|
|
Post by gopherhim on Sept 3, 2024 9:23:31 GMT -5
Is this bad? I know nothing really about passing numbers. someone teach me! These are average passing ratings/grades/scores/pick a word with the numbers in parentheses being number of attempts. Some people grade passes on a 4 point scale but these are on a 3 point scale. 0-you got aced 3-pass is to the setting target and all offensive options can be ran 1&2 of course between those extremes. 1 is basically when your setter only has the option to send a high ball to the outside. There’s a level of subjectivity to passing numbers but they give a sense of how well a team stayed in system during serve receive. |
|
|
|
Post by patpratt on Sept 3, 2024 9:31:54 GMT -5
Is this bad? I know nothing really about passing numbers. someone teach me! These are average passing ratings/grades/scores/pick a word with the numbers in parentheses being number of attempts. Some people grade passes on a 4 point scale but these are on a 3 point scale. 0-you got aced 3-pass is to the setting target and all offensive options can be ran 1&2 of course between those extremes. 1 is basically when your setter only has the option to send a high ball to the outside. There’s a level of subjectivity to passing numbers but they give a sense of how well a team stayed in system during serve receive. Wow! Okay, yeah a bit of subjectivity there but very interesting regardless. Really appreciate you laying that out for me. So I assume errors factor into passing numbers as well. I assume an error gives you a 0...If so, Do we know how Zaynep's passing numbers changed from the Stanford game to Texas? |
|
|
|
Post by skolgophers on Sept 3, 2024 9:33:07 GMT -5
These are average passing ratings/grades/scores/pick a word with the numbers in parentheses being number of attempts. Some people grade passes on a 4 point scale but these are on a 3 point scale. 0-you got aced 3-pass is to the setting target and all offensive options can be ran 1&2 of course between those extremes. 1 is basically when your setter only has the option to send a high ball to the outside. There’s a level of subjectivity to passing numbers but they give a sense of how well a team stayed in system during serve receive. Wow! Okay, yeah a bit of subjectivity there but very interesting regardless. Really appreciate you laying that out for me. So I assume errors factor into passing numbers as well. I assume an error gives you a 0...If so, Do we know how Zaynep's passing numbers changed from the Stanford game to Texas? Passing stats weren’t listed for either Stanford match. Not sure why. But I don’t think it’s very good considering the 8 errors lol |
|
|
|
Post by toomuchvb on Sept 3, 2024 9:43:06 GMT -5
Didn’t watch the match, just followed stats. After set four, couldn’t imagine Texas taking their foot off the gas or Minny coming in for the kill. It’s definitely early in the season judging from stats alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by patpratt on Sept 3, 2024 9:48:23 GMT -5
Wow! Okay, yeah a bit of subjectivity there but very interesting regardless. Really appreciate you laying that out for me. So I assume errors factor into passing numbers as well. I assume an error gives you a 0...If so, Do we know how Zaynep's passing numbers changed from the Stanford game to Texas? Passing stats weren’t listed for either Stanford match. Not sure why. But I don’t think it’s very good considering the 8 errors lol lol fair enough. Thanks again for the little lesson! |
|
|
|
Post by dietcokefan on Sept 3, 2024 9:54:20 GMT -5
Excited to watch this team in person this weekend! Biggest challenge will be how does this team respond after such a big win. Go Gophs!
|
|
|
|
Post by gopherhim on Sept 3, 2024 9:54:23 GMT -5
These are average passing ratings/grades/scores/pick a word with the numbers in parentheses being number of attempts. Some people grade passes on a 4 point scale but these are on a 3 point scale. 0-you got aced 3-pass is to the setting target and all offensive options can be ran 1&2 of course between those extremes. 1 is basically when your setter only has the option to send a high ball to the outside. There’s a level of subjectivity to passing numbers but they give a sense of how well a team stayed in system during serve receive. Wow! Okay, yeah a bit of subjectivity there but very interesting regardless. Really appreciate you laying that out for me. So I assume errors factor into passing numbers as well. I assume an error gives you a 0...If so, Do we know how Zaynep's passing numbers changed from the Stanford game to Texas? Yes the 0 is when you are aced. If the ball hits the floor without being touched the 0 is given to whoever it is closest to. Shanking the pass and not being able to return the ball to the other side is also an ace/reception error/0. I think Zeynep was aced two or three times so she had that many 0s in her average. Her passing was better against Texas. A player like Lexi Rodriguez who is known for her passing regularly passes 2.5+ on a 3 point scale. For more perspective I remember in 2022 Wenaas and Landfair passed around 2.07 for the entire season and CC McGraw was I think 2.3ish. I don’t remember last year’s passing numbers nor do I care to. 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by volleyfiend on Sept 3, 2024 9:55:10 GMT -5
If this is the best news you had all week, I feel sorry for you!! Hell, this is the most joyous news I’ve heard in months. Is that better? No, it just shows what a vile person you really are! But that’s ok, Nebraska will lose this year, put your big boy boots on, you will need them! |
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Sept 3, 2024 11:03:28 GMT -5
This win, and even the 5-set loss to Stanford, seems so huge as a MN fan because it has broad "program status" vibes. I know it's just two matches, but it feels that MN is "back" to a large degree. Maybe that's premature (obviously it's early), but the excitement is real - at the very least there's real potential for MN to be "back." That's something no one was feeling last year.
The MN program has obviously benefitted from rather seamlessly moving from Hebert to Hugh. But, as we all know, coaching changes aren't always that "simple" and there's always the chance of a downturn when change comes. Plus there's the whole sea change in college athletics with the portal NIL, realignment, etc. that every program has to navigate. I think MN could always hang on as a 20-35 program that makes the tournament more often than not, has a surprise deeper-than-expected run every once in a while, and has intermittent upsets of higher-ranked teams. But that's generally not the status that the program has lived for quite some time. At the very least MN has been a Top 16 team who regularly hosts and sometimes does even better. Generally a Top 10 program.
So this weekend was really exciting for making me believe that MN will be back to that status sooner rather than later, and might be able to avoid years of what I talked about earlier - a good program (20-35 is definitely good) but not at the level of previous eras.
|
|
|
|
Post by eyeroll2021 on Sept 3, 2024 13:38:40 GMT -5
Congrats to the Gophers, your team looked good (4th set aside).
I might be so bold as to say, Landfair departing might have been a blessing in disguise - this 2024 team has more fire and less passing liabilities without her. Plus it's allowed Julia Hanson to blossom.
Schaff and Wuercher healthy, two really good middles, new littles. Looking forward to watching this team for the rest of the season
|
|
|
|
Post by eotexas5 on Sept 3, 2024 13:46:02 GMT -5
Halter was suspect at best. Texas has a setting problem. One can’t block anyone, one has been diminished and has no confidence in setting the ball. suspect? Don't do that |
|
|
|
Post by jeepers on Sept 3, 2024 13:48:50 GMT -5
The MN program has obviously benefitted from rather seamlessly moving from Hebert to Hugh. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who remembers the program feeling like it was really sliding under Hugh, including missing the tournament in year 3...Samantha Seliger Swenson flipped the script for him in year 4. |
|
|
|
Post by hornshouse23 on Sept 3, 2024 13:58:26 GMT -5
Halter was suspect at best. Texas has a setting problem. One can’t block anyone, one has been diminished and has no confidence in setting the ball. suspect? Don't do that People just type to type these days. |
|
|
|
Post by GoGophs on Sept 3, 2024 14:30:29 GMT -5
Halter was suspect at best. Texas has a setting problem. One can’t block anyone, one has been diminished and has no confidence in setting the ball. suspect? Don't do that Ya that's crazy... Halter got to some balls I didn't think were possible and she was consistently in good positions, her serving was a difference maker too. I'm officially a Halter fan |
|
|
|
Post by princessavb on Sept 3, 2024 14:38:18 GMT -5
The only issue was her second contact and her passing degraded, but apart from that she was pretty good, but from the stas it looked like Zeynep was the best libero of the match but Halter was still doing great
|
|
