|
Post by SaltNPepper on Oct 28, 2006 17:20:04 GMT -5
12 Holloway, Rachel Kpg 1.22 Hitt .358 13.41 Serve 0.19 Block .44 Digs 2.7 9 Barnes, Taylor Kpg 1.33 Hitt .286 11.32 Serve 0.53 Block .61 Digs 2.3 I agree Holloway appears more athletic but look who wins in blocks, kills and serve. Both are tremendous setters but I would say Barnes has a slightly better location on her set and is more of a threat offensively/serve. Along with Nu these are 3 tremendous setters. First of I think it is weird that you put up a string of stats comparing 6 items between two players to make your point that one of them "wins" in three of them. She also "loses" in the other three. Is kills/game more important that hitting percent? Is serve aces more important that assists per game? Is blocks more important that digs? I have no idea. I'm not sure that stats for setters are the most important factors to use in evaluating performance. Obviously they are some of the factors used for that evaluation. I have never watched Barnes play so I really would have a difficult time commenting on how good she is. And if I had watch a match with her, I doubt I would have paid enough attention or know enough to really comment on how good I though she was. From Holloway's standpoint, she did beat out the setters that took them to the National Championship match last year - that seems like a plus on her side. I've felt the chances for the Huskers this year with a freshman setter and the lost of Jen S., Elmer and Houghtelling would not be as good as last year and so far (knock on wood) they are still in a decent position to make it back to the Final 4 and Holloway is an important part of that. If the Huskers make it though the Big 12 undefeated and Baylor is below 50%, I would think that would hurt the chances for Barnes to be rated above Holloway by the league coaches. That may not be fair, but I have a feeling that's the way it will be.
|
|
|
Post by bearwatch on Oct 29, 2006 0:39:59 GMT -5
While Barnes is definately the better attacker of the group, I respectfully disagree with her setting an offense better. The first job of a setter is always to set an offense, and hitting percentage would appear to be the best gauge of this. In conference matches the gap between the two offenses is even greater with ISU hitting at a .234 clip and Baylor at .196. And lets not say that its because of the players around her, because this "same" group of players went just 1-19 in the Big 12 two years ago. Last year in conference play ISU hit just .190. I think Manns has done a pretty darn good job setting an offense. Maybe I am way off base by saying that hitting percentage is the best indicator, but the setter's responsibility is to get players into situations that they can be successful. And a higher hitting percentage would indicate that she is doing the better job of the two. Does the ISU passing help? Absolutely does and ISU is a solid passing team. So in the words of Bledsoe (somewhat), I respect your opinion, but respectfully disagree with your evaluation. I thought the argument was who is the best setter. The Hitting percentage has everything to do with the hitters as well as passing. Barnes is setting 3 other freshmen and 2 seniors. That has everything to do with the numbers. Comared to an Iowa State core that has been together for 2 or 3 years. Barnes was being recruited by Washington, Minn. and many more. Not sure Mann was recruited by final 4 teams but Barnes was because she is a great setter. Clearly these college coaches thought she was the best.
|
|
|
Post by bearwatch on Oct 29, 2006 0:44:17 GMT -5
12 Holloway, Rachel Kpg 1.22 Hitt .358 13.41 Serve 0.19 Block .44 Digs 2.7 9 Barnes, Taylor Kpg 1.33 Hitt .286 11.32 Serve 0.53 Block .61 Digs 2.3 I agree Holloway appears more athletic but look who wins in blocks, kills and serve. Both are tremendous setters but I would say Barnes has a slightly better location on her set and is more of a threat offensively/serve. Along with Nu these are 3 tremendous setters. First of I think it is weird that you put up a string of stats comparing 6 items between two players to make your point that one of them "wins" in three of them. She also "loses" in the other three. Is kills/game more important that hitting percent? Is serve aces more important that assists per game? Is blocks more important that digs? I have no idea. I'm not sure that stats for setters are the most important factors to use in evaluating performance. Obviously they are some of the factors used for that evaluation. I have never watched Barnes play so I really would have a difficult time commenting on how good she is. And if I had watch a match with her, I doubt I would have paid enough attention or know enough to really comment on how good I though she was. From Holloway's standpoint, she did beat out the setters that took them to the National Championship match last year - that seems like a plus on her side. I've felt the chances for the Huskers this year with a freshman setter and the lost of Jen S., Elmer and Houghtelling would not be as good as last year and so far (knock on wood) they are still in a decent position to make it back to the Final 4 and Holloway is an important part of that. If the Huskers make it though the Big 12 undefeated and Baylor is below 50%, I would think that would hurt the chances for Barnes to be rated above Holloway by the league coaches. That may not be fair, but I have a feeling that's the way it will be. I was just comparing the two. Someone said Holloway was more athletic, so I pointed out Barnes beats her in blocks, serves and kills. I thought that was a good point I made. I think Holloway is a tremendous setter who competes hard and plays the game the right way. I just threw up stats to compare the 2 setters I think are the best in the Big 12.
