Discussion Who are your Locks?

Yikes

Well-known member
Joined
26 Dec 2018
Messages
142
Likes
103
AFL Club
GWS Giants
#41
Not many locks for me, lots of overpriced guys making it hard.

Williams
Macrae, Zerrett
-
Danger, Heeney
Sup guys, first time posting here. Curious to hear why you have Macrae as a lock? Bont doesn't seem to be playing much midfield these days, and Macrae appears to be the first in line for more tags next year. They will also have all of Macrae, Dunkley, Libba, Mclean, Bont, Hunter, Wallis/Smith rotating through, are you not afraid that they may steal points off eachother?
 

pizza safety

Well-known member
Joined
15 Oct 2018
Messages
670
Likes
990
AFL Club
Essendon
#42
Thanks Darkie and Pizza Safety

So this thread is super interesting.

These are my by players by position who I think are most likely to be top X (X=onflied number of players for position) (aka locks super relevant to this thread).

Defenders (top 6 locks)
Lloyd, Laird, Whitfield, Sicily* (perhaps, Andrews, Blakely, Simpson, Crisp, Howe, Hurley, Williams, Ryan, McGov, I really don't know)
Midfielders (top 8)
Titch, Macrae, Cripps, Oliver**, Fyfe, Kelly (injury cloud), Dusty (#8 could be anyone from Zmerrett, Neale (new club), Treloar**, Coniglio, Gaff, Yeo, or even Higgins).

Rucks (top 2)
Grundy, Gawn

Forwards (top 6)
Danger, Heeney, Smith [Perhaps Gray, Dunkley (FOMO), McLean]

*flog, **injury cloud

As for overpaying on Lloyd and Macrae. Macrae, well he is top dog for mine at the kennel and Bevo realises he causes opposition real headaches. Can't see him moving forward. Dunkley has scored so well there I think can't see them wanting to shift him, but there are many there and perhaps I need to consider this likelihood that he plays forward more pertinantly). Lloyd I really like. Selected him rnd 1 last year. I will make sure to watch the preseason matches though...

As for Kelly, if he plays all preseason matches and is in full training in Feb I think I'll just ride the early tags. The first two games don't impact the price to their full extent that they do from rnd 3 onwards.

So perhaps I'll need to downgrade Kelly (if not fit) to Laird, and upgrade Dunkley to Smith. But I don't like this because I've never been the fan of Laird, perhaps it's all the points he's scored while not in my team. I think it's interesting how few people have locked him in their team here. I'm open to other suggestions on who people think are locks for top X (6/2/8/6) of their position and all the better if makes my team better in the process. Happy days.
Yeah I would be more inclined to turn Kelly into Neale or Merrett and redeploy the capital rather than go to Laird. I think Brodie Smith comes back and negatively impacts his scoring a little. I don't think not having him at the start will hurt.

Lloyd can definitely continue on scoring but just hasn't done it for long enough for me to pay that kind of money for him. Again similar to Laird Callum Mills will be back, so can he really consistently be the go to man out of defence with Zak Jones, McVeigh and Mills alongside him? I'm not sure. Could be a player, just like Macrae, who I don't start and just hurts me for the first part of the season. I won't be starting either Macare or Cripps because I feel like there is better value elsewhere. Macrae is a gun and I expect him to be one of the top mids but I don't trust his body of work or how quickly he improved.

On Kelly he has matches against the Eagles (Hutchings), Demons (Harmes), Swans (Hewett), Freo (Banfield) and the Hawks (Howe) in the 1st 10 weeks and all are pretty good taggers who tag in most games. He also faces Geelong (Scott Selwood) and St Kilda (Steele) who also sometimes run taggers in the first 10 games. Also faces Essendon and Richmond in Rounds 1 and 3. The only game where I see him being clearly free to dominate is against Carlton. I know not everyone of these teams will tag him or do so successfully but I just see too many issues along with his surgery in preseason to start him. Shiel leaving should give him more inside mid time but it will also lead to taggers looking to stop his game rather than focus on Shiel's breakaway speed.


