|
Post by WahineFan44 on Apr 11, 2014 14:19:20 GMT -5
And there you go. I personally think Lauren led all season, is incredibly passionate and has the intangibles. The US national team coach agrees with me. I like my side better than yours. you can have Micha. And that's fine. I never said you couldn't think laruen was better. In fact I've stated that laruen will be better come her junior and senior year and she will be on the national team. But my personal preference is micha as of now. Both are amazing players and both have a love for the game. My personal favorite is bugg, only because I've always been a stanford fan and that's just my bias talking. I also love her fire and the way she distributes the ball.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Apr 11, 2014 14:56:10 GMT -5
C'mon, guys. I am a Penn State fan and it is not ridiculous to say that you both have good points between Hancock and Carlini. But what is ridiculous is that one chronic, expert wannabe, poster kept proposing to bench Hancock. That's pure ridiculous and laughable. You know who he is.
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Apr 11, 2014 15:06:10 GMT -5
It's not like Meghan didn't try. Let's be serious. It's inconsistent MH setting. Sorry, but Mary wasn't as good a setter as everyone thought she was. Don't get me wrong, I think she was pretty good. I just scratched my head at her slides. In part, it's the difference between Lauren Cook and Mary. Oh, I am not in any way saying that Meghan didn't try. Look at how awesome she was with Lauren Cook setting her. Cook was one of the premier B1G setters, whereas Mary is, IMO, in the mid-to-upper chunk of the middle of the pack, behind Carlini, Hancock, and Nichol. However, Meghan is not fast. I read on here that she's not playing sand this spring so she can instead focus on nutrition and strength & agility to improve as a middle. That alone will increase her defensive impact. Pair that with more time/reps with Mary, and her offensive impact increases, too.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Apr 11, 2014 15:13:04 GMT -5
Let's start off with digs. Digs is a meaningless stat IMO because you have to look at other factors. Penn state didn't have to dig that ball as much because they terminated so much better. That's why I never take a digs per set stat as who's the better defender or defensive team (someone's the stats do tell the truth, like natalie hagglunds case). I claimed on another thread that micha was a better blocker, but I will say they are tied now, only because micha like you said, benefits from the taller girls on her team. I also think micha is more versatile. She has a better dump and she can kill the ball very effectively. If I was going by pure setting wise, I would chose Carlini in a heartbeat, but honestly overall game, I would chose micha (as of now). But I respect the fact you can produce facts to defend your claims, unlike other people Still waiting for your facts. Makes no sense that you think Micha's a better blocker despite the numbers, the team around her, etc...Is it technique? Better swing blocker? Footwork? Penetration? What is it? Micha rarely dumps, she swings. I agree she's better offensively. Stats support that as does the fact that Micha chooses the right times to go for it. Not so sure about Lauren's use of the dump yet. FYI, you are just as guilty of baseless asserted opinions as the next poster here. Nothing you say above is supported by anything other than opinion, which is fine. Just admit it. I believe technically, Lauren is a superior blocker. She is as good a jumper and penetrates more than Micha. She sets the block perfectly and we've stopped much bigger hitters in large part because she's up there touching a ton. Lauren is almost always in the right position defensively, although I think Micha is, too. FYI, digs is not meaningless, but it's not the only factor in determining a superior defensive player. Digs of opportune diggable balls is the stat we need but it's not reported by most teams. It's of the balls that come to you, how many do you dig and where do you dig them to. I would call their blocking a wash.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 16:29:51 GMT -5
Still waiting for your facts. Makes no sense that you think Micha's a better blocker despite the numbers, the team around her, etc...Is it technique? Better swing blocker? Footwork? Penetration? What is it? Micha rarely dumps, she swings. I agree she's better offensively. Stats support that as does the fact that Micha chooses the right times to go for it. Not so sure about Lauren's use of the dump yet. FYI, you are just as guilty of baseless asserted opinions as the next poster here. Nothing you say above is supported by anything other than opinion, which is fine. Just admit it. I believe technically, Lauren is a superior blocker. She is as good a jumper and penetrates more than Micha. She sets the block perfectly and we've stopped much bigger hitters in large part because she's up there touching a ton. Lauren is almost always in the right position defensively, although I think Micha is, too. FYI, digs is not meaningless, but it's not the only factor in determining a superior defensive player. Digs of opportune diggable balls is the stat we need but it's not reported by most teams. It's of the balls that come to you, how many do you dig and where do you dig them to. I would call their blocking a wash. Of course you would.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 16:34:03 GMT -5
