|
Post by joetrinsey on Jan 25, 2019 9:42:30 GMT -5
In this post: www.scoutvb.com/blog-1/2019/1/25/2018-ncaa-championship-breakdownI break down the NCAA Championship and explain how Stanford won despite being out-hit by Nebraska. Hope you guys enjoy. I'd also love to hear what other matches you guys would be interested in seeing a breakdown of. Something from the NCAA season, or maybe a current pro match? I can usually wrangle up video on just about any match out there
|
|
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: 12,365
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jan 25, 2019 10:16:10 GMT -5
I think this is awesome! - Thanks for sharing.
I would love to see as a standard part of a box score that last part of this breakdown. Total points won in Rally and total points won with No-Rally. Probably something easy to calculate - hadn't thought about it before. My usual go-to is total points scored - but the further breakdown is helpful as opposed to just looking at hitting %.
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Jan 25, 2019 10:45:31 GMT -5
This is awesome!
One question. You said tool/block errors. Are you giving a kill for a tool AND giving a blocking error for a tool?
|
|
|
Post by volleyjeep on Jan 25, 2019 11:15:14 GMT -5
Awesome write up! Crazy what it all boils down to in the end.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 25, 2019 11:20:04 GMT -5
I think this is awesome! - Thanks for sharing. I would love to see as a standard part of a box score that last part of this breakdown. Total points won in Rally and total points won with No-Rally. Probably something easy to calculate - hadn't thought about it before. My usual go-to is total points scored - but the further breakdown is helpful as opposed to just looking at hitting %. I think you just need to pull out aces and service errors. Pretty simple to get from the standard box score.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2019 11:58:09 GMT -5
Howdy Joe. I'm a former player/coach. As an AC, one of my duties was to break-down vid of our opponents' - and our - past matches. I've resurrected the SU-NE match thread a number of times in recent weeks to analyze how the match could have ended up as it did: w/ the 'Huskers outplaying Stanford in almost every statistical category. Our 'diagnoses' almost perfectly match! I just had an eye operation the day after the semis, so it took awhile for me to even be able to study the match repeatedly. As an aside - as an SU fan-alum - ABOUT TIME Stanford got a break!
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Jan 25, 2019 12:41:01 GMT -5
In this post: www.scoutvb.com/blog-1/2019/1/25/2018-ncaa-championship-breakdownI break down the NCAA Championship and explain how Stanford won despite being out-hit by Nebraska. Hope you guys enjoy. I'd also love to hear what other matches you guys would be interested in seeing a breakdown of. Something from the NCAA season, or maybe a current pro match? I can usually wrangle up video on just about any match out there Well done, really, WELL DONE
|
|
|
Post by nothingbutcorn on Jan 25, 2019 13:12:02 GMT -5
Thanks for the great analysis Joe!
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 25, 2019 13:35:12 GMT -5
This was actually really easy to pull right out of the box score. I did it the night of the match. But I'm happy to see that a more detailed look at it didn't show I was wrong. Nebraska had more attacks, more kills, and hit for a higher percentage. So how did they lose? Nine Stanford aces. Nebraska had more kills, more attacks, and a higher hitting percentage. Yet they scored one fewer point in total and lost the match. IMO, this was due to Nebraska having 8 SEs and 2 aces, while Stanford also had 8 SEs but 9 aces. It was even true if you only looked at the deciding fifth set. Stanford scored 3 points directly on the serve in the fifth set (2 Nebraska SEs and a Stanford ace) while Nebraska didn't get any direct serving points in that set. That was literally the three point difference. Or you could look at just the first set. Yes, but the raw totals for the match make no difference. Nebraska getting aced five times in the first set had no bearing in them losing the fifth. That's what I meant. Of course it did. Stanford only won that first set by two points. If they hadn't gotten those aces, they would have lost that first set and there never would have been a fifth set. It's very unusual that a team gets more kills, more attacks, hits for a higher percentage, and loses. That means there has to be some other factor making a huge difference, and Saturday night that factor was points directly off the serving line. Shhhh still wasn't convinced. Is it also very unusual that they lose if that team also made 14 more errors than the other team? Fully half the difference in errors was reception errors. Look, Nebraska had 9 more kills than Stanford and only 3 more hitting errors. That wasn't the problem. The problem was their other errors, the majority of which were reception errors (ie. Stanford aces). It keeps coming back to the points from the service line. I don't understand why you are so resistant to this. Nor was Ruffda. I dislike focusing on service errors and aces. It CAN be significant, and maybe it was in this match, but it ignores the other serves and how effective (or not effective) they are/were. Whether you dislike it or not, it's true. If Stanford's non-ace serves were putting Nebraska into so much trouble, then why did Nebraska hit for a higher percentage than Stanford did? Nebraska's season hitting percentage was .265, but in this match they hit .271 -- they hit better than their season average in this match. Is that a sign that Stanford's non-ace serves were slowing them down? But their aces ... Nebraska averaged 1.6 aces per set (8 aces for five sets) but only had 2. Nebraska averaged giving up 0.9 aces per set, but Stanford had twice as many as that in this final match. In this case, it's just crystal clear from the box score that the decisive difference between two otherwise fairly equal teams was that Nebraska hit 6 points better than Stanford, but Stanford aced 7 points more than Nebraska.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2019 13:42:35 GMT -5
This was actually really easy to pull right out of the box score. I did it the night of the match. But I'm happy to see that a more detailed look at it didn't show I was wrong. Nebraska had more attacks, more kills, and hit for a higher percentage. So how did they lose? Nine Stanford aces. Nebraska had more kills, more attacks, and a higher hitting percentage. Yet they scored one fewer point in total and lost the match. IMO, this was due to Nebraska having 8 SEs and 2 aces, while Stanford also had 8 SEs but 9 aces. thanks for sharing!
