Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2015 17:13:43 GMT -5
POST-SEASON BRACKETS & SEEDINGUPDATED: 11/29/2015 Results posted live as announced by the NCAA Selection Committee BREAKING: Top seeds in the NCAA tournament1) Southern Cal 2) Minnesota 3) Texas 4) Nebraska 5) Washington 6) Wisconsin 7) Penn State 8) Stanford 9) Kansas 10) Texas A&M 11) Florida 12) Ohio State 13) BYU 14) UCLA 15) Louisville 16) Creighton SAN DIEGO 1.) USC 8.) Stanford 9.) Kansas 16.) Creighton
DES MOINES 2.) Minnesota 7.) PSU 10.) Texas A&M 15.) Louisville
AUSTIN 3.) Texas 6.) Wisconsin 11.) Florida 14.) UCLA
LOUISVILLE 4.) Nebraska 5.) Washington 12.) OSU 13.) BYU FULL BRACKET BELOW - Click on photo to englarge!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2015 17:53:00 GMT -5
I'm starting a thread for discussions solely of RPI results, tourney brackets, and statistics as we inch closer to the playoffs.I'm starting by copying a post I made on the AVCA Weekly Poll thread. The RPI rankings for 11/02/15 were just released:
1) USC 2) Texas 3) Florida 4) Penn State
5) Minnesota 6) Ohio State 7) UCLA 8) Kansas 9) Nebraska 10) Washington Looks like PSU is getting a top seed in the Regionals if these results hold. Seems a little more reasonable; also Florida moved to #3 from #1. Can anyone work out the tourney brackets if these results were to hold? How would Big10 teams get matched up? Finally, does anyone know where I can find the national side-out stat rankings, if they even exist?I've read some posts on VT but not sure I have confidence in those posts. I'd prefer to get more insight right here. Spent some time today on the Volleytalk forum. Whew, they should rename it to "Fast and Furious Volleyball," the speed and quantity of posts makes it impossible to have a normal discussion. Will be sometime before I go back there. Compared to Volleytalk, this is a very friendly place. Over time, you'll learn the people who have valid opinions and "give" good stats.
Nyline can point you to reputable people for good statistics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2015 17:36:40 GMT -5
OK, so I've been preparing to put together a list of the potential bracket selections for the 2015 tourney based on RPI. I hope to be able to do this every week after the latest RPI is posted. The NCAA Selection Show will air on 11/29/15 at 9pm EST on ESPNU.
The top 16 teams are seeded nationally and placed within four regions. The four regions this year are: Austin, Des Moines, Lexington, and San Diego.
The seeds are placed in each Regional in the following order: 1 - 16 8 - 9 4 - 13 5 - 12 2 - 15 7 - 10 3 - 14 6 - 11
I have not included the other teams (i.e., 17 through 64) for simplicity's sake. The potential matchups would have the 1 seed playing the 16 seed, the 8 playing the 9, and so on. So, the 1 seed could potentially play the 4 seed, and the 2 seed play the 3 seed in the final four.
The latest RPI has the following top 16 teams: 1 USC 2 Texas 3 Florida 4 Penn St. 5 Minnesota 6 Ohio St. 7 UCLA 8 Kansas 9 Nebraska 10 Washington 11 Stanford 12 Wisconsin 13 Kentucky 14 Missouri 15 BYU 16 Florida St.
