Output Win Efficiency


Here is the extension of the FBSO eff post – but applied to all types of touches.

For every contact, we find the resulting Win Efficiency. So for Skjodt’s R+ contacts, Michigan’s FBSO eff here is around .300.  Naturally this flips for Bates’ S- where -0.300 is Wisconsin’s “Point Score” efficiency on that reception to attack by Michigan. This naturally makes sense as the receiving team is typically more likely to win the point on the first possession than is the serving team.

You can glance around and see the logical output efficiences: A# is a kill by Gillis, B= is a Kieffer-Wright getting tooled, and Haggerty blows it trying to set the second ball and loses the point (E=). And it makes sense that these contacts have output eff’s of 1.00 or -1.00; the teams making these contacts will always win or always lose the point on the current possession when the touch is terminal. These are the simple ones.

The interesting ones are the non-terminal touches. Things like receptions, digs, sets, block touches, etc. What I’ve done is found the the Win Eff for each of these. With Jenna Lerg’s perfect freeball pass (F#) to start the possession, Michigan’s Win Eff is around 0.500 when attacking off a F#.. When Haggerty digs Mahlke with a D#, Wisconsin’s Win Eff off a D# is a little above 0.300.

For non-terminal attacks, I find the Output Contact. Possibilities are block touches, dig qualities, and covered balls back to the attacking team. So if we look at that very first attack by Mahlke, the output contact is the B- by Gillis. To calculate the output eff, we look at Michigan’s Win Eff when defending an opponent whose first touch is a B-, which is around 0.050.

Now is the cool part.

An inquisitive mind might argue that a perfect pass against Nebraska might be worth more than a perfect pass against Rutgers (sorry Rutgers). Or that getting a kill on a high ball after a poor pass against Rolfzen twins has more value than a high ball against Rutger’s block/defense. Moral of the story, we need to account for both sides of the equation.

We need to acknowledge that your opponent has an effect on your performance. Illinois may hit .200 on the season, but that number is expected to be higher against worse teams – and lower against the top contenders. To account for this, we average the two sides.

1. How does your team making the contact usually do in this situation against all teams

2. How well do all teams do against your opponent when all teams are in this situation

So if you usually hit .500 on quicks to your middle, but against Penn State teams usually only hit .300 on quicks to your middle – then your “expected Output Eff” would be 0.400.  We account for the contact team’s strengths/weaknesses – but also account for how your opponent affects different situations as well.

We do this based on the entire season’s worth of data so that these expectations aren’t biased by single match highs or lows. So that perfect freeball by Lerg is actually the average of how well Michigan does with a F# and how well all teams do with F# against Wisconsin.

I would argue that this is a better way to look at the value of each touch as it relates to your ability to win or lose the possession.


2 thoughts on “Output Win Efficiency

  1. Pingback: Intro to Efficiency Change | Rethinking Volley

  2. Pingback: Input Win Efficiency | Rethinking Volley

Comments are closed.