|
Post by vbkid111 on Dec 30, 2014 15:53:18 GMT -5
A championship ring and tournament MOP is not a bad haul. I'm sure most of the 1st team AA outsides would gladly trade places with her. Courtney wasn't even an Honorable Mention All-America. She had better stats that some second and third team honorees, as well. I think what kept her from being recognized was the embarrassment of riches that PSU "suffers" from. I was happy to see her have an outstanding Final Four and get some well-deserved recognition. During her post game interviews she only made herself and the PSU program look even better. I hope she meshes well with next season's setter(s). I'd take the two "hauls" you mention over 1st team AA--pretty sure Courtney would too. In fact, I'd take knowing that I played at a high level on the NCAA's biggest stage and came up big for my team to help them win the title just once, even if playing just a small role, over being named as 1st team AA four straight years any day of the week. If I achieved the former, I give the latter no more than a casual, passing "oh well." But, hey, I'm not going to say all feel that way. That's just me.
|
|
|
Post by akbar on Dec 30, 2014 16:12:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Dec 30, 2014 16:26:43 GMT -5
Man the jewelry company must have the sapphires ready way in advance sense psu seems to win it every year. Never any other color then blue. Hahahah
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 30, 2014 16:39:56 GMT -5
First off, two isnt several. Secondly you don't have the stats to prove that "it isnt even close" I agree with you 100% regarding what a great player and what a terrific season she had. I just think you are going to far to make that point. Courtney like so many other great PSU players in the past is the victim of having 3-4 players on her own team that are going to be recognized first. I think she could have been an all-american but having way better stats, and seasons than several first team AA's is in my opinion going a little too far. I was not going "too far" with my point. Courtney having BETTER stats than 1st team AAs, Burgess and Eckerman, is a fact. It was a response to a poster who said Courtney did NOT have "stellar" year. Now that's going "too far." Why don't you tell him that he is going "too far." But instead, you are splitting hair with me with words "several" vs. "two." Why, you thought I was going to say Courtney had a better year than Lowe and Vansant? Of course not. I didn't just start following Penn State and womens volleyball THIS year. I think with your vast knowledge of womens volleyball, it would be better and more productive of you not to dig yourself deep down into the weeds like this. Just leave it for us mere mortals to argue instead. I didnt respond to the poster saying she didnt have a stellar season, because I thought the absurdity of that statement stood on its own. I didnt know who you were including as you said several. You made a statement that you have the stats to back that up and that it "isnt even close" I compared Courtney with Burgess and if you had, you would find that Burgess had more kills, more kills per game, more digs, more digs per game and more service aces. Burgess was better in 5 major statistical areas, not sure how the stats clearly demonstrate Courtney was better, let alone "not even close" Meg hit for higher pct, and had more blocks. You are using the stats to back you up, but that stats most certainly do not back you up at all, let alone "not even close". You know I am a PSU fan, and you know I am a Courtney fan, and I think our interactions demonstrate I respect your opinion. I am on the same page with you regarding her greatness and worthiness of recognition, but your statement in this case wouldnt just be an overstatement, it would in fact be untrue.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Dec 30, 2014 18:30:02 GMT -5
I was not going "too far" with my point. Courtney having BETTER stats than 1st team AAs, Burgess and Eckerman, is a fact. It was a response to a poster who said Courtney did NOT have "stellar" year. Now that's going "too far." Why don't you tell him that he is going "too far." But instead, you are splitting hair with me with words "several" vs. "two." Why, you thought I was going to say Courtney had a better year than Lowe and Vansant? Of course not. I didn't just start following Penn State and womens volleyball THIS year. I think with your vast knowledge of womens volleyball, it would be better and more productive of you not to dig yourself deep down into the weeds like this. Just leave it for us mere mortals to argue instead. I didnt respond to the poster saying she didnt have a stellar season, because I thought the absurdity of that statement stood on its own. I didnt know who you were including as you said several. You made a statement that you have the stats to back that up and that it "isnt even close" I compared Courtney with Burgess and if you had, you would find that Burgess had more kills, more kills per game, more digs, more digs per game and more service aces. Burgess was better in 5 major statistical areas, not sure how the stats clearly demonstrate Courtney was better, let alone "not even close" Meg hit for higher pct, and had more blocks. You are using the stats to back you up, but that stats most certainly do not back you up at all, let alone "not even close". You know I am a PSU fan, and you know I am a Courtney fan, and I think our interactions demonstrate I respect your opinion. I am on the same page with you regarding her greatness and worthiness of recognition, but your statement in this case wouldnt just be an overstatement, it would in fact be untrue. I stand by what I said. I noticed that you only point out Burgess when I said "several" 1st team AAs in Burgess and Eckerman. Versus Burgess statistically, I may concede to Burgess her kill/set because she got set more, but I can't concede the digging and ace numbers because Burgess stays in full time while Courtney got subbed out for a serving specialist about 40-50% of the time because that's how RR designs his system. Did you not factor this in? So if you weigh that in, their numbers would be similar both in digs, d/s, and aces (have you seen Burgess' jump serve? Yikes. ). Also, Courtney's hitting% and blocking are higher. It is even more amazing given that Courtney struggled 2nd half of the season and still has a higher hitting percent. And it is also amazing that her blocking number is high given that she is blocking right next to a freshman. Versus Eckerman, other than kills and k/s (and aces), she is not out-performing Coutney so much that she more deserved to be a first team AA. In fact, Courtney is out-performing her instead. So in conclusion, if Burgess and Eckerman are the 1st team AAs, then so should Courtney. And if the other poster thought that Courtney didn't have a "stellar" year, then neither do Burgess and Eckerman. So yes, looking at below, the stats do back me up. Kills K/s Hitting% Block B/s Dig D/s Courtney: 310 2.44 .283 94 0.74 297 2.34 Burgess: 395 3.09 .264 52 0.41 405 3.16 Eckerman: 327 3.24 .258 40 0.40 125 1.24
