|
Post by lvcalum on Apr 12, 2020 19:25:50 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? Blockers also understand when a setter is unwilling or unable to set the middles regardless of the pass. There were too many matches like that last year.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Apr 12, 2020 19:40:13 GMT -5
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). I feel the same way about post season awards but in this instance given the level of talent in league and depth of great and experienced coaches, being on 1st team eliminates any player from the “not very good” list.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 20:39:46 GMT -5
If the pass leaves the setter with only one option, you understand that blockers read that... Right? Blockers also understand when a setter is unwilling or unable to set the middles regardless of the pass. There were too many matches like that last year. Regardless of the pass?? This is why most (not all, but most) of the criticism Hames gets is unwarranted. It's also why the guy above talking about the "context" of passing numbers was being disingenuous (or is misinformed). In order to run a 'Quick' you require a 3 pass. You need at least a 2 pass to run either a 'Gap' or 'Slide'. More than half the time last season Hames was getting 1s or 0s. When it comes to middles, their involvement is DIRECTLY related to the passing. Likewise, serving to Zone 1 or 2 is a good way to minimize sets to a dangerous RS, because of the angle. Y'all can talk about the setting from dawn till dusk if you like, but until you get halfway decent passing, it's just wasted energy. And Cook, from what I've seen, has been telling you guys this... He's offered scholarships to at least 3 players since the season ended to improve the passing. I'm not sure why some of you are finding it hard to understand.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 12, 2020 20:45:08 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? Yes, of course. And you understand that the blockers can also read a set from a 3 pass, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 20:46:39 GMT -5
If the pass leaves the setter with only one option, you understand that blockers read that... Right? Yes, of course. And you understand that the blockers can also read a set from a 3 pass, right? Specifically which blocker, to be clear? Because we're talking about middles and their eye work here. When a setter gets a 3 pass, the opposing middle has to honor your middle, virtually guaranteeing a 1 on 1 attack, which significantly raises the opportunity of a FBSO. I mean, that's why passing matters and it's NOT subjective and doesn't require context... That's clear, right?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 12, 2020 20:56:15 GMT -5
Yes, of course. And you understand that the blockers can also read a set from a 3 pass, right? Specifically which blocker, to be clear? All blockers try to read the set. Anyways, you also must realize that a setter can make a bad set from a 3 pass, and a great set (or a good decision) from a 1 pass, and so on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 21:12:47 GMT -5
Yes, of course. And you understand that the blockers can also read a set from a 3 pass, right? Specifically which blocker, to be clear? Because we're talking about middles and their eye work here. When a setter gets a 3 pass, the opposing middle has to honor your middle, virtually guaranteeing a 1 on 1 attack, which significantly raises the opportunity of a FBSO. I mean, that's why passing matters and it's NOT subjective and doesn't require context... That's clear, right? Even if the middle is Callie Schwarzenbach, who they know 1) has zero heat and 2) doesn't connect well with the setter and 3) that the set is still much more likely to go left on a perfect pass than to her (if their scouting report was well-prepared)? I don't think I'd tell my middles to honor Callie Schwarzenbach on a perfect pass. Let her get her 1 kill per set IF they manage a miracle and connect perfectly. I wonder how often pin attackers are seeing a single blocker as a result of a 3-pass exactly.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 12, 2020 21:32:06 GMT -5
Blockers also understand when a setter is unwilling or unable to set the middles regardless of the pass. There were too many matches like that last year. Regardless of the pass?? This is why most (not all, but most) of the criticism Hames gets is unwarranted. It's also why the guy above talking about the "context" of passing numbers was being disingenuous (or is misinformed). In order to run a 'Quick' you require a 3 pass. You need at least a 2 pass to run either a 'Gap' or 'Slide'. More than half the time last season Hames was getting 1s or 0s. When it comes to middles, their involvement is DIRECTLY related to the passing. Likewise, serving to Zone 1 or 2 is a good way to minimize sets to a dangerous RS, because of the angle. Y'all can talk about the setting from dawn till dusk if you like, but until you get halfway decent passing, it's just wasted energy. And Cook, from what I've seen, has been telling you guys this... He's offered scholarships to at least 3 players since the season ended to improve the passing. I'm not sure why some of you are finding it hard to understand. If a team is passing a 1.8, and another team is passing a 2.2, what is the distribution of 0, 1, 2 and 3's? (don't worry, it's a rhetorical question) The answer is still that it's variable. It's you who is misinformed or being disingenuous. To make many of the specific assertions that you are trying to make, you would have to track the frequency of each rated pass, and the result of of those plays. That more specific analysis likely takes you slight further and further away from any presumptions from the aggregate number. To be clear, I'm not discounting or arguing against the use of stats. In your case, I am arguing against the fact that you sometimes make conclusions that aren't actually as objective based on aggregate stats.