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Jan 25, 2019 14:10:23 GMT -5
Howdy Joe. I'm a former player/coach. As an AC, one of my duties was to break-down vid of our opponents' - and our - past matches. I've resurrected the SU-NE match thread a number of times in recent weeks to analyze how the match could have ended up as it did: w/ the 'Huskers outplaying Stanford in almost every statistical category. Our 'diagnoses' almost perfectly match! I just had an eye operation the day after the semis, so it took awhile for me to even be able to study the match repeatedly. As an aside - as an SU fan-alum - ABOUT TIME Stanford got a break! I’m sorry, why is it about time Stanford got a break?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2019 14:16:53 GMT -5
Still not. Why would you focus on those three points and not three others? Point remains: Aces and service errors is an unreliable indicator of how well the service game is working. It CAN be and I said as much. I even admitted it could be the difference in this particular match. But it does not automatically follow. If you want to reframe my comments to score some sort of cheap point (rotation error level), feel free. I know what I said even if you don't.
|
|
|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on Jan 25, 2019 14:19:51 GMT -5
Stanford won because they scored three more points in the last game. Did I miss something from the analysis?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2019 14:32:16 GMT -5
Howdy Joe. I'm a former player/coach. As an AC, one of my duties was to break-down vid of our opponents' - and our - past matches. I've resurrected the SU-NE match thread a number of times in recent weeks to analyze how the match could have ended up as it did: w/ the 'Huskers outplaying Stanford in almost every statistical category. Our 'diagnoses' almost perfectly match! I just had an eye operation the day after the semis, so it took awhile for me to even be able to study the match repeatedly. As an aside - as an SU fan-alum - ABOUT TIME Stanford got a break! I’m sorry, why is it about time Stanford got a break???? Thanks for asking.
|
|
|
Post by Reach on Jan 25, 2019 14:38:38 GMT -5
This was actually really easy to pull right out of the box score. I did it the night of the match. But I'm happy to see that a more detailed look at it didn't show I was wrong. Nebraska had more attacks, more kills, and hit for a higher percentage. So how did they lose? Nine Stanford aces. Nebraska had more kills, more attacks, and a higher hitting percentage. Yet they scored one fewer point in total and lost the match. IMO, this was due to Nebraska having 8 SEs and 2 aces, while Stanford also had 8 SEs but 9 aces. It was even true if you only looked at the deciding fifth set. Stanford scored 3 points directly on the serve in the fifth set (2 Nebraska SEs and a Stanford ace) while Nebraska didn't get any direct serving points in that set. That was literally the three point difference. Or you could look at just the first set. Of course it did. Stanford only won that first set by two points. If they hadn't gotten those aces, they would have lost that first set and there never would have been a fifth set. It's very unusual that a team gets more kills, more attacks, hits for a higher percentage, and loses. That means there has to be some other factor making a huge difference, and Saturday night that factor was points directly off the serving line. Shhhh still wasn't convinced. Fully half the difference in errors was reception errors. Look, Nebraska had 9 more kills than Stanford and only 3 more hitting errors. That wasn't the problem. The problem was their other errors, the majority of which were reception errors (ie. Stanford aces). It keeps coming back to the points from the service line. I don't understand why you are so resistant to this. Nor was Ruffda. Whether you dislike it or not, it's true. If Stanford's non-ace serves were putting Nebraska into so much trouble, then why did Nebraska hit for a higher percentage than Stanford did? Nebraska's season hitting percentage was .265, but in this match they hit .271 -- they hit better than their season average in this match. Is that a sign that Stanford's non-ace serves were slowing them down? But their aces ... Nebraska averaged 1.6 aces per set (8 aces for five sets) but only had 2. Nebraska averaged giving up 0.9 aces per set, but Stanford had twice as many as that in this final match. In this case, it's just crystal clear from the box score that the decisive difference between two otherwise fairly equal teams was that Nebraska hit 6 points better than Stanford, but Stanford aced 7 points more than Nebraska. Bossy pants
|
|