:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/12586631/albany.0.png)
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 America East Tournament.
Here's the reality of this entire situation: Stony Brook has a chance -- an admittedly chemically-imbalanced crazypants chance -- but it would take some seriously unique circumstances for Albany not to win today. The Seawolves have ability, but the Great Danes are just a terrible matchup for Stony Brook in a myriad of ways, most notably in that the Thompson Trio exists and they combined for 22 points against Stony Brook this past weekend.
THE COMPUTING MACHINE SAYS
Log5: Stony Brook (39.23%); Albany (60.77%)
DOSSIERS
| STONY BROOK SEAWOLVES | ALBANY GREAT DANES | ||
| OPPORTUNITIES/TEMPO | |||
| Pace | 65.43 (37) | 79.09 (1) | |
| Opportunities Margin | -4.58 (59) | +1.92 (18) | |
| Possession Ratio | 46.50% (60) | 51.22% (21) | |
| Functional Offensive Opportunities per 60 Minutes | 27.15 (55) | 38.06 (1) | |
| Functional Offensive Opportunities Ratio | 89.25% (55) | 93.94% (11) | |
| Functional Defensive Opportunities per 60 Minutes | 33.37 (55) | 35.47 (62) | |
| Functional Defensive Opportunities Ratio | 95.33% (60) | 91.92% (27) | |
| Lost Functional Offensive Opportunities per 60 Minutes | 10.73 (8) | 15.58 (60) | |
| Lost Functional Offensive Opportunities Ratio | 39.52% (24) | 40.94% (35) | |
| Lost Functional Defensive Opportunities per 60 Minutes | 14.13 (8) | 13.46 (15) | |
| Lost Functional Defensive Opportunities Ratio | 42.35% (21) | 37.94% (40) | |
| Lost Functional Opportunities Margin | +3.40 (2) | -2.12 (55) | |
| Lost Functional Opportunities Margin Ratio | +2.83% (23) | -3.00% (44) | |
| ADJUSTED EFFICIENCIES | |||
| Adjusted Offensive Efficiency | 33.39 (13) | 37.63 (7) | |
| Adjusted Defensive Efficiency | 31.97 (37) | 31.29 (34) | |
| Adjusted Efficiency Margin | +1.42 (28) | +6.35 (14) | |
| SHOOTING | |||
| Shots per Offensive Opportunity | 1.01 (49) | 1.07 (38) | |
| Raw Offensive Shooting Rate | 34.68% (2) | 36.24% (1) | |
| Shots per Defensive Opportunity | 1.11 (36) | 1.04 (23) | |
| Raw Defensive Shooting Rate | 28.69% (39) | 29.87% (50) | |
| ASSISTS | |||
| Offensive Assist Ratio | 57.06% (33) | 58.23% (28) | |
| Offensive Assist Rate | 20.00 (14) | 22.59 (4) | |
| Defensive Assist Ratio | 54.39% (25) | 51.38% (16) | |
| Defensive Assist Rate | 17.38 (38) | 15.98 (28) | |
| EXTRA-MAN RATES | |||
| Extra-Man Postures per 100 Offensive Opportunities | 4.10 (3) | 10.97 (26) | |
| Extra-Man Posture Reliance | 12.27% (26) | 10.55% (45) | |
| Extra-Man Posture Conversion Rate | 33.33% (36) | 37.31% (23) | |
| Man-Down Postures per 100 Defensive Opportunities | 6.73 (3) | 10.82 (37) | |
| Man-Down Posture Reliance | 7.60% (5) | 10.50% (21) | |
| Man-Down Posture Conversion Rate | 36.11% (40) | 30.16% (17) | |
| MISCELLANEOUS | |||
| Penalties per 100 Opportunities (Team) | 4.10 (3) | 5.53 (31) | |
| Penalties per 100 Opportunities (Opponent) | 6.90 (12) | 5.78 (29) | |
| Caused Turnovers per 100 Defensive Opportunities (Team) | 18.69 (51) | 20.45 (40) | |
| Caused Turnovers per 100 Defensive Opportunities (Opponent) | 19.57 (14) | 21.11 (25) | |
| Turnovers per 100 Offensive Opportunities (Team) | 46.02 (38) | 44.52 (27) | |
| Turnovers per 100 Offensive Opportunities (Opponent) | 45.05 (33) | 42.96 (43) | |
| Unforced Turnovers per 100 Offensive Opportunities (Team) | 26.45 (57) | 23.40 (33) | |
| Unforced Turnovers per 100 Offensive Opportunities (Opponent) | 26.36 (9) | 22.51 (38) | |
| Team "Run-of-Play Work Rate" (Non-Faceoff Groundballs per 100 Total Opportunities) | 25.50 (47) | 27.16 (34) | |
| Opponent "Run-of-Play Work Rate" (Non-Faceoff Groundballs per 100 Total Opportunities) | 27.70 (35) | 23.97 (8) | |
| "Run-of-Play Work Rate" Margin | -2.20 (43) | +3.19 (16) | |
| GOALIE ACTIVITY | |||
| Saves per 100 Defensive Opportunities | 28.41 (55) | 30.24 (48) | |