|
|
|
Post by lvcalum on Apr 12, 2020 21:33:38 GMT -5
Blockers also understand when a setter is unwilling or unable to set the middles regardless of the pass. There were too many matches like that last year. Regardless of the pass?? This is why most (not all, but most) of the criticism Hames gets is unwarranted. It's also why the guy above talking about the "context" of passing numbers was being disingenuous (or is misinformed). In order to run a 'Quick' you require a 3 pass. You need at least a 2 pass to run either a 'Gap' or 'Slide'. More than half the time last season Hames was getting 1s or 0s. When it comes to middles, their involvement is DIRECTLY related to the passing. Likewise, serving to Zone 1 or 2 is a good way to minimize sets to a dangerous RS, because of the angle. Y'all can talk about the setting from dawn till dusk if you like, but until you get halfway decent passing, it's just wasted energy. And Cook, from what I've seen, has been telling you guys this... He's offered scholarships to at least 3 players since the season ended to improve the passing. I'm not sure why some of you are finding it hard to understand. Nobody is saying the passing was good or even decent. It wasn’t. That being said, Hames’ job is to better the ball and she didn’t or couldn’t do it enough last year. I remember tons of trap sets to the pins and many missed opportunities to set the middles when she could, but she chose against it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 21:43:49 GMT -5
Specifically which blocker, to be clear? Because we're talking about middles and their eye work here. When a setter gets a 3 pass, the opposing middle has to honor your middle, virtually guaranteeing a 1 on 1 attack, which significantly raises the opportunity of a FBSO. I mean, that's why passing matters and it's NOT subjective and doesn't require context... That's clear, right? Even if the middle is Callie Schwarzenbach, who they know 1) has zero heat and 2) doesn't connect well with the setter and 3) that the set is still much more likely to go left on a perfect pass than to her (if their scouting report was well-prepared)? I don't think I'd tell my middles to honor Callie Schwarzenbach on a perfect pass. Let her get her 1 kill per set IF they manage a miracle and connect perfectly. I wonder how often pin attackers are seeing a single blocker as a result of a 3-pass exactly. THAT is where you see how good your setter is. But that's when 1 on 1 attacks happen. I hear what you're saying about not honoring certain middles but the truth is you have to. If you don't you'll get buried at Nebraska's level. You can certainly shade, but on a perfect pass the middle has to stay home. If they guess, they will get beat almost every time.
|
|
|
Post by jwvolley on Apr 12, 2020 21:44:43 GMT -5
Regardless of the pass?? This is why most (not all, but most) of the criticism Hames gets is unwarranted. It's also why the guy above talking about the "context" of passing numbers was being disingenuous (or is misinformed). In order to run a 'Quick' you require a 3 pass. You need at least a 2 pass to run either a 'Gap' or 'Slide'. More than half the time last season Hames was getting 1s or 0s. When it comes to middles, their involvement is DIRECTLY related to the passing. Likewise, serving to Zone 1 or 2 is a good way to minimize sets to a dangerous RS, because of the angle. Y'all can talk about the setting from dawn till dusk if you like, but until you get halfway decent passing, it's just wasted energy. And Cook, from what I've seen, has been telling you guys this... He's offered scholarships to at least 3 players since the season ended to improve the passing. I'm not sure why some of you are finding it hard to understand. Nobody is saying the passing was good or even decent. It wasn’t. That being said, Hames’ job is to better the ball and she didn’t Ehhhh I'm not a big Hames defender but if there's anything she did do it was better a lot of balls. Home girl could accurately bump set from anywhere on the court. She's obviously not Poulter or Carlini and didn't spin straw into gold but I think she put up a lot of very hittable sets out of some atrocious passes. That's not the area I would critique her on for the 2019 season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 21:54:08 GMT -5
Regardless of the pass?? This is why most (not all, but most) of the criticism Hames gets is unwarranted. It's also why the guy above talking about the "context" of passing numbers was being disingenuous (or is misinformed). In order to run a 'Quick' you require a 3 pass. You need at least a 2 pass to run either a 'Gap' or 'Slide'. More than half the time last season Hames was getting 1s or 0s. When it comes to middles, their involvement is DIRECTLY related to the passing. Likewise, serving to Zone 1 or 2 is a good way to minimize sets to a dangerous RS, because of the angle. Y'all can talk about the setting from dawn till dusk if you like, but until you get halfway decent passing, it's just wasted energy. And Cook, from what I've seen, has been telling you guys this... He's offered scholarships to at least 3 players since the season ended to improve the passing. I'm not sure why some of you are finding it hard to understand. Nobody is saying the passing was good or even decent. It wasn’t. That being said, Hames’ job is to better the ball and she didn’t or couldn’t do it enough last year. I remember tons of trap sets to the pins and many missed opportunities to set the middles when she could, but she chose against it. Please trust me on this, she isn't choosing not to set the middle. A Quick is the highest percentage swing in D1. No setter chooses not to set it. If it isn't getting set, it means the setter doesn't think she can. There are only two possible conclusions from there. 1) She's right. If you thought she could, you're wrong. 2) She's wrong. You can tell because your coach's head will explode and an AC will start barking at her. I didn't see that much in Nebraska games this year. I did see a LOT of bad passes though. And I get that you're resistant to trusting the data but if you've ever watched a game and thought "Why aren't they setting the middles?" the answer was almost certainly passing, whether you realised it or not.
