|
Post by bkedane on Sept 2, 2014 22:29:46 GMT -5
Sorry, I disagree with this completely. Burgess is nothing like Mueller. I actually don't think the comparison to Robinson is a stretch. Hell, I think Burgess will be as good (if not better) than Robinson by the time she's done at Stanford. I think that's insane. Sorry. Burgess isn't the competitor, athlete, or leader that Robinson was. Where do you get the information about what level of "competitor" or "leader" either these players is? I see how one could get an idea about the athleticism of players by watching matches. But I'm skeptical that watching matches provides much information about leadership or about a personality trait like competitiveness - these seem to be things one would only learn about in day to day interaction or from testimony of coaches or team members.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Sept 2, 2014 22:44:10 GMT -5
There is nothing more exhausting than people arguing, without making any argument. I am giving some explanation, data, reasoning for my opinion, opposed to you just saying its wrong or ridiculous. You never did answer my very straightforward question regarding determining difference in talent. How do you reconcile Stanford has a first team AA, a second team AA, and two honorable mention AA's, with Nebraska only having a third team AA and an honorable mention that you just described as "ridiculously horrendous"? What does that suggest? To some it would suggest that the people who are experts, evaluate top players, think the difference in talent is somewhat significant. It "tells" me that people like Kelly Sheffield, Craig Skinner, Chris Lamb, Jeff Nelson believe that Stanford has much better talent. Also it is your assertion it was "level in play" not level of talent. I will ask you another direct question, what do feel is the #1 determiner in level of play? It is my opinion that level of talent is. Again, this is my opinion, but I am offering basis for that thinking, you're shouting at the rain. I would be interested in you answering those questions or giving some sort of explanation as to yours, instead of just insisting its wrong. Explanation, data, reasoning? Is that what you're calling that? What unbiased data do you have to prove that Stanford has more talent than Nebraska? I haven't seen any numbers, which, IMO, are usually the most compelling form of unbiased data. Do you have numerical data to present? The entirety of your post is completely laughable. "Nebraska didn't get as many All-Americans last year as Stanford, so they aren't as talented and don't have the capacity to compete with the Cardinal. There's nothing they could have done." Until you change your argument from that, I won't engage with you. Nebraska ABSOLUTELY has the kids to score AT LEAST 20 against Stanford in Lincoln. They just played like crap. Quit making excuses for your beloved John Cook. It's ridiculous. Actually I have given plenty of explanation and reasoning and whatever actual data one could use. I will lay it out again as evidently you missed it twice. It is important to note you have offered nothing. First, the level of talent in collegiate volleyball is acknowledged through the All-American process which uses DATA, and actual match video. It is made up of a committee of college coaches, experts, ( we aren't) Those coaches have determined that 4 of the six starters are AA's a first, a second and two honorable mentions. Nebraska has a third and an honorable mention that you have stated emphatically is "ridiculously horrendous" You can find the list of AA's/most talented collegiate players as chosen by professional based on their statistics and match play on the AVCA website. Again, that data states Stanford has better talent. Secondly the AVCA has a pre-season coaches poll where they predict how good teams are starting the season almost solely by their returning talent. Stanford was #2 and had several #1 votes, Nebraska I believed was picked 6 with no first place votes. That data/example is also available on the AVCA website, and it too, recognizes Stanford as the team with more talent. Third, the two teams recently played and Stanford kicked the %*$# out of Nebraska. Several things determine outcomes of matches, talent being the biggest. The actual date/statistics of the individual players are available at both teams websites. It too will demonstrate Stanford has better talent. Fourth while not a large body of work the statistical comparison of the Nebraska and Stanford players is the following: 2 Nebraska OH's hitters are hitting .190 and .000 (a Blutarsky) 2 Stanford OH's hitting .283 and .286 2 Nebraska middles hitting .321 and .192 2 Stanford middles hitting .512 and .368 Nebraska RS hitting .175 Stanford RS hitting .333 Nebraska setter 10.4 APG Stanford setter 14.6 APG It would appear that this data, recognizes that they have better talent. Those are five examples, reasons, supported by the only data available that support what I believe. You are currently at zero attempts to use examples, statistics, or any means as how talent is recognized in college volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Sept 2, 2014 22:46:40 GMT -5
