The inevitable 'question the SuperCoach scoring system' thread

[bergerson33]

Now i know every year threads like this pop up about supercoach scoring.

But really......Brent Moloney.

31 disposals (22 kicks, 9 handballs) 21 of those contested at 81% efficiency!!

19 clearances!!

10 inside 50's!!

5 tackles!

only 2 clangers, no frees against!!

Supercoach score.......123!!

In comparison

Michael Hurley

17 disposals (10 kicks, 7 handballs), 7 of those contested at 94% efficiency.

4 tackles

2 clearances

1 clanger, 1 FF, 1FA

1 inside 50

Supercoach score 111!!

Granted Hurley had a better efficiency, but only 12 points seperating????
Given I'm one of only 5000 people who picked Moloney, after watching the game, i must say, i expected a little more.

(wonder what Judd, Swan or Goddard whould have scored with his numbers)

 

[controlKLICK]

Re: Moloneys score!

There are a range of factors to consider. Supercoach scoring is capped at 3300 points, therefore if a number of players perform exceptionally some outstanding performances will be reduced. In the Melbourne game there were a number of players that performed very well such as Sylvia, Maric, Trengove etc. therefore the points are more widespread. Where as if Moloney was the only player to have an exceptional game his score would have been higher. Does that make sense?

 

[bergerson33]

Re: Moloneys score!

Does, but still hurts! lol

But looking at the Dons Eagles match, there were many players who had much more influence than Hurley. On both sides

 

[nintendoboy#23]

Re: Moloneys score!

ha yeah Judd would score 140 with those numbers, and i doubt he'd run with that efficiency either. Some of the scores do leave you scratching your head, they have their favourites, also helps if a team has a win, even if it's by a goal. With the bye leaving the game next year and supercoach being at it's prime in 2012, i'd like to see a score breakdown for every player.

 

[coryne]

Re: Moloneys score!

ha yeah Judd would score 140 with those numbers, and i doubt he'd run with that efficiency either. Some of the scores do leave you scratching your head, they have their favourites, also helps if a team has a win, even if it's by a goal. With the bye leaving the game next year and supercoach being at it's prime in 2012, i'd like to see a score breakdown for every player.

This would actually inflate the players scores, as points are weighted to be higher during pivitol moments of the game (ala when the scores are tight). This is prob one of the factors which reduced moloney's score, Melbourne were thumping Adelaide, so a lor of his clearances were prob when the game was already won, compared t Judd who got most of his clearances when the game was tight.

I am not saying I agree with it, but it might be one of the factors.

 

[CatFan79]

Re: Moloneys score!

they have their favourites

To suggest Champion adjust scores based solely on who the player is is laughable.

Comparing 2 different player's scores in 2 different games shows you don't understand the way Supercoach is scored and if this bothers you go play dreamteam and enjoy watching Stanton/Shiels etc.. building big scores from kicking clangers.

 

[Zim^zuM]

Re: Moloneys score!

There are a range of factors to consider. Supercoach scoring is capped at 3300 points, therefore if a number of players perform exceptionally some outstanding performances will be reduced. In the Melbourne game there were a number of players that performed very well such as Sylvia, Maric, Trengove etc. therefore the points are more widespread. Where as if Moloney was the only player to have an exceptional game his score would have been higher. Does that make sense?

That's pretty silly, if you do whats needed for a score you should get it. Not punished because the score is capped

 

[dlanod]

Re: Moloneys score!

It's to balance out the game-by-game variations. A game in shocking conditions in Launceston versus a game under the roof in Etihad, for example. One might have a highest DT score of 50 because of all the clangers and a low scoring game. The other might get to 150+ in a shoot-out. SC takes that into account by capping it per game.

 

[SJ]

Re: Moloneys score!

You can't compare stats and SuperCoach scores across different games. Doesn't work like that.

 

[Zim^zuM]

Re: Moloneys score!

It's to balance out the game-by-game variations. A game in shocking conditions in Launceston versus a game under the roof in Etihad, for example. One might have a highest DT score of 50 because of all the clangers and a low scoring game. The other might get to 150+ in a shoot-out. SC takes that into account by capping it per game.

Personally I still think they should leave it but I see why theyre doing it based on that explanation. But as it is in real life it's just plain bad luck if one game is a scrap in the wet at the G and the roof is closed at etihad. It could quite possible affect percentage based on controlled weather. If you get what I mean.

either way just to get this straight. The game is capped at 3300 or they give 3300 all the time and spread it accordingly?