|
|
xyz
High School
Posts: 14
|
Post by xyz on Oct 29, 2006 1:16:19 GMT -5
Taylor is a wonderful setter with extremely soft hands and a wealth of setting and all around volleyball talent. Two triple doubles is an extraordinary individual accomplishment, and I am sure that there are many more to come. That being said, I have seen both setters compete head to head in every match in which they have played each other, including their club careers. Not only has Rachel's team won every match, Rachel is clearly the better setter. Baylor would be a better team with Rachel setting and Nebraska would be a poorer team with Taylor setting. Rachel was the number one setter and captain for the YNT and JNT, Taylor was not in the top three in this group of setters. John Cook, Jim Barnes, Penn State, USC and the USA teams would all choose Rachel over Taylor to be their setter. Taylor is making a bigger impact for Baylor because her talent is greater than her teammates. The majority of Rachel's Nebraska teammates are as good or better than she is on the court in their positions. Baylor has made great strides in their program and I desire and believe that they will continue to get better. Jim Barnes and his staff are great people and wonderful coaches. Taylor may become better than Rachel in the future, but very few informed people would say she is a better setter today.
|
|
|
Post by clonesvb on Oct 29, 2006 1:54:34 GMT -5
And clearly Iowa State is 2-0 against her. The best sometimes lose, but typically not twice in a season to the same team and doesn't finish near the bottom of the conference.
I'm definately biased, but i'll take a setter who sets at a high percentage over one who gets 10 kills a match and loses matches.
|
|
|
Post by bearwatch on Oct 29, 2006 14:47:55 GMT -5
xyz I would agree with your observations. Rachel is the better setter. Maybe in the future Barnes could pass her because she is very talented.
Clonesvb your comparison is no good. Iowa state was swept by Mizzou and lost to Texas Tech. 2 teams Baylor beat. The comparison is setters anyway, not teams. BTW, Baylor hasn't finished near the bottom because THE SEASON ISN'T OVER YET!!! They are tied for 7th and have beat 2 ranked opponents and your team hasn't beaten 1 ranked team. I don't want to sound like I dislike Iowa State, just your argument.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 29, 2006 15:20:19 GMT -5
They are tied for 7th and have beat 2 ranked opponents and your team hasn't beaten 1 ranked team. I just looked at Baylor results. Perhaps I missed it, but who was the second ranked team they beat besides Missouri? Meanwhile, you SERIOUSLY aren't disputing that Iowa St has won more than Baylor? You bring up the wins against teams that Iowa St lost to, but as far as I can see, in the first half of the Big 12 schedule, Iowa St was 5 - 5, whereas Baylor was 2 - 8. That looks pretty clear that Iowa St has been better at winning than has Baylor. And you have to base it on the Big 12, because Baylor's preconference schedule was not much to talk about. I will be the first to admit that there are no good statistical measures for setters, but the ones that clonesvb has given, team hitting% and, yes, team wins, are as good as anything we have (no worse than assist numbers) and are ones that are in fact commonly used among those picking things like AA teams. If you don't think the stats provided are representative of the setting for the players involved, then go on and explain why. But recognize that clonesVB has presented a legitimate case, and no amount of "Baylor has beaten teams that ISU lost to" changes that. ISU HAS been better at winning, as reflected by the Big 12 standings at the halfway, and against the same competition, has a higher hitting %, apparently. These are generally attributes considered when evaluating a setter.
|
|
|
Post by clonesvb on Oct 29, 2006 15:22:16 GMT -5
Forgive me while I laugh. Yes you have beaten two ranked teams, Missouri (good win, we'll see what we can do at their place this week) and Kansas State, however I don't think that really counts because they are NOT GOOD!!!!!!!!!!