Last year Stanford's five starting hitters each averaged2.8 or 2.7 kills a set; ridiculously balanced offense. Even with that distribution Burgesses stats were close to Kadie Rolfzens, including hitting over .300 in conference. She looks smooth and confident, at least in practice. As Robinson is on the WCC roaster, kudos to her as ahead of Burgess and other Oh. I still take Burgess over most other collegiate OH.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Sept 2, 2014 22:48:45 GMT -5
Wait. You're arguing that stats through two matches indicate which team has better talent? Stats that INCLUDE the match you are arguing about? Hmmm. It takes some doing to lose an argument to pelcj11. Keep it up. First off, Pelc isn't making ANY argument. Secondly, had you read, I offered several examples or reasons as to why I believe they had better talent. I also CLEARLY stated the two matches is of course a small sampling but it is in fact data, which he did in fact ask for. If you read (you didn't) those statistics are in no way the basis of my argument. Lastly wouldn't the fact that those stats INCLUDE the match they played against each other be a good thing to include? It would appear to be fairly relevant.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Sept 2, 2014 22:53:40 GMT -5
I think that's insane. Sorry. Burgess isn't the competitor, athlete, or leader that Robinson was. Where do you get the information about what level of "competitor" or "leader" either these players is? I see how one could get an idea about the athleticism of players by watching matches. But I'm skeptical that watching matches provides much information about leadership or about a personality trait like competitiveness - these seem to be things one would only learn about in day to day interaction or from testimony of coaches or team members. And this after accusing me of not offering any evidence or "hard data" I have no problem with anyones opinion on this site, just give some sort of basis for it. If you want to call something ridiculous, fine, but give some sort of basis or argument.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 2, 2014 22:54:53 GMT -5
You're exhausting. The gap in talent was nowhere near as large as you're suggesting. Nebraska absolutely has the kids to compete with Stanford. The disparity wasn't in level of talent; it was in level of play. There is nothing more exhausting than people arguing, without making any argument. I am giving some explanation, data, reasoning for my opinion, opposed to you just saying its wrong or ridiculous. You never did answer my very straightforward question regarding determining difference in talent. How do you reconcile Stanford has a first team AA, a second team AA, and two honorable mention AA's, with Nebraska only having a third team AA and an honorable mention that you just described as "ridiculously horrendous"? What does that suggest? To some it would suggest that the people who are experts, evaluate top players, think the difference in talent is somewhat significant. It "tells" me that people like Kelly Sheffield, Craig Skinner, Chris Lamb, Jeff Nelson believe that Stanford has much better talent. Also it is your assertion it was "level in play" not level of talent. I will ask you another direct question, what do feel is the #1 determiner in level of play? It is my opinion that level of talent is. Again, this is my opinion, but I am offering basis for that thinking, you're shouting at the rain. I would be interested in you answering those questions or giving some sort of explanation as to yours, instead of just insisting its wrong. Duke also returns a 3rd team All-American outside and an AA HM Setter. On top of that, they've got an HM AA outside coming back. Looks like the Blue Devils are more talented than Nebraska as well. Cook better hope he dodges them in the tournament. After all people like Kelly Sheffield, Craig Skinner, Chris Lamb, Jeff Nelson (where are the women here, huh?) believe that Duke has better talent.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Sept 2, 2014 22:55:45 GMT -5
