|
Post by joetrinsey on Sept 17, 2014 12:25:46 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. Agreed. I would not count it as a "dig" per se, since coverage is a lot more random than defense, and a little bit of a different skill, but it should be part of an overall player evaluation. A player who is good in coverage can add value to a team. For example, Dominican consistently covers more of their attacks that are blocked than most teams, and it's pretty much all due to Castillo. If you watch their team they often have 1, maybe 2 players even bothering to cover, but as long as one of them is Castillo they generally cover at an above-average rate.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 17, 2014 12:40:07 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") I disagree here. If two players go up forming a block, why does it matter which one of them the attacker hits into? That would be even more random, giving one player a solo block and the other one no credit at all. But I do think that team blocks should be just the actual number of team blocks (rather than BS+BA/2)!
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 17, 2014 12:41:12 GMT -5
The "block assist" is underrated in its randomness and uselessness. It's the Shake'N'Bake of NCAA VB stats ("and I helped") I disagree here. If two players go up forming a block, why does it matter which one of them the attacker hits into? That would be even more random, giving one player a solo block and the other one no credit at all. But I do think that team blocks should be just the actual number of team blocks (rather than BS+BA/2)! Because that person is getting credit in the blocking statistics for actually blocking the ball? If three players are playing backcourt defense, why are you giving the dig to the player the attacker happened to hit it towards? Just going up to form a block does not guarantee a block. Why should a player who was late going up (and would easily get tooled/blown by if the hitter weren't too dumb to hit away from them) get credit for their blocking partner doing all the work? If you want to give credit for "setting" a good block, why wouldn't you also give them credit for (a) when the hitter makes an error by not hitting to their good block or even (b) when the hitter gets a kill because, despite the player "setting" a good block, their blocking partner and/or defense messed up.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 17, 2014 12:43:00 GMT -5
I disagree here. If two players go up forming a block, why does it matter which one of them the attacker hits into? That would be even more random, giving one player a solo block and the other one no credit at all. But I do think that team blocks should be just the actual number of team blocks (rather than BS+BA/2)! Because that person is getting credit in the blocking statistics for actually blocking the ball? If three players are playing backcourt defense, why are you giving the dig to the player the attacker happened to hit it towards? Because the double or triple block is a coordinated single play being done by two or three players. A dig is an individual play done by an individual player.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 17, 2014 12:46:26 GMT -5
Because that person is getting credit in the blocking statistics for actually blocking the ball? If three players are playing backcourt defense, why are you giving the dig to the player the attacker happened to hit it towards? Because the double or triple block is a coordinated single play being done by two or three players. A dig is an individual play done by an individual player. And team defense isn't a coordinated? The only reason double or triple blocks are treated differently is because of how the stats have shaped perception. Once again, the off-blocker is getting credit for just being there (and it's also quite subjective on how closed a block needs to be for it to be solo v. an assist). I also edited my post above with more detail.
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Sept 17, 2014 12:55:50 GMT -5
Because that person is getting credit in the blocking statistics for actually blocking the ball? If three players are playing backcourt defense, why are you giving the dig to the player the attacker happened to hit it towards? Because the double or triple block is a coordinated single play being done by two or three players. A dig is an individual play done by an individual player. So if a line blocker gets tooled on a double-block, should the middle blocker get (negative) credit for this play as well? ie, if you were assigning "tools" to players, would you give the line blocker 1.0 tools and the middle blocker 0.0 tools or would you give each player 0.5 tools, the same way you would give each of them 0.5 stuffs?
|
|
|
Post by ncaavballguru on Sept 17, 2014 13:02:49 GMT -5
I think you should break it down and assign a percentage of a block, blocking error, or tool off the block based on where the ball hit on the block (i.e. the outer 1/3rd portion of the outside blocker's left hand, the right pinkie of the middle blocker's hand as she tried to close the gap) and then record it that way.
For example, ball hits the side of the left thumb of the middle blocker and then tools out of bounds. The middle blocker should be assigned 0.835790201 percent of that tool and the outside blocker should be assigned 0.164209799 percent of that tool for not lining up the block correctly.
Haha. Yeah, I kid. I kid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 13:14:06 GMT -5
Because that person is getting credit in the blocking statistics for actually blocking the ball? If three players are playing backcourt defense, why are you giving the dig to the player the attacker happened to hit it towards? Because the double or triple block is a coordinated single play being done by two or three players. A dig is an individual play done by an individual player. Completely disagree. A dig is a coordination between every team member.
|
|
|
Post by ncaavballguru on Sept 17, 2014 13:23:04 GMT -5
Because the double or triple block is a coordinated single play being done by two or three players. A dig is an individual play done by an individual player. Completely disagree. A dig is a coordination between every team member. So were your digging stats good enough to get you all-league recognition while you were sitting on the end of the bench? You know, coordination between every team member and what-not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 14:05:18 GMT -5
I see both sides of this argument, but a double block (and some triple blocks) are definitely a combined defensive effort and it makes sense to treat that block as one defensive effort. Yes, you can make the same argument about digs, but the simple physical fact that the players are separated does make it different, no?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 17, 2014 14:14:13 GMT -5
I see both sides of this argument, but a double block (and some triple blocks) are definitely a combined defensive effort and it makes sense to treat that block as one defensive effort. Yes, you can make the same argument about digs, but the simple physical fact that the players are separated does make it different, no? Do you give both players a kill on a double quick? It's part of a combined offensive effort, and they aren't "separated." I have a fundamental issue with awarding a player for an action because they're standing next to the person who did that action. Moreover, even if it's a combined defensive effort there are individual actions required to COMPLETE the block (penetrating, hand positioning) the "assisting" blocker is not performing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 14:17:53 GMT -5
This is skirting the logic, I think. ALL play is inter-related. The point is that a well-formed double or triple block is more so than other defensive (or offensive) maneuvers. You wanted to know why should the other blocker get an assist for not touching the ball. Well, why should the player who does touch the ball get a solo block for something that was not a solo block? Why should she be the only one who gets credit for this maneuver, just because that's where the hitter happened to hit the ball (and maybe hit it there because of the rest of the block)?
My only point here is that this is not as simple as you make it seem and both sides of the argument have very valid points.
And this is simply not true, not in most cases.
|
|
|
Post by FOBRA on Sept 17, 2014 14:20:34 GMT -5
It always seemed that they kept track of block assists because it was just really hard to tell who actually got the touch in real-time for stats keepers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 14:23:45 GMT -5
Maybe so. But there is a difference between a solo block and a double (or triple) block. Is it bad to note that statistically? The fact that it IS difficult to tell who got the touch is perhaps proof of this point?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 17, 2014 14:23:46 GMT -5
This is skirting the logic, I think. ALL play is inter-related. The point is that a well-formed double or triple block is more so than other defensive (or offensive) maneuvers. You wanted to know why should the other blocker get an assist for not touching the ball. Well, why should the player who does touch the ball get a solo block for something that was not a solo block? Why should she be the only one who gets credit for this maneuver, just because that's where the hitter happened to hit the ball (and maybe hit it there because of the rest of the block)? My only point here is that this is not as simple as you make it seem and both sides of the argument have very valid points. And this is simply not true, not in most cases. I'm not for awarding that blocker a "solo block." I'm for awarding that blocker a "block." The blocking "maneuver" is not what should be rewarded in the stats, it should be for a successfully completed block. Just like I wouldn't credit a quick attacker with a "kill assist" for participating in a "maneuver" that contributed to another player successfully scoring a kill.
|
|