I don't think that beating K-State when they were No. 24 and hadn't played any Big 12 matches is going to convince any committees. Its about playing good volleyball all year. Yes losing to Texas Tech was a bad loss, but after that ISU has lost to Nebraska, Missouri (forgive me if I'm wrong but you lost to them earlier this season, right?), Texas, Oklahoma, San Diego (in five) and Michigan. All of those teams were ranked at some point except Texas Tech.
Nope, we don't have a lot of good wins, some would argue that sweeping CU in Boulder was a really good win, but at least we take care of business when it should be taken care of...minus the burp at Tech.
|
|
|
Post by bearwatch on Oct 29, 2006 16:43:15 GMT -5
Hey, I like Iowa State and they are progessing very well. I'm not arguing the wins/losses of the teams. The argument was about the setters. The best evaluation of a setter is to watch them, their acuracy and ability to better the ball, make their hitters better, all around game and impact on the game. You can talk about hitting Percentage and all that but that has to do with the team mostly. It's really pretty easy to the train eye to watch two setters and see which one is better. I realize you and p-dub rely on numbers but they are not the best evaluators of this position. Just a good understanding of the game and players/positions.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Oct 29, 2006 16:55:32 GMT -5
Hey, I like Iowa State and they are progessing very well. I'm not arguing the wins/losses of the teams. The argument was about the setters. The best evaluation of a setter is to watch them, their acuracy and ability to better the ball, make their hitters better, all around game and impact on the game. You can talk about hitting Percentage and all that but that has to do with the team mostly. It's really pretty easy to the train eye to watch two setters and see which one is better. I realize you and p-dub rely on numbers but they are not the best evaluators of this position. Just a good understanding of the game and players/positions. I remember after the first Baylor-ISU matchup, you were complaining that it was an ISU team that Baylor had no business losing to.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 29, 2006 17:10:14 GMT -5
Hey, I like Iowa State and they are progessing very The best evaluation of a setter is to watch them, their acuracy and ability to better the ball, make their hitters better, all around game and impact on the game. So you've seen the Iowa St setter play ONCE. Exactly how much evaluation do you think you can do watching a team play once? Moreover, you only got to watch her play in a match in which you were far from an objective observer. So you will have to excuse me when I say that I don't put much stock in your opinion of a player who you've only seen play once in a match in which she happened to be on the other side of the court when you were watching Baylor. You don't need to tell me about evaluating setters. I am probably the one who is most diligent about using proper methods for evaluating setters (I used to track how often the setter connected with a hitter, just to see if I could learn anything about it). The one thing I know is that you really have to pay attention to a setter to see what they are doing. I can guarantee that you did not really pay that much attention to the Iowa St setter when they played Baylor, because why would you? Moreover, the fact that you were torqued because Baylor was losing is going to affect your assessment. As BearClause notes, you came out of that match not giving Iowa St the credit the clearly deserve. Hence, you are in a position where you are going to be prone to underrating the performance of a player. There. You want to talk about the weakness of stats, fine, I will do that. BUT let's also not forget the weakness of observation.
|
|
|
Post by bearwatch on Oct 29, 2006 19:56:26 GMT -5
P-Dub, OK, so lets say the setters were equally observed. Would you go with the stats Clone went with OR your observation?
|
|
|
Post by bearwatch on Oct 29, 2006 20:04:35 GMT -5
Again, both setters are great talents. I'm suggesting that solely basing your decision on which setter is better by looking at the stats mentioned that are effected by other players is the wrong tool to use.
|
|
|
Post by bearwatch on Oct 30, 2006 22:59:36 GMT -5
Any comment P-Dub to my question?
I think an important stat would be opponents blocks per game. Iowa State has 2.51 to BU 1.9 This stat would somewhat show that a setter is putting the ball in the right place more consistently.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Oct 30, 2006 23:09:40 GMT -5
Any comment P-Dub to my question? I think an important stat would be opponents blocks per game. Iowa State has 2.51 to BU 1.9 This stat would somewhat show that a setter is putting the ball in the right place more consistently. OK. Now you're just making this stuff up as you go.
|
|