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 31, 2014 0:48:39 GMT -5
I didnt respond to the poster saying she didnt have a stellar season, because I thought the absurdity of that statement stood on its own. I didnt know who you were including as you said several. You made a statement that you have the stats to back that up and that it "isnt even close" I compared Courtney with Burgess and if you had, you would find that Burgess had more kills, more kills per game, more digs, more digs per game and more service aces. Burgess was better in 5 major statistical areas, not sure how the stats clearly demonstrate Courtney was better, let alone "not even close" Meg hit for higher pct, and had more blocks. You are using the stats to back you up, but that stats most certainly do not back you up at all, let alone "not even close". You know I am a PSU fan, and you know I am a Courtney fan, and I think our interactions demonstrate I respect your opinion. I am on the same page with you regarding her greatness and worthiness of recognition, but your statement in this case wouldnt just be an overstatement, it would in fact be untrue. I stand by what I said. I noticed that you only point out Burgess when I said "several" 1st team AAs in Burgess and Eckerman. Versus Burgess statistically, I may concede to Burgess her kill/set because she got set more, but I can't concede the digging and ace numbers because Burgess stays in full time while Courtney got subbed out for a serving specialist about 40-50% of the time because that's how RR designs his system. Did you not factor this in? So if you weigh that in, their numbers would be similar both in digs, d/s, and aces (have you seen Burgess' jump serve? Yikes. ). Also, Courtney's hitting% and blocking are higher. It is even more amazing given that Courtney struggled 2nd half of the season and still has a higher hitting percent. And it is also amazing that her blocking number is high given that she is blocking right next to a freshman. Versus Eckerman, other than kills and k/s (and aces), she is not out-performing Coutney so much that she more deserved to be a first team AA. In fact, Courtney is out-performing her instead. So in conclusion, if Burgess and Eckerman are the 1st team AAs, then so should Courtney. And if the other poster thought that Courtney didn't have a "stellar" year, then neither do Burgess and Eckerman. So yes, looking at below, the stats do back me up. Kills K/s Hitting% Block B/s Dig D/s Courtney: 310 2.44 .283 94 0.74 297 2.34 Burgess: 395 3.09 .264 52 0.41 405 3.16 Eckerman: 327 3.24 .258 40 0.40 125 1.24 Statistics always back people up when they only show the statistics that support their argument. I showed ALL the stats, the ones that Courtney was better in and the ones where she wasnt. Statistically, Courtney was better than Burgess in two categories, and Burgess was better in 5. Yet the stats show Courtney was clearly better and it "Isnt even close" ? You said "several". I simply asked who represented the several. You said Burgess and Eckerman, which of course isnt several. Now your argument was I only compared one? You only named two. You then made an absolute declaration that statistically it "wasnt even close" YOU are the one who brought out stats, not me. I simply posted their stats, all of them, the ones that favored Courtney and the ones that didnt. Some would consider that to be fair. You ask me "did I factor this in?" My direct answer to your direct question is, Yes, I factored them ALL in. Understand when you say "the numbers don't lie", at that point nothing gets factored in but the numbers, and when we use just the numbers, those numbers do not support your argument. The stats are the stats, period. Statistically (your measuring stick) your argument fails. You made the statement, you framed the argument, you invoked the stats, not me. When we look at the stats, not just the ones that suppport your claim, Here is what isnt debatable. Statistically Burgess was better in 5 major categories, that is an indisputable fact. Yet you claim the stats arent "even close"? Now your greatest statistical argument in favor of Courtney, is her block statistics are particularly impressive given she was saddled with blocking next to a freshman? ? A freshman who had arguably one of the most impressive freshman years of any freshman middle blocker in recent history??? If your argument is that Courtney was better than "several" first team AA's, you failed to name several. If your argument is that her stats are better, and it isnt even close to one of the two you sighted, that is statistically categorically false. If you invoke the numbers, than the numbers arent open for debate. They are what they are. I will remind you again, that I completely agree with you about her season and that she should have been recognized, your claims about how many people on the first team that she had better seasons than, and that her stats clearly support that are where I totally disagree with you, and the stats do in fact support that. If you said, she had better stats than Eckerman, I would have said "I totally agree" you didnt say that, you said she was better than "several", not true, and that the stats show that, not true. If you said IMO she is better than Burgess and Eckerman, I may also have agreed with you. That however isnt what you said, also not disputable.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Dec 31, 2014 3:00:25 GMT -5
I stand by what I said. I noticed that you only point out Burgess when I said "several" 1st team AAs in Burgess and Eckerman. Versus Burgess statistically, I may concede to Burgess her kill/set because she got set more, but I can't concede the digging and ace numbers because Burgess stays in full time while Courtney got subbed out for a serving specialist about 40-50% of the time because that's how RR designs his system. Did you not factor this in? So if you weigh that in, their numbers would be similar both in digs, d/s, and aces (have you seen Burgess' jump serve? Yikes. ). Also, Courtney's hitting% and blocking are higher. It is even more amazing given that Courtney struggled 2nd half of the season and still has a higher hitting percent. And it is also amazing that her blocking number is high given that she is blocking right next to a freshman. Versus Eckerman, other than kills and k/s (and aces), she is not out-performing Coutney so much that she more deserved to be a first team AA. In fact, Courtney is out-performing her instead. So in conclusion, if Burgess and Eckerman are the 1st team AAs, then so should Courtney. And if the other poster thought that Courtney didn't have a "stellar" year, then neither do Burgess and Eckerman. So yes, looking at below, the stats do back me up. Kills K/s Hitting% Block B/s Dig D/s Courtney: 310 2.44 .283 94 0.74 297 2.34 Burgess: 395 3.09 .264 52 0.41 405 3.16 Eckerman: 327 3.24 .258 40 0.40 125 1.24 Statistics always back people up when they only show the statistics that support their argument. I showed ALL the stats, the