Analysis SuperCoach Scoring Explained, Observations & Complaints On Scoring
- Thread starter I am Cursed :(
- Start date
Ok let's take this one apart.
Hannebury
8 kicks 15 hand balls (11 contested) 69.6% DE
No marks
2 clangers, 3 clearances, 8 tackles
0 goal, 0 behind, 1 goal assist
84 DT: 112 SC
So in summary: no late game scaling like Bont, poor handball:kick ratio, average disposal efficiency at best, little scoreboard impact, yet scored 112 on a losing team?
Compared with
Treloar round 1
20 kicks 15 handballs (11 contested) 72.7% DE
8 marks
5 clangers, 6 clearances, 3 tackles
1 goal, 0 behind, 0 goal assist
125 DT: 96 SC
Game was on the line too.
Hannebury
8 kicks 15 hand balls (11 contested) 69.6% DE
No marks
2 clangers, 3 clearances, 8 tackles
0 goal, 0 behind, 1 goal assist
84 DT: 112 SC
So in summary: no late game scaling like Bont, poor handball:kick ratio, average disposal efficiency at best, little scoreboard impact, yet scored 112 on a losing team?
Compared with
Treloar round 1
20 kicks 15 handballs (11 contested) 72.7% DE
8 marks
5 clangers, 6 clearances, 3 tackles
1 goal, 0 behind, 0 goal assist
125 DT: 96 SC
Game was on the line too.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2012
- Messages
- 3,404
- Likes
- 7,197
- AFL Club
- Essendon
***
I am getting sick of reading these complaints about the points scoring every week.
Champion Data's Ranking Points (supercoach points) are derived from 50+ stats, which they havent even revealed the full scoring system for!
Yet week after week people are pulling out 10 different stats, arguing that a player has been underscored/overscored and that their score cant POSSIBLY be right as it doesnt match the 10 stats that they have pulled up?!
I apologise as this post probably belongs in the rant thread, but I felt it is probably relevant in here aswell.
I am getting sick of reading these complaints about the points scoring every week.
Champion Data's Ranking Points (supercoach points) are derived from 50+ stats, which they havent even revealed the full scoring system for!
Yet week after week people are pulling out 10 different stats, arguing that a player has been underscored/overscored and that their score cant POSSIBLY be right as it doesnt match the 10 stats that they have pulled up?!
I apologise as this post probably belongs in the rant thread, but I felt it is probably relevant in here aswell.
Last edited:
Alright. Let's use the table. Let's use the scoring criteria (tackles=4 points, contested possessions=4.5 possessions which you seem so sure about)
Treloar round 3-108 SC
15 tackles=60 points apparently
11 contested possessions=11x4.5=49.5 apparently
1 goal+effective kick=12
That's a total of 121.5
Are you saying the remaining 27 of his disposals (albeit low DE) is worth a total of -13.5?
I mean you surely you can't be serious.
Nice "it was published in an article it must be true" attitude.
Treloar round 3-108 SC
15 tackles=60 points apparently
11 contested possessions=11x4.5=49.5 apparently
1 goal+effective kick=12
That's a total of 121.5
Are you saying the remaining 27 of his disposals (albeit low DE) is worth a total of -13.5?
I mean you surely you can't be serious.
Nice "it was published in an article it must be true" attitude.
- By using Champion Data's comprehensive rankings system of over 50 different stats, player rankings are the most accurate way to determine how effective a player has been. You can be sure that a high-scoring player is giving his team maximum value. Unlike other stats systems, Champion Data will not simply award a point for each kick, mark or handball. For example, while other games will award points for a kick no matter how far it goes or where it's directed, Champion Data will award zero points for a kick that travels less than 40 meters to a contest.
- Instead, teams of trained statisticians will assess the state of the game, the pressure on the player and the result of a disposal or possession to determine a score for that action. In many cases, players will lose points for a disposal or action that allows their opponents back into the passage of play.
These two paragraphs are pulled straight from the point scoring section on the Supercoach website.
I feel they are especially relevant when trying to work out Treloar's scoring.
- Instead, teams of trained statisticians will assess the state of the game, the pressure on the player and the result of a disposal or possession to determine a score for that action. In many cases, players will lose points for a disposal or action that allows their opponents back into the passage of play.
These two paragraphs are pulled straight from the point scoring section on the Supercoach website.
I feel they are especially relevant when trying to work out Treloar's scoring.
