|
Post by guest2 on Aug 2, 2020 20:31:02 GMT -5
I’d love to see someone try this and see what the numbers say. If anything it may at least tell you which players should be shooting more and which players should be swinging away. The beauty of hitting percentage is that it’s entirely objective. Kill, errors, attempts. Once you add the subjective element of deciding which digs are “in system” you’ll get different numbers depending on who is doing the stat keeping. I took a quick look back at the women's final just for a quick point of reference. I charted easy digs + conversion and hard digs + conversion. Any ball that touched the block I charted as a hard dig, since the defending team only had two contacts to try to convert. Any good, hard swing, I charted as a hard dig, even if it was popped up perfectly. Roll shot digs were subjective so take that for what its worth. 10 of 14 easy digs were converted for points 4 of 17 hard digs were converted for points Obviously thats a quick impression of one match based on hasty, subjective criteria, but I think it indicates that if we consider HOW a ball stays in play instead of merely IF a ball stays in play it may have some value to showing more about how effective a hitter is
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Aug 2, 2020 22:21:19 GMT -5
I’d love to see someone try this and see what the numbers say. If anything it may at least tell you which players should be shooting more and which players should be swinging away. The beauty of hitting percentage is that it’s entirely objective. Kill, errors, attempts. Once you add the subjective element of deciding which digs are “in system” you’ll get different numbers depending on who is doing the stat keeping. I took a quick look back at the women's final just for a quick point of reference. I charted easy digs + conversion and hard digs + conversion. Any ball that touched the block I charted as a hard dig, since the defending team only had two contacts to try to convert. Any good, hard swing, I charted as a hard dig, even if it was popped up perfectly. Roll shot digs were subjective so take that for what its worth. 10 of 14 easy digs were converted for points 4 of 17 hard digs were converted for points Obviously thats a quick impression of one match based on hasty, subjective criteria, but I think it indicates that if we consider HOW a ball stays in play instead of merely IF a ball stays in play it may have some value to showing more about how effective a hitter is Completely agree with you there. I guess what I’d like to see is whether hitting percentage is a good proxy for whether a hitter generates a high percentage of “hard digs” on balls in play.
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Aug 2, 2020 22:31:29 GMT -5
Maybe there’s an analogy with serving. Aces are a good measure, and it might be better to keep track of how often a server gets the receiving team out of system. But in the end, the servers with the most aces are probably also the servers who get their opponents out of system most often.
|
|
|
Post by stephenasinjin on Aug 3, 2020 9:25:42 GMT -5
This distinction/different stat measurement technique I think has relevance in high level coaching to provide a more accurate picture. However, when we’re talking about real-time in game stats, frankly it seems like overkill, and the average fan will probably be confused by it (aiming for more sport exposure to new fans as opposed to Volleyheads who will watch regardless).
For serving however, I think it’d be easier to track and make relevant if you just adjusted the percentage to be # of aces+out of system/attempts.
|
|
|
Post by slackerdad on Aug 3, 2020 11:41:37 GMT -5
This distinction/different stat measurement technique I think has relevance in high level coaching to provide a more accurate picture. However, when we’re talking about real-time in game stats, frankly it seems like overkill, and the average fan will probably be confused by it (aiming for more sport exposure to new fans as opposed to Volleyheads who will watch regardless). For serving however, I think it’d be easier to track and make relevant if you just adjusted the percentage to be # of aces+out of system/attempts. Yes probably pedantic and esoteric for most fans but when you find correlation between things that most people miss (or don't care about), you can change the game. Moneyball is a great example. It seems obvious that not making an out is important, but no one really knew how important until Bill James and it changed baseball forever. I believe that getting into the minutiae of correlations can lead to big changes. With my high school indoor teams, I've changed the passing scale from: 0, 1, 2, 3 to 0, 1, 4, 5 The latter (multiplied by 10) represents the % chance or expected value of a first ball sideout based on the quality of the serve receive. I changed this to teach that getting aced, overpassing/giving a free ball should be avoided and that our passes don't have to be perfect but just good enough. My players used to think two perfect passes and a RE was the same as 3 decent passes (old 2.0 rating) and, as a result, would pass too tight and low trying to make a perfect pass that didn't really improve our chances of siding out. FWIW, where I coach, fewest errors usually wins and I'm lucky if I have 2 terminal pin hitters on the roster. Even at my low level, I believe using stats that most parents (and players at first) don't understand made them change their behavior and led to better outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 3, 2020 12:07:37 GMT -5
This distinction/different stat measurement technique I think has relevance in high level coaching to provide a more accurate picture. However, when we’re talking about real-time in game stats, frankly it seems like overkill, and the average fan will probably be confused by it (aiming for more sport exposure to new fans as opposed to Volleyheads who will watch regardless). For serving however, I think it’d be easier to track and make relevant if you just adjusted the percentage to be # of aces+out of system/attempts. I think whatever is told to fans is more or less what most fans will accept. Most fans dont know or really pay too much attention to how advanced stats in most sports are calculated. Effective field goal percentage or true shooting in basketball etc. The AVP seems determined to make hitting percentage a regular part of their broadcasts so why not choose a better stat whose origin may not be understood by all, but which is more accurate.
