|
|
Post by wisfan2000 on Nov 10, 2024 10:17:21 GMT -5
Falduto being that high seems suspect to me. Going only from memory (so consider the source), she was the main target during Schumacher's 12 point service run. I guess she could have passed well, but UW won the points anyway?pretty much. They might be a tiny bit generous, but they all put Izzy in relatively good positions. Wisconsin just camped Mruzik (As they should in that rotation). Beginner/novice question here. When a passer gets aced, do they get a zero (0)? If so, I was wondering if aces may sometimes skew a more nuanced/accurate picture of passing effectiveness in any given match. E.g.: During the first half or so of this match, based on eye test only, I thought UW's passing generally looked good, except when they were getting aced of course. By contrast, I thought Wisconsin was getting PSU out of system a lot, but there were no aces by Wisconsin until later in the match. So, IF a player gets a zero for being aced, that seems like it could really deflate the player's passing average if, say, the passer got aced once or twice, but otherwise passed dimes. I realize that over the course of a season, getting aced a lot probably coordinates with passing poorly in general, but at least in an individual match it seems like the numbers might not always paint a full picture? I may be thinking about this all wrong. Like I said, beginnner/novice question. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyball90 on Nov 10, 2024 10:17:52 GMT -5
I'll be interested to see the passing stats, because I don't think we passed a lot better during this match. Remember, all of our passers managed a 2.1-2.2 against the huskers. We just weren't making connections even when the pass was perfect, and especially not in transition. Charlie and the hitters fixed that today. Wisconsin passed 2.09 (they passed 2.13 against Nebraska) Lola: 1.95 (31) Sarah: 2.00 (12) Orzol: 3.00 (6) Penn St: 2.25 Mruzik: 2.29 (26) Starck: 2.04 (11) Falduto: 2.82 (11) Grimes 1.90 (10) Hannah: 2.00 (5) As I suspected, it was not a good passing day. But our defense was out of this world and Charlie was fantastic. |
|
|
|
Post by avid 2.0 on Nov 10, 2024 10:20:02 GMT -5
pretty much. They might be a tiny bit generous, but they all put Izzy in relatively good positions. Wisconsin just camped Mruzik (As they should in that rotation). Beginner/novice question here. When a passer gets aced, do they get a zero (0)? If so, I was wondering if aces may sometimes skew a more nuanced/accurate picture of passing effectiveness in any given match. E.g.: During the first half or so of this match, based on eye test only, I thought UW's passing generally looked good, except when they were getting aced of course. By contrast, I thought Wisconsin was getting PSU out of system a lot, but there were no aces by Wisconsin until later in the match. So, IF a player gets a zero for being aced, that seems like it could really deflate the player's passing average if, say, the passer got aced once or twice, but otherwise passed dimes. I realize that over the course of a season, getting aced a lot probably coordinates with passing poorly in general, but at least in an individual match it seems like the numbers might not always paint a full picture? I may be thinking about this all wrong. Like I said, beginnner/novice question. Yes, they get a zero. I can't sort by sets (or at least not without effort LOL) Their % of good passes was 57.1% (Penn State was 59.4%), that might have better context. Against Nebraska they were 52.9% good pass. |
|
|
|
Post by wisfan2000 on Nov 10, 2024 10:20:28 GMT -5
pretty much. They might be a tiny bit generous, but they all put Izzy in relatively good positions. Wisconsin just camped Mruzik (As they should in that rotation). Beginner/novice question here. When a passer gets aced, do they get a zero (0)? If so, I was wondering if aces may sometimes skew a more nuanced/accurate picture of passing effectiveness in any given match. E.g.: During the first half or so of this match, based on eye test only, I thought UW's passing generally looked good, except when they were getting aced of course. By contrast, I thought Wisconsin was getting PSU out of system a lot, but there were no aces by Wisconsin until later in the match. So, IF a player gets a zero for being aced, that seems like it could really deflate the player's passing average if, say, the passer got aced once or twice, but otherwise passed dimes. I realize that over the course of a season, getting aced a lot probably coordinates with passing poorly in general, but at least in an individual match it seems like the numbers might not always paint a full picture? I may be thinking about this all wrong. Like I said, beginnner/novice question. To maybe put a finer point on it by example, Lola's passing number for this match looks bad, but is it possible she was mostly passing dimes, and got dinged mostly because of the ace (or two aces?) against her? If so, that seems like performance I might want to take over a higher number where a player was passing mostly 2s and hardly ever a 3 but never got aced. Again, I could be thinking about this all wrong. Math. |
