http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/supercoach-news/scott-pendlebury-better-by-half-in-supercoach/story-fn88c7kz-1226385084322 I know a lot of us will probably find no surprises in what is in that article, but still an interesting read (especially for SC rookies), and is a good reference for next time a wierd score comes up. And I shudder to think what ablett's score would've been if he didn't have 10 clangers, might've been close to Buddy's
SKT had an interesting critique on twitter, in that late goals in matches that are already over tend to hold their rating a bit better than possessions. If Ablett hadn't had 10 clangers, he wouldn't have got any contested possessions! The Pies seemed more than happy to corral him to defence, and hammer him when he got in any dangerous areas. Even 40 touches across half back without much inside 50 hurt tends to only attract in the 130 point range these days. I still don't know why cheap junk time goals aren't scaled to an inch of their lives, but there you go, maybe CD wanted to tweak scores in favour of big KPF which I think is a good thing. Can't have it being totally midfield dominated. Still, tell me that the first locks you want to put in your team aren't the DM and FMs.
Lucas they arent - Ablett & Pendles are first locks, neither are DM/FM. DMs & FMs are however first locks in the Defence and Forward - agree. Next year Buddy should be FM?
All good points Lucas - though aren't there points rewarded for rebounds outside of the opposition 50 as well? I didn't see the Ablett game, so dunno if he rebounded out of collingwood's 50 from half back a lot. One day I might actually watch a game on the HUN live HQ field view or whatever it's called to see what they base their scores on (as opposed to the actual points total for a passage of play) - had a bit of a look over the weekend and rebound 50s, pressuere acts, etc. seemed to be taken into consideration. Hope that all made sense
JB, I'm hoping Ablett might be DM next year! Or FM, depending where they want him to spend his time "resting" or whatever the plan is.
There's no points for R50 or I50 (aside from the fact that points are weighted due to position on the fround). Neither do pressure acts count as part of the CD Player Rankings system. If someone has told you this (or you have come this conclusion by yourself), they are mistaken.
Fair enough Hornsy - they must just list it in the field view passages of play. I put 2 and 2 together and came up with 12.
From what I'm aware I50 and R50 are not worth squat in CD stats, which I think is fair enough considering score assists are. No chance Ablett will get MPP next season. DMs and FMs are always talked about because it's the loss of these that cause people to have to search for alternates. Gibbs used to be a lock in many teams because he was seen as a defender. Put him in the midfield mill and he becomes an also-ran. Or maybe he's just crap and it's only now that people are coming to terms with the fact that he's actually worse than Jack Watts It's going to be interesting next year. Beams, Sidebottom and Dangerfield would be unlikely to be FM. I'd think that Deledio won't be DM, and Goddard will be 50-50. Think of your backline without Deledio, Goddard and Scotland. It'd be bloody frightening! I reckon it's this area (determining of MPP) rather than the 2 on the bench per position that is where the biggest thinking needs to occur. It needs to be consistent with how players are used in the previous season, and then applied consistently across the board. Then it'll always be the intelligent people who watch the game intently that will work out that breakout F who will be used as an M during the year.
'points are weighted due to position on the ground' How does this work? More in fwd than def? More in corridor than near boundary? Do they imagine invisible lines on the ground where a stat is worth more depending which side a player is on? I can't understand a reasonable way this could work but would certainly explain some of the bizarre scores sometimes.
To maintain my sanity I just tend to treat SC scoring like the duckworth/lewis system in cricket - you see the result and think "close enough I guess" and go from there.
My interpretation of what CD had to say is this: Our system was designed by really smart people and only really smart people could understand our system and really smart people say its right, so if you think its wrong you're not a really smart person and we shouldn't listen to you
Hey Tylo, It's easier to explain with a diagram and graphs and such, but I'll give it a shot with words. Width doesn't come into it (eg. boundary, corridor). Length does. Acts are weighted higher at either end of the ground eg. A contested mark in the goal square (either in DEF or FWD) is worth more than a contested mark on the wing, in the same way that a CM is worth more when the scores are level than when there's a ten goal lead (junk time). Why is this so? Aussie Rules is a territorial ball sport. Territory matters. If you don't agree with/believe me, ask yourself why teams so regularly kick to touch in the FWD pockets these days (a virtual corner)? Also, there are no invisible lines, just geographical points on an oval denoting where actions occur. Kapish?
Tylo I reckon they might have made all possessions scaled according to the time in game and the intensity thereof, but goals scaled at a different rate. Just a guess, that's all. SC is still a fairly easy game at the heart. Get the best mid guns you can, put in the best DM and FMs, use a blooming ruck. That gets you a slot somewhere in the top 5000 (used to be top 1000 but everyone uses 5 accounts these days. Cheatin' bastards
Or what Corks said. IMO, the gist of how it works is pretty easy to understand, if you actually want to. But as I've said before, most people would rather bitch about how their view of what a player should score out of 3300 is better than CD's. In this way they get to always be right. Yet learn nothing.
Thanks Hornsy, thats very interesting. Makes me wonder if they divide the ground into zones(if so, how many?) or is it more detailed than that. ie 10mts from centre = stat x 1.05, 30mts from centre = stat x 1.15, 70mts from centre = stat x 1.35. It would explain why scores seem a bit weird sometimes. It might look like a guy is dominating but all his touches could be near the middle so he doesnt score as high as you would expect. And Corks I would definitely agree with you interpretation.
No zones, precise locations of where actions occurred (as I've already mentioned above). And obviously the mathematical calculations are far more complex than what you have described. It's also important to note that CD don't actually owe you anything.