Supercoach Scoring: Please Explain?

[donbooger]

I am guessing that the points were inflated in the last quarter when the game was decided. Ablett played 3 rubbish quarters then exploded in the 4th, while Mitchell was good all day then destroyed by Ling.

They very well could have been sitting on 80 each at 3/4 time before the score adjustments.

This can be used to explain the high Geelong scores as Hawthorn didnt have much input in that quarter.

Prefer the dreamteam scoring really.

 

[SJ]

What I don't get is that for a 9 point game where the hawks were leading for most of the day geelong were supposedly better by 6 players (480/75)

Or, to put it another way, after the 10 minute mark of the first quarter Geelong outscored Hawthorn by six goals and dominated almost every statistic.

Makes sense.

 

[LiverpoolRed]

He didn't kick 7 straight. He missed one of the many gifted him by the umps from straight in front.

He had just 1 free kick for you flipping knob.

 

[LiverpoolRed]

Or, to put it another way, after the 10 minute mark of the first quarter Geelong outscored Hawthorn by six goals and dominated almost every statistic.

Makes sense.

I think it was because the basicly dominated (to an extent, statistically) the last half, if the game had ended at the 15 min mark of the last (wen the hawks were in front) ablett and mtchell would have scored around 120 and 110 each, but coz mitchell 'went missing' he had little effect on the game in the 2nd half.

 

[EssendonPride]

Is that including all his free kicks against on the weekend? aswell as only 27 of his 38 possies being effective.

Mitchell Had 30 possies, 9 inside 50s, 5 clearances and a goal. Yet Ablett scores twice his score? The weighted Champion fata scores are BS. But I dont mind, because he is a good capt. in my team.

You mean his massive 2 FA?
As has been said, ablett did alot more when the game was on the line.

On my phone atm so don't have stats in front of me, but did Mitchel have more clangers? Big difference between ineffective posession and clanger point wise.

 

[Pout]

At least the SC system is better than the DT system.
There are obviously major flaws though.

 

[LiverpoolRed]

You mean his massive 2 FA?
As has been said, ablett did alot more when the game was on the line.

On my phone atm so don't have stats in front of me, but did Mitchel have more clangers? Big difference between ineffective posession and clanger point wise.

Mitchell had 7 clangers and Ablett had 5 and 11 uneffective disposals and only had 71% effectiveness.

but you gotta remember Riewoldt kick 3 in the last to bury the game (as if it need to be anymore than it already was lol)

Lets all just agree that champion data is ****ed and we will never learn how it really works

 

[TheBryceisRight]

I thought the scores were weighted according to the champion data statistician's own Supercoach team?

 

[BluesMan]

At least the SC system is better than the DT system.
There are obviously major flaws though.

Joking right.

I play both and dreamteam is better because your player actually earns that point. Un like SC, its like "here you can have some, one for you, oh you dont have many..."

Its just silly IMO.

And if you have to know im actually ranked MUCH higher in SC than DT

 

[SJ]

Joking right.

I play both and dreamteam is better because your player actually earns that point. Un like SC, its like "here you can have some, one for you, oh you dont have many..."

Its just silly IMO.

And if you have to know im actually ranked MUCH higher in SC than DT

Means nothing after Round 2.

SuperCoach by far the better competition as it takes into account all parts of a player's game rather than a kindergarten approach of kicks, marks and handpasses.

I have been playing SuperCoach since its inception and have never been confused by the scoring system. Even the Mitchell against Ablett comparison alluded to in this thread makes sense.

 

[thomas_m18]

I just look at the case of one Jason Gram. A premium in Dream Team (I think), but a mid-pricer in Supercoach. The man can get the pill a heap, but his disposal is less than perfect. If you believe that he should be rewarded for getting and using the ball a heap, DT is the game for you. If you think that he deserves to be punished for his poor disposal, then SC is the game for you.

I also believe that it should be weighted for situations. A lot of players can get 30 touches, but when they get them and how influential they are should definately count.

