|
Post by donut on Jan 28, 2019 9:26:27 GMT -5
no you just have a habit and go out of your way like its your life mission to be right even though you may be wrong. Because all/only women do this. On-topic opinion exchange is not what throws a thread off. Ignoramus comments, on the other hand, are.
|
|
|
Post by coloradokidd on Jan 28, 2019 10:30:08 GMT -5
Thanks Joe for your stats and insight. A great job as always! * The playing of the match created the 'stats', the 'stats' didn't create the match.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jan 28, 2019 11:51:46 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with "rally points." I just have a problem with it being a catch-all for all non-rally points. They aren't the same. Isn't this like saying - 'I have a problem with hitting % as a stat'? Rally Points conveys information - yet it doesn't come close to conveying all the information we want or may need. Hitting % has a ton of stuff unrelated to actually making an attack embedded in the stat - as rally points may have a connection to non-rally points.
All these stats are flawed - yet most convey information that some people are interested in knowing. It doesn't tell us everything (far from it), but it tells us something. I find the concept of breaking a game down between rally points and non rally points as being helpful. I like the idea of trying to break down all rally points - and maybe I end up being completely on the wrong track? Maybe I/we end up being completely wrong about this as we begin to understand volleyball analytics. Volleyball analytics right now is so darn immature - there is an endless supply of information yet to be discovered. Hopefully this kind of stuff will proceed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 11:55:19 GMT -5
Thanks Joe for your stats and insight. A great job as always! * The playing of the match created the 'stats', the 'stats' didn't create the match. THIS (One of the Very Best posts: that JUST Might Get this thread back on-track).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 12:30:39 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with "rally points." I just have a problem with it being a catch-all for all non-rally points. They aren't the same. Isn't this like saying - 'I have a problem with hitting % as a stat'? Rally Points conveys information - yet it doesn't come close to conveying all the information we want or may need. Hitting % has a ton of stuff unrelated to actually making an attack embedded in the stat - as rally points may have a connection to non-rally points.
All these stats are flawed - yet most convey information that some people are interested in knowing. It doesn't tell us everything (far from it), but it tells us something. I find the concept of breaking a game down between rally points and non rally points as being helpful. I like the idea of trying to break down all rally points - and maybe I end up being completely on the wrong track? Maybe I/we end up being completely wrong about this as we begin to understand volleyball analytics. Volleyball analytics right now is so darn immature - there is an endless supply of information yet to be discovered. Hopefully this kind of stuff will proceed.
I was going to hold off on my attempting to get the thread back on track until the trolling abated some; and yet, this comment above broaches some of Joe's points (plus my use of the term "idiosyncratic" to describe the disconnect between our sport, valid statistics, plus stats for/in other sports). VB is a rather 'herky-jerky' sport, IMO: compared to/with other sports. It Does Not Lend Itself Well to empiric, statistical reporting. By herky-jerky, I mean that: the teams are separated on two sides of a net; players do not DIRECTLY guard one another (as in hoops, football, et cetera). Serving, serve-receive, digging, setting-assisting, kills, tooling-the-block, OOS, in-system, etc. Are Very Hard To quantify re: the reporting of a match: not to forget said match is divided into 5 separate units (sets). Each set is a different 'universe', so to speak. Imho, Joe did A MASTERFUL Job in his thread here. I've reviewed this match well over 10-15 times: set-by-set; 1st set SAs; 5th set SEs + SA; momentum shifts/swings; et cetera. As an SU guy, I am AMAZED that my team won the match: statistically-speaking. I KNOW WHY Stanford won this match; I would be hard pressed to explain why, though; Just Using the statistical categories available to us. Because VB Is Such The momentum-fueled sport -- with SAs and SEs becoming huge at critical times -- the ebb-and-flow of a match is hard to compartmentalize/ take a "snapshot" of via rote stats. I Know what Joe (and I) are talking about. Improving match interpretation, vis a' vis improved statistical breakdowns, has A LONG WAY To Go: as referenced above. As another said, tho': the match creates stats; stats don't (re)create the match!
