STATS ON PLAYTIME OF FORMER Capital players in College?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be nice to see if any freshmen 2024 got some playtime. even on the boys side freshman rarely get to see the field no matter the D1 program.

Brunner- UMass- no games or starts
Mantey- Cornell- 6 games no starts
Beattie - JMU (goalie) 2 games no starts
Huebner- Stony Brook 8 games no stats
Lint- Uconn (goalie) 2 games no starts
Boggs- Syracuse 3 games no starts
Carr- Notre Dame 1 game no starts
Meyer Denver- 10 games no starts
Cuviello- JMU- 12 games
Docking- Penn 0 games
Jenkins - Vanderbilt 0 games
Mitchell- Princeton 3 games no starts
Engleberg- 13 games zero starts

Not sure who compiled these stats, but Docking's stat sheet showed 1 GP last week, and I'm watching Penn v Yale. and she has played almost the whole game. Freshman. So, not sure these are accurate.

She just scored. Looks like she's getting her first real action. If you think one cup of coffee in a blowout in Feb is wildly different than 0 games, just say that so we can measure your bias.

I have a bias for accuracy. The PP and the person who started the thread (probably the same person) have a bias to try and prove that Capital players don't get playing time in college. Not only is that biased view false, it is not super relevant, as many other posters have pointed out. Further, using Freshman stats at all, especially inaccurately, was certainly a straw man.

Top college players come from all over and aren't proven until they face the crucible of D1 lacrosse, especially at a top 25 program. If you want a shot at being one and you live in No. Virginia, DC, or MoCo, then you play for Capital (or make a long commute to Baltimore). Pretty straightforward, and has been for a while around here.

They asked an innocemt question and you're triggered. A Capital acolyte likecompiled the stats of course, and you found one person that came in in a blowout once.

It is relevant to many, no one cares whether you think it is. Just like you don't care they think it's relevant. You man/womansplaining "tje crucible" is hilarious. You sound like you've never played a high level sport in your life. Don't you have a social event to host or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be nice to see if any freshmen 2024 got some playtime. even on the boys side freshman rarely get to see the field no matter the D1 program.

Brunner- UMass- no games or starts
Mantey- Cornell- 6 games no starts
Beattie - JMU (goalie) 2 games no starts
Huebner- Stony Brook 8 games no stats
Lint- Uconn (goalie) 2 games no starts
Boggs- Syracuse 3 games no starts
Carr- Notre Dame 1 game no starts
Meyer Denver- 10 games no starts
Cuviello- JMU- 12 games
Docking- Penn 0 games
Jenkins - Vanderbilt 0 games
Mitchell- Princeton 3 games no starts
Engleberg- 13 games zero starts

Not sure who compiled these stats, but Docking's stat sheet showed 1 GP last week, and I'm watching Penn v Yale. and she has played almost the whole game. Freshman. So, not sure these are accurate.

She just scored. Looks like she's getting her first real action. If you think one cup of coffee in a blowout in Feb is wildly different than 0 games, just say that so we can measure your bias.

I have a bias for accuracy. The PP and the person who started the thread (probably the same person) have a bias to try and prove that Capital players don't get playing time in college. Not only is that biased view false, it is not super relevant, as many other posters have pointed out. Further, using Freshman stats at all, especially inaccurately, was certainly a straw man.

Top college players come from all over and aren't proven until they face the crucible of D1 lacrosse, especially at a top 25 program. If you want a shot at being one and you live in No. Virginia, DC, or MoCo, then you play for Capital (or make a long commute to Baltimore). Pretty straightforward, and has been for a while around here.

They asked an innocemt question and you're triggered. A Capital acolyte likecompiled the stats of course, and you found one person that came in in a blowout once.

It is relevant to many, no one cares whether you think it is. Just like you don't care they think it's relevant. You man/womansplaining "tje crucible" is hilarious. You sound like you've never played a high level sport in your life. Don't you have a social event to host or something?

Ummmm you are writing PHD a dissertation on a Saturday night about playing time of former club team players.

I think a social event might be something you need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be nice to see if any freshmen 2024 got some playtime. even on the boys side freshman rarely get to see the field no matter the D1 program.

