|
|
Post by volleyball20102011 on Jun 4, 2014 9:28:25 GMT -5
Couple things...My interpretation of the article is that his research is probably correct. While looking at just pure blocking numbers, there isn't a correlation to winning and number of blocks a team records in a match (hitting % is still the number one statistical category that correlates the best to winning). With that said, pure blocking numbers don't really tell the whole story of which team is the better "blocking" team. Does a team get a lot of soft touches that equate the easy "free ball digs" and score in transition? Does a team get tooled a lot? Does a team set up a block well and "feed" balls to their best digger or defensive system? These are all things that won't really show up in a typical box score.
I think a major point in the article is that teams are too often trying to block balls that aren't hard driver or attacked in a position to score. My personal philosophy is that if the opposing team isn't jumping, we shouldn't jump. I also want my block to stay down when the opposing team isn't in a position to score (too much of a chance to get tooled, give the opposing team a "recycle" off a block cover, or get my team out of system off a weird deflection). I see way too many teams (at all levels) going up and trying to block a ball when the opposing team is in a situation where they're way out of system and aren't trying to score.
Just my thoughts...
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jun 4, 2014 9:33:26 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. ok so still Wisconsin out blocked PSU. I just had the wrong numbers. Thanks for clearing the BA number up for me. Was Wisconsin a better blocking team, or at the least, blocking better than PSU that night? I'm not sure. I'd attribute those numbers more to the Carlini effect vs. Hancock on a bad setting night. |
|
|
|
Post by salsolomon on Jun 4, 2014 10:45:15 GMT -5
2 comments:
On the "blocking is least correlated with winning" I think the point is not that blocking is not important or doesn't lead to kills, just that in women's volleyball it isn't as strongly correlated with winning as serving, 3-option passes, and kills from the OH. Obviously you'd rather have the better blocking team, all else being equal. Also, as some of the other posters have commented, being a good blocking team may lead to winning in ways that don't show up in blocking stats, like opponents taking riskier swings. The GMS study just looked at how certain events correlated with wins. Even if a good block lead to an easier dig or an opponent hitting error, it wouldn't be counted towards the block in the study any more than the quality dig.
As to the blocking less point, this is something I experimented with this season (D3 women). When the opponent is not in a position to take a high percentage swing, often the block does more harm than good. This season we did not block back row (except for a few specific hitters). Lots of noise in the sample since we played different teams this year vs the year before, but our opponents had a lower hitting percentage on back row attacks this season when we didn't block as opposed to the year before when we blocked.
|
|
|
|
Post by ciscokeed on Jun 4, 2014 11:28:18 GMT -5
Being good at every aspect of the game is important. However, I believe that side out percentage, and opponents hitting percentage most often correlate to winning...If you sideout close to %70 in the women's game you nearly always win... Opponents hitting percentage can be affected by serving, defense, blocking, etc., all related and important....it just is not uncommon to win a match where the loser outblocks the winner- however uncommon to lose a match when your hitting percentage is higher than your opponent... certainly exceptions, but ....
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jun 4, 2014 11:40:32 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. I'm not trying to prove anything. Merely distinguishing between statistical blocks in isolation and blocking as part of an integrated defensive scheme. I'm pretty sure the assertion being debated is relative to the first, not the second. |
|
|
|
Post by newenglander on Jun 4, 2014 12:55:19 GMT -5
Others have danced around one point... if you block a team well early then you may not block many much later since the attacking team smartens up and challenges the block less as the match goes on. The "good blocking" team will probably get fewer blocks but more opportunities to dig.
I think we all know (or at least suspect) that a "good blocking" team often turns into a good defensive team (or starts forcing the opponent to make unforced hitting errors as they try some shots outside of their comfort zone).
