|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 28, 2014 16:52:34 GMT -5
I'll say it again: if you want to find the best teams, then 3210 scoring is better.
I've actually been impressed that the FIVB figured this out a few years ago.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,137
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 28, 2014 16:58:02 GMT -5
I'll say it again: if you want to find the best teams, then 3210 scoring is better. I've actually been impressed that the FIVB figured this out a few years ago. Serbia and Japan certainly loved the 3210 scoring. Thailand, probably not so much.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 28, 2014 16:59:30 GMT -5
I'll say it again: if you want to find the best teams, then 3210 scoring is better. I've actually been impressed that the FIVB figured this out a few years ago. But if you actually wanted to find the best teams, wouldn't you skip over 3-2-1-0 and just do points ratio? Is there anything special about losing in 5 (being blown out in 3 sets) than losing in 4 sets and outscoring your opponent? Would 5-4-3-2-1 based on sets ratio do better than 3-2-1-0? Then why not there? This is just an arbitrary halfway point. Yeah, 5 set matches are often decided on a bad call or just a few close points -- but so are a lot of 3-0 sweeps!
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 28, 2014 19:02:51 GMT -5
I'll say it again: if you want to find the best teams, then 3210 scoring is better. I've actually been impressed that the FIVB figured this out a few years ago. But if you actually wanted to find the best teams, wouldn't you skip over 3-2-1-0 and just do points ratio? That would be better. Since that isn't an option on the table, I didn't bother. How often does it happen? Occasionally, use, but that's not the common situation. Besides, you can play all these stupid what if games with wins, too. No, a lot of 3-0 sweeps are not decided on a bad call or a few close points. In the NCAA women, the average set score in a 3-0 sweep is 25 - 16. How often does that come down to a few close points? Meanwhile, how many 5 set matches are determined by 2 points in set 5? The average score in set 5 is 15 - 11. Sure, I have no problem using point %, and think FIVB could do even better if they did. However, not using points is not an argument for wins alone. I mentioned in my first response that I don't know if 3-2-1-0 is necessarily the best breakdown, because there is also a difference between winning in 4 as opposed to winning in three, but in finding the best team, 3-2-1-0 is certainly better than just match wins and losses.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 28, 2014 19:09:12 GMT -5
I'll say it again: if you want to find the best teams, then 3210 scoring is better. I've actually been impressed that the FIVB figured this out a few years ago. Serbia and Japan certainly loved the 3210 scoring. Thailand, probably not so much. So what? They knew the criteria going in, so it's not like they have anything to complain about. They didn't satisfy the criteria for advancing to the next round that is set by the FIVB before the tournament started. Whether a given team likes the scoring system or not is irrelevant to whether it is good approach. From a game theory point of view, there is no inherently best method, because it depends on what you want to reward. If you want to reward just wins and losses, then that is the approach to use. If, however, you want a better measure of which is the best team, then 3-2-1-0 is a better method. Heck, if they contact me, we can calculate Pablo rankings for the teams and use that. It would just as legitimate of an approach. But lacking Pablo, using some sort of set approach is better than just matches won and lost.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,137
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 28, 2014 19:43:17 GMT -5
So what? They knew the criteria going in, so it's not like they have anything to complain about. They didn't satisfy the criteria for advancing to the next round that is set by the FIVB before the tournament started. Whether a given team likes the scoring system or not is irrelevant to whether it is good approach. It was a joke about Serbia or Japan being able to arguably "fix" the tournament with the unorthodox 3210 approach. Who really knows what any of the three teams think of the approach. The instance being referred to was the fact that The ONLY way both teams would advance to the Olympics is if Serbia beat Japan 3-2. If there was any other result, Thailand would have been to the Olympics and either Japan or Serbia not. Lots of missed serves and it just so happens that Serbia beat Japan in five sets. This has nothing to do with the argument, was just bringing up some old controversy in what i believe is a flawed system. I respect your opinions. I'd rather go with a Match W-L. Then points ratio or sets ratio to tie break. In what sports does someone get less points for beating an opponent in overtime versus beating them in regular time? That's essentially what winning a 5-setter is saying in the 3210.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 28, 2014 19:58:38 GMT -5
So what? They knew the criteria going in, so it's not like they have anything to complain about. They didn't satisfy the criteria for advancing to the next round that is set by the FIVB before the tournament started. Whether a given team likes the scoring system or not is irrelevant to whether it is good approach. It was a joke about Serbia or Japan being able to arguably "fix" the tournament with the unorthodox 3210 approach. Who really knows what any of the three teams think of the approach. The instance being referred to was the fact that The ONLY way both teams would advance to the Olympics is if Serbia beat Japan 3-2. If there was any other result, Thailand would have been to the Olympics and either Japan or Serbia not. Lots of missed serves and it just so happens that Serbia beat Japan in five sets. This has nothing to do with the argument, was just bringing up some old controversy in what i believe is a flawed system. I have yet to hear what is flawed about it. Unless there is a reason to think that Japan decided to win in 5 so to knock Thailand out or anything, which, of course, there isn't (no way would Japan risk going to a fifth set intentionally). Yes, it is, but what is the problem with that? Why shouldn't a win in overtime be worth less than a win in regulation? I think when you put it like that, it makes even more sense. Why does it matter if any other sport does it? Sounds to me more that they are behind the FIVB in their thinking as opposed to anything else. I see a lot of complaining in this thread about the 3210 approach, but I haven't heard an argument against it. The "but three 5-2 teams make it to the next round over a 6-1 team" isn't an argument, it's begging the question. Why is w/l record a better approach? Because if you don't use w/l record, someone with a better w/l record might not advance?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Oct 28, 2014 20:50:04 GMT -5
In what sports does someone get less points for beating an opponent in overtime versus beating them in regular time? That's essentially what winning a 5-setter is saying in the 3210. The NHL.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,137
