|
Post by stanfordvb on Aug 22, 2019 21:57:36 GMT -5
HAHAHAAHA. gray was a better setter in that game. Fitz certainly did better than sweet. Hentz outplayed Maloney. Only 1 Mb from Nebraska outplayed Stanford middles who both outplayed Schwartzenbach. Stanford served better and scored more points in the end. You don't lose a match that you play better than the other team did. I noticed you left out that Foecke outplayed your national player of the year and the fact that Nebraska had better basic stats across the board, must’ve slipped your mind Who held the trophy after the fifth set was over I forgot
|
|
|
Post by Ballislife on Aug 22, 2019 21:57:43 GMT -5
HAHAHAAHA. gray was a better setter in that game. Fitz certainly did better than sweet. Hentz outplayed Maloney. Only 1 Mb from Nebraska outplayed Stanford middles who both outplayed Schwartzenbach. Stanford served better and scored more points in the end. You don't lose a match that you play better than the other team did. I noticed you left out that Foecke outplayed your national player of the year and the fact that Nebraska had better basic stats across the board, must’ve slipped your mind Sour-puss. I’d recommend the “Dare To Dream” documentary
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 22:24:37 GMT -5
I suppose it's not, strictly speaking, impossible to be "outplayed" in a match you won 3-1 and also won in essentially every statistical category -- but damn, it seems like a pretty hard sell. Not a hard sell at all: Set 1: Minnesota up 23-20 Set 2: Minnesota up 23-20 Set 4: Minnesota up 22-18 I have stated that had MN and Stanford had a rematch in the title match that Minnesota would have prevailed. It is hard to lose a match the way Minnesota did at Stanford last year. Minnesota should have been too good for that to happen the way it did. But, I am not sure I would say they outplayed Stanford. Part of outplaying a team is not getting blitzed by your opponent to close 3 sets.
|
|
|
Post by volleyparent on Aug 22, 2019 23:07:15 GMT -5
I noticed you left out that Foecke outplayed your national player of the year and the fact that Nebraska had better basic stats across the board, must’ve slipped your mind Foecke was great, but Nebraska absolutely did NOT have "better basic stats across the board". Usually when someone makes the claim that the losing team outplayed the winning team, they at least can point to total points, but Nebraska can't even make that claim. Yes, Nebraska had more kills with a higher hitting percentage. Stanford had more blocks with fewer errors and Stanford served/passed better (depending on which way you want to look at it). Seriously people. You are being ridiculous. Both teams were crazy amazing. 5 sets. So close. Wonderful to watch. This is hairsplitting. I’m going to bet everyone putting their 2 cents in has been nowhere close to being that good at anything. If only I could be that great at something in my life.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 22, 2019 23:25:42 GMT -5
I have stated that had MN and Stanford had a rematch in the title match that Minnesota would have prevailed. I'm sorry. If it's any consolation, I've stated incorrect things too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 0:59:37 GMT -5
I have stated that had MN and Stanford had a rematch in the title match that Minnesota would have prevailed. I'm sorry. If it's any consolation, I've stated incorrect things too. Good grief. It isn't that outlandish a claim. Minnesota just had a matchup problem with Oregon, for whatever reason. Plus, they would have been playing in Minneapolis. So, yeah, it is really stepping out on a limb that the best team in the B1G the whole year, playing a team it played pretty even up in its gym would have been in a strong position to win in the same city its campus is in. Don't know where i get these delusions.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 23, 2019 15:13:33 GMT -5
You don't lose a match that you play better than the other team did. This is not *always* true. But it's mostly true. I think it's nearly always true. The only exception is a terrible officiating decision that clearly and definitely cost a team a game (i.e. basically on the last play). Aside from that, usually a team that is "outplaying" another team is not really outplaying them because if they were, they would be winning. They might have better stats in some areas but not in others, which is why they lost. Though it comes from an individual sport, the 2019 Wimbledon final between Djokovic and Federer is a good example of this. If you just looked at the overall match statistics, you might think Federer outplayed Djokovic. But Djokovic won a disproportionate amount of the most important points (in the three tiebreakers, on the match points that he staved off, etc.). So he won, and I don't think he was outplayed when you factor in the importance of each point. You see this a lot in hockey also, where one team has a lot more shots on goal and dominates the time of possession. But if they can't put away their chances and/or the other team has a goalie standing on his head, are they really outplaying the other team? You can certainly argue that they are, but it's a team game that has many aspects that are important (and really, how well your goalie is playing is probably the single most important factor in a hockey game), so I find the argument not terribly convincing. I feel similarly about volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 23, 2019 16:11:17 GMT -5