If the season ended today, based on the latest RPI rankings, I have the following scenarios playing out:
SAN DIEGO: USC vs Florida St. and Kansas vs Nebraska LEXINGTON: Penn State vs Kentucky and Minnesota vs Wisonsin
AUSTIN: Texas vs BYU and UCLA vs Washington DES MOINES: Florida vs Missouri and Ohio State vs Stanford
Please let me know if you spot any errors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2015 17:40:00 GMT -5
OK, so I've been preparing to put together a list of the potential bracket selections for the 2015 tourney based on RPI. I hope to be able to do this every week after the latest RPI is posted. The NCAA Selection Show will air on 11/29/15 at 9pm EST on ESPNU. The top 16 teams are seeded nationally and placed within four regions. The four regions this year are: Austin, Des Moines, Lexington, and San Diego. The seeds are placed in each Regional in the following order: 1, 16, 8, 9 4, 13, 5, 12 2, 15, 7, 10 3, 14, 6, 11 I have not included the other teams 17 through 64 as to avoid confusion. So the potential matchups would have the 1 seed playing the 16 seed, the 8 playing the 9, and so on. Then the 1 seed would potentially play the 4 seed, and the 2 seed play the 3 seed. Now, based on the current You had me on the edge of my seat. What happened?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2015 17:41:30 GMT -5
Sorry, I accidentally hit something while typing this up and it posted prematurely. I will be editing my original post so please be patient with me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2015 17:42:53 GMT -5
Sorry, I accidentally hit something while typing this up and it posted prematurely. I will be editing my original post so please be patient with me. I was teasing. Forgive my twisted attempt at humor. I respect your efforts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2015 20:28:12 GMT -5
I have put together a spreadsheet of the sideout statistics for all the Penn State games this season, which I have attached below as a graphic. Unfortunately, this particular statistic is not provided on the NCAA website nor the PSU website; however, it's a very important stat. If you win the sideout battle in a game/set, you win that game/set. Coach Rose mentioned in an interview earlier this year that his team is built on being able to sideout efficiently. Karch Kiraly mentioned that a good sideout percentage is somewhere around 65%, which Penn State has been achieving thus far in the season. Please note that 4 of the matches PSU played this year did not provide the sideout stats. The Northwestern and Wisconsin matches are the most significant of the missing matches, however, since one was a loss and the other a win, I figure they cancel each other out. The other 2 missing matches (i.e., Notre Dame and E. Kentucky) were wins against weaker opponents so the stats I'm providing are conservative if anything. Based on this chart, PSU is siding out at 67% vs 51% for their opponents. For conference-only matches, PSU is siding out at 63% vs 52% for their opponents. I have added a third line for Big10 and Pac12 opponents which shows PSU siding out at 64% vs 53% for their opponents. I expect these percentages to get better on both offense and defense over the next 3 matches; will keep you all posted. Just click on the graphic below to open a bigger, readable version.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2015 20:42:14 GMT -5
I also found a nice article about what stats matter most in VB matches. Here is the relevant info from the Volleyballanalytics.net website:
When volleyball coaches were asked which statistics were most important for success on the court, the responses included hitting efficiency, kill percentage, sideout percentage, point-scoring percentage, total combined errors, and points scored per game.
Hitting Efficiency=(kills-errors-blocks)/attempts Where kills=number of successful attacks, errors=number of attacks that were hitting errors, blocks=number of attacks that were blocked, and attempts=total number of attacks. Hitting Efficiency indicates the amount the point difference between the attacking team and the opponent was increased by each swing.
Kill Percentage=(kills/attempts)*100% Where kills=number of successful attacks, and attempts=total number of attacks. Kill Percentage indicates the fraction of attacks that led directly to a point for the attacking team.
Sideout Percentage=(receive points/opponent serves)*100% Where receive points=number of points won when receiving the serve, and opponent serves=number of times the opponent served. Sideout Percentage indicates the fraction of rallies where a team received the serve and went on to win the point. Whichever team achieves a higher side-out rate in a game/set wins that game/set.
Point-Scoring Percentage=(serve points/serves)*100% Where serve points=number of points won when serving, and serves=number of serves. Point-Scoring Percentage indicates the fraction of rallies where a team served and went on to win the point.
Hitting Effectiveness=Hitting Efficiency-opponent Fraction*opponent Response Efficiency Where opponent Fraction=fraction of attacks the opponent followed with an attack of their own, and opponent Response Efficiency=opponent hitting efficiency on their response attacks. Hitting Effectiveness provides a way to account for attacks that did not end the rally. If an attacker regularly puts balls into play that the opponent can easily control and then get an attack of their own, that attacker will have a lower Hitting Effectiveness.