-Also worth noting I think Lloyd benefited from some champion data bias this year even though he played like a freak.
 
Last edited:

pizza safety

Well-known member
Joined
15 Oct 2018
Messages
670
Likes
990
AFL Club
Essendon
#43
Actually doing some research using AFL tables and AFL stats pro (http://www.afl.com.au/stats/stats-pro), I have no idea how in the world Lloyd averaged more than Laird (kick outs?), seems to make no sense. Lloyd got over-rewarded compared to Simpson and Sicily, but then with Laird it just becomes ridiculous as it seems Laird has been very underscored by CD.
 

freowho

Dual Best & Fairest
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
3,659
Likes
1,022
AFL Club
Fremantle
#44
Actually doing some research using AFL tables and AFL stats pro (http://www.afl.com.au/stats/stats-pro), I have no idea how in the world Lloyd averaged more than Laird (kick outs?), seems to make no sense. Lloyd got over-rewarded compared to Simpson and Sicily, but then with Laird it just becomes ridiculous as it seems Laird has been very underscored by CD.
My gut feel without any stats to back it up us that he spends more time as the last Sydney player closest to the oppositions goal which gets scaled up. I think that is how Rance got the golden ticket. It's also why pure wingmen score so poorly because the wing is the furthest point from goals.
 

pizza safety

Well-known member
Joined
15 Oct 2018
Messages
670
Likes
990
AFL Club
Essendon
#45
My gut feel without any stats to back it up us that he spends more time as the last Sydney player closest to the oppositions goal which gets scaled up. I think that is how Rance got the golden ticket. It's also why pure wingmen score so poorly because the wing is the furthest point from goals.
Great point Freo, you're definitely right Lloyd is often at the very back of the defence when he kicks, but even though I feel like that might explain why Lloyd is scaled up it doesn't explain why Laird is scaled down. This seems fairly inconsistent.

Laird this year had

11 effective kicks = 44
14 effective handballs = 21
6.2 marks = 12.4
0.15 goals per game = roughly 1.2
0.2 behinds per game = 0.2
2.15 tackles per game = 8.6
3.1 clangers = -12.4
9.95 contested possessions = 39.8
0.4 goal assists = 1.4
1.35 1%'s = 1.35
0.2 bounces = 0.2
8.95 intercepts = 17.8

=135.55 avg raw score + 1 point per effective kick out he had.............ended up with 108.2 average.

Lloyd had

13.8 effective kicks = 55.2
8.2 effective handballs = 12.3
6.48 marks = 12.96
0.13 goals per games = 1.2
0.13 behinds per game = 0.13
1.61 tackles per game = 6.44
2 clangers per game= -8
5.83 contested possessions per game= 23.32
0.13 Goal assists per game= 0.455
2.43 1%’s = 2.43
0.43 Bounces per game = 0.43
5.3 intercepts = 10.6

=117.46 avg raw score. +1 point per effective kick out he had......ended up with 110.6 average including finals (stats included that game)

As far as I'm aware effective kicks are worth 4, effective handballs are worth 1.5, marks are worth 2, goals 8, behinds 1, tackles 4, clangers -4, contested possessions 4, score assists 3.5, 1 %'s are worth 1, bounces are worth 1, and intercepts are worth 2.

I understand how damaging the play is matters and when in the game it happens is important but Laird is almost as damaging as Lloyd in any case, both get cheapies and both get important possessions. Because everyone had him CD downscaled him?
 
Last edited:

Grant

Dual Best & Fairest
Joined
16 Mar 2012
Messages
3,547
Likes
607
AFL Club
Carlton
#46
Lloyd (497.4m) has a lot more metres gained than Laird (426.2m). Think this is a factor in the SC scoring differences even though I personally think this stat is massively overrated and very misleading at times.
 

