Nerdly Nebraska.

2019-2020 HuskerGeek Ratings Leaders

Sport School Rating
ViPR D1 Volleyball Stanford 1,789.9969

Football ohio st 12.8582
Ice Hockey providence 7.9735
Men's Soccer smu 11.4406
Women's Soccer north carolina 12.2707
Women's Volleyball baylor 12.1306
Field Hockey north carolina 12.7413

NESCAC - Conference Overview

Conference Division: Division 3
Rnk. Team Résumé Recent ViPR Adj SP% Adj SO% Adj. Hit Mar.
1st Tufts 1,575.0329 1,546.6784 1,560.7913 60.43 67.25 0.316
2nd Wesleyan (CT) 1,552.6569 1,530.5208 1,541.5491 61.90 67.69 0.256
3rd Amherst 1,491.2873 1,471.3519 1,481.2861 61.82 59.89 0.202
4th Bowdoin 1,470.9864 1,445.1085 1,457.9901 53.89 63.95 0.180
5th Williams 1,433.7104 1,410.0871 1,421.8497 56.39 53.88 0.120
6th Bates 1,411.5427 1,385.1353 1,398.2766 57.97 63.64 0.121
7th Middlebury 1,394.1463 1,372.1836 1,383.1214 54.48 58.08 0.108
8th Hamilton 1,336.8659 1,314.0785 1,325.4232 51.26 51.90 0.047
9th Trinity (CT) 1,312.0425 1,292.7628 1,302.3670 51.34 51.98 0.014
10th Connecticut Col. 1,288.1224 1,268.2357 1,278.1404 48.11 52.61 -0.001
11th Colby 1,213.4153 1,191.1223 1,202.2171 44.11 48.67 -0.078

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 0.3639 47.16 10.77 44.00 40.84 2.70 8.77
2nd Amherst 0.2933 39.77 10.44 37.57 49.85 3.20 6.61
3rd Wesleyan (CT) 0.2825 38.81 10.56 35.69 47.75 2.81 9.31
4th Bowdoin 0.2767 40.29 12.62 36.84 47.85 3.25 9.84
5th Middlebury 0.2577 36.64 10.87 34.19 52.49 3.19 9.05
6th Williams 0.2373 35.57 11.84 33.06 52.96 3.25 9.56
7th Bates 0.2209 33.11 11.02 30.49 52.75 3.75 10.89
8th Hamilton 0.1986 34.30 14.44 32.50 50.75 3.66 9.30
9th Connecticut Col. 0.1726 33.45 16.19 31.66 50.98 4.03 12.94
10th Trinity (CT) 0.1394 31.27 17.33 29.32 56.72 3.46 11.17
11th Colby 0.1132 28.22 16.90 26.16 58.96 4.22 9.91

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st Wesleyan (CT) 0.0264 20.76 18.12 20.01 64.77 4.20 7.85
2nd Tufts 0.0478 24.04 19.26 22.47 59.56 6.78 7.07
3rd Amherst 0.0918 26.26 17.09 24.29 60.24 4.68 6.59
4th Bowdoin 0.0963 26.10 16.47 24.49 60.46 5.38 7.07
5th Bates 0.1004 25.75 15.72 23.32 61.42 4.38 5.60
6th Williams 0.1171 28.01 16.30 25.40 59.45 4.99 5.91
7th Trinity (CT) 0.1255 29.74 17.19 26.77 59.18 4.99 10.00
8th Middlebury 0.1497 30.33 15.36 27.96 55.94 3.96 7.13
9th Hamilton 0.1520 28.85 13.65 25.60 58.13 3.32 7.66
10th Connecticut Col. 0.1735 33.83 16.49 31.33 52.41 3.58 10.63
11th Colby 0.1911 33.80 14.70 30.21 51.58 2.84 9.52

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,395.7284 1,398.8893 1,395.7591 1,397.3322 1,396.9272
Difference 3.1609 0.0308 1.6038 1.5985

