Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 13:13:43 GMT -5
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, you are also seeming to suggest that any criticism of Hames is unfounded because of poor setting. If you aren't making that claim, I'll chalk it up to a misunderstanding and gladly move on. I haven't ever stated that Hames was great last year. Nor do I believe she's immune from criticism (everyone makes mistakes) and she can certainly improve. But she isn't ignoring the scouting reports. On a perfect pass she is running plays that have been discussed. If they're OOS as much as they were in 2019, passing is the biggest issue (in my opinion). I believe that most Nebraska fans, like most volleyball fans, remember the end of a play better than the start of it. Their mind then weighs the outcome as being representative of the whole. Hawk Attack might be able to give an example... He recalled a play earlier in against Purdue when Sun lost her shoe. Can he, without looking at the play again, describe the first contact after the serve? And I'm not picking on him. I like his posting. But this phenomenon isn't limited to fans. We all suffer from it. Which is why we use analytics. And, again, I haven't seen a single data point to suggest that Hames, and not the passing, was the source of the issues.
|
|
|
Post by vup on Apr 13, 2020 13:19:12 GMT -5
I'm very excited about Keonilei Akana! We should have a good passing corps next year with Knuckles, Akana, and Densberger. I think they all have the capability to be very good, if not great. Chemistry and connecting with each other in the back court will definitely be a factor, but since it's so early, I don't want to force anything.
Anyone have any idea where Gabel is at in terms of level of play? Haven't really heard much about her, other than kind of writing her off.
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Apr 13, 2020 13:24:34 GMT -5
Hawk Attack might be able to give an example... He recalled a play earlier in against Purdue when Sun lost her shoe. Can he, without looking at the play again, describe the first contact after the serve? I thought Nebraska was serving during that play. If I remember right, Sun lost her shoe on a 2-point... dig maybe? Both balls Hames threw over were on 3-point touches where she absolutely should’ve gone to Callie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 13:26:41 GMT -5
I'm very excited about Keonilei Akana! We should have a good passing corps next year with Knuckles, Akana, and Densberger. I think they all have the capability to be very good, if not great. Chemistry and connecting with each other in the back court will definitely be a factor, but since it's so early, I don't want to force anything. Anyone have any idea where Gabel is at in terms of level of play? Haven't really heard much about her, other than kind of writing her off. Kaylei has always had good ball control. Densberger, not so much. In 2018, last time she handled a lot of SR, she passed poorly (46.8% GP). Knuckles was at 48% GP this year but I think she'll improve. They really need better communication though. With Kubik, Knuckles and Akana they have three young passers and one that will have no collegiate experience. Good communication will be essential.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 13:30:51 GMT -5
Hawk Attack might be able to give an example... He recalled a play earlier in against Purdue when Sun lost her shoe. Can he, without looking at the play again, describe the first contact after the serve? I thought Nebraska was serving during that play. If I remember right, Sun lost her shoe on a 2-point... dig maybe? Both balls Hames threw over were on 3-point touches where she absolutely should’ve gone to Callie. Oh, I believe you. I haven't pulled up the point (although I might now on VM just because I'm curious). I guess that proves my point though; you're not even sure who received serve, let alone how good the pass was. And again, I'm not saying you should remember. We inevitably remember the outcome more clearly than the lead up to it. But that's why it's important to use the data to inform our perception. Otherwise we end up ignoring a crucial component.
