|
Post by redbeard2008 on Sept 22, 2014 16:38:44 GMT -5
Okay - I am not buying this one. The writer doesn't say where he got this information - did the coaching staff tell him this after the match, or is he guessing? The way the article is written, we don't know that answer for sure - but the implication is the coaching staff told him this? Anyway - I decided to look at the play-by-pay on the match. According to the article - the Washington coaching staff was able to figure this out during the 3rd set. And by the 4th set was able to put in place the changes that helped lead to a Washington win. However, the blocking points by set do not support this story. Washington had 6 blocks in the 1st and 3rd sets (the two sets they lost BTW) and 5 blocks in set #2. They 'only' had 4 blocks in set #4 and 1 block in the final set. Cannot get all the information from a play-by-play - maybe Washington increased the number of touches and altered the way Wisconsin played later in the match? I think the story is a little fishy. The writer, who does have inside access to JMac, didn't say when they noticed the pattern - it could have been info they had coming into the match, and it just took time to have a cumulative effect on Wisconsin's play. The Huskies had their 22nd block at 18-11 in the fourth set, according to the TV announcer, so they scored their next 22 points without a block. You can't judge the effect of the blocking simply by blocks. While Wisconsin was only blocked four times in the 4th set, they had 12 (correction) hitting errors, which can best be explained by trying to hit over or around the block. In the 5th set, they had only 2 hitting errors, but only hit .182, which could mean their hitters turned tentative with the match on the line.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Sept 22, 2014 16:42:58 GMT -5
I have to agree with Blue Penguin here. I'm not sure this story makes sense...first because Washington shouldn't reveal it, and second because blocks did not go up in set 4, or in the final set. Hitting errors did go up markedly (almost doubling) in set 4, and those were largely down to Bates, who had 7 herself, which is as much as the whole team had in each of the other sets. Now it could be that she was trying to hit around a block that anticipated sets to her, and that caused the errors. Again though, I didn't see the match.
I am always leary of single factor explanations of what happens in these matches. And it is easy to convince yourself that an adjustment is what did the trick, even though it may be a range of things.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Sept 22, 2014 16:49:58 GMT -5
I will say it's possible that a good setter might set slightly differently to a freshman hitter, and there may be a tell that results.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,385
|
Post by bluepenquin on Sept 22, 2014 16:54:24 GMT -5
Okay - I am not buying this one. The writer doesn't say where he got this information - did the coaching staff tell him this after the match, or is he guessing? The way the article is written, we don't know that answer for sure - but the implication is the coaching staff told him this? Anyway - I decided to look at the play-by-pay on the match. According to the article - the Washington coaching staff was able to figure this out during the 3rd set. And by the 4th set was able to put in place the changes that helped lead to a Washington win. However, the blocking points by set do not support this story. Washington had 6 blocks in the 1st and 3rd sets (the two sets they lost BTW) and 5 blocks in set #2. They 'only' had 4 blocks in set #4 and 1 block in the final set. Cannot get all the information from a play-by-play - maybe Washington increased the number of touches and altered the way Wisconsin played later in the match? I think the story is a little fishy. The writer, who does have inside access to JMac, didn't say when they noticed the pattern - it could have been info they had coming into the match, and it just took time to have a cumulative effect on Wisconsin's play. The Huskies had their 22nd block at 18-11 in the fourth set, according to the TV announcer, so they scored their next 22 points without a block. You can't judge the effect of the blocking simply by blocks. While Wisconsin was only blocked four times in the 4th set, they had 22 hitting errors, which can best be explained by trying to hit over or around the block. In the 5th set, they had only 2 hitting errors, but only hit .182, which could mean their hitters turned tentative with the match on the line. The story didn't specifically say when they discovered the pattern, but it was clearly implied that the coaches on the bench learned this during the 3rd set and that this was helpful in them winning the final two sets. I agree with you - you cannot get the full story from the stats. There are many plausable causes for Washington winning the final 2 sets - most likely being they just played better. I am not saying the story is wrong. Maybe someone from the coaching staff gave this information to the writer. Even if a coach said this doesn't automatically mean that it is true. The article doesn't give the source, so there is already speculation.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Sept 22, 2014 17:02:20 GMT -5
redbeard...you mean Wisconsin had 12 hitting errors in 4th set, not 22. That would have been truly impressive!
