What The ????? SC Scores

[Hydra]

Pretending that everything was effective...


22 x 4 = 88
26 x 2 = 52
1 x 8 = 8
2 x 1 = 2
1 x 4 = 4
Unsure what clearances are worth.
3 kicking clangers x 8 = -24

Thats 192. Now if he was 73% effective, he made 13 ineffective disposals. Removing the 3 clangers, that leaves 10.

192 - 166 = 26. That means his 10 ineffective disposals would have been worth 26 points if they were effective. Thats 7 ineffective handballs and 3 ineffective kicks.


I just explained his score (not including clearances) and it took me 2 minutes. So I'm not sure what you're on about.



By the way, Ablett had NINE TACKLES!!! Swan had ONE tackle. Thats 32 more points for Ablett than Swan. Ablett also only had one clanger, and an extra clearance, and an extra goal.

[wardie]

One thing i have noticed is that Ablett get basically all of his posessions with someone hanging off him or in traffic due to the heavy tags he gets.

I realise that these posessions are not always contested but do you think there is more importance SC wise placed on these posessions? Usually he is involved in some scoring assist with most of his touches also.

Not sure but i think SC has more points for score assists?? Just a thought.

[tony73]

Well this is my first year after being dragged kicking and screaming into a work private league. I didn't want to do it cause I new I would get addicted (from past experiance with footy tipping >:(

But I as I have been researching deeper and deeper these descrepancies just seem to spring up.

The fact of the matter is it is an internet fantasy game so really no one can be held accountable as we do have the choice to have Abblett in the first place, and I guess the herald sun wants their marquee player to justify his price ;D

[Prospector_1]

Fair call Tony.

[tony73]

Hydra, I wasn't comparing GAJ with Swan, someone mentioned allocation of points per game 3300 I think, thus I was comparing GAJ with Selwood, same game

[bendylan]

it would be nice if supercoach would come clean about how it's worked out and post a detailed breakdown of the stats on the website each week. but they won't despite my repeated requests and their continued advertisements for "detailed stats breakdown click here". it certainly is a bit sus but i don't quite buy the certain amount of points up for grabs each week - sometimes blokes get huge scores, sometimes no-one does. keep this conversation going folks, til we get some answers.

antman and blueboy - are you sure of your info? where's it from?

[BlueBoy]

Well i honestly believe Sewell should be one of the best SCers ever....just watching him play is amazing.  I think Adelaide did come out of the blocks, and that might have caused champion data to record sc scores as though the game was almost over.

Swan, the only thing i can think of is that maybe he had a few cheapies (1,2 handballs) that SC don't rate all that highly.  They need to be benefiting the team!

Anyway, i dont mean to be defending the SC scoring system here, i'm pretty annoyed they dont have a scoring system written down.  It would make life much easier...and who really cares if they rig it...its still better than DT!  I love effectiveness being included.

[Master Blaster]

yeah i love how they pull numbers out of their ass at the end of the game

at least DT you know wtf is going on during the game, SC is a complete joke

[Pweter]

I'm not sure I understand what all the fuss is about.

Going by the below Ablett would gain 10+ points a game from handball receives due to him running behind someone who's taken a grab or gotten a free kick. Ablett always gets tackles, always gets a couple of frees whilst rarely giving them away, his disposal is clean so his efficiency is high. If you get your own ball (loose or hard ball) you get 4 points and Ablett does that. It all adds up to a great score come final siren.

I think the 3300 points is more coincidence than anything. I doubt there is a conspiracy theory.

DT does not have near as many scoring possibilities for a player so that's why it seems more logical on the surface.

Effective kick 4 Points
Ineffective kick 0 Points
Clanger kick -8 Points
Handball effective 2 Points
Ineffective handball 0 Points
Handball clanger -6 Points
Handball receive 1 Point
Hardball get 4 Points
Loose-ball get 4 Points
Goal 8 Points
Behind 1 Point
Mark uncontested (maintaining possession) 1 Point
Mark contested (maintaining possession)  6 Points
Mark uncontested (from opposition) 4 Points
Mark contested (from opposition) 8 Points
Tackles 4 Points
Free kick for 4 Points
Free kick against -6 Points
Hitout to Advantage 3 Points

[Cool9]

There's nothing wrong with scaling the overall scoring system to 3300 points per game. It just means there are 3300 points up for grabs in each game, just like there are only 4 points up for grabs each week in AFL games ... no more, no less. There is nothing 'rigged' about it.

The champion data rankings are just that ... rankings of each players' influence on the outcome of the game relative to other players. The 3300 points are simply distributed to the most influential players. The SC points system uses individual stats to rank players based on how they get their possessions and what they do with them.

It is hard to argue that the SC ranking system does not provide a fairly accurate reflection of a players importance in the game. Notice how the really damaging players score very highly (ie Leon Davis, Ablett) and the cheap possession players (K Cornes, Swan) do not.

While watching a game you can tell intuitively who are the most damaging players, and at the end of the game the SC points usually reflect this nicely.

[jameswilson]

he could have had a clanger/free kick against then done nothing. This is the week to pick him up

[antman]

bendylan its from years (all three of them) of experience playing supercoach reading the papers that post the stats if you add both teams totals they always add up to around 3300. :D

[yeahsup]

Pretending that everything was effective...


22 x 4 = 88
26 x 2 = 52
1 x 8 = 8
2 x 1 = 2
1 x 4 = 4
Unsure what clearances are worth.
3 kicking clangers x 8 = -24

That's 192.

are u kidding me?
88+52=140+8=148+2=150+4=154..... not 192 and take off the 24 for clangers =130... not 192

[pcgarschagen]

Ok i will clear the ice for everyone...

SC scores do not just come of the scoring sheet with is listed on the SC site, there are supposably at least 20 other factors that contribute to SC scores...
like - inside 50, rebound 50 - and it also takes into account the stage of the match. like when the game could be one or lost in the last minutes...

think back to Sydney V West Coast

Jack = 62 @ 3qt
kirk = 71 @ 3qt

Jack ended up with 125 and kirk with 149. this is because they both had match winning plays in the last minutes, hence inflating their scores heaps.
(Kirk the matchwinning tackle, Jack the winning goal)

The other thing i DO know that happens is....


that in the CLOSEST qtr of the match (in margin), each scores are multiplied by 1.5 instead of the usual 1. so a goal with an effective kick becomes 18 instead of 12....

starting to get the picture, yes some may say that it is rigged, but i believe that the supercoach scoring technique really does pick the better 'player' rather than DT, because it takes into account many other aspects of the game...

hope this helps people...

[Prospector_1]

Sounds real, do you have a source?