tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54169880266609850992024-03-12T19:06:07.126-07:00VolleyMetricsTexas Tech professor Alan Reifman uses statistics and graphic arts to illuminate developments in U.S. collegiate and Olympic volleyball. alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.comBlogger238125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-58869570610212494312023-11-28T12:09:00.000-08:002023-11-28T12:09:45.698-08:002023 NCAA Women's Preview<p>Sixth-four teams are alive at the moment, but it sure looks like Nebraska (28-1) and Wisconsin (26-3) will meet for a third time this season to determine the NCAA women's volleyball championship (<a href="https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/volleyball-women/d1/2023" target="_blank">bracket</a>). Both are No. 1 regional seeds, along with Pitt and Stanford.</p><p>Clearly the two dominant teams of the regular season, the Huskers and Badgers split their two B1G matches. Nebraska took an <a href="https://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2023/10/no-1-wisconsin-at-no-2-nebraska-in.html" target="_blank">epic five-game tussle</a> from Wisconsin on October 21 in Lincoln. Then, after dropping back-to-back road matches at <a href="https://uwbadgers.com/news/2023/11/11/volleyball-wisconsin-falls-to-penn-state.aspx" target="_blank">Penn State</a> and <a href="https://uwbadgers.com/news/2023/11/17/volleyball-wisconsins-rally-falls-short.aspx" target="_blank">Purdue</a> in mid November, Wisconsin <a href="https://www.ncaa.com/live-updates/volleyball-women/d1/wisconsin-hands-no-1-nebraska-volleyball-its-first-loss-2023-season" target="_blank">smoked Nebraska</a> on November 24 back in Madison (25-22, 28-26, 25-16); so gloomy was the loss that for the Huskers it really was a Black Friday! In Game 2, the Huskers led 22-19, only to have the Badgers score four straight to lead 23-22. The teams then battled back-and-forth, with UW holding game-points at 24-23 and 27-26, and NU holding them at 25-24 and 26-25.</p><p>My Conference-Adjusted Combined Offensive-Defensive (<a href="https://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2012/11/ranking-64-ncaa-womens-teams-on.html" target="_blank">CACOD</a>) metric, which takes a team's own hitting percentage divided by the hitting percentage it has allowed its opponent, multiplied by a conference-difficulty factor, appears below for the 16 nationally seeded teams. In the 12 years the CACOD has been around, no team below 1.91 has ever won the NCAA women's championship. Hence, if precedent holds, only seven teams really have a chance at the title (see column headed by "adjratio").</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiw5rTli6AWt6gkUWzqV5b8DWnZ_ngblr81-o-xESV5I5nAxnXGLba5DJERzPaZPztEMnIgoGhzlV_ee1cQ_dktZLzSprLwXOTILFrZUZpzXV-SkbUbVFiMr1kdJaq0dFVS2T386J-wX0I5esJsXO5lkpaerkmx5ZNASebt4SKN4kYWsbYOpsrDr5Zcgp7b/s584/CACOD%202023.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="379" data-original-width="584" height="405" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiw5rTli6AWt6gkUWzqV5b8DWnZ_ngblr81-o-xESV5I5nAxnXGLba5DJERzPaZPztEMnIgoGhzlV_ee1cQ_dktZLzSprLwXOTILFrZUZpzXV-SkbUbVFiMr1kdJaq0dFVS2T386J-wX0I5esJsXO5lkpaerkmx5ZNASebt4SKN4kYWsbYOpsrDr5Zcgp7b/w623-h405/CACOD%202023.JPG" width="623" /></a></div><p>Oregon looks from its CACOD score to be the most likely non-No. 1 seed to make the Final Four. In addition, the Ducks closed the season <a href="https://goducks.com/sports/womens-volleyball/schedule" target="_blank">winning 10 out of 12</a>, the only two losses coming to Stanford.</p><p>I'll close for now with a piece of trivia: Penn State is "the only school to compete in every NCAA Division I Tournament since it started in 1981," a 43-year streak (<a href="https://gopsusports.com/news/2023/11/26/womens-volleyball-opens-ncaa-tournament-thursday-against-yale.aspx" target="_blank">link</a>).</p>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-67030377245879614552023-10-21T16:07:00.035-07:002023-10-29T17:42:31.619-07:00No. 1 Wisconsin at No. 2 Nebraska in Battle of the Unbeatens<p>The top teams of the women's college volleyball season thus far, No. 1 Wisconsin and No. 2 Nebraska will meet tonight in Lincoln (B1G Network, 7:00 Central). The teams have identical records of 18-0 overall and 9-0 in conference. Tickets reportedly were going for <a href="https://twitter.com/wagesofwins/status/1715904523242487959" target="_blank">as much as $250</a>. Below, I'll comment live on the match. </p><p>Nebraska takes Game 1, 25-22... The statistic that jumped out at me was the Huskers' .727 side-out rate (16/22) to .640 (16/25) for the Badgers (<a href="https://stats.statbroadcast.com/broadcast/?id=475629&vislive=wis" target="_blank">live stats</a>).</p><p>Wisconsin dominates Game 2, 25-17. Badgers' 12 blocks in Game 2 alone help hold Huskers to -.077 hitting in the game (12 kills and 16 attack errors on 52 swings). </p><p>UW leads 15-10 in Game 3... Now 20-12... Badgers take it 25-20.</p><p>Wisconsin with early lead in Game 4, but Nebraska pulls off 5-0 run to lead 9-6... Now 14-10 Huskers... NU 17-16. I'll have to check the statistics later, but Nebraska rarely seems to be setting the middle at all... Wisconsin now ahead 18-17, as Huskers hit some balls out of bounds... 20-18 Badgers... 21-18... Calling a time-out NU coach John Cook looks cooked! New life for Nebraska, as it ties the game 21-all, only to have Wisconsin go up 22-21... 23-all... Kill for Badgers, 24-23... Equalizer kill for Huskers... Lift on UW for 25-24 NU lead. Huskers take it 26-24 on a Wisconsin overpass blocked back down.</p><p>Game 5: Badgers off to 5-3 lead... Now 6-5 UW... 8-6 Badgers... 10-8 Wisconsin... 11-9 UW... 12-10 Badgers on Husker service error... Even at 12-12... Time-out... 13-12 Huskers. Swings that were not reaching the floor earlier are now doing so for NU. 14-12 Nebraska... Badger kill to stay alive, 14-13... Match well over the three-hour mark... Per TV announcers, NU hitting .524 in Game 5, UW .500... <strike>Nebraska air-mails kill-attempt, 14-all</strike>... Huskers challenging whether there was a Badger net violation... And video review shows there was, NU wins 15-13...</p><p>Badgers outhit (.217-.130) and outblock (18-7) the Huskers, but get the "L." The teams will play a rematch November 24 in Madison and, quite possibly, will meet for a third time in the NCAA title match.</p><p><i>Postscript:</i> The Wisconsin-Nebraska match <a href="https://volleyballmag.com/wisconsin-nebraska-big-ten-network-record-102423/" target="_blank">drew over 600,000 viewers</a> on the Big Ten Network, an amazing number considering that BTN is generally available only in the home regions of B1G schools and as an added purchase by viewers in other areas. </p><p>PREGAME NOTES</p><p>The Badgers lead the conference in hitting percentage (for all matches, not just B1G) at .315, with the Huskers in second at .297. The ranks are reversed for opponents' hitting percentage, with NU allowing a microscopic .123 and UW just behind at .143 (<a href="https://bigten.org/stats.aspx?path=wvball&year=2023" target="_blank">conference statistics page</a>).</p><p>Nebraska directs most of its sets to outside hitters Merritt Beason (516 attack attempts) and Harper Murray (481 attempts, meaning that the two have nearly taken a combined 1,000 swings on the season. The two have nearly identical hitting percentages on the season, .283 and .285, respectively. In the middle position, Andi Jackson adds a .415 hitting percentage on 224 swings (<a href="https://storage.googleapis.com/huskers-com-prod/2023/10/19/Ufxv1hUyFNrpYyisWTcK73bUaHNpXXqvqB2qXK2T.pdf" target="_blank">Husker stats</a>).</p><p>For Wisconsin, OH Sarah Franklin carries the hitting load, recording a .292 hitting percentage on 602 swings. Six-foot-nine Anna Smrek patrols the middle, hitting .418 on 316 attempts (<a href="https://uwbadgers.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats" target="_blank">Badger stats</a>).</p>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-33755671914650271062023-09-17T16:36:00.000-07:002023-09-17T16:36:01.710-07:00WSJ Analysis of Wisconsin's Five-Game Win at Florida<p>My overall impression while watching the ESPN telecast of No. 1 Wisconsin's five-game victory at No. 3 Florida was that the Badgers ran the superior offense, as long as their serve-receipt kept the team in system. Michael McCleary of the <i>Wisconsin State Journal</i> really delved nicely into this issue so I am happy to link to his <a href="https://madison.com/sports/college/volleyball/wisconsin-volleyball-win-florida/article_4332c141-c1b4-5fb9-8428-c1244f350e97.html" target="_blank">article</a>. On the Gators' end, it looked like their hitters were highly concerned with UW's big blocking game -- not without reason -- and were conservatively trying to tip a lot of balls over the block instead of swinging away. UF hit .180 on the afternoon and no higher than .216 in any one game (<a href="https://uwbadgers.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2023/florida/boxscore/14884" target="_blank">box score</a>). Wisconsin hit only .199 for the match but recorded a .406 in Game 3 and a .286 in Game 5. The teams tied in blocks at 8-8.</p>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-39977954766153894262023-05-06T14:05:00.050-07:002023-05-06T16:56:43.815-07:00Live-Blogging NCAA Men's Championship Match (May 2023)<p>No. 1 seed UCLA (30-2) and No. 2 seed Hawai'i (29-2) will be getting underway shortly (5:00 Eastern) in the NCAA men's championship match. The Rainbow Warriors will be going for their third straight national title. The teams met once during the season on March 12, with Hawai'i <a href="https://uclabruins.com/news/2023/3/12/mens-volleyball-mvb-falls-in-four-at-outrigger.aspx" target="_blank">taking a 3-1 victory</a> over UCLA in Honolulu.</p><p><b>Game 1 --</b> Tied 9-9. Ido David powering the Bruins with four kills thus far... Now 10-10... UCLA leads 12-11 with David up to six kills... 14-12 Bruins, David with seven kills... Hawai'i service error takes us to TV timeout with UCLA up 15-13... Hawaii goes on a run and seems to have the upper hand, leading 23-20. However, Bruins come back for 28-26 win... UCLA (.368, 19 kills, 5 errors, 38 attempts) outhits UH (.275, 16-5-40).</p><p><b>Game 2 --</b> UCLA leads 13-10... Now 15-10... ESPN2 announcers cite Bruins' block as helping them pull away a bit... Very few stuff-blocks for points thus far (Rainbows 2 [1 solo, 2 assists] and Bruins 1 [1 solo]). However, blocking game can slow down opponent through <a href="https://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2020/01/stanford-sweeps-wisconsin-for-ncaa.html" target="_blank">dampening and deflection</a>... Also per ESPN2 announcers, UCLA siding-out better than UH for the match, 72-62%... Now 19-13 Bruins... Three straight for Rainbows, bringing them within 3... Now 19-17, thanks to some tough serving by UH setter Jakob Thelle, but he serves next ball into net... 21-18 UCLA... 22-20 Bruins... Dimitrios Mouchlias (rhymes with nucleus) with a kill to bring Hawai'i within 22-21... Now 23-22 Bruins... David hits long, making it 23-all... Long rally, UH with multiple swings and finally puts one away, 24-23... Tied again at 24-24... Hawai'i goes up 25-24, but serves into net... Mouchlias kill for 26-25... Alex Knight answers for UCLA, 26-all... Bruins airmail serve, 27-26 UH... Merrick McHenry answers for UCLA, 27-all... Guilherme Voss kill for 28-27 UH... UCLA tip to tie it again, 28-28... Mouchlias hits out of bounds, 29-28 Bruins... Rainbows answer, 29-all... David for 30-29... 30-all... UH block for 31-30... UCLA answers, 31-all... UH kill for 32-31... Hawai'i with multiple swings, Mouchlias puts one away for 33-31 win... </p><p>For Game 2, UCLA hits .349 (21-6-43) to .333 (16-4-36) for Hawai'i... Rainbows' Cole Hogland with 2.5 blocks on the night (1 solo, 3 assists)... TV announcers Paul Sunderland and Kevin Barnett calling Game 2 one of the best -- if not the best -- single games in NCAA finals history... I would go with <a href="https://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2015/07/loyola-chicago-retains-mens-title-in.html" target="_blank">2015 Loyola vs. Lewis in Game 5</a> (if for no other reason than that it was the deciding game)...</p><p><b>Game 3 --</b> Still tight as ever, 10-all... Now 13-11 UCLA... 15-13 Bruins (on kill by David) at the TV timeout... David with 17 kills on the night (9 in Game 1, 4 in Game 2, 4 so far in Game 3)... 18-14 Bruins, T/O Rainbows... UCLA block gives it 20-15 lead... Block by Hogland (with Chaz Galloway) cuts UH deficit to 20-17... Now 21-19 UCLA... Now 23-19... 24-20, game-point Bruins... UH saves one, but David with a kill to win it 25-21... </p><p>David hitting .371 (20-7-35) through three games... J. R. Norris (.889, 8-0-9), Knight (.385, 11-1-26), and McHenry (.385, 8-3-13) also getting it done for the Bruins... Voss (.625, 6-1-8), Hogland (.667, 6-0-9), Mouchlias (.333, 15-3-36), and Galloway (.333, 8-2-18) pacing Hawai'i.</p><p><b>Game 4 --</b> <strike>UCLA leading 7-5</strike> Tied at 6-6 (call reversal)... 8-7 Rainbows... Good Knight! Big block ties it for UCLA... Norris with back-to-back aces to make it 10-8 Bruins... Now 15-11 UCLA... 15-13... 16-13 Bruins... <strike>16-15 UCLA (pending review of whether spike was in or out)...</strike> 17-14 UCLA... 18-14 Bruins, as UH blocker touches antenna with his hand -- in 50 years of watching volleyball, I've never seen that particular violation be committed! 19-14 on another David kill... UH within 19-16... 21-16 UCLA, as Norris records fourth ace... 23-18 Bruins, as program's 20th NCAA title looking highly likely... Now 23-20... Hawai'i serves into net, 24-20, four match points for UCLA... UH saves one... Bruins take next point for championship (25-21) but Hawai'i challenges... Challenge rejected, UCLA wins its first NCAA title since 2006, the 20th in program history...</p><p>Final <a href="https://www.ncaa.com/game/6147339/boxscore" target="_blank">box score</a>.</p>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-36512047779126467282023-04-29T17:00:00.000-07:002023-04-29T17:00:06.939-07:00Chad Gordon Analyses NCAA Men's Tourney Teams' Attacking Efficiency<p>Over at <i>Off the Block</i>, Chad Gordon has <a href="https://www.offtheblockblog.com/2023/04/ncaa-tournament-getting-to-know-the-attackers/#more-42474" target="_blank">every attacking stat you could want</a> for each of the seven teams in the NCAA men's tournament (UCLA, Hawai'i, Grand Canyon, Long Beach State, Penn State, Ohio State, and King University of Bristol, Tennessee). For each team, Gordon examines:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The team's overall hitting percentage (or efficiency) and hitting percentage for each player with more than 100 hitting attempts on the season.</li><li>How these hitting percentages compare to what would be expected based on situational factors (e.g., the quality of serve-receipt before the ball is set to the hitter, whether the team is attacking after a free-ball). </li><li>Hitting percentage and hitting percentage over expected for <a href="https://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2010/11/increasingly-it-seems-one-hears-of.html" target="_blank">in-system and out-of-system</a> attacks.