|
Post by volleyfan24 on Dec 1, 2015 18:11:10 GMT -5
Keegan Cook and Mick Haley were both deserving. I have no problems with Mick winning.
The real travesty here is Whittingham garnering no awards. I get liberos get overlooked but both Formic and Strickland get awards and Whittingham only HM. USC doesn't have the same success without her.
My other gripe is Washington should have had another hitter on the list but its hard when the ball is distributed so well. Is it Scambray, Jones, Wade? Maybe coaches split votes trying to pick just one.
|
|
|
Post by scottysocc on Dec 1, 2015 18:14:40 GMT -5
Keegan Cook and Mick Haley were both deserving. I have no problems with Mick winning. The real travesty here is Whittingham garnering no awards. I get liberos get overlooked but both Formic and Strickland get awards and Whittingham only HM. USC doesn't have the same success without her. My other gripe is Washington should have had another hitter on the list but its hard when the ball is distributed so well. Is it Scambray, Jones, Wade? Maybe coaches split votes trying to pick just one. I agree. Whittingham should have gotten recognized. She has been more consistent than Strickland this year start to finish and IMHO she is, when strictly assessing Libero abilities, better than Strickland. I also agree Washington was deserving of one more hitter being recognized. But it's too difficult for one to accumulate enough votes when the offense is so balanced.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 1, 2015 18:15:03 GMT -5
The real travesty here is Whittingham garnering no awards. I get liberos get overlooked but both Formic and Strickland get awards and Whittingham only HM. USC doesn't have the same success without her. UW doesn't have the same success they did without a lot of their players: Scambray and Wade especially, but also Tanner, Jones, Beals, Schwan. I get that you aren't going to name the whole UW team as All-PAC (UW isn't Stanford, after all), but if we use the "champions didn't get where they are without her" reasoning, there are even bigger oversights than Whittingham.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Dec 1, 2015 18:29:24 GMT -5
True, but that shouldn't apply to Haley in almost any year, given his record. I Just think it's kind of ridiculous that he's getting the "exceeded expectations" treatment this year because of 1 ridiculously bad year last year where he managed to finish 10th in conference, .500 on the year, despite having 2 returning All Americans, 3 Top 5 recruits, and a total of 10 top 50 players. Meanwhile Cook, an unknown commodity as head coach, keeps the team in tact, wins the Pac-12 in his first season, despite losing half the offense. W/e. I think the love has more to do with his successful adaptation to a quick offense and swing blocking. Impressive willingness to implement change at his tenure, roughly the equivalent of a grandpa learning to write JAVA or C++. Hats off. All I see is Mick being very late to something plenty of other top teams are already are doing.
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Dec 1, 2015 18:31:38 GMT -5
The real travesty here is Whittingham garnering no awards. I get liberos get overlooked but both Formic and Strickland get awards and Whittingham only HM. USC doesn't have the same success without her. UW doesn't have the same success they did without a lot of their players: Scambray and Wade especially, but also Tanner, Jones, Beals, Schwan. I get that you aren't going to name the whole UW team as All-PAC (UW isn't Stanford, after all), but if we use the "champions didn't get where they are without her" reasoning, there are even bigger oversights than Whittingham. I addressed UW in the second half my post you conveniently left out but to go over it again. It wasn't going to Tanner or Beals an arguably better setter in a 6-2 Johnson isn't getting it neither are they. Although I like they had Tanner start hitting. Schwan has Julye sub for her and being out with injury some of the conference season isn't going to get you the award. Now to UW's big 3 Scambray, Jones and Wade? Now pick one cause it isn't all 3, on any given night one goes off. For me I say put Scambray on there she gets lots of OOS balls and puts them away. I think she is the most underrated OH in the PAC but I haven't seen her hitting percentage did it justify putting her on the team. I like Wade or Jones too just Scambray would be my pick.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Dec 1, 2015 18:37:16 GMT -5
And as I feared, somehow (according to the coaches) Washington co-won the conference with only two of the 18 best players (and no COY, POY, etc.). But Stanford had four, including the SOY and the FOY (and finished third). What a fricking joke. The PAC needs to fix their process for this, I think. It does not reflect the way the game has changed, with about half the league running a 6-2 system and doing quite well with it. Would you rather have four on all-league, have no depth, and finish third in PAC? That's what it sounds like. You have great team, finished first in PAC, have perhaps more depth than any team in nation, yet you still whine? When you have people crushing the ball from every position, stats are going to even out. You will likely have fewer all-stars. That's the way it works. Are you more interested in the individual awards, or winning a championship? Sounds to me you're all about the individual awards.
