Nerdly Nebraska.

2023-2024 HuskerGeek Ratings Leaders

Sport School Rating
ViPR D1 Volleyball Wisconsin 1,711.3731

NESCAC - Conference Overview

Conference Division: Division 3
Rnk. Team Résumé Recent ViPR Adj SP% Adj SO% Adj. Hit Mar.
1st Tufts 1,570.4895 1,561.9612 1,566.2196 60.75 57.38 0.242
2nd Middlebury 1,544.5453 1,539.8597 1,542.2007 63.88 56.42 0.204
3rd Amherst 1,525.6028 1,524.0295 1,524.8159 60.67 55.39 0.184
4th Wesleyan (CT) 1,510.7359 1,507.8384 1,509.2864 59.89 54.75 0.177
5th Bowdoin 1,508.3566 1,502.2688 1,505.3096 58.58 53.01 0.162
6th Williams 1,469.7478 1,466.0998 1,467.9227 57.21 54.15 0.168
7th Hamilton 1,366.3714 1,364.4886 1,365.4297 52.75 50.40 0.046
8th Connecticut Col. 1,361.8844 1,356.6608 1,359.2701 53.53 46.19 0.035
9th Colby 1,360.1231 1,355.2549 1,357.6868 53.41 48.94 0.007
10th Trinity (CT) 1,354.1654 1,346.2598 1,350.2068 55.58 46.10 0.039
11th Bates 1,329.3802 1,322.6938 1,326.0328 57.49 42.16 -0.013

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 0.3068 42.88 12.20 39.50 44.27 3.10 9.68
2nd Middlebury 0.2914 38.93 9.79 34.78 45.52 2.81 10.15
3rd Amherst 0.2777 37.39 9.62 33.87 50.63 2.20 7.05
4th Wesleyan (CT) 0.2721 39.29 12.08 35.89 47.86 3.92 7.09
5th Williams 0.2591 39.55 13.64 36.38 45.39 2.84 10.37
6th Bowdoin 0.2583 38.88 13.05 36.58 49.79 4.52 11.25
7th Hamilton 0.2055 35.79 15.24 32.22 48.58 4.20 9.95
8th Trinity (CT) 0.1809 32.90 14.80 29.43 50.08 4.21 9.38
9th Connecticut Col. 0.1727 31.69 14.42 28.75 54.19 3.43 9.04
10th Colby 0.1608 32.44 16.36 29.48 53.46 5.18 8.99
11th Bates 0.1334 29.39 16.05 26.08 54.51 4.12 10.85

ViPR Division Adjusted Defenses

Rnk. Team O_Hit% O_Kill% O_HE% O_AST% DIG% BLK% O_ACE%
1st Tufts 0.0643 24.96 18.53 23.23 63.51 6.44 5.86
2nd Middlebury 0.0877 25.67 16.90 23.96 59.70 5.40 6.73
3rd Williams 0.0907 27.40 18.33 25.08 58.38 6.12 7.07
4th Amherst 0.0934 24.91 15.57 23.11 63.87 3.91 4.29
5th Wesleyan (CT) 0.0948 25.78 16.30 24.65 64.01 5.46 6.59
6th Bowdoin 0.0964 26.45 16.81 25.48 62.24 5.63 6.67
7th Connecticut Col. 0.1378 29.44 15.65 27.26 56.91 4.05 7.86
8th Trinity (CT) 0.1421 31.35 17.14 28.09 53.35 4.60 9.52
9th Bates 0.1466 30.27 15.61 27.76 54.23 3.67 9.78
10th Colby 0.1538 31.48 16.10 29.43 54.57 5.22 7.98
11th Hamilton 0.1597 32.37 16.40 29.25 53.97 4.38 8.99

Conference Strength

Description Average Remove First and Last Remove Top and Bottom 2 Remove Top and Bottom 3 Composite
Scores 1,443.1256 1,442.4588 1,441.3888 1,441.4437 1,442.1042
Difference -0.6668 -1.7368 -1.6818 -1.3618

