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 1,505.2342 1,533.4842 1,519.2935 59.13 69.08 0.284
2nd Susquehanna 1,437.6880 1,452.1526 1,444.9022 54.84 65.96 0.209
3rd Catholic 1,344.2620 1,368.2822 1,356.2189 51.90 57.64 0.077
4th Scranton 1,310.0449 1,350.8244 1,330.2784 51.33 56.64 0.055
5th Moravian 1,257.6154 1,296.1192 1,276.7221 46.28 54.35 0.027
6th Elizabethtown 1,216.1074 1,235.1675 1,225.6004 44.54 52.16 -0.040
7th Merchant Marine 1,192.3862 1,236.0792 1,214.0362 45.81 47.52 -0.042
8th Goucher 1,103.0253 1,158.4123 1,130.3796 39.70 46.77 -0.143

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 0.3132 44.84 13.52 42.61 41.18 2.74 10.94
2nd Susquehanna 0.2715 38.92 11.77 36.23 45.19 3.66 8.40
3rd Catholic 0.2093 33.88 12.95 31.50 51.84 4.18 7.40
4th Scranton 0.1829 33.61 15.32 30.94 52.77 4.47 8.96
5th Moravian 0.1817 31.63 13.46 30.08 53.91 4.44 8.10
6th Elizabethtown 0.1691 34.55 17.64 32.37 47.81 5.30 9.08
7th Merchant Marine 0.1028 28.51 18.23 27.03 55.84 4.50 9.47
8th Goucher 0.0756 28.10 20.54 25.49 57.07 4.42 10.64

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st Juniata 0.0297 21.41 18.44 19.43 65.22 5.66 4.92
2nd Susquehanna 0.0621 23.80 17.59 21.95 60.28 4.76 4.89
3rd Scranton 0.1276 29.23 16.48 27.70 58.40 4.81 6.66
4th Catholic 0.1321 30.00 16.79 27.45 57.19 3.96 7.17
5th Merchant Marine 0.1446 31.44 16.98 29.21 55.83 3.19 10.48
6th Moravian 0.1551 31.12 15.61 28.43 56.18 3.75 7.52
7th Elizabethtown 0.2095 37.09 16.14 34.57 52.29 3.92 8.12
8th Goucher 0.2188 36.07 14.18 31.62 54.65 1.85 9.86

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,312.1789 1,307.9597 1,297.2049 1,303.5003 1,305.2110
Difference -4.2192 -14.9740 -8.6787 -9.2906

Point Totals

Offense Defense
Team Sets S SP SA SE SP% S/SA S/SE OS SPA SAA SEA SO% OS/SAA OS/SEA
Susquehanna 132 3,075 1,554 208 249 50.54 14.8 12.3 2,558 1,009 154 210 60.56 16.6 12.2
Juniata 118 2,476 1,248 254 264 50.40 9.7 9.4 2,063 817 144 184 60.40 14.3 11.2
Merchant Marine 98 1,050 605 280 177 57.62 3.8 5.9 854 402 157 182 52.93 5.4 4.7
Catholic 125 2,414 1,256 218 128 52.03 11.1 18.9 2,096 918 192 210 56.20 10.9 10.0
Scranton 145 2,562 1,249 239 212 48.75 10.7 12.1 2,491 1,171 236 263 52.99 10.6 9.5
Moravian 122 1,583 746 246 251 47.13 6.4 6.3 1,584 751 207 259 52.59 7.7 6.1
Elizabethtown 97 1,731 723 162 204 41.77 10.7 8.5 2,068 1,074 209 186 48.07 9.9 11.1
Goucher 85 1,357 569 184 288 41.93 7.4 4.7 1,638 867 183 208 47.07 9.0 7.9
Conference Average 115 2,031 994 224 222 48.77 9.3 9.8 1,919 876 185 213 53.85 10.5 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 Landmark

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

65.65

2016-11-02 Selinsgrove, Pa.
Susquehanna
Catholic
3
0
26
24
25
23
25
18
GAME

64.20

2016-09-24 Scranton, Pa.
Juniata
Susquehanna
3
0
25
15
25
17
25
21
GAME

63.60

2016-11-05 Huntingdon, Pa
Juniata
Susquehanna
3
0
25
18
25
16
25
22
GAME

63.09

2016-10-15 Huntingdon, Pa
Juniata
Catholic
3
0
25
17
25
21
25
19
GAME

62.85

2016-10-01 Selinsgrove, Pa.
Juniata
Moravian
3
0
25
16
26
24
25
22
GAME

62.76

2016-11-02 Huntingdon, Pa
Juniata
Scranton
3
0
25
19
25
21
25
19
GAME

60.62

2016-09-24 Scranton, Pa.
Scranton
Susquehanna
0
3
21
25
16
25
14
25
GAME

60.56

2016-10-22 Swarthmore, PA
Catholic
Scranton
3
1
25
18
25
15
22
25
25
19
GAME

59.69

2016-09-24 Scranton, Pa.
Scranton
Juniata
1
3
25
21
14
25
12
25
9
25
GAME

59.09

2016-10-01 Towson, Md.
Catholic
Scranton
3
1
25
23
25
14
22
25
25
21

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
A
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 26.0758
2 26.0626
3 23.0366
4 19.2334
5 19.0120
6 16.7552
7 16.4923
8 15.1092
9 14.2253
10 14.0502

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 16.9806
2 15.3329
3 14.2916
4 13.0160
5 12.5503
6 11.7113
7 11.2363
8 10.2204
9 9.4007
10 9.2884

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 16.3231
2 14.4832
3 13.9502
4 11.7562
5 11.0792
6 11.0367
7 10.7296
8 10.4862
9 10.1062
10 9.0952

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.2210
2 0.2154
3 0.2021
4 0.1882
5 0.1849
6 0.1723
7 0.1600
8 0.1581
9 0.1527
10 0.1513

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1439
2 0.1289
3 0.1267
4 0.1126
5 0.1117
6 0.1111
7 0.1102
8 0.1101
9 0.1093
10 0.1042

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.1583
2 0.1540
3 0.1366
4 0.1143
5 0.0995
6 0.0988
7 0.0920
8 0.0909
9 0.0887
10 0.0858


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