If a hitter makes a “bad” decision on a bad set, swings and gets blocked the team looses a point. This is a statistic you can track with traditional hitting efficiency. If a hitter makes a “good” decision on the same bad set, swings conservatively “to put the ball in the court” but the subsequent dig off of the conservative swing allows the other team to score a point in transition, isn’t the “good” swing just as ineffective as the “bad” swing? After all, the end goal is to put the ball down AND in, not just in.

BUT, in my opinion the main advantage of IPE is that you can set a goal. If you set goals for errors, it’s seems to be more of a pass or fail system. Let’s say you want less than two passing errors from a certain player, and get their 3rd error on the 3rd serve. The player feels as if they have failed.
With IPE, your goal is not defined until the game is over. Let’s assume you want a hitting IPE of .700 or better. If you miss your first 3, you still can have hope that you will get 7 more sets and keep them in. You can keep striving to achieve…that’s what I really like about the system.

BUT, in my opinion the main advantage of IPE is that you can set a goal. If you set goals for errors, it’s seems to be more of a pass or fail system. Let’s say you want less than two passing errors from a certain player, and get their 3rd error on the 3rd serve. The player feels as if they have failed.
With IPE, your goal is not defined until the game is over. Let’s assume you want a hitting IPE of .700 or better. If you miss your first 3, you still can have hope that you will get 7 more sets and keep them in. You can keep striving to achieve…that’s what I really like about the system.