|
|
Post by noblesol on Feb 11, 2024 15:39:09 GMT -5
Okay so Rottman makes 5 points per set. What were the point deficits again? If the games were all 2 point deficits, then sure but again, 10, 13, and 18 point deficits clearly show one more player would not have made a difference. I’m not saying Will is not a great player. I’m saying it doesn’t matter who else is on the court if the rest of the team falls apart at the seams once they run into a challenge like Hawaii provided. There were a TON of very hittable sets (I’d argue Stanford’s setter is the best player on their team with how he played) but Stanford’s 5th year senior hitters were making a ton of errors because Hawai’i gave them a challenge You're completely right about what actually happened lol W. Rottman playing the match is hypothetical, of course But please, humor me Do you think Hawaii wins the close sets that led up to those blowouts sets if he plays? Do you think the Stanford players that sprayed balls wide and long get those attempts if W. Rottman plays? Historically, going back to 2020 when he was a freshman, W. Rottman played five matches against Hawai'i teams, for a total of 16 sets. Two matches at Hawai'i (3-0 and 3-0 Hawai'i), one neutral court match (3-1 Hawai'i), and two at Stanford (Burnham and Maples, both 3-0 Hawai'i). He hasn't historically been a big difference maker for Stanford vs. Hawai'i matches. Usually their best player on the court, but not enough to move the match or set needle. This season, in two matches vs. Loyola Chicago, played total of 8 sets w/total of 28 kills, 3.5 kps and .442 avg. The highest ranked team he's played against this year is Penn St. He had 9 kills in three sets, 3 kps and .308 avg. Based on hx and my gut, W. Rottman would have helped Stanford against Hawai'i, likely contributing ~ 3 to 3.5 kps. Stanford may have been ~ 1 to 1.5 kps better. When Stanford was in system, they didn't look like they missed W. Rottman. When Hawai'i service pressure and blocking took them out of system, there was a big advantage swing to Hawai'i. W. Rottman might have helped there, but not enough to overcome the total team meltdowns. |
|
|
|
Post by VT Karen on Feb 11, 2024 16:39:58 GMT -5
You're completely right about what actually happened lol W. Rottman playing the match is hypothetical, of course But please, humor me Do you think Hawaii wins the close sets that led up to those blowouts sets if he plays? Do you think the Stanford players that sprayed balls wide and long get those attempts if W. Rottman plays? Historically, going back to 2020 when he was a freshman, W. Rottman played five matches against Hawai'i teams, for a total of 16 sets. Two matches at Hawai'i (3-0 and 3-0 Hawai'i), one neutral court match (3-1 Hawai'i), and two at Stanford (Burnham and Maples, both 3-0 Hawai'i). He hasn't historically been a big difference maker for Stanford vs. Hawai'i matches. Usually their best player on the court, but not enough to move the match or set needle. This season, in two matches vs. Loyola Chicago, played total of 8 sets w/total of 28 kills, 3.5 kps and .442 avg. The highest ranked team he's played against this year is Penn St. He had 9 kills in three sets, 3 kps and .308 avg. Based on hx and my gut, W. Rottman would have helped Stanford against Hawai'i, likely contributing ~ 3 to 3.5 kps. Stanford may have been ~ 1 to 1.5 kps better. When Stanford was in system, they didn't look like they missed W. Rottman. When Hawai'i service pressure and blocking took them out of system, there was a big advantage swing to Hawai'i. W. Rottman might have helped there, but not enough to overcome the total team meltdowns. Would they have had that many meltdowns with their best player or would they have won those closer sets with their star? The actual answer is we'll never know. We can deduce using what we do know (statistics etc) and your "gut" but having your top scorer has intangible effects that go past the scoreboard. I'm not saying that Hawaii would have definitively lost the match or even those tight sets nor am I saying Hawaii wouldn't have been able to handle W. Rottman but you have to wonder what could have been IF he is brought up. And of course they looked like they didn't look like they missed him when they were in system lol but how often was that as the matches wore on? Does that change the fact that they were without their best attacker? With the exception of set 2 on night 1, every blowout set Hawaii enjoyed followed a close win in the set beforehand. Yes, Hawaii's service pressure was fabulous, especially in those later sets when they gained momentum after winning close sets beforehand. The Cardinal were very close to going up 2-1 on night one without W. Rottman so I think it's pretty logical to say they had a great chance to do so with him. To say that W. Rottman wouldn't have made a difference is complete nonsense and using the extreme (the blowout sets), that still featured a W. Rottman-less Stanford team, as the measuring stick doesn't account for the psychological effect and overall impact on team morale that losing your best player has on a team, especially on the road. For me personally and call me old fashioned, but as an athlete it kinda stinks beating up on a team who is without its best player when you're at home enjoying a double advantage. Regardless, I'm not downing a Hawaii win because the Bows executed and looked gradually better as the series went on. Maybe we see these teams play down the line and at full strength? |
|
|
|
Post by soljah808 on Feb 11, 2024 16:48:53 GMT -5
With Will Rottman, Stanford would have been better. Would they have won....no one knows that for sure. But I'd have to say Hawaii was prepared with or without him on that court. And tbh, that's all that matters at this current point.