And one more thing while admittedly not a large body of evidence, the stats for Stanford and Nebraska players are as follows 2 Nebraska OH's hitters are hitting .190 and .000 (a Blutarsky) 2 Stanford OH's hitting .283 and .286 2 Nebraska middles hitting .321 and .192 2 Stanford middles hitting .512 and .368 Nebraska RS hitting .175 Stanford RS hitting .333 Nebraska setter 10.4 APG Stanford setter 14.6 APG It would appear that this example as well recognizes that they have better talent. You are currently at zero attempts to use examples, statistics, or any means as how talent is recognized in college volleyball. 14.6 APG is crazy good. If Stanford/Bugg can keep it close to 14.0 throughout the Pac-12 season, the 2014 conference championship should be a lock. With Inky currently at .512, I'm wondering if she can break the magic .500 mark and Foluke Akinradewo's single season .499 hitting record?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 22:56:15 GMT -5
And one more thing while admittedly not a large body of evidence, the stats for Stanford and Nebraska players are as follows 2 Nebraska OH's hitters are hitting .190 and .000 (a Blutarsky) 2 Stanford OH's hitting .283 and .286 2 Nebraska middles hitting .321 and .192 2 Stanford middles hitting .512 and .368 Nebraska RS hitting .175 Stanford RS hitting .333 Nebraska setter 10.4 APG Stanford setter 14.6 APG It would appear that this example as well recognizes that they have better talent. You are currently at zero attempts to use examples, statistics, or any means as how talent is recognized in college volleyball. Are you doing a parody? Is this satire?! This is absolutely hilarious and your conviction is the best part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 22:58:28 GMT -5
And one more thing while admittedly not a large body of evidence, the stats for Stanford and Nebraska players are as follows 2 Nebraska OH's hitters are hitting .190 and .000 (a Blutarsky) 2 Stanford OH's hitting .283 and .286 2 Nebraska middles hitting .321 and .192 2 Stanford middles hitting .512 and .368 Nebraska RS hitting .175 Stanford RS hitting .333 Nebraska setter 10.4 APG Stanford setter 14.6 APG It would appear that this example as well recognizes that they have better talent. You are currently at zero attempts to use examples, statistics, or any means as how talent is recognized in college volleyball. 14.6 APG is crazy good. If Stanford/Bugg can keep it close to 14.0 throughout the Pac-12 season, the 2014 conference championship should be a lock. With Inky currently at .512, I'm wondering if she can break the magic .500 mark and Foluke Akinradewo's single season .499 hitting record? Like Arielle Wilson did in 2009?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 23:06:38 GMT -5
Wait. You're arguing that stats through two matches indicate which team has better talent? Stats that INCLUDE the match you are arguing about? Hmmm. It takes some doing to lose an argument to pelcj11. Keep it up. First off, Pelc isn't making ANY argument. I'm genuinely worried that you can't read well.
|
|
|
Post by midnightblue on Sept 2, 2014 23:27:34 GMT -5
14.6 APG is crazy good. If Stanford/Bugg can keep it close to 14.0 throughout the Pac-12 season, the 2014 conference championship should be a lock. With Inky currently at .512, I'm wondering if she can break the magic .500 mark and Foluke Akinradewo's single season .499 hitting record? Like Arielle Wilson did in 2009? But alas Foluke is and was miles and miles better than Wilson. (No offense to Arielle).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 23:29:56 GMT -5
Like Arielle Wilson did in 2009? But alas Foluke is and was miles and miles better than Wilson. (No offense to Arielle). Miles and miles? No sir.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Sept 2, 2014 23:35:12 GMT -5
14.6 APG is crazy good. If Stanford/Bugg can keep it close to 14.0 throughout the Pac-12 season, the 2014 conference championship should be a lock. With Inky currently at .512, I'm wondering if she can break the magic .500 mark and Foluke Akinradewo's single season .499 hitting record? Like Arielle Wilson did in 2009? Did Wilson play for Stanford? Hammer's comments is specific to Stanford, not the NCAA, knucklehead.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Sept 2, 2014 23:40:48 GMT -5
I hate to come in the middle of this, but, IMO, the difference between Stanford and Nebraska is not talent (because both sides have talents galore), it's which side has more "elite" talent. I would say Stanford has two elite talents in Inky and Bugg, while Nebraska has none (Kadie is very close though). To me, that's the difference.
|
|
|
Post by chisovnik on Sept 2, 2014 23:43:57 GMT -5
But alas Foluke is and was miles and miles better than Wilson. (No offense to Arielle). Miles and miles? No sir. lol
|
|