Another Way to Present Tempo-Free Lacrosse Statistics

I have always been a casual college lacrosse fan, never watching the sport until Memorial Day weekend, but it always intrigued me. This year, I found myself watching some more regular season games than I ever had and heading into the national tournament, wanted to learn more about the sport.

I've been a follower of Sabermetric stats in baseball for around five years now, and have done some writing for other SBN blogs like Beyond the Boxscore and the Tigers-centric SBN blog Bless You Boys giving my advanced-stat slant on things (and have done some tempo-free basketball fanposts over at Michigan State's SBN blog, The Only Colors). So, I'm a complete numbers geek who tends to learn more about a sport through the data mining.

In wanting to learn more about college lacrosse I went on the hunt for advanced statistics -- I knew enough that a per-possession-based stat would tell me more than a per-game rate for obvious reasons that HoyaSuxa has explained numerous times on here. As of a couple weeks ago, I started estimating possessions and tempo-free data before stumbling upon HoyaSuxa's work and now I'm hooked.

All of that was a long way to just say a couple things: 1) I am relatively new to the sport, but have a semi-decent understanding of strategy and most rules and 2) I love to toy around with statistics.

One thing that baseball doesn't lack is the ways in which you can present data. I like to apply a particular method from baseball into basketball and now I'm going to do it with lacrosse.

The problem I had reading HoyaSuxa's posts is that I didn't have proper context. Sure, I knew that Cornell had a great Efficiency Margin, but how much better than average was it? Sure, Maryland played a slow-down game, but how much slower than the D1 average were they? The raw data doesn't help me a lot, so I want to use a method from baseball that I like to call the "Plus Stats."

An example of a Plus Stat is OPS+. What it does is puts the league mean at 100 and every point above or below 100 is a 1% difference from the average (in theory; some things like ERA+ at Baseball Reference aren't calculated correctly so that a 1% change is 101 on this scale, but mine are). So an 80 would be 20% lower than average and 120 would be 20% higher. This helps me get a better grasp of the particular statistic I'm looking at because it gives me context.

A cool 430+ words in and I'm ready to get to the data. Here's a few random statistics -- some I've seen used on College Crosse and some that I haven't -- in Plus Stat form -- for the 2011 season.

Face Off Percentage


Team FO% FO+
YALE 0.659 132
VMI 0.655 131
HOBART 0.650 130
JHU 0.649 130
HART 0.629 126
HOF 0.622 125
MARY 0.616 123
BRYANT 0.592 119
RUT 0.586 117
SB 0.578 116


Yale, VMI, HObart and Hopkins all dominated on the draws this year. Unfortunately, that doesn't guarantee success given that VMI, Hobart, Hartford, and Bryant all had negative efficiency margins this year.


Ground Ball Percentage


Team GB% GB+
MARY 0.579 116
BRYANT 0.576 115
SB 0.567 113
HOF 0.565 113
LEHIGH 0.559 112
LOY (MD) 0.558 111
HART 0.557 111
DUKE 0.555 111
YALE 0.548 109
UNC 0.547 109


GB% is simply ground balls gathered divided by total ground balls. Here, Maryland shows one of their signs of dominance in the tempo-free battle. Maryland grabbed more available grounders than any other team in the country (marginally, ahead of Bryant who shows, once again, that grabbing GB's doesn't come with success).


Turnover Percentage


Team TO% TO%+
MARY 0.334 68
UNC 0.361 74
SYR 0.372 76
UVA 0.377 77
UMASS 0.399 81
CORNELL 0.410 84
DUKE 0.415 85
LAF 0.420 86
HOF 0.425 87
JHU 0.427 87


Here, you don't want to turn the ball over so a lower number is better. Maryland grabs the most ground balls in the country and when they had the ball they didn't give it away at all. They were 32% better than the national average.

Possession Percentage


MARY 0.581 116
JHU 0.548 110
YALE 0.546 109
HOF 0.540 108
HART 0.539 108
UNC 0.530 106
SB 0.530 106
BRYANT 0.529 106
RUT 0.526 105
HOBART 0.525 105


Add up Maryland's good face off ranking (seventh best), their penchant for getting ground balls (first), and how well they take care of the ball (least turnovers per offensive possession in the nation) and it's easy to see why Maryland possessed the ball 58% of the available possessions in their games. I have data for both 2010 and 2011 and Maryland was still far-and-away the best in this category with Hopkins and Yale both right behind them. Fourth place was the 2010 North Carolina Tar Heels.

Now, the caveats here are that none of my values are adjusted for a strength of schedule like the numbers generally presented around these parts are. That's the reason I haven't presented the offensive or defensive efficiency data. In the raw data, Robert Morris had an Offensive Efficiency of 38.0 which becomes a 135 Off Eff+. Surely, though, they were benefiting from playing in the Northeast Conference.

Questions or suggestions?

Log In Sign Up

Log In Sign Up

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior users will need to choose a permanent username, along with a new password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

I already have a Vox Media account!

Verify Vox Media account

Please login to your Vox Media account. This account will be linked to your previously existing Eater account.

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior MT authors will need to choose a new username and password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join College Crosse

You must be a member of College Crosse to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at College Crosse. You should read them.

Join College Crosse

You must be a member of College Crosse to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at College Crosse. You should read them.




Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.