Supercoach Scoring: Please Explain?

[THRILLHOU]

I know this has been covered before, but what's the deal with the scores from EVERY game adding up to 3300? I read a blog about it, but it didn't click for me. Wondering if someone can explain it.

eg. here are the combined scores for the weekends games:

3299 bris/carl
3302 mel/coll
3301 wc/port
3301 st kilda/north
3299 adel/syd
3302 ess/freo
3299 rich/dogs
3300 hawks / cats

I was looking up the stats because i was BAFFLED by Sam Mitchells score, so i thought i would compare him to GAJ (please don't turn this into hawks / cats im just trying to understand the scoring).

GAJ got 128 i think, mitchell 64. DOUBLE

Their stats were similar. Mitchell had 30 touches, a goal, 9 inside 50s, 5 clearances, 9 contested posessions, 7 clangers and a kicking efficiency of 60%

GAJ had 38 touches (fewer kicks which score higher), 6 tackles (that accounts for 24 points), 5 inside 50s, no goals, 7 clearances, 15 contested, 5 clangers and an efficiency of 71%.

So on paper, not too dissimilar. Lose a few, gain a few... Gazza had it a bit more, tackled more and had a mildly better efficiency, but how does this account for DOUBLE the score??

The fact that every game adds up to 3300, and the fact that they only tell us SOME of the scoring factors makes it all seem a bit dodgy. I've often thought GAJ has his own stats man touching himself any time he gets within sight of the ball, but if someone has an actual explanation id really appreciate it!

FYI - i have both. So i dont mind his high scores, i just dont understand it.

 

[thomas_m18]

That Hawks/Cats game was BS. No Hawks players over 100, for one.

As for explaining it, dunno. I just take my scores at face value, but those scores did look BS.

I think when things are done in the match (close, tight situations) can effect scores, for one.

 

[jinny1]

there seems to be alot of 128,131 or 139 points given to a starring player...

 

[THRILLHOU]

That Hawks/Cats game was BS. No Hawks players over 100, for one.

As for explaining it, dunno. I just take my scores at face value, but those scores did look BS.

I think when things are done in the match (close, tight situations) can effect scores, for one.

That's also my point. If the result went the other way, would it have been the hawthorn players on 120+ and no cats over 100?

Waiting for cats fans to get on here and bleat about how awesome they are but the point is - the fact that it adds up - doesn't add up!

 

[Todd_Gack]

Yes - the scores a normalised/standardised/whatever so that each game has 3300 points. It affects all players scores in that match.

It also weights scores based on when they occur. A goal scored when you're 30 points up in the 2nd quarter isnt worth as much as a goal to level the scores late in the 4th.


Theres also like 50 or something stats that SC takes into account, not just the few you've listed there.

 

[THRILLHOU]

Just found my own answer

##################################################################

Champion Data Rankings: how come every match adds up to 3,300 points?

Before 2004 we simply allocated a set number of points for each statistic, something like the Dream Team formula but with qualitative stats, such as effective kicks (+4), ineffective kicks (0) and clanger kicks (-6). Those base points had been refined through research by Swinburne University on the most important factors in winning a game of football. Over the years we have continued to test them and made minor tweaks and additions as the game evolves and we collect more information about each match.

From 2004 we decided to take “situational” information into account. The research shows that you win more matches by making quality decisions near goal, and when the match is in the balance. For each action in the match, the computer uses a multiplier which involves the position on the field and a “pressure factor” based on the margin and the time left. The pressure factor is basically the effect a player can have on his team’s winning chances by doing the right thing at that time – a game-winning goal is given the highest multiplier, while a handball on the wing when his team is already 80 points ahead gets scaled down.

Once all the numbers are in, we “normalise” them so that the total is 3,300. Each player is given a slice of the pie, in proportion to his total weighted ranking points. This lets us measure a player’s contribution to a match regardless of its speed or overall quality. For SuperCoach it means that Sydney players are worth considering on a level playing field with Bulldogs, even though there are fewer possessions in their matches. It also means that there is no inflation as the game continues to speed up, and a player’s 150 today is as dominant of a total match as 150 was five years ago regardless of game styles and trends.

• Where does 3,300 come from?
o The average match from 2001 to 2003 had about 3,300 points. If we looked at raw base numbers these days, they would have gradually increased just like Dream Team points.
• Not adding up to exactly 3,300?
o Rounding can vary this.
• What’s an average score?
o 3,300 / 44 = 75, so 100+ indicates a good game. 150 means he’s done the job of two average players.
• Someone had 50 points at half time and didn’t come back on the field. How did he finish with only 40? Or 60?
o The normalisation has the effect of concentrating points around the times when the result was decided as one team took control. At half time the computer assumes 1,650 points have been allocated. But if one team has already run away with the match, points from the first half will continue to scale up as a proportion of the pie. Conversely if the match is won very late, points from earlier are scaled down.

