UMich Lacrosse 2010: Tempo-free

For discussion of why those equations are what they are, visit the above-linked Orange:44 post.

Simon Fraser
Simon Fraser		Michigan
Faceoff Wins	10	Faceoff Wins	27
Clearing	16-33	Clearing	27-29
Possessions	45	Possessions	73
Goals	10	Goals	22
Offensive Efficiency	.222	Offensive Efficiency	.301

In the first home game of the year, Michigan dominated possession once more (look at that gaudy number on clears), and was also more efficient than the opponent.

Eastern Michigan
Eastern Michigan		Michigan
Faceoff Wins	8	Faceoff Wins	17
Clearing	8-25	Clearing	16-18
Possessions	35	Possessions	52
Goals	2	Goals	19
Offensive Efficiency	.057	Offensive Efficiency	.365

Eastern Michigan was terrible (as were most of Michigan’s CCLA opponents), so this number isn’t particularly meaningful going forward.

Oregon
Oregon		Michigan
Faceoff Wins	5	Faceoff Wins	7
Clearing	16-27	Clearing	21-30
Possessions	41	Possessions	48
Goals	4	Goals	5
Offensive Efficiency	.098	Offensive Efficiency	.104

This game took place on a horrible, windy, snowy day in Dallas, and both teams’ offenses were unable to put the ball in the back of the net with any efficiency. The Wolverines won on an overtime goal.

Minnesota-Duluth
Minnesota-Duluth		Michigan
Faceoff Wins	11	Faceoff Wins	13
Clearing	12-22	Clearing	13-24
Possessions	44	Possessions	47
Goals	7	Goals	14
Offensive Efficiency	.159	Offensive Efficiency	.298

This was the closest any opponent came all year to Michigan in terms of sheer number of possessions, but the Wolverines were still able to come away with the win because they were much more efficient offensively.

Western Michigan
Western Michigan		Michigan
Faceoff Wins	12	Faceoff Wins	26
Clearing	14-26	Clearing	21-25
Possessions	42	Possessions	63
Goals	5	Goals	29
Offensive Efficiency	.119	Offensive Efficiency	.460

CCLA competition. Make mental adjustments accordingly.

Central Michigan
Central Michigan		Michigan
Faceoff Wins	2	Faceoff Wins	22
Clearing	8-20	Clearing	15-18
Possessions	25	Possessions	52
Goals	1	Goals	19
Offensive Efficiency	.040	Offensive Efficiency	.365

This was by far Michigan’s best game of the year – though again, keep in mind that the level of competition was low – dominating possession and efficiency.

Colorado
Colorado		Michigan
Faceoff Wins	8	Faceoff Wins	18
Clearing	19-29	Clearing	20-27
Possessions	44	Possessions	55
Goals	12	Goals	10
Offensive Efficiency	.273	Offensive Efficiency	.182

In Michigan’s lone loss of the year, they had a sizable advantage in possession, but were unable to put the ball in the net – mostly on account of a stellar day by Buffs goalie Bradley MacNee – whereas Colorado had one of the most efficient performances of any offense against Michigan’s defense.

Colorado State
Colorado State		Michigan
Faceoff Wins	5	Faceoff Wins	15
Clearing	18-31	Clearing	19-27
Possessions	44	Possessions	55
Goals	6	Goals	10
Offensive Efficiency	.136	Offensive Efficiency	.182

Michigan rebounded from their first loss in more than two years by sticking to their gameplan: dominate possession. They were also more efficient than the Rams on this day.

Purdue
Purdue		Michigan
Faceoff Wins	4	Faceoff Wins	30
Clearing	15-29	Clearing	22-24
Possessions	35	Possessions	68
Goals	2	Goals	28
Offensive Efficiency	.057	Offensive Efficiency	.412

Good day against bad competition.

