|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 6, 2019 0:37:14 GMT -5
Thanks for providing some statistical context. Out of curiosity, where are you finding these stats? I Googled "Volleymetrics" and wasn't sure where to go. It's an advanced analytics site used by national teams, pro clubs, D1 schools and top club teams. It's invaluable in terms understanding the analytics but also allows you to sort players through a plethora of efficiency statistics. For instance you can see how frequently teams win points in each rotation (so you can better understand how and why certain rotations work and others don't), you can see if hitters are more likely to hit into a block or miss the court on errors, you can see the total points won on any player's serve - rather than just trying to use aces to judge who is serving tough, and a whole host more. It's funny that certain posters in the BW thread got so upset by my use of it. I like finding players that aren't getting the recognition they deserve - like Fleck (whose statistical dominance is virtually identical to Mary Lake's this year) and giving them props. Some members of the VT mafia don't appreciate statistical data being presented when opinions and conjecture are their preferred form of analysis! If you have any affiliation to a program ask if they can assign you with an account at volleymetrics.com - I've found it very rewarding. LOL! I remember my first beer too!
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousnow on Dec 6, 2019 0:42:03 GMT -5
I miss Aunty Kathy. What a great personality. What's she doing nowadays? She can be found playing Pickleball
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 6, 2019 0:46:23 GMT -5
I miss Aunty Kathy. What a great personality. What's she doing nowadays? She can be found playing Pickleball And walking her dogs.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 6, 2019 0:51:53 GMT -5
LOL! I remember my first beer too! Ahh, one of the aforementioned stat haters... Who needs statistical data anyway, right? All you need is service aces and digs per set, right champ? Every major program uses volleymetrics nowadays. The stats are useful, informative and insightful tools. Do you know how many women's Olympic Gold medalist coaches rely on them to the extent you do? None. How many NCAA women's National Championship coaches rely on them to the extent you do? None.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2019 1:00:27 GMT -5
Her serve receive broke down a bit in set 3 but all-around, she had a great match.... Broke down? She's the only one who didn't get aced and I guarantee she led the team in GP% tonight. Glasker and Ruddins both had 2 serve receive errors. Fleck was the only one who could handle Huskey's serve. I get that Karch was saying they were serving at her, but she was taking court from Ruddins in set 4 (as she did multiple times this year) so they were actually serving Ruddins and Fleck was taking those balls. Lindsay even said so in the post match interview... I don't get this place sometimes. None of this is hard to understand. Anyway, is what it is. She had a great game. The reaction when the awards came out, as if they proved Fleck hadn't been dominant was asinine. Ppl were even tagging me as if it proved I was wrong! Craziness. I hope those posters saw the match today. Oh and the two Liberos that WERE chosen? Neither of them made the first round of the tournament, let alone the second one. Where can I find the interview?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2019 1:17:43 GMT -5
Ahh, one of the aforementioned stat haters... Who needs statistical data anyway, right? All you need is service aces and digs per set, right champ? Every major program uses volleymetrics nowadays. The stats are useful, informative and insightful tools. Do you know how many women's Olympic Gold medalist coaches rely on them to the extent you do? None. How many NCAA women's National Championship coaches rely on them to the extent you do? None. Sure, champ. I mean Karch is on record as an advocate of VM but I'm sure your eyes are more reliable than his analytics. And "to the extent that I do"? You mean, refuting ignorant posts with data? Demonstrating which players are playing efficiently and which are racking up stats that don't positively affect games... Yeah, I can see why that would upset you.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 6, 2019 1:26:50 GMT -5
Every major program uses volleymetrics nowadays. The stats are useful, informative and insightful tools. Do you know how many women's Olympic Gold medalist coaches rely on them to the extent you do? None. How many NCAA women's National Championship coaches rely on them to the extent you do? None. Sure, champ. I mean Karch is on record as an advocate of VM but I'm sure your eyes are more reliable than his analytics. And "to the extent that I do"? You mean, refuting ignorant posts with data? Demonstrating which players are playing efficiently and which are racking up stats that don't positively affect games... Yeah, I can see why that would upset you. As I said to you previously, the issue with the volleymetrics zealots is the over-reliance on statistics, not the use of statistics (or the rejection of the use of statistics).
