|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 31, 2023 0:50:18 GMT -5
Lack of trust in the defense? Hambly has stated that the only thing that really matters is serving yield. Example A: Stanford's first six servers all serve out on their first serves for a total of six service errors and a yield of -6 (negative six) points Example B: Stanford's first six servers all serve four times in a row with the last serve for each run being a SE, again for a total of 6 SEs, but giving a yield of (6x3)-6 = 12 points In the USC match @ Maples IIRC, Kami Miner served a run of 10 to start a set 10-0 before USC scored a point, so on that serving run her yield was 9. At Arizona, when it looked like Stanford was going to lose the first set, Caitie Baird served a run of 7 to close out the set 25-23, so her yield ended up being 7. I think this is the most important component of serving stats. I wish there was some sort of "serving percentage," or however you want to label it, that combines aces, SE's, and serving yield. Although serving yield by itself tells a better story than aces vs SE's, imo. I feel that serving tough is always important, but perhaps it's even more important for teams who struggle to close the block when opposing team is in-system. Like you mentioned in this thread or a match thread (I forget which), Francis is a good OOS blocker. Although it always helps to put the opponent OOS, it might be even more crucial this year for us. With MB's like Alade, Inky, Wopat, to name a few: they were so quick to close a block, that it might alter your strategy. There might be rotations you really want to stay in, because your D is so good. Get the serve in and give your defense a chance. Stay on that service run. Or perhaps set point or match point down: if you get the serve in, even if the opponent is in system, you have a good chance to make a play on defense. But if you can't close the block against in system, then your odds of winning the point go way down. Thus, take more chances with tough serve, will increase your odds of winning the point. Will miss some serves, but will average out winning a higher percentage of points, as opposed to lollypopping a serve in just to get it in. I apologize for rambling and probably not being very clear. What I'm trying to say, is that if you have MB's who always close the block, then in some situations you can make higher percentage (and some times easier) serves; but if your MB's can't close the block, then you will win more points by serving tough, and will have to live with more missed serves.
|
|
|
Post by Turlington on Oct 31, 2023 7:25:40 GMT -5
Jenna Gray!
|
|
|
Post by Riviera Minestrone on Oct 31, 2023 12:30:31 GMT -5
One thing about Ms. Gray: Jenna has the mindset of a warrior...a winner. Besides being incredibly athletic...see NCAA T+F Championship Javelin results...she has that "presence" of a leader. As KP said, after winning the 2018 national title, "She's the best leader a team could have; she knows when to bring it, she knows when to back off, she knows when to throw in a joke now and then." Being so present in the moment; being that focused on "the prize", is what separated her back then: and serves her well now!
|
|
|
Post by dokterrudi on Oct 31, 2023 13:27:40 GMT -5
Court presence. How much is this emphasized in recruiting? History is full of really great athletes who just missed that something extra, and mediocre athletes that excelled because of their particular mentality. I feel like sometimes people get hung up on the metrics (boy look how high she gets). Do recruiters look for straight up ballers? Sometimes I wonder.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 31, 2023 14:41:44 GMT -5
I'm glad that there are a lot of people who appreciate how great Jenna Gray was/is; because there were a lot who always undervalued her too.
|
|
|
Post by dokterrudi on Oct 31, 2023 15:05:40 GMT -5
Yeah, I don’t get it.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Oct 31, 2023 15:28:16 GMT -5
Seems like it was mostly fans of other teams, esp those who backed Carlini or Poulter. It felt like they thought if ppl acknowledged that Gray was great bc she had the whole package, it somehow diminished Carlini or Poulter. I didn't understand that bc I thought Carlini and Poulter were great setters too (and so did most Stanford fans). It seemed like Stanford fans loved Jenna.