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Sept 22, 2014 17:11:25 GMT -5
The writer, who does have inside access to JMac, didn't say when they noticed the pattern - it could have been info they had coming into the match, and it just took time to have a cumulative effect on Wisconsin's play. The Huskies had their 22nd block at 18-11 in the fourth set, according to the TV announcer, so they scored their next 22 points without a block. You can't judge the effect of the blocking simply by blocks. While Wisconsin was only blocked four times in the 4th set, they had 22 hitting errors, which can best be explained by trying to hit over or around the block. In the 5th set, they had only 2 hitting errors, but only hit .182, which could mean their hitters turned tentative with the match on the line. The story didn't specifically say when they discovered the pattern, but it was clearly implied that the coaches on the bench learned this during the 3rd set and that this was helpful in them winning the final two sets. I agree with you - you cannot get the full story from the stats. There are many plausable causes for Washington winning the final 2 sets - most likely being they just played better. I am not saying the story is wrong. Maybe someone from the coaching staff gave this information to the writer. Even if a coach said this doesn't automatically mean that it is true. The article doesn't give the source, so there is already speculation. Why would you expect the writer to say how and where he got the information? Revealing his source might mean losing the source. I'm not sure I would call it a pattern, but Carlini definitely has a "tell". I hinted at it in the UW v UW thread and I first saw it in the USAV gym, so I wouldn't be surprised if the UWash staff first heard about it through the USAV grapevine.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Sept 22, 2014 17:25:55 GMT -5
Well, presumably the USAV staff told Carlini about it so she could work it out of her game, right? Why would they not if she is being groomed for the national team?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Sept 22, 2014 17:33:31 GMT -5
Well, presumably the USAV staff told Carlini about it so she could work it out of her game, right? Why would they not if she is being groomed for the national team? I wouldn't presume that the USAV staff knew, told or suspected any of that based on my post because I'm not suggesting that the staff did any of those. The USAV grapevine encompasses much more than the staff.
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Sept 22, 2014 17:46:42 GMT -5
I'd think now that the match is over, JMac and Sheff would want to help each other out as much as possible. The better the other team's record, the better their team's RPI.
And I'm sure Lauren has a tell. Most setters do. And I'm sure that Sheff & Co. know what it is, and that they're working on it. This is not some magical mystery clue that is invisible to everyone but the Washington coaching staff.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Sept 22, 2014 18:14:08 GMT -5
redbeard...you mean Wisconsin had 12 hitting errors in 4th set, not 22. That would have been truly impressive! Sorry, the blocking number slipped in - already fixed it.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Sept 22, 2014 18:38:00 GMT -5
The story didn't specifically say when they discovered the pattern, but it was clearly implied that the coaches on the bench learned this during the 3rd set and that this was helpful in them winning the final two sets. I agree with you - you cannot get the full story from the stats. There are many plausable causes for Washington winning the final 2 sets - most likely being they just played better. I am not saying the story is wrong. Maybe someone from the coaching staff gave this information to the writer. Even if a coach said this doesn't automatically mean that it is true. The article doesn't give the source, so there is already speculation. The article simply said: "On the bench, McLaughlin’s coaching staff had been studying Carlini. They detected a pattern, one that might let Washington’s blockers commit to Wisconsin’s hitters a crucial second sooner." You also have to figure this is a second-hand report of a likely off-hand remark. I don't think they just started studying Carlini that match. Most of the blocks were in the first three sets (and the putbacks far outnumbered the actual blocks) - the psychological effect is cumulative, however. The result was that Wisconsin stopped hitting into the block - the goal of blocking is not so much the actual blocks as it is to force the opponent to take higher risk shots. That clearly did happen in the 4th set. In the fifth set they became tentative. Their sideout percentages tell the story: 45% (4th) and 53% (5th).
