Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 6:10:52 GMT -5
Thanks very much for the work and an excellent presentation. I'm really glad you like it. I was a little concerned that this thread was going to become tiring to some; inundating them with too many numbers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 6:28:53 GMT -5
I also found a nice article about what stats matter most in VB matches. Here is the relevant info from the Volleyballanalytics.net website: When volleyball coaches were asked which statistics were most important for success on the court, the responses included hitting efficiency, kill percentage, sideout percentage, point-scoring percentage, total combined errors, and points scored per game.I'm imagining that number crunching folks have looked at these metrics for a lot of teams over the years and determined those that these have the highest correlation for successful teams. It might be interesting to know if the import of certain statistics changed when the rally scoring change occurred, but I'm sure most coaches and a few fans know already. I don't, but as I said, I appreciate your work and presentation. I learned a lot. You bring up a very good point about how the metrics have changed from the sideout-scoring era to the rally-scoring era. I have been thinking a lot about that actually, but I haven't done any number crunching as it has no bearing on the present day game. However, I was thinking how much differently coaches had to look at the game. Not only from a strategy standpoint but also in regards to the type of players they wanted to recruit. It seems to me that the serve was paramount during the sideout era. You had to serve well in order to score points back then for your team, teams would not receive a point unless they were serving. If the opponent was serving and your team got a kill, then you get the serve back but no point. Also, I assume that blocking was a big part of scoring as was the ability to dig balls. Of course, I was not following VB back then, so really, my knowledge is limited to what I've seen in old VB matches. I found an ESPNW article from Dec 23, 2013 where Russ Rose talked about this issue. The program did hit a bit of a lull after the college game changed to rally scoring for the 2001 season. With no more siding out needed to score points, the dynamics of the sport and the athletes playing it changed some. Rose acknowledges he didn't alter his recruiting philosophy as quickly as he needed to in order to adjust to the changes. "When we went to rally scoring, I was a little late to the party on being stubborn about it," Rose said, explaining he kept preferring the smaller, more versatile players instead of the bigger kids who might not have all-around skills, but did have the size and strength to rack up points. He had to find the happy medium of bringing in various types of players who could complement each other.
|
|
|
Post by psumaui on Nov 5, 2015 13:59:56 GMT -5
I'm imagining that number crunching folks have looked at these metrics for a lot of teams over the years and determined those that these have the highest correlation for successful teams. It might be interesting to know if the import of certain statistics changed when the rally scoring change occurred, but I'm sure most coaches and a few fans know already. I don't, but as I said, I appreciate your work and presentation. I learned a lot. You bring up a very good point about how the metrics have changed from the sideout-scoring era to the rally-scoring era. I have been thinking a lot about that actually, but I haven't done any number crunching as it has no bearing on the present day game. However, I was thinking how much differently coaches had to look at the game. Not only from a strategy standpoint but also in regards to the type of players they wanted to recruit. It seems to me that the serve was paramount during the sideout era. You had to serve well in order to score points back then for your team, teams would not receive a point unless they were serving. If the opponent was serving and your team got a kill, then you get the serve back but no point. Also, I assume that blocking was a big part of scoring as was the ability to dig balls. Of course, I was not following VB back then, so really, my knowledge is limited to what I've seen in old VB matches. I found an ESPNW article from Dec 23, 2013 where Russ Rose talked about this issue. The program did hit a bit of a lull after the college game changed to rally scoring for the 2001 season. With no more siding out needed to score points, the dynamics of the sport and the athletes playing it changed some. Rose acknowledges he didn't alter his recruiting philosophy as quickly as he needed to in order to adjust to the changes. "When we went to rally scoring, I was a little late to the party on being stubborn about it," Rose said, explaining he kept preferring the smaller, more versatile players instead of the bigger kids who might not have all-around skills, but did have the size and strength to rack up points. He had to find the happy medium of bringing in various types of players who could complement each other.I remember when he said that. His old philosophy was to get the best players at each position that he could get(not