|
Post by Volleyfan024 on Apr 22, 2019 0:45:50 GMT -5
I'm a little confused re: your comment on Vorenkamp... isn't he a middle? I had thought so as well, but recently heard he's been practicing as a setter this year. Pat was a setter early in his career but moved to middle as he grew and it was a way for him to find the court on his club team.
|
|
|
Post by lankykong on Apr 22, 2019 0:55:34 GMT -5
I had thought so as well, but recently heard he's been practicing as a setter this year. Pat was a setter early in his career but moved to middle as he grew and it was a way for him to find the court on his club team. that could be big for uci. He's huge for a setter, probably like 6'7 and a good blocker. Hope he develops well
|
|
|
Post by ACE on Apr 22, 2019 1:04:18 GMT -5
With Nsakanda and that AZ lefty (Vball Magazine #1 recruit) one will have to sit their entire college career. Although, not heard or seen much of the AZ kid. Nsakanda and Sniedmiller looks to be a good one-two punch for the Anteaters the next two years.
|
|
|
Post by thor on Apr 22, 2019 5:12:45 GMT -5
UCI is an enigma, They’re able to bring in Stadick, Schneidmiller, Bowles... all top picks in their recruiting class and supplementing with other fab 50 recruits yet still can’t compete with LB and Hawaii. Maybe it’s how they evaluate talent, maybe too much focus on recruiting height (form over substance),maybe they can’t develop their talent. Maybe it’s all of the above. Hawaii has a short setter, a short OH2, an undersized MH all were not heavily recruited, but they are fiercely competitive, hungry to learn, got good work ethic, and are basically athletic. Our OH2 is a walk on but that will change next year
|
|
|
Post by Scipio Aemilianus on Apr 22, 2019 11:30:29 GMT -5
UCI has good players and good coaches. This attack on them is pretty surprising in my eyes. They aren't Long Beach or Hawaii but no one else is and we shouldn't expect everyone to be. They aren't amazing but they aren't bad or average by any means.
To me, UCI's struggles come mostly from their roster building. UCI has 20 players:
3 Liberos 2 Setters 3 Outsides 7 Middles 5 Opposites
That just isn't good roster construction. I know UCI likes tall guys and being tall helps no doubt, but when you have the (counting Sohacki) EIGHT middles but you only have a COMBINED EIGHT liberos/setters/outsides, it won't be that pretty. Outsides and setters make a great team. Schneidmiller proved that. How they went an entire year with 2 outsides and 2 setters just boggles my mind.
|
|
|
Post by ant on Apr 22, 2019 11:47:08 GMT -5
If Vorenkamp is the setter next year, it would be great scouting by the UCI coaches. He was the third option as setter for his club team in 17s and was injured most of the 18s season.
His size and blocking made him more valuable as a middle for his club team. He does have good hands though.
I don’t know why UCI did not try to recruit Paragas who was the setter on the same club team that won 4 gold medals at BJNC and two CIf-ss titles. He ended up going to UCSB where he is going to have to play behind McCarry and Dereese for two years. He is small for a college setter but worsley is showing that size isn’t everything.
Maybe UCI did try to recruit him. I don’t know.
Also curious why they did not recruit libero Diego Perez who also was on the same club that won 4 golds at Bjnc and two cig-ss titles. He did not sign with any college last year and was a very good libero.
|
|
|
Post by passserve on Apr 22, 2019 13:39:26 GMT -5
They are good at opposite and middle and will have two good outsides next year. The questions are setter and libero and if one of the freshmen can play outside right away so they have more than two outsides next year.
|
|
|
Post by dadovball on Apr 22, 2019 14:31:14 GMT -5
I saw the Scott Stadick criticism, was surprised and felt compelled to check the stats. Stats.ncaa.org to be specific. Active leaders board, which includes all the current active players including seniors. Total blocks #2 on the board at 407, next closest Junior is Carvalho from Lincoln Memorial at 374, then Gassman at 324 and Huhmann comes in at 301. Blocks per set, Carvalho #1 at 1.32, Stadick #2 at 1.24, Gassman #3 at 1.20. Hitting % Stadick # 4 overall. Stadick's #s are some of the best, arguable the best, in the country.
Yes, he has twice as many serve errors this year vs last. Roughly .5 per set. He can work on that next year and try to get back to the 2018 number of 29 in 121 sets played.
INO Scott is a future Olympian and his UCI game is suffering a little because he plays competitivey 12 months a year, and his body probably does not get a chance to ever get to 100%, ever. He leads all juniors in sets played at 327, next closest are Luck from Princeton at 319 and then Dixon from Princeton and Szews from Ball State at 317. Not just Scott, who is still years away from his physical maturity, but even pro players, of all sports, will tell you the value of rest. Maybe Scott will get some this summer, but it is tough to say "No" when your country comes calling. One of the biggest issues with "next level" performance is durability. Looks like Scott has that. Despite the wear and tear, if he gets a good pass and set, Stadick will put it down.
