Nerdly Nebraska.

2023-2024 HuskerGeek Ratings Leaders

Sport School Rating
ViPR D1 Volleyball Wisconsin 1,711.3731

UAA - Conference Overview

Conference Division: Division 3
Rnk. Team Résumé Recent ViPR Adj SP% Adj SO% Adj. Hit Mar.
1st Emory 1,562.9240 1,586.7238 1,574.7789 61.52 72.71 0.328
2nd Washington-St. Louis 1,494.1040 1,525.8438 1,509.8905 58.63 68.48 0.284
3rd Carnegie Mellon 1,468.6329 1,488.3711 1,478.4691 57.86 67.56 0.223
4th Chicago 1,441.5510 1,483.1909 1,462.2227 56.54 65.28 0.205
5th CWRU 1,406.2712 1,441.5422 1,423.7975 53.04 63.76 0.159
6th Rochester (NY) 1,377.2623 1,405.7237 1,391.4203 53.09 61.43 0.121
7th NYU 1,309.1160 1,334.1507 1,321.5741 49.89 57.38 0.071
8th Brandeis 1,254.1581 1,268.2511 1,261.1849 47.62 53.90 -0.006

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 Emory 0.3488 45.85 10.97 42.11 43.20 2.85 9.37
2nd Washington-St. Louis 0.3330 44.71 11.41 40.77 44.49 3.23 9.15
3rd Chicago 0.2830 38.82 10.52 35.84 49.75 3.10 9.47
4th Carnegie Mellon 0.2735 39.43 12.09 36.50 49.77 3.04 9.13
5th CWRU 0.2582 39.02 13.20 36.11 45.13 4.52 9.92
6th Rochester (NY) 0.2033 37.01 16.68 34.80 48.73 4.20 10.90
7th NYU 0.1903 34.09 15.06 31.33 52.15 3.11 9.24
8th Brandeis 0.1448 31.43 16.95 29.79 54.92 3.70 9.93

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st Emory 0.0206 21.59 19.54 20.53 63.38 6.36 4.70
2nd Washington-St. Louis 0.0490 23.09 18.18 21.20 62.01 6.71 6.18
3rd Carnegie Mellon 0.0506 23.69 18.64 22.24 63.14 5.41 5.68
4th Chicago 0.0776 23.63 15.86 22.37 63.51 4.22 4.91
5th Rochester (NY) 0.0821 25.78 17.57 23.62 61.46 5.59 5.86
6th CWRU 0.0992 27.39 17.48 25.02 57.32 5.44 6.75
7th NYU 0.1196 29.03 17.07 26.84 55.96 5.16 6.79
8th Brandeis 0.1512 31.40 16.28 29.86 57.55 4.14 8.56

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,427.9173 1,431.2290 1,438.9774 1,443.0101 1,435.2834
Difference 3.3118 11.0601 15.0929 9.8216

Point Totals

Offense Defense
Team Sets S SP SA SE SP% S/SA S/SE OS SPA SAA SEA SO% OS/SAA OS/SEA
Emory 136 2,994 1,585 229 225 52.94 13.1 13.3 2,278 832 147 231 63.48 15.5 9.9
Carnegie Mellon 122 2,060 1,001 182 133 48.59 11.3 15.5 1,867 776 181 230 58.44 10.3 8.1
Washington-St. Louis 141 2,882 1,376 197 257 47.75 14.6 11.2 2,615 1,080 220 245 58.70 11.9 10.7
Rochester (NY) 120 2,334 1,140 280 243 48.84 8.3 9.6 2,135 932 180 214 56.35 11.9 10.0
Chicago 108 2,343 1,116 170 188 47.63 13.8 12.5 2,176 944 158 166 56.62 13.8 13.1
NYU 122 2,555 1,248 233 213 48.85 11.0 12.0 2,441 1,136 196 225 53.46 12.5 10.8
CWRU 119 1,912 873 202 173 45.66 9.5 11.1 1,847 809 176 205 56.20 10.5 9.0
Brandeis 99 1,684 736 182 175 43.71 9.3 9.6 1,920 991 217 231 48.39 8.8 8.3
Conference Average 121 2,346 1,134 209 201 47.99 11.4 11.8 2,160 938 184 218 56.45 11.9 10.0
  • 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 UAA

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

74.69

2016-11-04 St. Louis, Mo.
Carnegie Mellon
Chicago
3
2
28
26
25
21
22
25
19
25
15
11
GAME

72.16

2016-10-01 Pittsburgh, Pa.
Carnegie Mellon
Chicago
2
3
22
25
25
27
25
19
25
17
12
15
GAME

71.22

2016-10-15 Waltham, Mass.
Carnegie Mellon
Emory
1
3
18
25
25
22
27
29
20
25
GAME

70.74

2016-11-04 St. Louis, Mo.
Washington-St. Louis
Emory
1
3
15
25
10
25
25
21
23
25
GAME

69.77

2016-10-02 Pittsburgh, Pa.
Chicago
Washington-St. Louis
3
1
25
21
23
25
25
18
27
25
GAME

69.05

2016-10-15 Waltham, Mass.
Chicago
Emory
3
1
18
25
25
22
25
20
27
25
GAME

68.86

2016-10-16 Waltham, Mass.
Emory
Washington-St. Louis
3
1
23
25
25
16
25
23
25
20
GAME

68.61

2016-11-05 St. Louis, Mo.
Chicago
Washington-St. Louis
1
3
18
25
20
25
25
20
24
26
GAME

66.71

2016-10-16 Waltham, Mass.
CWRU
Chicago
1
3
25
21
19
25
22
25
18
25
GAME

66.05

2016-10-02 Pittsburgh, Pa.
Emory
CWRU
3
0
25
13
25
15
25
22

HuskerGeek UAA All-Conference

1st Team

Name Team Role
A
A
A
A
A
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 25.8413
2 22.8139
3 22.7068
4 19.5828
5 19.1328
6 19.1057
7 18.2185
8 18.0093
9 17.3372
10 17.0398

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 14.3762
2 13.5039
3 13.1716
4 13.1457
5 13.0759
6 12.2306
7 11.7592
8 10.8241
9 10.4713
10 10.1070

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 16.8275
2 16.2648
3 15.9824
4 13.9548
5 12.7655
6 12.2396
7 10.9475
8 10.8716
9 10.6494
10 9.8064

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.2194
2 0.2183
3 0.2171
4 0.2035
5 0.1893
6 0.1876
7 0.1870
8 0.1709
9 0.1700
10 0.1675

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1535
2 0.1264
3 0.1188
4 0.1152
5 0.1136
6 0.1131
7 0.1091
8 0.1089
9 0.1030
10 0.0971

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.1807
2 0.1776
3 0.1391
4 0.1355
5 0.1253
6 0.1155
7 0.1087
8 0.1053
9 0.1052
10 0.1005


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