Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 11:45:44 GMT -5
Phenomenal passing is a hallmark of Nebraska volleyball, potentially the best 1st contact program of the 21st century. Of course passing would be Cook’s focus, he’s had marginal to poor setting 5 or 6 of the last 10 seasons, they’ve always made it work. To have a bad passing season is, on the other hand, unusually odd for Husker volleyball. Also the psychology is different. Passing is a group skill, when you have a returning 5-1 setter, that would be.. And even then, the mentality of coaching a setter is so important I don't think coaches' media statements on their setters is a valid point of argumentation, at all (with either positive or negative commentary, tbh). Agree entirely it's a group exercise. I've written paragraphs on the subject on this site. Also agree he isn't going to trash his setter regardless of how well she does. But the point remains that he is telling the fans what the issue is... He's not lying. Is Hames also a problem? Perhaps. But anyone claiming they know she IS the issue, is diminishing the extent to which passing effects setting.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Apr 13, 2020 12:03:25 GMT -5
Last thought; if passing didn't have such a massive impact on the rest of the offense (which is my ACTUAL position, Hames notwithstanding) why would Cook be referencing it as the area Nebraska needs to improve in every recent interview? Even the Q&A last week, when asked what the Huskers needed to do better, he said ball control/passing twice! How that classes things up donut . Phenomenal passing is a hallmark of Nebraska volleyball, potentially the best 1st contact program of the 21st century. Of course passing would be Cook’s focus, he’s had marginal to poor setting 5 or 6 of the last 10 seasons, they’ve always made it work. To have a bad passing season is, on the other hand, unusually odd for Husker volleyball. Average to poor relative to what ?
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 13, 2020 12:08:56 GMT -5
I just want to clarify my point: just because Hames had to chase down 53.2% of Nebraska's passes last season doesn't mean that she was automatically good at setting the other 46.8%. She wasn't. This. I'm not saying she was good. I'm pointing out that the passing - 46% good pass percentage on the year - was so bad that the rampant criticism of her is unfair. And I do understand it; it's tempting to blame the setter when the set has a poor location/tempo, but when she's receiving more bad passes than good ones, she's obviously going to struggle. And again, Nebraska fans have been spoiled in terms of passing in recent years. When a team is passing 60+ good pass percentage, the offense is going to be flying. But complaints about her electing not to set the middle just aren't sensible posts. Likewise, saying "the passing is bad BUT Hames is the issue" disregards the fact that one is directly impacted by the other. Regarding Hames, I'd reserve judgement until she's getting something like decent passing. Last thought; if passing didn't have such a massive impact on the rest of the offense (which is my ACTUAL position, Hames notwithstanding) why would Cook be referencing it as the area Nebraska needs to improve in every recent interview? Even the Q&A last week, when asked what the Huskers needed to do better, he said ball control/passing twice! How that classes things up donut . That doesn't clear (class?) things up. You're still conflating the two arguments. The following statements (in the above post) are all opinions of yours: - 46% good pass percentage on the year - was so bad that the rampant criticism of her is unfair- But complaints about her electing not to set the middle just aren't sensible posts- I'd reserve judgement until she's getting something like decent passing None of these statements are supported by the data you are providing (46% good pass percentage). Your base claim seems to be " passing affects setting, so poor passing is going to lead to some degree of poorer setting." Your data alone doesn't necessarily prove this, but I feel we are all ok with inserting our own intuition/knowledge to make that logical leap. However, the opinions above (which go further) also aren't supported by your good pass % data, but you're acting like they are. You're inserting a premise, which simply put is, " if passing is bad enough, setting criticism is unfair." That's a major leap, and I think you're downplaying the amount of evidence you would need to prove that, while acting like your good pass % data point does. I agree with you that passing affects setting, so naturally it needs to be factored in when you are evaluating a setter. I might also agree with you that the poor passing doesn't receive enough focus amongst Nebraska fans. But you're also trying to sneak in through the back door the statement above in red, acting like it is supported by the same data/logic as the statement in yellow. That doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 13, 2020 12:19:06 GMT -5
