Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 11:14:04 GMT -5
The question, though, is how did it possibly get to that point where Stanford was even in position to get the win? They were massively outhit up until that point. This. Is. Not. True. Just because you keep using the word "massively" does not make it true. After the second set, Nebraska was hitting .315 and Stanford was hitting .307. That's massive? After the third set, Nebraska was hitting .230 and Stanford was hitting .282. They weren't being outhit at all at that point. After the fourth set, Nebraska came up to .269 and Stanford fell to .247. That's also not "massive." I'll quote myself to reiterate the point: "She only hit .200 for the match (20-10-50). Not great." "Actually, she hit -.500 in the first (0-5-10), then went 20-5-40 in the last two sets, hitting .375, and was perfect after point 20 in those sets. And they swept." "Nope, she's trash. .200 isn't good." For someone that analyzes complex data as much as you claim, you're having a lot of trouble with this elementary concept: in volleyball, and other sports divided into sets where the score is reset, it doesn't matter HOW MUCH things happened -- it matters WHEN they happened. Please try to understand that. I'll try to illustrate that below. Both teams were pretty damn even efficiency-wise after the first two sets, but Nebraska blew Stanford out more in the fourth than Stanford did to Nebraska in the third (the sets that each team took the other to the woodshed). That's what has caused the huge difference in in-system efficiency for Nebraska and the 20-point difference overall in the match. A match where you could argue that Stanford's aces made a difference in the MATCH: Stanford - 3, 4, 5 Nebraska - 1, 2
| K | E | TA | % | SA | SE | | K | E | TA | % | SA | SE |
|
| Set 1: | 10 | 8 | 34 | .059 | 1 | 3 |
| 19 | 3 | 44 | .363 | 0 | 1 |
|
| Set 2: | 9 | 7 | 33 | .060 | 0 | 3 |
| 18 | 2 | 45 | .355 | 2 | 1 |
|
| Set 3: | 17 | 2 | 44 | .341 | 4 | 1 |
| 15 | 8 | 39 | .179 | 0 | 3 |
|
| Set 4: | 18 | 3 | 40 | .375 | 2 | 1 |
| 14 | 8 | 38 | .157 | 0 | 1 |
|
| Set 5: | 10 | 1 | 21 | .429 | 3 | 0 |
| 7 | 3 | 15 | .267 | 0 | 2 |
|
|
| 64 | 21 | 172 | .250 | 9 | 8 |
| 73 | 24 | 181 | .271 | 2 | 8 |
|
|
This is a match where you can't: Stanford - 1, 3, 5 Nebraska - 2, 4
| K | E | TA | % | SA | SE | | K | E | TA | % | SA | SE |
|
| Set 1: | 16 | 5 | 41 | .268 | 5 | 2 |
| 18 | 5 | 43 | .302 | 1 | 2 |
|
| Set 2: | 15 | 3 | 34 | .353 | 0 | 3 |
| 19 | 4 | 46 | .326 | 0 | 3 |
|
| Set 3: | 15 | 5 | 42 | .238 | 1 | 2 |
| 9 | 8 | 37 | .027 | 0 | 1 |
|
| Set 4: | 9 | 5 | 33 | .121 | 2 | 1 |
| 18 | 4 | 34 | .412 | 1 | 2 |
|
| Set 5: | 9 | 3 | 22 | .273 | 1 | 0 |
| 9 | 3 | 21 | .286 | 0 | 2 |
|
|
| 64 | 21 | 172 | .250 | 9 | 8 |
| 73 | 24 | 181 | .271 | 2 | 8 |
|
|
Do you get it yet? This almost feels like a weird Pac-12 v. B1G thing, where you're trying to make it seem like Stanford had no shot in the match and pulled off a miraculous win. Is that what you're doing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 11:18:03 GMT -5
The problem -- and it's always going to be a problem with volleyball stats -- is that the rally is played to its conclusion. A great block, serve, dig, attack -- or whatever -- can win a point, but it can take 2, 3, 4 rallies for the point to end. You can only get so much from stats. You know what you can get from stats, something clear and black and white, something that doesn’t take 2, 3, or 4 rallies for the point to be over? Service aces and service errors. Unfortunately, that isn't what is being argued. If a serve is the reason the point was lost, but it took a couple of rallies for the point to conclude, why is that not just as significant as your ace (or error)? THAT is my point and always has been: you cannot claim that service aces and errors definitively won this match. It's much more complicated than that. VOLLEYBALL is much more complicated than that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 11:20:51 GMT -5
You go ahead and keep looking for meaning in the random noise if you want, but some of us are trying to see what kind of real signal we can pull out of it. Is this what you think you're doing? That's just laughable. You're confirming your own bias because you manipulated the math (15-2-1=12). You're claiming that Stanford's aces were the difference, desperately looking for a real signal, ignoring every example and fact I sent your way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 11:24:46 GMT -5
The problem -- and it's always going to be a problem with volleyball stats -- is that the rally is played to its conclusion. A great block, serve, dig, attack -- or whatever -- can win a point, but it can take 2, 3, 4 rallies for the point to end. You can only get so much from stats. You know what you can get from stats, something clear and black and white, something that doesn’t take 2, 3, or 4 rallies for the point to be over? Service aces and service errors. This is perfect, and thank you for finding the flaw in your own argument: you latched onto SAs and SEs because that data is less complicated and it's easier to pick out. "Well, I can't see all the other stuff that went on in the rally from a boxscore, but 9 > 2 makes sense to me, so that's the definitive difference!"