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) 55 1,315 766 107 59 58.25 12.3 22.3 931 361 72 96 61.22 12.9 9.7
Tufts 54 1,222 661 96 101 54.09 12.7 12.1 931 354 73 109 61.98 12.8 8.5
Amherst 55 1,267 754 86 46 59.51 14.7 27.5 932 409 64 99 56.12 14.6 9.4
Bates 56 966 539 147 117 55.80 6.6 8.3 794 336 85 96 57.68 9.3 8.3
Middlebury 53 1,165 649 97 85 55.71 12.0 13.7 1,036 491 80 85 52.61 13.0 12.2
Williams 51 1,127 638 101 84 56.61 11.2 13.4 964 483 63 99 49.90 15.3 9.7
Bowdoin 59 1,224 591 115 114 48.28 10.6 10.7 1,131 494 98 120 56.32 11.5 9.4
Hamilton 49 977 507 97 101 51.89 10.1 9.7 944 491 81 83 47.99 11.7 11.4
Connecticut Col. 56 1,094 522 131 146 47.72 8.4 7.5 1,222 637 127 113 47.87 9.6 10.8
Trinity (CT) 58 1,122 562 125 105 50.09 9.0 10.7 1,217 665 118 102 45.36 10.3 11.9
Colby 61 1,131 544 120 141 48.10 9.4 8.0 1,286 711 127 130 44.71 10.1 9.9
Conference Average 55 1,146 612 111 100 53.28 10.6 13.1 1,035 494 90 103 52.89 11.9 10.1
  • 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 NESCAC

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

75.14

2019-09-21 Middletown, Conn.
Wesleyan (CT)
Tufts
1
3
25
21
25
27
24
26
16
25
GAME

71.12

2019-10-05 Lewiston, Maine
Bates
Wesleyan (CT)
1
3
22
25
25
27
25
21
19
25
GAME

70.77

2019-10-04 Brunswick, Maine
Bowdoin
Williams
3
2
22
25
24
26
25
20
25
21
15
9
GAME

67.90

2019-09-20 Lewiston, Maine
Bates
Amherst
2
3
21
25
15
25
25
21
25
20
8
15
GAME

67.77

2019-10-12
Amherst
Wesleyan (CT)
1
3
26
24
10
25
17
25
17
25
GAME

67.68

2019-09-21 Lewiston, Maine
Bates
Middlebury
2
3
23
25
25
19
25
19
20
25
12
15
GAME

65.71

2019-09-07 Middletown, Conn.
Wesleyan (CT)
Bowdoin
3
0
25
18
25
20
25
15
GAME

64.74

2019-10-05 Medford, Mass.
Tufts
Williams
3
0
25
14
25
13
25
23
GAME

64.44

2019-09-27 Medford, Mass.
Tufts
Bowdoin
3
0
25
21
25
15
25
14
GAME

63.18

2019-09-20 Middletown, Conn.
Wesleyan (CT)
Bowdoin
3
0
25
21
25
12
25
17

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 9.2703
2 8.8039
3 8.7891
4 8.4995
5 8.4838
6 8.4468
7 8.2515
8 8.2291
9 8.1240
10 7.8587

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 5.5159
2 4.9154
3 4.6908
4 4.6137
5 4.5283
6 4.4314
7 4.4240
8 4.3429
9 4.3105
10 4.2943

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 9.1468
2 7.5761
3 7.5429
4 7.2447
5 6.6260
6 6.4275
7 5.4412
8 5.3576
9 5.1797
10 4.7159

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.2175
2 0.2017
3 0.1964
4 0.1794
5 0.1783
6 0.1780
7 0.1723
8 0.1700
9 0.1677
10 0.1672

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1283
2 0.1203
3 0.1053
4 0.0988
5 0.0976
6 0.0964
7 0.0871
8 0.0869
9 0.0851
10 0.0847

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.1811
2 0.1759
3 0.1568
4 0.1479
5 0.1440
6 0.1353
7 0.1328
8 0.1264
9 0.1046
10 0.1020


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