|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 31, 2014 11:16:12 GMT -5
Why is there a Coutney-Burgess argument? Courtney wasn't even eligible, so not sure what you wanted the AA committee to do.
It's needs to be a Courtney v. Birks, McMahon, Frantti, Washington, Campbell or even Drews (who was All-Region HM) argument about the regional team.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Dec 31, 2014 11:53:11 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. 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. I don't know why people like to "PM" other people. I don't usually bother to open them. It is not a hypothetical to factor in the said calcuation. Otherwise, nobobdy gets in playing in RR system because nobody would get high enough dig numbers. RR is a big stats guy, what do you think he would say? I think he would agree with me because he said many times that "it's not what you did do, but what you didn't do." That screams conjecture/assumption/hypotheticals. Also, if you are referring to what stats the "committee" looks at for the 1st team AA, how do you justify Eckerman as 1st team AA? What stats were they looking at for her? And just for you: here's dictionary for "several": being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind. dictionary.reference.com/browse/severalSo I was off by 1. Yeah, have fun with that because that's what it looks like you're doing.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 31, 2014 12:27:40 GMT -5
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. I don't know why people like to "PM" other people. I don't usually bother to open them. It is not a hypothetical to factor in the said calcuation. Otherwise, nobobdy gets in playing in RR system because nobody would get high enough dig numbers. RR is a big stats guy, what do you think he would say? I think he would agree with me because he said many times that "it's not what you did do, but what you didn't do." That screams conjecture/assumption/hypotheticals. Also, if you are referring to what stats the "committee" looks at for the 1st team AA, how do you justify Eckerman as 1st team AA? What stats were they looking at for her? And just for you: here's dictionary for "several": being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind. dictionary.reference.com/browse/severalSo I was off by 1. Yeah, have fun with that because that's what it looks like you're doing. PM is great in these cases because you then aren't subjecting others to endless debate. Any stat you are suggesting that isnt an actual stat, would be a hypothetical stat. I think Russ would agree that her actual stats are going to be what the committee would be looking at. As for Eckerman, I don't have to jusify her selection, I didnt choose her. I didnt need to look up several, I knew that you were saying there were at least three players that she had better stats than. Lastly, I think Courtney is a marvelous player, only cares about winning, and that she wasnt even eligible to be an all-american making the debate as I said ridiculous. Have a great new year.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 31, 2014 12:28:42 GMT -5
Why is there a Coutney-Burgess argument? Courtney wasn't even eligible, so not sure what you wanted the AA committee to do. It's needs to be a Courtney v. Birks, McMahon, Frantti, Washington, Campbell or even Drews (who was All-Region HM) argument about the regional team. You are asking a very good question my friend.
|
|
|
Post by tclenpsu1 on Dec 31, 2014 13:05:49 GMT -5
Micha Handcock to Megan Courtney link
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 31, 2014 13:15:59 GMT -5
Micha Handcock to Megan Courtney linkHer play was bonkers at the FF!
|
|
|
PSU 2015
Dec 31, 2014 13:47:57 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by chisovnik on Dec 31, 2014 13:47:57 GMT -5
My favorite player. I'm glad she's finally showing everyone what she can do.
|
|
|
Post by Phillytom on Dec 31, 2014 13:58:34 GMT -5
Thanks for the video. If she were playing for another team without so many hitters, she'd be first team AA and in the NPOY discussion every year. Not that she would trade places. I suspect she likes it where she is, getting to play for championships most years.
|
|
|
Post by midnightblue on Dec 31, 2014 17:01:04 GMT -5
Micha Handcock to Megan Courtney linkHer play was bonkers at the FF! She was unconscious. Yikes.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 31, 2014 17:11:14 GMT -5
Thanks for the video. If she were playing for another team without so many hitters, she'd be first team AA and in the NPOY discussion every year. Not that she would trade places. I suspect she likes it where she is, getting to play for championships most years. Yeah, I don't see her as a NPOY candidate level player. I certainly think AA level. I think people forget she wasnt all-conference, wasnt eligible for AA. She is a very good player, who had an absolutely ridiculous FF.