</li></ul><div>Even though some of the statistical formulations are complex, Gordon offers practical, straightforward conclusions, such as that UCLA's Ido David is "hitting almost 200 points above expectation in-system ... and can be counted on for a quick sideout." Or that, "While [the Hawai'i] middle duo of [Guilherme] Voss and [Cole] Hogland are ridiculously efficient on their limited attempts, it’s the three pin hitters whose consistent play throughout the chaos really shines. Of the three, [Dimitrios] Mouchlias shines the brightest, hitting +.234 over expectation on out of system attempts."</div><p></p>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-68858311819207474632022-12-17T17:30:00.035-08:002022-12-17T18:58:18.739-08:00Live-Blogging NCAA Women's Championship Match (December 2022)<p>Texas leading Louisville 21-18 in Game 1. The Cardinals got off to a 3-0 lead, but ever since, the Longhorns have led consistently by anywhere from 1 to 4 points... Now 22-19 Texas... Logan Eggleston pacing the Horns with .538 hitting (8 kills and 1 error on 13 attempts)... Claire Chaussee leading Louisville with .429 hitting (7-1-14)... Anna DeBeer with only three swings thus far for the Cards... 24-21 Texas... Eggleston with her 10th kill (10-1-16, .563) to give Texas the opening game 25-22... Eggleston ends up with more attack attempts (16) than her teammates combined (14)... Longhorns, as a team, hit .533 with only two hitting errors (18-2-30)... Cardinals not bad offensively, either, hitting .400 (15-3-30)...</p><p>Longhorns open up 3-0 lead in Game 2... Now 7-4 UT... Louisville only has one block for a point, which occurred early in Game 1... Only thing Horns struggling with is serving, with 7 errors on the night... Longhorn lead now 9-6... 11-6... Game 2 on the verge of getting out of hand for Louisville (if it hasn't already), with Texas leading 15-7... Cards with four straight points, closing to 15-11 on team's second block... Horns end Louisville rally, 16-11... Texas takes Game 2, 25-14, to put itself one game away from a national championship...</p><p>Louisville leading 7-5 in Game 3... 9-6 Cards on kill by DeBeer, who is now hitting .364 (6-2-11)... Another De Beer kill to make it 10-8 for UL... Texas with mini-rally to tie it 10-10... Chaussee kill (9-5-32, .125) makes it 12-10 Cards... Horns with three straight for 13-12 lead... Louisville hanging in, 16-all... UT with next two points, 18-16... Big roof for Texas (its 9th block on the night) to increase lead to 19-16... Now 20-16... UL still not going away, closes within 20-18... 20-19... 21-all... 22-21 Louisville... Texas not getting good swings lately, but ties it 22-22... Chaussee kill for 23-22 Cardinal lead... DeBeer kill for 24-22, an 8-2 Louisville run from down 20-16... DeBeer hitting .316 (9-3-19) on the night, matched closely by teammate Aiko Jones, .318 (8-1-22)... Texas stays alive in Game 3, 24-23 Cards... Chaussee hits long, letting UT tie the game 24-all. UL challenging call of no-touch... Challenge denied, so 24-24... Net violation Louisville (otherwise would have been Cardinal point as Eggleston hit ball long), match point 25-24 for Texas... Longhorn ace closes it out, 26-24, for three-game sweep and national title...</p>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-53386814940126674202022-12-10T13:13:00.058-08:002022-12-12T09:53:03.269-08:00Live Blogging NCAA Women's Elite Eight Saturday (December 2022)<p>A long day of volleyball is over and we have our Final Four teams for next week: Louisville, Texas, Pittsburgh, and San Diego. For the first time since the NCAA began overseeing the women's volleyball championship in 1981, there will not be any team from the Big 10 or Pac 12 in the Final Four (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I_women%27s_volleyball_tournament" target="_blank">historical list of teams</a>). </p><p>Three of Saturday's four matches -- Oregon-Louisville, Pitt-Wisconsin, and USD-Stanford -- went to five games. One thing that stood out to me is how the Pitt-Wisconsin match appeared to be uniquely arduous in terms of the number of spike attempts compared to the two other five-game contests. Between them, the Panthers and Badgers took 402 swings (Pitt 203, Wisconsin 199), well above the number in the Oregon-Louisville (304; 152 each) and San Diego-Stanford (328; USD 166, Stanford 162) matches.</p><p><b>San Diego-Stanford:</b> The Toreros and Cardinal have gone to five games... USD leading 8-6... Now 9-8 Toreros... Stanford ties it 9-9, but USD wins great rally to lead 10-9... Another exciting rally goes to San Diego for 11-9 lead... 12-9 Toreros on stuff block... USD closes it out 15-9, winning the final six points (from when it was 9-9) to advance to the Final Four... San Diego was very steady in its game-to-game hitting percentages. With the exception of Game 3 in which it hit .143, USD was right around the .300 mark in every game (.303 in Game 1, .371 in Game 2, .304 in Game 4, and .294 in Game 5). Stanford, on the other hand, was up and down: .394, .219, .333, and .217 in Games 1-4, before hitting .000 in the fifth (3 kills and 3 errors on 18 attempts). Granted, fifth games are only up to 15 points instead of 25 in the other games, but the Cardinal's 3 kills in Game 5 were well below their kill totals of the first four games (16, 13, 14, and 17).</p><p><b>Pittsburgh-Wisconsin:</b> Panthers with an early 3-1 lead in the opening game... Pitt with back-to-back stuff blocks for a 6-3 lead... Badger hitting error makes it 7-3 Panthers... Wisconsin on 5-1 run to close from down 18-11 to within 19-16. Last five Badger kills from five different players (Smrek, Orzol, Crawford, Franklin, and Robinson)... Pitt attack error makes it 19-17... <strike>and another makes it 19-18</strike>... Last call overturned and Panthers' Serena Gray awarded a kill, 20-17... Courtney Buzzerio follows with another Pitt kill, making it 21-17 Panthers... <strike>Now 22-18</strike>... Reversal says last Pitt attack was not good, 21-18 Panthers... UW wins next five consecutive points (6-0 run in all) to take 23-21 lead.. Pitt ties 23-all, but two Wisconsin kills close out game 25-23... Badgers hit .163 (15-7-<span style="color: red;">49</span>) in Game 1 with 4 blocks (8 joint/assisted credits in the stats divided by 2), whereas Pitt hits .059 (11-8-<span style="color: red;">51</span>) with 3 blocks (6 joint/assisted)... Roughly 50 swings for each team in one game (shown in <span style="color: red;">red</span> above) is amazing... In today's first match, Louisville and Oregon each took 152 in a five-gamer (see below)...</p><p>Panthers trying to hang on in Game 2, their 22-15 lead having been cut to <strike>22-18</strike>... Last call (a Devyn Robinson kill) now reversed into a hitting error, Pitt now up 23-17... Badgers respond with two straight kills to close within 23-19... Pitt takes Game 2, 25-21...</p><p>The teams split Games 3 and 4, the Panthers taking the former 25-21 and the Badgers taking the latter 25-19 to force a fifth game... With the exception of Game 4, Pitt has held late leads in all of the games, with Wisconsin mounting late runs either to overtake the Panthers (Game 1) or to at least make it closer (Game 2). Game 5 followed this storyline, with Pitt going up 11-6 but Wisconsin reeling off six straight points to lead 12-11 (all six points on kills, four by Julia Orzol). The teams trade the next two points, leaving UW up 13-12, but the Panthers take the last three points (all on kills, two by Courtney Buzzerio) to win the match and advance (<a href="https://www.ncaa.com/game/6079443/play-by-play" target="_blank">play-by-play sheet</a>).</p><p>Pitt ended up taking 203 total swings (with 67 kills and 23 errors for a .217 hitting percentage), whereas Wisconsin took 199 swings (with 74 kills and 21 errors for a .266 hitting percentage)... The Panthers, in part at least, made up for their hitting disadvantage by outserving the Badgers: Pitt amassed 8 aces with only 4 errors, whereas Wisconsin had 4 aces and 9 errors...</p><p><b>Ohio State-Texas:</b> Longhorns looking to go up two games to one, leading 19-9 in the third. Previous game scores were 25-18 Texas in Game 1 and 25-21 Buckeyes in Game 2... The Horns' Logan Eggleston, featured in this <a href="https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/35189651/ncaa-volleyball-tournament-texas-logan-eggleston-title" target="_blank">ESPN.com article</a>, thus far hitting .429 (12-3-21) on the evening... UT finishes off Game 3 25-13...</p><p>Ohio State not going away easily, as Buckeyes trail only 23-21 late in Game 4... Now 24-21 and match point on Eggleston kill... Another Eggleston kill closes out the game and match, 25-21... Eggleston finishes with .341 hitting percentage on the night (20-5-44). Among Buckeyes with 20 or more swings on the night, the hitting percentage leader is Emily Londot (.216, 14-6-37)...</p><p><b>Oregon-Louisville:</b> The Ducks (No. 10 national seed and No. 8 in my <a href="https://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2022/11/2022-ncaa-womens-preview.html" target="_blank">Conference-Adjusted Combined Offensive-Defensive</a> metric) are off to a fast start in Game 1, leading the Cardinals (No 2 national seed, No. 3 CACOD) 13-8... Oregon, whose .298 regular-season hitting percentage was second only to Texas (.337) among the top 16 national seeds, is currently hitting .500 (13 kills and 3 errors) on its first 20 spike attempts vs. Louisville... Match has tightened up, UO leading 17-16... Tied at 20-20... Cards up 23-22, in good part based on five Duck service errors... Louisville takes the first game 25-23 on -- what else? -- an Oregon service error (No. 6)... Ducks (.344, 17-6-32) outhit Cards (.280, 10-3-25), but still lose...</p><p>Game 2 also tight, with Cards leading 16-14... Ducks on the verge of tying the match, leading 24-22... UO prevails 25-23... Oregon follows up with 25-13 blowout in Game 3. When one team hits unbelievably well in a game -- Oregon, at a .500 clip (15-2-26) -- and the other team registers as many hitting errors as kills -- Louisville, with a .000 hitting percentage (7-7-27) -- a rout is the likely result and that is what we saw in Game 3...</p><p>The teams are mainly trading points at the start of Game 4, UL now up 10-8... Anna DeBeer pacing Cards with four kills and a joint block in this game... A DeBeer hitting error and kill by Oregon's Morgan Lewis tie the game 11-11... Still very close in this game -- a DeBeer kill ties it 16-all... 20-18 Louisville, as Aiko Jones contributes a kill and a solo block for the last two Cardinal points... Three straight Brooke Nuneviller kills put the Ducks ahead 21-20... DeBeer with a kill to tie it 21-21... Oregon now closing in on a victory, as Lewis kill and DeBeer error make it 23-21 UO... Duck service error (team's 13th) cuts lead to 23-22... Claire Chaussee kill for Louisville ties it 23-all... Mimi Colyer kill takes UO to match point at 24-23... Colyer error ties it right back up 24-24... Chaussee again to put Cards up 25-24... Lewis ties it 25-all, but Chaussee yet again for a 26-25 UL lead... Colyer stuffed to give Cardinals a 27-25 win and send the match to a fifth game...</p><p>Through four games (cumulatively):</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Louisville 7 aces (5 by Elena Scott) and 11 service errors; Oregon 3 aces and 13 errors</li><li>Louisville 9 blocks (5 solo and 8 joint/assisted); Oregon 6 (0 solo and 12 joint/assisted).</li></ul><div>Game 5 underway, score tied 2-2... Four straight Cardinal points (from down 2-3 to ahead 6-3)... 7-3 Louisville... Karson Bacon with a kill to end the Oregon drought, 7-4 Cards... Ducks cut their deficit to 7-5 but then commit their 14th service error, 8-5 UL... Two more Cardinal points (including DeBeer kill) make it 10-5 (8-2 run by UL)... DeBeer kill extends Cardinal lead to 11-5 and current run to 9-2... Another DeBeer kills makes it 12-5 (10-2 run)... Yet another DeBeer kill makes it 13-5 (11-2 run)... DeBeer misses on spike attempt, 13-6 UL... Oregon attack error give Louisville eight match points at 14-6... Jones kill closes it out, 15-6, Cards to the Final Four... Cards record their best single-game hitting percentage of the match in Game 5 at .350 (9-2-20), with Ducks' hitting going into negative territory (more errors than kills) at -.095 (3-5-21)... The following graph shows the teams' game-by-game hitting percentages... </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGo9x03HQeOlllO2WyHPzpu_2_9KE8gUS__FVEFo9lIgG5SYI3xtmI3pxjfZwNtY94j9CyrvqGuKzwxxMo2xOX1rO5BiHD1ZYxotnoNNpb7BeEBLPhfhOSFSVlBVVpaWk1wZhH3ObDA0rWdyGdxk_wFtYmh5f9g7-y4hLxTlRpgebkj0xftODqtcR3sA/s791/ore-lou.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="492" data-original-width="791" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGo9x03HQeOlllO2WyHPzpu_2_9KE8gUS__FVEFo9lIgG5SYI3xtmI3pxjfZwNtY94j9CyrvqGuKzwxxMo2xOX1rO5BiHD1ZYxotnoNNpb7BeEBLPhfhOSFSVlBVVpaWk1wZhH3ObDA0rWdyGdxk_wFtYmh5f9g7-y4hLxTlRpgebkj0xftODqtcR3sA/w502-h312/ore-lou.jpg" width="502" /></a></div><br /><div>For the match overall, Oregon outhit Louisville .250 (64-26-152) to .217 (56-23-152). Both teams hit well short of their cumulative regular-season hitting percentage (Oregon .298, Louisville .289). The Cardinals allowed their regular-season opponents to hit only .148 and thus allowed the Ducks to hit more than .100 higher in this match. Oregon allowed its regular-season opponents to hit .207 and kept Louisville to around that level (.217). If one were looking only at hitting percentages, one would think Oregon won the match! Also, in Games 1, 2, and 4, the teams were pretty even in hitting percentage, so other factors such as serving likely played a role... </div><p></p>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-11582199076293920442022-11-30T18:07:00.002-08:002022-11-30T18:07:44.637-08:002022 NCAA Women's Preview<p>The 2022 NCAA women's volleyball tournament, whose <a href="https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/volleyball-women/d1/2022" target="_blank">bracket</a> gets underway tomorrow, features several teams currently on hot streaks. National No. 3-seed Wisconsin has won <a href="https://uwbadgers.com/sports/womens-volleyball/schedule" target="_blank">18 straight matches</a>, No. 4 Stanford has <a href="https://gostanford.com/sports/womens-volleyball/schedule" target="_blank">done likewise</a>, and No. 5 University of San Diego has won <a href="https://usdtoreros.com/sports/womens-volleyball/schedule" target="_blank">24 in a row</a>.</p><p>Here at VolleyMetrics, come tournament time, the primary metric we look at is the Conference-Adjusted Combined Offensive-Defensive (CACOD) score (explained <a href="http://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2012/11/ranking-64-ncaa-womens-teams-on.html" target="_blank">here</a>). In a nutshell, the CACOD reflects the extent to which a team hits for a high percentage and holds its opponents to a low hitting percentage. This season's CACOD scores for the 16 national seeds appear below in the final column, under the heading "adjratio." </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLaYtq-vlxZVq95CVgHnca8NMz2mWvkohscRtfyBeXz-eiSssdz-jVp6keu-tG4FEJOUjbE58Bc8OLs7pKoLEh3Cwp5mdjn2Lfy_0hw3ifuaokAGoSzwKIAzF88HV1sXyvHAwkNmGr-JfbCv8FzhQr4961Xs_U-AzMiO3ah7I1GkvcHgZ9Q6HYxauAxA/s592/2022%20cacod.