Erich1036

400 Games Club
Joined
16 Dec 2013
Messages
1,893
Likes
382
AFL Club
Collingwood
#47
Great point Freo, you're definitely right Lloyd is often at the very back of the defence when he kicks, but even though I feel like that might explain why Lloyd is scaled up it doesn't explain why Laird is scaled down. This seems fairly inconsistent.

Laird this year had

11 effective kicks = 44
14 effective handballs = 21
6.2 marks = 12.4
0.15 goals per game = roughly 1.2
0.2 behinds per game = 0.2
2.15 tackles per game = 8.6
3.1 clangers = -12.4
9.95 contested possessions = 39.8
0.4 goal assists = 1.4
1.35 1%'s = 1.35
0.2 bounces = 0.2
8.95 intercepts = 17.8

=135.55 avg raw score + 1 point per effective kick out he had.............ended up with 108.2 average.

Lloyd had

13.8 effective kicks = 55.2
8.2 effective handballs = 12.3
6.48 marks = 12.96
0.13 goals per games = 1.2
0.13 behinds per game = 0.13
1.61 tackles per game = 6.44
2 clangers per game= -8
5.83 contested possessions per game= 23.32
0.13 Goal assists per game= 0.455
2.43 1%’s = 2.43
0.43 Bounces per game = 0.43
5.3 intercepts = 10.6

=117.46 avg raw score. +1 point per effective kick out he had......ended up with 110.6 average including finals (stats included that game)

As far as I'm aware effective kicks are worth 4, effective handballs are worth 1.5, marks are worth 2, goals 8, behinds 1, tackles 4, clangers -4, contested possessions 4, score assists 3.5, 1 %'s are worth 1, bounces are worth 1, and intercepts are worth 2.

I understand how damaging the play is matters and when in the game it happens is important but Laird is almost as damaging as Lloyd in any case, both get cheapies and both get important possessions. Because everyone had him CD downscaled him?
Hey mate, can't help but notice you're a newer member, but me and a couple of others here have discussed SC scoring at great lengths in the past, and after years of watching live scores, I created this:

KICKS

Ineffective: 0
Backwards and effective: 1
Long (40+ metres) to a contest: 2
Short and effective: 3
Long to advantage (effective): 5
Clanger (unforced error): -3

NOTE: A kick to a contest less than 40 metres in distance is deemed ineffective.

HANDBALLS

Ineffective: 0
Effective: 1

MARKS

From teammate, uncontested: 1
From teammate, contested: 3
From teammate, contested inside 50: 4
From teammate, on lead: 3
From opposition, uncontested: 3
From opposition, contested: 6

FREE KICKS

Free for: 3 (counts as a contested possession)
Free against, in a contested situation: -1
Free against, in an uncontested situation: -3
Give away a 50 meter penalty: -5

HITOUTS

To advantage: 5
To disadvantage (sharked by opposition): -1
Gather from ruck contest: 2

TACKLES: 3

GOAL: 6* (can vary dramatically depending on closeness of the match)

HANDBALL RECEIVE: 1

HARD OR LOOSE BALL GET: 3

SPOIL, SHEPHERD OR SMOTHER: 1

SPOIL GAINING POSSESSION: 3

SCORE ASSIST: 3

CONTESTED KNOCK ON TO ADVANTAGE: 4

BOUNCE: 1



It's far from perfect, and almost certainly missing some stats that score points, but it's a hell of a lot better to use as a guideline than the 'scoring' provided on the Supercoach website. So as you can see, there's a lot more to it than just the stats you've used above.
 

BigRuss

Dual Best & Fairest
Joined
13 Apr 2012
Messages
3,365
Likes
1,124
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#48
Great point Freo, you're definitely right Lloyd is often at the very back of the defence when he kicks, but even though I feel like that might explain why Lloyd is scaled up it doesn't explain why Laird is scaled down. This seems fairly inconsistent.

