|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 8, 2024 13:50:22 GMT -5
the highest ace per set getter in the country isn’t even on there bc of her error rate so he’s probably attributing error rate WAYYYY too much, considering what side out rates are anyways If I'm interpreting his chart correctly, I disagree with your on the error rate. His ranking is based on expected points per attempt above the D1 average. It appears he has 3 or 4 data columns that go into the calculation. The four columns are ace rate, error rate, good pass %, and passer rating. It is logical to assume ace rate and error rate are included as those are definite results. I don't know if you uses a combination of good pass % and passer rating to determine the value for the remainder of the serves, or just uses one of them. Since the rating is based on points, I would find it odd if he used anything other than +1 for an ace and -1 for an error. For the other serves, I'm going to assume he uses standard point values based on the rates in one or both of the other rates. I'm thinking standard values because it's labeled expected and not actual and those are likely based on average D1 results. If you think the ratings are off, I would guess it is due for the values used in this part of the calculation, not the error rate.
|
|
|
Post by mln59 on Oct 8, 2024 13:58:01 GMT -5
Texas wbb season ticket arrived today. i'm close enough to the court that the refs can't not hear me. i am super helpful
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 8, 2024 13:59:46 GMT -5
Ive never been a fan of his stats. He does not make them very easy to understand, and it seems VERY data driven, but to the point where its attributing certain things more (like you said), without looking at the bigger picture/contex Appreciate what they do, I just dont think its a very accurate way of telling whos better at what etc agreed it’s just funny bc Schnitta was way too high on the opposites list BECAUSE of her serve, but then her serve isn’t even included on the best serves list. like which is it!? I don't understand why you don't think both can't exist. If the average opposite doesn't serve as well as the average player at some of the other positions, then a top serving opposite could have a significant advantage over other opposites, but still not serve well enough to be among the top servers overall. One thing you have to guess used to seeing in analytics is that they often don't agree with your opinions that are a bit more subjective. This is especially true for college analytics since they typically includes all D1 teams so you have a wide disparity in the strength of opponents for each player. Also I've always tended to discount relative rankings and focus more on the % differential in results. College rankings tend to have big clusters of players or teams where the difference in results is almost negligible.
|
|
|
Post by widdledumpling on Oct 8, 2024 14:18:40 GMT -5
Rewatching. Man, looking back SKT was SUCH a good setter for us. She was slicing and dicing, getting our hitters 1-on-1s in good positions.
Also who did the commentary for this match? I'm always struck by how excellent they were, especially the color commentator.
|
|
|
Post by uofaGRAD on Oct 8, 2024 14:34:54 GMT -5
Rewatching. Man, looking back SKT was SUCH a good setter for us. She was slicing and dicing, getting our hitters 1-on-1s in good positions. that's really my queen like...
|
|
|
Post by uofaGRAD on Oct 8, 2024 14:39:44 GMT -5
the highest ace per set getter in the country isn’t even on there bc of her error rate so he’s probably attributing error rate WAYYYY too much, considering what side out rates are anyways If I'm interpreting his chart correctly, I disagree with your on the error rate. His ranking is based on expected points per attempt above the D1 average. It appears he has 3 or 4 data columns that go into the calculation. The four columns are ace rate, error rate, good pass %, and passer rating. It is logical to assume ace rate and error rate are included as those are definite results. I don't know if you uses a combination of good pass % and passer rating to determine the value for the remainder of the serves, or just uses one of them. Since the rating is based on points, I would find it odd if he used anything other than +1 for an ace and -1 for an error. For the other serves, I'm going to assume he uses standard point values based on the rates in one or both of the other rates. I'm thinking standard values because it's labeled expected and not actual and those are likely based on average D1 results. If you think the ratings are off, I would guess it is due for the values used in this part of the calculation, not the error rate. Samantha Schnitta is averaging 0.91 aces per set, higher than everyone in the entire country. i just dont know how she wouldnt show up on the list unless error rate was probably a bit overweighted. teams are passing a 1.20 against her serve, compared to a 1.27 against Babcock's. BUT Schnitta's error rate is 5% higher than Babcock's. that's the only big difference and that 5% is the difference from being #2 or being completely off the list lol
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 8, 2024 14:56:37 GMT -5
If I'm interpreting his chart correctly, I disagree with your on the error rate. His ranking is based on expected points per attempt above the D1 average. It appears he has 3 or 4 data columns that go into the calculation. The four columns are ace rate, error rate, good pass %, and passer rating. It is logical to assume ace rate and error rate are included as those are definite results. I don't know if you uses a combination of good pass % and passer rating to determine the value for the remainder of the serves, or just uses one of them. Since the rating is based on points, I would find it odd if he used anything other than +1 for an ace and -1 for an error. For the other serves, I'm going to assume he uses standard point values based on the rates in one or both of the other rates. I'm thinking standard values because it's labeled expected and not actual and those are likely based on average D1 results. If you think the ratings are off, I would guess it is due for the values used in this part of the calculation, not the error rate. Samantha Schnitta is averaging 0.91 aces per set, higher than everyone in the entire country. i just dont know how she wouldnt show up on the list unless error rate was probably a bit overweighted. teams are passing a 1.20 against her serve, compared to a 1.27 against Babcock's. BUT Schnitta's error rate is 5% higher than Babcock's. that's the only big difference and that 5% is the difference from being #2 or being completely off the list lol Do you know her exact ace rate (not aces per set) and error rate which are the measurements in the chart?