Brunner- UMass- no games or starts
Mantey- Cornell- 6 games no starts
Beattie - JMU (goalie) 2 games no starts
Huebner- Stony Brook 8 games no stats
Lint- Uconn (goalie) 2 games no starts
Boggs- Syracuse 3 games no starts
Carr- Notre Dame 1 game no starts
Meyer Denver- 10 games no starts
Cuviello- JMU- 12 games
Docking- Penn 0 games
Jenkins - Vanderbilt 0 games
Mitchell- Princeton 3 games no starts
Engleberg- 13 games zero starts

Not sure who compiled these stats, but Docking's stat sheet showed 1 GP last week, and I'm watching Penn v Yale. and she has played almost the whole game. Freshman. So, not sure these are accurate.

She just scored. Looks like she's getting her first real action. If you think one cup of coffee in a blowout in Feb is wildly different than 0 games, just say that so we can measure your bias.

I have a bias for accuracy. The PP and the person who started the thread (probably the same person) have a bias to try and prove that Capital players don't get playing time in college. Not only is that biased view false, it is not super relevant, as many other posters have pointed out. Further, using Freshman stats at all, especially inaccurately, was certainly a straw man.

Top college players come from all over and aren't proven until they face the crucible of D1 lacrosse, especially at a top 25 program. If you want a shot at being one and you live in No. Virginia, DC, or MoCo, then you play for Capital (or make a long commute to Baltimore). Pretty straightforward, and has been for a while around here.

They asked an innocemt question and you're triggered. A Capital acolyte likecompiled the stats of course, and you found one person that came in in a blowout once.

It is relevant to many, no one cares whether you think it is. Just like you don't care they think it's relevant. You man/womansplaining "tje crucible" is hilarious. You sound like you've never played a high level sport in your life. Don't you have a social event to host or something?

Ummmm you are writing PHD a dissertation on a Saturday night about playing time of former club team players.

I think a social event might be something you need.

As the person comments on the comment on a Saturday night. Classic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be nice to see if any freshmen 2024 got some playtime. even on the boys side freshman rarely get to see the field no matter the D1 program.

Brunner- UMass- no games or starts
Mantey- Cornell- 6 games no starts
Beattie - JMU (goalie) 2 games no starts
Huebner- Stony Brook 8 games no stats
Lint- Uconn (goalie) 2 games no starts
Boggs- Syracuse 3 games no starts
Carr- Notre Dame 1 game no starts
Meyer Denver- 10 games no starts
Cuviello- JMU- 12 games
Docking- Penn 0 games
Jenkins - Vanderbilt 0 games
Mitchell- Princeton 3 games no starts
Engleberg- 13 games zero starts

Not sure who compiled these stats, but Docking's stat sheet showed 1 GP last week, and I'm watching Penn v Yale. and she has played almost the whole game. Freshman. So, not sure these are accurate.

She just scored. Looks like she's getting her first real action. If you think one cup of coffee in a blowout in Feb is wildly different than 0 games, just say that so we can measure your bias.

I have a bias for accuracy. The PP and the person who started the thread (probably the same person) have a bias to try and prove that Capital players don't get playing time in college. Not only is that biased view false, it is not super relevant, as many other posters have pointed out. Further, using Freshman stats at all, especially inaccurately, was certainly a straw man.

Top college players come from all over and aren't proven until they face the crucible of D1 lacrosse, especially at a top 25 program. If you want a shot at being one and you live in No. Virginia, DC, or MoCo, then you play for Capital (or make a long commute to Baltimore). Pretty straightforward, and has been for a while around here.

They asked an innocemt question and you're triggered. A Capital acolyte likecompiled the stats of course, and you found one person that came in in a blowout once.

It is relevant to many, no one cares whether you think it is. Just like you don't care they think it's relevant. You man/womansplaining "tje crucible" is hilarious. You sound like you've never played a high level sport in your life. Don't you have a social event to host or something?

Tough night with the keyboard I see. Hang in there.

If you think the question was innocent, you haven't spent much time reading these threads.

If you can manage it with understandable sentences, please do let us know how this information is helpful to you in making club decisions or evaluating recruiting options. Maybe you are considering a move to Long Island or Philadelphia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many Capital players are professionals? Unless they go pro then what’s the point? The topic of this thread is idiocy.

