I have never liked the ‘traditional’ defensive statistics. A simple count of the number of digs has no meaning, reliant as it is on so many things. The next obvious ‘solution’ is a percentage of dig attempts, however that leads to the difficulty of defining an attempt. While for individual coaches it is possible to create a meaningful statistic, establishing consistency across coaches is difficult.
To come up with a measure of how my defence worked that was useful to me, I started with first principles. What do I want to know? Some coaches consider good defence anything that keeps the ball in play. I am not one of those coaches. The object of defence is to create attacking opportunities. For me, a good defensive action is one that leads to an attack. So we can start with the number of attacks in transition after serve as our idea of a successful defensive action.
Next I came up against the familiar problem of what to use as denominator. As I wanted to look at other teams as well as my own, and I couldn’t know for sure how they might define a dig attempt, using dig attempts was not an option. I thought of using serves as the base, but that would include aces and service errors which don’t belong. Finally, I settled on a ‘defensive opportunity’ being all reception attacks that are not blocked or direct errors.
So my statistic is ATT/D, defined as attacks per defensive opportunity.
There are obvious holes in this. You can have more than one attack from a single defensive opportunity, and spikes that are hit off the block count as a defensive opportunity, even if they aren’t, to name just two. Ultimately, I decided that given that my objective was to be able to make inferences about defence in matches that I couldn’t rely on the definition of a dig, ATT/D is close enough for me to be able to say something.
I have been following this for two seasons now, and I feel confident that it shows me how my team is defending. I know that anything in the 0.40 – 0.49 range is ok. If we reach 0.50 we are defending well and if I see a 0.3 number we are bad. If I combine this with transition attack percentage after serve, I can see very well why our break point percentage is whatever it is.
So there you have it…
A collection of Coaching Tips can be found here.
For more great coaching tips, check out the Vyacheslav Platonov coaching book here.
If what you’re really after is the effectiveness of turning opponent attacks into our own attacks, then how about looking at kill% in that phase (K/D)?
That is the effectiveness of scoring from the chances you have. It says nothing about how many chances you.
It is a measure of attack after defence, not of defence.
I’m using D here they way you did above – as the number of defensive opportunities, not the number of digs. Thus, K/D inherently includes the number of chances your create from defense, since K is some fraction of your ATT figure. Ultimately, you want to maximize K/D – your ability to score points in transition. Your ATT/D is part of that, though it fails to account for the quality of the attacks you are able to produce. That’s why I suggest K/D as the ultimate final target metric.
I got it now. I read ‘that phase’ as ‘break point phase’.
My objective is to determine the number of chances I have. So some version of this idea is what I am looking for. The effectiveness of the attack is a different part of the puzzle. K/D doesn’t tell me if my defence is good/bad or my transition attack.
In the same way, I never look at attack efficiency. I always look at all three numbers separately. Efficiency is neat, but it doesn’t tell me anything interesting.