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="379" data-original-width="592" height="308" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLaYtq-vlxZVq95CVgHnca8NMz2mWvkohscRtfyBeXz-eiSssdz-jVp6keu-tG4FEJOUjbE58Bc8OLs7pKoLEh3Cwp5mdjn2Lfy_0hw3ifuaokAGoSzwKIAzF88HV1sXyvHAwkNmGr-JfbCv8FzhQr4961Xs_U-AzMiO3ah7I1GkvcHgZ9Q6HYxauAxA/w481-h308/2022%20cacod.jpg" width="481" /></a></div><div><br /></div>In the 11 years the CACOD has existed, no team with a value below 1.91 has won the NCAA women's tourney. Hence, the teams appearing above the yellow highlight are most likely to win the championship.<div><br /></div><div>To my surprise, No. 7-seed Nebraska emerged with the highest CACOD in the nation. The Huskers' .244 hitting percentage is well below those of the highly seeded teams. However, Nebraska allowed its opponents to hit a microscopic .129 (see Huskers <a href="https://huskers.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2022" target="_blank">statistics page</a>). Also helping Nebraska achieve the highest CACOD score is the conference adjustment. Because the competition, night in and night out, is strongest in the Big 10 and Pac 12 (in my view), schools in those conferences get their ratio of offensive to defensive hitting percentage multiplied by 1.25, which is a larger adjustment factor than for all other conferences.*<br /><p>No. 1 Texas had nearly the same CACOD as Nebraska, but finished slightly below the Huskers due to the Big 12's smaller adjustment factor in my system. No. 2 Louisville and No. 3 Wisconsin -- who <a href="https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/32886294/wisconsin-tops-louisville-reach-ncaa-women-volleyball-final" target="_blank">battled in a five-game national semifinal</a> a year ago -- have the present season's next-highest CACOD scores. The Badgers' offensive-to-defensive hitting-percentage ratio is notably below the Cardinals', but the Big 10's greater adjustment factor than the ACC's lifts Wisconsin. The defending NCAA champion Badgers suffered a few early-season losses this season as they regrouped from the loss of some key seniors, but now are <a href="https://madison.com/sports/college/volleyball/why-wisconsin-volleyball-coach-believes-latest-win-in-streak-was-its-best/article_9e226e1e-ff37-5afd-b598-68990d13d6e4.html#tracking-source=mp-homepage" target="_blank">playing at a very high level</a>. </p><p>I'll analyze matches throughout the next few weeks, so please check back often!</p><p>---</p><p>*The Pac 12 has not had the same competitive depth in recent years, compared to when Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Oregon, and even Cal were all performing at nationally elite levels. However, I am reluctant to lower a conference's adjustment factor without more evidence.</p></div>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-12291192066302838222022-05-08T13:47:00.001-07:002022-05-08T13:48:22.966-07:00Hawai'i Sweeps Long Beach State to Claim Second Straight NCAA Men's Championship<p>Hawai'i swept Long Beach State last night in Los Angeles to <a href="https://hawaiiathletics.com/news/2022/5/7/mens-volleyball-mens-volleyball-makes-it-back-to-back-national-titles-with-sweep-of-long-beach-state.aspx" target="_blank">win its second straight</a> NCAA men's championship. Scores were 25-22, 25-21, 25-20. Watching the ESPN telecast made me wish I had access to physical measurements, not just the box-score data I typically use. To my (potentially fallible) eyes, the Hawai'i hitters jumped higher and hit the ball with greater velocity and downward direction than most other spikers I have seen. Whether this is actually true or not is another matter. </p><p>Hawaii's team hitting percentage of .434 (44 kills and only 8 errors on 83 attempts) and the fact Long Beach State recorded only one block all evening is certainly consistent with the Rainbow Warriors' hitting dominance that was apparent to my eyeballs. The Beach didn't hit badly either (.304, 41-17-79), just not on the same level as Hawai'i.</p><p>The championship match was actually the fourth contest between Hawai'i and Long Beach State this season. Long Beach State took a pair of 3-1 matches on its home court during Big West Conference play, whereas the Rainbow Warriors swept the Beach in the conference tourney in Hawai'i (albeit entirely in deuce games, 27-25, 28-26, 25-23).</p><p>Arguably an even bigger thorn for Hawai'i than Long Beach State was Ball State. The Cardinals swept two matches from the Rainbow Warriors back in January in Indiana (3-0 and 3-2). The teams then met for a third time in the NCAA semifinals, with UH <a href="https://hawaiiathletics.com/news/2022/5/5/mens-volleyball-fights-back-to-down-ball-state-in-five-to-advance-to-ncaa-championship.aspx" target="_blank">narrowly winning</a> (28-26, <i>19-25, 20-25</i>, 25-20, 15-11). Hawai'i hit only .241 in this <a href="https://hawaiiathletics.com/sports/mens-volleyball/stats/2022/ball-state-semifinals-/boxscore/27203" target="_blank">semifinal match</a>, but rose to the occasion in Game 5 with a .571 percentage (9-1-14).</p>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-68266469844683036382021-12-23T10:03:00.001-08:002021-12-23T10:03:34.653-08:00Russ Rose Has Retired<p>Russ Rose has retired as women's coach at Penn State, after a 43-year run that included seven NCAA championships (1999, 2007, <a href="https://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2008/12/as-virtually-all-college-volleyball.html" target="_blank">2008</a>, <a href="https://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2009/12/last-nights-ncaa-womens-championship.html" target="_blank">2009</a>, <a href="https://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2010/12/penn-state-over-cal-in-final-unexpected.html" target="_blank">2010</a>, <a href="https://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2013/12/ncaa-womens-final-penn-state-dominates.html" target="_blank">2013</a>, <a href="https://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2015/02/belated-summary-of-last-decembers-ncaa.html" target="_blank">2014</a>) and a <a href="https://www.espn.com/college-sports/news/story?id=5562162" target="_blank">109-match winning streak</a>. Rose was very statistically minded. In fact, in 2009, the <i>New York Times</i> wrote about that <a href="https://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2009/12/yesterdays-new-york-times-had-article.html" target="_blank">aspect of his coaching</a>. Best wishes to Coach Rose in his retirement! And happy holidays to all readers!</p>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-11260985014443658582021-12-18T16:41:00.129-08:002021-12-18T19:50:27.117-08:00Live-Blogging NCAA Women's Championship Match (December 2021)<p>Just a few minutes away from Nebraska and Wisconsin for the national championship. Seemingly contradicting the opening claim of ESPN announcers Paul Sunderland and Salima Rockwell that Anna Smrek's excellent hitting night in the semis gives the Badgers a new look, Smrek hit .647 (12-1-17) in the first Wisconsin-Nebraska B1G match of the season.</p><p><span style="color: red;">Game 1:</span> Wisconsin out of sync starting off, particularly in serve-receipt, as Huskers lead 5-1... Badgers close to within 6-4, now 6-5, as Nebraska's receipt shaky as well... Jade Demps, who announcers pointed out specializes in hitting from the back row, delivers one of her specials for 7-6 UW lead... Huskers back on top 8-7... Demps with another back-row kill for 8-8... Ally Batenhorst, who cooled off in the semifinal match vs. Pitt after a great match vs. Texas in the regional final, registers a kill for NU... Now 12-10 Huskers, as Kayla Caffey heats up... 13-10... Madi Kubik also heating up for Huskers, as they lead 15-10 (on 7-2 run)... Lindsay Krause (pronounced Krowzy) joining in the act for Nebraska, 16-10... Badger block makes it 16-11... Lauren Stivrins kill ups NU lead to 17-11... Kubik again, 18-12, T/O Wisc... Huskers currently hitting .345 (13-3-29), with an "ensemble" attack... Nebraska hitting error and then kill by Julia Orzol cut lead to 18-14... NU responds with kill for 19-14... Long rally ends with UW setter Sydney Hilley sending off-speed ball over, followed by Badger block, now 19-16... T/O Nebraska... Huskers <a href="https://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2020/01/stanford-sweeps-wisconsin-for-ncaa.html" target="_blank">dampening</a> a lot of Wisconsin spike attempts (i.e., deflecting them to keep them playable)... Wisc ace for 19-17, but Caffey kill ups Husker lead to 20-17... Badger kill to close within 20-18... Now 22-18 on NU block, T/O Wisc... Badgers hit long, 23-18 NU... UW service error gives NU game point, 24-19... Badgers within 24-21... Wisc block for 24-22, T/O Nebraska... Stivrins puts Game 1 away for NU, 25-22... Game-1 hitting: Wisc .171, Nebraska .156... Two names we haven't heard a lot for Wisconsin: Anna Smrek and Grace Loberg... ESPN's intro and outro music, One Republic's "All the Right Moves," really sticks with you...</p><p><span style="color: red;">Game 2:</span> Early 2-1 Husker lead... Caffey and Kubik keeping it up for Nebraska, 4-1... 5-1 on big Husker block... UW kill for 5-2... Caffey answers, 6-2... Demps with back-row special for Wisc, 6-3... Krause for 7-3... Demps dug, but Nebraska hits it out. Huskers challenging no-touch call... Denied, so 7-4 NU... Orzol kill for 7-5... Serve into net, 8-5 Huskers... Kubik back-row kill for 9-5... Double-hit on set by Hilley, 10-6 NU (we're seeing more mishandled-ball calls lately)... Now 11-7 Huskers... Caffey (whose 6-foot-0 height makes her short only in a relative sense) with block for 12-7... Badgers out-of-sync, can't locate NU overpass, 13-7... Now 13-9, as Huskers hit it out... 13-10... Badgers (Loberg) with swing for 13-11 and she nails it (4-0 UW run)... Kubik kill for 14-11, but then Kubik blocked for 14-12... Wisc serves long for 15-12 NU lead... Badger block for 15-13... Kubik off the block for 16-13... 16-14... Ace for 16-15... No T/O from NU... Husker block for 17-15, so T/O apparently not needed... NU service error for 17-16... Badgers into net, 18-16... NU hasn't won points on its own serve in a long time... Another Husker service error, 18-17... Caffey kill, 19-17... 19-18... Caffey again after Badger free-ball, 20-18... Loberg heating up a bit for Wisc, 20-19... Badger block for 20-all... 21-20 UW, now comes that Husker T/O... I've wanted to use the term "Red Roof Inn" for blocks, but both teams have red as their main color... Kaffey ties it 21-all... Demps dart from the back, 22-21 Badgers... 22-all... Another Demps back-row kill, 23-22 UW... Kubik kill for 23-all... Joust and ball goes out of bounds off Wisconsin for 24-23 Husker lead. Challenged... Denied... Game-point NU... Serves into net, 24-all... UW returns the favor, serving long, 25-24... T/O Wisc, "icing" the server? NU with swing for the game, but blocked, 25-all... Demps from the front-row for 26-25 Badger lead... Caffey kill off the block to tie it at 26-all... Wisc challenging on grounds that ball hit Caffey on ricochet after block before it landed out... Denied, so game continues... Caffey hitting .643 (10-1-14) ... Robinson kill for 27-26 UW, but Caffey answers for 27-all... NU ace for 28-27... Loberg kill for 28-all... NU kill off block for 29-28... Rettke tip for 29-all... Badger block for 30-29... Another block gives UW the game, 31-29...</p><p><span style="color: red;">Game 3:</span> Wisc offer to early 4-2 lead... After long rally, Demps blocked from back row, 4-all... 8-7 Wisc after Badgers serve long... Caffey kill for 8-8... Wisc 11-9... 12-9... Rettke with two hits out of bounds, NU within 12-11... Rettke block for 13-11, has two solo blocks and eight assists on the evening... 14-12 Wisc... 17-14 Wisc... 18-15... Trading side-outs, 19-16... 20-16 Badgers on Rettke tip... Huskers within 21-19... 22-19... 22-20... UW kill off block for 23-20... 23-21... Krause put-away after UW sends two free-balls, NU within 23-22, T/O Badgers... Demps hits wide, 23-all... Devyn Robinson tip for 24-23 Wisc... Robinson kill to end it, 25-23 Wisconsin...</p><p><b>Between-game note: Badgers now 6-0 in deuce-games vs. Nebraska this season...</b></p><p><span style="color: red;">Game 4:</span> Nebraska block for 2-0 lead... Block totals on the night: Wisconsin 18, Nebraska 7. Tied at 3-all... 5-all... Huskers with last three points for 8-5 lead... Badger block pulls them within 8-7... Ace for 8-all... 10-8 Huskers as knuckleball serve (no spin), which Wisc thought was going long, lands in... Badgers with three quick points for 11-10 lead... Huskers hanging in, 13-all... 14-all... 15-all... 16-all... You guessed it, 17-all... I'd like to see the side-out statistics, must be very high... Smrek hits wide for 18-17 NU... Now 19-17 Huskers... 21-17... 21-18... UW net serve, 22-18... 22-19... Kubik kills finds open space on the floor in-bounds, 23-19... 23-20... Another service error, 24-20 Huskers... Tip off block by Loberg for 24-21... Badger kill for 24-22, T/O Huskers... 24-23... Great rally! Looks like Rettke has kill for equalizer, but Huskers chase ball down and their off-speed hit lands untouched in front of the baseline... 25-23 Huskers to send it to five, NU's first deuce-game win over UW this season...</p><p><span style="color: red;">Game 5:</span> 2-0 Wisconsin on Nebraska hit long (one linesperson called touch, but chair-ref overruled)... Now 3-0... 4-0... Rettke rejection (block) for 5-0... 6-0... 7-0... Huskers with their first point, 7-1... Rettke kill off the block, 8-1... Wisc hits long for 8-2... 9-2... 9-3 on Wisc service error... Demps hit long, 9-4... UW hits long again, 9-5... NU hits long, 10-5 Badgers... Wisc hits wide, 10-6... Batenhorst kill for 10-7... Badger block for 11-7... Stivrins for 11-8... Loberg kill for 12-8... NU off-speed shot for 12-9... Rettke slide kill for 13-9... Ace for 14-9... Krause kill keeps the match alive, 14-10... Kubik kill for 14-11... T/O Wisc... Kubik hits out of bounds to (apparently) end the match. Chair-ref waited a while to deliver call. NU challenging for either touch or net violation... Objection sustained (touch), 14-12 Wisc... Long rally (Badgers had at least four swings for the title) and Rettke brings it home, 15-12... "When you say Wisconsin, you've said it all..."</p>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-9579221018021620312021-12-16T17:20:00.094-08:002021-12-16T21:56:37.196-08:00Live-Blogging NCAA Women's Final Four (December 2021)<p>The B1G sweeps the ACC, sending Wisconsin and Nebraska to Saturday's final... Badgers won both regular-season matches, 26-24, 25-19, 25-23 in Lincoln on October 27, and <i>14-25</i>, 25-23, 26-24, 25-18 in Madison on November 26. A lot of deuce-games there!</p><p><b>Nebraska-Pittsburgh:</b> Pitt leading 12-8 in <span style="color: red;">Game 1</span>... Panthers crushing the ball like they did against Purdue in the regional final, hitting .467 thus far (8-1-15). Statistics from <a href="https://www.ncaa.com/game/5909462" target="_blank">NCAA website</a>... Now 15-8... 17-13 Pitt... Game 1 to Panthers 25-16...</p><p><span style="color: red;">Game 2:</span> Huskers faring better in Game 2, leading 14-9, having upped their hitting percentage from .167 in Game 1 to .615 (9-1-13) thus far in Game 2... Nebraska evens it at a game apiece, 25-17... Game 2 hitting percentages: Nebraska .440, Pitt .161.