Blog - On One Hand Business... On the Other Hand Sports

Percentage of Points Won – Stanford, Nebraska, and CU Volleyball

April 4, 2015May 20, 2015 horvath Leave a comment

What is the difference in the percentage of points won for winners and losers?

The top teams in the country win slightly more than half the points they play in conference matches. At the other end of the pecking order the worst teams in the country win 40% to 45% of the points they play.

As expected, teams that win about half the points will win about half the sets and about half their matches.

To illustrate this point, consider the 2006 and 2014 University of Colorado teams.

During the 2006 conference season the Lady Buffs won:
• 49.5% of the points
• 53.1% of the sets
• 60.0% of the matches.
During the 2014 season the Lady Buffs won:
• 50.0% of the points
• 50.0% of the sets
• 55.0% of the matches.
Both seasons the Lady Buffs were invited to the NCAA Championships and won their first round matches before bowing out.

When teams win less than half the points they win a much smaller percentage of the sets and an even smaller percentage of the matches. A prime example was the 2009 CU Lady Buffs.

During the 2009 season the Lady Buffs won:
• 42.8% of the points
• 16.7% of the sets
• 10.0% of the matches.
They had one of the poorest records in the country for Division I teams.

When teams win more than half the points those wins are magnified. A greater percentage of sets are won and an even greater percentage of matches are won.

During the 2014 season the Nebraska Cornhuskers won:
• 52.1% of the points
• 66.2% of the sets
• 70.0% of the matches.
The Cornhuskers lost 3-0 to finalist BYU in the quarterfinals of the NCAA Championships.

The 2014 Stanford Cardinal team won:
• 54.3% of the points
• 78.4% of the sets
• 95.0% of the matches.
The Cardinal lost to champion Penn State in the semifinals.

The 2006 Nebraska Cornhuskers won:
• 56.4% of the points
• 89.4% of the sets
• 95.0% of the matches.
The Cornhuskers were National Champions in 2006. Their only loss was to the Lady Buffs, a team that won less than half its points in conference play. Despite their one loss, this Husker team was incredibly dominant.

The data shows there is a fine line between the percentage of points won for the best and the worst teams in the country. For additional information, see the report Team Tendencies and the Importance of Winning a Point.

Percentage of Points Won – Two Points Per Set

March 29, 2015November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

Over the course of a season what is the percentage of points won, sets won, and matches won by a college volleyball team? More importantly, what is the value of two points per set?

The report Team Tendencies and the Importance of Winning a Point takes an in-depth look at those percentages for the University of Colorado Women’s Volleyball team for the nine-year period from 2006 to 2014.

The Lady Buffs won between 42.8% and 50.0% of the points. The range from low to high is 7.2 percentage points. In other words, there are subtle differences between being a winner and a loser.

In 2009 the Lady Buffs won 42.8% of the points.

At the other end of the spectrum they won 49.5% of the points in 2006 and they won 50.0% of the points in 2014. Both years they qualified for NCAA nationals and won their first match at the Big Dance.

The range of 7.2 percentage points for points won (50.0%-42.8%) is magnified to a range of 38.6 percentage points for sets won (53.1% – 14.5%). In turn there is a range of 55.5 percentage points (60.0% – 4.5%) for matches won.

During the 2009 season the Lady Buffs won:
• 42.8% of the points
• 16.7% of the sets
• 10.0% of the matches.
The Lady Buffs won two of twenty matches. As can be seen, when less than half of the points are won, there is an increased reduction in the percentage of sets and matches won.

During the 2014 season the Lady Buffs won:
• 50.0% of the points
• 50.0% of the sets
• 55.0% of the matches.
The Lady Buffs won eleven of twenty matches. As can be expected when half the points are won there is minimal magnification of sets and matches won.

During a conference season the Lady Buffs play 20 matches. This is about 3,000 points and 75 sets.

If the Lady Buffs win 50.0% of the points, as they did in 2014, they would win 1,500 points. If they win 44.5% of the points, as they did in 2009, they would win 1,335 points during the season.

The difference is 165 points.

