Analysis SuperCoach Scoring Explained, Observations & Complaints On Scoring

[Bomber18]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/872969177392336896

In all the years of SC scoring debates, this post from champion data has been the most insightful.

My own personal opinion is that there aren't arbitrary calculations when converting the "stats" into an SC score.

However, there is ultimately a human element when determining whether a clearance kick from a pack by a player is to a contest (effective kick), or not (ineffective kick), or because the opposing player has taken possession in an uncontested contest, it is a clanger (and if the contest was contested, it's just an ineffective kick, or maybe even still an effective kick). When scorers register stats quickly during games, it's inevitable that there are some mistakes made. Or some players are given the benefit of the doubt as to the quality of their disposal because of their reputation (ie: scorers might think that Bont/Pendles are good users of the ball hence made an effective kick to a contest).

No doubt can be frustrating at times, but it's another element of the game to determine which players are suited to the SC game or have that "golden ticket".

 

[Rowsus]

My brother, when I was very young, told me quite loudly and angrily
"All sports that need a judge should be thrown out of the olympics! If it needs a judge, it's just someone's opinion, and it's not a sport anyway!"
He was getting quite angry at some of the descrepancies in scores in things like diving and gymnastics, but particularly in boxing.
Being a boy, and young, I replied
"Yeah, they should get rid of the diving and the gymnastics, but what about the boxing, the boxing is good, but the judges just wreck it sometimes".
He said
"Yeah, but they should remove their helmets, and just box until one of them is knocked out, or quits! No need for judges then!"

That's sort of my problem with SC, but it is unavoidable.
The human factor
What is called an Ineffective Kick for a Lloyd/Dangerfield seemingly sometimes is called a Clanger for Joey Bananas, or worse effective for the "golden boys", and Clanger for the hoi poloi.
Similar comparisoms can be drawn on CP's, contested Marks, "importance" etc.
2 players with very similar games might end up 15-20 points apart, just on the "judges" unwitting, sub-conscious bias.

As I said, it is unavoidable, when you have people judging the quality of an act or performance.
It, and the number of trades, is about the only thing AFL Fantasy has over SC.

 

[Darkie]

I’m pretty sure Mummy was on 66 DT/90 SC before taking two marks (at least one contested) and two effective kicks plus potentially a score assist and a spoil/knock on. Finished on 81DT/86 SC so far ... hoping that sorts itself out.

 

[Darkie]

I’m pretty sure Mummy was on 66 DT/90 SC before taking two marks (at least one contested) and two effective kicks plus potentially a score assist and a spoil/knock on. Finished on 81DT/86 SC so far ... hoping that sorts itself out.

Now 111 SC, will happily take that thanks!

 

[Bomber18]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1119215979290980353

 

[Rowsus]

I know it's just me, and it doesn't actually happen ............. (or does it?!)

But watching Vlastuin's score, it really seems like, because he's already having a good game, everything he does is getting 5 or 6 points, and other players seem to be getting 3 or 4 for the same things.

It's like the scoring is exponential, or a percentage. Something like:
Vlastuin, long effective kick +5% = +5.5
Grimes long effective kick +5% = +3.0

Or ....

Vlastuin just did something, that was +3, now he did something else straight away, that's normally +2, but because it was close to the other one, it's +4. It seems players jump up in score, if they get a few in a row, proportionally more than the acts say they might.

I know it doesn't work like that, but BOY! it seems to so much!

 

[Pieman17]

I know it's just me, and it doesn't actually happen ............. (or does it?!)

But watching Vlastuin's score, it really seems like, because he's already having a good game, everything he does is getting 5 or 6 points, and other players seem to be getting 3 or 4 for the same things.

It's like the scoring is exponential, or a percentage. Something like:
Vlastuin, long effective kick +5% = +5.5
Grimes long effective kick +5% = +3.0

Or ....

Vlastuin just did something, that was +3, now he did something else straight away, that's normally +2, but because it was close to the other one, it's +4. It seems players jump up in score, if they get a few in a row, proportionally more than the acts say they might.

I know it doesn't work like that, but BOY! it seems to so much!

I’ve noticed something similar.

Tonight, Baker got around 17pts for a tackle,loose ball get and kick that was done in quick succession. That would normally be around 10-12 pts if done separately with substantial time in between.

 

[quite ironic]

I know it's just me, and it doesn't actually happen ............. (or does it?!)