Not just Scott, but let's cut the student athletes a little slack when it comes to personal criticism.
|
|
|
Post by teamjess on Apr 22, 2019 14:52:42 GMT -5
I saw the Scott Stadick criticism, was surprised and felt compelled to check the stats. Stats.ncaa.org to be specific. Active leaders board, which includes all the current active players including seniors. Total blocks #2 on the board at 407, next closest Junior is Carvalho from Lincoln Memorial at 374, then Gassman at 324 and Huhmann comes in at 301. Blocks per set, Carvalho #1 at 1.32, Stadick #2 at 1.24, Gassman #3 at 1.20. Hitting % Stadick # 4 overall. Stadick's #s are some of the best, arguable the best, in the country. Yes, he has twice as many serve errors this year vs last. Roughly .5 per set. He can work on that next year and try to get back to the 2018 number of 29 in 121 sets played. INO Scott is a future Olympian and his UCI game is suffering a little because he plays competitivey 12 months a year, and his body probably does not get a chance to ever get to 100%, ever. He leads all juniors in sets played at 327, next closest are Luck from Princeton at 319 and then Dixon from Princeton and Szews from Ball State at 317. Not just Scott, who is still years away from his physical maturity, but even pro players, of all sports, will tell you the value of rest. Maybe Scott will get some this summer, but it is tough to say "No" when your country comes calling. One of the biggest issues with "next level" performance is durability. Looks like Scott has that. Despite the wear and tear, if he gets a good pass and set, Stadick will put it down. Not just Scott, but let's cut the student athletes a little slack when it comes to personal criticism. Thank you for this!! I really love Scott and love watching him play. I haven't seen much of UCI this year so was also suprised at all the criticism. It is easy to get frustrated as a fan and forget that these guys are hard working students!
|
|
|
Post by thor on Apr 22, 2019 15:25:30 GMT -5
I saw the Scott Stadick criticism, was surprised and felt compelled to check the stats. Stats.ncaa.org to be specific. Active leaders board, which includes all the current active players including seniors. Total blocks #2 on the board at 407, next closest Junior is Carvalho from Lincoln Memorial at 374, then Gassman at 324 and Huhmann comes in at 301. Blocks per set, Carvalho #1 at 1.32, Stadick #2 at 1.24, Gassman #3 at 1.20. Hitting % Stadick # 4 overall. Stadick's #s are some of the best, arguable the best, in the country. Yes, he has twice as many serve errors this year vs last. Roughly .5 per set. He can work on that next year and try to get back to the 2018 number of 29 in 121 sets played. INO Scott is a future Olympian and his UCI game is suffering a little because he plays competitivey 12 months a year, and his body probably does not get a chance to ever get to 100%, ever. He leads all juniors in sets played at 327, next closest are Luck from Princeton at 319 and then Dixon from Princeton and Szews from Ball State at 317. Not just Scott, who is still years away from his physical maturity, but even pro players, of all sports, will tell you the value of rest. Maybe Scott will get some this summer, but it is tough to say "No" when your country comes calling. One of the biggest issues with "next level" performance is durability. Looks like Scott has that. Despite the wear and tear, if he gets a good pass and set, Stadick will put it down. Not just Scott, but let's cut the student athletes a little slack when it comes to personal criticism. Please check your stats again, Gasman block stat is 1.42 bps and hitting % at .465 ( which is just okay for a MH) versus Stadick’s pedestrian .397 and 1.21 bps average. These stats are per the UCI VB website. Heck even our 6’1 walk on OH2 is hitting .390. Scott’s service game stat is atrocious: 2 aces to 60 errors or 1:30. The average ace to error stat is about 1:4. If I was a coach, and he served like this for 3 years, I would sub him out on serve. Other MH Solbrig is hitting .572 and averages .9 bps, both middles serve at 1:4. Solbrig was not even an HM by the BW. On the flip side, Shneidmiller is a player UCI can build around. He is a solid pin hitter
|
|
|
Post by 405LAX on Apr 22, 2019 15:41:12 GMT -5
I saw the Scott Stadick criticism, was surprised and felt compelled to check the stats. Stats.ncaa.org to be specific. Active leaders board, which includes all the current active players including seniors. Total blocks #2 on the board at 407, next closest Junior is Carvalho from Lincoln Memorial at 374, then Gassman at 324 and Huhmann comes in at 301. Blocks per set, Carvalho #1 at 1.32, Stadick #2 at 1.24, Gassman #3 at 1.20. Hitting % Stadick # 4 overall. Stadick's #s are some of the best, arguable the best, in the country. Yes, he has twice as many serve errors this year vs last. Roughly .5 per set. He can work on that next year and try to get back to the 2018 number of 29 in 121 sets played. INO Scott is a future Olympian and his UCI game is suffering a little because he plays competitivey 12 months a year, and his body probably does not get a chance to ever get to 100%, ever. He leads all juniors in sets played at 327, next closest are Luck from Princeton at 319 and then Dixon from Princeton and Szews from Ball State at 317. Not just Scott, who is still years away from his physical maturity, but even pro players, of all sports, will tell you the value of rest. Maybe Scott will get some this summer, but it is tough to say "No" when your country comes calling. One of the biggest issues with "next level" performance is durability. Looks like Scott has that. Despite the wear and tear, if he gets a good pass and set, Stadick will put it down. Not just Scott, but let's cut the student athletes a little slack when it comes to personal criticism. Please check your stats again, Gasman block stat is 1.42 bps and hitting % at .465 ( which is just okay for a MH) versus Stadick’s pedestrian .397 and 1.21 bps average. These stats are per the UCI VB website. Heck even our 6’1 walk on OH2 is hitting .390. Scott’s service game stat is atrocious: 2 aces to 60 errors or 1:30. The average ace to error stat is about 1:4. If I was a coach, and he served like this for 3 years, I would sub him out on serve. Other MH Solbrig is hitting .572 and averages .9 bps, both middles serve at 1:4. Solbrig was not even an HM by the BW. On the flip side, Shneidmiller is a player UCI can build around. He is a solid pin hitter Stop throwing "personal criticism" around, it's not fair and someone's feelings might be hurt. Even if all of this is 100% true.
