|
|
Post by Socleanclean on Sept 14, 2022 15:43:47 GMT -5
do you have queen oglivie's passing numbers Kubik 2.27 , 61.5 GP% on 26 attempts Krause 2.39, 64.3 GP% on 14 attempts Rodriguez 2.36, 63.6 GP% on 11 attempts Knuckles 1.91, 45.5 GP% on 22 attempts Baird 1.88, 44.1 GP% on 34 attempts Oglivie 2.31, 56.2 GP% on 16 attempts Rubin 2.42, 71.9 GP% on 32 attempts And people wonder why Stanford serves so aggressively. If they don’t take so much risk, imagine what Nebraska’s passing numbers would have been. Stanford probably doesn’t win the match. The women’s game is going to go a whole lot more this direction. Get ready for more missed serves just like the men’s game. The analytics obviously back the decision up. |
|
|
|
Post by Reach on Sept 14, 2022 15:45:13 GMT -5
time to delete and start over plot twist: I am actually holiday and have 8 accounts on retainer you can't be, because I'm holiday. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Sept 14, 2022 15:47:34 GMT -5
Kubik 2.27 , 61.5 GP% on 26 attempts Krause 2.39, 64.3 GP% on 14 attempts Rodriguez 2.36, 63.6 GP% on 11 attempts Knuckles 1.91, 45.5 GP% on 22 attempts Baird 1.88, 44.1 GP% on 34 attempts Oglivie 2.31, 56.2 GP% on 16 attempts Rubin 2.42, 71.9 GP% on 32 attempts And people wonder why Stanford serves so aggressively. If they don’t take so much risk, imagine what Nebraska’s passing numbers would have been. Stanford probably doesn’t win the match. The women’s game is going to go a whole lot more this direction. Get ready for more missed serves just like the men’s game. The analytics obviously back the decision up. What? Those are good numbers from Kubik, Krause and Rodriguez. |
|
|
|
Post by Socleanclean on Sept 14, 2022 15:51:09 GMT -5
And people wonder why Stanford serves so aggressively. If they don’t take so much risk, imagine what Nebraska’s passing numbers would have been. Stanford probably doesn’t win the match. The women’s game is going to go a whole lot more this direction. Get ready for more missed serves just like the men’s game. The analytics obviously back the decision up. What? Those are good numbers from Kubik, Krause and Rodriguez. Exactly. Nebraska passed really well, outside of Knuckles. Those numbers are great considering how aggressive Stanford was serving. They missed a ton but when it was in it was a really tough serve. Nebraska is a fantastic serve receive team. I’m saying if Stanford tried to miss fewer serves the numbers would have been even better and Nebraska would have probably won going away. |
|
|
|
Post by nonathleticperson on Sept 14, 2022 15:54:18 GMT -5
I meant compared to all of the other athletes on the floor last night. But that too.
Some of the .154 is Miner's fault. She served well, passed well, and was second on the team in kills (on a team where she is realistically offensive option #4). I just wouldn't harp on her, of all Stanford players, based on last night.
Yeah I’m not seeing it. I’m in the beginning of the 3rd set right now, where she takes a sharp swing out of bounds after transitioning 8 feet off the net on a FREEBALL from Nebraska on a beautiful tempo set. Then not even three points later overpasses on SR, gets a beautiful running OOS bump set from Miner… and tips it. It's clear to anyone that watches that Baird isn't exactly the most dynamic and isn't great out of rhythm ("bad footwork" as you noted). Will she develop more athleticism? I doubt it, but who knows. However, IMO what's more concerning is that every OH on Stanford, including the incredibly dynamic Kipp looks like that. It's pretty evident to me that every single attacker is struggling with the sprayed location and tempo and shortening their approach. Kipp is basically just standing there and finishing only with a step close on her approach.
