|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 17, 2014 14:24:10 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. That's fair, and I would understand it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 14:25:45 GMT -5
Maneuver is not the best word. I don't mean the effort or the technique. I'm trying to come up with a better one. They are forming a single block. Not two or three separate blocks.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 17, 2014 14:30:40 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? But it IS often difficult to tell whether a block should be an assist or a solo (how many inches gap?) Does that mean we shouldn't show that difference in the stats? There's also a difference between blocking a trap set and blocking a good set. We don't think of these that should be categorized separately because the stats we know and love don't do so, and we aren't conditioned to think of them this way (similar to how multiple people have responded to me saying doing away with block assists would automatically give the other player a "block solo" - it's just the language the stats have made us used to speaking.)
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 17, 2014 14:46:51 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. This is certainly part of it, I'm sure. But I still think that when two or three players go up in a concerted, practiced, coordinated block, it's silly to just credit one of them with the block because that's who the ball happened to hit. The other blockers aren't just close, and they aren't just decoys. They are part of the same block. You don't give a block assist to the blocker who goes up to cover the setter, and that's like how you don't give the player covering the left half of the court a dig when the ball goes to the right half. But when two or three players go up in an intentionally coordinated block together to form a single wall of hands, I think it is reasonable they all share credit for the block. (And yes, I suppose it might also be reasonable if they all shared blame in a blocking error, too.)
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 17, 2014 14:54:56 GMT -5
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. It's not the same thing at all. In the attack case, clearly one player is a decoy and the other one intends to hit the ball. But in a block assist, none of the players are just decoys. They are all intending to make the same play on the ball (the block).
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 17, 2014 14:56:03 GMT -5
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. It's not the same thing at all. In the attack case, clearly one player is a decoy and the other one intends to hit the ball. But in a block assist, none of the players are just decoys. They are all intending to make the same play on the ball (the block). No. Actually, either player could be set. Why are you randomly rewarding one player just because the setter decided to give the ball to the other?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 17, 2014 15:00:44 GMT -5
It's not the same thing at all. In the attack case, clearly one player is a decoy and the other one intends to hit the ball. But in a block assist, none of the players are just decoys. They are all intending to make the same play on the ball (the block). No. Actually, either player could be set. Why are you randomly rewarding one player just because the setter decided to give the ball to the other? Come on, you know you are losing this argument. All the blockers are all making the same play. The hitters are making two very different plays -- one attack and one decoy.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 17, 2014 15:07:28 GMT -5
This is certainly part of it, I'm sure. But I still think that when two or three players go up in a concerted, practiced, coordinated block, it's silly to just credit one of them with the block because that's who the ball happened to hit. It's not just who the ball "happened to hit." It's who was able to block the ball down onto the ground. Just because a middle blocked the ball, that doesn't mean the line blocker had the timing, hand positioning, or penetration to block a ball if the hitter happened to send it their way. that's like how you don't give the player covering the left half of the court a dig when the ball goes to the right half. But when two or three players go up in an intentionally coordinated block together to form a single wall of hands, I think it is reasonable they all share credit for the block. Then why are you giving a block assist to the player blocking line when the ball goes angle? Two or three players are moving in an intentionally coordinated defensive movement to form a single scheme, but you don't give "dig assists" for players also participating in floor defense. Also, why are you assuming a double block is so "coordinated"? They are often haphazard with at least one part of the "wall of hands" out of position. Just because they practice doing it together doesn't mean it is in practice. Are you going to separate when a double block is well-formed and when one blocker is bailing out another? (And yes, I suppose it might also be reasonable if they all shared blame in a blocking error, too.) So you're going to charge the line blocker with a hitting error when the middle nets on her way down? Would you penalize one player for another's error in hitting? In passing? (Let's give Hagglund a receiving error because Bricio's a shankasaurus?) No, you wouldn't. The only reason you think of blocking as different is not because it's more coordinated than any other aspect, but because the stat sheet you've grown accustomed to analyzing accounts for them. Kill assists, pass assists, dig assists are ridiculous on their face - you're not going to reward a player for something one of their teammates did (even if they were working in coordination to it). You haven't shown in any compelling way that blocking is more special. Edit: In the grand scheme of things, you're still thinking of this as "Should this point be awarded as a block solo or a block assist?" and not stepping back and arguing to me why the block assist should exist as the only place where we award individual stats for things a player's teammate did instead of him/her.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 17, 2014 15:08:13 GMT -5
