Analysis SuperCoach Scoring Explained, Observations & Complaints On Scoring

[Bermi]

Below is a link to how Champion Data collects 'AFL Fantasy' stats during a game. Supercoach would be a lot tougher and stressful I reckon.

https://www.championdata.com/index.php/sport/afl.html

 

[IDIG]

Exactly. And from what I understand the published numbers (8 for a goal, eg) are at the top end of the typical range, so it's any wonder that people feel their players are underscored. I just don't see why you would present the information in that way unless you were trying to mislead.

My only real issue with Neale’s score in particular was that he appeared to gain max pts for his possessions through the whole game. I have no issue with them weighting touches more to when the game is close but had other players gained max pts like he did, we would’ve ended up with 5000 pts, not the usual 3300...or if Boak was scored the same way, he would’ve scored a bucket load more.

In the end, the scoring system is what it is and we see the same posts every year about its perceived inconsistencies. Im not usually too bothered about it all, I just make a point of bringing in those players ASAP and caring less!

 

[quite ironic]

Couldn't bypass the paywall via Outline but somehow without a HS Subscription gained access to article (Tip= Try clicking the link and then picture (or other way around or even multiple times) as sometimes you are able to view the article without a pass).


The difference between Brad Crouch and Lachie Neale’s Round 6 score, despite similar raw numbers, had some SuperCoaches scratching their heads. But, as Champion Data’s Fantasy Freako explains, there’s good reason.

Against St Kilda on Saturday, Brad Crouch tallied 30 disposals — at 66 per cent efficiency — a game-high 11 clearances and a team-high 14 contested possessions.

But the Adelaide midfielder finished the game as the 10th-ranked Crow on the ground with just 85 SuperCoach points to his name.

Lachie Neale recorded his fourth SuperCoach score of 140 or more against the Suns.
On the same day, Brisbane’s Lachie Neale recorded 28 disposals — at 82 per cent — 14 contested possessions and five clearances in the Q Clash.

In contrast, the former Docker finished with a game-high 142 points.

The difference has had some SuperCoaches scratching their heads.

But, as Champion Data’s Fantasy Freako explains, the comparison isn’t that simple and you have to “dig a little deeper”.

“The one thing you probably can’t do is compare players from different games, there’s a lot of different factors,” Freako told The Phantom’s Lair Podcast.

“First and foremost, you have to look at what their teammates are doing.”

Adelaide had five more players win eight or more contested possessions than the Lions, three more score in excess of 80 points and two more win at least 20 disposals.

“It was an even contribution in the end from Adelaide,” Freako said.

But, more importantly, it’s what they did when the game was up for grabs.

In the third term, when the game was in the balance, Brad Crouch had two effective disposals, one tackle and just 13 points, as brother Matt, Rory Laird, Rory Atkins, Alex Keath, Brodie Smith and Elliot Himmelberg had a big impact as St Kilda threw everything they had at the Crows.

“As the game went on, the Crows got on top and had a comfortable win but, when it was up for grabs, he (Crouch) didn’t really do much,” Freako said.

On the other hand, with the Lions leading by just six points at half-time, Lachie Neale came out in the third term and tallied 11 disposals, two goal assists and one major himself as Brisbane took the game away from the Suns.

Neale recorded 68 of his 142 points in the third quarter.

“Essentially he was almost the difference between the two teams,” Freako added.

It didn’t help Crouch made just two tackles — Neale had six — went at 47 per cent by foot and had no impact on the scoreboard — goals and assists — whatsoever.

Freako also stressed the importance of treading with caution when following live SuperCoach scores.

“The one thing you can’t do in SuperCoach is put a (exact) value on a certain stat and say, well, he’s kicked a goal, that’s worth eight points,” Freako explained.

“If you’re up by 85 points in the last quarter and you kick a goal, you may only get two or three points because the game is already over. So the worth of that stat isn’t as great as it would be in the first quarter, for example.”

Not arguing that but it seems an explanation on why two players were 20-30 points different for similar stats not 57 points of difference.

On face value from the Brisbane game (I didn’t watch it) Neale was worth 125ish

I watched the Adelaide Saints games and that’s just picking bull**** out by CD, Adelaide won the game in the 2nd quarter when they kicked 5.1 to 2.0. In the third quarter they kicked 2 goals to Saints 3 and then pulled away when it was close in the 4th with Crouch being excellent then too.

