|
Post by bolleyvol on Nov 30, 2015 12:14:10 GMT -5
I am just using their Pablo ratings - feel free to use a better measure of volleyball probabilities if you can find one.
Some people don't understand how Pablo works. You are absolutely correct in your numbers. Yeah, yeah, yeah - Pablo (and RPI) are objective numbers (which people seem to think means "good"). However, their relation to anything meaningful- like quality of teams, outcomes of future matches etc.- is purely subjective and generally not awfully accurate. In this case, for examples, the probabilities could be more accurately identified by drawing numbers out of a hat.
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Nov 30, 2015 12:28:28 GMT -5
Some people don't understand how Pablo works. You are absolutely correct in your numbers. Yeah, yeah, yeah - Pablo (and RPI) are objective numbers (which people seem to think means "good"). However, their relation to anything meaningful- like quality of teams, outcomes of future matches etc.- is purely subjective and generally not awfully accurate. In this case, for examples, the probabilities could be more accurately identified by drawing numbers out of a hat. I don't know if I should repeat myself or correct you. You clearly don't know how Pablo works. It is calculated and very different than RPI and takes a ton of factors into play. Pablo accurately predicts match outcomes all the time. Sure it can be wrong because upsets happen. But to compare Pablo to picking numbers out of a hat is insulting, you are confused.
|
|
|
Post by bolleyvol on Nov 30, 2015 13:27:45 GMT -5
Yeah, yeah, yeah - Pablo (and RPI) are objective numbers (which people seem to think means "good"). However, their relation to anything meaningful- like quality of teams, outcomes of future matches etc.- is purely subjective and generally not awfully accurate. In this case, for examples, the probabilities could be more accurately identified by drawing numbers out of a hat. I don't know if I should repeat myself or correct you. You clearly don't know how Pablo works. It is calculated and very different than RPI and takes a ton of factors into play. Pablo accurately predicts match outcomes all the time. Sure it can be wrong because upsets happen. But to compare Pablo to picking numbers out of a hat is insulting, you are confused. I am not in the least confused. I don't think you understand the nature of statistics-surprisingly few people do- or you'd see what nonsense "it can be wrong because upsets happen" is. Pablo has, historically, been more accurate a predictor than RPI, but that's an extremely low bar. Whether it's a better indicator than other objective measures- say, average attendance at matches or average height of OH's, is for someone who cares more than I to determine. I accurately predict match results all the time, on purely subjective grounds-so does the coach's poll. Even the RPI sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by scottysocc on Nov 30, 2015 13:57:40 GMT -5
Stanford Vs Kansas will be fun with the setter match-up.
Assuming they both make it the regional final, USC vs Stanford will also be a good re-match. It could go either way too. USC was down 2 sets to 1 in vs Stanford earlier in the season before winning it. Stanford also has more elite players in my opinion. But USC has Bricio... 'nuff said.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 30, 2015 18:32:50 GMT -5
Before advancing Stanford to the regional finals - they are a 75% home favorite vs. Colorado State and just a 55% favorite against Kansas (if they meet those two teams). Stanford has about a 40% chance of winning their 1st three matches. Volleyball is almost as bad as economics for preposterous statistics, yet one can but wonder where this stuff comes from. They've lost 2 home matches in the last 4 years against the best competition in the country, and Colorado State has a 25% chance? Kansas? Not happening- they're at least 80% to get through to the regional final. Updated Pablo rating now has Stanford as only a 51% favorite against Kansas on a neutral court. Kind of hard to believe.
