|
Post by Murina on Apr 19, 2020 17:50:43 GMT -5
He is arguing numbers from one game*. Important distinction. Looking strictly at numbers I suspect those ratio's might be in the ballpark of what you would get long term. There are just too many situations where sending the ball to 4 makes the most sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 17:57:47 GMT -5
Safety, reduced risk, situational. A quality set to someone like Sorokaite is often more productive than a bad set to an Egonu so managing risk is one reason. Or Sorokaite may have a matchup advantage. Or that OH may just be scoring. There are lots of reasons that might happen. Exactly. It's crazy for someone to act like these factors can't add up to cause Sorokaite, in a single game, to receive more OOS sets and Egonu less OOS sets, and further, for someone to act like these numbers, again in a single game, are probative of Egonu not being the general primary OOS target. So wait, you asked for the hitting breakdown in your last post. I obliged. Now you're of the opinion that game (with both Smarzek and Egonu in) was an outlier? Could it be, sure! Did I cherry pick it to make my case? Of course not. Why even bother asking me to pull the data if you're just going to ignore that both Smarzek & Egonu received a lower percentage of balls when their teams were out of system than in it? I'm genuinely curious why you'd ask if you were just going to call it an outlier and claim you were right all along.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 18:02:31 GMT -5
He is arguing numbers from one game*. Important distinction. Looking strictly at numbers I suspect those ratio's might be in the ballpark of what you would get long term. There are just too many situations where sending the ball to 4 makes the most sense. I did only look at one game but there's instances when zone 4 (or 6) are the best option. I'd be surprised if the numbers for both those teams end up drastically different over a larger sample sizes. Russian feeds Natalia a TON, in and out of system so there's always going to be outliers, which is why declarative statements like "good teams don't go to zone 4 OOS" aren't it.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 19, 2020 18:07:25 GMT -5
He is arguing numbers from one game*. Important distinction. Looking strictly at numbers I suspect those ratio's might be in the ballpark of what you would get long term. There are just too many situations where sending the ball to 4 makes the most sense. Assuming his numbers are even correct, I think against top teams, you would see numbers skewed more towards Egonu. I never made the claim that both leftside attackers would have less OOS attacks than Egonu (although, I'm sure it happens). I did make the claim that Egonu, normally, will have the most OOS swings on the team out of any attacker. And that's by design. I don't think Italy, or most teams which I've already mentioned, systematically (i.e., it's how they train, gameplan, etc.) want to send more balls to each individual OH than their OPP. USA is a stark contrast to this (between 2012-2018ish) where they explicitly wanted to shoot balls to the left-side OOS.
|
|
|
Post by Murina on Apr 19, 2020 18:12:00 GMT -5
Not exactly. To make a blanket statement that the primary role of an opposite is to terminate OOS balls is simply not the case in this country (even at the highest level) and in the case of the two European nations I looked at earlier, both set their OH proportionally more often when out of system than their opposite. It is also false to say "top teams don't go to the left" when OOS. Creating and then supporting those narratives are unhelpful. I think I can safely speak for Italy (and probably Poland also) that the prevailing philosophy is that the role of the Opposite is: Get kills out of system Make opposing OH's lives difficult Get kills in system The idea is that if you can do the 1st well, the 3rd will be easy. Does that philosophy manifest itself in numbers? Maybe not when taken in isolation, but when taken in context with other philosophies in play you see why the numbers work out like they do. For example in many teams the first line of one OH's job description is also "get kills out of system." So a lot of balls are going to be going her way as well. Another strong philosophy prevalent in much of Europe is to minimize risk in counter-attack. As in it's better to set the lesser attacking player in zone 4 than to risk a poor set to zone 2. Or some teams will consciously attack a setter with a "receiving" OH instead of just pumping every OoS ball to the OP. Saying the main job of an OP is OoS kills (which you will get from a majority of European coaches - I don't think I'm going out on a limb here) is a general job description. It doesn't have to be accurate from a statistical perspective to describe the way coaches are thinking & planning.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 19, 2020 18:14:22 GMT -5
Exactly. It's crazy for someone to act like these factors can't add up to cause Sorokaite, in a single game, to receive more OOS sets and Egonu less OOS sets, and further, for someone to act like these numbers, again in a single game, are probative of Egonu not being the general primary OOS target. So wait, you asked for the hitting breakdown in your last post. I obliged. Now you're of the opinion that game (with both Smarzek and Egonu in) was an outlier? Could it be, sure! Did I cherry pick it to make my case? Of course not. Why even bother asking me to pull the data if you're just going to ignore that both Smarzek & Egonu received a lower percentage of balls when their teams were out of system than in it? I'm genuinely curious why you'd ask if you were just going to call it an outlier and claim you were right all along. Consider it a teaching moment. You broke down the data in a way that was largely irrelevant to our argument, although it (conveniently) supported the point you were trying to latch onto. I had a hunch the numbers would tell a slightly different story if presented in a relevant way.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 19, 2020 18:18:22 GMT -5