Ironically, the quarter where Adelaide were in trouble and not playing that well there in the 3rd Crouch was quiet but when the game was to be won and Adelaide were influential in the 2nd and 4th Crouch was excellent.

He definitely deserved 100+ for that game and a lot of the commentator after the game had him as best on ground.

 

[quite ironic]

My only real issue with Neale’s score in particular was that he appeared to gain max pts for his possessions through the whole game. I have no issue with them weighting touches more to when the game is close but had other players gained max pts like he did, we would’ve ended up with 5000 pts, not the usual 3300...or if Boak was scored the same way, he would’ve scored a bucket load more.

In the end, the scoring system is what it is and we see the same posts every year about its perceived inconsistencies. Im not usually too bothered about it all, I just make a point of bringing in those players ASAP and caring less!

The weird thing with Neale was he already had the important 3rd quarter factored into scaling quite clearly by 3 quarter time as he had gone for like 30/60 that quarter.

Then in the 4th he was able to just sit back and literally do nothing (think he had 2 disposals in the first 25 minutes) and still just kept scaling up meaning that 3rd quarter he was really going for like 30/80 which is nuts.

He did nothing in the 4th and still scaled up 30+ points in that quarter.

Where as Boak didn’t let down in any quarter and still just received average scoring the whole way through.

Comparatively to Crouch, by that tweet CD decided the game was over at 3 quarter time when Adelaide were up by 2 goals so Crouch’s massive last quarter when the game really was still evidently on the line still got scored poorly.

Just stupid sometimes.

If you told me two players would have similar stats and go:

105/85
Vs
108/142

I’d be expecting something like 10 more kicks to the second player, 40% more DE, 10 more contested possessions, 5 more score involvements, 5 more inside 50’s, 6-7 more clearances and 4-5 less clangers and have way more influence on the game than the other player who was having no influence and wasn’t one of his best players. That wasn’t even close to the case though.

In isolations that’s really the difference between a 85 vs 142 with the same fantasy.

 

[stephen]

Don't you guys get sick of being constantly annoyed by this stuff? We all get ****ty at a score from time to time but if you think the SC scoring is fundamentally unfair then playing the game can't be good for your liver.

 

[jaca]

Don't you guys get sick of being constantly annoyed by this stuff? We all get ****ty at a score from time to time but if you think the SC scoring is fundamentally unfair then playing the game can't be good for your liver.

Well said

 

[bomberboy]

Don't you guys get sick of being constantly annoyed by this stuff? We all get ****ty at a score from time to time but if you think the SC scoring is fundamentally unfair then playing the game can't be good for your liver.

Honestly how I feel - DT is objective, SC is subjective. Not like it changes every year.

 

[Bermi]

……..What a load of ****e. They should introduce ranges instead of exact scoring because it doesn't exist.

They're definitely leaving the door ajar for the scoring to be talked about in a negative way and the comparison of scores between players. ……...

……….In the end, the scoring system is what it is and we see the same posts every year about its perceived inconsistencies. ……...

……...Just stupid sometimes.……......

The selected quotes are about Champion Data's scoring system.

If we, and I mean a large number of SuperCoaches, all being above normal intelligence, cannot work out Champion Data's scoring system, and they can't come up with a clear, logical explanation of their scoring system, then the obvious reason is because they haven't got a workable one.

The issue I see with CD's scoring system is that it is complex, a lot can happen in a pack of players at once, the ball can move very quickly between players and all that has to be calculated in a very short space of time.

 

[Nathan]

The selected quotes are about Champion Data's scoring system.

If we, and I mean a large number of SuperCoaches, all being above normal intelligence, cannot work out Champion Data's scoring system, and they can't come up with a clear, logical explanation of their scoring system, then the obvious reason is because they haven't got a workable one.

The issue I see with CD's scoring system is that it is complex, a lot can happen in a pack of players at once, the ball can move very quickly between players and all that has to be calculated in a very short space of time.

I don’t complain about the scoring but I agree it’s too complex.

Would still be a unique fantasy game without all the weighting.

Base scores on raw stats, still use efficiency as a multiplier, have your spoils/smothers/HTA’s and maybe even a +2/3 if you kick a goal when game is within x ammount of points. Just have a tangible number for everything.. there would still be some room for interpretation but easier.

