Comments on: Tier Lacrosse: Modern Sticks and Player Development

By: Tpratt4321

Tpratt4321 — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:09:00 +0000

Because they HAVE to play better team defense. You can’t take the ball away one v one. A combination of deep channeled pockets and narrow sticks make it near impossible.

By: Tpratt4321

Tpratt4321 — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:07:00 +0000

Hi Trevor.

You’re not wrong about the pockets but the combination of deep channeled pockets with narrow heads make it damn near impossible to get the ball out.

As someone who’s prime playing days were back in the 90s I can certainly feel a difference with the newer sticks vs my old viper/turbo and excalibur.

There was a huge advantage gained when the first deep high-wall heads came out (like the turbo), yet another gained with the offset technology, and more yet with the narrowing of the heads.

So the correct answer is widening the heads and re-evaluating pocket depth. I’d love to see the return of the “take away defender”. Today, you’d have to remove the stick from the players hands to take the ball away.

By: Thrillhouse

Thrillhouse — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:03:00 +0000

I agree that todays stringing materials are much easier to work with, but more then that is the fact that kids can go online and read about how to string sticks better, see what others are doing, learn about different materials, etc. When I was young, I had the instructions that came with the kit, and other kids I played with who really didn’t know much more then me.
However, I think the shape of the head factors in more than Trevor. A lot of the new NCAA only heads remind me of pinched turbos, excaliburs, and hi-walls from my day. People back then would pinch their sticks because they thought it gave them an advantage. The less room there is for the ball to move around, the less chance there is it will come out.
Also, modern sticks have more sidewalls holes and are off-set with help a lot too.
Trevor is right when he says the game is better due to the new sticks, it’s more fun to watch and it’s easier to learn.

By: Homer

Homer — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:00:00 +0000

I like the advice regarding using girls lacrosse sticks to teach soft hands. I think the modern lacrosse stick has helped create lacrosse’s biggest problem, YAWNBALL. Takeaway checks are a thing of the past, it’s almost impossible to dislodge the ball from today’s bags and deep sidewalls, this has led to teams playing zone defense. The transition game is rare because the ball is rarely on the ground , so you don’t see fast breaks as often, which was exciting. The passing game has suffered due to the modern deep pocket stick, which kills off ball cutting, etc. Baseball doesn’t allow aluminum bats. Golf doesn’t allow square grooves. What about protecting the integrity of the game? Is today’s slowdown game the “spirit” of the game?

By: Snafoo Jones

Snafoo Jones — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:48:00 +0000

Ah ok. Fair enough then.

When I saw that I thought you were talking about the pace of the game. My real problem with the game today is that I feel its over specialized and over coached. Every posession all the D middies are subbed out for the O middies, spin the ball several times, dodge down the alley (not really looking to beat their man) to try and draw a slide and then repeat. This is why I found myself enjoying watching D3 games much more last year as it was more run and gun and coaches letting the players play

By: slclaxer

slclaxer — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 03:59:00 +0000

Partially, but that’s a good point about the transition. I’ve heard some suggestions for rules regulating on-the-fly substitutions with the aim of eliminating specialized middies, bringing back the 2 way player, and promoting faster transitions. I like that idea much better than stick changes.

By: bcornaby

bcornaby — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 02:36:00 +0000

So the question I have is would yesterdays players fair better with modern equipment than modern players with yesterdays equipment? Who would the 1990 Syracuse squard beat the 2011 Virginia squad?

By: Trevor Tierney

Trevor Tierney — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:44:00 +0000

I was interested in trying to find out if there have been any real scoring changes over the past couple decades and this was the best that I could find. This is from the NCAA website. Below are the scoring offense champions, scoring defense champions, and scoring margin champions.

On scoring offense, other than the 96 and 97 UVA teams, the highest scoring teams have relatively similar amounts of goals per game. I definitely would say that there is not a huge difference in scoring the past 15 years (at least for the champions of this category).

Interestingly, on scoring defense, the team with the highest goals against per game that won the scoring defense category was Syracuse, this past year! That could suggest that teams are scoring MORE overall.

On scoring margin, the past two years champions have had two of the lowest scoring margins in the past 15 years. This could suggest that games are closer. I personally think closer games are more exciting.

So, this isn’t exactly Mythbusters work here, because the champions of these categories do not necessarily reflect the whole of the game, but it does imply that perhaps things have not slowed down as much as people suggest.

I think people are just remembering some games in the playoffs this past year that were brutal to watch because some teams relied on invert offenses, but I would speculate that those games are just exceptions to what we would see most of the time if all games were on television.

