.png)
Should a Reception Error Be Considered a Point Lost?
tl:dr
Reception errors are traditionally considered as points lost but it shouldn’t, because:
Reception errors are forced errors, thus not a point lost, as I consider the server winning the point, rather than the passer losing the point
You want each rally to be worth 1 point but reception errors are worth 2 points as it’s -1 to the passer and +1 to the server
It creates a better level playing ground to compare players’ point-scoring performance as reception errors will unfairly lower passers’ point-scoring stats
The reasons to keep reception errors as points lost are weak (although it was written by me) and they can be overcome
Should a Reception Error Be Considered a Point Lost?
A reception error is considered a point lost or a -1 in the point-scoring stats. As far as I’m aware, it’s always been that way. However, an article by Mark Lebedew has me questioning whether this should be the case, i.e. whether it should be considered a point lost. We have a framework for how we measure volleyball performance but we can always make it better. I recently reclassified how I graded the shanked pass and how I defined the defence grading levels. If we have better stats, we can make better decisions to enhance performance.
So I will look at both arguments of whether we should consider a reception error as a point lost. If you didn’t know, a reception error is a reception (or passing) attempt that directly results in losing the rally. A reception error is charged to a player if:
The serve strikes the floor in the area of the closest player.
The player passes the serve but it cannot be kept in play by his or her team.
The player is called for a ball handling violation by the referee, i.e. lift, double hit.
The team is out of rotation.
Why Reception Errors Should Not Be Considered Points Lost
Reception Errors are Forced Errors, Thus Not a Point Lost
Mark Lebedew makes an argument that points are either earned via good actions of the player or they are lost via poor actions of a player, i.e. unforced errors. Earned points should be included in the points scored stats and unforced errors should be included in the points lost stats. So earned points lead to forced errors and unforced errors lead to unearned points. By this logic, you cannot have an earned point that leads to an unforced error. If you accept this premise, a reception error treats this situation as if there was an earned point (the service ace) that leads to an unforced error (the reception error). To put it another way, either the server won the point or the passer lost the point – it cannot be both.
So which one is it? Is the ace an earned point (+1) and the reception error a forced error (+0) or is the reception error an unforced error (-1) and the ace an unearned point (+0)? It depends on your viewpoint. I will put forward the perspective that servers earned the point rather than passers lost the point. This is especially true when I see the big jump top-spin serves or the nasty jump float serves. This would mean reception errors are forced errors so it should not be considered as points lost or true errors.
Each Rally Should be Worth 1 Point But Reception Errors are Worth 2 Points
When an error is charged to a player, it is worth -1 in the point-scoring stats. However, when a reception error is charged to a player, then it is worth 2 points. This is because it is -1 to the passing team and it is +1 to the serving team as the server is automatically charged with an ace. This double damage can really inflate or deflate the point-scoring stats if a team is an ace-hunting team or a reception error-prone team, respectively. You want each rally-ending action, good or bad, to be worth one point only.
It Creates a Better Level Playing Ground to Compare Players’ Point-Scoring Performances
When reception errors are included in the point-scoring stats, it lowers the point-scoring stats for outside hitters, i.e. the main passers. This means when I compare the point-scoring stats of outside hitters and opposites, the reception errors muddle the point-scoring stats so it’s hard to know who are the better point-scorers. If reception errors are not considered points lost, thus not included in the point-scoring stats, it gives a better level playing ground to compare point-scorer performance between outside hitters and opposites.
Reception Errors That Were Unplayable Shouldn’t Be a Point Lost
When a serve hits the net and trickles over for an ace, I always find it harsh that I have to charge the corresponding reception error to a player. It will lower their point-scoring stats because it is worth a -1 in the point-scoring stats.
Why Reception Errors Should Be Considered As Points Lost
It Changes Players’ Point-Scoring Stats Expectations
An outside hitter might consider a points won-lost differential of +5 to be a good point-scoring performance but if reception errors are removed as a point lost, their expectation of a good point-scoring performance will change. If they get a +8 point-scoring performance, they don’t know if the increase was due to removing the reception errors only or if they did perform better.
Rotational Faults are Clear Unforced Errors
When the referee calls for a rotational fault, this is a clear unforced error. The server didn’t do anything to win the point. I’ve seen situations where the player served out but the rotational fault was immediately called. Rotational faults are unforced errors so they should be recorded in the stats as a point lost but if reception errors are not considered a point lost then they are not.
Reception Errors on Easy Serves
I’ve seen an underarm serve that lands in court because the passer judged the ball was going out. It’s basically a free-ball situation and the passer made an unforced error. Surely, the reception error is considered a point lost.
Final Thoughts
The idea that you can’t have an earned point that leads to an unforced error was really convincing. For this reason, I don’t consider reception errors as points lost. This also has the benefit that it creates a better level playing field in the point-scoring stats fairer to compare players.
I couldn’t really think of good reasons to keep reception errors as points lost. Players’ expectations of good point-scoring performances will eventually change, like when I moved from a 3-point passing system to a 4-point passing system (see link). I do account for rotational faults by coding an “E” (“Lack of Effort”) in the extended code section in DataVolley. I could do the same for reception errors on very easy serves. This means I can account for it in the point-scoring stats. However, they are rare so I don’t currently include them in the point-scoring calculations.
I did think I could rebrand reception errors as “missed passes”, like how dig errors are “missed digs”. This means any action with “error” in it is a point lost. However, I thought it would lead to confusion amongst the players and coaches.
Comments