This is not *always* true. But it's mostly true. I think it's nearly always true. The only exception is a terrible officiating decision that clearly and definitely cost a team a game (i.e. basically on the last play). Aside from that, usually a team that is "outplaying" another team is not really outplaying them because if they were, they would be winning. They might have better stats in some areas but not in others, which is why they lost. Though it comes from an individual sport, the 2019 Wimbledon final between Djokovic and Federer is a good example of this. If you just looked at the overall match statistics, you might think Federer outplayed Djokovic. But Djokovic won a disproportionate amount of the most important points (in the three tiebreakers, on the match points that he staved off, etc.). So he won, and I don't think he was outplayed when you factor in the importance of each point. You see this a lot in hockey also, where one team has a lot more shots on goal and dominates the time of possession. But if they can't put away their chances and/or the other team has a goalie standing on his head, are they really outplaying the other team? You can certainly argue that they are, but it's a team game that has many aspects that are important (and really, how well your goalie is playing is probably the single most important factor in a hockey game), so I find the argument not terribly convincing. I feel similarly about volleyball. The fundamental attraction of all sports is that there is always an element of uncertainty. Otherwise, watching sports would be like watching the hands on a clock. Often that uncertainty comes from the dissonance between elements of random chance and determinism that are built into sports. If it were all random, it would be less interesting. If it were all deterministic it would be MUCH less interesting. But the interest in sports relies on the satisfaction of rewarding skill and strategy while also perturbing it with the excitement of "on any given Sunday...." Volleyball's scoring system incorporates both of these elements. When a team can win a match 25-23, 10-25, 26-24, 14-25, 17-15, then it's clear that the game itself is set up so that the team that plays the best (on average, over the whole match) does not always win. It depends on how much better you play, how consistently better you play, and what the distribution is for the periods when you play better versus when the other team does.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 23, 2019 18:21:20 GMT -5
I think it's nearly always true. The only exception is a terrible officiating decision that clearly and definitely cost a team a game (i.e. basically on the last play). Aside from that, usually a team that is "outplaying" another team is not really outplaying them because if they were, they would be winning. They might have better stats in some areas but not in others, which is why they lost. Though it comes from an individual sport, the 2019 Wimbledon final between Djokovic and Federer is a good example of this. If you just looked at the overall match statistics, you might think Federer outplayed Djokovic. But Djokovic won a disproportionate amount of the most important points (in the three tiebreakers, on the match points that he staved off, etc.). So he won, and I don't think he was outplayed when you factor in the importance of each point. You see this a lot in hockey also, where one team has a lot more shots on goal and dominates the time of possession. But if they can't put away their chances and/or the other team has a goalie standing on his head, are they really outplaying the other team? You can certainly argue that they are, but it's a team game that has many aspects that are important (and really, how well your goalie is playing is probably the single most important factor in a hockey game), so I find the argument not terribly convincing. I feel similarly about volleyball. The fundamental attraction of all sports is that there is always an element of uncertainty. Otherwise, watching sports would be like watching the hands on a clock. Often that uncertainty comes from the dissonance between elements of random chance and determinism that are built into sports. If it were all random, it would be less interesting. If it were all deterministic it would be MUCH less interesting. But the interest in sports relies on the satisfaction of rewarding skill and strategy while also perturbing it with the excitement of "on any given Sunday...." Volleyball's scoring system incorporates both of these elements. When a team can win a match 25-23, 10-25, 26-24, 14-25, 17-15, then it's clear that the game itself is set up so that the team that plays the best (on average, over the whole match) does not always win. It depends on how much better you play, how consistently better you play, and what the distribution is for the periods when you play better versus when the other team does. I mean, I don't disagree with anything you're saying, exactly. But the goal of the match is to win three sets. Doesn't matter how you do that, as long as you win three sets before your opponent does. So "playing the best on average over the whole match" is not particularly relevant for the purposes of determining the team that played better in that match (it may be useful for other purposes like future predictions). Volleyball is interesting in that it's sort of like a five-game series that you would see in other sports like baseball compressed into a single match. Tennis is also like that. In the example you cited, I don't think the team that lost "played better," even if they won more overall points. Because the goal of the match is to win the most sets, not to win the most points. Obviously, winning the most points is correlated pretty strongly with winning the most sets. But it doesn't always hold true, and part of the fun of sports is figuring out how a team that got "outplayed" by conventional metrics managed to win the match anyway. Similar to Djokovic and Federer, the winning team still played the best because they did what they needed to do to win the match under the rules that both competitors knew would govern the match.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 23, 2019 18:45:01 GMT -5
What we have here, is a failure to communicate ... our definitions of what "outplayed" means.