Exactly

Professional lacrosse isn't a career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many Capital players are professionals? Unless they go pro then what’s the point? The topic of this thread is idiocy.

Exactly

Professional lacrosse isn't a career.

No one is focused on professional lacrosse, true but that really has never been a factor in girls college lacrosse/recruiting. It is an opportunity some can pursue as a side hobby after college but for 99.9% not on the radar or a goal. Stats are huge part of college lacrosse - have you not been on a college team insta page or website? Get with the times! Rankings are all about the stats!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many Capital players are professionals? Unless they go pro then what’s the point? The topic of this thread is idiocy.

Exactly

Professional lacrosse isn't a career.

No one is focused on professional lacrosse, true but that really has never been a factor in girls college lacrosse/recruiting. It is an opportunity some can pursue as a side hobby after college but for 99.9% not on the radar or a goal. Stats are huge part of college lacrosse - have you not been on a college team insta page or website? Get with the times! Rankings are all about the stats!

They have not seen anything on any team's IG. This is Capital and Capital parents we are talking about here, they're stuck in the early 2000s. They don't believe the power of social media is a thing, clearly by the lack of the clubs' presence...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many Capital players are professionals? Unless they go pro then what’s the point? The topic of this thread is idiocy.

Exactly

Professional lacrosse isn't a career.

No one is focused on professional lacrosse, true but that really has never been a factor in girls college lacrosse/recruiting. It is an opportunity some can pursue as a side hobby after college but for 99.9% not on the radar or a goal. Stats are huge part of college lacrosse - have you not been on a college team insta page or website? Get with the times! Rankings are all about the stats!

Pretty sure that at least one poster was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be nice to see if any freshmen 2024 got some playtime. even on the boys side freshman rarely get to see the field no matter the D1 program.

Brunner- UMass- no games or starts
Mantey- Cornell- 6 games no starts
Beattie - JMU (goalie) 2 games no starts
Huebner- Stony Brook 8 games no stats
Lint- Uconn (goalie) 2 games no starts
Boggs- Syracuse 3 games no starts
Carr- Notre Dame 1 game no starts
Meyer Denver- 10 games no starts
Cuviello- JMU- 12 games
Docking- Penn 0 games
Jenkins - Vanderbilt 0 games
Mitchell- Princeton 3 games no starts
Engleberg- 13 games zero starts

Not sure who compiled these stats, but Docking's stat sheet showed 1 GP last week, and I'm watching Penn v Yale. and she has played almost the whole game. Freshman. So, not sure these are accurate.

She just scored. Looks like she's getting her first real action. If you think one cup of coffee in a blowout in Feb is wildly different than 0 games, just say that so we can measure your bias.

I have a bias for accuracy. The PP and the person who started the thread (probably the same person) have a bias to try and prove that Capital players don't get playing time in college. Not only is that biased view false, it is not super relevant, as many other posters have pointed out. Further, using Freshman stats at all, especially inaccurately, was certainly a straw man.

Top college players come from all over and aren't proven until they face the crucible of D1 lacrosse, especially at a top 25 program. If you want a shot at being one and you live in No. Virginia, DC, or MoCo, then you play for Capital (or make a long commute to Baltimore). Pretty straightforward, and has been for a while around here.

They asked an innocemt question and you're triggered. A Capital acolyte likecompiled the stats of course, and you found one person that came in in a blowout once.

It is relevant to many, no one cares whether you think it is. Just like you don't care they think it's relevant. You man/womansplaining "tje crucible" is hilarious. You sound like you've never played a high level sport in your life. Don't you have a social event to host or something?

Tough night with the keyboard I see. Hang in there.

If you think the question was innocent, you haven't spent much time reading these threads.

If you can manage it with understandable sentences, please do let us know how this information is helpful to you in making club decisions or evaluating recruiting options. Maybe you are considering a move to Long Island or Philadelphia?

