The new sub rule - effects will be massive

But its not just about who is on the field, it's about who CAN be on the field. As there can only be a choice from 21 players, the scoring is ultimately between 21 players.

It's all about the fact that only either the sub, or the player being subbed off can be on at any given time. Thus making them comparable to 1 player ie the 60 minute player compared to two 30 minute players.

This leaves more time on the field for the rest of the players, which will lead to more points.

 

Precisely stripey.

It ultimately comes down to the 3300 rule.
3300/44 = 75
Since there is basically 42 players now, it results in a higher average
3300/42 = 78.6

Of course it all comes down the to sub. Since the sub and player subbed off can only play 1 game between them, they should only score what one full game player plays. It leaves more points for other players to take, which means you can't compare this years stats to previous years.

Changing it from 3300 to 3150 fixes the problem.

 

Ruddy, not quiet... before the sub rule came into play, it was not too uncommon for some players to only play 60% of game time in a match... as such, now with the new rule if you were to combine the two lowest players (in terms of time of ground) they will now add up to 100% maximum, whereas before it might have been 120%.

As such it is not a whole player being lost... there is an impact but it isnt as precise as a single player... on average it might only be one third or half a player...

 

But if as player is playing 60% of a half, then that is only 30%, meaning all up the two players play 60% of an entire match.

Also remember that before, the maximum is 200%, or two full games. Now it is 100%, or one full game.

 

True Ruddy... perhaps you are right!

 

Haha, it does happen occasionally!

 

This discussion is like watchin a really bad tennis match!!! I think the ones who get it, get it....and the ones who don't never will. But the really funny part is that everybody will think that theyre the ones who actually do get it :?

 

"Since there is basically 42 players now, it results in a higher average
3300/42 = 78.6"

I dont really know where this is coming from. 44 players played in the match. Why are you dividing by 42 to determine the avg per player?

If you saw a list with 40 75s and 4 37.5s, and you said the average score was 75, id say you werent very good at maths.

"Since the sub and player subbed off can only play 1 game between them, they should only score what one full game player plays. It leaves more points for other players to take, which means you can't compare this years stats to previous years."

Completely disagree with the first sentence, but thats just a matter of opinion I guess. A player playing for a full half then subbing with another player tha plays a full half is no different to 2 players just gettin 50% game time each in the old system. Just because now we need 2 certain players TOG to add to at most 100% doesnt mean we have to overhaul system, since CD has never considered TOG as a factor to score. A player who gets 4 kicks in 5 minutes scores the same as a player who gets 4 kicks in 105.

 

BTW im working on the assumption that theyll treat the subs no differently. Maybe theyll give him a multiplier, maybe theyll combine the 2 scores and give a readout like "Hille/Hocking 94"

But assuming they are going to just give the 44 players involved in the game a score based on what they did, regardless of TOG, as they always have, keeping the total points at 3300 is the only way to maintain a 75 avg per player.

 

Assume for a moment that the substitution never occurs. 42 players will partake in the match. Giving a player a 0 because they didn't get subbed on doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would happen. Imagine the price drop a player would have if they didn't get on, and then they only got 1 quarter, etc.

There must be some sort of scaling that changes depending on how much time they got. (btw, by time they got, i don't mean TOG, i mean percentage of total time that they were 'subbed on'). If they got scaling, then it would make it 44 players for a total 3300.

Everything in what i'm talking about stems back to the interpretation of the sub. If a sub comes on at half time, the total potential time/score for a player is limited to half a game. So thus, the two players combined have the potential for one match worth of time/scoring. That is, of the total time of a match (say 80 mins + time on), they can only ever play 80 mins + time on. Given that is the exact amount that any non-sub player can potentially play for, they are comparable to a normal player.

Given that, the two players should average 37.5, in half a game. Now multiply this by 4, to get all four subs, and you get 150 points. 3300 - 150 = 3150
3150/40 (the rest of the players) = 78.75

So that means there is a fair few extra points up for grabs for the rest of the players.

You simply cannot have a sub being valued at playing an entire game, when the only play half. It could result in an extra 10+ ppg for players like Swan and Goddard. It also makes last years stats pretty much worthless. Because it means that there are more points available. This defeats the purpose of scaling.

So they either change how subs are scaled, change it from 3300 to 3150, or the scoring system becomes flawed, and any year they add subs/change subs etc., makes all the previous years of stats basically useless.