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Dec 6, 2019 2:25:25 GMT -5
Ahh, one of the aforementioned stat haters... Who needs statistical data anyway, right? All you need is service aces and digs per set, right champ? Every major program uses volleymetrics nowadays. The stats are useful, informative and insightful tools. Do you know how many women's Olympic Gold medalist coaches rely on them to the extent you do? None. How many NCAA women's National Championship coaches rely on them to the extent you do? None. And you know this about these olympic coaches... how?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 6, 2019 2:38:02 GMT -5
Every major program uses volleymetrics nowadays. The stats are useful, informative and insightful tools. Do you know how many women's Olympic Gold medalist coaches rely on them to the extent you do? None. How many NCAA women's National Championship coaches rely on them to the extent you do? None. And you know this about these olympic coaches... how? I'm not ashamed. I get around.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 6, 2019 2:40:53 GMT -5
Broke down? She's the only one who didn't get aced and I guarantee she led the team in GP% tonight. Glasker and Ruddins both had 2 serve receive errors. Fleck was the only one who could dig Huskey. I get that Karch was saying they were serving at her, but she was taking court from Ruddins in set 4 (as she did multiple times this year) so they were actually serving Ruddins and Fleck was taking those balls. Lindsay even said so in the post match interview... I don't get this place sometimes. None of this is hard to understand. Anyway, is what it is. She had a great game. The reaction when the awards came out, as if they proved Fleck hadn't been dominant was asinine. Ppl were even tagging me as if it proved I was wrong! Craziness. I hope those posters saw the match today. Oh and the two Liberos that WERE chosen? Neither of them made the first round of the tournament, let alone the second one. She was aced in set 3 and TXST started targeting her because her passes were not as efficient. She did steady it out again in set 4.... I never disputed her serving or defense. She was for a while the best player on the court and I posted during the match the Big West were clowns for not giving her at least HM. She definitely got aced at around the midpoint of set 3, and then she had another bad pass on the next point that she was lucky didn't fall for another ace. She also had a bad overpass early in set 1 that a better team would have crushed (Texas State failed to capitalize). She even got called out by Sunderland for having "only" four digs in her "quiet" third set (then again, Karch and Sunderland also wondered aloud why San Diego didn't get a seed, and I think they were the only two people in the country who couldn't figure that out). She also had a couple of mediocre passes elsewhere, but she also had a ton of great passes and digs as well. Very impressive overall. It will be interesting to see how she plays against Texas, which is the best team UCSB has faced this season (they actually have played a handful of good teams in UCLA, San Diego and Hawaii) and by far the most explosive team offensively that they've faced.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 6, 2019 11:59:07 GMT -5
She definitely got aced at around the midpoint of set 3, and then she had another bad pass on the next point that she was lucky didn't fall for another ace. She also had a bad overpass early in set 1 that a better team would have crushed (Texas State failed to capitalize). She even got called out by Sunderland for having "only" four digs in her "quiet" third set (then again, Karch and Sunderland also wondered aloud why San Diego didn't get a seed, and I think they were the only two people in the country who couldn't figure that out). She also had a couple of mediocre passes elsewhere, but she also had a ton of great passes and digs as well. Very impressive overall. It will be interesting to see how she plays against Texas, which is the best team UCSB has faced this season (they actually have played a handful of good teams in UCLA, San Diego and Hawaii) and by far the most explosive team offensively that they've faced. Ok just to draw a line under this, the stats for this game are up on VM now. Including all of her touches on SR (good and bad) Fleck passed a 2.40 on 25 balls. It was the highest in the match by a significant margin. To put that in context, Hahn and Peterson passed 2.00 and 1.96 against inferior serving from Albany. Mary Lake, since she was mentioned above, is passing 2.34 on the season (same as Fleck). 