|
Post by huskerjen on Dec 6, 2015 18:48:35 GMT -5
they play in different leagues so it is difficult to understand what the stats mean relative to them playing each other. The B1G and Pac-12 are the two toughest conferences, so I don't see how any other than conference stats should be used to highlight team strengths and key performers. Granted that BYU plays in the WCC, a less strong conference, so some extrapolation is necessary, although they do have a second team (LMU) in the Sweet 16. On the other hand, if your argument is that the B1G is so superior that comparables don't apply, I can only remind you that Nebraska played Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio State only once, losing all three. Washington played Colorado and Utah only once. Strength has nothing to do with it. It's about context. Different coaches, players, scheduling, etc. Stats without shared context are meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Dec 6, 2015 19:08:18 GMT -5
Strength has nothing to do with it. It's about context. Different coaches, players, scheduling, etc. Stats without shared context are meaningless. If you say so... Just interesting to me that Husker fans should think their team's conference stats are "meaningless". I'm a Husky fan and I certainly don't think that.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 6, 2015 19:11:34 GMT -5
they play in different leagues so it is difficult to understand what the stats mean relative to them playing each other. The B1G and Pac-12 are the two toughest conferences, so I don't see how any other than conference stats should be used to highlight team strengths and key performers. Granted that BYU plays in the WCC, a less strong conference, so some extrapolation is necessary, although they do have a second team (LMU) in the Sweet 16. On the other hand, if your argument is that the B1G is so superior that comparables don't apply, I can only remind you that Nebraska played Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio State only once, losing all three. Washington played Colorado and Utah only once. My argument is that with the exception of OSU/Nebraska, you are comparing teams with statistics vs different opponents, better or worse opponents wouldnt change my point. Who won or lost matches also would have nothing to do with the statistical analyses.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Dec 6, 2015 19:25:34 GMT -5
The B1G and Pac-12 are the two toughest conferences, so I don't see how any other than conference stats should be used to highlight team strengths and key performers. Granted that BYU plays in the WCC, a less strong conference, so some extrapolation is necessary, although they do have a second team (LMU) in the Sweet 16. On the other hand, if your argument is that the B1G is so superior that comparables don't apply, I can only remind you that Nebraska played Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio State only once, losing all three. Washington played Colorado and Utah only once. My argument is that with the exception of OSU/Nebraska, you are comparing teams with statistics vs different opponents, better or worse opponents wouldnt change my point. Who won or lost matches also would have nothing to do with the statistical analyses. So, you're claiming the stats say NOTHING about the teams? Nebraska needn't worry about stopping (or even slowing down) Gray, because they are "statistics vs different opponents". Note I didn't "rank" the teams or players, but merely listed them. I do think I now have a better picture of Ohio State than previously. If it informed me, it was worth it Feel free to provide any "context" you want...
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Dec 6, 2015 19:39:51 GMT -5
Are we still talking about the Lexington regional?
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 6, 2015 19:49:21 GMT -5
My argument is that with the exception of OSU/Nebraska, you are comparing teams with statistics vs different opponents, better or worse opponents wouldnt change my point. Who won or lost matches also would have nothing to do with the statistical analyses. So, you're claiming the stats say NOTHING about the teams? Nebraska needn't worry about stopping (or even slowing down) Gray, because they are "statistics vs different opponents". Note I didn't "rank" the teams or players, but merely listed them. I do think I now have a better picture of Ohio State than previously. If it informed me, it was worth it Feel free to provide any "context" you want... Did I say they mean "nothing"? Nebraska will worry about Grey probably because they have seen first hand what she is capable of. There are 4 very good teams in that bracket, the stats leading up to it, are really here nor there "to me" I respect that they have some meaning to others. I am stating my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Dec 6, 2015 19:51:01 GMT -5
Are we still talking about the Lexington regional? I'm trying...