|
|
|
Post by scottysocc on Dec 1, 2015 18:37:56 GMT -5
Hats off to a classy player and NCAA Volleyball Legend!
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 1, 2015 18:39:03 GMT -5
And as I feared, somehow (according to the coaches) Washington co-won the conference with only two of the 18 best players (and no COY, POY, etc.). But Stanford had four, including the SOY and the FOY (and finished third). What a fricking joke. The PAC needs to fix their process for this, I think. It does not reflect the way the game has changed, with about half the league running a 6-2 system and doing quite well with it. Would you rather have four on all-league, have no depth, and finish third in PAC? That's what it sounds like. You have great team, finished first in PAC, have perhaps more depth than any team in nation, yet you still whine? When you have people crushing the ball from every position, stats are going to even out. You will likely have fewer all-stars. That's the way it works. Are you more interested in the individual awards, or winning a championship? Sounds to me you're all about the individual awards. So All-PAC is a consolation prize? Those years when Stanford dominated the conference, I didn't complain that they got all the All-PAC recognition. I'm complaining that they still get it even when they aren't the top team in the PAC. ps. *I* am not winning any awards. I'm annoyed that very deserving players who are leading their team to the conference championship are being overlooked.
|
|
|
Post by zenyada on Dec 1, 2015 18:42:51 GMT -5
I think the love has more to do with his successful adaptation to a quick offense and swing blocking. Impressive willingness to implement change at his tenure, roughly the equivalent of a grandpa learning to write JAVA or C++. Hats off. All I see is Mick being very late to something plenty of other top teams are already are doing. Still, not easy. Six phases: --Committment to change --Player buy-in --New techniques taught --Step backward in skills making adjustments --improvement and confidence building --rise to #1
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 1, 2015 18:45:02 GMT -5
All I see is Mick being very late to something plenty of other top teams are already are doing. Still, not easy. Six phases: --Committment to change --Player buy-in --New techniques taught --Step backward in skills making adjustments --improvement and confidence building --rise to #1 Well, technically #2 right now. But we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by dawgnerd on Dec 1, 2015 18:46:46 GMT -5
The real travesty here is Whittingham garnering no awards. I get liberos get overlooked but both Formic and Strickland get awards and Whittingham only HM. USC doesn't have the same success without her. The stats sure back you up. Here are the digging stats, including the alternative Digs per non-error opponent attack (see yesterday's thread). Name--------------------Team--------Digs/Nonerror Attack--Rank--Digs/Set--Rank Taylor Whittingham-----Southern California----0.157----50---4.73---60 Amanda Benson----------Oregon-----------------0.152----68---4.65---75 Cassie Strickland------Washington-------------0.150----77---4.32---123 Taylor Formico---------UCLA-------------------0.144---110---4.57---86 Whittingham dominates both ways, with Benson and Strickland both well ahead of Formico. This does not account for passing and intangibles, but I was suprised to see Formico there. Perhaps some coaches trying to provide the #4 team a better showing?