If those points are spread evenly over 20 matches, the average difference is 8.25 points per match. If 165 points are spread over 80 sets that means the average difference is 2.1 points per set. If you look at it from that perspective the difference between being the worst in the conference and qualifying for the NCAA championships is about eight points per match or two points per set.

The Bottom Line: As a coach or a player how can you find a way to win at least two points per set?

Women’s Volleyball Team Tendencies

March 23, 2015May 19, 2015 horvath Leave a comment

The women’s volleyball scores for the University of Colorado were evaluated for the nine-year period 2006 to 2014. In addition, scores were included for select Nebraska and Stanford seasons. From this analysis points won, sets won, and matches won, the following team tendencies were developed.

The following definitions are used in the description of the different levels.
Blowouts – decided by 10 points or more.
Solid – decided by 5 to 9 points.
Competitive – decided by 3 or 4 points.
Close – decided by 2 points.

Tier I Teams
• Win more than 53% of the points.
• Don’t lose blowout sets and less than 10% of sets are solid losses. They don’t give opponents a chance to get into the match.
• Win a majority of the close and competitive sets.
• At least 35% of the sets are solid wins
• At least 10% of the sets are blowout wins.
• Win at least 80% of their matches and most wins are 3-0.

Tier II Teams
• Win between 50.1% and 53.0% of the points.
• May lose a few blowout and solid loss sets.
• Win a majority of close and competitive matches.
• About 30% of their sets are solid wins and 5% are blowouts.
• Win at least 66% of their matches and most wins are 3-0 or 3-1.

Tier III Teams
• Win 48.1% to 50% of the points.
• Less than 10% of sets lost are blowouts and 20% solid losses.
• Sometimes win a majority of the close and competitive matches.
• Win about 20% of the sets are solid wins
• May win a few blowout sets.
• Win about half their matches.

Tier IV Teams
• Win between 45.1% and 48% of the points.
• About 20% of their sets are blowouts and 25% are solid loses.
• Most losses are 3-0 or 3-1.
• Win about 35% of their sets and matches.

Tier V Teams
• Win less than 45.1% of their points.
• More than half their sets are solid losses or blowouts.
• A majority of their matches are lost 3-0.
• Win less than 30% of their matches.

The above hierarchy will allow coaches to identify where their team falls in the peaking order and provide them with coaching that will help them move up the pecking order.

For additional information, click here and go to the report Team Tendencies and the Importance of Winning a Point.

The Height of Women PAC-12 Volleyball Players in the 2014-15 Season

March 17, 2015May 18, 2015 horvath Leave a comment

An analysis was conducted of the women’s PAC-12 volleyball programs to identify the height of players by teams and positions. Coaches and players can use this information to set realistic and attainable team and individual performance goals. As a result it coaches will be able to better manage their player’s expectations when they are competing for college scholarships.

Women’s college volleyball is a great sport for players of all heights; however, it favors women who are taller than average. Key findings from this analysis show that:
• The range of height is 63 inches to 80 inches.
• The average height for all players is 71.6 inches.
• For many reasons, there is not a correlation between average team height and won-lost record.
• The top teams in the conference had fewer players who played half the sets (9 or 10 players vs. 11 or 12).
• Slightly more than 50% of the players are between 72 inches and 75 inches.

The breakdown of the 120 players by position category was:
• DS/L 32 players 26.7%.
• Setters 18 players 15.0%.
• Middles 27 players 22.5%.
• OH 43 players 35.8%.
Competition is stiffest for setters.

The average height and range by position category was:
• DS/L 67.1 inches 63 to 72 inches.
• Setters 70.2 inches 66 to 72 inches.
• Middles 74.5 inches 73 to 80 inches.
• OH 73.8 inches 71 to 80 inches.
These tendencies can be oversimplified as follows:
• Players under six feet tall are setters or DS/Liberos.
• Players who are at least six feet tall are middles or outsides.
Because players grow at different rates, they must learn to adapt as they get older. For example, the tallest 13-year old may be the middle for the 13U team. If her teammates outgrow her then four years later it may be appropriate for her to become the libero for the 17U team.

For more details about the height of the women’s PAC-12 volleyball players click here.

