|
Post by isaacspaceman on Apr 22, 2021 21:39:39 GMT -5
Every single coach is given 3 challenges, and challenge management is part of the game. Coaches do not challenge every single call they think that was missed, as Cook did in the first half of the game. That was a risk, and it didn't pay off. He is not the first coach to run into this problem. There are also missed calls in every game. Some are noticeable, some aren't, but that doesn't really matter in terms of "fairness." And because of the way volleyball works, a missed call at 1-0 could have just as big of an impact on the game as a missed call at 22-20. There are zero guarantees Washington wins that set -- in fact, I wager they don't! I'm so proud of UK and pissed that certain posters are blaming a single call on the team that was playing worse, losing. I think Kentucky played better and would have won a fifth set. Not taking anything away from them. But you have to admit that it sucks that all the bad calls (including but not liimited to the three challenges and the blown net call) went in one direction.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 22, 2021 21:48:40 GMT -5
Oh, well Creighton outhit Morehead State....Dayton outhit Washington...... Florida outhit Wisconsin and yet.....all of those outhit teams still won. Baylor massively outhit Pepperdine and Western Kentucky massively outhit Washington State, and both of those still went deep into the 5th set. And those are just matches that happened in the last week or so. My point is that just pointing at overall hitting percentage for the match does NOT always tell you the whole story. Plenty of teams have won having inferior hitting percentages, and plenty of matches end up going 5 with one team having a much higher hitting percentage. Also, just so we are clear here, Kentucky outhit Washington .314 to .243 in the second set...the set Kentucky LOST..... le sigh.....see, evidence. You're self-selecting evidence. There is absolutely a correlation between winning and having a higher hitting percentage. When that difference is .130? That's going to be a very very strong correlation. No one said the team who hits for a higher percentage ALWAYS wins. But it's a pretty good predictor, especially when that difference is .130. Lol, first you say I pick out an "outlier" with a match from last year, then I give you MULTIPLE matches THIS tournament where the higher hitting percentage team actually lost, where the matches where one team distinctly outhits the other team and it still went deep into 5 sets, and even a set in the very match we are talking about where Kentucky outhit Washington by 0.071% (which is a lot) but still lost, and yet I am, according to you, "self-selecting evidence". My point is that this could have easily gone 5 (and who knows who would have won that) and the hitting percentage advantage for Kentucky for the match STILL be the case, period. I like you dunc, but on this I'm just gonna say, #GirlBye.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2021 22:08:30 GMT -5
You're self-selecting evidence. There is absolutely a correlation between winning and having a higher hitting percentage. When that difference is .130? That's going to be a very very strong correlation. No one said the team who hits for a higher percentage ALWAYS wins. But it's a pretty good predictor, especially when that difference is .130. Lol, first you say I pick out an "outlier" with a match from last year, then I give you MULTIPLE matches THIS tournament where the higher hitting percentage team actually lost, where the matches where one team distinctly outhits the other team and it still went deep into 5 sets, and even a set in the very match we are talking about where Kentucky outhit Washington by 0.071% (which is a lot) but still lost, and yet I am, according to you, "self-selecting evidence". My point is that this could have easily gone 5 (and who knows who would have won that) and the hitting percentage advantage for Kentucky for the match STILL be the case, period. I like you dunc, but on this I'm just gonna say, #GirlBye. You are STILL purposefully misrepresenting my point. My point was never that UK was hitting better so winning was an inevitability. The point was that Washington had bigger issues than two bad calls from the refs.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 22, 2021 22:09:06 GMT -5
Lol, first you say I pick out an "outlier" with a match from last year, then I give you MULTIPLE matches THIS tournament where the higher hitting percentage team actually lost, where the matches where one team distinctly outhits the other team and it still went deep into 5 sets, and even a set in the very match we are talking about where Kentucky outhit Washington by 0.071% (which is a lot) but still lost, and yet I am, according to you, "self-selecting evidence". My point is that this could have easily gone 5 (and who knows who would have won that) and the hitting percentage advantage for Kentucky for the match STILL be the case, period. I like you dunc, but on this I'm just gonna say, #GirlBye. You are STILL purposefully misrepresenting my point. My point was never that UK was hitting better so winning was an inevitability. The point was that Washington had bigger issues than two bad calls from the refs. well THAT I agree with, but when you only just list hitting percentages and say Washington didn't win lose because of the refs, it implies that Kentucky won because they outhit Washington. Kentucky did outhit Washington, but Washington still could have won. And the bad calls late in the 3rd did hamper Washington's ability to win the set, and this match could have easily went 5 (Despite the hitting percentages), which Washington could have lost too, but they also could have won.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2021 22:09:38 GMT -5
You are STILL purposefully misrepresenting my point. My point was never that UK was hitting better so winning was an inevitability. The point was that Washington had bigger issues than two bad calls from the refs. well THAT I agree with. THAT IS ALL I WAS SAYING
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 22, 2021 22:14:17 GMT -5
Well yeah, but saying Washington had bigger issues in the match than botched ref calls (which I agree) still isn't the same as saying those botched ref calls didn't have an impact in the match for Washington.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2021 22:17:48 GMT -5
Well yeah, but saying Washington had bigger issues in the match than botched ref calls (which I agree) still isn't the same as saying those botched ref calls didn't have an impact in the match for Washington. It was two points. Win the other ones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2021 22:18:38 GMT -5
He edited and added and entire paragraph 🙄
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2021 22:19:45 GMT -5
You are STILL purposefully misrepresenting my point. My point was never that UK was hitting better so winning was an inevitability. The point was that Washington had bigger issues than two bad calls from the refs. well THAT I agree with, but when you only just list hitting percentages and say Washington didn't win lose because of the refs, it implies that Kentucky won because they outhit Washington. Kentucky did outhit Washington, but Washington still could have won. And the bad calls late in the 3rd did hamper Washington's ability to win the set, and this match could have easily went 5 (Despite the hitting percentages), which Washington could have lost too, but they also could have won. Get over it. You lost. Your team could not overcome the two points due to bad calls.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 22, 2021 22:26:15 GMT -5
You are STILL purposefully misrepresenting my point. My point was never that UK was hitting better so winning was an inevitability. The point was that Washington had bigger issues than two bad calls from the refs. Kentucky did outhit Washington, but Washington still could have won. Could have! Unlikely!
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 22, 2021 22:27:17 GMT -5
UK put the net violation point in their highlight reel. ICONIC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2021 22:27:42 GMT -5
I wonder why we have completely abandoned the Stumler bic
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 22, 2021 22:31:28 GMT -5
I wonder why we have completely abandoned the Stumler bic When you have reliable attacking options in the middle and on the right, it's less essential.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2021 22:33:35 GMT -5
I wonder why we have completely abandoned the Stumler bic When you have reliable attacking options in the middle and on the right, it's less essential. very true but we were still using a ton late in the season this year. Just not the tournament. Lilley use to set it almost more often than the left side in front row when we were in system
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 22, 2021 22:49:04 GMT -5
Kentucky did outhit Washington, but Washington still could have won. Could have! Unlikely! Also unlikely that Washington could win being down 11-5 in the 5th set against Louisville.... and yet.
|
|