|
|
Post by badgerbreath on May 20, 2019 10:31:02 GMT -5
There is no way that Minnesota was 4 games better than Nebraska and Wisconsin. Play the season again and the records may look much different. Hmmm. I don't know if you saw any of the matches Minnesota played against the other top teams in the B1G in 2018, but they were clearly better than everyone else for most of the year until the very end. They only lost on the road to a PSU squad desperate to be taken seriously, well after the gophers had the conference crown sewn up. And I'm not just talking results - I'm talking real dominance on the court. Pretty sure based on what I saw that the same thing (a final 3 or 4 game lead) would have happened if there were a replay. The only question for this year is the degree to which SSS was responsible for that dominance. I don't know the answer. Pablo treats every match as an independent random event subject to some baseline probabilities. But, useful as it is, it only has a certain degree of skill as a predictive tool, and can, because uncertainties are necessarily averaged over all the other teams, overestimate or underestimate a certain teams chances of winning or losing. Yes, the gophers could have gotten sick one weekend or suffered an injury, resulting in a couple more losses, but that is about the only thing that would have changed the outcome of their B1G matches. I would say Pablo overestimated the chances of a gophers loss last year, and probably would in a rerun of he season. Conversely, it seriously underestimated the chance of a badgers loss the year before. Anyone who watched could see the badgers had a hard time closing out matches in 2017. |
|
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) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,130 
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 20, 2019 11:15:36 GMT -5
There is no way that Minnesota was 4 games better than Nebraska and Wisconsin. Play the season again and the records may look much different. Hmmm. I don't know if you saw any of the matches Minnesota played against the other top teams in the B1G in 2018, but they were clearly better than everyone else for most of the year until the very end. They only lost on the road to a PSU squad desperate to be taken seriously, well after the gophers had the conference crown sewn up. And I'm not just talking results - I'm talking real dominance on the court. Pretty sure based on what I saw that the same thing (a final 3 or 4 game lead) would have happened if there were a replay. The only question for this year is the degree to which SSS was responsible for that dominance. I don't know the answer. Pablo treats every match as an independent random event subject to some baseline probabilities. But, useful as it is, it only has a certain degree of skill as a predictive tool, and can, because uncertainties are necessarily averaged over all the other teams, overestimate or underestimate a certain teams chances of winning or losing. Yes, the gophers could have gotten sick one weekend or suffered an injury, resulting in a couple more losses, but that is about the only thing that would have changed the outcome of their B1G matches. I would say Pablo overestimated the chances of a gophers loss last year, and probably would in a rerun of he season. Conversely, it seriously underestimated the chance of a badgers loss the year before. Anyone who watched could see the badgers had a hard time closing out matches in 2017. The % of points won during conference play last year: 1) Minnesota - 55.34% 2) Nebraska - 55.32% 3) Illinois - 54.05% 4) Penn State - 53.63% 5) Wisconsin - 53.45% Nebraska did a horrible job of distributing their points while Minnesota was excellent. |
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on May 20, 2019 11:48:35 GMT -5
Being historically apathetic and content. Excellent and well though out feedback. Now, how about tackling Iowa's lack of success ? Why are coaches who have had success at other programs (in particular the current coach) not able to duplicate their success at Iowa, where the program remains mired in the bottom one third of the conference and unable to make the NCAA tournament ? If you’ve ever followed Iowa volleyball you’d know being mired in the bottom 1/3 of the conference is much better than being mired in the bottom 1/10 of the conference... where we sat for many seasons. Before Bond came in we spent 12/13 of the most recent seasons in the bottom 2 of the B1G (8/13 in last or tied for last). Since Bond has come in, even if we eliminate Maryland/Rutgers from the equation, we’ve finished above the bottom 3 twice and bottom 2 once. Baby steps but definitive progress for the program  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2019 12:01:17 GMT -5
