Nerdly Nebraska.
2023-2024 HuskerGeek Ratings Leaders
Sport | School | Rating |
---|---|---|
ViPR D1 Volleyball | Wisconsin | 1,711.3731 |
Sport | School | Rating |
---|---|---|
ViPR D1 Volleyball | Wisconsin | 1,711.3731 |
Rnk. | Team | Résumé | Recent | ViPR | Adj SP% | Adj SO% | Adj. Hit Mar. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1st | Johns Hopkins | 1,598.2189 | 1,595.5780 | 1,596.8979 | 64.48 | 58.09 | 0.297 |
2nd | Haverford | 1,448.0315 | 1,445.0401 | 1,446.5350 | 54.36 | 56.39 | 0.138 |
3rd | Gettysburg | 1,431.9803 | 1,425.6252 | 1,428.7992 | 55.07 | 51.55 | 0.133 |
4th | Swarthmore | 1,429.4914 | 1,418.8642 | 1,424.1679 | 50.71 | 53.80 | 0.094 |
5th | Dickinson | 1,416.2606 | 1,416.3679 | 1,416.3143 | 61.90 | 46.90 | 0.105 |
6th | Franklin & Marshall | 1,412.4711 | 1,412.0616 | 1,412.2663 | 60.70 | 40.97 | 0.116 |
7th | Muhlenberg | 1,331.0664 | 1,326.9397 | 1,329.0014 | 52.74 | 49.17 | -0.014 |
8th | McDaniel | 1,312.9580 | 1,311.5350 | 1,312.2463 | 49.55 | 49.90 | 0.013 |
9th | Ursinus | 1,258.5890 | 1,253.7986 | 1,256.1915 | 53.66 | 44.69 | -0.067 |
10th | Washington Col. | 1,251.7884 | 1,246.4273 | 1,249.1050 | 50.62 | 40.67 | -0.044 |
11th | Bryn Mawr | 1,092.2515 | 1,084.9085 | 1,088.5738 | 45.49 | 37.33 | -0.290 |
ViPR Adjusted Offenses and Defenses are adjusted to expected values against an average team in the same division.
Rnk. | Team | Hit% | Kill% | HE% | AST% | O_DIG% | O_BLK% | ACE% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1st | Johns Hopkins | 0.3305 | 45.68 | 12.63 | 40.57 | 39.30 | 3.75 | 12.01 |
2nd | Haverford | 0.2417 | 38.21 | 14.04 | 35.25 | 47.13 | 3.91 | 11.07 |
3rd | Gettysburg | 0.2334 | 36.94 | 13.60 | 34.53 | 48.58 | 2.97 | 8.67 |
4th | Swarthmore | 0.2249 | 36.68 | 14.19 | 31.69 | 50.09 | 3.08 | 10.68 |
5th | Dickinson | 0.2211 | 35.88 | 13.77 | 32.55 | 54.89 | 4.10 | 9.59 |
6th | McDaniel | 0.1964 | 35.15 | 15.50 | 32.33 | 46.62 | 5.50 | 9.55 |
7th | Franklin & Marshall | 0.1938 | 34.20 | 14.81 | 30.82 | 47.20 | 3.08 | 14.26 |
8th | Ursinus | 0.1309 | 30.20 | 17.10 | 27.47 | 55.70 | 4.00 | 10.04 |
9th | Washington Col. | 0.1301 | 31.50 | 18.48 | 29.00 | 52.67 | 5.00 | 9.59 |
10th | Muhlenberg | 0.1238 | 29.79 | 17.40 | 27.23 | 54.82 | 3.11 | 9.23 |
11th | Bryn Mawr | -0.0085 | 18.86 | 19.70 | 17.45 | 67.34 | 4.45 | 8.13 |
Rnk. | Team | O_Hit% | O_Kill% | O_HE% | O_AST% | DIG% | BLK% | O_ACE% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1st | Johns Hopkins | 0.0335 | 23.75 | 20.39 | 21.87 | 61.37 | 6.73 | 6.69 |
2nd | Franklin & Marshall | 0.0782 | 25.53 | 17.71 | 22.87 | 59.12 | 5.27 | 7.40 |
3rd | Gettysburg | 0.1005 | 27.73 | 17.68 | 26.12 | 58.55 | 5.47 | 7.82 |
4th | Haverford | 0.1042 | 27.58 | 17.16 | 26.01 | 58.05 | 5.87 | 6.72 |
5th | Dickinson | 0.1166 | 28.48 | 16.82 | 26.20 | 56.68 | 5.92 | 7.44 |
6th | Swarthmore | 0.1308 | 29.42 | 16.34 | 27.23 | 57.00 | 2.74 | 8.70 |
7th | Muhlenberg | 0.1375 | 29.91 | 16.16 | 27.88 | 55.66 | 2.74 | 8.53 |
8th | Washington Col. | 0.1745 | 35.10 | 17.65 | 32.42 | 50.21 | 5.51 | 10.97 |
9th | McDaniel | 0.1839 | 34.11 | 15.73 | 30.38 | 52.50 | 3.40 | 7.89 |
10th | Ursinus | 0.1975 | 35.71 | 15.96 | 33.53 | 51.11 | 3.28 | 11.73 |
11th | Bryn Mawr | 0.2818 | 41.37 | 13.19 | 38.40 | 46.12 | 0.87 | 12.87 |