ones that Courtney was better in and the ones where she wasnt. Statistically, Courtney was better than Burgess in two categories, and Burgess was better in 5. Yet the stats show Courtney was clearly better and it "Isnt even close" ? You said "several". I simply asked who represented the several. You said Burgess and Eckerman, which of course isnt several. Now your argument was I only compared one? You only named two. You then made an absolute declaration that statistically it "wasnt even close" YOU are the one who brought out stats, not me. I simply posted their stats, all of them, the ones that favored Courtney and the ones that didnt. Some would consider that to be fair. You ask me "did I factor this in?" My direct answer to your direct question is, Yes, I factored them ALL in. Understand when you say "the numbers don't lie", at that point nothing gets factored in but the numbers, and when we use just the numbers, those numbers do not support your argument. The stats are the stats, period. Statistically (your measuring stick) your argument fails. You made the statement, you framed the argument, you invoked the stats, not me. When we look at the stats, not just the ones that suppport your claim, Here is what isnt debatable. Statistically Burgess was better in 5 major categories, that is an indisputable fact. Yet you claim the stats arent "even close"? Now your greatest statistical argument in favor of Courtney, is her block statistics are particularly impressive given she was saddled with blocking next to a freshman? ? A freshman who had arguably one of the most impressive freshman years of any freshman middle blocker in recent history??? If your argument is that Courtney was better than "several" first team AA's, you failed to name several. If your argument is that her stats are better, and it isnt even close to one of the two you sighted, that is statistically categorically false. If you invoke the numbers, than the numbers arent open for debate. They are what they are. I will remind you again, that I completely agree with you about her season and that she should have been recognized, your claims about how many people on the first team that she had better seasons than, and that her stats clearly support that are where I totally disagree with you, and the stats do in fact support that. If you said, she had better stats than Eckerman, I would have said "I totally agree" you didnt say that, you said she was better than "several", not true, and that the stats show that, not true. If you said IMO she is better than Burgess and Eckerman, I may also have agreed with you. That however isnt what you said, also not disputable. Seriously? You are absolutely wrong. When I said "several," I meant it to be more than one player, i.e., Burgess. That's why I said Burgess AND Eckerman in my earlier rebuttal. When I said "Not even close," I meant it for the grouping of Burgess and Eckerman. You only used Burgess while conveniently left off Eckerman. And you tried to put "not even close" comment to only Burgess on me? That's very dishonest, Dorothy. I know what I wrote. Go and re-read my earlier posts again. Had I only used Burgess, I would have just wrote that "Courtney had a better season than Burgess" (which is a fact, btw). Why can't you make that distinction? Do you like to argue or something? So let me indulge you just on Burgess since that's who you only want involve in this argument. Like I mentioned earlier, I will not concede the dig and ace numbers because Burgess is in for all 6 rotations without ever leaving the court! In RR system, everyone gets subbed out for a serving specialist, except Hancock. Do you think if Burgess plays for RR, she wouldn't get subbed out? You are naive if you don't think so, director or not. It's laughable if you think her 18 aces this past year is a game-breaker. And her 0.82 digs more per set than Courtney is not that impressive given that she never leaves the court…ever…, while Courtney leaves the court 30-40% of the time. So, no, I do not think you factored that in. Otherwise, you would have mentioned that at the beginning, not after I mentioned it. So if you factor in that had Courtney been on the court full time (using the 30% mark conservatively) like Burgess, in a simple calculation, her dig/set would be 424 digs, 3.49 digs/set, and 16 aces. As a reult, Burgess only had more aces while having less digs and digs/set than Courtney. So in conclusion, Courtney is better in hitting%, block/set, solo blocks, digs, digs/set. While Burgess is better in number of kills, kills/set, and aces. So the final tally is: 5 for Courtney; 3 for Burgess. Just say you're wrong and be over with it, Dorothy. You can't win because you don't have the stats to back you up. And you hanging on to the word "several" against me is also laughable. C'mon, Dorothy, you're better than this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2014 3:54:46 GMT -5
Statistics always back people up when they only show the statistics that support their argument. I showed ALL the stats, the ones that Courtney was better in and the ones where she wasnt. Statistically, Courtney was better than Burgess in two categories, and Burgess was better in 5. Yet the stats show Courtney was clearly better and it "Isnt even close" ? You said "several". I simply asked who represented the several. You said Burgess and Eckerman, which of course isnt several. Now your argument was I only compared one? You only named two. You then made an absolute declaration that statistically it "wasnt even close" YOU are the one who brought out stats, not me. I simply posted their stats, all of them, the ones that favored Courtney and the ones that didnt. Some would consider that to be fair. You ask me "did I factor this in?" My direct answer to your direct question is, Yes, I factored them ALL in. Understand when you say "the numbers don't lie", at that point nothing gets factored in but the numbers, and when we use just the numbers, those numbers do not support your argument. The stats are the stats, period. Statistically (your measuring stick) your argument fails. You made the statement, you framed the argument, you invoked the stats, not me. When we look at the stats, not just the ones that suppport your claim, Here is what isnt debatable. Statistically Burgess was better in 5 major categories, that is an indisputable fact. Yet you claim the stats arent "even close"? Now your greatest statistical argument in favor of Courtney, is her block statistics are particularly impressive given she was saddled with blocking next to a freshman? ? A freshman who had arguably one of the most impressive freshman years of any freshman middle blocker in recent history??? If your argument is that Courtney was better than "several" first team AA's, you failed to name several. If your argument is that her stats are better, and it isnt even close to one of the two you sighted, that is statistically categorically false. If you invoke the numbers, than the numbers arent open for debate. They are what they are. I will remind you again, that I completely agree with