|
|
|
Post by thor on Apr 22, 2019 16:24:44 GMT -5
😂 you got it dude
|
|
|
Post by dadovball on Apr 22, 2019 16:29:31 GMT -5
Two sets of stats. Single season which is the first tab "National Rankings" on the left. The stats I cited are on the "Active Career Leaders" tab right next to it where the whole career is documented. No disputing it, Stadick has had a great career already.
But let's look at the single season. Hawaii as a team is hitting .442 - amazing. Gassman is even better, hitting .465 or .023 better than the team average.
UCI as a team is hitting .316 - pretty good. Stadick is even better, hitting .397 or .081 better than the team average. But his improvement over the team average is more significant than Gassman's. Solbrig at .572 is .130 better than the team average. Great year. Probably benefitting from all the great players around him. Everyone for Hawaii has been healthy as well. Like few other teams, every hitter can beat you. When a team is not that deep, blocking can mitigate the top one or two threats. UCI is not that deep.
Every knowledgable fan will tell you that hitting % is more a factor of passing and setting than a great hitter tooling everyone. Every player has to play on the team they are on. So IMO, Solbrig is having the best year of the three, then Stadick then Gassman. The stats, even the single season stats, say that while Stadick is having a down year in both hitting % and serving, he is still having a great year, the kind of year most coaches wish they had from their #1 middle.
One more set of stats, you get more free balls and it is easier to block when your serving game is on. Hawaii aces per set, 1.71. UCI 1.23.
|
|
rva7
Sophomore
Posts: 124
|
Post by rva7 on Apr 22, 2019 16:39:35 GMT -5
I saw the Scott Stadick criticism, was surprised and felt compelled to check the stats. Stats.ncaa.org to be specific. Active leaders board, which includes all the current active players including seniors. Total blocks #2 on the board at 407, next closest Junior is Carvalho from Lincoln Memorial at 374, then Gassman at 324 and Huhmann comes in at 301. Blocks per set, Carvalho #1 at 1.32, Stadick #2 at 1.24, Gassman #3 at 1.20. Hitting % Stadick # 4 overall. Stadick's #s are some of the best, arguable the best, in the country. Yes, he has twice as many serve errors this year vs last. Roughly .5 per set. He can work on that next year and try to get back to the 2018 number of 29 in 121 sets played. INO Scott is a future Olympian and his UCI game is suffering a little because he plays competitivey 12 months a year, and his body probably does not get a chance to ever get to 100%, ever. He leads all juniors in sets played at 327, next closest are Luck from Princeton at 319 and then Dixon from Princeton and Szews from Ball State at 317. Not just Scott, who is still years away from his physical maturity, but even pro players, of all sports, will tell you the value of rest. Maybe Scott will get some this summer, but it is tough to say "No" when your country comes calling. One of the biggest issues with "next level" performance is durability. Looks like Scott has that. Despite the wear and tear, if he gets a good pass and set, Stadick will put it down. Not just Scott, but let's cut the student athletes a little slack when it comes to personal criticism. Please check your stats again, Gasman block stat is 1.42 bps and hitting % at .465 ( which is just okay for a MH) versus Stadick’s pedestrian .397 and 1.21 bps average. These stats are per the UCI VB website. Heck even our 6’1 walk on OH2 is hitting .390. Scott’s service game stat is atrocious: 2 aces to 60 errors or 1:30. The average ace to error stat is about 1:4. If I was a coach, and he served like this for 3 years, I would sub him out on serve. Other MH Solbrig is hitting .572 and averages .9 bps, both middles serve at 1:4. Solbrig was not even an HM by the BW. On the flip side, Shneidmiller is a player UCI can build around. He is a solid pin hitter Throwing around numbers about middles isn’t a 100% fair way to judge he kid. The Hawaii middles are wide open since their pins are so good. Also, the Hawaii middles should hit a much higher % because their setter is much stronger. Anyone who has run a middle route knows how much you rely on a setter. Scott has been with the USA teams for a reason. Big things ahead for him.
|
|
|
Post by thor on Apr 22, 2019 17:00:23 GMT -5
None of this explains Scott’s service game but okay. Good luck to UCI next year.
|
|