Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2019 0:31:09 GMT -5
Would I be correct in saying: Stanford outscored Nebraska because: 1) They won the non-rally points (serving) 2) They were more efficient out of system 3) They were better on defense at the net - whether blocking or fewer blocking errors. Since they only won one more point - they need each of these edges over Nebraska to overcome the things that Nebraska did better. None of them would have been sufficient to outscore Nebraska by themselves. Had Stanford's hitting efficiency OOS been the same as Nebraska - the non rally points would not have overcome Nebraska's advantage in rally points. Nebraska overall won that match except for aces, but the effect of the aces was so big that Stanford ended up the actual winner. But like, this isn't true and makes no sense! Stanford won because they got to 15 in the fifth before Nebraska got to 14. There was one Stanford ace in the fifth, so how does it make any sense at all to say that total aces for the whole match was the stat most correlated to their win? What does total points scored matter in a five-set match? Five of those nine aces happened in the first set! 155 points were played after the first set and ***four*** were Stanford aces. Come on. Stanford won because they scored 9 kills and an ace in the fifth, and Nebraska missed two serves and hit three balls out. The winner was decided in the fifth. Nothing that happened before the fifth set matters.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 26, 2019 1:09:43 GMT -5
Nebraska overall won that match except for aces, but the effect of the aces was so big that Stanford ended up the actual winner. But like, this isn't true and makes no sense! Stanford won because they got to 15 in the fifth before Nebraska got to 14. There was one Stanford ace in the fifth, so how does it make any sense at all to say that total aces for the whole match was the stat most correlated to their win? What does total points scored matter in a five-set match? Five of those nine aces happened in the first set! 155 points were played after the first set and ***four*** were Stanford aces. Come on. Stanford won because they scored 9 kills and an ace in the fifth, and Nebraska missed two serves and hit three balls out. The winner was decided in the fifth. Nothing that happened before the fifth set matters. If you discount aces and service errors, Nebraska won that match 3-1-1. Put aces and service errors back in again, and Stanford won 3-2. It's that simple. It's ridiculous to say only the 5th set matters when there never would have been a 5th set except for Stanford's advantage in points from the service line. Even looking only at the fifth set, the deciding margin was the three bonus points for Stanford from the service line (two Nebraska SEs and one Stanford ace).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2019 6:06:11 GMT -5
But like, this isn't true and makes no sense! Stanford won because they got to 15 in the fifth before Nebraska got to 14. There was one Stanford ace in the fifth, so how does it make any sense at all to say that total aces for the whole match was the stat most correlated to their win? What does total points scored matter in a five-set match? Five of those nine aces happened in the first set! 155 points were played after the first set and ***four*** were Stanford aces. Come on. Stanford won because they scored 9 kills and an ace in the fifth, and Nebraska missed two serves and hit three balls out. The winner was decided in the fifth. Nothing that happened before the fifth set matters. If you discount aces and service errors, Nebraska won that match 3-1-1. Put aces and service errors back in again, and Stanford won 3-2. It's that simple. It's ridiculous to say only the 5th set matters when there never would have been a 5th set except for Stanford's advantage in points from the service line.Even looking only at the fifth set, the deciding margin was the three bonus points for Stanford from the service line (two Nebraska SEs and one Stanford ace). That also doesn't make sense. Starting at 9-9 in the fifth, Stanford scored 5 kills and 1 ace, whereas Nebraska only scored 2 kills plus a Stanford HE. There were no missed serves in that stretch. Stanford's defense/transition offense was the reason they won the match, not the one ace. After all, they were tied at 9s -- how was one ace the reason for a three-point margin? My point: citing "9 v. 2" to explain the difference in the match (which you've done several times) is just a completely illogical argument and a great example of the bias of looking at raw match totals to explain anything in a sport divided into sets where the score is reset four different times. Again: if we use your logic and go with match totals, 155 points were played in the last four sets. Only four were Stanford aces. So, Stanford's 9 total aces were not the reason they won the match. One final thing regarding the underlined portion: prove it. Prove that Stanford wouldn't have also won the points that were aces if Nebraska kept the ball in play. "Never" is a really silly place to hang your hat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2019 6:11:46 GMT -5
"She only hit .200 for the match (20-10-50). Not great."
"Actually, she hit -.500 in the first (0-5-10), then went 20-5-40 in the last two sets, hitting .375, and was perfect after point 20 in those sets. And they swept."
"Nope, she's trash. .200 isn't good."
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 26, 2019 7:20:15 GMT -5
Between the two of us, @allamerican11, I think it's pretty obvious which one of us has made a living for the last 30 years by analyzing complex data. Your arguments are really specious.
