer is holding a 59% average with strong games against Batavia (86%), Midlakes (71%) and Owego (65%).
The Rams have come together and are looking like a team. Coach Ken DiDomineck said in the beginning of the season “We will be young, [with] only 3 seniors, but the athletes on the team are hardcore lacrosse fanatics which is something we have not had in a while.” As the wins started and Bath became 2-0 for the first time in the program history, Coach DiDomineck said “It is a good time to be Bath lacrosse player.” Indeed, starting 4-2 with only a three goal difference combining your two losses, it is a good time to be a Bath lacrosse player.
This weeks spotlight is the offense for the Little Irish. With five pdf’s available for Aquinas, there is a unique opportunity to demonstrate how some of the season (or partial season) totals can be evaluated. The starting attack for the Little Irish is Austin Gorman, Cameron Corsaro and Jasen Torres. The starting midfield is Marc Brondon, Anthony Bianchi and Neil Foley. Additional midfielders are Casey Vogl, Mike Gray, Dylan Pinto and Mike Messina.
On the Leader Board, Gorman is third in goals and fourth in assists and second in total points for the season. However, for this article we will be discussing totals from only five games (McQuaid, St. Francis, St. Joseph, Churchville-Chili and Geneva).
The starting attack has taken a total of 76 shots (41 on cage and 22 goals). The starting midfield has taken 74 shots (38 on cage and 13 goals). The remaining athletes have taken 54 shots (24 on cage and 8 goals).
With the number of shots about equal between the starting midfield and starting attack, the percentages tell the story. 54% of the attack shots and 51% of the midfield shots are on cage, demonstrating that generally no matter who is shooting there is about a 50% chance it is going to hit the cage. Obviously each player has their own on cage percentage; Brondon 62%, Gorman 60%, Corsaro 43%, Bianchi 32%.
However, when looking at what percentage the opposing goalie saves there is a large disparity. The opposing goalies saves 66% of the shots from the midfield, while only saving 46% of the attackman shots.
Additionally, when one looks at goals from total shots (in percentage form; i.e. number of goals / number of total shots), there is also a disparity between the midfield and the attack. Nearly 30% of the shots that the attack takes are goals, while 18% of the midfielder’s shots are converted into goals.
Finally, I decided to publish an additional statistic that came to the surface when I was doing research for this article, but was not exactly relevant to the topic. At the face-off Casey Vogl has taken the most draws with 39, Foley in second with 33 and Messina in third with 23. However, when looking at the percentages Messina has a significant lead with 78%, Foley in second with 55% and Vogl in third with 51%.
Keep reading next week and you might see your team as the statistical spotlight of the week.
