Loyola-Chicago Retains Men's Title in Epic Final

I'm two months late in writing about the NCAA men's final, but an unintended benefit of the delay is that I was able to take the picture to the right, on the Loyola campus during a late-June trip to Chicago. Notice at the bottom of the three-story banner (displayed on a parking structure) that it lists both the Ramblers' 2014 and 2015 titles.

This year's championship was a lot harder to come by than last year's, though, as Loyola captured a marathon fifth game over in-state rival Lewis for the 2015 crown, as opposed to a relatively easy four-game victory over Stanford in 2014.

As shown in the chart below (which I created from the play-by-play sheet), Loyola didn't win until its eighth match point of Game 5 (and the Ramblers also had two match points in Game 4). Lewis had three match points of its own in Game 5.

Held Match Point	Score	Held Match Point
Loyola	14-11
Loyola	14-12
Loyola	14-13
	15-14	Lewis
Loyola	16-15
Loyola	17-16
Loyola	18-17
	19-18	Lewis
Loyola	20-19
	21-20	Lewis
Loyola*	22-21

HTML Tables

*Won 23-21.

The NCAA final was the fourth Loyola-Lewis meeting of the season, with the Flyers taking both regular-season match-ups by 3-1 scores, and the Ramblers capturing the MIVA conference final, also by 3-1. The following graph shows the two teams' hitting percentages in the four matches.

The nature of the four matches appeared to vary considerably, with offensive firepower having the upper hand in the MIVA tournament final and the NCAA final featuring a defensive battle.

In both of these matches, though, the Ramblers outhit the Flyers by slight margins. Loyola outblocked Lewis 20.5-13.5 in the NCAA final.

Determining My Vote for Men's OH of the Year

Once again, I have been invited by Off the Block blogger Vinnie Lopes to cast a ballot for men's college players of the year at the various volleyball positions. Because my votes involve a fair amount of statistical analysis, I typically only vote in one category. This year, I have chosen to vote for Outside Hitter of the Year.

My starting point was to look at the top ten outside hitters nationally in hitting percentage (this, and all other, rankings and statistics reported here are from roughly the end of March). These players were: Thomas Jaeschke (Loyola-Chicago, .383); Aaron Russell (Penn State, .379); Tamir Hershko (UC Irvine, .376); Josh Taylor (Pepperdine, .366); Cody Caldwell (Loyola, .325); Nicolas Szerszen (Ohio State, .322); Jonathan Martinez (Pfeiffer, .318); Jon Schaefer (Grand Canyon, .315); Alex Harthaller (IPFW, .305); and Enzo Mackenzie (Sacred Heart, .303).

Spiking may be the primary skill expected of outside hitters, but not the only one. They would also be expected to block, pass (on serve-receipt and in the middle of rallies), and serve. In the far right column of most box scores, one sees the heading "Points," which, for each player, shows the total number of points directly scored via kills, stuff blocks, and service aces. Though it encompasses multiple skills, I have never made much of the "points" statistic, as it does not reflect the number of points a player has cost his or her team through five possible types of errors: in attacking (hitting balls out of bounds or getting stuffed), serving, receiving serve, ball-handling, and blocking (i.e., touching the net).

To determine my vote for Outside Hitter of the Year, I am introducing a variation on the usual points statistic, which represents points earned minus points lost. I am calling my new statistic "Points Profit." (I could have called it "Net Points," reflecting "net" in the accounting sense, but such a term could easily be confused with points won at the net on a volleyball court.)

Using the top ten outside hitters nationally in hitting percentage (listed above), my plan was to compute Profit Points for each OH from his five toughest matches of the season. Match difficulty was based on opponent's rankings and match locations. The top ten teams (RPI) as of when I began the analyses were:  1. Loyola-Chicago; 2. UC Irvine; 3. Lewis; 4. Hawai'i; 5. Ohio State; 6. Penn State; 7. USC; 8. Pepperdine; 9. Indiana-Purdue Fort Wayne; and No. 10 BYU.

As an example, the five toughest matches for Loyola's Thomas Jaeschke were at Lewis, hosting Lewis, at Ohio State, at Penn State, and hosting Penn State. At Lewis, Jaeschke earned 21 points and cost the Ramblers 14, for a "profit" of 7. Each contending OH's five toughest matches and how he performed in them are shown in the following chart, which you may click to enlarge.

