Players

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
2	Manitowoc W (3–2 sets)	5	1	0.20	0	7	.143	6	1	3	0.20	20	.850	46	9.20	108	.426	3.0	4.72
6	Albuquerque W (3–1 sets)	4	1	0.25	1	6	.000	18	1	4	0.25	27	.852	42	10.50	82	.512	3.5	7.21
9	Baton Rouge L (2–3 sets)	5	4	0.80	0	5	.800	6	1	5	0.20	20	.750	53	10.60	92	.576	7.0	6.57
12	Schenectady W (3–1 sets)	4	1	0.25	1	9	.000	9	3	2	0.75	20	.900	40	10.00	80	.500	5.0	6.02
15	Quincy W (3–2 sets)	5	0	0.00	0	4	.000	6	0	3	0.00	20	.850	67	13.40	119	.563	1.5	8.26
17	Nashville W (3–0 sets)	3	2	0.67	1	6	.167	9	0	3	0.00	16	.813	31	10.33	57	.544	3.0	7.40
18	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	1	3	-.333	0	0	1	0.00	8	.875	26	8.67	59	.441	0.0	2.92
21	San Jose W (3–2 sets)	5	1	0.20	1	5	.000	11	2	4	0.40	25	.840	58	11.60	109	.532	5.0	7.13
26	Mat-Su W (3–1 sets)	4	0	0.00	0	7	.000	12	1	4	0.25	23	.826	51	12.75	80	.638	1.0	7.69
29	Sheboygan L (1–3 sets)	4	0	0.00	1	5	-.200	4	0	1	0.00	15	.933	38	9.50	78	.487	0.5	4.26
Total		42	10	0.24	6	57	.070	81	9	30	0.21	194	.845	452	10.76	864	.523	29.5	6.22

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
2	Manitowoc W (3–2 sets)	5	0	2	2	0	0.40	8	1.60	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	4.72
6	Albuquerque W (3–1 sets)	4	0	3	3	0	0.75	6	1.50	.	.	.	.	.	3.5	7.21
9	Baton Rouge L (2–3 sets)	5	0	4	4	0	0.80	5	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	7.0	6.57
12	Schenectady W (3–1 sets)	4	0	2	2	0	0.50	6	1.50	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	6.02
15	Quincy W (3–2 sets)	5	0	3	3	0	0.60	5	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	1.5	8.26
17	Nashville W (3–0 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	5	1.67	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	7.40
18	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	0.0	2.92
21	San Jose W (3–2 sets)	5	1	2	3	0	0.60	2	0.40	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	7.13
26	Mat-Su W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	3	0.75	.	.	.	.	.	1.0	7.69
29	Sheboygan L (1–3 sets)	4	0	1	1	0	0.25	3	0.75	.	.	.	.	.	0.5	4.26
Total		42	1	19	20	0	0.48	45	1.07	.	.	.	.	.	29.5	6.22