Reply to Metro vs Paramount (vs other top clubs)

Forum Index » Volleyball

Reply to "Metro vs Paramount (vs other top clubs)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
I believe you have one number wrong. In 2024 Paramount 16-1 was ranked 275 (not 86). That means using your methodology, the 2024 16-1 team (275) improved in 2025 as 17-1 (179), not declined as you claim.[/quote]
You are correct, the number was wrong. If you recalculate the group that 16-1 was in (kept the same or more players than they added), you get the following adjustment:
Teams in this group improved at an average 42 ranks vs prior year.
Compare this to teams from the other group where more players were added than stay, and improved an average of 115.

This means the relative improvement of teams that added more players was 2.7x more than those that didn't.

Note this doesn't mean that the teams were 2.7x better, just that their ranking improvement was that much. We could run the relative movement of the teams as well compared to where they started. It is reasonable to assume that it is harder to improve and already good team than it is a poor team.

There is also reasonable debate to be had about the inclusion of the 15-1 team in the "kept more than they added group". If you exclude that team from their group and pull it from the data set, you find the teams that kept more than they retained had a relative movement of -12 ranks, even with the corrected data. 
[quote=Anonymous]
You claim that the following numbers show that the more Paramount kept its players the worse the team performed in the next year:
2025 15-2: 530 (added 6 players, kept 8)
2024 14-2: 388

If you talk about a team going from 10 to 20 (a top team), that may be meaningful, but you are talking about 388 in 2024 to 530 in 2025. We don't know how many teams were inserted or deleted between 388 and 530, and we don't know whether the algorithms changed from 2024 to 2025. A slight change in algorithms can make a hugh difference for lower ranked teams.[/quote]
We do know the number of U14 and U15 teams included in the AES rankings for those years. 2024 U14=6578, 2025 U15= 5830. This matches historical trends in the decline in the number of volleyball players that starts in U15 and continues through U18. That decline in teams means the average rating of a U15 team should increase ~10% if there are no other factors at play. Of course, more players leave the sport from the bottom teams than the top teams so I doubt it has that big an uplift impact. I do doubt that the decline the total number of teams hurt Paramount's ranking though.

Regarding the algorithm, according to AES the same algorithm is used for every team in every age group in every region. If the algorithm changed it should impact all teams equally.
[quote=Anonymous]
When I look at the national ranks translated to relative ranks in the region, I see that this team improved in local ranks from 11 to 7 even though the national ranks declined from 388 to 531. 
2025 15-2: 7
2024 14-2: 11[/quote]
Agree that the 15-2s improved in relative regional rank year over year.

Now consider this scenario: A team finishes just outside the top 12 the region last year and doesn't win a bid. This year it wins a bid.  In between the seasons, the team cuts 60-70% of its returning players, doesn't promote any players from its lower team, and then replaces all of its starters with new players from other clubs.  Would you claim the club is good at developing its players?

This is an extreme example to make it clear why controlling for player movement is the only way to compare relative ranking movements in the region. The whole point of the post was that assembling a good team through recruiting results in larger gains for Paramount than keeping their existing teams (or even 50% of their existing teams) and training them up.
[quote=Anonymous]
Furthermore, the 15-2 team just earned a National bid this year. And you are talking about [b]"The 15-2s team that showed the performance improvement year over year in your regional data was actually the only team to decline in national rank."[/b] Getting a National bid as a second team is not good enough for you?

You drew a lot of conclusions that are not supported by data. I'm giving you two rebuttals for now.[/quote]
No, I never said that getting a nationals bid as a second team wasn't good.  I said "The 15-2 team is the only team that returned more players than it added. This could potentially prove your hypothesis for this age group", acknowledging that it was a standout in the data.

But since the 15-2 argument is important to your premise, lets take a look at the starting lineup for the 15-2s at nationals.

Here's where the starting lineup played last year: Paramount, BRYC, VA Elite, VA Juniors, Paramount, New Player, Paramount

Paramount added six new players to the 15-2s team. 4 of them were starting at Nationals.  Of the 8 returning players, only three were starting. Double checking this at an earlier tournament in the season as well, the numbers stay basically the same.

Again, if Paramount training of their 14-2s was so good that they could improve the team from not winning a bid in 2024 to getting a bid at U15, why did they need to replace 60% of their starting lineup with new players to do so?

Don't take this as suggesting that some turnover in lineup isn't reasonable, it certainly happens. And if it was 1-2 players that came in and took starting spots, we could gladly say that internal player development of last years 14-2 team was the likely reason for their improvement. Hence the comment that the 15-2s could prove your hypothesis for this one age.

But even with the adjustment on the data mistake (thank you), and acknowledging that despite the decrease in national rank the 15-2s actually improved in regional standings, the data supports the conclusions. In fact, the addition of 4 starters to the 15-2s lineup bolsters the argument that outside recruiting is the primary driver of Paramount's success, not internal training.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics