<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]Last week I presented some graphs looking at how winning margin and SuperCoach points were related at the team level. Because you TSers are a cluey bunch there were some great comments, which I really enjoyed reading. One of the interesting points raised was whether more points for a team meant anything for the SuperCoach relevant players in that team. Essentially this is a question of how the extra points get distributed with in the team. Do they get evenly shared across all players? Or do the gun players only alone get this extra boost?
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]But before we look into that lets look at some extra data that we didn't see last week. Here's how the total SC points were distributed across the 2013 season


/Portals/0/User Images/gos201.png' width='600px
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]The first thing you'll notice is that the top teams are not separated by a wide margin. North leads the way, but is only 53 points (0.01%) ahead of Hawthorn. This equates to an average of 2.4 extra points per game (or 0.1 points per player per match).
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]Not exactly an impressive difference.
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]But as we move down the list the gap does get bigger. At the half way point we find that Carlton are 1,506 points behind (3.1 points / player / match). And at the bottom, Melbourne are 5,976 points off the pace, averaging out to a sizable 12.3 points / player / match.
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]
/Portals/0/User Images/gos202.png' width='600px
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]This may not seem like much, and the main take-home-message is clearly that very shit teams get a lot less points. But this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. In the better teams the difference in winning and losing is probably not worth worrying about&amp;hellip;. but as Walsey often reminds us, SC is a game of a thousand cuts. Lots of small differences can add up to big differences by seasons end.
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]Getting back to the original question, lets examine how these extra points get divvied up within a team. Here is the distribution of averages for all players across the season.

/Portals/0/User Images/gos203.png' width='600px

<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]It's a roughly symetrical bell-curve, with median 68.3. Most players are clumped around the middle, with 20% averageing between 60 and 70, and 56% averageing between 50 and 80. (Technical Note: This represents ALL players, whether they played 22 games or 2 games. It also includes low scores for injury and/or vestings).
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]


<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]Now lets compare how season averages for each team compares to the league distribution (see below, teams in red league average in grey). There is a lot to take in here, so I'll just compare the top 3 SC scorers; North, Hawks and Tigers.
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]North shows an interesting distribution. They are very much over represented in the 90+ categories, but under represented in the 40-70 range. This suggests they have more than the fair share of gun players, who regularly bring in the big points, but less &amp;lsquo;average' players.
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]Richmond and Hawthorn on the otherhand show very similar distributions (didn't Jack Reiwolt say something about this recently). Both have a much tighter, more even distribution. This suggests that the points in these teams are far more evenly sperad across all players. There are less big scorers but also less complete dunces.
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]So there you have it. Once again I'm being coy and won't attempt to draw any strong conclusions from this. Regardless, hopefully you enjoyed reading.
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]Lastly, if anyone is interested all the graphs from these article (and many others) can be found here.
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]
<p class='western' style='margin-bottom: 0cm;]

/Portals/0/User Images/god204.png' width='600px
/Portals/0/User Images/god205.png' width='600px
/Portals/0/User Images/god206.png' width='600px
/Portals/0/User Images/god207.png' width='600px
/Portals/0/User Images/god208.png' width='600px
/Portals/0/User Images/god209.png' width='600px
/Portals/0/User Images/god210.png' width='600px
/Portals/0/User Images/god211.png' width='600px
/Portals/0/User Images/god212.png' width='600px
/Portals/0/User Images/god213.png' width='600px
/Portals/0/User Images/god213a.png' width='600px
/Portals/0/User Images/god214.png' width='600px
/Portals/0/User Images/god215.png' width='600px
/Portals/0/User Images/god216.png' width='600px
/Portals/0/User Images/god217.png' width='600px
/Portals/0/User Images/god218.png' width='600px
/Portals/0/User Images/god219.png' width='600px
/Portals/0/User Images/god220.png' width='600px