A New Way to Evaluate Volleyball Setting

• Facebook

• Instagram

• Twitter

• Mail

• YouTube

• WordPress

I have previously written about the problems of evaluating the art of setting in volleyball.  Below is a quick recap.

Weaknesses to Current Setting Evaluations

I found three options on how setting can be evaluated:

1. Based on location.  A good setter should be able to set the ball not too short or too long and not too close or far from the net.

2. Based on assists like the NCAA and Olympics.  An assist is a set attempt that results in a kill.  A good setter should be able to set the ball that increases the chance of a kill.

3. Based on number of opposition blockers.  A good setter should be able to disguise their sets as to create more 1v1 or 1v0 attacker vs blocker situations.

So for me, option 2 is the lesser of two evils.  Despite the weakness, a good setter will do all the things that results in a kill, e.g. move well to set the ball, set the ball where the attacker likes it, set at a higher tempo, set to their go-to hitters, set to who is running hot, run frequent combination plays etc. which all accumulates into increasing the probability of a kill.

New Way to Evaluate Setting

Now, I have just seen a fourth way to evaluate the art of setting by Coach Rey.  It is to do with the number of options an attacker has.  Coach Rey suggests rating setting on a four point scale:

3 points – a setter receives for a perfect set. A perfect set allows 3 hitting options (line, angle, roll/tip) 2 points – a set that only allows 2 hitting options. For example, an inside set typically only allows the hitter angle or roll/tip 1 point – a set that only allows 1 hitting option. Typically, this would be a tight set that only allows the hitter to tip over the block 0 point – a setting error (such as a double contact)

I really like this system because it deals with the weaknesses of the assist system.  It does not rely on what your attacker does but you still done your job if the set is perfect.  Also, it largely negates the preceding pass or dig weakness because you can still set the perfect set when the ball is not perfect.  I do something like this already so I’m surprised why I didn’t think of this already!

thevolleyballanalyst Provisional Setting Evaluation

So here is what I would probably do:

4 points – excellent set.  This set allows all hitting options, i.e. power, line, angle, roll/tip. 3 points – good set.  This set allows limited hitting options. 2 points – poor set.  This set allows one hitting option, typically a tight set where attacker can only tip the ball over. 1 point – free ball set.  This set allows no hitting options, i.e. the set is so bad it results in a free ball. 0 point – assist error.  This set results in a point lost, i.e. ball handling error.

I’ve made a couple of changes.  I change from “three” to “all” hitting options.  The attack attempt should also have the option to be hit with power.  It deals with sets that is too far off the net which the previous wording didn’t.  I also made it a five point scale so it is in line with the other technical skills.  The extra point is free ball set.  This is something I stat already.  I like it because those sets are not currently counted when it should be counted.  Full operational definitions will come but only after practice when I face those grey areas that I couldn’t imagine now.

Conclusion

So I will probably use the above system to evaluate the skill of setting from next season.  If I do use it, I can already see how it will add even more analysis time because I know I will have to continually rewind and watch those sets again.