|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Dec 13, 2022 16:47:42 GMT -5
The pic of Sheila with Pete & AMH makes me happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Dec 13, 2022 17:55:10 GMT -5
The stats for that Pitt match were just incredibly even. Badgers actually hit 50 points better than the panthers, had more kills, more blocks, more digs, almost the same number of attacks. But they had 2 BHE, 4 BEs and 9 SEs for a total of 15 non attack errors. Pitt had 0, 3 and 4 respectively, for a total of 7. Also, the badger had 11 kills, but five HEs in set 5. Pitt only had 7 kills but one error.
GG had 14 assists. That's a lot. Hammill and Ashburn had 29 digs between them. GG had 24.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2022 18:01:24 GMT -5
If Gregorski had been an early high school graduate and been at UW for spring semester 2019, then her graduating in Dec 2022 would be 'on schedule'. But she wasn't. She graduated from Appleton Xavier (my high school as well, though I was "a few years" before her) on regular schedule, spring of 2019. So for her to be graduating "this week" would be a semester ahead, in 3 and 1/2 years. Certainly possible (I actually did it) but unlikely, especially given the time requirements to be a student athletes. She'll graduate, just not "this week". That's all I'm saying. (I've tried to look up who the speaker was for 'my ceremony' but can't find it. As best I recall, the president of some small college in WI, Carroll College or Marian College, maybe. The same day, the Packers were playing the Rams, win and they go to the playoffs. I watched football. Packers lost. :-) Or she took summer classes to get ahead to be able to graduate once volleyball season was over. and could have had credits coming in, very common these days too |
|
|
|
Post by pancake74 on Dec 13, 2022 23:28:12 GMT -5
Sheffield’s passing grades were fine when your setter is Carlini or Hilley, but they do not work when you have average setters. VM grades def more accurate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather VMs grades are based on fixed rules about where the ball is passed and the trajectory of the pass. I would guess they don't adjust for setter ability - whether it is Carlini, Hilley or Hammill. Also, probably not dependent on setter choices, or what you think those setter choices are. Both of those would be way too hard to score objectively. To compare between teams they would have to use the same methodology. But they only give you an abstract score, and that has to be based on a standard methodology may not adjust for differences in passing targets between teams or systems. That means someone is assigning a value to a pass to a particular location. But maybe a coaching staff has a desire to keep the setter further off the net than is typical, or considers the back row as an attack option. The coach could tell his passers to hit a spot - say 8' off the net - which may not be scored as a perfect pass by VM, but would be considered a good pass by the coaching staff. Maybe having such a target could increase the chances that a pass would be scored not good if they missed the 8' target in one direction. That is what Sheffield was coaching his passers to pass to - a spot 8' off the net. We've seen numerous instances when they scored their passers differently than VM, when to my eye they passed well and the offense was running smoothly, but VM did not think so. Frankly I'd be more interested in knowing exactly where the ball was set, and the reliability of that location, rather than having a score that assigned a fixed value to a particular position. This is not to defend the passing this last two matches. It wasn't good enough. Passing grades are a standardized statistic. Each pass is assigned a 0, 1, 2, or 3. A 3 pass means that there are 3 front row hitting options available (including setter dump if front row) a 2 pass means 2 hitting options are available, 1 one gives a setter only one option and 0 is an ace. This is consistent across all programs and does not vary based on coach or stats software. It also doesn't change with setters. If a pass is 15 feet off the net, a good setter will be able to get there with their feet and set the ball, but it doesn't mean they have 3 good options. |
|
|
|
Post by pancake74 on Dec 13, 2022 23:35:43 GMT -5
p
|
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Dec 13, 2022 23:36:05 GMT -5
Going somewhere to play beach. She needs something easier on the knees. She also announced this in interviews months ago. Sheila Shaw played pro beach, right? I wonder if she's still in SoCal.... Sheila Shaw-Coe now, living in Manhattan Beach as of the last time I ran into them a few months back. |
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on Dec 14, 2022 0:07:46 GMT -5
Considering different sources actually use two different scales (0-3 and 0-4) and other sources state different criteria for what's a 1, 2, and 3 pass, I would venture to say that passing grades are NOT standardized. Also, As a mathematician who admires sabermetrics, I think that any good pass rating system where numbers are averaged together can only be a good statistic if the ratio of the rating to the chance of siding out is consistent - that is, a 1 pass would give you roughly a 25% chance of siding out, a 2 pass would give you a 50% and a 3 pass would give you 75% (roughly). There are good justifications for having different rating systems for passing, but in those cases the average of those numbers is not a good statistic because different ways of getting to a single number might drastically affect the value of a passer (e.g. a 2.25 could be gotten by 75% perfect passes and 25% getting aced, or 75% 'good' passes (2s) and 25% perfect passes, and depending on which one the team's chance of siding out is much different). Of course this is coming from someone who abhors RPI because it doesn't actually estimate a team's chances of winning accurately, despite the fact that it is a useful metric (and I think more importantly from the NCAA's perspective, is a metric whose use rewards scheduling behaviors they want to see). |
|
|
|