necessarily tall players) and that worked in the old side out system but when they went to rally scoring that type of player wasn't working out so after he realized this he started recruiting bigger players that weren't always the best players but the best for the new scoring system. Another one of his ways of recruiting that you can't get in a stat is that he recruits "characters", meaning rough around the edges personality wise, and players that will be cohesive teammates and not individuals. One of the best "characters" I can think of was Christa Harmoto. He always talked about how crazy she was. Micha is another. Would that I were a fly on the wall when Russ hit her with his sarcastic way when she didn't do something right. She was a firecracker but Russ used that to his advantage and she realized he was always on her because he knew she had it in her to be an awesome setter/player. She turned her frustrations with him into focused determination (their love/hate relationship) to beat her opponents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 14:36:57 GMT -5
You bring up a very good point about how the metrics have changed from the sideout-scoring era to the rally-scoring era. I have been thinking a lot about that actually, but I haven't done any number crunching as it has no bearing on the present day game. However, I was thinking how much differently coaches had to look at the game. Not only from a strategy standpoint but also in regards to the type of players they wanted to recruit. It seems to me that the serve was paramount during the sideout era. You had to serve well in order to score points back then for your team, teams would not receive a point unless they were serving. If the opponent was serving and your team got a kill, then you get the serve back but no point. Also, I assume that blocking was a big part of scoring as was the ability to dig balls. Of course, I was not following VB back then, so really, my knowledge is limited to what I've seen in old VB matches. I found an ESPNW article from Dec 23, 2013 where Russ Rose talked about this issue. The program did hit a bit of a lull after the college game changed to rally scoring for the 2001 season. With no more siding out needed to score points, the dynamics of the sport and the athletes playing it changed some. Rose acknowledges he didn't alter his recruiting philosophy as quickly as he needed to in order to adjust to the changes. "When we went to rally scoring, I was a little late to the party on being stubborn about it," Rose said, explaining he kept preferring the smaller, more versatile players instead of the bigger kids who might not have all-around skills, but did have the size and strength to rack up points. He had to find the happy medium of bringing in various types of players who could complement each other.I remember when he said that. His old philosophy was to get the best players at each position that he could get(not necessarily tall players) and that worked in the old side out system but when they went to rally scoring that type of player wasn't working out so after he realized this he started recruiting bigger players that weren't always the best players but the best for the new scoring system. Another one of his ways of recruiting that you can't get in a stat is that he recruits "characters", meaning rough around the edges personality wise, and players that will be cohesive teammates and not individuals. One of the best "characters" I can think of was Christa Harmotto. He always talked about how crazy she was. Micha is another. Would that I were a fly on the wall when Russ hit her with his sarcastic way when she didn't do something right. She was a firecracker but Russ used that to his advantage and she realized he was always on her because he knew she had it in her to be an awesome setter/player. She turned her frustrations with him into focused determination (their love/hate relationship) to beat her opponents. Interesting take. I really like hearing about the intangibles, they say a lot more than the stats "on paper" tell you. I'm surprised about Harmotto though. I never heard that about her; she seems like a quiet person. I read an article somewhere where she said she wanted to be coached by Russ Rose for life, which is a great complement for Russ. I too would have really liked to hear those timeout "discussions" between Micha and Russ. She sure did bring some "nasty" to her game. Seems like she was shooting fire out of her eyes at times, you almost felt sorry for the other team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2015 16:41:51 GMT -5
As promised, I put together a chart of the current year's more significant stats vs previous year national championship teams. My reasoning is to have a better understanding of the current team's strengths and weaknesses and a more realistic expectation of their performance in future games. I've included the differential (my main focus) for each statistical category between PSU and their opponents. This way I can get a better handle on how PSU's offense AND defense are doing. As you can see, this year's team most closely resembles the 2010 national championship team, although the current team is a little behind in some categories, namely, the hitting % differential and the digs/set differential. The aces/set and blocking/set differential seem to wash out. The most concerning stat, however, is the serve reception % differential. It's at a paltry .006 vs last year's .056. The 2010 team was at .014, so not much better than this year. PSU's serve receive is OK "on paper" but they need to serve tougher. Click on the graphic below to open a larger viewable version. Please let me know if you spot any errors. Thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2015 17:21:56 GMT -5
