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 Tufts 1,497.5846 1,517.6050 1,507.5616 56.96 65.83 0.227
2nd Wesleyan (CT) 1,491.2405 1,509.2533 1,500.2198 57.32 65.52 0.208
3rd Bowdoin 1,481.7284 1,494.5764 1,488.1385 55.54 65.51 0.210
4th Middlebury 1,457.6109 1,481.8176 1,469.6644 54.34 64.96 0.183
5th Amherst 1,449.8899 1,470.8200 1,460.3175 54.19 66.38 0.185
6th Williams 1,417.6829 1,435.8317 1,426.7285 52.51 61.51 0.148
7th Bates 1,379.5170 1,408.2823 1,393.8254 51.71 58.58 0.107
8th Hamilton 1,336.6934 1,351.9269 1,344.2886 48.99 56.96 0.070
9th Connecticut Col. 1,312.8258 1,337.2353 1,324.9744 46.98 57.55 0.066
10th Trinity (CT) 1,278.6646 1,307.3474 1,292.9265 49.50 53.57 0.028
11th Colby 1,242.5846 1,270.8090 1,256.6176 43.01 54.09 -0.012

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 0.2874 42.77 14.04 39.82 44.06 3.38 11.63
2nd Bowdoin 0.2871 40.90 12.19 38.07 48.26 3.84 10.23
3rd Wesleyan (CT) 0.2819 39.16 10.97 36.69 49.31 3.71 8.94
4th Amherst 0.2773 38.72 10.99 36.28 49.81 4.10 7.07
5th Middlebury 0.2746 40.82 13.36 37.61 47.45 4.22 9.10
6th Williams 0.2605 38.90 12.84 35.75 48.00 4.28 9.39
7th Bates 0.2198 35.03 13.05 32.59 52.69 3.97 9.50
8th Connecticut Col. 0.2122 36.00 14.78 33.82 51.00 3.89 8.92
9th Hamilton 0.1987 34.18 14.31 31.58 55.59 3.75 10.07
10th Colby 0.1723 34.06 16.83 32.13 53.14 3.70 10.65
11th Trinity (CT) 0.1587 32.70 16.83 30.55 55.38 4.89 11.11

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st Tufts 0.0606 25.59 19.52 23.72 59.33 6.06 6.40
2nd Wesleyan (CT) 0.0738 24.11 16.73 22.93 62.57 4.81 4.59
3rd Bowdoin 0.0775 24.43 16.68 23.40 63.86 5.32 5.87
4th Middlebury 0.0912 26.67 17.55 24.94 59.92 4.90 4.94
5th Amherst 0.0918 26.09 16.90 25.15 60.03 4.32 6.73
6th Williams 0.1123 27.65 16.42 25.21 58.46 4.55 6.74
7th Bates 0.1125 27.37 16.12 26.08 59.70 3.83 6.01
8th Hamilton 0.1284 28.71 15.87 27.12 57.97 3.32 7.10
9th Trinity (CT) 0.1306 27.50 14.44 25.44 60.57 3.24 8.06
10th Connecticut Col. 0.1460 31.38 16.77 29.59 55.22 3.56 8.00
11th Colby 0.1840 34.75 16.34 32.27 52.23 3.75 8.92

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,405.9330 1,411.2315 1,415.4196 1,418.9649 1,412.8872
Difference 5.2985 9.4866 13.0319 9.2724

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 94 2,066 1,080 145 81 52.28 14.2 25.5 1,619 615 133 171 62.01 12.2 9.5
Bowdoin 107 2,305 1,243 230 191 53.93 10.0 12.1 1,827 725 136 164 60.32 13.4 11.1
Middlebury 87 1,994 1,008 166 128 50.55 12.0 15.6 1,682 678 102 143 59.69 16.5 11.8
Wesleyan (CT) 96 2,200 1,104 160 102 50.18 13.8 21.6 1,896 781 108 173 58.81 17.6 11.0
Tufts 93 2,116 1,040 207 195 49.15 10.2 10.9 1,861 773 145 183 58.46 12.8 10.2
Bates 74 1,664 832 153 146 50.00 10.9 11.4 1,526 694 107 130 54.52 14.3 11.7
Connecticut Col. 90 1,836 860 183 182 46.84 10.0 10.1 1,791 817 178 178 54.38 10.1 10.1
Williams 89 1,886 866 154 155 45.92 12.2 12.2 1,868 845 150 149 54.76 12.5 12.5
Hamilton 80 1,559 711 157 150 45.61 9.9 10.4 1,617 780 140 148 51.76 11.6 10.9
Trinity (CT) 95 1,614 796 203 171 49.32 8.0 9.4 1,703 896 169 169 47.39 10.1 10.1
Colby 83 1,533 652 177 234 42.53 8.7 6.6 1,721 845 189 189 50.90 9.1 9.1
Conference Average 90 1,888 927 176 158 48.75 10.9 13.2 1,737 768 142 163 55.73 12.7 10.7
  • 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

83.15

2018-10-26 Brunswick, Maine
Bowdoin
Wesleyan (CT)
3
1
30
28
25
22
20
25
27
25
GAME

73.13

2018-10-05 Medford, Mass.
Tufts
Amherst
2
3
25
18
25
20
20
25
25
27
14
16
GAME

71.01

2018-11-02 Brunswick, Maine
Amherst
Williams
3
2
23
25
25
11
25
22
21
25
15
12
GAME

70.63

2018-11-03 Brunswick, Maine
Amherst
Wesleyan (CT)
3
0
25
21
25
21
25
22
GAME

69.59

2018-10-27 Middlebury, Vt.
Middlebury
Williams
3
1
19
25
25
21
25
23
25
19
GAME

69.20

2018-09-14 Middlebury, Vt.
Middlebury
Amherst
2
3
23
25
25
21
22
25
25
22
10
15
GAME

68.79

2018-10-13 Middletown, Conn.
Wesleyan (CT)
Bates
3
1
21
25
25
6
25
21
25
22
GAME

68.57

2018-09-28 Williamstown, MA
Williams
Bowdoin
2
3
26
24
20
25
25
13
20
25
11
15
GAME

68.49

2018-10-13 Middlebury, Vt.
Middlebury
Bowdoin
2
3
22
25
25
16
25
23
12
25
9
15
GAME

68.36

2018-11-03 Brunswick, Maine
Bowdoin
Tufts
3
2
25
22
20
25
13
25
25
21
15
9

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
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 18.6632
2 18.0556
3 17.3856
4 16.8373
5 15.1162
6 14.3790
7 14.0748
8 13.7469
9 13.7195
10 13.5372

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 12.0683
2 10.1532
3 9.1874
4 8.8670
5 8.8269
6 8.5265
7 8.4387
8 8.4312
9 8.3567
10 8.2884

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 17.7886
2 16.9074
3 11.9827
4 11.6383
5 11.0826
6 10.7808
7 10.3533
8 9.8450
9 8.5353
10 8.5187

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.1998
2 0.1984
3 0.1981
4 0.1944
5 0.1808
6 0.1782
7 0.1778
8 0.1759
9 0.1718
10 0.1700

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1420
2 0.1167
3 0.1082
4 0.1062
5 0.1056
6 0.1019
7 0.1003
8 0.0995
9 0.0980
10 0.0974

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.1858
2 0.1853
3 0.1619
4 0.1518
5 0.1355
6 0.1338
7 0.1289
8 0.1141
9 0.1125
10 0.1106


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