Players

David Puddy 5 Libero (L)
Player Skills
SERVING	RECEIVING	BLOCKING	ATTACKING	DEFENSE	SETTING
12	15	-	-	14	12

Season 5 Totals
DIGS	RCV RT	RCV PCT	ASSISTS	ACES
170 24th	2.18 82nd	.926 101st	75 76th	5 331st

Match Statistics - OFFENSE (Season 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
1	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0	2	0.00	6	.667	3	1.00	5	.600	0.0	2.35
2	Quincy L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	2	0	1	0.00	10	.900	6	1.50	8	.750	0.0	6.11
4	Ames W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	11	1	2	0.33	17	.882	3	1.00	5	.600	1.0	9.07
5	Portland W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	7	0	2	0.00	12	.833	6	2.00	4	1.500	0.0	5.56
7	Dallas W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	1	0.00	7	.857	1	0.33	5	.200	0.0	8.61
8	Arlington W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	2	0.00	12	.833	6	1.20	5	1.200	0.0	5.65
10	Columbia L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	2	1	1	0.25	11	.909	1	0.25	4	.250	1.0	4.85
12	Merritt Island W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	9	1	3	0.25	17	.824	3	0.75	5	.600	1.0	6.25
13	Ames W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0	1	0.00	5	.800	2	0.67	3	.667	0.0	6.53
16	Baton Rouge W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	3	0.00	11	.727	3	0.75	3	1.000	0.0	7.40
19	Dallas W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	3	.667	0.0	5.53
20	Quincy W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	4	0.80	8	.500	0.0	2.65
23	Quincy L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	4	2	2	0.40	14	.857	1	0.20	6	.167	2.0	5.85
24	New Orleans W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	0	0.00	11	1.000	7	1.75	3	2.333	0.0	6.24
25	Santa Clara L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	4	0.80	8	.500	0.0	6.93
28	Schenectady L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	4	.750	0.0	5.40
31	Manitowoc W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	5	.400	0.0	7.55
32	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	1	0.33	2	.500	0.0	3.85
34	Arlington W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	7	.714	0.0	4.63
36	Alton L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.50	7	.286	0.0	3.45
39	Portland W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	4	0.80	6	.667	0.0	6.70
41	Portland W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	8	.375	0.0	7.31
44	Pekin W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	1	0.33	1	1.000	0.0	7.01
46	Santa Clara L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.50	8	.250	0.0	4.80
Total		89	.	.	.	.	.	49	5	20	0.06	133	.850	75	0.84	123	.610	5.0	5.85

Match Statistics - DEFENSE (Season 5)

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	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0.33	9	1.78	23	5	.783	0.0	2.35
2	Quincy L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	8	2.00	17	2.11	36	2	.944	0.0	6.11
4	Ames W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	10	3.33	13	2.38	21	0	1.000	1.0	9.07
5	Portland W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	5	1.89	18	1	.944	0.0	5.56
7	Dallas W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	11	3.67	12	2.33	18	2	.889	0.0	8.61
8	Arlington W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	8	1.60	17	2.18	33	1	.970	0.0	5.65
10	Columbia L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	6	1.50	23	2.23	43	3	.930	1.0	4.85
12	Merritt Island W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	9	2.25	17	2.29	31	1	.968	1.0	6.25
13	Ames W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	11	3.67	7	1.71	17	4	.765	0.0	6.53
16	Baton Rouge W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	8	2.00	15	2.42	24	0	1.000	0.0	7.40
19	Dallas W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	13	2.46	24	0	1.000	0.0	5.53
20	Quincy W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	4	0.80	10	1.83	35	4	.886	0.0	2.65
23	Quincy L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	9	1.80	19	2.21	39	3	.923	2.0	5.85
24	New Orleans W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	9	2.25	14	2.18	28	1	.964	0.0	6.24
25	Santa Clara L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	15	3.00	17	2.28	32	2	.938	0.0	6.93
28	Schenectady L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	12	2.09	22	4	.818	0.0	5.40
31	Manitowoc W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	12	4.00	5	2.00	11	1	.909	0.0	7.55
32	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	16	2.09	34	3	.912	0.0	3.85
34	Arlington W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	7	1.85	20	3	.850	0.0	4.63
36	Alton L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	1	0.25	22	2.20	41	4	.902	0.0	3.45
39	Portland W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	8	1.60	22	2.44	34	2	.941	0.0	6.70
41	Portland W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	14	2.53	19	0	1.000	0.0	7.31
44	Pekin W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	8	2.67	13	2.35	23	1	.957	0.0	7.01
46	Santa Clara L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.25	19	2.31	32	2	.938	0.0	4.80
Total		89	.	.	.	.	.	170	1.91	338	2.18	658	49	.926	5.0	5.85