Reply to Metro added new tryout dates

Forum Index » Volleyball

Reply to "Metro added new tryout dates"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]We have a family member who's coached metro regional teams in last 5 years, (not Central), but they have helped with Central tryouts up to last year and you are SO wrong that they take players getting low level offers or none at all! The line is usually out the door for those coach conferences and most players offered a spot take it on the spot and there is no trend of accepting on the spot then rejecting when the written offer comes in.[/quote]
Quick check on your statement: [b]Line out the door + immediate accepts should mean an easy job filling a 12 person roster. In fact, based on this comment they should have been done on day 1.  So why did they add extra tryouts for most of the regions?
[/b]
As a Metro regional parent with several years of experience the posts here really aren't that off base.  With the exception of North, most players good enough to play above the Metro regional level go to other club tryouts on Friday and Saturday.  Many of those clubs have multiple teams that you try out for at the same time. Those tryouts overlap with the first round of Metro tryouts which is why Metro typically adds tryouts for most of their teams on Tuesday.

Half of those make-up tryouts this year ended at the same time the open tryout period ended at 10 PM (15 & 17s).  The players there either didn't have an offer or were willing to give up an existing offer to take a chance at making a Metro Regional team.  The players that had an offer from a close equivalent or even lower team would never be willing to give up a certain offer for a chance of an offer at a Metro regional.

None of this means that those Metro teams are bad. We've enjoyed our time with them. But the PP wasn't really wrong, even if it was an aggressive comment.  [b]Based on national ranks Central really is the lowest ranked Metro region.  And there are certainly examples of players with low level club offers or no offers at all taking Metro offers, because the Metro makeup tryout schedule actually forces that to happen for certain age groups[/b].[/quote]

Newbie again, so not PP: I guess I'll ask you the same question, because no one else has posted it this way: where is the National ranking data that shows Metro Central as below North, East and the 2 Souths, age group by age group, for maybe the last 5 years?  When you say they're the "lowest ranked Metro region", can you please link to the data you're looking at that compares the teams that way so we can all see what you're looking at?[/quote]
Sure, happy to.  I'll send them as different posts because there is a lot of data.  This data pull is directly from AES using national ranks for the last 4 years (Central did run teams in 2021 and South was still one region instead of 2). I used AI to format for easy text reading, so if any data is wrong its because of the AI transcription errors that sometimes occur.