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Oct 31, 2023 16:06:56 GMT -5
Seems like it was mostly fans of other teams, esp those who backed Carlini or Poulter. It felt like they thought if ppl acknowledged that Gray was great bc she had the whole package, it somehow diminished Carlini or Poulter. I didn't understand that bc I thought Carlini and Poulter were great setters too (and so did most Stanford fans). It seemed like Stanford fans loved Jenna. flat out, carlini and pouter were better setters in college than gray... and theres nothing wrong with that. both of them (when healthy) are considered to be two of the best setters in the world. gray wasn't a NPOY type of player, but she was extremely good at what she did and was a top setter in the ncaa her final 3 years and deserved all the awards she got
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Oct 31, 2023 16:38:28 GMT -5
Hambly has stated that the only thing that really matters is serving yield. Example A: Stanford's first six servers all serve out on their first serves for a total of six service errors and a yield of -6 (negative six) points Example B: Stanford's first six servers all serve four times in a row with the last serve for each run being a SE, again for a total of 6 SEs, but giving a yield of (6x3)-6 = 12 points In the USC match @ Maples IIRC, Kami Miner served a run of 10 to start a set 10-0 before USC scored a point, so on that serving run her yield was 9. At Arizona, when it looked like Stanford was going to lose the first set, Caitie Baird served a run of 7 to close out the set 25-23, so her yield ended up being 7. I think this is the most important component of serving stats. I wish there was some sort of "serving percentage," or however you want to label it, that combines aces, SE's, and serving yield. Although serving yield by itself tells a better story than aces vs SE's, imo. I feel that serving tough is always important, but perhaps it's even more important for teams who struggle to close the block when opposing team is in-system. Like you mentioned in this thread or a match thread (I forget which), Francis is a good OOS blocker. Although it always helps to put the opponent OOS, it might be even more crucial this year for us. With MB's like Alade, Inky, Wopat, to name a few: they were so quick to close a block, that it might alter your strategy. There might be rotations you really want to stay in, because your D is so good. Get the serve in and give your defense a chance. Stay on that service run. Or perhaps set point or match point down: if you get the serve in, even if the opponent is in system, you have a good chance to make a play on defense. But if you can't close the block against in system, then your odds of winning the point go way down. Thus, take more chances with tough serve, will increase your odds of winning the point. Will miss some serves, but will average out winning a higher percentage of points, as opposed to lollypopping a serve in just to get it in. I apologize for rambling and probably not being very clear. What I'm trying to say, is that if you have MB's who always close the block, then in some situations you can make higher percentage (and some times easier) serves; but if your MB's can't close the block, then you will win more points by serving tough, and will have to live with more missed serves. Here are some key MB stats for 2022 and 2023: Sami Francis 2022: Blk/set: 1.46, K/S: 1.98 (.375) Sami Francis 2023: Blk/set: 1.15, K/S: 1.95 (.352) McKenna Vicini 2022: Blk/set: 1.32, K/S: 1.53 (.427) McKenna Vicini 2023: Blk/set: 1.31, K/S: 1.26 (.387) Keep in mind that Stanford's schedule is probably a little tougher than last year mainly due to some stronger Pac-12 teams (e.g., ASU) and the 2023 stats aren't complete yet. IMO, Francis' blocking numbers are somewhat disappointing although I don't have block touch numbers. Also, Vicini's attack numbers are down from 2022. It's also clear from the numbers that Stanford uses their pin hitters a lot and they feed their middles only enough to (in theory) keep the block honest.
|
|
|
Post by volleyaudience on Oct 31, 2023 16:47:54 GMT -5
Pardon my ignorance, but when will it be known which 2025 recruits have been accepted?
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Oct 31, 2023 16:56:23 GMT -5
Pardon my ignorance, but when will it be known which 2025 recruits have been accepted? Roughly June 15, 2024. Admissions needs to wait and see transcripts from their HS Junior year but the date they are available varies from school to school and the order Admissions processes them.
