Skip to main content

Texas Tech Coaches Share Team's Internal Statistics

I am pleased to announce a major new development here at VolleyMetrics, involving a faculty-athletics collaboration at Texas Tech University. Head Coach Don Flora and Assistant Coach Jojit Coronel have agreed to share with me the team's internal statistical data, which are recorded with Data Volley software.

Today, I will present my first statistical analysis of these data. At this point, the Red Raiders have completed roughly half of their non-conference schedule, compiling a perfect 8-0 record thus far. On Tuesday, the Raider coaches sent me a batch of printouts. Each printout covers one match. I see one of my roles, therefore, as testing for trends across multiple matches. Although each printout contains information on Texas Tech and the team's opponent, I am only using data on the Red Raiders today.

For starters, I will examine the side-out rates and points won on serve for each of Texas Tech's six rotations on the court, to see if there are any noteworthy statistical patterns after eight matches. In Rotations 1, 2, and 3, the setter is in the back row (right, center, and left), giving the team three hitters up front. When the setter is in the front row (Rotations 4, 5, and 6), the team only has two hitters. Having three available hitters presumably is more advantageous than having two, in terms of offensive options and greater potential to keep the blockers guessing. Coach Coronel suggested an alternative line of argument to me, however. Three hitters can lead to a "cluttered" front row, with each having less room to maneuver.

Back in 2009, I attempted to compare the effectiveness of Texas Tech's six rotations in the team's home match vs. Texas A&M, compiling statistics myself from the stands. That analysis obviously included a lot less data than what I have available this season, but some readers may be interested in the diagrams I created back then of the players in each rotation (click here for my 2009 analysis).

With these ideas in mind, I used the 2012 data to look first at the average side-out rates of the six rotations. These mean levels are shown in the following graph as red circles.

As can be seen, Rotation 5 achieved the highest side-out rate of the rotations (77%), whereas most of the other rotations' side-out rates were around 60%, give or take a few percentage points. However, as shown via the little grey shapes above and below each red circle, each rotation's success at siding-out showed a great deal of scatter across the team's matches. Due to this scatter and the small number of matches, the differences between the six means were not statistically significant. However, as data from more matches pour in, we'll see if Rotation 5 continues to side-out the best.

The other statistic I examined is the counterpart to siding-out, namely how proficiently the team wins points on its own serve in the different rotations. Of course, if whoever serves in a given rotation is a great server and the team garners a sizable share of points through aces or serves that take the opponent out of its offense, the location of the other players in the rotation doesn't really matter. On all other plays, however, the rotation could well matter (e.g., who is in the front row to try to block the opponent's attack).

The mean percentages of points won on Texas Tech's own serve in Rotations 1 through 6, respectively, across the eight matches, are as follows: 44%, 38%, 45%, 53%, 38%, and 50%. Again, there are no statistically significant differences between these values. On a purely descriptive basis, however, Rotation 5 was the team's least effective when serving, in contrast to its performance on serve-receipt.

Over the next few weeks, I'll be presenting additional new analyses from Texas Tech's first eight matches. Then, as I receive new sets of printouts, I'll analyze those. I hope you'll enjoy this exciting new feature on VolleyMetrics.


Popular posts from this blog

My Simple Prediction Equation for the NCAA Women's Tourney

Two years ago, I created a very simple prediction equation for the NCAA women's tournament. Each team gets its own value on the predictive measure. To calculate it, you take a team's overall hitting percentage at the end of the regular season and divide it by the hitting percentage the team allowed its opponents (in the aggregate). The result is then multiplied by an adjustment factor for conference strength, as shown here. For any match in the NCAA tourney, the team with the higher value on my measure would be expected to win.

In both 2012 and 2011, my formula did about as well as other, more complicated ranking formulas. I'm not going to do a full-scale analysis for this year's bracket, but I wanted to mention the formula and provide some sample calculations, in case anyone wanted to compute a score this week for his or her favorite team. The necessary information should be available from the volleyball page of a given school's athletics website. Here are 2013 va…

My Vote for Off the Block's Men's Collegiate Server of the Year

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 and I've been very busy this semester, so I may not have time to conduct statistical analyses for all of the categories. However, I have conducted an analysis to determine my votes for National Server of the Year.

The NCAA men's volleyball statistics site (see links column to the right) provides an aces-per-set statistic. Aces are only one part of judging serving ability, in my view. Someone might be able to amass a large ace total by attempting extremely hard jump serves at every opportunity, but such aggressive serving likely would also lead to a high rate of service errors. Another aspect to consider would be serves that, while not aces, still took the opposing team out of its offensive system. Only aces and service errors are listed in publicly available box scores, however.

What I did, therefore, was find out the top 10 players in ser…

Statistical Notes Heading into Women's Final Four (2013)

With this year's NCAA women's Final Four getting underway Thursday night in Seattle, today's posting offers some statistical observations. The two semifinal match-ups feature defending champion Texas vs. upstart Wisconsin, and Penn State vs. hometown favorite Washington.

Wisconsin, a one-time power that had missed the NCAA tourney from 2008 through 2012, is now back in an ascendant mode under new coach Kelly Sheffield. Seeded 12th nationally, the Badgers benefited in their part of the bracket from the fact that SEC teams Missouri (No. 4 seed) and Florida (No. 5 seed) were Paper Tigers and Gators, respectively. Having said that, Wisconsin may be the kind of team that can give Texas a tough match (like Michigan in last year's semifinal).

A year ago, I developed a statistic that attempts to measure teams' "grind-it-out" tendencies. To me a grind-it-out team is one that lacks spikers with pulverizing power, but digs opponents' attacks well and avoids hitt…