Question regarding stats

[vbprisoner]

I have a process I go through where I watch a match and then review the stats afterward to see how the numbers look to what I saw during the match. I do this to see if anything jumps out that I may have not noticed that affected the outcome while watching and also to see overall stats.

My question is this...... Why do teams assign Receive Errors (RE) to "team" instead of a individual player? I watched a match last week and clearly saw a player shank 3 serve receives, and she was only assigned 2 in the stats column and then they had 1 RE assigned to team.

Is it because:

1. Serve hits tape and falls over? (did not happen in case I stated above)

2. Serve goes in between two players and they do not know who to assign RE?

3. Stats people do not want to assign negative stats to certain players?

I took a look at the cumulative season stats to date for various teams including top 5 teams then several teams that are somewhere between 25-100 RPI rank from various conferences and noticed the top 5 teams had all under 7 "Team" RE (Stanford-0, Washington-7, PSU-2, Wis.-5, TX-7) but most teams have 25-42 "Team RE". I understand the top teams play better overall volleyball but just wondered if there was more to it than just better serve-receive defense.

[mikegarrison]

NCAA Stats manual:

Article 6. Reception errors should not be charged to an individual
when team reception errors (TRE) are charged. A team reception error
is charged when:
(1) A serve falls between two players and the statistician cannot determine
which player is responsible.
(2) The receiving team is out of rotation.
In both cases, the server receives an ace. The team reception error
should be noted on the work sheet and tabulated in the team totals on
the Box Score Form.

[itsallrelative]

They happen a lot in D3, where teams take their own stats---and don't judge aces the same way. SA must equal RE in the stats program...so the easy way to do it is give a team RE.

[vbprisoner]

Nov 20, 2014 14:37:06 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

NCAA Stats manual:

Article 6. Reception errors should not be charged to an individual
when team reception errors (TRE) are charged. A team reception error
is charged when:
(1) A serve falls between two players and the statistician cannot determine
which player is responsible.
(2) The receiving team is out of rotation.
In both cases, the server receives an ace. The team reception error
should be noted on the work sheet and tabulated in the team totals on
the Box Score Form.

Thanks for the info (I probably should have gone to that source)

I am assuming #2 does not happen that often. Regarding # 1 is this the same way it is done Internationally? I still would think you would assign either the closest player or the player who is covering the zone the ball falls into.

[coloradokidd]

I'm still trying to figure out how a team ends up with 1/2 block in the 'team blocks' final stat- say 13 1/2 total team blocks.
Probably beyond my pay grade!

[Deleted]

Triple block = 3 block assists

[Wolfgang]

I have some questions re. blocks:

1. If a player gets a touch, how is it counted? A block? Nothing?
2. Similar to #1 (if not identical), if a player goes up to block a ball and makes contact and the ball goes straight down the opponent's court but the opponent manages to dig it, is it counted as a block?
3. Is a block counted as a kill as well?

I have questions re. kills:

1. If a player bumps the ball over in order to simply keep the ball in play but the opponent fails to dig it, is it counted as a kill?
2. Similarly, if a player bumps the ball over in order to simply keep the ball in play, is it counted as a kill attempt?

[mikegarrison]

Nov 20, 2014 16:59:14 GMT -5 @ruffda said:

Triple block = 3 block assists

You forgot to add the next step, which is that total blocks = BS + (1/2) BA. The other person probably knew that, but just in case...

Anyway, I do think that is one of the most stupid NCAA stat rules. The total blocks should equal the total blocks, not the total blocks plus 1/2 block for every triple block.

[craftylefty]

Nov 20, 2014 17:12:05 GMT -5 Wolfgang said:

I have some questions re. blocks:

1. If a player gets a touch, how is it counted? A block? Nothing?
2. Similar to #1 (if not identical), if a player goes up to block a ball and makes contact and the ball goes straight down the opponent's court but the opponent manages to dig it, is it counted as a block?
3. Is a block counted as a kill as well?

I have questions re. kills:

1. If a player bumps the ball over in order to simply keep the ball in play but the opponent fails to dig it, is it counted as a kill?
2. Similarly, if a player bumps the ball over in order to simply keep the ball in play, is it counted as a kill attempt?

1. Simply getting a touch on the opponent's attack does not constitute a block.
2. It is not a block if the other team can dig it.
3. A block is not counted as a kill.
1. Yes, an overpass that hits the ground in opponent territory is counted as a kill. Oftentimes this will be where the libero's "attacks" come from on the stat sheet - not so much "attacking" but simply sending the ball over.
2. These are considered attack attempts, yes.

