|
Post by Courtside5 on Sept 15, 2018 23:55:09 GMT -5
I'm glad Hawaii fans are pleased getting beaten twice by Oregon, but more happy that the Ducks came away from the place with two wins. Yeah, we're really happy jumping up and down for joy.
|
|
|
Post by kokyu on Sept 16, 2018 0:15:50 GMT -5
I have no confidence in Ulmer, Moore would've started Robinson from the beginning. Hell even c4 would've too. Ulmer seems to know what he's doing. One thing I like is that this team seems mentally tough. They don't just up and fold like they did with most of Moore's teams. Further, the recruiting he's done leaves him loaded for seasons to come, and the players like him as a coach and didnt rebel like they did with Moore. Thus at this point, whether we like it or not, redshirting Robinson is a coaches decision, and should pay off starting next season. But I also feel that he'll definitely use her this season if Raskie struggles. But considering our losses are only to top 5 teams and with a win against #1, that's not terrible. Granted, I think Stanford is the best team in the country. Sorry BYU, just my opinion. I'd prefer if this is you trolling me but I'm too tired to know right now. Oregon's height, skill, and experience advantage should've prevented Hawaii from scoring over 17 in any set. An absolute embarrassment winning in five. If I get the time I'll do an error analysis of Raskie in this match, the last setter that had that privilege was Glass and Lloyd before her. Look where Lloyd is now, perhaps poetic injustice will have Raskie setting for USA in 2026. Oh I forgot I did do one for Plum, not because it was called for but to prove my impartial knowledge. That list was much easier to do with so few errors didn't have to rewind the replay as much.
|
|
|
Post by timduckforlife on Sept 16, 2018 1:02:10 GMT -5
Ulmer seems to know what he's doing. One thing I like is that this team seems mentally tough. They don't just up and fold like they did with most of Moore's teams. Further, the recruiting he's done leaves him loaded for seasons to come, and the players like him as a coach and didnt rebel like they did with Moore. Thus at this point, whether we like it or not, redshirting Robinson is a coaches decision, and should pay off starting next season. But I also feel that he'll definitely use her this season if Raskie struggles. But considering our losses are only to top 5 teams and with a win against #1, that's not terrible. Granted, I think Stanford is the best team in the country. Sorry BYU, just my opinion. I'd prefer if this is you trolling me but I'm too tired to know right now. Oregon's height, skill, and experience advantage should've prevented Hawaii from scoring over 17 in any set. An absolute embarrassment winning in five. If I get the time I'll do an error analysis of Raskie in this match, the last setter that had that privilege was Glass and Lloyd before her. Look where Lloyd is now, perhaps poetic injustice will have Raskie setting for USA in 2026. Oh I forgot I did do one for Plum, not because it was called for but to prove my impartial knowledge. That list was much easier to do with so few errors didn't have to rewind the replay as much. I get your point, and in no way am I saying Raskie is a great setter, and really I don't think for once I'm really defending her, just that it's Ulmer's decision to make. I'd personally love to see Robinson set if she's ready. But Ulmer wants to roll the dice with Raskie this year, so he can have Robinson for 4 more years after this. Though, as said, I think he'll pull Raskie if they start to struggle against in conference. But also as said, I definitely don't think Ulmer wants to burn a redshirt if he doesn't have too.
That said, in terms of the last match, this was also the 2nd of 2 matches on consecutive days. Which, and unless your team is total crap, is going to be difficult to sweep on both matches, esp against UH in Hawaii. And yeah, they do say this is a down year for the Wahini, but I saw some serious scrap and probably the best libero in the country, and as in my previous post, no offense to Mary Lake or BYU, but Akiu was freaking insane.
Also, last thought, and pure speculation, I'd also think Ulmer has had the redshirt conversation with Robinson too. Thus, it might also be a mutual decision to try and redshirt her
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Sept 16, 2018 2:30:37 GMT -5
For those that didn't get to see this fun, competitive match....
|
|
|
Post by simpleton on Sept 16, 2018 8:39:12 GMT -5
Not sure if I'll be able to watch Oregon again this year, the setting's too depressing. Please. And thank you.
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on Sept 16, 2018 12:05:14 GMT -5
Hawaii "hung" with Oregon? Oregon won both matches, 6 of 8 sets, and outscored Hawaii 185-158. You didn’t even watch the matches. Aside from maybe 2 sets, Hawai’i was right there with Oregon, even with anemic production out of some of its players. Hilarious that you wasted your time counting points to try and convince those of us who watched both matches that it wasn’t close as we are claiming it was. Actually, I did watch both matches (because at that hour, it was the only volleyball still being played). As the saying goes, "scoreboard don't lie".
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on Sept 16, 2018 12:06:43 GMT -5
Hawaii "hung" with Oregon? Oregon won both matches, 6 of 8 sets, and outscored Hawaii 185-158. They did for most of the second match. It was an ugly second set for Hawaii and, mostly bc of that, the points were 110-95 Oregon. If you take out the second set, it was 85-85. I know that's cherry picking (and, if you take out the bad matches/sets, most teams look very good) but, in this case, since the context of the claim was based on Hawaii playing defense like they did for most of the second match (plus getting more production from OH2), I think it's fair. So, if you throw out the 2nd set... And, throw out Thursday's match... Anything else that needs to be thrown out?
