|
Post by redbeard2008 on Apr 16, 2021 11:45:54 GMT -5
Eh, Dayton's a solid team, but I don't think they're Top 25 or close to it... and that's OK. It was a pretty good draw for the 2nd Round. Can you explain how you came to that judgment, rather than just looking at the conference they play in? Had you even watched them play before? I watched them against Towson and saw two excellent blocking/hitting middles in Yates (6'6") and Moore (6'5"), a hammer in Peterson (6'4") and a dynamic sparkplug in Almodovar on the outside, a talented and aggressive setter in Doherty (6 kills vs Towson), excellent floor defense, and a very efficient offense. They'd lost their first match in a five-setter (as did UW), but hadn't lost since, losing only five sets the rest of the way. They reminded me of Oregon, quite frankly. My thinking was that it could come down to how the fifth hitters, Endsley and Swink, performed, and that's exactly what happened, with Endsley hitting .368, with 20 kills, and Swink .000, with 5 kills.
|
|
|
Post by trianglevolleyball on Apr 16, 2021 11:53:02 GMT -5
Why would you be comparing Swink, a 0.162 hitting RS who averaged just over 1 kill per set on the year, to Endsley? That’s such a simplistic way of viewing a team sport. UW won because Dayton couldn’t handle the pressure in the fifth set, with the team giving away points from the service line and Doherty getting very sloppy with her location, not because Endsley outplayed Swink.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Apr 16, 2021 16:50:18 GMT -5
Why would you be comparing Swink, a 0.162 hitting RS who averaged just over 1 kill per set on the year, to Endsley? That’s such a simplistic way of viewing a team sport. UW won because Dayton couldn’t handle the pressure in the fifth set, with the team giving away points from the service line and Doherty getting very sloppy with her location, not because Endsley outplayed Swink. How am I comparing them? I stated that I thought the match could come down to how those two performed (and it did!), not that they were somehow equivalent. One of UW's strengths is that they have three very solid outside hitters, any one of whom can lead them in kills in any one match. Dayton has two. Endsley had a 14-point kills-errors differential over Swink (Endsley 20k-6e=14; Swink 5k-5e=0). Serving is also a UW strength, with an 11-point differential over Dayton (UW 9sa-6se=+3; UD 6sa-14se=-8). That's why UW won (barely!).
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 16, 2021 16:59:34 GMT -5
Why would you be comparing Swink, a 0.162 hitting RS who averaged just over 1 kill per set on the year, to Endsley? That’s such a simplistic way of viewing a team sport. UW won because Dayton couldn’t handle the pressure in the fifth set, with the team giving away points from the service line and Doherty getting very sloppy with her location, not because Endsley outplayed Swink. How am I comparing them? I stated that I thought the match could come down to how those two performed (and it did!), not that they were somehow equivalent. One of UW's strengths is that they have three very solid outside hitters, any one of whom can lead them in kills in any one match. Dayton has two. Endsley had a 14-point kills-errors differential over Swink (Endsley 20k-6e=14; Swink 5k-5e=0). Serving is also a UW strength, with an 11-point differential over Dayton (UW 9sa-6se=+3; UD 6sa-14se=-8). That's why UW won (barely!). Looking at the cumulative stats over a game, and saying "well this difference is why X won," is misguided.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Apr 16, 2021 17:18:37 GMT -5
How am I comparing them? I stated that I thought the match could come down to how those two performed (and it did!), not that they were somehow equivalent. One of UW's strengths is that they have three very solid outside hitters, any one of whom can lead them in kills in any one match. Dayton has two. Endsley had a 14-point kills-errors differential over Swink (Endsley 20k-6e=14; Swink 5k-5e=0). Serving is also a UW strength, with an 11-point differential over Dayton (UW 9sa-6se=+3; UD 6sa-14se=-8). That's why UW won (barely!). Looking at the cumulative stats over a game, and saying "well this difference is why X won," is misguided. That's your opinion. I'll stick with mine. I'm not just looking at cumulative stats - I watched the match. Did you? Without Endsley stepping up (vs Swink not) and UW winning the serve-game by a wide margin, UD would have won that match going away.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 16, 2021 17:30:22 GMT -5
Looking at the cumulative stats over a game, and saying "well this difference is why X won," is misguided. That's your opinion. I'll stick with mine. I'm not just looking at cumulative stats - I watched the match. Did you? Without Endsley stepping up (vs Swink not) and UW winning the serve-game by a wide margin, UD would have won that match going away. Yep, I watched the game. And I was also thinking of your post here. I'm fine saying "we won because in the 5th X player stepped up," but volleyball is played in 5 sets. Thus, looking at cumulative stats and saying "well this differential explains the win" is counter to the way the sport is set-up, and I think it's an especially weak approach in close games. It's also circular (i.e. these stats explain the win because they are positive in the direction of the team that won).