PAC-12 Volleyball Mary-Kate Marshall — OSU star hitter Mary-Kate Marshall receiving serve against the CU Buffs.

Winning and Losing – Gabriela Sabitini

March 11, 2015May 17, 2015 horvath Leave a comment

Most world-class athletes create the appearance they have never struggled with winning and losing during their careers. A closer look shows that is not the case.

Consider the case of Gabriela Sabitini. Sabatini reached number 3 in the world, but never attained the top ranking. Dealing with the challenges of winning and losing may have prevented her from reaching the top spot.

About a year and a half ago Sport 24 reported that winning and losing did not come easy for Sabitini. At times she creatively took the easy way out. She intentionally lost matches as a junior player to avoid having to talk to reporters.

“When I was younger and thought that I had to talk after winning a tournament, I often lost in the semifinals so I did not have to. It was that bad!” Sabatini told the Argentine newspaper La Nacion.

“I was very introverted. I had some issues at school because I was very inward-looking,” she said.

Sabatini, now 43, said her shyness was a major problem.

“I got very nervous at that point. But at the same time I was very competitive and I got frustrated when I did not win,” she said.

“I might lose the first set, when I was little, and I gave up on the match just because I was so angry that I could not bear having lost the first set.”

“I think my fame and my public profile had something to do with the fact that I did not become world number one.

“I loved to play, I was competitive, I wanted to win, that was all I knew. In the first few years tennis was a game. Later, it becomes a job,” she said. (October 18, 2013 http://www.sport24.co.za/)

The story about Sabitini’s challenges with winning and losing is old news, but the saga of athletes struggling to deal with winning and losing is an ongoing story for junior and world-class athletes in all sports.

How do you deal with winning and losing?

Where Do PAC-12 Volleyball Players Reside?

March 5, 2015May 15, 2015 horvath Leave a comment

Are you a junior volleyball player thinking about playing on your favorite PAC-12 volleyball team?

If so, you have to be good – really good!

The following stats from the 2014-2015 season may help you understand your chances of playing in one of the country’s elite volleyball conference:
• There were 120 players who played more than half the sets. In other words, the coaches generally had rotations of 9 or 10 players and occasionally 11 or 12 players.
• The PAC-12 is a regional conference. Almost 3-in-4 of the players were from the 6 states where PAC-12 universities were located.
• About 43% of the players on all teams were from California. Each of the teams had at least 2 Californians. It seems there is a mandate that coaches and recruiters live and breathe the words of the infamous Beach Boys tune, “I Wish they All Could be California Girls.”
• The more successful teams had a higher percentage of out-of-state players. As well, they had a greater percentage of California players. In other words, the top teams more effectively attracted the top players from in-state and other states.
• Unlike some other sports, only about 8% of total players are from foreign countries. It is ironic that American players have to play professional ball overseas; however, overseas athletes don’t dominate U.S. college volleyball.

Specifically, the PAC-12 players reside in the following states:
• 52 players were from California.
• 9 Players were from Arizona.
• 8 Players were from Oregon.
• 7 Players were from Utah.
• 7 players were from Texas.
• 6 players were from Colorado (3 of the players were sisters who played on the same team).
• 5 players were from Washington.
• 4 players were from Hawaii.
• 12 players were from 9 other states.

PAC-12 Volleyball is clearly the conference of choice – both for players and coaches. Unfortunately, only a handful players make the cut. Hopefully, you are one of them!

PAC-12 Volleyball Karsta Lowe — Karsta Lowe attacks against the CU Buffs in PAC-12 volleyball play.

American Women Dominate Australian Open

February 27, 2015November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

At the dawn of the Open era for tennis, the best women players were Australian. For example there were 6 Aussies, 1 Brit, and 1 Swede in the quarterfinals of the 1970 Australian Open.

Looking at the quarterfinalists for the Women’s Australian Open in five-year increments from 1970 to 2015 (see chart below), it can be seen that the depth of the women’s field improved and the range of countries increased. There are 23 countries listed on the table. At the same time the number of elite players remained small and they dominated the sport – Williams sisters, Sharapova, Graf, Seles, Sanchez, Navratilova, and Evert.

