Nerdly Nebraska.

2019-2020 HuskerGeek Ratings Leaders

Sport School Rating
ViPR D1 Volleyball Stanford 1,787.5136

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

ViPR NCAA Volleyball Ratings

Division 1

Rnk. Team Conference
1st Stanford Pac-12
2nd Baylor Big 12
3rd Nebraska Big Ten
4th Minnesota Big Ten
5th Wisconsin Big Ten
6th Penn St. Big Ten
7th Kentucky SEC
8th Texas Big 12
9th Illinois Big Ten
10th Pittsburgh ACC

Division 1 Standouts

Award Name Team
POY
AOY
SOY
DPOY
-- Expand Division 1 --

Division 2

Rnk. Team Conference
1st Neb.-Kearney Mid-America Intercollegiate
2nd Northern St. NSIC
3rd Cal St. San B'dino CCAA
4th Wayne St. (NE) NSIC
5th Minn. Duluth NSIC
6th Upper Iowa NSIC
7th Rockhurst GLVC
8th Washburn Mid-America Intercollegiate
9th St. Cloud St. NSIC
10th Concordia-St. Paul NSIC

Division 2 Standouts

Award Name Team
POY
AOY
SOY
DPOY
-- Expand Division 2 --

Division 3

Rnk. Team Conference
1st Johns Hopkins Centennial
2nd Colorado Col. SCAC
3rd Calvin Michigan Intercol. Ath. Assn.
4th Carthage CCIW
5th Emory UAA
6th Claremont-M-S SCIAC
7th Tufts NESCAC
8th Chicago UAA
9th Transylvania HCAC
10th Trinity (TX) SCAC

Division 3 Standouts

Award Name Team
POY
AOY
SOY
DPOY
-- Expand Division 3 --

BPR NCAA Women's Basketball Ratings

Division 1

Rnk. Team Conference
1st Baylor Big 12
2nd Mississippi St. SEC
3rd Oregon Pac-12
4th UConn AAC
5th Notre Dame ACC
6th Louisville ACC
7th Marquette Big East
8th Stanford Pac-12
9th Iowa St. Big 12
10th Oregon St. Pac-12
-- Expand Division 1 --

Division 2

Rnk. Team Conference
1st Drury GLVC
2nd Ashland GLIAC
3rd Lubbock Christian Heartland
4th Fort Hays St. MIAA
5th Grand Valley St. GLIAC
6th Lewis GLVC
7th Minn. Duluth NSIC
8th Fla. Southern Sunshine State
9th Alas. Anchorage Great Northwest
10th Northwest Nazarene Great Northwest
-- Expand Division 2 --

Division 3

Rnk. Team Conference
1st Thomas More ACAA
2nd Bowdoin NESCAC
3rd St. Thomas (MN) MIAC
4th Tufts NESCAC
5th Amherst NESCAC
6th Wis.-Oshkosh WIAC
7th Trine MIAA
8th DePauw NCAC
9th Wartburg American Rivers
10th DeSales MAC Freedom
-- Expand Division 3 --

Advanced Rate Statistics for NCAA Women’s Volleyball

Or Why Per Set Statistics are Bullsh*t

Pop quiz.

Question 1: How many points is a set in NCAA Division 1 Volleyball?

If you said twenty-five, you are wrong. If you said twenty-five except in a fifth set when it is only fifteen, you are wrong.  If you said it depends, then congratulations you have won the game.

Question 2: Name each team that corresponds to the primary or secondary color referenced in the following table.

Hint: These figures are the average points per set for each Big Ten team last season.

Team Points Per Set
Red 41.12
Blue 42.49
Red 42.50
Red 42.87
Red 42.94
Orange 43.06
Purple 43.19
Yellow 43.23
Red 43.43
Red 43.51
Yellow 43.88
Green 43.96
Red 43.97
Blue 44.29

Answers are at the bottom.

This presents a significant issue when it comes to doing rate statistics.   A four kill per set player at 41.12 points per set would average more than 4.3 kps if they had the same kill rate and played for the last team in the table averaging 44.29 points per set.  A quick look at the current KPS table on NCAA Stats says that’s the difference between being 57th and 34th.  A significant difference.  Additionally, because the gap will widen linearly as the initial numbers grow, the result is that the players at the very top of the chart can be misrepresented to the highest degree.  That’s simply unacceptable when trying to use a statistic to formulate any significant statistical argument.

And that’s not even the worst example I could come up with.

Per Set statistics are meaningless without additional context.  The context that a person would need to supply to make those statistics worthwhile is tedious and time consuming to track and calculate.   This results in volleyball fans and the media continually relying on and relaying statistics that in reality mean very little.

It needs to change, and that’s the purpose of this article and a couple of pages that I’ve now added to the site.  While per set statistics are exceptionally flawed, points are not.  In fact, points applied in the right way can be exceptionally accurate when calculating a rate statistic.

Here are the top ten players on the current(9/15/2018) stats.ncaa.org KPS leaders table.

NCAA Volleyball D1 KPS Leaders 9-15-2018

Here is the same list, but instead of per set, the rates are per point in each team’s games.

Kills Per 100 Points

Rk. Name Team KPP
1 13.8140
2 12.8452
3 11.5678
4 11.4781
5 10.9756
6 10.9277
7 10.8782
8 10.8467
9 10.7735
10 10.6240

There are differences and there can be extreme differences. In fact, with many of the common statistics volleyball fans and the media use, using points is inherently flawed.  When measuring kill rates for players, total points in a match has an inherent flaw.  Specifically, during any match there will inevitably be points wher a player who plays for all rotations will still have no chance to get a kill, namely aces and service errors.

