Its not just the Pavlich score this round. I watched 3 games this weekend and in each there are some very ordinary SC/CD scoring results. To highlight any bias I may have I have put stars next to players in my team. Western Bulldogs V Collingwood: *Lake 91: Deserved more, outplayed Cloke all game, good DE Sherman 94: Butchers the ball and made poor decisions, no way did he deserve to outscore Lake Gold Coast V Fremantle: Pavlich 143: Agree with all above comments Bennell : Was clearly the best player on the ground last night Port Adelaide V Richmond *Brett Deledio 143: For a guy who went missing when the tigers sat out the third quarter how can he get a 143, there is too much emphasis on the boost and added points for when your team is putting points on the board. Chris Newmann 91: Newmann gets 91 for which I can see was for his second quarter where he kicked a goal and played very well, but how he can score 91 when he touches it only 3 times after half time baffles me. Again too much emphasis on the boost here, takes 4 quarters to win a game of footy not 1 and to compare with *Dusty Martin (92)does not make sense Brad Ebert 117: Did anyone else watch this guy butcher it all afternoon with many of his desposals going directly to the opposition??? He also gave up 2 free kicks inside his defensive 50 that resulted in goals (at least 1 of which was in the 2nd quarter when supposed tigers got a boost for their dominance, shouldnt the opposite be applied to an opposition player that plays poorly during this period???) Having believed in the SC/CD system for so long, I am starting to see many faults in the system.
Pavlich's was correct with CD formula. The thing I don't like is the over the top scaling and bonuses (for things players do towards the end of the game when it is tight). Their formula needs to be altered, so scaling is only really used for junk time.
I can't comment on this past round's scoring but I did notice a few weird things a few rounds ago when I was intently following the live scoring while watching the game on TV. 1) I was paying particular attention to Buddy as I didn't have him and my opponent did. All the player's stats seems to be updating in line with what happended on the field. Buddy was having a quietish game and hadn't done anything for a good few minutes. He then gave away a free kick. I looked at the screen...waiting for his score to go down...waiting...waiting...nothing. Then the TV show Buddy siting on the bench. Excellent. So I wait....and wait...and wait...still no score decrease. Then finally a score change...he goes up 8 points. WTF???.....he's on the bench!!! 2) I was watch Coniglio play. He hadn't got a touch for 10 mins. Finally he gets a free kick and kicks to a team mate. His score did not change until he got the correct score for his next possession. Meanwhile everybody else's score where in line with what was happenign on the screen. I guess it's not an exact science.
I think it has become noticeable this year that the scaling for "crucial points scoring efforts" has become rather drastic. I generally agree with the formula and the aims of CD's scoring for SC, but there have been perhaps more results this year than ever where Ihave been left shaking my head. Just as egregious as Pav's score this week was Cloke's - an utter laugh. And Kreuzer continues to be marked very harshly.
Has anyone noticed the reverse - where a player makes a crucial clanger at the end and loses -30pts for it or something like that? I can't say I have, but I haven't been looking for it. Just seems you only hear about the insane points rises, and never hear about the insane points drops. Does it actually happen? Say a GC player gives away a free that gifts Pavlich the crucial goal. Pav gets 30pts due to the situation, shouldn't that other player get -30 (or whatever) instead of -8?
@Seabass - seems to be less of a penalty this year for poor disposal or clangers (see Fyfe discussion)? As benjim noticed with Ebert, I've watched the last couple of GWS games and Shiel absolutely butchers the ball (I reckon about half of his disposals go straight to opposition players!), yet he still scores quite well in relation to his disposal count. Now, I have him in my team so I'm not complaining, but sometimes he looks like he should be racking up a negative score! PS. If you've seen Bower's goal from the weekend on the highlight reel, just rewind it a couple more seconds and you'll see it was Shiel who turned it over to him! On live scoring Bower got 20+ points for the goal but no negative impact on Shiel...
