|
Post by psuvbfan10 on Sept 26, 2009 22:06:43 GMT -5
True - I'm a baseball junkie & know that they are trying to relate to another sport. HOWEVER - at some point vb needs to have it's own identity. In fact in the RULE book - we say white TENNIS shoes - as long as we keep referring to other sports, we will be a class below!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2009 22:31:21 GMT -5
.... BTW - am I the only one who hates when announcers say hitting eff is like a batting average - that's bogus, the end number may be indicative of a good hitter in both sports (above 300 is good), but baseball you don't subtract errors (outs). Pet Peeve! Announcers get this from coaches. If coaches don't use the analogy then neither will announcers. I understand where this comparison comes from though since the people using it are trying to reach out to a wider fan base that does not have a volleyball background. I would be happy enough if it worked even though not strictly correct. I like the idea of scoring the points off of each rotation position as a coaching tool. I can't see where this gets any popular acceptance however. How hard do you guys want the fans to work, anyhow? To me, this is the essence of volleyball -- the rotations. And if you want a better comparison to baseball, there it is. This is where one side is pitching and the other side is batting. Can you imagine watching a baseball game where the announcers don't even recognize this dynamic, let alone tell you how the batter has been doing against this pitcher? Seriously, there is NOTHING more important in volleyball than rotational matchups. Nothing. And it hardly ever is even mentioned, let alone tracked statistically.
|
|
|
Post by macroman on Sept 26, 2009 22:43:43 GMT -5
Hitter-pitcher is more or less a 1-1 matchup. The matchup in volleyball is far more complex especially when you consider changes in substitutions and shifts in player positioning.
I agree that some attempt should be made to explain this dynamic to the fans, particularly if a spot in the rotation has achieved or given up runs of points but the statistical tool that will clarify this for a fan is something that I have not seen.
Other sports, hockey for example, track how a group of players perform scoring, shot wise, puck control etc both as individuals and as part of the group of teammates they are competing with. I have not seen such complex stats make it on the broadcast for any sport.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2009 22:51:38 GMT -5
Of course it's more complex than one on one, pitcher v. batter, but they are ignoring the fact that the relationship/dynamic even exists. This is what volleyball is about: scoring points on your serve.
The simplest way to do it would be with a glorified rotational chart. Someone serves, you show (or tell) how many points they have scored and how many they have given up. The rotational chart shows you who's on the floor for both teams.
I realize it would be very difficult to do this throughout the match (although not impossible if they wanted to and essential for GameTracker-type on-line reports), but it could be used intermittently, especially when trends of significance are occurring.
I think they do a disservice to the sport to just say it's too much for a casual fan to follow. One, it underestimates the casual fan and two, it ignores the people who are actually watching, the non-casual fans.
It's bad enough they can't get the whole court on the TV screen with their stupid sideline shot, at least don't short change us on the important stats.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Sept 26, 2009 22:55:41 GMT -5
Idea for a new statistic...Hitter rating...stat the hitters the same way people reverse stat passing for their servers.
e.g. (lower rating is better) Kill=0 Ball returned as free ball=1 Ball returned as attack=2 Ball returned as kill=3 Error=4 So...if Player A & B both had 5 kills, and 2 errors on say 10 attacks, then you could differentiate more between their effectiveness.
To go to the original example in the OP.
Player A goes 6/3/15 and the other 6 balls were returned for kills then you would have a rating of 2. Now if player B goes 3/0/15 but the other 12 balls are returned as free balls they would have a rating of 0.8
Player B would be better from the rating...they didn't score as many points, but they challenged the other team's defense better.
You could also change the system to rate the dig. It may not be the best idea...but it is less subjective than anything else I could think of while bringing in more of what happens with all the "playable" balls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2009 22:58:11 GMT -5
That's the problem with the sport's stats: to *really* get at what happened, you pretty much have to rate every touch.