Of course no one can prove what would have happened if what did happen hadn't happened, but so what? What did happen was pretty damn clear for all of us to see.
I don't know why you feel compelled to argue against the obvious interpretation of the data, and I don't really care at this point. You aren't offering any insight by telling us that the team who wins the fifth set of a match wins the match. We all know that already, and that's exactly why it fails as a useful match analysis. It's about as useful as pointing out that the team that scores the last point in the match wins. Sure, that's true 100% of the time, but it doesn't mean that last point is the reason why they won.
|
|
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: 12,400
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jan 26, 2019 8:08:10 GMT -5
Would I be correct in saying: Stanford outscored Nebraska because: 1) They won the non-rally points (serving) 2) They were more efficient out of system 3) They were better on defense at the net - whether blocking or fewer blocking errors. Since they only won one more point - they need each of these edges over Nebraska to overcome the things that Nebraska did better. None of them would have been sufficient to outscore Nebraska by themselves. Had Stanford's hitting efficiency OOS been the same as Nebraska - the non rally points would not have overcome Nebraska's advantage in rally points. I think you can't just list everywhere that Stanford had any kind of advantage over Nebraska and say "that's part of the reason they won". You have to look with a more critical eye if you want to draw out anything useful. Something like "Stanford had a higher percentage when attacking out of system" is fine, but it's obviously not the place to go looking for the margin of victory in a match where Nebraska overall out-hit and out-killed Stanford. That's the kind of thing you look to more if Stanford had out-killed Nebraska, and you were trying to figure out which part of the attack was what allowed them to do it. Or if you look at the blocking you see that Stanford outperformed Nebraska at the block but Nebraska outdid Stanford defending behind the block, and so on the whole those balanced out or even tilted toward Nebraska. (They did end up scoring more on the rally plays, remember.) The reason to highlight the service line points is because the difference was very stark. Nebraska overall won that match except for aces, but the effect of the aces was so big that Stanford ended up the actual winner. I think you have to look at everything that Stanford did better than Nebraska and say that is why they outscored Nebraska. Especially when the margin was only 1 point. What is the point of this analysis if all we are going to get from it is that Stanford had more aces and This was the only difference or the only deciding difference between the two teams? Seems like (also) looking at Stanford's superior play OOS is precisely where we should be looking to understand why Stanford outscored Nebraska. Seems odd to only need to look at aces as the only difference. Why would we treat all rally points the same and not break the game down in much more detail as the OP did? Although it wasn't done here - one could quantify the difference in points between the two teams from in system and out of system points. And I would suggest one could go much deeper than that. In my mind - serving was a deciding difference, but it wasn't the only deciding difference between the two teams and I don't think it is right to assume that this entire match can be defined by a handful of service aces.
|
|
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: 12,400
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jan 26, 2019 8:13:57 GMT -5
Between the two of us, @allamerican11 , I think it's pretty obvious which one of us has made a living for the last 30 years by analyzing complex data. Your arguments are really specious. Of course no one can prove what would have happened if what did happen hadn't happened, but so what? What did happen was pretty damn clear for all of us to see. I don't know why you feel compelled to argue against the obvious interpretation of the data, and I don't really care at this point. You aren't offering any insight by telling us that the team who wins the fifth set of a match wins the match. We all know that already, and that's exactly why it fails as a useful match analysis. It's about as useful as pointing out that the team that scores the last point in the match wins. Sure, that's true 100% of the time, but it doesn't mean that last point is the reason why they won. This is correct - we are really trying to explain why Stanford scored more points than Nebraska - which usually leads to a win but no always. We are not using data to determine the difference in winning 3 out of 5 sets - there is so much random variance that comes into play for this. At least that is what I am looking at.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2019 11:46:35 GMT -5
Would I be correct in saying: Stanford outscored Nebraska because: 1) They won the non-rally points (serving) 2) They were more efficient out of system 3) They were better on defense at the net - whether blocking or fewer blocking errors. Since they only won one more point - they need each of these edges over Nebraska to overcome the things that Nebraska did better. None of them would have been sufficient to outscore Nebraska by themselves. Had Stanford's hitting efficiency OOS been the same as Nebraska - the non rally points would not have overcome Nebraska's advantage in rally points. Obfuscation (and ignoramuses) aside, I would concur with ya -- plus, I am sure Joe would too -- and add these three points: 1) Stanford had one more side out, plus one more point in the match; the difference was razor-thin, as was the match; 2) WHEN those 'non-rally points' occurred - NEB SEs and S. Wilson's SA (plus other tough serves) in the 5th Set -- were crucial for SU to win the match; 3) The 1st Set was VITALLY important: Stanford's critically needed SAs were The Only Reason they won a set in which they Were Quite statistically outplayed. I have never been acquainted w/ Joe Trinsey's work before this thread; this gentleman is THE REAL deal, coach-wise. As I was saying...see above (plus see above - in all of these two persons' posts in this thread)! VB is Not a sport that lends itself to wannabes' analysis of abstract data. This IS NOT Directed at you, bluepenquin - Of All Of The dissectors of match, team and tourney numbers, your 'crunching' is the MOST spot-on and relevant of anyone's!
