[Hieronymus]

Didn't realize this:

STATISTICAL RANKINGS: Stanford leads the ACC and is fifth nationally with a .302 attack percentage. The Cardinal also paces the conference in assists (13.42) and kills (14.26) per set, ranking seventh and 10th in the NCAA, respectively. Stanford is third in the ACC in aces (1.68) and seventh in digs (13.69).

I find this hard to square with all the criticism of Parks.

BC

I take it you did not watch the UNC match on Friday if you believe the criticism of Parks' setting location is not warranted.  I would like to see a discussion between you and sakibomb about Parks' setting.   That would be entertaining.  Is sakibomb on sabbatical from Cardboard?

I enjoy your presentation of stats and other meaningful info.  Hope you continue.

I probably should have phrased it as "it is hard to square this with how Parks has looked at times"; it wasn't really meant as a criticism of those who have noted Parks' struggles.  I do believe that there is a disconnect between what the stats say and our subjective assessment, and I was hoping to provoke a discussion on how we could resolve it.

I do think that part of it is the skill and willingness to set the middles, who have thrived this year.  Last year Francis and Andrew had 440 kills all year between them.  So far this year, Andrew and Sayer already matched that total.  A combination of higher utilization of the middles (who already have a higher hitting percentage than the pins) and higher hitting percentage by the middles makes up for a lot of mistakes setting the pins.  We are basically getting one more kill/set from the middles. 

Our pin hitters (Rubin, Harvey, and Kurt) got 9.8 kills/set last year on exactly 23 attacks/set; this year that is down to 8.5 kills for the three plus Blyashov in 22 attacks/set.  Thus, both efficiency and utilization of the pins is down this year, despite the pin hitters being a year older and more experienced.  I think this is what is we are seeing.  It's not so much that Parks is a bad setter as a whole, it is that she is not as good with locating her sets to our outside hitters.  As a result, their hitting percentage has suffered.  However, she has made up for it by setting our middles more, and those middles have responded by hitting more efficiently.  Thus, as a whole, hitting stats have held up quite well, and in fact are amongst the best in the nation, but the "eye test" hasn't looked good.

But I think we probably owe it to ourselves to be more precise in how we describe the problem.  For Parks, it is particularly an issue with inconsistent setting to the outside (and, at least to my eye, specifically in the front set; she looked pretty good back setting).  Miner was a tough act to follow; she was so consistent in her setting (perhaps a little too consistent; I think good opponents knew exactly where the ball was going to be too and could set up a block).  But for whatever reason, Parks has been more willing to use the middles and the middles have been more successful.

BC

100% agree with BC here. Though I do think some of Parks sets to the middles go off course a bit as well, but they are often still hittable even though not ideal.

[Hieronymus]

Didn't realize this:

STATISTICAL RANKINGS: Stanford leads the ACC and is fifth nationally with a .302 attack percentage. The Cardinal also paces the conference in assists (13.42) and kills (14.26) per set, ranking seventh and 10th in the NCAA, respectively. Stanford is third in the ACC in aces (1.68) and seventh in digs (13.69).

I find this hard to square with all the criticism of Parks.

BC

I take it you did not watch the UNC match on Friday if you believe the criticism of Parks' setting location is not warranted.  I would like to see a discussion between you and sakibomb about Parks' setting.   That would be entertaining.  Is sakibomb on sabbatical from Cardboard?

I enjoy your presentation of stats and other meaningful info.  Hope you continue.

I probably should have phrased it as "it is hard to square this with how Parks has looked at times"; it wasn't really meant as a criticism of those who have noted Parks' struggles.  I do believe that there is a disconnect between what the stats say and our subjective assessment, and I was hoping to provoke a discussion on how we could resolve it.

I do think that part of it is the skill and willingness to set the middles, who have thrived this year.  Last year Francis and Andrew had 440 kills all year between them.  So far this year, Andrew and Sayer already matched that total.  A combination of higher utilization of the middles (who already have a higher hitting percentage than the pins) and higher hitting percentage by the middles makes up for a lot of mistakes setting the pins.  We are basically getting one more kill/set from the middles. 

Our pin hitters (Rubin, Harvey, and Kurt) got 9.8 kills/set last year on exactly 23 attacks/set; this year that is down to 8.5 kills for the three plus Blyashov in 22 attacks/set.  Thus, both efficiency and utilization of the pins is down this year, despite the pin hitters being a year older and more experienced.  I think this is what is we are seeing.  It's not so much that Parks is a bad setter as a whole, it is that she is not as good with locating her sets to our outside hitters.  As a result, their hitting percentage has suffered.  However, she has made up for it by setting our middles more, and those middles have responded by hitting more efficiently.  Thus, as a whole, hitting stats have held up quite well, and in fact are amongst the best in the nation, but the "eye test" hasn't looked good.

But I think we probably owe it to ourselves to be more precise in how we describe the problem.  For Parks, it is particularly an issue with inconsistent setting to the outside (and, at least to my eye, specifically in the front set; she looked pretty good back setting).  Miner was a tough act to follow; she was so consistent in her setting (perhaps a little too consistent; I think good opponents knew exactly where the ball was going to be too and could set up a block).  But for whatever reason, Parks has been more willing to use the middles and the middles have been more successful.

BC

100% agree with BC here. Though I do think some of Parks sets to the middles go off course a bit as well, but they are often still hittable even though not ideal.