Michigan State
Michigan State		Michigan
Faceoff Wins	7	Faceoff Wins	15
Clearing	16-34	Clearing	18-22
Possessions	45	Possessions	55
Goals	8	Goals	11
Offensive Efficiency	.178	Offensive Efficiency	.200

In the first matchup between the in-state rivals, Michigan won the possession battle and was slightly more efficient than the opponent. That’s a great recipe for success.

Miami OH
Miami OH		Michigan
Faceoff Wins	7	Faceoff Wins	24
Clearing	11-26	Clearing	14-18
Possessions	37	Possessions	57
Goals	5	Goals	23
Offensive Efficiency	.137	Offensive Efficiency	.404

CCLA Competition.

Michigan State
Michigan State		Michigan
Faceoff Wins	9	Faceoff Wins	18
Clearing	14-19	Clearing	14-22
Possessions	36	Possessions	45
Goals	11	Goals	13
Offensive Efficiency	.306	Offensive Efficiency	.289

Michigan, per usual, won the possession battle – but they were actually less successful on their clears than were the Spartans. This game was won at the faceoff X, as Stats was slightly more efficient offensively, as well. State’s great goalie, Dean Hall, had a hand in that.

Texas State
Texas State		Michigan
Faceoff Wins	6	Faceoff Wins	20
Clearing	13-32	Clearing	23-24
Possessions	39	Possessions	63
Goals	3	Goals	19
Offensive Efficiency	.077	Offensive Efficiency	.302

The opening game of the MCLA National Tournament was a demonstration of the enormous gap between the #1 team and the #16 (ish) team in the country.

BYU
BYU		Michigan
Faceoff Wins	7	Faceoff Wins	24
Clearing	11-26	Clearing	14-18
Possessions	37	Possessions	57
Goals	5	Goals	23
Offensive Efficiency	.137	Offensive Efficiency	.404

Though BYU is a national power, and gave Michigan a (somewhat) competitive game earlier in the year, Michigan rode the Cougars into a horrible clearing percentage, owned faceoffs, and nearly tripled up the Cougars’ efficiency mark en route to a dominant win.

Chapman
Chapman		Michigan
Faceoff Wins	11	Faceoff Wins	14
Clearing	9-19	Clearing	16-23
Possessions	37	Possessions	47
Goals	10	Goals	12
Offensive Efficiency	.270	Offensive Efficiency	.255

Michigan was less efficient than Chapman (unsurprising, given the wealth of offensive talent the Panthers had last year), and only had a slight edge on faceoffs. The riding game was the key to this win.

Arizona State
Arizona State		Michigan
Faceoff Wins	9	Faceoff Wins	17
Clearing	15-23	Clearing	15-16
Possessions	33	Possessions	41
Goals	11	Goals	12
Offensive Efficiency	.333	Offensive Efficiency	.293

The national championship game was an instant classic, as ASU scored with 34 seconds left to bring the game within a single mark. The Sun Devils were very efficient, but Michigan’s typical advantage in possession helped them win the day.

So, uh, we’ve seen Michigan’s possession and efficiency numbers over the course of the year, so what conclusions can we draw from the numbers?

• The CCLA is bad. Outside of Michigan and Michigan State, the teams in the CCLA were very bad last year. There’s been some conference reorganization, but don’t expect the Wolverines to get many serious challenges in the league except from Michigan State.
• Michigan dominates on faceoffs and clears. The Wolverines won the battle at the center of the field in every single game, typically in dominating fashion, for a year-end win percentage over 70. They also had a better clear% in nearly every game (thanks in part to the trademark 10-man ride), to dominate possessions for the season.
• Against good competition, Michigan doesn’t have an efficiency edge. Arizona State (twice), BYU, Colorado, Michigan State, and Chapman were all able to operate on a more efficient level than Michigan in individual games this year. However, only Colorado was able to get the win, as Michigan dominated possession.

So, now we know that, while the Wolverines had high and low moments in efficient offensive play, that’s not how they won games. They also had high and low moments in defensive play, but again, that’s not the driving force behind the 3-year run of 58-1. It’s dominating in possession, both on the ride/clear game and on the faceoff.