you about her season and that she should have been recognized, your claims about how many people on the first team that she had better seasons than, and that her stats clearly support that are where I totally disagree with you, and the stats do in fact support that. If you said, she had better stats than Eckerman, I would have said "I totally agree" you didnt say that, you said she was better than "several", not true, and that the stats show that, not true. If you said IMO she is better than Burgess and Eckerman, I may also have agreed with you. That however isnt what you said, also not disputable. Seriously? You are absolutely wrong. When I said "several," I meant it to be more than one player, i.e., Burgess. That's why I said Burgess AND Eckerman in my earlier rebuttal. When I said "Not even close," I meant it for the grouping of Burgess and Eckerman. You only used Burgess while conveniently left off Eckerman. And you tried to put "not even close" comment to only Burgess on me? That's very dishonest, Dorothy. I know what I wrote. Go and re-read my earlier posts again. Had I only used Burgess, I would have just wrote that "Courtney had a better season than Burgess" (which is a fact, btw). Why can't you make that distinction? Do you like to argue or something? So let me indulge you just on Burgess since that's who you only want involve in this argument. Like I mentioned earlier, I will not concede the dig and ace numbers because Burgess is in for all 6 rotations without ever leaving the court! In RR system, everyone gets subbed out for a serving specialist, except Hancock. Do you think if Burgess plays for RR, she wouldn't get subbed out? You are naive if you don't think so, director or not. It's laughable if you think her 18 aces this past year is a game-breaker. And her 0.82 digs more per set than Courtney is not that impressive given that she never leaves the court…ever…, while Courtney leaves the court 30-40% of the time. So, no, I do not think you factored that in. Otherwise, you would have mentioned that at the beginning, not after I mentioned it. So if you factor in that had Courtney been on the court full time (using the 30% mark conservatively) like Burgess, in a simple calculation, her dig/set would be 424 digs, 3.49 digs/set, and 16 aces. As a reult, Burgess only had more aces while having less digs and digs/set than Courtney. So in conclusion, Courtney is better in hitting%, block/set, solo blocks, digs, digs/set. While Burgess is better in number of kills, kills/set, and aces. So the final tally is: 5 for Courtney; 3 for Burgess. Just say you're wrong and be over with it, Dorothy. You can't win because you don't have the stats to back you up. And you hanging on to the word "several" against me is also laughable. C'mon, Dorothy, you're better than this. If you had submitted your original post to me, and asked me to edit it, I would have asked you "who are the 'several' players you refer to?" When you answered Burgess and Eckerman, I would have said "I think you should name them rather than say 'several' -- and why not, it's your opinion. And if you don't want to name them, for whatever reason, then change 'several' to 'two' -- because 'several' is inaccurate. It's two." I also would have asked you what you meant by "it isn't even close." When you gave the answer you have given here in this thread, I would have suggested you delete that phrase. Because it is an overstatement and not necessary to your point. It appears to me like you don't want to admit that your word choice was poor and misleading -- probably unintentionally so, but misleading nonetheless. Oh, and for what it's worth, I agree that Megan Courtney deserved All-American recognition, and personally believe she is better than Burgess. I don't know enough about Eckerman. I haven't looked at the stats or the overall team dynamic.
|
|
|
PSU 2015
Dec 31, 2014 3:57:01 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by volleyfan24 on Dec 31, 2014 3:57:01 GMT -5
Statistics always back people up when they only show the statistics that support their argument. I showed ALL the stats, the ones that Courtney was better in and the ones where she wasnt. Statistically, Courtney was better than Burgess in two categories, and Burgess was better in 5. Yet the stats show Courtney was clearly better and it "Isnt even close" ? You said "several". I simply asked who represented the several. You said Burgess and Eckerman, which of course isnt several. Now your argument was I only compared one? You only named two. You then made an absolute declaration that statistically it "wasnt even close" YOU are the one who brought out stats, not me. I simply posted their stats, all of them, the ones that favored Courtney and the ones that didnt. Some would consider that to be fair. You ask me "did I factor this in?" My direct answer to your direct question is, Yes, I factored them ALL in. Understand when you say "the numbers don't lie", at that point nothing gets factored in but the numbers, and when we use just the numbers, those numbers do not support your argument. The stats are the stats, period. Statistically (your measuring stick) your argument fails. You made the statement, you framed the argument, you invoked the stats, not me. When we look at the stats, not just the ones that suppport your claim, Here is what isnt debatable. Statistically Burgess was better in 5 major categories, that is an indisputable fact. Yet you claim the stats arent "even close"? Now your greatest statistical argument in favor of Courtney, is her block statistics are particularly impressive given she was saddled with blocking next to a freshman? ? A freshman who had arguably one of the most impressive freshman years of any freshman middle blocker in recent history??? If your argument is that Courtney was better than "several" first team AA's, you failed to name several. If your argument is that her stats are better, and it isnt even close to one of the two you sighted, that is statistically categorically false. If you invoke the numbers, than the numbers arent open for debate. They are what they are. I will remind you again, that I completely agree with you about her season and that she should have been recognized, your claims about how many people on the first team that she had better seasons than, and that her stats clearly support that are where I totally disagree with you, and the stats do in fact support that. If you said, she had better stats than Eckerman, I would have said "I totally agree" you didnt say that, you said she was better than "several", not true, and that the stats show that, not true. If you said IMO she is better than Burgess and Eckerman, I may also have agreed with you. That however isnt what you said, also not disputable. Seriously? You are absolutely wrong. When I said "several," I meant it to be more than one player, i.e., Burgess. That's why I said Burgess AND Eckerman in my earlier rebuttal. When I said "Not even close," I meant it for the grouping of Burgess and Eckerman. You only used Burgess while conveniently left off Eckerman. And you tried