|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 21, 2014 9:36:16 GMT -5
I'll be the first to say that I think Lowe is more terminal, overall. I think some of that is her position, being on the RS as a lefty against a traditionally weaker block than the, but a lot of that was the difference in preseason contribution, which doesn't impact conference awards. Pac-12 play shows closer offensive contributions between the two. Umm, it's the LS that hits against a traditionally weaker block (the setter). Thank you for saying that! I was searching for a polite way to say the same.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 21, 2014 10:03:47 GMT -5
I guess I have to correct myself. The PAC has included women's sports since 1986, and while there have been co-COY in volleyball, there have never been co-POY or co-FOY. In the last three years they have also named Setter Of the Year and Libero Of the Year. None of those have been co-awarded either.
So it seems unlikely there would be co-POY.
As you can see from the list, there have been a few repeat winners. I believe the last time a junior winner did not repeat as a senior was when Morrison won as a junior in 2006, but Akinradewu (then herself a junior) won in 2007 and repeated in 2008.
2013 Vansant 2012 Bergsma 2011 Jupiter 2010 Klineman 2009 Cutura 2008 Akinradewu 2007 Akinradewu 2006 Morrison 2005 Tomasevic 2004 Nnamani 2003 Ross 2002 Tom 2001 Tom 2000 Burkholder 1999 Walsh 1998 Walsh 1997 Folkl 1996 Silvernail 1995 Wendell 1994 Buckner 1993 Bremner 1992 Williams 1991 Klein 1990 Oden 1989 Tomkus 1988 Tomkus 1987 Rush 1986 Smith
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 21, 2014 10:08:14 GMT -5
I think it's been done before, but not often. This would not be the first time at all that several players worthy of discussion of national player of the year were pitted against each other for PAC POY, so almost every year there are very worthy players who end up not being named PAC POY. Cant argue with the selection for the past years. The only surprise for me is Morrison in 2006. Cathy Nelson wrote a weekly pac 10 volleyball release and she listed Thompson, Barboza, Meriwether and maybe Kaczor as the front runners for conference POY without mentioning Morrison Morrison was a 4-time AA and POY, but somehow still a bit underrated in her career. People just kind of felt that Barboza was on a whole 'nother level above her, when I don't feel the gap in play was all that significant.* I was also curious to see how it would have gone if she had stayed indoors. If she graduated a couple years later we may have found out, just because the vb landscape professionally changed a bit. * This is somewhat related to how people thought UW's '05 team did more with "less talent" compared to Stanford/Nebraska, etc. when I'm not really sure that's the case. They had an incredibly talent foreigner, and a bunch of Pacific Northwest kids (Morrison, Thompson, Deesing, Lee) who surprised people because they weren't as familiar with them. (Yes, I know M&T were highly ranked, but that doesn't mean they were considered on that level by the everyday fan)
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 21, 2014 10:12:31 GMT -5
Cant argue with the selection for the past years. The only surprise for me is Morrison in 2006. Cathy Nelson wrote a weekly pac 10 volleyball release and she listed Thompson, Barboza, Meriwether and maybe Kaczor as the front runners for conference POY without mentioning Morrison Morrison was a 4-time AA and POY, but somehow still a bit underrated in her career. People just kind of felt that Barboza was on a whole 'nother level above her, when I don't feel the gap in play was all that significant.* I was also curious to see how it would have gone if she had stayed indoors. If she graduated a couple years later we may have found out, just because the vb landscape professionally changed a bit. * This is somewhat related to how people thought UW's '05 team did more with "less talent" compared to Stanford/Nebraska, etc. when I'm not really sure that's the case. They had an incredibly talent foreigner, and a bunch of Pacific Northwest kids (Morrison, Thompson, Deesing, Lee) who surprised people because they weren't as familiar with them. (Yes, I know M&T were highly ranked, but that doesn't mean they were considered on that level by the everyday fan) Morrison being a junior in 2006 might also be a reasonable explanation for why she wasn't "on the radar" for Cathy Nelson.