2025 Metro results
National Ranks, Ordinal = absolute ranking vs. Metro teams.
[code]
+------+-------------------------+-------------+----------+--------+-----------+-------------+-----------+
| Rank | Teams                   | Team Code | Wins       | Losses | Matches   | Win %       | Ordinal   |
+------+-------------------------+-------------+----------+--------+-----------+-------------+-----------+
|   96 | Metro 12 Travel     | g12metro1ch |   41 |     13 |      54 |     0.759 |       1 |
| 1179 | Metro 12 North      | g12metro2ch |   23 |     13 |      36 |     0.639 |       2 |
| 2138 | Metro 12 East       | g12metro3ch |   17 |     20 |      37 |     0.459 |       3 |
| 2252 | Metro 12 Central    | g12metro4ch |   12 |     14 |      26 |     0.462 |       4 |
|   67 | Metro 13 Travel     | g13metro1ch |   59 |     14 |      73 |     0.808 |       1 |
|  556 | Metro 13 East       | g13metro4ch |   35 |     11 |      46 |     0.761 |       2 |
| 1138 | Metro 13 North      | g13metro2ch |   22 |     12 |      34 |     0.647 |       3 |
| 1818 | Metro 13 Central    | g13metro5ch |   22 |     18 |      40 |      0.55 |       4 |
| 3466 | Metro 13 South PW   | g13metro3ch |    9 |     21 |      30 |       0.3 |       5 |
|   48 | Metro 14 Travel     | g14metro1ch |   60 |     20 |      80 |      0.75 |       1 |
| 2336 | Metro 14 North      | g14metro2ch |   21 |     21 |      42 |       0.5 |       2 |
| 2873 | Metro 14 Central    | g14metro3ch |   17 |     15 |      32 |     0.531 |       3 |
| 3203 | Metro 14 South FX   | g14metro6ch |   15 |     10 |      25 |       0.6 |       4 |
| 4295 | Metro 14 South PW   | g14metro5ch |   15 |     16 |      31 |     0.484 |       5 |
| 6210 | Metro 14 East       | g14metro4ch |   10 |     23 |      33 |     0.303 |       6 |
|   25 | Metro 15 Travel     | g15metro1ch |   74 |     10 |      84 |     0.881 |       1 |
| 1706 | Metro 15 North      | g15metro2ch |   26 |     22 |      48 |     0.542 |       2 |
| 2427 | Metro 15 South PW   | g15metro5ch |   18 |     17 |      35 |     0.514 |       3 |
| 3005 | Metro 15 East       | g15metro4ch |   17 |     24 |      41 |     0.415 |       4 |
| 3354 | Metro 15 South FX   | g15metro6ch |   15 |     15 |      30 |       0.5 |       5 |
| 4159 | Metro 15 Central    | g15metro3ch |   16 |     26 |      42 |     0.381 |       6 |
|   39 | Metro 16 Travel     | g16metro1ch |   66 |     21 |      87 |     0.759 |       1 |
|  412 | Metro 16 North      | g16metro2ch |   30 |     17 |      47 |     0.638 |       2 |
| 2051 | Metro 16 South PW   | g16metro5ch |   16 |     13 |      29 |     0.552 |       3 |
| 2578 | Metro 16 East       | g16metro4ch |   27 |     23 |      50 |      0.54 |       4 |
| 3604 | Metro 16 Central    | g16metro3ch |   17 |     24 |      41 |     0.415 |       5 |
| 3952 | Metro 16 South FX   | g16metro6ch |   13 |     20 |      33 |     0.394 |       6 |
|   20 | Metro 17 Travel     | g17metro1ch |   77 |     20 |      97 |     0.794 |       1 |
|  937 | Metro 17 North      | g17metro2ch |   27 |     23 |      50 |      0.54 |       2 |
|   30 | Metro 18 Travel     | g18metro1ch |   50 |     23 |      73 |     0.685 |       1 |
|  532 | Metro 18 North      | g18metro2ch |   29 |     19 |      48 |     0.604 |       2 |
| 1463 | Metro 18 South PW   | g18metro5ch |   16 |     19 |      35 |     0.457 |       3 |
| 1932 | Metro 18 East       | g18metro4ch |   15 |     23 |      38 |     0.395 |       4 |
| 1983 | Metro 18 Central    | g18metro3ch |    9 |     13 |      22 |     0.409 |       5 |
+------+-------------------------+-------------+----------+--------+-----------+-------------+-----------+[/code]

I also ran the regional ranking data same way and ran a t-test for the regression (testing how predictive the regional rank was vs the national rank in overall win %, total wins, etc).  The p-value was high indicating that regional ranks did little to predict the overall performance of the team. It appears that the regional data set suffers from data insufficiency issues discussed by multiple PP above.  For example, in 2025 U15 only Metro South teams played more than half their matches against regional opponents.  The other Metro teams played fewer than half of their matches in region, with Metro North plays just 16 matches against regional opponents compared to 48 total matches for the season in the national ranks.  The disparity in games played means that teams with lots of regional matches ranked artificially higher than those with comparably fewer regional matches played.  In other words the teams that played mostly local schedules appear stronger in the regional rankings even though the national data shows they are well below the performance of those teams that played more out of region matches.[/quote]

Aaaahhh ok, NOW I get it, thank you!  Sorry, didn't see this part when wrote previous message. Thanks![/quote]
Happy to help.  As they say "Lies, D**n lies and statistics".  In this case the claim that started all this was based on the national ranks and the generally understood fact that national ranks are much more accurate than regional ranks, at least in CHRVA. The rebuttal to that used the regional ranks to try to prove their point, but as we've covered extensively now that rebuttal fell into the "statistics" bucket of the statement above.