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jan 28, 2019 12:31:51 GMT -5
In terms of things you can control and practice, the service line game (in this Championship match, for example), is going to be one of Coach Cook's biggest takeaways (not sure how much he can "work on it" though, considering Nebraska is usually the best serve-receive team in the country, but that's besides the point). I truly wonder about this. Several of those Stanford aces just happened to paint the line. Nothing you can get better at there. I think there's prolly a laundry list of things he knows will need to improve in 2019 (Hames & Schwarzenbach, Sun becoming a go-to, Sweet forgetting about her sophomore year, etc.), but if he takes something away from this match in particular, I would want to bet that it's probably developing Hames and evaluating rotations considering the sideout trouble Nebraska had at the end of the first and fifth sets when Foecke and Stivrins were front row. No, you're right. I think I'm still just in shock Nebraska let 5 aces fall in the 1st set. Considering there were 4 in the rest of the match (maybe if I'm ever bored I'll rewatch to see if I can spot this), I wonder if Nebraska was more conservative with their out calls after 21-20 in the first. If there was a match after the championship match, I'm sure they would have discussed aces and service errors. But considering the NC is the last match, I don't think said discussion (at least for this specific match) will carry over to next season.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 28, 2019 12:47:13 GMT -5
I truly wonder about this. Several of those Stanford aces just happened to paint the line. Nothing you can get better at there. I think there's prolly a laundry list of things he knows will need to improve in 2019 (Hames & Schwarzenbach, Sun becoming a go-to, Sweet forgetting about her sophomore year, etc.), but if he takes something away from this match in particular, I would want to bet that it's probably developing Hames and evaluating rotations considering the sideout trouble Nebraska had at the end of the first and fifth sets when Foecke and Stivrins were front row. No, you're right. I think I'm still just in shock Nebraska let 5 aces fall in the 1st set. Considering there were 4 in the rest of the match (maybe if I'm ever bored I'll rewatch to see if I can spot this), I wonder if Nebraska was more conservative with their out calls after 21-20 in the first. If there was a match after the championship match, I'm sure they would have discussed aces and service errors. But considering the NC is the last match, I don't think said discussion (at least for this specific match) will carry over to next season. You never know. Sometimes the last match of the year has an outsized impact on the focus the next year, because the coaching staff has months to let it chew on them. It does seem like the main coaching decision that could influence the number of aces is an emphasis on going for more close balls. The kind of ace that happens because the player just can't handle the serve isn't likely to be solved by a simple coaching edict. But it is possible for coaches to push the players to play more close balls (or fewer, if you think they are playing too many balls that would otherwise be SEs).
|
|
|
Post by NebraskaVBfan93 on Jan 28, 2019 13:25:17 GMT -5
is shhhhhh a woman? therefore everyone is wrong and should stop trying to argue about petty things. Stanford won fair and square, don't need to make it complicated and involve math otherwise you're just making yourself look like a complete volleyball nerd hahaha Sexist much?
|
|
|
Post by vup on Jan 28, 2019 13:37:22 GMT -5
Where’s Stephen Hawking so he can give us his Unified Theory of Volleyball summed up in a single, elegant equation.
|
|
|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on Jan 28, 2019 14:58:24 GMT -5
Always believed that folks should be allowed to chat about damned near anything, but the horse in this thread has been beaten into a quivering puddle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 15:12:32 GMT -5
Always believed that folks should be allowed to chat about damned near anything, but the horse in this thread has been beaten into a quivering puddle. I would ACTUALLY bet that Joe Never Imagined this thread would 'branch-out' in the manner it has for ~10 pages. Trolls'll be trolls, tho'; along with our resident-"experts".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 15:43:15 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with "rally points." I just have a problem with it being a catch-all for all non-rally points. They aren't the same. All these stats are flawed - yet most convey information that some people are interested in knowing. It doesn't tell us everything (far from it), but it tells us something. I find the concept of breaking a game down between rally points and non rally points as being helpful. I like the idea of trying to break down all rally points - and maybe I end up being completely on the wrong track? Maybe I/we end up being completely wrong about this as we begin to understand volleyball analytics. Volleyball analytics right now is so darn immature - there is an endless supply of information yet to be discovered. Hopefully this kind of stuff will proceed.
I definitely hope it will continue and improve too. You're very right -- volleyball analytics is very immature. I like the idea of knowing rally v. non-rally points because I think both have value when viewed with the appropriate context. I just had an issue with this particular interpretation of the stats, that the aces were the difference for Stanford. I can see how others came to that conclusion, but I still think it was a manipulation of the numbers to reinforce a certain idea. I think it was a flawed way to view the match and, overall, an inaccurate reflection of Nebraska's actual problems in the sets they were in a position to win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 15:45:06 GMT -5
Because all/only women do this. On-topic opinion exchange is not what throws a thread off. Ignoramus comments, on the other hand, are. Back rolls...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 18:24:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Jan 29, 2019 9:18:44 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with "rally points." I just have a problem with it being a catch-all for all non-rally points. They aren't the same. Isn't this like saying - 'I have a problem with hitting % as a stat'? Rally Points conveys information - yet it doesn't come close to conveying all the information we want or may need. Hitting % has a ton of stuff unrelated to actually making an attack embedded in the stat - as rally points may have a connection to non-rally points.
All these stats are flawed - yet most convey information that some people are interested in knowing. It doesn't tell us everything (far from it), but it tells us something. I find the concept of breaking a game down between rally points and non rally points as being helpful. I like the idea of trying to break down all rally points - and maybe I end up being completely on the wrong track? Maybe I/we end up being completely wrong about this as we begin to understand volleyball analytics. Volleyball analytics right now is so darn immature - there is an endless supply of information yet to be discovered. Hopefully this kind of stuff will proceed.
I have similar takeaways. Something I've learned is that the broader you make a stat, the more it predicts winning and losing, but the less specific information it conveys. The narrower you make a stat, the more actionable information you get, but the less it predicts winning and losing. For example, hitting efficiency predicts winning and losing better than any stat besides sideout % (which is just another way of keeping score). But hitting efficiency tells you very little actionable information. It doesn't tell you much about how the kills were scored, what situations, etc. You can narrow that down, but then you lose predictive power. So I think a good coach tries to balance the two aspects there. Don't get too bogged down in the weeds, but don't be so vague you lose the ability to prioritize and focus.
|
|