|
|
Post by pavsec5row10 on Dec 3, 2021 9:17:20 GMT -5
For the hundreds of sets in practice and games it remains a mystery why middles can't terminate a quick set. If the arc of a MBs swing hasn't crossed 12 to '11 or 10:30' on a clock face hour hand the ball's trajectory won't be heading down into the court. Either the MBs are too quick to the net so the set is above them, or they are in position but the set doesn't lead them. Soooo frustrating week in & out with little progress. Have the coaches had to have had surgery for for blunt trauma or tongue lacerations? The inability to terminate on overpasses is also mystifying. Gremlins must have snuck osmium into the soles of their shoes cuz they aren't getting off the Teraflex more than a few inches. with just a modicum of production the block pressure on the left pin could ease. Please stop sending Husemann on a cross country excursion to nowhere in rotation1. Fake her on a gap set. Get the pass to the net on the right side of the court so you can fake a quick to her and give Samedy a gap set. SOMETHING DIFFERENT PUHLEEZE! Not only are new patterns and plays fun, but they cause coverage confusion for the opponents. "Laura Kasey (née Benzing) is entering her sixth year with the Gopher Volleyball program after joining the team in January 2015. She is in her fourth year as associate head coach. Kasey helped Minnesota to the 2015 and 2018 Big Ten championships and three NCAA Final Four appearances. Working primarily with the middle blockers, Kasey helped Hannah Tapp and Paige Tapp to All-America honors, while Hannah was named a First Team All-Big Ten selection in 2015. Regan Pittman became a three-time All-American and three-time All-Big Ten selection under Kasey's watch as well. She ranks in the top-10 all-time at Minnesota in total blocks, solo blocks and block assists. She also set the single-game program record for total blocks in a game when she tallied 14 against Nebraska on Feb. 19, 2021. Pittman led Minnesota to three Sweet 16's and a Final Four during her time on campus. Under Kasey's guidance, Minnesota had three middle blockers who garnered awards in 2016. Hannah Tapp was named an All-Big Ten selection and a Second Team AVCA All-American. Molly Lohman was a Big Ten and AVCA All-America honorable mention, while Paige Tapp was an Academic All-American and All-Big Ten honorable mention. As a whole, the Gopher blockers averaged 2.71 blocks per set in 2016. In 2018, Regan Pittman was named a Second Team All-American and All-Big Ten selection, while Taylor Morgan received All-America honorable mention." So how does your coaching resume stack up? |
|
|
|
Post by hrothgar on Dec 3, 2021 9:30:48 GMT -5
An assist is a set that resulted in a kill. Let's say Shaff sets a ball to someone and the other team digs it up, play continues. That particular set is not an assist. If Shaff sets a ball (or anyone, say CC or Wenaas etc) and someone hits it, resulting in a kill, then that is an assist. This would be in the event of an overpass kill. If opposing team caused an overpass they would not get an assist for letting the team smack down an errant overpass. I am not sure what happens to assists when setter dumps are involved. It looks like what mcmike was referring to in the Gopher stat tracker, which is much more indepth than what is presented on any livestat platform (what I usually follow), is under the "Set" column. A quick calculation indicates that percentage in the rightmost column of the "Set" column is: PCT = A/TA. Simple enough, but I don't think that's as telling as hitting percentage (PCT = (K-E)/TA). The set percentage only shows what percentage of all sets resulted in a kill. It doesn't say what happened after a set DIDN'T result in a kill. Was the hitting attempt an immediate error? What kind of error -- roofed, out of bounds, unforced into the net? Did player get blocked but play continued (due to successful coverage)? Sure you can look at team hitting percentage but at that point, as far as I can tell, you can't connect the Set Percentage to the team's hitting percentage. I'm sure a database like Volleymetrics can do a deeper, more individualized take on what set percentage can really factor into, but I don't think it's THE indicator of setting efficiency. It's rather bare bones. Unless I'm missing something. It's honestly the first time I've seen that metric, and I've kept stats for assist tracking (but just for high school). Team setting percentage: .341 (Shaff's is .371, so ~37% of her sets results in kills) Team hitting percentage: .234 Thank you for the excellent explanation of terminology. Appreciate it. I guess I was looking for more of a philosophical discussion, which you may have zero interest in (which is just fine). Why should anyone care about such statistics?? They don't prove anything ... about anything, really. A horrible set can be an assist. A perfect set can not be an assist. What use is that?? ?? I too look for "philosophical discussions", meaning more qualitative discussions about what went right or wrong in matches, for example who (coaches & players) responded well/poorly at key, decisive or strategic moments. Who made or didn't make the big play when the set/match was on the line and why/why not? (Why did MN not find it in themselves to convert 1 of 3 match points v. WI?) Why do some win with bad stats? & others lose w/ good stats? Some expert observers are more quantitative in their approach & that has an important place in the discussions, too. They seem to outnumber the "sports psych" (for lack of a better term) folks. There's room for everybody. |
