Round 2 Discussion

[Double the Fist]

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.

What I expect from you Horse hahhahahaa

 

[Jiska]

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 player A get's 20 touches out of 600 and player B gets 20 touches out of 300, there's a big difference in the importance of those 20 touches for the relevant game.

Under your argument, we'd all have a team full of Melbourne players because they chip and ball around and maintain possession with a high DE.

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.

Errr. He only got 6 points for that goal????

 

[Double the Fist]

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.

Champion Date didn't help their traditional lovechild Cotchin last nite. I am so disapoint with them.

 

[TheOz]

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.

The only way these arguments with regards to players scoring what is perceived to be wrong scores is if the scoring system as a whole becomes transparent. It's not going to happen so there isn't much point in complaining really. In my opinion, Simpson played a better game, specifically in the first half than his score indicates, however this is my subjective opinion without having knowledge of all the statistical categories that CD uses to award points. There is probably a very reasonable explanation as to why his score was low (above the clanger/DE% count which is a mere fraction of the scoring system as far as we know), we just don't have access to the system's internals to determine what that is.

 

[Raveneyes]

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

"His score is about right", yet you saw only 2 quarters.
Plenty of people give a flying f##k, hence the debate.

 

[captainCOOL]

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.

People only need to look at the example they gave with the Goddard injury a few years back against freo. He got subbed off at qtr time an ended up with a higher score at the end of the game because the game was won in the first qtr and as a result 36% of the points were awarded in that qtr alone so a goal then is worth more than a goal in the last.

I imagine the same thing happened last night in where a higher % of points were awarded in the last qtr because this was when the game was won, so Gibbs' goal in the last was worth more than Simpson's in the first by whatever % was deemed fit by Champion Data in their allocation of points in the last qtr.

The scoring has ALWAYS been like this

 

[captainCOOL]

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.

Which is why they still get points for those quarters? The fact of the matter is the last part of the last quarter is when the game was ultimately decided and as such the last quarter will have more points allocated to it (say 28% in the last to 22% in the first, just a random example to show the difference).

 

[Deliverance]

Errr. He only got 6 points for that goal????

Not accoriding to this guy-
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/round-2-discussion.1054688/page-16#post-32254264

 

[Deliverance]

People only need to look at the example they gave with the Goddard injury a few years back against freo. He got subbed off at qtr time an ended up with a higher score at the end of the game because the game was won in the first qtr and as a result 36% of the points were awarded in that qtr alone so a goal then is worth more than a goal in the last.

I imagine the same thing happened last night in where a higher % of points were awarded in the last qtr because this was when the game was won, so Gibbs' goal in the last was worth more than Simpson's in the first by whatever % was deemed fit by Champion Data in their allocation of points in the last qtr.

The scoring has ALWAYS been like this

Not really, the game was decided in the first half when RIchmind got an unassailable lead. Which is why many people believe Simmo should have scored much higher.

"His score is about right", yet you saw only 2 quarters.
Plenty of people give a flying f##k, hence the debate.

Not sure why, the comps only worth $50k, plus other prizes, plus hundreds of dollar in private leagues
Could partially explain why there are hundreds of thousands less people playing SC these days?


PS.Maybe we need a CD thread

 

[CJApples87]

Not really, the game was decided in the first half when RIchmind got an unassailable lead. Which is why many people believe Simmo should have scored much higher.

Ummm, the score was levelled up in the last quarter, ergo; the game was decided in the last quarter and Richmond did not have an unassailable lead!

 

[rocker_oz33]

Simpson is not the type of player you really dont notice all that much. You look at the stats after the game say 25 touches and you swear you only seen him around 10 times.

Yes simmo got a shower score,its done now but if it got say 80 all this
CD data talk prob would'nt of happened.

 

[captainCOOL]

Not really, the game was decided in the first half when RIchmind got an unassailable lead. Which is why many people believe Simmo should have scored much higher.


Not sure why, the comps only worth $50k, plus other prizes, plus hundreds of dollar in private leagues
Could partially explain why there are hundreds of thousands less people playing SC these days?


PS.Maybe we need a CD thread

Considering the game was tied at the 20 minute mark of the last qtr by definition the lead Richmond had was anything but unassailable...

 

[toxic]

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.

Good trade!

 

[Deliverance]

Considering the game was tied at the 20 minute mark of the last qtr by definition the lead Richmond had was anything but unassailable...

Ummm, the score was levelled up in the last quarter, ergo; the game was decided in the last quarter and Richmond did not have an unassailable lead!

They expended too much energy (mental and physical) playing catchup and Richmond were always going to hold on, happens almost every time, be it AFL or c grade local basketball.


adjective: unassailable

1. 1.
   unable to be attacked, questioned, or defeated.

Richmond were unable to be defeated, ergo; unassailable

 

[Krujan]

They expended too much energy (mental and physical) playing catchup and Richmond were always going to hold on, happens almost every time, be it AFL or c grade local basketball.


adjective: unassailable

1. 1.
   unable to be attacked, questioned, or defeated.

Richmond were unable to be defeated, ergo; unassailable

This ^ Warnock was spent, cramping up when he cleared the ball in the last line straight to Vickery when the scores were level. Gutted.
I reckon Brick McLean is all but finished after last night, which is good news for Buckley/Cripps who might be a decent downgrade options in a few weeks time.

 

[captainCOOL]

They expended too much energy (mental and physical) playing catchup and Richmond were always going to hold on, happens almost every time, be it AFL or c grade local basketball.


adjective: unassailable

1. 1.
   unable to be attacked, questioned, or defeated.

Richmond were unable to be defeated, ergo; unassailable

You said the lead was unassailable. I'd say their lead was defeated and questioned when it no longer became a lead?

 

[bato]

If Mitchell doesn't play tonight, I will kill someone.

 

[Krujan]

If Mitchell doesn't play tonight, I will kill someone.

Whaaaattt?

 

[bato]

Whaaaattt?

Well, he's in serious doubt according to Jay Clark. Why is it that injuries/suspensions kill me so early on?

 

[timtamWB]

Mitchell might be out?

**** this shit.

 

[TheOz]

Well, he's in serious doubt according to Jay Clark. Why is it that injuries/suspensions kill me so early on?

Jay Clark is a ****ing tossrag.

 

[Gribnoor]

Well, he's in serious doubt according to Jay Clark. Why is it that injuries/suspensions kill me so early on?

Yes, just now: “@ClarkyHeraldSun: Big doubts on Sam Mitchell. Could be late out against Bombers tonight.”

Could be a bit of a game changer that one, few people might have hand forced when teams are announced... if its true...

 

[Burzum]

Well if Mitchell's out I'm going to have to make a trade. Hopefully not, although it would be good for Essendon.

 

[The_Steadier]

I was watching the live sc scoring on the footy lite app last night and dusty was on 90ish before kicking the last one. 15ish points seems about right... wasn't the winner- but did put it beyond doubt.
I've got dusty myself and had him capt loophole so was hoping for a crazy 50 point goal... but it wouldn't have been right.
I remember seeing similar instances last year where big points were clearly given to the last goal, but they weren't the winner.
Good on CD for getting it right last night. (I assume vickorys goal got more points than dusty?)

As others have said- I always take the live scores with the grain of salt they are intended to be taken with.
Live scores are a ballpark figure only people... live with it.

Interesting that warnock clearly didn't get a massive score against him for the clanger kick that cost the blues the win or draw....
Bit of an inbalance where you can score huge for winning a game, but not lose huge for costing a game.

 

[Amazing Bombers]

AND it starts.