|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 15, 2014 16:17:10 GMT -5
You should see his polyester coaching shorts with the elastic waistband. OK, an Ipad. Hey, I love my old school coaching shorts: You just brought back painful memories of junior high school to just about everybody on this board.
|
|
|
Post by psumaui on Jul 15, 2014 16:48:52 GMT -5
If I calculated right, in order for Hooker to have a 43" vertical, the top of her head would have to be around 9'11" high when she was at that height.
|
|
|
Post by crawdaddy on Jul 15, 2014 17:15:21 GMT -5
Taylor Sander probably has the best vertical on the men's team and it's around 43 inches. Hooker is an athletic wonder, but she doesn't jump 43".
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 15, 2014 17:17:47 GMT -5
Looking into this, she was probably talking about box jumps, which aren't comparable to what we'd consider a vertical.
|
|
|
Post by pancakesandgators on Jul 15, 2014 17:18:11 GMT -5
Even if Hooker is jumping at this height, it does not mean she is being set at and consequently hitting at her peak. And if she does have a 43" vertical, she isn't hitting that peak every time.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jul 15, 2014 17:29:16 GMT -5
Call is whatever you like. It's well-documented. Check out high jump results and figure it out. Still doesn't add up. Sorry. And "well-documented" by whom? I've had a couple of high jumpers, including an Olympian, out on the beach attempting to make a go of it on the AVP. Their verts weren't off the charts by any means (neither could match Walsh or EY, who both could hit a bit over 10' - in the sand). Hooker clearly can sky, do doubt about it, certainly not trying to take anything away from her remarkable athleticism - but 43"? Nah. According to verticaldunk.com, 43" would put her above all but 40-some NBA players all-time, including Dominique Wilkins, Dr. J., Shawn Kemp, Kobe Bryant. The average vertical jump for NBA players is 28".
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Jul 15, 2014 17:30:29 GMT -5
Looking into this, she was probably talking about box jumps, which aren't comparable to what we'd consider a vertical. A 43" box jump? That, I could buy into.
|
|
|
Post by truthandjustice on Jul 15, 2014 17:49:29 GMT -5
You knuckleheads.. Destinee was jumping onto a 48" box. She took an approach, brought her knees to her chest and landed on the box. So for all you people that don't understand:
While the lower part of her body was brought up higher so she could land, the top didn't go any higher than normal.
Now... Destinee was recorded at 11'3 jump touch in 2012. I believe her standing reach was like 8'2 giving her a approximate vertical jump of 37"
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 15, 2014 18:03:37 GMT -5
You knuckleheads.. Destinee was jumping onto a 48" box. She took an approach, brought her knees to her chest and landed on the box. So for all you people that don't understand: While the lower part of her body was brought up higher so she could land, the top didn't go any higher than normal. Now... Destinee was recorded at 11'3 jump touch in 2012. I believe her standing reach was like 8'2 giving her a approximate vertical jump of 37" So that's what she was doing in that play when she landed on Berg's back. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by kokyu on Jul 15, 2014 18:05:52 GMT -5
You mean Berg's back or did she land on Tom too?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 15, 2014 18:08:14 GMT -5
Thanks to you too kokyu
|
|
|
Post by ncaavballguru on Jul 15, 2014 18:39:59 GMT -5
Her standing reach was only 8'2"? Maybe she does have T-Rex arms.
|
|
|
Post by lepetitfromage on Jul 15, 2014 22:10:51 GMT -5
They didn't come here to annihilate us. But we wanted to annihilate them? It meant way more to us than it did to them. Why? Also, if you thought Brazil was on vacation and didn't want to win, then why have you been getting so worked up and defensive the last couple of nights and staying up to 2 or 3am just to watch some insignificant gimme match? Ha! Pelc's so delusional. Indeed, if the matches meant nothing to Brazil, why did Zé + team get so worked up over close calls?
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Jul 15, 2014 22:21:28 GMT -5
But we wanted to annihilate them? Why? Also, if you thought Brazil was on vacation and didn't want to win, then why have you been getting so worked up and defensive the last couple of nights and staying up to 2 or 3am just to watch some insignificant gimme match? Ha! Pelc's so delusional. Indeed, if the matches meant nothing to Brazil, why did Zé + team get so worked up over close calls? Because they're Brazilian?
|
|
|
Post by lepetitfromage on Jul 15, 2014 22:23:28 GMT -5
Just for context, here are out actual compiled passing stats from the 4 matches against Brazil. Banwarth: 65.9% pos, 31.8% exc, 6.8% err (44 att) Robinson: 61.7% pos, 29.9% exc, 3.7% err (107 att) Larson: 61.2% pos, 26.5% exc, 2.0% err (49 att) Hill: 59.4% pos, 21.7% exc, 2.9% err (69 att) Davis: 48.0% pos, 20.0% exc, 0.0% err (25 att) Richards: 44.0% pos, 28.0% exc, 8.0% err (25 att) Lichtman: 9.1% pos, 9.1% exc, 18.2% err (11 att) Banwarth is passing SIGNIFICANTLY better than Davis, despite having 3 errors to none for Davis (though I'd feel more comfortable if Davis had 2-3x the attempts). Robinson was very good, and Hill was better than this thread makes her out to be. Really the thing that's most clear is that Lichtman was not successful coming in as a spot sub for passing. Sample size is, of course, low, but she's never really gonna be on the court for enough stretches to get anything more meaningful. Everything you said was spot-on. Got a compilation of Davis' reception stats from London?
|
|