Rigged?

[BlackMamba]

Isn't there still a human element to it? Someone has to determine how much points a certain goal or mark is worth. My bro said the Leo Barry mark in the 05 GF was worth 30 points alone. And say someone kicks the match winning goal. Is there a formula to determine how much exact points that should be worth compared to a goal kicked in another game when the game is dead?

Sorry if this is explained in the SC rules somewhere but this my 1st yr in SC so I'm noob.

[hawk_88]

It isn't well publicised but my understanding is that the system determines the worth of a state taking into account a range of variables such as when in the match it occurs, where on the field, degree of difficultly, what the score/margin is and any resulting outcomes from that stat. So normal score involvement would add some worth, a score involvement that wins the match worth even more.

Was the Leo Barry mark (what a mark!) worth 30? Don't know. I suppose it is possible but since the breakdown is never released I am not sure how your brother would know that unless that particular stat has been officially talked about before. There is often a misconception about what things are worth that comes from the quarter by quarter scores, which are actually estimates, since the game needs to be complete for the stats to be worked out using the system. So people often see a 3/4 time score, the final score and make a judgement of how much certain actions were scored based on the difference which is actually inaccurate.

[BlackMamba]

Well I googled Leo Barry mark supercoach and finally clicking a few links found this:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/ranking-mixture-spiced-up/story-fn88c7kz-1226025762939

Actually 39 lol cause all these factors.

[masterjudd]

ive heard that about the Leo Barry mark before also.. and that was a year or two ago!

An example of the importance of timing in champion data is Levi Greenwood last year. i was following his scores and at 3 QTR time he was on about 40 or 50 odd.. he finished with something like 120 and only had two or three more possessions. He obviously kicked the winning goal, but that was his only other goal from my memory.

[hawk_88]

ive heard that about the Leo Barry mark before also.. and that was a year or two ago!

An example of the importance of timing in champion data is Levi Greenwood last year. i was following his scores and at 3 QTR time he was on about 40 or 50 odd.. he finished with something like 120 and only had two or three more possessions. He obviously kicked the winning goal, but that was his only other goal from my memory.

Again though, he score wasn't necessarily 40-50 at 3/4 time. That was an estimate, still a massive score, but not necessarily as big as it seems.

The article about explained the Leo Barry mark really well:

"The mark would have been worth nine points normally, but it got boosted to 39 because he won the footy by marking it from a West Coast kick, it was a contested mark in the defensive 50, there were only 20 seconds remaining, and there was less than a goal in it."

All of those qualities are all raw data, combined to produce the score, no human judgement.

* Mark
* Interception
* Contested
* In defensive 50
* 20 seconds left on the clock
* Margin less than a goal

[PiggyPommy]

Play DT if you want unrealistic scoring, when you can kick to an opposition player and still get points. Boring.

[BlackMamba]

Yeah it makes sense now but 1 more question lol. Someone from Champion Data needs to determine if a kick is efficient or if possessions are contested right? That still leaves a degree of human judgement IMO. Is a kick efficient if a guy kicks it to a team mate uncontested but the the easy mark is dropped? Or if the kick is to a contest and the guy spills the mark which results in the opponent stealing the ball? Or if he kicks to a contest and his teammate gives the free away which results in a TO. Or if he kicks to nowhere and the ball bounces like 5 times but a team mate picks it up, should that be considered efficient?

Just wondering what your opinion on this is? Thanks for clearing the other stuff up.

[dominic17]

this is an interesting read!

i dont think it really matters how supercoach is scored and what formula equals what score. i think the fun with supercoach is that you have to tihnk so much more about certain players and your picks. dream team doesnt have that aspect as far as imconcerned and i do both. i spend 10 times longer pondering my supercoach trades than dream team. shannon hurn is a perfect example. you would never pick him in dream team because he doesnt get that many posessions but in supercoach he is a really good pick if playing well. 15 posessions and he can easily score 100 because of the way he plays football. so not only are you picking a player but you need to pick players that play a certain way or certain roles in teams. much more fun that picking someone purely on how many touches they get. the way supercoach is scored and weighted is what makes it so much fun to play!

