What is a GOOD serve receive percentage?

[bigtenben]

Everybody seems to know what makes bad passing, so what is considered a GOOD serve receive percentage to keep a team in system? Why don't the NCAA and the conferences chart leaders in serve receive percentages like they do hitting and setting? This seems to be a pretty major stat in evaluating a team's defense.

What is the range of serve receive percentages in the Big Ten?

I sure there is some expert statistician that already knows this answer.

[BearClause]

What's a good pass or a bad pass? 10 ft from the target? 5 ft from the target? Right on a dime? Maybe right at the setter but a bit low for anything but a high-outside and/or bump set? Or right at the setter but with the trajectory too high to run a fast offense? How is a high target pass for a setter dump option going to be charted in this scheme?

I've always thought that a "perfect" pass sets up options where the setter can disguise the location and results in a good number hitting assignments against single blockers. I've heard that if as team stays "in system" the chances of a successful kill from a set is somewhere around 75-80% for a high-level team.

I'm sure some teams have knowledgeable people chart this with their own criteria for in-house use. Stat keepers already have their hands full figuring out the whole attack/free-ball/dig thing.

[itsallrelative]

The passing % is just RE vs. receipts...not a good indication of a good passer.

[BearClause]

Sept 30, 2008 11:53:04 GMT -5 abovethenet said:

I would say above 96 % would be good, 97% very good and 98% exceptional. Anything below 96% would be a targert for serve receive.

The Big Ten according to each school's personal web site, range from best .980 to lowest .948, The majority are in the .96-.97 range. (this is using the libero records)

The only thing in the standard stats package is serve receive errors.

I'm still trying to understand what the intent of the original question is. The term "pass" wasn't well defined. I've talked to enough coaches who think of passing success as getting the ball to the setter for an in-system play as opposed to an improvised play. I guess some people think of "pass" as successfully getting a serve, attack, or free-ball in play for an eventual attack.

[huskertoo]

I think the orginial question is regarding serve receive. I believe in most cases, by most schools, serve receive is graded on a point scale with 3 being the highest. If it's a perfect pass and the setter has 3 options, the passer gets a 3, likewise if it's an ace, passer gets a big fat 0. With 2 being a decent pass and 1 being a playable pass. When the match is over, you average out the scores. If the passer passes a 3, she is perfect. I'd say a really good passer would be consistent at 2.7 or above. Obviously this is subjective to the stat keeper, but that is how I've known it to be done. It would be nice to see those stats, I agree...most important part of the game.

[abovethenet]

Sept 30, 2008 11:53:04 GMT -5 abovethenet said:

I would say above 96 % would be good, 97% very good and 98% exceptional. Anything below 96% would be a target for serve receive.

The Big Ten according to each school's personal web site, range from best .980 to lowest .948, The majority are in the .96-.97 range. (this is using the libero records)

This is an answer referencing reception errors and total receptions. I would guess this number is a pretty good indication of general passing ability.

The number 0-3 rates each pass and then a total number is calculated from the number and quality of passes. This is probably the best indicator of passing expertise. It would be a great stat to have for teams to scout and also to see each teams consistency in this area for their own sake.

I am sure most elite schools do chart this, but it is not public information.

[Phaedrus]

Sept 30, 2008 12:37:31 GMT -5 huskertoo said:

I think the orginial question is regarding serve receive. I believe in most cases, by most schools, serve receive is graded on a point scale with 3 being the highest. If it's a perfect pass and the setter has 3 options, the passer gets a 3, likewise if it's an ace, passer gets a big fat 0. With 2 being a decent pass and 1 being a playable pass. When the match is over, you average out the scores. If the passer passes a 3, she is perfect. I'd say a really good passer would be consistent at 2.7 or above. Obviously this is subjective to the stat keeper, but that is how I've known it to be done. It would be nice to see those stats, I agree...most important part of the game.

Pass 2.4 and everyone will be happy. Pass 2.7 and you are in the final 4. Remember that passing quality is directly proportional to the service quality too.

[bigprocess]

I would say that anything 2.9 and above is good. I mean, for women.

[itsallrelative]

the thinking about the 3 point scale is that it is very, very subjective to the person rating the passes....so it can't really be used, universally....

[FUBAR]

This is not as simple as the original post was hoping!

Each team will score the pass a little differently on the 0-3 scale based on the needs of their team that season (a team with a tall attacking setter might call a pass to the top of the tape a "3" where two years later the same team, now with short back row setters, might score the same pass a "1" or "0").

