Analysis SuperCoach Scoring Explained, Observations & Complaints On Scoring
- Thread starter I am Cursed :(
- Start date
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,570
- Likes
- 1,373
- AFL Club
- Essendon
First, at the risk of being called the "grammar police", I gave 3 criteria, and not 2.
Secondly, yes, you can be rewarded with a tackle, when a player gets a handball/kick away, but if the pressure of the tackle causes that handball/kick to not go to a teammate, but puts the ball in dispute, it still meets one of my criteria,
Secondly, yes, you can be rewarded with a tackle, when a player gets a handball/kick away, but if the pressure of the tackle causes that handball/kick to not go to a teammate, but puts the ball in dispute, it still meets one of my criteria,
Hitouts to advantage are graded. 5 is the maximum you can get for a hta. That's not proof that the tackle part is wrong, in any case.
Have a nice night mate.
Have a nice night mate.
Tackles seem to range from between +2 and +5 from what I've seen so if you say an average tackle is 3.5 still puts Bont +28 on tackles.
The supercoach rules aren't Black and white, personally it's what makes the game interesting for me. If people want clear, concise scoring DT could always use more players.
The supercoach rules aren't Black and white, personally it's what makes the game interesting for me. If people want clear, concise scoring DT could always use more players.
Yes but tackles are awarded even if the handball goes directly to a teammate. This is especially common in the Geelong games, where Dangerfield is able to pinpoint a contested handball to a teammate and the tackle is awarded to the tackler. Your first criteria is not met, and your others aren't either.
The impression I get is that as long as the tackle had any impact on the effectiveness of the disposal of the person tackled, a tackle is rewarded, which makes the definition of tackle extremely broad and subjective. In practise, the stat inputers preference and personal opinion will have a huge bearing on an inside midfielder's tackle count.
I'm not going to spend 2 hours going through every single one of Bont's tackle from tonight's match, but I assure you there will be plenty of cases where the situation I depicted takes place and a tackle is rewarded. I'll watch tomorrow's game and point it out if/when I see it, then you can go watch the replay yourself.
The impression I get is that as long as the tackle had any impact on the effectiveness of the disposal of the person tackled, a tackle is rewarded, which makes the definition of tackle extremely broad and subjective. In practise, the stat inputers preference and personal opinion will have a huge bearing on an inside midfielder's tackle count.
I'm not going to spend 2 hours going through every single one of Bont's tackle from tonight's match, but I assure you there will be plenty of cases where the situation I depicted takes place and a tackle is rewarded. I'll watch tomorrow's game and point it out if/when I see it, then you can go watch the replay yourself.
Last edited:
I find tackles being worth 5 points extremely hard to believe, but for the sake of the exercise let's just say an unscaled tackle being worth 4 points is possible, and that on average a tackle is worth 3 point.
So Bont is +(8x3)=24 points from tackles,
Where do his other 68 points come from? Unless someone wants to suggest his grand total of 7 effective disposals for the match coupled with 6 clangers is worth 68 points?
So Bont is +(8x3)=24 points from tackles,
Where do his other 68 points come from? Unless someone wants to suggest his grand total of 7 effective disposals for the match coupled with 6 clangers is worth 68 points?
Neither will I. I assure you, a lot is in the eye/s of the person calling the stats at CD, but you don't get awarded a tackle in that Dangerfield situation you described above, and I also assure, there is nothing different about Geelong games, or the way the stats are recorded in them.
Let's leave it that, and say each person is entitled to their own opinion as to how it is judged.
Let's leave it that, and say each person is entitled to their own opinion as to how it is judged.
Since you've openly admitted you watch little to no matches a week, yet claim to be an expert on the matter, I think I'm going to back in mine and Rowsus' interpretation of how a tackle is rewarded, gathered from watching several matches a week for many years, over your interpretation.
A lot of the tackles you're claiming usually can get counted as tackles, yes, but they get fixed during the quarter time breaks. -4 (a tackle is 4 in DT) is the most common change to see occur to a players DT score during the breaks.
A lot of the tackles you're claiming usually can get counted as tackles, yes, but they get fixed during the quarter time breaks. -4 (a tackle is 4 in DT) is the most common change to see occur to a players DT score during the breaks.
How thought of you to analyse one of my comments from months ago.
It's all relative. Just because I don't mean as many games as before, or that in my opinion I 'rarely watch games nowadays", it doesn't mean the number of games isn't enough for me to identify a number of inconsistencies in the scoring, it just means I watch 1 game a week instead of 3, and when I do watch, I watch carefully.
If I can find such quantity of unexplained scoring in 1 games, then imagine what happens and how triggered I'll be if I had to watch more games. You understand this notion right?... Watching 1 game a week out of a possible of 9 (11%) to a normal person should be "rarely watched", but 1 game a week accumulated for 22 rounds, and many years combined is easily large enough of a sample to base my opinions on.
