SC scoring - influence on game

Started by NFI Police, July 22, 2012, 10:41:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mat0369

Quote from: coolfugitiv0 on July 22, 2012, 05:25:19 PM

Didn't think that counted as a stat? :/

They do if you kick it to yourself. This is why I his disposal numbers are so inflated. I think SC also counts points for bouncing the ball. Shaw kicks it to himself, takes  a bounce, kicks long to the forward flank and repeat.

dickitch

Quote from: Obese Arachnid on July 22, 2012, 07:12:48 PM
So did that help you win?

still lost, not going to blame that tho - i had Cox, NDS, Boyd and Chapman to blame for the loss, but it's just yet another question about the SC scoring.  I never really paid much attention to it until the Everitt mark and goal for the Swans, and it's the most inconsistent thing i've seen

lowry

92 for swallow?? He had enormous impact on the game as well as 29 disposals, 5 tackles, 10 clearances and doesn't reach a tonne??

The Bomber

Quote from: dickitch on July 22, 2012, 07:08:05 PM
i've just lost my round based based on Ellis vs Gibson

D    K    H    M    T
24  16   8    6    2   Gibson - 71
21  12   9    5    0   Ellis - 95

North won!   HOW?  How does that make sense?

Edit:  Been normalized to 72 v 90 - but still, ridiculous.

Didn't watch the whole match but I saw 3 contested 1on1 marks by Ellis which counts good in SC. Couple of inside 50's and a point during the crunch time 4th qtr...

Saw Gibson a bit but wasn't contested. As for the rest of the game IDK...

dickitch

Fair enough on the contested stuff, agree with that scoring - I just wish they'd keep all the genuine stat scoring and get rid of the 'influence' stuff - it seems really inconsistent and it's totally subjective to the people doing the scoring

afl_freak2

swallow should have scored 120 easy! put it down to sc bullshower again

dickitch

Quote from: dickitch on July 22, 2012, 07:22:00 PM
Quote from: Obese Arachnid on July 22, 2012, 07:12:48 PM
So did that help you win?

still lost, not going to blame that tho - i had Cox, NDS, Boyd and Chapman to blame for the loss, but it's just yet another question about the SC scoring.  I never really paid much attention to it until the Everitt mark and goal for the Swans, and it's the most inconsistent thing i've seen

Oops, i spoke to soon, I actually won - Treloar put a performance in in the final quarter to help me win by 10.   :)

Still, don't like the whole scoring system

Obese Arachnid

Yes but it's easier to not like it with a win though.  :D

FonFatty

How Mitchell didnt score higher yesterday is utter crap. he was the most influential player on the ground.
SC scoring is influenced by DT scores. I looked at FanFooty yesterday to see the DT scores and saw Swan, Beams, Pendlebury right up there in the scoring, then I looked at the SC scores on the Herald Sun site and was mazed how only 2 hawk players were over the ton.
Looking at the SC scores at 3/4 time you would have thought Collingwood were 10 goals in front.
If the result doesnt effect the players score, why do GWS and GC players score so low? What is the excuse for their low scores? For example Toby Greene, he has had a few ripper games, Ablettesque, and he has just cracked the ton.

quinny88

Quote from: FonFatty on July 22, 2012, 11:16:19 PM
How Mitchell didnt score higher yesterday is utter crap. he was the most influential player on the ground.
SC scoring is influenced by DT scores. I looked at FanFooty yesterday to see the DT scores and saw Swan, Beams, Pendlebury right up there in the scoring, then I looked at the SC scores on the Herald Sun site and was mazed how only 2 hawk players were over the ton.
Looking at the SC scores at 3/4 time you would have thought Collingwood were 10 goals in front.
If the result doesnt effect the players score, why do GWS and GC players score so low? What is the excuse for their low scores? For example Toby Greene, he has had a few ripper games, Ablettesque, and he has just cracked the ton.

I think mitchell was unlucky because there was so many players that played well and would have stole points from him.
Swan, Pendles, Beams, Lewis, Breaust , Rioli

meow meow

SC scoring does include kick ins even if the player doesn't play on first.

They reward long kicks significantly more than short kicks. They reward rebound 50's. They reward contested possessions. Heath Shaw does all of these things regularly so that explains his score.

SC includes metres gained, not how many bounces a player takes.

You get a player like Delidio who goes for a run, then kicks long and it equals big points.

Toby Greene rarely ever kicks it 40+ metres which is what is required to be a long kick. He tends to give away a lot of free kicks too.

Ellis won some contested marks at an important part of the game and more often than not he hits a target with a LONG kick.

quinny88

Quote from: meow meow on July 23, 2012, 12:09:25 AM
SC scoring does include kick ins even if the player doesn't play on first.

They reward long kicks significantly more than short kicks. They reward rebound 50's. They reward contested possessions. Heath Shaw does all of these things regularly so that explains his score.

SC includes metres gained, not how many bounces a player takes.

You get a player like Delidio who goes for a run, then kicks long and it equals big points.

Toby Greene rarely ever kicks it 40+ metres which is what is required to be a long kick. He tends to give away a lot of free kicks too.

Ellis won some contested marks at an important part of the game and more often than not he hits a target with a LONG kick.

I think all of this is fair enough.. appart from the kick ins part?
Its not a stat so not sure why they would give points for it

meow meow

It directly influences the game so score is applied to it.

There are so many things that aren't stats that players can score from. A tap in general play that leads to someone getting a shot at goal isn't a stat but players will score from it.

Hazza09

Can someone explain to me how Hayes scored 50+ points in that last qtr?
I watched the first 3 qtrs and he was hardly cited! Then listening on SEN I heard his name
5 or 6 times and pumped out a ton

Mat0369

Quote from: meow meow on July 23, 2012, 12:09:25 AM
SC scoring does include kick ins even if the player doesn't play on first.
I thought this was only the case if it was a turnover. They have to play on for the points to be awarded. The best example I can think of was Mark McVeigh when he played on Milne. Spike took a couple of kick ins which resulted in direct turnovers and had negative points. On the other hand (I can't think of one specific example) I have seen players kick the ball in and not be rewarded any points even if it was long and effective. They had to play on to be rewarded the points. I am most likely wrong on the second bit but that is what I can remember.