[cardcrimson]

Great performance by the women. That said, would it be too much to ask them to serve the ball into the court?

[cardcrimson]

Great performance by the women. That said, would it be too much to ask them to serve the ball into the court?

[BobK]

Yes it would Card. Hambly wants tough serve not soft. Stanford was leading the nation recently on points while serving. Volleyball keys are receive and pass. Hard to pass if serves are tough to receive

Result 4 straight final fours

[BobK]

Yes it would Card. Hambly wants tough serve not soft. Stanford was leading the nation recently on points while serving. Volleyball keys are receive and pass. Hard to pass if serves are tough to receive

Result 4 straight final fours

[teejers1]

Result 4 straight final fours

That is so dang impressive!!  Congrats to coaching staff and the senior class - remarkable all the way around.

[teejers1]

Result 4 straight final fours

That is so dang impressive!!  Congrats to coaching staff and the senior class - remarkable all the way around.

[Farm93]

Yes it would Card.  Hambly wants tough serve not soft.  Stanford was leading the nation recently on points while serving.  Volleyball keys are receive and pass.  Hard to pass if serves are tough to receive

Result 4 straight final fours

When Minnesota stayed in system they were getting spectacular kills.   However, most of the night they were really struggling to get that initial pass to the setter.  The consistently flat and tough serves were the key to everything.  I love when Coach Hambly was asked about those service errors and immediately dismissed it.

[Farm93]

Yes it would Card.  Hambly wants tough serve not soft.  Stanford was leading the nation recently on points while serving.  Volleyball keys are receive and pass.  Hard to pass if serves are tough to receive

Result 4 straight final fours

When Minnesota stayed in system they were getting spectacular kills.   However, most of the night they were really struggling to get that initial pass to the setter.  The consistently flat and tough serves were the key to everything.  I love when Coach Hambly was asked about those service errors and immediately dismissed it.

[cardcrimson]

Yes it would Card.  Hambly wants tough serve not soft.  Stanford was leading the nation recently on points while serving.  Volleyball keys are receive and pass.  Hard to pass if serves are tough to receive

Result 4 straight final fours

Last night, 2 aces, 11 service errors.
Season, 160 aces, 249 service errors.
Tournament before last night 20 aces, 18 service errors.
Something seemed amiss. . . .

17% of Minnesota's points were on our service errors.

[cardcrimson]

Yes it would Card.  Hambly wants tough serve not soft.  Stanford was leading the nation recently on points while serving.  Volleyball keys are receive and pass.  Hard to pass if serves are tough to receive

Result 4 straight final fours

Last night, 2 aces, 11 service errors.
Season, 160 aces, 249 service errors.
Tournament before last night 20 aces, 18 service errors.
Something seemed amiss. . . .

17% of Minnesota's points were on our service errors.

[GK3]

Yes it would Card.  Hambly wants tough serve not soft.  Stanford was leading the nation recently on points while serving.  Volleyball keys are receive and pass.  Hard to pass if serves are tough to receive

Result 4 straight final fours

Last night, 2 aces, 11 service errors.
Season, 160 aces, 249 service errors.
Tournament before last night 20 aces, 18 service errors.
Something seemed amiss. . . .

17% of Minnesota's points were on our service errors.

What I think BobK is trying to say, and what is missing from these stats is how many of our serves that were in, were hard enough to handle that the other side couldn't get into their preferred attack and ended up giving us something fairly easy for us to get set up for Plummer or someone else.

[GK3]

Yes it would Card.  Hambly wants tough serve not soft.  Stanford was leading the nation recently on points while serving.  Volleyball keys are receive and pass.  Hard to pass if serves are tough to receive

Result 4 straight final fours

Last night, 2 aces, 11 service errors.
Season, 160 aces, 249 service errors.
Tournament before last night 20 aces, 18 service errors.
Something seemed amiss. . . .

17% of Minnesota's points were on our service errors.

What I think BobK is trying to say, and what is missing from these stats is how many of our serves that were in, were hard enough to handle that the other side couldn't get into their preferred attack and ended up giving us something fairly easy for us to get set up for Plummer or someone else.

[cardcrimson]

Yes it would Card.  Hambly wants tough serve not soft.  Stanford was leading the nation recently on points while serving.  Volleyball keys are receive and pass.  Hard to pass if serves are tough to receive

Result 4 straight final fours

Last night, 2 aces, 11 service errors.
Season, 160 aces, 249 service errors.
Tournament before last night 20 aces, 18 service errors.
Something seemed amiss. . . .

