Nerdly Nebraska.

2023-2024 HuskerGeek Ratings Leaders

Sport School Rating
ViPR D1 Volleyball Wisconsin 1,711.3731

Great Northeast - Conference Overview

Conference Division: Division 3
Rnk. Team Résumé Recent ViPR Adj SP% Adj SO% Adj. Hit Mar.
1st JWU (Providence) 1,501.7676 1,467.0524 1,484.3086 55.84 66.24 0.203
2nd Simmons 1,336.4154 1,300.8854 1,318.5307 51.57 55.24 0.005
3rd Rivier 1,321.5962 1,286.3794 1,303.8689 48.08 56.98 0.013
4th Suffolk 1,213.6480 1,177.9635 1,195.6726 45.98 48.50 -0.082
5th Colby-Sawyer 1,202.1395 1,165.3076 1,183.5803 49.21 43.52 -0.112
6th Norwich 1,196.3959 1,159.8372 1,177.9747 45.33 46.67 -0.111
7th Regis (MA) 1,193.0819 1,152.8789 1,172.8081 46.42 44.22 -0.129
8th Emmanuel (MA) 1,168.3634 1,134.3252 1,151.2185 42.38 45.78 -0.151
9th Lasell 1,123.5781 1,089.8407 1,106.5809 39.28 44.50 -0.186
10th St. Joseph's (ME) 1,126.7545 1,083.9985 1,105.1698 40.01 35.12 -0.178
11th St. Joseph (CT) 1,091.3734 1,055.3007 1,073.1855 39.73 42.94 -0.236
12th Albertus Magnus 1,044.8267 1,011.0085 1,027.7785 37.83 42.08 -0.261
13th Anna Maria 856.4015 823.3319 839.7039 35.27 26.85 -0.470

ViPR Adjusted Offenses and Defenses are adjusted to expected values against an average team in the same division.

ViPR Division Adjusted Offenses

Rnk. Team Hit% Kill% HE% AST% O_DIG% O_BLK% ACE%
1st JWU (Providence) 0.2883 40.71 11.88 37.66 46.46 2.92 10.03
2nd Simmons 0.1859 34.61 16.02 32.84 47.84 4.45 10.50
3rd Rivier 0.1841 35.42 17.01 33.85 50.16 4.70 10.90
4th Norwich 0.1200 28.94 16.94 27.80 55.00 4.49 6.83
5th Suffolk 0.0977 28.14 18.38 26.58 55.41 5.03 8.63
6th Regis (MA) 0.0904 28.12 19.09 26.47 57.02 5.10 8.56
7th Colby-Sawyer 0.0852 26.72 18.20 24.57 57.95 5.04 9.74
8th St. Joseph's (ME) 0.0738 24.81 17.42 23.28 63.70 6.11 11.83
9th Emmanuel (MA) 0.0664 24.36 17.72 22.67 61.87 4.11 7.26
10th Lasell 0.0529 25.68 20.38 23.88 59.51 4.49 8.46
11th St. Joseph (CT) 0.0303 23.81 20.78 23.02 62.27 5.73 6.99
12th Albertus Magnus -0.0077 18.03 18.81 17.12 70.99 4.18 7.95
13th Anna Maria -0.1205 13.00 25.04 12.20 74.38 4.99 8.81

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st JWU (Providence) 0.0849 24.46 15.97 22.55 62.29 5.05 7.06
2nd Rivier 0.1713 31.20 14.06 28.59 55.67 4.69 7.73
3rd Suffolk 0.1792 33.44 15.52 30.12 54.12 3.39 12.37
4th Simmons 0.1809 32.19 14.10 29.43 54.08 3.32 7.52
5th Colby-Sawyer 0.1974 34.71 14.97 32.08 52.86 2.77 12.63
6th Emmanuel (MA) 0.2171 36.69 14.98 33.59 51.09 2.50 11.88
7th Regis (MA) 0.2190 37.98 16.08 34.90 47.72 5.49 11.04
8th Norwich 0.2307 36.34 13.26 32.63 49.21 2.17 13.62
9th Lasell 0.2392 36.93 13.01 33.04 51.94 1.83 12.86
10th St. Joseph's (ME) 0.2519 39.74 14.55 36.34 47.15 4.24 8.67
11th Albertus Magnus 0.2530 38.84 13.54 35.23 50.05 1.80 15.51
12th St. Joseph (CT) 0.2662 40.57 13.95 37.29 47.55 2.42 12.40
13th Anna Maria 0.3493 47.28 12.35 43.13 42.43 1.30 21.65

