Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 12:57:57 GMT -5
Kind of silly that the NCAA awards an assist for that. I much prefer the international assist definitions that award a different type of assist (and assist attempt) dependent on the situation created by the setter for the attacker. Much more accurate picture of what your setter is doing/isn't doing. It definitely has some good points, but overall I don't like it. Just because your team did not convert your dig doesn't lessen the value of you saving a point. FIVB stats are relatively worthless, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Sept 16, 2014 13:10:39 GMT -5
Only slightly. The good thing about being a DataVolley scout is you don't have to use the NCAA manual for your analysis. Yup. The NCAA totally needs to evolve to the refinement of stat-taking at the FIVB level, which includes such statistical gems like the "running set" and the "excellents" service receptions. And don't forget the DataVolley stat of 'Vote'. Very important and helpful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 13:20:48 GMT -5
I much prefer the international assist definitions that award a different type of assist (and assist attempt) dependent on the situation created by the setter for the attacker. Much more accurate picture of what your setter is doing/isn't doing. It definitely has some good points, but overall I don't like it. Just because your team did not convert your dig doesn't lessen the value of you saving a point. Right, but knowing if you're scoring off of a dig is pretty valuable information in the women's game too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 13:24:28 GMT -5
A cover is not a dig because a block is not an attack. I know you said this, but I'm backing you up. Now, maybe it should be. It's definitely valuable. But it's not. (And the value isn't totally lost. You just saved your team a hitting error, which would effect its hitting %.) NCAA definitions aside, since the goal should be to present as accurate a picture as possible of how well your team is defending directed shots by opponents, I would include covered balls as digs. Or maybe covered balls should be their own stat. I know that some coaches chart that (opportunities to cover v. balls actually covered and playable). Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Sept 16, 2014 13:34:02 GMT -5
On an unrelated matter, I always found it interesting that the difference between a dig and a pass is the function/role of the opposing player who sent the ball over the net. If the function/role of the opposing player is a hitter, then the stat is labeled a dig. If the function/role of the opposing player is a server, the stat is labeled a pass.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 13:41:37 GMT -5
On an unrelated matter, I always found it interesting that the difference between a dig and a pass is the function/role of the opposing player who sent the ball over the net. If the function/role of the opposing player is a hitter, then the stat is labeled a dig. If the function/role of the opposing player is a server, the stat is labeled a pass. Well, they're very different skills and represent very different things that you want your team to do well.
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Sept 16, 2014 13:42:43 GMT -5
Only slightly. The good thing about being a DataVolley scout is you don't have to use the NCAA manual for your analysis. Yup. The NCAA totally needs to evolve to the refinement of stat-taking at the FIVB level, which includes such statistical gems like the "running set" and the "excellents" service receptions. I'd argue that the serve receptions stats are one thing that the NCAA could actually really use. The idea of the "running set" is well-intended; the people who do the FIVB stats are just often poorly trained and inconsistent in their definitions.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 16, 2014 13:51:09 GMT -5
Yup. The NCAA totally needs to evolve to the refinement of stat-taking at the FIVB level, which includes such statistical gems like the "running set" and the "excellents" service receptions. I'd argue that the serve receptions stats are one thing that the NCAA could actually really use. The idea of the "running set" is well-intended; the people who do the FIVB stats are just often poorly trained and inconsistent in their definitions. The name "running set" is confusing, though, because it has nothing to do with running.
|
|
|
Post by volleyballd on Sept 17, 2014 8:46:39 GMT -5
So, if a player digs a ball and it goes over the net and lands in the court, she is credited with a dig and a kill?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 17, 2014 11:01:37 GMT -5
So, if a player digs a ball and it goes over the net and lands in the court, she is credited with a dig and a kill? In the NCAA, yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 11:17:47 GMT -5
Which is particularly nuts since if she attempts to dig a ball and it lands out of bounds on the other side, she isn't awarded a hitting error. This and overpasses are opportunities for freebies in the kill department. All reward with no risk.
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Sept 17, 2014 11:52:32 GMT -5
I think a lot of statistics has to do with media and publicity, so the numbers look nice for the fans. More kills, blocks, digs, less errors is easier for them to understand and more attractive.
So if there is a blocking error on one side, give someone a kill. If there is an overpass and it lands in without being touched, give a kill. Give an assist on the dig when the setter kills the 2nd contact. Since free balls often do not end in a kill, do not give an attempt, so the hitting percentage stays higher. If you do send a free ball over, and it is out or in the net or an illegal hit, then it is an error, so there are a few exceptions where the stats don't always go in the positive favor.
Coaches can choose to count stats how they would like. Passing average, serving average, digs for free balls, not giving an assist on the dig before setter kill, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 11:58:31 GMT -5
Free balls are not supposed to be errors, not if they are truly free balls (player just trying to get the ball over the net after poor first and/or second contacts. I can dig up the wording if you want. It's the same thing with a hitter. They are not supposed to be given an error on a set that forced the error.
There's actually a lot of room for interpretation in statkeeping, which is a good thing and a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 17, 2014 12:12:37 GMT -5
Yeah, under the NCAA rules, if you overpass, dig the ball over the net, return a free ball, or otherwise put the ball over the net just keeping it alive rather than trying to score a point, this is not an attack. UNLESS, that is, it happens to result in a point. Then it is a kill, so you also get an attack too. It's a crazy stat rule.
Another crazy stat rule is that triple blocks count for 1.5 blocks in the total team block category. That's just stupid. (And because of it, their stats manual is wrong when it suggests a check that the total team blocks can never be more than the opposing team's number of hitting errors. In fact it could be a full 50% more, if every hitting error was because of a triple block.)
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 17, 2014 12:25:02 GMT -5
Yeah, under the NCAA rules, if you overpass, dig the ball over the net, return a free ball, or otherwise put the ball over the net just keeping it alive rather than trying to score a point, this is not an attack. UNLESS, that is, it happens to result in a point. Then it is a kill, so you also get an attack too. It's a crazy stat rule. Another crazy stat rule is that triple blocks count for 1.5 blocks in the total team block category. That's just stupid. (And because of it, their stats manual is wrong when it suggests a check that the total team blocks can never be more than the opposing team's number of hitting errors. In fact it could be a full 50% more, if every hitting error was because of a triple block.) The "block assist" is underrated in its randomness and uselessness. It's the Shake'N'Bake of NCAA VB stats ("and I helped")
|
|