[BostonCard]

Seemed that every run Stanford made ended with a serve into the net or long. Unforced errors that killed momentum.

I didn't see the match, but in general, it seems to me that most runs usually are a run in part because of aggressive serving that helps avoid side-outs. Side-outs not from service errors kill momentum too. An undesirable result of aggressive serving is that a run ends (or never gets started) because of a service error. There needs to be a balance, but Hambly seems ok with more service errors than most of us spectators seem to be. I suspect he has the stats to support it, based on things such as the grading of each serve, the percentage of each grade of serves that result in poor passes by the other team, and the percent of those that end in a point for us, versus how points go when we don't hit tough serves and when they serve-receive well. Against the very top teams that have highly potent offenses when in system (the ones we have to beat to win a NC), aggressive serving is especially important and I would guess Hambly wants to practice that all through the season.

One thing is that I think this helps explain why even in matches where we win pretty decisively, we sometimes give up a set.  Let's say that on average, we can expect 1-2 "runs" per set, defined as a at least four consecutive points (this is just a simplifying assumption; runs aren't going to be exactly four points).  Let's also say that against a team that we beat, if we get two 4-point runs, we will beat them 25-19.  Of course, sometimes we only get one run, in which case we are looking at a much closer match (would be 21-19 without the run, and a battle to the finish).  If we get zero runs, as sometimes happens, the other team leads 19-17 and can beat us.  If we get more than two runs, it's a blow-out and we get two 25 well before they hit even 19.  Because you can usually but not always get a run, you sometimes have weird sets where an otherwise overmatched opponent will take a set.

BC

---

By the way, vis a vis the debate, I think we are over performing somewhat.  Looking at who we played through 11 games (6 matches ranked teams, 4 in the top 10, two in the top five), I think 9-2 (with losses against the #2 and #4 teams, on the road) is probably the upper limit of what we could reasonably have expected.  7-4 against this schedule wouldn't have been too much of a disappointment, and frankly 6-5 was completely possible.

We are currently the #5 ranked team, so if going in we thought a 2-3 regional seed was the expectation, which I agree with, we are currently at the upper end of the range.  I think we will wind up a #2 regional seed; if we improve we could wind up a top regional seed, and with some unexpected losses we can wind up a #3 seed.  With 18 matches left, I'd expect to go anywhere between 16-2 and 13-15 the rest of the way (very tough matches at Pitt, hosting Louisville, plus a home and away with Georgia Tech and matches at SMU and Florida State); best guess is 15-3.

BC

[BostonCard]

Seemed that every run Stanford made ended with a serve into the net or long. Unforced errors that killed momentum.

I didn't see the match, but in general, it seems to me that most runs usually are a run in part because of aggressive serving that helps avoid side-outs. Side-outs not from service errors kill momentum too. An undesirable result of aggressive serving is that a run ends (or never gets started) because of a service error. There needs to be a balance, but Hambly seems ok with more service errors than most of us spectators seem to be. I suspect he has the stats to support it, based on things such as the grading of each serve, the percentage of each grade of serves that result in poor passes by the other team, and the percent of those that end in a point for us, versus how points go when we don't hit tough serves and when they serve-receive well. Against the very top teams that have highly potent offenses when in system (the ones we have to beat to win a NC), aggressive serving is especially important and I would guess Hambly wants to practice that all through the season.

One thing is that I think this helps explain why even in matches where we win pretty decisively, we sometimes give up a set.  Let's say that on average, we can expect 1-2 "runs" per set, defined as a at least four consecutive points (this is just a simplifying assumption; runs aren't going to be exactly four points).  Let's also say that against a team that we beat, if we get two 4-point runs, we will beat them 25-19.  Of course, sometimes we only get one run, in which case we are looking at a much closer match (would be 21-19 without the run, and a battle to the finish).  If we get zero runs, as sometimes happens, the other team leads 19-17 and can beat us.  If we get more than two runs, it's a blow-out and we get two 25 well before they hit even 19.  Because you can usually but not always get a run, you sometimes have weird sets where an otherwise overmatched opponent will take a set.

BC

---

By the way, vis a vis the debate, I think we are over performing somewhat.  Looking at who we played through 11 games (6 matches ranked teams, 4 in the top 10, two in the top five), I think 9-2 (with losses against the #2 and #4 teams, on the road) is probably the upper limit of what we could reasonably have expected.  7-4 against this schedule wouldn't have been too much of a disappointment, and frankly 6-5 was completely possible.

We are currently the #5 ranked team, so if going in we thought a 2-3 regional seed was the expectation, which I agree with, we are currently at the upper end of the range.  I think we will wind up a #2 regional seed; if we improve we could wind up a top regional seed, and with some unexpected losses we can wind up a #3 seed.  With 18 matches left, I'd expect to go anywhere between 16-2 and 13-15 the rest of the way (very tough matches at Pitt, hosting Louisville, plus a home and away with Georgia Tech and matches at SMU and Florida State); best guess is 15-3.

BC