Players

Louis Hayes 5 Setter (S)
Player Skills
SERVING	RECEIVING	BLOCKING	ATTACKING	DEFENSE	SETTING
13	-	10	12	11	16

Season 4 Totals
ASSISTS	KILLS	ACES	DIGS	BLOCKS
991 5th	43 155th	26 17th	91 64th	40 95th

Career Honors

S31st All-BIG-EAST

S41st All-BIG-EAST

Match Statistics - OFFENSE (Season 4)

Match		Sets	Attack					Serve						Set
m	opponent/sets	sp	k	k/s	e	ta	pct	pts	sa	se	sa/s	ta	pct	a	a/s	ta	pct	pts	rating
1	Santa Clara W (3–0 sets)	3	3	1.00	0	5	.600	3	0	1	0.00	10	.900	38	12.67	65	.585	5.0	8.76
4	Teutopolis W (3–0 sets)	3	0	0.00	0	1	.000	5	0	3	0.00	12	.750	31	10.33	62	.500	0.0	4.64
5	Teutopolis W (3–0 sets)	3	0	0.00	0	2	.000	8	2	2	0.67	14	.857	33	11.00	64	.516	3.0	6.53
7	Columbia L (1–3 sets)	4	5	1.25	0	9	.556	5	3	1	0.75	16	.938	48	12.00	84	.571	8.0	7.24
9	Baton Rouge W (3–1 sets)	4	0	0.00	1	3	-.333	6	0	1	0.00	18	.944	50	12.50	93	.538	0.5	6.74
10	Carlsbad L (1–3 sets)	4	2	0.50	0	4	.500	6	3	3	0.75	18	.833	37	9.25	81	.457	7.5	5.31
11	Santa Clara W (3–2 sets)	5	1	0.20	0	5	.200	1	0	1	0.00	13	.923	50	10.00	117	.427	3.0	5.13
12	Albuquerque W (3–1 sets)	4	3	0.75	0	3	1.000	12	0	0	0.00	23	1.000	50	12.50	88	.568	4.0	9.05
16	Sheboygan W (3–1 sets)	4	4	1.00	1	6	.500	7	2	6	0.50	19	.684	48	12.00	98	.490	7.5	7.91
17	Pekin W (3–2 sets)	5	2	0.40	1	7	.143	13	3	4	0.60	26	.846	52	10.40	100	.520	6.0	6.50
20	Schenectady L (2–3 sets)	5	1	0.20	0	5	.200	2	0	4	0.00	16	.750	65	13.00	120	.542	1.0	7.02
22	Albuquerque W (3–0 sets)	3	0	0.00	1	2	-.500	8	0	2	0.00	16	.875	36	12.00	67	.537	0.5	7.72
24	Teutopolis W (3–2 sets)	5	3	0.60	1	6	.333	18	2	4	0.40	30	.867	51	10.20	102	.500	5.5	6.71
26	Pekin L (1–3 sets)	4	2	0.50	0	6	.333	5	0	1	0.00	17	.941	50	12.50	108	.463	3.5	8.50
28	Pekin W (3–0 sets)	3	2	0.67	0	3	.667	8	0	3	0.00	16	.813	37	12.33	63	.587	4.0	9.50
29	Quincy W (3–2 sets)	5	3	0.60	0	6	.500	4	1	3	0.20	16	.813	51	10.20	102	.500	4.0	5.40
33	Antioch L (1–3 sets)	4	3	0.75	1	5	.400	10	4	2	1.00	22	.909	45	11.25	88	.511	7.0	6.93
35	Santa Clara W (3–1 sets)	4	1	0.25	0	5	.200	7	0	2	0.00	18	.889	43	10.75	75	.573	1.5	5.71
38	Santa Clara W (3–0 sets)	3	1	0.33	0	3	.333	14	2	2	0.67	22	.909	31	10.33	60	.517	4.0	6.98
40	San Diego W (3–2 sets)	5	4	0.80	1	14	.214	7	2	3	0.40	20	.850	55	11.00	109	.505	7.5	6.78
41	San Diego W (3–2 sets)	5	2	0.40	0	5	.400	10	1	4	0.20	24	.833	61	12.20	99	.616	3.5	7.30
45	Carlsbad L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0.33	0	1	1.000	4	1	0	0.33	13	1.000	29	9.67	65	.446	2.5	4.86
Total		88	43	0.49	7	106	.340	163	26	52	0.30	399	.870	991	11.26	1910	.519	89.0	6.87

Match Statistics - DEFENSE (Season 4)

Match		Sets	Block					Dig		Receive
m	opponent/sets	sp	s	a	t	be	blk/s	d	d/s	3	rt	rcv	e	pct	pts	rating
1	Santa Clara W (3–0 sets)	3	0	4	4	0	1.33	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	8.76
4	Teutopolis W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	0.0	4.64
5	Teutopolis W (3–0 sets)	3	0	2	2	1	0.67	4	1.33	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	6.53
7	Columbia L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	6	1.50	.	.	.	.	.	8.0	7.24
9	Baton Rouge W (3–1 sets)	4	0	1	1	0	0.25	1	0.25	.	.	.	.	.	0.5	6.74
10	Carlsbad L (1–3 sets)	4	0	5	5	0	1.25	1	0.25	.	.	.	.	.	7.5	5.31
11	Santa Clara W (3–2 sets)	5	0	4	4	0	0.80	7	1.40	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	5.13
12	Albuquerque W (3–1 sets)	4	0	2	2	1	0.50	5	1.25	.	.	.	.	.	4.0	9.05
16	Sheboygan W (3–1 sets)	4	0	3	3	0	0.75	1	0.25	.	.	.	.	.	7.5	7.91
17	Pekin W (3–2 sets)	5	0	2	2	0	0.40	5	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	6.0	6.50
20	Schenectady L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	4	0.80	.	.	.	.	.	1.0	7.02
22	Albuquerque W (3–0 sets)	3	0	1	1	1	0.33	8	2.67	.	.	.	.	.	0.5	7.72
24	Teutopolis W (3–2 sets)	5	0	1	1	0	0.20	6	1.20	.	.	.	.	.	5.5	6.71
26	Pekin L (1–3 sets)	4	0	3	3	0	0.75	6	1.50	.	.	.	.	.	3.5	8.50
28	Pekin W (3–0 sets)	3	0	4	4	0	1.33	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	4.0	9.50
29	Quincy W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	8	1.60	.	.	.	.	.	4.0	5.40
33	Antioch L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	6	1.50	.	.	.	.	.	7.0	6.93
35	Santa Clara W (3–1 sets)	4	0	1	1	1	0.25	4	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	1.5	5.71
38	Santa Clara W (3–0 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	4.0	6.98
40	San Diego W (3–2 sets)	5	0	3	3	1	0.60	8	1.60	.	.	.	.	.	7.5	6.78
41	San Diego W (3–2 sets)	5	0	1	1	0	0.20	2	0.40	.	.	.	.	.	3.5	7.30
45	Carlsbad L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	2.5	4.86
Total		88	0	40	40	5	0.45	91	1.03	.	.	.	.	.	89.0	6.87