It's pretty obvious that none of your positions are that complex. Poser is the term that comes to mind. You wrote the sentence "The only "objective truth" in that scale is that there is an average of subjectively assigned ratings" - in an unironic sense and call anyone else a poser? Hmm hypocrite is the term that comes to mind. pos·er. /ˈpōzər/ noun a person who acts in an affected manner in order to impress others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 12:22:32 GMT -5
This. I'm not saying she was good. I'm pointing out that the passing - 46% good pass percentage on the year - was so bad that the rampant criticism of her is unfair. And I do understand it; it's tempting to blame the setter when the set has a poor location/tempo, but when she's receiving more bad passes than good ones, she's obviously going to struggle. And again, Nebraska fans have been spoiled in terms of passing in recent years. When a team is passing 60+ good pass percentage, the offense is going to be flying. But complaints about her electing not to set the middle just aren't sensible posts. Likewise, saying "the passing is bad BUT Hames is the issue" disregards the fact that one is directly impacted by the other. Regarding Hames, I'd reserve judgement until she's getting something like decent passing. Last thought; if passing didn't have such a massive impact on the rest of the offense (which is my ACTUAL position, Hames notwithstanding) why would Cook be referencing it as the area Nebraska needs to improve in every recent interview? Even the Q&A last week, when asked what the Huskers needed to do better, he said ball control/passing twice! How that classes things up donut . That doesn't clear (class?) things up. You're still conflating the two arguments. The following statements (in the above post) are all opinions of yours: - 46% good pass percentage on the year - was so bad that the rampant criticism of her is unfair- But complaints about her electing not to set the middle just aren't sensible posts- I'd reserve judgement until she's getting something like decent passing None of these statements are supported by the data you are providing (46% good pass percentage). Your base claim seems to be " passing affects setting, so poor passing is going to lead to some degree of poorer setting." Your data alone doesn't necessarily prove this, but I feel we are all ok with inserting our own intuition/knowledge to make that logical leap. However, the opinions above (which go further) also aren't supported by your good pass % data, but you're acting like they are. You're inserting a premise, which simply put is, " if passing is bad enough, setting criticism is unfair." That's a major leap, and I think you're downplaying the amount of evidence you would need to prove that, while acting like your good pass % data point does. I agree with you that passing affects setting, so naturally it needs to be factored in when you are evaluating a setter. I might also agree with you that the poor passing doesn't receive enough focus amongst Nebraska fans. But you're also trying to sneak in through the back door the statement above in red, acting like it is supported by the same data/logic as the statement in yellow. That doesn't work. Oh good, you're obsessing over this. Here's where you're getting lost: if the passing is THAT bad (46% GP), the AMOUNT of setting criticism is unfair. Do I have data to quantify how much setting criticism WOULD be fair? No. But since you seem well on your way to proposing VolleyTalkMetrics, I'll let you handle that. Again, I'm not saying Hames was WNT standard. I'm saying that the AMOUNT of criticism she's getting is unfair and that the connection between passing and setting is so intrinsic that you simply can't evaluate one without consideration of the other. But feel free to go back to the end of the 2019 Nebraska thread and count the number of complaints about Hames/setting versus passing. And do let me know the data, I'm very curious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 12:25:57 GMT -5
You wrote the sentence "The only "objective truth" in that scale is that there is an average of subjectively assigned ratings" - in an unironic sense and call anyone else a poser? Hmm hypocrite is the term that comes to mind. pos·er. /ˈpōzər/ noun a person who acts in an affected manner in order to impress others. I've always felt first contact is undervalued by most people associated with volleyball. My opinions stated here have nothing to do with you.
