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 Amherst 1,425.6411 1,468.8472 1,447.0829 57.28 64.38 0.208
2nd Bowdoin 1,422.8641 1,458.8672 1,440.7532 56.47 65.00 0.207
3rd Williams 1,398.5653 1,418.4741 1,408.4845 54.00 63.56 0.170
4th Tufts 1,388.8265 1,399.3450 1,394.0758 55.78 61.66 0.172
5th Middlebury 1,354.6317 1,382.2671 1,368.3796 52.30 61.74 0.143
6th Connecticut Col. 1,308.3390 1,342.1640 1,325.1436 48.06 58.47 0.110
7th Colby 1,257.9226 1,296.2009 1,276.9183 50.61 53.72 0.063
8th Bates 1,237.1690 1,279.5369 1,258.1746 47.82 53.69 -0.016
9th Trinity (CT) 1,213.4234 1,259.2134 1,236.1064 45.16 52.02 -0.006
10th Wesleyan (CT) 1,201.0947 1,232.8297 1,216.8588 46.18 51.96 -0.007
11th Hamilton 1,182.9112 1,227.0669 1,204.7868 47.26 50.56 -0.029

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 Amherst 0.2745 38.07 10.61 35.41 51.63 3.07 8.03
2nd Bowdoin 0.2689 38.63 11.74 35.87 50.90 3.37 10.19
3rd Williams 0.2590 40.42 14.52 37.85 46.84 4.26 9.38
4th Middlebury 0.2583 38.15 12.31 34.80 49.82 4.35 9.30
5th Tufts 0.2431 37.90 13.59 34.86 51.58 3.18 9.44
6th Connecticut Col. 0.2152 35.30 13.77 32.75 54.79 3.70 7.26
7th Trinity (CT) 0.1814 32.02 13.88 28.55 57.32 4.68 13.88
8th Colby 0.1717 31.88 14.71 28.53 56.76 4.60 9.50
9th Hamilton 0.1666 31.97 15.31 29.08 58.59 4.42 10.28
10th Wesleyan (CT) 0.1653 31.56 15.03 29.80 57.44 4.63 7.68
11th Bates 0.1532 32.21 16.89 30.35 54.22 4.38 9.65

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st Bowdoin 0.0616 23.47 17.31 22.25 64.79 5.13 4.84
2nd Amherst 0.0663 24.29 17.65 23.20 60.39 4.85 6.64
3rd Tufts 0.0707 25.41 18.33 23.51 59.09 6.35 6.62
4th Williams 0.0893 26.34 17.41 24.16 62.11 4.05 6.15
5th Connecticut Col. 0.1050 27.51 17.01 25.06 57.51 4.52 7.66
6th Colby 0.1090 29.01 18.11 26.68 58.24 5.96 7.13
7th Middlebury 0.1151 28.97 17.47 26.74 56.66 5.62 6.49
8th Bates 0.1693 32.18 15.25 29.80 54.79 4.01 8.05
9th Wesleyan (CT) 0.1721 33.89 16.68 32.07 50.47 4.87 10.17
10th Trinity (CT) 0.1876 32.78 14.02 29.16 54.19 3.06 8.09
11th Hamilton 0.1954 34.20 14.66 31.01 53.36 4.69 13.75

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,325.1604 1,324.9883 1,323.8976 1,324.5384 1,324.6462
Difference -0.1721 -1.2629 -0.6220 -0.6857

Point Totals

Offense Defense
Team Sets S SP SA SE SP% S/SA S/SE OS SPA SAA SEA SO% OS/SAA OS/SEA
Amherst 100 2,029 1,087 168 117 53.57 12.1 17.3 1,614 657 135 171 59.29 12.0 9.4
Bowdoin 109 2,265 1,178 231 264 52.01 9.8 8.6 1,863 759 129 178 59.26 14.4 10.5
Williams 112 2,294 1,098 191 199 47.86 12.0 11.5 2,112 911 166 200 56.87 12.7 10.6
Tufts 89 1,759 871 176 165 49.52 10.0 10.7 1,614 726 143 169 55.02 11.3 9.6
Middlebury 94 1,545 724 180 165 46.86 8.6 9.4 1,468 647 144 153 55.93 10.2 9.6
Hamilton 91 459 232 161 142 50.55 2.9 3.2 446 216 194 160 51.57 2.3 2.8
Connecticut Col. 83 862 393 143 201 45.59 6.0 4.3 904 423 142 135 53.21 6.4 6.7
Colby 98 1,113 536 187 227 48.16 6.0 4.9 1,181 603 184 185 48.94 6.4 6.4
Wesleyan (CT) 71 1,281 599 111 99 46.76 11.5 12.9 1,354 680 176 128 49.78 7.7 10.6
Bates 90 1,612 760 188 139 47.15 8.6 11.6 1,711 867 166 187 49.33 10.3 9.1
Trinity (CT) 79 546 249 196 198 45.60 2.8 2.8 597 304 148 134 49.08 4.0 4.5
Conference Average 92 1,433 702 176 174 48.51 8.2 8.8 1,351 618 157 164 53.48 8.9 8.2
  • 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

72.85

2015-11-07 Brunswick, Maine
Amherst
Williams
2
3
21
25
34
32
25
21
21
25
15
17
GAME

69.53

2015-10-16 Amherst, Mass.
Amherst
Bowdoin
3
2
15
25
25
21
25
22
20
25
15
10
GAME

68.67

2015-11-08 Brunswick, Maine
Bowdoin
Williams
3
2
20
25
19
25
25
22
25
23
15
7
GAME

68.20

2015-09-19 Amherst, Mass.
Amherst
Tufts
3
2
23
25
23
25
25
14
25
23
15
10
GAME

67.62

2015-10-09 Middlebury, Vt.
Middlebury
Amherst
3
1
25
20
21
25
25
17
28
26
GAME

65.27

2015-10-10 Middlebury, Vt.
Middlebury
Williams
2
3
21
25
18
25
27
25
25
18
12
15
GAME

65.04

2015-10-17 Williamstown, MA
Williams
Bowdoin
2
3
18
25
18
25
25
15
25
23
13
15
GAME

64.84

2015-10-31 Middlebury, Vt.
Middlebury
Tufts
3
1
22
25
25
23
25
20
25
19
GAME

64.53

2015-11-07 Brunswick, Maine
Bowdoin
Middlebury
3
0
25
21
26
24
25
13
GAME

64.09

2015-09-23 Williamstown, MA
Williams
Amherst
3
1
17
25
25
13
25
16
25
22

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 20.3507
2 19.4756
3 18.5216
4 18.4621
5 17.9271
6 17.7312
7 17.0545
8 15.4816
9 15.1586
10 13.9509

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 13.1328
2 12.5750
3 9.7126
4 9.6668
5 9.6390
6 8.9830
7 8.7967
8 8.2385
9 7.8409
10 7.7074

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 15.9679
2 13.0047
3 12.9422
4 10.9508
5 10.8142
6 8.7707
7 8.7482
8 8.5909
9 8.0983
10 7.7757

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.2244
2 0.2244
3 0.2197
4 0.2120
5 0.1949
6 0.1909
7 0.1890
8 0.1809
9 0.1792
10 0.1635

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1408
2 0.1401
3 0.1310
4 0.1275
5 0.1268
6 0.1047
7 0.0936
8 0.0917
9 0.0848
10 0.0834

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.1736
2 0.1478
3 0.1386
4 0.1269
5 0.1191
6 0.1165
7 0.1124
8 0.1103
9 0.1050
10 0.1046


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