Description | Average | Remove First and Last | Remove Top and Bottom 2 | Remove Top and Bottom 3 | Composite |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scores | 1,360.0090 | 1,363.8474 | 1,368.4267 | 1,378.7992 | 1,367.7706 |
Difference | 3.8385 | 8.4177 | 18.7903 | 10.3488 |
Offense | Defense | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Team | Sets | S | SP | SA | SE | SP% | S/SA | S/SE | OS | SPA | SAA | SEA | SO% | OS/SAA | OS/SEA |
Johns Hopkins | 109 | 1,983 | 1,169 | 259 | 210 | 58.95 | 7.7 | 9.4 | 1,502 | 682 | 150 | 182 | 54.59 | 10.0 | 8.3 |
Dickinson | 79 | 1,194 | 721 | 145 | 159 | 60.39 | 8.2 | 7.5 | 1,070 | 590 | 143 | 147 | 44.86 | 7.5 | 7.3 |
Haverford | 107 | 1,795 | 919 | 218 | 221 | 51.20 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 1,653 | 776 | 173 | 201 | 53.06 | 9.6 | 8.2 |
Gettysburg | 84 | 1,050 | 560 | 142 | 158 | 53.33 | 7.4 | 6.6 | 1,007 | 522 | 147 | 126 | 48.16 | 6.9 | 8.0 |
Muhlenberg | 82 | 1,102 | 591 | 155 | 100 | 53.63 | 7.1 | 11.0 | 1,096 | 573 | 174 | 180 | 47.72 | 6.3 | 6.1 |
Ursinus | 73 | 1,394 | 765 | 160 | 152 | 54.88 | 8.7 | 9.2 | 1,423 | 794 | 190 | 149 | 44.20 | 7.5 | 9.6 |
Swarthmore | 76 | 1,012 | 472 | 152 | 129 | 46.64 | 6.7 | 7.8 | 1,018 | 498 | 163 | 173 | 51.08 | 6.2 | 5.9 |
Franklin & Marshall | 91 | 1,073 | 627 | 231 | 225 | 58.43 | 4.6 | 4.8 | 1,084 | 664 | 163 | 163 | 38.75 | 6.7 | 6.7 |
McDaniel | 87 | 1,214 | 587 | 163 | 298 | 48.35 | 7.4 | 4.1 | 1,338 | 695 | 177 | 187 | 48.06 | 7.6 | 7.2 |
Washington Col. | 76 | 688 | 362 | 175 | 184 | 52.62 | 3.9 | 3.7 | 810 | 486 | 192 | 131 | 40.00 | 4.2 | 6.2 |
Bryn Mawr | 71 | 945 | 496 | 149 | 139 | 52.49 | 6.3 | 6.8 | 1,168 | 709 | 200 | 208 | 39.30 | 5.8 | 5.6 |
Conference Average | 85 | 1,223 | 661 | 177 | 180 | 53.72 | 6.9 | 7.2 | 1,197 | 635 | 170 | 168 | 46.34 | 7.1 | 7.2 |
|
|
|
Game Link | EPIC | Game Date | Location | Teams | Sets | Set 1 | Set 2 | Set 3 | Set 4 | Set 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GAME |
70.29 |
2021-11-06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GAME |
68.48 |
2021-09-29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GAME |
66.69 |
2021-11-06 | Baltimore, MD |
|
|
|
|
|
||
GAME |
65.04 |
2021-09-25 | Haverford, Pa. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GAME |
64.89 |
2021-11-07 | Baltimore, MD |
|
|
|
|
|
||
GAME |
64.77 |
2021-10-13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GAME |
64.56 |
2021-10-02 | Swarthmore, Pa. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GAME |
64.47 |
2021-10-02 | Haverford, Pa. |
|
|
|
|
|
||
GAME |
64.34 |
2021-10-09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
GAME |
63.63 |
2021-09-29 |
|
|
|
|
|
Name | Team | Role |
---|---|---|
Abby Holland | Haverford | A |
Anna Jezerski | McDaniel | A |
Taylor Jones | Haverford | A |
Emma Lange | Dickinson | A |
Elayna Williams | Johns Hopkins | A |
Juliet Young | Haverford | D |
Kaylee Zhang | Swarthmore | D |
Jordan Schucker | Dickinson | S |
Rank | Name | Team |
---|---|---|
1 | Natalie Aston | Johns Hopkins |
2 | Simone Bliss | Johns Hopkins |
3 | Zanze Kuba-McCoy | Gettysburg |
4 | Sara Hunsberger | Haverford |
5 | Danielle Norman | Johns Hopkins |
Rank | Name | Team |
---|---|---|
1 | Simone Bliss | Johns Hopkins |
2 | Zanze Kuba-McCoy | Gettysburg |
3 | Danielle Norman | Johns Hopkins |
4 | Anna Jezerski | McDaniel |
5 | Eleni Panagopoulos | Johns Hopkins |
Rank | Name | Team |
---|---|---|
1 | Natalie Aston | Johns Hopkins |