|
|
|
Post by MTC on Dec 31, 2014 17:21:16 GMT -5
She definitely looks like one of the team leaders for next year. I expect it to be a wild season in a good way.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Dec 31, 2014 17:59:35 GMT -5
I don't know why people like to "PM" other people. I don't usually bother to open them. It is not a hypothetical to factor in the said calcuation. Otherwise, nobobdy gets in playing in RR system because nobody would get high enough dig numbers. RR is a big stats guy, what do you think he would say? I think he would agree with me because he said many times that "it's not what you did do, but what you didn't do." That screams conjecture/assumption/hypotheticals. Also, if you are referring to what stats the "committee" looks at for the 1st team AA, how do you justify Eckerman as 1st team AA? What stats were they looking at for her? And just for you: here's dictionary for "several": being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind. dictionary.reference.com/browse/severalSo I was off by 1. Yeah, have fun with that because that's what it looks like you're doing. PM is great in these cases because you then aren't subjecting others to endless debate. Any stat you are suggesting that isnt an actual stat, would be a hypothetical stat. I think Russ would agree that her actual stats are going to be what the committee would be looking at. As for Eckerman, I don't have to jusify her selection, I didnt choose her. I didnt need to look up several, I knew that you were saying there were at least three players that she had better stats than. Lastly, I think Courtney is a marvelous player, only cares about winning, and that she wasnt even eligible to be an all-american making the debate as I said ridiculous. Have a great new year. You wrote earlier like you know what the committee looks at saying: " You don't see the absurdity of that given the AA committee would never even think of looking at it that way?" Now you're saying you don't know what the committee is looking at in regard to Eckerman? And that you don't need to justify her selection by the committee? But you are okay with the committee's selection of Burgess because they look at stats? You just contradicted yourself. You are very picky and not very consistent at all. You either know what the committee looks at or you don't. You can't have both ways. And from the looks of it, you don't.
|
|
|
PSU 2015
Dec 31, 2014 18:09:21 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 31, 2014 18:09:21 GMT -5
PM is great in these cases because you then aren't subjecting others to endless debate. Any stat you are suggesting that isnt an actual stat, would be a hypothetical stat. I think Russ would agree that her actual stats are going to be what the committee would be looking at. As for Eckerman, I don't have to jusify her selection, I didnt choose her. I didnt need to look up several, I knew that you were saying there were at least three players that she had better stats than. Lastly, I think Courtney is a marvelous player, only cares about winning, and that she wasnt even eligible to be an all-american making the debate as I said ridiculous. Have a great new year. You wrote earlier like you know what the committee looks at saying: " You don't see the absurdity of that given the AA committee would never even think of looking at it that way?" Now you're saying you don't know what the committee is looking at in regard to Eckerman? And that you don't need to justify her selection by the committee? But you are okay with the committee's selection of Burgess because they look at stats? You just contradicted yourself. You are very picky and not very consistent at all. You either know what the committee looks at or you don't. You can't have both ways. And from the looks of it, you don't. Please stop
|
|
|
PSU 2015
Dec 31, 2014 19:07:26 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by WahineFan44 on Dec 31, 2014 19:07:26 GMT -5
PM is great in these cases because you then aren't subjecting others to endless debate. Any stat you are suggesting that isnt an actual stat, would be a hypothetical stat. I think Russ would agree that her actual stats are going to be what the committee would be looking at. As for Eckerman, I don't have to jusify her selection, I didnt choose her. I didnt need to look up several, I knew that you were saying there were at least three players that she had better stats than. Lastly, I think Courtney is a marvelous player, only cares about winning, and that she wasnt even eligible to be an all-american making the debate as I said ridiculous. Have a great new year. You wrote earlier like you know what the committee looks at saying: " You don't see the absurdity of that given the AA committee would never even think of looking at it that way?" Now you're saying you don't know what the committee is looking at in regard to Eckerman? And that you don't need to justify her selection by the committee? But you are okay with the committee's selection of Burgess because they look at stats? You just contradicted yourself. You are very picky and not very consistent at all. You either know what the committee looks at or you don't. You can't have both ways. And from the looks of it, you don't. HOW ABOUT EVERY PSU PLAYER MAKES AA, even their bench and redshirts! PSU FOR THE WIN
|
|
|
Post by canda on Jan 1, 2015 10:47:34 GMT -5
Russ Rose has a habit of "unleashing" certain players that the opponents have forgotten about, like he did with Katie Slay in the 2013 Regional against Stanford. She practically took over the match offensively and defensively, when Stanford was up 9-6 in the fifth set. She'd been on the bench most of the time in the 4th set, once that game was out of reach, and appeared little in the 5th before Russ brought her back in. She led Penn State on a 9-2 run, and the victory. There's no NC without Katie Slay's performance getting them to the FF.
Courtney seems to have been used in the same way. Russ saw a weakness in Stanford's one "Block weakness area", and Courtney was used to exploit it.
She came to life against BYU when they needed her, and I'm sure Rose told her what to do then, when he saw the advantage.
|
|