[ca245]

Hambly will play Kurt one game then Blyaskov the next like today.  He wants to be able to sub when it’s really important and have that sub ready to play

What about Demaria? I thought she was a highly ranked recruit coming in? Is she going to redshirt?

[ca245]

Hambly will play Kurt one game then Blyaskov the next like today.  He wants to be able to sub when it’s really important and have that sub ready to play

What about Demaria? I thought she was a highly ranked recruit coming in? Is she going to redshirt?

[paloalto]

I saw Kaci Demaria play a number of times for her Surfside club team.  I wasn't impressed.  She's a little taller than Kurt and Blyashov.  However her skill level is not close to either of them in my opinion.  Plus her passing is not at a level it needs to be.  Based on my observations, it's hard to understand how she was highly ranked.

[paloalto]

I saw Kaci Demaria play a number of times for her Surfside club team.  I wasn't impressed.  She's a little taller than Kurt and Blyashov.  However her skill level is not close to either of them in my opinion.  Plus her passing is not at a level it needs to be.  Based on my observations, it's hard to understand how she was highly ranked.

[BobK]

DeMaria is redshirting
Watching her in the open scrimmage and again warning up last night she has a big arm. Hitting that is

[BobK]

DeMaria is redshirting
Watching her in the open scrimmage and again warning up last night she has a big arm. Hitting that is

[paloalto]

Bobcats causing trouble for the Cardinal.  Five of Texas State's 14 points are Stanford service errors.

---

Texas State slowly falling apart toward end of first set.  Bright spot for Stanford is Blyashov.

[paloalto]

Bobcats causing trouble for the Cardinal.  Five of Texas State's 14 points are Stanford service errors.

---

Texas State slowly falling apart toward end of first set.  Bright spot for Stanford is Blyashov.

[TonyLima]

1758411982[/url]']
Bobcats causing trouble for the Cardinal.  Five of Texas State's 14 points are Stanford service errors.

---

Texas State slowly falling apart toward end of first set.  Bright spot for Stanford is Blyashov.

To put it mildly. If Blyashov keeps this up, she’ll make a good case for starting permanently.

[TonyLima]

1758411982[/url]']
Bobcats causing trouble for the Cardinal.  Five of Texas State's 14 points are Stanford service errors.

---

Texas State slowly falling apart toward end of first set.  Bright spot for Stanford is Blyashov.

To put it mildly. If Blyashov keeps this up, she’ll make a good case for starting permanently.

[paloalto]

Stanford playing well enough to win 25-20 against a 4-6 Texas State team.

[paloalto]

Stanford playing well enough to win 25-20 against a 4-6 Texas State team.

[TonyLima]

Stanford playing well enough to win 25-20 against a 4-6 Texas State team.

they usually have trouble in the second set. Today, looks like it could be a nailbiter.

---

overlooked: Rubin serving. She just ripped off 4, 5, 6 points in a row.

[TonyLima]

Stanford playing well enough to win 25-20 against a 4-6 Texas State team.

they usually have trouble in the second set. Today, looks like it could be a nailbiter.

---

overlooked: Rubin serving. She just ripped off 4, 5, 6 points in a row.

[paloalto]

Harvey has her hair in a tight bun today.  I wonder if that is for aerodynamic purposes when she is jumping. Does long hair create frictional air resistance causing drag?

[paloalto]

Harvey has her hair in a tight bun today.  I wonder if that is for aerodynamic purposes when she is jumping. Does long hair create frictional air resistance causing drag?

[TonyLima]

TSU keeping up with Stanford in one area. Each team has 8 service errors

[TonyLima]

TSU keeping up with Stanford in one area. Each team has 8 service errors

[M T]

Stanford wins in 3.  25-20, 25-16, 25-18.
Side-out percentage of almost 80%.  (I'll take 13 service errors to be at 80%)

The team hit 0.422.  Sayer 0.700, Andrew 0.562,  Blyashov 0.382, Jordan & Parks 0.375.
Interestingly, Rubin had the lowest hitting percentage at 0.214.

[M T]

Stanford wins in 3.  25-20, 25-16, 25-18.
Side-out percentage of almost 80%.  (I'll take 13 service errors to be at 80%)

The team hit 0.422.  Sayer 0.700, Andrew 0.562,  Blyashov 0.382, Jordan & Parks 0.375.
Interestingly, Rubin had the lowest hitting percentage at 0.214.