17% of Minnesota's points were on our service errors.

What I think BobK is trying to say, and what is missing from these stats is how many of our serves that were in, were hard enough to handle that the other side couldn't get into their preferred attack and ended up giving us something fairly easy for us to get set up for Plummer or someone else.

I understand, but was that unique to last night and not our other games?

[cardcrimson]

Yes it would Card.  Hambly wants tough serve not soft.  Stanford was leading the nation recently on points while serving.  Volleyball keys are receive and pass.  Hard to pass if serves are tough to receive

Result 4 straight final fours

Last night, 2 aces, 11 service errors.
Season, 160 aces, 249 service errors.
Tournament before last night 20 aces, 18 service errors.
Something seemed amiss. . . .

17% of Minnesota's points were on our service errors.

What I think BobK is trying to say, and what is missing from these stats is how many of our serves that were in, were hard enough to handle that the other side couldn't get into their preferred attack and ended up giving us something fairly easy for us to get set up for Plummer or someone else.

I understand, but was that unique to last night and not our other games?

[Farm93]

Yes it would Card.  Hambly wants tough serve not soft.  Stanford was leading the nation recently on points while serving.  Volleyball keys are receive and pass.  Hard to pass if serves are tough to receive

Result 4 straight final fours

Last night, 2 aces, 11 service errors.
Season, 160 aces, 249 service errors.
Tournament before last night 20 aces, 18 service errors.
Something seemed amiss. . . .

Aces don't really tell the story.   Bad passes per set would be a much better metric.   Last night it was obvious Minnesota was unable to deal with the serves.   The passes were all over the place, and often their hits were almost free balls.   

The thing that was amiss was Minnesota's passing.

The Stanford block was the story of the first set, but throughout the contest Minnesota's awful kill percentage was caused by their inability to deal with those serves.  A quality team is not going to let them fall to the floor as aces, but it was clear they were having a very tough time.

[Farm93]

Yes it would Card.  Hambly wants tough serve not soft.  Stanford was leading the nation recently on points while serving.  Volleyball keys are receive and pass.  Hard to pass if serves are tough to receive

Result 4 straight final fours

Last night, 2 aces, 11 service errors.
Season, 160 aces, 249 service errors.
Tournament before last night 20 aces, 18 service errors.
Something seemed amiss. . . .

Aces don't really tell the story.   Bad passes per set would be a much better metric.   Last night it was obvious Minnesota was unable to deal with the serves.   The passes were all over the place, and often their hits were almost free balls.   

The thing that was amiss was Minnesota's passing.

The Stanford block was the story of the first set, but throughout the contest Minnesota's awful kill percentage was caused by their inability to deal with those serves.  A quality team is not going to let them fall to the floor as aces, but it was clear they were having a very tough time.

[BobK]

Sadly stats on serve receive are hard to find. Chalk talks are great to get these stats and we excel.

[BobK]

Sadly stats on serve receive are hard to find. Chalk talks are great to get these stats and we excel.

[81alum]

So what kind of a team is Wisconsin and what do we have to do to beat them, other than the usual?

[81alum]

So what kind of a team is Wisconsin and what do we have to do to beat them, other than the usual?

[Spiny_Norman]

So what kind of a team is Wisconsin and what do we have to do to beat them, other than the usual?

Stop or at least slow down Dana Rettke (6'8" Big 10 Player of the Year).

[Spiny_Norman]

So what kind of a team is Wisconsin and what do we have to do to beat them, other than the usual?

Stop or at least slow down Dana Rettke (6'8" Big 10 Player of the Year).

[oldalum]

I understand, but was that unique to last night and not our other games?

it's more than usual, but not unheard of (we had 11 service errors in 3 sets against UCLA, for example). The question is, what do you do about it? If mid-match we ease up a bit on serving to reduce the errors, Minnesota would get more side-outs. Minnesota is very efficient when in system, so getting them out of system with aggressive serving was probably the single most important key to the match--and we did that. (we don't have the stats to show that, but the coaches do.) If you review our blocks, most of them occurred when MN was out of system. In an interview last night, Hambly was actually asked about the service errors, and he said (as he consistently does) that he doesn't care about them as long as we are serving aggressively. So I just try to grit my teeth through them and enjoy the far more numerous times that our opponents don't make a good pass.

