Skip to main content

Analysis of Last Night's Thrilling Penn State-Texas NCAA Women's Final

Last night's NCAA women's championship match between Penn State and Texas was truly, pardon the cliche, one for the ages. There was the historical aspect -- the Nittany Lions winning their 102nd straight match and third straight national title. There was the aspect of the teams' senior leaders trying to will their respective squads to victory -- the Longhorns' Destinee Hooker dominant for most of the match, with the Penn State pair of outside hitter Megan Hodge and setter Alisha Glass getting by with a little help from their friends. And there was the comeback aspect -- Penn State having trailed two games to none -- and the fact of how closely the teams ultimately were matched. There were 10 tie scores in the decisive fifth game, which was won by the Nittany Lions 15-13.

Here at VolleyMetrics, however, our job is statistical analysis. The role of statistics in the sport arguably reached a new milestone during last night's telecast when Penn State coach Russ Rose, in a brief interview heading to the locker room for the "halftime" break between Games 2 and 3, noted the following (as I transcribed from ESPN360.com's archived video of the match):

"...five of [Hooker's] 15 or 16 kills were on tips to the right front on [Penn State's] Blair [Brown]... [Hooker] hits the ball so high, you've got to make some better adjustments."

As we'll explore through the numbers, the one decisive factor for the Nittany Lions can perhaps be distilled to one word: balance. Simply put, Penn State seemed to have a lot more options in the long run than did Texas. Before we begin the major statistical analyses, I must express great thanks to the NCAA for providing a "deluxe" 11-page box score, which provides not only overall match statistics, but also statistics and play-by-play sheets for each game (set). The graphics I've created (shown below) would have been a lot more difficult to produce without the elaborate box score.

In our first graph, we see that Hooker clearly got the best of Hodge in individual hitting statistics.


For readers relatively new to volleyball who aren't familiar with the formula for hitting percentage, ESPN was kind enough to provide an example of a calculation, midway through the match.


Longhorn coach Jerritt Elliott had an interesting, possibly surprising, observation after the match, as reported in the Daily Texan (second linked article above):

“I thought we set [Hooker] a little bit too much,” Elliott said. “We kind of got out of our rhythm a little bit. But for us to win, Destinee has to have a big game. She’s carried us. She performed at a very high level.”

Readers may find it useful to ponder Elliott's statement in light of the following graph.


Yes, Hooker was set a lot, but no more (as a proportion of the respective teams' hit attempts) than was Hodge. With Hooker hitting markedly better than her teammates -- the opposite of what happened with Hodge and Penn State -- it seems hard to fault Longhorn setter Ashley Engle (or Elliott, if he was calling the plays) for calling Hooker's number so often.

The excellent hitting of Hodge's supporting cast manifested itself at the most important time. In Game 5, three Penn State players -- Arielle Wilson, Blair Brown, and Darcy Dorton -- combined for 7 kills (with no errors) on 10 attempts, for an overall .700 hitting percentage.

In my previous posting (below), I speculated that blocking would be important, and boy was I wrong! As shown in the next graph, in Games 2 and 3, the losing team outblocked the winning team. Perhaps at a larger level, however, one could argue that Texas's relative parity with Penn State in blocking -- the Longhorns had only two fewer total team blocks than than the Nittany Lions, 12 to 14 -- helped keep the Burnt Orange so competitive.

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…