.png)
Measuring Point-Scoring Performance
tl:dr
You can measure point-scoring performance via Points Scored Per Set, Points Won-Lost Differential, Points Won-Lost Efficiency Ratio, and Point-Scoring Efficiency %
I would avoid using Points Scored Per Set and Points Won-Lost Differential to compare point-scoring performances because it doesn’t normalise the data properly, e.g. your most effective point-scorer could never achieve a high points scored per set average or points won-lost differential if they had limited opportunities to score points
Points Won-Lost Efficiency Ratio is a good way to measure point-scoring performance, especially if you don’t record all point-scoring attempts such as all block touches and free ball attempts
Using the Points-Scoring Efficiency % is the best way to measure point-scoring performance as it takes into account total point-scoring attempts
Introduction
Point scoring is the skill most critical to winning in volleyball (see link and link). It makes sense because to win tournaments, cups, or leagues, you need to win matches. To win a match, you have to win three sets. To win a set, you have to score 25 points before your opponent does. So it makes sense that the ability to score points, and not lose points via errors, is critical to winning in volleyball. So what is the best way to measure point-scoring performance?
Point-Scoring Basics
Point-scoring includes all the point-scoring actions of attack, serve, block, and free balls. It might seem odd to include free balls as a point-scoring skill but it would include those tricky free balls into deep 1 or 5 or short into zone 2 that scores. Point-scoring also includes error actions of setting and free ball digs. I don’t include reception errors as a point lost because I do class them as forced errors (since the server earned the point) and points lost should only include unforced errors (see link to read more). You could exclude attacked stuffed as a point lost since they should be classed as a forced error (the blocker earned the point). This is something I may do in the future (see link to read more). The basic point-scoring calculations can be found below.
Points Scored = Attack Kills + Aces + Block Kills + Free Ball Kills
Points Lost = Attack Errors + Attacks Stuffed + Service Errors + Block Errors + Free Ball Errors + Setting Errors + Free Ball Dig Errors.
Points Scored Per Set
Points Scored Per Set = Points Scored/ Sets Played
Points Scored Per Set is the average number of points scored per set. The idea is the bigger the resulting average, the better the point-scoring performance. The advantage of this performance indicator is it is easy to understand for players and coaches and it is commonly used.
However, I would say it is a poor way to measure point-scoring performance. The first issue is you want to consider both points scored and points lost. A player could have a 4.00 points scored per set average, which could be considered good. However, if they had a 5.00 points lost per set average, then they are losing 1 point per set on average. They are actually hurting the team.
The biggest issue is it doesn’t take into account total point-scoring attempts. In the table below, you might think that Player A had a better point-scoring performance compared to Player B (4 points per set vs 1). However, maybe Player B is a serving sub who managed to get 5 aces whereas Player A is the main outside hitter who played the entire match. Player B did extremely well to get 5 aces coming off the bench whereas Player B had plenty of point-scoring opportunities to increase their points per set average. So an average point-scorer could have a high points scored per set average simply because they had the most opportunities to score points. Conversely, your most effective point-scorer could never achieve a high points scored per set average if they had limited opportunities to score points. Click on this link to read further why I don’t really like Per Set Averages.
Points Won-Lost Differential
Points Won-Lost Differential = Points Scored – Points Lost
The Points Won-Lost Differential is the difference between Points Scored and Points Lost. You want to have a resulting positive number, as it means a player or team scored more points than the errors they committed. It has the advantage that it is easy to understand for players and coaches and it is commonly used. It has the advantage over the points scored per set because it takes into account both points scored and points lost.
However, the Points Won-Lost Differential is still not the best way to measure point-scoring performance. We may expect that the bigger the differential, the better the performance. However, this may not always be the case. If you look at the table below, which player performed better? Player A has a bigger differential compared to Player B (+10 vs +5) so you might think Player A did better. However, Player B didn’t commit any errors, which should count for something. Also, maybe Player B only had 5 point-scoring attempts and all 5 attempts resulted in a point won. That’s a 100% point-scoring rate. Also, maybe Player A got a +10 over a 5-set match whereas Player B did it in one set. So it is not so easy to know which player had the better point-scoring performance because it doesn’t normalise the data properly. This is not what you want in a We may expect that the bigger the differential, the better the performance. However, this may not always be the case. If you look at the table below, which player performed better? Player A has a bigger differential compared to Player B (+10 vs +5) so you might think Player A did better. However, Player B didn’t commit any errors, which should count for something. Also, maybe Player B only had 5 point-scoring attempts and all 5 attempts resulted in a point won. That’s a 100% point-scoring rate. Also, maybe Player A got a +10 over a 5-set match whereas Player B did it in one set. So it is not so easy to know which player had the better point-scoring performance because it doesn’t normalise the data properly. This is not what you want in a performance indicator. . You can read more on why I don’t like this performance indicator on this You can read more on why I don’t like this performance indicator on this link. .
Points Won-Lost Efficiency Ratio
Points Won-Lost Efficiency Ratio = Points Scored/ Points Lost
The Points Won-Lost Efficiency Ratio is the ratio of points scored and points lost. The resulting number reads like the number of points scored for every point lost. You want to have a result of 1.00+, which means a player or team scored more points than the errors they committed.
The Efficiency Ratio has the advantage over the Differential because it normalises the data better. In the table below, you can see that Player C has a lower Points Won-Lost Differential compared to Player A (+6 vs +10) but Player C scored more points for every error committed compared to Player A (2.25 vs 2.00). So it is easier to say that Player C had the better point-scoring performance.
Point-Scoring Efficiency %
Point-Scoring Efficiency % = (Points Scored – Points Lost)/ Total Point-Scoring Attempts
The Point-Scoring Efficiency % is the percentage of point-scoring attempts that result in a net point won. You can also think of it as the difference between a point-scored rate and a point-lost rate. You may have noticed it is essentially the same calculation as a Hitting %. You want to have a resulting positive %, as it means a player or team scored more points than the errors they committed.
The Point-Scoring Efficiency % has the advantage over the Efficiency Ratio because it takes into account total point-scoring attempts. In the table below, you can see both Player A and Player D scored 20 points and committed 10 errors. This means they both have the exact same Differential and Efficiency Ratio. However, since Player D only needed half the point-scoring attempts compared to Player B (50 vs 100) to score the same number of points, Player D did twice as well compared to Player A (20% vs 10%).
Final Thoughts
Using the Points-Scoring Efficiency % is the best way to measure point-scoring performance as it takes into account total point-scoring attempts. Points Won-Lost Efficiency Ratio is a close second, especially if you don’t record all point-scoring attempts, such as all free ball or all block attempts. I would not use the Points Won-Lost Differential to compare point-scoring performances. I would avoid using Points (Scored) Per Set at all costs because it doesn’t properly reflect how good the point-scoring performance was as several factors can affect that average. I would avoid using Points (Scored) Per Set at all costs because it doesn’t properly reflect how good the point-scoring performance was as several factors can affect that average.
Comments