|
Post by gnu2vball on Oct 22, 2014 16:50:01 GMT -5
Few would argue that Penn State's Micah Hancock has been the Big Ten's dominant sever for the past three-and-a-half seasons. For grins, and with the help of my slacker staff (apologies to nyline), I thought I'd give it a look.
I looked at only matches against B1G teams (including NCAA playoffs) for the 2011, 2012, 2013, and the first eight matches of the 2014 season. I compared aces to the number of sets played. I did not tabulate service errors. I did not tabulate data for matches against non-conference teams--no 10 aces against Binghamton counted.
By years, here are Hancock's aces/set: 2011: 0.794; 2012: 0.539; 2013: 0.518; and 2014 (so far): 0.931. A not necessarily surprising drop-off after here freshman year as teams prepared. How do we explain 2014 uptick? I'm not that smart.
PSU faced 11 teams over the last three-and-a-half seasons. Rutgers and Maryland come up later this season.
By team, here they are by number of sets and aces per set. Teams with an "*" were encountered during playoffs.
MSU*: 16 sets 0.375 aces/set; NEB: 26 sets 0.461 aces/set; OSU: 19 sets 0.473; MICH: 16 sets 0.500 aces/set; PUR: 28 sets 0.571 aces/set; ILL: 29 sets 0.655 aces/set; WIS*: 27 Sets 0.704 aces/set; NW: 23 sets 0.739 aces/set; MIN* 31 sets 0.741 aces/set IND: 22 sets 0.909 aces/set; IOWA: 20 sets 1.100 aces/set.
To date, her best match performance was 8 aces against Iowa in 2013. She hit 7 in a losing effort against Illinois in 2011 and 7 against Minnesota in 2012. Of special note was a 6 ace performance at Happy Valley against Nebraska in 2011. The Huskers have done very well against her since--allowing only 4 aces in 17 sets.
Have fun with this. Although I've tried, I cannot guarantee it's error-free.
|
|
|
Post by akbar on Oct 22, 2014 17:04:45 GMT -5
Maybe the same reason Karsta Lowe is almost 2 kills per game more this year?
They are both seniors and playing like it.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 22, 2014 18:03:44 GMT -5
Few would argue that Penn State's Micah Hancock has been the Big Ten's dominant sever for the past three-and-a-half seasons. For grins, and with the help of my slacker staff (apologies to nyline), I thought I'd give it a look.
I looked at only matches against B1G teams (including NCAA playoffs) for the 2011, 2012, 2013, and the first eight matches of the 2014 season. I compared aces to the number of sets played. I did not tabulate service errors. I did not tabulate data for matches against non-conference teams--no 10 aces against Binghamton counted.
By years, here are Hancock's aces/set: 2011: 0.794; 2012: 0.539; 2013: 0.518; and 2014 (so far): 0.931. A not necessarily surprising drop-off after here freshman year as teams prepared. How do we explain 2014 uptick? I'm not that smart.
PSU faced 11 teams over the last three-and-a-half seasons. Rutgers and Maryland come up later this season.
By team, here they are by number of sets and aces per set. Teams with an "*" were encountered during playoffs.
MSU*: 16 sets 0.375 aces/set; NEB: 26 sets 0.461 aces/set; OSU: 19 sets 0.473; MICH: 16 sets 0.500 aces/set; PUR: 28 sets 0.571 aces/set; ILL: 29 sets 0.655 aces/set; WIS*: 27 Sets 0.704 aces/set; NW: 23 sets 0.739 aces/set; MIN* 31 sets 0.741 aces/set IND: 22 sets 0.909 aces/set; IOWA: 20 sets 1.100 aces/set.
To date, her best match performance was 8 aces against Iowa in 2013. She hit 7 in a losing effort against Illinois in 2011 and 7 against Minnesota in 2012. Of special note was a 6 ace performance at Happy Valley against Nebraska in 2011. The Huskers have done very well against her since--allowing only 4 aces in 17 sets.
Have fun with this. Although I've tried, I cannot guarantee it's error-free. Surely a combination of Hancock becoming more proficient during her senior year and the other Big 10 teams sucking more this year than in years' past. There turnover in the Big 10, and not just in the passing rotations. Remember it's only an ace if the opposing team, in three contacts, can't get the ball back over the net...you'd be surprised how often the quality of the second and third contact off a shanked pass can affect how many actual aces a player gets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 18:13:48 GMT -5
Just a grumpy old guy, but haven't we already gone through this deification schtick with Megan Hodge?
|
|
|
Post by tclenpsu1 on Oct 22, 2014 18:48:43 GMT -5
Just a grumpy old guy, but haven't we already gone through this deification schtick with Megan Hodge? Go drink a beer and may be you will lighten up
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Oct 22, 2014 21:39:28 GMT -5
I don't understand why aces/set is an interesting number. Wouldn't aces/serve be more appropriate? I don't know whether Penn State provides those stats. Some schools do.