 

[quite ironic]

The selected quotes are about Champion Data's scoring system.

If we, and I mean a large number of SuperCoaches, all being above normal intelligence, cannot work out Champion Data's scoring system, and they can't come up with a clear, logical explanation of their scoring system, then the obvious reason is because they haven't got a workable one.

The issue I see with CD's scoring system is that it is complex, a lot can happen in a pack of players at once, the ball can move very quickly between players and all that has to be calculated in a very short space of time.

Agree it's not that it's subjective and most of the time the scores are very easy to interpret and if you're switched on you can see how contested possessions, DE % for midfielders, DE% for defenders + possessions in their defensive 50 etc. score points and it's actually easy to see how scores are calculated along with influence and scaled scoring in key moments of games and comparative stats to teammates and opposition players.

It doesn't take a genius to work out their scoring system, I think those of us that actually can understand based on stats and watching so much footy can see how 99.8% of the scores are calculated get frustrated by the 0.2% that are way out of whack each week. I know for myself I should be more understanding because that's where the subjectiveness of the game and errors can be made but realistically it is only 5-10 outlandish scores either way out of 396 players per week. We should probably more congratulate CD on how low this is rather than get annoyed that it's one of our players that's fallen into the 0.2% for the week.

 

[Professor]

I don’t complain about the scoring but I agree it’s too complex.

Would still be a unique fantasy game without all the weighting.

Base scores on raw stats, still use efficiency as a multiplier, have your spoils/smothers/HTA’s and maybe even a +2/3 if you kick a goal when game is within x ammount of points. Just have a tangible number for everything.. there would still be some room for interpretation but easier.

I'd love to see live updates on tv, similar to the fanfooty setup, +3 added to a players name with a letter (K, Hb, G, etc) at least we can accept it for what it is. Maybe we miss the game because we're looking at the score updates..lol

 

[Nathan]

One thing they confirmed in the explanation and I noticed during the Neale game is the effect of a lot players being rubbish has on the scoring.

In the days of large end of game and post game scaling it was fairly predictable in that everyone not doing anything started losing points and busy players were getting full tote.

Now with more progressive scaling the players that start hot maintain it for the game. Oliver as an example has 2 touches in first 20mins, Melbourne down 22 game over for Oliver.

Tom Mitchell was the king of this last season, could have 3hb, 2k in first 5 minutes and be on 40!

 

[Pieman17]

I think the only way to truly access to ones score is to look at each act individually rather than a collective.

An ‘effective kick’ could be a kick 40m backwards in your defensive 50 when you are up by 50 or it could be a great kick inside 50 that leads to your team scoring the winning goal.

 

[lappinitup]

But, more importantly, it’s what they did when the game was up for grabs.

In the third term, when the game was in the balance, Brad Crouch had two effective disposals, one tackle and just 13 points, as brother Matt, Rory Laird, Rory Atkins, Alex Keath, Brodie Smith and Elliot Himmelberg had a big impact as St Kilda threw everything they had at the Crows.

“As the game went on, the Crows got on top and had a comfortable win but, when it was up for grabs, he (Crouch) didn’t really do much,” Freako said.

I never get involved in the intricacies of champion data scoring, as I understand it can be highly subjective and you will never be able to reconcile it perfectly.

However, I do take exception when completely lied to or treated like a fool. Obviously champion data believe they can treat fans that way.

The Adelaide V St Kilda game game had neither team leading by over 20 points until the 13th minute of the last quarter, to suggest he didn't do much when game was up for grabs is complete garbage. If you are suggesting he got a few possessions in the last 17 mins (he only got 5 of his 30 in last quarter), I presume you are saying a game isn't up for grabs after a 20 point lead is established?

Well then, you can't go state Neale had a major influence on the result when kicking a goal to put his team up by 30 points at the end of the third quarter, the time difference in this comparison isn't enough to make up for the points difference. It is simply treating your more learned customers like fools.

On the other hand, with the Lions leading by just six points at half-time, Lachie Neale came out in the third term and tallied 11 disposals, two goal assists and one major himself as Brisbane took the game away from the Suns.

Neale recorded 68 of his 142 points in the third quarter.

“Essentially he was almost the difference between the two teams,” Freako added.”

