Start with the match context. A total is meaningful only when you know how many sets were played, how much a player was on court, and whether the record is match-level or tournament-level.
Points usually combine more than one route to scoring. Attack points show the direct result of an attack, while blocks and serve points describe different ways a rally can end in your team’s favour. Totals should be read as counts, not as a complete performance grade.
Attacks and receptions are opportunity measures as well as outcome measures. A player who receives more serves may carry a different responsibility from a player who is protected in reception. Comparing the raw total without role or workload can create a misleading ranking.
A good data page is honest about what is missing. If a provider does not return a percentage, the page should not invent one. If a competition has no linked match rows, it should show an empty state rather than a polished guess.
FIVB’s statistic model makes the aggregation level explicit: the same service can return set records, match sums, or tournament sums, and it can describe a player or a team. That means a tournament row is not interchangeable with a match row, even when both contain a field called points.
Team totals deserve the same discipline. If the provider returns a team statistic row, it can be displayed as a team fact. If it does not, adding together player rows may create a number that looks precise but does not match the provider’s definition. A trustworthy table keeps that distinction visible.