|
Post by SportyBucky on Oct 23, 2014 9:24:21 GMT -5
So? What difference does that make? It's a fallacy to claim that Hancock should get some kind of special allowance for the fact that some of her good serves are not aces. If you give her an allowance for that, then you have to give everybody else an allowance for that too. Who said to give Hancock a "special" allowance? Her serving stats speak for itself. Who else allowance would you want to bring up? Name her. Let's bring her into the conversation along with Bricio and Hancock. What you're trying to do is diminishing Hancock, which is kinda foolish, and you're supposed to be a volleyball junky? Go ahead and take out Hancock's aces. Then, do you know how many serve attempts alone she got last year? Try 634. Who do you think came closest or even surpassed to that attempts? Take Washington's vaunted serving team last year for instance, only Orlandini had the most serving attempts and she only had 527. Do you think she should be brought into the conversation as elite servers? Food for thought: Didn't Hancock take Washington back to the woodshed in the semi-final last year with her "not-so-special" serving? I mean, she had 3 aces and on "only" ~24 attempts. Or did you conveniently miss that bloodbath? Silly argument. You miss the stats class in undergrad?
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Oct 23, 2014 9:37:33 GMT -5
Who said to give Hancock a "special" allowance? Her serving stats speak for itself. Who else allowance would you want to bring up? Name her. Let's bring her into the conversation along with Bricio and Hancock. What you're trying to do is diminishing Hancock, which is kinda foolish, and you're supposed to be a volleyball junky? Go ahead and take out Hancock's aces. Then, do you know how many serve attempts alone she got last year? Try 634. Who do you think came closest or even surpassed to that attempts? Take Washington's vaunted serving team last year for instance, only Orlandini had the most serving attempts and she only had 527. Do you think she should be brought into the conversation as elite servers? Food for thought: Didn't Hancock take Washington back to the woodshed in the semi-final last year with her "not-so-special" serving? I mean, she had 3 aces and on "only" ~24 attempts. Or did you conveniently miss that bloodbath? You obviously are losing the argument, so you try to turn it into a personal attack (sort of). No one mentioned Washington except you. Everyone else agrees that aces/serve is a more relevant stat than aces/set. The total number of serves a team makes per set is pretty constant, because teams play sets to 25 points (if they win). The only thing that changes it much is if you play a lot of sets in "extra points" (or if you lose a lot of sets). So that means that if a player gets a high number of serves per set, it comes at the expense of her teammates' serves per sets. Thus, the only thing "elite" about having a high number of serves per set is that the difference in point-scoring between a player and her own teammates is more extreme than on other teams. So having a high number of serves per set can be a sign a player is particularly effective at causing scoring for her team, but it could also mean the rest of the team is particularly INeffective (or that the team as a whole does not lose many sets). Also, it could have as much to do with relative rotational strength as serving strength. Finally, like leadoff hitters in baseball, if a player consistently starts matches in the serving spot for her team, then she will, in the long run, get a significantly higher number of serves per set than the player just ahead of her in the rotation. Aces per serve, on the other hand, is very clearly a measure of what percentage chance that a player gets an ace each and every time she goes back to the line. You are wrong again. I am not "for nor against" ace/serve. That wasn't my argument at all. Go back and re-read my earlier post again. This is a debate between only Bricio and Micha as elite servers.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Oct 23, 2014 9:40:49 GMT -5
Ace/serve doesn't tell you much either if you don't like ace/set. In Hancock's case, she has a lot of runs that are not aces. Case in point: Last year, Bricio had 3 more aces than Hancock for the season, but Hancock had 72 more serve attempts. If calculating those 72 extra attempts (due to her long service runs), Hancock's ace/serve would drop dramatically. As a result, it would have made her less of an elite server than Bricio, which is not true at all. In fact, a case can be made that even though she had 3 less aces, Hancock was a better server if factoring aces + 72 extra attempts. I don't understand your logic. Aces per serve is essentially like batting average. You wouldn't average hits per game. You average hits per attempt. Anything else is misleading. I am not arguing "for nor against" ace/serve or ace/set. I am fine with either. I was pointing out that if using ace/serve as a metric, just know that it is still not a true measurement as I indicated in earlier post, which I thought I explained it pretty clear.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Oct 23, 2014 9:41:29 GMT -5
