And going by that logic, then scores will inevitably be slightly decreased per player, therefore the prices that have been celebrated as "cheap as chips" will therefore be not quite as much of a bargain.
im sure we will find out soon enough once the NAB Cup starts and champion data release the player scores
I think you may looking at this 3300/3150 points issue wrong. There can only ever be 36 players on the field, just like before. There are also still only 44 available players, regardless of the fact that 2 are reserves. So there is in effect 91.66 ppg for every 100% tog. That hasnt changed and it will still be split over 44 players, its just in some instances your player may be unlucky and be a reserve. Still, nothing to stop the original player and his replacment both scoring 75+ points.
But each player will play a greater portion of the 100%. Since there are 18 players on the ground, that means that all up, each team will play a total of 1800% (18 * 100% = 1800%. But instead of that 1800% being played by 22 players, it is now just 21. Meaning each player will get more time on ground. 1800/22 = 81.8 1800/21 = 85.7 85.7/81.8 = 1.048 Meaning each player plays 4.8% more of the total time then they used to. This of course only works if you think of the subbed off player and the subbed on player as one person. That is, together, the total possible time they could have on ground is 100%, just like any other player. If we look at the 3300 rule, 3300/44 players = 75 points per player. And 3300/42 players = 78.6 PPP 78.6/75 = 1.048 We have a 4.8% rise in players scores. So basically, since we have a rise in game time, we will also have a rise in points scored per player. And since the rise in game time, is the same as the rise in players points, we can see that it doesn't matter that only 18 players will be on the field at any one time, it is still being shared by less players. Onto the possibility that a sub scores 75+ etc. Thanks to scaling, the average score is 75. Since the player subbed on and the player subbed off will average half a game each (ie. 1 quarter + 3 quarters = 4, 4/2 = 2 quarters) they should essentially average 37.5. So together they average 75. (Note: this has to be over a large sample size. Also, it is less likely that if a player scores 75+ in half a game, that they will be subbed, but there could be injuries etc.) So we basically have 2 players together getting 75, essentially making them an average player. Add that to the other 20 guys in a team, and you get 1575. Multiply that for two teams, and you get 3150. Meaning if the average score is 75, then it has to have a lower total score. I hope that all makes sense, it has destroyed my brain =p
don't think the subbed off and subbed on wil count as 1 player especially if eg Swan gets injured but still racks up 20 possies till half time then his subbed on say Kraokouer kicks 4 goals in the last half surely those 2 scores will be more then then 75 or 78 average
But the fact that only one of them can be taking TOG means there is only 21. There is 18 positions for 21 players at a time. And thanks to scaling, if the two subbed players score abnormally high, or low, it just means that they will get scaled, or others will get scaled. But the average SHOULD still be 75.
Also, if the subbed on/off player count as two, what happens if the sub isn't made? Is there a different number of players and thus the average goes up?
The average score over 22 players will still be 75 points. The fact that one of bench is actually a sub is not important. The sub-on and the sub-off combined make up one player out of the 18, not one out of the 21. Just in the same way that if you had 2 players rotated off the bench in the same position all day would combined make one of the 18 lots of 100% tog that will average 91.7 ppg. If we assume that a game goes for 100 mins there would be 1,800 minutes played by each team and that is an average of 81.2 minutes per player, regardless of whether they are interchange or subs. There will always only ever be 18 players at any one time that can score points – ignoring scaling. I doubt anyone outside of Champion Data knows how the scaling works but I would assume there would be a tog % basis to the adding or subtracting of points.
"But each player will play a greater portion of the 100%." No, they wont. Each player who doesnt get subbed will, but this will be exactly counteracted by the players who do get subbed. A coach could never use his interchange once, and it wouldnt change the 'average time on ground per player' from his team. Unless they do somethin really fancy with subs (im much more inclined to believe theyll adopt a 'bad luck' approach to subs), then each player will be treated as just having played the game or not. CD has never taken into account time on ground as a factor in SC score, why would it now? The worst consequence of this will be that if a player is named and doesnt get subbed on, he gets a 0 that counts in score/salary, which might seem a bit harsh.
I think you guys may have missed my point. Taking eldinto's example of 1800 minutes, before, those 1800 minutes were divided among 22 players, coming on and off the bench. However now, there will only be 21 players, as when one player gets subbed off for good another will come on. meaning even though there is two players, the maximum they can ever play is 100 minutes or 100%. Ultimately, even though they are still 2 players, they have the same potential game time as 1 player. So pretend like last year, these two players both played 100% of the game. This year, because they are subbed off/on, they only get 50% each. That means that the extra time that is left over, goes to the rest of the team. So while the two sub players play 50%, the rest of the players get more TOG. While CD don't use TOG to determine scores, are you honestly telling me that more TOG won't increase players scores anyway?
