Look What You Made Me Do
I am so frustratingly bad at math I made up a stat that is two stats added together minus another one.
Let’s skip the pleasantries out of the box - I am on a mission to make turnovers matter in lacrosse. I get why people hate the stat and I’ve heard all the arguments. It’s negative. It doesn’t matter as much as it does in other sports. The shot clock artificially inflates it. You’d rather hear about how playing on grass instead of turf is like playing on the moon. I get it. You only want to know about the good stuff. We’re all living in this moral eclipse together so we watch sports to escape. Stop ruining things. Well, sorry friends - I’m a ruiner.
But I’m also fair. So, I tell you what we’re going to do. We’re going to combine two things people love and then subtract this one thing that is a huge part of lacrosse that people don’t like to talk about.
Why do you think cough syrup is so sweet? To make it taste just good enough to go down without coming right back up and also taste just bad enough that no one seeks it out as a wooziness-inducing treat.
Welcome to the...Devitte Matrix?
(Look, I didn’t want to name it that, but your own numerically anointed King’s couldn’t decide, so I made a judgment call. We can call it something else down the road, but this is where it’s at.)
What is a turnover anyway? Is it just attributed to a player when the possession changes because of something they did? Is a penalty a turnover in the right scenario (“statistically”, no - it’s not)? Is a missed runout a turnover for an attackman? (Also no...but it probably should be.) What about when a player doesn’t advance the ball past the half line and is responsible for the 20-second violation? Wow, they don’t count that either? What are you all so worried about then? There’s no such thing as a ticky tacky turnover in lacrosse. It’s harder to get credited for a turnover than it is for a fast-break assist.
There are a number of advanced statistics that incorporate turnovers in their formula put together by people smarter than I. I don’t think they would like the simplification of using turnovers like this. They’re probably right. But this whole thing isn’t about being right (for once) - it’s about bringing attention to the value of negative stat keeping. Think about it this way: What’s the first stat that you cite (besides Superbowl rings, because there is now no argument against the Brady G.O.A.T) a great quarterback? His yards per attempt? Okay, nerd - no, it’s touchdowns. What’s the first thing the person you’re arguing with will bring up to challenge your touchdown tally? Interceptions, aka: the most infamous of all turnovers.
So, here is a proposal, which is really just a half-baked idea: Total points minus turnovers. That’s it. That’s the statistic. You’re right, it’s not a Matrix, okay? I didn’t choose the stat life, the stat life chose me. People change!
In basketball, the assist to turnover ratio has always been an indicator of true quality amongst point guards in particular. That doesn’t work in lacrosse because the percentage of assisted scores is much lower than it is in basketball. Why do you think second assists were invented for box? (Don’t fact check that).
The process of creating a new stat - which, to be clear is not really the purpose of this exercise - by just adding two positive ones and subtracting a negative one is wildly simplistic. I know that. It’s not a qualitative measure; it’s a quantitative one.
Is the statistic fair to short stick d-mids? No, but those guys are used to life not being fair - that’s why they call them D-mids. If it makes them feel better they can add their groundballs and caused turnovers and subtract their turnovers from that. Oooh, a DDMM! Do you love it? I love it.
As for defenders, I think a similar D-mid metric works, but it’s not going to be an indicator of overall performance so much as it’s just a numerical value of how they do when they pick up the ball. If they do that at all. And goalies...I mean, where do I start with goalies and turnovers? Face-off guys are walking turnovers, so it doesn’t really with them. They would want to include their win percentage, but not their overall win percentage - their draw win percentage. Because that’s all they talk about in their group chats.
The whole point of this newly made up but easily calculatable stat is not to vilify the players that are counted on the most often to run an offense. Nor is it to penalize the pickers. It’s not even supposed to lionize the off ball scorers -though it will do that and to that, I say, “Good for them - good for all of Canada!”
This is just to introduce another way of looking at the one thing that everyone uses to determine individual quality - goals and assists. This is not a stat for people that just watch highlights or only want to see high-risk high-reward plays - which is weird because the latter is where I like to hang my hat. I’m the same dude that goes crazy for longpole goals and has to post a .gif of an explosion every time I see one in real-time. This isn’t about fun; it’s about efficiency.
If you want to have real discussions about how good Player A is versus Player B, then feel free to think of this as one more way to break the tie.
Let’s take a look at the stats of Michael Sowers and Chris Gray from 2020.
Gray led DI in points with 27 goals and 21 assists. Sowers finished second with 16 goals and 31 assists which is just one point less. Gray played in two more games and also had 15 turnovers; Sowers had 10 TO.
Gray: 48-15= 33
Sowers: 47-10= 37
So, Sowers has a higher 2020 DM rating.
This is how I applied the stat to the Duke/Robert Morris game:
Hey, while we’re here, can I suggest a new team stat? What if you add shots on target to groundballs and then subtract turnovers? What kind of a win rate does that translate to?
I’ll, uh, see myself out.