I personally think that the sideout stats (PSU vs opponent sideout %) and the hitting percentage differential (hitting efficiency minus opponent hitting efficiency) are the best guides to how successful a team will be in future matches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2015 21:06:21 GMT -5
Thanks very much for the work and an excellent presentation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2015 22:08:55 GMT -5
I also found a nice article about what stats matter most in VB matches. Here is the relevant info from the Volleyballanalytics.net website: When volleyball coaches were asked which statistics were most important for success on the court, the responses included hitting efficiency, kill percentage, sideout percentage, point-scoring percentage, total combined errors, and points scored per game.
Hitting Efficiency=(kills-errors-blocks)/attempts Where kills=number of successful attacks, errors=number of attacks that were hitting errors, blocks=number of attacks that were blocked, and attempts=total number of attacks. Hitting Efficiency indicates the amount the point difference between the attacking team and the opponent was increased by each swing.
Kill Percentage=(kills/attempts)*100% Where kills=number of successful attacks, and attempts=total number of attacks. Kill Percentage indicates the fraction of attacks that led directly to a point for the attacking team.
Sideout Percentage=(receive points/opponent serves)*100% Where receive points=number of points won when receiving the serve, and opponent serves=number of times the opponent served. Sideout Percentage indicates the fraction of rallies where a team received the serve and went on to win the point. Whichever team achieves a higher side-out rate in a game/set wins that game/set.
Point-Scoring Percentage=(serve points/serves)*100% Where serve points=number of points won when serving, and serves=number of serves. Point-Scoring Percentage indicates the fraction of rallies where a team served and went on to win the point.
Hitting Effectiveness=Hitting Efficiency-opponent Fraction*opponent Response Efficiency Where opponent Fraction=fraction of attacks the opponent followed with an attack of their own, and opponent Response Efficiency=opponent hitting efficiency on their response attacks. Hitting Effectiveness provides a way to account for attacks that did not end the rally. If an attacker regularly puts balls into play that the opponent can easily control and then get an attack of their own, that attacker will have a lower Hitting Effectiveness.
I personally think that the sideout stats (PSU vs opponent sideout %) and the hitting percentage differential (hitting efficiency minus opponent hitting efficiency) are the best guides to how successful a team will be in future matches. I'm imagining that number crunching folks have looked at these metrics for a lot of teams over the years and determined those that these have the highest correlation for successful teams. It might be interesting to know if the import of certain statistics changed when the rally scoring change occurred, but I'm sure most coaches and a few fans know already. I don't, but as I said, I appreciate your work and presentation. I learned a lot.
|
|
|
Post by psumaui on Nov 5, 2015 0:24:02 GMT -5
Here are some 2014 stats (regular season) for teams that went to the tournament. Interesting to see were Penn State was in each category. From what I have seen, Russ uses "unwritten" and "unscored" stats to make his decisions on the court. 2014 stats for teams that went to NCAA Tournament
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 2:18:04 GMT -5
Here are some 2014 stats (regular season) for teams that went to the tournament. Interesting to see were Penn State was in each category. From what I have seen, Russ uses "unwritten" and "unscored" stats to make his decisions on the court. 2014 stats for teams that went to NCAA Tournament
I noticed from that chart (and in prior year stats) that Penn State tends to have a very low digs/set ratio. I assume that is because they block and/or terminate well, which ultimately means less rallies and less digs. BYU and PSU had below average digs/set last year, but both had above average blocks/set (BYU had the highest of all teams). I had almost forgotten about the blocking stats. BYU made the final based on their excellent blocking abilities, but PSU had the highest aces/set ratio last year. I think that's the one thing that differentiates last year's team from this year's team. PSU has dropped their aces/set (2014=1.9; 2015=1.13) but has increased their blocks/set (2014=2.7; 2015=3.19). Seems to me that they come close to a wash.