</p><p><span style="color: red;">Game 3:</span> 7-5 Nebraska... Pitt with a mini-rally to lead 10-9... Panthers' Serena Gray, one of the stars of their win over Purdue, currently hitting .600 (7-1-10) on the night (cumulatively)... 12-11 Pitt... 14-all... Mini-rally for Nebraska, as it leads 17-15... Now 17-all... Blocking count to this point: Huskers 7, Panthers 4. NU pulls ahead 20-18... Now 23-18... Huskers take it 25-20... Their highest percentage hitters thus far (cumulatively) have been Kayla Caffey (.417, 6-1-12) and Lauren Stivrins (.455, 5-0-11), although neither has that many attempts...</p><p><span style="color: red;">Game 4:</span> Quick 3-0 lead for Nebraska... 8-5 Huskers... 13-10 Huskers... With a few kills in Games 3 and 4, Lindsay Krause, one of Nebraska's super-frosh in the regional final win over Texas, has raised her hitting percentage tonight to .357 (7-2-14)... Now 15-11 NU... Pitt hanging in, down 16-14... 18-14... Pitt won't go away, cuts deficit to 18-16... Big Pitt block cuts it further, 18-17... Now 19-18 Nebraska... 20-19 Nebraska... 20-all... Big Nebraska block for 21-20 lead... 22-20 Huskers as Pitt spike attempt apparently deemed to have hit antenna... 22-21... Stivrins off-speed attack ups NU lead to 23-21... Stivrins again, 24-21... Nebraska puts away overpass, but swing's follow through hits net, 24-22... <b>Another Nebraska block ends it, 25-22.</b></p><p><b>Wisconsin-Louisville:</b> I wasn't expecting the Final Four telecast to come on until 7:00 pm <i>Central</i>, but it began at 7:00 Eastern. Hence, I've caught very little of the first two games, which Wisconsin and Louisville have split (Badgers 25-23 in the opener and Cardinals 25-15 in the second). Per the ESPN announcers, the Game-2 loss ends Wisconsin's streak of winning 19 straight games.. Louisville coach Dani Busboom Kelly, interviewed during the break, attributed the Cards' comeback to improved digging in Game 2... Louisville has been the steadier hitting team, recording percentages of .400 and .393 in the two games. Wisconsin: .412 and .167...</p><p><span style="color: red;">Game 3:</span> Badgers off to a quick 4-0 lead... Cards to within 6-5... Wisconsin wins long rally to break 7-7 tie... Now tied 8-8... Cards with first lead of Game 2, 9-8... Badgers' 6-foot-9 middle Anna Smrek having a dominant hitting night (.857, 12-0-14). Cards lead 14-12, however... 15-13 Louisville at media time-out... Teams trading mini-rallies, with Badgers tying game 16-all... Wisc serves into net, putting Louisville up 17-16... Now 18-16, T/O Wisc... Cardinal hitting paced by Anna Stevenson (.667, 8-0-12) and Amaya Tillman (.600, 7-1-10), cumulative to this point... We're tied again, 19-all... Badgers go up 20-19, T/O Louisville... Not hearing much from Badgers' 6-foot-8 middle Dana Rettke (.167, 8-5-18)... Now 21-19 Badgers, but Tillman block keeps things close, 21-20... Another Smrek kill for 22-20... Now 24-21 Badgers on an 8-3 run... Smrek now hitting .850 (17-0-20)... Rettke block closes it out, 25-21...</p><p><span style="color: red;">Game 4:</span> Smrek with first hitting error (long, no touch) on first point... 2-0 Louisville... Badger mini-rally to lead 4-3... 7-up... 11-9 Cards, with a couple of recent kills by Anna DeBeer on high outside sets over Wisc double-block... Card mini-rally for 14-10 lead... Now, 14-11... 15-11 at media T/O... Solid night for DeBeer, hitting .257 on match-leading 35 swings (16-7-35)... Badgers within 15-13... Now 16-14 Cards... Now 17-15... Cards' serve-receipt passes getting very close to the net, but setter improvising... 18-15 Louisville, T/O Wisc... Block and kill bring UW within 18-17... 19-17 UL... 20-18 on Wisc service error... 20-all... 21-20 Badgers in this game of mini-rallies... 21-all on another DeBeer kill on high-outside set... UL block for 22-21 lead... 22-all after long rally... Louisville challenge on whether Rettke netted... Call stands... Louisville outblocking Wisconsin 11-8 at this point... Badger service error for 23-22 lead... <b>Possibly the point of the match on long rally (lots of balls blocked but kept in play by hitting team), but Louisville called for reaching over the net to attack ball...</b> 23-all... Cards take next point for 24-23 lead... Ace (25-23), we're going five!</p><p><span style="color: red;">Game 5:</span> Will it be Smrek/Rettke duo for Badgers or DeBeer for Cardinals (or other players entirely) stepping up in the decider? 1-all start... 2-1 Cards on DeBeer off-speed shot... Wisc hits it out for 3-1 UL lead... Rettke block to close to 3-2... 3-3... Rettke hits it out for 4-3 Card lead... 4-all... DeBeer for 5-4... 5-all... DeBeer again... UL serve-receipt solid again... 6-all... Badgers into the net. 7-6 UL, but UW challenging... (You learn something every day: If a player's hair touches the net, it's not a violation.)... Challenge affirmed, but because ball was still in play, a replay is called at 6-6... 7-6 Badgers... 8-6 Wisc, T/O Louisville... Badgers on 7-3 run (from down 1-3)... 9-6... Claire Chaussee with kill off the block, 9-7... Now 10-7 UW... Wisc hits long for 10-8, challenging on possible touch (denied)... Badger block for 11-8... UL hits it out for 12-8 Wisc lead... As per ESPN, Badgers even up the block count, 11-11... UL having trouble getting kills, UW isn't, 13-8... 14-8... 14-9... <b>Badger kill to end it, 15-9...</b></p>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-34452876225250467542021-12-11T12:42:00.114-08:002021-12-11T21:35:09.670-08:00Live-Blogging NCAA Women's Elite Eight Saturday (December 2021)<p>A long day of play is over. See below for my real-time statistical commentary on all four matches (with thanks to the <a href="https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/volleyball-women/d1/2021" target="_blank">NCAA women's volleyball website</a> for statistics and play-by-play sheets, which were very helpful when I missed a play)...</p><p><b>Texas-Nebraska:</b> Coming up soon for the remaining spot in the Final Four with Pitt, Louisville, and Wisconsin... <span style="color: red;">Game 1:</span> Texas out to early 4-1 lead... Nebraska turns things around, taking 13-9 lead... Now 14-10... Cornhusker lead up to 17-10, now 17-11... Nebraska in good shape, leading 23-15... And the Huskers close it out 25-19. Game-1 hitting percentages: NU .242, UT .125... <span style="color: red;">Game 2:</span> Nebraska leading 11-10... Huskers expand lead to 20-12, looking likely to take a two-games-to-none lead... Three straight for Longhorns, closing their deficit to 20-15... Texas closes further to 22-20... Excellent dig by Horns on hard-hit ball leads to kill in transition, now 22-21... 22-all on another UT kill... Airmailed serve puts NU back up, 23-22... 23-all after long rally... Another long serve by Texas gives Nebraska game-point, 24=23... Huskers pound overpass to take Game 2, 25-23 (a lot closer than it looked like it was going to be)... <span style="color: red;">Game 3:</span> Texas up 6-5, thanks to some big blocks. On the evening (cumulatively), we have seven total blocks for the Horns and five for the Huskers... Nebraska goes up 8-7, hoping to avoid the reverse-sweep suffered by Washington Thursday night vs. Texas... Still close: 15-14 Huskers... Now 17-14, the most recent point coming on a Nebraska ace serve... UT with two straight to close to 17-16... Now 20-19 NU... UT airmails another serve, making it 21-19... Nebraska can't put away a free-ball opportunity and Texas is back to within 21-20. Horns tie it 21-all... Texas serve into net gives Nebraska 22-21 lead, but Skylar Fields kill ties it at 22-all... Molly Phillips kill puts Longhrons up 23-22, T/O Nebraska... Texas serve called wide, but under challenge... Call reversed and ruled an ace to give Horns 24-22 lead... Another UT service error (into net), making it 24-23... Big UT block gives it game, 25-23. Texas now up to 11 total blocks (cumulatively)... After three games (cumulatively), Fields hitting .344 (13-2-32). <span style="color: red;">Game 4:</span> Nebraska leading 9-7... Now 11-10 Huskers... Announcer Paul Sunderland showing his statistical chops, noting that NU first-years Lindsay Krause (pronounced Krowzy) and Ally Batenhorst are hitting at a much higher percentage tonight than their percentages for the season.</p><p><span style="color: red;">Krause: Tonight .500 (12-2-20) ----- Season .219<br />Batenhorst: Tonight .476 (10-0-21) ----- Season .152</span></p><p>Nebraska ups lead to 15-12... 16-12 on Texas attack called a throw or push rather than a hit. Sunderland contends that similar types of contact have been taking place all night without being flagged. Now 17-12... 18-12... Now up to 20-12 Huskers... 21-13 NU... 21-14... UT block for 21-15... Longhorn kill for 21-16. T/O Nebraska... Huskers challenge whether UT's Logan Eggleston had her foot on 10-foot-line before going up for attack. Declined, so still 21-16... Texas hits long, but challenges whether Nebraska committed net violation. Challenge upheld, so 21-17... Longhorns with ace for 21-18... Mystery call (possibly NU net violation) for 21-19... Batenhorst kills saves NU after shaky serve-receipt, 22-19 Huskers... Nebraska block for 23-19... Fields (UT) and Kayla Caffey (NU) trade kills for 24-20 Husker lead... Fields kill off the block keeps Texas alive, 24-21... <b>Krause kill sends Huskers to Final Four</b>, 25-21 in Game 4...</p><p><b>Wisconsin-Minnesota </b>is also coming on the air in-progress, with the Badgers leading <span style="color: red;">Game 1</span> by a 19-15 tally... The Badgers finish off the opener 25-18, outhitting the Gophers .304 (19-5-46) to .222 (9-1-36). Minnesota avoided hitting errors in Game 1 (only one), but a very large share of their spikes were kept in play. UW middle Dana Rettke is off to a hot start hitting (.625, 5-0-8), whereas UM's go-to, right-side hitter Stephanie Samedy, is not (.071, 2-1-14). Without a great night from Samedy, for Minnesota it will be a calamity... <span style="color: red;">Game 2:</span> Minnesota out to a 10-8 lead... Now 15-13 Gophers... 15-14...15-all... And Wisconsin pulls ahead 16-15. Three kills from Jade Demps, two from Julia Orzol, and one from Devyn Robinson have powered a Badger 6-1 scoring run from 10-14 to 16-15... Now 17-all... 20-19 Badgers on stuff block; hitting over the 6-foot-8 Rettke and 6-foot-9 Anna Smrek is, pardon the pun, a tall task for Minnesota... Gophers hanging in, however, 21-all... Samedy has upped her hitting percentage to .273 (7-1-22). Now 22-all... Rettke slides over to the right for a kill to make it 23-22, followed by a Rettke ace making it 24-22... UW hits wide, bringing Gophers within 24-23. Samedy kill from the back row ties things at 24-all... Minnesota gets two good swings, but Wisconsin there with the block each time (the first time fielded by Gophers, the second time a stuff-block for a Badger point), giving Wisconsin 25-24 lead... Gophers hit wide for 26-24 Badger win... Game 2 hitting percentages: Wisconsin .342, Minnesota .275... Blocks (cumulative) through two games are even at four apiece... <span style="color: red;">Game 3:</span> Minnesota leads 8-7, as Gophers continue to play Badgers on even terms of late... Ace on serve that hits net and trickles over gives UW a 10-9 lead... Badgers starting to open up some daylight, 13-10, although Minnesota is challenging a no-touch call on a ball it hit out... Challenge denied, so score remains 13-10... 17-15 Badgers... 18-15... Gophers with three straight to tie it 18-all, the last point coming on a Samedy back-row kill... Badger block for 19-18... Ace (Minnesota lets serve land that was way in) for 20-18... Smrek kill for 21-18... Two more for Wisconsin to make it 23-18.. Gophers rebound with three to come within 23-21, but this time it's the Badgers challenging a no-touch call... Hard to tell on the replay (as many touch/no-touch calls are), but perhaps Minnesota blocker's finger bent a tiny bit, suggesting a touch... Challenge denied, so score remains 23-21... Rettke slide kill for 24-21, match-point... UW hits long, 24-22... <b>Rettke with another slide kill for the match and Badger trip to the Final Four... </b>Rettke finishes at .520 (15-2-25), Robinson at .391 (11-2-23), and Demps .312 (7-2-16) for Wisconsin. The durable Samedy, with 42 swings in three games, finishes at .214 (12-3-42), with Minnesota teammate Airi Miyabe hitting .296 (13-5-27).</p><p><b>Louisville-Georgia Tech</b> started before the end of Pitt-Purdue, so by the time I started watching the Cardinals and Yellowjackets, Louisville had already taken the <span style="color: red;">Game 1</span> (25-18)... <span style="color: red;">Game 2:</span> According to an ESPN studio host, Georgia Tech had not won even a single game from its Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) mate Louisville since 2016. That streak is now over, the Yellowjackets winning Game 2 by a 25-21 score. Georgia Tech upped its hitting percentage from .116 in Game 1 to .281 in Game 2... Louisville's hitting percentage moved in the opposite direction (.281 to .152). <span style="color: red;">Game 3:</span> Louisville regains the upper hand, winning 25-21... <b>The Cardinals close it out, 25-20, to advance...</b></p><p><b>Pitt-Purdue</b> underway... <span style="color: red;">Game 1:</span> After a slow start (Purdue starting out with 4-1 lead), Pitt leads 11-10... ESPN graphic points out Boilermakers' height advantage, but Panthers scoring kills with no problem when in-system. Pitt also has a couple of stuff-blocks... Panthers lead 15-14 at a TV break. even though Purdue hitting .500 (10-2-16). Pitt opening up a little daylight with 18-15 lead, hitting .444 (10-2-18)... Panthers up their lead to 21-17... Pitt up 23-19, running the middle to great effect... Panthers close out Game 1, 25-20... A real slugfest in Game 1, with Pitt hitting .571 (19-3-28) and Purdue hitting .478 (14-3-23)... <span style="color: red;">Game 2:</span> 7-4 Purdue... Pitt getting hot, takes 9-8 lead. Still early, of course, but Panthers' Serena Gray crushing it in the middle (1.000, 5-0-5)... 13-all... 16-15 Pitt; Panthers with two service errors in Game 2... 18-17 Pitt... 19-18 Pitt... Now 19-all... Game-2 hitting much colder thus far: Pitt .172, Purdue .143... 20-all... 21-all... 22-all... Purdue now up 24-22... 24-all... 25-24 Purdue... Another Gray kill to tie it 25-all... 26-all... 27-all... 28-all... Purdue takes it, 30-28. Pitt just couldn't close on some free-ball opportunities... Through two games: Pitt 25 digs, Purdue 23... <span style="color: red;">Game 3:</span> Early 5-2 lead for Pitt... 11-6 Panthers... Boilers on a run, closing to within 12-10. T/O Pitt... Here's an odd statistic, considering how close this game is: Pitt hitting .727 in this game (8-0-11), whereas Purdue hitting .000 (4-4-14)... Two in a row for Pitt, as it leads 14-10... Now 14-11 on Purdue block; Boilermakers up to six stuffs for the match... 14-12... 15-13 Panthers and now 16-13... 16-14... 16-15 on a Purdue ace... Gray annihilates another set to the middle to make it 17-15 Panthers... 18-15... 19-15. Purdue T/O. Pitt's Game-3 hitting now .300 (12-3-30). You didn't expect the .727 to last, did you?... 20-15 Pitt... 21-15... 