Although the candidate pool was drawn from the top ten national leaders among outside hitters in hitting percentage, only eight OH's were analyzed. Martinez was excluded because Pfeiffer played only one match against a top ten opponent (Ohio State). In addition, Grand Canyon's Schaefer missed substantial action in his team's most difficult matches, so he was likewise excluded. Sacred Heart's Mackenzie played in four of his team's five toughest matches, so I prorated his four-match total by multiplying it by (5/4) to estimate what it would have been had he played all five matches.

As shown in the above chart, the top three finishers in total Profit Points -- and for whom I cast my votes -- were Jaeschke (46 Profit Points, 1st); Hershko (43.5, 2nd); and Russell (42.5, 3rd).

Interestingly, even though hitting percentages (just one skill, from all matches up until late March) and Profit Points (multiple skills, in just five matches) were defined very differently, they had a near-perfect correlation (r = .93), where 1.00 is the maximum possible (see plot below). I'll have to conduct further studies to decide whether the extra work of calculating Profit Points is worth it, when hitting percentage is readily available. However, incorporating multiple skills allowed Hershko (third in hitting percentage) to leapfrog Russell (second in hitting percentage).

Click here for correlation plotter.

Karch Kiraly Visit to Texas Tech: His Coaching Tips and My First Chat with Him in 33 Years!

Let's start with a little "Then and Now." Back in 1982, Karch Kiraly was a senior setter for UCLA, en route to leading the Bruins to three NCAA championships in his four years, and I was the men's volleyball writer for the Daily Bruin. Here's a photographic image of one of my articles (which you can click to enlarge)...

That was then. This is now...

Yesterday, Kiraly came to Texas Tech (where I'm a professor) to spend the day with Coach Don Flora and the Red Raider women's volleyball squad. After a day of private meetings, Kiraly gave a public forum in the evening -- part lecture, part clinic. Scheduled in conjunction with a girls' club tournament, the evening event drew hundreds (if not more) of young players and their parents. As shown in the previous picture, I brought along the old UCLA article and a page printed from my blog to show him. "You're going pretty far back," Karch said, upon seeing the 1982 Daily Bruin article.*

Kiraly's accomplishments after college are well-known: three Olympic gold medals as a player (indoor in 1984 and '88; beach in '96); co-recipient of the FIVB's greatest male player of the 20th century designation; head coach of the first USA national women's volleyball team to win a major international title (2014 world championships); and lead color analyst for ESPN's NCAA tournament broadcasts.

Flora (left) opened the evening, thanking audience members for their support of  Texas Tech volleyball and then introducing his fellow Californian.


Kiraly then alternated several times during the course of an hour between addressing the audience and leading a split Red Raider squad in some drills (equipped with a wireless mic). There was also a Q-and-A session at the end.

Kiraly began the drills with detail-oriented stuff; footwork, where to focus one's eyes, and calling out information for one's teammates (e.g., the opponent's play that appears to be unfolding). At one point, Kiraly said, "I'm not hearing that much noise. It's possible that my hearing is going, but that might not be it." In addition, he would often stop play during the drills and ask a player what her options were at a given point. He always followed up this question with "Why?"

He described volleyball as often involving "chaos," thus requiring teams to develop solutions. For example, if a team seemed to be getting out of control, digging balls higher would give the setter added time to function. Better yet, though, teams would have contingency plans: "If this happens, Player X hits the ball; if this happens, Player Y does."

A substantial time drilling, in fact, was done with the players assigned to positions other than their normal ones. Making a middle-blocker set, for example, or a libero (back-row defensive specialist) block at the net had two purposes: taking players out of their comfort zone so they could cope with having to improvise; and fostering "empathy" for the unique difficulties of playing a given position.

Much to your correspondent's delight, Kiraly made periodic references to empirical analysis of national-team play. One revelation was that, contrary to the convention of playing a libero in the left-back position, on the national team, the center-back location resulted in the libero touching more balls (see this "heat map" approach, put together by women's national team statistical analyst Joe Trinsey and associates).