to put "not even close" comment to only Burgess on me? That's very dishonest, Dorothy. I know what I wrote. Go and re-read my earlier posts again. Had I only used Burgess, I would have just wrote that "Courtney had a better season than Burgess" (which is a fact, btw). Why can't you make that distinction? Do you like to argue or something? So let me indulge you just on Burgess since that's who you only want involve in this argument. Like I mentioned earlier, I will not concede the dig and ace numbers because Burgess is in for all 6 rotations without ever leaving the court! In RR system, everyone gets subbed out for a serving specialist, except Hancock. Do you think if Burgess plays for RR, she wouldn't get subbed out? You are naive if you don't think so, director or not. It's laughable if you think her 18 aces this past year is a game-breaker. And her 0.82 digs more per set than Courtney is not that impressive given that she never leaves the court…ever…, while Courtney leaves the court 30-40% of the time. So, no, I do not think you factored that in. Otherwise, you would have mentioned that at the beginning, not after I mentioned it. So if you factor in that had Courtney been on the court full time (using the 30% mark conservatively) like Burgess, in a simple calculation, her dig/set would be 424 digs, 3.49 digs/set, and 16 aces. As a reult, Burgess only had more aces while having less digs and digs/set than Courtney. So in conclusion, Courtney is better in hitting%, block/set, solo blocks, digs, digs/set. While Burgess is better in number of kills, kills/set, and aces. So the final tally is: 5 for Courtney; 3 for Burgess. Just say you're wrong and be over with it, Dorothy. You can't win because you don't have the stats to back you up. And you hanging on to the word "several" against me is also laughable. C'mon, Dorothy, you're better than this. While using the stat argument it looks like maybe Courtney deserved it over Burgess but if you watch the two players Burgess is clearly better in the backrow. If Courtney had the ability to play backrow the way Burgess does she wouldn't get subbed out. It's why she stays in and to discount that is wrong. How exactly would you say Courtney had the better season was it the fact that they won the NC but Burgess and Stanford finished with less loses. The AA awards aren't based on who wins the NC they are based on regular season performance. While considering stats you have to take everything into consideration, Burgess finished on a team that competed in the best conference against the best competition throughout the season not only conference but OOC schedule. Not to mention if you want to point to hitting percentage consider Burgess gets set more than Courtney, leading to a lower hitting percentage. Also aren't you the same poster who wanted to applaud the efforts of Gonzalez and Fuller. Take one look at Burgess and she is just as good in the back row as those two. It's not the amount of digs Burgess digs but also the quality she get down to dig bombs. She is also great on serve receive. Do you believe Micha is a better setter than Madi, if you do doesn't that factor into hitting percentage also? I like Courtney but your argument is flawed now who would you take over the other I am unsure they both have the ability to be starting on just about any team in the country but to say Courtney deserved it more is wrong. Also over several players I think you need to consider others on the second team was she better than Birks? Also I don't believe any of the players listed were better than Leaf I think she deserved first team and anyone who watched Miami play would know that she could be starting OH on any team in the country.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Dec 31, 2014 10:31:34 GMT -5
Seriously? You are absolutely wrong. When I said "several," I meant it to be more than one player, i.e., Burgess. That's why I said Burgess AND Eckerman in my earlier rebuttal. When I said "Not even close," I meant it for the grouping of Burgess and Eckerman. You only used Burgess while conveniently left off Eckerman. And you tried to put "not even close" comment to only Burgess on me? That's very dishonest, Dorothy. I know what I wrote. Go and re-read my earlier posts again. Had I only used Burgess, I would have just wrote that "Courtney had a better season than Burgess" (which is a fact, btw). Why can't you make that distinction? Do you like to argue or something? So let me indulge you just on Burgess since that's who you only want involve in this argument. Like I mentioned earlier, I will not concede the dig and ace numbers because Burgess is in for all 6 rotations without ever leaving the court! In RR system, everyone gets subbed out for a serving specialist, except Hancock. Do you think if Burgess plays for RR, she wouldn't get subbed out? You are naive if you don't think so, director or not. It's laughable if you think her 18 aces this past year is a game-breaker. And her 0.82 digs more per set than Courtney is not that impressive given that she never leaves the court…ever…, while Courtney leaves the court 30-40% of the time. So, no, I do not think you factored that in. Otherwise, you would have mentioned that at the beginning, not after I mentioned it. So if you factor in that had Courtney been on the court full time (using the 30% mark conservatively) like Burgess, in a simple calculation, her dig/set would be 424 digs, 3.49 digs/set, and 16 aces. As a reult, Burgess only had more aces while having less digs and digs/set than Courtney. So in conclusion, Courtney is better in hitting%, block/set, solo blocks, digs, digs/set. While Burgess is better in number of kills, kills/set, and aces. So the final tally is: 5 for Courtney; 3 for Burgess. Just say you're wrong and be over with it, Dorothy. You can't win because you don't have the stats to back you up. And you hanging on to the word "several" against me is also laughable. C'mon, Dorothy, you're better than this. If you had submitted your original post to me, and asked me to edit it, I would have asked you "who are the 'several' players you refer to?" When you answered Burgess and Eckerman, I would have said "I think you should name them rather than say 'several' -- and why not, it's your opinion. And if you don't want to name them, for whatever reason, then change 'several' to 'two' -- because 'several' is inaccurate. It's two." I also would have asked you what you meant by "it isn't even close." When you gave the answer you have given here in this thread, I would have suggested you delete that phrase. Because it is an overstatement and not necessary to your point. It appears to me like you don't want to admit that your word choice was poor and misleading -- probably unintentionally so, but misleading nonetheless. Oh, and for what it's worth, I agree that Megan Courtney deserved All-American recognition, and personally believe she is better than Burgess. I don't know enough about Eckerman. I haven't looked at the stats or the overall team dynamic. Sorry, luv ya, but you're trying to make a point to a non-point.
