|
|
Post by seeyajohn on Oct 25, 2018 11:52:39 GMT -5
Before the start of the B1G season I presented an analysis of the team’s play by rotation. That can be found here. forum.dignittanyvolleyball.com/thread/710/preseason-results-rotationThings have changed as we reach the half way point in the Big Ten. So far, rotation 3 (Leath or sub serving, Parker and White in the back row – Weiskercher, Hord, and Reed in the front) has been the most successful rotation winning 56.7% of points played. That rotation has been particularly successful receiving with a side out percentage of 74.7%. The same rotation is among the three weakest when serving as the opponents have sided out at a 58.3% rate against them. Coach Rose switched his middles at the beginning of the B1G season placing Serena Gray in the serving spot for Ro 5. That means that, in most matches, Serena is third to serve and Kendall White is sixth. So far, the opponents are siding out at a 57.8% rate against Ro 5. Meanwhile they are siding out at a 58.6% rate against Kendall’s serve. So, through the first ten matches, the opponents have been most successful against the rotations with Taylor, Serena and Kendall in the serving position. The most successful offensive rotation is Ro 1 with Bryanna Weiskercher serving. The opponents side out percentage against Bryanna stands at 51.2%. Ro 5 joins Ro 3 as a strong defensive rotation with a side out percentage of 69.5%. Ro 6 (back row – Hampton, Weiskercher, White: front row – Gray, Parker, Leath) is the third strong receiving rotation with a side out percentage of 67.5%. Results in tabular form: Winning Percentage Serving Receiving Total Ro 1 48.8 61.4 54.5 Ro 2 41.4 57.7 50.2 Ro 3 41.7 74.7 56.7 Ro 4 44.4 60.0 51.7 Ro 5 42.2 69.5 54.5 Ro 6 45.7 67.5 55.3 The statistics show one other interesting aspect of Penn State’s success when serving. The opponents’ side out percentage by set is: Set 1 - 49.6% Set 2 - 54.2% Set 3 - 61.2% Clearly the team has had diminishing success on serve as the match progresses. Here are the winning percentages by server for the first half of the B1G season : Starters Won Lost %-won Weiskercher 82 86 48.8% Parker 35 39 47.3% Gray 42 52 44.7% Hampton 67 84 44.4% White 52 69 43.0% Leath 31 47 39.7% Subs Won Lost %-won Blossom 26 43 44,1% Sciorra 17 22 43.6% Hoffman 4 11 26.7% Hill is 3-2, Krause is 0-3, and Gorrell is 0-1 |
|
|
|
Post by jojonito on Oct 25, 2018 11:53:38 GMT -5
Thanks! This is great! Thanks for all the work you put into this!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 11:59:18 GMT -5
Don't let Nyline seduce you with high-paying offers to join his slacker staff.
|
|
|
|
Post by jojonito on Oct 25, 2018 12:01:39 GMT -5
Interesting that White had the best serve percentage in the pre-season and is 2nd to last in the 1st half of the B1G season. I would have thought that she would have been better than that. Does that mean her serve is worse or that the change in middles affected her more? Or something else.  |
|
|
|
Post by elliotberton on Oct 25, 2018 13:29:21 GMT -5
Oh no! Facts! They get in the way of my uninformed opinions and biased impressions!
I was not surprised to see that Bryanna has the most effective serve. Using the eye test, it always seemed like she has been able to stress the opponent receivers with relative consistency.
The other statistics were a bit of surprise to me. I would have guessed that White and Hampton had better results. I guess it is easy to focus on the timely aces and ignore the rest of their efforts. But I imagined that having White and Hampton serving and in position to defend against the opponent's attack would have led to better overall scoring than other rotations.
The declining serving success rates through the second and third sets is intriguing. Perhaps the opponents are adjusting better as the match moves along? It is hard to explain. I wonder if Penn State's side out percentage also increased as the matches progress
Seeya: Thanks so much for bursting my bubbles-
|
|
|
|
Post by seeyajohn on Oct 25, 2018 14:06:33 GMT -5
"The declining serving success rates through the second and third sets is intriguing. Perhaps the opponents are adjusting better as the match moves along? It is hard to explain. I wonder if Penn State's side out percentage also increased as the matches progress"
Penn State side out percentages by set:
Set 1 66.3%
Set 2 60.1%
Set 3 66.1%
|
|
|
|
Post by Millennium on Oct 25, 2018 15:25:33 GMT -5
"The declining serving success rates through the second and third sets is intriguing. Perhaps the opponents are adjusting better as the match moves along? It is hard to explain. I wonder if Penn State's side out percentage also increased as the matches progress" Penn State side out percentages by set: Set 1 66.3% Set 2 60.1% Set 3 66.1%
I was thinking that maybe the freshmen are getting worn down as the match progresses.
|
|
|
|
Post by elliotberton on Oct 25, 2018 18:52:11 GMT -5
"The declining serving success rates through the second and third sets is intriguing. Perhaps the opponents are adjusting better as the match moves along? It is hard to explain. I wonder if Penn State's side out percentage also increased as the matches progress" Penn State side out percentages by set: Set 1 66.3% Set 2 60.1% Set 3 66.1%
I was thinking that maybe the freshmen are getting worn down as the match progresses.
Not sure. Our side out numbers (Thanks again Seeya!) don't really indicate weariness or nervousness later in a match. I speculate that teams are adjusting as the match moves along, getting better passes and thus beating our block, adjusting their swings or maybe even setting the hot player. Even in early matches we noticed closer scores in sets two and sometimes three. Sometimes we have to give credit to our opponents. |
|
|
|
Post by tillie on Oct 26, 2018 5:02:00 GMT -5
It would seem that the serve with the "least juice" would be more vulnerable to opponent success and that serve would be Bryanna's.
How Do opponents underestimate?
|
|
|
|
Post by Millennium on Oct 26, 2018 6:15:39 GMT -5
It would seem that the serve with the "least juice" would be more vulnerable to opponent success and that serve would be Bryanna's. How Do opponents underestimate?
Actually, seeyajohn wrote: "The most successful offensive rotation is Ro 1 with Bryanna Weiskercher serving. The opponents side out percentage against Bryanna stands at 51.2%."
Where did you read that Bryanna's serve has the "least juice?"
|
|
|
|
Post by elliotberton on Oct 26, 2018 13:39:24 GMT -5
I believe that Bryanna's serve is hard, low over the net, moves and dips, and is generally well placed. She will usually attack the opponent's weakest returner, or if the game plan calls for it, the opponent's six rotation player to tire her out (eg: Foecke got served a lot, and that might have affected her late in the match). Coach has complimented Bryanna's serve many times, and she has been near the team lead in aces for several years.
Most jump/spike serves, although hit with more "juice," are harder to control. The opponent can adjust receiver placement to deal with it. I suspect that service location/placement is more significant than how hard the serves are.
|
|