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Apr 13, 2020 12:36:41 GMT -5
Phenomenal passing is a hallmark of Nebraska volleyball, potentially the best 1st contact program of the 21st century. Of course passing would be Cook’s focus, he’s had marginal to poor setting 5 or 6 of the last 10 seasons, they’ve always made it work. To have a bad passing season is, on the other hand, unusually odd for Husker volleyball. Average to poor relative to what ? Relative to expectations for a premier program. If you’re at Nebraska volleyball it’s fair to ask “Are you making an impact at your position the way Huskers traditional have?” To compare individual players isn’t particularly fair, but ultimately you’re looking to win a national championship. And to win a national championship it is fair to expect players to be great/outstanding/exceptional/etc. Those are reasonable standards for fans to judge against. Cook is riding with Hames. He’s a great coach with a great staff. Between Hames & coaching co. they’ll make it work, even when it’s bad. For reference to whoever above, rewatch Nebraska vs Purdue/Iowa and you can hear Cook and staff barking at Hames. Most cringe against Purdue when Sun lost her shoe and instead of setting Callie S., Hames made the inexplicably poor decision to throw the ball over the net... TWICE.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 13, 2020 12:39:43 GMT -5
That doesn't clear (class?) things up. You're still conflating the two arguments. The following statements (in the above post) are all opinions of yours: - 46% good pass percentage on the year - was so bad that the rampant criticism of her is unfair- But complaints about her electing not to set the middle just aren't sensible posts- I'd reserve judgement until she's getting something like decent passing None of these statements are supported by the data you are providing (46% good pass percentage). Your base claim seems to be " passing affects setting, so poor passing is going to lead to some degree of poorer setting." Your data alone doesn't necessarily prove this, but I feel we are all ok with inserting our own intuition/knowledge to make that logical leap. However, the opinions above (which go further) also aren't supported by your good pass % data, but you're acting like they are. You're inserting a premise, which simply put is, " if passing is bad enough, setting criticism is unfair." That's a major leap, and I think you're downplaying the amount of evidence you would need to prove that, while acting like your good pass % data point does. I agree with you that passing affects setting, so naturally it needs to be factored in when you are evaluating a setter. I might also agree with you that the poor passing doesn't receive enough focus amongst Nebraska fans. But you're also trying to sneak in through the back door the statement above in red, acting like it is supported by the same data/logic as the statement in yellow. That doesn't work. Oh good, you're obsessing over this. Here's where you're getting lost: if the passing is THAT bad (46% GP), the AMOUNT of setting criticism is unfair. Do I have data to quantify how much setting criticism WOULD be fair? No. But since you seem well on your way to proposing VolleyTalkMetrics, I'll let you handle that. Again, I'm not saying Hames was WNT standard. I'm saying that the AMOUNT of criticism she's getting is unfair and that the connection between passing and setting is so intrinsic that you simply can't evaluate one without consideration of the other. But feel free to go back to the end of the 2019 Nebraska thread and count the number of complaints about Hames/setting versus passing. And do let me know the data, I'm very curious. Posting 2 posts is obsessing? I thought you loved data-driven discussions. You're still entirely missing the point (and misinterpreting others' responses to your posts). If I'm lost, it's only because you've been a moving target, acting like the same single data point supports multiple semi-related claims. But sure, I'll bite on this one. I'm not advocating for the creation of any data to evaluate the bolded claim, but simply pointing out how high the burden is for you to be able to prove that. I'm fine with you asserting your opinion, but you're acting like it's not an opinion and instead supported by your 46% GP data point. That's all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 12:44:35 GMT -5
Oh good, you're obsessing over this. Here's where you're getting lost: if the passing is THAT bad (46% GP), the AMOUNT of setting criticism is unfair. Do I have data to quantify how much setting criticism WOULD be fair? No. But since you seem well on your way to proposing VolleyTalkMetrics, I'll let you handle that. Again, I'm not saying Hames was WNT standard. I'm saying that the AMOUNT of criticism she's getting is unfair and that the connection between passing and setting is so intrinsic that you simply can't evaluate one without consideration of the other. But feel free to go back to the end of the 2019 Nebraska thread and count the number of complaints about Hames/setting versus passing. And do let me know the data, I'm very curious. Posting 2 posts is obsessing? I thought you loved data-driven discussions. You're still entirely missing the point (and misinterpreting others' responses to your posts). If I'm lost, it's only because you've been a moving target, acting like the same single data point supports multiple semi-related claims. But sure, I'll bite on this one. I'm not advocating for the creation of any data to evaluate the bolded claim, but simply pointing out how high the burden is for you to be able to prove that. I'm fine with you asserting your opinion, but you're acting like it's not an opinion and instead supported by your 46% GP data point. That's all. Point me to ANY other data points shared in this discussion. Hitting efficiency in matches with a higher good pass percentage versus hitting efficiency in matches with a lower one. Hitting efficiency from a certain RO (when a stronger passer is in zone 1 for instance). Literally any data points to support the notion that Hames is THE issue. That, after all, is the notion to which I took exception. You're suggesting that my evidence isn't strong enough to claim she isn't (something I haven't stated) while ignoring the fact that no one else is providing any evidence at all... It's little wonder these discussions veer into nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 13, 2020 12:46:43 GMT -5