No. Actually, either player could be set. Why are you randomly rewarding one player just because the setter decided to give the ball to the other? Come on, you know you are losing this argument. All the blockers are all making the same play. The hitters are making two very different plays -- one attack and one decoy. The play is only different in retrospect after the ball has been set. Surely you know that a "decoy" is not actually a decoy but another option they just didn't go with? Surely? Both hitters can be set on a double quick, you can easily set your middle instead of the outside even in a 4-1-5--they're still part of the "same play"
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 17, 2014 15:20:00 GMT -5
Come on, you know you are losing this argument. All the blockers are all making the same play. The hitters are making two very different plays -- one attack and one decoy. The play is only different in retrospect after the ball has been set. Surely you know that a "decoy" is not actually a decoy but another option they just didn't go with? Surely? Both hitters can be set on a double quick, you can easily set your middle instead of the outside even in a 4-1-5--they're still part of the "same play" But the setter does only set one of them. You are just wrong when you keep claiming that the only reason we think there should be group credit for blocks is because the stats have it that way. You obviously don't agree, but clearly some of us in this conversation see a distinction between a group block as a single discrete action versus an offensive or defensive scheme where everyone has coordinated but separate roles.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 17, 2014 15:30:14 GMT -5
But the setter does only set one of them. But the hitter only hits into the block of one of them! You are just wrong when you keep claiming that the only reason we think there should be group credit for blocks is because the stats have it that way. You obviously don't agree, but clearly some of us in this conversation see a distinction between a group block as a single discrete action versus an offensive or defensive scheme where everyone has coordinated but separate roles. Neither of you have made any compelling arguments as to why a block is any more of a "group" action than any other stat that we don't award "assists" for. And why are you saying blockers don't have "coordinated but separate roles"? That's just ignorant, and also where I step out of this conversation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 15:35:33 GMT -5
What are you talking about?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 16:15:45 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. This is certainly part of it, I'm sure. But I still think that when two or three players go up in a concerted, practiced, coordinated block, it's silly to just credit one of them with the block because that's who the ball happened to hit. Then why don't you think it's silly to just credit one digger with a dig because that's who the attacker happened to hit the ball to? All four defenders are a part of a practiced, concerted, coordinated effort to dig the ball. Just because they aren't standing next to each other? I get the impression that you consider the statistics on a boxscore to be some sort of award. It's just acknowledgement of a performed skill.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 17, 2014 16:18:43 GMT -5
This is certainly part of it, I'm sure. But I still think that when two or three players go up in a concerted, practiced, coordinated block, it's silly to just credit one of them with the block because that's who the ball happened to hit. Then why don't you think it's silly to just credit one digger with a dig because that's who the attacker happened to hit the ball to? All four defenders are a part of a practiced, concerted, coordinated effort to dig the ball. Just because they aren't standing next to each other? Keep up, why don't you? This has already been hashed out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 16:21:29 GMT -5
The play is only different in retrospect after the ball has been set. Surely you know that a "decoy" is not actually a decoy but another option they just didn't go with? Surely? Both hitters can be set on a double quick, you can easily set your middle instead of the outside even in a 4-1-5--they're still part of the "same play" But the setter does only set one of them. You are just wrong when you keep claiming that the only reason we think there should be group credit for blocks is because the stats have it that way. You obviously don't agree, but clearly some of us in this conversation see a distinction between a group block as a single discrete action versus an offensive or defensive scheme where everyone has coordinated but separate roles. Coordinated but separate roles? Like the pin blocker setting the block, reaching in and taking the 1-6 seam, and the middle blocker closing and reaching/pressing straight over to take zone 6/the 5-6 seam? Sounds coordinated and separate.
|
|