[mikegarrison]

Nov 20, 2014 17:12:05 GMT -5 Wolfgang said:

I have some questions re. blocks:

1. If a player gets a touch, how is it counted? A block? Nothing?
2. Similar to #1 (if not identical), if a player goes up to block a ball and makes contact and the ball goes straight down the opponent's court but the opponent manages to dig it, is it counted as a block?
3. Is a block counted as a kill as well?

I have questions re. kills:

1. If a player bumps the ball over in order to simply keep the ball in play but the opponent fails to dig it, is it counted as a kill?
2. Similarly, if a player bumps the ball over in order to simply keep the ball in play, is it counted as a kill attempt?

If I follow what you are asking, and figure you mean under NCAA rules, then:

1. nothing
2. no
3. no

1. yes
2. no -- unless the ball actually drops for a kill. In that case then yes, it counts as an attempt as well as a kill.

[mikegarrison]

Nov 20, 2014 18:20:52 GMT -5 craftylefty said:

Nov 20, 2014 17:12:05 GMT -5 Wolfgang said:

I have some questions re. blocks:

1. If a player gets a touch, how is it counted? A block? Nothing?
2. Similar to #1 (if not identical), if a player goes up to block a ball and makes contact and the ball goes straight down the opponent's court but the opponent manages to dig it, is it counted as a block?
3. Is a block counted as a kill as well?

I have questions re. kills:

1. If a player bumps the ball over in order to simply keep the ball in play but the opponent fails to dig it, is it counted as a kill?
2. Similarly, if a player bumps the ball over in order to simply keep the ball in play, is it counted as a kill attempt?

1. Simply getting a touch on the opponent's attack does not constitute a block.
2. It is not a block if the other team can dig it.
3. A block is not counted as a kill.
1. Yes, an overpass that hits the ground in opponent territory is counted as a kill. Oftentimes this will be where the libero's "attacks" come from on the stat sheet - not so much "attacking" but simply sending the ball over.
2. These are considered attack attempts, yes.

Your last answer is incorrect except in the rare case where the ball actually drops in as a kill.

[Wolfgang]

Questions re. service aces:

I can see how a serve is counted as an ace if the ball lands in and no one touches it or one player touches (shanks) it. Is it still an ace if:

1. the ball touches two -- and only two -- players on the receiving team in a ricochet manner and lands out of bounds or inbounds (on the receiving team's side)?
2. the ball touches three players on the receiving team in a ricochet manner and lands out of bounds or inbounds (on the receiving team's side)?
3. the ball is passed successfully by a player on the receiving team and the setter sets the ball out of bounds (but not BHE)?
4. the ball is passed successfully by a player on the receiving team and the setter has to run to chase down the ball and eventually, she sets the ball out of bounds (but not BHE)?
5. the ball is passed by a player on the receiving team and another player (not setter) bumps it into the net (and onto the floor)?
6. the ball is passed by a player on the receiving team and another player (not setter) bumps it out of bounds?

[vbprisoner]

Changed the thread title from receiving error stats to just stats since this has morphed to several stats questions.

[mikegarrison]

Aces are a judgment call.

The rule says that you award the ace if it drops in or if it is shanked out of play. If the ball is eventually played in an attempt to get it over the net, then it's not an ace.

Where it gets tricky is if the ball is shanked and then touched by another player just trying to keep it alive, but is never controlled enough to attempt to get it back over the net. That is an ace.

Article 2. A service ace (SA) is a serve that results directly in a point. A
service ace is awarded to a player:
(1) If the serve strikes the opponent’s court untouched.
(2) If the serve is passed by the opponent but cannot be kept in
play.
(3) If the referee calls a violation on the receiver (e.g., lift, double hit).
(4) If the receiving team is out of rotation (i.e., overlap).

A.R. 3. Team Blue serves the ball. Team White player No. 1 makes
a bad pass, but (a) Team White player No. 2 keeps the ball in play
and Team White player No. 3 returns the ball or (b) Team White player
No. 2 keeps the ball in play; however, Team White player No. 3 hits
the ball into the net. RULING: In (a), a reception error is not charged.
In (b), a reception error is not charged. While Team White player No.
1 made a bad pass, it was kept in play by Team White player No. 2.
The third contact by Team White player No. 3 is when the error occurred
and Team White player No. 1 should not be penalized for a
teammate’s bad play after the ball was kept in play.

[FreeBall]

I didn't previously know that an out of rotation call on the receiving team results in the server being credited with an ace serve. That's interesting.