[BostonCard]

Agree with this. Wagner is pretty effective with the dump on 2, much more so than Parks. A few of those attempts were because of bad passes. IMO, a setter that is an offensive threat only makes an offense even tougher to stop.

I agree with this, but I would argue that Miner, who was exceptional at knowing when to dump over on two (she probably had a career hitting percentage near .500), rarely had more than 5 attempts a match.

A setter, even a tall, athletic one like Miner, is rarely the best hitting option, and a team that has scouted it out well will be ready with a block.

The point of having a setter who is a threat to go on two is less to actually win some cheap points (though you’ll take them), but to slow the middle a beat to make it easier for the outside to hit. Since there are otherwise only two front row hitters, it’s easy for the middle to shade a bit unless the setter is a threat.  But it doesn’t take many hits on two to force the blockers to adjust.

BC

[BostonCard]

Agree with this. Wagner is pretty effective with the dump on 2, much more so than Parks. A few of those attempts were because of bad passes. IMO, a setter that is an offensive threat only makes an offense even tougher to stop.

I agree with this, but I would argue that Miner, who was exceptional at knowing when to dump over on two (she probably had a career hitting percentage near .500), rarely had more than 5 attempts a match.

A setter, even a tall, athletic one like Miner, is rarely the best hitting option, and a team that has scouted it out well will be ready with a block.

The point of having a setter who is a threat to go on two is less to actually win some cheap points (though you’ll take them), but to slow the middle a beat to make it easier for the outside to hit. Since there are otherwise only two front row hitters, it’s easy for the middle to shade a bit unless the setter is a threat.  But it doesn’t take many hits on two to force the blockers to adjust.

BC