|
Post by Wolfgang on Dec 25, 2006 17:55:59 GMT -5
Another Christmas poll. What interests you the LEAST?
|
|
|
Post by Chance on Dec 30, 2006 1:25:13 GMT -5
This isn't quite what the question asked, but I'm sick of hearing the difference between rally and sideout scoring get overplayed so badly.
People act like it's a huge fundemental change that drastically alters the game, like if football scoring changed from "points" to "offensive yards."
Rally vs Sideout doesnt ever alter the margin of the two scores by more than 1. If you are up by 10 under rally scoring, you would either be up by 10 or up by 9 with sideout scoring.
The length of the game might be different depending on how it plays out, but the margin will be virtually unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by Alberta on Dec 30, 2006 9:56:12 GMT -5
I disagree, Chance. In sideout scoring, you could lose 30-0, even though you did side out 30 times. I am sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 30, 2006 11:14:13 GMT -5
SOS games only went to 15.
|
|
|
Post by Chance on Dec 30, 2006 11:40:42 GMT -5
I disagree, Chance. In sideout scoring, you could lose 30-0, even though you did side out 30 times. I am sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong. I think the score of the same match in rally scoring would either be 30-59 or 30-60. So while the scores are different, the margin between the scores is very similar. You side outed 30 times, but wound up with no points. So for every time you sideouted, they immediately side outed right back. So if you add in your 30 points for your side-outs, they are "cancelled out" by the other team getting points for their side outs.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 30, 2006 11:41:21 GMT -5
This isn't quite what the question asked, but I'm sick of hearing the difference between rally and sideout scoring get overplayed so badly. People act like it's a huge fundemental change that drastically alters the game, like if football scoring changed from "points" to "offensive yards." It is actually a fundamental change: 1. It significantly reduces the chances of late game comebacks. 2. It makes the boring (ie, short blowout type) games longer. 3. It makes the exciting (ie, longer closely fought) games shorter. 4. It allows games / matches to be lost on missed serves. 5. As a result of #4 it created the "let serve" rule. 6. It doesn't achieve it's primary objective of preventing long matches from being twice as long as short matches. The premise that would supposedly promote significantly more TV coverage. It does nothing to alter the largest variable in match length differential - the number of games played still ranges from 3 to 5 per match. 7. It wasn't a particular useful / effective change for resolving the issues that were supposedly preventing more TV coverage. As for your football analogy: It would more be like having points scored every time a team punts or turns the ball over to the other team on downs, or via a fumble / interception. It was possibly (but not likely) to win an sideout scoring game 15-0. It is possibly (but even less likely) to win a rally scoring game 30-0. It may be probably that the overall point differential isn't much, however, that's far different than saying that rally scoring never changes the margin of victory by more than 1 point.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 30, 2006 11:45:05 GMT -5
I disagree, Chance. In sideout scoring, you could lose 30-0, even though you did side out 30 times. I am sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong. I think the score of the same match in rally scoring would either be 30-59 or 30-60. So while the scores are different, the margin between the scores is very similar. You side outed 30 times, but wound up with no points. So for every time you sideouted, they immediately side outed right back. So if you add in your 30 points for your side-outs, they are "cancelled out" by the other team getting points for their side outs. You're assuming that: every sideout is automatically followed by the other team siding out rather than scoring points. You're also "forgetting" that sideout scoring stops at 15 points. The one sided rally scoring games while sometimes having a similar point differential generally go numerous extra points beyond what they would have in sideout scoring. Washington vs. Stanford: G1: 30-12 vs. 20-3 (15-3) [5 extra points played] G2: 30-25 vs. 15-9 [2 extra points played] G3: 30-15 vs. 18-3 (15-1) [10 extra points played]
|
|
|
Post by bearwatch on Dec 30, 2006 12:45:14 GMT -5
Gorf, I've been saying the same things (1-7) for a long time. Also, luck is more involved in rally, not bad if you are goofing off but not in a serious sport. People ran out of the Quest center sitting through Washingtons blowout prolonged through Rally scoring.
|
|
|
Post by Alberta on Dec 30, 2006 12:59:04 GMT -5
SOS games only went to 15. I knew that! Just putting it into the context of current games.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 30, 2006 14:08:04 GMT -5
Stanford vs Texas (regional final) G1: 30-18 vs 13-11 [sideout game not completed] G2: 34-32 vs 16-14 G3: 31-33 vs 11-13 [sideout game not completed] G3: 30-24 vs 13-8 [sideout game not completed]
A close match with 3 of the 4 games ending before they would have in sideout scoring.