| Saves per 100 Offensive Opportunities | 31.83 (18) | 27.99 (2) | |
| Team Save Percentage | 47.06% (59) | 49.30% (51) | |
| Opponent Save Percentage | 47.59% (10) | 41.91% (1) |
THOUGHTS AND STUFF
Two pieces of incredibly important information about each team from my brain to your eyes via your Internet computing machine:
- Stony Brook is one of the weirdest teams in the country and at some point this offseason words will appear about that. However, for the moment, something else needs addressing: The Seawolves' problems on the whistle are hurting Stony Brook again this season, but it isn't the totality of the Seawolves issues as some Seawolves partisans would lead you to believe. The narrative that Stony Brook is struggling due, in part, to the team's inability to give its offense enough opportunities is fairly sound, though, but how the narrative has been positioned isn't quite complete: Faceoff play is a major factor, but Stony Brook's lack of capability in clearing the ball is also important in the possession deficit discussion. Let's say that Stony Brook drew at the national average -- that'd lead to about 37 more offensive opportunities for the Seawolves (when you apply the team's offensive and defensive efficiency values to that change, that's about 12 more goals for the Seawolves and about 12 goals off the board for its opposition); let's say that Stony Brook cleared at the national average -- that's about 10 more offensive opportunities for the Seawolves (applying the efficiency rates again, that's about three goals in Stony Brook's favor and about three goals off the board that the opposition hypothetically scored). We're now talking about a team that goes from a minus-eight goal differential to a plus-22 differential. That's a big deal for a team that (1) needs extra opportunities for its offense because it's Stony Brook's strongest unit, (2) needs to insulate it's defense because it isn't all that hot and has serious issues between the pipes, and (3) ventured through four one-goal losses this season -- to Bryant, Binghamton, UMBC, and Yale -- and played in a possession deficit in all four games (three out of the four games were minus-four deficits with the date against Bryant being a minus-10 effort). This is how reasonably competitive teams accrue a 7-8 record and a 2-3 mark in conference.
- I'm not really sure what more I can write about the Great Danes. Things are starting to fall into place for Albany -- goaltending concerns remain, as well as the overall ceiling for the defense -- but there is an unequivocal fact about Albany: There isn't a team in the country that is more fun to watch than the Great Danes, and their style continues to create problems for both the prepared and unprepared. Albany remains number one in the Fun Factor scale, and the team's underlying values that build into the metric don't have many peers: The Great Danes are playing around 79 total possessions per 60 minutes of play (the top mark in the country and 12 possessions greater than the national average); no team -- not even Denver and its armory of offensive weapons -- exceeds the 36.24 percent raw shooting rate that the Great Danes have put together (the Thompson Trio is shooting 40.34 percent on the season and are taking 45.11 percent of Albany's total shots); only three teams share the ball as well as the Great Danes in the offensive end (thanks, in part, to Lyle Thompson having the spirit of compassion in his heart); and, most importantly of all, Albany is good, finding a place in the top third of the country despite its defensive issues. These kinds of teams -- flawed, yet destructive -- tend to get exposed as the season progresses (especially in the NCAA Tournament), but Albany has, for the most part, avoided this fate and is positioning itself as the toughest matchup in The Big Barbecue should the Great Danes take care of business on the North Shore of Long Island this week.