Nerdly Nebraska.

2023-2024 HuskerGeek Ratings Leaders

Sport School Rating
ViPR D1 Volleyball Wisconsin 1,711.3731

NECC - Conference Overview

Conference Division: Division 3
Rnk. Team Résumé Recent ViPR Adj SP% Adj SO% Adj. Hit Mar.
1st Eastern Nazarene 1,208.5583 1,239.8904 1,224.1241 42.52 50.76 -0.077
2nd Elms 1,144.0102 1,185.5082 1,164.5744 41.98 45.54 -0.139
3rd Southern Vt. 1,114.7871 1,164.0161 1,139.1357 40.14 46.04 -0.136
4th New England Col. 1,096.2115 1,134.1482 1,115.0185 37.87 45.07 -0.165
5th Becker 1,016.9040 1,058.8894 1,037.6844 35.99 40.18 -0.239
6th Bay Path 916.9459 972.9044 944.5108 32.24 33.89 -0.337
7th Newbury 915.5124 963.2900 939.0974 29.52 36.13 -0.354
8th Mitchell 911.1374 953.3206 931.9904 29.36 34.67 -0.317
9th Lesley 899.6987 950.2937 924.6502 29.06 34.44 -0.318

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 Eastern Nazarene 0.1297 27.57 14.60 25.83 60.49 4.00 8.48
2nd Elms 0.0843 24.69 16.26 22.95 62.47 4.05 7.39
3rd Southern Vt. 0.0662 22.80 16.18 21.00 66.28 4.44 9.02
4th New England Col. 0.0546 25.11 19.65 22.42 61.10 4.25 7.10
5th Becker 0.0143 16.51 15.08 15.27 75.93 4.84 7.04
6th Lesley -0.0054 20.71 21.25 19.07 67.28 4.84 5.29
7th Mitchell -0.0101 19.41 20.41 17.15 69.46 4.18 5.12
8th Newbury -0.0474 14.87 19.61 13.67 74.04 4.29 4.34
9th Bay Path -0.0511 19.10 24.20 17.39 68.09 5.46 5.00

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st Southern Vt. 0.2017 36.28 16.11 33.90 52.12 3.03 9.48
2nd Eastern Nazarene 0.2070 35.74 15.05 33.50 51.70 2.89 10.52
3rd New England Col. 0.2200 37.84 15.83 35.10 48.80 2.95 13.01
4th Elms 0.2235 35.24 12.89 33.27 54.20 2.22 12.12
5th Becker 0.2535 38.32 12.97 35.73 50.83 2.54 12.81
6th Bay Path 0.2858 42.64 14.06 39.72 47.09 2.93 16.14
7th Mitchell 0.3067 43.77 13.10 39.78 45.31 1.31 15.73
8th Newbury 0.3067 43.10 12.43 40.09 46.31 1.28 14.31
9th Lesley 0.3121 43.43 12.22 39.15 43.40 2.28 18.39

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,046.7540 1,038.8588 1,035.0894 1,032.4046 1,038.2767
Difference -7.8952 -11.6646 -14.3494 -11.3031

Point Totals

Offense Defense
Team Sets S SP SA SE SP% S/SA S/SE OS SPA SAA SEA SO% OS/SAA OS/SEA
Eastern Nazarene 90 2,041 1,115 270 178 54.63 7.6 11.5 1,660 710 159 182 57.23 10.4 9.1
Elms 79 1,780 975 211 156 54.78 8.4 11.4 1,532 707 164 187 53.85 9.3 8.2
Southern Vt. 99 2,093 1,111 313 256 53.08 6.7 8.2 1,854 858 155 204 53.72 12.0 9.1
Becker 89 1,692 869 257 144 51.36 6.6 11.8 1,638 818 206 204 50.06 8.0 8.0
New England Col. 117 2,390 1,176 278 249 49.21 8.6 9.6 2,360 1,151 295 293 51.23 8.0 8.1
Bay Path 66 1,032 476 162 151 46.12 6.4 6.8 1,250 701 206 181 43.92 6.1 6.9
Lesley 74 1,330 581 147 172 43.68 9.0 7.7 1,690 961 287 166 43.14 5.9 10.2
Newbury 65 1,193 502 112 115 42.08 10.7 10.4 1,536 866 195 176 43.62 7.9 8.7
Mitchell 69 1,193 497 141 198 41.66 8.5 6.0 1,557 885 219 147 43.16 7.1 10.6
Conference Average 83 1,638 811 210 180 48.51 8.0 9.3 1,675 851 210 193 48.88 8.3 8.8
  • 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 NECC

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

57.34

2018-11-04 Quincy, Mass.
Eastern Nazarene
Southern Vt.
1
3
21
25
23
25
25
14
26
28
GAME

56.56

2018-10-24 Quincy, Mass.
Eastern Nazarene
New England Col.
2
3
21
25
25
20
25
21
21
25
11
15
GAME

56.34

2018-11-02 Chicopee, Mass.
Elms
Southern Vt.
2
3
18
25
25
23
25
15
21
25
12
15
GAME

55.55

2018-10-06 Henniker, N.H.
New England Col.
Elms
2
3
17
25
25
21
23
25
25
20
7
15
GAME

55.05

2018-10-17 Chicopee, Mass.
Elms
Southern Vt.
3
1
18
25
25
16
25
22
25
23
GAME

52.71

2018-10-13 New London, CT
Mitchell
Becker
1
3
22
25
21
25
29
27
22
25
GAME

52.31

2018-10-27 SVC: Bennington, Vt.
Southern Vt.
Eastern Nazarene
2
3
15
25
19
25
25
19
25
20
12
15
GAME

51.62

2018-11-02 Quincy, Mass.
Eastern Nazarene
New England Col.
3
0
25
11
25
18
25
15
GAME

51.60

2018-09-29 Leicester, Mass.
Becker
Eastern Nazarene
0
3
10
25
11
25
23
25
GAME

51.50

2018-10-30 Henniker, N.H.
New England Col.
Becker
3
2
25
19
25
20
26
28
21
25
15
10

HuskerGeek NECC All-Conference

1st Team

Name Team Role
A
A
A
A
D
D
S

2nd Team

Name Team Role
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

Defensive Player of the Year

Rank Name Team
1
2
3
4
5

WPA

Rk. Name Team WPA
1 19.7178
2 16.9525
3 15.0565
4 14.9402
5 14.6523
6 13.9230
7 13.2345
8 12.9841
9 12.8858
10 11.8777

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 13.3220
2 9.9141
3 9.5895
4 7.5383
5 5.6868
6 5.3795
7 5.3003
8 5.0879
9 4.8512
10 4.7368

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 14.0669
2 13.2125
3 10.5842
4 9.9182
5 9.7133
6 9.4142
7 8.6227
8 8.2177
9 7.7916
10 7.7005

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.2266
2 0.2121
3 0.1840
4 0.1832
5 0.1785
6 0.1686
7 0.1660
8 0.1652
9 0.1634
10 0.1570

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1531
2 0.1351
3 0.1102
4 0.0841
5 0.0808
6 0.0702
7 0.0698
8 0.0680
9 0.0656
10 0.0623

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.1735
2 0.1694
3 0.1465
4 0.1426
5 0.1375
6 0.1321
7 0.1245
8 0.1105
9 0.1097
10 0.1045


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