|
|
|
Post by ciscokeed on Aug 3, 2020 15:31:25 GMT -5
To me the stat should be more about the dig to kill ratio. Sinjins greatest strength was how often he converted a dig to a kill. Lots of players can get stuff up but not come away with a point. I’d be interested in a stat along those lines...
|
|
|
Post by houdini on Aug 4, 2020 13:31:25 GMT -5
Maybe there’s an analogy with serving. Aces are a good measure, and it might be better to keep track of how often a server gets the receiving team out of system. But in the end, the servers with the most aces are probably also the servers who get their opponents out of system most often.or For float servers this is true. My FIVB stats show that jump-spike servers have a lower correlation with "out of system" receptions. Float servers have a higher percentage of 'out of system' receptions. As we know a jump serve's spin pops up more easily than the more unpredictable floaters. Aces can favor one or the other based on individual player talent and skill according to my stats on several players, but it's the float servers who tend to get more "out of system" and "no attack" in my sample.
|
|
mati
Sophomore
Posts: 125
|
Post by mati on Aug 5, 2020 8:04:55 GMT -5
Agreed! You and “the guy from Santa Cruz” did a great job. My apologies for now know who was on the broadcast when I made that comment! Well done all series. I owe you one for the "guy from Santa Cruz" comment. Gave me something to rib Z with for two weeks.
|
|
mati
Sophomore
Posts: 125
|
Post by mati on Aug 5, 2020 8:07:54 GMT -5
You could have a hitter rating and rate each swing based on the result. 0 error 1 Broken Play on Other Side 2 In System play on other side 3 Kill Player gets the average of all swings. I think 2 and 1 should be switched? 0 Hitting error 1 In System play on other side 2 Broken Play on Other Side 3 Kill Would be a very cool stat to see! Would also love to see a conversion% vs just dig totals. I think this could give more insight to effective defenders. You are correct. I laid that out backwards.
|
|
mati
Sophomore
Posts: 125
|
Post by mati on Aug 5, 2020 8:13:00 GMT -5
I’d love to see someone try this and see what the numbers say. If anything it may at least tell you which players should be shooting more and which players should be swinging away. The beauty of hitting percentage is that it’s entirely objective. Kill, errors, attempts. Once you add the subjective element of deciding which digs are “in system” you’ll get different numbers depending on who is doing the stat keeping. Consistency in stat person is an issue. Also in level of competition. Swings and shots in the quali against lessor teams would likely produce different results than in the main draw.
|
|
|
Post by bombsaway on Aug 5, 2020 23:56:32 GMT -5
hitting percentage really can just be a proxy for how many times someone hits out...because it literally takes away from a kill..... so if I terminate 7/10 balls and hit 3 out.... the other team has scored 3 points off of me, but stats reflect I hit .400. Using G2's example, a shooter gets 4 shots to score, but dug on the other 6...he also hits .400 but they might score 5 on him.
So TL;DR, an efficiency rating would really be helpful in understanding how "potent" an attacker is while current hitting percentage is actually quite helpful in understanding how error prone a player is.
I could see someone like Troy hitting .000 on 8 balls and Tim hitting .250 on 8 balls but Troy's were 4 kills 3 errors and a block, vs they dug 5 of Tim's slow chop shots and converted a 2-3. Statistically Tim looks way better but technically Troy was more potent at getting the ball to the sand per attacking attempt
|
|
|
Post by wilbur on Aug 6, 2020 23:38:51 GMT -5
Kill percentage is a stat that has been reported indoors on most stat reports, in US hitting percentage is most looked at but in pro indoors kill percentage gets lots of attention. Using both together you can get a good feel for who is doing what. 350 HP and 500 KP are good targets for what the better players log. Many high level scouting reports and internal team trackers indoors break down much further than that for attacking, blocking, reception and serving.
Men's indoor and beach are very similar in success on a free ball IMO. Womens indoor at most college level and below do not terminate on a free ball as much.
Some teams you are better shoveling a free ball at the weaker attacker than going for it on a less than good set so the phil vs sinjin examples has more dimensions to it than described. More extreme example would be Jimmy Nichols and Daniel Cardeneas. Nichols at end of career was definition of non-terminal but would rally his way into an option or block by Daniel. They won games against some decent teams so not a bad strategy for a 5 11" guy.
|
|
|
Post by Winbabywin on Aug 7, 2020 18:14:50 GMT -5
Is the OP the brain behind The Freeze? Because if it is, he turned volleyball into not Volleyball with that thing. So now you're trying to say that numbers aren't really numbers? You either get a kill or you don't, you either make an error or you don't. Stop trying to bring subjectivity into math, the numbers are what they are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2020 18:53:04 GMT -5
i love the freeze.
you don’t really present a very solid argument why you don’t like guest2’a idea, perhaps you could explain more?
|
|