Hmmm. I don't know if you saw any of the matches Minnesota played against the other top teams in the B1G in 2018, but they were clearly better than everyone else for most of the year until the very end. They only lost on the road to a PSU squad desperate to be taken seriously, well after the gophers had the conference crown sewn up. And I'm not just talking results - I'm talking real dominance on the court. Pretty sure based on what I saw that the same thing (a final 3 or 4 game lead) would have happened if there were a replay. The only question for this year is the degree to which SSS was responsible for that dominance. I don't know the answer. Pablo treats every match as an independent random event subject to some baseline probabilities. But, useful as it is, it only has a certain degree of skill as a predictive tool, and can, because uncertainties are necessarily averaged over all the other teams, overestimate or underestimate a certain teams chances of winning or losing. Yes, the gophers could have gotten sick one weekend or suffered an injury, resulting in a couple more losses, but that is about the only thing that would have changed the outcome of their B1G matches. I would say Pablo overestimated the chances of a gophers loss last year, and probably would in a rerun of he season. Conversely, it seriously underestimated the chance of a badgers loss the year before. Anyone who watched could see the badgers had a hard time closing out matches in 2017. The % of points won during conference play last year: 1) Minnesota - 55.34% 2) Nebraska - 55.32% 3) Illinois - 54.05% 4) Penn State - 53.63% 5) Wisconsin - 53.45% Nebraska did a horrible job of distributing their points while Minnesota was excellent. That's all well and good. But, the quality of Minnesota was superior to the other teams from start to finish, no matter what the % of points won says. Nobody would mistake them for '09 Penn State, but their season included 6 sets to 1 against Wisconsin, 6 sets to 2 against Nebraska, 3-0 against Illinois. The won 57 sets against 11 defeats. Of those 11, 5 of them inexplicably came to Michigan State, Ohio State and Maryland. 6 of them came well after the title was effectively decided (I don't recall the clinch date). Say what you want, that team crushed the B1G last year. And, no, I don't think the other teams were particularly close. If not for a bad matchup with Oregon, I think they end up facing off with Stanford in the final, beating Nebraska and Illinois again along the way. |
|
|
|
Post by combes on May 20, 2019 12:04:56 GMT -5
In Shymansky's case his previous stops were at Georgia Tech from the ACC and Marquette from the Big East. As far as women's volleyball goes, any of the top teams in recent history from these conferences would struggle to make it into the top half of the B1G. In women's volleyball the B1G continues to display its emergence as the top conference in women's volleyball. The PAC-12 still belongs in the conversation due mainly to the volleyball powerhouse that is Stanford. To my biased mind, there exists no volleyball conference that comes close to the coaching talent that exists in the B1G. I can certainly see why coaches would want to test their coaching mettle by pursuing B1G volleyball coaching (and salaries). However, there are not many coaches that are going to come into the B1G, and out-coach the existing coaches. To follow-up on the idea of a coach being hired into the B1G, and successfully challenging the existing B1G coaches, I would say the 2019-2020 season could be a good indicator of B1G coaching 'mettle'. Penn State's Rose seems to be fading. Wisconsin's Sheffield shook things up when he entered the conference having inherited a Badger team already loaded with talent (however some might say his teams have underperformed since his Carlini teams). Minnesota's McCutcheon has successfully stockpiled a huge amount of talent (however, he too, could be accused of underperforming with last years talent. And, what's with his players starting to go elsewhere). Nebraska's Cook seems to always produce a top team (the question now is who is going to replace Foecke as the constant savior of next season's team). And, not to be overlooked (by me, at least) is Purdue's Dave Shondell (always producing a blue-collar team that finds a previously hidden star to elevate the Boilers to unexpected heights). And most intriguing for me will be to see what Illinois' Chris Tamas can do with his third Illini team. He's going to have perhaps more overall talent than he has had in his previous two seasons, however, his three returning setters have not shown that any of them can deliver a consistently good second contact ball. Allison showed well at Auburn. Brown has not had an opportunity to show yet. Bruner is a walk on and not in the mix to start. Allison and Brown were both highly ranked and good enough to be in the national USA system. Neither is Poulter. No one is. But both are good enough to win at a high level with. |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on May 20, 2019 12:07:18 GMT -5
That distribution of points is one of the things I'm talking about. Though you can treat such things as a random draw, some teams do tend to be more consistent, streaky or prone to fast starts and slow finishes. For teams that win >50% points, a consistent team, or a team that adjusts well and quickly, wins more sets for the same number of points won (the gophers in 2018). A team that blows out teams in a few sets, but drops off, or fails to adjust, doesn't necessarily do that (the badgers in 2017).
But the other thing I am talking about are the head to head matchups between the top tier teams last year. Other than the PSU match near the end, when the gophers seemed to lose a bit of focus, Minnesota was just better in those match-ups. Maybe they could have also lost one of the MSU or OSU matches, but those were the only other ones that went to 5, so 2 out of 3 isn't an unusual draw for 5 set matches, especially against two inferior teams and one quite good one. That's what makes me think the size of the four game differential was not a fluke. It was about right.