I have updated the sideout chart to include the 2 most recent games. Again, if you win the sideout battle in a game/set, you win that game/set. Coach Rose said his team is built on being able to sideout efficiently. Karch mentioned that a good sideout % is somewhere around 65%, which Penn State has been achieving this season. Again, 4 of the matches PSU played this year (highlighted) did not provide the sideout stats. The NWU and WI matches are the most significant of the missing matches, however, since one was a loss and the other a win, I figure they cancel each other out. The other 2 missing matches (i.e., Notre Dame and E. Kentucky) were wins against weaker opponents so the stats I'm providing are conservative, if anything. Based on this chart, PSU is siding out at 67% vs 51% for ALL opponents. For Big10 & Pac12 opponents PSU is siding out at 65% vs 53%. For conference-only matches PSU is siding out at 64% vs 52%. Click on the graphic below to open a larger viewable version. Please let me know if you spot any errors. Thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2015 17:51:40 GMT -5
I love looking at comparisons like this. Thanks for doing all the work. I have a clue what you've been through.
From a looking at stats and comparisons standpoint, comparing this team to 2011 might give you a good match. It was the first year for a 4-year setter which is what I believe we have presently. That year, PSU was hitting in the .260s by the season's end. Their hitting percentage and the numbers of wins suggests that this team is better. I am disappointed by the number of aces the 2015 team allows--not so much for what the aces themselves indicate, but how that statistic is a pretty good indicator of overall service receive. I believe Rose has said that serve receive and passing are keys to the game. Like you, I don't think this year's team is quite "there." If you really want to get in the weeds, or if someone else would, if would be interesting to graph hitting percentage over time. As we're all aware, they've been hitting over .300 the last few games.
Half the battle against Minnesota will be played in both teams' heads before they take the court. Since 2010 (not including), PSU has done very well on Minnesota's home court. Let's hope that expectation figures prominently in Minnesota's Friday night dreams.
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Nov 7, 2015 19:49:31 GMT -5
I have updated the sideout chart to include the 2 most recent games. Again, if you win the sideout battle in a match you win the match. Coach Rose said his team is built on being able to sideout efficiently. Karch mentioned that a good sideout % is somewhere around 65%, which Penn State has been achieving this season. Again, 4 of the matches PSU played this year (highlighted) did not provide the sideout stats. The NWU and WI matches are the most significant of the missing matches, however, since one was a loss and the other a win, I figure they cancel each other out. The other 2 missing matches (i.e., Notre Dame and E. Kentucky) were wins against weaker opponents so the stats I'm providing are conservative, if anything. Based on this chart, PSU is siding out at 67% vs 51% for ALL opponents. For Big10 & Pac12 opponents PSU is siding out at 65% vs 53%. For conference-only matches PSU is siding out at 64% vs 52%. Click on the graphic below to open a larger viewable version. Please let me know if you spot any errors. Thank you. If it's OK with you, I'll put this on DigNittany. Let me know (with attribution).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2015 20:43:33 GMT -5
I have updated the sideout chart to include the 2 most recent games. Again, if you win the sideout battle in a game/set, you win that game/set. Coach Rose said his team is built on being able to sideout efficiently. Karch mentioned that a good sideout % is somewhere around 65%, which Penn State has been achieving this season. Again, 4 of the matches PSU played this year (highlighted) did not provide the sideout stats. The NWU and WI matches are the most significant of the missing matches, however, since one was a loss and the other a win, I figure they cancel each other out. The other 2 missing matches (i.e., Notre Dame and E. Kentucky) were wins against weaker opponents so the stats I'm providing are conservative, if anything. Based on this chart, PSU is siding out at 67% vs 51% for ALL opponents. For Big10 & Pac12 opponents PSU is siding out at 65% vs 53%. For conference-only matches PSU is siding out at 64% vs 52%. Click on the graphic below to open a larger viewable version. Please let me know if you spot any errors. Thank you. If it's OK with you, I'll put this on DigNittany. Let me know (with attribution). Yes, of course.
