|
Post by carlosgg on Dec 27, 2015 13:54:32 GMT -5
Hi, among the reception stats kept by NORCECA, there is one called an " excellent". What is an " excellent", and what is the difference between an " excellent", a " serve reception", and a " reception"? I googled "reception excellents" without success. How are reception faults different from dig faults? Do you agree with these definitions of running sets and still sets? Thank you for your help.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 27, 2015 14:21:14 GMT -5
Yeah, as far as I know, that is the definition of "running set". It seems silly, because I can't see how it has anything to do with running as opposed to being still.
|
|
|
Post by 5280volleyball on Dec 27, 2015 15:40:15 GMT -5
Excellent is a 3 point pass. Serve reception is when you get served and the pass isn't a 3 point pass.
Reception fault is when you get aced.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 15:54:58 GMT -5
Excellent is a 3 point pass. Serve reception is when you get served and the pass isn't a 3 point pass. Reception fault is when you get aced. Not everyone uses the 3-point system when evaluating passing. If they understood the 3-point system, and knew that a "3 pass" was a perfect pass, they could probably deduce that an "excellent pass" was a perfect pass too.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 27, 2015 16:27:41 GMT -5
You also have to remember that these stats vary widely depending on who is taking them. Despite being "FIVB Official" a perfect pass in one place may be a negative in another. For example, Italian stats tend to be more generous in evaluating receiving. In some places, the stats will be really, really kind to the home team - it just compound the nebulous definitions. In competitions with multiple stat keepers it makes comparing the official numbers for anything outside of the scoring skills pointless.
with the DataVolley match PDFs posted by USAV you get the same guy applying the same standard for everything, so I would trust those over the norceca/fivb ones
|
|
|
Post by Murina on Dec 27, 2015 17:08:12 GMT -5
I used to have a copy of the Volleyball Information System manual that defines FIVB stats. It disappeared a couple hard drives ago, but I remember most of it.
For setting: the original post is correct. "running sets" are sets that result in one blocker or less opposing the attack. "Still sets" result in the attack being opposed by two or more blockers. "Faults" are sets that are so bad they can't be attacked, ball handling errors, or sets that go over the net and are directly attacked by the opponent (if a set goes over the net and the opponent plays it on their own side the original setter is given an attack attempt). For "running & still" think of the middle blocker - was the middle blocker was "running" to catch up to the attack, or was the MB standing "still" waiting for the attack?
Interestingly there was a while that, because a libero is not allowed to be a setter, when a libero played a 2nd ball to a hitter he or she was credited with... you guessed it - a "dig!" True story.
Reception faults happen in receiving a serve only. Dig faults happen when playing a 1st (and in some cases a 2nd) ball that is not a serve. A failure to control either that directly results in a point for the opponent is a fault, as well as a technical error (think being called for a lift). One difference is that a reception error can be charged to a player who did not touch the ball, but a dig error will not be charged in a similar circumstance.
For reception: 5280volleyball has it basically right. The actual wording is something like (this is close I think) "a pass within reach of the setter near the net where the setter can set all of the attackers." As c4ndlelight points out this leaves a great deal of subjectivity. "Near the net" is loosely defined as in front of the 3m line, but it isn't always applied that way. Some statisticians may take the quality of the setter into account which would mean that a player passing to Bruno Rezende may get a lot more leeway for an "excellent pass" than passers playing with, well any other setter!
|
|
|
Post by carlosgg on Dec 27, 2015 22:55:50 GMT -5
Thanks! So Excellents can only take place when receiving serves only? Also, in the Digs section of the box score, there's a "Receptions" column, what is its meaning? How is it different from the Reception section of the box score? Does a running set always result in a point scored?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 27, 2015 23:17:49 GMT -5
Does a running set always result in a point scored? I don't see why it would. Of course it should probably result in more points scored than a "still set", but every solo block in history shows that attacking against one blocker does not always lead to a good outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Murina on Dec 28, 2015 1:41:39 GMT -5
Thanks! So Excellents can only take place when receiving serves only? Also, in the Digs section of the box score, there's a "Receptions" column, what is its meaning? How is it different from the Reception section of the box score? Does a running set always result in a point scored? Well, you can probably find box scores and stat sheets where a killed spike is listed as "excellent." These words are not always used exactly consistently everywhere in volleyball. You should always take the context the word is used into account. "Reception" is used in statistics related to serve reception, and in this case it is also used in digging. In the digging case it is pretty clearly being used to count dig attempts that are neither digs (the word "excellent" is implied in this case) nor faults. If you add up the digs+faults+receptions you will see they equal "total attempts." A running set is a running set regardless of what takes place later in the rally, so the answer to your question is "no."
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Dec 28, 2015 12:41:01 GMT -5
You also have to remember that these stats vary widely depending on who is taking them. Despite being "FIVB Official" a perfect pass in one place may be a negative in another. For example, Italian stats tend to be more generous in evaluating receiving. In some places, the stats will be really, really kind to the home team - it just compound the nebulous definitions. In competitions with multiple stat keepers it makes comparing the official numbers for anything outside of the scoring skills pointless. with the DataVolley match PDFs posted by USAV you get the same guy applying the same standard for everything, so I would trust those over the norceca/fivb ones The VIS statkeepers vary quite a bit. They are also not usually familiar with the players on the teams, so they'll mix them up. For example, if an Asian team is playing in Europe, the VIS people will transpose two players sometimes. When we play in Asia, it's not uncommon for the VIS stat people to transpose Nic Fawcett (tall blonde wearing #14) with Kim Hill (tall blonde wearing #15). The DV stats on the USA site are (hopefully) quite a bit more accurate, because it's double-checked with video. Although we do have some different definitions. For example, for us, an overpass that is spiked down for a kill is credited with a reception fault, whereas by VIS standards it is not.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 28, 2015 19:22:44 GMT -5
You also have to remember that these stats vary widely depending on who is taking them. Despite being "FIVB Official" a perfect pass in one place may be a negative in another. For example, Italian stats tend to be more generous in evaluating receiving. In some places, the stats will be really, really kind to the home team - it just compound the nebulous definitions. In competitions with multiple stat keepers it makes comparing the official numbers for anything outside of the scoring skills pointless. with the DataVolley match PDFs posted by USAV you get the same guy applying the same standard for everything, so I would trust those over the norceca/fivb ones The VIS statkeepers vary quite a bit. They are also not usually familiar with the players on the teams, so they'll mix them up. For example, if an Asian team is playing in Europe, the VIS people will transpose two players sometimes. When we play in Asia, it's not uncommon for the VIS stat people to transpose Nic Fawcett (tall blonde wearing #14) with Kim Hill (tall blonde wearing #15). The DV stats on the USA site are (hopefully) quite a bit more accurate, because it's double-checked with video. Although we do have some different definitions. For example, for us, an overpass that is spiked down for a kill is credited with a reception fault, whereas by VIS standards it is not. Years -- no, decades -- ago, I kept stats for my high school volleyball team. Man, I wish I had had video back then. Mainly because, like you say, it would have made it easier to make sure I got the stats right. (The other reason is that I was a high school boy, and I wouldn't have minded at all watching those girls play over and over again.) But back then, you had to be pretty rich to even have a VHS player, much less a camcorder.
|
|