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Jan 26, 2019 11:53:38 GMT -5
I think you can't just list everywhere that Stanford had any kind of advantage over Nebraska and say "that's part of the reason they won". You have to look with a more critical eye if you want to draw out anything useful. Something like "Stanford had a higher percentage when attacking out of system" is fine, but it's obviously not the place to go looking for the margin of victory in a match where Nebraska overall out-hit and out-killed Stanford. That's the kind of thing you look to more if Stanford had out-killed Nebraska, and you were trying to figure out which part of the attack was what allowed them to do it. Or if you look at the blocking you see that Stanford outperformed Nebraska at the block but Nebraska outdid Stanford defending behind the block, and so on the whole those balanced out or even tilted toward Nebraska. (They did end up scoring more on the rally plays, remember.) The reason to highlight the service line points is because the difference was very stark. Nebraska overall won that match except for aces, but the effect of the aces was so big that Stanford ended up the actual winner. I think you have to look at everything that Stanford did better than Nebraska and say that is why they outscored Nebraska. Especially when the margin was only 1 point. What is the point of this analysis if all we are going to get from it is that Stanford had more aces and This was the only difference or the only deciding difference between the two teams? Seems like (also) looking at Stanford's superior play OOS is precisely where we should be looking to understand why Stanford outscored Nebraska. Seems odd to only need to look at aces as the only difference. Why would we treat all rally points the same and not break the game down in much more detail as the OP did? Although it wasn't done here - one could quantify the difference in points between the two teams from in system and out of system points. And I would suggest one could go much deeper than that. In my mind - serving was a deciding difference, but it wasn't the only deciding difference between the two teams and I don't think it is right to assume that this entire match can be defined by a handful of service aces. To the naked eye it was pretty obvious that Stanford was not having a good night hitting. Lots of what looked like pretty good sets were hit out or were blocked. The stats show a huge advantage here for Nebraska. The only way Stanford hung in the match was serving and KP. She didn't have a great overall night but to the naked eye she is the best our of system hitter I have ever seen. Would love to see some season long stats on KP out of system hitting versus other OH.
|
|
|
Post by Scipio Aemilianus on Jan 26, 2019 12:01:52 GMT -5
Between the two of us, @allamerican11, I think it's pretty obvious which one of us has made a living for the last 30 years by analyzing complex data. Your arguments are really specious. Of course no one can prove what would have happened if what did happen hadn't happened, but so what? What did happen was pretty damn clear for all of us to see. I don't know why you feel compelled to argue against the obvious interpretation of the data, and I don't really care at this point. You aren't offering any insight by telling us that the team who wins the fifth set of a match wins the match. We all know that already, and that's exactly why it fails as a useful match analysis. It's about as useful as pointing out that the team that scores the last point in the match wins. Sure, that's true 100% of the time, but it doesn't mean that last point is the reason why they won. Just wanted to say thank you for this excellent educational lesson (takedown?) given here. I completely agree with everything you’ve stated about simple non-subjective stats like service aces and errors. And honestly it’s funny to see people disagree so much and not see the logic. 2+1=3 and 15-12=3 seems pretty simple enough to most of us. Again, thank you for your detailed analysis and commentary.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Jan 26, 2019 12:24:22 GMT -5
Between the two of us, @allamerican11, I think it's pretty obvious which one of us has made a living for the last 30 years by analyzing complex data. Your arguments are really specious. Of course no one can prove what would have happened if what did happen hadn't happened, but so what? What did happen was pretty damn clear for all of us to see. I don't know why you feel compelled to argue against the obvious interpretation of the data, and I don't really care at this point. You aren't offering any insight by telling us that the team who wins the fifth set of a match wins the match. We all know that already, and that's exactly why it fails as a useful match analysis. It's about as useful as pointing out that the team that scores the last point in the match wins. Sure, that's true 100% of the time, but it doesn't mean that last point is the reason why they won. Just wanted to say thank you for this excellent educational lesson (takedown?) given here. I completely agree with everything you’ve stated about simple non-subjective stats like service aces and errors. And honestly it’s funny to see people disagree so much and not see the logic. 2+1=3 and 15-12=3 seems pretty simple enough to most of us. Again, thank you for your detailed analysis and commentary. Analytics now drives baseball, getting there in basketball and with bluepenquin, joetrinsey and mikegarrison is being taught here on Volleytalk. This statistical breakdown is quite enlightening but reminds of the saying "That's why they play the games"
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 26, 2019 12:27:27 GMT -5
Let's be honest, the only reason Stanford won is because Plummer is unquestionably more clutch than Foecke.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2019 12:36:51 GMT -5
Let's be honest, the only reason Stanford won is because Plummer is unquestionably more clutch than Foecke. Ooooooh -- sh*t-stirring/ fishing for controversy (Watch Out: here comes huskerholiday (his original, banned, screen name) to snatch the bait. Good thing ya ain't trolling!