Kiraly also reviewed the optimal location for sets to the outside-hitter (in the left-front area). In response to Kiraly's quizzing, the Texas Tech players identified the "5-by-5" principle: The set should be 5 feet before the net and 5 feet inside the left sideline. Kiraly noted that sets too close to the net are vulnerable to the opposing block, and sets beyond the sideline "limit your options" (presumably taking away the option of going down-the-line because the spike could hit the antenna, a violation). He noted that, "Our hitting percentage plummets" when sets deviate from the 5-by-5 location.

In conclusion, Kiraly has a very cerebral approach to volleyball and is passionate about building interest in the sport and developing young players. Here's hoping it doesn't take another 33 years before we again cross paths... 

---
*All quotes are to the best of my recollection.

Belated Summary of Last December's NCAA Women's Final Four

It's been quite a while since Penn State swept BYU, 25-21, 26-24, 25-14, last December to give the Nittany Lion program its second straight NCAA women's title, sixth in the last eight years, and seventh overall. Greater drama was to be found in the two semifinal matches, in which Penn State defeated No. 1-seeded Stanford, and BYU held off No. 2-seeded Texas, both in four games. Accordingly, my statistical review will concentrate on the two semis.

PENN STATE VS. STANFORD

The Cardinal came into this match with a 33-1 record, including a five-game win over Penn State on September 5. Stanford's only regular-season loss had come at Washington on November 26.

In the Stanford-PSU rematch in the NCAA semifinals, however, the Nittany Lions had taken Games 1 (25-16) and 3 (25-22), to place the Cardinal one game away from elimination. Stanford may have been feeling that, if it could pull out Game 4, it would be in good shape, as the Cardinal had hit exceptionally well in Game-5 situations all year.

Date	Opponent	Game-5  Hitting %
Sept. 5	Penn State	.412
Sept. 7	Illinois	.350
Oct. 17	at Colorado	.500
Nov. 5	Arizona State	.381
Nov. 7	Arizona	.429

All matches played at Stanford, unless noted otherwise.

However, needing a big performance in Game 4 of the NCAA semifinal match vs. Penn State to keep its season alive, Stanford laid an egg, hitting .159. In the Cardinal's 128 total games this season, this .159 tied for Stanford's sixth-worst game-specific hitting percentage of the season (you may click on the following histogram to enlarge it; graphing software).

How well Stanford would have hit in a potential Game 5 of the national semifinal against Penn State will never be known, the Nittany Lions wrapping up Game 4, 25-21. For the match, PSU outhit Stanford, .279-.207.

BYU VS. TEXAS

In the last hurrah for Longhorn seniors Khat Bell and Haley Eckerman, Texas fell behind two games to none (25-23, 25-16), blew out BYU in Game 3 (25-17), but fell to the Cougars 26-24 in Game 4. Texas is typically bigger and stronger than its opponents, but it was BYU that benefited from height.

A .421 hitting performance by 6-2 outside-hitter Alexa Gray (19 kills and 3 errors on 38 attempts) and 17 total team blocks paced BYU. Six-foot-four middle Amy Boswell recorded 1 solo block and 8 assists (5 total, as an assist is credited as half a block), whereas 6-7 opposite-side hitter Jennifer Hamson and  Whitney Young each registered 3.5 total blocks based on 7 assists each. Young, at 6-0, was the short one of the bunch!

On the December 15 installment of Internet radio's The Net Live, Penn State men's assistant Jay Hosack argued that blocking should be evaluated more broadly than via direct stuff-blocks for points, because even the best blocking teams will generate only about three points per game this way (click here for archived broadcast; this discussion begins at roughly the 40:00 minute mark). As Hosack and fellow panelist Katie Charles agreed, beyond stuff blocks, a good blocking team can engage in "control blocking" (i.e., slowing the ball down so that the diggers behind the blockers can transition the team to offense) or cause an opposing hitter to alter his or her spike so that the ball is hit out of bounds.

I like Hosack's ideas and plan to pursue them. I would also say, however, that stuff-blocks in particular were key to BYU's victory over Texas. There was a sequence in Game 2 in which the Cougars expanded their lead from 12-9 to 18-11. During this stretch, BYU earned 5 of its 6 points through stuff blocks. These stuff blocks may have shaken Texas or possibly just revealed a pre-existing flaw in the Longhorns' offensive strategy.