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Nov 8, 2015 11:16:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by psumaui on Nov 8, 2015 12:33:55 GMT -5
Here you can follow (unofficial) the RPI on a daily basis with a couple of different types of RPI based on different factors. HOME/AWAY MODIFIED; UNMODIFIED; UNMODIFIED WITH EXPERIMENTAL BONUSES. NOTE: Click on the teams name to find more information. Daily RPI Updates
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2015 13:30:24 GMT -5
Excellent presentation on DigNittany. You make us look so good! It goes without saying that 8M is really putting some great data together. I wonder if you could entice him to look at Final Four teams' service aces--in the 1990s.
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Nov 8, 2015 13:34:13 GMT -5
Here you can follow (unofficial) the RPI on a daily basis with a couple of different types of RPI based on different factors. HOME/AWAY MODIFIED; UNMODIFIED; UNMODIFIED WITH EXPERIMENTAL BONUSES. NOTE: Click on the teams name to find more information. Daily RPI UpdatesThat's very cool. Thanks. I'm glad they include sets won and lost. We're doing very well on that stat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2015 17:27:54 GMT -5
I'm sure you've already noticed the latest rankings. However, do you realize how the tourney would look for Penn State if the season ended today? See below.
The RPI Ranking dated 11-09-15 shows these top 16 teams: 1) Minnesota (surprise, surprise!) 2) USC 3) Texas 4) Florida 5) Penn St. 6) Kansas 7) Washington (really?) 8) Nebraska 9) Wisconsin 10) UCLA 11) Ohio St. 12) Stanford 13) Kentucky 14) Iowa St. 15) Missouri 16) Texas A&M
If the season ended today, the tourney would look like this (not much inter-conference play):
SAN DIEGO: USC vs Missouri and Washington vs UCLA (3 teams from Pac12 play each other in this region) LEXINGTON: Florida vs Kentucky and Penn State vs Stanford (Boo!)
AUSTIN: Texas vs Iowa St. and Kansas vs Ohio St. (3 teams from Big12 play each other in this region) DES MOINES: Minnesota vs Texas A&M and Nebraska vs Wisconsin (3 teams from Big10 play each other in this region)
Please let me know if you spot any errors.
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Nov 9, 2015 18:14:34 GMT -5
I'm sure you've already noticed the latest rankings. However, do you realize how the tourney would look for Penn State if the season ended today? See below. The RPI Ranking dated 11-09-15 shows these top 16 teams: 1) Minnesota (surprise, surprise!) 2) USC 3) Texas 4) Florida 5) Penn St. 6) Kansas 7) Washington (really?) 8) Nebraska 9) Wisconsin 10) UCLA 11) Ohio St. 12) Stanford 13) Kentucky 14) Iowa St. 15) Missouri 16) Texas A&MIf the season ended today, the tourney would look like this (not much inter-conference play): SAN DIEGO: USC vs Missouri and Washington vs UCLA (3 teams from Pac12 play each other in this region) LEXINGTON: Florida vs Kentucky and Penn State vs Stanford (Boo!)
AUSTIN: Texas vs Iowa St. and Kansas vs Ohio St. (3 teams from Big12 play each other in this region) DES MOINES: Minnesota vs Texas A&M and Nebraska vs Wisconsin (3 teams from Big10 play each other in this region)
Please let me know if you spot any errors. I think the AVCA adopted a rule that Penn State must play either Wisconsin or Stanford in every NCAA tournament.
|
|