|
Post by tablealgebra on Sept 11, 2022 2:28:11 GMT -5
First off, thanks for doing this. Your stats confirm what my eyes where seeing. Even if you assume Izzy is the better setter, you don't get rid of the 6-2. I love the big block all the time in the front row. Robinson and Smrek blocking other teams left sides is a really, really good thing. P.S. I love Robinson back at RS instead of MB. She is soooooooo valuable there. I think you switch if Izzy is significantly better setting. You do lose the bigger block but with Demps available at backrow opposite you're not going to get swings that are much worse.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Sept 11, 2022 2:49:32 GMT -5
Even if you assume Izzy is the better setter, you don't get rid of the 6-2. I love the big block all the time in the front row. Robinson and Smrek blocking other teams left sides is a really, really good thing. P.S. I love Robinson back at RS instead of MB. She is soooooooo valuable there. I think you switch if Izzy is significantly better setting. You do lose the bigger block but with Demps available at backrow opposite you're not going to get swings that are much worse. Arguably the advantage the badgers had against Kentucky was hitting over Grome. Izzy might present a similar target for other teams in a 5-1.
|
|
|
Post by Badger Alum on Sept 11, 2022 7:58:51 GMT -5
I think you switch if Izzy is significantly better setting. You do lose the bigger block but with Demps available at backrow opposite you're not going to get swings that are much worse. Arguably the advantage the badgers had against Kentucky was hitting over Grome. Izzy might present a similar target for other teams in a 5-1. Exactly
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on Sept 11, 2022 20:15:26 GMT -5
I think you switch if Izzy is significantly better setting. You do lose the bigger block but with Demps available at backrow opposite you're not going to get swings that are much worse. Arguably the advantage the badgers had against Kentucky was hitting over Grome. Izzy might present a similar target for other teams in a 5-1. Grome is 5-9: short-ish for a setter. For reference, I picked out, best I could, the heights of the setters of the teams in the top 20 running a 5-1. I'm sure I missed a team in here - I have 16 heights and only three teams that I know play a 6-2. 5'8" (1) 5'9" (3) 5'10" (2) 5'11" (2) 6'0" (5) 6'2" (2) 6'3" (1) However, of the top ten teams not running a 6-2 I think almost all of them had setters at least listed at 6'0". So Izzy would be a median-height setter (and probably mean height as well) setter in the top 20 but shorter than average in the top 10. But since the coaching staff said she's not a liability at the net, I'm inclined to think that's true. Another point of reference: the heights of the setters in the final four last year who also blocked were 5'11" (Hames and Dilfer), 6'0" (Hilley), and 6'0" (Fairbanks). Pitt also had Akeo setting at 5'8" but she was the setter who got subbed out in the 6-2. Of course, all three 5-1 setters were All-Americans and I think obviously Izzy isn't at that level (atm), so take it with a grain of salt. My conclusion - Izzy would be a weakness at the net but not so much that you'd trade significantly poorer setting for it. And sure, in the 6-2 you get another front-row hitter (either CC or Smrek depending on where Devyn lines up) but you lose a DS (probably an elite one once Bramschrieber comes back) and the option to sub Demps back row. (I know there's an obligatory 5-2 plug here but the same "if Izzy is a significantly better setter" caveat applies here) Of course, this assumes performance and numbers play out in Izzy's favor. If Hammill makes a surge and starts setting better, then I'm all for a 6-2.
