|
|
Post by jsn112 on Oct 23, 2014 10:34:20 GMT -5
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. I don't disagree on the purpose of ace/serve. That's why I said I am not "for nor against" ace/serve. But I would consider serve attempt regardless of various factor you mentioned. I would certainly look at the opposing team passing grade number (i.e., 1, 2, or 3) when my player serves due to opponent's OOS. And since the public is not privied (lack of access) to that stats, I would have to use the serve attempts number instead. |
|
|
|
Post by dunninla on Oct 23, 2014 12:22:28 GMT -5
Everyone else agrees that aces/serve is a more relevant stat than aces/set. this. |
|
|
|
Post by s0uthie on Oct 23, 2014 14:05:35 GMT -5
Counting stats such as aces are terrible for comparing players because they are so opponent and rotation dependent. A middle who plays next to a great blocker will get a boost to her blocks just by jumping next to the tall right side as she stuffs a ball. The teams that lead the nation in digging usually have bad offenses. Total number of serves can be affected by which rotation a team starts in. Hypothetically, if Penn State starts with the setter in 1 to utilize her serve and USC starts with Bricio in 4 to utilize her attacking, that will give a boost to Hancock. Aces per serve has more efficacy than aces per set, to a point. Realistically, we can tell that these two are good (great!) servers by their numbers and also just by watching them perform. These numbers aren't going to tell us who is BETTER. As others have alluded to in this thread, you would need to chart the opponents results in serve recieve in order to have any sort of clear picture (but again, opponent dependent). These days, aces are rarely the goal, just the happy accident of an aggressive serve to take the other team out of system. The players being compared have to pretty much be in the same conference to have any sort of certainty in your guess. And it is a guess. Bricio and Hancock are both amazing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Oct 23, 2014 15:14:40 GMT -5
Counting stats such as aces are terrible for comparing players because they are so opponent and rotation dependent. A middle who plays next to a great blocker will get a boost to her blocks just by jumping next to the tall right side as she stuffs a ball. The teams that lead the nation in digging usually have bad offenses. Total number of serves can be affected by which rotation a team starts in. Hypothetically, if Penn State starts with the setter in 1 to utilize her serve and USC starts with Bricio in 4 to utilize her attacking, that will give a boost to Hancock. Aces per serve has more efficacy than aces per set, to a point. Realistically, we can tell that these two are good (great!) servers by their numbers and also just by watching them perform. These numbers aren't going to tell us who is BETTER. As others have alluded to in this thread, you would need to chart the opponents results in serve recieve in order to have any sort of clear picture (but again, opponent dependent). These days, aces are rarely the goal, just the happy accident of an aggressive serve to take the other team out of system. The players being compared have to pretty much be in the same conference to have any sort of certainty in your guess. And it is a guess. Bricio and Hancock are both amazing. I agree to a point. I think there are large enought sample size and tough competitions over the years between the two to tell who's better, and especially their peers. And regarding aces and such, I think RR would disagree with you as well because he said "Hancock is the most productive server he has ever had" in his 30+ years of coaching. And you know he had a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Oct 23, 2014 15:47:11 GMT -5
Some stat re length of service runs would be an interesting stat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 16:38:11 GMT -5
Counting stats such as aces are terrible for comparing players because they are so opponent and rotation dependent. A middle who plays next to a great blocker will get a boost to her blocks just by jumping next to the tall right side as she stuffs a ball. The teams that lead the nation in digging usually have bad offenses. Total number of serves can be affected by which rotation a team starts in. Hypothetically, if Penn State starts with the setter in 1 to utilize her serve and USC starts with Bricio in 4 to utilize her attacking, that will give a boost to Hancock. Aces per serve has more efficacy than aces per set, to a point. Realistically, we can tell that these two are good (great!) servers by their numbers and also just by watching them perform. These numbers aren't going to tell us who is BETTER. As others have alluded to in this thread, you would need to chart the opponents results in serve recieve in order to have any sort of clear picture (but again, opponent dependent). These days, aces are rarely the goal, just the happy accident of an aggressive serve to take the other team out of system. The players being compared have to pretty much be in the same conference to have any sort of certainty in your guess. And it is a guess. Bricio and Hancock are both amazing. Aren't all individual vb stats oppenent/rotation driven to an extent? |
|
|
|
Post by s0uthie on Oct 23, 2014 16:51:59 GMT -5
Yes. To a huge extent. That's why we always argue. "My player hit .350!" "Yeah, but you played an easy non-coference schedule!" "So what? Our passing sucks and she had to hit moonballs against a double block." "Ok, but she had an All-American setter, so obviously she's going to hit a high percentage."
And so on. Etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by gnu2vball on Oct 23, 2014 17:42:26 GMT -5
I agree with many of you that looking at aces/serves as well as length of serving runs, number of overpasses generated might be even more meaningful. I only went after statistics that were easily available. I was curious as to what her average was over the last few years so with my limited resources and understanding of the game, I put this together.
Thanks for the comments. I've learned a great deal.
|
|
roger
Sophomore
Posts: 211
|
Post by roger on Oct 24, 2014 6:29:18 GMT -5
The stat that appeals to me is:
How many team points were won when "X" was serving?
Now this of course includes the entire team and lineups may load up the frontline to capitalize on the servers "disruption" factor but it is significant that the last time I checked the rotation in which Micha (do you remember she has a first name?) was the server created the rotation with the most point scored compared to all other rotations.
Okay if the object of the serve is to take the opposition out of system allowing the defense a better opportunity to win the point then she is fulfilling the job expectations.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Oct 24, 2014 9:23:33 GMT -5
Lies, damned lies, and statistics....,
|
|
|
|
Post by volleypaul on Oct 27, 2014 11:47:08 GMT -5
You hear the announcers saying all the time that Hancock's serve creates points. No only with aces, but with over-passes, server that have 3 touches but never make it over the net, free ball plays and one-point passes (with a good block ready). Karch has said with Hancock, it's important to know how many scoring opportunities she's created and not just aces. In his book, it's the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Oct 27, 2014 12:40:50 GMT -5
You hear the announcers saying all the time that Hancock's serve creates points. No only with aces, but with over-passes, server that have 3 touches but never make it over the net, free ball plays and one-point passes (with a good block ready). Karch has said with Hancock, it's important to know how many scoring opportunities she's created and not just aces. In his book, it's the same thing. It's not impossible. That's what serve-reception scoring gives you. Essentially, you're not getting a scoring opportunity if someone passed a nail = 3. You are if it's a 1 or below. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 27, 2014 12:54:04 GMT -5
You hear the announcers saying all the time that Hancock's serve creates points. No only with aces, but with over-passes, server that have 3 touches but never make it over the net, free ball plays and one-point passes (with a good block ready). Karch has said with Hancock, it's important to know how many scoring opportunities she's created and not just aces. In his book, it's the same thing. Yes ... but all good servers do the same, not just Hancock. |
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Oct 27, 2014 18:43:01 GMT -5
You hear the announcers saying all the time that Hancock's serve creates points. No only with aces, but with over-passes, server that have 3 touches but never make it over the net, free ball plays and one-point passes (with a good block ready). Karch has said with Hancock, it's important to know how many scoring opportunities she's created and not just aces. In his book, it's the same thing. Yes ... but all good servers do the same, not just Hancock. Except that Micha does it more often. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 27, 2014 21:10:47 GMT -5
Yes ... but all good servers do the same, not just Hancock. Except that Micha does it more often. <Ahhhh! No, Mike! Don't get sucked back into an argument here with a guy who doesn't care about actually using the data to understand what is happening, but only cares about finding a way to prove Hancock is the bestest bestest best.> |
|