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 29, 2014 0:13:27 GMT -5
It was a joke about Serbia or Japan being able to arguably "fix" the tournament with the unorthodox 3210 approach. Who really knows what any of the three teams think of the approach. The instance being referred to was the fact that The ONLY way both teams would advance to the Olympics is if Serbia beat Japan 3-2. If there was any other result, Thailand would have been to the Olympics and either Japan or Serbia not. Lots of missed serves and it just so happens that Serbia beat Japan in five sets. This has nothing to do with the argument, was just bringing up some old controversy in what i believe is a flawed system. I have yet to hear what is flawed about it. Unless there is a reason to think that Japan decided to win in 5 so to knock Thailand out or anything, which, of course, there isn't (no way would Japan risk going to a fifth set intentionally). Yes, it is, but what is the problem with that? Why shouldn't a win in overtime be worth less than a win in regulation? I think when you put it like that, it makes even more sense. Why does it matter if any other sport does it? Sounds to me more that they are behind the FIVB in their thinking as opposed to anything else. I see a lot of complaining in this thread about the 3210 approach, but I haven't heard an argument against it. The "but three 5-2 teams make it to the next round over a 6-1 team" isn't an argument, it's begging the question. Why is w/l record a better approach? Because if you don't use w/l record, someone with a better w/l record might not advance? Japan already qualified, they won the 3rd set which punched their Olympic ticket. They weren't risking anything by losing the final two sets. That is my argument that the w/l is a better approach in my opinion. I don't like how amongst 4 teams, two teams that went 1-2 advance and one team that went 2-1 and 6-1 overall wouldn't advance, but three teams at 5-2 overall advance. That doesn't make sense to me. And if it matters, i was simply curious what other sports use the approach. Pretty bold to say "they are behind the FIVB in their thinking". Everyone has their opinions. I believe it's better to reward the team who won more matches? Why? Because they won more matches. That's it. What's ironic is the first tie-breaker by the FIVB points system IS Total Matches won, not sets ratio or points ratio.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,137
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 29, 2014 0:19:18 GMT -5
And if like you said above had Japan beat Serbia in 5, Thailand would have advanced. Japan needed two sets to advance, the Serbs needed 3.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 29, 2014 0:46:34 GMT -5
I also feel matches won are more important than points won or sets won. It's fine to use total points as a way of further analyzing teams or predicting wins; but in the end, the object is to win the match, and that is what should count.
I would not like the 3-2-1-0 used in the NCAA because I prefer to focus on winning the match, not margins of victory. With big leads, I would rather play some freshmen or other players that don't receive as much playing time. It's a way to develop talent, experiment with other lineups, etc, and is a good thing. The fans also like it when second-stringers get a chance to play.
|
|
|
Post by rogero1 on Oct 29, 2014 4:04:58 GMT -5
The fans also like it when second-stringers get a chance to play. Only if those fans are either their parents or friends of those players. I know rookie coaches who put in their second stringers in the third set after they destroyed the other team in the first two sets, only to lose that set and eventually the match because they lost the momentum they had in the first two sets. After they do that once, then never again.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 29, 2014 6:41:17 GMT -5
I also feel matches won are more important than points won or sets won. It's fine to use total points as a way of further analyzing teams or predicting wins; but in the end, the object is to win the match, Only if that is the way it is set up. The FIVB has decided that the object is not only to win the match, and uses that as their approach as a result. Therefore, in FIVB, the object is not only to win the match, but you are rewarded more if you can win in 3 or 4 sets. By definition. I have argued that they do this because they know that it does a better job of identifying the best teams. I could be wrong on that, but that's how I've always interpreted it. Asserting that wins and losses are all that matter is not an argument, it is a premise. If you start with a different premise, then you have a different conclusion. The FIVB does not share this premise.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 29, 2014 6:46:22 GMT -5
I would not like the 3-2-1-0 used in the NCAA because I prefer to focus on winning the match, not margins of victory. With big leads, I would rather play some freshmen or other players that don't receive as much playing time. It's a way to develop talent, experiment with other lineups, etc, and is a good thing. The fans also like it when second-stringers get a chance to play. Any coach who subs to the point where they allow a lopsided match to reach a 5th set is a blinkin idiot. A 3-2-1-0 approach doesn't change that, it actually reflects that reality. The 5th set is a crapshoot. Why should a team who wins a crap shoot get the same credit as a team that sweeps? Those wins are not at all the same.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 29, 2014 9:12:34 GMT -5
The fans also like it when second-stringers get a chance to play. Only if those fans are either their parents or friends of those players. I know rookie coaches who put in their second stringers in the third set after they destroyed the other team in the first two sets, only to lose that set and eventually the match because they lost the momentum they had in the first two sets. After they do that once, then never again. For the most part, I agree with you. Volleyball is a game of momentum, and you don't want to give it back to the other team. A coach is always taking a risk when substituting in players that have never played, or have rarely played, or who bring the level of play way down. Still, for some it is still important as a way to develop talent and to evaluate. It is safer to wait to second set, with big lead, and just sub in one or two of these type of players, so you still have mostly starters. And you have to recognize when to pull them. Same thing in set 3 after crushing opponent in first 2. Don't put whole team of non-starters; just put 4 starters with 2 who don't play much. And keep making assessments throughout set to determine how many starters you need to keep in. You still risk giving the opponent a chance to get back into the match, but if you are careful the risk is minimal, and the benefits can be great. And another poster mentioned that it is only the friends and parents who like to see the non-starters come in to play. That is definitely not true. At least where I watch at Maples, in general, the regular fan base notices when a player gets a rare chance to play, and applauds a lot when she comes in.
|
|