Often on DCUM there is an assumption that there are ulterior motives for posts and for some posters there definitely is. Some parents can get very wrapped up in their club and will defend it vigorously, others will have a bad experience or feel slighted when their DD doesn't make a team and trash a club constantly.  Add in the anonymous club staff posts and you get a wide range of opinion that can be heavily biased. Without understanding the bias we sometimes take information shared at face value when we should be skeptical of it. Generally when you see over the top responses to statements of fact it's because that bias exists and they are trying to prove someone wrong in defense of their club. A big hint is all caps responses and attacking the post as completely invalid, FYI.

But there's a small group of posters that generally have a "let the data tell us" approach.  Those posters tend to have a sound understanding of the way rankings work, the relative performance of the teams and a good grasp of the strength of schedule impacts on rankings. They also know a lot of the players and some have been around the game for a long time, and their posts reflect that. They are biased some too, but they generally change their minds when presented with data (See the discussion re: recruiting for example). If you read through the threads you'll see these posters sharing data in a variety of threads like the metro vs. paramount debates, helping new families understand the difference between a 1 team at Club A and a 2s team at Club B, etc. I'm not sure how many of them responded in this thread, but it feels like at least 3 and they all said versions of the same thing: Use national ranks, the data is sound, and here's the proof.

Thanks for joining us in the "let the data tell us" group, at least for this discussion![/quote]

I'm Newbie, and you're the data expert between the 2 of us for sure! But seems like the data sets you just posted actually do support the person who said Central doesn't finish last all the time, since in 2024 Central seems to have had a bad year and finished last in 3 of the 4 age groups they had (one being the 1st  year they had 12s it seems); but in 2022 and 2023 they were almost never last, and Metro East who the same original poster who brought this up said was usually 2nd to North, that wasn't true either.

I've got no dog in this fight, but it seems above you just said the data shows the person defending Central was wrong, which maybe is true for 2024 but based on the data you provided, can't at all be said to be true in the 2 yrs before that, where Central mostly were not last and sometimes were 2nd to Travel (actually they're 2nd to travel for 18s every year it seems - anyone know why that is?)

Fascinating stuff! In the end though, all the national data in this thread says Central is a middling team among the Metro regional teams, and other than Travel being 1st, the only other "trend" among the 2022 - 2024 data is that North is usually 2nd.  Lots and lots of moving around between the other 4 regional teams (East, Central, South PW & South FX).

Ok now can I give you some questions related to my actual job (nothing to do with volleyball) and can you please do data analysis for me for projects?  Your anonymous feedback is way cheaper than the consultant I use LOL! 
(Kidding, in case that's not clear!)[/quote]
Like any trend analysis the time period you choose is important to the analysis.  Objectively it is fair to say the following:
Over the last two years of club volleyball (2024 & 2025), Metro Central was the a) The region most likely to have teams with the lowest national rank of any of the Metro teams, b) Had the most "last place" finishes in national ranking when compared to their peer group, and c) Had the least amount of variability in the data (e.g. were most consistently the lowest ranked team when compared to other regionals except Metro North (who is equally consistent in being 2nd in the group).

If you expand the time period to include 2022 & 2023, you can also credibly say that Metro Central's performance has: a) Declined relative to other Metro regions, and b) has a declining trend in national ranking between between 2021 and 2025.  This declining trend has occurred at the same time the overall performance of CHRVA teams has been improving relative to the rest of the country.

Posting the chart that shows the decline from 2021-2025 is hard in this forum, but if you scatter plot the rankings of all Central teams by year you will see that the best national ranking for any Central team has declined by about ~600 ranks and the worst national ranking has increased by around ~1700 ranks since 2022.  Said another way, in 2022 the best Central team was ranked #1281 (U18) and the worst Central team was ranked #2443.  In 2025 the best team was ranked #1818, and the worst team was ranked #4159.

What you can't do is use the 2022 & 2023 data to skew the average performance of 2024 & 2025 in favor of the argument that Metro Central is actually in the middle of the pack against other Metro teams. 2 years is an eternity in club volleyball especially when the clubs in Metro Central's direct geography have been expanding.  There were a lot fewer teams in the central DC Metro area in 2022 than there are today.
[/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