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 16, 2021 18:22:27 GMT -5
It's also circular (i.e. these stats explain the win because they are positive in the direction of the team that won). This is both right but also wrong. I mean, let's look at the most simple stat, points scored. I can say with some reliability that teams never win any of their first four sets when they fail to score more than 24 points in those sets. That's so obvious that it's a meaningless stat. But we also know that a differential in scoring is the most powerful predictor of relative team power. So it's also a very, very important stat, even as it is a meaningless stat if someone uses it stupidly. Just looking at the overall aces and service errors, it's clear that Washington crushed Dayton in points from the service line. Let's break that down, though. Set 5: Dayton had 2 aces and 2 SE. Basically neutral. Washington had 1 ace and 1 SE. Also neutral. So in the fifth set, this was a wash. Washington won the set. Set 4: Dayton had 3 aces and 2 SE. Washington had 0 aces and 0 SEs. Slight edge to Dayton. Dayton won the set. Set 3: Dayton had 1 ace and 6 SE. Washington had 3 aces and 1 SE. Massive advantage for Washington, and yet they still lost the set 26-24. Without those points from the service line, Dayton crushed the Huskies in this set. Set 2: Dayton had 0 aces and 2 SE. Washington had 0 aces and 3 SE. Slight advantage for Dayton, but Washington won the set. Set 1: Dayton had 0 aces and 1 SE. Washington had 5 aces and 1 SE. Massive advantage for the Huskies, and they won the set easily. ============= So on a set-by-set basis, just looking at aces and SE (which I know is not necessarily the best measure of the effectiveness of serving, but anyway...), Washington had two sets where they crushed Dayton from the service line. In the first set they won easily, and in the third set they lost despite it, although it was a very close loss. Dayton had two sets where they had a slight advantage, and they won one and lost one. And in the crucial 5th set, neither team had an advantage in points directly from the service line, but the Huskies won by a comfortable margin at the end (due to scoring the last four points). ============== Before I just did this closer look, I expected it to show that these service points had been difference for Washington, but if anything, it actually seems to show that they were not crucial. That doesn't mean "tough serving" wasn't crucial -- it just means that aces versus SEs were not particularly decisive in the match, because of how they were distributed. I suppose it is possible that having such a huge service ace run in the first set might have set some kind of "tone" for the match? But Dayton basically improved in every set of the match, really -- until the fifth set. Set 1, UW +7 Set 2, UW +2 Set 3, UW -2 Set 4, UW -4 That's a trend that seems like it should be favoring Dayton to win the fifth set, right? Set 5, UW +4 (the last four points straight)
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 16, 2021 19:12:04 GMT -5
So I was wrong because of the “points scored” stat?
I didn’t think I needed to disclose this, but I wasn’t talking about “points scored” in my general statement above about stats, because it directly determines who wins a set. But I suppose I should have been more clear.
Of course, the team who scores the most points doesn’t always win the game.
I think I agree with everything else you posted.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Apr 16, 2021 21:53:24 GMT -5
This is both right but also wrong. Logically, UW only had to lose Sets 1 or 2 to lose the match. Sets 3 and 4 don't matter, since Dayton won them. Set 5 might never have happened. S1: Endsley 4-1 Swink 1=0 = +2 UW 5sa/1se UD 0sa/1se = +5 2+5=7 - UW won by 7, so would have been tied, but for Endsley's kills and UW's strong serving. S2: Endsley 4-1 Swink 2-2 = UW +3 UW 0sa/3se UD 0sa/2se = UW -1 3-1=2 - UW won by 2, so would have been tied, but for Endsley's kills. What is the probability they would have lost one or the other set, without Endsley's contribution and UW's strong serving? You also have to figure that the failure to score a point (on a kill or ace) increases the probability that your opponent will score a point. So, each kill or ace is worth more like 1.5 points, since it denies the opponent their chance of scoring, and vice versa for attack and service errors.
|
|