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,385
|
Post by bluepenquin on Sept 22, 2014 18:45:46 GMT -5
I'd think now that the match is over, JMac and Sheff would want to help each other out as much as possible. The better the other team's record, the better their team's RPI. And I'm sure Lauren has a tell. Most setters do. And I'm sure that Sheff & Co. know what it is, and that they're working on it. This is not some magical mystery clue that is invisible to everyone but the Washington coaching staff. The success or failure (within reason) of Washington and Wisconsin will have virtually no impact on the other team's RPI. These teams have around 900 games that their opponents will play this year - it takes a lot to move the RPI.
I would suspect (hope) that neither team gives a rip about RPI - they are concerned about their respective conference titles. Putting it another way - there is a higher chance of these 2 teams meeting again this year (with a heck of a lot more at stake) than their RPI being affected by what the other team does.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Sept 22, 2014 18:56:01 GMT -5
I'd think now that the match is over, JMac and Sheff would want to help each other out as much as possible. The better the other team's record, the better their team's RPI. And I'm sure Lauren has a tell. Most setters do. And I'm sure that Sheff & Co. know what it is, and that they're working on it. This is not some magical mystery clue that is invisible to everyone but the Washington coaching staff. The success or failure (within reason) of Washington and Wisconsin will have virtually no impact on the other team's RPI. These teams have around 900 games that their opponents will play this year - it takes a lot to move the RPI.
I would suspect (hope) that neither team gives a rip about RPI - they are concerned about their respective conference titles. Putting it another way - there is a higher chance of these 2 teams meeting again this year (with a heck of a lot more at stake) than their RPI being affected by what the other team does.
The fact that they could meet again in the post-season precludes the idea that they would want to "help" each other, as would the fact that they both appear to be very competitive people.
|
|
|
Post by Phillytom on Sept 22, 2014 19:09:53 GMT -5
First of all raw number of blocks doesn't tell the story. A good block will mean some blocks, but then it will lead to hitting errors, particularly long balls as the hitter tries to go off the hands of the block. Eventually it will cause a hitter to tip or roll or just give up. And ultimately it will cause a setter to avoid setting into a certain side given the other team's rotation. A fearsome blocker will force teams to avoid her completely. Katie Slay for example -- teams had to design their offenses literally around her because she was such a phenomenal blocker from the time she was a freshman. If you look at the play by play of the of the UW-UW fourth set, there were some big blocks about midway through that really turned the set for Washington. Who knows if that's what the writer was referring to. Anyway this sort of thing goes on all the time. Teams don't talk about it at press conferences. Everybody tries to figure out the setter's tells. It can be anything -- body language, eye motion, footwork. It is very very hard for setters to NOT have tells. And it might not have been anything Carlini was doing in the act of setting. There might have been a pattern in her sets. I.e. if she had decent passes, she was going right, then left, then middle. It could even be something Carlini wasn't even conscious she was doing. Anything in the pattern that improves their chances of guessing which side -- that can be enough just to a couple of blocks at key times and in a close match that could be victory. Okay - I am not buying this one. The writer doesn't say where he got this information - did the coaching staff tell him this after the match, or is he guessing? The way the article is written, we don't know that answer for sure - but the implication is the coaching staff told him this? Anyway - I decided to look at the play-by-pay on the match. According to the article - the Washington coaching staff was able to figure this out during the 3rd set. And by the 4th set was able to put in place the changes that helped lead to a Washington win. However, the blocking points by set do not support this story. Washington had 6 blocks in the 1st and 3rd sets (the two sets they lost BTW) and 5 blocks in set #2. They 'only' had 4 blocks in set #4 and 1 block in the final set. Cannot get all the information from a play-by-play - maybe Washington increased the number of touches and altered the way Wisconsin played later in the match? I think the story is a little fishy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2014 19:24:18 GMT -5
Badgers were 2 points from sweeping Washington last weekend. Badgers were 3 points away from beating Penn state in 4 games and winning national championship (set point game 2, and lead 23-20 in game 4) Badgers lost 1 player that played significant time from last year. The Badgers are very good team The Badgers are a very good team. And yes, they were three points from beating Penn State in four sets. And two sets from winning the match.
|
|