Round 2 Discussion

[Jars458]

All good. Lots of people bitchin and whining about the scoring last night


It depends when the player gets the disposals as the timing affects the direction on the game. It's not an opinion based on who had more affect on the game in general.

Gibbs had more affect in the last quarter when the game was up for grabs IMO.

Yeah because nothing that happened before the last quarter affected the game. Its ****ing bullshit. Simpson way better than Gibbs. Stupid ****ing game. How's that for my 20,000th post.

 

[Jars458]

Its okay bud, i get it ,,, you dont understand the scoring system.

If a team is 5 goals up at half time then goes on to win by 15 goals then the first half is worth more in terms of points.

Simple suggestion before crapping on simply read the scoring rules.

you might not agree with it but at least attempt to understand them

How do they do live scoring then? Scaling helps but its generally marginal.

 

[Jiska]

Yeah because nothing that happened before the last quarter affected the game. Its ******* bullshit. Simpson way better than Gibbs. Stupid ******* game. How's that for my 20,000th post.

It's weighted according to when it happened. Gibbs affected the outcome of the game more than Simpson did. Just because you selected Simpson in your side and are shitty because he didn't score 100, that doesn't make the scoring system wrong. You should blame Simpson for disappearing when his team needed him the most

How do they do live scoring then? Scaling helps but its generally marginal.

Have you read the CD articles posted numerous times? It specifically answers this question.

 

[Unknown Identity]

All good. Lots of people bitchin and whining about the scoring last night


It depends when the player gets the disposals as the timing affects the direction on the game. It's not an opinion based on who had more affect on the game in general.

Gibbs had more affect in the last quarter when the game was up for grabs IMO.

Thats all good and well but Gibbs only scored 6 points in the last quarter.. Hmmmm..
Can't have had that much of an impact last quarter.

I stand by my comments, wrong.. so very wrong that Gibbs outscored Simpson.

 

[leng jai]

Agree with this. The fault of the selection lays firmly at my feet, and those that have chosen him. I believe your right, he will improve each week from here on, and did have some great moments - but the question is how much can he improve and what is his purpose in your team? It'll be very interesting to see what his owners do with him this week - some will stay the course and some will jump ship.

If his purpose is to make coin and upgrade (yes, yes, I know... ) then you need to ask how much will he make in X weeks compared to other players, such as MThomas and JMacrae? Furthermore, do you believe that differential justifies burning a side-ways/downgrade (based on choice) trade? Or can he return all the way to premium levels?

Now that I've cooled off from last night and thought more clearly about it - I don't know where I sit in this. Much more consideration to give before next fridays trade period...

Yeah, you're probably at fault for picking him if you're vastly unhappy with his output so far. 61 and 92 is by no means terrible and really if he can keep his average around 90 you'd be pretty happy. I think most people picked him up hoping (but not expecting) him to get back to his peak within a few weeks which would mean averaging 100. The realistic expectation would be for him to fill a spot with your midfield scoring solid 80-95 type scores and getting his price to a point mid season where you could trade him to an underpriced premium. That was always my plan anyway. Of course in hindsight Matt Thomas would have been a better pick but how many actually had him in the first place? Sideways trading to him for Daisy seems a bit daft after he just scored 92 in a losing side.

 

[Jiska]

Thats all good and well but Gibbs only scored 6 points in the last quarter.. Hmmmm..
Can't have had that much of an impact last quarter.

You can't know that because scaling only happens at half time and full time. Live scores are a guide only and not exact. Read the CD articles.

 

[Jars458]

It's weighted according to when it happened. Gibbs affected the outcome of the game more than Simpson did. Just because you selected Simpson in your side and are shitty because he didn't score 100, that doesn't make the scoring system wrong. You should blame Simpson for disappearing when his team needed him the most


Have you read the CD articles posted numerous times? It specifically answers this question.

Can't be arsed. It is what it is. Rust ranting.

