.png)
What Are The New Statistical Changes to the 2020-21 Season?
Introduction
I decided to introduce some new statistical changes for the 2020-21 season in an effort to get better stats. Some will be quite different fundamentally in how we read the statistics and the value it represents. So I thought it was best to write it down for players/ coaches to have a reference point. So let’s dive in.
Attacks Block Killed and Reception Errors are Not Considered Points Lost Anymore
Attacks block killed and reception errors won’t be considered as points lost or true errors anymore. Coach Mark Lebedew makes the argument that points scored should be earned via good actions that lead to forced errors. For example, an attack kill that leads to a missed dig – the attacker should be awarded a point won, since it was earned, and the defender should not be charged with a point lost, since the error was forced. Conversely, points scored can be unearned as a result of an unforced error via poor actions. For example, a serve that goes into the net – the server should be charged with a point lost while the receiving team should not be awarded a point won since it was unearned. I thought about it for a while and I tend to agree so I decided to implement these changes in an effort to find more effective statistics.
This means a rally cannot end with an earned point (point won) AND an unforced error (point lost) together. Hence, attacks block killed and reception errors are NOT considered as a point lost anymore since they are forced errors as the blocker and server earned the point, respectively. There is still one situation where an earned point and unforced error can happen at the same time. This is when there’s a block error (e.g. net touch) but the attacker’s spike would have won the point anyway (e.g. attack strikes the floor). The attacker would have won the point regardless of the blocker’s error but the blocker still committed an unforced error.
Hitting Pct. Does Not Include Attacks Block Killed as an Error
Since attacks block killed are not considered errors anymore, they are not calculated as part of the hitting pct. This means the hitting pct. will be higher than usual. The actual difference between the old hitting pct. and new hitting pct. ranges from +3% to +12%, depending on how many times the player got block killed. The average increase is +5.5%. Men could be a bit higher.
Below is a table showing some new and old hitting percentage values so you can engage the relative differences.
Super League Team | Hitting % (New) | Hitting % (Old) | Top 9 Players | Hitting % (New) | Hitting % (Old) |
Polonia SideOut London | 32% | 27% | #1 MCCLELLAN | 51% | 45% |
Durham Palatinates Women | 29% | 24% | #2 BECKER | 47% | 47% |
TeamBU Wessex | 31% | 27% | #3 BISHOP | 44% | 38% |
Malory Eagles UEL | 20% | 15% | #4 O’HAGAN | 42% | 35% |
University of Nottingham VB | 26% | 19% | #5 SVIRIDOVA | 41% | 38% |
Tendring (Essex) Ladies | 28% | 23% | #6 DANIEL | 41% | 39% |
London Inter Orcas | 21% | 16% | #7 TOKARENKO | 39% | 35% |
Bristol VC 1 | 18% | 11% | #8 ZWART | 39% | 36% |
Cambridge & Anglia Ruskin Uni | 13% | 6% | #9 PICHT | 36% | 31% |
New Performance Indicator: Points Efficiency Percentage (PE%)
The Points Efficiency Percentage (PE%) will replace the Points Efficiency Ratio (PER). It is basically the hitting pct. but for point scoring attempts, PE% = (Points Won – Points Lost)/ Total Point Scoring Attempts. The PE% tells us the percentage of point-scoring attempts that results in a point won whilst also taking into account errors. The reason why the PE% is a better performance indicator compared to the PER is that it takes into account the total point scoring attempts. We know already how many points were scored and lost via errors with the PER but we want to know how many point-scoring attempts it took to get there. For example, Player A and Player B scored 20 points and lost 10 points but Player A had 50 point scoring attempts and Player B had 100 attempts. Both players have a 2.0 PER (=20/10) but Player A has a PE% of 20% [=(20-10)/50] while Player B has a PE% of 10% [=(20-10)/100]. This means Player A did twice as good as Player B in relation to point-scoring performance.
Since missed receptions are not considered errors anymore (as well as attacks block killed), it does create a much better level playing field when comparing wing players and middle blockers on their point-scoring efficiency.
Below is a table showing some references of what a good PE% are. We should aim for 15+% as a team and 20+% as a player. Men could be a bit higher.
Women’s Super League Team | Sets Statted | Points Efficiency % | Top 9 Players | Sets Statted | Points Efficiency % |
#1 Polonia SideOut London | 81 | 16.4% | #1 Alicia MCCLELLAN (MEL) | 21 | 29.1% |
#2 Durham Palatinates Women | 54 | 15.3% | #2 Yulia TOKARENKO (PSL) | 80 | 28.1% |
#3 TeamBU Wessex | 37 | 14.8% | #3 Molly O’HAGAN (UON) | 48 | 26.6% |
#4 Malory Eagles UEL | 32 | 11.7% | #4 Mechell DANIEL (TEN) | 25 | 25.0% |
#5 University of Nottingham VB | 48 | 12.1% | #5 Nicole BISHOP (TEN) | 29 | 24.3% |
#6 Tendring (Essex) Ladies | 41 | 12.4% | #6 Thea GUDENKAUF (WES) | 10 | 21.9% |
#7 London Inter Orcas | 36 | 11.7% | #7 Eszter NAGY (PSL) | 55 | 20.8% |
#8 Bristol VC 1 | 33 | 6.3% | #8 Marina BELLI (WES) | 10 | 19.8% |
#9Cambridge & Anglia Ruskin Uni | 32 | 3.4% | #9 Lara PICHT (WES) | 35 | 19.7% |
New Defence and Block Performance Indicators
There will be another three performance indicators that I will include in the match report. The Defence (In-Play) Percentage (D%) is the percentage of opposition attacks that passes the block that is kept in play, i.e. how well did the defence do. The Block-Defence (In-Play) Percentage (DB%) is the percentage of opposition attacks that are kept in play, i.e. how well did the block-defence do. The Block Efficiency Percentage (B%) is the efficiency of the block and is calculated as block kills takeaway block errors divided by the total opposition attack attempts. The defence and block-defence pct. are closely associated with success in volleyball. Unfortunately, these can only be calculated for the team only as they rely on total opposition attack attempts to calculate these performance indicators.
