Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 16:23:15 GMT -5
Yes. That is exactly it. They aren't standing next to each other. I, for one, think that makes a combination block different from individual floor defenders. Heck, more to the point, it makes it different from having your blockers commit block to separate opposing players. Do you really think if one of those blockers solos the opposition hitter that's the same thing as if that hitter went up against 2 or 3 blockers? After all, those commit blockers are also part of the same defensive scheme.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 16:23:48 GMT -5
Then why don't you think it's silly to just credit one digger with a dig because that's who the attacker happened to hit the ball to? All four defenders are a part of a practiced, concerted, coordinated effort to dig the ball. Just because they aren't standing next to each other? Keep up, why don't you? This has already been hashed out. HA. The only thing that's been "hashed out" is your pretty clear ignorance of the finer nuances of the game and the execution of skills. Stick to airplanes, buddy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 16:26:13 GMT -5
pelcj11, this is your final warning. The next time you call a poster ignorant will be the last time. This was old months ago. Knock. It. Off.
|
|
|
Post by VT Five-0 on Sept 17, 2014 16:30:58 GMT -5
Moved and seconded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 16:31:15 GMT -5
pelcj11, this is your final warning. The next time you call a poster ignorant will be the last time. This is was old months ago. Knock. It. Off. ...c4ndlelight just did it four posts ago, and the definition of "ignorant" is "lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular." That can't be used? Even when it so clearly applies? Okay then.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 17, 2014 16:32:00 GMT -5
Yes. That is exactly it. They aren't standing next to each other. I, for one, think that makes a combination block different from individual floor defenders. Heck, more to the point, it makes it different from having your blockers commit block to separate opposing players. Do you really think if one of those blockers solos the opposition hitter that's the same thing as if that hitter went up against 2 or 3 blockers? After all, those commit blockers are also part of the same defensive scheme. That's what I said. C4 obviously disagreed. Oh well. (You can't expect an Oregon fan to be completely reasonable....)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 16:38:41 GMT -5
pelcj11, this is your final warning. The next time you call a poster ignorant will be the last time. This is was old months ago. Knock. It. Off. ...c4ndlelight just did it four posts ago, and the definition of "ignorant" is "lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular." That can't be used? Even when it so clearly applies? Okay then. You should read your posts. The only thing that is clear is that you are being extremely arrogant with absolutely no basis for that arrogance. Some serious self-evaluation is in order.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 17:07:37 GMT -5
...c4ndlelight just did it four posts ago, and the definition of "ignorant" is "lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular." That can't be used? Even when it so clearly applies? Okay then. You should read your posts. The only thing that is clear is that you are being extremely arrogant with absolutely no basis for that arrogance. Some serious self-evaluation is in order. Educated, confident, direct = arrogant. Okay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 17:21:41 GMT -5
Well, there you go. You are educated (no, you are not), you are confident (OK), you are direct (OK). The rest of Volley Talk? Not quite up to your standards.
So now, my friend, go find a forum that meets your standards. And, I will add, good riddance.
|
|
|
Post by Garand on Sept 17, 2014 23:34:11 GMT -5
Well, there you go. You are educated (no, you are not), you are confident (OK), you are direct (OK). The rest of Volley Talk? Not quite up to your standards. So now, my friend, go find a forum that meets your standards. And, I will add, good riddance. If that means what I think it means, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Garand on Sept 17, 2014 23:39:46 GMT -5
Educated in the nuances of the game or not (mostly not), I've always assumed that the reason for assigning "shared" blocks is, as someone already pointed out, due to the difficulty of reliably seeing in real time which blocker actually contacted the ball. On the other hand, the physical separation of back row defenders makes it very simple to see who dug or passed the ball. Pretty straightforward to me.
|
|
|
Post by kukae on Sept 18, 2014 4:22:37 GMT -5
It seems to me that when two or three blockers go up, there is much more likely to be a block than just when one goes up. So, even if the assisting blockers didn't touch the ball, there is something to them being a part of the block that makes the block more successful. I'm pretty sure the double block would still be more successful than the single bock, even if the hitter always only went after one player (which isn't true of digging where if the ball is always entering their zone, the other players are pretty irrelevant). When hitters attack a solid double block, they will hit the ball differently than when attacking a single block, even if the ball only hits one player. The attacker is assessing the real time performance of both blockers. In the other cases of pseudo assisting, the players aren't actually performing their main duty until the ball chooses them. So, I guess that is also where I see the difference. In blocking, the main part of the job isn't really the contact with the ball. Also, when there is a double block, there ARE times when the the two blockers contribute equally to a block. That really doesn't happen with digging or hitting, so I think the comparison isn't a very good one. I don't know the best way to acknowledge the block assisting role, but I do think it is more important than all the other pseudo assisting roles being mentioned. In many cases, that block assister did play a critical role in the successful block, even if they didn't touch the ball. I also don't know, in real time, how to assess how well an assister performed their block. If they always formed such perfect blocks that the attacker always hit away from them, then, to me, they are contributing to the success of the block. But, I don't see some stat guy being able to determine the difference between an assist that was a contribution to the block, and one that wasn't, certainly not in real time. But, I can see that they shouldn't award an assist (and lower a solo blocker's stat) simply because someone was sort of going through the motions and yet clearly being ineffective (like they were really late, or barely jumped). I think part of the problem is that the NCAA wants the stat to be as objective as possible and not subject too much variations in judgement. It is much more consistent to always award the assist, then to have to make judgements in real time. I also think that triple block award definitely skews the stats. I always wondered how a team could have half blocks on their team stat.
|
|
|
Post by craftylefty on Sept 18, 2014 7:18:57 GMT -5
Educated in the nuances of the game or not (mostly not), I've always assumed that the reason for assigning "shared" blocks is, as someone already pointed out, due to the difficulty of reliably seeing in real time which blocker actually contacted the ball. On the other hand, the physical separation of back row defenders makes it very simple to see who dug or passed the ball. Pretty straightforward to me. I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. (Honestly shocked that my little thread sparked five pages of debate!)
|
|
|
Post by Garand on Sept 18, 2014 9:38:04 GMT -5
Educated in the nuances of the game or not (mostly not), I've always assumed that the reason for assigning "shared" blocks is, as someone already pointed out, due to the difficulty of reliably seeing in real time which blocker actually contacted the ball. On the other hand, the physical separation of back row defenders makes it very simple to see who dug or passed the ball. Pretty straightforward to me. Also, if a particular team always managed to put up a triple block, and each blocker got credit for a full block instead of just a third of a block, their blocking stats would be grotesquely distorted.
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Sept 18, 2014 10:59:50 GMT -5
Educated in the nuances of the game or not (mostly not), I've always assumed that the reason for assigning "shared" blocks is, as someone already pointed out, due to the difficulty of reliably seeing in real time which blocker actually contacted the ball. On the other hand, the physical separation of back row defenders makes it very simple to see who dug or passed the ball. Pretty straightforward to me. Also, if a particular team always managed to put up a triple block, and each blocker got credit for a full block instead of just a third of a block, their blocking stats would be grotesquely distorted. Unfortunately, the stats programs (Stat Crew software, istatvball, others as well, I believe) count each blocker in the triple block as a half block (.5) so teams have 1.5 blocks for every triple block they get in the final box score.
|
|