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,164.6447 1,165.1244 1,163.3399 1,156.1436 1,162.3131
Difference 0.4797 -1.3048 -8.5011 -3.1087

Point Totals

Offense Defense
Team Sets S SP SA SE SP% S/SA S/SE OS SPA SAA SEA SO% OS/SAA OS/SEA
JWU (Providence) 108 2,063 1,095 245 176 53.08 8.4 11.7 1,661 693 133 181 58.28 12.5 9.2
Simmons 103 1,915 1,074 278 218 56.08 6.9 8.8 1,596 724 150 208 54.64 10.6 7.7
Rivier 109 1,935 1,035 295 277 53.49 6.6 7.0 1,586 682 154 209 57.00 10.3 7.6
Norwich 95 2,010 1,174 227 171 58.41 8.9 11.8 1,738 866 233 201 50.17 7.5 8.6
Suffolk 112 2,313 1,310 275 304 56.64 8.4 7.6 2,022 986 252 211 51.24 8.0 9.6
St. Joseph (CT) 98 2,147 1,200 219 193 55.89 9.8 11.1 2,050 1,071 233 224 47.76 8.8 9.2
Albertus Magnus 104 2,108 1,174 244 230 55.69 8.6 9.2 2,067 1,105 307 248 46.54 6.7 8.3
Emmanuel (MA) 99 2,066 1,096 195 169 53.05 10.6 12.2 2,031 1,061 243 234 47.76 8.4 8.7
Colby-Sawyer 131 2,512 1,387 303 281 55.22 8.3 8.9 2,551 1,400 333 291 45.12 7.7 8.8
Regis (MA) 104 2,182 1,124 234 210 51.51 9.3 10.4 2,280 1,218 233 214 46.58 9.8 10.7
Lasell 114 2,096 1,003 243 258 47.85 8.6 8.1 2,248 1,182 289 264 47.42 7.8 8.5
Anna Maria 72 980 467 144 138 47.65 6.8 7.1 1,569 1,056 323 158 32.70 4.9 9.9
St. Joseph's (ME) 108 1,023 477 186 215 46.63 5.5 4.8 2,542 2,186 279 222 14.01 9.1 11.5
Conference Average 104 1,950 1,047 238 218 53.17 8.2 9.1 1,995 1,095 243 220 46.09 8.6 9.1
  • Sets - Team Sets Played
  • S - Serves
  • SP - Service Points
  • SA - Service Aces
  • SE - Service Errors
  • SP% - Service Point Percentage
  • S/SA - Serves Per Service Ace
  • S/SE - Serves Per Service Error
  • OS - Opponent Serves
  • SPA - Service Points Allowed
  • SAA - Service Aces Allowed
  • SEA - Service Errors Against
  • SO% - Team Sideout Percentage
  • OS/SAA - Serves Per Ace Allowed
  • OS/SEA - Serves Per Error Against

The Best Games in the Great Northeast

Game Link EPIC Game Date Location Teams Sets Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5
GAME

62.14

2019-10-22 Nashua, N.H.
Rivier
JWU (Providence)
2
3
25
22
25
19
16
25
11
25
9
15
GAME

60.98

2019-10-02 Providence, R.I.
JWU (Providence)
Simmons
3
0
25
22
25
22
25
20
GAME

58.81

2019-11-09 Providence, R.I.
JWU (Providence)
Rivier
3
0
25
10
25
11
25
15
GAME

57.56

2019-10-12 Northfield, VT
Norwich
Simmons
2
3
23
25
25
18
25
21
10
25
4
15
GAME

57.02

2019-11-02 Providence, RI
JWU (Providence)
Colby-Sawyer
3
0
25
13
25
16
25
16
GAME

56.69

2019-10-26 Boston, Mass.
Emmanuel (MA)
Norwich
2
3
25
21
22
25
9
25
25
17
11
15
GAME

55.87

2019-10-31 Providence, R.I.
JWU (Providence)
Regis (MA)
3
0
25
13
25
14
25
8
GAME

55.06

2019-10-26
St. Joseph's (ME)
JWU (Providence)
0
3
13
25
16
25
11
25
GAME

55.00

2019-10-09 Boston, Mass.
Simmons
Rivier
3
0
25
11
25
21
25
20
GAME

54.97

2019-10-23 Boston, Mass.
Suffolk
Regis (MA)
3
1
25
18
26
28
25
22
25
20

HuskerGeek Great Northeast All-Conference

1st Team

Name Team Role
A
A
A
A
D
D
S

2nd Team

Name Team Role
A
A
A
A
D
S
S

Player of the Year

Rank Name Team
1
2
3
4
5

Attacker of the Year

Rank Name Team
1
2
3
4
5

Setter of the Year

Rank Name Team
1
2
3
4
5

Defensive Player of the Year

Rank Name Team
1
2
3
4
5

WPA

Rk. Name Team WPA
1 18.7460
2 18.3309
3 15.5919
4 15.4533
5 14.6228
6 14.5546
7 14.2446
8 13.6285
9 13.4975
10 13.4971

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 11.0574
2 10.1092
3 9.9225
4 8.5756
5 8.0564
6 7.8732
7 7.8086
8 7.6377
9 7.3167
10 6.7716

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 13.4347
2 12.8312
3 10.2745
4 10.2343
5 10.2011
6 10.0045
7 9.9551
8 9.8494
9 9.5053
10 9.2297

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.2025
2 0.1890
3 0.1803
4 0.1776
5 0.1673
6 0.1635
7 0.1616
8 0.1532
9 0.1500
10 0.1467

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1141
2 0.1123
3 0.1032
4 0.0997
5 0.0964
6 0.0953
7 0.0926
8 0.0905
9 0.0877
10 0.0851

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.1426
2 0.1251
3 0.1174
4 0.1173
5 0.1158
6 0.1131
7 0.1125
8 0.1085
9 0.1059
10 0.1029


Explanations

Conference Strength – The Conference Strength table has two parts.  The first row is a list of averages of the scores for a selection of teams in the conference ranging from all of them under the heading “Average” to an average of teams in the conference if we remove the top and bottom three teams.  This is designed to check if a conference is propped up by its elite teams of held down by its weakest teams.  The Composite score on the far right is an average of those scores.  It is a weighted score where the middle teams have a higher value than the edge teams.  The second row containing difference is simply a measure of how different removing the edge teams makes the conference from its initial average.  If the numbers are positive, then removing the edge teams increases the conferences rating.  If a value grows from the value before it, then the team removed at the bottom of the ratings was rated farther outside of the mean than the team removed at the top of the ratings.  It was weighing the average down so to speak.  The Composite difference at the far right is simply an average of the differences.

The Best Conference Games – A short list of the best games played between two members of the conference which is calculated using the EPIC score of each game.  EPIC score is essentially very simple amounting to adding the teams combined ViPR Rating and the total Win Probability Added scored by each team.

All-Conference Teams – All-conference teams are calculated using Win Probability Added per Set Played and the quality of the team that the player plays on. Team quality is included because better teams tend to have better players and more of them.  This often means that players on better teams have fewer opportunities than standouts on lesser teams.

Awards Lists – Each awards list uses the same formula that is used to calculate All-Conference Teams, and decides based on the focus of the list.  Player of the Year has no limitation on how the player score is added up. While Attacker of the Year must have a higher attack score than any other metric.  Similarly Setter and Defensive Player must acquire most of their score through those metrics.

HuskerGeek
HuskerGeek