Nerdly Nebraska.

2023-2024 HuskerGeek Ratings Leaders

Sport School Rating
ViPR D1 Volleyball Wisconsin 1,711.3731

Landmark - Conference Overview

Conference Division: Division 3
Rnk. Team Résumé Recent ViPR Adj SP% Adj SO% Adj. Hit Mar.
1st Juniata 1,506.5438 1,515.0141 1,510.7730 59.69 68.77 0.273
2nd Susquehanna 1,391.2997 1,433.6525 1,412.3173 55.42 63.01 0.164
3rd Catholic 1,314.6130 1,353.7042 1,334.0155 51.56 60.14 0.073
4th Scranton 1,282.5594 1,320.8882 1,301.5827 49.07 57.99 0.061
5th Elizabethtown 1,272.4591 1,291.2262 1,281.8083 48.61 57.25 0.028
6th Moravian 1,234.3546 1,262.1503 1,248.1751 45.72 52.08 -0.028
7th Merchant Marine 1,178.9264 1,215.4339 1,197.0410 42.18 52.76 -0.042
8th Goucher 1,137.1999 1,167.1066 1,152.0562 38.81 52.35 -0.105

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 Juniata 0.3077 44.62 13.84 40.96 41.93 2.93 12.12
2nd Susquehanna 0.2426 38.43 14.17 35.39 45.33 3.89 9.55
3rd Catholic 0.2108 33.01 11.94 30.32 56.83 4.75 8.02
4th Scranton 0.1992 34.83 14.91 32.75 53.77 4.23 10.03
5th Elizabethtown 0.1829 34.40 16.11 31.82 51.99 4.57 10.05
6th Moravian 0.1381 30.96 17.15 28.26 54.07 4.70 9.09
7th Merchant Marine 0.1300 26.87 13.88 24.85 63.51 3.88 7.77
8th Goucher 0.0947 25.59 16.12 23.70 64.19 4.52 6.21

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st Juniata 0.0347 22.70 19.23 20.85 62.88 5.76 5.48
2nd Susquehanna 0.0785 24.32 16.47 21.88 64.27 4.46 5.67
3rd Catholic 0.1379 30.33 16.54 28.05 53.97 4.25 6.33
4th Scranton 0.1386 31.46 17.60 28.74 52.46 4.65 9.47
5th Elizabethtown 0.1553 32.07 16.55 29.68 57.14 3.28 6.62
6th Moravian 0.1666 31.46 14.79 29.48 58.19 3.41 8.09
7th Merchant Marine 0.1723 33.64 16.41 31.72 53.06 3.54 10.15
8th Goucher 0.2002 34.64 14.62 31.34 56.22 2.50 11.71

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,304.7211 1,295.8233 1,291.3954 1,291.6955 1,295.9088
Difference -8.8978 -13.3257 -13.0256 -11.7497

Point Totals

Offense Defense
Team Sets S SP SA SE SP% S/SA S/SE OS SPA SAA SEA SO% OS/SAA OS/SEA
Juniata 129 2,958 1,540 297 275 52.06 10.0 10.8 2,407 948 164 210 60.62 14.7 11.5
Susquehanna 131 2,514 1,251 230 252 49.76 10.9 10.0 2,259 973 171 232 56.93 13.2 9.7
Scranton 138 2,104 1,041 312 310 49.48 6.7 6.8 1,906 837 271 259 56.09 7.0 7.4
Catholic 114 1,612 799 189 125 49.57 8.5 12.9 1,462 649 172 213 55.61 8.5 6.9
Elizabethtown 110 2,059 929 232 238 45.12 8.9 8.7 2,132 992 184 233 53.47 11.6 9.2
Goucher 108 1,036 463 201 220 44.69 5.2 4.7 1,065 495 243 220 53.52 4.4 4.8
Moravian 117 1,819 843 224 220 46.34 8.1 8.3 1,919 945 201 252 50.76 9.5 7.6
Merchant Marine 88 657 291 201 138 44.29 3.3 4.8 692 333 176 182 51.88 3.9 3.8
Conference Average 117 1,845 895 236 222 47.66 7.7 8.4 1,730 772 198 225 54.86 9.1 7.6
  • 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 Landmark

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

69.43

2015-11-07 Huntingdon, Pa.
Juniata
Susquehanna
3
2
19
25
25
21
26
24
13
25
18
16
GAME

65.73

2015-10-03 Selinsgrove, Pa.
Catholic
Juniata
0
3
23
25
27
29
16
25
GAME

62.88

2015-09-26 Elizabethtown, Pa.
Elizabethtown
Susquehanna
1
3
25
23
17
25
23
25
22
25
GAME

62.21

2015-10-17 Huntingdon, Pa.
Juniata
Scranton
4
0
25
23
25
22
25
19
0
0
GAME

61.65

2015-09-26 Elizabethtown, Pa.
Elizabethtown
Juniata
0
3
9
25
21
25
24
26
GAME

61.38

2015-11-04 Huntingdon, Pa.
Juniata
Catholic
3
0
25
10
25
19
25
13
GAME

60.74

2015-10-03 Selinsgrove, Pa.
Susquehanna
Catholic
3
0
25
21
25
14
25
18
GAME

60.55

2015-10-03 Scranton, Pa.
Scranton
Elizabethtown
3
2
25
18
17
25
25
23
24
26
15
10
GAME

60.46

2015-09-22 Huntingdon, Pa.
Juniata
Susquehanna
3
0
25
18
25
21
25
13
GAME

58.20

2015-09-26 Elizabethtown, Pa.
Juniata
Moravian
3
0
25
11
25
18
25
12

HuskerGeek Landmark All-Conference

1st Team

Name Team Role
A
A
A
A
D
S
S

2nd Team

Name Team Role
A
A
A
A
D
D
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 23.2050
2 20.2550
3 16.2832
4 16.0093
5 15.7373
6 14.6707
7 13.2250
8 12.3764
9 12.0589
10 11.8096

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 14.8505
2 14.2303
3 9.6680
4 9.6063
5 8.7674
6 7.6528
7 7.5607
8 7.3715
9 7.2382
10 7.1408

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 15.6493
2 15.5055
3 11.1032
4 10.6024
5 10.5065
6 8.9746
7 8.2488
8 7.7981
9 6.7281
10 6.4988

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.2210
2 0.1883
3 0.1825
4 0.1699
5 0.1667
6 0.1664
7 0.1637
8 0.1566
9 0.1561
10 0.1523

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1355
2 0.1338
3 0.1137
4 0.0993
5 0.0982
6 0.0978
7 0.0957
8 0.0913
9 0.0886
10 0.0880

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.1439
2 0.1397
3 0.1395
4 0.1281
5 0.1181
6 0.1118
7 0.0948
8 0.0937
9 0.0922
10 0.0875


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