Analysis SuperCoach Scoring Explained, Observations & Complaints On Scoring

[Professor]

Thought it might be interesting

heraldsun.com.au ›
Champion Data explains the meaning of 12 AFL stats
June 16, 2017

STATS were easy when kicks, marks and handballs were all that was recorded in the paper the next day.
When inside-50s and clearances were added we were still pretty sure what was going on.

Then we started hearing about score involvements, turnovers, giveaway turnovers, forced turnovers ... and it felt like you needed a degree to know what was happening on the footy field.

Luckily, the AFL’s stats gurus at Champion Data are here to help.
They have spent years finetuning the stats that record what really matters in games, which is why they are used by all the AFL clubs and form the unique SuperCoach scoring system.

To answer one common question from the start, possessions and disposals are not the same thing, although the terms are often used interchangeably. A possession is how a player wins the ball and a disposal is how he gets rid of it. So it is possible for a player to win a possession — for example, by marking just before the siren, but not record a disposal.

Here are 12 more misunderstood stats and what they mean.

METRES GAINED
Net distance gained with the ball by a player during a match by running with the footy, kicking or handballing. Backwards kicks and handballs take away from the total of metres gained towards goal to give a final total.

PRESSURE ACT
Each disposal has pressure assigned to it, ranging from no pressure for a set position to closing, corralling, chasing or physical pressure. A pressure act is when a player has applied either closing, corralling, chasing or physical pressure.

PRESSURE POINTS
Weighted sum of pressure acts. Under the Champion Data pressure point scoring system physical pressure acts are worth 3.75 points, closing pressure acts are worth 2.25 points, chasing pressure acts are worth 1.50 points, and corralling pressure acts which are worth 1.20 points.

KICK RATING
The difference between a player’s expected hit rate (number of times he hits an intended target) and actual hit rate. A negative kick rating indicates a player is not executing the kicks as well as the competition average and a positive kick rating shows a player is hitting the target more often than the competition average. Note that a kick that goes to a teammate counts as effective even if it doesn’t travel the 15m required for a mark.

INTERCEPT POSSESSION
Any possession that is won that breaks an opposition chain.

TACKLE EFFICIENCY
Percentage of physical pressure acts that lead to an effective tackle (that results in no disposal or an ineffective or clanger disposal).

SCORE INVOLVEMENT
Any scoring chain a player was involved in with either a disposal, hitout-to-advantage, kick-in or knock-on. If a player has more than one disposal in the same chain, he is only credited with one score involvement. A score assist is the disposal, hitout-to-advantage or knock-on that directly preceeds a score. (A hitout-to-advantage is a hitout that leads to a teammate gaining direct possession of the ball with the opportunity to dispose of it).

SCOREBOARD IMPACT
A score assigned by Champion Data by combining points scored from goals and behinds plus score assists. Goal and goal assists are worth six points each, and behinds and behind assists are worth one point each.

TURNOVER
Losing possession to the opposition in general play. General play excludes events that happen between a stoppage and the clearance.

GIVEAWAY TURNOVER
A turnover that directly hands possession to the opposition, usually via a clanger disposal. Giveaway turnovers can be forced or unforced.

FORCED TURNOVER
A turnover committed under significant pressure, which directly results in an opposition possession. For example, when a player is tackled as he kicks the ball and it is marked by an opponent.

UNFORCED TURNOVER
A turnover committed under little or no pressure, which directly results in an opposition possession.

Thanks Bermi, explains the many variables in SC scoring. I'd assume a few more have been added and some undisclosed.

 

[doc ron]

Let's face it, it's the mystery and intrigue and seeming inconsistencies that are the reasons why we prefer supercoach over other fantasy games. The fact that the effectiveness of each individual act is measured as opposed to just the act itself. We all get upset when players we own appear underscored, and for the record I think Gawn was worthy of at least a 130 lastnight. But we also accept the points without query if our players seem to get points for merely taking a breath. It is what it is. We all complain but we all keep playing this dam frustrating game. A bit like Golf.

