Remove this Banner Ad

Ablett's 3rd quarter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stjonesy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stjonesy

Stjonesy

Team Captain
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Posts
455
Reaction score
985
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Champion data,an explanation is required?

He had 1 kick, and 3 handballs. Yet he scored 52 sc points for the quarter? I am copping a lot of sms's at the moment in absolute astonishment....

The integrity of the game is being questioned right at this minute
 
..why are you getting sms's about Gary Abletts 3rd quarter supercoach score??
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Must have contributed more than 1 kick and 3 handballs in the 3rd quarter, he scored 34 DT for that term.
 
SC is rigged unfortunately. Favours the popular players, which increases scores, which increases popularity of the game.

Ablett only had 58% efficiency tonight as well along with 3 clangers...

*Note: I do have Ablett(C) so I'm not just saying this because I'm upset, I just think the scoring system is very questionable.*

Edit: He did have 7 tackles tonight, so I think I'm going a bit too far now! Still think it is rigged though.
 
Totally agree questions need to be asked of his score in the 3rd qtr.
I understand time of the game and importance etc. but his score should have been 95-100 tops tonight if his name wasn't Ablett and you look purely at the stats.
As for that 3rd qtr its not defendable.
 
Gary Ablett SC score: 121
Gary Ablett DT score: 110

I didnt watch the game but in the end, the DT scores are very similar to the SC scores. So I dont see how it is rigged.

I wouldn't trust the quarter by quarter score by too much.
 
I worked it out to 3 handballs, 1 kick, 1 goal, 3 tackles, 1 contested mark, 1 uncontested mark, 1 free for and 34DT in that quarter.

Using SuperCoach's score list, and assuming every possesion was effective, that equals 41SC points, and that's not even including contested/hard ball gets/weighting. And those things could have easily attributed to the extra 13 points.

Bare in mind it was a close quarter and Gary kicked an important goal. Now I'm not sure if his possesions were contested or not and if his possesions were effective (probably were), but despite what all of you think, ChampionData don't just randomly give points to players for no reason.
 
You can make all the DT/SC comparison scores for all you like.

The question still remains...how did he score 52 points in the thrid quarter?!

It needs to be answered for the integrity of the game to stay intact,as at this very hour,people are turning from SC due to tonights scandal...
 
I reckon who ever was on duty out at Swinbourne had half a doz stubs during the game and took a punt he carved it up as usual when they updated the 3rd qtr stats.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Stjonesy said:
You can make all the DT/SC comparison scores for all you like.

The question still remains...how did he score 52 points in the thrid quarter?!

It needs to be answered for the integrity of the game to stay intact,as at this very hour,people are turning from SC due to tonights scandal...
Click to expand...

The scores are re-scaled at the end of each quarter as I understood it. So technically it's not that he scored 52 in 1 quarter. His cumulative score was calculated to be 98 at 3/4 time compared to 46 at half time.

It sounds like it's splitting hairs I know but I think they re-calculate the first 2 quarters when they work out the 3/4 time score. So it's like Ablett had an in hindsight higher half time score they we will never know.

Sometimes SC scores by quarter are just not comparable to the stats v DT that has the more simplistic scoring system.

A few round back Robbie Gray went from 30 at 3/4 time to 96 at the end because he swung the match for Port in a close game. He didn't get 66 points worth of stats in that quarter. I'm not trying to defend the SC scoring system here. I'm just trying to explain why I think the SC scores aren't isolated to quarters, if that makes sense.
 
Hondo said:
The scores are re-scaled at the end of each quarter as I understood it. So technically it's not that he scored 52 in 1 quarter. His cumulative score was calculated to be 98 at 3/4 time compared to 46 at half time.

It sounds like it's splitting hairs I know but I think they re-calculate the first 2 quarters when they work out the 3/4 time score. So it's like Ablett had an in hindsight higher half time score they we will never know.
Click to expand...

It wasn't you out at Swinbourne on the gas was it ?
 
Jock said:
It wasn't you out at Swinbourne on the gas was it ?
Click to expand...

Not me mate!

If you compare everyone's quarter by quarter SC scores to DT scores you will do your head in.

You think they lock away the published SC score at the end of a quarter and then ADD the score for the next one and so on? Not sure they do that. Besides, he got 34 DT points that quarter.
 
Hondo said:
The scores are re-scaled at the end of each quarter as I understood it. So technically it's not that he scored 52 in 1 quarter. His cumulative score was calculated to be 98 at 3/4 time compared to 46 at half time.