Texas was able to turn things around after the break, avoiding any BYU stuff-blocks all through Game 3 and well into Game 4. However, with Game 4 tied 16-16, the Cougars stuffed three straight Longhorn spike attempts for a 19-16 lead. Texas rallied back, producing an extremely tight finish, but it is likely the match would have gone to a fifth game absent BYU's blocking resurgence.

Against the Longhorns, Hamson hit a solid, if unspectacular, .241 (22-9-54). For Texas, Eckerman (.033) and Bell (.120) were neutralized, with middle-blockers Molly McCage (.357) and Chiaka Ogbogu (.500), a junior and sophomore respectively, giving the Burnt Orange some spark.

CONCLUSION

BYU was a shadow of its semifinal performance in the final, with Gray (.214) and Hamson (.071) hitting much less effectively against Penn State than against Texas. As a team, the Cougars recorded 7.0 blocks against PSU (2.33 per game), compared to the 4.25 per game against the Horns. Senior Nittany Lion setter Micha Hancock went out on a high note, setting middle-blocker and fellow senior Nia Grant to a .500 hitting percentage (9-1-16).

Penn State dominated two metrics I've tracked this season, making its NCAA title unsurprising. One is my Conference-Adjusted Combined Offensive-Defensive measure. The other is the number of times scoring fewer than 20 points in a game (excluding fifth games, which are played only to 15). That happened to the Nittany Lions exactly zero times this season! PSU lost only two games total in the NCAA tourney, 25-22 in the opening game against Wisconsin in the Elite Eight and 25-23 in Game 2 vs. Stanford.

NCAA Women 2014: Wrapping Up the Regionals

My Conference-Adjusted Combined Offensive-Defensive (CACOD) measure successfully predicted the winners of 11 out of 12 matches in the NCAA women's Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight.

Only in the Sweet Sixteen win by No. 14-seed Nebraska (CACOD = 1.72) over No. 3 Washington (2.23) did a team with a lower CACOD beat one with a higher one. Unseeded BYU (1.99) knocked off No. 6 Florida State (1.65), then followed up by topping Nebraska, sending the Cougars to the Final Four.

All three other regionals went exactly as the CACOD predicted, with No. 1 Stanford, No. 2 Texas, and No. 5 Penn State joining BYU in advancing to the Final Four.

***

In a rematch of last year's national championship match, Penn State once again outlasted Wisconsin in four games (22-25, 25-16, 25-22, 25-19; box score) to win the Louisville regional. One thing I examined from last year's final was how each team won its points (i.e., percent from kills, aces, blocks, opponent service errors, etc.). A natural comparison, therefore, is how Penn State and Wisconsin won their points against each other in last year's final and in Saturday's regional final.

For the Nittany Lions, two differences were apparent. Whereas Penn State amassed 63.5% of its points in last year's final from kills, the figure Saturday against Wisconsin was 57.7% (i.e., the Lions scored 56 of their 97 total points with their own kills). In contrast, Penn State went from getting only 7.3% of its points from Badger service errors in last year's finals (7 of PSU's 96 points coming from Wisconsin serving miscues) to obtaining 14.4% of points last Saturday in this way (14 of the Nittany Lions' 97 points coming from Wisconsin serving errors). The percentages for all other point-scoring categories (e.g., blocks, aces) were pretty similar for PSU between the two matches. Overall, then, Wisconsin made things easier for Penn State in this year's regional final than in last year's national title match by giving the Nittany Lions 7 extra points on Badger serving errors, points PSU did not need to earn via kills.

Compared to last year's final, Wisconsin earned a slightly higher percentage of its points last Saturday from kills (53.7 to 49.5), but smaller share from Penn State service errors (9.8 to 13.2). Percentages in other categories were similar in the two matches.

***

For the second straight year, Washington failed to take advantage of playing in the university's home city of Seattle (last year's national semifinal vs. Penn State and, as noted above, in this year's Sweet Sixteen vs. Nebraska). The Huskies were led in recent years by outgoing senior outside-hitter Krista Vansant. Taking selected matches from this year's Huskies schedule, I looked at how well Vansant (in purple) and her teammates (collectively, in gold) hit in several key U-Dub wins and the team's three losses (shaded in gray). You may click on the graphic to enlarge it.

In the Huskies' losses at Colorado (Vansant .154, teammates .190) and Utah (Vansant .197, teammates .184), everyone struggled with their hitting percentages. Against Nebraska, however, things were a little different. Vansant hit a respectable .273, but her teammates collectively hit .219. In all the other matches graphed, which the Huskies won, the teammates had hit at or around .260, or higher.