I think majority of the non coo coo birds wish him a speedy recovery and hopes he can rejoin his squad soon.
But all these hypotheticals and shoulda coulda wouldas on either side of the coin is just that....hypotheticals. We can argue either way....but that doesnt change the outcome. He wasn't on the court, Hawaii took advantage and they swept the series. So we move forward with the season. I wish Stanford all the best this season!
|
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Feb 11, 2024 16:59:36 GMT -5
Historically, going back to 2020 when he was a freshman, W. Rottman played five matches against Hawai'i teams, for a total of 16 sets. Two matches at Hawai'i (3-0 and 3-0 Hawai'i), one neutral court match (3-1 Hawai'i), and two at Stanford (Burnham and Maples, both 3-0 Hawai'i). He hasn't historically been a big difference maker for Stanford vs. Hawai'i matches. Usually their best player on the court, but not enough to move the match or set needle. This season, in two matches vs. Loyola Chicago, played total of 8 sets w/total of 28 kills, 3.5 kps and .442 avg. The highest ranked team he's played against this year is Penn St. He had 9 kills in three sets, 3 kps and .308 avg. Based on hx and my gut, W. Rottman would have helped Stanford against Hawai'i, likely contributing ~ 3 to 3.5 kps. Stanford may have been ~ 1 to 1.5 kps better. When Stanford was in system, they didn't look like they missed W. Rottman. When Hawai'i service pressure and blocking took them out of system, there was a big advantage swing to Hawai'i. W. Rottman might have helped there, but not enough to overcome the total team meltdowns. Would they have had that many meltdowns with their best player or would they have won those closer sets with their star? The actual answer is we'll never know. We can deduce using what we do know (statistics etc) and your "gut" but having your top scorer has intangible effects that go past the scoreboard. I'm not saying that Hawaii would have definitively lost the match or even those tight sets nor am I saying Hawaii wouldn't have been able to handle W. Rottman but you have to wonder what could have been IF he is brought up. And of course they looked like they didn't look like they missed him when they were in system lol but how often was that as the matches wore on? Does that change the fact that they were without their best attacker? With the exception of set 2 on night 1, every blowout set Hawaii enjoyed followed a close win in the set beforehand. Yes, Hawaii's service pressure was fabulous, especially in those later sets when they gained momentum after winning close sets beforehand. The Cardinal were very close to going up 2-1 on night one without W. Rottman so I think it's pretty logical to say they had a great chance to do so with him. To say that W. Rottman wouldn't have made a difference is complete nonsense and using the extreme (the blowout sets), that still featured a W. Rottman-less Stanford team, as the measuring stick doesn't account for the psychological effect and overall impact on team morale that losing your best player has on a team, especially on the road. For me personally and call me old fashioned, but as an athlete it kinda stinks beating up on a team who is without its best player when you're at home enjoying a double advantage. Regardless, I'm not downing a Hawaii win because the Bows executed and looked gradually better as the series went on. Maybe we see these teams play down the line and at full strength? When dealing with hypotheticals, there is a spectrum of possibilities w/probability attached to each. While there is a possibility that Stanford plays much better with W. Rottman in many hypothetical scenarios, each with their own probability, there are also hypotheticals w/scenarios where Stanford would potentially play worse with W. Rottman vs. Hawai'i. For example, what if W. Rottman the hot head shows up? Demands to be set, taunts through the net, turns on his players not playing up to his demands, etc. That W. Rottman exists too, and given history, one has to accept that Hawai'i seems to bring that out of him with some frequency. |
|
|
|
Post by VT Karen on Feb 11, 2024 17:30:59 GMT -5
Would they have had that many meltdowns with their best player or would they have won those closer sets with their star? The actual answer is we'll never know. We can deduce using what we do know (statistics etc) and your "gut" but having your top scorer has intangible effects that go past the scoreboard. I'm not saying that Hawaii would have definitively lost the match or even those tight sets nor am I saying Hawaii wouldn't have been able to handle W. Rottman but you have to wonder what could have been IF he is brought up. And of course they looked like they didn't look like they missed him when they were in system lol but how often was that as the matches wore on? Does that change the fact that they were without their best attacker? With the exception of set 2 on night 1, every blowout set Hawaii enjoyed followed a close win in the set beforehand. Yes, Hawaii's service pressure was fabulous, especially in those later sets when they gained momentum after winning close sets beforehand. The Cardinal were very close to going up 2-1 on night one without W. Rottman so I think it's pretty logical to say they had a great chance to do so with him. To say that W. Rottman wouldn't have made a difference is complete nonsense and using the extreme (the blowout sets), that