Aces/set is like doubles/series would be in baseball. It means something, I suppose, but not a whole lot.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Oct 22, 2014 22:50:07 GMT -5
I don't understand why aces/set is an interesting number. Wouldn't aces/serve be more appropriate? I don't know whether Penn State provides those stats. Some schools do. Aces/set is like doubles/series would be in baseball. It means something, I suppose, but not a whole lot. Ace/serve doesn't tell you much either if you don't like ace/set. In Hancock's case, she has a lot of runs that are not aces. Case in point: Last year, Bricio had 3 more aces than Hancock for the season, but Hancock had 72 more serve attempts. If calculating those 72 extra attempts (due to her long service runs), Hancock's ace/serve would drop dramatically. As a result, it would have made her less of an elite server than Bricio, which is not true at all. In fact, a case can be made that even though she had 3 less aces, Hancock was a better server if factoring aces + 72 extra attempts.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 22, 2014 23:04:54 GMT -5
I don't understand why aces/set is an interesting number. Wouldn't aces/serve be more appropriate? I don't know whether Penn State provides those stats. Some schools do. Aces/set is like doubles/series would be in baseball. It means something, I suppose, but not a whole lot. Ace/serve doesn't tell you much either if you don't like ace/set. In Hancock's case, she has a lot of runs that are not aces. Case in point: Last year, Bricio had 3 more aces than Hancock for the season, but Hancock had 72 more serve attempts. If calculating those 72 extra attempts (due to her long service runs), Hancock's ace/serve would drop dramatically. As a result, it would have made her less of an elite server than Bricio, which is not true at all. In fact, a case can be made that even though she had 3 less aces, Hancock was a better server if factoring aces + 72 extra attempts. EVERYONE has "a lot of runs that are not aces." That's just the nature of the limitation of the "service ace" stat.
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Oct 22, 2014 23:31:12 GMT -5
Ace/serve doesn't tell you much either if you don't like ace/set. In Hancock's case, she has a lot of runs that are not aces. Case in point: Last year, Bricio had 3 more aces than Hancock for the season, but Hancock had 72 more serve attempts. If calculating those 72 extra attempts (due to her long service runs), Hancock's ace/serve would drop dramatically. As a result, it would have made her less of an elite server than Bricio, which is not true at all. In fact, a case can be made that even though she had 3 less aces, Hancock was a better server if factoring aces + 72 extra attempts. EVERYONE has "a lot of runs that are not aces." That's just the nature of the limitation of the "service ace" stat. Yes, but I think the point was that a better server will have more/longer runs, which is true when all else is equal. In any case, the OP focus was on measuring aces, and in that context I think aces/serve is of more interest than aces/set. Aces are of course only somewhat related to being an elite server. Seems like points/serve could be a useful metric--where having more/longer runs would show up--though obviously influenced by lots of other factors in winning a point. SEs would also have an effect on that stat. Calculating the average opponent pass quality (e.g., 0-3) for each server might be the best metric. Alas, although many (most?) teams compute such numbers for themselves it is not easy for others to obtain these stats.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Oct 23, 2014 0:05:10 GMT -5
Ace/serve doesn't tell you much either if you don't like ace/set. In Hancock's case, she has a lot of runs that are not aces. Case in point: Last year, Bricio had 3 more aces than Hancock for the season, but Hancock had 72 more serve attempts. If calculating those 72 extra attempts (due to her long service runs), Hancock's ace/serve would drop dramatically. As a result, it would have made her less of an elite server than Bricio, which is not true at all. In fact, a case can be made that even though she had 3 less aces, Hancock was a better server if factoring aces + 72 extra attempts. EVERYONE has "a lot of runs that are not aces." That's just the nature of the limitation of the "service ace" stat. Yes, but most are not in Hancock's or Bricio's class. I am talking about "elite" servers.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 23, 2014 0:11:38 GMT -5
EVERYONE has "a lot of runs that are not aces." That's just the nature of the limitation of the "service ace" stat. Yes, but most are not in Hancock's or Bricio's class. I am talking about "elite" servers. So? What difference does that make? It's a fallacy to claim that Hancock should get some kind of special allowance for the fact that some of her good serves are not aces. If you give her an allowance for that, then you have to give everybody else an allowance for that too.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Oct 23, 2014 1:05:04 GMT -5
Yes, but most are not in Hancock's or Bricio's class. I am talking about "elite" servers. So? What difference does that make? It's a fallacy to claim that Hancock should get some kind of special allowance for the fact that some of her good serves are not aces. If you give her an allowance for that, then you have to give everybody else an allowance for that too. Who said to give Hancock a "special" allowance? Her serving stats speak for itself. Who else allowance would you want to bring up? Name her. Let's bring her into the conversation along with Bricio and Hancock. What you're trying to do is diminishing Hancock, which is kinda foolish, and you're supposed to be a volleyball junky? Go ahead and take out Hancock's aces. Then, do you know how many serve attempts alone she got last year? Try 634. Who do you think came closest or even surpassed to that attempts? Take Washington's vaunted serving team last year for instance, only Orlandini had the most serving attempts and she only had 527. Do you think she should be brought into the conversation as elite servers? Food for thought: Didn't Hancock take Washington back to the woodshed in the semi-final last year with her "not-so-special" serving? I mean, she had 3 aces and on "only" ~24 attempts. Or did you conveniently miss that bloodbath?
