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 checked another one of your claims.
...
Did Paramount really cut 3 weak players who then ended up on top teams like MDJRS, Metro, and Blue Ridge? I don’t know—but I doubt it.

As I wrote before, players leave for a variety of reasons. You can’t just claim, without evidence, that Paramount cut all those players and then replaced them with better ones from other teams.[/quote]
I wasn't claiming Paramount cut the players. Without being in the tryout and knowing the offers that went out or being a parent of an impacted player there's no way to know that.

I acknowledged players leave for a variety of reasons. Every club has those same issues. We are left with why Paramount's departure rate for players is so much higher than comparable clubs. Top players leaving top teams by choice to move down to a lower level of competition is not normal at all. Double check the Metro data for proof.  The other top 14s team (MD JRS) didn't have it happen either, returning 10 players and adding 3.

If players aren't getting cut from Paramount's 1s teams, then they are choosing to leave.  And they are doing it to go to lower ranked teams without consistent success. I think you'd actually want to show they are cutting players, because of the alternative of them leaving of their own choice has a lot bigger ramifications.

Beyond the cuts conversation, what I was saying was: Imagine you replaced most of a good team with players from other teams. The next year the good team improves. What would you attribute that performance improvement to if you knew nothing else about the situation?

I claimed: 
[quote]
[b]In reality what Paramount is doing is assembling 1 year all star teams that combine a few players from the previous year Paramount teams with the best players from the other clubs. There is no argument that those teams succeed, and you can congratulate their coaches on how they get those all stars to perform.[/b][/quote]
Obviously I believe the data supports that statement, and you don't. That's fine. Contrary to what you might believe, I'd love to be proven wrong on this one. I'd be the first one cheering if Paramount's pyramid was working to develop players from 2s to 1s and ultimately to open-level players.  Its fundamentally good for volleyball in the region if clubs are capable of developing players well. Its also good if teams are winning bids outside of our CHRVA bid tournament and then going on to place well at nationals.

Remember, Paramount says that the "CHRVA region was significantly behind in terms of technical training,and...lacked the ability to [run practices] that prioritized skill development." The point of my claim was that there is no data to support the marketing by Paramount and its supporters that their training leads to player development above that of other clubs in the region.  The data we do have actually seems to indicate the opposite is happening.

We have a strong correlation between the number of replaced players and the relative improvement of the Paramount team after the replacement.  We don't have any data that supports a strong correlation the other way - that the training provided leads to that performance.

For your specific point on the 2024 13-1 team:
Let's add the additional data on the clubs they went to, not just say "went to other strong clubs" or "moved to 15U".  Because if you want to focus on the 3 that moved "up" we should also know if the other 5 moved "down".
- 2 left for better performing teams: MDJrs,Metro Travel
- 1 left for a better performing 13s team that performed below Paramount in 2025: BRVA
- 1 moved down in Paramount to 14-2
- 1 went to VA Elite
- 2 went to VA Juniors
- 1 went to American (the 13U to 15U move)
- 1 moved out of country (exclude)

Note that the 13U to 15U move could also have happened at Paramount as well, given that their 15-1 team took 7 new players and their 2s team took 6.

For the players that moved up to MDJrs and Metro I don't think either of them took starting spots on those teams.  Don't know about BRVA.
The other 5 departing players went to were ranked lower than the Paramount team they were leaving.  In fact all of those teams were also ranked lower in 14s in 2024 as well - with some significantly lower. Same applies to the U15 move. And all of them, plus the BRVA player, played on teams that finished below Paramount 1s teams.

The new players came from these teams with their ranking last year:
- 2 from American 13-1 (327)
- 3 from VA JRS 13 (530)
- 1 from MOJO 13-1 (2562)
- 1 from Metro South PW (2377)
- 1 from DYS (773)
- 1 I can't find (excluded).

All the players came from teams ranked below the Paramount 13-1. 3 of them came from teams ranked below the 13-2, and even though the VAJRS team was ranked a bit above the 13-2s, the 13-2s placed higher than them at bids and beat them head to head in a close match. So its pretty safe to say that every player came from a team that was lower-performing than the 13-1s and most came from a team at or below the 13-2s level.

That alone is enough to make a compelling argument about where the performance improvement is coming from. Why add players from lower performing teams than your own 2s team?

Some additional data: 
Paramount 14-1 regular starting lineup at USAV Nationals: MOJO, 2x American, DYS, 3x Paramount
That same group appeared to be starting regularly in the earlier season tournaments as well, although that's based on memory so it could be off.

4 of the 7 starters came from other clubs. All 4 came from clubs (MOJO, DYS, 2 American) below Paramount 1s in ranking. None of those teams qualified for the CHRVA bid tournament last year.  But this year they were all starting on a Paramount 14-1s team, despite competing against players who had the benefit of at least one additional year of Paramount coaching and playing on a 13-1 team that was one of the top teams in region. Every team those players came from declined in performance. You can't conclude that the decline in performance was directly related to Paramount pulling some of the best players off those teams without a lot more data, but it directionally supports the "all-star" point made above.

For the players that left, you can safely conclude that 6 of the 8 players either didn't want to play for Paramount again or weren't invited back, especially since all of them kept playing volleyball at 14s.

And for the 9 new players coming in, you can conclude that they were good enough to make the a 14-1s team with 6 returning players and 4 were good enough to and earn starting spots. We know Paramount is heavily focused on winning. Therefore the Paramount coaching staff believed they were better than the returning players they displaced and those coaches believed the team would perform better with them playing more points. This seems to indicate that the new players had a significant impact on the performance of the team.

This looks exactly like the 15-2s that were discussed earlier.

[u]TLDR[/u]
Using these facts: 9 players leave the 13-1s, 2 to teams that finished higher in 14-1s, 7 go to teams that finished lower. 9 join from lower ranked teams. Of the 6 returning players, only 3 have starting spots on the new 14-1 team. 4 of the 9 new players come in and take starting spots. Overall performance goes up.

What's more likely:
That the 9 players, and especially the 4 starters that joined from lower ranked teams are suddenly developed into top players on a top team with just a few months of coaching.
Or
That most of those 9 players, and definitely the 4 starters, were already better than the players on the 13-2s team and at least as good (and some likely better) than returning 13-1s players in the same positions.

Based on the data and all the one off examples raised so far, its much more likely that the second scenario is what is happening.[/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