Skip to main content

NCAA Women's Final Four Wrap-Up: Powerful Texas Overcomes Grind-it-Out Michigan and Oregon

Looking back on this past weekend's NCAA women's Final Four, what stands out to me is the contrast in teams' strong suits. The champion Texas Longhorns set the ball high, hit over the block, and delivered surgical strikes to win points quickly. Michigan and Oregon, UT's opponents in the semifinals and finals, respectively, got as far as they did with more of a grind-it-out approach. Defensively, Michigan and Oregon persistently dug opponents' spike attempts, and when the Wolverines and Ducks went on offense, they sometimes would need multiple hitting attempts on a single rally to finally put the ball away.

The following graph conveys the Longhorns' devastating offensive prowess in their final three matches of the tournament (vs. USC in the Elite Eight, and the Michigan and Oregon matches). In addition to the conventional hitting-percentage statistic ([Kills - Errors]/Total Attempts), I have presented a slight variation, namely kill percentage (Kills/Total Attempts). You may click on the graphics to enlarge them.


Against USC, the Longhorns achieve a kill on half the swings they took (.505, 50/99), whereas the other three Final Four teams all had kill percentages in the high .30s in their Elite Eight matches. Then, in the final, a 25-11, 26-24, 25-19 Longhorn win over the Ducks (box score), UT nearly reached .500 in kill percentage again, clocking in at .483 (43/89).

If a team commits no hitting errors, then kill percentage and hitting percentage are equal to each other. That the black and orange bars for Texas against Oregon are nearly equally tall tells us that the Longhorns made very few attack errors in that match -- 4 to be exact, compared to 43 kills on 89 swings. As a further sign of how unstoppable Texas was offensively, Oregon came up with only 1 team block in the final, compared to the Longhorns' 15.

In the semifinal round, Michigan extended Texas to five games, with the Longhorns prevailing 25-11, 21-25, 23-25, 25-12, 15-11. For the match as a whole,Texas's hitting percentage of .316 was literally double Michigan's .158. However, when game-specific hitting percentages are examined, we can see that in the two sets the Wolverines won, they somehow managed to slow down the Horns' offense, while raising their own hitting percentages into the mid-high .200s.


Above, I characterized Michigan as having a "grind-it-out" style, for which being able to dig opposing spikes to keep setting up the offense is essential. As one possible measure of a team's grind-it-out propensity, I've simply taken that team's total number of attack attempts (TA) in a given match and divided it by the total number of points in the same match (to control for match length). Looking at all matches in the Sweet 16 and beyond (a total of 15 matches and thus 30 team-specific values), Michigan took first and second in grind-it-out propensity:

Mich (vs. Tex): 193 total points, Mich 196 TA (1.02)
Mich (vs. Stan): 180 total points, Mich 173 TA (.961)
IowaSt (vs Stan): 127 total points, ISU 121 TA (.953)
Stan (vs. IowaSt): 127 total points, Stan 118 TA (.929)
Ore (vs. PSU): 195 total points, Ore 176 TA (.903)
Min (vs. Pur): 192 total points, Minn 173 TA (.901)
Pur (vs. Min): 192 total points, Pur 173 TA (.901)
Neb (vs. Ore): 172 total points, Neb 155 (.901)
Ore (vs. BYU): 178 total points, Ore 159 TA (.893)
Ore (vs. Neb): 172 total points, Ore 151 TA (.878)
Ore (vs. Tex): 130 total points, Ore 114 TA (.877)

Oregon had four of the top 11 grind-it-out values. Grind-it-out teams will not always out-dig their opponents, as a lot of their own spikes are being dug. Indeed, Texas out-dug Michigan 76-71. However, Oregon did out-dig Penn State 80-67 in their national semifinal match (box score).

With the exception of the Michigan match, Texas didn't take that many swings in its final three matches, yielding relatively low grind-it-out ratios for the Longhorns: (vs. USC, 99 swings/130 points =.762; vs. Michigan 158/193 = .819; and vs. Oregon, 89/130 = .685).

***

My Conference-Adjusted Combined Offensive-Defensive (CACOD) ranking, which is based almost entirely on teams' regular-season hitting percentages and the hitting percentages they allowed their opponents, correctly predicted 47 of the 63 tournament matches this year. Thus, the CACOD placed right up there with other, more established ranking systems (screen capture from here):



For each of the 63 tournament matches (shown below), the team with the higher CACOD ranking (shown in parentheses) would be predicted to win. Matches in which the team with the higher CACOD lost are shown in red.

1st Round (26-6)

PSU (1) d Bing (63) 3-0
BGSU (51) d Yale (47) 3-2
Ohio St (28) d ND (34) 3-0
Ky (33) d ETS (59) 3-0
FSU (6) d Hof (61) 3-0
Pur (23) d ColSt (20) 3-0
Crei (14) d Marq (27) 3-0
Minn (13) d Lib (60) 3-0

Ore (9) d NCol (55) 3-0
Day (17) d Pepp (48) 3-2
Ok (37) d ASU (39) 3-2
BYU (4) d NMSU (38) 3-0
Wash (8) d CArk (49) 3-0
Haw (18) d SClara (54) 3-0
UNI (31) d KSt (21) 3-0
Neb (5) d MdES (53) 3-0

Tex (2) d Colg (64) 3-0
TAMU (29) d NCSU (41) 3-1
CofC (57) d Mia (22) 3-2
Fla (7) d Tulsa (43) 3-0
KU (10) d CleveSt (42) 3-1
WichSt (46) d Ark (36) 3-2
StM (52) d SDSU (35) 3-2
USC (12) d Fair (58) 3-0

UCLA (11) d LIU (45) 3-0
MichSt (15) d USD (40) 3-2
Mich (26) d Tenn (32) 3-2
Lou (16) d Bel (62) 3-1
IaSt (24) d IPFW (56) 3-2
NCar (25) d Cal (30) 3-1
WKy (19) d LMU (44) 3-0
Stan (3) d JxSt (50) 3-0

2nd Round (11-5)

PSU (1) d BGSU (51) 3-0
Ky (33) d OhioSt (28) 3-1
Pur (23) d FSU (6) 3-2
Minn (13) d Crei (14) 3-1

Ore (9) d Day (17) 3-0
BYU (4) d Ok (37) 3-0
Wash (8) d Haw (18) 3-2
Neb (5) d UNI (31) 3-0

Tex (2) d TAMU (29) 3-1
Fla (7) d CofC (57) 3-0
WichSt (46) d KU (10) 3-1
USC (12) d StM (52) 3-0

Mich St (15) d UCLA (11) 3-1
Mich (26) d Lou (16) 3-1
IaSt (24) d NCar (25) 3-2
Stan (3) d WKy (19) 3-0

3rd Round (6-2)

PSU (1) d Ky (33) 3-0
Minn (13) d Pur (23) 3-1

Ore (9) d BYU (4) 3-1
Neb (5) d Wash (8) 3-0

Tex (2) d Fla (7) 3-0
USC (12) d Wich St (46) 3-0

Mich (26) d MSU (15) 3-0
Stan (3) d Iowa St (24) 3-0

4th Round (2-2)

PSU (1) d Minn (13) 3-1
Ore (9) d Neb (5) 3-1
Tex (2) d USC (12) 3-0
Mich (26) d Stan (3) 3-1

Final Four (1-1)

Tex (2) d Mich (26) 3-2
Ore (9) d PSU (1) 3-1

Championship (1-0)

Tex (2) d Ore (9) 3-0

The CACOD also did well in predicting the 2011 tournament.

Comments

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…