22-15, looks like it's slipping away from the Boilers, but don't forget the comeback vs. BYU... Three straight points for Purdue, now 22-18 Pitt; Panthers call time... Airmailed Purdue serve makes it 23-18... Boilers with nice quick-hit down the middle for 23-19... Gray back in the front row for Pitt, so you know what that means: 24-19... Pitt kill ends Game 3, 25-20... Cumulatively through three games, Pitt's Serena Gray hitting an error-free .750 (12-0-16)... <span style="color: red;">Game 4:</span> Purdue with a 5-4 lead... Now, 10-all... 12-10 Pitt... Purdue has been making most of the miracle saves in the match (as per my memory), but on this last point, it was Pitt, 13-10... 14-10... Boilermaker kill for 14-11... Panthers return the favor for 15-11... Pitt starting to pull away a little, leading 17-11... However, you can't count Purdue out until the ref's whistle blows on the 25th (or whatever game-winning total) point for the other team... 19-11 Pitt... Three Purdue points cut its deficit to 19-14 and prompt Pitt T/O... Game-4 hitting percentages: Pitt .348 (9-1-23), Purdue .000 (9-9-33)... Panthers rebound with next two points to make it 21-14, T/O Purdue... 24-14 Pitt, 10 match-points. One is staved off, but no more than that... Your Game-4 final is 25-15, <b>sending Pitt to the Final Four</b>... ESPN color commentator Missy Whittemore ( a <a href="http://the-source.net/catching-up-with-missy/" target="_blank">former setter</a>) made the interesting point late in the match that Purdue did not seem to trust its front-row hitters at the time, instead setting players in the back row (who must launch their jump from behind the 10-foot line).</p><p style="text-align: center;">***</p><p>I think this is my first-ever Volleymetrics "pregame coverage," with the first of today's four regional finals roughly 30 minutes away. My primary thought heading into the action is the demise (in the short term, at least) of West Coast volleyball. When I covered the inaugural NCAA women's volleyball tournament for the <i>UCLA Daily Bruin</i> 40 years ago (screenshots below), the teams in the Final Four were USC, UCLA, University of the Pacific, and San Diego State (prior to 1981, women's collegiate sports were entirely under the auspices of the <a href="https://awesomeamericanhistory.com/2018/03/05/who-ran-womens-athletics-before-the-ncaa/" target="_blank">AIAW</a>). Of the eight remaining teams playing today, <i>none</i> are from the Pac 12 or any other West Coast conference (OK, BYU was extremely close, Washington a little less so).</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX4wiom9DZwyTDzXMt7LlFPaj4KBXhX8a-YOSSSaVAkda9c1_vw21Nq_prx66NB6N5TGcYbR6aHAjDKfrrYsZJ-LACyFgjOqzZQC5fHNF-FX-1M2RqAKbkwmj_Bez-p7MBvKrAEqRDYZbL/s864/daily+bruin+81+vb.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="569" data-original-width="864" height="407" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX4wiom9DZwyTDzXMt7LlFPaj4KBXhX8a-YOSSSaVAkda9c1_vw21Nq_prx66NB6N5TGcYbR6aHAjDKfrrYsZJ-LACyFgjOqzZQC5fHNF-FX-1M2RqAKbkwmj_Bez-p7MBvKrAEqRDYZbL/w619-h407/daily+bruin+81+vb.JPG" width="619" /></a></div>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-81990755343285203292021-12-09T08:55:00.051-08:002021-12-09T21:06:53.580-08:00Live-Blogging NCAA Women's Sweet Sixteen Thursday (December 2021) <p>It's wall-to-wall NCAA women's volleyball today on ESPN-U and ESPN+ (a subscription service), with an 11:00 am Central start to Sweet Sixteen matches... In the following paragraphs, I offer my thoughts on several of the matches (most recent on top)...</p><p>No. 10 seed Nebraska, which swept unseeded Illinois twice this season during B1G play, leads the Illini 19-12 in Game 1... Huskers take it 25-12... Game 2 also to Nebraska, 25-21... The Huskers close out the match 25-17 for their third sweep of Illinois this season. The Huskers' hitting percentages across the three games were nothing, if not consistent: .250, .263, .263.</p><p>Upset in the making? No. 15 Washington finishes off No. 2 Texas 25-19 in Game 1... Huskies keeping it up, leading 17-13 in Game 2... Now 20-16... Huskies two points away in Game 2, 23-19... And UW closes out Game 2, 25-20... Washington's hitting percentages in the first two games are torrid: .387 and .414. Only 2 hitting errors for the Huskies in Game 2 along with 14 kills (on 29 attempts). Horns hit a strong .364 in Game 2, but to no avail... U-Dub outblocking Texas 5-3 on the evening (as of early Game 3)... I go do something else for a bit and now the match has totally turned around... Texas leads 10-7 in Game 5, having won Games 3 and 4 by scores of 25-22 and 25-9... Now 12-8 Longhorns in the fifth... 13-8... 14-8... Texas takes Game 5 by a score of 15-9 for the "reverse sweep." After hitting so well in the first two games, the Huskies' percentages in the final three games fell to .154, -.036, and .083... Texas hit .314 in Game 3, then went wild in Games 4 (.500, 13-1-24) and 5 (.500, 6-1-10). To repeat: Texas makes just one hitting error in each of the last two games!</p><p>No. 13 UCLA trying to hang on at No. 4 Wisconsin, trailing two games to none and 18-14 in Game 3... Badgers finish it off 25-17, setting up an all-B1G regional final vs. Minnesota...</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZEcsV5Z7VTyumdIxRcVYWHuMgLKL5pBVxqKptqwQabA6EezE7dUVuPhX1kdV1YkaTzDiNPyQm5ftWvFk4M_id1AMtJn6YMP3W90j84qqVC6l2LC3LxjPgZvYjbFZxv3whJUxHkp702Lx5/s726/mystery+hitting+percentage.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="489" data-original-width="726" height="399" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZEcsV5Z7VTyumdIxRcVYWHuMgLKL5pBVxqKptqwQabA6EezE7dUVuPhX1kdV1YkaTzDiNPyQm5ftWvFk4M_id1AMtJn6YMP3W90j84qqVC6l2LC3LxjPgZvYjbFZxv3whJUxHkp702Lx5/w592-h399/mystery+hitting+percentage.JPG" width="592" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">One of today's winning teams recorded the hitting percentages over five games shown above. Who is it? Scroll down for answer...</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">*</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">*</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">*</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">*</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">*</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It's Minnesota, which lifted its hitting percentage from the low-mid .100s in the first four games to .318 in the fifth. The No. 12 Gophers dug themselves into a bit of a hole, trailing No. 5 Baylor two games to one. But Minnesota prevailed 25-23 in Game 4 and 15-10 in the decider (<a href="https://www.ncaa.com/game/5909451/boxscore" target="_blank">link</a>).</div><p></p><p>We've had three sweeps so far today. No. 1 Louisville over No. 16 Florida (<a href="https://www.ncaa.com/game/5909449/boxscore" target="_blank">link</a>), No. 3 Pitt over unseeded Kansas (<a href="https://www.ncaa.com/game/5909453/boxscore" target="_blank">link</a>), and No. 8 Georgia Tech over No. 9 Ohio State (<a href="https://www.ncaa.com/game/5909450/boxscore" target="_blank">link</a>).</p><p>It's a tale of two cities (make that games) in the match-up of No. 6-seed <b>Purdue</b> and No. 11 <b>BYU</b> (<a href="https://www.ncaa.com/game/5909454/boxscore" target="_blank">live box score</a>). The Boilermakers took the first game 25-12 (outhitting the Cougars .379 to -.179), but BYU has turned it on in Game 2. Trailing 5-8, BYU ran off 10 straight points to open up a 15-8 lead. A streak like that has to be very rare in NCAA tournament matches. During this run, the Cougars' strategic short serving was preventing Purdue from even getting many decent swings. BYU, on the other hand, got a lot of good attack attempts and made good on them... BYU wraps up Game 2, 25-16, outhitting Purdue .303 to .171... Early Game-3 edge to BYU, 6-3... The Cougars have led Game 3 most of the way, but things are getting a little closer at 22-20, BYU. Now 23-21... Kill to make it 24-21 Cougars... and game, 25-21. Without some nice digs, Purdue would have lost the game even more decisively... Game-3 hitting percentages: BYU .406 (14 kills and only 1 hitting error on 32 attempts), Purdue .172... Boilers bouncing back, however, off to 4-0 lead in Game 4. Purdue lead up to 6-0 before BYU gets first point... 19-9 Purdue, looks like we're heading for a fifth game... Indeed we are, Purdue wins 25-13 (outhitting BYU .379 to .062)... Cougars out to 3-1 lead in Game 5... Now 4-1... 5-1... Returning from time-out, Purdue with quick three points to close within 5-4... Big BYU block to up lead to 6-4... 7-4 after BYU ace... 7-5... 7-6... 7-7, as Cougars showing some serve-receipt difficulties... T/O BYU... Cougars with a kill for 8-7... Boilers counter with kill of their own for 8-8 tie, but then serve into net for 9-8 BYU lead... Kill for 10-8 BYU... Purdue kill to close within 10-9... BYU tip for 11-9... Cougar block, 12-9. T/O Purdue... Boiler kill to close within 12-10, but another service error, 13-10 BYU... Cougar kill for 14-10... 14-11 (BYU fails to capitalize on free-ball opportunity)... Purdue ace closes it to 14-12. T/O BYU... Another ace! 14-13... BYU hits long after shaky serve-receipt, 14-14... BYU kill for 15-14, Purdue answers 15-15... Cougar net violation for 16-15 Purdue, but BYU challenging. Call confirmed... BYU kill for 16-all... Purdue kill for 17-16... Purdue block to win match, 18-16... Amazing finish! Game-5 hitting: Purdue .211, BYU .100...</p>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-38334696948389246482021-12-03T12:58:00.001-08:002021-12-03T12:58:40.751-08:002021 NCAA Women's Preview<p>The 2021 NCAA women's volleyball tournament is underway, with a few matches having taken place last night (the seeded teams who played advancing) and the bulk of the matches on tap for late this afternoon and tonight. </p><p>After many seasons of seeing the same teams atop the seeding, year after year, the last couple of years have seen a changing of the guard. Penn State and Stanford are in the field but unseeded, something that would have been unimaginable a few years ago. USC is not even in the field. </p><p>Last year, Kentucky <a href="https://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2021/07/kentucky-wins-2020-held-in-2021-ncaa.html" target="_blank">captured the NCAA title</a> as a relative newcomer on the elite scene and this year, another team from the Bluegrass State, Louisville, is the top national seed. Given that the Cardinals went <a href="https://gocards.com/sports/womens-volleyball/schedule" target="_blank">28-0 on the season</a> (including wins over fellow national seeds Pittsburgh, Purdue, Kentucky, Georgia Tech, and Nebraska), it would be hard to seed them anywhere else.</p><p>However, according to my Conference-Adjusted Combined Offensive-Defensive (CACOD) rating (explained <a href="https://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2018/11/2018-ncaa-womens-tourney-preview.html" target="_blank">here</a>), which I introduced in 2011, Louisville comes out only as third best. The following chart lists the 16 seeded teams in order of their CACOD.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ3Tx-AEoBQVGFnVD1xx9IlC3WA4OFFkUsrTBec9ydBLoSv7whc_N3tquZVYk0jND2QfJADw37PEs61wnv1kT_uNDImAO9hxuMP4eY6ntW2v6WrjXNL5kSr4BxAIGSUdVJ2KHGNAiaqLdU/s588/2021+CACOD.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="384" data-original-width="588" height="370" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ3Tx-AEoBQVGFnVD1xx9IlC3WA4OFFkUsrTBec9ydBLoSv7whc_N3tquZVYk0jND2QfJADw37PEs61wnv1kT_uNDImAO9hxuMP4eY6ntW2v6WrjXNL5kSr4BxAIGSUdVJ2KHGNAiaqLdU/w565-h370/2021+CACOD.JPG" width="565" /></a></div><p>No team with a CACOD lower than 1.91 has ever won the championship, so I've inserted a dividing line to separate the likely contenders from the rest (although just because something hasn't happened before, that doesn't mean it <i>can't</i> happen).</p><p>The top two teams in the CACOD are BYU (<a href="https://byucougars.com/schedule/w-volleyball" target="_blank">28-1 with the only loss occurring at Pitt</a>) and Texas (last year's national runner-up and owners of a <a href="https://texassports.com/sports/womens-volleyball/schedule" target="_blank">25-1 record this season</a>, the only loss coming in a split of a two-match series at Baylor).</p><p>Another team drawing a lot of attention is Wisconsin, with its <a href="https://madison.com/wsj/sports/college/volleyball/how-wisconsin-volleyballs-super-seniors-took-on-building-an-impressive-legacy/article_ba02143d-34e7-50c9-b5b9-80be033424f7.html" target="_blank">group of "super-seniors,"</a> who are playing in their fifth season as a COVID-19 allowance. This group includes 6-foot-8 middle Dana Rettke and setter Sydney Hilley. The Badgers, who went undefeated last season until falling to Texas in the national semifinals, have<a href="https://uwbadgers.com/sports/womens-volleyball/schedule/2021" target="_blank"> not been as dominant this year</a>, losing twice to Purdue and once to Maryland, and barely escaping at Minnesota.</p>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-84702534317753605412021-11-19T19:32:00.001-08:002021-11-19T19:32:41.348-08:00Belated Analysis of U.S. Olympic Gold in Women's (Indoor) Volleyball<p>Back in August, the U.S. took Olympic gold in women's (indoor) volleyball for the first time. It was quite a transformation for the American squad, whose sometimes shaky performance in pool play gave way to dominance in the medal round. I like to take some time to reflect on a competition, make some graphics, and then write up an analysis. Three months is a long time, but it's just been a busy year. However, I'm finally ready to present my analysis!</p><p>To illustrate how the U.S. women upgraded their performance between the pool and medal rounds, I've created the following graphic of their game-by-game point-differentials throughout the tournament, on which you can click to enlarge.</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrluLxdhPsekRBNhwVhpp-Dc1pJbLSMSbHGTDUxs2NWj0b93dGdGJUJoHKwelhfXj0sgZDkzw42XYXHjHppmAxylR481Ugfp3VakGtPALbxcwhzsiJxWI1PsohkwljB6eGB8DtvghHTfRf/s954/olympic+VB1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="564" data-original-width="954" height="359" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrluLxdhPsekRBNhwVhpp-Dc1pJbLSMSbHGTDUxs2NWj0b93dGdGJUJoHKwelhfXj0sgZDkzw42XYXHjHppmAxylR481Ugfp3VakGtPALbxcwhzsiJxWI1PsohkwljB6eGB8DtvghHTfRf/w607-h359/olympic+VB1.JPG" width="607" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p>Each game of each match is shown from left to right. In its opening match against Argentina, the U.S. won in a sweep, with margins of 5, 6, and 5 points in each respective game. Hence, victorious games appear as blue bars, greater height reflecting more decisive wins. Skipping to the third match, vs. Turkey, the U.S. took the first two games, lost the third and fourth (shown as red bars, the greater the drop-down, the more decisive the loss), but rebounded for a 15-12 win in the fifth. Next came a blowout loss to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Olympic_Committee_athletes_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics" target="_blank">Russian Olympic Committee</a>, and then a two games to one deficit vs. Italy, which the U.S. overcame to win in five. During one stretch, the U.S. dropped seven out of nine games, some by large margins (where all the red is).