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Dec 1, 2015 18:51:14 GMT -5
Would you rather have four on all-league, have no depth, and finish third in PAC? That's what it sounds like. You have great team, finished first in PAC, have perhaps more depth than any team in nation, yet you still whine? When you have people crushing the ball from every position, stats are going to even out. You will likely have fewer all-stars. That's the way it works. Are you more interested in the individual awards, or winning a championship? Sounds to me you're all about the individual awards. So All-PAC is a consolation prize? Those years when Stanford dominated the conference, I didn't complain that they got all the All-PAC recognition. I'm complaining that they still get it even when they aren't the top team in the PAC. ps. *I* am not winning any awards. I'm annoyed that very deserving players who are leading their team to the conference championship are being overlooked. We run a 5-1. That is only five hitters. We don't have ANY depth at those hitting positions. Vanjak is NOT going to get an award, given. Burgess was playing hurt all year, is NOT going to get an award. That leaves 3 hitters doing the majority of the work. Likely all three of them, or at least 2, are going to get recognized if they carry Stanford to a decent record. And as for setters, typically only 5-1 setters will get recognized. And typically, if you have a setter good enough to set a 5-1, she will be setting a 5-1. Your team, on the other hand, has about 20 or 30 hitters that are all very very good. Hard for them all to get recognized. There just aren't enough kills to go around when you divide by such a big number? Kapiche? Man, you have a great team. Be happy. You have depth. That is great for the team. But understand what comes WITH that depth.
|
|
|
Post by GoUCLA on Dec 1, 2015 18:53:01 GMT -5
How did Muno get Honorable Mention?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 1, 2015 18:55:06 GMT -5
So All-PAC is a consolation prize? Those years when Stanford dominated the conference, I didn't complain that they got all the All-PAC recognition. I'm complaining that they still get it even when they aren't the top team in the PAC. ps. *I* am not winning any awards. I'm annoyed that very deserving players who are leading their team to the conference championship are being overlooked. We run a 5-1. That is only five hitters. We don't have ANY depth at those hitting positions. Vanjak is NOT going to get an award, given. Burgess was playing hurt all year, is NOT going to get an award. That leaves 3 hitters doing the majority of the work. Likely all three of them, or at least 2, are going to get recognized if they carry Stanford to a decent record. And as for setters, typically only 5-1 setters will get recognized. And typically, if you have a setter good enough to set a 5-1, she will be setting a 5-1. Your team, on the other hand, has about 20 or 30 hitters that are all very very good. Hard for them all to get recognized. There just aren't enough kills to go around when you divide by such a big number? Kapiche? Man, you have a great team. Be happy. You have depth. That is great for the team. But understand what comes WITH that depth. Yes, I know all that. Which is why I have been complaining for a while now that the whole PAC honors system doesn't represent the reality that at least half the teams in the conference are no longer running the traditional 5-1. Heck, the conference honors are still trying to catch up to existence of that newfangled libero rule. There is absolutely no reason that the honors should fall more to players on 5-1 teams just because they are on 5-1 teams, especially when the two co-champs both ran 6-2 systems.
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Dec 1, 2015 18:59:26 GMT -5
The real travesty here is Whittingham garnering no awards. I get liberos get overlooked but both Formic and Strickland get awards and Whittingham only HM. USC doesn't have the same success without her. The stats sure back you up. Here are the digging stats, including the alternative Digs per non-error opponent attack (see yesterday's thread). Name--------------------Team--------Digs/Nonerror Attack--Rank--Digs/Set--Rank Taylor Whittingham-----Southern California----0.157----50---4.73---60 Amanda Benson----------Oregon-----------------0.152----68---4.65---75 Cassie Strickland------Washington-------------0.150----77---4.32---123 Taylor Formico---------UCLA-------------------0.144---110---4.57---86 Whittingham dominates both ways, with Benson and Strickland both well ahead of Formico. This does not account for passing and intangibles, but I was suprised to see Formico there. Perhaps some coaches trying to provide the #4 team a better showing? Maybe the stats on serve receive? Formico dominates.
|
|