|
|
|
Post by kidsker7 on Oct 31, 2023 17:07:59 GMT -5
Yeah, if she's at a B1G school her parents could more easily travel to places like Lincoln, Iowa City, or Urbana-Champaign to see her play. Kellar may have promised her a starting role (or very good chance) in 2025. Hambly, assuming he's ethical, couldn't do it. If she wanted to go to a B1G then why not one that is good at volleyball? Enquiring minds want to know.... Her sister is at UCLA and her longtime club setter, Reese Messer, is already committed to this USC class.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 31, 2023 17:39:41 GMT -5
Seems like it was mostly fans of other teams, esp those who backed Carlini or Poulter. It felt like they thought if ppl acknowledged that Gray was great bc she had the whole package, it somehow diminished Carlini or Poulter. I didn't understand that bc I thought Carlini and Poulter were great setters too (and so did most Stanford fans). It seemed like Stanford fans loved Jenna. flat out, carlini and pouter were better setters in college than gray... and theres nothing wrong with that. both of them (when healthy) are considered to be two of the best setters in the world. gray wasn't a NPOY type of player, but she was extremely good at what she did and was a top setter in the ncaa her final 3 years and deserved all the awards she got Seriously? We had a million of these "discussions" between 2016-2019. Why would you want to go there again? Many people feel strongly one way or another. I understand that. You and I disagree. Can we just leave it at that? Or do we really have to do this all over again?
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Oct 31, 2023 20:34:34 GMT -5
flat out, carlini and pouter were better setters in college than gray... and theres nothing wrong with that. both of them (when healthy) are considered to be two of the best setters in the world. gray wasn't a NPOY type of player, but she was extremely good at what she did and was a top setter in the ncaa her final 3 years and deserved all the awards she got Seriously? We had a million of these "discussions" between 2016-2019. Why would you want to go there again? Many people feel strongly one way or another. I understand that. You and I disagree. Can we just leave it at that? Or do we really have to do this all over again? 'we' never did this? if me stating that I think pouter and carlini were better makes you think that 'we' have no choice but to 'do this all over again' (?) thats not my issue lol. I didnt even reply to anything you said... im utterly confused by your response. I dont remember these conversations you apparently had with others from 4 years ago, but I think the result of where these players ended up professionally and within the national team speaks for itself. im 10x a bigger Jenna gray fan than the other ones but I can also put bias aside and see with my own eyes when someone is better at setting a volleyball than someone else is. you're welcome to disagree but I never asked or directed anything at you lol
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 31, 2023 22:43:40 GMT -5
Seriously? We had a million of these "discussions" between 2016-2019. Why would you want to go there again? Many people feel strongly one way or another. I understand that. You and I disagree. Can we just leave it at that? Or do we really have to do this all over again? 'we' never did this? if me stating that I think pouter and carlini were better makes you think that 'we' have no choice but to 'do this all over again' (?) thats not my issue lol. I didnt even reply to anything you said... im utterly confused by your response. I dont remember these conversations you apparently had with others from 4 years ago, but I think the result of where these players ended up professionally and within the national team speaks for itself. im 10x a bigger Jenna gray fan than the other ones but I can also put bias aside and see with my own eyes when someone is better at setting a volleyball than someone else is. you're welcome to disagree but I never asked or directed anything at you lol If you had only said "I think poulter and Carlini were better" it would be fine. But in our own Stanford thread, you said "hands down" they were better. And now in your latest post, your are listing arguments as to why you feel they are better. There are plenty of setter threads; why don't you take it there? You can "see with your own eyes"? That's a great argument. Post-college careers determine who was better in college? I disagree. There are a million examples to prove that wrong, but let's take Harold Miner. He had an outstanding college career. Sports Illustrated POY over Shaq. Dubbed "Baby Jordan"--which he detested, btw. But his game didn't translate to the pros. He wasn't great in the pros, doesn't mean he wasn't great in college. Many other examples, some due to injuries, some due to games not translating in pros, some due to other circumstances. Listen, no need to come in Stanford thread and say how certain players were better than Card players. Many feel the same way as you, but what's the point? Are you trying to antagonize? Like I mentioned, there are many threads debating the best setters. Why not take your arguments there? Lastly, if you would just have offered it as your opinion, I would have ignored it. But making a statement here that "hands down" they were better? It's not even up for debate? Like you are the authority on volleyball, or what?
|
|