|
|
|
Post by lvcalum on Apr 12, 2020 22:14:07 GMT -5
Nobody is saying the passing was good or even decent. It wasn’t. That being said, Hames’ job is to better the ball and she didn’t or couldn’t do it enough last year. I remember tons of trap sets to the pins and many missed opportunities to set the middles when she could, but she chose against it. Please trust me on this, she isn't choosing not to set the middle. A Quick is the highest percentage swing in D1. No setter chooses not to set it. If it isn't getting set, it means the setter doesn't think she can. There are only two possible conclusions from there. 1) She's right. If you thought she could, you're wrong. 2) She's wrong. You can tell because your coach's head will explode and an AC will start barking at her. I didn't see that much in Nebraska games this year. I did see a LOT of bad passes though. And I get that you're resistant to trusting the data but if you've ever watched a game and thought "Why aren't they setting the middles?" the answer was almost certainly passing, whether you realised it or not. Wow, I could swear I saw Cook’s head explode at her countless times last season. I must have misinterpreted him. I appreciate your advice on how to watch a game. I was naively relying on my years of competition experience as a middle blocker. Look, we can disagree - it’s fun to think and argue about something as trivial as volleyball in times like this. Let’s hope the passing improves greatly and the setting follows. Then we will be able to argue next year what the key was that turned it around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 22:20:44 GMT -5
Please trust me on this, she isn't choosing not to set the middle. A Quick is the highest percentage swing in D1. No setter chooses not to set it. If it isn't getting set, it means the setter doesn't think she can. There are only two possible conclusions from there. 1) She's right. If you thought she could, you're wrong. 2) She's wrong. You can tell because your coach's head will explode and an AC will start barking at her. I didn't see that much in Nebraska games this year. I did see a LOT of bad passes though. And I get that you're resistant to trusting the data but if you've ever watched a game and thought "Why aren't they setting the middles?" the answer was almost certainly passing, whether you realised it or not. Wow, I could swear I saw Cook’s head explode at her countless times last season. I must have misinterpreted him. I appreciate your advice on how to watch a game. I was naively relying on my years of competition experience as a middle blocker. Look, we can disagree - it’s fun to think and argue about something as trivial as volleyball in times like this. Let’s hope the passing improves greatly and the setting follows. Then we will be able to argue next year what the key was that turned it around. Well with all your years experience as a middle, you'll know how often you get set on a Quick or a Gap from a 1... Haha, I'm afraid that discussion would end the same way this one has: if the passing improves and the setting gets better, it was the passing. If the passing improves and the setting doesn't, or the setting improves and the passing doesn't, it wasn't. But you knew that because of all your years of experience...
|
|
|
Post by lvcalum on Apr 12, 2020 22:43:08 GMT -5
Wow, I could swear I saw Cook’s head explode at her countless times last season. I must have misinterpreted him. I appreciate your advice on how to watch a game. I was naively relying on my years of competition experience as a middle blocker. Look, we can disagree - it’s fun to think and argue about something as trivial as volleyball in times like this. Let’s hope the passing improves greatly and the setting follows. Then we will be able to argue next year what the key was that turned it around. Well with all your years experience as a middle, you'll know how often you get set on a Quick or a Gap from a 1... Haha, I'm afraid that discussion would end the same way this one has: if the passing improves and the setting gets better, it was the passing. If the passing improves and the setting doesn't, or the setting improves and the passing doesn't, it wasn't. But you knew that because of all your years of experience... Got it. Marking you down as fully satisfied with the setting. My bad for disagreeing with your sage wisdom and inside knowledge of Hames’ psyche.
|
|