Laird this year had

11 effective kicks = 44
14 effective handballs = 21
6.2 marks = 12.4
0.15 goals per game = roughly 1.2
0.2 behinds per game = 0.2
2.15 tackles per game = 8.6
3.1 clangers = -12.4
9.95 contested possessions = 39.8
0.4 goal assists = 1.4
1.35 1%'s = 1.35
0.2 bounces = 0.2
8.95 intercepts = 17.8

=135.55 avg raw score + 1 point per effective kick out he had.............ended up with 108.2 average.

Lloyd had

13.8 effective kicks = 55.2
8.2 effective handballs = 12.3
6.48 marks = 12.96
0.13 goals per games = 1.2
0.13 behinds per game = 0.13
1.61 tackles per game = 6.44
2 clangers per game= -8
5.83 contested possessions per game= 23.32
0.13 Goal assists per game= 0.455
2.43 1%’s = 2.43
0.43 Bounces per game = 0.43
5.3 intercepts = 10.6

=117.46 avg raw score. +1 point per effective kick out he had......ended up with 110.6 average including finals (stats included that game)

As far as I'm aware effective kicks are worth 4, effective handballs are worth 1.5, marks are worth 2, goals 8, behinds 1, tackles 4, clangers -4, contested possessions 4, score assists 3.5, 1 %'s are worth 1, bounces are worth 1, and intercepts are worth 2.

I understand how damaging the play is matters and when in the game it happens is important but Laird is almost as damaging as Lloyd in any case, both get cheapies and both get important possessions. Because everyone had him CD downscaled him?
Have you got R50s and kick ins on hand mate? Off the top of my head and without looking at stats I’d wager much of the discrepancy comes from those 2 stats.

I believe kick ins net points for length of kick and effective/innefective possession without gaining points for the actual disposal so a long effective R50 from kick in could be as much as 3+ before scaling.

I remember often feeling Lloyd was horrendously overscored this season and think he’ll come back to the pack a bit this year.
 

Beijing_Sting

Michael Tuck Club
Joined
30 Jun 2012
Messages
2,443
Likes
285
AFL Club
Brisbane
#49
Finding it hard not to look at the following:

D: Whitfield, ZWilliams, Hanley
M: Mitchell, Miles, Hannebery, Liberatore, Bennell
R: Grundy
F: Danger, JKennedy, Greene

Are they all fit this year?
 

pizza safety

Well-known member
Joined
15 Oct 2018
Messages
670
Likes
990
AFL Club
Essendon
#50
Lloyd (497.4m) has a lot more metres gained than Laird (426.2m). Think this is a factor in the SC scoring differences even though I personally think this stat is massively overrated and very misleading at times.
Hey mate, can't help but notice you're a newer member, but me and a couple of others here have discussed SC scoring at great lengths in the past, and after years of watching live scores, I created this:

KICKS

Ineffective: 0
Backwards and effective: 1
Long (40+ metres) to a contest: 2
Short and effective: 3
Long to advantage (effective): 5
Clanger (unforced error): -3

NOTE: A kick to a contest less than 40 metres in distance is deemed ineffective.

HANDBALLS

Ineffective: 0
Effective: 1

MARKS

From teammate, uncontested: 1
From teammate, contested: 3
From teammate, contested inside 50: 4
From teammate, on lead: 3
From opposition, uncontested: 3
From opposition, contested: 6

FREE KICKS

Free for: 3 (counts as a contested possession)
Free against, in a contested situation: -1
Free against, in an uncontested situation: -3
Give away a 50 meter penalty: -5

HITOUTS

To advantage: 5
To disadvantage (sharked by opposition): -1
Gather from ruck contest: 2

TACKLES: 3

GOAL: 6* (can vary dramatically depending on closeness of the match)

HANDBALL RECEIVE: 1

HARD OR LOOSE BALL GET: 3

SPOIL, SHEPHERD OR SMOTHER: 1

SPOIL GAINING POSSESSION: 3

SCORE ASSIST: 3

CONTESTED KNOCK ON TO ADVANTAGE: 4

BOUNCE: 1



It's far from perfect, and almost certainly missing some stats that score points, but it's a hell of a lot better to use as a guideline than the 'scoring' provided on the Supercoach website. So as you can see, there's a lot more to it than just the stats you've used above.