[oldalum]

I understand, but was that unique to last night and not our other games?

it's more than usual, but not unheard of (we had 11 service errors in 3 sets against UCLA, for example). The question is, what do you do about it? If mid-match we ease up a bit on serving to reduce the errors, Minnesota would get more side-outs. Minnesota is very efficient when in system, so getting them out of system with aggressive serving was probably the single most important key to the match--and we did that. (we don't have the stats to show that, but the coaches do.) If you review our blocks, most of them occurred when MN was out of system. In an interview last night, Hambly was actually asked about the service errors, and he said (as he consistently does) that he doesn't care about them as long as we are serving aggressively. So I just try to grit my teeth through them and enjoy the far more numerous times that our opponents don't make a good pass.

[76lsjumb]

Sadly stats on serve receive are hard to find.  Chalk talks are great to get these stats and we excel.

Indeed.  I had to laugh when Holly Rowe asked Hambly about the service errors, given that his response ["I don't care"] has almost become a running joke at the chalk talks...

I'm pretty sure the only service error that might upset Hambly is at set point for the other team [and maybe not even then :-) ]

[76lsjumb]

Sadly stats on serve receive are hard to find.  Chalk talks are great to get these stats and we excel.

Indeed.  I had to laugh when Holly Rowe asked Hambly about the service errors, given that his response ["I don't care"] has almost become a running joke at the chalk talks...

I'm pretty sure the only service error that might upset Hambly is at set point for the other team [and maybe not even then :-) ]

[bbm233]

I understand, but was that unique to last night and not our other games?

it's more than usual, but not unheard of (we had 11 service errors in 3 sets against UCLA, for example). The question is, what do you do about it? If mid-match we ease up a bit on serving to reduce the errors, Minnesota would get more side-outs. Minnesota is very efficient when in system, so getting them out of system with aggressive serving was probably the single most important key to the match--and we did that. (we don't have the stats to show that, but the coaches do.) If you review our blocks, most of them occurred when MN was out of system. In an interview last night, Hambly was actually asked about the service errors, and he said (as he consistently does) that he doesn't care about them as long as we are serving aggressively. So I just try to grit my teeth through them and enjoy the far more numerous times that our opponents don't make a good pass.

The commentators mentioned several times that Stanford's passing accuracy was higher than Minnesota's. At one point they said Minnesota was passing at 45% accuracy and Stanford was passing at 60%. They said that was causing Minnesota to not be able to play fast (i.e. set the ball in such a way to prevent Stanford from putting up an effective block). Presumably, some of that passing accuracy is related to the difficulty of handling Stanford's serves.

I understand why Hambly wants them to serve tough - an easy serve receive most likely is going to lead to a side-out, so the best way to go on a run is to see if you can get them out of system via the serve. They aren't trying to get aces/service winners with tough serves; they are trying to get them out of system so they can get a block or a weak attack.

P.S. it was a commentator love-fest for Plummer, Hentz and Gray. Which is nice when one of the commentators is the national team coach!

[bbm233]

I understand, but was that unique to last night and not our other games?

it's more than usual, but not unheard of (we had 11 service errors in 3 sets against UCLA, for example). The question is, what do you do about it? If mid-match we ease up a bit on serving to reduce the errors, Minnesota would get more side-outs. Minnesota is very efficient when in system, so getting them out of system with aggressive serving was probably the single most important key to the match--and we did that. (we don't have the stats to show that, but the coaches do.) If you review our blocks, most of them occurred when MN was out of system. In an interview last night, Hambly was actually asked about the service errors, and he said (as he consistently does) that he doesn't care about them as long as we are serving aggressively. So I just try to grit my teeth through them and enjoy the far more numerous times that our opponents don't make a good pass.

The commentators mentioned several times that Stanford's passing accuracy was higher than Minnesota's. At one point they said Minnesota was passing at 45% accuracy and Stanford was passing at 60%. They said that was causing Minnesota to not be able to play fast (i.e. set the ball in such a way to prevent Stanford from putting up an effective block). Presumably, some of that passing accuracy is related to the difficulty of handling Stanford's serves.

I understand why Hambly wants them to serve tough - an easy serve receive most likely is going to lead to a side-out, so the best way to go on a run is to see if you can get them out of system via the serve. They aren't trying to get aces/service winners with tough serves; they are trying to get them out of system so they can get a block or a weak attack.

P.S. it was a commentator love-fest for Plummer, Hentz and Gray. Which is nice when one of the commentators is the national team coach!

[cardcrimson]

Sadly stats on serve receive are hard to find.  Chalk talks are great to get these stats and we excel.