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jun 4, 2014 13:38:57 GMT -5
An actual block for a score is just one of several things (good and bad) that can happen in a blocking attempt. Others include: put back, touch, tool, drop (down front), hands, blocking error, as well as forcing a change in the opponent's attack (riskier angle, tip, different hitter). I think all that GM2 is saying is that blocks for scores, by themselves, are not statistically useful in measuring blocking performance or devising a defensive strategy.
|
|
|
|
Post by beba on Jun 4, 2014 15:51:35 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. I reject you totally....doing math is never fun.  |
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Jun 4, 2014 16:06:37 GMT -5
OK, arithmetic. We'll leave math to Pablo and mikegarrison.
|
|
|
|
Post by meanmug on Jun 4, 2014 21:19:39 GMT -5
Bingo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Garand on Jun 4, 2014 23:33:45 GMT -5
An actual block for a score is just one of several things (good and bad) that can happen in a blocking attempt. Others include: put back, touch, tool, drop (down front), hands, blocking error, as well as forcing a change in the opponent's attack (riskier angle, tip, different hitter). I think all that GM2 is saying is that blocks for scores, by themselves, are not statistically useful in measuring blocking performance or devising a defensive strategy. +1 |
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Jun 5, 2014 5:27:53 GMT -5
Plus, numbers wise, differences in blocks for scores are really not that different. First may be 1.42 blocks per set, second 1.39, down to tenth at 1.29, or a tenth of a block per set, so one more over ten sets, or three matches. Not much of a difference.
To me, more fascinating is number of digs. The great Penn State teams were near the bottom of the B1G in digs, I believe, but I guess when your team hitting percentage is really high not much is coming back to dig.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 5, 2014 9:46:25 GMT -5
Wouldn't the appropriate conclusion to be made be that blocking in women's volleyball is not very strong, as opposed to the conclusion that blocking isn't correlated to winning? If a team averaged ten blocks for points (stuff blocks) per set rather 1-2, then blocking would be highly correlated to winning since points scored are certainly highly correlated to winning (that is, unless a team with that many blocks actually lost a match). Would be interesting to compare blocking totals in the men's game versus the women's game to see how they differ. Determining the correlations between aspects of the game (blocking, serving, digging etc.) is the difficult part it seems. For example, wouldn't better blocking would tend to reduce the number of digs or dig opportunities. It's hard to tell if this is a valid conclusion without seeing that data and process that GM2 used to arrive at their conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jun 5, 2014 11:50:06 GMT -5
From Montreaux.
Totally incidental, but which of the award winner's teams finished the lowest?
Individual Awards
Best Server: Adams Rachael (USA)
Best Receiver: Scherban Yana (RUS)
Best Setter: Kosianenko Ekaterina (RUS)
Best Spiker: Brinker Maren (GER)
Best Blocker: Da Silva Ana Carolina (BRA)
Best Digger: Dürr Lenka (GER)
Best Libero: Dürr Lenka (GER)
Best Scorer: Malykh Natalia (RUS)
Most Valuable Player: Kozuch Margareta (GER)
Final Ranking
1. Germany
2. USA
3. Russia
4. China
5. Brazil
6. Japan
7. Dominican Republic
7. Switzerland
|
|
rb
High School
Posts: 10
|
Post by rb on Jun 5, 2014 14:21:36 GMT -5
I think this issue centers around how much time should be spent on blocking during training. It's not that blocking is not a factor in winning, it's just that it's not as big a factor as other skills where much more time should be invested. The data and research shows that if I have only a certain amount of time in any given training session or sessions then there are areas more important than blocking that need to be addressed if winning is a high priority. I think coaches also have to look at the concept of diminishing return. If 15-20 min. of training blocking each practice session gets me 2.5 blocking points per set, there is virtually no chance that increasing that time to 30-40 min. will get me 4-5 B.P.S.. But, the 15-20 extra minutes daily that I invested in blocking will take away from other areas of the training that might be the difference in winning and losing (1st contact skills, 1st ball kill% on sideout, etc....).
|
|
