I've put together a bunch of statistics on last weekend's opening two rounds of play in the NCAA Division I women's volleyball tournament. Forty-eight matches were played (32 in the first round and 16 in the second), comprising roughly three-fourths of the tournament's total matches (63 are played, in all).
In these 48 matches, 179 total games (sets) were played. The type of result (i.e., sweeps, four- and five-game matches) broke down as follows:
3-0: 24
3-1: 13
3-2: 11
The closeness of many matches is illustrated by looking more closely at the five-game tilts. Five were decided by the minimum two points, another three were decided by the score of 15-12, and only three were decided by 5 or more points.
Regular readers of this site know that I consider hitting percentage to be a very important statistic. For each of the 179 individual games played over the first weekend, I examined each team's hitting percentage in relation to who won the game. In only 19 games (11%) did the lower-hitting team win the game.
The following chart shows the relationship between the margin by which the higher hitting team in a game outhit the lower hitting team (horizontal axis) and the probability of the higher hitting team winning the game (vertical axis).
Starting at the left, when a team outhit its opponent by a very small amount (.001-.049), it had about a 62% chance of winning the game (16/26, which is not significantly above a 50/50 chance probability). If a team outhit its opponent by a somewhat larger margin (.050-.099), it had a 78% chance of winning the game (25/32, which is significantly beyond chance).
The remaining bars in the graph tell us that, if one team's hitting percentage in a game is greater than its opponent's by .100 or more, the higher-hitting team was virtually certain to win the game. In fact, from this point onward, there were only two cases (out of 121 possible) where a team outhit its opponent and lost.
One of these instances occurred in Game 1 of the Illinois-Cincinnati match in the second round. Cincinnati recorded the better hitting percentage (.294 vs. .189, a difference of .105), but Illinois prevailed 26-24.
An even more extreme anomaly occurred in Game 3 of the second-round match between Florida and Colorado State. The Gators were victorious, 25-23, despite being outhit by the substantial margin of .226 (UF .107, CSU .333). For this one, I had to see what happened, so I consulted the online play-by-play sheet. The apparent reason why the Rams lost this game despite a hefty hitting advantage is that they made EIGHT service errors.
I also looked at some miscellaneous hitting statistics. Two teams stood out as super-consistent in particular matches, their game-to-game hitting percentages staying within a band of .100 percentage points throughout five games.
In a first-round win over San Francisco, Duke recorded the following hitting percentages in the five games: .255, .243, .243, .182, and .273 (box score).
Also in the opening round, Purdue hit for the following percentages in defeating Louisville: .333, .290, .333, .321, and .294 (box score).
I hope these statistics will give you something to think about as you await the next round, beginning Friday.
Texas Tech professor Alan Reifman uses statistics and graphic arts to illuminate developments in U.S. collegiate and Olympic volleyball.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Semi-Retirement of VolleyMetrics Blog
With all of the NCAA volleyball championships of the 2023-24 academic year having been completed -- Texas sweeping Nebraska last December t...
-
Two years ago, I created a very simple prediction equation for the NCAA women's tournament. Each team gets its own value on the predicti...
-
I was invited once again this year to vote for the Off the Block men's collegiate volleyball awards . The number of awards has increased...
-
With this year's NCAA women's Final Four getting underway Thursday night in Seattle, today's posting offers some statistical obs...
1 comment:
The serving and receiving battle has a larger correlation with winning than hitting percentage.
Post a Comment