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Sept 11, 2022 22:18:43 GMT -5
Arguably the advantage the badgers had against Kentucky was hitting over Grome. Izzy might present a similar target for other teams in a 5-1. Grome is 5-9: short-ish for a setter. For reference, I picked out, best I could, the heights of the setters of the teams in the top 20 running a 5-1. I'm sure I missed a team in here - I have 16 heights and only three teams that I know play a 6-2. 5'8" (1) 5'9" (3) 5'10" (2) 5'11" (2) 6'0" (5) 6'2" (2) 6'3" (1) However, of the top ten teams not running a 6-2 I think almost all of them had setters at least listed at 6'0". So Izzy would be a median-height setter (and probably mean height as well) setter in the top 20 but shorter than average in the top 10. But since the coaching staff said she's not a liability at the net, I'm inclined to think that's true. Another point of reference: the heights of the setters in the final four last year who also blocked were 5'11" (Hames and Dilfer), 6'0" (Hilley), and 6'0" (Fairbanks). Pitt also had Akeo setting at 5'8" but she was the setter who got subbed out in the 6-2. Of course, all three 5-1 setters were All-Americans and I think obviously Izzy isn't at that level (atm), so take it with a grain of salt. My conclusion - Izzy would be a weakness at the net but not so much that you'd trade significantly poorer setting for it. And sure, in the 6-2 you get another front-row hitter (either CC or Smrek depending on where Devyn lines up) but you lose a DS (probably an elite one once Bramschrieber comes back) and the option to sub Demps back row. (I know there's an obligatory 5-2 plug here but the same "if Izzy is a significantly better setter" caveat applies here) Of course, this assumes performance and numbers play out in Izzy's favor. If Hammill makes a surge and starts setting better, then I'm all for a 6-2. The Smrek/Demps at opp 5-2 argument also depends on Devyn being at MB, and that means either Hart or Crawford on the bench. This summer when I had little to no appreciation of what Crawford can do, that was a more acceptable 'condition' to the case for running a 5-2. It is MUCH less acceptable now, at least IMO. -------------------- One other thing to throw in; though she got better at her position, I well remember Haymes playing front row at the end of the 2019 season. Wisconsin played Nebraska at the end of the regular season, and then again in the NCAAs (to get to the final four, IIRC). And in the regular season match, I remember Haggerty just abusing Haymes. She had something like 16 kills and I bet 14 of them were with Haymes was across the net from her. When the bracket came out and it was pretty clear UW could likely face Nebraska again, I thought about what Cook could do to hide or shield Haymes. And short of having Stivrins overplay to that side (and open up the middle even more for Rettke), there was nothing to be done. So I was really rather calm that night, knowing Haggerty and Haymes would have that same match-up. I know Nebraska readers will take insult in that, as well as when I say that Izzy might have a better vertical than Haymes - gut feeling - so might handle the blocking part of it better. But as you say, Izzy front row would certainly be a concern.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Sept 11, 2022 23:32:28 GMT -5
Grome is 5-9: short-ish for a setter. For reference, I picked out, best I could, the heights of the setters of the teams in the top 20 running a 5-1. I'm sure I missed a team in here - I have 16 heights and only three teams that I know play a 6-2. 5'8" (1) 5'9" (3) 5'10" (2) 5'11" (2) 6'0" (5) 6'2" (2) 6'3" (1) However, of the top ten teams not running a 6-2 I think almost all of them had setters at least listed at 6'0". So Izzy would be a median-height setter (and probably mean height as well) setter in the top 20 but shorter than average in the top 10. But since the coaching staff said she's not a liability at the net, I'm inclined to think that's true. Another point of reference: the heights of the setters in the final four last year who also blocked were 5'11" (Hames and Dilfer), 6'0" (Hilley), and 6'0" (Fairbanks). Pitt also had Akeo setting at 5'8" but she was the setter who got subbed out in the 6-2. Of course, all three 5-1 setters were All-Americans and I think obviously Izzy isn't at that level (atm), so take it with a grain of salt. My conclusion - Izzy would be a weakness at the net but not so much that you'd trade significantly poorer setting for it. And sure, in the 6-2 you get another front-row hitter (either CC or Smrek depending on where Devyn lines up) but you lose a DS (probably an elite one once Bramschrieber comes back) and the option to sub Demps back row. (I know there's an obligatory 5-2 plug here but the same "if Izzy is a significantly better setter" caveat applies here) Of course, this assumes performance and numbers play out in Izzy's favor. If Hammill makes a surge and starts setting better, then I'm all for a 6-2. The Smrek/Demps at opp 5-2 argument also depends on Devyn being at MB, and that means either Hart or Crawford on the bench. This summer when I had little to no appreciation of what Crawford can do, that was a more acceptable 'condition' to the case for running a 5-2. It is MUCH less acceptable now, at least IMO. -------------------- One other thing to throw in; though she got better at her position, I well remember Haymes playing front row at the end of the 2019 season. Wisconsin played Nebraska at the end of the regular season, and then again in the NCAAs (to get to the final four, IIRC). And in the regular season match, I remember Haggerty just abusing Haymes. She had something like 16 kills and I bet 14 of them were with Haymes was across the net from her. When the bracket came out and it was pretty clear UW could likely face Nebraska again, I thought about what Cook could do to hide or shield Haymes. And short of having Stivrins overplay to that side (and open up the middle even more for Rettke), there was nothing to be done. So I was really rather calm that night, knowing Haggerty and Haymes would have that same match-up. I know Nebraska readers will take insult in that, as well as when I say that Izzy might have a better vertical than Haymes - gut feeling - so might handle the blocking part of it better. But as you say, Izzy front row would certainly be a concern. I'm betting they might be more insulted by the fact that you persist in mispelling Hames. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Sept 11, 2022 23:34:12 GMT -5
We'll see how it goes against Florida. But basically, I don't see us moving away from a 6-2. It just provides too much net presence. I think the passing will get better as GG beds in. And I think Hammill will improve. Ashburn has her ups and downs too, though she is further ahead in terms of setting behind. Slides have looked good when the passing has allowed them. But Hammill has been stronger setting to the left pin. Their strengths offset. They both have to integrate the BR attack better.
