Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2015 1:55:58 GMT -5
I finally watched this match. I couldn't bring myself to see the video I had downloaded, it was painful. Started viewing several times then turned it off. In any case, the narrative of this match played out in set 2. Penn State gifted set 2 to Michigan. The Lions were up 16-11 at one point then again 22-17 then allowed Michigan to score 8 straight points to take the second set 25-22. PSU should never have relinquished that lead. They had 9 hitting errors, 5 of which were unforced (i.e., not blocked) in set 2. In addition, PSU had 3 service errors. The reason I mention this now, is because every error is a potential 2-point swing, given the dynamic of the rally-scoring point system. Heck, if we only made half the errors and scored on the other half, we easily win set 2. That momentum could've propelled the girls to a match win; who knows for sure. However, it was disheartening, to say the least, watching them gift set 2 to MI. We gave MI life and allowed them to believe that they could get back into the match.
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Dec 1, 2015 2:22:55 GMT -5
I finally watched this match. I couldn't bring myself to see the video I had downloaded, it was painful. Started viewing several times then turned it off. In any case, the narrative of this match played out in set 2. Penn State gifted set 2 to Michigan. The Lions were up 16-11 at one point then again 22-17 then allowed Michigan to score 8 straight points to take the second set 25-22. PSU should never have relinquished that lead. They had 9 hitting errors, 5 of which were unforced (i.e., not blocked) in set 2. In addition, PSU had 3 service errors. The reason I mention this now, is because every error is a potential 2-point swing, given the dynamic of the rally-scoring point system. Heck, if we only made half the errors and scored on the other half, we easily win set 2. That momentum could've propelled the girls to a match win; who knows for sure. However, it was disheartening, to say the least, watching them gift set 2 to MI. We gave MI life and allowed them to believe that they could get back into the match. Good points all . . . . except the notion of the "two-point swing." If you are viewing in terms of we would have scored but for the error, then OK, possibly. But it's not like a turnover in football or basketball, where you can only score if you have the ball (either on offense or through a turnover).
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Dec 1, 2015 2:27:58 GMT -5
I finally watched this match. I couldn't bring myself to see the video I had downloaded, it was painful. Started viewing several times then turned it off. In any case, the narrative of this match played out in set 2. Penn State gifted set 2 to Michigan. The Lions were up 16-11 at one point then again 22-17 then allowed Michigan to score 8 straight points to take the second set 25-22. PSU should never have relinquished that lead. They had 9 hitting errors, 5 of which were unforced (i.e., not blocked) in set 2. In addition, PSU had 3 service errors. The reason I mention this now, is because every error is a potential 2-point swing, given the dynamic of the rally-scoring point system. Heck, if we only made half the errors and scored on the other half, we easily win set 2. That momentum could've propelled the girls to a match win; who knows for sure. However, it was disheartening, to say the least, watching them gift set 2 to MI. We gave MI life and allowed them to believe that they could get back into the match. Good points all . . . . except the notion of the "two-point swing." If you are viewing in terms of we would have scored but for the error, then OK, possibly. But it's not like a turnover in football or basketball, where you can only score if you have the ball (either on offense or through a turnover). But there is no question that errors of all kinds (attack, be, bhe, serve receive) are killers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2015 3:57:54 GMT -5
I finally watched this match. I couldn't bring myself to see the video I had downloaded, it was painful. Started viewing several times then turned it off. In any case, the narrative of this match played out in set 2. Penn State gifted set 2 to Michigan. The Lions were up 16-11 at one point then again 22-17 then allowed Michigan to score 8 straight points to take the second set 25-22. PSU should never have relinquished that lead. They had 9 hitting errors, 5 of which were unforced (i.e., not blocked) in set 2. In addition, PSU had 3 service errors. The reason I mention this now, is because every error is a potential 2-point swing, given the dynamic of the rally-scoring point system. Heck, if we only made half the errors and scored on the other half, we easily win set 2. That momentum could've propelled the girls to a match win; who knows for sure. However, it was disheartening, to say the least, watching them gift set 2 to MI. We gave MI life and allowed them to believe that they could get back into the match. Good points all . . . . except the notion of the "two-point swing." If you are viewing in terms of we would have scored but for the error, then OK, possibly. But it's not like a turnover in football or basketball, where you can only score if you have the ball (either on offense or through a turnover). The reason I said that half the errors are potential 2-point swings in the score is this: If PSU would have put the ball down inside MI's side of the court on say only 3 of the unforced errors (of the 5 total; 4 of the 9 errors were MI blocks) then we'd receive a point and MI would have a point subtracted. It's just the way rally scoring works. Therefore, we have a 6 point swing in the point differential. Take 3 from MI and add 3 to PSU. I hope I'm not being too confusing. That's why I qualified my remark by saying only half the errors. I probably should have been even more conservative and said that we should've/could've scored on only one-third of our errors.