Still waiting for your facts. Makes no sense that you think Micha's a better blocker despite the numbers, the team around her, etc...Is it technique? Better swing blocker? Footwork? Penetration? What is it? Micha rarely dumps, she swings. I agree she's better offensively. Stats support that as does the fact that Micha chooses the right times to go for it. Not so sure about Lauren's use of the dump yet. FYI, you are just as guilty of baseless asserted opinions as the next poster here. Nothing you say above is supported by anything other than opinion, which is fine. Just admit it. I believe technically, Lauren is a superior blocker. She is as good a jumper and penetrates more than Micha. She sets the block perfectly and we've stopped much bigger hitters in large part because she's up there touching a ton. Lauren is almost always in the right position defensively, although I think Micha is, too. FYI, digs is not meaningless, but it's not the only factor in determining a superior defensive player. Digs of opportune diggable balls is the stat we need but it's not reported by most teams. It's of the balls that come to you, how many do you dig and where do you dig them to. And I've admitted I made baseless claims. I admit when I'm wrong. But that separates me and the other poster I mentioned. I admit my faults. I admit I'm not even close to being as knowledgable as most of the people on this site, he doesn't. Having an opinion doesn't make me wrong, or at fault for something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 16:37:35 GMT -5
Still waiting for your facts. Makes no sense that you think Micha's a better blocker despite the numbers, the team around her, etc...Is it technique? Better swing blocker? Footwork? Penetration? What is it? Micha rarely dumps, she swings. I agree she's better offensively. Stats support that as does the fact that Micha chooses the right times to go for it. Not so sure about Lauren's use of the dump yet. FYI, you are just as guilty of baseless asserted opinions as the next poster here. Nothing you say above is supported by anything other than opinion, which is fine. Just admit it. I believe technically, Lauren is a superior blocker. She is as good a jumper and penetrates more than Micha. She sets the block perfectly and we've stopped much bigger hitters in large part because she's up there touching a ton. Lauren is almost always in the right position defensively, although I think Micha is, too. FYI, digs is not meaningless, but it's not the only factor in determining a superior defensive player. Digs of opportune diggable balls is the stat we need but it's not reported by most teams. It's of the balls that come to you, how many do you dig and where do you dig them to. Attacking wise, you've stated that Carlini isn't as good as micha, but let's just give numbers. Carlini had 131 kills, .099 kps but hit only .219. Micha on the other hand had 129 kills, 1.02 kps and hit .331. Points per set goes to micha as well. She had 1.97 and Carlini had 1.63. You could make a case for Carlini because stats aren't always the best thing to judge by, but In my personal opinion, micha still has the upper hand. Please tell me that these two paragraphs are a joke. Points per set as a determinant for ranking setters...? Comparing statistics as if the indirect factors that influence those statistics are equal...? So uneducated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 16:42:21 GMT -5
Lol good one. The 2013 All-America teams were a joke, and Micha's role for the fall has yet to be determined. Great argument. Micha's role for the fall has most certainly been determined, you really need to drop what is an insane argument. The assertion you are also making is that you are more qualified to select the AA team than a committee of professionals who have all the data and video of each player. With all due respect, you're kinda dancing on the line of arrogant and insane. Thinking that Weiskircher has the potential to be a better setter than Hancock makes me arrogant and insane? Don't be an ass because my opinion is different than yours. It's very possible. Micha hasn't ever had to compete with anyone for her spot. She will this fall. You have absolutely no idea what could happen. And as for All-America teams, I think they made several glaring mistakes. I don't care what data or video they have. Just because they're a "committee of professionals" doesn't mean that they're impervious to mistakes or errors. Their choices are absolutely their opinions. We can't debate opinions now? Please.
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Apr 11, 2014 16:43:02 GMT -5
Attacking wise, you've stated that Carlini isn't as good as micha, but let's just give numbers. Carlini had 131 kills, .099 kps but hit only .219. Micha on the other hand had 129 kills, 1.02 kps and hit .331. Points per set goes to micha as well. She had 1.97 and Carlini had 1.63. You could make a case for Carlini because stats aren't always the best thing to judge by, but In my personal opinion, micha still has the upper hand. Please tell me that these two paragraphs are a joke. Points per set as a determinant for ranking setters...? Comparing statistics as if the indirect factors that influence those statistics are equal...? So uneducated. We were arguing all around game. Not setting. And once again I'll state this, there is more to being a great setter than setting. And if you READ, I've stated that statistics aren't the best means for comparing, but the other posted wanted statistics and data, so I gave them. And yes I'm the uneducated one. Because you're clearly a volleyball genius and should pick the AA yourself because you're clearly knowledgable in all aspects of volleyball.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 16:48:10 GMT -5