To me Stanford's outsides are going to feast or famine depending on if Miner can develop a consistent location. Stanfords serve and block will keep them a top 10 team until (hopefully) that happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reach on Sept 14, 2022 15:54:36 GMT -5
Nobody is talking about Stanfords blocking.
|
|
|
|
Post by donut on Sept 14, 2022 15:54:50 GMT -5
What? Those are good numbers from Kubik, Krause and Rodriguez. Exactly. Nebraska passed really well, outside of Knuckles. Those numbers are great considering how aggressive Stanford was serving. They missed a ton but when it was in it was a really tough serve. Nebraska is a fantastic serve receive team. I’m saying if Stanford tried to miss fewer serves the numbers would have been even better and Nebraska would have probably won going away. But their aggressive serving didn't work (again, see numbers)? They just gave Nebraska 23 free points.
|
|
|
|
Post by nonathleticperson on Sept 14, 2022 16:02:03 GMT -5
Exactly. Nebraska passed really well, outside of Knuckles. Those numbers are great considering how aggressive Stanford was serving. They missed a ton but when it was in it was a really tough serve. Nebraska is a fantastic serve receive team. I’m saying if Stanford tried to miss fewer serves the numbers would have been even better and Nebraska would have probably won going away. But their aggressive serving didn't work (again, see numbers)? They just gave Nebraska 23 free points.
Total points don't mean anything in volleyball. Serving error differential by sets: -3, -3, -1, -2. Edit: fixed numbers and to add more nuance to the argument, ace differential by sets: +1, 0, -1, +1
Also Nebraska had 5 less kills and had more attack errors. Which can be argued that the serve and block game was effective. |
|
|
|
Post by Socleanclean on Sept 14, 2022 16:11:21 GMT -5
But their aggressive serving didn't work (again, see numbers)? They just gave Nebraska 23 free points. Total points don't mean anything in volleyball. Serving error differential by sets: -3, -3, -1, -2. Edit: fixed numbers and to add more nuance to the argument, ace differential by sets: +1, 0, -1, +1
Also Nebraska had 5 less kills and had more attack errors. Which can be argued that the serve and block game was effective. Correct. The serve and block game led to the win. Total points mean nothing. The women’s game has been serve and pass dependent for ages. The mens game is totally serve and block. Maybe Hambly is ahead of the curve on the women’s side. He knows if he can side out at a high percentage the serving errors won’t mean much because he won’t give up long runs. Outside of the end of third the game plan worked to perfection. Stanford’s serve and block was the difference last night. It’s a very different way to play the game. But it was obviously successful. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Sept 14, 2022 16:20:47 GMT -5
But their aggressive serving didn't work (again, see numbers)? They just gave Nebraska 23 free points.
Total points don't mean anything in volleyball. Serving error differential by sets: -3, -3, -1, -2. Edit: fixed numbers and to add more nuance to the argument, ace differential by sets: +1, 0, -1, +1
Also Nebraska had 5 less kills and had more attack errors. Which can be argued that the serve and block game was effective. Looking at aces and service errors alone is a bad way to look at serving.
I'm pretty sure Hambly would agree that their serving strategy, whatever it was, didn't work, given how well Nebraska passed the balls that were in, and how many balls Stanford served out. But y'all can believe what you want.
|
|
|
|
Post by widdledumpling on Sept 14, 2022 16:22:33 GMT -5
Total points don't mean anything in volleyball. Serving error differential by sets: -3, -3, -1, -2. Edit: fixed numbers and to add more nuance to the argument, ace differential by sets: +1, 0, -1, +1
Also Nebraska had 5 less kills and had more attack errors. Which can be argued that the serve and block game was effective. Correct. The serve and block game led to the win. Total points mean nothing. The women’s game has been serve and pass dependent for ages. The mens game is totally serve and block. Maybe Hambly is ahead of the curve on the women’s side. He knows if he can side out at a high percentage the serving errors won’t mean much because he won’t give up long runs. Outside of the end of third the game plan worked to perfection. Stanford’s serve and block was the difference last night. It’s a very different way to play the game. But it was obviously successful. you may be right and coaches will do whatever works to win games but….uuuuuggggnnnn I don’t want it That many service errors isn’t fun to watch. Just ugly and chops up the pace of the game where you watch a ball hit the net or the ground outside the court and then get to watch the ball handlers roll the ball to the other team just to rinse and repeat |
|
|
|
Post by nonathleticperson on Sept 14, 2022 16:26:15 GMT -5
Total points don't mean anything in volleyball. Serving error differential by sets: -3, -3, -1, -2. Edit: fixed numbers and to add more nuance to the argument, ace differential by sets: +1, 0, -1, +1
Also Nebraska had 5 less kills and had more attack errors. Which can be argued that the serve and block game was effective. Looking at aces and service errors alone is a bad way to look at serving.