But watching Vlastuin's score, it really seems like, because he's already having a good game, everything he does is getting 5 or 6 points, and other players seem to be getting 3 or 4 for the same things.

It's like the scoring is exponential, or a percentage. Something like:
Vlastuin, long effective kick +5% = +5.5
Grimes long effective kick +5% = +3.0

Or ....

Vlastuin just did something, that was +3, now he did something else straight away, that's normally +2, but because it was close to the other one, it's +4. It seems players jump up in score, if they get a few in a row, proportionally more than the acts say they might.

I know it doesn't work like that, but BOY! it seems to so much!

Notice things like that myself! Usually Grundy and the massive scorers that just keep ticking on past 100 for trivial things.

Although different positions I know exactly what you’re saying!

Other times because a player started slow and was turning the ball over they’ll take a contested mark or have 3-4 effective contested possessions and barely match the fantasy equivalent.

Yet if it’s a player going at 80% DE already everything from then on seems to be scored at a +1 or +2 to a normal player.

And players who are at 40-60% DE when they do have effective touches they are score less until they get up to a respectable DE

 

[quite ironic]

I’ve noticed something similar.

Tonight, Baker got around 17pts for a tackle,loose ball get and kick that was done in quick succession. That would normally be around 10-12 pts if done separately with substantial time in between.

I think that was all in the play where he got that really good goal assist too which I’ve noticed this year can be worth about 6pts alone.

 

[Rowsus]

See, you can say the game is over, with 6 mins left, but .........

Nank just took a mark on the lead, and took his kick ........... 2 SC points!!!!!

I'm sure if that was Vlastuin, because his score is already so high, it would have been 6 or 8!

How can that only be 2 points to Nank?!

 

[quite ironic]

Sometimes the SC just doesn’t make sense. Oliver was pretty trash tonight butchered it all game and had the following:

29 disposals (only 10 kicks with low metres gained)
19 contested
51% DE
3 marks
8 tackles
3 score involvements (low)
6 inside 50’s
5 clearances
3 rebound 50’s
8 clangers (1 from free kick against)

106/105 score.

Round 5 Stephen Coniglio
Goes 52/55 in the first quarter with 6/14 effective touches. Finishes the last 3 quarters with 15 of 23 touches effective and goes 74/48... (HOW!)

37 disposals (20 kicks, high metres gained)
12 contested
57% DE
1 goal 2 behinds
7 score involvements
4 marks
3 tackles
5 clearances
4 inside 50’s
3 rebound 50’s
3 clangers (0 free kicks against)

137/103.

 

[Brettthejett]

So surely coniglio was worth 130 last week.
As we ask for with the umpires consistency would be great so we can know what to expect at the moment I’ve got no idea

Sometimes the SC just doesn’t make sense. Oliver was pretty trash tonight butchered it all game and had the following:

29 disposals (only 10 kicks with low metres gained)
19 contested
51% DE
3 marks
8 tackles
3 score involvements (low)
6 inside 50’s
5 clearances
3 rebound 50’s
8 clangers (1 from free kick against)

106/105 score.

Round 5 Stephen Coniglio
Goes 52/55 in the first quarter with 6/14 effective touches. Finishes the last 3 quarters with 15 of 23 touches effective and goes 74/48... (HOW!)

37 disposals (20 kicks, high metres gained)
12 contested
57% DE
1 goal 2 behinds
7 score involvements
4 marks
3 tackles
5 clearances
4 inside 50’s
3 rebound 50’s
3 clangers (0 free kicks against)

137/103.

 

[Beg2Differ]

Agree with all sentiments above.

Whilst we do see the odd release of the breakdown of a players SuperCoach score, does anybody know why these aren’t actually published as a matter of course? Is it a confidentiality / intellectual property thing? Given the amount of stats that are now available it seems anomalous that this is still a black box.

I would think one thing that does cause the type of discrepancies we see outlined above is the need to allocate a total of 3300 points each game. This must mean that a game with more scoring acts in total will see players score less for more acts than a game with fewer scoring acts.

 

[Slacker]

Well Sydney Stack seems to have been made a member of the Order of the Golden Ticket.
Also will CD have to adjust their scoring to include the new and effective "Dirty Footy Kick"? Maybe a clanger is no longer a clanger!

 

[Beg2Differ]

Well Sydney Stack seems to have been made a member of the Order of the Golden Ticket.
Also will CD have to adjust their scoring to include the new and effective "Dirty Footy Kick"? Maybe a clanger is no longer a clanger!