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jan 27, 2019 11:25:40 GMT -5
You go ahead and keep looking for meaning in the random noise if you want, but some of us are trying to see what kind of real signal we can pull out of it. Is this what you think you're doing? That's just laughable. You're confirming your own bias because you manipulated the math (15-2-1=12). You're claiming that Stanford's aces were the difference, desperately looking for a real signal, ignoring every example and fact I sent your way. It's interesting that the posters who endorsed the analysis also each stated that the analysis confirmed what they believed or concluded already. What better example of confirmation bias can one ask for?
|
|
|
Post by Scipio Aemilianus on Jan 27, 2019 11:35:15 GMT -5
You know what you can get from stats, something clear and black and white, something that doesn’t take 2, 3, or 4 rallies for the point to be over? Service aces and service errors. Unfortunately, that isn't what is being argued. If a serve is the reason the point was lost, but it took a couple of rallies for the point to conclude, why is that not just as significant as your ace (or error)? THAT is my point and always has been: you cannot claim that service aces and errors definitively won this match. It's much more complicated than that. VOLLEYBALL is much more complicated than that. If it took 3 or 4 rallies back and forth across the net for the rally to end, is a weak serve really to blame for losing the point? I could underhand serve it over and the other team passes it perfectly, but if I get a block touch or a good dig, my team has the advantage and the serve is already irrelevant. These rallies where a serve is really good/bad and one team spends the entire rally sending 4 or 5 freeballs back over the net are incredibly rare. At a certain point in a rally, the serve becomes irrelevant. I get what you are trying to argue but if you go along with what you’re saying, there isn’t a single meaningful stat in the entire game that is useful. Not a single stat is worthy of keeping track of because “volleyball is much more complicated than that”.
|
|
|
Post by Scipio Aemilianus on Jan 27, 2019 11:40:38 GMT -5
You know what you can get from stats, something clear and black and white, something that doesn’t take 2, 3, or 4 rallies for the point to be over? Service aces and service errors. This is perfect, and thank you for finding the flaw in your own argument: you latched onto SAs and SEs because that data is less complicated and it's easier to pick out. "Well, I can't see all the other stuff that went on in the rally from a boxscore, but 9 > 2 makes sense to me, so that's the definitive difference!" No, I can see the other stuff and the other stuff tells me the wrong team won the match. Most of the stats say Nebraska should have won set 1. But they didn’t for some reason. You are taking the easy way out and saying everything is so complicated that there isn’t any reason why a team won because it’s all just so complicated. It’s not as simple as what data says because it’s all just so complicated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 11:56:08 GMT -5
This is perfect, and thank you for finding the flaw in your own argument: you latched onto SAs and SEs because that data is less complicated and it's easier to pick out. "Well, I can't see all the other stuff that went on in the rally from a boxscore, but 9 > 2 makes sense to me, so that's the definitive difference!" You are taking the easy way out and saying everything is so complicated that there isn’t any reason why a team won because it’s all just so complicated. It’s not as simple as what data says because it’s all just so complicated. And you're saying that it's all so simple because it's there in black and white, "clear." 9 > 2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 11:58:24 GMT -5
This is perfect, and thank you for finding the flaw in your own argument: you latched onto SAs and SEs because that data is less complicated and it's easier to pick out. "Well, I can't see all the other stuff that went on in the rally from a boxscore, but 9 > 2 makes sense to me, so that's the definitive difference!" No, I can see the other stuff and the other stuff tells me the wrong team won the match. Because you're looking at the boxscore, and not analyzing the factors that led to each team winning their respective sets. Stanford was up 2-1 and was hitting more efficiently than Nebraska after the third with more aces and less errors. Was the wrong team winning the match at that point too? You keep ignoring that the fourth set was an outlier and skewed most of the total match numbers slightly toward Nebraska.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 12:03:32 GMT -5