still featured a W. Rottman-less Stanford team, as the measuring stick doesn't account for the psychological effect and overall impact on team morale that losing your best player has on a team, especially on the road. For me personally and call me old fashioned, but as an athlete it kinda stinks beating up on a team who is without its best player when you're at home enjoying a double advantage. Regardless, I'm not downing a Hawaii win because the Bows executed and looked gradually better as the series went on. Maybe we see these teams play down the line and at full strength? When dealing with hypotheticals, there is a spectrum of possibilities w/probability attached to each. While there is a possibility that Stanford plays much better with W. Rottman in many hypothetical scenarios, each with their own probability, there are also hypotheticals w/scenarios where Stanford would potentially play worse with W. Rottman vs. Hawai'i. For example, what if W. Rottman the hot head shows up? Demands to be set, taunts through the net, turns on his players not playing up to his demands, etc. That W. Rottman exists too, and given history, one has to accept that Hawai'i seems to bring that out of him with some frequency. I completely agree and that's apart of my point. All possibilities exist and W. Rottman is a great player so the possibility of Stanford extending Hawaii further is very possible. To say that he absolutely wouldn't have made a positive difference for his team, based off of the statistics, status on the team and apparent skill as a player is asinine. |
|
|
|
Post by VT Karen on Feb 11, 2024 17:35:45 GMT -5
With Will Rottman, Stanford would have been better. Would they have won....no one knows that for sure. But I'd have to say Hawaii was prepared with or without him on that court. And tbh, that's all that matters at this current point. I think majority of the non coo coo birds wish him a speedy recovery and hopes he can rejoin his squad soon. But all these hypotheticals and shoulda coulda wouldas on either side of the coin is just that....hypotheticals. We can argue either way....but that doesnt change the outcome. He wasn't on the court, Hawaii took advantage and they swept the series. So we move forward with the season. I wish Stanford all the best this season! My argument is with what the original poster said about absence of W. Rottman seemingly being a non-factor. if someone wants to make a hypothetical statement as if it's fact then we need bring it back down and argue it in the realm of hypotheticals where so many possibilities exist. Of course, all of this is moot because Hawaii won but this is a discussion about what could have happened based off of the little information we do have. |
|
|
|
Post by soljah808 on Feb 11, 2024 18:16:34 GMT -5
With Will Rottman, Stanford would have been better. Would they have won....no one knows that for sure. But I'd have to say Hawaii was prepared with or without him on that court. And tbh, that's all that matters at this current point. I think majority of the non coo coo birds wish him a speedy recovery and hopes he can rejoin his squad soon. But all these hypotheticals and shoulda coulda wouldas on either side of the coin is just that....hypotheticals. We can argue either way....but that doesnt change the outcome. He wasn't on the court, Hawaii took advantage and they swept the series. So we move forward with the season. I wish Stanford all the best this season! My argument is with what the original poster said about absence of W. Rottman seemingly being a non-factor. if someone wants to make a hypothetical statement as if it's fact then we need bring it back down and argue it in the realm of hypotheticals where so many possibilities exist. Of course, all of this is moot because Hawaii won but this is a discussion about what could have happened based off of the little information we do have. Understood. So going off of the information we did have....Will did not play. Stanford lost....twice. That's what we know. And that's all we know. |
|
|
|
Post by HawaiiVB on Feb 11, 2024 18:53:30 GMT -5
My argument is with what the original poster said about absence of W. Rottman seemingly being a non-factor. if someone wants to make a hypothetical statement as if it's fact then we need bring it back down and argue it in the realm of hypotheticals where so many possibilities exist. Of course, all of this is moot because Hawaii won but this is a discussion about what could have happened based off of the little information we do have. Understood. So going off of the information we did have....Will did not play. Stanford lost....twice. That's what we know. And that's all we know. I only deal with reality. Not “could have’s”. “What might have been” is a song by Little Texas . No sense supposing a different outcome, losing a set 25-7 regardless of who’s missing is not something you see from a senior/grad student heavy team. |
|
|
|
Post by VT Karen on Feb 11, 2024 19:05:25 GMT -5