[johnbar]

Yes, Blyashov looked very good.  Be interesting to see who plays tomorrow.

Slightly off-topic:
BobK, it must have been Clara Stowell's father who played with Hambly at BYU.

https://gostanford.com/sports/beach-voll...ra-stowell

[johnbar]

Yes, Blyashov looked very good.  Be interesting to see who plays tomorrow.

Slightly off-topic:
BobK, it must have been Clara Stowell's father who played with Hambly at BYU.

https://gostanford.com/sports/beach-voll...ra-stowell

[ca245]

Did anyone else also have the impression that Park backset an awful lot? Was it dictated by the flow of the game or is it her “comfort zone”?

[ca245]

Did anyone else also have the impression that Park backset an awful lot? Was it dictated by the flow of the game or is it her “comfort zone”?

[BobK]

Parks did back set a lot. I’ll. Ask at the chalk talk tomorrow

John yes that’s her and her dad

[BobK]

Parks did back set a lot. I’ll. Ask at the chalk talk tomorrow

John yes that’s her and her dad

[BostonCard]

Stanford wins in 3.  25-20, 25-16, 25-18.
Side-out percentage of almost 80%.  (I'll take 13 service errors to be at 80%)

The team hit 0.422.  Sayer 0.700, Andrew 0.562,  Blyashov 0.382, Jordan & Parks 0.375.
Interestingly, Rubin had the lowest hitting percentage at 0.214.

More importantly, what was Texas Tech’s side out percentage.  Given that we had several serving runs, it was probably pretty low, in which case we were serving well despite the serving errors and only 1 ace. I recall lots of out of system plays and several free balls, so mission accomplished.

The reason that a high so percentage for us is good is that the consequences of a service error are minimal.  Yeah, we lose the point, but have a high chance of getting it back right after.

BC

[BostonCard]

Stanford wins in 3.  25-20, 25-16, 25-18.
Side-out percentage of almost 80%.  (I'll take 13 service errors to be at 80%)

The team hit 0.422.  Sayer 0.700, Andrew 0.562,  Blyashov 0.382, Jordan & Parks 0.375.
Interestingly, Rubin had the lowest hitting percentage at 0.214.

More importantly, what was Texas Tech’s side out percentage.  Given that we had several serving runs, it was probably pretty low, in which case we were serving well despite the serving errors and only 1 ace. I recall lots of out of system plays and several free balls, so mission accomplished.

The reason that a high so percentage for us is good is that the consequences of a service error are minimal.  Yeah, we lose the point, but have a high chance of getting it back right after.

BC

[paloalto]

Stanford having a high side out percentage is always good.  I think service errors and effectiveness in general of Stanford's serving should be evaluated on its own as an independent statistic.  

Is four service errors per set good?  It needs context.  Cawa's first serve was a lollipop into the bottom of the net.  Many of the service errors in this match were into the net.   It didn't matter in this game where Stanford was going to win no matter what.

[paloalto]

Stanford having a high side out percentage is always good.  I think service errors and effectiveness in general of Stanford's serving should be evaluated on its own as an independent statistic.  

Is four service errors per set good?  It needs context.  Cawa's first serve was a lollipop into the bottom of the net.  Many of the service errors in this match were into the net.   It didn't matter in this game where Stanford was going to win no matter what.

[BobK]

Parks did back set a lot. I’ll. Ask at the chalk talk tomorrow

John yes that’s her and her dad

[BobK]

Parks did back set a lot. I’ll. Ask at the chalk talk tomorrow

John yes that’s her and her dad

[M T]

Stanford wins in 3.  25-20, 25-16, 25-18.
Side-out percentage of almost 80%.  (I'll take 13 service errors to be at 80%)

The team hit 0.422.  Sayer 0.700, Andrew 0.562,  Blyashov 0.382, Jordan & Parks 0.375.
Interestingly, Rubin had the lowest hitting percentage at 0.214.

More importantly, what was Texas Tech’s side out percentage.  Given that we had several serving runs, it was probably pretty low, in which case we were serving well despite the serving errors and only 1 ace. I recall lots of out of system plays and several free balls, so mission accomplished.

The reason that a high so percentage for us is good is that the consequences of a service error are minimal.  Yeah, we lose the point, but have a high chance of getting it back right after.

I hate making errors, but as BC politely pointed out, I did.  Oops.