Once again, you are triggered by the topic. That's the extent of it. Methinks thou doth protest too much is probably the rest of it. Wonder why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 2023s I know have seen the field for less than 10 minutes in their first season and a half. I mentioned the comparison of Capitals players to the true lacrosse town players the other day in the ISL thread and was chastised for spending time tracking players' time--which I didn't do, other than a few former teammates--and certainly not to this extend. But I feel slightly vindicated. As a former Philadelphia area, top D1 player, I know real lacrosse, and our local teams just don't have it.

Three Capital 2023s have received great playing time, all are on top 25 teams:

Two are at UVA (currently ranked #9):
- One played in 16 games as a freshman and thus far has started in all 15 games as a sophomore. She made the All-ACC team as a freshman.
- Another played in five games as a freshman and has had time in 14 of 15 games this season.

Another is at Harvard (currently ranked #23). She started in 13 of 15 games as a freshman and thus far has started in all 12 games as a sophomore. She made the All-Ivy team as a freshman.

These are the two most competitive conferences in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 2023s I know have seen the field for less than 10 minutes in their first season and a half. I mentioned the comparison of Capitals players to the true lacrosse town players the other day in the ISL thread and was chastised for spending time tracking players' time--which I didn't do, other than a few former teammates--and certainly not to this extend. But I feel slightly vindicated. As a former Philadelphia area, top D1 player, I know real lacrosse, and our local teams just don't have it.

Anyone else want to post their resume? A picture of your Division 1 Lacrosse team tattoo will suffice!

Serves me right for taking a vacation from DCUM. Absolutely hilarious!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2023s I know have seen the field for less than 10 minutes in their first season and a half. I mentioned the comparison of Capitals players to the true lacrosse town players the other day in the ISL thread and was chastised for spending time tracking players' time--which I didn't do, other than a few former teammates--and certainly not to this extend. But I feel slightly vindicated. As a former Philadelphia area, top D1 player, I know real lacrosse, and our local teams just don't have it.

Anyone else want to post their resume? A picture of your Division 1 Lacrosse team tattoo will suffice!

Serves me right for taking a vacation from DCUM. Absolutely hilarious!

What’s the point here? The PP claimed Cap 23s weren’t receiving meaningful time and weren’t good enough to compete at a high level. The response cited facts that completely contradicted it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2023s I know have seen the field for less than 10 minutes in their first season and a half. I mentioned the comparison of Capitals players to the true lacrosse town players the other day in the ISL thread and was chastised for spending time tracking players' time--which I didn't do, other than a few former teammates--and certainly not to this extend. But I feel slightly vindicated. As a former Philadelphia area, top D1 player, I know real lacrosse, and our local teams just don't have it.

Three Capital 2023s have received great playing time, all are on top 25 teams:

Two are at UVA (currently ranked #9):
- One played in 16 games as a freshman and thus far has started in all 15 games as a sophomore. She made the All-ACC team as a freshman.
- Another played in five games as a freshman and has had time in 14 of 15 games this season.

Another is at Harvard (currently ranked #23). She started in 13 of 15 games as a freshman and thus far has started in all 12 games as a sophomore. She made the All-Ivy team as a freshman.

These are the two most competitive conferences in the country.

Another Cap 23 is at #11 Michigan and has played in 13 of 14 games as a sophomore with 7 starts.

[Anonymous]

The '23 team also has a defender getting good time at Michigan, an attacker playing regularly at PITT, and a goalie at Colgate. The NW player is also receiving time. There are probably more examples.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many Capital players are professionals? Unless they go pro then what’s the point? The topic of this thread is idiocy.

Exactly

Professional lacrosse isn't a career.

No one is focused on professional lacrosse, true but that really has never been a factor in girls college lacrosse/recruiting. It is an opportunity some can pursue as a side hobby after college but for 99.9% not on the radar or a goal. Stats are huge part of college lacrosse - have you not been on a college team insta page or website? Get with the times! Rankings are all about the stats!

They have not seen anything on any team's IG. This is Capital and Capital parents we are talking about here, they're stuck in the early 2000s. They don't believe the power of social media is a thing, clearly by the lack of the clubs' presence...

I'm not aware of a single Capital parent who is pleased with the club's website or social media strategy. It is absolutely behind the times. Everyone is afraid to rock the boat, and those who have raised it apparently did not move the needle.