 

[LiverpoolRed]

I thought the scores were weighted according to the champion data statistician's own Supercoach team?

Lol! Nice, one mate

 

[LiverpoolRed]

Means nothing after Round 2.

SuperCoach by far the better competition as it takes into account all parts of a player's game rather than a kindergarten approach of kicks, marks and handpasses.

I have been playing SuperCoach since its inception and have never been confused by the scoring system. Even the Mitchell against Ablett comparison alluded to in this thread makes sense.

Yeah I agre DreamTeam is shit, look at fev lastr year dominated, wen he was score the 30s and 40s in SuperCoach he was getting like 80-110 in DT because id doesnt take into concideration wether it is effective or not, and they do not have any weighted points.

 

[soho]

id like to know the full code for how the scores are 'weighted'

how do they decide which goal is/was the 'winning' goal? the goal at the start of the match, or the goal at the end? because they are both woth 6 points, and without either the team may not have gotten up, so it seems unfair to value the last goal more than the first...

melbourne players scored MORE than collingwood players last week... from that statement, you could say that melbourne players had a higher IMPACT on the game... yet they lost... so how can there be a disconect between 'impact on the game', and the result? shouldnt the two be exclusively linked?

it seems strange that all this 'weighting' coding is kept secret...

it should be simply coded into the formula, rather than adjusting the final points after the match, eg:
1. if you score a goal against the flow (say, after an opposition streak of two or more goals), you get double points...
2. if you kick a goal that puts your team into the front, you get double points...
3. touches while the game is within 10points are scored x 1.5...
etc...

dont know about the whole adjusting the final scores to 3300 points either... surely games that are more fast paced, higher posession counts are worth more than scrappy games of football... sometimes teams play in the wet, sometimes teams play in great conditions, you shouldnt unfairly level the playing field for the sake of an even competition, its an injustice to the high-skilled games that go on...

 

[SJ]

dont know about the whole adjusting the final scores to 3300 points either... surely games that are more fast paced, higher posession counts are worth more than scrappy games of football... sometimes teams play in the wet, sometimes teams play in great conditions, you shouldnt unfairly level the playing field for the sake of an even competition, its an injustice to the high-skilled games that go on...

Exactly. Which would make an 'unleveled playing field' unfair as generally players from teams like St Kilda, Western Bulldogs and Essendon who play indoors often would have an advantage over others.

I'm glad SuperCoach scales the scores for this very reason.

 

[Pout]

Joking right.

I play both and dreamteam is better because your player actually earns that point. Un like SC, its like "here you can have some, one for you, oh you dont have many..."

Its just silly IMO.

And if you have to know im actually ranked MUCH higher in SC than DT

I don't want to get into a big argument about SC v DT. DT is about how many possesions a player can rack up. SC is so so more advanced.

 

[Ed_Gein]

Or, to put it another way, after the 10 minute mark of the first quarter Geelong outscored Hawthorn by six goals and dominated almost every statistic.

Makes sense.

To be honest, that's what i was kind of thinking. After Qtr time Geelong had way more of the ball and i thought were the better team. 90 odd disposals more for the game

 

[Bender571]

Or, to put it another way, after the 10 minute mark of the first quarter Geelong outscored Hawthorn by six goals and dominated almost every statistic.

Makes sense.

But the points are suppose to represent the effect players have on a game. If the game was decided by 9 points yet their valuation shows a 480 point difference then their valuation isn't an accurate representation of the game.

 

[SJ]

But the points are suppose to represent the effect players have on a game. If the game was decided by 9 points yet their valuation shows a 480 point difference then their valuation isn't an accurate representation of the game.

So you're saying there should be a perfect correlation between the margin and the difference between the two teams' Champion Data ranking points?

For example, if you a team wins by a goal then it finishes with 100 more points, if it wins by two goals it finishes with 200 more points?

 

[thomas_m18]

From what I saw...