|
|
|
PSU 2015
Dec 31, 2014 10:35:14 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by akbar on Dec 31, 2014 10:35:14 GMT -5
Seriously? You are absolutely wrong. When I said "several," I meant it to be more than one player, i.e., Burgess. That's why I said Burgess AND Eckerman in my earlier rebuttal. When I said "Not even close," I meant it for the grouping of Burgess and Eckerman. You only used Burgess while conveniently left off Eckerman. And you tried to put "not even close" comment to only Burgess on me? That's very dishonest, Dorothy. I know what I wrote. Go and re-read my earlier posts again. Had I only used Burgess, I would have just wrote that "Courtney had a better season than Burgess" (which is a fact, btw). Why can't you make that distinction? Do you like to argue or something? So let me indulge you just on Burgess since that's who you only want involve in this argument. Like I mentioned earlier, I will not concede the dig and ace numbers because Burgess is in for all 6 rotations without ever leaving the court! In RR system, everyone gets subbed out for a serving specialist, except Hancock. Do you think if Burgess plays for RR, she wouldn't get subbed out? You are naive if you don't think so, director or not. It's laughable if you think her 18 aces this past year is a game-breaker. And her 0.82 digs more per set than Courtney is not that impressive given that she never leaves the court…ever…, while Courtney leaves the court 30-40% of the time. So, no, I do not think you factored that in. Otherwise, you would have mentioned that at the beginning, not after I mentioned it. So if you factor in that had Courtney been on the court full time (using the 30% mark conservatively) like Burgess, in a simple calculation, her dig/set would be 424 digs, 3.49 digs/set, and 16 aces. As a reult, Burgess only had more aces while having less digs and digs/set than Courtney. So in conclusion, Courtney is better in hitting%, block/set, solo blocks, digs, digs/set. While Burgess is better in number of kills, kills/set, and aces. So the final tally is: 5 for Courtney; 3 for Burgess. Just say you're wrong and be over with it, Dorothy. You can't win because you don't have the stats to back you up. And you hanging on to the word "several" against me is also laughable. C'mon, Dorothy, you're better than this. The AA awards aren't based on who wins the NC they are based on regular season performance This is the only statement that I agree with. Megan simply didn't have the numbers for the whole season to garner a AA award....considering other "TEAM" factors too and that is fine. Those in the know have repeatly stated her value and worth and I feel it is clear where she stands among all these great OH's who were recognized above her. IMO she is clearly in the top 3 or 4 as it stands today. As a person who has seen both her and Burgess play since they were 13 on various club, USA and now College Teams, it was, is and will continue to be a no-brainer for me, who I would select. Jordan has worked very hard to become a great player and leader. Her passing skills have improved significantly and she has gotten smarter on how to hit that high seam ball and sideout. Her defensive skills are excellent. Megan has rare skill sets and is able to go to a higher ceiling in almost ever area of the game and I would expect a stellar senior year and tremendous professional career. I am fine with not earning AA status.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 31, 2014 10:44:15 GMT -5
Seriously? You are absolutely wrong. When I said "several," I meant it to be more than one player, i.e., Burgess. That's why I said Burgess AND Eckerman in my earlier rebuttal. When I said "Not even close," I meant it for the grouping of Burgess and Eckerman. You only used Burgess while conveniently left off Eckerman. And you tried to put "not even close" comment to only Burgess on me? That's very dishonest, Dorothy. I know what I wrote. Go and re-read my earlier posts again. Had I only used Burgess, I would have just wrote that "Courtney had a better season than Burgess" (which is a fact, btw). Why can't you make that distinction? Do you like to argue or something? So let me indulge you just on Burgess since that's who you only want involve in this argument. Like I mentioned earlier, I will not concede the dig and ace numbers because Burgess is in for all 6 rotations without ever leaving the court! In RR system, everyone gets subbed out for a serving specialist, except Hancock. Do you think if Burgess plays for RR, she wouldn't get subbed out? You are naive if you don't think so, director or not. It's laughable if you think her 18 aces this past year is a game-breaker. And her 0.82 digs more per set than Courtney is not that impressive given that she never leaves the court…ever…, while Courtney leaves the court 30-40% of the time. So, no, I do not think you factored that in. Otherwise, you would have mentioned that at the beginning, not after I mentioned it. So if you factor in that had Courtney been on the court full time (using the 30% mark conservatively) like Burgess, in a simple calculation, her dig/set would be 424 digs, 3.49 digs/set, and 16 aces. As a reult, Burgess only had more aces while having less digs and digs/set than Courtney. So in conclusion, Courtney is better in hitting%, block/set, solo blocks, digs, digs/set. While Burgess is better in number of kills, kills/set, and aces. So the final tally is: 5 for Courtney; 3 for Burgess. Just say you're wrong and be over with it, Dorothy. You can't win because you don't have the stats to back you up. And you hanging on to the word "several" against me is also laughable. C'mon, Dorothy, you're better than this. While using the stat argument it looks like maybe Courtney deserved it over Burgess but if you watch the two players Burgess is clearly better in the backrow. If Courtney had the ability to play backrow the way Burgess does she wouldn't get subbed out. It's why she stays in and to discount that is wrong. How exactly would you say Courtney had the better season was it the fact that they won the NC but Burgess and Stanford finished with less loses. The AA awards aren't based on who wins the NC they are based on regular season performance. While considering stats you have to take everything into consideration, Burgess finished on a team that competed in the best conference against the best competition throughout the season not only conference but OOC schedule. Not to mention if you want to point to hitting percentage consider Burgess gets set more than Courtney, leading to a lower hitting percentage. Also aren't you the same poster who wanted to applaud the efforts of Gonzalez and Fuller. Take one look at Burgess and she is just as good in the back row as those two. It's not the amount of digs Burgess digs but also the quality she get down to dig bombs. She is also great on serve receive. Do you believe Micha is a better setter than Madi, if you do doesn't that factor into hitting percentage also? I like Courtney but your argument is flawed now who would you take over the other I am unsure they both have the ability to be starting on just about any team in the country but to say Courtney deserved it more is wrong. Also over several players I think you need to consider others on the second team was she better than Birks? Also I don't believe any of the players listed were better than Leaf I think she deserved first team and anyone who watched Miami play would know that she could be starting OH on any team in the country. Can you demonstrate how the stat argument says Courtney had a better year?