For a reference point, see the table below. As a team, we are aiming for a defence pct. of 56+%, a block-defence pct. of 62+% and a block efficiency pct. of 6+%.
Women’s Super League Team | Defence % | Block-Defence % | Block Efficiency % |
Polonia SideOut London | 57.3% | 63.1% | 5.2% |
Durham Palatinates Women | 54.9% | 61.9% | 5.0% |
TeamBU Wessex | 54.9% | 61.5% | 5.4% |
Malory Eagles UEL | 56.8% | 64.1% | 6.5% |
University of Nottingham VB | 52.2% | 58.0% | 4.2% |
Tendring (Essex) Ladies | 56.8% | 63.3% | 5.3% |
London Inter Orcas | 55.1% | 62.5% | 5.6% |
Bristol VC 1 | 46.5% | 52.8% | 4.1% |
Cambridge & Anglia Ruskin Uni | 48.6% | 53.8% | 1.6% |
New Weights Given for Reception and Service Rating
The major change is now reception is rated on a four-point scale instead of a three-point scale. Neutral passes are now worth 2 points (instead of 1.5 points last season), which pushes up the perfect and positive passes by 1 point to 3 and 4 points, respectively. Negative passes are still worth 1 point but now overpasses are worth 0.5 points with the server receiving 3.5 points for an opposition overpass. You can click on this link for a deep dive into why I have given these weights.
The difference in the service rating values is very small, with an average of a 0.03 increase. For the reception rating, the difference ranges from +0.25 to +0.75 with the average being +0.50. For the better passers, the increase will be closer to +0.60.
Super League Team | Reception Rating (New) | Reception Rating(Old) | Top 9 Players | Reception Rating (New) | Reception Rating(Old) |
Polonia SideOut London | 2.23 | 1.70 | #1 Elizabeth DOWD (DUR) | 2.76 | 2.01 |
Durham Palatinates Women | 2.22 | 1.67 | #2 Bruna BON (DUR) | 2.62 | 1.93 |
TeamBU Wessex | 2.18 | 1.66 | #3 Mia MERINO (WES) | 2.47 | 1.84 |
Malory Eagles UEL | 2.24 | 1.70 | #4 Adriadne SIERRA (MEL) | 2.46 | 1.83 |
University of Nottingham VB | 1.98 | 1.52 | #5 Anna TSOUMI (LIO) | 2.40 | 1.83 |
Tendring (Essex) Ladies | 2.07 | 1.57 | #6 Aga ADAMEK (PSL) | 2.42 | 1.82 |
London Inter Orcas | 2.27 | 1.72 | #7 Guilia RASTELLI (PSL) | 2.41 | 1.82 |
Bristol VC 1 | 1.83 | 1.41 | #8 Maggie STEWARD (CAM) | 2.38 | 1.77 |
Cambridge & Anglia Ruskin Uni | 2.04 | 1.55 | #9 Yulia TOKARENKO (PSL) | 2.28 | 1.75 |
New Performance Indicators’ Calculations
The abbreviation, calculation and conversion of the new performance indicators can be seen below.
Performance Indicator | Code | Calculation |
Points Efficiency Percentage | PE% | = (Points Won – Points Lost)/ Total Point Scoring Attempts |
Points Won | P# | = Kills + Block Kills + Aces + Free Ball Kills |
Points Lost | P= | = Attack Errors + Block Errors + Service Errors + Free Ball Errors + Setting Errors + Free Ball Dig Errors |
Total Points Scoring Attempts | PTA | = Total Attack Attempts + Total Block Attempts + Total Service Attempts + Total Free Ball Attempts + Setting Errors + Free Ball Dig Errors |
Hitting Percentage | H% | = (Kills – Attack Errors)/ Total Attack Attempts |
Reception Rating | RR | = [(Perfect Passes *4) + (Positive Passes *3) + (Neutral Passes *2) + (Negative Passes *1) + (Overpasses *0.5)]/ Total Reception Attempts |
Service Rating | SR | = [(Aces *4) + (Serve Overpass *3.5) + (Positive Serves *3) + (Neutral Serves *2) + (Negative Passes *1)]/ Total Service Attempts |
Final Thoughts
These changes were made in an effort to find more accurate statistics that accurately reflect the skill level of the player and team. It will take a while to understand the new values associated with good performances.
Comments