 

[Professor]

Is it possible that the AFL integrity unit need to be involved to look at possible insider betting on scoring players? ?

 

[Zimmer]

Let's face it, it's the mystery and intrigue and seeming inconsistencies that are the reasons why we prefer supercoach over other fantasy games. The fact that the effectiveness of each individual act is measured as opposed to just the act itself. We all get upset when players we own appear underscored, and for the record I think Gawn was worthy of at least a 130 lastnight. But we also accept the points without query if our players seem to get points for merely taking a breath. It is what it is. We all complain but we all keep playing this dam frustrating game. A bit like Golf.

The individual input/vs team output/success is the most interesting and probably most intangible variable. Life is relational, but we tend to concentrate on individual acts... etc.

 

[quite ironic]

17/58 HTA for Grundy

I know contested possessions and DE mean a fair bit but just shows how wrong Gawns score was yesterday with 18 HTA (most of the season by anyone).

 

[Eagling]

I know contested possessions and DE mean a fair bit but just shows how wrong Gawns score was yesterday with 18 HTA (most of the season by anyone).

Grundy was everywhere today and a massive influence. Unfortunately his score was well deserved - clear BoG for me.

 

[Herbie66]

I know contested possessions and DE mean a fair bit but just shows how wrong Gawns score was yesterday with 18 HTA (most of the season by anyone).

have you emailed them yet and asked for a explanation ? ?

 

[quite ironic]

Grundy was everywhere today and a massive influence. Unfortunately his score was well deserved - clear BoG for me.

Yeah probably more about how wrong Gawn’s score was in comparison not Grundy being over scored

 

[quite ironic]

have you emailed them yet and asked for a explanation ? ?

Yeah called up and they said it was 30 points less than it should’ve been but all scores are final so nothing they can do unfortunately!

 

[Herbie66]

Yeah called up and they said it was 30 points less than it should’ve been but all scores are final so nothing they can do unfortunately!

He might start next week +30.

 

[Yikes]

It's not only HTA that score anymore, hitouts that get taken by opposition lose points. His 58 hitouts may have been a net loss to his overall score or at least negated his HTA points.

that’s literally impossible. 17 HTA=51 points at the very least. even if all balls are sharks he’s still +10. plus the majority were neutral balls and not sharked... do u think bulldogs would lose the clearance count and have sub 30 if they sharked the ball 47 times?

 

[quite ironic]

that’s literally impossible. 17 HTA=51 points at the very least. even if all balls are sharks he’s still +10. plus the majority were neutral balls and not sharked... do u think bulldogs would lose the clearance count and have sub 30 if they sharked the ball 47 times?

Melbourne Friday, Gawn 18 HTA = 54 and his team won clearances 44-37. He finished on 113 so no way Grundy was getting anywhere near 200 with 17 in isolation. The difference in a few contested possessions and a couple of effective disposals was barely worth a 43pt difference let alone 83.

 

[Yikes]

Melbourne Friday, Gawn 18 HTA = 54 and his team won clearances 44-37. He finished on 113 so no way Grundy was getting anywhere near 200 with 17 in isolation. The difference in a few contested possessions and a couple of effective disposals was barely worth a 43pt difference let alone 83.

grundy had 7 more tackles (21 points), 4 more possessions (roughly 8 points), 8 more contested possessions (roughly 16 points difference) and 21% higher disposal efficiency (even more points for grundy)...

the 43 points difference was absolutely justified. if anything gawn shouldn't have maintained close to 1:1 dt:sc ratio like grundy did with far less contested possessions and significantly lower disposal efficiency

 

[quite ironic]

grundy had 7 more tackles (21 points), 4 more possessions (roughly 8 points), 8 more contested possessions (roughly 16 points difference) and 21% higher disposal efficiency (even more points for grundy)...

the 43 points difference was absolutely justified. if anything gawn shouldn't have maintained close to 1:1 dt:sc ratio like grundy did with far less contested possessions and significantly lower disposal efficiency

43pts can be argued, anything more is laughable though especially watching both games and seeing how underscored Gawn was.