|
|
|
Post by vollem on Dec 3, 2021 9:57:44 GMT -5
Thank you for the excellent explanation of terminology. Appreciate it. I guess I was looking for more of a philosophical discussion, which you may have zero interest in (which is just fine). Why should anyone care about such statistics?? They don't prove anything ... about anything, really. A horrible set can be an assist. A perfect set can not be an assist. What use is that?? ??Stats can point you in the right direction, but some aren't that helpful if you're trying to see a pattern. Assists/Set will immediately tell you how many sets a player puts up and has converted into a kill. However, 2018 is the most glaring issue with that metric because Cincinnati's setter had the most Assists/Set. When you just high ball 90% of the offense to Jordan Thompson, that's an easy way to stuff that category (although why wouldn't you set JT if you had a JT type player, not dissimilar to a sentiment like "why wouldn't you set Samedy/May/Eggleston/Drews there"). There's no clear way to see setting efficiency as far as how good the set is. I think you answered your own question in what was bolded. You can set butter and not have great hitters who either can't put it down or are high error. Likewise, you can set a generically hittable (but no tempo or system to be found) ball and have the greatest terminator on your team and that ball would be an assist. That's where you just need to play the game or watch intently in practice imo to get a good look, but I also don't have "the eye" for setter systems. Team and individual hitting percentage are better to go by than whatever the assist percentage thing is (which, again, I'd never seen before). It doesn't tell you the quality of the sets, but it can tell you who's scoring efficiently, whether it's on a tool, a bounce, or a tip. Just gotta be careful how you interpret them I guess. Stats are useful, just maybe not the assist percentage. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2021 11:29:40 GMT -5
Thank you for the excellent explanation of terminology. Appreciate it. I guess I was looking for more of a philosophical discussion, which you may have zero interest in (which is just fine). Why should anyone care about such statistics?? They don't prove anything ... about anything, really. A horrible set can be an assist. A perfect set can not be an assist. What use is that?? ??Stats can point you in the right direction, but some aren't that helpful if you're trying to see a pattern. Assists/Set will immediately tell you how many sets a player puts up and has converted into a kill. However, 2018 is the most glaring issue with that metric because Cincinnati's setter had the most Assists/Set. When you just high ball 90% of the offense to Jordan Thompson, that's an easy way to stuff that category (although why wouldn't you set JT if you had a JT type player, not dissimilar to a sentiment like "why wouldn't you set Samedy/May/Eggleston/Drews there"). There's no clear way to see setting efficiency as far as how good the set is. I think you answered your own question in what was bolded. You can set butter and not have great hitters who either can't put it down or are high error. Likewise, you can set a generically hittable (but no tempo or system to be found) ball and have the greatest terminator on your team and that ball would be an assist. That's where you just need to play the game or watch intently in practice imo to get a good look, but I also don't have "the eye" for setter systems. Team and individual hitting percentage are better to go by than whatever the assist percentage thing is (which, again, I'd never seen before). It doesn't tell you the quality of the sets, but it can tell you who's scoring efficiently, whether it's on a tool, a bounce, or a tip. Just gotta be careful how you interpret them I guess. Stats are useful, just maybe not the assist percentage. Thanks again, another great post. My last point, then, is: but there are (obviously subjective) judgment stats on "passing quality", right? I think I've read where they get a number on how "good" the pass was. Why can't they do that for how good (particularly given the difficulty of the circumstance) the set was?? THAT would be an actual stat, for a setter. |
|
|
|
Post by vbsam16 on Dec 3, 2021 11:36:00 GMT -5
Stats can point you in the right direction, but some aren't that helpful if you're trying to see a pattern. Assists/Set will immediately tell you how many sets a player puts up and has converted into a kill. However, 2018 is the most glaring issue with that metric because Cincinnati's setter had the most Assists/Set. When you just high ball 90% of the offense to Jordan Thompson, that's an easy way to stuff that category (although why wouldn't you set JT if you had a JT type player, not dissimilar to a sentiment like "why wouldn't you set Samedy/May/Eggleston/Drews there"). There's no clear way to see setting efficiency as far as how good the set is. I think you answered your own question in what was bolded. You can set butter and not have great hitters who either can't put it down or are high error. Likewise, you can set a generically hittable (but no tempo or system to be found) ball and have the greatest terminator on your team and that ball would be an assist. That's where you just need to play the game