clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

ACC Lacrosse Tournament Preview: Virginia-Maryland

Get your face ready for Cavaliers-Terrapins.

Rob Carr

Every Division I tournament. Every team. College Crosse has it all on lockdown. Please send cookies and naptime. Today we're slashing to bits the ACC Tournament.

This is kind of like the Battle of San Juan Hill for Virginia. Except instead of Spaniards the Cavaliers are fighting robot war lords that are only programmed to gain ground, not cede it. And the robots are fighting with spaceships outfitted with sophisticated laser cannons that the human brain cannot process. And the robots have deployed dinosaurs to the front line via their military-issue time machines. And now Virginia needs to do their taxes as they mount their first charge because the government just won't get off their back, man.

Anyway, that's basically Virginia's beat in the ACC Tournament this weekend if they hope to make the NCAA Tournament. On the flip side, Maryland is sipping margaritas and sending funny pictures of cats acting like humans to their friends.


Log5: Virginia (30.15%); Maryland (69.85%)


ACC Tournament: Virginia (4) vs. Maryland (1)
Pace 72.39 (5) 62.55 (52)
Opportunities Margin +2.83 (14) +5.09 (4)
Possession Ratio 51.96% (14) 54.07% (3)
Functional Offensive Opportunities per 60 Minutes 36.00 (3) 31.91 (23)
Functional Offensive Opportunities Ratio 95.72% (3) 94.35% (6)
Functional Defensive Opportunities per 60 Minutes 31.56 (42) 26.45 (1)
Functional Defensive Opportunities Ratio 90.75% (18) 92.09% (33)
Lost Functional Offensive Opportunities per 60 Minutes 11.18 (11) 13.00 (46)
Lost Functional Offensive Opportunities Ratio 31.06% (2) 40.74% (34)
Lost Functional Defensive Opportunities per 60 Minutes 13.87 (12) 11.45 (47)
Lost Functional Defensive Opportunities Ratio 43.93% (17) 43.30% (18)
Lost Functional Opportunities Margin +2.68 (2) -1.55 (49)
Lost Functional Opportunities Margin Ratio 12.87% (2) 2.56% (25)
Adjusted Offensive Efficiency 31.99 (17) 35.43 (10)
Adjusted Defensive Efficiency 27.97 (20) 23.62 (7)
Adjusted Efficiency Margin +4.02 (22) +11.81 (4)
Shots per Offensive Opportunity 1.21 (7) 1.05 (42)
Raw Offensive Shooting Rate 25.76% (44) 33.16% (4)
Shots per Defensive Opportunity 0.97 (8) 1.09 (30)
Raw Defensive Shooting Rate 30.98% (54) 23.12% (5)
Offensive Assist Ratio 60.13% (19) 59.23% (21)
Offensive Assist Rate 18.74 (21) 20.70 (12)
Defensive Assist Ratio 56.62% (36) 52.50% (21)
Defensive Assist Rate 16.96 (36) 13.29 (5)
Extra-Man Postures per 100 Offensive Opportunities 7.94 (58) 9.68 (39)
Extra-Man Posture Reliance 9.15% (49) 10.77% (42)
Extra-Man Posture Conversion Rate 35.90% (23) 38.89% (17)
Man-Down Postures per 100 Defensive Opportunities 8.59 (9) 10.76 (36)
Man-Down Posture Reliance 8.82% (13) 12.50% (39)
Man-Down Posture Conversion Rate 30.77% (22) 29.41% (20)
Penalties per 100 Opportunities (Team) 4.23 (4) 5.23 (22)
Penalties per 100 Opportunities (Opponent) 4.55 (54) 5.23 (42)
Caused Turnovers per 100 Defensive Opportunities (Team) 26.43 (14) 25.32 (17)
Caused Turnovers per 100 Defensive Opportunities (Opponent) 14.26 (1) 19.09 (13)
Turnovers per 100 Offensive Opportunities (Team) 34.01 (2) 44.09 (26)
Turnovers per 100 Offensive Opportunities (Opponent) 49.12 (18) 47.78 (20)
Unforced Turnovers per 100 Offensive Opportunities (Team) 19.76 (10) 25.00 (44)
Unforced Turnovers per 100 Offensive Opportunities (Opponent) 22.69 (39) 22.47 (40)
Team "Run-of-Play Work Rate" (Non-Faceoff Groundballs per 100 Total Opportunities) 37.14 (1) 32.70 (7)
Opponent "Run-of-Play Work Rate" (Non-Faceoff Groundballs per 100 Total Opportunities) 26.67 (27) 24.27 (13)
"Run-of-Play Work Rate" Margin +10.48 (1) +8.43 (2)
Saves per 100 Defensive Opportunities 28.41 (55) 40.51 (9)
Saves per 100 Offensive Opportunities 36.05 (46) 30.11 (10)
Team Save Percentage 48.68% (55) 61.54% (4)
Opponent Save Percentage 53.64% (36) 46.28% (6)


Two pieces of incredibly important information about each team from my brain to your eyes via your Internet computing machine:

  • The story of the game may be the play that Virginia gets out of the net -- Maryland, as a team, remains one of best goalie embarrassers in the nation despite the chatter about how the Terrapins have become somewhat one dimensional offensively and losing a bit of its balance and approach (this chatter does hold water) -- and that theme shouldn't fade into the background. However, assuming the Cavaliers' crease play remains static, the focus then turns to Virginia's offense: Assuming that the Wahoos continue to value the ball -- there are only a handful of teams in the country that have possessed the ball with a kung-fu grip quite like the Cavaliers (in terms of both limiting turnovers and dominating the groundball game in the run of play) -- the Cavaliers may be able to volumize their offense and keep pace with Maryland. The pace of the game may be a contrast in styles with Maryland looking to deflate pace while the Cavaliers attempt to roll with jetpacks, but if Kenan Stadium features trench warfare, the Cavaliers are going to need to maximize their offensive opportunities and that starts with continuing to value the bean. Virginia's ability to avoid committing unforced turnovers and limiting caused giveaways permits a safety net if the Cavaliers continue to have trouble finding the back of the net with a modicum of accuracy. Volume is an ugly way to approach the game, but the Cavaliers are going to need it this evening, and that all starts with maintaining and generating possessions.
  • If Maryland can come out and dominate both possession generation and the pace of play, Virginia is going to get reacquainted with its coach bus fairly quickly. The Terrapins have an advantage at the faceoff dot and its clearing game should sustain itself unless the Cavaliers look to come out and hyper-press with its ride (which is a possibility if Virginia is looking to create a hectic atmosphere and create a few more opportunities). The result, of course, is this: If Maryland deflates the total number of opportunities in the game and holds a strong possession margin (in terms of number of offensive opportunities it has compared to Virginia's opportunities), the Terrapins -- based on the team's offensive and defensive efficiencies (if Maryland plays to its potential) -- can suffocate the Cavaliers out of the game and build out a lead -- three to four goals -- that Virginia simply can't come back from. The Terrapins are an anesthetic, and given time and proper administration, they'll do the job without you even noticing. Maryland doesn't necessarily need to play fantastic to beat the Cavaliers; rather, they simply need to create the circumstances to which it finds success and trusting that its offensive and defensive units generate value to which they are capable (which was notably missing a bit against Johns Hopkins).