2.40 isn't just good, it is great. THIS is why analytics are important. It can be difficult for anyone, Karch included, to accurately evaluate every touch a player makes real-time (while commentating) in a match and so he makes a comment about Fleck struggling in SR (she didn't) and people go away with that impression. But when the match is coded you can see that is a false narrative. Again, no one should rely entirely on analytics, there are other things which should be taken into account. But when someone says a player's "serve receive wasn't great" but that player ACTUALLY passed a 2.40 we can use the facts to point out that their assessment was false. Sure, she was great overall, but it is true that she struggled in serve receive for a short time in set 3 (I watched every single one of her touches on the replay on YouTube, and I recorded my assessment of the quality of those touches, so I'm confident on this). Both can be true (and are in this case). I would hope that Volleymetrics recorded the point that she got aced and the next point where she was lucky that her shank pass ricocheted directly to a teammate who managed to get the ball up as bad passes. Because they were bad touches, and it's important for any statistical model to incorporate accurate information. But yes, I agree with your assessment that she did a great job in this match. It is unrealistic to expect any player to be perfect all the time.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 6, 2019 13:24:58 GMT -5
Sure, she was great overall, but it is true that she struggled in serve receive for a short time in set 3 (I watched every single one of her touches on the replay on YouTube, and I recorded my assessment of the quality of those touches, so I'm confident on this). Both can be true (and are in this case). I would hope that Volleymetrics recorded the point that she got aced and the next point where she was lucky that her shank pass ricocheted directly to a teammate who managed to get the ball up as bad passes. Because they were bad touches, and it's important for any statistical model to incorporate accurate information. But yes, I agree with your assessment that she did a great job in this match. It is unrealistic to expect any player to be perfect all the time. Yep. That's the great thing about efficiency stats. They record everything. In the passing score, for instance, every pass is graded on a 3 point scale. A service reception error is a 0. A perfect pass is a 3. Anything in between is graded depending on the distance and quality of pass from the setter. The pass by Fleck after the ball she was aced on would've been a 1. I mention this to point out that her overall grade of 2.4 (which is good against any opposition but in the tournament is fantastic) numerically answers how "good was X player's serve receive?" In the same way that of Jordan Thompson has 40 kills and hits .700 no one is going to be saying "Oh well, I saw her miss on two swings at the end of set 4". Again, I'm not slating anyone - as I said - it was Karch who announced she had struggled in SR, I'm simply explaining that, despite several touches that weren't perfect, the majority WERE and, in total her SR was fantastic (which I don't think you disagree with, I'm just explaining how analytics helps us here). Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject. Looking forward to tonight's matches. Yeah, we're in agreement. If you wouldn't mind, could you elaborate a little on the kinds of statistics that Volleymetrics uses for setting, hitting, and blocking (or direct me to a primer on the subject)? And since you mentioned Thompson, does Volleymetrics think she's as good as her stats would indicate? Given that she made the national team and played well, I suspect that the advanced stats are pretty high on her, but it would be nice to know for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Longhorn20 on Dec 6, 2019 13:55:55 GMT -5
She definitely got aced at around the midpoint of set 3, and then she had another bad pass on the next point that she was lucky didn't fall for another ace. She also had a bad overpass early in set 1 that a better team would have crushed (Texas State failed to capitalize). She even got called out by Sunderland for having "only" four digs in her "quiet" third set (then again, Karch and Sunderland also wondered aloud why San Diego didn't get a seed, and I think they were the only two people in the country who couldn't figure that out). She also had a couple of mediocre passes elsewhere, but she also had a ton of great passes and digs as well. Very impressive overall. It will be interesting to see how she plays against Texas, which is the best team UCSB has faced this season (they actually have played a handful of good teams in UCLA, San Diego and Hawaii) and by far the most explosive team offensively that they've faced. Ok just to draw a line under this, the stats for this game are up on VM now. Including all of her touches on SR (good and bad) Fleck passed a 2.40 on 25 balls. It was the highest in the match by a significant margin. To put that in context, Hahn and Peterson passed 2.00 and 1.96 against inferior serving from Albany. Mary Lake, since she was mentioned above, is passing 2.34 on the season (same as Fleck). 2.40 isn't just good, it is great. THIS is why analytics are important. It can be difficult for anyone, Karch included, to accurately evaluate every touch a player makes real-time (while commentating) in a match and so he makes a comment about Fleck struggling in SR (she didn't) and people go away with that impression. But when the match is coded you can see that is a false narrative. Again, no one should rely entirely on analytics, there are other things which should be taken into account. But when someone says a player's "serve receive wasn't great" but that player ACTUALLY passed a 2.40 we can use the facts to point out that their assessment was false. Where are you able to see these Volleymetrics numbers?
