|
Post by savannahbadger on Oct 30, 2022 19:39:08 GMT -5
Anyway, glad we're not playing the gophers again. I never look forward to these matches. Will be interested to see how the gophers finish out the rest of their season. Might be it’s time to root for each other?
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Oct 30, 2022 20:35:56 GMT -5
Badgers just beat Nebraska and Minnesota and everyone is till trying to tell them they are doing it wrong. Like the Nebraska fan who had a super long post about how the WI over NE wasn't that impressive because of the point runs they gave up. Not a word mentioned as to what Nebraska did wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Oct 30, 2022 20:37:25 GMT -5
It's ok. Let GG rest. None of the games in coming 2 weeks worry me. Since Maryland last year (if not before) all matches worry me to some degree. All matches worry me, except maybe Rutgers. And short term memory, Badgers had to five at home to beat Illinois.
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Oct 30, 2022 20:40:20 GMT -5
Anyway, glad we're not playing the gophers again. I never look forward to these matches. Will be interested to see how the gophers finish out the rest of their season. Might be it’s time to root for each other? :D I generally do. Let's not be in the same post season regional brackets this year, how about it?
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Oct 30, 2022 21:06:15 GMT -5
So usually there isn't one stat that really pops out in a match, but here's something. I was wondering about how UW could win this match in 4, scoring more 6 points, while hitting at a lower percentage (0.192 to 0.211). It's because the badgers had 177 attacks to the gophers 147. That's 30 more attacks or a full 20% more.
That makes sense of a lot of the other stats that seem counterintuitive given my sense of the match as it was going on. I thought the gophers weren't digging better than the badgers, but they had 10 more digs. Turns out that was not because they were digging better, but because there were more attacks to dig. In fact, the gophers only dug 45.1% of the badgers attacks that weren't errors, while the badgers dug 48.4%. It did not strike me that the gophers blocked any better either, but they had more blocks. The 14 blocks for the gophers only reflected 7.9% of badger attacks, only a little better than the badgers' at 7.5%.
The badgers practiced patience in this match, often recycling the ball off the block, trusting to their block coverage until the hitters found a hole or an edge. They had to do this because they were forced Left so often by setting choices. Of course, they don't count covered blocks in any generally available source, so I can't adjust the digs accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by pavsec5row10 on Oct 30, 2022 22:34:10 GMT -5
Might be it’s time to root for each other? I generally do. Let's not be in the same post season regional brackets this year, how about it? I definitely root for the Badgers against Nebraska and Texas.
|
|
|
Post by gogophers on Oct 30, 2022 23:58:13 GMT -5
So usually there isn't one stat that really pops out in a match, but here's something. I was wondering about how UW could win this match in 4, scoring more 6 points [....] 3 more.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Oct 31, 2022 0:32:35 GMT -5
So usually there isn't one stat that really pops out in a match, but here's something. I was wondering about how UW could win this match in 4, scoring more 6 points [....] 3 more. Sorry I wasn't clear. Total points and points scored are different. Minn had 88 (20+20+25+23) total points, but only 71 points scored (54 kills, 14 team blocks, 1 service ace). Wisconsin had 91 total points (25+25+16+25), but scored 76 points (58 kills, 11 blocks, 7 SAs). That said, I got the difference in points scored wrong by one. It should be 5 not 6 (76-71). uwbadgers.com/sidearmstats/wvball/summary
|
|
|
Post by letsbeclear on Oct 31, 2022 20:54:21 GMT -5
Sorry I wasn't clear. Total points and points scored are different. Minn had 88 (20+20+25+23) total points, but only 71 points scored (54 kills, 14 team blocks, 1 service ace). Wisconsin had 91 total points (25+25+16+25), but scored 76 points (58 kills, 11 blocks, 7 SAs). That said, I got the difference in points scored wrong by one. It should be 5 not 6 (76-71). uwbadgers.com/sidearmstats/wvball/summaryMinnesota had 56 kills, not 54. That will make the poihts scored come out correctly.
|
|
|
Post by madden55 on Oct 31, 2022 21:42:29 GMT -5
Did Baylor play in s 6-2 as well? Did Shenal have extensive libero action previously with this current group in a game that counts in the standings? You are overanalyzing again. That's absurd. ---------- Adding, the article in the Milwaukee Journal reminds us that last night wasn't even the first time Bramschreiber has played libero against Minnesota IN THE Field House! It was the THIRD time! LOL that’s actually so funny that it was her third time playing against MINNESOTA In MADISON lol
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Oct 31, 2022 22:01:14 GMT -5
Sorry I wasn't clear. Total points and points scored are different. Minn had 88 (20+20+25+23) total points, but only 71 points scored (54 kills, 14 team blocks, 1 service ace). Wisconsin had 91 total points (25+25+16+25), but scored 76 points (58 kills, 11 blocks, 7 SAs). That said, I got the difference in points scored wrong by one. It should be 5 not 6 (76-71). uwbadgers.com/sidearmstats/wvball/summaryMinnesota had 56 kills, not 54. That will make the poihts scored come out correctly. Sorry 56+14+1 is still 71. I mistyped. So there is a 5 points scored difference. There is a three point total points difference. That includes all errors by the other team that aren't the result of blocks.