</p><p>This hardly looked like a team poised to win the gold, especially in as dominant fashion as it did! Once the medal round began, however, the U.S. recorded three straight sweeps, by an average of 7 points per game. Readers of this blog will know that the first place I always look is hitting percentage, both that amassed on offense and that allowed defensively. Here are the hitting percentages from the U.S. matches...</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC5wQplcewd0Y0DUW0zEgBcqZD1JbTcdmEkAZ_k4N6D8nc-HbUd1zJsg1CsX6Uo-u1-KnXZvZx3AWK133omp_fZv75yfcJaH_GmGmg6hGsexRF66bQViuhgJO60pAWf6Wc_HAnxbdtAOlX/s681/olympic+VB2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="411" data-original-width="681" height="303" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC5wQplcewd0Y0DUW0zEgBcqZD1JbTcdmEkAZ_k4N6D8nc-HbUd1zJsg1CsX6Uo-u1-KnXZvZx3AWK133omp_fZv75yfcJaH_GmGmg6hGsexRF66bQViuhgJO60pAWf6Wc_HAnxbdtAOlX/w501-h303/olympic+VB2.JPG" width="501" /></a></div><p>In its pool-play matches (Argentina, China, Turkey, ROC, and Italy), the U.S. didn't dominate anyone in hitting percentage. The only domination was by the ROC over the U.S. That all changed in the medal round. After hitting for the most part between .200 and .250 in pool play, the U.S. ranged between roughly .275 and .350 in the medal round. In addition, the Americans started holding their opponents below .200.</p><p>The Olympic scoresheets (which no longer seem to be available online) contained a lot of potentially valuable information. As shown below, I gravitated toward three statistics, which I charted...</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV2nx-uWmZrzxHqF2Ly9ccn2fDhsnVwV89q7iE21w69dxpfGlcF3SJ7x551Q3U9jU8en7pbVQ5COincXTS-RYslj7OpppdB-UGAg3T4GMGb8dUeVnoOfNbw_3xj_elLrTf6UsR_ddHFbn-/s847/olympic+VB3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="176" data-original-width="847" height="126" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV2nx-uWmZrzxHqF2Ly9ccn2fDhsnVwV89q7iE21w69dxpfGlcF3SJ7x551Q3U9jU8en7pbVQ5COincXTS-RYslj7OpppdB-UGAg3T4GMGb8dUeVnoOfNbw_3xj_elLrTf6UsR_ddHFbn-/w615-h126/olympic+VB3.JPG" width="615" /></a></div><br /><p>The first row ("Non-Scoring Reception") pertains to serve-receipt, the second row ("Non-Scoring Dig") pertains to digging, and the third ("Scoring Block") pertains to blocking. Given the importance of launching an "<a href="https://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2010/11/increasingly-it-seems-one-hears-of.html" target="_blank">in-system</a>" attack, I thought quality of serve-receipt (defined as serve-receipts deemed "excellent" by some observer, divided by the sum of [opponent aces plus serve-receipts kept in play]) might be key to the U.S. team's improved hitting percentage and overall play in the medal round. But no, U.S. serve-receipt was actually worse in the medal round than in pool play.</p><p>What about digging of opponents' spike attempts (defined as "excellent" digs over total attempts)? Not much there either, other than a really good digging match vs. the Dominican Republic in the quarter-finals.</p><p>Finally, we have scoring blocks (defined as [points scored via the block - blocking errors]/total blocking attempts). Now, in each of its matches, the U.S. committed more blocking errors (<a href="https://www.rookieroad.com/volleyball/what-is-a-block-error-in-volleyball/" target="_blank">primarily net violations</a>) than it scored points directly via the block, leading to consistent negative values on this statistic. However, the statistics became <i>less negative</i> as the U.S. entered the medal round. It seems anticlimactic to conclude that the key to the American' historic gold medal was blocking for points and staying out of the net while trying to do so, but that is what these data seemed to suggest.</p><p>Perhaps, I thought, this was merely a fluke correlation between the blocking statistic and the U.S. team's success. I initially planned to examine the statistics of <i>every</i> women's volleyball match of these past Olympics (not just the U.S. matches) to see if teams with blocking statistics not far below zero tended to do well. However, as I was falling behind in writing up this analysis, I decided to examine only a subset of matches.</p><p>In doing so, I found a few instances in which a team scored a large number of points blocking, relative to their blocking errors. Italy scored 12 points directly via the block, while committing only 12 blocking errors (making their statistic .000) vs. the ROC, with Italy winning the match three games to none. Also, Turkey scored 9 points via the block while committing 12 blocking errors vs. China and, what do you know, Turkey recorded a three-game sweep. Finally, the ROC scored 13 points on blocks while committing 13 blocking errors in sweeping Argentina.</p><p>As we academics like to say, further research is required to establish the reliability of these findings. Still, there really may be something going on here.</p>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-54055023199752638042021-08-01T14:13:00.002-07:002021-08-01T14:17:18.017-07:00U.S. Men (Indoor) Eliminated from 2020(21) Olympics<p>The U.S. men's indoor squad has missed the eight-team medal tournament, losing its final pool match to Argentina. Vinnie Lopes at <i>Off the Block</i> has a statistically laden summary (<a href="http://www.offtheblockblog.com/2021/08/medal-dreams-go-awry-u-s-loses-to-argentina-eliminated-from-olympics/" target="_blank">link</a>).</p>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-17663226122455418082021-07-21T16:02:00.007-07:002021-07-29T07:37:52.284-07:00Kentucky Wins 2020 (held in 2021) NCAA Women's Title; Hawai'i Takes 2021 Men's<p>It was an unusual spring for U.S. collegiate volleyball, thanks to COVID-19-related adjustments, with the women's championship (typically decided in December) and the men's championship (typically being decided five months later) being held only two weeks apart. The women's final was played on Saturday, April 24, 2021, with the men's on May 8. Having nearly three months to digest these matches, I present my analyses of the championships below.</p><p>WOMEN'S</p><p>For starters, here's a sentence I never expected to write in my lifetime (I'm 58): The Kentucky Wildcats are the <a href="https://ukathletics.com/news/2021/4/25/kentucky-wins-2020-ncaa-volleyball-national-championship.aspx" target="_blank">new NCAA women's volleyball champions</a>.* UK <a href="https://ukathletics.com/news/2021/4/25/kentucky-wins-2020-ncaa-volleyball-national-championship.aspx" target="_blank">stopped Texas</a> in four games, <i>20-25</i>, 25-18, 25-23, 25-22, to claim what really is the 2020 championship (the 2021 title will be determined this coming November).</p><p>True, Kentucky was the No. 2 seed. However, previous high seeds from outside the power conferences (Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12) have rarely lived up to their placements**, so I remained skeptical. In the end, however, Kentucky proved to be a more reliable pick than even No. 1 seed Wisconsin, which entered the tournament undefeated, but <a href="https://uwbadgers.com/news/2021/4/22/volleyball-badgers-finish-season-as-ncaa-regional-final-runner-ups.aspx" target="_blank">bowed out in three to No. 4 Texas</a> in the national semifinals.</p><p>Kentucky led the nation in team hitting percentage during the regular season (.361) and, to a large extent, rode that hitting to the national championship. Wisconsin came out better than Kentucky on my Conference-Adjusted Combined Offensive-Defensive (CACOD) measure, which is based on each team's own regular-season hitting percentage (HP) divided by the aggregate hitting percentage a team allowed its opponents (with this ratio multiplied by a strength-of-conference adjustment factor). Wisconsin hit .342 in the regular season (a bit below Kentucky's .361), but the Badgers allowed their opponents to hit a combined .128 (compared to .144 for the Wildcats' opponents). The Big 10's higher conference strength (1.25) than the SEC's (1.00) also made Wisconsin look better:</p><p><i>Wisconsin: .342 own HP/.128 opponents' HP = 2.67, which when multiplied by the Big 10's 1.25 conference adjustment factor = 3.34. </i></p><p><i>Kentucky: .361 own HP/.144 opponents' HP = 2.51, which when multiplied by the SEC's 1.00 conference adjustment factor = 2.51.</i></p><p>At no time was Kentucky's kill-production more effective than when the Wildcats had the opportunity to close out the championship match against Texas in Game 4. Looking at a portion of the Game-4 <a href="https://ukathletics.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2020-21/university-of-texas/boxscore/8937" target="_blank">play-by-play</a>, once the Wildcats had overcome the Longhorns' early 6-1 edge to take a 15-13 lead, Kentucky successfully kept Texas at arm's length. A trailing team cannot afford merely to trade side-outs, but must put together scoring runs on its own serve to catch up. Yet, as shown in the following screenshots, five of Texas's seven final serving stints consisted of one serve only (the other two consisting of two serves). And, nearly always, it was Kentucky kills (highlighted in yellow) that kept Texas from gaining any ground. (You can click on all graphics to enlarge them.)</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy1X4GDJ28guY65GF83vpBvhoL9P6vgXubFI03yc2T-kz1LZCE9_rljpRlzGD1m_uz7t1hGA3caN4vKu-Nf_EsA3SwZeb_5l136IdHTvdm8uC69cQLg-uiAR1cT_ElKQ3WJyi7-kmYSsQr/s929/KY_TX+1.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="689" data-original-width="929" height="417" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy1X4GDJ28guY65GF83vpBvhoL9P6vgXubFI03yc2T-kz1LZCE9_rljpRlzGD1m_uz7t1hGA3caN4vKu-Nf_EsA3SwZeb_5l136IdHTvdm8uC69cQLg-uiAR1cT_ElKQ3WJyi7-kmYSsQr/w565-h417/KY_TX+1.JPG" width="565" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBZIWjaIGxBZDGPB76RVr3qUA7oQWmbqfoz6YHezKlv63dbryvrmU-XGeoZIIYvcTaPK-OTui2wFb73XWmI-eVD57iaJ9OfgZdZVi4iueaHOOUrPvKiJQ4uZLWpHH_Vh-hinOFswbQjhgQ/s927/KY_TX+2.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="629" data-original-width="927" height="380" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBZIWjaIGxBZDGPB76RVr3qUA7oQWmbqfoz6YHezKlv63dbryvrmU-XGeoZIIYvcTaPK-OTui2wFb73XWmI-eVD57iaJ9OfgZdZVi4iueaHOOUrPvKiJQ4uZLWpHH_Vh-hinOFswbQjhgQ/w562-h380/KY_TX+2.JPG" width="562" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgerKGHoP3_Pnnqr0Lt4HKNDFIdkGB-W1ipYpu6_Ewbu4CWt9cpzX3h1R_ekGUk_oWYij1GGAcicJoGQSf53I9JGjqhA-sx2qJYH5ZiVKUdVTTTlTYHonjpBQN5s0R5wSLndd7dS327mBjE/s932/KY_TX+3.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="73" data-original-width="932" height="49" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgerKGHoP3_Pnnqr0Lt4HKNDFIdkGB-W1ipYpu6_Ewbu4CWt9cpzX3h1R_ekGUk_oWYij1GGAcicJoGQSf53I9JGjqhA-sx2qJYH5ZiVKUdVTTTlTYHonjpBQN5s0R5wSLndd7dS327mBjE/w558-h49/KY_TX+3.JPG" width="558" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>Another way to examine Kentucky's hitting attack is through usage/success graphs. In the two graphs shown below (the top one for the championship match vs. Texas and the bottom one for the Wildcats' four-game semifinal <a href="https://ukathletics.com/news/2021/4/22/kentucky-volleyball-fights-past-washington-into-ncaa-title-match.aspx" target="_blank">victory over Washington</a>), each of Kentucky's five most active hitters (Madi Skinner, Avery Skinner, Elise Goetzinger, Azhani Tealer, and Alli Stumler) is depicted by a rectangle. The width of each rectangle represents the percentage of the team's hitting attempts taken by a player. For example, against Texas, Stumler took 34% (.34) of Kentucky's total number of swings (51/152), the most of any Wildcat, so her rectangle is widest. The height of each rectangle denotes the player's hitting percentage in the match, which was .471 for Stumler in the title match. Rectangles with the largest area convey great productivity by the hitter: a large number of kills on a large number of hitting attempts.<div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhO1ACI_bfSKYYEu-32GEv2_7_hoB-OgabHVSm_LvCeyNaP9tD1a92UOcc-cUaAhv0P5Ylf-UYS5KGVxGiNsI-A_HWBIYdIQdOQ1eAvafsldtvCnxgo78skCGocqfrvRb3gZOjxi3T1aCzb/s1006/KY+usage+success.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="562" data-original-width="1006" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhO1ACI_bfSKYYEu-32GEv2_7_hoB-OgabHVSm_LvCeyNaP9tD1a92UOcc-cUaAhv0P5Ylf-UYS5KGVxGiNsI-A_HWBIYdIQdOQ1eAvafsldtvCnxgo78skCGocqfrvRb3gZOjxi3T1aCzb/w569-h318/KY+usage+success.JPG" width="569" /></a></div><br />Looking at Kentucky's graphs against Texas and Washington one atop the other allows us to discern at a glance any changes in the Wildcats' allocation strategy between the two matches. For example, Kentucky set Stumler considerably more often (34% of the team's hitting attempts) in the final match than in the semifinal (23%). Changes in players' hitting percentages, such as Madi Skinner's improvement from .360 in the semifinal to .455 in the final, are also evident.</div><div><br /></div><div>Before leaving the women's tournament, I wanted to revisit Wisconsin's concluding matches. Due to COVID, Big 10 teams played only conference matches during the regular season. The Badgers <a href="https://uwbadgers.com/sports/womens-volleyball/schedule/2020-21" target="_blank">went 15-0</a> in this perennially strong conference, sweeping every match with the exception of three that went 3-1 (vs. Illinois, Michigan State, and Minnesota). However, both matches with Nebraska (ranked No. 5 nationally at the time), both matches with Penn State (No. 9 at the time), and one match with Minnesota (No. 5 at the time) were cancelled. It seems, in retrospect at least, that the missed opportunity to play these matches likely cost Wisconsin in terms of tournament sharpness.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Badgers breezed through their first two NCAA tourney matches against Weber State and BYU, before <a href="https://uwbadgers.com/news/2021/4/19/wisconsin-volleyball-is-final-four-bound.aspx" target="_blank">hanging on 15-12 in the fifth game</a> vs. No. 8-seed Florida in the round of eight.*** Now, Florida is an excellent team, in fact the only team all year to <a href="https://ukathletics.com/news/2021/3/19/volleyball-skinners-20-kills-not-enough-to-fend-off-no-7-florida.aspx" target="_blank">beat Kentucky</a> (the Gators and Wildcats <a href="https://ukathletics.com/news/2021/3/20/volleyball-stumler-and-m-skinner-overpower-florida-in-sweep-of-gators.aspx" target="_blank">split</a> their two SEC matches). Still, the decline in hitting percentage vs. Florida (relative to Big 10 play) among three leading Wisconsin hitters (6-foot-8 middle Dana Rettke, 6-2 middle/right Devyn Robinson, and 6-4 middle Danielle Hart) was considerable.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsDsi1nBTir1XyEJdY_JPwRyKdZkxiyAjTJKOeRWWLZhnRBEmSW6L1rP_-Jya-phwP71sDzFZ7otsxN4-FMPHFDGf7LmK4s8uuhApVUbGacwn3OQWzonX-Vpw2NvN5r7BFMsVe84uTF5Df/s692/wisc+20_21.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="692" height="289" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsDsi1nBTir1XyEJdY_JPwRyKdZkxiyAjTJKOeRWWLZhnRBEmSW6L1rP_-Jya-phwP71sDzFZ7otsxN4-FMPHFDGf7LmK4s8uuhApVUbGacwn3OQWzonX-Vpw2NvN5r7BFMsVe84uTF5Df/w499-h289/wisc+20_21.JPG" width="499" /></a></div>Interestingly, Robinson and Hart recovered nicely in their hitting vs. Texas, but it was not enough. As a team, the Longhorns <a href="https://uwbadgers.