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Nov 10, 2024 10:20:47 GMT -5
Falduto being that high seems suspect to me. Going only from memory (so consider the source), she was the main target during Schumacher's 12 point service run. I guess she could have passed well, but UW won the points anyway?pretty much. They might be a tiny bit generous, but they all put Izzy in relatively good positions. Wisconsin just camped Mruzik (As they should in that rotation). I just looked. With a bit of poaching, it was 4 to Mruzik, 6 to Falduto (including when PSU finally got the sideout) and 3 to Grimes. I have no 'foundation' from which to judge or score the quality of the passes; I leave that to you guys. Some of the later ones were to Falduto, when the 'magnitude' of the scoring run was becoming apparent. And her back right position on the court was right in front of my seat, so her's stuck in my head more. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyball90 on Nov 10, 2024 10:23:08 GMT -5
Beginner/novice question here. When a passer gets aced, do they get a zero (0)? If so, I was wondering if aces may sometimes skew a more nuanced/accurate picture of passing effectiveness in any given match. E.g.: During the first half or so of this match, based on eye test only, I thought UW's passing generally looked good, except when they were getting aced of course. By contrast, I thought Wisconsin was getting PSU out of system a lot, but there were no aces by Wisconsin until later in the match. So, IF a player gets a zero for being aced, that seems like it could really deflate the player's passing average if, say, the passer got aced once or twice, but otherwise passed dimes. I realize that over the course of a season, getting aced a lot probably coordinates with passing poorly in general, but at least in an individual match it seems like the numbers might not always paint a full picture? I may be thinking about this all wrong. Like I said, beginnner/novice question. To maybe put a finer point on it by example, Lola's passing number for this match looks bad, but is it possible she was mostly passing dimes, and got dinged mostly because of the ace (or two aces?) against her? If so, that seems like performance I might want to take over a higher number where a player was passing mostly 2s and hardly ever a 3 but never got aced. Again, I could be thinking about this all wrong. Math. Eye test wise (I didn’t chart this one), Lola was not passing well. But neither was Frank. Our out of system hitting was just very good. |
|
|
|
Post by wisfan2000 on Nov 10, 2024 10:27:20 GMT -5
To maybe put a finer point on it by example, Lola's passing number for this match looks bad, but is it possible she was mostly passing dimes, and got dinged mostly because of the ace (or two aces?) against her? If so, that seems like performance I might want to take over a higher number where a player was passing mostly 2s and hardly ever a 3 but never got aced. Again, I could be thinking about this all wrong. Math. Eye test wise (I didn’t chart this one), Lola was not passing well. But neither was Frank. Our out of system hitting was just very good. Okay, fair, I didn't mean to get focused too much on one example (or defending or not defending any particular player's number). I'm really more interested in how to think about passing numbers generally. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyball90 on Nov 10, 2024 11:50:25 GMT -5
Eye test wise (I didn’t chart this one), Lola was not passing well. But neither was Frank. Our out of system hitting was just very good. Okay, fair, I didn't mean to get focused too much on one example (or defending or not defending any particular player's number). I'm really more interested in how to think about passing numbers generally. It is a fair point to bring up the pitfalls of the 3 point scale. 0’s can really bring down your rating on an otherwise good day. But, some would argue that 0s should bring down your rating even more. Because a 0 pass is so much worse than a 1 pass as a 0 gives you no chance to score. |
|
|
|
Post by swaggyp on Nov 10, 2024 12:18:14 GMT -5