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Oct 31, 2022 22:28:33 GMT -5
Minnesota had 56 kills, not 54. That will make the poihts scored come out correctly. Sorry 56+14+1 is still 71. I mistyped. So there is a 5 points scored difference. There is a three point total points difference. That includes all errors by the other team that aren't the result of blocks. Are there 'other' plays not counted in there somewhere? There was a Minnesota point where Orzol was called for bring under the net; is that somehow a play not included in the count of 'errors'?
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Oct 31, 2022 23:46:23 GMT -5
Sorry 56+14+1 is still 71. I mistyped. So there is a 5 points scored difference. There is a three point total points difference. That includes all errors by the other team that aren't the result of blocks. Are there 'other' plays not counted in there somewhere? There was a Minnesota point where Orzol was called for bring under the net; is that somehow a play not included in the count of 'errors'? Minnesota had 88 total points. 71 of those were earned through kills (56), blocks (14) or service aces (1) according to sidearm. They also scored from 24 UW hitting errors, 14 of which were assigned to gopher blocks, so 10 non-block errors in total. UW had 5 SEs. That amounts to 71+ 10 + 5 = 86 points. That doesn't match the 88 total points.
Not sure why the discrepancy exists. UW had 4 blocking errors, but normally those are treated as kills by the opposite team. BHEs are listed as 0 by both sides, but I could swear I could remember at least one. I don't remember any rotation errors and I'm not sure how they are included typically anyway. Illegal BR attack errors are treated as attack errors I believe. Total blocks are calculated as 2xBA+1xBS so triple blocks could inflate the gopher number, but then you have the problem of reducing the points scored proportionately, so that doesn't solve the problem. Anyway, all this is off the point. The problem was how to explain that UW won hitting 20 points lower over the course of the match. My initial answer was the difference in the number of attacks, but that is a little wrong in retrospect. The badgers hit at a higher percentage in every set they won AND they had more attack attempts in every set, with a 15+ difference in the 2nd alone. The latter was true in the 3rd as well (+8 differential), but they were badly outhit 0.075 to 0.312 in that set that concluded with 17-8 gopher run that started with three badger errors and snowballed from there.
|
|
|
Post by madden55 on Nov 1, 2022 1:51:56 GMT -5
Orzol and Franklin were not very terminal this match and Robinson and smrek and Crawford didn’t even hit *that* well and Wisconsin still won. Hm
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Nov 1, 2022 10:28:47 GMT -5
Are there 'other' plays not counted in there somewhere? There was a Minnesota point where Orzol was called for bring under the net; is that somehow a play not included in the count of 'errors'? Minnesota had 88 total points. 71 of those were earned through kills (56), blocks (14) or service aces (1) according to sidearm. They also scored from 24 UW hitting errors, 14 of which were assigned to gopher blocks, so 10 non-block errors in total. UW had 5 SEs. That amounts to 71+ 10 + 5 = 86 points. That doesn't match the 88 total points.
Not sure why the discrepancy exists. UW had 4 blocking errors, but normally those are treated as kills by the opposite team. BHEs are listed as 0 by both sides, but I could swear I could remember at least one. I don't remember any rotation errors and I'm not sure how they are included typically anyway. Illegal BR attack errors are treated as attack errors I believe. Total blocks are calculated as 2xBA+1xBS so triple blocks could inflate the gopher number, but then you have the problem of reducing the points scored proportionately, so that doesn't solve the problem. Anyway, all this is off the point. The problem was how to explain that UW won hitting 20 points lower over the course of the match. My initial answer was the difference in the number of attacks, but that is a little wrong in retrospect. The badgers hit at a higher percentage in every set they won AND they had more attack attempts in every set, with a 15+ difference in the 2nd alone. The latter was true in the 3rd as well (+8 differential), but they were badly outhit 0.075 to 0.312 in that set that concluded with 17-8 gopher run that started with three badger errors and snowballed from there. I went through the 'play-by-play' making "hash marks" for the various categories. In the second and third sets, there is one "bad set" (by Bramschreiber in the 2nd and Izzy in the 3rd) that do not appear to be included in the 'error' category. (A normal attack error might read "Attack error by Orzol (from Ashburn)". Orzol under the net is curiously listed as "Atack error by Orzol (from Orzol)". Okay... )
|
|