Grundy went at 153/160
Gawn went at 125/113 so their DT:SC ratios aren't really close,

Gawn had 1 more HTA (+3), 3 more effective kicks (+9), 10 less effective handballs (-15), 8 less contested possessions (-24), 2 more intercept marks (+8), 3 less hitouts (-3) (however, collingwood had 33 clearances and Grundy 17 HTA whereas Melbourne had 44 clearances with Gawn 18 HTA's further skewing points from neutral hitouts in Gawn's favour (but hard to tell so keep it as -3).7 less tackles (-21), 1 less free kick (-1), 4 more inside 50's and 2 more rebound 50's (not sure of the worth of these but would be something).

Total = 44 difference without factoring in the hitout, inside 50's, rebound 50's variance too so as I said you can argue the difference from there but absoutely no way should it have been anymore, especially in watching the game and most people agreeing Gawn's game should've been 130-140+

 

[Yikes]

43pts can be argued, anything more is laughable though especially watching both games and seeing how underscored Gawn was.

Grundy went at 153/160
Gawn went at 125/113 so their DT:SC ratios aren't really close,

Gawn had 1 more HTA (+3), 3 more effective kicks (+9), 10 less effective handballs (-15), 8 less contested possessions (-24), 2 more intercept marks (+8), 3 less hitouts (-3) (however, collingwood had 33 clearances and Grundy 17 HTA whereas Melbourne had 44 clearances with Gawn 18 HTA's further skewing points from neutral hitouts in Gawn's favour (but hard to tell so keep it as -3).7 less tackles (-21), 1 less free kick (-1), 4 more inside 50's and 2 more rebound 50's (not sure of the worth of these but would be something).

Total = 44 difference without factoring in the hitout, inside 50's, rebound 50's variance too so as I said you can argue the difference from there but absoutely no way should it have been anymore, especially in watching the game and most people agreeing Gawn's game should've been 130-140+

how do u know that the 3 extra kicks gawn had were effective? did u miss the part about him having 21% less efficiency than grundy? also did grundy not have intercepting marks too? honestly gawn was lucky to even hit 50% efficiency on thursday, most of his effective touches were handballs and his kicks went nowhere or straight to the opposition. it just looks half-respectable because of his handballs pulling the stats up.

 

[quite ironic]

how do u know that the 3 extra kicks gawn had were effective? did u miss the part about him having 21% less efficiency than grundy? also did grundy not have intercepting marks too? honestly gawn was lucky to even hit 50% efficiency on thursday, most of his effective touches were handballs and his kicks went nowhere or straight to the opposition. it just looks half-respectable because of his handballs pulling the stats up.

The 21% DE is already factored into Grundy's 10 more effective handballs and 3 less effective kicks....

Grundy had 1 intercept mark (1 contested), Gawn 3 (2 contested)

"Most of his effective touches were handballs" Dude he had 19 disposals and 3 were handballs

It's pretty clear you didn't watch the game, he took 2 contested intercept marks alone in the last quarter when the game was on the line..

"He looks respectable because his handballs pulled up his stats" you sure you aren;t talking about Grundy who had 14 handballs to Gawn's 3.

HE HAD 3 HANDBALLS (2 effective)!

 

[Yikes]

The 21% DE is already factored into Grundy's 10 more effective handballs and 3 less effective kicks....

Grundy had 1 intercept mark (1 contested), Gawn 3 (2 contested)

"Most of his effective touches were handballs" Dude he had 19 disposals and 3 were handballs

It's pretty clear you didn't watch the game, he took 2 contested intercept marks alone in the last quarter when the game was on the line..

"He looks respectable because his handballs pulled up his stats" you sure you aren;t talking about Grundy who had 14 handballs to Gawn's 3.

HE HAD 3 HANDBALLS (2 effective)!

he took 2 intercept marks in last quarter and was rewarded with a good final quarter score.

so gawn had 10 effective touches on thursday. you take away his 2 effective handballs. this means that only 8 of his kicks were effective.