And what happened to Oregon the next season? Mess. Michigan? Mess. Wisconsin's future remains to be seen. Talent can only get you so far. If you've never been to the top and understand how difficult it is to get there, and, most importantly, STAY there, AND if you don't have a staff that understands that too, your talent doesn't matter at all. Mental trumps physical every day of the week. Expectations are a crazy thing. Non-sequiturs again from you. Oregon's next season was a "mess" as you call it because the talent level dropped from 2012 to 13 (going from 6 players who could go at that level to 3), not because of expectations. I didn't list Michigan because honestly, their talent wasn't at that level and they were a strong finisher rather than a team that was Top 5 for a full year. But once again, none of your retorts have anything to do with why BYU won't be able to be a Top 5 team next year. Will they not be able to keep it up in 2015 because they lose some good players and can't "manage expectations." Probably, but that has nothing to do with what they'll be in 2014. They have the horses to compete with anybody. And it's not like they're coming from nowhere. (Your Elite 8 cutoff is pretty arbitrary as well. What's special about that as opposed to the Sweet 16? Oh, because BYU's made it there each of the last two years. Stop cherry-picking). I hope BYU does have a successful season. I'm just not ready to award them a top five preseason ranking like the rest of you just because Hamson returns. I don't see anything about their play in 2013 that leads me to believe that they'll be one of the best this fall. Returning a First-Team All-American creates expectations. Predicting that they'll be in the top five creates expectations. I don't think the players or staff understands how to handle expectations because they haven't ever had to do it before. Like I said, I would love for BYU to field a great team, but I don't think they're going to be one of the best in the nation. They'll be good. Not great. And they CERTAINLY don't have the horses to compete with anyone. They're weak in several spots. Lots of programs have bigger, better horses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 16:52:43 GMT -5
Please tell me that these two paragraphs are a joke. Points per set as a determinant for ranking setters...? Comparing statistics as if the indirect factors that influence those statistics are equal...? So uneducated. We were arguing all around game. Not setting. And once again I'll state this, there is more to being a great setter than setting. And if you READ, I've stated that statistics aren't the best means for comparing, but the other posted wanted statistics and data, so I gave them. And yes I'm the uneducated one. Because you're clearly a volleyball genius and should pick the AA yourself because you're clearly knowledgable in all aspects of volleyball. If you're going to compare statistics, you can't compare them in a vacuum. Compare the factors that led to those statistics, too. The hilarious part of your post is that you used points per set to solidify your claim that Hancock's all-around game is better than Carlini's, and you actually believe it. Hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by Upfrontvb on Apr 11, 2014 17:10:58 GMT -5
Pelcj11 don't you pave a date tonight or something? Give your fingers a break from posting.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 11, 2014 17:19:22 GMT -5
Non-sequiturs again from you. Oregon's next season was a "mess" as you call it because the talent level dropped from 2012 to 13 (going from 6 players who could go at that level to 3), not because of expectations. I didn't list Michigan because honestly, their talent wasn't at that level and they were a strong finisher rather than a team that was Top 5 for a full year. But once again, none of your retorts have anything to do with why BYU won't be able to be a Top 5 team next year. Will they not be able to keep it up in 2015 because they lose some good players and can't "manage expectations." Probably, but that has nothing to do with what they'll be in 2014. They have the horses to compete with anybody. And it's not like they're coming from nowhere. (Your Elite 8 cutoff is pretty arbitrary as well. What's special about that as opposed to the Sweet 16? Oh, because BYU's made it there each of the last two years. Stop cherry-picking). I hope BYU does have a successful season. I'm just not ready to award them a top five preseason ranking like the rest of you just because Hamson returns. I don't see anything about their play in 2013 that leads me to believe that they'll be one of the best this fall. Returning a First-Team All-American creates expectations. Predicting that they'll be in the top five creates expectations. I don't think the players or staff understands how to handle expectations because they haven't ever had to do it before. Like I said, I would love for BYU to field a great team, but I don't think they're going to be one of the best in the nation. They'll be good. Not great. And they CERTAINLY don't have the horses to compete with anyone. They're weak in several spots. Lots of programs have bigger, better horses. "I don't see anything about their play in 2013 that leads me to believe that they'll be one of the best this fall." See the problem is, you make all these blanket statements, but you didn't see anywhere near enough of their play in 2013 to evaluate this. "Lots of programs have bigger, better horses." Name them. There's not more than 5 that will have more size and physicality on the front line. Hamson, Gray and Young would playing for ANY team out there (except maybe PSU for the latter two), and the rest of their starters aren't chumps. Please tell me what spots they are weak in, and your analyses of how these weaknesses are SOOO much worse than the other teams you'd consider for Top 5. Also, you're just speaking ignorance on the "expectations" part of it. This isn't a team from the B1G/PAC that's used to finishing 11-9 in conference. They've been competing for conference championships (walking into every match with a target on their backs) and advancing to NCAA regionals. They certainly have expectations.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Apr 11, 2014 18:56:38 GMT -5
I would call their blocking a wash. Of course you would. As very little separates them statistically, both are good but not great blockers, yes I would. I mean I guess I could operate from something comparable to a schoolgirl crush and say ones much better, but because I'm not prone to that, wild hyperbole, or gross exaggeration, I'll just stick to reason.
|
|
|
Post by dcvolleyball on Apr 11, 2014 19:16:59 GMT -5
My list would be 1. Stanford 2. Texas 3. Penn state 4. Byu 5. Wisconsin 6. Washington 7. USC 8. Illinois 9. Nebraska 10. Florida There is no way on earth that BYU is anywhere near 4.
|
|