 

[CaptainChardonnay]

I know they use Champion Data. But from my understanding, all champion data does is give Ablett & Riewoldt a score of >120 each and then alolocate random amounts to each other player based upon the alignment of neptune and mercury.....

 

[lloyd136]

It's because quarters are weighted differently. Mitchell accumulated most of his possesions (21 iirc) in the first half and did sweet sfa in the second half when the game was on the line. Ablett got majority of his possies in the second half. This is probably also why Hodge didn't crack the tonne, did nothing when the game was on the line. And that's also why Hunt scored 30-something points in the 3rd qtr from like 7-8 possesions, they were in a quarter were the scores were close and Hunt had an impact on the game during this quarter.

And as for why Geelong got all the 100+ scores, it's because it's their type of game. The high possesion game of Geelong means there's always a group of players that get 30+ possesions week in week out, and because Geelong win alot, they are going to get majority share of the points. Look at the Hawks-Geelong game last year for example, where Hawthorn lead for the majority of the game only to lose on the siren. Geelong had 7 players over 100, Hawthorn 3.

 

[billybloggs]

I know they use Champion Data. But from my understanding, all champion data does is give Ablett & Riewoldt a score of >120 each and then alolocate random amounts to each other player based upon the alignment of neptune and mercury.....

The system appears flawed. So unless you have Ablett you are not in the hunt!
He plays an ordinary game by his standards and he still has a great score. Last season I watched him closely and there were games where he had 30 plus possies, a lot being ineffective where he gathers the ball in close and is then tackled, the ball either dribbles free or a lame handball to no one, on occasions he should be pinged for failling to dispose the ball in the correct manor. That is a contested possy and points for a handball in supercoach which is just crap.
Many time he skirts the pack receiving a handball, he then short kicks backwards to a team mate then runs past his team mate, receives the ball again then does a turn around and repeats the process. I call him RIP RIP WOODCHIP but that is supercoach gold.
I understand he plays the quarterback role in trying to set up play, but as I said, on many occasions he doesn't warrant the supercoach points afforded him.
His mates Jimmy & Joel well thats different, they are just superstars and should at times receive more points than they do.

 

[jinny1]

Do they allocate points differenltey for difficulty of a goal?? such as a 60m goal from an acute angle compared to a shot infront of the goalsqare..

 

[lloyd136]

The system appears flawed. So unless you have Ablett you are not in the hunt!
He plays an ordinary game by his standards and he still has a great score.

If you think Ablett is bad, you should take a look at Goodes. Scored 156 from 19 possessions last year.

Do they allocate points differenltey for difficulty of a goal?? such as a 60m goal from an acute angle compared to a shot infront of the goalsqare..

Yes, because a goal from 60 would count as an effective long kick (which is scored higher) and also an inside 50, not sure if the angle would add anything. Don't think they weight spectacular goals higher either, like Fev's goal against WC where he soccer'd it from the boundary.

 

[Sizza]

Solution is simple if you dont already have ablett then get him!!!

 

[CatFan79]

The system appears flawed. So unless you have Ablett you are not in the hunt!
He plays an ordinary game by his standards and he still has a great score.

Yes, by HIS standards, what does he average 140?

Last season I watched him closely and there were games where he had 30 plus possies, a lot being ineffective where he gathers the ball in close and is then tackled, the ball either dribbles free or a lame handball to no one, on occasions he should be pinged for failling to dispose the ball in the correct manor. That is a contested possy and points for a handball in supercoach which is just crap.

The reason why Gaz scores well is because he gets 'effective' contested possessions. He does rack cheaper possies up to but have a look at how many contested ones he gets. Your talk about him getting point from dribbling it out of packs is absolute crap mate.

When do you see Gaz shank a kick or turn it over? Can't say the same for Mitchell.

Many time he skirts the pack receiving a handball, he then short kicks backwards to a team mate then runs past his team mate, receives the ball again then does a turn around and repeats the process. I call him RIP RIP WOODCHIP but that is supercoach gold.
I understand he plays the quarterback role in trying to set up play, but as I said, on many occasions he doesn't warrant the supercoach points afforded him.

Gaz gets rated the same as every other player on the ground does. Those handball receives and short kicks don't score any better than when Dane Swan does the same thing.