I don't think I take Kansas on an even money bet - but I sure the heck take them if given 4-1 odds.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Nov 30, 2015 19:10:50 GMT -5
The #1 seed should have the easiest path to the Final Four, and I think they do. I could see Kansas beating Stanford. Kansas is a very aggressive serving team; they go for it. Yes, they make a lot of serving errors, but they don't get passive with their serving. If Stanford can receive serve and set Merete, then they can neutralize KU somewhat. KU sets RS Kelsey Payne all across the net; when opponents focus on Payne, that opens up things for their other hitters. Still, KU getting to the regional would be a first for them, I believe. So, the experience (in every way) is with the Cardinal. I'd say Stanford is pretty solid on serve receive. Burgess and McKenna are definitely above average passers. Howard is perhaps the worst of the big 3 passers, but she's still above average IMO. Stanford will use Hodson if one of their 3 "go-to" passers is having trouble or facing a tough jump server (in which case they deploy 4 passers). Any team bringing heat on a top spin serve will most likely be disappointed because Stanford has a very good track record passing those type of serves. It would be tough floaters, like the one Hodson deploys that would give Stanford the most problems. Stanford, as mentioned above, with the addition of Hodson, has a pretty good serve game as well. Bugg, who was Stanford's best server last year, is now using a deep floater that is very effective. Burgess is the weak link as she tends to serve lollipops.
|
|
10K
Sophomore
Posts: 150
|
Post by 10K on Nov 30, 2015 19:35:49 GMT -5
USC and UNC both could advance to meet each other again in San Diego.
Here's the UNC-USC full match from early this season on The NCAA's YouTube Channel:
|
|
|
Post by dd2000 on Nov 30, 2015 19:51:40 GMT -5
No love here for CSU??
|
|
|
Post by MsRSV on Nov 30, 2015 19:57:32 GMT -5
I love CSU! And I really loved how they played Saturday night Go Rams!
|
|
|
Post by speegs13 on Nov 30, 2015 20:06:14 GMT -5
I think the CSU/LMU match is one of the best first round games in the entire tournament. If both CSU and Stanford make it past their first matches, that could be another entertaining match, especially with Stanford's two middles versus CSU's two middles.
|
|
|
Post by Gorflorg Orshforg on Nov 30, 2015 20:27:33 GMT -5
I don't know if I should repeat myself or correct you. You clearly don't know how Pablo works. It is calculated and very different than RPI and takes a ton of factors into play. Pablo accurately predicts match outcomes all the time. Sure it can be wrong because upsets happen. But to compare Pablo to picking numbers out of a hat is insulting, you are confused. I am not in the least confused. I don't think you understand the nature of statistics-surprisingly few people do- or you'd see what nonsense "it can be wrong because upsets happen" is. Pablo has, historically, been more accurate a predictor than RPI, but that's an extremely low bar. Whether it's a better indicator than other objective measures- say, average attendance at matches or average height of OH's, is for someone who cares more than I to determine. I accurately predict match results all the time, on purely subjective grounds-so does the coach's poll. Even the RPI sometimes. Oh my, you are very confused, and should certainly not be lecturing anyone on the nature of statistics! The accuracy of Pablo is actually quite easily quantifiable-all you have to do is count up the number of matches it manages to predict the winner of, and the number of matches it does not manage to predict the winner of. Then you calculate the percentage of correctly predicted matches-voila! You have an objective measure of Pablo's accuracy as a rating system. Feel free to compare it whatever other rating system you like, be it average OH height or average assistant coach height. Fortunately, as you seem to be aware of, some very nice people have already calculated Pablo's accuracy and compared it to the other major rating systems. But hey, don't let that get in the way of whatever point it is you're trying to make. I'm really not sure what you're after here. Pablo has been shown to be the most reliable of the major rating systems; it's certainly more reliable than your own intuition, or anyone else's. How about this? You fill out a bracket and post it on VolleyTalk for all to see. After the tournament is over, we compare your bracket to Pablo's. If Pablo wins, you'll publicly apologize to the poor man. Sound good?