This is exactly why I'm a huge CD sceptic. CD turns what could be a very interesting aspect of the game (analytics) into a bit of a joke. Yay, secrets stats and formulae that no one can access or analyse/evaluate (meaning that, for all most of us know, some of CD's work could be highly questionable).
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 2,301
- Likes
- 1,721
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
Any kick directly to the opposition or out on the full is clanger, irrelevant to whether or not the player is under pressure.
With the second case, most of the time this will simply be an ineffective, although if the kick is long (40+ metres I think), it will still count as effective. They can never get 100 % consistency with this though, especially if someone trips over or something, because it's hard to work it out in the heat of the moment.
I think Naninaki has it right, going by the quote from CD. Although I've never actually seen someone be awarded a clanger for a behind (it's a rare occurrence though, so could easily have missed them all).
Just watching the point scoring, especially for guys like Dahlhaus, who are constantly at the bottom of packs, it appears as though they're not awarded the CP when tackled. This is probably because it's too hard to tell who's had possession when there are rolling mauls. I think if someone runs out of bounds or siren goes though, then they do get the points.
Hanners:
approximately 5 effective kicks = 15
approx 11 eff handballs =11
8 tackles = 24
11 CP = approx 35-40 depending on field position
11 UP = 11
1 goal assist = 3 + any behind assists not publicly available
1 1 % = 1
2 clangers = -6
TOTAL = 94 to 99
He was a lot better in the first half, when the game was won, so could easily become 100-105, but I'm honestly not sure how he got to 112! A few behind assists, or a few more effective kicks (fewer effective handballs) would both be logical explanations.
Treloar round 1:
approx 11 effective kicks (remember he sprayed the ball by foot that game) = 33
approx 11 eff handballs = 11
11 CP = 35-40
23 UP = 23-27ish (depending on whether any were intercept marks)
3 tackles = 9
1 goal = 6
5 clangers = -15
TOTAL = 102-111
Once again, however, Treloar dropped out of it in the second half, this time when the game was won, which could easily have seen his score drop by 5+. Given he finished on 96, that seems about right.
He went up to 130. The scaling down to 126 would've been correcting an error from earlier in the game.
The some bizarre reason, the scores listed are what the scores are like in a time of high weighting (ie. when the game is won). Everything is in correct proportion, but every score is too high (eg. Kicks are 3 not 4, HAO are 4 not 5, etc).
See above
With the second case, most of the time this will simply be an ineffective, although if the kick is long (40+ metres I think), it will still count as effective. They can never get 100 % consistency with this though, especially if someone trips over or something, because it's hard to work it out in the heat of the moment.
I think Naninaki has it right, going by the quote from CD. Although I've never actually seen someone be awarded a clanger for a behind (it's a rare occurrence though, so could easily have missed them all).
Just watching the point scoring, especially for guys like Dahlhaus, who are constantly at the bottom of packs, it appears as though they're not awarded the CP when tackled. This is probably because it's too hard to tell who's had possession when there are rolling mauls. I think if someone runs out of bounds or siren goes though, then they do get the points.
Hanners:
approximately 5 effective kicks = 15
approx 11 eff handballs =11
8 tackles = 24
11 CP = approx 35-40 depending on field position
11 UP = 11
1 goal assist = 3 + any behind assists not publicly available
1 1 % = 1
2 clangers = -6
TOTAL = 94 to 99
He was a lot better in the first half, when the game was won, so could easily become 100-105, but I'm honestly not sure how he got to 112! A few behind assists, or a few more effective kicks (fewer effective handballs) would both be logical explanations.
Treloar round 1:
approx 11 effective kicks (remember he sprayed the ball by foot that game) = 33
approx 11 eff handballs = 11
11 CP = 35-40
23 UP = 23-27ish (depending on whether any were intercept marks)
3 tackles = 9
1 goal = 6
5 clangers = -15
TOTAL = 102-111
Once again, however, Treloar dropped out of it in the second half, this time when the game was won, which could easily have seen his score drop by 5+. Given he finished on 96, that seems about right.
He went up to 130. The scaling down to 126 would've been correcting an error from earlier in the game.
The some bizarre reason, the scores listed are what the scores are like in a time of high weighting (ie. when the game is won). Everything is in correct proportion, but every score is too high (eg. Kicks are 3 not 4, HAO are 4 not 5, etc).
See above