Analysis SuperCoach Scoring Explained, Observations & Complaints On Scoring

[doc ron]

Good on CD to explain the Alex Rance debate

Still wouldn't account for most of the gold pass points he scores.Gaz is another one that appears to get points for merely breathing somewhere near the ball.

 

[Monya Meow Meow]

Still wouldn't account for most of the gold pass points he scores.Gaz is another one that appears to get points for merely breathing somewhere near the ball.

Nothing much we can do about players like them but get them into our teams I guess?

 

[doc ron]

Nothing much we can do about players like them but get them into our teams I guess?

Already hav gaz and rance round 14 hopefully.

 

[BC]

Nothing much we can do about players like them but get them into our teams I guess?

If you can't beat them, join them.
Nothing worse than watching a game hoping the guy you dont have goes large. Like me with Hanners every week

 

[Bontempele]

Still wouldn't account for most of the gold pass points he scores.Gaz is another one that appears to get points for merely breathing somewhere near the ball.

Sorry but this is a myth. Rance gets a huge amount of intercepts, which count for between 2 and 6. A gather from oppo is 2, uncontested mark from oppo 3, and contested mark from oppo 6, while ground ball gets are worth 4 in the backline (compared to 3 between the arcs).

Gazza gets a huge amount of CPs and tackles, which is why it might seem he is getting more than others per disposal.

 

[BC]

On Rance, he's only hit the ton 3 times this year.

 

[Bomber18]

Bumping this.

Everyone needs to have a read of what gets scored in SC. Behind Assists, Shepherds, Spoils to Advantage, Dropped Marks. There are a lot of things which attract scoring in SC.

 

[Beijing_Sting]

shoot - i thought this was the rant thread.

 

[Zoku Pops]

Great bump however there's nothing in the article about certain players getting special treatment.... From what I keep reading this is actually a thing so I'm confused.

 

[Erich1036]

Great bump however there's nothing in the article about certain players getting special treatment.... From what I keep reading this is actually a thing so I'm confused.

Are you talking about the Bont? Easy to skim over mate, it's in between the section on Alex Rance's golden ticket and the section on how Adam Treloar ran over one of the Champion Data statisticians cat's over the summer.

 

[Zoku Pops]

Are you talking about the Bont? Easy to skim over mate, it's in between the section on Alex Rance's golden ticket and the section on how Adam Treloar ran over one of the Champion Data statisticians cat's over the summer.

Haha so right in the fiction section? Thanks for clarifying!

 

[doc ron]

Just my 2 cents worth on the CD scoring debate, I know I have made remarks about golden ticket players such as Rance and others but I know there are reasons for those seemingly bonus points. The scoring system is what sets it apart from all other fantasy comps, so if you choose to play sc just accept the fact that any system that is based around human opinion at that point in time can throw up scores that seem slightly off in both over/under scored situations. We all have a gripe when our players are underscored but very rarely mention the ones that we have that seem to have been overscored. It's all swings and roundabouts, if you think some players carry compromising pictures of CD scoring personal then just get them into your team. But having said that, if these players constantly seem to be overscored then there price should reflect that and thus be no better or worse than others with regards to getting them in your team. The bulk of our cash generation is from rookies, so our other selections get based on possible improvements in scoring from past history. If players like Rance, the Bont and gaz seem to be overscored and others like Treloar underscored as long as continue to be then there price should be accurate and we should just accept what gets pumped out from CD each week and move on.

 

[Bontempele]

I'd just like to point out that without the complicated scoring system, you end up with completely skewed averages for some players.

In AFL fantasy last year, Aaron Hall was ranked 15th , compared to Bont at number 43... And don't try to tell me Sam Gibson had a better season than Daniel Wells last year!!

 

[Bomber18]

I don't believe players are deliberately overscored, but I think it's possible certain players might be more prone to getting the "good" stats more than others.

Like Nank, I reckon a few of his HTAs registered might be a bit questionable, but as he has a good reputation for getting them at CD, he probably gets the benefit of the doubt most times.

Similarly, guys like Pendles or Bont who kick to a contest and the opposition takes a mark, if the CD scorers record the opposition as taking a contested mark, no clanger, but if it's an uncontested mark, it's a clanger. So with their reputation for good ball use, perhaps the scorers might be inclined to think that they kicked it to a contest and thus they avoid the negative points. Small things like that can add up due to the inevitable subjectivity in decisions. It's all part of the game.

 

[Hondo]

I reckon the game moves too fast for them to stop and think too much about the who, too busy recording the what. I think the error % gets spread around without noticeable bias.

 

[McLovin]

I don't believe players are deliberately overscored, but I think it's possible certain players might be more prone to getting the "good" stats more than others.

Like Nank, I reckon a few of his HTAs registered might be a bit questionable, but as he has a good reputation for getting them at CD, he probably gets the benefit of the doubt most times.

Similarly, guys like Pendles or Bont who kick to a contest and the opposition takes a mark, if the CD scorers record the opposition as taking a contested mark, no clanger, but if it's an uncontested mark, it's a clanger. So with their reputation for good ball use, perhaps the scorers might be inclined to think that they kicked it to a contest and thus they avoid the negative points. Small things like that can add up due to the inevitable subjectivity in decisions. It's all part of the game.

I think this is my biggest gripe, scorers seem very prone to assigning intent to players based on expectation at times, rather than scoring each act on its individual merits. I can understand why that happens, but it also severely undermines the credibility of the system for mine.

 

[GrainFedBeef]

I am not one to question the SC system, think these guys have more skill and analytics than given credit.

On HTA, interesting to watch first HO by Sandi, went straight to player however he was instantly wrapped up. Didnt receive a point for it.

Indicates that a HTA requires the player to have ability to dispose ball to be classified as HTA.

 

[Zimmer]

I am not one to question the SC system, think these guys have more skill and analytics than given credit.

On HTA, interesting to watch first HO by Sandi, went straight to player however he was instantly wrapped up. Didnt receive a point for it.

Indicates that a HTA requires the player to have ability to dispose ball to be classified as HTA.

Seems strange. Effectively means two effective disposals, and the Ruck relying on the receiver to be effective to score. If it goes to the player, you'd think that's a HTA. I dunno.

 

[GrainFedBeef]

Michael Johnson picked up ball in congestion, handballed immediately under pressure straight to melb player (who fumbled it), no clanger recorded.

Discussed in round 4 earlier, still think clanger is more unforced errors under no pressure.

 

[GrainFedBeef]

Seems strange. Effectively means two effective disposals, and the Ruck relying on the receiver to be effective to score. If it goes to the player, you'd think that's a HTA. I dunno.

Key point I guess is not HO to player but to advantage, if immediately wrapped up then he gave player no advantage. Sandi did get DT points.