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Dec 6, 2015 19:51:22 GMT -5
My argument is that with the exception of OSU/Nebraska, you are comparing teams with statistics vs different opponents, better or worse opponents wouldnt change my point. Who won or lost matches also would have nothing to do with the statistical analyses. So, you're claiming the stats say NOTHING about the teams? Nebraska needn't worry about stopping (or even slowing down) Gray, because they are "statistics vs different opponents". Note I didn't "rank" the teams or players, but merely listed them. I do think I now have a better picture of Ohio State than previously. If it informed me, it was worth it Feel free to provide any "context" you want... Did I say they mean "nothing"? Nebraska will worry about Grey probably because they have seen first hand what she is capable of. There are 4 very good teams in that bracket, the stats leading up to it, are really here nor there "to me" I respect that they have some meaning to others. I am stating my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Dec 6, 2015 20:12:08 GMT -5
Did I say they mean "nothing"? Well, you did say "it is difficult to understand what the stats mean". If that isn't exactly "nothing", it is pretty close. Note: I'm far from claiming that the stats will determine the outcomes. In fact, I haven't claimed anything. I do feel I have a better picture of the four teams involved. By all means, feel free to provide illumination where it might be needed.
|
|
|
Post by rampageripster on Dec 6, 2015 21:18:24 GMT -5
PLEASE judge the Buckeyes on these stats. That fits the narrative
|
|
|
Post by vup on Dec 6, 2015 23:03:38 GMT -5
Team Comparisons (Conference Statistics): Hitting %: Washington .286 BYU .277 Nebraska .259 Ohio St .236 Opp Hit %: Washington .165 Nebraska .167 BYU .176 Ohio St .210 Blocks/Set: BYU 3.02 Washington 2.98 Nebraska 2.94 Ohio St 2.55 Aces/Set: Washington 1.32 BYU 1.20 Nebraska 1.17 Ohio St 1.09 Digs/Set: Washington 15.45 Nebraska 15.42 BYU 15.18 Ohio St 14.49 Individual Comparisons: Hit %: Sybeldon UW .463 A. Rolfzen NEB .372 Boswell BYU .358 Sandbothe OSU .335 Wade UW .329 Gray BYU .321 Mitchell OSU .273 K. Rolfzen NEB .269 Kills/Set: Gray BYU 5.59 Campbell OSU 3.32 K. Rolfzen NEB 3.26 Appold OSU 3.15 Foecke NEB 3.07 Sybeldon UW 2.78 Sandbothe OSU 2.74 Scambray UW 2.71 Boswell BYU 2.56 Fien NEB 2.49 Schwan UW 2.45 Burnett BYU 2.09 Aces/Set: Albrecht NEB 0.35 Scambray UW 0.33 Strickland UW 0.32 Foecke NEB 0.29 Boswell BYU 0.29 Leon OSU 0.25 Parker BYU 0.23 Schirmer OSU 0.22 Blocks/Set: A. Rolfzen NEB 1.57 Sybeldon UW 1.46 Boswell BYU 1.42 Sandbothe OSU 1.3 Howard BYU 1.24 Wade UW 1.20 Hall NEB 1.19 Digs/Set: Wong-Orantes NEB 4.57 Strickland UW 4.46 Parker BYU 4.27 Leon OSU 3.81 they play in different leagues so it is difficult to understand what the stats mean relative to them playing each other. Is he not allowed to post stats without noting any asterisks? Stats don't tell the whole story, but it's still fun to compare. Looking at the stats, the main things I notice are: 1) Washington's Hit % 2) BYU's Blocks/set 3) Gray's Kills/Set 4) A. Rolfzen's Blocks/set 5) Sybeldon's Hit % 6) Nebraska & Washington each having 2 servers in the top 5 in Aces/set 7) Wong-Orantes' Digs/set All of these will factors will play huge roles in the outcome of these matches.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Dec 6, 2015 23:12:19 GMT -5
8) Sandbothe's importance to Ohio State - .335, 2.74 k/s, 1.27 bl/s.
|
|
|
Post by vup on Dec 6, 2015 23:37:10 GMT -5
8) Sandbothe's importance to Ohio State - .335, 2.74 k/s, 1.27 bl/s. yes. also, I was remiss to leave out: 9) Campbell and Appold in the top 5 in Kills/set
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Dec 7, 2015 0:07:52 GMT -5
PLEASE judge the Buckeyes on these stats. That fits the narrative What narrative? (I didn't include one.) Yes, the Buckeyes will be underdogs (according to the Coaches, Pablo, the Committee, and the stats), but that doesn't mean they aren't a genuine threat to win. Every team has its own story.
|
|
|
Post by SuperSpike on Dec 7, 2015 0:17:10 GMT -5
tOSU stats would maybe look different if they only included stats with their starting setter. (could be wrong)
|
|