Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2015 17:52:04 GMT -5
Except you then move to Ro6 if you side out. Maybe that's OK for the specific team, but I'd bet more teams start in Ro2 if they're receiving.
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jun 27, 2015 17:54:59 GMT -5
Except you then move to Ro6 if you side out. Maybe that's OK for the specific team, but I'd bet more teams start in Ro2 if they're receiving. Pretty much every team that runs a 6-2 starts in Ro1 when receiving. And even in a 5-1, a lot of teams start in your Setter-2 rotation, but a good number don't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2015 18:00:48 GMT -5
A 6-2, sure. You don't want to waste the sub -- although some teams will just start with a front row setter. I was referring to a 5-1, however.
|
|
|
|
Post by kro2488 on Jun 27, 2015 19:06:50 GMT -5
Sometimes matchups. But if you have a smart setter and hitters who hit smart they should be able to side out at a decent rate in any rotation. Its always agervating to see a team that has what I call a "hell" rotation where they will give up strings of points. Then sometimes they try to do too much and start making errors even more compounding the situation instead of keeping things simple, and just trying to play steady regardless of the score. It just takes one time of tooling the block and or staying patient on defense to get in position to win a longerrally for the serve if first ball side outs aren't coming. Then when you get the serve you make the bastards pay.
|
|
rook
Sophomore
Posts: 182
|
Post by rook on Jun 28, 2015 22:10:01 GMT -5
Joe, I was inspired to start this thread after reading this article of yours: www.goldmedalsquared.com/blog/volleyball-lineups/. I particularly noted the comments you made on matchups: "I haven’t discussed matchups or anything yet. I do this for two reasons: One, I haven’t really seen any compelling evidence that suggests the power of matchups. Ie, is it better to play your best-blocking opposite against their best leftside (because it will slow them down), or is the effect of that blocker pretty much equal (because if they can slow down the top leftside, they could probably shut down the other one) across the board? Two, the risk for adjusting your lineup for a matchup is that the other team will adjust and thus leave you with a sub-optimal starting lineup AND the wrong matchups. “A bird in the hand…” they say." Not sure what is being looked at when he says that there isn't much evidence to suggest the power of matchups? He is correct in that sometimes it's better to just start in your strongest lineup if the opposition is unpredictable. But what if they are completely predictable, and my team doesn't have one rotation that is necessarily stronger than the others? Wouldn't it make sense to try to set up in such a way that you take away the other team's strength? What if I have a short setter and a a big opposite facing a team with a big time OH1? Every match presents different scenarios, and sometimes your weakest rotation on the season will be your strongest in a given match...all because of matchups. To say that matchups don't matter seems crazy to me. That's what sports is all about. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 23:17:31 GMT -5
Joe, I was inspired to start this thread after reading this article of yours: www.goldmedalsquared.com/blog/volleyball-lineups/. I particularly noted the comments you made on matchups: "I haven’t discussed matchups or anything yet. I do this for two reasons: One, I haven’t really seen any compelling evidence that suggests the power of matchups. Ie, is it better to play your best-blocking opposite against their best leftside (because it will slow them down), or is the effect of that blocker pretty much equal (because if they can slow down the top leftside, they could probably shut down the other one) across the board? Two, the risk for adjusting your lineup for a matchup is that the other team will adjust and thus leave you with a sub-optimal starting lineup AND the wrong matchups. “A bird in the hand…” they say." Not sure what is being looked at when he says that there isn't much evidence to suggest the power of matchups? He is correct in that sometimes it's better to just start in your strongest lineup if the opposition is unpredictable. But what if they are completely predictable, and my team doesn't have one rotation that is necessarily stronger than the others? Wouldn't it make sense to try to set up in such a way that you take away the other team's strength? What if I have a short setter and a a big opposite facing a team with a big time OH1? Every match presents different scenarios, and sometimes your weakest rotation on the season will be your strongest in a given match...all because of matchups. To say that matchups don't matter seems crazy to me. That's what sports is all about. I think the point Joe was making is that if, in your scenario, you opt to match your big opposite against the big time OH1 and slow her down, the effectiveness from their OH2 against your setter will neutralize the impact from the opposite/OH1 matchup. As you say, any given day can produce any result. If you play this scenario 1,000 times, what would the most likely outcome be? Is getting that matchup worth not starting in your best sideout rotation? Joe can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what he was going for. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 23:35:03 GMT -5
I think it's a lot like baseball. With Big Data now, they've found that lineups don't really matter much. The one point it matters is that your top 2-3 guys, over the course of a full season, will get up to bat an extra 40-50 times over the guys down farther in the lineup. So you hit your best guys up top and go.
At your level, how many rotations does a match go? If it's going 8-9, or 14-15 rotations--where a couple people are always winding up an extra time in the front row---then you make sure they get that extra couple chances to hit.