Thanks Turbo - that's a great example! Doesn't seem right that that's the case though - from what I can see the increased points/scaling for one player at the end of the match gets taken as a whole off of the other scores, probably from both teams, rather than off of specific players. Bah, not worth losing sleep over at the end of the day I guess, *LOL*
Nope, SC scoring has been doing my head in for years! Just when my therapy was working though it seems to be getting worse!
Hey Morris cost me a league win in round 5. His free kick against cost 15 points, after that the eagles went forward and kicked a goal. I lost the match by 11 points
Cheers Silacious, maybe the system works after all. Still think there's a bit too much Yin (points upgrade) and not enough Yang (points decrease) though.
Lol fidelsfinger, quality rant..! Having seen your post in "Taking advantage of time zones" which documents time spent on footy research I'm surprised your missus is still interested in a twosome let alone a threesome haha I guess I'm one of the humourless and I will say that I feel like there've been more anomalous scores this year than previously, but then again the formula is apparently the same so it must be just coincidence. I reckon it makes slightly more sense to think of it in terms of the team's total SC score rather than each individual player's score. Ie, if you line up all of the thousands of incidents that make up a game and allocate points to them, CD is trying to find a way of weighting those incidents such that the total scores accurately predict the winner. The fact that the points get allocated to individual players is almost an afterthought, and can represent a player who's lucky to be in the right place at the right time. I think CD would not be too concerned if their player stats seem a bit anomalous, but would be more interested in making sure their team scores accurately predict the eventual winner, say, 99% of the time whereas if you look at, say, total DT points for each team it might be 95% of the time. The close games would be the ones to look at. If I get the time over the next few days I'll do this but I'd love to look at all the games this year decided by 10 points or less and see if total SC points predicted the result better than total DT points. Then, for the games where SC did and DT didn't correctly predict the result, look at what happened at the end of those games and see if someone got a big boost for a late goal. It might be that Pav, in a sense, "needed" to get about 50 points for a late goal or Freo wouldn't have ended up with the appropriate number of extra SC points for a win of that magnitude. It may be that CD have found that tight games with roughly equal stats can't be split unless you weight late goals, and acts in general, ridiculously highly. They're rewarding influential incidents, which happen to be allocated to players. In fact the stats bear this out in this case. The score in that game was 94-87, or an 8% advantage to Freo. The total SC scores were 1722-1577, or a 9% advantage to Freo. Pretty bloody close. The DT scores were 1678-1642 _to Gold Coast_, or a 2% advantage to the loser! So if Pav didn't get that boost, and something similar for a few other Freo players no doubt, then the total SC scores wouldn't have appropriately predicted the result and the magnitude. Maybe I got lucky with this particular game though May have to see if this works for more games.
Fair points Stampede, btw i often dont remember drunken rants and the next day am usually too scared to look at what i wrote the night before. & the 3some was a joke based on my seeing double at the time, anyway, both of her nicked off & left me in peace
<blockquote>Quote from turbo on May 7, 2012, 13:31 Maybe someone from the MRP has taken over SC scoring - similar level of consistency. </blockquote> I assumed our government must've taken over heh <blockquote>Quote from Seabass on May 7, 2012, 14:47 We need a whistleblower from CD to leak the magic formula for all our sakes I think </blockquote> No need, I stand by nostalgia factor + decibelometer but will check in on wikileaks periodically 8)
Nice write stampede. Would be interesting to see your results. That game certainly proved your theorem. With any scoring system the subjectiveness of the one scoring/noting the stats is most significant. For example if you watch the ball up that led to Mzungu goal its pav that shuffles that ballup out from off the floor into the position for him to soccer through. I thought that was most crucial yet the guy I was watching with put more weight on the soccer through. Subjectivity.
In all seriousness though, I remain convinced that any undisclosed formula, by virtue of it's secretive nature, must contain within it, some degree of subjectivity. That said, the CD/SC formula still remains a better model to reflect the skill of the game than the crude pure stat based DT formula, as evidenced by Stampede's observation & I'm confident of a larger sample size confirming that. Also Holeys formula of predicting match results based on named players SC price totals has proven to be incredibly accurate.