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Dec 1, 2015 7:30:28 GMT -5
Good points all . . . . except the notion of the "two-point swing." If you are viewing in terms of we would have scored but for the error, then OK, possibly. But it's not like a turnover in football or basketball, where you can only score if you have the ball (either on offense or through a turnover). The reason I said that half the errors are potential 2-point swings in the score is this: If PSU would have put the ball down inside MI's side of the court on say only 3 of the unforced errors (of the 5 total; 4 of the 9 errors were MI blocks) then we'd receive a point and MI would have a point subtracted. It's just the way rally scoring works. Therefore, we have a 6 point swing in the point differential. Take 3 from MI and add 3 to PSU. I hope I'm not being too confusing. That's why I qualified my remark by saying only half the errors. I probably should have been even more conservative and said that we should've/could've scored on only one-third of our errors. I get your point, and it's not wrong, but for me, it's cleaner to leave it at "we gave them a point and didn't make them earn it." We don't know whether we would have won the point without the error -- all we know is we gave them a point without their having to do anything (at least that's the case for "unforced" attack errors and service errors). You are correct that for some percentage of those unforced attack errors (I would include service errors) we would have added a point -- thus the two-point swing. I just think that involves too much speculation. I'm probably revealing an overly simplistic mind.
|
|
|
Post by bob2061 on Dec 1, 2015 9:08:42 GMT -5
The reason I said that half the errors are potential 2-point swings in the score is this: If PSU would have put the ball down inside MI's side of the court on say only 3 of the unforced errors (of the 5 total; 4 of the 9 errors were MI blocks) then we'd receive a point and MI would have a point subtracted. It's just the way rally scoring works. Therefore, we have a 6 point swing in the point differential. Take 3 from MI and add 3 to PSU. I hope I'm not being too confusing. That's why I qualified my remark by saying only half the errors. I probably should have been even more conservative and said that we should've/could've scored on only one-third of our errors. I get your point, and it's not wrong, but for me, it's cleaner to leave it at "we gave them a point and didn't make them earn it." We don't know whether we would have won the point without the error -- all we know is we gave them a point without their having to do anything (at least that's the case for "unforced" attack errors and service errors). You are correct that for some percentage of those unforced attack errors (I would include service errors) we would have added a point -- thus the two-point swing. I just think that involves too much speculation. I'm probably revealing an overly simplistic mind. I think 8m was making the point where our sloppy play lost the game and match with Michigan. You sound like an engineer or mathematician talking about probabilities. I understand what both of you are saying. However our team is very deficient at getting the ball to the hitters in a good way. It forces them to make lots of errors to avoid blocks or to just tip the ball over the net. Anyway, you are both right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2015 16:12:11 GMT -5
The reason I said that half the errors are potential 2-point swings in the score is this: If PSU would have put the ball down inside MI's side of the court on say only 3 of the unforced errors (of the 5 total; 4 of the 9 errors were MI blocks) then we'd receive a point and MI would have a point subtracted. It's just the way rally scoring works. Therefore, we have a 6 point swing in the point differential. Take 3 from MI and add 3 to PSU. I hope I'm not being too confusing. That's why I qualified my remark by saying only half the errors. I probably should have been even more conservative and said that we should've/could've scored on only one-third of our errors. I get your point, and it's not wrong, but for me, it's cleaner to leave it at "we gave them a point and didn't make them earn it." We don't know whether we would have won the point without the error -- all we know is we gave them a point without their having to do anything (at least that's the case for "unforced" attack errors and service errors). You are correct that for some percentage of those unforced attack errors (I would include service errors) we would have added a point -- thus the two-point swing. I just think that involves too much speculation. I'm probably revealing an overly simplistic mind. The basic formula is this - if we limit our errors it will translate into more points for us. Yes, I'm definitely overly optimistic in my speculations. Gotta pump up the troops for the post-season! We need something to look forward to; don't know how much longer this ride is gonna last. I believe this team is not that far off from competing with the top 5-6 teams (considering the talent here).
|
|