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 26, 2019 18:44:19 GMT -5
I think you can't just list everywhere that Stanford had any kind of advantage over Nebraska and say "that's part of the reason they won". You have to look with a more critical eye if you want to draw out anything useful. Something like "Stanford had a higher percentage when attacking out of system" is fine, but it's obviously not the place to go looking for the margin of victory in a match where Nebraska overall out-hit and out-killed Stanford. That's the kind of thing you look to more if Stanford had out-killed Nebraska, and you were trying to figure out which part of the attack was what allowed them to do it. Or if you look at the blocking you see that Stanford outperformed Nebraska at the block but Nebraska outdid Stanford defending behind the block, and so on the whole those balanced out or even tilted toward Nebraska. (They did end up scoring more on the rally plays, remember.) The reason to highlight the service line points is because the difference was very stark. Nebraska overall won that match except for aces, but the effect of the aces was so big that Stanford ended up the actual winner. I think you have to look at everything that Stanford did better than Nebraska and say that is why they outscored Nebraska. Especially when the margin was only 1 point. What is the point of this analysis if all we are going to get from it is that Stanford had more aces and This was the only difference or the only deciding difference between the two teams? Seems like (also) looking at Stanford's superior play OOS is precisely where we should be looking to understand why Stanford outscored Nebraska. Seems odd to only need to look at aces as the only difference. Why would we treat all rally points the same and not break the game down in much more detail as the OP did? Although it wasn't done here - one could quantify the difference in points between the two teams from in system and out of system points. And I would suggest one could go much deeper than that. In my mind - serving was a deciding difference, but it wasn't the only deciding difference between the two teams and I don't think it is right to assume that this entire match can be defined by a handful of service aces. It's true that we could break this down a million ways. We could find out which players on each team were more effective in the front row than their counterparts. We could look at in-system and out-system points. We could look at anything we want. The thing is, you have to have a question in mind. The info about points from the serving line is meaningless if the question is "which hitters were more effective?" For me, the obvious question of the match was "How did Nebraska out-hit, out-attack, and out-kill Stanford but still lose?" That just *doesn't* happen, but it did. And that's why the points from the service line are so important. They answer that question. There are other questions, and the service line points don't answer them. But in my mind these other questions are secondary in this match, because of how surprising it was that Nebraska could get six more points than Stanford when the ball was in play and yet still lose the match. It is important that Stanford was able to hit well out of system, because if they hadn't been able to do that, no amount of aces would have saved them. But I think that's a secondary factor. I really liked Joe's analysis precisely because it was more complete than my game-night analysis. All I looked at was the primary factor. He also looked at the secondary and tertiary factors and found some interesting stuff in there too. To say one thing was the most important factor in answering the question doesn't mean nothing else was somewhat important.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 26, 2019 19:04:46 GMT -5
Between the two of us, @allamerican11, I think it's pretty obvious which one of us has made a living for the last 30 years by analyzing complex data. Your arguments are really specious. Of course no one can prove what would have happened if what did happen hadn't happened, but so what? What did happen was pretty damn clear for all of us to see. I don't know why you feel compelled to argue against the obvious interpretation of the data, and I don't really care at this point. You aren't offering any insight by telling us that the team who wins the fifth set of a match wins the match. We all know that already, and that's exactly why it fails as a useful match analysis. It's about as useful as pointing out that the team that scores the last point in the match wins. Sure, that's true 100% of the time, but it doesn't mean that last point is the reason why they won. Just wanted to say thank you for this excellent educational lesson (takedown?) given here. I completely agree with everything you’ve stated about simple non-subjective stats like service aces and errors. And honestly it’s funny to see people disagree so much and not see the logic. 2+1=3 and 15-12=3 seems pretty simple enough to most of us. Again, thank you for your detailed analysis and commentary. I felt guilty about the ad hominem attack, though. My only excuse is that I was getting frustrated and it was late at night. @allamerican11 or anybody else has the same right to look at the data and draw conclusions from it. But I think he's not looking at the data -- he's deliberately excluding the data that doesn't fit what he wants to see.
|
|