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 Wesleyan (CT) 1,449.9749 1,430.0017 1,439.9537 55.93 67.43 0.197
2nd Tufts 1,433.3437 1,414.5516 1,423.9167 55.91 65.20 0.204
3rd Bowdoin 1,393.6954 1,372.0740 1,382.8425 50.92 65.05 0.165
4th Middlebury 1,379.4045 1,366.3406 1,372.8570 54.89 61.85 0.164
5th Amherst 1,346.8860 1,332.4988 1,339.6730 51.83 60.31 0.120
6th Bates 1,341.2975 1,335.1802 1,338.2354 50.24 60.72 0.109
7th Williams 1,319.0233 1,302.6432 1,310.8077 49.61 58.54 0.070
8th Hamilton 1,305.4863 1,292.7161 1,299.0855 53.25 56.26 0.089
9th Connecticut Col. 1,273.7936 1,255.3622 1,264.5443 48.38 54.11 0.069
10th Trinity (CT) 1,204.4017 1,180.7577 1,192.5211 42.97 51.81 0.003
11th Colby 1,174.3209 1,162.4373 1,168.3640 43.58 50.96 -0.044

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 Tufts 0.2759 41.29 13.70 38.18 47.25 3.63 9.69
2nd Wesleyan (CT) 0.2727 39.83 12.56 37.25 44.96 4.26 8.66
3rd Middlebury 0.2704 38.32 11.28 35.57 50.29 4.24 9.50
4th Bowdoin 0.2609 39.28 13.19 36.90 51.13 4.55 8.95
5th Amherst 0.2262 37.03 14.41 35.03 52.17 4.33 6.70
6th Bates 0.2234 34.39 12.05 32.45 54.38 3.02 8.89
7th Williams 0.2150 36.15 14.65 34.13 49.00 4.04 8.74
8th Connecticut Col. 0.2149 36.39 14.90 34.54 53.11 3.92 9.18
9th Hamilton 0.1969 32.64 12.95 30.02 54.88 3.64 10.53
10th Trinity (CT) 0.1408 30.74 16.66 27.99 54.92 4.31 10.67
11th Colby 0.1374 30.28 16.54 28.56 58.76 4.17 9.60

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st Tufts 0.0718 25.01 17.83 23.19 59.96 6.11 6.31
2nd Wesleyan (CT) 0.0760 24.99 17.40 23.18 59.39 5.41 4.40
3rd Bowdoin 0.0955 25.36 15.82 23.96 65.52 5.55 4.80
4th Middlebury 0.1061 28.35 17.74 27.18 57.03 5.59 7.55
5th Amherst 0.1064 28.27 17.63 26.76 57.62 4.71 7.58
6th Hamilton 0.1083 28.17 17.34 26.10 58.77 5.77 7.48
7th Bates 0.1144 27.53 16.09 26.03 58.84 4.48 5.98
8th Trinity (CT) 0.1381 28.18 14.37 26.04 59.43 2.90 8.18
9th Williams 0.1450 29.10 14.59 27.08 60.53 2.98 6.37
10th Connecticut Col. 0.1457 30.06 15.49 28.20 60.19 3.44 8.17
11th Colby 0.1815 32.38 14.23 30.23 53.42 3.20 6.91

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,321.1637 1,324.9426 1,329.7208 1,332.1317 1,326.9897
Difference 3.7789 8.5571 10.9680 7.7680

Point Totals

Offense Defense
Team Sets S SP SA SE SP% S/SA S/SE OS SPA SAA SEA SO% OS/SAA OS/SEA
Wesleyan (CT) 97 2,170 1,089 160 130 50.18 13.6 16.7 1,805 709 105 171 60.72 17.2 10.6
Tufts 113 2,226 1,108 208 221 49.78 10.7 10.1 1,933 792 153 199 59.03 12.6 9.7
Amherst 102 2,090 1,056 134 84 50.53 15.6 24.9 1,833 785 153 181 57.17 12.0 10.1
Middlebury 97 1,844 936 169 140 50.76 10.9 13.2 1,617 697 145 137 56.90 11.2 11.8
Hamilton 88 1,524 807 184 98 52.95 8.3 15.6 1,385 658 131 122 52.49 10.6 11.4
Bowdoin 95 1,773 805 149 176 45.40 11.9 10.1 1,671 697 103 153 58.29 16.2 10.9
Bates 94 1,403 665 160 140 47.40 8.8 10.0 1,304 570 122 163 56.29 10.7 8.0
Connecticut Col. 81 1,453 708 160 165 48.73 9.1 8.8 1,448 700 133 142 51.66 10.9 10.2
Williams 82 1,722 785 126 130 45.59 13.7 13.2 1,753 816 126 142 53.45 13.9 12.3
Colby 75 1,107 489 147 176 44.17 7.5 6.3 1,252 642 139 148 48.72 9.0 8.5
Trinity (CT) 72 750 333 139 186 44.40 5.4 4.0 880 478 134 148 45.68 6.6 5.9
Conference Average 91 1,642 798 158 150 48.17 10.5 12.1 1,535 686 131 155 54.58 11.9 9.9
  • 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

67.48

2017-10-07 Amherst, Mass.
Amherst
Bowdoin
2
3
25
22
16
25
25
20
21
25
15
17
GAME

67.33

2017-11-05 Medford, Mass.
Tufts
Wesleyan (CT)
1
3
25
22
23
25
17
25
14
25
GAME

67.24

2017-09-29 Middlebury, Vt.
Middlebury
Bates
3
1
25
23
25
22
21
25
25
22
GAME

66.40

2017-09-15 Williamstown, MA
Williams
Wesleyan (CT)
0
3
24
26
26
28
16
25
GAME

66.25

2017-10-28 Middletown, Conn.
Wesleyan (CT)
Tufts
1
3
25
19
18
25
25
27
20
25
GAME

66.02

2017-10-28 New London, Conn.
Connecticut Col.
Bowdoin
2
3
13
25
23
25
25
20
27
25
13
15
GAME

65.75

2017-10-14 Lewiston, Maine
Bates
Wesleyan (CT)
3
0
25
22
25
22
25
23
GAME

65.66

2017-10-06 Lewiston, Maine
Bates
Hamilton
2
3
19
25
25
15
21
25
25
18
13
15
GAME

65.64

2017-09-19 Brunswick, Maine
Bowdoin
Tufts
2
3
26
24
22
25
19
25
25
23
9
15
GAME

65.56

2017-10-07 Middlebury, Vt.
Middlebury
Wesleyan (CT)
2
3
25
19
25
11
19
25
19
25
14
16

HuskerGeek NESCAC 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 16.4268
2 16.0178
3 15.3547
4 15.2408
5 15.0630
6 14.9935
7 14.8009
8 13.9694
9 13.7831
10 13.5422

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 9.6452
2 9.3896
3 9.3701
4 9.0967
5 8.9331
6 8.6338
7 7.8389
8 7.6865
9 7.6570
10 7.2732

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 15.1139
2 15.0707
3 14.6455
4 12.2850
5 11.7715
6 10.9162
7 10.7114
8 9.4577
9 7.7659
10 7.3765

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.2056
2 0.2028
3 0.1965
4 0.1944
5 0.1944
6 0.1907
7 0.1854
8 0.1791
9 0.1740
10 0.1712

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1301
2 0.1237
3 0.1123
4 0.1089
5 0.1033
6 0.1000
7 0.0999
8 0.0973
9 0.0938
10 0.0912

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.1930
2 0.1913
3 0.1693
4 0.1510
5 0.1391
6 0.1331
7 0.1307
8 0.1306
9 0.1104
10 0.1070


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