In this snapshot the Americans had the highest number of quarterfinalists (20), followed by Australians (11). Interestingly enough, the American women did not become a force at the Australian Open until 1980. Since then, at least 2 American women have been in the quarterfinals. Most recently, 2015, there were three American women (Madison Keys and the Williams sisters).

It is worth noting the USSR, Russia, and Belarus also had a total of 11 quarterfinalists. Many think that Anna Kournikova was the first Russian/Soviet player to hit the scene. Because she was so popular it is easy to forget that there were a number of great Russian women players over the years.

The combination of the increased depth, greater number of countries represented, and marketing by the WTA have greatly increased the appeal and drawing power of women’s professional tennis.

For additional details on the Australian Open go to its website, http://www.ausopen.com/.

Three Critical Decisions by the APTA

February 21, 2015April 8, 2015 horvath Leave a comment

Over the years the American Platform Tennis Association (APTA) has done a lot for the sport that most people don’t realize. Along the way its successes have outnumbered its miscues.

The primary responsibility of the group is to organize sanctioned tournaments and manage them throughout the season. In addition, they are responsible for the standards and rules of the sport.

About 25 years ago the APTA Board thought it would be a good idea to add a Mixed Doubles Presidents Cup. MISCUE!

On several occasions the APTA has supported singles and singles tournaments. Both are good ideas that the members didn’t support.

The APTA Board also legalized the carry and set guidelines for the size of a paddle and its number of holes. As well, the group resolved a dispute about the amount of grit on a paddle and decided that a let serve should be playable.

Considering its financial constraints, the APTA Board has done a commendable job in its most basic role-maintaining the rules, standards, and infrastructure of the sport.

Over the last forty years, the APTA has made three decisions that have had a lasting impact on the sport. As we celebrate the sport’s 80th birthday, it seems appropriate to recognize those decisions and how they have impacted the sport today.

President’s Cup – In the late 1970s platform tennis was at its peak in terms of participation. Passport Scotch was the sponsor of the pro tour and Hertz was secured as a sponsor for a first-time event called the President’s Cup. The Cup was separate from the National Championships, it was held over two days, and most importantly, it targeted the weekend player.

After its inception, the event went through a series of sponsors and no-sponsors. Each year the APTA board had to wrestle with the definition of a “weekend player” and how to move the event forward for the next season. Initially the event was held only for men, but after several years it was expanded to include women.

The event strengthened the level of play in all APTA regions. For example, players from the Western Region (it was called Region V at that time) would make their annual pilgrimage to the Cup where they improved their skills and took their new-found knowledge back home to share with their peers. Over time, the number of good players improved dramatically in all parts of the country, as the Cup motivated the “weekend” players to play in regional tournaments so they could qualify to play in the President’s Cup.

As a two-day event, with sponsors, the President’s Cup was arguably one of the most competitive and exhilarating competitions in the country.

President’s Cup and Nationals – During the 1980s the men’s draws for the National Championships went through a period when the number of entrants declined. To bolster participation the APTA board voted to kill the President’s Cup as a two-day event, change its format, and host the competition prior to the National Championships (The women’s Cup was held on Thursday and the men’s Cup on Friday). By doing that they ensured that the top 25 “weekend” teams would be at the event.

It was sad to see the elimination of the President’s Cup as its own event, but the decision by the board bolstered the National Championships. Participation at most National Championships since that time has been a full 128 draw that was deep in talent.

Men’s and Women’s APTA Nationals – Those who have played the Nationals over the past 25 years have experienced the event as the championships for both the men and the women.

Prior to the 1980s that was not the case.

At an APTA Board meeting a contentious discussion was held about whether to merge the two events. One side of the room argued that there were not enough courts at the clubs, the women wouldn’t be treated equally, the women don’t like to play on certain days. In short, IT JUST WOULDN’T WORK.

The sentiment from the other side of the room was that a merger would put the women in the spotlight, it would make for greater camaraderie, and it would increase the chances for sponsorship. In short, THE APTA HAD TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK.

The latter won the argument.