or watch intently in practice imo to get a good look, but I also don't have "the eye" for setter systems. Team and individual hitting percentage are better to go by than whatever the assist percentage thing is (which, again, I'd never seen before). It doesn't tell you the quality of the sets, but it can tell you who's scoring efficiently, whether it's on a tool, a bounce, or a tip. Just gotta be careful how you interpret them I guess. Stats are useful, just maybe not the assist percentage. Thanks again, another great post. My last point, then, is: but there are (obviously subjective) judgment stats on "passing quality", right? I think I've read where they get a number on how "good" the pass was. Why can't they do that for how good (particularly given the difficulty of the circumstance) the set was?? THAT would be an actual stat, for a setter. This could be tricky to stat because who's to blame if the set isn't terminated? Was the set not in the right spot or did the hitter not run as fast of a tempo as the setter was trying to run? Did the setter set too far off the net or did the hitter overrun the set? I feel like passing grade is much easier because there's a more clear target where the passers are trying to aim. |
|
|
|
Post by vollem on Dec 3, 2021 11:42:09 GMT -5
Thanks again, another great post. My last point, then, is: but there are (obviously subjective) judgment stats on "passing quality", right? I think I've read where they get a number on how "good" the pass was. Why can't they do that for how good (particularly given the difficulty of the circumstance) the set was?? THAT would be an actual stat, for a setter. Passing quality on the 0-3 scale? Yes, that's quite useful. Things get muddy if, say, a bad set (like location issue) is produced from what would've been a 3 pass or even a very solid 2. It's happened with Oregon (this season). I've said there are times where I thought the pass was fine, not a 3 but looked like a solid 2, and Shaff made it look closer to a 1. That's on bettering the ball. Some setters can set the middle on a 2 pass. Not all of them can do it well. Now a parallel of the passing scale for setting would be interesting but that'd be far too decentralized because every hitter has a different hitting window. Just like how every hitter has their favorite swing (that may or may not be a tendency). Just my take on it, so don't put much weight on this last bit here. |
|
|
|
Post by vollem on Dec 3, 2021 11:43:00 GMT -5
This could be tricky to stat because who's to blame if the set isn't terminated? Was the set not in the right spot or did the hitter not run as fast of a tempo as the setter was trying to run? Did the setter set too far off the net or did the hitter overrun the set? I feel like passing grade is much easier because there's a more clear target where the passers are trying to aim. All of this and you beat me to it. Rude, Suga. Rude. |
|
|
|
Post by gopherhim on Dec 3, 2021 12:19:45 GMT -5
Sounds like a good read. Bummer about the paywall. What’s the gist of it? Does it name any specific pressures or just general pressure of competing at a high level and being students and having personal lives? |
|
|
|
Post by vbsam16 on Dec 3, 2021 12:22:33 GMT -5
This could be tricky to stat because who's to blame if the set isn't terminated? Was the set not in the right spot or did the hitter not run as fast of a tempo as the setter was trying to run? Did the setter set too far off the net or did the hitter overrun the set? I feel like passing grade is much easier because there's a more clear target where the passers are trying to aim. All of this and you beat me to it. Rude, Suga. Rude. Suga has his opinions on setting! |
|
|
|
Post by spikerthemovie on Dec 3, 2021 12:27:44 GMT -5
Thoughtful quotes from Shaffmaster in there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2021 12:37:56 GMT -5
This could be tricky to stat because who's to blame if the set isn't terminated? Was the set not in the right spot or did the hitter not run as fast of a tempo as the setter was trying to run? Did the setter set too far off the net or did the hitter overrun the set? I feel like passing grade is much easier because there's a more clear target where the passers are trying to aim. Passing quality on the 0-3 scale? Yes, that's quite useful. Things get muddy if, say, a bad set (like location issue) is produced from what would've been a 3 pass or even a very solid 2. It's happened with Oregon (this season). I've said there are times where I thought the pass was fine, not a 3 but looked like a solid 2, and Shaff made it look closer to a 1. That's on bettering the ball. Some setters can set the middle on a 2 pass. Not all of them can do it well. Now a parallel of the passing scale for setting would be interesting but that'd be far too decentralized because every hitter has a different hitting window. Just like how every hitter has their favorite swing (that may or may not be a tendency). Just my take on it, so don't put much weight on this last bit here. But wait a second: this goes right back to the problem! Why should a setter be "rewarded" simply because their hitter was able to do something with their "off" set? Or, why should a setter be "penalized" simply because their hitter was not able to do something (took a bad approach, whatever) with their great set?
The quality of setting "grade" should thus absolutely be independent of the subsequent action (or inaction) from the hitter.