|
|
|
Post by storyteller on Oct 8, 2024 14:59:57 GMT -5
Rewatching. Man, looking back SKT was SUCH a good setter for us. She was slicing and dicing, getting our hitters 1-on-1s in good positions. Also who did the commentary for this match? I'm always struck by how excellent they were, especially the color commentator. One of my favorite games to rewatch! I think it was an old Stanford coach (Don Shaw?) doing the commentary and some other guy lol. They did a good job talking about the game and not just the season narrative that a lot of commentators like to force.
SKT was so good!! I don't think she got the credit she deserved in 2022.
|
|
|
Post by uofaGRAD on Oct 8, 2024 15:00:25 GMT -5
Samantha Schnitta is averaging 0.91 aces per set, higher than everyone in the entire country. i just dont know how she wouldnt show up on the list unless error rate was probably a bit overweighted. teams are passing a 1.20 against her serve, compared to a 1.27 against Babcock's. BUT Schnitta's error rate is 5% higher than Babcock's. that's the only big difference and that 5% is the difference from being #2 or being completely off the list lol Do you know her exact ace rate (not aces per set) and error rate which are the measurements in the chart? ace rate is 22.9% and error rate is that 5% higher sitting at 23.9%
|
|
|
Post by uofaGRAD on Oct 8, 2024 15:01:34 GMT -5
Rewatching. Man, looking back SKT was SUCH a good setter for us. She was slicing and dicing, getting our hitters 1-on-1s in good positions. Also who did the commentary for this match? I'm always struck by how excellent they were, especially the color commentator. One of my favorite games to rewatch! I think it was an old Stanford coach (Don Shaw?) doing the commentary and some other guy lol. They did a good job talking about the game and not just the season narrative that a lot of commentators like to force.
SKT was so good!! I don't think she got the credit she deserved in 2022. no she was literally getting dragged half the time in 2022 because when i tell you i racked up like 3 levels of "experience" on here defending her LOL
|
|
|
Post by madithekuntress on Oct 8, 2024 15:53:23 GMT -5
Rewatching. Man, looking back SKT was SUCH a good setter for us. She was slicing and dicing, getting our hitters 1-on-1s in good positions. Also who did the commentary for this match? I'm always struck by how excellent they were, especially the color commentator. One of my favorite games to rewatch! I think it was an old Stanford coach (Don Shaw?) doing the commentary and some other guy lol. They did a good job talking about the game and not just the season narrative that a lot of commentators like to force.
SKT was so good!! I don't think she got the credit she deserved in 2022. i remember loving the commentary but one of the announcers sounded like he was doing ASMR or something 😭 if you listen with headphones, he's always opening and closing his mouth LOL
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 8, 2024 16:03:19 GMT -5
Do you know her exact ace rate (not aces per set) and error rate which are the measurements in the chart? ace rate is 22.9% and error rate is that 5% higher sitting at 23.9% I would conjecture that the high error rate for her does negatively impact her expected effectiveness more than you are expecting for the ranking on this list. 5% is 5 more errors out of 100 serves which seems very significant to me.
|
|
|
Post by katn on Oct 8, 2024 16:17:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Oct 8, 2024 18:31:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by basil on Oct 8, 2024 19:19:43 GMT -5
passing stats from Florida:
Texas: 1.89 on 46 attempts as a team Wenaas: 31 attempts, 45.2% good pass, 1.87 rating Halter: 7 attempts, 57.1% good pass, 2.29 rating Skinner: 5 attempts, 40% good pass, 1.80 rating Akana: 2 attempts, 50% good pass, 2.00 rating
|
|