The three decisions made by the APT board took place over a period of about ten years (late 1970s to late 1980s). The Board did what they thought was best for the game at that time.

In retrospect these decisions helped strengthen the foundation of the sport for both men and women players. The sport as we know it today wouldn’t be the same if the APTA Board had not initiated the President’s Cup, integrated it into the National Championships weekend, and combined the Men’s and Women’s Nationals.

Australian Open – Aussies and Americans Used to Dominate Tennis

February 15, 2015November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

The Open era of tennis began in 1968 and with it came more good players from a variety of countries. This can be seen in the chart below which is a sample of the number of players by country in five-year increments who reached the quarterfinals of the Australian Open.

In 1970 the Australian Men’s Open featured 4 Aussies, 2 Americans, 1 Brit, and 1 Dutch player. Five years later (1975) the quarterfinalists included 6 Aussies, an American, and a Russian. In 1980 there were 4 Americans, 3 Aussies, and 1 Argentinean. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the Americans and Australians dominated tennis.

Fast forward to 2000, 2010, and 2015. In those three years each of the quarterfinalists was from different countries.

A closer look at the data shows the United States had the greatest number of quarterfinalists, 19; however, 15 of them made the top 8 prior to 2000. The results reflect the lack of production from the USTA Player Development program in recent years.

Australia went through a dry spell in player development similar to what is currently happening in the U.S. For this sample, they had the second highest number of players, 15, in this snapshot. Most of the quarterfinalists from Down Under played in 1970, 1975, or 1980.

For additional details on the Australian Open go to its website, http://www.ausopen.com/.

Don’t Be Misled by Randomness

February 9, 2015February 20, 2015 horvath Leave a comment

Have you ever been frustrated because you have good and bad days on the tennis or volleyball court, golf course, or softball field? One of the reasons for the ups and downs is regression to the mean. Don’t be fooled by it!

Here’s the way it works.

Suppose your daughter has a volleyball serving percentage of 90%. Over the course of the season her daily serving percentage will vary, but her long-term average will be 90%.

In theory this means she will serve better than 90% half the time and the other half she will serve at or below that level. She will feel like a rock star on the days she serves 98%. On the days she serves 82% she will feel throwing her volleyball shoes in the trash and taking tuba lessons.

Regression to the mean is prevalent in team sports and most coaches are confused by the randomness associated with the concept.

Consider a basketball player who is a 70% free throw shooter.

He has a hot streak and makes 9 out of 10 free throws. The coach pats him on the back and gives him more playing time.

As should be expected, the player hits a cold streak and makes 5 of the next 10 free throws. The coach notices the decline from 90% to 50%. He yells at the player, benches him, and makes him run wind sprints at the next practice as a way of “motivating” him to do better.

Eventually the player will be allowed to play again and he will make 7 of the next 10 free throws. The coach notices the improvement from 50% to 70% and immediately associates yelling at the player, benching him and making him run wind sprints as the motivation that caused the improvement.

WRONG! The coach should be benched, made to run wind sprints, and yelled at for failing to understand the randomness of regression to the mean.

Out of the last 30 free throws, the player made 21 – his season average of 70%. The player had streaks where he was above the mean, below the mean, and right on the mean.

Don’t be fooled like the basketball coach!

Suppose you are a tennis player and want to improve your serve.
1. Work with a coach or teaching professional who understands the concept of regression to the mean.
2. Develop a practice routine that includes match-like play and relevant training.
3. As you practice your serve will become more consistent, thus reducing the range of the fluctuations in your daily serving percentage.
4. Stay calm, don’t be fooled by randomness. Enjoy the days when you serve above your seasonal average and don’t sell your racquets and take-up the tuba on the days you drop below it. Accepting the daily fluctuations is one of the challenges of competitive sports that can be minimized, but not eliminated.
5. Over time, with quality instruction and a match-like practice sessions you should be able to raise your season serving average. Remember, this is a long term proposition.

For additional information about regression to the mean and other subtleties of playing and coaching sports, visit the blog, Growing the Game Together by John Kessel, Director of USAV Grassroots Volleyball, http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Volleyball/Grassroots/Grow-The-Game-Blog.