Shouldn't you just be able to judge purely on how good the setting is, in of itself?
|
|
|
|
Post by vollem on Dec 3, 2021 12:38:55 GMT -5
All of this and you beat me to it. Rude, Suga. Rude. Suga has his opinions on setting! Something applicable: give asahi the set he likes  I haven’t seen the new season(s?) |
|
|
|
Post by Draco_MN on Dec 3, 2021 13:00:55 GMT -5
For the hundreds of sets in practice and games it remains a mystery why middles can't terminate a quick set. If the arc of a MBs swing hasn't crossed 12 to '11 or 10:30' on a clock face hour hand the ball's trajectory won't be heading down into the court. Either the MBs are too quick to the net so the set is above them, or they are in position but the set doesn't lead them. Soooo frustrating week in & out with little progress. Have the coaches had to have had surgery for for blunt trauma or tongue lacerations? The inability to terminate on overpasses is also mystifying. Gremlins must have snuck osmium into the soles of their shoes cuz they aren't getting off the Teraflex more than a few inches. with just a modicum of production the block pressure on the left pin could ease. Please stop sending Husemann on a cross country excursion to nowhere in rotation1. Fake her on a gap set. Get the pass to the net on the right side of the court so you can fake a quick to her and give Samedy a gap set. SOMETHING DIFFERENT PUHLEEZE! Not only are new patterns and plays fun, but they cause coverage confusion for the opponents. "Laura Kasey (née Benzing) is entering her sixth year with the Gopher Volleyball program after joining the team in January 2015. She is in her fourth year as associate head coach. Kasey helped Minnesota to the 2015 and 2018 Big Ten championships and three NCAA Final Four appearances. Working primarily with the middle blockers, Kasey helped Hannah Tapp and Paige Tapp to All-America honors, while Hannah was named a First Team All-Big Ten selection in 2015. Regan Pittman became a three-time All-American and three-time All-Big Ten selection under Kasey's watch as well. She ranks in the top-10 all-time at Minnesota in total blocks, solo blocks and block assists. She also set the single-game program record for total blocks in a game when she tallied 14 against Nebraska on Feb. 19, 2021. Pittman led Minnesota to three Sweet 16's and a Final Four during her time on campus. Under Kasey's guidance, Minnesota had three middle blockers who garnered awards in 2016. Hannah Tapp was named an All-Big Ten selection and a Second Team AVCA All-American. Molly Lohman was a Big Ten and AVCA All-America honorable mention, while Paige Tapp was an Academic All-American and All-Big Ten honorable mention. As a whole, the Gopher blockers averaged 2.71 blocks per set in 2016. In 2018, Regan Pittman was named a Second Team All-American and All-Big Ten selection, while Taylor Morgan received All-America honorable mention." So how does your coaching resume stack up? mcmike thinks he is superior to the entire coaching staff at the U so there’s no point bringing logic into the conversation. I will say that the comment regarding blunt trauma and tongue lacerations was particularly offensive though, even for mcmike. |
|
|
|
Post by vbsam16 on Dec 3, 2021 13:19:02 GMT -5
This could be tricky to stat because who's to blame if the set isn't terminated? Was the set not in the right spot or did the hitter not run as fast of a tempo as the setter was trying to run? Did the setter set too far off the net or did the hitter overrun the set? I feel like passing grade is much easier because there's a more clear target where the passers are trying to aim. Passing quality on the 0-3 scale? Yes, that's quite useful. Things get muddy if, say, a bad set (like location issue) is produced from what would've been a 3 pass or even a very solid 2. It's happened with Oregon (this season). I've said there are times where I thought the pass was fine, not a 3 but looked like a solid 2, and Shaff made it look closer to a 1. That's on bettering the ball. Some setters can set the middle on a 2 pass. Not all of them can do it well. Now a parallel of the passing scale for setting would be interesting but that'd be far too decentralized because every hitter has a different hitting window. Just like how every hitter has their favorite swing (that may or may not be a tendency). Just my take on it, so don't put much weight on this last bit here. But wait a second: this goes right back to the problem! Why should a setter be "rewarded" simply because their hitter was able to do something with their "off" set? Or, why should a setter be "penalized" simply because their hitter was not able to do something (took a bad approach, whatever) with their great set?
The quality of setting "grade" should thus absolutely be independent of the subsequent action (or inaction) from the hitter.
Shouldn't you just be able to judge purely on how good the setting is, in of itself?
For accurate grading, I feel like you would have to know exactly what the setter was trying to run each time they set the ball. There are so many location options for the setter to be aiming for that it would be impossible to accurately grade how good the set was unless they tell us after each point what they were trying to do. On the other hand, there is really only one ideal location for a passer. |
|
|
|
Post by vollem on Dec 3, 2021 13:46:01 GMT -5
For accurate grading, I feel like you would have to know exactly what the setter was trying to run each time they set the ball. There are so many location options for the setter to be aiming for that it would be impossible to accurately grade how good the set was unless they tell us after each point what they were trying to do. On the other hand, there is really only one ideal location for a passer. @gophers4life If you've seen the setter's jungle gym thing (I forgot the actual name -- all those hoops that make it look like quidditch), that would be the easiest way to visualize why it's hard to grade on a hard-point scale, since there could be many possible targets. Adding in tempo makes them more like moving targets. Ok poor analogy. I'll stop there. |
|
