Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 13:34:20 GMT -5
I mean, I could name an obvious example on that very same first team all B10 list but a certain fan base might start crying again. All depends on how you define “ not very good” but I’d bet anything if the player you are suggesting hit the transfer portal, coaches would be all over it. If that's the criteria, Megan Miller and Capri Davis are also very good...
|
|
|
Post by lvcalum on Apr 12, 2020 13:44:36 GMT -5
How about both? The passing was dismal and Hames wasn’t very good. Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion. Having said that, it was the opinion of the big ten coaches (a pretty knowledgeable bunch) that she was a first team all Big 10 level player. When was the last time a player who “wasn’t very good” was recognized in that way by the best coaches in the country? Big Ten coaches made Mary Pollmiller Honorable Mention in 2014 and didn’t have Kelly Hunter on their list at all in 2015... That being said, Hames is a spectacular defensive player, a great bump setter (unfortunately, she had to do it a lot last year) and her desire to win is second to none. I appreciate that it was impossible for her to get into any kind of rhythm when passes are being shanked all over the place. However, even on good passes her tempo and location on many of her sets whether in front or behind, fast or slow, was poor. I fully admit that I’m no setting expert. I’m just a fan that thought she made it very hard on her hitters match after match.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Apr 12, 2020 14:38:42 GMT -5
All depends on how you define “ not very good” but I’d bet anything if the player you are suggesting hit the transfer portal, coaches would be all over it. If that's the criteria, Megan Miller and Capri Davis are also very good... The debate wasn’t who is very good, it’s who was “not very good”. If not very good is defined as that player is “just ok”there are no players on first team all big by my definition of “just ok” I’ll say it again it depends on the definition. By mine Hames at “not very good” is silly. She is HIGHLY regarded by her coaches and teammates I can tell you that. That’s good enough for me. Sh can and needs to be better, but No very good” is again, silly.
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Apr 12, 2020 14:47:33 GMT -5
When was the last time a player who “wasn’t very good” was recognized in that way by the best coaches in the country? Hannah Lockin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 14:50:49 GMT -5
If that's the criteria, Megan Miller and Capri Davis are also very good... The debate wasn’t who is very good, it’s who was “not very good”. If not very good is defined as that player is “just ok”there are no players on first team all big by my definition of “just ok” I’ll say it again it depends on the definition. By mine Hames at “not very good” is silly. She is HIGHLY regarded by her coaches and teammates I can tell you that. That’s good enough for me. Sh can and needs to be better, but No very good” is again, silly. I agree with you entirely on Hames. The fact that others have noted her bump setting ability while discrediting her skills is frankly hilarious... If you setter has enough opportunities to show you how good her bump setting is, the passing is too bad for fans to make a fair evaluation of her. My point regarding your post was that using post season awards to justify performance is a bad premise... Just as using a hypothetical about players entering the portal. The passing was the issue this year. Until it improves, you can't fairly assess the setting (which, like you, I think is good enough to win a Natty) or the hitting (which will also improve if the offense is in system).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 14:57:26 GMT -5
Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion. Having said that, it was the opinion of the big ten coaches (a pretty knowledgeable bunch) that she was a first team all Big 10 level player. When was the last time a player who “wasn’t very good” was recognized in that way by the best coaches in the country? Big Ten coaches made Mary Pollmiller Honorable Mention in 2014 and didn’t have Kelly Hunter on their list at all in 2015... That being said, Hames is a spectacular defensive player, a great bump setter (unfortunately, she had to do it a lot last year) and her desire to win is second to none. I appreciate that it was impossible for her to get into any kind of rhythm when passes are being shanked all over the place. However, even on good passes her tempo and location on many of her sets whether in front or behind, fast or slow, was poor. I fully admit that I’m no setting expert. I’m just a fan that thought she made it very hard on her hitters match after match. Since you didn't answer my question - but I love a good data point (they're just so much sexier than an opinion)... I'll tell you how exactly how bad the passing was in 2019: 2.03. It was 2.33 two years ago! Think about that. Nebraska's good pass percentage in 2019, as a team, was 46.8%. That means 53.2% of the time Hames had to chase down balls and set OOS. Any fan trying to accurately assess Hames' performance needs to know those numbers.
|
|
|
Post by chisovnik on Apr 12, 2020 15:24:56 GMT -5
This debate is silly. Here’s the objective truth:
Hames has a lot to work on and didn’t live up to the pre-college hype this past season. She has all the potential in the world; size, athleticism, all of the intangibles/leadership qualities, etc. She just didn’t perform very well this season. Location was off a lot of the times (yes, I’ve seen the team’s passing stats), some questionable decision-making, you name it. These are just facts, and they’re facts that people have been pointing out all season long. Really not sure why everyone is getting so defensive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 15:51:15 GMT -5
This debate is silly. Here’s the objective truth: Hames has a lot to work on and didn’t live up to the pre-college hype this past season. She has all the potential in the world; size, athleticism, all of the intangibles/leadership qualities, etc. She just didn’t perform very well this season. Location was off a lot of the times (yes, I’ve seen the team’s passing stats), some questionable decision-making, you name it. These are just facts, and they’re facts that people have been pointing out all season long. Really not sure why everyone is getting so defensive. "Here's the objective truth"... Proceeds to spout a lot of opinions and nothing objective at all.