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Dec 31, 2014 10:48:03 GMT -5
Seriously? You are absolutely wrong. When I said "several," I meant it to be more than one player, i.e., Burgess. That's why I said Burgess AND Eckerman in my earlier rebuttal. When I said "Not even close," I meant it for the grouping of Burgess and Eckerman. You only used Burgess while conveniently left off Eckerman. And you tried to put "not even close" comment to only Burgess on me? That's very dishonest, Dorothy. I know what I wrote. Go and re-read my earlier posts again. Had I only used Burgess, I would have just wrote that "Courtney had a better season than Burgess" (which is a fact, btw). Why can't you make that distinction? Do you like to argue or something? So let me indulge you just on Burgess since that's who you only want involve in this argument. Like I mentioned earlier, I will not concede the dig and ace numbers because Burgess is in for all 6 rotations without ever leaving the court! In RR system, everyone gets subbed out for a serving specialist, except Hancock. Do you think if Burgess plays for RR, she wouldn't get subbed out? You are naive if you don't think so, director or not. It's laughable if you think her 18 aces this past year is a game-breaker. And her 0.82 digs more per set than Courtney is not that impressive given that she never leaves the court…ever…, while Courtney leaves the court 30-40% of the time. So, no, I do not think you factored that in. Otherwise, you would have mentioned that at the beginning, not after I mentioned it. So if you factor in that had Courtney been on the court full time (using the 30% mark conservatively) like Burgess, in a simple calculation, her dig/set would be 424 digs, 3.49 digs/set, and 16 aces. As a reult, Burgess only had more aces while having less digs and digs/set than Courtney. So in conclusion, Courtney is better in hitting%, block/set, solo blocks, digs, digs/set. While Burgess is better in number of kills, kills/set, and aces. So the final tally is: 5 for Courtney; 3 for Burgess. Just say you're wrong and be over with it, Dorothy. You can't win because you don't have the stats to back you up. And you hanging on to the word "several" against me is also laughable. C'mon, Dorothy, you're better than this. While using the stat argument it looks like maybe Courtney deserved it over Burgess but if you watch the two players Burgess is clearly better in the backrow. If Courtney had the ability to play backrow the way Burgess does she wouldn't get subbed out. It's why she stays in and to discount that is wrong. How exactly would you say Courtney had the better season was it the fact that they won the NC but Burgess and Stanford finished with less loses. The AA awards aren't based on who wins the NC they are based on regular season performance. While considering stats you have to take everything into consideration, Burgess finished on a team that competed in the best conference against the best competition throughout the season not only conference but OOC schedule. Not to mention if you want to point to hitting percentage consider Burgess gets set more than Courtney, leading to a lower hitting percentage. Also aren't you the same poster who wanted to applaud the efforts of Gonzalez and Fuller. Take one look at Burgess and she is just as good in the back row as those two. It's not the amount of digs Burgess digs but also the quality she get down to dig bombs. She is also great on serve receive. Do you believe Micha is a better setter than Madi, if you do doesn't that factor into hitting percentage also? I like Courtney but your argument is flawed now who would you take over the other I am unsure they both have the ability to be starting on just about any team in the country but to say Courtney deserved it more is wrong. Also over several players I think you need to consider others on the second team was she better than Birks? Also I don't believe any of the players listed were better than Leaf I think she deserved first team and anyone who watched Miami play would know that she could be starting OH on any team in the country. Believe it or not, I am really not advocating Courtney to be a 1st team AA, or even 2nd team AA, because of her struggle in the 2nd half of the season. It's just that I don't think Burgess is a 1st team AA. However, I would advocate Frantti to be a 1st team before Burgess. I think Frantti should be a 1st team AA over Eckerman as well. Also, my point wasn't about Courtney's dig number vs. Burgess' dig number, even though it's been used for comparison. My point was that you can't accurately compare the dig numbers because both play in different system. It would be like comparing the amount of work accomplished between a part-time worker to a full-time worker. There's simply no comparison. It would be more accurate to compare Burgess' dig number to Birks' because she doesn't leave the court either, I believe. And I am not knocking on Burgess' row play really. I think she's outstanding back there. But her dig numbers can be replaced by any good libero.
|
|
|
Post by MTC on Dec 31, 2014 11:01:19 GMT -5
I stand by what I said. I noticed that you only point out Burgess when I said "several" 1st team AAs in Burgess and Eckerman. Versus Burgess statistically, I may concede to Burgess her kill/set because she got set more, but I can't concede the digging and ace numbers because Burgess stays in full time while Courtney got subbed out for a serving specialist about 40-50% of the time because that's how RR designs his system. Did you not factor this in? So if you weigh that in, their numbers would be similar both in digs, d/s, and aces (have you seen Burgess' jump serve? Yikes. ). Also, Courtney's hitting% and blocking are higher. It is even more amazing given that Courtney struggled 2nd half of the season and still has a higher hitting percent. And it is also amazing that her blocking number is high given that she is blocking right next to a freshman. Versus Eckerman, other than kills and k/s (and aces), she is not out-performing Coutney so much that she more deserved to be a first team AA. In fact, Courtney is out-performing her instead. So in conclusion, if Burgess and Eckerman are the 1st team AAs, then so should Courtney. And if the other poster thought that Courtney didn't have a "stellar" year, then neither do Burgess and Eckerman. So yes, looking at below, the stats do back me up. Kills K/s Hitting% Block B/s Dig D/s Courtney: 310 2.44 .283 94 0.74 297 2.34 Burgess: 395 3.09 .264 52 0.41 405 3.16 Eckerman: 327 3.24 .258 40 0.40 125 1.24 Statistics always back people up when they only show the statistics that support their argument. I showed ALL the stats, the ones that Courtney was better in and the ones where she wasnt. Statistically, Courtney was better than Burgess in two categories, and Burgess was better in 5. Yet the stats show Courtney was clearly better and it "Isnt even close" ? You said "several". I simply asked who represented the several. You said Burgess and Eckerman, which of course isnt several. Now your argument was I only compared one? You only named two. You then made an absolute declaration that statistically it "wasnt even close" YOU are the one who brought out stats, not me. I simply posted their stats, all of them, the ones that favored Courtney and the ones that didnt. Some would consider that to be fair. You ask me "did I factor this in?" My direct answer to your direct question is, Yes, I factored them ALL in. Understand when you say "the numbers don't lie", at that point nothing gets factored in but the numbers, and when we use just the numbers, those numbers do not support your argument. The stats are the stats, period. Statistically (your measuring stick) your argument fails. You made the statement, you framed the argument, you invoked the stats, not me. When we look at the stats, not just the ones that suppport your claim, Here is what isnt debatable. Statistically Burgess was better in 5 major categories, that is an indisputable fact. Yet you claim the stats arent "even close"? Now your greatest statistical argument in favor of Courtney, is her block statistics are particularly impressive given she was saddled with blocking next to a freshman? ? A freshman who had arguably one of the most impressive freshman years of any freshman middle blocker in recent history??? If your argument is that Courtney was better than "several" first team AA's, you failed to name several. If your argument is that her stats are better, and it isnt even close to one of the two you sighted, that is statistically categorically false. If you invoke the numbers, than the numbers arent open for debate. They are what they are. I will remind you again, that I completely agree with you about her season and that she should have been recognized, your claims about how many people on the first team that she had better seasons than, and that her stats clearly support that are where I totally disagree with you, and the stats do in fact support that. If you said, she had better stats than Eckerman, I would have said "I totally agree" you didnt say that, you said she was better than "several", not true, and that the stats show that, not true. If you said IMO she is better than Burgess and Eckerman, I may also have agreed with you. That however isnt what you said, also not disputable. Dorothy, you are doing it again.