Skip to main content

NCAA Men's Tourney: If BYU and UCLA Meet in Final, Bruins' Serving Could Be Crucial

We're now down to the Final Four of men's NCAA volleyball, with two semifinal matches tonight -- No. 1 seed BYU vs. No. 4 Long Beach State, and No. 2 seed UCLA vs. No. 3 Ohio State -- and the final on Saturday (link to bracket). In the event of a BYU-UCLA final, which is no certainty, my preview below will be useful. If not, it will have been purely an academic exercise.

BYU and UCLA have played three times this season, in a pair of regular-season matches in Los Angeles (here and here) and in the MPSF conference-tournament final in Provo. The Cougars have taken all three contests, each in four games. In each of these matches, Bruin serving errors have played a seemingly large role in determining the outcome. UCLA committed 15 service errors in the first match, 20 in the second, and 27 in the third. I find this unbelievable, but in the three matches combined, the Bruins missed one-quarter of all their serve attempts (62 misses on 246 serves, which is .252)! (These and other statistics appear in a table below, which you can click to enlarge.)

Of course, a strategy of "just get it in" would help the Bruins only modestly. BYU won nearly two-thirds (.648) of the rallies on UCLA's serve (i.e., when the serve was non-terminal, not an ace or error). If the Bruins floated a bunch of soft, unchallenging serves the Cougars' way, BYU's side-out rate on rallies would almost certainly go up by a sizable amount. The other side of the argument, though, would be that UCLA won zero points on all its missed serves and picking up even a few extra points by winning rallies on less-aggressive serves could be important in a close match.


Tristan Burton and Scott Powers published a thoughtful and sophisticated analysis of the serving-aggressiveness trade-off -- more-effective serves vs. more errors -- in 2015 in the Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports (summary). As these authors note, "a balance among [service-ace fraction, service-error fraction] and opponent offensive ability must be considered in order to guide service strategy" (p. 3). Using calculus and other advanced mathematics (e.g., the "Newton-Raphson solution"), Burton and Powers derive graphical displays for determining which players need to serve more or less aggressively. Lacking the volume of data and the brainpower* necessary to apply Burton and Powers' formulations in full, I came up with my own analysis of UCLA's serving vs. BYU, which made intuitive sense to me.

Using play-by-play sheets from the three BYU-UCLA matches (available via BYU's schedule page, by clicking on "Box" for a given match, and then "Play-By-Play"), I recorded the outcome of every serve for each of UCLA's eight main servers (listed in the table above). A serve could result in one of four outcomes: an ace or an error (both considered "terminal" outcomes), a rally (i.e., after a non-terminal serve) won by UCLA, and a rally won by BYU.

Not much was going on with UCLA ace serves (only 18 total in the three matches; 8, 9, and 1 by match chronologically). I therefore focused on service errors. For each of the eight Bruin players, I computed his service-error percentage (number of errors divided by total number of serves) and the percentage of time on that player's serve that UCLA won a rally after a non-terminal serve.

To the extent aggressive serving results in both service errors and (when the serve goes in but does not produce an ace) the receiving team being taken out-of-system in running its offense, we should find a positive correlation between UCLA players' service-error percentage and percentage of rallies won by UCLA. Indeed, we do, as shown in the following graph.


For readers with statistical training, the correlation coefficient (r) =  .52. This is a fairly large correlation, but caution is warranted due to the small sample size of 8 players. (Free plotting software is available here.) A couple of players exemplify the trend. Oliver Martin committed only 1 error on 29 total serves vs. BYU during the season (3.4%), but his (apparently) low-risk serving also was easy for the Cougars to field, so that the Bruins won fewer than one-third of the rallies on Martin's serve. At the other extreme, Jackson Bantle had a much higher rate of service errors, committing them 28.6 percent of the time, but UCLA won 44.4 percent of rallies on his serve.

I'll leave the precise optimization of service aggressiveness to Burton and Powers. If you want to determine how risky to be in your serving, taking account of the opponent's ability to launch its offense, you should look at their article. What I've concluded from my little exercise is that UCLA seems to have a good reason to serve aggressively. However, the Bruins' service-error rate does seem excessively high.

UPDATE: A BYU-UCLA match-up in the NCAA men's final never happened, as Ohio State beat the Bruins in a tense five-game semifinal match. The Buckeyes survived three match-points in the decisive game, before winning it 18-16. OSU continued its momentum into the championship match, shockingly sweeping BYU. The Buckeyes outhit the Cougars, .374-.296; not only that, OSU took 20 more attack attempts than did BYU, 91-71, indicative of the Cougars' passing difficulties (box score). BYU's award-winning right-side (opposite) hitter Ben Patch, hitting .383 entering the NCAA tourney, performed well-below that in the final, hitting .091 on 10 kills and 8 errors in 22 swings.

---
*I did take a year of calculus as a college freshman 35 years ago and I occasionally watch calculus lectures online to retain as much of it as I can. However, I feel nowhere near confident enough to conduct the analyses reported by Burton and Powers.

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…