Simpson played a good game and was there when they were getting thrashed. My footy judgment tells me he played much much better than sofitie Gibbs. THE scoring system is clearly flawed but that will always be the case. Because its just a game it really doesn't matter. Just wanted something memeorable for post 20,000.

 

[Unknown Identity]

You can't know that because scaling only happens at half time and full time. Live scores are a guide only and not exact. Read the CD articles.

Ok what i do know is that he was on 63 at 3 quarter time.
I know he was on 70 at the completion of the game and he was scaled back 1 point for his final score of 69.

 

[Mullarkey]

Just wanted something memeorable for post 20,000.

Sif you can't remember the other 19,999 posts you made..

 

[Kadog]

Quick question..
Last year were you able to reverse trades after the first game was completed or were they locked in..?
Thought with the rolling lockout you could still reverse trades if the players hadn't played..?

No reversing of trades after 1st game of round,

Doh! I did a Boomer>NRoo trade to see how it looked and now it's official.
I could've sworn you could reverse trades if players hadn't played yet.

Luckily I can live with this one.

 

[Jiska]

Ok what i do know is that he was on 63 at 3 quarter time.
I know he was on 70 at the completion of the game and he was scaled back 1 point for his final score of 69.

But that's my point. He wasn't on 63 at quarter time, because scaling hadn't occurred. It's quite possible that he's 3rd quarter score was scaled down and his last quarter score scaled up.

You can't look at the progressive scores, because they are largely irrelevant. Gibbs' score of 69 is about what he was worth when you look at the game as a whole.

http://tooserious.net/Blog/tabid/90/Post/1533/From-inside-the-world-of-Champion-Data

 

[TheOz]

Simpson's score was lower than it should have been even at 1/2 time, he was worth more than 44 at that stage.

 

[leng jai]

Simpson's score was lower than it should have been even at 1/2 time, he was worth more than 44 at that stage.

Agree with this, should have been on about 55-60. Was one of their best players while they were getting flogged.

 

[Deliverance]

Get out of it you absolute clown if that's the case they might as well just start start the scoring at 3/4 time,
there is so many mistakes in your assertion. Weighting of points don't make me laugh it's just a clever saying,
what it really translates to is We have no frigging idea how to score properly.

Couldn't agree more with this. Champion Data are like the Wizard of Oz hiding their charade behind their curtain. They make a lot of money from their charade though so they will never admit their faults and stand by their default of "There are many complex things that go in to our scoring system, blah, blah, DE%, BS, BS, BS subjective weightings ect, etc..." It's like the KFC secret herbs and spices which is pretty much just pepper salt and deep frying.
The amount of times I've seen posters on this board provide examples of two players with almost identical games/stats but wildly diefferent SC is astounding.

 

[Jiska]

Couldn't agree more with this. Champion Data are like the Wizard of Oz hiding their charade behind their curtain. They make a lot of money from their charade though so they will never admit their faults and stand by their default of "There are many complex things that go in to our scoring system, blah, blah, DE%, BS, BS, BS subjective weightings ect, etc..." It's like the KFC secret herbs and spices which is pretty much just pepper salt and deep frying.
The amount of times I've seen posters on this board provide examples of two players with almost identical games/stats but wildly diefferent SC is astounding.

You do realise that CD do the scoring for DT as well. AFAIK it was the HS that commissioned the different point scoring system.

 

[ClintonKing]

To those people sooking about Simpson's/other players' Supercoach scores:

When you sign up for Supercoach, it's probably a good idea to actually look into how the scoring system works. It is not dreamteam.

Simpson was nowhere/ineffective when the game was on the line. Also, SC points is not reflective of how "good" a player has played. Gibbs outscoring Simpson does not mean he had a better game.

Jars458 you have no idea.

Also, to the people harping on about DE%…If I have 10 possessions at 30%, with no clangers, I will most often score more than a player getting 15 possessions at 60%, with 5 clangers.