pos·er. /ˈpōzər/ noun a person who acts in an affected manner in order to impress others. I've always felt first contact is undervalued by most people associated with volleyball. My opinions stated here have nothing to do with you. Of course, we are all entitled to our opinions, but the proper context for that is that you are posting on a volleyball forum, where people will naturally debate those opinions. I don't think that many coaches undervalue the first contact. Passing is a difficult skill to teach and/or to master.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 12:51:23 GMT -5
Also the psychology is different. Passing is a group skill, when you have a returning 5-1 setter, that would be.. And even then, the mentality of coaching a setter is so important I don't think coaches' media statements on their setters is a valid point of argumentation, at all (with either positive or negative commentary, tbh). Agree entirely it's a group exercise. I've written paragraphs on the subject on this site. Also agree he isn't going to trash his setter regardless of how well she does. But the point remains that he is telling the fans what the issue is... He's not lying. Is Hames also a problem? Perhaps. But anyone claiming they know she IS the issue, is diminishing the extent to which passing effects setting. It's also entirely possible that Cook acknowledges that Hames isn't meeting expectations and sees better passing as a way to ensure her job is as easy as possible since she's rather clearly struggling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 12:52:37 GMT -5
Phenomenal passing is a hallmark of Nebraska volleyball, potentially the best 1st contact program of the 21st century. Of course passing would be Cook’s focus, he’s had marginal to poor setting 5 or 6 of the last 10 seasons, they’ve always made it work. To have a bad passing season is, on the other hand, unusually odd for Husker volleyball. Precisely. And yet, reading comments from Husker fans you'd be forgiven for thinking that Hames was supposed to be passing to herself! The amount of criticism she gets in a match where the team passed 2.0 is absurd. But why, if she's also not locating the ball well when the passes are good?
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 13, 2020 12:57:31 GMT -5
Posting 2 posts is obsessing? I thought you loved data-driven discussions. You're still entirely missing the point (and misinterpreting others' responses to your posts). If I'm lost, it's only because you've been a moving target, acting like the same single data point supports multiple semi-related claims. But sure, I'll bite on this one. I'm not advocating for the creation of any data to evaluate the bolded claim, but simply pointing out how high the burden is for you to be able to prove that. I'm fine with you asserting your opinion, but you're acting like it's not an opinion and instead supported by your 46% GP data point. That's all. Point me to ANY other data points shared in this discussion. Hitting efficiency in matches with a higher good pass percentage versus hitting efficiency in matches with a lower one. Hitting efficiency from a certain RO (when a stronger passer is in zone 1 for instance). Literally any data points to support the notion that Hames is THE issue. That, after all, is the notion to which I took exception. You're suggesting that my evidence isn't strong enough to claim she isn't (something I haven't stated) while ignoring the fact that no one else is providing any evidence at all... It's little wonder these discussions veer into nonsense. Who claimed that Hames is the only issue? This entire spat started because of this post, which suggests the exact opposite. How about both? The passing was dismal and Hames wasn’t very good. Not a single poster has disagreed with you that you have to take passing into account when evaluating a setter. But, based on statements you've made which I've already highlighted (and reposted one of them below for your convenience), you are also seeming to suggest that any criticism of Hames is unfounded because of poor passing. If you aren't making that claim, I'll chalk it up to a misunderstanding and gladly move on. 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 12:57:33 GMT -5
I don't think that many coaches undervalue the first contact. Passing is a difficult skill to teach and/or to master. Here we have an agreement. But I don't think any coaches here would dispute that passing is a huge factor in setting. I highly doubt any coaches are complaining that Hames is consistently ignoring the middles. Everyone makes mistakes but there's a reason teams watch so much film during the week and have detailed scouting reports. They're not just making it up on the fly.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 13, 2020 13:04:35 GMT -5
I don't think that many coaches undervalue the first contact. Passing is a difficult skill to teach and/or to master. Here we have an agreement. But I don't think any coaches here would dispute that passing is a huge factor in setting. I highly doubt any coaches are complaining that Hames is consistently ignoring the middles. Everyone makes mistakes but there's a reason teams watch so much film during the week and have detailed scouting reports. They're not just making it up on the fly. Everyone has a plan, but that doesn't mean that everyone has a good plan or that every coach is as equally talented. There's just as wide of a disparity in quality or strengths of coaches and coaching as there is quality and performance in players.
|
|