Not the easiest thing to do, of course, although many teams do it I bet.
|
|
|
Post by pennstate7188 on Sept 27, 2009 3:01:48 GMT -5
Announcers get this from coaches. If coaches don't use the analogy then neither will announcers. I understand where this comparison comes from though since the people using it are trying to reach out to a wider fan base that does not have a volleyball background. I would be happy enough if it worked even though not strictly correct. I like the idea of scoring the points off of each rotation position as a coaching tool. I can't see where this gets any popular acceptance however. How hard do you guys want the fans to work, anyhow? To me, this is the essence of volleyball -- the rotations. And if you want a better comparison to baseball, there it is. This is where one side is pitching and the other side is batting. Can you imagine watching a baseball game where the announcers don't even recognize this dynamic, let alone tell you how the batter has been doing against this pitcher? Seriously, there is NOTHING more important in volleyball than rotational matchups. Nothing. And it hardly ever is even mentioned, let alone tracked statistically. That isn't true. The team's fundamentals are the most important thing in volleyball, i.e. serving and passing. Your 6-5 outside hitter can be matched up against a 5-9 opposite but none of that matters if you can't pass or serve effectively. Fundamentals make or break a game. There are ways to deal with rotational mismatches - there is no way to deal with bad serving and passing. It's a slow poison. After a while, you beat yourself.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 27, 2009 8:00:34 GMT -5
Relative hitting percentage predicts wins and losses better than any other single statistic. It does not explain the reasons why. Relative hitting percentage is higher hitting pct - lower hitting pct Sideout pct is a pretty good indicator of team performance as well but it gives more weight to service errors than I like. Huh? The difference in sideout percentage is just the difference in point percentage. Jeez, not only is that important, that is basically Pablo!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2009 9:30:05 GMT -5
Being able to master the skills is too obvious. You can say that about any sport. I'm talking about the essence of volleyball, what makes it unique.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Sept 27, 2009 10:31:00 GMT -5
To me, this is the essence of volleyball -- the rotations. And if you want a better comparison to baseball, there it is. This is where one side is pitching and the other side is batting. Can you imagine watching a baseball game where the announcers don't even recognize this dynamic, let alone tell you how the batter has been doing against this pitcher? Seriously, there is NOTHING more important in volleyball than rotational matchups. Nothing. And it hardly ever is even mentioned, let alone tracked statistically. That isn't true. The team's fundamentals are the most important thing in volleyball, i.e. serving and passing. Your 6-5 outside hitter can be matched up against a 5-9 opposite but none of that matters if you can't pass or serve effectively. Fundamentals make or break a game. There are ways to deal with rotational mismatches - there is no way to deal with bad serving and passing. It's a slow poison. After a while, you beat yourself. That's a given, which is why it isn't mentioned...espescially as this thread is about how to stat hitters to get a real feel for what they did and for comparison.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 27, 2009 10:39:47 GMT -5
Being able to master the skills is too obvious. You can say that about any sport. I'm talking about the essence of volleyball, what makes it unique. I don't know that volleyball is unique, but I think the essence of volleyball is what makes it difficult to define statistically. From the moment of the serve, the ball is always in motion. Everything is a transition. The game is fluid because no one can hold the ball.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 27, 2009 10:49:45 GMT -5
Although some players can _control_ the ball. Fundamentally, the difference is not near as drastic as for something like baseball, which is basically unique of all sports.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 27, 2009 11:17:54 GMT -5
Baseball is perhaps the most discrete of sports. You are either safe or out, you either reach second base or you do not, that pitch was either a strike or a ball, etc. But there are other sports with similar features. Bowling, for instance, in which any given pin is either knocked down or it isn't.
Volleyball is very much like many of the other net/racquet sports, with the exception that I don't know of any other sport in the family where teammates on the same side of the net can pass to each other.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 27, 2009 11:31:00 GMT -5
I have in the past described my classification of sports. I use three broad categories:
1) Goal sports 2) Target sports 3) Baseball
Volleyball is an example of a "Net" sport, which is a subset of Goal Sports. In the end, the object is to place the ball in the goal. In net sports, the "goal" is the other team's side of the net, and you have to keep the ball there.
Volleyball does have the unique aspect of allowing multiple contacts on your side of the net, which distinguishes it from other team net sports, like doubles events.
Bowling is a target sport, like golf.
ETA: i should probably throw racing in as a 4th category. Racing also include field events, probably. ETA2: I don't consider table games to be sports.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 27, 2009 11:39:57 GMT -5
4) combat sports
|
|