Obviously more TOG will probably mean higher scores. If the sub rule means a player gets more TOG on avg now (ie hes never subbed) he'll probably see an increase. Similarly if the sub rule means a player gets LESS TOG on avg now (ie he does get subbed occasionally) then he'll probably see a decrease. Overall the AVERAGE player, getting an AVERAGE amount of TOG (which would involve being subbed an AVERAGE amount of times) will still score 75.
So if the average for a full game is 75, which it was last year. Then the average for subs should be 37.5 as they will average half a game (over a large sample size of course). That means together, the two subs will get 75 between them. When you then add 75 for each other player on the field, you don't get 3300. 75 + (75 * 20) = 1575 1575 * 2 = 3150 You can't count the subs as averaging 75 each. Otherwise, they get 75 in half a game, resulting in an average of 150 over an entire game. Which still gives you a higher average than 75, over the team.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that I don't agree with your thoughts that the sub rule means "players will have more time on ground". Some clearly will sure, but as there are still 22 players in the game per team, with 18 on the ground and 4 on the bench at all times, a new restriction on when players can go from the ground to the bench and vice versa cant change the average time on the ground of the 22
But in that case, the avg score per player is 75*21/22 ~71.59. We want it to be 75! And also, the avg for a FULL GAME wasnt 75 last year, the avg for being involved in a game at all was 75. If a player goes down in the first minute (and scores 0), then the average scores of the other 43 players that play the full game will be >75
But if a sub plays half the time of a normal player, you would expect the average to be half of theirs correct? That means an average of 37.5. The point is that between the two subs they should average 75. Which when added to the rest of the players, means the average is not 75. No, for the average to be 75, it would go to 3150. When it gets scaled, the average would go up.
Hmm, I was just thinking about it in words another way. Assuming 4 quarters of 20minutes each (ignoring time on for this analysis) Last year, 18 players + 4 interchange. As a result of only ever being allowed to have 18 on the field at any one time, at the end of the game there will be 18*4*20minutes=1440minutes worth of played game time to score for each team, or 2880 for the total game, as a result of the bench players not accumulating points. This year, 18 players + 3 interchange + 1 sub. Similarly, only 18 players are allowed onto the ground at one time from each team and therefore the same amount of played game time 18*20*4 for each team and similarly, the same 2880 minutes of scored game time for each team. The difference being is that the scoring proportions may be slightly different - however the sub who comes off and the sub that comes on should average the same as a bloke who was on the field and a bloke who was on the bench last year.
"The difference being is that the scoring proportions may be slightly different - however the sub who comes off and the sub that comes on should average the same as a bloke who was on the field and a bloke who was on the bench last year. " Actually i don't agree with the last part. Of the 80 minutes possible for any one player, a player last year may have played 60 minutes over the 4 quarters. As he now gets subbed off at half time, he only manages 30 minutes, and the sub manages 30 minutes. This means both play 30 minutes, for a combined 60 minutes. Leaving an extra 60 minutes to go round the other players. As each plays half a game, they are comparable to the original player who played 60 minutes. As such, together they should each score half of what he did, resulting in the same score as him combined. This leaves more points for other players, and also increases the score per full game. By per full game, i don't mean 100% of a game. Barely anybody plays 100% of a game. What i mean is, per player, with the subs only counting as half a player. As such, since the subs play half games, 30 minutes, they average 37.5. Meaning the total of all the players, at an average of 75, is no longer 3300. It is 3150. Which leaves an extra 150 points to be gotten. That is why they should reduce it from 3300 to 3150. Otherwise, this years stats become become completely meaningless. You would expect with those extra 150 points up for grabs, the Abletts, Swans and Goddards would be able to soak up an above average portion, possibly pushing their averages up 6 or 7 ppg.
Thinking about it in terms of non-scoring time: Last year, there were at any given time, 4 players not scoring on the interchange,whether they were injured or having a rest etc. This year, there will also be, at any given time, 4 players not scoring but the difference being 3 will be on the interchange and 1 will be a sub. I guess with 2 players - one on the field and one on the bench, between them they'll play the full 80minutes if they swap with each other for example. Whereas the player+sub will also spend some time on the interchange when they're actually on, in addition to also being out of the game. I think that works.
Man, this is doing my head in... It comes down to this I think... The players who don't get subbed each week will (all other things being equal) average a higher score than last year due to their additional time on the ground? Conversely, the players being subbed will generally score lower scores because they spend less time on the ground?