I'm pretty sure the only service error that might upset Hambly is at set point for the other team [and maybe not even then :-) ]

Yeah, I had one of those once: match point in the finals of a beach volleyball tournament no less, hence perhaps my sensitivity. Fricking thing was even televised on local tv, and replayed multiple times. I did have an excuse, though, I had spent much of the prior night in an emergency room with a seriously infected bee sting in my foot.

[cardcrimson]

Sadly stats on serve receive are hard to find.  Chalk talks are great to get these stats and we excel.

I'm pretty sure the only service error that might upset Hambly is at set point for the other team [and maybe not even then :-) ]

Yeah, I had one of those once: match point in the finals of a beach volleyball tournament no less, hence perhaps my sensitivity. Fricking thing was even televised on local tv, and replayed multiple times. I did have an excuse, though, I had spent much of the prior night in an emergency room with a seriously infected bee sting in my foot.

[Farm93]

Service errors also had another benefit.  They gave MN points without the momentum and confidence of a massive kill.  They got the point, but they were not getting sweet sets or team inspiring kills that might help the team get into a better rhythm. 

Wisconsin was doing a similar thing against Baylor.  In that semi it really seemed like Baylor just had never seen that tactic in Big12 play, they were getting more and more frustrated as their high flyers needed great sets to allow them to soar high for point ending kills.  As that game continued the Baylor hitters were getting more and more frustrated and started to try for big kills even when sets were not ideal for the attempt.

It will be interesting to see the final if both teams are trying to use the serve tactically rather than just as a point starter.

[Farm93]

Service errors also had another benefit.  They gave MN points without the momentum and confidence of a massive kill.  They got the point, but they were not getting sweet sets or team inspiring kills that might help the team get into a better rhythm. 

Wisconsin was doing a similar thing against Baylor.  In that semi it really seemed like Baylor just had never seen that tactic in Big12 play, they were getting more and more frustrated as their high flyers needed great sets to allow them to soar high for point ending kills.  As that game continued the Baylor hitters were getting more and more frustrated and started to try for big kills even when sets were not ideal for the attempt.

It will be interesting to see the final if both teams are trying to use the serve tactically rather than just as a point starter.

[cardcrimson]

Service errors also had another benefit.  They gave MN points without the momentum and confidence of a massive kill.  They got the point, but they were not getting sweet sets or team inspiring kills that might help the team get into a better rhythm. 

You're kidding, right?

[cardcrimson]

Service errors also had another benefit.  They gave MN points without the momentum and confidence of a massive kill.  They got the point, but they were not getting sweet sets or team inspiring kills that might help the team get into a better rhythm. 

You're kidding, right?

[Farm93]

Service errors also had another benefit.  They gave MN points without the momentum and confidence of a massive kill.  They got the point, but they were not getting sweet sets or team inspiring kills that might help the team get into a better rhythm. 

You're kidding, right?

Not at all.  In the WI vs Baylor contest.   Baylor by set #4 was done.   The hitters were really frustrated.   The setter was tired from running around all night.   The WI serves were the key in that contest.  And to get that level of frustration from a serve based strategy you more or less need to accept some errors may creep in too.   WI had fewer errors, but I bet they would have been OK with a few more errors to keep Baylor from finding its high flying groove. 

In the Stanford/MN game.  The MN big hitters were rarely on a roll.   For stretches in the contest they went several minutes between satisfying and crowd pleasing kills for their outside hitters.   To be honest, I had to look at their season stats to figure out which players were the primary targets during the season because we were not seeing them distribute the ball well during the game.

The goal is not to serve errors, but denying the other team's outside hitters the opportunity for a satisfying, momentum building, in system kill is at least a silver lining.

Evidence for the love of the aggressive approach is right there with Kate Formico.   All season long it seemed like she would sub in and immediately tally a service error.  And yet, all season long she has had the same aggressive approach.   If it was something the staff wanted to avoid, it would seem easy enough to tell her to improve the percentage.   However, when she doesn't hit a service error the team wins a lot of her points.   The good with the bad and all.

[Farm93]

Service errors also had another benefit.  They gave MN points without the momentum and confidence of a massive kill.  They got the point, but they were not getting sweet sets or team inspiring kills that might help the team get into a better rhythm. 

You're kidding, right?

Not at all.  In the WI vs Baylor contest.   Baylor by set #4 was done.   The hitters were really frustrated.   The setter was tired from running around all night.   The WI serves were the key in that contest.  And to get that level of frustration from a serve based strategy you more or less need to accept some errors may creep in too.   WI had fewer errors, but I bet they would have been OK with a few more errors to keep Baylor from finding its high flying groove. 