|
|
|
Post by vup on Apr 13, 2020 13:39:04 GMT -5
I'm very excited about Keonilei Akana! We should have a good passing corps next year with Knuckles, Akana, and Densberger. I think they all have the capability to be very good, if not great. Chemistry and connecting with each other in the back court will definitely be a factor, but since it's so early, I don't want to force anything. Anyone have any idea where Gabel is at in terms of level of play? Haven't really heard much about her, other than kind of writing her off. Kaylei has always had good ball control. Densberger, not so much. In 2018, last time she handled a lot of SR, she passed poorly (46.8% GP). Knuckles was at 48% GP this year but I think she'll improve. They really need better communication though. With Kubik, Knuckles and Akana they have three young passers and one that will have no collegiate experience. Good communication will be essential. Agreed. Although I can't help but remember some of Densbergers block coverage and saves. She is a good floor defender. With the right focus, consistency, and mindset, I think she could be viable, even if it's her senior season and we have two passing OH's.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 13, 2020 13:46:50 GMT -5
Who claimed that Hames is the only issue? This entire spat started because of this post, which suggests the exact opposite. 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, you are also seeming to suggest that any criticism of Hames is unfounded because of poor setting. If you aren't making that claim, I'll chalk it up to a misunderstanding and gladly move on. I haven't ever stated that Hames was great last year. Nor do I believe she's immune from criticism (everyone makes mistakes) and she can certainly improve. But she isn't ignoring the scouting reports. On a perfect pass, she is running plays that have been discussed. If they're OOS as much as they were in 2019, passing is the biggest issue (in my opinion). I believe that most Nebraska fans, like most volleyball fans, remember the end of a play better than the start of it. Their mind then weighs the outcome as being representative of the whole. Hawk Attack might be able to give an example... He recalled a play earlier in against Purdue when Sun lost her shoe. Can he, without looking at the play again, describe the first contact after the serve? And I'm not picking on him. I like his posting. But this phenomenon isn't limited to fans. We all suffer from it. Which is why we use analytics. And, again, I haven't seen a single data point to suggest that Hames, and not the passing, was the source of the issues. I edited my post before you responded, but I don't think it will change your response. Nonetheless, this is better. You're right, it is going to be much harder to provide relevant isolated data for Hames' efficiency/skill, due to the nature of the setting position. Regardless, it's still important to understand that one data point, a good pass %, (even without "competing" data) doesn't necessarily prove that passing is the biggest issue. It's supportive of that conclusion, but not determinative. Many of the criticisms of Hames' setting last year, existed in 2018 as well, when the passing was better. Even with perfect passes, her location and tempo are highly inconsistent. She sends way too many balls to the left (both in system and OOS) and she does ignore Callie on perfect passes (whether you believe it or not), allowing blockers to cheat towards the pins. I think a secondary reason why she bump-sets so often (the primary reason being the passing) is she's a bit slow and stiff to the ball. She also never seemed to have a good connection with all of her hitters in a single game. All of that being said, she's certainly a great back-row defender and a good blocker for her height. Yes, I understand some of these observations may be influenced by coaching, and I hear your point about "end of rally" bias, but I think you should also give your fellow posters some credit for being able to dissect different parts of a volleyball rally/game, and analyze appropriately.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Apr 13, 2020 13:48:36 GMT -5
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. Ok but then sun is sub par, sweet is average to bad, Callie is awful, Stivrins pretty decent, knuckles atrocious, at least half of the current PSU players are also pretty lousy. You’re comparing Hames to legends in a top 3 program. Cook and staff barking at a player would hardly also be a measuring stick. Olympians have been barked at by Cook and staff. Again, I don’t think Hames is exceptional at the highest level, “not very good, is again, ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 13:50:39 GMT -5
Hawk Attack might be able to give an example... He recalled a play earlier in against Purdue when Sun lost her shoe. Can he, without looking at the play again, describe the first contact after the serve? I thought Nebraska was serving during that play. If I remember right, Sun lost her shoe on a 2-point... dig maybe? Both balls Hames threw over were on 3-point touches where she absolutely should’ve gone to Callie. Just watched it because I was curious. It was UNL receiving (Kubik with a 3 pass). First off, Hames DOESN'T make good decisions during this play. But absolutely shouldn't be setting Schwarzenbach on the second dump because she hasn't gotten off the net. She could have set her on the first ball, although the back row attack was the better option because the blockers have bunched since Sun isn't a threat. But it should be noted that she DID set Schwarzenbach on the slide at the end of the point (which they lose). I guess my overarching thought here is that it can be more complicated than it seems & our memories aren't perfect. That's why I bring data into these conversations, however much it annoys certain posters.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Apr 13, 2020 13:54:20 GMT -5
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. Ok but if that’s the measuring stick then sun is sub par, sweet is average to bad, Callie is awful, Stivrins pretty decent, knuckles atrocious, at least half of the current PSU players are also pretty lousy. You’re comparing Hames to legends in a top 3 program. Cook and staff barking at a player would hardly also be a measuring stick. Olympians have been barked at by Cook and staff. Again, I don’t think Hames is exceptional at the highest level, “not very good, is again, ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Apr 13, 2020 13:56:10 GMT -5