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Nov 5, 2015 2:49:26 GMT -5
Here are some 2014 stats (regular season) for teams that went to the tournament. Interesting to see were Penn State was in each category. From what I have seen, Russ uses "unwritten" and "unscored" stats to make his decisions on the court. 2014 stats for teams that went to NCAA Tournament
I noticed from that chart (and in prior year stats) that Penn State tends to have a very low digs/set ratio. I assume that is because they block and/or terminate well, which ultimately means less rallies and less digs. BYU and PSU had below average digs/set last year, but both had above average blocks/set (BYU had the highest of all teams). I had almost forgotten about the blocking stats. BYU made the final based on their excellent blocking abilities, but PSU had the highest aces/set ratio last year. I think that's the one thing that differentiates last year's team from this year's team. PSU has dropped their aces/set (2014=1.9; 2015=1.13) but has increased their blocks/set (2014=2.7; 2015=3.19). Seems to me that they come close to a wash. I love this thread.
|
|
|
Post by psumaui on Nov 5, 2015 3:30:12 GMT -5
Here are some 2014 stats (regular season) for teams that went to the tournament. Interesting to see were Penn State was in each category. From what I have seen, Russ uses "unwritten" and "unscored" stats to make his decisions on the court. 2014 stats for teams that went to NCAA Tournament
I noticed from that chart (and in prior year stats) that Penn State tends to have a very low digs/set ratio. I assume that is because they block and/or terminate well, which ultimately means less rallies and less digs. BYU and PSU had below average digs/set last year, but both had above average blocks/set (BYU had the highest of all teams). I had almost forgotten about the blocking stats. BYU made the final based on their excellent blocking abilities, but PSU had the highest aces/set ratio last year. I think that's the one thing that differentiates last year's team from this year's team. PSU has dropped their aces/set (2014=1.9; 2015=1.13) but has increased their blocks/set (2014=2.7; 2015=3.19). Seems to me that they come close to a wash. I know a lot of people on VT put a lot of stock in digs but as you stated, Penn State's low dig rate is due to high termination rate and for this reason it has never concerned me whatsoever. Yes, the blocking is improved from last year and I think it will only get better as the season winds down. I attribute a high dig rate to a team that has too many long rally's and can't terminate fast. Most of the digs we get are good passes(3 passes) which usually end up in points. We are not terminating as well as the 2008 team but not sure anybody will again. 2008 team was referred to as a "men's type team" Termination rate was extremely high compared to the rest of the teams in college that year but what would you expect when they had 6 AA's on court at once! It may be a long time before we see that again but it may happen with this team in 2017 when this super class are Seniors! One thing I have noticed is a great blocking team will eventually wear down their opponent and force them to make many more hitting errors trying to get around or above the block. One such match the exemplifies this very well was the 2009 Penn State vs Hawaii Semi-Final match in which Penn State outblocked Hawaii 15-0. Hawaii was a great defensive team and had some great hitters but all of their hitters were shorter than 6' and just couldn't penetrate the block. Hawaii had many more digs then Penn State but all those digs just wore them down. I was at that match and saw the frustration not only on the players faces but the coach as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 6:07:25 GMT -5
I noticed from that chart (and in prior year stats) that Penn State tends to have a very low digs/set ratio. I assume that is because they block and/or terminate well, which ultimately means less rallies and less digs. BYU and PSU had below average digs/set last year, but both had above average blocks/set (BYU had the highest of all teams). I had almost forgotten about the blocking stats. BYU made the final based on their excellent blocking abilities, but PSU had the highest aces/set ratio last year. I think that's the one thing that differentiates last year's team from this year's team. PSU has dropped their aces/set (2014=1.9; 2015=1.13) but has increased their blocks/set (2014=2.7; 2015=3.19). Seems to me that they come close to a wash. I love this thread. I remember reading a bio on Coach Rose which mentioned that he wrote his Master's thesis on volleyball statistics, so since then I've been crunching numbers during the regular season every year to see where the team stands relative to other successful years.
|
|