|
|
|
Post by saywho on Oct 21, 2014 10:21:19 GMT -5
I actually think today Lowe would win. I think Vansant is far and away the better all around player, but if Lowe keeps her kills up above 6 kpg and hitting 325 or higher I think she will take it. It is rare to have such a kill leader hitting at a consistently high rate and it is usually awarded...Ogonna is the last that came along in my opinion. Not saying that Vansant is an everyday player (because she is far from it) but year in and year out you see great all around players. Vans ant is one of those, a superbly great all-around player. She is not on the level of some of the all time players though, like Logan Tom (in my opinion). Lowe is currently hitting in the leagues of the all time bests. I think as of today that is where the difference lies and why I think that Lowe would get POY this year, though I think Vansant is the better player overall. However, if Lowe settles down and dips below 6 kpg or her hitting % drops much, I think it will go to Vansant.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 21, 2014 13:19:37 GMT -5
I actually think today Lowe would win. I think Vansant is far and away the better all around player, but if Lowe keeps her kills up above 6 kpg and hitting 325 or higher I think she will take it. It is rare to have such a kill leader hitting at a consistently high rate and it is usually awarded...Ogonna is the last that came along in my opinion. Not saying that Vansant is an everyday player (because she is far from it) but year in and year out you see great all around players. Vans ant is one of those, a superbly great all-around player. She is not on the level of some of the all time players though, like Logan Tom (in my opinion). Lowe is currently hitting in the leagues of the all time bests. I think as of today that is where the difference lies and why I think that Lowe would get POY this year, though I think Vansant is the better player overall. However, if Lowe settles down and dips below 6 kpg or her hitting % drops much, I think it will go to Vansant. for conference POY? Lowe's conference stats are not over 6 kills per set or over .325%
|
|
|
Post by stull90210 on Oct 21, 2014 14:36:39 GMT -5
I don't understand why Lowe always gets the backlash for not being a primary passer...
YES Vansant is the better overall player (great defense, great passing) but that's her position! Passing is not and will not ever be Lowe's position or duty for the UCLA team. She is an opposite hitter, not a left side hitter. Sure there are opposites who pass (ex. Kelly Reeves in 2011/12) but passing is not something UCLA relies on Lowe for. (Reeves was relied on for passing, whether she played outside, right side, etc.)
Vansant's defensive numbers are better than Lowe and yes it is important that she is a part of the serve receive formation for UW, but that's her job/duty/role to the team. Passing is NOT Lowe's role on UCLA, so you can't compare those two things.
They play different positions. Their numbers will vary and be judged on different standards. Example: for all american status AVCA requires outside hitters to have more digs than opposite hitters. It also requires opposite hitters to have more blocks than outside hitters, which is actually Lowe's one kink in the armour if she were to be named a 1st team all american (her blocking numbers are somewhat below average for an opposite)...
|
|
|
Post by alwayslearning on Oct 21, 2014 15:07:41 GMT -5
I don't understand why Lowe always gets the backlash for not being a primary passer... YES Vansant is the better overall player (great defense, great passing) but that's her position! Passing is not and will not ever be Lowe's position or duty for the UCLA team. She is an opposite hitter, not a left side hitter. Sure there are opposites who pass (ex. Kelly Reeves in 2011/12) but passing is not something UCLA relies on Lowe for. (Reeves was relied on for passing, whether she played outside, right side, etc.) Vansant's defensive numbers are better than Lowe and yes it is important that she is a part of the serve receive formation for UW, but that's her job/duty/role to the team. Passing is NOT Lowe's role on UCLA, so you can't compare those two things. They play different positions. Their numbers will vary and be judged on different standards. Example: for all american status AVCA requires outside hitters to have more digs than opposite hitters. It also requires opposite hitters to have more blocks than outside hitters, which is actually Lowe's one kink in the armour if she were to be named a 1st team all american (her blocking numbers are somewhat below average for an opposite)... Of course you can compare two different positions -- Vansant's six-rotation position that includes serve receive is simply more valuable to her team. If Vansant's passing and defense is extraordinary, then of course it should be considered in determining the award. I'm not knocking Lowe -- I love to watch her play and she is a strong candidate for conference POY. But when you are looking at that award, you need to look at everything a player does and does not do. The time to consider positional qualities is when looking at who deserves first-team all-conference accolades.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 21, 2014 15:13:18 GMT -5
Why do starting pitchers almost always win the Cy Young award for being the league's best pitcher with ERAs that are not as good as ace closers? Because they do more overall to help their team win, usually. (But sometimes closers really are so outstanding that they do win the award....)