In the Stanford/MN game.  The MN big hitters were rarely on a roll.   For stretches in the contest they went several minutes between satisfying and crowd pleasing kills for their outside hitters.   To be honest, I had to look at their season stats to figure out which players were the primary targets during the season because we were not seeing them distribute the ball well during the game.

The goal is not to serve errors, but denying the other team's outside hitters the opportunity for a satisfying, momentum building, in system kill is at least a silver lining.

Evidence for the love of the aggressive approach is right there with Kate Formico.   All season long it seemed like she would sub in and immediately tally a service error.  And yet, all season long she has had the same aggressive approach.   If it was something the staff wanted to avoid, it would seem easy enough to tell her to improve the percentage.   However, when she doesn't hit a service error the team wins a lot of her points.   The good with the bad and all.

[BostonCard]

Question for the sport connoisseurs.

What proportion of the time will a good team win a point when "in system" versus out of system?

It occurs to me that if that number is somewhere along the lines of 75%, then the penalty for a service error is relatively small (basically just 0.25 points) while the benefit could be substantial (0.75 points for an ace, and somewhat less if it is an out of system return).

BC

[BostonCard]

Question for the sport connoisseurs.

What proportion of the time will a good team win a point when "in system" versus out of system?

It occurs to me that if that number is somewhere along the lines of 75%, then the penalty for a service error is relatively small (basically just 0.25 points) while the benefit could be substantial (0.75 points for an ace, and somewhat less if it is an out of system return).

BC

[CompSci87]

Service errors also had another benefit.  They gave MN points without the momentum and confidence of a massive kill.  They got the point, but they were not getting sweet sets or team inspiring kills that might help the team get into a better rhythm. 

You're kidding, right?

Not at all.  In the WI vs Baylor contest.   Baylor by set #4 was done.   The hitters were really frustrated.   The setter was tired from running around all night.   The WI serves were the key in that contest.  And to get that level of frustration from a serve based strategy you more or less need to accept some errors may creep in too.   WI had fewer errors, but I bet they would have been OK with a few more errors to keep Baylor from finding its high flying groove. 

In the Stanford/MN game.  The MN big hitters were rarely on a roll.   For stretches in the contest they went several minutes between satisfying and crowd pleasing kills for their outside hitters.   To be honest, I had to look at their season stats to figure out which players were the primary targets during the season because we were not seeing them distribute the ball well during the game.

The goal is not to serve errors, but denying the other team's outside hitters the opportunity for a satisfying, momentum building, in system kill is at least a silver lining.

Evidence for the love of the aggressive approach is right there with Kate Formico.   All season long it seemed like she would sub in and immediately tally a service error.  And yet, all season long she has had the same aggressive approach.   If it was something the staff wanted to avoid, it would seem easy enough to tell her to improve the percentage.   However, when she doesn't hit a service error the team wins a lot of her points.   The good with the bad and all.

I believe I heard that of all Stanford servers, Formico has served the largest number of points on which Stanford scored.

[CompSci87]

Service errors also had another benefit.  They gave MN points without the momentum and confidence of a massive kill.  They got the point, but they were not getting sweet sets or team inspiring kills that might help the team get into a better rhythm. 

You're kidding, right?

Not at all.  In the WI vs Baylor contest.   Baylor by set #4 was done.   The hitters were really frustrated.   The setter was tired from running around all night.   The WI serves were the key in that contest.  And to get that level of frustration from a serve based strategy you more or less need to accept some errors may creep in too.   WI had fewer errors, but I bet they would have been OK with a few more errors to keep Baylor from finding its high flying groove. 

In the Stanford/MN game.  The MN big hitters were rarely on a roll.   For stretches in the contest they went several minutes between satisfying and crowd pleasing kills for their outside hitters.   To be honest, I had to look at their season stats to figure out which players were the primary targets during the season because we were not seeing them distribute the ball well during the game.

The goal is not to serve errors, but denying the other team's outside hitters the opportunity for a satisfying, momentum building, in system kill is at least a silver lining.

Evidence for the love of the aggressive approach is right there with Kate Formico.   All season long it seemed like she would sub in and immediately tally a service error.  And yet, all season long she has had the same aggressive approach.   If it was something the staff wanted to avoid, it would seem easy enough to tell her to improve the percentage.   However, when she doesn't hit a service error the team wins a lot of her points.   The good with the bad and all.

I believe I heard that of all Stanford servers, Formico has served the largest number of points on which Stanford scored.