|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 31, 2014 22:50:34 GMT -5
Serving is clearly "offense." On the other hand, PAC-12 has been more than happy to reward good offensive performances with the DPOW this year.
Washington will win at least one, maybe two POW awards this week.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 31, 2014 23:06:25 GMT -5
Serving is clearly "offense." On the other hand, PAC-12 has been more than happy to reward good offensive performances with the DPOW this year. Washington will win at least one, maybe two POW awards this week. well i could see vansant getting offensive POW....Scambray didnt have the best weekend.... Sybeldon had a great defensive performance (and offensive) against UCLA, not USC....Strickland had a great defensive game against USC, not UCLA.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 31, 2014 23:36:18 GMT -5
I believe this was the first time that UW beat both L.A. schools in L.A. two years running. Strickland for Pac-12 Defensive Player of the Week? (I count serving as "defense".) since when is serving defense? her lack of digs against ucla probably keeps her from DPOW, but i thought her defensive performance against USC was excellent I see serving as the first line of defense - it sets up the block and creates easy overs. As to the digs, there wasn't that much to dig, with the Bruins committing 37 errors - UCLA sided out at 43%, 37%, and 28%. Strickland did lead the Huskies in digs with 5 (Vansant and Scambray each had 4).
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 31, 2014 23:42:05 GMT -5
since when is serving defense? her lack of digs against ucla probably keeps her from DPOW, but i thought her defensive performance against USC was excellent I see serving as the first line of defense - it sets up the block and creates easy overs. As to the digs, there wasn't that much to dig, with the Bruins committing 37 errors - UCLA sided out at 43%, 37%, and 28%. Strickland did lead the Huskies in digs with 5 (Vansant and Scambray each had 4). that's like saying that a smart attack out of system to get the other team out of system is defensive . You may see serving as the first line of defense, but I doubt many other see it that way, I surely am not one of them. Serving is the first line of OFFENSE.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 31, 2014 23:49:54 GMT -5
since when is serving defense? her lack of digs against ucla probably keeps her from DPOW, but i thought her defensive performance against USC was excellent I see serving as the first line of defense - it sets up the block and creates easy overs. As to the digs, there wasn't that much to dig, with the Bruins committing 37 errors - UCLA sided out at 43%, 37%, and 28%. Strickland did lead the Huskies in digs with 5 (Vansant and Scambray each had 4). Well, while I don't think that UW had many opportunities to dig the ball, they had enough opportunities for Strickland to pick up more than 5 digs, especially in the 1st set when UW had NO blocks. Hitting errors moving forward in the match certainly supports your argument for why Strickland had low digs, but lower side out percentages does not. Theoretically, the lower the side out percentage for one team, the higher the defensive stats for the other team, because the other team has to make a defensive stop on serve in order to win the point (that or the opponent gets aced or makes some other sort of error). While I do agree that the overall match wasn't conducive for high digs, strickland's defensive performance wasn't anywhere near the level against USC. Anyone watching saw that. She still could be in the running for DPOW, but, IMO, her lackluster stats in the UCLA match will probably keep her from the award.
|
|
|
Post by bucky415 on Oct 31, 2014 23:54:28 GMT -5
I was wondering if someone had made a typo at richkern.com. I am aware that Washington is really good, but that is just an epic beatdown in the last set, considering it was against a ranked team on the road. It may not be good for the Pac 12 overall, since their teams after the top two are getting kind of beaten up in their quest for seeds in the NCAA tournament, but I think it does indicate that Washington has successfully integrated the freshmen to become a really scary team instead of just a very good one.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 1, 2014 0:12:56 GMT -5
Theoretically, the lower the side out percentage for one team, the higher the defensive stats for the other team, because the other team has to make a defensive stop on serve in order to win the point (that or the opponent gets aced or makes some other sort of error). Not if they're either getting blocked or hitting it out. They got aced and made errors. They did get some kills off tips and tools. UW, on the other hand, sided out at 73%, 55%, and 87%. If you're getting a lot of first attack kills or errors in return, there will be fewer dig opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 1, 2014 0:27:43 GMT -5
UW appeared to play their best start-to-finish match of the season...maybe their best of many, many seasons. The started strong, stayed focused in the middle of each set, didn't make any bad mistakes at crucial times (It helps when there are few crucial times) and finished even stronger than they began. UCLA played the worst match I've seen them play this season...and I've seen far from all of them. A lot of very bad passing; until the 3rd set, zero blocks; and very poor back row defense...UW seemed to terminate at will on serve-receive. Lowe had 11 errors, hit .000. How rare is that? So was this a spectacular performance by UW; a meltdown by UCLA; or a little of both. From GoHuskies.com: Full GoHuskies.com recap here.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 1, 2014 1:00:56 GMT -5
Theoretically, the lower the side out percentage for one team, the higher the defensive stats for the other team, because the other team has to make a defensive stop on serve in order to win the point (that or the opponent gets aced or makes some other sort of error). Not if they're either getting blocked or hitting it out. They got aced and made errors. They did get some kills off tips and tools. UW, on the other hand, sided out at 73%, 55%, and 87%. If you're getting a lot of first attack kills or errors in return, there will be fewer dig opportunities. I know this, I acknowledged that the game wasn't conducive to many UW digs, but your comments are exaggerating the point. Considering the set score differential, UW was playing DEFENSIVE to score points more often than they were forced to side out on first contact. As for the UCLA errors, their hitting errors and serve receive errors only accounted for 35 of the 115 total points. Even assuming that NO digs were accumulated during the rallies that ended in a UCLA error, the mere fact that UW had only 20 digs in the match still isn't great, regardless of the situation, Especially when you consider that in the first set UCLA made very few hitting errors.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 1, 2014 1:28:18 GMT -5
I was wondering if someone had made a typo at richkern.com. I am aware that Washington is really good, but that is just an epic beatdown in the last set, considering it was against a ranked team on the road. It may not be good for the Pac 12 overall, since their teams after the top two are getting kind of beaten up in their quest for seeds in the NCAA tournament, but I think it does indicate that Washington has successfully integrated the freshmen to become a really scary team instead of just a very good one. www.uclabruins.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=30500&ATCLID=209743891
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 1, 2014 3:43:03 GMT -5
What's the D1 record for lowest number of kills in a set?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 1, 2014 3:49:35 GMT -5
What's the D1 record for lowest number of kills in a set? Sets have been won 25-0, so....
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 1, 2014 3:54:38 GMT -5
What's the D1 record for lowest number of kills in a set? Sets have been won 25-0, so.... ....So UCLA kind of kicked ass then.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 1, 2014 8:56:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Nov 1, 2014 10:04:45 GMT -5
What's the D1 record for lowest number of kills in a set? Sets have been won 25-0, so.... OK, then, what is the record for the lowest number of kills BY A TOP 20 RANKED TEAM in a set? This was not Gardner-Webb, this was freakin' UCLA at HOME.
|
|