The only piece missing this year is SSS (and Barnes), so they have a lot of potential to build on based on last year's record, but it's hard to say what they've lost. Was SSS responsible for that consistency they've had for a number of years?
|
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on May 20, 2019 12:19:34 GMT -5
That distribution of points is one of the things I'm talking about. Though you can treat such things as a random draw, some teams do tend to be more consistent, streaky or prone to fast starts and slow finishes. For teams that win >50% points, a consistent team, or a team that adjusts well and quickly, wins more sets for the same number of points won (the gophers in 2018). A team that blows out teams in a few sets, but drops off, or fails to adjust, doesn't necessarily do that (the badgers in 2017). But the other thing I am talking about are the head to head matchups between the top tier teams last year. Other than the PSU match near the end, when the gophers seemed to lose a bit of focus, Minnesota was just better in those match-ups. Maybe they could have also lost one of the MSU or OSU matches, but those were the only other ones that went to 5, so 2 out of 3 isn't an unusual draw for 5 set matches, especially against two inferior teams and one quite good one. That's what makes me think the size of the four game differential was not a fluke. It was about right. The only piece missing this year is SSS (and Barnes), so they have a lot of potential to build on based on last year's record, but it's hard to say what they've lost. Was SSS responsible for that consistency they've had for a number of years? SSS absolutely elevated her players. To say otherwise would be bordering on ridiculous. MN may struggle more than they did last year, but they'll still be really good. |
|
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) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,130
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 20, 2019 13:08:26 GMT -5
Some teams 'skillfully' distribute their points until they don't. Minnesota was very efficient in conference last year until the tournament when they were not. Nebraska was very inefficient in their point distribution in conference until they became efficient in the tournament. We like to take short sample sizes and claim skill to explain things when statistically it is most likely random variation.
That said, Minnesota's conference season last year was rather extraordinary for a 19-1 team. The only match where they won more than 60% of the points was the last match against Rutgers (61.5%). Nebraska won >60% of the points in 7 of their 20 matches. 3 times they won over 64% of the points played. Illinois won 60%+ points 4 times and oddly neither time against Rutgers. Wisconsin (4X) and Penn State (3X) more than doubled Minnesota's number of >60% of the points blowouts.
|
|
|
|
Post by TuesdayGone on May 21, 2019 1:34:21 GMT -5
Some teams 'skillfully' distribute their points until they don't. Minnesota was very efficient in conference last year until the tournament when they were not. Nebraska was very inefficient in their point distribution in conference until they became efficient in the tournament. We like to take short sample sizes and claim skill to explain things when statistically it is most likely random variation. That said, Minnesota's conference season last year was rather extraordinary for a 19-1 team. The only match where they won more than 60% of the points was the last match against Rutgers (61.5%). Nebraska won >60% of the points in 7 of their 20 matches. 3 times they won over 64% of the points played. Illinois won 60%+ points 4 times and oddly neither time against Rutgers. Wisconsin (4X) and Penn State (3X) more than doubled Minnesota's number of >60% of the points blowouts. Minnesota quite frankly didn't play as well against the bad teams in BIG as the other teams.....I watched almost all their matches Against the worst teams in BIG (Mich St, Ohio St) they played lackluster But they were pretty dominate against the number 2,3,4 teams Minnesota scored 54.05% of the points vs (Illinois, Nebraska, Wisconsin) |
|
|
|
Post by Badger Alum on May 21, 2019 9:08:17 GMT -5
In Shymansky's case his previous stops were at Georgia Tech from the ACC and Marquette from the Big East. As far as women's volleyball goes, any of the top teams in recent history from these conferences would struggle to make it into the top half of the B1G. In women's volleyball the B1G continues to display its emergence as the top conference in women's volleyball. The PAC-12 still belongs in the conversation due mainly to the volleyball powerhouse that is Stanford. To my biased mind, there exists no volleyball conference that comes close to the coaching talent that exists in the B1G. I can certainly see why coaches would want to test their coaching mettle by pursuing B1G volleyball coaching (and salaries). However, there are not many coaches that are going to come into the B1G, and out-coach the existing coaches. To follow-up on the idea of a coach being hired into the B1G, and successfully challenging the existing B1G coaches, I would say the 2019-2020 season could be a good indicator of B1G coaching 'mettle'. Penn State's Rose seems to be fading. Wisconsin's Sheffield shook things up when he entered the conference having inherited a Badger team already loaded with talent (however some might say his teams have underperformed since his Carlini teams). Minnesota's McCutcheon has successfully stockpiled a huge amount of talent (however, he too, could be accused of underperforming with last years talent. And, what's with his players starting to go elsewhere). Nebraska's Cook seems to always produce a top team (the question now is who is going to replace Foecke as the constant savior of next season's team). And, not to be overlooked (by me, at least) is Purdue's Dave Shondell (always producing a blue-collar team that finds a previously hidden star to elevate the Boilers to unexpected heights). And most intriguing for me will be to see what Illinois' Chris Tamas can do with his third Illini team. He's going to have perhaps more overall talent than he has had in his previous two seasons, however, his three returning setters have not shown that any of them can deliver a consistently good second contact ball. I think John Cook is truly an exceptional coach. He makes a difference. I did not feel that Nebraska had close to the talent of Minnesota or even Illinois (and possibly even Wisconsin) last year. And yet, there was Nebraska back in the Finals and competing really well. If Sun wasn't so bad in the Final Four, they might have won it all. I thought Minnesota was clearly the most talented team in the Big 10 last year. I think their shocking early exit from the tournament and all the transfers has me scratching my head as to what is really going on there. Doesn't make sense to me. But one thing I know is that Cook will have his team ready and they will likely over-achieve. |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on May 21, 2019 11:43:28 GMT -5
I have some gripes with Cook, but his coaching is not one of them. Nebraska will be solid next year.