Who said to give Hancock a "special" allowance? Her serving stats speak for itself. Who else allowance would you want to bring up? Name her. Let's bring her into the conversation along with Bricio and Hancock. What you're trying to do is diminishing Hancock, which is kinda foolish, and you're supposed to be a volleyball junky? Go ahead and take out Hancock's aces. Then, do you know how many serve attempts alone she got last year? Try 634. Who do you think came closest or even surpassed to that attempts? Take Washington's vaunted serving team last year for instance, only Orlandini had the most serving attempts and she only had 527. Do you think she should be brought into the conversation as elite servers? Food for thought: Didn't Hancock take Washington back to the woodshed in the semi-final last year with her "not-so-special" serving? I mean, she had 3 aces and on "only" ~24 attempts. Or did you conveniently miss that bloodbath? Silly argument. You miss the stats class in undergrad? And you call yourself a coach? Let me guess, a Bricio fan? Remember when Hancock had about 50 aces in 14 matches and you said her aces were "down?" You weren't paying attention, were you?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 23, 2014 10:03:21 GMT -5
My apologies. I didn't realize this whole thread was about creating a justification for proving that Hancock is better than Bricio. If I had known that, I wouldn't have paid it any attention in the first place. Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Oct 23, 2014 10:07:06 GMT -5
Silly argument. You miss the stats class in undergrad? And you call yourself a coach? Let me guess, a Bricio fan? Remember when Hancock had about 50 aces in 14 matches and you said her aces were "down?" You weren't paying attention, were you? Nope. Just talking statistics that are meaningful and posters on the forum who are not. Need a mirror?
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Oct 23, 2014 10:07:20 GMT -5
My apologies. I didn't realize this whole thread was about creating a justification for proving that Hancock is better than Bricio. If I had known that, I wouldn't have paid it any attention in the first place. Carry on. Then bring in the name of the player (which you won't/can't) so we can discuss. Otherwise, you're speaking in theory or hypotheticals.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Oct 23, 2014 10:07:47 GMT -5
I don't understand your logic. Aces per serve is essentially like batting average. You wouldn't average hits per game. You average hits per attempt. Anything else is misleading. I am not arguing "for nor against" ace/serve or ace/set. I am fine with either. I was pointing out that if using ace/serve as a metric, just know that it is still not a true measurement as I indicated in earlier post, which I thought I explained it pretty clear. It is a clear measure. It's aces based on how many times you serve. Can it get any more clear than that?
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Oct 23, 2014 10:09:15 GMT -5
And you call yourself a coach? Let me guess, a Bricio fan? Remember when Hancock had about 50 aces in 14 matches and you said her aces were "down?" You weren't paying attention, were you? Nope. Just talking statistics that are meaningful and posters on the forum who are not. Need a mirror? So far you've not proven anything, stats-wise. Go ahead, let's see what stats you got.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Oct 23, 2014 10:15:52 GMT -5
Nope. Just talking statistics that are meaningful and posters on the forum who are not. Need a mirror? So far you've not proven anything, stats-wise. Go ahead, let's see what stats you got. There's no proving, but here's an example. Both have same number of aces but did so with a different number of sets, same number of serves. I am server A. I serve 100Xs. I have 33 aces. I did that in 10 games. My rate of aces per serve is .33 My rate of aces per game is .3. I am server B. I serve 150x. I have 33 aces. I did that in 10 games. My rate of aces per serve is .22. My rate of aces per game is .3. If I were to use aces per set, they performed the same: .3 per game. If I use aces per serve, server A is clearly better because they have the same aces across fewer serves. Not sure why this is even being debated, but you asked for proof. There you go.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 23, 2014 10:20:06 GMT -5
Guys, you're not gonna find the answer in the boxscore. Get your hands on the scout tape and then chart out the average passing grade against the serve, as well as (team) points scored per rotation.