* *
In theory?? Lineups and where to start (again, it can depend on your level--starting a best blocker in left-front on a 6th grade team makes far less sense than starting the kid who has a consistent hard serve...)
*Start with your best server
*Start with the setter in the back row
*Begin with your best hitter at LF.
*Begin with your best blocker at LF.
*Start with your best serve-receive passer (non-libero) at right back
Trying to line it up with matchups is a bit of a fool's errand and can't be counted on---because you don't really know if your opponent will stay the same/won't make adjustments. If you're worrying about your opponent, you aren't worrying about what YOU can do...at which point you've already lost. Always focus on your own abilities and force your opponent to think about you and what you are doing instead of what they are supposed to be doing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 0:05:55 GMT -5
I think it's a lot like baseball. With Big Data now, they've found that lineups don't really matter much. The one point it matters is that your top 2-3 guys, over the course of a full season, will get up to bat an extra 40-50 times over the guys down farther in the lineup. So you hit your best guys up top and go. At your level, how many rotations does a match go? If it's going 8-9, or 14-15 rotations--where a couple people are always winding up an extra time in the front row---then you make sure they get that extra couple chances to hit. * * In theory?? Lineups and where to start (again, it can depend on your level--starting a best blocker in left-front on a 6th grade team makes far less sense than starting the kid who has a consistent hard serve...) *Start with your best server *Start with the setter in the back row *Begin with your best hitter at LF. *Begin with your best blocker at LF. *Start with your best serve-receive passer (non-libero) at right back Trying to line it up with matchups is a bit of a fool's errand and can't be counted on---because you don't really know if your opponent will stay the same/won't make adjustments. If you're worrying about your opponent, you aren't worrying about what YOU can do...at which point you've already lost. Always focus on your own abilities and force your opponent to think about you and what you are doing instead of what they are supposed to be doing. Joe mentions a similar baseball stat in the article I previously linked. I agree with you on matchups- it's hard to align with a team when you don't for sure who will be standing where. You mention starting the setter in the back row. Is there any reason this is better than starting her in the front row? I'm not debating against it because I don't know if it's better or not; I'm just curious as to anyone's reasoning for starting the setter back. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 0:21:52 GMT -5
Getting a quick lead is big in rally scoring. If you are lucky enough to have this scenario with your team this lineup can do great things: your best hitter (top2) is your opposite and your best server is your setter. Start In R1. It helps 3 fold. Big hitter in left front. Big server starting. AND your likely weakest blocker, the setter, in right back to limit rotations up front. This is what Wisconsin did in 2014. Courtney Thomas at RS was easily our best hitter, and Lauren Carlini was (is) our best server. But she's also a good blocker, so we didn't have that liability when she rotated to the front. Worked well for us. I rarely recall Wisconsin starting in rotation 1 in 2014. They started in 5 or 6 frequently, however. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyballd on Jun 29, 2015 5:51:43 GMT -5
Find a rotation that you will be down quickly, so that you can make a dramatic comeback.
|
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Jun 29, 2015 9:28:09 GMT -5
This is what Wisconsin did in 2014. Courtney Thomas at RS was easily our best hitter, and Lauren Carlini was (is) our best server. But she's also a good blocker, so we didn't have that liability when she rotated to the front. Worked well for us. I rarely recall Wisconsin starting in rotation 1 in 2014. They started in 5 or 6 frequently, however. You're correct. I was looking back through box scores for last season and saw that LC or Taylor usually served first for us. So when we had the first serve, we started in rotation 6 or 1, and when we received first, we started in rotaton 5 or 6. |
|
|
|
Post by cardinalvolleyball on Jun 29, 2015 9:31:42 GMT -5
You mention starting the setter in the back row. Is there any reason this is better than starting her in the front row? I'm not debating against it because I don't know if it's better or not; I'm just curious as to anyone's reasoning for starting the setter back. Short answer is you start with 3 hitters in the front row. I know teams that start in R3 to maximize their L1. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 12:07:57 GMT -5
I rarely recall Wisconsin starting in rotation 1 in 2014. They started in 5 or 6 frequently, however. You're correct. I was looking back through box scores for last season and saw that LC or Taylor usually served first for us. So when we had the first serve, we started in rotation 6 or 1, and when we received first, we started in rotaton 5 or 6. How could you tell who served first from the boxscore? |
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Jun 29, 2015 12:46:19 GMT -5
Many boxscores also include play-by-play (which lists who serves) as a separate tab.
|
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Jun 29, 2015 13:11:34 GMT -5
You're correct. I was looking back through box scores for last season and saw that LC or Taylor usually served first for us. So when we had the first serve, we started in rotation 6 or 1, and when we received first, we started in rotaton 5 or 6. How could you tell who served first from the boxscore? There's a play-by-play at the end of the box score document. So not from the ACTUAL box score, but from the page. Like this: www.uwbadgers.com/sports/w-volley/stats/2014-2015/12-12-14.htmlAny other nits to pick? |
|
