M Johnson 151!!

[hawk_88]

Over the course though, SC has shown to be a better indicator of one's impact of the game and perhaps even ranking within the game. It uses Champion Data's ranking system which almost without fail will pick the Brownlow winner as well as the placing, along with the club best and fairest (although it is less accurate with this simply due to the nature of a club B&F).

What is interesting there is it picks a winner of a competition that is a judgement based on pure observation, not stats as the umps don't have access to stats. Umps are better placed to make a judgement on the the "usefulness" of a disposal vs a concrete metric like "efficiency" which might skew ones understanding of what happened.

Is the Champion Data system perfect, by no means, however it does more consistently reward those who contributed on the field. When ever you try and model something arbitrary like someone's impact on a game you are going to get statistical anomalies.

Seeing live updating DT scores does affect our perception of SC scores as we have a tendency to judge that as their impact on the field. In fact even quarterly SC scores create issues of perception as they are actually a "best guess" of someone's score. Strictly speaking Johnson didn't have 45 going into the last break. This is also why players who have gone off injured will often go up or down in score even though they haven't taken the field.

This perception of SC being fundamentally flawed in its scoring methodology is due to the lack of transparency in the scoring system, something that appears to be unavoidable. Try this though, watch a match, a match where you have no preference of result either way, and write down your top 10 players in order before looking at stats or match reports etc. Compare the list to the top 10 SC and DT players and you might just be surprised with the outcome.

Note: Edited to fix up issues of spelling and grammer, I wrote this shortly after waking up ;)

[Slashers]

@ hawk_88, well said, I second that.

SC quarter by quarter scores have always just been made availaible as a 'rough' indication of each players score. I believe 'player impact' loading isn't applied to anyone until after the game is over. Which can sometimes make a player appear to have had a ridiculously high last quarter whereas they really could have had an impact, when needed, at various times in the game which all start to add up and are reflected in the final scores.
Plus the fact that we are able to see live, acurate DT quarter by quarter scores does scew our perception.
If we only waited until the end of the game for final SC scores, and didn't watch live DT scores and compare DT scores to SC scores there would be no issue.

[kazam]

Yes, people should stop whinging about supercoach scores. There are 51 separate stats that players get points from, and these points are multiplied at certain point of a match, depending on the pressure of the situation etc.. also players who are injured in the last 2 quarters may actually lose points, due to them not necessarily doing anything wrong, but as they work on a 3300 point basis, then the player who was injured, didnt do anything, so they may have 2 or 3 point allocated elsewhere.

[kazam]

there is actually a points system ppl!! the champion data stats people dont just sit there and say, yeh we'll give johnson 151 points for this match. i prefer supercoach, because its a true indication of effective players in matches, for instance i dont like playing a game where players kick the ball to the opposition that results in a goal, but then they still get +3 for the kick. doesnt make sense to me.