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 30, 2015 21:20:38 GMT -5
Some people don't understand how Pablo works. You are absolutely correct in your numbers. Yeah, yeah, yeah - Pablo (and RPI) are objective numbers (which people seem to think means "good"). However, their relation to anything meaningful- like quality of teams, outcomes of future matches etc.- is purely subjective and generally not awfully accurate. In this case, for examples, the probabilities could be more accurately identified by drawing numbers out of a hat. You might want to quit while you're behind... RPI works sort of like rating someone based on how superficially pretty their dates are and how many times they got kissed. With Pablo, it's more like did they get married and have children.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 30, 2015 21:54:39 GMT -5
The #1 seed should have the easiest path to the Final Four, and I think they do. I could see Kansas beating Stanford. Kansas is a very aggressive serving team; they go for it. Yes, they make a lot of serving errors, but they don't get passive with their serving. If Stanford can receive serve and set Merete, then they can neutralize KU somewhat. KU sets RS Kelsey Payne all across the net; when opponents focus on Payne, that opens up things for their other hitters. Still, KU getting to the regional would be a first for them, I believe. So, the experience (in every way) is with the Cardinal. I'd say Stanford is pretty solid on serve receive. Burgess and McKenna are definitely above average passers. Howard is perhaps the worst of the big 3 passers, but she's still above average IMO. Stanford will use Hodson if one of their 3 "go-to" passers is having trouble or facing a tough jump server (in which case they deploy 4 passers). Any team bringing heat on a top spin serve will most likely be disappointed because Stanford has a very good track record passing those type of serves. It would be tough floaters, like the one Hodson deploys that would give Stanford the most problems. Stanford, as mentioned above, with the addition of Hodson, has a pretty good serve game as well. Bugg, who was Stanford's best server last year, is now using a deep floater that is very effective. Burgess is the weak link as she tends to serve lollipops. I think southie summed up Kansas very well. Kansas is not great at blocking or defense - but they are an extremely aggressive serving team. They lost a set to Texas 30-28 with 8 serving errors. They are not going to score on their serve unless they get the opponent out system, so it is always worth the risk to serve aggressively. None of their serving is big topspin - it is a combination of different float serves - Rigdon hits a very hard jump float just above the net. On the other end, Kansas has a fast offense with a high sideout %. They don't have the talent of the top teams at being able to hit out of system - so serve return is especially essential for them. But in system - it can be difficult getting the blockers to the hitter as their hitters hit from anywhere on the net.
|
|
|
Post by bolleyvol on Nov 30, 2015 22:04:43 GMT -5
Yeah, yeah, yeah - Pablo (and RPI) are objective numbers (which people seem to think means "good"). However, their relation to anything meaningful- like quality of teams, outcomes of future matches etc.- is purely subjective and generally not awfully accurate. In this case, for examples, the probabilities could be more accurately identified by drawing numbers out of a hat. You might want to quit while you're behind... RPI works sort of like rating someone based on how superficially pretty their dates are and how many times they got kissed. With Pablo, it's more like did they get married and have children. "Rating Someone" makes as much sense as rating volleyball teams; it's ill defined and there is not sufficient information to do it, no matter how you shuffle the numbers. There seems little hope of you or your buddy getting the point (hint; it's not that I'm a particularly good universal predictor- in fact I seldom do it unless I have some particular information of the type such statistics miss), and I certainly don't intend to undertake an extensive homework assignment for your edification. The fact is, however, that a moderately well trained warthog could accurately predict the majority of division I volleyball matches; there really isn't a lot of parity in the sport.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 30, 2015 22:55:32 GMT -5
Still doesn't make it right. It's pretty ridiculous that Texas could potentially face THREE B1G teams before the FF and USC/Stanford don't have to face a single one. Really lame of the committee, not just because of the lopsided draws for B1G teams, but for the fans who want to see a competitive tournament in every region. With 9 teams, there's no excuse whatsoever for not placing at least one of them in San Diego. As for your third reason, that's completely irrelevant. Penn St., Purdue, Illinois or Ohio St could have certainly been placed in San Diego without ruffling any feathers at all. Washington likely has to go through Michigan State, Ohio State, and Nebraska (over BYU) to get to the FF, and they're #1 in both the AVCA poll and Pablo. Texas likely has to go through Purdue, UCLA (over Michigan), and Wisconsin. Hawaii likely has to go through TCU, Texas A&M, Penn State, and Minnesota.
|
|