Sections

Men’s Summer League Wrap-up

1 - Published August 10, 2012 by in Events, Featured, Lax Nation, Men's, Summer League
11
SHARES

Last night (Thursday, August 9) Men’s Summer League 2012 came to a close.  The night began with the remnants of Oat, the Kings, the Flying Dutchmen, and the Four Horsemen all squabbling amongst themselves trying to piece together something close to what could be tangentially likened to a game of lacrosse.  Whether or not they succeeded is hard to say.

At 7:00 (ish) the Bombers and Scoundrels squared off in the Bronze Medal game.  The Bombers annihilated the poorly-attended Scoundrels 17 to negative-45.

At 7:30 the whistle sounded to kick off the Summer Cup Championship match between the Whalers and the Manly Men.  The two teams were vying for this beauty here, generously donated by Buss Automotive:

All participants in the Championship Game also get a free oil change at Buss Automotive. Just show up and give them your name.

The Championship game went very much like the Whalers’ semifinal game against the Bombers — the Whalers established a small lead and then spent the rest of the game holding onto it.  As the sun set both literally and figuratively on Summer League, the Whalers emerged with a 10-8 victory and became the first claimants of the Buss Automotive Summer Cup.

This is what you do with a trophy. Take note, young bucks.

So now that we have a Champ, why not look at some of the behind-the-scenes info that you may find interesting…

Before rosters were created, each participant was given a 1-10 rating to estimate that players’ impact on a team’s ability to be successful at Summer League.  The average rating of each team was as follows:

Four Horsemen: 5.38 Total – Offense (Mid & Attack) 5.44 — Defense (Poles & Goalie) 5.25

Scoundrels: 5.34 Total – Offense 5.56 — Defense 4.93

Manly Men: 5.22 Total – Offense 5.46 — Defense 4.75

Bombers: 5.11 Total — Offense 5.25 — Defense 4.70

Oat: 5.08 Total — Offense 5.42 — Defense 4.33

Whalers: 5.06 Total – Offense 4.67 — Defense 5.79

Kings: 5.05 Total – Offense 4.98 — Defense 5.21

Flying Dutchmen: 5.01 Total – Offense 4.90 — Defense 5.21

Note that the total average rating for each team was within 0.37 from top to bottom.

At the end of the regular season, these were the standings:

#1 Warm Springs Ave. Whalers (7-2, 1.38 goal ratio)

#2 Overland Oat (7-2, 1.28)

#3 Broadway Bombers (6-3, 1.34)

#4 Franklin Four Horsemen (5-4, 0.75)

#5 Milwaukee Manly Men (4-5, 1.01)

#6 Fairview Flying Dutchmen (3-6, 0.90)

#7 State Street Scoundrels (2-7, 0.83)

#8 Cole Road Kings (2-7, 0.81)

The final offense/defense rankings were as follows:

Final Offensive Ranking

  1. Bombers — 13.6 goals per game
  2. Whalers — 11.25
  3. Manly Men — 10
  4. Oat — 10
  5. Scoundrels — 9.1
  6. Kings — 8.4
  7. Flying Dutchmen — 8.3
  8. Four Horsemen — 6.6

Final Defensive Ranking

  1. Oat — 8.1 goals allowed per game
  2. Whalers — 8.41
  3. Four Horsemen — 8.9
  4. Bombers — 9.33
  5. Manly Men — 9.67
  6. Kings — 10.4
  7. Flying Dutchmen — 10.5
  8. Scoundrels — 11.5

Last year, our rating system worked as a very good predictor of actual results.  In 2012, however, I don’t see much of a correlation between the pre-season ratings and the actual results.  This might be because the teams that did the best in 2012 were the teams with the most consistent attendance.  It might also because we blew it on the pre-season ratings.  Either way, there are some interesting notes:

  1. The two teams that made the championship game had the highest rated goalies.
  2. The Whalers had the #1 pre-season rated defense and the #2 actual defense.
  3. The Bombers had the highest pre-season rated attack position (7.5 average) and had the #1 offense in the league (163 goals scored… #2 was the Whalers at 135).
  4. The Kings had the lowest-rated attack position (3.8 average) and finished last in the league.
  5. Oat was given the lowest pre-season defense rating, but finished with the #1 defense.  Whoops!

When we filled the rosters, we didn’t attempt to balance each team at each position.  Rather we just attempted to balance each team’s total average rating.  In the future, we may find better results trying the position-balanced approach.  This would only be testable if attendance were consistent across all teams.

In the end, summer league is what you make of it.  Not every team can be the champ.  If you stopped showing up because you were pretty sure your team would lose, then do us a favor: don’t sign up next year.  We don’t need heartless chumps.  What we need are guys who love to play this game, win or lose.

To those of you who do love this game, we’ll pose this question:  What can we do to improve summer league in 2013?  We’re all ears.

11
SHARES

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,