I just finished Michael Lewis’s 2003 bestselling book
Moneyball. I know, I’m about seven years behind the
curve. But I still have a block for a cell phone and Third Eye
Blind’s 1996 self-titled album playing in my car, so I guess
you could say I come around to things a bit slower than everyone
else.
Anyway, I loved the book. The concept is fascinating: how were the
Oakland Athletics, a major league baseball team with one of the
league’s smallest budgets (less than a third of that of the
Yankees), able to make the playoffs three years in a row in a
league where teams that spend the most usually dominate?
Lewis makes a convincing case that the team's success came from
relying on extensive statistical models that helped the front
office figure out what was undervalued in the baseball player
market (at the time, a player’s ability to get on base and
drive in runs), and exploiting it.
And in 2002, much to Lewis’ delight, Oakland’s rag-tag
group of guys, many of whom had been dismissed as too old or too
slow, but who could get on base, hit for power and were cheap, went
on to win 103 games before eventually falling in the divisional
playoffs.
I know what you’re thinking.
Joel, I’m reading this blog to learn more about the
fastest game on two feet. If I wanted to think about baseball
statistics, I would’ve painted my room gray and watched it
dry.
But frankly, I couldn’t stop thinking about our sport while
reading the book. What lacrosse skills are overvalued in the
recruiting process? Do coaches or Inside Lacrosse’s
recruiting rankings value attributes or talents that don’t
necessarily influence winning? What statistics currently compiled
during lacrosse games really measure the success of a team?
Because lacrosse is a more fluid, team-oriented game than
baseball, can these statistics capture the real value of a player
(Lewis touches on these questions more directly in his article on
basketball player Shane Battier)? Alternatively, what skills are
undervalued by college lacrosse programs? What kinds of talents can
a mid-major school specifically recruit to be more competitive with
teams that often get their picks of the litter?
These are just several of the questions that could be asked and,
hopefully, answered if statisticians structured massive amounts of
raw empirical data generated during lacrosse games.
And if I had to speculate about what types of players are
undervalued by college lacrosse coaches in the recruiting process,
I would probably guess the Canadians. Lacrosse Magazine Online
editor Matt DaSilva stole my thunder a bit when he wrote yesterday
about how Canuck finishers are changing the game.
Despite their unmatched talent at finding open space, cleaning up
rebounds and finishing off-ball -- all skills they develop by
playing indoor box lacrosse, where they have to work in tighter
spaces and shoot on a smaller goal -- many of this year’s
most prolific Canadian scorers have been under-recruited, playing
at mid-major schools like Hofstra, Stony Brook, Delaware and Robert
Morris.
But similar to how the Red Sox and Yankees eventually began
adopting the Athletics' quantitative approach, the “bigger
market” schools seem to be noticing the Canadians’
effectiveness around the cage. As DaSilva aptly pointed out,
Georgetown freshman Travis Comeau from Alberta has emerged as the
Hoyas’ fourth attackman, while freshman Zach Palmer plays on
Hopkins’ first midfield.
Skills and traits that are overvalued? Probably an
attackman’s ability to dodge. (I can count on one hand the
number of guys who can consistently draw a double from behind. An
attackman’s efficiency has more to do with his finishing
ability in unsettled situations.) A player’s height would
probably be another trait vastly overvalued in recruits (although
the size and subsequent reach of the UNC defense is making me
rethink this position a bit).
Still, as Moneyball teaches us, we should at least
concede that without any empirical evidence, we can never be
completely sure about anything. We’re simply stabbing in the
dark. And, unfortunately, because lacrosse is a non-revenue sport,
the likelihood that some Harvard or MIT graduates will start
breaking down lacrosse tape is remote.
Odds and Odds
* Love the mid-week UNC-Princeton match-up. I know I put Princeton
at No. 2 last week, but I thought UNC just looked too good against
Duke -- rangy defenders, horses at midfield (if only sophomore
midfielder Jimmy Dunster could finish!), and Bitter and co. at
attack. I think Princeton could win, but a long mid-week road trip
down to Chapel Thrill certainly doesn’t make it any easier.
* I like Mike Manley, Duke’s stud defender, but
thought playing Bitter straight up was a terrible mistake. The only
time I’ve ever seen Bitter really contained was last year
against UVA after he embarrassed Kenny Clausen (see video below).
The Cavs then put a lefty on him, took away any inside roll
opportunities and forced him upfield.
* Don’t let the baby face fool you. UNC’s Thomas Wood
is deadly finishing from the right wing.
* I know Syracuse’s Josh Amidon scored four against the
Hoyas. But save the one lefty hitch he had, the rest were in
transition. I’m not sold on him being anything more than a
finisher in settled offense at this point.
Joel Censer is a 2008 graduate of Haverford College, where
he was an All-American defenseman and helped lead the Fords to the
second round of the NCAA Division III tournament. He loves lax and
wants to know what your "Moneyball" concept is. Comment below and
check LMO each week for more "UnCensered" musings.