|
|
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) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,130
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 21, 2019 12:52:57 GMT -5
To follow-up on the idea of a coach being hired into the B1G, and successfully challenging the existing B1G coaches, I would say the 2019-2020 season could be a good indicator of B1G coaching 'mettle'. Penn State's Rose seems to be fading. Wisconsin's Sheffield shook things up when he entered the conference having inherited a Badger team already loaded with talent (however some might say his teams have underperformed since his Carlini teams). Minnesota's McCutcheon has successfully stockpiled a huge amount of talent (however, he too, could be accused of underperforming with last years talent. And, what's with his players starting to go elsewhere). Nebraska's Cook seems to always produce a top team (the question now is who is going to replace Foecke as the constant savior of next season's team). And, not to be overlooked (by me, at least) is Purdue's Dave Shondell (always producing a blue-collar team that finds a previously hidden star to elevate the Boilers to unexpected heights). And most intriguing for me will be to see what Illinois' Chris Tamas can do with his third Illini team. He's going to have perhaps more overall talent than he has had in his previous two seasons, however, his three returning setters have not shown that any of them can deliver a consistently good second contact ball. I think John Cook is truly an exceptional coach. He makes a difference. I did not feel that Nebraska had close to the talent of Minnesota or even Illinois (and possibly even Wisconsin) last year. And yet, there was Nebraska back in the Finals and competing really well. If Sun wasn't so bad in the Final Four, they might have won it all. I thought Minnesota was clearly the most talented team in the Big 10 last year. I think their shocking early exit from the tournament and all the transfers has me scratching my head as to what is really going on there. Doesn't make sense to me. But one thing I know is that Cook will have his team ready and they will likely over-achieve. Nebraska is always a very talented team. There can be variances in youth and inexperience, but always among the most talented teams. Cook is a great coach, but let us not kid ourselves into thinking he is winning with something less than elite talent. Minnesota - their exit last year shouldn't be shocking (it was disappointing given how good they were for the season). In the big picture - the transfers out of the system looks like a complete non-issue for this team going forward. The program still looks like they are on the cusp of being among the other top 4 programs in the country. The pipeline is rich. I just don't see any bad years in the foreseeable future and each year they are/should be in contention for a NC. One unfortunately timed match last year in the tournament changes nothing for the future (so I think). |
|
|
|
Post by TuesdayGone on May 21, 2019 13:35:02 GMT -5
Foecke is the most underrated player in college vb.
SHE is the reason Nebraska went to 4 straight final 4’s
Everyone will see how underrated she was this year without her.
|
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on May 21, 2019 13:49:08 GMT -5
Foecke is the most underrated player in college vb. SHE is the reason Nebraska went to 4 straight final 4’s Everyone will see how underrated she was this year without her. Who on earth underrated Foecke hahahha I’m pretty sure everyone thinks she is incredible, the announcers certainly don’t shy away from it |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on May 21, 2019 13:51:28 GMT -5
What I admire about Cook's coaching is that he always makes Nebraska so damn hard to beat. Fundamentals like defense and passing are consistently excellent and provide an extremely solid base to work from. The same thing happened at Wisconsin. He gets his players to buy in to that scheme, regardless of their pedigree. One of the reasons Foecke may be underrated.
|
|
