Nerdly Nebraska.

2018-2019 HuskerGeek Ratings Leaders

Sport School Rating
ViPR D1 Volleyball Stanford 1,750.6919
BPR D1 NCAAWBB Baylor 0.7796

Football clemson 12.6021
Men's Basketball duke 13.2275
Women's Basketball notre dame 13.3220
Baseball oregon st 10.9864
Softball oklahoma 12.3293
Ice Hockey st cloud st 10.6008
Men's Lacrosse penn st 8.1561
Women's Lacrosse boston college 10.4841
Men's Soccer palm beach atl 10.6001
Women's Soccer usc 12.7949
Men's Volleyball hawaii 9.9257
Women's Volleyball stanford 12.9947
Field Hockey north carolina 12.5324

BPR NCAA Women's Basketball Ratings

Division 1

Rnk. Team Conference
1st Baylor Big 12
2nd Mississippi St. SEC
3rd Oregon Pac-12
4th UConn AAC
5th Notre Dame ACC
6th Louisville ACC
7th Marquette Big East
8th Stanford Pac-12
9th Iowa St. Big 12
10th Oregon St. Pac-12
-- Expand Division 1 --

Division 2

Rnk. Team Conference
1st Drury GLVC
2nd Ashland GLIAC
3rd Grand Valley St. GLIAC
4th Fort Hays St. MIAA
5th Lubbock Christian Heartland
6th Lewis GLVC
7th Minn. Duluth NSIC
8th Fla. Southern Sunshine State
9th Alas. Anchorage Great Northwest
10th Indiana (PA) PSAC
-- Expand Division 2 --

Division 3

Rnk. Team Conference
1st Thomas More ACAA
2nd Bowdoin NESCAC
3rd St. Thomas (MN) MIAC
4th Tufts NESCAC
5th Amherst NESCAC
6th Wis.-Oshkosh WIAC
7th Trine MIAA
8th DePauw NCAC
9th Wartburg American Rivers
10th DeSales MAC Freedom
-- Expand Division 3 --

ViPR NCAA Volleyball Ratings

Division 1

Rnk. Team Conference
1st Stanford Pac-12
2nd Nebraska Big Ten
3rd Minnesota Big Ten
5th Illinois Big Ten
6th Wisconsin Big Ten
7th Penn St. Big Ten
8th Kentucky SEC
9th Texas Big 12
10th Pittsburgh ACC

Division 1 Standouts

Award Name Team
-- Expand Division 1 --

Division 2

Rnk. Team Conference
1st Cal St. San B'dino CCAA
2nd Western Wash. Great Northwest
3rd Minn. Duluth NSIC
4th Southwest Minn. St. NSIC
5th Concordia-St. Paul NSIC
6th Northern St. NSIC
7th Washburn MIAA
8th Neb.-Kearney MIAA
9th Lewis GLVC
10th Rockhurst GLVC

Division 2 Standouts

Award Name Team
-- Expand Division 2 --

Division 3

Rnk. Team Conference
1st Wittenberg NCAC
2nd Emory UAA
3rd Thomas More ACAA
4th Calvin MIAA
5th Wis.-Eau Claire WIAC
6th Gust. Adolphus MIAC
7th Texas-Dallas ASC
8th Juniata Landmark
9th Colorado Col. SCAC
10th Trinity (TX) SCAC

Division 3 Standouts

Award Name Team
-- Expand Division 3 --

Advanced Rate Statistics for NCAA Women’s Volleyball

Or Why Per Set Statistics are Bullsh*t

Pop quiz.

Question 1: How many points is a set in NCAA Division 1 Volleyball?

If you said twenty-five, you are wrong. If you said twenty-five except in a fifth set when it is only fifteen, you are wrong.  If you said it depends, then congratulations you have won the game.

Question 2: Name each team that corresponds to the primary or secondary color referenced in the following table.

Hint: These figures are the average points per set for each Big Ten team last season.

Team Points Per Set
Red 41.12
Blue 42.49
Red 42.50
Red 42.87
Red 42.94
Orange 43.06
Purple 43.19
Yellow 43.23
Red 43.43
Red 43.51
Yellow 43.88
Green 43.96
Red 43.97
Blue 44.29

Answers are at the bottom.

This presents a significant issue when it comes to doing rate statistics.   A four kill per set player at 41.12 points per set would average more than 4.3 kps if they had the same kill rate and played for the last team in the table averaging 44.29 points per set.  A quick look at the current KPS table on NCAA Stats says that’s the difference between being 57th and 34th.  A significant difference.  Additionally, because the gap will widen linearly as the initial numbers grow, the result is that the players at the very top of the chart can be misrepresented to the highest degree.  That’s simply unacceptable when trying to use a statistic to formulate any significant statistical argument.

And that’s not even the worst example I could come up with.

Per Set statistics are meaningless without additional context.  The context that a person would need to supply to make those statistics worthwhile is tedious and time consuming to track and calculate.   This results in volleyball fans and the media continually relying on and relaying statistics that in reality mean very little.

It needs to change, and that’s the purpose of this article and a couple of pages that I’ve now added to the site.  While per set statistics are exceptionally flawed, points are not.  In fact, points applied in the right way can be exceptionally accurate when calculating a rate statistic.

Here are the top ten players on the current(9/15/2018) KPS leaders table.

NCAA Volleyball D1 KPS Leaders 9-15-2018

Here is the same list, but instead of per set, the rates are per point in each team’s games.

Kills Per 100 Points

Rk. Name Team KPP
1 13.8140
2 12.8452
3 11.5678
4 11.4781
5 10.9756
6 10.9277
7 10.8782
8 10.8467
9 10.7735
10 10.6240

There are differences and there can be extreme differences. In fact, with many of the common statistics volleyball fans and the media use, using points is inherently flawed.  When measuring kill rates for players, total points in a match has an inherent flaw.  Specifically, during any match there will inevitably be points wher a player who plays for all rotations will still have no chance to get a kill, namely aces and service errors.