And don't come back until you have those numbers.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Oct 23, 2014 10:20:44 GMT -5
I am not arguing "for nor against" ace/serve or ace/set. I am fine with either. I was pointing out that if using ace/serve as a metric, just know that it is still not a true measurement as I indicated in earlier post, which I thought I explained it pretty clear. It is a clear measure. It's aces based on how many times you serve. Can it get any more clear than that? No, it's not. If using the ace/serve metric, using Hancock and Bricio as an example, Bricio would have 0.15 aces/serve and Hancock would have 0.13 aces/serve last year making Bricio hands-down a better server than Hancock. Do you disagree with this? But like I said earlier, last year Bricio had only 3 more aces than Hancock, which is not very much different. However, Hancock had 72 more serve attempts, which translated to 72 more points for Penn State than USC had with Bricio. Do you disregard this fact as well since you favor ace/serve? You, as a coach, wouldn't want that 72 extra points for your team? Really? So your argument fails.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Oct 23, 2014 10:24:24 GMT -5
It is a clear measure. It's aces based on how many times you serve. Can it get any more clear than that? No, it's not. If using the ace/serve metric, using Hancock and Bricio as an example, Bricio would have 0.15 aces/serve and Hancock would have 0.13 aces/serve last year making Bricio hands-down a better server than Hancock. Do you disagree with this? But like I said earlier, last year Bricio had only 3 more aces than Hancock, which is not very much different. However, Hancock had 72 more serve attempts, which translated to 72 more points for Penn State than USC had with Bricio. Do you disregard this fact as well since you favor ace/serve? You, as a coach, wouldn't want that 72 extra points for your team? Really? So your argument fails. If we're just looking at aces, that's the metric I'd use. If you're wanting to truly determine the better server, as someone pointed out, I'd want to know average receipt score against, points scored while serving. I'd likely weigh points scored lower than the other two measures because points scored can depend on a variety of things like how strong is the front row offense/back row defense during her serve, which has nothing to do with the server. What can be attributed to the server and strength of the serve is aces and how well the other team receives that serve.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Oct 23, 2014 10:25:01 GMT -5
So far you've not proven anything, stats-wise. Go ahead, let's see what stats you got. There's no proving, but here's an example. Both have same number of aces but did so with a different number of sets, same number of serves. I am server A. I serve 100Xs. I have 33 aces. I did that in 10 games. My rate of aces per serve is .33 My rate of aces per game is .3. I am server B. I serve 150x. I have 33 aces. I did that in 10 games. My rate of aces per serve is .22. My rate of aces per game is .3. If I were to use aces per set, they performed the same: .3 per game. If I use aces per serve, server A is clearly better because they have the same aces across fewer serves. Not sure why this is even being debated, but you asked for proof. There you go. Your proof is incomplete. I never argued for nor against ace/server or ace/set. But I am arguing that Hancock is a better server than Bricio because I am looking at more than one statistical metric: aces and serve attempts. I have a better picture doing that then just looking at ace/serve or ace/set. It's a no-brainer.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Oct 23, 2014 10:27:25 GMT -5
There's no proving, but here's an example. Both have same number of aces but did so with a different number of sets, same number of serves. I am server A. I serve 100Xs. I have 33 aces. I did that in 10 games. My rate of aces per serve is .33 My rate of aces per game is .3. I am server B. I serve 150x. I have 33 aces. I did that in 10 games. My rate of aces per serve is .22. My rate of aces per game is .3. If I were to use aces per set, they performed the same: .3 per game. If I use aces per serve, server A is clearly better because they have the same aces across fewer serves. Not sure why this is even being debated, but you asked for proof. There you go. Your proof is incomplete. I never argued for nor against ace/server or ace/set. But I am arguing that Hancock is a better server than Bricio because I am looking at more than one statistical metric: aces and serve attempts. I have a better picture doing that then just looking at ace/serve or ace/set. It's a no-brainer. Clearly it's a no brainer. Points scored while serving depends on much more than the server. It's a small part of larger measure. As candle pointed out, and I wholeheartedly agree, serve receive percentage, in addition to aces accounts for the majority of the measure of a server's success. I could do a statistical regression on it, but I am tired of this.
|
|