|
|
|
Post by knowitmost on Dec 6, 2019 14:18:20 GMT -5
First off, congratulations to the gauchos on winning and advancing!! Secondly, thanks bigwestfan2 for the shoutout!! Thought we had lost you after the All Big West selections came out, so welcome back!! Just got finished watching the replay of this match and Fleck was good!! But hey, I have never said she wasn't good from previous posts.
|
|
|
Post by knowitmost on Dec 6, 2019 14:30:43 GMT -5
She definitely got aced at around the midpoint of set 3, and then she had another bad pass on the next point that she was lucky didn't fall for another ace. She also had a bad overpass early in set 1 that a better team would have crushed (Texas State failed to capitalize). She even got called out by Sunderland for having "only" four digs in her "quiet" third set (then again, Karch and Sunderland also wondered aloud why San Diego didn't get a seed, and I think they were the only two people in the country who couldn't figure that out). She also had a couple of mediocre passes elsewhere, but she also had a ton of great passes and digs as well. Very impressive overall. It will be interesting to see how she plays against Texas, which is the best team UCSB has faced this season (they actually have played a handful of good teams in UCLA, San Diego and Hawaii) and by far the most explosive team offensively that they've faced. Ok just to draw a line under this, the stats for this game are up on VM now. Including all of her touches on SR (good and bad) Fleck passed a 2.40 on 25 balls. It was the highest in the match by a significant margin. To put that in context, Hahn and Peterson passed 2.00 and 1.96 against inferior serving from Albany. Mary Lake, since she was mentioned above, is passing 2.34 on the season (same as Fleck). 2.40 isn't just good, it is great. THIS is why analytics are important. It can be difficult for anyone, Karch included, to accurately evaluate every touch a player makes real-time (while commentating) in a match and so he makes a comment about Fleck struggling in SR (she didn't) and people go away with that impression. But when the match is coded you can see that is a false narrative. Again, no one should rely entirely on analytics, there are other things which should be taken into account. But when someone says a player's "serve receive wasn't great" but that player ACTUALLY passed a 2.40 we can use the facts to point out that their assessment was false. Since you decide to call me out earlier on this thread to watch and appreciate Flecks match, I did and decided to personally stats her serve receive off a 3pt scale. Although from the replay and not from Volleymetrics which im still curious as to how you have a login... the following are her passing numbers in order of her touches... 2, 3, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1, 3, 3, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 0, 1, 1, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1.. = 54/25 passes = 2.16 you may not agree and thats completely fine..but for instance her first pass, her setter takes that pass on the 7/8 ft line = 2 pass. Her 4th pass setter should have been called on an illegal block/pass going over the net = 1 pass. Again, not saying she didn't have a good match..she did, and dug the crap out of the ball..but just putting out numbers that I saw..though im sure you will come back with an argument that my eyes are bad and don't know how to grade passing.. definitely cheering for the gauchos to upset texas!!
|
|