Geelong had the Hawks on the line for a lot of the game. If it weren't for poor conversion infront of goal, they might've put the Hawks out of the match earlier.

 

[Jinnasaur]

On the SC vs. DT topic, let's just say Dane Swan is considered better than Gablett in DT.
Enough said.

 

[Bender571]

So you're saying there should be a perfect correlation between the margin and the difference between the two teams' Champion Data ranking points?

For example, if you a team wins by a goal then it finishes with 100 more points, if it wins by two goals it finishes with 200 more points?

I think thats what Champion data try to achieve, otherwise how do they determine the values for certain stats, for example why is a goal 8 points instead of 6

 

[AlibiMonday]

id like to know the full code for how the scores are 'weighted'

Wouldn't we all, but that's the intellectual property and they're not going to publicise the algorithms otherwise others would simply copy and charge less for licencing fees.

how do they decide which goal is/was the 'winning' goal? the goal at the start of the match, or the goal at the end? because they are both woth 6 points, and without either the team may not have gotten up, so it seems unfair to value the last goal more than the first...

They look at the difference in scores as a ratio multiplied against the time remaining. Each statistic is amplified or dampened dependent on that factor. This conveys the "pressure" of the game at that point in time where possessions are more or less valuable. Makes perfect sense - very intelligent way of conveying the players who ultimately make a difference.

melbourne players scored MORE than collingwood players last week... from that statement, you could say that melbourne players had a higher IMPACT on the game... yet they lost... so how can there be a disconect between 'impact on the game', and the result? shouldnt the two be exclusively linked?

This just highlights the improvements they still need to do to the algorithms. No doubt, they will keep perfecting it over the next decade. Due to the fact that they archive all the raw data, any change to the formulas can be back processed for historical sake.

it seems strange that all this 'weighting' coding is kept secret...

Umm, while you're asking CD, also ask Google, Coca-Cola and KFC if they'll also publish their secret formulas.

it should be simply coded into the formula, rather than adjusting the final points after the match, eg:
1. if you score a goal against the flow (say, after an opposition streak of two or more goals), you get double points...
2. if you kick a goal that puts your team into the front, you get double points...
3. touches while the game is within 10points are scored x 1.5...
etc...

dont know about the whole adjusting the final scores to 3300 points either... surely games that are more fast paced, higher posession counts are worth more than scrappy games of football... sometimes teams play in the wet, sometimes teams play in great conditions, you shouldnt unfairly level the playing field for the sake of an even competition, its an injustice to the high-skilled games that go on...

The adjustment is to do with the 3300 points. During the game, the evaluated scores are based on raw assessment, but to curb point inflation (or deflation) due to the changing strategies over the years, they re-adjust everyone's score proportionately so that comparisons between historical players' performances remain accurate.

CD's philosophy, correctly in my opinion, is that it is more important to find out who was the most influential player in the game in relation to the other players in the game. This way small grounds and weather conditions don't have an undue influence (fair or unfair advantage) on the historical performance. They want to compare apples with apples as much as possible.

 

[borrat]

i cant understand how gilbert didnt get 200+

 

[rizzo]

Pointless argument by SC n00bs. Everyone is infatuated with having some sort of "figure" for each stat. The thing with SC is that there are no set figures because they rate/scale back/ change what each possession is in relation to the game. It makes sense. Why should a kick when you 100pts up that assists in a goal = a kick with a minute left that helps in a goal.

Sure sometimes some scores might not "add up" to YOUR view on the game, but I think they are very handy in understanding the game.

The only thing they need to do IMHO is make key defenders more effective. Spoil kings like Merret, Glass etc should score higher to reflect their influence on a game.

For example..... Glass keeping Fevola to 1 goal should be counted as equal to say Josh Kennedy kicking 3 or 4.

i cant understand how gilbert didnt get 200+

6 clangers. 19 of his marks were uncontested, 25 of his possessions were uncontested. In other words he was playing outside of the packs.