SCORING OFFENSE
Year Team Games Goals Per Game
1996 Virginia ……………………………………………………………… 16 275 17.19
1997 Virginia ……………………………………………………………… 14 255 18.21
1998 Johns Hopkins ………………………………………………… 14 205 14.64
1999 Virginia ……………………………………………………………… 16 240 15.00
2000 Hartford ……………………………………………………………. 16 250 15.63
2001 Quinnipiac ………………………………………………………. 16 240 15.00
2002 Massachusetts ………………………………………………… 16 226 14.13
2003 Johns Hopkins ………………………………………………… 16 224 14.00
2004 Syracuse …………………………………………………………… 17 245 14.41
2005 Duke …………………………………………………………………. 20 267 13.35
2006 Virginia ……………………………………………………………… 17 269 15.82
2007 Cornell ……………………………………………………………… 16 224 14.00
2008 Duke …………………………………………………………………. 20 304 15.20
2009 Virginia ……………………………………………………………… 18 234 13.00
2010 Robert Morris ………………………………………………….. 15 230 15.33

SCORING DEFENSE
Year Team Games GA Per Game
1996 Bucknell……………………………………………………………. 12 74 6.17
1997 Princeton …………………………………………………………. 15 103 6.87
1998 Princeton …………………………………………………………. 15 114 7.60
1999 Princeton …………………………………………………………. 13 93 7.15
2000 Navy ………………………………………………………………….. 13 78 6.00
2001 Princeton …………………………………………………………. 15 87 5.80
2002 Maryland …………………………………………………………. 13 91 7.00
2003 Villanova ………………………………………………………….. 15 91 6.07
2004 Binghamton ……………………………………………………. 16 111 6.94
2005 Navy ………………………………………………………………….. 16 106 6.63
2006 Navy ………………………………………………………………….. 15 82 5.47
2007 Princeton …………………………………………………………. 14 87 6.21
2008 Siena …………………………………………………………………. 16 100 6.25
2009 Notre Dame …………………………………………………….. 16 99 6.19
2010 Syracuse …………………………………………………………… 15 111 7.40

SCORING MARGIN PER GAME
Year Team Games GF GA Margin Mar./Gm.
1996 Princeton ………………………………. 15 235 111 124 8.27
1997 Virginia …………………………………… 14 255 136 119 8.50
1998 Princeton ………………………………. 15 217 114 103 6.87
1999 Virginia …………………………………… 16 240 132 108 6.75
2000 Hartford …………………………………. 16 250 145 105 6.56
2001 Massachusetts ……………………… 14 208 108 100 7.14
2002 Maryland ………………………………. 13 157 91 66 5.08
2003 Johns Hopkins ……………………… 16 224 111 113 7.06
2004 Navy ……………………………………….. 18 221 127 94 5.22
2005 Duke ………………………………………. 20 267 139 128 6.40
2006 Virginia …………………………………… 17 269 129 140 8.24
2007 Cornell …………………………………… 16 224 112 112 7.00
2008 Duke ………………………………………. 20 304 146 158 7.90
2009 Syracuse ………………………………… 18 233 133 100 5.56
2010 Virginia …………………………………… 18 242 148 94 5.22

By: Trevor Tierney

Trevor Tierney — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:45:00 +0000

I meant the stickwork is faster…passes and shots are harder. No question.

I want to find the stats but I really don’t believe that scoring is that much lower these days. I just think teams play better overall team defense now.

By: Trevor Tierney

Trevor Tierney — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:39:00 +0000

Ha! That is partially true…he did allow Lorne Smith to use an offset head because he was the only Princeton guy that could throw with one.

As I said in this article, I think it actually has more to do with the pockets than the heads. I could string a Shotgun or Superlight II to have a deep pocket with the materials available today and it would be just as effective.

Also, I have much better ways of drivin my pops crazy…

By: Longstick33

Longstick33 — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:01:00 +0000

His dad was the one that banned offset sticks for his teams back in the 90′s. Now Trevor is all about it. Seems like someone just wants to ruffle his old mans feathers.

By: Snafoo Jones

Snafoo Jones — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:54:00 +0000

Not all HS teams are. Main point was that the D1 game is not fast anymore. Feel thats mainly due to coaching but lack of transition can be partially ‘blamed’ on sticks.

By: slclaxer

slclaxer — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:00:00 +0000

D3 and HS teams are using the same rules and sticks

By: Snafoo Jones

Snafoo Jones — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:50:00 +0000

Come on man… “Plus, the game is now WAY faster” how can you even say that with a straight face. The game is so SLOW these days at the D1 level its not even funny. There is little to no transition and that does stem from the head/pockets as its pretty tough for a defender to knock the ball out even when landing a clean check. This is partially why I thought the UVA zone worked so well. I’d much rather watch a D3 or even legit HS teams match up than another boring D1 game where the coaches don’t let their guys run.