Nerdly Nebraska.

2023-2024 HuskerGeek Ratings Leaders

Sport School Rating
ViPR D1 Volleyball Wisconsin 1,711.3731

NESCAC - Conference Overview

Conference Division: Division 3
Rnk. Team Résumé Recent ViPR Adj SP% Adj SO% Adj. Hit Mar.
1st Williams 1,426.8588 1,414.9732 1,420.9036 52.37 66.80 0.183
2nd Bowdoin 1,398.4398 1,387.5881 1,393.0034 55.83 62.30 0.179
3rd Tufts 1,383.1887 1,399.4988 1,391.3198 56.82 61.04 0.171
4th Amherst 1,355.7348 1,371.2626 1,363.4766 56.39 59.84 0.140
5th Middlebury 1,294.1941 1,301.5496 1,297.8666 48.58 60.69 0.073
6th Connecticut Col. 1,261.3895 1,263.1210 1,262.2550 45.13 52.93 0.051
7th Colby 1,253.8319 1,258.6760 1,256.2516 47.38 51.58 0.043
8th Hamilton 1,235.9234 1,240.9364 1,238.4274 49.20 55.18 0.025
9th Trinity (CT) 1,222.6288 1,228.9893 1,225.8049 34.84 48.04 0.017
10th Wesleyan (CT) 1,207.5777 1,219.5614 1,213.5548 46.90 55.26 -0.007
11th Bates 1,159.2808 1,171.7569 1,165.5022 45.35 50.03 -0.100

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 Williams 0.2883 41.18 12.35 37.83 45.91 3.31 9.93
2nd Bowdoin 0.2640 38.84 12.44 35.62 50.12 3.93 10.03
3rd Tufts 0.2440 38.46 14.06 35.02 49.52 3.61 9.62
4th Amherst 0.2382 35.52 11.70 32.45 52.86 3.38 9.94
5th Colby 0.2001 33.76 13.75 29.45 56.88 4.84 11.82
6th Middlebury 0.1929 33.70 14.41 31.90 49.41 3.97 8.81
7th Trinity (CT) 0.1823 29.64 11.42 26.86 55.54 4.95 8.63
8th Connecticut Col. 0.1814 32.83 14.70 29.81 51.13 4.01 7.24
9th Wesleyan (CT) 0.1635 32.66 16.31 30.70 55.26 4.01 8.74
10th Hamilton 0.1628 31.73 15.45 27.52 54.28 3.50 8.22
11th Bates 0.1043 28.39 17.96 26.80 55.59 4.01 12.20

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st Tufts 0.0734 26.90 19.57 25.29 60.23 7.57 6.14
2nd Bowdoin 0.0853 26.67 18.14 24.64 60.81 6.93 6.21
3rd Amherst 0.0981 26.92 17.11 25.55 58.34 4.05 7.85
4th Williams 0.1054 27.63 17.09 25.14 58.88 5.56 3.27
5th Middlebury 0.1203 29.13 17.10 26.84 51.87 5.02 4.67
6th Connecticut Col. 0.1305 29.67 16.62 27.57 57.62 5.46 7.77
7th Hamilton 0.1382 30.41 16.58 27.03 57.27 6.28 8.91
8th Colby 0.1571 31.42 15.72 28.98 57.17 6.57 6.78
9th Trinity (CT) 0.1656 30.30 13.74 26.23 58.22 5.16 8.28
10th Wesleyan (CT) 0.1707 33.38 16.31 31.44 54.44 5.12 9.44
11th Bates 0.2047 35.09 14.62 31.93 53.01 2.91 11.54

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,293.4878 1,293.5511 1,290.7717 1,283.6554 1,290.3665
Difference 0.0633 -2.7161 -9.8324 -4.1617