 

In a true sense, there will be 44 players sharing the points so an average of 75... Bonsai is therefore right in what he says..

The reality is that the four guys involved in the subs don't have 100 percent game time on average, it's only 50 percent...

Which means the other 40 all get a share of the missing two players points. The fact the other 40 players are spending the extra time on the ground should mean their scores increase because they are more involved in the game this year...

 

"Assume for a moment that the substitution never occurs. 42 players will partake in the match. Giving a player a 0 because they didn't get subbed on doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would happen. Imagine the price drop a player would have if they didn't get on, and then they only got 1 quarter, etc.

There must be some sort of scaling that changes depending on how much time they got. (btw, by time they got, i don't mean TOG, i mean percentage of total time that they were 'subbed on'). If they got scaling, then it would make it 44 players for a total 3300."

This basically sums up our entire disagreement. I completely disagree with the 2nd paragraph and 100% think the player that never got subbed on will get a 0 and plummet in price. If they do something else then different non-3300 totals start making sense.

"You simply cannot have a sub being valued at playing an entire game, when the only play half. It could result in an extra 10+ ppg for players like Swan and Goddard. It also makes last years stats pretty much worthless. Because it means that there are more points available. This defeats the purpose of scaling."

Assuming we keep 3300, the 'points per TOG' should be completely unchanged for each person. Thus we can compare to other years just as easily now as we can for other years that had different interchanging strategys. Plenty of players used to get near enough to 100% (ever see buckley dragged?). If they are getting more TOG now because of the sub rule good on em.

Also 10%? Really? So someone who used to play 90% of the game is going to play 99%? And keep the same output rate? Someone who played 95% of the game is going to play 104%?

 

Sorry misread your 10ppg as 10%, ignore last paragraph!

 

Ok so if the subs are counted as entire games that means more points for everyone else.

I'll use an example to describe what that's like. Going to a year before subs came in, so 3300 points between 44 players. It's like raising that cap, meaning there are more points available for players. You can't really compare a 100 average that year to a different year, can you?

It also means higher prices for the next year, when there may not be as many points available, meaning decreased scores across the board.

 

You're assuming that the players are NEVER going to be subbed. I would assume scores of players that are never subbed are going to rise a little yes. And players that are frequently subbed will see scores drop. Players that are subbed about 1/11 of the time (ie the avg) will see scores stay about the same... ie the avg player keeps the same avg.

If we instead go to 3150, with 75 per 'full game', then we cant compare anyone who was ever subbed to previous years, because in some matches they were only playing for 37.5 (or 30 or 40 or whatever, you know what I mean).

 

But the average non-sub player, as i think there will generally only be a few candidates from each team, barring injuries, will also see an increase in average. Their average should increase by somewhere around 3 or 4 ppg.

And besides whether or not their ppg increase, it's the increase in overall points available that makes the scores non comparable. 100/3300 is different to 100/3150.

Now that i've thought about it further, i reckon scaling the subbed/sub players depending on the amount of time 'subbed on' would fix all the problems. It would make one game of a sub comparable to a normal player, it would fix the price decreases, and it would fix the overall available points increase for non-sub players.

I doubt they will do this, as that would make a sub/subbed player equal to a non-sub/subbed player, which is generally not how these games work.

no matter what they do, something will be wrong with it, unless they somehow find the ultimate solution. But if they want their scaling system to stay effective and relevant, they can't just leave it as it is.

 

Wow... good points guys.
I was under the impression that if Keppler Bradley come on for 5 mins in the last quarter and scored 7 points - that would be his total score - Hence huge price drops. Can someone email champion data to see if the 3,300 rule stands?!!!

 

Ive got a few questions after just reading this whole discussion and thinking about its implications in the real world(the game we follow not just the stats and minutes).

What type of players are going to be rested on the bench the most?( My thought Mids)

What players will be the guys who are a sub(eg. Mid, Key Position, Ruck)???????

Who is going to be the sub????(Is it going to be a rookie or a solid guy that the coach can rely on to do a job when a change is needed).

Also what are the most productive quarters of any player. Their 1st 2nd 3rd or 4th??????

With the way SC goes if you perform well in the
4th qtr the points just rack up( like kicking the winning goal) so wouldn't a fresh guy have as much chance of getting big points like a guy who has played the whole game(considering turnovers and other statistical devices)???????

If anyone has Champion Data's Magic Formula so I could digest these questions it would help immensely otherwise I think we are all just smoking in the wind.