Number Theory - Setter Evaluation with Josh Steinbach (part 2)
Decision making, optionality, and other intangibles
This is part 2 of the series. You can read part 1 here:
What is Number Theory? - Read here
Another aspect of setter ability Josh and I discussed was decision making. If a setter can locate a set perfectly but only by letting the defending team know ahead of time where the ball will be set, there is some amount of advantage lost by the setter and gained by the defense. While that amount can be measured to some extent, it is still limited by the kinds of data available at present. Currently, analysts using Data Volley or Volley Station can code information about the number of blockers an attacker faces, which can be used to infer something about how well a setter is able to influence the attacking situation a hitter faces. This data treats decision making as an exercise in reading and/or deceiving blockers. Unfortunately, decision making is not so simple a concept that it can be captured by the number of blockers a hitter faces. Other potential areas of interest in decision making ability might include how a setter decides when to set certain hitters, among others.
Josh and I talked about how decision making is, to some extent, determined by goal setting, which is not often discussed in setter ability. In the course of our talk, we realized that a spectrum exists that describes how much a coach expects a setter to act autonomously. Coaches at one end of that spectrum may want setters to execute a specific plan at specific times in a match while coaches at the other end of the spectrum may have certain principles the setter should act in accordance with rather than exact plans. The goals a setter is trying to reach depend on where a coach is located on the spectrum. Josh puts himself closer to the latter end of the spectrum because, in his words, “the distance between the sideline and the bench is miles.” He believes a setter perceives and responds to information that isn’t always apparent from where he’s standing so he wants them to act as they see fit and he can ask questions about what they saw and what they chose after the fact. To me, this is an expression of which goals a setter chooses to prioritize during play. While the primary goal is generally to win the rally, there are also what I referred to as “the goals behind the goal”, or things a setter can seek to achieve that will increase their team’s chances of winning the rally. For example, though a setter may want to win a rally, the best way to do so may not always be to set the hitter with the highest efficiency as often as possible. When does a particular blocking match up or a particular hitter’s ability to hit a certain shot take precedence over attack efficiency? This is what I mean by the importance of goal setting, a setter’s ability to distinguish between different ways of achieving a goal influences their overall ability.
An aspect of setter ability we discussed related to location is something referred to in decision making and risk management as optionality. Poker players like to preserve optionality and so should setters. A good set allows an attacker to maintain optionality because they can hit the ball anywhere they want, rather than having the location of a set eliminate some attacking options. But setters can preserve optionality in other ways. If a setter is faced with a less-than-perfect pass, how well can they get to the ball and get themselves into a posture that maintains their ability to set as many options as possible? A setter that can set more balls with their hands, as Josh learned years ago, helps their team win more rallies than a setter that can’t. But there are at least two different skills a setter relies on to maintain optionality.
Considering ways of maintaining optionality allows consideration of two commonly-considered traits of setters, athleticism and “game sense”. The latter term is called many different things, like “volleyball IQ”. I am using game sense here but there’s no important reason for that choice. Josh feels that these two traits are baked into a setter’s ability, meaning they clearly affect a setter’s ability but aren’t typically measured or separated out in any meaningful way. I discuss them together here because Josh and I discussed how they vary independently from one another but play off one another in important ways. They vary independently because a less-athletic setter (whatever that means) can compensate for that perceived shortcoming by being better at anticipating what is going to happen, but just because a setter is lower in one area does not tell you anything about their ability in the other area. There are setters who are great at both, setters who are poor at both, and all kinds of setters in between.
Though we didn’t define what constitutes “athleticism” or “game sense”, we did discuss possible ways to measure them in some way. While some aspects of athleticism, like acceleration or vertical jump, can be measured directly, it is much more difficult to measure them during play, especially in ways that allow player comparison. Some college programs use player tracking devices like those made by Kinexon or Hudl’s WIMU to measure player load, among other things. But that information lacks context about things like what players are responding to or moving towards. And game sense interacts with athleticism. If one setter can determine where a ball will go after it leaves a passer’s arms sooner than another setter can, that setter can either react or move more slowly to that ball’s eventual location than the other setter can. To measure that difference would require measuring the time from passer contact to when the setter begins moving, followed by measuring how fast and how far the setter moves, not to mention measuring the accuracy of the setter’s chosen movement to the ball. It’s like trying to compare the times of two sprinters who don’t have to start at the same time or run the same distances to the finish line. It’s possible to say who crossed the line first, but it would be foolish to say that whomever finished first was the fastest or even the best sprinter.
“Intangibles” and “soft skills” are important but tough to measure but important to Josh’s consideration of setting ability. Part 3 will give a little insight into how decision makers and information providers can productively move forward.
Have questions for Josh? You can ask me here or you can email him directly.