 

[Ex President]

You do realise that CD do the scoring for DT as well. AFAIK it was the HS that commissioned the different point scoring system.

No, CD were allocating ranking points to games before HS came on board.

Comparing players with similar stats in different games is utter stupidity. There are 3300 points allocated to each game. If, for example, Player A and Player B get the same stats in 2 different games - eg. 20 touches, 10 contested, 3 goals, 5 inside 50's, 80% DE, they are not going to get the same score - it is relative to what happened to every other player in their respective game.

If, in Player A's game, most other players recorded excellent DE's, there were a lot of contested possessions, and plenty of goals kicked, Player A might only score 80. But if, in Player B's game, the DE was poor, there were not many goals kicked, then he might score 140 - a player's score is relative to how every other player in that game performed.

 

[leng jai]

At the end of the day Champion Data is based on subjective interpretation of what transpires during the match. It's simply never going to be absolutely consistent or in line with what everyone thinks should have been the scores. They throw out some curlies once in a while but on the whole I usually agree with the scores they produce.

 

[Kadog]

To those people sooking about Simpson's/other players' Supercoach scores:

When you sign up for Supercoach, it's probably a good idea to actually look into how the scoring system works. It is not dreamteam.

Simpson was nowhere/ineffective when the game was on the line. Also, SC points is not reflective of how "good" a player has played. Gibbs outscoring Simpson does not mean he had a better game.

Jars458 you have no idea.

Also, to the people harping on about DE%…If I have 10 possessions at 30%, with no clangers, I will most often score more than a player getting 15 possessions at 60%, with 5 clangers.

If you can manage to wiggle your nose out of CDs bum for a minute and take a breather, you'll realise most people understand how CD scoring system works. The point is, that it's seriously flawed and inconsistent.

 

[Chism]

Fair start so far and 321 from 3 players.

Murphy. 121pts ( Get on him now and he will be 600k minimum at seasons end )

Daisy. 92pts

Dusty. 108pts

Want another big game from Jobe tonight as my VC.

 

[Deliverance]

You do realise that CD do the scoring for DT as well. AFAIK it was the HS that commissioned the different point scoring system.

Yep, I am aware of it, but they are very different systems and the way subjective SC decisions vary players scores for similar acts borders on ridiculous at times, or worthless acts. Last night, Dusty could have picked up the ball in that last play, run 80m towards carltons goal and tried to hiheWaite on teh chest and it would have had the samhe gameseffect on teh result as him actually kicking the goal - zero.

For those who always knew Champion Data had a soft spot for Gaz, watch this video, note the monotone voices for recording bits of play and then the excitment levels rise when Gaz kicks a goal at about 1:30, I'm assuming that goal is worth more than the one kicked by Marty Clarke earlier in the video.
http://www.championdata.com/index.php/sport/afl

 

[Deliverance]

To those people sooking about Simpson's/other players' Supercoach scores:

When you sign up for Supercoach, it's probably a good idea to actually look into how the scoring system works. It is not dreamteam.

Simpson was nowhere/ineffective when the game was on the line. Also, SC points is not reflective of how "good" a player has played. Gibbs outscoring Simpson does not mean he had a better game.

Jars458 you have no idea.

Also, to the people harping on about DE%…If I have 10 possessions at 30%, with no clangers, I will most often score more than a player getting 15 possessions at 60%, with 5 clangers.

He was a big influence on keeping Carlton within striking distance, when the game was almost taken out of their reach in the first half. The game is on the line for more than just the last quarter you do realise?

 

[ClintonKing]

He was a big influence on keeping Carlton within striking distance, when the game was almost taken out of their reach in the first half. The game is on the line for more than just the last quarter you do realise?

I agree, however regardless if the game was on the line in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd quarters, the 4th quarter overrides this.

 

[Daniels]

 

[DT_35]

I don't have Simpson, but I watched the game (only 1st and 4th quarters) and hardly saw him. Who gives a flying f***. His score is about right i'd say