Not exactly. To make a blanket statement that the primary role of an opposite is to terminate OOS balls is simply not the case in this country (even at the highest level) and in the case of the two European nations I looked at earlier, both set their OH proportionally more often when out of system than their opposite. It is also false to say "top teams don't go to the left" when OOS. Creating and then supporting those narratives are unhelpful. I think I can safely speak for Italy (and probably Poland also) that the prevailing philosophy is that the role of the Opposite is: Get kills out of system Make opposing OH's lives difficult Get kills in system The idea is that if you can do the 1st well, the 3rd will be easy. Does that philosophy manifest itself in numbers? Maybe not when taken in isolation, but when taken in context with other philosophies in play you see why the numbers work out like they do. For example in many teams the first line of one OH's job description is also "get kills out of system." So a lot of balls are going to be going her way as well. Another strong philosophy prevalent in much of Europe is to minimize risk in counter-attack. As in it's better to set the lesser attacking player in zone 4 than to risk a poor set to zone 2. Or some teams will consciously attack a setter with a "receiving" OH instead of just pumping every OoS ball to the OP. Saying the main job of an OP is OoS kills (which you will get from a majority of European coaches - I don't think I'm going out on a limb here) is a general job description. It doesn't have to be accurate from a statistical perspective to describe the way coaches are thinking & planning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 18:28:15 GMT -5
So wait, you asked for the hitting breakdown in your last post. I obliged. Now you're of the opinion that game (with both Smarzek and Egonu in) was an outlier? Could it be, sure! Did I cherry pick it to make my case? Of course not. Why even bother asking me to pull the data if you're just going to ignore that both Smarzek & Egonu received a lower percentage of balls when their teams were out of system than in it? I'm genuinely curious why you'd ask if you were just going to call it an outlier and claim you were right all along. Consider it a teaching moment. You broke down the data in a way that was largely irrelevant to our argument, although it (conveniently) supported the point you were trying to latch onto. I had a hunch the numbers would tell a slightly different story if presented in a relevant way. Feel free to present ANY numbers... I mean, at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 18:30:29 GMT -5
Consider it a teaching moment. You broke down the data in a way that was largely irrelevant to our argument, although it (conveniently) supported the point you were trying to latch onto. I had a hunch the numbers would tell a slightly different story if presented in a relevant way. Feel free to present ANY numbers... I mean, at all. Says the only guy here with access to ALL OF THE NUMBERS. GIMME THE CWC NUMBERS FOR HILL AND KYK
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 18:33:33 GMT -5
Feel free to present ANY numbers... I mean, at all. Says the only guy here with access to ALL OF THE NUMBERS. Anyone can watch a match and count swings to see if their hypothesis is correct. You guys are all very heavy on opinions (philosophies) and really light on data. As @avid said, you can do that work yourself.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 19, 2020 18:41:24 GMT -5
Says the only guy here with access to ALL OF THE NUMBERS. Anyone can watch a match and count swings to see if their hypothesis is correct. You guys are all very heavy on opinions (philosophies) and really light on data. As @avid said, you can do that work yourself. Weird, because you've been pretty insistent in the past about being the provider of all things data: As I said initially, if anyone wants to know more than the box scores (termination rate, passing, serving, blocking, defense) of any other players, just tag me. Happy to pull numbers for any other players that anyone wants... just tag me.
|
|
|
Post by Reach on Apr 19, 2020 18:47:31 GMT -5
🤡
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 18:48:08 GMT -5
Not exactly. To make a blanket statement that the primary role of an opposite is to terminate OOS balls is simply not the case in this country (even at the highest level) and in the case of the two European nations I looked at earlier, both set their OH proportionally more often when out of system than their opposite. It is also false to say "top teams don't go to the left" when OOS. Creating and then supporting those narratives are unhelpful. Saying the main job of an OP is OoS kills (which you will get from a majority of European coaches - I don't think I'm going out on a limb here) is a general job description. Further to the philosophical differences you mentioned, out of curiosity, I just looked up the last 3 USA matches: 71 out of system attacks. 18 attacks by Oppos. Whether that's because Lowe/Drews are less terminal or because of coaching philosophies is probably going to be less clear cut.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 18:48:48 GMT -5
Anyone can watch a match and count swings to see if their hypothesis is correct. You guys are all very heavy on opinions (philosophies) and really light on data. As @avid said, you can do that work yourself. Weird, because you've been pretty insistent in the past about being the provider of all things data: As I said initially, if anyone wants to know more than the box scores (termination rate, passing, serving, blocking, defense) of any other players, just tag me. Happy to pull numbers for any other players that anyone wants... just tag me. I mean, I'm less inclined to help people if they're a-holes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 18:52:58 GMT -5
CWC stats from FIVB cause im incredibly bored. Probably got something wrong. But i like tables These are FIVB stats and don't give as much as VM Receiving | Excellents | Faults | Serve Receptions | Total Attempts | Efficiency | Hill | 40 | 4 | 47 | 91 | 39.56% | KYK | 53 | 7 | 58 | 118 | 38.98% | Digging | Digs | Faults | Receptions | Total Attempts | Avg. Per Set | Hill | 37 | 27 | 8 | 72 | 1.76 | KYK | 38 | 21 | 6 | 65 | 2.00 | Serving | Aces | Faults | Hits | Total Attempts | Avg per Set | Hill | 2 | 4 | 75 | 81 | 0.10 | KYK | 9 | 3 | 56 | 68 | 0.47 | Blocking | Stuff | Faults | Rebounds | Total Attempts | Avg per Set | Hill | 3 | 9 | 12 | 24 | 0.14 | KYK | 8 | 9 | 12 | 29 | 0.42 | Attacking | Spikes | Faults | Shots | Total Attempts | Success % | Hill | 56 | 14 | 53 | 123 | 45.53% | KYK | 55 | 18 | 62 | 135 | 40.74% | Scoring | Attacks | Blocks | Serves | Total | | Hill | 56 | 3 | 2 | 61 | | KYK | 55 | 8 | 9 | 72 | |
| | | | | |
|
|