Yeah my own scoring comes from what the HS has said in articles in the past and what it says on their website. I know that how they actually score it is much more specific according to the situation. I think a lot of the way I scored covered the rules you wrote and I just added +2 for it being an intercept possession or +4 for a contested possession. A contested mark would be worth 6 and a contested intercept mark worth 8. I get that CD have specific formulas but I'm not sure how they are at work here. Where have you got your stats/rules from?

I just don't see such different levels being possible between these players from the raw stats. Lloyd only averages 70m more metres gained and I don't think his disposals are vastly more damaging or attacking compared to Laird. The only difference between our rules that could show any difference (because we have used rules that score both players equally) in how I scored the two of them was kicking, and with similar metres gained I struggle to see how that explains a 20 point discrepancy in their scoring.

My point was not so much that Lloyd was over-scored but that Laird was vastly underscored. I have done the same maths with various players and haven't gotten anywhere near the same level of discrepancy as I have with Laird. Lloyd is more favourably scored than Sicily, Simpson and Yeo but it's a whole other level with Laird. A lot of random stuff is at work but CD seems to hate Laird.

I used the stats that CD measure that we can find including effective kicks (40m+ to a 50/50 contest or better, or to an uncontested teammate within 40m), effective handballs, marks, tackles, contested possessions (sum of ground ball gets, free kicks, contested marks and roved hitouts), clangers (frees against and clanger kicks + handballs, other errors), bounces, 1 %'s, goal assists, intercepts (any time you receive the ball from the opposition), goals and behinds.
 
Last edited:

aps1

Rising Star Winner
Joined
12 May 2013
Messages
587
Likes
292
AFL Club
Essendon
#52
Yeah my own scoring comes from what the HS has said in articles in the past and what it says on their website. I know that how they actually score it is much more specific according to the situation. I think a lot of the way I scored covered the rules you wrote and I just added +2 for it being an intercept possession or +4 for a contested possession. A contested mark would be worth 6 and a contested intercept mark worth 8. I get that CD have specific formulas but I'm not sure how they are at work here. Where have you got your stats/rules from?

I just don't see such different levels being possible between these players from the raw stats. Lloyd only averages 70m more metres gained and I don't think his disposals are vastly more damaging or attacking compared to Laird. The only difference between our rules that could show any difference (because we have used rules that score both players equally) in how I scored the two of them was kicking, and with similar metres gained I struggle to see how that explains a 20 point discrepancy in their scoring.

My point was not so much that Lloyd was over-scored but that Laird was vastly underscored. I have done the same maths with various players and haven't gotten anywhere near the same level of discrepancy as I have with Laird. Lloyd is more favourably scored than Sicily, Simpson and Yeo but it's a whole other level with Laird. A lot of random stuff is at work but CD seems to hate Laird.

I used the stats that CD measure that we can find including effective kicks (40m+ to a 50/50 contest or better, or to an uncontested teammate within 40m), effective handballs, marks, tackles, contested possessions (sum of ground ball gets, free kicks, contested marks and roved hitouts), clangers (frees against and clanger kicks + handballs, other errors), bounces, 1 %'s, goal assists, intercepts (any time you receive the ball from the opposition), goals and behinds.
One of the main things you are missing that individual player stats won’t show is that a CD ranking (SC score) is a ranking of how a player performed relative to other players in that game, which is done by normalisation to 3300. Basic example, getting 10 disposals in a game which has 100 disposals is worth twice as much as getting 10 disposals in a game which has 200 disposals.