Turning it around, Stanford got points on 43% of its own serves, while the opponent got points on 20% of its serves.
Some might say the opponent did a better job serving since they had 4 fewer service errors (9 vs 13) but, remember that the opponent had far fewer serves.

I worked backwards from those percentages.  In the match, Stanford scored 75 points; Texas State, 53.
The serve totals were Stanford 74, Texas State 54.
Points scored on serve:  Stanford 32, Texas State 11.
Points scored when receiving serve: Stanford 43, Texas State 42

Stanford service error rate: 13/74 =0.176    Overall lost point rate on serve: 42/74 =0.568 
Texas State service error rate: 9/54 =0.167  Overall lost point rate on serve 43/54 =0.796 
The rate of service errors was pretty close to the same for each team.


When playing an over-matched opponent, a wise coach can instruct the team to work on certain aspects of their game, even if they wouldn't be the preferred actions in a tight match.


We have chosen to forgo Disney, Hulu, and ESPN(+,2,3,U,...) and thus, ACCN and ACCNx, so I'm going to be watching Stanford pretty much only in person.   I support KZSU.

[M T]

Stanford wins in 3.  25-20, 25-16, 25-18.
Side-out percentage of almost 80%.  (I'll take 13 service errors to be at 80%)

The team hit 0.422.  Sayer 0.700, Andrew 0.562,  Blyashov 0.382, Jordan & Parks 0.375.
Interestingly, Rubin had the lowest hitting percentage at 0.214.

More importantly, what was Texas Tech’s side out percentage.  Given that we had several serving runs, it was probably pretty low, in which case we were serving well despite the serving errors and only 1 ace. I recall lots of out of system plays and several free balls, so mission accomplished.

The reason that a high so percentage for us is good is that the consequences of a service error are minimal.  Yeah, we lose the point, but have a high chance of getting it back right after.

I hate making errors, but as BC politely pointed out, I did.  Oops.

Turning it around, Stanford got points on 43% of its own serves, while the opponent got points on 20% of its serves.
Some might say the opponent did a better job serving since they had 4 fewer service errors (9 vs 13) but, remember that the opponent had far fewer serves.

I worked backwards from those percentages.  In the match, Stanford scored 75 points; Texas State, 53.
The serve totals were Stanford 74, Texas State 54.
Points scored on serve:  Stanford 32, Texas State 11.
Points scored when receiving serve: Stanford 43, Texas State 42

Stanford service error rate: 13/74 =0.176    Overall lost point rate on serve: 42/74 =0.568 
Texas State service error rate: 9/54 =0.167  Overall lost point rate on serve 43/54 =0.796 
The rate of service errors was pretty close to the same for each team.


When playing an over-matched opponent, a wise coach can instruct the team to work on certain aspects of their game, even if they wouldn't be the preferred actions in a tight match.


We have chosen to forgo Disney, Hulu, and ESPN(+,2,3,U,...) and thus, ACCN and ACCNx, so I'm going to be watching Stanford pretty much only in person.   I support KZSU.

[paloalto]

Unlike the last four opponents UCLA has the talent to beat Stanford.  This could be a close match.  UCLA off to a good start in set 1.

---

After a slow start Stanford looking pretty darn good at the moment.  Actually really good.  Will it last?

---

Well, that first set was a pleasure to watch.  Harvey with some good serving and some very nice kills.

[paloalto]

Unlike the last four opponents UCLA has the talent to beat Stanford.  This could be a close match.  UCLA off to a good start in set 1.

---

After a slow start Stanford looking pretty darn good at the moment.  Actually really good.  Will it last?

---

Well, that first set was a pleasure to watch.  Harvey with some good serving and some very nice kills.

[paloalto]

UCLA has some big hitters. 

---

UCLA coming on strong at the end of set 2.

---

UCLA wins set 2.

[paloalto]

UCLA has some big hitters. 

---

UCLA coming on strong at the end of set 2.

---

UCLA wins set 2.

[cardfan77]

Stanford left side needs to stop challenging UCLA’s big block of Singletary and Kong. They won’t win that battle. They need to hit high hands and go for the finger tips. Attacks on the right side either by right the side hitter or middles are more successful.

[cardfan77]

Stanford left side needs to stop challenging UCLA’s big block of Singletary and Kong. They won’t win that battle. They need to hit high hands and go for the finger tips. Attacks on the right side either by right the side hitter or middles are more successful.