As has already been established, it appears Neale has greatly benefited from a degree of double scaling for lack of a better word.

Another interesting comparison using champion data information listed above is:
Neale had 74 points in Q1,2,4 from: 17 touches (4 when game was 30 plus - so 13 game on), 0 goal assists and 0 goals. (no ref to contested effective or tackles in his summary)
Crouch had 72 points from Q Q1,2,4 from: 22 touches? (5 in last quarter, game within 20 to 12 min mark.. so minimum 17 when game was "on") Of those 22 you would have to assumer a large portion contested and or effective, due to his Q3 numbers quoted.

Game was clearly on for a longer period of time in Adelaide game, yet he seems to have scored worse with far superior stats in the same period? Odd..

With a stats/controls and procedures background, would love to be able to dig further and analysis properly, however know this won't happen. At face value, the statement is simply deceitful and disingenuous

 

[Nathan]

^^^
Forward to Freako please

 

[quite ironic]

One thing they confirmed in the explanation and I noticed during the Neale game is the effect of a lot players being rubbish has on the scoring.

In the days of large end of game and post game scaling it was fairly predictable in that everyone not doing anything started losing points and busy players were getting full tote.

Now with more progressive scaling the players that start hot maintain it for the game. Oliver as an example has 2 touches in first 20mins, Melbourne down 22 game over for Oliver.

Tom Mitchell was the king of this last season, could have 3hb, 2k in first 5 minutes and be on 40!

Agreed and the contested possession effective handball stuff works a treat.

DE seems so important these days meaning that contested possession if you can get an effective handball off is actually quite a bit better than a rushed ineffective kick forward. I think Neale has mastered Tom Mitchell’s technique of only kicking when he knows he can hit a teammate otherwise handball at all costs.

This obviously isn’t a SC tactic as it’s more an actual football thing to get it to outside ball users who are long more penetrating kicks who also have more time and space.

I think it’s also what’s hurting Oliver a tiny bit as not only are his handballs not always hitting the target but basically any kick he seems to do is poor. If he focused on more handballs and getting it to better kicks of the footy (not sure who that would be on the outside for Melbourne as they all seem to struggle at effective kicking in their midfield right now) he might be better served not only from a SC perspective but also actually helping more effective kicks inside 50 (Melbourne have the worst conversion rate of goals to inside 50’s by a mile).

I think they’ve scaled back on the first quarter thing a bit though as was seen in recent times with Crouch and Coniglio in games who got off to great starts and got 60/50/40 point quarters in 3 times that I can remember then had minimal influence in the second quarter and only went up 5 or so points. I don’t think it’s necessarily based on CD hating them or anything but more so that they reward others then having more influential quarters after quarter time along with the abundant amount of players those two teams have racking up points.

Cogs, Boak, Treloar, B.Crouch etc can’t afford to have quiet quarters because there are just so many players from their teams that will be racking up points if they slow down, where as it doesn’t affect Cripps Neale much because they don’t have that competition for points and they’ll just keep continuing to trend upwards no matter what as Mitchell did last year.

What that means in my opinion is that Neale and Cripps (and rightfully for how the scoring system works) will still be scored ok for quieter quarter but will score huge when playing well. Comparatively those other players who have a heap of point competition will have to have at least 3-4 really really good quarter’s if they want to post a 110+

 

[doc ron]

Don't you guys get sick of being constantly annoyed by this stuff? We all get ****ty at a score from time to time but if you think the SC scoring is fundamentally unfair then playing the game can't be good for your liver.

I know something else that's no good for my liver.?????

 

[stephen]

I know something else that's no good for my liver.?????

One definitely leads to the other!

 

[Shaahorn]

Don't you guys get sick of being constantly annoyed by this stuff? We all get ****ty at a score from time to time but if you think the SC scoring is fundamentally unfair then playing the game can't be good for your liver.

If you don't want scoring anomalies, stick to AFL Fantasy.

 

[Kumamoto Ken]

I know something else that's no good for my liver.?????

You should try barracking for the Dees then: driving people to drink since 1964...

On topic: I don't seem to get wound up about CD scoring...maybe because I don't watch the stats as the game goes on. I also get that there are subjective elements and I believe it's also a system that's been appropriated for use in SC (ie wasn't specifically designed for it), although happy to be corrected if that's wrong.