Unfortunately, that isn't what is being argued. If a serve is the reason the point was lost, but it took a couple of rallies for the point to conclude, why is that not just as significant as your ace (or error)? THAT is my point and always has been: you cannot claim that service aces and errors definitively won this match. It's much more complicated than that. VOLLEYBALL is much more complicated than that. I get what you are trying to argue but if you go along with what you’re saying, there isn’t a single meaningful stat in the entire game that is useful. Not a single stat is worthy of keeping track of because “volleyball is much more complicated than that”. No, the point is that making broad generalizations and conclusions about match totals is a flawed practice because volleyball is played in sets to 25. Stats are useful, but not when you're using them to confirm your own biases or when you're looking at them without context, in a vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by Scipio Aemilianus on Jan 27, 2019 12:26:58 GMT -5
I get what you are trying to argue but if you go along with what you’re saying, there isn’t a single meaningful stat in the entire game that is useful. Not a single stat is worthy of keeping track of because “volleyball is much more complicated than that”. No, the point is that making broad generalizations and conclusions about match totals is a flawed practice because volleyball is played in sets to 25. Stats are useful, but not when you're using them to confirm your own biases or when you're looking at them without context, in a vacuum. Sets 3 and 4 are obviously both outliers and blowouts in which the sets were won by 9+ points. In Set 1, Nebraska hit a higher hitting percentage and held Stanford to a lower hitting percentage. In Set 1, Stanford won. In Set 2, Stanford hit a higher hitting percentage and held Nebraska to a lower hitting percentage. In Set 2, Nebraska won. In Set 5, Nebraska hit a higher hitting percentage and held Stanford to a lower hitting percentage. In Set 5, Stanford won. Why?? What is your explanation for why that happened? Or do you not have an explanation because any conclusion is just a flawed and broad generalization? Please quote my entire post and not just one sentence like usual.
|
|
|
Post by Scipio Aemilianus on Jan 27, 2019 12:31:00 GMT -5
No, I can see the other stuff and the other stuff tells me the wrong team won the match. Because you're looking at the boxscore, and not analyzing the factors that led to each team winning their respective sets. Stanford was up 2-1 and was hitting more efficiently than Nebraska after the third with more aces and less errors. Was the wrong team winning the match at that point too? You keep ignoring that the fourth set was an outlier and skewed most of the total match numbers slightly toward Nebraska. So the fourth set was an outlier and skewed most of the total match numbers toward Nebraska but Set 3 was NOT an outlier that skewed numbers?? LOL Nebraska hit .027 in set 3 and you're wondering why Stanford was hitting more efficiently "after the third" set?
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Jan 27, 2019 12:43:25 GMT -5
Assuming you aren’t doing an analysis on the Stanford/BYU match? Please don’t. My feelings are still pretty raw 😭😭😭
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Jan 27, 2019 12:51:00 GMT -5
These arguments seem to miss the forest for the trees.
Overall this was a pretty close match and the stats are very close.
Stanford clearly served better and that was critical, particularly in that first set.
Nebraska hit a bit better (not a lot) but shhhhh is quite right that some of that advantage was concentrated in set 4.
That overall answer is that this was a close match with small differences.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 12:51:24 GMT -5
Because you're looking at the boxscore, and not analyzing the factors that led to each team winning their respective sets. Stanford was up 2-1 and was hitting more efficiently than Nebraska after the third with more aces and less errors. Was the wrong team winning the match at that point too? You keep ignoring that the fourth set was an outlier and skewed most of the total match numbers slightly toward Nebraska. So the fourth set was an outlier and skewed most of the total match numbers toward Nebraska but Set 3 was NOT an outlier that skewed numbers?? LOL Nebraska hit .027 in set 3 and you're wondering why Stanford was hitting more efficiently "after the third" set? Stanford hit .238 in the third— in their “blowout.” Nebraska was 300 points better in theirs at .400+. C’mon. Using “lol” doesn’t make your argument better or more factual. It’s still flawed and wrong.
|
|