Hammill's problem has been a tendency to drift into ruts. Seems like there is always one rotation where they give up a run of points with her in there. You see it in most everyone of these scoring lines. They are similar in effectiveness until they aren't. It's less apparent with Ashburn. She is more steady. It may be that Ashburn is just more mobile and less prone to problems when passing breaks down or an opponent goes on a serving run. Maybe it's Hammill's defense? I don't know. I'd have to go analyze.
I think it's clear that Ashburn does not provide the net presence that a Robinson or Smrek would. The badgers targeted Hames, its true, but huskers also targeted Hilley, and I'll bet she puts up a bigger block than Ashburn.
|
|
|
Post by volleyball90 on Sept 12, 2022 2:52:44 GMT -5
We'll see how it goes against Florida. But basically, I don't see us moving away from a 6-2. It just provides too much net presence. I think the passing will get better as GG beds in. And I think Hammill will improve. Ashburn has her ups and downs too, though she is further ahead in terms of setting behind. Slides have looked good when the passing has allowed them. But Hammill has been stronger setting to the left pin. Their strengths offset. They both have to integrate the BR attack better. Hammill's problem has been a tendency to drift into ruts. Seems like there is always one rotation where they give up a run of points with her in there. You see it in most everyone of these scoring lines. They are similar in effectiveness until they aren't. It's less apparent with Ashburn. She is more steady. It may be that Ashburn is just more mobile and less prone to problems when passing breaks down or an opponent goes on a serving run. Maybe it's Hammill's defense? I don't know. I'd have to go analyze. I think it's clear that Ashburn does not provide the net presence that a Robinson or Smrek would. The badgers targeted Hames, its true, but huskers also targeted Hilley, and I'll bet she puts up a bigger block than Ashburn. I haven't charted their defense at all, but from the eye test, Hammil seems significantly weaker on defense. Just doesn't seem to move as well coverage wise vs Izzy and I don't think I've seen any D plays out of Hammil this year that would have saved a point vs any other player back there. Though its not like Izzy or Hilley were special on back row defense either. This was an area where Carlini truly was something different (unfair to compare any setter to Carlini) as she is an elite defensive setter. Hames at Nebraska is also a great example as she might give up points at blocking but she for sure saves points with her defense in the backrow. Others have brought up that the serving difference may be the biggest factor between Izzy and Hammil point diff as Izzy, GG, and Ozrol all serve during Izzy's rotations and have done well so far this year.
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Sept 12, 2022 3:13:57 GMT -5
The Smrek/Demps at opp 5-2 argument also depends on Devyn being at MB, and that means either Hart or Crawford on the bench. This summer when I had little to no appreciation of what Crawford can do, that was a more acceptable 'condition' to the case for running a 5-2. It is MUCH less acceptable now, at least IMO. -------------------- One other thing to throw in; though she got better at her position, I well remember Haymes playing front row at the end of the 2019 season. Wisconsin played Nebraska at the end of the regular season, and then again in the NCAAs (to get to the final four, IIRC). And in the regular season match, I remember Haggerty just abusing Haymes. She had something like 16 kills and I bet 14 of them were with Haymes was across the net from her. When the bracket came out and it was pretty clear UW could likely face Nebraska again, I thought about what Cook could do to hide or shield Haymes. And short of having Stivrins overplay to that side (and open up the middle even more for Rettke), there was nothing to be done. So I was really rather calm that night, knowing Haggerty and Haymes would have that same match-up. I know Nebraska readers will take insult in that, as well as when I say that Izzy might have a better vertical than Haymes - gut feeling - so might handle the blocking part of it better. But as you say, Izzy front row would certainly be a concern. I'm betting they might be more insulted by the fact that you persist in mispelling Hames. LOL. Ooops!