8 effective kicks + 2 effective handballs = 26
1 tackle = 3 points
18 hitouts to advantage - not the 37 by fantasyfreako let's say 25 sharked = 29
10 contested possessions = 30 points
8 uncontested possessions = 8 points
3 1%ers=6 points
4 clangers=-12 points (free kicks already included in contested possessions)
Total=90 points

so he scored around 23 marks from his 3 good marks? what did u want more or something?...

 

[quite ironic]

he took 2 intercept marks in last quarter and was rewarded with a good final quarter score.

so gawn had 10 effective touches on thursday. you take away his 2 effective handballs. this means that only 8 of his kicks were effective.

8 effective kicks + 2 effective handballs = 26
1 tackle = 3 points
18 hitouts to advantage - not the 37 by fantasyfreako let's say 25 sharked = 29
10 contested possessions = 30 points
8 uncontested possessions = 8 points
3 1%ers=6 points
4 clangers=-12 points (free kicks already included in contested possessions)
Total=90 points

so he scored around 23 marks from his 3 good marks? what did u want more or something?...

A good final quarter score he went 33/23 in the last quarter when he was very influential on the win in a tight game.


fantasy freako didn’t say he had 37 sharked, it was the amount of hitouts that weren’t HTA’s. 55 total hitouts less his 18 HTA = 37.

Using your logic Grundy had 41 hitouts sharked as 58-17 is 41. So he would’ve only got +10 for his 58 hitouts It’s like having an argument with a wall.

I stopped reading there because you’ve indicated with about 4 different points you didn’t watch the Melbourne Sydney game.

Anyone that can try to make an argument that a player’s disposal efficiency was brought up by their handballs when 16% of their possessions were handballs compared to 61% by the other player doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Have a good day

 

[Yikes]

A good final quarter score he went 33/23 in the last quarter when he was very influential on the win in a tight game.


fantasy freako didn’t say he had 37 sharked, it was the amount of hitouts that weren’t HTA’s. 55 total hitouts less his 18 HTA = 37.

Using your logic Grundy had 44 hitouts sharked as 58-17 is 41.

I stopped reading there because you’ve indicated with about 4 different points you didn’t watch the Melbourne Sydney game.

Anyone that can try to make an argument that a player’s disposal efficiency was brought up by their handballs when 16% of their possessions were handball compared to 61% by the other player doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Have a good day

hence why i included 25 instead of 37...

don't know what to tell you bud not sure why you wouldn't believe that i watched a game that was on tv

i'm not making any argument about their disposal efficiency, they're facts.

and you can not reply to me all you want but you've flooded the last 15 pages with your scoring rants just because you have/don't have a player so i'd think this is likely to continue

 

[quite ironic]

hence why i included 25 instead of 37...

don't know what to tell you bud not sure why you wouldn't believe that i watched a game that was on tv

i'm not making any argument about their disposal efficiency, they're facts.

and you can not reply to me all you want but you've flooded the last 15 pages with your scoring rants just because you have/don't have a player so i'd think this is likely to continue

You used flawed logics and I refuted every single one of them and somehow they got worse and worse

‘Fantasy Freako had every non hitout to advantage sharked but I’ll just pluck some random figure out like 25 for my equation’ how about you do the same for Grundy hmm 58-17 = 41 but we’ll drop that to say 30 sharked..

‘The majority of Gawn’s effective disposals were handballs‘ HE HAD 3 of his 19 disposals as handballs.

‘Gawn’s disposal efficiency was brought up by his handballs’ He had 16% of disposals as handballs compared to 61% by Grundy.

‘He got plenty of points for reward in the last quarter’ He had arguably his most influential quarter there and got his lowest quarter sc 23.

‘You didn’t even factor in DE’ its already factored in with 10 more effective handballs and 3 less effective kicks, hence 7 more effective disposals which was the 21% DE difference.


I didn’t think you could come up with worse points but it just kept happening. Sorry to have embarrassed you but you just kept coming with worse and worse arguments. I’ll put you out of your misery now and chuck you on ignore.