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 31, 2014 11:05:25 GMT -5
Statistics always back people up when they only show the statistics that support their argument. I showed ALL the stats, the ones that Courtney was better in and the ones where she wasnt. Statistically, Courtney was better than Burgess in two categories, and Burgess was better in 5. Yet the stats show Courtney was clearly better and it "Isnt even close" ? You said "several". I simply asked who represented the several. You said Burgess and Eckerman, which of course isnt several. Now your argument was I only compared one? You only named two. You then made an absolute declaration that statistically it "wasnt even close" YOU are the one who brought out stats, not me. I simply posted their stats, all of them, the ones that favored Courtney and the ones that didnt. Some would consider that to be fair. You ask me "did I factor this in?" My direct answer to your direct question is, Yes, I factored them ALL in. Understand when you say "the numbers don't lie", at that point nothing gets factored in but the numbers, and when we use just the numbers, those numbers do not support your argument. The stats are the stats, period. Statistically (your measuring stick) your argument fails. You made the statement, you framed the argument, you invoked the stats, not me. When we look at the stats, not just the ones that suppport your claim, Here is what isnt debatable. Statistically Burgess was better in 5 major categories, that is an indisputable fact. Yet you claim the stats arent "even close"? Now your greatest statistical argument in favor of Courtney, is her block statistics are particularly impressive given she was saddled with blocking next to a freshman? ? A freshman who had arguably one of the most impressive freshman years of any freshman middle blocker in recent history??? If your argument is that Courtney was better than "several" first team AA's, you failed to name several. If your argument is that her stats are better, and it isnt even close to one of the two you sighted, that is statistically categorically false. If you invoke the numbers, than the numbers arent open for debate. They are what they are. I will remind you again, that I completely agree with you about her season and that she should have been recognized, your claims about how many people on the first team that she had better seasons than, and that her stats clearly support that are where I totally disagree with you, and the stats do in fact support that. If you said, she had better stats than Eckerman, I would have said "I totally agree" you didnt say that, you said she was better than "several", not true, and that the stats show that, not true. If you said IMO she is better than Burgess and Eckerman, I may also have agreed with you. That however isnt what you said, also not disputable. Seriously? You are absolutely wrong. When I said "several," I meant it to be more than one player, i.e., Burgess. That's why I said Burgess AND Eckerman in my earlier rebuttal. When I said "Not even close," I meant it for the grouping of Burgess and Eckerman. You only used Burgess while conveniently left off Eckerman. And you tried to put "not even close" comment to only Burgess on me? That's very dishonest, Dorothy. I know what I wrote. Go and re-read my earlier posts again. Had I only used Burgess, I would have just wrote that "Courtney had a better season than Burgess" (which is a fact, btw). Why can't you make that distinction? Do you like to argue or something? So let me indulge you just on Burgess since that's who you only want involve in this argument. Like I mentioned earlier, I will not concede the dig and ace numbers because Burgess is in for all 6 rotations without ever leaving the court! In RR system, everyone gets subbed out for a serving specialist, except Hancock. Do you think if Burgess plays for RR, she wouldn't get subbed out? You are naive if you don't think so, director or not. It's laughable if you think her 18 aces this past year is a game-breaker. And her 0.82 digs more per set than Courtney is not that impressive given that she never leaves the court…ever…, while Courtney leaves the court 30-40% of the time. So, no, I do not think you factored that in. Otherwise, you would have mentioned that at the beginning, not after I mentioned it. So if you factor in that had Courtney been on the court full time (using the 30% mark conservatively) like Burgess, in a simple calculation, her dig/set would be 424 digs, 3.49 digs/set, and 16 aces. As a reult, Burgess only had more aces while having less digs and digs/set than Courtney. So in conclusion, Courtney is better in hitting%, block/set, solo blocks, digs, digs/set. While Burgess is better in number of kills, kills/set, and aces. So the final tally is: 5 for Courtney; 3 for Burgess. Just say you're wrong and be over with it, Dorothy. You can't win because you don't have the stats to back you up. And you hanging on to the word "several" against me is also laughable. C'mon, Dorothy, you're better than this. Just so I understand, I was supposed to be factoring in the fact Courtney had to leave the court, and what her stats "would have been"?? You don't see the absurdity of that given the AA committee would never even think of looking at it that way? When you say "the stats" what you are really saying is "your stats" You have repeatedly said that I dont have the stats to back my point up, but I am using the ACTUAL stats, the smae ACTUAL stats the AA committee uses. You are using a "what if formula", those are not actual stats. With all due respect that is just ridiculous. I would admit I was wrong but using the stat criteria YOU SUGGESTED it is an indisputable fact that Burgess had more kills, more kills per game, more digs, more digs per game and had more service aces (not that big a deal) I would be happy to post or send you the actual stats for both players if you think that would be helpful. The ones you are posting are in fact made up. Could she have had those numbers? Sure. But she did not, and that also would be an indisputable fact. I think Courtney is great, I wouldnt trade her for Burgess, but that isnt the argument. The reason I didnt bring up eckerman is that I have no idea what her numbers were. You said several, which quickly shrunk to 2, I looked up one of the two when you challenged me to look at the stats and the first player I looked up had better stats. Is there a reason to look up Eckermans? We already know that at best Meg had better stats than 1 player, you said several, not true, and you said the stats werent even close, not true. You my friend are arguing against fact. You cant invoke the numbers and then have numbers contradict your point, and than ask us to use hypothetical numbers, or kills, digs that actually never happened. Feel free to respond or PM me, but this is really just a ridiculous argument especially because I am in total agreement with you regarding Meg as a player.
|
|