Regardless of how you rate passes, if you pass a 2.4 you will probably be pretty difficult to defend. I doubt many final four teams actually pass a 2.4 on the season, or even regularly.

It is important to remember that if you don't have hitters, you can pass a 2.7 every game and still lose to a team with hammers who is content to pass a 1.9 (which happens WAY more often than most people seem to think).

[cruncher]

We should also add the international standard of recording % "excellent" receptions. According to B.J. Hoeptner Evans, the Media Relations Manager for USAV, "An excellent reception occurs when a receiving player places the ball within the reach of the setter at the net who can handle it to prepare any attack by all of the hitters."

Since an in-system play is the goal of serve receive offense, many teams prefer to measure % excellent as opposed to the average rating. This is a key tenet of The Cauldron measurement system. Another challenge of the 3/2/1/0 rating system is measuring the validity of the rating. Many teams blindly assign a value of 3/2/1 based on the number of hitting options, while these may ratings may have no valid statistical basis.

As itsallrelative points out, it's all relative. It matters within the context of your team, your setting capability (Lloy Ball can set all of his offense running away from the net and behind the 3m line), your court coverage for passing, etc.

[bigtenben]

Well, I guess I got answers similar to what I asked. Not sure which one applies best because the question was too nonspecific. Actually I think I like this route better. I now know even more about passing and terminology.

One more question of clarification...does this statistic help evaluate a players over all passing, or is it just a small measure of the overall picture?
Example:

G RE TA PCT.
41 7 170 .959

[BearClause]

Sept 30, 2008 15:26:45 GMT -5 bigtenben said:

Well, I guess I got answers similar to what I asked. Not sure which one applies best because the question was too nonspecific. Actually I think I like this route better. I now know even more about passing and terminology.

One more question of clarification...does this statistic help evaluate a players over all passing, or is it just a small measure of the overall picture?
Example:

G RE TA PCT.
41 7 170 .959

It's like service errors. It would be hard to understand what it means without actually seeing what transpired. Servers could simply aim for the middle of the court every time and the only service errors would be complete mi%*$#s. It's not what most teams do though. Most teams aim for specific targets, serve short, go for the corner, put heat on it, etc.

Here's the NCAA Stat Manual defintiion of reception error:

Article 5. A reception error (RE) is charged to a player:
(1) If the serve strikes the floor in the area of the player.
(2) If the player passes the serve but it cannot be kept in play by his or her team.
(3) If the player is called for a reception violation by the referee (i.e., lift, double hit).

Article 6. Reception errors should not be charged to an individual when team reception errors (TRE) are charged. A team reception error is charged when:
(1) A serve falls between two players and the statistician cannot determine which player is responsible.
(2) The receiving team is out of rotation.

In both cases, the server receives an ace. The team reception error should be noted on the work sheet and tabulated in the team totals on the Box Score Form.

It all depends on who's serving. If it's a killer jump serve or a super wobbly floater, the chance of a reception error is higher. None of this exists in a vacuum. That it's reception error doesn't note that it was due to an unforced error, a super tough serve, or any number of reasons why the player fails to put a served ball in play.

[Phaedrus]

The 0-3 scale can be lots of things, and people can quibble over the applicability of the scale but it all has to do with what you want to use the statistic for. I for one don't have an army of statisticians following my team around, not do I have a nice Blackberry and VolleyData to keep stats. At the barest minimum, the 0-3 grading of passes is the quickest, simplest, and most accurate stat I can take if I am by myself or if I have just one assistant. the definition of 3-2-1-0 is subject to what you want to do with it. Rating a pass a 3 pass to me means my setter can set all options on the court, yes it is subjective, depending how mobile my setter is, but it is going to work for me in terms of grading the pass and how the pass affects my offense. I can use it and get a decent snapshot or I can mentally come up with an esoteric and complex measure of the pass incorporating all the the variations I can come up with just to try to reach perfection, and end up having no idea about how my passing is doing.

Sometimes Occam's Razor does apply:
"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

[BearClause]

Sept 30, 2008 21:00:46 GMT -5 Phaedrus said:

Sometimes Occam's Razor does apply:
"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

Perhaps like the old plus/minus system for card counting playing blackjack. Everything was simplified into whether or not it was 9-Ace, or 2-7 - an 8 was neutral. A higher number of smaller cards used up was beneficial to the player (I won't go into details) at which point the bets are raised. It was a simplification and there some considerably more detailed models, but this was something many people could operate in their heads.

Of course I never did this in practice. Too much thinking involved - especially after that third beer. Not to mention the pit bosses watching your betting patterns.