|
|
|
Post by rjaege on Apr 12, 2020 16:11:26 GMT -5
Could be worse. Husker VB was a top 10 team last year IMHO, possibly top 5, again IMHO. Husker football not so much. Not criticizing football just making an observation. Also note that extreme expectations tend to result in disappointment, possibly as a partial result of too much pressure. In my experience the best performers celebrate their successes and see the glass 90% full with need to fill it
|
|
|
Post by oldmanred on Apr 12, 2020 16:34:16 GMT -5
Well, like it or not; we'll keep Hames for two more years; unless the virus cancels the 2020 season! Than I don't know! Anyway after that another setter takes over! GO HUSKERS
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 12, 2020 17:01:32 GMT -5
The problem with relying solely on stats that are built around a SUBJECTIVE 3 point scale (4 point if you consider 0) is that some people (you know who you are) are using it without much context either. The only "objective truth" in that scale is that there is an average of subjectively assigned ratings. While having 3 options seems--and perhaps certainly is--better than having less than three options, on any particular play, only one option is necessary and/or taken. Understanding the significance of a 1.8 overall passing grade (whether team or individual) vs a 2.0, or even 2.3, requires a lot more analysis of individual plays along the context of an entire match than is being suggested.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 12, 2020 17:46:14 GMT -5
oh god, Hames is a very high quality setter. The only "fact" I see is that Nebraska doesn't have Foecke to bail them out. Everything else is just crap at the margins. I could post and point out dozens of bad set choices and locations for Hunter, but at the end of the day, Nebraska won, so her critique isn't as big. But because Sun and Kubick are NOWHERE close to being as good as Foecke, suddenly Hames can't set. Hames is fine, Nebraska is fine, they aren't going to win every match, the big matches frequently are decided by either 1- the other team having a very off match, 2- everyone being perfect, or 3- having a big gun or two on the pin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 18:13:51 GMT -5
oh god, Hames is a very high quality setter. The only "fact" I see is that Nebraska doesn't have Foecke to bail them out. Everything else is just crap at the margins. I could post and point out dozens of bad set choices and locations for Hunter, but at the end of the day, Nebraska won, so her critique isn't as big. But because Sun and Kubick are NOWHERE close to being as good as Foecke, suddenly Hames can't set. Hames is fine, Nebraska is fine, they aren't going to win every match, the big matches frequently are decided by either 1- the other team having a very off match, 2- everyone being perfect, or 3- having a big gun or two on the pin. This criticism existed during Hames' freshman season as well. It isn't new since Foecke graduated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 18:24:40 GMT -5
Wow I had a LOT of thoughts about Hames during the season! Their goal is to win the title every year. Most of the time the setter, not her teammates, are good enough under that standard. All I'm saying is: compare Hames against UCLA and Creighton to Illinois' Brown against Tennessee. In my opinion, there is no comparison. Hames is a great competitor, and probably communicates and leads well. In the end, that might be enough for Nebraska to achieve some success, but for now, I think her level of play is a weakness for the Huskers. She just doesn't look like a top setter in her second season of college ball. Though you made some points, it's too early. They're only playing their 3rd match tomorrow. They return everyone except Foecke, who they're replacing with a top-ten recruit, and Maloney, whose replacement has been a revelation and on campus practicing and training for over 8 months. Sweet, Miller, Stivrins, Sun, Schwarzenbach, Densberger... all contributors with at least a season of experience. Continuity isn't the problem. Yeah they had experience but if you think about it the players that you mentioned with the exception of Stivrins and maybe Miller struggled all year long and now they have more pressure because they need to replace Foecke's offense numbers. ? How is any of that evidence against my claim that Hames' level of play right now is really low? Depends. If you have a lineup of all star hitters, I'd rather have Hames because she's a better server and floor defender than Orr. Okay, but two skills does not a setter make. Hames isn't good. Of the teams running 5-1s in the B1G, she's arguably the worst setter. Welsh, Miller, Hilley, Brown/Allison, Blossom, Orr, Bush, Chang, Balyko >>> Hames Uh, no. And again, if you have a team of all the best players in the league, the premium on actual setting goes way down and the non-setting skills go up. So, you're arguing that Hames isn't a good setter... she just digs and serves well. Thank you for agreeing. Hames looked terrible on back to back sets there All night. Everyone just looks like they're constantly adjusting. Hames not setting callie is such a glaring issue.... they are camped out on our pins. So frustrating The few times that she did set her, Schwarzenabach was getting tripled because their quick develops so slowly. Hunter, Pollmiller, Cook, Anderson, Holloway, Busboom, hell even Griffin... Hames just isn't the same caliber. In what she's actually done vis-a-vis what Hunter did at the same point in their careers. The former helped her team to national runnerup finish in her first year and is currently leading the #2 ranked team in the country in her second year. The latter was benched quickly in her freshman year and didn't play in her second year. I'm not saying Hames will necessarily eclipse Hunter's accolades, but pointing out that people criticize Hames looking through a lens of Hunter's 3rd - 5th years in the program. I'm not thinking of Hunter at all when I say that Hames isn't good enough right now. Stivrins has three touches through two sets? well they aren't going to stay in the top 10 very long with that stat line. Hames isn't very good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 18:53:05 GMT -5
The problem with relying solely on stats that are built around a SUBJECTIVE 3 point scale (4 point if you consider 0) is that some people (you know who you are) are using it without much context either. The only "objective truth" in that scale is that there is an average of subjectively assigned ratings. While having 3 options seems--and perhaps certainly is--better than having less than three options, on any particular play, only one option is necessary and/or taken. Understanding the significance of a 1.8 overall passing grade (whether team or individual) vs a 2.0, or even 2.3, requires a lot more analysis of individual plays along the context of an entire match than is being suggested. If the pass leaves the setter with only one option, you understand that blockers read that... Right?
|
|