In game 2 at one point Texas was leading 12-4 by sideout scoring but "only" 19-11 in rally scoring. In sideout scoring they needed only 3 additional points to win and Stanford may have been demoralized / tense enough to lose that game. Instead with 11 points remaining for Texas to win Stanford made an excellent comeback.
Certainly it's possible Stanford would have done the same thing in a sideout scoring game while down 12-4, however, I don't think it would have been as likely to happen.
So the one game that did end at the same point in both rally scorng and sideout scoring is also somewhat in question with the change to rally scoring.
|
|
|
Post by VBCOACH on Dec 30, 2006 15:40:03 GMT -5
People act like it's a huge fundemental change that drastically alters the game, quote] Rally points are not as valuable as served (real) points. The serving team needs 2 served points to win, the receiving team only 1. That adds the element of luck (the coin toss) into close games. That wasn't the case in side-out scoring. That's HUGE!!
|
|
|
Post by Alberta on Dec 30, 2006 22:43:32 GMT -5
In side-out scoring, I have watched a team down 13 - 0 come back and win 16 -14. I don't think that would happen in rally scoring. Sure was an exciting game!
|
|
|
Post by Chance on Dec 30, 2006 22:51:44 GMT -5
It may be probably that the overall point differential isn't much, however, that's far different than saying that rally scoring never changes the margin of victory by more than 1 point. I didn't say the "margin of victory" wil never change more than one point. I said the margin between the current rally score and current sideout score is not changed by more than one. The margin of victory will obviously be different because the game will end after a different amount of play. You're assuming that: every sideout is automatically followed by the other team siding out rather than scoring points. You're also "forgetting" that sideout scoring stops at 15 points. I didn't assume it, she assumed it originally, saying you could side out 30 times and still lose 30-0. That only possible if all of your side outs are "automatically" followed by the other team siding out. Either way, the margin of the scores remains the same or only a 1 point difference. And i didn't "forget," that sideout scoring stopped at 15, i was just making a point, unless you think i also "forgot" that rally scoring goes all the way up to 60... IMO the comeback think is just a matter of perception. 19-14 rally can be as big a comeback as 13-8 sideout, people just don't think of it as dramatically.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 31, 2006 12:16:47 GMT -5
It may be probably that the overall point differential isn't much, however, that's far different than saying that rally scoring never changes the margin of victory by more than 1 point. I didn't say the "margin of victory" wil never change more than one point. I said the margin between the current rally score and current sideout score is not changed by more than one. The margin of victory will obviously be different because the game will end after a different amount of play. Check the play ny play of various matches and you'll find numerous occasions where the difference between the two scoring systems is actually 2 points. Though that type of difference isn't truly germaine to the arguments against rally scoring. Actuyally, it isn't a matter of perception. Simulations have been run for many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of matches which show that: Comebacks in rally scoring to 25 (ie, FIVB) are appreciably less likely than in sideout scoring to 15. Comebacks in rally scoring to 30 (ie, NCAA) are closer in likelihood to sideout scoring to 15 but still less likely overall. That is for general comebacks throughout the course of a game. For late game comebacks regardless of the number of points played to in rallly scoring games the likelihood of them happening is appreciably lower. Making a comeback when down by 3-4+ points in rally scoring once the opponent has reached 28-29 points is not nearly as probable as being down 3-4+ points in sideout scoring once the opponent has reached 13-14 points. That's simply because good teams sideout at a 50%+ rate and they don't need to score any "real points" when they're up by a margin like that with only a couple of points remaining for a win. Rally scoring also changes things like the coin toss strategies. In sideout scoring the winner of the coing toss chose to serve first most of the time. In rally scoring the winner of the coin toss chooses to receive first because it's gernally much easier for teams to side out than it is for them to earn a point on their own serve.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Dec 31, 2006 13:07:33 GMT -5
It's funny how rally vs. sideout is the issue that interests me the LEAST and here are some blokes discussing the very topic!
|
|