AN: There are caveats beyond this as well. Not every player plays six rotations and there are points beyond aces and service errors during which a player would also by definition not have a chance to get a kill. Rotational errors are the specific issue in this case because I did not have the foresight to track them efficiently in my database and will need to do some significant redesign before I can efficiently account for those points.

Beyond using total points for a rate, simple subtraction can be used measure the rate at which a player gets a kill for every point in play.

This is the table for the statistic named Kills per Point-In-Play.  Original name, I know.

Kills Per 100 Points In Play

Rk. Name Team KPIP
1 16.6556
2 14.8148
3 13.5862
4 13.3621
5 13.2583
6 13.1679
7 12.9555
8 12.6316
9 12.6050
10 12.5421

It’s not even the same list as the original per point list.  While this approach is not currently perfect, it’s still much better than using per set because the denominator of the statistic being calculated means the same thing across all players.  The context per point statistics provide is important because without it volleyball statistics are very nearly meaningless.  An instance of “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” if you will.  Making even incremental progress toward better understanding and knowledge is important.

Measuring virtually every statistic by points played improves it drastically, but Aces and Service Errors per set make the least sense as a statistic.  It is entirely possible to play a set in which a primary server will not serve during the set.  In fact, in fifth sets, it actually isn”t all that rare.  Luckily, NCAA Play-By-Play pages happen to track exactly who serves each point, a fortunate thing in this instance because those pages can be used to get per serve rates for aces, service errors, and service points.

AN: This(A primary server not getting the opportunity to serve.) actually happened to Lauren Stivrins in Set 3 of the Nebraska vs Missouri State less than three hours after I saved my latest draft of this article. Yeah, that happened.

These statistics and more have been made available on each team page as well as Division and Conference leaders.  The leaders are available using the “View Complete Advanced Statistics Leaders” link on each division or conference page.

And that friends, is why per set statistics are bullsh*t.

Answer Key

Top to Bottom: Rutgers, Penn State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Purdue, Michigan State, Ohio State, Michigan

The Best This Year

These are the current all sport rankings for the school year of 2019-2020.
1st notre dame Women's Basketball 30-4-0 13.2817 12.9328 13.5573 13.2398 13.3220 14.6899 9.8647
2nd duke Men's Basketball 30-5-0 12.8066 13.0293 13.8486 12.7938 13.2275 13.4740 9.2426
3rd baylor Women's Basketball 31-2-0 13.0814 12.9871 13.4193 13.0822 13.2014 11.9314 12.5477
4th uconn Women's Basketball 31-2-0 13.0272 12.8956 12.9679 13.0209 13.0399 12.7948 11.4769
5th stanford Women's Volleyball 36-1-0 13.0213 13.0163 13.0662 13.0216 12.9947 9.7839 14.9824
6th mississippi st Women's Basketball 30-2-0 13.0257 12.7940 12.7356 13.0018 12.9560 13.7854 10.3682
7th usc Women's Soccer 5-1-2 9.8719 13.0236 14.3521 7.9418 12.7949 5.8632 -2.2929
8th oregon Women's Basketball 28-4-0 12.6730 12.4387 13.0106 12.6403 12.7522 13.8397 9.6100
9th gonzaga Men's Basketball 30-3-0 12.6476 12.7803 12.5587 12.6338 12.7475 13.4319 9.0218
10th virginia Men's Basketball 29-4-0 12.1789 12.7251 13.4564 12.1063 12.6965 7.0719 13.6526
11th florida state Women's Soccer 10-1-1 9.3749 12.8353 14.5804 7.4676 12.6526 5.3231 -1.9670
12th clemson Football 15-0-0 12.3003 12.5098 13.2643 12.3059 12.6021 11.7940 12.0676
13th north carolina Field Hockey 23-0-0 12.4539 12.5061 12.5151 12.4539 12.5324 13.8630 9.6644
14th alabama Football 14-1-0 12.2475 12.3392 12.6072 12.2521 12.3861 12.3186 11.4241
15th mich st Men's Basketball 28-7-0 11.9082 12.2357 12.9357 11.9084 12.3432 11.2163 9.7058
16th oklahoma Softball 25-2-0 11.5984 12.5571 12.5665 11.5980 12.3293 11.9096 10.0374
17th ucla Softball 25-1-0 11.4158 12.4385 12.7352 11.4155 12.2817 12.1765 9.5213
18th louisville Women's Basketball 29-3-0 11.8734 11.8211 13.0604 11.8692 12.2038 11.7022 10.4150
19th stanford Women's Soccer 22-1-2 9.2786 12.3673 13.7495 7.0958 12.1635 3.6422 -0.4583
20th north carolina Men's Basketball 27-7-0 11.7519 11.8599 12.6036 11.7178 12.0851 13.7710 7.2900
21st tennessee Men's Basketball 29-5-0 11.4047 11.7059 13.0111 11.4035 11.9854 11.3851 8.7508
22nd ucla Women's Soccer 17-3-2 9.3841 12.1839 13.3194 7.0776 11.9786 4.0172 -0.8402
23rd marquette Women's Basketball 26-7-0 12.0207 11.7998 11.5117 11.9968 11.8964 12.9351 9.3300
24th michigan Men's Basketball 28-6-0 11.3270 11.8086 12.7577 11.2815 11.8774 7.0648 12.2846
25th southern california Women's Soccer 15-2-2 9.1048 11.9387 13.1903 7.0066 11.7586 3.7756 -0.6311