.png)
Reclassifying the Shanked Pass
tl:dr
Shanked passes that the team has to chase down but is kept in play are graded the same way as poor passes that are still playable/ “set-able” (both R-)
However, the two types of passes are clearly not the same in terms of siding out
Those shanked passes will now be coded the same as overpasses (R/) since the sideout % will both be similar (i.e. very low) and the sideout % for poor, but playable, passes should be distinctly higher
This should help me understand who is passing better thus I can make better decisions to enhance the team’s performance because of it.
Current Reception Grades
The way I have graded the pass has evolved over the years and I have settled on the diagram below. Although I like it, I do have one issue with these grading levels. It is that passing attempts that land in the negative zone but is still playable/ “set-able” are graded the same as shanked passes that the team has to chase down but keeps in play. Clearly, these two types of passes are not the same in terms of siding out but both are coded as negative passes (R-). It would be nice if you can differentiate the two types of passes with an additional seventh grade. However, there are only six grades (#+! -/=) and they are all used up.
Reclassifying the Shanked Pass
The way Joe Trinsey, former USA Women’s Scout, and Jeff Liu, current USA Women’s Scout, grade the pass is actually very similar to mine (see below). However, they grade shanked passes the team has to chase down but keeps in play the same as overpasses (R/). Passes that land outside the medium (R!) zone but are still playable/ set-able are still graded as negative passes (R-).
I really like this idea because the sideout percentage of a shanked pass is probably around the same as an overpass (both very low). I’m sure the sideout percentage for a negative but playable pass (R-) is distinctly higher.
I also like the idea of giving the R/ code some more usage. Overpasses accounted for only 3% of all passing attempts for Team SideOut Polonia London (39 out of 1264). Negative passes account for around 24% (305 out of 1264) so we can shift some of those passing attempts into the overpass grade. This may also help stabilise the expected sideout % for these grades. When I do it for individual teams, the sideout percentage for overpasses can be quite high due to fewer attempts.
Changing the Definition Has Consequences
A big issue when you decide to adopt a new definition of grades is it changes how you understand the passing average. Right now, I understand that passing 2.50 is elite level, passing 2.30 is good, and passing 2.00 is on the low side. If we adopt the new definition, some passes that would have been coded as negative (1 point pass) would now be coded as overpasses (0.5 point pass). This will lower the overall passing average. It means I will have to change my reference points of what passing average is elite level. Would it be 2.30 now? Or 2.40?
Another issue is you can’t compare new data to old data. For example, if I wanted to know if a player is passing better in the new season (with the new definitions), compared to last season (the current definitions), then I wouldn’t really know since the passing average would be lower with the new definitions. Also, if I wanted to write up a study regarding passing and its grades then I can’t combine new season data with old season data since they are not defined the same way.
Adopting the Change
This is a change I will adopt. The main reason is it should help me understand who is passing better and I can make better decisions to enhance the team’s performance because of it. If I do need a performance indicator to compare passing performance across seasons then I can use the Positive Passing % [= (Perfect + Positive Passes)/ Total Attempts] or even a Passing In-Play % [= 1-(Passing Errors/ Total Attempts)].
So the new passing zones will look like the diagram below. I have already started to use it during the Small Countries Association Men’s Championships 2023 (see link). I did think that I was mixing up the grading levels of R!, R- and R/. I think it was because the level of passing during the tournament was high so I didn’t code too many shanked passes (R/) and playable passes (R-). However, when I checked the R/ and R- attempts via video, I did code them correctly.
Comments