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Oct 21, 2014 15:17:54 GMT -5
I'm hoping Lowe wins it just to see Husky fans go into full riot mode on VT.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 21, 2014 15:23:30 GMT -5
Why do starting pitchers almost always win the Cy Young award for being the league's best pitcher with ERAs that are not as good as ace closers? Because they do more overall to help their team win, usually. (But sometimes closers really are so outstanding that they do win the award....) Here's the issue: a receiver-attacker is doing "more" to help her team win, but receiving as a skill is not as valuable as terminating (See: Defensive specialist walk-ons, Army of). If Vansant wins the award, it'll be because her offensive production and efficiency is within striking distance of Lowe's and her team will finish much higher. If UCLA were to finish within a game or two of UW, Lowe would win it. Look at the list of the past 10 POYs, there's quite a few who didn't receive at all (Bergsma, Akinradewo x2), others who were frankly terrible at it (Cutura, Nnamani), and some who were solid but not really the best receivers in the conference (Vansant, Klineman). The award has pretty consistently gone to the best/most prolific point scorers and that's what it's about. Edit: But you also have to consider the "wow" effect of Lowe's offensive production (5.91 kps, .327 in conference). I could see that getting a "Co" vote just because people haven't seen it for. Luckily for UW fans, Vansant's conference numbers are in the neighborhood (5.07 kps, .309). And the optics are favored by her being just above 5 and Lowe just under 6 (not that it would be terribly different in real life if the converse were true, but people love round numbers)
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 21, 2014 15:34:07 GMT -5
Why do starting pitchers almost always win the Cy Young award for being the league's best pitcher with ERAs that are not as good as ace closers? Because they do more overall to help their team win, usually. (But sometimes closers really are so outstanding that they do win the award....) Here's the issue: a receiver-attacker is doing "more" to help her team win, but receiving as a skill is not as valuable as terminating (See: Defensive specialist walk-ons, Army of). If Vansant wins the award, it'll be because her offensive production and efficiency is within striking distance of Lowe's and her team will finish much higher. If UCLA were to finish within a game or two of UW, Lowe would win it. Look at the list of the past 10 POYs, there's quite a few who didn't receive at all (Bergsma, Akinradewo x2), others who were frankly terrible at it (Cutura, Nnamani), and some who were solid but not really the best receivers in the conference (Vansant, Klineman). The award has pretty consistently gone to the best/most prolific point scorers and that's what it's about. Yes, I know. If you aren't a great scorer, you aren't going to get it. But Vansant is a great scorer (as is Lowe, and Inky, and Kingdon, and Bricio, and Gardner, and ...). It's true that middles sometimes win the award, but not terribly often. It's true that RSs sometimes win the award, but not terribly often. It's true that closers sometimes win the Cy Young, but not terribly often. I just think that if the season ended right now, Vansant would get the nod. And if the Huskies continue to win two matches to every one by UCLA, that's only going to get more definite. Especially if the reason that UCLA fails to win is attributed to Lowe getting tired at the end of long matches. If UCLA did win all the rest of their matches, which seems like what it would take for them to finish even close to Washington, then probably it would only happen because Lowe played so well that it would be clear she did deserve to win it.
|
|
|
Post by FOBRA on Oct 21, 2014 15:37:20 GMT -5
One of the neat things I noticed in Lowe's statline this year has been that her kill percentage has been hovering around 51-52% all year. That's like house odds in Vegas. So if it seems like she's getting a kill every other time she touches the ball, it's because she is.
Lowe was just named AVCA National Player of the Year this week. (I think Vansant will eventually pick up the POY but it's fun to talk about)
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 21, 2014 15:41:46 GMT -5
Here's the issue: a receiver-attacker is doing "more" to help her team win, but receiving as a skill is not as valuable as terminating (See: Defensive specialist walk-ons, Army of). If Vansant wins the award, it'll be because her offensive production and efficiency is within striking distance of Lowe's and her team will finish much higher. If UCLA were to finish within a game or two of UW, Lowe would win it. Look at the list of the past 10 POYs, there's quite a few who didn't receive at all (Bergsma, Akinradewo x2), others who were frankly terrible at it (Cutura, Nnamani), and some who were solid but not really the best receivers in the conference (Vansant, Klineman). The award has pretty consistently gone to the best/most prolific point scorers and that's what it's about. Yes, I know. If you aren't a great scorer, you aren't going to get it. But Vansant is a great scorer (as is Lowe, and Inky, and Kingdon, and Bricio, and Gardner, and ...). It's true that middles sometimes win the award, but not terribly often. It's true that RSs sometimes win the award, but not terribly often. It's true that closers sometimes win the Cy Young, but not terribly often. I just think that if the season ended right now, Vansant would get the nod. And if the Huskies continue to win two matches to every one by UCLA, that's only going to get more definite. Especially if the reason that UCLA fails to win is attributed to Lowe getting tired at the end of long matches. If UCLA did win all the rest of their matches, which seems like what it would take for them to finish even close to Washington, then probably it would only happen because Lowe played so well that it would be clear she did deserve to win it. I'm not arguing that Vansant wouldn't win it, I'm just talking arguing against the thought that Vansant is more likely/more deserving to get it than Lowe because she receives serve or has better digging stats. (And that RS/Opps don't win the award often isn't for the same reason that middles do - it's just that Americans have a nasty habit of pushing all of their great terminators to the left. The only reason Sealy hasn't moved Lowe is because she's a lefty).
|
|
|
Post by kokyu on Oct 21, 2014 15:51:14 GMT -5
2013 Vansant 2012 Bergsma 2011 Jupiter 2010 Klineman 2009 Cutura 2008 Akinradewu 2007 Akinradewu 2006 Morrison 2005 Tomasevic 2004 Nnamani 2003 Ross 2002 Tom 2001 Tom 2000 Burkholder 1999 Walsh 1998 Walsh 1997 Folkl 1996 Silvernail 1995 Wendell 1994 Buckner 1993 Bremner 1992 Williams 1991 Klein 1990 Oden 1989 Tomkus 1988 Tomkus 1987 Rush 1986 Smith How many of these players were on teams not making final four?
|
|