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2020-21/texas/boxscore/13312" target="_blank">outhit the Badgers</a>, .301-.220.<div><p>MEN'S</p><p>Due to the COVID-related cancellation of the 2020 NCAA men's season, 2019 runner-up Hawai'i had to wait two years for another shot at the title. This time, the Rainbow Warriors made good on the opportunity, <a href="https://hawaiiathletics.com/news/2021/5/8/mens-volleyball-champions-hawai-i-tops-byu-for-1st-ncaa-crown.aspx" target="_blank">sweeping BYU</a>, 25-21, 25-19, 25-16.</p><p>As this match wore on, Hawai'i looked more and more like it could attack the ball unchallenged. BYU recorded a healthy 5.5 blocks in Game 1 (really 5, as the extra half-block comes from awarding .5 credit to three blockers who went up together). However, the Cougars had zero blocks in Game 2 and two in Game 3 (7.5 total). Hawai'i hit .381 for the match (.400, .333, and .400, respectively, in Games 1, 2, and 3). Also, the Rainbow Warriors had only nine hitting errors on the night; we know seven of these are from BYU's "7.5" blocks, so that means UH spiked only two balls out of bounds. </p><p>The Bows' Rado Parapunov, who started off hot in the <a href="https://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2019/08/long-beach-state-repeats-as-ncaa-mens.html" target="_blank">2019 final</a> before cooling off, hit .357 this time vs. BYU on 13 kills (with three errors) on 28 swings (one-third of Hawai's overall 84 spike attempts). Several of Parapunov's teammates had even higher hitting percentages, albeit in far fewer attempts (Patrick Gasman, .545, 7-1-11; and Chaz Galloway and Guilherme Voss, each .667, 6-0-9).</p><p>Before I go, I wanted to mention that the Hawai'i athletic website's <a href="https://static.hawaiiathletics.com/custompages/Stats/Mvb/2021/050821.PDF" target="_blank">box score</a> from this match is a very elaborate one, containing far more than the usual statistics. As shown in the following screenshot, the extended box score breaks down hitting attempts into first-ball attacks (immediately upon serve-receipt), transition attacks (once a rally has started), and first transition attacks. Hawai'i hit better on first-ball attacks (.524) than it did on transition attacks (.238).</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV-S4J3x0OY3k8bfZgze9vnrJ9uTPr0weN2WZjqiyWdJmy3B_kfa43OcpMZ3s8oykidA7LdrrXQK4uEXZl5l2VGQ2Sr6O3fECP5qiCBS47H4r82miahWW5Mxg9QxV3KHLs7VQI2042UENx/s907/extended+box+score.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="428" data-original-width="907" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV-S4J3x0OY3k8bfZgze9vnrJ9uTPr0weN2WZjqiyWdJmy3B_kfa43OcpMZ3s8oykidA7LdrrXQK4uEXZl5l2VGQ2Sr6O3fECP5qiCBS47H4r82miahWW5Mxg9QxV3KHLs7VQI2042UENx/w534-h252/extended+box+score.JPG" width="534" /></a></div><p>---<br />*Any more than I expected to write about a post-1908 World Series win by the Chicago Cubs or an NBA title by the Toronto Raptors (2019) or Milwaukee Bucks (2021).</p><p>**Examples include the 2019 Pitt squad that was seeded No. 6 and <a href="https://pittsburghpanthers.com/news/2019/12/7/womens-volleyball-panthers-season-ends-in-ncaa-tournament-second-round.aspx" target="_blank">lost in the second round</a>, and Kentucky itself, which as the No. 4 seed in 2017, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/kentucky-nebraska-archive-volleyball-14ec17cd960a403c8e8408456fbb9d33" target="_blank">lost in the Elite Eight</a> to Nebraska.</p><p>***In the usual 64-team field, a team must win four matches to reach the Final Four. However, due to COVID, this spring's NCAA tourney consisted of only 48 teams.</p><p></p></div>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-89024206583516562182021-04-16T15:22:00.004-07:002021-04-16T15:22:53.101-07:002020 (held in 2021) NCAA Women's Tourney Reaches Round of 16<p>The NCAA women's tourney is now <a href="https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/volleyball-women/d1/2021" target="_blank">down to 16 teams</a>, who will play on Sunday (except for Wisconsin vs. BYU on Saturday). Fourteen of the 16 national seeds have advanced this far. The two exceptions are Western Kentucky, which <a href="https://wkusports.com/news/2021/4/16/womens-volleyball-wku-vb-advances-to-first-ever-sweet-16-with-five-set-win-over-15-no-17-washington-state.aspx" target="_blank">upset No. 15-seed Washington State</a> in five games and will now face No. 2-seed Kentucky; and Pitt, which <a href="https://www.cardiachill.com/2021/4/16/22387016/pitt-volleyball-sweeps-no-14-seed-utah-sweet-16-pittsburgh-panthers-ncaa-tournament-results-2021" target="_blank">swept No. 14-seed Utah</a> and will now take on No. 3-seed Minnesota.</p><p>In my tournament preview (previous posting below), I identified Western Kentucky as a leading upset candidate, based on the Hilltoppers' ratio of nearly 3 (2.91) between their own season-long offensive hitting percentage (.355) to the hitting percentage they defensively allowed their opponents (.122). (WKU's conference-difficulty adjustment in Conference USA was 1.00, so the Hilltoppers' ratio statistics is not changed by multiplying by 1.00.) </p><p> Another team on my radar was High Point, whose ratio was an even more gaudy 3.29 (=.296/.090). Multiplying by the Big South adjustment factor of .75 yields an adjusted ratio of 2.47 for the Panthers. High Point scored a first-round win over Central Florida, but was then swept by No. 7-seed Purdue in the second round. </p><p>I just checked Pitt's <a href="https://pittsburghpanthers.com/documents/2021/4/12/11_PittVBNotes.pdf" target="_blank">regular-season statistics</a> for own and opponents' hitting percentages. They were .262 and .146, respectively. Dividing .262/.146 = 1.79 and multiplying by 1.10 for the ACC conference adjustment, yields an adjusted ratio of 1.97.</p>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-60662910243401062542021-04-05T13:21:00.001-07:002021-04-05T13:21:14.672-07:00Belated 2020 NCAA Women's Brackets Announced for COVID-Disrupted Season<p>Typically, the NCAA women's tournament is held every December. Against the backdrop of COVID-19, however, this has not been a typical season. Back in September 2020, the NCAA <a href="https://www.1011now.com/2020/09/17/ncaa-rolls-out-plan-for-spring-2021-volleyball-season/" target="_blank">moved forward</a> on a plan to shift several fall championships to spring, including women's volleyball. Some conferences (such as the Big 10 and Pac 12) opted to delay their entire women's volleyball seasons from fall 2020 to winter/spring 2021. Others (such as the Big 12) stuck to the usual framework and played the bulk of their schedule in fall 2020, but added some 2021 matches to stay sharp for the national tourney. The SEC played a little less than half of its conference schedule in the fall and a little more than half of it in the spring. Throughout this makeshift season, of course, numerous matches were <a href="https://volleyballmag.com/ncaa-volleyball-031821/" target="_blank">postponed or cancelled</a>.</p><p>The regular season has now been played and here we are, ready for the NCAA tournament. Only <a href="https://volleyballmag.com/ncaa-volleyball-091720/" target="_blank">48 teams (down from the usual 64) will participate</a> and the tournament will take place <a href="https://huskers.com/news/2021/2/3/volleyball-vb.aspx" target="_blank">entirely in Omaha, Nebraska</a>. The brackets are available <a href="https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/volleyball-women/d1/2021" target="_blank">here</a>. </p><p>Wisconsin, last year's national runner-up, has remained true to form, going <a href="https://uwbadgers.com/sports/womens-volleyball/schedule" target="_blank">15-0 in a conference-only season</a> and sweeping all but three matches (which the Badgers won 3-1). Beyond the Badgers, however, the field features several oddities.</p><p>Stanford, winner of the last two national titles (and three of the last four), is absent. The Cardinal was able to <a href="https://gostanford.com/sports/womens-volleyball/schedule" target="_blank">play only 10 matches this season and went 2-8</a>.</p><p>Kentucky is seeded No. 2, higher than I can recall the Wildcats ever being seeded (a little research shows UK was the No. 4 seed in 2017). UK went <a href="https://ukathletics.com/sports/womens-volleyball/schedule" target="_blank">19-1 in a conference-only schedule</a>, its only loss coming to Florida (the No. 8 national seed, and with whom the Wildcats split two matches). Kentucky hit .361 as a team for the season, the highest in the land.</p><p>Perennial national contender (and seven-time champion) Penn State is seeded No. 13. Many of the other high seeds are familiar faces (No. 3 Minnesota, No. 4 Texas, No. 5 Nebraska, No. 6 Washington).</p><p>Readers of this blog will know that I developed a statistic in 2011, the Conference-Adjusted Combined Offensive-Defensive (CACOD), to gauge teams' prospects for doing well in the NCAA tournament based on their regular-season hitting percentages and opposition hitting percentages. It is explained <a href="http://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2012/11/ranking-64-ncaa-womens-teams-on.html" target="_blank">here</a>. For context, no team with a CACOD below 1.91 (which was recorded by 2016 champion Stanford) has won the NCAA women's tournament. CACOD values for the top four national seeds are as follows.</p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" style="background-color: #ffffcc; border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(255, 204, 0); color: black; width: 100%;">
<tbody><tr>
<td><b>Team</b></td>
<td><b>Hitting%</b></td>
<td><b>Opp Hit%</b></td>
<td><b>Ratio</b></td>
<td><b>Conf Adj</b></td>
<td><b>Final CACOD</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="color: red;">Wisconsin</span></td>
<td><span style="color: red;">.342</span></td>
<td><span style="color: red;">.128</span></td>
<td><span style="color: red;">2.67</span></td>
<td><span style="color: red;">x 1.25</span></td>
<td><span style="color: red;">3.34</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Kentucky</span></td>
<td><span style="color: #2b00fe;">.361</span></td>
<td><span style="color: #2b00fe;">.144</span></td>
<td><span style="color: #2b00fe;">2.51</span></td>
<td><span style="color: #2b00fe;">x 1.00</span></td>
<td><span style="color: #2b00fe;">2.51</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="color: #cc0000;">Minnesota</span></td>
<td><span style="color: #cc0000;">.262</span></td>
<td><span style="color: #cc0000;">.191</span></td>
<td><span style="color: #cc0000;">1.37</span></td>
<td><span style="color: #cc0000;">x 1.25</span></td>
<td><span style="color: #cc0000;">1.71</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="color: #ffa400;">Texas</span></td>
<td><span style="color: #ffa400;">.333</span></td>
<td><span style="color: #ffa400;">.168</span></td>
<td><span style="color: #ffa400;">1.98</span></td>
<td><span style="color: #ffa400;">x 1.20</span></td>
<td><span style="color: #ffa400;">2.38</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>Wisconsin's CACOD of 3.34 is the highest ever recorded, surpassing the 3.09 recorded by Penn State in the 2014 regular season. That Nittany Lion squad went on to win the NCAA tournament. Hence, if all goes according to form, the victorious fans (however many of them are admitted for live attendance) will be singing "On Wisconsin."</p><p>If you're looking for possible upsets, some other teams with high CACOD values are:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Western Kentucky .355/.122, ratio = 2.91 (x 1.00 for Conference USA), CACOD = 2.91</li><li>High Point .296/.090, ratio = 3.29 (x .75 for Big South), CACOD = 2.47</li></ul><p></p><p>Action gets underway a week from Wednesday, on April 14.</p>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-85293013233462772342020-01-14T18:49:00.001-08:002020-01-14T18:49:19.548-08:00Stanford Sweeps Wisconsin for NCAA Women's Title, Aided by Multifaceted Blocking GameWith Stanford's win over Wisconsin for the NCAA national women's championship about a month ago coming so easily, 25-16, 25-17, 25-20, it was hard at first to come up with a statistical angle. The Cardinal, led by 6-foot-6 senior outside-hitter Kathryn Plummer's torrid spiking (.459 on 22 kills and 5 errors on 37 attempts), outhit the Badgers, .358-.152 (<a href="https://gostanford.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2019/wisconsin/boxscore/34472">box score</a>). Madeleine Gates, a Stanford graduate transfer who finished her degree at UCLA, also came up big (.529, 10-1-17). I've <a href="http://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2019/12/2019-ncaa-womens-tourney-preview.html">already written a lot</a> on Plummer's hitting, however, so I wanted to focus on something else. Then, an idea from five years ago popped into my mind.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2015/02/belated-summary-of-last-decembers-ncaa.html">As I wrote</a> in February 2015 then-Penn State men's assistant coach <a href="https://gomason.com/sports/mens-volleyball/roster/coaches/jay-hosack/486">Jay Hosack</a> (now head men's coach at George Mason) noted on the Internet-radio show <i>The Net Live</i> that, "blocking should be evaluated more broadly than via direct stuff-blocks for points." For example, blockers could slow the ball down from a spike attempt, making it easier for the players behind the blockers to dig the ball. Guests on that episode of <i>The Net Live</i> referred to slowing the ball as "control blocking." I prefer the term "dampening" the spike attempt.* Here is a schematic I created to illustrate dampening:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaJWaWYFh8NZBUt_bBHS7zt6RgmneJI99-6VyzUKhYV4XKXJTodP9WgwqV0VaWS8NNsN2G3CSdP_6vQ-96sLjZOcveF2G0wrJ0OcPoubf5eMMzohWl9ahFwcqNzjoVrTdFcf5fkk66g2Ha/s1600/VB_diagram.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="547" data-original-width="822" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaJWaWYFh8NZBUt_bBHS7zt6RgmneJI99-6VyzUKhYV4XKXJTodP9WgwqV0VaWS8NNsN2G3CSdP_6vQ-96sLjZOcveF2G0wrJ0OcPoubf5eMMzohWl9ahFwcqNzjoVrTdFcf5fkk66g2Ha/s320/VB_diagram.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Blockers can also ricochet the ball back to the attacking team's side of the net, with the original attacking team keeping the ball in play. A "block back in play" probably would not be as advantageous to the blocking team as would a dampening, as the original attacking team can set up again for a spike. However, a block back in play would buy the blocking team some time to set up to receive the next spike attempt.<br />
<br />
I had never gotten around to examining Hosack's idea, as one could not do so simply from box scores and would have to engage in careful observation and charting while watching matches. Perhaps some teams and volleyball statistical services compile dampenings and block-backs, but I'm not aware of how to access these numbers. I had forgotten about Hosack's idea until, for whatever reason, it re-emerged in my mind after the Stanford-Wisconsin match. I decided now was the time to follow through on it using <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ_xcErrGGU">video of the match</a> on YouTube.<br />
<br />