2 | Sara Hunsberger | Haverford |
3 | Jordan Schucker | Dickinson |
4 | Dani Pena | Swarthmore |
5 | Rachel Bernard | Ursinus |
Rank | Name | Team |
---|---|---|
1 | Sarah Khan | Johns Hopkins |
2 | Juliet Young | Haverford |
3 | Alyssa Faville | Muhlenberg |
4 | Christina Chu | Dickinson |
5 | Jenna Schumann | Dickinson |
Rk. | Name | Team | WPA |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Natalie Aston | Johns Hopkins | 16.9858 |
2 | Juliet Young | Haverford | 14.0090 |
3 | Sara Hunsberger | Haverford | 13.6438 |
4 | Anna Jezerski | McDaniel | 12.7568 |
5 | Zanze Kuba-McCoy | Gettysburg | 12.2020 |
6 | Taylor Jones | Haverford | 9.3905 |
7 | Danielle Norman | Johns Hopkins | 8.7400 |
8 | Alyssa Faville | Muhlenberg | 8.3901 |
9 | Emma Eglinton | Muhlenberg | 8.3192 |
10 | Sarah Khan | Johns Hopkins | 8.1822 |
Rk. | Name | Team | OWPA |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Natalie Aston | Johns Hopkins | 11.1686 |
2 | Anna Jezerski | McDaniel | 8.3414 |
3 | Zanze Kuba-McCoy | Gettysburg | 7.3972 |
4 | Sara Hunsberger | Haverford | 6.9842 |
5 | Dina Kosyagin | Haverford | 6.4591 |
6 | Taylor Jones | Haverford | 6.1891 |
7 | Emma Lange | Dickinson | 5.3032 |
8 | Simone Bliss | Johns Hopkins | 5.2173 |
9 | Eleni Panagopoulos | Johns Hopkins | 5.1033 |
10 | Danielle Norman | Johns Hopkins | 4.6783 |
Rk. | Name | Team | DWPA |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Juliet Young | Haverford | 13.4556 |
2 | Sarah Khan | Johns Hopkins | 7.2152 |
3 | Alyssa Faville | Muhlenberg | 6.9458 |
4 | Chelsea O'Leary | Gettysburg | 6.8211 |
5 | Sara Hunsberger | Haverford | 6.6596 |
6 | Carlita Bozzo | Franklin & Marshall | 6.6056 |
7 | Christina Chu | Dickinson | 6.3121 |
8 | Sierra Tyson | Swarthmore | 6.2366 |
9 | Natalie Aston | Johns Hopkins | 5.8171 |
10 | Jenna Schumann | Dickinson | 5.2430 |
Rk. | Name | Team | WPA/S |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Zanze Kuba-McCoy | Gettysburg | 0.2653 |
2 | Natalie Aston | Johns Hopkins | 0.2265 |
3 | Anna Jezerski | McDaniel | 0.2025 |
4 | Simone Bliss | Johns Hopkins | 0.1952 |
5 | Sara Hunsberger | Haverford | 0.1844 |
6 | Alyssa Faville | Muhlenberg | 0.1748 |
7 | Juliet Young | Haverford | 0.1730 |
8 | Kaylee Zhang | Swarthmore | 0.1708 |
9 | Emma Eglinton | Muhlenberg | 0.1631 |
10 | Dani Pena | Swarthmore | 0.1533 |
Rk. | Name | Team | OWPA/S |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Zanze Kuba-McCoy | Gettysburg | 0.1608 |
2 | Natalie Aston | Johns Hopkins | 0.1489 |
3 | Anna Jezerski | McDaniel | 0.1324 |
4 | Simone Bliss | Johns Hopkins | 0.1304 |
5 | Dani Pena | Swarthmore | 0.1120 |
6 | Emma Lange | Dickinson | 0.0982 |
7 | Sara Hunsberger | Haverford | 0.0944 |
8 | Jordan Schucker | Dickinson | 0.0820 |
9 | Kaylee Zhang | Swarthmore | 0.0810 |
10 | Dina Kosyagin | Haverford | 0.0797 |
Rk. | Name | Team | DWPA/S |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Juliet Young | Haverford | 0.1661 |
2 | Alyssa Faville | Muhlenberg | 0.1447 |
3 | Chelsea O'Leary | Gettysburg | 0.1421 |
4 | Sierra Tyson | Swarthmore | 0.1417 |
5 | Carlita Bozzo | Franklin & Marshall | 0.1270 |
6 | Christina Chu | Dickinson | 0.1214 |
7 | Sarah Khan | Johns Hopkins | 0.1127 |
8 | Zanze Kuba-McCoy | Gettysburg | 0.1045 |
9 | Thandie Eversley | Bryn Mawr | 0.1038 |
10 | Jenna Schumann | Dickinson | 0.0989 |
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.