Players

Eric Hastings 5 Outside Hitter (OH)
Player Skills
SERVING	RECEIVING	BLOCKING	ATTACKING	DEFENSE	SETTING
17	16	17	16	16	10

Season 9 Totals
KILLS	ATK PCT	ACES	DIGS	BLOCKS
285 29th	.435 115th	36 17th	76 131st	46 158th

Career Honors

S101st All-BIG-8

Match Statistics - OFFENSE (Season 9)

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	Portland L (0–3 sets)	3	7	2.33	5	15	.133	2	0	0	0.00	9	1.000	.	.	.	.	7.5	5.56
2	Dallas L (2–3 sets)	5	11	2.20	5	21	.286	6	1	2	0.20	20	.900	0	0.00	1	.000	12.5	4.11
4	Quincy W (3–1 sets)	4	16	4.00	5	26	.423	2	1	1	0.25	14	.929	.	.	.	.	19.5	7.93
6	Teutopolis L (1–3 sets)	4	10	2.50	2	20	.400	8	5	2	1.25	19	.895	0	0.00	1	.000	16.0	5.47
7	St. Charles L (0–3 sets)	3	7	2.33	5	18	.111	5	0	1	0.00	12	.917	.	.	.	.	7.0	5.06
9	Tucson W (3–0 sets)	3	8	2.67	0	9	.889	2	1	1	0.33	10	.900	.	.	.	.	11.5	5.64
11	Dallas W (3–2 sets)	5	18	3.60	4	28	.500	7	0	1	0.00	16	.938	0	0.00	1	.000	19.5	7.70
12	Albuquerque W (3–1 sets)	4	16	4.00	1	19	.789	6	3	4	0.75	17	.765	.	.	.	.	20.0	7.90
14	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	6	2.00	1	8	.625	4	1	1	0.33	13	.923	.	.	.	.	7.0	4.53
16	St. Charles L (0–3 sets)	3	8	2.67	3	16	.313	0	0	0	0.00	8	1.000	.	.	.	.	9.0	5.10
17	Denali W (3–1 sets)	4	13	3.25	1	17	.706	7	2	2	0.50	18	.889	1	0.25	2	.500	16.0	7.74
19	St. Charles L (1–3 sets)	4	9	2.25	5	20	.200	7	1	1	0.25	16	.938	1	0.25	1	1.000	10.5	5.79
21	Nashville W (3–0 sets)	3	9	3.00	4	17	.294	7	2	0	0.67	15	1.000	0	0.00	1	.000	11.5	7.47
22	Ames L (2–3 sets)	5	17	3.40	4	28	.464	7	0	2	0.00	20	.900	0	0.00	1	.000	17.5	6.62
25	San Jose W (3–1 sets)	4	22	5.50	2	26	.769	8	2	1	0.50	20	.950	.	.	.	.	25.0	7.99
26	Baton Rouge L (1–3 sets)	4	18	4.50	4	26	.538	1	0	3	0.00	13	.769	.	.	.	.	20.5	7.70
31	Sheboygan L (0–3 sets)	3	11	3.67	3	21	.381	4	2	1	0.67	11	.909	.	.	.	.	14.0	7.13
33	Sheboygan L (1–3 sets)	4	16	4.00	3	23	.565	7	4	1	1.00	17	.941	3	0.75	3	1.000	20.0	5.38
34	Arlington W (3–0 sets)	3	11	3.67	2	13	.692	9	3	0	1.00	14	1.000	1	0.33	1	1.000	16.5	8.85
36	Quincy W (3–1 sets)	4	15	3.75	5	23	.435	11	3	0	0.75	24	1.000	.	.	.	.	19.0	8.13
39	Ames W (3–0 sets)	3	7	2.33	5	13	.154	3	1	1	0.33	11	.909	1	0.33	1	1.000	8.5	4.66
41	Schenectady W (3–0 sets)	3	7	2.33	4	13	.231	6	3	1	1.00	13	.923	.	.	.	.	10.0	5.48
44	Pekin L (2–3 sets)	5	16	3.20	6	29	.345	6	1	1	0.20	19	.947	1	0.20	1	1.000	17.0	6.28
46	Baton Rouge L (0–3 sets)	3	7	2.33	4	15	.200	2	0	1	0.00	10	.900	1	0.33	2	.500	9.5	5.94
Total		89	285	3.20	83	464	.435	127	36	28	0.40	359	.922	9	0.10	16	.563	345.0	6.42

Match Statistics - DEFENSE (Season 9)

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	Portland L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	7	2.33	7	2.36	11	0	1.000	7.5	5.56
2	Dallas L (2–3 sets)	5	0	1	1	0	0.20	2	0.40	15	2.08	37	4	.892	12.5	4.11
4	Quincy W (3–1 sets)	4	0	5	5	0	1.25	4	1.00	15	2.28	29	1	.966	19.5	7.93
6	Teutopolis L (1–3 sets)	4	0	2	2	0	0.50	5	1.25	18	2.06	34	5	.853	16.0	5.47
7	St. Charles L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	18	2.33	30	3	.900	7.0	5.06
9	Tucson W (3–0 sets)	3	0	5	5	0	1.67	6	2.00	9	1.90	20	4	.800	11.5	5.64
11	Dallas W (3–2 sets)	5	0	3	3	1	0.60	6	1.20	10	2.22	18	1	.944	19.5	7.70
12	Albuquerque W (3–1 sets)	4	0	2	2	0	0.50	2	0.50	6	2.36	11	0	1.000	20.0	7.90
14	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0.33	9	2.64	11	1	.909	7.0	4.53
16	St. Charles L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	.	.	6	2.21	14	1	.929	9.0	5.10
17	Denali W (3–1 sets)	4	0	2	2	0	0.50	12	3.00	6	2.27	11	1	.909	16.0	7.74
19	St. Charles L (1–3 sets)	4	0	1	1	0	0.25	4	1.00	9	2.50	14	0	1.000	10.5	5.79
21	Nashville W (3–0 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	3	1.00	11	2.64	14	0	1.000	11.5	7.47
22	Ames L (2–3 sets)	5	0	1	1	0	0.20	1	0.20	11	2.32	19	2	.895	17.5	6.62
25	San Jose W (3–1 sets)	4	0	2	2	0	0.50	2	0.50	8	2.11	18	1	.944	25.0	7.99
26	Baton Rouge L (1–3 sets)	4	0	5	5	0	1.25	.	.	13	2.36	22	0	1.000	20.5	7.70
31	Sheboygan L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0	1	1	0.33	1	0.33	12	2.33	18	1	.944	14.0	7.13
33	Sheboygan L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	6	1.67	15	4	.733	20.0	5.38
34	Arlington W (3–0 sets)	3	0	5	5	0	1.67	2	0.67	4	2.50	6	0	1.000	16.5	8.85
36	Quincy W (3–1 sets)	4	0	2	2	0	0.50	5	1.25	8	2.36	14	1	.929	19.0	8.13
39	Ames W (3–0 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	.	.	6	2.25	12	0	1.000	8.5	4.66
41	Schenectady W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	7	2.46	13	0	1.000	10.0	5.48
44	Pekin L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	4	0.80	14	2.31	26	0	1.000	17.0	6.28
46	Baton Rouge L (0–3 sets)	3	1	3	4	1	1.33	4	1.33	15	2.36	22	1	.955	9.5	5.94
Total		89	2	44	46	3	0.52	76	0.85	243	2.26	439	31	.929	345.0	6.42