I thought Nebraska was serving during that play. If I remember right, Sun lost her shoe on a 2-point... dig maybe? Both balls Hames threw over were on 3-point touches where she absolutely should’ve gone to Callie. Oh, I believe you. I haven't pulled up the point (although I might now on VM just because I'm curious). I guess that proves my point though; you're not even sure who received serve, let alone how good the pass was. And again, I'm not saying you should remember. We inevitably remember the outcome more clearly than the lead up to it. But that's why it's important to use the data to inform our perception. Otherwise we end up ignoring a crucial component. I don’t think people who are criticizing Hames are missing any crucial component... except possibly that she is unequivocally the Huskers choice for setter, and everyone is doing the best they can to get the most out of that and that’s not going to change. Setters of similar-ish ability (Bush, Weiskircher, Detering, Schau, Viliunas, Pollmiller) shouldn’t get a pass either for their shortcomings but they just aren’t/weren’t as high-profile as Hames.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 13, 2020 13:59:29 GMT -5
I thought Nebraska was serving during that play. If I remember right, Sun lost her shoe on a 2-point... dig maybe? Both balls Hames threw over were on 3-point touches where she absolutely should’ve gone to Callie. Oh, I believe you. I haven't pulled up the point (although I might now on VM just because I'm curious). I guess that proves my point though; you're not even sure who received serve, let alone how good the pass was. And again, I'm not saying you should remember. We inevitably remember the outcome more clearly than the lead up to it. But that's why it's important to use the data to inform our perception. Otherwise we end up ignoring a crucial component. How does how good the pass was relate, at all, to a specific setting decision in transition in a rally?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 13, 2020 14:01:21 GMT -5
Who claimed that Hames is the only issue? This entire spat started because of this post, which suggests the exact opposite. 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, you are also seeming to suggest that any criticism of Hames is unfounded because of poor setting. If you aren't making that claim, I'll chalk it up to a misunderstanding and gladly move on. I haven't ever stated that Hames was great last year. Nor do I believe she's immune from criticism (everyone makes mistakes) and she can certainly improve. But she isn't ignoring the scouting reports. On a perfect pass she is running plays that have been discussed. If they're OOS as much as they were in 2019, passing is the biggest issue (in my opinion). I believe that most Nebraska fans, like most volleyball fans, remember the end of a play better than the start of it. Their mind then weighs the outcome as being representative of the whole. Hawk Attack might be able to give an example... He recalled a play earlier in against Purdue when Sun lost her shoe. Can he, without looking at the play again, describe the first contact after the serve? And I'm not picking on him. I like his posting. But this phenomenon isn't limited to fans. We all suffer from it. Which is why we use analytics. And, again, I haven't seen a single data point to suggest that Hames, and not the passing, was the source of the issues. There is no data point that will provide context for the shoe incident. You have to watch the play. I think that is the issue that some are taking with you. For me, data and analytics are one component--perhaps the starting point, but definitely not the end-point--that includes training, scouting, tactics, systems, etc.
|
|
|
Post by vup on Apr 13, 2020 14:02:12 GMT -5
I'm very excited about Keonilei Akana! We should have a good passing corps next year with Knuckles, Akana, and Densberger. I think they all have the capability to be very good, if not great. Chemistry and connecting with each other in the back court will definitely be a factor, but since it's so early, I don't want to force anything. Anyone have any idea where Gabel is at in terms of level of play? Haven't really heard much about her, other than kind of writing her off. Kaylei has always had good ball control. Densberger, not so much. In 2018, last time she handled a lot of SR, she passed poorly (46.8% GP). Knuckles was at 48% GP this year but I think she'll improve. They really need better communication though. With Kubik, Knuckles and Akana they have three young passers and one that will have no collegiate experience. Good communication will be essential. Communication, yes, but also chemistry and leadership. I think Hames and Stivrins as captains last year was a little off, in my opinion. I think this could be part of some of the miscommunication.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 14:02:19 GMT -5
Many of the criticisms of Hames' setting last year, existed in 2018 as well, when the passing was better. Even with perfect passes, her location and tempo are highly inconsistent. She sends way too many balls to the left (both in system and OOS) and she does ignore Callie on perfect passes (whether you believe it or not), allowing blockers to cheat towards the pins. I think a secondary reason why she bump-sets so often (the primary reason being the passing) is she's a bit slow and stiff to the ball. You and I got off on the wrong foot regarding pro stats (I was actually in agreement with your points in the thread but I guess you thought I worded it poorly) which is a shame because I like your insights. In my opinion everything above is spot on. But I guess I'm just saying it's more nuanced than VT gives it credit for. Even though the above criticisms are correct, I just pulled up a play that Hawk Attack mentioned as an egregious example of Hames' poor play and her ignoring Schwarzenbach... She wasn't even an option on one of the two plays he was upset about and Hames DID set her on a slide during the point. And again, I'm not even trying to defend Hames here. I watch her and see all the stuff you do. But I also see really bad first contacts that emphasize her weaknesses and diminish her strengths. Passing HAS to be factored in when discussing setting. Truth is, and I'm sure this will upset the same old faces, until I started posting in the 2019 Nebraska thread at the end of the season, I hadn't seen a single person put a numerical value on how bad the passing was in 2019 relative to previous years. And I don't say that because it's some great achievement. I just don't think most Nebraska fans are thinking about it, which, in my opinion, is a mistake.
|
|