Players

Carter Scott 5 Outside Hitter (OH)
Player Skills
SERVING	RECEIVING	BLOCKING	ATTACKING	DEFENSE	SETTING
10	11	8	10	10	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	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0.33	1	10	.000	3	1	0	0.33	7	1.000	0	0.00	1	.000	2.0	3.42
2	Quincy L (2–3 sets)	5	8	1.60	10	34	-.059	8	0	2	0.00	16	.875	0	0.00	1	.000	8.0	3.74
5	San Diego L (0–3 sets)	3	3	1.00	2	14	.071	6	1	1	0.33	10	.900	.	.	.	.	4.5	4.78
8	Antioch L (0–3 sets)	3	3	1.00	3	15	.000	1	0	1	0.00	7	.857	.	.	.	.	5.0	3.99
12	Quincy L (0–3 sets)	3	3	1.00	3	9	.000	1	0	1	0.00	6	.833	.	.	.	.	3.0	2.59
13	Pekin L (2–3 sets)	5	8	1.60	11	23	-.130	6	0	5	0.00	14	.643	.	.	.	.	8.0	4.50
16	Mendon W (3–2 sets)	5	8	1.60	3	20	.250	3	0	1	0.00	12	.917	.	.	.	.	9.5	3.25
18	Baton Rouge L (0–3 sets)	3	4	1.33	7	18	-.167	3	0	2	0.00	9	.778	.	.	.	.	5.5	3.74
20	Antioch L (2–3 sets)	5	8	1.60	9	30	-.033	6	1	3	0.20	14	.786	0	0.00	3	.000	10.5	4.25
21	New Orleans L (0–3 sets)	3	3	1.00	5	14	-.143	1	0	0	0.00	5	1.000	0	0.00	1	.000	3.0	3.11
24	San Diego L (0–3 sets)	3	6	2.00	4	22	.091	3	1	2	0.33	9	.778	1	0.33	1	1.000	7.5	4.37
25	Albuquerque L (1–3 sets)	4	5	1.25	8	19	-.158	1	0	1	0.00	8	.875	0	0.00	1	.000	7.0	4.59
29	Santa Clara L (1–3 sets)	4	7	1.75	3	19	.211	5	1	3	0.25	14	.786	.	.	.	.	8.0	3.04
32	Burlington W (3–1 sets)	4	8	2.00	6	21	.095	1	0	2	0.00	9	.778	0	0.00	2	.000	10.5	4.32
33	Schenectady L (0–3 sets)	3	4	1.33	8	17	-.235	0	0	0	0.00	5	1.000	.	.	.	.	5.0	2.18
36	Teutopolis W (3–0 sets)	3	4	1.33	4	21	.000	0	0	1	0.00	7	.857	.	.	.	.	6.5	4.88
Total		59	83	1.41	87	306	-.013	48	5	25	0.08	152	.836	6	0.10	10	.600	103.5	3.80

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	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	11	2.17	23	1	.957	2.0	3.42
2	Quincy L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	9	1.80	16	2.15	33	3	.909	8.0	3.74
5	San Diego L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	1	0.33	6	2.00	15	2.30	27	1	.963	4.5	4.78
8	Antioch L (0–3 sets)	3	0	4	4	0	1.33	4	1.33	11	2.13	24	2	.917	5.0	3.99
12	Quincy L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0.33	12	2.13	23	2	.913	3.0	2.59
13	Pekin L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	14	2.80	18	2.39	31	2	.935	8.0	4.50
16	Mendon W (3–2 sets)	5	0	3	3	0	0.60	7	1.40	10	1.93	28	2	.929	9.5	3.25
18	Baton Rouge L (0–3 sets)	3	1	1	2	0	0.67	4	1.33	7	2.00	13	2	.846	5.5	3.74
20	Antioch L (2–3 sets)	5	0	3	3	1	0.60	15	3.00	17	2.03	35	4	.886	10.5	4.25
21	New Orleans L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	8	2.67	10	2.00	25	2	.920	3.0	3.11
24	San Diego L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	7	2.33	11	2.10	21	2	.905	7.5	4.37
25	Albuquerque L (1–3 sets)	4	0	4	4	0	1.00	9	2.25	14	2.32	28	0	1.000	7.0	4.59
29	Santa Clara L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	10	2.50	11	1.87	31	4	.871	8.0	3.04
32	Burlington W (3–1 sets)	4	2	1	3	0	0.75	8	2.00	10	2.08	24	1	.958	10.5	4.32
33	Schenectady L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	2	0.67	6	1.75	20	4	.800	5.0	2.18
36	Teutopolis W (3–0 sets)	3	0	5	5	1	1.67	9	3.00	9	2.31	16	2	.875	6.5	4.88
Total		59	3	25	28	6	0.47	116	1.97	188	2.11	402	34	.915	103.5	3.80