Good question. I wondered the same thing.

 

[jobeywatto]

You can't compare players' scores between 2 different games. Ranking points don't work like that. What one player scores is going to be affected by what everyone else in that game scores.

2 players could have the exact same stat line in 2 separate games, but the final scores will be different due to other factors (eg: weighting, very high/low scores from other players that will detract or add to your player's score, etc).

Tonight's game, there were 10 players who didn't crack 50 points compared with Freo/GWS where there were only 6. That means that if you played well tonight, you were going to get a slight boost to your score because there were more points to go around due to all the poor performances.

 

[Slacker]

You can't compare players' scores between 2 different games. Ranking points don't work like that. What one player scores is going to be affected by what everyone else in that game scores.

imo, guys like Edwards, Broad and McIntosh among others, played a better and more influential game than Stack but fortunately I don't work for CD, so I will say no more and just be glad Ross and Baker had reasonable games.

 

[quite ironic]

You can't compare players' scores between 2 different games. Ranking points don't work like that. What one player scores is going to be affected by what everyone else in that game scores.

2 players could have the exact same stat line in 2 separate games, but the final scores will be different due to other factors (eg: weighting, very high/low scores from other players that will detract or add to your player's score, etc).

Tonight's game, there were 10 players who didn't crack 50 points compared with Freo/GWS where there were only 6. That means that if you played well tonight, you were going to get a slight boost to your score because there were more points to go around due to all the poor performances.

Fair point but that still doesn’t get close to explaining Coniglio going 52/55 with 6/14 effective touches and then going 74/48 with 15 of 21 touches effective. 37 disposals in a 385-391 disposal game too which isn’t that high. The score was also 24-28 in that first quarter and finished 82-106 as well which isn’t like there were way more points on offer in those last 3 quarters like was seen in the Adelaid GC game where it was 9-2 or something at quarter time.

It makes sense if Oliver was doing stuff when it mattered and wasn’t just turning it over all game and especially when it was actually close. However, the majority of his high scoring points came predominantly in the last when the game was dead and they were down by the biggest margin of the night and he was having no influence. Coniglio was way more influential individually and comparatively to his teammates and opponents than Oliver was last night along with having better DE, less clangers, more influence in watching both games, more score involvements and was clearly in the top two players on the ground (with Walters) where as Oliver wouldn’t have been in the top 5-10 players last night for either side.

It’s fair saying it was 10-6 scores of under 50 in the comparative games but there was 10-6 over 100 in the Melbourne Richmond game too and 2 140+ with 0 in the Freo GWS game which balances that out. It doesn’t matter necessarily that Oliver got 105 it just highlights moreso how poorly scored Cogs was in what should’ve easily been a 130+ game and you just know if it was other players like Bont, Fyfe etc it would’ve been up around 150 for that exact same game, that’s the most frustrating part, when it’s not 5-10 points underscored but 25-30+.

Like there’s small variances that you can account to being different games and different circumstances and then there’s just ridiculous under scoring of players like Coniglio was in the last 3 quarters of that game.

 

[baz_machine]

You can't compare players' scores between 2 different games. Ranking points don't work like that. What one player scores is going to be affected by what everyone else in that game scores.

2 players could have the exact same stat line in 2 separate games, but the final scores will be different due to other factors (eg: weighting, very high/low scores from other players that will detract or add to your player's score, etc).

Tonight's game, there were 10 players who didn't crack 50 points compared with Freo/GWS where there were only 6. That means that if you played well tonight, you were going to get a slight boost to your score because there were more points to go around due to all the poor performances.

This is the hardest thing to conceptualise, player points are basically only relative to the other players in that match.

If someone gets 30 touches and no one else gets 15, they be scaled far higher than some getting 30 and 5 others also get 30.

It explains cripps great scoring of late; he is the best player in a trash side. He wouldn't score the same getting the same stats in the pies midfield for example.

 

[Darkie]

This is the hardest thing to conceptualise, player points are basically only relative to the other players in that match.

If someone gets 30 touches and no one else gets 15, they be scaled far higher than some getting 30 and 5 others also get 30.

It explains cripps great scoring of late; he is the best player in a trash side. He wouldn't score the same getting the same stats in the pies midfield for example.

Interesting point. Arguably Carlton will concede a lot of points to their opponents to balance that up somewhat, but if that doesn’t fully o***et, it’s another argument for picking mids who don’t have a lot of good competition for mid time.