Point Totals

Offense Defense
Team Sets S SP SA SE SP% S/SA S/SE OS SPA SAA SEA SO% OS/SAA OS/SEA
Middlebury 95 1,574 972 197 143 61.75 8.0 11.0 1,190 550 139 131 53.78 8.6 9.1
Amherst 76 1,191 707 115 93 59.36 10.4 12.8 886 413 85 123 53.39 10.4 7.2
Tufts 97 1,995 1,102 183 193 55.24 10.9 10.3 1,687 801 134 183 52.52 12.6 9.2
Bowdoin 103 1,214 679 238 215 55.93 5.1 5.6 1,085 533 142 174 50.88 7.6 6.2
Wesleyan (CT) 95 1,495 822 129 98 54.98 11.6 15.3 1,313 651 174 196 50.42 7.5 6.7
Williams 74 874 475 152 187 54.35 5.8 4.7 792 395 115 120 50.13 6.9 6.6
Colby 78 836 451 162 120 53.95 5.2 7.0 825 441 153 176 46.55 5.4 4.7
Hamilton 82 1,528 785 161 194 51.37 9.5 7.9 1,577 819 168 153 48.07 9.4 10.3
Trinity (CT) 87 1,293 689 169 174 53.29 7.7 7.4 1,381 778 189 165 43.66 7.3 8.4
Bates 81 1,357 762 180 145 56.15 7.5 9.4 1,499 901 200 175 39.89 7.5 8.6
Connecticut Col. 70 1,178 612 127 132 51.95 9.3 8.9 1,234 691 139 153 44.00 8.9 8.1
Conference Average 85 1,321 732 165 154 55.30 8.3 9.1 1,224 634 149 159 48.48 8.4 7.7
  • 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

76.70

2021-09-18
Tufts
Wesleyan (CT)
2
3
20
25
25
11
21
25
34
32
13
15
GAME

73.82

2021-10-09
Wesleyan (CT)
Amherst
1
3
20
25
23
25
25
20
24
26
GAME

71.32

2021-10-16
Tufts
Middlebury
3
1
20
25
25
16
25
20
26
24
GAME

70.53

2021-10-30
Amherst
Williams
3
1
24
26
25
20
25
12
26
24
GAME

70.42

2021-10-02 Williamstown, MA
Williams
Tufts
3
2
25
20
25
23
17
25
22
25
15
11
GAME

69.97

2021-10-08
Wesleyan (CT)
Middlebury
3
2
19
25
25
23
15
25
25
22
15
12
GAME

68.96

2021-10-29
Middlebury
Williams
3
0
25
21
25
23
25
17
GAME

68.58

2021-10-29
Amherst
Hamilton
2
3
25
27
25
7
20
25
25
15
13
15
GAME

68.12

2021-10-12
Tufts
Bowdoin
3
0
26
24
25
20
25
22
GAME

68.10

2021-10-15
Tufts
Amherst
3
0
25
18
25
16
25
22

HuskerGeek NESCAC All-Conference

1st Team

Name Team Role
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
S

2nd Team

Name Team Role
A
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 18.9976
2 12.6807
3 11.8662
4 11.7250
5 11.5205
6 11.2175
7 11.0013
8 10.4757
9 9.8855
10 9.3716

Offensive WPA

Rk. Name Team OWPA
1 11.8938
2 7.7552
3 7.1186
4 6.4263
5 6.3496
6 6.2548
7 6.1475
8 6.0457
9 6.0328
10 5.7878

Defensive WPA

Rk. Name Team DWPA
1 11.2127
2 10.5868
3 9.4169
4 7.7114
5 7.6575
6 7.1466
7 7.1038
8 5.9236
9 5.8335
10 5.8332

WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team WPA/S
1 0.2289
2 0.2243
3 0.1877
4 0.1804
5 0.1786
6 0.1772
7 0.1723
8 0.1721
9 0.1715
10 0.1677

Offensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team OWPA/S
1 0.1433
2 0.1263
3 0.1229
4 0.1117
5 0.1113
6 0.1089
7 0.1058
8 0.1053
9 0.1052
10 0.1020

Defensive WPA Per Set

Rk. Name Team DWPA/S
1 0.1811
2 0.1579
3 0.1340
4 0.1298
5 0.1268
6 0.1138
7 0.1102
8 0.1075
9 0.1054
10 0.1054


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