Post by volleyball90 on Dec 14, 2022 8:05:39 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather VMs grades are based on fixed rules about where the ball is passed and the trajectory of the pass. I would guess they don't adjust for setter ability - whether it is Carlini, Hilley or Hammill. Also, probably not dependent on setter choices, or what you think those setter choices are. Both of those would be way too hard to score objectively. To compare between teams they would have to use the same methodology. But they only give you an abstract score, and that has to be based on a standard methodology may not adjust for differences in passing targets between teams or systems. That means someone is assigning a value to a pass to a particular location. But maybe a coaching staff has a desire to keep the setter further off the net than is typical, or considers the back row as an attack option. The coach could tell his passers to hit a spot - say 8' off the net - which may not be scored as a perfect pass by VM, but would be considered a good pass by the coaching staff. Maybe having such a target could increase the chances that a pass would be scored not good if they missed the 8' target in one direction. That is what Sheffield was coaching his passers to pass to - a spot 8' off the net. We've seen numerous instances when they scored their passers differently than VM, when to my eye they passed well and the offense was running smoothly, but VM did not think so. Frankly I'd be more interested in knowing exactly where the ball was set, and the reliability of that location, rather than having a score that assigned a fixed value to a particular position. This is not to defend the passing this last two matches. It wasn't good enough. Passing grades are a standardized statistic. Each pass is assigned a 0, 1, 2, or 3. A 3 pass means that there are 3 front row hitting options available (including setter dump if front row) a 2 pass means 2 hitting options are available, 1 one gives a setter only one option and 0 is an ace. This is consistent across all programs and does not vary based on coach or stats software. It also doesn't change with setters. If a pass is 15 feet off the net, a good setter will be able to get there with their feet and set the ball, but it doesn't mean they have 3 good options. It’s been proven that Sheffield uses a different passing score then what is “standard.” I agree that the 3 point scale should be fairly objective across programs, but it’s clear Sheffield doesn’t think so. |
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Dec 14, 2022 8:47:35 GMT -5
Considering different sources actually use two different scales (0-3 and 0-4) and other sources state different criteria for what's a 1, 2, and 3 pass, I would venture to say that passing grades are NOT standardized. Also, As a mathematician who admires sabermetrics, I think that any good pass rating system where numbers are averaged together can only be a good statistic if the ratio of the rating to the chance of siding out is consistent - that is, a 1 pass would give you roughly a 25% chance of siding out, a 2 pass would give you a 50% and a 3 pass would give you 75% (roughly). There are good justifications for having different rating systems for passing, but in those cases the average of those numbers is not a good statistic because different ways of getting to a single number might drastically affect the value of a passer (e.g. a 2.25 could be gotten by 75% perfect passes and 25% getting aced, or 75% 'good' passes (2s) and 25% perfect passes, and depending on which one the team's chance of siding out is much different). Of course this is coming from someone who abhors RPI because it doesn't actually estimate a team's chances of winning accurately, despite the fact that it is a useful metric (and I think more importantly from the NCAA's perspective, is a metric whose use rewards scheduling behaviors they want to see). Leave it to tablealgebra to bring math to the table. |
|
|
|
Post by savannahbadger on Dec 14, 2022 8:55:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by skinny on Dec 14, 2022 9:16:30 GMT -5
Frick! Kara McGhee the Baylor MB just started following Oregon's coach and Oregon volleyball on Instagram.
|
|
|
|
Post by pancake74 on Dec 14, 2022 14:04:15 GMT -5
Considering different sources actually use two different scales (0-3 and 0-4) and other sources state different criteria for what's a 1, 2, and 3 pass, I would venture to say that passing grades are NOT standardized. Also, As a mathematician who admires sabermetrics, I think that any good pass rating system where numbers are averaged together can only be a good statistic if the ratio of the rating to the chance of siding out is consistent - that is, a 1 pass would give you roughly a 25% chance of siding out, a 2 pass would give you a 50% and a 3 pass would give you 75% (roughly). There are good justifications for having different rating systems for passing, but in those cases the average of those numbers is not a good statistic because different ways of getting to a single number might drastically affect the value of a passer (e.g. a 2.25 could be gotten by 75% perfect passes and 25% getting aced, or 75% 'good' passes (2s) and 25% perfect passes, and depending on which one the team's chance of siding out is much different). Of course this is coming from someone who abhors RPI because it doesn't actually estimate a team's chances of winning accurately, despite the fact that it is a useful metric (and I think more importantly from the NCAA's perspective, is a metric whose use rewards scheduling behaviors they want to see). Leave it to tablealgebra to bring math to the table.
We don't have Kelly's stats, so I actually don't think anything has been "proven". using Sideout percentages would convolute the ultimate goal of tracking passing quality. How often a team sides out varies with different opponent defense matchups and who is on offense in the front row. A sideout percentage is not a passing stat, it is something else that coaches also track to analyze their offensive system, strengths/weaknesses. I understand the appeal of sabermetrics, but volleyball is not baseball, nor was sabermetrics developed by anyone who ever played, coached or studied volleyball. So I would tend to trust the people who are involved in the sport over a purely disciplinary approach to grading passing. creating a passing score based on sideout percentages also would defeat the purpose of comparing the passing abilities of individual players in particular rotation by bringing other variables other than the passer herself.
It would also confuse scouting- coaches aren't just scoring the passers on their own team. If they see that a backrow player has a 30% "sideout passing percentage?", it wouldn't mean that player is a bad passer, it could have to do with the offensive weakness of a particular rotation and therefore would not provide information that as valuable as knowing roughly, "when this player is passing, is their team mostly in system, or mostly out of system?" |
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Dec 14, 2022 15:07:41 GMT -5
Badgers get three third team AA.
Franklin , Hart and Robinson.
|
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Dec 14, 2022 16:21:26 GMT -5
So proud - both of these three All-Americans, and of the whole team for banding together and winning a Big Ten Championship and making the Elite 8 without a single first-teamer on the roster - the first time in IDK how long we can say that. The whole is truly greater than the sum of its parts. Every single one of them had a hand in this, and we couldn't have done it without any of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Del Bocavista on Dec 14, 2022 17:12:00 GMT -5
Hart: 1.78 k/s and 1.51 b/s hitting 0.437 (3rd team). Gray: 2.02 and 1.05 at 0.404 (1st team). Not knocking Gray or saying I would put Hart first team, but this data ain't right.
|
|