[hawk_88]

Yeah it makes sense now but 1 more question lol. Someone from Champion Data needs to determine if a kick is efficient or if possessions are contested right? That still leaves a degree of human judgement IMO. Is a kick efficient if a guy kicks it to a team mate uncontested but the the easy mark is dropped? Or if the kick is to a contest and the guy spills the mark which results in the opponent stealing the ball? Or if he kicks to a contest and his teammate gives the free away which results in a TO. Or if he kicks to nowhere and the ball bounces like 5 times but a team mate picks it up, should that be considered efficient?

Just wondering what your opinion on this is? Thanks for clearing the other stuff up.

This comes down to classification and is a case for all statistics collection. Humans have an innate desire to group and classify things and, not getting to philosophical, it is problematic.

Essentially you have a list of things to check off. There is always going to be an element of human judgement, especially when it is line ball, but when you develop classification statistics collection you try and list every practical quality that defines what something is to remove as much of the human element as possible. I'm not privy to the specific lists they use, but you would assume they are well developed to account for every situation.

That has issues in itself though. The famous one that kids always find funny is that tomato is a fruit because it is counter intuitive. Even though going by the strict definition of a fruit it is one, fruit to us is generally considered a sweet thing and is generally eaten for dessert (or by itself) with other sweet things and other "fruits". Vegetables are savoury and go with savoury courses and go with other vegetables into salads. So when we eat tomatoes in salads growing up, it does fit. That there is the advantage of the human element.

So even though something may be classified in one way, i.e. contested, as defined by a list of criteria, intuitively in the context of the game it appears uncontested. The consistency is important for a game like SC. For actually footy though, the saying stats don't tell the whole story is very true.

I'll leave this mini rant (I am avoiding writing a research paper atm so this is great!) with interesting fact, bananas are berries.

[masterjudd]

LOL a fruit scientist?

there are culinary definitions and scientific.. neither is right nor wrong.

BTW this debate is probably the most enjoyable read ive had on here for a while..

[Cool9]

They have one person locked in a room watching the game he isn't aloud to move. He watches it very closely. Then after the game is finished he checks off every player and divides the 3300 points between all 44 players. That is why it takes a few minutes for the scores to go through to the website, because he has to add them up and send them off. And don't ask about the toilet breaks because I've been told the seat they are sitting on is a toilet. Under very strict instructions not to miss a second.

P.s. Apparently there favourite players are Matthew pavlich and Chris Judd.

this is fact people don't bother trying to prove me wrong

Ha, this is GOLD

the 3300 rule blows.. i dont see the need..
players shouldnt get scored because of thier influence..
only get scored from your stats ..

It's a ranking system, not a cumulative score.

[hawk_88]

LOL a fruit scientist?

No, computer scientist. I deal in data and categorisation a lot.

there are culinary definitions and scientific.. neither is right nor wrong.

Exactly my point. Well put. These just simply are the definitions. They might not always match your perception, but you sacrifice that for consistency sake.

[PICCOLLO]

Its an interesting concept all around but technically the winning goal is just as important as the first.  Brady rawlings lost 20 sc for giving away free kick which led to sydney victory a few weeks ago but it shouldnt be penalised more than if he gave it away for sydneys first goal of the game.  What i do like is weighting towards players that win you games rather than those who rack stats up in junk time.  It would be great to know exactly how they get their scores.

[nathan11]

I'll leave this mini rant (I am avoiding writing a research paper atm so this is great!) with interesting fact, bananas are berries.
[/quote]

i think you will find the banana is a herb

[hawk_88]

The banana tree is a herb. The fruit is a berry.

Another interesting fact on banana trees, they walk.