|
|
|
Post by mplssetter on Oct 23, 2014 8:55:09 GMT -5
I agree with Volleylearner. Aces/serve would be more telling than aces/set. I know this year I've seen Micha go back to serve in 3 spots in the set, ie at the beginning, around 12-15, and at around 22-23. Perhaps in other seasons she was in a different spot in the service order.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 23, 2014 9:06:47 GMT -5
So? What difference does that make? It's a fallacy to claim that Hancock should get some kind of special allowance for the fact that some of her good serves are not aces. If you give her an allowance for that, then you have to give everybody else an allowance for that too. Who said to give Hancock a "special" allowance? Her serving stats speak for itself. Who else allowance would you want to bring up? Name her. Let's bring her into the conversation along with Bricio and Hancock. What you're trying to do is diminishing Hancock, which is kinda foolish, and you're supposed to be a volleyball junky? Go ahead and take out Hancock's aces. Then, do you know how many serve attempts alone she got last year? Try 634. Who do you think came closest or even surpassed to that attempts? Take Washington's vaunted serving team last year for instance, only Orlandini had the most serving attempts and she only had 527. Do you think she should be brought into the conversation as elite servers? Food for thought: Didn't Hancock take Washington back to the woodshed in the semi-final last year with her "not-so-special" serving? I mean, she had 3 aces and on "only" ~24 attempts. Or did you conveniently miss that bloodbath? You obviously are losing the argument, so you try to turn it into a personal attack (sort of). No one mentioned Washington except you. Everyone else agrees that aces/serve is a more relevant stat than aces/set. The total number of serves a team makes per set is pretty constant, because teams play sets to 25 points (if they win). The only thing that changes it much is if you play a lot of sets in "extra points" (or if you lose a lot of sets). So that means that if a player gets a high number of serves per set, it comes at the expense of her teammates' serves per sets. Thus, the only thing "elite" about having a high number of serves per set is that the difference in point-scoring between a player and her own teammates is more extreme than on other teams. So having a high number of serves per set can be a sign a player is particularly effective at causing scoring for her team, but it could also mean the rest of the team is particularly INeffective (or that the team as a whole does not lose many sets). Also, it could have as much to do with relative rotational strength as serving strength. Finally, like leadoff hitters in baseball, if a player consistently starts matches in the serving spot for her team, then she will, in the long run, get a significantly higher number of serves per set than the player just ahead of her in the rotation. Aces per serve, on the other hand, is very clearly a measure of what percentage chance that a player gets an ace each and every time she goes back to the line.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Oct 23, 2014 9:23:10 GMT -5
I don't understand why aces/set is an interesting number. Wouldn't aces/serve be more appropriate? I don't know whether Penn State provides those stats. Some schools do. Aces/set is like doubles/series would be in baseball. It means something, I suppose, but not a whole lot. Ace/serve doesn't tell you much either if you don't like ace/set. In Hancock's case, she has a lot of runs that are not aces. Case in point: Last year, Bricio had 3 more aces than Hancock for the season, but Hancock had 72 more serve attempts. If calculating those 72 extra attempts (due to her long service runs), Hancock's ace/serve would drop dramatically. As a result, it would have made her less of an elite server than Bricio, which is not true at all. In fact, a case can be made that even though she had 3 less aces, Hancock was a better server if factoring aces + 72 extra attempts. I don't understand your logic. Aces per serve is essentially like batting average. You wouldn't average hits per game. You average hits per attempt. Anything else is misleading.
|
|