AN: There are caveats beyond this as well. Not every player plays six rotations and there are points beyond aces and service errors during which a player would also by definition not have a chance to get a kill. Rotational errors are the specific issue in this case because I did not have the foresight to track them efficiently in my database and will need to do some significant redesign before I can efficiently account for those points.

Beyond using total points for a rate, simple subtraction can be used measure the rate at which a player gets a kill for every point in play.

This is the table for the statistic named Kills per Point-In-Play.  Original name, I know.

Kills Per 100 Points In Play

Rk. Name Team KPIP
1 16.6556
2 14.8148
3 13.5862
4 13.3621
5 13.2583
6 13.1679
7 12.9555
8 12.6316
9 12.6050
10 12.5421

It’s not even the same list as the original per point list.  While this approach is not currently perfect, it’s still much better than using per set because the denominator of the statistic being calculated means the same thing across all players.  The context per point statistics provide is important because without it volleyball statistics are very nearly meaningless.  An instance of “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” if you will.  Making even incremental progress toward better understanding and knowledge is important.

Measuring virtually every statistic by points played improves it drastically, but Aces and Service Errors per set make the least sense as a statistic.  It is entirely possible to play a set in which a primary server will not serve during the set.  In fact, in fifth sets, it actually isn”t all that rare.  Luckily, NCAA Play-By-Play pages happen to track exactly who serves each point, a fortunate thing in this instance because those pages can be used to get per serve rates for aces, service errors, and service points.

AN: This(A primary server not getting the opportunity to serve.) actually happened to Lauren Stivrins in Set 3 of the Nebraska vs Missouri State less than three hours after I saved my latest draft of this article. Yeah, that happened.

These statistics and more have been made available on each team page as well as Division and Conference leaders.  The leaders are available using the “View Complete Advanced Statistics Leaders” link on each division or conference page.

And that friends, is why per set statistics are bullsh*t.

Answer Key

Top to Bottom: Rutgers, Penn State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Purdue, Michigan State, Ohio State, Michigan

The Best This Year

These are the current all sport rankings for the school year of 2019-2020.
Rk. Team Sport Record MOV DOM ELO EFF SYN PTS ALL
1st ohio st Football 6-0-0 12.8199 13.0010 12.6001 12.8284 12.8582 12.9730 11.8486
2nd north carolina Field Hockey 11-0-0 13.0272 12.6583 12.4698 13.0272 12.7413 14.9542 8.9327
3rd wisconsin Football 6-0-0 12.2027 12.7844 12.3900 12.2118 12.4356 11.3136 12.3262
4th north carolina Women's Soccer 11-1-1 10.6462 12.3487 13.2377 8.5795 12.2707 6.2083 -2.0753
5th stanford Women's Soccer 11-1-0 11.4251 12.2217 12.4347 9.4787 12.1551 7.0921 -2.5355
6th baylor Women's Volleyball 15-0-0 12.2004 12.1725 12.1046 12.1992 12.1306 7.9702 14.8195
7th oregon Football 5-1-0 11.3607 11.8206 12.1851 11.3655 11.7058 9.5786 12.4425
8th alabama Football 6-0-0 11.7141 11.6640 11.2705 11.7179 11.6369 12.7307 9.9397
9th holy cross Ice Hockey 1-0-0 11.5460 11.7546 10.9388 11.5467 11.5679 6.8360 11.3614
10th smu Men's Soccer 10-0-1 10.5127 11.5564 11.8709 7.5227 11.4406 8.4451 -5.5623
11th virginia Women's Soccer 10-0-3 10.6473 11.4355 11.5187 8.6589 11.3238 6.3162 -2.1472
12th virginia Men's Soccer 10-0-1 8.7732 11.2578 12.6990 5.2243 11.1064 7.3883 -5.4400
13th byu Women's Soccer 12-0-1 9.8556 11.1314 11.6644 7.3953 11.0412 6.0661 -2.5348
14th auburn Football 5-1-0 10.7687 10.9961 11.5029 10.7782 11.0330 10.1969 10.6634
15th florida state Women's Soccer 11-2-0 9.2758 11.0128 12.0411 6.8299 10.9681 6.0553 -2.8137
16th washington Men's Soccer 10-1-0 9.3016 11.0627 11.8209 5.7901 10.8897 7.6060 -5.4262
17th georgetown Men's Soccer 9-1-1 9.5229 10.9389 11.6607 6.1529 10.8494 7.8078 -5.4817
18th penn st Football 6-0-0 10.9284 10.8501 10.4606 10.9381 10.8375 10.4665 10.7016
19th oklahoma Football 6-0-0 10.9424 10.6579 10.4182 10.9421 10.7831 12.4342 8.7366
20th usc Women's Soccer 10-1-1 8.9294 10.8213 11.9463 6.2921 10.7670 5.6412 -2.6579
21st south carolina Women's Soccer 11-1-0 9.2048 10.8158 11.6714 6.8624 10.7452 5.5806 -2.3020
22nd st johns Men's Soccer 11-1-0 9.0580 10.7027 11.5855 5.5367 10.6010 6.9623 -4.8676
23rd texas Women's Volleyball 10-2-0 10.7291 10.5948 10.4600 10.7279 10.5799 6.5782 13.4192
24th arkansas Women's Soccer 10-2-1 9.6960 10.5964 10.8153 7.5576 10.4977 5.4982 -1.8592
25th boston college Ice Hockey 1-0-0 12.8649 9.7592 8.9181 12.8637 10.4954 2.0026 18.2697
HuskerGeek
HuskerGeek