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Sept 12, 2022 4:42:47 GMT -5
We'll see how it goes against Florida. But basically, I don't see us moving away from a 6-2. It just provides too much net presence. I think the passing will get better as GG beds in. And I think Hammill will improve. Ashburn has her ups and downs too, though she is further ahead in terms of setting behind. Slides have looked good when the passing has allowed them. But Hammill has been stronger setting to the left pin. Their strengths offset. They both have to integrate the BR attack better. Hammill's problem has been a tendency to drift into ruts. Seems like there is always one rotation where they give up a run of points with her in there. You see it in most everyone of these scoring lines. They are similar in effectiveness until they aren't. It's less apparent with Ashburn. She is more steady. It may be that Ashburn is just more mobile and less prone to problems when passing breaks down or an opponent goes on a serving run. Maybe it's Hammill's defense? I don't know. I'd have to go analyze. I think it's clear that Ashburn does not provide the net presence that a Robinson or Smrek would. The badgers targeted Hames, its true, but huskers also targeted Hilley, and I'll bet she puts up a bigger block than Ashburn. I haven't charted their defense at all, but from the eye test, Hammil seems significantly weaker on defense. Just doesn't seem to move as well coverage wise vs Izzy and I don't think I've seen any D plays out of Hammil this year that would have saved a point vs any other player back there. Though its not like Izzy or Hilley were special on back row defense either. This was an area where Carlini truly was something different (unfair to compare any setter to Carlini) as she is an elite defensive setter. Hames at Nebraska is also a great example as she might give up points at blocking but she for sure saves points with her defense in the backrow. Others have brought up that the serving difference may be the biggest factor between Izzy and Hammil point diff as Izzy, GG, and Ozrol all serve during Izzy's rotations and have done well so far this year. On the season, Hammill has 2.1 digs per set, while Ashburn has 1.52. So while there’s a lot to be said for the eye test, in terms of floor coverage, etc., by the numbers Hammill is doing a lot more digging.
|
|
|
Post by Kearney Kingston on Sept 12, 2022 8:11:05 GMT -5
I expect the 6-2 to last all season. Two good setters who have paid their dues. Plenty of offense to play in the front row. Logical choice.
|
|
|
Post by volleyball90 on Sept 12, 2022 9:11:56 GMT -5
On the season, Hammill has 2.1 digs per set, while Ashburn has 1.52. So while there’s a lot to be said for the eye test, in terms of floor coverage, etc., by the numbers Hammill is doing a lot more digging. This is a fair point, it may be that MJ is just more effective then she appears on defense. Might try to rewatch TCU, Marquette, and Kentucky Matches and actually try to grade defense. I did my own scoring on serve receive for the title game and managed to get the exact same grade of 2.33 on 46 attempts as Kelly reported. I had Barnes at an absurd 2.62 out of 13 attempts (clearly nebraska was trying to avoid her).
|
|
|
Post by savannahbadger on Sept 12, 2022 11:30:10 GMT -5
GG just outside the top 30 in NCAA leaders for aces/set.
|
|
|
Post by greatlakesvballer on Sept 12, 2022 12:18:07 GMT -5
GG just outside the top 30 in NCAA leaders for aces/set. I have to say, GG is turning out to be the "real deal." Watching her this weekend, I was impressed by how many points she extended to keep the Badgers in it, and some of the "clean up" she did. As has already been said, the bump sets are consistently good and the serving seems like she's been doing it for quite a while. She's really impressive. The Kentucky fans who thought the ball had certainly gone down several times were like "...oh!...Wow!" watching her.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Sept 12, 2022 12:24:56 GMT -5
GG just outside the top 30 in NCAA leaders for aces/set. I have to say, GG is turning out to be the "real deal." Watching her this weekend, I was impressed by how many points she extended to keep the Badgers in it, and some of the "clean up" she did. As has already been said, the bump sets are consistently good and the serving seems like she's been doing it for quite a while. She's really impressive. The Kentucky fans who thought the ball had certainly gone down several times were like "...oh!...Wow!" watching her. Her passing has also impressed me after the first weekend and continues to be solid.
|
|