I'm pretty sure Hambly would agree that their serving strategy, whatever it was, didn't work, given how well Nebraska passed the balls that were in, and how many balls Stanford served out. But y'all can believe what you want.
I don't disagree at all. Nebraska still passed very well. There is nuance to it. Despite Nebraska passing 2.3 or whatever their middles never got going, could it be that their setters are awful, or the serving caused certain decisions? Probably a little bit of both, and that little bit of both helped Stanford win the game.
I will just say that I am also sure that Hambly's strategy didn't include Kipp and their serving subs totalling half of their service errors though  . |
|
|
|
Post by Socleanclean on Sept 14, 2022 16:29:08 GMT -5
Total points don't mean anything in volleyball. Serving error differential by sets: -3, -3, -1, -2. Edit: fixed numbers and to add more nuance to the argument, ace differential by sets: +1, 0, -1, +1
Also Nebraska had 5 less kills and had more attack errors. Which can be argued that the serve and block game was effective. Looking at aces and service errors alone is a bad way to look at serving. I'm pretty sure Hambly would agree that their serving strategy, whatever it was, didn't work, given how well Nebraska passed the balls that were in, and how many balls Stanford served out. But y'all can believe what you want.
Not true. I talk to Kevin quite often. And I can guarantee you he would not say the strategy didn’t work. He’s telling them to go after if every time. He doesn’t care about the errors. He’s not trying to play a typical game. Otherwise you would see more DS’s. It’s a different style and I believe you will see more playing this way in the coming years. |
|
|
|
Post by liberosetter101 on Sept 14, 2022 16:34:38 GMT -5
Both Miner AND Orr (being in the same class) were being hyped as the the next great setters in the NCAA that nobody could touch, they were just THAT GOOD... 1 and 2 according to those that put a bunch of stock in the junior usav teams. Now, sure they still have years to improve sure, but it's very clear that, for a variety of reasons, the prognosticators were wrong. And, it's not just about those two, I mean, Batenhorst played high level USAV junior ball and attacked well, and you couldn't kind a bigger OH threat in club than Krause (who also spent a lot of time in the USAV gym at the junior levels)...yet again, for...reasons, neither have been consistent at the NCAA level and both have been passed up by a player who didn't get the USAV love that they did a mere two/three years ago. I say this not to suggest that these players are bad or overrated, only to point out that people on this board continue to gush that pretty much the entire U19 team is going to Nebraska in the future and while that recruiting is certainly exceptional, they aren't the only great players out there and being a good prep fit for what the USAV junior teams want to do doesn't mean that the player will dominate in college.
Orr as in Nebraska Orr? The girl who was subbed in last night and clubbed the ball like a baby seal every contact was ranked #2??? Oof... Both look great athletically but both have some major issues with their touch.
She was ranked #1 setter and #1 over all from the 2021 class Miner was #2 setter and #4 over all |
|
|
|
Post by vbsam16 on Sept 14, 2022 16:37:51 GMT -5
Yeah I’m not seeing it. I’m in the beginning of the 3rd set right now, where she takes a sharp swing out of bounds after transitioning 8 feet off the net on a FREEBALL from Nebraska on a beautiful tempo set. Then not even three points later overpasses on SR, gets a beautiful running OOS bump set from Miner… and tips it. It's clear to anyone that watches that Baird isn't exactly the most dynamic and isn't great out of rhythm ("bad footwork" as you noted). Will she develop more athleticism? I doubt it, but who knows. However, IMO what's more concerning is that every OH on Stanford, including the incredibly dynamic Kipp looks like that. It's pretty evident to me that every single attacker is struggling with the sprayed location and tempo and shortening their approach. Kipp is basically just standing there and finishing only with a step close on her approach.
To me Stanford's outsides are going to feast or famine depending on if Miner can develop a consistent location. Stanfords serve and block will keep them a top 10 team until (hopefully) that happens.
I feel like that’s pretty common for Stanford outsides. They never really have been the quickest at transitioning off the net. You can tell stanford really encourages their back court to put the dig pretty high up in the air to give their big/slower outsides more time to transition. Hentz was the queen of launching digs of any type as high as possible. And gray was really good at setting high digs. Maybe Miner doesn’t handle high digs nearly as well. |
|
.
