Service Error

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

Serving with a purpose

I think the message from Coach Lamb is: Practice makes perfect. A perfect regular season got them nothing last year. He is preparing the team for tourney time, to be successful in the post season. That may mean another loss or two, but they are going to be getting the experience they need serving the way they have to so they can be competitive against the Texas' of the world.

[pogo]

Now I understand.

[The Mad Hatter]

I have been saying this for a long time and I hope that people start paying attention, because every time I hear a fan at a match compare a service error to a missed free throw I want to bang my head against a wall.

If you must create an analogy between service errors and other sports, there are only two that I can think of that have any merit:

1. Tennis service errors - as with volleyball, service errors mean points for the opponent, but it is almost impossible to win high level tennis by using serves that always are in, but don't make the return difficult.

2. Walks in baseball - not a perfect analogy because what is considered a good ratio between walks and strikeouts is very different than a good ratio of service errors to service aces. If a pitcher has a 1:1 walk/strikeout ratio, that is not good at all. If a player has a 1:1 error/ace ration, that is extremely good. So this analogy has its limits. However, where it works well is in rebuffing the claim that getting the ball in play is the only goal. This is like saying to a pro pitcher that he should never have any walks because he should be able to throw the ball down the middle of the plate every time. Walks absolutely hurt, as do service errors, but if hitting the strike zone is your only goal, not hitting the edges of the strike zone, you are going to get absolutely cranked.

[tgcshock]

I have been saying this for a long time and I hope that people start paying attention, because every time I hear a fan at a match compare a service error to a missed free throw I want to bang my head against a wall.

If you must create an analogy between service errors and other sports, there are only two that I can think of that have any merit:

1. Tennis service errors - as with volleyball, service errors mean points for the opponent, but it is almost impossible to win high level tennis by using serves that always are in, but don't make the return difficult.

2. Walks in baseball - not a perfect analogy because what is considered a good ratio between walks and strikeouts is very different than a good ratio of service errors to service aces. If a pitcher has a 1:1 walk/strikeout ratio, that is not good at all. If a player has a 1:1 error/ace ration, that is extremely good. So this analogy has its limits. However, where it works well is in rebuffing the claim that getting the ball in play is the only goal. This is like saying to a pro pitcher that he should never have any walks because he should be able to throw the ball down the middle of the plate every time. Walks absolutely hurt, as do service errors, but if hitting the strike zone is your only goal, not hitting the edges of the strike zone, you are going to get absolutely cranked.

Great post. And you are right, there are many fans who don't understand that the point is not simply to get the ball over the net but rather to create a serve that is difficult to handle. Every one of these girls could put the ball in play every time, but that is not the point of serving at this level. I think we have too many fans who have played volleyball at picnics and think that there is a rough equivalency between their experience and what they are watching.

[SpanglerFan316]

I have mixed feelings about this article. I'm not sure I buy it.

If we are designing our service game to prepare for NCAA play, that's great. If so, why don't we do the same thing (i.e. prepare for the NCAA tourney) with our blocking game? Having Stephanie stand at the net with her arms raised will yield some blocks against weaker teams but Destinee Hooker will laugh at such block attempts. If Sarah and Stephanie don't get a lot more elevation with their attempted blocks, we will not even slow down good teams.

Lamb sometimes says things to the media which turn out to be better for some objective of his own (e.g. team morale) than for the truth. If WSU improves its serving and beats Texas because of extremely tough serving, I'll say great. I hope the article is right, our serving is great in December, we win the MVC tourney and we make a run in the NCAA tourney.

[The Mad Hatter]

I have mixed feelings about this article. I'm not sure I buy it.

If we are designing our service game to prepare for NCAA play, that's great. If so, why don't we do the same thing (i.e. prepare for the NCAA tourney) with our blocking game? Having Stephanie stand at the net with her arms raised will yield some blocks against weaker teams but Destinee Hooker will laugh at such block attempts. If Sarah and Stephanie don't get a lot more elevation with their attempted blocks, we will not even slow down good teams.