It's not just me either, IDIG and many others have also identified similar sort of scoring behaviour.
Rowsus is a fantastic statistician, and he deserves credit where it belongs. However if I recall correctly, he does not live in Australia all year around, and the foreign country where he resides in does not have access to all AFL matches either. I'm not sure how many games he watches a week, and it's also fair enough that he relies on online articles if he doesn't have the opportunity to watch the games and observe himself, but that sort of authority/knowledge doesn't apply here, and one should not blindly accept his opinion without individual assessment just because
-it's what Rowsus said-
It's all relative. Just because I don't mean as many games as before, or that in my opinion I 'rarely watch games nowadays", it doesn't mean the number of games isn't enough for me to identify a number of inconsistencies in the scoring, it just means I watch 1 game a week instead of 3, and when I do watch, I watch carefully.
If I can find such quantity of unexplained scoring in 1 games, then imagine what happens and how triggered I'll be if I had to watch more games. You understand this notion right?... Watching 1 game a week out of a possible of 9 (11%) to a normal person should be "rarely watched", but 1 game a week accumulated for 22 rounds, and many years combined is easily large enough of a sample to base my opinions on.
It's not just me either, IDIG and many others have also identified similar sort of scoring behaviour.
Rowsus is a fantastic statistician, and he deserves credit where it belongs. However if I recall correctly, he does not live in Australia all year around, and the foreign country where he resides in does not have access to all AFL matches either. I'm not sure how many games he watches a week, and it's also fair enough that he relies on online articles if he doesn't have the opportunity to watch the games and observe himself, but that sort of authority/knowledge doesn't apply here, and one should not blindly accept his opinion without individual assessment just because
-it's what Rowsus said-
Last edited:
Nothing changes.
I still respect you for your work on this forum, but unfortunately this type of respect doesn't just automatically transfer into this discussion.
Erich's words gives me the impression of something like: I'm going to agree with Dr Phil on this one regarding which SC player I should pick as captain this week, just because he's Dr Phil, a well-known psychologist who appears to be quite popular!
I still respect you for your work on this forum, but unfortunately this type of respect doesn't just automatically transfer into this discussion.
Erich's words gives me the impression of something like: I'm going to agree with Dr Phil on this one regarding which SC player I should pick as captain this week, just because he's Dr Phil, a well-known psychologist who appears to be quite popular!
Sorry I haven't followed all the discussion, but fwiw Freako tweeted this out
Fantasy Freako‏ @FantasyFreako 1h1 hour ago
Frees against are included in the clanger count. They're not two separate stats. #SuperCoach
So Bont really only had 1 disposal clanger compared to JPK's 7. I'm happy enough with that as the explanation to the discrepancy. 112DT : 101 SC vs 97DT : 92 SC
Fantasy Freako‏ @FantasyFreako 1h1 hour ago
Frees against are included in the clanger count. They're not two separate stats. #SuperCoach
So Bont really only had 1 disposal clanger compared to JPK's 7. I'm happy enough with that as the explanation to the discrepancy. 112DT : 101 SC vs 97DT : 92 SC
This is quite possibly the dumbest comment I've seen in this thread so far. I've told people how tackles work for years.. Rowsus comes along and says it the exact way I've said it previously, so of course I'm going to agree with him when I've had that viewpoint for years...
Mate, if you're seriously going to complain over the scoring each week, why don't you go play AF or RDT instead... I don't get why you continue to play something that obviously makes you so angry and "triggered", as you put it yourself.
Mate, if you're seriously going to complain over the scoring each week, why don't you go play AF or RDT instead... I don't get why you continue to play something that obviously makes you so angry and "triggered", as you put it yourself.
And this is quite the dumbest reply I've seen in awhile as well. I guarantee you I do not follow every comment you've ever posted, and I have never seen your interpretation of how tackles work. You only quoting Rowsus instead of having your own input leaves me with no choice but to think you're agreeing with him just because he's Rowsus.
"Mate, if you're seriously going to complain over the scoring each week, why don't you go play AF or RDT instead... I don't get why you continue to play something that obviously makes you so angry and "triggered", as you put it yourself."
Classic response, still haven't provided sufficient justification to Bont's score, yet you're defending the system and telling any challenger of their scoring to leave. Like I said before, question what's infront of you instead of naively accept whatever you've been given, you have eyes and a brain for a reason.
"Mate, if you're seriously going to complain over the scoring each week, why don't you go play AF or RDT instead... I don't get why you continue to play something that obviously makes you so angry and "triggered", as you put it yourself."
Classic response, still haven't provided sufficient justification to Bont's score, yet you're defending the system and telling any challenger of their scoring to leave. Like I said before, question what's infront of you instead of naively accept whatever you've been given, you have eyes and a brain for a reason.