If the definition of "outplayed" is to win the match, then I think it's pretty trivial to argue that the winner of the match always outplays the opponent.
However, I don't generally believe in the "clutch performer"/"who wants it more" theory that it is a major virtue to win the close sets. If anything, someone who can "turn it on" and win the close sets implies that is also someone who is playing at less than full throttle the rest of the time.
Now maybe it's tactics. I've definitely seen cases where teams "shut it down" in certain sets when they are guaranteed to lose that set, then come roaring back in the next set. That makes sense, if you can pull it off. Everyone has only so much in the tank, so why waste it on a blowout set?
But in general, I don't think winning close sets is a skill or a strategy or "outplaying" so much as it is good fortune.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 23, 2019 18:56:58 GMT -5
What we have here, is a failure to communicate ... our definitions of what "outplayed" means. If the definition of "outplayed" is to win the match, then I think it's pretty trivial to argue that the winner of the match always outplays the opponent. However, I don't generally believe in the "clutch performer"/"who wants it more" theory that it is a major virtue to win the close sets. If anything, someone who can "turn it on" and win the close sets implies that is also someone who is playing at less than full throttle the rest of the time. Now maybe it's tactics. I've definitely seen cases where teams "shut it down" in certain sets when they are guaranteed to lose that set, then come roaring back in the next set. That makes sense, if you can pull it off. Everyone has only so much in the tank, so why waste it on a blowout set? But in general, I don't think winning close sets is a skill or a strategy or "outplaying" so much as it is good fortune. Sure. Again, I don't really disagree with any one thing you're saying. I just think that complaining that a team outplayed another team and still lost is kind of pointless. Did the prevailing team win because of luck? I mean, maybe. But luck is a part of any game, and you have to capitalize on your chances. Also, some teams or players (like Djokovic) seem to have an uncanny ability to "get lucky" more than others to the point that it stops looking like pure luck. Anyway, agree to disagree on exactly what being outplayed means. I appreciate you explaining your position in a thoughtful and cogent way.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 23, 2019 19:02:24 GMT -5
I just think that complaining that a team outplayed another team and still lost is kind of pointless. 100% agreement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 23:11:39 GMT -5
I think it's nearly always true. The only exception is a terrible officiating decision that clearly and definitely cost a team a game (i.e. basically on the last play). Aside from that, usually a team that is "outplaying" another team is not really outplaying them because if they were, they would be winning. They might have better stats in some areas but not in others, which is why they lost. Though it comes from an individual sport, the 2019 Wimbledon final between Djokovic and Federer is a good example of this. If you just looked at the overall match statistics, you might think Federer outplayed Djokovic. But Djokovic won a disproportionate amount of the most important points (in the three tiebreakers, on the match points that he staved off, etc.). So he won, and I don't think he was outplayed when you factor in the importance of each point. You see this a lot in hockey also, where one team has a lot more shots on goal and dominates the time of possession. But if they can't put away their chances and/or the other team has a goalie standing on his head, are they really outplaying the other team? You can certainly argue that they are, but it's a team game that has many aspects that are important (and really, how well your goalie is playing is probably the single most important factor in a hockey game), so I find the argument not terribly convincing. I feel similarly about volleyball. The fundamental attraction of all sports is that there is always an element of uncertainty. Otherwise, watching sports would be like watching the hands on a clock. Simone Biles could fall on every event and still win the AA.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Aug 23, 2019 23:14:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Aug 23, 2019 23:18:10 GMT -5
What we have here, is a failure to communicate ... our definitions of what "outplayed" means. If the definition of "outplayed" is to win the match, then I think it's pretty trivial to argue that the winner of the match always outplays the opponent. However, I don't generally believe in the "clutch performer"/"who wants it more" theory that it is a major virtue to win the close sets. If anything, someone who can "turn it on" and win the close sets implies that is also someone who is playing at less than full throttle the rest of the time. Now maybe it's tactics. I've definitely seen cases where teams "shut it down" in certain sets when they are guaranteed to lose that set, then come roaring back in the next set. That makes sense, if you can pull it off. Everyone has only so much in the tank, so why waste it on a blowout set? But in general, I don't think winning close sets is a skill or a strategy or "outplaying" so much as it is good fortune. I agree with this because I’m a big believer of random luck — and even dumb luck.
|
|