Players

Peter Hartman 5 Outside Hitter (OH)
Player Skills
SERVING	RECEIVING	BLOCKING	ATTACKING	DEFENSE	SETTING
13	11	13	13	11	5

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
4	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	7	2.33	5	17	.118	2	0	1	0.00	11	.909	.	.	.	.	7.0	3.88
5	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	6	2.00	6	17	.000	0	0	1	0.00	6	.833	.	.	.	.	7.0	2.00
8	Arlington W (3–0 sets)	3	11	3.67	3	18	.444	0	0	1	0.00	6	.833	.	.	.	.	12.5	7.25
9	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	8	2.67	6	19	.105	0	0	1	0.00	6	.833	.	.	.	.	10.5	4.80
11	Ames W (3–2 sets)	5	17	3.40	2	27	.556	7	1	5	0.20	16	.688	1	0.20	1	1.000	20.5	6.80
12	Santa Clara L (2–3 sets)	5	18	3.60	5	28	.464	5	1	4	0.20	18	.778	.	.	.	.	20.5	7.50
14	Dallas L (1–3 sets)	4	16	4.00	4	27	.444	2	1	0	0.25	13	1.000	1	0.25	1	1.000	18.5	6.17
15	Cincinnati W (3–0 sets)	3	15	5.00	2	20	.650	2	1	4	0.33	8	.500	0	0.00	1	.000	16.5	6.03
17	San Diego L (2–3 sets)	5	15	3.00	5	30	.333	5	0	2	0.00	16	.875	.	.	.	.	20.0	6.21
18	Mendon W (3–1 sets)	4	11	2.75	2	21	.429	8	1	3	0.25	17	.824	1	0.25	1	1.000	13.0	6.90
21	New Orleans L (2–3 sets)	5	14	2.80	5	33	.273	4	0	3	0.00	14	.786	.	.	.	.	15.5	4.58
25	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	8	2.67	1	13	.538	4	0	2	0.00	10	.800	.	.	.	.	9.5	6.16
26	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	11	3.67	6	23	.217	1	0	1	0.00	8	.875	1	0.33	1	1.000	11.0	5.40
30	San Jose W (3–0 sets)	3	10	3.33	1	16	.563	4	1	2	0.33	10	.800	.	.	.	.	12.5	6.46
33	Antioch L (2–3 sets)	5	12	2.40	8	28	.143	7	1	3	0.20	16	.813	.	.	.	.	15.5	4.62
34	Arlington W (3–2 sets)	5	23	4.60	6	34	.500	4	0	2	0.00	13	.846	.	.	.	.	23.5	6.86
35	Sheboygan L (0–3 sets)	3	7	2.33	6	20	.050	4	0	1	0.00	10	.900	.	.	.	.	7.0	3.63
Total		65	209	3.22	73	391	.348	59	7	36	0.11	198	.818	4	0.06	5	.800	240.5	5.60

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
4	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	11	2.04	27	1	.963	7.0	3.88
5	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	.	.	8	1.64	22	5	.773	7.0	2.00
8	Arlington W (3–0 sets)	3	0	3	3	0	1.00	2	0.67	15	2.35	26	1	.962	12.5	7.25
9	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	0	5	5	0	1.67	1	0.33	9	1.83	23	4	.826	10.5	4.80
11	Ames W (3–2 sets)	5	0	5	5	0	1.00	5	1.00	14	2.00	28	4	.857	20.5	6.80
12	Santa Clara L (2–3 sets)	5	0	3	3	0	0.60	8	1.60	23	2.17	42	4	.905	20.5	7.50
14	Dallas L (1–3 sets)	4	0	3	3	0	0.75	1	0.25	14	1.90	39	6	.846	18.5	6.17
15	Cincinnati W (3–0 sets)	3	0	1	1	1	0.33	2	0.67	8	1.68	19	5	.737	16.5	6.03
17	San Diego L (2–3 sets)	5	0	10	10	0	2.00	5	1.00	15	1.95	39	3	.923	20.0	6.21
18	Mendon W (3–1 sets)	4	0	2	2	0	0.50	8	2.00	16	2.32	25	3	.880	13.0	6.90
21	New Orleans L (2–3 sets)	5	1	1	2	1	0.40	1	0.20	22	1.91	44	9	.795	15.5	4.58
25	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	0	3	3	0	1.00	1	0.33	12	2.17	24	1	.958	9.5	6.16
26	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	8	1.95	21	1	.952	11.0	5.40
30	San Jose W (3–0 sets)	3	0	3	3	0	1.00	5	1.67	4	1.86	14	0	1.000	12.5	6.46
33	Antioch L (2–3 sets)	5	0	5	5	0	1.00	1	0.20	17	1.97	39	6	.846	15.5	4.62
34	Arlington W (3–2 sets)	5	0	1	1	1	0.20	1	0.20	17	2.08	40	3	.925	23.5	6.86
35	Sheboygan L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	9	1.66	29	5	.828	7.0	3.63
Total		65	1	47	48	4	0.74	52	0.80	222	1.98	501	61	.878	240.5	5.60