Point Totals

Offense Defense
Team Sets S SP SA SE SP% S/SA S/SE OS SPA SAA SEA SO% OS/SAA OS/SEA
Tufts 113 1,732 912 199 183 52.66 8.7 9.5 1,493 663 176 191 55.59 8.5 7.8
Amherst 96 1,715 904 173 92 52.71 9.9 18.6 1,488 666 158 194 55.24 9.4 7.7
Williams 119 1,644 777 260 282 47.26 6.3 5.8 1,485 606 125 232 59.19 11.9 6.4
Bowdoin 120 1,703 838 264 305 49.21 6.5 5.6 1,557 689 178 228 55.75 8.7 6.8
Middlebury 87 1,604 755 154 155 47.07 10.4 10.3 1,510 658 114 151 56.42 13.2 10.0
Wesleyan (CT) 84 725 358 174 198 49.38 4.2 3.7 694 319 153 158 54.04 4.5 4.4
Bates 81 1,142 590 224 178 51.66 5.1 6.4 1,082 540 191 212 50.09 5.7 5.1
Hamilton 101 712 336 217 211 47.19 3.3 3.4 717 341 188 197 52.44 3.8 3.6
Colby 85 463 216 212 233 46.65 2.2 2.0 496 255 132 194 48.59 3.8 2.6
Connecticut Col. 93 557 246 160 193 44.17 3.5 2.9 625 312 136 178 50.08 4.6 3.5
Trinity (CT) 87 79 22 200 218 27.85 0.4 0.4 148 93 187 150 37.16 0.8 1.0
Conference Average 97 1,098 541 203 204 46.89 5.5 6.2 1,027 467 158 190 52.24 6.8 5.4
  • 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 NESCAC

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

67.53

2014-09-26 Amherst, Mass.
Amherst
Williams
2
3
21
25
25
20
21
25
26
24
13
15
GAME

66.73

2014-11-07 Medford, MA
Hamilton
Williams
2
3
11
25
20
25
25
23
30
28
12
15
GAME

64.94

2014-10-31 Amherst, Mass.
Amherst
Bowdoin
3
1
25
22
15
25
26
24
25
15
GAME

64.51

2014-11-01 Williamstown, MA
Williams
Bowdoin
2
3
25
18
25
27
25
19
22
25
11
15
GAME

62.89

2014-11-09 Medford, MA
Tufts
Williams
2
3
20
25
25
22
23
25
25
23
13
15
GAME

62.35

2014-11-07 Medford, Mass.
Bowdoin
Middlebury
3
1
25
18
18
25
25
22
25
23
GAME

62.27

2014-10-03 Amherst, Mass.
Amherst
Middlebury
3
1
16
25
25
20
25
16
25
22
GAME

61.44

2014-10-10 Middlebury, Vt.
Middlebury
Bowdoin
3
2
22
25
25
14
26
24
15
25
15
13
GAME

61.29

2014-11-08 Medford, MA
Williams
Amherst
3
0
25
23
25
19
25
21
GAME

61.17

2014-11-08 Medford, MA
Tufts
Bowdoin
3
2
17
25
25
15
19
25
25
22
15
12

HuskerGeek NESCAC All-Conference

1st Team

Name Team Role
A
A
A
A
D
D
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 17.4345
2 16.2764
3 12.2359
4 12.1626
5 11.9355
6 10.3877
7 10.2128
8 9.2595
9 8.8175
10 8.7393

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 9.4689
2 8.8840
3 7.7771
4 7.7063
5 6.0446
6 5.9313
7 5.7837
8 5.7098
9 5.0850
10 4.9615

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 11.4735
2 10.6739
3 9.0611
4 8.5506
5 6.8075
6 6.4569
7 6.0119
8 5.5170
9 5.4521
10 5.2275

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.2527
2 0.2142
3 0.1845
4 0.1738
5 0.1676
6 0.1643
7 0.1570
8 0.1484
9 0.1462
10 0.1386

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1288
2 0.1246
3 0.1111
4 0.1041
5 0.1028
6 0.0944
7 0.0911
8 0.0897
9 0.0864
10 0.0845

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.1572
2 0.1542
3 0.1404
4 0.1313
5 0.1265
6 0.1239
7 0.1055
8 0.0948
9 0.0906
10 0.0897


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