Also, time when/where the possessions occur/closeness of game, the values given for each type of stat are just approximates (3300 rule); which type of possessions are effective (contested/uncontested) as someone could have a low effective cp rate but high effective ucp rate which would score less; plus many more things we probably don’t even know about.

There were some videos around on how CD call/score games. There may be some bias in how games are called, but seeing that not each game would be done by the same caller, it might impact a game or two but not the whole season.
 

manyproblems

Rising Star Winner
Joined
18 Jan 2016
Messages
277
Likes
68
AFL Club
Adelaide
#53
Sup guys, first time posting here. Curious to hear why you have Macrae as a lock? Bont doesn't seem to be playing much midfield these days, and Macrae appears to be the first in line for more tags next year. They will also have all of Macrae, Dunkley, Libba, Mclean, Bont, Hunter, Wallis/Smith rotating through, are you not afraid that they may steal points off eachother?
I really like what I saw from him last year. His ceiling is highest in the game. 9 Scores over 140 is taking the piss.
 

pizza safety

Well-known member
Joined
15 Oct 2018
Messages
670
Likes
990
AFL Club
Essendon
#54
I really like what I saw from him last year. His ceiling is highest in the game. 9 Scores over 140 is taking the piss.
Titch had 9 whilst getting tagged almost every week, Macrae actually had 8 for the year. I think Macrae could be a complete necessity and the top scorer but he hasn't played at that level for long enough for me to cough up that much money for him. I don't think he's a terrible pick by any means but I like to see more evidence before I pay that much with Grundy being the exception.
 

pizza safety

Well-known member
Joined
15 Oct 2018
Messages
670
Likes
990
AFL Club
Essendon
#55
Hey mate, can't help but notice you're a newer member, but me and a couple of others here have discussed SC scoring at great lengths in the past, and after years of watching live scores, I created this:

KICKS

Ineffective: 0
Backwards and effective: 1
Long (40+ metres) to a contest: 2
Short and effective: 3
Long to advantage (effective): 5
Clanger (unforced error): -3

NOTE: A kick to a contest less than 40 metres in distance is deemed ineffective.

HANDBALLS

Ineffective: 0
Effective: 1

MARKS

From teammate, uncontested: 1
From teammate, contested: 3
From teammate, contested inside 50: 4
From teammate, on lead: 3
From opposition, uncontested: 3
From opposition, contested: 6

FREE KICKS

Free for: 3 (counts as a contested possession)
Free against, in a contested situation: -1
Free against, in an uncontested situation: -3
Give away a 50 meter penalty: -5

HITOUTS

To advantage: 5
To disadvantage (sharked by opposition): -1
Gather from ruck contest: 2

TACKLES: 3

GOAL: 6* (can vary dramatically depending on closeness of the match)

HANDBALL RECEIVE: 1

HARD OR LOOSE BALL GET: 3

SPOIL, SHEPHERD OR SMOTHER: 1

SPOIL GAINING POSSESSION: 3

SCORE ASSIST: 3

CONTESTED KNOCK ON TO ADVANTAGE: 4

BOUNCE: 1



It's far from perfect, and almost certainly missing some stats that score points, but it's a hell of a lot better to use as a guideline than the 'scoring' provided on the Supercoach website. So as you can see, there's a lot more to it than just the stats you've used above.
I did find an article saying something about different scores for different kicks but it's got different scores to what you wrote so where did you get that info from? I imagine that a lot of what is downscaling Laird is the time of the game in which he is executing his disposals, the fact that he is kicking backwards and the fact that some of his contested possessions and disposals are not seen as highly impactful. He also looks a bit underscored in previous seasons so it seems to make sense.
 

