clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Ivy Lacrosse Tournament Preview: Princeton-Cornell

Get your face ready for Tigers-Red.

Mitchell Layton

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 Ivy League Tournament.

This, basically:


Log5: Princeton (34.82%); Cornell (65.18%) (I think the computing machine is a little drunk.)


Ivy League Tournament: Princeton (4) vs. Cornell (1)
Pace 67.00 (27) 74.07 (3)
Opportunities Margin +2.69 (13) +1.07 (26)
Possession Ratio 52.01% (13) 50.72% (27)
Functional Offensive Opportunities per 60 Minutes 32.46 (15) 35.14 (4)
Functional Offensive Opportunities Ratio 93.16% (23) 93.54% (16)
Functional Defensive Opportunities per 60 Minutes 29.08 (19) 32.43 (50)
Functional Defensive Opportunities Ratio 90.43% (11) 88.85% (5)
Lost Functional Offensive Opportunities per 60 Minutes 12.00 (29) 12.57 (35)
Lost Functional Offensive Opportunities Ratio 36.97% (14) 35.77% (12)
Lost Functional Defensive Opportunities per 60 Minutes 11.54 (46) 14.50 (6)
Lost Functional Defensive Opportunities Ratio 39.68% (33) 44.71% (14)
Lost Functional Opportunities Margin -0.46 (43) +1.93 (8)
Lost Functional Opportunities Margin Ratio +2.72% (23) +8.94% (5)
Adjusted Offensive Efficiency 38.10 (6) 38.57 (5)
Adjusted Defensive Efficiency 29.84 (27) 24.67 (7)
Adjusted Efficiency Margin 8.26 (9) 13.90 (1)
Shots per Offensive Opportunity 1.21 (6) 1.21 (7)
Raw Offensive Shooting Rate 29.01% (25) 30.97% (14)
Shots per Defensive Opportunity 1.11 (32) 0.94 (4)
Raw Defensive Shooting Rate 27.27% (24) 26.04% (12)
Offensive Assist Ratio 59.75% (18) 50.76% (50)
Offensive Assist Rate 20.97 (13) 19.01 (23)
Defensive Assist Ratio 62.70% (51) 55.20% (29)
Defensive Assist Rate 18.90 (46) 13.50 (6)
Extra-Man Postures per 100 Offensive Opportunities 11.04 (25) 9.32 (46)
Extra-Man Posture Reliance 13.21% (18) 9.14% (49)
Extra-Man Posture Conversion Rate 42.00% (11) 36.73% (25)
Man-Down Postures per 100 Defensive Opportunities 9.57 (17) 9.78 (20)
Man-Down Posture Reliance 13.49% (45) 10.40% (19)
Man-Down Posture Conversion Rate 42.50% (56) 26.00% (10)
Penalties per 100 Opportunities (Team) 5.05 (20) 5.21 (23)
Penalties per 100 Opportunities (Opponent) 5.86 (26) 5.11 (43)
Caused Turnovers per 100 Defensive Opportunities (Team) 19.86 (43) 27.40 (10)
Caused Turnovers per 100 Defensive Opportunities (Opponent) 17.00 (8) 17.11 (9)
Turnovers per 100 Offensive Opportunities (Team) 41.28 (14) 39.92 (10)
Turnovers per 100 Offensive Opportunities (Opponent) 45.45 (30) 50.88 (9)
Unforced Turnovers per 100 Offensive Opportunities (Team) 24.28 (41) 22.81 (30)
Unforced Turnovers per 100 Offensive Opportunities (Opponent) 25.60 (15) 23.48 (29)
Team "Run-of-Play Work Rate" (Non-Faceoff Groundballs per 100 Total Opportunities) 27.90 (28) 29.89 (17)
Opponent "Run-of-Play Work Rate" (Non-Faceoff Groundballs per 100 Total Opportunities) 24.45 (10) 23.43 (4)
"Run-of-Play Work Rate" Margin +3.44 (14) +6.46 (3)
Saves per 100 Defensive Opportunities 31.34 (44) 25.83 (63)
Saves per 100 Offensive Opportunities 28.70 (3) 29.85 (9)
Team Save Percentage 50.97% (41) 51.36% (39)
Opponent Save Percentage 44.98% (4) 44.35% (3)


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

  • Princeton needs a shootout with Cornell; if the Tigers can't get into a scoring war with the Red, a replay of the team's Big City Classic match may occur. Princeton remains an offensive force -- comparable to Cornell -- but unlike the Red, the Tigers don't have a tight defensive unit that operates in an efficient manner. The issue with Princeton's defense lies, in large part, with the play the Tigers are getting from the crease: Princeton isn't seeing its keeper make many stops to end defensive opportunities, and the reason for that is that the Tigers' goaltenders aren't doing a good job of actually stopping the ball. Whether it's Matt O'Connor or Eric Sanschagrin in the net, the lack of consistent play that the Princeton is getting from the crease is impacting the overall efficacy of Princeton's defensive efforts (efforts, notably, that include reconfiguring almost the entirety of the Tigers' field defense). If the Princeton offense can crack Cornell's defense and get into a floodgates-open type of game (not unlike the regular season game that the Tigers played against North Carolina), the impact of Princeton's crease play diminishes; all the Tigers need in that kind of situation is a stop or two to potentially change the outcome of the game (rather than trying to keep Cornell from scoring on less than 30 percent of their opportunities (which isn't in the Red's DNA)). The onus, then, is on the Tigers to come correct offensively and for Cornell to meander through their defensive postures, but neither circumstance is a given. Princeton can promote these circumstances -- dominating possession helps in that pursuit -- but the Tigers aren't going to be given this through birthright.
  • As I sat through Cornell's press conference at MetLife Stadium after the Red's defeat of Princeton, I was stone-cold shocked when Ben DeLuca and Rob Pannell each talked about Pannell doing more for Cornell as the Red approached its postseason. This is Rob Pannell, arguably one of the game's best attackman in the last dozen years, asserting that he needed to shoulder more responsibility for Cornell. You know, that Red team currently rolling with a top five-type offense (and it would show better in tempo-free metrics if the Red didn't throttle back the offense a little bit in some of its blowouts this season). Pannell's usage rate is already through the roof -- he shoulders the team's shooting responsibility (accounting for about 21 percent of the team's attempts); he's the pivot for Cornell's goal scoring, dumping in 34 of his own (second on the team behind Steve Mock) while accounting for 41 others (that's about 40 percent of the team's total helpers); his carrying rate is through the roof, primarily triggering from behind and drawing attention (and creating opportunities for others) simply by co-existing with the ball in his crosse; and while his shooting percentage isn't all that notable (just 24.6 percent), his volume of shots that go on goal -- and make the opposing goalie make a save -- is arguably stronger than that of Steve Mock. And Pannell is going to do more. That isn't to imply that Pannell isn't capable of accomplishing more; rather, it's that opposing defenses are going to have an even harder time dealing with the Red: Pannell is not only a sledgehammer, but his mere presence on the field makes everyone around him that more dangerous due to the attention that he draws. This is what makes Cornell a national title contender: The Red have Pannell and nobody else does.