Lamb sometimes says things to the media which turn out to be better for some objective of his own (e.g. team morale) than for the truth. If WSU improves its serving and beats Texas because of extremely tough serving, I'll say great. I hope the article is right, our serving is great in December, we win the MVC tourney and we make a run in the NCAA tourney.

I don't see any reason to think that we aren't trying to perform any aspect of our game differently than would help us most against the top teams in the NCAA, blocking or otherwise.

I think Stephanie doesn't elevate because a) she doesn't have great ups and has long standing foot issues that hurt her explosiveness and b) getting up really high is not the only aspect of blocking. Stephanie is tall enough that she doesn't need the extra elevation and by staying on her feet, she has more ability to adjust her block to what the hitter is doing.

I don't know if we have the physical ability to stuff Destiny Hooker and the like (although I would say that very few teams do), but the fact that we are top 20 in the nation in blocking would suggest that we are blocking aggressively and doing a pretty good job of it.

[WuDrWu]

The only way to block Destinee Hooker with any kind of regularity (and by that I mean about 1 in 10 times) is to get her to transfer to your school.

You don't teach that kind of athleticism and in volleyball there is almost nothing you can do to prevent it.

:roll:

[flyingMoose]

If you must create an analogy between service errors and other sports, there are only two that I can think of that have any merit:

1. Tennis service errors - as with volleyball, service errors mean points for the opponent,

Well .. kinda, but not quite. Obviously, you get two service attempts in tennis and will have a double fault, resulting in a point for the opponent, if you miss both of them. But both are intended to be difficult to return, to set up the rest of the point. So, in general, your point is valid.

[SpanglerFan316]

The only way to block Destinee Hooker with any kind of regularity (and by that I mean about 1 in 10 times) is to get her to transfer to your school.

You don't teach that kind of athleticism and in volleyball there is almost nothing you can do to prevent it.

:roll:

Like it or not, WSU will have to find a way to slow down (not "blocK" or "stuff block") Hooker if we want to go very far in the 2009 NCAA tourney. WSU played Texas in the tourney in 2008 and it is likely that we'll have to play them again if we make it to the NCAA tourney and do well.

Lamb won't just give up the match against Texas; he'll come up with a plan to slow down UT's OHs. How good a plan and how well it works remain to be seen but there will be a plan. (The "PJ Couisnard meal before the game in New Mexico" plan? ;-) )

[1972Shocker]

Lambo no doubt has the stats to back up his point and it is a good one. However, I think even he was very dissappointed in our serving vs MSU and in some of our other matches. But I can see where he would like to find a good balance between serving accurate and serving tough.

Personally, I'm greedy and I would like to have both! :good:

Of course, striving for perfection and actually achieving perfection are two different things.

The biggest thing I dislike about service errors is that many times they seem to be momentum changers. Of course, this is mostly a general, anecdotal observation on my part and Lambo may well have the facts that disprove that.

No doubt we need to serve tough to beat the likes of a Texas or Nebraska. Then again serving tough in and of itself is probably not enough to beat these teams. We need to serve tough, dig and pass well, attack well, block well and position ourselves well and even that may not be enough.

As I have heard Lambo say many times, sometimes it just boils down to who can jump higher and who can hit harder! Perhaps we need to invent flubber for real!

:goshocks:

[1972Shocker]

If you must create an analogy between service errors and other sports, there are only two that I can think of that have any merit:

1. Tennis service errors - as with volleyball, service errors mean points for the opponent,

Well .. kinda, but not quite. Obviously, you get two service attempts in tennis and will have a double fault, resulting in a point for the opponent, if you miss both of them. But both are intended to be difficult to return, to set up the rest of the point. So, in general, your point is valid.

Generally, in tennis (at the highest levels) the server has a distinct advantage when he/she is serving. Accordingly, service breaks are very significant in the outcome of a match and double faults are costly.