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Sept 16, 2018 12:27:39 GMT -5
You didn’t even watch the matches. Aside from maybe 2 sets, Hawai’i was right there with Oregon, even with anemic production out of some of its players. Hilarious that you wasted your time counting points to try and convince those of us who watched both matches that it wasn’t close as we are claiming it was. Actually, I did watch both matches (because at that hour, it was the only volleyball still being played). As the saying goes, "scoreboard don't lie". Yeah, the scoreboard proves my point that they hung with Oregon. You mad? Lol. Enjoy the season finishing in the bottom half of the PAC.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Sept 16, 2018 12:54:08 GMT -5
Actually, it's not cherry picking. In data analysis, you usually throw out the extremes (the anomalous highs and lows). However, the better analysts attempt to justify why they're throwing out the extremes.
|
|
|
Post by kahusancali on Sept 16, 2018 13:04:16 GMT -5
this member is not very active this morning. Let me guess. the person is either busy feeding the machines again or taking time eating at the buffet. LOL Neither of the two. Just woke up lol. No buffet update?😂
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Sept 16, 2018 13:11:15 GMT -5
They did for most of the second match. It was an ugly second set for Hawaii and, mostly bc of that, the points were 110-95 Oregon. If you take out the second set, it was 85-85. I know that's cherry picking (and, if you take out the bad matches/sets, most teams look very good) but, in this case, since the context of the claim was based on Hawaii playing defense like they did for most of the second match (plus getting more production from OH2), I think it's fair. So, if you throw out the 2nd set... And, throw out Thursday's match... Anything else that needs to be thrown out? If understanding what someone means when they say "if X then Y" is too hard for you, maybe you shouldn't bother replying (or probably even reading).
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Sept 16, 2018 13:15:11 GMT -5
Actually, it's not cherry picking. In data analysis, you usually throw out the extremes (the anomalous highs and lows). However, the better analysts attempt to justify why they're throwing out the extremes. Don't you have bigger data sets in that case? Here, the sample size is already tiny. BiK was referring to the second match so if you throw out 2 out of the 5 sets, that's a very high percentage of the data.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Sept 16, 2018 14:13:09 GMT -5
Actually, it's not cherry picking. In data analysis, you usually throw out the extremes (the anomalous highs and lows). However, the better analysts attempt to justify why they're throwing out the extremes. Don't you have bigger data sets in that case? Here, the sample size is already tiny. BiK was referring to the second match so if you throw out 2 out of the 5 sets, that's a very high percentage of the data. Yes, that's true but we don't play 1,000 sets per match. Also, this happens in grading. I've had classes where the teachers threw out the lowest and highest scores of, like, 10 quizzes in a semester. I think the understanding (or assumption) is that the 8 that are closer together are more reflective of a student's performance than the one high score (could've been an unusually easy quiz) and the one low score (could've been an unusually difficult quiz).
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Sept 16, 2018 14:31:45 GMT -5
Don't you have bigger data sets in that case? Here, the sample size is already tiny. BiK was referring to the second match so if you throw out 2 out of the 5 sets, that's a very high percentage of the data. Yes, that's true but we don't play 1,000 sets per match. Also, this happens in grading. I've had classes where the teachers threw out the lowest and highest scores of, like, 10 quizzes in a semester. I think the understanding (or assumption) is that the 8 that are closer together are more reflective of a student's performance than the one high score (could've been an unusually easy quiz) and the one low score (could've been an unusually difficult quiz). Grading is a good analogy. Teachers do sometimes throw out test scores even when there aren't many scores. With the volleyball sets, I think when ppl rank teams (or say how they're playing overall), they extrapolate their play in the very limited number of sets that they play (and try to interpolate how they'd play vs other potential teams in the field based on their play versus teams A, B, C, etc.). So, to me, there's not nearly enough data and I'd hesitate to throw any out. I would put an asterisk on any extreme outlier and wonder if it was a fluke. I haven't seen much manipulation of stats in volleyball like there is in baseball or ice hockey to get predictive stats but the ice hockey stats all seem to treat the data as samples in a much larger data set (i.e., you don't throw any out bc you don't even know if it's an outlier since the sample size is fairly small). Both ways make sense, IMO, depending on what you're trying to do. And maybe I'm wrong about how ppl rank the various teams, players, etc.
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Sept 16, 2018 14:38:17 GMT -5
Don't you have bigger data sets in that case? Here, the sample size is already tiny. BiK was referring to the second match so if you throw out 2 out of the 5 sets, that's a very high percentage of the data. Yes, that's true but we don't play 1,000 sets per match. Also, this happens in grading. I've had classes where the teachers threw out the lowest and highest scores of, like, 10 quizzes in a semester. I think the understanding (or assumption) is that the 8 that are closer together are more reflective of a student's performance than the one high score (could've been an unusually easy quiz) and the one low score (could've been an unusually difficult quiz). Teachers do that, but it's statistically lazy since they usually don't assess the distribution. It could make sense in a normal distribution, but it shouldn't be assumed. It's similar to the old "bell curve" grading (many med school instructors still adhere to that nonsense). Why assume the entire class is normally distributed?
|
|