My argument is with what the original poster said about absence of W. Rottman seemingly being a non-factor. if someone wants to make a hypothetical statement as if it's fact then we need bring it back down and argue it in the realm of hypotheticals where so many possibilities exist. Of course, all of this is moot because Hawaii won but this is a discussion about what could have happened based off of the little information we do have. Understood. So going off of the information we did have....Will did not play. Stanford lost....twice. That's what we know. And that's all we know. The "little information we do have" was in regards to the hypothetical situation IF W. Rottman did play. noblesol actually offered some great points that contributed to that. If you don't want to discuss hypotheticals, you don't have to you know? But what you shouldn't do is try to shut down honest, good faith discussion on a discussion board no less if you have nothing to contribute to what we're actually exploring. |
|
|
|
Post by VT Karen on Feb 11, 2024 19:09:51 GMT -5
Understood. So going off of the information we did have....Will did not play. Stanford lost....twice. That's what we know. And that's all we know. I only deal with reality. Not “could have’s”. “What might have been” is a song by Little Texas . No sense supposing a different outcome, losing a set 25-7 regardless of who’s missing is not something you see from a senior/grad student heavy team. Okay, bye! 👋 |
|
|
|
Post by goblin on Feb 11, 2024 21:08:49 GMT -5
Will Rottman or no Will Rottman, We would have given anyone fits from the service line...that truly was an amazing display of serving on both nights and it pretty much derailed Stanford's offense especially on night 2. If we serve that way in our remaining matches we should be more than fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by VT Karen on Feb 11, 2024 21:13:03 GMT -5
Will Rottman or no Will Rottman, We would have given anyone fits from the service line...that truly was an amazing display of serving on both nights and it pretty much derailed Stanford's offense especially on night 2. If we serve that way in our remaining matches we should be more than fine. Yes, the serving was fantastic! |
|
|
|
Post by soljah808 on Feb 11, 2024 21:25:15 GMT -5
Understood. So going off of the information we did have....Will did not play. Stanford lost....twice. That's what we know. And that's all we know. The "little information we do have" was in regards to the hypothetical situation IF W. Rottman did play. noblesol actually offered some great points that contributed to that. If you don't want to discuss hypotheticals, you don't have to you know? But what you shouldn't do is try to shut down honest, good faith discussion on a discussion board no less if you have nothing to contribute to what we're actually exploring. I'm not shutting anything down. I'm offering my opinion just like you are. You may not like that or how I come off...but I also have the equal right to partake and discuss like everyone else here. You speak in hypotheticals....and I'm simply speaking in the here and now and what actually happened. Not what I think happened, could have happened or might have happened. I'm simply speaking about what actually happened. Lol That's all. I actually agree with you that Will Rottman would have made a difference. But not as much of a difference to change the eventual outcome of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by VT Karen on Feb 11, 2024 21:32:01 GMT -5
The "little information we do have" was in regards to the hypothetical situation IF W. Rottman did play. noblesol actually offered some great points that contributed to that. If you don't want to discuss hypotheticals, you don't have to you know? But what you shouldn't do is try to shut down honest, good faith discussion on a discussion board no less if you have nothing to contribute to what we're actually exploring. I'm not shutting anything down. I'm offering my opinion just like you are. You may not like that or how I come off...but I also have the equal right to partake and discuss like everyone else here. You speak in hypotheticals....and I'm simply speaking in the here and now and what actually happened. Not what I think happened, may could have happened or might have happened. I don't know how you come off because we aren't face to face if you're not explicitly attacking. I don't speak in hypotheticals off on my own and prefer to just give actual information based off of my knowledge of the game and to read it. I only carried it on in a hypothetical manner since the original poster mentioned something and I offered a differing opinion. You coming in with the "here and now" offers nothing in the context of that conversation which yes, you are entitled to offering nothing if you want lol |
|
|
|
Post by soljah808 on Feb 11, 2024 21:39:30 GMT -5
I'm not shutting anything down. I'm offering my opinion just like you are. You may not like that or how I come off...but I also have the equal right to partake and discuss like everyone else here. You speak in hypotheticals....and I'm simply speaking in the here and now and what actually happened. Not what I think happened, may could have happened or might have happened. I don't know how you come off because we aren't face to face if you're not explicitly attacking. I don't speak in hypotheticals off on my own and prefer to just give actual information based off of my knowledge of the game and to read it. I only carried it on in a hypothetical manner since the original poster mentioned something and I offered a differing opinion. You coming in with the "here and now" offers nothing in the context of that conversation which yes, you are entitled to offering nothing if you want lol Well here is my offer to the conversation....Will Rottman would have made a difference but not as big a difference as you hypothetically seem to endlessly suggest. Thanks. Lol |
|