With pencil in hand, I began recording Stanford and Wisconsin's dampenings and block-backs, as shown in the following graph. I also plotted stuff blocks (listed in the box score simply as "blocks). As can be seen, Stanford outperformed Wisconsin in all three areas -- stuff blocks, dampenings, and block-backs -- on the night.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPg6fQniRwbE11oBst6XCNYcZh8dDnvzik44f6BR2iSk4kzkzO7CxrsF-Hr4rRDWquURlmNqyTsuGANZ-vGpg-uA9X4Pp4vhWU5assuYTqv_265vSCxCn78b_Fwiq2XhG2HT8DqwIv4qjy/s1600/VB_stats.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="427" data-original-width="720" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPg6fQniRwbE11oBst6XCNYcZh8dDnvzik44f6BR2iSk4kzkzO7CxrsF-Hr4rRDWquURlmNqyTsuGANZ-vGpg-uA9X4Pp4vhWU5assuYTqv_265vSCxCn78b_Fwiq2XhG2HT8DqwIv4qjy/s400/VB_stats.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
If one has the time and interest in charting dampenings and block-backs, I would recommend doing so. The three measures together yield a richer measure of blocking success beyond just stuff blocks. Conceivably, a team could compile very few stuff blocks, but a large number of dampenings, for example. Looking at the box score alone, one would not appreciate the team's blocking success.<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
Every year since 2011, I have computed my Conference-Adjusted Combined Offensive-Defensive (CACOD) measure to predict success in the NCAA women's tourney. I noted <a href="http://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2019/12/2019-ncaa-womens-tourney-preview.html">before this year's tournament</a> that the lowest CACOD score for a team that went on to win the national title was 1.91 (<a href="http://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2016/12/2016-ncaa-womens-tourney-preview.html">Stanford, 2016</a>). Stanford's was 2.05 this season, whereas Wisconsin's was 1.85. Hence, had the Badgers defeated the Cardinal, Wisconsin would have been become the team with the lowest CACOD to win the championship.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
*According to a scenario from the <a href="http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/Stats_Manuals/VB/2008%20VB%20Stats%20Manual%20easy%20print.pdf">NCAA manual</a>, a defender fielding a ball after a dampening block still receives a dig in the statistics, even though the ball has been slowed down:<br />
<br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">Team White player No. 1 attacks the ball. The ball goes off Team Blue player No. 1 and ... (b) goes to Team Blue player No. 2 who keeps the ball in play. RULING: ... In (b), Team Blue player No. 1 is not awarded a block but Team Blue player No. 2 is awarded a dig.</span></i>alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-45394380019907586792019-12-19T16:00:00.000-08:002019-12-19T16:07:06.589-08:00Preview of NCAA Women's Final Four (2019)<div>
This year's NCAA women's Final Four, which begins shortly, features the Bears of Baylor, two of the B1G's three burrowing animals -- the Wisconsin Badgers and Minnesota Gophers* -- and a color, the Stanford Cardinal.<br />
<br />
By most accounts, Minnesota would probably be the team considered least likely to win the national title. Anecdotally, in watching some Gopher matches this season, my sense was that blocking was the team's strength.<br />
<br />
I therefore decided to compare the Final Four teams on their blocks per opportunity. The number of opportunities a team has to score points via a stuff block is the number of hit attempts by opponents, removing the number of spikes hit out of bounds or into the net. Such attempts gone awry can be calculated by taking opponents' aggregate hitting errors and subtracting those errors due to your own aggregate blocks.<br />
<br />
These calculations revealed all of the Final Four teams to be extremely similar in the proportion of blockable (i.e., not out of bounds) balls they actually blocked. These proportions showed that each team blocked 8% of their aggregate opponents' spike attempts they could have blocked (ranging from .080-.087).<br />
<br />
Where the teams differed more dramatically is in the number of opposition spike attempts they allowed: Minnesota 4453, Wisconsin 3834, Baylor 3428, and Stanford 4070. At first glance, at least, even when Baylor and Wisconsin (relative to Minnesota and Stanford) don't score kills, they appear to pressure their opponents enough to take them out of system and prevent them from mounting attacks.</div>
<div>
<br />
---<br />
*The other being the Michigan Wolverines.</div>
alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-10465879190484504892019-12-14T14:13:00.003-08:002019-12-15T13:02:33.936-08:00Brief Observations on NCAA Women's Elite Eight DayBaylor and Washington are tied at one game apiece (Baylor 25-20, U-Dub 25-21).
Baylor has hit well in Games 1 (.538, 16 kills, only 2 errors, on 26 attempts) and 2 (.355, 15-4-31). Washington had only three hitting errors in Game 2 (.367, 14-3-30). The Huskies' Samantha Drechsel is hitting .625 after two games (12-2-16)... Bears take Game 3, 25-19, on continued torrid hitting (.615, 17- 1-26 in Game 3)... Baylor <a href="https://baylorbears.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2019/washington-final-/boxscore/24160">closes out match</a> 25-18 to take program's first trip to Final Four. Bears hit .444 in Game 4 (16-4-27), .479 for match (67-11-117)...<br />
<br />
Wisconsin records a 3-0 sweep of Nebraska (<a href="https://uwbadgers.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2019/nebraska/boxscore/13050">25-18, 25-22, 25-19</a>) for the third time this season to advance... No suspense in the last two matches of the day, either -- not even any deuce games -- as Minnesota sweeps Louisville (<a href="https://gophersports.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2019/louisville/boxscore/10805">25-21, 25-14, 25-16</a>) and Stanford does the same to Penn State (<a href="https://gostanford.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2019/penn-state/boxscore/34266">25-22, 25-15, 25-17</a>). Stanford's Kathryn Plummer records another high hitting percentage on a high volume of attempts (.512, 24-2-43).alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-19888225099231829832019-12-13T11:56:00.001-08:002019-12-14T12:06:50.276-08:00Brief Observations on NCAA Women's Sweet Sixteen Day (2019)It was a day of upsets and near-upsets and the NCAA women's field winnowed from 16 to eight teams. No. 2 seed Texas dropped the first two games to Louisville, won the next two to even things up, and then <a href="https://www.ncaa.com/game/3909422">fell to the Cardinals</a> in Game 5, 15-12. Three other matches went the distance, with the higher-seeded team prevailing in each case.<br />
<br />
Utah had given Stanford trouble in the regular season, never winning a match from the Cardinal, but going <a href="https://gostanford.com/news/2019/10/20/womens-volleyball-comeback-complete.aspx">five games on October 20</a> and <a href="https://gostanford.com/news/2019/11/22/womens-volleyball-hentz-on-top.aspx">four on November 22</a>. Friday's NCAA match-up was no different, as Stanford and Utah battled five games, the Cardinal <a href="https://gostanford.com/news/2019/12/13/womens-volleyball-from-sweet-to-elite.aspx">prevailing 15-11</a> in the decider. Here at VolleyMetrics, we've been keeping an eye on <a href="http://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2019/12/2019-ncaa-womens-tourney-preview.html">Kathryn Plummer's heavy swing volume</a> for Stanford. Friday night, she registered one of <a href="https://gostanford.com/boxscore.aspx?path=wvball&id=34265">best performances of the season</a>, hitting .389 on 29 kills and 8 attack errors in 54 attempts.<br />
<br />
Two other five-game survivors were <a href="https://www.ncaa.com/game/3909405">No. 7 Minnesota over No. 10 Florida</a>, and <a href="https://www.ncaa.com/game/3909376">No. 11 Penn State over unseeded Cincinnati</a>.<br />
<br />
Top-seeded Baylor has eliminated No. 16-seed Purdue in today's opening match, 25-12, <i>23-25</i>, 25-15, 25-17 (<a href="https://www.ncaa.com/game/3909417">stat sheet</a>). To me, the big story was Baylor's offensive depth. With junior outside-hitter Yossiana Pressley, this season's Big 12 Player of the Year, hitting a subpar .194 on 15 kills and 8 errors in 36 attack attempts (she hit <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/baylorbears.com/documents/2019/12/10/BU_VB_Game_Notes_2019_Postseason_Full_Web.pdf">.275 on the season</a>), the Bears more than made up for it with strong hitting performances by Gia Milana (.500, 13-3-20), Marieke van der Mark (.464, 16-3-28), and Shelly Stafford (.421, 9-1-19).<br />
<br />
Saturday's match-ups, with trips to the Final Four on the line, include: Baylor-Washington, Wisconsin-Nebraska, Stanford-Penn State, and Minnesota-Louisville.alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5416988026660985099.post-52797678183597707312019-12-04T08:05:00.000-08:002019-12-04T08:05:14.194-08:002019 NCAA Women's Tourney PreviewThis year's NCAA women's tournament, which gets underway Friday, features some of the "usual suspects" among the leading teams, but also some newcomers (click <a href="https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/volleyball-women/d1/2019">here</a> for bracket). The usual suspects include No. 2 national seed Texas, No. 3 Stanford, No. 4 Wisconsin, and No. 5 Nebraska, whereas the upstarts include <a href="https://baylorbears.com/news/2019/12/1/volleyball-vb-earns-no-1-overall-seed-in-2019-ncaa-championship.aspx">No. 1 Baylor</a> and No. 6 Pittsburgh.<br />
<br />
Baylor and Texas, the top two seeds, are both in the Big 12 conference, and they split their two matches this season. Baylor's October 23 <a href="https://baylorbears.com/news/2019/10/23/volleyball-no-1-vb-drops-road-match-to-no-4-texas.aspx">loss in Austin</a> was, in fact, the 25-1 Bears' only defeat of the season. Along with Baylor's November 20 <a href="https://baylorbears.com/news/2019/11/20/volleyball-no-3-vb-topples-top-ranked-texas-for-historic-win.aspx">win over Texas</a> in Waco, the Bears also own an impressive <a href="https://baylorbears.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2019/wisconsin/boxscore/24136">victory over Wisconsin</a> in Madison, although it was a long time ago (September 6).<br />
<br />
On my longtime <a href="http://volleymetrics.blogspot.com/2018/11/2018-ncaa-womens-tourney-preview.html">Conference-Adjusted Combined Offensive-Defensive</a> (CACOD)metric, Baylor clocks in at 2.16 (.281 team hitting percentage divided by .156 hitting percentage allowed, with this ratio multiplied by 1.20, the adjustment factor for the Big 12). In the eight years I've calculated the CACOD, all the teams that won an NCAA title had at least a value of 1.91. Hence, Baylor's CACOD is consistent with a possible championship, but far from definitive in that regard.<br />
<br />
Texas, 21-3 with losses at Stanford, at Rice, and at Baylor (all in five games), has a CACOD slightly below Baylor's at 2.12 (.319/.180, times 1.20).<br />
<br />
Stanford, the defending national champion and runaway pick to repeat, suffered some surprising early-season losses, but finished well in Pac 12 conference play and ended up 24-4. The Cardinal's CACOD is 2.05 (.289/.176, times the Pac 12's adjustment factor of 1.25).<br />
<br />
A towering figure for Stanford is 6-foot-6 senior outside hitter <a href="https://gostanford.com/sports/womens-volleyball/roster/kathryn-plummer/16025">Kathryn Plummer</a>, named by multiple sources the national player of the year in 2017 and 2018. Plummer has had an interesting 2019 season, interrupted by 10 missed matches (11 if you count one in which she had no hitting attempts and only served) due to what was consistently reported as an "undisclosed injury." The following graphic (on which you can click to enlarge) shows Plummer's total number of hitting attempts and hitting percentages in each of her matches.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHga-qOXJjSGjQXl_JB5er7IDrtcRQu4WtqqpI3x-0dreob6h6MSdJZjQGcG2qMNpGc9Cip-XaWXiiIl36NrYAY_-etlnsrxaF43pgm0GNB2q7cOSZeqZkjft_C6UWF7VAqHZDqdL29-Yg/s1600/plummer+2019.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="526" data-original-width="410" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHga-qOXJjSGjQXl_JB5er7IDrtcRQu4WtqqpI3x-0dreob6h6MSdJZjQGcG2qMNpGc9Cip-XaWXiiIl36NrYAY_-etlnsrxaF43pgm0GNB2q7cOSZeqZkjft_C6UWF7VAqHZDqdL29-Yg/s400/plummer+2019.JPG" width="311" /></a></div>
Plummer started out the season on fire, hitting above .400 in several matches, sometimes with huge numbers of hitting attempts. The Texas match epitomizes this trend, as she took a whopping 57 swings while still maintaining a .474 hitting percentage. Following the Texas match, she continued to take roughly 50 hitting attempts per match, but her hitting percentages went down (all the way to .067 on 45 attempts). At that point, she began her injury leave. I have no insider information on her injury, but one cannot help wonder if her high volume of hitting attempts had something to do with it. Upon Plummer's return, she recorded some of her best hitting percentages when her swings were reduced (e.g., <a href="https://gostanford.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2019/arizona/boxscore/32644">.636 on 22 attempts</a> at Arizona). It will be interesting to see what Plummer's workload will be in the tournament.<br />
<br />
No. 4 Wisconsin also had an interesting season. After suffering four non-conference losses (one each to Marquette and Baylor, and two to Washington), the Badgers began steamrolling through the B1G. Wisconsin went into State College, Pennsylvania on November 29 with only a single blemish on its conference record (a bit of a <a href="https://uwbadgers.com/news/2019/11/8/volleyball-buckeyes-snap-badgers-big-ten-winning-streak.aspx">shocker</a> at Ohio State) and a chance to complete the impressive feat of sweeping two matches each from Minnesota, Nebraska, and Penn State. And it looked like the Badgers would do it, easily winning the first two games from the Nittany Lions, while hitting .640 and .395 as a team. However Wisconsin's hitting percentage <a href="https://uwbadgers.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2019/penn-state/boxscore/10003">plummeted to .000</a> (i.e., having as many hitting errors as kills) in each of Games 3 and 4, and rising only to .107 in Game 5. The result was a five-game loss to Penn State. The Badgers, with a CACOD of 1.85 (.294/.198, times the B1G adjustment of 1.25), still finished first in the conference with an 18-2 record.<br />
<br />
No. 5 seed Nebraska has the highest CACOD among the top seeds, with a 2.26 (.269/.149, times 1.25).<br />
<br />
No. 6 Pitt finished 29-1, the Panthers' only loss <a href="https://pittsburghpanthers.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2019/penn-state/boxscore/11077">coming in five games</a> to Penn State in the Steel City. Two days earlier, however, Pitt <a href="https://pittsburghpanthers.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2019/penn-state/boxscore/11076">swept Penn State</a> in State College. The Panthers' CACOD is 2.11 (.276/.144, times the ACC's adjustment of 1.10).alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047057328265529252noreply@blogger.com0