I ran with the same idea as passer efficiency as a function of points, but this time looking at attackers and how well they perform at different segments in the set. I rarely use Wisconsin in posts, so I figured they could use a little love.
We see some similar trends as with the passers. Some start slow and get better (hi Molly Haggerty) while others drop off at the end (looking at your Carlini)…
But if you’re Wisconsin – or a team stuck playing them – knowing on average how well each attacker does may help you tailor your strategy. So if I’m Kelly Sheffield, I’m having a conversation with LC about dumping earlier in sets rather than later – possibly because this frees up her attackers later in sets as defenses adjust to slow down the dump? It’s also good to notice that both middles get red hot at the end of the set – so maybe it’s worth scheming with your blockers to better handle this or maybe you need to put greater value on tough serving against Wisconsin late in sets.
I don’t want to extrapolate too aggressively from such an aggregated viewpoint, but the ability to track trends of attackers in this fashion may prove useful during both the scouting and match adjustments phases of competition. At the end of the day, you’re just playing the numbers. Maybe you look at this and ignore Carlini a little more at the end of sets and she ends up getting a kill. Obviously the first step is to scream at the assistant coaches for making such a stupid adjustment, but after a late night film/beer sesh you realize that the numbers fluctuate above and below the average (that’s why the center is the average…) and you breathe a sigh of relief knowing that it was just Carlini’s night, as it usually is. She’ll regress to her average, be patient.