SC scoring - influence on game

dickitch · July 23, 2012, 09:56:01 AM

These stat based scores are all well and good and that is where SC scoring is better - i like how ineffective disposals aren't worth anything for instance - what I don't like is the subjective influence on a game, the everitt 80 points, Hunt did the same a few weeks later and got nowhere near the same amount - and who is it to say that is the biggest influence, what about the 3 goals before that put that in the position to win - I don't like the 'normalising' to the 3300 as it feels like that when they go in to the last quarter they just try give points away based on how many are left.

I'm probably going to get my boo count thru the roof here, but get rid of the 3300 and keep all the other stat scoring, if it goes above 3300 or below so be it, what difference does that bit make?

tbagrocks · July 23, 2012, 11:11:21 AM

but who judges what is and is not an inaffective disposal? this is a gray area imo and surely a 50m kick forward or out in front of a team mate is effective? who are the champion data people to judge what is effective anyway?

dickitch · July 23, 2012, 11:22:22 AM

Yeh i guess so - i think a lot are easy to pick based on possession but you can of course question some - But I agree with your sentiment, and it comes back to the subjectiveness of the guys scoring that I don't agree with.

afl_freak2 · July 23, 2012, 07:00:52 PM

Any kick over 40m is classed as affective! sc if a load of bullshower and rigged.................. petrie should have scored 150 points for his last qtr then???? sc is a load of flowerin shower end of story!

supercoach is rigged and anyone with a brain knows it!

Kepp the boos coming kiddies

pyronerd · July 23, 2012, 07:16:43 PM

Quote from: Hazza09 on July 23, 2012, 01:25:03 AM
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

was surprised with his score until I saw in the hearld sun on the CD stat sheet that he has 33 pressure acts....

More concerning for me was Stevie J's 120 odd, how when at like 5 or 6 times you make an absolute shocker of a blunder, get modest stats, and still churn out 120 ::)

Any kick over 40m to a better than 50/50 contest is classed as effective afl_freak, not all kicks over 40m

bunyips · July 23, 2012, 08:59:14 PM

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 was at the game on saturday and watched my team get absolutely SMASHED. The Hawks dominated the clearances, one-on-one contests, and were flawless in every aspect of the game.

When i got home and checked the SC scores i couldn't believe that Beams, Pendles and Swan had these massive scores. If supercoach is based on a players "influence" on the game then next year they have to change (re weight) the way the scores are calculated based on the result of the match. I mean if SuperCoach is attempting to replicate a footy match then it has to take into account the final result of the game .... as the whole point of playing is to win??

afl_freak2 · July 24, 2012, 10:11:40 AM

good to see people whith an open mind seeing sc is a load of shower when it comes to point scoring........... they have so many dif points for this this and that............ it covers their ass for cheating! champion data all play sc too and know when to buy and trade players because they are the ones who will give extra points to players or take points off of players.SUPERCOACH IS RIGGED!

dickitch · July 24, 2012, 10:52:52 AM

Quote from: afl_freak2 on July 24, 2012, 10:11:40 AM
good to see people whith an open mind seeing sc is a load of shower when it comes to point scoring........... they have so many dif points for this this and that............ it covers their ass for cheating! champion data all play sc too and know when to buy and trade players because they are the ones who will give extra points to players or take points off of players.SUPERCOACH IS RIGGED!

I'm definitely not part of the SC is rigged conspiracy brigade - but i think it would be hard for anyone to stick up for the consistency of the scoring. I've only really looked at it closely this season and it's hard to comprehend sometimes - as for Champion Data playing Supercoach and manipulating data to their own advantage, that's just ridiculous.

The Bomber · July 24, 2012, 01:35:10 PM

I think people are forgetting that only the scaling after the match and maybe the last 5-10 minutes of the game (depending if the game is there to be won or not...) are affected by the players INFLUENCE on the game. Before that the scoring is dependent on the type of possession (hard ball gets, long kicks to adv etc) and the effectiveness of their disposals and tackles. You can't complain that a person who has 49 POSSESSIONS, 6 marks, 2 goals gets 143 (less than 150) (SWAN) or Beams who had 34 possies, 3 marks, 6 tackles and 4 Goals! that their score is too high! Seriously...

Pendles got scaled down due to his influence being minimal on the game almost 10-15 points (off the top of my head) aand Shaw's SC is soo high because his DE was 95%. 22 disposals and 95% DE is going to get you good SC points. Maybe should have got scaled down because of his influence, but the minimum he would have score is 95...

Ringo · July 24, 2012, 02:29:20 PM

Also remember the scaling also is done to finish allocating the 3300 points per game.

bunyips · July 24, 2012, 06:08:16 PM

Quote from: The Bomber on July 24, 2012, 01:35:10 PM
I think people are forgetting that only the scaling after the match and maybe the last 5-10 minutes of the game (depending if the game is there to be won or not...) are affected by the players INFLUENCE on the game. Before that the scoring is dependent on the type of possession (hard ball gets, long kicks to adv etc) and the effectiveness of their disposals and tackles. You can't complain that a person who has 49 POSSESSIONS, 6 marks, 2 goals gets 143 (less than 150) (SWAN) or Beams who had 34 possies, 3 marks, 6 tackles and 4 Goals! that their score is too high! Seriously...

Pendles got scaled down due to his influence being minimal on the game almost 10-15 points (off the top of my head) aand Shaw's SC is soo high because his DE was 95%. 22 disposals and 95% DE is going to get you good SC points. Maybe should have got scaled down because of his influence, but the minimum he would have score is 95...

Nah sorry - just don't agree with the way Champion Data allocate the scores this year. I agree with you this is why Beams, Swanny and Pendles got their high scores â€" I just disagree with the current methodology.

They need to have another look at the way they allocate SC scores - i mean the game was won by the Hawks in the first three quarters then Collingwood outscored them in the final term because the Hawks took their foot off the pedal. It was an annihilation - and the SC points should reflect that. I can understand like maybe one player getting a huge score â€" but three of four from the loosing team is a bit odd in my opinion â€¦..

Maybe they should just forget the "Influence" side of the equation all together and just give points for contested marks and take them away for clangers (and the rest of the point categoriesâ€¦.). Would make the scoring system more transparent and open i think.

Interesting topic though!

dickitch · July 24, 2012, 06:26:09 PM

Yup, is very interesting topic - I think get rid of the 3300 total, I think this is where it all goes wrong and is totally subjective.

strikes91 · July 24, 2012, 08:47:06 PM

would be nice if they explain the point scoring at the start of the season, if a game winning goal is worth 50 or an assist 25 and so on

afl_freak2 · July 24, 2012, 10:46:40 PM

thats my whole point there is no way known exactly how much a player has really scored......... you coudnt add up the stats vs what the player scored. sc is a lottery.

Jay · July 24, 2012, 11:02:10 PM

Interesting topic. The main one that I dont understand is how Everitt vs Geelong heavily outscored Hunt vs Richmond. Both kicked winning goals. Also Hunt's was more influential as it was after the siren. See no reason hoe Everitt for 1 quarter outscored Hunt's whole game when they did the same thing.

Dont think its rigged...just inconsistent