Darkie

Vice Captain
Joined
12 Apr 2014
Messages
4,925
Likes
1,357
AFL Club
Collingwood
#56
I did find an article saying something about different scores for different kicks but it's got different scores to what you wrote so where did you get that info from? I imagine that a lot of what is downscaling Laird is the time of the game in which he is executing his disposals, the fact that he is kicking backwards and the fact that some of his contested possessions and disposals are not seen as highly impactful. He also looks a bit underscored in previous seasons so it seems to make sense.
I understand that Erich' scores have come from close observation of in game scoring.

Surprisingly these bear little relation to what CD has published in some cases, which I find a little outrageous (from CD). Apparently the scores they publish are at the upper end of what is possible (depending on location, scaling for state of game, etc), and they are typically lower.

Being so opaque about the scoring is not good enough in my view, given that they then make changes to the scoring and still don't provide adequate transparency ... but they seem to get away with it.

I would back erich's scores over the published info, as strange as that sounds!
 

Erich1036

400 Games Club
Joined
16 Dec 2013
Messages
1,893
Likes
382
AFL Club
Collingwood
#57
I did find an article saying something about different scores for different kicks but it's got different scores to what you wrote so where did you get that info from? I imagine that a lot of what is downscaling Laird is the time of the game in which he is executing his disposals, the fact that he is kicking backwards and the fact that some of his contested possessions and disposals are not seen as highly impactful. He also looks a bit underscored in previous seasons so it seems to make sense.
I understand that Erich' scores have come from close observation of in game scoring.

Surprisingly these bear little relation to what CD has published in some cases, which I find a little outrageous (from CD). Apparently the scores they publish are at the upper end of what is possible (depending on location, scaling for state of game, etc), and they are typically lower.

Being so opaque about the scoring is not good enough in my view, given that they then make changes to the scoring and still don't provide adequate transparency ... but they seem to get away with it.

I would back erich's scores over the published info, as strange as that sounds!
What Darkie said basically. Just having access to live scoring, refreshing scores after a play and taking notes on what happened points wise. Also Champion Data posted a tweet with stats from a game showing how JPK and Bont were scored one time and it backed up most of the scoring I've got listed (I've attached a link). Pretty frustrating they keep publishing blatantly false info regarding the scoring year after year on their Herald Sun articles. You could watch a player in a game this year for a quarter and follow the scoring SuperCoach provide and you could be out by as much as 10 points of what's posted at quarter time. Use what I've got listed to keep their score and it should be within at least 1-2 points of what's posted at quarter time.

 

BlueNwhiteHoops

Well-known member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
220
Likes
282
AFL Club
Geelong
#58
I understand that Erich' scores have come from close observation of in game scoring.

Surprisingly these bear little relation to what CD has published in some cases, which I find a little outrageous (from CD). Apparently the scores they publish are at the upper end of what is possible (depending on location, scaling for state of game, etc), and they are typically lower.

Being so opaque about the scoring is not good enough in my view, given that they then make changes to the scoring and still don't provide adequate transparency ... but they seem to get away with it.

I would back erich's scores over the published info, as strange as that sounds!

We all complain about the scoring and lack of transparency from time to time but in reality if CD release a complete list of there scoring system year to year, Supercoach will lose some of the fun as the super-serious number crunches will completely dominate, which may be great for those who enjoy spending countless hours researching stats and figures. Why alienate the majority of players when the number crunches already have an advantage anyway thru their stat crunching and deeper research?
 

Darkie

Vice Captain
Joined
12 Apr 2014
Messages
4,925
Likes
1,357
AFL Club
Collingwood
#60
We all complain about the scoring and lack of transparency from time to time but in reality if CD release a complete list of there scoring system year to year, Supercoach will lose some of the fun as the super-serious number crunches will completely dominate, which may be great for those who enjoy spending countless hours researching stats and figures. Why alienate the majority of players when the number crunches already have an advantage anyway thru their stat crunching and deeper research?
If they said nothing at all, I'd probably be okay with that - it's continuing to publish information that is basically incorrect that I think is really wrong.
 
Top