Simpson?

[Judd Magic]

Champion Data trolling all supercoach Simpson owners.  ;D

[js19]

The Duck had Warnock as 'Worst on' for the game, but apparently he was twice as good as Simpson :o :o >:( :-X

[Ricochet]

Guys he went at 60% efficiency
So only 14 of his 23 disposals were effective
Ineffective possies get 0 points
He also had 4 clangers = -16 points

Its not the scoring thats the problem, its that he couldn't hit a target.

[Bully]

Guys he went at 60% efficiency
So only 14 of his 23 disposals were effective
Ineffective possies get 0 points
He also had 4 clangers = -16 points

Its not the scoring thats the problem, its that he couldn't hit a target.

It's the ineffective part which constantly baffles me, often influenced by the actions of the recipient.

[Dayze]

Just got home from training and watched the game.
Staggered by his score? I didn't see 4 clangers?

I feel comfort in how many others are shocked by that score.
It is disheartening. There needs to b more checks on champion data

[RaisyDaisy]

Clangers is BS. A Clanger is when you turn the ball over directly to an opponent. No way he did that 4 times. I guess if you kick long to open space and the opposition gets to it first, that must be a "clanger" lol ridiculous

There's no fighting it, he was clearly ripped off. At one stage he was on 69, and after 1 ineffective kick, his score just kept going down and down as the game went on without him touching it

He was the victim of CD's stupid "every positive touch in the last 5 minutes of a close game is worth 500% more than it normally is, and because we cant go above 3300 we have to take points off players who are not involved as much in the last 5 minutes" rule

[eaglesman]

are you lot kidding me?

I was sitting watching the game worried in the first quarter and a bit cos simpson looked like he was in for a 110 game

But then he made constant scrubbing "kicks in hope" that went straight to the opposition .. he scored what he deserced lads ... watch the game this is not fantasy

[Ricochet]

If you don't like the scoring system why play the game ::)
Champion Data's stats aren't just used for little fantasy games. The AFL and clubs also use them. They're the most accurate stats your going to get

[vmac66]

In regards to Simpson , if you have him in your team you won't be trading due to last nights game . . Agreed it was a crappy score but  he is in my team for the long haul , and not a cash cow .

[Rusty00]

Given the amount of discussion in this thread it's surprising that Simpson is only owned by 7.36% of coaches. I think every one of those 7.36% has posted in this thread ;)

[shaker]

Have him in AFL fantasy but a lot of people in the leagues I'm in seem to have him in SC , very suprised to see that figure

Given the amount of discussion in this thread it's surprising that Simpson is only owned by 7.36% of coaches. I think every one of those 7.36% has posted in this thread ;)

[Ringo]

Not yet Rusty I have him as well. 

Rico has summed why his score is shower based on the SC rules and SC data.  Bear in mind Clangers are also Kick out on the full as well.
Also if you look at the stats he only had 3 contested possessions as opposed to 18 uncontested. So another big difference there as well.  So coupled with his 60% disposal efficiency this explains the low SC score.

As has been said a lot of his kicks failed to find targets but if they had score would have been much higher but the stats from last night reveal that he had a shocking game disposal wise despite getting the ball and rebounding.

I will not be trading him after this performance. 

[WizzFizz]

Guys he went at 60% efficiency
So only 14 of his 23 disposals were effective
Ineffective possies get 0 points
He also had 4 clangers = -16 points

Its not the scoring thats the problem, its that he couldn't hit a target.

so he had 4 clangers so minus 16

so he had 14 effective kicks so 56 and if we minus the 16 from before its 40

then theres the 3 handballs at 60% so + 3

he also got a goal so + 8

2 tackles + 8

6 marks which should be about + 15

there's also the hard ball and looseball gets which he got around 5 of which are 4.5 each -

That all adds up to 92, maybe I have been generous but simpson should have gotten about 80+

Not having a go at u rico, just CD

[Ricochet]

Breaking it down with the stats we have available.

12 effective kicks = 48
4 clangers = -16
2 effective handballs = 3
1 Goal = 8
6 Uncontested Marks = 12
2 Tackles = 8
1 Free Kick For = 4
1 Free Against = -4

Is 63. He only have 3 contested possessions so he probably only had 1 hardball get if that. Then scaled down. So kinda makes sense

[WizzFizz]

Breaking it down with the stats we have available.

12 effective kicks = 48
4 clangers = -16
2 effective handballs = 3
1 Goal = 8
6 Uncontested Marks = 12
2 Tackles = 8
1 Free Kick For = 4
1 Free Against = -4

Is 63. He only have 3 contested possessions so he probably only had 1 hardball get if that. Then scaled down. So kinda makes sense

hmmmmmm but the hardball and looseballs are 4.5 each