But its the amount of times that his contested in-close possessions are so effective in setting up other players from stoppages. If you can't see this then you need to look closer mate.

 

[thomas_m18]

Almost forgot one of these...

 

[LiverpoolRed]

The reason why Gaz scores well is because he gets 'effective' contested possessions. He does rack cheaper possies up to but have a look at how many contested ones he gets. Your talk about him getting point from dribbling it out of packs is absolute crap mate.

Is that including all his free kicks against on the weekend? aswell as only 27 of his 38 possies being effective.

Mitchell Had 30 possies, 9 inside 50s, 5 clearances and a goal. Yet Ablett scores twice his score? The weighted Champion fata scores are BS. But I dont mind, because he is a good capt. in my team.

 

[_JC_]

When do you see Gaz shank a kick or turn it over? Can't say the same for Mitchell.

Mate Gaz is a gun SCer and player but get your hand off it. So many of his kicks and handballs were inneffective on Monday. Every player has bad games so im not knocking him, but he was pretty ordinary on Monday.

 

[thomas_m18]

He got caught on Monday.

Several times.

For Ablett, that alone merits an ordinary performance.

 

[lloyd136]

Is that including all his free kicks against on the weekend? aswell as only 27 of his 38 possies being effective.

Mitchell Had 30 possies, 9 inside 50s, 5 clearances and a goal. Yet Ablett scores twice his score? The weighted Champion fata scores are BS. But I dont mind, because he is a good capt. in my team.

Compare how many touches Ablett got in the second half compared to Mitchell, then you'll see why he scored so highly.

 

[CaptainChardonnay]

He is a gun no doubt but you've gotta wonder about those scores sometimes.

Mind you, how Roo scored 160 odd against the Swans is absolutely laughable too. Anyone at that game would tell you he had little impact on the game. Kicked a cple of goals but was hardly the dominant player on the field.

Not that I mind of course, I have them both in my team...

 

[LiverpoolRed]

He is a gun no doubt but you've gotta wonder about those scores sometimes.

Mind you, how Roo scored 160 odd against the Swans is absolutely laughable too. Anyone at that game would tell you he had little impact on the game. Kicked a cple of goals but was hardly the dominant player on the field.

Not that I mind of course, I have them both in my team...

Your joking yeah? 14 kicks, 9 Handballs, 15 Marks a tackle and 7 Straight. Had 2 frees against witch would have lowerd his score by 12.

 

[DrummoSolo]

Your joking yeah? 14 kicks, 9 Handballs, 15 Marks a tackle and 7 Straight. Had 2 frees against witch would have lowerd his score by 12.

Might want to re-read his post, was about the Swans game!

 

[CaptainChardonnay]

Your joking yeah? 14 kicks, 9 Handballs, 15 Marks a tackle and 7 Straight. Had 2 frees against witch would have lowerd his score by 12.

That IS a game worth 160+..... What he delivered against the Swans wasn't...

 

[Skystyler]

Your joking yeah? 14 kicks, 9 Handballs, 15 Marks a tackle and 7 Straight. Had 2 frees against witch would have lowerd his score by 12.

He didn't kick 7 straight. He missed one of the many gifted him by the umps from straight in front. I dont know how many other stats you've given are bs.
I agree with Mr. Chardonnay - he was beaten by Grundy on many occassions that night. The umpies gave him about 100 of those 160.

I really do wonder about the objectivity of these guys scoring the games. You've got to reckon they are hard core footy geeks, playing every brand of fantasy football thats out there. I know there is a computer involved, but someone decides when a handball is effective and when its a clanger. Whoever that is should not be coaching a fantasy football team. Not a SC team, and not a DT team. I just hope someone is policing that, but I suspect they aren't.

 

[Rids]

I really do wonder about the objectivity of these guys scoring the games. You've got to reckon they are hard core footy geeks, playing every brand of fantasy football thats out there. I know there is a computer involved, but someone decides when a handball is effective and when its a clanger. Whoever that is should not be coaching a fantasy football team. Not a SC team, and not a DT team. I just hope someone is policing that, but I suspect they aren't.

What you've got to understand is that there is simply not that much room for subjectivity in the scoring process. There is a clear definition that the callers use as to what constitutes an effective possession and what constitutes a clanger. Additionally there is a back-up caller at every game that can over-ride calls or check the tape (at breaks om play) and adjust if they think the primary caller has made an error.

For what it is worth all Champion Data employees are ineligible for SC/DT prizes.

 

[Bender571]

What I don't get is that for a 9 point game where the hawks were leading for most of the day geelong were supposedly better by 6 players (480/75)