Okay, fair, I didn't mean to get focused too much on one example (or defending or not defending any particular player's number). I'm really more interested in how to think about passing numbers generally. It is a fair point to bring up the pitfalls of the 3 point scale. 0’s can really bring down your rating on an otherwise good day. But, some would argue that 0s should bring down your rating even more. Because a 0 pass is so much worse than a 1 pass as a 0 gives you no chance to score. Chad Gordon, who is here sometimes, has a great explainer on this. He doesn't quite say it like this, but the gist is 0 probably isn't low enough. www.volleydork.com/post/if-shes-a-good-passer-why-doesnt-she-pass-good |
|
|
|
Post by Burly Ives on Nov 10, 2024 14:17:07 GMT -5
Full game reply
|
|
|
|
Post by wisfan2000 on Nov 10, 2024 16:00:40 GMT -5
It is a fair point to bring up the pitfalls of the 3 point scale. 0’s can really bring down your rating on an otherwise good day. But, some would argue that 0s should bring down your rating even more. Because a 0 pass is so much worse than a 1 pass as a 0 gives you no chance to score. Chad Gordon, who is here sometimes, has a great explainer on this. He doesn't quite say it like this, but the gist is 0 probably isn't low enough. www.volleydork.com/post/if-shes-a-good-passer-why-doesnt-she-pass-goodThank you, everyone! |
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on Nov 10, 2024 16:17:03 GMT -5
It is a fair point to bring up the pitfalls of the 3 point scale. 0’s can really bring down your rating on an otherwise good day. But, some would argue that 0s should bring down your rating even more. Because a 0 pass is so much worse than a 1 pass as a 0 gives you no chance to score. Chad Gordon, who is here sometimes, has a great explainer on this. He doesn't quite say it like this, but the gist is 0 probably isn't low enough. www.volleydork.com/post/if-shes-a-good-passer-why-doesnt-she-pass-goodTaking qualitative data, assigning numbers to it and then averaging the numbers is generally not going to be valid statistically. The way you get close by assigning numbers which predict side out percentage. The 3 point (and 4 point) scale are nowhere close to that, based on how Chad Gordon talks about it. |
|
|
|
Post by iluvvb on Nov 10, 2024 17:05:57 GMT -5
A question about how the BIG schedules these matches. Pitt fan here, so I have no stake in the matter. I am wondering if it is standard to have teams play matches on consecutive days. ACC usually schedules them Fri and Sun so traveling teams get a day to recover. Home teams do too, but I imagine traveling adds an additional stress to the players. I get that everyone has to do it, but do the teams really think it is ok? Seems like it would be hard to play that second match in a different city a few hours after the first one.
|
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Nov 10, 2024 17:38:58 GMT -5
A question about how the BIG schedules these matches. Pitt fan here, so I have no stake in the matter. I am wondering if it is standard to have teams play matches on consecutive days. ACC usually schedules them Fri and Sun so traveling teams get a day to recover. Home teams do too, but I imagine traveling adds an additional stress to the players. I get that everyone has to do it, but do the teams really think it is ok? Seems like it would be hard to play that second match in a different city a few hours after the first one. Back-to-back is generally the case, and has been for years. Occasionally there will be a Friday-Sunday weekend, but that might have as much to do with scheduling around football as anything else. For years there were 'travel partners', when the team travelling would play two teams geographically near to one another; for example, Michigan and Michigan State would play at Minnesota and Wisconsin, and swap Friday opponents for the Saturday match. Or vice versa, Minnesota and Wisconsin playing at Michigan and Michigan State. But as there are more opponents to schedule, and so a less 'balanced' schedule, that becomes harder (or maybe rarer) to schedule. This year, with the advent of travelling to and from the west coast, teams involved are playing more Thursday-Saturday or Friday-Sunday weekends. Wisconsin, for example, goes to LA this coming weekend to play USC on Thursday and UCLA on Saturday. |
|
|
|
Post by maigrey on Nov 10, 2024 17:44:19 GMT -5
A question about how the BIG schedules these matches. Pitt fan here, so I have no stake in the matter. I am wondering if it is standard to have teams play matches on consecutive days. ACC usually schedules them Fri and Sun so traveling teams get a day to recover. Home teams do too, but I imagine traveling adds an additional stress to the players. I get that everyone has to do it, but do the teams really think it is ok? Seems like it would be hard to play that second match in a different city a few hours after the first one. The B1G has also been very fortunate to have BTN pushing the popularity of Women's VB, so we have had a higher dependence on the TV schedules, which can force weird turn around times. |
|