 

[Clunk]

Re: Moloneys score!

Correct

 

[Zim^zuM]

Re: Moloneys score!

Correct

which bit lol, the 1st or 2nd?

 

[exit]

Re: Moloneys score!

which bit lol, the 1st or 2nd?

2nd ....

 

[Zim^zuM]

Re: Moloneys score!

aha, now I understand why there is no live scoring and why for example selwood's qtr time score could be 78, then despite doublin his possesions at HT is 76

 

[Topper]

Re: Moloneys score!

I might start a thread for every player that doesnt score what i think they should. Or, alternatively I might not waste everyone's time

 

[dlanod]

Re: Moloneys score!

aha, now I understand why there is no live scoring and why for example selwood's qtr time score could be 78, then despite doublin his possesions at HT is 76

Exactly. There's 3300 points handed out every game. The quarter time scores are terrible because they usually add up to about 1100 (a third of the points) for a quarter of the game. Obviously this doesn't add up, so you'll often see a solid second quarter just result in a player maintaining his score.

The other thing you'll hear people mention is "scaling". This is what happens at the end of the game to make the game fit into the 3300 points per game.

 

[Zim^zuM]

Re: Moloneys score!

Exactly. There's 3300 points handed out every game. The quarter time scores are terrible because they usually add up to about 1100 (a third of the points) for a quarter of the game. Obviously this doesn't add up, so you'll often see a solid second quarter just result in a player maintaining his score.

The other thing you'll hear people mention is "scaling". This is what happens at the end of the game to make the game fit into the 3300 points per game.

the more I think about it the more sense it makes. In real life all on offer each game is 4 points and 6 brownlow votes. A players influence in real life is also capped no matter how many disposals they get.

 

[sblack]

Re: Moloneys score!

aha, now I understand why there is no live scoring and why for example selwood's qtr time score could be 78, then despite doublin his possesions at HT is 76

There is live scoring. CD just refuse to show us.

They used to via AFL Gameday Live/Match Centre, before DT became the official AFL Fantasy Competion.

My take on the first quarter scores, are they are unscaled, and the raw scores of the players in the qtr. They then do their usual in game scaling during the game.

 

[sblack]

Re: Moloneys score!

Exactly. There's 3300 points handed out every game. The quarter time scores are terrible because they usually add up to about 1100 (a third of the points) for a quarter of the game. Obviously this doesn't add up, so you'll often see a solid second quarter just result in a player maintaining his score.

The other thing you'll hear people mention is "scaling". This is what happens at the end of the game to make the game fit into the 3300 points per game.

They constantly scale, throughout the whole game. When they used to show live scoring, you would often see players drop 1-2 points if they hadn't been involved for a couple of minutes.

 

[dlanod]

Re: Moloneys score!

They constantly scale, throughout the whole game. When they used to show live scoring, you would often see players drop 1-2 points if they hadn't been involved for a couple of minutes.

If only they bothered to do live scoring now then.

BTW love the avatar.

 

[cam975]

Judd's 102

Now, don't get me wrong, Judd is a champion player, but I was watching last night, and he seemed to hardly touch the ball in the second half after he hurt his foot.

Did he somehow get quadruple points for that left foot goal he kicked, or did he do something else remarkable that I didn't see, coz I just can't understand how that was a 102 point game.

 

[SoupAStars]

Re: Judd's 102

You have to remember that Champion Data loves him in the same way the umpires do such that he ripped off Swan and got the Brownlow. He would've got quadruple points for that goal along with every possession! ;P

 

[J Squad]

Re: Judd's 102

That goal was when the game was in the balance, would have boosted his score a lot. Must have been effective with his disposal to get a score like that without a huge amount of touches.

 

[cam975]

Re: Judd's 102

Paul Chapman, also kicked an important goal at an equally important time, had 3 more kicks, (1 less handball) four more marks, (2 less tackles), an extra goal on top of Judd's one, and scores a mere 10 more points.

 

[dlanod]

Re: Judd's 102

If you get a hold of what each of his possessions got designated as - contested vs uncontested, effective vs ineffective, kicks vs handballs, inside 50s, rebound 50s. Any marks? If so, were they contested or uncontested, off a team mate's kick or opposition kick? Tackles are a solid scorer as well. Where did he have his possessions, marks and tackles? They're weighted more in the forward line. When did he have his possessions, marks and tackles? They're weighted more if the scores are closer. May be even more items to consider but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.