It sounds like it's splitting hairs I know but I think they re-calculate the first 2 quarters when they work out the 3/4 time score. So it's like Ablett had an in hindsight higher half time score they we will never know.

Sometimes SC scores by quarter are just not comparable to the stats v DT that has the more simplistic scoring system.

A few round back Robbie Gray went from 30 at 3/4 time to 96 at the end because he swung the match for Port in a close game. He didn't get 66 points worth of stats in that quarter. I'm not trying to defend the SC scoring system here. I'm just trying to explain why I think the SC scores aren't isolated to quarters, if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Ok.

Your explantion sheds some light on the situation then.As going by his score tonight,it makes sense that the actual stats mean nothing,and it's just derived from some geek at swinbournes opinion of the game. No doubt the creators of the game all have him in there side,makes sense why the scoring system was laughably biased towards him tonight
 
Stjonesy said:
Ok.

Your explantion sheds some light on the situation then.As going by his score tonight,it makes sense that the actual stats mean nothing,and it's just derived from some geek at swinbournes opinion of the game. No doubt the creators of the game all have him in there side,makes sense why the scoring system was laughably biased towards him tonight
Click to expand...

at the end of the day DT scores different to sc by 10 points and dt scoring is based on raw stats. How is that biased :/
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Surely people realise that the supercoach rankings are based purely on champion datas ranking system. Aka the biggest data collector in Australia, also doing multiple other codes. Herald Sun and AFL clubs pay for this data and herald sun the right to publish the data.. you think the statisticians would risk even slightly compromising the integrity of the company by "consistently" boosting ONE players (that 90% of top teams have anyway mind you) score for a game/competition they may not even be able to join*, to increase there minute chance of winning the whole thing!?!? Surely they would all not pick Ablett and actually decrease his score consistently if there was any merit to this cheating argument. :thumbsu: PEOPLE they are not cheating, they are not Ablett bias, they were not anti Goodes earlier in the year and they aren't suddenly pro Goodes now!! Please take this message and pass it to everyone CHAMPION DATA ARE HUGEEEEEE they are not some small company run by these small handful of Swinburne students that are always mentioned can people stop being so naive :confused:
*may or may not be able to enter i wouldnt have a clue about this point
p.s im a geelong supporter and thought ablett was horrible ahahah
/mass overdue rant
 
lloyd136 said:
I worked it out to 3 handballs, 1 kick, 1 goal, 3 tackles, 1 contested mark, 1 uncontested mark, 1 free for and 34DT in that quarter.

Using SuperCoach's score list, and assuming every possesion was effective, that equals 41SC points, and that's not even including contested/hard ball gets/weighting. And those things could have easily attributed to the extra 13 points.

Bare in mind it was a close quarter and Gary kicked an important goal. Now I'm not sure if his possesions were contested or not and if his possesions were effective (probably were), but despite what all of you think, ChampionData don't just randomly give points to players for no reason.
Click to expand...

Quoted because everyone seems to be ignored it.

Great explanation on the matter.
 
abs_of_STEELE said:
SC is rigged unfortunately. Favours the popular players, which increases scores, which increases popularity of the game.

Ablett only had 58% efficiency tonight as well along with 3 clangers...

*Note: I do have Ablett(C) so I'm not just saying this because I'm upset, I just think the scoring system is very questionable.*

Edit: He did have 7 tackles tonight, so I think I'm going a bit too far now! Still think it is rigged though.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for you it's not, and unfortunately for you this comment has made you look stupid.

remedi said:
Gary Ablett SC score: 121
Gary Ablett DT score: 110

I didnt watch the game but in the end, the DT scores are very similar to the SC scores. So I dont see how it is rigged.

I wouldn't trust the quarter by quarter score by too much.
Click to expand...

lloyd136 said:
I worked it out to 3 handballs, 1 kick, 1 goal, 3 tackles, 1 contested mark, 1 uncontested mark, 1 free for and 34DT in that quarter.

Using SuperCoach's score list, and assuming every possesion was effective, that equals 41SC points, and that's not even including contested/hard ball gets/weighting. And those things could have easily attributed to the extra 13 points.

Bare in mind it was a close quarter and Gary kicked an important goal. Now I'm not sure if his possesions were contested or not and if his possesions were effective (probably were), but despite what all of you think, ChampionData don't just randomly give points to players for no reason.
Click to expand...
Spot on. :thumbsu:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Maybe Tomorrow
    • Like
    • Love
Competition 2024 Big Footy Cup Round 4 (Quarter Finals)
Replies
16
Views
983
Test Tickle
Test Tickle

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom