Libero stat - the dig

[romeo]

I get irritated by this stat being compared to dig stats by the other players. Remember, the libero is in the back row twice as much as the other players. Their stats for digs should reflect that. So often I'll see a libero being lauded for her 20 + digs, but that ole outside hitter that picked up 15 - well you see my point. Sometimes the libero has the most digs in a match, but is still not playing well.

And please, don't compare the digs school records for today's libero to yesteryear's ds.

[Gorf]

Too look at it another way.

Many of the digs leaders have been OH's and Opposites who frequently ARE in games all the time.

If those OH's and Opposites are in the games all the time then they are in the game more than the liberos since before this year the liberos had to be off the court for 2 of the 12 rotations.

The Defensive Specialists have always been at a disadvantage in terms of digs statistics the libero doesn't change that. Other than perhaps in the manner than the defensive speacialists aren't used as much now that liberos are available.

[sonofbarcelonabob]

A better way to look at it is to take digs per rotation (i.e. total digs/# of backrow rotations played), get the average, and go from there.

I would guess that OH's probably average more digs per rotation than a libero, since most teams put the libero in the left-back (which is where the MB used to play on defense), with the OH hitter playing middle back. You get more tries on the ball playing middle back than you do left back.

That's just a guess, though. Different teams can use their liberos in different manners.

[Gorf]

SoBB, I agree.

The "per game" statistics in general don't make a lot of sense.

Games are not, and never have been, of uniform length.

Per rotation would be a much more informative number.

Though even that isn't "perfect" since some rotations have very long rallies and lots of digs and other rotations are ended on the first attack with no digs.

[Deleted]

I don't believe the MB gets more digs than the LB--not in the woman's game anyhow.

(That's middle back, not middle blocker, obviously.)

Maybe I'm wrong, SoBB. You really think she does?

[sonofbarcelonabob]

(R)uffda! said:

I don't believe the MB gets more digs than the LB--not in the woman's game anyhow.

(That's middle back, not middle blocker, obviously.)

Maybe I'm wrong, SoBB. You really think she does?

I think so. The center-back (using that term so as not to confuse MB with middle-back) player in a standard team defense (assuming any of the common USA terminology of Red, White, and Blue defenses) has responsibility for the following:

- The straight ahead shot on the first-tempo

- Anything high off the hands travelling long beyond the endline

- Anything hit into a seam in the block

- Anything over the block and deep (including secondary line responsibility for any line shot from both antennas that is beyond the line digger)

The wing diggers (both LB and RB) usually only cover the angle hit from the opposite antenna, and the line hit from the adjacent antenna.

Some teams (particularly high school teams) like using the Russian red defensive system. In which case one of the backrow defenders (usually the line defender) is up close covering the tip, and the two remaining backrow defenders split responsibility for the backrow defense. The Russians are still using this defensive system, if you watch the Gold Medal match from Athens. In this case, then the digging stats by court position may be a little bit different than what you would see from the standard defenses used in the U.S.

[Cubicle No More ...]

I remember Russ Rose a couple years back saying he used a dig % to evaluate the defense of his players. Purely take total digs over dig attempts. It was an interesting approach, and one that seemingly makes a whole lot of sense. Someone can get double digit digs in a match but if they missed just as many, if not more... The dig % (rather than just # of digs in a match) might offer a better perspective on a player's effectiveness in the back row.

[Gorf]

Yeah, almost any stat makes more sense when it is per attempt. The stat sheets just don't report dig attempts.

I guess they could get their own stats worked out by culling through the various videos from matches.

[romeo]

Cubicle said:

I remember Russ Rose a couple years back saying he used a dig % to evaluate the defense of his players. Purely take total digs over dig attempts. It was an interesting approach, and one that seemingly makes a whole lot of sense. Someone can get double digit digs in a match but if they missed just as many, if not more... The dig % (rather than just # of digs in a match) might offer a better perspective on a player's effectiveness in the back row.

Now that would be a meaningful stat! Although it wouldn't reflect errors such as just letting a ball drop with no attempt, which is far worse that an error on an attempt.

[ESTRELLA]

SonoBB,
that depends. If you have a very effective block more so your opposite digger or line digger will get most of the digs. The middle back is for the seem shots and anything that goes deep which in general terms will be less.

My put on this is that the player that gets the most chances for digs will be based on what the front line blocking system provides.

I will also say that if you are to check into the effciency of a digger based on attempts you better be careful. Somebody that is exposed to 40 chances a match may be rated about 60% while somebody that just has 15 chances may have a 80% efficiency rating. Got to be careful just like in baseball. You can be hitting .350 with only 250 ABs while the person with 450 ABs is just around .300. Who is best???

ESTRELLA

[Deleted]

Cubicle said:

I remember Russ Rose a couple years back saying he used a dig % to evaluate the defense of his players. Purely take total digs over dig attempts. It was an interesting approach, and one that seemingly makes a whole lot of sense. Someone can get double digit digs in a match but if they missed just as many, if not more... The dig % (rather than just # of digs in a match) might offer a better perspective on a player's effectiveness in the back row.

Don't like that stat because you don't know how difficult the attempts are. Same problem with total digs or digs per game. To have a truly meaningful stat you'd need to grade the difficulty and where the dig goes.

And like most VB stats, it's just impossible to do without 162 people tracking it.

In that sense, the FIVB stat actually makes a lot of sense: only count the digs that lead directly to a kill. Or, even better, count BOTH.

The beauty of VB is that it is such a team-oriented sport--maybe more so than any other. The frustrating thing about VB is that it is such a team-oriented sport...

[Deleted]

Having said all that, the stats which really DO compare performances are the conference stats. Since everyone is playing everyone else, you really have a consistent basis for comparison.

[LuckyVB]

I think it's interesting that, for instance, Gentil made "headlines" on the Gopher website for breaking the school's all time dig record. I would HOPE that she would break this record. The old record was before there was the libero position.

[romeo]

LuckyVB said:

I think it's interesting that, for instance, Gentil made "headlines" on the Gopher website for breaking the school's all time dig record. I would HOPE that she would break this record. The old record was before there was the libero position.

I think there should be two different stats: Digs record pre-libero, Digs record post-libero.

[UCSBLibero]

I think in the womens game , us other liberos should do the same which they are considering, as in serving.