Hit the showers and catch the train after three periods in the NLL

October 11th, 2008 by Paul Tutka

Last week we took an indepth look at scoring first in the NLL and what it meant in the high scoring, fast paced, back-and-forth world of pro box lacrosse.

Apparently it means a lot, or at least a lot more than myself and probably a lotta other people thought it would.

This week we wanted to take a look at the other end of the spectrum. How teams do when taking a lead, are down or tied heading into the fourth quarter.

Just like last week, the numbers are a lot more one sided than most probably woulda expected they’d be. And if you’re a Calgary or Toronto fan, the numbers could even put a tear in your eye.

So firstly, during the 2008 NLL season, if you took a lead into the fourth period, eight times outta ten, you woulda likely won that game. The league as a whole went 73-17 when teams entered the last stanza with a lead.

Only five times all season were teams knotted up heading into the fourth, meaning that teams trailing after three full periods went a combined 18-74 last year.

Again, for at least myself, I always thought that number woulda not been quite that high for the team leading. Definitely on the higher end, but wow, 80% plus is pretty high, no? With the amount of lead changes and NBAish back-and-forth style of the NLL, I thought for sure more teams woulda had comebacks and nailed down the W in the fourth a lot more. Guess not.

And that “leading” number woulda been a lot higher had it not been for two teams in particular. As you’ll see in the individual team breakdowns below, everyone in the league did pretty damn well taking a lead into the fourth, usually only dropping one, maybe two of those games, unless you’re the Roughnecks or Rock.

Extract those two teams from the league totals, and that “taking a lead into the fourth” number almost touches a 90% winning percentage. The two Canadian NLL OG’s went a combined 10-8 with end of third period leads, dropping almost as many games between just the two of them as the entire league combined!!

Then you had teams like Philly and San Jose, who never lost a game when heading into the fourth with a lead. Coincidentally, those two teams also were the only ones in the league to pull three wins outta the fire when trailing heading into the fourth.

Also funny to see Buffalo, who’d been praised all season for coming back when the chips were down (and rightfully so), never once all season came-back when they were down after three periods (0-5) of ball.

And of Edmonton’s 16 games in 2008, how mentally defeating did it have to be to only go into the fourth three times with a lead, by far the lowest amount of any team last year.

Can dropping leads late tell you anything about a team’s make-up? Are they lacking in areas like maybe cardio, leadership, focus or a slew of other characteristics that hinge on having what it takes at the end of a contest? Are those areas teams like Calgary and Toronto should look into? Or were they just unlucky last year?

Is it a coincidence that teams loaded with good, athletic Americans, teams like Philly, New York and even San Jose, had some of the best overall records in these late game breakdowns we’re looking at today? The three worst records when holding onto a lead belonged to all three Canadian teams, who don’t carry a single American in any of their 60 plus roster spots.

Does an athletic American presence in your lineup help positively influence games when a lotta guys are playing on fumes after 45 minutes of lacrosse? Was it just a coincidence that American heavy lineups did a helluva lot better than the three Canadian-only-rosters past the third period last winter? Even the teams that might not necessarily be load with Americans, but do play an athletic up tempo style, did significantly better than Calgary, Toronto and Edmonton. Hit the boards and let us know what you think.

Anyways, check out the numbers for all teams below, with their league rank based on winning percentage in brackets…