In Volleyball, the opposite is generally the case. The receiving team generally has the advantage and statistically win the majority of points. One of the big reasons for going to rally scoring instead of just scoring when you served. Even with an accurate serve you generally have less than a 50-50 chance of winning the point. So from that perspective a serve generally does not cost a full point. On average it costs the number of errors times the % of times you win points on your serve (generally less than half). I'm sure Lambo has the numbers nailed and pretty much knows where his team's breakeven point is in the service errors vs "tough" serves ratio.

That said, I will be totally satisfied as a "fanatic" when the Shocks win 25-0 on 25 consecutive service aces. Now that would be pitching a perfect game. :D

Actually, no doubt much, much tougher than a pitching a perfecto. More like shooting a round of 18 in golf.

I probably started with unrealistic expectations. My first Shocker VB match was the one in which Sara Younes recorded 14 aces (in 3 sets I think). I did not realize at the time what a spectacular performance that was.

:goshocks:

[The Mad Hatter]

The biggest thing I dislike about service errors is that many times they seem to be momentum changers. Of course, this is mostly a general, anecdotal observation on my part and Lambo may well have the facts that disprove that.

They can be momentum changers, but I have heard Lamb argue that you give up even more momentum when you don't serve tough because it sets the other team up to have perfect passes and easy swings.

I think he would say that the worst momentum you can give a team is helping a hitter get into a groove by being set up for easy kills because you didn't do anything with your serve to take them out of their offense.

In terms of momentum, the only thing that a service error can do is stop a service run. Since it is hard to win service points, you were statistically unlikely to win that point anyway. The only real chance to have a service run in the first place, therefore is to go for tough serves, which is the very thing that creates the likelihood of a service error in the first place.

In other words, the only momentum that a service error can break is momentum that could only exist by serving tough and risking service errors.

[1972Shocker]

[quote="The Mad Hatter"]

In terms of momentum, the only thing that a service error can do is stop a service run.

In other words, the only momentum that a service error can break is momentum that could only exist by serving tough and risking service errors.

Not really. For example, if you win a point on the other team's service and then hand the ball right back to them with a service error you have not stopped a service run.

In any case, the momentum effect I am referring to is more of an intangible or mental thing.

Nevertheless, I understand the point Lambo is trying to make and it is certainly valid. I also know he was not happy with our service game against MSU and in some other matches this year. On the other hand, we have had some good service matches also. We just need to become more consistent with serving tough with reasonable accuracy.

I am also pretty sure Lambo doesn't want the Ladies thinking to much about service errors as that can get in your mind and actually lead to more errors. I'm sure one of his biggest challenges this week has been to get his team's minds right.

[1972Shocker]

I understand the point about the need to serve tough with service errors being a cost of doing business that way. But there are limits to everything and if your costs become excessive you go out of business (or in this case you lose a set or match). Obviously though some service errors or more meaningful and/or costly than others.

If it's early in the match or if you have a big lead service errors are not as critical IMO as they are in a tight match, especially near the end of a set or in a Match 5 where good starts are very helpful.

If I'm at 3 serving 4 and make a service error not such a big deal.

If I'm at 23 serving 24 I really do want to get that serve in. In fact, in a close match (1-3 point differential) any service errors late are more painful for me.

I guess the question is, and I'm sure Lambo has definite targets, what is the acceptable level of service errors and how do you measure that. Lambo no doubt tracks that when he breaks down match film, although I'm not sure he assigns different weight to errors occuring at different points in the match. I'll have to ask him sometime if I get the chance.

[The Mad Hatter]

I also know he was not happy with our service game against MSU and in some other matches this year. On the other hand, we have had some good service matches also. We just need to become more consistent with serving tough with reasonable accuracy.

I have no doubt that Lamb was unhappy with our service game against MSU, but I would suspect that he is more unhappy with the lack of effectiveness of the serves we got in that with the service errors by themselves.

The problem with the MSU match was not so much the number of service errors, but the fact that we got almost no benefit out of our service game in terms of either aces or decrease in MSU's ability to run their offense smoothly. It is one thing to have service errors when the serves you are getting in are giving people trouble, but it is a bad service game when you have service errors but fail to get the kind of benefit you ought to out of serving tough.