2014 NCAA Women's Tourney Second Weekend

The women's NCAA Sweet Sixteen begins tonight. Here are the match-ups, showing teams' scores on my Conference-Adjusted Combined Offensive-Defensive (CACOD) ratings. The team with the higher CACOD in a given match would be favored to win.

Host Site	Higher-Seeded Team	CACOD	Lower-Seeded Team	CACOD
Ames, Iowa	Stanford (1)	2.24	Oregon State	1.34
Ames, Iowa	Florida (8)	1.98	Illinois (9)	1.78
Louisville	Penn State (5)	3.09	UCLA (12)	1.47
Louisville	Wisconsin (4)	2.20	Ohio State	1.43
Seattle	Washington (3)	2.23	Nebraska (14)	1.72
Seattle	Florida State (6)	1.65	BYU	1.99
Minneapolis	North Carolina (7)	1.75	Oregon (10)	1.59
Minneapolis	Texas (2)	2.29	Colorado State (15)	2.05

BYU would thus be the only lower-seeded team I would pick to win.

Preview of 2014 NCAA Women's Tourney

With play in the NCAA women's tournament bracket beginning tonight, I wanted to provide a few statistical tidbits in advance.

If there is one team whose players, coaches, and fans have a right to be upset with the seedings, it's Wisconsin. Last year's national runner-up to Penn State, the Badgers closed this season winning 19 straight matches and captured the Big 10 crown. But now, if Wisconsin is to get back to the Final Four, it will have to beat Penn State along the way, in the Elite Eight (barring an upset loss by the Nittany Lions in an earlier round).

As well as the Badgers have played this season (and the latter part of last season), Penn State has been Wisconsin's Kryptonite the past two years. In fact, PSU has won 12 of the 13 games it has played against Wisconsin in 2013 and 2014 (two 3-0 regular-season sweeps and a 3-1 win in the NCAA title match last year, and a 3-0 sweep in the teams' only meeting this year).

***

As longtime readers of this blog are aware, the way I like to evaluate teams heading into the NCAA tournament is by dividing a team's season-long hitting percentage by the cumulative hitting percentage it allowed its opponents during the season. I also multiply the result by a "fudge factor" (usually a little above or below 1.00) to reflect my impression of conferences' national competitiveness. Predicting the winner of a match by which team has the higher score on my simple measure has done about as well as more complicated algorithms in forecasting NCAA tournament results (here and here). The formula is shown here.

For the top eight seeded teams in the 2014 NCAA women's tournament, here are their scores:

1. Stanford... (.316/.176) (1.25) = 2.24
2. Texas........(.288/.151) (1.20) = 2.29
3. Washington...(.312/.175) (1.25) = 2.23
4. Wisconsin.....(.287/.163) (1.25) = 2.20
5. Penn State.....(.351/.142) (1.25) = 3.09
6. Florida State....(.271/.181) (1.10) = 1.65
7. North Carolina.....(.261/.164) (1.10) = 1.75
8. Florida...(.320/.162) (1.00) = 1.98

Last year's NCAA champion (and No. 2 seed) Penn State entered the 2013 tournament with a score of 2.91, to 1.69 for runner-up No. 12-seed Wisconsin (last year's Badgers hit.233 and allowed their opponents a .172 percentage). No. 7-seed Stanford, which gave PSU a very tight match in the Elite Eight, compiled a 2.30 in the 2013 regular season. None of the other top eight seeded teams last year exceeded 2.13.

***

Here's another note about Penn State: Following up on a midseason posting, the Nittany Lions successfully finished the season as the only major team in the nation to score at least 20 points in every game this season (excluding fifth games). PSU lost three matches this season, as well as one or two games in some matches it won. But even in losing games, the Nittany Lions never dropped below 20 points. Since I last posted on the topic, Penn State lost only two more games (at Purdue), but scored 23 and 22 points in them. To me, this shows that PSU sticks around in every game and never makes things easy for an opponent.

***

Recent history suggests no need to raise the SEC's strength factor from its current 1.00. Last year, for example, two highly seeded teams from the conference, No. 4 Missouri and No. 5 Florida, each exited in the second round of the NCAA tournament.