|
Post by gooseberry on Oct 5, 2004 23:38:41 GMT -5
Never count out a Gaucho team to choke at the most inopportune time during the season.
|
|
|
Post by Island on Oct 5, 2004 23:42:35 GMT -5
The NCAA investigated her for wearing the same sox used by a Polish pro team and so they went with her non-union Mexican counterpart Kidding aside, it seems that UCSB leans a lot on the middle attack to be successful. They are really good most of the time but I can see how if they don't have a good night or the passing doesn't provide the rock, they can't get beat. What happened to last years' Big West Freshman of the Year, Olivia Waldowski???
|
|
|
Post by GauchoDon on Oct 5, 2004 23:45:13 GMT -5
Game was at UCSB and yes we look ugly at times seemed we almost never got the ball in the vicinity of the setter digging/passing seems the worst I've seen from us... thought it was because Nelson was gone when we played Pacific (since the only other game I saw up to that point was against Cal Poly and it's just tough to judge against competition that weak apparently). Anyway, Pacific looked better than LMU... UCSB's block looks good, but with the digging/block combination it just doesn't seem like a UCSB team? Anyway... no doubt we still could have one this game (as Barbarian said we collapsed at the end of game one and during game two... Credit LMU for taking advantage of it.) Hopefully this is just youthful growing pains and game 3 was an indication of what we're capable of instead of just a game 3 letdown from LMU. (seemed to be more us than them, but I guess you never know). Hopefully we'll get the passing worked out... a couple less service errors is a good sign there.
|
|
|
Post by beachman on Oct 5, 2004 23:50:33 GMT -5
Was this a case of the Gauchos not playing well or is LMU the real deal?
|
|
|
Post by GauchoDon on Oct 5, 2004 23:51:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GauchoDon on Oct 5, 2004 23:56:09 GMT -5
I thought Pacific looked better... I will say the LMU coach had the best use of timeouts that I've seen this year... and that LMU did a great job of dinking over our tall block and hitting over the shorter players when they were there. I think this was more UCSB than LMU we just seemed out of sync except in game 3... 59 digs in a 4 game match? seems awful low to me. Oh yeah there were some nice rallies in the 3rd and 4th games, but they seemed more frantic broken just get it over type than nice structured plays
|
|
|
Post by UCSBVball on Oct 6, 2004 0:02:36 GMT -5
We played like crap - in game 4 we came back and it could have gone either way - problem is that we swapped points earlier and gave up 1st 4 points. LMU is not a great team - 2 of their players one of them on serves hurt the Gauchos very much. Gaucho passing was bad. Summation -- Gauchos need consistency and less predictability on who is getting the set.
|
|
|
Post by GauchoDon on Oct 6, 2004 0:09:29 GMT -5
Summation -- Gauchos need consistency and less predictability on who is getting the set. Yes!
|
|
|
Post by robertmotley on Oct 6, 2004 0:09:57 GMT -5
wow...2 loses to unranked teams?
|
|
|
Post by UCSBVball on Oct 6, 2004 0:12:28 GMT -5
Robert -- wow is not the correct word
|
|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Oct 6, 2004 0:19:11 GMT -5
What happened to last years' Big West Freshman of the Year, Olivia Waldowski??? 15 kills @ .333 and 5 blocks.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Oct 6, 2004 3:42:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Oct 6, 2004 4:08:36 GMT -5
Just by looking at the stats, I would have thought UCSB edged out LMU. Even in nearly every column except hitting percentage, where UCSB had a huge advantage - more than 70 pts above LMU (.343 to .273). In fact, UCSB hit .300 or higher in every game. What gives? Doesn't look like UCSB played as poorly as some have said in this thread. Seeing how close the scoreline was for games LMU won (1, 2, and 4), perhaps the Gauchos just played poorly in a few inopportune moments? Of course, the flipside of this is that LMU had two players (Nerison and Hughes) who just went off in the match. UCSB slowed everyone else down, but could not keep these two in check.
|
|
|
Post by GauchoDon on Oct 6, 2004 9:44:43 GMT -5
Seeing how close the scoreline was for games LMU won (1, 2, and 4), perhaps the Gauchos just played poorly in a few inopportune moments? Of course, the flipside of this is that LMU had two players (Nerison and Hughes) who just went off in the match. UCSB slowed everyone else down, but could not keep these two in check. Yeah we played so-so for much of the games then bad for brief spurts (The end of the first game... which we were leading 27-23 or 28-24 no way you should lose that at home... the end of the second game... and the start of the 4th game down 4-0 I think the rest of the game was pretty even from 2-5 point lead for LMU until we tied at I think 27... just seemed like we made an error in game 4 whenever we had a change to take the lead. I was a bit surprised to see the over .300 hitting last night, but hitting wasn't the problem, it was defense. Actually just checked the recap it was 28-23 in game 1 I think it was the being outscored 8-1 to end game 1 and 9-2 to end game 2 that leaves the Gaucho faithful with a sour aftertaste.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 6, 2004 11:28:18 GMT -5
Just by looking at the stats, I would have thought UCSB edged out LMU. In fact, just look at the most important stat in this regard: Points scored. UCSB outscored them 117 - 111. That is what the stats are reflecting (although I can never get the points to add up by looking at a box score). The difference in the match was the distribution of points. LMU won three close games. UCSB won one blowout. Now, why it happened that way is a harder question. For example, I just ran a quick simulation and found that, statistically, a team that scores 51.3% of the points will win 2/3 of the time. When they win, 36% of the time it is in 3 games, 34% of the time, it is 4 games, and 31% are 5 game matches. When the team loses, 24% of the time it is in 3 games, 36% of the time it is 4 games, and 40% of the time it is 5 games. Now, this assumes that the team has a 51.3% chance of winning any given point, and does not take serve disadvantage into account. Moreover, any comparison with UCSB/LMU requires the assumption that UCSB actually has a 51.3 chance of scoring. If the probability is higher but the outcome was just lower due to statistical variation, then the breakdown would be different. But to a first approximation, a team that scores 51.3% of the points will win 2/3 of the time. In this case, it may just be one of those 1/3 matches...
|
|