|
|
Post by silversurfer on Jun 3, 2014 20:48:12 GMT -5
Seems a little near-sighted to use Oregon as an example to prove the idea. If you can show me a whole slew of teams that have poor blocking numbers and are elite? Then you might have something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Jun 3, 2014 20:59:42 GMT -5
The better correlation would be to account for every opposition attack, how much of it results in a kill and how much of it resulted in blocks or digs. If your aim with your blocking is to channel the hits, as someone else has mentioned, the true worth of the block is determined by the number of non-blocks or touches into digs. But even that is not a great correlation to winning unless the dug balls are converted to transition kills.
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jun 3, 2014 21:04:16 GMT -5
Blocking? Meh. Side out and serve well
But if you can't side out, yeah.. you really need to be blocking some balls.
|
|
|
|
Post by WI FIB on Jun 3, 2014 21:13:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rsell01 on Jun 3, 2014 21:27:52 GMT -5
|
|
PTW winner
Junior
Enter your message here...
Posts: 465
|
Post by PTW winner on Jun 3, 2014 21:35:18 GMT -5
Most of these teams have very good records. So it would seem blocking leads to wins for some teams. Obviously you need to be good in many areas to be a top 20 team. |
|
|
|
Post by WI FIB on Jun 3, 2014 21:38:35 GMT -5
You're reading it wrong. Block assists are worth 1/2 a block to each player statistically. Wisconsin outblocked them 14 to 9.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Jun 3, 2014 21:40:26 GMT -5
Team blocks is usually computed BS + BA/2 even though that isn't precise when there are some triple blocks, making the blocks for that match 14-9 in favor of Wisconsin. |
|
|
|
Post by rsell01 on Jun 3, 2014 21:43:10 GMT -5
Team blocks is usually computed BS + BA/2 even though that isn't precise when there are some triple blocks, making the blocks for that match 14-9 in favor of Wisconsin. ok so still Wisconsin out blocked PSU. I just had the wrong numbers. Thanks for clearing the BA number up for me. |
|
|
|
Post by gnu2vball on Jun 3, 2014 21:47:01 GMT -5
I wonder if "blocking" might be more than just the average number of blocks per set? Perhaps opponent hitting percentage might be seen as part of the "total blocking picture" because it sorta captures the opponent's hitting attempts that are blocked, but don't hit the floor?
|
|
|
|
Post by ja on Jun 3, 2014 22:32:23 GMT -5
If you will look at blocking as your first line of defense, then it will change your point of view for this correlation equation.
Look at Russian man's team run at Olympics. They won because of block! In women's game blocking also getting more attention at all
levels now. This is very hard to teach skill, specifically for young girls! Most junior coaches not even teaching the difference
between bunch blocking, zone blocking they just leaving MB to run around. How often you can see for 14/15 girls OH goes to help
MB or S/RS helping MB? At pro level if you can't block you are not playing! Points you are getting from blocking or points you are
getting from service will never be comparable to points you are getting from attack, but if there are anybody on this board who would
say that there are no correlation between your serve and winning %?
|
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Jun 3, 2014 23:10:53 GMT -5
It would be interesting to do a comparison of errors to blocks and digs. Although at the highest level I understand hitters are fearless, continually being rejected or blocked has got to get in hitters heads. Do international stats have any figures for balls blocked back to the other side, yet played over again? Maybe this summer it would be fun to try to do some math.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 23:23:36 GMT -5
www.goldmedalsquared.com/blog/2013/06/to-block-or-not-to-block/From everything I've ever seen, read, and heard, that is completely incorrect. I think it's widely known that when Russ Rose was doing his master's thesis on volleyball statistics when he was an assistant at Nebraska when his research concluded that blocking and hitting percentage were the two stats MOST correlated with winning. Considering Penn State's streak in the last decade, I always considered their greatest weapon to be their right-side block. I think that Team USA's block was a huge reason that they were successful in the last quad. I found this interesting that two completely different conclusions could be reached by the two well-educated sides of the discussion. I'd really like to read his thesis. |
|
|
|
Post by bighitter on Jun 4, 2014 9:20:48 GMT -5
I have listened to the blocking presentation at two GMS clinics this year. What they're advising, or at least at the clinics I attended, is that you should be judicious when you choose to block. They did a study (PAC 12) on sets from various locations on the court and calculated the percent chance of a kill from that location. So the short of it is "why waste time putting up a block if the set comes from a zone with a low chance of success." Use that time to transition your hitters. ASU was used as an example. In 2013 they reduced the number of situations they block based on the data and their side out percentage went up. The belief is that their hitters were consistently better positioned to hit in transition.
I actually used this for my U16's team this year. The moment we saw the pass was going to a low % zone my hitters came off the net to get ready to hit. Out of 78 sets played only 5 kills came from one of the "low" percentage zones. It worked really well but it was low level U16. But apparently ASU used it to success in the Pac 12 so there may be something to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jun 4, 2014 9:24:26 GMT -5
I have listened to the blocking presentation at two GMS clinics this year. What they're advising, or at least at the clinics I attended, is that you should be judicious when you choose to block. They did a study (PAC 12) on sets from various locations on the court and calculated the percent chance of a kill from that location. So the short of it is "why waste time putting up a block if the set comes from a zone with a low chance of success." Use that time to transition your hitters. ASU was used as an example. In 2013 they reduced the number of situations they block based on the data and their side out percentage went up. The belief is that their hitters were consistently better positioned to hit in transition. I actually used this for my U16's team this year. The moment we saw the pass was going to a low % zone my hitters came off the net to get ready to hit. Out of 78 sets played only 5 kills came from one of the "low" percentage zones. It worked really well but it was low level U16. But apparently ASU used it to success in the Pac 12 so there may be something to it. I actually noticed that, early in the season, ASU was not blocking the pipe attack (even against "big" hitters such as Birks). IIRC, they started doing that as the season went on though. |
|
